The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth?

[Paralus]

Clearly order and coordination are the defining factors in phalanx combat. Not to forget of course, summoning the courage to confront what's about to be visited upon you. Such comes from drill and experience. The discussion above about "charging" by George is a part of this. Hoplite phalanxes and Macedonian phalanxes are hardly likely to have galloped at the enemy. George has rightly pointed out the problems with an aspis; it might be noted that the sarisa might have been just as unwieldy at a trot. A fast walk and lean forward (or shove) at contact probably constituted this phase.

It appears that, in some battles, one or the other phalanx "received" a charge. Gabiene and Raphia seem to fit this. It may be that one side was in a "defensive" posture or, for some other reason, "accepted" the charge of the other in synaspismos. Ptolemy exhorts his phalanx at Raphia and destroys the Seleucid array; this likely due to the fact the latter, observing their cavalry victory and are largely taken a little by surprise. At Gabiene the Antigonid phalanx, having suffered severely at the hands of Eumenes' men earlier at Paraetecene and thoroughly off put by Antigenes' reminder of just who they faced, are "fallen upon heavily" and "in a rage" by the Eumenid phalanx. Clearly the latter had the initiative and drive as the results show.

What also is consistently emphasised in the source material is the "hardihood and skill" developed over "the great number of battles" the argyraspids had fought. A description Diodorus summarises as: all of them were irresistible because of experience and strength, such was the skill and daring acquired through the unbroken series of their battles. The import is clear. Whilst these blokes were much older than their contemporaries (most likely averaging in their fifties), what they lacked in youth they quite clearly made up for with skill in phalanx fighting learned - not only on a parade or practise ground - but in life and death battle experience. Evidently these blokes possessed a coordination and skill that those about them did not. From such, in closely coordinated “team” efforts such as this fighting comes “strength”. The other word to be noted is "daring". This is a "nerveless intent" rather than a swashbuckling Errol Flynn "daring".

I also find George’s idea of the passing back and forwards of spears in the phalanx interesting. I’d suspect such was more easily achieved in the hoplite phalanx rather than the Macedonian due to the size of the sarisa. That said, I’d always harboured a view that front rank (2-5) sarisae might have been passed forward – if not the rear. Certainly such will have been the case with the tactical square at Gabiene (to present on all sides and replace those lost or broken) though this is after disengagement.

To me there is no logical or fiscal sense in equipping phalangites with swords if they are not meant to use them. In the Macedonian phalanx a phalangite will have had difficulty drawing such if his files were infiltrated (as the levelled sarisae in the front will have prevented it). The attacking infiltrators, whose sarisae are broken or left implanted, are free to do so though. I’d expect they made a mess of their opposites as the Romans later did – as long as they avoided the extant sarisae of their own men. I imagine them working their way down files with the xiphos and thus creating gaps.

Alexander’s phalanx at Issos did manage to defend itself whilst infiltrated – losses notwithstanding.

A time machine would be lovely…