Did the Macedonian Phalanx practise othismos with its sarissas?

[Justin Swanton]

One question based on Renaissance pike fighting.  There were two basic methods - either you indulged in pike fencing (in which you avoided too much pressure on the front rank so they could do their stuff) or you went for "push of pike", where the ranks closed up more tightly and you sought to use momentum to drive your opponent back or down (Monluc talks of front ranks being knocked off their feet).  Push of pike rapidly tangled up if the target didn't give ground and front rankers ditched pikes and went for swords.  Do we see similar variations in tactics within Hellenistic phalanxes?  We know that hoplites when they got to "shield to shield" would ditch spears and go for swords - did phalangites do this or did they keep a rigid formation to keep themselves several metres from the enemy?

There's no mention anywhere that I know of a pike phalanx that maintained its order getting to shield-to-shield contact with its opponent, and the fight at Sellasia, with a prolonged push and counter push between the Macedonians and Spartans during which everyone kept - and used - their sarissas would suggest that a phalangite was not meant to let go of his sarissa for any reason. The manuals also seem clear that the pushing process went with the use of sarissas and never without them.

On the other hand phalangites always carried a sword or at least a long knife as an auxiliary weapon which suggests that getting to shield-to-shield contact was a possibility they had to be prepared for.

Doesn't Monluc say that a charge of pike against pike resulted in the front rank of both sides going down? (presumably killed) I would imagine that Macedonian/Successor pikers in the front rank stood a good chance of getting killed, shields or no shields. What are the casualty rates for winners of a sarissa vs sarissa battle? Usual 5%?

[Erpingham]

Doesn't Monluc say that a charge of pike against pike resulted in the front rank of both sides going down? (presumably killed)

all on a suddain rush'd in among them, a good many of us at least, for as well on their side as ours all the first Ranks, either with push of Pikes or the Shock at the encounter, were overturn'd; neither is it possible amongst Foot to see a greater fury: the second Rank and the third were the cause of our victory; for the last so pushed them on that they fell in upon the heels of one another, and as ours press'd in, the Enemy was still driven back:

Monluc, who is leading from the front, pike in hand, is knocked down three times.

[Justin Swanton]

Doesn't Monluc say that a charge of pike against pike resulted in the front rank of both sides going down? (presumably killed)

all on a suddain rush'd in among them, a good many of us at least, for as well on their side as ours all the first Ranks, either with push of Pikes or the Shock at the encounter, were overturn'd; neither is it possible amongst Foot to see a greater fury: the second Rank and the third were the cause of our victory; for the last so pushed them on that they fell in upon the heels of one another, and as ours press'd in, the Enemy was still driven back:

Monluc, who is leading from the front, pike in hand, is knocked down three times.

So they live (or many of them do). Which suggests that it's not so easy to just kill an opposing pikeman by pushing your pikehead through his face. I notice that neither Renaissance pikers nor phalangites had headgear that protected their face in the way Corinthian helmets protected the faces of hoplites - I'm guessing that when in shield-to-shield contact with an enemy hoplite, sticking a knife in his eye was a viable proposition.

[aligern]

If we think about it the lijelihood of an entire front rank going down has to be small, because no one would sign up for that duty, especially as with a levelled row of sarissa points the destruction of the front rankers would be mutual. If we can assume that mutual death is avoided by catching the points on the shields then the explanation of the retrograde motion is that a phalanx is physically pushed back by its opponents. That won't be a matter of shield on shield, but it does seem very likely that the men in the ranks after the first are pushing on the back of their front ranker and those being pushed are trying the same and failing.
Is there an alternative model as to how poking and jousting would cause a similar fall back?
Roy

[Jim Webster]

If we think about it the lijelihood of an entire front rank going down has to be small, because no one would sign up for that duty, especially as with a levelled row of sarissa points the destruction of the front rankers would be mutual. If we can assume that mutual death is avoided by catching the points on the shields then the explanation of the retrograde motion is that a phalanx is physically pushed back by its opponents. That won't be a matter of shield on shield, but it does seem very likely that the men in the ranks after the first are pushing on the back of their front ranker and those being pushed are trying the same and failing.
Is there an alternative model as to how poking and jousting would cause a similar fall back?
Roy

not disagreeing Roy,but I think there's more than just catching the point on the shield. There must be other techniques, perhaps 'fencing with pikes' that push the other side's pikes away, or shieldless pikemen would die in heaps.

[Dangun]

If we think about it the lijelihood of an entire front rank going down has to be small, because no one would sign up for that duty, especially as with a levelled row of sarissa points the destruction of the front rankers would be mutual.

Especially if 7-49 people were also pushing you from behind! 
It certainly doesn't fit with low casualty rates. Low casualty rates are an issue for scrum-O.

[Justin Swanton]

If we think about it the lijelihood of an entire front rank going down has to be small, because no one would sign up for that duty, especially as with a levelled row of sarissa points the destruction of the front rankers would be mutual.

Especially if 7-49 people were also pushing you from behind! 
It certainly doesn't fit with low casualty rates. Low casualty rates are an issue for scrum-O.

The working hypothesis is that sarissa points do not generally penetrate enemy shields as the pressure from the rear ranks is distributed among several sarissas that contact the enemy. Some shields though are penetrated as Plutarch describing Pydna makes clear.

[Patrick Waterson]

The working hypothesis is that sarissa points do not generally penetrate enemy shields as the pressures from the rear ranks is distributed among several sarissas that contact the enemy. Some shields though are penetrated as Plutarch describing Pydna makes clear.

And, if the counterpressure is sufficient, armour, too.

My best guess is that phalangites tried hard to get initial 'shove superiority' at contact; the side achieving this would bowl or stagger the other back, maybe not knocking down the front rank (their advance would be impressive but not necessarily up to furor helveticus standards) but 'getting their act together' so that the opposition are dropping back.

Doesn't Monluc say that a charge of pike against pike resulted in the front rank of both sides going down? (presumably killed) I would imagine that Macedonian/Successor pikers in the front rank stood a good chance of getting killed, shields or no shields. What are the casualty rates for winners of a sarissa vs sarissa battle? Usual 5%?

There is one phalanx vs phalanx battle (Raphia, 217 BC) for which we have reasonable casualty information, but as the loser's (significant) losses include the effects of pursuit and disintegration/desertion, I suggest we concentrate on the winner's loses.

Ptolemy at Raphia lost 1,500 infantry (he also lost 700 cavalry and 16 elephants). As most of his infantry were phalangites, it would be reasonable to conclude that most if not all the losses were phalangites.  It seems likely from the course of the battle that most of these losses were incurred in combat against the Seleucid phalanx (as opposed to being crushed by elephants, ridden down by cavalry, etc.).  So of 70,000 infantry, Ptolemy lost 1,500 or about 2%.

[Justin Swanton]

The working hypothesis is that sarissa points do not generally penetrate enemy shields as the pressures from the rear ranks is distributed among several sarissas that contact the enemy. Some shields though are penetrated as Plutarch describing Pydna makes clear.

And, if the counterpressure is sufficient, armour, too.

My best guess is that phalangites tried hard to get initial 'shove superiority' at contact; the side achieving this would bowl or stagger the other back, maybe not knocking down the front rank (their advance would be impressive but not necessarily up to furor helveticus standards) but 'getting their act together' so that the opposition are dropping back.

Doesn't Monluc say that a charge of pike against pike resulted in the front rank of both sides going down? (presumably killed) I would imagine that Macedonian/Successor pikers in the front rank stood a good chance of getting killed, shields or no shields. What are the casualty rates for winners of a sarissa vs sarissa battle? Usual 5%?

There is one phalanx vs phalanx battle (Raphia, 217 BC) for which we have reasonable casualty information, but as the loser's (significant) losses include the effects of pursuit and disintegration/desertion, I suggest we concentrate on the winner's loses.

Ptolemy at Raphia lost 1,500 infantry (he also lost 700 cavalry and 16 elephants). As most of his infantry were phalangites, it would be reasonable to conclude that most if not all the losses were phalangites.  It seems likely from the course of the battle that most of these losses were incurred in combat against the Seleucid phalanx (as opposed to being crushed by elephants, ridden down by cavalry, etc.).  So of 70,000 infantry, Ptolemy lost 1,500 or about 2%.

Which translates to one man in six in the front rank killed if the phalanx deployed in close order and was 8 ranks deep. Not so bad (for the other five).

[Erpingham]

Which translates to one man in six in the front rank killed if the phalanx deployed in close order and was 8 ranks deep. Not so bad (for the other five).

I think we should be cautious on the casualty rate argument.  If we go again to medieval and renaissance examples, we can see considerable variations in casualty levels in similar fights.   For example, the French Landsknechts fighting the Swiss at Novara in 1513 lost virtual all their front rank (attempts to convert this in percentages sometimes published tend to over-literalise however).  We should note that they weren't properly formed up and they only broke when the Swiss hit them in the flank as well as the front.  Whereas, if we take another example sometimes chosen to show the lack of lethality of pike fighting, the Battle of Langside 1568, the losers suffered about 5% casualties overall, the winners 1% or less.  There was no pursuit and nearly all the losers losses came from shooting.  Tactically, it was similar to Novara in that the pike fight was settled by a flank attack, so that can't be used to distinguish the results.  Pike fight lethality seems to have varied a lot on who was fighting who and what the tactical circumstances were and Hellenistic fights may have been similar.

In our examples so far, it seems to me that we are drawing the conclusion that the two sides stayed at pike-push distance and exerted pressure, unlike hoplites or Romans who closed to sword and dagger distance (which also happened in renaissance pike fights).  Everybody except the file leader just contributed pressure (we can ignore the mechanics for now).  Why then did the first five ranks level their pikes?  Two I understand - the file leader may break a pike or get in jammed in a shield or a body and have to drop it, so a back up row would be essential - but five rows?  I'm still not sure we have cracked how the macedonian system actually fought yet.

[Justin Swanton]

I think we should be cautious on the casualty rate argument.  If we go again to medieval and renaissance examples, we can see considerable variations in casualty levels in similar fights.   For example, the French Landsknechts fighting the Swiss at Novara in 1513 lost virtual all their front rank (attempts to convert this in percentages sometimes published tend to over-literalise however).  We should note that they weren't properly formed up and they only broke when the Swiss hit them in the flank as well as the front.  Whereas, if we take another example sometimes chosen to show the lack of lethality of pike fighting, the Battle of Langside 1568, the losers suffered about 5% casualties overall, the winners 1% or less.  There was no pursuit and nearly all the losers losses came from shooting.  Tactically, it was similar to Novara in that the pike fight was settled by a flank attack, so that can't be used to distinguish the results.  Pike fight lethality seems to have varied a lot on who was fighting who and what the tactical circumstances were and Hellenistic fights may have been similar.

These examples do show that Renaissance and Mediaeval pikemen weren't afraid to close to pike-on-human contact, and that - sometimes at least - casualties could be surprisingly low. Which would argue in favour of sarissmos.

In our examples so far, it seems to me that we are drawing the conclusion that the two sides stayed at pike-push distance and exerted pressure, unlike hoplites or Romans who closed to sword and dagger distance (which also happened in renaissance pike fights).  Everybody except the file leader just contributed pressure (we can ignore the mechanics for now).  Why then did the first five ranks level their pikes?  Two I understand - the file leader may break a pike or get in jammed in a shield or a body and have to drop it, so a back up row would be essential - but five rows?  I'm still not sure we have cracked how the macedonian system actually fought yet.

Arrian affirms that the six front rows of a pike file pushed with their pikes:

Compactly they stand back successively so that each hoplite [phalangite] in the front is covered by six sarissas and presses on with six forces whenever they bear down. Those standing in the sixth row press on with the weight of their bodies, if not with their sarissas, so that the phalanx's push against the foes does not become endurable and flight [becomes] difficult for the front row men. - Arrian, Tactics: 12

This is possible since the ranks in close order occupy a depth of only 18" at the most. A sarissa's centre of balance - held by the left hand according to Polybios - is 6 feet from the back of the weapon, meaning that the back rows have plenty of pikeshaft to push forward to reach the enemy. If the first couple of rows hold their pikes somewhat forward of their centre of balance (3 feet for front rank, 18 inches for second rank) then six rows are quite capable of shoving their pikes against the shield of an opponent.

[Erpingham]

If the first couple of rows hold their pikes somewhat forward of their centre of balance (3 feet for front rank, 18 inches for second rank) then six rows are quite capable of shoving their pikes against the shield of an opponent.

Except this isn't what Polybios says.  His pikemen hold the pike the same and there is a two cubit distance between the heads of successive rows.  So only the file leader will reach the shield of the opposing file leader. 

[RichT]

AFAIK nobody fully understands how Med/Ren/Mod pikes fought and there is relatively speaking a mass of information on them, so it's going to be hard to understand Hellenistic pikes. Comparison with Smythe, Monluc etc (as we've discussed here many times) suggests two models (as we've discussed here many times) - 'fencing and foyning' or 'pushing and pressing' although the precise details even of these are lacking. My impression is that Hell pikes used 'pushing and pressing' though that doesn't mean they necessarily all did this all the time. The problem with eg Smythe's account is he is very clear that a pushing pike block will scatter a fencing and foyning pike block ('like a flock of geese') but not what happens when two pushing pike blocks meet each other (or why, given that, anyone ever fenced and foyned). Monluc's account suggests something hot, close, chaotic and disorganised, with lots of knocking over but not necessarily much fatality.

Judging by Polybius et al, as many sarissas extend beyond the front rank as are able to do so given their length and the rank spacing. Those that are only two cubits in front might not have any immediate practical purpose but presumably it was felt useful to have the maximum possible number of pikes out front - makes it harder to cut or push through them all if nothing else (remember the whole point is to place a fence or palisade in front of the phalanx) and it makes the front ranks feel safer. Plus if back ranks do have to step up to replace casualties, better if their sarissas are already levelled.

[Justin Swanton]

If the first couple of rows hold their pikes somewhat forward of their centre of balance (3 feet for front rank, 18 inches for second rank) then six rows are quite capable of shoving their pikes against the shield of an opponent.

Except this isn't what Polybios says.  His pikemen hold the pike the same and there is a two cubit distance between the heads of successive rows.  So only the file leader will reach the shield of the opposing file leader.

Sure, but Polybios implies that when engaged in a pike push, the ranks were actually much closer together, since the only way rear rankers could "press forward those in front by the weight of their bodies" was if the ranks were compacted together, shield against back, with each rank occupying a depth of a foot and a half at the most.

He supports the notion of all 5 spears of each rank reaching the enemy soldier a bit later on:

The Roman soldier will face two of the front rank of a phalanx, so that he has to encounter and fight against ten spears, which one man cannot find time even to cut away, when once the two lines are engaged, nor force his way through easily—seeing that the Roman front ranks are not supported by the rear ranks, either by way of adding weight to their charge, or vigour to the use of their swords. - Histories, 18.30.10

Notice also that he also confirms sarissmos here: "the Roman front ranks are not supported by the rear ranks".

What is interesting is that Polybios describes a phalanx in close order (2 phalangites to 1 legionary) but with 16 ranks as opposed to the 8 one would expect following the manuals. He may have confused close order with intermediate order here or be describing a phalanx compacting to close order, not by advancing rear half-files to the front alongside the front half-files, but by simply bunching the files together:

If the centre must assume the compact position, we shall command the right wing to left face and the left wing to right face, then to advance to the navel of the phalanx, to face to the front, and to advance the rear ranks, and we shall have the desired formation. - Asklepiodotus 12.9

[Erpingham]

I think you are missing the fact that the ten spears bit refers to fighting Romans.  Romans don't have pikes - they throw things and close with swords.  To do this they must fight their way through layers of pikes.

On pushing on the backs of the person in front with shields, it would be easier with a ported pike.  And before you ask, pretty impossible with a high charge position.  So, low charge might work but would be inefficient.  No, those pikes are held like that because the protruding pike points are more important than shoving people in the back.

Going back (forward?) to the renaissance for a moment to pick up Richard's point, pike "foyning and fencing" is associated by Monluc with better training.  He goes for the unsophisticated pike charge of the Swiss because his men are good enough to challenge in a fancy pike fight.  So training may be one angle that is important in hellenistic terms.

Smythe's rejection of fancy pike work is because it is indecisive - his men close up tight, lean into the man in front and actually try to stab the enemy to death.  If they don't break though, everything gets tangled up and the front men drop pikes and draw swords (he is rude about people who take rapiers into a pike fight because there is no room to use them so this fight is close up and personal).  Does this happen in Hellenistic clashes or are they "fencing and foyning" types?   Or are they something else?

Final thought.  Were Macedonian pike phalanxes designed to fight other pike phalanxes?  If they were for fighting hoplites or Persians, that row of pike heads would stop the enemy closing with their big shields and shorter weapons and give them the choice of being skewered or giving ground.  This sort of works too against Romans but they have a couple of tricks of their own - they throw things, they are more flexible in difficult terrain and they have fancy ways of using reserves.