Mixed Macedonian and Persian Phalanx

[Macedon]

I believe that synaspismos would not seem a probable formation for the mixed phalanx. If marching in open order and then closing up, I still believe that it would be possible in both ways (contraction and interjunction), according to circumstances. But, as all non-phallangite troops of this and later eras, synaspismos would not, in my opinion, be a choice.


Yet, I do not agree with your interpretation of Polybius' account of the march at Issos (irrelevant to the mixed phalanx of course, yet a very interesting matter for sick people like us...(it is always fun to watch the faces of people at pubs and restaurants watching us having a real serious discussion about the average weight of cattle during the Napoleonic campaigns...))

So, as you wrote Polybius writes :

He gave general orders to form up into a phalanx, at first thirty-two deep; then sixteen; and lastly, when they were nearing the enemy, eight deep.” A stade, allowing for the distances which must be kept on a march, and reckoning the depth at sixteen, admits of one thousand six hundred men, each man covering six feet. It is plain, therefore, that ten stades will admit of only sixteen thousand men, and twenty twice that number. Hence, when Alexander caused his men to form sixteen deep, he would have wanted a width of ground of twenty stades; "As soon as Alexander," he says, "was within distance of the enemy he caused his men to take up order eight deep," which would have necessitated ground forty stades wide for the length of the line; and even had they, to use the poet's expression, "laid shield to shield and on each other leaned," still ground twenty stades wide would have been wanted, while he himself says that it was less than fourteen.

full text (from Lacus Curtius):

Immediately on issuing into the open country he re-formed his order, passing to all the word of command to form into phalanx, making it at first thirty-two deep, changing this subsequently to sixteen deep, and finally as he approach the enemy to eight deep. 7 These statements are even more absurd than his former ones. For with the proper intervals for marching order a stade, when the men are sixteen deep, will hold sixteen hundred, each man being at a distance of six feet from the next. 8 It is evident, then, that ten stades will hold sixteen thousand men and twenty stades twice as many. 9 From all this it is quite plain that when Alexander made his army sixteen deep the line necessarily extended for twenty stades, and this left all the cavalry and ten thousand of the infantry over.

20 After this he says that Alexander led on his army in an extended line, being then at a distance of about forty stades from the enemy. 2 It is difficult to conceive anything more absurd than this. Where, especially in Cilicia, could one find an extent of ground where a phalanx with its long spears could advance for forty stades in a line twenty stades long? 3 The obstacles indeed to such a formation and such a movement are so many that it would be difficult to enumerate them all, a single one mentioned by Callisthenes himself being sufficient to convince us of its impossibility. 4 For he tells us that the torrents descending the mountains have formed so many clefts in the plain that most of the Persians in their flight perished in such fissures. 5 But, it may be said, Alexander wished to be prepared for the appearance of the enemy. 6 And what can be less prepared than a phalanx advancing in line but broken and disunited? How much easier indeed it would have been to develop from proper marching-order into order of battle than to straighten out and prepare for action on thickly wooded and fissured ground a broken line with numerous gaps in it 7 It would, therefore, have been considerably better to form a proper double or quadruple phalanx, for which it was not impossible to find marching room and which it would have been quite easy to get into order of battle expeditiously enough, as he was enabled through his scouts to receive in good time warning of the approach of the enemy. 8 But, other things apart, Alexander did not even, according to Callisthenes, send his cavalry on in front when advancing in line over flat ground, but apparently placed them alongside the infantry.

21 But here is the greatest of all his mistakes. He tells us that Alexander, on approaching the enemy, made his line eight deep. 2 It is evident then that now the total length of the line must have been forty stades. 3 And even if they closed up so that, as described by Homer, they actually jostled each other, still the front must have extended over twenty stades. 4 But he tells us that there was only a space of less than fourteen stades, and as half of the cavalry were on the left near the sea and half on the right, the room available for the infantry is still further reduced. Add to this that the whole line must have kept at a considerable distance from the mountains so as not to be exposed to attack by those of the enemy who held the foot-hills. 6 We know that he did as a fact draw up part of his force in a crescent formation to oppose this latter.

