Ancient phalanx warfare: push or not to push?

[Cheetah]

Since I dont want to hijack a thread discussing the RTW battle engine I decided to start a new one about phalanx warfare. So did they push or not?

Yes some believe pushing was important in Greek warfare. Victor Davis Hanson in his "Western way of War" argues for it but uses some sources taken out of context. CBR

I have found the reference, it is "A history of warfare" by Kevin Keegan, but indeed when he describes the details he refers to Hanson.
BTW, what are those out of context sources?

Its not that individual soldiers didnt try and push an enemy with his big shield but the idea of having lots of men behind the front rank push too is the recipe for disaster. CBR

Hm, why? To me it is difficult to depict an ancient phalanx battle without the push. What were the soldiers in the 2nd, 3rd, etc lines doing? Polishing their armours, picking their noses, or trying to help their comrades? Image that as you said, individual soldiers in the first line pushing their opponents. Now, imagine me as a second line soldier What shall I do? Wait for him to win or to be defeated, or perhaps to give him a helping hand to push over his opponent? Now, what should the enemy soldier in the second line do seeing my attempt to help my comrade in the first line? Well, intuitively he should help pushing too. Then my 3rd line comrade should join in etc. By this simple logic of cascading help soon the whole phalanx would be pushing forward. And why not?

There was a reason why the best men were at the front and that was to fight and not to be pushed/crushed to death. CBR

When I was in the army (the Hungarian ) I had some experience with pushing. Well, it was not on the battlefield just in front of the canteen but still something very similar. Imagine one or two hundred soldiers trying to get into the canteen, which of course had only one door. All these soldiers pushing at once, moreover the push were focused to one spot, yet, as you see (or perhaps as your read) I am still well and alive. So, imho being pushed by 7 ransk from behind, and even adding 8 from the front of course, might not be deadly at all.

Also how did they fight? The overhead stab with spears, as it is often depicted, imho is not a very powerful way of stabbing. First, holding the spear in such a position and stabbing with it continuosly is very tireing. Second, it is a weak stab relying only on the muscle power of your arm. Third, it has a limited reach.

Last but not least, if there was no push then what was the difference between the "shield wall" and the phalanx? My readings and my intuition would suggest that the shield wall was a static defensive formation, while the phalanx, even though slow to manouvre, could be used offensively. What made the difference if not pushing?

Of course, I am in no way 100% sure that they did push, just atm it seems very plausible to me.

[Red Harvest]

We need to be careful in distinguishing phalanx types (macedonian pike style vs. hoplite style.)

I have been questioning the overhand part for hoplites all day, but I'm becoming more accepting of it. It is shown on the Chigi vase as well as on the Nereid monument--Chigi shows them marching with spears at their sides as well. Perhaps they alternated overhand and at the side to rest one set of muscles while using the other--this would give them more staying power although the switch could be a bit tricky while in fighting. With the big shield in the way I can see why they would be stuck either stabbing high, or low with little in between. I could also see the 2nd rank stabbing from the opposite location (allowing them to get two spears in the fight.) Seems like that a bit of drill would quickly work out a method that provided staying power, effectiveness and the max amount of spear points in the fight.

Thebes used 50 deep at Leuctra to break the 12 deep Spartan hoplite phalanx. This supports the shoving match idea. Plus the word "othismos" is associated with phalanx warfare and means "shove" (or so I've read.) Goldsworthy apparently takes the view that this was not really a shoving match though and the depth served purposes for manouver. I can see where a deeper phalanx could certainly keep the pressure on longer. The men could sustain a lower level of exertion for a longer time.

If I were on the front rank what would I be inclined to do, what help would I want? I would probably be trying to shove my opponent off balance or back using my shoulder and shield. The momentum aids my attack and an off balance opponent (on his heels) is little threat. How much help from behind is "too much?" I don't know. At some point it would clearly be a detriment. However, if one or two opposing guys get jostled or go down in a shallow formation, that file would be likely to get shoved back, while a deeper formation could absorb it.

