What an unnecessarily long post, especially as most of it is repetitive and does not introduce new material ...... to quote Paralus; “’ere we go, ‘ere we go, ‘ere we go”
Agesilaos wrote Thurs Aug 28
1) There is indeed no evidence that they were organised in files of ten, except Anaximenes’ clear statement, the name of the unit itself, despite your wish for the Greeks to never call a group of four a four, if a unit is called a ten it likely started off ten strong, and there is the implication of Frontinus’ statement that the Macedonian foot were permitted one servant per ten men at the beginning of Philip’s re-organisation. Quite a full empty set really.
.......Which turns out on closer examination to be untrue. The version of Anaximenes fragment from his “Philipica” that has come down to us cannot be a reference to Alexander the Great, because he inherited such an army from his father Philip. Harpocration/Anaximenes does NOT say that it was Alexander I – that is a postulation of Nick Sekunda, which Agesilaos would have us believe is correct, but which cannot be so because it would be an anachronism and an impossibility for Macedonian transhumant pastoralists circa 500 BC. There is no point in Macedonian ‘peltasts’ lining up like Persian archers either. If Harpocration’s statement is anywhere near correct then the most likely candidate is Alexander II, brother of Philip, who would then obviously have carried on the reforms, as plausibly argued by Elizabeth Carney. Personally, my first preference would be an error for “Philip” – since the book is the ‘Philipica’, and my second Alexander II, which is not too inconsistent with our other sources who credit Philip. Alexander III the Great and Alexander I Philhellene are both ruled out as impossible.....
As explained previously, Frontinus has slightly mistranslated 'dekad'/file literally as meaning ten men....
2) Not true universally, the Assyrians seem to have been forced to give up their archers for instance but in any case ‘influence’ is more likely than imposition.
Again, completely untrue. This relies on Herodotus’ description of the Assyrians that came with Xerxes as being heavy infantry/hoplite type [H.VII.60]. But since Xerxes army were almost all archers, and his need was for heavy infantry to counter Greek hoplites, why would he bother to bring Assyrian archers ? As to ‘influence’, there isn’t a shred of evidence that Macedonian military practices were influenced by Persian ones, except pure supposition through the Greek name ‘dekad’ literally a file of ten men, which we know in fact was 16, and the fact that Persians seem to have had a file/dathaba of ten men ( not 16)
3) Macedon was in some sort of vassal relationship with Persia from 510 to 478, let’s say thirty years.
Again, completely incorrect.The reality was fierce opposition, as evidenced by the fact that
c. 510, with Darius in Europe, seven Persian envoys arrived demanding earth and water, and according to Herodotus[V.18 ff] and Justin, King Amyntas murdered them and they ‘disappeared’, and so Macedon did NOT become a Persian vassal. Their next contact was a Persian expeditionary force in 491 – which they could not resist [H.VI.45] In 480 BC, they were overrun by Xerxes and roped along as hostages and attended Plataea, as previously referred to. And before Agesilaos accuses me of digressing on early Macedonian history, it was only necessitated because Agesilaos keeps getting his facts wrong.
4) ‘The best of our knowledge’ if one ignores the evidence of Anaximenes, who was writing specifically about Macedonian history rather than mentioning it in passing, of course. The picture, to the best of our knowledge is much more nuanced; with an organised infantry (in lochoi and decades) being established by Alexander I, whose only model for decades would be the Persian army. This system then fell into desuetude under his warring sons and the disintegration of central authority only to be re-invented by Archelaos and again lapsing under the troubles after his murder, presumably, although the state of the source would allow for Archelaos’ reforms to continue and Philip then build his initial force around that core; the best of our knowledge allows for many more models than the best of yours it would seem.
This is ALL complete supposition invented by Sekunda/Agesilaos – there is no actual evidence that Alexander I establishing any ‘organised infantry’ – not even in Anaximenes, who does NOT in fact say this. No evidence whatever that the Persian army provided a ‘model’ for Macedon, and but a fictional purely supposition story to ‘explain away’ why we never hear of this ‘organised infantry’.The ‘best of our knowledge’ certainly doesn’t support this fiction, or even suggest it. This is yet another example of poor methodology – accepting an impossible supposition as fact, and then ‘inventing’ a fictional account to explain matters, because the evidence doesn’t support the supposition.
