Reading through Aelian I came across the passage where he talks about the Macedonian phalanx deploying in close order (each file occupies one cubit = 18") when resisting an enemy attack. Asklepiodotus says the same thing.
There is a problem however with a phalanx in this formation - the shields. They are about 2 feet wide, which means they will overlap quite substantially when in close order. Like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/LRLUmC0.jpg)
Given that the ranks remain 3 feet apart - necessary as the men will be nearly side-on when presenting their sarissas to the enemy - there is no useful way the four ranks behind the front rankers can project their shafts below the shields of the front rankers. The sarissas would be obliged to point straight forwards and somewhat downwards, leaving gaps in the pike wall through which enemy soldiers could approach the frontmost phalangites and kill them.
However, if the second to fourth ranks hold their sarissas overhead, they can quite easily clear the shoulders of the front men and also move their sarissas a little from side to side, closing any potential gaps. The men holding their sarissas at shoulder height will be able to see over their shields, even with their shield arms raised. I experimented and it works. I speculate the fifth ranker could hold his sarissa underarm to project between the shields of the front ranker and supply additional protection. Here are a couple of diagrams to illustrate (the scale is in feet):
(https://i.imgur.com/uWqbpmo.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/k6T5rVu.jpg)
Any comments?
I understood overarm was a renaissance (originally Swiss) method for which there was no evidence in the ancient world.
Significant that Swiss and Landsknechts did not carry shields. It would have been difficult to carry an 18-21 ft pike high and carry a shield on a strap. Bith advanced very quickly, necessary if carrying a pike at head height. as one would not wish to hang around standing, holding the weapon.
For me the resolution is that the shield of the phalangite is carried at an angle so it is not presenting a two foot frontage. In dense order the shields touch each other and cover the shoulder of a man standing side on .holding his pike low with two hands because that is the most controlled way to carry it. Holding the pike low could be comfortably maintained for far longer than holding it high.
Roy
Interesting . . . Given the density of the formation, I wonder how much impact casualties would have on its order, cohesion, and effectiveness. Understanding that the tighter formation was defensive, but still.
Thanks for posting.
Cheers,
Chris
The Late Middle Ages, as revealed in art, had a number of two handed "carries" for infantry spears. Low (down by thighs), middle (chest height, spear couched under arm), high (shoulder height, reaching overhead to stab down). The low and high versions were adapted for pike use. Unlike later pikemen, pikemen in our period seem to have advanced with front ranks in "low" position and supporting ranks with pikes upright. Illustrations do show the high position used by supporting ranks actually in combat, though.
Justin's suggestion would, I think, need highly drilled pikemen. I'd expect the drill manuals to mention it, or one of the authors explaining the intricacies of the pike phalanx to a Roman audience. Anything in those sources?
Christopher Matthew discusses (briefly) overarm usage in An Invincible Beast and rules it out as impractical, but he does not I think consider the possibility that only some ranks used it. He does come up with a system whereby the sarissai of the second and subsequent ranks can fit round the shields, though I forget the details.
Is the idea of different ranks holding the spear differently compatible with Polybios' description of the grip, and with the depiction on the Pergamon bronze plaque (https://bookandsword.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/conze_1913-bd_1-text_2-pg_251.png)? I suppose it depends whether you think the pikemen in the latter are two front-rankers or a first and a second. But I think it would have been mentioned, somewhere.
Quote from: Duncan Head on February 28, 2018, 09:07:05 AM
Christopher Matthew discusses (briefly) overarm usage in An Invincible Beast and rules it out as impractical, but he does not I think consider the possibility that only some ranks used it. He does come up with a system whereby the sarissai of the second and subsequent ranks can fit round the shields, though I forget the details.
Is the idea of different ranks holding the spear differently compatible with Polybios' description of the grip, and with the depiction on the Pergamon bronze plaque (https://bookandsword.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/conze_1913-bd_1-text_2-pg_251.png)? I suppose it depends whether you think the pikemen in the latter are two front-rankers or a first and a second. But I think it would have been mentioned, somewhere.
Notice that the leftmost phalangite doesn't look right. He is gripping the shaft with his right arm drawn back, but his shield is in front of the shaft, which would imply the shaft is to the left of his body. A case of the Penrose Stairs.
It all depends on how accurate a drawing this is of the original plaque.
Yes, there are problems with that scene, and as you say it's partly down to how accurate the drawing is. But even if we can't rely on all the details it is clearly two guys both holding pikes underarm.
Quote from: Duncan Head on February 28, 2018, 09:28:36 AM
Yes, there are problems with that scene, and as you say it's partly down to how accurate the drawing is. But even if we can't rely on all the details it is clearly two guys both holding pikes underarm.
...in the front rank. ;)
Yes the Pergamon plaque Duncan links to is the only depiction in ancient art of sarissa-wielders in combat. They look like two front rankers to me, but it's not certain. Note that as depicted the sarissa passes to the lower left (rather than lower right, as we would expect) of the shield - but I think this is an artifact of the picture (or reproduction), not indicative of how it was really carried.
Polybius doesn't give any hint that different ranks held the sarissa differently (aside from those behind the fifth, who held it upright sloping forward) - but then all he talks about is the distance between the hands (and the amount sticking out the back) so he's not specific about the hold. You would hope that if it was held differently, someone might have said, but that's often a forlorn hope.
Christopher Matthew uses Justin's argument to conclude that Macedonian phalangites could not use the 18" spacing (except for manoeuvring - wheeling) and that it was spear-armed hoplites (with their putatively larger shields) who used the 18" spacing in combat. I think his arguments are utterly bonkers myself, but each to his own.
I suspect the problem is in assuming the shields are held face on parallel to the front of the formaiton, and in reality they would be angled more or less so that room would be available for the shafts of the rear rankers. I'm not convinced by the overhead hold just because there's no evidence for it, but who knows.
It really needs some reenactors to test out the options but so far as I know this has never been rigorously done - not even by Christopher Matthew who has one set of phalangite kit and does all his tests alone. About 20 people with shields and poles would settle the question (Delbruck claims to have done so - but it's not clear he used shields). It's the sort of thing Mike Loades could do, or a TV production company.
Added: I know Peter Connolly did some similar tests with suitable numbers of people, though his write up is a bit vague - but he did find the 18" formation with underarm spears worked fine (or at least, he doesn't say it didn't)
Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 28, 2018, 09:31:05 AM
Quote from: Duncan Head on February 28, 2018, 09:28:36 AM
Yes, there are problems with that scene, and as you say it's partly down to how accurate the drawing is. But even if we can't rely on all the details it is clearly two guys both holding pikes underarm.
...in the front rank. ;)
Wasn't the order to attack something like 'lower your pikes' which led to mistranslations of 'throw them away'?
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 28, 2018, 10:07:19 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 28, 2018, 09:31:05 AM
Wasn't the order to attack something like 'lower your pikes' which led to mistranslations of 'throw them away'?
But presumably they are lowering them from a steep carrying angle to a flat combat angle, so would fit either a high or low position.
Quote from: Erpingham on February 28, 2018, 10:18:24 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 28, 2018, 10:07:19 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 28, 2018, 09:31:05 AM
Wasn't the order to attack something like 'lower your pikes' which led to mistranslations of 'throw them away'?
But presumably they are lowering them from a steep carrying angle to a flat combat angle, so would fit either a high or low position.
Then there was the ability to hold then raised to reduce missiles falling on the phalanx
Cynoscephalai, Pol 18.25: "he ordered the peltasts and phalangites to double their depth and close up to the right. By the time this was effected the enemy were close at hand; and, accordingly, the word was given to the phalangites to lower spears and charge; to the light infantry [euzonoi] to cover their flank."
Translated (into Latin) by Livy at Livy 33.8: "the caetrati and the men of the phalanx were ordered to lay aside their spears, the length of which only embarrassed them, and make use of their swords. To prevent his line from being quickly broken he halved the front and gave twice the depth to the files, so that the depth might be greater than the width. He also ordered the ranks to close up so that man might be in touch with man and arms with arms."
'Lower their spears' in Polybius = katabalousi tas sarisas = katabalousi from kataballo, throw down, strike down, let fall, and similar. Not wholly surprising given the common meanings of the word that Livy misunderstood, but Polybius uses it elsewhere in the same way e.g. Pol 11.15, 11.16 (Spartan and Achaean phalangites).
Either way it doesn't tell us anything about the end result - just that spears were lowered from upright carry position to horizontal combat position.
What I find intriguing about Swiss pikemen is that they held their pikes overarm even though they had all read classical manuals about pike phalanxes and assumed (as we do) that classical pikes were held underarm. I suspect the Swiss figured out that overarm - except for the front rankers - is what actually works on the battlefield.
There's something in Aelian that suggests how the sarissas were held but let me dig up the reference first this evening. I'll also try out a couple of diagrams with shields angled at 45 degrees.
For what it's worth (not a lot), when Maurice of Nassau experimented with shielded pikemen he seems to have gone for the overarm position - see https://www.etsy.com/au/listing/238539264/exercise-with-shield-and-pike-drill (https://www.etsy.com/au/listing/238539264/exercise-with-shield-and-pike-drill).
Of course he also seems to have decided that shields weren't worth bothering with anyway...
Quote from: Duncan Head on February 28, 2018, 11:36:52 AM
For what it's worth (not a lot), when Maurice of Nassau experimented with shielded pikemen he seems to have gone for the overarm position - see https://www.etsy.com/au/listing/238539264/exercise-with-shield-and-pike-drill (https://www.etsy.com/au/listing/238539264/exercise-with-shield-and-pike-drill).
Of course he also seems to have decided that shields weren't worth bothering with anyway...
That would do nicely. Notice he can raise his shield arm to hold the pike higher than the shoulder of the man in front of him, and still have room to see over the shield. The point with that of course is that the man behind him will have to raise his pike even higher to clear the shield in front, so there would be a limit to how many ranks can wield pikes overarm and still see what they are doing.
His shield seems to be smaller than a Macedonian one, and apparently hangs from the shoulder by a strap.
The troubles with that image are:
- that shield is really teeny tiny. I know the orthodox view is that Macedonian shields were teeny tiny, but even so that looks less than 8 palms. Would it work with 8 palm width shields? Larger? The size of those in the Pergamon plaque?
- the pike is held with the hand over the end (not sure how essential that is, but that's how it's shown). Polybius is clear the spear sticks out behind the rear hand (Matthew rejects this, but I'm inclined to go with Polybius). A shoulder hold with 3 feet of spear sticking out the back would seem even more dangerous for rear rankers than the underarm hold.
Not that I can disprove or even argue strongly against the shoulder hold - there just isn't any evidence or strong argument in its favour (the strongest argument in its favour would be if it could be proved that the underarm hold is impossible, but that appears not to be the case).
Shield size doesn't actually matter if the pike is held overarm. What counts is shield height, and with the shield forearm angled high - as in the image - the shield can be kept fairly low regardless of how big it is.
My big problem with pikes held underarm is that their wielders have no flexibility at all. They must point their pikes straight ahead - their bodies preclude any lateral movement - which makes for a pike wall punctuated with 18"gaps through which an opponent can quite easily get close and brutal with the phalanx front rankers. Overarm gives a certain lateral flexibility, enabling the phalangites to actively poke at vulnerable spots in the enemy line, besides keeping the pike wall closed.
Quote from: Duncan Head on February 28, 2018, 11:36:52 AM
For what it's worth (not a lot), when Maurice of Nassau experimented with shielded pikemen he seems to have gone for the overarm position - see https://www.etsy.com/au/listing/238539264/exercise-with-shield-and-pike-drill (https://www.etsy.com/au/listing/238539264/exercise-with-shield-and-pike-drill).
Of course he also seems to have decided that shields weren't worth bothering with anyway...
The thing with Maurice is he is using standard period pikedrill and giving the poor bloke a shield to add to his woes. Normal pike drill had an overarm charge position by this point.
The Scots were still using bucklers with pikes in the mid-16th century. Here is William Pattens description of their defensive tactics
Standing at the defence, they thrust their shoulders likewise so nigh together; the fore rank so well nigh to kneeling, stoop low before their fellows behind holding their pikes in both hands and therewith on their left arms their bucklers, the one end of the pike against their right foot, the other against the enemy breast high, their followers crossing their pike points with them forward; and thus each with the other so nigh as place and space will suffer, through the whole Ward so thick that easily should a bare finger pierce through the skin of an angry hedgehog, as any encounter the front of their pikes.'Does the method of crossing pikes mean a high charge position?
I'm with Rich, I cant prove or disprove overarm pike use just feel' the underarm is more valid especially with a shield
I tried a few scale drawings and came up with some interesting conclusions.
First, I compared the shields facing forwards to angled at 45 degrees. Result: it makes very little difference to the space available for pikes held underarm:
(https://i.imgur.com/0bvDvhk.jpg)
IMHO the shields facing forwards is a slightly better option for the pikes (and the pikemen), so I did a bird's eye view of the phalanx to see how much lateral wiggle room the pikes would have before striking against the bodies of neighbouring phalangites. It's actually quite a bit:
(https://i.imgur.com/oBgl9eE.jpg)
Then the rub. I tried out a couple of diagrams to see how high the pikes could be held if wielded underarm. First their height to permit maximum lateral movement. The pikes must be completely below the shields in front of them:
(https://i.imgur.com/pMbuVQ3.jpg)
Secondly, if the pikes are held as high as possible with minimum lateral movement. They will be a little higher than the bottom of the shields and cannot get in each other's way, meaning that some will be lower than others:
(https://i.imgur.com/nPd7O4v.jpg)
Bottom line, I don't think underarm is going to work for a close formation phalanx as it is impossible to aim any except the front row of pikes at a vital part of the enemy soldiers' anatomy.
Arrian in Tactika 14 says: "As five or six pikes project beyond the front of the line, there can be no doubt that this would appear terrifying to an attacker, and each individual within the formation, surrounded by five or six pikes and supported by the men behind him, would hold a great level of confidence."
The keywords here are 'surrounded by'. That IMHO suggests far more readily that his file present their pikes above and below him, possibly on both sides of his body, rather than a neat bundle of pikes projecting beyond his right thigh at about 2 to 2½ feet from the ground.
QuoteBottom line, I don't think underarm is going to work for a close formation phalanx as it is impossible to aim any except the front row of pikes at a vital part of the enemy soldiers' anatomy.
Any reason why you've pointed the pikes down below the shields? Intuitively, I'd expected them to put up and over.
Quote from: Erpingham on February 28, 2018, 04:28:23 PM
QuoteBottom line, I don't think underarm is going to work for a close formation phalanx as it is impossible to aim any except the front row of pikes at a vital part of the enemy soldiers' anatomy.
Any reason why you've pointed the pikes down below the shields? Intuitively, I'd expected them to put up and over.
That's the point. Up and over means overarm, which is my original preference.
Maybe, though you can't read too much into the (translated) word 'surrounded'.
I think the trouble with diagrams like this, informative though they are in many ways, is they are far more strict and rigid than a body of men crowded together would be. I suspect, like in Anthony's quote, it was more a matter of squashing up as close as possible and angling body and shield so they best fitted, rather than a rigid line of dummies of fixed size and shape at precise intervals. I have a feeling that is a flaw with many of our imaginings of combat - it was probably much more dynamic than our mental models make it.
That's why I think testing it out for real is the better bet (and Peter Connolly did so, and found it worked OK). I'm quite surprised this hasn't been done more often (or when done, it has been documented so badly). All that's needed is a set of 20 or so circles of plywood, or dustbin lids or whatever, and 20 or so volunteers with pikes (and insurance) - like a local Sealed Knot group. It should be fairly simple to test.
So - at present, still quite possible, but lacking evidence.
It's true that in the real world there is more flexibility than in a diagram, but what stands out for me from these carefully scaled diagrams is that you can't get the pikes of the ranks behind the front rank to point upwards at the chest level of the enemy line (never mind at their heads) if you hold them underarm. The shields are a fixed given: they are a certain size, held at a certain height (give or take a few cm). They will keep the pikes pointed downwards.
The problem disappears if you hold the pikes overarm.
Any link to Connolly?
Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 28, 2018, 04:31:21 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on February 28, 2018, 04:28:23 PM
QuoteBottom line, I don't think underarm is going to work for a close formation phalanx as it is impossible to aim any except the front row of pikes at a vital part of the enemy soldiers' anatomy.
Any reason why you've pointed the pikes down below the shields? Intuitively, I'd expected them to put up and over.
That's the point. Up and over means overarm, which is my original preference.
No, up and over means angled. However, arguing about what each of us means by the same words won't get us anywhere.
I've been looking at pictures of reconstructed phalangites and they seem to go with a shield hanging from a shoulder strap not fixed to the arm. Does this have any bearing, given it would mean that the shield would be more mobile and could perhaps adjust itself to where pikes contacted it?
Quote from: Erpingham on February 28, 2018, 05:07:27 PMI've been looking at pictures of reconstructed phalangites and they seem to go with a shield hanging from a shoulder strap not fixed to the arm. Does this have any bearing, given it would mean that the shield would be more mobile and could perhaps adjust itself to where pikes contacted it?
Can you show me the pics?
One thing that has not been noted here is muscle fatigue. Holding arms upright, which is needed for overarm use, results in greater muscle fatigue than holding the pike at the lower position. While younger people are able to hold their arms in a raised position for a longer period as people age the length of time they can hold their arms up diminishes significantly.
This one (https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwimuIvmjcnZAhWJLsAKHYm9DQAQjRx6BAgAEAY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.holodnoe-oruzhie.ru%2Fksifos&psig=AOvVaw1HojH9TlWD3gR5QJGfa7ff&ust=1519923683853945) and
this one (https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjzofCHjsnZAhWrC8AKHR84CIoQjRx6BAgAEAY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fprogramdlapolski.info%2Fmeb%2Fmacedonian-phalanx-reenactment.awp&psig=AOvVaw1HojH9TlWD3gR5QJGfa7ff&ust=1519923683853945) caught my eye.
Justin, since you have looked at the Swiss, can you provide any evidence that they mixed over and under arm in the same formation?
You seem to say this is a fact from your research on the first page of this thread.
I have never encountered anything suggesting that what so ever, so I am curious as to where this remarkable notion came from.
Quote from: Erpingham on February 28, 2018, 05:23:20 PM
This one (https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwimuIvmjcnZAhWJLsAKHYm9DQAQjRx6BAgAEAY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.holodnoe-oruzhie.ru%2Fksifos&psig=AOvVaw1HojH9TlWD3gR5QJGfa7ff&ust=1519923683853945) and
this one (https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjzofCHjsnZAhWrC8AKHR84CIoQjRx6BAgAEAY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fprogramdlapolski.info%2Fmeb%2Fmacedonian-phalanx-reenactment.awp&psig=AOvVaw1HojH9TlWD3gR5QJGfa7ff&ust=1519923683853945) caught my eye.
thanks Anthony.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 28, 2018, 04:51:31 PMAny link to Connolly?
I don't think that Peter Connolly article is online. The reference is "Experiments with the sarissa – the Macedonian pike and cavalry lance – a functional view" in AT Croom and W Griffiths (eds.),
Re-enactment as Research: Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 11 (2000).
For reconstructions, try:
http://hetairoi.de/en/the-sarissa
http://www.hetairoi.de/index.php/en/the-sarissa-experiment - though only a couple of the photos show the shield being carried
http://hetairoi.de/sites/default/files/styles/facebook_single/public/2017-02/20150802_14-58-37_DSCN8717.jpg?itok=QIiP53Hi
http://i52.tinypic.com/11jufyv.jpg
None, though, show multiple ranks. That was one of the problems Christopher Matthew's version addressed, though I can't remember his solution, and nor do I have the energy to dig his book out of the archive and look it up.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 28, 2018, 03:52:56 PM
Bottom line, I don't think underarm is going to work for a close formation phalanx as it is impossible to aim any except the front row of pikes at a vital part of the enemy soldiers' anatomy.
Do we know if the rear ranks were "aiming"? There is a lot in front of them, obscuring their vision.
Also wondering, if you lift the pike to an upper arm position, what happens to the shield? Does it rotate into a less helpful position?
There is also the weight to consider.
Quote from: Mark G on February 28, 2018, 08:26:58 PM
Justin, since you have looked at the Swiss, can you provide any evidence that they mixed over and under arm in the same formation?
You seem to say this is a fact from your research on the first page of this thread.
I have never encountered anything suggesting that what so ever, so I am curious as to where this remarkable notion came from.
This (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_square)is one source (yes it's Wiki but that doesn't mean it's made up). Specifically this defensive formation:
(https://i.imgur.com/wPqRRjN.jpg)
Quote from: Duncan Head on February 28, 2018, 09:42:16 PM
None, though, show multiple ranks. That was one of the problems Christopher Matthew's version addressed, though I can't remember his solution, and nor do I have the energy to dig his book out of the archive and look it up.
Pity as that would answer a few questions.
Of course if his reenactors deployed in intermediate formation (3 feet per file) there would be much less of a problem with the placement of the pikes.
(https://i.imgur.com/2gFt7BX.jpg)
Towards the end this video shows a group approximating the phalanx. They are not using shields, but it still gives a fairly good idea of how it might have worked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MX2Njyhouw
The Alexander movie did of course have men with shields, and they seemed to manage three or four ranks of pike extended, though they only show very brief clips of them in that formation (3:19, for example).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNbqyAHCPlQ
I suspect it's one of those things that you'd be able to work out pretty quickly if you had a large group of able bodied folks all with shield and sarissa. Not so easy to reach sound conclusions from diagrams alone, I imagine!
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 01, 2018, 03:26:55 AM
Quote from: Mark G on February 28, 2018, 08:26:58 PM
Justin, since you have looked at the Swiss, can you provide any evidence that they mixed over and under arm in the same formation?
You seem to say this is a fact from your research on the first page of this thread.
I have never encountered anything suggesting that what so ever, so I am curious as to where this remarkable notion came from.
This (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_square)is one source (yes it's Wiki but that doesn't mean it's made up). Specifically this defensive formation:
(https://i.imgur.com/wPqRRjN.jpg)
I cannot see a man with a shield on his arm holding that sort of overarm pose for any length of time. Also the weight of the shield as he thrusts is going to drag his arm down
It's almost a self parody that you use this to support your case, Justin.
But suffice to say, no one seriously believes that you can attack ala Swiss kiels with that 30 years war era anti-cavalry defensive formation,
nor that the long pikes of the era can be of any use when supported against a foot to fix the point at the height of a horses eyes.
So I think we are back where we began.
No evidence whatsoever that ancient or renaissance pike blocks mixed pike holds between over and under arm in the same formation and no evidence that ancients used overarm.
Carry on and see if you can find something, it would be very interesting if you could. But you will have to explicitly cite anything you find, because it will be a significant find and must be open to challenge before it can be accepted.
At least you haven't shown an image of the modern papal guard to argue the swiss were armed with magazine loaded pistols, but you are at that sort of comparison with that image in this context, I am afraid.
Quote from: Jim Webster on March 01, 2018, 07:25:32 AM
I cannot see a man with a shield on his arm holding that sort of overarm pose for any length of time. Also the weight of the shield as he thrusts is going to drag his arm down
The Swiss seemed to have managed it fine -well enough to win their battles :).
I envisage a different grip if there is a shield on the forearm: left hand grips the shaft with the hand on top and the thumb below. The upper arm is held against the chest and the forearm is raised high - just below eye level. The left arm is thus contracted and the weight of the shield and pike is carried by the shoulder. That shouldn't be too tiring.
Quote from: Mark G on March 01, 2018, 08:07:56 AM
It's almost a self parody that you use this to support your case, Justin.
But suffice to say, no one seriously believes that you can attack ala Swiss kiels with that 30 years war era anti-cavalry defensive formation,
nor that the long pikes of the era can be of any use when supported against a foot to fix the point at the height of a horses eyes.
So I think we are back where we began.
No evidence whatsoever that ancient or renaissance pike blocks mixed pike holds between over and under arm in the same formation and no evidence that ancients used overarm.
Carry on and see if you can find something, it would be very interesting if you could. But you will have to explicitly cite anything you find, because it will be a significant find and must be open to challenge before it can be accepted.
At least you haven't shown an image of the modern papal guard to argue the swiss were armed with magazine loaded pistols, but you are at that sort of comparison with that image in this context, I am afraid.
So we have established that a pike formation with the front ranks holding their pikes underarm whilst the ranks behind held their over arm
did exist in this period (that was my main point). Is there any reason for thinking the Swiss didn't use it? Is there any reason for thinking it didn't work, particularly as it was a tried and tested battlefield formation? Is there, finally, any reason for thinking it wouldn't have worked in Antiquity, since Renaissance men and horses were pretty much like men and horses in Antiquity?
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 01, 2018, 08:14:33 AM
So we have established that a pike formation with the front ranks holding their pikes underarm whilst the ranks behind held their over arm did exist in this period (that was my main point).
Not really. The front rank are in "Charge Pike to Horse", the rear ranks at "Charge", drawn from late 16th/early 17th century manuals. Nobody is at "Port" or "Low Port" (the underarm ones). However, as a crumb of comfort, the Scots quoted above may have been in a similar formation. If they closed their ranks to the front a bit (I've no idea why they are in this loose formation - cavalry wouldn't even need a magic wedge to take them apart), their pikes would overlap as per the description. Incidentally, while the "Charge to Horse" position has solid medieval ancestry, I've not seen a picture of Swiss in our period of interest using it.
I've been raiding the art collections for images of the Swiss in combat
The battle of Grandson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grandson#/media/File:Luzerner_Schilling_Battle_of_Grandson.jpg) as envisaged in the early 16th century. Troops in combat use both underarm and overarm together, probably representing individual choice by the pikeman rather than rigid drill.
Another Schilling (http://camisado1500s.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/maximilian-mounted-crossbowmen.html). Note underarm and overarm in use. The overarm here is the earlier version, not like our re-enactors with their Dutch drill. The pike is not held by the end, the intention perhaps being more flexible usage.
You can see the early high position here (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alexanderschlacht_(Soldaten).jpg) from 1529. For composition reasons, Altdorfer has made them left handed. These are Macedonian pikemen at Issus and based on landsknechts rather than Swiss. Note that now they are charging with pikes in the high position.
Fornovo (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Albanian_Stradioti_at_Battle_of_Fornovo.jpg), end of 15th century. The Swiss in formation not combat. Note universal stance is underarm. Although they are fighting cavalry, nobody has adopted the bending forward, foot braced, posture.
I don't know if this is taking us anywhere re Macedonians but it does provide some more contemporary evidence of what the Swiss did.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 01, 2018, 08:08:10 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on March 01, 2018, 07:25:32 AM
I cannot see a man with a shield on his arm holding that sort of overarm pose for any length of time. Also the weight of the shield as he thrusts is going to drag his arm down
The Swiss seemed to have managed it fine -well enough to win their battles :).
I envisage a different grip if there is a shield on the forearm: left hand grips the shaft with the hand on top and the thumb below. The upper arm is held against the chest and the forearm is raised high - just below eye level. The left arm is thus contracted and the weight of the shield and pike is carried by the shoulder. That shouldn't be too tiring.
And surely such a pose would be useless for getting any force behind a thrust with the pike. Rather than having the power of both arms and shoulders behind the blow, one hand is restricted to being a holding loop that the pike just runs through
Justin:
Quote
Any link to Connolly?
Not online - I have a photocopy at home, I'll get a quote and a photo this evening if I remember, and am not snowed out.
Anthony:
Quote
I've been looking at pictures of reconstructed phalangites and they seem to go with a shield hanging from a shoulder strap not fixed to the arm. Does this have any bearing, given it would mean that the shield would be more mobile and could perhaps adjust itself to where pikes contacted it?
Well as I've said before, this is a pet peeve of mine. It would certainly make the shield more mobile, to the extent so far as I can see that the shield would be completely useless. There's also no evidence for the strap aside from the (in my view misinterpreted) "they brought round their shields from their shoulders" at Pydna, and "not with a porpax but an ochane" for Philopoemen's reforms (see earlier discussions). I firmly believe (for what it's worth) that the whole shield on a strap thing is a complete red herring, for all that it is astonishingly deep rooted and pervasive.
willb
Quote
While younger people are able to hold their arms in a raised position for a longer period as people age the length of time they can hold their arms up diminishes significantly.
Significant for the Argyraspides at Paraitacene then! Though this could lead us into 'how long do battles last' territory (if not long, it's not a big problem).
Duncan (useful links):
Quote
None, though, show multiple ranks. That was one of the problems Christopher Matthew's version addressed, though I can't remember his solution, and nor do I have the energy to dig his book out of the archive and look it up.
That is the recurring problem with these reconstructions - what's the point of doing them if not to do them properly?
Matthew's solution is to conclude that phalangites did not (could not) use 18" spacing. At 3 foot spacing (his minimum), the spears fit through the gaps by being angled slightly and successively to the right. His is I think another example of error by diagram - I imagine (and wish someone would prove) that in real life small adjustments in spear height would make it fairly easy to have them all facing forward.
Bear in mind also in all this that the 18" spacing is a special ('forced') static defensive formation, and that 3 feet is the normal combat spacing - so if 18" is a bit awkward and suboptimal in terms of projecting the spears, that's not too surprising - the aim wasn't to optimise the poking of spears, but to provide a solid mass of men. Poking probably wasn't needed. Also Arrian
Taktika has it that the second rank man alone can help the first with his thrusts (othismois :o ) - so others behind presumably didn't need to.
Yes, dug out my copy of Matthew's @An Invincible Beast' and he has the phalangites at 3 feet spacing (he calls it intermediate as opposed to open and close formations) in the oblique body position. re the shield, he does go for the combined central armband and shoulder strap
although he maintains that the shoulder strap is for carrying and you need the armband to make the shield effective in combat (as per the aspis)
One point about the shield - the phalangite doesn't actually 'carry' it at all. The porpax, or shield strap, is near the center of the shield, meaning the strap will be right up against the bearer's elbow. This consequently means the shield actually hangs from the bearer's upper arm. He needs very little effort to keep his forearm up at an angle. Think of the physics involved.
The only real weight he has to exert muscle power for is the sarissa, and with training (and a life much more physically active than we are accustomed to at present) that is hardly a problem.
Quote from: Erpingham on March 01, 2018, 09:25:44 AM
The pike is not held by the end, the intention perhaps being more flexible usage.
The Swiss are noted as holding their pikes closer to the centre than Landsknechte did. Supposedly this had two purposes - better control and encouraging the men to close rather than stand off and "fence" - but I don't know if this is supported by any contemporary evidence or is latter-day rationalization.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on March 01, 2018, 12:45:17 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on March 01, 2018, 09:25:44 AM
The pike is not held by the end, the intention perhaps being more flexible usage.
The Swiss are noted as holding their pikes closer to the centre than Landsknechte did. Supposedly this had two purposes - better control and encouraging the men to close rather than stand off and "fence" - but I don't know if this is supported by any contemporary evidence or is latter-day rationalization.
If you look at the Fornovo woodcut in magnification, you will see the Swiss are holding their pikes quite centrally.
If you look at this Paul Dolstein sketch (https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjc8qvDlsvZAhUrJsAKHVE2Cr4QjRx6BAgAEAY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skaliger.de%2FForschung%2FAufsaetze%2FBilderkatalog.html&psig=AOvVaw2D1z-2eOrhlJyS5OJHeGEx&ust=1519995341324957) from the same time, which shows landsknechts foyning with their pikes, we can see they hold them much nearer the end (though not right at the end like the later style). Dolstein's landsknecht pictures show formations too. It is notable all of his front rank pikemen facing infantry are using the high position, all those facing cavalry the low position.
So there is some visual support. I suspect a bit of searching might turn up some commentary on landsknecht v. Reislaufer technique.
Addendum :
Found it.
Blaise de Monluc, describing the fighting at Cerisoles 1544
`Gentlemen, it may be that there are not many here who have been in battle before, and therefore let me tell you that if we take our pikes by the hinder end and fight at the length of the pike, we shall be defeated; for the Germans are more dexterous at that kind of fight than we are. But you must take your pikes in the middle as the Swiss do and run headlong to force and penetrate into the midst of them, and you shall see how confounded they will be.'
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 01, 2018, 12:08:23 PM
One point about the shield - the phalangite doesn't actually 'carry' it at all. The porpax, or shield strap, is near the center of the shield, meaning the strap will be right up against the bearer's elbow.
Of course one of the few things we are told about how the phalangite's shield was held is that it didn't
have a porpax at all...
Quotewhom he taught to use a sarisa, held in both hands, instead of a doru, and to carry their shields by an ochane instead of by a porpax...
Any further statements about how the shield was held, and how its weight was supported, are more or less speculation. See, as Rich has said, previous discussions.
Quote from: RichT on March 01, 2018, 09:36:26 AM
J
willb
Quote
While younger people are able to hold their arms in a raised position for a longer period as people age the length of time they can hold their arms up diminishes significantly.
Significant for the Argyraspides at Paraitacene then! Though this could lead us into 'how long do battles last' territory (if not long, it's not a big problem).
At the age the Argyraspides were supposed to be this would be about 15 minutes maximum if even that long. Easily verified by holding some weights in that position. Per Diodorus "At the same time that this was going on, it so happened that the infantry for a considerable time had been engaged in a battle of phalanxes, but finally, after many had fallen on both sides, Eumenes' men were victorious because of the valour of the Macedonian Silver Shields. " While not a definitive length of time, it is most likely more than 15 minutes.
Quote from: Duncan Head on March 01, 2018, 01:34:28 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 01, 2018, 12:08:23 PM
One point about the shield - the phalangite doesn't actually 'carry' it at all. The porpax, or shield strap, is near the center of the shield, meaning the strap will be right up against the bearer's elbow.
Of course one of the few things we are told about how the phalangite's shield was held is that it didn't have a porpax at all...
Quotewhom he taught to use a sarisa, held in both hands, instead of a doru, and to carry their shields by an ochane instead of by a porpax...
Any further statements about how the shield was held, and how its weight was supported, are more or less speculation. See, as Rich has said, previous discussions.
Perfect. If the shield wasn't held by the forearm, it didn't weigh down the arm. If it was held by the forearm it didn't weigh down the arm anyway since the weight was borne by the shoulder.
Not having the shield born by the forearm makes bearing sarissas overarm much less of a problem from the visibility POV - the phalangites could raise their sarissas as high as they liked and still see over their not-raised shields.
I tried a little experiment this evening, wielding a stripped-down palm branch (you don't seem to find used sarissas lying around in the Durban area). In the first photo I kept my left upper arm angled straight down and my forearm held high. The branch rested on the arm like a fulcrum with very little muscle exertion. I added the shield later when editing (shields seem to be in even shorter supply)
Notice how in this position the sarissa should be able to project over the shield of the man in a front rank as the file leader holds his sarissa underarm and hence his shield is below his shoulder height.
Raising the sarissa a little in the second photo enables me to project it over the shield of the second man and still be able to see what I'm doing. Raising it any higher puts the shield in front of my eyes and I can't see what I'm doing.
So based in this, it seems hypothetically possible for two, and possibly three, men to present their sarissas overarm to project over the shields of the men in front of them whilst permitting them to see their targets. Men further back would probably have to bear their sarissas underarm, to project - pointed low - between the files.
If however the shield is carried by a shoulder strap and not by the forearm then the rear ranks can bear their sarissas as high as they like, at least only whilst fighting to prevent fatigue, without their shields getting in the way of their eyes.
(https://i.imgur.com/pKgSW3D.jpg)
Here's an extended quote from the Peter Connolly article. He used 16 members of a Sealed Knot group, with pikes 8.844m long and shields 0.63m in diameter. As you see most experiments were done in the two cubit spacing, as you would expect, but he also described 'doubling' (halving the interval) and it still worked. Overall the account is frustratingly imprecise in some ways, but clear enough in general. There are accompanying photos but all of the two cubit spacing, so not strictly relevant to present discussion. Spears are held in standard underarm position, shield held by forearm band, hand loop and neck strap (the purpose of the neck strap is unclear to me).
Quote
Experiments with the sarissa - the Macedonian pike and cavalry lance - a functional view
Peter Connolly, JRMES 11 2000, 103-112
Using a measuring stick two 'Polybian' cubits (0.834m) long they formed up in three files with a two cubit allowance for rank and file just as Polybius described. Many physical problems had to be resolved. For example, I was worried about the weight of the shield but nobody mentioned it. It had also been suggested that one could not use a pike with Andronicos' butt spike in mass phalanx formation without injuring the person behind. In total eight problems were put to the test. To our surprise all produced satisfactory solutions.
Our worries about the butt spike proved unfounded. In practice each person was able to hold their pike in position without endangering the person behind. Polybius' allowance of four cubits behind the front hand ensured that the butt spike passed well beyond the groin of the next person in file.
Another concern was whether the pikes could be held in formation without fouling the hands of the people in front and behind. On paper this seemed a serious problem but in reality each pike passed just above the hands of the person in front. This was not contrived but happened naturally because gravity made the pikes curve slightly.
The ability to thrust was tested. In formation it proved impossible to make a thrust of more than one cubit.
On the thorny and much debated question of flexibility we found that, advancing in formation with pikes levelled, it was impossible to wheel the three files on less than a fourteen cubit radius from the inside file. We concluded that it would have required intensive drill to wheel a 16 x 16 strong speira effectively.
Marching and changing direction had to be done with the pikes held upright. Once in position the pikes had to be levelled rank by rank starting at the front. This was tried starting at the back but resulted in the fouling of the spears of the men in front.
Doubling the files proved far easier than expected. Formed up in the standard two cubit formation, with pikes in the upright position, the right hand file turned about, marched towards the rear, wheeled and came up the interval between the other two files. They then levelled their pikes proving that it was possible to 'double' the formation allowing only one cubit per man.
I had assumed that the group would not be prepared to charge in formation deeming it too dangerous but after advancing in formation they broke into a run and charged. This required great discipline; had one of the spear points hit the ground there could have been serious injury.
At the Battle of Pydna (168BC) the Macedonian pikes became locked in the Roman shields as the phalanx tried to push the Romans back. This was one of the primary functions of the Macedonian formation. Wanting to see what happened to the formation in such circumstances we had the front rank stand firm and the other four ranks push forward. This resulted in the formation condensing to one cubit per man in file.
Conclusions
The phalanx experiment proved that with practice it would be possible to use a 5.8m long pike effectively. The experiment with the phalanx pushing back the enemy showed that in this situation using a 4m long pike as proposed by Tarn and Manti held in the manner described by Polybius five or even seven ranks could have their pikes sticking out of the front of the phalanx. However one could not march let alone charge with only a 0.69m allowance per rank and if a wider space were allowed between ranks during the charge there would be a danger of the front ranks being speared by those following. Alternatively, if the pikes of the second to fifth ranks were only levelled after impact, much of the effect of the charge would be lost.
QuoteDoubling the files proved far easier than expected. Formed up in the standard two cubit formation, with pikes in the upright position, the right hand file turned about, marched towards the rear, wheeled and came up the interval between the other two files. They then levelled their pikes proving that it was possible to 'double' the formation allowing only one cubit per man.
I would love to have seen a photo of this.
Quote from: RichT on February 28, 2018, 04:44:21 PM
Maybe, though you can't read too much into the (translated) word 'surrounded'.
Finally found it: it's the participle of the verb
phrasso, which means "To shut up or shut in; to secure by enclosing or shutting up." Just a word, but it does convey the image of a phalangite surrounded by the pikes of his file rather than have them low down and all on one side.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 02, 2018, 08:52:50 PM
Just a word, but it does convey the image of a phalangite surrounded by the pikes of his file rather than have them low down and all on one side.
But he has the pikes of the next file about the same distance from his other side and the pikes of the rear ranks sloped over his head in the established model. Might a Greek writer have not thought that was "enclosed"?
Quote from: Erpingham on March 03, 2018, 10:20:08 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 02, 2018, 08:52:50 PM
Just a word, but it does convey the image of a phalangite surrounded by the pikes of his file rather than have them low down and all on one side.
But he has the pikes of the next file about the same distance from his other side and the pikes of the rear ranks sloped over his head in the established model. Might a Greek writer have not thought that was "enclosed"?
The passage talks about the front ranker being enclosed by the 5 or 6 pikes of
his file, not neighbouring files. Again, this is not forensic evidence, but does tend to support the overarm model.
Quote from: Erpingham on March 03, 2018, 10:20:08 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 02, 2018, 08:52:50 PM
Just a word, but it does convey the image of a phalangite surrounded by the pikes of his file rather than have them low down and all on one side.
But he has the pikes of the next file about the same distance from his other side and the pikes of the rear ranks sloped over his head in the established model. Might a Greek writer have not thought that was "enclosed"?
Yes it struck me that 'enclosed' didn't really come down in favour of either model
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on March 01, 2018, 12:45:17 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on March 01, 2018, 09:25:44 AM
The pike is not held by the end, the intention perhaps being more flexible usage.
The Swiss are noted as holding their pikes closer to the centre than Landsknechte did. Supposedly this had two purposes - better control and encouraging the men to close rather than stand off and "fence" - but I don't know if this is supported by any contemporary evidence or is latter-day rationalization.
There's this quote from Monluc which I've always thought useful in trying to understand how pike fighting was done.
"'Now sir,' said I to Monsieur de Taix, 'it is time to rise,' which he suddenly did, and I began to cry out aloud: 'Gentlemen, it may be there are not many here who have ever been in a battle before, and therefore let me tell you that if we take our pikes by the hinder end and fight at the length of the pike, we shall be defeated; for the Germans are more dexterous at this kind of fight than we are. But you must take your pikes by the middle as the Swiss do and run headlong to forces and penetrate into the midst of them, and you shall see how confounded they will be.' Monsieur de Taix then cried out to me to go along the battle and make them all handle their pikes after this manner, which I accordingly did, and now we were all ready for the encounter."
I will avoid quoting all Sir John Smythe has to say on the matter as it is stretching the topic (though the interested may read it here (http://www.marquisofwinchesters.co.uk/2017/02/04/sir-john-smythe-on-pike-fighting/)) but suffice to say, he is with Monluc on this
I thinke it may be apparant to all such as are not obstinatelie ignorant, that battles and squadrons of piques in the field when they do incounter and charge one another, are not by reason or experience mylitarie to stand all day thrusting, pushing, and foining one at another, as some do most vainlie imagine, but ought according to all experiance with one puissant charge and thrust to enter and disorder, wound, open, and break the one the other, as is before at large declared.
It is unfortunate for the present debate that we don't have more of this level of opinionated detailed discussion of pike fighting surviving from Hellenistic times.
Writing this, I wonder what Sir John would have made of our forum - I bet he'd have been banned by now.
"I think it may be apparent to all such as are not obstinately ignorant" indeed.
He was the great champion of the longbow too. He does agree with Monluc on the best way, for English or French soldiers anyhow, to use a pike. He dismisses outright the practice of 'thrusting, pushing, and foigning one at another' that Monluc clearly says was the other method. A lad of strong views was Sir John Smythe!
It might be of interest to note from the same period that Tyrell, one of Tyrone's best Captains thought that six weeks was sufficient to train a pike man. That would be in the Monluc/Smythe method I think. That might have some bearing when considering Mithridates phalanx of former slaves.
One thing we might take from Sir John (and Blaise de Monluc) is how important or not the ability of the individual pikeman's ability while in formation to move his pike round to engage targets. They were both into the pike block as a single instrument. It is something we might consider when looking at Hellenistic pike formations. I'm not suggesting we take Sir John as evidence but recognise the tensions between an individual approach and a collective one when looking at our Hellenistic reconstructions.
That seems right to me too Anthony.
Quote from: Erpingham on March 03, 2018, 01:43:12 PM
One thing we might take from Sir John (and Blaise de Monluc) is how important or not the ability of the individual pikeman's ability while in formation to move his pike round to engage targets. They were both into the pike block as a single instrument. It is something we might consider when looking at Hellenistic pike formations. I'm not suggesting we take Sir John as evidence but recognise the tensions between an individual approach and a collective one when looking at our Hellenistic reconstructions.
yes I think the block is very much a collective
Quote
Finally found it: it's the participle of the verb phrasso, which means "To shut up or shut in; to secure by enclosing or shutting up." Just a word, but it does convey the image of a phalangite surrounded by the pikes of his file rather than have them low down and all on one side.
As a very small point this is not from Arrian but Aelian 14 - Arrian's equivalent passage (Tactica 12) doesn't mention this, while Asclepiodotus (5.2) is basically the same with a slightly different word - "And the Macedonians, men say, with this line of spears do not merely terrify the enemy by their appearance, but also embolden evey file-leader, protected as he is by the strength of five." - where 'protected' is pephrouremenon, from phroureo, to watch or keep guard. Phrasso itself has meanings like hedge in or fence in eg it is used for the Persian shield fence. So I don't think it very suggestive at all of a shoulder level hold (though of course it also doesn't rule it out).
I think comparative material like Smythe, Monluc is extremely useful, though never conclusive of course, and also serves as a reminder that there were different theories of how best to fight with pikes, and there were probably also different theories in Hellenistic times - we shouldn't expect all Macedonian phalanxes everywhere for 200 years to all have been identical. That said, the manuals etc do suggest (to me) group mass fighting, not individuals.
And talking of comparative materials - are there any books or articles anyone can recommend on pike fighting in Medieval/Renaissance/Early Modern times - any examination of the technical details equivalent to (though hopefully better than) Christopher Matthew's?
having dug out my copy of Matthew I do actually find his explanations very easy to follow and completely logical
Quote from: RichT on March 03, 2018, 07:29:45 PMI think comparative material like Smythe, Monluc is extremely useful, though never conclusive of course, and also serves as a reminder that there were different theories of how best to fight with pikes, and there were probably also different theories in Hellenistic times - we shouldn't expect all Macedonian phalanxes everywhere for 200 years to all have been identical. That said, the manuals etc do suggest (to me) group mass fighting, not individuals.
This is the conclusion I've been coming to: the Renaissance pikemen tried both holds and used them differently for different situations, and that as a result of battlefield experience. I think it inevitable that classical pikemen would have done the same. I'm not, however, aware of evidence of a Macedonian phalanx charging in quite the same way as a Swiss pike block did. The phalanx seems to have employed a steady advance, i.e. neither standing and sparring (foigning) like the Landsknechts, nor running in, pikes held in the middle, like the Swiss. With the phalanx way of going about it, there would have been room for some individual sparring whilst the formation moved forwards and its enemy gave way, as did the Romans at Cynoscephalae.
Does anyone know where I can get an online copy of Arrian's Tactics? Anything except a scanned pdf (though I'll use that if nothing else is available).
Here's an interesting illustration of a phalanx in intermediate formation. The artist has the ranks behind the front men shoulder their shields. Notice that even in intermediate formation the front rank shields tend to get in the way if the pikes are held low, so much so that the rearmost pikes are actually held overarm, pikes projecting over the tops of the shields. OK, not a reenactment but the next best thing - everything seems in scale and the artist doesn't cheat.
Doesn't anyone have reenactment photos of an attempt to create a phalanx like this?
(https://i.imgur.com/xIkK75X.jpg)
Justin:
Quote
Does anyone know where I can get an online copy of Arrian's Tactics?
The Greek text is on Perseus: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a2008.01.0534
If you want an online translation I think you are out of luck. The de Voto translation may be avalable through online booksellers (I bought a copy not many years ago) - but it is a painfully literal translation so beware.
Quote
Doesn't anyone have reenactment photos of an attempt to create a phalanx at least 5 ranks deep?
There are photos (intermediate order only) in the Connolly article I quoted earlier but I'm currently without a scanner. My searches haven't turned up anything else. The Connolly hold is not dissimilar to the painting you show - the ranks hold the pikes slightly highter to pass over the pikes of the men ahead, though never so high as to be an underarm/shoulder hold.
Incidentally that painting seems to have the ranks behind the first with their shields on their backs - would would at least provide a use for the strap, but seems a bit unlikely, since if the front rank man went down, the second ranker would be shieldless. This reminds me of a bit of personal ancient history - I had big fights years ago over the fact that WRG 5th made pikemen shieldless. Never understood that.
Holly:
Quote
having dug out my copy of Matthew I do actually find his explanations very easy to follow and completely logical
All of them? OK I'm being harsh, Beast is a long book and full of very good and useful stuff, a lot of it very well reasoned. The topic of this thread just reminded me of the bits that IMHO aren't (but they aren't the whole of the book).
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 04, 2018, 04:22:12 PM
so much so that the rearmost pikes are actually held overarm,
I'm missing something. All I can see are four ranks with pikes held low and then the rest with raised pikes. I think from the ancient tacticians, several ranks behind four should be angling their pikes over the heads of the forward ranks.
You might be interested in this (http://makedonija.name/images/history/ancient_mac/ancient_army.jpg), which is the only reconstruction of a phalanx I can find not using a low carry. These guys use a middle grip, with the sarissa couched under the armpit. The shields seem to have become small circular stomach protectors not attached to the arm, perhaps suspended by a strap round the neck? Doesn't seem very practical though.
There's a crying need for gloves in that illustration I wonder if ancient pike men wrapped cloth around their knuckles to protect them? It's the sort of thing that doesn't get reported when describing the big picture.
Quote from: Erpingham on March 04, 2018, 05:22:30 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 04, 2018, 04:22:12 PM
so much so that the rearmost pikes are actually held overarm,
I'm missing something. All I can see are four ranks with pikes held low and then the rest with raised pikes. I think from the ancient tacticians, several ranks behind four should be angling their pikes over the heads of the forward ranks.
I noticed that too. It's an imperfect world.
