When the phalanx disappeared ?

[Barry Soteiro]

I wondered after the Romans conquered most of the Greek World, did the phalanx totally disappeared ?

Or did it survived in hellenic remaining kingdoms like Bosphore or Commagene ?

Thanks

[Eduorius]

It dissapeared somewhere after the Battle of Rocroi.

[pezhetairoi]

Yes. You still see a form of the phalanx existent all the way through the pike formations of medieval and post-renaissance eras, and reach a new heyday as a mixed-arms formation with pikemen phalanxes mixed with swordsmen and musketeers in the Spanish heyday. Only after Rocroi did you see it slowly disappear in favour of a full gunpowder army, as appeared at Blenheim/Culloden.

Though after the Romans took over the Mediterranean, to answer your more pertinent question, the phalanx did indeed disappear as first the legion, then heavy cavalry, took precedence. The revival of the phalanx, IMHO, was when Charles the Bold's vaunted mixed-arms artillery and cavalry army met its end at the hands of Swiss halberd-and-pike militia fighting in packed formations bristling with polearms - essentially a reborn phalanx. Following which, with their proven effect against the elite cavalry of the day, Swiss pikemen and their phalanx formation were exported across Europe as mercenaries, introducing and familiarising yet more people to the effects of formation and sharp pointy sticks.

Naturally, more people began to readopt this formation. Related formations, I may mention, were the Spanish tercios and the Scottish schiltron. And of course, the not-named English pike formations that fought the English Civil War in conjunction with cuirassier cavalry, and musketeers as part of Cromwell's New Model Army.

You could say the phalanx hadn't yet died in Napoleon's era, to a very small extent, because you had the French militia in the early First Republic, was it the federes? armed with halberds during the levee en masse, with only those in the field armies armed with flintlocks. But of course, these halberdiers (conceivably they would have been used in phalanx, meaning a tightly packed mass of troops in this case, to stop a Prussian/Austrian cavalry charge) were never used on the field of battle, only as garrison troops, so this is perhaps irrelevant, and we can point to the definite death of battlefield phalanxes at Rocroi, when Conde's cavalry broke the tercios.

[Gododdin O'Ceallagh]

The Scots Schiltron predates Charles the Bold as it is recorded being used in the 13th Century. In itself it was a development of the "shield wall" tactics of the Germanic and Celtic tribes.

Didn't Charles Martel use phalanxes at the Battle of Tours in 732 against the Moorish cavalry?

G O'C

[Leviathan DarklyCute]

What about the phalanx in the east hellenic world? when did the phalanx in persia and baktria disappeared?

[pezhetairoi]

I can't answer Leviathan's so I'll leave it for someone more knowledgeable about the MidEast. PCataphract, perhaps.

True about the schiltrons, they came before Charles the Bold. But they were omnidirectional hedgehogs, not phalanxes in the sense that we understand it, incredibly strong in front at the expense of the flanks. So while related to the phalanx (lots of long pointy sticks, closely packed formation, shieldwall), it's not a phalanx per se. To be fair, neither was the Swiss pike formation since it was a mixed-arms unit as well. But it did have much more similarity to the ancient phalanx than the schiltron, IMHO. This is not scholarly academic knowledge. Medieval era is not my strong suit, so probably patchy/assumptuous.

On Charles Martel at Tours, no idea either. I haven't actually found any good sources yet on the order of battle and the tactics used at that battle. Was Charles Martel's army at that time considered 'Christianised barbarian' or 'barbarised Christian'? I thought, being a Germanic (Frankish) army, it would most like have been a shieldwall rather than a phalanx...

[SaberHRE]

actually, the swiss 'imported' the pikes from Italian city states, prior to it, they were masters of the halberd.

And when it comes to Swiss tactics, it was not a phalanx, it called a pike square. Why? Because it looked like a square, and unlike the phalanx was a lot more flexible, being capable of holding artillery or cavlry inside the square. Often it looked liked this:


pppppppppppp
pppppppppppp
pp pp
pp pp
pp pp

p's being soldiers.

[Watchman]

Why the fig is it that whenever people start talking about phalanxes they almost never actually define what they mean with the term ? Causes a lot of unnecessary confusion and misunderstanding.

