The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth?

[Paralus]

Always with the negative waves. Enough with the negarive waves Moriarty

If there is some anomaly regarding depth of phalanxes that you feel can't be explained by my hypothesis/interpretation of what information we have, please point to it and I shall endeavour to explain, or else concede the hypothesis fails ! [...]

As to Mantinea, I see nothing in the descriptions of that battle which go against the functioning of the phalanx that I have postulated......

I had posted those “anomalies” in my previous post. There is, according to Thucydides, no uniformity of depth to the Spartan files. And it is files – as you say – that matter here. It follows there can be “closing down” from 8 to four if those files are between 5 and 9 or more deep.

Further Thucydides explicitly states that the Brasideans and Sciritae are ordered to remove themselves further to the left – whole units – so as to avoid flanking. As well, whole units (companies) are to be transferred into the resulting gap from the right wing. When this fails to occur the Brasideans and Sciritae do not have time to fill up the gap. These movements are by whole units in battle order

No, but possibly every Greek, certainly the educated citizens of a poleis, knew how a phalanx moved and fought, since it hadn't changed fundamentally in hundreds of years. Most of these would not, for example, have seen a Macedonian sarissa armed phalanx in action, hence Polybius' vivid descriptions. Remember that the old citizen militias of the city-states had gone by Polybius' time, and military forces consisted largely of professionals,....

To quote a famous individual:

It is you that say it.

Well, indeed. And citizens who have not ever seen a phalanx in action then need to have the workings of that phalanx explained to them. As Polybios does – in detail – all except for that all important keystone in the arch of your argument: that the phalanx always adopted close order by doubling down from sixteen to eight. This, apparently, of all the details can be assumed.

The argument from that silence is not compelling.

[PMBardunias]

The frontage doesn't change when the formation moves from 8 to 4 ranks deep, so no help if being outflanked.

You are starting from an assumption that Xenophon's drill was the only, or even the dominant method. I am merely saying that having the ability to cut files in half, with an appropriate command structure allows something like countermarching the rear half of your unit off to your flank. A case could be made that the countermarching of the whole rear half of a unit next to the front half which is already in close order is more simple than doubling by half-files. I am merely showing that there are many alternatives and not enough evidence to chose from.

So because the evidence is sparse, you ignore it and 'hang your hat' on.....what? Something for which there is no evidence at all ! Surely we must work with what evidence we do have?

No, I say that we cannot know based on the evidence. We don't even have reason to suspect that there was a "standard" drill. Each method could have been used at seperate times/places.

We have no evidence of early 5th c hoplites and hoplites not versed in the spartan drill system doing anything by lining up and charging.
No direct descriptions, certainly, but plenty of inferences of the troops being well ordered....consider the Spartans and Tegeans sitting/crouching in their ranks until the order to charge is given at Plataea. These are disciplined troops, being controlled by their Officers ( until the Tegeans lose control under fire), not a mob, or tribal muster! Consider the authors continued emphasis on 'good order' etc etc.The Athenians at and Plataeans tactical plan and 'good order' at Marathon....and many other examples too numerous to mention. All of this requires drill of some sort.

Do you believe that Homer's Myrmidons, who fought in close order, used this drill? Surely as I said, many close ordered troop types over the centuries managed this without drill, simply well ordered mobs. If everyone knows where to stand, they can appear quite orderly. No drill required.

I have previously sent you Xenophon's drill descriptions, with diagrams, and explanations of how they likely worked. You have never refuted this, nor come up with any alternate explanation, or reported any errors. So far, any alternatives, such as those you now refer to above turn out be incompatible with what Xenophon describes - which is quite simple and straightforward, and could be learnt in an hour by amateur militia (unlike the sophisticated Hellenistic drills for Professional troops)

I agree completely with your reconstruction of Xenophon's drill. It is clear that the mercenaries with him did it this way. It might perhaps represent Spartan methodology of the 5th c. But surely it is a leap to say it was only done this way or that is was done this way during those period of hoplite warfare.

Can you be specific? If you are again relying on Hellenistic manuals...... Describe how light troops withdraw in the context of Xenophon's drill system,

Surely cavalry did not retreat through 6' spaces between files. This means that when they went back through a phalanx it was because the phalanx opened by countermarching a section of the line back behind another. The same can be done for light troops.

