Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth?
#61
Quote: The slangy-minded Greeks and Macedonians were as fond of nicknames as we are.......and in that case sarissa might not be a specific weapon (infantry pike 18-24 ft long), with the name mis-applied as a nickname, but instead, as Paralus has suggested, be a more generic 'extra-long spear' and thus anything longer than a 'dory'......except that a 12 ft cavalry spear had a specific name - 'xyston' !

Accordingly, I think 'sarissaphoroi' was just a loose use of the term as a nickname for the 'xyston' armed 'mounted scouts' ('prodromoi')

It is possible that the 'sarissa' was of Thracian origin, and adopted by Philip from them......

Whilst nothing is ever certain, that last is a distinct possibility. Thracians are described as utilising 12’ (if I recall correctly) spears. The Macedonians (especially those immediately pre-dating Philip II) will have had memories of these much like the Romans and their fears of barbarian invasion one imagines.

Further, I don’t believe, as Markle argues, that the Macedonian cavalry – sarissphoroi, prodromoi or the Companions – carried the equivalent of the infantry sarissa into battle. I’d suggest that this was near enough to the Thracian 12’ spear that Alexander seems to be wielding in the eponymus mosaic.

To take up Paullus’/ Paul’s term “slangy-minded” and to again borrow from Agesiaos: “That ain’t no xyston, it’s a bloody sarissa!”

The term likely fell into common usage as did, possibly, aestheairoi. Arrian qualifies it as “so called” Aesthetairoi possibly indicating a nickname of sorts originally.
Paralus|Michael Park

Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους

Wicked men, you are sinning against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander!

Academia.edu
Reply
#62
Quote:Thracians are described as utilising 12’ (if I recall correctly) spears.

Which brings me back to Iphicrates, because the "long" spears seen on Athenian vases being used by peltasts from thrace are held in a single hand and used underhand. Thus, if this is a 12' spear it is probably used with one hand not two like a sarissa.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#63
There is reference somewhere to aThracian (Triballian? ) wounding someone in the thigh with a "sarissa",(IIRC!) but it must be doubtful if this is a reference to a two-handed pike - Possibly, and perhaps more likely, a spear longer than a 'Dory'.....
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#64
Aaahhh! Smile Found it....a reference in Justin to a passage by Didymus "He (Philip) received his third wound during the foray against the Triballi, when one of his pursuers thrust a sarissa into his right thigh and made him lame" Justin adds "... Philip was wounded in his thigh in such a way that his horse was slain through his own body"

What is not clear is whether this Triballian is a cavalryman, or peltast/infantryman, but what is all but certain ( though just possible) is that this 'sarissa' is not the two-handed Macedonian pike, but rather a single handed spear longer than a 'Dory'.....the word itself may be Thracian, and simply mean 'long spear'......
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#65
Another passage for thought.

Quote:Livy 37.40(Battle of Magnesia)
There were 16,000 infantry in the Macedonian fashion known as the "phalanx." These formed the centre, and their front consisted of ten divisions; between each division stood two elephants. They were thirty-two ranks deep. This was the main strength of the king's army and it presented a most formidable appearance, especially with the elephants towering high above the men.

I would presume that this was the depth in which they fought given Livy's description - unless he is presuming that his readers knew that the phalanx would "halve its depth" to 16 when closing up for action?

Another question. Just how deep was the “mixed phalanx” of 16 per file going to fight? Arrian mentions no 'half file' leader. If a 'half file' leader did exist - as might be demonstrated by Alexander stretching his line at Issos - that would only serve to indicate that the normal file depth for fighting was 16.
Paralus|Michael Park

Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους

Wicked men, you are sinning against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander!

Academia.edu
Reply
#66
Quote:I would presume that this was the depth in which they fought given Livy's description - unless he is presuming that his readers knew that the phalanx would "halve its depth" to 16 when closing up for action?

I may have the wrong author, but I believe Polybios describes the formation at Magnesia as appearing like two armies, one in front of the other. I'm inclined to think that is exactly what it was. So, one 16 rank phalanx as reserve behind another.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#67
i do not know alot about the greek style of warfare but i think it had so much depth for incase some infantry tried jumping over the first line of pikes and same with calvery trying to flank the unit.... but what do i know ^_^ im a roman guy haha
Dan DeLuca

ROMA VICTOR!

S.P.Q.R
Reply
#68
Quote:I may have the wrong author, but I believe Polybios describes the formation at Magnesia as appearing like two armies, one in front of the other. I'm inclined to think that is exactly what it was. So, one 16 rank phalanx as reserve behind another.

Yes, that would be Appian (Syriaca 7.35-37) edited below:

Quote:The total force of Antiochus was 70,000 and the strongest of these was the Macedonian phalanx of 16,000 men, still arrayed after the fashion of Alexander and Philip. These were placed in the centre, divided into ten sections of 1600 men each, with fifty men in the front line of each section and thirty-two deep. On the flanks of each section were twenty-two elephants. The appearance of the phalanx was like that of a wall, of which the elephants were the towers [...] The serried phalanx, in which he should have placed most confidence, on account of its high state of discipline, was crowded together unskilfully in a narrow space [... there follows the description of the wings, cavalry, chariots et al] The appearance of his formation was like that of two armies, one to begin the fight, the other held in reserve...

My reading is that he is describing the army’s appearance – “his formation” – as a whole, not just the phalanx which formed the centre. He is clear (like Livy both working from the same source – likely Polybios) that it was arranged in “ten sections” of 50 x 32 and thus Appian’s “crowded together” at the centre of the Seleucid array.

Appian makes plain the incredulity of Seleucus’ “friends” at Seleucus wasting the phalanx’s skills by crowding it together so

Quote:The Macedonian phalanx, which had been stationed between the two bodies of horse in a narrow space in the form of a square […]They accused him of his latest blunder in rendering the strongest part of his army useless by its cramped position..

This would be the third time Appian (or Polybios) has pointed out Antiochus’ error in cramping up the phalanx 32 deep. Evidently this is how it fought in the battle. Evidently the “friends” thought that divisions of 16 deep – stretching the line – will have far more useful.

Just on Polybios. Agesilaos points out to me (not from this forum), quite rightly, that his audience was in great part Roman. Romans, then, are expected to be thoroughly familiar with phalanx tactics and that 16 always “closed up” to eight so as to fight?

Perhaps that’s why Polybios felt the need to finish off his discourse on the phalanx – for those who already well knew(?) – with the already quoted line about the force of its charge when 16 deep?
Paralus|Michael Park

Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους

Wicked men, you are sinning against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander!

Academia.edu
Reply
#69
Paralus/Michael wrote:
Quote:This would be the third time Appian (or Polybios) has pointed out Antiochus’ error in cramping up the phalanx 32 deep. Evidently this is how it fought in the battle. Evidently the “friends” thought that divisions of 16 deep – stretching the line – will have far more useful.
...it always pays to try to work out frontages when trying to reconstruct particular dispositions in a given battle. At Magnesia, even with the 'double depth' phalanx, Antiochus' phalanx had a front of over 3 km, compared to the Romans 2 km or so, giving him a comfortable overlap. ( and he knew that in 'triplex acies', the Roman Heavy infantry were a total of 30 men deep - by Greek measure of depth in open order, including the reserve 'Triarii). Had Antiochus formed up 16 deep, his front would have been way too long and the flanks would have been out of the action, along with many of the Infantry phalanx, nor would he have had any 'reserve' and only half the 'weight' of the Roman formation...).

Antiochus' "friends" were plainly wrong and trying to apply 20-20 hindsight, and Antiochus, no military fool, was right. Doubtless he knew the phalanx was too deep to be fully effective ( whether it fought 32 deep, or under my hypothesis 16 deep), but it was still the best formation in the circumstances.

Quote:Just on Polybios. Agesilaos points out to me (not from this forum), quite rightly, that his audience was in great part Roman. Romans, then, are expected to be thoroughly familiar with phalanx tactics and that 16 always “closed up” to eight so as to fight?

Perhaps that’s why Polybios felt the need to finish off his discourse on the phalanx – for those who already well knew(?) – with the already quoted line about the force of its charge when 16 deep?

...I'm afraid your friend Agesilaos is probably mistaken in this instance. Polybius wrote in Greek for a Greek audience, at a time when few in Rome spoke Greek, and his purpose was to explain to the Greek world how Rome had come to dominate the Mediterranean world in such a short time. As he himself said:
"What man is so indifferent or idle that he would not wish to know how and under what form of government almost all the inhabited world came under the single rule of the Romans in less than 53 years?" [220-168 BC] Polybius I.1 ..and, for example...
" Now were we Greeks well acquainted with the two states which disputed the Empire of the World, it would not perhaps have been necessary for me to deal at all with their previous history" Polybius I.7. Clearly he is addressing Greeks. Only much later did Romans come to appreciate his work, when Phil-Hellenism took hold in Rome.
As to why he sometimes expounded on matters military, it was likely because his Greek audience, while well educated ,were not largely military men, but he still used the normal 'conventions' of Greek writers, in my view.

Quote:Another question. Just how deep was the “mixed phalanx” of 16 per file going to fight? Arrian mentions no 'half file' leader. If a 'half file' leader did exist - as might be demonstrated by Alexander stretching his line at Issos - that would only serve to indicate that the normal file depth for fighting was 16.
Another passage for thought.
...You are here trying to compare chalk and cheese. The 'new' and 'mixed' phalanx was an intended experiment that was never actually done.The idea was that the front three ranks would be 'sarissaphoroi', backed up by twelve ranks of Persian missile armed troops, with a rear rank of Macedonian file-closers to keep them in ranks and prevent runaways. No 'half-files', because it was not a pure hand-to-hand formation - only the front three ranks fought this way, supported by the missile troops shooting overhead, so this formation was intended to fight 16 deep. Note that any more than 3 ranks of sarissaphoroi were considered ineffective and un-necessary, and the hand-to-hand element would have fought just 3 deep. That seems a little thin, and significantly none of the Successors adopted it......The old phalanx continued to form up, under my hypothesis 16 deep in open/'normal' order, and actually fight 8 deep - plenty to provide a solid line, with 5 ranks actually taking part....

Quote: I would presume that this was the depth in which they fought given Livy's description - unless he is presuming that his readers knew that the phalanx would "halve its depth" to 16 when closing up for action?
...Livy was writing around 150 years after the event, and he drew on Polybius or other Greek writers. He may or may not have known exactly what Greek writers meant when they said "16 deep". Incidently, a Roman line of Hastati or Pricipes formed up usually 10 deep in 'open' order, and threw pila, before closing up to 5 deep for hand-to-hand combat, in my view - but this was done by ranks, not files ( see Warry "Warfare in the Classical World" p.112 where I diagrammed this...)

I emphasise the following:
1. We are NEVER told that the Macedonian phalanx actually fought 16 deep, the only express statement of them in battle (Issus) says "8 deep"and the manuals give drills to form 8 deep in close order....

2. We are NEVER told that Hoplites actually fought "8 deep" or "12 deep" etc - Xenophon speaks of 'battle formation' 4 deep, or of Spartans nominally 12 deep as "6 deep"....
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#70
Quote:2. We are NEVER told that Hoplites actually fought "8 deep" or "12 deep" etc - Xenophon speaks of 'battle formation' 4 deep, or of Spartans nominally 12 deep as "6 deep"....

To be fair, both the 4 and the 6 rank depth occur in the context of parade, not battle. I have no problem with their drill being able to go to 4 or 6, I simply don't think it means they regularly did. On the principle of "this one goes to 11", it would seem useful to be able to double one more time than commonly needed. We don't really know how tight the linkage between doubling by half-file and spacing is. Aelian makes clear that men are expected to change their spacing by opening and closing in the same number of ranks. Notice we are wisely not addressing what this means for the line as a whole. Eventually we'll have to reconcile Aelian and reality.

