pothos.org

Since, we are proposing a novel translation it would be as well to look at how Xenophon expresses the depth of formations in his historical works. I count twelve notices, ten in the ‘Hellenika’ and two in ‘Anabasis’.

Xen Hell 2 4 xi καὶ ἐγένοντο βάθος οὐκ ἔλαττον ἢ ἐπὶ πεντήκοντα ἀσπίδων.
2 4 xii , βάθος δὲ οὐ πλέον ἢ εἰς δέκα ὁπλίτας ἐγένοντο.
2 4 xxxiv ὁρῶν δὲ ταῦτα ὁ Θρασύβουλος καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι ὁπλῖται, ἐβοήθουν, καὶ ταχὺ παρετάξαντο πρὸ τῶν ἄλλων ἐπ᾽ ὀκτώ…ἐκεῖ δὲ συνταξάμενος παντελῶς βαθεῖαν τὴν φάλαγγα ἦγεν
3 2 xvi παρατάττεσθαι τὴν ταχίστην εἰς ὀκτώ,
4 2 xviii καὶ πρῶτον μὲν ἀμελήσαντες τοῦ εἰς ἑκκαίδεκα βαθεῖαν παντελῶς ἐποιήσαντο τὴν φάλαγγα, ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἦγον ἐπὶ τὰ δεξιά, ὅπως ὑπερέχοιεν τῷ κέρατι τῶν πολεμίων
6 2 xxi [21] οἱ δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ὀκτὼ τεταγμένοι, ἀσθενὲς νομίσαντες τὸ ἄκρον τῆς φάλαγγος ἔχειν, ἀναστρέφειν ἐπειρῶντο. ὡς δ᾽ ἤρξαντο ἐπαναχωρεῖν, οἱ μὲν πολέμιοι ὡς φεύγουσιν ἐπέθεντο, οἱ δ᾽ οὐκέτι ἐπανέστρεψαν: καὶ οἱ ἐχόμενοι δ᾽ αὐτῶν εἰς φυγὴν ὥρμων.
6 4 xii [12] τοιοῦτον μὲν οὖν τὸ ἱππικὸν ἑκατέρων ἦν. τῆς δὲ φάλαγγος τοὺς μὲν Λακεδαιμονίους ἔφασαν εἰς τρεῖς τὴν ἐνωμοτίαν ἄγειν: τοῦτο δὲ συμβαίνειν αὐτοῖς οὐ πλέον ἢ εἰς δώδεκα τὸ βάθος. οἱ δὲ Θηβαῖοι οὐκ ἔλαττον ἢ ἐπὶ πεντήκοντα ἀσπίδων συνεστραμμένοι ἦσαν, λογιζόμενοι ὡς εἰ νικήσειαν τὸ περὶ τὸν βασιλέα, τὸ ἄλλο πᾶν εὐχείρωτον ἔσοιτο.
6 5 xix [19] ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἐδεδίπλωτο ἡ φάλαγξ, οὕτως ἔχοντι τῷ ὁπλιτικῷ προελθὼν εἰς τὸ πεδίον ἐξέτεινε πάλιν ἐπ᾽ ἐννέα ἢ δέκα τὸ στράτευμα ἀσπίδων.

Anab I 2 xv [15] ἐκέλευσε δὲ τοὺς Ἕλληνας ὡς νόμος αὐτοῖς εἰς μάχην οὕτω ταχθῆναι καὶ στῆναι, συντάξαι δ᾽ ἕκαστον τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ. ἐτάχθησαν οὖν ἐπὶ τεττάρων:
7 1 xxiii [23] οἱ δὲ αὐτοὶ ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν ταττόμενοι οἵ τε ὁπλῖται ἐν ὀλίγῳ χρόνῳ εἰς ὀκτὼ ἐγένοντο καὶ οἱ πελτασταὶ ἐπὶ τὸ κέρας ἑκάτερον παρεδεδραμήκεσαν

Of these, four include a word for depth βάθος or βαθεῖαν (II 4 xi[Athenians attacking Peireios], xii[Athenian rebels defending Peireios], xxxiv [Spartans attacking Peireios], IV 2 xviii [agreed depth at the Nemea), three refer to the number of shields (II 4 xi again [Athenians attacking Peireios], VI 4 xii [Thebans at Leuktra] and VI 5 xix [Agesilaos near Mantieia]), a further reference is to the frontage of Spartan enomotiai at Leuktra, [Athenians attacking Peireios], VI 4 xii.

Five remain where only a preposition and number is used, II 4 xxxiv, Athenian rebels ‘ep’okto’; III 2 xvi Derkylidas’ troops ‘eis okto’; VI 2 xxi Mnasippos’ men ‘ep’okto’; and two from the Anabasis, ‘epi tettaron’ I 2 xv and ‘eis okto’ VII 1 xxiii.

‘ep’okto’ at II 4 xxxiv almost certainly refers to the depth of the rebel line as Xenophon mentions the ‘extreme depth’ of the Spartan force hard on its heels, nor is it likely that the hotch-potch rebel force would have the internal organisation to ‘form eights’, assuming that Xenophon is not using a shorthand of his own for being four deep and grafting a Spartan style onto an Athenian force. Unfortunately we are not told much about the numbers involved (two Spartan morai plus allies and mercenaries and simply ‘many’ rebels), nor does the topography help all we are told is that the rebels were pushed into the mire of Halai, which suggests a battle on open ground, cities tending not to have marshes within their walls. So it could mean either if the rebels were trying to hold a long front, but I would say that the balance of probability is that it means ‘eight deep’.

As has been demonstrated Mnasippos’ men cannot have been eight deep, so there the ‘ep’okto’ must mean each unit ‘eight abreast’. The case of Derkyllidas could also go either way, he is marching unaware of the proximity of his enemy and orders his men to form ‘eis okto’ when they appear in numbers. There is nothing to compel an interpretation of ‘eight abreast’ here but it could be that he wanted his army to appear larger than it was, there were tall standing crops to obscure his true depth. And the Persians were cowed into a truce.

In the ‘Anabasis’ ‘eis tettaron’ can be taken either way, though the conclusions one can draw from the Mnasippos narrative would favour an interpretation of ‘four abreast’ as the formation is meant to be a battle one. The final reference to ‘eis okto’ should be interpreted as ‘eight deep’, since Xenophon characterises it as ‘the proper order’ unless he means ‘the proper order for parade’ but the forming of the peltasts and cavalry in their battle line positions on the wings might militate against this.

Great!....I spend a week desperately trying to catch up and respond to the dozen posts I was behind, finally achieving it on Thursday, and in just two days I am another 10 posts behind, most of them lengthy !!!

I cannot possibly keep up such a Herculean task, and I don't know how you two find the time.

I have already explained why I could not post those matters relevant to Leuktra to that new thread - when Agesilaos put up that thread, I had already composed responses by reference to the dated posts in this thread ( the excerpts Agesilaos posted on his new thread are undated ). In addition some further formatting and editing is required for those posts on the Leuktra thread to make complete sense - in particular, nested quotes are undifferentiated, so that at present it looks as if a poster has contradicted himself. Only Agesilaos can edit his own posts. It is impractical for either Paralus or myself to do so, because in essence it would mean duplicating the whole thing........

Don't worry seven of them are just my clarifying what I am saying about Mnasippos to Paralus and supplying a bit more analysis; I have checked the Leuktra thread and found two quotes I had missed, if it is still inadequate then continue posting here just don't whine about digressions; I appreciate the point about the dates but since you always use the quote facility I don't think anyone would impugne your honesty in so doing,

I think I have found the source of your inflated, in my opinion, numbers for the Spartans, Lazenby's 'The Spartan Army'; I agree this is not the place for that so, I have not access to his argumentation so perhaps you would start a thread on the off-topic forum, when you have a moment.

Interested in your thoughts on the Mnasippos scenario

Agesilaos wrote Thur 31 July:

agesilaos wrote:LOL! So now you have Xenophon’s horsemen performing ‘parembole’ and him calling it ‘paragoge’ despite the fact that Polybios is clear the two are not the same.

I confess I am at a loss as to why you keep repeating this thoroughly incorrect statement, when you are well aware that the word 'parembole' did not exist in Xenophon's day to describe a military evolution. The word is an anachronism in a military context for Xenophon's time. Polybius hundreds of years later is irrelevant.

Continued repetition of what you know to be incorrect does not do your credibility any good whatever.

A main problem here is that you insist hoplites could only move in ‘the order that has no specific name’, on a six foot frontage and would then have to close to 3ft to fight. I say they can move on the battlefield just as well on a three foot frontage; even in your model they move at this density for the final stade/200 yards.

That is not what the evidence of both Xenophon and the later Hellenistic manuals suggest, which is that movement was generally ( I have never said only) carried out in files in open order ( 6 ft frontage), closing up as late as possible into close order ( 3 ft frontage) for combat. Your assertion that they can move just as well across country in close order as open simply demonstrates that you have not tried to move men in a long linear formation cross-country. For a long line of hoplites to maintain formation in close order over 1-200 yards was difficult enough, let alone any great distance. It might work on a parade ground, or in a meadow, but those were in short supply in ancient Greece.

But let’s shelve the re-hashing and look at something new to whit, Hellenika VI 2 xxi,

καθ᾽ ἑτέρας πύλας ἐπιτίθενται ἁθρόοι τοῖς ἐσχάτοις: 21] οἱ δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ὀκτὼ τεταγμένοι, ἀσθενὲς νομίσαντες τὸ ἄκρον τῆς φάλαγγος ἔχειν, ἀναστρέφειν ἐπειρῶντο.
meanwhile others sallied out by the other gates and in mass formation attacked those who were at the extreme end of the line. [21] These latter, who were drawn up only eight deep, thinking that the outer end of the phalanx was too weak, undertook to swing it around upon itself.

There are several issues here with the translation, ἁθρόοι, does not mean ‘a mass formation’ but just ‘a mass’ the Corcyrans sallied as a crowd not in an Epidamondian ‘embolon’. I am grateful to Christopher Matthews for the next point, in discussing Xenophon’s alleged four deep formation at the Cilician parade, he notes that there is no indication that depth is actually meant and that the Greek couls equally means ‘they drew up by fours’ ie each enomotia in four files, this would be eight deep were the enomotiai 32 strong.

I'm afraid you are direly in need of help if you are persuaded by anything Christopher Matthew has to say. His ideas on hoplite warfare are bizarre! He believes hoplites fought with couched spears, knight fashion, and that all depictions (the vast majority) showing men with spears overhead are in the act of throwing!. This man cannot even tell a long thrusting spear from a throwing weapon!! There are no bounds to his ignorance. Paralus attended a conference in Sydney where this fellow made various silly assertions.To borrow your colourful 'bon mot', the only place for his book is hanging sideways on a dunny wall. The expression "in fours"/epi tettaron in the Anabasis [I.2.15] is exactly the same as "in fours"/eis tettaras in the 'dinner drill'. The final evolution has the 'pempadarchs/half-file leaders bringing the rear half-files up "in fours", so that the formation is in close order of half-files four deep.That somehow "in fours" means 8 deep in close order of files as per Christopher Matthew is frankly garbage, and I am amazed that you should clutch at such straws. In the case of Mnasippus, it is the whole phalanx/battle array that is in eights, not individual enomotia.

