Macedonian phalanx: overarm, underarm or both?

[Prufrock]

But it's also nice to make sense of the sources.

Yes, you're right, it is. Please carry on doing so, and please forgive my own jadedness!

[Justin Swanton]

I read Polybius' criticism of Callisthenes. Not quite sure what the issue is. One either accepts Polybius' assertion that Callisthenes was talking a load of tripe or one posits that Polybius got it wrong himself.

Say Alexander had about 22 000 phalangites. If deployed in open formation 32 deep, each file occupying a frontage of 6 feet, that gives a frontage of 4125 feet or a little less than 7 stadia. That fits comfortably into the 14 stadia Polybius says was available to Alexander.

If that formation doubles files, halving ranks in the process, its frontage remains the same but each man now occupies a file 3 feet wide with 16 men. The phalanx is in intermediate formation.

if the phalanx, now near the enemy, doubles files again, you now have 8-men files 1 1/2 feet wide. Frontage the same, with plenty of space for cavalry, etc, to deploy on either side. The phalanx can still advance, albeit very slowly. What exactly is the problem?

(hang on, what's that sign saying Achtung minen doing over there?)

[RichT]

In my summary a few posts back I said:

Others though - for reasons given above in the case of hoplites, and because Romans don't seem to be a more open order formation than hoplites - prefer to assign a 3 foot interval to hoplites and Romans alike. This requires rejecting Polybius' and the manuals' normal 3 foot spacing for Macedonians, and assuming that the 1.5 foot spacing was the normal one (or at least, was the one that formed the basis of the comparisons with hoplites and Romans).

Which is what you, Justin, are saying, so you aren't saying anything new, and your version can't be reconciled with the text of Polybius as it stands - we'd have to assume some error or omission or whatever, as the others have said. Which is possible, and is indeed one of the proposed solutions (it's what Hans Delbruck proposed back in 18-whatever-it-was). But a lot of people aren't convinced by that argument either and would prefer to follow the text of Polybius as written. Barring the discovery of some lost work on papyrus somewhere, this disagreement can never be finally resolved, because there is no additional evidence and there are no additional arguments that can be brought to bear on it.

If rather than arguing determinedly for a particular theory you would like to chew over the interpretations and translations and the thinking behind them, that would be much more fruitful and people will, I am sure, be happy to do so.

So with that in mind:

I checked the Greek - again. Literally, Polybius says this:
"three feet according to the man to his rear and the man at his side".

Not quite. He says "three feet by rank and by file" - kat epistaen kai kata parastaten meaning by rank and file (compare with 18.29.5 where he uses the same expresison of the Macedonians).

Polybius says - to paraphrase - 'each Roman requires three feet, but because of their style of fighting they require more room and a space of three feet between men, by rank and file, total six feet'. You can conclude that Polybius is mistaken, or that the text is corrupt. What you can't conclude is that Polybius is saying the Romans had three foot file intervals (as in your first diagram of post 113), because then Polybius would be saying 'each Roman requires three feet, but because of their style of fighting they require more room and a space of three feet between men, by rank and file, total three feet'. Which is nonsensical.

If Polybius assumed his readers knew this (and why wouldn't they?) then the one Roman facing two phalangites makes sense, and the contradiction in Polybius is resolved.

The trouble with the 'assumed they knew' argument is that in this section Polybius is explaining in technical detail the strengths and weaknesses of phalanx and legion, with considerable detail about the length of sarisas, how they are held, file and rank spacing and so forth. It is (IMHO) implausible that he then simply assumed his readers knew about the most important manoeuvre that would explain the point that he is trying to make about the denser Macedonian formation, and just didn't mention the doubling on coming into action. Polybius is clear that Macedonians need 3 feet per man. Discount this or assume an error or a textual corruption, but you can't just assume Polybius neglected to mention a further doubling.

you are left with files looking like this [6 foot intervals] and no, I can't buy it.

That's your prerogative - as I said in my summary (did you read my summary? I know it's long, but it took a while to write, so it would be nice to know it wasn't time wasted), some people don't buy it. That doesn't mean it's not true (maybe!).

As for the criticism of Callisthenes - the point is that the sums show that Polybius was assuming that the Macedonians, even when they closed up into 'Homeric' close order (as in 18.29 also), were using intervals of 3 feet - so your:

if the phalanx, now near the enemy, doubles files again, you now have 8-men files 1 1/2 feet wide

is explicitly contradicted by the calculations of Polybius, who was working with intervals of 3 feet at the closest.

[Justin Swanton]

Just to clear the air a bit, the subject genuinely interests me - I haven't explored it in depth before - and no, it's not about arguing determinedly for a particular theory. My approach is to look at the key passages in the sources - the ones that say something important but aren't clear or appear contradictory - and try to make sense of them.

It's been brought to my attention that there is another explanation for the apparent contradiction between Romans and Macedonians having the same frontage and then one Roman facing two Macedonians. Looking again at his description of a phalanx:

For as a man in close order of battle occupies a space of three feet; and as the length of the sarissae is sixteen cubits according to the original design, which has been reduced in practice to fourteen; and as of these fourteen four must be deducted, to allow for the distance between the two hands holding it, and to balance the weight in front; 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: hence, too, though the men of the second, third, and fourth rank will have their sarissae projecting farther beyond the front rank than the men of the fifth, yet even these last will have two cubits of their sarissae beyond the front rank; if only the phalanx is properly formed and the men close up properly both flank and rear, like the description in Homer1— "So buckler pressed on buckler; helm on helm; And man on man: and waving horse-hair plumes In polished head-piece mingled, as they swayed In order: in such serried rank they stood."

Notice that Polybius leads the reader to the conclusion that the sarissas of the fifth rank project 2 cubits before the man in front. Since there are 4 ranks in front of men in the fifth rank and the sarissa itself projects 10 cubits before them, there must be 2 cubits depth per rank - but this last fact is a given, not something to work out: since the depth of each rank is known, it is clear the fifth rank's sarissas will project 2 cubits before the front rank. In other words, because the reader knows that the ranks are 2 cubits in depth, he can work out that the sarissas of the fifth rank will project 2 cubits before the men in front. But where does Polybius tell the reader that the ranks are 2 cubits deep? At the beginning, where he states that a man in close order of battle occupies "a space of three feet", i.e. three feet deep, not wide. Since this is 'close order' the width of the files must be 1 1/2 cubits if one wants to make Polybius agree with the manuals.

There is then no contradiction, just Polybius' assumption that his readership knew what a close formation was, and he even describes it: "buckler pressed to buckler".

[Justin Swanton]

That's your prerogative - as I said in my summary (did you read my summary?

Yes, several times. 

[Erpingham]

There is then no contradiction, just Polybius' assumption that his readership knew what a close formation was, and he even describes it: "buckler pressed to buckler".

I'll await the verdict on the Greek whether you can swap depth for frontage but I'd remind you if you go this way, you get a contradiction with Polybios' Callisthenes issue.  If it was simple to reconcile the statements, it wouldn't be a long running debate.

[Justin Swanton]

There is then no contradiction, just Polybius' assumption that his readership knew what a close formation was, and he even describes it: "buckler pressed to buckler".

I'll await the verdict on the Greek whether you can swap depth for frontage but I'd remind you if you go this way, you get a contradiction with Polybios' Callisthenes issue.  If it was simple to reconcile the statements, it wouldn't be a long running debate.

What's the problem with Callisthenes? I read the passage twice and can't see an issue.

[RichT]

Justin - fair enough, and the subject interests me too - and I'm happy to look at the sources too, just bear in mind that lots of people before us have spent lots of time looking at the sources already, so it's quite unlikely that you or I will come up with anything new.

It's been brought to my attention ...

Have you been in communication with Mr Waterson perhaps? This sounds like his theory - which we have been over to exhaustion and I think I'm not being unfair in saying that nobody except Mr Waterson (and now maybe you) is convinced by the idea.