I think we have more evidence from actual battle (Nemea, Leuktra) of whole units counter-marching behind others to deepen or extend the line than of doubling by rank. The reverse would be a unit closing to the right by simply stepping laterally, followed by the rear half of the unit moving to fill the new-formed space in close order.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#71
Paul B wrote:
Quote:To be fair, both the 4 and the 6 rank depth occur in the context of parade, not battle

...which is to ignore the fact that Xenophon specifically says the men were drawn up in "Battle Formation" 4 deep, and that it was in this formation that they carried out their mock charge, which was sufficiently real as to terrify the on-lookers into running away!! This is not a 'parade' formation, and I very much doubt if there was such a thing! That is a modern idea in an era when drill is still performed, but has no longer any battlefield function.

Quote:I have no problem with their drill being able to go to 4 or 6, I simply don't think it means they regularly did.
What purpose do you think that Xenophon's 4/6 deep formation serves then? If it is merely to form a thinner than usual line, why is there no 2 deep formation?
Where is your evidence for anything other than that Xenophon's phalanx fought 4 deep in close order?
We don't have much evidence, but what we have points to 4/6 deep in close order as being "battle formation", formed close to the enemy from "normal" formation in open order 8/12 deep. What grounds do you have for not accepting this evidence?
When we look at the bigger picture, this hypothesis solves all the anomalies of depth in our ancient literature.
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#72
Quote:...which is to ignore the fact that Xenophon specifically says the men were drawn up in "Battle Formation" 4 deep, and that it was in this formation that they carried out their mock charge, which was sufficiently real as to terrify the on-lookers into running away!! This is not a 'parade' formation, and I very much doubt if there was such a thing! That is a modern idea in an era when drill is still performed, but has no longer any battlefield function.

They were drawn up in A battle formation and for a display (if you don't like parade). There was no single battle depth in any case. You know I believe he specificaaly calls it a "battle formation' because he was most definitely NOT in a battle at the time. The other incidence is of troops displaying their drill on the way to dinner!


Quote:What purpose do you think that Xenophon's 4/6 deep formation serves then?


What do you do if you are in close order at 8 ranks and being outflanked? Nice to have an option. Also, you can countermarch off the rear half of a unit leaving the front 4 or 6 ranks.

Quote:If it is merely to form a thinner than usual line, why is there no 2 deep formation?

Why do you think there wasn't? Isocrates mentions Spartans in a single line.



Quote:We don't have much evidence, but what we have points to 4/6 deep in close order as being "battle formation", formed close to the enemy from "normal" formation in open order 8/12 deep. What grounds do you have for not accepting this evidence?

First I find one instance where a "battle formation" is mentioned in the context of what is clearly not a battle to be far too little evidence to hang my hat on. Second I don't believe that the greeks would stress the depth of the penultimate number of ranks. We have no evidence of early 5th c hoplites and hoplites not versed in the spartan drill system doing anything by lining up and charging. Your reliance on bringing up the rear half of columns ignores that this is barely mentioned in Aelian and Arrian while the movement of alternate ranks is stressed. The movement of whole groups as well is given attention as well, so opening ranks for light troops need not be done by files waiting to double in opened order.

Quote:When we look at the bigger picture, this hypothesis solves all the anomalies of depth in our ancient literature.

Perhaps this is the problem. I see no reason that there be the same standard for all of the time periods we are considering. It would not suprise me if for instance the terminology changed between Classical and Hellenistic phalanxes. I think this is clearly so with spacing, since as I mentioned synaspismos occurs at anything less than about a meter for hoplites, not 0.5 m.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#73
Quote:When we look at the bigger picture, this hypothesis solves all the anomalies of depth in our ancient literature.

You generalise from scanty evidence and one might hesitate to have “solved all anomalies" of any problem involving ancient source material. Similar is your remark about Polybios (more below).

Paul Bardunias is correct in observing whole movements of units in the battles we have described. A reading of Matiniea (418) should give serious pause to anyone claiming to have a hypotrhesis solving “all anomalies”. The description given by Thucydides is of a Spartan army command taken unawares of by an allied army, in the field, in battle order. I will assume, for the argument, that “in battle (or combat) order” (Xenephon’s “machên houtô tachthênai”) is the same import as Thucydides’ “xunetaxanto, hôs emellon macheisthai” (the battle order in which they’d fight”) and are indicating the same thing.

From here the Spartans put themselves into battle order post haste as the Allied army is drawn up “di' oligou” (quite close) in battle order in case they made contact (“ên perituchôsin”)with the enemy. The Spartans could hardly form up any different. It is then that Thucydides goes into his description of the Spartan military arrangements and notes that they were drawn up “generally” or “on the whole” eight deep of which the front four fought. The implication is that the other four were varied behind the front four either due to Spartan “secrecy” about their numbers or because not all regiments were fully “staffed”. It is, then, rather difficult to assume an orderly transition of files from eight to four if the files are six, eight, nine or seven deep. The Spartan army at Mantiniea was drawn up “en machen” – battle ready – at an average of eight deep according to Thucydides.

Polybios did indeed write in Greek – he was Greek. This is not the place for a discourse on his foibles or biases (Callicrates, the exculpation of himself and his father Lycortas, etc) but it needs to be noted that he was writing for what was now a “Roman world” and under Roman patronage. Hence he walks as on eggshells around Roman “atrocities” such as Corinth and Carthage and spares Rome any serious criticism over its barbaric “sword or comply” policy. He travelled widely with Scipio Aemilius – son of Pydna’s Aemilius Paullus – and so will have been well aware of Aemelius’ view of the Macedonian hedgehog.

Your view is that, writing for educated Greeks, Polybios assumed that his readership was well acquainted with the Macedonian Phalanx and how it operated to the extent that explaining that a 16 deep phalanx fought 8 deep was redundant. It is surprising then that a writer who’d assumed such a depth (pardon the pun) of knowledge about the Macedonian phalanx felt the need to explain – in detail – the spacing of soldiers when “closed up” (even unto quoting Homer to illustrate); the length of sarissae and how many thus protruded beyond the front rank and the use of both hands to hold it for the charge.

Surely an educated Greek audience, who are assumed to realise that the charge Polybios describes delivered by a phalanx “when sixteen deep” is actually delivered by one 8 deep, did not need to be patronised by a discourse on proper “closed up” spacing and pikes? Perhaps educated Greeks only realised that very last fact and nothing else?

No, this description is written with a larger, less “educated” audience in mind. Thus Polybios feels the need to provide the detail supporting the description of the effect of a charge by a phalanx “when sixteen deep”. Which is, of course, the purpose of the passage.

Unlike a baseball cap, one size does not fit all. Or, in this instance, one hypothesis does not solve “all the anomalies in our sources”.
Paralus|Michael Park

Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους

Wicked men, you are sinning against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander!

Academia.edu
Reply
#74
Paul B wrote:
Quote:They were drawn up in A battle formation and for a display (if you don't like parade). There was no single battle depth in any case. You know I believe he specifically calls it a "battle formation' because he was most definitely NOT in a battle at the time. The other incidence is of troops displaying their drill on the way to dinner!
Granted there was no single battle depth, nevertheless I'd like to see any alternate hypothesis that fits all/most of the known facts within the framework of the little we know of Hoplite drill, mostly from Xenophon, who was an actual military commander, be it remembered. The other incidence is not as you say, it is troops practising their drill at every opportunity, including going to and from dinner, which anyone with modern military experience will immediately recognise ( it is still universally done today)

Quote:What do you do if you are in close order at 8 ranks and being outflanked? Nice to have an option. Also, you can countermarch off the rear half of a unit leaving the front 4 or 6 ranks.


Huh? ....Xenophon's drill would not allow you to do either of these things!! The frontage doesn't change when the formation moves from 8 to 4 ranks deep, so no help if being outflanked.
Marching the rear 4 ranks up in between the front four ranks doesn't allow you to march off the rear half of a unit. The fundamental basis of Hoplite drill, as explained by Xenophon, is that it is based on files, not ranks ( unlike the Romans)

Quote:Why do you think there wasn't? Isocrates mentions Spartans in a single line.
...we are here trying to discuss the 'norm', for which there were drills, as expounded by Xenophon - not isolated exceptional circumstances. Xenophon does not describe any thinner depth than 4 in close order in his 'typical' drills.
Quote:First I find one instance where a "battle formation" is mentioned in the context of what is clearly not a battle to be far too little evidence to hang my hat on.
So because the evidence is sparse, you ignore it and 'hang your hat' on.....what? Something for which there is no evidence at all ! Surely we must work with what evidence we do have?
Second I don't believe that the greeks would stress the depth of the penultimate number of ranks. We have no evidence of early 5th c hoplites and hoplites not versed in the spartan drill system doing anything by lining up and charging.
No direct descriptions, certainly, but plenty of inferences of the troops being well ordered....consider the Spartans and Tegeans sitting/crouching in their ranks until the order to charge is given at Plataea. These are disciplined troops, being controlled by their Officers ( until the Tegeans lose control under fire), not a mob, or tribal muster! Consider the authors continued emphasis on 'good order' etc etc.The Athenians at and Plataeans tactical plan and 'good order' at Marathon....and many other examples too numerous to mention. All of this requires drill of some sort.
Your reliance on bringing up the rear half of columns ignores that this is barely mentioned in Aelian and Arrian while the movement of alternate ranks is stressed.
We are here talking of drill as expounded for the classical era by Xenophon, not the more sophisticated drills of the Hellenistic manuals , many of which were impractical and seldom if ever carried out on the battlefield. I have previously sent you Xenophon's drill descriptions, with diagrams, and explanations of how they likely worked. You have never refuted this, nor come up with any alternate explanation, or reported any errors. So far, any alternatives, such as those you now refer to above turn out be incompatible with what Xenophon describes - which is quite simple and straightforward, and could be learnt in an hour by amateur militia (unlike the sophisticated Hellenistic drills for Professional troops)
The movement of whole groups as well is given attention as well, so opening ranks for light troops need not be done by files waiting to double in opened order.

Can you be specific? If you are again relying on Hellenistic manuals...... Describe how light troops withdraw in the context of Xenophon's drill system, if not in the way I suggest.In the words of Donald Sutherland : "Enough with the negativity!" ......if you have a viable, more likely explanation then please expound it !

Quote:Perhaps this is the problem. I see no reason that there be the same standard for all of the time periods we are considering. It would not suprise me if for instance the terminology changed between Classical and Hellenistic phalanxes. I think this is clearly so with spacing, since as I mentioned synaspismos occurs at anything less than about a meter for hoplites, not 0.5 m.
Now you are quoting my own ideas back at me! Don't forget that in this discusion, my position is that the 'Hoplite phalanx revolution' occurred probably in the 8th or late 7th century B.C. with the switch from central handgrip circular shields, to 'porpax' held ones, and that the 'phalanx Warfare' that emerged evolved continually down to Hellenistic times, and that the basis of it's drills was carried out by files throughout.
As I understand it, Cole/Nikolaos and Kineas are proposing that this 'revolution' did not occur until the late 6 C B.C., and that the so-called Boeotian shield continued until then - an argument I find most unlikely, despite the paucity of evidence either way.....
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#75
Paralus/Michael wrote:
Quote:You generalise from scanty evidence and one might hesitate to have “solved all anomalies" of any problem involving ancient source material. Similar is your remark about Polybios (more below).
...Yes, I agree I am generalising, and perhaps over-much as you say, but I cannot on this forum take readers through every Greek/Macedonian battle between 500 and 200 B.C., explaining how the hypothesis works in each case. That would require a book !
If there is some anomaly regarding depth of phalanxes that you feel can't be explained by my hypothesis/interpretation of what information we have, please point to it and I shall endeavour to explain, or else concede the hypothesis fails !
Of course the evidence is scanty - it always is for this era, - and we can only try to explain matters on balance of probability/fitting all or most of the known facts as we understand them. Generally, more than one interpretation is possible, hence the seemingly endless debates of those interested !
But I pose the same question to you as to Paul B.

Quote:In the words of Donald Sutherland : "Enough with the negativity!" ......if you have a viable, more likely explanation then please expound it !

As to Mantinea, I see nothing in the descriptions of that battle which go against the functioning of the phalanx that I have postulated......

Quote:Your view is that, writing for educated Greeks, Polybios assumed that his readership was well acquainted with the Macedonian Phalanx and how it operated to the extent that explaining that a 16 deep phalanx fought 8 deep was redundant.
No, but possibly every Greek, certainly the educated citizens of a poleis, knew how a phalanx moved and fought, since it hadn't changed fundamentally in hundreds of years. Most of these would not, for example, have seen a Macedonian sarissa armed phalanx in action, hence Polybius' vivid descriptions. Remember that the old citizen militias of the city-states had gone by Polybius' time, and military forces consisted largely of professionals, so the citizens, whilst they might be expected to have a knowledge of their City's traditions and history ( Athenians looking back to Marathon, for example) would not have any experience of contemporary warfare.... hence Polybius' need to explain contemporary warfare to 'civilians'. Nor is it necessary to suppose the actual mechanics/minutiae needed to be explained. So long as the same convention was observed, so as to compare various depths, it probably did not matter whether 'civilian'readers understood the exact mechanics or not. But they might well need to know the terrible aspects of a Macedonian phalanx in full cry, and why it was so formidable....so Polybius explains these aspects. I don't believe sarcastic 'hair splitting' over Polybius' audience's depth of knowledge is relevant here. In fact, Polybius own military knowledge is lacking at times, but from the Kallisthenes passage it is evident he understood the difference between 'close order' and 'open order' - and that is good evidence and can't be ignored !! Smile D

Quote:but it needs to be noted that he was writing for what was now a “Roman world” and under Roman patronage.
....not a "Roman World", but a Mediterranean world which had been largely Greek influenced/dominated for centuries ( sorry for the generalisation!) which had suddenly become Roman dominated. The mediterranean would not culturally become 'Mare Nostrum' for centuries....
But I would certainly agree he was writing as a hostage, and latterly under Roman patronage of the Scipios, and hence had to choose his words carefully....

Quote:Unlike a baseball cap, one size does not fit all. Or, in this instance, one hypothesis does not solve “all the anomalies in our sources”.
I believe that Greek/Macedonian phalanx drill continually evolved as the troop-types changed over time, beginning with simple drills anyone could quickly learn down to the sophistication of the drill mauals ( but many of these complex evolutions were never used in practise, so far as we know), and that the phalanx, both Greek and Macedonian manouevred largely by files, in 'normal'/open order, and it is this depth which is generally referred to by ancient Greek authors. This depth halved just before contact, into close order. This hypothesis, so far as I know, fits all the known facts, and does explain all the anomalies I am aware of in the sources regarding depth. I have yet to see a better explanation.

I think this debate is pretty much closed, certainly I have nothing new to say, and I confess to being wearied by having to conduct exchanges/debate with so many - yourself, Paul B., Christian/Kineas and Cole/Nikolaos, all on slightly different subjects, simultaneously!!! Sad ?
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Makedonian phalanx shield Lessa 22 6,168 09-04-2009, 10:36 PM
Last Post: Lessa
  phalanx depth PMBardunias 12 3,447 04-21-2009, 10:37 PM
Last Post: Paralus
  Makedonian Armour Kallimachos 92 26,464 12-06-2007, 08:08 PM
Last Post: Kallimachos

Forum Jump: