New hoplite book

[Macedon]

...Wow... you people are catapulting answers... This was supposed to go some two posts after mine but anyways.. I will post it and then read through your new ones.

Thanks guys..

Might I point out that an obvious reason to form 'synaspismos'/overlapped shields is the same reason the Romans formed 'testudo' - to provide a solid wall/cover against missile weapons? ( The Aetolian cavalry would almost certainly have been javelin armed). Indeed, in one manual, the two formations are compared as similar......

I would partly disagree with you here. This comparison is not made in manuals regarding the Greek system of warfare. You may be having in mind the Byzantine textbooks (Maurice, Leo, Phokas, Ouranos etc), but there we are talking about formations such as the "foulkon" which closely resembles testudo or "syskouton", both made by troops equipped with large shields (Arrian also described such a formation in his "Ekaxis kat' Alanon", again regarding Roman armies). The synaspismos of the Macedonian phalanx is not attested as a formation to be used against missiles and I personally doubt that it would be particularly useful there, keeping in mind the size of the Macedonian shield (more on this below...),but I could be mistaken.

how else could the rear phalanx 'close in' and add it's depth to the fighting, other than by interspersing/infiltrating the files of the leading phalanx?

Although I do believe that "idiomati" here is more probably about a performing a true synaspsimos by doubling of files, my point is that we can not be certain. It is as possible for Polybius to heave meant that the back phalanx actually touched the front phalanx and then helped with its "weight", weight (for those who do not really believe in prolonged, actual physical othismos, like me) being also a term that has to do with the increase in morale and determination of an 8 or 16 man phalanx when doubling its files. To add to depth you do not have to infilitrate the files of the leading phalanx. You need to do thta only to add to density.

The manuals do indeed tell us that a phalanx needs a certain depth in order to form 'synaspismos'.

Actually they do not (as far as I remember), but it is my belief that this might be the reason for a Macedonian phalanx to be arrayed 16 man deep. In order to be able to perform a true synaspismos (I use the "term" true synaspismos, because most historians, including Polybius, do not use it solely for this purpose as the manuals do. The best term to be used here would be "yperpykni" (super dense) order, but it is a matter of taste...), a phalanx would either half its frontage (to me a very slow and dangerous maneuver) or the depth of its files. So, a 16 man phalanx occupying in close order some 500 yards, would need to get down to a depth of 8 men to occupy the same frontage or keep its 16 man depth and cut its frontage by half. But, a certain depth is (to my memory) not attested.

I described Antigonus' manouevre as "brilliant" because, as I mentioned, it brought the second, fresh phalanx into action, unlike each phalanx simply forming synaspismos, which would have left the second phalanx still in the rear, unable to participate directly. The impact of fresh troops and increasing the numbers in the front rank will have been telling.

I agree.. it kind of reminds us of the Roman trifallangia (triplex acies), although of course the mechanics would have been completely different, and is maybe a singular attestation of some kind of reserve phalanx behind the main battle line regarding Macedonian tatcics with the purpose to directly support the front line (Alexander at Arbela also employed a second phalanx but with a very different scope)

Yes… although that is clearly what he is trying to describe: shield on shield. Even more so he describes the second and third companies stepping out and “closing up” (‘sumfrasso’) with them.

The term synaspsimos is very often used regarding all types of troops and in many different time periods. It of course means to touch one shield on the other, but it does not necessarily mean the "true synaspismos" described in the manuals. Doubling density from normal close order is not a trivial thing to do and it is attested (in the manuals) to have been used defensively, when expecting a charge. When I am trying to understand whether a Macedonian phalanx is arrayed in open, close or synaspismos order, I usually try to visualize the parallel changes in depth and frontage too. Unfortunately, one can very seldom draw safe conclusions regarding this particular density, when it was used, how it was formed etc... The peltasts in this extract may indeed have been arrayed in synaspismos, although they were in no danger of a cavalry charge, the Aetolians would just harass them with dense skirmishing by ilai (squadrons) and so a regular close order would be enough. A true synaspismos would (according to my grasp of things) a disadvantage, since the more compact a body of men, the easier it is for skirmishers to produce casualties and the small pelte would not be sufficient to completely protect the men as would habe been a Roman thyreos or even a hoplon.

We can assume they are all not interpenetrating the first!?

Why would we assume that? in my opinion we should not. Polybius has the units (shmaiai) cross the ford and "the second and third (unit) after crossing compacting its weapons TOWARDS (not pointing at but density wise) the first. So, I would interpret this passage as unit A crossing first, carefully forming a compact square (this would be the most dangerous instance of the effort), then unit B crossing and arraying on A's right (or left), possibly by file, while unit A screens the men in the stream and then unit C arraying on the other side of A in a similar fashion. The wider the bridgehead, the safer and quicker the crossing of the rest of the army.

