Macedonian phalanx: overarm, underarm or both?

[Duncan Head]

For what it's worth (not a lot), when Maurice of Nassau experimented with shielded pikemen he seems to have gone for the overarm position - see https://www.etsy.com/au/listing/238539264/exercise-with-shield-and-pike-drill.

Of course he also seems to have decided that shields weren't worth bothering with anyway...

[Justin Swanton]

For what it's worth (not a lot), when Maurice of Nassau experimented with shielded pikemen he seems to have gone for the overarm position - see https://www.etsy.com/au/listing/238539264/exercise-with-shield-and-pike-drill.

Of course he also seems to have decided that shields weren't worth bothering with anyway...

That would do nicely. Notice he can raise his shield arm to hold the pike higher than the shoulder of the man in front of him, and still have room to see over the shield. The point with that of course is that the man behind him will have to raise his pike even higher to clear the shield in front, so there would be a limit to how many ranks can wield pikes overarm and still see what they are doing.

[Andreas Johansson]

His shield seems to be smaller than a Macedonian one, and apparently hangs from the shoulder by a strap.

[RichT]

The troubles with that image are:

- that shield is really teeny tiny. I know the orthodox view is that Macedonian shields were teeny tiny, but even so that looks less than 8 palms. Would it work with 8 palm width shields? Larger? The size of those in the Pergamon plaque?

- the pike is held with the hand over the end (not sure how essential that is, but that's how it's shown). Polybius is clear the spear sticks out behind the rear hand (Matthew rejects this, but I'm inclined to go with Polybius). A shoulder hold with 3 feet of spear sticking out the back would seem even more dangerous for rear rankers than the underarm hold.

Not that I can disprove or even argue strongly against the shoulder hold - there just isn't any evidence or strong argument in its favour (the strongest argument in its favour would be if it could be proved that the underarm hold is impossible, but that appears not to be the case).

[Justin Swanton]

Shield size doesn't actually matter if the pike is held overarm. What counts is shield height, and with the shield forearm angled high - as in the image - the shield can be kept fairly low regardless of how big it is.

My big problem with pikes held underarm is that their wielders have no flexibility at all. They must point their pikes straight ahead - their bodies preclude any lateral movement - which makes for a pike wall punctuated with 18"gaps through which an opponent can quite easily get close and brutal with the phalanx front rankers. Overarm gives a certain lateral flexibility, enabling the phalangites to actively poke at vulnerable spots in the enemy line, besides keeping the pike wall closed.

[Erpingham]

For what it's worth (not a lot), when Maurice of Nassau experimented with shielded pikemen he seems to have gone for the overarm position - see https://www.etsy.com/au/listing/238539264/exercise-with-shield-and-pike-drill.

Of course he also seems to have decided that shields weren't worth bothering with anyway...

The thing with Maurice is he is using standard period pikedrill and giving the poor bloke a shield to add to his woes.  Normal pike drill had an overarm charge position by this point.

The Scots were still using bucklers with pikes in the mid-16th century.  Here is William Pattens description of their defensive tactics

Standing at the defence, they thrust their shoulders likewise so nigh together; the fore rank so well nigh to kneeling, stoop low before their fellows behind holding their pikes in both hands and therewith on their left arms their bucklers, the one end of the pike against their right foot, the other against the enemy breast high, their followers crossing their pike points with them forward; and thus each with the other so nigh as place and space will suffer, through the whole Ward so thick that easily should a bare finger pierce through the skin of an angry hedgehog, as any encounter the front of their pikes.'

Does the method of crossing pikes mean a high charge position? 

[Imperial Dave]

I'm with Rich, I cant prove or disprove overarm pike use just feel' the underarm is more valid especially with a shield

[Justin Swanton]

I tried a few scale drawings and came up with some interesting conclusions.

