Heavy shields and short pikes!

[Chilliarch]

Moving my post from the "Currently Reading" thread to here:

Having recently read both Richard Taylors excellent books on the Greek and Macedonian phalanxes, I wasn't convinced on a couple of technical points in the book on the Macedonian Phalanx, so here are my (fleshed out, somewhat) objections and ideas:

The two points were about the arguments that the mainline phalangites used the "Argive" aspis and the "peltasts" used shorter pikes than the mainline troops.

As I understand it, using the two-handed pike with the bowl-shaped aspidon seems at the very least a difficult proposition in practical terms as the curved shield "bowl" together with the long(ish) rim would cover the left hand entirely. Alternatively, if the cord-grip (I forget the proper name, apologies) were looser, I would think the rim of the shield would at least be uncomfortable as it would curve back onto the arm/wrist of the pike-bearer.
Those are the off-hand practical objections, at least from a non field-tested perspective!

The other on the aspidon is that when Philip established the Macedonian army, would the new phalanx be equipped with the "Argive" aspis or with something simpler to manufacture - i.e. a round pelta or light shield? If made from wood, then it would probably have been comparatively simple (later when the kingdom was richer) to give the shield a bronze coating.

Tying in with the argument that the "peltasts" did indeed use a smaller and lighter shield, I wonder if as a matter of distinction by the theorists the mainline phalangites used a heavier shield, which could be called (in more modern terms) "shield" as opposed to "buckler" to denote a shield of stouter construction as opposed to one constructed for lightness (or just of lighter construction).
I'm not really convinced that the "peltasts" did use a substantially lighter shield, even as an advocate of the theory that the "peltasts" were used in preference for forced marches (by heavy infantry) etc. in preference to the phalanx. I've rather seen them as a body of elite infantry who would be expected to both lead in pitched battle (agema) and to be able to conduct assault operations etc. for which a body of younger picked men would be more appropriate. A smaller shield (of equally robust construction) could have been a corps badge of pride but (as I remember it) the "peltasts" do seem to turn up as either an important component of, or the leading part of, the phalanx in battle, which makes me think their equipment was not likely to be lighter overall.

I wonder if the comment in Livy about the small shields of the caetrati (as opposed to those of the legionaries) was a comparative point as we do know that the scutum was a tall and well-built shield (though it was reinforced by Caesar's day with upper iron-banding from experience in Spain), so perhaps a legionary in a sword fight held a double-advantage of broader heavy shield coverage and a (possibly) longer sword? This could point to the "pelta" being a lighter shield but perhaps it's only a matter of comparison? A shield with a smaller total area would likely disintegrate faster under heavy sword blows than a larger one.

Which then leads to my uncertainty about the idea of the elite phalangites using shorter pikes. As these weapons are not really useful outside of the phalanx, I would argue that it is more likely that the pikes of the mainline and the "peltasts" were the same length as to use a shorter pike against an enemy pike phalanx would be to grant the practical advantage of reach to the other side. I rather suspect that the "peltasts" were armed in the same way for pitched battle. I really can't think what advantage would be brought into play with shorter pikes outside of the concept of these troops being slightly quicker to march or maneuver in battle, which would not (in my opinion) bring enough of a counter to being (possibly) less efficient in their primary battle function.

Those are the points (that I can remember). I read both his books with enormous pleasure over Christmas and found them both to broadly very convincing and well-researched. Overall recommendations are 9.5/10 (tMP) and 10/10 (tGP).

[Jim Webster]

I too struggle with the idea of elite pikemen being given shorter pikes when in pitched battles where they could face the enemy pike phalanx
If short pikes were not a comparative disadvantage, why did everybody else have longer pikes, and if they were a comparative disadvantage why give them to the elite?

The other thing about pikes that I worry about is the idea of them being joined together with a metal tube. The problem (as somebody who has had to join wood like this, not pikes alas) is that the edge of the tube acts as a fulcrum. And the longer the length of wood outside the tube, the greater the leverage on the fulcrum, meaning the more likely the pike is to break or split at that point. So if they did use this method of assembling a pike, I'd be looking for a tube at least a yard/meter long

Also I'm not sure whether they'd bother turning the pike down so that the narrow bit slid into the tube (or butt spike or head) but the rest of the pike shaft was 'flush' with the tube. The point of weakness is where the wood goes into the tube and you've already made that weaker, the rest of the pike shaft extra diameter is just extra weight.

edited to add that Greek oars appear to have been perhaps 4.5m long, and appear to have been in one piece

[Chilliarch]

Hi Jim,

Fortunately, Richard T doesn't like the idea of joined pikes either! He makes a very persuasive argument that pikes were likely made from ash and in a single piece.

Yours etc.

[Erpingham]

Hi Jim,

Fortunately, Richard T doesn't like the idea of joined pikes either! He makes a very persuasive argument that pikes were likely made from ash and in a single piece.