The term "phalanx" itself only refers to any closely packed formation of heavy infantry, regardless of their exact armamanet. In one form or another it's been used the world over for a very long time by any military tradition capable of greater tactical organisation than a loose-order warband (which, mind you, is in some circumstances the only tactical formation conditions like terrain allow - closed order blows in dense forest, for example), simply because it's a very cheap, easy and effective way to maximise the staying power of infantry, particularly one armed with long pointy things and preferably big shields too.

I prefer to call that one "shieldwall" for easy differentation, and because the term quite admirably accurately describes what the formation looks like. AFAIK the first known recorded appereance of the formation comes from the ancient Sumerians in the Stele of Vultures.

Pikemen are a quite different ballgame, especially in their Macedonian-Hellenistic incarnation. The basic idea is the same, but the actual execution is quite different as the formation by default cannot be too closely packed - there must be room for the pikes of the rear ranks to pass between the ranks before them for there to be much point in the whole exercise - but instead very high standards of drill are critical to allow the formation to maneuver without getting its ordering busted and the pointy flagpoles tangled together. (Thankfully, it's fairly easy to teach people to maneuver in synch as long as you have some time to spare.)

So, in response to Gododdin, yes - as long as you're talking about the first type discussed above. The shieldwall never fell out of use anyway; the Germanics and Celts both used it, the Romans employed a specialised variation (the testudo), and it was pretty much the standard heavy-infantry (especially spearman) battle formation in Europe and not a few other places until quite late times.

The Scottish "schiltrom", however, is a bit different thing. It was really just a static circular "hedgehog" of long spears, and while obviously providing good all-around cavalry protection was very much a sitting duck to missile troops. Something of a failed experiment in a proto-pike square you could say.

The actual Medieval pike formation was rather different from either the schiltrom or the ancient pike phalanx. The latter consisted of rectangluar blocks of pikemen joined into a long line, terribly vulnerable at its flanks and wont to get disjointed by uncooperative terrain and varying levels of local success against enemy forces; the Medieval pikemen fought in huge hollow squares which simply had no flanks or rear to begin with, and if necessary could accept their assorted organic support troops - skirmishers, halberd- and swordsmen and other "assault infantry", even artillery - into the protection of the hollow. Properly drilled, these living fortresses were in fact quite maneuverable (the speed the Swiss squares could advance to attack wrong-footed their opponents in at least one early battle) and if they had weaknesses it was above all the fact that they didn't really make very effective use of manpower - most of the soldiers in one never came to even close to the enemy, and simply stood there idly when one facet of the square fought. It was this, and such deep formations' vulnerability to the increasingly prevalent and potent field artillery, that led to the abandoning of the squares as a basic tactical formation during the Thirty Years' War.

[Dhampir]

During the 1812 war, the 13th US Infantry was formed without enough muskets to go around so the colonel adapted them to fight in three ranks, not two, and gave the rear rank long pikes. When the front rank has their bayonets at guard, the second most at thrust-out and the rear has their pikes aimed forward, the formation vaguely resembles a phalanx...

But not tactically so.

[Gododdin O'Ceallagh]

Watchman said

"The Scottish "schiltrom", however, is a bit different thing. It was really just a static circular "hedgehog" of long spears, and while obviously providing good all-around cavalry protection was very much a sitting duck to missile troops. Something of a failed experiment in a proto-pike square you could say."


In most cases this was true, the enemy usually stood off the schiltron and peppered it with missiles but at Bannockburn Robert the Bruce drilled the schiltrons so that they could advance in formation, like a "phalanx".

I don't think the Scots used schiltrons much after the 14th Century and the Scots fighting in the 100 Years War in France were probably indistinguishable in arms from their French allies who would have equipped them.

GO'C

[pezhetairoi]

Uhuh at Watchman (did you get your name from the comic, by the way?). I did say in my post that neither schiltron nor Swiss pike squares (thanks Saber for jogging my memory) were true resurrections of Alex's pike phalanx, and anyway, I did define my idea of what a phalanx was. Long pointy things, tightly packed infantry, unidirectional strength. So why in the world is everyone taking what I said to mean 'The Swiss were Alexander's pezhetairoi reborn?'

de Bruce's schiltrons were only used at Bannockburn, so I don't know if we can take that to buck the norm. And they were not unidirectional. You try to arrange spears to cover all angles, you are bound to have weak spots somewhere. If circular, then between every spear is a weak spot because each spear has to cover a wider 'arc of poking', if you will, than a single unbroken front. If square, then every apex is a MAJOR weak spot. And it wasn't like the Spanish tercio with the corners covered by musketeers, or a Napoleonic divisional square (another incarnation of the tightly-packed long-pointy-stick infantry?) where the corners were covered by artillery.

[Ibrahim]

actually, at falkirk in 1297 the schiltron was also used (lack of manuevrability from not being drilled cost them defeat)

[pezhetairoi]

Which is as good as saying mobile schiltrons were only used as intended at Bannockburn... Points given for trying, though. And if I recall, Falkirk was before Bannockburn (William Wallace before Robert de Bruce?), so I think de Bruce at Bannockburn was really just perfecting Wallace's attempt at tactical innovation?

Question, though, what sort of spears did they use in the schiltron? Pikes, or hoplite-length...? And how was the schiltron for missile protection? If the pezhetairoi phalanx gave them some protection because of the rear pikes slanting over the heads of the front five ranks, then what of the schiltron? Did they have some such plan?

And actually, now that I mention it. Was the schiltron circular or square? I'm not actually quite sure...

[Sarcasm]

Which is as good as saying mobile schiltrons were only used as intended at Bannockburn... Points given for trying, though. And if I recall, Falkirk was before Bannockburn (William Wallace before Robert de Bruce?), so I think de Bruce at Bannockburn was really just perfecting Wallace's attempt at tactical innovation?

Question, though, what sort of spears did they use in the schiltron? Pikes, or hoplite-length...? And how was the schiltron for missile protection? If the pezhetairoi phalanx gave them some protection because of the rear pikes slanting over the heads of the front five ranks, then what of the schiltron? Did they have some such plan?

And actually, now that I mention it. Was the schiltron circular or square? I'm not actually quite sure...

Actually it worked offensively at Stirling Bridge as well as other battles. Though the schiltron probably degenerated into a regular pike push.

Pikes on the short end (less than 3 meters) and they obviously sucked at receiving missile fire, being a stationary formation where half your guys are facing backwards does that. They'd have 4 divisions usually, with 1500 men or more in each, formed generally in squares and rarely in a circular formation (yay for M2TW). You'd have the pikemen/spearmen on the outside, and guys with big-ass polearms, like lochaber axes or bills standing behind to take advantage of a broken charge or take care of any breach in the spearwall.

[SaberHRE]

3 meters or 4 meters, The range of medieval pikes(and by this I mean those of Flanders and Scotland) ranged from 6 to 8 "feet". And yes the Schiltron was not a circular formation, Pez's explanation is exactly why the schiltron couldn't have been a circle)

Concerning its use. At Bannockburn it was used defensively, as the English were foolishly attacking the well positioned Scots, who basically fought off the English who were attacking from two sides. The credit for the success at Bannockburn has to be also given to the non-pike men who were part of the Schiltron. Unlike the Phalanx the Schiltron consisted also of men with all sorts of polearms(as Sarcasm pointed out) and also dismounted men-at-arms(most of the knights and men-at-arms of Scotland dismounted to fought in the Schiltron).

So again the differences between Phalanx and Schiltron are significant.

[Sarcasm]

3 meters or 4 meters, The range of medieval pikes(and by this I mean those of Flanders and Scotland) ranged from 6 to 8 "feet". And yes the Schiltron was not a circular formation, Pez's explanation is exactly why the schiltron couldn't have been a circle)

Concerning its use. At Bannockburn it was used defensively, as the English were foolishly attacking the well positioned Scots, who basically fought off the English who were attacking from two sides. The credit for the success at Bannockburn has to be also given to the non-pike men who were part of the Schiltron. Unlike the Phalanx the Schiltron consisted also of men with all sorts of polearms(as Sarcasm pointed out) and also dismounted men-at-arms(most of the knights and men-at-arms of Scotland dismounted to fought in the Schiltron).

So again the differences between Phalanx and Schiltron are significant.

