The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth?

[Paullus Scipio]

Paralus wrote:

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.

Having re-read his piece, I agree he does not categorically say that the pay rates were 'new', but he certainly seems to imply it.

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.

Since I have written and published on the subject of Greek and Roman Military matters as a specialist subject for over 30 years, I think I can say I have acquired some knowledge of the subject ! The problem with Classicists and General Ancient Historians and Language scholars is that they are just that, and not Military History Scholars - I once had a very well-known and respected Classicist tell me most seriously at a conference that Spartans carried long rectangular shields in Classical times because they used them as stretchers/biers ( on the strength of the Spartan Mother's saying"Come back with this shield or on it!")
Needless to say there is no evidence whatsoever for this proposition.......

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'.

There have never, to my knowledge, been pikes as long as 24 feet wielded 'en masse' successfully in all Military History ( at least European! ) - such a pike is impossibly long. The longest 'pikes' of Mediaeval and Renaissance times ( of which many survive) were never over 20 feet/6 metres, and even at less than this length, must be tapered to be usable.. This is another typical Classicist/General Historian's error, based on an assumption regarding the ancient cubit - in fact there were many 'cubits' which varied considerably from city to city.Connolly has convincingly demonstrated that in fact Polybius' cubit and Theopompus' Athenian cubit can be reconciled, and work out at a modern length of aprox.18- 19 feet....the longest practical length.The hellenistic pikes may have been shorter.

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 clearly 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.

I would not dispute this, and would agree. My point here is that the Successors were drawing on the same pool of 'untrained manpower', to use Bosworth's words as was available to Alexander. Clearly Alexander could have trained up a 'Macedonian' style Phalanx had he wanted to. Bearing in mind that these were highly trained archers ( and archers took years to train as opposed to a much shorter time, months at most, for pikemen, contrary to Bosworth's view that these were 'untrained'),Alexander most likely used archers in his 'new fangled phalanx' for a military/tactical reason, probably as I suggested, a campaign aginst horse archers; not because it was the 'best use of untrained manpower'.Your mention of the same men as performing as archers in the Army of Eumenes also points to this....no-one is going to waste valuable trained archers as 'Phalanx fodder'. It would appear we are in agreement about this ! D