The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth?

[Paralus]

When we look at the bigger picture, this hypothesis solves all the anomalies of depth in our ancient literature.

You generalise from scanty evidence and one might hesitate to have “solved all anomalies" of any problem involving ancient source material. Similar is your remark about Polybios (more below).

Paul Bardunias is correct in observing whole movements of units in the battles we have described. A reading of Matiniea (418) should give serious pause to anyone claiming to have a hypotrhesis solving “all anomalies”. The description given by Thucydides is of a Spartan army command taken unawares of by an allied army, in the field, in battle order. I will assume, for the argument, that “in battle (or combat) order” (Xenephon’s “machên houtô tachthênai”) is the same import as Thucydides’ “xunetaxanto, hôs emellon macheisthai” (the battle order in which they’d fight”) and are indicating the same thing.

From here the Spartans put themselves into battle order post haste as the Allied army is drawn up “di' oligou” (quite close) in battle order in case they made contact (“ên perituchôsin”)with the enemy. The Spartans could hardly form up any different. It is then that Thucydides goes into his description of the Spartan military arrangements and notes that they were drawn up “generally” or “on the whole” eight deep of which the front four fought. The implication is that the other four were varied behind the front four either due to Spartan “secrecy” about their numbers or because not all regiments were fully “staffed”. It is, then, rather difficult to assume an orderly transition of files from eight to four if the files are six, eight, nine or seven deep. The Spartan army at Mantiniea was drawn up “en machen” – battle ready – at an average of eight deep according to Thucydides.

Polybios did indeed write in Greek – he was Greek. This is not the place for a discourse on his foibles or biases (Callicrates, the exculpation of himself and his father Lycortas, etc) but it needs to be noted that he was writing for what was now a “Roman world” and under Roman patronage. Hence he walks as on eggshells around Roman “atrocities” such as Corinth and Carthage and spares Rome any serious criticism over its barbaric “sword or comply” policy. He travelled widely with Scipio Aemilius – son of Pydna’s Aemilius Paullus – and so will have been well aware of Aemelius’ view of the Macedonian hedgehog.

Your view is that, writing for educated Greeks, Polybios assumed that his readership was well acquainted with the Macedonian Phalanx and how it operated to the extent that explaining that a 16 deep phalanx fought 8 deep was redundant. It is surprising then that a writer who’d assumed such a depth (pardon the pun) of knowledge about the Macedonian phalanx felt the need to explain – in detail – the spacing of soldiers when “closed up” (even unto quoting Homer to illustrate); the length of sarissae and how many thus protruded beyond the front rank and the use of both hands to hold it for the charge.

Surely an educated Greek audience, who are assumed to realise that the charge Polybios describes delivered by a phalanx “when sixteen deep” is actually delivered by one 8 deep, did not need to be patronised by a discourse on proper “closed up” spacing and pikes? Perhaps educated Greeks only realised that very last fact and nothing else?

No, this description is written with a larger, less “educated” audience in mind. Thus Polybios feels the need to provide the detail supporting the description of the effect of a charge by a phalanx “when sixteen deep”. Which is, of course, the purpose of the passage.

Unlike a baseball cap, one size does not fit all. Or, in this instance, one hypothesis does not solve “all the anomalies in our sources”.