Wielding a sarissa overarm

[Justin Swanton]

So you rule out the artistic evidence because it only depicts the front rank - this seems like goalpost moving - we had been talking about how phalangites held their pikes, now you want to just talk about how second and subsequent rank phalangites held their pikes. But OK - most people have concluded that the fact that the front rank held them underarm, and that no literary source hints that subsequent ranks held them differently, is sufficient to make it most likely that second and subsequent ranks held them underarm too. If you want to insist that only direct evidence of a second (or subsequent) ranker will do, then that's up to you, but the score then would have to be 0:0, wouldn't it?

Actually, right from the start I had no problem with front rankers presenting pikes underarm because a) they have no difficulty doing so (the shield doesn't get in the way) and - following on Duncan - b) the Pergamon plaque shows them doing just that. The previous thread on the subject proposed a hypothesis where the front rankers present pikes underarm whilst the other ranks present them overarm. That's where I am today.

shows only the front rank receiving a cavalry charge

How so? The nearest Roman/Gaul/Pergamene/whatever to the right hand phalangite is clearly on foot.

True, I had noticed that, though the cavalry are also charging towards them. But point taken, one can't determine whether they are configured for cavalry or if that is their general combat stance.

Connolly says that it works fine underarm at 1 cubit but I notice he includes no photos to prove it. Until I see photos,  0:0

So now you are simply discounting the evidence that doesn't fit your hypothesis. Poor show.

Not quite. I'm waiting for evidence to be presented, not just affirmations.

[Patrick Waterson]

I think we should give Justin's idea a fair hearing, and I speak as one who belongs to the underarm school.

My own thinking, such as it is, has some difficulty seing the phalangite get the pike past his own elbow to achieve the overarm grip, but if it can be done, then having ranks 3-5 hold their pikes overarm does have advantages: opponents who somehow get past ranks 1 and 2 now face a series of pike points which can be aimed anywhere from their waists to their faces as opposed to from the chest to the thighs; it discommodes their attempts not to get run through.

As in the absence of a speira of re-enactors we are limited to analysis, I would suggest putting our efforts into analysing the angular and spatial possibilities offered - and those inhibited - by having ranks 3-5 adopt:

a) an underarm hold
b) an overarm hold.

For a) we should consider how five pikeshafts are going to line up tiogether and how they manage to avoid getting in the way of the phalangites' shields.

For b) we need to consider how the evolution from pikes upright to pikes levelled is achieved, and when during the approach (i.e. move to contact) it might be accomplished.

The underarm hold is very much a default position, and while we have th ePergamene example it is unfortunately not a complete phalanx and we do not know quite how representative of the whole it may be.  If we consider spatial possibilities we might come closer to determining which way of holding the sarissa turns out to be easiest to achieve, and whether either is unviable on account of spatial limitations.

[RichT]

I don't think, with twelve pages last time and another three already this, anyone can say Justin's theory hasn't been given a fair hearing. Since nothing but photographic evidence will satisfy him (a strange position to take in this field), and since it's apparently not enough for all to agree that his theory is an interesting possibility but without evidence, I don't really know what more can be said.

I'm more interested in Medieval/Renaissance/Early modern pike usage - I think I've asked before but can anyone recommend books dealing with the practicalities of pike use in this period, or any primary texts - I know about Sir John Smythe and Monluc, I've read the Marquis of Winchester's Regiment article - what else is out there? I've got several 17th C English drill manuals but they don't give much detail on combat pike use.

[Justin Swanton]

Fine then, we can wrap it up. Just one last thing though. Taking a second (or a ninth or tenth) look at the Pergamon plaque, notice that a couple of phalangites are fallen in the foreground, and that the Roman legionary on the left has managed to get up close and personal with the surviving phalangites despite their levelled pikes. This scene IIRC represents the Attalid cavalry at Magnesia riding to the rescue of Roman infantry engaging the phalanx, and overcoming all before them. It's a piece of propaganda on a belt buckle, not an historical dissertation. Hence those standing phalangites may not be in phalanx formation at all, just the survivors making a desperate stand against the Romans and Attalids. The artist then is not trying to convey anything about how a phalanx was formed up.

Since nothing but photographic evidence will satisfy him (a strange position to take in this field)

Not a strange position but a reasonable one. Connolly says: "Doubling the files proved far easier than expected. Formed up in the standard two cubit formation, with pikes in the upright position, the right hand file turned about, marched towards the rear, wheeled and came up the interval between the other two files. They then levelled their pikes proving that it was possible to 'double' the formation allowing only one cubit per man."

Remarks: if the right hand file countermarched and then inserted itself between the other two files, the shields of all three files would have to have been at the volunteers' sides since Connolly's shields are more than two feet wide (as is clear from the photos). The volunteers then lowered their pikes without having to project them either over or under their shields. Connolly makes no mention of the volunteers bringing their shields in front of them before lowering their pikes.

So I conclude that this proves nothing about pikes projecting past shields unless I can actually see photos showing if and how it was done.

[Mark G]

Just to remind you Justin, simply finding an image labelled Swiss does not suffice, for your internet searches.

Previously you have put up modern photographs of 30 years war re-enactments as supporting evidence for late medieval and early Italian wars Kiel's.  Which is preposterous.

Your latest example also needs a context.  To my untrained eye it looks like circa Burgundian was, when the Swiss still used polearms alone.  Even if it is later than Nancy when the pike first became used, it still only shows single men, who could just as easily be flag guards hanging around the camp, as a battle array.

And that assumes the artist was being representative of the time he saw...

[Erpingham]

To my untrained eye it looks like circa Burgundian was, when the Swiss still used polearms alone.

It's from Schilling the Younger's Lucerne Chronicle and shows the Battle of Grandson.  Though having a Burgundian Wars subject, it is said to date from 1513.



We should note it shows infantry in action against archers and, compositionally, the Swiss are moving downhill, so the pikemen thrusting overarm are either engaging men below them or on the ground.  This is typical of the use of the overarm grip in medieval art - thrusting at a target below you.

That said, look at the more coherent melee on the right of the picture - this isn't a fight between dressed ranks either.  Artistically, there is a tendency to show formations in serried ranks before contact but a more confused situation afterwards.

Anyone wanting to get to grips with the conventions of Swiss chronicle illustrations can do worse than start with Wikimedia's collection here

[Patrick Waterson]

I don't think, with twelve pages last time and another three already this, anyone can say Justin's theory hasn't been given a fair hearing.

Quantity is not the same as quality.  Far too much of these 15 pages has amounted to decanted scorn and a priori dismissal.

It would seem we lack evidence for whether they did.  Discussion thus centres on whether they could have, and this of necessity draws on representations of other generations of pike users and on the tangential experiences of re-enactors, plus an element of thought, or what should be thought.

This is typical of the use of the overarm grip in medieval art - thrusting at a target below you.

Interesting, and a constructive observation (thank you, Anthony).  So in the era of the Swiss it could be done, but seemingly was done only in certain circumstances.  Does anyone have any thoughts on how Hellenistic-era pikemen might hold their pikes to engage opponents on a slope below them, e.g. at Sellasia in 222 BC?

[Prufrock]

I don't think, with twelve pages last time and another three already this, anyone can say Justin's theory hasn't been given a fair hearing.

Quantity is not the same as quality.  Far too much of these 15 pages has amounted to decanted scorn and a priori dismissal.

It would seem we lack evidence for whether they did.  Discussion thus centres on whether they could have, and this of necessity draws on representations of other generations of pike users and on the tangential experiences of re-enactors, plus an element of thought, or what should be thought.

This is typical of the use of the overarm grip in medieval art - thrusting at a target below you.

Interesting, and a constructive observation (thank you, Anthony).  So in the era of the Swiss it could be done, but seemingly was done only in certain circumstances.  Does anyone have any thoughts on how Hellenistic-era pikemen might hold their pikes to engage opponents on a slope below them, e.g. at Sellasia in 222 BC?

Characterising the scepticism as decanted scorn is not fair. We've been through this material before and there are fundamental disagreements and blindspots. The passage in Polybius makes it clear that the phalanx lowers its sarissae when going into battle, and that the rear ranks slanted their pikes over the heads of the front ranks to protect them from missiles. This must be an underhand grip. An overhand [edit: overarm] grip does not work in these circumstances.

There is dismissal of the argument because, frankly, neither the way the argument is framed, the arguments themselves nor the biomechanical explanations presented are convincing, yet experience tells us that no amount of persuasion will convince the proposer of said argument that the argument is faulty. So we are at an impasse.

[Duncan Head]

A long, long time ago in Slingshot, someone, and I think it may have been Phil Steele though I could be completely misremembering, suggested that the sarisa was held with the right (rearmost) hand in an underarm grip, but the left (foremost) hand in an overhand grip. I think the idea was that it changed the angle of the arm slightly and brought the shield round more squarely in front. Does anyone else remember this?

[Mick Hession]

A long, long time ago in Slingshot, someone, and I think it may have been Phil Steele though I could be completely misremembering, suggested that the sarisa was held with the right (rearmost) hand in an underarm grip, but the left (foremost) hand in an overhand grip. I think the idea was that it changed the angle of the arm slightly and brought the shield round more squarely in front. Does anyone else remember this?

I do, yes. Wasn't it called the pole-vaulter's grip?

Cheers
Mick

[Duncan Head]

A long, long time ago in Slingshot, someone, and I think it may have been Phil Steele though I could be completely misremembering, suggested that the sarisa was held with the right (rearmost) hand in an underarm grip, but the left (foremost) hand in an overhand grip. I think the idea was that it changed the angle of the arm slightly and brought the shield round more squarely in front. Does anyone else remember this?

I do, yes. Wasn't it called the pole-vaulter's grip?

Yes, I think that's it.

[aligern]

Seventeenth century manuals show pike receiving cavalry with the pike grounded in front of the right foot, the left leg forward and bent.  The pike is held by the left hand with an underarm grip and is at an angle of 35-45 degrees. the right hand is free to reach for and draw the sword.
Amazingly these farm boys with a few weeks training are able to use the pike levelled for combat with infantry and grounded against cavalry.
given that most Hellenistic cavalry were well trained isn't it likely that they used all the sensible positions of the pike and that there were sensible commands for these positions. If the question is how did the Greeks pose the pike when attacking other infantry i'd be inclined to go with whichever way gave the best protection from the shield as i doubt that they were about to commit mutual slaughter by running in mutually to the approaching pike points.
I suppose that the other consideration is comfort. , holding even a two foot diameter shield with one hand, as well as the pike, is going to get very wearing. So in which position is the shield best supported?

[Duncan Head]

Seventeenth century manuals show pike receiving cavalry with the pike grounded in front of the right foot, the left leg forward and bent.

Lucian mentions the butt of the sarissa being grounded in his (fictional?) anecdote about a Thracian with a sarissa fighting a Mede cavalryman with a 30-foot lance.

[Mark G]

I wonder whether we are at the same point as was reached during the longbow debate (not coincidentally featuring the same key proponents), when it took us a while to grasp that Justin takes a literal view of the weapon naming.

Anything called a longbow was the same, in his eyes.  And here, anything called a pike must also be the same.

Once you understand that this is (I suspect) Justin's starting positions, his argument begins to make more sense, and the means to explain to him why he is mistaken presents itself.

Does anyone happen to have to hand the estimates for pike lengths at various points in history?
Successor pikes and 30YW pikes seem the most significant initially.

[RichT]

What Aaron said, and also to add that I for one am sick of being trolled.

Concerning sarissas - bear in mind that not every sarissa is necessarily a pike (cf Strabo's throwable sarissa), and not every use of a sarissa (eg by Thracians) is a Macedonian phalanx. 'Sarissa' seems to be a dialect word for various spears (as well as being used by Macedonians for their pike).

I remember Phil Steele's pole vaulter suggestion - seems very plausible, though it wouldn't make very much difference in this case (the pole vaulter grip still gives a low hold, with the sarissa somewhere in the lower right quarter of the shield, or maybe at the 3 o'clock position (in fact, that might help, though it's not what the Pergamon plaque suggests)).

I'm not so sure about the mutual impaling aspect in Roy's post - IIRC early modern pikers found that there wasn't much penetration of buff coats etc. It is hard to imagine, but somehow pike combat seems to have fairly low lethality, even without shields, so a solid shield wall doesn't seem essential (which is why many people favour angled shields).

Am I right in thinking that the overarm grip only developed in the 16th C? It is interesting if so that pikemen (unshielded) went several centuries without it.