Here, we are similarly dealing with mercenaries, Mnasippos had no Spartan troops, so we can shelve Xenophon’s suggestion that the ‘only eight ‘contrasts with the norm of twelve, which the Spartans alone seem to have adopted. It also hardly makes sense to say that hoplites deployed eight deep were in a weak formation, this is the normal depth in my world and twice that in yours and your cohorts. Were they eight deep in open order, as you wish then they ought to insert their half-files and assume fighting depth and density according to your theory.

Why should the fact that these are Spartan mercenaries rather than Lakedaemonians preclude them from forming 12 deep, if the occasion demanded, especially as this seems to be the Spartan norm at this time ? For whatever reason, they decided that 8 deep ( in open formation most likely) was "weak" against a "mass" – presumably deep like a Theban one, even if not actual column/embolon formation, and chose to double their depth by means of an 'anastrophe'/folding back.

They instead perform an anastrophe. Were this a simple (?) counter-march it is hard to see the purpose, it is more likely that alternate files counter-march to the rear of those halting to deepen the line and make it stronger, the files would presumably close-up after doubling their depth, just like the Macedonian phalanx at Kynoskephalai.

You evidently seem to mis- understand the meaning of 'anastrophe', for it was not Aelian's 'compacting' sideways which was never, as far as we know, ever done by classical hoplites. Instead, doubling of depth was achieved by the ‘anastrophe’/folding back manoeuvre in Xenophon's time. Aelian's manouevre would be anachronistic for Xenophon's time.
Some commentators describe this as ‘wheeling’ but this is not the meaning of the Greek – and Agesilaos certainly didn’t have room to wheel half his army in a narrow valley [XH VI.2.21]. Most commentators agree the ἀναστροφή involved two movements, (1) an about turn, followed by a march to the rear, and (2) a turning of the line and marching along the line of troops in front until it stood behind these adjacent troops, thus doubling the depth of the phalanx. ( which could then close up to 8 deep in close order, with all the officers in the front line)

The initial formation must actually be formed ‘by eights’ rather than ‘eight deep’; this would lead to a four deep line which was considered too weak to face the sallying mass, which scuppers lines normally fighting four deep, but then we never hear of that only Xenophon’s parade ‘depth’ Matthews interpretation of which is supported by this passage.

I don’t think this can be correct - they were not trying to end up with a phalanx 4 deep, as from files 8 deep, but instead trying to increase depth. The anastrophe would have left them 16 deep ( in open order - all manouevres such as counter-marches etc being carried out in open order before the final 'closing up'.)
C.Matthew's “by eights”, i.e. 8 front x 4 deep cannot be the case, because there is no reference to enomotia – it is the whole ‘battle array’/tetagmenoi that is formed ‘in eights’ [᾽ ἐπ᾽ ὀκτὼ τεταγμένοι,], which can only therefore refer to the depth of the whole battle array as 8, just as 'epi tetaron' and 'eis tettareis' must refer to a depth of four.( Unless you wish to postulate the whole battle array stood on a frontage of 8? ) More on this when I get to your post of Sat 2 Aug.

Mnasippos, had ranged his men four deep to cover the gates (we are told earlier that he thought the city as good as taken and was playing silly buggers with his mercenaries VI 2 xvi ff), one might recall the Diodoros passage too.

This cannot be so – see above.

This is a clincher (note the triumphalism, like my favourite emperor I love a Triumph!). This is an actual battle, not a parade, or a fictional dinner drill and any interpretation disproves the theory you have espoused. And England have, despite their captain’s best efforts finally won a Test!!!

Sadly, your 4 deep cannot be so, but even if things were as you and C.Matthew would have them, it would not disprove anything, being but an exception that ‘proves[tests]’ the general rule. To dismiss Xen An. I.2.16 as a ‘parade’ amounts to wilful blindness for you know perfectly well that they were drawn up “in their customary battle formation”. ( Also, I am not aware of hoplites being referred to as having a specific 'parade' formation in any of our sources)

Similarly, to call the dinner drill ‘fictional’ overlooks the fact that half-file leaders are referred to several times elsewhere, and that in Xen. Constit’n Lak. XI.5 we hear of enomotia formed 3 frontage x 12 deep ( obviously in open order), or 6x6 ( obviously close order with the rear half-files brought up between the front half-files – entirely consistent with the dinner drill, which is not therefore ‘fictional’.

Any hypothesis which leaves out significant parts of the evidence, as Agesilaos does here, is generally incorrect.

edited to correct typo
edited change of phraseology to clarify

Well, your saying my interpretation is wrong does not make it so either, but let’s have a little test of ‘military naivete’; you assert that ‘paragoge’ can be used to describe what was later described as ‘parembole’ but also, when units are involved the movement I have illustrated when deploying (and this is how armies have deployed [moved from column to line] since well before Alte-Fritz improved the speed by deploying on the centre rather than to a flank, sorry, side). One command meaning two different things? Naïve, not naïve?

As far as I am aware Xenophon never mentions intervals at all, you may impute an interval when he talks of depth, but that is hardly the same thing. The Hellenistic manuals do give an interval for marching but linking it to largly untrained, undrilled milita rather than the well-drilled troops of the Hellenistic Kingdoms is just the leap that Matthews makes. Presumably you find yourself in agreement with him here, shame you felt the need to vilify him.

Hoplite battles were fought on largely flat plains or meadows for precisely this reason but the same would be true of most battles full-stop, it is easier for most armies to fight on the flat. They were certainly in short supply in Greece which is why we find several battles occurring at the same place.

