SoA Forums

It was William's beautiful 6mm figures deployed in the standard 16-deep phalanx that got me thinking on the subject. The sarissa is long, granted, but only the first five ranks can get their lances to project in front of the phalanx, so what are the other 11 ranks, also armed with sarissas, doing?

Accepting that othismus meant shoving the chap in front of you, one can understand hoplite phalanxes deploying deep. The Macedonian version however didn't employ othismus, but each man simply poked what was in front of him with his sarissa until it either gave way or was skewered. That being the case, what were all those men behind him there for? Not to replace the dead chaps in front since the whole point of a pike phalanx was to make the phalangites impossible to reach through a mass of spearpoints. Nor to supply a 'line relief' since there is no mention of such a thing with phalanxes and in any case the pikemen didn't need it.

Alexander just before his death was experimenting with a hybrid phalanx in which only the front ranks were sarissa-armed whilst the rear ranks were equipped with bows. Does that mean he had worked out that the back two-thirds of the Philippian formation were dead wood?

Let the wise speak (no seriously, I have no theories and am all ears...well, eyes actually).

I suspect part of it must be confidence in numbers and the sheer physical difficulty of running away when you've got ranks and ranks of friends behind you.

Renaissance and Early Modern experience may be relavant here: for a while the Swiss and others used enormously deep pike blocks, but they eventually went for thinner and thinner ones. I dunno if anyone bothered to write down why they did so?

We have discussed depth before but without solid conclusions I believe. That said, my own take on depth is not the physical pushing one rank on another but pressure in the sense of crowding the guy in front.  It can be easier to step forward than backward, even though what is in front of you is hostile.  It would be hard to stop the formation if you are the guy in front, let alone try to make 15 guys take a step backward.

Polybius thinks that the 16-deep dense (18" frontage) late Hellenistic phalanx serves two purposes: the first five ranks make contact with opponents, or are capable of doing so, with multiple possible 'contacts' against single opponents, especially if the latter happen to be Romans on a 3' individual frontage.

The next eleven ranks carry their shafts at a slight angle from the vertical, which Polybius tells us intercepts enemy missiles.  This can be an important consideration against a missile-using enemy, but in a pike-versus-pike fight seems to be of limited utility.

Alexander's phalanx, according to the extract from Callisthenes quoted by Polybius in Book XII, closed up to eight deep to fight; by Polybius' time this had evidently doubled.  I think a combination of less experienced pikemen and a resulting wish for more stable formations may have led to this deepening of the formation by doubling the files.

What were casualties to weapons and men at the front of a phalanx?
If these are severe then perhaps the extra ranks are there to filter forwards as replacements, though that doesn't sound easy given the frontage.
Another pissible advantage is in morale. The other side would see that the deep formation looked impressive and determined and outnumbered them. So perhaps it was to daunt tge oppobent.

The last potential explanation that I can think of is that it is an almost accudental consequence of closing up. If the real objective is to get to the 18 inch frontage and your phalanx normally does this by closing from 8 ranks to 16 , i.e. from manoeuvre mode to fighting mode then the doubling of depth might occur if the new ranks 2,4,6,8 etc. are not directly behind 1,3,5,7 etc. but offset and behind, thus delivering more pikes into the fray.

Quote from: aligern on May 06, 2014, 10:31:50 AM
What were casualties to weapons and men at the front of a phalanx?

Against a non-phalanx, it would seem almost nil: Alexander's casualty returns show trivial losses to his phalanx in all his major engagements.  When phalanx met phalanx it could get bloodier: at Paraitakene Eumenes lost 540 infantry (with another 1,000 wounded) whereas Antigonus lost c.3,700 with 4,000 wounded.  Not all of these would have been phalangites but a fair proportion probably were.  From this we can tentatively surmise that while pikemen could poke some holes in opposing pikemen, the majority of casualties would be incurred when the formation gave way or collapsed.  The exact process of collapse and the triggers and thresholds thereof are less evident.

Napoleon reckoned that the side with the big battalions generally won....

Quote from: NickHarbud on May 07, 2014, 03:40:09 PM
Napoleon reckoned that the side with the big battalions generally won....

... until the first and last time he met the British Army.

Given the consistent run of success by the Argyraspides under Eumenes against Antigonus' more numerous but less well trained and experienced pikemen, it would seem that size did matter but quality mattered a lot more.

As we can probably safely assume that late Hellenistic pikemen were not up to the standard of Alexander's Argyraspides, an increase in size, expressed as extra depth, makes a certain amount of sense.  I did also wonder, given Polybius' remarks about sloping pikes intercepting missiles, whether having eleven ranks rather than just three with pikes up would have provided more protection against an increasing variety of missile-using opponents.

Or did the Successors (and for that matter the Achaean League) simply have larger armies to deploy on narrower frontages?

I read somewhere (cant remember the book though have the suspicion that is was by Duncan Head!) that sarissa/pikes got longer after Alexander which theoretically (if true) could allow more ranks to "fight"

Quote from: Holly on May 07, 2014, 06:44:04 PM
I read somewhere (cant remember the book though have the suspicion that is was by Duncan Head!) that sarissa/pikes got longer after Alexander which theoretically (if true) could allow more ranks to "fight"

ISTR that Hanson briefly discusses longer post-Alexandrian pikes in Wars of the Ancient Greeks. Too lazy to check ATM.

thanks Andreas, cant remember if it was that or Duncan's AMPW or even another book to be honest!

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on May 07, 2014, 06:48:35 PM

ISTR that Hanson briefly discusses longer post-Alexandrian pikes in Wars of the Ancient Greeks. Too lazy to check ATM.

Hanson makes the point that a 18ft sarissa allowed more ranks to fight than a 9 ft spear, albeit at a great weight penalty.  He notes the lengthening of the pike post Alexander but as one of the factors in the decline of the phalanx (more unwieldy).

That still leaves you with a good ten ranks or more that effectively seem to be doing nothing. That's a lot of men to train, feed and equip with pikes. They must have been there for a reason.

Dragging out Polybius, Book XVIII, we get:

In my sixth book I made a promise, still unfulfilled, of taking a fitting opportunity of drawing a comparison between the arms of the Romans and Macedonians, and their respective system of tactics, and pointing out how they differ for better or worse from each other. I will now endeavour by a reference to actual facts to fulfil that promise. For since in former times the Macedonian tactics proved themselves by experience capable of conquering those of Asia and Greece; while the Roman tactics sufficed to conquer the nations of Africa and all those of Western Europe; and since in our own day there have been numerous opportunities of comparing the men as well as their tactics,—it will be, I think, a useful and worthy task to investigate their differences, and discover why it is that the Romans conquer and carry off the palm from their enemies in the operations of war: that we may not put it all down to Fortune, and congratulate them on their good luck, as the thoughtless of mankind do; but, from a knowledge of the true causes, may give their leaders the tribute of praise and admiration which they deserve. - Polybius XVIII.28.1-5

He details the Macedonian phalanx thus:

Quote
Many considerations may easily convince us that, if only the phalanx has its proper formation and strength, nothing can resist it face to face or withstand its charge. For as a man in close order of battle occupies a space of three feet; and as the length of the sarissae is sixteen cubits according to the original design, which has been reduced in practice to fourteen; and as of these fourteen four must be deducted, to allow for the distance between the two hands holding it, and to balance the weight in front; it follows clearly that each hoplite will have ten cubits of his sarissae projecting beyond his body, when he lowers it with both hands, as he advances against the enemy: hence, too, though the men of the second, third, and fourth rank will have their sarissae projecting farther beyond the front rank than the men of the fifth, yet even these last will have two cubits of their sarissae beyond the front rank; if only the phalanx is properly formed and the men close up properly both flank and rear, like the description in Homer —
"So buckler pressed on buckler; helm on helm;
And man on man: and waving horse-hair plumes
In polished head-piece mingled, as they swayed
In order: in such serried rank they stood." - [Iliad, XIII.131.]
And if my description is true and exact, it is clear that in front of each man of the front rank there will be five sarissae projecting to distances varying by a descending scale of two cubits.

With this point in our minds, it will not be difficult to imagine what the appearance and strength of the whole phalanx is likely to be, when, with lowered sarissae, it advances to the charge sixteen deep. Of these sixteen ranks, all above the fifth are unable to reach with their sarissae far enough to take actual part in the fighting. They, therefore, do not lower them, but hold them with the points inclined upwards over the shoulders of the ranks in front of them, to shield the heads of the whole phalanx; for the sarissae are so closely serried, that they repel missiles which have carried over the front ranks and might fall upon the heads of those in the rear. These rear ranks, however, during an advance, press forward those in front by the weight of their bodies; and thus make the charge very forcible, and at the same time render it impossible for the front ranks to face about.

Such is the arrangement, general and detailed, of the phalanx.

Homer's actual quote is:

"... they that were the chosen bravest abode the onset of the Trojans and goodly Hector, [130] fencing spear with spear, and shield with serried shield; buckler pressed on buckler, helm on helm, and man on man; and the horse-hair crests on the bright helmet-ridges touched each other, as the men moved their heads, in such close array stood they one by another, and spears in stout hands overlapped each other, as they were brandished, [135] and their minds swerved not, but they were fain to fight."

Polybius has thus taken half his quote out of context, apparently to add to an impression he wishes to convey to the reader.

The point that catches our interest is this:

"Of these sixteen ranks, all above the fifth are unable to reach with their sarissae far enough to take actual part in the fighting. They, therefore, do not lower them, but hold them with the points inclined upwards over the shoulders of the ranks in front of them, to shield the heads of the whole phalanx; for the sarissae are so closely serried, that they repel missiles which have carried over the front ranks and might fall upon the heads of those in the rear. These rear ranks, however, during an advance, press forward those in front by the weight of their bodies; and thus make the charge very forcible, and at the same time render it impossible for the front ranks to face about."

Polybius thus gives us two reasons for the sixteen-man depth:
1) Protection from missiles, which is provided by pikes sloping over 'the heads of the whole phalanx'.
2) Impact and sustained pressure, provided by the rear ranks who 'press forward those in front by the weight of their bodies and thus make the charge very forcible'.

Interesting, Patrick. If phalangites practised othismus then their shields must have been convex to allow for breathing (top edge resting on sternum, bottom edge on pelvis/legs with a concave space in between).

The main preoccupation of a phalangite in combat must have been hanging on to his sarissa whilst being shoved forwards by 15 chaps behind him.  :o

Actually, if you think about it, the left forearm lies across the stomach, the left hand holding the sarissa which virtually touches the right side of the body. All the phalangite needs to do is keep his grip on the shaft.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 08, 2014, 12:46:08 PM
The main preoccupation of a phalangite in combat must have been hanging on to his sarissa whilst being shoved forwards by 15 chaps behind him.  :o

Which, of course, is why many reject the "scrum" interpretation of othismos. 

Quote from: Erpingham on May 08, 2014, 01:34:23 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 08, 2014, 12:46:08 PM
The main preoccupation of a phalangite in combat must have been hanging on to his sarissa whilst being shoved forwards by 15 chaps behind him.  :o

Which, of course, is why many reject the "scrum" interpretation of othismos.

Because if you had another 15 chaps shoving their front rank from the opposite direction the line would probably buckle upwards, spitting file openers skywards. Frightfully bad for discipline  :-[


;D

Jim

However, the bit "press forward those in front by the weight of their bodies" sounds an awful lot like actual physical pressure of rear ranks on anterior ones is meant.

What we need here is some "true" reenactment. I suggest soccer fans of rival clubs that are happy to accept any losses of life or limb as in the dual good cause of science and grievous bodily harm to the enemy.

Pressing forward would seem to work quite well in the situation I describe where the new rank 2 is between the original files rather than directly behind.
Roy

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on May 08, 2014, 03:56:20 PM
However, the bit "press forward those in front by the weight of their bodies" sounds an awful lot like actual physical pressure of rear ranks on anterior ones is meant.

Agreed, it does.  But would it work?  The first 5 ranks have to hold their pikes flat, rather than just push, so something more controlled than a Sealed Knot pike push is probably meant.  Controlled pressure, rather than a ram shoving the front ranks into a mincer.  You need the men at the front to keep their feet and you can't rely on the scrum/SK way of leaning on people being pushed in the opposite direction.  It is vitally important that whatever method was used didn't just leave a compacted, confused mass. 

Broadly speaking, yes, it did work.  The devil is, as always, in the details, namely the precise nature of exactly what 'it' was.

Polybius' stipulation does suggest actual physical contact between the members of a file, probably of a shield-in-the-back nature.  One suspects that there was an optimum degree of force, somewhere between the hopeful pushing of a person anxious to get onto an already overcrowded train and the all-out 'grand slam' Anthony alludes to Sealed-Knot-wise and Jim portrays so vividly.

I rather like Andreas' suggestion about using soccer fans for reenactment.  ;D  Sadly they would need some training first, otherwise the results, although good for hospital staff practice, would not be very instructive.

Although even if you are not actively pushing, if the front ranks give ground and the back ranks don't then you effectively end up pushing anyway. And the back ranks may have had this role of stopping the front ranks giving ground to easily.
The Polybian explanation of stopping missiles might almost work as well especially if the missiles are javelins or pila.
Plus if the subunit is 256 men, 16 ranks allows you to turn to face although you do then get a file of file leaders. Is turning to face in the military manuals though? Although they might reflect later, post Alexander drill with longer pikes that couldn't turn easily. Argument is rather circular though - why not have 8 deep units of 64 men? Are they 256 man units because they are 16 deep?

Quote from: tobypartridge on May 12, 2014, 04:57:08 PM
Although even if you are not actively pushing, if the front ranks give ground and the back ranks don't then you effectively end up pushing anyway. And the back ranks may have had this role of stopping the front ranks giving ground to easily.

It also works in advancing that the formation may not be pushing as it advanced but if the front was stopped, the continued forward movement of the rear ranks created a push forward.

Quote
The Polybian explanation of stopping missiles might almost work as well especially if the missiles are javelins or pila.

I remember long ago someone (Charles Grant senior?) trying to work out the arrow stopping powers of the massed pikes and concluded it wasn't that great, because the overall area of the pike shafts is small compared with the target area.  However, a mass of pikes may have had more chance of knocking a six foot missile off target than a shorter arrow.  I presume the intention would be to make the pila fall flat or tail first, so men would still be hit but not lethally.

Quote from: Erpingham on May 12, 2014, 06:19:42 PM

I remember long ago someone (Charles Grant senior?) trying to work out the arrow stopping powers of the massed pikes and concluded it wasn't that great, because the overall area of the pike shafts is small compared with the target area.  However, a mass of pikes may have had more chance of knocking a six foot missile off target than a shorter arrow.  I presume the intention would be to make the pila fall flat or tail first, so men would still be hit but not lethally.

And dont forget that the pikes will be swaying independently and so more likely to intercept the pathway of any missile but more probably the pila/javelins you refer to

Any contact with an incoming missile is going to take a lot if impact, and knock the trajectory such that few will hit point on.

Polybius' word for 'missiles' in this context is 'belos', which apart from being a generalised missile word is also one used specifically to indicate heavy missiles like pila.  Given that he is discussing the legion against the phalanx, I have a feeling he intended it to be read this way.

I think that doubling deepeness of the line could have a sense in  keeping ready reinforcements in case the guys in first lines are dead or wounded. Nothing more. Than is the meaning of deepening every kind of battle line. The deeper it is, the more you will have to fight to break it. Some phalanges deep 32 men are reported too. I think to remember in tolemaic kingdom

With a pike phalanx though if you are suffering sufficient casualties in the front ranks that substantial replacements are needed then the phalanx is probably falling apart in any case. If the formation is intact then nothing can reach the front ranks.

this of the invincible phalanx if unbreakeble is only a myth. Many warriors were trained to sneak among pikes or crawl under them. This was the reason why they carried a sword and were trained to use it. A phalanx was not unbreakable, only tried to be. Its role was to keep enemies busy for some time while cavalry flanked or went in the back. this could not last to much though, since after a while soldiers get exhausted both physically and psychologically. There was no relief system like the Roman legion where guys in the front rows went back and guys in second row advanced. So all fighting relied on first rows which while being of the best soldiers, they could not last more than a while.
Then, let's not forget how weak phalanx was against missile fire. Mainly Small Shields, but even many rows of men pressed one to the others, made a pike phalanx ideal target for javelins or arrows. And yes shaking saris sas could give some protection, but I guess only a tiny bit against a big volume of missiles. I would not like to be the man having a saris sa to protect against incoming arrows...
And another big fault of pike phalanx was it was poor from the offensive point of view. Do not forget that in ancient time almost every soldier carried a shield as main protection. So if you faced a pike wall you simply have to keep your shield steady in front of you and that is all. While a hoplite with short spear can aim and stab your weakest point from upward or downward, the pike cannot. It can only be kept in the same position. Yes it had a good defensive role but limited offensive use. Unless you have opponents with small Shields, like other pikemen (that is why the bloodiest battles of phalanx were the ones either against other pike phalanx or against light eastern infantry with no armor and light or small shields).

Your sources for this?

Quote from: andrew881runner on July 16, 2014, 07:46:08 AM
this of the invincible phalanx if unbreakeble is only a myth. Many warriors were trained to sneak among pikes or crawl under them. This was the reason why they carried a sword and were trained to use it.

It would be nice to give some references showing where these ideas originated.  They do not seem to be in our original sources: Polybius, Livy, etc.

Quote
A phalanx was not unbreakable, only tried to be. Its role was to keep enemies busy for some time while cavalry flanked or went in the back. this could not last to much though, since after a while soldiers get exhausted both physically and psychologically. There was no relief system like the Roman legion where guys in the front rows went back and guys in second row advanced. So all fighting relied on first rows which while being of the best soldiers, they could not last more than a while.

But did they need to?  The only formation that could do meaningful damage to a pike phalanx from the front was another pike phalanx.  Judging by the effectiveness of the Argyraspides at Gabiene and Paraitakene, a meaningful superiority in skill and experience would result in a short and decisive fight, while in cases like Ipsus and Raphia, where the pike formations were of more equal skill, they did not come to blows until the cavalry action had been decided, and for most of them not even then.

Polybius (XVIII.29), in his comparison of the Macedonian and Roman infantry systems, notes of the phalanx:

"Many considerations may easily convince us that, if only the phalanx has its proper formation and strength, nothing can resist it face to face or withstand its charge."

Quote
Then, let's not forget how weak phalanx was against missile fire. Mainly Small Shields, but even many rows of men pressed one to the others, made a pike phalanx ideal target for javelins or arrows. And yes shaking saris sas could give some protection, but I guess only a tiny bit against a big volume of missiles. I would not like to be the man having a saris sa to protect against incoming arrows...

Polybius has a different evaluation:

"Of these sixteen ranks, all above the fifth are unable to reach with their sarissae far enough to take actual part in the fighting. They, therefore, do not lower them, but hold them with the points inclined upwards over the shoulders of the ranks in front of them, to shield the heads of the whole phalanx; for the sarissae are so closely serried, that they repel missiles which have carried over the front ranks and might fall upon the heads of those in the rear." - Polybius XVIII.30

So in the view of an experienced soldier who was around at the time, the protection provided against missiles was good.

Quote
And another big fault of pike phalanx was it was poor from the offensive point of view. Do not forget that in ancient time almost every soldier carried a shield as main protection. So if you faced a pike wall you simply have to keep your shield steady in front of you and that is all. While a hoplite with short spear can aim and stab your weakest point from upward or downward, the pike cannot. It can only be kept in the same position. Yes it had a good defensive role but limited offensive use.

Polybius, as noted above, points out that: "if only the phalanx has its proper formation and strength, nothing can resist it face to face or withstand its charge."  It may be worth remembering that the pike phalanx did not stand still on the battlefield but pushed forwards vigorously.  Even where it did stand still (plugging a gap in the wall at Atrax) the Romans spent a long while trying to get past the pikes and through to the men - completely without success.

Quote
Unless you have opponents with small Shields, like other pikemen (that is why the bloodiest battles of phalanx were the ones either against other pike phalanx or against light eastern infantry with no armor and light or small shields).

At the risk of being deemed pedantic, I would point out that the phalanx fought with its pikes, not its shields.  Polybius notes:

"For as a man in close order of battle occupies a space [depth] of three feet; and as the length of the sarissa is sixteen cubits according to the original design, which has been reduced in practice to fourteen; and as of these fourteen four must be deducted, to allow for the distance between the two hands holding it, and to balance the weight in front; it follows clearly that each hoplite will have ten cubits of his sarissae projecting beyond his body, when he lowers it with both hands, as he advances against the enemy: hence, too, though the men of the second, third, and fourth rank will have their sarissae projecting farther beyond the front rank than the men of the fifth, yet even these last will have two cubits of their sarissae beyond the front rank." - XVIII.29

Hence:

"The result of this will be that each 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. Therefore it may readily be understood that, as I said before, it is impossible to confront a charge of the phalanx, so long as it retains its proper formation and strength."

To me, that seems clear enough.  :)

I knew what Polibius said but he is a man and can exaggerate some things. I simply think that logic can overcome best sources in many cases. For example, how can a saris sa stop missile fire? even accurate tests show it cannot, even if close to other saris sa. Maybe shaking saris sa you can intercept Some slower arrows or slow javelins, but the rest will go through. You Don't have to Forget that sources have to be interpreted and put in a contest.
As for the things I said above, I cannot recall the exactly source, since I read a lot and formed my personal idea. For the fact that a pike is nothing great as offensive weapon, I simply used logic.

when looking at swordsmen v pikes we have the Renaissance authors to turn to. Where the pikes were disorganised, Spanish swordsmen did well at Battle of Ravenna but at Battle of Seminara Swiss pikes drawn up only three deep rolled over Spanish  Rodeleros

Jim

Quote from: Jim Webster on July 16, 2014, 02:13:53 PM
when looking at swordsmen v pikes we have the Renaissance authors to turn to. Where the pikes were disorganised, Spanish swordsmen did well at Battle of Ravenna but at Battle of Seminara Swiss pikes drawn up only three deep rolled over Spanish  Rodeleros

It's also interesting that rodeleros disappeared relatively quickly while pike continued into the early 18C.

Part of the difference with ancient conditions is undoubtedly that firearms-men long doubled as swordsmen when cold steel was required, but it still reinforces my suspicion that the replacement of phalangite by legionary wasn't primarily due to battleline effectiveness. Rome won the wars, and unsurpringly enough didn't see much reason to change a winning concept. But it doesn't follow that that winning concept was necessarily at every point superior to the losing one. If we accept Polybius' statement that, on clear ground with secure flanks etc, the phalanx was basically invincible, we're not left with any unsurmountable problems in explaining why the Romans still won.

Returning to the Renaissance detour, note that pikemen in this era wore no shields and faced distance weapons of far greater penetrative power than a pilum. Didn't, as a rule, prevent them from charging into contact.

Generally agree on later medieval/renaissance pikes - the Swiss system which evolves in our period was certainly based on attack.  Swiss attacks were famously quick by comparison with other medieval infantry, who tended to move steadily to avoid disorder.

Andrew's point was, however, I think about hellenestic pikes.  Were these static and defensive?  I seem to recall examples quoted by the classicists among us of hellenistic battles where pikemen attacked each other, or Romans.  Which is the battle where a bunch of OAP silver shields rips a bunch of younger, less experienced pikemen to shreds?

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 08, 2014, 12:10:18 PM
2) Impact and sustained pressure, provided by the rear ranks who 'press forward those in front by the weight of their bodies and thus make the charge very forcible'.

Simple physics would suggest that Polybius doesn't know what he's talking about.

Two 16 deep phalanxes hitting each other would result in about 2 tons of pressure being applied to the front ranks - more if they "charged" into each other. Forget the pointlessness of carrying a weapon in that situation, you would cease to breathe immediately.

And if every rank did push at the same time, what would happen if they "shoved" into a formation only 4 or 8 deep? They would steamroller it immediately. But this is not born out in the sources at all.

Greetings, by the way.

Quote from: Erpingham on July 16, 2014, 03:42:03 PM
Andrew's point was, however, I think about hellenestic pikes.  Were these static and defensive?  I seem to recall examples quoted by the classicists among us of hellenistic battles where pikemen attacked each other, or Romans.  Which is the battle where a bunch of OAP silver shields rips a bunch of younger, less experienced pikemen to shreds?

You're thinking of Paraitakene (Paraetacene) and/or Gabiene, at each of which the argyraspids attacked and routed less experienced pikemen.

Edit: spelling

I'm afraid your logic is wrong Andrew

The evidence of pika is that the sarissa were very good at deflecting the penetrative power.
There is no evidence of swordsmen rolling under the pikes - that is a renaissance notion of dubious effectiveness .

Pila are not designed to throw a high trajectory which would allow then to fall like rain through the branches of pikes.
They are designed for short range penetration of shields on a flat trajectory, to allow the man to follow up immediately with sword and shield.  You cannot do that with pikes.

Quote from: Dangun on July 16, 2014, 03:51:15 PM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 08, 2014, 12:10:18 PM
2) Impact and sustained pressure, provided by the rear ranks who 'press forward those in front by the weight of their bodies and thus make the charge very forcible'.

Simple physics would suggest that Polybius doesn't know what he's talking about.

Actually, it is probably us who don't know what Polybius is talking about.  We are assuming that he means everyone puts his full weight on the man in front and pushes.  This would, as you rightly say, be a disaster.  But as Polybius has seen a pike phalanx and describes it working like this, he is clearly thinking of something else.  Given that a crowd, which doesn't come in ranks and files, can usually regulate pressure to avoid crushing people at the front to death (infamous counter examples notwithstanding), I think there should be a way in which impetus and mass can be controlled by the foremost ranks (which in both hellenistic and renaissance versions are made up of experienced men) in a disciplined pikeblock.

 

Quote from: Erpingham on May 08, 2014, 12:10:18 PMActually, it is probably us who don't know what Polybius is talking about.

Yes it is not clear.

But are you really satisfied with Polybius explanation in the following paragraphs?

When discussing the flaw of the phalanx, he asks, "Why is it then that the Romans conquer?" (18.31) and suggests terrain and inflexibility as issues.  Fair enough, but phalanx were seemingly defeated on the battlefield too sometimes. And when it comes to the critical point about the shoving, compare "therefore it may readily be understood that, as I said before, it is impossible to confront a charge of the phalanx, so long as it retains its proper formation and strength" (18.30), and "now, whether the phalanx in its charge drives its opponents from their ground, or is itself driven back" (18.32). I don't find this entirely coherent.

Quote from: Dangun on July 16, 2014, 04:49:16 PM

But are you really satisfied with Polybius explanation in the following paragraphs?

