Depth - what is it good for?

[Patrick Waterson]

This seems very reasonable.  Our accounts of sarissa phalanx vs traditional hoplite do not have the same detail as Livy's account of the opening stages of Pydna, but we note there:

the latter drove them firmly grasped with both hands with such force against the enemy, who rushed on with rash and heedless fury, that, penetrating shields and bucklers, they overthrew the men transfixed in like manner.

The phrase 'drove them firmly' suggests active wielding by their users.

[Justin Swanton]

Violent jabbing with the pike....yes, that should do it. The wood of a shield was up to 2cm in thickness, less than an inch, and a powerful jab with a heavy pike (more momentum) should penetrate it. Given that the Hoplite shield was held directly against front of the body the pike point would not need to penetrate too far to cause serious injury.

Philip must have designed the weaponry and tactics of his phalanx specifically to penetrate the Hoplite shield.

[Justin Taylor]

But don't forget the first rule of armour, inclination increases the effective thickness of your armour as well as providing a surface that your enemies attack is likely to glance off.

Not saying of course that Philip did not design an armour piercing weapon but it does seem like a lot of bother for little effect. What we do know for certain is that pikes have greater reach and used deeper formations.

[Patrick Waterson]

He may even have had help along the way.  Iphicrates of Athens developed new equipment for troops under his command.

"Hence we are told, after he had acquired his long experience of
military operations in the Persian War, he devised many improvements in
the tools of war, devoting himself especially to the matter of arms. For
instance, the Greeks were using shields which were large (megalais
aspisi) and consequently difficult to handle; these he discarded and
made small oval ones (peltas symmetrous) of moderate size, thus
successfully achieving both objects, to furnish the body with adequate
cover and to enable the user of the small shield, on account of its
lightness, to be completely free in his movements. After a trial of the
new shield its easy manipulation secured its adoption, and the infantry
who had formerly been called "hoplites" (hoplitai) because of their
heavy shield (aspidon), then had their name changed to "peltasts"
(peltastai) from the light pelta they carried. As regards spear
(doratos) and sword (xiphous), he made changes in the contrary
direction: namely, he increased the length of the spears by half
(hemiolio megethei), and made the swords almost twice as long (skhedon
diplasia). The actual use of these arms confirmed the initial test and
from the success of the experiment won great fame for the inventive
genius of the general. He made soldiers' boots (hypodeseis ...
stratiotais) that were easy to untie and light and they continue to this
day to be called "Iphicratids" after him. He also introduced many other
useful improvements into warfare, but it would be tedious to write about
them. So the Persian expedition against Egypt, for all its huge
preparations, disappointed expectations and proved a failure in the
end. " - Diodorus about Iphicrates' reforms

Iphicrates' reforms (not universal in Greece and probably limited to mercenary contingents) produced a smaller shield and larger spear.  The shield, in addition to being handier, may have allowed the (longer and thus weightier) spear to be wielded with both hands, giving a much more powerful thrust.  The Iphicratic spear would have been c.13-14' long, assuming a basic 9' spear to start with.  Philip's phalanx used an 18' sarissa (as near as we can establish) and a small-ish (2' diameter?) shield.  One can see the outline of a developing trend.  The pike would have been even weightier than the Iphicratic spear and would have had correspondingly more impact at the sharp end.

Even so, if events at Pydna are any guide, it would only go through shields and armour if the other side added a bit of force or if their equipment was not of the best.  Still, it was quite a surprise for the opponent when it happened. 

[Erpingham]

Searching about for parallels on pike fighting, I came across Sir John Smythe's comments from 1591.  Now, being John Smythe, he was determined to tackle the rather amateurish state of English forces by explaining how it was, in his considerable experience really done.  What he is looking at is the value of pike fencing, as opposed to a solid attack.  This is his conclusion :

By all which particularities before alleaged and declared, I thinke it may be apparant to all such as are not obstinatelie ignorant, that battles and squadrons of piques in the field when they do incounter and charge one another, are not by reason or experience mylitarie to stand all day thrusting, pushing, and foining [feinting] one at another, as some do most vainlie imagine, but ought according to all experiance with one puissant charge and thrust to enter and disorder, wound, open, and break the one the other, as is before at large declared.

The whole piece is actually quite interesting (if a bit long to quote as something out of period) - he talks about the importance of advancing in step on the heels of the man in front so as to present multiple rows of pike heads, of thrusting together not individually fencing, of what to do if you get to close to use your pike (drop it or throw it at the enemy and go in with your sword).  OK, we mustn't be too literal in our use of this but it is an example of the sort of thing we are missing for our earlier pikeblocks - the fighting technique, not just the formations.

Refering back to our earlier discussions on the phases of hoplite fighting, one might see a parallel between spear play (thrusting and foining) and othismos - a unified, step by step attack.

For those wishing to read Sir John in full flow (always worth it - he doesn't suffer fools gladly) the relevant passage is quoted here :

http://www.marquisofwinchesters.co.uk/Ecwr-Research/Research%20-%20Extracts%20from%20Certain%20Discourses%20Military%201590.html

[Patrick Waterson]

A useful find. 

Spear-play might correspond more closely to 'doratismos', the use of 'dorata' (spears - singular: doru, 'spear').  This, in the typical hoplite battle - or the typical pattern envisaged for same - precedes 'en chersi', a 'hand-to-hand' stage (the two expressions have very similar connotations and usage) and then we get 'othismos', the shoving, which brings about the collapse ('trope') of one side - sooner or later.

The Athenians tended to enter battle at a run, and others often emulated them, which would mean the earlier stages tended to play through in fast speed or telescoped fashion and the impact of othismos would rapidly be resorted to and felt.  Some emulated them; others were more deliberate in their advance, including the Spartans.  The initial Spartan success at Leuctra (if one can term recovering their dying king a success) might be explained by the combat still being 'doratismos' rather than 'othismos', i.e. the Thebans were not yet coordinatedly applying their depth.  Or it could be that the more experienced and practised Spartans were, until they became tired, able to coordinate their pushes better than the deeper Thebans.

In any event, Sir John's observations are valuable, and seem  to support a general principle that a force which does act in unison will overcome one which leaves actions up to the whims of different groups or individuals, also that unified vigorous action will defeat unified non-vigorous action.