Macedonian phalanx: overarm, underarm or both?

[Justin Swanton]

Unfortunately your new translation sucks even more than the original. 

The θυρεοφόρους are Romans (thureophoroi, what a Greek calls the scutum-bearing Romans - cf. τοῖς θυρεοῖς τῶν Ῥωμαίων).

True enough. I was looking at the wrong meaning of ὑποστάντων - it can mean 'to support', and I gave theureophoroi a generic sense of 'he who carries a shield' - forgetting that theureos is an oblong shield.

I really think anyone who writes an article of this nature for Slingshot should pass his ideas by the forum first. If they survive here they'll survive anywhere. 

The people in front who are defeated in combat with the phalanx (specifically, the Peltasts) are the Marrucini and Paeligni - see Livy. There are several Macedonian phalanx units involved - at least, Peltasts, Chalcaspides, Leucaspides - and they have different degrees of success - the Peltasts defeat the Allied cohorts (Marrucini, Paeligni) and drive on at speed, the Chalcaspides and Leukaspides follow them up but are (apparently) more held up by the Roman legions (in the centre). (It can be argued the Leucaspides aren't part of the phalanx, but I'll assume for now they are).

Christopher Matthew has something sensible to say about καὶ ταῖς σαρίσαις ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς συνθήματος κλιθείσαις though I forget what - will look it up tomorrow (but 'inclining their sarisas at one command' is roughly it).

At least I got that right.

A key question is who τῶν ἄλλων Μακεδόνων  - 'the other Macedonians' - are - other than who? Obviously, other than τοὺς ἐν τοῖς ἀγήμασι Μακεδόνας - 'those in the Macedonian agemas' - which seems to be Plutarch's slightly confused reference to the Peltasts (which had only one Agema). So 'the other Macedonians' are the Chalcaspides (and Leucaspides?). Not second rankers or anything like that.

OK. Notice that after all that the shields are still interlocked (which implies either shields larger than 2' wide or a file spacing narrower than 3') and the sarissas are still brought to bear. I asked Paul Bardunias about this and he affirms it is impossible to bear sarissas underarm in a close formation as the shields overlap exactly where the left arm holds the sarissa. It does rather leave the overarm hold as the one viable option.

[Jim Webster]

OK. Notice that after all that the shields are still interlocked (which implies either shields larger than 2' wide or a file spacing narrower than 3') and the sarissas are still brought to bear. I asked Paul Bardunias about this and he affirms it is impossible to bear sarissas underarm in a close formation as the shields overlap exactly where the left arm holds the sarissa. It does rather leave the overarm hold as the one viable option.

except that 'shields interlocked' might merely be a carry-over of a term for close formation used by hoplites etc, it might not mean that for people with a smaller shield that the shields are actually interlocked.
It's not uncommon in a language for terms to be used that don't actually mean what their literal meaning would suggest. After all a trooper is a private soldier in a cavalry or armoured unit.
Then as a para - trooper he jumps out of aircraft with his horse 

[Justin Swanton]

except that 'shields interlocked' might merely be a carry-over of a term for close formation used by hoplites etc, it might not mean that for people with a smaller shield that the shields are actually interlocked.
It's not uncommon in a language for terms to be used that don't actually mean what their literal meaning would suggest. After all a trooper is a private soldier in a cavalry or armoured unit.
Then as a para - trooper he jumps out of aircraft with his horse 

Not quite the same thing. If 'shields interlocked' is a term for 'close formation' (which it is), then the shields are, in reality, interlocked.

I prefer going for the obvious, literal meaning unless it is contradicted by fact (rather than by a favourite theory).

[Duncan Head]

OK. Notice that after all that the shields are still interlocked (which implies either shields larger than 2' wide or a file spacing narrower than 3') and the sarissas are still brought to bear.

συνασπισμοῦ/synaspismou literally means no more than "shields together". "Interlocked" in the sense of overlapping is an artefact of modern translation, and should probably be ignored.

[Justin Swanton]

OK. Notice that after all that the shields are still interlocked (which implies either shields larger than 2' wide or a file spacing narrower than 3') and the sarissas are still brought to bear.

συνασπισμοῦ/synaspismou literally means no more than "shields together". "Interlocked" in the sense of overlapping is an artefact of modern translation, and should probably be ignored.

if συνασπισμοῦ means 'shields together' then can we take it that the shields are actually together? If that is the case then this is not an intermediate formation, where the shields, if two feet wide, would have one foot gaps between them.

The manuals state that a phalanx ready to receive an enemy attack is in close formation (men side-on) - 1 cubit per file - whilst a phalanx advancing toward the enemy (men facing forwards) is intermediate formation - 2 cubits. Question: is there any exception to the rule for the close formation phalanx not moving on a historical battlefield? The men facing forwards are about 18" wide so their shoulders are touching, which means they could advance provide the ground was flat and free of obstacles.

[Duncan Head]

if συνασπισμοῦ means 'shields together' then can we take it that the shields are actually together? If that is the case then this is not an intermediate formation, where the shields, if two feet wide, would have one foot gaps between them.