When discussing the flaw of the phalanx, he asks, "Why is it then that the Romans conquer?" (18.31) and suggests terrain and inflexibility as issues.  Fair enough, but phalanx were seemingly defeated on the battlefield too sometimes. And when it comes to the critical point about the shoving, compare "therefore it may readily be understood that, as I said before, it is impossible to confront a charge of the phalanx, so long as it retains its proper formation and strength" (18.30), and "now, whether the phalanx in its charge drives its opponents from their ground, or is itself driven back" (18.32). I don't find this entirely coherent.

Polybius was writing in the context of Cynoscephalae (see XVIII.24-26) and his observation about one part conquering and one fleeing stems directly from that battle.

"The main body of the Roman right followed and slaughtered the flying Macedonians. But one of the tribunes, with about twenty maniples, having made up his mind on his own account what ought to be done next, contributed by his action very greatly to the general victory. He saw that the division which was personally commanded by Philip was much farther forward than the rest of the enemy, and was pressing hard upon the Roman left by its superior weight; he therefore left the right, which was by this time clearly victorious, and directing his march towards the part of the field where a struggle was still going on, he managed to get behind the Macedonians and charge them on the rear. The nature of the phalanx is such that the men cannot face round singly and defend themselves: this tribune, therefore, charged them and killed all he could get at; until, being unable to defend themselves, they were forced to throw down their shields and fly; whereupon the Romans in their front, who had begun to yield, faced round again and charged them too." - Polybius XVIII.26

It may be worth noting that in the four classic defeats of the phalanx by a Roman or Roman and allied force, namely Beneventum, Cynoscephalae, Magnesia and Pydna, the phalanx was initially broken by elephants, not legions, which allowed the legions their chance to get in and deal with the phalangites at a disadvantage.  The only case I can recall of legions defeating a phalanx in a head-on fight is at Chaeronea (86 BC), where Mithridates Eupator's phalanx of escaped slaves hold out against everything the Roman legionaires can do to them until Sulla arranges for his artillery to shoot flaming missiles (belosphenodai) into their ranks, which finally disrupts them (Plutarch Life of Sulla 18.6).

I have no sources but imagine the situation: you have a Forrest of pikes against enemies in close order forming a shield wall. How can you overcome Shields?  it is impossible even thinking about that. A spear cannot Pierce a wooden shield. Swiss pikemen were trained to apply a contact pressure on enemies armor if they could not find any gaps to Aim. I think this is what the pikemen did too. They applied a constant pressure on Shields trying to slowly advance. This situation where enemy front lines were under constant threat of being stabbed if they moved a bit their Shields or if they had parts uncovered by the shield itself could cause a psychological stress so that less trained units could give up after a while. And in that case the pikemen could stab fast the enemies who broke formation (giving their back to pikes). Otherwise I cannot imagine how a phalanx can roll over enemies with their thick Shields in front of them. Maybe, maybe only a running pikeman could have the kinetic energy able to pierce a shield. And there are some account (dint ask my which, I cannot remember) of pikemen advancing at a fast pace almost running.

Quote from: andrew881runner on July 16, 2014, 09:53:17 PM
I have no sources but imagine the situation: you have a Forrest of pikes against enemies in close order forming a shield wall. How can you overcome Shields?  it is impossible even thinking about that. A spear cannot Pierce a wooden shield.

Quote from: Plutarch, "Aemilius Paullus" 20The Romans, when they attacked the Macedonian phalanx, were unable to force a passage, and Salvius, the commander of the Paelignians, snatched the standard of his company and hurled it in among the enemy. Then the Paelignians, since among the Italians it is an unnatural and flagrant thing to abandon a standard, rushed on towards the place where it was, and dreadful losses were inflicted and suffered on both sides. For the Romans tried to thrust aside the long spears of their enemies with their swords, or to crowd them back with their shields, or to seize and put them by with their very hands; while the Macedonians, holding them firmly advanced with both hands, and piercing those who fell upon them, armour and all, since neither shield nor breastplate could resist the force of the Macedonian long spear, hurled headlong back the Pealignians and Marrucinians, who, with no consideration but with animal fury rushed upon the strokes that met them, and a certain death.

Perhaps there is a possibility of something similar to your "constant pressure": one sarissa sticks in the shield, pinning the opposing front-ranker, and then the pikeman behind can thrust forward, round the pinned shield at the face or some other exposed part?

I will believe that a saris can Pierce a wooden shield half an inch thick when I will see with my eyes. It seems very irrational.

I don't believe that many shields were half an inch thick.

The wooden core of the Vatican Greek hoplite shield is about 8mm at the centre, though the sides of the bowl are thicker - according to the discussion at RAT (http://www.romanarmytalk.com/19-greek-military-history-a-archaeology/264320-vatican-shield-photos.html), anyway.

The Dura scutum is 5-6mm thick. Some reports suggest that the Kasr el-Harit scutum was almost half an inch thick at the centre - but much thinner towards the edges.

16 is better than 8 as 2 is better than 1!

Quote from: Duncan Head on July 16, 2014, 10:10:17 PM

Perhaps there is a possibility of something similar to your "constant pressure": one sarissa sticks in the shield, pinning the opposing front-ranker, and then the pikeman behind can thrust forward, round the pinned shield at the face or some other exposed part?

I would think that one thing a phalangite would try to avoid is getting his sarisa stuck in anything or anyone.  The length of it and the formation he is in would make it very difficult to disentangle again.  Another argument for the phalanx not just being a prickly steamroller.  I'd suggest that the active ranks (1-5) use a short jabbing attack, in and out, rather than just rely on weight to drive the point.

Quote from: Erpingham on July 17, 2014, 07:56:24 AM

Quote from: Duncan Head on July 16, 2014, 10:10:17 PM

Perhaps there is a possibility of something similar to your "constant pressure": one sarissa sticks in the shield, pinning the opposing front-ranker, and then the pikeman behind can thrust forward, round the pinned shield at the face or some other exposed part?

I would think that one thing a phalangite would try to avoid is getting his sarisa stuck in anything or anyone.

Yet it seems to have happened:

Quote from: Plutarch "Aermilius Paullus" 19.1As the attack began, Aemilius came up and found that the Macedonian battalions had already planted the tips of their sarisai in the shields of the Romans, who were thus prevented from reaching them with their swords.

Quote from: Duncan Head on July 17, 2014, 09:05:12 AM

Yet it seems to have happened:

Quote from: Plutarch "Aermilius Paullus" 19.1As the attack began, Aemilius came up and found that the Macedonian battalions had already planted the tips of their sarisai in the shields of the Romans, who were thus prevented from reaching them with their swords.

OK, looks like I was wrong about pike use :) I wouldn't read this as necessarily meaning they intended to thrust through the shield, though.  Does this imply the intent is to push the enemy backwards or over?  Just maintaining a gap to prevent Romans using their swords seems unlikely to produce a decisive melee (unless it's decided on boredom thresholds).

I note that Plutarch, unlike Polybius, presumably never saw a phalanx in action. Do we have similar accounts from more contemporary sources?

It's actually a little difficult to figure out the exact mechanics of what's happening. Plutarch's here (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Aemilius*.html) or on Perseus.

Initially we have the Macedonian sarisai thudding into the Roman shields; then we have the disatroius attack of the Paeligni, who are trying to get past the sarisai, "For the Romans tried to thrust aside the long spears of their enemies with their swords, or to crowd them back with their shields, or to seize and put them by with their very hands" but apparently failing "while the Macedonians, holding them firmly advanced with both hands, and piercing those who fell upon them, armour and all, since neither shield nor breastplate could resist the force of the Macedonian long spear, hurled headlong back the Paelignians and Marrucinians, who, with no consideration but with animal fury rushed upon the strokes that met them, and a certain death". Hence in part my suggestion that while they're either pinned by or trying to get past the first sarisa-point, either the men in the second rank or (if Polybius is correct about the Romans being on double the Macedonian frontage) a second unengaged front-ranker stabs either past the shield or even through it, presumably where it's thinner away from the centre. Or else, if the spearpoint sticks in the shield and the Macedonian keeps leaning on it, the shield just splits under sustained pressure - although the three-ply construction of the scutum should make that a lot less likely than with a simpler "plank" shield, it seems more likely than splitting a shield with one thrust.

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on July 17, 2014, 10:58:46 AM
I note that Plutarch, unlike Polybius, presumably never saw a phalanx in action. Do we have similar accounts from more contemporary sources?

Plutarch says he's following contemporary sources, notably Scipio Nasica, who was a participant.

Quote from: Duncan Head on July 17, 2014, 11:00:44 AM
It's actually a little difficult to figure out the exact mechanics of what's happening. Plutarch's here (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Aemilius*.html) or on Perseus.

Initially we have the Macedonian sarisai thudding into the Roman shields; then we have the disatroius attack of the Paeligni, who are trying to get past the sarisai, "For the Romans tried to thrust aside the long spears of their enemies with their swords, or to crowd them back with their shields, or to seize and put them by with their very hands" but apparently failing "while the Macedonians, holding them firmly advanced with both hands, and piercing those who fell upon them, armour and all, since neither shield nor breastplate could resist the force of the Macedonian long spear, hurled headlong back the Paelignians and Marrucinians, who, with no consideration but with animal fury rushed upon the strokes that met them, and a certain death". Hence in part my suggestion that while they're either pinned by or trying to get past the first sarisa-point, either the men in the second rank or (if Polybius is correct about the Romans being on double the Macedonian frontage) a second unengaged front-ranker stabs either past the shield or even through it, presumably where it's thinner away from the centre. Or else, if the spearpoint sticks in the shield and the Macedonian keeps leaning on it, the shield just splits under sustained pressure - although the three-ply construction of the scutum should make that a lot less likely than with a simpler "plank" shield, it seems more likely than splitting a shield with one thrust.

my idea is that if enemies held the Frontline in a steady position and apply pressure on the Shields not to be pushed back losing formation, a line can hold ground against phalanx. Pikes cannot Pierce Shields. But Romans tried to go though the pike wall or left their Shields to try to push back pikes with their Bare hands and this helped the pikemen do their job, which is stabbing the guys who went through the first line and found themselves in capsular ed among pikes, and unable to keep the Shields in the correct position. So phalanx could kill a lot if enemies tried to attack it. Because doing so it lost the cohesion of the shield wall which would be otherwise impenetrable for pike tips.

Pikes on the attack have considerable impetus, with the pressure of their sixteen ranks (whatever that means).  The Romans can't win a pushing match (Plutarch says they tried) and they can't get past the pike points to use their swords.  So far, they are going backwards but probably not losing too many as they have a cohesive front.  Then an officer decides a barbarian style frenzied attack might break the deadlock and throws the standard.  The men try everything to get their standard back, even throwing away their shields and trying to pull at Macedonian pikes.  Disaster.  The broken front ranks allow the Macedonians to use active thrusting with their still solidly organised front ranks to cut through the front of the Roman formation.  The Romans protective equipment is inadequate against the weighty sarissas.

Is that plausible and does it help us with anything beyond this specific case?

Quote from: Erpingham on July 17, 2014, 10:46:46 AM
I wouldn't read this as necessarily meaning they intended to thrust through the shield, though.  Does this imply the intent is to push the enemy backwards or over?  Just maintaining a gap to prevent Romans using their swords seems unlikely to produce a decisive melee (unless it's decided on boredom thresholds).

My impression (based on the accounts of Cynoscephalae and Pydna) is that what the opponent does makes the difference.  If the opponent is charging into contact, that adds considerable extra weight and foot-poundage to the impact, and a heavy sarissa might well go through shield and breastplate as stated.  If the opponent is falling back in response to the pressure exerted by numerous pike-points, his shield may well withstand penetration.  As ever, the dynamics of battlefield behaviour may explain apparent inconsistencies in our source accounts.

The opponents of the pike phalanx thus have a choice: press forward and be impaled, or go with the flow and be pushed backwards until their formation and cohesion start to crack and the unit dissolves (as seems to have happened to the Roman left at Cynoscephalae: they were on the verge of dissolution and Flaminius had already given them up for lost when the anonymous tribune brought his forces in from the Macedonian flank and rear and changed everything).

On the question of whether it is desirable to have an opponent hanging off one's pike point, this does not seem to have unduly troubled the Macedonians.  Given the 10:1 ratio of points to opponents Polybius describes, although some pike points would have to travel further than others to carry their fair share, it is quite possible that bodies could be carted along at the leading edge of the formation, although to the best of my knowledge we have no such references in contemporary accounts.  The alternative, which I would favour, is that pikemen of the second rank would tend to push inert corpses off the pike points of the first rank, and there may have been a limited pullback manoeuvre by first-rank which brought their pikes back about three feet or so to allow this to happen.  Conjectural, but conceivable.

Quote from: andrew881runner on July 17, 2014, 11:17:52 AM

my idea is that if enemies held the Frontline in a steady position and apply pressure on the Shields not to be pushed back losing formation, a line can hold ground against phalanx. Pikes cannot Pierce Shields. But Romans tried to go though the pike wall or left their Shields to try to push back pikes with their Bare hands and this helped the pikemen do their job, which is stabbing the guys who went through the first line and found themselves in capsular ed among pikes, and unable to keep the Shields in the correct position. So phalanx could kill a lot if enemies tried to attack it. Because doing so it lost the cohesion of the shield wall which would be otherwise impenetrable for pike tips.

As mentioned above, the ability of pikes to pierce shields will depend upon how much impetus the shieldsman is adding.  Sitting on spiked metal railings is very uncomfortable but one's clothing will resist penetration.  Falling onto the same spiked metal railings will result in impalement.  Similarly, when standing and being pushed back by pike points one's shield will probably withstand the pressure.  Charging into contact adds considerable extra force, which seems to have put the pikes well over the penetration threshold.

Id just note that if a pike is holding your shield in ace, and you ate resisting that ije by pushing back on yourvshiked, you have very little ability to move your head if second pikeman stabs your face

Quote from: Mark G on July 17, 2014, 02:02:06 PM
Id just note that if a pike is holding your shield in ace, and you ate resisting that ije by pushing back on yourvshiked, you have very little ability to move your head if second pikeman stabs your face

True.  Would this tactic need the two pikemen to 1 legionary frontage to work?  One to pin, the other to stab?  You might do it from a second rank but I think Polybius says that the rows of points are 4 cubits apart, so it would be a big lunge from rank two.

Quote from: Erpingham on July 17, 2014, 02:17:11 PMWould this tactic need the two pikemen to 1 legionary frontage to work?  One to pin, the other to stab?  You might do it from a second rank but I think Polybius says that the rows of points are 4 cubits apart, so it would be a big lunge from rank two.

He says two cubits, so 3 feet/90cm, difference between ranks. I think that puts the second ranker well within thrusting distance.

Quote from: Duncan Head on July 17, 2014, 03:12:12 PM

Quote from: Erpingham on July 17, 2014, 02:17:11 PMWould this tactic need the two pikemen to 1 legionary frontage to work?  One to pin, the other to stab?  You might do it from a second rank but I think Polybius says that the rows of points are 4 cubits apart, so it would be a big lunge from rank two.

He says two cubits, so 3 feet/90cm, difference between ranks. I think that puts the second ranker well within thrusting distance.

My misunderstanding, sorry.  Yes, at two cubits to the second rank, a sturdy thrust but quite doable.

He also says two pikemen to a legionsry, frontage wise, which i think is more likely to be 3:2, but still

True, Polybius has two pikemen on the frontage of each legionary, and if one front-rank pikeman pinned the shield, the other could put his pike point where the Roman would not like it.

This might be a particularly good approach if the lines were static, using the multiple points within reach to create multiple simultaneous threats just to make the legionary's life that bit harder.  One gets the impression that pike formations preferred to stay on the move, hustling the opposition before them until it cracked, at which point they could presumably pick targets from among the panicked crowd before it could disperse.  If however they were somehow halted, this sort of coordinated thrusting could be useful.

if I was a legionary in first line against a pike phalanx I would simply keep shield in front, head down behind the shield. But lower legs would remain exposed In any case. Maybe pikemen aimed at legs?
Then if you think how scutum is made, you keep it with only one hand in one point, so if you push on it hard in any upper or lower Point shield will rotate consequently. So my idea is that one pikemen pushed the shield, which moved rotating and leaving a gap for the other pikeman to stab.
In those peculiar case I think that a Hoplon would be better since it stays where it is and does not move (keeping you Mr head behind Hoplon)
But the simplest way to defend against a pike wall was on my opinion putting big tower Shields firmly in the ground. Why Noone had this idea?

That's not true.

The scutum was held with elbow, its a very unusual posture, bit enables a solid frontage.

We went into it in some detail in our wmww articles in slingshot

Quote from: Mark G on July 18, 2014, 07:15:54 AM
That's not true.

The scutum was held with elbow, its a very unusual posture, bit enables a solid frontage.

We went into it in some detail in our wmww articles in slingshot

come on we all know how scutum was kept. Not by elbow but by middle grip.

Quote from: andrew881runner on July 17, 2014, 10:01:59 PM

But the simplest way to defend against a pike wall was on my opinion putting big tower Shields firmly in the ground. Why Noone had this idea?

Because it did not work?  In order to fix a shield firmly in the ground it would have to be dug in for at least 1/3 of its height, which means 1) the troops are spending about the same amount of time and energy they would need to construct basic camp fortifications and 2) you cannot get the shields out of the ground when the enemy takes one look at your immovable shieldwall and redeploys to attack your flank.  :)

If the large shields are simply resting their lower edges on the ground, all the pikemen have to do is place their points above the shields' centre of gravity and push.  With 2-4 pikemen pushing with their points, and rear ranks adding their weight to the push, the shields and the men behind them will fall over backwards.  The Persians had a more or less similar system at Plataea (479 BC): they set up their large shields in a wall and shot and fought from behind them.  The wall of shields stopped the Greeks until increasing pressure pushed the shield wall over, after which the Greeks massacred the disadvantaged Persians (Herodotus IX.62-63).

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 18, 2014, 12:45:37 PM

Quote from: andrew881runner on July 17, 2014, 10:01:59 PM

But the simplest way to defend against a pike wall was on my opinion putting big tower Shields firmly in the ground. Why Noone had this idea?

Because it did not work?  In order to fix a shield firmly in the ground it would have to be dug in for at least 1/3 of its height, which means 1) the troops are spending about the same amount of time and energy they would need to construct basic camp fortifications and 2) you cannot get the shields out of the ground when the enemy takes one look at your immovable shieldwall and redeploys to attack your flank.  :)

If the large shields are simply resting their lower edges on the ground, all the pikemen have to do is place their points above the shields' centre of gravity and push.  With 2-4 pikemen pushing with their points, and rear ranks adding their weight to the push, the shields and the men behind them will fall over backwards.  The Persians had a more or less similar system at Plataea (479 BC): they set up their large shields in a wall and shot and fought from behind them.  The wall of shields stopped the Greeks until increasing pressure pushed the shield wall over, after which the Greeks massacred the disadvantaged Persians (Herodotus IX.62-63).

you can prepare a hole in the ground for each shield then raise all thick and tall Shields at last moment when pike phalanx is in front of you and cannot but walk forward or retreat. You can in the meanwhile throw missile fires to the pikemen who will have no idea what to do. Probably they will lower saris Sai and run away.
This is only one of the several ways to defeat a pike phalanx in a simple way.
You could even launch a chariots attack with a big wooden plate on 2 wheels in front of the horse so to protect the horse from spear tips and at the same time disrupt the pike phalanx.
Or you can throw into the pikes some balls firing if you are in Upper position. It will disrupt all pike phalanx in second since none wants to burn alive

Wrong Andrew.

The middle grip was a grip, but it was balanced by the elbow.

The grip fist had the back of the hand toward the shield front, the forearm was held vertically, and the elbow held the shield rigid and vertical.

Not naturally how you do it, but very effective at ensuring a squarish shield remained upright while in combat .

Hence also the right hand sword position, because the left hand scabbard requires a cross body draw, which is impossible with that shield arm positioning.

Ask any reenactor.  Its a combined weapon system.
Upright personal bodyshield, short stabbing sword from a right hand draw.
Shield used as an unbalance  weapon.
And a short range heavy javelin designed to pierce the enemy shield, with no ergonomic design for distance, as the man cannot get the motion up to make a long throw anyway.

Except that Roman art makes clear that the shield wasn't held rigid and vertical - at least, not always, as the guy on the Aemilius Paullus monument with his shield at head height here, left (http://weaponsandwarfare.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/dgrrg-500x265.jpg) shows, or the gladiator here (http://www.amphi-theatrum.de/uploads/pics/Rome-MuseodelleTerme-Gladiatorenrelief-017.jpg).

Or the trajan column guy punching to the face.

The paulus figure is facing cavalry, hardly an orthodox situation.

The gladiator is irrelevant

Quote from: andrew881runner on July 18, 2014, 01:48:21 PM
you can prepare a hole in the ground for each shield then raise all thick and tall Shields at last moment when pike phalanx is in front of you and cannot but walk forward or retreat. You can in the meanwhile throw missile fires to the pikemen who will have no idea what to do. Probably they will lower saris Sai and run away.

Or they will simply not approach but leave the problem to be dealt with by a different troop type.

Pikemen did not usually operate in isolation: they were part of a combined arms army of cavalry, missilemen, pikemen and peltasts - often with artillery, and, in the Hellenistic era, elephants.  The simplest way of dealing with an opponent who hid behind a wall of huge shields would be to kill his men and knock down parts of the shield wall with artillery and then move in with the cavalry and phalanx supported by archers to finish him off.  Alternatively, just use the elephants, supported by missilemen, to trample down part of the shield wall and the men behind it and follow up with the peltasts.

Quote
This is only one of the several ways to defeat a pike phalanx in a simple way.
You could even launch a chariots attack with a big wooden plate on 2 wheels in front of the horse so to protect the horse from spear tips and at the same time disrupt the pike phalanx.

Darius III Codomannus tried something similar at Arbela, except that his chariots had protruding blades in front instead of wooden plates.  They failed against both Macedonian cavalry and infantry.

Quote
Or you can throw into the pikes some balls firing if you are in Upper position. It will disrupt all pike phalanx in second since none wants to burn alive

This is what Sulla did at Orchomenus in 86 BC, and it did work - largely because the pikes' supporting arms had run away by this point.  It did take a bit longer than a second, but the idea was effective.

Quote from: Mark G on July 18, 2014, 04:44:40 PM
Or the trajan column guy punching to the face.

The paulus figure is facing cavalry, hardly an orthodox situation.

But it shows the versatility of the shield, and that it was not - always  - held rigid and vertical.

Quote
The gladiator is irrelevant

Hardly. Early gladiatorial equipment is very close to legionary combat equipment - as in this instance. And gladiators were sometimes used to train legionary recruits, because the techniques of sword and shield, at least in open order combat, were basically the same.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 18, 2014, 08:06:15 PM

Quote from: andrew881runner on July 18, 2014, 01:48:21 PM
you can prepare a hole in the ground for each shield then raise all thick and tall Shields at last moment when pike phalanx is in front of you and cannot but walk forward or retreat. You can in the meanwhile throw missile fires to the pikemen who will have no idea what to do. Probably they will lower saris Sai and run away.

Or they will simply not approach but leave the problem to be dealt with by a different troop type.

Pikemen did not usually operate in isolation: they were part of a combined arms army of cavalry, missilemen, pikemen and peltasts - often with artillery, and, in the Hellenistic era, elephants.  The simplest way of dealing with an opponent who hid behind a wall of huge shields would be to kill his men and knock down parts of the shield wall with artillery and then move in with the cavalry and phalanx supported by archers to finish him off.  Alternatively, just use the elephants, supported by missilemen, to trample down part of the shield wall and the men behind it and follow up with the peltasts.

Quote
This is only one of the several ways to defeat a pike phalanx in a simple way.
You could even launch a chariots attack with a big wooden plate on 2 wheels in front of the horse so to protect the horse from spear tips and at the same time disrupt the pike phalanx.

Darius III Codomannus tried something similar at Arbela, except that his chariots had protruding blades in front instead of wooden plates.  They failed against both Macedonian cavalry and infantry.

Quote
Or you can throw into the pikes some balls firing if you are in Upper position. It will disrupt all pike phalanx in second since none wants to burn alive

This is what Sulla did at Orchomenus in 86 BC, and it did work - largely because the pikes' supporting arms had run away by this point.  It did take a bit longer than a second, but the idea was effective.

I am not sure about what you say of the shield wall. You can make every kind of shield barrage.... fixed, immobile, or simply give infantry big Shields to protect with. If there is a fixed line of shields and infantry behind, even if you destroy some parts of the shields line, you have the infantry in close combat order beyond the shield wall and you cannot simply "defeat" it cause you have broken some Shields. If you let the elephants attack, they will find the usual problems of elephants, which is vulnerability to peltasts artillery and infantry with Spears in close formation.

I don't know what Darius made, but surely it was not what I said, otherwise he would be victoriius. Putting blades in front of chariots does not meant putting a big wooden shield in front. In the first case chariots are not protected and horses get impaled, in second case they don't.

Gladiators do not fight in formation.

Quote from: andrew881runner on July 18, 2014, 10:16:27 PM
I am not sure about what you say of the shield wall. You can make every kind of shield barrage.... fixed, immobile, or simply give infantry big Shields to protect with. If there is a fixed line of shields and infantry behind, even if you destroy some parts of the shields line, you have the infantry in close combat order beyond the shield wall and you cannot simply "defeat" it cause you have broken some Shields.

If your opponent creates a static defence like a shield barrier, the attacker can choose to attack at a point, punch a gap and pour reinforcements through the gap.  The enemy risks being attacked in the rear, so uproots shieldwall or leaves it behind, to face new threat.  Elephants would probably be quite good gap breakers but could be surrounded and overwhelmed if unsupported, as you suggest.  We know that a phalanx could do this, though, as they break through the Persian shield line at Plataea (albeit on a wide front rather than narrow).

Quote from: andrew881runner on July 18, 2014, 10:16:27 PM

I am not sure about what you say of the shield wall. You can make every kind of shield barrage.... fixed, immobile, or simply give infantry big Shields to protect with. If there is a fixed line of shields and infantry behind, even if you destroy some parts of the shields line, you have the infantry in close combat order beyond the shield wall and you cannot simply "defeat" it cause you have broken some Shields. If you let the elephants attack, they will find the usual problems of elephants, which is vulnerability to peltasts artillery and infantry with Spears in close formation.

I don't know what Darius made, but surely it was not what I said, otherwise he would be victoriius. Putting blades in front of chariots does not meant putting a big wooden shield in front. In the first case chariots are not protected and horses get impaled, in second case they don't.

I think you've missed the point the others were making Andrew. By giving up your mobility you give up any chance of initiative and are forced to sit there and just take what the enemy decides to dish out.
If you've got an immobile shield wall in the middle or the army, what is to stop the enemy leaving a screen of infantry to face your shieldwall and concentrating on your wings, smashing them and coming round the back.

