The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth?

[Paullus Scipio]

In the tactical system of the manuals, the extra officers provided leaders if the phalanx closed up to the closest order (1 cubit per file, half the normal depth of 8, 12, or 16) or needed to produce a longer line than usual (2 cubits per file, half the normal depth of 8, 12, or 16). Aelian states (Aelian 4.3) that the depths he gives can be doubled or halved as the situation demands. This makes sense if the normal depths are 2 files (marching order), 1 file (fighting order), and 1/2 file (synaspimos). He mentions half-file leaders, but only mentions quarter-files in passing as part of an alternative system of terms which he doesn't use.

I think the Swiss show that pike formations deeper than 8 are perfectly practical, despite doubts by some scholars. Precise information on the depth of Swiss formations is hard to find, but their columns were much more than 8 deep.

Furthermore, the manuals tell us that there were 'Half-file leaders'/hemilochites, and 'Quarter-file leaders'/enomotarchs. What purpose would these serve if whole files of 16 were the order in which they fought, and they never closed any further ?

In the tactical system of the manuals, the extra officers provided leaders if the phalanx closed up to the closest order (1 cubit per file, half the normal depth of 8, 12, or 16) or needed to produce a longer line than usual (2 cubits per file, half the normal depth of 8, 12, or 16). Aelian states (Aelian 4.3) that the depths he gives can be doubled or halved as the situation demands. This makes sense if the normal depths are 2 files (marching order), 1 file (fighting order), and 1/2 file (synaspimos). He mentions half-file leaders, but only mentions quarter-files in passing as part of an alternative system of terms which he doesn't use.
Except that 'quarter-files' go back to the earlier Hoplite system, if Xenophon is anything to go by..... and judging by the Anabasis, which describes a Phalanx made up from mercenaries from all over greece, this system was pretty universal. If it was not done, why is it described? Significantly there is no drill for getting down to 2 deep in Xenophon, supporting what he says, namely 4 deep was the 'battle' formation for Hoplites (in close order).....I think the Swiss show that pike formations deeper than 8 are perfectly practical, despite doubts by some scholars. Precise information on the depth of Swiss formations is hard to find, but their columns were much more than 8 deep.

I can't speak for swiss columns, other than to say they were likely based on reading "16 deep" as some moderns do including here, as being in close order - but an in-depth study suggets otherwise, as I have expounded ,here.

No time for a full exposition but if the rear eleven ranks are spectators what are the rear twenty ranks of Thebans, on your reckoning, doing?
The Thebans are experimenting with the idea of 'column' versus 'line' - the theory behind this tactical approach being very different from forming an 'optimum' line.....

The manuals are all well and good but they are written with a view to the 'perfect' phalanx by philospers not soldiers - there are no 'syntagmai' in Polybios but 'speirai' nor do I recall any epigraphic evidence for most of the officers mentioned; though there is little enough for the ones in the 'historical' sources!
This argument is an old one, but Arrian at least was a practical soldier, and like Xenophon, a real general, and if the 'real' Phalanxes did not live up to the theoretical ones in part, the same is true of modern 'military theory and Practice'

There are other reasons for having officers at more frequent intervals in the file; the one mentioned by Xenophon being the speedy transmission of orders.
A weak argument.Even amidst the cacophony of battle, a shouted order should be heard more than 4 yards away, and if this was the reason for 'officers' surely only one was needed every 4 yards laterally too? Why have 4 for each file?

Polybios' closing criticism of Kallisthenes is also made a nonsense by your system, to whit he says he should have described the correct evolutions as from a double or even quadruple phalanx but if the battle line is eight deep then this is just what has been described! Some cheer for your view may be had, though in that, although he is thinking of a depth of sixteen surely he is also thinking of looser spaced men filling the formation from the rear; though I wonder if they don't march behind the file space they will fill a la Roman Republican quincunx. Alexander approached Granicus in a double phalanx and this may well be further indication of drill approaching your idea,though I would think the phalanx formed properly much sooner than you suggest. Despite Polybios' protests at Issos it marched 30 stades (according to Curtius) formed up (en machen in Arrian forgotten the Latin, doh!). Polybios amongst his many gaffs when regaling Kallisthenes accepts with no demur his description of the terrain (I don't think Polybios ever went to Syria in his travels) the difficulties of which were exagerated for propaganda purposes; for despite Polybios' averring that no phalanx could make the march it is quite clear that Alexander's did.

Agreed! Polybius does indeed err in his criticism of Callisthenes, but in doing so reveals much about how he understood Phalanx drill.

Sorry guys, but due to 'mobbing', I simply don't have time to deal in detail with each individual criticism, though I would like to! I shall have to withdraw from this debate, but I do urge each of you to look at the matter of each battle with this idea in mind. If a 'fatal flaw' turns up, I would be glad to know of it, but thus far, having intensely studied the subject, I believe my hypothesis holds true.......