The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth?

[Paullus Scipio]

Paul B. wrote:

The point being that the presence of nasty sharp weapons renders any attempt at 'shoving', even for a short while, suicidal.....

This is not even debatable. We KNOW that men came shield to shield in some battles. I'm not sure why you are argueing this tack. They may very well have not pushed at all and alaways fought at spear range, but that would be as much the result of specifically not closing as closing would be intentionally coming to grips.

I'm not saying it didn't happen , but it was always dangerous and bloody when opponents are forced together inside 'weapon reach' distance. Consider the almost always fatal form of duel where two opponents are tied together with a short rope/leash and dagger armed.....
For this reason, armed men are very careful about distance and reluctant to close. Again, compare riot footage where opponents generally stay outside 'weapon reach' venturing in only to launch an attack.
Re-enactors often allow themseves forward into 'weapon reach', partly for the sake of spectacle ( no-one wants to wait several hours for a result) and because they don't bear the fatal consequences....

[Paullus Scipio]

Paralus/Michael wrote:

This is quite silly.

...hardly polite !
The passage in question runs:
" The Persians were then enrolled in the various Macedonian units, so that the dekad(file) now consisted of a Macedonian dekadarch(file leader), two of his compatriots, one of them a dimoirites ( lit: double pay man, specifically called 'half-file leader' by Aelian ), the other a dekstateros(ten-stater man), so called from the pay he received, which was less than the 'double pay' soldiers but more that of the ordinary rank and file; twelve Persians and at the rear, another Macedonian 'ten stater man'. Four Macedonians that is - the file leader and three others on extra pay - and twelve Persians. The Macedonians carried their native equipment; the persians were armed either with bows or light javelins."(De Selincourt translation)

Notice that Arrian does not tell us where in the file the Macedonians stood (other than the rearmost man -the file closer, and of course the leader is presumably at the front), as I have pointed out. It is possible to interpret this as Macedonians at 1,2,3 and 16, as Paralus has done, but this is decidedly odd if the no.2 is indeed a 'half-file leader'. In that case we might expect him to be at 9, thus the Macedonians are at 1 and 8; 9 and 16 when lined up in file in open order, but when in 'half-files' for combat in close order, they would form the front and rear ranks.

Please copy me the passage in latinised Greek where Arrian mentions more than the decurion: you evidently have it.

I have sent you proof privately, rather than un-necessarily clutter up the thread.....

[Paralus]

Notice that Arrian does not tell us where in the file the Macedonians stood (other than the rearmost man -the file closer, and of course the leader is presumably at the front), as I have pointed out. It is possible to interpret this as Macedonians at 1,2,3 and 16, as Paralus has done, but this is decidedly odd if the no.2 is indeed a 'half-file leader'. In that case we might expect him to be at 9, thus the Macedonians are at 1 and 8; 9 and 16 when lined up in file in open order, but when in 'half-files' for combat in close order, they would form the front and rear ranks...

There is no stretch you will not make. It is clear what Arrian meant:

Each company was led by a Macedonian decurion, and next to him was a Macedonian receiving double pay for distinguished valour; and then came one who received ten staters (monthly), who was so named from the pay he received, being somewhat less than that received by the man with double pay, but more than that of the men who were serving as soldiers without holding a position of honour. Next to these came twelve Persians, and last in the company another Macedonian...

You are suggesting that "next" means some several ranks behind?? Please, spare me. Word games, word games.

Plainly Alexander is not going into battle with a single sarisa-armed rank in front and ranks of Persians with bows and thonged javelins behind. This,of course, being the result of your synaspismos at four deep. Yet you seriously expect this to be accepted so as to prove your thesis? Clearly this was a phalanx that was to fight sixteen deep with the Persian "peltasts" in the middle. You are being churlish in suggesting otherwise.

Alexander has a file leader in front and two men "honoured for valour" in the following two ranks armed with the sarisa. This makes an inordianate amount of common sense; your suggestion does not.

[Paullus Scipio]

Paralus wrote:

You are suggesting that "next" means some several ranks behind?? Please, spare me. Word games, word games.

...look again at the De Selincourt translation, widely recognised as the best one. There is no "next" nor anything like it. Nor any reference to the double pay being "for valour" and even if there was, since it was the valiant who were selected as leaders it would still not preclude him being a "half-file leader". I have said that your interpretation is a possibility, though I have doubts. After all, if it was intended to retain the prickly array of sarissas, wouldn't we expect to see at least the front five ranks being Macedonian instead ( using your interpretation) of only three ? What then was Alexander's intention, and on the basis of "horses for courses", who was it intended against ? The old Persian array of missile men/archers behind a front-rank wall of spara/mantlets had been devised as optimal against horse archers, but with the spara propped up, was not very mobile. The front rank sparabara deterred cavalry charges because the horses would not crash into it, while foot archers out-ranged horse ones. Alexander had in effect brought this array back, only with the sparabara replaced by a Macedonian sarrissaphoroi for the same purpose - fending off cavalry for which a single row of sarissa was quite sufficient.This new formation was also more mobile than the old Persian one, and could, for example advance on enemy cavalry behing it's row of pikes. It would appear at his death that behind the misleading rumours of a campaign in Arabia, Alexander may have been intending a campaign against the Horse Nomad peoples who surrounded the Persian empire to it's north..... ( the old Macedonian phalanx was not very effective against horse archers for obvious reasons). Arrian himself did something similar in his "Array against the Alans". Equally obviously, none of the 'Successors' adopted this formation optimised against Horse archers because none of them planned a war against them......

Anyway, we digress.

The point of all this is that you began by saying that an objection to the idea that the Phalanx fought in 'half-files' ( and I am not alone in believing this, see e.g. Connolly who posits similarly) was that there were no references to 'half-files' or 'half file leaders' in the Macedonian Phalanx, or something similar.
I believe I have demonstrated that in fact there is undeniable evidence for the 'dimoirites' ( half-file leader by definition) in the Hellenistic manuals, that we can trace this rank back to the army of PtolemyI and it's purely Macedonian phalanx, and even via Arrian to Alexander's.
The fact that Arrian refers to it in connection with a 'new fangled' formation should not distract from the fact that the rank existed in Alexander's army. D

[Emperor Killaman]

It was probably to help it withstand cavalry as well projectles. It also alowed them to smash the enemy's front ranks of heavy infantry.

[Paralus]

Paralus wrote:

You are suggesting that "next" means some several ranks behind?? Please, spare me. Word games, word games.

...look again at the De Selincourt translation, widely recognised as the best one. There is no "next" nor anything like it. Nor any reference to the double pay being "for valour" and even if there was, since it was the valiant who were selected as leaders it would still not preclude him being a "half-file leader". I have said that your interpretation is a possibility, though I have doubts. After all, if it was intended to retain the prickly array of sarissas, wouldn't we expect to see at least the front five ranks being Macedonian instead ( using your interpretation) of only three ?

Now we have translations "widely recognised as the best". It might better be said that is translation that better facillitates your opinion. This is the translation that you expressed doubts about in private emails where you strongly suspected lacunae were filled in as I recall. No such problems here though...

Clearly, as I have said, Alexander was making do with limited Macedonians. Just as clearly he wanted three rows of sarisae in front: it was to be a phalanx. In the earlier phalanx it is likely that the front three or four rows were the most "useful" in the attack. Alexander is attempting to keep that "hedge" of concentrated sarisae points that had proven demonstrably successful. Professor AB Bosworth has eluicidated it better than myself. Alexander and the Iranians, The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 100, Centennary Issue (1980, pp 18-19):

Each file was commanded by a Macedonian, backed by two other Macedonians in second and third place. The Persians then filled out the centre of the phalanx and a Macedonian brought up the rear. The four Macedonians were armed in traditional style (with the sarisa) and were given preferential rates of pay, whereas the Persians retained their native bows and javelins. The result was a curiously heterogeneous phalanx, packed with Persians untrained in Macedonian discipline. The Macedonians formed an elite, the first three ranks using sarisae and bearing the brunt of any attack. Even in the old phalanx there was hardly space for more than the first three ranks to use sarisae in couched position. In Polybius' day, when sarisae were longer, only the first five ranks were able to thrust with their weapons; the rest added weight and held their sarisae vertically as a screen against missiles. The Persians in the new phalanx added weight and numbers and no doubt they were intended to shoot arrows and javelins over the heads of the Macedonian ranks, much in the same way as the AoyXoxopot were to operate in Arrian's legionary phalanx of A.D. I35. This new phalanx could only be used in frontal attack. There was no possibility of complex manoeuvres or changes of front and depth on the march, which had been the hallmark of the old Macedonian phalanx and had been displayed so prominently in the Illyrian campaign of 335 and the approach to Issus. This reorganisation was in fact a means to make the best use of untrained manpower and also to husband the trained Macedonian phalangites.

[Paullus Scipio]

It might better be said that is translation that better facillitates your opinion. This is the translation that you expressed doubts about in private emails where you strongly suspected lacunae were filled in as I recall. No such problems here though...

You seem a little confused. Lacunae in the original text are nothing to do with a particular translation...other than two translators might 'fill in' those lacunae differently. Why do you attack the fact that the De Selincourt translation is generally regarded as the best? That is not my view but rather the common view....Perhaps it is you who have chosen an old translation that supports a particular viewpoint. Since you and I are not Greek language scholars, we can hardly comment on the accuracy of translations, but fortunately it is irrelevant to the point at issue. Where they stood is immaterial, the point is that the dimoirites -defined in the manuals as a 'half-file leader'- existed in the armies of Alexander and Ptolemy I.

I'm afraid I have no great respect for Bosworth's views in this instance. When it comes to matters military, he is something of an "armchair theorist" ( though of course we all are when it comes to ancient warfare). His conclusion for Alexander's reasons for the re-organisation I find singularly unconvincing.There is no evidence that 'double pay' and 'ten stater' men were only introduced for the 'new fangled' Phalanx, in fact just the opposite, as references to them in the traditional Macedonian phalanx of Ptolemy I demonstrate. To suggest that Alexander's men carried shorter sarissae than later armies is also highly controversial. To suggest that the 'new' Phalanx was not trained or drilled and incapable of manouevres ,is, to my mind, purely speculative and very 'un-Alexandrian'.It is more likely the 'new' Phalanx could perform all the drills and manouevres of the old, since the files ( or half-files if my hypothesis is correct) had merely to follow their leaders, front and rear, who were highly trained Macedonians....anyone with knowledge of drill ( which clearly does not include Bosworth) will know how little training is necessary to produce drill of the relatively low standard of the manuals.

Finally, I would dispute his conclusion that it was an attempt to make the best use of 'untrained manpower'. The Successors had little trouble in utilising this same manpower to produce Macedonian type Phalanxes, so Alexander could have too. The new formation was for a purpose, and a likely one, given it's characteristics, is a war against the Nomad Horse archers.

All of this, is irrelevant to the point at issue, as I said in my last post. Whether the views of Bosworth, which you uncritically regurgitate here are correct or not, it is clear that ' half file leaders' existed continuously from at least the time of Xenophon and probably earlier, down to the final days of the Phalanx.

[Paralus]

You seem a little confused. Lacunae in the original text are nothing to do with a particular translation...other than two translators might 'fill in' those lacunae differently. Why do you attack the fact that the De Selincourt translation is generally regarded as the best?

I do not attack it; in fact I have it. I used the posted translation as it is online: cut and paste. It was, in fact, yourself that remarked - in another discussion/thread - that you felt you needed to check the De Selicourt translation as it seemed to be adding material not in the original.

I'm afraid I have no great respect for Bosworth's views in this instance. When it comes to matters military, he is something of an "armchair theorist" ( though of course we all are when it comes to ancient warfare).

And, were the professor ever to bother himself with this forum, he'd likely see you (and myself) as an "armchair historian". I'm well aware of your views of AB Bosworth (and some others).

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.

His conclusion for Alexander's reasons for the re-organisation I find singularly unconvincing.There is no evidence that 'double pay' and 'ten stater' men were only introduced for the 'new fangled' Phalanx, in fact just the opposite, as references to them in the traditional Macedonian phalanx of Ptolemy I demonstrate.

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.

To suggest that Alexander's men carried shorter sarissae than later armies is also highly controversial.

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'.

Finally, I would dispute his conclusion that it was an attempt to make the best use of 'untrained manpower'. The Successors had little trouble in utilising this same manpower to produce Macedonian type Phalanxes, so Alexander could have too.

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 clealry 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.

[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

[Paullus Scipio]

Getting back to the question of when a Phalanx 'closed up' into 'close order' at 2 cubits/3 feet/0.9 m aprox, from 'open/normal' order of twice this distance, here are two relevant quotes from the version of the Hellenistic manual produced by the Roman writer Aelian....

"The close order (pyknosis) is observed when the commander joins battle with the enemy; the compact order (synaspismos) is resorted to when he wishes firmly to sustain the enemy's charge..."

...and...

"The Macedonian Phalanx has been deemed irresistable from the very nature of its construction. Each soldier, completely armed, when he takes close order, on the point of engaging, occupies only the space of two cubits. The length of the pikes..."

(my emphasis)

These would tend to support my view that the Phalanx 'closed up' into 'Half-files' just before combat/charge distance. D

[Paralus]

"The Macedonian Phalanx has been deemed irresistable from the very nature of its construction. Each soldier, completely armed, when he takes close order, on the point of engaging, occupies only the space of two cubits. The length of the pikes..."

(my emphasis)

The very reason Alexander will have wanted those three sarisae at the front of the mixed phalanx!

These would tend to support my view that the Phalanx 'closed up' into 'Half-files' just before combat/charge distance. D

When "he takes close order" does not explain how though. The phalanx certainly adopted close order for combat. Circumstances, though, will have didctated just when a phalanx "closed up".

I'm intrigued how the Macedonian phalanx, in close order and engaged with Porus' infantry and elephants, adopted synaspismos (Arr 5.17):

Alexander himself surrounded the whole line with his cavalry, and gave the signal that the infantry should link their shields together so as to form a very densely closed body, and thus advance in phalanx.

From memory Curtius has them charge through first and then become involved in a bloody battle. How did men insinuate themselves in between engaged and confused files? Did the phalanx withdraw, lock shields and then advance? If so, what of those files decimated by the infantry/elephant battle?

[Macedon]

You should take into account the differences between close order and synaspismos. Of course there was a half file and a half file leader. Yet, there is the question as to how the files were formed in open (marching order). If the general would believe that a synaspsimos should be formed against his opponent, then he would march in 32 men files (dilochia), so that he could fall to 16 when closing and to 8 when synazpizein. If no synaspismos would be formed then a 16 men marching file would be formed IF the general would opt for an 8 men deep line in close order. If he was to figt 16 deep, then he would again march 32 deep and close to 16 before the charge (of course not a running charge but a walking charge...)

[Paullus Scipio]

George, as a new member, you may not be aware that it is customary on this forum to give sources for opinions put forward wherever possible. You have put forward a good many opinions on this thread with so far not a single source to support them.

Do you have a source for the opinion you put forward now regarding synaspismos? AFIK, the various versions of the Hellenistic manual which survives clearly imply that 'normal/open' order for a Macedonian phalanx was 16 deep, and therefore 'close order'(pyknosis) was 8 deep, which in turn implies 'locked shields' (synaspismos) was 4 deep - 'quarter' files. This idea tends to be supported by the rank structure.

What is the basis in the sources for your idea?

[Paralus]

...the various versions of the Hellenistic manual which survives clearly imply that 'normal/open' order for a Macedonian phalanx was 16 deep, and therefore 'close order'(pyknosis) was 8 deep, which in turn implies 'locked shields' (synaspismos) was 4 deep - 'quarter' files...

This is, of course, your theory and you will stick to it. You might be surprised to learn that I don't necessarily disagree with the basis of that - as I related far earlier in the thread. I disagree totally with your mechanics and I do not believe it works for "synaspismos".

[Macedon]

I prefer to use sources when giving new info or sources which were not introduced before me by the people I have a discussion with. Aelian was given as a source regarding synaspismos and Callisthenes (Polybius' account as was also given some posts ago) has Alexander march his phalanx 32 deep, then 16 and last 8, which by all means can be interpreted as marching in open formation, closing to "pyknosis" and then further closing to "yperpyknosis" or "synaspismos" (as is used by Aelian, Asclepiodotus and Onassander). I personally disagree with the opinion that a phalanx could fight 4 men deep, something that is never described in any battle concerning the Macedonian phalanx (it is attested regarding hopitic as well as Roman warfare). Macedonian phalanxes 32 deep in close formation are also attested, but never a fighting formation of 4.

In all, it is mandatory that sources are given to prove a point, but for the sake of discussion among people who are supposed to be something more like dabblers, sometimes it is better to raise a point, an opinion, a question and then support it with sources, if there is a doubt. Sourcing every word is rather cumbersome in an informal discussion, yet must be given when challenged or when the discussion is about sources.

Yet, Aelian, in his account, gives the number of a lochos as nt constant but he says "let's assume a file of 16 men". then he talks about how a "dilochia" can form as a file (32 deep). We cannot tell with certainty whether Aelian implies a synaspismos of 4 men, there is no such mention in his work (nor in Asclepiodotus', Onassander's, or Arrian's). In order to support that a 4 men Macedonian phalanx ever existed you are the one who actually have to bring forward some source which will clearly state such an encounter. But I can and will bring forward more sources, since you asked me to. It certainly is an interesting issue.