Issus; request for comments

[Paralus]

This is why the hypaspists, or other infantry formations, were placed on the flanks between the heavy infantry and the cavalry.

Leaving aside the armament of the hypaspists in phalanx battle, the only infantry, from memory, mentioned for the left in major battles was Sitalkes’ Thracian Javelin men. They are mentioned “in the van” of the left at Issos which would not put them in contact with the phalanx. Seems Craterus was protected by cavalry.

In Issus the mercenaries didn't outflank the Macedonians…

Why do you think this? If the figures quoted by Arrian are correct, the Greek mercenaries will have occupied the entire width of the plain. The Macedonian battle line – and Arrian is clear – was made up of the phalanx regiments and the hypaspists (outside of the cavalry wings with their intermingled light armed). These, according to Polybios / Kallisthenes were eight deep. That’s a frontage of say 686 metres in the pyknosis formation of attack. The Greeks will, in similar formation, have been 1.7 kilometres wide. To not outflank the Macedonians they will need to have been drawn up 20 deep.

But a fact is that if the battle was to be decided by the infantry,the macedonians nearly lost.

Indeed, it was a very near run thing.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I think Jona’s idea of using the apsis to deflect the sarisa has merit; more so here given the difficulties of the terrain. The shape of the aspis will help in this though a deflection to the right or left (or downwards towards an unguarded leg) might prove dangerous. Grabbing at the sarisae is, as you say, attested in later times and I’m sure it happened earlier. As to what good it would do is anyone’s guess. On favourable ground and in close order a charge by an experienced phalanx would be deadly to the average hoplite array. Hence the reliance upon epigoni troops during the “Successor wars”.

I have often imagined it this way. I would think that the ideal manouver would be to use the aspis to deflect the sarissa up, so you can advance under them?
It might be possible to close ranks that way to bring your shorter weapon into play, or even to agressively close with the enemy for hand to hand fighting?

Sorry guys, but this isn't going to work. Remember that you aren't facing one sarissa but 10 and that is just from the two ranks directly in front of you. It doesn't take much for someone either side of them to attack you too. If you swing your shield to deflect a sarissa aside you will open yourself up to attack from some other direction.

Something like a boar snout might possibly work as long as you push in slowly, rather than rushing them.

The most effective strategy is a holding action or a defensive one, with the focus on a flanking action, because the Macedonian phalanx is exceptionally vulnerable on the flanks.

This is why the hypaspists, or other infantry formations, were placed on the flanks between the heavy infantry and the cavalry. If you can just fall back slowly, whilst allowing your best troops to attack the flanks then you can hit them from the sides. It is very hard, if not impossible, for a phalanx of this sort to fight troops in front and on the side too.

If you are lucky then you might retreat over broken ground and cause the phalanx to become broken up, allowing your troops to get inside.

I am talking about a concerted tactic, not an individual.
with a phalanx of heavy hoplites forcing their way under your sarissa, I doubt there would be much inclination to tend to one off to your sides, when you have ones to your front to deal with.
After all, it was a feature of hoplite warfare, to work together, was it not?
And also, there was a great deal of agility required in hoplite warefare,
So they would be well capable of the exertion required to pull it off.

I would want to try it myself before fobbing it off as unworkable. :|

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Why do you think this? If the figures quoted by Arrian are correct, the Greek mercenaries will have occupied the entire width of the plain. The Macedonian battle line – and Arrian is clear – was made up of the phalanx regiments and the hypaspists (outside of the cavalry wings with their intermingled light armed). These, according to Polybios / Kallisthenes were eight deep. That’s a frontage of say 686 metres in the pyknosis formation of attack. The Greeks will, in similar formation, have been 1.7 kilometres wide. To not outflank the Macedonians they will need to have been drawn up 20 deep.

I'm saying this because we don't hear anyone say that the phalanx was attacked from the rear,especially from the greek mercenaries. The reserve was to support the left flank that was at risk of being flanked. Instead we hear about some units of the mercenaries piercing the macedonian phalanx(!). This could indeed imply that the mercenaries had a considerable depth. Also,even if 8 deep,are we sure the Macedonians were actually in synaspismos,given that they were not on even ground,having to avoid many obstacles produced by the river banks and the river itself.
Khaire
Giannis

[Paralus]

Also,even if 8 deep,are we sure the Macedonians were actually in synaspismos,given that they were not on even ground,having to avoid many obstacles produced by the river banks and the river itself.

Apologies: I stated pyknosis and worked out frontage based on synaspismos! (I’d just got through doing figures based on that for another phalanx…)

The Macedonian frontage, advancing in pyknosis will have been approximately 1.4 km.

I'm saying this because we don't hear anyone say that the phalanx was attacked from the rear,especially from the greek mercenaries…. Instead we hear about some units of the mercenaries piercing the macedonian phalanx(!). This could indeed imply that the mercenaries had a considerable depth.

