11-20-2005, 05:41 PM
Hi,
I agree the ancient general tried to choose the best possible terrain (although I'm not very familiar with Greek battlefields). But still, it is much easier to march in a formation which is, say, 50 meters long (if we allow 1 meter for each man in your formation), than in a formation which is 1 km (or more) long. In Goldsworthy's own words: "Since each man takes his dressing from those on either side, the entire unit will tend to conform to a shift in direction by one individual.... As a hoplite advanced, the minor irregularities and uneveness of the ground would have caused him to veer to one side or other or slowed him down in comparison to the rest of the front rank. These slight differences in direction or speed would have become more pronounced as the phalanx moved further. The men nearest to the hoplites who had strayed to one side or slowed down had either to conform to this movement or allow a gap to develop between them and their neighbour. All along the line, men encountered slightly different terrain and so began to move at varying speeds in increasingly diverging directions. Larger obstacles caused even greater confution...."
I'm not saying it is impossible to march in large formations, just that it is difficult. The whole part of Goldsworthy's article tries to find alternative explanation for the fact, that the phalanx was formed 8 and more deep. This in fact means, that there are at least four men supernumerary (front ranker to fight, second rank can also with limits participate, and 2 ranks as a reserve would probably be the best choice). Some scholars explained it with the mass shoving theory. This is just another possible aspect. A phalanx formed 4 deep would be twice as long as a phalanx formed 8 deep etc. Are the battlefields of Plataea, Leuktra, Marathon etc. flat enough for such long formation?
Greetings
Alexandr
I agree the ancient general tried to choose the best possible terrain (although I'm not very familiar with Greek battlefields). But still, it is much easier to march in a formation which is, say, 50 meters long (if we allow 1 meter for each man in your formation), than in a formation which is 1 km (or more) long. In Goldsworthy's own words: "Since each man takes his dressing from those on either side, the entire unit will tend to conform to a shift in direction by one individual.... As a hoplite advanced, the minor irregularities and uneveness of the ground would have caused him to veer to one side or other or slowed him down in comparison to the rest of the front rank. These slight differences in direction or speed would have become more pronounced as the phalanx moved further. The men nearest to the hoplites who had strayed to one side or slowed down had either to conform to this movement or allow a gap to develop between them and their neighbour. All along the line, men encountered slightly different terrain and so began to move at varying speeds in increasingly diverging directions. Larger obstacles caused even greater confution...."
I'm not saying it is impossible to march in large formations, just that it is difficult. The whole part of Goldsworthy's article tries to find alternative explanation for the fact, that the phalanx was formed 8 and more deep. This in fact means, that there are at least four men supernumerary (front ranker to fight, second rank can also with limits participate, and 2 ranks as a reserve would probably be the best choice). Some scholars explained it with the mass shoving theory. This is just another possible aspect. A phalanx formed 4 deep would be twice as long as a phalanx formed 8 deep etc. Are the battlefields of Plataea, Leuktra, Marathon etc. flat enough for such long formation?
Greetings
Alexandr
