SoA Forums

My curiosity piqued by recent arguments learned debate on the fighting densities of Macedonian infantry (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=3241.0), which were digressing in various directions, I thought I'd start something a bit broader to consider non-Polybian records of the matter and any experiments attempted.  I'll start us off with  curiosity (https://www.e-periodica.ch/cntmng?pid=rms-001:1976:121::763), which is the only thing I can find online for a well known Swiss experiment on pike squares done in 1974.  Here 400 recruits from the Swiss army antitank school are set to work.  Sadly the photos are poor (if anyone has access to better or knows where an online copy of the report from 1975 can be found, please enlighten us) but we can gather that the re-enactors are placed at a frontage of 0.6m per man and a similar depth.  I think the depth is wrong - according to renaissance manuals the "footprint" of a pikeman was 3ft front x 7ft depth.  The tight depth is only permitted by not giving the flank squaddies pikes.  But the width seems to work.  Of course, these men don't have shields.

I believe I have seen references to Byzantine formations and Richard taylor has noted Vegetius has something about Romans.

So, if anyone has any interesting evidence from various times and places.  I do have one more medieval one up my sleeve but lets see what else we have.

Groan...

OK I'll just toss this in, though it's from outside our period, but relates in obvious ways to the discussion we have been having (and indeed since it is probably derived from Aelian, may even go back ultimately to Polybius, but that's another matter):


INSTRVCTIONS For MVSTERS AND ARMES, AND the vse thereof
1623

"First of all, it is to be vnderstood that there are three sorts of distances, to wit, Open Order, Order, and Close Order. Open Order or the first distance is, when the Souldiers both in Ranke and File stand sixe foot remooued one from another.

The second distance, or your Order is, when the Souldiers stand three foot remooued both in Ranke and File, one from another; and this Order is to be vsed, when they are embattayled, or march in the face of an enemy, or when they come to stand, or when you will wheele. But when you march thorow any Country, you must obserue three foot only from File to File, and sixe from Ranke to Ranke. The third distance, or your Close Order is commanded, by this word Close, which is when there is one foot and a halfe from File to File, and three from Ranke to Rank, and this is for the Pikes onely, and must neuer be vsed but when you will stand firme to receiue the charge of an enemy. The Muskettiers must neuer be closer then the second distance of three foot in square, because they are to haue a free vse of their Armes.

In exercising your motions, you are alwayes to obserue your Open Order of sixe foot in square, in which the company being first placed, you are to acquaint them to these termes of directions."

Quote from: Arthashastra X.vThe infantry should be arrayed such that the space between any two men is a sama (14 angulas); cavalry with three samas; chariots with four samas; and elephants with twice or thrice as much space (as between any two chariots). With such an array free to move and having no confusion, one should fight. A bow means five aratnis (5 x 54 = 120 angulas). Archers should be stationed at the distance of five bows (from one line to another); the cavalry at the distance of three bows; and chariots or elephants at the distance of five bows.

An angula is about an inch.

Connolly's experiments with reenactors:

(https://i.imgur.com/YeFWf2P.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/vcDWUFY.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/0zt9D0i.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/lvRIAqD.jpg)

Quote from: RichT on March 07, 2018, 04:27:12 PM
Groan...

that one word made me spit my coffee out and nearly choke with laughter....... ;D

Quote from: RichT on March 07, 2018, 04:27:12 PM

"First of all, it is to be vnderstood that there are three sorts of distances, to wit, Open Order, Order, and Close Order. Open Order or the first distance is, when the Souldiers both in Ranke and File stand sixe foot remooued one from another.

That sounds rather like the gaps should be six feet. Assuming a man to be something like 1½ foot wide, that 'd then give a frontage of 7½ feet per file.

I vaguely recall reading somewhere that that's how it was done in the eighteenth(?) century, specifying gaps rather than frontages: and the Arthashastra clearly does the same.

(Incidentally, the spacing for chariots works out to less than 1.5 m - presumably caracole was not on the reportoire.)

Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 07, 2018, 04:34:18 PM
Connolly's experiments with reenactors:

(https://i.imgur.com/YeFWf2P.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/vcDWUFY.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/0zt9D0i.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/lvRIAqD.jpg)

awesome find Justin.....the diagrams suggest an oblique stance rather than square on - a possible missing link between formation widths?

Veg. 3.14.6-7:

'Individual infantrymen regularly occupy 3 feet each. Therefore in a mile 1,666 infantrymen are ranked abreast, without light showing between them but leaving room to handle their weapons. Between line and line, they wished to have a space of 6 feet in depth behind them to give the fighting men room to move forward and back, missiles being more forcibly thrown from a running jump.' (Milner's translation)

Quote from: Holly on March 07, 2018, 05:01:04 PM
awesome find Justin.....the diagrams suggest an oblique stance rather than square on - a possible missing link between formation widths?

Was anyone actually thinking such pikemen would stand in any other way?

Quote from: nikgaukroger on March 07, 2018, 07:03:40 PM

Quote from: Holly on March 07, 2018, 05:01:04 PM
awesome find Justin.....the diagrams suggest an oblique stance rather than square on - a possible missing link between formation widths?

Was anyone actually thinking such pikemen would stand in any other way?

quite right too. I of course meant that the pictures suggest 'side on' posture and normally would expect oblique with body posture at  45 degrees and shield more or less full facing.

d'oh  :-\

Quote from: Holly on March 07, 2018, 05:01:04 PMawesome find Justin

Actually a gift from Paul Bardunias.

and jolly good it is too. I was then minded to trawl through You tube for various offerings of Macedonian phalanx formations but sometimes the detailed bit you want to see is only fleeting or too far away...

I am also reminded to watch the Alexander film again (just for research obviously)

Maurice Strategicon 12.B.16.30–38 (as given by Philip Rance). 

They advance in a fulcum, whenever, as the battle lines are
coming close together, both ours and the enemy's, the archery is
about to commence, and those arrayed in the front line are not
wearing mail coats or greaves. He [the herald] orders, "ad
fulco."17 And those arrayed right at the very front mass their
shields together until they come shield-boss to shield-boss,
completely covering their stomachs almost to their shins. The
men standing just behind them, raising their shields and resting
them on the shield-bosses of those in front, cover their chests
and faces, and in this way they engage.

Rance clearly believes that Byzantine drill at this time contained different levels of order

Before close-quarters contact
with the enemy, about two or three bowshots from the enemy
battle line, upon the order "iunge," the infantry were to close in
from both the flanks and rear, a manoeuvre Maurice calls
puknosis or sphigxis. Traditionally puknosis meant reducing the
space allotted to each man in a rank to two cubits (three feet),
creating a dense formation in which each man was still able to
manoeuvre and employ his weaponry; this conventional "close
order" appears to correspond to what Maurice describes.
During this manoeuvre "the men deployed at the front come together
side-by-side until they are shield-boss to shield-boss with
one another", while those in the ranks behind stand "almost glued to one another"

The Fulcum, the Late Roman and Byzantine Testudo: the Germanization of Roman Infantry Tactics? Philip Rance p.271

(I've extracted the Greek text where possible and transliterated it where not - correctly I hope )

So, approach order closes down to puknosis and then foulkon.  I'm not sure the latter two are at different spacings - both are described as "boss to boss".  This ought to be traditional 1 cubit spacing but both formations can manoeuver so may in reality have been somewhat looser.

There is another description of this close order in the later Sylloge Tacticorum, under the name syskouton.  I think this means literally shields together, skouton meaning "shield" at this point.  Here it is stated as 1 cubit spacing.  If I can extract it, I'll reproduce it because it contrasts it with normal infantry formation (which it doesn't given a frontage for alas).

Sylloge Tacticorum Chapter 45 (Chatzelis and Harris translation)

32 Whenever the enemy attacks the Roman army with great force and
prevails, the formation must become dense to such an extent as to
be impossible for anyone to turn about and move from one spot to
another. Because each [man] occupies a space of no more than a cubit,
the formation is, therefore, called ' locking of shields'.
33 The Romans usually make this formation round but also square.
Sometimes it has more length than depth and sometimes the opposite.
Those who stand at the front put forward the man-height shields which
some call thyreoi, and turning their faces towards the enemy, they fight
boldly without breaking the close order at all. If they are on the move,
they conduct the march slowly and in step. Each of those in the middle
covers the heads of those who are standing by him by quickly raising
his shield high, and so everybody remains unharmed, since due to
the density [ of the formation], the missiles and stones released by the
enemy do no harm. Consequently, this formation was called the tortoise
by the tacticians, because it has so much density as for someone
to easily stand in file and not fall, and for the very large stones which
are thrown to roll upon the shields and to fall onto the ground without
any result at all.


This probably illustrates a conflation of sources, the foulkon as described by Maurice and the classic Roman testudo.  But it does give us some interesting bits of info.

Locked shields has everyone with one cubit of space.  Movement inside the formation is no longer possible (which implies it is in normal formation density).  Note that the fully enclosed version, the tortoise, can move slowly and in step.

Another out of period but pike-related one - there are a million 17th C manuals all saying much the same thing but I'm going to quote this one as I like his style:

#######

MILITARY DISCIPLINE: OR, THE YOUNG ARTILLERY MAN
By William Barriff
1635

But because it is held by some a matter disputable, whether distance be one of the motions or no: We will first declare, what is distance. To which I answer, that indeed Distance it selfe is no motion, but there is motion in producing such distance; for Distance is the space of ground between man and man either in File or Ranke, having relation onely to the place between each partie, All the rest of the motions having not onely relation to the one, but the other. Wherefore not to spend more time in a matter so apparant, we will say that the discipline of a foot-companie consists chiefly in distance and motion. And therefore seeing that distance is the ground of motion, and that no motion can be performed without distance, wee will leave to discourse it, and fall to the matter it selfe, and shew how many sorts of Distance is ordinarily used in our moderne discipline, which are these foure here under named:

Close Order               (which is            One foot and a halfe.
Order                        (both in             Three foot.
Open Order               rank and            Sixe foot.
Double distance         file)                   Twelve foot.

It hath been the opinion of some ancient Commanders, that the distance of Ranke, was alwaies double the distance of File, although they went
both under one and the same denomination. As that order in File was three foot, order in Ranke sixe foot, open order in file sixe foot, open order in ranke twelve foot, and so of other distances. But the best received opinions hold them to be alike both in ranke and file.

There is to be considered in distance these three especially, that is,

                     For March.
Distance        For Motion.
                     For Skirmish.
      
You are to observe, that your distance for march is to be three foot between file and file, and sixe foot between ranke and ranke; distance for motion sixe foot both in ranke and file, distance for wheelings and skirmish three foot in ranke and file. Onely if you were to receive a charge from the horse, it is necessary for your files of Pike-men to be at close order.

######

He does talk as if the distance is the gap between men, not the distance between midpoint and midpoint of each man - I don't know if this is just an artifact of the writing style, since that would make all the intervals wider than we expect.

Others have also looked at this issue.  Christopher Matthew in "An Invincible Beast" provides plenty of material (or at least plenty of pages) for people to get their teeth into.   8)

Quote from: NickHarbud on March 08, 2018, 02:02:13 PM
Others have also looked at this issue.  Christopher Matthew in "An Invincible Beast" provides plenty of material (or at least plenty of pages) for people to get their teeth into.   8)

completely agree and really rate the book personally

Quote from: NickHarbud on March 08, 2018, 02:02:13 PM
Others have also looked at this issue.  Christopher Matthew in "An Invincible Beast" provides plenty of material (or at least plenty of pages) for people to get their teeth into.   8)

Has he anything to say which is not Polybios or the "Ancient tacticians"?  We covered this (in ever decreasing circles) in the other thread.

Quote
Others have also looked at this issue. Christopher Matthew in "An Invincible Beast" provides plenty of material (or at least plenty of pages) for people to get their teeth into. 

Pages 133-156 specifically.

Quote
Has he anything to say which is not Polybios or the "Ancient tacticians"?  We covered this (in ever decreasing circles) in the other thread.

Not really. His argument is (and I hope I do it justice) that the tacticians specify the three intervals, but that the closest interval is impossible for a phalangite (two handed sarissa and shield bearer) to occupy, becsause the minimum space occupied by man, shield and spear is 76cm, and that with five rows of projecting spears, in order to provide room between the shields and not tangle the spears they must be separated laterally, so the minimum possible spacing is 96cm - which is three feet, and so agrees with Polybius, but not the tacticians. He concludes that the tacticans closest order, and any other references to such closest order elsewhere, must refer to hoplites not phalangites, since with their overarm grip for the spear they are not constrained by the shields. This would be music to Justin's ears, but he also rules out the overarm hold for the sarissa on practical and evidential grounds.

I've expressed my views on this theory elsewhere. And the Peter Connolly reconstruction as you all can see found, for what it's worth, that close order was possible.

But pleeeeeeeeeeeease let's not go over it all again. Other periods, please.

Quote from: RichT on March 08, 2018, 02:36:34 PM

But pleeeeeeeeeeeease let's not go over it all again. Other periods, please.

hear hear  ;)

Quote from: RichT on March 08, 2018, 02:36:34 PM

Quote
Others have also looked at this issue. Christopher Matthew in "An Invincible Beast" provides plenty of material (or at least plenty of pages) for people to get their teeth into. 

Pages 133-156 specifically.

Quote
Has he anything to say which is not Polybios or the "Ancient tacticians"?  We covered this (in ever decreasing circles) in the other thread.

Not really. His argument is (and I hope I do it justice) that the tacticians specify the three intervals, but that the closest interval is impossible for a phalangite (two handed sarissa and shield bearer) to occupy, becsause the minimum space occupied by man, shield and spear is 76cm, and that with five rows of projecting spears, in order to provide room between the shields and not tangle the spears they must be separated laterally, so the minimum possible spacing is 96cm - which is three feet, and so agrees with Polybius, but not the tacticians. He concludes that the tacticans closest order, and any other references to such closest order elsewhere, must refer to hoplites not phalangites, since with their overarm grip for the spear they are not constrained by the shields. This would be music to Justin's ears, but he also rules out the overarm hold for the sarissa on practical and evidential grounds.

I've expressed my views on this theory elsewhere. And the Peter Connolly reconstruction as you all can see found, for what it's worth, that close order was possible.

But pleeeeeeeeeeeease let's not go over it all again. Other periods, please.

Mmmff...gloob..Gug...Help! Somebody! I've been tied up and gagged!

Two more on 16th century pike fighting, one of which is based on experience just within our period of interest

In their array towards joining with the enemy, they cling and
thrust so near in the fore rank, shoulder and shoulder together, with their
pikes in both their hands straight afore them, and their followers in that
order so hard in their backs, laying their pikes over their foregoers' shoulders,
that, if they do assail undiscovered, no force can well withstand
them.

William Patten on the Scots 1547.  We've had his view on anti-cavalry tactics in the other thread (it follows directly on from here), this is their attacking formation.  We might note another non-literal reference to very close order.  You can't literally be shoulder to shoulder using the high pike position.  Note also the compression of ranks.  It is an interesting question where the Scots tactics at this time come from.  This formation looks very medieval, as does the continuation about defence.  Is this essentially the old schiltron but with longer weapons?  Or is this Swiss-style, taught them by the French?

As a contrast, we have a completely different view on the depth between ranks from the Landsknecht school.  This doesn't seem to be available in English but Delbruck quotes it, so here is a quote from Delbruck

We have a document, True Advice and Reflections of an Old Well tested and Experienced Warrior (Trewer Rath und Bedencken eines Alten wol versuchten und Erfahrenen Kriegsmans), which was probably written toward the end of 1522 and perhaps was the work of no less a person than Georg Frundsberg. This document rejects the opinion that ''the formation should be tight', and should give the decision as a result of pressure from the rear, ''for the foremost men, who are supposed to do the work, do not wish to be too closely pressed; they must be left room for freely jabbing" , otherwise they would be pushed in ''as one pushes people into a ditch.''

Now, if this was Frundsberg, he was a leader of pikemen and a veteran of many pike fights.  This is German school, where individual pike skills are important, contrasting with the "impact en mass" approach of the Swiss, French, Scots and at least some English.  Note the "foremost men" do the work .  Sir John Smythe has, of course, abrasive comments on this
During which time of the pushing and foyning of the two first rankes of the two squadrons of enemies, all the rest of the rankes of both the squadrons must by such an unskilfull kind of fighting stand still and looke on and cry aime...

I realise I'm in danger of slipping away into more discussions of pike fighting but I think there are some useful points about mass and individual action here.  The Trewer Rath's pikemen aren't necessarily in any looser frontage to fight in an individual style but they need to avoid compression from the rear.  The impact school compact their ranks more to get impetus to their "push of pike".  Anyway, even if their aren't, it serves as a reminder to look at the distance between ranks as well as the gap between files.