[Pellinor]

When looking at the effect of depth of a unit, it could be useful to look at other successful deep formations.

I'm particularly thinking of the Napoleonic column. Thousands of men packed into a column which could be a hundred deep: what were the ones behind doing? I don't think they were pushing; all I can think of is:

- replacements for losses in the front ranks
- shouting "Vive l-Empereur" really loudly
- looking terribly imposing on the battlefield

The main benefit of the dense formation seems to be morale. Lines just look flimsy, whereas columns look solid and tough. It's common sense which is going to break the other, and although mathematically the line outguns the column and should beat it into bloody ruin every time, in practice the line often fled *before contact* unless it was made up of steady troops - hence it not be widely used outside the British (Hurrah!) army.

In the case of a phalanx, there is perhaps a similar effect. If you're in an 8-deep phalanx and there's a 32-deep one coming towards you, then you have 32 men coming to kill you, personally. That is worrying. Your immediate opposite only has 8 men after him, which is less so. His morale is likely to be slightly higher, and so he may fight better.

Perhaps more usefully: if you're at the *back* of an 8-deep phalanx then you are safe so long as the 7 men ahead of you can beat off the 32 men they're facing. Do you trust them to beat 5:1 odds and keep you safe? On the other hand, your counterpart is pretty confident that his 31 friends can beat up their 8 opponents, so he's safe.

In addition, you are only 30 feet from the fighting, and he is 100 feet away. You know much more about how many of your friends are dying than he does about his. I disregard enemies killed, as that is a natural consequence of fighting and is supposed to happen, whereas your friends dying is wrong and worrying - so, a morale hit for a friend dying, but only a small bonus (if any) for killing an enemy. Even if the front ranks are evenly matched in the battle, and every time one of your friends dies one of the enemy goes too, I think you are going to get more worried for your own skin than your counterpart is.

Net result: phalanxes clash, front ranks fight for a bit, rear ranks worry about what's going on. The rear man of the thin phalanx has more to worry about, and is therefore more likely to flee first. Once he goes, the other rear rankers and the man who was in front of him are going to worry, and eventually it's a question of sauve qui peut.

To an extent then, if the two armies are man for man identical (in skill, equipment, morale, etc) except that one has more ranks, the shallower formation is likely to flee first - even if the actual fighting is going well for it.

I have entirely ignored frontage here, of course: I assume that both phalanxes have the same width, or that the peltasts are successfully stopping the wider phalanx from flanking the deeper if numbers are the same.

Oh, I know: each phalanx is infinitely long and so has no flanks, and has the same number of men as the other regardless of the number of ranks. Phew.

In RTW, I would say this should be reflected in the morale scores of the individuals. Either give a bonus for being deeper than the enemy, or take say 4 or 5 (or perhaps "the normal depth for that troop type") off the base morale of every unit and add one for every rank they have of depth (perhaps capped at say 8 or 10). At normal depths there is no change, but you can choose to trade off frontage for morale.

Cheers,

Pell.R.

[CrusaderMan]

Pellinor:


I do not agree with your asessment that formations were just for show, neither that the last men on the phalanx would be the first to run off.

First of all you are trying to compare napoleonic war formations of musketeers with ancient phalangites: the differences are too obvious to enumerate but ill give you a clue; gunpowder.


Second of all you are providing the very sketchy observation that men in the rear lines yould run first due to them being scared from a battle they cannot see. I will say this: the largest number of casualties in the phalanx happened only when the phalanx formation broke up, prior to that it was minimal. Now, if the phalangites in the back rows did not push how then was the formation broken when they left (the phalanx certainly did not evaporate from the rear) and if neither phalanx broke, how were all the phalanx battles resolved, none of them lasted for long from what I know.

[Pellinor]

Pellinor:


I do not agree with your asessment that formations were just for show, neither that the last men on the phalanx would be the first to run off.

First of all you are trying to compare napoleonic war formations of musketeers with ancient phalangites: the differences are too obvious to enumerate but ill give you a clue; gunpowder.