Polybius takes for granted (as do we), that the initial march of Alexander's army was made in open order (6 feet per person). He says "at first thirty two deep". Now, here lies the whole issue. Polybius does not know what densities Alexander used, so he also assumes that he marched in open order till he closed up to 8 deep. Yet, he disregards his own account (about the 32 men depth) and makes the calculation regarding the 16 men deep as open order (why not close order? If Alexander intended to use synaspismos, then his phalanx should have marched 16 deep in close order if he wanted to retain his frontage. Why shouldn't he? Polybius doesn't say how close the Greeks were to the Persians when the phalanx formed 16 men deep, I suppose Callisthenes didn't say. Maybe they were less than a mile apart, so close order could have been ordered. The forty stades distance is also a mystery, since this "After this" of Polybius does not mean, in my opinion, "after the phalanx closed up to 8 deep", but "In the next paragraph", Callisthenes already claimed that at least the last closing of the files happened at a short distance from the enemy "eggizein"). The fact that Callisthenes does not give the densities is evident, since Polybius admits to not know whether the 8 man deep phalanx was arrayed in synaspismos or in regular compact order. Even regarding the 16 man deep phalanx, he assumes they were in marching (open) order. He admits that Callisthenes does not say when he writes : "the densities which must be kept at march / "en tois poreutikois diastimasin (correctly translated : "in marching distances")". And so, assuming that at 16 deep the phalanx still marches in open order, when it reduces to 8 men he gives both calculations not being able to say which one was adopted and how. He also makes further mistakes, since he seems to make the calculation of the 16 man deep phalanx according to the space needed for open order (6 feet per man), but then goes on to reduce that by half, when seemingly talking about synaspismos (this usual description of the poet's words clearly suggest that, plus he says "synispyse" in the Greek text) instead of 3/4! So, he seems to mix up the space necessary for close order with that necessary for synaspismos! We know that close order is 3 feet per man and synaspismos 1,5 feet... So, something IS wrong with his caclulations for a phalanx which needs 40 stades in open order to deploy (Polybius' assumption) needs 20 stades in close order and just 10 stades in synaspismos...

As far as the process of closing up is described, this is not mentioned by Polybius. He says "Hence, when Alexander caused his men to form sixteen deep, he would have wanted a width of ground of twenty stades; "As soon as Alexander," he says, "was within distance of the enemy he caused his men to take up order eight deep," which would have necessitated ground forty stades wide for the length of the line; and even had they, to use the poet's expression, "laid shield to shield and on each other leaned," still ground twenty stades wide would have been wanted, while he himself says that it was less than fourteen." This "and even had they.." shows an alternative. It does not mean that this density would be accomplished by moving to the side or by interjecting files. He says that the phalanx either took up 40 or 20 stades, not that it first took up 40 and then 20 stades... This very fact shows that even according to Polybius it is possible to keep frontage while increasing density.

As to the real world vs manuals debate, I would agree with you had we more examples. One or two do not suffice to be able to disregard the manuals as unrealistic. Anyways... I really cannot say right now if there are more examples as to the exact issue, but I will research the matter and I will come back to it at a later date. I just do not see the difficulty in interjecting lines. It is quick and easy. Why shouldn't it be used, since they certainly had thought of it?

Looking forward to your comments!

[Paralus]

As far as the process of closing up is described, this is not mentioned by Polybius. He says "Hence, when Alexander caused his men to form sixteen deep, he would have wanted a width of ground of twenty stades; "As soon as Alexander," he says, "was within distance of the enemy he caused his men to take up order eight deep," which would have necessitated ground forty stades wide for the length of the line; and even had they, to use the poet's expression, "laid shield to shield and on each other leaned," still ground twenty stades wide would have been wanted, while he himself says that it was less than fourteen." This "and even had they.." shows an alternative. It does not mean that this density would be accomplished by moving to the side or by interjecting files. He says that the phalanx either took up 40 or 20 stades, not that it first took up 40 and then 20 stades... This very fact shows that even according to Polybius it is possible to keep frontage while increasing density.

Which is, of course, the entire point George! Polybius does not go into "densities". He simply states that the eight man deep phalanx (in "open order" to read his text), "even had they" (they didn't) closed up "shield to shield" (whatever he meant by that - seemingly not synaspismos) will have halved its frontage and thus will have contracted. This is absolutely impossible if file insertion occurs (or "doubling up") as this preserves the frontage. Again, quite clearly, Polybius believes that had the phalanx closed up "shield to shield" it will have shortened its frontage. From there we go 'round in cirlcles.

This is not to say that "doubling up" file insertion cannot have occurred; only that, unless one submits Polybius' words to the Spanish Inquisition, he absolutely clearly describes contraction - as at Cynoscephalae - in this instance.

[Macedon]

How do you come to this conclusion, Michael?

"even had they" (they didn't) closed up "shield to shield" (whatever he meant by that - seemingly not synaspismos) will have halved its frontage and thus will have contracted

Where does Polybius say that? Before talking about the 8 man deep phalanx, he has his phalanx occupy 20 stades. Then he says that if the phalanx became 8 men deep and still marched in open order it would occupy 40 stades and if it became denser (he calculates close order, seems to talk about synaspismos) it would continue to occupy 20 stades. It would not have halved the frontage but retained it, according to what Polybius says.

As far as the process of closing up is described, this is not mentioned by Polybius. He says "Hence, when Alexander caused his men to form sixteen deep, he would have wanted a width of ground of twenty stades; "As soon as Alexander," he says, "was within distance of the enemy he caused his men to take up order eight deep," which would have necessitated ground forty stades wide for the length of the line; and even had they, to use the poet's expression, "laid shield to shield and on each other leaned," still ground twenty stades wide would have been wanted, while he himself says that it was less than fourteen."

So, here he is not talking about contraction... He is proposing either a doubling of space (from 20 to 40 stades) or a doubling of density (from 20 stades in open order to 20 stades in close order)

I know we are talking grammar here, but I sincerely fail to see the contraction in these lines. It is an "either/or" situation. Unless you put this "had the phalanx closed up "shield to shield" it will have shortened its frontage" after the decrease of the files from 16 to 8. But this is, as I understand the syntax of both the Greek text and the English translation not the case. The "and even had they", in the Greek text just "ei" (=if) denotes an "either/or" rather than an "and then" case. If it is the "even" that troubles you, it is actually a simple "if" as I have seen in the original, so it denotes uncertainty and not troubling (why didn't he, as he should...?). And of course if he didn't, then there was no contraction to begin with... just an open arrayed phalanx marching in various depths (a totally insane way to approach any enemy, wouldn't you say?).

[Paralus]

How do you come to this conclusion, Michael?

"even had they" (they didn't) closed up "shield to shield" (whatever he meant by that - seemingly not synaspismos) will have halved its frontage and thus will have contracted

Where does Polybius say that? Before talking about the 8 man deep phalanx, he has his phalanx occupy 20 stades.

Polybius quotes Callisthenes saying that the phalanx deployed 32 deep then 16 deep and finally eight deep. Eight was then how it faced the enemy. All of this, as Polybius writes it, took place in "open (or marching) order". Thus, at the end, he claims that Callisthenes writes that Alexander's phalanx was 8 deep in open order.

Then he says that if the phalanx became 8 men deep and still marched in open order it would occupy 40 stades

Absolutely. See above. Open order at 16 deep = 20 stades; 8 deep = 40 stades.

if it became denser (he calculates close order, seems to talk about synaspismos) it would continue to occupy 20 stades. It would not have halved the frontage but retained it, according to what Polybius says.

He says that if this final phalanx width - 8 deep in open order - had taken "close order" (or whatever he meant by the poet's "shield to shield") it would still have required 20 stades. Hence the final 8 deep, had it "closed up" would occupy less frontage.

Your grammatical point is the 16 deep open order phalanx, "even had they laid shield on shield" (using file insertion) rather than go to 8 deep in open order, will still have occupied 20 stades. Polybius has no need to make this point: he has already waxed lyrical on this width (16 deep and too wide for the plain) at 12.19. Still, I see how you read it that way.

Philip V only had a portion of his phalanx available at Cynoscephalae - possibly half. Yet he clearly decided that file insertion was not the best option. He - for whatever reason (and he lost, due to an attack in his rear and not the ground) - decided that closing up "to the right" was the way to go.

[Macedon]

He says that if this final phalanx width - 8 deep in open order - had taken "close order" (or whatever he meant by the poet's "shield to shield") it would still have required 20 stades.

Here is what we read differently. I don't read that. I read "if this phalanx didn't deploy in open but in close order it would still require 20 stades."

So.. it depends on how you read it, although I believe that the Greek original is more definite than the English translation

ei d' olos synispisan kata ton poiitin oytos oste synereisai pros allilous, omos eikosi stadion edei ton topon yparxein

This I would translate as "but if...". "d' = de" usually simply means "but".

All of this, as Polybius writes it, took place in "open (or marching) order".

True, Polybius does give this probability. But as far as the 16 to 8 man maneuver is concerned, there (as I read it) Polybius himself is not sure. But Callisthenes does not write what Polybius says. It is a supposition on the side of Polybius and the main reason why Callisthenes' account seems to him faulty.

Anyways... it is in the eye of the beholder but I would not use this extract as an argument to either supposition. Thanks for a nice discussion, maybe we should start a thread discussing whether it was Callisthenes who got it all wrong or Polybius....

[Paralus]

I think, on the balance of probabilities, that is was Callisthenes. The difficulty is that Polybius is so set on blackening Callisthenes it's hard to tell exactly what the latter wrote - or meant. This discussion alone shows that Polybius may have misread this - perhaps even created the impression that Callisthenes has this all transpire in open order. The latter may never have written that the devolution of the phalanx happened from "marching" to "close order" simply that Alexander deployed 32 deep then 16 and then 8 - no "order" given. In his petty rush to blacken Callisthenes as an historian Polybius may have chosen to paint this as all in marching order. Polybius is quite capable of sins of omission and commision: his utter failing to record the negotiations bewtween the Achaean League and Cleomenes III; the Aetolians are the root of all evil and nothing but plunderers. Still philosophers as military historians (Callisthenes) gives one pause...

