The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth?

[Paullus Scipio]

Paul B wrote:

They were drawn up in A battle formation and for a display (if you don't like parade). There was no single battle depth in any case. You know I believe he specifically calls it a "battle formation' because he was most definitely NOT in a battle at the time. The other incidence is of troops displaying their drill on the way to dinner!

Granted there was no single battle depth, nevertheless I'd like to see any alternate hypothesis that fits all/most of the known facts within the framework of the little we know of Hoplite drill, mostly from Xenophon, who was an actual military commander, be it remembered. The other incidence is not as you say, it is troops practising their drill at every opportunity, including going to and from dinner, which anyone with modern military experience will immediately recognise ( it is still universally done today)

What do you do if you are in close order at 8 ranks and being outflanked? Nice to have an option. Also, you can countermarch off the rear half of a unit leaving the front 4 or 6 ranks.

Huh? ....Xenophon's drill would not allow you to do either of these things!! The frontage doesn't change when the formation moves from 8 to 4 ranks deep, so no help if being outflanked.
Marching the rear 4 ranks up in between the front four ranks doesn't allow you to march off the rear half of a unit. The fundamental basis of Hoplite drill, as explained by Xenophon, is that it is based on files, not ranks ( unlike the Romans)

Why do you think there wasn't? Isocrates mentions Spartans in a single line.

...we are here trying to discuss the 'norm', for which there were drills, as expounded by Xenophon - not isolated exceptional circumstances. Xenophon does not describe any thinner depth than 4 in close order in his 'typical' drills.

First I find one instance where a "battle formation" is mentioned in the context of what is clearly not a battle to be far too little evidence to hang my hat on.
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?
Second I don't believe that the greeks would stress the depth of the penultimate number of ranks. 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.
Your reliance on bringing up the rear half of columns ignores that this is barely mentioned in Aelian and Arrian while the movement of alternate ranks is stressed.
We are here talking of drill as expounded for the classical era by Xenophon, not the more sophisticated drills of the Hellenistic manuals , many of which were impractical and seldom if ever carried out on the battlefield. 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)
The movement of whole groups as well is given attention as well, so opening ranks for light troops need not be done by files waiting to double in opened order.

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, if not in the way I suggest.In the words of Donald Sutherland : "Enough with the negativity!" ......if you have a viable, more likely explanation then please expound it !

Perhaps this is the problem. I see no reason that there be the same standard for all of the time periods we are considering. It would not suprise me if for instance the terminology changed between Classical and Hellenistic phalanxes. I think this is clearly so with spacing, since as I mentioned synaspismos occurs at anything less than about a meter for hoplites, not 0.5 m.

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.
As I understand it, Cole/Nikolaos and Kineas are proposing that this 'revolution' did not occur until the late 6 C B.C., and that the so-called Boeotian shield continued until then - an argument I find most unlikely, despite the paucity of evidence either way.....