Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth?
George/Macedon wrote:
"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."
I think you misunderstand, George. By cite your sources I mean not just “Polybius”, but where possible chapter and verse e.g “Polybius XVIII.18-27 “. This saves those following the discussion having to wade through the whole work to find the passage you refer to.

“Here, in order to understand his words, we have to establish the density of his formation. Is he talking about open order? No, this is certain, because he talks about fighting in the formation and according to him (later on I will produce the text), open order was a marching and not a fighting formation. Can he mean "synaspismos" (or yperpykne)? My opinion is again no, since again according to him, the latter is a defensive formation used when the enemy is advancing upon the phalanx and not when the phalanx is advancing upon the enemy. So, most possibly he speaks about the "pykne" dense fomation we here call "closed". Thus, according to Aelian, the common formation in close order would be 16 deep and could be doubled or halfed, according to circumstances. (Of course such a phalanx would march 32 deep in open order and 8 deep in synaspismos, which are the numbers I proposed above). Here he does not mention nor does he imply any line fighting 4 deep.”
I would agree ‘normal/open’ order was used for marching, and to approach the enemy in line, and I maintain that ‘close order’ – fighting formation as you say - was only formed when within striking distance of the enemy. Neither Aelian nor any other writer states that the phalanx is 16 deep in close order…..this a modern supposition, based largely on the fact that modern military drills are usually performed in ‘close order’.But in contrast we are specifically told by Ascepiodotus that: 'open order' "is the natural/normal order, and hence has no special name" ....at 4 cubits/6 ft/1.8 m frontage per man. Pyknosis ( close order - 2 cubits per man ) is the actual 'fighting formation'.

“Actually Aelian is suggesting that the general should contract his line and thus lessen his frontage (see chapter XXXII).”
Yes, it is apparent that by the end of the Phalanx’s evolution, there were 3 ways for it to close up; By half-files; by every second man stepping forward; and by contracting the frontage either to the left, right or centre. All are described in the manuals.

IIRC, we only hear of the Phalanx being 32 deep on three occasions.
The first is Alexander’s debouching in column from the pass before deploying before Issus. It is highly likely that Polybius/Callimachus is referring to the left wing being behind the right wing at the point where he says they are 32 deep. The wings deploy side by side and are then 16 deep, the normal Phalanx depth. Finally they close up into close order 8 deep to fight.
The second occasion is the Hellenistic battle of Sellasia, when Antigonus marches his Phalanx up a mountain ridge against the Spartans ( see “Ancient Warfare” magazine issue Vol II issue 2 for a full account), again we hear of one phalanx behind the other ( the “white shields” behind the “Peltasts” – literally a double phalanx ) and thus some 32 deep. After closing up for action, they would be each 8 deep, making a total of 16 deep. On this occasion one phalanx interpenetrates the other (“epalellos”;interlocked phalanx) to achieve ‘synaspismos’, presumably 8 deep.
The third occasion is Magnesia, when we are told Antiochus formed up his Phalanx 32 ranks deep, (Livy XXXVII.40; Appian “Syrian Wars” XXXII) likely because he could do so and still more than match the Roman frontage.
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
Quote: Arrian Anab. VIIxx3 …dekadarken men tes dekados hegesthai Makedona kai epi toutoi dimoiriten Makedona kai dekastateron….epi toutois de dodeka Persas kai teleutaion tes dekados Makedona, dekastateron kai touton….

With as dekadarchs leading the dekads a Macedonian and after them a Macedonian on double pay and a ten stater man…after those twelve Persians and bringing up the rear of the file another Macedonian ten stater man…

The Greek will not allow any interpretation other than the obvious one that counting from the front of the file there was a file –leader (surprise, surprise), a double payman , a ten stater man, twelve Persians and a final ten stater man. It’s the epi toutoi(s) that make it so; translations may be praised for many reasons but these days it has more to do with readability than closeness to the text.

Thanks for that: as I related it reads as a simple description from front to rear.

Quote:Regarding the trained Persians, they do not appear in the wars of the Diadochoi the troops that do are the Pandotopai or men of every nation, who sound rather more like the bastard offspring of the camp who were meant to have been trained in the Macedonian manner. I believe these were confused by one source with the Persians brought by Peucestas, who were untrained, probably because they were both 30,000 strong.

The key being, of course, "of all nations". Hammond supposes this to be the result of Alexander’s training camps – beginning in Lydia, Lycia and Pamphylia – educating the “boys” of the east in the liberal Greek manner and Macedonian arms in the same manner of the Macedonian pages. The description (all races) is used of those in the armies of Antigonus and Eumenes (totalling some 13,000). This is only six years after Alexander’s death and I doubt that they are the bastard offspring of the camp. Whilst this is not impossible (children born in the late 330s could be 16 or 17) and Justin confuses the camp children and the epigoni (7.4.11), it is not likely. These camp children are plainly boys (at Arrian 7.12.2) who Alexander promises will be “brought up” in the Macedonian fashion. I don’t see them furnishing troops for Antigonus or Eumenes and, most likely, not until the time of Gaza at the earliest.

Alexander gave the order for the formation of the epigoni, if we can take Curtius (8.5.1) at his word, prior to invading India. This after the bloody two year insurrection centred on the “upper satrapies”. Thus the “men” Alexander wanted trained (and kept as hostages) all came from the nationalities of the satrapies bordering the north and east (Aria, Bactria, Soghdia, Parapamisadae, Arachosia, et al). We can imagine that many “nations” made up this region and thus this force was representative of the ethnic groups of the region. Plainly Alexander was planning to be using these troops in coming campaigns – well separated from their homelands.