Now you are quoting my own ideas back at me! Don't forget that in this discusion, my position is that the 'Hoplite phalanx revolution' occurred probably in the 8th or late 7th century B.C. with the switch from central handgrip circular shields, to 'porpax' held ones, and that the 'phalanx Warfare' that emerged evolved continually down to Hellenistic times, and that the basis of it's drills was carried out by files throughout.

I know a good source when I see it! I have no quarrel at all with the way you describe Xenophon's doubling as A means of forming hoplites. I simply have a problem saying it is The way based on so little evidence and in the face of all the instances of group countermarching and Aelian's diverse drill systems. Also in light of the many cultures who form phalanx-like groups and shield-walls without doubling by files.

[Paullus Scipio]

Aaaaah!.......No respite from the rain of criticisms being hurled simultaneously, missile like, in my direction ! But still no viable alternatives proposed, I see .....
Which of my opponents shall I seek to fend off first ???

Donald Sutherland makes a number of 'negativity' comments as the hippy tank commander Oddball in the movie "Kelly's heroes, including both Michael/Paralus' quotation (Moriarty was his tank driver) and mine, and also (appropriate here perhaps? D )
"Why don't you you knock it off with them negative waves?" :lol: :lol:

Michael/Paralus wrote:

I had posted those “anomalies” in my previous post. There is, according to Thucydides, no uniformity of depth to the Spartan files. And it is files – as you say – that matter here. It follows there can be “closing down” from 8 to four if those files are between 5 and 9 or more deep.

Yes, Thucydides says that each 'Regimental' commander decided on his own depth, but that they averaged 8 deep....Thucydides has problems here, as he says, due to the secretive nature of the Spartans, but most modern analyses ( e.g. Lazenby "The Spartan Army") believe he has confused the Spartan Army structure, notably Morai/Lochoi, for his overall estimate of numbers cannot be right. But whether each 'regiment' formed up 8 deep, or deeper or shallower (which was probably dependant on how many men were available for duty that day), is immaterial to the hypothesis that the depth 'halved' by moving into 'close order' just before combat.

Further Thucydides explicitly states that the Brasideans and Sciritae are ordered to remove themselves further to the left – whole units – so as to avoid flanking. As well, whole units (companies) are to be transferred into the resulting gap from the right wing. When this fails to occur the Brasideans and Sciritae do not have time to fill up the gap. These movements are by whole units in battle order

...which conclusively demonstrates that the units had no drill for expanding their frontage at this time - just as Xenophon's drill implies. They could only contract into 'close order' and vice versa, without the frontage changing. Thus it was necessary to move whole units to block any gap.

Well, indeed. And citizens who have not ever seen a phalanx in action then need to have the workings of that phalanx explained to them. As Polybios does – in detail – all except for that all important keystone in the arch of your argument: that the phalanx always adopted close order by doubling down from sixteen to eight. This, apparently, of all the details can be assumed.

The argument from that silence is not compelling.

Not silent ! He tells us categorically in his comments on Kallisthenes that Alexander's phalanx actually fought 8 deep,at Issus, having closed up from 16 deep. Moreover, he categorically tells us that 16 deep, each man occupied a 6 foot frontage i.e. 'open/normal' order (see ante) .....and nowhere does any other author or Polybius suggest this was anything other than the norm, or describe a fighting depth of any other figure ( though I don't doubt that it occurred....trying not to generalise too much here! :wink: )


Paul B. wrote:

You are starting from an assumption that Xenophon's drill was the only, or even the dominant method. I am merely saying that having the ability to cut files in half, with an appropriate command structure allows something like countermarching the rear half of your unit off to your flank. A case could be made that the countermarching of the whole rear half of a unit next to the front half which is already in close order is more simple than doubling by half-files. I am merely showing that there are many alternatives and not enough evidence to chose from.

We have no evidence for any other Hoplite drill....Xenophon's is the only one we have knowledge of, but it is so simple and basic that something similar, even if differing in detail, must have formed the basis of Hoplite drill. What you describe about rear halves of units moving around front halves sounds more like a Roman maniple, with it's posterior century moving up alongside it's prior century, and to do this is definitely more complex, not simpler, than file closing - ask anyone with a knowledge of drill.....nothing like that is recorded of Greek/Macedonian units - there is simply no evidence for anything other than what I describe. You are here postulating pure 'possibilities' without adducing any evidence. Shouldn't Occam's razor apply when data is minimal ?

No, I say that we cannot know based on the evidence. We don't even have reason to suspect that there was a "standard" drill. Each method could have been used at seperate times/places.

...Not so. Methods of drill must have been very similar, else contingents from different cities could not have welded together into a single phalanx. Most importantly, once the contingents were aligned, there could be no change of frontage - but within the phalanx, contingents could be of differing depths. A contingent using, say, your postulated rear half moving out and around the front half simply could not combine with a unit using Xenophon's drill - nor can any system which postulates lateral movement within the phalanx work. Mantinea, chosen by Paralus/Michael is a good illustration of the limits of manouevre of the Phalanx, at that time.

Do you believe that Homer's Myrmidons, who fought in close order, used this drill? Surely as I said, many close ordered troop types over the centuries managed this without drill, simply well ordered mobs. If everyone knows where to stand, they can appear quite orderly. No drill required.

..we have no evidence for what Homer's Myrmidons did, or even if they ever existed. What you say about close-order battle lines is perfectly true, but thanks to Xenophon, we know that the Classical Greek Phalanx was more capable than this and more sophisticated in it's command structure and ability to drill 'in good order', as several authors emphasise.

I agree completely with your reconstruction of Xenophon's drill. It is clear that the mercenaries with him did it this way. It might perhaps represent Spartan methodology of the 5th c. But surely it is a leap to say it was only done this way or that is was done this way during those period of hoplite warfare.

...I am relieved to hear you say it !
Xenophon's 'Cyreans' drill in a slightly different , but similar way to Xenophon's Spartans - as I described to you. I don't say there wasn't variation - the Cyreans and Spartans have differences, as I say, but the fundamentals must have been broadly the same.

Surely cavalry did not retreat through 3' spaces between files. This means that when they went back through a phalanx it was because the phalanx opened by countermarching a section of the line back behind another. The same can be done for light troops.

First, Greek city-state cavalry did not exist through most of the period under discussion. Second, when they do appear, they are posted on the flanks as a rule. The formation is not intended to have cavalry move through it, only light infantry. For an example of the perils of cavalry driven back through infantry, look at Leuktra ( incidently, had the Spartan Infantry been in close order at the time, the cavalry could not have been driven 'through' them, or caused any confusion - the horses simply wouldn't have gone near the tight hedge of spears/shields)
We hear of light troops withdrawing 'through' the line, and launching missiles from behind the shelter of Hoplite shields too often for light troops withdrawing any other way through a phalanx - what you suggest is far more complex - not to mention dangerous in the face of the enemy - gaps everywhere!! Agian what you describe does not appear to have been done until Roman times - who used an entirely different drill system based on ranks !

I know a good source when I see it! I have no quarrel at all with the way you describe Xenophon's doubling as A means of forming hoplites. I simply have a problem saying it is The way based on so little evidence and in the face of all the instances of group countermarching and Aelian's diverse drill systems. Also in light of the many cultures who form phalanx-like groups and shield-walls without doubling by files.

As I say, perhaps it is the ability to perform elementary drill that differentiates the Classical Greek phalanx from it's contemporaries and other less sophisticated battle systems. Aelian and the other manuals largely describe the Phalanx at the apogee of it's development - as Mantinea shows, in Xenophon's time the Phalanx had no method of expanding laterally.
As to "other ways", we have no other ways described in our sources, and as you have demonstrated any other method is inevitably more complicated - Occams razor again. The hypothesis I have put forward at least has the ability to:
1. be simple
2. be consistent with all our information.

....and lastly, no-one to my knowledge has come up with an alternate system - save that Peter Connolly postulated something very similar in his "Greek Armies".

[PMBardunias]

We have no evidence for any other Hoplite drill....Xenophon's is the only one we have knowledge of, but it is so simple and basic that something similar, even if differing in detail, must have formed the basis of Hoplite drill. What you describe about rear halves of units moving around front halves sounds more like a Roman maniple, with it's posterior century moving up alongside it's prior century, and to do this is definitely more complex, not simpler, than file closing - ask anyone with a knowledge of drill.....nothing like that is recorded of Greek/Macedonian units - there is simply no evidence for anything other than what I describe. You are here postulating pure 'possibilities' without adducing any evidence. Shouldn't Occam's razor apply when data is minimal ?

