Question about Phalangitai

[JeffBag]

Considering that Phalangitai were spaced between 1.5 to 3 feet apart, and that both their hands were holding the sarissa, is it possible for any member in the square to be pushing their mates forward? If there weren't any pushing, I doubt the phalanx could have its massive forward power only through the display of spears, especially against professional heavy infantry. So, was there any pushing done in the formation, and if so, how was it possible?

[CountArach]

Well don't quote me on it, but considering it was a development of the Greek phalanx, which relied entirely on your ability to push effectively, then I would say that yes, there was a lot of pushing done.

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

The 1.5-3ft apart applies to the distance between files (vertical lines from birds view) I think.

[L.C.Cinna]

Good question.

I don't think the hellenistic phalanx has such a strong push. I mean it doesn't seem possible and useful. If they hold their pikes 2handed and the backrows would push the ranks with the sarissa lowered can't use their pikes anymore. a spacing between the ranks is needed so they can use their pikes. so no pushing from the rear i guess.

The classic phalanx was all about the push and its main instrument the shield, the spears being only secondary. There you push forward with the shield against the back of the guy in front of you until the enemy line breakes.the chance to inflict bigger damage with the spear is very limited.at least that's how it works in phalanx vs phalanx. against the persians for example they fought slightly different (see Kunaxa for example).

The main instrument of the pike phalanx is the pike to keep the enemy at distance.

They are 2 completely different things imho although having the same roots.

[O'ETAIPOS]

The big problem is we will probably never know. Reconstuction of basic formation is not fully certain, and the more important things like how they fought, what was the pike drill, how they kept formation and how it all worked together are just impossible for us to know.

We can only guess and imagine you try to guess about US marine training if you only know short descriptons of one of the landings from II world war in Pacyfic and from fighting in Iraq AD 2003.

[Watchman]

Still, every guy who had his pike leveled also had the sharp sauroter pointing behind him right at the level of his mates' guts. And since it was quite a few of the first ranks holding theirs level, the must've been "angled" off a bit to their right to clear the ranks before them properly one would think. And since the pikes aren't going to be worth much unless the phalangites actually stab with them most of the time, those sharp butt ferrules are going to be moving back and forth a fair bit.

...doesn't sound to me like pushing the front ranks shieldwall-style was either tactically viable or very healthy for the rear ranks...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Polbius says three feet all around, so the pike goes to your right and you then have three feet clearence behind just to make sure you don't scewer the guy in back.

That doesn't preclude pushing with pike though, the difference would be that the push would be more from the threat of been scewer by five pikes, rather than by weight of men. Which effectively means five ranks are as effective as sixteen, though the latter allows you depth, angled pikes to protect against missiles and a less vulnerable flank.

[JeffBag]

Maybe the 16 ranks gave the option of pushing, in that they could raise the pikes to vertical, cramp in close, and push, just like the pikemen of the renaissance, who could resolve pike fights by a pike push rather than just stabbing.

[Watchman]

I don't think the later pikemen actually physically pushed their comrades. Or at least what I've read of them doesn't suggest anything of the sort. "Push of pike" AFAIK rather refers to the two pike blocks "pushing" against each other until one broke under the pressure.

Mind you, they also found out during the Thirty Years' War that "thin" pike formations were quite the equals of "deep" ones head on. There would doubtless have been a difference had the clashes been drawn out into attrition matches, but that wasn't how infantry battles were normally resolved by that time - and when they were the attrition was supplied by massed arquebuses and regimental artillery blasting at each other at uncomfortably short ranges. As might be imagined the senior officers hated that sort of developement as much as the rank and file, as it wasted a lot of trained men for very uncertain outcome...

[JeffBag]

Yes thats what I was talking about, the push of pike. As I mentioned, the pikes would have to be raised to near vertical by the entire unit before that could happen.

True about the Thirty Year's War, but pikes were no longer as decisive nor important in attack as they were in the Italian Wars; they were more for supporting the gunners than soloing the enemy formation.

[Watchman]

What I was trying to say is that the "push" in "push of pike" mainly involved pushing the long pointy things in the opposing pikemens' guts... One important job of shock troops like Doppelsoldners with their halberds and two-handed swords and the Spanish sword-and-buckler men was to create gaps in the enemy ranks which their own pikemen could slowly start widening, which would (hopefully) eventually lead to a loss of formation cohesion and therefore collapse. Mass combat is all about inducing the other guy to panic first after all, not slaying him where he stands. That's only a means to the end.