New hoplite book

[Paralus]

I don't believe the two macedonian formations were in contact, but as he says close in one after the other. This does not change when they are pushed back down the hill- not until the special 'double-phalanx in close order" is formed. Thus, they both go back down the hill, but the rear unit is not engaged in fighting. When the rear unit reached the flat, they made a stand, and the forward phalanx fell back onto them and stopped retreating.

I think they were definitely in contact. Polybius describes the diphalaggion as epallelon. He uses diphalaggion in his criticism of Callisthenes (12.20.7) where he says that Alexander would more logically have use a "proper" diphalaggion or tetraphalaggion (this was actually what he did though not "properly" according to Polybius!). That he felt the need to qualify Doson's diphalaggion with "close one upon the other" would indicate there was no gap.

The peculiarity is not the formation formed before the final charge but the double phalanx - as Walbank observes. In 2.69.9 that final process has the phalangites "closing up the ranks of their pikes" (as Walbank notes for the phalangites are to become epallelou - close one after another in double phalanx). They have closed up from the rear and "charge" the Lacedaemonians in close order.

[Paullus Scipio]

Having closely studied the battle of Sellasia and written an article on the subject which appeared in "Ancient Warfare" magazine Vol II, issue2 April/May 2008, I hope I may shed some light on the mechanics of the manouevres of Antigonus' Macedonian phalanx. We know from our sources ( Polybius and Plutarch) that the Macedonian force led by Antogonus personally on the Macedonian right included two phalanxes made up of 3,000 elite "Peltasts" ( The Royal Guard) and 5,000 "White Shields". These were drawn up one behind the other, each 16 deep for a total of 32 deep. We know from the Hellenistic manuals that they could be formed up in three different densities; "normal"(open) order, with each man occupying a 6 ft frontage, normally used ( as the name suggests) for marching, manouevring etc. "Close order", each man occupying 3 ft of frontage was adopted for battle, prior to the charge, and was the order most commonly used for fighting and finally "locked shields", each man occupying 18 inches of front - the men had a semi-side-on stance to hold their pikes, with their two feet or so diameter shields held at an angle, and overlapping. This extra-tight formation was normally only used to receive a charge, since it was difficult to move in it.

The Macedonian phalanxes each 16 deep and one behind the other for a total of 32 deep, occupied a front of aproximately 250 yards in "close order", and that this was how they were formed is certain, because the saddle across which they fought the Spartans was precisely 250-300 yards wide before falling off into a steep slope on either side. The final formation described by Polybius is "epallelos", or 'interlocked' phalanx. The files of the two phalanxes interlocked, either by the rear one moving up or the forward one falling back, ending in a "locked shields" formation 16 deep, with twice as many in the front rank, and again occupying the same 250 yards or so frontage. The Spartans, only 6,000 strong against 8,000 Macedonians could not match this and were forced back and finally broke.

Thus, while most of the fighting took place in "close order", the final advance of the Macedonians was in "locked shields" formation, borne out by the fixed dimensions of the battlefield.

[PMBardunias]

I think they were definitely in contact. Polybius describes the diphalaggion as epallelon. He uses diphalaggion in his criticism of Callisthenes (12.20.7) where he says that Alexander would more logically have use a "proper" diphalaggion or tetraphalaggion (this was actually what he did though not "properly" according to Polybius!). That he felt the need to qualify Doson's diphalaggion with "close one upon the other" would indicate there was no gap.

Perhaps, but he may simply be conveying that they were deployed one behind the other, as opposed to in marching column, because of lack of space. He used the term again to describe squadrons of cavalry who were probably not in one contiguous formation, but stacked one after the other:

11.11 ???? ?? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ?????????? ???????. (while on the left wing he led the whole of the foreign contingent (of cavalry), drawn up in lines one behind the other). Perhaps more properly simple each foreign contingent lined up behind the other, for the idea of "lines" seems to be a translators addition. Here we have deployed units stacked for a battle.

Aside from all that, something clearly changes that gives Antigonus an advantage in the end, if not the final grouping of the two phalanxes into a single deep/dense entity, then I don't know what.

The peculiarity is not the formation formed before the final charge but the double phalanx - as Walbank observes. In 2.69.9 that final process has the phalangites "closing up the ranks of their pikes" (as Walbank notes for the phalangites are to become epallelou - close one after another in double phalanx). They have closed up from the rear and "charge" the Lacedaemonians in close order.

I agree that it is the double phalanx that is odd, but it is only odd here and not earlier. Why? Because marching "????????? ???????? " or forming one behind the other, is not terribly odd. Fighting with the two now contigous is odd.

As to the close order:

2.69 ???????????? ??? ??????? ??? ?????????? ?? ??? ????????? ???????? ????????

Yes, he mentions the close packing of sarissas, not synaspismos, but look again at :

4.64 ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????????? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ?????? ???????????? ??????????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?????????

He first mentions ????????????. But the nest phrase is almost the same as used is his description of Sellasia: ??????????? ???? ??????. Now "Hoplos" may be shields here, but it might just mean weapons too, since these men are light troops. Even if it means shields, clearly these is a density implied that we could read onto the sarissas at Sellasia that is especially compact.

Thus, some new element has occurred to account for the final success. Most likely, they did at this pont form a single deep phalanx from both units. They also might have formed closer together, in synaspismos to stop from being driven back. The one thing that the macedonians could do that the Spartans could not is keep the same frontage and depth and increase their density, thus I cannot discount this out of hand. Alternately, simply forming a phalanx twice the normal depth accounts for the increased "weight".

Paullus wrote:

The final formation described by Polybius is "epallelos", or 'interlocked' phalanx

.

This is not true, the formation is Epallelon from the beginning:

2.66 ???????? ??????????? ????????? and 2.69 ???????????? ??? ??????? ??? ?????????? ?? ??? ????????? ???????? ????????

While I am not unsympathetic to the synaspismos, this is not strong evidence for it. The only differnce between ??????????? ????????? and ????????? ???????? is that in the second case they are no longer "di-" or two seperate phalanxes. They may well have interlocked as you suggest, I just don't think that epallelon is evidence for it, because it requires him to change the meaning of the term in such quick succession of useage.

[Paralus]

Aside from all that, something clearly changes that gives Antigonus an advantage in the end, if not the final grouping of the two phalanxes into a single deep/dense entity, then I don't know what [...] Thus, some new element has occurred to account for the final success. Most likely, they did at this pont form a single deep phalanx from both units. They also might have formed closer together, in synaspismos to stop from being driven back.

The object of the "closing up" is the sarisae. In the instance of Philip's "peltasts" the object is clearly the shields and Polybius is just as clearly describing the formation of locked shields in that instance.

Paullus wrote:

The final formation described by Polybius is "epallelos", or 'interlocked' phalanx

.

This is not true, the formation is Epallelon from the beginning:

2.66 ???????? ??????????? ????????? and 2.69 ???????????? ??? ??????? ??? ?????????? ?? ??? ????????? ???????? ????????

While I am not unsympathetic to the synaspismos, this is not strong evidence for it. The only differnce between ??????????? ????????? and ????????? ???????? is that in the second case they are no longer "di-" or two seperate phalanxes. They may well have interlocked as you suggest, I just don't think that epallelon is evidence for it, because it requires him to change the meaning of the term in such quick succession of useage.

And epalleon, in the second instance, is clearly describing the phalangites: they are to form "one close after another" and thus, in my view, the phalangites have compacted from the rear to shove the Lacedaemonians back up their hill. So, in some sense, I agree with you Paul B: the change was to a form of pyknosis to take advantage of the doubvle depth; a form of synaspismos involving ranks or man-on-man from the rear. Thus the diphalggia was reduced in depth for the drive though the frontal spacing (close order) was kept to facillitate the drive uphill and the rear phalanx was brought to bear in battle. In this manner the "sarisae closed up their ranks" and the Macedonians - in compact order (from the front) - drove the Spartans back and eventually from their stronghold (which will have been their entrencments higher up when they fell back on them given the term Polybius uses). I have serious doubts that such could be acheived in the claustrophobic defensive posture of true synaspismos. This last action by the Macedonians was most definitely offensive in the extreme!

[Paullus Scipio]

I have serious doubts that such could be acheived in the claustrophobic defensive posture of true synaspismos.

Connolly's experiments with a reconstructed phalanx have demonstrated that, certain armchair theorists notwithstanding, the manuals 'synaspismos' is perfectly feasible in the manner they describe of 'doubling'. From close order:-
"Doubling the files proved far easier than expected. Formed up in the standard two cubit formation (close order) with pikes in the upright position, the right hand file turned about, marched to the rear, wheeled and came up the inetrval between two files.They then levelled their pikes proving that it was possible to 'double' the formation allowing only one cubit per man." (synaspismos/locked shields) JRMES 11 ; 2000 pp103-112"Experiments with the sarissa - a functional view".

Arrian ( Ars Tactica) tells us that in this formation, the unit could not turn - also borne out by Connolly's experiments, which demonstrated that even in 'close order' wheeling/turning was extremely difficult and required a large radius....

The fixed size of the battlefield frontage is fairly conclusive here, for once - see my post - the formation could be no wider than 250 yards or so, and the 'interlocked phalanx' must have been in a 'synaspismos' formation, not 'pyknosis'/close order which it had been when the two parts of the phalanx were one behind the other.

[PMBardunias]

The object of the "closing up" is the sarisae. In the instance of Philip's "peltasts" the object is clearly the shields and Polybius is just as clearly describing the formation of locked shields in that instance.

Honestly, I'm not sure where you are going with that line of reasoning, because sarissa don't "close up" without some change in the men holding them.

I have serious doubts that such could be acheived in the claustrophobic defensive posture of true synaspismos. This last action by the Macedonians was most definitely offensive in the extreme!

True, but in fairness we know little about this "charge". They need have done little more than stop being pushed back to win the battle. The only term I see that could be "charge", ????????????, has many meanings. These include being heaped up against a wall. They could have opened their formation later for the pursuit. I have little faith in the translation for this passage because if you go through word for word the meanings can be very different. Of course for us this means that we may never know the truth.

[Paralus]

The fixed size of the battlefield frontage is fairly conclusive here, for once - see my post - the formation could be no wider than 250 yards or so, and the 'interlocked phalanx' must have been in a 'synaspismos' formation, not 'pyknosis'/close order which it had been when the two parts of the phalanx were one behind the other.

I’m well aware of the battlefield width and the reason for the double phalanx. I’m also well acquainted with the version of forming synaspismos that you describe and am not arguing its practicality or not as I don’t believe that order was adopted here.

The object of the "closing up" is the sarisae. In the instance of Philip's "peltasts" the object is clearly the shields and Polybius is just as clearly describing the formation of locked shields in that instance.

Honestly, I'm not sure where you are going with that line of reasoning, because sarissa don't "close up" without some change in the men holding them.

Not going – gone. Yes: the change was from the rear. Paul Mac would have this as file insertion producing “locked shields” (just on which, nothing indicates an “interlocked phalanx”). I don’t believe – nor does Walbank on the Greek and another scholar I’d asked to cast an etymological eye over it – that this is what was meant. Thus the closing up of ranks of sarisae – from behind: the formation did not adopt a true synaspismos it closed up from the rear rather like your hoplite diagram earlier and its weight won the day.

I have serious doubts that such could be acheived in the claustrophobic defensive posture of true synaspismos. This last action by the Macedonians was most definitely offensive in the extreme!

True, but in fairness we know little about this "charge". They need have done little more than stop being pushed back to win the battle. The only term I see that could be "charge", ????????????, has many meanings. These include being heaped up against a wall.

No, we do not know what exactly this “charge” was. I picture it as a drive. We do, though, know its results and the only clue is Polybius’ use of ochuromaton to describe that from which the Spartans were driven. I would assume that the Macedonians pushed the Spartans back and up onto their “stronghold” (fieldworks) thus occasioning a rout. I’d hardly imagine Polybius describing their position as the phalanxes grappled as a “stronghold” or “fortress”. Then again, he could simply mean driven from the hill though one suspects he might have written that were it the case.

[Paullus Scipio]

(just on which, nothing indicates an “interlocked phalanx”). I don’t believe – nor does Walbank on the Greek and another scholar I’d asked to cast an etymological eye over it – that this is what was meant.

