New hoplite book

[PMBardunias]

(as opposed to the 'normal' way of forming 'synaspismos' whereby each part of the phalanx would have closed up to 'synaspismos' leaving the same formation 16 deep, but with each phalanx still one behind the other, 8 deep.'Epallelos'/interlocking ensured that every second front ranker was fresh, and a way of getting the reserve rear phalanx into action, which is why it was done that way.)

You have ignored that this is the SECOND use of epallelos in the description, surely you don't think they were interlaced when they first ordered for battle?

You may well be correct about the formation, especially because I don't think we can say that they moved very much in it and "charge" seems a stretch, but you cannot base it on this word. It is possible, perhaps more likely than the introgression of two phalanxes for command reasons, that the first phalanx brought up its quarter file leaders, then the rear phalanx formed up behind them also in synaspismos. So in a sense both are correct.

Note to Paralus: I don't think we need take the notion that he physically fought them all the way back up the hill a step at a time and then beat them out of their fortress too seriously. Phylarchus's (presumably) account has them break in front of the fortress, in fact just when they seem to have won. Also, they would have had to break their phalanx just to get back inside of the pallisade, for they did not knock the whole thing down. Perhaps Polybius is simply referring to the fact that in defeat they were finally evicted from the exceptionally strong position that a lesser general would have broken against. It is possible as well that there was a stand made at the pallisade, which was overwelmed- after all so many Spartans were killed. Since at least some percentage of these men still found the idea of death preferable to running off with the King- at least one!- such a stand might make sense.

the troops were ALREADY 'close after one another, in close order' and that meaning therefore makes no sense in context....if they merely crowded forward, as you suggest, then what was it that Antigonus 'ordered' them to do?

He ordered the two (di-) phalanxes to have the rear one close up physically with the fore, resulting in one deep phalanx.

And why was this a 'peculiar formation' if it was merely a bunched up close order?

Because he created a single deep phalanx of two seperate ones.

And why use a specialist technical term?....Look further at the lexicon meaning and you will see the word 'epallelos' is derived from, and means, the word for 'interlocked' or 'mortised', and this is all too obviously the meaning here, and how two phalanxes one behind the other, telescope into one.

Except that it is not a specialist techincal term for this situation- because he already used it when they were not interlocked and he used it to describe successive units of horse who surely were not interlocked! Sticking two phalanxes together like cementing two bricks together would surely fit this definition.

And what do you mean by 'weight'? How is a (presumably) more shallow formation to apply more 'weight' than a deeper one on the same frontage? We are talking about the same number of men, with, in your description of 'close order', the same number of tired front-rankers. How is that 'heavier' or applying 'weight'?

Depth and "weight" are often used in conjuction by the tacticians. Even without projecting any special density as I would with hoplites who physically push, there is an inertia to movement gained by any crowd of men. Herding, or poking sarissa at 8 ranks of men until they move back is easier than getting those same 8 to move back when they have another 8 (or dense 4) behind them to whom they have to communicate the need to move backward. Herding a large group is more difficult than a small group due to this delay and the higher rate of asynchrony between moving elements. This occurs in hoplites too, but they can also take things a step further and truly push.