Now to Cristopher Matthew; you may find it a bizarre theory but it is one that has been tested by reconstructive archaeology and, whilst I have a number of reservations I am quite persuaded by the couched dory method (not so much as to melt down my hoplite armies though!), if you have read what he actually wrote you might be less dismissive. But the point he helped me on did not concern his theory of hoplite fighting but linguistics. Now you have, formerly granted my command of Greek to be better than your own, and similarly , though with even greater disparity, is mine less than his. Nor is it polite to emit a diatribe against someone who cannot reply, though I can see it provides a distraction from the linguistic point; I do not, for instance belittle your oft repeated prop of Connelly by pointing out that he always draws pike phalaxes attacking sixteen deep, arms Liby-Phoenician foot with sarissai and gives Seleukid horse armour to Karthaginian cavalry; it is irrelevant as I have already said a name is just that. As to your suggestion of where to hang it, I got the kindle version making that rather impractical (£5 was about all what I was prepared to spend.)

And now the part that would have had me splurting my tea if I ever drank the vile brew

The expression "in fours"/epi tettaron in the Anabasis [I.2.15] is exactly the same as "in fours"/eis tettaras in the 'dinner drill'. The final evolution has the 'pempadarchs/half-file leaders bringing the rear half-files up "in fours", so that the formation is in close order of half-files four deep.That somehow this means 8 deep in close order of files as per Christopher Matthew is frankly garbage, and I am amazed that you should clutch at such straws

The first sentence is absolutely right but the rest is woefully wrong; let me walk you through the maths; Xenophon’s fantasy ‘lochos’ consists of 25 men, the lochagos, who stands outside the ranks as we are explicitly told at III 3 xi, this leaves 24 men in two files led by dekadarchs at II 3 xxi but dodekadarchs at III 3 xi (maybe there was an army reform between books more likely the elderly Athenian has forgotten how he officered his ‘lochos’) in any case these twelve men also contain another officer the pempadarch or hexarch, depending which passage one reads. There are no other officers so in the ‘final evolution’ one actually has the four officers four abreast ‘εἰς τέτταρας’ the files are therefore SIX deep so that when the 32 strong enomotiai of the 10,000 stand on a frontage of four ‘ἐπὶ τεττάρων’ they are eight deep. I am sure that Mr Matthew would be as surprised as I am that you cannot count, the lack of Greek we would both excuse I am sure.

Why should the fact that these are Spartan mercenaries rather than Lakedaemonians preclude them from forming 12 deep, if the occasion demanded, especially as this seems to be the Spartan norm at this time ? For whatever reason, they decided that 8 deep ( in open formation most likely) was "weak" against a "mass" – presumably deep like a Theban one, even if not actual column/embolon formation, and chose to double their depth by means of an 'anastrophe'/folding back.

How units form is dependent upon there structure, forming eight deep would allow sixteen or even four maybe, but twelve would be a bastard number of a file and a half, since we only hear of mercenaries eight deep and any unit twelve deep only once, the Spartans at Leuktra, in action and only in the Lak Pol in theory, before the theorists lists, it is reasonable to assume that troops arrayed eight deep, according to you or four deep according to me lacked the capacity to form twelve deep. Simples!

Have you become a convert to the theory of depth?? According to you the Spartans at Leuktra fought a 25 deep formation of hoplites only six deep with no problem despite having been disrupted by their own cavalry; the Athenians faced the similarly deep Thebans four deep at Delion with no problem until the Theban cavalry appeared to their rear, in fact most battles were fought four deep; yet these mercenaries, no strangers to hoplite warfare, are frightened into a sixteen deep open order formation by a crowd exiting a gate rather than inserting their ‘rear half files’ to form the standard fighting depth and density of hoplite warfare, is that a straw I see before thee..?

I know what ‘anastrophe is and posted Brownson’s definition myself; no one has mentioned the doubling method so seems that straw is a strawman.

ἄλλοι δ᾽ ἐκδραμόντες καθ᾽ ἑτέρας πύλας ἐπιτίθενται ἁθρόοι τοῖς ἐσχάτοις: [21] οἱ δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ὀκτὼ τεταγμένοι, ἀσθενὲς νομίσαντες τὸ ἄκρον τῆς φάλαγγος ἔχειν, ἀναστρέφειν ἐπειρῶντο.

The Greek is actually quite clear the ‘hoi’ who are described as ep okto are the same as ‘tois eschatois’ the extreme of the line which thought themselves weak. Since it is not the whole army that is referred to your point falls at the first hurdle, writhes and is put out of its misery!

Any hypothesis which leaves out significant parts of the evidence, as Agesilaos does here, is generally incorrect.

And those that rely on bad translation, faulty maths and bluster?

Paralus wrote Fri Aug 1 :

Paralus wrote:A torrent of missives which I've not the time to address over a roast pork roll at the desk outside of a quick coupe of points.

The ‘torrent of missives’ is only necessitated by the sea of words generated by Agesilaos and yourself - much of which is unnecessary repetition, or digressions nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread !!
“Quick couple of points”? Hardly. Another lengthy missive – one can only admire the speed of your typing- evidently much faster than mine – if you can produce same in a lunch break.............or perhaps you have the luxury of very long lunch breaks ?

Xenophon wrote:After Leuktra, the Thebans had agreed a truce for burial of the dead, but on Jason’s arrival, wanted to attack, presumably in breach of it, and Jason had to negotiate a second truce.

It actually states 'taking up' (collecting / recovery) of the dead from the actual field. ...............................The Spartans, defeated, asked the victor – in possession of the field and, so, the dead – for the 'regulation' courtesy of a truce to take up their dead and were granted same. They were not granted a truce of some indefinite length for anything other than that.

Yes, I agree all that, but as you yourself pointed out, a short truce could end up as a ‘de facto’ one for a much longer period, and that is what appears to have occurred here. Neither side appears to have taken any military steps against the other.

Xenophon wrote:No, it is Paralus who needs to read Xenophon a little closer.This allegation which Xenophon puts into the mouth of Jason has already been dealt with ( see my previous post). Xenophon does NOT say it actually occurred, it is merely something which Jason might be expected to say, and the Spartans evidently did not give it credence – we hear of no steps taken by them, for example, in any source.

What is not written by Xenophon is "this is what Jason might be expected to say". He reports this as the counsel offered to the Spartans after he'd refused assistance to the Thebans. Noteworthy is the fact that this refusal, reported in exactly the same manner as the counsel to the Spartans, is accepted by you without caveat: "they wished to fight a decisive battle but Jason talked them out of it;" (same post; cf post 31/7 where the part regarding Spartan allies is dismissed as 'untrue' "Again, if it were true..."). 'Sauce for the goose...' Perhaps we should lay aside the entirety of the words attributed to Jason by Xenophon; that "which Jason might be expected to say"?

A typical Paralus ‘red herring’, and yet another false attempt to discredit what I say. I did not say Xenophon wrote “this is what Jason ...etc”. Those were my comments by way of explanation. Nor do I ‘reject’ what Xenophon reports Jason as saying. I simply pointed out the unlikelihood of his words being true, as proven by the Spartan lack of reaction ( despite their notorious suspiciousness ), and the fact that if it were true, Jason would hardly betray the fact to the Spartans etc. Unlike others, I shall not repeat myself, but simply refer readers to my post of 23 July, page 7 for fuller details.

Xenophon wrote:I would suggest Xenophon’s account of Leuktra was written not long after the battle. Only later did Epaminondas and Pelopidas become prominent and reknowned and mythologised for their parts. Certainly, when some 9 years later, Epaminondas fights second Mantinea (362 BC), Xenophon gives due prominence and fulsome praise to him. If he supposedly ‘hated’ Thebans and (allegedly)deliberately ignored the leaders at Leuktra ( where Epaminondas was NOT commander-in-chief, nor even ‘primus inter pares’), why does he do the opposite when describing Mantinea ? (see below) [...] It has already been pointed out that Xenophon’s account of Leuctra was clearly almost contemporary with the event; there were no biographer’s accounts extant at that time.

Excuse the long and co-joined quote: I certainly would not like to appear as taking anything "out of context". Two things here. Firstly what is a suggestion (that Xenophon's account of the battle was written "not long after the battle") has become, within paragraphs, a pointed out fact. Secondly, there is absolutely no argument presented for this, simply a suggestion which has become 'clear'. Suggestions are fine though an argument backing the suggestion might be good. Such would be more incumbent upon that which is now 'clear' and "pointed out".

The sarcasm is really unnecessary, and I could be just as sarcastic if I chose.Do you really want to go down a road that can only lead to acrimony ? Could you please make a conscious effort to avoid sarcasm.

Not a “pointed out fact”. The ‘clear’ and ‘pointed out’ are simply later references to the former part, which you have co-joined.
‘Lack of argument’ is a bit rich coming from someone who rarely posts references, and who can post such things as calling Xenophon an ‘arch laconophile’ and ‘Theban hater’ without a trace of argument or evidence !
In this instance, I thought you would be familiar with this suggestion, which is not mine originally. Xenophon’s ‘Hellenica’, whilst parts of it are written as late as 358 BC and later, is manifestly made up of notes and parts first written over a lengthy period of time perhaps as early as the 370’s, as has been shown by analysis of linguistic useages. For example it incorporates paragraphs, hardly modified, from Xenophon’s earlier ‘Agesilaos’. In addition, Xenophon’s sources of information at Scyllus were limited. This explains why some of his accounts are very detailed, whilst others are brief, for to his credit and unlike other sources, Xenophon did not ‘make up’ details to fill out a battle account. Also much of the work is from a personal point of view, rather than being the product of enquiry and research – so much so that the work is more memoir than history.
Even if he did in fact compose the whole work ‘late’ as some suggest, it is more likely that he wrote what he knew – little in the case of Leuktra – than that he had some ‘hidden agenda’ of ignoring Epaminondas and Pelopidas, especially considering the praise he offers later. ( see quotes I posted earlier).

.................You’ve left out a word here, it should read “arrayed only 8 deep”, presumably as opposed to the 12 deep common at this period, and since 12 deep was ‘open order’ then so must “only 8 deep” here.

I do not see what difference the word "only" makes. It is absolutely clear in Xenophon's account that the Spartans were engaged in battle when the anastrophe was attempted. Mnasippos has just driven the Corcyreans back at his end of the line and realises, mid battle, the other end is in dire straits. He attempts the anastrophe to deepen (strengthen) that part of his line now that he thinks his own end is successful. On this text we simply have only two options: the Spartans went into battle in (our) Xenophon’s 'marching order' or they were engaged in battle eight deep. It is quite obviously the latter and so Xenophon (as I've said of the rest of our sources) is reporting the depth at which the Spartans engaged.

If we delete the word ‘only’ it does not really alter my point.
Your ‘either or’ alternatives are mistaken. Mnasippus forms his line side-by-side for battle/ παρετάξατο,/paretacato. Like ‘phalaggos’/forming phalanx, or ‘en taxis’/ forming battle line, this simply means deploying into line – which initially is into open order, before later closing up, so typically a 'battle line' will be in both orders at different times. In addition, in this instance the ‘anastrophe’ will have been carried out in open order. ( The opposing forces are not yet in contact. Note that ‘attack’ does not necessarily imply hand-to-hand combat, for instance Mnasippus is ‘attacked’ by missiles only)

The translation offered is the Landmark wherein the word "only" does not appear as there is no reason for it to do so in the Greek. You have been strident in defending your integrity on this thread; perhaps you might desist from attacking my own. As this word, for some reason, is most pertinent to your argument and thus the passage, the accusation that here I have left out a word strongly implies that I have done so to a purpose. That is utterly rejected. In any case "only" - in or out - has no bearing on the passage.