Quote from: Erpingham on March 04, 2018, 05:22:30 PMYou might be interested in this (http://makedonija.name/images/history/ancient_mac/ancient_army.jpg), which is the only reconstruction of a phalanx I can find not using a low carry. These guys use a middle grip, with the sarissa couched under the armpit. The shields seem to have become small circular stomach protectors not attached to the arm, perhaps suspended by a strap round the neck? Doesn't seem very practical though.
Not in a million years. The shields need to be at least two feet wide.
Quote from: RichT on March 04, 2018, 05:15:55 PM
Justin:
Quote
Does anyone know where I can get an online copy of Arrian's Tactics?
The Greek text is on Perseus: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a2008.01.0534
Already got that, but ta.
Quote from: RichT on March 04, 2018, 05:15:55 PMThere are photos (intermediate order only) in the Connolly article I quoted earlier but I'm currently without a scanner. My searches haven't turned up anything else. The Connolly hold is not dissimilar to the painting you show - the ranks hold the pikes slightly highter to pass over the pikes of the men ahead, though never so high as to be an underarm/shoulder hold.
Incidentally that painting seems to have the ranks behind the first with their shields on their backs - would would at least provide a use for the strap, but seems a bit unlikely, since if the front rank man went down, the second ranker would be shieldless. This reminds me of a bit of personal ancient history - I had big fights years ago over the fact that WRG 5th made pikemen shieldless. Never understood that.
If the first two ranks held their shields in their arms, that would leave the second man ready if the first man fell. The third and following ranks could shoulder their shields so as to raise their pikes higher and see what they are doing (though it's still possible for rank 2 - 4 to do that, enough to clear the men in front, whilst bearing their shields on their arms).
I'm theorising that everyone behind the first ranker could hold his shield with shoulder strap
and keep his left arm behind the shield: it can move fairly freely whilst the shield, braced against it by the strap, offers protection.
Polybius Histories 18.29
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 Homer1— ""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."
" 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.
Original Greek from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0233%3Abook%3D18%3Achapter%3D29%3Asection%3D1 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0233%3Abook%3D18%3Achapter%3D29%3Asection%3D1)
ὅτι μὲν ἐχούσης τῆς φάλαγγος τὴν αὑτῆς ἰδιότητα καὶ δύναμιν οὐδὲν ἂν ὑποσταίη κατὰ πρόσωπον οὐδὲ μείναι τὴν ἔφοδον αὐτῆς, εὐχερὲς καταμαθεῖν ἐκ πολλῶν. ἐπεὶ γὰρ ὁ μὲν ἀνὴρ ἵσταται σὺν τοῖς ὅπλοις ἐν τρισὶ ποσὶ κατὰ τὰς ἐναγωνίους πυκνώσεις, τὸ δὲ τῶν σαρισῶν μέγεθός ἐστι κατὰ μὲν τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὑπόθεσιν ἑκκαίδεκα πηχῶν, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἁρμογὴν τὴν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν δεκατεττάρων, τούτων δὲ τοὺς τέτταρας ἀφαιρεῖ τὸ μεταξὺ τοῖν χεροῖν διάστημα καὶ τὸ κατόπιν σήκωμα τῆς προβολῆς, φανερὸν ὅτι τοὺς δέκα πήχεις προπίπτειν ἀνάγκη τὴν σάρισαν πρὸ τῶν σωμάτων ἑκάστου τῶν ὁπλιτῶν, ὅταν ἴῃ δι᾽ ἀμφοῖν τοῖν χεροῖν προβαλόμενος ἐπὶ τοὺς πολεμίους. ἐκ δὲ τούτου συμβαίνει τὰς μὲν τοῦ δευτέρου καὶ τρίτου καὶ τετάρτου πλεῖον, τὰς δὲ τοῦ πέμπτου ζυγοῦ σαρίσας δύο προπίπτειν πήχεις πρὸ τῶν πρωτοστατῶν, ἐχούσης τῆς φάλαγγος τὴν αὑτῆς ἰδιότητα καὶ πύκνωσιν κατ᾽ ἐπιστάτην καὶ κατὰ παραστάτην, ὡς Ὅμηρος ὑποδείκνυσιν ἐν τούτοις:
ἀσπὶς ἄρ᾽ ἀσπίδ᾽ ἔρειδε, κόρυς κόρυν, ἀνέρα δ᾽ ἀνήρ:
ψαῦον δ᾽ ἱππόκομοι κόρυθες λαμπροῖσι φάλοισι
νευόντων: ὣς πυκνοὶ ἐφέστασαν ἀλλήλοισι. τούτων δ᾽ ἀληθινῶς καὶ καλῶς λεγομένων,
Note, He specifically says lowers it with both hands, not lowered and raised or held up in an overarm position.
Quote from: willb on March 05, 2018, 02:27:37 PM
Note, He specifically says lowers it with both hands, not lowered and raised or held up in an overarm position.
If Justin is sure of his theory, this will probably soon be exposed as an incorrect translation ;D
Quote from: Prufrock on March 05, 2018, 02:58:18 PM
Quote from: willb on March 05, 2018, 02:27:37 PM
Note, He specifically says lowers it with both hands, not lowered and raised or held up in an overarm position.
If Justin is sure of his theory, this will probably soon be exposed as an incorrect translation ;D
Eahrmm...I checked the Greek and it clearly says: "He lowers it with both hands just to above the shoulder height of the man in front of him, holding it overarm, and isn't stupid enough to try and force it between the locked shields and project it underarm through that palm-sized space below."
Greek dictionaries really are handy. ::)
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 05, 2018, 03:36:17 PM
Eahrmm...I checked the Greek and it clearly says: "He lowers it with both hands just to above the shoulder height of the man in front of him, holding it overarm, and isn't stupid enough to try and force it between the locked shields and project it underarm through that palm-sized space below."
Greek dictionaries really are handy. ::)
;D Nicely played!
Ah if only...
But yes it is a tiny bit of an incorrect translation - at least you can't read much into the 'lowers' part - proballo means things like 'throw', 'throw forward', 'put forward' etc. Something similar to 'project' in English, I think. So sadly the height at which the pike is projected isn't specified.
'Probole' and 'synaspismos' are the two defining features of the Macedonian phalanx - 'projection [of spears]' and 'togetherness of shields'. Both at the same time - somehow!
Here's a passage from Plutarch where I
did do some trawling through the Greek (
Aemilius Paulus 19):
| γιγνομένης δὲ τῆς ἐφόδου παρῆν ὁ Αἰμίλιος, καὶ κατελάμβανεν ἤδη τοὺς ἐν τοῖς ἀγήμασι Μακεδόνας ἄκρας τάς σαρίσας προσερηρεικότας τοῖς θυρεοῖς τῶν Ῥωμαίων καὶ μὴ προσιεμένους εἰς ἐφικτὸν αὐτῶν τάς μαχαίρας, ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων Μακεδόνων τάς τε πέλτας ἐξ ὤμου περισπασάντων καὶ ταῖς σαρίσαις ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς συνθήματος κλιθείσαις ὑποστάντων τοὺς θυρεοφόρους εἶδε τήν τε ῥώμην τοῦ συνασπισμοῦ καὶ τήν τραχύτητα τῆς προβολῆς, ἔκπληξις αὐτὸν ἔσχε καὶ δέος, ὡς οὐδὲν ἰδόντα πώποτε θέαμα φοβερώτερον: |
The online translation says this:
| As the attack began, Aemilius came up and found that the Macedonian battalions had already planted the tips of their long spears in the shields of the Romans, who were thus prevented from reaching them with their swords. And when he saw that the rest of the Macedonian troops also were drawing their targets from their shoulders round in front of them, and with long spears sat at one level were withstanding his shield-bearing troops, and saw too the strength of their interlocked shields and the fierceness of their onset, amazement and fear took possession of him, and he felt that he had never seen a sight more fearful; |
The translation however sucks (fancy that). Here is my partial reworking:
| As the attack began, Aemilius came up and found that the Macedonian battalions had already planted the tips of their long spears in the shields of the Romans, who were thus prevented from reaching them with their swords. And when he saw that the rest of the Macedonian troops also were drawing their shields (pelta) from their shoulders round in front of them, and others on a prearranged signal sloping their sarissas to support those bearing the shields, and saw too the strength of their interlocked shields and the fierceness of their onset, amazement and fear took possession of him, and he felt that he had never seen a sight more fearful. |
So what you have are the front rankers who have stuck their sarissas into the shields of the Romans. The next rank(s) bring their shields around to protect themselves (possibly because they are now the front line?) whilst the ranks further back lower their sarissas to support the new front rankers, now holding their shields before them.
This seems to suggest that since the frontmost sarissas were embedded in the Roman shields, their wielders fell back to let the next rank(s) inflict fresh damage with their own sarissas whilst the rearmost ranks - now in striking range of the Romans - brought their sarissas down in support.
Question: why did the pikemen have their shields slung over their backs in the first place? The only reason I can think of is that if you want to hold your pike high overarm so as to use it effectively, your shield gets in the way of your vision unless tucked behind you.
Notice how all this corresponds more to the sparring of the Landsknechts rather than the headlong charge of the Swiss.
Read the section before the one you quoted
"These were succeeded by a third division, of picked men, native Macedonians, the choicest for courage and strength, in the prime of life, gleaming with gilt armor and scarlet coats. As these were taking their places they were followed from the camp by the troops in phalanx called the Brazen Shields, so that the whole plain seemed alive with the flashing of steel and the glistening of brass; and the hills also with their shouts, as they cheered each otheron. In this order they marched, and with such boldness and speed, that those that were first slain died at but two furlongs distance from the Roman camp."
The bit after the section you quoted also is useful
"The Romans not being able to make a breach in the phalanx, one Salius, a commander of the Pelignians, snatched the ensign of his company andthrew it amongst the enemies; on seeing which, the Pelignians (as amongst the Italians it is always thought the greatest breach of honor to abandona standard) rushed with great violence towards the place, where the conflict grew very fierce, and the slaughter terrible on both sides. For these endeavored to cut the spears asunder with their swords, or to beat them back with their shields, or put them by with their hands; and, on the other side, the Macedonians held their long sarissas in both hands, and pierced those that came in their way quite through their armor, no shield or corslet being able to resist the force of that weapon. The
Pelignians and Marrucinians were thrown headlong to the ground, having without consideration, with mere animal fury, rushed upon a certain death.
Their first ranks being slain, those that were behind were forced to give back; it cannot be said they fled, but they retreated towards
Mount Olocrus. When Aemilius saw this, Posidonius relates, he rent his clothes, some of his men being ready to fly, and the rest not willing to engage with a phalanx into which they could not hope to make any entrance, a sort of palisade, as it were, impregnable and unapproachable,with its close array of long spears everywhere meeting the assailant.
So obviously the phalanx was advancing and was pushing these people back
It doesn't sound at all like they were standing there sparring
Jim
Notice that the battle has three phases:
1. The Macedonians advance with speed toward the Romans, reaching a point two furlongs from the Roman camp.
2. The Macedonians fight the Romans. During this time nobody is doing any advancing or retreating. It's a straight slugfest with great casualties - Romans pitching against the phalangites who slaughter them.
3. The Romans, having lost their first line, fall back towards Mount Olocrus.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 05, 2018, 05:45:48 PM
Notice that the battle has three phases:
1. The Macedonians advance with speed toward the Romans, reaching a point two furlongs from the Roman camp.
2. The Macedonians fight the Romans. During this time nobody is doing any advancing or retreating. It's a straight slugfest with great casualties - Romans pitching against the phalangites who slaughter them.
3. The Romans, having lost their first line, fall back towards Mount Olocrus.
I don't read it like that. The Romans were forced to fall back, there was nothing voluntary about it
Quote from: Jim Webster on March 05, 2018, 06:08:02 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 05, 2018, 05:45:48 PM
Notice that the battle has three phases:
1. The Macedonians advance with speed toward the Romans, reaching a point two furlongs from the Roman camp.
2. The Macedonians fight the Romans. During this time nobody is doing any advancing or retreating. It's a straight slugfest with great casualties - Romans pitching against the phalangites who slaughter them.
3. The Romans, having lost their first line, fall back towards Mount Olocrus.
I don't read it like that. The Romans were forced to fall back, there was nothing voluntary about it
Mmh, OK. but at least the passage doesn't look like a headlong charge by the phalanx; more like a steady advance which left the Romans time to try something before giving it up as a bad job and falling back.
Unfortunately your new translation sucks even more than the original. :)
The θυρεοφόρους are Romans (thureophoroi, what a Greek calls the scutum-bearing Romans - cf. τοῖς θυρεοῖς τῶν Ῥωμαίων).
The people in front who are defeated in combat with the phalanx (specifically, the Peltasts) are the Marrucini and Paeligni - see Livy. There are several Macedonian phalanx units involved - at least, Peltasts, Chalcaspides, Leucaspides - and they have different degrees of success - the Peltasts defeat the Allied cohorts (Marrucini, Paeligni) and drive on at speed, the Chalcaspides and Leukaspides follow them up but are (apparently) more held up by the Roman legions (in the centre). (It can be argued the Leucaspides aren't part of the phalanx, but I'll assume for now they are).
Christopher Matthew has something sensible to say about καὶ ταῖς σαρίσαις ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς συνθήματος κλιθείσαις though I forget what - will look it up tomorrow (but 'inclining their sarisas at one command' is roughly it).
A key question is who τῶν ἄλλων Μακεδόνων - 'the other Macedonians' - are - other than who? Obviously, other than τοὺς ἐν τοῖς ἀγήμασι Μακεδόνας - 'those in the Macedonian agemas' - which seems to be Plutarch's slightly confused reference to the Peltasts (which had only one Agema). So 'the other Macedonians' are the Chalcaspides (and Leucaspides?). Not second rankers or anything like that.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 05, 2018, 03:36:17 PM
Quote from: Prufrock on March 05, 2018, 02:58:18 PM
Quote from: willb on March 05, 2018, 02:27:37 PM
Note, He specifically says lowers it with both hands, not lowered and raised or held up in an overarm position.
If Justin is sure of his theory, this will probably soon be exposed as an incorrect translation ;D
Eahrmm...I checked the Greek and it clearly says: "He lowers it with both hands just to above the shoulder height of the man in front of him, holding it overarm, and isn't stupid enough to try and force it between the locked shields and project it underarm through that palm-sized space below."
Greek dictionaries really are handy. ::)
Both the English and Greek texts are from the Perseus project. If the English translation is incorrect, what is the full translation of the Greek text?
Quote from: willb on March 06, 2018, 04:36:14 AM
Both the English and Greek texts are from the Perseus project. If the English translation is incorrect, what is the full translation of the Greek text?
This the LacusCurtius version (from the Loeb translation, I think): http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/18*.html
Quote29 1 That when the phalanx has its characteristic virtue and strength nothing can sustain its frontal attack or withstand the charge can easily be understood for many reasons. 2 For since, when it has closed up for action, each man, with his arms, occupies a space of •three feet in breadth, and the length of the pikes is according to the original design •sixteen cubits, but as adapted to actual need •fourteen cubits, from which we must subtract the distance between the bearer's two hands and the length of the weighted portion of the pike behind which serves to keep it couched — •four cubits in all — it is evident that it must extend •ten cubits beyond the body of each hoplite when he charges the enemy grasping it with both hands. 5 The consequence is that while the pikes of the second, third, and fourth ranks extend farther than those of the fifth rank, those of that rank extend •two cubits beyond the bodies of the men in the first rank, when the phalanx has its characteristic close order as regards both depth and breadth, as Homer expresses it in these verses:
Spear crowded spear,
Shield, helmet, man press'd helmet, man, and shield;
The hairy crests of their resplendent casques
Kiss'd close at every nod, so wedged they stood.1
7 This description is both true and fine, and it is evident that each man of the first rank must have p151 the points of five pikes extending beyond him, each at a distance of •two cubits from the next.
30 1 From this we can easily conceive what is the nature and force of a charge by the whole phalanx when it is sixteen deep. 2 In this case those further back and the fifth rank cannot use their pikes so as to take any active part in the battle. 3 They therefore do not severally level their pikes, but hold them slanting up in the air over the shoulders of those in front of them, so as to protect the whole formation from above, keeping off by this serried mass of pikes all missiles which, passing over the heads of the first ranks, might fall on those immediately in front of and behind them. 4 But these men by the sheer pressure of their bodily weight in the charge add to its force, and it is quite impossible for the first ranks to face about.
Quote from: RichT on March 05, 2018, 09:51:28 PM
Unfortunately your new translation sucks even more than the original. :)
The θυρεοφόρους are Romans (thureophoroi, what a Greek calls the scutum-bearing Romans - cf. τοῖς θυρεοῖς τῶν Ῥωμαίων).
True enough. I was looking at the wrong meaning of ὑποστάντων - it can mean 'to support', and I gave theureophoroi a generic sense of 'he who carries a shield' - forgetting that theureos is an oblong shield.
