Antigonid : Play misty for me: Kynoskephalai

[Xenophon]

Paralus wrote Sat 24 May

“We both agree that, as Polybios states, the phalanx then doubled its depth and closed to the right. Unless you can convince me that the phalanx deployed from march into line only eight deep (it already occupied over 1,000 metres sixteen deep), this means it was thirty-two deep on a 312 metre frontage.”

Which highlights another problem with this premise. By insisting on two manoeuvres, instead of ‘halving’ his frontage to 500 yards or so, the two movements mean he ‘halves’ TWICE, thus quartering his frontage to 250 yards give or take.

“Always remembering he intended for his left to form up and join the battle. Had he time, he'd have certainly waited. He did not have that time.”

Agreed. As I wrote earlier, in the unplanned encounter battle, he lost the race against time as to who deployed first – his left or the Roman right....

Agesilaos wrote Sun 25 May

“it is not that thirty-two deep is somehow outlawed by the manuals, no wonder the Seleukids broke at Magnesia their thirty-two deep formation left them non-plussed, rather it is unusual and was noted as such by Appian when he talks of Magnesia (possibly ultimately based on Polybios?), had Philip V used it sucessfully I think it would have merited a mention. If Philip's formation was standard, ie sixteen deep in close order it would not be remarked upon and it suits the respective frontages too.”

Whilst the manuals make mention of 32 deep in passing ( presumably because of references in literary sources to such, which I have explained above ), the actual texts tell us that a file was 16 deep ( not 32) and that there were only three formations viz open/normal “which has no special name” 16 deep on a 6 feet frontage; closed up for battle, ‘pyknosis/close order’ 8 deep on a 3 foot frontage, and synaspismos on an 18 inch frontage, 4 deep. Please stop asserting that 16 deep in close order was standard; it was not and I defy you to prove otherwise. I have given ample references for 8 deep in close order, 16 deep in open order from both the manuals and Polybius.

We agree that Philip’s right wing attacked 16 deep in close order, on a frontage of 500 yards or so on this occasion but if this formation was ‘standard’ , why does Polybius refer to the formation as “double depth” ?

With Paralus next post( Sun may 25) I broadly agree, I am pleased to say !!

Agesilaos wrote Sun may 25

“I was only being sarcastic about Magnesia and the non-plussedness (for those who posit that only formations in the manuals may be adopted), yes the phalanx broke because the piqued pachyderms progressively panicked, but Appian is clear that the great depth of the files was considered useless and a hinderance. (sic)”

That would be me, I guess! I have explained above the references to “32 deep” in the sources on the 3 occasions I can think of just now. ( see above). None of them was an intended ‘attack’ formation. I’ve outline briefly Magnesia, and why the units of the phalanx were formed behind one another ( which as it turned out facilitated the forming of the hollow square).

“We get very few references to actual formation changes in battle narratives, which was why I picked Kynoskephalai to look at first (as I wrote in the proem though it may have been in another version) as here we actually have that reported order to 'double by depth and close to the right', so I don't think it unreasonable to fill things in, as long as they are consistent with the story and do not ignore what is stated.”

...and therein lies some of the problems with your and Paralus’ interpretation of one phrase as having to mean two manoeuvres – you then have to distort or make up what Polybius says elsewhere, for your interpretations are NOT “consistent with the story” and do often “ignore what is stated” ( and what is not)

“I think we have reached an impasse here, for now...maybe we should pick another battle to muse about,”

We are only half-way through this one !!
We have yet to discuss Flamininus plans and execution, the defeat of the left wing of the phalanx, and the remarkable actions of the Tribune.....

For once, can we finish a thread before moving on, although I see you have opened another on the 3 versions of the manual already!!
Finally, I am again going to broadly agree with Paralus’ last post ( Mon 26 May )......at last I have caught up ( by cheating and not really addressing all matters)....no doubt not for long !!

[Paralus]

“No one involved in this debate has questioned that this form of compacting occurred in Macedonian style phalanxes. No one. It absolutely did not happen here and is thus irrelevant.”

Look again at the above quote. You do indeed question that after ‘compacting’ the Macedonian phalanx was generally 8 deep etc.....and it is not the only time ( see below)

“I disagree and reiterate that the field and its circumstances dictated just how the phalanx condensed.”

I would agree that circumstances alter cases, but nevertheless there was a ‘norm’; standard formations that were the tactical optimum.

Again, no one - including myself - has questioned that this compacting did not occur. Please point out where I (or anyone else) have unequivocally claimed that such compacting was not one of the methods utilised.

Paralus wrote Sun 18 May

“Now, I see no one is accusing Aelian of creating "a new, unheard of, formation which might be called ‘double open’". The form of depth doubling is clearly described and, if its use would lead to disaster, one wonders why it was ever practised.”

You still don’t seem to grasp the nature of these drills and what Polybius is trying to describe - and that it is one thing to describe particular individual drill manoeuvres, but one shouldn’t take them out of context. One can’t use these to expand formations/doubling depth ‘ad infinitum’......your argument would presumably allow doubling to 64 and 128 etc

The manuals describe the ‘doubling of depth’ for a particular purpose, as being how normal/open formation (16 deep) was returned to from close order/pyknosis ( or from synaspismos)– and that is what and why it was practised.

If you read the manuals carefully, you won’t need to "wonder" any more....but of course that was presumably just rhetorical, wasn’t it ?

Asclep. 10.17:
doubling takes place by depth when we interject between the original ranks others of equal strength, so that a compact order arises only by depth.

Aelian, as he promises, fully explains this:

Ael. 29.9:
The depth is doubled by inserting the second file into the first, so that the file-leader of the second file will be posted behind the file-leader of the first file, and the second man of the second file will be the fourth man of the first file, and the third man of the second file will be the sixth in the first file, and so also for the next until the whole of the second file is integrated into the first file, and [Laur. folio 155v] likewise the fourth file into the third, and all the even-numbered files into the odd-numbered ones. And this is how doubling by number takes place.

Neither of these is presented as only to return to open order “from close order/pyknosis (or from synaspismos)”. In fact, both passages show that this drill results in taking ‘close order’ only by depth (ὥστε κατὰ βάθος εἶναι πύκνωσιν).

Nor does one accuse Aelian of anything, but rather the 32 deep 'double open' formation is Paralus' invention.

The straw man returns.

No ’32 deep’ file formations are EVER described

I cannot find anyone describing the Macedonian phalanx file as thirty-two deep on this thread. One wonders at the ignorance of Alexander drawing up his phalanx in “files” 120 deep.

And since I too raised the same objections, I take it that I too “am free to task you” on the subject? I did so, like Agesilaos, and you have just ignored the matter, and continue to avoid questions.....which speaks volumes.

I have dealt with that more than once.

Paralus wrote thurs May 22:

“Whilst I'm here, a couple of catch-ups are in order...”

I’ll translate this euphemism. “ And another thing.... I want to go back and re-open/continue an argument”
Paralus seems to be like a dog with a bone, and just can’t let go of an argument, despite this earlier:

“Then we will simply have to disagree. Readers can make their own minds up.”

This is misrepresentation at very best. The post in question dealt with the spurious assertion “As another example of interpreting material in isolation, Paralus ( and others) would have it on the strength of XVIII.28 et seq that the phalanx normally fought 16 deep in close order, for having described it, Polybius goes on to say [XVIII.30]…”. A reading of the post shows that I had pointed out that I’d made no such assertion on this thread and, in fact, put some context to it. Nothing more (other than to ask a straight question on what I was 'distorting'). The “we will simply have to disagree…” quote has absolutely nothing to do with the post whatsoever. One wonders why it had to be repeated, along with “laughing out loud” emoticons and the ‘dog with a bone’ jibe other than to supply an opportunity for a gratuitous 'poke'.

Readers might be nonplussed attempting to locate that supposed "example of interpreting material in isolation" of mine on this thread. I do believe the only claim relating to that passage was made by yourself. I merely supplied some context.

How about this ( your post may 14) as but one of several examples?