First, I compared the shields facing forwards to angled at 45 degrees. Result: it makes very little difference to the space available for pikes held underarm:

IMHO the shields facing forwards is a slightly better option for the pikes (and the pikemen), so I did a bird's eye view of the phalanx to see how much lateral wiggle room the pikes would have before striking against the bodies of neighbouring phalangites. It's actually quite a bit:

Then the rub. I tried out a couple of diagrams to see how high the pikes could be held if wielded underarm. First their height to permit maximum lateral movement. The pikes must be completely below the shields in front of them:

Secondly, if the pikes are held as high as possible with minimum lateral movement. They will be a little higher than the bottom of the shields and cannot get in each other's way, meaning that some will be lower than others:

Bottom line, I don't think underarm is going to work for a close formation phalanx as it is impossible to aim any except the front row of pikes at a vital part of the enemy soldiers' anatomy.

[Justin Swanton]

Arrian in Tactika 14 says: "As five or six pikes project beyond the front of the line, there can be no doubt that this would appear terrifying to an attacker, and each individual within the formation, surrounded by five or six pikes and supported by the men behind him, would hold a great level of confidence."

The keywords here are 'surrounded by'. That IMHO suggests far more readily that his file present their pikes above and below him, possibly on both sides of his body, rather than a neat bundle of pikes projecting beyond his right thigh at about 2 to 2½ feet from the ground.

[Erpingham]

Bottom line, I don't think underarm is going to work for a close formation phalanx as it is impossible to aim any except the front row of pikes at a vital part of the enemy soldiers' anatomy.

Any reason why you've pointed the pikes down below the shields?  Intuitively, I'd expected them to put up and over.

[Justin Swanton]

Bottom line, I don't think underarm is going to work for a close formation phalanx as it is impossible to aim any except the front row of pikes at a vital part of the enemy soldiers' anatomy.

Any reason why you've pointed the pikes down below the shields?  Intuitively, I'd expected them to put up and over.

That's the point. Up and over means overarm, which is my original preference.

[RichT]

Maybe, though you can't read too much into the (translated) word 'surrounded'.

I think the trouble with diagrams like this, informative though they are in many ways, is they are far more strict and rigid than a body of men crowded together would be. I suspect, like in Anthony's quote, it was more a matter of squashing up as close as possible and angling body and shield so they best fitted, rather than a rigid line of dummies of fixed size and shape at precise intervals. I have a feeling that is a flaw with many of our imaginings of combat - it was probably much more dynamic than our mental models make it.

That's why I think testing it out for real is the better bet (and Peter Connolly did so, and found it worked OK). I'm quite surprised this hasn't been done more often (or when done, it has been documented so badly). All that's needed is a set of 20 or so circles of plywood, or dustbin lids or whatever, and 20 or so volunteers with pikes (and insurance) - like a local Sealed Knot group. It should be fairly simple to test.

So - at present, still quite possible, but lacking evidence.

[Justin Swanton]

It's true that in the real world there is more flexibility than in a diagram, but what stands out for me from these carefully scaled diagrams is that you can't get the pikes of the ranks behind the front rank to point upwards at the chest level of the enemy line (never mind at their heads) if you hold them underarm. The shields are a fixed given: they are a certain size, held at a certain height (give or take a few cm). They will keep the pikes pointed downwards.

The problem disappears if you hold the pikes overarm.

Any link to Connolly?

[Erpingham]

Bottom line, I don't think underarm is going to work for a close formation phalanx as it is impossible to aim any except the front row of pikes at a vital part of the enemy soldiers' anatomy.

Any reason why you've pointed the pikes down below the shields?  Intuitively, I'd expected them to put up and over.

That's the point. Up and over means overarm, which is my original preference.

No, up and over means angled.  However, arguing about what each of us means by the same words won't get us anywhere.
 
I've been looking at pictures of reconstructed phalangites and they seem to go with a shield hanging from a shoulder strap not fixed to the arm.  Does this have any bearing, given it would mean that the shield would be more mobile and could perhaps adjust itself to where pikes contacted it?

[Justin Swanton]

I've been looking at pictures of reconstructed phalangites and they seem to go with a shield hanging from a shoulder strap not fixed to the arm.  Does this have any bearing, given it would mean that the shield would be more mobile and could perhaps adjust itself to where pikes contacted it?

Can you show me the pics?