Jim

Andrew, try to see things from the point of view of the general commanding the army which includes pikemen.  When his scouts report that the enemy is digging in a wall of large shields, he can respond in a number of ways.

1) He can take his army on a detour and attack your camp.

2) He can send his mobile forces to roll up your shield line from the flank.

3) He can use his artillery (if he has some) to batter down your shield line and the men behind it.

4) He can use his elephants (if he has some), supported by infantry (as Hellenistic leaders did), to make a gap through your shield wall at any point.

5) He can combine 2) and 4) above to bite off a wing of your army, then devour the rest.

By committing yourself to a line of dug-in shields, you lose the ability to react when the enemy does not do what you want him to do.  So while we can say that a solid line of very large shields dug in to make a wooden wall and manned by good troops could stop a pike attack (as could a wide ditch or moat), the problem is that the pikemen would not feel any need to attack your wall of dug-in shields when they could simply bypass your defences or be part of an attack that goes round their flank.

Quote
I don't know what Darius made, but surely it was not what I said, otherwise he would be victorious. Putting blades in front of chariots does not meant putting a big wooden shield in front. In the first case chariots are not protected and horses get impaled, in second case they don't.

It may be worth noting the way Darius' chariots were countered:

"As the lines approached each other, the trumpeters on both sides sounded the attack and the troops charged each other with a loud shout. 2 First the scythed chariots swung into action at full gallop and created great alarm and terror among the Macedonians, especially since Mazaeus in command of the cavalry made their attack more frightening by supporting with his dense squadrons of horse. 3 As the phalanx joined shields, however, all beat upon their shields with their spears as the king had commanded and a great din arose. 4 As the horses shied off, most of the chariots were turned about and bore hard with irresistible impact against their own ranks. Others continued on against the Macedonian lines, but as the soldiers opened wide gaps in their ranks the chariots were channelled through these." - Diodorus XVII.58

The pikemen did not attempt to use their pikes; they simply moved out of the way.  This was possible because they would have been approaching in march formation (6 foot spacing per man) and not closed up for combat.  Whether or not the horses were protected by big wooden shields is thus irrelevant.  The chariots were subsequently dealt with by the Macedonian grooms (Arrian III.14).

As stratagems, your suggestions are interesting (Frontinus and Polyaenus would have been pleased).  Unfortunately, like most stratagems, they are unlikely to work more than once.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 19, 2014, 11:00:52 AM
Andrew, try to see things from the point of view of the general commanding the army which includes pikemen.  When his scouts report that the enemy is digging in a wall of large shields, he can respond in a number of ways.

1) He can take his army on a detour and attack your camp.

2) He can send his mobile forces to roll up your shield line from the flank.

3) He can use his artillery (if he has some) to batter down your shield line and the men behind it.

4) He can use his elephants (if he has some), supported by infantry (as Hellenistic leaders did), to make a gap through your shield wall at any point.

5) He can combine 2) and 4) above to bite off a wing of your army, then devour the rest.

By committing yourself to a line of dug-in shields, you lose the ability to react when the enemy does not do what you want him to do.  So while we can say that a solid line of very large shields dug in to make a wooden wall and manned by good troops could stop a pike attack (as could a wide ditch or moat), the problem is that the pikemen would not feel any need to attack your wall of dug-in shields when they could simply bypass your defences or be part of an attack that goes round their flank.

Quote
I don't know what Darius made, but surely it was not what I said, otherwise he would be victorious. Putting blades in front of chariots does not meant putting a big wooden shield in front. In the first case chariots are not protected and horses get impaled, in second case they don't.

It may be worth noting the way Darius' chariots were countered:

"As the lines approached each other, the trumpeters on both sides sounded the attack and the troops charged each other with a loud shout. 2 First the scythed chariots swung into action at full gallop and created great alarm and terror among the Macedonians, especially since Mazaeus in command of the cavalry made their attack more frightening by supporting with his dense squadrons of horse. 3 As the phalanx joined shields, however, all beat upon their shields with their spears as the king had commanded and a great din arose. 4 As the horses shied off, most of the chariots were turned about and bore hard with irresistible impact against their own ranks. Others continued on against the Macedonian lines, but as the soldiers opened wide gaps in their ranks the chariots were channelled through these." - Diodorus XVII.58

The pikemen did not attempt to use their pikes; they simply moved out of the way.  This was possible because they would have been approaching in march formation (6 foot spacing per man) and not closed up for combat.  Whether or not the horses were protected by big wooden shields is thus irrelevant.  The chariots were subsequently dealt with by the Macedonian grooms (Arrian III.14).

As stratagems, your suggestions are interesting (Frontinus and Polyaenus would have been pleased).  Unfortunately, like most stratagems, they are unlikely to work more than once.

you don't take into account that if you put a lot of chariots one close to the other, with the big wooden plate in front, phalangites cannot use their pikes (which would be broken by kinetic energy of chariot inside the wooden plate in front) and cannot form the "tunnels" since all the line would be covered by chariots, and horses would not even see any tunnels to be directed into, so they would only be running forward. It would be a rolling of miles of phalanx, very cool to watch. I don't see any ways why this should not work (for missile fire against horses, they are protected firstly by Shields or by armor on their bodies secondly they run the distance under missile fire very quickly during a charge). You cannot stop in any way the kinetic energy of a chariot with 2 men and 2 (or more) horses with some pikes if they had a big wooden shield in front, unless you build some anti cavalry trap on terrain (that would be the only way). But if you are attacker and chariots are on defensive side (as in gaugamela) you cannot prepare terrain.

And this tactic could not be used only against pike phalanx but against every kind of enemies on my opinion, infantry and even cavalry, why not. Rolling down everyone. [emoji1] A new use for chariot. Why Noone had thought about it?

Quote from: andrew881runner on July 20, 2014, 09:13:07 AM
you don't take into account that if you put a lot of chariots one close to the other, with the big wooden plate in front, phalangites cannot use their pikes (which would be broken by kinetic energy of chariot inside the wooden plate in front) and cannot form the "tunnels" since all the line would be covered by chariots, and horses would not even see any tunnels to be directed into, so they would only be running forward. It would be a rolling of miles of phalanx, very cool to watch. I don't see any ways why this should not work (for missile fire against horses, they are protected firstly by Shields or by armor on their bodies secondly they run the distance under missile fire very quickly during a charge). You cannot stop in any way the kinetic energy of a chariot with 2 men and 2 (or more) horses with some pikes if they had a big wooden shield in front, unless you build some anti cavalry trap on terrain (that would be the only way). But if you are attacker and chariots are on defensive side (as in gaugamela) you cannot prepare terrain.

And this tactic could not be used only against pike phalanx but against every kind of enemies on my opinion, infantry and even cavalry, why not. Rolling down everyone. [emoji1] A new use for chariot. Why Noone had thought about it?

Actually chariots had been doing this sort of thing for millennia, without needing large wooden shields for the horses.  The chariot started to fall out of effective use when good, disciplined infantry (notably Greeks) began to dominate the battlefield.  When the quality of the infantry began to surpass the quality of the charioteers, chariots began to fall out of use as battlewinners (the scythed chariot gave the concept a 500-year new lease of life).

Now, a few questions about the wooden shield arrangement - and these may answer the question about why the concept was never used.

1) The shields are to be mounted ahead of the horses, on wheels (correct?).  What type of wheels would these be, and what would be the suspension arrangements?

2) How tall and thick (and hence how heavy) would these wooden shields be, and how would they actually be attached to the horses?

3) How would a horse team to which they were attached a) see and b) turn?

4) How would these shields be balanced to prevent them falling over when the chariot a) moved b) turned c) halted?

5) How would drivers see over the shields?  And assuming they did, how would they be protected from missiles?

Historically, the nearest equivalent to the proposed system would be the Hussite wagenburg vehicles of the 15th century AD, with screened wagons pulled by mantleted horses.  These were very successful against Imperial (Holy Roman Empire) armies, which lacked the missile power to inflict serious damage on them.  Elements of the Hussite system survived (principally the gun-armed wagons) and were found in Polish and Portuguese armies (among others) until the increasing use and effectiveness of artillery on the battlefield relegated all vehicles to the baggage train.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 20, 2014, 12:33:56 PM

Quote from: andrew881runner on July 20, 2014, 09:13:07 AM
you don't take into account that if you put a lot of chariots one close to the other, with the big wooden plate in front, phalangites cannot use their pikes (which would be broken by kinetic energy of chariot inside the wooden plate in front) and cannot form the "tunnels" since all the line would be covered by chariots, and horses would not even see any tunnels to be directed into, so they would only be running forward. It would be a rolling of miles of phalanx, very cool to watch. I don't see any ways why this should not work (for missile fire against horses, they are protected firstly by Shields or by armor on their bodies secondly they run the distance under missile fire very quickly during a charge). You cannot stop in any way the kinetic energy of a chariot with 2 men and 2 (or more) horses with some pikes if they had a big wooden shield in front, unless you build some anti cavalry trap on terrain (that would be the only way). But if you are attacker and chariots are on defensive side (as in gaugamela) you cannot prepare terrain.

And this tactic could not be used only against pike phalanx but against every kind of enemies on my opinion, infantry and even cavalry, why not. Rolling down everyone. [emoji1] A new use for chariot. Why Noone had thought about it?

Actually chariots had been doing this sort of thing for millennia, without needing large wooden shields for the horses.  The chariot started to fall out of effective use when good, disciplined infantry (notably Greeks) began to dominate the battlefield.  When the quality of the infantry began to surpass the quality of the charioteers, chariots began to fall out of use as battlewinners (the scythed chariot gave the concept a 500-year new lease of life).

Now, a few questions about the wooden shield arrangement - and these may answer the question about why the concept was never used.

1) The shields are to be mounted ahead of the horses, on wheels (correct?).  What type of wheels would these be, and what would be the suspension arrangements?

2) How tall and thick (and hence how heavy) would these wooden shields be, and how would they actually be attached to the horses?

3) How would a horse team to which they were attached a) see and b) turn?

4) How would these shields be balanced to prevent them falling over when the chariot a) moved b) turned c) halted?

5) How would drivers see over the shields?  And assuming they did, how would they be protected from missiles?

Historically, the nearest equivalent to the proposed system would be the Hussite wagenburg vehicles of the 15th century AD, with screened wagons pulled by mantleted horses.  These were very successful against Imperial (Holy Roman Empire) armies, which lacked the missile power to inflict serious damage on them.  Elements of the Hussite system survived (principally the gun-armed wagons) and were found in Polish and Portuguese armies (among others) until the increasing use and effectiveness of artillery on the battlefield relegated all vehicles to the baggage train.

suspension system would be same of chariots or could even lack, I am not engineer but I cannot imagine technical problems in putting a wooden plate on wheels.
Wooden plate would be about from one inch to 2  inch, or anyway the necessary thickness to roll down Spears tips withouth breaking.
Two wheels would be enough but maybe four could be possible for better stability.
Men in the chariots would see no problem since they are in Upper position.
Wooden plate would be about 1  mt tall, and considering it was at least 30 cm above ground, total height would be less than 1,5 mt. But could even be more or less. Consider that line of sight of a man on a chariot is much higher than a man in ground, depending on chariot. This only to give an idea.
You could even mount spikes and lateral blades in the wooden plate to make it more deadly effective and fearful.
Drivers would be protected by cataphracts armor or Shields, whatever they used in the past to protect men on chariots. They could even have missile weapons such as javelins. Same for horses. They could have different types of armor, from leather to steel.
You could form a long line of these chariots one close to the other and roll down every infantry even with Spears or pikes or even cavalry maybe.
They could have changed the face of battles until late 19th century maybe and first mgs, depending if you were able to make steel bullet proof plates and make horse run with them in front (i guess yes since they were on wheels, maybe only needed more horses or stronger horses?)

There are medieval and renaissance images of four-wheel vehicles with the horses in the middle of the structure.  It is unclear whether these were built or remained paper exercises.  Obvious issues would be power to weight - it would be difficult to fit more than two horses in the box structure, so this won't be a fast vehicle - and steering, with the horses in a rigid structure.  It is difficult to see it having a better cross country performance than a heavy baggage vehicle.  This does not make it impossible, as the Hussites worked out tactical uses for heavy wagons, but does give it vulnerabilities which may have prevented it being the wonder weapon Andrew envisages.

I am not talking about a wagon but simply a wooden "door" (to give an idea) on 2 wheels linked to the chariot with 2 wooden shafts. It does not seem to be so heavy. A chariot is heavier than that and carries 2 men fully equipped and though 2 horses can make it go very fast.  So I suppose these "armored" chariots would be only a bit slower than normal chariots.
And chariots with 4 horses were used in Roman age, they were not so bulky as we can imagine, so I guess that 4 horses have the power to carry a wooden  "door" in front of them and run with no particular problem (but I am sure that even 2 of them can). Horses are very powerful animals, I rode one once and I can tell you that. A horse could carry one car of a half a ton with no problem.

It can be done but remember the wheels attached to your door have to be capable of being steered. Because a horse drawn vehicle is steered by turning the horses, but if you do that with your chariot the horses will attempt to turn and the wheels will be dragged sideways which will certainly slow things down and probably knacker the wheels in short order

Jim

the idea of this armored chariot is to throw it in the enemy direction and let it go forward until it rolls down enemy infantry. So you don't need to steer it. Horse will be not able to see where they go so they will only go forward. Steering models could be made but they are not necessary in the practical and primitive use I am talking about.

So what do you do if the other side's light infantry dig a couple of holes or hammer a few stakes in, or are so unsporting as to kill a horse or place another obstacle in the way.
Or heaven forbid the other side side their shield wall on the other side of an area that isn't absolutely flat and has areas of unevenness?

Jim

I already said that the only way to stop this would be sticks dug very deep into ground (i am sure that normal sticks would be rolled over).
Then cavalry attack is always much less powerful uphill so a more or less flat ground would be better, or downhill. But I don't see any problems in a mild uphill. But usually armies met in Plains rather than mountains, for the difficulty to deploy armies there.
Anyway in these 2 conditions (no traps on ground and plain ground) the tactic I mentioned would be unstoppable. No doubt about it. I only wonder why no general thought about it.  Even hussite wagons are a much different, static thing, not what I am talking about.
Cheers.

Quote from: Jim Webster on July 20, 2014, 05:12:04 PM
Or heaven forbid the other side side their shield wall on the other side of an area that isn't absolutely flat and has areas of unevenness?

Jim

I am not sure what you mean. Sorry but my English is not perfect.

Quote from: andrew881runner on July 20, 2014, 06:10:59 PM

I am not sure what you mean. Sorry but my English is not perfect.

Neither is Jim's.* ;)  I think what he meant to say is that if the terrain has some irregularities and the opponent deploys on the other side of those irregularities, what are the protected chariots going to do?  I can see his point: uneven ground that infantry could easily march over would give the chariots serious difficulties.

*I think he meant "... the other side site their shield wall on the other side of an area that isn't absolutely flat".

The reason it wasn't tried is that it's pretty well unworkable and far too easy to stop.

A simple hole, as deep and as 'long' the diameter of your wheel will stop it totally. A few caltrops scattered will lame the horses, meaning your unsteerable chariots get in each others way

Quintus Curtius (IV.13.36) (I'm not sure whether Curtius was accurate or not here)

"Not yet had they come within spear range, when one Bion, a deserter, with all possible speed came to Alexander, reporting that Darius had spread iron caltrops planted in the ground."

Jim 

ok, as I said, iron caltrops will stop every kind of cavalry attack. But if a cavalry attack is possible, I would like to use these armored chariots rather than normal cavalry. I think that, if the ground is plain and with no caltrops, they are unstoppable, even if enemies have speard or pikes, and that makes them better than usual cavalry. Is that only my idea?
I think they would be the ancient counterparts of modern tanks of ww1.

So they'll work on perfect ground against an enemy who has never seen them before

Trouble is second time you use them (or first time if the enemy intelligence is any good) then you'll find that the enemy has got all the counter measures in place and they're rubbish

Jim

I imagine that ancient generals would have liked nothing better than to put the war cart before the vulnerable horse, but if they never did so there must be a good reason. The reason that immediately springs to mind is the fact that such a vehicle is a) very difficult if not impossible to steer, and b) puts undue strain on the horse, which is obliged to push rather than pull. I am not an equestrian expert, but I suspect that the fact that horses pulled carts, chariots, carriages, etc. from the dawn of equine domestication to the present day, and never pushed them, is due to the fact that there is a radical problem for horses pushing a load.

Actually anybody who has had to get a wheelbarrow across a bumpy garden or soft ground will soon realise that you pull rather than push.
If you pull you draw the wheelbarrow over the bumps and automatically pull it out of soft ground. If you push you thrust the wheelbarrow into the base of the bumps and dig it deeper into soft ground.

That's the simple reason why horses pull.

Jim

Quote from: andrew881runner on July 20, 2014, 08:04:49 PM
But if a cavalry attack is possible, I would like to use these armored chariots rather than normal cavalry. I think that, if the ground is plain and with no caltrops, they are unstoppable, even if enemies have speard or pikes, and that makes them better than usual cavalry. Is that only my idea?
I think they would be the ancient counterparts of modern tanks of ww1.

It might be worth remembering just how vulnerable and subject to breakdown the tanks of WW1 turned out to be.  Athough proof against rifle and machinegun fire (though this caused occasional casualties from 'spalling' inside the tank) they were penetrated by German K (hardened) ammunition and easily knocked out by artillery.  This did not prevent them from being effective when used in mass and well supported by infantry, aircraft and, where possible, artillery.

I think the problem with the shielded chariot idea is not so much the concept (chariots had been successful against infantry with limited training for millennia) as the practicability: Italy has some good professors of classical engineering, and it might be worth discussing the idea with one or two of them to see what they think about the practicalities of the idea (and why it did not even feature in a work such as De Rebus Bellicis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_rebus_bellicis)).

Quote from: Jim Webster on July 21, 2014, 07:17:40 AM
Actually anybody who has had to get a wheelbarrow across a bumpy garden or soft ground will soon realise that you pull rather than push.
If you pull you draw the wheelbarrow over the bumps and automatically pull it out of soft ground. If you push you thrust the wheelbarrow into the base of the bumps and dig it deeper into soft ground.

That's the simple reason why horses pull.

Jim

in my job I have actually I pull and push heavy things on 2 or 4 wheels all day and I can assure you that there is almost no difference. Or better, Honestly I prefer to push rather than pull. I feel more effort in pulling and I have less control of inertia, especially in mild downhill. And I do that outside in a farm with uneven terrain.
Some if the things I pull or push look much similar to the things I described that could be attached to chariots or horses. And I as average size guy don't do a real effort even pulling or pushing uphill or downhill. I am sure that a horse could push or pull same weight with no effort at all. Wheels do their job.
As for the steer, it could be added with no problem. I, even if I'm not an engineer, could make a steer for the chariot linked to the wooden front armor on my own.

You are not a horse.
Your upper body helps you push, horses do not. They are not the same

believe me, a horse can pull or push very heavy things. If it usually pulls it does not mean that it could not push. pushing seems less natural since it means putting something in front of him which prevents his vision. Pulling things is more natural. But this does not mean a horse cannot push. OK, I have arms helping me but try this if you can: pull something on wheels attacked at your back. Now push something on wheels attacked at your upper body. Tell me if you find any problem. From a physical point of view the Muscolar force is the same, only the place where it is applied changes. Like having a car with front or back engine with same power.

Aside from renaissance fantasy weapons, can you give any examples of horse pushed vehicles?

Quote from: andrew881runner on July 21, 2014, 08:59:29 PM
Like having a car with front or back engine with same power.

Steering would seem to be a problem, though.  Chariots, wagons and carts were steered by encouraging the horse(s) to change direction.  Putting the cart before the horse will not allow the horse to guide its direction.  Try it.  :)

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 22, 2014, 10:03:36 AM

Quote from: andrew881runner on July 21, 2014, 08:59:29 PM
Like having a car with front or back engine with same power.

Steering would seem to be a problem, though.  Chariots, wagons and carts were steered by encouraging the horse(s) to change direction.  Putting the cart before the horse will not allow the horse to guide its direction.  Try it.  :)

as I already said 2 times, it would not be a great deal since the thing I am talking about would hav3 the purpose to roll down a phalanx or other battle formation. So simply face the chariot in front of it, attack the wooden shield in front, then let the horses run forward. In most cases it will work on my opinion.
OK, there could be horse traps, but these are visible. And horse traps were not so much used in ancient battles in percentage, maybe because most times armies met in a field of battle they had not the possibility to prepare. So, let's forget horse traps and imagine the typical field of battle: armies tended to meet in more or less plain areas to have enough space to deploy. This is especially true if we are talking of rolling down a pike phalanx. A pike phalanx needs flat ground to operate. So let's forget the battle in mountains[emoji6] which surely would not be good for chariots.

Secondly, I think that steerable models could be made without particular problems (I have an idea but cannot explain without a drawing), but again, they are not necessary.
I know there is not a source talking about this but this does not mean this idea is stupid.

Quote from: andrew881runner on July 22, 2014, 10:16:10 AM

I know there is not a source talking about this but this does not mean this idea is stupid.

Agreed.  The question is whether it is workable.  To evaluate this will require either a working model or some engineering calculations, otherwise it becomes an encounter of faiths which can fill posts with form but not substance.

Quote
So simply face the chariot in front of it, attach the wooden shield in front, then let the horses run forward.

This requires the wooden shield to be brought up to the battlefield, presumably by engineers and/or infantrymen, and then attached securely to the yoke and/or pole of the chariot.  (First problem: enemy missilemen would find it very tempting to interfere at this point.)  It needs to have enough space in front of the horses to allow then to use their legs, which means it is not tight-fitting and so will waggle independently and place significant stresses on the chariot pole as the whose assemblage moves.

If the wheels are free to turn (like castors) they must be well clear of the horses' legs otherwise they will collide with them.  This means they must be forward of the horses and/or at least 1 1/2 wheel diameters to the side of the horses.  This requires a construction wider than the horse team and hence probably heavier than the chariot.  It imposes loads on the chariot pole and the yoke that neither is designed to bear.

Step one in adopting this system thus requires a redesign of the entire chariot to strengthen the pole and yoke arrangements.  The key question is how strong - and hence how massive - these will have to be.  If they have to be like ships' masts then the whole arrangement may weigh too much to be usefully movable on the battlefield.

It is to resolve this essential question that we really need the input of a qualified materials engineer.

The next question to consider is the moments of forces - instead of a chariot behind a horse team, we have a chariot-equivalent before and behind the horse team.  Because of the momentum imparted by a turning movement and the inertia of a weight at both ends of the chariot pole, once a turn has started it may be very difficult to stop.  Again, one really needs a qualified engineer to consider this question.  Also, will movement produce oscillation of the shield and chariot bodies that set up a standing wave which stresses and eventually cracks the chariot pole?

Chariot design, as recent re-creators have found, is quite a demanding profession and small weaknesses can make or break a design (most spectacularly when a British Museum team tried to recreate an Assyrian four-hourse chariot and were unable to prevent the yoke from breaking in normal use).  Hence, while one can suggest a concept, only detailed applied engineering will determine whether it would have been successful.

What I am talking about is very simple to make. I don't think you would need engeneers, as you don't need engeneers to make a simple robust wagons for farmers.
Put 2 robust wooden shafts at the sides of the horses driving the chariots (surely they must be long enough to not interfere with horse movement, that is obvious and does not need an engineer....). Put a 1 inch thick wooden plate (ratio about 2 : 5? to give an idea) attacked to the ends of the shafts. Add 2 wheels (same size as ones of chariot) to the wooden shield, directly in the sides of it. I really don't see what kind of technical problems could be in this. It is a rather primitive and simple thing to do.    And I don't see the problem in carrying 2 shafts and a wooden shield and 2 wheels in the army's baggage train with all other things. Or carried by some volunteer horse. Or whatever they carried this kind of things, I am sure they would have found a way.

If you got what I mean, you should get that this thing would be attached to horses, not to chariots, so it would be totally independent from chariot and chariot design. You don't need any hard calculation of stress on chariot.

My idea is that even if it could slow a bit the chariot, you don't need any high speed to roll down a pike phalanx. Even an hypothetical slow speed like 10 miles per hour would be enough, but I think that it could easily reach 20 or more. Since the kinetic energy of the horses and shield together would have enormous amount of impact even at slow speed. Probably able to roll down even some fixed wooden obstacle in the path.  Have you ever seen in war movies horses pulling down wooden walls in forts? That is to give an idea of the immense power a horse has applied in rolling down things.

I am thinking right now, you don't need the chariot. You can add the wooden shield on wheels to each horse[emoji6] and put a rider on it.
Easy and effective.
I would have added those things to the first line of cataphracts units for example.
To give an idea, change the wagon with a shield on 2 wheels. http://forum.miata.net/vb/showthread.php?p=6592506

Why would the horse gallop directly forward, when all it can see is a huge wooden wall one step in front of it?

How do you cope with a small dip in the ground which the wall runs into?

Byzantines came up with the menaulion , a special thick spear designed to stop charging cataphracts who would otherwise break the long but slim spears of the infantry. If the horses were carrying some sort of board between them then all that would happen would be that instead of hitting say two spears per horse they would hit three or four per horse at the same time and be much less likely to break them. Far better to put decent armour on the front of the horse and a man on top of it who could use his spear to jab at the opposing pikes and put them off.
As others have said pushing a vehicle will not work unless the ground is perfectly flat otherwise states would have devised push vehicles with long spears on them that could punch through opposing formations.
Roy

wooden frontal armor could be angled like the front "thing" of this train is http://james-redhare.blogspot.it/2009/01/bill-board.html?m=1 (watch pic of the train). So it could deflect on the sides all the Spears, even if very thick.
Horse would run into the pike walls because he would not see the pike walls so not having the life preserving instinct which prevents the horse to run into a pike wall. The horseman would push (with a stick or whatever) the horse to run forward.
A line of these things could roll down an ancient (or modern, Swiss or lanzkenekt) pike phalanx in seconds. Normal cavalry (or fast infantry or chariots with blades maybe) would  run behind to get rid of pikemen now in a broken formation so very vulnerable. That s all folks.

Quote from: Mark G on July 22, 2014, 12:25:08 PM
Why would the horse gallop directly forward, when all it can see is a huge wooden wall one step in front of it?

How do you cope with a small dip in the ground which the wall runs into?

exactly as ancient chariots coped with them. You can either create suspension system or, and it is preferable on my opinion, make robust large wheels which will be able to tolerate dips.
Anyway chariots somehow coped with them, and chariots had man above. This thing would be only a wooden panel which must resist the time of a single battle so it does not matter if it jumps a bit during the charge.

