New hoplite book

[PMBardunias]

I think they were definitely in contact. Polybius describes the diphalaggion as epallelon. He uses diphalaggion in his criticism of Callisthenes (12.20.7) where he says that Alexander would more logically have use a "proper" diphalaggion or tetraphalaggion (this was actually what he did though not "properly" according to Polybius!). That he felt the need to qualify Doson's diphalaggion with "close one upon the other" would indicate there was no gap.

Perhaps, but he may simply be conveying that they were deployed one behind the other, as opposed to in marching column, because of lack of space. He used the term again to describe squadrons of cavalry who were probably not in one contiguous formation, but stacked one after the other:

11.11 ???? ?? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ?????????? ???????. (while on the left wing he led the whole of the foreign contingent (of cavalry), drawn up in lines one behind the other). Perhaps more properly simple each foreign contingent lined up behind the other, for the idea of "lines" seems to be a translators addition. Here we have deployed units stacked for a battle.

Aside from all that, something clearly changes that gives Antigonus an advantage in the end, if not the final grouping of the two phalanxes into a single deep/dense entity, then I don't know what.

The peculiarity is not the formation formed before the final charge but the double phalanx - as Walbank observes. In 2.69.9 that final process has the phalangites "closing up the ranks of their pikes" (as Walbank notes for the phalangites are to become epallelou - close one after another in double phalanx). They have closed up from the rear and "charge" the Lacedaemonians in close order.

I agree that it is the double phalanx that is odd, but it is only odd here and not earlier. Why? Because marching "????????? ???????? " or forming one behind the other, is not terribly odd. Fighting with the two now contigous is odd.

As to the close order:

2.69 ???????????? ??? ??????? ??? ?????????? ?? ??? ????????? ???????? ????????

Yes, he mentions the close packing of sarissas, not synaspismos, but look again at :

4.64 ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????????? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ?????? ???????????? ??????????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?????????

He first mentions ????????????. But the nest phrase is almost the same as used is his description of Sellasia: ??????????? ???? ??????. Now "Hoplos" may be shields here, but it might just mean weapons too, since these men are light troops. Even if it means shields, clearly these is a density implied that we could read onto the sarissas at Sellasia that is especially compact.

Thus, some new element has occurred to account for the final success. Most likely, they did at this pont form a single deep phalanx from both units. They also might have formed closer together, in synaspismos to stop from being driven back. The one thing that the macedonians could do that the Spartans could not is keep the same frontage and depth and increase their density, thus I cannot discount this out of hand. Alternately, simply forming a phalanx twice the normal depth accounts for the increased "weight".

Paullus wrote:

The final formation described by Polybius is "epallelos", or 'interlocked' phalanx

.

This is not true, the formation is Epallelon from the beginning:

2.66 ???????? ??????????? ????????? and 2.69 ???????????? ??? ??????? ??? ?????????? ?? ??? ????????? ???????? ????????

While I am not unsympathetic to the synaspismos, this is not strong evidence for it. The only differnce between ??????????? ????????? and ????????? ???????? is that in the second case they are no longer "di-" or two seperate phalanxes. They may well have interlocked as you suggest, I just don't think that epallelon is evidence for it, because it requires him to change the meaning of the term in such quick succession of useage.