Yours etc.

We've discussed it on the forum before and concluded that the historical environmental data suggests the Macedonians had access to plenty of mature straight trees, like ash and pine.  Jointed pikes would therefore be a choice for some other reason than shortage of timber.  The old idea that they were made of jointed cornel wood is now, I think, commonly understood to be a misreading of a description of a cornel tree.

[Imperial Dave]

sorry for the dumb question but was there any archaeology in the first place to support the whole 'tube' thing?

[RichT]

Hi Richard - first of all thanks for reading (and buying?!) the books and glad you enjoyed them.

I wouldn't expect everything I argue for to convince everyone and it might be hard for me to expand very much on the arguments in TMP on pikes and shields, without just repeating myself. But to summarise and respond as much as possible to your particular objections:

The two points were about the arguments that the mainline phalangites used the "Argive" aspis and the "peltasts" used shorter pikes than the mainline troops.

So first of all your objection on practical grounds (to 'using the two-handed pike with the bowl-shaped aspidon [aspis]'). The trouble with arguments from practical difficulty is that there are all sorts of things in the ancient world that seem difficult, or that we don't completely understand, from carrying shields to building pyramids; yet they were done. In the case of carrying sarissa and aspis, I don't know precisely how it was done, but I would be reluctant to conclude that it was impossible just because of that. It should be a simple experiment for a reenactor with a hoplite aspis to try out various different ways of carrying shield and spear to demonstrate that it is possible (assuming it is possible), although this wouldn't provide proof of how it was done. But unfortunately such experiments have not been done (AFAIK), at least not with any degree of rigour (I've experimented with a cardboard shield and pole, and conclude that it is possible - but this wouldn't and shouldn't count as proof either way given the limitations of the experiment). As such I'm inclined to go with the ancient evidence that aspis and sarissa was a viable combination (even if we don't know the details), rather than rule it out.

To restate that evidence:
- the Alexander Sarcophagus shows Argive shields, and also shows their bearers with their left hands free (without details of the carrying arrangements)
- the Tacticians say that 'hoplites' (phalangites, in our terms) used 'shields of the largest size'
- the Greek armies (Achaean, Spartan) that adopted Macedonian equipment appear to have retained (at least sometimes) their Argive shields
- even if the Macedonian shield differed in form from the Argive, it was (at least sometimes) just as big, and if anything more heavily bowl-shaped, as depictions (Aemillius Paullus, 'Pergamon plaque') show, so size and shape alone do not rule out sarissa use.

The other on the aspidon is that when Philip established the Macedonian army, would the new phalanx be equipped with the "Argive" aspis or with something simpler to manufacture

I think that is a fair point, but we must remember that Philip's reforms of the Macedonian army may have stretched out over years or decades, for all that we hear of them from a single sentence in Diodorus. I suggest in TMP that Philip may have started out reforming just a small part of the army (the infantry guard or original Foot Companions, later to become Hypaspists), and that they may have initially been given 'peltast' equipment (that is smaller, lighter shields and shorter pikes). As the reforms spread throughout the infantry levy, and as funds became available, the bulk of the infantry were equipped with heavier equipment (Argive aspis, longer pikes), the FCs perhaps retaining their original equipment (though it may have become grander).

I'm not really convinced that the "peltasts" did use a substantially lighter shield, even as an advocate of the theory that the "peltasts" were used in preference for forced marches (by heavy infantry) etc. in preference to the phalanx.

Well the Tacticians tell us that peltasts are like hoplites (phalangites) but with lighter shields and shorter spears, and that combined with the 'special forces' uses of the Hypaspists and Hellenistic Peltasts is what leads me to believe that they were more lightly equipped. But whether this requires them to have carried shorter spears in battle is I agree not a given - it is quite possible that they had two lengths of spears, 'campaign' spears for irregular operations, and 'battle' spears, full length sarissas matching those of the main phalanx. This is possible but I'm not really sold on the idea given that I don't think spear length is all-important. We see sarissa lengths varying so there wasn't a perfect length that could beat all others, and in other periods we see men cutting down their pikes for ease of use. It could be that in battle, length of spear was less important than the determination or enthusiasm of the man holding it, so that short pikes were quite sufficient for an elite unit to achieve battlefield dominance, even if they could be outreached.

Also as you say with shields we can never be sure if the important differences are of shape (Argive, Macedonian, classic pelta), of size (two cubits, eight palms, etc), or of construction (wood and bronze, wood, light wood, wicker, leather). If construction is the main difference then artistic depictions aren't going to help, since we can't tell from them how a shield was made.

The dreaded 'connecting tube'. Yes I argue in TMP that it is entirely a modern fantasy, and a ludicrous one at that (only slightly better than the Giant Winged Butt).

Holly:

sorry for the dumb question but was there any archaeology in the first place to support the whole 'tube' thing?

