How mobile was the Macedonian phalanx?

[The_Blacksmith]

i read post this the other day and i thought to my self "I wanna try jog with a 4 meter long stick"... and I did so, and it worked... for 2 minutes, then i was exhausted

but my assesment of the "running pikes" is YES:a well drilled formation with really endurant men can do it... but, it could turn into a game of mikado if they are not carefull... the teqhnique is for the guys in front row to use their right hand held relatively close to the counterweight, to push it down... and the rest is easy peasy...

[QuintusSertorius]

i read post this the other day and i thought to my self "I wanna try jog with a 4 meter long stick"... and I did so, and it worked... for 2 minutes, then i was exhausted

but my assesment of the "running pikes" is YES:a well drilled formation with really endurant men can do it... but, it could turn into a game of mikado if they are not carefull... the teqhnique is for the guys in front row to use their right hand held relatively close to the counterweight, to push it down... and the rest is easy peasy...

This is the thing, one guy could do it. But 256 trying to stay in formation?

[Populus Romanus]

If they have been training at it for years, then yes, they probably could pull that off.

[fomalhaut]

This is the thing, one guy could do it. But 256 trying to stay in formation?

If their profession is combat then i don't see it as unlikely. Not that professionals were really common i don't think

[jirisys]

This is the thing, one guy could do it. But 256 trying to stay in formation?

256 hundred you mean?

Maybe 256 dozens, but you cannot part it that small or else it would be quasi-useless, I agree the lochagos can see to the few men he has under his command but remember this is not a manipular or cohortal army.

~Jirisys ()

[QuintusSertorius]

256 hundred you mean?

Maybe 256 dozens, but you cannot part it that small or else it would be quasi-useless, I agree the lochagos can see to the few men he has under his command but remember this is not a manipular or cohortal army.

~Jirisys ()

No, I just meant one syntagma as the smallest possible tactical unit of the phalanx. If that small a number would struggle to do it, then a full taxeis or bigger would make it impossible.

[fallen851]

I actually read a good book on this topic.

Anyway, the quick summary is that Alexander's Phalanx was highly mobile, and could change directions very quickly.

After his death, phalanx formations became deeper, used longer spears and the soldiers had heavier armor. This meant they could easily overwhelm one of Alexander's formations in a head on fight and stood a better chance against elephants that became common in Sucessor Armies. However, they became increasingly immobile and unable to manuver. The result was that flank attacks were devastating, and soldiers often just fled when the threat of a flank attack occured, since their spears were so long and often were intertwined between the ranks of many of their peers in front of them that they had no way of turning to meet their enemy.

So the answer is quite complex. Over time they became increasingly heavier armed and armored, because when one nation increases ranks and spear length, all nations have to, because the phalanx with the deeper ranks, longer spears and heavier armor wins in a head to head fight. The result is that this left them vulnerable in other areas, and made them a very one dimensional unit, which led to the rise of many types of support units that surrounded their flanks. So the answer is that it really depends on what period you are looking at the phalanx. The earlier you go, the more mobile the unit is.

[QuintusSertorius]

Interesting, so there was perhaps, as time went on, a move away from quality of training towards quality of equipment?

[fallen851]

Absolutely. Phalanx equipment keep growing (longer spears and heavier armor) until it finally the physical limitations of man, so physical strength played an increasing role, even as the training waned. Deeper ranks also meant more men to train, and thus each man wasn't as well trained, and also their training was focused on head on fights.

[QuintusSertorius]

There's an article on Iphikrates' reforms and how they impacted the Macedonian (and thus Successor) phalanx. Some interesting bits:

It is often remarked how similar the equipment of an Iphikratean hoplite is to that of a Macedonian phalangite.24 Philip is credited with inventing the equipment as well as the order of the Macedonian phalanx in or soon after 359 BC, which should probably be taken as a reference to the invention of sarissa (pike), since the other items of equipment said to be carried by Phlilips' men by Polyainos, helmets, greaves and shield, were clearly already in existence, even in Macedonia.25 The spear of a hoplite is usually reckoned as being somewhat under 6 cubits long, about 8 feet. By Diodoros' account, the Iphikratean spear would thus be 8 cubits long, or 12 feet, and hence still shorter than a Macedonian sarissa which had a minimum length of 10 cubits, 15 feet, and was normally 12 cubits or 18 feet long, although later Hellenistic phalanxes apparently used pikes 14 cubits long.26 By Nepos' somewhat less reliable account, the spear would be about 16 feet long which would put it in the sarissa range, although it is hard to see how such a weapon would be wielded one handed, and if it was wielded two handed, Iphikrates would be the inventor of the phalangite, not Philip. It is more likely Nepos' source considered that a normal hoplite's spear was less than 8' long and indeed many artistic depictions show hoplite spears 7 foot long or even slightly less, which would put the Iphikratid spear at under 14 feet long.

