pothos.org

Back to the grind,

Xenophon wrote

Significantly, the Loeb translators translate 'dekad' as generic ‘squad’ and ‘sergeant/file leader’( Walter Miller) or generic ‘files’ and ‘file leader’ (E.C. Marchant) in context.

Amazing what may be found significant; both translators belong to the era when the fashion was to suggest modern equivalents rather than let the ancient names stand (hence ‘the Shield Bearing Guard’ for Hypaspists, ‘targeteers’ for peltasts, and ‘darters’ for akontistai), such an approach obfuscates much more than it illuminates, especially as the translations wander, ‘myriarch’ is rendered both as ‘brigadier-general’ and ‘general’ – one word two different translations – whilst both ‘dekadarch’ and ‘dodekadarch’ are rendered as ‘sergeant’ – two different words one translations. I fear the most significant thing is that you find it significant! LOL Sorry the opportunity for a Ciceronian construct got the better of me.

Xenophon wrote

We next hear of ‘dekad’ in the context of the Macedonian phalanx, where it is clearly 16 strong in Alexander’s day [ Arrian Anabasis 7.23.3 ], and which goes back to its probable founder, Philip II [ Frontinus 4.1.6, who tells us that Philip limited servants for the infantry to one per ten men – and obvious mistranslation of ‘dekad/file’ in the original Greek source]

Ooops! Even though you do not choose to address the Anaximenes’ fragment, does it vanish in a puff of indifference? No, the next mention of dekads in a definite military context is Anaximenes and since he is talking of their origin they are certainly ten-strong. Then we have Arrian’s statement, probably transmitting that of Aristoboulos, but the term must antecede Philip II since the introduction of dekads is attributed to an Alexander by Anaximenes, and they were earlier than Philip.

Frontinus, IV 1 vi

6 When Philip was organizing his first army, he forbade anyone to use a carriage. The cavalrymen he permitted to have but one attendant apiece. In the infantry he allowed for every ten men only one servant, who was detailed to carry the mills and ropes.7 When the troops marched out to summer quarters, he commanded each man to carry on his shoulders flour for thirty days.

Since it is his first army, the old organisation may have been in effect i.e. a dekad of ten, conversely the source may have have said ‘dekados andron’ or something equally specific, a mistranslation is possible but ‘obvious’ is not only over stating the case but presuming that ‘dekad’ does not mean ‘ten men’ here. Which, given the chronology it probably does. If a file of ten does not allow ‘synaspismos’ by a putative method then, either ‘synaspismos’ was not formed or it was formed by a different method – theories stand or fall on the evidence, it is not good method to sift the evidence on the basis of a theory however well-loved. ‘Dekad’ never meant a generic file, but might mean the sixteen deep Macedonian file, which preserved its former title in this period and possibly beyond; file-leaders in the Amphipolis regulations may be simply ‘hegemones’.

Xenophon said

By late Hellenistic times and the three versions of the ‘manuals’ that have come down to us, the term for a ‘file’ of 16 is ‘lochos’ (c.f ‘lochos’ of 16 when files are of 8 in Xenophon). Significantly, all three refer to previous names. Asclepiodotus says the file was formerly called ‘stichos’, ‘syno-motia’ [c.f. eno-motia] or ‘dekad. Aelian[5.2 Devine translation] says the whole file was called a ‘stichos’ or ‘dekad’, while Arrian’s version is similar[6] referring to ‘lochos’, ‘stichos’ and ‘dekury’ – the latin word -which being a Roman commander, he reflects Roman usage by saying that a ‘decury’ is ten strong.

Let us look at what Arrian actually says

Arrian Takt 6

[1] Some term this a lochos or stichos, others a dekania, [2] the lochos was formerly ten strong. It is doubtful what enomotia means: for some say this is another name for a lochos, others that it is the fourth part of a lochos, and that its leader is an enomotarch , two enomotiai make a dimoiria and it is led by a dimoirites. [3] Xenophon can certainly be shown to consider the enomotia part of a lochos: always less than a half at least, he says that the lochagoi form each enomotia in their own lochos.

τὸν δὲ λόχον καὶ στίχον ἤδη τινὲς ὀνομάζουσιν, οἳ δὲ δεκανίαν, [2] τυχὸν οἷς ἐκ δέκα ὁ λόχος ἦν. ὑπὲρ δὲ τῆς ἐνωμοτίας ἀμφιγνοούμενόν ἐστιν: οἳ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλο ὄνομα τῷ λόχῳ εἶναι τοῦτο, οἳ δὲ τὸ τέταρτον τοῦ λάχου ἐνωμοτίαν καλοῦσιν, καὶ ἐνωμόταρχον τὸν τούτου ἡγούμενον, τὰς δὲ δύο ἐνωμοτίας διμοιρίαν καὶ τὸν ἡγούμενον τούτων διμοιρίτην. [3] Ξενοφῶν δὲ πόστον μὲν μέρος τοῦ λόχου ἡ ἐνωμοτία ἐστὶν οὐ διασαφεῖ: ὅτι δὲ μεῖον πάντως γε τῷ ἡμίσει, δηλοῖ ἐν ᾧ λέγει ὅτι οἱ λοχαγοὶ κατ᾽ ἐνωμοτίας ἕκαστος ἐποιήσαντο τὸν αὑτοῦ λόχον.

So, he does not use ‘decuria’ (decury) the Latin term but ‘dekania’ a Greek term and he qualifies his definition with τυχὸν an aorist participle of τυγχάνω ‘used to be at’, so is referring not to contemporary Roman practice but older Hellenic practice, and since he has likely lifted this from his source, probably pre-Polybian usage; the Macedonian dekados is the only candidate for such a statement. Were I of a sadistic disposition, I might make hay of your mis-transliteration and interpretation, instead I shall just continue to urge you to get some Greek and that goes for everyone, folks.

But it gets better, here is that confusion I mentioned much earlier in the thread, between the Hellenistic use of ‘lochos’ for a file and the earlier usage for a more substantial unit.

Xenophon wrote

Note that neither Aelian nor Asclepiodotus refer to ‘file of ten’, only a generic ‘file’, and ‘dekad’ as a synonym with ‘stichos’, confirming the usage by authors such as Aeneas Tacticus and Xenophon. Indeed Arrian even refers to Xenophon, showing that he was one of Arrian's sources.

Each of the surviving Taktike represents a separate selection of material, so that neither Aelian nor Asklepiodotos preserve the definition of dekados/dekania is unsurprising, not least because it self-defines. It is not Arrian who used Xenophon as his source but the original source, since the Military Lexicon also preserves reference to Xenophon as a source. It is also clear from this passage that it is Lak.Pol that is referred to and not the Kyrou Paideia; not a surprise either, I doubt AJP Taylor would consult ‘Lord of the Rings’ for a book on the origins of WWI. And, finally, Xenophon is cited for the definition of ‘enomotia’ not ‘dekania’. Bit of an own goal this passage but it is enlightening, hell it’s ‘significant’! LOL!

Xenophon wrote

The only consistent conclusion is that the first usage we have in context for ‘dekad’ is Xenophon, whose ‘dekad’ is 12 deep, and that this term was much older, going back to the sole literal usage in Homer. In a Macedonian phalanx, the ‘dekad’ was 16 strong. Ironically, apart from Homer, we have no categorical reference in context to a ‘dekad’ referring to 10 strong !! [ save for the sole ref XH 6.5.19 of ‘9 or ten shields '[deep], which is suspicious – perhaps some later copyist or emender has misinterpreted ‘dekad’ again. Some, such as Lazenby, now emend that back to ‘eight shields’]

Agesilaos is once again most likely incorrect in his interpretation.....

I refer the honourable member to my previous answers.

Xenophon wrote

Obviously, you do need lectures from someone on reading and comprehension of source material and source evaluation, or you wouldn't keep making such errors.

LOL

edited for miss embedded quote

The last leg….

I wrote
Since this is a nonsensical manoeuvre, as the outermost men would have to wheel 2.3 km, assuming a metre frontage, if only 30,000 men are concerned (1,500 from each flank fold in [piD/4]), were there 150,000 (ie including the Egyptians, the distance would be 23 ½ km!)

Xenophon counters

Once again, Agesilaos starts to make calculations based on a false assumption. There is absolutely NO evidence of there being ANY Egyptians with the fictional Cyrus' army at Babylon, and plenty that they were not, as I have referred to previously - they go home after Thymbrara and are never mentioned again, and are not listed as being with the army at Babylon among the allies, as I related earlier.

Simply repeating false information doesn't make it true, as Agesilaos should have learnt from previous use of this ploy.

Once again Xenophon plays with partial evidence, as can be seen; nor is it at all clear that the Egyptians go home after Thymbara; they decline to fight against Croesus but this is a campaign against the Assyrian King. As for the tag line, physician heal thyself.

No your interpretation is not at all consistent with Xenophon’s words, the crucial line being

[[5] And when the phalanx was thus folded back, the front ranks and the rear were of necessity composed of the most valiant men and the poorest were drawn up between them.

You have the file leaders of half the phalanx among ‘the poorest’ which is a nonsense.

This is exactly the same as when Xenophon uses this expression eleswhere - the file leaders were the front rank, and the rear rank was composed of the second-most valiant men, the 'ouragoi' of the folded back wings.

Elsewhere, care to let us know where? Or is it a secret? LOL!

At III 3 41-2 he does have Kyros exhort the ‘ouragoi’ thus;

[41] “Men of Persia, you also have now taken your places among the peers, and you have been selected for your positions because you are considered in every way equal to the bravest, and by virtue of your years even more discreet than they. And so you occupy a place not at all less honourable than that of our front-rank men. For as you are behind, you can observe those who are valiant and by exhorting them make them still more valiant; and if any one should be inclined to hang back and you should see it, you would not permit it.[42] And because of your years and because of the weight of your armour it is more to your advantage than to any others' that we should be victorious. And if those in front call to you and bid you follow, obey them and see that you be not outdone by them even in this respect but give them a counter cheer to lead on faster against the enemy. Now go and get your luncheon and then go with your chaplets on your heads with the others to your posts.”

So here he would be making them the equals of the front rank fighters ‘protostatoi’, yet they get no enhanced position or responsibility, like the hexadarchs sharing out the booty. If here he really means this then by Book VII he has forgotten about their virtues as in my version every other man in rows five or six and six or seven would be an ouragos, whereas in yours the ouragoi alternate in rank five or six, or you are proposing half-file leaders too (despite no mention of them) .. and rank six or seven would be alternating [do]dekadarchs and [hex] pempadarchs. Neither arrangement matches Xenophon’s description of the poorest being in the middle. Unless the statement in the exhortation is just that and the ‘ouragoi’ are just ordinary, but older men, or Xenophon has forgotten what he wrote because the important thing is his expansion on the house metaphor rather than a consistent organisational picture.

You will note that these are the same terms used at VI 3 25

25] Behind all the rest I shall station the so-called rear-guard of veteran reserves. For just as a house, without a strong foundation or without the things that make a roof, is good for nothing, so likewise a phalanx is good for nothing, unless both front and rear are composed of valiant men.

[/quote]

Though the Greek only has the Veteran, ‘pasi’ - of the fathers. This in turn, means that Xenophon is describing a mixed file not separate bodies. Contra an earlier comment of yours.

