The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth?

[PMBardunias]

We have no evidence for any other Hoplite drill....Xenophon's is the only one we have knowledge of, but it is so simple and basic that something similar, even if differing in detail, must have formed the basis of Hoplite drill. What you describe about rear halves of units moving around front halves sounds more like a Roman maniple, with it's posterior century moving up alongside it's prior century, and to do this is definitely more complex, not simpler, than file closing - ask anyone with a knowledge of drill.....nothing like that is recorded of Greek/Macedonian units - there is simply no evidence for anything other than what I describe. You are here postulating pure 'possibilities' without adducing any evidence. Shouldn't Occam's razor apply when data is minimal ?

Surely moving a block of men into files next to another in spacing of about a body/shield width is easier than moving men into files 12' apart and keeping this spacing relatively even between files. Doubling through many iterations puts a big requirement on front ranker to judge space between files. There is ample evidence for moving blocks of men occuring in real battles, while none for doubling in an actual battle.

...Not so. Methods of drill must have been very similar, else contingents from different cities could not have welded together into a single phalanx. Most importantly, once the contingents were aligned, there could be no change of frontage - but within the phalanx, contingents could be of differing depths. A contingent using, say, your postulated rear half moving out and around the front half simply could not combine with a unit using Xenophon's drill - nor can any system which postulates lateral movement within the phalanx work. Mantinea, chosen by Paralus/Michael is a good illustration of the limits of manouevre of the Phalanx, at that time.

Not true, either technique works in the same frontage, as would simply lining up in close order from the initial deployment. If men in "opened" order moved into close order, halving their frontage, then the gap was filled with another portion of the unit unit also in close order, there is no change in frontage.

..we have no evidence for what Homer's Myrmidons did, or even if they ever existed. What you say about close-order battle lines is perfectly true, but thanks to Xenophon, we know that the Classical Greek Phalanx was more capable then this and more sophisticated in it's command structure and ability to drill 'in good order', as several authors emphasise.

Good then we agree. If you limit your suredness to men under Xenophon's command I have no problem. Trying to say that because Xenophon did it that way then it must have been done like that at Marathon pushes the point too far. Xenophon tells us nothing about Marathon.

For an example of the perils of cavalry driven back through infantry, look at Leuktra ( incidently, had the Spartan Infantry been in close order at the time, the cavalry could not have been driven 'through' them, or caused any confusion - the horses simply wouldn't have gone near the tight hedge of spears/shields)

You don't honestly believe that a troop of cavalry simply moved between ranks of men in opened order? Surely the Spartans countermarched to open a gap (if there was not already a gap due to the attempted maneuvers).


We hear of light troops withdrawing 'through' the line, and launching missiles from behind the shelter of Hoplite shields too often for light troops withdrawing any other way through a phalanx - what you suggest is far more complex - not to mention dangerous in the face of the enemy - gaps everywhere!! Agian what you describe does not appear to have been done until Roman times - who used an entirely different drill system based on ranks !

Again we have a myriad of ways for this to occur. If there is time to sacrifice a goat there is time to open and close gaps, but beyond this, the fastest was would be to do the shuffling of every other man described at great length by the tacticians to make lanes for the light troops. Many seem to forget that the length of a phalanx has some boundaries so as to not foul adjacent units, but the depth is not so constrained. Hoplites could easily stand in a spacing of 3' laterally and 6' in depth, providing room for all sorts of shield bearers and light troops to filter through with a simple step back.

As I say, perhaps it is the ability to perform elementary drill that differentiates the Classical Greek phalanx from it's contemporaries and other less sophisticated battle systems. Aelian and the other manuals largely describe the Phlanx at the apogee of it's development - as mantinea shows, in Xenphon's time the Phalanx had no method of expanding laterally.

No, it proves that the way to expand laterally was to interpose new units. It also shows just how independant individual units were within a supposedly cohesive phalanx as well as how even some of the most elite units in the Greek world fail to exploit a relatively huge gap in a phalanx by turning left and rolling up the line- gaps were simply not as fatal as many think. They could be quite fatal, but this required an adversary with the tactical flexibility to exploit them.