I really think anyone who writes an article of this nature for Slingshot should pass his ideas by the forum first. If they survive here they'll survive anywhere. :)
Quote from: RichT on March 05, 2018, 09:51:28 PMThe people in front who are defeated in combat with the phalanx (specifically, the Peltasts) are the Marrucini and Paeligni - see Livy. There are several Macedonian phalanx units involved - at least, Peltasts, Chalcaspides, Leucaspides - and they have different degrees of success - the Peltasts defeat the Allied cohorts (Marrucini, Paeligni) and drive on at speed, the Chalcaspides and Leukaspides follow them up but are (apparently) more held up by the Roman legions (in the centre). (It can be argued the Leucaspides aren't part of the phalanx, but I'll assume for now they are).
Christopher Matthew has something sensible to say about καὶ ταῖς σαρίσαις ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς συνθήματος κλιθείσαις though I forget what - will look it up tomorrow (but 'inclining their sarisas at one command' is roughly it).
At least I got that right.
Quote from: RichT on March 05, 2018, 09:51:28 PMA key question is who τῶν ἄλλων Μακεδόνων - 'the other Macedonians' - are - other than who? Obviously, other than τοὺς ἐν τοῖς ἀγήμασι Μακεδόνας - 'those in the Macedonian agemas' - which seems to be Plutarch's slightly confused reference to the Peltasts (which had only one Agema). So 'the other Macedonians' are the Chalcaspides (and Leucaspides?). Not second rankers or anything like that.
OK. Notice that after all that the shields are still interlocked (which implies either shields larger than 2' wide or a file spacing narrower than 3') and the sarissas are still brought to bear. I asked Paul Bardunias about this and he affirms it is impossible to bear sarissas underarm in a close formation as the shields overlap exactly where the left arm holds the sarissa. It does rather leave the overarm hold as the one viable option.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 06, 2018, 06:27:36 AM
OK. Notice that after all that the shields are still interlocked (which implies either shields larger than 2' wide or a file spacing narrower than 3') and the sarissas are still brought to bear. I asked Paul Bardunias about this and he affirms it is impossible to bear sarissas underarm in a close formation as the shields overlap exactly where the left arm holds the sarissa. It does rather leave the overarm hold as the one viable option.
except that 'shields interlocked' might merely be a carry-over of a term for close formation used by hoplites etc, it might not mean that for people with a smaller shield that the shields are actually interlocked.
It's not uncommon in a language for terms to be used that don't actually mean what their literal meaning would suggest. After all a trooper is a private soldier in a cavalry or armoured unit.
Then as a para - trooper he jumps out of aircraft with his horse 8)
Quote from: Jim Webster on March 06, 2018, 07:52:08 AM
except that 'shields interlocked' might merely be a carry-over of a term for close formation used by hoplites etc, it might not mean that for people with a smaller shield that the shields are actually interlocked.
It's not uncommon in a language for terms to be used that don't actually mean what their literal meaning would suggest. After all a trooper is a private soldier in a cavalry or armoured unit.
Then as a para - trooper he jumps out of aircraft with his horse 8)
Not quite the same thing. If 'shields interlocked' is a term for 'close formation' (which it is), then the shields are, in reality, interlocked.
I prefer going for the obvious, literal meaning unless it is contradicted by fact (rather than by a favourite theory).
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 06, 2018, 06:27:36 AM
OK. Notice that after all that the shields are still interlocked (which implies either shields larger than 2' wide or a file spacing narrower than 3') and the sarissas are still brought to bear.
συνασπισμοῦ/synaspismou literally means no more than "shields together". "Interlocked" in the sense of overlapping is an artefact of modern translation, and should probably be ignored.
Quote from: Duncan Head on March 06, 2018, 08:59:43 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 06, 2018, 06:27:36 AM
OK. Notice that after all that the shields are still interlocked (which implies either shields larger than 2' wide or a file spacing narrower than 3') and the sarissas are still brought to bear.
συνασπισμοῦ/synaspismou literally means no more than "shields together". "Interlocked" in the sense of overlapping is an artefact of modern translation, and should probably be ignored.
if συνασπισμοῦ means 'shields together' then can we take it that the shields
are actually together? If that is the case then this is not an intermediate formation, where the shields, if two feet wide, would have one foot gaps between them.
The manuals state that a phalanx ready to receive an enemy attack is in close formation (men side-on) - 1 cubit per file - whilst a phalanx advancing toward the enemy (men facing forwards) is intermediate formation - 2 cubits. Question: is there any exception to the rule for the close formation phalanx not moving on a historical battlefield? The men facing forwards are about 18" wide so their shoulders are touching, which means they
could advance provide the ground was flat and free of obstacles.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 06, 2018, 09:11:00 AM
if συνασπισμοῦ means 'shields together' then can we take it that the shields are actually together? If that is the case then this is not an intermediate formation, where the shields, if two feet wide, would have one foot gaps between them.
Maybe that's close enough to count as "together"?
More likely, the word came into use when three-foot hoplite shields were standard, and was carried over into Macedonian use to mean "close formation" without anyone bothering about whether its etymology was still geometrically appropriate.
The manuals do use
synaspismos to mean the one-cubit formation, and Plutarch
may be implying the same meaning, but I don't think we can be certain that he does; for one thing, the Macedonians at Pydna are attacking, and the manuals suggest that the one-cubit formation is used only in defence. I do think (unlike C Matthew) that the one-cubit formation must have been possible, at least in a static defensive posture; but (a) I suspect that at Pydna Plutarch may actually be talking about the two-cubit "intermediate" attacking formation, and (b) I don't think we can necessarily assume that in the one-cubit formation the shields were touching, or overlapping, or even directly facing forwards.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 06, 2018, 08:09:17 AM
I prefer going for the obvious, literal meaning unless it is contradicted by fact (rather than by a favourite theory).
Its not that simple in this case because not all the sources agree that
synaspismos actually differed from
pyknosis in the later phalanx. This allows some interpretation that the term
synaspismos is just a hangover from the days of the hoplite phalanx. I'm not saying its right (I wouldn't know) but dismissing it as "non-literal" overlooks that the confusion does come from ancient sources.
Also, I think we are very much in "favourite theory" territory, if my understanding of academic debate about Macedonian pikes is accurate .
willb:
Quote
Both the English and Greek texts are from the Perseus project. If the English translation is incorrect, what is the full translation of the Greek text?
Loeb (Paton) translation: "it is evident that it must extend ten cubits beyond the body of each hoplite when he charges the enemy grasping it with both hands."
Shuckburgh translation: "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."
My literal translation: "It is clear that ten cubits of the sarisa must extend before the body of each of the hoplites whenever in both hands he projected against the enemy."
Neither of the other translations are wrong as such, they are just fairly loose, so that proballo ('project' in mine) becomes 'lower' in Shuckburgh and 'charge' in Paton. This is why extreme care is needed when picking single words out of translated sources and building theories around them. But likewise exteme care is needed when altering translations - odds are the translator got the grammar and overall meaning right, for all he might have translated the odd word slightly too freely.
Yes synaspismos means 'shields together' and while in the manuals it is used for the one cubit spacing, in literary sources (Polybius, Xenophon etc) it doesn't appear to have this meaning and just means 'in close order' - Polybius uses it interchangeably with puknosis, the manuals' word for the intermediate (two cubit) spacing.
It's not a given that the shield would be held at 90 degrees to the front, so even at 18" spacing (one cubit) with a 24" shield (eight palms) it's not certain if or how much they would overlap. It's hard to imagine how sarissas would fit between shields at 18", but Peter Connolly said they could. Paul Bardunias says they can't. One or other of them is mistaken. A shoulder level hold might solve the problem but there is no other evidence for such a hold, and if Connolly is right, there is no problem to solve. What to do?
As to advancing at 18" spacing - we had this discussion not long ago too IIRC. There's no hard evidence either way, though on the face of it I can't see why it would be impossible. Peter Connolly though found that advancing was difficult/impossible with tight spacing between ranks, which the manual's synaspismos requires. Polybius' understanding seems to be that the normal formation was two cubits. It's a tricky question, not open to simple solutions, sadly.
Edit: Overlapped with Duncan and Anthony saying the same thing so TL;DR of above is 'what they said'.
Quote from: Duncan Head on March 06, 2018, 09:32:54 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 06, 2018, 09:11:00 AM
if συνασπισμοῦ means 'shields together' then can we take it that the shields are actually together? If that is the case then this is not an intermediate formation, where the shields, if two feet wide, would have one foot gaps between them.
Maybe that's close enough to count as "together"?
More likely, the word came into use when three-foot hoplite shields were standard, and was carried over into Macedonian use to mean "close formation" without anyone bothering about whether its etymology was still geometrically appropriate.
Look at the context:
| As the attack began, Aemilius came up and found that the Macedonian battalions had already planted the tips of their long spears in the shields of the Romans, who were thus prevented from reaching them with their swords. And when he saw that the rest of the Macedonian troops also were drawing their shields (pelta) from their shoulders round in front of them, and others on a prearranged signal sloping their sarissas to oppose the theureophoroi, and saw too the strength of their interlocked shields and the fierceness of their onset, amazement and fear took possession of him, and he felt that he had never seen a sight more fearful. |
The "interlocked shields" are something that impresses Aemilius. This implies there is more here than just shields held in a normal intermediate formation such as the Romans habitually employed. Otherwise why would Aemilius be impressed by their strength? It seems fairly obvious that the Macedonians are in a formation that really does bring their shields together in a solid wall, something that gets the notice of a Roman commander used to a looser deployment for his own troops and that of his customary enemies.
I really don't think so, Justin. As said before, 'probole and synaspismos' are the characteristic features of the Macedonian phalanx, and come up quite often. Plutarch's synaspismos at Pydna is IMHO highly unlikely to be the technical synaspismos of the manuals, and more likely used in this generic sense of the impressive features of the phalanx - 'the sharpness of their projecting spears and strength of their close order'.
Quote from: RichT on March 06, 2018, 10:23:29 AM
I really don't think so, Justin. As said before, 'probole and synaspismos' are the characteristic features of the Macedonian phalanx, and come up quite often. Plutarch's synaspismos at Pydna is IMHO highly unlikely to be the technical synaspismos of the manuals, and more likely used in this generic sense of the impressive features of the phalanx - 'the sharpness of their projecting spears and strength of their close order'.
There's also the possibility that the phalangites' files were close enough to permit the shields to touch but not so close so that the men - pressed shoulder against shoulder - would have difficulty in moving. Thus about two feet per file, which leaves 6" between the men of each file, allowing them to move with a little flexibility but keeping their shields together in a way that would impress Aemilius - remember he notices specifically the strength of the shields brought together, which suggests an order closer than the habitual 3 feet.
Such a formation would technically be 'close' rather than 'intermediate' since it is nearer one cubit than two.
I'd much rather make sense of the sources if possible.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 06, 2018, 08:09:17 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on March 06, 2018, 07:52:08 AM
except that 'shields interlocked' might merely be a carry-over of a term for close formation used by hoplites etc, it might not mean that for people with a smaller shield that the shields are actually interlocked.
It's not uncommon in a language for terms to be used that don't actually mean what their literal meaning would suggest. After all a trooper is a private soldier in a cavalry or armoured unit.
Then as a para - trooper he jumps out of aircraft with his horse 8)
Not quite the same thing. If 'shields interlocked' is a term for 'close formation' (which it is), then the shields are, in reality, interlocked.
Not if they're little ones rather than a hoplon for which the term was invented
Quote from: Jim Webster on March 06, 2018, 10:53:11 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 06, 2018, 08:09:17 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on March 06, 2018, 07:52:08 AM
except that 'shields interlocked' might merely be a carry-over of a term for close formation used by hoplites etc, it might not mean that for people with a smaller shield that the shields are actually interlocked.
It's not uncommon in a language for terms to be used that don't actually mean what their literal meaning would suggest. After all a trooper is a private soldier in a cavalry or armoured unit.
Then as a para - trooper he jumps out of aircraft with his horse 8)
Not quite the same thing. If 'shields interlocked' is a term for 'close formation' (which it is), then the shields are, in reality, interlocked.
Not if they're little ones rather than a hoplon for which the term was invented
Wait a minute. The
synaspismos for hoplites created files 3 feet wide
because the shield was that wide - it was the convenient measuring-stick by which the files kept regular spacing when lining up alongside each other. Why shouldn't the phalangite shield, 2 feet wide, serve exactly the same purpose? Allowing for a little overlap, that gives you slightly more than a cubit, 1 1/3 cubits to be exact if the shields just touch each other, which is technically a close formation. That makes the phalanx at Pydna in close formation but still able to advance.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 06, 2018, 11:07:05 AM
Wait a minute. The synaspismos for hoplites created files 3 feet wide because the shield was that wide - it was the convenient measuring-stick by which the files kept regular spacing when lining up alongside each other. Why shouldn't the phalangite shield, 2 feet wide, serve exactly the same purpose? Allowing for a little overlap, that gives you slightly more than a cubit, 1 1/3 cubits to be exact if the shields just touch each other, which is technically a close formation. That makes the phalanx at Pydna in close formation but still able to advance.
It depends on how much pike phalanxes derived their drill from hoplite phalanxes. Did they literally re-interpret i.e. now our shields are smaller, we must get closer together to deliver
synaspismos or did they just keep the term for the spacing already in the drill book?
Incidentally, on the Macedonians v. Romans question didn't one of the ancient historians actually do a comparison, or is my memory deciving me?
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 06, 2018, 11:07:05 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on March 06, 2018, 10:53:11 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 06, 2018, 08:09:17 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on March 06, 2018, 07:52:08 AM
except that 'shields interlocked' might merely be a carry-over of a term for close formation used by hoplites etc, it might not mean that for people with a smaller shield that the shields are actually interlocked.
It's not uncommon in a language for terms to be used that don't actually mean what their literal meaning would suggest. After all a trooper is a private soldier in a cavalry or armoured unit.
Then as a para - trooper he jumps out of aircraft with his horse 8)
Not quite the same thing. If 'shields interlocked' is a term for 'close formation' (which it is), then the shields are, in reality, interlocked.
Not if they're little ones rather than a hoplon for which the term was invented
Wait a minute. The synaspismos for hoplites created files 3 feet wide because the shield was that wide - it was the convenient measuring-stick by which the files kept regular spacing when lining up alongside each other. Why shouldn't the phalangite shield, 2 feet wide, serve exactly the same purpose?
simple, the shield might have changed but men hadn't. I suspect that the three feet wide file was the important thing. The hoplon was designed to fit the file width, not the file width to fit this shield somebody had just invented
With the smaller shield, used with a pike, there may have been no need to change the normal combat file width.
Yes you might get slightly more protection from the shield if the files were narrower, but this might well have been seen by those using the kit as a pretty small advantage compared to the disadvantages of being closer together
Justin:
QuoteI'd much rather make sense of the sources if possible.
That is the quest on which we are all engaged. :) But when it comes to vocabulary you can make more progress by looking at usage than by looking at etymology (as Jim's paratrooper analogy shows).
If you want to speculate about Pydna, it's possible the phalanx (specifically the Chalcaspides - the Peltasts might be doing their own thing out of Aemilius' immediate sight) advanced in 2 cubit spacing, made contact with the legions, then closed up (by doubling) to 1 cubit while the fight was static. That is possible, though speculative, but doesn't shed any light either on the sarissa hold or the ability to advance.
Anthony:
Quote
Incidentally, on the Macedonians v. Romans question didn't one of the ancient historians actually do a comparison, or is my memory deciving me?
Your memory is not deceiving you - Polybius (18.29 f). We have discussed it quite extensively on this forum (oh boy, have we discussed it) and in Slingshot. If certain parties were present, who mercifully are not, we would now begin a twenty page, increasingly acrimonious, thread discussing it again.
Maybe if I give a summary, we can avoid going over it all again. So - the problem of intervals:
Nobody knows what file interval hoplites used - but based on the shield size (3 feet), on the literal meaning of words like 'synaspismos' (shields together), and on phenomena like the 'phalanx drift' as each hoplite seeks the protection of his neighbour's shield, it is commonly assumed that hoplites used a 3 foot interval (if they used any established interval at all).
Macedonian phalanxes are said in their origin to use 'synaspismos' (as well as 'probole'), and much is made in various sources of their close order, their density, their weight, and so forth, in various forms and expressions, and they are also thought to have used smaller shields (2 feet). This leads us to expect the Macedonian phalanx to use a smaller file interval than hoplites, thus making them a more close order formation.