Maybe that's close enough to count as "together"?

More likely, the word came into use when three-foot hoplite shields were standard, and was carried over into Macedonian use to mean "close formation" without anyone bothering about whether its etymology was still geometrically appropriate.

The manuals do use synaspismos to mean the one-cubit formation, and Plutarch may be implying the same meaning, but I don't think we can be certain that he does; for one thing, the Macedonians at Pydna are attacking, and the manuals suggest that the one-cubit formation is used only in defence. I do think (unlike C Matthew) that the one-cubit formation must have been possible, at least in a static defensive posture; but (a) I suspect that at Pydna Plutarch may actually be talking about the two-cubit "intermediate" attacking formation, and (b) I don't think we can necessarily assume that in the one-cubit formation the shields were touching, or overlapping, or even directly facing forwards.

[Erpingham]

I prefer going for the obvious, literal meaning unless it is contradicted by fact (rather than by a favourite theory).

Its not that simple in this case because not all the sources agree that synaspismos actually differed from pyknosis in the later phalanx.  This allows some interpretation that the term synaspismos is just a hangover from the days of the hoplite phalanx.  I'm not saying its right (I wouldn't know) but dismissing it as "non-literal" overlooks that the confusion does come from ancient sources.

Also, I think we are very much in "favourite theory" territory, if my understanding of academic debate about Macedonian pikes is accurate .

[RichT]

willb:

Both the English and Greek texts are from the Perseus project. If the English translation is incorrect, what is the full translation of the Greek text?

Loeb (Paton) translation: "it is evident that it must extend ten cubits beyond the body of each hoplite when he charges the enemy grasping it with both hands."

Shuckburgh translation: "it follows clearly that each hoplite will have ten cubits of his sarissae projecting beyond his body, when he lowers it with both hands, as he advances against the enemy."

My literal translation: "It is clear that ten cubits of the sarisa must extend before the body of each of the hoplites whenever in both hands he projected against the enemy."

Neither of the other translations are wrong as such, they are just fairly loose, so that proballo ('project' in mine) becomes 'lower' in Shuckburgh and 'charge' in Paton. This is why extreme care is needed when picking single words out of translated sources and building theories around them. But likewise exteme care is needed when altering translations - odds are the translator got the grammar and overall meaning right, for all he might have translated the odd word slightly too freely.

Yes synaspismos means 'shields together' and while in the manuals it is used for the one cubit spacing, in literary sources (Polybius, Xenophon etc) it doesn't appear to have this meaning and just means 'in close order' - Polybius uses it interchangeably with puknosis, the manuals' word for the intermediate (two cubit) spacing.

It's not a given that the shield would be held at 90 degrees to the front, so even at 18" spacing (one cubit) with a 24" shield (eight palms) it's not certain if or how much they would overlap. It's hard to imagine how sarissas would fit between shields at 18", but Peter Connolly said they could. Paul Bardunias says they can't. One or other of them is mistaken. A shoulder level hold might solve the problem but there is no other evidence for such a hold, and if Connolly is right, there is no problem to solve. What to do?

As to advancing at 18" spacing - we had this discussion not long ago too IIRC. There's no hard evidence either way, though on the face of it I can't see why it would be impossible. Peter Connolly though found that advancing was difficult/impossible with tight spacing between ranks, which the manual's synaspismos requires. Polybius' understanding seems to be that the normal formation was two cubits. It's a tricky question, not open to simple solutions, sadly.

Edit: Overlapped with Duncan and Anthony saying the same thing so TL;DR of above is 'what they said'.

[Justin Swanton]

if συνασπισμοῦ means 'shields together' then can we take it that the shields are actually together? If that is the case then this is not an intermediate formation, where the shields, if two feet wide, would have one foot gaps between them.

Maybe that's close enough to count as "together"?

More likely, the word came into use when three-foot hoplite shields were standard, and was carried over into Macedonian use to mean "close formation" without anyone bothering about whether its etymology was still geometrically appropriate.

Look at the context:

As the attack began, Aemilius came up and found that the Macedonian battalions had already planted the tips of their long spears in the shields of the Romans, who were thus prevented from reaching them with their swords. And when he saw that the rest of the Macedonian troops also were drawing their shields (pelta) from their shoulders round in front of them, and others on a prearranged signal sloping their sarissas to oppose the theureophoroi, and saw too the strength of their interlocked shields and the fierceness of their onset, amazement and fear took possession of him, and he felt that he had never seen a sight more fearful.

The "interlocked shields" are something that impresses Aemilius. This implies there is more here than just shields held in a normal intermediate formation such as the Romans habitually employed. Otherwise why would Aemilius be impressed by their strength? It seems fairly obvious that the Macedonians are in a formation that really does bring their shields together in a solid wall, something that gets the notice of a Roman commander used to a looser deployment for his own troops and that of his customary enemies.

