The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth?

[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".