File recoil

[Patrick Waterson]

Hoplite armies seem to have favoured depths of 12 or 16 at least as often as 8 in the 4th century, so I am inclined to wonder whether the standardisation on 16 ranks actually had anything to do with the adoption of the pike:

These, who were drawn up eight deep, thinking that the wing of the phalanx was too weak, attempted to perform an anastrophe (to double its ranks).

True, and we also have the allied (anti-Spartan) army in Hellenica IV.2.13 (394 BC):

"But while they were negotiating about the leadership and trying to come to an agreement with one another as to the number of ranks in depth in which the whole army should be drawn up, in order to prevent the states from making their phalanxes too deep and thus giving the enemy a chance of surrounding them,—meanwhile the Lacedaemonians, having already picked up the Tegeans and Mantineans, were on their outward march, taking the road along the sea-shore."

They presumably agreed on 16 deep, because:

"Now the Boeotians, so long as they occupied the left wing, were not in the least eager to join battle; but when the Athenians took position opposite the Lacedaemonians, and the Boeotians themselves got the right wing and were stationed opposite the Achaeans, they immediately said that the sacrifices were favourable and gave the order to make ready, saying that there would be a battle. And in the first place, disregarding the sixteen-rank formation, they made their phalanx exceedingly deep, and, besides, they also veered to the right in leading the advance, in order to outflank the enemy with their wing; and the Athenians, in order not to be detached from the rest of the line, followed them towards the right, although they knew that there was danger of their being surrounded." - idem IV.2.18

Conversely, Alexander's pikemen seem to have deployed 8 deep, judging by Polybius' (XII.19.6) quoting Callisthenes about the phalanx closing up from 32 deep to 16 deep then to 8 deep, so the later Macedonian adoption of 16 deep formations seems to have been independent of the Greek use of hoplites 12 or 16 deep, or as much as 50 deep in the case of the Thebans.  8 deep pikes presumably trumped 16 deep hoplites at the Granicus, otherwise one would expect Alexander to deepen his pike formations at Issus.  Hence the Macedonians may have seen no need to adopt 16 deep pikes until up against pike-using opponents.

[Andreas Johansson]

A little table of attested Greek and Macedonian formation depths I'm keeping around, originally from a book by Pritchett:



(I don't have the book, and I don't recall where I first came across the gif.)

[Patrick Waterson]

Nice table, Andreas: that is very handy.

The 16-deep Macedonian formation at Babylon in 323 is of course the 'mixed phalanx' containing four ranks of Macedonian phalangites and twelve of Persian missilemen.  Arrian also mentions in VII.23.3 that the Macedonian file was called a 'dekad', hinting at the pre-Alexandrian (and possibly also pre-Philip??) depth of Macedonian infantry formations.

[Dangun]

If you google the table header, the book containing the table is revealed to be: "The Greek State at War" by William Kendrick Pritchett, p 135.

It looks as though most of the book is readable through Google Books.

[Justin Swanton]

Interesting table, and it raises all over again the question of the purpose of depth.

You have Spartans fighting 1 deep, 2 deep, 4 deep, 8 deep, 12 deep and 18/20 deep. Why such variety? Did it depend on the kind of opponent they were facing? It seems that depth was not primarily for psychological support, since such a need would be either unnecessary or necessary in every instance, especially with the same army.

[Dangun]

And I think we may have discussed this before... but 12 ranks vs 50 at Leuctra would suggest the choice doesn't have much to do with shoving either, because initially the Spartans made progress and the shoving logic would suggest they should have been shattered immediately.

[RichT]

Yes indeed - while still trying desperately not to have an othismos discussion, extra rear ranks seem to have added momentum, forward impetus, solidity, resistance-to-going-backwards in ways which can be described as 'weight' (eg by Polybius) without us having to understand that they all literally leant on the man in front and pushed (which would itself raise all sorts of problems). I get the feeling people in antiquity were themselves not entirely clear on why extra ranks were good, any more than they are today, but they knew through experience that they were. It's similar for other periods after all, like Napoleonic line v. column. Objectively, a 3 deep line is the maximum that would allow everyone to fight, and yet deeper formations were used, and worked (sometimes), and trial and error and experimentation continued throughout (even at Waterloo, the French I Corps seems to have adopted an experimental, very deep column).

