The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth?

[Paralus]

You seem a little confused. Lacunae in the original text are nothing to do with a particular translation...other than two translators might 'fill in' those lacunae differently. Why do you attack the fact that the De Selincourt translation is generally regarded as the best?

I do not attack it; in fact I have it. I used the posted translation as it is online: cut and paste. It was, in fact, yourself that remarked - in another discussion/thread - that you felt you needed to check the De Selicourt translation as it seemed to be adding material not in the original.

I'm afraid I have no great respect for Bosworth's views in this instance. When it comes to matters military, he is something of an "armchair theorist" ( though of course we all are when it comes to ancient warfare).

And, were the professor ever to bother himself with this forum, he'd likely see you (and myself) as an "armchair historian". I'm well aware of your views of AB Bosworth (and some others).

That, though, does not make your views correct and scholars who've devoted years and careers to studying and publishing on the surviving evidence wrong and to be viewed in so dismissive a manner. As you say "you and I are not Greek language scholars, we can hardly comment on the accuracy of translations". Scholars such as Bosworth clearly are and are well experienced in the ancient language, its syntax and grammatical oddities.

His conclusion for Alexander's reasons for the re-organisation I find singularly unconvincing.There is no evidence that 'double pay' and 'ten stater' men were only introduced for the 'new fangled' Phalanx, in fact just the opposite, as references to them in the traditional Macedonian phalanx of Ptolemy I demonstrate.

You are misreading the wording. Bosworth states that there were "four Macedonians were armed in traditional style (with the sarisa)" and that they "were given preferential rates of pay". He does not anywhere state that this was new or that it only ever applied to these men in this phalanx. Merely that this is what Arrian describes.

To suggest that Alexander's men carried shorter sarissae than later armies is also highly controversial.

Later sarisa armed troops are described as wielding pikes up to 24' long. The information we have on Philip's and Alexander's are widely agreed to be beween 14' and 18'.

Finally, I would dispute his conclusion that it was an attempt to make the best use of 'untrained manpower'. The Successors had little trouble in utilising this same manpower to produce Macedonian type Phalanxes, so Alexander could have too.

You need to re-read your prefered translation. These are not the epigoni, they are an entirely seperate corps. Alexander had 30,000 epigoni trained and they formed a "counter phalanx" (a counter army as Pierre Briant writes) to his increasingly insubordinate veterans. These are the troops that would likely have been used against his Macedonians if insubordination ever turned insurrection These epigoni supplied the Diadochoi in the wars that followed upon the death of Alexander. They were already trained and available.

The troops described in this mixed phalanx are clealry those brought by Peucestas and Alexander is making the best use of what is available. These troops are the same as those "ten thousand bowmen from Persia" that Peucestas later summons for Eumenes. They clearly are not the troops armed and trained in the Macedonian fashion that the Diadochoi utilised and Alexander clearly is not using them as such.