But the manuals are explicit that the usual file interval of the Macedonian phalanx was 3 feet (2 cubits), with the 1.5 feet (1 cubit) interval being a defensive formation (which they call synaspismos). Polybius is also clear that the Macedonian phalanx used a 3 foot interval (this is clear in his comparison with the Romans, which is quoted above in this thread, and in his criticism of Callisthenes' account of Issus, in which his calculations require a 3 foot interval), and Polybius also uses synaspismos interchangeably with pyknosis to refer to this 3 foot interval.
So - if the Macedonian phalanx is a closer order formation than the hoplite phalanx, this requires either that hoplites used a wider interval than 3 feet, or that Polybius and the manuals are wrong about 3 feet being the normal interval of the Macedonians.
Now the Romans - Polybius compares the Macedonian phalanx with the Roman formation, and notes that the Romans used an interval double that of the Macedonians (so that each Roman in the front rank faced two Macedonians). Unfortunately he is not totally explicit in giving the Macedonians 3 feet and the Romans 6 feet intervals as we would expect - for the Macedonians, he talks mostly about rank intervals rather than files, and for the Romans, he talks about the space between men, rather than the intervals between files. This leaves some scope for doubt about exactly what he means. Still, if we take this passage, the criticism of Callisthenes, and the manuals together, we conclude that the Macedonians did usually use 3 foot intervals and that the Romans must therefore have used 6 foot intervals.
This has troubled many, as 6 foot intervals seem far too wide for a heavy infantry formation like the Romans.
So various solutions have been proposed to these problems (the Macedonian-hoplite comparison and the Macedonian-Roman comparison). For hoplites, some accept the 3 foot interval for Macedonians and assume therefore that hoplites used a 6 foot spacing, and basically fought in quite open order. Similarly, some take Polybius at his word and assume that Romans also fought with 6 foot intervals. If this seems 'too wide' to us, then that is just a problem with our understanding and imagining, and there is no reason not to go with the Polybian evidence here.
Others though - for reasons given above in the case of hoplites, and because Romans don't seem to be a more open order formation than hoplites - prefer to assign a 3 foot interval to hoplites and Romans alike. This requires rejecting Polybius' and the manuals' normal 3 foot spacing for Macedonians, and assuming that the 1.5 foot spacing was the normal one (or at least, was the one that formed the basis of the comparisons with hoplites and Romans).
Various compromises are possible, basically assuming that Polybius is being overly pedantic, and that hoplites, Romans and Macedonians could all use various intervals in different circumstances, so that comparing them directly using one particular interval, as Polybius does, is not strictly valid. This would mean for example that hoplites and Romans usually fought with a 3 foot interval but could also on occasion open out to 6 feet, while Macedonians usually fought on 3 feet, but could if required close up to 1.5 feet. How mobile they would be at 1.5 feet is open to doubt - probably not very mobile at all (according to the manuals), but in a standing fight, that might not have mattered.
So Polybius is comparing typical or usual formations, but these were not universal. Then we could fall to arguing, for each particular case, which formation is being used (eg for Pydna) - but actual hard evidence is, so far as I know, lacking.
Pretty good summary there.
Yes, very fair summary. We've all had that discussion a few times in various places, but Richard has covered the major points clearly and sympathetically.
Polybius is clear and unambiguous about the width of the phalangite and Roman files: they are both three feet wide (the Greek checks out ::)):
| That when the phalanx has its characteristic virtue and strength nothing can sustain its frontal attack or withstand the charge can easily be understood for many reasons. For since, when it has closed up for action, each man, with his arms, occupies a space of three feet in breadth.... when the phalanx has its characteristic close order as regards both depth and breadth, as Homer expresses it in these verses:
............
I have now, for purposes of comparison, to speak of the peculiarities of the Roman equipment and system of formation and the points of difference in both. Now in the case of the Romans also each soldier with his arms occupies a space of three feet in breadth.... The consequence will be that one Roman must stand opposite two men in the first rank of the phalanx, so that he has to face and encounter ten pikes |
Any plausible attempts made to resolve this contradiction? And it is a contradiction and a pretty blatant one at that. Polybius is failing preprimary maths here.
Well I could just say GIYF - or in this case the search feature of this forum, upper right of the screen. :)
Or to help you along a little - you missed out a rather crucial sentence:
"Now, a Roman soldier in full armour also requires a space of three square feet. But as their method of fighting admits of individual motion for each man—because he defends his body with a shield, which he moves about to any point from which a blow is coming, and because he uses his sword both for cutting and stabbing,—it is evident that each man must have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet both on flank and rear, if he is to do his duty with any effect. 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."
So - the space occupied by the man and his kit is three feet in both cases - but in addition, the Romans need a gap between men, resulting in a total of six feet. Like I said, not as clear as we would wish, but not a blatant contradiction either.
Quote from: RichT on March 06, 2018, 03:50:18 PM
Well I could just say GIYF - or in this case the search feature of this forum, upper right of the screen. :)
Or to help you along a little - you missed out a rather crucial sentence:
"Now, a Roman soldier in full armour also requires a space of three square feet. But as their method of fighting admits of individual motion for each man—because he defends his body with a shield, which he moves about to any point from which a blow is coming, and because he uses his sword both for cutting and stabbing,—it is evident that each man must have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet both on flank and rear, if he is to do his duty with any effect. 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."
So - the space occupied by the man and his kit is three feet in both cases - but in addition, the Romans need a gap between men, resulting in a total of six feet. Like I said, not as clear as we would wish, but not a blatant contradiction either.
I checked the Greek - again. Literally, Polybius says this:
"three feet according to the man to his rear and the man at his side".
The only way to square this with his previous statement that a Roman soldier occupies a space three feet wide (he either occupies a three-foot wide space or he doesn't) is to take Polybius absolutely literally about the three feet "according to" -
kata - the man at his side. In other words the man at his side,
either side, determines that distance, which is three feet, i.e. the three feet is between the man on his one flank and the man on his other.
The "three feet according to the man to his rear" can only be measured between himself and the man behind him as there is nobody in front, i.e. he has a clear three feet behind him to enable him to manoeuvre during a mobile sword-fight which, as a fencer knows, is more a case of back-and-forth rather than sideways movement. But he needs at least a three-feet breadth to use his sword and shield effectively
So Polybius is making clear that a Roman absolutely needs that nine square feet of space he occupies. Why bother saying that? I think he might be alluding to something his readers know and we don't: the fact that a phalangite doesn't need that amount of space. Reading through the manuals, I pick up that a phalanx could switch from intermediate to close order fast - really fast. There's one passage in Aelian where files are interleaved, like this:
abababababababab
abababababababab
abababababababab
abababababababab
Doubling, as Aelian describes it, is done simply by all the b's moving into the interval between the a's, creating a doubled unit in a second or two.
A phalanx then, in intermediate order, advances, sarissas lowered at the ready, towards its enemy. Just before combat it slows down and the b men move into the space beside the a men, suddenly presenting the enemy soldiers with twice the number of opponents they originally thought they had. Psychologically a very effective ploy. This compact phalanx moves slowly against the enemy (it isn't completely immobile). If the enemy gives way it can just as quickly resume its intermediate formation and continue marching forward.
If Polybius assumed his readers knew this (and why wouldn't they?) then the one Roman facing two phalangites makes sense, and the contradiction in Polybius is resolved.
Or can anyone show me another way of resolving it?
Erratum: just realised that the midpoint from the man to his side to his midpoint
is three feet. That resolves the problem much more simply. It also leaves you with files three feet wide. Work it out. ;)
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 06, 2018, 04:36:59 PM
The only way to square this with his previous statement that a Roman soldier occupies a space three feet wide...
And there we have the disagreement in a nutshell. There are other ways to see it.
Quote from: Prufrock on March 06, 2018, 05:18:31 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 06, 2018, 04:36:59 PM
The only way to square this with his previous statement that a Roman soldier occupies a space three feet wide...
And there we have the disagreement in a nutshell. There are other ways to see it.
Go for it. :)
Here's the solution to Polybius' three feet problem.
"three feet according to the man to his rear and the man at his side".
The men stand three feet apart, i.e. there is a three foot distance between the midpoint of one man and the midpoint of the man beside him. This leaves you with 3 foot wide files, not six foot wide ones. Et voila!
(https://i.imgur.com/fpcn7UG.jpg)
If one tries to maintain that the three feet extends from the three foot wide original spacing of the legionary Polybius mentions earlier, then you are left with files looking like this and no, I can't buy it. :o
(https://i.imgur.com/w3Xwzk7.jpg)
While we can indeed sort out the conundrum by ignoring some of Polybios' words and attributing them to a mistake, the difficulty comes in which ones do we ignore? If it was simple, it wouldn't have been exercising scholars since the 19th century, if not before.
Quote from: Erpingham on March 06, 2018, 06:10:51 PM
While we can indeed sort out the conundrum by ignoring some of Polybios' words and attributing them to a mistake, the difficulty comes in which ones do we ignore? If it was simple, it wouldn't have been exercising scholars since the 19th century, if not before.
Point is, we don't have to ignore any of them.
According to Polybius the Macedonians need three feet. The Romans also need three feet, but they need extra space too, three feet between the man and the man next to him and the man behind him, and we have each Roman facing ten pikes.
But you will say that since you've now *conclusively* shown the Romans occupied three feet each, then the Macedonians must've occupied 1.5, (and this also fits neatly with your proposed overhand grip theory), so....
Sorry, it's been said before, the same counter arguments apply, and I'm too jaded to go through it all again :)
Quote from: Prufrock on March 06, 2018, 06:21:58 PM
According to Polybius the Macedonians need three feet. The Romans also need three feet, but they need extra space too, three feet between the man and the man next to him and the man behind him, and we have each Roman facing ten pikes.
But you will say that since you've now *conclusively* shown the Romans occupied three feet each, then the Macedonians must've occupied 1.5, (and this also fits neatly with your proposed overhand grip theory), so....
Sorry, it's been said before, the same counter arguments apply, and I'm too jaded to go through it all again :)
Oh, I'm always ready to be shot down in flames, Aaron. :o :( :'( >:( :-\ ??? :)
But it's also nice to make sense of the sources. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 06, 2018, 06:13:03 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on March 06, 2018, 06:10:51 PM
While we can indeed sort out the conundrum by ignoring some of Polybios' words and attributing them to a mistake, the difficulty comes in which ones do we ignore? If it was simple, it wouldn't have been exercising scholars since the 19th century, if not before.
Point is, we don't have to ignore any of them.
Well, you are either ignoring that the Macedonians need three feet or you are ignoring the fact that the Romans need twice as much space as the Macedonians. It is also possible to propose that Polybios has forgotten to tell us he has switched from a three foot Macedonian frontage to a 1.5 foot one to make his point - you then don't need to ignore words but postulate a linking sentence which tells us that, while three foot was normal for Macedonians, they sometimes closed up to 1.5 feet, which either Polybios forgot to put in or it was lost in transcription down the centuries. But you can't credibly read it as if it doesn't have any issues in it.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 06, 2018, 06:29:31 PM
Oh, I'm always ready to be shot down in flames, Aaron. :o :( :'( >:( :-\ ??? :)
But it's also nice to make sense of the sources. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
It's not about shooting people down in flames (or being shot down oneself!), it's just ground that's been gone over before (Richard and Anthony have shown the main issues, but there's also Polybius's criticism of Callisthenes to come in yet as well) and it always ends up the same way.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 06, 2018, 06:29:31 PM
But it's also nice to make sense of the sources.
Yes, you're right, it is. Please carry on doing so, and please forgive my own jadedness!
I read Polybius' criticism of Callisthenes. Not quite sure what the issue is. One either accepts Polybius' assertion that Callisthenes was talking a load of tripe or one posits that Polybius got it wrong himself.
Say Alexander had about 22 000 phalangites. If deployed in open formation 32 deep, each file occupying a frontage of 6 feet, that gives a frontage of 4125 feet or a little less than 7 stadia. That fits comfortably into the 14 stadia Polybius says was available to Alexander.
If that formation doubles files, halving ranks in the process, its frontage remains the same but each man now occupies a file 3 feet wide with 16 men. The phalanx is in intermediate formation.
if the phalanx, now near the enemy, doubles files again, you now have 8-men files 1 1/2 feet wide. Frontage the same, with plenty of space for cavalry, etc, to deploy on either side. The phalanx can still advance, albeit very slowly. What exactly is the problem?
(hang on, what's that sign saying Achtung minen doing over there?)
In my summary a few posts back I said:
Quote
Others though - for reasons given above in the case of hoplites, and because Romans don't seem to be a more open order formation than hoplites - prefer to assign a 3 foot interval to hoplites and Romans alike. This requires rejecting Polybius' and the manuals' normal 3 foot spacing for Macedonians, and assuming that the 1.5 foot spacing was the normal one (or at least, was the one that formed the basis of the comparisons with hoplites and Romans).
Which is what you, Justin, are saying, so you aren't saying anything new, and your version can't be reconciled with the text of Polybius as it stands - we'd have to assume some error or omission or whatever, as the others have said. Which is possible, and is indeed one of the proposed solutions (it's what Hans Delbruck proposed back in 18-whatever-it-was). But a lot of people aren't convinced by that argument either and would prefer to follow the text of Polybius as written. Barring the discovery of some lost work on papyrus somewhere, this disagreement can never be finally resolved, because there is no additional evidence and there are no additional arguments that can be brought to bear on it.
If rather than arguing determinedly for a particular theory you would like to chew over the interpretations and translations and the thinking behind them, that would be much more fruitful and people will, I am sure, be happy to do so.
So with that in mind:
Quote
I checked the Greek - again. Literally, Polybius says this:
"three feet according to the man to his rear and the man at his side".
Not quite. He says "three feet by rank and by file" - kat epistaen kai kata parastaten meaning by rank and file (compare with 18.29.5 where he uses the same expresison of the Macedonians).
Polybius says - to paraphrase - 'each Roman requires three feet, but because of their style of fighting they require more room and a space of three feet between men, by rank and file, total six feet'. You can conclude that Polybius is mistaken, or that the text is corrupt. What you can't conclude is that Polybius is saying the Romans had three foot file intervals (as in your first diagram of post 113), because then Polybius would be saying 'each Roman requires three feet, but because of their style of fighting they require more room and a space of three feet between men, by rank and file, total three feet'. Which is nonsensical.
Quote
If Polybius assumed his readers knew this (and why wouldn't they?) then the one Roman facing two phalangites makes sense, and the contradiction in Polybius is resolved.
The trouble with the 'assumed they knew' argument is that in this section Polybius is explaining in technical detail the strengths and weaknesses of phalanx and legion, with considerable detail about the length of sarisas, how they are held, file and rank spacing and so forth. It is (IMHO) implausible that he then simply assumed his readers knew about the most important manoeuvre that would explain the point that he is trying to make about the denser Macedonian formation, and just didn't mention the doubling on coming into action. Polybius is clear that Macedonians need 3 feet per man. Discount this or assume an error or a textual corruption, but you can't just assume Polybius neglected to mention a further doubling.
Quote
you are left with files looking like this [6 foot intervals] and no, I can't buy it.
That's your prerogative - as I said in my summary (did you read my summary? I know it's long, but it took a while to write, so it would be nice to know it wasn't time wasted), some people don't buy it. That doesn't mean it's not true (maybe!).
As for the criticism of Callisthenes - the point is that the sums show that Polybius was assuming that the Macedonians, even when they closed up into 'Homeric' close order (as in 18.29 also), were using intervals of 3 feet - so your:
Quote
if the phalanx, now near the enemy, doubles files again, you now have 8-men files 1 1/2 feet wide
is explicitly contradicted by the calculations of Polybius, who was working with intervals of 3 feet at the closest.
Just to clear the air a bit, the subject genuinely interests me - I haven't explored it in depth before - and no, it's not about arguing determinedly for a particular theory. My approach is to look at the key passages in the sources - the ones that say something important but aren't clear or appear contradictory - and try to make sense of them.
It's been brought to my attention that there is another explanation for the apparent contradiction between Romans and Macedonians having the same frontage and then one Roman facing two Macedonians. Looking again at his description of a phalanx:
| 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 Homer1—
"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." |
Notice that Polybius leads the reader to the conclusion that the sarissas of the fifth rank project 2 cubits before the man in front. Since there are 4 ranks in front of men in the fifth rank and the sarissa itself projects 10 cubits before them, there must be 2 cubits depth per rank - but this last fact is a given, not something to work out: since the depth of each rank is known, it is clear the fifth rank's sarissas will project 2 cubits before the front rank. In other words, because the reader knows that the ranks are 2 cubits in depth, he can work out that the sarissas of the fifth rank will project 2 cubits before the men in front. But where does Polybius tell the reader that the ranks are 2 cubits deep? At the beginning, where he states that a man in close order of battle occupies "a space of three feet", i.e. three feet deep, not wide. Since this is 'close order' the width of the files must be 1 1/2 cubits if one wants to make Polybius agree with the manuals.