That the son of Gryllos could be careless in subsidiary matters is also demonstrated by his arming Kyros’ new cavalry with two ‘thorakes’ (IV 3 9 – as thorakophoroi they already have a thorax!).

Xenophon wrote -14 sept

[ save for the sole ref XH 6.5.19 of ‘9 or ten shields '[deep], which is suspicious – perhaps some later copyist or emender has misinterpreted ‘dekad’ again. Some, such as Lazenby, now emend that back to ‘eight shields’]

The only reference I can find in Lazenby is this;

The Spartan Army p37

'Finally, when the plain was reached, the king 'extended his army back to a depth of eight or ten shields' (ἐξέτεινε πάλιν ἐπ᾽ ἐννέα ἢ δέκα τὸ στράτευμα ἀσπίδων. XH [6.5.19])'

As can be seen this is not a suggested emendation but a slip in translation, ἐννέα is 'nine', as in ennea hodoi, the old name for Amphipolis, Nine-Ways. Please supply the names of the others subsumed by 'some' as I would love to see their reasoning; I can see no reason to doubt the MS reading nor does the emendment suggested seem palaeographically possible.

I can't see how anyone might misunderstand 'dekados' so as to render it ἐξέτεινε πάλιν ἐπ᾽ ἐννέα ἢ δέκα τὸ στράτευμα ἀσπίδων. I also cannot see how or why anyone would emend it to 'eight': it clearly states "nine or ten". Such might be a possibility if the text was corrupt but the translator's notes in the Landmark do not show any such corruption for this passage (nor, for that matter, any proposed emendation accepted or not).

Oh my poor bleeding eyes !! Over 5,000 words of argumentative posts from Agesilaos, much of which is misleading, repetitive, and wrong. I could refute it sentence by sentence but that would be a dreary process, produce yet longer wordier posts, and be of little interest to the general reader, nor can I be bothered....... I shall confine myself to answering only the worst of it.
Agesilaos wrote:

“Err..rr..r, I don’t think being a member of RAT was on the charge sheet; “

You made a misleading remark by stating that we were both members of RAT. I had not been since 2010, and you were an active member only very briefly back then, and made only a few posts on this single subject – but it does demonstrate that you can be quite careless with facts at times.

“Robin Lane Fox; from a man dismissing Borza, Cole and Errington! Pleeeeez!!!”

You often accuse me of ‘dismissing’ this or that person, and I repeatedly have to correct you and point out that I ‘dismiss’ no-one, though I may disagree with a given specific assertion from time to time. If you actually read what I posted, I did not dismiss Borza, Cole and Errington and agreed that the tale of the assassins dressing up as women etc probably is fiction, but also that Herodotus was probably correct in saying the Persian envoys were murdered.
On the contrary, it is you who express disdain in dismissing the views of Lane-Fox. Whilst there is much to disagree with in some of his views, one should not blanket denigrate him completely.

“That a man who has changed his mind should have inconsistent views is axiomatic and hardly surprising (more dictionary work necessary I fear), of course your diametrically opposed views are consistent, just as when you continually say that ‘we do not know’ and proceed to say how things were it is part of divine revelation to you alone.LOL”

Once again, you resort to “flaming” and personal insults – which is one of the reasons I have been slow to answer this lengthy discourse. Such behaviour can only be deplored – it is not conducive to reasoned debate, as I have repeatedly pointed out.

With almost all aspects of ancient history, we do not know matters for certain, and must rely on balance of probability – which IS axiomatic, and therefore unnecessary to say every time. LOL!
To acknowledge that we do not ‘know’ something, expressly or impliedly, and then go on to suggest a hypothesis, hopefully taking into account probability is something we all do, including you. A case of the kettle calling the pot black ?

Agesilaos wrote:

“Smear? The readers may decide for themselves. I realise you actually do not get that simply writing ‘no, everything you have written is simply wrong,’ is a long winded way of saying it is BS, but it is , more polite, perhaps, but qualitively the same.”

No it isn’t the same at all, nor do I say that you are always wrong – you will find I frequently agree with you. But your level of military general knowledge, and ancient military matters in particular, is not good, particularly technical matters, though of course you have undoubted expertise in other areas of ancient history. The fact that you can’t carry on a debate politely without resorting to profanities is a poor reflection on you, and I am sure unappreciated by the readership. I have asked you before to desist from such “flaming” and bad language, to no avail it seems.

“But onto the meat;

Does ‘dekad’ mean ‘file of ten’ in a military context, or can it also mean a generic ‘file’?

Let us analyse your analysis;

Xenophon wrote:
I had for many years been most suspicious that ‘dekad’ always meant a file of ten, despite its literary meaning, because we simply don’t hear of files of ten in the context of hoplites ( save once at Xen.[ VI.5.19], rather suspiciously, and this may be because of terrain constraints, or be one of the common numerical errors, or an emendation in the distant past. Indeed it is so unusual that some emend the figure to eight).

“Aside from confusing ‘literal’ with ‘literary’, VI 5 xix is ‘nine or ten’ and refers to a re-deployment on a plain; thus neither suspicious nor constrained by terrain, and if some amend to eight (on what grounds??) why not emend Xenophon’s four to eight? Or any other number…oops, two numbers here viz “

No, I meant ‘literary’ not ‘literal’. I was referring to its meaning within the context of the military literature, which is NOT a literal ‘ten’. I accept that Xenophon VI.5.19’s “nine or ten” may well be “the exception that proves/tests the rule”. It is the ONLY occasion when this sort of depth is referred to in all the literary references to depth of hoplite files, and is a unique situation. Even then Xenophon does not call this a ‘dekad’, but specifies depth by referring to the number, for use of the generic term ‘dekad/file’ would not tell readers the actual depth!

Agesilaos wrote:

Xenophon wrote:
After non-context filtering out, we are left with few examples ‘in context’. The matter is further complicated because the latin ‘decury’, which IS a file of ten is translated into Greek by Roman writers as ‘dekad’.[correction: ‘dekania’]

“Maybe some references to the things being filtered out or, indeed, in would help; things are not complicated by the Romans translating ‘decuria’ into Greek as ‘dekados’ , it demonstrates just what it means, ‘a group of ten’, no implication of files or whatever, just a group. Shock, horror the Greeks had a word for a group of ten, but how can YOU be sure that that is what Homer means? You have failed to supply the reference; to an ancient source rather than a modern post: does he name ten men? If not why should this dekad not be sixteen, twelve, six or any other number that might suit the argument of the moment? Or is there a stirring of common-sense that admits that dekados must have originally meant exactly what it says, ‘a group of ten’?”

You yourself refer to the Homeric reference when you posted the LSJ definition of ‘dekas’.[ see below] It is Iliad II.2.126: “...Think that the Achaeans and Trojans have sworn to a solemn covenant, and that they have each been numbered- the Trojans by the roll of their householders, and we by ‘dekads’[companies [groups/squads] of ten]; think further that each of our companies desired to have a Trojan householder to pour out their wine; we are so greatly more in number that full many a company/group/squad would have to go without its cup-bearer.”

Agamemnon is saying that the Achaeans outnumber the Trojans by more than a factor of ten.

And of course ‘dekad’ must have originally referred to a company /squad of ten since dekas = ten. Homer pre-dates hoplites, so I’d agree that the Homeric ‘dekad’ does not refer to a ‘file’ at all, but by Xenophon’s time it certainly did. Non-context filtering out means all those myriad references to ‘ten’, the many words prefixed by ‘deka’etc, since the context we are discussing is hoplite files.

My apologies for a slight typo( see correction above). I was actually referring to ‘dekania’, which is latin ‘decuria’ translated/transliterated into Greek. It only occurs twice in all our sources, both times in the manuals [Arrian tactica VI.1 and Ascepiodotus 2] which is one of the many indicators that all three manuals are based on a common source.


Agesilaos wrote

Xenophon wrote:

“Our next sources are Herodotus and Thucydides, neither of whom use the word in its technical military context, though Thucydides gives us useful information about hoplite, particularly Spartan, organisation. At this time, citizens were liable for service for 40 years, 21-60 inclusive, and were called up by age classes to give any required size of force. At Plataea for example, 5,000 out of a potential 8,000 Spartans were present or 25 age classes i.e. “those up to 25 years from manhood.” A Spartan ‘enomotia’/sworn band/platoon contained 40 men in 4 files of ten, arranged in age classes. The eldest almost never took the field ( only once, after Leuktra, as far as we know ), thus a nominal file of ten [dekad] usually fielded 6-8 men in practice, most commonly 8.( "those 35 years from manhood") Thus ‘dekad’/file and ‘dekadarch’/file leader probably came to have a generic meaning of just “file” as well. Other states/poleis organisations, such as Athens, were similar.”

“Yet, Herodotos VII 8.i


καὶ χιλιάρχας τε καὶ μυριάρχας ἀποδέξαντες, ἑκατοντάρχας δὲ καὶ δεκάρχας οἱ μυριάρχαι.
and appointed captains of thousands and ten thousands; the captains of ten thousands appointed the captains of hundreds and of tens.


Clearly a military context and dekarchs commanding ten men. “

Either you didn’t read this passage properly, or you are being deliberately misleading,. The context we are talking about ( see previously) is that of hoplite files. This passage [VII.81.1] is a reference to Persian organisation, which was on a decimal basis, which is not disputed, and NOT Hoplite files. Herodotus does not use the term at all of Greek hoplite files, only ‘barbarians’.Evidently you are clutching at straws, being unable to find a single example of a hoplite file being referred to as a ‘dekas’/literal:ten ( as opposed to the generic ‘dekad’/file)

In addition, many other words in Greek were prefixed by ‘deka’ indicating ten, but over time evolved their meaning into something else e.g. dekazn, which came to mean to bribe or corrupt, or dekathlogos meaning a tithe collector ( tithes traditionally, but not necessarily, were a tenth part), or dekapalai meaning a very long time ago, or dekadromoi meaning adults ( originally derived from those who had taken part in ten contests).'Dekad' evolved similarly.

Moreover there are differences between similar words:
‘Deka-arch’ literally means ‘ten-leader’ and thus Herodotus’ usage ‘dekarch’ is perfectly correct for Achaemenid Persian use in Xerxes army. Xenophon uses the word ‘dekad-arch’ which literally means ‘dekad-leader’ which is subtly different, because Xenophon’s use of the word ‘dekad’ means generically just ‘company/group/squad’ – as in this LSJ entry for ‘dekas/dekad’, which you yourself referred to, apparently without noticing the reference to a general/generic company/group/squad.

LSJ :A. Company of ten, Il.2.126 , Hdt.3.25 ? of Ships, A. Pers. 340 , etc : generally, Company, (my emphasis)

The only word Xenophon uses for ‘file leader’ is ‘dekadarch’ – there is no ‘stichodarch’ for instance, and so this must be a generic term, for whilst hoplite files called up by age groups could theoretically number ten, in practise the most common depth/number of a file we hear of is 8, sometimes 12, and by Macedonian times 16 – with rare exceptions – and all appear to be led by ‘dekadarchs’, whether infantry or cavalry files.

