The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth?

[Paullus Scipio]

Paul B. wrote:

You ascribe far too much to Xenophon's telling us his troops were arrayed in battle. He was not entering battle, but trying to get a Queen's blood pumping for his boss. Thus he has to tell us that he arrayed them in an order that is like battle order because he is NOT going into battle. He is specifically telling us that this was no parade of troops, but a simulation of the charge of a phalanx. Greeks may well have formed in 4 ranks when facing lighter asian troops whose large numbers would present an even greater threat of outflanking than back home, but clearly he had little fear that the Queen and her handmaidens were going to break through his line and was free to array it in any manner that would look most impressive.

...this argument has been put before, and dealt with before. The formation was NOT a special one devised for the occasion, and Xenophon is at pains to tell us so - he says it was the 'customary' formation or something stronger if Giannis is correct ( more like 'Rule' or 'Law' ) and I would agree with you that it was a simulated charge of the Phalanx. A moment's thought will demonstrate that the Greeks had no opportunity to devise or practise a 'special' formation for the occasion.....there is absolutely no evidence to suggest Hoplites, or Alexander's Sarissaphoroi for that matter, generally formed up more thinly at half the usual depth against 'Asiatics'.Your supposition flys in the face of the evidence ( little though it is)

The only thing worse than being outflanked is being broken through. Whether physical push is invoked or we fall back on moral cohesion or simple replacement, depth has great value on a battlefield.

Agreed....but again I have already referred to the fact that modern re-enactors, and Police facing rioters, have discovered that a line as thin as three deep cannot be burst through, no matter how deep the 'mob' charging them ....so four deep would seem to be adequate, allowing 3 deep to participate, and a fourth line of 'replacement' of casualties....a quarter of the force be it noted. Excessive depth is a handicap, as Xenophon pointed out ( Cyropaedia)
The Macedonians 8 deep might be considered excessive...save that 5 deep could participate, leaving a similar proportion, this time 3/8ths, as reserves/supports. A formation 16 deep in close order, with 11/16ths not participating, is no longer 'linear'.....then there are the other factors such as the 'half-file' leaders etc of Xenophon and the manuals, and the impracticalities of trying to advance cross-country in a line a thousand yards long in close order ( can't be done!)
And before Theban formations are again brought up, let me say we are here generalising on the typical, speaking of which, recollect that the 50 deep Thebans did not break through the Spartan line at Leuctra, where the Spartans, in their much thinner line, held on until their King was mortally wounded and those around him mostly casualties, only then giving way. If Spartan 'super troops' are argued, consider that Spartans in a deep column could not break through Arcadians in a normal 'close order' line (Xen 'History of my times' VII.4.23) and were repulsed with Archidamus their leader wounded in the thigh, and severe casualties among those around him.Incidents like this show that too much depth was not in itself useful, and the dangers of being outflanked. ( the Thebans at Leuctra were only saved from this by Pelopidas' famous charge)....Xenophon was right about depth! D

As for the photo, it is no more a realistic reproduction of battle than a Rugby scrum or Gridiron scrimmage.....