06-02-2009, 05:50 AM
....didn't I just say that authors/translators often use the term interchangeably? And didn't I also say that a 'battle formation' was not necessarily close order but might be used to refer to open order as well? :wink:
English is a complex language, as we know, and there is a distinction in English between "order" =put in order, array; and "formation"=disposition of troops. Thus one can 'put one's formations in order' or 'order one's battle formations'. Whilst I hasten to add that I have little knowledge of Greek, it may be that a single expression in Greek 'eis machen' covers both order and formation.
Even if there is some ambiguity, it cannot affect the debate here, for in both cases we have a phalanx, Greek or Macedonian ending up in it's 'fighting formation', namely close order, in the former case 4 deep and in the latter case 8 deep, and since as has been said, a formation one thousand yards long can't change it's depth by expanding to two thousand yards, ( and yes, the manuals do describe such a manouevre, which appears to have been done at Cynoscephalae - which is surely the exception that proves the Rule) then this argues strongly that when we are told a Greek phalanx was eight deep, it must refer to open order, and similarly a Macedonian one 16 deep must also logically refer to open order.Counter-marching too, which we know was carried out by both Greeks and Macedonians can only be realistically carried out in Open order.
The hypothesis I have put forward is the only one known to me which is consistent with ALL the evidence that I am aware of. Even so I would not go so far as to be certain - there may yet be anomalies - but so far, I feel it is the most likely explanation.
English is a complex language, as we know, and there is a distinction in English between "order" =put in order, array; and "formation"=disposition of troops. Thus one can 'put one's formations in order' or 'order one's battle formations'. Whilst I hasten to add that I have little knowledge of Greek, it may be that a single expression in Greek 'eis machen' covers both order and formation.
Even if there is some ambiguity, it cannot affect the debate here, for in both cases we have a phalanx, Greek or Macedonian ending up in it's 'fighting formation', namely close order, in the former case 4 deep and in the latter case 8 deep, and since as has been said, a formation one thousand yards long can't change it's depth by expanding to two thousand yards, ( and yes, the manuals do describe such a manouevre, which appears to have been done at Cynoscephalae - which is surely the exception that proves the Rule) then this argues strongly that when we are told a Greek phalanx was eight deep, it must refer to open order, and similarly a Macedonian one 16 deep must also logically refer to open order.Counter-marching too, which we know was carried out by both Greeks and Macedonians can only be realistically carried out in Open order.
The hypothesis I have put forward is the only one known to me which is consistent with ALL the evidence that I am aware of. Even so I would not go so far as to be certain - there may yet be anomalies - but so far, I feel it is the most likely explanation.
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