Later still, other variations in Roman times would include ‘dekandros’ = latin Decemvir, ‘dekania’ (twice in the manuals, see above) =latin decury, ‘dekadarchis’ = latin Decurion ( as used by Arrian ‘Contra Alanos’ and Josephus ‘Bello Judaica’), or dekatarchos = latin Decurion of the fleet That is why earlier I cautioned that later translation of latin terms into approximate Greek equivalents only obscured earlier Greek usage.

I’m not going to comment on Agesilaos’ largely incorrect presumptions about the Spartan army – readers are referred to Lazenby’s “Spartan Army” and Anderson’s “Military theory and practise in the age of Xenophon” as the best and second best modern sources and discussion.

However the following I will comment on, demonstrating as it does Agesilaos’ flawed assertions.

Agesilaos wrote:

“The 8,000 figure for the total Spartan population come from Herodotos VII 234 i-ii

This, then, is how the Greeks fought at Thermopylae. Xerxes then sent for Demaratus and questioned him, saying first, “Demaratus you are a good man. I hold that proven by the plain truth, for things have turned out no differently than you foretold. Now, tell me this: how many Lacedaemonians are left, and how many of them are warriors like these? or is it so with them all?”
[2] “My king,” said Demaratus, “the number of the Lacedaemonians is great, and so too the number of their cities. But what you would like to know, I will tell you: there is in Lacedaemon a city called Sparta, a city of about eight thousand men, all of them equal to those who have fought here; the rest of the Lacedaemonians are not equal to these, yet they are valiant men.”

So it comes from a fictionalised speech, and is based on Herodotos’ own estimate, it would be unlikely that his Spartan informants would have census figures to hand. Nor does a 2/3 turnout for the climactic battle for the Freedom of Hellas ring true, Leuktra elicited a larger levy and that was meant to be a simple squashing of Thebes.”

The assertions here are all flawed attempts to rationalise away what Herodotus tells us. ALL speeches in our sources are ‘fictionalised’ rather than verbatim, and the product of the author. If we dismiss the figure 8,000 on that ground, then we dismiss everything in such speeches and are left with what ? Not much !

Secondly, you don’t need a detailed census to know the approximate army strength – everyone in Sparta would know this, including Herodotus' informants !

Thirdly, ‘census’ figures in the form of a ‘katalogos’ were to hand in every Greek city anyway, an essential tool when deciding on call-up figures and who was due to serve.

Finally, Herodotus numbers the Spartans at 5,000 at Plataea, and Xenophon states 4 Morai present at Leuktra which is best interpreted ( see e.g. Lazenby ch 9 pp.151- 162) as 4,480 hoplites plus the Hippeis of 300 – a similar number as at Plataea. Because of the perceived constant threat from the Helots, a large proportion of the Spartan army ( roughly 3,000 or 3/8ths, mainly oldsters and youngsters ) always remained in the Peloponnese whether the foe was Persia, Athens or Thebes.

Not only does Agesilaos resort to personal attacks, but he is guilty of rationalisation too – starting from a desired conclusion, then selectively ‘reverse engineering’ arguments to support that pre-determined belief, such as his ‘explaining away’ information in Herodotus on spurious grounds.

Agesilaos wrote:

Xenophon wrote:
“It is in Xenophon that we first find detailed technical descriptions, and where we meet ‘dekad’ and dekadarch’ for the first time. In the Cyropaedia there are four occasions that Xenophon describes ’dekads’ [2.1.26 where he lists the sub-divisions of a company down to ‘half-files’/pempadas; 2.2.30 where a ‘dekad/file/squad’ is referred to; 4.4.5 where Cyrus sends out 'dekadas/files/squads’ and ‘half-files/squads/pempadas’ at night; and finally 8.1.14 where 'dekadarchoi’/squad leaders/file leaders look after their squads.] ‘Dekadarchoi/file leaders/squad leaders’ are referred to at [2.1.22-30; 2.3.21; 4.2.27 and 8.1.14].

“If one ignores Herodotos; and if one ignores those pesky dodekadarchoi , whose intrusion, prove that a Greek could not assign the command of twelve men to a dekadarch. “

More flawed reasoning ! Herodotus’ use of ‘dekarch’/ten-leader to describe a file leader in Xerxes Persian army has nothing to do with Greek files, and therefore when discussing hoplite files he is irrelevant.( He doesn’t use the term ‘dekad’/file at all). The most significant point about this is that it is evident Agesilaos cannot find an instance of ‘dekas’ being used to describe a Greek file, as I have said ( the closest being the reference to a depth of nine or ten shields in Xenophon, which ironically is NOT called a ‘dekad’!).
Nor does Xenophon’s single use of ‘dodekadarchoi’ and ‘hexadarchoi’ “prove” Agesilaos’ assertion, for in fact Xenophon refers to the fictional Cyrus’ files as ‘dekads’ most of the time [see paragraph quoted just above] – a generic term for “file”, as per the LSJ definition [see above], and when he wants to emphasise the specific file depth, uses a term he has invented ( since it occurs only in this work), ‘dodekad’/file of twelve. This at least has the merit of being consistent whereas Agesilaos postulated that Xenophon refers to “specific file of ten” and “specific file of twelve” mistakenly when referring to the fictional Cyrus’ files. I prefer to believe Xenophon knew what he was talking about, and used ‘dekad’ generically, and ‘dodekad’ when he wanted to give the specific number – precisely because ‘dekad’ was a general term for file.

Agesilaos wrote:

“Xenophon wrote:
In the “Cavalry Commander” Xenophon refers both to ‘stichos/file’[III.9] and ‘dekada/files’[V.7], apparently interchangeably. The words are clearly synonyms to describe the same files.
Interestingly, ‘file leader’ is only ever ‘dekadarchos’,( and half-file leader ‘pempadarch’[IV.9]) - there is no other word, hence they must be generic to all files. ‘Stichos’ is also referred to in the Constitution of the Lacedaemonians[X1.5-8] ( and incidently twice in Aeneas Tacticus [31 and 40])

.


“‘Stichos’ is a generic ‘file’ and, confusingly, a ‘row’; 3 ix is the only time Xenophon uses it, and presumably because he is speaking of a situation where he does know how strong the file will be, thereafter he uses dekados as he is speaking of the ideal; they are not interchangeable,...”

This is just not so. The files referred to at Xen Cavalry Commander III.9 as ‘stichos’ are exactly the same files referred to at V.7 as ‘dekadas’ – the terms are indeed interchangeable and synonymous. Moreover the file-leader is only ever a ‘dekadarch’/ dekad-leader, and the half-file leader a ‘pempadarch’, so these are the generic terms. [no 'stichodarch' for example]

“... after the pempadarchoi have extended the front the ‘stichos’ would be a pempados rather than a dekados; we have a general term and specific terms. ‘Dekadarchos and pempadarchos are number specific and so it is no wonder that these are the only words used, neither means file-leader or half-file leader they simply refer to the number in the command, either could be the file-leader depending upon the deployment.”

The whole point is that ‘dekadarch’ and ‘pempadarch’ are not always number specific, but can also be generic. [see the LSJ quoted above with reference to ‘dekad’ being a general term for company/squad/file]. Moreover, the Loeb translator, and every other translator I have come across translate ‘dekad’ as generic file, ‘dekadarch’ as generic file-leader and ‘pempadadarch’ as generic half-file leader. You are the only one I know of who perversely insists that these terms can only be number specific.

“Yes the generic word ‘stichos’ is used a lot.”

Indeed , ‘stichos’ appears in the manuals as well[ Arrian 6; Asclepiodotus II.2; Aelian V.2 ] as one of the ‘old’ [ pre- Macedonian] terms for file:
“ The whole file is called a ‘stichos’, and is also termed a ‘dekania’, and by some an enomotia....”[Aelian V.2] and “Now the file was formerly called a ‘stichos’, a ‘synomoty’ and a ‘dekania’........”[Ascelepiodotus II.2] again indicating, as in Xenophon, that the terms are synonymous generic ones – “the file” with no particular number given..


Agesilaos wrote:

Xenophon wrote:
Similarly, Agesilaos argues that since a real Persian file nominally had 10 men, this must be what Xenophon means by ‘dekad' in the Cyropaedia. There are two strong objections to this. Firstly, the organisation Xenophon describes is purely Greek (consisting of taxeis/companies; lochoi/platoons; dekads/files and pempadas/half-files completely unlike any real Persian organisation ) and secondly Xenophon specifically tells us these files form 12 deep [“eis dodeka” XC 2.4.4 c.f. 3.3.11 where we hear of ‘dodekadarchia/leader of twelve and ‘hexadarchia/leader of six’ ] These latter terms occur only in Xenophon and only once, so he has clearly invented the words to make his point about specific file depth ( of twelve), and thereafter reverts to generic ‘dekadesn’ and ‘pempadas’. ( Files of 12 were contemporary Spartan practice, according to XH 6.4.12 and XCoL II.4)

“This is not what I argue at all, but nice try; ‘dekados’ means a ‘group of ten’, until its retention in the Macedonian as remnant.”

This is simply untrue.You concede that by Macedonian times, if not before, ‘dekad’ was a generic term for file ?! There is no getting around the fact that a Macedonian ‘dekad’ numbered 16, not 10 !! Nor is there ANY evidence that a Macedonian ‘dekad’ ever numbered ten, or that it was a ‘remnant term’. Note also that you yourself posted the LSJ definition which includes “generally, Company”[squad, group or file]. It seems you are in a minority of one in arguing that ‘dekad’ can only mean a group of ten.

Agesilaos wrote:

“Xenophon does not actually describe one organisation at all he is inconsistent from chapter to chapter. No Greek army was organised in files of ten, or groups of five.... The organisation is unlike any reality and Xenophon does not care but makes it decimal save for two instances one where they form twelve deep and he has dodekadarchoi, since it would be a nonsense otherwise and later at VII 4 30, where hexadarchoi are described as the lowest level officers distributing the spoils of Sardis. Here we have another instance of Xenophon’s lackadaisical interest in the detail – if the dodekadarchs had distributed the spoil already then the hexadarchs have no job to do, if not then those men under the dekadarch rather than a hexadarch get no share, or maybe he is making the dodekadarchoi and hexadarchoi of equal status. This is not a Taktike.”

Why do you presume that Xenophon is “inconsistent” ( or mistaken)? He was a famous Hoplite commander, writing in his native tongue and contemporaneously, whilst you peer through a glass darkly, knowing little about hoplites, from 2000 plus years later, and are not a native speaker! There is no need to presume inconsistency, or that “he does not care”, if one simply accepts that ‘dekad’ could have a generic meaning – like so many other Greek words with similar origins[ see examples above]. All then makes perfect sense. Xenophon uses ‘dekad’ as a file in its general sense ( as all translators agree) and uses ‘eis dodeka’ and ‘dodekad’/file of twelve when he wants to specify the exact number in the file. No "inconsistency", no "lackadaisical interest in the detail". As if someone writing about his own area of expertise would be so careless as to risk ruining his own reputation by so doing ! A highly unlikely proposition!

BTW, I don’t understand your confusion over the division of spoil – it is perfectly straightforward. Each rank extracts his share, then hands the balance to his subordinate for further distribution down the chain.

“Next he divided also among his own soldiers the spoil that he had obtained at Sardis. To the generals and to his own aides-de-camp he gave the choicest portions—to each, according to his merit—and then distributed the rest; and in assigning to the generals their proper portions he left it to their discretion to distribute it as he had distributed to them. And they apportioned all the rest, each officer examining into the merits of his subordinate officers; and what was left to the last, the corporals[hexadarchoi/ half-file leader of six], inquiring into the merits of the private soldiers under their command, gave to each according to his deserts. And so all were in receipt of their fair share.” [VIII.4.29.-30 ] not [VII.4.30] typo

Not a ‘Taktike’ ? The definition of ‘Taktike techne’ is “the art of arrangement” i.e. formations and drill and no better example can be found than Xenophon in his ‘Cyropaedia’, specifically II.3.21. Xenophon’s work addresses a number of subjects, and ‘taktike’ is certainly one of them, so it certainly IS a ‘taktike’, in part at least.


Agesilaos wrote:

Xenophon wrote:
“If Xenophon meant the literal ‘file of ten’, Agesilaos must argue that he can’t count, made a mistake, or was senile or suffering from Alzheimers – none of which are likely, not least because other sources such as the manuals do not comment on it, or allege any "mistake". Far more probable is that Xenophon is correct in his usage, that it is generic ‘file’ that Xenophon means, which other ancient sources recognised, and that Agesilaos’ forced translation is simply wrong.”

“You really are in no position to tell me what I ‘must argue’; strawman alert as usual.”

No strawman at all – you argue that Xenophon is ‘inconsistent’, ‘lackadaisical about detail’ etc – in other words mistaken, just as I anticipated you would try and argue.

“ Try and absorb what I have been saying all along, Xenophon’s interest is in the things that make his Kyros the ideal Prince, he is unconcerned about details of organisation or drill, which is apparent from the various organisations for lochoi and the 12/10 mix.”

Not at all, all this comes from a mulish insistence that ‘dekad’ can only mean ‘file of ten’.Once again starting with an incorrect presumption as a foundation, which leads to increasingly unlikely assertions about Xenophon’s competence! To assert that he is "unconcerned" about ‘taktike’ is so wrong as to be an absurdity, since Xenophon goes to considerable lengths to give descriptions of organisation and drill- indeed he is our only source for the mechanics of hoplite formations and drill.

“ When he comes to the battles he has nothing much to say tactically, unless you think, as some do, that his solution to the Theban embolon was scythed chariots and eight archers on a tower. Since ‘dekados’ is emphatically NOT a ‘generic’ file, but excepting the later Macedonian usage a file of ten your oft repeated but still false point fails.”

Nothing much to say tactically ? Surely you cannot be serious! You evidently did not read the work properly ! There is much more to the tactical theories expounded under cover of Xenophon’s fictional battle of “Thymbrara” than scythed chariots and wheeled towers. Xenophon sets out what to do when outflanked, when outnumbered, and by greater depth, the disadvantages of too great a depth, the importance of reconnaissance, of proper preparations – such as feeding the men before battle, the importance of front and rear ranks, the use of tactical surprise/ambush, the importance of planning, religious duties, encouraging morale and a myriad of other aspects of ‘tactics’ in battle. Indeed, much of what Xenophon says about 'taktike' is repeated in the later Hellenistic ‘technical manual’, and Xenophon was used directly as a source by Arrian in his version.
Apply Xenophon’s tactical lessons and you will discover the best means of defeating a Theban ‘embolon’ !! The tactical lessons to be learned from the Cyropaedia, and their reproduction in the Hellenistic manuals could take up an entire thread, and we need not take up the oriental embellishments of scythed chariots and wheeled towers as at all serious, and neither would his readers! ( including the Hellenistic tacticians).

As to false points failing, it is your irrational insistence that ‘dekad’ can only mean group of ten that fails – only you make such a claim, and it is so obviously wrong, for on that false assumption as foundation, you then have to go on and insist Xenophon is wrong !! A rather illogical and irrational viewpoint,to say the least.

LSJ

δεκα?́δαρχ-ος , ὁ,
A. [select] = δεκάρχης, commander of ten men, X.Cyr.8.1.14, Plb.6.25.2, Arr.Tact. 42.1, LXXEx.18.21,25, De.1.15, 1 Ma.3.55.
II. [select] = Lat. decemvir, D.H.10.60.
III. [select] = τελώνης, Hsch. (Cf. δεκατ-.）

δεκάς , άδος, ἡ,
A. [select] company of ten, Il.2.126, Hdt.3.25; of ships, A. Pers.340, etc.: generally, company, “ἧς καὶ σὺ φαίνει δεκάδος” E.Supp. 219; number, tale, “τῶν ἐτέων ἡ δ. οὐκ ὀλίγη” Call.Fr.489; ἡ Ἀττικὴ δ., the ten Attic Orators, Luc.Scyth.10.
2. [select] Αύκου δ. the company of Lycus, a name given to bribed dicasts at Athens, because the bribers were to be found near the statue of Lycus in the law-courts, Eratosth. ap. Harp.s.v.
II. [select] the number ten, περὶ τῆς δ., title of work by Archytas, cf. Philol.11, Arist.Metaph.1084a12; τέλειον ἡ δ., Pythag., ib.986a8, cf. Fr.203.
III. [select] = δεκάτη 1, Hsch. s.v. δεκατευταί.



I leave it to the forum to decide just who is ‘forcing’ the translation”.

Indeed !! Forgive my emphasis of the ‘general/generic’ meaning above, which you have clearly overlooked. Then of course there is the fact that the Loeb translators ( Walter Miller, Carleton Brownson, E.C. Marchant ) ALL universally translate ‘dekad’ as generic ‘file’. The poor methodology of starting with an incorrect assumption/conviction, which then leads you further and further into more unlikely assumptions is blindingly obvious ( Xenophon is ‘inconsistent’ (!!),’lackadaisical’ about military detail etc in a work clearly intended in part at least as a ‘taktike’ etc) – a flashing red light which should have told you that you were absolutely wrong.

Agesilaos wrote:

Back to the grind,

Alas, yes.......GROAN!

Xenophon wrote

Significantly, the Loeb translators translate 'dekad' as generic ‘squad’ and ‘sergeant/file leader’( Walter Miller) or generic ‘files’ and ‘file leader’ (E.C. Marchant) in context.

Amazing what may be found significant; both translators belong to the era when the fashion was to suggest modern equivalents rather than let the ancient names stand (hence ‘the Shield Bearing Guard’ for Hypaspists, ‘targeteers’ for peltasts, and ‘darters’ for akontistai), such an approach obfuscates much more than it illuminates, especially as the translations wander, ‘myriarch’ is rendered both as ‘brigadier-general’ and ‘general’ – one word two different translations – whilst both ‘dekadarch’ and ‘dodekadarch’ are rendered as ‘sergeant’ – two different words one translations. I fear the most significant thing is that you find it significant! LOL Sorry the opportunity for a Ciceronian construct got the better of me.

Here we go again, another attempt to ‘explain away’ or rationalise, this time the modern translators. Unfortunately for you, your attempt to use the fallacy of ‘ad hominem’ in a crude attempt to discredit these Loeb translators and their translation of ‘dekad’ as generic ‘file/squad’ has rather backfired on you !!
Your unfamiliarity with matters military – ancient or modern – has led you into error yet again. ‘Shield bearing guards’, ‘targeteers’ and ‘darters’ are quite adequate translations, especially for a ‘modern’ general audience unfamiliar with Greek terminology. The translations of ‘myriarch’ as ‘brigadier general’ and ‘general’ are NOT different, but synonymous. In a modern army ‘lieutentant-generals’, ‘brigadier generals’ and ‘major generals’ are all more familiarly referred to as just ‘general’, save when a distinction is necessary ( and similarly ‘rear admiral’, ‘vice admiral’ etc are all just referred to as ‘admiral’.) Even without military experience one would imagine you would have seen enough military/war films or TV shows to know this. Similarly, if we are not being literal then the nearest rough equivalent of both ‘dekadarch’ and ‘dodekadarch’ in modern parlance is ‘sergeant’
The significance here is that the Loeb translators correctly translate the term ‘dekad’ as generic, not your specific meaning of ‘leader of ten’.


Agesilaos wrote:

Xenophon wrote

We next hear of ‘dekad’ in the context of the Macedonian phalanx, where it is clearly 16 strong in Alexander’s day [ Arrian Anabasis 7.23.3 ], and which goes back to its probable founder, Philip II [ Frontinus 4.1.6, who tells us that Philip limited servants for the infantry to one per ten men – and obvious mistranslation of ‘dekad/file’ in the original Greek source]

Xenophon said

By late Hellenistic times and the three versions of the ‘manuals’ that have come down to us, the term for a ‘file’ of 16 is ‘lochos’ (c.f ‘lochos’ of 16 when files are of 8 in Xenophon). Significantly, all three refer to previous names. Asclepiodotus says the file was formerly called ‘stichos’, ‘syno-motia’ [c.f. eno-motia] or ‘dekad’. Aelian[5.2 Devine translation] says the whole file was called a ‘stichos’ or ‘dekad’, while Arrian’s version is similar[6] referring to ‘lochos’, ‘stichos’ and ‘dekury’ – the latin word -which being a Roman commander, he reflects Roman usage by saying that a ‘decury’ is ten strong.

“Let us look at what Arrian actually says

Arrian Takt 6

[1] Some term this a lochos or stichos, others a dekania, [2] the lochos was formerly ten strong. It is doubtful what enomotia means: for some say this is another name for a lochos, others that it is the fourth part of a lochos, and that its leader is an enomotarch , two enomotiai make a dimoiria and it is led by a dimoirites. [3] Xenophon can certainly be shown to consider the enomotia part of a lochos: always less than a half at least, he says that the lochagoi form each enomotia in their own lochos.

τὸν δὲ λόχον καὶ στίχον ἤδη τινὲς ὀνομάζουσιν, οἳ δὲ δεκανίαν, [2] τυχὸν οἷς ἐκ δέκα ὁ λόχος ἦν. ὑπὲρ δὲ τῆς ἐνωμοτίας ἀμφιγνοούμενόν ἐστιν: οἳ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλο ὄνομα τῷ λόχῳ εἶναι τοῦτο, οἳ δὲ τὸ τέταρτον τοῦ λάχου ἐνωμοτίαν καλοῦσιν, καὶ ἐνωμόταρχον τὸν τούτου ἡγούμενον, τὰς δὲ δύο ἐνωμοτίας διμοιρίαν καὶ τὸν ἡγούμενον τούτων διμοιρίτην. [3] Ξενοφῶν δὲ πόστον μὲν μέρος τοῦ λόχου ἡ ἐνωμοτία ἐστὶν οὐ διασαφεῖ: ὅτι δὲ μεῖον πάντως γε τῷ ἡμίσει, δηλοῖ ἐν ᾧ λέγει ὅτι οἱ λοχαγοὶ κατ᾽ ἐνωμοτίας ἕκαστος ἐποιήσαντο τὸν αὑτοῦ λόχον.



