Macedonian phalanx: overarm, underarm or both?

[Justin Swanton]

Reading through Aelian I came across the passage where he talks about the Macedonian phalanx deploying in close order (each file occupies one cubit = 18") when resisting an enemy attack. Asklepiodotus says the same thing.

There is a problem however with a phalanx in this formation - the shields. They are about 2 feet wide, which means they will overlap quite substantially when in close order. Like this:

Given that the ranks remain 3 feet apart - necessary as the men will be nearly side-on when presenting their sarissas to the enemy - there is no useful way the four ranks behind the front rankers can project their shafts below the shields of the front rankers. The sarissas would be obliged to point straight forwards and somewhat downwards, leaving gaps in the pike wall through which enemy soldiers could approach the frontmost phalangites and kill them.

However, if the second to fourth ranks hold their sarissas overhead, they can quite easily clear the shoulders of the front men and also move their sarissas a little from side to side, closing any potential gaps. The men holding their sarissas at shoulder height will be able to see over their shields, even with their shield arms raised. I experimented and it works. I speculate the fifth ranker could hold his sarissa underarm to project between the shields of the front ranker and supply additional protection. Here are a couple of diagrams to illustrate (the scale is in feet):

Any comments?

[Mark G]

I understood overarm was a renaissance (originally Swiss) method for which there was no evidence in the ancient world.

[aligern]

Significant that Swiss and Landsknechts did not carry shields. It would have been difficult to carry an 18-21 ft pike high and carry a shield on a strap. Bith advanced very quickly, necessary if carrying a pike at head height. as one would not wish to hang around standing, holding the weapon.
For  me the resolution is that the shield of the phalangite is carried at an angle so it is not presenting a two foot frontage. In dense order the shields touch each other  and cover the shoulder of a man standing side on .holding his pike low with two hands because that is the most controlled way to carry it.  Holding the pike low could be comfortably maintained for far longer than holding it high.
Roy

[Chris]

Interesting . . . Given the density of the formation, I wonder how much impact casualties would have on its order, cohesion, and effectiveness. Understanding that the tighter formation was defensive, but still.

Thanks for posting.

Cheers,
Chris

[Erpingham]

The Late Middle Ages, as revealed in art, had a number of two handed "carries" for infantry spears.  Low (down by thighs), middle (chest height, spear couched under arm), high (shoulder height, reaching overhead to stab down).  The low and high versions were adapted for pike use.  Unlike later pikemen, pikemen in our period seem to have advanced with front ranks in "low" position and supporting ranks with pikes upright.  Illustrations do show the high position used by supporting ranks actually in combat, though. 

Justin's suggestion would, I think, need highly drilled pikemen.  I'd expect the drill manuals to mention it, or one of the authors explaining the intricacies of the pike phalanx to a Roman audience.  Anything in those sources?

[Duncan Head]

Christopher Matthew discusses (briefly) overarm usage in An Invincible Beast and rules it out as impractical, but he does not I think consider the possibility that only some ranks used it.  He does come up with a system whereby the sarissai of the second and subsequent ranks can fit round the shields, though I forget the details.

Is the idea of different ranks holding the spear differently compatible with Polybios' description of the grip, and with the depiction on the Pergamon bronze plaque? I suppose it depends whether you think the pikemen in the latter are two front-rankers or a first and a second. But I think it would have been mentioned, somewhere.

[Justin Swanton]

Christopher Matthew discusses (briefly) overarm usage in An Invincible Beast and rules it out as impractical, but he does not I think consider the possibility that only some ranks used it.  He does come up with a system whereby the sarissai of the second and subsequent ranks can fit round the shields, though I forget the details.

Is the idea of different ranks holding the spear differently compatible with Polybios' description of the grip, and with the depiction on the Pergamon bronze plaque? I suppose it depends whether you think the pikemen in the latter are two front-rankers or a first and a second. But I think it would have been mentioned, somewhere.

Notice that the leftmost phalangite doesn't look right. He is gripping the shaft with his right arm drawn back, but his shield is in front of the shaft, which would imply the shaft is to the left of his body. A case of the Penrose Stairs.

It all depends on how accurate a drawing this is of the original plaque.

[Duncan Head]

Yes, there are problems with that scene, and as you say it's partly down to how accurate the drawing is. But even if we can't rely on all the details it is clearly two guys both holding pikes underarm.

[Justin Swanton]

Yes, there are problems with that scene, and as you say it's partly down to how accurate the drawing is. But even if we can't rely on all the details it is clearly two guys both holding pikes underarm.

...in the front rank. 

[RichT]

Yes the Pergamon plaque Duncan links to is the only depiction in ancient art of sarissa-wielders in combat. They look like two front rankers to me, but it's not certain. Note that as depicted the sarissa passes to the lower left (rather than lower right, as we would expect) of the shield - but I think this is an artifact of the picture (or reproduction), not indicative of how it was really carried.

Polybius doesn't give any hint that different ranks held the sarissa differently (aside from those behind the fifth, who held it upright sloping forward) - but then all he talks about is the distance between the hands (and the amount sticking out the back) so he's not specific about the hold. You would hope that if it was held differently, someone might have said, but that's often a forlorn hope.

Christopher Matthew uses Justin's argument to conclude that Macedonian phalangites could not use the 18" spacing (except for manoeuvring - wheeling) and that it was spear-armed hoplites (with their putatively larger shields) who used the 18" spacing in combat. I think his arguments are utterly bonkers myself, but each to his own.

I suspect the problem is in assuming the shields are held face on parallel to the front of the formaiton, and in reality they would be angled more or less so that room would be available for the shafts of the rear rankers. I'm not convinced by the overhead hold just because there's no evidence for it, but who knows.

It really needs some reenactors to test out the options but so far as I know this has never been rigorously done - not even by Christopher Matthew who has one set of phalangite kit and does all his tests alone.  About 20 people with shields and poles would settle the question (Delbruck claims to have done so - but it's not clear he used shields). It's the sort of thing Mike Loades could do, or a TV production company.

Added: I know Peter Connolly did some similar tests with suitable numbers of people, though his write up is a bit vague - but he did find the 18" formation with underarm spears worked fine (or at least, he doesn't say it didn't)

[Jim Webster]

Yes, there are problems with that scene, and as you say it's partly down to how accurate the drawing is. But even if we can't rely on all the details it is clearly two guys both holding pikes underarm.

...in the front rank. 

Wasn't the order to attack something like 'lower your pikes' which led to mistranslations of 'throw them away'?

[Erpingham]

Wasn't the order to attack something like 'lower your pikes' which led to mistranslations of 'throw them away'?

But presumably they are lowering them from a steep carrying angle to a flat combat angle, so would fit either a high or low position.

[Jim Webster]

Wasn't the order to attack something like 'lower your pikes' which led to mistranslations of 'throw them away'?

But presumably they are lowering them from a steep carrying angle to a flat combat angle, so would fit either a high or low position.

Then there was the ability to hold then raised to reduce missiles falling on the phalanx

[RichT]

Cynoscephalai, Pol 18.25: "he ordered the peltasts and phalangites to double their depth and close up to the right. By the time this was effected the enemy were close at hand; and, accordingly, the word was given to the phalangites to lower spears and charge; to the light infantry [euzonoi] to cover their flank."

Translated (into Latin) by Livy at Livy 33.8: "the caetrati and the men of the phalanx were ordered to lay aside their spears, the length of which only embarrassed them, and make use of their swords. To prevent his line from being quickly broken he halved the front and gave twice the depth to the files, so that the depth might be greater than the width. He also ordered the ranks to close up so that man might be in touch with man and arms with arms."

'Lower their spears' in Polybius = katabalousi tas sarisas = katabalousi from kataballo, throw down, strike down, let fall, and similar. Not wholly surprising given the common meanings of the word that Livy misunderstood, but Polybius uses it elsewhere in the same way e.g. Pol 11.15, 11.16 (Spartan and Achaean phalangites).

Either way it doesn't tell us anything about the end result - just that spears were lowered from upright carry position to horizontal combat position.

[Justin Swanton]

What I find intriguing about Swiss pikemen is that they held their pikes overarm even though they had all read classical manuals about pike phalanxes and assumed (as we do) that classical pikes were held underarm. I suspect the Swiss figured out that overarm - except for the front rankers - is what actually works on the battlefield.

There's something in Aelian that suggests how the sarissas were held but let me dig up the reference first this evening. I'll also try out a couple of diagrams with shields angled at 45 degrees.