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

[Patrick Waterson]

Andrew, try to see things from the point of view of the general commanding the army which includes pikemen.  When his scouts report that the enemy is digging in a wall of large shields, he can respond in a number of ways.

1) He can take his army on a detour and attack your camp.

2) He can send his mobile forces to roll up your shield line from the flank.

3) He can use his artillery (if he has some) to batter down your shield line and the men behind it.

4) He can use his elephants (if he has some), supported by infantry (as Hellenistic leaders did), to make a gap through your shield wall at any point.

5) He can combine 2) and 4) above to bite off a wing of your army, then devour the rest.

By committing yourself to a line of dug-in shields, you lose the ability to react when the enemy does not do what you want him to do.  So while we can say that a solid line of very large shields dug in to make a wooden wall and manned by good troops could stop a pike attack (as could a wide ditch or moat), the problem is that the pikemen would not feel any need to attack your wall of dug-in shields when they could simply bypass your defences or be part of an attack that goes round their flank.

I don't know what Darius made, but surely it was not what I said, otherwise he would be victorious. 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.

It may be worth noting the way Darius' chariots were countered:

"As the lines approached each other, the trumpeters on both sides sounded the attack and the troops charged each other with a loud shout. 2 First the scythed chariots swung into action at full gallop and created great alarm and terror among the Macedonians, especially since Mazaeus in command of the cavalry made their attack more frightening by supporting with his dense squadrons of horse. 3 As the phalanx joined shields, however, all beat upon their shields with their spears as the king had commanded and a great din arose. 4 As the horses shied off, most of the chariots were turned about and bore hard with irresistible impact against their own ranks. Others continued on against the Macedonian lines, but as the soldiers opened wide gaps in their ranks the chariots were channelled through these." - Diodorus XVII.58

The pikemen did not attempt to use their pikes; they simply moved out of the way.  This was possible because they would have been approaching in march formation (6 foot spacing per man) and not closed up for combat.  Whether or not the horses were protected by big wooden shields is thus irrelevant.  The chariots were subsequently dealt with by the Macedonian grooms (Arrian III.14).

As stratagems, your suggestions are interesting (Frontinus and Polyaenus would have been pleased).  Unfortunately, like most stratagems, they are unlikely to work more than once.

[andrew881runner]

Andrew, try to see things from the point of view of the general commanding the army which includes pikemen.  When his scouts report that the enemy is digging in a wall of large shields, he can respond in a number of ways.

1) He can take his army on a detour and attack your camp.

2) He can send his mobile forces to roll up your shield line from the flank.

3) He can use his artillery (if he has some) to batter down your shield line and the men behind it.

4) He can use his elephants (if he has some), supported by infantry (as Hellenistic leaders did), to make a gap through your shield wall at any point.

5) He can combine 2) and 4) above to bite off a wing of your army, then devour the rest.

By committing yourself to a line of dug-in shields, you lose the ability to react when the enemy does not do what you want him to do.  So while we can say that a solid line of very large shields dug in to make a wooden wall and manned by good troops could stop a pike attack (as could a wide ditch or moat), the problem is that the pikemen would not feel any need to attack your wall of dug-in shields when they could simply bypass your defences or be part of an attack that goes round their flank.

I don't know what Darius made, but surely it was not what I said, otherwise he would be victorious. 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.

It may be worth noting the way Darius' chariots were countered:

"As the lines approached each other, the trumpeters on both sides sounded the attack and the troops charged each other with a loud shout. 2 First the scythed chariots swung into action at full gallop and created great alarm and terror among the Macedonians, especially since Mazaeus in command of the cavalry made their attack more frightening by supporting with his dense squadrons of horse. 3 As the phalanx joined shields, however, all beat upon their shields with their spears as the king had commanded and a great din arose. 4 As the horses shied off, most of the chariots were turned about and bore hard with irresistible impact against their own ranks. Others continued on against the Macedonian lines, but as the soldiers opened wide gaps in their ranks the chariots were channelled through these." - Diodorus XVII.58

The pikemen did not attempt to use their pikes; they simply moved out of the way.  This was possible because they would have been approaching in march formation (6 foot spacing per man) and not closed up for combat.  Whether or not the horses were protected by big wooden shields is thus irrelevant.  The chariots were subsequently dealt with by the Macedonian grooms (Arrian III.14).