It is widely appreciated that Philip is likely to have picked up many of his tactical ideas from living for a time in the house of Pammanes, close friend of that great tactical innovator, the Theban general Epameinondas. It is not generally appreciated however that Philip was even more closely related to Iphikrates, who was Philip's own brother by the adoption carried out by Philip's father Amyntas.27 Philip could not but help but have been aware of Iphikrates' reforms.

The Macedonian army before Philip's time relied on its aristocratic cavalry. It included a few hoplites, but the majority of the men were essentially an ill-armed and untrained rabble.28 Thukydides implies that the infantry situation improved somewhat just before the start of the 4th century, but it is evident from the number of times the Thracians and especially the Illyrians overran the country over the next 50 years that they were still not up to the task of defending the borders, let alone catapulting Macedonia onto the world stage.

Philip took Iphikrates' reforms as his model and adapted them to his own needs. He needed to equip himself with an infantry force that could fight competently in hand-to-hand, in a phalanx, and to do so as cheaply as possible since he would have to pay for it personally, rather than his infantrymen, who being essentially peasants, not middle-class city dwellers, could not possibly afford to do so themselves. Iphikrates had pointed the way. The Macedonians were already using a bronze shield before his time, but it was not the aspis of the Greek hoplite, as it was smaller, between 60 and 75 cm in diameter, and lacked the characteristic rim of the Greek aspis - in other words, something of a hybrid between the traditional pelta and the Argive aspis. It was probably introduced by Archelaos, who sometime between 413/2 BC and 400/399 BC according to Thukidydes (2.100) "reorganised the cavalry, the arming of the infantry, and equipment in general", and the first depictions of it indeed come from circa 400 BC.29 It may have been adapted from the neighbouring Illyrians. The southern Illyrians bordering Macedonia used round shields that are extremely similar to those used by the Macedonians.

While such shields might have been equipped with an Argive-style shield grip, their smaller size meant that the position of the forearm brace would have been different from that in a Greek aspis. Equipping such a shield with a Greek-style grip in the same relative positions as a Greek aspis rather than a pelta, so that the forearm brace retained its position near the centre of the shield, would mean that the hand would be positioned much closer to the edge of the shield. This would normally be a disadavantage in terms of balancing the shield and protecting the hand, but it would allow the hand to grip a spear despite the curvature of the shield.31 This I believe was Philip's first military innovation: providing the Balkan bronze pelta with a shield grip in the Greek manner positioned so that the hand was right at the rim of the shield.32 The length of the Greek spear, as carried by Iphikrates' men, had been limited by the requirement for it to be wielded in one hand, but with a two handed grip it could now be lengthened even further and become a true pike. Providing his army with even these arms would have overtaxed the finances of the country at the time, and no doubt only officers got the full kit of greaves, pike, bronze shield and helmet. Even they would not have had armour for the torso, and rear rankers probably had to be content with bare legs or boots (krepides), a cheap mass-produced wicker pelta and a helmet fashioned from leather.33

Unlike a spear, which retains some utility in single combat, a pike is essentially useless outside a compact phalanx. The formation, in both senses of the word, of the Macedonian phalanx, gave Philip an infantry force that was capable of standing up to Greek hoplites in open battle. If it was to retain any strategic utility however, its men needed to be able to fight outside the confines of the phalanx. As with most peoples living in an area surrounded by hills, the traditional Macedonian weapon was the javelin. Philip ensured that his men were trained in the use of both weapons, and carried whichever was the most appropriate for the occasion, so that his infantry could fulfill the role of both hoplite and peltast as need be.34 When marching through broken country, javelins were carried: Polyainos relates how when Onomarchos' Phokian's ambushed Philip's men, they were able to fight back at a distance.35 Similarly, a pike was of little use when assaulting a city, when troops had to climb ladders up walls and inside seige towers, so the javelin was carried in this situation as well.36

Philip's brutally efficient training programme, backed by his autocratic royal power, ensured his men lived up to his expectations. Training men to use two sorts of weapons with equal facility is no easy task, and very few other classes of warriors over the millenia have ever attained such dexterity; the few that readily spring to mind are mostly aristocratic steppe horsemen accustomed to both lance and bow. Training his men to use two weapons that required a completely different formation to fight with, a rigid pike phalanx against the loose order required to hurl javelins, made the achievment all the more outstanding, especially given the inclusive nature of his reforms - it was the entire national levy that was so trained, and not just a picked elite. The result was that not only could Philip eventually come to count on troops as good as any opposition could field, but he would have numbers of his side as well.