So, he does not use ‘decuria’ (decury) the Latin term but ‘dekania’ a Greek term and he qualifies his definition with τυχὸν an aorist participle of τυγχάνω ‘used to be at’, so is referring not to contemporary Roman practice but older Hellenic practice, and since he has likely lifted this from his source, probably pre-Polybian usage; the Macedonian dekados is the only candidate for such a statement. Were I of a sadistic disposition, I might make hay of your mis-transliteration and interpretation, instead I shall just continue to urge you to get some Greek and that goes for everyone, folks.”

See above and my correction of the ‘typo’ dekad for dekania. If you consult the LSJ, you will find that ‘dekania’ only occurs in the manuals ( showing incidently, inter alia, that they share a common source – see above) and that it is a direct translation of the latin ‘decuria’, just as I said, and not surprising considering the authors are all writing in Roman times! It is not derived from Greek ‘dekad’ at all, but an example of confusion between Latin and Greek that I have alluded to previously. Nor does the reference to the past necessarily need to be to Hellenistic practise – it could just as easily refer to earlier Republican Roman practise dating back hundreds of years.

“But it gets better, here is that confusion I mentioned much earlier in the thread, between the Hellenistic use of ‘lochos’ for a file and the earlier usage for a more substantial unit.”

There is no confusion at all. In Xenophon’s Cyropaedia [II.3.21] each ‘lochos’ consists of two files of 8 i.e. 2x8 = 16 men, each led by a ‘lochagos’/lochos leader, and in the manuals likewise the ‘lochos’ is also 16 men, now in a single file. Of course like most Greek military terminology, ‘lochos’ had a more generic meaning of ‘company’ or ‘band’, of indeterminate number ( anything from 24 to over 100)– just like ‘dekad’, which came to mean a file of indeterminate number!

Lucky for you that you didn’t ‘make hay’, eh, since it is you that is wrong ( again) and has ‘mis-translated’, according to the LSJ......

Agesilaos wrote:

Xenophon wrote

Note that neither Aelian nor Asclepiodotus refer to ‘file of ten’, only a generic ‘file’, and ‘dekad’ as a synonym with ‘stichos’, confirming the usage by authors such as Aeneas Tacticus and Xenophon. Indeed Arrian even refers to Xenophon, showing that he was one of Arrian's sources.

“Each of the surviving Taktike represents a separate selection of material, so that neither Aelian nor Asklepiodotos preserve the definition of dekados/dekania is unsurprising, not least because it self-defines. It is not Arrian who used Xenophon as his source but the original source, since the Military Lexicon also preserves reference to Xenophon as a source. It is also clear from this passage that it is Lak.Pol that is referred to and not the Kyrou Paideia; not a surprise either, I doubt AJP Taylor would consult ‘Lord of the Rings’ for a book on the origins of WWI. And, finally, Xenophon is cited for the definition of ‘enomotia’ not ‘dekania’.”

More fallacious argument? ‘Dekania’ is defined in the LSJ, and it is not a synonym of Greek ‘dekad’, as you seem to think, but translation into Greek of Latin ‘decury’, just as I said. It IS Arrian who refers to Xenophon, and it is probable that Arrian read him directly, rather than via an intermediate source. Xenophon is not referred to in the equivalent passages of Aelian and Asclepiodotus, for example [ Asclep II.2; AelianIv.1.31], and thus may not have been referred to in the common source, but was probably drawn on directly as a source by Arrian.( For example “Xenophon does not make it clear what fraction of the lochos the enomotia is...” [Arrian taktike 6] and “ ... is called a square...which Xenophon son of Gryllus calls an equal sided rectangle.” [Arrian taktike 29])

Your proposed analogy between A.J.P. Taylor and Tolkien, and Xenophon is hopelessly inappropriate, and an example of the fallacy of a false comparison, and also ‘reductio ad absurdam’.

Agesilaos wrote:

The last leg….

Praise the Lord !!

I wrote
Since this is a nonsensical manoeuvre, as the outermost men would have to wheel 2.3 km, assuming a metre frontage, if only 30,000 men are concerned (1,500 from each flank fold in [piD/4]), were there 150,000 (ie including the Egyptians, the distance would be 23 ½ km!)

Xenophon counters

Once again, Agesilaos starts to make calculations based on a false assumption. There is absolutely NO evidence of there being ANY Egyptians with the fictional Cyrus' army at Babylon, and plenty that they were not, as I have referred to previously - they go home after Thymbrara and are never mentioned again, and are not listed as being with the army at Babylon among the allies, as I related earlier.

Simply repeating false information doesn't make it true, as Agesilaos should have learnt from previous use of this ploy.

“Once again Xenophon plays with partial evidence, as can be seen; nor is it at all clear that the Egyptians go home after Thymbara; they decline to fight against Croesus but this is a campaign against the Assyrian King.”

There is a clear inference that the vast majority go home at [VII.1.45], save for those who accept Cyrus’ offer of lands and cities and wives etc “And the Egyptians who then stayed in the country have continued loyal subjects.....”
None are mentioned as remaining with the army, and the Egyptians are simply not referred to again. Furthermore Cyrus’ army and its allies are listed,[Xen Cyropaedia VII.5.49-51] and as I pointed out in a previous post – no Egyptians.
Your assertion is an example of the ‘ad ignorandum’ fallacy – a belief must be true because we aren’t specifically told that it isn’t true.

“No your interpretation is not at all consistent with Xenophon’s words, the crucial line being


[[5] And when the phalanx was thus folded back, the front ranks and the rear were of necessity composed of the most valiant men and the poorest were drawn up between them.


You have the file leaders of half the phalanx among ‘the poorest’ which is a nonsense.”

Xenophon is repeating a simplified generalisation, of course and is not meant literally. If this generalisation is “a nonsense”, it is one Xenophon refers to more than once. In the “Cavalry Commander”, the best men form the front rank – the file leaders/dekadarchs – and the next best the rear rank, with “the rest” in between [II.2-4], without mentioning the N.C.O. half-file leaders/pempadarchs in the middle, who are referred to later [II.9] . Xenophon is repeating this general truism, as stated by Xenophon’s teacher Socrates and others, and which goes back to Homer [Iliad IV.297-300] “The charioteers first he arrayed with their horses and cars, and behind them the footmen, many and valiant, to be a bulwark of battle; but the cowards he drave into the midst, that were he never so loath each man must needs fight perforce”:
Socrates discussion is referred to at [Xen Memorabilia III.3.7-8]
“It is well to understand tactics too; for there is a wide difference between right and wrong disposition of the troops, just as stones, bricks, timber and tiles flung together anyhow are useless, whereas when the materials that neither rot nor decay, that is, the stones and tiles, are placed at the bottom and the top, and the bricks and timber are put together in the middle, as in building, the result is something of great value, a house, in fact. Your analogy is perfect, Socrates,” said the youth; “for in war one must put the best men in the van and the rear, and the worst in the centre, that they may be led by the van and driven forward by the rearguard”, and for the house analogy, see also [Cyro: VI.3.25] quoted by Agesilaos below. This military truism of front and rear rank composition was taught so long as troops formed up in rank-and-file on the battlefield, right down to the 19th Century.



Agesilaos wrote;

Xenophon wrote:
This is exactly the same as when Xenophon uses this expression elsewhere - the file leaders were the front rank, and the rear rank was composed of the second-most valiant men, the 'ouragoi' of the folded back wings.

“Elsewhere, care to let us know where? Or is it a secret? LOL! “

See above and below.

“At III 3 41-2 he does have Kyros exhort the ‘ouragoi’ thus;

[41] “Men of Persia, you also have now taken your places among the peers, and you have been selected for your positions because you are considered in every way equal to the bravest, and by virtue of your years even more discreet than they. And so you occupy a place not at all less honourable than that of our front-rank men. For as you are behind, you can observe those who are valiant and by exhorting them make them still more valiant; and if any one should be inclined to hang back and you should see it, you would not permit it.[42] And because of your years and because of the weight of your armour it is more to your advantage than to any others' that we should be victorious. And if those in front call to you and bid you follow, obey them and see that you be not outdone by them even in this respect but give them a counter cheer to lead on faster against the enemy. Now go and get your luncheon and then go with your chaplets on your heads with the others to your posts.”

So here he would be making them the equals of the front rank fighters ‘protostatoi’, yet they get no enhanced position or responsibility, like the hexadarchs sharing out the booty. If here he really means this then by Book VII he has forgotten about their virtues as in my version every other man in rows five or six and six or seven would be an ouragos, whereas in yours the ouragoi alternate in rank five or six, or you are proposing half-file leaders too (despite no mention of them) .. and rank six or seven would be alternating [do]dekadarchs and [hex] pempadarchs. Neither arrangement matches Xenophon’s description of the poorest being in the middle. Unless the statement in the exhortation is just that and the ‘ouragoi’ are just ordinary, but older men, or Xenophon has forgotten what he wrote because the important thing is his expansion on the house metaphor rather than a consistent organisational picture.”

The latter is correct. The ‘ouragoi’/file closers are just that, and ordinary but experienced rankers whose function is as Xenophon states. The ‘dekadarch’/file leader is the file’s officer and the ‘pempadarch’ it’s N.C.O – equivalent to a platoon sergeant or corporal.

You will note that these are the same terms used at VI.3.25


25] Behind all the rest I shall station the so-called rear-guard of veteran reserves. For just as a house, without a strong foundation or without the things that make a roof, is good for nothing, so likewise a phalanx is good for nothing, unless both front and rear are composed of valiant men.

Though the Greek only has the Veteran, ‘pasi’ - of the fathers. This in turn, means that Xenophon is describing a mixed file not separate bodies. Contra an earlier comment of yours.”

Not so, the deployment at ‘Thymbrara’ is rather different to the earlier battle against the Assyrians. In the latter case, the earlier battle, we have Cyrus and his Persians in their new heavy infantry phalanx, of whom the ‘ouragoi’ form the rear rank. At ‘Thymbrara’, the ‘heavy infantry’ form the phalanx, and Cyrus stations behind them firstly ‘akontistais’/javelin throwers, and then behind these again ‘toxotas’/archers, both ‘divisions’ of which are to launch missiles over the lines in front ( of the phalanx). At VI.3.24 and VI.3.26 they clearly form separate units/lochoi, commanded by their own officers. They most assuredly do not form part of any ‘mixed files’. Behind these again are another separate division - the veterans – who have a separate commander, and hence form a separate unit. They are not a single rank, as ‘ouragoi’ are, but a separate rearguard unit and Xenophon does not describe them as ‘ouragoi’, though they are tasked with a similar function. The light troops and rearguard are not technically part of the heavy infantry phalanx ( c.f. similar formations described in the manuals. e.g Asclep VI.1; Aelian 15; Arrian 13 )

“That the son of Gryllos could be careless in subsidiary matters is also demonstrated by his arming Kyros’ new cavalry with two ‘thorakes’ (IV 3 9 – as thorakophoroi they already have a thorax!). ”

It is not Xenophon that is ‘careless’, for once again your lack of knowledge regarding ancient military matters has led you into error. A cavalry ‘thoraka’ is quite different from an infantry one, and readily recognisable as such. A rider has to straddle his horse, and so in the case of the cavalry ‘spolas’/corselet it is high-waisted, and the ‘pteryges’/feathers below the waist allow the rider to straddle – the ‘spolades’ illustrated in the Lyson and Kallikles tomb are a good example. In the case of a bronze ‘thoraka’, the base must be flared out to accommodate the straddle.

