Macedonian phalanx: overarm, underarm or both?

[Justin Swanton]

Okey doke.

Sure the 32/16/8 and 6/3/1.5 thing is very arithmetically neat so it's quite tempting, and combined with picking the right bits from Polybius, the theory is superficially appealing. But:

- this theory requires that Polybius, in order to score points off Callisthenes, deliberately suppresses or falsifies the existence of a 1.5 foot interval, ths existence of which, earlier in this same thread, you have said was so self evident that Polybius did not even need to specify it and that all his readers would know what a close order formation was (1.5 feet). You can't have it both ways!

But he doesn't suppress or falsify the existence of a 1,5 foot file interval; he just affirms that Calisthenes was talking about open order for the 16-deep phalanx and open or intermediate order for the 8-deep phalanx, presumably because the 8-men-deep formation was still advancing towards the enemy (a close phalanx can advance but not much; intermediate order does the real moving on a battlefield).

- it ignores the main thrust of Polybius' argument, which is that it would be impractical to advance a considerable distance to battle in extended line, and that more likely Alexander would have advanced in column and brought units up into line as the plain widened - which is indeed exactly what Arrian says did happen - (Anab 2.8.4) "as long as the defile on every side remained narrow, he led the army in column, but when it grew broader, he deployed his column continously into a phalanx, bringing up unit after unit (taxis) of hoplites".

The two sources needn't be in contradiction. In fact if you look at the geography there is quite a distance to cover from a narrow defile to the battlefield. Arrian's army would have advanced in column and then Calisthene's army taken over in line, starting with an open order 32-deep.

- it requires that the whole advance be made on a continuous unchanging frontage, despite the fact that the plain is supposed to be growing wider, and despite the difficulties (Polybius' main point) of advancing a considerable distance on an extended front.

Difficult but not impossible and it depends how uneven that plain was (seems to me it's quite even). What difference does it make if the plain is growing wider? The point is to be deployed for battle and have the flanks covered by cavalry.

- it requires the last part of the attack - that over the most difficult terrain, the banks of the river - to be made at a sideways shuffle in closest order

Again, difficult but not impossible. Alexander's cavalry got across against an enemy stiffened with field defences.

- it skirts over the problem that Polybius talks as if the phalanx was 32,000 strong when in reality the Macedonian component was only around 15,000 men (including Hypaspists), the rest being allies, mercenaries and lights, so that the 1.5 foot frontage would not apply to these anyway.

Callisthenes doesn't mention how many men were in the line or if there was a second line or if a portion of the heavy infantry didn't deploy at all. Polybius just assigns 32 000 men to a single line even though the total complement was 42 000 (and probably even more than this).

[Erpingham]

Just checking but have we finished on pike grips now? 

[RichT]

Just checking but have we finished on pike grips now? 

Looks like it, and time to wrap this one up now I think, as the train has made contact with the buffers. Thanks folks. So you in the next othismos thread

[Justin Swanton]

Just checking but have we finished on pike grips now?

It was on: underarm grip - shields in the way; overarm grip - shields OK. But we really need some reenactors to see if they can pull it off.

[Imperial Dave]

Just checking but have we finished on pike grips now?

It was on: underarm grip - shields ok; overarm grip - hell no way.

completely agree Justin

[Justin Swanton]

Just checking but have we finished on pike grips now?

It was on: underarm grip - shields ok; overarm grip - hell no way.

completely agree Justin

Hey!

[Imperial Dave]

Just checking but have we finished on pike grips now?

It was on: underarm grip - shields ok; overarm grip - hell no way.

completely agree Justin

Hey!

[Patrick Waterson]

A bit late to this party, but I shall just note that Polybius in Book XII misunderstands Callisthenes and additionally confuses and contradicts himself and is not to be relied upon for infantry frontages in that book whereas in Book XVIII he actually gets down to business.

So we have the following frontages for Alexander's phalangites:

March order: 6' per man, 32 deep
'Order': 3' per man, 16 deep
'Close order': 1.5' per man, 8 deep.

This includes the individual and the space around him (if any).  There is incidentally a quick way to arrive at spacing, namely to touch shields when at the 3' frontage (a 2' shield held with the edge on the centreline of one's body should touch the shield of the next man held centrally over his body; he then moves his shield so the edge rests on his centreline and touches that of his neighbour; this is then repeated down the line from right to left), which gives exact (or exact enough) spacing without need for coup d'oeil, drill sticks, etc.  Once you have the 3' frontage, the 6' frontage is easily arrived at by doubling depth (every alternate file moves back to tag onto the end of its neighbour) and the 1.5' frontage is attained by halving depth and doubling density.  Simple, 100% reliable and 100% effective.

Observe how the overall frontage of a unit, and for that matter the whole line, stays constant throughout.  Alexander usually marched in order of battle when expecting contact with the enemy, and this closing up to exchange depth for density neatly allows an easily managed approach and a progressive assembly into final phalanx density all on the same frontage, a great time-saver.

Regarding overarm/underarm pike use, I think this has been well enough discussed in this and another thread.  I am inclined to agree that thoughtful reenactment would help to clinch the deal, if deal there is.

[Erpingham]

Nice to see Patrick back in circulation.

I don't want to re-open our discussion except for one query, because it will help my thinking from the other frontage thread. 

You state that Polybios in book XVIII clearly lays out the three frontages and labels the six foot spacing as "March order".  Earlier discussions led to the conclusion that Polybios didn't equate the six foot spacing to march order but this was a modern speculation (albeit a reasonable one).  Can you quote us that bit of Book XVIII as completion of our evidence base in this thread?

Thanks.

[Patrick Waterson]

Nice to see Patrick back in circulation.

