What is the point of 16 ranks in a pike phalanx?

[Justin Swanton]

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

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

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

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

[Andreas Johansson]

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

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

[Erpingham]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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

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

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

[aligern]

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

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

[Patrick Waterson]

What were casualties to weapons and men at the front of a phalanx?

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

[Nick Harbud]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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

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

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

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

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

[Imperial Dave]

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

[Andreas Johansson]

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

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

[Imperial Dave]

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

[Erpingham]

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

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

[Justin Swanton]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

Dragging out Polybius, Book XVIII, we get:

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

He details the Macedonian phalanx thus:

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

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

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

Homer's actual quote is:

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

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

The point that catches our interest is this:

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

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

[Justin Swanton]

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

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

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