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

[Patrick Waterson]

this of the invincible phalanx if unbreakeble is only a myth. Many warriors were trained to sneak among pikes or crawl under them. This was the reason why they carried a sword and were trained to use it.

It would be nice to give some references showing where these ideas originated.  They do not seem to be in our original sources: Polybius, Livy, etc.

A phalanx was not unbreakable, only tried to be. Its role was to keep enemies busy for some time while cavalry flanked or went in the back. this could not last to much though, since after a while soldiers get exhausted both physically and psychologically. There was no relief system like the Roman legion where guys in the front rows went back and guys in second row advanced. So all fighting relied on first rows which while being of the best soldiers, they could not last more than a while.

But did they need to?  The only formation that could do meaningful damage to a pike phalanx from the front was another pike phalanx.  Judging by the effectiveness of the Argyraspides at Gabiene and Paraitakene, a meaningful superiority in skill and experience would result in a short and decisive fight, while in cases like Ipsus and Raphia, where the pike formations were of more equal skill, they did not come to blows until the cavalry action had been decided, and for most of them not even then.

Polybius (XVIII.29), in his comparison of the Macedonian and Roman infantry systems, notes of the phalanx:

"Many considerations may easily convince us that, if only the phalanx has its proper formation and strength, nothing can resist it face to face or withstand its charge."

Then, let's not forget how weak phalanx was against missile fire. Mainly Small Shields, but even many rows of men pressed one to the others, made a pike phalanx ideal target for javelins or arrows. And yes shaking saris sas could give some protection, but I guess only a tiny bit against a big volume of missiles. I would not like to be the man having a saris sa to protect against incoming arrows...

Polybius has a different evaluation:

"Of these sixteen ranks, all above the fifth are unable to reach with their sarissae far enough to take actual part in the fighting. They, therefore, do not lower them, but hold them with the points inclined upwards over the shoulders of the ranks in front of them, to shield the heads of the whole phalanx; for the sarissae are so closely serried, that they repel missiles which have carried over the front ranks and might fall upon the heads of those in the rear." - Polybius XVIII.30

So in the view of an experienced soldier who was around at the time, the protection provided against missiles was good.

And another big fault of pike phalanx was it was poor from the offensive point of view. Do not forget that in ancient time almost every soldier carried a shield as main protection. So if you faced a pike wall you simply have to keep your shield steady in front of you and that is all. While a hoplite with short spear can aim and stab your weakest point from upward or downward, the pike cannot. It can only be kept in the same position. Yes it had a good defensive role but limited offensive use.

Polybius, as noted above, points out that: "if only the phalanx has its proper formation and strength, nothing can resist it face to face or withstand its charge."  It may be worth remembering that the pike phalanx did not stand still on the battlefield but pushed forwards vigorously.  Even where it did stand still (plugging a gap in the wall at Atrax) the Romans spent a long while trying to get past the pikes and through to the men - completely without success.

Unless you have opponents with small Shields, like other pikemen (that is why the bloodiest battles of phalanx were the ones either against other pike phalanx or against light eastern infantry with no armor and light or small shields).

At the risk of being deemed pedantic, I would point out that the phalanx fought with its pikes, not its shields.  Polybius notes:

"For as a man in close order of battle occupies a space [depth] of three feet; and as the length of the sarissa is sixteen cubits according to the original design, which has been reduced in practice to fourteen; and as of these fourteen four must be deducted, to allow for the distance between the two hands holding it, and to balance the weight in front; it follows clearly that each hoplite will have ten cubits of his sarissae projecting beyond his body, when he lowers it with both hands, as he advances against the enemy: hence, too, though the men of the second, third, and fourth rank will have their sarissae projecting farther beyond the front rank than the men of the fifth, yet even these last will have two cubits of their sarissae beyond the front rank." - XVIII.29

Hence:

"The result of this will be that each Roman soldier will face two of the front rank of a phalanx, so that he has to encounter and fight against ten spears, which one man cannot find time even to cut away, when once the two lines are engaged, nor force his way through easily—seeing that the Roman front ranks are not supported by the rear ranks, either by way of adding weight to their charge, or vigour to the use of their swords. Therefore it may readily be understood that, as I said before, it is impossible to confront a charge of the phalanx, so long as it retains its proper formation and strength."

To me, that seems clear enough. 

[andrew881runner]

I knew what Polibius said but he is a man and can exaggerate some things. I simply think that logic can overcome best sources in many cases. For example, how can a saris sa stop missile fire? even accurate tests show it cannot, even if close to other saris sa. Maybe shaking saris sa you can intercept Some slower arrows or slow javelins, but the rest will go through. You Don't have to Forget that sources have to be interpreted and put in a contest.
As for the things I said above, I cannot recall the exactly source, since I read a lot and formed my personal idea. For the fact that a pike is nothing great as offensive weapon, I simply used logic.

[Jim Webster]

when looking at swordsmen v pikes we have the Renaissance authors to turn to. Where the pikes were disorganised, Spanish swordsmen did well at Battle of Ravenna but at Battle of Seminara Swiss pikes drawn up only three deep rolled over Spanish  Rodeleros

Jim

[Andreas Johansson]

when looking at swordsmen v pikes we have the Renaissance authors to turn to. Where the pikes were disorganised, Spanish swordsmen did well at Battle of Ravenna but at Battle of Seminara Swiss pikes drawn up only three deep rolled over Spanish  Rodeleros

It's also interesting that rodeleros disappeared relatively quickly while pike continued into the early 18C.

Part of the difference with ancient conditions is undoubtedly that firearms-men long doubled as swordsmen when cold steel was required, but it still reinforces my suspicion that the replacement of phalangite by legionary wasn't primarily due to battleline effectiveness. Rome won the wars, and unsurpringly enough didn't see much reason to change a winning concept. But it doesn't follow that that winning concept was necessarily at every point superior to the losing one. If we accept Polybius' statement that, on clear ground with secure flanks etc, the phalanx was basically invincible, we're not left with any unsurmountable problems in explaining why the Romans still won.

Returning to the Renaissance detour, note that pikemen in this era wore no shields and faced distance weapons of far greater penetrative power than a pilum. Didn't, as a rule, prevent them from charging into contact.

[Erpingham]

Generally agree on later medieval/renaissance pikes - the Swiss system which evolves in our period was certainly based on attack.  Swiss attacks were famously quick by comparison with other medieval infantry, who tended to move steadily to avoid disorder.

Andrew's point was, however, I think about hellenestic pikes.  Were these static and defensive?  I seem to recall examples quoted by the classicists among us of hellenistic battles where pikemen attacked each other, or Romans.  Which is the battle where a bunch of OAP silver shields rips a bunch of younger, less experienced pikemen to shreds?

[Dangun]

2) Impact and sustained pressure, provided by the rear ranks who 'press forward those in front by the weight of their bodies and thus make the charge very forcible'.

Simple physics would suggest that Polybius doesn't know what he's talking about.

Two 16 deep phalanxes hitting each other would result in about 2 tons of pressure being applied to the front ranks - more if they "charged" into each other. Forget the pointlessness of carrying a weapon in that situation, you would cease to breathe immediately.

And if every rank did push at the same time, what would happen if they "shoved" into a formation only 4 or 8 deep? They would steamroller it immediately. But this is not born out in the sources at all.

Greetings, by the way.

[Andreas Johansson]

Andrew's point was, however, I think about hellenestic pikes.  Were these static and defensive?  I seem to recall examples quoted by the classicists among us of hellenistic battles where pikemen attacked each other, or Romans.  Which is the battle where a bunch of OAP silver shields rips a bunch of younger, less experienced pikemen to shreds?

You're thinking of Paraitakene (Paraetacene) and/or Gabiene, at each of which the argyraspids attacked and routed less experienced pikemen.

Edit: spelling

[Mark G]

I'm afraid your logic is wrong Andrew

The evidence of pika is that the sarissa were very good at deflecting the penetrative power.
There is no evidence of swordsmen rolling under the pikes - that is a renaissance notion of dubious effectiveness .

Pila are not designed to throw a high trajectory which would allow then to fall like rain through the branches of pikes.
They are designed for short range penetration of shields on a flat trajectory, to allow the man to follow up immediately with sword and shield.  You cannot do that with pikes.

[Erpingham]

2) Impact and sustained pressure, provided by the rear ranks who 'press forward those in front by the weight of their bodies and thus make the charge very forcible'.

Simple physics would suggest that Polybius doesn't know what he's talking about.

Actually, it is probably us who don't know what Polybius is talking about.  We are assuming that he means everyone puts his full weight on the man in front and pushes.  This would, as you rightly say, be a disaster.  But as Polybius has seen a pike phalanx and describes it working like this, he is clearly thinking of something else.  Given that a crowd, which doesn't come in ranks and files, can usually regulate pressure to avoid crushing people at the front to death (infamous counter examples notwithstanding), I think there should be a way in which impetus and mass can be controlled by the foremost ranks (which in both hellenistic and renaissance versions are made up of experienced men) in a disciplined pikeblock.

[Dangun]

 

Actually, it is probably us who don't know what Polybius is talking about.

Yes it is not clear.

But are you really satisfied with Polybius explanation in the following paragraphs?

