Tactike theoriai – manuals or philosophy

[agesilaos]

Well you have your comminitas and I ‘ll have mine with Hans van Wees (Greek Warfare: Myth and Realities, 2004), Philip Sabin, idem and Michael Whitby (Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, Vol 1, 2007) and Victor Hanson Davis (The Western Way of War, 1989). I only nag because you use the alleged communis opinion as a supporting point and others may be impressed, for my part you could have God, Bhudda and Lemmy on your side and I would remain impassive (well maybe not if you had Lemmy).

“Quite right lower ranks are rarely mentioned, in Athens we know of no rank below ‘taxiarch’, which signifies the commander of one of the tribal taxeis of 1,000, nor is Athens under-represented in the literature or epigraphy, we know the name for the lowest level of rowers, for instance yet there is no evidence for the level of command necessary for the evolutions you claim were common place."

This argument isn't logical. Do we know the names of each bank of rowers in Corinthian or other Greek fleets? No; this is just due to the randomness of the sources that have survived. Even though the Spartans were "secretive" about their military arrangements, ironically and paradoxically, we know more (though not all) about them than the armies of all the other Greek city states put together!

Sigh, the argument is logical, you just cannot see its logic, an entirely different matter; let me walk you through it.
1) Athenian culture is the best represented in both the literature and epigraphy of the fourth and fifth centuries.
2) We know much about the lower tiers of society
3) Yet in the whole of this mass there is not one reference to an infantry commander below the level of taxiarch
Conclusion it would seem likely that the Athenians did not organise below this level, of course they lined up in files, but there was no formal structure therein. And many authors do bemoan the Athenians’ unwillingness to drill, Xenophon amongst them, but also Plato, Thukydides has Perikles actually praise them for their Corinthian attitude (true amateur )!

You are right that we do know more about the Spartan army but we also know that no other Greek army was like it until the 370’s at least, so to graft Spartan organisation onto another state would be perverse.

“Asklepiodotos says that the ‘dimoirites’ was an officer when the file was twelve strong (2.ii) so he is not thinking of the Macedonian file of sixteen. The situation in Babylon 323, was, indeed extraordinary; the Macedonian element of Alexander’s army had been reduced by three-quarters and he had been forced to cobble together an impromptu formation. The reason for the Macedonians’ increased pay is not to be sought in their former ranks, but rather in his need to palliate not only the distaste of serving with barbarians, these men had just mutinied over Iranian creep into the army, but also to offset the golden handshake he had given those departing with Krateros.”

Ascepiodotus is almost certainly making an artificial distinction, to explain the two different terms. Both Arrian[6.] and Aelian[5.2] are definite that ‘hemilochites’ and ‘dimorites’ are synonymous terms for ‘half-file leader’ regardless of the size of file. ( I am a little surprised you should be so selective about the evidence you choose). Military terminology, as I have said before varied from time to time and place to place – thus Antigonid, Seleucid and Ptolemaic armies used different terminology for units and ranks etc

I am not in the least bit surprised at the evidence you choose to reject; we know that each Tactician was picking and choosing from an archetype, probably Poseidonios, so that one might choose to drop or include different elements, of all three Asklepiodotos would seem to be adding the least. Aelian seems the fullest, but we know that he did not reproduce everything since Xenophon who occurs in Arrian and the Lexicon is absent from Aelian. Looks like you dismiss his evidence purely because it does not suit, naughty.

Yes Abreas is a dimoirites, but he is not said to be a half-file leader, more likely he is the second man in the file (the leading epistates) which is, indeed the position of the dimoirites in the mixed phalanx of Arrian VII 23 iii

κατέλεγεν αὐτοὺς ἐς τὰς Μακεδονικὰς τάξεις, δεκαδάρχην μὲν τῆς δεκάδος ἡγεῖσθαι Μακεδόνα καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ διμοιρίτην Μακεδόνα καὶ δεκαστάτηρον, οὕτως ὀνομαζόμενον ἀπὸ τῆς μισθοφορᾶς, ἥντινα μείονα μὲν τοῦ διμοιρίτου, πλείονα δὲ τῶν οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ στρατευομένων ἔφερεν:

The final phrase also explains why the dekastateroi are on a pay scale between the dimoirites and the common soldiers, they had ‘served with honour’.

“Enomotiai are used solely in a Spartan context, with the possible exception of the Taktikeis, so your point is simply wrong. With reference to the Spartans, Xenophon would seem to imply that they had commanders at the third and sixth part of a file as well as at the head, which makes your proposed evolutions impossible if we are to accept Thukydides statement (III 68 iii) that the depth of the Spartan line was up to the individual lochagos, as the only shift they could make would be to half their depth from twelve to six.”

‘Possible’ exception ? As I said earlier, enomotia originally meant simply a ‘sworn band’. In Spartan service, it was a sub-unit of the lochos, whose number varied with how many age-groups were called out. Since we know so little, as you have pointed out, about the military organisations of Greek city states, there is no reason to suppose that ‘enomotia’ occurred solely in a Spartan context, especially as the manuals refer to at least two other meanings - files and/or quarter files.

‘Possible’ because whilst I think the manuals are garbling the Spartan system, I tend not to think my opinions are cast in stone.

Your reference to Xenophon is, I take it, to “Constitution of the Lacedaemonians” XI.4, where we have an enomotia performing drill similar to the ‘dinner drill’. An enomotia of 36 are described as being drawn “...drawn up at the word of command in single file, sometimes in threes [i.e. 3 files x 12 deep, in open order] and sometimes in sixes...”[ i.e 6 x 6 deep in close order]...”and the depth of the phalanx[but not its frontage] is increased or diminished." Incidently, the word for file-leaders here is ‘paragogai’

I do not know which translation you are using but I suggest you turn it sideways and hang it in the dunny. In 11 iv there is only

ἐκ δὲ τούτων τῶν μορῶν διὰ παρεγγυήσεως καθίστανται τοτὲ μὲν εἰς ... ἐνωμοτίας, τοτὲ δὲ εἰς τρεῖς, τοτὲ δὲ εἰς ἕξ.

And these morai are drawn up, by the passing on of the word of command by enomotiai, either in [single] file or by threes or sixes.

No mention at all of whether they are in loose or close order, nor are moving from one state to the other being described but how they may initially have been marshalled, so no similarity to the ‘Dinner Drill’....”and the depth of the phalanx[but not its frontage] is increased or diminished." I presume this is a free translation from verse 6

οὕτω δὲ ῥᾴδιον ταύτην τὴν τάξιν μαθεῖν ὡς ὅστις τοὺς ἀνθρώπους δύναται γιγνώσκειν οὐδεὶς ἂν ἁμάρτοι: τοῖς μὲν γὰρ ἡγεῖσθαι δέδοται, τοῖς δὲ ἕπεσθαι τέτακται. αἱ δὲ παραγωγαὶ ὥσπερ ὑπὸ κήρυκος ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐνωμοτάρχου λόγῳ δηλοῦνται καὶ ἀραιαί τε καὶ βαθύτεραι αἱ φάλαγγες γίγνονται: ὧν οὐδὲν οὐδ᾽ ὁπωστιοῦν χαλεπὸν μαθεῖν.
[6] The formation is so easy to understand that no one who knows man from man can possibly go wrong. For some have the privilege of leading; and the rest are under orders to follow. Orders to wheel from column into line of battle are given verbally by the second lieutenant acting as a herald, and the line is formed either thin or deep, by wheeling. Nothing whatever in these movements is difficult to understand..

Oops, no mention of frontages at all, nor are the ‘paragogai’, file leaders this words does not refer to any of the soldiers at all, it means ‘by the act of leading by’ if you like it is the gerund of ‘paragein’ which Bowerstock above translates as ‘wheeling’ but Aelian, in Devine’s translation as ‘moving in formation’ it has no relationship to ‘parembolein’ which is to interject the rear files. Incidently the word used for the file-leaders is in verse 5 and is οἱ πρωτοστάται protostatai. Why is the phalanx thick or thin? Because the lochagos, according to Thukydides could decide how deep he wished to set his men six deep/thin or twelve deep/thick.

You did, inadvertently I am sure say something that brought an epiphany; this was that the enomotia ‘In Spartan service, it was a sub-unit of the lochos’. Thuk. V 68 has the Spartan system progress by fours, four enomotiai to a pentekostyes and four of those to a lochos; miss out the pentekostyes and we get four enomotiai to a lochos which a Hellenistic polymath could mistake for the contemporary ‘lochos’ or file, thus four enomotiai to a file means enomotai are quarter files. But what about ‘dimoirites’? Well, I toyed with confusion between the four lochoi in a mora and it is possible but there is an awful lot of confusion here already.

”. No, I don’t think that the Phliasians had 10 man files ( though it is not impossible), but rather just as ‘dekadarch’ meant generic file-leader, regardless of file number, so ‘pampadarch’ no longer meant ‘leader of five’ but rather generic ‘half-file leader’, and since it would be awkward to delegate one man in five if they weren’t organised in tens, which you firmly assert, it makes more sense that the group in question is “one man from every half-file

Dekadarch never meant a ‘generic file-leader’ it specifically referred to the leader of a Macedonian dekas or a real file of ten. That Philios, a pretty minor state would have a more organised militia than the Spartan army is pure fantasy – fifty men were given guard duty and out of them ten performed the day watch – simples.

If you can find where I have said that the Kyrou Paideia is anything other than a work of fiction please do, so the lecture is another wild shot, though interesting enough.

I won’t rise to charges of anachronism, how different do you think Cyrus the Great’s Persians would have been from Dareios I’s? This is a fantastic work in any case, maybe I should have chosen Orcs!! I merely picked from what was available on the web and wanted to make it clear that we are NOT dealing with hoplites but Xenophon’s dream Persians.

I made the dekadarchs outside the ranks because the officers multiply with the units in other Xenphon passages (yes, Lak.Pol. 4) so it seemed reasonable that Xenophon would be thinking four, lochagoi, eight Dekadarchoi, and sixteen pempadarchoi (note pEmp, rather than pAmp) once that is decided there is no other way as the pempadarchoi clearly require commands of the same size. It also fitted with the progression 1, 2, 4 files with a different level of command in line. Other interpretations may work but once you have spent half a day creating the scheme and another trying to get the forum to accept it tinkering is not an option.

In your version each file has to distance itself from its neighbour and when the correct spacing has been achieved along the line the Taxiarch calls the rear file to interject, leaving aside the point that ‘paragein’ does not mean this, this calls for finer judgement than my version where the gaps develop between the units and are therefore easier to see as they are themselves larger. The idea of keeping your station by sticking out an arm encumbered with a heavy shield or armed with a spear is certainly quaint, and re-enactors use it without kit (there is a new article on an experimental hoplite drill on academia.com, by the way, it was a bit like Athenian training day though, only twenty people turned up and six of those were only there to film their mates!)

Worse still, you have surmised this based on, dare I say it, incorrect translation. You translate:
“...pempadarchs came by the flank to form four [files];” but I have not seen ‘paragon’ translated as ‘flank’ in any translation I can find, nor in the LSJ where it means “lead up by the side” or “lead up beside” and in a military context, “march the men up from the side, bring them from column into line,”[LSJ, quoting this very passage]This meaning also denies your incomplete ‘checkerboard’ front line of just ‘dekadarchs’ alternating with gaps. Which reminds me, in the Cyropaedia, these file-leaders lead files of 12 ( just like Spartans! ), not 10 – see reference above.

LOL! You ought to know that the side is generally called the flank in military contexts, I feel sure the non-military historian Bosworth would, but that is then capped by making a noun from a verb, ‘paragein’ . What reference is the statement that these Persian lochoi are 12 strong, I can only find it in the notes and it stems from the translator making the pempadarch stand outside their commands so that they each command five men and the dekadarch twelve, if there is no statement to the contrary by Xenophon then my solution is to be preferred

I appreciate the tedium of drawing all those figures, I drew a diagram first but found my scanner to be as much use as the proverbial one-legged man.

[agesilaos]

Lochagos' Log Supplemental

A while back I said that only Aelian mentions ‘half-file closers’; the case has changed pause for suspenseful music (Dial A for Aelian? Think I’d go for Shadow of a Doubt!).

I now have the new Aelian by Christopher Matthew which is Greek facing English an English translation, an App. Crit at the back and a commentary and concordance with Arrian and Asklepiodotos. As you might imagine I have not been this excited since I discovered Sainsbury’s do 2 litres of drinkable cider for £2, aah, happy days.

So I skipped through to the mention of half-file closers in Devine’s translation, 5 iv, to have a look at the Greek for what Devine translates as

5.4 (5.5 K)(20) It is necessary for the file leader and the file closer to excel the others in quality, and after them the commanders of the half files and then the half file closers likewise.

And Matthews as

The file-leader should excel all other men in the file in bravery and then, after him, should come the dimorites and the ouragos.

Well, the first thing I thought was ‘dimorites’ rather than ‘dimoirites’ thet means ‘mora’ rather than ‘moira’ and ‘mora’ is a Spartan regiment oh joy more evidence of muddled Laconism, so I looked to the Greek and read

Dei de ton lochagon [kai ton ouragon] diapherein twn allwn. Meta de toutous hdh tous twn hemilochiwn wsper ouragos.

No ‘dimorites’ at all! But those square brackets revealed that the words contained therein do not appear in two of the manuscripts, which if one substitutes the actual hemilochites of the MSS for Matthews’ ‘dimorites’ the ‘half-file closer’ vanishes in a puff of manuscript tradition. Capital F why had Devine translated as he had? Well he was working from the MS with the words in brackets included so, to him, there were two pairs, the file-leader (lochagos) and the file-closer (ouragos) and the half-file leader (hemilochites) and the half-file closer (also the ouragos so special name for the alleged half-file closer).

So what ought to be an important position, as important as the ouragos of a full file does not seem to exist at all; half-file leaders do, we know of occasions when the phalanx fought eight deep, Issos being the clearest but this was an option rather than the norm so the ranking of the sixteen man file is file-leader, second man (who becomes the file leader if he falls) then the hemilochites and ouragos equally.

[Xenophon]

Agesilaos wrote:

Well you have your comminitas and I ‘ll have mine with Hans van Wees (Greek Warfare: Myth and Realities, 2004), Philip Sabin, idem and Michael Whitby (Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, Vol 1, 2007) and Victor Hanson Davis (The Western Way of War, 1989). I only nag because you use the alleged communis opinion as a supporting point and others may be impressed, for my part you could have God, Bhudda and Lemmy on your side and I would remain impassive (well maybe not if you had Lemmy).

Well, if you are unimpressed by God, Buddha etc, then I am singularly unimpressed by these gentry, in fact I shall borrow your colourful phrase and say of the works of Van Wees and V.D. Hanson “I suggest you turn it sideways and hang it in the dunny.” So far as technical military matters are concerned. Philip Sabin is sound, but his field is really Roman rather than Greek and I am not familiar with Whitby. Have any of these produced commentaries or analyses on the ‘technike tactika’ ? Have any offered up a better explanation of the mechanics of the phalanx ? I am not aware of any, andI note that so far, you have not either.

Still you are right that a hypothesis should stand on its own merits rather than popularity, and as I said, I agree with you that “a bad opinion held by everyone to be true is still a bad opinion”.


The fact remains that the system of forming up in files in ‘open’ order, followed by closing up by half-files to fight applies to both Hoplite and Macedonian phalanxes, and this is consistent with all the source information we have, and no-one in the last 40 years has offered a more probable alternative.

Agesilaos wrote:

“Quite right lower ranks are rarely mentioned, in Athens we know of no rank below ‘taxiarch’, which signifies the commander of one of the tribal taxeis of 1,000, nor is Athens under-represented in the literature or epigraphy, we know the name for the lowest level of rowers, for instance yet there is no evidence for the level of command necessary for the evolutions you claim were common place."

This argument isn't logical. Do we know the names of each bank of rowers in Corinthian or other Greek fleets? No; this is just due to the randomness of the sources that have survived. Even though the Spartans were "secretive" about their military arrangements, ironically and paradoxically, we know more (though not all) about them than the armies of all the other Greek city states put together!

Sigh, the argument is logical, you just cannot see its logic, an entirely different matter; let me walk you through it.

You are right I cannot see its logic, because it is illogical ! Let me give an example of simple logic:

1) A =B
2) B=C
From which we can logically deduce
3) A=C

New information is deduced from earlier information that is linked, called a ‘chain of logic’.
Your three pieces of information are completely unrelated, with no links or logic chain at all, and part is mistaken anyway!
Notes in parentheses are mine.

1) Athenian culture is the best represented in both the literature and epigraphy of the fourth and fifth centuries. [but is still fragmentary at best]
2) We know much about the lower tiers of society [ say rather a little, and officers etc of the phalanx did not commonly come from the lower tiers of society anyway]
3) Yet in the whole of this mass there is not one reference to an infantry commander below the level of taxiarch [ nor any reference even to that level in our sources for, say, the Corinthian army. Do you conclude from that, that the Corinthian army had no officers or leaders at all?
Nor do we have a ‘mass’ of information about the Athenian army – quite the opposite. Not least because Xenophon was writing for an audience familiar with phalanx mechanics. As we shall see, this statement is inaccurate anyway, for there ARE references to ranks below 'Taxiarch']

Conclusion it would seem likely that the Athenians did not organise below this level, of course they lined up in files, but there was no formal structure therein. And many authors do bemoan the Athenians’ unwillingness to drill, Xenophon amongst them, but also Plato, Thukydides has Perikles actually praise them for their Corinthian attitude (true amateur )!
[an illogical conclusion for absence of evidence, as everyone knows, is not evidence of absence]

A more logical chain would be:
1) Xenophon is our sole surviving source regarding technical information on the hoplite phalanx.
2) Xenophon tells us much about Spartan military practises, but very little about Athenian ones.
Therefore:
3) We know very little about Athenian military practises and ‘technike tactike’

References please for the alleged Athenian unwillingness to drill ? Thucydides[II.34 et seq] for example has Pericles claim that the Athenian army was superior to the Spartan in his famous Funeral Oration speech without “laborious training”( the infamous agoge) – and certainly doesn’t refer to drill at all.

Nor were the Athenians ‘true amateurs’. Just as with many modern army conscripts, the ‘ephebes’ were called up at 18 for two years full-time training, though I’ll acknowledge we don’t know for certain when this was instituted.

Furthermore, it must be evident to anyone that a single officer/taxiarch cannot command as many as 1,000 or so men – not even on a parade ground, let alone a battlefield. Sub-units and their officers below the rank of taxiarch must have existed in the Athenian (and other Greek) phalanxes – including Phliasians.

With that in mind I did some in-depth research which took some time, off the ‘beaten track’ so to speak, and found a number of references to Athenian sub-units and officers!! So Agesilaos’ statement number 3) above is incorrect.

We know that the Athenian army was organised into ten ‘tribal’ taxeis, which contained sub-units of ‘lochoi’ [ Herodotus IX.21.3 refers to the Athenian lochagos Olympiodorus, son of Lampon; and Aristophanes[“Acharnians” 575] also refers to Athenian lochoi and lochagoi who wear crests]. There is also a reference to ‘enomotia’ as well [ The Acharnai oath, lines 25-27 – which probably related to Marathon rather than Plataea....oh, and demonstrates contra Agesilaos’ assertion, that it was likely not just the Spartans who were organised into ‘sworn bands’/enomotia.]

Other versions of Athenian oaths refer to ‘hegemones/leaders’(plural) showing that there were clearly officers of sub-units below the Taxiarch.( In the manuals 'hegemon' can even refer to a file leader)
Xenophon too makes many references to non-Spartan (mostly mercenary) lochoi and lochagoi, making it clear, as we would expect, that all hoplte phalanxes had a sub-unit structure, not just Spartan ones, as some assert.


Agesilaos wrote:

“Asklepiodotos says that the ‘dimoirites’ was an officer when the file was twelve strong (2.ii) so he is not thinking of the Macedonian file of sixteen. The situation in Babylon 323, was, indeed extraordinary; the Macedonian element of Alexander’s army had been reduced by three-quarters and he had been forced to cobble together an impromptu formation. The reason for the Macedonians’ increased pay is not to be sought in their former ranks, but rather in his need to palliate not only the distaste of serving with barbarians, these men had just mutinied over Iranian creep into the army, but also to offset the golden handshake he had given those departing with Krateros.”

Ascepiodotus is almost certainly making an artificial distinction, to explain the two different terms. Both Arrian[6.] and Aelian[5.2] are definite that ‘hemilochites’ and ‘dimorites’ are synonymous terms for ‘half-file leader’ regardless of the size of file. ( I am a little surprised you should be so selective about the evidence you choose). Military terminology, as I have said before varied from time to time and place to place – thus Antigonid, Seleucid and Ptolemaic armies used different terminology for units and ranks etc

I am not in the least bit surprised at the evidence you choose to reject; we know that each Tactician was picking and choosing from an archetype, probably Poseidonios, so that one might choose to drop or include different elements, of all three Asklepiodotos would seem to be adding the least. Aelian seems the fullest, but we know that he did not reproduce everything since Xenophon who occurs in Arrian and the Lexicon is absent from Aelian. Looks like you dismiss his evidence purely because it does not suit, naughty.

I did not ‘reject’ or ‘dismiss’ any evidence, merely pointing out that there was more which you neglected to mention,rather than select just one from three - “naughty” yourself ! All three versions agree that ‘dimoirites’ means half-file leader. ( see references in previous posts passim)

Yes Abreas is a dimoirites, but he is not said to be a half-file leader, more likely he is the second man in the file (the leading epistates) which is, indeed the position of the dimoirites in the mixed phalanx of Arrian VII 23 iii

“More likely?” This hybrid phalanx may never have existed,and if it did, it was briefly, in what you describe as an “extraordinary” situation. In any event the question is what the ‘dimoirites’ did in the original phalanx before this, as I have mentioned previously? It was certainly NOT second man in the file, for Abreas is mentioned before the hybrid mixed file came into existence. The answer must surely be, as all three manuals attest, that the ‘dimoirites’ was the half-file leader.


Also, this argument is invalid – one could equally say “Yes, Jones is a corporal, but he is not said to be a section-leader” in a modern context, but of course Corporal Jones commands a section.



Agesilaos wrote:

“Enomotiai are used solely in a Spartan context, with the possible exception of the Taktikeis, so your point is simply wrong. With reference to the Spartans, Xenophon would seem to imply that they had commanders at the third and sixth part of a file as well as at the head, which makes your proposed evolutions impossible if we are to accept Thukydides statement (III 68 iii) that the depth of the Spartan line was up to the individual lochagos, as the only shift they could make would be to half their depth from twelve to six.”

‘Possible’ exception ? As I said earlier, enomotia originally meant simply a ‘sworn band’. In Spartan service, it was a sub-unit of the lochos, whose number varied with how many age-groups were called out. Since we know so little, as you have pointed out, about the military organisations of Greek city states, there is no reason to suppose that ‘enomotia’ occurred solely in a Spartan context, especially as the manuals refer to at least two other meanings - files and/or quarter files.

‘Possible’ because whilst I think the manuals are garbling the Spartan system, I tend not to think my opinions are cast in stone.

As I referred to above, there is a reference to likely Athenian ‘enomotia’...so not being cast in stone, you can amend your view.

Your reference to Xenophon is, I take it, to “Constitution of the Lacedaemonians” XI.4, where we have an enomotia performing drill similar to the ‘dinner drill’. An enomotia of 36 are described as being drawn “...drawn up at the word of command in single file, sometimes in threes [i.e. 3 files x 12 deep, in open order] and sometimes in sixes...”[ i.e 6 x 6 deep in close order]...”and the depth of the phalanx[but not its frontage] is increased or diminished." Incidently, the word for file-leaders here is ‘paragogai’

I do not know which translation you are using but I suggest you turn it sideways and hang it in the dunny.

It is the Loeb translation, which seems to me little different to the one you propose.

Agesilaos wrote:

In 11 iv there is only

ἐκ δὲ τούτων τῶν μορῶν διὰ παρεγγυήσεως καθίστανται τοτὲ μὲν εἰς ... ἐνωμοτίας, τοτὲ δὲ εἰς τρεῖς, τοτὲ δὲ εἰς ἕξ.

And these morai are drawn up, by the passing on of the word of command by enomotiai, either in [single] file or by threes or sixes.


No mention at all of whether they are in loose or close order, nor are moving from one state to the other being described but how they may initially have been marshalled, so no similarity to the ‘Dinner Drill’....”and the depth of the phalanx[but not its frontage] is increased or diminished." I presume this is a free translation from verse 6

How else do you think an enomotia, which you know to be drawn up in files, forms single file, threes and sixes ? And does so in a fashion which alters its depth ? How can this be done without “moving from one state to another”? Realistically, this can only be as per my notes in parentheses, which is not only consistent with the ‘dinner drill’ but also the phalanx formation at Leuctra.
Agesilaos wrote:

οὕτω δὲ ῥᾴδιον ταύτην τὴν τάξιν μαθεῖν ὡς ὅστις τοὺς ἀνθρώπους δύναται γιγνώσκειν οὐδεὶς ἂν ἁμάρτοι: τοῖς μὲν γὰρ ἡγεῖσθαι δέδοται, τοῖς δὲ ἕπεσθαι τέτακται. αἱ δὲ παραγωγαὶ ὥσπερ ὑπὸ κήρυκος ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐνωμοτάρχου λόγῳ δηλοῦνται καὶ ἀραιαί τε καὶ βαθύτεραι αἱ φάλαγγες γίγνονται: ὧν οὐδὲν οὐδ᾽ ὁπωστιοῦν χαλεπὸν μαθεῖν.
[6] The formation is so easy to understand that no one who knows man from man can possibly go wrong. For some have the privilege of leading; and the rest are under orders to follow. Orders to wheel from column into line of battle are given verbally by the second lieutenant acting as a herald, and the line is formed either thin or deep, by wheeling.Nothing whatever in these movements is difficult to understand..

Oops, no mention of frontages at all, nor are the ‘paragogai’, file leaders this words does not refer to any of the soldiers at all, it means ‘by the act of leading by’ if you like it is the gerund of ‘paragein’ which Bowerstock above translates as ‘wheeling’ but Aelian, in Devine’s translation as ‘moving in formation’ it has no relationship to ‘parembolein’ which is to interject the rear files. Incidently the word used for the file-leaders is in verse 5 and is οἱ πρωτοστάται protostatai. Why is the phalanx thick or thin? Because the lochagos, according to Thukydides could decide how deep he wished to set his men six deep/thin or twelve deep/thick.

A Spartan ‘enomotia’ could number between 32 and 40, depending on age groups called up, and is evidently 36 here. ‘Threes’ must be 3 files of 12, and ‘sixes’ are six (half)files of 6. It is simple to realise that the frontages must be 1, 3 and 6, so no need to specifically mention them for it would be an unnecessary duplication..

You are quite correct regarding ‘paragogai’ which means leading by or up, as you say ( as in the dinner drill, referring to a file or half-file being led up alongside its neighbour). I meant to write ‘Protostatai’, but for some reason it came out wrong – ‘brain freeze’ moment ! ( Now corrected)

Thucydides describing Mantinea [V.68] does indeed suggest that each Spartan lochagoi could set his own depth – as I suggested earlier, necessary to ‘fit’ the unit frontage into an available space, but despite this there would be no problems ‘closing up’ using the file/half-file system. However you are wrong to refer to depths of six or twelve, which are not mentioned by Thucydides. ( he says they averaged 8 deep)

You did, inadvertently I am sure say something that brought an epiphany; this was that the enomotia ‘In Spartan service, it was a sub-unit of the lochos’. Thuk. V 68 has the Spartan system progress by fours, four enomotiai to a pentekostyes and four of those to a lochos; miss out the pentekostyes and we get four enomotiai to a lochos which a Hellenistic polymath could mistake for the contemporary ‘lochos’ or file, thus four enomotiai to a file means enomotai are quarter files. But what about ‘dimoirites’? Well, I toyed with confusion between the four lochoi in a mora and it is possible but there is an awful lot of confusion here already.

That would appear to be drawing a long bow. Don’t forget there was also Xenophon, who is mentioned in the manuals ( Thucydides is not). Thucydides, who admits he has trouble finding out about Spartan organisation, leaves out the ‘Mora/regiment’ thus halving actual Spartan numbers. Xenophon has enomotia, and also refers to pentekostyes, and it is hard to imagine our hypothetical Hellenistic polymath making the same mistake twice, over two different authors. Also, Xenophon’s organisation is to be preferred to Thucydides. The latter admits he has difficulty finding out about Spartan military matters, while the former served in the Spartan army.

Agesilaos wrote:

”. No, I don’t think that the Phliasians had 10 man files ( though it is not impossible), but rather just as ‘dekadarch’ meant generic file-leader, regardless of file number, so ‘pampadarch’ no longer meant ‘leader of five’ but rather generic ‘half-file leader’, and since it would be awkward to delegate one man in five if they weren’t organised in tens, which you firmly assert, it makes more sense that the group in question is “one man from every half-file”

Dekadarch never meant a ‘generic file-leader’ it specifically referred to the leader of a Macedonian dekas or a real file of ten. That Philios, a pretty minor state would have a more organised militia than the Spartan army is pure fantasy – fifty men were given guard duty and out of them ten performed the day watch – simples.

This is just plain wrong. A ‘dekadarch’ may have led an archaic file of ten originally in the mists of time, but in Xenophon’s time he leads a file of 8 or 12. [ see my previous post and this one] and in a Macedonian phalanx, a file of 16 ( Arrian). Where are you getting “more organised militia than the Spartan Army” from? The implication is only that the Phliasians had ‘files’ and ‘half-files’, just as in other phalanxes, and the drill for that can be taught in 5 minutes flat. General deployment is more difficult, yet every city-state army had to be able to do it.
Agesilaos wrote:

If you can find where I have said that the Kyrou Paideia is anything other than a work of fiction please do, so the lecture is another wild shot, though interesting enough.

The ‘lecture’ as you call it is not for those knowledgeable, but is rather by way of an explanation for those readers ( apparently in the dozens!) who may not be quite so familiar with our sources.

Agesilaos wrote:

I won’t rise to charges of anachronism, how different do you think Cyrus the Great’s Persians would have been from Dareios I’s? This is a fantastic work in any case, maybe I should have chosen Orcs!! I merely picked from what was available on the web and wanted to make it clear that we are NOT dealing with hoplites but Xenophon’s dream Persians.

No ‘charge’ at all....I realise you used what was available on the web, and as I said, they are at least correctly armed as for real Persians, ( although in court dress rather than battle dress). Did you not check the reference I gave ? Xenophon’s ‘fictional’ Persians ARE hoplites, armed with ‘hopla’/heavy infantry gear specifically for hand-to-hand combat. [This ‘hopla’ includes shield, armour, and hand-to-hand weapons. Their previous bows and javelins are abandoned. The fictional Cyrus re-arms them right at the start] In addition to which, as I pointed out, from their actions they are clearly in reality Greeks, and the fictional Cyrus' social structure is that of Sparta.



Agesilaos wrote:

Worse still, you have surmised this based on, dare I say it, incorrect translation. You translate:
“...pempadarchs came by the flank to form four [files];” but I have not seen ‘paragon’ translated as ‘flank’ in any translation I can find, nor in the LSJ where it means “lead up by the side” or “lead up beside” and in a military context, “march the men up from the side, bring them from column into line,”[LSJ, quoting this very passage]This meaning also denies your incomplete ‘checkerboard’ front line of just ‘dekadarchs’ alternating with gaps. Which reminds me, in the Cyropaedia, these file-leaders lead files of 12 ( just like Spartans! ), not 10 – see references above and below.

LOL! You ought to know that the side is generally called the flank in military contexts, I feel sure the non-military historian Bosworth would, but that is then capped by making a noun from a verb, ‘paragein’ . What reference is the statement that these Persian lochoi are 12 strong, I can only find it in the notes and it stems from the translator making the pempadarch stand outside their commands so that they each command five men and the dekadarch twelve, if there is no statement to the contrary by Xenophon then my solution is to be preferred

I don’t think so. ‘Flank’ in a military context has a very specific connotation - there are only two flanks,– left and right, and they refer to space beyond the body of a unit or army. ‘side’ or ‘beside’ has a much broader meaning, including the sides of individual files.
I have often suspected that you have not read properly, or misunderstood what I post. I actually gave the reference in the‘Cyropaedia’ in the previous post. As a penance, I should make you go back and read my post more carefully to find it ! Oh.....alright then, I’ll make life easy for you. It is II.4.4 : “And when they arrived at Cyaxares's doors, he ordered the first taxiarchos to draw up his company twelve deep, while the file leaders were to take their places on the front line about the king's headquarters. He bade him transmit the same orders to the second captain, and so on to all the rest......”

Cyrus’ hoplites also form up in files 12 deep for their battle with Croesus [VI.3.21] where the ‘lochoi’ 24 strong form up in ‘twos’ i.e. 2 files of 12.

The hoplites of the fictional Cyrus in the "Cyropaedia" consistently form up in files 12 deep, just like contemporary Spartan practise, and the file leaders are 'dekadarchs'.

[Xenophon]

Agesilaos wrote:

A while back I said that only Aelian mentions ‘half-file closers’; the case has changed pause for suspenseful music (Dial A for Aelian? Think I’d go for Shadow of a Doubt!).

I now have the new Aelian by Christopher Matthew which is Greek facing English an English translation, an App. Crit at the back and a commentary and concordance with Arrian and Asklepiodotos. As you might imagine I have not been this excited since I discovered Sainsbury’s do 2 litres of drinkable cider for £2, aah, happy days.

Firstly, I have had communication with Christopher Matthew in the past. He is a Sydney academic and re-enactor, and his ideas about how hoplite mechanics worked are frankly bizarre !! His writings on the subject wouldn’t even make my dunny wall.
His only value is in providing the Greek.....

Oh, and here in Queensland one can get 5 litre casks of quite drinkable red or white wine for 6 pounds – we have a glut of wine, and it is cheaper than supermarket bottled water at 2 pounds 20p per litre !!

So I skipped through to the mention of half-file closers in Devine’s translation, 5 iv, to have a look at the Greek for what Devine translates as

5.4 (5.5 K)(20) It is necessary for the file leader and the file closer to excel the others in quality, and after them the commanders of the half files and then the half file closers likewise.


And Matthews as


The file-leader should excel all other men in the file in bravery and then, after him, should come the dimorites and the ouragos.


Well, the first thing I thought was ‘dimorites’ rather than ‘dimoirites’ thet means ‘mora’ rather than ‘moira’ and ‘mora’ is a Spartan regiment oh joy more evidence of muddled Laconism,

....that doesn’t follow at all! ‘dimorites’, ‘dimoirites’ and ‘dimoerites’ are just alternate spellings of the transliteration from the Greek, and nothing to do with ‘mora’....there is absolutely no evidence whatever of ‘muddled Laconism’ in the manuals.

so I looked to the Greek and read


Dei de ton lochagon [kai ton ouragon] diapherein twn allwn. Meta de toutous hdh tous twn hemilochiwn wsper ouragos.


No ‘dimorites’ at all! But those square brackets revealed that the words contained therein do not appear in two of the manuscripts, which if one substitutes the actual hemilochites of the MSS for Matthews’ ‘dimorites’ the ‘half-file closer’ vanishes in a puff of manuscript tradition. Capital F why had Devine translated as he had? Well he was working from the MS with the words in brackets included so, to him, there were two pairs, the file-leader (lochagos) and the file-closer (ouragos) and the half-file leader (hemilochites) and the half-file closer (also the ouragos so special name for the alleged half-file closer).

So what ought to be an important position, as important as the ouragos of a full file does not seem to exist at all; half-file leaders do, we know of occasions when the phalanx fought eight deep, Issos being the clearest but this was an option rather than the norm so the ranking of the sixteen man file is file-leader, second man (who becomes the file leader if he falls) then the hemilochites and ouragos equally.

This is another example of looking at evidence in isolation. Aelian has told us just a few lines earlier [5.2] “Two enomotia/quarter-files are called a ‘dimoiria’ and its commander a ‘dimoirites’ so that the half-file/hemilochion is also termed a dimoiria and the half-file leader/hemilochites a dimoirites.” ......so there is no significance to the fact that the manuscript Matthew is working from says ‘hemilochites’. It is also evident that this manuscript is different from the one Devine has used - which may have 'dimoirites'. In fact, there are many manuscripts of Aelian and it seems that the majority include [kai ton ouragon] which gives rise to the second mention of ‘ouragos’referring to ‘half-file closer’. It seems more likely that a phrase which might appear to some as a duplicate has been deleted in two versions, rather than added to the majority of surviving versions.
In any event this minor point cannot be unravelled without some serious manuscript research.

However, I am pleased to note that you now accept that half and quarter-files ( necessary to form ‘close order’ and ‘locked shields, even if we weren’t specifically told of them in the manuals) existed, and that these formations were formed by reducing the depth.

But there is no evidence for your assertion that a fighting formation 8 deep was merely an "option". All the evidence we have from Xenophon to the manuals is consistent for both hoplite and Macedonian phalanxes, and points to 'closing up' to half-depth to fight in 'pyknosis'. Which means 8 deep is not merely an option, but is in fact the norm.

[Xenophon]

Agesilaos wrote:

In your version each file has to distance itself from its neighbour and when the correct spacing has been achieved along the line the Taxiarch calls the rear file to interject, leaving aside the point that ‘paragein’ does not mean this, this calls for finer judgement than my version where the gaps develop between the units and are therefore easier to see as they are themselves larger. The idea of keeping your station by sticking out an arm encumbered with a heavy shield or armed with a spear is certainly quaint, and re-enactors use it without kit

In drill, keeping the right distance from your fellows is called 'dressing'. This can be done by forming up 'shoulder-to-shoulder' ( close order) or doubling this by being 'arms-length' apart ( open order) The idea of keeping station this way is not 'quaint', it has been done since time immemorial, and is still done in ALL modern armies this way. Why ? Because the 'arms-length' is the only measuring device available to each soldier. Ranks of even a few dozen men quickly lose their spacing when performing drill - though this can be reduced by having well-trained, experienced men, and the need to 'dress' is frequent - just watch any 'trooping of the colour' ceremony. Larger intervals than 'arms length/open order' simply cannot be maintained, and so any method, such as yours, that requires this is quite impractical.
Any hoplite who couldn't hold his spear vertically at arms-length wouldn't be worth his place on the field. Try holding a spade or garden fork in this manner and you'll see how ridiculously easy it is.
In looking at such matters, an ounce of practicality is worth pounds of abstract theory.

[agesilaos]

try doing it with a sarissa; an ounce of abstract thought seems worthwhile after all.

I'll get to the rest in time; obviously I have not got the references on the tip of my tongue; you were quite right I missed the reference to II 4, i saw book II and my brain saw 3. 29, the passage we have been discussing the most, literally an oversight.

[Xenophon]

Easy-peasy ! Connolly's very credible reconstruction of a sarissa ( see my post 5 June on the Kynoskephalai thread) weighed 4.05 kg/8.9 lb - an easy weight to hold at arm's length for a short time, which leaves the matter of balance. The sarissa balance point was roughly 6 ft from the bottom of the shaft, so holding it single handed vertically would be no problem. In addition, in the case of both 'dory' and 'sarissa' the butt could be rested on the ground ( picture all those movie 'guards' at portals standing at ease, arm extended) making the task even easier........

I have, many years ago, made and wielded a Connolly type sarissa, and it is remarkable with what ease it can be readily moved about - quite unlike Markle's clumsy 'barge poles'.......

I sympathise with your own 'brain freeze' moment - witness my writing 'paragoge' when I meant 'protostates'.... let us hope these are not the vanguard of 'senior moments'!Fortunately we have each other as 'back-up' to correct such things

Please take your time in considering your response.....I need much time myself to address matters on the Kynoskephalae thread, where once again you and Paralus have raced ahead !!

[agesilaos]

Vanguard? I fear I'm well into the main battle!

I want to start off the Magnesia thread so I'll get on with that; speaking of senior moments, I have found the battle field on Google Earth and I know I posted from there when we were discussing Nora but now I cannot remember how to import the picture Can you remember?

[Paralus]

Bloody good question. Post a link instead?

[agesilaos]

Evidence for the Lack of Training in States other than Sparta

Several authors mention the lack of preparation and organisation in the generality of Greek states. Xenophon in ‘The Constitution of the Lakedaimonians’ 13 v

And so, could you watch the scene, you would think all other men mere improvisors in soldiering and the Lacedaemonians the only artists in warfare.
ὥστε ὁρῶν ταῦτα ἡγήσαιο ἂν τοὺς μὲν ἄλλους αὐτοσχεδιαστὰς εἶναι τῶν στρατιωτικῶν, Λακεδαιμονίους δὲ μόνους τῷ ὄντι τεχνίτας τῶν πολεμικῶν.

The word translated as ‘improvisors’ (αὐτοσχεδιαστὰς) should more properly be rendered as ‘bunglers’ or some such as it implies ‘action without thought’.

In the ‘Hellenika’ VI 1 v

[5]`Polydamas, that I could bring over your city, Pharsalus, even against its will, you may conclude from the following facts. You know,' he said, `that I have as allies the greater number and the largest of the cities of Thessaly; and I subdued them when you were with them in the field against me. Furthermore, you are aware that I have men of other states as mercenaries to the number of six thousand, with whom, as I think, no city could easily contend. As for numbers,' he said, `of course as great a force might march out of some other city also; but armies made up of citizens1 include men who are already advanced in years and others who have not yet come to their prime. Furthermore, in every city very few men train their bodies, but among my mercenaries no one serves unless he is able to endure as severe toils as I myself.'
5] ὅτι μέν, ὦ Πολυδάμα, καὶ ἄκουσαν τὴν ὑμετέραν πόλιν Φάρσαλον δυναίμην ἂν παραστήσασθαι ἔξεστί σοι ἐκ τῶνδε λογίζεσθαι. ἐγὼ γάρ, ἔφη, ἔχω μὲν Θετταλίας τὰς πλείστας καὶ μεγίστας πόλεις συμμάχους: κατεστρεψάμην δ᾽ αὐτὰς ὑμῶν σὺν αὐταῖς τὰ ἐναντία ἐμοὶ στρατευομένων. καὶ μὴν οἶσθά γε ὅτι ξένους ἔχω μισθοφόρους εἰς ἑξακισχιλίους, οἷς, ὡς ἐγὼ οἶμαι, οὐδεμία πόλις δύναιτ᾽ ἂν ῥᾳδίως μάχεσθαι. ἀριθμὸς μὲν γάρ, ἔφη, καὶ ἄλλοθεν οὐκ ἂν ἐλάττων ἐξέλθοι: ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν ἐκ τῶν πόλεων στρατεύματα τοὺς μὲν προεληλυθότας ἤδη ταῖς ἡλικίαις ἔχει, τοὺς δ᾽ οὔπω ἀκμάζοντας: σωμασκοῦσί γε μὴν μάλα ὀλίγοι τινὲς ἐν ἑκάστῃ πόλει: παρ᾽ ἐμοὶ δὲ οὐδεὶς μισθοφορεῖ, ὅστις μὴ ἱκανός ἐστιν ἐμοὶ ἴσα πονεῖν.

The speaker is supposedly Iason of Pherai but the attitudes are surely Xenophon’s, and in the next section we have Xenophon’s meaning of ’dimoirites’

] αὐτὸς δ᾽ ἐστί, λέγειν γὰρ χρὴ πρὸς ὑμᾶς τἀληθῆ, καὶ τὸ σῶμα μάλα εὔρωστος καὶ ἄλλως φιλόπονος. καὶ τοίνυν τῶν παρ᾽ αὐτῷ πεῖραν λαμβάνει καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν: ἡγεῖται γὰρ σὺν τοῖς ὅπλοις καὶ ἐν τοῖς γυμνασίοις καὶ ὅταν πῃ στρατεύηται. καὶ οὓς μὲν ἂν μαλακοὺς τῶν ξένων αἰσθάνηται, ἐκβάλλει, οὓς δ᾽ ἂν ὁρᾷ φιλοπόνως καὶ φιλοκινδύνως ἔχοντας πρὸς τοὺς πολέμους, τιμᾷ τοὺς μὲν διμοιρίαις, τοὺς δὲ τριμοιρίαις, τοὺς δὲ καὶ τετραμοιρίαις, καὶ ἄλλοις δώροις, καὶ νόσων γε θεραπείαις καὶ περὶ ταφὰς κόσμῳ: ὥστε πάντες ἴσασιν οἱ παρ᾽ ἐκείνῳ ξένοι ὅτι ἡ πολεμικὴ αὐτοῖς ἀρετὴ ἐντιμότατόν τε βίον καὶ ἀφθονώτατον παρέχεται.
6] And he himself — for I must tell you the truth — is exceedingly strong of body and a lover of toil besides. Indeed, he makes trial every day of the men under him, for in full armour he leads them, both on the parade-ground and whenever he is on a campaign anywhere. And whomsoever among his mercenaries he finds to be weaklings he casts out, but whomsoever he sees to be fond of toil and fond of the dangers of war he rewards, some with double pay, others with triple pay, others even with quadruple pay, and with gifts besides, as well as with care in sickness and magnificence in burial; so that all the mercenaries in his service know that martial prowess assures to them a life of greatest honour and abundance

Double- pay man.

Again in ‘Memorabilia’ III 5 we find

15]
“That means that it is a long march for our city to perfection. For when will Athenians show the Lacedaemonian reverence for age, seeing that they despise all their elders, beginning with their own fathers? When will they adopt the Lacedaemonian system of training, seeing that they not only neglect to make themselves fit, but mock at those who take the trouble to do so?
15] λέγεις, ἔφη, πόρρω που εἶναι τῇ πόλει τὴν καλοκαγαθίαν. πότε γὰρ οὕτως Ἀθηναῖοι ὥσπερ Λακεδαιμόνιοι ἢ πρεσβυτέρους αἰδέσονται, οἳ ἀπὸ τῶν πατέρων ἄρχονται καταφρονεῖν τῶν γεραιτέρων, ἢ σωμασκήσουσιν οὕτως, οἳ οὐ μόνον αὐτοὶ εὐεξίας ἀμελοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἐπιμελομένων καταγελῶσι;

And

19]
“Ah yes, and strange indeed it is that such men submit themselves to their masters, and yet the infantry and cavalry, who are supposed to be the pick of the citizens for good character, are the most insubordinate.”
19] τοῦτο γάρ τοι, ἔφη, καὶ θαυμαστόν ἐστι, τὸ τοὺς μὲν τοιούτους πειθαρχεῖν τοῖς ἐφεστῶσι, τοὺς δὲ ὁπλίτας καὶ τοὺς ἱππέας, οἳ δοκοῦσι καλοκαγαθίᾳ προκεκρίσθαι τῶν πολιτῶν, ἀπειθεστάτους εἶναι πάντων

.

And further,

21]
“But, you see, in the army, where good conduct, discipline, submission are most necessary, our people pay no attention to these things.”
“This may be due to the incompetence of the officers. You must have noticed that no one attempts to exercise authority over our harpists, choristers and dancers, if he is incompetent, nor over wrestlers or wrestlers who also box? All who have authority over them can tell where they learned their business; but most of our generals are improvisors.
[21] καὶ μὴν ἔν γε τοῖς στρατιωτικοῖς, ἔφη, ἔνθα μάλιστα δεῖ σωφρονεῖν τε καὶ εὐτακτεῖν καὶ πειθαρχεῖν, οὐδενὶ τούτων προσέχουσιν. ἴσως γάρ, ἔφη ὁ Σωκράτης, ἐν τούτοις οἱ ἥκιστα ἐπιστάμενοι ἄρχουσιν αὐτῶν. οὐχ ὁρᾷς ὅτι κιθαριστῶν μὲν καὶ χορευτῶν καὶ ὀρχηστῶν οὐδὲ εἷς ἐπιχειρεῖ ἄρχειν μὴ ἐπιστάμενος, οὐδὲ παλαιστῶν οὐδὲ παγκρατιαστῶν; ἀλλὰ πάντες οἱ τούτων ἄρχοντες ἔχουσι δεῖξαι ὁπόθεν ἔμαθον ταῦτα ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐφεστᾶσι: τῶν δὲ στρατηγῶν οἱ πλεῖστοι αὐτοσχεδιάζουσιν.

With the same proviso concerning αὐτοσχεδιάζουσιν as above.

Plato too in ‘The Laws’ 829a-b

So likewise a State may obtain a life of peace if it becomes good, but if bad, a life of war both abroad and at home. This being so, all men must train for war [829b] not in war-time, but while they are living in peace.2 Therefore, a judicious State must carry out a march, every month, for not less than one whole day, or more (according as the rulers decree),3 paying no heed to cold weather or hot: all shall join in it—men, women and children—whenever the rulers decide to march them out en masse, and at other times they shall go in sections. Along with sacrifices, they must continually devise noble games, to serve [829c] as festival-contests, modelled as closely as possible on those of war.
ταὐτὸν δὴ τοῦτο ἔστι καὶ πόλει ὑπάρχειν, γενομένῃ μὲν ἀγαθῇ βίος εἰρηνικός, πολεμικὸς δὲ ἔξωθέν τε καὶ ἔνδοθεν, ἂν ᾖ κακή. τούτων δὲ ταύτῃ σχεδὸν ἐχόντων, [829β] οὐκ ἐν πολέμῳ τὸν πόλεμον ἑκάστοις γυμναστέον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ τῆς εἰρήνης βίῳ. δεῖ τοίνυν πόλιν ἑκάστου μηνὸς νοῦν κεκτημένην στρατεύεσθαι μὴ ἔλαττον μιᾶς ἡμέρας, πλείους δέ, ὡς ἂν καὶ τοῖς ἄρχουσιν συνδοκῇ, μηδὲν χειμῶνας ἢ καύματα διευλαβουμένους, αὐτούς τε ἅμα καὶ γυναῖκας καὶ παῖδας, ὅταν ὡς πανδημίαν ἐξάγειν δόξῃ τοῖς ἄρχουσιν, τοτὲ δὲ καὶ κατὰ μέρη: καί τινας ἀεὶ παιδιὰς μηχανᾶσθαι καλὰς ἅμα θυσίαις, ὅπως ἂν γίγνωνται μάχαι τινὲς ἑορταστικαί, [829ξ] μιμούμεναι τὰς πολεμικὰς ὅτι μάλιστα ἐναργῶς μάχας

Whilst not a definitive statement the implication of the injunction that men train in times of peace and march every month in the ideal state is that they don’t in the actual state. He goes on (and on and on…)

830a] when I have made ready the whole State? Are they not to be competitors in the greatest of contests, wherein their antagonists will be numberless?” “Most certainly,” one would rightly reply. What then? Suppose we had been rearing boxers or pancratiasts or competitors in any similar branch of athletics, should we have gone straight into the contest without previously engaging in daily combat with someone? If we were boxers, for a great many days before the contest we should have been learning how to fight, [830b] and working hard, practicing in mimicry all those methods we meant to employ on the day we should be fighting for victory, and imitating the real thing as nearly as possible: thus, we should don padded gloves instead of proper ring-gloves, so as to get the best possible practice in giving blows and dodging them; and if we chanced to be very short of training-mates, do you suppose that we should be deterred by fear of the laughter of fools from hanging up a lifeless dummy and practicing on it? Indeed, if ever we were in a desert, and without either live or lifeless [830c] training-mates, would we not have recourse to shadow-fighting of the most literal kind, against ourselves? Or what else should one call the practice of pugilistic posturing?

Clinias
There is no other name for it, Stranger, than the one you have just given to it.

Athenian
What then? Is the fighting force of our State to venture to come forward every time to fight for their lives, their children, their goods, and for the whole State, after a less thorough preparation than the competitors we have been describing? [830d] And so is their lawgiver, through fear lest these training-bouts may appear ridiculous to some, to refrain from laying down laws whereby he will ordain field-operations, of which the minor kind, without heavy arms, will take place daily, if possible,—and to this end both the choristry and all the gymnastic shall be directed,—while the others, as a major kind of gymnastics in full armor, he shall order to be held at least once a month? [830e] In this latter kind they will engage in contests with one another throughout the whole country, contending in the capturing of forts and in ambuscades and in all forms of mimic warfare; in fact, they shall do literal fighting with balls1 and darts as nearly real as possible,—though the points of the darts shall be made less dangerous,—in order that their games of combat may not be devoid of some element of alarm, but may provide terrors and indicate to some extent who is stout-hearted
831a] and who not: to the former the lawgiver shall duly assign honors, to the latter degradation, that thus he may prepare the whole State to be serviceable throughout life in the real contest. Moreover, if a man gets killed in these sham fights, inasmuch as the murder is involuntary, he shall pronounce the slayer to be pure of hands, when he has been legally purified; for he will reflect that, when a few men die, others equally good will grow up in their place, whereas, once fear is, so to speak, dead, he will be unable to find a test to distinguish, in all such cases, the good from the bad,— [831b] and that is a far greater evil than the other for a State.

Clinias
We, at least, Stranger, would certainly agree that every State should both ordain and practice these things.

Athenian
Are we all aware of the reason why such choristry and such contests do not at present exist anywhere in the States, except to a very small extent? Shall we say that this is due to the ignorance of the populace and of those who legislate for them?

Clinias
Possibly.

Athenian
Not so, by any means, my ingenious Clinias! What we ought to say [831c] is that there are two causes, and both most weighty ones.

Clinias
What are they?

Athenian
The first springs from a lust for wealth which allows a man no leisure time for attention to anything else save his own private property; and when the soul of every citizen hangs upon this, it is incapable of attending to matters other than daily gain. Whatsoever science or pursuit leads to this, every man individually is most ready to learn and to practice; but all else he laughs to scorn. [831d] This we must assert to be one particular cause why a State is unwilling to be in earnest about this, or any other, fine and noble pursuit; and why, on the other hand, every individual, because of his greed for silver and gold, is willing to toil at every art and device, noble or ignoble, if he is likely to get rich by it,—willing, too, to perform actions both holy and unholy—nay, utterly shameful—without a scruple, [831e] provided only that he is able to sate himself to repletion, like a beast, with all manner of foods and drinks and wenchings.

Clinias
True.

Athenian
Then let this which I describe be laid down as one cause which hinders the States from adequately practicing either military operations or any other noble pursuits and which turns men who are of a quiet nature 1 into traders, ship-owners, and servants, while of the bold it makes pirates, burglars, temple-robbers, fighters
832a] and despots,—and that though, in some cases, they are not ill-natured, but merely ill-fortuned.

Clinias
How so?

Athenian
Well, how could I describe otherwise than as utterly unfortunate men who are compelled to go through life with hunger1 always in their own souls?

Clinias
This, then, is one cause: what is the second cause you speak of, Stranger?

Athenian
You are right in reminding me.

Megillus
One cause, as you assert, is this lifelong insatiable pursuit, which wholly engrosses each man, and hinders each and all from rightly practicing military operations. [832b] Be it so: now tell us the second cause.

Athenian
Do you think that I am delaying to do so because I am at a loss?

Megillus
No; but we think that, owing to a sort of hatred against the character you describe, you are castigating it more severely than is required by the argument now on hand.

Athenian
Your rebuke is just, Strangers; you want, it seems, to hear what comes next.

Clinias
Only say on.