Quote from: Erpingham on March 09, 2018, 09:31:35 AM
Two more on 16th century pike fighting, one of which is based on experience just within our period of interest

In their array towards joining with the enemy, they cling and
thrust so near in the fore rank, shoulder and shoulder together, with their
pikes in both their hands straight afore them, and their followers in that
order so hard in their backs, laying their pikes over their foregoers' shoulders,
that, if they do assail undiscovered, no force can well withstand
them.

William Patten on the Scots 1547.  We've had his view on anti-cavalry tactics in the other thread (it follows directly on from here), this is their attacking formation.  We might note another non-literal reference to very close order.  You can't literally be shoulder to shoulder using the high pike position.  Note also the compression of ranks.  It is an interesting question where the Scots tactics at this time come from.  This formation looks very medieval, as does the continuation about defence.  Is this essentially the old schiltron but with longer weapons?  Or is this Swiss-style, taught them by the French?

Does 'shoulder to shoulder' imply that the front rank held their pikes underarm? 'in both their hands straight afore them' seems to suggest so.

Quote from: Erpingham on March 09, 2018, 09:31:35 AMAs a contrast, we have a completely different view on the depth between ranks from the Landsknecht school.  This doesn't seem to be available in English but Delbruck quotes it, so here is a quote from Delbruck

We have a document, True Advice and Reflections of an Old Well tested and Experienced Warrior (Trewer Rath und Bedencken eines Alten wol versuchten und Erfahrenen Kriegsmans), which was probably written toward the end of 1522 and perhaps was the work of no less a person than Georg Frundsberg. This document rejects the opinion that ''the formation should be tight', and should give the decision as a result of pressure from the rear, ''for the foremost men, who are supposed to do the work, do not wish to be too closely pressed; they must be left room for freely jabbing" , otherwise they would be pushed in ''as one pushes people into a ditch.''

Now, if this was Frundsberg, he was a leader of pikemen and a veteran of many pike fights.  This is German school, where individual pike skills are important, contrasting with the "impact en mass" approach of the Swiss, French, Scots compact in more  and at least some English.  Note the "foremost men" do the work .  Sir John Smythe has, of course, abrasive comments on this
During which time of the pushing and foyning of the two first rankes of the two squadrons of enemies, all the rest of the rankes of both the squadrons must by such an unskilfull kind of fighting stand still and looke on and cry aime...

I realise I'm in danger of slipping away into more discussions of pike fighting but I think there are some useful points about mass and individual action here.  The Trewer Rath's pikemen aren't necessarily in any looser frontage to fight in an individual style but they need to avoid compression from the rear.  The impact school compact their ranks more to get impetus to their "push of pike".  Anyway, even if their aren't, it serves as a reminder to look at the distance between ranks as well as the gap between files.

One question: what is the evidence  (if any) the mediaeval pikers were largely undearm and that pike formations gradually switched to overarm through the 16th and 17th centuries?

David Graff, in The Eurasian Way of War: Military Practice in Seventh-Century China and Byzantium (see online here (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sga4CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA189&lpg=PA189&dq=graff+eurasian+way+%22li+jing%22&source=bl&ots=y-3yYsFM7f&sig=3Bke5aH3RMJ-5j6i9HYp2ReRnP4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjD_Y6bhd_ZAhUMOo8KHVNcC2wQ6AEIKjAB#v=onepage&q=li%20jing&f=false), pages 61-62), gives extracts from the military writings of Li Jing, a successful early Tang general whose work survives in later Tang compilations:

Quote from: Li JingIn all cases when teaching combat formations, fifty men make up a company (dui). ... Arriving at the left or right side of the training ground, each company unfurls its pennons and deploys in sequence. The companies are positioned ten paces apart, and each company [occupies a space] ten paces square, [with the soldiers] distributed evenly [in that space]. The support companies (zhu dui) block the gaps, standing twenty paces behind the forward companies.

Graff goes on to say:

Quote from: GraffWithin each dui, the individual soldiers have ample room to maneuver since each "pace" here actually represents a Chinese double-pace (bu) of approximately five feet. Each soldier should be five feet away from the men on each side of him and from those to the front and rear. As the drill continues, however, this loose and no doubt easily maneuverable formation is compressed into a closer order ...

Unfortunately it's not clear to me just how close the "closer order" gets.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 09, 2018, 10:19:26 AM

Does 'shoulder to shoulder' imply that the front rank held their pikes underarm? 'in both their hands straight afore them' seems to suggest so.

I don't think so - you aren't shoulder to shoulder with pikes underarm either.  Its possible you have an underarm front rank and an overarm rear from the description but it would also work if both were overarm.

Quote from: Duncan Head on March 09, 2018, 10:50:21 AM
David Graff, in The Eurasian Way of War: Military Practice in Seventh-Century China and Byzantium (see online here (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sga4CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA189&lpg=PA189&dq=graff+eurasian+way+%22li+jing%22&source=bl&ots=y-3yYsFM7f&sig=3Bke5aH3RMJ-5j6i9HYp2ReRnP4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjD_Y6bhd_ZAhUMOo8KHVNcC2wQ6AEIKjAB#v=onepage&q=li%20jing&f=false), pages 61-62), gives extracts from the military writings of Li Jing, a successful early Tang general whose work survives in later Tang compilations:

Quote from: Li JingIn all cases when teaching combat formations, fifty men make up a company (dui). ... Arriving at the left or right side of the training ground, each company unfurls its pennons and deploys in sequence. The companies are positioned ten paces apart, and each company [occupies a space] ten paces square, [with the soldiers] distributed evenly [in that space]. The support companies (zhu dui) block the gaps, standing twenty paces behind the forward companies.

Graff goes on to say:

Quote from: GraffWithin each dui, the individual soldiers have ample room to maneuver since each "pace" here actually represents a Chinese double-pace (bu) of approximately five feet. Each soldier should be five feet away from the men on each side of him and from those to the front and rear. As the drill continues, however, this loose and no doubt easily maneuverable formation is compressed into a closer order ...

Unfortunately it's not clear to me just how close the "closer order" gets.

This, I note, only adds up, more or less, numerically if the one bu is the gap between men, not the frontage per man.

QuoteOne question: what is the evidence  (if any) the mediaeval pikers were largely undearm and that pike formations gradually switched to overarm through the 16th and 17th centuries?

A quick picture essay (in chronological order).  I've tried not to repeat ones I referenced in the last thread.

Coutrai, early 14th century.  An underarm pikeman left, earliest example known to me of the anti-cavalry pike stance on right (it is mentioned in literature a lot before this though)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Goedendag_on_chest_of_Kortrijk.jpg)

Italian late 14th century.  The Italians are said to have invented the long pike around this time

(http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/1045-6_gallery.jpg)

Scots, 1440s
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Battle_of_Bannockburn.jpg/240px-Battle_of_Bannockburn.jpg)

Now some transitional ones

Fornovo, image dates to 1496.  I confess this is a repeat but it is good.  All underarm, facing cavalry

(http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/M-Apr00-Fornovo-3.jpg)

Two Dolstein pictures, probably drawn 1505-1510.  Note all underarm against horse, all overarm against infantr

(https://myarmoury.com/talk/files/horse_vs_foot_175.jpg)

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YTgilMm_NzQ/U5Sa0evZZyI/AAAAAAAADrk/0UCk4WM1fyE/s1600/36686173.jpg)

Dornach, drawn 1510-20?  Underarm

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Dornach_1499.jpg)

Two by Burgkmair, 1514-1515, both underarm and overarm formations.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Der_Weisskunig_78_Detail_Landsknecht_Battle.jpg/442px-Der_Weisskunig_78_Detail_Landsknecht_Battle.jpg)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/Der_Weisskunig_109_Detail_Landsknecht_Battle.jpg/800px-Der_Weisskunig_109_Detail_Landsknecht_Battle.jpg)

After this, things tend to move towards only overarm.  The usual conclusion is underarm tactics were the norm until 1500 but were increasingly mixed with then replaced by overarm.

As I said in the other thread, there are three medieval two-hand spear holds shown in art.  Underarm, middle (chest high, spear couched under arm) and high.  Middle seems to have fallen by the wayside and pike tactics developed from the other two.

