This quote-and-response method has now become tediously long, so I hope that readers won’t object if I cut out many of the quotes ( albeit relatively unsuccessfully!), thus inconveniencing the reader into having to go back to a previous post, in the interests of keeping posts to a reasonable length. Hopefully this won’t result in accusations of ‘excising’ important bits. I’m just trying to shorten posts.
Paralus wrote:
“You have a pronounced propensity for personal attack dressed as humour or ‘wit’. I have slid past nothing. Clearly if the phalanx ‘doubles down’ by either method, the density is doubled and the depth is halved. I have pointed this out more than once on this thread.”
I was merely taking my lead from your own attempted humour – see for example May 15 “
But wait, what's that there.... below... I spies me an explanation........ Now, that's one of the better and more extensive glosses of a very clear text I've seen in a while. A gloss of convenience or a gloss of presumption?? More likely the latter.”
Nor were my comments in this instance intended as personal attack, merely a kinder way, via humour, to avoid saying bluntly that you were deliberately avoiding the issues under discussion..... not a personal criticism, rather drawing attention to a debating style of avoiding issues, evasions of the point in question and instead digressing into minor issues and irrelevancies that one can argue with.
“Clearly if the phalanx ‘doubles down’ by either method, the density is doubled and the depth is halved. I have pointed this out more than once on this thread.”
At last ! Having agreed that the basic file was 16 in open order previously, you now (apparently) unequivocally agree that ‘close order’ was half that depth, at 8. ( save for exceptional cases such as Kynoskephalae or Sellasia). Similarly for ‘synaspismos’.
Xenophon wrote:
Paralus wrote:
“Asclep. 10.17:
doubling takes place by depth when we interject between the original ranks others of equal strength, so that a compact order arises only by depth.
Aelian, as he promises, fully explains this:
Ael. 29.9: - should read 29.6 ( Devine translation)
The depth is doubled by inserting the second file into the first, so that the file-leader of the second file will be posted behind the file-leader of the first file, and the second man of the second file will be the fourth man of the first file, and the third man of the second file will be the sixth in the first file, and so also for the next until the whole of the second file is integrated into the first file, and [Laur. folio 155v] likewise the fourth file into the third, and all the even-numbered files into the odd-numbered ones. And this is how doubling by number takes place.
Neither of these is presented as only to return to open order “from close order/pyknosis (or from synaspismos)”. In fact, both passages show that this drill results in taking ‘close order’ only by depth (ὥστε κατὰ βάθος εἶναι πύκνωσιν).”
This is a perfect illustration of what I mean by the need to read the manuals carefully. You seem to be saying that the two passages are parallel and are describing the same thing ( e.g. “In fact, both passages show that this drill results in taking ‘close order’ only by depth”)
In fact this is not quite correct. The first (Asclep) describes ‘closing up’ by ‘interjecting’/parembole the rear half-files, resulting in close order on the same overall frontage, here called ‘doubling by depth’ i.e. doubling the numbers in the ranks by halving the depth of the files. Thus the phalanx 16 deep in open order ends up 8 deep in close order ( similarly if forming synaspismos/locked shields from pyknosis/close order).
The second (Aelian) is describing the exact opposite – opening up the phalanx from pyknosis/close order (usually 8 deep) into ‘normal/open order’ 16 deep, ( or opening up synaspismos) by amalgamating two neighbouring files into one twice the depth as previously. This is doubling by number. Two different forms of ‘doubling’ are being described –‘doubling by depth’ and ‘doubling by number’. The latter is presumably how you get to your 32 deep formation.
The actual equivalent of Asclep X.17 is Aelian 29.1 & 2, not 29.6
Paralus wrote:
Both are clear that there is doubling by ‘length’ or ‘number’ in which case the number of files is increased and the frontage remains the same. Both also agree on doubling by ‘place’ or ‘depth’. In the latter both are clear that compact order is only achieved by rank, not file. Thus the ranks, by virtue of the insertion of file into file (as explained in detail by Aelian) close up as a result of the doubling of ranks.”
