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

[andrew881runner]

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

[Erpingham]

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

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

[Duncan Head]

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

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

Yet it seems to have happened:

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

[Erpingham]

Yet it seems to have happened:

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

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

[Andreas Johansson]

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

[Duncan Head]

It's actually a little difficult to figure out the exact mechanics of what's happening. Plutarch's here or on Perseus.

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

[Duncan Head]

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

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

[andrew881runner]

It's actually a little difficult to figure out the exact mechanics of what's happening. Plutarch's here or on Perseus.

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

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

[Erpingham]

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

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mark G]

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

[Erpingham]

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

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

[Duncan Head]

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

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

[Erpingham]

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

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

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

[Mark G]

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