I'll also repeat what I noted there - images of pikes in action from Swiss and German sources at the beginning of the 16th century often show front ranks in combat using a mixture of grips, along with mighty halberd blows and sword use.  Holbeins "Bad War" is a classic of this (but a late one).  It suggests that formation became much looser and wilder at the front after impact and there was much more anything goes.

Sorry if this is a partial reply - I don't have the time to pull out various textual descriptions of spear and pike fighting to search for the transition.

Here's a belated addition

(http://c8.alamy.com/comp/FF8DNX/medieval-battle-1071-nrobert-the-frisians-infantry-fighting-anglo-FF8DNX.jpg)

A new one to me this - Flemish/Burgundian pikes 1477.

Thanks for this Anthony. Any theories on why pikemen transitioned from undearm to overarm?

when Shields started going out of 'fashion' at a guess

Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 09, 2018, 01:02:33 PM
Thanks for this Anthony. Any theories on why pikemen transitioned from undearm to overarm?

Afraid not.  I'm not sure I've read anything on it and I can't think of an obvious reason.  It ought to have to do with the general adoption of pike fighting and the increasingly reflective approach to tactics. More users, new adopters, wider range of tactical scenarios would give a context for development but I don't know what the improvement was.

I suppose an overarm use could help with more concussive blows?

I believe there are renaissance sources who noted that when underam are pushed, the pike slides up, while overarm it slides down, making underarm easier to disarm (as it were), while overarm pushed into the ground are still an impact on the enemy formation.  But overarm needed much more training and fitness.

Or something like that, anyway

Returning to the subject of frontages and depths, I said I had a medieval example.  I was being a little hasty :)

We have an eyewitness account by John I of castile of the Battle of Aljubarrota in 1385.  We know exactly where the battle was fought - a chapel was built in the centre of the Portugese position shortly afterwards.  John says that the enemy were positioned between two arroyos in a position 300 to 340 lanzas wide.  Although lanza can be translated "spearman" it probably means "man-at-arms" here.  The Castilian first two divisions were made up of men-at-arms.  So all we need do is take a scale plan, measure the width on the ground, divide by 300 or 340 and we have a contemporary estimate of the frontage of a man-at-arms.  This is where the fun starts.

Firstly, is John thinking of mounted men-at-arms or dismounted?  In this battle, his vanguard and main battle rode forward, dismounted and attacked on foot.
Secondly, how wide was the position?  I have two scaled plans which show that the distance between the streams is 750-800 m.  But the battlefield has a central plateau falling steeply away on both sides.  Only about half that width is flat .  Exactly how much is difficult to judge but the Portugese position, which was unflankable, was about 350m wide.  This can be seen in this relief map (which unfortunately doesn't have a scale - my old geography teacher would have gone berserk - but I think this is because its a screen shot from the AV presentation at the battlefield centre)

(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/bdac51_e20de1f2a4794513887be815ae4c51b3.jpg/v1/fill/w_498,h_294,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/bdac51_e20de1f2a4794513887be815ae4c51b3.jpg)

So, if we assume John is matching his line with the battlefield width as represented by Portugese position, each man-at-arms has approximately 1.0 - 1.2 m. frontage.  John must, therefore, be talking about troops on foot.

On further reflection, I think this must remain moot.  Napoleonic heavy cavalry frontages were apparently around the 40-42 inch (1.0-1.1m) in close order.  So, MAA in close order were probably not much different.

Quote from: Holly on March 09, 2018, 03:14:59 PM
when Shields started going out of 'fashion' at a guess

But even the early, underarm-wielders in Anthony's images are shieldless. (In the first image there's infantrymen with shields, but near as I can tell those particular men aren't wielding likes.)

Using shields with two-handed weapons of any kind seems to have been unusual in the middle ages (because grips where different?), so maybe an increasing popularity of such weapons (pikes, two-handed swords, various polearms) is why shields go out of fashion in the first place?

You do get Bohemian infantry with pikes and pavises around 1500, but the pavises are freestanding, and it seems to've been a dead end tactically.

it could be that the increasing weight of armour meant that the shield wasn't needed and also that you needed a double handed weapon to get through the armour ?

QuoteYou do get Bohemian infantry with pikes and pavises around 1500, but the pavises are freestanding, and it seems to've been a dead end tactically.

Here is an picture of said infantry at the Battle of Schoenberg (aka Wenzenbach) in 1504, image probably dating to around 1515.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Schlacht_Schoenberg.jpg/800px-Schlacht_Schoenberg.jpg)

Note the use of the high grip with the pavise, demonstrating, as Jim says, that these are freestanding.

On the general subject of shields and two-handed weapons, we might note that the shieldless Flemings date to only a few years after Burgundian ordnances insisted all pikemen carried a buckler.  Scots pikemen were still using shields in 1547. 

In terms of art, it is rare to see an image of someone with a two-handed weapon and a shield in combat.  Yet shields probably were still regularly carried at the turn of the 15th century, if the art is anything to go by.  Figures with swords or short lances carry shields.  The usual explanation of a mutual reinforcement of better armour meaning less reasons for shields and the need for two-handed weapons to deal with better armour does make sense.

We might speculate what men at arms did with their shields when they prepared for dismounted combat.  Perhaps they were passed to the page when the horse was taken to the rear?

Quote from: Erpingham on March 11, 2018, 10:13:25 AM
We might speculate what men at arms did with their shields when they prepared for dismounted combat.  Perhaps they were passed to the page when the horse was taken to the rear?

Erm, the mounted men at arms in the picture appear to lack shields.  Therefore, this may not be an issue.   ???

Quote from: NickHarbud on March 11, 2018, 02:26:55 PM

Quote from: Erpingham on March 11, 2018, 10:13:25 AM
We might speculate what men at arms did with their shields when they prepared for dismounted combat.  Perhaps they were passed to the page when the horse was taken to the rear?

Erm, the mounted men at arms in the picture appear to lack shields.  Therefore, this may not be an issue.   ???

But they date to the early 16th century, not the early 15th.  Shields were on their way out by the time of Agincourt according to most arms and armour books.  But men-at-arms had been dismounting and fighting on foot through most of the 14th century, while shields were apparently still in use.

Quote from: Jim Webster on March 11, 2018, 07:28:58 AM
it could be that the increasing weight of armour meant that the shield wasn't needed and also that you needed a double handed weapon to get through the armour ?

thats what i thought

I think we have exhausted our small stock of "measured" formation densities.  I am in some ways surprised there aren't many of these things we know of in our period.  This partly because expressions implying proximity were used instead of measured distances in many places, I suppose.

Leaving for a moment the Chinese example, we seem to be dealing with frontages of 72 to 14 inches for heavy infantry.  Again, it is hard to know whether all these options were used in combat, as opposed to in manouever.  One is tempted to see the standard distance as 2 cubits/ 3ft, which could close down to about half that frontage in defence.  It is also clear that tightening the formation closed the ranks and files together.  This last seems universal - the Chinese example works on a space per man and that space contracts as the unit closes ranks in a parallel to a Byzantine formation closing from the sides and rear.  It is interesting too how the non-measured distance "shield-to-shield" is used.  In classical times there was synaspismos, Byzantines could by syskouton and similar terms are used are used to describe Vikings at Stamford Bridge and Scots at bannockburn among doubtless many more.  The shield, of course, is a large physical obstacle to cramming close together so it is rather straightforward visualisation to use it to mean tightly together.

I wonder if it is useful to  consider how soldiers would deliver a particular deployment. British infantry drill in the 60s was to form a line on a fixed right marker, then placing  ones fist on the outer part of the next man in line's left shoulder with the left arm hanging down, and shuffle to the left. This did not exactly deliver a one yard gap , but it spread the line so that there was sufficient gap between individuals that when the formation carried out a right or left turn and began to march an arm swung firward to soldier height did not hit the man, formerly to the side and now to the front.
My belief is that ancient systems of engineering ( and this is engineering a formation out of human components) used fail safe procedures for ensuring that elements fitted together in the right way. To deploy thousands of men it is likely that some such human measurement system was used.  It is easy for a formation based on an arms length separation to double  inwards to increase density, by every alternate rank stepping forward and to the right...or left.
It would not be a good idea for men to crush in densely together as people will end up crushed and unable to use their weapons. To create  a wider spacing men could stand holding out both arms and touching hands on both sides.
Roy

I'm not aware of any reference to stretch out arms to get the spacing right, which might be a bit difficult with both hands carrying weapons anyway.  The "shields together" order does allow the use of the shield as a measuring device, I suppose. 

Such human measurements aren't difficult to set up.
If the man on the right stands with his shield held in his left hand, at his left side, then the man to the left of him need merely stretch out his right hand before he draws his sword. If his fingers can just touch the shield, he's near enough.
If they have spears, the man on the left stretches out his spear hand with the spear held vertical and makes sure his knuckles just touch the shield.

It strikes me that this is a far more sensible way of measuring spacing than assuming the sergeant came round with a spear shaft marked in cubits to check on spacing  :D

I'm sure there was some form of human measurement (like a stuck out arm) and also that there was no precise measurement (like someone going along with a measuring stick - which makes the discussions that sometimes crop up about Attic or some other cubit a bit moot). I imagine (with no evidence) that it was generally done by eye, by what felt about right, and by experience of what was usually done, which means that in practice the intervals would have been quite uneven and imprecise. Of course once having established one interval (which it seems was the widest, 6 feet / 2 metres / 4 cubits) the others would arise naturally if doubling the files (but note this wasn't the only way to close up - it was also possible (tacticians) to close up while retaining depth). Also I suspect a lot of armies didn't have a formal interval at all, but just did what felt about right (based around width of man/shield etc). It seems significant that across the whole of our period the only tactical manuals that exist are the Hellenistic ones.

I am less keen on 'by eye' for the intervals between men, as it becomes a matter of judgememt by one person, or is it the many? Working by a human measurement has the immense advantage that each man self regulates. What is needed is consensus on the starting point and agreement to shuffle until the agreed distances are reached. Its not going to work if one group is determined not to budge.
There must be some central direction, when Caesar orders four legions into line, they  do not , presumably start from the  right marker and then start extending the line from there. I suggest that someone paces out or rides the distances and places a man as marker for the centre of each legion and the officers then work from there. He could do it on foot, but it could take half an hour to walk the frontage and place markers.
I also suggest that there are gaps between the formations ( which I don't think the enemy will run down, but we have debated that) , so that there is a margin of error and room for manoeuvre.
Barbarian tribes are going to have to do something similar. I buy the idea that, if you have excess numbers, you increase depth, but tribal leaders must have some idea of numbers and do not end up trying to cram a quart of men into a pint pot of frontage, or with a large space to fill and a much reduced and thus vulnerable depth.  Interestingly Agathias tells us that , at Casilinum, the Heruls had not come up into formation when the line was formed and thus left a gap for them. That implies that he knows the numbers of the Heruls and how much space they will need and that the Herul leader knows to deploy into that space, i.e. he knows what the frontage derived from human distances that his troop takes up will be.
At both Cannae and Adrianople a cause of the Roman defeat was that men were crushed in too tightly to use their weapons and injured each other.  That does suggest that the deployment space has to allow everyone to operate , shield spear, throwing weapons...it has to be close enough for mutual protection and loose enough to avoid and deliver blows. Different fighting styles , defence against missiles, , attacking, defending would demand different depths. At Bibracte Caesar remarks upon the Helvetii having two or three shields pinned together by plia, thus a very tight formation, at Vesontio it looks as if Ariovistus' Germans are in a looser formation to attack, but adopt tighter density to defend when they fall back tired.  To me this all argues for natural  human based measurements with easy and easily understood movements for expansion and contraction.
Roy

Quote from: aligern on March 13, 2018, 09:55:00 AM
I am less keen on 'by eye' for the intervals between men, as it becomes a matter of judgememt by one person, or is it the many? Working by a human measurement has the immense advantage that each man self regulates. What is needed is consensus on the starting point and agreement to shuffle until the agreed distances are reached. Its not going to work if one group is determined not to budge.
There must be some central direction, when Caesar orders four legions into line, they  do not , presumably start from the  right marker and then start extending the line from there. I suggest that someone paces out or rides the distances and places a man as marker for the centre of each legion and the officers then work from there. He could do it on foot, but it could take half an hour to walk the frontage and place markers.
I also suggest that there are gaps between the formations ( which I don't think the enemy will run down, but we have debated that) , so that there is a margin of error and room for manoeuvre.
Barbarian tribes are going to have to do something similar. I buy the idea that, if you have excess numbers, you increase depth, but tribal leaders must have some idea of numbers and do not end up trying to cram a quart of men into a pint pot of frontage, or with a large space to fill and a much reduced and thus vulnerable depth.  Interestingly Agathias tells us that , at Casilinum, the Heruls had not come up into formation when the line was formed and thus left a gap for them. That implies that he knows the numbers of the Heruls and how much space they will need and that the Herul leader knows to deploy into that space, i.e. he knows what the frontage derived from human distances that his troop takes up will be.
At both Cannae and Adrianople a cause of the Roman defeat was that men were crushed in too tightly to use their weapons and injured each other.  That does suggest that the deployment space has to allow everyone to operate , shield spear, throwing weapons...it has to be close enough for mutual protection and loose enough to avoid and deliver blows. Different fighting styles , defence against missiles, , attacking, defending would demand different depths. At Bibracte Caesar remarks upon the Helvetii having two or three shields pinned together by plia, thus a very tight formation, at Vesontio it looks as if Ariovistus' Germans are in a looser formation to attack, but adopt tighter density to defend when they fall back tired.  To me this all argues for natural  human based measurements with easy and easily understood movements for expansion and contraction.
Roy

Using the human body as a yardstick for close and intermediate formations (files 3 feet or 18 inches wide) make sense; one arm to the man on your right and you have three feet; shoulders not quite touching and you have 18 inches, more-or-less.

One thing though: the manuals talk about an open formation - 6 feet per file - as being a natural arrangement, so natural it doesn't have a special name. What is natural about 6-foot wide files and what is the yardstick by which they are set up?

Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 13, 2018, 11:15:28 AM

One thing though: the manuals talk about an open formation - 6 feet per file - as being a natural arrangement, so natural it doesn't have a special name. What is natural about 6-foot wide files and what is the yardstick by which they are set up?

Perhaps it's the sort of thing where if the officer could walk through without bumping into people, you know he was sober and the spacing was a 'natural' six foot  ;)

Quote from: Jim Webster on March 13, 2018, 11:55:49 AM
Perhaps it's the sort of thing where if the officer could walk through without bumping into people, you know he was sober and the spacing was a 'natural' six foot  ;)

There may be truth in that. Since (I shouldn't mention this, but needs must) Polybius says each man with his arms occupies 3 feet, then loosely speaking if people are standing close but not squashed right up, they are at 3 foot intervals. So 6 foot intervals would be leaving the same amount of space for another man to stand (or walk etc) in between. Maybe that's all there was to it.

Or to use a human measurement it would be outstretched arms (Vitruvian Man style - 'four cubits make a man'), but that runs into the problem of one arm having a massive great shield attached to it.

Quote from: RichT on March 13, 2018, 12:29:28 PMThere may be truth in that. Since (I shouldn't mention this, but needs must) Polybius says each man with his arms occupies 3 feet, then loosely speaking if people are standing close but not squashed right up, they are at 3 foot intervals. So 6 foot intervals would be leaving the same amount of space for another man to stand (or walk etc) in between. Maybe that's all there was to it.

If the files in open order had a man in the front of each 'empty' file that would fix the spacing at 6 feet if the men in the front rank all lined up on an intermediate 3-feet order. Of course no primary source in Greek to back the idea up, no matter how carefully dissected.   :(

I think we can allow a bit of variation in how armies assembled themselves into good order.  I suspect Hellenistic drill was more precise than putting a medieval shieldwall together. 

Having had a look at some Byzantine drill in the course of reading round this thread (they also produced drill manuals, albeit influenced by the ancient tacticians) I was struck by the role of the experienced men who had an NCO function in each file.  There was a file leader, a half file leader  and a file closer at the back.  These would be the men who knew what the spacing should be and could be expected to get their file aligned with its neighbours.  Other armies wouldn't have had such formality but they may well have placed their veterans at the front and seasoned men at the back.

Reminds me of how the passage from William Barriff I quoted above opens:

"Now that our Souldiers have attained some small knowledge in the use of their Armes (me thinkes like some of our little-knowing souldiers of the trained Bands) they already begin to be ambitious of File-leaders places; therefore that their owne weakenesses may light them to reade their owne follies, we will see how they will behave themselves in exercise amongst the Companie. Wherein the first thing we are to instruct them in, is their distances."

So yes, file leaders (and half file leaders, and file closers) have probably always been the ones who needed some skill at setting intervals.

