"Sucessor Phalanx " Topic

Could somebody give me as accurate figure as possible for the number of souls in a the phalanxes that Aemelius Paulus faced when he took on the Successor Perseus at Pydna as I am looking at raising this army in 6mm at a figure raitio of 1:10.
if possible could any answers have their source however archaic or ancientbut preferably with English translation as my Successor Greek is not quite up to scratch nor my Latin !

The army of Perseus at Pydna was quite large and included 20,000+ phalangites. Are you really thinking of painting up 2000 pike? That would look amazing! The picture below has only a 1000 figures!

Many thanks for your comments .
What is your information source and is that figure per phalanx unit as 20,000 would suggest extreme difficulties in command and control if one is to infer the thinking behind Galsworthy and others ?
I am tempted to think that this may be the total number of troops but not as a single unit

"The approximate position of the Macedonian line is shown on map 3. It is based on the following considerations. Plutarch's totals, 4,000 cavalry and nearly 40,000 infantry, being generally accepted (13.4), there were probably 21,000 phalangites (so Walbank 388). If they were in formation 16 deep, they had a front almost km long. The rest of the infantry, some 19,000, at an average of 10 men deep, had a front of some 2 km. Apart from the cavalry, then, the line was some 3^ km long."
(Hammond)

I am getting the cold sweats even thinking of trying to move that thing in a gentle wheel over the tabletop!

The thing is, that although the solid line of phalangites are called "the phalanx" it's really a collection of smaller phalanxes with gaps between them. There had to be room for the skirmishers and any light infantry posted to the front to move back without disrupting the battle line. Those gaps also allowed for a certain amount of expansion and contraction of the individual units when moving and when dealing with anything other than flat terrain.

That expansion was the natural tendencies of men wo waver a little in the march, and also for men in the rear ranks to try and peer over/around those to the front to see what's happening, etc.

Make no mistake, these men were disciplined and could maneuver to trumpets as well as voice commands with some restrictions.

It might look like a solid wall of pikes, but it's not such a ponderous thing as you might think.

V/R

Once again many thanks to all and I welcome any further comments as to trust worthy sources.
With respect to comment by Ilya Litsios , you refer to Hammond and Wall bank could you direct myself to the publications by these commentators if possible please.
Myself and a friend whom are researching this would welcome any pointers
Plutarch will be our next target
At some point I can see a course in Archaic Greek and Latin being needed !
Once again many thanks for any help given

Hammond N.G.L. The Battle of Pydna // The Journal of Hellenic Studies. 1984. Vol. 104.
Walbank F.W.A. Historical Commentary on Polybius. Vol. 3. Oxford, 1979.

Pydna is currently the subject of a lot of academic conjecture. Sekunda is stating a new approach to the Macedonian army that replaces an entire wing of the phalanx with white shield Thracian thureophorai….which is an ambitious revision. I'm going to wait and judge after I see his actual report… I heard his lecture and was unconvinced.

Still there are few facts about Pydna that are easily reconciled… from the Romans completely lying about their numerical superiority, and the effectiveness of their allies and elephants, to the inflated numbers of Macedonians.

The sources both say that Perseus was scraping the bottom of the barrel for manpower, employing boys of sixteen and old men, on the one hand… then leave off forces from the Roman army that would prove they had the numerical advantage….

Pydna is much more complex than Plutarch's simpleton story of grandpa Lucius Aemilius Paullus and his handy maniples…

As with all things that I take an interest in there is always some element of conjecture and question . It seems that I am some form of academic jinx .
My interest deepens and I welcome any further comments or dicuussion . Once again thank you Ilya and to others whom have contributed and I welcome the deepening of the debate