The final leap is truly remarkable; there is no evidence at all (not even as much as in paragraph 1) that the Greeks called the files of their hoplite phalanxes ‘dekads’.
Firstly, ‘dekadas’ ( and ‘pempas’) is a GREEK military term, not Persian, and goes back to Homer’s Iliad, where Agamemnon describes the Achaean infantry being divided into groups of ten/dekads, to show they outnumber the Trojans.( though these are not hoplites of course) The term therefore had a long pedigree, to describe a group of Greek infantry.
Secondly, Xenophon, a GREEK, calls the files of the fictional Cyrus’ hoplites by the GREEK term ‘Dekads’.
Thirdly, Arrian tells us that the Macedonian files were called ‘dekads’ ( modified Greek hoplite files, which consisted nominally of ten men, but in practise, usually 8 men) and were 16 strong, proving that ‘dekad’ doesn’t always mean literally ten.
Fourthly, the Hellenistic manuals refer to the file as being formerly called ‘dekas’ or ‘stichos’ –which goes back to the Greek file ( Xenophon sometimes refers to a file as ‘stichos’ as well as ‘dekas’) – Arrian claims his tactica covers the ‘old Greek and Macedonian formations’ [Taktika 32]
It is frankly preposterous to think that Philip would institute a file of sixteen and call it a ten.
No it isn’t. Such evidence as we have suggests exactly that. The Macedonian ‘dekad’ was incontrovertibly 16 strong, and there is no evidence of it ever being ten, therefore dekad was not always a literal ‘ten’.[ see earlier posts reference to Arrian 'Anaabsis' and the manuals]
.. And the winner of this week’s award for circular argument…Philip’s files were sixteen strong from the start (files of ten do not work with the ‘General Theory of Half-file Insertion’ and therefore cannot have existed ),
....Philip invented ‘synaspismos/locked or overlapped shields’, and if you try to form synaspismos from a file of ten, you end up with a depth of two-and-a-half!
... he used the Greek phalanx as a model therefore he took the name from the Greeks...
Obviously! A GREEK military term referring to a file, and what other phalanx of heavy infantry could he have used as a model?
... proving that since their file weren’t decimal either the word was a ‘generic ‘ term for a file…
Errrr.. I pointed out earlier that with all age groups called up, a hoplite file was ten strong, though seldom of this strength in practise – the oldest age groups not being called up. ( back on page 1, and several times since ! ). The argument is not at all circular.
....a masterpiece of insouciant riffing. Hang on Harpokration is lodging a complaint.
We can live without the rude sneers, especially when it is Agesilaos who is continually making assumptions, and then trying to bolster them with highly unlikely interpretations, fictional suppositions, dodgy translations etc which I am sure Xenophon, Arrian, Asclepiodotus, Aelian et al would all lodge major complaints about, if they could!
You still do not understand that if dekadarch was a generic term for file leader Xenophon would have no need to confuse matters with his dodekadarchs, to then simply dismiss it is facile to say the least; ‘exotic’ he uses it twice in a book longer than the Iliad having already used dekadarch also ‘exotic’ in that the Greeks were not organised in tens. Two mentions neither in battle hardly constitute ‘emphasis’; we know why, it is because the files are twelve strong and therefore commanded by commanders of twelve, all of his numerical commanders are to understood as literally commanding that number of men, this is not only the simplest solution it is without doubt the correct one.