Yes there are differences, but there are also similarities (which is rather the point of analogies). Why did Napoleon attack in columns, and why was he so successful, when the use of cannon and muskets would suggest that a large mass of men was just a big target? Why was it not better to split into two or more smaller (narrower, shallower, or both) columns to diffuse the incoming fire?

The only reason I can find is the morale factor: big masses of men are scary to the enemy, and comforting to the men in them.

One would predict that if the point of the column is to break the enemy's morale before they can do enough damage to the column to break it, then men with high morale (able to shrug off the imposing impression) in a line formation (to maximise damage to the column and break it quicker) should be able to stop it. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the British Army.

And didn't Napoleon have something to say about the relationship between the moral and the physical, in war?

Not conclusive, but suggestive.

Second of all you are providing the very sketchy observation that men in the rear lines yould run first due to them being scared from a battle they cannot see. I will say this: the largest number of casualties in the phalanx happened only when the phalanx formation broke up, prior to that it was minimal. Now, if the phalangites in the back rows did not push how then was the formation broken when they left (the phalanx certainly did not evaporate from the rear) and if neither phalanx broke, how were all the phalanx battles resolved, none of them lasted for long from what I know.

Can I ask a counter question? If the rear ranks are pushing against the front ranks, and the front ranks fled, where did they go?

You are arguing for a dense mass of men pushing forward and fighting in a confined space (I note that a 6' spear, never mind a 20' pike, is an impractical weapon for that fighting style): surely this completely precludes any chance of the front row moving anywhere except into the enemy. The only people who could flee (ignoring those who could fly or burrow into the ground) are those at the sides or at the back.

The choice for the people at the front is just to fight: if they turn to flee into the press of men behind they just put themselves into more danger: the enmy is just as close, cannot be avoided, and has your back to strike without fear of you striking back or defending yourself. As you say, most casualties were inflicted in the rout: if the front ranks started to flee first, then they would all die in the battle *before* the general rout spread. They'd probably caus the general rout by doing so, but they'd die in the front line.

My hypothesis is that the fighting was a bit looser (in general). The front ranks try to kill each other, while the next few ranks poke spears or pikes over their shoulders to help out and the rear ranks provide moral support. Occasionally people will get over-enthusiastic and push a bit, but this is not going to be liked much by those in the front rank (who are trying *not* to get speared). Victory goes to the side which breaks the enemy's morale first.

It is *not* a case of killing all the enemy, or disrupting their formation (though those may affect their morale): the quickest way to get an enemy off the battlefield is to induce him to use his own legs.

IMO, morale is affected by lots of factors - how loud your side is cheering, how imposing the paean was, whether you're being shot at by peltasts, whether your flanks are threatened, how high the enemy's horse-hair plumes are, who the generals are and how good they're reputed to be, whether the enemy are Spartans, when you last ate, how rapidly people are dying, etc.

The crucial factor in my view is what you think the man next to you is going to do. If he is going to break and run, then you ideally need to start running just before he does - you don't need to outrun the enemy, so long as you can outrun your friends. It's a Prisoner's Dilemma situation: if you all stay long enough you win because the enemy will break before your army does; but if you stay and he flees then you die. If you flee and he stays, you stand a better chance of living if your side loses; but on the other hand you may be reviled as a coward if your side wins, so you don't flee until you really think you need to.

Only the men at the back (and sides, but there are fewer of them) have the chance to flee. If they start to go, then the men in the next-to-last rank then get the same dilemma. However, they *know* that at least some of their comrades are scared enough to flee, so they can pretty safely conclude that others will: this is a good incentive to get out while the going's good, and thus a chain rout is triggered (snowball effect).

This is all hypothesis on my part; please feel free to pick holes in it, so long as you don;t mind me picking hole in your pick.

Cheers,

Pell.R.