Loojs like a good topic for a short article if someone can pick it up?
R

Quote from: aligern on March 14, 2018, 12:01:09 PM
Loojs like a good topic for a short article if someone can pick it up?
R

The great problem would be that you would have to tackle the hugely controversial Hellenistic material, which needs detailed language skills and wide reading in primary and secondary sources, which I don't have .  Really, this thread was to divert us from just looking at the intricacies of the Greek to examine parallel evidence which would otherwise get lost.

Quote from: Erpingham on March 18, 2018, 12:28:41 PM

Quote from: aligern on March 14, 2018, 12:01:09 PM
Loojs like a good topic for a short article if someone can pick it up?
R

The great problem would be that you would have to tackle the hugely controversial Hellenistic material, which needs detailed language skills and wide reading in primary and secondary sources, which I don't have .  Really, this thread was to divert us from just looking at the intricacies of the Greek to examine parallel evidence which would otherwise get lost.

Though if Roy's suggestion is that that is what would make a good topic for an article - ie a comparison of heavy infantry frontages across (and outside) our period - I agree that would be very interesting - though I'd rather read it than write it myself, not having any knowledge  of the later stuff.  The same goes for pike formations specifically. I don't think the Hellenistic material is hugely controversial though, it's just a topic that for some reason attracts a small number of, err... people with alternative theories. The Classical Greek material (or lack of) is more controversial (and intractable).

I'd also prefer to read it than write it :) I'm sure someone could come up with some ergonomics or biomechanics on the limitations around fighting and the minimum space required then compare to historical examples, or some such.

A little more digging around later pike drill provided this from Pallas Armata by Thomas Kellie (a Scottish drill book of 1627) on the subject of judging distances in the formation

Now the measure of those Distances cannot be taken justlie by the eye; but the Souldier to learne them must acompt the distance of sixe foote to, bee betwixt file and file, when the Souldiers streatching out their airmes, toucheth one anothers hands: and betwixt Rankes, when the endes of their Pickes come well neare to the heelles of them that march before ... And the measure of the 3. foote betwixt the files, is when their Elbowes toucheth one another, betwixt Rankes, when they come up to touch one anothers Swords; The measure of a foote and an halfe betwixt files, is when they joyne shoulder to shoulder.


Here we see the body used as measuring stick.  I think you could do the order and close order with a pike at the" advance" (straight up, held at hip level with right hand and leaning into your shoulder) but not the open order, where you need both hands.  The ancestor of this drill position may have been in use in the later 15th century but not I think earlier.

Below is how we double from open order (a bit less than 2m) to close order (about 72cm). For 1m intervals, the aspis itself is a yardstick, for opened order you simply hold out your aspis, which extends a bit further than your hand, but not another 1m because of the central porpax placement- some of the apsis is behind your own back in this position. You could of course lean a bit to get the full 2m spacing if so trained.

Contrary to what you might read, hoplites cannot form up at 45cm with 1m aspides with the shield faces in a line towards the enemy. Even if you could fight in this tight a spacing, you have an arm in the porpax that gets in the way. Mathews spacing was mentioned earlier, but he never shows hoplites in 45cm (18") spacing.  See my measurement of his figure using one of the shield diameters for scale.  The only way you can form at 45cm with an aspis is to angle it behind the man to your left, obliquely across your front- much like the sarissaphoroi did. The 45cm spacing has to be for Sarissaphoroi.

Quote from: Erpingham on March 18, 2018, 06:44:22 PM
I'd also prefer to read it than write it :) I'm sure someone could come up with some ergonomics or biomechanics on the limitations around fighting and the minimum space required then compare to historical examples, or some such.

To some extent I already have, but it is very dependent on shield diameter, grip placement, and the way you hold your weapon. Once your shields get close enough to overlap all of your strikes will be over the top, spears in overhand (high underhand is commonly seen, but weak and opens your armpit to counterstrike), and sword slashes delivered fore hand or back hand (the so-called Harmodios blow seen on vases) from above shoulder height, or sword stabs plunging from above. A hoplite does not need much more room than from his left shoulder to his right elbow extended to the right (60-72cm) for spear or sword. I doubt a Roman needed more than 3 feet of frontage to stab along the right edge of his scutum or over the top, a Saxon maybe more. Once you get so close you cannot swing your elbow forward, it gets hard to strike. You can still do it, but you definitely feel constrained. I will attach an image of commonly seen Greek sword strikes on vases compared with Meyer's cuts for longsword. Only the high line cuts would work in a shield-wall.

Quote from: PMBardunias on April 08, 2018, 06:22:33 AM

Quote from: Erpingham on March 18, 2018, 06:44:22 PM
I'd also prefer to read it than write it :) I'm sure someone could come up with some ergonomics or biomechanics on the limitations around fighting and the minimum space required then compare to historical examples, or some such.

To some extent I already have, but it is very dependent on shield diameter, grip placement, and the way you hold your weapon. Once your shields get close enough to overlap all of your strikes will be over the top, spears in overhand (high underhand is commonly seen, but weak and opens your armpit to counterstrike), and sword slashes delivered fore hand or back hand (the so-called Harmodios blow seen on vases) from above shoulder height, or sword stabs plunging from above. A hoplite does not need much more room than from his left shoulder to his right elbow extended to the right (60-72cm) for spear or sword. I doubt a Roman needed more than 3 feet of frontage to stab along the right edge of his scutum or over the top, a Saxon maybe more. Once you get so close you cannot swing your elbow forward, it gets hard to strike. You can still do it, but you definitely feel constrained. I will attach an image of commonly seen Greek sword strikes on vases compared with Meyer's cuts for longsword. Only the high line cuts would work in a shield-wall.

All these examples seem to be by hoplites not in a phalanx, either individual fighters in the heroic mode or pursuers. Anything that shows how hoplites in a formed phalanx wielded their swords?

Quote from: PMBardunias on April 08, 2018, 05:56:49 AM
Below is how we double from open order (a bit less than 2m) to close order (about 72cm). For 1m intervals, the aspis itself is a yardstick, for opened order you simply hold out your aspis, which extends a bit further than your hand, but not another 1m because of the central porpax placement- some of the apsis is behind your own back in this position. You could of course lean a bit to get the full 2m spacing if so trained.

Contrary to what you might read, hoplites cannot form up at 45cm with 1m aspides with the shield faces in a line towards the enemy. Even if you could fight in this tight a spacing, you have an arm in the porpax that gets in the way. Mathews spacing was mentioned earlier, but he never shows hoplites in 45cm (18") spacing.  See my measurement of his figure using one of the shield diameters for scale.  The only way you can form at 45cm with an aspis is to angle it behind the man to your left, obliquely across your front- much like the sarissaphoroi did. The 45cm spacing has to be for Sarissaphoroi.

I get how hoplites could use their outstretched shields to establish open order. Question: open order is marching order, so how would they maintain a constant distance between files? I doubt they would keep on stretching out their shields. My take is that the file leaders eyeballed it.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 08, 2018, 09:35:43 AM
I get how hoplites could use their outstretched shields to establish open order. Question: open order is marching order, so how would they maintain a constant distance between files? I doubt they would keep on stretching out their shields. My take is that the file leaders eyeballed it.

It may be that starting off in march order set by the shield method and trying to hold their distance as best they could till they halted and could reform (either back to open order or to close up) was good enough.  We are talking practical drill not parade or display, after all.

If we look at what Kellie says, you couldn't practically reset the ranks on the march according to his method either.  In fact, his wording is a bit obscure - you could read it that the soldiers learn their distances using the method he gives, not that they used the method in action.  So you may be right that, once set in their ranks and files, it relied on the experienced leaders and closers (and any potential half file or pempad leaders) to keep things in order with their experienced eye.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 08, 2018, 09:35:43 AM
I get how hoplites could use their outstretched shields to establish open order. Question: open order is marching order, so how would they maintain a constant distance between files? I doubt they would keep on stretching out their shields. My take is that the file leaders eyeballed it.

This is going to be way more than you asked for, but here goes:

The study of swarm behavior has shown how this works.  The equivalent term to "frontage" in our military context is nearest-neighbor distance. One thing that I am trying to push is that for most armies this distance was not determined by a leader in what we call a top-down fashion, but determined by individuals in a bottom-up fashion as we see in animal herds, swarms, or flocks. The counter argument that I often get is that everyone knows a crowd is the opposite of a well-drilled army, but this is only true if the order for the army was originally imparted by drill. WHat we do see in some descriptions, like the Saxon Battle of Maldon, is a leader walking the front and dressing ranks that have formed on their own.

