Macedonian Phalangites Considered Harmless

[Erpingham]

In the absence of a published expert, this article, albeit from 1999, does provide some of the actual evidence we are speculating around.

[Imperial Dave]

In the words of the great Ford Prefect

Mostly harmless....

[Erpingham]

Sadly for Mike, there seems a limited interest in the origins of the Macedonian phalanx and its effectiveness. This is a shame, because even to a non-classicist like me, a quick Google shows that this is an area of competing theories.  Where did the long spear idea come from, for example?  I hope Mike will return to stir the pot before too long.

[Imperial Dave]

A classic arms race for me but probably needs a separate thread like the last time

[aligern]

I wonder if Cantabrigian's original post is missing something. I am a great believer that decisions to change tactics and equipment are made in relation to context at the time and recent experience. Thus Romans dealing with Parthians after Carrhae recruit a higher proportion of archers and slingers, being heavily influenced by the earlier defeat.
Philip was operating in a context in which hoplites may have already been adopting longer spears and were definitely moving to lighter kit. Developments with peltasts had moved their fighting style to being more solidly formed and having more armour and longer spears. It would be fair to say that there was an air of investigation and innovation around Greek infantry methods from before Philip's reign. Similarly He probably gave his noble cavalry longer and stouter spears.
Likely someone can tell us who the Macedonians were fighting in the years before the changes. How did this experience influence the changes he made.
Philip's reforms certainly produced something different. Hoplites ran at their enemies following Marathon ( or was it only Persians they rushed?) Hoplites moving to lighter kit would fit with this. Perhaps Macedon could not manage to produce the level of kit and training needed to resist this and thus adopted a more static defensive as Cantab suggests.

[Imperial Dave]

I am no expert but I did read that Philip was trying to encorporate the poorer highland tribal areas into mainstream Macedonia and in point of fact a national army. What is the cheapest way to get a fighting man into the field? Give him a pointy stick. Not experienced and fighting cavalry (Illyrians, Thessalians etc) make sure its a long one

[aligern]

Cheap might be it Dave, Otherwise why not move to or extend a hoplite model. After all, hoplite kit and tactics would have been equal to the enemy Greeks and definitely superior to the expected Persian foe.

[Erpingham]

I'm not sure on the cheapness angle.  If you look at what Philip's phalanx had - helmet, greaves, sarissa, pelta - it's not that different to what a city hoplite had by this stage.  Also, he invested in training, unlike the average city.  It suggests that he may have had a plan to create an effective infantry, not just to create something more solid out of his levy.

[Keraunos]

Bret Devereux has a series of articles on the Successor Phalanx and the eventual triumph of the Roman Republican Legion just out.  These go into great detail and one can infer back to Philip and Alexander's times.  He clearly does not share the idea that the military system used by the Successors was inferior to that of Alexander.  Many useful references and good material to ponder.

[PMBardunias]

I think there is some truth to this, but I think we have to look at his options. He could have made them all hoplites, why didn't he? Cost is an option, but in the words of Boramir, "one does not simply become a hoplite". The way hoplites of the 4thC fought- long charge into battle from outside of missile range, fighting with very long spears (the equivalent of 12 foot spears given where they were held) and fighting in close, shield on shield- had increasingly shown its weaknesses. Read Xenophon's description of the battle of Thymbarra in his historical fiction, the Cyropaedia.  I discuss it here: https://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/2010/10/mis-understanding-of-xenophons.html

There is a school of thought that Xenophon was writing to either Spartan hippeis to get back on their horses or Athenian hoplites to do the same, but either way, you will see it is a premonition of Phillip's tactics.

The other option he had was the new-fangled "hoplites" of Iphicrates. These were probably just ersatz hoplites made form jumped up peltasts that were armed in the lighter fashion of some spear-bearing Thracians (with some input from Egyptian marines perhaps). Iphicrtaes was faced with a problem. His peltasts could decimate hoplites, but only if the terrain was right or as at Lechaion, he had a contingent of hoplites to threaten his enemies lest they try a formation that would work against light troops, but be suicide against heavies, like orthoi lochoi. Judging from the descriptions we have, he armed them with a 12' spear that could be used in either one or two hands as needed and a lighter, probably rimless shield to facilitate this and make them more nimble (we see this technique done with partizan and rotella by Marozzo). That nimbleness and the ability to keep up with peltasts who formed the true killing arm in his use was the point may be evinced by the care he took to design new boots. These troops would not have been expected to fight in close, so they could get away with lighter shields. One key here is that he doubled the length of the swords, which judging from Theban stelai had become as Xenophon describes, daggers.

So Phillip does a one up on both Xenophon and Iphicrates.  Rather than Cyrus's 2 ranks of sparabara, he makes 8-16 ranks of spearmen.  Rather than light troops defeating foes by hit and run attacks or encircling them with missile troops, he uses Xenophon's suggestion of heavy cavalry- even heavier due to the longer lance rather than a pair of shorter dual-use spears. Xenophon's spearmen only had to hold for a while, but it seems hoplites really never found a way reliably through a sarissa phalanx from the front. Thus, they could hold out a long time even if they, in their early incarnation, could only stalemate hoplites. To increase their ability to hold but, he lifts a concept from the Illiad and has them stand in a very dense formation.  A hoplite cannot fight at a frontage of much less than 60cm (no matter what you may have read), but using the spear two-handed you lead with the shield arm and can stand side-on at 45cm. Once you are no longer trying to use the spear one-handed, you can quickly increase its length, I would say 16' minimum because a 14' spear has less reach than an 8' hoplite spear if held in two hands.

So that is my rant. He created a core of spearmen that were as good as hoplites on defense, better against cavalry, while also being lighter and cheaper. Over time, success would make these as heavy as any hoplite and ironically less nimble.