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

[Patrick Waterson]

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

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

[andrew881runner]

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

[Mark G]

That's not true.

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

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

[andrew881runner]

That's not true.

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

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

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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

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

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

[andrew881runner]

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

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

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

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

[Mark G]

Wrong Andrew.

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

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

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

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

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

[Duncan Head]

Except that Roman art makes clear that the shield wasn't held rigid and vertical - at least, not always, as the guy on the Aemilius Paullus monument with his shield at head height here, left shows, or the gladiator here.

[Mark G]

Or the trajan column guy punching to the face.

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

The gladiator is irrelevant

[Patrick Waterson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Duncan Head]

Or the trajan column guy punching to the face.

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

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

The gladiator is irrelevant

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

[andrew881runner]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mark G]

Gladiators do not fight in formation.

[Erpingham]

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

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

[Jim Webster]

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

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

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

Jim