When discussing the flaw of the phalanx, he asks, "Why is it then that the Romans conquer?" (18.31) and suggests terrain and inflexibility as issues.  Fair enough, but phalanx were seemingly defeated on the battlefield too sometimes. And when it comes to the critical point about the shoving, compare "therefore it may readily be understood that, as I said before, it is impossible to confront a charge of the phalanx, so long as it retains its proper formation and strength" (18.30), and "now, whether the phalanx in its charge drives its opponents from their ground, or is itself driven back" (18.32). I don't find this entirely coherent.

[Patrick Waterson]

But are you really satisfied with Polybius explanation in the following paragraphs?

When discussing the flaw of the phalanx, he asks, "Why is it then that the Romans conquer?" (18.31) and suggests terrain and inflexibility as issues.  Fair enough, but phalanx were seemingly defeated on the battlefield too sometimes. And when it comes to the critical point about the shoving, compare "therefore it may readily be understood that, as I said before, it is impossible to confront a charge of the phalanx, so long as it retains its proper formation and strength" (18.30), and "now, whether the phalanx in its charge drives its opponents from their ground, or is itself driven back" (18.32). I don't find this entirely coherent.

Polybius was writing in the context of Cynoscephalae (see XVIII.24-26) and his observation about one part conquering and one fleeing stems directly from that battle.

"The main body of the Roman right followed and slaughtered the flying Macedonians. But one of the tribunes, with about twenty maniples, having made up his mind on his own account what ought to be done next, contributed by his action very greatly to the general victory. He saw that the division which was personally commanded by Philip was much farther forward than the rest of the enemy, and was pressing hard upon the Roman left by its superior weight; he therefore left the right, which was by this time clearly victorious, and directing his march towards the part of the field where a struggle was still going on, he managed to get behind the Macedonians and charge them on the rear. The nature of the phalanx is such that the men cannot face round singly and defend themselves: this tribune, therefore, charged them and killed all he could get at; until, being unable to defend themselves, they were forced to throw down their shields and fly; whereupon the Romans in their front, who had begun to yield, faced round again and charged them too." - Polybius XVIII.26

It may be worth noting that in the four classic defeats of the phalanx by a Roman or Roman and allied force, namely Beneventum, Cynoscephalae, Magnesia and Pydna, the phalanx was initially broken by elephants, not legions, which allowed the legions their chance to get in and deal with the phalangites at a disadvantage.  The only case I can recall of legions defeating a phalanx in a head-on fight is at Chaeronea (86 BC), where Mithridates Eupator's phalanx of escaped slaves hold out against everything the Roman legionaires can do to them until Sulla arranges for his artillery to shoot flaming missiles (belosphenodai) into their ranks, which finally disrupts them (Plutarch Life of Sulla 18.6).

[andrew881runner]

I have no sources but imagine the situation: you have a Forrest of pikes against enemies in close order forming a shield wall. How can you overcome Shields?  it is impossible even thinking about that. A spear cannot Pierce a wooden shield. Swiss pikemen were trained to apply a contact pressure on enemies armor if they could not find any gaps to Aim. I think this is what the pikemen did too. They applied a constant pressure on Shields trying to slowly advance. This situation where enemy front lines were under constant threat of being stabbed if they moved a bit their Shields or if they had parts uncovered by the shield itself could cause a psychological stress so that less trained units could give up after a while. And in that case the pikemen could stab fast the enemies who broke formation (giving their back to pikes). Otherwise I cannot imagine how a phalanx can roll over enemies with their thick Shields in front of them. Maybe, maybe only a running pikeman could have the kinetic energy able to pierce a shield. And there are some account (dint ask my which, I cannot remember) of pikemen advancing at a fast pace almost running.

[Duncan Head]

I have no sources but imagine the situation: you have a Forrest of pikes against enemies in close order forming a shield wall. How can you overcome Shields?  it is impossible even thinking about that. A spear cannot Pierce a wooden shield.

The Romans, when they attacked the Macedonian phalanx, were unable to force a passage, and Salvius, the commander of the Paelignians, snatched the standard of his company and hurled it in among the enemy. Then the Paelignians, since among the Italians it is an unnatural and flagrant thing to abandon a standard, rushed on towards the place where it was, and dreadful losses were inflicted and suffered on both sides. 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; 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 Pealignians and Marrucinians, who, with no consideration but with animal fury rushed upon the strokes that met them, and a certain death.

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?

[andrew881runner]

I will believe that a saris can Pierce a wooden shield half an inch thick when I will see with my eyes. It seems very irrational.

[Duncan Head]

I don't believe that many shields were half an inch thick.

The wooden core of the Vatican Greek hoplite shield is about 8mm at the centre, though the sides of the bowl are thicker - according to the discussion at RAT, anyway.

The Dura scutum is 5-6mm thick. Some reports suggest that the Kasr el-Harit scutum was almost half an inch thick at the centre - but much thinner towards the edges.