Xenophon is quite correct to point out the need for re-equipping, and your assertion that Xenophon is ‘careless’ is quite wrong!! Yet another example of you claiming Xenophon has erred, based on your own lack of knowledge.

Seemingly these images would not fit into the previous post............

Agesialaos wrote:

Xenophon wrote -14 sept


[ save for the sole ref XH 6.5.19 of ‘9 or ten shields '[deep], which is suspicious – perhaps some later copyist or emender has misinterpreted ‘dekad’ again. Some, such as Lazenby, now emend that back to ‘eight shields’]

Agesilaos wrote:

The only reference I can find in Lazenby is this;


The Spartan Army p37

'Finally, when the plain was reached, the king 'extended his army back to a depth of eight or ten shields' (ἐξέτεινε πάλιν ἐπ᾽ ἐννέα ἢ δέκα τὸ στράτευμα ἀσπίδων. XH [6.5.19])'


As can be seen this is not a suggested emendation but a slip in translation, ἐννέα is 'nine', as in ennea hodoi, the old name for Amphipolis, Nine-Ways. Please supply the names of the others subsumed by 'some' as I would love to see their reasoning; I can see no reason to doubt the MS reading nor does the emendment suggested seem palaeographically possible.

Paralus wrote:

I can't see how anyone might misunderstand 'dekados' so as to render it ἐξέτεινε πάλιν ἐπ᾽ ἐννέα ἢ δέκα τὸ στράτευμα ἀσπίδων. I also cannot see how or why anyone would emend it to 'eight': it clearly states "nine or ten". Such might be a possibility if the text was corrupt but the translator's notes in the Landmark do not show any such corruption for this passage (nor, for that matter, any proposed emendation accepted or not).

I am happy to accept that Lazenby is perhaps in error, and that the text does in fact say “nine or ten”. Even so, Xenophon does not refer to this ‘ad hoc’ formation as ‘dekads’, and must specify the actual numbers, for generic ‘dekads’/files would not convey actual depth. As Agesilaos pointed out earlier, we do not hear of Greeks in files of ten !!

At long last, we may now return to the subject matter of this thread, namely the three versions of the Hellenistic ‘Taktike technike’/drill manual and to what extent it represents actual military practise as opposed to invented theory [ and no, Paralus, I am not attacking the ‘integrity’ of Asclepiodotus, Aelian or Arrian or their probable progenitor Poseidonius by saying so, merely reporting fact !].

Readers are invited to re-read page 1 of this thread to refresh their memories, for what follows really extrapolates from there, before the myriad following digressions starting with Athenian military organisation on page 2, followed by the battle of Leuktra etc etc that occupy a further 14 pages !!
It is clear that much of what is postulated, while theoretically possible, is simply so impractical as to be actually impossible, or at least never done in real life – such as “countermarching by rank” [ referred to in Asclep X.16 ; Arrian XXIII; Aelian XXVII] which I referred to on page 1. To do this would take 20-30minutes for a deployed phalanx some 2,048 yards or so long, and would be inevitably chaotic, not to mention militarily suicidal in the presence of the enemy. Similarly “doubling” files of 16 to form files of 32, at 12 ft intervals would remove all cohesion, and mass drilling in such a formation would be impossible. Interestingly, whilst this is hypothetically briefly mentioned [Asclep II.1; Aelian IV.3 and Arrian V ], when actual descriptions of drill and formations are referred to, files of 16 at 6 ft intervals are the largest referred to, and Arrian even tells us 16 is the “maximum depth.” Unsurprisingly, files of 32 are not referred to in any of our general histories either, and when we hear of formations this deep [Issos, Sellasia and Magnesia] they are formed of one phalanx drawn up behind another, each 16 deep. Similarly some of the more elaborate formations diagrammed in Asclepiodotus are simply too complex to be used in practice. But if these are obvious examples of impossibilities, and hence the theoretical invention from the imagination of ( probably) Poseidonius, and if the basic formations and drill referred to are obviously real, where can we apply the dividing line ? One way is to look at our general histories to see what was actually performed on the battlefield, or at least get an idea. All through military history, trainers and drillmasters teach only the simplest moves necessary for a unit to carry out its military function, ignoring anything more elaborate.
These are then repeated over and over as much as possible, so that the soldier can perform them in his sleep! One reason for this is the stress of battle, for when in fear of his life, a soldier forgets all but the simplest manoeuvres which have been drummed into him, through long and repetitive training.

So what did our Hellenistic ‘sarissaphoros’ need to be able to do at a minimum when called up for service by his King ?
He needed to be able to form up in file 16 deep, and march in file in ‘open’/natural normal order [ 6ft]; then do the same with neighbouring files in sub-units. He needed to be able to ‘close up’ to fighting formations – compact/close order/’pyknosis [3ft and 8 deep] and finally locked shields/’synaspismos’ [1.5 ft and 4 deep], and reform back again. He needed to be able to deploy in sub-units [‘sytagma’ or ‘speira’ 16x16 men] from column of march into phalanx and back again, and carry out turns in sub-units; he needed to be able to counter-march in order to change front. Already we can see that this all requires a good standard of ‘Taktike’/drill, and this is the level we might expect as ‘de minimis’ rather than some of the more elaborate drills referred to in the Manual. Moreover, it would be difficult to achieve for part-time troops whose only opportunity to drill ‘en masse’ would be at the annual call-up/muster, though the continuous wars of Philip and Alexander turned out full time regular/professional soldiers. For example, 3 types of counter-march are described (Laconian, Macedonian and Chorios, also called Cretan or Persian), by rank and by file making six altogether, but it seems likely that troops were taught only one, or perhaps two, by files – we are told that Philip and Alexander preferred the ‘Laconian counter-march’, despising the ‘Macedonian’. [Aelian 34.2-4]

Whilst a somewhat simplified form of ‘drill’ is what common sense and military history would lead us to expect, is there actual evidence that this was so, apart from what we may glean from our general histories ?
As it happens, yes there is. Onasander was another 1st century AD Roman who wrote an updated version of a Hellenistic manual, this one on the subject of “Generalship”/Strategikos and on training he tells us:
“2 First arming the soldiers, he should draw them up in military formation that they may become practised in maintaining their formation; that they may become familiar with the faces and names of one another; that each soldier may learn by whom he stands and where and after how many. In this way, by one sharp command, the whole army will immediately form ranks. Then he should instruct the army in open and close order; in turning to the left and right; the interchange, taking distance, and closing up of files; the division into files; the p411arrangement and extension of files to form the phalanx; withdrawing of files for greater depth of the phalanx; battle formation facing in two directions, when the rear guard turns to fight an encircling enemy; and he should instruct them thoroughly in the calls for retreat.”[Onasander X.2]
This is very similar to the list I have mentioned above, and much simpler than some of the evolutions of the Manual.

Another example of ‘practical’ versus ‘theoretical’ is that the manual states that light troops can be drawn up in front of, behind, or to the flanks of the phalanx ,or inserted into the ranks of the phalanx by alternate files[Aelian 15-16; Asclep 6; Arrian 13-14]. Fine in theory, but we might expect that light troops shooting over the heads of an 8 or 16 deep phalanx with indirect plunging fire might not be terribly effective, and again Onasander[XVII] offers the more practical :
“The general will assign his light-armed troops — javelin-throwers, bowmen, and slingers — to a position in front of the phalanx, for if placed in the rear they will do more damage to their own army than to the enemy, and if in among the heavy-armed, their peculiar skill will be ineffectual because they will be unable to take a step backwards in throwing their javelins or to charge forward and cast them, as other soldiers are in front of them and at their heels, nor will the slingers be able to execute the whirling of their slings, as their fellow-soldiers stand at their side and, in their turn, are caused to stumble in trying to avoid the whirling slings. If the bowmen are placed in front of the army, they will shoot their arrows at the enemy as at a target; but drawn up behind the ranks or in among the heavy-armed they will shoot high, so that the arrows have impetus only for their upward flight, and afterwards, even if they fall on the heads of the enemy, will have spent their force and cause little distress to the foe.”

We can thus, by careful analysis, separate out what was really possible and actually used in reality from the theoretical extensions of the original Manual writer, (probably) Poseidonius.
I have only given some examples, for a full detailed analysis would fill a book....
I believe this thread has adequately demonstrated that whilst detailed information is rare, we can glean enough technical information from the two ‘snapshots’ we have of Greek armies – Xenophon c. 400 BC and the post-Macedonian Hellenistic manual perhaps originating with Polybius ( c.200-150 BC ) via Poseidonius of Rhodes ( c. 100BC) and the three versions of Asclepiodotus, Aelian, and Arrian ( 1st C. BC- 2 nd C. AD) plus Onasander ( c. 50 AD) to be able to deduce much of the probable evolution of the Greek/Macedonian phalanx over this period, just as we can similarly deduce the likely evolution of the Roman Legion over a similar period of the early/mid Republican Legion thanks to the three ‘snapshots’ we have thanks to Polybius ( 2nd C BC) and Livy ( late 1st C.BC ).

You seem very confused about what I am saying about ‘dekas’ and where the burden and indeed the nature of any proof lies. For anyone confused by the foregoing ‘refutation’ my position is that ‘dekas’ and its genitive, ‘dekados’ are used to describe files of ten men except for the Macedonian ‘dekas’ under Alexander and probably the later years of Philip when the name of the former organisation was retained but the file had increased to sixteen, the standard strength used in the Taktike.

I do not say that Greek hoplites were ever organised in dekades and therefore hardly have to produce evidence that they were. On the other hand you assert that ‘dekas’ is not number specific but a general word for file, the burden of proof lies with you, but you can supply none since the term’dekas’ is never applied to hoplites, either generally or number specifically. So whilst dismissing the evidence of Persian ‘dekades’ containing ten men since ‘the context we are talking about is hoplite files’, such an ejaculation makes it all the more humourous that the ‘evidence’ you produce concerns Athenian CAVALRY and fictional Persian thorakophoroi.

At this point I would like to quote J K Anderson, not because I wish to add his authority for my point of view but rather that he might escape the opprobrium of being thought to support yours.

J K Anderson, (1970), Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, p.100
In this passage {Cyr.II 3 xxi] , the taxis is clearly supposed to consist of four lochoi, each of which consists of two tens, each of which is divided into two fives. Later on these become, without explanation, “twelves “ and “sixes,” probably because Xenophon decided that each taxis should consist of a hundred men – four lochoi, each of a lochagos and twenty-four men – and forgot to revise what he had written already.