As stratagems, your suggestions are interesting (Frontinus and Polyaenus would have been pleased).  Unfortunately, like most stratagems, they are unlikely to work more than once.

you don't take into account that if you put a lot of chariots one close to the other, with the big wooden plate in front, phalangites cannot use their pikes (which would be broken by kinetic energy of chariot inside the wooden plate in front) and cannot form the "tunnels" since all the line would be covered by chariots, and horses would not even see any tunnels to be directed into, so they would only be running forward. It would be a rolling of miles of phalanx, very cool to watch. I don't see any ways why this should not work (for missile fire against horses, they are protected firstly by Shields or by armor on their bodies secondly they run the distance under missile fire very quickly during a charge). You cannot stop in any way the kinetic energy of a chariot with 2 men and 2 (or more) horses with some pikes if they had a big wooden shield in front, unless you build some anti cavalry trap on terrain (that would be the only way). But if you are attacker and chariots are on defensive side (as in gaugamela) you cannot prepare terrain.

And this tactic could not be used only against pike phalanx but against every kind of enemies on my opinion, infantry and even cavalry, why not. Rolling down everyone. [emoji1] A new use for chariot. Why Noone had thought about it?

[Patrick Waterson]

you don't take into account that if you put a lot of chariots one close to the other, with the big wooden plate in front, phalangites cannot use their pikes (which would be broken by kinetic energy of chariot inside the wooden plate in front) and cannot form the "tunnels" since all the line would be covered by chariots, and horses would not even see any tunnels to be directed into, so they would only be running forward. It would be a rolling of miles of phalanx, very cool to watch. I don't see any ways why this should not work (for missile fire against horses, they are protected firstly by Shields or by armor on their bodies secondly they run the distance under missile fire very quickly during a charge). You cannot stop in any way the kinetic energy of a chariot with 2 men and 2 (or more) horses with some pikes if they had a big wooden shield in front, unless you build some anti cavalry trap on terrain (that would be the only way). But if you are attacker and chariots are on defensive side (as in gaugamela) you cannot prepare terrain.

And this tactic could not be used only against pike phalanx but against every kind of enemies on my opinion, infantry and even cavalry, why not. Rolling down everyone. [emoji1] A new use for chariot. Why Noone had thought about it?

Actually chariots had been doing this sort of thing for millennia, without needing large wooden shields for the horses.  The chariot started to fall out of effective use when good, disciplined infantry (notably Greeks) began to dominate the battlefield.  When the quality of the infantry began to surpass the quality of the charioteers, chariots began to fall out of use as battlewinners (the scythed chariot gave the concept a 500-year new lease of life).

Now, a few questions about the wooden shield arrangement - and these may answer the question about why the concept was never used.

1) The shields are to be mounted ahead of the horses, on wheels (correct?).  What type of wheels would these be, and what would be the suspension arrangements?

2) How tall and thick (and hence how heavy) would these wooden shields be, and how would they actually be attached to the horses?

3) How would a horse team to which they were attached a) see and b) turn?

4) How would these shields be balanced to prevent them falling over when the chariot a) moved b) turned c) halted?

5) How would drivers see over the shields?  And assuming they did, how would they be protected from missiles?

Historically, the nearest equivalent to the proposed system would be the Hussite wagenburg vehicles of the 15th century AD, with screened wagons pulled by mantleted horses.  These were very successful against Imperial (Holy Roman Empire) armies, which lacked the missile power to inflict serious damage on them.  Elements of the Hussite system survived (principally the gun-armed wagons) and were found in Polish and Portuguese armies (among others) until the increasing use and effectiveness of artillery on the battlefield relegated all vehicles to the baggage train.

