New hoplite book

[PMBardunias]

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.

So you believe then that Polybios uses the same word to men one behind the other and files side by side? Also, later cavalry units stacked one behind the other. I doubt this. A plainer reading is simple the two distinct units that were one behind the other have now merged one behind the other.

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'.

From two stacked phalanxes to one phalanx of two contiguous units. The sense of the word, units in series, remains unchanged. The key to understanding what happened is the shift from 2 phalanxes to 1 phalanx.

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.

Epallelon has nothing whatsoever to do with the lateral spacing. Simply the relative position of the two units. Polybious in support of a closer order, to me implies a doubling of sarissas when he mentions they are more dense.

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...

Argue with Polybios. He obviously has a reason that he switched from speaking of two phalanxes to a single phalanx. That is the only thing we can be sure changed! You are requiring him to use the same word in the same battle description to mean two radically different things.

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.

Hmmm, that sounds a lot like what I wrote. They were not touching, but were forced together as the front fell back down the slope. Clearly they did not start out as a single phalanx. Why we don't see the same resistance to being pushed back is that they were originally on a downhill slope. If you'd like to argue that the process of becoming one phalanx occurred on the way down the slope, and not when the reached the bottom, that's fine. It does not change much of my view. At some point in the process of being pushed back, Antigonus gives a command and the two phalanxes become one, probably both forming in synaspismos, one phalanx "mortared" to the rear of the other like bricks.

I did not join this discussion earlier for precisely what has occurred.......increasingly implausible propositions, none of which explain what evidently occurred. ...'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')

You are advocating a formation that would be unique in history, for which we have absolutely no reference by tacticians, and obviously no "command" for, and you are telling me that my scenario is implausable???

What is peculiar is that he forms a single phalanx out of two seperate ones, either in synaspismos or close order. One behind the other, but now in contact to form a single phalanx, which is the plainest reading of the text. How exactly in the heat of combat was the rear phalanx told to move up between files in a manner never practiced. And why, when there is a perfectly good command structure to form two superimposed phalanxes in synaspismos? The idea of bringing fresh troops up is nice, but nowhere even implied. Besides the rear ranks of the original front phalanx would have been "fresh" in that they had not been stabbing sariassa's.