Extra ranks means narrower frontage, so there is a trade off, if a force is not to be outflanked or enveloped. This is presumably why there is little standardisation - number of ranks to adopt depends on number of enemy, number of ranks adopted by enemy, ground to be covered, and expected difficulty of the coming fight (if you think little of your opponents you might be prepared to adopt a shallow depth - if you are expecting a stiff fight, you might prefer to seek safety in depth).

I think Xen. Hell. iv.2.13 quoted by Patrick above is very revealing. "But while they were negotiating about the leadership and trying to come to an agreement with one another as to the number of ranks in depth in which the whole army should be drawn up, in order to prevent the states from making their phalanxes too deep and thus giving the enemy a chance of surrounding them." So each contingent (expecting a hard fight against Spartans) would want to prioritise their own safety in depth, even at the cost of narrowing the front of the whole army.

[Erpingham]

Extra ranks means narrower frontage, so there is a trade off, if a force is not to be outflanked or enveloped. This is presumably why there is little standardisation - number of ranks to adopt depends on number of enemy, number of ranks adopted by enemy, ground to be covered, and expected difficulty of the coming fight (if you think little of your opponents you might be prepared to adopt a shallow depth - if you are expecting a stiff fight, you might prefer to seek safety in depth).

You beat me to this one, Rich.  I hate to say it (because it won't be me doing the work) but we need to look at why the armies chose the number of ranks they were in at some of these actions to understand what's going on.

From my end of the time scale we might consider Agincourt.  The English Men-at-arms were four deep, thinner than they would like because they had to cover a frontage.  The French were thirty deep, much deeper they would like because their frontage was constrained.  In this battle, of course, uncontrolled forward pressure just collapsed the front ranks and prevented those in the press from using their weapons effectively.

[Patrick Waterson]

You have Spartans fighting 1 deep, 2 deep, 4 deep, 8 deep, 12 deep and 18/20 deep. Why such variety?

A few qualifications here. '1 deep' is from the Athenian orator Isocrates in a speech to (or titled) Archidamus, and addressed to the eponymous Spartan king.  Isocrates refers to the battle of Dipaia of 471 BC and that 'it is said' the Spartans were drawn up one shield deep.  Herodotus, in his mention of the battle, makes no such remark, so we are left with Isocrates' oral tradition which may be true or may be retrospective Spartan self-imaging.  Whichever is the case, no Greeks ever used a 1 deep battleline elsewhere.

The '2 deep' seems to be a misunderstanding of Agesilaus drawing up his men in a 'double phalanx'.  He was anyway on the march to Thebes and not deploying for battle.

The 4 deep in Diodorus XIII refers to when the Spartans surrounded Athens with a line '8 stades wide and 4 deep'.  They were not deploying for battle.

At Leuctra the Spartans seem to have deployed 12 deep, which may have been a tactical modification in view of the expected depth of the Theban phalanx.  If so (assuming Cleombrotus actually expected to be facing the Thebans on his wing) this would be an adjustment based on the opponent, assuming it was not a new 6-deep-and-occasionally-double-up deployment designed to stretch a dwindling number of Spartiates.

The 9-10/18-20 deep configuration at Mantinea is from:

"On the following day at daybreak he was offering sacrifices in front of the army; and seeing that troops were gathering from the city of the Mantineans on the mountains which were above the rear of his army, he decided that he must lead his men out of the valley with all possible speed. Now he feared that if he led the way himself, the enemy would fall upon his rear; accordingly, while keeping quiet and presenting his front toward the enemy, he ordered the men at the rear to face about to the right and march along behind the phalanx toward him. And in this manner he was at the same time leading them out of the narrow valley and making the phalanx continually stronger.

When the phalanx had thus been doubled [edediplōto] in depth, he proceeded into the plain with the hoplites in this formation, and then extended the army again into a line nine or ten shields deep." - Xenophon, Hellenica VI.5.18-19

In essence, Agesilaus doubles his depth to narrow his frontage and thus take that part of the army out of hostile reach (not allowed under most wargame rules!), then moves into the plain and resumes his fighting depth of 9-10.  Why not 8?  Why not 12?  It may be that the Spartan system was undergoing some reorganisation or even experimentation around this time (370 BC, just post-Leuctra).

The above apart, Spartans seemed generally happy with 8 deep, which we can probably take as their pre-Leuctra norm.

And I think we may have discussed this before... but 12 ranks vs 50 at Leuctra would suggest the choice doesn't have much to do with shoving either, because initially the Spartans made progress and the shoving logic would suggest they should have been shattered immediately.

