Macedonian phalanx: overarm, underarm or both?

[willb]

One thing that has not been noted here is muscle fatigue.  Holding arms upright, which is needed for overarm use, results in greater muscle fatigue than holding the pike at the lower position.  While younger people are able to hold their arms in a raised position for a longer period as people age the length of time they can hold their arms up diminishes significantly. 

[Erpingham]

This one and
this one caught my eye.

[Mark G]

Justin, since you have looked at the Swiss, can you provide any evidence that they mixed over and under arm in the same formation?

You seem to say this is a fact from your research on the first page of this thread.

I have never encountered anything suggesting that what so ever, so I am curious as to where this remarkable notion came from.

[Imperial Dave]

This one and
this one caught my eye.

thanks Anthony.

[Duncan Head]

Any link to Connolly?

I don't think that Peter Connolly article is online. The reference is "Experiments with the sarissa – the Macedonian pike and cavalry lance – a functional view" in AT Croom and W Griffiths (eds.), Re-enactment as Research: Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 11 (2000).

For reconstructions, try:
http://hetairoi.de/en/the-sarissa
http://www.hetairoi.de/index.php/en/the-sarissa-experiment - though only a couple of the photos show the shield being carried
http://hetairoi.de/sites/default/files/styles/facebook_single/public/2017-02/20150802_14-58-37_DSCN8717.jpg?itok=QIiP53Hi
http://i52.tinypic.com/11jufyv.jpg

None, though, show multiple ranks. That was one of the problems Christopher Matthew's version addressed, though I can't remember his solution, and nor do I have the energy to dig his book out of the archive and look it up.

[Dangun]

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.

Do we know if the rear ranks were "aiming"? There is a lot in front of them, obscuring their vision.

Also wondering, if you lift the pike to an upper arm position, what happens to the shield? Does it rotate into a less helpful position?

There is also the weight to consider.

[Justin Swanton]

Justin, since you have looked at the Swiss, can you provide any evidence that they mixed over and under arm in the same formation?

You seem to say this is a fact from your research on the first page of this thread.

I have never encountered anything suggesting that what so ever, so I am curious as to where this remarkable notion came from.

This is one source (yes it's Wiki but that doesn't mean it's made up). Specifically this defensive formation:

[Justin Swanton]

None, though, show multiple ranks. That was one of the problems Christopher Matthew's version addressed, though I can't remember his solution, and nor do I have the energy to dig his book out of the archive and look it up.

Pity as that would answer a few questions.

Of course if his reenactors deployed in intermediate formation (3 feet per file) there would be much less of a problem with the placement of the pikes.

[Prufrock]

Towards the end this video shows a group approximating the phalanx. They are not using shields, but it still gives a fairly good idea of how it might have worked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MX2Njyhouw

The Alexander movie did of course have men with shields, and they seemed to manage three or four ranks of pike extended, though they only show very brief clips of them in that formation (3:19, for example).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNbqyAHCPlQ

I suspect it's one of those things that you'd be able to work out pretty quickly if you had a large group of able bodied folks all with shield and sarissa. Not so easy to reach sound conclusions from diagrams alone, I imagine!

[Jim Webster]

Justin, since you have looked at the Swiss, can you provide any evidence that they mixed over and under arm in the same formation?

You seem to say this is a fact from your research on the first page of this thread.

I have never encountered anything suggesting that what so ever, so I am curious as to where this remarkable notion came from.

This is one source (yes it's Wiki but that doesn't mean it's made up). Specifically this defensive formation:

I cannot see a man with a shield on his arm holding that sort of overarm pose for any length of time. Also the weight of the shield as he thrusts is going to drag his arm down

[Mark G]

It's almost a self parody that you use this to support your case, Justin.

But suffice to say, no one seriously believes that you can attack ala Swiss kiels with that 30 years war era anti-cavalry defensive formation,
nor that the long pikes of the era can be of any use when supported against a foot to fix the point at the height of a horses eyes.