Taking the passage from Polybius as a whole, I don't think anyone could reasonably conclude that Polybius is describing anything other than a 3 foot file interval for Macedonians. If there were any doubt, then the critique of Callisthenes would remove the doubt, since a 3 foot interval is assumed there. And then we have the manuals, in which the 1.5 foot interval is not the standard, but is a 'forced' defensive formation.

I can pick apart Pol 18.29-30 if you want, but I've done it before many times, and without result so far as this argument is concerned, so I'm a bit reluctant. But if you want chapter and verse, I will do so.

There is no contradiction in the text of Polybius as it stands, no contradiction at all. The only objection to it is that 6 feet seems too wide for a Roman formation, but Polybius' text here (and in the Callisthenes passage) is perfectly internally consistent. So the 1.5 foot interval may be correct, but it does require assuming that Polybius is mistaken or his text corrupt.

Re Callisthenes - I'm not sure what you want here. The point is that Polybius assumes a 3 foot interval in this passage (there are other issues with the Callisthenes critique but they are not really relevant to this particular topic).

[Justin Swanton]

Re Callisthenes - I'm not sure what you want here. The point is that Polybius assumes a 3 foot interval in this passage (there are other issues with the Callisthenes critique but they are not really relevant to this particular topic).

Got it. I'm a newbie on this topic so be patient.

What immediately stood out for me is that Polybius doesn't say anything about the 32-deep formation Alexander's infantry were initially in. The 32 to 16 to 8 contraction clearly implies file doubling, and the manuals have 3 file widths: open (6 feet per file), intermediate (3 feet) and close (1 1/2 feet). So what width did the files of the 32-deep formation have? 12 feet? Evidence for that?

My impression is that Polybius is setting up something of a straw man here. He starts out - rather dishonestly and without justification - by assuming that the 16-deep phalanx is in open formation, and that once it closes to 8-deep it is in intermediate formation (maybe), leaving out the possibility of a close formation which is not 3 feet per file.

If you change the maths and assume logically that the 32-deep phalanx is in open formation, the 16-deep in intermediate formation and the 8-deep in close formation then the infantry can fit into the available space - just: a frontage of 10 stadia out of the 14 available. More probably there were less than 32 000 men in the first line. How many phalangites and hypaspists did Alexander have?*


*Wiki has 9000 phalangites and 3000 hypaspists. Sooo.... at 8 deep and 1 1/2 feet wide (or 16 deep and 3 feet wide) that gives 3 3/4 stadia. Works fine.

[RichT]

I will try to be patient, though this topic tries my patience.

The 32 to 16 to 8 contraction clearly implies file doubling

Does it? Presumably the purpose of the manoeuvre is to expand the phalanx as the plain opens out. So this sounds more like halving (I forget the correct term) than doubling ie halving the depth in ranks and doubling the frontage, in order to fill the plain as it opens out.

He starts out - rather dishonestly and without justification - by assuming that the 16-deep phalanx is in open formation

Why is it dishonest and without justification? According to the manuals the open order (6 foot files) is the natural order, so normal that it doesn't require a special name. This being so it's not unreasonable for Polybius to assume they started out in this formation as the normal march formation - as he says at 12.19.7.

leaving out the possibility of a close formation which is not 3 feet per file

Yes he does leave out this possibility. Why? In order to score a cheap point off Callisthenes? Or because he knew that a phalanx couldn't advance to battle at 1.5 feet per file? Or even because (so far as he knew) there was no 1.5 foot interval formation? Discuss. At the very least, it's not clear cut.

Anyway Polybius' point is that the whole idea of advancing in line is unlikely - he thinks they would have advanced in column then deployed into line, which does indeed seem more likely.

If you change the maths and assume...

Then you can come to any conclusion you like! And we can all go home.

[Andreas Johansson]

According to the manuals the open order (6 foot files) is the natural order, so normal that it doesn't require a special name.