This of course depends upon who generates and coordinates their shove first.  The pattern is consistent with a) othismos being something which happens after the battlelines have already collided/engaged as opposed to being an impact ab initio and b) the more disciplined Spartans being first off the mark but gradually being overcome as the deeper and more numerous Thebans get organised, aligned and pushing in coordination.

[Jim Webster]

I've read authors who suggested that one deep might have been with ranks of Perioeci making up the rear ranks
I merely mention it

[Mark G]

Sorry rich, but all of those Napoleonic comparisons are wrong.

It's not the place to detail them, but there was no weight / depth factor in using columns, and d'erlons formations at waterloo ( and Wagram) were not based on that either.

Back to in period comparisons please.

[Patrick Waterson]

From my end of the time scale we might consider Agincourt.  The English Men-at-arms were four deep, thinner than they would like because they had to cover a frontage.  The French were thirty deep, much deeper they would like because their frontage was constrained.  In this battle, of course, uncontrolled forward pressure just collapsed the front ranks and prevented those in the press from using their weapons effectively.

One may also note that the French were not working in files with personnel trained and/or accustomed to act together, which Greeks seemed to regard as essential for generating any sort of controlled pressure.

The Scots at Dupplin Moor seem to have been another example of an uncontrolled (and uncontrollable) assemblage in great depth.  As with the French at Agincourt, I would not dignify it with the name of formation.  The four-deep English at Agincourt had some difficult moments but did seem to act in coordination (I recall, but cannot reference, mention of their stepping back just before the French surge reached them, taking the wind out of the French sails - not sure if this is true, but if it were it would appear to be an example of coordinated file behaviour and perhaps even be possible to regard as a sort of anticipatory 'file recoil'!).

I've read authors who suggested that one deep might have been with ranks of Perioeci making up the rear ranks
I merely mention it

In 471 BC that has a certain attraction.  Sparta had become unpopular in 478-7BC, largely on account of the behavior of Pausanias, who subsequently tried to set up on his own in Byzantium.  We know little about what Sparta was doing in 477-465 BC (prior to the earthquake and the Helot revolt) and the existence an Arcadian war (i.e. a fight with the next-door neighbours) indicates that things may not have been going particularly well.

Whatever the 'one shield deep' signifies, there seems to be no other record of a Greek contingent attempting to fight at that depth (or lack of it).

[Erpingham]

(I recall, but cannot reference, mention of their stepping back just before the French surge reached them, taking the wind out of the French sails - not sure if this is true, but if it were it would appear to be an example of coordinated file behaviour and perhaps even be possible to regard as a sort of anticipatory 'file recoil'!).

This is a modern interpretation (Keegan's).  The original says "They hurled themselves against our men in such a fierce charge as to force them to fall back almost a spear's length"  (Gesta Henrici Quinti).  This looks more like a thinner formation taking the impact of a deeper one and absorbing it before stabilising and fighting it to  a stand still to me.  Still an example of a disciplined approach though, I think.

[RichT]

Sorry rich, but all of those Napoleonic comparisons are wrong.

A sweeping statement!

It's not the place to detail them, but there was no weight / depth factor in using columns, and d'erlons formations at waterloo ( and Wagram) were not based on that either.

That is sort of my point - Napoleonic columns were deep, but nobody assumes that they all pushed each other in the back when (if) they came to close contact with an enemy, which is why I don't think we should assume such a thing for Theban or Macedonian columns. Being from a different period, with different weapons, and diifferent doctrine, such a thing might have happened - but we shouldn't assume it did just because the formations were deep.

Back to in period comparisons please.

No. There isn't very much evidence from in period (which is why debates based on in period evidence have been going on for decades with no sign of agreement or consensus yet). I think it is valuable, and essential, to make comparisons with other periods for which there is better evidence, and perfecty safe to do so provided it is kept in mind that they are different periods and comparisons can be suggestive, not conclusive. So there 

[Dangun]

As helpful as the table is, it could be rearranged in at least two ways to produce more useful data.

Firstly, it would be helpful to have another list by country - to reveal more clearly national doctrines - Spartan depths via Thebans via Athenians
Secondly, it would be helpful to list by battle to see the opposing depths more clearly

Chronological progression might have revealed a pattern (e.g. changing technology and its impact on depth)...
...but since it didn't, the table could be rearranged into a more helpful format.