Yes, I thought this was the source of your belief....you would do well not to get too hung up on a lexicon explanation of a somewhat technical term....etymologists, and the great Walbank are not infallible, and certainly they are not military specialists. The lexicon meaning of "one close after another, in close order" is simply a guess, an inference drawn from the context, for the unique use here by Polybius, and it is a very poor one, because the troops were ALREADY 'close after one another, in close order' and that meaning therefore makes no sense in context....if they merely crowded forward, as you suggest, then what was it that Antigonus 'ordered' them to do? And why was this a 'peculiar formation' if it was merely a bunched up close order? And why use a specialist technical term?....Look further at the lexicon meaning and you will see the word 'epallelos' is derived from, and means, the word for 'interlocked' or 'mortised', and this is all too obviously the meaning here, and how two phalanxes one behind the other, telescope into one. (as opposed to the 'normal' way of forming 'synaspismos' whereby each part of the phalanx would have closed up to 'synaspismos' leaving the same formation 16 deep, but with each phalanx still one behind the other, 8 deep.'Epallelos'/interlocking ensured that every second front ranker was fresh, and a way of getting the reserve rear phalanx into action, which is why it was done that way.)

Polybius is here using a particular word, and he did not do so without a reason. A sarissa phalanx that simply crowded up dissolves into chaos - a crowd unable to even project their weapons. And what do you mean by 'weight'? How is a (presumably) more shallow formation to apply more 'weight' than a deeper one on the same frontage? We are talking about the same number of men, with, in your description of 'close order', the same number of tired front-rankers. How is that 'heavier' or applying 'weight'? And how does merely crowding forward allow the Macedonians to prevail where they could not before, if the number of men in the front rank stayed the same -close order? What you propose, in order to preserve a meaning guessed at by a lexicographer ignorant of military matters, makes no military sense, nay I'll go further and say unlikely in the extreme.

I am certain beyond reasonable doubt that the secret of Antigonus' success - what he ordered them to do - allowed him to bring fresh troops, in larger numbers, to bear, by 'interlocking' each part of his phalanx with the other, on that fixed, narrow front. Don't forget that the 'double-phalanx' becomes a 'single phalanx'.The 'epallelos' manouevre was a brilliant one - which is why Polybius describes it.

[Macedon]

Ahh... Sellasia! Wouldn't it be better to have started up a new discussion on that?

Sellasia is one of the most problematic battles to understand and analyze with many shady points, different accounts... a mess.. but a truly interesting battle indeed, much more complex than a simple clash of two lines and some skirmish and cavalry action...

Regarding the left of Antigonus, at the start of the battle there were two phalanxes one close behind the other and certainly not one. Polybius calls the formation "a difallangia epallili". "epallilos" normally means "behind one another", "epi + allilos" and although it can also mean "next or after (chronically) one another", here it certainly means behind. "interlocked" is only a very remote translation, basically meaning "next to each other" for many separate things and not "one "inside", interlocking one another". This serves not to rule out true synaspismos, just that this is not what is described here.

Yet, the keyword is "difallangia". It of course means "two phalanx formation" and is used to denote separate lines. Had the two phalanxes been touching from the beginning, Polybius would not have termed the formation a "difallangia". When the crucial time comes Polybius says ""kai xrhsamenoi tw ths epallhloy fallagos idiomati". Now this is too vague to exactly understand what happened. It could as easily mean that the two lines touched and with added "weight" pushed the Spartans back as that they did something else, something only deep phalanxes could do to enhance their efficiency... Could this mean the synaspismos of Aelian and Asclepiodotus? Possibly, but yet nothing is said on that matter, so we can only guess. I tend to interpret it as a synaspismos, but Polybius generally does not give any sign that he is familiar with it. I guess he has to be, him having at least a basic grasp of the military tactics of his time, but he never really in all his books comment on it, which, to my mind, is strange and has sometimes made me doubt whether true synaspsimos, super compactness, was used at his time... Again, key here is the singular "fallagos". Polybius says that "they used the property of the ONE phalanx behind the other", he does not say "fallangwn" (plural), which would bring in the action both phalanxes. So, what he basically says is that the front line was doing its job and then some command was given and the second phalanx, some distance to the back did something to get into action that was normal and expected - Polybius does not present it as something brilliant and unique, he describes something usual and expected -"idiomati"- (closed in, added its depth and maybe even doubled the density), but this is what is given. The rest is just (well- in this instance) educated guessing...

Maybe we could move this brilliant discussion to another thread?

P.S. as for 4.64, Polybius does not talk about any light infantry, as some translations have him. He is talking about units (I would guess syntagmata, even if Pol uses more generic words...) of his peltasts, his (assumed) elite phalangites. This is why he makes a clear description of heavy infantry with serried weapons projecting towards the Aetolians... Yet, whenever he uses the term "synaspismos" I read "close order", there would anyways be no tactical reason to use true synaspismos against Aetolian cavalry...

"?????????? ???? ?????????? ??????? ???????? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ????????? ??? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ????????????. ??? ?? ?????????????, ??? ?? ??? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ??????????????? ?? ??? ??????? ??????, ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????????? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ?????? ???????????? ??????????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?????????, ??????????? ??? ?????????? ????????????? ????????? ???? ??? ?????." Pol.4.64

[PMBardunias]

(as opposed to the 'normal' way of forming 'synaspismos' whereby each part of the phalanx would have closed up to 'synaspismos' leaving the same formation 16 deep, but with each phalanx still one behind the other, 8 deep.'Epallelos'/interlocking ensured that every second front ranker was fresh, and a way of getting the reserve rear phalanx into action, which is why it was done that way.)

You have ignored that this is the SECOND use of epallelos in the description, surely you don't think they were interlaced when they first ordered for battle?

You may well be correct about the formation, especially because I don't think we can say that they moved very much in it and "charge" seems a stretch, but you cannot base it on this word. It is possible, perhaps more likely than the introgression of two phalanxes for command reasons, that the first phalanx brought up its quarter file leaders, then the rear phalanx formed up behind them also in synaspismos. So in a sense both are correct.

Note to Paralus: I don't think we need take the notion that he physically fought them all the way back up the hill a step at a time and then beat them out of their fortress too seriously. Phylarchus's (presumably) account has them break in front of the fortress, in fact just when they seem to have won. Also, they would have had to break their phalanx just to get back inside of the pallisade, for they did not knock the whole thing down. Perhaps Polybius is simply referring to the fact that in defeat they were finally evicted from the exceptionally strong position that a lesser general would have broken against. It is possible as well that there was a stand made at the pallisade, which was overwelmed- after all so many Spartans were killed. Since at least some percentage of these men still found the idea of death preferable to running off with the King- at least one!- such a stand might make sense.

the troops were ALREADY 'close after one another, in close order' and that meaning therefore makes no sense in context....if they merely crowded forward, as you suggest, then what was it that Antigonus 'ordered' them to do?

He ordered the two (di-) phalanxes to have the rear one close up physically with the fore, resulting in one deep phalanx.

And why was this a 'peculiar formation' if it was merely a bunched up close order?

Because he created a single deep phalanx of two seperate ones.

And why use a specialist technical term?....Look further at the lexicon meaning and you will see the word 'epallelos' is derived from, and means, the word for 'interlocked' or 'mortised', and this is all too obviously the meaning here, and how two phalanxes one behind the other, telescope into one.

Except that it is not a specialist techincal term for this situation- because he already used it when they were not interlocked and he used it to describe successive units of horse who surely were not interlocked! Sticking two phalanxes together like cementing two bricks together would surely fit this definition.

And what do you mean by 'weight'? How is a (presumably) more shallow formation to apply more 'weight' than a deeper one on the same frontage? We are talking about the same number of men, with, in your description of 'close order', the same number of tired front-rankers. How is that 'heavier' or applying 'weight'?

Depth and "weight" are often used in conjuction by the tacticians. Even without projecting any special density as I would with hoplites who physically push, there is an inertia to movement gained by any crowd of men. Herding, or poking sarissa at 8 ranks of men until they move back is easier than getting those same 8 to move back when they have another 8 (or dense 4) behind them to whom they have to communicate the need to move backward. Herding a large group is more difficult than a small group due to this delay and the higher rate of asynchrony between moving elements. This occurs in hoplites too, but they can also take things a step further and truly push.

[Paullus Scipio]

Interesting post...congratulations, George!

