05-30-2010, 03:53 PM
...Wow... you people are catapulting answers... This was supposed to go some two posts after mine but anyways.. I will post it and then read through your new ones.
Thanks guys..
I would partly disagree with you here. This comparison is not made in manuals regarding the Greek system of warfare. You may be having in mind the Byzantine textbooks (Maurice, Leo, Phokas, Ouranos etc), but there we are talking about formations such as the "foulkon" which closely resembles testudo or "syskouton", both made by troops equipped with large shields (Arrian also described such a formation in his "Ekaxis kat' Alanon", again regarding Roman armies). The synaspismos of the Macedonian phalanx is not attested as a formation to be used against missiles and I personally doubt that it would be particularly useful there, keeping in mind the size of the Macedonian shield (more on this below...),but I could be mistaken.
Although I do believe that "idiomati" here is more probably about a performing a true synaspsimos by doubling of files, my point is that we can not be certain. It is as possible for Polybius to heave meant that the back phalanx actually touched the front phalanx and then helped with its "weight", weight (for those who do not really believe in prolonged, actual physical othismos, like me) being also a term that has to do with the increase in morale and determination of an 8 or 16 man phalanx when doubling its files. To add to depth you do not have to infilitrate the files of the leading phalanx. You need to do thta only to add to density.
Actually they do not (as far as I remember), but it is my belief that this might be the reason for a Macedonian phalanx to be arrayed 16 man deep. In order to be able to perform a true synaspismos (I use the "term" true synaspismos, because most historians, including Polybius, do not use it solely for this purpose as the manuals do. The best term to be used here would be "yperpykni" (super dense) order, but it is a matter of taste...), a phalanx would either half its frontage (to me a very slow and dangerous maneuver) or the depth of its files. So, a 16 man phalanx occupying in close order some 500 yards, would need to get down to a depth of 8 men to occupy the same frontage or keep its 16 man depth and cut its frontage by half. But, a certain depth is (to my memory) not attested.
I agree.. it kind of reminds us of the Roman trifallangia (triplex acies), although of course the mechanics would have been completely different, and is maybe a singular attestation of some kind of reserve phalanx behind the main battle line regarding Macedonian tatcics with the purpose to directly support the front line (Alexander at Arbela also employed a second phalanx but with a very different scope)
The term synaspsimos is very often used regarding all types of troops and in many different time periods. It of course means to touch one shield on the other, but it does not necessarily mean the "true synaspismos" described in the manuals. Doubling density from normal close order is not a trivial thing to do and it is attested (in the manuals) to have been used defensively, when expecting a charge. When I am trying to understand whether a Macedonian phalanx is arrayed in open, close or synaspismos order, I usually try to visualize the parallel changes in depth and frontage too. Unfortunately, one can very seldom draw safe conclusions regarding this particular density, when it was used, how it was formed etc... The peltasts in this extract may indeed have been arrayed in synaspismos, although they were in no danger of a cavalry charge, the Aetolians would just harass them with dense skirmishing by ilai (squadrons) and so a regular close order would be enough. A true synaspismos would (according to my grasp of things) a disadvantage, since the more compact a body of men, the easier it is for skirmishers to produce casualties and the small pelte would not be sufficient to completely protect the men as would habe been a Roman thyreos or even a hoplon.
Why would we assume that? in my opinion we should not. Polybius has the units (shmaiai) cross the ford and "the second and third (unit) after crossing compacting its weapons TOWARDS (not pointing at but density wise) the first. So, I would interpret this passage as unit A crossing first, carefully forming a compact square (this would be the most dangerous instance of the effort), then unit B crossing and arraying on A's right (or left), possibly by file, while unit A screens the men in the stream and then unit C arraying on the other side of A in a similar fashion. The wider the bridgehead, the safer and quicker the crossing of the rest of the army.
Thanks guys..
Quote:Might I point out that an obvious reason to form 'synaspismos'/overlapped shields is the same reason the Romans formed 'testudo' - to provide a solid wall/cover against missile weapons? ( The Aetolian cavalry would almost certainly have been javelin armed). Indeed, in one manual, the two formations are compared as similar......