[RichT]

I really don't think so, Justin. As said before, 'probole and synaspismos' are the characteristic features of the Macedonian phalanx, and come up quite often.  Plutarch's synaspismos at Pydna is IMHO highly unlikely to be the technical synaspismos of the manuals, and more likely used in this generic sense of the impressive features of the phalanx - 'the sharpness of their projecting spears and strength of their close order'.

[Justin Swanton]

I really don't think so, Justin. As said before, 'probole and synaspismos' are the characteristic features of the Macedonian phalanx, and come up quite often.  Plutarch's synaspismos at Pydna is IMHO highly unlikely to be the technical synaspismos of the manuals, and more likely used in this generic sense of the impressive features of the phalanx - 'the sharpness of their projecting spears and strength of their close order'.

There's also the possibility that the phalangites' files were close enough to permit the shields to touch but not so close so that the men - pressed shoulder against shoulder - would have difficulty in moving. Thus about two feet per file, which leaves 6" between the men of each file, allowing them to move with a little flexibility but keeping their shields together in a way that would impress Aemilius - remember he notices specifically the strength of the shields brought together, which suggests an order closer than the habitual 3 feet.

Such a formation would technically be 'close' rather than 'intermediate' since it is nearer one cubit than two.

I'd much rather make sense of the sources if possible.

[Jim Webster]

except that 'shields interlocked' might merely be a carry-over of a term for close formation used by hoplites etc, it might not mean that for people with a smaller shield that the shields are actually interlocked.
It's not uncommon in a language for terms to be used that don't actually mean what their literal meaning would suggest. After all a trooper is a private soldier in a cavalry or armoured unit.
Then as a para - trooper he jumps out of aircraft with his horse 

Not quite the same thing. If 'shields interlocked' is a term for 'close formation' (which it is), then the shields are, in reality, interlocked.

Not if they're little ones rather than a hoplon for which the term was invented

[Justin Swanton]

except that 'shields interlocked' might merely be a carry-over of a term for close formation used by hoplites etc, it might not mean that for people with a smaller shield that the shields are actually interlocked.
It's not uncommon in a language for terms to be used that don't actually mean what their literal meaning would suggest. After all a trooper is a private soldier in a cavalry or armoured unit.
Then as a para - trooper he jumps out of aircraft with his horse 

Not quite the same thing. If 'shields interlocked' is a term for 'close formation' (which it is), then the shields are, in reality, interlocked.

Not if they're little ones rather than a hoplon for which the term was invented

Wait a minute. The synaspismos for hoplites created files 3 feet wide because the shield was that wide - it was the convenient measuring-stick by which the files kept regular spacing when lining up alongside each other. Why shouldn't the phalangite shield, 2 feet wide, serve exactly the same purpose? Allowing for a little overlap, that gives you slightly more than a cubit, 1 1/3 cubits to be exact if the shields just touch each other, which is technically a close formation. That makes the phalanx at Pydna in close formation but still able to advance.

[Erpingham]

Wait a minute. The synaspismos for hoplites created files 3 feet wide because the shield was that wide - it was the convenient measuring-stick by which the files kept regular spacing when lining up alongside each other. Why shouldn't the phalangite shield, 2 feet wide, serve exactly the same purpose? Allowing for a little overlap, that gives you slightly more than a cubit, 1 1/3 cubits to be exact if the shields just touch each other, which is technically a close formation. That makes the phalanx at Pydna in close formation but still able to advance.

It depends on how much pike phalanxes derived their drill from hoplite phalanxes.  Did they literally re-interpret i.e. now our shields are smaller, we must get closer together to deliver synaspismos or did they just keep the term for the spacing already in the drill book?

Incidentally, on the Macedonians v. Romans question didn't one of the ancient historians actually do a comparison, or is my memory deciving me?

[Jim Webster]

except that 'shields interlocked' might merely be a carry-over of a term for close formation used by hoplites etc, it might not mean that for people with a smaller shield that the shields are actually interlocked.
It's not uncommon in a language for terms to be used that don't actually mean what their literal meaning would suggest. After all a trooper is a private soldier in a cavalry or armoured unit.
Then as a para - trooper he jumps out of aircraft with his horse 

Not quite the same thing. If 'shields interlocked' is a term for 'close formation' (which it is), then the shields are, in reality, interlocked.

Not if they're little ones rather than a hoplon for which the term was invented

Wait a minute. The synaspismos for hoplites created files 3 feet wide because the shield was that wide - it was the convenient measuring-stick by which the files kept regular spacing when lining up alongside each other. Why shouldn't the phalangite shield, 2 feet wide, serve exactly the same purpose?

simple, the shield might have changed but men hadn't. I suspect that the three feet wide file was the important thing. The hoplon was designed to fit the file width, not the file width to fit this shield somebody had just invented
With the smaller shield, used with a pike, there may have been no need to change the normal combat file width.
Yes you might get slightly more protection from the shield if the files were narrower, but this might well have been seen by those using the kit as a pretty small advantage compared to the disadvantages of being closer together