Surely moving a block of men into files next to another in spacing of about a body/shield width is easier than moving men into files 12' apart and keeping this spacing relatively even between files. Doubling through many iterations puts a big requirement on front ranker to judge space between files. There is ample evidence for moving blocks of men occuring in real battles, while none for doubling in an actual battle.

...Not so. Methods of drill must have been very similar, else contingents from different cities could not have welded together into a single phalanx. Most importantly, once the contingents were aligned, there could be no change of frontage - but within the phalanx, contingents could be of differing depths. A contingent using, say, your postulated rear half moving out and around the front half simply could not combine with a unit using Xenophon's drill - nor can any system which postulates lateral movement within the phalanx work. Mantinea, chosen by Paralus/Michael is a good illustration of the limits of manouevre of the Phalanx, at that time.

Not true, either technique works in the same frontage, as would simply lining up in close order from the initial deployment. If men in "opened" order moved into close order, halving their frontage, then the gap was filled with another portion of the unit unit also in close order, there is no change in frontage.

..we have no evidence for what Homer's Myrmidons did, or even if they ever existed. What you say about close-order battle lines is perfectly true, but thanks to Xenophon, we know that the Classical Greek Phalanx was more capable then this and more sophisticated in it's command structure and ability to drill 'in good order', as several authors emphasise.

Good then we agree. If you limit your suredness to men under Xenophon's command I have no problem. Trying to say that because Xenophon did it that way then it must have been done like that at Marathon pushes the point too far. Xenophon tells us nothing about Marathon.

For an example of the perils of cavalry driven back through infantry, look at Leuktra ( incidently, had the Spartan Infantry been in close order at the time, the cavalry could not have been driven 'through' them, or caused any confusion - the horses simply wouldn't have gone near the tight hedge of spears/shields)

You don't honestly believe that a troop of cavalry simply moved between ranks of men in opened order? Surely the Spartans countermarched to open a gap (if there was not already a gap due to the attempted maneuvers).


We hear of light troops withdrawing 'through' the line, and launching missiles from behind the shelter of Hoplite shields too often for light troops withdrawing any other way through a phalanx - what you suggest is far more complex - not to mention dangerous in the face of the enemy - gaps everywhere!! Agian what you describe does not appear to have been done until Roman times - who used an entirely different drill system based on ranks !

Again we have a myriad of ways for this to occur. If there is time to sacrifice a goat there is time to open and close gaps, but beyond this, the fastest was would be to do the shuffling of every other man described at great length by the tacticians to make lanes for the light troops. Many seem to forget that the length of a phalanx has some boundaries so as to not foul adjacent units, but the depth is not so constrained. Hoplites could easily stand in a spacing of 3' laterally and 6' in depth, providing room for all sorts of shield bearers and light troops to filter through with a simple step back.

As I say, perhaps it is the ability to perform elementary drill that differentiates the Classical Greek phalanx from it's contemporaries and other less sophisticated battle systems. Aelian and the other manuals largely describe the Phlanx at the apogee of it's development - as mantinea shows, in Xenphon's time the Phalanx had no method of expanding laterally.

No, it proves that the way to expand laterally was to interpose new units. It also shows just how independant individual units were within a supposedly cohesive phalanx as well as how even some of the most elite units in the Greek world fail to exploit a relatively huge gap in a phalanx by turning left and rolling up the line- gaps were simply not as fatal as many think. They could be quite fatal, but this required an adversary with the tactical flexibility to exploit them.

[Paralus]

EEE-YO!!!

Not silent ! He tells us categorically in his comments on Kallisthenes that Alexander's phalanx actually fought 8 deep, at Issus, having closed up from 16 deep.....and nowhere does any other author or Polybius suggest this was anything other than the norm, or describe a fighting depth of any other figure ( though I don't doubt that it occurred....trying not to generalise too much here! :wink: )

Silent indeed. He nowhere states (nor does any other author) that fighting eight deep is the norm for a Macedonian phalanx - that is your assertion. You are distracted by his vitriolic criticism of Kallisthenes. I have enumerated the other reason the Macedonians were eight deep at Issos. What Polybios does clearly describe is the effect of a charge when sixteen deep. Clearly "when sixteen deep".

