06-30-2014, 08:59 PM
One has to know the era in which a text was written to be able to state with any degree of certainty what a specific term means. The word phalanx can mean a number of things but not in all eras at the same time. Especially the word "phalangidon", which is an adverb, has no other meaning even if the term phalanx could, under circumstances be used more broadly. As far as the Macedonian phalanx is concerned, its doctrine was to deploy with no gaps whatsoever between individual syntagmata or other subunits. In battles, in which it was deployed in a different manner (Selasia, Mangesia), the authors are careful to state the peculiarity. The best proof for this is the fact that in the many frontage calculations we have in ancient texts, there is no room for any intervals as is the case in the surviving tactical manuals describing the Macedonian mode of deployment. Unfortunately, Polybius does not describe the peculiarity of the Roman system in a manner that its difference from the phalanx can be understood. If we are to follow his exact words, then the Romans deployed with gaps between the maniples, fought as a phalanx in open order and kept retreating in front of the enemy when they were unable to defeat him front to front. No one can deny the fact that he describes gaps in their initial deployment and no one can deny the fact that he has his Romans fight in a battle-line formed like a phalanx (phalangidon = in the manner of a phalanx). What one can do is question his understanding and claim that he is wrong, but this is what the old man writes. The problem is that without knowledge of Greek one cannot study the usage of any term in Polybius (or any other author you want to discuss), so one will look up dictionaries, whose work it is to give all the "different" meanings in a manner that an English speaker would understand them in various texts regardless of the when, where and how. Just because the word "hard" in "I hit him hard" has a different meaning to "I had a hard time" or to "this material is hard", it does not mean that the meaning is not clear in all three instances. So, you cannot really make any helpful claims as to what else the word might man and your only option, as I see it, should the usage of such terms be crucial to your study, would be to consult someone you really trust to make such a study. Unfortunately there is a huge gap in our bibliography concerning these issues and I know that this has produced a great many misunderstandings in the past even for very well known historians.