Just a thought while I'm waiting for my boss to finish whatever he's doing: If 6' files are natural, should we be very surprised if the Romans fought in them?

[Erpingham]

According to the manuals the open order (6 foot files) is the natural order, so normal that it doesn't require a special name.

Just a thought while I'm waiting for my boss to finish whatever he's doing: If 6' files are natural, should we be very surprised if the Romans fought in them?

I think (from the many previous versions of this discussion) the 6' spacing in manoeuver order and 3' fighting order.  The Romans could have used the same but it wouldn't explain why Polybios thought they fought in manoeuver order.

[Justin Swanton]

I will try to be patient, though this topic tries my patience.

Ta!

The 32 to 16 to 8 contraction clearly implies file doubling

Does it? Presumably the purpose of the manoeuvre is to expand the phalanx as the plain opens out. So this sounds more like halving (I forget the correct term) than doubling ie halving the depth in ranks and doubling the frontage, in order to fill the plain as it opens out.

By doubling I mean that half of one file moves up alongside the other half, doubling the number of men in each rank. That Alexander did this to widen the phalanx in the widening plain is an assumption albeit a reasonable one, until one looks at the implications. At 16 deep and 6 feet wide the 32 000 man phalanx will be 4000 yards wide - 4km or just under 3 miles - and there is no record of a Macedonian phalanx ever stretching out to that extent. If the 8 deep wide phalanx is meant to accommodate a wider plain whilst keeping the same distance between files then, according to Polybius, it must be 8km wide, or more than 5 miles. Since the available space is only 2 miles wide at its widest Polybius is clearly trying to ridicule Callisthenes here.

He starts out - rather dishonestly and without justification - by assuming that the 16-deep phalanx is in open formation

Why is it dishonest and without justification? According to the manuals the open order (6 foot files) is the natural order, so normal that it doesn't require a special name. This being so it's not unreasonable for Polybius to assume they started out in this formation as the normal march formation - as he says at 12.19.7.

Then why doesn't he start with the width of the 32-deep phalanx and say it is in open order? He later implies that the 8-deep phalanx might be in intermediate rather than open order, requiring a frontage of 20 stadia which is still impossible. Why doesn't he start with the 32-deep phalanx in open order, move to the 16 deep phalanx which might be in intermediate order, and finish with the 8-deep phalanx which might be in close order? Why? Because that shoots his argument in the foot. Callisthenes, in other words, is actually talking sense.

leaving out the possibility of a close formation which is not 3 feet per file

Yes he does leave out this possibility. Why? In order to score a cheap point off Callisthenes? Or because he knew that a phalanx couldn't advance to battle at 1.5 feet per file? Or even because (so far as he knew) there was no 1.5 foot interval formation? Discuss. At the very least, it's not clear cut.

Anyway Polybius' point is that the whole idea of advancing in line is unlikely - he thinks they would have advanced in column then deployed into line, which does indeed seem more likely.

OK, discuss. The 8-deep phalanx doesn't advance into battle. It forms up when nearing the enemy, i.e. it has already advanced. A phalanx in close order is not complete immobile. The men can't walk - they are standing side-on - but they can slowly shuffle forwards, a bit like fencers.

The manuals all state that 1 1/2 feet is an interval used by a phalanx when resisting an enemy attack. I would suggest that Alexander, who was ambitious about what his phalangites could do, got them into close formation for the final creep into contact with the enemy. Putting 32 000 men 8 deep into close formation makes sense of Callisthenes and the battle.

Taking Polybius' affirmation that a phalanx 8 deep with files 6 feet wide was perfectly acceptable (!) when about to engage enemy (in the passage he allows one men per three feet as a possibility only to further refute Callisthenes), how many heavy infantry could Alexander actually have pitched against the Persians? At 14 stadia he had 2800 yards. Allow the phalanx half that to give room for the cavalry and the troops on the right screening against the Persians in the foothills. Say, 1400 yards. One man every 2 yards and 8 men deep means a phalanx of 5600 men. Nah.

