Whilst I have tried not to fuel the repetitive word tsunami that has flowed on this thread, even I get to the point where I can no longer bite my tongue ( though I made a conscious attempt to!).....nor do I think we have any 'readers' any longer...Hypaspist seems to have drowned in the tsunami, and I suspect even our long-suffering 'lunch room monitor' has long since ceased to follow this thread....
Paralus wrote Mon may 19:
“The statement has been repeated throughout that the regular close order of the Macedonian phalanx was 8 deep and formed by half file insertion. I disagree and reiterate that the field and its circumstances dictated just how the phalanx condensed. Half file insertion is disingenuously presented as the 'normal' or regular method of making the phalanx more dense. Yet when Aelian introduces "compaction" of the phalanx, his first (and entire) example is by closing to right or left with the resultant diminished frontages involved. He goes on later in his treatise to describe insertion as another method. Similarly he clearly describes doubling depth but this seems simply to be passed over.”
...and...
“Xenophon wrote:Whether you disagree or not is not really relevant ...
Thank you. Nice I'm allowed to.”
You seem to have missed the point, leaving out the all-important part “
...it is what the evidence suggests that counts.”
“No one involved in this debate has questioned that this form of compacting occured 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.
“Then we will simply have to disagree. Readers can make their own minds up.”
So much for this ! Paralus promptly continues his argument regardless ....even when I deliberately don’t respond in an effort to avoid such !!
Agesilaos wrote 19 May:
So there it is Xenophon's Greek is better than mine, and LSJ etc, despite the wishful thinking 'diaplazein to bathos' the very words of the sacred manuals mean ' to double the depth' of the formation in which one is standing and Aelian explains the manner of doing this, it does NOT mean 'move to double a notional standard depth', if your solution is to simply ignore what does not fit a preconception well 'nuff said. Only in future post please do not forget that it is not just Paralus and I who describe two orders and subsequent evolutions, Polybios does too.
I would never claim a knowledge of Greek better than that of Agesilaos – and have acknowledged his expertise here on Pothos a number of times, including this thread!
I don’t dispute the translation, but rather the interpretation put upon it. Suppose for a second that the simple, single, manoeuvre I described took place, the phalanx ‘closed up’ to its right, halving its frontage to 500 yards or so and ending up being ‘double depth’ at 16 deep( which we agree is highly probable). In general terms, how could Polybius express this two moves in one, after the light troops had withdrawn through the open order phalanx and been despatched to the right flank ? He could say that Philip “[i...]ordered the Peltasts and that part of the phalanx he had with him to double their depth and close toward the right” [/i]( as he does). Or he might have expressed the two actions in one as “
... to close up to the right and double their depth”. or similar....
The essence here was speed – the Roman Legionaries were advancing (charging?) up the slope, not far behind the withdrawing lights and can only have been a few hundred yards distant at most – as Polybius says, when Philip's closing was complete, the enemy was “
close upon them.”[XVIII.24.8], and they charged immediately. So quickly did this occur that the light infantry were still in the act of proceeding to the flank behind the now closed up phalanx. At normal marching speed ( around 100 or so paces/ min, a pace being 30 inches aprox ) the “closing up”, as I have proposed would have taken at least 6-8 minutes, allowing time for order transmission from syntagma to syntagma, (some 30-40 of these). If the soldiers moved ‘at the double’ they could shave a minute or two off that. The Romans of course would have covered a similar distance in that time – so were presumably at least 500 yards away at the outset. Two or more separate manoeuvres ( as proposed by you and Paralus) would have taken at least twice as long – and there was simply no time for this, and barely time for the single movement I have proposed, which accords with Polybius’ remarks above.
Paralus then commented ( 20 May )
“At least with that I find myself in complete agreement - particularly the last sentence.”
As the oft-quoted Mandy Rice –Davies put it at the Profumo sex scandal trial:
“
Well ‘e would say that, wooden ‘e ? “
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 ?
