Macedonian phalanx: overarm, underarm or both?

[Jim Webster]

Just a word, but it does convey the image of a phalangite surrounded by the pikes of his file rather than have them low down and all on one side.

But he has the pikes of the next file about the same distance from his other side and the pikes of the rear ranks sloped over his head in the established model.  Might a Greek writer have not thought that was "enclosed"?

Yes it struck me that 'enclosed' didn't really come down in favour of either model

[Anton]

The pike is not held by the end, the intention perhaps  being more flexible usage.

The Swiss are noted as holding their pikes closer to the centre than Landsknechte did. Supposedly this had two purposes - better control and encouraging the men to close rather than stand off and "fence" - but I don't know if this is supported by any contemporary evidence or is latter-day rationalization.

There's this quote from Monluc which I've always thought useful in trying to understand how pike fighting was done.

"'Now sir,' said I to Monsieur de Taix, 'it is time to rise,' which he suddenly did, and I began to cry out aloud: 'Gentlemen, it may be there are not many here who have ever been in a 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 this kind of fight than we are. But you must take your pikes by the middle as the Swiss do and run headlong to forces and penetrate into the midst of them, and you shall see how confounded they will be.' Monsieur de Taix then cried out to me to go along the battle and make them all handle their pikes after this manner, which I accordingly did, and now we were all ready for the encounter."

[Erpingham]

I will avoid quoting all Sir John Smythe has to say on the matter as it is stretching the topic (though the interested may read it here) but suffice to say, he is with Monluc on this

I thinke it may be apparant to all such as are not obstinatelie ignorant, that battles and squadrons of piques in the field when they do incounter and charge one another, are not by reason or experience mylitarie to stand all day thrusting, pushing, and foining one at another, as some do most vainlie imagine, but ought according to all experiance with one puissant charge and thrust to enter and disorder, wound, open, and break the one the other, as is before at large declared.

It is unfortunate for the present debate that we don't have more of this level of opinionated detailed discussion of pike fighting surviving from Hellenistic times. 

Writing this, I wonder what Sir John would have made of our forum - I bet he'd have been banned by now.

"I think it may be apparent to all such as are not obstinately ignorant" indeed.

[Anton]

He was the great champion of the longbow too.  He does agree with Monluc on the best way,  for English or French soldiers anyhow, to use a pike.  He dismisses outright the practice of 'thrusting, pushing, and foigning one at another' that Monluc clearly says was the other method.  A lad of strong views was Sir John Smythe!

It might be of interest to note from the same period that Tyrell, one of Tyrone's best Captains thought that six weeks was sufficient to train a pike man.  That would be in the Monluc/Smythe method I think.  That might have some bearing when considering Mithridates phalanx of former slaves.

[Erpingham]

One thing we might take from Sir John (and Blaise de Monluc) is how important or not the ability of the individual pikeman's ability while in formation to move his pike round to engage targets.  They were both into the pike block as a single instrument.  It is something we might consider when looking at Hellenistic pike formations.  I'm not suggesting we take Sir John as evidence but recognise the tensions between an individual approach and a collective one when looking at our Hellenistic reconstructions.

[Anton]

That seems right to me too Anthony.

[Jim Webster]

One thing we might take from Sir John (and Blaise de Monluc) is how important or not the ability of the individual pikeman's ability while in formation to move his pike round to engage targets.  They were both into the pike block as a single instrument.  It is something we might consider when looking at Hellenistic pike formations.  I'm not suggesting we take Sir John as evidence but recognise the tensions between an individual approach and a collective one when looking at our Hellenistic reconstructions.

yes I think the block is very much a collective

[RichT]

Finally found it: it's the participle of the verb phrasso, which means "To shut up or shut in; to secure by enclosing or shutting up." Just a word, but it does convey the image of a phalangite surrounded by the pikes of his file rather than have them low down and all on one side.

As a very small point this is not from Arrian but Aelian 14 - Arrian's equivalent passage (Tactica 12) doesn't mention this, while Asclepiodotus (5.2) is basically the same with a slightly different word - "And the Macedonians, men say, with this line of spears do not merely terrify the enemy by their appearance, but also embolden evey file-leader, protected as he is by the strength of five." - where 'protected' is pephrouremenon, from phroureo, to watch or keep guard. Phrasso itself has meanings like hedge in or fence in eg it is used for the Persian shield fence. So I don't think it very suggestive at all of a shoulder level hold (though of course it also doesn't rule it out).