Re advancing in line rather than column, it depends how bad the terrain really was. Alexander successfully attacked across the Pinarus with his cavalry which suggests it probably wasn't that bad. It looks flat enough to me.

If you change the maths and assume...

Then you can come to any conclusion you like! And we can all go home.

If you work on Callisthenes talking sense, then do the maths for his deployments based on the standard widths in the manuals, it all falls into place, Polybius' biais notwithstanding.

[RichT]

According to the manuals the open order (6 foot files) is the natural order, so normal that it doesn't require a special name.

Just a thought while I'm waiting for my boss to finish whatever he's doing: If 6' files are natural, should we be very surprised if the Romans fought in them?

I think (from the many previous versions of this discussion) the 6' spacing in manoeuver order and 3' fighting order.  The Romans could have used the same but it wouldn't explain why Polybios thought they fought in manoeuver order.

We should not be surprised, IMHO. But many people are. Maybe it's more about (perhaps misplaced?) expectations than anything?

The march/fighting order split is itself a modern assumption, not specified in any ancient source (though it seems reasonable). And to be fair to Polybius he does spell out why he thought Romans fought in open order (because they need room to move their shields and swords, fight as individuals etc).

FWIW I should mention in this thread, for completeness, that Vegetius assumes a file interval of 3 feet and a rank interval of 6 (or 7) feet for Romans. Make of that what you will - Vegetius is a late source and full of strange ideas about earlier legions. There are theories to reconcile his testiomny with Polybius' but this is no longer about how to hold a sarissa....

[RichT]

Sure the 32/16/8 and 6/3/1.5 thing is very arithmetically neat so it's quite tempting, and combined with picking the right bits from Polybius, the theory is superficially appealing. But:

- this theory requires that Polybius, in order to score points off Callisthenes, deliberately suppresses or falsifies the existence of a 1.5 foot interval, ths existence of which, earlier in this same thread, you have said was so self evident that Polybius did not even need to specify it and that all his readers would know what a close order formation was (1.5 feet). You can't have it both ways!

- it therefore requires that Polybius be so untrustworthy a source as to be virtually worthless

- it ignores the main thrust of Polybius' argument, which is that it would be impractical to advance a considerable distance to battle in extended line, and that more likely Alexander would have advanced in column and brought units up into line as the plain widened - which is indeed exactly what Arrian says did happen - (Anab 2.8.4) "as long as the defile on every side remained narrow, he led the army in column, but when it grew broader, he deployed his column continously into a phalanx, bringing up unit after unit (taxis) of hoplites".

- it requires that the whole advance be made on a continuous unchanging frontage, despite the fact that the plain is supposed to be growing wider, and despite the difficulties (Polybius' main point) of advancing a considerable distance on an extended front.

- it requires the last part of the attack - that over the most difficult terrain, the banks of the river - to be made at a sideways shuffle in closest order

- it skirts over the problem that Polybius talks as if the phalanx was 32,000 strong when in reality the Macedonian component was only around 15,000 men (including Hypaspists), the rest being allies, mercenaries and lights, so that the 1.5 foot frontage would not apply to these anyway.

So I think, while Polybius is not blameless in his critique of Callisthenes, it's fair to assume that his points are broadly valid, and that at any rate, despite the arithmetic convenience of the numbers, there is no supporting evidence here for the 1.5 foot interval - not least the fact you can't get away from that Polybius makes no mention of the possibility of such an interval - and Callisthenes of course does not specify - so that the whole thing is entirely speculative.

(Added): And to belabour the point - the reason this came up at all was that it provides supporting evidence for what Polybius conceived phalanx close order to have been, and it is clear (whatever formation was actually adopted at Issus) that Polybius thought close order meant 3 feet (unless as above, you assume he deliberately lies about this in order to score points against Callisthenes) - to the extent that the Homeric analogy that he produces at 18.29 is here specifically applied to the 3 foot interval.