Yes, those posted in the rear were not attacked. This is because Parmenion on the left held his ground and the flanking troops threatening Alexander’s right were driven off.

The charge of the right and the difficulty of the terrain toward the Macedonian centre created the gap(s) in the phalanx. Hence the Greek infiltration of the phalanx. This does not bear any significance to the extent of the Greek line though.

Callisthenes is clear that the Macedonians deployed from column 32 deep then 16 and then 8. Arrian describes a similar “leisurely approach” without the deployment detail. Darius, we are told, hung his hopes on the Greek mercenaries flanked by his Kardakes. That being the case, it is doubtful that he – or the Greek commanders – would have limited their frontage for such severe depth. I’d expect that they were, as with “normal” hoplite phalanxes, 8 or 12 deep. On that basis, if the received numbers are correct, the Greeks themselves will have easily filled the entire Persian line.

Obviously the numbers are pure pap. The Greek mercenaries were likely much closer to 12-15,000. We could suggest the kardakes were in the order 15-20,000. If all were arrayed in a phalanx of, say 16 deep, we have a frontage of 1.54 to 2 km. That, on a 2.6 km plain, would leave little to no room for the cavalry so those numbers likely need to become somewhat more “real”.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

I will say something once more. The word "pyknosis" describes a verb. Not a noun. It does not describe a situation. It literally means "thickening". So an author can start a phrase like this "The pyknosis of the phalanx from 32 to 16 men deep was performed in such way". And there is no noun for pyknosis other than "pyknos" which means simply "thick" which is relative and is never used for the phalanx. On the contrary,"synaspismos" is a noun and desrcibes the state when the shields are coming together(touch/overlap). So you can say that through pyknosis they came to synaspismos. There was no phase of the phalanx called "pyknosis".
Just a side note,in the risk that a new term might come to mean somethings that did not exist.
Khaire
Giannis

[Paralus]

I will say something once more. The word "pyknosis" describes a verb. Not a noun. It does not describe a situation. It literally means "thickening"...So you can say that through pyknosis they came to synaspismos. There was no phase of the phalanx called "pyknosis".

Just a side note,in the risk that a new term might come to mean somethings that did not exist.

I take the point on the grammar. The description relies on Asclepiodotus' descritption in Taktike (can't remember the chapter) of the three "space intervals" of the Macedonian phalanx: "normal" (open) = 6ft; closed up and ready for action (sometimes referred to as I did) = 3ft and finally, synaspismos = 18 inches.

He claims that the phalanx advanced in battle order, initially, in the first; delivered a charge in the second and received same in the third. It seems logical to me but, we do rely on a fellow writing in the first cetury bc.

Perhaps you could coin us a word to enter the lexicon for the second?

[Paullus Scipio]

There was no phase of the phalanx called "pyknosis".
Just a side note,in the risk that a new term might come to mean somethings that did not exist.

Far be it from me who does not speak Greek to disagree with a modern native Greek-speaker, but I am reminded that in ancient Greece words were often used in a different way than today, and sometimes the meanings have altered over the centuries too, and according to various Greek lexicons, while 'pyknos' and words derived from it has a general meaning of 'close', 'compact','crowded','thick' etc, much as you describe, the word 'pyknosis' does exist as a noun and is used in a very technical, purely military sense to mean 'close order' ( e.g. in Arrian Tactika 11.1 and Asclepiodotus Tactika 4.1) where it is used to describe the formation of troops 'two cubits' (3 feet) apart, as opposed to 'normal' ( which has no special name) formation of 4 cubits apart (6 feet) or 'synaspismos' meaning as you say, shields touching/overlapped at 1 cubit (18 inches).

Incidently, this is in regard to Macedonian style phalangites with small 'peltai', aprox 2 feet diameter. It is quite likely that earlier when the large 'Aspis' some 40 inches in diameter was in use, either 'pyknosis' and 'synaspismos' were the same, or else the word 'pyknosis' was not in use and there was only 'normal' order ( 6 feet distance) and 'synaspismos' ( 3 feet distance - 'aspides' would just overlap/touch).

It is also likely that the term in respect of Macedonian Phalangites came about/was derived much as you say, from the fact that the 'normal' formation 'closed/compacted/thickened' up into 'synaspismos' ( 'close order', 3 feet, shields touching

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Paul,meanings change,yes. In this particular case it is a grammatical thing and modern grammar was based on ancient,with a few simplifications. It is hightly unlikely that synaspismos is a noun that describes a situtions. It is a noun,of cource,but describes the verb "synaspizomai". By the way,Thucydides and perhaps Xenophon,too,only use the word "esynaspizonto" (were closing shields) before either charging or receiving an attack.
Because I shouldn't be definite,could you post the passage of Arrian and Asclepiodotus because I haven't read the ancient texts of it?
Khaire
Giannis

[Jona Lendering]

I made the changes; thanks for your comments. It will be uploaded next week, when my site will have a major update.