01-06-2014, 05:10 AM
1. Polybius is supposedly describing the Roman system of fighting, not how the Romans fought against the Macedonian phalanx alone. He is very clear on that. So, what he is describing is supposedly the "norm" for the Romans. This system he then contrasts to the one of the Macedonian phalanx.
2. What he word by word says about the men behind is that
"οὔτε βιάσασθαι ῥᾴδιον, μηδέν γε τῶν ἐφεστώτων δυναμένων συμβάλλεσθαι τοῖς πρωτοστάταις μήτε πρὸς τὴν βίαν μήτε πρὸς τὴν τῶν μαχαιρῶν ἐνέργειαν."
translation : "neither is it easy for them to push forward, as none of those standing behind them acts with (supports) the protostatae, not as far as pushing forward is concerned nor by using their swords."
Should he be describing a "quincunx" formed phalanx, then the second rank would be among the "ephestotes".
3. I do not have to provide evidence for what Polybius does not say, you have to provide evidence based on what he does say. He also does not say that the Romans were trying to crawl towards the Macedonians or that the Macedonians also hurled pots with snakes, would it be OK for me to make such assumptions and then say that they cannot be disproved while citing Polybius as my supporting source? I remind you that I do not dismiss this particular formation as a possibility, I just say that Polybius cannot be used as a source to support it. I have the same problem. Polybius describes an open formation while I support that the Romans normally fought in a close ordered phalanx. So, when I discuss Polybius I have to disprove him, not follow him, which I can do. I sincerely believe that Polybius has problems with his understanding of phalanx intervals, I have a number of arguments that show it and this is how I approach him on this matter.
4. You still have not answered why Polybius, a man who you support knows what he is describing, wrote a text that for a Greek reader would never mean what you are proposing. Do you think that he is a bad user of the Greek language? That could be an argument I would understand but of course I would like some proof of it. Maybe he was mistaken... maybe what he describes is plainly wrong. Again, you need arguments as evidence for that and of course, once you support that you have to move to other sources.
5. Regarding your readings of the translations. You yourself come to two possible but very different formations. Do you really believe that the mind of any Greek reader would go to the "quincunx" formation? Do you believe that the mind of any English speaker today would go to it? Not, unless he specifically looks for it. But Polybius did not write for Roman generals, he tried to explain with plain words, that is to the common reader, why he believed the Roman system was superior and that common reader is the average Joe, that is someone for whom the rank and file system is the "norm", a Greek of his era.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion, I do not even say you are wrong! However, IF you want your opinion presented in an academic form outside the informalities of a forum, you plainly have to find supporting arguments (the same applies to Mark with whom you share this particular view). One that says that Polybius (or anyone else) does not explicitly say that such a formation was not used cannot be taken seriously. This is the ONLY thing I have been supporting from the beginning. Alternatively, you can just quote other scholars and be done with it by letting them bear the burden of evidence. If you still believe that you can write a paper in which you will state that Polybius supports such a formation, then by all means do so, I don't think I have much more to add as arguments against it. Just be sure you at least have some answers as to the issues above, because they most probably will crop up in future discussions or reviews.
2. What he word by word says about the men behind is that
"οὔτε βιάσασθαι ῥᾴδιον, μηδέν γε τῶν ἐφεστώτων δυναμένων συμβάλλεσθαι τοῖς πρωτοστάταις μήτε πρὸς τὴν βίαν μήτε πρὸς τὴν τῶν μαχαιρῶν ἐνέργειαν."
translation : "neither is it easy for them to push forward, as none of those standing behind them acts with (supports) the protostatae, not as far as pushing forward is concerned nor by using their swords."
Should he be describing a "quincunx" formed phalanx, then the second rank would be among the "ephestotes".
3. I do not have to provide evidence for what Polybius does not say, you have to provide evidence based on what he does say. He also does not say that the Romans were trying to crawl towards the Macedonians or that the Macedonians also hurled pots with snakes, would it be OK for me to make such assumptions and then say that they cannot be disproved while citing Polybius as my supporting source? I remind you that I do not dismiss this particular formation as a possibility, I just say that Polybius cannot be used as a source to support it. I have the same problem. Polybius describes an open formation while I support that the Romans normally fought in a close ordered phalanx. So, when I discuss Polybius I have to disprove him, not follow him, which I can do. I sincerely believe that Polybius has problems with his understanding of phalanx intervals, I have a number of arguments that show it and this is how I approach him on this matter.
4. You still have not answered why Polybius, a man who you support knows what he is describing, wrote a text that for a Greek reader would never mean what you are proposing. Do you think that he is a bad user of the Greek language? That could be an argument I would understand but of course I would like some proof of it. Maybe he was mistaken... maybe what he describes is plainly wrong. Again, you need arguments as evidence for that and of course, once you support that you have to move to other sources.
5. Regarding your readings of the translations. You yourself come to two possible but very different formations. Do you really believe that the mind of any Greek reader would go to the "quincunx" formation? Do you believe that the mind of any English speaker today would go to it? Not, unless he specifically looks for it. But Polybius did not write for Roman generals, he tried to explain with plain words, that is to the common reader, why he believed the Roman system was superior and that common reader is the average Joe, that is someone for whom the rank and file system is the "norm", a Greek of his era.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion, I do not even say you are wrong! However, IF you want your opinion presented in an academic form outside the informalities of a forum, you plainly have to find supporting arguments (the same applies to Mark with whom you share this particular view). One that says that Polybius (or anyone else) does not explicitly say that such a formation was not used cannot be taken seriously. This is the ONLY thing I have been supporting from the beginning. Alternatively, you can just quote other scholars and be done with it by letting them bear the burden of evidence. If you still believe that you can write a paper in which you will state that Polybius supports such a formation, then by all means do so, I don't think I have much more to add as arguments against it. Just be sure you at least have some answers as to the issues above, because they most probably will crop up in future discussions or reviews.
