Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Phalanx warfare: Closing of the ranks
#76
I'm resuming this old (but really interesting and exhaustive) post. From what I've read in it, it seems there is a general consensus that a hoplite in close order would have occupied, more or less, 3 feet, while in open order the space would be 6 feet (wich is, by the way, the same spacing many primary sources attribute to roman soldiers as well) and that the measure of the synaspismos given by Aelian and Asklepiodotus, in wich men were arrayed in just 1.5 foot, must be seen as a prerogative of the later macedonian phalanx.

I would like to know if Xenophon, or some other author, gives us the exact space occupied by a man in close or open order in a hoplite phalanx, or if we can just speculate about that.

Thanks in advance.
Francesco Guidi
Reply
#77
(01-04-2019, 01:53 PM)Cesco Wrote: I'm resuming this old (but really interesting and exhaustive) post. From what I've read in it, it seems there is a general consensus that a hoplite in close order would have occupied, more or less, 3 feet, while in open order the space would be 6 feet (wich is, by the way, the same spacing many primary sources attribute to roman soldiers as well) and that the measure of the synaspismos given by Aelian and Asklepiodotus, in wich men were arrayed in just 1.5 foot, must be seen as a prerogative of the later macedonian phalanx.

I would like to know if Xenophon, or some other author, gives us the exact space occupied by a man in close or open order in a hoplite phalanx, or if we can just speculate about that.

Thanks in advance.

Sorry to take so long to reply, but I only pop in very irregularly!
The answer to your question is that Xenophon does indeed refer to close order distance for hoplites more than once: e.g."A History of my times (Hellenica)"VII.4.24

Describing a fight between a Spartan column in double file led by Prince Archidamus, attacking a line of Arcadians who were "in close order, shield to shield (suntetagmanoi)"
Shield-to-shield is also described as "sunaspismos" and with aspides being 85-95 cm in diameter, that means each man occupying a roughly 3 foot frontage.
Obviously, they did not use a measuring stick to form their order, hence the use of shields.

Note that "sunaspismos"/locked shields for a Macedonian pike phalanx was a little over a 'cubit', because the 66-75 cm diameter 'peltai' were held at a sloping angle, and the 'sarissaphoroi' stood side on.....
A Macedonian phalanx at 3 foot intervals/close order (or 2 cubits) was described as "pyknosis" and the natural or normal order of 4 cubits (6 feet/open order) had no special name, according to the Hellenistic manuals

"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
Reply
#78
It makes sense.
Some depictions on pottery seem to suggest a more thight formation, see for instance the Chigi vase, but that could be seen as a perspective attempt by the artist. In particular, we know from Diodorus Siculus (16.3.2) that Philip II made the phalanx πυκνότητα (thighter): so, it could be possible that the 1 cubit synaspismos hellenistic manuals refer to was a later macedonian innovation, while the synaspismos in the hoplite phalanx was a looser 2 cubit (or three feet) formation.
Francesco Guidi
Reply
#79
(01-04-2019, 01:53 PM)Cesco Wrote: I'm resuming this old (but really interesting and exhaustive) post. From what I've read in it, it seems there is a general consensus that a hoplite in close order would have occupied, more or less, 3 feet, while in open order the space would be 6 feet (wich is, by the way, the same spacing many primary sources attribute to roman soldiers as well) ...


Everyone except "heretics" like Hans van Wees... In Greek Warfare, Myths and Realities, Hans van Wees (2004) outlines an idea of 1.) the classical phalanx exhibiting tighter formations in comparison to the more "Homer-styled" fighting typical of earlier archaic warfare - eg fluid lines going back and forth, very much like tribal warfare (basically dancing back and forth, taking breaks and then going at it again) and 2.) that even the more tighter formations adopted in the classic phalanx couldn’t have been a mere 3 feet but rather 6 feet. Wees main argument is that the hoplites needed the extra room to be able to effectively wield the spear and the shield as an offensive weapon and to be able to parry blows.


“Men who fall are able to get up again without being trampled, and there is enough room for the dead and wounded - from generals to ordinary soldiers - to be carried out of the battle by men from the rear ranks or attendants. Hoplites carry their spears either lowered in an underarm position or levelled overarm above their shields, and they are able to alternate between the two in combat - not an easy manoeuvre and one that certainly requires a good deal of elbow-room.” 

And he also compares this to the space required by roman legionaries - and goes on with an example from the pyrrhichios which according to Plato required a good deal of jumping, ducking and moving sideways, motions that Wees argues would have had no point in being practiced if not used and if used would have required more room than a mere 3 feet.

Wees also in large dismisses othismos, albeit as a tool for the individual soldier, and that the consecutive “push” is based on a misreading of the original word arguing that the often afore mentioned “push” rather was a result of a rout.

Anyhow - what am I to make of this? I really like this book since it gives both a wide context to war in the greek world but also rich in interesting details that are very hands on for me, and also its easy to read.  Wees book comes out in a new edition 2020, so I have to check it out when its out, but I suppose that it would be vain to hope for any greater ideologic changes on the subject. Maybe the only way for me to really find out is going all out grecophile, build my own panoply and join a group. 
Reply
#80
I'm inclined to agree with Van Wees. I spent a lot of time researching my book and came to the conclusion that Aegean infantry was fighting in phalanx-like formations by the end of the Bronze Age. It makes more sense if the chronology is revised to get rid of the fictitious "Dark Age". I haven't formed an opinion about the othismos.

Keep in mind that formations can open and close. The Romans fought with their swords in more open order when on the offensive but closed ranks and used their pila as thrusting spears when on the defensive.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#81
There's nothing fictitious about the Dark Age unlike the New Chronology.
aka T*O*N*G*A*R
Reply
#82
There is more than enough evidence to conclude that the chronology we are currently using is wrong. The only contention is how much revision is needed.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#83
(12-11-2019, 06:35 AM)Dan Howard Wrote: There is more than enough evidence to conclude that the chronology we are currently using is wrong. The only contention is how much revision is needed.
No there isn't...

There's more than enough evidence to conclude that the chronology concocted by Fomenko, discredited by Russian historians on account of its racialist views, but gained some following post Cold War West, is on par with the nonsense peddled by Nazis.
aka T*O*N*G*A*R
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  [split] Phalanx warfare: use of the spear JaM 247 78,990 12-03-2016, 02:39 PM
Last Post: Bryan

Forum Jump: