pothos.org

Three so-called ‘Manuals’ have survived, along with an anonymous ‘Lexicon of Military Terms’; these were written by Asklepiodotos (1st Century BC), Aelian Taktikos (c. 107AD; note he is not the synonymous author of ‘Varia Historia’ or the ‘on the Nature of Animals’), and finally Arrian, well known to students of Alexander.

The first place to start would be with what the authors themselves have to say about their works. Asklepiodotos has no proem, and Arrian’s has been lost, but that of Aelian survives and is most instructive.

Aelian admits his ignorance of current Roman theory and practice (Proem 2) and his consideration of the Greek system as ‘a science forgotten and long out of use since the introduction of the ‘ Roman system. He had been toying with the idea of writing a revamped ‘Taktike’ as he thought that the previous writers were ‘not reputed his equals in scholarship’ (Proem 1) and later (1.3-4)

**** We have noticed (to make an observation) that all these writers address those who are already acquainted with these matters.
**** Therefore, having been impeded by neither finding adequate instructors nor sufficient clarity in the precepts handed down when we first turned our attention to the study of these things, we will attempt as much as possible not to subject others to these difficulties.

So the great scholar complains that he does not actually understand what these lesser lights (but practical men writing for those in the know) were actually saying. What his work represents, then is certainly not intended as a working manual from which one can understand the workings of phalanx warfare on a practical level, it is an exercise in Philosophy; Taktikai are just another branch of science, as he expresses in 1.7 - 8

**** (2) Certainly that this science is of all sciences the most useful is comprehended by, among others, Plato in his Laws, where he says: “The Lawgiver of the Cretans so formulated his laws that their men were always prepared for war: For all cities by their very nature wage undeclared war against all other cities.” [Plato, Laws 626a, paraphrased]
**** How therefore can any other science be considered more important or more necessary to human life than this?

It can certainly be objected that Aelian was basing his tract on those written by such luminaries as Pyrrhos of Epeiros and Polybios. It should not be forgotten that Aelian confesses that they did not explain themselves making the explanations either his own or those found in an intermediate source. In fact both Aelian and Arrian give lists of older authorities which tally almost exactly, Arrian adds Xenophon but as he is in the Glossary of Military Terms it would seem that Aelian dropped him rather than Arrian adding him; all of which points to the surviving tracts having a very close relationship with one ultimate source. Most scholars plump for Poseidonios the Stoic,who visited Marius in his last days (Plut.Vit Mar 45), which pushes Asklepiodotos to the dying days of the phalanx.

Poseidonios himself seems to have been an almighty polymath (his many fragments may be found on Attalus.com), Poseidonios was also the continuator of Polybios’ ‘Histories’, but he did not relish ‘pragmatike historia’ and opted instead for that dramatic form that the Megalopolitan so despised. It does not seem likely that Poseidonios was, or had been, an active soldier, he comes across as one of those librarybound types who know that a horse is a ‘gramnivorous ungulate quadruped of the order equus’ but couldn’t spot one in a field of cows.

The identical list of sources, in the same order, also mean that these were sources claimed to have been consulted by the archetype not the transmitters, making Aelian’s protests about their obscurity and his own reading dubious; it could be that it was the archetype himself that found the earlier writers confusing.

There are further elements that point to a philosophical systemisation rather than any reality; take, for example this long (and tedious) recital, 10.1-4

***** (41) And the best of the phalangarchs is posted on the [extreme] right wing, the second on the [extreme] left; the third in respect of valour on his right “half wing” (apotome), the fourth on the left [of the first phalangarch], so that the first and the second [MSS: fourth] phalangarchies will have as their commanders the phalangarchs of the first and fourth standing in respect of valour, and the fourth [MSS: second] and third phalangarchies will have as commanders the second and third in respect of valour.
***** We will show that the first and fourth are equal in strength to the second and third, so that the commanders will be of equal strength. The merarchies themselves will also be drawn up thus, so that the first ranking [merarchy] will be stationed on the left of the first phalangarchy, the second ranking [merarchy] on the right of the second phalangarchy, the third [merarchy] will be stationed on the right of the fourth phalanx.
***** In each tetrarchy the file-leaders (lochagoi) are thus drawn up in the same way, so that the file-leader of the first file is pre-eminent in valour, the file-leader of the fourth file will be second in strength, the file-leader of the third file will be third in valour, the file-leader of the second file will be fourth in strength. Thus the double-files (dilochiai) will be equal in valour. For the first double-file (dilochia) has the first in valour and also the fourth, the second the second and the third in valour: We can thus show mathematically that these four magnitudes are proportionate, those in the first and the fourth being equal to those in the second and third.
***** Since in each syntagma there are four tetrarchies, we will arrange the syntagmata in the same proportion also, so that in each syntagma the tetrarch of the first tetrarchy will be stationed on the right and be first in valour, the [Laur. folio 150r] tetrarch of the fourth tetrarchy will be on the left and be second in valour, the tetrarch of the third tetrarchy will be posted on the right and be third in valour, the tetrarch of the second tetrarchy will be posted on the left and be the fourth in valour. The greater commands will also have the same proportion to each other.

This emphasis on symmetry and balance has nothing at all to do with Greek or Hellenistic practice, which was, invariably, to create elite units with the best soldiers and to mass the best of the rest on one wing, normally the right; Kynoskephalai provides a good example, Philip V has his elite Peltasts on the right then what is simply termed the ‘Right of the Phalanx’ which troops manoeuvre successfully over ground and under greater pressure (from the presence of formed Romans in proximity) while the Left failed to even form up, a probable indication of their lesser status vis-à-vis training and quality.

There are also evident problems in transmission, some of which are obvious and easily corrected e.g. consider the incorrect ordinal numbers in the MSS of 10.1 above. Some may be less blatant and more difficult to notice.

This does not mean that we cannot extract useful material, only that we have to be wary in the uses we put it to and how far we push it.

A good example would be the various divisions of the file. We are told of lochagoi (file-leaders) also called hegemones and protostates, and ouragoi (file-closers) 5.1, Aelian is here talking of his model file of sixteen.

In 5.2 he notes some variants including calling the file (lochos) a dekania and half file leaders dimoirites rather than a hemilochites. We meet dimoirites in Aristoboulos’ description of Alexander’s putative mixed phalanx

Arrian VII 23 iiiff
He distributed these foreign soldiers among the Macedonian ranks in the following way. Each company was led by a Macedonian decurion, and next to him was a Macedonian receiving double pay for distinguished valour; and then came one who received ten staters (monthly), who was so named from the pay he received, being somewhat less than that received by the man with double pay, but more than that of the men who were serving as soldiers without holding a position of honour. Next to these came twelve Persians, and last in the company another Macedonian, who also received the pay of ten staters; so that in each company there were twelve Persians and four Macedonians, three of whom received higher pay, and the fourth was in command of the company.
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: [4] ἐπὶ τούτοις δὲ δώδεκα Πέρσας καὶ τελευταῖον τῆς δεκάδος Μακεδόνα, δεκαστάτηρον καὶ τοῦτον, ὥστε ἐν τῇ δεκάδι τέσσαρας μὲν εἶναι Μακεδόνας, τοὺς μὲν τῇ μισθοφορᾷ προὔχοντας, τὸν δὲ τῇ ἀρχῇ τῆς δεκάδος

‘Dimoirites’ is also the descriptor used of Abreas, one of Alexander’s rescuers in the Mallian town. It is clear that the ‘dimoirites’ of Aelian and that of Aristoboulos are not the same. Asklepiodotos supplies the reason for the dichotomy, 2 ii, ‘…the former term (hemilochites) being used for a file of sixteen men, the latter (dimoirites) for one of twelve.’

Aelian alone makes the post of hemilochites important and introduces the rank of ‘half-file closer’ 5.4. The question is whether this reflects any reality or is merely an artefact of systemisation.

Given the total absence of any mention of half-file leaders in the epigraphy or narrative source and half-file closers anywhere, I would be loathe to place my faith in one remark in a theorist.

There is also a fourth manual of tactike theoriai, the older one by Aeneas Tacticus (IV cent. B.C.).

hiphys wrote:There is also a fourth manual of tactike theoriai, the older one by Aeneas Tacticus (IV cent. B.C.).

Onasander as well is missing?

I would not class either as part of the same tradition; Aeneas Tacticus did write extensively on the subject, sadly we only have his book on defending a besieged city; Onasander, has a special place in my heart; when i went for my interview at Nottingham University and I mentioned thet I was interested in military history the panel asked what sources I might go to and in the long list I mentioned Onasander and none of the three interviewers had heard of him, since I was adamant that I was neither confusing him with another nor making him up, they looked him up in some dictionary expecting to humiliate the poor, deluded, potential undergrad only to find the egg on their own faces. Onasander was a Platonic philosopher writing under Claudius (his dedicatee was consul in 49AD and died in Britain in 59, so it could have been written under Nero), but both his 'Strategos'('The General', not later filmed with Buster Keaton) and 'Peri tou pos chre Poliorkoumenous Antechein' 'Concerning the Defence of Fortified Positions', offer practical advice rather than the abstract systemisation found in the true Taktike Theoria. I would place the in the same class as the collections of strategemata by Polyainos and Frontinus.

So they are in a different sub-genre just as detective fiction may be subdivided into 'cosies' and 'hard-boiled', 'whodunnits' or 'proceedurals'.

I don't think that Aelian is admitting to a failure of comprehension of the tactical treatises he'd read. He admits to having begun this and putting it aside and then recommencing. I believe what he is saying is that, at first blush, these earlier writers wrote for those in the know and didn't much bother to fully elucidate; something that, initially, makes them difficult to follow at times. Aelian, a brilliant scholar, applied his superior intellect and managed to divine exactly what these earlier writers were saying. He means not to put his own readers through the same exercise; explaining everything in easy to understand language whilst keeping the terms used (even unto supplying diagrams). As he says (proem 5):

For on account of the clarity that I boldly dare to affirm, the reader will gain more from this work than from all the writings of earlier authors, such is the order and method I have followed.

It's a matter of how much faith one places in that 'superior intellect'.

I also do not necessarily think he was dismissing Pyrrhos, Polybios, et al. I believe he was dismissing the unnamed others ("and many others, some in introductions...") for, as he says, "all of these we have consulted and consider too commonplace to be worthy of particular mention" yet he has 'particularly mentioned' those so listed.

Agreed, he is not dismissing the named authorities but I think they are included in 'those writing for people in the know'; the crux is how much faith does one place in a man that complains this makes things obscure, confesses that there were no teachers to guide him and then proceeds to claim full understanding? Maybe Aelian took a trip to Damaskos!!

The list of earlier writers is not actually Aelian's, he has lifted it in toto from the archetype as its repetition in both Arrian and the Glossary (which i have not seen) shows, it makes me wonder how many of the coments are also lifted from it.

I failed to note that Arrian actually diverges from the slavish copyists; he provides examples from history and even modifies the data (making a hash of the length of the sarissa for example), he omits the names for the chariot and elephant units, as redundant but having repeated the archetype's remark that there are only one type of chariot or elephant goes on to differentiate several types. His is still a work intended as a purely intellectual exercise but he does put his intellect into it and unlike the others he was a practical military man. He adds a section on the Roman cavalry and we are told that he had already written a treatise on the infantry, another sad loss.

agesilaos wrote:I would not class either as part of the same tradition; Aeneas Tacticus did write extensively on the subject, sadly we only have his book on defending a besieged city; Onasander, has a special place in my heart; when i went for my interview at Nottingham University and I mentioned thet I was interested in military history the panel asked what sources I might go to and in the long list I mentioned Onasander and none of the three interviewers had heard of him, since I was adamant that I was neither confusing him with another nor making him up, they looked him up in some dictionary expecting to humiliate the poor, deluded, potential undergrad only to find the egg on their own faces. Onasander was a Platonic philosopher writing under Claudius (his dedicatee was consul in 49AD and died in Britain in 59, so it could have been written under Nero), but both his 'Strategos'('The General', not later filmed with Buster Keaton) and 'Peri tou pos chre Poliorkoumenous Antechein' 'Concerning the Defence of Fortified Positions', offer practical advice rather than the abstract systemisation found in the true Taktike Theoria. I would place the in the same class as the collections of strategemata by Polyainos and Frontinus.

So they are in a different sub-genre just as detective fiction may be subdivided into 'cosies' and 'hard-boiled', 'whodunnits' or 'proceedurals'.

Ah, I see, the theory vs application. That must have been an amusing interview, I can just imagine the amusement you must have had seeing them believe you were fabricating a name out of nothingness in some apparent attempt at making an impression haha.

I enjoyed Onasander as well, much as I am currently enjoying a descendant of his, the Taktika of Leo VI, as previously I did with Maurice's Strategikon...

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.

Over on the Kynoskephalai thread there is a good example of what happens when one fails to take accounnt of the nature of these works. Xenophon frequently cites the phrase at Asklepiodotos 4 iii -'The interval of four cubits seems to be the natural one and has no name' which gets paraphrased as 'normal order'; now, the fault is not entirely Xenophon's but that of the Illinois Greek Club.
The Greek is

Δοκεῖ δὲ τὸ τετράπηχυ κατὰ φύσιν εἶναι, ὅθεν οὐδὲ κεῖται ἐπ̓ αὐτῷ ὄνομα:

The word translated as 'natural' is 'Physin' and indeed in can have connotations of the natural but only as opposed to the engineered, what is meant here is LSJ's meaning 1. which is 'origin', or 'basic'. This interpretation makes sense of why it has no name (including 'normal') and that the other two intervals do; it is because they are named by reference to this most open interval in the systematisor's mind 'compact' must mean more compact than something, though 'synaspismos' can only mean what it does. Should this failure of etymology give us pause? Well, I do not think so, one need only look back to the derivation of 'taxis' at 2.ix for a unit of 64, we are dealing with an intellectualisation of reality for the purposes of systemisation and cod etymology is part of the intellectualisation.

Agesialos wrote:

So the great scholar complains that he does not actually understand what these lesser lights (but practical men writing for those in the know) were actually saying. What his work represents, then is certainly not intended as a working manual from which one can understand the workings of phalanx warfare on a practical level, it is an exercise in Philosophy; Taktikai are just another branch of science, as he expresses in 1.7 - 8

**** (2) Certainly that this science is of all sciences the most useful is comprehended by, among others, Plato in his Laws, where he says: “The Lawgiver of the Cretans so formulated his laws that their men were always prepared for war: For all cities by their very nature wage undeclared war against all other cities.” [Plato, Laws 626a, paraphrased]
**** How therefore can any other science be considered more important or more necessary to human life than this?

It can certainly be objected that Aelian was basing his tract on those written by such luminaries as Pyrrhos of Epeiros and Polybios. It should not be forgotten that Aelian confesses that they did not explain themselves making the explanations either his own or those found in an intermediate source. In fact both Aelian and Arrian give lists of older authorities which tally almost exactly, Arrian adds Xenophon but as he is in the Glossary of Military Terms it would seem that Aelian dropped him rather than Arrian adding him; all of which points to the surviving tracts having a very close relationship with one ultimate source. Most scholars plump for Poseidonios the Stoic,who visited Marius in his last days (Plut.Vit Mar 45), which pushes Asklepiodotos to the dying days of the phalanx. “

Paralus wrote:

“I don't think that Aelian is admitting to a failure of comprehension of the tactical treatises he'd read. He admits to having begun this and putting it aside and then recommencing. I believe what he is saying is that, at first blush, these earlier writers wrote for those in the know and didn't much bother to fully elucidate; something that, initially, makes them difficult to follow at times. Aelian, a brilliant scholar, applied his superior intellect and managed to divine exactly what these earlier writers were saying. He means not to put his own readers through the same exercise; explaining everything in easy to understand language whilst keeping the terms used (even unto supplying diagrams). As he says (proem 5):


For on account of the clarity that I boldly dare to affirm, the reader will gain more from this work than from all the writings of earlier authors, such is the order and method I have followed.


It's a matter of how much faith one places in that 'superior intellect'.

I also do not necessarily think he was dismissing Pyrrhos, Polybios, et al. I believe he was dismissing the unnamed others ("and many others, some in introductions...") for, as he says, "all of these we have consulted and consider too commonplace to be worthy of particular mention" yet he has 'particularly mentioned' those so listed.”

I would tend to agree with Paralus, rather than Agesilaos. I do however think that the versions of the manual as we have them are not just ‘practical manuals’, such as might have been composed by Pyrrhus or Polybius, but have been enhanced by theoretical embellishments to a point beyond what was realistically possible, and the likely culprit is Poseidonius. A reading of them shows that no army could have attained mastery of all the drills and formations expounded, even with years of training. Moreover, many of these theoretical drills and formations, despite looking attractive on paper, would have been impractical in reality in the field, such as counter-marching the army by ranks ( in the face of the enemy! ) so as to ‘swap’ the right hand-units for the left-hand ones. We can get some sense of this, and the practical limitations, from studying accounts of battle in the literary sources.

Agesilaos wrote:

“A good example would be the various divisions of the file. We are told of lochagoi (file-leaders) also called hegemones and protostates, and ouragoi (file-closers) 5.1, Aelian is here talking of his model file of sixteen.

In 5.2 he notes some variants including calling the file (lochos) a dekania and half file leaders dimoirites rather than a hemilochites. We meet dimoirites in Aristoboulos’ description of Alexander’s putative mixed phalanx....... ‘Dimoirites’ is also the descriptor used of Abreas, one of Alexander’s rescuers in the Mallian town. It is clear that the ‘dimoirites’ of Aelian and that of Aristoboulos are not the same. Asklepiodotos supplies the reason for the dichotomy, 2 ii, ‘…the former term (hemilochites) being used for a file of sixteen men, the latter (dimoirites) for one of twelve.’

Aelian alone makes the post of hemilochites important and introduces the rank of ‘half-file closer’ 5.4. The question is whether this reflects any reality or is merely an artefact of systemisation.

This is not entirely correct. Aelian 5.2 refers to ‘quarter files’/enomotia and their leaders called enomotarchs. Two enomotia/quarter files make “..a ‘dimoiria’/half file and its commander a dimoirites so that the half-file/hemi-lochion is also termed a dimoiria and the half-file leader/hemilochites a dimoirites.”

Thus a Macedonian phalanx has both half and quarter files, and appropriate N.C.O’s. The reason for this is that the traditional phalanx formed up in line on the battlefield in ‘normal/open/ basic order’[ 6 feet per man], which allowed individuals to skirt around bushes, olive trees and sundry other obstacles without disrupting the advance of the linear phalanx. Once contact with the enemy was imminent ( and only then, say within 200 yards or so), the phalanx ‘closed up’ by the file ‘halving’ into two files of 8 alongside each other, and thus each man occupied a 3 foot frontage.[ called close or compact order/pyknosis. The older method was for the rear half-files to fill the gaps, led by the half-file leader. [e.g. Aelian 11.3 and 29.2 and 31.1] A further halving, by bringing up the ‘quarter files’ resulted in ‘locked shields/synaspismos’, with the formation now four ranks deep, with each man having just 18 inches frontage. This was only made possible because the pikemen stood side on, holding their pikes in both hands, and because they had smaller shields than traditional hoplites. This formation was said to have been invented by Philip II (presumably when the pike phalanx was introduced ). This must reflect reality, because it is necessary in order to perform the drill moves referred to, for if the ‘half-files’ and ‘quarter-files’ were “merely an artefact of systemisation” then those drills could not be performed.

“Given the total absence of any mention of half-file leaders in the epigraphy or narrative source and half-file closers anywhere, I would be loathe to place my faith in one remark in a theorist.”

This is simply untrue. Half-file leaders are referred to several times in the works of Xenophon with reference to Hoplite formations. These typically stood 8 deep in ‘normal/open/basic’ formation, with each man on a six foot frontage, and again ‘halved’ their depth to 4 in ‘pyknosis/close order,in order to actually fight, what Xenophon calls their accustomed battle formation [Anabasis I.2.15]

Xenophon calls these half-file leaders ‘pampadarchs’ and refers to them several times in his various works. He also describes the drill to form up four deep, by the pampadarchs/half-file leaders leading up the rear half-file, in ‘Cyropaedia’ II.3.21 et seq [ By the way, the file leaders are called ‘dekadarchs’ c.f. Macedonian manuals]. Obviously, quarter-files and 18 inch frontages for hoplites were not possible ( the formation would have been too thin at 2 deep, nor would the larger ‘aspides’ of the hoplites allow this). Because the 80-90 cm diameter aspides were all but touching, to a hoplite ‘close order/pyknosis’ was also ‘locked shields/synaspismos’ and the term is used in this way by Xenophon.

The use of ‘half-files’ and the method of closing up into ‘fighting order/close order/pyknosis’ after advancing in line across the battlefield is not therefore “one remark of a theorist” but rather the tried and true method which went back to at least Xenophon, and common sense tells us that it was probably as old as the phalanx itself.

This also solves a conundrum about Greek warfare. Why would a Hoplite phalanx fight 8 deep, when only the first two or three ranks could participate with their ‘dories’ ? this leaves 5 ranks – more than half the men – as idle spectators. Four deep has three-quarters of the men able to fight, with just one rank in reserve to replace casualties. Even worse in the deeper Macedonian phalanx. Only the first 5 ranks of 16 are able to fight – less than one third! Fighting 8 deep makes much more sense, with 5 of 8 ranks in action.

Thus how phalanxes actually fought makes much more sense than the nonsensical theories of moderns as to the depth of a fighting phalanx.

Agesilaos wrote:

“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.”

Yes, though each is based on earlier ones, which can all be traced back to Aelian – which was added to by the Byzantines and probably used directly. It is Byzantine interest in the manuals, especially Aelian, which has preserved them for us.

Agesilaos wrote:

“Over on the Kynoskephalai thread there is a good example of what happens when one fails to take account of the nature of these works. Xenophon frequently cites the phrase at Asklepiodotos 4 iii -'The interval of four cubits seems to be the natural one and has no name' which gets paraphrased as 'normal order'; now, the fault is not entirely Xenophon's but that of the Illinois Greek Club.”

The implication here is that I have erred in some way ( 'one fails to take into account etc'), but that is simply not so.

The word translated as 'natural' is 'Physin' and indeed in can have connotations of the natural but only as opposed to the engineered, what is meant here is LSJ's meaning 1. which is 'origin', or 'basic'. This interpretation makes sense of why it has no name (including 'normal') and that the other two intervals do; it is because they are named by reference to this most open interval in the systematisor's mind 'compact' must mean more compact than something, though 'synaspismos' can only mean what it does. Should this failure of etymology give us pause? Well, I do not think so, one need only look back to the derivation of 'taxis' at 2.ix for a unit of 64, we are dealing with an intellectualisation of reality for the purposes of systemisation and cod etymology is part of the intellectualisation.

That the ‘basic’ order should have no name, precisely because it is the original basic order/formation is logical, and no surprise. Today it is called ‘open order’ [at 6 feet per man ], a term I also usually use to make meaning clear. It has been the convention in the past to translate ‘physin’ as a rather less literal ‘normal’, and for clarity I have followed that convention too, but ‘normal/basic/original order’ convey much the same - ‘original from which the others are formed’.
We are certainly not dealing with some esoteric “intellectualisation of reality for the purposes of systemisation”, but actual reality. The ‘basic/original/normal’ order used for most purposes is what we call ‘open order’, with 6 feet frontage per man. By halving its depth we form close order/pyknosis/fighting order when about to engage the enemy, or for defensive purposes we can ‘lock shields/synaspismos’ and form a shield wall.

Similarly, that the word ‘taxis’ should have an original general meaning, which changes over time and place, to end up with a specific meaning sometimes, is no surprise either, and not ‘intellectualisation’. Many ( all ?) Greek military terms do so.

I wrote

In 5.2 he notes some variants including calling the file (lochos) a dekania and half file leaders dimoirites rather than a hemilochites. We meet dimoirites in Aristoboulos’ description of Alexander’s putative mixed phalanx....... ‘Dimoirites’ is also the descriptor used of Abreas, one of Alexander’s rescuers in the Mallian town. It is clear that the ‘dimoirites’ of Aelian and that of Aristoboulos are not the same. Asklepiodotos supplies the reason for the dichotomy, 2 ii, ‘…the former term (hemilochites) being used for a file of sixteen men, the latter (dimoirites) for one of twelve.’

Aelian alone makes the post of hemilochites important and introduces the rank of ‘half-file closer’ 5.4. The question is whether this reflects any reality or is merely an artefact of systemisation.

Xenophon replied
This is not entirely correct. Aelian 5.2 refers to ‘quarter files’/enomotia and their leaders called enomotarchs. Two enomotia/quarter files make “..a ‘dimoiria’/half file and its commander a dimoirites so that the half-file/hemi-lochion is also termed a dimoiria and the half-file leader/hemilochites a dimoirites.”

In fact what I wrote was entirely correct and your quote is not germane to the point; which is that only Aelian mentions the hemilochites needing to be among the best men (elsewhere it is only the file leader, the second man and the file closer) ; Aelian is also the only one to mention a ‘half-file closer’ . Your reply merely shows that Aelian mentions ‘dimoirites’, which was not under dispute only that the dimoirites here is not the same as the dimoriteis we find in Arrian. Indeed the whole has nothing to do with the Macedonian phalanx, which did not adopt a depth of twelve, but given the ’enomotiai’ probably derives from a description of the Spartan system, in all likelihood from the ‘Constitution of the Lacedaeimonians’, Xenophon was cited as a source in the archetype from which our continuators were working. That the descriptions do not match speaks to the accuracy of their transmission.

This makes the following ‘Thus’, a complete ‘non-sequitur’, and what follows an untenable construct based on a pre-conceived conclusion.

This is simply untrue. Half-file leaders are referred to several times in the works of Xenophon with reference to Hoplite formations

LOL This simply untrue!!!! There are no references to half-file leaders at all in Xenophon, ‘hemi-lochites’ is not a term he uses; but let us go with the notion that ‘pempadarchoi’, commanders of five, does mean half file leader, which in a file of ten it would de facto. There are a total of eleven uses of this term, which is exclusive to Xenophon, nine in the ’Cyropaedia’, referring to Persian infantry and twice in ‘Hipparchikos’ ‘The Cavalry Commander’ referring to, oops, Athenian cavalry.

Still, it will no doubt be contended those evolutions at II 3 xxi are based on Spartan hoplite drill. That the file leaders are called dekadarchoi has no bearing on the Macedonian dekad; the Cyropaedia is referenced in Plato’s Laws, which were written c 360 BC, a year before Philip acceded to the throne. Xenophon’s dekarchia are surely a reflection of Herodotos’ decimal organisation of the Persian army VII 81 i

ταῦτα ἦν τὰ κατ᾽ ἤπειρον στρατευόμενά τε ἔθνεα καὶ τεταγμένα ἐς τὸν πεζόν. τούτου ὦν τοῦ στρατοῦ ἦρχον μὲν οὗτοι οἵ περ εἰρέαται, καὶ οἱ διατάξαντες καὶ ἐξαριθμήσαντες οὗτοι ἦσαν καὶ χιλιάρχας τε καὶ μυριάρχας ἀποδέξαντες, ἑκατοντάρχας δὲ καὶ δεκάρχας οἱ μυριάρχαι. τελέων δὲ καὶ ἐθνέων ἦσαν ἄλλοι σημάντορες.

These are the nations that marched by the mainland and had their places in the infantry. The commanders of this army were those whom I have mentioned, and they were the ones who marshalled and numbered them and appointed captains of thousands and ten thousands; the captains of ten thousands appointed the captains of hundreds and of tens. There were others who were leaders of companies and nations.1

Let us consider this passage Cyr. II 3 xxiff

[21]
ἄλλον δέ ποτε ἰδὼν ταξίαρχον ἄγοντα τὴν τάξιν ἀπὸ τοῦ ποταμοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ ἀριστερὸν ἐφ᾽ ἑνός, καὶ ὁπότε δοκοίη αὐτῷ καιρὸς εἶναι, παραγγέλλοντα τὸν ὕστερον λόχον παράγειν, καὶ τὸν τρίτον καὶ τὸν τέταρτον, εἰς μέτωπον, ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἐν μετώπῳ οἱ λοχαγοὶ ἐγένοντο, παρηγγύησεν εἰς δύο ἄγειν τὸν λόχον: ἐκ τούτου δὴ παρῆγον οἱ δεκάδαρχοι εἰς μέτωπον: ὁπότε δ᾽ αὖ ἐδόκει αὐτῷ καιρὸς εἶναι, παρήγγειλεν εἰς τέτταρας τὸν λόχον: οὕτω δὴ οἱ πεμπάδαρχοι αὖ παρῆγον εἰς τέτταρας: ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἐπὶ θύραις τῆς σκηνῆς ἐγένοντο, παραγγείλας αὖ εἰς ἕνα ἰόντων εἰσῆγε τὸν πρῶτον λόχον, καὶ τὸν δεύτερον τούτου κατ᾽ οὐρὰν ἐκέλευσεν ἕπεσθαι, καὶ τὸν τρίτον καὶ τὸν τέταρτον ὡσαύτως παραγγείλας ἡγεῖτο ἔσω: οὕτω δ᾽ εἰσαγαγὼν κατέκλινεν ἐπὶ τὸ δεῖπνον ὥσπερ εἰσεπορεύοντο: τοῦτον οὖν ὁ Κῦρος ἀγασθεὶς τῆς τε πρᾳότητος τῆς διδασκαλίας καὶ τῆς ἐπιμελείας ἐκάλεσε ταύτην τὴν τάξιν ἐπὶ τὸ δεῖπνον σὺν τῷ ταξιάρχῳ

21]
And once he saw another captain leading his1 company up from the river left about in single file and ordering when he thought it was proper, the second division and then the third and the fourth to advance to the front; and when the lieutenants were in a row in front, he ordered each division to march up in double file. Thus the sergeants (dekadarchs) came to stand on the front line. Again, when he thought proper, he ordered the divisions to line up four abreast; in this formation, then, the corporals (pempadarchs) in their turn came to stand four abreast in each division; and when they arrived at the doors of the tent, he commanded them to fall into single file again, and in this order he led the first division into the tent; the second he ordered to fall in line behind the first and follow, and, giving orders in like manner to the third and fourth, he led them inside. And when he had thus led them all in, he gave them their places at dinner in the order in which they came in. Pleased with him for his gentleness of discipline and for his painstaking, Cyrus invited this company also with its captain to dinner.
Walter Miller 1914

The manoeuvre described is not one of file insertion at all, but one of placing a block of troops on the flank of another.

You seem somewhat obsessed with the so-called waste of manpower in deep formations, but it is evident that in hoplite phalanxes the rear ranks pushed during ‘othismos’ and that the deeper formation had the advantage; Epaminondas, an actual ancient general who defeated the Spartans, went fifty deep at Leuktra, and his compatriot had gone deeper than sixteen at the Nemea, why do you think he wanted to waste all that manpower? As for the pike phalanx, the main purpose of the depth was to prevent the front ranks fleeing. They also serve who stand and push or simply stand.

Thus how phalanxes actually fought makes much more sense than the nonsensical theories of moderns as to the depth of a fighting phalanx.

Indeed.

My dear Agesilaos, I hesitate to respond to this post, because practically everything in it is mistaken, or incorrect !! I take it that your 'theme' here is to attack the fact that phalanxes operated in files in 'open' order, and then closed up into 'half-files' just prior to going into combat. If so, that is not something I care to debate, for as I have posted elsewhere this is accepted as fact - 'communis opinio' if you will - and has been for over 40 years !! [ see e.g. J.K Anderson "MilitaryT heory & Practice in the Age of Xenophon" 1970; Peter Connolly "Greek Armies" 1977; or myself in Warry "Warfare in the Classical World" amongst others - as I have posted here before]

Agesilaos wrote:

In fact what I wrote was entirely correct and your quote is not germane to the point; ...

"Not entirely correct" in the sense that you made an important omission from Aelian 5.1, namely the reference to 'quarter file leaders', the existence of whom is necessary to form 'synaspismos' , and which is very germane to the subject under discussion. ( They are also mentioned in Arrian “Tactica” VI.1)

..which is that only Aelian mentions the hemilochites needing to be among the best men (elsewhere it is only the file leader, the second man and the file closer) ; Aelian is also the only one to mention a ‘half-file closer’ . Your reply merely shows that Aelian mentions ‘dimoirites’, which was not under dispute only that the dimoirites here is not the same as the dimoriteis we find in Arrian.

Junior ranks, whether of a Hoplite phalanx or a Macedonian one are seldom referred to in our sources, so we are fortunate that Aelian ( the most complete version of the manuals) makes reference to them. Arrian too makes reference to half-file closers/dekastateres. I disagree that 'dimoirites' here is not the same as in Arrian. I presume you are referring to Arrian’s description of Alexander’s ‘new Persian style formation’ at “Anabasis” VII.23.1-4, where Arrian describes a ‘new fangled’ formation file of 4 phalangites and 12 Persian missile troops, the Macedonians being the file leader/dekadarch, the half-file leader/dimoirites and two half-file closers/dekastateres, and that it is on this basis that you think that Aelian’s ‘dimoirites’ is different to Arrian’s. That is to miss the point. The ‘dimoirites’ existed in Alexander’s army, and the important point is not where he was placed in the ‘new-fangled’ file, but what he did in the original Macedonian phalanx – which was ‘Half-file leader’. He is in fact exactly the same as in Aelian. If there were any room for doubt, it is quashed by Arrian “Tactica” VI.2,where the ‘dimoirites’ commands two quarter-files [i.e. is a half-file leader]

“ Indeed the whole has nothing to do with the Macedonian phalanx, which did not adopt a depth of twelve, but given the ’enomotiai’ probably derives from a description of the Spartan system, in all likelihood from the ‘Constitution of the Lacedaeimonians’, Xenophon was cited as a source in the archetype from which our continuators were working. That the descriptions do not match speaks to the accuracy of their transmission.”

“Enomotia” literally means a sworn band, is not a specifically Spartan term and simply refers to a generic small unit. The descriptions and terminology are entirely consistent, and it is no surprise that the names for the different ranks should differ from place to place, and time to time. Their transmission is indeed by and large accurate.

This makes the following ‘Thus’, a complete ‘non-sequitur’, and what follows an untenable construct based on a pre-conceived conclusion.

This is simply untrue. Half-file leaders are referred to several times in the works of Xenophon with reference to Hoplite formations

LOL This simply untrue!!!! There are no references to half-file leaders at all in Xenophon, ‘hemi-lochites’ is not a term he uses; but let us go with the notion that ‘pempadarchoi’, commanders of five, does mean half file leader, which in a file of ten it would de facto. There are a total of eleven uses of this term, which is exclusive to Xenophon, nine in the ’Cyropaedia’, referring to Persian infantry and twice in ‘Hipparchikos’ ‘The Cavalry Commander’ referring to, oops, Athenian cavalry.

Our sources give a number of different terms for file, file leader, and half-file leader – as I said the names differed from time to time and place to place. Xenophon may not have used the term ‘hemi-lochites’, which seems to have come after his time, but there are a number of references to ‘Half-file leaders’ – of which ‘pampadarch’ is one term. ‘Dekas’ or ‘Dekad’ may have originated as an ‘archaic’ term for a ten-man file, but by classical times it had become a generic term for ‘file’, usually 8 strong [but ten if all age groups were called up], and in Macedonian times the term was used of the 16 man file, as in Arrian.

I take it your 11 times word usage in Xenophon of this term – 9 for “Persian” infantry in the Cyropaedia, who are really Greek/Spartan hoplites, and 2 of Athenian cavalry comes via the LSJ, but caution must be used because the LSJ is not infallible, and variations and related words are often excluded – for example a variation on ‘pampadarch’ is used at Xen ‘Hellenica’ VII.2.6 “pampadas” for a Phliasian half-file which may or may not have been literally 5 strong, and is used a further 7 times in the Cyropaedia – and all these are in reality disguised references to Greek/Spartan type hoplites, half-files and half-file leaders..

Still, it will no doubt be contended those evolutions at II 3 xxi are based on Spartan hoplite drill. That the file leaders are called dekadarchoi has no bearing on the Macedonian dekad; the Cyropaedia is referenced in Plato’s Laws, which were written c 360 BC, a year before Philip acceded to the throne. Xenophon’s dekarchia are surely a reflection of Herodotos’ decimal organisation of the Persian army VII 81 i [

Not Spartan hoplite drill, but generic hoplite drill as used all over Greece – consider the Phliasian example above, or the fact that the Ten Thousand, from all over Greece, were able to form up in phalanx, and in their “customary fighting order” 4 deep the first time they congregated together, with no rehearsal and clearly using the same basic drill.
Xenophon’s “dekarchia” are nothing to with Herodotus or Persian decimal organisation – you read too much into the co-incidental use of the number ‘ten’.

Let us consider this passage Cyr. II 3 xxiff

[21]
ἄλλον δέ ποτε ἰδὼν ταξίαρχον ἄγοντα τὴν τάξιν ἀπὸ τοῦ ποταμοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ ἀριστερὸν ἐφ᾽ ἑνός, καὶ ὁπότε δοκοίη αὐτῷ καιρὸς εἶναι, παραγγέλλοντα τὸν ὕστερον λόχον παράγειν, καὶ τὸν τρίτον καὶ τὸν τέταρτον, εἰς μέτωπον, ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἐν μετώπῳ οἱ λοχαγοὶ ἐγένοντο, παρηγγύησεν εἰς δύο ἄγειν τὸν λόχον: ἐκ τούτου δὴ παρῆγον οἱ δεκάδαρχοι εἰς μέτωπον: ὁπότε δ᾽ αὖ ἐδόκει αὐτῷ καιρὸς εἶναι, παρήγγειλεν εἰς τέτταρας τὸν λόχον: οὕτω δὴ οἱ πεμπάδαρχοι αὖ παρῆγον εἰς τέτταρας: ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἐπὶ θύραις τῆς σκηνῆς ἐγένοντο, παραγγείλας αὖ εἰς ἕνα ἰόντων εἰσῆγε τὸν πρῶτον λόχον, καὶ τὸν δεύτερον τούτου κατ᾽ οὐρὰν ἐκέλευσεν ἕπεσθαι, καὶ τὸν τρίτον καὶ τὸν τέταρτον ὡσαύτως παραγγείλας ἡγεῖτο ἔσω: οὕτω δ᾽ εἰσαγαγὼν κατέκλινεν ἐπὶ τὸ δεῖπνον ὥσπερ εἰσεπορεύοντο: τοῦτον οὖν ὁ Κῦρος ἀγασθεὶς τῆς τε πρᾳότητος τῆς διδασκαλίας καὶ τῆς ἐπιμελείας ἐκάλεσε ταύτην τὴν τάξιν ἐπὶ τὸ δεῖπνον σὺν τῷ ταξιάρχῳ.]
And once he saw another captain leading his company[Taxis] up from the river left about in single file and ordering when he thought it was proper, the second division[lochos] and then the third and the fourth to advance to the front [come up beside the first]; and when the lieutenants[lochagoi] were in a row [line] in front, he ordered each division [lochos] to march up in double file. Thus the sergeants (dekadarchs) [File leaders] came to stand on the front line [led up by the side into line. (The taxis is now in 'open/normal formation on a frontage of 8 and 8 deep)]. Again, when he thought proper, he ordered the divisions[lochoi] to line up four abreast [incorrect : "form fours" is better]; in this formation, then, the corporals (pempadarchs)[half-file leaders] in their turn came to stand four abreast in each division [incorrect: "in fours" is better, though in fact at 4 x 4 each 'lochos' is also four abreast]; and when they arrived at the doors of the tent, he commanded them to fall into single file again, and in this order he led the first division[lochos] into the tent; the second he ordered to fall in line behind the first and follow, and, giving orders in like manner to the third and fourth, he led them inside. And when he had thus led them all in, he gave them their places at dinner in the order in which they came in. Pleased with him for his gentleness of discipline and for his painstaking, Cyrus invited this company also with its captain to dinner.
Walter Miller 1914
The manoeuvre described is not one of file insertion at all, but one of placing a block of troops on the flank of another.

(Clarifications in Italics are mine.)

Clearly, you haven’t tried to model this using matches, coins or whatever – it doesn’t work - to “place” a block of troops on the flank of another. In fact this “dinner drill” is a description of a ‘taxis’ going through its ‘doubling drills’ from single file to ‘battle order’/pyknosis. In addition Miller’s translation is faulty – “four abreast” is incorrect and the translator’s gloss, so a professor of Greek at Birmingham university assured me more than 40 years ago when I was working on this passage as part of my PhD on Greek and Roman warfare. It is more correctly “form fours”.

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, I’ve spent an hour or so drawing a rough diagram to illustrate the passage, together with a better translation which I hope will be legible, stage by stage. The ‘Taxis’ proceeds from single file, to all four lochoi abreast in line, then to files on a frontage of eight, eight deep, and finally battle order of half-files on a frontage of 16 and a depth of four ( which Xenophon calls the hoplites “customary battle order” at Anabasis I.2 ), with each lochos now 4 x 4 .

You seem somewhat obsessed with the so-called waste of manpower in deep formations, but it is evident that in hoplite phalanxes the rear ranks pushed during ‘othismos’ and that the deeper formation had the advantage; Epaminondas, an actual ancient general who defeated the Spartans, went fifty deep at Leuktra, and his compatriot had gone deeper than sixteen at the Nemea, why do you think he wanted to waste all that manpower? As for the pike phalanx, the main purpose of the depth was to prevent the front ranks fleeing. They also serve who stand and push or simply stand.

Not obsessed at all, simply pointing out deep is not efficient. A linear phalanx wants to have as big a frontage as possible to avoid being outflanked, and to outflank in turn, commensurate with sufficient depth to avoid being burst through – and modern re-enactors and riot police reckon that to be about four deep. Epaminondas and his ‘embolon’/column were not a linear formation, and even then did not succeed in breaking through the 6 deep Spartan line. Column versus line is a different tactic altogether.

AAAA....aaa...rrrgghh ! There’s that word – “Othismos” – a complete and utter non-existent myth. Contrary to those public school academics who imagined hoplite battle as rugger scrums with shields back in the 19 C, the word in a battle context does NOT mean pushing, rather ‘scrimmaging’ is a better translation. It is rarely used of hoplite v hoplite battle, and Herodotus only uses it twice, for example, to describe the ‘scrimmaging’ between Spartans and Persians ( not other hoplites) over Leonidas’ body at Thermopylae, and the ‘scrimmage’ at the Persian wicker shield line prior to it going down at Plataea.......Please let’s not go there.

Lastly, it didn’t take a formation 16 deep, simply to prevent front ranks fleeing – it needed only a single rear rank ( ouragoi) as we are told to perform this function, the rest is just ‘rationalisation’. To have two-thirds of your men unable to fight was, and is, a sure recipe for disaster. How does a pikeman ‘push’ anyway? And even if he could, to transmit that ‘push’ to the front ranks is an absurdity.......

You keep claiming that your position is communis opinion, but one would have to question the size of this consensus; it does not include A B Bosworth, for example, see his explanation of the Macedonian advance to the Pinaros where the final manoeuvre, down to eight, brings the second man of the file into the front rank next to the file leader; the method explained by Paralus with reference to Aelian. Nor do the authors of the Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare (2007) subscribe. Pritchett in his mammoth ‘The Greek State at War’ (1971-91, 5 vols) demolished George Cawkwell’s case for four deep being the standard depth of the hoplite phalanx (‘Hoplites and Orthodoxy’ Classical Quarterly, 1989), nor do Paul Cartledge, or John Marincola, Landmark ‘Hellenica’, agree, the list goes on and on. In short your opinion is not particularly comunnis and has certainly not been for forty years, but even if it were a bad opinion held by everyone to be true is still a bad opinion.

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.

Nowhere does Arrian say that the dekastateiroi were half- file closers, they are merely named for their pay, as is the dimoirites, a double pay man; in which sense it is attested both papyrologically, epigraphically and outside the Tacticians in Lucian, Saturnalia II (or Kronosolon) 15 and Dialogues of the Prostitutes IX 5, it also means the second in command of a ship in Zeus Tragoedus 48, again by reference to the pay (he goes on to mention trimoirites which should mean a triple-payman). Only in the Taktikeis do we find the ‘leader of a double quarter file’ derivation.

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.

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.

The point about transmission you seem to have misunderstood, it is that the enomotiai of the Taktikeis are not those of Xenophon who, since he is a cited source, is surely the ultimate source of their garble.

Pempadarch means the commader of five and is only found in the Cyropaedia and the Cavalry Commander. Dekas is only ever applied to the Macedonian file which originated under Alexander I when Macedonia was under Achaemenid rule. Hellenika VII 2 vi is a complete canard, all the text says is that the Phliasians left ‘one man in every five as a day guard’, pempadas is the feminine singular genitive, which means a group is understood, but that does not mean the group constitutes a unit as such, and how the line is frequently translated/glossed, it is simply how Greek deals with distributives; do you relly think that uniquely among the Greeks the Phliasians had adopted a ten man file?

The decimal system in the Cyropaedia is solely based on the Persians’ well known decimal organisation, forcing a Greek interpretation is perverse in the extreme as no example exists of a Greek battle line forming ten deep. The 10,000 are a valid point, but one can look at the evidence in a number of ways; for a start they lined up and charged four deep there was no intervening insertion, they may have considered four deep sufficient to defeat the Asiatics they would have to face, who used a looser order and lacked the heavy shields and long spears of the Greeks, Cyrus may have wanted his line to look bigger and the phrase

ἐκέλευσε δὲ τοὺς Ἕλληνας ὡς νόμος αὐτοῖς εἰς μάχην οὕτω ταχθῆναι καὶ στῆναι, συντάξαι δ᾽ ἕκαστον τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ. ἐτάχθησαν οὖν ἐπὶ τεττάρων:
I 2 xv

He urged the Greeks to form up and stand according to their custom in battle, each marshalling his own men. In fact they drew up four deep:

Is ambiguous, oun may mean ‘so’ but usually in a continuous narrative as part of a conjunctive phrase, more usually it means ‘what in fact happened’ in which case the trouble this passage has caused disappears, the Greeks had been asked to form up as if in battle but did so only four deep.

Since you have taken the time to illustrate your version of the Cyropaedia (although I understood it well before hand) I shall apply myself to supplying the like.

The first thing to notice (other than the pretty pictures) is that my file is organised differently from yours at the lower level; my dekadarchs (commanders of ten) command ten men exclusive of themselves , yours eight inclusive of themselves; my pampadarchs (commanders of five) command five men inclusive, yours but four inclusive. As Xenophon was inventing the whole set up one has to wonder whether you presume he could not count or that he could not express them in Greek. Pretending that Arrian’s reference to the Macedonian file being called a dekas, despite having sixteen men, can have any relevance to a work written about Persians, with possible Spartan grafts, before the Macedonian phalanx had even emerged onto the scene does not just stretch credulity it positively racks it!!

I have omitted the single file phase for obvious reasons. Now let us consider how Xenophon describes the subsequent evolutions.

καὶ ὁπότε δοκοίη αὐτῷ καιρὸς εἶναι, παραγγέλλοντα τὸν ὕστερον λόχον παράγειν,
καὶ τὸν τρίτον καὶ τὸν τέταρτον, εἰς μέτωπον,
and when he himself (the Taxiarch) judged there was enough room, the next lochos was ordered to fall in on the flank (παράγειν) and the third and the fourth, into the first rank (εἰς μέτωπον),

not much to question here.
then,

ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἐν μετώπῳ οἱ λοχαγοὶ ἐγένοντο, παρηγγύησεν εἰς δύο ἄγειν τὸν λόχον: ἐκ τούτου δὴ παρῆγον οἱ δεκάδαρχοι εἰς μέτωπον:
once the lochagoi had formed the front rank, he ordered the lochoi to form in two [files]; this meant that the dekadarchs came onto the flank to form the front rank.

So in phase three
In the final expansion we have

ὁπότε δ᾽ αὖ ἐδόκει αὐτῷ καιρὸς εἶναι, παρήγγειλεν εἰς τέτταρας τὸν λόχον: οὕτω δὴ οἱ πεμπάδαρχοι αὖ παρῆγον εἰς τέτταρας:
then, when he reckoned the space sufficient, he ordered each lochos to form four [files]:and in this [formation] the pempadarchs came by the flank to form four [files];

when the British army ‘form fours’ it means four ranks, but it is clear from the παρηγγύησεν εἰς δύο ἄγειν that in this passage, it is the number of files to which Xenophon refers. Thus,
This fits Xenophon’s description rather better; the officers have the correct commands the dekadarchs end up in pairs and the pempadarchs in fours (and notice xenophon does Not bring them into the 'metapon' or front rank.I leave the readers to judge.

Agesilaos wrote:

“You keep claiming that your position is communis opinion, but one would have to question the size of this consensus; it does not include A B Bosworth, for example, see his explanation of the Macedonian advance to the Pinaros where the final manoeuvre, down to eight, brings the second man of the file into the front rank next to the file leader; the method explained by Paralus with reference to Aelian. Nor do the authors of the Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare (2007) subscribe. Pritchett in his mammoth ‘The Greek State at War’ (1971-91, 5 vols) demolished George Cawkwell’s case for four deep being the standard depth of the hoplite phalanx (‘Hoplites and Orthodoxy’ Classical Quarterly, 1989), nor do Paul Cartledge, or John Marincola, Landmark ‘Hellenica’, agree, the list goes on and on. In short your opinion is not particularly comunnis and has certainly not been for forty years, but even if it were a bad opinion held by everyone to be true is still a bad opinion.”

‘Communis opinio’ among ancient military historians, as should be clear from those I mentioned. Since when is Bosworth a specialist military historian ? When has he written of technical military matters ? The same goes for the others you mention – they are all general historians, or classicists to whom the more technical matters of ancient military history are of little or no interest. It is significant that you don’t refer to any argument from even these to offer an alternative explanation of just how the phalanx fought. There isn’t one consistent with the sources, at least that I have come across.

You seem somewhat confused about Pritchett and Cawkwell ( again, neither of whom I would classify, strictly speaking, as a military historian, though both touch on the detailed subject.) In his mammoth work, Pritchett followed earlier works ( not addressing the subject of hoplite combat with original thought ) in assuming a ‘mass shoving’ approach – the orthodox view in the so-called and utterly pointless “othismos” debate - for both sides were hopelessly wrong. In his paper, Cawkwell sought to ‘demolish’ this view, and did indeed agree that close order was 4 deep, and got most of the drill manoeuvres correct, but went on to tentatively suggest paradoxically that the phalanx manoeuvred in close order, and then changed back to ‘open order’ for combat, fighting a series of individual spear duels! ( contrary to our sources, who tell us that ‘close order’ was adopted just before combat). He made no definitive conclusions, other than that the “orthodox” view was wrong. It was thus Cawkwell who ‘demolished’ Pritchetts view, not the other way around......

