New hoplite book

[Paullus Scipio]

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?

...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'.

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.

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.

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

...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?

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...

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.

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.

I did not join this discussion earlier for precisely what has occurred.......increasingly implausible propositions, none of which explain what evidently occurred. Polybius categorically tells us that BEFORE Antigonus' order, first the Spartans, by their dash and 'courage' ( and no doubt moving downhill) forced the Macedonians back, then the Macedonians "by the weight of" their phalanx forced the Spartans back - but this was NOT the decisive factor.
( as Paul B. put it:

Thus, some new element has occurred to account for the final success.

Antigonus THEN orders the Macedonians, already in close order, to "close up(the only formation closer than 'close order', which because of the size of the battlefield front, they must be in, is synaspismos) in the peculiar formation of the 'epallelos' phalanx" (singular). It is this which proves decisive - not their 'weight', but something else.
'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')

To Paralus:T
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' in the unique usage by Polybius, not the entire entry with it's multiple meanings - and that you ( and your sources) were relying on this for proposing simple 'close order' for the formation which Antigonus ordered - which as we can see was in fact to 'close up' from close order into a tighter formation, which can only be a synaspismos type formation.
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!

Anyhow, as ever, I don't expect to change anyone's opinion - believe whatever you want !! 'Byeeeeeee