[andrew881runner]

you don't take into account that if you put a lot of chariots one close to the other, with the big wooden plate in front, phalangites cannot use their pikes (which would be broken by kinetic energy of chariot inside the wooden plate in front) and cannot form the "tunnels" since all the line would be covered by chariots, and horses would not even see any tunnels to be directed into, so they would only be running forward. It would be a rolling of miles of phalanx, very cool to watch. I don't see any ways why this should not work (for missile fire against horses, they are protected firstly by Shields or by armor on their bodies secondly they run the distance under missile fire very quickly during a charge). You cannot stop in any way the kinetic energy of a chariot with 2 men and 2 (or more) horses with some pikes if they had a big wooden shield in front, unless you build some anti cavalry trap on terrain (that would be the only way). But if you are attacker and chariots are on defensive side (as in gaugamela) you cannot prepare terrain.

And this tactic could not be used only against pike phalanx but against every kind of enemies on my opinion, infantry and even cavalry, why not. Rolling down everyone. [emoji1] A new use for chariot. Why Noone had thought about it?

Actually chariots had been doing this sort of thing for millennia, without needing large wooden shields for the horses.  The chariot started to fall out of effective use when good, disciplined infantry (notably Greeks) began to dominate the battlefield.  When the quality of the infantry began to surpass the quality of the charioteers, chariots began to fall out of use as battlewinners (the scythed chariot gave the concept a 500-year new lease of life).

Now, a few questions about the wooden shield arrangement - and these may answer the question about why the concept was never used.

1) The shields are to be mounted ahead of the horses, on wheels (correct?).  What type of wheels would these be, and what would be the suspension arrangements?

2) How tall and thick (and hence how heavy) would these wooden shields be, and how would they actually be attached to the horses?

3) How would a horse team to which they were attached a) see and b) turn?

4) How would these shields be balanced to prevent them falling over when the chariot a) moved b) turned c) halted?

5) How would drivers see over the shields?  And assuming they did, how would they be protected from missiles?

Historically, the nearest equivalent to the proposed system would be the Hussite wagenburg vehicles of the 15th century AD, with screened wagons pulled by mantleted horses.  These were very successful against Imperial (Holy Roman Empire) armies, which lacked the missile power to inflict serious damage on them.  Elements of the Hussite system survived (principally the gun-armed wagons) and were found in Polish and Portuguese armies (among others) until the increasing use and effectiveness of artillery on the battlefield relegated all vehicles to the baggage train.

suspension system would be same of chariots or could even lack, I am not engineer but I cannot imagine technical problems in putting a wooden plate on wheels.
Wooden plate would be about from one inch to 2  inch, or anyway the necessary thickness to roll down Spears tips withouth breaking.
Two wheels would be enough but maybe four could be possible for better stability.
Men in the chariots would see no problem since they are in Upper position.
Wooden plate would be about 1  mt tall, and considering it was at least 30 cm above ground, total height would be less than 1,5 mt. But could even be more or less. Consider that line of sight of a man on a chariot is much higher than a man in ground, depending on chariot. This only to give an idea.
You could even mount spikes and lateral blades in the wooden plate to make it more deadly effective and fearful.
Drivers would be protected by cataphracts armor or Shields, whatever they used in the past to protect men on chariots. They could even have missile weapons such as javelins. Same for horses. They could have different types of armor, from leather to steel.
You could form a long line of these chariots one close to the other and roll down every infantry even with Spears or pikes or even cavalry maybe.
They could have changed the face of battles until late 19th century maybe and first mgs, depending if you were able to make steel bullet proof plates and make horse run with them in front (i guess yes since they were on wheels, maybe only needed more horses or stronger horses?)

[Erpingham]

There are medieval and renaissance images of four-wheel vehicles with the horses in the middle of the structure.  It is unclear whether these were built or remained paper exercises.  Obvious issues would be power to weight - it would be difficult to fit more than two horses in the box structure, so this won't be a fast vehicle - and steering, with the horses in a rigid structure.  It is difficult to see it having a better cross country performance than a heavy baggage vehicle.  This does not make it impossible, as the Hussites worked out tactical uses for heavy wagons, but does give it vulnerabilities which may have prevented it being the wonder weapon Andrew envisages.