I would find it far more logical that it was these trained troops who made up the forces so described in the campaigns of 318-316. Antigonus likely procured his from the remnants of the royal army post Triparadeisos. Eumenes from the satrapal armies – Diodorus (19.14.5) describes Peucestas as having “ten thousand Persian archers and slingers, three thousand men of every origin equipped for service in the Macedonian array”. It is possible that Peucestas had trained them but, again, more likely they were epigoni.

Quote: I would be loathe to draw too many conclusions about the fully fledged Macedonian phalanx from this one-off aberration other than to say that at the time of Alexander ‘dimoiretes ‘ meant double pay man and nothing more that later this was the pay scale of a half-file leader is irrelevant. The best argument for half-file leaders is the eight deep formation at Issos. But that does presuppose sixteen to be a full file.

Indeed. You’d be unsurprised that I’d agree with that.
Paralus|Michael Park

Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους

Wicked men, you are sinning against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander!

Academia.edu
Reply
Quote:I would agree ‘normal/open’ order was used for marching, and to approach the enemy in line, and I maintain that ‘close order’ – fighting formation as you say - was only formed when within striking distance of the enemy. Neither Aelian nor any other writer states that the phalanx is 16 deep in close order…..this a modern supposition, based largely on the fact that modern military drills are usually performed in ‘close order’.But in contrast we are specifically told by Ascepiodotus that: 'open order' "is the natural/normal order, and hence has no special name" ....at 4 cubits/6 ft/1.8 m frontage per man. Pyknosis ( close order - 2 cubits per man ) is the actual 'fighting formation'.

All military manuals state that regrdless the density of the formation it is the (usually) 16 men file which fights the battle. It does not matter if these men marched toward the enemy in open order, it is they that will form the fighting files. They are very clear that the fight is not usually performed in half files (8 men in all manuals). When Asclepiodotus states that open order is the natural order of men, he means that in it they can march and keep cohesion, but he and all others are very explicit that they will not fight in it. So, the question here is : "Did the phalanx usually march in open order 16 deep and when closing the enemy (maybe at 600 yards or so, certainly before entering arrow distance (or skirmisher's range, since very few Greek armies actually used bows) according to all Byzantine manuals) contracted to half front retaining its depth yet densening its ranks or did it march in open order double files (32 deep) which would before combat close in, thus keeping the front length but doubling density?" Your proposal, that the phalanx marched 16 men deep in open order and before battle usually closed its ranks 8 deep (in half files) is not what the ancients propose nor does it sound appropriate to me. The whole file structure is described as an autonomous fighting unit designed to normally fight as such and in close order. I agree that half files would be able to fight but this was not the norm.

Quote:IIRC, we only hear of the Phalanx being 32 deep on three occasions.
The first is Alexander’s debouching in column from the pass before deploying before Issus. It is highly likely that Polybius/Callimachus is referring to the left wing being behind the right wing at the point where he says they are 32 deep. The wings deploy side by side and are then 16 deep, the normal Phalanx depth. Finally they close up into close order 8 deep to fight.
The second occasion is the Hellenistic battle of Sellasia, when Antigonus marches his Phalanx up a mountain ridge against the Spartans ( see “Ancient Warfare” magazine issue Vol II issue 2 for a full account), again we hear of one phalanx behind the other ( the “white shields” behind the “Peltasts” – literally a double phalanx ) and thus some 32 deep. After closing up for action, they would be each 8 deep, making a total of 16 deep. On this occasion one phalanx interpenetrates the other (“epalellos”;interlocked phalanx) to achieve ‘synaspismos’, presumably 8 deep.
The third occasion is Magnesia, when we are told Antiochus formed up his Phalanx 32 ranks deep, (Livy XXXVII.40; Appian “Syrian Wars” XXXII) likely because he could do so and still more than match the Roman frontage.

First of all, it is Callisthenes who gives the account criticized by Polybius in his very interesting chapter about the inconsistencies that Polybius deteted in Callisthenes' miliary descriptions, but he is very clear as to the situation. He talks about the whole phalanx being deployed 32 deep and not just a certain wing. To me, it seems a case of double doubling the ranks. Marching in open order in double files, closing to close order in single file only to do "synaspismos" in half file, although I would not find it peculiar for a circumstance like that to deploy the Macedonian phalanx in simple close order to double its frontage. I think that both explanations here are possible.

I agree with your interpretation of the Selassia case, although we have no account of the phalanx fighting in "synaspismos". Maybe they did maybe they fought in simple close order (very possible given the fact that they marched up a hill). Yet I have to ask you where you drew your descriptions of the lefkaspides and the peltasts. Polybius and Plutarch do not name the phalanxes (if my memory serves me well). Can it be you found them in some extracts from Polyaenus or Frontinus?

As for Antiochus, well... he did deploy his phalanx in a rather peculiar way, with large intervals between each unit, filled with elephants. I wouldn't call his deployment a typical 32 men deep phalanx by any standards. I will look for more instances for 32 men deep phalanxes in the near future. Are you sure these are the only ones?


Anyways... I disagree with your opinion that the Macedonian phalanx would normally fight in half files of 8 men, yet I agree that this could be done for a variety of reasons (need to lengthen the frontage, synaspismos and retaining of frontage etc) and certainly was done. I just disagree that it would be the norm.
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Makedonian phalanx shield Lessa 22 6,166 09-04-2009, 10:36 PM
Last Post: Lessa
  phalanx depth PMBardunias 12 3,447 04-21-2009, 10:37 PM
Last Post: Paralus
  Makedonian Armour Kallimachos 92 26,464 12-06-2007, 08:08 PM
Last Post: Kallimachos

Forum Jump: