The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth?

[Macedon]

I would agree ‘normal/open’ order was used for marching, and to approach the enemy in line, and I maintain that ‘close order’ – fighting formation as you say - was only formed when within striking distance of the enemy. Neither Aelian nor any other writer states that the phalanx is 16 deep in close order…..this a modern supposition, based largely on the fact that modern military drills are usually performed in ‘close order’.But in contrast we are specifically told by Ascepiodotus that: 'open order' "is the natural/normal order, and hence has no special name" ....at 4 cubits/6 ft/1.8 m frontage per man. Pyknosis ( close order - 2 cubits per man ) is the actual 'fighting formation'.

All military manuals state that regrdless the density of the formation it is the (usually) 16 men file which fights the battle. It does not matter if these men marched toward the enemy in open order, it is they that will form the fighting files. They are very clear that the fight is not usually performed in half files (8 men in all manuals). When Asclepiodotus states that open order is the natural order of men, he means that in it they can march and keep cohesion, but he and all others are very explicit that they will not fight in it. So, the question here is : "Did the phalanx usually march in open order 16 deep and when closing the enemy (maybe at 600 yards or so, certainly before entering arrow distance (or skirmisher's range, since very few Greek armies actually used bows) according to all Byzantine manuals) contracted to half front retaining its depth yet densening its ranks or did it march in open order double files (32 deep) which would before combat close in, thus keeping the front length but doubling density?" Your proposal, that the phalanx marched 16 men deep in open order and before battle usually closed its ranks 8 deep (in half files) is not what the ancients propose nor does it sound appropriate to me. The whole file structure is described as an autonomous fighting unit designed to normally fight as such and in close order. I agree that half files would be able to fight but this was not the norm.

IIRC, we only hear of the Phalanx being 32 deep on three occasions.
The first is Alexander’s debouching in column from the pass before deploying before Issus. It is highly likely that Polybius/Callimachus is referring to the left wing being behind the right wing at the point where he says they are 32 deep. The wings deploy side by side and are then 16 deep, the normal Phalanx depth. Finally they close up into close order 8 deep to fight.
The second occasion is the Hellenistic battle of Sellasia, when Antigonus marches his Phalanx up a mountain ridge against the Spartans ( see “Ancient Warfare” magazine issue Vol II issue 2 for a full account), again we hear of one phalanx behind the other ( the “white shields” behind the “Peltasts” – literally a double phalanx ) and thus some 32 deep. After closing up for action, they would be each 8 deep, making a total of 16 deep. On this occasion one phalanx interpenetrates the other (“epalellos”;interlocked phalanx) to achieve ‘synaspismos’, presumably 8 deep.
The third occasion is Magnesia, when we are told Antiochus formed up his Phalanx 32 ranks deep, (Livy XXXVII.40; Appian “Syrian Wars” XXXII) likely because he could do so and still more than match the Roman frontage.

First of all, it is Callisthenes who gives the account criticized by Polybius in his very interesting chapter about the inconsistencies that Polybius deteted in Callisthenes' miliary descriptions, but he is very clear as to the situation. He talks about the whole phalanx being deployed 32 deep and not just a certain wing. To me, it seems a case of double doubling the ranks. Marching in open order in double files, closing to close order in single file only to do "synaspismos" in half file, although I would not find it peculiar for a circumstance like that to deploy the Macedonian phalanx in simple close order to double its frontage. I think that both explanations here are possible.

I agree with your interpretation of the Selassia case, although we have no account of the phalanx fighting in "synaspismos". Maybe they did maybe they fought in simple close order (very possible given the fact that they marched up a hill). Yet I have to ask you where you drew your descriptions of the lefkaspides and the peltasts. Polybius and Plutarch do not name the phalanxes (if my memory serves me well). Can it be you found them in some extracts from Polyaenus or Frontinus?

As for Antiochus, well... he did deploy his phalanx in a rather peculiar way, with large intervals between each unit, filled with elephants. I wouldn't call his deployment a typical 32 men deep phalanx by any standards. I will look for more instances for 32 men deep phalanxes in the near future. Are you sure these are the only ones?


Anyways... I disagree with your opinion that the Macedonian phalanx would normally fight in half files of 8 men, yet I agree that this could be done for a variety of reasons (need to lengthen the frontage, synaspismos and retaining of frontage etc) and certainly was done. I just disagree that it would be the norm.