No nonsense about ‘dekas’ becoming a generic word for file here, just clearly number specific. Wait! What about that entry in LSJ ‘generally, Company’ a refrain later expanded to “ ‘generally, Company’ [squad, group or file]” , now this is hilarious. Now you get to expand on the entry in LSJ to make it fit your viewpoint…hmmm but let’s look at the actual entry

δεκάς , άδος, ἡ,
A.company of ten, Il.2.126, Hdt.3.25; of ships, A. Pers.340, etc.: generally, company, “ἧς καὶ σὺ φαίνει δεκάδος” E.Supp. 219; number, tale, “τῶν ἐτέων ἡ δ. οὐκ ὀλίγη” Call.Fr.489; ἡ Ἀττικὴ δ., the ten Attic Orators, Luc.Scyth.10.
2. Αύκου δ. the company of Lycus, a name given to bribed dicasts at Athens, because the bribers were to be found near the statue of Lycus in the law-courts, Eratosth. ap. Harp.s.v.
II. the number ten, περὶ τῆς δ., title of work by Archytas, cf. Philol.11, Arist.Metaph.1084a12; τέλειον ἡ δ., Pythag., ib.986a8, cf. Fr.203.
III. = δεκάτη 1, Hsch. s.v. δεκατευταί.

Now, a little tip for using Lexica, before waxing triumphant and perverting the definition to suit your own purpose, check the reference out, here that is Euripides ‘Suppliants’ 219, handily Perseus re-directs with one click and…

I think you also are of this number, a son of folly, [220]

That’s right, it refers not to a military formation but a general class, as in ‘the company you keep’ rather than ‘company’ a military formation much higher than your supplied ‘squad, group or file’, were I the suspicious kind I might assume that you ended the definition before the reference deliberately, and then supplied your own totally misleading expansion but instead I just think you do not know how to use a Lexicon.

Nor it appears can you read and retain information, otherwise you would have realised that it is Arrian who supplies the evidence that ‘a Macedonian ‘dekad’ ever numbered ten,..’ as stated 16 Sept (a long time ago but the posts you have been embedded quoting from, though you did not address this point…unable to refute it? Or did you think it unimportant?)

Arrian Takt 6
[1] Some term this a lochos or stichos, others a dekania, [2] the lochos was formerly ten strong. It is doubtful what enomotia means: for some say this is another name for a lochos, others that it is the fourth part of a lochos, and that its leader is an enomotarch , two enomotiai make a dimoiria and it is led by a dimoirites. [3] Xenophon can certainly be shown to consider the enomotia part of a lochos: always less than a half at least, he says that the lochagoi form each enomotia in their own lochos.

τὸν δὲ λόχον καὶ στίχον ἤδη τινὲς ὀνομάζουσιν, οἳ δὲ δεκανίαν, [2] τυχὸν οἷς ἐκ δέκα ὁ λόχος ἦν. ὑπὲρ δὲ τῆς ἐνωμοτίας ἀμφιγνοούμενόν ἐστιν: οἳ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλο ὄνομα τῷ λόχῳ εἶναι τοῦτο, οἳ δὲ τὸ τέταρτον τοῦ λάχου ἐνωμοτίαν καλοῦσιν, καὶ ἐνωμόταρχον τὸν τούτου ἡγούμενον, τὰς δὲ δύο ἐνωμοτίας διμοιρίαν καὶ τὸν ἡγούμενον τούτων διμοιρίτην. [3] Ξενοφῶν δὲ πόστον μὲν μέρος τοῦ λόχου ἡ ἐνωμοτία ἐστὶν οὐ διασαφεῖ: ὅτι δὲ μεῖον πάντως γε τῷ ἡμίσει, δηλοῖ ἐν ᾧ λέγει ὅτι οἱ λοχαγοὶ κατ᾽ ἐνωμοτίας ἕκαστος ἐποιήσαντο τὸν αὑτοῦ λόχον.



So, he does not use ‘decuria’ (decury) the Latin term but ‘dekania’ a Greek term and he qualifies his definition with τυχὸν an aorist participle of τυγχάνω ‘used to be at’, so is referring not to contemporary Roman practice but older Hellenic practice, and since he has likely lifted this from his source, probably pre-Polybian usage; the Macedonian dekados is the only candidate for such a statement. Were I of a sadistic disposition, I might make hay of your mis-transliteration and interpretation, instead I shall just continue to urge you to get some Greek and that goes for everyone, folks

If you wish to ‘refute’ even one of my sentences you will need to do much, much better; for the record I am addressing points one by one and eschewing the constant embedded quote which lengthens every post inordinately.

Sorry, could not let this pass

I’m not going to comment on Agesilaos’ largely incorrect presumptions about the Spartan army – readers are referred to Lazenby’s “Spartan Army” and Anderson’s “Military theory and practise in the age of Xenophon” as the best and second best modern sources and discussion.

The amazing thing is that Anderson agrees 100% with my view of Spartan organisation! Not that he had had the benefit of reading me ! Which means that the ’second best modern source[s] and discussion’ consists of ‘largely incorrect presumptions’ yet remains ‘really knowledgable scholars such as Anderson’ (20 Aug), mmmh, a clear case of cognitive dissonance, unless you think that the state of modern scholarship had plummeted so far that these statements are true and the ‘second best’ is cognate with the ‘largely incorrect’, still, might explain your PHD and surely must Stephen English’s !!!

Oh, and Anderson does not support your model of half-file insertion just prior to combat either but I’ll leave that for now; the illustrator (sadly now dead like so many) is still on your side,though so chin up

Agesilaos wrote 14 Feb:

“You seem very confused about what I am saying about ‘dekas’ and where the burden and indeed the nature of any proof lies. For anyone confused by the foregoing ‘refutation’ my position is that ‘dekas’ and its genitive, ‘dekados’ are used to describe files of ten men except for the Macedonian ‘dekas’ under Alexander and probably the later years of Philip when the name of the former organisation was retained but the file had increased to sixteen, the standard strength used in the Taktike.

I do not say that Greek hoplites were ever organised in dekades and therefore hardly have to produce evidence that they were.”

I think the confusion lay on your part, at least as expressed in your post. I am glad you have clarified that Herodotus only refers to Persian files as ‘dekas/tens’, and that you agree that Greek ‘hoplites’ did not take the field in files of ten.[ they seem to have had nominal organisations of ten on occasion]

“On the other hand you assert that ‘dekas’ is not number specific but a general word for file, the burden of proof lies with you, but you can supply none since the term ’dekas’ is never applied to hoplites, either generally or number specifically. So whilst dismissing the evidence of Persian ‘dekades’ containing ten men since ‘the context we are talking about is hoplite files’, such an ejaculation makes it all the more humourous that the ‘evidence’ you produce concerns Athenian CAVALRY and fictional Persian thorakophoroi. ”

It is 'communis opinio' that Cyrus hoplites are not just "fictional Persian thorakaphoroi', but that the description is of GREEK hoplite drill, and which, as Anderson and many others including me have noted is the same as the Spartan drill referred to in Xenophon's "Constitution of the Lacedaemonians"[XI.4-8]. Furthermore, a 'file/dekad' is a 'file/dekad' whether referring to cavalry or infantry - there was no separate word for cavalry files, so your point is an artificial distinction and irrelevant. Throughout his works Xenophon uses but two words for generic 'file' - 'dekad' and 'stichos', which are used synonymously, as demonstrated by Xen. "Cavalry Commander" III.9[stichos] and V.7[dekadas] describing the same files, and for both there is but one word for 'file leader' namely 'dekadarch'.
As for dekad never being applied to 'hoplites', that is also utterly untrue for Cyrus' pseudo-Greek hoplites of the Cyropaedia are formed into 'files/dekads'. You've also overlooked that a 16 strong Macedonian file of sarissaphoroi and called 'hoplites' is also termed a 'dekad', that I have referred to frequently.

"At this point I would like to quote J K Anderson, not because I wish to add his authority for my point of view but rather that he might escape the opprobrium of being thought to support yours."

Ah, but on the question of whether hoplites fought as ‘Half-files’, Anderson does indeed espouse this same view, as did Peter Connolly [ pp 26-31 “Greek Armies” 1977] and myself in my PhD thesis, later incorporated into “Warfare in the Classical World” p.34 [1980]. Nor is there any “opprobrium” in this – it happens to be correct, as we all three agree, and has repeatedly been demonstrated here, contra you. Any 'opprobrium' or disgrace surely falls on your unsupported and incorrect views on the subject of ‘Tactike’, which you clearly don't understand.

“J K Anderson, (1970), Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, p.100
In this passage {Cyr.II 3 xxi] , the taxis is clearly supposed to consist of four lochoi, each of which consists of two tens, each of which is divided into two fives. Later on these become, without explanation, “twelves “ and “sixes,” probably because Xenophon decided that each taxis should consist of a hundred men – four lochoi, each of a lochagos and twenty-four men – and forgot to revise what he had written already.”

This comes from Chapter VI, Tactical Training [of hoplites], and Anderson quotes from Xenophon’s ‘Cyro’ extensively to illustrate hoplite drill, and refers to ‘half-files’, as can be seen in your quotation, and frequently elsewhere. A ‘file’/dekad is a file whether it is of infantry or cavalry, or in a fictional work about the training of ‘Hoplites/Thorakaphoroi’[both terms used synonymously] by Cyrus, using drill very similar to Spartan drill.( He also points out [p105] that the Spartan drill described in ‘Constitution of the Lacedaemonians’[XI.4] is the same as that in the Cyropaedia.)
In this instance Anderson makes the same error you do, in thinking that ‘dekad’ can only mean a file of ten.

No nonsense about ‘dekas’ becoming a generic word for file here, just clearly number specific. Wait! What about that entry in LSJ ‘generally, Company’ a refrain later expanded to “ ‘generally, Company’ [squad, group or file]” , now this is hilarious. Now you get to expand on the entry in LSJ to make it fit your viewpoint…hmmm but let’s look at the actual entry
δεκάς , άδος, ἡ,
A.company of ten, Il.2.126, Hdt.3.25; of ships, A. Pers.340, etc.: generally, company, “ἧς καὶ σὺ φαίνει δεκάδος” E.Supp. 219; number, tale, “τῶν ἐτέων ἡ δ. οὐκ ὀλίγη” Call.Fr.489; ἡ Ἀττικὴ δ., the ten Attic Orators, Luc.Scyth.10.
2. Αύκου δ. the company of Lycus, a name given to bribed dicasts at Athens, because the bribers were to be found near the statue of Lycus in the law-courts, Eratosth. ap. Harp.s.v.
II. the number ten, περὶ τῆς δ., title of work by Archytas, cf. Philol.11, Arist.Metaph.1084a12; τέλειον ἡ δ., Pythag., ib.986a8, cf. Fr.203.
III. = δεκάτη 1, Hsch. s.v. δεκατευταί.


“Now, a little tip for using Lexica, before waxing triumphant and perverting the definition to suit your own purpose, check the reference out, here that is Euripides ‘Suppliants’ 219, handily Perseus re-directs with one click and…
I think you also are of this number, a son of folly, [220]

That’s right, it refers not to a military formation but a general class, as in ‘the company you keep’ rather than ‘company’ a military formation much higher than your supplied ‘squad, group or file’, were I the suspicious kind I might assume that you ended the definition before the reference deliberately, and then supplied your own totally misleading expansion but instead I just think you do not know how to use a Lexicon. “

....in which you are sadly mistaken. A tip for YOU. A lexicon is not exhaustive and does NOT give every usage in every source of a particular word, but examples. For instance,it doesn't attempt to list all the references to dekas/'ten' in our sources). Euripides is but one example of the definition “generally, company”, and not intended to be the sole one..
As I have pointed out before, the various Loeb translators (Marchant , Miller ) all agree that ‘dekad’ is best translated as just ‘file’ generally, not ‘file of ten’ specifically. Some translators, such as the respected Dakyns, actually translate 'dekad' as generic 'squad' directly. ( The LSJ is not always gospel true, believe it or not !) Similarly ‘dekadarch’ is just ‘file leader’ NOT ‘leader of ten’. My mention of “squad, group or file” is for clarification, for that is what a ‘company of ten’ is more properly called in modern parlance, and is what some translators utilise.