I would certainly agree with you that “a bad opinion held by everyone to be true is still a bad opinion” – such as the ‘othismatics’ with their irrelevant black/white views, both demonstrably wrong. Let us digress no further in that direction, but stick to the subject of this thread.

“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 !

“Nowhere does Arrian say that the dekastateiroi were half- file closers, they are merely named for their pay, as is the dimoirites, a double pay man; in which sense it is attested both papyrologically, epigraphically and outside the Tacticians in Lucian, Saturnalia II (or Kronosolon) 15 and Dialogues of the Prostitutes IX 5, it also means the second in command of a ship in Zeus Tragoedus 48, again by reference to the pay (he goes on to mention trimoirites which should mean a triple-payman). Only in the Taktikeis do we find the ‘leader of a double quarter file’ derivation.”

...which just goes to show once again, Greek words, like English ones, can have different meanings depending on context. Naturally, in a technical military context, it means what the manuals say, which is consistent with usage elsewhere, such as in Polybius and Arrian. Surely you are not flatly saying the manuals are wrong ? If so, on what basis?

“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
You imply that the Macedonians in the proposed new phalanx are simply getting increased pay, as part of the re-structure,but this is not so, for we hear of the rank of ‘dimoirites’ in Alexander’s army well before this e.g. Abreas the dimoirites who came to Alexander’s rescue at Malli [Arrian VI.9.3].

“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.
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’. [CORRECTION: should read 'Protostatai']

The beauty of the ‘file/half-file’ system is that it works for any even-numbered size file – 8 ( as in my sketch diagram), 10 (as in yours) 12 or 16 – the attested file depths in the manuals [Arrian 5.; Aelian 4.2 ; Ascepiodotus II.1] It also accommodates adjacent ‘lochoi’ of different file depths, ( as per Thucydides that you refer to, e.g. so that a lochos will fit a particular space between physical obstacles) yet provides a uniform front.

“The point about transmission you seem to have misunderstood, it is that the enomotiai of the Taktikeis are not those of Xenophon who, since he is a cited source, is surely the ultimate source of their garble.”

The manuals are assuredly not garbled....as I seemingly have to endlessly point out, terminology changed over time, a word which started with a specific meaning such as ‘dekas’ or ‘dekury’ meaning a file of 10 came to mean a generic “file” of any size, and ‘dekadarch/leader of ten’ came to mean simply ‘file leader’ and it is applied, along with ‘dekad’ to Macedonian files of 16 [ Arrian ‘Anabasis’ VII.23 – Alexander’s new phalanx] or by Xenophon to a file of 12 [Cyropaedia II.4.4]. Same with 'enomotia'. At all times it was a smaller sub-unit of a lochos, apparently, but came to mean file, or later still, quarter-file.

“Pempadarch means the commader of five and is only found in the Cyropaedia and the Cavalry Commander. Dekas is only ever applied to the Macedonian file which originated under Alexander I when Macedonia was under Achaemenid rule. Hellenika VII 2 vi is a complete canard, all the text says is that the Phliasians left ‘one man in every five as a day guard’, pempadas is the feminine singular genitive, which means a group is understood, but that does not mean the group constitutes a unit as such, and how the line is frequently translated/glossed, it is simply how Greek deals with distributives; do you relly think that uniquely among the Greeks the Phliasians had adopted a ten man file?”

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”.

Also, 'dekas/dekadarch' is not just used with reference to the Macedonians of Alexander I, but also Philip II and Alexander III, not to mention the manuals, implying it was in use throughout.

“The decimal system in the Cyropaedia is solely based on the Persians’ well known decimal organisation, forcing a Greek interpretation is perverse in the extreme as no example exists of a Greek battle line forming ten deep...........

......Since you have taken the time to illustrate your version of the Cyropaedia (although I understood it well before hand) I shall apply myself to supplying the like.”

Which brings us to your “Persian” diagram. I am astounded that you think this is based on a real Persian system, contrary to everyone I can think of who has examined the ‘Cyropaedia. However I can see that you are forced to argue this rather eccentric view. You recognise that file/half-file drill existed, but don’t want to ascribe it to Greeks, and hence want to foist it onto the Persians, despite the weight of evidence. But it would be a strange thing if ‘missile’ troops formed close order as they were about to go into action. They need room to launch arrows and javelins.

I’d agree that the Persian system was decimal based, with a file of 10,[ called dathaba] as revealed from ration documents etc from Persepolis. The file was commanded by a ‘dathapatis’ with a second-in-command called a ‘pascadathapatis’ who brought up the rear. There were no half-files, lochoi , or taxeis as in Xenophon ( so he is not describing a real Persian army). Only the ‘dathaptis’ carried a pavise-like ‘spara’, from behind a wall of which the Persians functioned mainly as archers.

Xenophon was interested in describing an ‘idealised’ military structure, as education for his fellow Greeks, and he certainly didn’t take the real Persian army as his model. The “Persians” of the fictional Cyrus consisted of aristocratic ‘Peers/Equals’ and lesser citizens, which reflected Spartan society, not Persian. His troops worship heroes, go crowned with garlands into battle, send a watchword up and down the phalanx lines, sing a paean as they march into battle and more – all characteristic of Greeks, but never Persians. Moreover, the first thing Cyrus does is re-equip his army with ‘hopla’[ heavy infantry equipment] for hand-to-hand fighting, abandoning bows and javelins and missile weapons. [Cyropaedia II.1.9 et seq ]. Thus his drill is ‘hoplite drill’, intended as a model for Greek heavy infantry, fighting hand to hand in close order.

I’ll grant your diagram is far ‘prettier’ than my crude sketch, despite the use of anachronistic palace guardsmen for the figures – though they have the virtue of being correctly armed. However they are nothing like Xenophon/Cyrus’ heavy infantry hoplites of the Cyropaedia. I don’t know why you have your ‘dekadarchs’ outside the file, but your ‘pampadarchs’ not. It leaves you with a front line/metapon with large gaps, since you insist that your ‘pampadarchs’ don’t fight alongside them – which in reality would change in a twinkling the moment lines met anyway.

Also, I find the idea that the two ‘front halves’ fight side by side, as do the two ‘rear halves’ unlikely in the extreme, for in the previous formation, assuming files in close order, there would then have to be six foot intervals ( 12 feet if in open order; your diagram doesn’t specify whether you envisage them moving into close order or staying in open order) between the ‘double files’ for these rear half-files to move into – un-necessarily complex and impractical. In real life, soldiers stand shoulder to shoulder ( close order), or measure arms length from the man to their right ( open order). How do your “Persians” maintain these alternate ‘double files’, then six foot gaps ? The reality is that any movement would lead to contraction/expansion of the gaps in a trice! Experience of the parade ground, would make you hesitate before suggesting such an impractical formation.

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.

So your diagram does NOT fit what Xenophon describes in the Cyropaedia, which is drill for hoplites and which works for files of 8,10,12 or 16 as per the manuals ( and the files/half files method is confirmed by them ). Incidently, I used the smallest file size (8) for my sketch to avoid the tedium of having to draw lots more symbols by hand......

amended to correct 'paragogai' to 'protostatai'.