Athenian
There lies a cause, as I affirm, in those non-polities which I have often mentioned2 in our previous discourse,—namely, democracy, [832c] oligarchy, and tyranny. For none of these is a polity, but the truest name for them all would be “faction-State”; for none of them is a form of voluntary rule over willing subjects, but a voluntary rule over unwilling subjects accompanied always by some kind of force; and the ruler, through fear of the subject, will never voluntarily allow him to become noble or wealthy or strong or brave or in any way warlike. These, then, are the two main causes of nearly everything, and certainly of the conditions we described. [832d] The polity, however, for which we are now legislating has escaped both these causes; for not only does it enjoy a great amount of leisure,3 but the citizens also are free from one another's domination, and as a consequence of these laws of ours they will be the least likely of men to be money-lovers. Hence it is both natural and logical that of all existing polities this type alone should welcome the system above described, which combines military schooling with sport, when we have rightly completed that description.

So in Plato’s opinion cupidity and government itself prevented his proposed regime from being practiced (possibly with the exception of Sparta whose training system he may be mimicking). Even in his ideal state, though, the emphasis is on general fitness and irregular warfare rather than drilling. He tackles the issue of weapons drill in the ’Laches’. One interlocutor (Nikias) describes its usefulness,

Further, this accomplishment will be of some benefit also in actual battle, when it comes to fighting in line with a number of other men; but its greatest advantage will be felt when the ranks are broken, and you find you must fight man to man, either in pursuing someone who is trying to beat off your attack, (182a) [182b] or in retreating yourself and beating off the attack of another. Whoever possessed this accomplishment could come to no harm so long as he had but one to deal with, nor yet, perhaps, if he had several; it would give him an advantage in any situation. Moreover, it is a thing which impels one to desire another noble accomplishment; for everyone who has learnt how to fight in armor will desire to learn the accomplishment which comes next, the management of troops; and when he has got that and once taken a pride in his work [182c] he will push on to attain the whole art of generalship. It is evident already that all accomplishments and pursuits in the military sphere are both honourable and valuable to a man, either in acquisition or in practice; and this particular one may well be an introduction to them. And we can make this addition—no slight one—to its claims, that this science will make any man individually a great deal bolder and braver in war. Nor let us disdain to mention, even though some may think it a rather slight matter, that it will give him a smarter appearance in the place

Laches has a different take on the matter

I conceive that if there were anything in it, it would not have been overlooked by the Lacedaemonians, whose only concern in life is to seek out and practise [183a] whatever study or pursuit will give them an advantage over others in war. And if they have overlooked it, at any rate these teachers of it cannot have overlooked the obvious fact that the Lacedaemonians are more intent on such matters than any of the Greeks, and that anybody who won honour among them for this art would amass great riches elsewhere, just as a tragic poet does who has won honor among us. And for this reason he who thinks himself a good writer of tragedy [183b] does not tour round with his show in a circuit of the outlying Attic towns, but makes a straight line for this place and exhibits to our people, as one might expect. But I notice that these fighters in armour regard Lacedaemon as holy ground where none may tread, and do not step on it even with the tips of their toes, but circle round it and prefer to exhibit to any other people, especially to those who would themselves admit that they were inferior to many in the arts of war. Furthermore, Lysimachus, I have come across more than a few of these persons [183c] in actual operations, and I can see their quality. Indeed, we can estimate it offhand: for, as though it were of set purpose, not one of these experts in arms has ever yet distinguished himself in war. And yet in all the other arts, the men who have made a name are to be found among those who have specially pursued one or other of them; while these persons, apparently, stand out from the rest in this particularly hapless fate of their profession. Why, this man Stesilaus, whom you watched with me in that great crowd as he gave his performance [183d] and spoke in those high terms of himself before us, I have watched elsewhere giving a finer entertainment in the form of a very real display that he made against his will. The ship on which he was serving struck a transport vessel, and he was using in the fight a combination of a scythe and a spear—a remarkable weapon that suited so remarkable a man. Well, the story of this fellow's doings is hardly of enough interest in the main, but you must hear the upshot of his device of a scythe fixed to a spear [183e] As he was fighting, it stuck somehow in the other ship's rigging, and held fast; so Stesilaus pulled at it in the hope of getting it free, but he could not, and the ships were passing by each other. For the first moments he ran along in his ship holding on to his spear; but as the other ship sheered off from his and drew him after, still holding the spear, he let it slip through his hand [184a] until he gripped the butt-end of the shaft. From the crew of the transport there came laughter and clapping at his posture, and when someone aimed a stone at him which hit the deck near his feet, and he let go the spear, the troops on the warship in their turn could no longer restrain their laughter, as they saw the notable scythe-spear dangling from the transport. Now, there may perhaps be something in this art of theirs, as Nicias argues, but at any rate that is my impression of it, in the cases I have met with.

And Aristotle too has his two obols worth ‘Politics’1338b25-39

And again we know that even the Spartans, although so long as they persisted by themselves in their laborious exercises they surpassed all other peoples, now fall behind others both in gymnastic and in military contests; for they used not to excel because they exercised their young men in this fashion but only because they trained and their adversaries did not.

Athenian Lochoi

The two examples you give are not examples of any more than that Athenians understood that a ‘lochos’ was a body of armed men; the Herodotean example is explicitly one of an ad hoc formation with its leader being termed ‘lochagos’ (in the Ionic form) in a general sense, similarly the reference to Lamachos’ lochoi

ὦ Λάμαχ᾽ ἥρως, τῶν λόφων καὶ τῶν λόχων.

Is conditioned by the alliteration as much as anything and again need not mean anything more technical than ‘armed bands’; Lamachos is a general and Dikaiopolis an irreverent citizen, he is more likely to be disparaging the Athenian army than detailing its organisation.

However the case improves exponentially when we look at Aristotle’s ‘Athenian Constitution’ 61 iii

They also elect by show of hands ten Regimental Commanders (taxiarchs), one of each tribe; these lead their fellow-tribesmen and appoint company-commanders (lochagoi).

χειροτονοῦσι δὲ καὶ ταξιάρχους δέκα, ἕνα τῆς φυλῆς ἑκάστης: οὗτος δ᾽ ἡγεῖται τῶν φυλετῶν καὶ λοχαγοὺς καθίστησιν.

Aristotle is speaking of the latest version of the Athenian Constitution here, post Chaironaia, so we can say that by 338 the Athenians organised below the level of the taxis, we cannot be sure haw low a level is implied but it could be as large as three-hundred or so , one for each trytys or Third (Hills, Plain and Coast).

Aristotle ‘Economics’1350b associates Timotheus at the siege of Samos in 366 BC with officers called ‘lochagoi’ but from Polyainos III 10 ix

9 Timotheus hired seven thousand mercenaries for the siege of Samos. Because he was unable to give them their full pay, and observed that the island was rich and well cultivated, he allowed them to forage freely in a designated part of the island. He sold the produce of the rest of the island, but protected those who were employed in gathering it. From this sale he raised a considerable sum of money, with which he paid part of their arrears to his troops. In this way he persuaded them to persevere in the siege, and eventually he took the city by storm.

It would seem that these were mercenaries rather than Athenians and they had long organised themselves in lochoi.

[agesilaos]

An Alternative View

Since there has been a quite reasonable demand for an alternative view of phalanx evolutions I shall give one.

The first thing is to disassociate the hoplite phalanx from the Hellenistic pike phalanx; they were two entirely different animals, not just in weaponry but in ethos.

Hellenistic phalanxes were supplied from central state arsenals, paid and regularly trained; hoplites trained at their whim and supplied, for the most part, their own arms. Only Sparta rose above the general amateur status until the middle third of the Fourth Century.

So how did the hoplite army enter the field of battle? With as little to do on it, other than fight as possible; the higher officers would decide how deep the line was to be, the troops would assemble that deep and move towards the enemy, there would be the inevitable bunching on encountering obstacles but until the front ranks decided to run the irregularities would be quickly compensated for; once the sprint had started the formation would loosen yielding an advantage to those who resisted the urge to run and maintained their line, which could and did, cause some forces to simply melt away before contact. Only the Spartans are attested to perform any battle field manoeuvres, notably two counter-marches but never is the insertion of half files mentioned.

Just as every army before and since, whole units deployed on the flank of other whole units, in combat order long before they were likely to be struck by the enemy; at Mantinea the Spartans halted when the enemy were but 100 yards away, for a sacrifice, it is inconceivable that they were not already in battle order.

No contemporary mentions intervals at all although several depths are mentioned Xenophon has the 10,000 form up four deep for Cyrus’ review I 2 xv

ἐκέλευσε δὲ τοὺς Ἕλληνας ὡς νόμος αὐτοῖς εἰς μάχην οὕτω ταχθῆναι καὶ στῆναι, συντάξαι δ᾽ ἕκαστον τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ. ἐτάχθησαν οὖν ἐπὶ τεττάρων:
He ordered the Greeks to form their lines and take their positions just as they were accustomed to do for battle, each general marshalling his own men. In fact they formed the line four deep:

and eight deep for a meeting VII 1 xxiii

οἱ δὲ αὐτοὶ ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν ταττόμενοι οἵ τε ὁπλῖται ἐν ὀλίγῳ χρόνῳ εἰς ὀκτὼ ἐγένοντο καὶ οἱ πελτασταὶ ἐπὶ τὸ κέρας ἑκάτερον παρεδεδραμήκεσαν
The men acted as their own marshals, and within a short time the hoplites had fallen into line eight deep and the peltasts had got into position on either wing.