“As Spock would intone, it is only logical that Philip's phalanx deployed into line sixteen deep as was the practice. If it shows nothing else, Polybios' splenetic criticism of Kallisthenes demonstrates this. In this formation it occupied over 1,140 metres, err, 1,246 yards. The same as the unsubstantiated eight deep in 'fighting' order.”

It appears your zeal in attempting to showcase my supposed ‘distortions’, ‘evasions’ and ‘inventions’ has clouded your comprehension skills. Not only that, you have committed the grievous error of cherry picking and taking a passage in isolation that you so vehemently accuse others of doing. The post in question is this one and, as can clearly be seen if one reads it in context, it was in reply to Agesilaos. The latter had claimed that Philip had deployed into an eight deep line and my response was (in rather fuller, less helpful to yourself terms):

I remain unconvinced that Philip deployed into line eight deep. There is nothing at all in the text that supports such, nothing other than a speculation. You are making a sarsia out of a dory's sauroter! As Spock would intone, it is only logical that Philip's phalanx deployed into line sixteen deep as was the practice. If it shows nothing else, Polybios' splenetic criticism of Kallisthenes demonstrates this. In this formation it occupied over 1,140 metres, err, 1,246 yards. The same as the unsubstantiated eight deep in 'fighting' order.

The ‘unsubstantiated eight deep fighting order’ referred to is Agesilaos’ claim that Philip ordered his deployed phalanx into eight deep before doubling for which, as I wrote, no evidence exists. That you excised the first three lines is most instructive.

[agesilaos]

Much has been said recently which I am not going to address here, but will on a separate thread , in an attempt to remove the long involved ‘discussions ‘ which will undoubtedly attend it.

Let us then move on to Flamininus; I think I have addressed most things.
1. He sends out his advance force, to simply reconnoitre, like Philip, he is unaware of the enemy’s position.
2. The two forces literally bump into each other and the Macedonians, whose purpose was to secure the heights above the pass and were the stronger force drove the Romans back down into the valley.
3. Flamininus reinforced his force with Aetolian cavalry and more lights and drove the Macedonians back to their starting positions.
4. Philip in turn reinforces his men massively and drives the Romans to the foot of the hills. The mist is clearing by now and the retreat of this now quite substantial force begins to unnerve the Romans, which makes Flamininus decide to reinforce his men with 2,000 heavies, probably representing the men he could get out of camp and in order while his force is driven back.
5. It would be about now that Philip’s first troops became apparent on the ridge which encouraged Flamininus to further develop his extra-castramentation, if he allowed Philip to bring his army to the field he might be caught with his men in camp (he had written off moving that day due to the weather).
6. Although the roman reinforcement had resulted in the retreat of the Macedonian force, neither side had been broken and both retired to their developing battle-lines.
7. Flamininus, in my view will have seen a frontage of close order troops uphill and apparently of the same strength of his army and probably twice that of his ordered troops (only the left wing).
8. He then observes Philip halve his frontage and decides to attack, realising that he is not out-numbered at all, his right is still forming up, otherwise he would attack along the line and outflank the forces he can see.
9. His attack fails and is driven back by Philip, but the forces are clearly not close to rout, had they been the desertion of their general would have tipped the balance.
10. Flamininus moves to his now formed right, had he been on the right of his left wing he would be able to see them forming, quite probably he was to the rear of his men, rather than being to the fore a la Alexander.
11. The romans have formed up more quickly from camp than the Macedonians did from line of march despite the elephants.
12. Flamininus leads the right into the attack and the Macedonians of the left deciding that they had no time to form up properly, fled.
13. It is now that the unnamed tribune makes the decisive move (given Polybios’ antipathy to Flamininus, prompted by the latter’s opposition to Scipio Aemilianus, Polybios’ sponsor) perhaps this tribune was in fact Flamininus. A tribune might have authority over six maniples but this chap leads twenty!

Satis =Arki

[agesilaos]

Vis-a-vis the strategic situation

10MacendonianAegeanWorld.gif (78.99 KiB) Viewed 16268 times

Bearing in mind that Epeiros had been detached from Macedon the previous year and that The Aetolian League were allies of Rome and Boeotia had just been persuaded to joinn the alliance, if Philip moved SW he would be placing his head in the lion's mouth and exposing his own lines of communication. He had begun the campaign hoping to link up with his garissons in Demetrias and Pharsalos but had been thwarted by Flamininus and further confined by his detachment of Thebes. I think Philip was cutting his losses and hoping to effect something the next season, he was aware that he could not command the manpower that Rome could deploy and would be more concerned with 'keeping an army in being' than any daring coup de main.

I think that the foragers were mainly from the left because of XVIII 24 i

'Philip at this time, now that he saw the greater part of his army drawn up outside the entrenchment, advanced with the peltasts and the right wing of phalanx, ascending energetically the slope that led to the hills'

If there is anything to infer here it is that the whole of the right wing and the Peltasts were now assembled, and that would be far more likely if they had been in camp, with much of the left wing too, the reason he did not immediately take that part that was present would be the distruption thatthe abscence of numbers of men would necessarily cause in the deployment and actions of that wing. The Amphipolis Regulations break off just after a section Concerning [Foraging] starts, but it seems only to be a list of punishable offences and rewards for informing, were it fuller we might get a clue as to the sie of unit doing the foraging from the rank of the officers supervising.

However, since it is the left wing that is delayed and the dispersal of men foraging is mentioned as a factor in the delay it does not seem too much of a leap to assume Philip chose his foragers from the weaker part of the phalanx.

[Paralus]

The Blue phalanx doubled its depth, closed to the right and repelled the Maroon advance.

Xenophon will know...

[Paralus]

That's a neat 'summary map'. Yes Philip might be described as placing his head in the lion's mouth by heading south or southwest but that is exactly what he did at the campaign's outset. Pace your view of him not seeking a 'coup de main', I believe he was, in fact, wishing to force a decisive showdown - as was Flmininus before his consulship was up. Although Polybios' text deserts us here, Livy keeps the gist of it. At the failure of his embassy to the senate, Philip raises troops for the coming war and, at the spring equinox, musters them at Dion where he 'awaits' Flaminius (Livy, 33.3.4-5). It's not necessarily defensive strategical reasoning informing this, rather the need for training. Once news of Flamininus' movements reaches him Philip, realising he was "in a situation where a contest for supreme power impended,", marches into Thessaly and encamps his army at Larissa (33.3.10; 33.6.3). Later the two move to near Pherae. All of this indicates that Philip did wish to bring on a decisive encounter and, to boot, he went south to do so. Pherae proved unsuited to the occasion and so we have the dance to the west, south west about the environs of Skotoussa leading to Kynoskephalai. I do not think that Philip was retiring to Larissa. If he'd denuded supplies along the route from Larissa to Pherae, he must also have seriously taxed the reserves of Larissa (though we've no firm idea of how long he tarried here). Either way, Polybios states that he sought not only supplies but good ground for his phalanx. He still desired the decisive denouement.

On the foragers, it makes superficial sense that the 'weaker' left supplied many of these. If this half of the phalanx was made up, in good part, of those past their service time and the sixteen year olds, there will have been enough 'old heads' to guide the young'ns in the duty. Foraging is something not widely reported in the soutrces except in passing (such as here). There were, it appears, dedicated troops for this purpose or at least troops accustomed to performing this duty. The only occurrence that I can call to mind of an ancient historian referring to these 'professional' foragers is in the army of Monophthalmos. At 19.18.4-7 Diodorus describes Eumenes ambushing and capturing some 4,000 of Antigonos' soldiers as they crossed the Coprates. Didoros says these soldiers, who crossed the river, consisted of "more than three thousand foot soldiers, four hundred cavalry, and not less than six thousand of those soldiers who were in the habit of crossing in scattered groups in search of forage".

[Xenophon]

Paralus wrote Tue 27 May:

“Again, no one - including myself - has questioned that this compacting did not occur. Please point out where I (or anyone else) have unequivocally claimed that such compacting was not one of the methods utilised.”

