The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth?

[Paullus Scipio]

Paralus/Michael wrote:

You generalise from scanty evidence and one might hesitate to have “solved all anomalies" of any problem involving ancient source material. Similar is your remark about Polybios (more below).

...Yes, I agree I am generalising, and perhaps over-much as you say, but I cannot on this forum take readers through every Greek/Macedonian battle between 500 and 200 B.C., explaining how the hypothesis works in each case. That would require a book !
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 !
Of course the evidence is scanty - it always is for this era, - and we can only try to explain matters on balance of probability/fitting all or most of the known facts as we understand them. Generally, more than one interpretation is possible, hence the seemingly endless debates of those interested !
But I pose the same question to you as to Paul B.

In the words of Donald Sutherland : "Enough with the negativity!" ......if you have a viable, more likely explanation then please expound it !

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

Your view is that, writing for educated Greeks, Polybios assumed that his readership was well acquainted with the Macedonian Phalanx and how it operated to the extent that explaining that a 16 deep phalanx fought 8 deep was redundant.

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, so the citizens, whilst they might be expected to have a knowledge of their City's traditions and history ( Athenians looking back to Marathon, for example) would not have any experience of contemporary warfare.... hence Polybius' need to explain contemporary warfare to 'civilians'. Nor is it necessary to suppose the actual mechanics/minutiae needed to be explained. So long as the same convention was observed, so as to compare various depths, it probably did not matter whether 'civilian'readers understood the exact mechanics or not. But they might well need to know the terrible aspects of a Macedonian phalanx in full cry, and why it was so formidable....so Polybius explains these aspects. I don't believe sarcastic 'hair splitting' over Polybius' audience's depth of knowledge is relevant here. In fact, Polybius own military knowledge is lacking at times, but from the Kallisthenes passage it is evident he understood the difference between 'close order' and 'open order' - and that is good evidence and can't be ignored !! D

but it needs to be noted that he was writing for what was now a “Roman world” and under Roman patronage.

....not a "Roman World", but a Mediterranean world which had been largely Greek influenced/dominated for centuries ( sorry for the generalisation!) which had suddenly become Roman dominated. The mediterranean would not culturally become 'Mare Nostrum' for centuries....
But I would certainly agree he was writing as a hostage, and latterly under Roman patronage of the Scipios, and hence had to choose his words carefully....

Unlike a baseball cap, one size does not fit all. Or, in this instance, one hypothesis does not solve “all the anomalies in our sources”.

I believe that Greek/Macedonian phalanx drill continually evolved as the troop-types changed over time, beginning with simple drills anyone could quickly learn down to the sophistication of the drill mauals ( but many of these complex evolutions were never used in practise, so far as we know), and that the phalanx, both Greek and Macedonian manouevred largely by files, in 'normal'/open order, and it is this depth which is generally referred to by ancient Greek authors. This depth halved just before contact, into close order. This hypothesis, so far as I know, fits all the known facts, and does explain all the anomalies I am aware of in the sources regarding depth. I have yet to see a better explanation.

I think this debate is pretty much closed, certainly I have nothing new to say, and I confess to being wearied by having to conduct exchanges/debate with so many - yourself, Paul B., Christian/Kineas and Cole/Nikolaos, all on slightly different subjects, simultaneously!!! ?