The concept now has a basic design, which makes discussion easier.  It resembles a locomotive 'pilot', often referred to in the USA as a 'cowcatcher' after one of its principal 19th century functions.

Eliminating the chariot makes things much easier.  If I understand correctly, the concept now involves just the 'pilot', which is attached to the horse's harness by two shafts and runs on two wheels, one on each side.  Do I understand correctly that these wheels are not steerable?  Also, do they share a common axle or are they independently attached to hubs on the exterior of the 'pilot'?

Assuming the device will be used principally on Mediterranean battlefields, which tend to throw up a fairly large amount of dust, the wheels would have to be as far back as possible to avoid channelling dust up the inside of the 'pilot' and into the faces of the horse(s) and rider(s).  The problem is that the further back the wheels are, the more likely the front end is to dip and catch the ground with dire consequences.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that a classical engineer managed to hit upon a workable design, and that it was fielded in some numbers against a Hellenistic army (say the Romans tried it against Pyrrhus in place of those silly anti-elephant oxcarts at Asculum).  How effective might it have been?

Are the horses used to elephants?  Answer: no.  End of invention as soon as elephants are deployed against it (see Lucian's 'elephant victory (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=222.0)' for a cunning counter to massed cavalry and chariots).

"Neither the Galatians nor their horses had ever seen an elephant, and they were so taken aback by the strange sight that, long before the beasts came to close quarters, the mere sound of their trumpeting, the sight of their gleaming tusks relieved against dark bodies, and minatory waving trunks, was enough; before they were within bow-shot, the enemy broke and ran in utter disorder; the infantry were spitted on each other's spears, and trampled by the cavalry who came scurrying on to them. The chariots, turning in like manner upon their own friends, whirled about among them by no means harmlessly; it was a Homeric scene of 'rumbling tumbling cars'; when once the horses shied at those formidable elephants, off went the drivers, and 'the lordless chariots rattled on,' their scythes maiming and carving any of their late masters whom they came within reach of; and, in that chaos, many were the victims." - Lucian, Zeuxis and Antiochus.

So - let us further assume for the sake of argument that the elephants are busy dealing with the Roman cavalry, and the 'pilots' are deployed exclusively against the phalanx on the second day of Asculum (they would be unusable on the first day because of the varied terrain).  The horse teams are all lined up and the fabricae (army engineers) are busy attaching the 'pilots' - how long does this take, incidentally?  Enemy archers, screening ahead of the phalanx, are beginning to take an interest and shafts start to whistle and drop on the teams and horses as they assemble the devices, disrupting everything.  Some friendly light infantry will be needed to keep enemy archers away and occupied while the devices are assembled in relative safety.  Of course, this means the friendly light infantry will be on the wrong side of the 'pilots' when they start moving ...

Finally, and hopefully before the rapidly-advancing phalanx can arrive, the devices are ready.  The signal is given and they all start off - hopefully not so close that they start bumping into each other.  What interval between them is needed to avoid collisions?  The horses and riders have presumably trained intensively with these counter-intuitive and clumsy loads, and can reach a trot in a straight line.  As the line advances, it will encounter minor irregularities of terrain unless the army's engineers have also levelled the ground in advance (unlikely as Pyrrhus' choice of ground on the second day of Asculum seems to have caught the Roman army by surprise).  These little irregularities cause bumps, and bumps cause the 'pilots' to change direction slightly.  It will not be long before the devices start fouling each other, which means there will be gaps in the line (even chariots cannot advance 'shoulder to shoulder' for this reason).  By the time the line of 'pilots' reaches the phalanx, there will be sufficient gaps caused by accidents and minor deflections of course that many of the phalangites will be able to avoid the devices altogether.  Assume, though, that some 'pilots' smash into parts of the pike formation like Cyrus' scythed chariots at Thymbra in 546 BC.  If we have a two-horse team plus a 'pilot' the likely frontage is about 8-9 feet (about 2.5-2.8 metres).  The 'pilot' should thus encounter 25-30 pike points, each pike weighing about 22 pounds (10 kg).  The 25-30 men add about 3,750-4,500 pounds (about  1,700-2,000 kg) of inertia to their weapons' 550-660 pounds (250-300 kg).  This makes about two tons (slightly over two tonnes) of stopping-power.

As discussed when the question of pikes penetrating legionary shields arose, movement adds kinetic force to impact.  The faster the 'pilot' is moving, the greater the penetrative power of the pikes becomes.  A wooden screen that was impenetrable at a walking pace might be smashed to pieces at a trot.  (As Isaac Newton taught us that action and reaction tend to be equal and opposite, the pikemen would not be unscathed either.)  In essence, the 'pilots' would disintegrate on impact, taking the first few ranks of pikes with them, at least in my evaluation.

This assumes the devices could be made to run straight, which would be extremely unlikely on most available battlefield terrain.  Chariots were steered by altering the direction of travel of the horses, and if the inertia of the chariot was not too great then it would follow the horses (if it was too great, the chariot body would roll over and the whole thing would disintegrate).  The 'pilot' has no effective means of steering because it precedes rather than follows the horses, which is why I think the combination of small irregularities in terrain (laser levelling was not used for farmland or pasture in the classical era) and non-steerability would result in the 'pilots' running afoul of each other before they had travelled very far, rendering the concept regrettably ineffectual in battle.

Nonsense.
You are proposing a plank in front which will hit the ground hard.
Not at all the same as a pulled wheel going over.

And you are proposing a horse will gallop directly into that wall because you tellit it will move with it.

Donkeys follow carrots on sticks. Horses will not learn that this wall of wood will move with the that fast.

And still, no example of a horse pushed vehicle from history

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 22, 2014, 09:04:57 PM
The concept now has a basic design, which makes discussion easier.  It resembles a locomotive 'pilot', often referred to in the USA as a 'cowcatcher' after one of its principal 19th century functions.

Eliminating the chariot makes things much easier.  If I understand correctly, the concept now involves just the 'pilot', which is attached to the horse's harness by two shafts and runs on two wheels, one on each side.  Do I understand correctly that these wheels are not steerable?  Also, do they share a common axle or are they independently attached to hubs on the exterior of the 'pilot'?

Assuming the device will be used principally on Mediterranean battlefields, which tend to throw up a fairly large amount of dust, the wheels would have to be as far back as possible to avoid channelling dust up the inside of the 'pilot' and into the faces of the horse(s) and rider(s).  The problem is that the further back the wheels are, the more likely the front end is to dip and catch the ground with dire consequences.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that a classical engineer managed to hit upon a workable design, and that it was fielded in some numbers against a Hellenistic army (say the Romans tried it against Pyrrhus in place of those silly anti-elephant oxcarts at Asculum).  How effective might it have been?

Are the horses used to elephants?  Answer: no.  End of invention as soon as elephants are deployed against it (see Lucian's 'elephant victory (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=222.0)' for a cunning counter to massed cavalry and chariots).

"Neither the Galatians nor their horses had ever seen an elephant, and they were so taken aback by the strange sight that, long before the beasts came to close quarters, the mere sound of their trumpeting, the sight of their gleaming tusks relieved against dark bodies, and minatory waving trunks, was enough; before they were within bow-shot, the enemy broke and ran in utter disorder; the infantry were spitted on each other's spears, and trampled by the cavalry who came scurrying on to them. The chariots, turning in like manner upon their own friends, whirled about among them by no means harmlessly; it was a Homeric scene of 'rumbling tumbling cars'; when once the horses shied at those formidable elephants, off went the drivers, and 'the lordless chariots rattled on,' their scythes maiming and carving any of their late masters whom they came within reach of; and, in that chaos, many were the victims." - Lucian, Zeuxis and Antiochus.

So - let us further assume for the sake of argument that the elephants are busy dealing with the Roman cavalry, and the 'pilots' are deployed exclusively against the phalanx on the second day of Asculum (they would be unusable on the first day because of the varied terrain).  The horse teams are all lined up and the fabricae (army engineers) are busy attaching the 'pilots' - how long does this take, incidentally?  Enemy archers, screening ahead of the phalanx, are beginning to take an interest and shafts start to whistle and drop on the teams and horses as they assemble the devices, disrupting everything.  Some friendly light infantry will be needed to keep enemy archers away and occupied while the devices are assembled in relative safety.  Of course, this means the friendly light infantry will be on the wrong side of the 'pilots' when they start moving ...

Finally, and hopefully before the rapidly-advancing phalanx can arrive, the devices are ready.  The signal is given and they all start off - hopefully not so close that they start bumping into each other.  What interval between them is needed to avoid collisions?  The horses and riders have presumably trained intensively with these counter-intuitive and clumsy loads, and can reach a trot in a straight line.  As the line advances, it will encounter minor irregularities of terrain unless the army's engineers have also levelled the ground in advance (unlikely as Pyrrhus' choice of ground on the second day of Asculum seems to have caught the Roman army by surprise).  These little irregularities cause bumps, and bumps cause the 'pilots' to change direction slightly.  It will not be long before the devices start fouling each other, which means there will be gaps in the line (even chariots cannot advance 'shoulder to shoulder' for this reason).  By the time the line of 'pilots' reaches the phalanx, there will be sufficient gaps caused by accidents and minor deflections of course that many of the phalangites will be able to avoid the devices altogether.  Assume, though, that some 'pilots' smash into parts of the pike formation like Cyrus' scythed chariots at Thymbra in 546 BC.  If we have a two-horse team plus a 'pilot' the likely frontage is about 8-9 feet (about 2.5-2.8 metres).  The 'pilot' should thus encounter 25-30 pike points, each pike weighing about 22 pounds (10 kg).  The 25-30 men add about 3,750-4,500 pounds (about  1,700-2,000 kg) of inertia to their weapons' 550-660 pounds (250-300 kg).  This makes about two tons (slightly over two tonnes) of stopping-power.

As discussed when the question of pikes penetrating legionary shields arose, movement adds kinetic force to impact.  The faster the 'pilot' is moving, the greater the penetrative power of the pikes becomes.  A wooden screen that was impenetrable at a walking pace might be smashed to pieces at a trot.  (As Isaac Newton taught us that action and reaction tend to be equal and opposite, the pikemen would not be unscathed either.)  In essence, the 'pilots' would disintegrate on impact, taking the first few ranks of pikes with them, at least in my evaluation.

This assumes the devices could be made to run straight, which would be extremely unlikely on most available battlefield terrain.  Chariots were steered by altering the direction of travel of the horses, and if the inertia of the chariot was not too great then it would follow the horses (if it was too great, the chariot body would roll over and the whole thing would disintegrate).  The 'pilot' has no effective means of steering because it precedes rather than follows the horses, which is why I think the combination of small irregularities in terrain (laser levelling was not used for farmland or pasture in the classical era) and non-steerability would result in the 'pilots' running afoul of each other before they had travelled very far, rendering the concept regrettably ineffectual in battle.

I stopped at the point of dust.
Mediterranean countries are dusty? seriously? I live in Italy, Tuscany exactly (maybe you heard about Florence, Dante Alighieri, divine comedy, Medici family, Petrarca..) and i can assure. There is no desert land here. Not even if you look for it. It is exactly the mild climate you could find anywhere in northen Europe. Countryside is very very nice and made of Plains, hills, mountains, with grass everywhere, so no dusty desert lands. I notice that a lot of people have a strange idea of "mediterranean" countries. There is some difference between Maghreb and Italy for example. And even inside same Italy you could find Alps, Hills, rivers, seaside, flat lands... et cetera. You cannot talk in general.
So let's forget the dust problem.

OK I read everything. Man, you are going to much forward with imagination. What you said is only an imaginary battle with imagined result. What you say could happen but could even not happen.

And as I said this device could be made steerable with no problem, with a central axis where it could turned (in front of the horse and behind the shield) by the same horse driver. My English is not enough good to describe what I think and I have no time for a drawing, neither I am enough good. But believe me I have a simple idea in mind.

As for the fact that it would be broken by impact with some pikes, not. Not. First thing, the design I told is made to deflect the pikes in the sides. So there would be no real impact. Secondly even a perpendicular plank 1 inch thick would never break meeting some pikes. Pikes would break, though. Seriously, how can you imagine a pike piercing a solid one inch wooden plate? It is exactly as saying that if a truck invest a person, the truck would break. Not, when a moving object meets a steady object, the energy is transferred from first one to second. This is why if I hit your head with my head you will have the bigger injury, even if we have same mass stored heads.
So what you say of pikes breaking the wooden pilot is not possible on my opinion. Surely, unless we test it, we will never be sure.

Quote from: andrew881runner on July 22, 2014, 10:15:47 PM

I stopped at the point of dust.
Mediterranean countries are dusty? seriously? I live in Italy, Tuscany exactly (maybe you heard about Florence, Dante Alighieri, divine comedy, Medici family, Petrarca..) and i can assure. There is no desert land here. Not even if you look for it. It is exactly the mild climate you could find anywhere in northen Europe. Countryside is very very nice and made of Plains, hills, mountains, with grass everywhere, so no dusty desert lands. I notice that a lot of people have a strange idea of "mediterranean" countries. There is some difference between Maghreb and Italy for example. And even inside same Italy you could find Alps, Hills, rivers, seaside, flat lands... et cetera. You cannot talk in general.
So let's forget the dust problem.

Unfortunately one cannot forget the dust problem.  Read Ammianus' account of Adrianople or Appian's account of Cannae, or Dionysius' account of Vercellae.

Quote
And as I said this device could be made steerable with no problem, with a central axis where it could turned (in front of the horse and behind the shield) by the same horse driver. My English is not enough good to describe what I think and I have no time for a drawing, neither I am enough good. But believe me I have a simple idea in mind.

But now the driver has to control the horse and a pair of wheels on hubs attached to a turntable or T-frame (which makes driving a two-man job); how is this steerable system to be attached to the shell of the 'shield'?  I can envisage a concept, but even if the system can be made stable and responsive under the stress of forward travel, it is going to transmit significant lateral stresses to the wheels when it turns and is anyway going to throw up all the dust, stones and other debris it encounters right into the faces of the horse and driver.

Quote
As for the fact that it would be broken by impact with some pikes, not. Not. First thing, the design I told is made to deflect the pikes in the sides. So there would be no real impact. Secondly even a perpendicular plank 1 inch thick would never break meeting some pikes. Pikes would break, though. Seriously, how can you imagine a pike piercing a solid one inch wooden plate?

A longbow arrow can do so, or at least is recorded as penetrating timber to a depth of several inches, so a pike would have no difficulty.

Quote
So what you say of pikes breaking the wooden pilot is not possible on my opinion. Surely, unless we test it, we will never be sure.

I can be pretty sure without testing, but a test would be the ultimate proof (or disproof).  And if you like, we can leave the matter there.

There were attempts to use a cart before horse arrangement in a more sedate civilian capacity, as shown by this 1907 experimental Parisian surrey. If the idea never took off there must be a reason, and of course this says nothing about how a vehicle would perform in the realities of a battlefield situation.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 23, 2014, 12:17:22 PM
There were attempts to use a cart before horse arrangement in a more sedate civilian capacity, as shown by this 1907 experimental Parisian surrey. If the idea never took off there must be a reason, and of course this says nothing about how a vehicle would perform in the realities of a battlefield situation.

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/85630106/cart%20before%20horse.png)

One might suspect that the reason is to duplicate a motor car experience, while using old technology for propulsion :)

Perhaps Patrick is right to draw a line at this point and return to the phalanx itself.  If the barrier chariot thread could be hived off into a separate thread (as Mark Watson used to do) it would make it easier to find for future reference and might even allow its expansion into other wheeled vehicles used on battlefields to break up formations.  Patrick has mentioned ox-carts but there were a variety of hand-pushed vehicles, the familiar scythed chariots and the enigmatic Late Roman cataphract scythed chariot (myth or reality?).

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 23, 2014, 12:05:03 PM

Quote from: andrew881runner on July 22, 2014, 10:15:47 PM

I stopped at the point of dust.
Mediterranean countries are dusty? seriously? I live in Italy, Tuscany exactly (maybe you heard about Florence, Dante Alighieri, divine comedy, Medici family, Petrarca..) and i can assure. There is no desert land here. Not even if you look for it. It is exactly the mild climate you could find anywhere in northen Europe. Countryside is very very nice and made of Plains, hills, mountains, with grass everywhere, so no dusty desert lands. I notice that a lot of people have a strange idea of "mediterranean" countries. There is some difference between Maghreb and Italy for example. And even inside same Italy you could find Alps, Hills, rivers, seaside, flat lands... et cetera. You cannot talk in general.
So let's forget the dust problem.

Unfortunately one cannot forget the dust problem.  Read Ammianus' account of Adrianople or Appian's account of Cannae, or Dionysius' account of Vercellae.

Quote
And as I said this device could be made steerable with no problem, with a central axis where it could turned (in front of the horse and behind the shield) by the same horse driver. My English is not enough good to describe what I think and I have no time for a drawing, neither I am enough good. But believe me I have a simple idea in mind.

But now the driver has to control the horse and a pair of wheels on hubs attached to a turntable or T-frame (which makes driving a two-man job); how is this steerable system to be attached to the shell of the 'shield'?  I can envisage a concept, but even if the system can be made stable and responsive under the stress of forward travel, it is going to transmit significant lateral stresses to the wheels when it turns and is anyway going to throw up all the dust, stones and other debris it encounters right into the faces of the horse and driver.

Quote
As for the fact that it would be broken by impact with some pikes, not. Not. First thing, the design I told is made to deflect the pikes in the sides. So there would be no real impact. Secondly even a perpendicular plank 1 inch thick would never break meeting some pikes. Pikes would break, though. Seriously, how can you imagine a pike piercing a solid one inch wooden plate?

A longbow arrow can do so, or at least is recorded as penetrating timber to a depth of several inches, so a pike would have no difficulty.

Quote
So what you say of pikes breaking the wooden pilot is not possible on my opinion. Surely, unless we test it, we will never be sure.

I can be pretty sure without testing, but a test would be the ultimate proof (or disproof).  And if you like, we can leave the matter there.

oh the dust problem. Tell me where you see dust. https://www.google.it/search?q=Italia+paesaggi&client=ms-android-samsung&hl=it-IT&source=android-browser-type&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=VbbPU92jNMGb0QWa_IDoBg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=360&bih=615&rlz=1Y1XIUG_itIT587IT588
These are professional pictures but you have an idea of what you could see in a Mediterranean country. Obviously it changes a lot according  to place and weather and time of the year. But generally speaking you will not see many dusty desert lands: ok, maybe in some places in Sicily and southern Italy, but they are exception. I don't know why people when thinking Italy (or Mediterranean countries) they think about some remote village in southern Italy (even when they think of the (stereo)"typical Italian" dark haired: where I live most are rather blondish). [emoji1]
Generally speaking "Mediterranean countries" (which are very different even inside same country, anyway let's talk in general) are very fertile lands so there are much fewer dusty places than green places. You can find wide dusty places in Arizona, Texas, Colorado, not Italy. As for the tips in the ground, if you go in some wide flat land like Italian Padana Pianura you will see wide open spaces with almost no tips in the ground for hundreds of km. So what you say can only be referred to some particular places, like the setting of Adriano ple, you cannot talk in general about a great variety of landscapes so different. [emoji6]

Interesting image, Justin.
Notice the weight distribution.  All the people (weight) are between the wheel axels, so the weight is on the wheels.
To repeat this with a wall, you will need the front wheels to be forward of the barrier, which makes breaking a wheel very easy.

If you want the wall in front, you need an equal counterweight behind the second paid of wheels.

The horse then has more weight to push from behind.

Notice also how high the front is, for a bulldozer weapon like this, you have a problem.
Low axel and small wheels keep the protection, but cannot cope with any depression (or else you are pushing the barrier into the ground)
But high axel big wheels to cope with more terrain expose the vulnerable wheel...
The articulated steering proposed is also hard to believe practical in a pre ball bearing age.
Ancients steered by turning the horse pulling, not by having a steering wheel and axel .

I bet that horse never got past a walk too

Here are some pictures of southern Italy, chosen at random from Google maps (street view), Pyrrhus's campaign country. An army could certainly kick up a dustcloud here. Time of year would also make a difference of course.

believe me, I know Italy very well because I have relatives from all sides of peninsula and the pictures you have taken are not representative of entire Italy.  therr are surely dusty places but they are the minor part. Maybe 3% or less to give an idea, and mostly in southern.
Then, if you pay attention, you have showed pictures of cultivated lands, which are dusty because they must be so, there cannot be grasslands where you cultivate something (probably grain): you can clearly see the stripes and the marks of the beginning of the farm's field. You will not see the desert you imagine unless in some parts of Sicily and a central side of Sardinia or other minor part in southern Italy (not all "southern Italy" is the same... Campania for example was called "Campania felix" by same Romans, for abundance it had of every product). We should talk of natural landscape and Italy is surely one of the countries with maybe more variety of landscapes all over the world.
Fact is that the most famous movies are set in southern Italy (Sicily mainly) so common people have an idea of Italy and Italians very different than reality.

Again, https://www.google.it/search?client=ms-android-samsung&hl=it-IT&biw=360&bih=321&rlz=1Y1XIUG_itIT587IT588&tbm=isch&ei=NB7QU8nYDujY4QStq4HIBA&oq=+Italy+landscapes&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3..0i19j0i5i19.75405.75892.0.76629.2.2.0.0.0.1.521.756.2-1j5-1.2.0....0...1c..49.mobile-gws-serp..1.1.235.cumh1b51EwM&q=Italy%20landscapes 
These are professional pictures but can give an idea.

this is where I live https://www.google.it/search?q=Tuscany&client=ms-android-samsung&hl=it-IT&source=android-browser-type&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=86zQU9W8BOqi4gTUmYCIBQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=360&bih=615&rlz=1Y1XIUG_itIT587IT588

You are a lucky man, Andrew. 

Turning to the dust issue, even damp old England can be dusty in places in a dry summer.  The point about cultivated land is a good one.  My experience would suggest cultivated land with a light soil is your major dust source, rather than pasture or woodland.  Turning again to the battle descriptions, should we therefore be looking at where they took place, how cultivated it was and the season to explain the dust problem, rather than trying to do it on macro-climate basis? 

To go further, what is the issue about dust, other than nuisance?  How does it effect, say, a phalanx or cavalry and is it something we need to take account of in looking at battlefield performance?

I don't think that dust can be an issue so great. Surely a running horse creates a lot of dust, but it is soon dissolved into air so that horseman (who is in a higher position) is not much affected, in my opinion. Dust can be an instrument if you want to cover some tactical manoeuvre, since dust is a visible fog for a distant observer rather than for someone who is inside it.
Anyway the only place where dust can be massive and a real problem for eyes and vision is desert, in my opinion, but there are not so many deserts in Europe (there was only one in Italy, a famous one in Tuscany, but it was changed). Otherwise I have been in dry places, with no vegetation almost, but I don't recall a dust issue. Common ground tends to be compact. There is a massive dust only where is sand, so near rivers, in the seaside, or in African or Arabic deserts. Dry land does not make so much dust. Same for cultivated lands. I lived in a farm as a child for some time and I don't recall dust at all, even in summer. But you cannot walk easily on a cultivated land since ground is all very soft (I think that that could be a problem in an ancient battle, slowing down troops).

Marching an army over land is rather different from one person looking at the scenery.

Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Chapter 9 (signs for scouts):

"Dust spurting upwards in high, straight columns indicates the approach of chariots.  When it hangs low and widespread, infantry is approaching.  When dust rises in scattered areas, the enemy is collecting and bringing in firewood; when there are numerous small patches which seem to come and go, he is encamping the army."

Xenophon, Anabasis I.8.8 on the approach of Artaxerxes' army:

"And now it was midday, and the enemy were not yet in sight; but when afternoon was coming on, there was seen a rising dust, which appeared at first like a white cloud, but some time later like a kind of blackness in the plain, extending over a great distance. As the enemy came nearer and nearer, there were presently flashes of bronze here and there, and spears and the hostile ranks began to come into sight."

Ammianus, Rerum Gestarum XXXI.1-2 on the battle of Adrianople:

"On every side armour and weapons clashed, and Bellona, raging with more than usual madness for the destruction of the Romans, blew her lamentable war-trumpets; our soldiers who were giving way rallied, exchanging many encouraging shouts, but the battle, spreading like flames, filled their hearts with terror, as numbers of them were pierced by strokes of whirling spears and arrows. [2] Then the lines dashed together like beaked ships, pushing each other back and forth in turn, and tossed about by alternate movements, like waves at sea.

And because the left wing, which had made its way as far as the very wagons, and would have gone farther if it had had any support, being deserted by the rest of the cavalry, was hard pressed by the enemy's numbers, it was crushed, and overwhelmed, as if by the downfall of a mighty rampart. The foot-soldiers thus stood unprotected, and their companies were so crowded together that hardly anyone could pull out his sword or draw back his arm. Because of clouds of dust the heavens could no longer be seen, and echoed with frightful cries. Hence the arrows whirling death from every side always found their mark with fatal effect, since they could not be seen beforehand nor guarded against."

Dust is an endemic feature of most ancient and classical period battlefields south of the Alps and is not unknown north of them.  While there have been dust-free battlefields (notably the Crimisus in 340 BC, which was fought during a thunderstorm) one must plan on dust being a fact of battlefield life around the Mediterranean when armies are on the move.

One point to note is that wheels kick up dust directionally (upwards), as observed by Sun Tzu.  Doing this within the confines of a wooden shell will not be nice for men or animals inside it.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 24, 2014, 11:16:40 AM
Marching an army over land is rather different from one person looking at the scenery.

Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Chapter 9 (signs for scouts):

"Dust spurting upwards in high, straight columns indicates the approach of chariots.  When it hangs low and widespread, infantry is approaching.  When dust rises in scattered areas, the enemy is collecting and bringing in firewood; when there are numerous small patches which seem to come and go, he is encamping the army."

Xenophon, Anabasis I.8.8 on the approach of Artaxerxes' army:

"And now it was midday, and the enemy were not yet in sight; but when afternoon was coming on, there was seen a rising dust, which appeared at first like a white cloud, but some time later like a kind of blackness in the plain, extending over a great distance. As the enemy came nearer and nearer, there were presently flashes of bronze here and there, and spears and the hostile ranks began to come into sight."

Ammianus, Rerum Gestarum XXXI.1-2 on the battle of Adrianople:

"On every side armour and weapons clashed, and Bellona, raging with more than usual madness for the destruction of the Romans, blew her lamentable war-trumpets; our soldiers who were giving way rallied, exchanging many encouraging shouts, but the battle, spreading like flames, filled their hearts with terror, as numbers of them were pierced by strokes of whirling spears and arrows. [2] Then the lines dashed together like beaked ships, pushing each other back and forth in turn, and tossed about by alternate movements, like waves at sea.