As Blackadder’s manservant Baldrick might have put it : “That Mr Paralus is slipperier than a slippery eel wot’s slithering about in a barrel full of slippery eels!”
You have slid past my point, which was that the ‘compacting’/closing up ( from ‘normal/open’ order 16 deep to ‘close order/pyknosis’) resulted in a formation 8 deep, whichever of the two ‘compacting’ methods is used ( rear half-file closing up, or every alternate man in the file stepping out and forward.) and that 8 deep in close order was the typical fighting formation. You have previously consistently maintained that the Macedonian Phalanx was intended, in general, to fight in close order, but 16 deep. That is quite incorrect.


Paralus wrote:

“Asclep. 10.17:
doubling takes place by depth when we interject between the original ranks others of equal strength, so that a compact order arises only by depth.


Aelian, as he promises, fully explains this:


Ael. 29.9: - should read 29.6 ( Devine translation)
The depth is doubled by inserting the second file into the first, so that the file-leader of the second file will be posted behind the file-leader of the first file, and the second man of the second file will be the fourth man of the first file, and the third man of the second file will be the sixth in the first file, and so also for the next until the whole of the second file is integrated into the first file, and [Laur. folio 155v] likewise the fourth file into the third, and all the even-numbered files into the odd-numbered ones. And this is how doubling by number takes place.


Neither of these is presented as only to return to open order “from close order/pyknosis (or from synaspismos)”. In fact, both passages show that this drill results in taking ‘close order’ only by depth (ὥστε κατὰ βάθος εἶναι πύκνωσιν).”

This is a perfect illustration of what I mean by the need to read the manuals carefully. You seem to be saying that the two passages are parallel and are describing the same thing ( e.g. “In fact, both passages show that this drill results in taking ‘close order’ only by depth”)
In fact this is not quite correct. The first (Asclep) describes ‘closing up’ by ‘interjecting’/parembole the rear half-files, resulting in close order on the same overall frontage, here called ‘doubling by depth’ i.e. doubling the numbers in the ranks by halving the depth of the files. Thus the phalanx 16 deep in open order ends up 8 deep in close order ( similarly if forming synaspismos/locked shields from pyknosis/close order).

The second (Aelian) is describing the exact opposite – opening up the phalanx from pyknosis/close order (usually 8 deep) into ‘normal/open order’ 16 deep, ( or opening up synaspismos) by amalgamating two neighbouring files into one twice the depth as previously. This is doubling by number. Two different forms of ‘doubling’ are being described –‘doubling by depth’ and ‘doubling by number’. The latter is presumably how you get to your 32 deep formation.
The actual equivalent of Asclep X.17 is Aelian 29.1 & 2, not 29.6

Equally, there is a clear implication that this manoeuvre is really only used to return to ‘open’ order from ‘close’ ( or ‘close’ from ‘locked shields) – see Aelian XXIX.3: “Whenever we wish to restore them to their initial position, we order those troops that have been interjected to countermarch to the places they held before.”
…Also…
Asclep X.20 “Whenever we wish to return this compact formation to its original position, we shall command the men who have changed their position to counter-march to their original stations.”

…and….

Asclep X.19 : “Doubling of place is performed by depth when we change the above mentioned compact formation by depth into a loose formation, or when the interjected men counter-march by file.”

c.f. Aelian 29.7:

“Doubling of place by countermarch occurs either when the inserted troops countermarch to a place as close behind the inserted file-closer as possible and the rest of the inserted troops take station behind him, or when they retain their initial number and half of those in the file countermarch to the rear, thus doubling the place occupied by the depth."

Thus, the ‘doubling’ of the file depth ( from 4 to 8, or 8 to 16 ) is the specific purpose of the drill referred to in order to return to the previous more open order. No mention of doing this to create a ‘double open order’ 32 deep with 12 ft/4 yard intervals between files ! The verbal orders also clearly imply this ( e.g. Aelian 42.1.15 " Double depth! " "As you were!")




Paralus wrote:

“Xenophon wrote:Nor does one accuse Aelian of anything, but rather the 32 deep 'double open' formation is Paralus' invention.


The straw man returns.”

What’s that you say, Baldrick? More slipperiness ? A straw man argument is one which which sets up a different position to the proponents, because that different position is more easily countered. But that is not the case here – I am directly addressing Paralus’ interpretation. His ‘straw man’ accusation is just a means of avoiding answering the questions posed by Agesilaos and myself.

Is Paralus now claiming that his position is NOT that Polybius is describing Philip’s phalanx opening up still further from 16 to a formation 32 deep which must entail ‘doubling’ the intervals between files to 12 feet – such 32 deep formation nowhere described in our sources - and one which Paralus has invented to allow his interpretation of what Polybius meant by “double their depth and close up toward the right.” ? ( he even used Aelian’s method 29.6 above).

This is the position he has advocated throughout, and if he has changed his mind, he has yet to put forward an alternative for how he arrives at his 32 deep in close order on a 312 yard frontage ( theoretical maximum, but must actually be less). I haven’t the time or inclination to re-read yet again the thousands of words that Paralus has posted, to quote the several times he has advocated this highly unlikely, nay, impossible situation....

“Xenophon wrote:No ’32 deep’ file formations are EVER described


I cannot find anyone describing the Macedonian phalanx file as thirty-two deep on this thread. One wonders at the ignorance of Alexander drawing up his phalanx in “files” 120 deep.”

Eh ? You have advocated all along that Philip’s Right wing Phalanx did that very thing – ‘doubled their depth’ from 16 to a file of 32, and there is no room for misunderstanding for you described it in detail !!

One rather wonders at the ‘ignorance of Paralus’ who seemingly doesn’t understand the technicalities of describing ranks and files. You are referring, I believe, to Alexander’s evolutions at Pelion. (Arrian I.6.2 et seq) They are attempting to withdraw through a narrow defile (identified by Hammond as the pass of Gryke e Ujkut), bounded on one side by a river, and overlooked by a ridge, which is held by the Thracians, licking their lips at the prospect of destroying the Macedonian column and capturing much loot in the narrow defile. Alexander thwarts thistrap by forming the phalanx in what Arrian calls “mass formation 120 deep”. There are sufficient clues to work out a likely course of events. The phalanx likely formed up facing the Thracians on the heights, with cavalry on each flank. This phalanx would have consisted of units/taxeis each on a 120 man frontage 16 deep (it is no co-incidence that 2,000 – the likely size of a ‘Taxis’- divided by 120 = 16) i.e. ranks - side by side – of 120, in files –one behind the other – 16 deep. On turning 90 degrees to their left, the battle-line becomes a column, ( see Aelian 36.3 for example; marching in ‘paragoge’) and technically the ranks are now files 120 deep, and the files are now ranks of 16. Of course as the column moves though the narrow pass ( which narrows to 50 metres or so at its western end) with raised pikes, a simple right turn reforms the battle line, which evidently at times then ‘closed up’ into 8 deep pyknosis and lowered its pikes as if to attack. There were other manoeuvres too, but it is this disciplined, and swift, movement which deters the Thracians since they can readily see that the battle line can form faster than they can descend from the heights. Thus while technically correct, it is not really true that the phalanx formed up 120 files deep....

What’s that Baldrick ? You think Mr Paralus knows all this, because he puts the word “files” in inverted commas, and hence is being a bit slippery again referring to “files” which he knows were not really files at all ?

No, surely not, he may be using the inverted commas simply to indicate a quotation....or so I prefer to think.

“Xenophon wrote:And since I too raised the same objections, I take it that I too “am free to task you” on the subject? I did so, like Agesilaos, and you have just ignored the matter, and continue to avoid questions.....which speaks volumes.


I have dealt with that more than once.”

Errrr.... I don’t think so. You may believe you have, but not really. Nowhere that I can find do you describe where the formation of 32 deep came from, nor offer any hypothesis for why Philip should have uniquely chosen such a deep ‘close order’ formation to attack in, nor how you envisage your 32 deep formation, on a frontage of 312 yards (or in reality rather less, and with only some 1500 men at maximum of the first 5 ranks able to fight) pushed back two Roman Legions numbering well over 9,000 heavy infantry on a frontage of between 500-800 yards.

Paralus wrote:

“Xenophon wrote:Paralus wrote thurs May 22:

“Whilst I'm here, a couple of catch-ups are in order...”