[Kraxis]

Since Leuctra has been mentioned as the great "depth wins against width", I have to step in.
Leuctra was extremely close until the Sacred Band managed to outflank the Hippeis as the king. The very deep Theban phalanx could not budge the Spartans, and they actually lost many more hoplites in the actual fight that the Spartans. Each side lost about 400, but the Spartans lost them almost exclusively to the Sacred Band. Obviously the Spartans were winning until the flanking maneuver was finished.
Just to point out that depth didn't always win out, the Spartans and Thebans fought another battle some years prior. The Spartans and their allies under king Agesilaos (I think) fought the Thebans and a collection of allies near a lake. The Thebans managed to break the Spartans allies (allies who previously would be able to fight on an equal footing to the Thebans) while the Spartans broke the Theban allies. So now they both faced home but could not get there before defeating the other. So they had a go at each other, the Thebans in 25 ranks and the Spartans in 12. The fight was inconclusive but the Spartans claimed victory because the Thebans hadn't halted them in their campaign and had lost more men. This is the first instance of the deep phalanx, it was revolutionary because it managed to hold the Spartans in an equal fight, but it was far from a steamroller.

So, while I think the hoplites pushed each other they didn't do it very hard, it was more like they leaned onto each other (the first guys still needed to be able to fight). So with consecutive lines the added pusheffect deminished, meaning the second line added much more power than the 25th line.
The Spartans while perhaps a bit stronger than most others were obviously not twice as strong as normal hoplites, that is hard to believe. So somewhere down the line the pusheffect has to have been weakened dramatically, or perhaps it is true what Pellinor says, that the Spartan allies were broken by moraleissues rather than the push. But the Spartans being much more determined would not budge at all and so the depth failed to bring te desired results, though it did let the Theban phalanx stay in a fight it would normally have been beaten in.

Lastly, the underhand spear and the pusheffect is mutually exclusive. If the men behind the fronlines push, then the underhand spear is very dangerous to their thighs and groins, which were in fact the most unarmoured parts. The overhand spear can still be used even if the user is being pushed. Further, if the underhand spear was used then it is strange that the greaves were dropped rather than the heavy helmet, or that the toughest part of the linnen cuirass is the shoulders. Even earlier the hoplon (aspis) even had a leather skirt attached to the lower part to protect the groins and thighs from what is believed to have been stone bullets, javelins and arrows. But it could be that the hoplites went from underhand to overhand as the pusheffects were understood.

[CrusaderMan]

Ok, lets start all over again......

Yes there are differences, but there are also similarities (which is rather the point of analogies). Why did Napoleon attack in columns, and why was he so successful, when the use of cannon and muskets would suggest that a large mass of men was just a big target? Why was it not better to split into two or more smaller (narrower, shallower, or both) columns to diffuse the incoming fire?

The only reason I can find is the morale factor: big masses of men are scary to the enemy, and comforting to the men in them.

Really? that is like comparing a blowtorch to a lamp.... Maybe morale was not the only thing that won battles, and besides you are still refering to mostly R-A-N-G-E-D combat where marksmanship and morale were more important than cohesion and unified movement. If you thought more you would have found something more.

One would predict that if the point of the column is to break the enemy's morale before they can do enough damage to the column to break it, then men with high morale (able to shrug off the imposing impression) in a line formation (to maximise damage to the column and break it quicker) should be able to stop it. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the British Army.

And didn't Napoleon have something to say about the relationship between the moral and the physical, in war?

Not conclusive, but suggestive.

Yes, suggestive to various interpretations, too bad yours are all wrong.

Can I ask a counter question? If the rear ranks are pushing against the front ranks, and the front ranks fled, where did they go?

You are arguing for a dense mass of men pushing forward and fighting in a confined space (I note that a 6' spear, never mind a 20' pike, is an impractical weapon for that fighting style): surely this completely precludes any chance of the front row moving anywhere except into the enemy. The only people who could flee (ignoring those who could fly or burrow into the ground) are those at the sides or at the back.