We also find the Allies at Nemea fixing on a depth of sixteen, with the Thebans going deeper still and Epaminondas forming up fifty deep at Leuktra, depth clearly mattered and this is not a question of ‘line versus column’, which is a horse and musket debate concerning the fire power of the line v the shock value of a column; this is a case of deep and shallow phalanxes fighting in the same way with the same weapons; the Spartans had no missiles to hurl at the oncoming Thebans other than sharp words. Nor were the Greeks alone in finding depth beneficial, when pikes returned to general use we find them fighting in great depth, fifty being typical even when developments in firearms led to less massive pike blocks they generally still formed and fought ten deep.

It is simply fallacious to assume that formations cannot move over real terrain other than in open order; Napoleonic units formed on a 22 inch frontage per man and manoeuvred quite happily over the fields of Europe, the ancient hoplite would have 36 inches according to the manuals (though there is no reason IMHO to apply their dictats to hoplite militia) are we to assume that obstacles have shrunk or that men have become less clumsy? If one group can cope with battlefield conditions then so can the other, without recourse to ‘half-file insertion.

The picture is somewhat different when we come to the sarissa phalanx: despite some agglomeration of earlier material it is these that the Taktikeis largely treat. Here we hear of a ‘marching order’ (which has no name, but as the most open is seen as the starting point for the theoretical discussion of the various intervals), compact order (pyknosis ; not used in a technical sense by any Classical writer) and ‘synaspismos’ ( also never used of a type of formation). We shall tackle these later as there is more evidence for the Hellenistic pike phalanx.

[agesilaos]

Another View of the Evolutions of the Macedonian Pike Phalanx

Whereas we can only extrapolate from the battle descriptions and artistic depictions of the earlier spear armed phalanx, when it comes to the Hellenistic pike phalanx, we also have the three ‘manuals’ which are the subject of this thread.

We can be reasonably certain that the Macedonians marched in an open formation on a four cubit (6 ft) frontage per file as Polybios uses this spacing for his botched dissection of Kallisthenes’ account of Alexander’s advance upon the Pinaros; this does not mean that Alexander used this order in this instance, of course only that a practical soldier knew it was the appropriate interval for marching.

As Paralus has noted there was more than one way to compact the phalanx. Let us deal with that treated in Aelian 32 and Asklepiodotos 12 viii-ix, in which one file halts the others turn 90 degrees and march towards it (or them in the case of closing on the centre); no one can doubt that this was actually performed on the battlefield as Polybios tells us that Philip V ordered ‘ …the Peltasts and the right wing of his phalanx, to double their depth and close to the right.’ The manoeuvre halved the frontage he had formerly occupied to allow room for his arriving left wing (for further discussion look to the Kynoskephalai thread; but no one there doubts the ‘closing up’).

Aelian 28 explains the second which is ‘doubling by file’ (diplasiasmon kata stichon), this is the reverse of the manoeuvre ‘doubling by depth’ also known as ‘doubling by rank’ (‘kata bathos’ or ‘kata zyga’). In this evolution every even numbered man in the file (the ‘epistates’) step into the interval of the file, so that the number of files double but the frontage of the phalanx remains the same and that of the files halves. Devine numbers this as 29.2 and translates thus

29.0 Description of Movements; Doubling.
29.1. (90) There are two kinds of doubling, one “by rank” (kata zyga), the other “by depth” (kata bathos).
29.2 Each of these takes place either by doubling the number or the place. Doubling by number takes place when the length is doubled, as when from a front of 124 files we wish to make a front of 248, while still occupying the same length of ground, by interjecting in the spaces between the soldiers some of the rear-rank-men that constitute the depth. This takes place when we wish to draw up the front of the formation in compact order.
29.3 Whenever we wish to restore them to their initial position, we order those troops that have been interjected to countermarch to the places they held before.

Diplasiasmon de esti gene duo, etoi kata zyga e kata bathos.
Touton de ekaston he toi arithmoi diplasiazetai he [toi] topoi.arithmoi men gar diplasiazetai to mekos, ean [ti chilion] kai eikosi tessares, [lochon] dischilioi kai tessarakonta okto poiesai boulomethai [ent’auto toi] topoi tou mekous paremballontes eis ta metaxu ton hopliton diastemata ek ton en tou bathei epistaton. Touto de ginetai, otan pyknosai to mekos boulethomen.
Apokatastesai de otan boulethomen, parangeloumen exelissein tous metatetagmenous [parastatas] eis ous proeichon topous.

There are two problems with the translation here, the most important of which concerns the translation of the phrase ‘… paremballontes eis ta metaxu ton hopliton diastemata ek ton en tou bathei epistaton.’ As ‘…by interjecting in the spaces between the soldiers some of the rear-rank-men that constitute the depth’ this distorts what is being said which is that ‘interjecting into the spaces between the soldiers the epistates from those that form the depth.’ The epistates formed the even numbered men in each file as we are told elsewhere (Aelian 5.3, Askl. 2.2-3, Arr 6-7) so the translation ‘rear rank men’ here is somewhat slack as the title has a specific meaning in this context.

This method is used ‘when we wish to compact the frontage’, ‘pyknosein’ should not be restricted to ‘form pyknosis’, pyknosein never seems to have acquired that dedicated technical meaning.

Also in this section is the method for doubling by depth whereby the even numbered files merge with the odd numbered ones by interlacing. There can be no doubt that Aelian is talking about merging two whole sixteen man files, there is no mention of half files nor does he specify why one would wish to do this. However, since the method for compacting he has just given requires halving the depth and we know from Polybios that ‘marching order’ was on double the fighting frontage, it would make sense to march in double files which could then double by file into a fighting formation one file deep. Circumstantial evidence might be adduced from Alexander’s initial advance on the Pinaros which began thirty-two deep.

The final method is ‘parembole’ which receives one line in chapter 30 of Aelian

Parembole de estin, otan protetagmenon tinon eis ta metaxu diastemata ek ton epitetagmenon kathistontai autois ep’euthias.
It is ‘parembole’ when in the intervals between those posted in front of the formation we post those who had formerly been in the rear, in a straight line.

This is it for parembole which strikes me as a note to make the description complete rather than this being the most common method, Arrian gives a paraphrase of the definition at 26 iv and Asklepiodoros at 10 xvii.

What the ‘Kyrou Paideia’ says

I hold my hands up to getting the organisation of Xenophon’s fantasy files wrong but that is a side issue (no pun intended), the issue is whether ‘paragoge’ the word used by Xenophon in his dinnertime manoeuvres can mean ‘half-file insertion’ . The answer is no and we can find proof in Polybios’ description of Philopoeman’s cavalry reforms X 23 v

[5] ἐπὶ δὲ τούτοις ἐκτάξεις ἐφ᾽ ἑκατέρων τῶν κεράτων ἢ διὰ παρεμβολῆς ἢ διὰ παραγωγῆς τῆς παρὰ τοὺς οὐραγούς.
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.

Since the most qualified Greek historian recognises these as two entirely different manoeuvres it would be best to follow his lead.

[Nikas]

Correct me if I am wrong but the Byzantine manuals fall into the class of practical instruction don't they? I have not ever read them, myself. I suppose one ought to mention 'De Rei Militari' by Vegetius too, a fourth century AD plea for a return to old Roman discipline.

My apologies, i missed this and as of late the World Cup has taken over my life!

Yes, the Byzantine manuals would fall under practical instruction. The Strategikon, the treatises credited to Nikephoros Phocas, the Taktika of Leo also borrow heavily from classical sources as well. Looking at a sample of the contents of the "constitutions" from my copy of the Taktika gives the gist of it:

1) About Tactics and the General
3)About how it is necessary to make plans
4) about the division of the army and the appointment of officers
9) about marches
10) about the baggage train
11) about camps

[agesilaos]

The Oath of Plataia

Peter Krentz has argued that this attribution is mistaken and that the oath refers to Marathon, although he is equally ephatic that the ‘enomotiarches’ are Spartan (‘1. A military officer called an enomotarches is well attested for Sparta and only attested for Sparta.’ ‘The Oath of Marathon ,not Plataia?’ Hesperia 76, 2007 pp 731-42). link

http://www.ascsa.edu.gr/pdf/uploads/hes ... 068041.pdf

This is certainly an interesting piece and it is certainly true that Athens, Sparta and Plataia were allied during the campaign. But Krentz has to strain the evidence to stain Thebes with potential medism this early and seems to forget that Thebes not only survived untithed after the victory at Marathon, with an unused Spartan army on the scene, but went on to join the Pan-Hellenic League and supply troops for Thermopylai, for which effort she is roundly slandered by Herodotos. This fact demonstrates an anti-Theban bias; had she medised and been assessed for tithing after Marathon why would Herodotos hush it up?.

The Oath may once have been written and sworn in the fifth century BC but the text as we have it is certainly from the fourth and it is the political realities of that age that inform the inscription (Athens and Sparta standing against Thebes, and Plataia stands as the eternal victim of her larger neighbour). I am not convinced by Krentz’s somersaults. Follow the link and make up your own minds.

[Paralus]

The Oath may once have been written and sworn in the fifth century BC but the text as we have it is certainly from the fourth and it is the political realities of that age that inform the inscription (Athens and Sparta standing against Thebes, and Plataia stands as the eternal victim of her larger neighbour).

To that you can add the oft-quoted and misleading so called "Decree of Troezen".