And because the left wing, which had made its way as far as the very wagons, and would have gone farther if it had had any support, being deserted by the rest of the cavalry, was hard pressed by the enemy's numbers, it was crushed, and overwhelmed, as if by the downfall of a mighty rampart. The foot-soldiers thus stood unprotected, and their companies were so crowded together that hardly anyone could pull out his sword or draw back his arm. Because of clouds of dust the heavens could no longer be seen, and echoed with frightful cries. Hence the arrows whirling death from every side always found their mark with fatal effect, since they could not be seen beforehand nor guarded against."

Dust is an endemic feature of most ancient and classical period battlefields south of the Alps and is not unknown north of them.  While there have been dust-free battlefields (notably the Crimisus in 340 BC, which was fought during a thunderstorm) one must plan on dust being a fact of battlefield life around the Mediterranean when armies are on the move.

One point to note is that wheels kick up dust directionally (upwards), as observed by Sun Tzu.  Doing this within the confines of a wooden shell will not be nice for men or animals inside it.

surely it will not be a pleasure to have some dust in the face, but when you are going towards enemy life and your life is in danger is the last of your problems.  So I guess dust would not be a great problem anyway. Horses will not stop for some dust (they will be kicked and pushed to go forward) and riders will be trainer to tolerate some dust (i guess only the bravest and strongest warriors would be chosen for these Hugh risk missions). I still think that these engines were possible and would have been  effective in battle. Unfortunately I cannot build one of my own to prove it

It would be more the case that dust in the eyes of man and horse would seriously interfere with the ability to see and dust in the lungs can interfere with the ability to breathe; normally dust gets raised behind an individual man or horse or vehicle so does not worry them, but the proposed device would be raising dust in front of the man and horse and furthermore channelling it into their faces because of the shape of the 'pilot'.

As has previously been indicated, dust would not be the only potential problem.  However in view of the fact that we are unable to build and test a working prototype we may as well leave the matter there.  It is an interesting idea but not one we are in a position to evaluate effectively.

A bicycle or wheelbarrow should demonstrate most if the basic problems of high speed propulsion of a large heavy flat front object, if you really wanted to try it

vehicles like this https://www.google.it/search?q=carretto+gelati&client=ms-android-samsung&hl=it-IT&source=android-browser-type&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=o9TSU-GND6Ke0QXu_oAY&ved=0CDUQ7Ak&biw=360&bih=615&rlz=1Y1XIUG_itIT587IT588 with a heavy front object and rear traction (from human leg) shows that it is more than possible to have a heavy front object.
Dust problems is much much minor of what you could think. Firstly, unless you run with your horses in the ground or on peculiar dusty ground, you will not have it. If you have ever ridden a bike in extra urban streets, you would know that few paths are really that dusty. I know few of them and even there I have never had a dust problem when I rode closely behind another biker. I think you are over evaluating the quantity of dust it is usually life d by wheels even in peculiar dusty places.
Secondly, the lifted dust will not go neither in the eyes of horse, who is much higher (about 160 cm higher or more) than wheels, not in the eyes of the rider who is even higher (probably the level of the rider's eyes are about 2 mts or more).
Last but not least, we should consider that the wheels are not necessarily in front of the horse or the rider. Usually they should be on the sides. They could be even very far, depending on how large is the frontal wooden panel (or wooden covered by metal plate).
Really and sincerely, I agree that I cannot demonstrate that this engine could work, but I don't see any problems from a theorical point of view.
I agree that we could move forward (if some moderator wants to cut this thread and put it in a peculiar topic, I am happy with it)

Anyway watching better in Google images I have found this https://www.google.it/search?client=ms-android-samsung&hl=it-IT&rlz=1Y1XIUG_itIT587IT588&biw=360&bih=615&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=PdjSU_eXMeOj0QXSm4DYBA&q=front+wagon+horse+push&oq=front+wagon+horse+push&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3...3788.6647.0.8337.11.11.0.0.0.0.331.1989.0j9j1j1.11.0....0...1c.1.49.mobile-gws-serp..10.1.171.IMUGDZXvmkQ look close the second pic.

Quote from: andrew881runner on July 25, 2014, 11:18:05 PM

I agree that we could move forward.

Very good.

The original point of this thread was to see if we could establish why later Hellenistic pike phalanxes became 16 deep rather than the 8 deep of Alexander the Great's time (this depth can be seen in Polybius' Book XII critique of Callisthenes' account of Alexander's deployment for Issus).  The reasons (those we could think of) were 1) additional pressure from the back ranks (a slightly contentious point with those who believe that back ranks do not exert pressure in any formation) and 2) protection from missiles provided by the increased number of overhead pikes.

Does anyone have any further reasons why a 16-deep pike phalanx might be desirable?  Would the troop quality of a later Hellenistic phalanx be even throughout, or might the additional depth be a useful way of incorporating relatively inexperienced troops?  Would the deeper formation allow only front ranks to be armoured, thus saving on equipment costs (a saving perhaps diluted by committing the extra troops)?  Or would the reasons be purely tactical?

we should not forget that syntagmas were 16 x 16, so many small squares. You should watch the reason to have many squares instead that a long thin line. I guess the reason was not only additional pressure and moral given by having more ranks behind, not only more men to change the dead s or injured guys in front, which seem rather obvious, but even an added manoeuvrability. Then if you have lots of recruits and few veterans, how Alexander had, you can use back ranks to put weakest soldiers, poorly effective and trustworthy in battle, but doing their job to "add mass" in the back ranks. I don't go for the protection from arrows, since I doubt that in original Alexander s phalanx, where men were more spaced, pikes could intercept so many arrows. If protection from. arrows was the purpose, I would have given them bigger Shields or anyway, if bigger Shields were to bulky to use pike, armor on all the body. While we know that thighs for example were almost totally uncovered (small Shields did not reach things, differently than aspis shield: ok, maybe in battle position torso and shield was lowered so shield covered the left thigh too, but not enough on my opinion). Same for arms, or better, right arm. So I guess that arrows were not considered a big threat, otherwise they would have put some simple boiled leather protection for thighs and arm, and a slightly bigger shield.
Anyway, if I can accept a 16 rank phalanx, I doubt about the effectiveness of a 50 x 32 ranks phalanx as that used in Magnesia. Since the back ranks beyond the 5th in the phalanx cannot participate in battle, why would you put 27 more ranks then necessary?

Physics, Andrew.
All of those have the front object weight centered evenly on each side of the wheel axel, so it does not tip forward.
You are proposing something combat ready, which must have its fighting weight entirely to the front, and from toe to head height.

I think we need to make some allowance for perceived effect, as well as actual effect.  If the ancients felt that the rear ranks gave protection against missiles, they may have gone with that feeling rather than done a mathematical analysis of probabilities of arrows being deflected.  If the front ranks felt more secure against incoming missiles because of these belief, it would have benefit anyway.

On stuffing the back ranks with less experienced or less well equipped men, probably (although the man right at the back was usually a veteran).  However, if this wasn't militarily useful, why expend the logistical effort of maintaining a phalanx twice as big as it needed to be?

Turning to the pressure argument, there must be something to it because it is given as a reason for the phalanxes (phalanges?) success by people who were there.  But we know it can't have been 11 ranks pushing with all their might against the "fighting five".  Does the fact that an experienced phalanx could go through an inexperienced one like a dose of salts hint that there was a technique which a phalanx with experience, drill etc. had mastered to deliver its full power to the front?

Quote from: andrew881runner on July 25, 2014, 11:45:54 PM

Anyway, if I can accept a 16 rank phalanx, I doubt about the effectiveness of a 50 x 32 ranks phalanx as that used in Magnesia. Since the back ranks beyond the 5th in the phalanx cannot participate in battle, why would you put 27 more ranks then necessary?

I think the 32-rank pike 'formation' at Magnesia may be a historians' misunderstanding: in Polybius Book XII he quotes Callisthenes describing Alexander approaching Issus, with an initial 32-deep formation closing up to 16 deep and then 8 deep.  This indicates that 32 deep (with a 6' or 1.8m spacing between men) was a marching formation, and to assume battle formation the troops closed up, first to 16 deep and 3' (0.9m) per man, then to 8 deep and 18" (0.45m) individual frontage.  The 32-deep 'deployment' at Magnesia seems to have been the troops waiting in march formation until the battle began with skirmishing; they would then let the skirmishers through and close up to fight.

This would make the Seleucid phalanx at Magnesia 8 deep rather than 16 deep, suggesting the 16 deep phalanx may have been limited to the Greek mainland.  Alternatively, and perhaps more reasonably, the Seleucids were waiting in 32 deep formation with 3' (0.9m) frontage in order to close up to 16 deep when ready to fight.

Quote
We should not forget that syntagmas were 16 x 16, so many small squares. You should watch the reason to have many squares instead that a long thin line.

The numerous syntagmas would normally be used to form a long, thin line.  However in Appian's account of Magnesia (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0230%3Atext%3DSyr.%3Achapter%3D6) the Seleucid pikemen form a large square or rectangle (or several smaller squares, depending upon how one understands the text) when attacked by Pergamene and Roman cavalry after the rout of the Seleucid left.

Quote from: Erpingham on July 26, 2014, 10:42:40 AM
I think we need to make some allowance for perceived effect, as well as actual effect.  If the ancients felt that the rear ranks gave protection against missiles, they may have gone with that feeling rather than done a mathematical analysis of probabilities of arrows being deflected.  If the front ranks felt more secure against incoming missiles because of these belief, it would have benefit anyway.

Most of the assumptions and calculations for pike formation missile stopping-power seem to have assumed the pikemen would be 3' apart.  If they were just 18" apart then coverage increases dramatically.  I think it was a real, not just a morale, effect, though the sight of a forest of intercepting shafts would in itself indeed be comforting.

Quote
On stuffing the back ranks with less experienced or less well equipped men, probably (although the man right at the back was usually a veteran).  However, if this wasn't militarily useful, why expend the logistical effort of maintaining a phalanx twice as big as it needed to be?

True: there is little point encumbring a formation with extra bodies if they are not useful.  If there is anything in the 'inexperienced back ranks' argument I suspect it would be that such men would be well enough trained in manoeuvre and steady enough to hold their pikes up as cover for the formation, meanwhile absorbing combat experience from a fairly safe location: improvement without risk.

Quote
Turning to the pressure argument, there must be something to it because it is given as a reason for the phalanxes (phalanges?) success by people who were there.  But we know it can't have been 11 ranks pushing with all their might against the "fighting five".  Does the fact that an experienced phalanx could go through an inexperienced one like a dose of salts hint that there was a technique which a phalanx with experience, drill etc. had mastered to deliver its full power to the front?

Polybius (XVIII.30.4) just says:

"These rear ranks, however, during an advance, press forward [piezountes] those in front by the weight of their bodies [somatos barei kata]; and thus make the charge [ephodon = attack, approach, charge] very forcible, and at the same time render it impossible for the front ranks to face about."

I suspect practice and timing would have much to do with this effectiveness (which in itself indicates that those in rearward ranks could not have been too untrained, whether or not they were less experienced), and a phalanx which could coordinate well enough to develop this pressure instantaneously on contact would smash one in which less experienced men tentatively applied pressure rank by rank.

rephrasing: if you have many men in your back (pressing) it is more difficult to leave your shield and run away, which would have disrupted the formation.
If in a hoplite phalanx with Shields overlapping escaping was impossible even in few ranks (6 or 8), in a pike phalanx men had more space to move so they could have escaped, maybe, among the men in the back. But if you put 15 men in your back, someone will probably stop you anyway.
Then if you consider that in every army there is a small part of Veterans and a big part of recruits (not necessarily untrained, but new to battle) putting the few veterans in the front rows and all the mass of recruits in the back seems the best solution. After a while veterans would have died and the guys in the back would have been the new veterans.

What has struck me is that if we have 16 ranks 'pushing', the guys at the back aren't really in combat. So it may be that the depth of the phalanx was a way of short-circuiting the problem with infantry combat, that the infantry on both sides glared at each other until someone worked up the courage to storm forward, then fell back again.
With the pike phalanx, the pressure from behind would keep them moving forward when the front ranks might otherwise grind to a halt, and would certainly stop them going back easily

Jim

we should take into account the existence of some relief system between ranks even in pike phalanx or hoplite phalanx anyway. It would not have sense that only first ranks would have fought in battle. Especially in the hoplite phalanx where soldiers were common citizens so not veterans... why should they want to be in first line doing all the job and risking their life while others simply push them towards the enemies? OK being in the first rank was the most dangerous place anyway for the charge at the beginning which did many casualties, but I cannot imagine that even after the first rank fought all the battle. In pike phalanx this could be even easier since soldiers have more space for themselves.

There may have been potential for relief in a hoplite army, but Macedonian pikemen fought with a frontal spacing of 18" (0.45 metres) per man, which leaves no room for anyone to drop out of the ranks.  Then again, they probably would not need to, as the only opponents who could harm them frontally would be other pikemen.

I remember it being stated (though cannot remember the reference) that Spartans wore red tunics so that their foes should not be encouraged by seeing when they were wounded.  This, and various references to men fainting from loss of blood from 'many wounds' suggests that the men in the first ranks did fight until they dropped or the enemy was beaten, with the next man stepping over his fallen front-ranker to take his turn fighting.  Hoplite battles tended to be quite intense and rapid (one exception was the fight outside Syracuse in Thucydides VI.70, which went on longer than expected although the better troops eventually won).  Hoplite armour and shields tended to prevent an opponent from landing a killing blow (it was possible but rare, although one presumes much more likely against a novice who still did not really know what he was doing) so standing in the front rank was by no means a death sentence, provided the men concerned were sufficiently experienced to look after themselves.  Hoplite battles seem to have been shoving matches rather than killing matches, with the majority of casualties incurred when a formation broke.

Quote from: Jim Webster on July 27, 2014, 01:55:14 PM

With the pike phalanx, the pressure from behind would keep them moving forward when the front ranks might otherwise grind to a halt, and would certainly stop them going back easily

Very true: even hoplite battles could grind to a halt (the one in Thucydides VI.70 being a case in point) but deeper pike formations would keep things moving when push came to shove.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 27, 2014, 08:09:27 PM
There may have been potential for relief in a hoplite army,

I am reminded that Spartans attacked by peltasts could send out younger age groups to chase them.  These younger men would be in the inner ranks, so some movement must have been possible.  Perhaps they would need to be at six foot spacing for this?  However, is there actually any evidence of relief, other than stepping over the dead body of the man in front?  Is there evidence of wounded being carried to the rear, even?

Quote
Very true: even hoplite battles could grind to a halt (the one in Thucydides VI.70 being a case in point) but deeper pike formations would keep things moving when push came to shove.

However we see the use of weight in pushing, pike phalanxes must have had a lot of inertia.  Going forward they would be hard to stop, standing their ground hard to push back.

The Spartans dare hoplites, not in a pike phalanx. If they wanted to allow the back ranks to run through to chase off Light infantry then they only needed to close up alternate files so file 2 moves to file 1. file 3 to file 4 to create a lane for the men in 5 -and 6 to run up.

Roy

The question of where the Spartans stationed their young men (and how they left the formation to take up pursuit) has been discussed previously, without as far as I recall any final conclusion being drawn.  The basic evidence comes from Xenophon's Hellenica, which unfortunately does not specify how the younger 'classes' were disposed within the formation.


Exhibit 1: Hellenica IV.4.16-17

"Again, Iphicrates and his troops invaded many districts of Arcadia also, where they plundered and made attacks upon the walled towns; for the hoplites of the Arcadians did not come out from their walls at all to meet them; such fear they had conceived of the peltasts. But the peltasts in their turn were so afraid of the Lacedaemonians that they did not approach within a javelin's cast of the hoplites; for it had once happened that the younger men among the Lacedaemonians, pursuing even from so great a distance as that, overtook and killed some of them. [17] But while the Lacedaemonians felt contempt for the peltasts, they felt even greater contempt for their own allies; for once, when the Mantineans went out against peltasts who had sallied forth from the wall that extends to Lechaeum, they had given way under the javelins of the peltasts and some of them had been killed as they fled; so that the Lacedaemonians were even so unkind as to make game of their allies, saying that they feared the peltasts just as children fear hobgoblins."


Exhibit 2: Hellenica IV.14-17

"And Callias formed his [Athenian] hoplites in line of battle not far from the city, while Iphicrates with his peltasts attacked the Lacedaemonian regiment. Now when the Lacedaemonians were being attacked with javelins, and several men had been wounded and several others slain, they directed the shield-bearers to take up these wounded men and carry them back to Lechaeum; and these were the only men in the regiment who were really saved. Then the polemarch ordered the first ten year-classes to drive off their assailants. [15] But when they pursued, they caught no one, since they were hoplites pursuing peltasts at the distance of a javelin's cast; for Iphicrates had given orders to the peltasts to retire before the hoplites got near them; and further, when the Lacedaemonians were retiring from the pursuit, being scattered because each man had pursued as swiftly as he could, the troops of Iphicrates turned about, and not only did those in front again hurl javelins upon the Lacedaemonians, but also others on the flank, running along to reach their unprotected side. Indeed, at the very first pursuit the peltasts shot down nine or ten of them. And as soon as this happened, they began to press the attack much more boldly. [16] Then, as the Lacedaemonians continued to suffer losses, the polemarch again ordered the first fifteen year-classes to pursue. But when these fell back, even more of them were shot down than at the first retirement. And now that the best men had already been killed, the horsemen joined them, and with the horsemen they again undertook a pursuit. But when the peltasts turned to flight, at that moment the horsemen managed their attack badly; for they did not chase the enemy until they had killed some of them, but both in the pursuit and in the turning backward kept an even front with the hoplites. And what with striving and suffering in this way again and again, the Lacedaemonians themselves kept continually becoming fewer and fainter of heart, while their enemies were becoming bolder, and those who attacked them continually more numerous. [17] Therefore in desperation they gathered together on a small hill, distant from the sea about two stadia, and from Lechaeum about sixteen or seventeen stadia. And the men in Lechaeum, upon perceiving them, embarked in small boats and coasted along until they came opposite the hill. Then the troops, being now desperate, because they were suffering and being slain, while unable to inflict any harm themselves, and, besides this, seeing the Athenian hoplites also coming against them, took to flight. And some of them plunged into the sea, and some few made their escape with the horsemen to Lechaeum. But in all the battles and in the flight about two hundred and fifty of them were killed."


Exhibit 3: Hellenica IV.6.8-12

"On the next day Agesilaus undertook to lead his army away. Now the road which led out from the meadow and plain surrounding the lake was narrow on account of the mountains which encircled it round; and the Acarnanians, taking possession of these mountains, threw stones and javelins upon the Lacedaemonians from the heights upon their right, and descending gradually to the spurs of the mountains pressed the attack and caused trouble to such an extent that the army was no longer able to proceed. [9] And when the hoplites and the horsemen left the phalanx and pursued their assailants, they could never do them any harm; for when the Acarnanians fell back, they were speedily in safe places. Then Agesilaus, thinking it a difficult matter for his troops to go out through the narrow pass under these attacks, decided to pursue the men who were attacking them on the left, very many in number; for the mountain on this side was more accessible both for hoplites and horses. [10] Now while he was sacrificing, the Acarnanians pressed them very hard with throwing stones and javelins, and coming close up to them wounded many. But when he gave the word, the first fifteen year-classes of the hoplites ran forth, the horsemen charged, and he himself with the other troops followed. [11] Then those among the Acarnanians who had come down the mountains and were throwing missiles quickly gave way and, as they tried to escape uphill, were killed one after another; on the summit, however, were the hoplites of the Acarnanians, drawn up in line of battle, and the greater part of the peltasts, and there they stood firm, and not only discharged their other missiles, but by hurling their spears struck down horsemen and killed some horses. But when they were now almost at close quarters with the Lacedaemonian hoplites, they gave way, and there fell on that day about three hundred of them. [12] When these things had taken place, Agesilaus set up a trophy."


What emerges from the above is that the younger Spartans must have been able to leave rapidly and in good order, with no delay.  Also, in the instance of the mora attacked near Lepraeum (Exhibit 2), the polemarch begins by sending out the 'first ten-year classes' and subsequently expands this to 'the first fifteen-year classes', the latter apparently being standard practice judging by the other two instances above.  This indicates some flexibility in arrangements and hence an organisation capable of utilising some or all of the 'first fifteen-year classes'.

It would appear that the reason Iphicrates' men were not caught was because they took care to remain at extreme javelin range and ran at the first sign of movement in the Spartan ranks.  In both other examples, the Spartans caught their targets.

We may note how in Exhibit 3 the 'fast hoplites' and cavalry pull away from the main formation 'when he [Agesilaus] gave the word', with Agesilaus and the other troops following, indicating prearrangement and the possibility that the younger hoplites may have been grouped in a detachment.

My own surmise is that the younger hoplites were assigned to specific files.  This would allow them to leave the formation in a forwards or backwards direction at a moment's notice without disrupting the formation or requiring it to change composition to let them out (or back in).  The alternative of assigning them to specific ranks (as Roy suggests) is also quite conceivable, although this would require them to leave sideways and would leave them devoid of organisation during the pursuit unless an alternative temporary command structure and organisation existed for this purpose.

Either way, I do not see them struggling through the rest of the formation to do their duty: they had to be able to make a swift and clean break when the word was given, especially to be able to catch peltasts who had a lead of 'a javelin's cast'.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 28, 2014, 12:04:47 PM

What emerges from the above is that the younger Spartans must have been able to leave rapidly and in good order, with no delay.  Also, in the instance of the mora attacked near Lepraeum (Exhibit 2), the polemarch begins by sending out the 'first ten-year classes' and subsequently expands this to 'the first fifteen-year classes', the latter apparently being standard practice judging by the other two instances above.  This indicates some flexibility in arrangements and hence an organisation capable of utilising some or all of the 'first fifteen-year classes'.
<snip>

My own surmise is that the younger hoplites were assigned to specific files.  This would allow them to leave the formation in a forwards or backwards direction at a moment's notice without disrupting the formation or requiring it to change composition to let them out (or back in).  The alternative of assigning them to specific ranks (as Roy suggests) is also quite conceivable, although this would require them to leave sideways and would leave them devoid of organisation during the pursuit unless an alternative temporary command structure and organisation existed for this purpose.

Either way, I do not see them struggling through the rest of the formation to do their duty: they had to be able to make a swift and clean break when the word was given, especially to be able to catch peltasts who had a lead of 'a javelin's cast'.

I agree we don't want to go over the earlier debate.  I mentioned this only for the possibility of movement with in the phalanx, while suggesting other circumstances in which we seek it.

But, to respond to you point, the only way it would work without the Spartans having to do some kind of reorganisation (even if it is closing up) would be if the younger age groups formed files on the outer edges.  If this was file based, the runners would need to deploy as they ran (remaining in files would be silly and inefficient for peltast chasing).  If the age groups were in ranks not files, the way to do this would be to stand in manoeuver order, the hoplites from that age/rank step right into the gap between files on command and run out.  Instant linear formationThe phalanx then closing up from the back and advances, closing up its frontage when (if) it needs to go to close combat.   

But even if we allow the rank hypothesis, I can't see how a hoplite phalanx could interchange ranks when closed up - not enough space.  I also think that any attempt to swap ranks in a pike phalanx with each man hauling a 6m. pole would be doomed to failure.

I don't think that young hoplites were assigned to separate files.
Firstly the file was the unit and it seems to have been linked to the mess unit which had all ages in it.
Secondly having young hoplites in a file would mean that one or more files were less experienced and more lightly armoured.

Personally I suspect that Hoplites only closed up their formation in the final approach to melee, so that when the young hoplites are running out the formation is still 8 deep before half files close up to four deep, or 16 deep before rear half of the 'file' moves forward under its file leader to make the unit 8 deep.

That would be a far easier mechanism, making hoplites more flexible on the approach, and the drill to achieve it is simple enough

Jim

I argued, I thought pretty coherently, in an earlier debate here that the age groups were disposed in particular ranks in each file. Thus the general could command , quite easily, ranks five and six to run out. If the age groupings were not so defined then the commander would be running the risk that one file would lose most of its men, another none and thus the formation be unbalanced, let alone the difficulty of the hoplites having to remember and respond to a varying call for age classes.
There is another difficulty with having files run out. The file leader and closer must be the best men and thus the most experienced. We are asked to believe that certain files contained the youngest hoplites and thus had inexperienced file leaders and closers. That would introduce a weakness both military and social into the phalanx, so I doubt they would do it

If the hoplites are in 8 classes then they can be in five year blocks and each five year group of hoplites can form one rank. All the commander has to do is to call for particular. ranks to run out.

Roy

Not only that but if Spartans were assigned to mess 'companies' so that all had a similar age spread, and mess companies provided one or two files, then each file could have men from all age bands.

All of which makes sense to us, but did it make sense to the Spartans?  Or would the existence of instantly usable 'fast files' outweigh the (to us) normal and obvious consideration of putting the grizzled veterans at the front throughout?  A Spartan youth would be more highly-trained and probably even more combat-experienced than a veteran Athenian hoplite, so the best men in such a file need not be particularly aged.

Quote from: aligern on July 28, 2014, 03:34:32 PM

If the age groupings were not so defined then the commander would be running the risk that one file would lose most of its men, another none and thus the formation be unbalanced, let alone the difficulty of the hoplites having to remember and respond to a varying call for age classes.

Given Spartan drill and training, and as Anthony observes the need to place such files on a flank for a rapid response, I see no difficulty memory-wise.  The risk of having one or more of the younger files weakened or wiped out would only apply if things went badly wrong, which was the exception rather than the rule: the incident in Exhibit 2 is the only one on record where things did go badly wrong, and there the entire unit ended up being reduced to a shadow of its former self, making any question of depleted youthful files rather academic.

Quote from: Jim Webster on July 28, 2014, 04:01:59 PM
Not only that but if Spartans were assigned to mess 'companies' so that all had a similar age spread, and mess companies provided one or two files, then each file could have men from all age bands.

Is there anything to suggest that they were?  My impression is that Spartans messed with those of similar age groups, not least because marriageable age intervened at some point, with all that that implied.

I may not have made the points clearly enough, Patrick. I would be against files being compised of the youngest hoplites for the following reasons.
1) The file leaders and closers have to be experienced men who have a deep understanding  of the drills and tactics,when to push and when to charge, how to double or halve files . They gave to have the gravitas to steady the others. That cannot be achieved by having one file in eight comprised  of juniors who will have speed, but not the staunchness required of leaders and losers.
Under your proposals complete files would be made up of juniors! How good are file leaders with only say two years experience going to be?
2) The supposed files of youngsters would emerge as a file and be in danger of the leader being tackled by two or three peltasts  if they decided to stand and trade or ran a while and then turned .

It is a much better model and more Spartan that the 6th and 7th ranks run out all at the same time  and all along the formation, presenting a consistent front to the peltasts or psiloi and driving them back.
My model has the immense advantage that the command that the general has to give is simple, it is rank 6 or ranks 6 and 7  run forward. How would the general order some files forward by age group? It is apparent that the age groups ordered out vary so he would need to order one file in eight or one in eight and one in four to charge. What command would do this?

Roy

Quote from: aligern on July 28, 2014, 08:55:57 PM

1) The file leaders and closers have to be experienced men who have a deep understanding  of the drills and tactics,when to push and when to charge, how to double or halve files .

This would be part of an ordinary Spartan youth's training, and in the Sparttan army would not, as far as I can see, require all that many years to acquire.  More important would be to select a man with judgement, and judgement is not solely dependent upon age.

Quote
Under your proposals complete files would be made up of juniors! How good are file leaders with only say two years experience going to be?

Probably very good indeed, with two years of active service under their belts, or kilts, or whatever.  :)

Quote
2) The supposed files of youngsters would emerge as a file and be in danger of the leader being tackled by two or three peltasts  if they decided to stand and trade or ran a while and then turned .

Or, if moving against an opponent on the flank, they might not.  The problem near Lepraeum was that they failed to catch the peltasts, and when they turned back they became easy targets, file leaders or no.  The peltasts would not stand because if they tried to then the rest of the hoplite unit would join in with great glee and much slaughter.

Quote
It is a much better model and more Spartan that the 6th and 7th ranks run out all at the same time  and all along the formation, presenting a consistent front to the peltasts or psiloi and driving them back.
My model has the immense advantage that the command that the general has to give is simple, it is rank 6 or ranks 6 and 7  run forward. How would the general order some files forward by age group? It is apparent that the age groups ordered out vary so he would need to order one file in eight or one in eight and one in four to charge. What command would do this?

Given the Laconic nature of Spartans, either 'deka aph' hēbēs' or 'pentekaideka aph' hēbēs'.

We may also note Hellenica II.IV.31-32:

"Then, sending ambassadors to the men in Piraeus, Pausanias bade them disperse to their homes; and when they refused to obey, he attacked them, at least so far as to raise the war-cry, in order that it might not be evident that he felt kindly toward them. And when he had retired without accomplishing anything by his attack, on the next day he took two regiments of the Lacedaemonians and three tribes of the Athenian cavalry and proceeded along the shore to the Still Harbour, looking to see where Piraeus could best be shut off by a wall.

As he was returning, some of the enemy attacked him and caused him trouble, whereupon, becoming angry, he ordered the cavalry to charge upon them at full speed, and the infantrymen within ten years of military age [deka aph' hēbēs] to follow the cavalry; while he himself with the rest of his troops came along in the rear. And they killed nearly thirty of the enemy's light troops and pursued the rest to the theatre in Piraeus."

With regard to everything I've seen about Spartan mess groups, they were a wide spread of ages

Jim

Quote from: Jim Webster on July 28, 2014, 10:30:45 PM
With regard to everything I've seen about Spartan mess groups, they were a wide spread of ages

Xenophon (Constitution of the Lacedaemonians 5.5) agrees on this point:

"Note that in other states the company usually consists of men of the same age, where modesty is apt to be conspicuous by its absence from the board. But Lycurgus introduced mixed [lacuna] at Sparta, so that the experience of the elders might contribute largely to the education of the juniors."

The key word concerning exactly what is mixed is missing from the Greek text, but the context does suggest 'ages'.

The next question is whether mixed messes mean mixed-age files.  Xenophon again:

"The prevalent opinion that the Laconian infantry formation is very complicated is the very reverse of the truth. In the Laconian formation the front rank men are all officers, and each file has all that it requires to make it efficient. [6] The formation is so easy to understand that no one who knows man from man can possibly go wrong. For some have the privilege of leading; and the rest are under orders to follow. Orders to wheel from column into line of battle are given verbally by the second lieutenant [enōmotarkhou] acting as a herald, and the line is formed either thin or deep, by wheeling. Nothing whatever in these movements is difficult to understand. [7] To be sure, the secret of carrying on in a battle with any troops at hand when the line gets into confusion is not so easy to grasp, except for soldiers trained under the laws of Lycurgus. [8]

The Lacedaemonians also carry out with perfect ease manoeuvres that instructors in tactics think very difficult. Thus, when they march in column, every section of course follows in the rear of the section in front of it. Suppose that at such a time an enemy in order of battle suddenly makes his appearance in front: the word is passed to the second lieutenant [enōmotarkhō] to deploy into line to the left, and so throughout the column until the battle-line stands facing the enemy. Or again, if the enemy appears in the rear while they are in this formation, each file [stikhos] counter-marches, in order that the best men [kratistoi] may always be face to face with the enemy.[/b] [9] True, the leader is then on the left, but instead of thinking this a disadvantage, they regard it as a positive advantage at times. For should the enemy attempt a flanking movement he would try to encircle them, not on the exposed but on the protected side. If, however, it seems better for any reason that the leader should be on the right wing, the left wing wheels, and the army counter-marches by ranks until the leader is on the right, and the rear of the column on the left. [10] If, on the other hand, an enemy force appears on the right when they are marching in column, all that they have to do is to order each company [lokhon] to wheel to the right so as to front the enemy like a man-of-war, and thus again the company at the rear of the column is on the right. If again an enemy approaches on the left, they do not allow that either, but either push him back or wheel their companies to the left to face him, and thus the rear of the column finds itself on the left. " - Constitution of the Lacedaemonians 11.8-10

Unfortunately he does not specify whether the file leaders are older veterans, but he refers to them as 'kratistoi' - the best or most capable - and not as 'presbutatoi', seniors.

Actually kratistoi or 'the best' often means the aristocrats but I'm not sure about that in a Spartan context

Jim

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 08, 2014, 12:10:18 PM
Dragging out Polybius, Book XVIII, we get:

In my sixth book I made a promise, still unfulfilled, of taking a fitting opportunity of drawing a comparison between the arms of the Romans and Macedonians, and their respective system of tactics, and pointing out how they differ for better or worse from each other. I will now endeavour by a reference to actual facts to fulfil that promise. For since in former times the Macedonian tactics proved themselves by experience capable of conquering those of Asia and Greece; while the Roman tactics sufficed to conquer the nations of Africa and all those of Western Europe; and since in our own day there have been numerous opportunities of comparing the men as well as their tactics,—it will be, I think, a useful and worthy task to investigate their differences, and discover why it is that the Romans conquer and carry off the palm from their enemies in the operations of war: that we may not put it all down to Fortune, and congratulate them on their good luck, as the thoughtless of mankind do; but, from a knowledge of the true causes, may give their leaders the tribute of praise and admiration which they deserve. - Polybius XVIII.28.1-5

He details the Macedonian phalanx thus:

Quote
Many considerations may easily convince us that, if only the phalanx has its proper formation and strength, nothing can resist it face to face or withstand its charge. For as a man in close order of battle occupies a space of three feet; and as the length of the sarissae is sixteen cubits according to the original design, which has been reduced in practice to fourteen; and as of these fourteen four must be deducted, to allow for the distance between the two hands holding it, and to balance the weight in front; it follows clearly that each hoplite will have ten cubits of his sarissae projecting beyond his body, when he lowers it with both hands, as he advances against the enemy: hence, too, though the men of the second, third, and fourth rank will have their sarissae projecting farther beyond the front rank than the men of the fifth, yet even these last will have two cubits of their sarissae beyond the front rank; if only the phalanx is properly formed and the men close up properly both flank and rear, like the description in Homer —
"So buckler pressed on buckler; helm on helm;
And man on man: and waving horse-hair plumes
In polished head-piece mingled, as they swayed
In order: in such serried rank they stood." - [Iliad, XIII.131.]
And if my description is true and exact, it is clear that in front of each man of the front rank there will be five sarissae projecting to distances varying by a descending scale of two cubits.

With this point in our minds, it will not be difficult to imagine what the appearance and strength of the whole phalanx is likely to be, when, with lowered sarissae, it advances to the charge sixteen deep. Of these sixteen ranks, all above the fifth are unable to reach with their sarissae far enough to take actual part in the fighting. They, therefore, do not lower them, but hold them with the points inclined upwards over the shoulders of the ranks in front of them, to shield the heads of the whole phalanx; for the sarissae are so closely serried, that they repel missiles which have carried over the front ranks and might fall upon the heads of those in the rear. These rear ranks, however, during an advance, press forward those in front by the weight of their bodies; and thus make the charge very forcible, and at the same time render it impossible for the front ranks to face about.

Such is the arrangement, general and detailed, of the phalanx.

Homer's actual quote is:

"... they that were the chosen bravest abode the onset of the Trojans and goodly Hector, [130] fencing spear with spear, and shield with serried shield; buckler pressed on buckler, helm on helm, and man on man; and the horse-hair crests on the bright helmet-ridges touched each other, as the men moved their heads, in such close array stood they one by another, and spears in stout hands overlapped each other, as they were brandished, [135] and their minds swerved not, but they were fain to fight."

Polybius has thus taken half his quote out of context, apparently to add to an impression he wishes to convey to the reader.

The point that catches our interest is this:

"Of these sixteen ranks, all above the fifth are unable to reach with their sarissae far enough to take actual part in the fighting. They, therefore, do not lower them, but hold them with the points inclined upwards over the shoulders of the ranks in front of them, to shield the heads of the whole phalanx; for the sarissae are so closely serried, that they repel missiles which have carried over the front ranks and might fall upon the heads of those in the rear. These rear ranks, however, during an advance, press forward those in front by the weight of their bodies; and thus make the charge very forcible, and at the same time render it impossible for the front ranks to face about."

Polybius thus gives us two reasons for the sixteen-man depth:
1) Protection from missiles, which is provided by pikes sloping over 'the heads of the whole phalanx'.
2) Impact and sustained pressure, provided by the rear ranks who 'press forward those in front by the weight of their bodies and thus make the charge very forcible'.

I think Polybius has got his arithmetic wrong. If a sarissa is 14 cubits long (about 21 feet), and 4 cubits of it project backwards (about 6 feet), then the second rank must be at least 6 feet behind the first. If not, they will most likely suffer very painful injuries to their knees or thighs. This is especially true in the jabbing model of sarissa combat. If the phalangite in front of you is alternately prodding his sarissa forward, then drawing it back, attempting to stick a moving target, the butt spike of his sarissa will be approximately as large a danger to his colleague behind him as the point is to the enemy in front. In the pushing-and-shoving model, the butt spike could be managed more easily, though this model might well have compensating drawbacks.

Anyway, mathematical logic suggests that the number of ranks whose spear points extend in front of the front rank depends not on the length of the sarissa, but rather on where the phalangite can best grip it. Let's suppose that the best grip is where 6 feet project backwards and 15 feet project forwards. Now, because the second rank must be clear of the rear projection, the spacing of ranks must be at 6 foot intervals. Therefore, 15 divided by 6 is 2 and a half, i.e. the spear points of the front rank and the next 2 ranks will project in front of the front rank. Now, let's double the length of our sarissai to 42 feet, but in order to maintain balance and a controlled grip, we now need to grip it where 12 feet project behind and 30 feet in front. Doing the same calculation again produces exactly the same result, i.e. 3 rows of spear points project in front of the first rank. The only difference is that the rank intervals between the spear points has now doubled from 6 feet to 12.

All this is just logic, but it suggests that 5 ranks of protruding spear points could only be achieved by keeping the rear projection down to 3 feet, which would mean 18 feet of sarissa projecting forwards. Someone needs to find out the weight of a sarissa and calculate how heavy and unwieldy it would feel if held in such an unbalanced manner. I guess it would be significantly more tiring than holding the Alexandrian sarissa of 14 or 15 feet and also it would be correspondingly more difficult to direct the point of the weapon at the desired target. Also, note that Alexander's phalangites still could not have managed to have more than 3 or 4 (just) points in front of the first rank.

Of course, all this is slightly off-subject. The question is why have more than 5 ranks. My guess is that they usually didn't. They might have doubled ranks in order to double spacing. This would be useful for allowing skirmishers to move through the phalanx between front an rear, for example. Alternatively, they might have doubled ranks in order to get through a narrow gap between an obstacle and their neighbouring unit. But when they wanted to get to grips with the enemy on the battlefield, I should think the need not to be outflanked would prevent forming up more than 8 deep.

Quote from: gridnash on August 12, 2014, 01:07:47 PMI think Polybius has got his arithmetic wrong. If a sarissa is 14 cubits long (about 21 feet), and 4 cubits of it project backwards (about 6 feet), then the second rank must be at least 6 feet behind the first. If not, they will most likely suffer very painful injuries to their knees or thighs.

I think you've misread it. Polybios says:

Quotethese fourteen four must be deducted, to allow for the distance between the two hands holding it, and to balance the weight in front

So you've got about two cubits between the left hand and the right, and only two cubits projecting behind you.

Which (if the files are perfectly lined up) goes neatly beside the man behind you anyway, not into his legs.

Quote from: gridnash on August 12, 2014, 01:07:47 PM

Someone needs to find out the weight of a sarissa and calculate how heavy and unwieldy it would feel if held in such an unbalanced manner.

I think the accepted figure is about 22 pounds.  This would include (if I remember correctly) about 14-15 pounds of sarissa and 7-8 pounds of butt counterweight.  Held as Polybius specifies, it would be nicely balanced. 

Hellenistic engineers counterweighted everything they possibly could for ease of handling, the ultimate expression of this being Archimedes' ship-grabbing machines, which could be operated by one man (see Polybius VIII.8 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D8%3Achapter%3D8)).

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 12, 2014, 08:16:30 PM
I think the accepted figure is about 22 pounds.  This would include (if I remember correctly) about 14-15 pounds of sarissa and 7-8 pounds of butt counterweight.  Held as Polybius specifies, it would be nicely balanced. 

A quick google produces a range of estimates and calculations from 12- 18 lbs (5.45 - 8.25 kg), most popular being 14lbs (6.4kg).  I don't know how accurate these are, but some are quite scientific (see for example Delbruck, who refers to the density of various different possible woods).

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 12, 2014, 08:16:30 PM

Quote from: gridnash on August 12, 2014, 01:07:47 PM

Someone needs to find out the weight of a sarissa and calculate how heavy and unwieldy it would feel if held in such an unbalanced manner.

I think the accepted figure is about 22 pounds.  This would include (if I remember correctly) about 14-15 pounds of sarissa and 7-8 pounds of butt counterweight.

There is no universally accepted weight - it depends mostly whether you go for the Andronicus/Markle version with the big spearhead and thick shaft of uniform length, or the Connolly/Sekunda versions with tapered shaft and small head. Markle's 1977 reconstruction, at 18 feet/12 cubits, weighed 14.5lb/6.58 kg including 1.07kg buttspike and 1.235kg big spearhead. Connolly's (JRMES 11, 2000) 12-cubit tapering version weighed 4.050kg/8lb 15oz (including a similar butt but the .097 kg smaller Vergina spearhead. Increase as required for 14-cubit shafts.

The hetairoi at http://hetairoi.de/en/living-history/experience-reports/sarissa-experiment/  (http://hetairoi.de/en/living-history/experience-reports/sarissa-experiment/) annoyingly don't give weights for their reconstructions.

Thanks, Duncan.

Naturally our friends at hetairoi.de decided to use ash instead of dogwood for the shafts and the results are a bit bendy.

The 12-cubit version seems to weigh in at around 9 pounds of weight for 18 feet of wood.  If we take 0.5 lbs per foot of wood as a working figure, we might try estimating the weight and configuration of a counterweighted sarisa, such as might be used by a 16-rank phalanx.


In the absence of clear guidelines I suggest the following, based on instinct and a bit of mechanics, for a 21' (14-cubit) weapon:

1) The point of balance could be at the right hand (3' from the butt).  This allows the left hand to control the shaft, which would be be useful for changing between upright, angled and level positions and holding the sarisa in these positions.

2) Ergo, the butt plus 3' (1.5 lbs) of wood needs to balance 18' (9 lbs) of wood plus the spearhead.

3) The butt thus has to weigh the difference of 7.5 pounds (9 minus 1.5) plus the weight of the spearhead.

4) Assume a one-pound (smaller Vergina-type) spearhead and the butt has to weigh 8.5 pounds.

5) This would give a total presumed weight of 8.5lbs butt + 1 lb spearhead + 10.5 lbs wood = 20 lbs for the sarisa.


If the point of balance is at the left hand, the figures change as follows:

1) The right hand now controls the shaft, which leaves the left hand as a pivot, perhaps a better arrangement as it also has a shield to manage, though potentially more tiring to hold upright.

2) The butt plus 6' (3 lbs) of wood has to balance the spearhead plus 15' (7.5 lbs) of wood.

3) The butt thus has to weigh the difference of 4.5 pounds (7.5 minus 3) plus the weight of the spearhead.

4) Again assuming a one-pound (smaller Vergina-type) spearhead, the butt has to weigh 5.5 pounds.

5) This would give a total presumed weight of 5.5lbs butt + 1 lb spearhead + 10.5 lbs wood = 17 lbs for the sarisa.


This obviously differs somewhat from the Vergina components, which may relate to a different weapon.

Here are Delbruck's figure for a 6.5m/21ft sarissa for comparison :

Shaft (seasoned ash, tapering 5cm diameter to 3cm diameter) 5.6kg/12.3lb
Head 0.27kg/0.6lb
Counterweight 2.4kg/5.3lb

Total weight 8.27kg/18.2lbs.

Delbruck, incidentally, notes both pine and cornel wood are denser than ash, so the weapon would be heavier if using these woods.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 13, 2014, 10:30:54 AM
Naturally our friends at hetairoi.de decided to use ash instead of dogwood for the shafts and the results are a bit bendy.

Sekunda ("The Sarissa", Acta Universitatis Lodziensis - Folia Archaeologica (23) 2001) argues for ash. He points out that Theophrastus says that the male cornel/dogwood grows "as high as the longest sarissai", but doesn't actually say that the wood is used for making sarissai. He argues ash is far more suitable, but I can't recall at the moment whether he has a specific citation for it or not.

Quote from: Duncan Head on August 13, 2014, 11:03:51 AMHe argues ash is far more suitable, but I can't recall at the moment whether he has a specific citation for it or not.

Here we go:

Quote from: Statius, Theb. VII.269The Macedonians by custom shake ash sarissai.
fraxineas Macetum vibrant de more sarisas

Sekunda goes on to say:

QuoteStatius is a most unsatisfactory source for information on weaponry, being much given to mentioning items of military equipment as improbable as bark shields etc., but this remains our only piece of evidence for the wood of the shaft of the sarissa from ancient sources.

Thanks, Duncan.   Unfortunately there are quite a few ash species (http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Fraxinus?lang=en), and Arrian (I.15) refers to Companions using 'xustois kraneinois' (dogwood lances), making one wonder if there was a good reason for not using the sturdier dogwood for the sarisa.

Having a quick look through the Perseus frequency list for 'kraneinos' indicates that Xenophon (Horsemanship 12.12) recommends "two Persian javelins of cornel wood" in place of "the spear with a long shaft, seeing that it is both weak and awkward to manage"; in Hellenica III.4.14. when Agesilaus' cavalry charge the Persians. "When they came to a hand-to-hand encounter, all of the Greeks who struck anyone broke their spears (dorata), while the barbarians, being armed with javelins (palta) of cornel-wood, speedily killed twelve men and two horses."  Herodotus' (VII.92) Lycians and Pausanias' (I.21.5) Sarmatians both use cornel-wood bows.

None of which necessarily helps to establish what the sarissa was made from, but it does seem that dogwood was regarded as a superior wood for weaponry purposes.

Yes, Arrian mentions cornel xysta, and Xenophon has Persian cornel palta, and Theophrastus himself says that the heartwood of the "female" cornel tree is useless for akontia (implying that the "male" tree was so used; but no-one mentions cornel-wood sarissai. Sekunda thinks that the strength of cornel is valuable for shorter weapons, but for sarissai:

(a) cornel is too heavy. Fine for shorter weapons, but Markle's calculations reckon 9+ pounds for a 15-foot cornel-wood shaft (without head or butt) whereas 17th-century sources cite a 17-foot German pike at 7 lb and a 16.5 foot Dutch example at 5.5 - probably both ash, as he cites other C17 sources for ash pikes, not clear if these figures are just for the wood or if spearheads are included;

(b) cornel is rarely long enough to make a pikeshaft in one piece; Theophrastus says that the "male" cornel is "at most 12 cubits, the length of the longest sarissai..." - so rarely long enough even for 4th-century sarissai let alone the later 14- or 16-cubit jobs;

(c) "... the stem up to the point at which it divides (into branches) not being very tall" - so the straight trunk length is even shorter.

(I'm not sure he's correct in using (b) and (c) as separate arguments, or if Theo is saying that the tree is at most 12 cubits up to the point where it divides.)

In contrast "The ash is without equal among European trees for providing long straight timbers without faults or flaws in the grain".

Which may bring us back to the famous 'joining sleeve' ... it would be nice if the original Head conclusion turned out to be right after all!

I would regard the jury as still being out on this one.  On the one hand, ash has a long and honourable history of providing shafts for some quite long weapons (not least Achilles' spear); on the other, dogwood (cornel-wood) seems to be the shaft of choice for really tough, heavy-duty woodwork.

Then again, we have Xenophon's bending/snapping Greek cavalry spears and the bending pikeshafts of our bold German reconstructuralists.  Either the type of ash was too soft in each case (and a harder variety would have sufficed) or ash simply was not up to the job in any of its available varieties.

A comparatively thicker ash shaft would of course provide greater strength and resilience, but this would seem to lose the weight advantage of ash over dogwood.

I begin to wonder if perhaps sarisai may have been made in both ash and dogwood versions.  The latter would, given Theophrastus' height strictures (which pretty much coincide with the examples in my garden), require a shaft joined in the middle for later Successor pikes, whereas ash could in theory supply pikeshafts of any desired length.  The advantage of having sarisa shafts produced in either material would be that they could probably be made to a standard weight and length with little to choose in terms of tensile strength between a thicker ash or thinner dogwood shaft.  This is of course pure hypothesis.

Polybius is unfortunately quiet on this subject, which in his time would have been so universally known that he would not have felt the need to detail it.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 14, 2014, 10:38:20 AM
Which may bring us back to the famous 'joining sleeve' ... it would be nice if the original Head conclusion turned out to be right after all!

It's the original Andronicus conclusion, to be fair. Sekunda doesn't discuss the "sleeve" in that article. I have seen various other suggestions as to what it might be.

QuoteI begin to wonder if perhaps sarisai may have been made in both ash and dogwood versions.  The latter would, given Theophrastus' height strictures (which pretty much coincide with the examples in my garden), require a shaft joined in the middle for later Successor pikes, whereas ash could in theory supply pikeshafts of any desired length.  The advantage of having sarisa shafts produced in either material would be that they could probably be made to a standard weight and length with little to choose in terms of tensile strength between a thicker ash or thinner dogwood shaft.  This is of course pure hypothesis.

It's possible. I regard Statius as fairly strong evidence that some sarisai were made of ash, but he doesn't prove that they always were.

Quote from: Duncan Head on August 14, 2014, 10:45:09 AM
It's possible. I regard Statius as fairly strong evidence that some sarisai were made of ash, but he doesn't prove that they always were.

Incidentally, is there any evidence for the use of pine?  Delbruck, as I've said, considered ash, cornel and pine.  Was this speculation on his part or had he some evidence to back it up?

Quote from: Erpingham on August 14, 2014, 11:30:53 AM

Incidentally, is there any evidence for the use of pine?  Delbruck, as I've said, considered ash, cornel and pine.  Was this speculation on his part or had he some evidence to back it up?

A good question.  If we take the standard interpretation of Nahum, then some variety of pine was apparently used for this purpose by the Assyrians:

"The shields of his soldiers are red; the warriors are clad in scarlet. The metal on the chariots flashes on the day they are made ready; the spears of pine are brandished*." - Nahum 2.3

*u.e.brshim.erolu. literally: "the fir trees are shaken"

Pine is generally considered a bit soft for spearshafts, but firs and spruces seem to have fulfilled the role in various parts of Europe.  Apparently, though, one of the Schoeningen spears (http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Sch%C3%B6ningen_Spears) (actually javelins), the oldest weapon shafts known to exist (they were found in a lignite mine and are estimated to be 300,000 years old), is made from pine.

So there is some basis for considering pine as a material.  I suspect that spruce or even fir might be preferable, though.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 14, 2014, 08:15:21 PM

Quote from: Erpingham on August 14, 2014, 11:30:53 AM

Incidentally, is there any evidence for the use of pine?  Delbruck, as I've said, considered ash, cornel and pine.  Was this speculation on his part or had he some evidence to back it up?

A good question.  If we take the standard interpretation of Nahum, then some variety of pine was apparently used for this purpose by the Assyrians:

"The shields of his soldiers are red; the warriors are clad in scarlet. The metal on the chariots flashes on the day they are made ready; the spears of pine are brandished*." - Nahum 2.3

*u.e.brshim.erolu. literally: "the fir trees are shaken"

Pine is generally considered a bit soft for spearshafts, but firs and spruces seem to have fulfilled the role in various parts of Europe.  Apparently, though, one of the Schoeningen spears (http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Sch%C3%B6ningen_Spears) (actually javelins), the oldest weapon shafts known to exist (they were found in a lignite mine and are estimated to be 300,000 years old), is made from pine.

So there is some basis for considering pine as a material.  I suspect that spruce or even fir might be preferable, though.

I have worked with wood for some time and I can tell you, pine is not a wood useful for making the shaft of a weapons. You can make it but it will splitter very quickly. There are many better woods, stronger enough.

Quote from: Duncan Head on August 12, 2014, 01:30:37 PM

Quote from: gridnash on August 12, 2014, 01:07:47 PMI think Polybius has got his arithmetic wrong. If a sarissa is 14 cubits long (about 21 feet), and 4 cubits of it project backwards (about 6 feet), then the second rank must be at least 6 feet behind the first. If not, they will most likely suffer very painful injuries to their knees or thighs.

I think you've misread it. Polybios says:

Quotethese fourteen four must be deducted, to allow for the distance between the two hands holding it, and to balance the weight in front

So you've got about two cubits between the left hand and the right, and only two cubits projecting behind you.

Which (if the files are perfectly lined up) goes neatly beside the man behind you anyway, not into his legs.