I think not. As you point out, ‘dodekadarch’ is used only once in the Cyropaedia – for reasons which only Xenophon knows, and is likely to be a term of his invention since it is referred to nowhere else, but which was probably to emphasise the fictional Cyrus’ use of a 12 strong file (which must be modelled on contemporary Spartan practice). If all his numerical commanders command that literal number, how come we have Cyrus’ file leaders referred to as both ‘dekadarch’ and ‘dodekadarch’? Not very likely that he started with files of ten in mind, then subsequently changed his mind to twelve, but ‘forgot’ to amend his text, as some would postulate.Obviously, even Xenophon ‘nods’.......unless of course 'dekadarch' can mean a generic file leader, as well as a specific file of ten......(which we know it can thanks to the Macedonian dekad of 16)
Moreover in the Lacedaemonians, when the enomotia of 36 is drawn up in 3 files of twelve, they are NOT called ‘dodekadarchia’, but simply ‘stichos’. Similarly a cavalry file can also be a ‘stichos’ – a word used by many authors for ‘file’.In the ‘Cavalry Commander’ both ‘stichos’ and ‘dekadas’ are used synonymously for ‘file’ - again suggesting that both referred to generic files, or possibly generic 'sticho's, and specific 'dekad' for a file of ten. However in the latter case, that would be nominal also for in Xenophon's time the Athenian cavalry squadrons did not consist of 100 men arranged 10 by 10, but only 50 or 60 troopers.
Xenophon wrote:
I was not including the reference to Egyptian hoplites – only Persian ones.
Then you must supply the two further references to make up your seven without the Egyptians ‘only the Persian ones’, good luck, Herr Bartlett.
“Herr Bartlett”?....Very good, LOL! 'Big X' of "Great Escape" fame. Rather subtle though!
I originally wrote “
7 or so” off the top of my head – an approximate number, but then wrote more accurately, having checked:
“
Xenophon's fictional Persians are also 'thorakaphoroi' ( a total of 6 times according to the LSJ) in the Herodotian sense,[barbarian armoured infantry] BUT he also calls these same troops 'hoplites' ( a total of 5 times, according to the LSJ in the passages you refer to). Where two words or terms are used to refer to the same thing, they are synonyms ( Oxford dictionary).” [Thurs Aug 21 page 12]
....and I know you read it, for there was good cause for you to remember.
Incidently, other references to hoplites include ‘Doryphoroi’ (Literally spear carriers) who are hoplite bodyguards, and are referred to at least twice.....
Xenophon wrote:
So you are saying the 28,000 Persians are subsumed among the 120,000 Egyptians ? If they were to be a different class of heavy infantry, then why does Xenophon not simply use the generic term ‘phalanx’, as he does elsewhere?
Because ‘phalanx’ would mean the whole battle-line and Xenophon does not want to include the lights.
...another invented piece of special pleading! Xenophon’s use of ‘phalanx’ always means the main battle line, generally heavy infantry, and I cannot recall an instance of him including light troops among the phalanx. ( Indeed every definition you will find of ‘phalanx’ says it means the heavy infantry.) Xenophon usually differentiates light troops as ‘in support’ of the phalanx e.g. [XC VI.3.24], where javelinmen/akontistai are deployed behind the phalanx, and archers with their longer ranged weapons behind these in turn.
The Persians are indeed subsumed and Xenophon goes on with his house/roof/foundations analogy in a new form which he does mean to apply to Greek hoplite phalanxes (as such it occurs in his other works), this is probably why he uses the all embracing ‘hoplitai’,but two things spring therefrom the best men are all either in the front rank or the rear rank, leaving no half-file leaders, or closers for that matter and, more importantly, Xenophon’s continued repetition of this point of quality bread but crap filling (the s**t-sandwich model? Perhaps a bit harsh on the filling, though McDonald’s seem to have run with the idea!) would indicate that his contemporaries were not forming up like this and he was trying to make them realise the advantages.
More made up special pleading ? When Xenophon discusses cavalry files he uses this explanation, referring to the best men at front and rear, with no mention here of ‘pempadarchs’ [II.2-4]. But later we hear of ‘pempadarchs’ [ IV.9], so not mentioning them in his oft-repeated ‘best men in front and rear’( which goes back to Homer ) doesn’t mean there were no half-file leaders present.
I agree with you about MacDonalds....
Kyros, is of course attacking the Assyrian King in Babylon and Kroesos is now a vassal so your point fails.
Will this ‘special pleading’ never stop ? As the passage I quoted at length earlier demonstrates, the Egyptians would not fight against Croesus and most went home after Thymbrara. We never hear of Egyptians in Cyrus’ army again, so he didn't call them up again after Croesus' surrender. Indeed Cyrus’ army at Babylon and its allies are listed at [XC VII.5.49-51], at the conclusion of the war. No Egyptians.