[Macedon]

Paulus Scipio wrote
...I haven't ignored it, rather concentrated on the crucial manouvre. Since I categorically stated that the 'double phalanx' was formed up one behind the other, then all too obviously they were not interlocked to begin with. George has given more detail regarding the word in question, which has MORE than one meaning! In the former instance the phalanxes are one behind the other, as in the most common and literal meaning. In the second instance something occurs which alters this, and transforms the formation into a single phalanx;"they used the property of the ONE phalanx 'epallelos'" to use George's words -now clearly 'epallelos' here cannot mean simply one behind the other, because they are already in this formation, and from context that must be 'epallelos' in the sense 'interlocked/mortised/next to each other'.

Actually, my point was that the second epallilos just meant "back", so the "epallilos fallanx" should be translated as the " back phalanx", epallilos being an adjective not saying anything about the distance of the two lines yet. Surely they did interlock later in the process, but these words do not yet imply that.

Paulus Scipio wrote
...that cannot be right, because it is not the sense of the whole thing, and in any event, with alternate advances and retreats, if the two phalanxes were not touching from the outset, they certainly would be before Antigonus gave his order. Nor would such a thing change any of the essentials of what was happening. The second phalanx merely closes a (purely hypothetical) gap?

I don't quite get that. Why would they have touched in the process? According to the Byzantine manuals, the second line could be even hundreds of yards behind the first line (they actually use "bowshots" as a metrical unit). Antigonus could as well have placed his second phalanx as far away as he would be willing to give way. When seeing that his men were being driven back in the close proximity of the second phalanx, he could have then given the sign for the latter to move in. This of course is just a hypothesis, but an answer to a good question about what would happen if a line of phalangites had been pushed onto a second friendly line... This is the main reason, why reserve lines cannot be placed very near to the front. A general has to give some space to his men to be pushed back. I just didn't understand your point about this "hypothetical gap"? What gap?

..Actually, I have not exactly understood what the disagreement is about here between the two big Ps, since I did not follow the discussion from the beginning. I will read through all the posts but could you please summarize it for me? Thx.

[PMBardunias]

I haven't ignored it, rather concentrated on the crucial manouvre. Since I categorically stated that the 'double phalanx' was formed up one behind the other, then all too obviously they were not interlocked to begin with.

So you believe then that Polybios uses the same word to men one behind the other and files side by side? Also, later cavalry units stacked one behind the other. I doubt this. A plainer reading is simple the two distinct units that were one behind the other have now merged one behind the other.

In the second instance something occurs which alters this, and transforms the formation into a single phalanx;"they used the property of the ONE phalanx 'epallelos'" to use George's words -now clearly 'epallelos' here cannot mean simply one behind the other, because they are already in this formation, and from context that must be 'epallelos' in the sense 'interlocked/mortised/next to each other'.

From two stacked phalanxes to one phalanx of two contiguous units. The sense of the word, units in series, remains unchanged. The key to understanding what happened is the shift from 2 phalanxes to 1 phalanx.

You are here describing each phalanx going into 'synaspismos' in the conventional way. If that were so, why not say so? I believe Polybius is trying to convey that the closer-packed formation was achieved a different way.

Epallelon has nothing whatsoever to do with the lateral spacing. Simply the relative position of the two units. Polybious in support of a closer order, to me implies a doubling of sarissas when he mentions they are more dense.

Sticking two phalanxes together like cementing two bricks together would surely fit this definition.
..it most assuredly would not! Neither the men or the phalanxes are physically joined together - the analogy is a completely false one. Also, elsewhere in the Histories, the units of cavalry referred to are, as in Polybius' first use of the word, simply one behind each other, just as the phalanxes were initially...

Argue with Polybios. He obviously has a reason that he switched from speaking of two phalanxes to a single phalanx. That is the only thing we can be sure changed! You are requiring him to use the same word in the same battle description to mean two radically different things.

So why didn't this apply to the original 'double' phalanx at 'double depth' ?....and please don't say 'because they were not touching' - that is nonsense, if only because the leading phalanx would be quickly forced back on the rear one.

Hmmm, that sounds a lot like what I wrote. They were not touching, but were forced together as the front fell back down the slope. Clearly they did not start out as a single phalanx. Why we don't see the same resistance to being pushed back is that they were originally on a downhill slope. If you'd like to argue that the process of becoming one phalanx occurred on the way down the slope, and not when the reached the bottom, that's fine. It does not change much of my view. At some point in the process of being pushed back, Antigonus gives a command and the two phalanxes become one, probably both forming in synaspismos, one phalanx "mortared" to the rear of the other like bricks.

I did not join this discussion earlier for precisely what has occurred.......increasingly implausible propositions, none of which explain what evidently occurred. ...'Epallelos' in the sense of interlocked/mortised/next to each other is the best explanation which ticks all the boxes. ( if just synaspismos had been meant, Polybius would have said so - and it would hardly have been a 'peculiar formation')

You are advocating a formation that would be unique in history, for which we have absolutely no reference by tacticians, and obviously no "command" for, and you are telling me that my scenario is implausable???

What is peculiar is that he forms a single phalanx out of two seperate ones, either in synaspismos or close order. One behind the other, but now in contact to form a single phalanx, which is the plainest reading of the text. How exactly in the heat of combat was the rear phalanx told to move up between files in a manner never practiced. And why, when there is a perfectly good command structure to form two superimposed phalanxes in synaspismos? The idea of bringing fresh troops up is nice, but nowhere even implied. Besides the rear ranks of the original front phalanx would have been "fresh" in that they had not been stabbing sariassa's.

[Paralus]

As for IV.64, no-one is suggesting that the companies/formation interlocked - you are simply setting up your own straw man to knock down - the discussion was regarding the likelihood of 'synaspismos' being used to force a river in the face of cavalry!

Why would we assume that? in my opinion we should not.

Note to Paralus: for God’s sake Jim, use emoticons not punctuation marks! I was going to include an adolescent remark regarding the interpenetration to indicate that the line was a throwaway. I should have done so.

Yes, I thought this was the source of your belief....you would do well not to get too hung up on a lexicon explanation of a somewhat technical term....

“Somewhat technical” term? I don’t believe epellalon is technical at all and clearly the weight (excuse that) of evidence does not support any lateral sense to its application.

[…] etymologists, and the great Walbank are not infallible, and certainly they are not military specialists [...] What you propose, in order to preserve a meaning guessed at by a lexicographer ignorant of military matters [...] you ( and your sources) were relying on this for proposing simple 'close order' for the formation […] The "meaning guessed at by a lexicographer ignorant of military matters" (note the singular) was the tacked on guess in the LSJ that it refers to 'close order'

Well the original source was Walbank. He, and my sources, I will add to a long, distinguished and growing list of those ignorant of military matters and therefore to be dismissed, like the advice of Charidemus (Diod. 17.30.2 ff), out of hand.

In any case, you miss the point which is not your dogged insistence on any supposedly tacked on “close order”; it is the close one behind the other which I’ve consistently stated from the outset. I would argue that this is the sense of the word and that it is not technical.

Edit:

Polybius uses epallelon three times in his extant histories outside of 2.69.9 (2.66.9 ; 11.11.7 ; 12.18.5). In all those instances the word is clearly used to describe something (phalaxes or troops of horse) close behind one another.

[PMBardunias]

Polybius uses epallelon three times in his extant histories outside of 2.69.9 (2.66.9 ; 11.11.7 ; 12.18.5). In all those instances the word is clearly used to describe something (phalaxes or troops of horse) close behind one another.

There's no shame in being led astray by translation, I know for a fact that we have all done it:

?????-???? , ??, also ?, ?? D.C.74.10,al.:—
A. [select] one close after another, in close order, ??????, ??????, Plb.2.69.9, 11.11.7; “????? ???? ?? ?.” J.AJ3.6.6; “??????? ????? ?.” D.C.74.10; ?????????, ??????, ???., Ph.2.288,175, al.; continuous, ??? Hdn.2.7.6; “???????” IG7.2712.54 (Acraephia); “?. ??????” given in quick succession, Alciphr.3.6.
b. [select] Gramm., ?? ?. ??? ??? ??????? succession, sequence of two nominatives, A.D.Synt.179.13,al.
II. [select] ?????????? ?????? by one another's hands (Hermann for ??? ???-), S.Ant.57.
2. [select] “?????? ?.” mortised into one another, Longin.41.3.
III. [select] Adv. -??? again and again, “??? ???? ??? ?????” Dsc.1.115.5; Rhet., ?. ???? ?????????? repeat (e.g. ?????? ??????), Alex.Fig.2.2.
2. [select] “?. ????? ?? ?????????” lean against one another, Ath.10.456e.
3. [select] in alternate succession, Ph.1.397.

Here is I assume what you latched onto:
“?????? ?.” mortised into one another, Longin.41.3. The problem is that ?????? is a bolt or nail, thus either two things are being bolted together or there are a succession of bolts holding something together. In any case where the concept of "mortised" and interlaced came from I have no idea, two things are simply butting against eachother or alternating.