Although Polybios feels compelled to explain the minutiae of the mechanics of phalanx operation (both at Cynoscephalae and in his assault on Kallistenes), he feels no such compunction to add when "closed up for action" after relating that Alexander's troops had reduced to eight deep.

Livy and Appian (again almost certainly excerpting Polybios) clearly state that Antiochus III's phalanx was "crowded" thirty-two deep in battle order.

Incidentally, Arrian at 2.8.v describes Alexander's approach 'prosagon ede Alexandros os es machen...' "in battle order". This being as soon as the plain was wide enough to admit his infantry and horse.

In any case, this might be pursued over black beer and / or decent red on Saturday evening methinks as the combination your insistence on Polybios stating that eight is normal and understood for 16 and my clear understanding that when he says sixteen he means sixteen (having already given a thorough description of a closed up phalanx) is becoming cyclical not to say boring for others.

We may be burning our bridges here....

[PMBardunias]

Thukydides you magnificent bastard- I read your book!

Something Paralus wrote made me go back and read. We are told that "four men fought in the front rank of each enomotiai". Michael took this to mean the front 4 men of each file fought- as had I. Rereading it though, it makes more sense as the the fighting frontage of each enomotia was a rank of four men! If we have the fighting frontage, then we need only divide the enomotiai by 4 to get the fighting depth. 32/4= 8 ranks in fighting formation. To be fighting 4 ranks deep, the enomotiai would have to be only 16 men, which is unlikely. Perhaps someone will check the Greek, but if this stands, I think it is quite definative proof of a rank number being the fighting depth.

[Paralus]

tês te enômotias emachonto en tôi prôtôi zugôi tessares: epi de bathos etaxanto men ou pantes homoiôs, all' hôs lochagos hekastos ebouleto, epi pan de katestêsan epi oktô.

I feel you may well be correct Mr Bardunias. Zugoi, in the Liddel, is given as "rank".

[Paullus Scipio]

I'm afraid that passage of Thucydides (V.66 onward) is not as revelationary as you might think. At the stage of the battle Thucydides is describing the armies 'drawn up', unit by unit. Under my hypothesis, the troops would be in 'normal'/open order, with 6 ft frontage per man. Thus a Spartan enomotia(platoon) of 32 would be drawn up in 4 files of 8 deep, which is 8 ranks, just as Thucydides says. This is before any action occurs, and King Agis orders units to fill gaps and then countermands the order, so the armies are still well apart at this stage, with units manoeuvring, which was done in 'normal'/open order.
Only as the charge is launched roughly when the armies are 100-200 yds apart, and once skirmishers had withdrawn, would the rear half of the enomotia 'close up', so that the platoon would now have stood in 8 half-files, 4 ranks deep, 3 ft frontage per man for actual combat - just as Xenophon describes.... :wink: :wink:

Thucydides uses this passage to try to calculate the strength of the Spartan army - and famously gets it wrong !! ( 448 shields x 8 adds up to only 3,584 Spartans). In fact it is more likely the Spartan contingent numbered something like double this (Thucydides evidently confuses Lochoi (battalions)and Morai (regiments)

This is also the battle where Thucydides tells us the Spartans "came on slowly and to the music of many flute players....it is designed to make them keep in step and move forward steadily without breaking their ranks.."

[Paralus]

I'm afraid that passage of Thucydides (V.66 onward) is not as revelationary as you might think. At the stage of the battle Thucydides is describing the armies 'drawn up', unit by unit.

Rubbish. The allied army is clearly described as “in battle order”, the order in “which they meant to fight” were they to be confronted by the very near enemy. They clearly were not about to be executing any intricate movements.

There is little doubt that the Spartans – surprised by both the enemy’s order and proximity – formed up in similar fashion.

Thus a Spartan enomotia(platoon) of 32 would be drawn up in 4 files of 8 deep, which is 8 ranks, just as Thucydides says.

No, you confuse “files” (depth) with “ranks” (breadth). Clearly ranks of "four" are those at the front. Thucydides makes this plain as day when he states that the “front rank” consisted of 448 men. This, clearly, cannot be a “rank” 448 deep.

