05-30-2010, 12:39 PM
Ahh... Sellasia! Wouldn't it be better to have started up a new discussion on that?
Sellasia is one of the most problematic battles to understand and analyze with many shady points, different accounts... a mess.. but a truly interesting battle indeed, much more complex than a simple clash of two lines and some skirmish and cavalry action...
Regarding the left of Antigonus, at the start of the battle there were two phalanxes one close behind the other and certainly not one. Polybius calls the formation "a difallangia epallili". "epallilos" normally means "behind one another", "epi + allilos" and although it can also mean "next or after (chronically) one another", here it certainly means behind. "interlocked" is only a very remote translation, basically meaning "next to each other" for many separate things and not "one "inside", interlocking one another". This serves not to rule out true synaspismos, just that this is not what is described here.
Yet, the keyword is "difallangia". It of course means "two phalanx formation" and is used to denote separate lines. Had the two phalanxes been touching from the beginning, Polybius would not have termed the formation a "difallangia". When the crucial time comes Polybius says ""kai xrhsamenoi tw ths epallhloy fallagos idiomati". Now this is too vague to exactly understand what happened. It could as easily mean that the two lines touched and with added "weight" pushed the Spartans back as that they did something else, something only deep phalanxes could do to enhance their efficiency... Could this mean the synaspismos of Aelian and Asclepiodotus? Possibly, but yet nothing is said on that matter, so we can only guess. I tend to interpret it as a synaspismos, but Polybius generally does not give any sign that he is familiar with it. I guess he has to be, him having at least a basic grasp of the military tactics of his time, but he never really in all his books comment on it, which, to my mind, is strange and has sometimes made me doubt whether true synaspsimos, super compactness, was used at his time... Again, key here is the singular "fallagos". Polybius says that "they used the property of the ONE phalanx behind the other", he does not say "fallangwn" (plural), which would bring in the action both phalanxes. So, what he basically says is that the front line was doing its job and then some command was given and the second phalanx, some distance to the back did something to get into action that was normal and expected - Polybius does not present it as something brilliant and unique, he describes something usual and expected -"idiomati"- (closed in, added its depth and maybe even doubled the density), but this is what is given. The rest is just (well- in this instance) educated guessing...
Maybe we could move this brilliant discussion to another thread?
P.S. as for 4.64, Polybius does not talk about any light infantry, as some translations have him. He is talking about units (I would guess syntagmata, even if Pol uses more generic words...) of his peltasts, his (assumed) elite phalangites. This is why he makes a clear description of heavy infantry with serried weapons projecting towards the Aetolians... Yet, whenever he uses the term "synaspismos" I read "close order", there would anyways be no tactical reason to use true synaspismos against Aetolian cavalry...
"?????????? ???? ?????????? ??????? ???????? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ????????? ??? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ????????????. ??? ?? ?????????????, ??? ?? ??? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ??????????????? ?? ??? ??????? ??????, ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????????? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ?????? ???????????? ??????????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?????????, ??????????? ??? ?????????? ????????????? ????????? ???? ??? ?????." Pol.4.64
Sellasia is one of the most problematic battles to understand and analyze with many shady points, different accounts... a mess.. but a truly interesting battle indeed, much more complex than a simple clash of two lines and some skirmish and cavalry action...
Regarding the left of Antigonus, at the start of the battle there were two phalanxes one close behind the other and certainly not one. Polybius calls the formation "a difallangia epallili". "epallilos" normally means "behind one another", "epi + allilos" and although it can also mean "next or after (chronically) one another", here it certainly means behind. "interlocked" is only a very remote translation, basically meaning "next to each other" for many separate things and not "one "inside", interlocking one another". This serves not to rule out true synaspismos, just that this is not what is described here.
Yet, the keyword is "difallangia". It of course means "two phalanx formation" and is used to denote separate lines. Had the two phalanxes been touching from the beginning, Polybius would not have termed the formation a "difallangia". When the crucial time comes Polybius says ""kai xrhsamenoi tw ths epallhloy fallagos idiomati". Now this is too vague to exactly understand what happened. It could as easily mean that the two lines touched and with added "weight" pushed the Spartans back as that they did something else, something only deep phalanxes could do to enhance their efficiency... Could this mean the synaspismos of Aelian and Asclepiodotus? Possibly, but yet nothing is said on that matter, so we can only guess. I tend to interpret it as a synaspismos, but Polybius generally does not give any sign that he is familiar with it. I guess he has to be, him having at least a basic grasp of the military tactics of his time, but he never really in all his books comment on it, which, to my mind, is strange and has sometimes made me doubt whether true synaspsimos, super compactness, was used at his time... Again, key here is the singular "fallagos". Polybius says that "they used the property of the ONE phalanx behind the other", he does not say "fallangwn" (plural), which would bring in the action both phalanxes. So, what he basically says is that the front line was doing its job and then some command was given and the second phalanx, some distance to the back did something to get into action that was normal and expected - Polybius does not present it as something brilliant and unique, he describes something usual and expected -"idiomati"- (closed in, added its depth and maybe even doubled the density), but this is what is given. The rest is just (well- in this instance) educated guessing...
Maybe we could move this brilliant discussion to another thread?
P.S. as for 4.64, Polybius does not talk about any light infantry, as some translations have him. He is talking about units (I would guess syntagmata, even if Pol uses more generic words...) of his peltasts, his (assumed) elite phalangites. This is why he makes a clear description of heavy infantry with serried weapons projecting towards the Aetolians... Yet, whenever he uses the term "synaspismos" I read "close order", there would anyways be no tactical reason to use true synaspismos against Aetolian cavalry...
"?????????? ???? ?????????? ??????? ???????? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ????????? ??? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ????????????. ??? ?? ?????????????, ??? ?? ??? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ??????????????? ?? ??? ??????? ??????, ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????????? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ?????? ???????????? ??????????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?????????, ??????????? ??? ?????????? ????????????? ????????? ???? ??? ?????." Pol.4.64