Right, typo on my part. Less than 4 meters - on the low end of pikes.

Actually it could have been used in a circle. At Falkirk when the schiltrons became isolated, they probably assumed a circular formation and sat on their asses until they were shot to pieces. And at Bannockburn the vanguard probably assumed a similar formation.

Also, the schiltrons did attack the English at the second day of Bannockbrun, they didn't just defend. In fact they pike-pushed the whole English infantry off the field after resisting a mounted knight charge.

[SaberHRE]

Yes, sorry forgot to mention that the Scots did later advance.

However I don't believe that Scots deployed a circular schiltron at Falkirk, because it would make no sense. At Stirling the used regular retangular or square formation, but they were in attack really. At Falkirk a I doubt a circular formation would be employed due to the need for a strong defensive array. But again this is debateable

Just one last thing, Schiltron is often solely attributed as Wallace's creation, whereas people forget about Andrew de Moray, who was an equally brilliant soldier and leader(if not greater than Wallace himself). His guerilla war and minor campaigns against the English in Northern Scotland are pretty impressive. So no doubt de Moray would have largely contributed to the creation of the Schiltron

[pezhetairoi]

I'm not sure about that, based solely on your description of him. He was a minor-campaign and guerrilla leader. You'd hardly find a need to innovate something like the heavy ponderous and above all, defensive, schiltron for what is essentially hit and run fighting.

Moray... if I recall Braveheart (yes I know, sinfully inaccurate movie) they demonised him as the guy who withheld his troops in support at Falkirk hence contributing to Wallace's defeat.

Now, what was he like actually?

[Ibrahim]

Which is as good as saying mobile schiltrons were only used as intended at Bannockburn... Points given for trying, though. And if I recall, Falkirk was before Bannockburn (William Wallace before Robert de Bruce?), so I think de Bruce at Bannockburn was really just perfecting Wallace's attempt at tactical innovation?

Question, though, what sort of spears did they use in the schiltron? Pikes, or hoplite-length...? And how was the schiltron for missile protection? If the pezhetairoi phalanx gave them some protection because of the rear pikes slanting over the heads of the front five ranks, then what of the schiltron? Did they have some such plan?

And actually, now that I mention it. Was the schiltron circular or square? I'm not actually quite sure...

actually, you said just now is exactly what I was inferring; I'm not saying that robert the bruce was the first who got it right (I know wallace did); the only reason his sciltron was screwed over was from some welshmen who had curved armor piercing 6ft monsters (whose name will not be mentioned for obvious reasons); in fact, they almost screwed de bruce over at the bannockburn...hehe..the point behind what I said was this: 1-everyone seems to mention De bruce only, forgetting that wallace had done the same; guess defeat warrants forgetting. 2-to point out the danger of standing still in a schiltron.

[Parallel Pain]

Wallace had not done the same. The command at Stirling was Andrew de Moray, while Wallace had not taken the time to train his men in mobility like de Bruce did.

And the schiltron wasn't used at Stirling. Stirling was a simply rushing against a cut off enemy at a bottleneck.

Also the only threat to the Scots at Bannockburn were the longbowmen again, but due to impatient kights, King Edward's lack of control, and his own stupidity these were not a factor.

[cmacq]

Right, Stirling was a bum's rush through the mud and onto the old roman bridge, then one big slaughter. Many of the Franco-Norman horse and Welsh archers over the Forth, as for example Hugh deCressingham, were butchered, some literally. Trophy kills, at least they didn't take any heads? And for all it was Edward 2 at Bannockburn.

Todays poem

On both sets were hewn five notches,
each the size and shape to fit a severed human soul.
As peace held fast now for many years,
only rusted-nails pegged these black-stained bitter holes.

[SaberHRE]

Wallace had not done the same. The command at Stirling was Andrew de Moray, while Wallace had not taken the time to train his men in mobility like de Bruce did.

Wallace had also contributed to the Stirling Campaign and no, the command at Stirling was JOINT, each of commanders being significant.