I’ll translate this euphemism. “ And another thing.... I want to go back and re-open/continue an argument”
Paralus seems to be like a dog with a bone, and just can’t let go of an argument, despite this earlier:

“Then we will simply have to disagree. Readers can make their own minds up.”

This is misrepresentation at very best. The post in question dealt with the spurious assertion “As another example of interpreting material in isolation, Paralus ( and others) would have it on the strength of XVIII.28 et seq that the phalanx normally fought 16 deep in close order, for having described it, Polybius goes on to say [XVIII.30]…”. A reading of the postshows that I had pointed out that I’d made no such assertion on this thread and, in fact, put some context to it. Nothing more (other than to ask a straight question on what I was 'distorting'). The “we will simply have to disagree…” quote has absolutely nothing to do with the post whatsoever. One wonders why it had to be repeated, along with “laughing out loud” emoticons and the ‘dog with a bone’ jibe other than to supply an opportunity for a gratuitous 'poke'.”

Not misrepresentation at all ! On Mon May 19, Paralus posted the line I quoted about having to disagree, and let readers make their own minds up. This is usually used to indicate a drawing of a line under a debate, and leaving a decision to the audience or readers. Then, just a few days later he carries on debating as if he had never indicated a ‘ceasefire’ !! Hence the amusement.....

By the way, are you saying that you now accept that the usual ‘battle order’ for a Macedonian type phalanx was 8 deep, or are you merely being ‘slippery’ and hair splitting in saying you did not assert 16 deep in close order in this thread. ( not even by implication ?) Care to clarify your present position ?

Paralus wrote:

Xenophon wrote:
Readers might be nonplussed attempting to locate that supposed "example of interpreting material in isolation" of mine on this thread. I do believe the only claim relating to that passage was made by yourself. I merely supplied some context.


How about this ( your post may 14) as but one of several examples?

“As Spock would intone, it is only logical that Philip's phalanx deployed into line sixteen deep as was the practice. If it shows nothing else, Polybios' splenetic criticism of Kallisthenes demonstrates this. In this formation it occupied over 1,140 metres, err, 1,246 yards. The same as the unsubstantiated eight deep in 'fighting' order.”

“It appears your zeal in attempting to showcase my supposed ‘distortions’, ‘evasions’ and ‘inventions’ has clouded your comprehension skills. Not only that, you have committed the grievous error of cherry picking and taking a passage in isolation that you so vehemently accuse others of doing. The post in question is this one and, as can clearly be seen if one reads it in context, it was in reply to Agesilaos. The latter had claimed that Philip had deployed into an eight deep line and my response was (in rather fuller, less helpful to yourself terms):


I remain unconvinced that Philip deployed into line eight deep. There is nothing at all in the text that supports such, nothing other than a speculation. You are making a sarsia out of a dory's sauroter! As Spock would intone, it is only logical that Philip's phalanx deployed into line sixteen deep as was the practice. If it shows nothing else, Polybios' splenetic criticism of Kallisthenes demonstrates this. In this formation it occupied over 1,140 metres, err, 1,246 yards. The same as the unsubstantiated eight deep in 'fighting' order.


The ‘unsubstantiated eight deep fighting order’ referred to is Agesilaos’ claim that Philip ordered his deployed phalanx into eight deep before doubling for which, as I wrote, no evidence exists. That you excised the first three lines is most instructive.”

I’m afraid I was misled by the previous sentence – which refers to Polybius’ criticism of Callisthenes, and in which Polybius gives frontages for a 16 deep formation i.e. a general comment, not specific to Cynoscephalae. Naturally, I took the next sentence also as being a ‘general’ remark, alleging that it was the general 8 deep ‘close order’ that was “unsubstantiated”. Thank you for clarifying that it refers specifically to Agesilaos’ postulation regarding Philp’s manoeuvre..
Which reminds me:

Paralus wrote Sun May 18:
“ Having drunk from the fountain of historical infallibility, I find nothing to disagree with in anything I've posted. This is as it should be, debate without end. Amen.”
To paraphrase a famous saying : “Many believe they have drunk from the fountain of historical infallibility, when in fact they have merely gargled “ !

Alas, Polybius does not seem to have drunk from this fountain, and there are a number of demonstrable errors in his surviving works, the most famous of which is the passage regarding Callisthenes account of Issus regarding formations etc

It is possible therefore that even IF Polybius did literally mean that two manoeuvres took place, he was mistaken, for as this whole debate demonstrates, this is simply not consistent with the rest of the account. In taking this phrase as literal, and correct, both Agesilaos and Paralus are forced to come up with manoeuvres and formations that are NOT referred to by Polybius and are inherently extremely unlikely, indeed impossible for reasons previously narrated.

minor edit to correct typos and clarify which are Paralus' words from my own.

[Paralus]

As Blackadder’s manservant Baldrick might have put it : “That Mr Paralus is slipperier than a slippery eel wot’s slithering about in a barrel full of slippery eels!”
You have slid past my point, which was that the ‘compacting’/closing up ( from ‘normal/open’ order 16 deep to ‘close order/pyknosis’) resulted in a formation 8 deep, whichever of the two ‘compacting’ methods is used ( rear half-file closing up, or every alternate man in the file stepping out and forward.) and that 8 deep in close order was the typical fighting formation. You have previously consistently maintained that the Macedonian Phalanx was intended, in general, to fight in close order, but 16 deep. That is quite incorrect.

You have a pronounced propensity for personal attack dressed as humour or ‘wit’. I have slid past nothing. Clearly if the phalanx ‘doubles down’ by either method, the density is doubled and the depth is halved. I have pointed this out more than once on this thread.

Paralus wrote:

“Asclep. 10.17:
doubling takes place by depth when we interject between the original ranks others of equal strength, so that a compact order arises only by depth.


Aelian, as he promises, fully explains this:


Ael. 29.9: - should read 29.6 ( Devine translation)
The depth is doubled by inserting the second file into the first, so that the file-leader of the second file will be posted behind the file-leader of the first file, and the second man of the second file will be the fourth man of the first file, and the third man of the second file will be the sixth in the first file, and so also for the next until the whole of the second file is integrated into the first file, and [Laur. folio 155v] likewise the fourth file into the third, and all the even-numbered files into the odd-numbered ones. And this is how doubling by number takes place.


Neither of these is presented as only to return to open order “from close order/pyknosis (or from synaspismos)”. In fact, both passages show that this drill results in taking ‘close order’ only by depth (ὥστε κατὰ βάθος εἶναι πύκνωσιν).”

This is a perfect illustration of what I mean by the need to read the manuals carefully. You seem to be saying that the two passages are parallel and are describing the same thing ( e.g. “In fact, both passages show that this drill results in taking ‘close order’ only by depth”)
In fact this is not quite correct. The first (Asclep) describes ‘closing up’ by ‘interjecting’/parembole the rear half-files, resulting in close order on the same overall frontage, here called ‘doubling by depth’ i.e. doubling the numbers in the ranks by halving the depth of the files. Thus the phalanx 16 deep in open order ends up 8 deep in close order ( similarly if forming synaspismos/locked shields from pyknosis/close order).

The second (Aelian) is describing the exact opposite – opening up the phalanx from pyknosis/close order (usually 8 deep) into ‘normal/open order’ 16 deep, ( or opening up synaspismos) by amalgamating two neighbouring files into one twice the depth as previously. This is doubling by number. Two different forms of ‘doubling’ are being described –‘doubling by depth’ and ‘doubling by number’. The latter is presumably how you get to your 32 deep formation.
The actual equivalent of Asclep X.17 is Aelian 29.1 & 2, not 29.6

Both are clear that there is doubling by ‘length’ or ‘number’ in which case the number of files is increased and the frontage remains the same. Both also agree on doubling by ‘place’ or ‘depth’. In the latter both are clear that compact order is only achieved by rank, not file. Thus the ranks, by virtue of the insertion of file into file (as explained in detail by Aelian) close up as a result of the doubling of ranks.

On the notion of restoring from close order, if, as I’ve stated more than once, the phalanx can compact by ‘doubling down’ it can certainly resume open order by the reversal (countermarching) of same.

Thus, the ‘doubling’ of the file depth ( from 4 to 8, or 8 to 16 ) is the specific purpose of the drill referred to in order to return to the previous more open order. No mention of doing this to create a ‘double open order’ 32 deep with 12 ft/4 yard intervals between files ! The verbal orders also clearly imply this ( e.g. Aelian 42.1.15 " Double depth! " "As you were!")

That this opening out of the phalanx, from synaspismos to close order, can occur via the countermarch of a file to a position behind its compatriot is eminently possible . Ditto for close order to ‘open’ order. Thus, in your view, a four man file countermarches to a position behind its compatriot to adopt close order from locked shields. No disagreement. This, though, is not what Alelian and Asclepiodotus are saying: both state that depth is being doubled by the insertion of one file into the next producing a compaction by rank. If this phalanx is in synaspismos (again, four deep as you claim), there is no physical way that a file of four can insert itself into its right hand compatriot: all are in tight locked shield formation. In such a formation we must assume the four man files loosening by depth to facilitate the file to their left.

What is being described is the doubling of file depth. A doubling resulting in double the number of ranks and thus, as described, a compaction by rank only.

Paralus wrote:

“Xenophon wrote:Nor does one accuse Aelian of anything, but rather the 32 deep 'double open' formation is Paralus' invention.


The straw man returns.”

Is Paralus now claiming that his position is NOT that Polybius is describing Philip’s phalanx opening up still further from 16 to a formation 32 deep which must entail ‘doubling’ the intervals between files to 12 feet – such 32 deep formation nowhere described in our sources - and one which Paralus has invented to allow his interpretation of what Polybius meant by “double their depth and close up toward the right.” ? ( he even used Aelian’s method 29.6 above).

This is really becoming tedious. There is no “invented” formation and nor am I advocating anything other than what I have from the outset. The phalanx doubled its depth. Having done so it compacted to the right as described. Whatever Antiochos envisioned for his phalanx at Magnesia, it can either have closed to the right (as here) or ‘doubled down’ to sixteen. It presented in battle order 32 deep as described.

“Xenophon wrote:No ’32 deep’ file formations are EVER described


I cannot find anyone describing the Macedonian phalanx file as thirty-two deep on this thread. One wonders at the ignorance of Alexander drawing up his phalanx in “files” 120 deep.”

Eh ? You have advocated all along that Philip’s Right wing Phalanx did that very thing – ‘doubled their depth’ from 16 to a file of 32, and there is no room for misunderstanding for you described it in detail !!

And yet, nowhere have I sated that 32 deep was a standard file depth for the Macedonian phalanx which is, I take it, what you are disingenuously implying. You might point out where I have. I have, more than several times, indicated that the standard file was sixteen – from which point all other evolutions take place. Thus, in this instance, Philip doubles his depth.

I’m afraid I was misled by the previous sentence – which refers to Polybius’ criticism of Callisthenes, and in which Polybius gives frontages for a 16 deep formation i.e. a general comment, not specific to Cynoscephalae. Naturally, I took the next sentence also as being a ‘general’ remark, alleging that it was the general 8 deep ‘close order’ that was “unsubstantiated”. Thank you for clarifying that it refers specifically to Agesilaos’ postulation regarding Philp’s manoeuvre..

What a farrago. It seems you have it that I am responsible for your failure of comprehension: "Thank you for clarifying that it refers specifically to Agesilaos’ postulation regarding Philp’s manoeuvre". A reading of the reply without the excising of the first three sentences clearly shows that it is in response to Agesilaos' claim of forming up eight deep; no clarification is necessary. You excised those three sentences and I would wonder why. Beware your accusations of ‘slipperiness’! Further, I do not accept your below rationalisation…

Not misrepresentation at all ! On Mon May 19, Paralus posted the line I quoted about having to disagree, and let readers make their own minds up. This is usually used to indicate a drawing of a line under a debate, and leaving a decision to the audience or readers. Then, just a few days later he carries on debating as if he had never indicated a ‘ceasefire’ !! Hence the amusement.....

My post, quoted by yourself, had nothing whatsoever to do with the interpretation of Polybios’ reporting of two orders and just as little to do with “let readers make their own minds up”. That was included simply to facilitate a personal jibe. Nothing more.

I am, though, somewhat grateful for the half-hearted, partial acknowledgement of your failure to understand my response to Agesilaos.

[Xenophon]

Since Agesilaos has chosen brevity for a description of the rest of the battle, I shall try to keep comments equally brief.
Agesilaos wrote:

“Let us then move on to Flamininus; I think I have addressed most things.
1. He sends out his advance force, to simply reconnoitre, like Philip, he is unaware of the enemy’s position.”

Unaware, other than awareness that Philip was ‘somewhere the other side of the range and headed west for the pass’; and I’d certainly agree this was a reconnaissance force. Flamininus would certainly like to have secured the pass too, to ‘bottle up’ Philip behind Macedonia’s mountainous defences, and prevent him breaking into the Thessalian plain.

“2. The two forces literally bump into each other and the Macedonians, whose purpose was to secure the heights above the pass and were the stronger force drove the Romans back down into the valley.”

As I have remarked before, Philip’s intended purpose of picketing the heights above the pass was to dominate and secure the pass, and to give early warning should the Romans reach it first, not just to secure the heights/ridge per se. It is not clear whether the Macedonians reached their objective before bumping into the Romans. Polybius XVIII.20.9 says the Macedonians had “orders to occupy the summits of the hills” without indicating which hills, but he clarifies the matter in the next paragraph, where the Romans are “proceeding towards the pass over the hills” when the encounter takes place. Both sides were seemingly intending to occupy the heights overlooking the pass, so as to secure the pass.

“3. Flamininus reinforced his force with Aetolian cavalry and more lights and drove the Macedonians back to their starting positions.”

Agreed.The Macedonians initially prevailed, and the Romans sent to Flamininus for help. The re-inforcements turned the tables, and the Macedonians “fled to the summits” and sent for help in turn.

“4. Philip in turn reinforces his men massively and drives the Romans to the foot of the hills. The mist is clearing by now and the retreat of this now quite substantial force begins to unnerve the Romans, which makes Flamininus decide to reinforce his men with 2,000 heavies, probably representing the men he could get out of camp and in order while his force is driven back.”

Not sure where the figure of 2,000 heavies comes from.( Are you assuming one Legion’s worth of Hastat?) Polybius XVIII.22.7 says simply that “Flamininus led out all his forces” and later [23.8] “...the left half of his army (i.e. two Legions) advanced to meet the enemy in imposing style. The advanced force of the Romans thus supported by the infantry of the Legions now turned and fell upon their foes.”
Livy’s account is unsurprisingly very similar. We agree that ( contra Polybius’ implication ) the Romans did not instantaneously deploy, and that while the Left wing was ready, the right having further to go was still deploying behind its elephant screen

“5. It would be about now that Philip’s first troops became apparent on the ridge which encouraged Flamininus to further develop his extra-castramentation, if he allowed Philip to bring his army to the field he might be caught with his men in camp (he had written off moving that day due to the weather).”

See above regarding Flamininus’ decision to deploy – he will have known that Philip’s main force would not be far behind the vanguard. Certainly, he will not have wanted to be ‘bottled up’ in his camp. For his part, Philip also ordered full deployment, probably not knowing exactly how many men were out foraging, and “now that he saw the greater part of his army drawn up outside the entrenchment, advanced with the (Guard)Peltasts and right wing of the phalanx “ with the Left wing following at once.[ Poly XVIII.24.1]

“6. Although the roman reinforcement had resulted in the retreat of the Macedonian force, neither side had been broken and both retired to their developing battle-lines.”

Agreed, as was customary, both sides light troops and cavalry retired through their respective battle lines, as the main battle lines closed.

“7. Flamininus, in my view will have seen a frontage of close order troops uphill and apparently of the same strength of his army and probably twice that of his ordered troops (only the left wing).”

Agreed. Philip deployed on roughly a thousand yard frontage initially, the same length as the Roman army’s frontage. We also agree that the Roman right wing would still have been deploying at this stage

“8. He then observes Philip halve his frontage and decides to attack, realising that he is not out-numbered at all, his right is still forming up, otherwise he would attack along the line and outflank the forces he can see.”