“Nor it appears can you read and retain information, otherwise you would have realised that it is Arrian who supplies the evidence that ‘a Macedonian ‘dekad’ ever numbered ten,..’ as stated 16 Sept (a long time ago but the posts you have been embedded quoting from, though you did not address this point…unable to refute it? Or did you think it unimportant?)
Arrian Takt 6
[1] Some term this a lochos or stichos, others a dekania, [2] the lochos was formerly ten strong. It is doubtful what enomotia means: for some say this is another name for a lochos, others that it is the fourth part of a lochos, and that its leader is an enomotarch , two enomotiai make a dimoiria and it is led by a dimoirites. [3] Xenophon can certainly be shown to consider the enomotia part of a lochos: always less than a half at least, he says that the lochagoi form each enomotia in their own lochos.

τὸν δὲ λόχον καὶ στίχον ἤδη τινὲς ὀνομάζουσιν, οἳ δὲ δεκανίαν, [2] τυχὸν οἷς ἐκ δέκα ὁ λόχος ἦν. ὑπὲρ δὲ τῆς ἐνωμοτίας ἀμφιγνοούμενόν ἐστιν: οἳ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλο ὄνομα τῷ λόχῳ εἶναι τοῦτο, οἳ δὲ τὸ τέταρτον τοῦ λάχου ἐνωμοτίαν καλοῦσιν, καὶ ἐνωμόταρχον τὸν τούτου ἡγούμενον, τὰς δὲ δύο ἐνωμοτίας διμοιρίαν καὶ τὸν ἡγούμενον τούτων διμοιρίτην. [3] Ξενοφῶν δὲ πόστον μὲν μέρος τοῦ λόχου ἡ ἐνωμοτία ἐστὶν οὐ διασαφεῖ: ὅτι δὲ μεῖον πάντως γε τῷ ἡμίσει, δηλοῖ ἐν ᾧ λέγει ὅτι οἱ λοχαγοὶ κατ᾽ ἐνωμοτίας ἕκαστος ἐποιήσαντο τὸν αὑτοῦ λόχον.

Firstly, this is not a particularly good translation, particularly the first line, which should read:
‘Some now refer to the ‘lochos’ as a file[stichos], others as a dekania [Gk translation of Latin decury] in cases where a lochos was formed of ten men....” ....or... "Some name the lochos a file/stichos, some a dekania/decury for when the unit consists of ten men...”

As you have pointed out, Greek or Macedonian files never consisted of files ten deep in the field.

“So, he does not use ‘decuria’ (decury) the Latin term but ‘dekania’ a Greek term and he qualifies his definition with τυχὸν an aorist participle of τυγχάνω ‘used to be at’, so is referring not to contemporary Roman practice but older Hellenic practice, and since he has likely lifted this from his source, probably pre-Polybian usage; the Macedonian dekados is the only candidate for such a statement. Were I of a sadistic disposition, I might make hay of your mis-transliteration and interpretation, instead I shall just continue to urge you to get some Greek and that goes for everyone, folks”

Secondly, as we have seen, ‘dekania’ is a Greek translation of Latin ‘decuria’ [see LSJ] and not a Greek word, so you are quite wrong, and the reference is most likely to a Roman file of ten/decury, which also went back centuries. To say that “the Macedonian ‘dekados’ is the only candidate” is therefore completely incorrect. Seems like your Greek is a little rusty, perhaps you should heed your own advice.

“If you wish to ‘refute’ even one of my sentences you will need to do much, much better; for the record I am addressing points one by one and eschewing the constant embedded quote which lengthens every post inordinately.”

You mean just like the above? That’s what comes of your hubris......

Postby agesilaos » Sat Feb 14, 2015 6:06 pm

Sorry, could not let this pass

Xenophon wrote:
I’m not going to comment on Agesilaos’ largely incorrect presumptions about the Spartan army – readers are referred to Lazenby’s “Spartan Army” and Anderson’s “Military theory and practise in the age of Xenophon” as the best and second best modern sources and discussion.

“The amazing thing is that Anderson agrees 100% with my view of Spartan organisation! Not that he had had the benefit of reading me ! Which means that the ’second best modern source[s] and discussion’ consists of ‘largely incorrect presumptions’ yet remains ‘really knowledgable scholars such as Anderson’ (20 Aug), mmmh, a clear case of cognitive dissonance, unless you think that the state of modern scholarship had plummeted so far that these statements are true and the ‘second best’ is cognate with the ‘largely incorrect’, still, might explain your PHD and surely must Stephen English’s !!!

Oh, and Anderson does not support your model of half-file insertion just prior to combat either but I’ll leave that for now; the illustrator (sadly now dead like so many) is still on your side,though so chin up ”

This entire statement, incredibly enough, is completely wrong in every respect! Anderson certainly does NOT agree with ‘your’ view of Spartan organisation, which is hardly original. He discusses Spartan organisation in an Appendix of some 26 pages, and in it he outlines the various possibilities concerning same, and associated problems. He does not reach any particular conclusions, or plump for a particular organisation. I’ll pass over the remainder, based on this grave error. I assume you are making some sort of derogatory swipe at my PhD, and I have no idea who, or which, Stephen English you are referring to.....and no need to explain, I'm not that interested.
As for the second paragraph, it too is completely wrong. It is not just the illustrative figures that show half-files [ e.g fig 1, showing final depth of six, but the accompanying text written by Anderson too] and also in the body of the text e.g. p 100 you quoted ( so you must have at least read this page) and page 101 where Anderson says specifically “...after the rear halves of the files had been brought up into the intervals.” He also points out [p.104]that the Spartan drill described in ‘Constitution of the Lacedaemonians “is of course the same manoeuvre for deploying into battle as that described in the Cyropaedia ( FIG II)”, and these are but two examples of what he avers throughout.

Your attempt at sarcasm is clearly unjustified.

Looks like you are still confused; how else is one to interpret a claim that I have ‘…overlooked that a 16 strong Macedonian file of sarissaphoroi and called 'hoplites' is also termed a 'dekad',’ four paragraphs after quoting my saying ‘..my position is that ‘dekas’ and its genitive, ‘dekados’ are used to describe files of ten men except for the Macedonian ‘dekas’ under Alexander and probably the later years of Philip when the name of the former organisation was retained but the file had increased to sixteen, the standard strength used in the Taktike.’?

Nor am I discussing, drill, simply whether ‘dekas’ means a file of ten or simply a file, surely you see that a putative drill can be applied to a file of any depth explicitly ten and later twelve, in the Kyrou Paideia or the Taktikeis’ sixteen. The usage 'file/dekad' presupposes your ‘generic interpretation’ and should only be used once that position is established in order to avoid confusion.

The consequences are clear in the subsequent exegesis, where ‘dekas is used the strength of the file is ten men and the officers are dekadarchoi, commanders of ten; when Xenophon changes his strength for the files in Kyrou Paideia to twelve the officers change from ‘dekadarchoi’ to ‘dodekadarchoi’, the number specific name of the officer matching the strength of his command.

I will get onto what Anderson actually says about ‘parembole’, but here we are only concerned with whether ‘dekas’ is number specific or generic.

Lexica give examples of the type of usage and are neither infallible nor exhaustive in their exempla, that is agreed, but the point is that the example given refers to ‘dekas’ used non-number specifically, ie. generally where its force is vague like ‘group’, it has no military application in this case so ‘’company’ [squad, group, file]’ remains misinterpretation, not clarification.

As I have said many times translators tend to translate loosely because their concern is the flow of the translation rather than the technical details therein.

As you have pointed out, Greek or Macedonian files never consisted of files ten deep in the field.

Not so as the eagle-eyed reader will have noticed ‘..my position is that ‘dekas’ and its genitive, ‘dekados’ are used to describe files of ten men except for the Macedonian ‘dekas’ under Alexander and probably the later years of Philip when the name of the former organisation was retained but the file had increased to sixteen, the standard strength used in the Taktike.’ Implies what I have stated earlier, that the Macedonian ‘dekas’ started life ten deep and retained the name when expanded to sixteen.

Let’s go with the translations you offer; the fact still remains that Arrian says a ‘dekania’ consists of ten men explicitly. True LSJ, which has just been characterised as neither complete nor ‘gospel true’ does give ‘decury’ as a translation for ‘dekania’, but if you use the word frequency statistic function of Perseus you will find that it appears in the literature in only two instances, here in Arrian and in the parallel passage in Asklepiodotos; epigraphically it is attested as a measure of land and as ‘the guardhouse of a decury’; sadly any search for the more usual word for ‘decuria’ in Greek texts is hampered by the engine throwing out every instance of ‘ten’! However, Polybios’ discussion of the Roman army calls the leaders of ‘decuriae’ ‘dekadarchoi’ VI 25, which would make them officers of ‘dekadoi’ ten strong.

Since ‘dekania’ is such a rare word it can be taken as certain that it comes from the common source of the Taktikeis, so your explanation is that in a manual explicitly treating the organisation and drill of Hellenistic armies, in a passage dealing with infantry files, the author inserted a note on the name of Roman cavalry units (the Romans had no decuria among their infantry, that level of unit was the ‘contubernium’ unhelpfully commanded by a ‘decanus’ in the later empire, Vegetius, De Res Militari, 2 viii). Maybe this theory needs some work?

The Macedonian ‘Dekas’ IS the only candidate; ‘Refutation, refutation ? Where art thou, refutation.’ The Gods may decide which of us is guilty of hubris.

‘To sum up, Xenophon’s evidence on the Spartan military organisation does not contradict itself, and I believe that it is better not to tinker with it in order to make it fit other pieces of information (for example, the list of five locoi), which should be referred to other periods, or to multiply the Spartan numbers. Thucydides cannot have got the Spartan organisation right, because his evidence does not fit his own account of the battle of Mantinea, but we cannot say with certainty what is wrong, or how it is to be corrected. I have tried to indicate what mistakes must be assumed if we are to suppose that the Spartan army in 418 BC. Was in fact organised in the same units as in the early fourth century, and how some of these mistakes might have arisen. Two reorganisations of the Spartan army, one between the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars, probably as a result of the earthquake of 464 BC, and one after the disaster of Leuktra, need to be assumed on this hypothesis, and I do not pretend that it is more than a hypothesis.’ Anderson, 1970 MTPAX, pp240-41

Seems he did reach his own conclusions about organisation and that they accord with those on the thread on ‘The Strength of Spartan Units’, I never claimed these were original, after all the son of Gryllos had already written them.

The thread is about numbers, drill is an irrelevance which will be addressed once this is cleared up…or not.

It was intended only as a cheeky swipe at your PHD, but I can see that the tone of the thread and the bare words can be taken more offensively than intended and so apologise. Still think that sarcasm justified, however.