The claim that Wallace did not train his men is not very true, no sources claim so.

and whatever you think, Schiltron was used at Stirling... Just read what the Benedictine emissary account who describes "the men being arrayed in great order"

About Andrew de Moray, is basically a great hero however living in the shadow of Wallace. Probably descended from Flemish merchants, his family rose to nobility sometime before David I. Another theory is that the Moray from which Andrew descended were Anglo-Norman petty nobles who replaced the Old Scottish nobles in the area of Moray. Whatever the version, Andrew de Moray was the third member of his family to fight in the Scottish war against Edward I, and to see defeat and imprisonment. His father was IIRC Justiciar of Moray

As the youngest son he was not taken to the tower of London, and despite the legend of brave escape, he was probably released to gather the ransom for his brother and father.

Moray's style of war was one of guerilla but also brilliant cavalry raids, and possibly Moray was the author of Wallace's later scortched earth tactics.

[cmacq]

Gertrude

Not to draw too fine a point, yet the Hellenistic term φαλαγγα (fingers; that could no doubt reach out and touch someone) actually refers to the use of the long-spear and not the shield-wall based formation. More recently this Greek word has taken on another meaning, 'battle formation.'



The use of the Hellenistic phalanx went out of use in the 1st century BC.

Now to reap the whirlwind.

[Parallel Pain]

Yeah it was a joint command. But given the fact that Wallace had ran off to join de Moray with his tail between his legs, that de Moray was an important nobleman and so commanded the respect of the higher class, and that not only had he been more successful from the start but also took more castles than Wallace in that immediate campaign, it's not hard to imagine the command being joint in name while most of the actual command power was in de Moray's hands.

And "the men being arranged in great order" does not equal a schiltron. Neither does groups of pike wielding men.

And I didn't say Wallace didn't train his men, I said he didn't train them IN MOBILITY. And really all sources of Falkirk says Wallace's schiltrons standing still, so I don't really need any other sources.

[Tellos Athenaios]

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...ry%3D%23110167

A phalanx, in it's most litteral meaning is simply a 'battle formation'. Not neccesarily of heavy infantry even. (Check the word psiloi in conjunction with phalanx: psiloi means 'simple' or 'poor' or in tactics, 'light'.)

[cmacq]

I see some wiggle room here, but have to go for now.

Still, this may be of some use.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...%3Aid%3Db18c31

I wonder if EB could incorporate some of this treatment?

[Watchman]

...other than by shafting the phalangites when it comes to forest penalties ?

[Sarcasm]

And "the men being arranged in great order" does not equal a schiltron. Neither does groups of pike wielding men.

And I didn't say Wallace didn't train his men, I said he didn't train them IN MOBILITY. And really all sources of Falkirk says Wallace's schiltrons standing still, so I don't really need any other sources.

"...the men being arranged in great order" does not indeed mean that they were formed in schiltrons, neither does groups of pike wielding men, indeed. However the conclusions you draw from this are fundamentally wrong in my view.

How would one define a schiltron then? What do we know about it?

It was a formation based on the strength of a pikewall supported by infantry armed with various polearms and a few men-at-arms/knights when available to dismount. It could form in squares or circles, and could perform attacks as well as the usual tactic of receiving cavalry charges. Do all these soldiers cease to be a schiltron in a charge, when the formation is messed up?

If one agrees with this then only the purely defensive formation can be considered a proper 'schiltron'. Which is fine by me, but then the argument for a mobile schiltron is moot, because an infantry square set in a defensive posture against cavalry is essentially immobile.

Let's assume we don't agree with that assessment, then why did the Scot army remain stationary at Falkirk? They had shown to be capable of attacking like a regular pike block before, so why not charge headlong into the English army? The answer is simple in my view - they were pinned down.

To get out of the schiltron would mean to be destroyed by a charge of mounted knights supported by infantry. To remain in formation, and with no bowmen of their own (destroyed at the beginning of the battle), effectively meant they would be isolated and vulnerable to missile fire from the longbows of the welsh.

As we say here, between getting in the pot, or staying in a hot place, the frog stayed where it was. Or something to that effect.

[cmacq]

Weren't these formations associated with some type of very crud field works?

[Sarcasm]

Maybe you're referring to the Flemish? They used pikemen/long spearmen from behind ditches, other earthworks and stakes, along with what equated to heavy macemen/clubmen and men-at-arms standing behind in support.