The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth?

[Paralus]

And so we argue about words: words written – sometimes – by sources well after the events. In the case of Arrian we have a man writing about events that occurred over four centuries hence (in the case of Alexander). That is akin to one of us writing a history of events that took place in the early seventeenth century. Technical details can easily become lost and that is if such really mattered to Greeks.

Much of the ‘technocrapia’ (just invented a word) that we moderns utilise is just that: crap. We rigidly apply our take on what the ancient Greeks wrote because it suits our sense of regimented (pun intended) order. That we refer nowadays, in strictly military terms, to particular units and divisions of armies with particular functions is our fetish. It does not follow that the ancient Greeks suffered the same fetish.

Many of the terms we insist on being translated literally were, for the ancient Greeks, rather more fluid. To quote a friend (‘Agesilaos’):

The Greeks just did not appreciate technical precision only the sound and rhythm of the language, something alien to us.

The ancients’ use of terms was rather more “interchangeable”. Hence we have “hoplite” for Macedonian phalangites or “somatophylake” for hypaspist and “synaspismos” for a phalanx when, if we insist on “proper terminology”, it should be “synpeltemos” or some such claptrap.

In any event, were are in an age of small production. Johnny Schumate’s depiction of the Macedonian phalanx – where any number of equipment variations are apparent – is surely on the money. There were no Chinese mass production edifices here.

I sometimes think that we apply our modern technical fetishes to the ancient Greeks in the way some do modern morals.