There is a tube, which was found in (or near) one of the royal tombs at Vergina. It was interpreted by its finder (Andronicos) as a connecting tube on the grounds that it has roughly the same internal diameter as some spearheads and butts found in the same context. But there is no evidence that such a tube was ever used or that spears were ever made in parts, there is only this one example, and from its context it isn't possible to tell what it was for. It is an enigmatic object, which in other circs might have been safely filed under 'ritual' and saved us all a lot of trouble.

[Chilliarch]

Thanks, Rich. I will post a better follow-up tonight when not at work but thought-provoking as always!

Yes, I asked for both books for Christmas, so enjoy the royalties! (14s &6d!)

[Andreas Johansson]

This is possible but I'm not really sold on the idea given that I don't think spear length is all-important. We see sarissa lengths varying so there wasn't a perfect length that could beat all others, and in other periods we see men cutting down their pikes for ease of use. It could be that in battle, length of spear was less important than the determination or enthusiasm of the man holding it, so that short pikes were quite sufficient for an elite unit to achieve battlefield dominance, even if they could be outreached.

This seems as good excuse as any to quote Monluc on pike-fighting at Ceresole 1544:

Gentlemen, it may be that there are not many here who have been in battle before, and therefore let me tell you that if we take our pikes by the hinder end and fight at the length of the pike, we shall be defeated; for the Germans are more dexterous at that kind of fight than we are. But you must take your pikes in the middle as the Swiss do and run headlong to force and penetrate into the midst of them, and you shall see how confounded they will be.

Now, obviously these Renaissance pikemen (who didn't use shields) are not the same as Macedonian phalangites, and pikes held closer to the middle are not the same as shorter ones, but the lesson that reach isn't everything may generalize nevertheless.

[Duncan Head]

Holly:

sorry for the dumb question but was there any archaeology in the first place to support the whole 'tube' thing?

There is a tube, which was found in (or near) one of the royal tombs at Vergina. It was interpreted by its finder (Andronicos) as a connecting tube on the grounds that it has roughly the same internal diameter as some spearheads and butts found in the same context. But there is no evidence that such a tube was ever used or that spears were ever made in parts, there is only this one example, and from its context it isn't possible to tell what it was for. It is an enigmatic object, which in other circs might have been safely filed under 'ritual' and saved us all a lot of trouble.

If anyone is interested, Andronicos' original 1970 article describing the sarissa parts from Vergina, including the tube, is online here (in French).

[Imperial Dave]

thanks Duncan

[Erpingham]

But you must take your pikes in the middle as the Swiss do and run headlong to force and penetrate into the midst of them, and you shall see how confounded they will be.

The French has

Mais il faut prendre les piques à demy, connue faict le Suisse, et baisser la teste pour enferrer et pousser en avant, et vous le verrez bien estonné.

So, the grasping in the middle is right, the running headlong and penetrate into the midst less so

Daniel Staberg (Swedish  "independent scholar" specialising in renaissance warfare) translates this as "grip the pike in the middle as the Swiss do, lower the (pike) head to pierce and push forward and this will surprise/shock the enemy."

Now this reflects on countering the way the enemy fights (fencing with their pikes).  I don't know whether Macedonian style phalanxes fought each other at pike length or whether they routinely "pierced and pushed forward" but, if the latter, we might certainly see a shorter pike not necessarily being a disadvantage, as Andreas suggests.

[Andreas Johansson]

Daniel Stalberg (Swedish  "independent scholar" specialising in renaissance warfare)

Typo for Daniel Staberg, I assume? Or is there another guy with similar interests and a very similar name?

[Erpingham]

Daniel Stalberg (Swedish  "independent scholar" specialising in renaissance warfare)

Typo for Daniel Staberg, I assume? Or is there another guy with similar interests and a very similar name?

Indeed.  Now corrected.  As someone whose name is mispelled frequently and finds it niggling, I apologise to Daniel.

[RichT]

I don't know whether Macedonian style phalanxes fought each other at pike length or whether they routinely "pierced and pushed forward" but, if the latter, we might certainly see a shorter pike not necessarily being a disadvantage, as Andreas suggests.

Nobody knows for sure, but as we've discussed here before, I take it as generally true that there are two ways to use pikes ('fencing and foyning' or 'pushing forward') and I argue (in TMP) that Macedonians 'pushed forward'. So yes I don't think the length of the pike was of enormous importance (and yet - it can't have been of zero importance, or nobody would have used longer pikes - so as usual, it's not black and white).

As a more general point of discussion, does size matter? We wargamer types, and white male military historians generally, just love to quantify everything (spears of 4.75 metres, point of balance at 1.24 metres, reach of 3.7 to 4.2 metres etc etc - the sort of stuff Christopher Matthew's book is full of). I tend to think that such technical details are of fairly limited interest or importance (fairly limited, but not zero) and that human factors are much more important. So the heaviness of the shields and the shortness of the pikes might not have been of very great concern.