New hoplite book

[Paralus]

I am certain beyond reasonable doubt that the secret of Antigonus' success - what he ordered them to do - allowed him to bring fresh troops, in larger numbers, to bear, by 'interlocking' each part of his phalanx with the other, on that fixed, narrow front. Don't forget that the 'double-phalanx' becomes a 'single phalanx'.The 'epallelos' manouevre was a brilliant one - which is why Polybius describes it.

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 [...] 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)

Why thank you George / Macedon.

Even if one checks the lexica (in this instance philolog.us), it is clear the bulk of the listed “guesses” relate to “close behind”, “succession”, “sequence”, etc ( 7 “guesses by a lexicographer ignorant of military matters” of 9 listed!). I’ve checked this passage with others more than once because even the best “military historian” needs a command of the ancient Greek to understand a battle described in such. I fail to understand why I would be attempting to “preserve a meaning guessed at by a lexicographer ignorant of military matters”.

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...

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

And, yes, perhaps this belongs elsewhere. Time for bed....