"Phalanx Density" Topic

Writing in Slingshot magazine, Patrick Waterson analyzes Polybius' account and concludes that the standard spacing by late Hellenistic times within the phalanx per man was 1.5' wide by 3' deep.

Do you agree?

Well given that a hoplon is about 3 ft in diameter and they were trained to overlap them, I'd have said about 2ft per man width.

War in the Middle Ages, Philippe Contamine, page 232. At 200 men wide and 50 men deep, these troops occupy only 60m x 60m! Of course, no shields of any kind are utilized by this later phalanx. But the point is that c. 12" of frontage per man is as tight as you can get; while moving, this would need to be wider.

I believe the Macedonian aspis was only about 2' rather than the 3' of the hoplon making the tighter formation possible.

I don't think Polybius describes the internal action of files closing to make the denser 'shield wall' formation that others do. The 1.5 foot frontage is the densest formation at four ranks with all the files closed. It seems it is a defensive formation only-- described as used against elephants in Alexander's army with only the ability to slowly plod staright ahead. The Macedonian phalanx operated like a slinky…. expanding and contracting files depending on the need for mobility. However once closed up in battle at eaight ranks it may have been more difficult to return to the more open order that allowed reasonable movement, since file expansion works best when moving forward, and contraction works best when halted or slowing down. This is one reason why at Heraclea the lines may have clashed seven times… giving the Romans time to bring up a fresh line, and allowing the phalanx to redress it's order once it had gotten all mashed up.
Macedonians are rarely described as overlapping shields, although the confusing description of the soldiers overlapping shields to make a sort of 'testudo' to allow Thracian wagons to roll over them causes much analysis angst.
JJ

I thought with the pikes from the 2nd-4th ranks sticking between the gaps in the front rank the spacing would be greater. At least 2 feet I would think.

2 feet is pretty much shoulder to shoulder. That would leave little room for the next 4 ranks of pikes to protrude. Not only do you have to contend with the front ranks in your way, but also 1 or 2 ranks behind you.

At shoulder to shoulder it would be difficult to move the formation in good order quickly. John Warry seems to think they used a more open order to maneuver and then close ranks at contact. I would think that even 3 feet per man width would be adequate. That seems to be what Polybius says and that the Roman formation had up to 6 feet per man.

24" is shoulder to shoulder (or unworkable if you played college football)- but you can get in tighter with your shield shoulders toward the enemy. Movement is slow in this stance (the whole step and drag bit), but it's very good for resisting force on the shield. It's how a modern riot formation works (or at least how I taught it), and I don't think we're really that much smarter than our ancestors (cue a Centurion dressing me down for my sloppy formation drills in latin).