I don’t think this sequence is quite correct. Flamininus launches his attack by the left wing as soon as he sees Philip deployed, whilst ordering his right to continue to deploy behind the screen of stationary elephants. Only then does Philip double his depth and close up to the right in response to Flamininus ' assault up the slope, and by the time this is done, in the nick of time, “the enemy now being close upon them “ he has to charge immediately to stop the Romans gaining the ridge summit. Doubtless he intended to close up anyway, to make room for his left wing, but Philip’s ‘closing up and halving frontage’ is in response to Flamininus’ attack up the slopes – it was Flamininus who seized the initiative and attacked first.

“9. His attack fails and is driven back by Philip, but the forces are clearly not close to rout, had they been the desertion of their general would have tipped the balance.”

Agreed. The fact that the Roman Left wing returns to the attack when they see the phalanx disrupted from the rear also indicates they were still basically in order, albeit forced back down the slopes by Philip’s charge.

“10. Flamininus moves to his now formed right, had he been on the right of his left wing he would be able to see them forming, quite probably he was to the rear of his men, rather than being to the fore a la Alexander.”

Agreed – Roman Generals of this era were professional commanders rather than ‘heroic warriors’ leading from the front. There are numerous examples. It is evident that the Roman right wing was formed up not very long after the left – we should expect this because although it had twice as far as the left to travel before reaching its positions, it likely led the left onto the field. The struggle on the Roman left seems to have been protracted, with the Roman left wing withdrawing gradually, for in the time it took for this to occur, the Roman right had time to finish deploying, immediately attack and push Philip’s left wing, who had not finished deploying, off the ridge line. Philip’s left wing phalanx would have been marching up the reverse slope of ridge likely in colum of ‘syntagmata’ some 16 men wide [ see Aelian 36.2 march in ‘epagoge’], which would have been roughly 1,000 yards long, in open order. At a quick march, the rear would have taken some 10 minutes or so to deploy into line, but was attacked by the elephants before this deployment could be completed. This indicates that all these events took place in a relatively short time.

One can but speculate on whether or not Philip might have won a famous victory had he managed to get out of camp, say, 15 minutes quicker, or had the Romans deployed 15 minutes slower......
Hence a close run thing......
One gets the impression that both commanders were very time conscious. Initially the literal 'fog of war' led to an anxious time for both as neither was aware of exactly what was happening and just who, exactly, their respective forces had bumped into. Once matters started clearing, along with the mist, both commanders appreciated the need for speed in deploying, and neither lost any time, though it must have been a fraught time for both with the potential for chaos caused by the weather conditions.

“11. The romans have formed up more quickly from camp than the Macedonians did from line of march despite the elephants.”

Not sure of what you by “despite the elephants”. The elephants were initially deployed first and provided a screen for the two right wing Legions deploying behind them. The elephants don’t seem to have slowed down or interfered with Roman deployment at all. In fact they were in position, doubtless along with their light infantryr ‘elephant guard’ as a screen ( against potential cavalry attacks) while the Legions deployed into battle formation.

“12. Flamininus leads the right into the attack and the Macedonians of the left deciding that they had no time to form up properly, fled.”

Yes, the elephants, not having to fight against an ordered phalanx performed as advertised for a change, and broke up the Macedonian left wing – still in open order, with the tail still arriving - on their own. [Poly 25.7] The legions followed. Aetolian peltasts, seem to have acted as flank guard to the Legions, and evidently played a prominent part in the pursuit, one of their roles. They may also have acted as ‘elephant guard’.

“13. It is now that the unnamed tribune makes the decisive move (given Polybios’ antipathy to Flamininus, prompted by the latter’s opposition to Scipio Aemilianus, Polybios’ sponsor) perhaps this tribune was in fact Flamininus. A tribune might have authority over six maniples but this chap leads twenty!”

Interesting idea. Polybius was certainly not sympathetic to Flamininus, due to his enmity with Polybius’ friend Philopoemen, and Livy too is hardly sympathetic to him. Plutarch [Flamininus XX] even goes as far as to blame him for instigating the death of Hannibal of his own volition, when the Senate and most Romans regarded him as a harmless old man in exile.

Notwithstanding this source hostility, it would seem odd that Flamininus should be denied his hour of greatest triumph if he did lead the twenty maniples in person. On the other side of the coin, it may be that the Tribune remained anonymous precisely so as not to detract from Flamininus’ “glory” as winner of a famous victory.

Each legion at this time had six Tribunes, who do not seem to have commanded anything, but rather acted as mainly administrative Staff Officers to the Commander. What function they carried out on the battlefield is unknown – perhaps aide-de-camps to the Commander. Since we hear of similar acts of initiative by similar heroic Staff Officers at critical times throughout history, perhaps it is best to accept the story as it is.

Incidently, I think the 20 maniples are most likely to have been the Roman rear line ( the Triarii of the two legions), for it would be much simpler( and quicker) to order a whole line to simply left turn and march along the ridge , then turn left again back into battle line and charge Philip’s rear, than form up mixed maniples from both Triarii and Principes drawn from the Roman left flank.

[Xenophon]

Agesilaos wrote:

“I think that the foragers were mainly from the left because of XVIII 24 i

'Philip at this time, now that he saw the greater part of his army drawn up outside the entrenchment, advanced with the peltasts and the right wing of phalanx, ascending energetically the slope that led to the hills'

If there is anything to infer here it is that the whole of the right wing and the Peltasts were now assembled, and that would be far more likely if they had been in camp, with much of the left wing too, the reason he did not immediately take that part that was present would be the distruption that the abscence of numbers of men would necessarily cause in the deployment and actions of that wing. The Amphipolis Regulations break off just after a section Concerning [Foraging] starts, but it seems only to be a list of punishable offences and rewards for informing, were it fuller we might get a clue as to the sie of unit doing the foraging from the rank of the officers supervising.

However, since it is the left wing that is delayed and the dispersal of men foraging is mentioned as a factor in the delay it does not seem too much of a leap to assume Philip chose his foragers from the weaker part of the phalanx.”

Paralus wrote:

“On the foragers, it makes superficial sense that the 'weaker' left supplied many of these. If this half of the phalanx was made up, in good part, of those past their service time and the sixteen year olds, there will have been enough 'old heads' to guide the young'ns in the duty.”

I rather doubt this, as I have said before. Note it is the “greater part of his army” that is drawn up – implying both wings present, and it would be normal for the Guard Peltasts to lead off, followed by the right wing phalanx, then the left wing. Polybius also says “...had even sent out a fair number of his men from his camp to forage “ [XVIII.22.1] with the clear implication that these came from the whole army. Not even a hint otherwise, that these foragers were from a particular part or section. As I said previously, it was usually camp servants etc who did the actual foraging, guarded by troops detailed for the purpose, but this wasn’t always the case, depending on circumstances. Of course, in addition to ‘official’ foraging parties there were many ‘unofficial’ ones as soldiers took the opportunity to loot – their main form of renumeration.

Also, where do you get the idea that the left wing was ‘delayed’? Polybius says that Nikanor was ordered to follow “at once”, and as the right wing charged down the slopes, some of the left were also descending- to link up - while others had halted on the summit to wait for the rear to come up. They simply hadn’t yet had the chance to form ‘battle line’ and were largely in ‘marching’ or ‘open’ order.[ Pol XVIII.25.5-7] There’s no inference of any ‘delay’ that I can see.

As to Paralus’ post,[Thurs 29 may] I’d agree his first paragraph, but not his second. In regard to foraging, I strongly suspect that Diodorus’ “those soldiers who were in the habit of crossing in scattered groups in search of forage" really is a euphemism for looting – note that these are not ordered to go out, but habitually go of their own accord....... i.e. “unofficial” foragers. This explains Poly XVIII.24.1. It was not until the whole army had assembled outside camp that Philip could see how many men were ‘missing’. He was, I suspect, relieved both that the answer was ‘not too many’ and that the army had assembled rapidly. Thus he lost no time in "energetically ascending".

[Xenophon]

This quote-and-response method has now become tediously long, so I hope that readers won’t object if I cut out many of the quotes ( albeit relatively unsuccessfully!), thus inconveniencing the reader into having to go back to a previous post, in the interests of keeping posts to a reasonable length. Hopefully this won’t result in accusations of ‘excising’ important bits. I’m just trying to shorten posts.

Paralus wrote:

“You have a pronounced propensity for personal attack dressed as humour or ‘wit’. I have slid past nothing. Clearly if the phalanx ‘doubles down’ by either method, the density is doubled and the depth is halved. I have pointed this out more than once on this thread.”

I was merely taking my lead from your own attempted humour – see for example May 15 “But wait, what's that there.... below... I spies me an explanation........ Now, that's one of the better and more extensive glosses of a very clear text I've seen in a while. A gloss of convenience or a gloss of presumption?? More likely the latter.”

Nor were my comments in this instance intended as personal attack, merely a kinder way, via humour, to avoid saying bluntly that you were deliberately avoiding the issues under discussion..... not a personal criticism, rather drawing attention to a debating style of avoiding issues, evasions of the point in question and instead digressing into minor issues and irrelevancies that one can argue with.

“Clearly if the phalanx ‘doubles down’ by either method, the density is doubled and the depth is halved. I have pointed this out more than once on this thread.”

At last ! Having agreed that the basic file was 16 in open order previously, you now (apparently) unequivocally agree that ‘close order’ was half that depth, at 8. ( save for exceptional cases such as Kynoskephalae or Sellasia). Similarly for ‘synaspismos’.

Xenophon wrote:
Paralus wrote:

“Asclep. 10.17:
doubling takes place by depth when we interject between the original ranks others of equal strength, so that a compact order arises only by depth.


Aelian, as he promises, fully explains this:


Ael. 29.9: - should read 29.6 ( Devine translation)
The depth is doubled by inserting the second file into the first, so that the file-leader of the second file will be posted behind the file-leader of the first file, and the second man of the second file will be the fourth man of the first file, and the third man of the second file will be the sixth in the first file, and so also for the next until the whole of the second file is integrated into the first file, and [Laur. folio 155v] likewise the fourth file into the third, and all the even-numbered files into the odd-numbered ones. And this is how doubling by number takes place.


Neither of these is presented as only to return to open order “from close order/pyknosis (or from synaspismos)”. In fact, both passages show that this drill results in taking ‘close order’ only by depth (ὥστε κατὰ βάθος εἶναι πύκνωσιν).”

This is a perfect illustration of what I mean by the need to read the manuals carefully. You seem to be saying that the two passages are parallel and are describing the same thing ( e.g. “In fact, both passages show that this drill results in taking ‘close order’ only by depth”)
In fact this is not quite correct. The first (Asclep) describes ‘closing up’ by ‘interjecting’/parembole the rear half-files, resulting in close order on the same overall frontage, here called ‘doubling by depth’ i.e. doubling the numbers in the ranks by halving the depth of the files. Thus the phalanx 16 deep in open order ends up 8 deep in close order ( similarly if forming synaspismos/locked shields from pyknosis/close order).

The second (Aelian) is describing the exact opposite – opening up the phalanx from pyknosis/close order (usually 8 deep) into ‘normal/open order’ 16 deep, ( or opening up synaspismos) by amalgamating two neighbouring files into one twice the depth as previously. This is doubling by number. Two different forms of ‘doubling’ are being described –‘doubling by depth’ and ‘doubling by number’. The latter is presumably how you get to your 32 deep formation.
The actual equivalent of Asclep X.17 is Aelian 29.1 & 2, not 29.6

Paralus wrote:

Both are clear that there is doubling by ‘length’ or ‘number’ in which case the number of files is increased and the frontage remains the same. Both also agree on doubling by ‘place’ or ‘depth’. In the latter both are clear that compact order is only achieved by rank, not file. Thus the ranks, by virtue of the insertion of file into file (as explained in detail by Aelian) close up as a result of the doubling of ranks.”

I am having trouble understanding what you are trying to say – not for the first time, you fail to make yourself clear, and what you appear to be saying seems to be incorrect. The first sentence is fine, and is consistent with Aelian 29.2. The rest is, I think, mistaken. Doubling of ‘place’ [29.7]results in an opening up into a looser order. ‘Compact order’ is not achieved at all, just the opposite [e.g. Aelian 29.7 – describing how light infantry inserted into the phalanx withdraw to the rear, adding to depth.] Interjection/parembole of rear files describes heavy infantry half-files closing the gaps. Insertion/entaxis describes the filling of the gaps by light troops[31.3]. Doubling of place [29.7] refers to withdrawing the same, producing a looser, not closer, order but adding depth, hence occupying a larger 'place'. Similarly, the insertion of file into file [29.6] results in a file twice as deep ( e.g. 8 to 16), but twice the spacing ( 3 ft to 6 ft), hence loose formation. Insertion of file into file does NOT result in closing up into compact order – again just the opposite, as I pointed out in the post under reply.

“On the notion of restoring from close order, if, as I’ve stated more than once, the phalanx can compact by ‘doubling down’ it can certainly resume open order by the reversal (countermarching) of same.”

Yes, “As you were!” by means of the half-file returning, or in the alternate system of each even man stepping out and forward, the reverse of this.

“Xenophon wrote:Thus, the ‘doubling’ of the file depth ( from 4 to 8, or 8 to 16 ) is the specific purpose of the drill referred to in order to return to the previous more open order. No mention of doing this to create a ‘double open order’ 32 deep with 12 ft/4 yard intervals between files ! The verbal orders also clearly imply this ( e.g. Aelian 42.1.15 " Double depth! " "As you were!")

That this opening out of the phalanx, from synaspismos to close order, can occur via the countermarch of a file to a position behind its compatriot is eminently possible . Ditto for close order to ‘open’ order. Thus, in your view, a four man file countermarches to a position behind its compatriot to adopt close order from locked shields. No disagreement. This, though, is not what Alelian and Asclepiodotus are saying: both state that depth is being doubled by the insertion of one file into the next producing a compaction by rank. If this phalanx is in synaspismos (again, four deep as you claim), there is no physical way that a file of four can insert itself into its right hand compatriot: all are in tight locked shield formation. In such a formation we must assume the four man files loosening by depth to facilitate the file to their left.”

Depth is indeed being doubled, but this is not 'compaction' for it does not produce less space for each soldier. see Aelian [11.3].Aelian [11.4] tells us that ‘synaspismos’ also contracts both by rank and file - so just one cubit side by side and fore and aft. I'd agree they would have to 'open out' by expanding depth first before merging files ( by either method).

“What is being described is the doubling of file depth. A doubling resulting in double the number of ranks and thus, as described, a compaction by rank only.”

Yes, the file is twice as long/deep and the spacing/frontage opens out. There are now twice as many ranks, but each man is now twice the distance as previously from his neighbour -both in rank and file .Where is there compaction ?
I suspect a couple of diagrams would save us much confusion here......

Xenophon wrote:

“Is Paralus now claiming that his position is NOT that Polybius is describing Philip’s phalanx opening up still further from 16 to a formation 32 deep which must entail ‘doubling’ the intervals between files to 12 feet – such 32 deep formation nowhere described in our sources - and one which Paralus has invented to allow his interpretation of what Polybius meant by “double their depth and close up toward the right.” ? ( he even used Aelian’s method 29.6 above).”


Paralus wrote:
“This is really becoming tedious. There is no “invented” formation and nor am I advocating anything other than what I have from the outset. The phalanx doubled its depth. Having done so it compacted to the right as described. Whatever Antiochos envisioned for his phalanx at Magnesia, it can either have closed to the right (as here) or ‘doubled down’ to sixteen. It presented in battle order 32 deep as described.”

Magnesia - another battle where mist played a part - must await another time and thread. Antiochus' phalanx most certainly did NOT, at any time, present in battle order i.e. 'close order/pyknosis 32 deep, and our main source, Livy, does not say they did. Neither does Appian.

Tedious indeed. There are no “32 deep” files in our sources, nor any verbal order written as to how to form one. I assure you it is completely impractical/impossible to perform any sort of drill at 12 ft/4 yard intervals – the formation has already lost its cohesion. To bolster your interpretation you have invented a formation that not only never existed, but is quite impossible practically. You don’t even begin to address the practicalities of how this is supposedly achieved in a formation 1,000 yards long x 32 yards deep. ( clue: it would have to be done syntagma by syntagma for a start – no order could carry through the whole formation.)

What you said at the outset ( May 12) was :
“ Now, I agree with Xenophon in that the phalanx will have deployed "to the shield" in open order and I would claim, given the rushed deployment, in its normal drill. That is, sixteen deep.”

So far so good. Paralus then misinterpreted what I meant, but eventually went on to say [May 13]:

“Two distinct orders [ double the depth and close up to the right]and, beginning in open order sixteen deep, resulting in a close order formation thirty-two deep as each second file turned to spear and stepped into the spaces between the ranks of the adjoining (file leader becomes second ranker, etc). This instantly renders the ranks into close order and the second order, resulting in those files already facing to spear marching to right, results in the files taking close order.”

This was a fundamental error by Paralus, and the beginning of his confusion over ranks and files which continues to the present. ‘Doubling depth’ [29.6] is the insertion of one file into another – two files become one, now with twice as many men ( two files of 8 become one of 16, and the interval between files doubles from, say, 3 ft to 6 ft. It does NOT render the ranks (men side by side originally) into ‘close order’, but just the opposite, the space between men in a given rank becomes looser, and twice what it was. ( but the files are now in ‘close order’ front to back - presumably they then open out the depth from 3 ft to 6 feet to achieve full 'open order'). It is only the closing up of the files by a following right turn, and marching to their right which brings soldiers in the same rank standing side by side back into ‘close order’.

As I have repeatedly said, Paralus’ interpretation would result firstly in the 16 deep files 'doubling depth to 32' (now in close order front to rear), but at double the intervals between files ( half as many files 12 ft apart) still on their 1,000 yard or so frontage; closing up to the right to close order (3 ft)would result in a 250 yard or so frontage, 32 deep, which is what Paralus describes ( frontage maximised to 312 yards).

It appears to me that Paralus is confused on the matter and its terminology.

Paralus wrote:
“Eh ? You have advocated all along that Philip’s Right wing Phalanx did that very thing – ‘doubled their depth’ from 16 to a file of 32, and there is no room for misunderstanding for you described it in detail !!


And yet, nowhere have I sated that 32 deep was a standard file depth for the Macedonian phalanx which is, I take it, what you are disingenuously implying. You might point out where I have. I have, more than several times, indicated that the standard file was sixteen – from which point all other evolutions take place. Thus, in this instance, Philip doubles his depth.”

This is to introduce a red herring with a vengeance! No one suggested that you or anyone else was suggesting that 32 deep was ‘a standard file depth’ – quite the opposite, I was suggesting this formation appears nowhere in our sources and was invented by you, so as to agree with your ( wrong in my view) interpretation of Polybius as meaning two distinct manoeuvres, which produce an impossible situation both on your and Agesilaos’ explanations!
The standard file was indeed 16 in open order, but nowhere in our sources do we hear of it ‘doubling depth’ to 32 in either 'double open' or ‘close order’. You have ascribed a non-existent formation to Philip. As you yourself suggested, under time pressure and the stress of the battlefield, Philip was hardly likely to ‘invent’ a new attack formation ( as you would have him do), and to attack in such a deep formation would have been suicidal for reasons I have expounded at length.

“Xenophon wrote:I’m afraid I was misled by the previous sentence – which refers to Polybius’ criticism of Callisthenes, and in which Polybius gives frontages for a 16 deep formation i.e. a general comment, not specific to Cynoscephalae. Naturally, I took the next sentence also as being a ‘general’ remark, alleging that it was the general 8 deep ‘close order’ that was “unsubstantiated”. Thank you for clarifying that it refers specifically to Agesilaos’ postulation regarding Philp’s manoeuvre..


What a farrago. It seems you have it that I am responsible for your failure of comprehension:”

Or perhaps your failure to make yourself clear ?

“"Thank you for clarifying that it refers specifically to Agesilaos’ postulation regarding Philp’s manoeuvre". A reading of the reply without the excising of the first three sentences clearly shows that it is in response to Agesilaos' claim of forming up eight deep; no clarification is necessary. You excised those three sentences and I would wonder why. Beware your accusations of ‘slipperiness’! Further, I do not accept your below rationalisation…”

I didn’t ‘excise the first three lines at all’, simply quoted what I took to be the relevant part – a reference to the general formation rather than Kynoskephalae specifically. What you wrote was ambiguous.

Xenophon wrote:Not misrepresentation at all ! On Mon May 19, Paralus posted the line I quoted about having to disagree, and let readers make their own minds up. This is usually used to indicate a drawing of a line under a debate, and leaving a decision to the audience or readers. Then, just a few days later he carries on debating as if he had never indicated a ‘ceasefire’ !! Hence the amusement.....


My post, quoted by yourself, had nothing whatsoever to do with the interpretation of Polybios’ reporting of two orders and just as little to do with “let readers make their own minds up”. That was included simply to facilitate a personal jibe. Nothing more.”

I assure you no ‘jibe’ was intended, we have been friends far too long for such pettiness – merely drawing attention to your contradictory behaviour of ‘drawing a line’ ....but immediately continuing to argue, which I ( and I suspect others) found amusing.
Paralus wrote:

I am, though, somewhat grateful for the half-hearted, partial acknowledgement of your failure to understand my response to Agesilaos.”

Your grudging gratitude is duly noted.....

(Sigh!) here is the whole thing:

“I actually got it the first time. I didn't buy it then and my money remains firmly in pocket now. I remain unconvinced that Philip deployed into line eight deep. There is nothing at all in the text that supports such, nothing other than a speculation. You are making a sarsia out of a dory's sauroter! As Spock would intone, it is only logical that Philip's phalanx deployed into line sixteen deep as was the practice. If it shows nothing else, Polybios' splenetic criticism of Kallisthenes demonstrates this. In this formation it occupied over 1,140 metres, err, 1,246 yards. The same as the unsubstantiated eight deep in 'fighting' order. Just how much did it have to cover?!”

Your criticism is hardly fair, given the apparent ambiguity of what you wrote – I explained how I took your meaning. Even if you believe your meaning to be perfectly clear, there is always room for difference between what the writer intends, and what the reader perceives. I took the first three lines as referring to Agesilaos reponse. From “As Spock would intone....”you seemed to me to be talking the general rather than the particular –“as was the [ general] practise etc”. I quoted only what I took to be the general, because to my eyes the specific references to Agesilaos’ post weren’t relevant to the general case, the subject of my reply. To my eyes, the term “unsubstantiated eight deep” was also a general reference rather than referring to Agesilaos’ supposed deployment...... Why am I bothering to explain myself ? This is irrelevant petty argument, and not what we are here for. Let’s get over it, shall we ?

I wish I could reciprocate and be grateful for any ‘acknowledgements’ on your part, but amongst your tens of thousands of words there are none.......due to your inability to be wro....wr... you know !

[Paralus]

Fascinating. I replied to the foraging issue and to Xenophon's last post. The first before heading out to lunch at 14:15 and the latter some little time back. Neither are here. Most intriguing. I'm afraid I've not the interest in recreating both just yet. They were, last time I looked, on page 7!

[Xenophon]

You have my sympathy.....I know only too well the frustration of spending considerable time researching and composing lengthy posts, only to have them 'disappear' due to timing out or fail to post for some other reason. I now (unless it is short like this one) do all my composing in 'word', and then post by 'pasting'. That way, if the post fails to go up due to the vagaries of the 'interweb', your text is intact and you can try to re-post.

[Paralus]

Actually composed them in word and neglected to save as they'd been (apparently) posted. Couldn't even recover either via 'unsaved documents'. Perhaps I've spent time in an alternate universe...

[agesilaos]

Before getting down to demolishing some of the speculation and wishful thinking, I must confess that you are quite rightI have conjured the 2,000 Roman heavies from a waking dream, I must have confused them with the 2,000 light that re-inforced the advanced party earlier,Doh!

I too write everything in word and save it, it does not take up much memory and it means it is accessible when the internet is unavailable, not everything is the product of a single sitting.