Bret Devereaux

This reconstruction is on a different axis entirely than the standard reconstruction from Hammond, and further south than Livingston and Cole's revisionist take, although it is closer to theirs, I think.

And as for doubts, this reconstruction uses frontage for armies of 35,000 or more men. One of my chief doubts is that the armies were larger than about 30,000 each.

I guess it’s a question of how many did each side have detached, and how many did they actually manage to deploy

And I’m really torn on the topography. The one thing I like about Hammond is that it seems crossing even a small river would be the sort of obstacle that would impede a phalanx; yet the Mac attack is swift.

But the odd reorientation of lines that Hammond requires is not totally satisfactory

Morelli's article at least didn't put the Roman camp north of the Mak camp. But either reconstruction basically requires the Mak camp to be in a swamp with the Romans already holding the line to Pydna. If the Roman encampment put the Maks in such a bad position, you have to...

...think Perseus would have withdrawn to a more suitable location. Paullus' encampment from march shifted the axis of the battlefield, but I don't think it could have shifted it that much!

I'm curious about what/how much is at stake here. If you guys could magically ask some v. limited amount of information from a 2nd c. time traveler, would this be it? The equipment or recruitment of the troops? The details of some possibly less famous battle? Something else?