Curtius, in any case, preserves the same devolution (without any mention of order type) and, while Arrian does not go into the details, he also mentions the devolution saying that Alexander "led his army in column, but when the mountains parted so as to leave a plain between them, he kept on opening out the column into the phalanx, marching one line of heavy armed infantry after another up into line towards the mountain on the right and towards the sea on the left". He also mentions something quite curious in Alexander's speech where he says the gods "by putting it into the mind of Darius to move his forces from the spacious plain and shut them up in a narrow place, where there was suffficient room for themselves to deepen their phalanx by marching from front to rear, but where their vast multitude would be useless to the enemy in the battle." I assume Arrian speaks of the Macedonian phalanx? Anyone?

Mind you, it is a "speech" and whether Alexander said something approaching that is another matter. Perhaps Arrian is "showing off" his vast martial knowledge (a little like his use of terminology which he confuses several times)?

[Macedon]

Maybe... I think Polybius, but who knows... Polybius does sometimes seem too poisonous and in this case, he does seem really bent on proving Callisthenes' account wrong whatever the means. Regarding Arrian, I think you mean B.7.3, but what Arrian says is "ina sfisi men xymmetron to xorion anaptyxai ti falagga". He just says that the place is xymmetron (=exactly as wide as necessary) to properly array the phalanx. The translation here is totally misleading, the translator tried to describe the word "anaptyxai" (=literally expand the width of the phalanx (and as such it is also used as array/deploy...)) in a very peculiar manner... But from all the writers, I tend to rely on Arrian most, since he is the only one (of course alongside Xenophon) who has real, tangible military experience as a commander. His "Techne Taktiki", though much more condensed, goes beyond the technical details of Asclepiodotus and Aelian and his "Ektaxis kat' Alanon" is maybe the best text there is on actual battle tactics, being the actual order of battle, filled with detailed practical tactics and evolutions... Now THIS is a text I would like to see whole...

[Paralus]

Regarding Arrian, I think you mean B.7.3, but what Arrian says is "ina sfisi men xymmetron to xorion anaptyxai ti falagga". He just says that the place is xymmetron (=exactly as wide as necessary) to properly array the phalanx. The translation here is totally misleading, the translator tried to describe the word "anaptyxai" (=literaly expand the width of the phalanx (and as such it is also used as array/deploy...)) in a very peculiar manner...

By George! You're a genius!

I'd wondered why the differences in translation (De Selincout renders it as deploy) but posted that (Chinock's?? or whatever his name) to work out why Alexander thought countermarchung might be a good thing. Your "literally expand the phalanx" is what I (and Agesilaos) have been saying: Alexander expanded the phalanx to cover the ground and so wound up 8 deep. This then leaves the Macedonian levy as the battle line with lights in front and the Greeks in rear - as Arrian clearly describes.

Off to Burrijuck Dam for some fishing and back next week. Thanks for the discussion...

[Macedon]

yep... it's always a bonus to be able to read from the original... It is really sad that most translations I have ever come across make huge mistakes regarding military matters.. Unfortunately, correct translation of military terms is not easy to philologists... At a time, I was so frustrated, that I even thought of making my own translations (for personal use). I really rarely care if some guy walked or run someplace, but when analyzing military accounts you can very easily be driven to very wrong conclusions...

Alexander expanded the phalanx to cover the ground and so wound up 8 deep. This then leaves the Macedonian levy as the battle line with lights in front and the Greeks in rear - as Arrian clearly describes.

I guess you mean the deployment during march? Yes, I would completely agree. This is what Arrian says in B.8.3-4. But it was not the final battle line.

I hope you have a good catch! See you next week!

[Paralus]

Alexander expanded the phalanx to cover the ground and so wound up 8 deep. This then leaves the Macedonian levy as the battle line with lights in front and the Greeks in rear - as Arrian clearly describes.

I guess you mean the deployment during march? Yes, I would completely agree. This is what Arrian says in B.8.3-4. But it was not the final battle line.

Yes, exactly. The description that survives is a deployment / march that, it appears, took up the entire morning. This was deliberate and involved much "dressing of the line" as Arrian describes. In the end, despite the transfer of the Thessalians and allied cavalry (to the left) and the fiddling with the right wing (to frighten off those in the hills) the line remained the Macedonian national units - finally eight deep - and the "normal" wings of light infantry / cavalry.

Alexander had marched through the plain previously and had a decent idea of the ground Darius had chosen - even unto to confirming it by sending hetairoi in a ship to confirm his presence. Thus his remark that he could occupy the ground with his phalanx (that is, the Macedonians) and his near usual wings

I hope you have a good catch! See you next week!

A not very good catch: lots of redfin (English Perch - feral) and one Murray Cod (still in nappies). Much good Greek style Lamb and decent Red!