How mobile was the Macedonian phalanx?

[QuintusSertorius]

The cliched notion is that the phalanx was this lumbering block that could only move forwards, barely able to do anything once set on its course.

While that's not quite true, I've seen assertions that one of the tactics was for the phalangites to charge by sprinting. I can believe a jog/double-time is possible to remain in formation, but I'm struggling a little to see how someone holding a very long pole with both hands (even a counter-weighted one) could sprint easily. Moreover that the phalanx would retain any cohesion with men running at different speeds, tripping over each other and so on.

There's also some stuff I was reading about how Philip's military reforms involved a lot of close order drills, changes of formation and the like to allow a much greater degree of flexibility.

So what was the deal?

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Sprinting? Like a pole vaulter? You must be joking! If you let the point drop too far while sprinting with a sarissa you would BECOME a pole vaulter - I'm not sure that falling down on top of your enemies really helps....lol!

With very well trained phalangites, a slow jog might be feasible without losing formation - or a fast jog with the sarissas in a vertical position - but no more than that IMO.

Changing formation depth or facing rapidly, that's possible with well-drilled and disciplined troops.

[Randal]

Hoplites charged by sprinting, as at Marathon. And hoplites fought in a phalanx.

Perhaps that's where the confusion comes in? Charging phalanx (of hoplites) yes, charging phalangites (with sarissas) no.

Anyway, in antiquity (and the middle ages for that matter) I imagine most infantry was pretty much immobile. Forward fine, retreating sometimes fine, anything more complicated recipe for instant chaos and defeat.

This was because of lack of communication, difficulties of observation, limited number of officers, etc.

For the most part in battle, armies would deploy according to a plan drawn up the previous night or even earlier, and then more or less were stuck to those positions.

It was one of the big strengths of the Romans (especially after they dropped the manipular system) that they were able to perform far more complicated manoeuvres on the field than most of their opponents. What made Hannibal such a great general was that he too had trained his army to the extent it could perform complicated manoeuvres. The Romans did it by having far more petty officers and a far larger chain of command than most other armies. (The Spartans also had a lot of officers, iirc.) I imagine Hannibal did something similar.

In this context, the phalanx' lack of manoeuvrability wouldn't be nearly as big a weakness as it might otherwise seem.

[fomalhaut]

I distinctly remember Alexander using maneuvers that basically scared enemies off just by their complexity. I wouldn't necessarily call the Macedonian Phalanx that lumbering , at least under Alexander's command. They were fighting much more mobile people for a long time

[Randal]

I don't doubt Alexander did that, but were those manoeuvres with his phalanx? Or with his cavalry and light infantry? Or his non-sarissa armed heavy infantry?

Alexander was a great general and quite probably capable of making his army do things that for lesser generals would have resulted in chaos. But also relevant is that his army had a far smaller proportion of pikemen than the successors did. His hypaspistai, Greek hoplites, Agrianians, Thracians, Kretans, etc made for a very flexible combined-arms force.

[QuintusSertorius]

I don't doubt Alexander did that, but were those manoeuvres with his phalanx? Or with his cavalry and light infantry? Or his non-sarissa armed heavy infantry?

Alexander was a great general and quite probably capable of making his army do things that for lesser generals would have resulted in chaos. But also relevant is that his army had a far smaller proportion of pikemen than the successors did. His hypaspistai, Greek hoplites, Agrianians, Thracians, Kretans, etc made for a very flexible combined-arms force.

They were with his phalanx. Well-drilled maneuvers were one of the other things, besides longer spears that Philip learned from his time in Thebes.

[fomalhaut]

I don't doubt Alexander did that, but were those manoeuvres with his phalanx? Or with his cavalry and light infantry? Or his non-sarissa armed heavy infantry?

Alexander was a great general and quite probably capable of making his army do things that for lesser generals would have resulted in chaos. But also relevant is that his army had a far smaller proportion of pikemen than the successors did. His hypaspistai, Greek hoplites, Agrianians, Thracians, Kretans, etc made for a very flexible combined-arms force.

I'd go search for the battle right now in Arrian, but im almost positive he had his main battle line, which im assuming were his pikemen, march up the hill against the settlement. He had earlier done something with the Agriannes and Guard so i think the distinction had already been made.

But yeah your right, these were more or less professional soldiers, not militia.