specifics in Spear fighting combat

[Paullus Scipio]

Paul B. wrote:-

Ha! You've been reading Goldsworthy's article

....uuummm, no, actually....I don't even know which article you are referring to.... :?

Thus you gain the mobility of a column and still the benefit of a line.

...this was not what I had in mind - more the psychological reasons why both French and Thebans favoured Columns for the assault....

I did not expect to have to post evidence on the rediculously common feature of hoplite battle that is squabbling over who stands where along a battle-line. If I do, then let me know. There were a number of conventions, such as local boys stationing on the right.

...uh,uh,uh...you are side-stepping the point again! As you well know, I was not referring to non-controversial matters...but do post evidence that Hoplites actually engaged one another, generally, 8 or more deep ( except Thebans, of course :wink: )

Maneuver of that sort would have been done in enomotia columns.

...in open/normal order, as you acknowledge elsewhere with reference to counter-marching....

This is good, but could describe the special case of forming fours. In forming 12s they had to make use of this subunit as well.

...sorry, not following you here. Why would you need pentarchs/half-file leaders to form up in files? The mere existence of file-leaders and half-file leaders demonstrates that files were habitually'doubled' from open order of files to close order of half-files.

There is no way a chariot fits between the files at 6' spacing. Thus the maneuver had to be something other than a simple un-doubling. This is evidence against you since here "opening" involves some other process.

...true, but by being in open order, individuals can 'dodge' the odd chariot - something they certainly couldn't do from close order! At least you acknowledge some sort of 'open order' was involved, whereas earlier you seemed to be of the view that there was no such thing as 'open order'....

Dammmit Spock I'm a freelance historian, not a miracle worker!

:lol: :lol: :lol:
They're Hoplites, Jim, but not as you know them....

But you have to admit that there is a minimum depth that was acceptable and beyond which they could not thin to extend the line. I can give you much evidence for this being deeper than 4.

Agreed! ...and on the little evidence we have, that minimum would appear to be 4....re-enactor/SCA experience that a line more than 2 deep cannot be broken/burst, and more importantly the explicit word of Xenophon that four was 'customary' ( at least in his time), and his comments on why deep formations are no good (Cyropaedia)......and being a General, he surely knew !!

Phalanxes were clearly concerned with being outflanked and vulnerable to such.

Agreed! D lol: Hence Linear formations as long as practicable, depending on factors such as terrain, enemy strength and dispositions etc, as I mentioned earlier.... :wink: