Agesilaos wrote Sun Aug 10 – and what an enormous post ! Almost 3,000 words of criticism and ‘spin’ to support Agesilaos’ contention that, yes, drill to form in half-files is decribed in the Cyropaedia, but the troops concerned aren’t intended to be ‘hoplites’ – even though Xenophon consistently calls them ‘hoplites’/men-at-arms/heavy infantry or 'thorakaphoroi’/armoured men/heavy infantry throughout !! ( the two terms are synonymous). And since he is the inventor of these new, reformed Persian infantry, he should know what he intends them to be !!
Xenophon wrote:
Xenophon calls these half-file leaders ‘pampadarchs’ and refers to them several times in his various works. He also describes the drill to form up four deep, by the pampadarchs/half-file leaders leading up the rear half-file, in ‘Cyropaedia’ II.3.21 et seq [ By the way, the file leaders are called ‘dekadarchs’ c.f. Macedonian manuals]. Obviously, quarter-files and 18 inch frontages for hoplites were not possible ( the formation would have been too thin at 2 deep, nor would the larger ‘aspides’ of the hoplites allow this). Because the 80-90 cm diameter aspides were all but touching, to a hoplite ‘close order/pyknosis’ was also ‘locked shields/synaspismos’ and the term is used in this way by Xenophon.
Agesilaos wrote:
From your post, 3 July; that’s right you started the digression that allegedly saddens you so much LOL! Still I am always heartened when Xenophon begins his posts with an air of assumed superiority, as it inevitably proves to be just that, assumed. ‘It saddens me to have to correct various errors and misconceptions…but alas it is necessary.’
It is not the ‘digression’ that saddens me – discussion of the hoplite phalanx’s drill is a necessary precursor, and foundation of, the later Macedonian phalanx’s drill. Rather, as you have correctly quoted,I was referring to all the various errors and misconceptions in your post.....
Xenophon wrote:
Oh dear ! It would seem we are going to have to start with the definition of ‘hoplite’, and go on from there.
‘Hopla’ broadly means ‘equipment or tools’ and in a military context means men-at-arms armed for hand-to-hand fighting, as opposed to missile troops
Oh dear! First patronising jibe first two mistakes, we’ll forgive the ‘hopla’ meaning a man-at-arms, that is ‘ὁπλίτης’, but confusion over parts of speech seems to be an on going theme; but nothing stops missile armed troops being described as ‘hoplites’; the Indian archers at the Hydaspes are so described at Arrian V 15 vi
It was indeed ‘hoplite’ that I was defining. By a typo, the word ‘hoplite’ was missing from between ‘context’ and ‘mean’s and so should have read “
....in a military context hoplite means men-at-arms...” as I am sure most readers would have realised. No confusion at all. I’ll forgive the unnecessary and wrong jibe.
Secondly, I believe you are quite wrong. ‘Hopla’ , like most words, has several meanings. In a military context, it has the generic meaning of ‘tools of war’, probably best translated as ‘arms’ or in some contexts ‘weapons’. It also has the specific meaning of heavy infantry equipment for hand-to-hand fighting, the equipment of hoplites who fight hand-to-hand in close order.
Xenophon tells us unmistakeably that the new ‘hopla’ that Cyrus’ equips his men with are of the latter variety ( not generic ‘arms/opla’ ) [II.1.9 et seq and 16-18] What is more, they are organised and carefully drilled for this new close quarters hand-to-hand combat.
κατὰ στόμα τε γὰρ ἂν πρὸς τῶν ὁπλιτῶν προσβαλλόντων εἴργεσθαι καὶ καταπατηθήσεσθαι ἐπιστρεψάντων ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς τῶν ἐλεφάντων.
These Indians are either archers, or javelinmen both armed with long broadswords and thus unlikely to be packed shoulder to shoulder – ‘hopla’ just means ‘arms’ and caries no implication about the distance at which troops fight nor their interval. But, of course you never meant anything other than Greek hoplites when you formerly spoke of them so this is sheer flim-flam.
As for Arrian’s reference, he does NOT say Indian ‘archers’ at all!
“
Besides he[Porus] thought that none of the enemy would have the audacity to push themselves into the spaces between the elephants, the cavalry being deterred by the fright of their horses; and still less would the [Macedonian]infantry do so, it being likely they would be kept off in front by the heavy-armed soldiers/hoplites falling upon them, and trampled down by the elephants wheeling round against them.”
I agree with Agesilaos that missile troops would not be in close order – they need room to ply their weapons. However, a little later we hear of these hoplites being in a ‘dense/compact/close order phalanx’/pyknos phalaggos – in which array we agree archers could not fight, but which was quite normal for heavy infantry/hoplites. These troops are also distinguished from Porus’ other troops – ‘pezoi’/infantry behind the ‘hoplites’, most of whom would have been archers etc. The Indian ‘Arthasastra’ notes that armoured infantry should be deployed in front of archers, as here. To a Greek of course, armoured infantry in close order for hand-to-hand fighting are 'hoplites'.
As far as I am aware, ‘missile’ equipped troops – archers, peltasts, slingers etc are never referred to as ‘hoplites’.
The “sheer flim-flam” is the idea that these hoplites are archers – they are exactly what they are called – hoplites/heavy or armoured infantry.
Agesilaos wrote;
Sometimes I wonder if you re-read your posts...
I always read, and often amend, my posts several times – and check the accuracy of them before posting, which Agesilaos apparently does not judging by the numbers of plain errors of fact, and mistaken readings.
... you assert without a qualm:
‘The ‘gerrhon’ was a large shield equivalent to the Greek 'aspi's, and was certainly not ‘light’. ( indeed some archaic Greek hoplites may have carried ‘gerrha’, referred to as the ‘Theban’ shield)’
And in the very next paragraph:
‘
the gerrhon has a ‘boss’ and is in fact held by a horizontal handgrip ( like a Roman scutum), not the porpax/arm-grip shown on the right-hand figure. Xenophon points out the disadvantages of this arrangement at [ VII.1.33-,34 ], when Egyptians, with 'porpax' equipped shields physically push back with their shoulders Cyrus' Persians who have only hand-grips.’
So ‘gerrha’ are not at all like hoplite shields! And the interesting thing about the passage you cite is that, it is the Egyptians who are described as ‘hoplites’ and the Persians are contrasted with them and thus clearly NOT being thought of as ‘hoplites’.
Good grief ! ‘hoplites/men-at-arms’ are not restricted to just Greeks, which you are well aware of, but seem to have forgotten, and not all hoplite shields are the classical Greek circular ‘aspis’. Any large shield will suit a close-quarters fighter, including the gerron. The Egyptians and Persians are both close quarter hand-to-hand fighters, with appropriate defensive and offensive equipment – hoplites in other words. Xenophon here is extolling the virtues of a porpax equipped shield against a hand-held one. Xenophon does not ‘contrast’ the two forces – they are all of the ‘hoplite’ type, in phalanx, fighting each other hand-to-hand.
Not to mention that Xenophon specifically says the Persians are ‘hoplites/men-at-arms’ or ‘thorakaphoroi’/armoured men many times.
VII 1 xxxiii
ἔνθα δὴ δεινὴ μάχη ἦν καὶ δοράτων καὶ ξυστῶν καὶ μαχαιρῶν: ἐπλεονέκτουν μέντοι οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι καὶ πλήθει καὶ τοῖς ὅπλοις. τά τε γὰρ δόρατα ἰσχυρὰ καὶ μακρὰ ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἔχουσιν, αἵ τε ἀσπίδες πολὺ μᾶλλον τῶν θωράκων καὶ τῶν γέρρων καὶ στεγάζουσι τὰ σώματα καὶ πρὸς τὸ ὠθεῖσθαι συνεργάζονται πρὸς τοῖς ὤμοις οὖσαι. συγκλείσαντες οὖν τὰς ἀσπίδας ἐχώρουν καὶ ἐώθουν. [34] οἱ δὲ Πέρσαι οὐκ ἐδύναντο ἀντέχειν, ἅτε ἐν ἄκραις ταῖς χερσὶ τὰ γέρρα ἔχοντες, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ πόδα ἀνεχάζοντο παίοντες καὶ παιόμενοι, ἕως ὑπὸ ταῖς μηχαναῖς ἐγένοντο. ἐπεὶ μέντοι ἐνταῦθα ἦλθον, ἐπαίοντο αὖθις οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι ἀπὸ τῶν πύργων: καὶ οἱ ἐπὶ πᾶσι δὲ οὐκ εἴων φεύγειν οὔτε τοὺς τοξότας οὔτε τοὺς ἀκοντιστάς, ἀλλ᾽ ἀνατεταμένοι τὰς μαχαίρας ἠνάγκαζον καὶ τοξεύειν καὶ ἀκοντίζειν
33] Here, then, was a dreadful conflict with spears and lances and swords. The Egyptians, however, had the advantage both in numbers and in weapons; for the spears that they use even unto this day are long and powerful, and their shields cover their bodies much more effectually than corselets and targets, and as they rest against the shoulder they are a help in shoving. So, locking their shields together, they advanced and shoved. [34] And because the Persians had to hold out their little shields clutched in their hands, they were unable to hold the line, but were forced back foot by foot, giving and taking blows, until they came up under cover of the moving towers. When they reached that point, the Egyptians in turn received a volley from the towers; and the forces in the extreme rear would not allow any retreat on the part of either archers or javelinmen, but with drawn swords they compelled them to shoot and hurl.
Firstly, a translation error – the Persian ‘gerron’ is not a “little” shield as can be seen from Agesilaos’ earlier illustration. It is a large shield, suitable for hand-to-hand fighting – but evidently not as large as the fictional Egyptians shield.
For those who have been spared the joy of Kyroteadia, Kyros has allegedly deployed his men two deep to face these Egyptians, who are 100 deep ‘as is the custom of their land’. Kyros backs his thorakites with ‘akontistai’ javelinmen, ‘toxatoi’ and a veteran corps of ‘ouragoi’ presumably also two deep making an eight deep formation; the moving towers? Kyros has a tower for each taxis in the army, hauled by eight oxen and manned by twenty men, in an essay on ‘how to conduct hoplite warfare’?
Secondly, at [VI.3.21] Cyrus tells his Taxiarchs and Lochagoi to form a phalanx with each separate lochos “in twos/eis duo”. If this is the Taxis of the dinner drill, then each separate/individual lochos is to be formed in two files, which might be 12 deep if the taxis is the four lochoi one, or 25 deep if it is the two lochoi one. This is evidently the understanding of whoever added what appears to be an emendation, evidently thinking of the ‘dinner drill’ [Now each lochos consisted of 24 men]. Personally, I believe here as elsewhere Xenophon has the Spartan file depth of 12 in mind, and that as in the ‘dinner drill’ it would close up to half-files six deep to fight. The ‘akontistai’/javelin men are drawn up behind the ‘thorakaphoroi’/heavy infantry, not as part of the heavy infantry formation, and the ‘toxotas/archers’ separately behind them. Behind these come a rearguard/’teleutaious’, again separate. (they are not ouragoi=file closers, the last man in a file.)
What there is here is a clear reference to ‘othismos’ actually meaning pushing men back in combat with the shield, but I suppose that one can ignore that part.
...thank heavens for that !!
The so-called Boeotian shield, also called Dipylon is indeed a similar shape to the Gerrhon, although it has a significant camber that gerrha lack. This is because, far from being the sort of shield anyone actually wielded, it is an artistic fossil, a remembrance of the figure of eight shields used in Mycenaean times and thus not germane to this discussion.
My point about the ‘Theban’ or ‘Boeotian’ gerron is that Greek artists saw nothing odd in hoplites being equipped with such shields. As to whether it really existed, that is still debated.Any large shield would be suitable equipment for a hoplite.
It will also be seen that the quote above makes no mention of a ‘porpax’ nor is it likely that Egyptian shield s possessed them, they were like the old ‘tower shield’
This, to use Agesilaos’expression,is complete “guff” !! Egyptians never used bronze-age Mycenaean type ‘tower shields’. Their traditional shield shape was oblong, with a rounded top. Xenophon described troops at Cunaxa as having wooden shields reaching to their feet whom people “said” were Egyptians. These shields are called ‘aspides’ – which may be defined as a type of shield held by a porpax type grip. ( HerodotusVII.89 describes Egyptian marines with “concave broad rimmed aspides” that sound as if they were circular). Moreover, how could you push a tower shield with your shoulder ?
Xenophon had encountered Egyptian infantry at Kunaxa and describes them Anab I 8 ix
[9] There were horsemen in white cuirasses on the left wing of the enemy, under the command, it was reported, of Tissaphernes; next to them were troops with wicker shields and, farther on, hoplites with wooden shields which reached to their feet, these latter being Egyptians, people said; and then more horsemen and more bowmen. All these troops were marching in national divisions, each nation in a solid square.
[9] καὶ ἦσαν ἱππεῖς μὲν λευκοθώρακες ἐπὶ τοῦ εὐωνύμου τῶν πολεμίων: Τισσαφέρνης ἐλέγετο τούτων ἄρχειν: ἐχόμενοι δὲ γερροφόροι, ἐχόμενοι δὲ ὁπλῖται σὺν ποδήρεσι ξυλίναις ἀσπίσιν. Αἰγύπτιοι δ᾽ οὗτοι ἐλέγοντο εἶναι: ἄλλοι δ᾽ ἱππεῖς, ἄλλοι τοξόται. πάντες δ᾽ οὗτοι κατὰ ἔθνη ἐν πλαισίῳ πλήρει ἀνθρώπων ἕκαστον τὸ ἔθνος ἐπορεύετο
Note that here too, the gerrhon is contrasted to the xylinais aspis. So the gerrophoroi are not ‘hoplites’ nor the gerrha a hoplite style heavy shield.
You seem to be confusing the
fictional Cyrus’ ‘hoplites’ who carry ‘gerra’ and fight hand to hand, with the
real Persians at Cunaxa, equipped with ‘gerra’, and who did
not fight at close quarters, hence could never be hoplites. The most suitable shield for close quarter fighting must be large, but not necessarily heavy e.g. Roman scutum or Greek aspis, neither of which were in fact overly ‘heavy’ ( I’m assuming you mean ‘heavy’ literally rather than ‘heavy’ in the sense of suitable for ‘heavy infantry’)
Since you happily bandy the ‘sparabara’ ‘takabara’ terms I had assumed you were aware of the suggested tactical system implied therein; for those not in the know, it posits that the Persian army of the early Achaemenid period consisted of a front rank of spearmen carrying large pavise like wicker shields which the propped up as a barricade from the shelter of which the greater proportion of their units, archers would shoot, in addition there were bands of men armed as Xenophon describes Kyros’ New Model Army and as are depicted on several Greek vases, though none I could find online sadly, who would rush upon the enemy once they had been disrupted by the arrow storm. Herodotos describes the Persians falling upon the Greeks in small bands and it is these men to whom he is assumed to refer.
I am quite familiar with what is known of Persian fighting systems – not a great deal. (sigh!) I fear another digression coming on. What you say is incorrect.
The terms ‘sparabara’ and ‘takabara’ stem from no primary source, but Greek lexicons ( e.g. Hesychius) say 'spara' is a Persian word for the Greek gerrha (woven or wicker shield) and 'tak'a is used in inscriptions and may mean "small shield" (or perhaps more likely a Macedonian sunhat!)
The words were first suggested in Nicholas Sekunda's, “Achaemenid Military Terminology.” Archaeologische Mitteilungen Aus Iran 21 (1988) pp. 69-77. Nick Sekunda’s ‘Sparabara’ are the front rank large pavise bearers, which Greeks called ‘gerrha’ (confusingly this is really a generic name for any wicker/woven shield, but in modern times is used to denote the oval violin shaped shield – which may not have been wicker at all !!)
Both these words are now commonly accepted by wargamers and re-enactors and even the Cambridge Ancient History. It was Sekunda who suggested that a Persian troop type were called ‘takabara’, but personally I think it unlikely, as do others.
What are now called ‘Takabara’ are essentially tribal ‘peltasts’ and the so-called ‘taka’ a similar crescent shaped shield to a 'pelta', albeit slightly larger.They appear in Greek iconography from around the 460’s BC, but are javelin equipped tribal type ‘peltasts’, not close quarter fighters. They didn’t apparently exist during the time of Herodotus’ Persian Wars, and so couldn’t be the troops referred to at Plataea. These peltasts are also certainly NOT the troops described by Xenophon, who fight with hand-to-hand weapons, are called ‘heavy infantry/hoplites/thorakaphoroi’, and whom Xenophon tells us specifically were made to abandon bows, javelins and missile weapons !!
Agesilaos grows ever more desperate, and is clutching at straws, in his unconvincing attempts to suggest that what Xenophon had in mind for the fictional Cyrus’ ‘New Model Army’ was anything other than ‘hoplites’ who fight in close order hand-to-hand, and are drilled in this ‘new’ type of fighting, which is superior to fighting at a distance with missiles, and allow them to beat superior numbers ( just as historically Greek hoplites beat Persians). Xenophon tells us all this quite plainly [ in Book II – the re-organisation of the army especially II.1.9 ff]
Even if this were correct, which it isn't, it doesn't matter, for since only Greeks had 'pempadas'/half-files, but not real Persians, Xenophon can only have had Greek hoplites in mind when writing of the dinner drill.
The Dinner drill, of course has no mention of order at all and could be performed in open intermediate or close order, nor is any move from open order to close order implied nor in any Classical author is there a mention of the measurements that might be described by these terms.
Not measurements per se, and if there were we would no doubt be debating just which Greek city's measurements are being referred to ! But both Thucydides and Xenophon tell us that Greek hoplites fought shield to shield i.e.in close order, 3 ft aprox per man. The final formation of half-files must therefore be ‘close order’ ( for the formation cannot double down any further ) and the whole point and purpose of the drill is to decrease depth, and increase numbers on a given frontage, in other words to get into close order – as must be obvious to even the meanest intelligence. It cannot “be performed in open intermediate or close order” – there was no such thing as ‘intermediate’ order in Xenophon’s time for a start. These three terms were made up by Christopher Matthew, and are incorrect translations/interpretations of the Hellenistic manuals normal/open order, close order/pyknosis ( not intermediate) and synaspismos/locked shields ( not close order).
Cod is a synonym for fake, our Civil Service release cod-faxes to scupper Government policies of which they disapprove; yes the British Government still uses fax, Foreign Office excepted, they still have pigeons.
Yes, Cyrus’ army is fictional, and there are anomalies arising from mixing Persian and Greek details, but the ‘dinner drill’ is not – it must be the standard drill of aGreek phalanx, and Cyrus’ army is reported as forming up in files 12 deep, like contemporary Spartans ( even though 12 doesn’t divide into the decimal ‘100’ men of a ‘taxis’, hence reference to “dodekadarchs” and “hekadarchs”. Since these terms are used only once by Xenophon, and occur nowhere else as far as I can determine, they may be words he has made up to emphasise his advocacy of a 12 deep formation.
And here we have the crux, absolutely nothing says that the Dinner Drill was standard to anything, apart from your continual and unsubstantiated assertion; the most laughable point is that it is definitely conducted by files of TEN and the lochoi end up four abreast and five deep.
That a hoplite phalanx marched and deployed initially in files in normal/open order is beyond doubt – the counter-marches of the phalanx/battle line described could only be performed in open order. Equally, it is beyond doubt that they fought in close order – see references in Thucydides and Xenophon. The question therefore is how they got from open order of files, to close order. There are only two ways. Close up laterally, resulting in a halving of frontage ( described in the Hellenistic manuals but as far as we know only done once at Kynoskephalae ) or by altering the depth – referred to by Xenophon a number of times – e.g. XC VIII.5.15:
“
He believed also that tactics did not consist solely in being able easily to extend one's line or increase its depth, or to change it from a long column into a phalanx, or without error to change the front by a counter march according as the enemy came up on the right or the left or behind; but he considered it also a part of good tactics to break up one's army into several divisions whenever occasion demanded, and to place each division, too, where it would do the most good, and to make speed when it was necessary to reach a place before the enemy—all these and other such qualifications were essential, he believed, to a skilful tactician, and he devoted himself to them all alike.”
Note that the phalanx is in a position to counter-march, hence must be in open order, and of course the changing of depth( from open/normal order to close order) is described by the dinner drill – the files double down into half-files.
I am afraid to say that your post of the 7th demonstrated nothing more than that your lack of understanding of the necessary mathematics is compounded with a wilful ignorance of the language; you have painted yourself into a corner with broad strokes of error and wishful thinking....
See previous posts – it is your arithmetic that is flawed !! Nor do I show any ‘wilful’ ignorance of the language. Not being fluent in Greek, I take the trouble to check and double check meanings. Rather it is you who, despite your knowledge of Greek, has mis-translated several times.
.... all you need do is admit that your interpretation of the Dinner drill is flawed, strangely at the beginning of the thread you do not seem to have considered the lochoi ending in four files so crucial; but maybe that was my misconception of your position.
My position was, and is, that Xenophon did not specify the size of the files or lochoi in the dinner drill, probably because he was speaking of general drill rather than the fictional Cyrus’ specific organisation. ( As I have noted, it is different, with 4 lochoi of an unknown size making up a taxis, also of an unknown size rather than Cyrus’ taxis of 100, made up of 2 lochoi of 50.
The whole point is that regardless of the original file depth, the drill for files/half-files works ( e.g. 8 or 12, or a Persian 10 )
Since in the Anabasis it is the ‘etaxqsan/battle array/ battle line’ that is formed ‘in fours’, it can only mean ‘four deep’, and cannot mean ‘four abreast’, because that would be a column.
“ ἐτάχθησαν οὖν ἐπὶ τεττάρων:” is literally “so they formed up the battle array/line in fours” ( Xenophon uses ‘oun’ as ‘so’ a number of times). Since the whole line is in fours, it can only mean four deep, not four abreast. Xenophon’s words are quite clear !
Oh, and for another reference to a phalanx being four deep; 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 a phalanx, and the barbarians with a front of not more than twelve, but many men deep. Then, however, the barbarians charged."
The contrast between Greek depth and Persian depth is unmistakeable – no possibility that ‘epi tettaron’ means four abreast here. ( No struggle at all! )
Do you deny, then that the Spartan enomotiai at Mantineia 418 BC were not arranged in four files? Thus showing that a battle line can be formed with the lowest unit formed in four files. You will struggle to find an example of one four DEEP.
Poor methodology! You are comparing a different battle, described by a different author, in different words. Thucydides ‘enomotia’ of 32 formed 4 abreast/in line [zugos] and averaged 8 deep [bathos...epi octo ]. That formation must be in open order – unless you wish to postulate the whole Spartan army occupied a frontage of less than 450 yards ? ( to which should be added around 3,000 allies Diod. XII.18.4 ). In fact, as Thucydides himself realised, he had the numbers somehow wrong ( not realising that the Spartans had, not 7 lochoi, but rather 7 ‘morai’ of two lochoi each. Thus there were in fact over 6,000 Lakedaemonians present, making a total of 9,000 odd. The battle took place at the ‘Mantinea gap’ between Mantinea and Tegea, and 8 deep in open order would occupy a frontage of 2,250 yards. Guess how wide the Mantinea gap is ? Yup ! 2,300-2,500 yards at its narrowest – just enough for the phalanx and a few cavalry on each wing !!
Another battlefield that makes much more sense with the hoplites initially 8 deep in open order......
Agesilaos wrote:
As for 8 deep being considered "weak" against massed formations, the Spartans - "seasoned troops"- were evidently concerned that attrition might wear down an 8/4 deep line, and increased it to 12/6 deep. Do you think Spartan tactical responses to massed formations "preposterous"?
Since you have failed to explain what these ‘Spartan tactical responses’ were it is impossible to say whether they are ‘preposterous’ or not, your suggestions here certainly are! I think you are suggesting that the mercenaries who are eight deep, according to you, make a quick calculation about attrition and decide to, somehow increase their lines depth by one half and in shortening their front expose their flank?! No wonder they were caught trying to execute this supposed manoeuvre, you fulminate against Paralus suggesting that a formation might double its depth in open order and temporarily end up on an eight cubit interval which is never mentioned in the Sacred Manuals and post THIS!!? Reference it in a manual, if you can.
You have this all wrong, as Paralus has pointed out. The Spartan tactical response was to increase the depth of the file to 12 (6 in close order), not because they feared a deep column bursting through, but so that their line would not be breached by casualty attrition.
Let me tell you how you should have proceeded. There are two issues, the meaning of ‘ep’okto’ and the meaning of ‘anastrophe’. Now I looked at all of Xenophon’s uses of this term and in each it signifies no more than a retreat in the opposite direction to which one was facing; modern commentators have confused the manoeuvre of Agesilaos with a description of what ‘anastrophe’ means, Xenophon mere says that part of the manoeuvre was ‘anatrophe’ and then goes on to describe the subsequent evolutions, similarly in the Kyrou Paideia VII 5 iii, Xenophon has Kyros fold back each of his wings in order to specifically double his depth, yet there is no hint of an ‘anastrophe’.
At last, something we are all agreed on !! Anastrophe is an ‘about turn’ and move in the opposite direction ( the rear here). I suggested earlier that the ‘anastrophe’ was not necessarily to ‘double depth’, but to get out of the danger of a flank attack by moving back....At XC V.4.8 we even hear of chariots overturning from trying to reverse direction/anastrophe too sharply. [see also LSJ definitions]
This does, at least, suggest why they were feeling ‘weak’; they were too close to walls, as indeed was proven by their getting caught whilst retiring. So they were not trying to deepen the line only put more distance between then and the walls. The reason why a formation in the standard depth should think this expedient is still unclear, although why a weak line should is clear enough.
Because, as can be seen from your map, the left end of the line was in danger of being taken in flank.
Now, I must own to a gaff of my own making, I missed out a ‘not’ the line should have read
Greek and Latin both allow words to be ‘understood’, so the fact that enomotiai are NOT mentioned is unimportant.
This in response to your suggestion that since no lesser units are mentioned the whole army must be meant, this is simply untrue.
What a fallacious argument ! This is extreme ‘special pleading’! Individual units aren’t mentioned, but we should assume individual units are meant, even when the whole phalanx is specified ? When individual units are so many abreast, we are told so, to avoid any ambiguity – e.g. the Thucydides passage at Mantinea above wherein each enomotia four abreast;or in the dinner drill, each lochos formed in twos....etc
Agesilaos wrote:
Xenophon wrote:
How can the fact that the ‘taxqhnai/battle formation’ was ‘in fours’/four deep, as Xenophon very specifically tells us “strengthen the case for them being eight deep”(presumably in close order) ? You’ll be saying black is white next.....
Oh dear! Liguistic problems again; the Greek is Anab. I 2 xv
Your are seeing supposed linguistic problems, when in fact there are none. It is becoming tiresome, and repetition of this allegation same will not make linguistic problems.
[15] ἐκέλευσε δὲ τοὺς Ἕλληνας ὡς νόμος αὐτοῖς εἰς μάχην οὕτω ταχθῆναι καὶ στῆναι, συντάξαι δ᾽ ἕκαστον τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ. ἐτάχθησαν οὖν ἐπὶ τεττάρων:
He ordered [ἐκέλευσε] the Greeks [δὲ τοὺς Ἕλληνας] to form up and stand [ταχθῆναι καὶ στῆναι] as if for battle [εἰς μάχην οὕτω] according to their custom [ὡς νόμος αὐτοῖς], each organised his own men [συντάξαι δ᾽ ἕκαστον τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ]. They were formed up [ἐτάχθησαν] thus [οὖν] by fours [ἐπὶ τεττάρων].
This is a poor translation, and does not agree with the majority I have checked. A far better one is:
“
He ordered the Greeks to form their line/battle array and take their positions just as they were accustomed to do for battle, each marshalling his own men. So they formed up the battle array/line in fours.” [ universally translated as ‘four deep’, because it is the whole array or entire line which is in fours] According to the LSJ, ‘epi’ means on or upon, but not ‘by’ and moreover :
LSJ
4. [select] with numerals, to denote the depth of a body of soldiers,ἐπὶ τεττάρων four deep, id=Xen.; ἐπ᾽ ὀλίγων i. e. in a long thin file,id=Xen.; ἐφ᾽ ἑνός in single file, id=Xen.
In fact, I don't think this is entirely correct, but one gets the idea of 'communis opinio'.
ταχθῆναι is a verb, aorist infinitive in fact, rather than a noun, ‘to draw up’ not ‘battle formation’, Xenophon does not ‘very specifically say’ that the line was drawn up four deep, that is your interpretation based on what you want it to say; I say it strengthens the case for the meaning being ‘four abreast’ and hence eight deep, because the formation is described as ‘according to their custom for battle’ and by far the majority of mentioned depths are eight, neither linguistically nor logically challenging methinks.
Not just my interpretation, rather everyone but yours. All translations I can find are in no doubt that ‘four deep’ is meant and the various forms of ‘taxqhsan’ specifically mean ‘to draw up in battle formation/array’, not just ‘draw up’. The LSJ translates this passage as “in four lines”( i.e. four deep).
So you are saying that “in fours/eights” is ambiguous, and can mean abreast or deep, depending on which you want it to be ?
Yet we examined the various references to depth previously, including the half-dozen references to 'epi/eis number', and in context it turned out all these had to refer to depth. ( see my post page 9 Aug 5).
I don’t think I ever said or implied that one could just choose what one wants it to mean; this is surely your method LOL! And I seem to remember concluding that some references had to concern frontage and others could be ambiguous whilst your ‘analysis’ consisted of simple contradiction.
Not so, if you look at that post, we agreed some of your references could only be depth, whilst I pointed out why others[ epi/eis] – all you referred to in fact – had to mean ‘depth’, mainly because it was the whole phalanx/battle line/array being referred to. I gave reasons in each case, not just contradicted you. What is more, from the outset and my diagram on page 1, I accepted that in some contexts ‘epi/eis low number’ could mean abreast e.g. ‘eis duo’/in twos in the dinner drill meaning two files abreast.
So let’s run through that check list
In summary then, this; “The notion that Xenophon was disguising hoplites as his reformed Persians founders once one reads the text;” is completely wrong. In fact the opposite is true, as most commentators recognise. The fictional Cyrus’ reforms his army of Persians into heavy close-order infantry – hoplites, so that Xenophon can expound on hoplite ‘taktike’.
As usual a self arrived at conclusion at odds with the evidence but supported by anonymous testators and the tale is a moralistic drag not a tract on taktike.
Again, not just my conclusions, but those of all the commentators I am familiar with. As usual, your eccentric views are in a minority of one. ‘Moralistic drag’ it may be in your view, but nevertheless, in this fictional work Xenophon takes the opportunity to go into technical and tactical matters he could not do within the bounds of his historical works – and thank heavens we have this !
1. re-equipped with ‘hopla’ =arms for close quarter fighting[II.1.9-21], oops! not what ‘hopla’ means.
Wrong! In the context, the ‘hopla’ which Cyrus re-equips his Persians with are arms for close quarter fighting, as Xenophon very specifically tells us [ e.g. XC II.1.9 “ ...And if you provide these weapons/hopla, you will make it the safest procedure for us to fight at close quarters with the enemy...” The weapons are specifically close quarters weapons.
2. Drilled in close order drill [II.3.21] – no mention of order
All drill is in’ order’!( Did you ever hear of drill being performed in disorder?).
The order is obvious from the context. The men are drilled in close quarter fighting, that is, close order drill.
3. fight in ‘lines’ that advance in good order [VII.1.10 and 26] - not many troops do not.
Only ‘regular’ troops who have been drilled fight in ‘good order’ – most, e.g. barbarian tribal levies, do not.
4. form phalanx[VII.1.22] – LOL so do CHARIOTS! VII 1 xxx.
A phalanx is simply a 'battle line', but your comment is Irrelevant, we are here concerned with infantry formed in phalanx – invariably close order troops, even if others are attached to it ( such as peltasts or archers)
5. stop and dress their ranks 3 times [VII.1.4] - Before they came in sight of the enemy, he halted the army as many as three times. – halting but no dressing, more ‘reading into’; the enemy are out of sight and Kyros has determined on a slow advance as he knows they intend to surround him.
Your reading and comprehension skills may need a refresher course. At the time, Cyrus does NOT know the enemy intends to surround him. Croesus only forms the intention of outflanking Cyrus AFTER coming in sight of each other.[VII.1.5] In fact the halts are so that the army may align itself with Cyrus’ standard – in other words, what we call ‘dressing’.
6. advance in even step (like Spartans) [VI.1.4]. – amazing because at III 3 lvii they advance ‘at the double’ and then at III 3 lxi ‘at the run’ most unSpartan, are you cherry picking or using salami tactics?
See above. Cyrus intends to advance in even step, like Spartans, at the fictional battle but he and his men become excited and break into a run ( one is reminded of Cunaxa, in which Xenophon took part)
The rest is equally guff, the social conventions throughout are Greek, Xenophon needs an excuse for his unending symposiai, nor was he in Persia for any great length of time like Ctesias, much of his Persianism recalls Herodotos to me. The work is fiction for a Greek audience written by an old man with limited knowledge of Persia and its customs, it is for the indulgent fantasies of a pseudo-Sokratic or do you credit the ‘moving towers’? The Persians described in Book II are clearly and emphatically NOT hoplites Xenophon is clear about that therefore his drill is not hoplite drill, nor indeed, is it even a sensible procedure,; your other ‘oft mentioned prop’ Anderson, even says on page 390, having forgotten that the officers leading the files are dekadarchoi rather than the dodekadarchoi he names, ‘In practice it might sometimes be more convenient to deploy each lochos separately before bringing it up to its place in the line.’ Tacitly recognising the essential unreality of Xenophon’s; though he does recognise that the frontage of each lochos moves to four ‘and a depth of six’. Zeus even without being here your allies are falling away, it is the kyropedia
Yes indeed the work is intended as enlightenment for a Greek audience, and pushes several morals, including extolling a Spartan type society with its peers/homioi, its agoge and its military methods for hoplites.
“The Persians described in Book II are clearly and emphatically NOT hoplites Xenophon is clear about that therefore his drill is not hoplite drill, nor indeed, is it even a sensible procedure”
This is the crux of your case. It cannot be denied that the drill Xenophon describes comes down to half-files ( as your own reconstruction on page 1 demonstrates). To make your case therefore, you must have it that the troops concerned are not ‘hoplites’. I don’t know how you define ‘hoplite’, but I think I prefer Xenophon’s version. After all he was undeniably a General of ‘hoplites’ and knew all about them. You will therefore understand that you saying that despite everything Xenophon says, these troops are not ‘hoplites’ just has no credibility. Not only do these fictitious Persians fit the bill in every way as close order heavy infantry – hoplites - but Xenophon tells us a number of times that these troops specifically ARE hoplites !!
To allege otherwise is complete nonsense – as all commentators I have read agree that they are hoplites, and modelled on Spartan ones at that, except of course you !! I believe you are, as the psychiatrists say, “in denial” !
As to Anderson, you obviously don’t understand what he is saying, nor do you appear to have read the whole book. For he refers to ‘open’order of 6 ft and ‘close’ order of 3 ft or so, and rear half-files coming into line, just as I do ( see e.g. P101). He also points out the flaws in Xenophon’s arrangement for the huge numbers he allocates, which indicates that Xenophon hadn’t appreciated the problems of ‘scale’. For example, 30,000 men in single file would be over 17 miles long even in ‘close’ order of 3 ft intervals !![X C II.4.1-6]
‘In practice it might sometimes be more convenient to deploy each lochos separately before bringing it up to its place in the line.’
This sentence is taken out of contex, for what Anderson is pointing out is that if the dinner drill is applied from single file to multiple lochoi, then some of the intervals have to be 9 or 10 feet wide, and he is saying that whilst still in column it would be easier for each lochos to deploy into file in ‘open’ order, with intervals of only 3 ft, and then have the lochoi deploy beside one another – an obvious drill movement that even the lowliest corporal could work out. There’s no “essential unreality of Xenophon’s”. Even today, drill is taught in exactly Xenophon’s way - small units first, beginning in single file, then modified as necessary when these are put together and drilled in larger units.Nor does he “forget” the officers are ‘dekadarchs’ ( why do you say this ?). He refers here in this example only to ‘dodekadarchs’, files of twelve and half-files of six. He has taken Xenophon’s generic drill, with no numbers given for any unit, and applied it in his example to files of 12 ( he could just as easily have chosen a file of ten, as you apparently want him to, or eight, as I did in my diagram). No “allies falling away”.All perfectly consistent.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that you have not taken to heart Paralus’ homily about accepting the source material unless you have evidence that it is incorrect....
