03-18-2019, 05:04 PM
It makes sense.
Some depictions on pottery seem to suggest a more thight formation, see for instance the Chigi vase, but that could be seen as a perspective attempt by the artist. In particular, we know from Diodorus Siculus (16.3.2) that Philip II made the phalanx πυκνότητα (thighter): so, it could be possible that the 1 cubit synaspismos hellenistic manuals refer to was a later macedonian innovation, while the synaspismos in the hoplite phalanx was a looser 2 cubit (or three feet) formation.
Some depictions on pottery seem to suggest a more thight formation, see for instance the Chigi vase, but that could be seen as a perspective attempt by the artist. In particular, we know from Diodorus Siculus (16.3.2) that Philip II made the phalanx πυκνότητα (thighter): so, it could be possible that the 1 cubit synaspismos hellenistic manuals refer to was a later macedonian innovation, while the synaspismos in the hoplite phalanx was a looser 2 cubit (or three feet) formation.
Francesco Guidi