There is then no contradiction, just Polybius' assumption that his readership knew what a close formation was, and he even describes it: "buckler pressed to buckler".
Quote from: RichT on March 06, 2018, 09:46:45 PM
That's your prerogative - as I said in my summary (did you read my summary?
Yes, several times. :)
QuoteThere is then no contradiction, just Polybius' assumption that his readership knew what a close formation was, and he even describes it: "buckler pressed to buckler".
I'll await the verdict on the Greek whether you can swap depth for frontage but I'd remind you if you go this way, you get a contradiction with Polybios' Callisthenes issue. If it was simple to reconcile the statements, it wouldn't be a long running debate.
Quote from: Erpingham on March 07, 2018, 10:11:52 AM
QuoteThere is then no contradiction, just Polybius' assumption that his readership knew what a close formation was, and he even describes it: "buckler pressed to buckler".
I'll await the verdict on the Greek whether you can swap depth for frontage but I'd remind you if you go this way, you get a contradiction with Polybios' Callisthenes issue. If it was simple to reconcile the statements, it wouldn't be a long running debate.
What's the problem with Callisthenes? I read the passage twice and can't see an issue.
Justin - fair enough, and the subject interests me too - and I'm happy to look at the sources too, just bear in mind that lots of people before us have spent lots of time looking at the sources already, so it's quite unlikely that you or I will come up with anything new.
Quote
It's been brought to my attention ...
Have you been in communication with Mr Waterson perhaps? This sounds like his theory - which we have been over to exhaustion and I think I'm not being unfair in saying that nobody except Mr Waterson (and now maybe you) is convinced by the idea.
Taking the passage from Polybius as a whole, I don't think anyone could reasonably conclude that Polybius is describing anything other than a 3 foot file interval for Macedonians. If there were any doubt, then the critique of Callisthenes would remove the doubt, since a 3 foot interval is assumed there. And then we have the manuals, in which the 1.5 foot interval is not the standard, but is a 'forced' defensive formation.
I can pick apart Pol 18.29-30 if you want, but I've done it before many times, and without result so far as this argument is concerned, so I'm a bit reluctant. But if you want chapter and verse, I will do so.
There is no contradiction in the text of Polybius as it stands, no contradiction at all. The only objection to it is that 6 feet seems too wide for a Roman formation, but Polybius' text here (and in the Callisthenes passage) is perfectly internally consistent. So the 1.5 foot interval may be correct, but it does require assuming that Polybius is mistaken or his text corrupt.
Re Callisthenes - I'm not sure what you want here. The point is that Polybius assumes a 3 foot interval in this passage (there are other issues with the Callisthenes critique but they are not really relevant to this particular topic).
Quote from: RichT on March 07, 2018, 10:33:02 AMRe Callisthenes - I'm not sure what you want here. The point is that Polybius assumes a 3 foot interval in this passage (there are other issues with the Callisthenes critique but they are not really relevant to this particular topic).
Got it. I'm a newbie on this topic so be patient.
What immediately stood out for me is that Polybius doesn't say anything about the 32-deep formation Alexander's infantry were initially in. The 32 to 16 to 8 contraction clearly implies file doubling, and the manuals have 3 file widths: open (6 feet per file), intermediate (3 feet) and close (1 1/2 feet). So what width did the files of the 32-deep formation have? 12 feet? Evidence for that?
My impression is that Polybius is setting up something of a straw man here. He starts out - rather dishonestly and without justification - by assuming that the 16-deep phalanx is in open formation, and that once it closes to 8-deep it is in intermediate formation (maybe), leaving out the possibility of a close formation which is
not 3 feet per file.
If you change the maths and assume logically that the 32-deep phalanx is in open formation, the 16-deep in intermediate formation and the 8-deep in close formation then the infantry can fit into the available space - just: a frontage of 10 stadia out of the 14 available. More probably there were less than 32 000 men in the first line. How many phalangites and hypaspists did Alexander have?*
*Wiki has 9000 phalangites and 3000 hypaspists. Sooo.... at 8 deep and 1 1/2 feet wide (or 16 deep and 3 feet wide) that gives 3 3/4 stadia. Works fine.
I will try to be patient, though this topic tries my patience. :)
Quote
The 32 to 16 to 8 contraction clearly implies file doubling
Does it? Presumably the purpose of the manoeuvre is to expand the phalanx as the plain opens out. So this sounds more like halving (I forget the correct term) than doubling ie halving the depth in ranks and doubling the frontage, in order to fill the plain as it opens out.
Quote
He starts out - rather dishonestly and without justification - by assuming that the 16-deep phalanx is in open formation
Why is it dishonest and without justification? According to the manuals the open order (6 foot files) is the natural order, so normal that it doesn't require a special name. This being so it's not unreasonable for Polybius to assume they started out in this formation as the normal march formation - as he says at 12.19.7.
Quote
leaving out the possibility of a close formation which is not 3 feet per file
Yes he does leave out this possibility. Why? In order to score a cheap point off Callisthenes? Or because he knew that a phalanx couldn't advance to battle at 1.5 feet per file? Or even because (so far as he knew) there was no 1.5 foot interval formation? Discuss. At the very least, it's not clear cut.
Anyway Polybius' point is that the whole idea of advancing in line is unlikely - he thinks they would have advanced in column then deployed into line, which does indeed seem more likely.
Quote
If you change the maths and assume...
Then you can come to any conclusion you like! And we can all go home. :)
Quote from: RichT on March 07, 2018, 11:50:55 AM
According to the manuals the open order (6 foot files) is the natural order, so normal that it doesn't require a special name.
Just a thought while I'm waiting for my boss to finish whatever he's doing: If 6' files are natural, should we be very surprised if the Romans fought in them?
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on March 07, 2018, 12:05:39 PM
Quote from: RichT on March 07, 2018, 11:50:55 AM
According to the manuals the open order (6 foot files) is the natural order, so normal that it doesn't require a special name.
Just a thought while I'm waiting for my boss to finish whatever he's doing: If 6' files are natural, should we be very surprised if the Romans fought in them?
I think (from the many previous versions of this discussion) the 6' spacing in manoeuver order and 3' fighting order. The Romans could have used the same but it wouldn't explain why Polybios thought they fought in manoeuver order.
Quote from: RichT on March 07, 2018, 11:50:55 AM
I will try to be patient, though this topic tries my patience. :)
Ta!
Quote from: RichT on March 07, 2018, 11:50:55 AMQuote
The 32 to 16 to 8 contraction clearly implies file doubling
Does it? Presumably the purpose of the manoeuvre is to expand the phalanx as the plain opens out. So this sounds more like halving (I forget the correct term) than doubling ie halving the depth in ranks and doubling the frontage, in order to fill the plain as it opens out.
By doubling I mean that half of one file moves up alongside the other half, doubling the number of men in each rank. That Alexander did this to widen the phalanx in the widening plain is an assumption albeit a reasonable one, until one looks at the implications. At 16 deep and 6 feet wide the 32 000 man phalanx will be 4000 yards wide - 4km or just under 3 miles - and there is no record of a Macedonian phalanx ever stretching out to that extent. If the 8 deep wide phalanx is meant to accommodate a wider plain whilst keeping the same distance between files then, according to Polybius, it must be 8km wide, or more than 5 miles. Since the available space is only 2 miles wide at its widest Polybius is clearly trying to ridicule Callisthenes here.
Quote from: RichT on March 07, 2018, 11:50:55 AMQuote
He starts out - rather dishonestly and without justification - by assuming that the 16-deep phalanx is in open formation
Why is it dishonest and without justification? According to the manuals the open order (6 foot files) is the natural order, so normal that it doesn't require a special name. This being so it's not unreasonable for Polybius to assume they started out in this formation as the normal march formation - as he says at 12.19.7.
Then why doesn't he start with the width of the 32-deep phalanx and say it is in open order? He later implies that the 8-deep phalanx might be in intermediate rather than open order, requiring a frontage of 20 stadia which is still impossible. Why doesn't he start with the 32-deep phalanx in open order, move to the 16 deep phalanx which might be in intermediate order, and finish with the 8-deep phalanx which might be in close order? Why? Because that shoots his argument in the foot. Callisthenes, in other words, is actually talking sense.
Quote from: RichT on March 07, 2018, 11:50:55 AMQuote
leaving out the possibility of a close formation which is not 3 feet per file
Yes he does leave out this possibility. Why? In order to score a cheap point off Callisthenes? Or because he knew that a phalanx couldn't advance to battle at 1.5 feet per file? Or even because (so far as he knew) there was no 1.5 foot interval formation? Discuss. At the very least, it's not clear cut.
Anyway Polybius' point is that the whole idea of advancing in line is unlikely - he thinks they would have advanced in column then deployed into line, which does indeed seem more likely.
OK, discuss. The 8-deep phalanx doesn't advance into battle. It forms up when nearing the enemy, i.e. it has already advanced. A phalanx in close order is not complete immobile. The men can't walk - they are standing side-on - but they can slowly shuffle forwards, a bit like fencers.
The manuals all state that 1 1/2 feet is an interval used by a phalanx when resisting an enemy attack. I would suggest that Alexander, who was ambitious about what his phalangites could do, got them into close formation for the final creep into contact with the enemy. Putting 32 000 men 8 deep into close formation makes sense of Callisthenes and the battle.
Taking Polybius' affirmation that a phalanx 8 deep with files 6 feet wide was perfectly acceptable (!) when about to engage enemy (in the passage he allows one men per three feet as a possibility only to further refute Callisthenes), how many heavy infantry could Alexander actually have pitched against the Persians? At 14 stadia he had 2800 yards. Allow the phalanx half that to give room for the cavalry and the troops on the right screening against the Persians in the foothills. Say, 1400 yards. One man every 2 yards and 8 men deep means a phalanx of 5600 men. Nah.
Re advancing in line rather than column, it depends how bad the terrain really was. Alexander successfully attacked across the Pinarus with his cavalry which suggests it probably wasn't that bad. It looks flat enough to me.
(https://i.imgur.com/DTQXiXW.jpg)
Quote from: RichT on March 07, 2018, 11:50:55 AMQuote
If you change the maths and assume...
Then you can come to any conclusion you like! And we can all go home. :)
If you work on Callisthenes talking sense, then do the maths for his deployments based on the standard widths in the manuals, it all falls into place, Polybius' biais notwithstanding.
Quote from: Erpingham on March 07, 2018, 12:12:17 PM
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on March 07, 2018, 12:05:39 PM
Quote from: RichT on March 07, 2018, 11:50:55 AM
According to the manuals the open order (6 foot files) is the natural order, so normal that it doesn't require a special name.
Just a thought while I'm waiting for my boss to finish whatever he's doing: If 6' files are natural, should we be very surprised if the Romans fought in them?
I think (from the many previous versions of this discussion) the 6' spacing in manoeuver order and 3' fighting order. The Romans could have used the same but it wouldn't explain why Polybios thought they fought in manoeuver order.
We should not be surprised, IMHO. But many people are. Maybe it's more about (perhaps misplaced?) expectations than anything?
The march/fighting order split is itself a modern assumption, not specified in any ancient source (though it seems reasonable). And to be fair to Polybius he does spell out why he thought Romans fought in open order (because they need room to move their shields and swords, fight as individuals etc).
FWIW I should mention in this thread, for completeness, that Vegetius assumes a file interval of 3 feet and a rank interval of 6 (or 7) feet for Romans. Make of that what you will - Vegetius is a late source and full of strange ideas about earlier legions. There are theories to reconcile his testiomny with Polybius' but this is no longer about how to hold a sarissa....
Sure the 32/16/8 and 6/3/1.5 thing is very arithmetically neat so it's quite tempting, and combined with picking the right bits from Polybius, the theory is superficially appealing. But:
- this theory requires that Polybius, in order to score points off Callisthenes, deliberately suppresses or falsifies the existence of a 1.5 foot interval, ths existence of which, earlier in this same thread, you have said was so self evident that Polybius did not even need to specify it and that all his readers would know what a close order formation was (1.5 feet). You can't have it both ways!
- it therefore requires that Polybius be so untrustworthy a source as to be virtually worthless
- it ignores the main thrust of Polybius' argument, which is that it would be impractical to advance a considerable distance to battle in extended line, and that more likely Alexander would have advanced in column and brought units up into line as the plain widened - which is indeed exactly what Arrian says did happen - (Anab 2.8.4) "as long as the defile on every side remained narrow, he led the army in column, but when it grew broader, he deployed his column continously into a phalanx, bringing up unit after unit (taxis) of hoplites".
- it requires that the whole advance be made on a continuous unchanging frontage, despite the fact that the plain is supposed to be growing wider, and despite the difficulties (Polybius' main point) of advancing a considerable distance on an extended front.
- it requires the last part of the attack - that over the most difficult terrain, the banks of the river - to be made at a sideways shuffle in closest order
- it skirts over the problem that Polybius talks as if the phalanx was 32,000 strong when in reality the Macedonian component was only around 15,000 men (including Hypaspists), the rest being allies, mercenaries and lights, so that the 1.5 foot frontage would not apply to these anyway.
So I think, while Polybius is not blameless in his critique of Callisthenes, it's fair to assume that his points are broadly valid, and that at any rate, despite the arithmetic convenience of the numbers, there is no supporting evidence here for the 1.5 foot interval - not least the fact you can't get away from that Polybius makes no mention of the possibility of such an interval - and Callisthenes of course does not specify - so that the whole thing is entirely speculative.
(Added): And to belabour the point - the reason this came up at all was that it provides supporting evidence for what Polybius conceived phalanx close order to have been, and it is clear (whatever formation was actually adopted at Issus) that Polybius thought close order meant 3 feet (unless as above, you assume he deliberately lies about this in order to score points against Callisthenes) - to the extent that the Homeric analogy that he produces at 18.29 is here specifically applied to the 3 foot interval.
Okey doke.
Quote from: RichT on March 07, 2018, 01:56:01 PM
Sure the 32/16/8 and 6/3/1.5 thing is very arithmetically neat so it's quite tempting, and combined with picking the right bits from Polybius, the theory is superficially appealing. But:
- this theory requires that Polybius, in order to score points off Callisthenes, deliberately suppresses or falsifies the existence of a 1.5 foot interval, ths existence of which, earlier in this same thread, you have said was so self evident that Polybius did not even need to specify it and that all his readers would know what a close order formation was (1.5 feet). You can't have it both ways!
But he doesn't suppress or falsify the existence of a 1,5 foot file interval; he just affirms that Calisthenes was talking about open order for the 16-deep phalanx and open or intermediate order for the 8-deep phalanx, presumably because the 8-men-deep formation was still advancing towards the enemy (a close phalanx can advance but not much; intermediate order does the real moving on a battlefield).
Quote from: RichT on March 07, 2018, 01:56:01 PM- it ignores the main thrust of Polybius' argument, which is that it would be impractical to advance a considerable distance to battle in extended line, and that more likely Alexander would have advanced in column and brought units up into line as the plain widened - which is indeed exactly what Arrian says did happen - (Anab 2.8.4) "as long as the defile on every side remained narrow, he led the army in column, but when it grew broader, he deployed his column continously into a phalanx, bringing up unit after unit (taxis) of hoplites".
The two sources needn't be in contradiction. In fact if you look at the geography there is quite a distance to cover from a narrow defile to the battlefield. Arrian's army would have advanced in column and then Calisthene's army taken over in line, starting with an open order 32-deep.
(https://i.imgur.com/9RqV47W.jpg)
Quote from: RichT on March 07, 2018, 01:56:01 PM- it requires that the whole advance be made on a continuous unchanging frontage, despite the fact that the plain is supposed to be growing wider, and despite the difficulties (Polybius' main point) of advancing a considerable distance on an extended front.
Difficult but not impossible and it depends how uneven that plain was (seems to me it's quite even). What difference does it make if the plain is growing wider? The point is to be deployed for battle and have the flanks covered by cavalry.
Quote from: RichT on March 07, 2018, 01:56:01 PM- it requires the last part of the attack - that over the most difficult terrain, the banks of the river - to be made at a sideways shuffle in closest order
Again, difficult but not impossible. Alexander's cavalry got across against an enemy stiffened with field defences.
Quote from: RichT on March 07, 2018, 01:56:01 PM- it skirts over the problem that Polybius talks as if the phalanx was 32,000 strong when in reality the Macedonian component was only around 15,000 men (including Hypaspists), the rest being allies, mercenaries and lights, so that the 1.5 foot frontage would not apply to these anyway.
Callisthenes doesn't mention how many men were in the line or if there was a second line or if a portion of the heavy infantry didn't deploy at all. Polybius just assigns 32 000 men to a single line even though the total complement was 42 000 (and probably even more than this).