My dear fellow, I don’t attack your integrity in the slightest! I merely thought that it was a typo, since all the translations I had available included the word “only”( I don’t have the Landmark).
As I say, the exclusion does not alter my point – that 8 deep might be considered weak compared to 12 deep, and that like 12 deep, the 8 most likely refers to open order.

I do not agree with Agesilaos that the Spartans deployed four deep or that the redeployment was by alternate files.

Neither do I....on this we agree.

The anastrophe is attempted after Mnasoppos drives the enemy back to the city and is performed by his successful (so far) troops. As the Spartan feels he has won here, he redeploys his troops. This will be an indeterminate number of troops from Mnasippos’ end of the line. At this point, Xenophon describes the engaged Spartan line as eight deep.

As has now been clarified, it is the extreme other end of the line which comes under massed attack, and responded with the attempted ‘anastrophe’ to double their depth.

Paralus wrote Aug 2 :

....It is then unlikely in the extreme that Xenophon’s account of the battle is “clearly almost contemporary with the event”. It is, near certainly, written many years hence; in the 350s as the evidence indicates. That Xenophon, writing at this time, does not mention Epaminondas or Pelopidas has very little to do with his Spartan sources being unaware of them. Xenophon was clearly aware of them.

I don't disagree with most of this lengthy post, and I agree that Xenophon continued his 'Hellenica' down to the 350's, but the whole work did not spring at once from Xenophon's brow, like Athena from that of Zeus. As I said, there is evidence that some of it was written earlier, perhaps the 370's and it certainly incorporates earlier work (such as the 'Agesilaos') and very likely drew on notes etc written up after conversations from time to time with his visitors - his main source of information.

In any event, let us not digress down that road, for debate regarding exactly when the 'Hellenica' and its constituent parts was written is on-going. Nor is it particularly material to my point, namely that Xenophon was not deliberately ignoring Epaminondas and Pelopidas , as proven by his later references to them, and praise of them ( see quotes earlier). If he does not name them, neither does he name the Spartan Polemarchs, and whatever the reason was, it was not because he was a 'Theban hater'.

Agesilaos wrote Sun 3 Aug

I think I have found the source of your inflated, in my opinion, numbers for the Spartans, Lazenby's 'The Spartan Army'; I agree this is not the place for that so, I have not access to his argumentation so perhaps you would start a thread on the off-topic forum, when you have a moment.

Lazenby is not the source of my Spartan numbers. It is my own conclusion after puzzling over the matter, in particular realising, as Thucydides himself does, that his organisation and numbers at Mantinea are inaccurate, and that the relative lengths of battle lines just do not add up when Spartan numbers are 'halved'. ( A fact noted by Dr W.G. Forrest amongst others) Neither Lazenby nor myself are the first to realise this - scholars have been aware of the 'low numbers' problem back, I think, to the early 1900's. For example, H.T.Wade-Gery back in the 1940's calculated (despite some arithmetical errors) the Spartan army as 6,475 hoplites strong.

I wouldn't hold my breath on when one might get around to starting a thread on Spartan numbers, given the pace on this thread and the fact that we have several other incomplete threads that should be dealt with.......

Agesilaos wrote Sat 2 Aug:

Since, we are proposing a novel translation it would be as well to look at how Xenophon expresses the depth of formations in his historical works. I count twelve notices, ten in the ‘Hellenika’ and two in ‘Anabasis’.......

......Of these, four include a word for depth βάθος or βαθεῖαν (II 4 xi[Athenians attacking Peireios], xii[Athenian rebels defending Peireios], xxxiv [Spartans attacking Peireios], IV 2 xviii [agreed depth at the Nemea), three refer to the number of shields (II 4 xi again [Athenians attacking Peireios], VI 4 xii [Thebans at Leuktra] and VI 5 xix [Agesilaos near Mantieia]), a further reference is to the frontage of Spartan enomotiai at Leuktra, [Athenians attacking Peireios], VI 4 xii.

Five remain where only a preposition and number is used, II 4 xxxiv, Athenian rebels ‘ep’okto’; III 2 xvi Derkylidas’ troops ‘eis okto’; VI 2 xxi Mnasippos’ men ‘ep’okto’; and two from the Anabasis, ‘epi tettaron’ I 2 xv and ‘eis okto’ VII 1 xxiii.

Clearly when the words ‘depth’ or ‘deep’ are used, there can be no doubts at all, and we need not concern ourselves with these any further.

‘ep’okto’ at II 4 xxxiv almost certainly refers to the depth of the rebel line as Xenophon mentions the ‘extreme depth’ of the Spartan force hard on its heels, nor is it likely that the hotch-potch rebel force would have the internal organisation to ‘form eights’, assuming that Xenophon is not using a shorthand of his own for being four deep and grafting a Spartan style onto an Athenian force. Unfortunately we are not told much about the numbers involved (two Spartan morai plus allies and mercenaries and simply ‘many’ rebels), nor does the topography help all we are told is that the rebels were pushed into the mire of Halai, which suggests a battle on open ground, cities tending not to have marshes within their walls. So it could mean either if the rebels were trying to hold a long front, but I would say that the balance of probability is that it means ‘eight deep’.

