Agesilaos wrote 26 Feb
I’m well aware of what you wrote since I quoted it. You have selectively distorted a partial quote of me, just to attempt to ‘score a point’. I was replying to this:“Looks like you are still confused; how else is one to interpret a claim that I have ‘…overlooked that a 16 strong Macedonian file of sarissaphoroi and called 'hoplites' is also termed a 'dekad',’ four paragraphs after quoting my saying ‘..my position is that ‘dekas’ and its genitive, ‘dekados’ are used to describe files of ten men except for the Macedonian ‘dekas’ under Alexander and probably the later years of Philip when the name of the former organisation was retained but the file had increased to sixteen, the standard strength used in the Taktike ?”
“...the term ’dekas’ is never applied to hoplites,” to which I responded:
“As for dekad never being applied to 'hoplites', that is also utterly untrue for Cyrus' pseudo-Greek hoplites of the Cyropaedia are formed into 'files/dekads'. You've also overlooked that a 16 strong Macedonian file of sarissaphoroi and called 'hoplites' is also termed a 'dekad', that I have referred to frequently.”
Your statement was wrong, proven by the two examples of ‘hoplites’ being in ‘dekads’/files. No confusion at all, but plain as a sarissa staff.
Your assertion that before the time of Philip/Alexander a Macedonian ‘dekad’/file was ten strong, that you have repeated so often, without producing any evidence for it, is an example of your Dr Goebbels methodology. The reason you have not produced a scintilla of evidence for a ten strong Macedonian file is simple – there isn’t any, as I have said previously!
Macedonian society was not such as to produce the social conditions for ‘hoplites’ to form part of the army. When Macedonian Kings of the 5-4 C BC wished to raise heavy infantry ‘hoplites’, they either hired Greek mercenaries or raised them from ‘metic’ Greek immigrants in the cities [ see e.g. Thucydides IV.124 - which has been discussed in previous threads]. ‘Hoplite’ equipment did exist in 7-4 century Macedon, but only among the top aristocrats, as has been shown from archaeological digs [e.g. Archontiko, where since the year 2000 thousands of graves have been excavated, including over 400 bronze helmets from aristocratic burials, almost all the so-called ‘Illyrian’ type which many think should be renamed ‘Macedonian’]
Since only hoplite-type heavy infantry fight in organised files/’dekads’, NO hoplites means NO files/dekads of ten (or any other number).
Agesilaos wrote:
Not discussing drill? In a thread on ‘Taktike’/art of arranging (troops)? Drill is how troops get into formation!“Nor am I discussing, drill, simply whether ‘dekas’ means a file of ten or simply a file, surely you see that a putative drill can be applied to a file of any depth explicitly ten and later twelve, in the Kyrou Paideia or the Taktikeis’ sixteen. The usage 'file/dekad' presupposes your ‘generic interpretation’ and should only be used once that position is established in order to avoid confusion.”
Nor is it ‘my’ generic interpretation, but that of every reputable translator I am aware of, without exception. The ‘established position’ is that ‘dekad’ DOES refer to generic file, and if you assert it means specifically, and only, ten then you must prove it by adducing evidence.
You cannot – so far in over 15 pages - produce a shred of evidence that ‘dekas’/file in a Greek context means specifically ‘file of ten’. Indeed you contradict yourself by pointing out Greeks were NOT formed in files of ten – with which I agree !“The consequences are clear in the subsequent exegesis, where ‘dekas is used the strength of the file is ten men and the officers are dekadarchoi, commanders of ten; when Xenophon changes his strength for the files in Kyrou Paideia to twelve the officers change from ‘dekadarchoi’ to ‘dodekadarchoi’, the number specific name of the officer matching the strength of his command.”
And on what basis do you assert this? Where is there evidence that the generic meaning of ‘company/group/squad’ cannot refer to a military context ? Again this goes against every recognised translation.“Lexica give examples of the type of usage and are neither infallible nor exhaustive in their exempla, that is agreed, but the point is that the example given refers to ‘dekas’ used non-number specifically, ie. generally where its force is vague like ‘group’, it has no military application in this case so ‘’company’ [squad, group, file]’ remains misinterpretation, not clarification.”
1. You cannot provide a single example of a ‘dekad/file’ which is unequivocally ten deep.“Xenophon wrote:
As you have pointed out, Greek or Macedonian files never consisted of files ten deep in the field.
Not so as the eagle-eyed reader will have noticed ‘..my position is that ‘dekas’ and its genitive, ‘dekados’ are used to describe files of ten men except for the Macedonian ‘dekas’ under Alexander and probably the later years of Philip when the name of the former organisation was retained but the file had increased to sixteen, the standard strength used in the Taktike.’ Implies what I have stated earlier, that the Macedonian ‘dekas’ started life ten deep and retained the name when expanded to sixteen.”
2. There is no evidence that a Macedonian file was ever ten deep, and indeed prior to the sarissa phalanx of Philip and Alexander, which was 16 deep, there is no evidence of ‘heavy infantry/hoplites’ in the Macedonian army whatever. ( see detailed explanation above)
3. Whilst the evidence is slender, the only ‘dekads/files’ which have known depths are, for infantry, 12 (Cyropaedia) and 16 (Arrian) and we can deduce cavalry depths for Xenophon’s files/dekads/stichoi. The manuals tell us that the Greeks used ‘square’ cavalry formations, whose frontage was twice or three times the depth. Arrian [16] refers to 10x5 deep and 9x3 deep; Asclepiodotus [VIII.4] to 16x8 deep, and also depths of ‘3 or 4 horsemen’; Aelian [XVIII] refers to 8x4 deep, 10x 5 deep, and 9x3 deep. Polybius[XII.18] tells us maximum cavalry depth is 8. All emphasise that deep formations are no good for cavalry. Whatever depth Xenophon’s cavalry ‘dekads/stichoi’ were, it was certainly less than ten. His usage of ‘dekad’ must therefore be generic, as is also the case in the ‘Cyropaedia’.
Yes, I referred to there being but two usages of ‘dekania’ – in the manuals - a little earlier in the thread, but you have it backwards. The LSJ says ‘dekania’ is the Greek translation of the latin term ‘decury’. A ‘decurion’, despite the literal meaning of the Latin, did NOT command ten men. Of the 3 ‘Decurions’ of a 30 man ‘turma’/troop, one commanded the troop, and the other two assisted him, as second and third in command. None commanded a file of ten. [Polyb VI.25.2], and by Imperial times, the assistant ‘decuriones’ had gone, leaving a single ‘decurion’ commanding the 30 man turma. So in Latin, as in Greek we see a word originating in ‘ten’ evolving into a very different meaning. Another example is Vegetius, whom you refer to, calling the commander of a Roman infantry ‘contubernium’/tent party/squad of eight a ‘decanus’. To be consistent, are you going to argue that a ‘decurion’ or ‘decanus’ only ever commanded ten men, as you do for ‘dekad’ ? LOL!“Let’s go with the translations you offer; the fact still remains that Arrian says a ‘dekania’ consists of ten men explicitly. True LSJ, which has just been characterised as neither complete nor ‘gospel true’ does give ‘decury’ as a translation for ‘dekania’, but if you use the word frequency statistic function of Perseus you will find that it appears in the literature in only two instances, here in Arrian and in the parallel passage in Asklepiodotos; epigraphically it is attested as a measure of land and as ‘the guardhouse of a decury’; sadly any search for the more usual word for ‘decuria’ in Greek texts is hampered by the engine throwing out every instance of ‘ten’! However, Polybios’ discussion of the Roman army calls the leaders of ‘decuriae’ ‘dekadarchoi’ VI 25, which would make them officers of ‘dekadoi’ ten strong.”
Since it is Polybius who explicitly tells us that the ‘decurion’/dekadarch commands 30 men, he can hardly have believed that ‘dekadarch’ ONLY meant ‘commander of ten’. An alternative Greek translation of ‘decurion’ is ‘dekanos’, which occurs for example in the P.Oxy 387, in a first century AD context.
Let us steer clear of translations of Latin words and Roman usages, which are inexact at best, and can only serve to muddy the waters, and are too far removed from Greek/Early Macedonian usage to be helpful.
Agesilaos wrote:
Yes, I already mentioned that the word was one piece of evidence that the versions of the manual derived from a common source....are you suffering from the onset of ‘Oldtimers disease’, perchance ? LOL!Since ‘dekania’ is such a rare word it can be taken as certain that it comes from the common source of the Taktikeis, so your explanation is that in a manual explicitly treating the organisation and drill of Hellenistic armies, in a passage dealing with infantry files, the author inserted a note on the name of Roman cavalry units (the Romans had no decuria among their infantry, that level of unit was the ‘contubernium’ unhelpfully commanded by a ‘decanus’ in the later empire, Vegetius, De Res Militari, 2 viii). Maybe this theory needs some work?
The Macedonian ‘Dekas’ IS the only candidate; ‘Refutation, refutation ? Where art thou, refutation.’ The Gods may decide which of us is guilty of hubris.
I don’t know why a Greek translation of a Latin cavalry term has crept into an entry regarding nomenclature of phalanx files, but it is clearly an error of some kind and not to be relied on.[Or could the LSJ entry be in error? LOL!]
All the versions of the manual have 'Romanisms' that have crept into them. Arrian's section on cavalry in his version of the 'Taktike' is purely a description of Roman cavalry exercises.
As I have demonstrated, not only is there no evidence of a Macedonian ‘dekas’ EVER numbering 10, there is no evidence of native Macedonian heavy infantry/hoplites at all prior to Philip/Alexander.
So Macedonian ‘dekas’ is not a candidate AT ALL !!
Agesilaos wrote:
I don’t see any conclusions about Spartan organisation in your quotation, merely references to various assumptions that need to be made for any particular hypothesis. The appendix is filled with “ifs” “it is necessary to assume” “the supposition is” and so on. He goes on to refer to more assumptions about Spartan manpower that need to be made. His only real conclusion is that all the various theories regarding Spartan organisation are disputed.J.K.Anderson wrote:Anderson, 1970 MTPAX, pp240-41‘To sum up, Xenophon’s evidence on the Spartan military organisation does not contradict itself, and I believe that it is better not to tinker with it in order to make it fit other pieces of information (for example, the list of five locoi), which should be referred to other periods, or to multiply the Spartan numbers. Thucydides cannot have got the Spartan organisation right, because his evidence does not fit his own account of the battle of Mantinea, but we cannot say with certainty what is wrong, or how it is to be corrected. I have tried to indicate what mistakes must be assumed if we are to suppose that the Spartan army in 418 BC. Was in fact organised in the same units as in the early fourth century, and how some of these mistakes might have arisen. Two reorganisations of the Spartan army, one between the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars, probably as a result of the earthquake of 464 BC, and one after the disaster of Leuktra, need to be assumed on this hypothesis, and I do not pretend that it is more than a hypothesis.’
Seems he did reach his own conclusions about organisation and that they accord with those on the thread on ‘The Strength of Spartan Units’, I never claimed these were original, after all the son of Gryllos had already written them.
