06-30-2014, 11:44 PM
He explains the differences, which, according to him, have nothing to do with any intervals during the battle. The Macedonian phalanx had nothing to do with the hoplite phalanx in terms of tactics and armament, but that does not mean that they were not drawn up in phalanx.
As regards the battle of Magnesia, I already pointed out that it was a battle in which the Macedonian subunits had intervals between them as was the case with one of the "wings" of Antigonos at Selasia (see my previous post), but that does not mean that the literary evidence that the normal deployment of the Macedonian phalanx was without intervals is not absolutely overwhelming.
Now, as far as Livy is concerned, I hope you know that he wrote in Latin, so I cannot say what terminology he used and how these terms were used in Latin. This is something that others here, proficient in the said language, may help you with. I can only speak of Greek texts. What is certain, is that English translations cannot be taken at face value in such issues.
What you call "linguistics" is nothing more than proper translation. There is no "subtle" difference on what words like phalanx or phalangidon mean in Polybius and other authors. The problem is that you treat these texts as if they were actually written in English, trying to understand what they say by playing with the meanings of the English words. This is a mistake in my opinion, that only leads to wrong conclusions. I do not ask you to trust me, I said that you should find someone you really trust to help you out IF you are interested in what the ancient texts really say. The problem with the translations is that almost all translators care nothing about military terminology and (like in the text Steven quoted in the thread about centurions) happily render the "grosphomachoi" as "velites", the "machaerae" as "swords", the "tagmata" as "ordines", etc etc etc. If you think that you can use such translations to come to any sound conclusions, be my guest, but I would really advise against it.
As regards the battle of Magnesia, I already pointed out that it was a battle in which the Macedonian subunits had intervals between them as was the case with one of the "wings" of Antigonos at Selasia (see my previous post), but that does not mean that the literary evidence that the normal deployment of the Macedonian phalanx was without intervals is not absolutely overwhelming.
Now, as far as Livy is concerned, I hope you know that he wrote in Latin, so I cannot say what terminology he used and how these terms were used in Latin. This is something that others here, proficient in the said language, may help you with. I can only speak of Greek texts. What is certain, is that English translations cannot be taken at face value in such issues.
What you call "linguistics" is nothing more than proper translation. There is no "subtle" difference on what words like phalanx or phalangidon mean in Polybius and other authors. The problem is that you treat these texts as if they were actually written in English, trying to understand what they say by playing with the meanings of the English words. This is a mistake in my opinion, that only leads to wrong conclusions. I do not ask you to trust me, I said that you should find someone you really trust to help you out IF you are interested in what the ancient texts really say. The problem with the translations is that almost all translators care nothing about military terminology and (like in the text Steven quoted in the thread about centurions) happily render the "grosphomachoi" as "velites", the "machaerae" as "swords", the "tagmata" as "ordines", etc etc etc. If you think that you can use such translations to come to any sound conclusions, be my guest, but I would really advise against it.