So I think we are back where we began. 
No evidence whatsoever that ancient or renaissance pike blocks mixed pike holds between over and under arm in the same formation and no evidence that ancients used overarm.

Carry on and see if you can find something, it would be very interesting if you could.  But you will have to explicitly cite anything you find, because it will be a significant find and must be open to challenge before it can be accepted.

At least you haven't shown an image of the modern papal guard to argue the swiss were armed with magazine loaded pistols, but you are at that sort of comparison with that image in this context, I am afraid.

[Justin Swanton]

I cannot see a man with a shield on his arm holding that sort of overarm pose for any length of time. Also the weight of the shield as he thrusts is going to drag his arm down

The Swiss seemed to have managed it fine -well enough to win their battles  .

I envisage a different grip if there is a shield on the forearm: left hand grips the shaft with the hand on top and the thumb below. The upper arm is held against the chest and the forearm is raised high - just below eye level. The left arm is thus contracted and the weight of the shield and pike is carried by the shoulder. That shouldn't be too tiring.

[Justin Swanton]

It's almost a self parody that you use this to support your case, Justin.

But suffice to say, no one seriously believes that you can attack ala Swiss kiels with that 30 years war era anti-cavalry defensive formation,
nor that the long pikes of the era can be of any use when supported against a foot to fix the point at the height of a horses eyes.

So I think we are back where we began. 
No evidence whatsoever that ancient or renaissance pike blocks mixed pike holds between over and under arm in the same formation and no evidence that ancients used overarm.

Carry on and see if you can find something, it would be very interesting if you could.  But you will have to explicitly cite anything you find, because it will be a significant find and must be open to challenge before it can be accepted.

At least you haven't shown an image of the modern papal guard to argue the swiss were armed with magazine loaded pistols, but you are at that sort of comparison with that image in this context, I am afraid.

So we have established that a pike formation with the front ranks holding their pikes underarm whilst the ranks behind held their over arm did exist in this period (that was my main point). Is there any reason for thinking the Swiss didn't use it? Is there any reason for thinking it didn't work, particularly as it was a tried and tested battlefield formation? Is there, finally, any reason for thinking it wouldn't have worked in Antiquity, since Renaissance men and horses were pretty much like men and horses in Antiquity?

[Erpingham]

So we have established that a pike formation with the front ranks holding their pikes underarm whilst the ranks behind held their over arm did exist in this period (that was my main point).

Not really.  The front rank are in "Charge Pike to Horse", the rear ranks at "Charge", drawn from late 16th/early 17th century manuals.   Nobody is at "Port" or "Low Port" (the underarm ones).  However, as a crumb of comfort, the Scots quoted above may have been in a similar formation.  If they closed their ranks to the front a bit (I've no idea why they are in this loose formation - cavalry wouldn't even need a magic wedge to take them apart), their pikes would overlap as per the description.  Incidentally, while the "Charge to Horse" position has solid medieval ancestry, I've not seen a picture of Swiss in our period of interest using it.

[Erpingham]

I've been raiding the art collections for images of the Swiss in combat

The battle of Grandson as envisaged in the early 16th century.  Troops in combat use both underarm and overarm together, probably representing individual choice by the pikeman rather than rigid drill.

Another Schilling.  Note underarm and overarm in use.  The overarm here is the earlier version, not like our re-enactors with their Dutch drill.  The pike is not held by the end, the intention perhaps  being more flexible usage.

You can see the early high position here from 1529.  For composition reasons, Altdorfer has made them left handed.  These are Macedonian pikemen at Issus and based on landsknechts rather than Swiss.  Note that now they are charging with pikes in the high position. 

Fornovo , end of 15th century.  The Swiss in formation not combat.  Note universal stance is underarm.  Although they are fighting cavalry, nobody has adopted the bending forward, foot braced, posture.

I don't know if this is taking us anywhere re Macedonians but it does provide some more contemporary evidence of what the Swiss did.