06-22-2009, 08:52 AM
The answer to the question "why so deep?" is more like "Why why so deep?". According to the ancient tacticians, the "synaspismos" was an invention of Phillip II, who "copied" it from Homer's passages as to the formation of the Greeks outside Troy ( Diodorus Siculus, XVI.8 ). Asclepiodotus is very clear when describing this density and cites its usage. According to him, the phalanx (he only talks about the Macedonian phalanx) is advancing in open order when away from the enemy (marching density), in close order when charging (practically marching to fight) and in synaspismos when charged by the enemy. Thus, we can understand, that in order for a phalanx to be able to carry out synaspismos and have a safe depth (less than four is called by the tacticians weak or "avathis" (of little depth) and is not suggested unless the circumstances are proper) it should be normally 16 men deep (in conventional close order), so that during synaspismos it would become 8 men deep. So, the phrase "x-man deep" is pointless without also describing the density of the formation. For example Alexander's army at Issus is described by Callisthenes (according to Polybius) to march initially 32-deep, falling to 16-deep and lastly to 8-deep. This didn't mean that the men were deployed in the wings but that the density of the formation, as Alexander approached the Persians, increased.
Then of course comes the question, "why would a general opt for a deeper formation?" The main advantage of a deep phalanx (whether Macedonian, Hoplite, Roman or barbarian) is the fact that it can withstand more pressure. A thin line is easier to break, while a deeper line would hold its ground longer, constantly providing support for the front ranks and keeping them in place. The othismos desribed in hoplitic battles is, according to my opinion, poorly understood, especially by western historians. The verb "othizein" is not used as "forcibly push" but as "push" and this consists a great difference. The notion of the Greek phalanx rushing like Football players against their opponents to overturn them is clearly mistaken. First, the running charge is attested to first have been used by the Athenians in Marathon, secondly, the hoplite armies were (as were the Romans) based on taxis (order). Leaving the line and breaking ranks were outside the scope of heavy Greek infantry tactics (ekdromoi being a noted exception, but they did not charge the enemy line). The Lacedaemonians were renowned for their slow charge under the sounds of flutes. It is also known that the "Othismos" phase was long after the "Doratismos", which demanded space between the hoplite and his target. Actually, we have lots of descriptions of the "Othismos", which are not as known as they should. The Greek commanders would use commands such as "Half a (or one) step forward!" (Give me half a step and we have conquered!) and the whole phalanx or maybe a predesigned part thereof would obey in a well timed and ordered fashion, so that cohesion would not be lost. This could happen multiple times and had tremendous effects on the opponents psychology. Yet, again, the back ranks would not really push, they would more like support the front lines. Should 50 men really push forward, the first lines would be crushed or lose their steps and places in the line and this was absolutely not the case.
In phalanxes armed in the Macedonian way, no actual physical force was exerted and so huge numbers of ranks did not work. We have to imagine the sarissae being swung forward and back and for this to be done, some space was needed. The shield was also smaller and could not be used to actually support the front rank as a wall but only as a means of protection from missiles. On the other hand, only 4 ranks (never attested in a Macedonian phalanx) would not present enough spearpoints and any casualties would make the phalanx lose cohesion. This is why the tacticians opted for a final depth of 8 men. So, although we tend to think of the Macedonian phalanxes as very deep, their depth was not that deep in reality. Hoplite formations are attested up to 50 men deep, Xenophon has the Egyptians arrayed against Cyrus the Great formed 100 men deep. Macedonian phalanxes are attested up to 32 men deep and then, most times in open order (sometimes we don't really know).
Then of course comes the question, "why would a general opt for a deeper formation?" The main advantage of a deep phalanx (whether Macedonian, Hoplite, Roman or barbarian) is the fact that it can withstand more pressure. A thin line is easier to break, while a deeper line would hold its ground longer, constantly providing support for the front ranks and keeping them in place. The othismos desribed in hoplitic battles is, according to my opinion, poorly understood, especially by western historians. The verb "othizein" is not used as "forcibly push" but as "push" and this consists a great difference. The notion of the Greek phalanx rushing like Football players against their opponents to overturn them is clearly mistaken. First, the running charge is attested to first have been used by the Athenians in Marathon, secondly, the hoplite armies were (as were the Romans) based on taxis (order). Leaving the line and breaking ranks were outside the scope of heavy Greek infantry tactics (ekdromoi being a noted exception, but they did not charge the enemy line). The Lacedaemonians were renowned for their slow charge under the sounds of flutes. It is also known that the "Othismos" phase was long after the "Doratismos", which demanded space between the hoplite and his target. Actually, we have lots of descriptions of the "Othismos", which are not as known as they should. The Greek commanders would use commands such as "Half a (or one) step forward!" (Give me half a step and we have conquered!) and the whole phalanx or maybe a predesigned part thereof would obey in a well timed and ordered fashion, so that cohesion would not be lost. This could happen multiple times and had tremendous effects on the opponents psychology. Yet, again, the back ranks would not really push, they would more like support the front lines. Should 50 men really push forward, the first lines would be crushed or lose their steps and places in the line and this was absolutely not the case.
In phalanxes armed in the Macedonian way, no actual physical force was exerted and so huge numbers of ranks did not work. We have to imagine the sarissae being swung forward and back and for this to be done, some space was needed. The shield was also smaller and could not be used to actually support the front rank as a wall but only as a means of protection from missiles. On the other hand, only 4 ranks (never attested in a Macedonian phalanx) would not present enough spearpoints and any casualties would make the phalanx lose cohesion. This is why the tacticians opted for a final depth of 8 men. So, although we tend to think of the Macedonian phalanxes as very deep, their depth was not that deep in reality. Hoplite formations are attested up to 50 men deep, Xenophon has the Egyptians arrayed against Cyrus the Great formed 100 men deep. Macedonian phalanxes are attested up to 32 men deep and then, most times in open order (sometimes we don't really know).