I can believe files being perfectly lined up on a drill square, but not in a melee against a vigorous and determined enemy. With all the jabbing and lunging of live combat, I would expect people to get out of line very quickly, in which case anything like a sharp butt spike would be a very nasty health hazard to friendly troops. (Incidentally, another question is what on earth is the point of a sharp and fluted butt spike as in the Vergina collection? It's completely useless as a counterweight, so what other purpose did it serve?)

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 13, 2014, 10:30:54 AM
Thanks, Duncan.

Naturally our friends at hetairoi.de decided to use ash instead of dogwood for the shafts and the results are a bit bendy.

The 12-cubit version seems to weigh in at around 9 pounds of weight for 18 feet of wood.  If we take 0.5 lbs per foot of wood as a working figure, we might try estimating the weight and configuration of a counterweighted sarisa, such as might be used by a 16-rank phalanx.


In the absence of clear guidelines I suggest the following, based on instinct and a bit of mechanics, for a 21' (14-cubit) weapon:

1) The point of balance could be at the right hand (3' from the butt).  This allows the left hand to control the shaft, which would be be useful for changing between upright, angled and level positions and holding the sarisa in these positions.

2) Ergo, the butt plus 3' (1.5 lbs) of wood needs to balance 18' (9 lbs) of wood plus the spearhead.

3) The butt thus has to weigh the difference of 7.5 pounds (9 minus 1.5) plus the weight of the spearhead.

4) Assume a one-pound (smaller Vergina-type) spearhead and the butt has to weigh 8.5 pounds.

5) This would give a total presumed weight of 8.5lbs butt + 1 lb spearhead + 10.5 lbs wood = 20 lbs for the sarisa.


If the point of balance is at the left hand, the figures change as follows:

1) The right hand now controls the shaft, which leaves the left hand as a pivot, perhaps a better arrangement as it also has a shield to manage, though potentially more tiring to hold upright.

2) The butt plus 6' (3 lbs) of wood has to balance the spearhead plus 15' (7.5 lbs) of wood.

3) The butt thus has to weigh the difference of 4.5 pounds (7.5 minus 3) plus the weight of the spearhead.

4) Again assuming a one-pound (smaller Vergina-type) spearhead, the butt has to weigh 5.5 pounds.

5) This would give a total presumed weight of 5.5lbs butt + 1 lb spearhead + 10.5 lbs wood = 17 lbs for the sarisa.


This obviously differs somewhat from the Vergina components, which may relate to a different weapon.

This is exactly the kind of calculation I was hoping to do. The greeks may have been brilliant counterweighters, but the question is how big a counterweight do you need, and how heavy is the sarissa once the counterweight is installed? Patrick has very helpfully addressed these questions. I looked up my old maths books to refresh my memory on Newtonian mechanics and it seems that Patrick's method is not quite right. You need to 'take moments' about the point of balance, which means taking account of the leverage exerted by forces acting at a distance from that point. We have four forces as follows: (i) the weight of the counterweight at the butt; (ii) the weight of timber between the butt and the right hand; (iii) the weight of the timber in front of the right hand; (iv) the weight of the spear point. We assume the timber weights act at the mid-point of their respective lengths. The equation you need is as follows. If the unknown weight of the counterweight is x lbs, and we measure lengths in feet, we need x * 3  +  1.5 * 1.5 to be equal to 9 * 9 + 1 * 18. This means x = (81 + 18 - 2.25)/3 lb, which comes to 32.5lb. Added to the weight of the rest of the weapon (11.5lb according to Peter), this gives us a sarissa of 44lb. This is heavy. If anyone fancies a quick bit of re-enactment, I'd suggest a quick trip to Wickes or B&Q, where it will only take a minute to appreciate the weight of a 25kg bag of sand, which is not much heavier.

Things are easier for the poor soldier if he balances his sarissa in his left hand. Here we have x * 6 + 3 * 3 = 7.5 * 7.5 + 1 * 15. This means x = ( 56.25 + 15 - 9)/6 lb, i.e. counterweight weighs a much more reasonable 10.375lbs and the whole sarissa weighs only about 22lbs. However, if we still insist that only 3ft of sarissa should be projecting behind the soldier, the poor fellow will be holding a weight of 22lbs at a distance of 2 or 3 feet from his body, so the weight will feel a lot more. Try it with a heavy briefcase or shopping bag sometime: it's roughly equivalent to holding 5 laptops at arm's length!

I was really inspired by the German reconstructors. It would be really great to read their eventual report of how a number of sarissophoroi would fit together, but even the exercise of trying to make a single sarissa shows (surprisingly) that 3cm of ash is too floppy at the length required and the tapered design seems a lot more promising as a viable weapon. Unfortunately, the above calculations are a lot more complex with tapered shafts, so I have not attempted them.

Quote from: gridnash on August 15, 2014, 10:20:42 PM

I looked up my old maths books to refresh my memory on Newtonian mechanics and it seems that Patrick's method is not quite right. You need to 'take moments' about the point of balance, which means taking account of the leverage exerted by forces acting at a distance from that point. We have four forces as follows: (i) the weight of the counterweight at the butt; (ii) the weight of timber between the butt and the right hand; (iii) the weight of the timber in front of the right hand; (iv) the weight of the spear point.

Simon is right about taking the mid-point (sorry, chaps), but in fact we need only two 'forces': the mid-point of butt-to-point-of-balance and the mid-point of sharp-end-to point-of-balance.  However splitting each of these into a separate 'force' for the wood and for the metal should give the same result, not to mention making it easier to arrive at 'x' (the unknown weight).

Quote
We assume the timber weights act at the mid-point of their respective lengths. The equation you need is as follows. If the unknown weight of the counterweight is x lbs, and we measure lengths in feet, we need x * 3  +  1.5 * 1.5 to be equal to 9 * 9 + 1 * 18. This means x = (81 + 18 - 2.25)/3 lb, which comes to 32.5lb. Added to the weight of the rest of the weapon (11.5lb according to Peter), this gives us a sarissa of 44lb. This is heavy. If anyone fancies a quick bit of re-enactment, I'd suggest a quick trip to Wickes or B&Q, where it will only take a minute to appreciate the weight of a 25kg bag of sand, which is not much heavier.

Things are easier for the poor soldier if he balances his sarissa in his left hand. Here we have x * 6 + 3 * 3 = 7.5 * 7.5 + 1 * 15. This means x = ( 56.25 + 15 - 9)/6 lb, i.e. counterweight weighs a much more reasonable 10.375lbs and the whole sarissa weighs only about 22lbs. However, if we still insist that only 3ft of sarissa should be projecting behind the soldier, the poor fellow will be holding a weight of 22lbs at a distance of 2 or 3 feet from his body, so the weight will feel a lot more. Try it with a heavy briefcase or shopping bag sometime: it's roughly equivalent to holding 5 laptops at arm's length!

As luck would have it, I have a personal benchmark for using a 40-pound 'polearm'.  Having had to cut down a mountain ash which was growing outside my bedroom, I could not resist giving the tidied-up trunk a weigh-in (40 lbs) and a run through some pike manoeuvres.  While the item itself was indeed heavy, holding it at the point of balance (with the left hand) made it surprisingly easy to carry and, astonishingly, effortless to change positions between upright, sloped and level.  I could even charge quite easily with it, although stopping in a hurry was a bit less easy.

Having carried 30-pound sacks of cat litter earlier in life, I was really surprised that a 40-pound log-pikeshaft about 12' in length was so easy to manage.  Conversely, trying to hold/carry it not at the point of balance made it almost impossible to handle.

Quote
the poor fellow will be holding a weight of 22lbs at a distance of 2 or 3 feet from his body, so the weight will feel a lot more. Try it with a heavy briefcase or shopping bag sometime: it's roughly equivalent to holding 5 laptops at arm's length!

Actually it is not like that at all: the upper arm from shoulder to elbow rests on the chest and takes about 95% of the load; the distance from the body is only a foot or so.  Distance between hands is still about 3' because the right hand is level with or just behind the body.

Quote
I can believe files being perfectly lined up on a drill square, but not in a melee against a vigorous and determined enemy. With all the jabbing and lunging of live combat, I would expect people to get out of line very quickly ...

But would there be any 'jabbing and lunging'?  Macedonians seemed to go in for a straight everyone-together advance letting the points and momentum do all the work without wasting energy on 'foyning', which would indeed mess up a formation.  Given the impetus of the men (especially with the files behind adding a bit of push) and the weight and sharpness of the weapon, the opponent would be thoroughly penetrated if he added the weight of his own charge or just pushed back otherwise, judging by what happened to the Romans at Cynoscephalae and Pydna.

At Atrax, where a phalanx defended a gap in the wall, the impression Livy gives is that the Macedonian pikemen just stood there in formation and the Romans completely failed to make any impression on the wall of pike points before them.  No jabbing, no lunging, just steady patience.

Anyway, to move on to one positive aspect that seems to be emerging, I think Simon and I would both conclude that the point of balance should be the left hand, and that 22lbs looks like a realistic weight for the sarisa.

Quote
(Incidentally, another question is what on earth is the point of a sharp and fluted butt spike as in the Vergina collection? It's completely useless as a counterweight, so what other purpose did it serve?)

That is something I wondered, too: it may belong to another weapon, not a pike.  One wonders about the 'logkhe' Arrian places in the hand of the somatophylax (inner circle bodyguard) in Alexander's tent in the occasion of Cleitus' death (Arrian IV.8 ).  A 'logkhe' is usually considered to be a dual-purpose 6' long throwing/melee weapon.  The designation may cover the kind of short spear that might be expected to be in the hand of a bodyguard in a tent, even quite a large tent.  Such a weapon would find a butt-spike very useful, or at least the holder would, as it would allow him to rest the end on (or in) the ground during his shift.

Assuming it was a dual-use weapon, the flutes on the butt spike would act in much the same way as feathers on an arrow, keeping it steady in flight.

Although using a completely different technique, Renaissance pikemen could effectively use 17-19ft pikes with only three feet behind the shoulder and with no counterweight.  This suggests we should be cautious arguing from body mechanics that Macedonians couldn't do it with counterweighted 22 ft pikes.

On foyning (aka pike fencing), I agree.  As Sir John Smythe says, foyning opens the formation out - not good.  Straight thrusting, though, is a different matter.  Smythe recommends a unified thrust coming into contact.  While this by no means means that Macedonians did this, we need to distinguish the two techniques.

Smythe, who had an opinion on everything, also recommends use of the lighter, stiffer ash, not the heavy, saggy kind.  I'm guessing he is talking about seasoned against green timber.  Again, this may have been an issue for our Hellenistic subjects and their pike weights.  Note Delbruck's reconstruction uses seasoned wood and still achieves a weight above 18lbs.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 16, 2014, 11:20:34 AM

At Atrax, where a phalanx defended a gap in the wall, the impression Livy gives is that the Macedonian pikemen just stood there in formation and the Romans completely failed to make any impression on the wall of pike points before them.  No jabbing, no lunging, just steady patience.

Probably for a different thread, but if pila were ineffective against massed infantry standing in a confined space protected only by body armour, small round shields and a number of thin wooden poles, in what conceivable circumstances could they be effective? This is particularly puzzling given that most popular sets of wargame rules for this period seem to grant pilum throwing Romans a substantial advantage over pikemen in the first bound of melee.

Patrick's experiments with his mountain ash provide valuable insights, but I would still really like to see a couple of rugby teams' worth of blokes form up in a phalanx and demonstrate the awesome power of sarissai in action. You would imagine some enlightened organization might generously fund such a worthwhile research project.

We live in hope.  :)

Quote from: gridnash on August 16, 2014, 09:08:06 PM

Probably for a different thread, but if pila were ineffective against massed infantry standing in a confined space protected only by body armour, small round shields and a number of thin wooden poles, in what conceivable circumstances could they be effective? This is particularly puzzling given that most popular sets of wargame rules for this period seem to grant pilum throwing Romans a substantial advantage over pikemen in the first bound of melee.

Where one pikeman would easily be shot down by one pilum-using legionary, a formation of pikemen with an overhead forest of pike protection seems to have been immune.  A 3-4 lbs pilum touching a (say) 22 lbs pike will have the impetus taken right out of it, and with eleven ranks of pikemen on an 18" frontage covering the formation with sloping shafts there is not much of a way in for anything hurled in a trajectory that crosses the shafts rather than coming in directly down the 'grain'.

Polybius (who as an Achaean cavalry commander was no stranger to phalanx formations) reckoned that a legion had no chance frontally against a sarissa phalanx, which seems to be borne out by the opening stages of Cynoscephalae and Pydna.  I think the said wargame rules are simply wrong, a legacy of a long-standing misconception that legion and pike formations were somehow equal and opposite.  Reality was not like that.

Pila were quite effective against massed infantry who were not pikemen: see Caesar's campaigns in Gaul (Gallic War, especially I.25 against the Helvetii (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0001%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D25)) and Hirtius' (Spanish War) account of Munda (I quote the relevant bit here):

"And so though both sides showed equal vigour in both [the war shout and the 'congressus' or approach] when the pila were thrown, great numbers of the enemy were hit and fell in heaps." - Spanish War 31

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 17, 2014, 12:16:51 PM
We live in hope.  :)

Quote from: gridnash on August 16, 2014, 09:08:06 PM

Probably for a different thread, but if pila were ineffective against massed infantry standing in a confined space protected only by body armour, small round shields and a number of thin wooden poles, in what conceivable circumstances could they be effective? This is particularly puzzling given that most popular sets of wargame rules for this period seem to grant pilum throwing Romans a substantial advantage over pikemen in the first bound of melee.

Where one pikeman would easily be shot down by one pilum-using legionary, a formation of pikemen with an overhead forest of pike protection seems to have been immune.  A 3-4 lbs pilum touching a (say) 22 lbs pike will have the impetus taken right out of it, and with eleven ranks of pikemen on an 18" frontage covering the formation with sloping shafts there is not much of a way in for anything hurled in a trajectory that crosses the shafts rather than coming in directly down the 'grain'.

Polybius (who as an Achaean cavalry commander was no stranger to phalanx formations) reckoned that a legion had no chance frontally against a sarissa phalanx, which seems to be borne out by the opening stages of Cynoscephalae and Pydna.  I think the said wargame rules are simply wrong, a legacy of a long-standing misconception that legion and pike formations were somehow equal and opposite.  Reality was not like that.

Pila were quite effective against massed infantry who were not pikemen: see Caesar's campaigns in Gaul (Gallic War, especially I.25 against the Helvetii (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0001%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D25)) and Hirtius' (Spanish War) account of Munda (I quote the relevant bit here):

"And so though both sides showed equal vigour in both [the war shout and the 'congressus' or approach] when the pila were thrown, great numbers of the enemy were hit and fell in heaps." - Spanish War 31

You should even take into account that Pila were designed to Pierce wooden Shields and pikemen had bronze or bronze covered Shields which prevented piercing from pilum, so the primary task of pilum was lost. The forest of pikes could complete the task intercepting and slowing some of the Pila. Anyway I would not feel so confident being in a phalanx against hundreds pilum thrown at me. My personal idea is that Pila were less eff3ctive than usual but still effective. If only 50% of Pila found a target different from a shield, a pike or a helmet (which were quite heavy to protect against missiles), and in a dense packed formation it could probably happen, it would cause quite some damage to the phalanx formation. Good thing was that each legionary carried only 2 Pila so this damage could be only during first stages of the battle. If phalanx held formation, it could fight on.

We assume 2were carried into battle, but there us doubt.

I don't know of any artistic depictions, and there is the immense impracticality of carrying a second when fighting.

Adrian goldsworthy , i rexall rwading, suggested there may only be one taken, with a choice of long or short range, depending ( i.e. Why take a short range heavy pila to assault a wall).

We should be even more sceptical about "if only 50% hit" logic.
It pre supposes 100% throwable by calm trained men at effective range targets which do not get out of the way.
especially for a short range missile weapon designed for a swift follow up which is impossible against pikes.

Quote from: Mark G on August 17, 2014, 06:22:18 PM
We assume 2were carried into battle, but there us doubt.

I don't know of any artistic depictions, and there is the immense impracticality of carrying a second when fighting.

Although, given the tendency of other inhabitants to lug round multiple spears and javelins revealed in the Early Italian thread, one might suggest they did start with two pila.  Dropping to one might reveal the weapon becoming more difficult to handle (bulkier?) or a tactical shift, with less emphasis on throwing missiles, more on "chuck & charge".

Quote
a short range missile weapon designed for a swift follow up which is impossible against pikes.

Good point, possibly reflecting on the relative melee decisiveness of the pilum and the gladius or that it was the aggressive close-in tactics of the Romans that was the key factor, not the firepower.

The essential conclusion seems to be that legionaries using the pilum (or pila) and gladius combination frontally against pikemen would make very little impression.  This seems to be the case whether or not the phalanx is moving.

If the phalanx was moving there might not even be time to throw a second pilum, assuming one was carried.

Do we all feel we can safely conclude that wargame rules which give pilum-throwing legionaries 'a substantial advantage against pikemen' in the first round of melee are incorrect?

Quote from: Mark G on August 17, 2014, 06:22:18 PM
We assume 2were carried into battle, but there us doubt.

I don't know of any artistic depictions, and there is the immense impracticality of carrying a second when fighting.

Adrian goldsworthy , i rexall rwading, suggested there may only be one taken, with a choice of long or short range, depending ( i.e. Why take a short range heavy pila to assault a wall).

We should be even more sceptical about "if only 50% hit" logic.
It pre supposes 100% throwable by calm trained men at effective range targets which do not get out of the way.
especially for a short range missile weapon designed for a swift follow up which is impossible against pikes.

I have always known  and read everywhere that legionaries carried 2 Pila. I guess there are some sources for this even if I don't know which. Therr are a lot of both archeological and written sources usually about roman age so I guess this is the case. I never heard about a debate on this subject. I know that everything is debatable on history but I suppose that if 100% of books and historians have always agreed on something, maybe we should take into account that it could be true.
sometimes Wikipedia is enough: if you look for Pilum, you will find out the sources (Polybius, Caesar, Vegetius, Plutarch) and all informations. Usually legionary carried 2 Pila, a light one and a heavy one. There are several archeological remaining. Only thing I know it is still uncertain is where the pilum came from. Some think etruscans invented it to repell celtic invasions from north. First sure account of an usage of pilum is the battle of Allia in 380 BC anyway.

Other multiple javelin carrying troops are not close combat swordsmen.

Try fdoing that with a weighted pole hooked inside your shield by thumb

Quote from: Mark G on August 18, 2014, 07:07:26 AM
Other multiple javelin carrying troops are not close combat swordsmen.

Try fdoing that with a weighted pole hooked inside your shield by thumb

I don't think anyone has suggested that when they came to swordplay, they were still carrying pila.  From the rather extensive quotes in various threads, the Romans either threw their pila at the enemy or, if there wasn't time, just dropped them.  If you needed them again after a bout of swordfighting, you could redistribute those from the back ranks or men could leave the ranks to scavenge them (as is explicitly mentioned in the soldiers oath).

Quote from: andrew881runner on August 18, 2014, 06:50:06 AMI have always known  and read everywhere that legionaries carried 2 Pila. I guess there are some sources for this even if I don't know which. Therr are a lot of both archeological and written sources usually about roman age so I guess this is the case. I never heard about a debate on this subject. I know that everything is debatable on history but I suppose that if 100% of books and historians have always agreed on something, maybe we should take into account that it could be true.
sometimes Wikipedia is enough: if you look for Pilum, you will find out the sources (Polybius, Caesar, Vegetius, Plutarch) and all informations. Usually legionary carried 2 Pila, a light one and a heavy one. There are several archeological remaining.

This is one of the cases where "everybody knows" something that isn't quite true.

Polybios in Book VI says that each hastatus had two pila (and by implication, so did the principes). He also says there are two types of pila, which he calls "thick" or "stout" and "thin" or "fine", respectively. But he does not actually say - and nor does anyone else - that each legionary carried one of each type. He does not call them "heavy" or "light". Reconstructions of Republican examples suggest, as far as I recall, that the two types actually weighed more or less the same: the difference between the two types of coonstruction may have no significance at all.

The idea that the legionary carried two pila into battle and threw the two in succession seems to be a modern interpretation. One problem that has been touched on in this discussion is, how do you hold the second pilum. With other types of shield-grip, it's a simple matter to hold one or more javelins in your shield-hand, holding the spearshaft along the same axis as the shield-grip. But with the Roman scutum being curved and having a horizontal shield-grip, you can't do that because the curvature of the shield prevents you carrying the spear horizontally (even ignoring the fact that it would get in the way of the men standing next to you). You'd have to hold a vertical spear and a horizontal shield-grip at the same time. Peter Connolly published a very influential idea suggesting that you could just grip the pilum shaft with your thumb and, if it was the "thick" tanged type, hook the tang-fitting over the top of the shield - like this (http://www.histomin.com/linesdr/mpsdsr34.jpg). Various other people, including some who've tried it, don't think that it is practical to carry a pilum like this for any length of time.

There has therefore been a line of scholars going back to Hans Delbrueck who simply don't believe that legionaries actually carried both pila at once, but that the second must have been a "spare".

Of course there are other complications. The newer Zhmodikov-at-al theories of Roman combat stress the prolonged missile exchanges that some historical accounts imply happened at least some of the time; and this would surely imply access to more than one throwing-spear. On the oither hand, there seems to be no clear reference to carrying more than one pilum after Polybios - Caesar doesn't mention it, the vast majority of Imperial sculptures show only one pilum (until you start to get reliefs showing a pair of spears in the 3rd century, and then they're not pila). So it has occasionally been suggested that there was a tactical change in emphasis, with earlier Republican legionaries more inclined to shoot, professional Caesarian and Imperial legionaries stressing one-volley-and-charge so not needing a second spear. But all of these issues are more or less hypothetical.

Josephus, writing in the first century AD, has each legionary carry a xyston (singular), suggesting that the thinner version was the current fashion in his time and that only one was carried.  Tacitus is not helpful on the subject.

Vegetius (I.19) suggests the use of 'light' and 'heavy' javelins, the latter being explicitly identified as 'pila' (despite the unfortunate 18th century Anglicisation of the term).  He also refers to barbarians using multiple pilum-equivalents, showing that it was possible despite modern reservations:

Quote
As to the missile weapons of the infantry, they were javelins headed with a triangular sharp iron, eleven inches or a foot long, and were called piles. When once fixed in the shield it was impossible to draw them out, and when thrown with force and skill, they penetrated the cuirass without difficulty. At present they are seldom used by us, but are the principal weapon of the barbarian heavy-armed foot. They are called bebrae, and every man carries two or three of them to battle.

It must be observed that when the soldiers engage with the javelin, the left foot should be advanced, for, by this attitude the force required to throw it is considerably increased. On the contrary, when they are close enough to use their piles and swords, the right foot should be advanced, so that the body may present less aim to the enemy, and the right arm be nearer and in a more advantageous position for striking.

maybe one pilum was stuck into ground while legionary kept the other by hand? is this possible? I think to remember that roman pilum had a pointed but t. Why if it was only a javelin?
Anyway thinking heavy javelin could be thrown only at enemy 20 mts from you. The most practical thing on my opinion would be having another lighter  javelin to hit enemy charging both far (like 50 mts) and near, with double effect. This when Romans were defensive so they could have easily a javelin stuck into ground. We should remember that Romans after Mariah reform did not have velites so they had to fulfill the skirmisher role too, if auxiliary light infantry was lacking, as it is possible.  When Romans were offensive, I agree that throwing a single javelin then charge is more simple.

Aagh,

Roy and i went to great lengths to dispose of thus ridiculous notion that the romans infantry (legionary, hastatii, principes etc) skirmished with javelins.

Andrew, were you a member last year or two years ago?

You have the final part in this months slingshot, but you may gave missed the earlier parts.

I think i speak for everyone when i say we do not want to have that debate again on this forum,

Quote from: andrew881runner on August 18, 2014, 12:30:02 PMWe should remember that Romans after Mariah reform did not have velites so they had to fulfill the skirmisher role too, if auxiliary light infantry was lacking, as it is possible.

But the problem with this suggestion is that - as I said - the only real evidence for two pila is from before the "Marian reform", when velites were plentiful.

Quote from: Mark G on August 18, 2014, 02:10:38 PM
Aagh,

Roy and i went to great lengths to dispose of thus ridiculous notion that the romans infantry (legionary, hastatii, principes etc) skirmished with javelins.

Scarcely ridiculous when the view is held by some quite significant historians of the Roman army.  However, I don't want the debate again either.  It must be said, though, that one's stance on the subject may affect one's view as to whether legionaries carried one or two pila.

Quote from: Mark G on August 18, 2014, 02:10:38 PM
Aagh,

Roy and i went to great lengths to dispose of thus ridiculous notion that the romans infantry (legionary, hastatii, principes etc) skirmished with javelins.

Andrew, were you a member last year or two years ago?

You have the final part in this months slingshot, but you may gave missed the earlier parts.

I think i speak for everyone when i say we do not want to have that debate again on this forum,

I was not e member, I am since about a month ago so I missed the debate.

Can you private message me your email address.

Unless you prefer to get the back issues and help the society.

I'm struggling to think of any respectable historians who take that view.  Zhmodokov, who really is poor on this when you read him, and whose conclusion was simply that javelins were worth some consideration, not that they were a primary weapon.
No others.

Quote from: Mark G on August 18, 2014, 03:16:22 PM
I'm struggling to think of any respectable historians who take that view.  Zhmodokov, who really is poor on this when you read him, and whose conclusion was simply that javelins were worth some consideration, not that they were a primary weapon.
No others.

Apologies, I think we may have a confusion of terms here.  I don't recall saying anything about swords not being the primary weapon (that was WMWW, IIRC).  There are, as I recall, a wider range of options than havy skirmishing a la WMWW and massed "chuck & Charge".  Didn't Sabin argue against a mass charge but went for periods of less intense fighting and missile exchange interspersed with shorter periods of close action, still maintaining the sword as the weapon of decision?   I certainly rate Phil Sabin as reputable.

Anyway, as you rightly said, we shouldn't reopen this excepting only if it has any bearing on the effectiveness of the Hellenistic phalanx, which is where Patrick came in, I think.  It is true that the pike phalanx seems remarkably pilum proof.

Sabin was arguing for a non continuous melee approach, which most of us agree with - and have done since Keegan

- the tenuous follow on assumption is that the breaks in between those melee attacks was taken up with javelin skirmishing,

which is a lot less supportable - for simple reasons like,
where do the javelins come from in numbers to be worth describing as skirmishing (as opposed to just a loose throw or two),
how are they carried,
what are they doing when in a proper sword play period of attack,
and my and Roy's contribution - why waste a weapon designed to penetrate and disable a shield thereby giving a huge advantage to a short swordsman, by throwing it at a range that it cannot have the momentum to penetrate and can scarcely be aimed accurately?