I don't want to re-open our discussion except for one query, because it will help my thinking from the other frontage thread. 

You state that Polybios in book XVIII clearly lays out the three frontages and labels the six foot spacing as "March order".  Earlier discussions led to the conclusion that Polybios didn't equate the six foot spacing to march order but this was a modern speculation (albeit a reasonable one).  Can you quote us that bit of Book XVIII as completion of our evidence base in this thread?

Thanks.

Nice to be welcomed, thank you.

I see you have read: "So we have ..." as "Polybius says we have ..." which is not quite the same thing.  As far as I know, 6' march order frontage is one of those things which is generally accepted but not specified outside tactical manuals.  What Polybius does specify is a combat frontage for Romans and a Macedonian combat frontage of half that, which we shall see below.  This tallies with Callisthenes' account of Alexander closing up his troops prior to Issus, from 32 deep to 16 deep and then to 8 deep, from which we can infer indicates frontages respectively of 6' then 3' and then 1.5'.

XVIII.29.2-5 (Macedonian depth)
For as a man in close order of battle occupies a space of three feet [trisi posi kata]; and as the length of the sarissae 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

Polybius is referring only to depth here, as is apparent from the two cubits/three feet being applied to the length of protruding sarissa provided by each rank.

For frontage, he does not give a figure but lapses into Homer

XVIII.29.6 (Macedonian frontage)
So buckler [aspis] pressed on buckler; helm on helm;
And man on man: and waving horse-hair plumes
In polished head-piece mingled

An aspis can press on an aspis at any interval less than three feet, but for helm to press on helm, and man on man, the men cannot be further apart than a 1.5 feet frontage.  It would of course have been better had Polybius simply given the figure, but he presumably credits his readers with a bit of common sense.

One should note he alludes to this particular verse in Book XII, but without actually quoting it and without paying attention to his arithmetic. The material point regarding the quote is that helm cannot press on helm or body on body except at a 1.5' frontage as opposed to a 3' frontage.

Now we look at the Romans.

XVIII.30.6 (Roman individual depth and frontage)
Now, a Roman soldier histantai in full armour also requires a space of three square feet [trisi posi meta].

Note that the translator gives "three square feet", i.e. a frontage and depth of 1.732 feet, for a standing (histantai) Roman soldier.  Polybius then points out that in order to use his weapons and shield efectively, the Roman soldier needs a 3' by 3' box.

XVIII.30.7-8 (Roman combat frontage)
But as their method of fighting admits of individual motion for each man—because he defends his body with a shield, which he moves about to any point from which a blow is coming, and because he uses his sword both for cutting and stabbing,—it is evident that each man must have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet  kat' epistatēn and kata parastatēn, if he is to do his duty with any effect.

Kata epistaten and kata parastaten are side-to-side and front-to-rear.

Now Polybius matches up the Roman and Macedonian frontages.

XVIII.30.9 (Relative frontages)
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 [sarisas]

Half the 3' Roman combat frontage corresponds with the 1.5' Macedonian combat frontage inferred earlier.  This harmonises with Callisthenes' reduction of depths in two stages from march order to fighting order.

This is what gives us the overall picture of 6' march frontage, 3' approach frontage and 1.5' (18") combat frontage for the Macedonians.

[Erpingham]

Sorry patrick.  I didn't mean you to have to quote all that again.  Forgive my misunderstanding, but I do think it was a logical consequence of the juxtaposition of ".....whereas in Book XVIII he actually gets down to business.

So we have the following frontages ....."

So you actually concur in the consensus that "March Order" is a modern interpretation, whch is good.  You clearly differ on the remaining elements but we've debated that so often I don't think there is any reason to return to it.

[PMBardunias]

willb:

It's not a given that the shield would be held at 90 degrees to the front, so even at 18" spacing (one cubit) with a 24" shield (eight palms) it's not certain if or how much they would overlap. It's hard to imagine how sarissas would fit between shields at 18", but Peter Connolly said they could. Paul Bardunias says they can't. One or other of them is mistaken. A shoulder level hold might solve the problem but there is no other evidence for such a hold, and if Connolly is right, there is no problem to solve. What to do?

Hi all, just wanted to clear something up. I do not disagree with Peter Connolly. Hoplites cannot form at 18" with their shields facing perpendicular to the enemy, the width of their biceps precludes this if nothing else, so the only explanation for the existence of the 18" formation is that it was to be done by sarissaphoroi.

[Erpingham]

Welcome Paul.  You will find you are a man much quoted in various threads on the forum so nice to have you here in person.

[PMBardunias]

Welcome Paul.  You will find you are a man much quoted in various threads on the forum so nice to have you here in person.

Thanks!  Now I will have to run around and search out all the comments.  Or maybe just start a new othismos thread and have the comments come to me  I joke, but if any are interested in the othismos experiments we did with files of men pushing, I would be happy to discuss it.

[Imperial Dave]

willb:

It's not a given that the shield would be held at 90 degrees to the front, so even at 18" spacing (one cubit) with a 24" shield (eight palms) it's not certain if or how much they would overlap. It's hard to imagine how sarissas would fit between shields at 18", but Peter Connolly said they could. Paul Bardunias says they can't. One or other of them is mistaken. A shoulder level hold might solve the problem but there is no other evidence for such a hold, and if Connolly is right, there is no problem to solve. What to do?

thanks Paul.

Hi all, just wanted to clear something up. I do not disagree with Peter Connolly. Hoplites cannot form at 18" with their shields facing perpendicular to the enemy, the width of their biceps precludes this if nothing else, so the only explanation for the existence of the 18" formation is that it was to be done by sarissaphoroi.