This is Thrasybulos' Athenian rebels against the oligarchs, supported by Pausanias’ Spartans. It is these hoplites who form line of battle/paretacanto in eights. Since the whole body are referred to, this can only be eight deep, not a column 8 abreast.( not to mention Agesilaos' point about the depth of the Spartan phalanx)

As has been demonstrated Mnasippos’ men cannot have been eight deep, so there the ‘ep’okto’ must mean each unit ‘eight abreast’. The case of Derkyllidas could also go either way, he is marching unaware of the proximity of his enemy and orders his men to form ‘eis okto’ when they appear in numbers. There is nothing to compel an interpretation of ‘eight abreast’ here but it could be that he wanted his army to appear larger than it was, there were tall standing crops to obscure his true depth. And the Persians were cowed into a truce.

This is incorrect. All Mnasippus’ hoplites are drawn up in a battle line/array/tetagmenoi ‘in eights’, and since such a line cannot be 8 abreast, once again it must mean 8 deep.

In the case of Derykylidas: “When Dercylidas learned of all this, he told the colonels [taxiarchs] and the captains [lochagoi] to form their men in line [paratattesquai – form line/battle order side by side], in eights, as quickly as possible, and to station the peltasts on either wing and likewise the cavalry—all that he chanced to have and such as it was; meanwhile he himself offered sacrifice.”
Once again, there can be no doubt that 8 deep is meant.

In the ‘Anabasis’ ‘eis tettaron’ can be taken either way, though the conclusions one can draw from the Mnasippos narrative would favour an interpretation of ‘four abreast’ as the formation is meant to be a battle one. The final reference to ‘eis okto’ should be interpreted as ‘eight deep’, since Xenophon characterises it as ‘the proper order’ unless he means ‘the proper order for parade’ but the forming of the peltasts and cavalry in their battle line positions on the wings might militate against this.

No, ‘epi tettaron’ is unequivocal here. The formation is “their customary battle order” i.e. a phalanx line, and the line of the whole phalanx ( not individual sub-units) is formed “in fours”, which again can only mean 4 deep, as all commentators and translators agree.
Similarly at XA VII.1.23, it is the hoplites as a whole who fall into line “in eights”, with the peltasts formed on either wing, and once again this cannot be a column 8 abreast, and must mean 8 deep. ( again as every commentator and translator agrees).

In short, on every occasion when Xenophon says “in fours/eights”, it is depth which is meant.

Agesilaos did not mention the ‘dinner drill’ from the Cyropaedia, where each lochos “forms fours” by the pempadarchs leading up the rear half of each file beside the front half, four deep. This is again consistent with Xenophon’s usage meaning ‘depth’, never abreast. ( so much for C.Matthew’s postulation regarding Mnassippus’ formation )

By no means am I getting involved in this debate, I share this simply as somewhat interesting in light of the subject(s) at hand:

34. The Macedonian phalanx was a formation that appeared irresistible to the enemy because of its system of lining up. At the moment of close combat, as the battle line became tighter, the heavily armoured men took their stand, each in his own place, two *pecheis <apart>. They wielded the pike, or the large spear, that according to some, measured sixteen pecheis, but was really fourteen. Four of these pecheis covered the space from the man's hands to the space behind him and the other ten pecheis stretched in front of his body.

Constitution 6, Armament for Cavalry and Infantry
The Taktika of Leo VI, Text, Translation, and Commentary by George T. Dennis, Dumbarton Oaks 2010

*Pecheis: 46.8 cm. Another pechys was an agricultural measure of 62.46 cm

Of course it is a very late source, but our friend Leo VI was the consummate armchair general, but a very well read one with access to far older sources long since lost to us.

Folly loves company

In short, on every occasion when Xenophon says “in fours/eights”, it is depth which is meant.

Agesilaos did not mention the ‘dinner drill’ from the Cyropaedia, where each lochos “forms fours” by the pempadarchs leading up the rear half of each file beside the front half, four deep. This is again consistent with Xenophon’s usage meaning ‘depth’, never abreast. ( so much for C.Matthew’s postulation regarding Mnassippus’ formation )

I refer you to my post 4 Aug above which you clearly had not read yet otherwise you would surely not have made the same gaff; incidently the postulation about Mnasippos is all mine, Matthew simply lists his force as an example of being eight deep. The reason I had not mentioned the Kyrou Paideia, is simply that I am still compiling the references to depth therein, one can search for 'bathos' of course but constructions with eph or eis are not recognised, thoug as I write this it occcurs to me that the solution is to search for the numbers.

Since everything you wrote was sans benefit of my last post I'll allow you to correct yourself, it's just that everything you wrote is wrong.

Also of possible interest:

"These are the kinds of countermarches named by the ancient writers. They add that there are three ways of executing each of them. In the first we place the phalanx in front of its old position and turn its front around looking toward what had been its rear. They entitle this the Macedonian countermarch, since Philip is supposed to have invented and used it. The second form of making a countermarch occurs when we place the phalanx on the ground right behind its former position and turn its front to to face what had been its rear...

The Macedonian countermarch is carried out by file when the leader of one of the files on the edge moves forward and across the front of the phalanx, followed by the other men in his file, each in his proper order. The file leader takes position facing the leader of the file on the opposite edge. the rest of the files follow in succession, each file lining up next to the other, facing in the same direction as the file leader or protostates...

The Laconian countermarch is made by file when the rear guard of one of the end files marches out along the rear and is followed by the man, who had been in front o him down to the file leader. If we make the turn to the spear, the rear guard turns again to position himself back to back with the rear guard of the left flank; the man who had been in front of him goes in front of him goes in front of him again and so on to the file leader.

Strategy, 24. Countermarches. The Anonymous Byzantine Treatise on Strategy.
Three Byzantine Military Treatises. Dennis, George T, Dumbarton Oaks 2008

Sorry, Nikas failed to note your previous contribution which Leo clearly took from the same family of tracts as the three that have come down to us; the discussion of the length of the sarissa is identical even down to the note that the ones actually used are shorter than the theoretical maximum.