Nor does one accuse Aelian of anything, but rather the 32 deep 'double open' formation is Paralus' invention. Agesilaos seems happy enough that was only momentary/temporary, but as he pointed out, large numbers don't deploy instantaneously. Assuming that this unrealistic formation was known and pratised ( which so far as we know, it wasn't), the order would have to have been given on the right, then passed down the 1,000 yards or so line of 30-40 syntagma, and then presumably carried out syntagma by syntagma, with the first on the right having to wait for the last on the left to comply, all of which would have taken time. Only when the files were standing 32 deep, each some 12 feet apart could the closing up then begin - taking the 6-8 minutes as before.....
As Paralus agrees, the basis of manouevre was the 16 deep file ( there was no such thing as a file 32 deep ; technically what we have is two 16 deep files one behind the other when we do hear of such - Issus, Sellasia and Magnesia, or two 'merged' half-files when moving back into normal order of each file 16 deep as per the manuals), and there were only 3 formations – normal order 16 deep, pyknosis/close order 8 deep, and locked shields/synaspismos at 4 deep. [Aelian V.11-14; Arrian Tactica 11-19; Asclep Tactica III.5-9] usually achieved by ‘doubling’ a.k.a ‘halving depth’ [Aelian 29; Arrian 25; Asclep X.19-20]
No ’32 deep’ file formations are EVER described, and I’ll return to this later for how on occasion such a formation came about, from one phalanx formation 16 deep being placed behind another.....
On May 19, Paralus wrote:
“Agesilaos is free to task me on the notion of the Roman left and Philip's deployment should he feel unsatisfied with my reply.
This method of doubling is related inthe above post. I will not rewrite it. One wonders why it is included....”
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. Your hypothesis simply does not hold up, for it has fatal flaws as I have explained previously, and there is the further issue of ‘timings’ raised above......
See above for the answer to your ‘wondering’ (again ?)...
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.”
Xenophon wrote: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]:
“From this we can easily conceive what is the nature and force of a charge by the phalanx when it is 16 deep”.
Notice that he does NOT say “16 deep in close order”. That is simply an (incorrect) assumption. He knew and would expect his readers to know that generally a phalanx 16 deep would move into ‘close order/pyknosis’ by halving their depth ( to 8 ) before engaging.
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.”
In fact, pyknosis/close order 8 deep is fully substantiated by the 3 surviving versions of the manual. [e.g. Aelian 11.0; Arrian 11-12; Asclep IV.2-3 ], just as I said in your quote of me.
“Xenophon wrote:You are distorting what Aelian says, and also not comparing the other versions".
I can add distortion to my list of crimes it appears. I have to say I don't understand: just what have I "distorted"?? “
A number of things, for example you quote Aelian’s ‘doubling’ drill movement [29] without referring to the fact that its purpose was to get from close order/pyknosis ( or synaspismos) back to normal order, [ e.g. Arrian 25; Asclep X.19-20],and take this section out of context as support for your invention of a ’32 deep’ formation with files 12 feet apart ( which never existed).
..and...
“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.”
I thought this to be a jest.....but no! It is all too literally true. I have posted over 15,000 words in this thread, and both Agesilaos and Paralus have been far more prolific !! That’s of the order of 60,000 words – book length ! ....and on and on we go! Once again you two prolific posters have run on ahead.....I just ( sadly) can’t keep up.
“Philip "ordered the peltasts and heavy armed to double their depth and close up to the right". Two actions were required and two, as above, performed. If they began in open order the phalanx can only have finished 32 deep.”
...and....
Paralus wrote Sat May 24 :
“On the frontage issue, it comes down to what Philip actually did. His right wing deployed into line and, as I've said, that would be standard sixteen deep in open order (as opposed to your eight deep in such with which I disagree). 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. Philip knew what he faced down the slope and he thought this formation suited to the task.”
Repetition doesn’t make it so..... and you still haven’t explained how this could have worked, or answered the question of how this non-viable formation ( on a frontage of 250-312 yards max) could have pushed back the Roman left wing, which would have had a frontage of at least 500 yards and perhaps as much as 800 yards....perhaps you’d like the Legions to have lined up one behind the other? LOL !! As Agesilaos says, Cynoscephalae is not Thermopylae.....