[Paullus Scipio]

"Rubbish" ? ....hardly polite -especially as it is you who are in some confusion as to 'rank' and 'file'. Nor, apparently, have you grasped the essence of the hypothesis I have put forward......
Read what I wrote again. 'Battle order' or 'the order in which they meant fight' refers to dispositions - which unit stood next to which, which city state stood next to who - dispositions in other words. At this point in time the phalanx stands in 'normal'/open order, 6 ft per man. Only as the armies approach within charge distance, and after light infantry skirmishers ( if present) have withdrawn, do the ranks close up and the depth halves, for the final charge/contact.
I'll spell it out: 4 files, standing side by side each have 8 men one behind the other. They form 8 ranks, one rank behind the other, each rank consisting of 4 men. According to Thucydides calculation, which as I have noted, must be incorrect, there are 448 men in each of the 8 ranks, or alternately there are 448 files each of 8 men making up the army in normal/open order. Using Thucydides incorrect numbers for the moment, when they get within charge distance, the rear 'half-file' closes up, so that the formation now consists of 896 men in each of 4 ranks, or 896 files of 4, in close order !!!

It is difficult to carry on a discussion with those who don't understand drill, and how it works, as both you and Paul B. have demonstrated. By the way, even Xenophon, in the Cyropaedia displayes the same weakness, failing to understand that what is possible for a few thousand men, is not for 50,000 men! I'll leave you to work out why......

[Paralus]

Except that Thucydides is describing "fighting order": four men fought in the front rank and the depth was not consitent but, "in general", was eight deep.

Work it as you will.

By the way, Thucydides' confusing of Morai and Lochoi do not impact on this discussion: it is a distraction.

[PMBardunias]

Perhaps this is a good place to leave the discussion- before we all get testy. Four men fought in the front rank seems pretty clear to me, and hopefully to those reading, but as in all analysis of ancient texts we cannot truly be sure of the intent.

I will leave with one cautionary note. At some date, the greeks themsleves did not understand "drill", so they may not have acted the way we think they should have based on our extensive modern knowledge.

[Paralus]

Oh I'm not getting testy - just that feeling of arguing with the wife. Can't afford to get testy or I'll be buying my own beer on Saturday night.

Can't imagine what the others in the bar are going to make of what might be an animated discussion of files, synaspismos and pyknosis. Mr MCDonnell-Staff and myself will need to get those terms out of the way before the post dinner Guinness take over...

Perhaps I shall need to become my avatar and extort cash contributions to my consumption from my drinking ally? Then again, perhaps I will perform an early fifth century diekplous: sail past him, come up from behind, grapple him and capture his wallet...

The demonstrations, ninth Guinness down, of open order to closed up to synaspismos should be hilarious.

As Oddball would say: "Eeeyyo!"

[Paullus Scipio]

Yes, Saturday night is evidently going to prove interesting ! But time will be short, and having pretty much exhausted the textual side of 'depth', there will be a myriad of other subjects to discuss, details of sources of information to be exchanged ( it would seem we both have libraries on the subject - mine, I suspect not as extensive ( at least on Ancient History) as that of Paralus.

But on the subject of depth, tied up as we have been with (some!!) of the textual evidence, I have not yet turned to the subject of 'optimum depth', or why given two roughly equal bodies of Hoplites, those 4 deep in close order would generally beat those 8 deep in close order. Then there is the third limb to my argument, the physical size of known battlefields.......all of these produce results that are consistent.....

Then there are the difficulties/impossibilities of moving lines of men, a kilometre long, across typical Greek terrain in 'close order' ........( c.f. Polybius' criticisms of Callisthenes referred to ante) :wink:

[PMBardunias]

I have not yet turned to the subject of 'optimum depth', or why given two roughly equal bodies of Hoplites, those 4 deep in close order would generally beat those 8 deep in close order.

This I would like to hear :wink:

Then there are the difficulties/impossibilities of moving lines of men, a kilometre long, across typical Greek terrain in 'close order' ........( c.f. Polybius' criticisms of Callisthenes referred to ante)

I think there is ample evidence that they did not do this. They moved a group of units that start off in a rough line at close order, but the many examples we have of units charging at different distances show that there was no expectation to move the whole line in marionette unison such as we might expect from the early modern armies where drill was fetishized. The most gross example of this is that any unit lined up along side Spartans could not have kept pace with them because they marched during the charge while even Spartan trained mercenaries ran. This is not such a problem because a battle line reformed upon contact with enemy units and exploiting such differential arrival times is a lot more difficult for an enemy to do that it appears to us.