The only ‘gerrha’ equipped troops we hear of are Kyros’ Persians and they are said to carry ‘gerrha’ ‘even now’ so once again they are differentiated, maybe they won’t be in those two other quotes.
‘Gerha’ is a Greek word for ‘woven/wicker shields’ and it is a generic term. We do not hear of Cyrus’ Persians carrying ‘megalas gerrha/ large wicker shields’ ( probably archers ‘spara’/pavises) because, as Xenophon is at pains to tell us, they were re-equipped with hand-to-hand weapons/hopla,(including generic gerrha/shields) NOT ‘megalas gerrha’, so these troops so equipped cannot be Cyrus’ Persians, who are the hoplites.
I think it will be quite plain to all who is in denial here; for the record you have not ‘explained anything other than why YOU think my interpretation is wrong , despite my providing clear evidence that it is the correct interpretation,
Errr....and Connolly and Anderson ? Your ‘clear evidence’ is flawed through and through, unfortunately. Repeating it again and again will not make bad or incorrect evidence good.
.... viz Polybios treating ‘parembole’ and paragoge’ as different manoeuvres, and Xenophon himself saying that his cavalry extend their frontage by paragoge.
( sigh! ) This is the last (of many) times I am going to address this repeated incorrect postulation. Firstly,’parembole’ meaning in a military context ‘interjection’ of files is a purely Hellenistic term, only so used by Polybius and the manuals. It was not so used in Xenophon’s day, and nowhere does Xenophon use the word at all. He uses ‘paragon’/bringing up by the side, for each of the doubling evolutions in the dinner drill, including bringing up the rear half-files beside the front half-files.Why would the last evolution, identically described, be any different ? My translation on my diagram on page one is correct. Your "flank" is an incorrect translation.
Incidently, your translation of Polybius is also mistaken ( quelle surprise ! )
Your translation:
“next to deploy into line on both wings, either by filling up the intervals in the line (parembole) or by a lateral movement (paragoge) on the rear.”
... actually does not make sense.
To paraphrase for clarity, Polybius is saying is that the line of cavalry on each wing can be extended by interjection of the rear half-files [parembole], or by bringing up more sub-units from the rear, by the side/beside the front ones[paragoge] [c.f. Xcav cder IV.3]
( It will be remembered that I earlier pointed out that while infantry do this to form close order to fight, and the frontage is not extended; cavalry fight in ‘open order’, hence bringing up the rear half-files extends the frontage because they retain ‘open order’)
Of course, had Polybius been writing in Xenophon’s day, he could not have used ‘parembole’ but would have to have described the first method as “
the half file-leaders will lead up by the side[paragontes] and extend the line without confusion, whenever there is occasion to do so.” which is exactly how Xenophon describes this identical manoeuvre ! [X Cav Cder IV.9]
It is you that insists that in the one passage in the Kyrou Paideia paragein means to move beside each individual file rather than in every other case where a body of troops move beside, or behind in Epaminondas at Mantineia, another body of troops.
Just so. I have explained the broad meaning of ‘paragon’ and its various uses previously, so won’t repeat it [ see e.g. my post Aug 7, page 10]. The meaning/translation I refer to is agreed by all translators I have seen – excepting you, because you want the translation to fit your postulation of meaning “flank” ( which it most assuredly does not).
[digression: Epaminondas men do NOT move'behind' the line at Mantinea. His Thebans form the left of the line. The Boeotians are originally in 'extended line', and ground arms as if to camp to lull the enemy into relaxing their guard. He then increases his depth by bringing up successive lochoi side by side, as if deploying to the left flank. Once in position ( and it would only take a few lochoi to deploy to form a 'front' facing the flank of 50 or so, likely un-noticed by the foe ) they right-turn, and are now a column 50 or so deep, and Epaminondas launches his surprise attack]
That you are still insisting that flank is not the same as side is as lame as insisting that starboard is not the same as right aboard ship, every unit has a flank not just an army,.....
As I have explained, this is just not so. Neither in Greek or English are the two synonyms. Units which are supported by other units beside them do not have “flanks” in a military sense, only the two endmost units. It refers in context to “
the right or left side of a whole army or other body of troops” as the dictionary puts it. Thus a phalanx has only two flanks.
Worse still for your case, nowhere is ‘paragon’ translated as ‘flank’.This is one of your mistranslations. The Greek has a different word for ‘flank’, namely ‘pleura’, which Xenophon uses at [ XA III.4.22], so if he had meant “flank” he’d have said ‘pleura’. In the dinner drill he say plainly, and means, ‘paragon’, bringing up the rear half-file by the side of/beside the front half-file, and it can have no other meaning.
And of course your bringing up on the flank would be impossible in practise anyway, because in this instance each ‘lochos’ in battle has an adjoining one, and can’t extend it’s front.
... if Xenophon’s manoeuvres do not make sense does not surprise me, these lochoi are all abreast of each other which is not the way any army deploys,...
That is EXACTLY how a phalanx deploys – one sub-unit (lochoi or enomotia as the case may be) comes up beside[paragoge] another see e.g. [XL XI.6; XC II.3.21], and the manouevres make perfect sense !
Xenophon is illustrating the efficvacy of Kyros’ training not with an example of what every Greek was doing anyway, in your model,...
Not so. Xenophon says that the Greek tactic of close combat is superior to the Asiatic one of fighting with missiles at a distance ( as the Persian Wars had proved ), and he has his fictional Cyrus re-arm his troops for close combat, and then learn the necessary Greek drill to make this ‘hoplite’ tactic effective, and thus produces a force of ‘heavy infantry’, sometimes called ‘thorakaphoroi’/armoured men and sometimes ‘hoplitai’/men-at-arms. All Greek authors who comment on the subject point out that 'good order', drill, and discipline are necessary for the hoplite phalanx to work.
...but with a manoeuvre he considered complex and he follows it with another of a battle-line simply manoeuvring in reverse everyman looking over his shoulder to observe his officer’s orders! Or do you suggest this is realistic? No? ....
Yes ! Do you not recognise that this is ‘anastrophe’ ?
So once again the Dinner Drill assumes an aura of the unique.
Nope ! Wrong again. Similar drill for deployment is described in [XLac XI.6]
Objections based on reality really have nothing to do with the dinner drill, including the officers’ positions being ‘suicidal’, there have been few casualties involved in going to the mess (there are bound to have been some Americans), these situations are meant to be taken in the same way as the story which precedes them of the lochos that blindly followed their lochagos wherever he went. What is irrational is trying to treat a moralising fiction as a tactical manual; had Xenophon wanted to write ‘The Infantry Commander’ he would have done just that, just as he had ‘The Cavalry Commander’.
Oh ? So you are now claiming that the ‘dinner drill’ was not practice of battlefield drill, but solely for the purpose of going to and from the mess tent ? This cannot be so, for the whole context is battle practice, such as ‘cudgels versus clods’ which immediately precedes the dinner drill, and the 'anastrophe' which follows the dinner drill, for immediately after it Cyrus says:
“Do you always do it that way?” asked Cyrus.
“Yes, by Zeus,” said he, “as often as we go to dinner.”
“Well then,” said Cyrus, “I will invite you, because you give your lines practice both in coming and in going, by night and by day, and also because you give your bodies exercise by marching about, and improve your minds by instruction. Since, therefore, you do all this doubly, it is only fair that I should furnish you a double feast also.”
Clearly not just a special drill for going to dinner ! Hence on the battlefield, having officers out in front, as you suggest, would indeed be suicidal.
Nor is the ‘Cyropaedia’ just ‘moralising fiction’, it serves multiple purposes, as I have previously explained. Fortunately for us, it also contains the clearest picture of ‘hoplite’ drill that we have.
Xenophon wrote:
Typical Agesilaos argument....start with an assumption based on something not mentioned, and build a whole edifice on this foundation of sand.
Typical Xenophon comment, Xenophon tells us that the front rank consisted of the best men and that once the flanks had folded round the best men stood both in the first and the rearmost rank, so once again you have been floored by not reading and understanding the source which I even posted, tut, tut. The frontage is once again irrelevant as is any realistic argument, fiction is fiction.
There are several interpretations of just how this ‘anaptussontas’/folding back; also used to mean unfolding of a phalanx, in a military context, took place ( see e.g. Loeb for one I think unlikely). The word is also used to describe the unfolding of a book, but the manoeuvre should not be thought of in ‘book’ terms, for a Greek book was a scroll, and unrolled rather than unfolded. Rather than a massive ‘wheel’ it is more likely performed by firstly an ‘anastrophe’, followed by a left and right turn respectively, march along the rear behind the main body, as Xenophon says, until meeting in the centre, and then face front again. This would have left the most valiant – the file leaders of the stationary part at the front, and the ‘ouragoi’ of those who moved, at front and rear of the new formation respectively. I don’t believe this was a ‘fictitious’ movement. Similar movements to double depth and shorten front are described in the manuals, and in reality at Kynoskephalae, though achieved in a slightly different manner.
Xenophon wrote:
In fact, Xenophon says rather more about what the 'pempadarchs/half-file leaders are for:
“The advance of cavalry is less likely to be detected by the enemy if orders are not given by a herald or in writing beforehand, but passed along. Accordingly, for this purpose, too, that the order to advance may be given by word of mouth, it is well to post file leaders[dekadarchs], and half file-leaders [pempadarchs]behind them, so that each may pass the word to as few men as possible. Thus, too, the half file-leaders[pempadarchs]will lead up by the side [paragontes – yep ! That word again ].and extend the line without confusion, whenever there is occasion to do so.”
In other words, exactly the same manoeuvre of forming half-files for battle as in the dinner drill for infantry, which Agesilaos, rather misleadingly, neglects to mention. Naughty !
LOL I brought this passage into the discussion myself on 24/7 page 7 of the thread and it is certainly not the same manoeuvre as you posit for the Dinner Drill, the key phrase being ‘extend the line’ by paragoge, the manoeuvre you insist on does not ‘extend the line’ as I said back on page 7, and which you have ignored ever since (Did you hear Xenophon went to Egypt? – I heard he was in denial ). Who is being ‘naughty’?
Not ignored at all. I specifically responded in detail to that post on 31 July, page 8, explaining how bringing up the half-files was for a different purpose for cavalry and infantry:
To save you looking it up:
Xenophon wrote:
“Once again, you haven’t thought this through. The units making up a hoplite phalanx could NOT extend their frontage, because of fellow units to their left and right – yet another reason your reconstruction is wrong. Not to mention that the object of bringing up the half-files was to form a ‘close order’ shield wall or to put it another way, ‘densify’ the phalanx, and certainly not extend its front.
Cavalry are the exact opposite, because they fight in ‘open’ or loose order, to give them room to negotiate obstacles and throw javelins [see e.g. ‘Cav. Cder’ III. 11 where lines of cavalry pass through one another]
Again, one must not take this paragraph in isolation, but read the whole. It was the practise to ‘open’ out wherever possible:
IV.3 “If you are riding along narrow roads, the order must be given to form column; but when you find yourself on broad roads, the order must be given to every regiment to extend front. When you reach open ground, all the regiments must be in line of battle. Incidentally these changes of order are good for practice, and help the men to get over the ground more pleasantly by varying the march with cavalry manoeuvres.”
....then Xenophon tells us how this was done.....
IV.9 “Accordingly, for this purpose, too, that the order to advance may be given by word of mouth, it is well to post file leaders/dekadarchs, and half file-leaders/pempadarchs behind them, so that each may pass the word to as few men as possible. Thus, too, the half file-leaders/pempadarchs will move up by the side/paragontes and extend the line without confusion, whenever there is occasion to do so.”
The cavalry front is extended because the formation wishes to get into, or retain, an ‘open’ formation – the opposite to hoplites - but does so in exactly the same way, with the rear half-file moving up alongside/paragontes the front half-file .
No ‘forced’ explanation, just the obvious meaning of what Xenophon wrote. No ‘error’ either, other than yours in thinking that the ‘dinner drill’ extended the frontage of the enomotia.”
That would appear to be two ( at least) memory lapses for you.......[c.f. your post fri Aug 22]
But given the length of this thread - well over 100,000 words, it is hardly surprising that none of us can remember it all .
Well the Landmark is of the same opinion as me and translates, p 108, ‘The Greeks were deployed in a line like a phalanx four rows deep…’ John Marincola, as is the Penguin, p169, ‘The Greek cavalry was drawn up four deep in a phalanx formation…’ Rex Warner . But no doubt these will be considered ‘bad’ translations or maybe even bad scholars.
Not at all. Both can be interpreted as the cavalry being formed like a four deep phalanx. The English comma has its uses:
Marincola: ‘The Greeks were deployed in a line, like a phalanx four rows deep…’
Warners translation misses out the most important word; ‘wsper’/like : ‘The Greek cavalry was drawn up, four deep in a phalanx formation…’ and
should read as for Marincola.
The translation I gave was :
Xen Hell III.4.13 :
“
And when the two squadrons saw one another, not so much as four plethra apart, at first both halted, the Greek horsemen being drawn up four deep [‘epi tettaron/in fours’] like[wsper] a phalanx, and the barbarians with a front of not more than twelve, but many men deep. Then, however, the barbarians charged."
Not as bad as your proffered translation, however, ‘paratetagmenoi’ does not mean ‘drawn up side by side in battle order’, it simply means ‘drawn up side by side’, LSJ offers ‘in battle order’ for circumstances where it stands alone in a military context, it is an over translation to clarify such situations as in English we frequently supply what is understood in Greek and Latin. Here, Xenophon has supplied the ‘phalanx’ so it is not iteration.
...and the literal....
“Ἕλληνες ἱππεῖς ὥσπερ φάλαγξ ἐπὶ τεττάρων παρατεταγμένοι/ the Greek horse like a phalanx in fours were drawn up side by side in battle order [para –tetagmenoi ].”
Let us, for the sake of argument, accept what you say ( contra the LSJ in my view), and delete ‘in battle order’, the meaning is still the same “
like a phalanx in fours (deep) were drawn up side by side."
So this cannot be held as an example of hoplites phalanxes fighting four deep, like the other example it is decidedly ambiguous, nor is there a ‘normal depth’ as such eight is the most commonly mentioned but there are twenty-five, sixteen, ten/nine, twelve and fifty, and they are the few we are told about.
I do not see any ambiguity in either reference, only ‘forced’ attempts to translate differently. Nor can it be co-incidence that the depths referred to are those in which phalanxes commonly fought in half –files ( 4 and 6 – for Spartans versus Thebans at Leuktra).
Whilst it is certainly true that there are were many battles fought among the Hellenes that we have no detailed knowledge of, of the 14 or so occasions in which depth is referred to, we are given and the most common is eight, the other figures you refer to are all 'exceptions' such as Thebans forming up deep (25 and 50), restrictions in terrain (16) and possibly (9/10), and 12 the Spartan response to extra deep Theban formations in the 4th C.
[digression: I found the reason for the emendment to “ six deep”. It is because the original reads “like a phalanx of hoplites in rows/ephex. Since this is a clumsy doublet –‘phalanx’ and ‘ephex’, which a copyists error could easily have caused, it was emended to “ep’hex”/in sixes. Since this just happens to be the depth the Spartan phalanx fought in - though not known at the time -, it actually fits much better than the clumsy doublet.....]
On page one I explained why ‘normal’ for the most open order was not a good translation but since it implies your point for you I doubt you will be changing your misuse soon, but you might remember that the Greek says the interval ‘had no name’.
Yes, and I accepted your ideas regarding ‘physin’, but the ‘communis opinio’ is to translate it as normal. Throughout I have been careful, clumsy though it is, not to use ‘normal’ alone, but to include ‘natural’ as well, or ‘open’, because that is the easily understood modern equivalent. And yes, ‘physin’/ natural/normal/basic DOES imply that ‘open’ order was the norm, from which the formations with special names - ‘pyknosis’/compact order/modern ‘close’ order and ‘synaspismos’/locked/overlapped shields were derived.
Since you have repeatedly raised the same points over and over, necessitating me to respond again and again, can we now move on to untangling and analysing what might be real ‘Taktike Technike’ from philosophical embellishments in the manuals? Enough has been said about hoplite drill, especially given how little we are told. I could give a few more battles where the frontage fits files/half-files better than depths of 8 in close order, but I’d rather move on.......
edited to correct typo.