Might I point out that an obvious reason to form 'synaspismos'/overlapped shields is the same reason the Romans formed 'testudo' - to provide a solid wall/cover against missile weapons? ( The Aetolian cavalry would almost certainly have been javelin armed). Indeed, in one manual, the two formations are compared as similar......

I agree with you that the formation change that Antigonus' phalanx underwent was normal and expected - how could it be otherwise, for a command was given and something done which was a property of a deep phalanx...and on a fixed narrow front, how else could the rear phalanx 'close in' and add it's depth to the fighting, other than by interspersing/infiltrating the files of the leading phalanx? The manuals do indeed tell us that a phalanx needs a certain depth in order to form 'synaspismos'. Also, how can the two phalanxes be 'next to each other' - in other words, side by side - if they did not interlock?

I described Antigonus' manouevre as "brilliant" because, as I mentioned, it brought the second, fresh phalanx into action, unlike each phalanx simply forming synaspismos, which would have left the second phalanx still in the rear, unable to participate directly. The impact of fresh troops and increasing the numbers in the front rank will have been telling.

[Paralus]

I am certain beyond reasonable doubt that the secret of Antigonus' success - what he ordered them to do - allowed him to bring fresh troops, in larger numbers, to bear, by 'interlocking' each part of his phalanx with the other, on that fixed, narrow front. Don't forget that the 'double-phalanx' becomes a 'single phalanx'.The 'epallelos' manouevre was a brilliant one - which is why Polybius describes it.

Polybius calls the formation "a difallangia epallili". "epallilos" normally means "behind one another", "epi + allilos" and although it can also mean "next or after (chronically) one another", here it certainly means behind. "interlocked" is only a very remote translation, basically meaning "next to each other" for many separate things and not "one "inside", interlocking one another". This serves not to rule out true synaspismos, just that this is not what is described here [...] Again, key here is the singular "fallagos". Polybius says that "they used the property of the ONE phalanx behind the other", he does not say "fallangwn" (plural), which would bring in the action both phalanxes. So, what he basically says is that the front line was doing its job and then some command was given and the second phalanx, some distance to the back did something to get into action that was normal and expected - Polybius does not present it as something brilliant and unique, he describes something usual and expected -"idiomati"- (closed in, added its depth and maybe even doubled the density)

Why thank you George / Macedon.

Even if one checks the lexica (in this instance philolog.us), it is clear the bulk of the listed “guesses” relate to “close behind”, “succession”, “sequence”, etc ( 7 “guesses by a lexicographer ignorant of military matters” of 9 listed!). I’ve checked this passage with others more than once because even the best “military historian” needs a command of the ancient Greek to understand a battle described in such. I fail to understand why I would be attempting to “preserve a meaning guessed at by a lexicographer ignorant of military matters”.

P.S. as for 4.64, Polybius does not talk about any light infantry, as some translations have him. He is talking about units (I would guess syntagmata, even if Pol uses more generic words...) of his peltasts, his (assumed) elite phalangites. This is why he makes a clear description of heavy infantry with serried weapons projecting towards the Aetolians... Yet, whenever he uses the term "synaspismos" I read "close order", there would anyways be no tactical reason to use true synaspismos against Aetolian cavalry...

Yes… although that is clearly what he is trying to describe: shield on shield. Even more so he describes the second and third companies stepping out and “closing up” (‘sumfrasso’) with them. We can assume they are all not interpenetrating the first!?

And, yes, perhaps this belongs elsewhere. Time for bed....

[Paralus]

Note to Paralus: I don't think we need take the notion that he physically fought them all the way back up the hill a step at a time and then beat them out of their fortress too seriously. Phylarchus's (presumably) account has them break in front of the fortress, in fact just when they seem to have won. Also, they would have had to break their phalanx just to get back inside of the pallisade, for they did not knock the whole thing down.

Because it makes for a better tale! And, no, I don't think they broke into their entrenchments just fell to bits as they backed up to them - if they did. From what we here elsewhere the time will have come for the fracturing as men panic - whether that was was with rear ranks backed against an entrenchment or just going backwards after a difficult fight.

You have ignored that this is the SECOND use of epallelos in the description...

Indeed, that was my advice: ‘double’ is not quite literal, but its meaning follows from the “epallêlon” at 66.9.

[PMBardunias]

We seem to have all posted at the same time

[Paullus Scipio]

You have ignored that this is the SECOND use of epallelos in the description, surely you don't think they were interlaced when they first ordered for battle?

...I haven't ignored it, rather concentrated on the crucial manouvre. Since I categorically stated that the 'double phalanx' was formed up one behind the other, then all too obviously they were not interlocked to begin with. George has given more detail regarding the word in question, which has MORE than one meaning! In the former instance the phalanxes are one behind the other, as in the most common and literal meaning. In the second instance something occurs which alters this, and transforms the formation into a single phalanx;"they used the property of the ONE phalanx 'epallelos'" to use George's words -now clearly 'epallelos' here cannot mean simply one behind the other, because they are already in this formation, and from context that must be 'epallelos' in the sense 'interlocked/mortised/next to each other'.

perhaps more likely than the introgression of two phalanxes for command reasons, that the first phalanx brought up its quarter file leaders, then the rear phalanx formed up behind them also in synaspismos. So in a sense both are correct.

You are here describing each phalanx going into 'synaspismos' in the conventional way. If that were so, why not say so? I believe Polybius is trying to convey that the closer-packed formation was achieved a different way.

He ordered the two (di-) phalanxes to have the rear one close up physically with the fore, resulting in one deep phalanx.

...that cannot be right, because it is not the sense of the whole thing, and in any event, with alternate advances and retreats, if the two phalanxes were not touching from the outset, they certainly would be before Antigonus gave his order. Nor would such a thing change any of the essentials of what was happening. The second phalanx merely closes a (purely hypothetical) gap?

Sticking two phalanxes together like cementing two bricks together would surely fit this definition.

..it most assuredly would not! Neither the men or the phalanxes are physically joined together - the analogy is a completely false one. Also, elsewhere in the Histories, the units of cavalry referred to are, as in Polybius' first use of the word, simply one behind each other, just as the phalanxes were initially...

Herding, or poking sarissa at 8 ranks of men until they move back is easier than getting those same 8 to move back when they have another 8 (or dense 4) behind them to whom they have to communicate the need to move backward. Herding a large group is more difficult than a small group due to this delay and the higher rate of asynchrony between moving elements.

So why didn't this apply to the original 'double' phalanx at 'double depth' ?....and please don't say 'because they were not touching' - that is nonsense, if only because the leading phalanx would be quickly forced back on the rear one.

I did not join this discussion earlier for precisely what has occurred.......increasingly implausible propositions, none of which explain what evidently occurred. Polybius categorically tells us that BEFORE Antigonus' order, first the Spartans, by their dash and 'courage' ( and no doubt moving downhill) forced the Macedonians back, then the Macedonians "by the weight of" their phalanx forced the Spartans back - but this was NOT the decisive factor.
( as Paul B. put it:

Thus, some new element has occurred to account for the final success.

Antigonus THEN orders the Macedonians, already in close order, to "close up(the only formation closer than 'close order', which because of the size of the battlefield front, they must be in, is synaspismos) in the peculiar formation of the 'epallelos' phalanx" (singular). It is this which proves decisive - not their 'weight', but something else.
'Epallelos' in the sense of interlocked/mortised/next to each other is the best explanation which ticks all the boxes. ( if just synaspismos had been meant, Polybius would have said so - and it would hardly have been a 'peculiar formation')

To Paralus:T
The "meaning guessed at by a lexicographer ignorant of military matters" (note the singular) was the tacked on guess in the LSJ that it refers to 'close order' in the unique usage by Polybius, not the entire entry with it's multiple meanings - and that you ( and your sources) were relying on this for proposing simple 'close order' for the formation which Antigonus ordered - which as we can see was in fact to 'close up' from close order into a tighter formation, which can only be a synaspismos type formation.
As for IV.64, no-one is suggesting that the companies/formation interlocked - you are simply setting up your own straw man to knock down - the discussion was regarding the likelihood of 'synaspismos' being used to force a river in the face of cavalry!

Anyhow, as ever, I don't expect to change anyone's opinion - believe whatever you want !! 'Byeeeeeee