These counter-marches,however , have been 'enhanced', though in qute an impractical way, Leo seems not to have tried his solution to the transposition of the flanks in reality, these manouevres cannot have much practical application IMHO.

Xenophon wrote:‘Lack of argument’ is a bit rich coming from someone who rarely posts references, and who can post such things as calling Xenophon an ‘arch laconophile’ and ‘Theban hater’ without a trace of argument or evidence !

I reject that. Aside from the very few 'embedded' quotes (to avoid yet another 'quote box') I religiously reference sources and quote the poster. Your blanket assertion that I am "someone who rarely posts references" is utterly incorrect.

Xenophon wrote:In this instance, I thought you would be familiar with this suggestion, which is not mine originally. Xenophon’s ‘Hellenica’, whilst parts of it are written as late as 358 BC and later, is manifestly made up of notes and parts first written over a lengthy period of time perhaps as early as the 370’s, as has been shown by analysis of linguistic useages.

Indeed those "language useages (sic)" - relating to his style of composition - do indicate two periods of composition. That break is generally put at 2.3.23. This earlier part belongs to the 380s and the latter from the latter 360s. Such is the communis opinio.

Xenophon wrote:Not a “pointed out fact”. The ‘clear’ and ‘pointed out’ are simply later references to the former part, which you have co-joined.

I take it, then, that you are recanting your statement that "Xenophon’s account of Leuctra was clearly almost contemporary with the event"? That would be wise for I believe it to be flat wrong.

Xenophon wrote:Paralus wrote Aug 2 :

....It is then unlikely in the extreme that Xenophon’s account of the battle is “clearly almost contemporary with the event”. It is, near certainly, written many years hence; in the 350s as the evidence indicates. That Xenophon, writing at this time, does not mention Epaminondas or Pelopidas has very little to do with his Spartan sources being unaware of them. Xenophon was clearly aware of them.

I don't disagree with most of this lengthy post, and I agree that Xenophon continued his 'Hellenica' down to the 350's, but the whole work did not spring at once from Xenophon's brow, like Athena from that of Zeus. [...] In any event, let us not digress down that road, for debate regarding exactly when the 'Hellenica' and its constituent parts was written is on-going. Nor is it particularly material to my point, namely that Xenophon was not deliberately ignoring Epaminondas and Pelopidas , as proven by his later references to them, and praise of them ( see quotes earlier). If he does not name them, neither does he name the Spartan Polemarchs, and whatever the reason was, it was not because he was a 'Theban hater'.

That 'lengthy post' was written in response to:

Xenophon wrote:I would suggest Xenophon’s account of Leuktra was written not long after the battle. Only later did Epaminondas and Pelopidas become prominent and reknowned and mythologised for their parts. Certainly, when some 9 years later, Epaminondas fights second Mantinea (362 BC), Xenophon gives due prominence and fulsome praise to him. If he supposedly ‘hated’ Thebans and (allegedly)deliberately ignored the leaders at Leuktra ( where Epaminondas was NOT commander-in-chief, nor even ‘primus inter pares’), why does he do the opposite when describing Mantinea ? (see below)

As can be seen, the rationale behind the claim that Xenophon wrote the account of Leuktra "not long after the battle" is that he does not mention Epaminondas or Pelopidas because only later did they "become prominent and reknowned (sic) and mythologised for their parts". Further, Xenophon praises Epaminondas later in his Hellenika. I find it difficult to understand that if you don't disagree with "most" of my "lengthy post" you can disagree with its conclusion. The entire post was substantiation for said conclusion. It is clear that the passage on Leuktra as written quite late; late enough that Xenophon was fully aware of the complete fall of Sparta to the men she had wronged.

As to Epaminondas, Pelopidas and Xenophon's "later references to them, and praise of them", it is true that he mentions Pelopidas. As I have already pointed out, it is in the context of his Medising in conniving for Persian support for Thebes' position as prostatai of the peace. Xenophon happily reports that the Greeks would not have a bar of it in stark contrast to Sparta's King's Peace. Unlike his description of Pelopidas, nowhere does Xenophon bother us with the words that fell from Antalkidas' lips in seeking the exact same Persian support. We are simply told that he sailed to Ephesus (5.1.6) and later "came down to the coast" bearing a peace sprung like Athena from the brow of Zeus (5.1.25). Neither does he tell us of Pelopidas at Tegyra.

Xenophon does praise Epaminondas for his military preparations and boldness. He does this during Empaminondas' third invasion of the Peloponnese. It has taken until now for Xenophon to utter his name. The praise, when it comes (during the Mantinea campaign) is strictly of the 'faint' variety. Twice Xenophon tells us that Epaminondas acted out of ambition and the fear of losing his reputation even though he substantially outnumbered his opponents (7.5.8-9; 18-19).

Xenophon was not particularly enamoured of the men whose victory at Leuktra and subsequent 'destruction' of the 'Spartan Peloponnese' robbed him of his estates in Skillous.

agesilaos wrote:Sorry, Nikas failed to note your previous contribution which Leo clearly took from the same family of tracts as the three that have come down to us; the discussion of the length of the sarissa is identical even down to the note that the ones actually used are shorter than the theoretical maximum.

These counter-marches,however , have been 'enhanced', though in qute an impractical way, Leo seems not to have tried his solution to the transposition of the flanks in reality, these manouevres cannot have much practical application IMHO.

Yes, he certainly relied heavily on the main tracts already much discussed. What I wonder though, with the likely possibility of others at his disposal in his well stocked imperial library, was he passing these along sans critique or were these in his opinion the most convincing? I believe the consensus is the former.

Leo never appears to have led an army himself in the field, unlike the successes under his "fathers" reign, or the ones coming after him.