So how do animals do it?  They eyeball spacing. Obviously nothing else would work for flying birds.  We do this as well. Pay attention to your spacing next time you are walking with an acquaintance, then with a friend, then with a significant other. You have natural spacings, identified through studies, for each of these (see the image below).  You will also walk closer together as the street gets more crowded. Birds do this as the flocks get bigger.  I work on termites, and their soldiers naturally form "shield walls" because all of their weapons (a bite and a chemical release) are in the head, so they need to shield their soft hindquarters from attack (see below).  They are blind, so they judge this by tactile interactions. Men with big shields that protect them on one plane group for similar reasons.

If you have never seen a murmuration of starlings, take a look here.  Such coordination would be the envy of any general: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pRC-lPuhuU

This is about as close as you will get the coordination of ancient combat for groups like the archaic Greeks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqIAWcTLKx8&spfreload=10

This last video shows the problem with spacing by eyeball.  A "natural" 6' frontage can be eyeballed and work fine if you are marching in long files only a few files wide.  It you are in 2 to 5 files lets say, and each file veers a bit at random, it is no problem for the other files to give out a bit to compensate.  If you watch people walk down the street, as a pair they veer, but they match each other's random veering so it looks like constant spacing. This is impossible with very wide ranks. Random veering cannot be compensated for easily because you simply have too many men who need to move, all of whom are on a slight reaction delay.  Now you need some more concrete connection that allows you to limit your own veering, or at least communicate it through tactile information down the line immediately, and get immediate feedback.  This is why most armies advance either in minimum spacing or literally shoulder to shoulder. With hoplites the aspis helps greatly. The large projection to the left lets you keep frontage uniform. Running makes this even harder because you are more likely to veer and have to react even faster. For this reason if you watch a bunch of kids run, they tend to converge towards the center and transform from a line into a narrower blob as some pull ahead and some get squeezed out of rank behind. Again my experience is with hoplites, and the aspis really helps you stay in line while running, but Thucydides tells us that all armies lose their form in the charge.

Many thanks for this Paul. However the question remains: was open order a marching order or an order that simply permitted file penetration by light troops? If the latter then no problem: it would be formed by files in intermediate order fusing together to create the open order. If it was a marching order then how was the spacing maintained, since natural correction was difficult given the width of the line?

Quote from: PMBardunias on April 10, 2018, 11:00:15 PM
Again my experience is with hoplites, and the aspis really helps you stay in line while running, but Thucydides tells us that all armies lose their form in the charge.

It's a constant observation in works on early modern warfare that wide formations inevitably degrade when advancing. The introduction of cadenced marching reduced but didn't eliminate the problem.

Another thought to follow on from Paul's comments is that a hoplite or shield and spear carrying infantryman is going to feel 'larger' and is going to want more room around him than if he's just in his tunic walking down to the gymnasium with his friends. His 'eyeball' spacing probably insists on a little more room.
So a bunch of hoplites milling about would probably naturally stand further apart than the bunch of football supporters

Interesting to note with the Russian football hooligans the initial forming up into a deep formation, use of war cries, slow mutual advance to contact, rear rank missile fire, extension to cover flanks after contact, skirmishing on the flanks, distortion of the batle line under pressure and the eventual rout and pursuit.

Sounds like you had an interesting weekend then , Pat.

its equally useful for looking at spacing as well as the 'flock' mentality of responding to a charge by horses in a semi real combat!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qhUTF4hOp8

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 11, 2018, 12:30:07 PM
Interesting to note with the Russian football hooligans the initial forming up into a deep formation, use of war cries, slow mutual advance to contact, rear rank missile fire, extension to cover flanks after contact, skirmishing on the flanks, distortion of the batle line under pressure and the eventual rout and pursuit.

That video changed my thinking about archaic hoplites. I think Tyrtaeus could easily have described that scene.

Quote from: Holly on April 11, 2018, 01:31:22 PM
its equally useful for looking at spacing as well as the 'flock' mentality of responding to a charge by horses in a semi real combat!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qhUTF4hOp8

Yes, the crowd looks just like a school of fish as a shark goes through.  It also shows the whole conflict between cavalry and infantry.  The crowd broke and parted for the horses in fear.  Had an author been describing this they would have "charged right through the infantry", though of course that is not what happened.  Had the crowd been denser and unable to part, the horses would have been stopped. Then they and their riders would have to try to wade into the crowd, which is very dangerous for the horse, but the rider gains a huge height advantage with weapon strikes. We see some riders raining down blows from above in the video with their clubs.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 11, 2018, 05:54:33 AM
Many thanks for this Paul. However the question remains: was open order a marching order or an order that simply permitted file penetration by light troops? If the latter then no problem: it would be formed by files in intermediate order fusing together to create the open order. If it was a marching order then how was the spacing maintained, since natural correction was difficult given the width of the line?

Personally, I think the designation of more than 3' of frontage as "natural" comes from its use in marching columns only a few abreast where the spacing is set by 2 or 3 (or more, but a few) column leaders and the rest snake out behind in long marching file. I think the mathematical precision of 3' and 6' spacing most likely a figment of the hellenistic imagination, but such could be eyeballed.  My experience tells me that marching in 6' spacing with a long rank would end up in clumping and gaps, and charging would be impossible without tearing the line apart.

We do need to remember that we are seeing a crowd of protestors armed with plackards, not a beweaponed, formed body. The cavalry are trained on trained horses (themselves much bigger than any warhorse of our period), wearing body armour and with effective close combat weapons (batons rather than clubs, though the difference is probably a bit academic when you are hit with one).  So, I think this may tell us something about, say, knights charging a peasant mob but not so much about Companions against hoplites. 

Quote from: Erpingham on April 11, 2018, 05:21:45 PM
We do need to remember that we are seeing a crowd of protestors armed with plackards, not a beweaponed, formed body. The cavalry are trained on trained horses (themselves much bigger than any warhorse of our period), wearing body armour and with effective close combat weapons (batons rather than clubs, though the difference is probably a bit academic when you are hit with one).  So, I think this may tell us something about, say, knights charging a peasant mob but not so much about Companions against hoplites.

I agree. A group of hoplites would have provided a very different experience for those horsemen :)  But we do see men pull apart to make way for scythed chariots for example.

Remember police horses are not taught to charge home at the gallop, nor are they trained as a warhorse.  They are usually trained to push their way into a crowd, not run over them. So it doesn't give us much insight into charging cavalry.

it does show that loose formed infantry will squeeze and contract away from contact and also shows that the 3rd person onwards cannot see what is happening but is pushed back in a ripple effect

its not perfect but it is interesting to show large body motion!

Quote from: davidb on April 11, 2018, 06:42:24 PM
Remember police horses are not taught to charge home at the gallop, nor are they trained as a warhorse.  They are usually trained to push their way into a crowd, not run over them. So it doesn't give us much insight into charging cavalry.

True.  As Dave said, it shows us not so much the process of a cavalry charge as the reaction of untrained infantry to being charged.

Quote from: PMBardunias on April 11, 2018, 04:58:53 PM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 11, 2018, 12:30:07 PM
Interesting to note with the Russian football hooligans the initial forming up into a deep formation, use of war cries, slow mutual advance to contact, rear rank missile fire, extension to cover flanks after contact, skirmishing on the flanks, distortion of the batle line under pressure and the eventual rout and pursuit.

That video changed my thinking about archaic hoplites. I think Tyrtaeus could easily have described that scene.

It does suggest a sort of basic pattern for elementary infantry.  The combatants could have engaged in mutual skirmishing but did not; instead, they adopted a formation and tactics which would have been at home pretty much anywhere in the 7th century BC.  Unless there is a textbook in Russia for football hooliganism this could be a more widely applicable prototype or archetype of infantry close combat, or at least a starting pattern to check for in surviving period art.

Quote from: Mark G on April 11, 2018, 01:18:25 PM
Sounds like you had an interesting weekend then , Pat.

It had its moments, certainly.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 11, 2018, 07:15:37 PM


It does suggest a sort of basic pattern for elementary infantry.  The combatants could have engaged in mutual skirmishing but did not; instead, they adopted a formation and tactics which would have been at home pretty much anywhere in the 7th century BC.  Unless there is a textbook in Russia for football hooliganism this could be a more widely applicable prototype or archetype of infantry close combat, or at least a starting pattern to check for in surviving period art.