I would partly disagree with you here. This comparison is not made in manuals regarding the Greek system of warfare. You may be having in mind the Byzantine textbooks (Maurice, Leo, Phokas, Ouranos etc), but there we are talking about formations such as the "foulkon" which closely resembles testudo or "syskouton", both made by troops equipped with large shields (Arrian also described such a formation in his "Ekaxis kat' Alanon", again regarding Roman armies). The synaspismos of the Macedonian phalanx is not attested as a formation to be used against missiles and I personally doubt that it would be particularly useful there, keeping in mind the size of the Macedonian shield (more on this below...),but I could be mistaken.
Quote:how else could the rear phalanx 'close in' and add it's depth to the fighting, other than by interspersing/infiltrating the files of the leading phalanx?
Although I do believe that "idiomati" here is more probably about a performing a true synaspsimos by doubling of files, my point is that we can not be certain. It is as possible for Polybius to heave meant that the back phalanx actually touched the front phalanx and then helped with its "weight", weight (for those who do not really believe in prolonged, actual physical othismos, like me) being also a term that has to do with the increase in morale and determination of an 8 or 16 man phalanx when doubling its files. To add to depth you do not have to infilitrate the files of the leading phalanx. You need to do thta only to add to density.
Quote:The manuals do indeed tell us that a phalanx needs a certain depth in order to form 'synaspismos'.
Actually they do not (as far as I remember), but it is my belief that this might be the reason for a Macedonian phalanx to be arrayed 16 man deep. In order to be able to perform a true synaspismos (I use the "term" true synaspismos, because most historians, including Polybius, do not use it solely for this purpose as the manuals do. The best term to be used here would be "yperpykni" (super dense) order, but it is a matter of taste...), a phalanx would either half its frontage (to me a very slow and dangerous maneuver) or the depth of its files. So, a 16 man phalanx occupying in close order some 500 yards, would need to get down to a depth of 8 men to occupy the same frontage or keep its 16 man depth and cut its frontage by half. But, a certain depth is (to my memory) not attested.
Quote:I described Antigonus' manouevre as "brilliant" because, as I mentioned, it brought the second, fresh phalanx into action, unlike each phalanx simply forming synaspismos, which would have left the second phalanx still in the rear, unable to participate directly. The impact of fresh troops and increasing the numbers in the front rank will have been telling.
I agree.. it kind of reminds us of the Roman trifallangia (triplex acies), although of course the mechanics would have been completely different, and is maybe a singular attestation of some kind of reserve phalanx behind the main battle line regarding Macedonian tatcics with the purpose to directly support the front line (Alexander at Arbela also employed a second phalanx but with a very different scope)
Quote: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.
The term synaspsimos is very often used regarding all types of troops and in many different time periods. It of course means to touch one shield on the other, but it does not necessarily mean the "true synaspismos" described in the manuals. Doubling density from normal close order is not a trivial thing to do and it is attested (in the manuals) to have been used defensively, when expecting a charge. When I am trying to understand whether a Macedonian phalanx is arrayed in open, close or synaspismos order, I usually try to visualize the parallel changes in depth and frontage too. Unfortunately, one can very seldom draw safe conclusions regarding this particular density, when it was used, how it was formed etc... The peltasts in this extract may indeed have been arrayed in synaspismos, although they were in no danger of a cavalry charge, the Aetolians would just harass them with dense skirmishing by ilai (squadrons) and so a regular close order would be enough. A true synaspismos would (according to my grasp of things) a disadvantage, since the more compact a body of men, the easier it is for skirmishers to produce casualties and the small pelte would not be sufficient to completely protect the men as would habe been a Roman thyreos or even a hoplon.
Quote:We can assume they are all not interpenetrating the first!?
Why would we assume that? in my opinion we should not. Polybius has the units (shmaiai) cross the ford and "the second and third (unit) after crossing compacting its weapons TOWARDS (not pointing at but density wise) the first. So, I would interpret this passage as unit A crossing first, carefully forming a compact square (this would be the most dangerous instance of the effort), then unit B crossing and arraying on A's right (or left), possibly by file, while unit A screens the men in the stream and then unit C arraying on the other side of A in a similar fashion. The wider the bridgehead, the safer and quicker the crossing of the rest of the army.