Just checking but have we finished on pike grips now?
Quote from: Erpingham on March 07, 2018, 03:08:02 PM
Just checking but have we finished on pike grips now?
Looks like it, and time to wrap this one up now I think, as the train has made contact with the buffers. Thanks folks. So you in the next othismos thread :)
Quote from: Erpingham on March 07, 2018, 03:08:02 PM
Just checking but have we finished on pike grips now?
It was on: underarm grip - shields in the way; overarm grip - shields OK. But we really need some reenactors to see if they can pull it off.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 07, 2018, 03:58:47 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on March 07, 2018, 03:08:02 PM
Just checking but have we finished on pike grips now?
It was on: underarm grip - shields ok; overarm grip - hell no way.
completely agree Justin
A bit late to this party, but I shall just note that Polybius in Book XII misunderstands Callisthenes and additionally confuses and contradicts himself and is not to be relied upon for infantry frontages in that book whereas in Book XVIII he actually gets down to business.
So we have the following frontages for Alexander's phalangites:
March order: 6' per man, 32 deep
'Order': 3' per man, 16 deep
'Close order': 1.5' per man, 8 deep.
This includes the individual and the space around him (if any). There is incidentally a quick way to arrive at spacing, namely to touch shields when at the 3' frontage (a 2' shield held with the edge on the centreline of one's body should touch the shield of the next man held centrally over his body; he then moves his shield so the edge rests on his centreline and touches that of his neighbour; this is then repeated down the line from right to left), which gives exact (or exact enough) spacing without need for coup d'oeil, drill sticks, etc. Once you have the 3' frontage, the 6' frontage is easily arrived at by doubling depth (every alternate file moves back to tag onto the end of its neighbour) and the 1.5' frontage is attained by halving depth and doubling density. Simple, 100% reliable and 100% effective.
Observe how the overall frontage of a unit, and for that matter the whole line, stays constant throughout. Alexander usually marched in order of battle when expecting contact with the enemy, and this closing up to exchange depth for density neatly allows an easily managed approach and a progressive assembly into final phalanx density all on the same frontage, a great time-saver.
Regarding overarm/underarm pike use, I think this has been well enough discussed in this and another thread. I am inclined to agree that thoughtful reenactment would help to clinch the deal, if deal there is.
Nice to see Patrick back in circulation.
I don't want to re-open our discussion except for one query, because it will help my thinking from the other frontage thread.
You state that Polybios in book XVIII clearly lays out the three frontages and labels the six foot spacing as "March order". Earlier discussions led to the conclusion that Polybios didn't equate the six foot spacing to march order but this was a modern speculation (albeit a reasonable one). Can you quote us that bit of Book XVIII as completion of our evidence base in this thread?
Thanks.
Quote from: Erpingham on March 18, 2018, 10:19:39 AM
Nice to see Patrick back in circulation.
I don't want to re-open our discussion except for one query, because it will help my thinking from the other frontage thread.
You state that Polybios in book XVIII clearly lays out the three frontages and labels the six foot spacing as "March order". Earlier discussions led to the conclusion that Polybios didn't equate the six foot spacing to march order but this was a modern speculation (albeit a reasonable one). Can you quote us that bit of Book XVIII as completion of our evidence base in this thread?
Thanks.
Nice to be welcomed, thank you.
I see you have read: "
So we have ..." as "
Polybius says we have ..." which is not quite the same thing. As far as I know, 6' march order frontage is one of those things which is generally accepted but not specified outside tactical manuals. What Polybius does specify is a combat frontage for Romans and a Macedonian combat frontage of half that, which we shall see below. This tallies with Callisthenes' account of Alexander closing up his troops prior to Issus, from 32 deep to 16 deep and then to 8 deep, from which we can infer indicates frontages respectively of 6' then 3' and then 1.5'.
XVIII.29.2-5 (Macedonian depth)For as a man in close order of battle occupies a space of three feet [
trisi posi kata]; 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
Polybius is referring only to depth here, as is apparent from the two cubits/three feet being applied to the length of protruding sarissa provided by each rank.
For frontage, he does not give a figure but lapses into Homer
XVIII.29.6 (Macedonian frontage)So buckler [
aspis] pressed on buckler; helm on helm;
And man on man: and waving horse-hair plumes
In polished head-piece mingled
An aspis can press on an aspis at any interval less than three feet, but for helm to press on helm, and man on man, the men cannot be further apart than a 1.5 feet frontage. It would of course have been better had Polybius simply given the figure, but he presumably credits his readers with a bit of common sense.
One should note he alludes to this particular verse in Book XII, but without actually quoting it and without paying attention to his arithmetic. The material point regarding the quote is that helm cannot press on helm or body on body except at a 1.5' frontage as opposed to a 3' frontage.
Now we look at the Romans.
XVIII.30.6 (Roman individual depth and frontage)Now, a Roman soldier
histantai in full armour also requires a space of three square feet [
trisi posi meta].
Note that the translator gives "three square feet", i.e. a frontage and depth of 1.732 feet, for a standing (
histantai) Roman soldier. Polybius then points out that in order to use his weapons and shield efectively, the Roman soldier needs a 3' by 3' box.
XVIII.30.7-8 (Roman combat frontage)But as their method of fighting admits of individual motion for each man—because he defends his body with a shield, which he moves about to any point from which a blow is coming, and because he uses his sword both for cutting and stabbing,—it is evident that each man must have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet
kat' epistatēn and
kata parastatēn, if he is to do his duty with any effect.
Kata epistaten and
kata parastaten are side-to-side and front-to-rear.
Now Polybius matches up the Roman and Macedonian frontages.
XVIII.30.9 (Relative frontages)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 [
sarisas]
Half the 3' Roman combat frontage corresponds with the 1.5' Macedonian combat frontage inferred earlier. This harmonises with Callisthenes' reduction of depths in two stages from march order to fighting order.
This is what gives us the overall picture of 6' march frontage, 3' approach frontage and 1.5' (18") combat frontage for the Macedonians.
Sorry patrick. I didn't mean you to have to quote all that again. Forgive my misunderstanding, but I do think it was a logical consequence of the juxtaposition of ".....whereas in Book XVIII he actually gets down to business.
So we have the following frontages ....."
So you actually concur in the consensus that "March Order" is a modern interpretation, whch is good. You clearly differ on the remaining elements but we've debated that so often I don't think there is any reason to return to it.
Quote from: RichT on March 06, 2018, 09:51:45 AM
willb:
It's not a given that the shield would be held at 90 degrees to the front, so even at 18" spacing (one cubit) with a 24" shield (eight palms) it's not certain if or how much they would overlap. It's hard to imagine how sarissas would fit between shields at 18", but Peter Connolly said they could. Paul Bardunias says they can't. One or other of them is mistaken. A shoulder level hold might solve the problem but there is no other evidence for such a hold, and if Connolly is right, there is no problem to solve. What to do?
Hi all, just wanted to clear something up. I do not disagree with Peter Connolly. Hoplites cannot form at 18" with their shields facing perpendicular to the enemy, the width of their biceps precludes this if nothing else, so the only explanation for the existence of the 18" formation is that it was to be done by sarissaphoroi.
Welcome Paul. You will find you are a man much quoted in various threads on the forum so nice to have you here in person.
Quote from: Erpingham on March 19, 2018, 03:26:41 PM
Welcome Paul. You will find you are a man much quoted in various threads on the forum so nice to have you here in person.
Thanks! Now I will have to run around and search out all the comments. Or maybe just start a new othismos thread and have the comments come to me ;) I joke, but if any are interested in the othismos experiments we did with files of men pushing, I would be happy to discuss it.
Quote from: PMBardunias on March 19, 2018, 03:11:55 PM
Quote from: RichT on March 06, 2018, 09:51:45 AM
willb:
It's not a given that the shield would be held at 90 degrees to the front, so even at 18" spacing (one cubit) with a 24" shield (eight palms) it's not certain if or how much they would overlap. It's hard to imagine how sarissas would fit between shields at 18", but Peter Connolly said they could. Paul Bardunias says they can't. One or other of them is mistaken. A shoulder level hold might solve the problem but there is no other evidence for such a hold, and if Connolly is right, there is no problem to solve. What to do?
thanks Paul.
Hi all, just wanted to clear something up. I do not disagree with Peter Connolly. Hoplites cannot form at 18" with their shields facing perpendicular to the enemy, the width of their biceps precludes this if nothing else, so the only explanation for the existence of the 18" formation is that it was to be done by sarissaphoroi.
Yes welcome Paul! As it was me you quoted above, I hope I didn't misrepresent you, but I was just responding to Justin Swanton's earlier comment, which was:
Quote
I asked Paul Bardunias about this and he affirms it is impossible to bear sarissas underarm in a close formation as the shields overlap exactly where the left arm holds the sarissa.
So maybe you favour the overarm hold too? But wouldn't that mean you did disagree with Peter Connolly, whose reconstruction used the underarm hold? Or maybe Justin misremembered/misconstrued.
Concerning othismos - Lord preserve us... But I would be interested in hearing about your experiments (the ones referred to in
Hoplites at War I assume?) Maybe there is a brief opportunity for a civilised discussion of this particular aspect of the topic - please do open a new thread on it if you want to risk it...
Quote from: RichT on March 19, 2018, 03:45:36 PM
Yes welcome Paul! As it was me you quoted above, I hope I didn't misrepresent you, but I was just responding to Justin Swanton's earlier comment, which was:
Quote
I asked Paul Bardunias about this and he affirms it is impossible to bear sarissas underarm in a close formation as the shields overlap exactly where the left arm holds the sarissa.
So maybe you favour the overarm hold too? But wouldn't that mean you did disagree with Peter Connolly, whose reconstruction used the underarm hold? Or maybe Justin misremembered/misconstrued.
Concerning othismos - Lord preserve us... But I would be interested in hearing about your experiments (the ones referred to in Hoplites at War I assume?) Maybe there is a brief opportunity for a civilised discussion of this particular aspect of the topic - please do open a new thread on it if you want to risk it...
There was a misunderstanding between you, Justin, and I, that twisted my original intent. What I told him is that you cannot physically overlap peltae if you are a sarissaphoroi because your own spear shaft is in the way if you are holding the sarissa as Connolly showed. Not he did not overlap shields. You can hold sarissa as Connolly did and enter a state of "synaspismos", which has nothing to do with actually overlapping shields. You can think of it more as a spacing where shields would be overlapped, or at least brought together rim to rim, were they aspides. As someone, maybe yourself, wrote, you stand with the pelta angled obliquely as you move to an 18" frontage.
I made a few comments on a couple threads, but I will post something specifically on the testing we did.
Quote from: PMBardunias on March 19, 2018, 05:45:30 PM
Quote from: RichT on March 19, 2018, 03:45:36 PM
Yes welcome Paul! As it was me you quoted above, I hope I didn't misrepresent you, but I was just responding to Justin Swanton's earlier comment, which was:
Quote
I asked Paul Bardunias about this and he affirms it is impossible to bear sarissas underarm in a close formation as the shields overlap exactly where the left arm holds the sarissa.
So maybe you favour the overarm hold too? But wouldn't that mean you did disagree with Peter Connolly, whose reconstruction used the underarm hold? Or maybe Justin misremembered/misconstrued.
Concerning othismos - Lord preserve us... But I would be interested in hearing about your experiments (the ones referred to in Hoplites at War I assume?) Maybe there is a brief opportunity for a civilised discussion of this particular aspect of the topic - please do open a new thread on it if you want to risk it...
There was a misunderstanding between you, Justin, and I, that twisted my original intent. What I told him is that you cannot physically overlap peltae if you are a sarissaphoroi because your own spear shaft is in the way if you are holding the sarissa as Connolly showed. Not he did not overlap shields. You can hold sarissa as Connolly did and enter a state of "synaspismos", which has nothing to do with actually overlapping shields. You can think of it more as a spacing where shields would be overlapped, or at least brought together rim to rim, were they aspides. As someone, maybe yourself, wrote, you stand with the pelta angled obliquely as you move to an 18" frontage.
I made a few comments on a couple threads, but I will post something specifically on the testing we did.
Glad to see you here Paul :) (and sorry if I took your name in vain).
Just to clarify one thing. Is synapsmos taken in the sources to mean intermediate as well as close order as per the manuals? Connolly's group were in intermediate order - he
says they were able to present pikes underarm in close order but doesn't show it in a photo. (actually, rereading his article he says that the men were able to shove from intermediate to close order but doesn't mention how or even if the pikes were lowered).
There is some confusion over the term synaspismos, I have seen it used for both intermediate and close order. For hoplites there is less difference, and no neat geometric doubling- say something around 90cm to a close order of 60-72cm. I do not know how Connolly used it off hand.
The noun synaspismos is largely confined to the tacticians where it refers to closest order (1 cubit). It also occurs for example in Diodorus' origin of the phalanx passage with reference to the Homeric parallel - which Polybius in turn shows refers to the intermediate order (pace he-who-shall-not-be-named).
The verb synaspizein and variants and cognates is more common (still uncommon) in literary sources. For hoplites it's anyone's guess what it means, for Polybius it appears to mean intermediate (2 cubit).
I agree there's no neat geometric doubling for hoplites (as far as we know) and perhaps no formal file intervals at all - any more precision than that is guesswork (albeit educated).
I'd be happy to pull together the references but that will take some time.
Quote from: RichT on March 19, 2018, 09:44:33 PM
perhaps no formal file intervals at all
One thing to remember in these discussions is that we focus on the what and not on the how. So we can categorize a 3' frontage as opposed to something wider or closer, but how do the men actually form this? For hoplites, the most obvious way to form at 3' is to form shield to shield. For closer formations men just converge to a comfort zone, which is hard to describe, but obvious when you do it. Closer than this and you begin to foul each other. These are not so formal, but simply emerge from the dimensions of the men and panoply in the same way we might form "shoulder to shoulder". If you want to form up so that you can later double your file, the way to do this is hold your aspis to your left. This is less that 6' frontage, but enough to get another hoplite between and formed up at about 28-30".
thanks Paul,
pictures really help for me.......
I know this is a long shot to try and get some contemporary parallels but what evidence do we have of people in the ancient mediterranean era using long spear two-handed over arm? Art or literature? I can think of some Mycenean hunting scenes. Others?
Quote from: Erpingham on March 21, 2018, 06:48:45 PM
I know this is a long shot to try and get some contemporary parallels but what evidence do we have of people in the ancient mediterranean era using long spear two-handed over arm? Art or literature? I can think of some Mycenean hunting scenes. Others?
Tell me about the Mycenean hunting scenes.
There is so much cross threading already, that I thought I might ask this here. One thing that always bothered me with the analogies between sarissaphoroi and Swiss pike, is that there are no equivalents to halbredeers or 2 handed swords. Why no Dorudrepanons? There probably is an obvious reason. But one could see equivalents of sword and rotella men in each and every phalangite. My question is, is there any account of front rankers dropping sarissa and fighting within the hedge of sarissa from those behind?
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 21, 2018, 07:08:28 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on March 21, 2018, 06:48:45 PM
I know this is a long shot to try and get some contemporary parallels but what evidence do we have of people in the ancient mediterranean era using long spear two-handed over arm? Art or literature? I can think of some Mycenean hunting scenes. Others?
Tell me about the Mycenean hunting scenes.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Hunting_Mycenaean_Dagger.jpg)
From Grave Circle A, Mycenae 16th century BC (conventional dating).
Quote from: Erpingham on March 22, 2018, 08:09:55 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 21, 2018, 07:08:28 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on March 21, 2018, 06:48:45 PM
I know this is a long shot to try and get some contemporary parallels but what evidence do we have of people in the ancient mediterranean era using long spear two-handed over arm? Art or literature? I can think of some Mycenean hunting scenes. Others?
Tell me about the Mycenean hunting scenes.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Hunting_Mycenaean_Dagger.jpg)
From Grave Circle A, Mycenae 16th century BC (conventional dating).
Aren't they holding those spears one-handed?
QuoteAren't they holding those spears one-handed?
Well the guy on the left certainly isn't. The one in the middle is less clear but, given his similarity of stance to the guy on the left, the fact his shield is slung over his back and the spear length (about 12ft?), I'd say he isn't either. The one at the front is behind his shield so its harder to tell.
I'd say the one in the front is the only one holding his spear one handed
The problem is with the perspective, we see it as a 'file' whilst the original craftsman may have tried to show a more irregular group
There's a similar "formation" with two-handed spears in a battle-scene on a silver rhyton - drawing and reconstruction at http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/shields1.htm about the sixth paragraph. I suspect there's a photo of this rhyton somewhere but can't find it right now.
and is suggesting that 2 handed may have been used with the shield carried and not in use