I think comparative material like Smythe, Monluc is extremely useful, though never conclusive of course, and also serves as a reminder that there were different theories of how best to fight with pikes, and there were probably also different theories in Hellenistic times - we shouldn't expect all Macedonian phalanxes everywhere for 200 years to all have been identical. That said, the manuals etc do suggest (to me) group mass fighting, not individuals.

And talking of comparative materials - are there any books or articles anyone can recommend on pike fighting in Medieval/Renaissance/Early Modern times - any examination of the technical details equivalent to (though hopefully better than) Christopher Matthew's?

[Imperial Dave]

having dug out my copy of Matthew I do actually find his explanations very easy to follow and completely logical

[Justin Swanton]

I think comparative material like Smythe, Monluc is extremely useful, though never conclusive of course, and also serves as a reminder that there were different theories of how best to fight with pikes, and there were probably also different theories in Hellenistic times - we shouldn't expect all Macedonian phalanxes everywhere for 200 years to all have been identical. That said, the manuals etc do suggest (to me) group mass fighting, not individuals.

This is the conclusion I've been coming to: the Renaissance pikemen tried both holds and used them differently for different situations, and that as a result of battlefield experience. I think it inevitable that classical pikemen would have done the same. I'm not, however, aware of evidence of a Macedonian phalanx charging in quite the same way as a Swiss pike block did. The phalanx seems to have employed a steady advance, i.e. neither standing and sparring (foigning) like the Landsknechts, nor running in, pikes held in the middle, like the Swiss. With the phalanx way of going about it, there would have been room for some individual sparring whilst the formation moved forwards and its enemy gave way, as did the Romans at Cynoscephalae.

[Justin Swanton]

Does anyone know where I can get an online copy of Arrian's Tactics? Anything except a scanned pdf (though I'll use that if nothing else is available).

[Justin Swanton]

Here's an interesting illustration of a phalanx in intermediate formation. The artist has the ranks behind the front men shoulder their shields. Notice that even in intermediate formation the front rank shields tend to get in the way if the pikes are held low, so much so that the rearmost pikes are actually held overarm, pikes projecting over the tops of the shields. OK, not a reenactment but the next best thing - everything seems in scale and the artist doesn't cheat.

Doesn't anyone have reenactment photos of an attempt to create a phalanx like this?

[RichT]

Justin:

Does anyone know where I can get an online copy of Arrian's Tactics?

The Greek text is on Perseus: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a2008.01.0534

If you want an online translation I think you are out of luck. The de Voto translation may be avalable through online booksellers (I bought a copy not many years ago) - but it is a painfully literal translation so beware.

Doesn't anyone have reenactment photos of an attempt to create a phalanx at least 5 ranks deep?

There are photos (intermediate order only) in the Connolly article I quoted earlier but I'm currently without a scanner. My searches haven't turned up anything else. The Connolly hold is not dissimilar to the painting you show - the ranks hold the pikes slightly highter to pass over the pikes of the men ahead, though never so high as to be an underarm/shoulder hold.

Incidentally that painting seems to have the ranks behind the first with their shields on their backs - would would at least provide a use for the strap, but seems a bit unlikely, since if the front rank man went down, the second ranker would be shieldless. This reminds me of a bit of personal ancient history - I had big fights years ago over the fact that WRG 5th made pikemen shieldless. Never understood that.

Holly:

having dug out my copy of Matthew I do actually find his explanations very easy to follow and completely logical

All of them? OK I'm being harsh, Beast is a long book and full of very good and useful stuff, a lot of it very well reasoned. The topic of this thread just reminded me of the bits that IMHO aren't (but they aren't the whole of the book).

[Erpingham]

so much so that the rearmost pikes are actually held overarm,

I'm missing something.  All I can see are four ranks with pikes held low and then the rest with raised pikes.  I think from the ancient tacticians, several ranks behind four should be angling their pikes over the heads of the forward ranks.

You might be interested in this, which is the only reconstruction of a phalanx I can find not using a low carry.  These guys use a middle grip, with the sarissa couched under the armpit.  The shields seem to have become small circular stomach protectors not attached to the arm, perhaps suspended by a strap round the neck?  Doesn't seem very practical though.

[Anton]

There's a crying need for gloves in that illustration I wonder if ancient pike men wrapped cloth around their knuckles to protect them?  It's the sort of thing that doesn't get reported when describing the big picture.