Fly or bury themselves? Well you said that man.
What we know for phx vs phx combat is the following: it never lasted very long, the casualties during combat itself were very low. Why is that? because of the hoplite heavy armour and shield. The spear of the front rank broke off after some time and then the soldiers drew swords and tried to close in, with the second rank supporting them with spear thrusts. There was no chance for the guys in the front to go anywhere, or fly or bury themselves as you have very astutely pointed, and the last ranks did not gradually evaporate from the rear of the phalanx while the battle raged on, like you suggested, unless of course they were total cowards. Besides there is not a single piece of evidence saying that. So how then did you break then a large formation of steady men holding their ground and covered behind heavy shields? Pushing them with a similar formation of stronger men with better coordination with each other would result in several men of the front ranks losing their balance (especially if they were woulded) and other men frantically trying to walk backwards in the safety of the formation which in all probability lead to them getting a spear through their right shoulder or their belly. For the people in the back ranks actually WATCHING me massacre in front and OBSERVING the enemy closing in through their ruined formation and KNOWING that all is lost this would be enough, they would break off and run, with the ones in the front following as best they could ie those who were not engaged in mortal combat, crippled or cut off. But of course, like you said the reasons above were the only ones you could think of.

My hypothesis is that the fighting was a bit looser (in general). The front ranks try to kill each other, while the next few ranks poke spears or pikes over their shoulders to help out and the rear ranks provide moral support. Occasionally people will get over-enthusiastic and push a bit, but this is not going to be liked much by those in the front rank (who are trying *not* to get speared). Victory goes to the side which breaks the enemy's morale first.

It is *not* a case of killing all the enemy, or disrupting their formation (though those may affect their morale): the quickest way to get an enemy off the battlefield is to induce him to use his own legs.

And there is no better way to do that than kill him or disrupt his formation, if you know something about the strengths and weaknesses of the phalanx you should know that. You seem to be contradicting yourself alot.

IMO, morale is affected by lots of factors - how loud your side is cheering, how imposing the paean was, whether you're being shot at by peltasts, whether your flanks are threatened, how high the enemy's horse-hair plumes are, who the generals are and how good they're reputed to be, whether the enemy are Spartans, when you last ate, how rapidly people are dying, etc.

The crucial factor in my view is what you think the man next to you is going to do. If he is going to break and run, then you ideally need to start running just before he does - you don't need to outrun the enemy, so long as you can outrun your friends. It's a Prisoner's Dilemma situation: if you all stay long enough you win because the enemy will break before your army does; but if you stay and he flees then you die. If you flee and he stays, you stand a better chance of living if your side loses; but on the other hand you may be reviled as a coward if your side wins, so you don't flee until you really think you need to.

Yes well all this is pure hypothesis with no proof whatsoever (i.e. bullsh*t).
Maybe you should put your historical RTW knowledge into actual reality. And someone who runs during battle and before anything decicive has happened is not a coward, he is worse, a deserter.

Only the men at the back (and sides, but there are fewer of them) have the chance to flee. If they start to go, then the men in the next-to-last rank then get the same dilemma. However, they *know* that at least some of their comrades are scared enough to flee, so they can pretty safely conclude that others will: this is a good incentive to get out while the going's good, and thus a chain rout is triggered (snowball effect).

It is very unlikely that the majority of hoplites were cowards who would run at the sight of the enemy advancing. Once again you need to read some history.

This is all hypothesis on my part; please feel free to pick holes in it, so long as you don;t mind me picking hole in your pick.

Picking holes? you better shut up, read a good book.

I wonder if the persian front rank at Marathon got scared of the hoplites and flew or buried itself.


Also on the point of the deep Theban formations not moving the spartans: It is very difficult to have twelve men in a column push one another with their shields in the same direction and with all their strength and maintain their formation. Maybe such a push did occur but the well drilled spartans (I read somewhere about columns of men training together on bringing down trees) won through. Maybe the front ranks of the thebans were less enthusiastic at getting in range of the spartans deadly aim (casualties were quite high as you said in the theban side) or probably it was a combination of both. This proves only one thing, that the spartans were the undisputed masters of the phalanx, something that we already know.