[andrew881runner]

I am not talking about a wagon but simply a wooden "door" (to give an idea) on 2 wheels linked to the chariot with 2 wooden shafts. It does not seem to be so heavy. A chariot is heavier than that and carries 2 men fully equipped and though 2 horses can make it go very fast.  So I suppose these "armored" chariots would be only a bit slower than normal chariots.
And chariots with 4 horses were used in Roman age, they were not so bulky as we can imagine, so I guess that 4 horses have the power to carry a wooden  "door" in front of them and run with no particular problem (but I am sure that even 2 of them can). Horses are very powerful animals, I rode one once and I can tell you that. A horse could carry one car of a half a ton with no problem.

[Jim Webster]

It can be done but remember the wheels attached to your door have to be capable of being steered. Because a horse drawn vehicle is steered by turning the horses, but if you do that with your chariot the horses will attempt to turn and the wheels will be dragged sideways which will certainly slow things down and probably knacker the wheels in short order

Jim

[andrew881runner]

the idea of this armored chariot is to throw it in the enemy direction and let it go forward until it rolls down enemy infantry. So you don't need to steer it. Horse will be not able to see where they go so they will only go forward. Steering models could be made but they are not necessary in the practical and primitive use I am talking about.

[Jim Webster]

So what do you do if the other side's light infantry dig a couple of holes or hammer a few stakes in, or are so unsporting as to kill a horse or place another obstacle in the way.
Or heaven forbid the other side side their shield wall on the other side of an area that isn't absolutely flat and has areas of unevenness?

Jim

[andrew881runner]

I already said that the only way to stop this would be sticks dug very deep into ground (i am sure that normal sticks would be rolled over).
Then cavalry attack is always much less powerful uphill so a more or less flat ground would be better, or downhill. But I don't see any problems in a mild uphill. But usually armies met in Plains rather than mountains, for the difficulty to deploy armies there.
Anyway in these 2 conditions (no traps on ground and plain ground) the tactic I mentioned would be unstoppable. No doubt about it. I only wonder why no general thought about it.  Even hussite wagons are a much different, static thing, not what I am talking about.
Cheers.

[andrew881runner]

Or heaven forbid the other side side their shield wall on the other side of an area that isn't absolutely flat and has areas of unevenness?

Jim

I am not sure what you mean. Sorry but my English is not perfect.

[Patrick Waterson]

I am not sure what you mean. Sorry but my English is not perfect.

Neither is Jim's.*   I think what he meant to say is that if the terrain has some irregularities and the opponent deploys on the other side of those irregularities, what are the protected chariots going to do?  I can see his point: uneven ground that infantry could easily march over would give the chariots serious difficulties.

*I think he meant "... the other side site their shield wall on the other side of an area that isn't absolutely flat".

[Jim Webster]

The reason it wasn't tried is that it's pretty well unworkable and far too easy to stop.

A simple hole, as deep and as 'long' the diameter of your wheel will stop it totally. A few caltrops scattered will lame the horses, meaning your unsteerable chariots get in each others way

Quintus Curtius (IV.13.36) (I'm not sure whether Curtius was accurate or not here)

"Not yet had they come within spear range, when one Bion, a deserter, with all possible speed came to Alexander, reporting that Darius had spread iron caltrops planted in the ground."

Jim 

[andrew881runner]

ok, as I said, iron caltrops will stop every kind of cavalry attack. But if a cavalry attack is possible, I would like to use these armored chariots rather than normal cavalry. I think that, if the ground is plain and with no caltrops, they are unstoppable, even if enemies have speard or pikes, and that makes them better than usual cavalry. Is that only my idea?
I think they would be the ancient counterparts of modern tanks of ww1.

[Jim Webster]

So they'll work on perfect ground against an enemy who has never seen them before

Trouble is second time you use them (or first time if the enemy intelligence is any good) then you'll find that the enemy has got all the counter measures in place and they're rubbish

Jim