If there is nothing more to decide on matters pertaining to a 16-deep phalanx, we can probably let this thread rest for now and if anyone wants to open a new discussion topic on, say, 'Pilum or Pila - One Javelin or Two?' please feel free.

If extending any such discussion to how, when and in what manner the pilum/pila happened to be used in combat during specific periods (Republic, Early/Middle Empire, Late Empire) I would suggest extracting as much evidence as possible from primary sources.

Non-continuous combat could be covered as part of the topic, as the question does seem to bear on the tactical use of the pilum and other missile weapons.  Failing that, please feel free to open a discussion thread on 'Combat - Continuous or Non-Continuous?' or some similar title.

Sorry,
It's my fault for creating a digression about pila (or piles, whichever is correct). Suffice to say finally that I do agree with Patrick.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 17, 2014, 09:14:43 PM
Do we all feel we can safely conclude that wargame rules which give pilum-throwing legionaries 'a substantial advantage against pikemen' in the first round of melee are incorrect?

Getting back to 16-rank phalanx, I would sum up what I think I have learned so far as follows.

We have discussed 3 possible models of sarissa combat: (i) the 'fencing' model, where the pike is used to jab at the enemy on an individual basis; (ii) the 17th century model of 'push of pike' with the pike being unweighted and deployed at shoulder level; (iii) the Macedonian model, in which the pike/sarissa is held at waist level but with a similar coordinated pushing movement.

Nobody seems to like model (i), especially not the contemporary expert on 17th century pikemanship, because it would have a tendency to mess up a formation and either cause injury to friendly troops or require more space between ranks, which would make 5 protruding rows of spear points impossible to achieve.

The 17th century model is known to have been used in the 17th century, so at least it works. Do we know that the Macedonians did not use this model? A significant advantage of it is that it does not require the counterweight which we estimated might add 10lbs to the weight of the sarissa. This is well worth not having to carry around the battlefield or even on campaign.

The Macedonian model needs to have a counterweighted sarissa, otherwise the weapon would be very difficult to wield. This would make it weigh probably around 22lbs. Men could be packed together fairly tightly, such as 18" per file and 36" per rank, but all the spear shafts would need to be lined up very neatly in the small gaps between the files. 5 spear points could extend in front of the first rank (though apart from their impressive appearance, it is not yet clear whether that would deliver any concrete tactical advantage).

This is what I think I have learned so far and it leads me to wonder next whether the 16 ranks would be useful in terms of pushing the whole phalanx forward, as someone has suggested. I have 2 main reasons for hesitation on this point.
(1) With the torso rotated about 45 degrees to the right and both hands controlling the sarissa, what would a phalangite push the man in front with and what part of his colleague would he push on?
(2) Assuming continuous pressure from behind propelling the whole formation forward, what would happen when a sarissa pierced an enemy shield and/or man? There is no question of withdrawing the sarissa, so what does its owner do? He cannot stop or the phalanx might be thrown into chaos, and/or he might be trampled underfoot. He cannot press on with a 150lb weight stuck to his weapon. Does he drop his sarissa and go and finish his enemy off with his sword? (One thing that phalangites would not want to do is walk over wounded blokes who might still have enough strength to stick a sword up them!)

Quote from: gridnash on August 19, 2014, 01:02:11 PM

The 17th century model is known to have been used in the 17th century, so at least it works. Do we know that the Macedonians did not use this model? A significant advantage of it is that it does not require the counterweight which we estimated might add 10lbs to the weight of the sarissa. This is well worth not having to carry around the battlefield or even on campaign.

The simple answer is that we do not know for certain.  Personally I consider it unlikely that a long tradition of sticking bronze bits on the end of weapon shafts would suddenly come to an end for no good reason, especially as a counterweighted weapon is so much easier to handle.  Having tried this with sword and bow (not my own, I hasten to add), I am happy that the additional ounceage or poundage is well worth having.

Quote
The Macedonian model needs to have a counterweighted sarissa, otherwise the weapon would be very difficult to wield. This would make it weigh probably around 22lbs. Men could be packed together fairly tightly, such as 18" per file and 36" per rank, but all the spear shafts would need to be lined up very neatly in the small gaps between the files. 5 spear points could extend in front of the first rank (though apart from their impressive appearance, it is not yet clear whether that would deliver any concrete tactical advantage).

This is what I think I have learned so far and it leads me to wonder next whether the 16 ranks would be useful in terms of pushing the whole phalanx forward, as someone has suggested. I have 2 main reasons for hesitation on this point.
(1) With the torso rotated about 45 degrees to the right and both hands controlling the sarissa, what would a phalangite push the man in front with and what part of his colleague would he push on?

Here we enter mild speculation country, but the easy answer would seem to be that torso presses left arm, left arm presses shield and shield presses the partially-rotated armoured back of the man in front.  This incidentally helps to avoid anyone getting into breathing difficulties through compression because a ribcage at 45 degrees is much harder to squash than a ribcage being squeezed directly fore and aft.

Quote
(2) Assuming continuous pressure from behind propelling the whole formation forward, what would happen when a sarissa pierced an enemy shield and/or man? There is no question of withdrawing the sarissa, so what does its owner do? He cannot stop or the phalanx might be thrown into chaos, and/or he might be trampled underfoot. He cannot press on with a 150lb weight stuck to his weapon. Does he drop his sarissa and go and finish his enemy off with his sword? (One thing that phalangites would not want to do is walk over wounded blokes who might still have enough strength to stick a sword up them!)

Having thought about this previously, if rather depends whether the sarissas are effectively locked in position or have a bit of forward and backward play.  If the latter, then the second row of pikes could ease the corpses off the first row of pikes.  If not, then the front-rank pikemen are carrying 'passengers' who are probably still alive and hence on their feet - if they stagger back with the pike, they keep the load off it; if they impale themselves further along the pikeshaft (which is much harder if it is tapered) then the second row of pike points can give them a thrust.  The load of the finally-expiring target would thus be carried by four, or even six, men rather than one or two.

However our sources do not have any references to men spitted on pikes being pushed along or carried like an impaled victim by the advancing pikemen.  This makes me think that a combination of (possibly) tapered pikeshafts and the natural reluctance of the average human to impale himself further resulted in the pikes being effectively self-clearing; casualties may have tended to drop themselves off by pushing themselves off the pikes.

Or the pikes may simply have broken, leaving the point and a bit of shaft in the casualty.

The Alexander Mosaic (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Alexandermosaic.jpg/1280px-Alexandermosaic.jpg) raises a similar question about victims of the xyston: Alexander has just skewered a Persian bodyguard, who is using one hand to try and keep the weapon from penetrating further.  What happens next?  Does Alex continue his thrust, and does the victim's grasping hand prevent further penetration, resulting in the victim sliding leftwards (away from Alex) off his horse and then, if Alex pulls the xyston back a bit, does the now-doomed Persian obligingly slide off the end?

Front-rank pikemen, whose shield arms were not constrained by pushing someone else's back, would in theory have had a couple of feet of play with which to advance and retract their pikes.  This might have been sufficient in the normal course of events to dump casualties off the tip of the weapon, especially if the victims assisted by convulsively clutching the pikeshaft when wounded and trying to extricate themselves.

And where Plutarch (Life of Crassus 27.2) refers to Parthian lances running through two men at a time, one is left wondering how they got rid of the casualties.  To get one opponent stuck on your lance is unfortunate, to collect two looks like carelessness ...

Quote
It's my fault for creating a digression about pila (or piles, whichever is correct).

It has to be the one or the other, really.  ;)

.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 19, 2014, 08:21:45 PM
The Alexander Mosaic (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Alexandermosaic.jpg/1280px-Alexandermosaic.jpg) raises a similar question about victims of the xyston: Alexander has just skewered a Persian bodyguard, who is using one hand to try and keep the weapon from penetrating further.  What happens next?  Does Alex continue his thrust, and does the victim's grasping hand prevent further penetration, resulting in the victim sliding leftwards (away from Alex) off his horse and then, if Alex pulls the xyston back a bit, does the now-doomed Persian obligingly slide off the end?

If the stomach muscles are penetrated by any hard, sharp object they go into spasm, the body's attempt to create an ad hoc shield against further penetration. My guess is that neither the Persian nor Alexander would be able to easily remove the pike shaft - it would have to be yanked out by force. A pike penetrating the rib cage is of course another matter, but even then the intercostal muscles would probably require it to be pulled out rather than just let it slide off.

The leaf shape of the blade could help in not penetrating to much while thrusting.

And if the spearhead penetrated all the way through, as in the Mosaic, the sharpened rear portion of the leaf shape would help to extract the spearhead by cutting through any tightened musculature as the weapon was withdrawn.

Blood would also be a good lubricant, I believe.

I knew someone who had had a long knife pushed through her stomach such that the point stuck out her back. The knife would not budge and had to be surgically removed by cutting away at the muscle around it.

(shouldn't we start R rating this thread?  :o)

As we are unlikely to be able to rely upon practical experimentation, I can only speculate that a weapon end attached to a pikeshaft might behave differently from an inserted knife, 80% of which will be inside the wound, whereas with the pike it would be the other way around.   19th-20th century bayonets and swords were designed with so-called 'blood channels' which were actually intended to allow air to enter and so prevent the blade being held in by tissue adhesion and suction.   These worked up to a point.  Infantrymen generally found that a good kick would free a bayonet; users of close-combat knives would twist them to aid extraction.

Most weapons of the classical period seem to have a ridge rather than a channel from the end to the tip of the blade, and apart from its reinforcing qualities (preventing the weapon from bending) it may also have helped to avoid the weapon becoming stuck in the opponent.  This is of course speculative.

What does seem to stand out is that we lack references to impaled personnel being hard to disengage from pikes.  One is left to conclude that it was possible for the pikeman to withdraw his weapon or otherwise jettison the casualty, although exactly how remains unclear.  The tactical significance is that a pike formation could keep progressing indefinitely without being halted by an accumulation of enemy casualties and presumably without losing a lot of pikes broken in the process.

They may have operated on a slash rather than stab sort of objective, faces and necks being the mist likely targetable area

Maybe they were trained not to stab deeply but only make many fast small thrusts so to incapacitate enemies without  the need to extract a deeply inserted spearhead. We should not forget that one of the phalanx was made to impress enemies so they would have retreated soon because they would have had the idea of not being able to stand against it. IN this sense a wall of pikes continuously advancing and thrusting fast (so not very hard and deep) in an infinite movement, would have scared more than pikes hitting hard and stabbing deep then going back to immobile condition. I even suppose that if the guy was entirely covered by the shields they were trained to put spearhead beyond the shield trying to slash rather than stab, which was impossible in many cases. I even watched a video time ago which demonstrated how spearman where trained to hit Hoplon in 2 peculiar points (lower right or upper left in front of face) so to make either the shield rotate leaving chest uncovered or the shield hitting the face so to incapacitate the guy anyway. This was demonstrated by the holes found on ho plons always in these 2 points. We should remember that a shield is not immobile but if hit hard tends to move so leaving gaps opened which can be used by other pikes to hit.
Anyway I think that it was not easy to stab or wound an hop lite in full armor even for trained pike men with longer reach than hop lites since all vital areas were more or less covered in bronze.

I agree that most pikes would not be making holes in opponents but rather pushing them back; we see this at Cynoscephalae and Pydna.  It is only when the Romans try to exert counterpressure that they are impaled, which seems to act as a deterrent to others attempting to do so.

Greek hoplites would have tended to exert counterpressure (their fighting style depended on it) and so we would expect them to suffer more casualties in frontal combat against a phalanx.  However after Chaeronea, the Granicus and the sieges of Miletus and Halicarnassus they seem to have learned not to do this, because at Issus we see them fighting from behind a riverbank and in some sectors a palisade, suggesting they were content to let the phalanx come on rather than trying to attack and press against it.   The result at Issus seems to have been a stalemate which was resolved by Alexander's flank attack following Darius' departure.

Opponents who were prepared to be pushed back could survive against pikes, at least up to the point where being pushed back turned into being routed.

Or turned into a gap in the phalanx that a unit of 80  men could exploit :-))

Roy

I'm nit sure those holes are evidence of attempts to turn a hoplin by stabbing.

They look more like the temwo places you would expect given where the man opposite can aim.

upper left - matches my overhand thrust over my shield.
Lower right matches my shield mates spear held under arm and under shield.

Remember. They used forearm straps which would make a simple spin point almost impossible, and they were anchored on the shield next to them

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 23, 2014, 10:08:08 AM
I agree that most pikes would not be making holes in opponents but rather pushing them back; we see this at Cynoscephalae and Pydna.  It is only when the Romans try to exert counterpressure that they are impaled, which seems to act as a deterrent to others attempting to do so.

Greek hoplites would have tended to exert counterpressure (their fighting style depended on it) and so we would expect them to suffer more casualties in frontal combat against a phalanx.  However after Chaeronea, the Granicus and the sieges of Miletus and Halicarnassus they seem to have learned not to do this, because at Issus we see them fighting from behind a riverbank and in some sectors a palisade, suggesting they were content to let the phalanx come on rather than trying to attack and press against it.   The result at Issus seems to have been a stalemate which was resolved by Alexander's flank attack following Darius' departure.

Opponents who were prepared to be pushed back could survive against pikes, at least up to the point where being pushed back turned into being routed.

at chaeronea Macedonian left phalanx was pushed back by Greek hoplites. Maybe with their heavy armor, invulnerable to spear piercing, and othysmos they were able to push back the spear wall?
We should not overevaluate the offensive power of a spear wall of a pike phalanx. I would chose to be in front of a pike phalanx rather than being in front of a roman maniple. A pike can simply stab in front, it cannot do upward or downward attacks like a short spear. Since usually soldiers had Shields in front of them, a pike could simply block the shield PREVENTING every offensive moves of the enemy who as soon as loses his defensive position moves the shield and gets stabbed. A pike wall forces an offensive enemy to stay in defensive. And the physical and psychological stress, but even the casual deaths, in being in this condition for long, after some time lead enemies to feel "trapped", under constant threat, so they finally routed, possibly.

I suggest that the pikemen do perform some sort of drill because,when pike fights pike, the more experienced soldiers win. That suggests that there is  some skill that they get better at the more they practise it and that it is not meterly a matter of learning to hold the pike, keep it level  and advance in step.
Roy

Quote from: andrew881runner on August 23, 2014, 07:23:56 PM

at chaeronea Macedonian left phalanx was pushed back by Greek hoplites. Maybe with their heavy armor, invulnerable to spear piercing, and othysmos they were able to push back the spear wall?

Is this a reference to Polyaenus IV.2.2?

"Engaging the Athenians at Chaeroneia, Philippus made a sham retreat: and Stratocles, the Athenian general, ordered his men to push forwards, crying out, "We will pursue them to the heart of Macedonia." Philippus observed, "The Athenians know not how to conquer:" and ordered his phalanx to keep close and firm, and to retreat slowly, covering themselves with their shields from the attacks of the enemy. As soon as he had by the manoeuvre drawn them from their advantageous ground, and gained an eminence, he halted; and encouraging his troops to a vigorous assault, he attacked the Athenians and won a brilliant victory."

This does not suggest that hoplites were invulnerable to a phalanx, rather the reverse.

Quote
We should not overevaluate the offensive power of a spear wall of a pike phalanx. I would chose to be in front of a pike phalanx rather than being in front of a roman maniple. A pike can simply stab in front, it cannot do upward or downward attacks like a short spear. Since usually soldiers had Shields in front of them, a pike could simply block the shield PREVENTING every offensive moves of the enemy who as soon as loses his defensive position moves the shield and gets stabbed. A pike wall forces an offensive enemy to stay in defensive. And the physical and psychological stress, but even the casual deaths, in being in this condition for long, after some time lead enemies to feel "trapped", under constant threat, so they finally routed, possibly.

There is truth in  this, but it is also true that Romans who tried to assault the pike formation at Pydna (to retrieve their standard) simply died, thrust through by pikes.

"The Romans, when they attacked the Macedonian phalanx, were unable to force a passage, and Salvius, the commander of the Pelignians, snatched the standard of his company and hurled it in among the enemy. Then the Pelignians, since among the Italians it is an unnatural and flagrant thing to abandon a standard, rushed on towards the place where it was, and dreadful losses were inflicted and suffered on both sides. [2] For the Romans tried to thrust aside the long spears of their enemies with their swords, or to crowd them back with their shields, or to seize and put them by with their very hands; while the Macedonians, holding them firmly advanced with both hands, and piercing those who fell upon them, armour and all, since neither shield nor breastplate could resist the force of the Macedonian long spear, hurled headlong back the Pelignians and Marrucinians, who, with no consideration but with animal fury rushed upon the strokes that met them, and a certain death. [3] When the first line had thus been cut to pieces, those arrayed behind them were beaten back; and though there was no flight, still they retired towards the mountain called Olocrus, so that even Aemilius, as Poseidonius tells us, when he saw it, rent his garments*. For this part of his army was retreating, and the rest of the Romans were turning aside from the phalanx, which gave them no access to it, but confronted them as it were with a dense barricade of long spears, and was everywhere unassailable." - Plutarch, Life of Aemilius Paulus, 20.1-3

(*This seems puzzling; why tear a perfectly good set of clothes?  The Greek katarrēxasthai ton khitōna means he did whatever he did to his chiton (tunic), which would seem a difficult and illogical piece of clothing for an armour-wearing Roman to tear, but katarrēgnumi can also mean to have a violent discharge of diarrhoea, and the chiton would be in the right place to be affected by this.  We can make up our own minds on this essentially trivial point of translation: would he need a seamstress or a laundress after the battle?)

Quote from: aligern on August 23, 2014, 08:21:20 PM
I suggest that the pikemen do perform some sort of drill because, when pike fights pike, the more experienced soldiers win. That suggests that there is some skill that they get better at the more they practise it and that it is not merely a matter of learning to hold the pike, keep it level  and advance in step.
Roy

That does seem logical; with an easily-handled counterweighted pike, veterans could think up their own tricks like aiming for an opponent's thighs or, like Andrew's suggestion, aiming at a specific part of their opponent's shield, perhaps near the top so that the pike point is deflected into the opponent's throat.  So many possibilities, so few re-enactment opportunities.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 23, 2014, 11:32:23 PM... so that even Aemilius, as Poseidonius tells us, when he saw it, rent his garments*...

(*This seems puzzling; why tear a perfectly good set of clothes?  The Greek katarrēxasthai ton khitōna means he did whatever he did to his chiton (tunic), which would seem a difficult and illogical piece of clothing for an armour-wearing Roman to tear, but katarrēgnumi can also mean to have a violent discharge of diarrhoea, and the chiton would be in the right place to be affected by this.  We can make up our own minds on this essentially trivial point of translation: would he need a seamstress or a laundress after the battle?)

Presumably a conventional expression of grief, in Rome as well as Judaea? "Then it was that the Sabine women, whose wrongs had led to the war, throwing off all womanish fears in their distress, went boldly into the midst of the flying missiles with dishevelled hair and rent garments" (Livy I.13).

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 23, 2014, 11:32:23 PM

Quote from: aligern on August 23, 2014, 08:21:20 PM
I suggest that the pikemen do perform some sort of drill because, when pike fights pike, the more experienced soldiers win. That suggests that there is some skill that they get better at the more they practise it and that it is not merely a matter of learning to hold the pike, keep it level  and advance in step.
Roy

That does seem logical; with an easily-handled counterweighted pike, veterans could think up their own tricks like aiming for an opponent's thighs or, like Andrew's suggestion, aiming at a specific part of their opponent's shield, perhaps near the top so that the pike point is deflected into the opponent's throat.  So many possibilities, so few re-enactment opportunities.

Returning to our main thread topic, one of the significant areas of drill advantage may have been the technique of using the sixteen ranks to effect, rather than five rows of points and a crowd behind.

Quote from: Duncan Head on August 24, 2014, 09:24:05 PM
Presumably a conventional expression of grief, in Rome as well as Judaea? "Then it was that the Sabine women, whose wrongs had led to the war, throwing off all womanish fears in their distress, went boldly into the midst of the flying missiles with dishevelled hair and rent garments" (Livy I.13).

Possible, despite a general lack of mention of other consuls in distress undertaking this procedure, though I understand that consuls in the field usually wore armour, which would make tearing a chiton (presumably worn under the armour) something of a challenge.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 25, 2014, 09:11:53 AM

Returning to our main thread topic, one of the significant areas of drill advantage may have been the technique of using the sixteen ranks to effect, rather than five rows of points and a crowd behind.

Very true, and the drill may also have included the rear eleven ranks holding pikes in the right pattern to optimise missile deflection.

"Of these sixteen ranks, all above the fifth are unable to reach with their sarissae far enough to take actual part in the fighting. They, therefore, do not lower them, but hold them with the points inclined upwards over the shoulders of the ranks in front of them, to shield the heads of the whole phalanx; for the sarissae are so closely serried, that they repel missiles which have carried over the front ranks and might fall upon the heads of those in the rear. These rear ranks, however, during an advance, press forward those in front by the weight of their bodies; and thus make the charge very forcible, and at the same time render it impossible for the front ranks to face about." - Polybius XVIII.30.2-4

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 23, 2014, 11:32:23 PM

Quote from: andrew881runner on August 23, 2014, 07:23:56 PM

at chaeronea Macedonian left phalanx was pushed back by Greek hoplites. Maybe with their heavy armor, invulnerable to spear piercing, and othysmos they were able to push back the spear wall?

Is this a reference to Polyaenus IV.2.2?

"Engaging the Athenians at Chaeroneia, Philippus made a sham retreat: and Stratocles, the Athenian general, ordered his men to push forwards, crying out, "We will pursue them to the heart of Macedonia." Philippus observed, "The Athenians know not how to conquer:" and ordered his phalanx to keep close and firm, and to retreat slowly, covering themselves with their shields from the attacks of the enemy. As soon as he had by the manoeuvre drawn them from their advantageous ground, and gained an eminence, he halted; and encouraging his troops to a vigorous assault, he attacked the Athenians and won a brilliant victory."

This does not suggest that hoplites were invulnerable to a phalanx, rather the reverse.

Quote
We should not overevaluate the offensive power of a spear wall of a pike phalanx. I would chose to be in front of a pike phalanx rather than being in front of a roman maniple. A pike can simply stab in front, it cannot do upward or downward attacks like a short spear. Since usually soldiers had Shields in front of them, a pike could simply block the shield PREVENTING every offensive moves of the enemy who as soon as loses his defensive position moves the shield and gets stabbed. A pike wall forces an offensive enemy to stay in defensive. And the physical and psychological stress, but even the casual deaths, in being in this condition for long, after some time lead enemies to feel "trapped", under constant threat, so they finally routed, possibly.

I don't think reenacting this would be much hard (maybe don't use real spear points...) Anyway I had seen a video of a ancient martial art school where the teacher explained how hoplites fought and he mentioned that in order to hit the shielded enemies, differently from what we think, first purpose of skilled warrior was to hit the shield (hoplon) in peculiar areas so to make it rotate enough to stab the guy. Otherwise as you can imagine a guy covered by a big heavy Hoplon was quite invulnerable (ok you could hit him from above but only from very close distance since the shield was almost attached to the body). So you could hit in the shield's lower right (from the guys stabbing's point of view) or at the opposite into the shield's upper left (from same. point of vjew): in first case you made shied rotate so that the guy opened his chest area for other attacks, in the second case the shield could not rotate, since there was the head, but the hoplite would have taken an hard hit of the shield into the face, not lethal maybe but not pleasant too (maybe you could hit again and again until the guy could not stand anymore).
As for the Roman scutum, this tactic, at least in the sense of making the shield rotate, would be even easier, since there was only one central grip and the shield would have rotate upward or downward almost for sure with a hard strike (even if the Roman was trained to hold the shield firmly, this is main fault of having only one central grip) leaving a gap for other pikes to hit.  Maybe, maybe if you kept the scutum very close to the body, it would have rotated less, but you could have taken the rotating shield edges directly into your face of your thighs.
So in this sense I agree that a pike phalanx was quite unstoppable, both if you had a shield Hoplon or scutum style with central grip (same for celtic shields).
I imagine that this could be the "drill" more skilled pikemen could do better than less skilled ones, who maybe were trained simply to raise and lower their pikes together with all others (it could be strange that a person did not understand so basic things like the mentioned drill, but a lot of people are quite stupid even today, maybe more in the past, especially among the ignorant farmers)

Quote from: aligern on August 23, 2014, 08:21:20 PM
I suggest that the pikemen do perform some sort of drill because, when pike fights pike, the more experienced soldiers win. That suggests that there is some skill that they get better at the more they practise it and that it is not merely a matter of learning to hold the pike, keep it level  and advance in step.
Roy

That does seem logical; with an easily-handled counterweighted pike, veterans could think up their own tricks like aiming for an opponent's thighs or, like Andrew's suggestion, aiming at a specific part of their opponent's shield, perhaps near the top so that the pike point is deflected into the opponent's throat.  So many possibilities, so few re-enactment opportunities.

I don't think reenacting this would be much hard (maybe don't use real spear points...) Anyway I had seen a video of a ancient martial art school where the teacher explained how hoplites fought and he mentioned that in order to hit the shielded enemies, differently from what we think, first purpose of skilled warrior was to hit the shield (hoplon) in peculiar areas so to make it rotate enough to stab the guy. Otherwise as you can imagine a guy covered by a big heavy Hoplon was quite invulnerable (ok you could hit him from above but only from very close distance since the shield was almost attached to the body). So you could hit in the shield's lower right (from the guys stabbing's point of view) or at the opposite into the shield's upper left (from same. point of vjew): in first case you made shied rotate so that the guy opened his chest area for other attacks, in the second case the shield could not rotate, since there was the head, but the hoplite would have taken an hard hit of the shield into the face, not lethal maybe but not pleasant too (maybe you could hit again and again until the guy could not stand anymore).
As for the Roman scutum, this tactic, at least in the sense of making the shield rotate, would be even easier, since there was only one central grip and the shield would have rotate upward or downward almost for sure with a hard strike (even if the Roman was trained to hold the shield firmly, this is main fault of having only one central grip) leaving a gap for other pikes to hit.  Maybe, maybe if you kept the scutum very close to the body, it would have rotated less, but you could have taken the rotating shield edges directly into your face of your thighs.
So in this sense I agree that a pike phalanx was quite unstoppable, both if you had a shield Hoplon or scutum style with central grip (same for celtic shields).
I imagine that this could be the "drill" more skilled pikemen could do better than less skilled ones, who maybe were trained simply to raise and lower their pikes together with all others (it could be strange that a person did not understand so basic things like the mentioned drill, but a lot of people are quite stupid even today, maybe more in the past, especially among the ignorant farmers)

Well hence the position of the elbow