You joke, but I have been attempting for years to find some contact with these hooligans to tell me if and how much they actually practice getting into these groups.  It looks like very little.  Often they can be seen linking arms to maintain formation as they advance, which is the tactile equivalent of overlapping aspides or touching shield rims. I wish I could set up an experiment like this, but I doubt I will get it past the ethics board.  If someone could translate this for me into Russian, we would just need a good camera: "Hey Spartak, you dudes fight like my little sister!  If you were real men you would meet us in the park at noon!" and "Yo Zenit, you guys suck, meet us in the park at high noon!"

I agree that this represents a minimal, perhaps natural, grouping, where everything is spontaneous, anyone can form beside any other. This makes for a simple and very fluid mass that is much more organized in the sense of looking like a battle-line than many realize. The problem is that it is too fluid. Men with freedom to move an reform, are free to move to the back and flee. Tyrtaeus addresses this problem when calls out men for leaving the ranks.

The first step in modifying the natural state is to have men form up behind/beside specific individuals. All we need to make a classical phalanx is for a hoplite to know which man they stand behind and for promachoi to know who to stand beside. You did this in the marching column long before deploying into line. You are no longer anonymous and far less likely to try to sneak away, but Xenophon tells us of the fragility of this system in that you cannot form up with men you do not know.

To correct this we have true drill, where all men know their place in rank and file. In the Spartan system you know if you are a file leader, a half file leader, or a rear ranker. Even if the men between did not have a specific assignment (i.e.: does it matter if I am an 9th or 10th ranker?) this subdivision ensured that a formation could fall together quickly. Subunits of 6 men would quickly reform behind pempadarchs and then form either behind or beside those of enomotarchs. There is a lot of overlap between the organizational types, because in practice, you surely knew who your were standing behind in the initial deployment into marching column even if you knew rank and file drill. Compares to the natural state you still lose fluidity and resilience (think of the way a school of fish makes room for a shark to pass through and then reforms behind it), but you gain rigidity and force men to stay in their places. This all goes to hell in a rout, which in many ways looks like the advance of men in a natural swarm, and we are back to a mass of individuals. Were these men organized like animals, rallying would be easy (like the fish coming together after the shark) but the imposed drill, and the expectation of not just forming up beside anyone, means that cohesion is hopelessly lost unless the their is time and space to shake out into files.

Yes, the file forms an excellent basis for unit cohesion, turning swarms into strings as the basis for bigger building blocks with strong cohesion, notably a phalanx.  As you observe, if one can limit or eliminate back-and-forth shifting within one's proto-unit, it adds greatly to its strength and cohesion, particularly under pressure.

Adding 'true drill' creates cross-cooperation and a much more solid and unyielding matrix; I would suggest it does not entirely disallow fluidity, given (for example) the ability of disciplined classical infantry formations to open up and allow chariots through, albeit such fluidity as it possesses will be less spontaneous and will presumably require orders to carry out.

Skirmish-type formations do seem to follow the 'animal' pattern, fleeing when disadvantaged but rapidly reforming, apparently none the worse for wear, once the pressure is off.  Iphicrates' peltasts at Lechaeum might be an example here.

By the way, great to have you here, Paul. :)

The best way into the Russian football hooligan scene might be to get to know Zenit (https://en.fc-zenit.ru/fans/org/) on Facebook.  Being a St Petersburg club, they are much less xenophobic than Spartak and have fans worldwide.  Someone is bound to talk!

First rule of hooligan club.

You don't talk about hooligan club.

Second rule.

Fight in the forrests, so you are not disturbed by the law.

quote author=Patrick Waterson link=topic=3257.msg41013#msg41013 date=1523523302]
Adding 'true drill' creates cross-cooperation and a much more solid and unyielding matrix; I would suggest it does not entirely disallow fluidity, given (for example) the ability of disciplined classical infantry formations to open up and allow chariots through, albeit such fluidity as it possesses will be less spontaneous and will presumably require orders to carry out. [/quote]

I can't escape my branch of scientific training, so I rarely see broad jumps in military advancement. For me I need to understand these things as an evolutionary process.  Where we do see sudden changes, it is usually through borrowing from other cultures wherein a gradual evolution took place.  One thing about drill is that the more advanced types do not replace the primitive, but overlay upon them.  It is a bit like your brain. You can walk with just a brain stem, but the higher brain above allows you to modify and control walking. The interesting thing about this analogy is that for most of the time you are essentially running on autopilot without the input of higher brain function.  I think armies defaulted to the mechanics of more primitive types of drill often as well.

You could train your men to move laterally in an orderly manner and filter into the files beside them, but the fluidity in drill during something surprising is most likely a reversion to the natural movement of men. The challenge then is that the men do not get so far into the swarm behavior that they loose the ability to get back into rank and file. This is important, because the biggest reason that armies break is the perception that something is going counter to expectations. Thus, Roman maniples can give way before a sarissa phalanx in a manner that does not cause them to break, but hoplites would be more likely to perceive falling back as losing.

quote author=Patrick Waterson link=topic=3257.msg41013#msg41013 date=1523523302]
Skirmish-type formations do seem to follow the 'animal' pattern, fleeing when disadvantaged but rapidly reforming, apparently none the worse for wear, once the pressure is off.  Iphicrates' peltasts at Lechaeum might be an example here. [/quote]

Yes, skirmishers represent the most primitive form of organization. This is the most flexible and robust, meaning least fragile in terms of losing order, since they can change heading and spacing easily as part of their normal tactics. Compared to a phalanx, they are easy to scatter, but they more easily reform.

quote author=Patrick Waterson link=topic=3257.msg41013#msg41013 date=1523523302]
By the way, great to have you here, Paul. :)
The best way into the Russian football hooligan scene might be to get to know Zenit (https://en.fc-zenit.ru/fans/org/) on Facebook.  Being a St Petersburg club, they are much less xenophobic than Spartak and have fans worldwide.  Someone is bound to talk!
[/quote]

It is great to be here with you.  I just joined the Zenit fan club, thanks! 

Quote from: PMBardunias on April 12, 2018, 06:17:16 PM
I can't escape my branch of scientific training, so I rarely see broad jumps in military advancement. For me I need to understand these things as an evolutionary process.  Where we do see sudden changes, it is usually through borrowing from other cultures wherein a gradual evolution took place.  One thing about drill is that the more advanced types do not replace the primitive, but overlay upon them.  It is a bit like your brain. You can walk with just a brain stem, but the higher brain above allows you to modify and control walking. The interesting thing about this analogy is that for most of the time you are essentially running on autopilot without the input of higher brain function.  I think armies defaulted to the mechanics of more primitive types of drill often as well.

That is interesting, because veteran units in any era tend to show this kind of automatic response, doing the right thing in a particular situation without orders (e.g. at Pharsalus, where Caesar's men stopped their charge on their own initiative when it was apparent their opponents were not countercharging, then restarted closer to enemy lines).

QuoteYou could train your men to move laterally in an orderly manner and filter into the files beside them, but the fluidity in drill during something surprising is most likely a reversion to the natural movement of men. The challenge then is that the men do not get so far into the swarm behavior that they loose the ability to get back into rank and file. This is important, because the biggest reason that armies break is the perception that something is going counter to expectations. Thus, Roman maniples can give way before a sarissa phalanx in a manner that does not cause them to break, but hoplites would be more likely to perceive falling back as losing.

Good observation; from what I have been able to determine (from Livy VIII.8 and Polybius II.33) Roman legionaries carried out their line relief by having the forward line move backwards through the relieving line, so being forced back would not worry them until the triarii were worsted.  Conversely, a hoplite formation going backwards would have felt it had already lost, or was close to doing so, because they would know that in hoplite fighting losers are pushed back and winners push forward and that recovery is pretty unlikely.  Confidence erodes and cooperation with it.  The group crumbles into a colection of individuals as that group spirit and connection are lost.

QuoteYes, skirmishers represent the most primitive form of organization. This is the most flexible and robust, meaning least fragile in terms of losing order, since they can change heading and spacing easily as part of their normal tactics. Compared to a phalanx, they are easy to scatter, but they more easily reform.

I suspect that when caught (e.g. by cavalry or high-speed Spartans) they also break more readily.  Your point about what breaks troops being the unexpected or unprovided for is a good one (and the Spartans, who tried to cover all the bases in warfare, taught their troops to react effectively to the unexpected).

Quote
It is great to be here with you.  I just joined the Zenit fan club, thanks! 

Good hunting! :)