I am having trouble understanding what you are trying to say – not for the first time, you fail to make yourself clear, and what you appear to be saying seems to be incorrect. The first sentence is fine, and is consistent with Aelian 29.2. The rest is, I think, mistaken. Doubling of ‘place’ [29.7]results in an opening up into a looser order. ‘Compact order’ is not achieved at all, just the opposite [e.g. Aelian 29.7 – describing how light infantry inserted into the phalanx withdraw to the rear, adding to depth.] Interjection/parembole of rear files describes heavy infantry half-files closing the gaps. Insertion/entaxis describes the filling of the gaps by light troops[31.3]. Doubling of place [29.7] refers to withdrawing the same, producing a looser, not closer, order but adding depth, hence occupying a larger 'place'. Similarly, the insertion of file into file [29.6] results in a file twice as deep ( e.g. 8 to 16), but twice the spacing ( 3 ft to 6 ft), hence loose formation. Insertion of file into file does NOT result in closing up into compact order – again just the opposite, as I pointed out in the post under reply.
“On the notion of restoring from close order, if, as I’ve stated more than once, the phalanx can compact by ‘doubling down’ it can certainly resume open order by the reversal (countermarching) of same.”
Yes, “As you were!” by means of the half-file returning, or in the alternate system of each even man stepping out and forward, the reverse of this.
“Xenophon wrote:Thus, the ‘doubling’ of the file depth ( from 4 to 8, or 8 to 16 ) is the specific purpose of the drill referred to in order to return to the previous more open order. No mention of doing this to create a ‘double open order’ 32 deep with 12 ft/4 yard intervals between files ! The verbal orders also clearly imply this ( e.g. Aelian 42.1.15 " Double depth! " "As you were!")
That this opening out of the phalanx, from synaspismos to close order, can occur via the countermarch of a file to a position behind its compatriot is eminently possible . Ditto for close order to ‘open’ order. Thus, in your view, a four man file countermarches to a position behind its compatriot to adopt close order from locked shields. No disagreement. This, though, is not what Alelian and Asclepiodotus are saying: both state that depth is being doubled by the insertion of one file into the next producing a compaction by rank. If this phalanx is in synaspismos (again, four deep as you claim), there is no physical way that a file of four can insert itself into its right hand compatriot: all are in tight locked shield formation. In such a formation we must assume the four man files loosening by depth to facilitate the file to their left.”
Depth is indeed being doubled, but this is not 'compaction' for it does not produce less space for each soldier. see Aelian [11.3].Aelian [11.4] tells us that ‘synaspismos’ also contracts both by rank and file - so just one cubit side by side and fore and aft. I'd agree they would have to 'open out' by expanding depth first before merging files ( by either method).
“What is being described is the doubling of file depth. A doubling resulting in double the number of ranks and thus, as described, a compaction by rank only.”
Yes, the file is twice as long/deep and the spacing/frontage opens out. There are now twice as many ranks, but each man is now twice the distance as previously from his neighbour -both in rank and file .Where is there compaction ?
I suspect a couple of diagrams would save us much confusion here......
Xenophon wrote:
“Is Paralus now claiming that his position is NOT that Polybius is describing Philip’s phalanx opening up still further from 16 to a formation 32 deep which must entail ‘doubling’ the intervals between files to 12 feet – such 32 deep formation nowhere described in our sources - and one which Paralus has invented to allow his interpretation of what Polybius meant by “double their depth and close up toward the right.” ? ( he even used Aelian’s method 29.6 above).”
Paralus wrote:
“This is really becoming tedious. There is no “invented” formation and nor am I advocating anything other than what I have from the outset. The phalanx doubled its depth. Having done so it compacted to the right as described. Whatever Antiochos envisioned for his phalanx at Magnesia, it can either have closed to the right (as here) or ‘doubled down’ to sixteen. It presented in battle order 32 deep as described.”
Magnesia - another battle where mist played a part - must await another time and thread. Antiochus' phalanx most certainly did NOT, at any time, present in battle order i.e. 'close order/pyknosis 32 deep, and our main source, Livy, does not say they did. Neither does Appian.
Tedious indeed. There are no “32 deep” files in our sources, nor any verbal order written as to how to form one. I assure you it is completely impractical/impossible to perform any sort of drill at 12 ft/4 yard intervals – the formation has already lost its cohesion. To bolster your interpretation you have invented a formation that not only never existed, but is quite impossible practically. You don’t even begin to address the practicalities of how this is supposedly achieved in a formation 1,000 yards long x 32 yards deep. ( clue: it would have to be done syntagma by syntagma for a start – no order could carry through the whole formation.)
What you said at the outset ( May 12) was :
“
Now, I agree with Xenophon in that the phalanx will have deployed "to the shield" in open order and I would claim, given the rushed deployment, in its normal drill. That is, sixteen deep.”
So far so good. Paralus then misinterpreted what I meant, but eventually went on to say [May 13]:
“
Two distinct orders [ double the depth and close up to the right]and, beginning in open order sixteen deep, resulting in a close order formation thirty-two deep as each second file turned to spear and stepped into the spaces between the ranks of the adjoining (file leader becomes second ranker, etc). This instantly renders the ranks into close order and the second order, resulting in those files already facing to spear marching to right, results in the files taking close order.”
This was a fundamental error by Paralus, and the beginning of his confusion over ranks and files which continues to the present. ‘Doubling depth’ [29.6] is the insertion of one file into another – two files become one, now with twice as many men ( two files of 8 become one of 16, and the interval between files doubles from, say, 3 ft to 6 ft. It does NOT render the ranks (men side by side originally) into ‘close order’, but just the opposite, the space between men in a given rank becomes looser, and twice what it was. ( but the files are now in ‘close order’ front to back - presumably they then open out the depth from 3 ft to 6 feet to achieve full 'open order'). It is only the closing up of the files by a following right turn, and marching to their right which brings soldiers in the same rank standing side by side back into ‘close order’.
As I have repeatedly said, Paralus’ interpretation would result firstly in the 16 deep files 'doubling depth to 32' (now in close order front to rear), but at double the intervals between files ( half as many files 12 ft apart) still on their 1,000 yard or so frontage; closing up to the right to close order (3 ft)would result in a 250 yard or so frontage, 32 deep, which is what Paralus describes ( frontage maximised to 312 yards).
It appears to me that Paralus is confused on the matter and its terminology.
Paralus wrote:
“Eh ? You have advocated all along that Philip’s Right wing Phalanx did that very thing – ‘doubled their depth’ from 16 to a file of 32, and there is no room for misunderstanding for you described it in detail !!
And yet, nowhere have I sated that 32 deep was a standard file depth for the Macedonian phalanx which is, I take it, what you are disingenuously implying. You might point out where I have. I have, more than several times, indicated that the standard file was sixteen – from which point all other evolutions take place. Thus, in this instance, Philip doubles his depth.”
This is to introduce a red herring with a vengeance! No one suggested that you or anyone else was suggesting that 32 deep was ‘a standard file depth’ – quite the opposite, I was suggesting this formation appears nowhere in our sources and was invented by you, so as to agree with your ( wrong in my view) interpretation of Polybius as meaning two distinct manoeuvres, which produce an impossible situation both on your and Agesilaos’ explanations!
The standard file was indeed 16 in open order, but nowhere in our sources do we hear of it ‘doubling depth’ to 32 in either 'double open' or ‘close order’. You have ascribed a non-existent formation to Philip. As you yourself suggested, under time pressure and the stress of the battlefield, Philip was hardly likely to ‘invent’ a new attack formation ( as you would have him do), and to attack in such a deep formation would have been suicidal for reasons I have expounded at length.
“Xenophon wrote:I’m afraid I was misled by the previous sentence – which refers to Polybius’ criticism of Callisthenes, and in which Polybius gives frontages for a 16 deep formation i.e. a general comment, not specific to Cynoscephalae. Naturally, I took the next sentence also as being a ‘general’ remark, alleging that it was the general 8 deep ‘close order’ that was “unsubstantiated”. Thank you for clarifying that it refers specifically to Agesilaos’ postulation regarding Philp’s manoeuvre..
What a farrago. It seems you have it that I am responsible for your failure of comprehension:”
Or perhaps your failure to make yourself clear ?
“"Thank you for clarifying that it refers specifically to Agesilaos’ postulation regarding Philp’s manoeuvre". A reading of the reply without the excising of the first three sentences clearly shows that it is in response to Agesilaos' claim of forming up eight deep; no clarification is necessary. You excised those three sentences and I would wonder why. Beware your accusations of ‘slipperiness’! Further, I do not accept your below rationalisation…”
I didn’t ‘excise the first three lines at all’, simply quoted what I took to be the relevant part – a reference to the general formation rather than Kynoskephalae specifically. What you wrote was ambiguous.
Xenophon wrote:Not misrepresentation at all ! On Mon May 19, Paralus posted the line I quoted about having to disagree, and let readers make their own minds up. This is usually used to indicate a drawing of a line under a debate, and leaving a decision to the audience or readers. Then, just a few days later he carries on debating as if he had never indicated a ‘ceasefire’ !! Hence the amusement.....
My post, quoted by yourself, had nothing whatsoever to do with the interpretation of Polybios’ reporting of two orders and just as little to do with “let readers make their own minds up”. That was included simply to facilitate a personal jibe. Nothing more.”
I assure you no ‘jibe’ was intended, we have been friends far too long for such pettiness – merely drawing attention to your contradictory behaviour of ‘drawing a line’ ....but immediately continuing to argue, which I ( and I suspect others) found amusing.
Paralus wrote:
I am, though, somewhat grateful for the half-hearted, partial acknowledgement of your failure to understand my response to Agesilaos.”
Your grudging gratitude is duly noted.....
(Sigh!) here is the whole thing:
“I actually got it the first time. I didn't buy it then and my money remains firmly in pocket now. I remain unconvinced that Philip deployed into line eight deep. There is nothing at all in the text that supports such, nothing other than a speculation. You are making a sarsia out of a dory's sauroter! As Spock would intone, it is only logical that Philip's phalanx deployed into line sixteen deep as was the practice. If it shows nothing else, Polybios' splenetic criticism of Kallisthenes demonstrates this. In this formation it occupied over 1,140 metres, err, 1,246 yards. The same as the unsubstantiated eight deep in 'fighting' order. Just how much did it have to cover?!”
Your criticism is hardly fair, given the apparent ambiguity of what you wrote – I explained how I took your meaning. Even if you believe your meaning to be perfectly clear, there is always room for difference between what the writer intends, and what the reader perceives. I took the first three lines as referring to Agesilaos reponse. From “
As Spock would intone....”you seemed to me to be talking the general rather than the particular –“
as was the [ general]
practise etc”. I quoted only what I took to be the general, because to my eyes the specific references to Agesilaos’ post weren’t relevant to the general case, the subject of my reply. To my eyes, the term “
unsubstantiated eight deep” was also a general reference rather than referring to Agesilaos’ supposed deployment...... Why am I bothering to explain myself ? This is irrelevant petty argument, and not what we are here for. Let’s get over it, shall we ?
I wish I could reciprocate and be grateful for any ‘acknowledgements’ on your part, but amongst your tens of thousands of words there are none.......due to your inability to be wro....wr... you know !