Since Paralus , by repetition without explanation is "unpersuaded" by arguments of unrealistic formations and physical impossibility, I shall ( futilely, I know
) try to move the immovable object of his unshakable belief, by trying a different approach.
Here's why no sane commander ever intentionally deployed his men 32 deep, in order to fight:
1. A 32 deep formation has only the first 5 ranks participating, so that 27 ranks - over 80% of the formation - are just useless spectators who can have no effect on the outcome ! ( having a depth of 16 would be bad enough, with 11 ranks - some two thirds - not participating.)
2. As we have seen, such a narrow column is highly vulnerable to flank attacks.
Let us consider the three occasions ( so far as I recall) when there is a reference to "32 deep" formations. The first is Alexander at Issus, as related by Callisthenes via Polybius. His phalanx begins some 32 deep, as it debouches through a narrow pass. Since the phalanx was always divided into two wings ( lit: keras = horns), the easiest explanation is that due to topography - the narrow pass - we have the left wing of the phalanx marching behind the right. As soon as the plain broadens out, the left wing deploys beside the right, and we have the normal phalanx line formed 16 deep. Finally, on getting close to the enemy, the phalanx closes up into 'pyknosis' and fights 8 deep.....all very normal.[Polyb XII.19.6-9]
Next is Sellasia. On the left wing, Antigous has to march his phalanx up a ridge to a peak, and forms his phalanx of 16 deep files into two parts, one behind the other, for a total of 32 deep. The fight takes place across the ridge on this narrow frontage, and the Makedones are pushed back by the Spartans, 16 deep. ( incidently demonstrating the falseness of the belief that the deeper formation would always outshove the shallower one - beyond a certain point, depth is useless.)
To force the issue, Antigonus marched the rear phalanx into the forward one so as to form 'synaspismos' 16 deep, and with twice as many men in the front line finally prevails against the Spartan phalanx. [Polyb II.69 et seq including the infamous meaning of 'epallelos' that Paralus fears more 'trench warfare' over - as do I !!]
Once again, no 'fighting formation' 32 deep.
Finally, we have Magnesia. Livy and Appian ( and possibly Polybius too) don't seem to understand what Antiochus was doing, when he drew his phalanx blocks up one behind the other, so as to be 32 deep overall. He certainly didn't intend to fight thus.
His line was punctuated by armoured elephants, with their light infantry escorts. The phalanx was divided into some 10 'blocks', each on a frontage of 100 yards in open order, with one 'block' of 16 deep sarissaphoroi behind front block, rather like the 'prior' and 'posterior' centuries of the Roman maniple, with gaps between of 100 yards containing a pair of elephants plus their light infantry guard. As Antiochus ( and his advisor Hannibal, who doesn't seem to have been present at the battle ) well knew, elephants could be a two-edged sword, as likely to trample their own side as the enemy if forced back. Therefore these 'elephant lanes' were left ( c.f. Scipio at Zama a few years before) If the elephants succeeded in disrupting the Roman infantry, all well and good, the rear phalanx would fill the 100 yard gap, forming the usual solid 16 deep line, which could then close up to 8 deep in 'pyknosis' to attack the disrupted Romans. Equally, if things went awry, the elephants could withdraw down the lanes, and once again the phalanx could form line, and then 'pyknosis', without being disrupted by their own elephants.
In the event, before the plan could be executed, the Seleucid light infantry panicked [ see Livy XXXVII.42.4; Appian X. 35] fell back through the phalanx, which was in 'open' order and disrupted it. Despite this, the phalanx managed to deploy in a hollow square around the elephants and lights ( in close order) and started to withdraw in an orderly manner. A constant missile barrage eventually panicked the elephants, who created mayhem, and the phalanx dissolved.....
Once again, no intention of going into action 32 deep.....
What possible reason could Philip have had for doing such a thing, which no other commander ever did, especially when there are far more likely explanations for Philip's manouevre on Cynoscephalae ridge ?
( Rhetorical question; no need to come back and tell us your monolithic belief wall remains 'unpersuaded'.
)