specifics in Spear fighting combat

[PMBardunias]

No, you mistake my point. I agree with you that on this occasion ( the review) the troops formed up on parade directly in close order, 4 deep, probably only 50 yards or so from the 'audience'.The point is that this was the Hoplites 'customary' battle order, as opposed to 'normal'/marching/open order.

I think you are incorrectly linking the "customary" part of the phrase to the depth of 4. Clearly, to me, he is referring to the individual units "customary", and probably argued over for honor's sake, position from right to left along the battle line. To Xenophon this would have been very important. I don't believe Xenophon is telling us that there is anything coustomary about the 4 rank depth. It is possible that this was a depth used against non-hoplites, there is good reason for this, but it is just as likely that the depth was a facade to make the army look more impressive to his audience.

Given what we know of Greek drill methods, it is logical to deduce that the equivalent open order was 8
ranks.

You mean what we know of Hellenistic drill, because other than a transition from enomotia to battle-line we know no intermediate step for greeks. I don't believe there was one.

This is hypothetical taken to the point of ridicule. Evidence for your assertions of 'tripling' and 'quadrupling'? As I mentioned above, my point was simply that 4 deep was the Hoplites 'customary' battle order.(bearing in mind other depths were used also). Xenophon says so unequivocally.

The point is that there is no evidence for doubling at this date either, so making up any combination is just as factual. Xenophon says no such thing, which is important, because he surely would have.

Beyond that, we may surmise what the open order might have been ( logically 8 ) but is peripheral to the point.

Integral to the point, by the end of the Peloponnesean war 12 was more common than 8 and 16 was seen as well.

That is all very well, bit isn't that just an assumption ? What evidence can either of you adduce that this was so ? When a source says e.g." they approached the battlefield and were 12 ranks deep" that must mean in 'normal'/open order, and if there were any doubt, as has been mentioned, in order to counter-march, they must be in open order ( c.f. modern military bands).It necessarily follows that for combat in 'close order' they must close to 6 ranks deep.

Who cares what depth they approach the field in? This offers us nothing of use in assesing the strength of the force. The important point is the depth of ranks in the battle-ready line, which, like the banks of oars on galleys, was a characterization of the strength of the force.

You make too much of the notion of a "common" depth prior to combat. These men deployed from enomotia into line, then even in your scheme marched some hundreds of yards, stopped and doubled before charging 50-150 yards. Aside from the spartans very little reorganization could occur between the initial formation of the line and the charge. If you can walk/run even 50 yards in a formation then surely you can walk at leisure for a few hundred. The middle depth is largely irrelevant even if it had existed.

as has been mentioned, in order to counter-march, they must be in open order ( c.f. modern military bands).

And yet Agiselaos countermarches to meet the Thebans at Koronea AFTER combat, presumably in close order.

Consider also two equal forces of 6,000 meet each other, one in open order 12 deep, one in close order 12 deep.This would mean the one in open order would be 1,000 yards long, and the one in close order 500 yards long. What would happen? The longer line closes just before contact, and long before the 12 ranks break through the 6 ranks they are enveloped and annihilated ( in fact, in a few short minutes)...therefore all Hoplite commanders would want the longest line, at minimum depth, compatible with the country and the enemy etc.

Aside from the fact that your 6 ranks would probably have fled like Argives prior to contact with my 12, your scheme is vulnerable to absurd reductionism: would a 4 deep line envelop your 6? a 3 that 4? etc... Clearly there is a minimum based on the needed power of the phalanx, and that minimum rose in the 5th c.

Military Logic dictates this. As well as the fact that in 12 ranks deep, most of the men play no useful part. ( all of which is, of course, anathema to Paul B.s ingenious 'Othismos' hypothesis.... )

Flattery will only make me agree with you in part- the ingenious part :wink: But actually, your scheme is quite compatable with mine. In fact were I to adopt it I could make a great case for the need to increase from 4, seemingly an absolute minimum, to 6 and 8 ranks in your manner, as the othismos becomes more important. I just see no evidence for doubling.

Kineas:

Likewise, when he has the Thebans form in great depth, he notes first that by doing so they endangered all their allies who had agreed on a different depth (a VERY important line for this argument you guys are all in, because it meas that everyone used different depths and had to be standardized before battle--go figure) and second, I get the implication (hey, this's just me) that by being in great depth, they're complete cowards.

While I jump at the chance to agree on Theban cowardice, I think the truth is more subtle. There is a treaty from the Corinthian war among the anti-spartan allies that states no contingent shall form in more than 16 ranks- which the Thebans break trecherously. But they did this not because it allowed cowards to hide in the deep ranks, but because it made local victory more likely. The Thebans had a better chance to win, but at the cost of length of line. Thus in raising their own chances of victory while risking the line there was cowardice.

Of course they would have the last laugh on this one, since their depth and local victory at the cost of the line is the Epaminondine strategy.