This then was the force that Alexander inherited from his father for the conquest of Persia. The evolution of the Macedonian infantry proceeded under Alexander. As already noted, the phalanx had acquired body armour by the seige of Tyre at the very latest, possibly non-metallic, as it was burnt when it was replaced with elaborately decorated cuirasses while in India.37 Expansion of the army entailed reorganisational changes,38 and at his death, Alexander was experimenting with a radically new type of phalanx, incorporating javelinmen and archers in its rear ranks, but it was never used in action. Upon his death, his generals carved his empire up amongst themselves. Quality troops were at a premium, and no-one could afford to dilute the effectiveness of their most valuable units with such Persian missile troops. The struggles of the Diadochoi, the Successors, however set off a new round in the evolution of Hellenistic infantry...

The key interesting point here is that under Philip, phalangites were trained as both heavy infantry and skirmisher. But that role diminished over time as they focused solely on being heavy infantry.

[IrishHitman]

The reference to Alexander literally scaring an enemy into submission with precise phalanx movements is described in Arrian in the early part of his rule, before Thebes got owned I believe.

[fomalhaut]

The reference to Alexander literally scaring an enemy into submission with precise phalanx movements is described in Arrian in the early part of his rule, before Thebes got owned I believe.

yes it was quite early in his career, i figured it was either right before he left greece or right after. When i read that i was just, dang, there really isn't any force as well trained as that and his quick work of Persia really showed that. It wasn't until Porus that he seemed to be challenged to the highest degree.

I read an article in an Ancient Warfare magazine contending that the Macedonian Armies up until their ultimate defeat were actually more disciplined than the Roman Legions, yet did not resort to the very brutal reprucussions used to keep discipline found in the Roman Army.

It was actually argued that the reason the Roman army had to resort to such brutal forms of discipline because of a relative lack of overall drilled discipline and punishment by death was a necessary measure to keep basic composure.

Macedonian infractions were punishable mostly by fees, but they were systematically so based on a written set of rules. It also mentioned the Hypaspists as a police/guard type of force when camp was set up.

[Randal]

Well, the early legions were semi-professional semi-militia forces, organised on an ad-hoc basis. It doesn't surprise me that the professional soldiers of the Macedonian army were more professional and more disciplined to boot, and that the Romans chose to use more extreme measures to quickly instil discipline in their non-professional forces, especially when newly raised.

[QuintusSertorius]

It comes down to differing traditions. Romans had always been willing to submit themselves to a harsh disciplinary regime when serving in the legions. Macedonians had a different way.

[Basileus_ton_Basileon]

I think it boils down to culture. Makedonia, after all consists more of mountain villages than actual poleis. They've long been accustomed to low intensity warfare of defending their homes from those 'pesky' barbarians.

[fomalhaut]

I think it boils down to culture. Makedonia, after all consists more of mountain villages than actual poleis. They've long been accustomed to low intensity warfare of defending their homes from those 'pesky' barbarians.

but weren't the Roman's always in some form of warfare, one way or another? They even have the familiar hyper patriotism attributed to that in order to justify aggressive acts. It seems a very systematic set of rules would have been established pre marian (this is when they become a professional force yes?) on par with Macedonian military. Even if Phalanx warfare was slowly becoming the old way there is still a lot to take from the home of conquerers of 'the world'

I certainly see the purpose of decimatio when dealing with levied militias but still. Excuse my ignorance on the subject but the reading just came to a very big surprise to me

[QuintusSertorius]

but weren't the Roman's always in some form of warfare, one way or another? They even have the familiar hyper patriotism attributed to that in order to justify aggressive acts. It seems a very systematic set of rules would have been established pre marian (this is when they become a professional force yes?) on par with Macedonian military. Even if Phalanx warfare was slowly becoming the old way there is still a lot to take from the home of conquerers of 'the world'

I certainly see the purpose of decimatio when dealing with levied militias but still. Excuse my ignorance on the subject but the reading just came to a very big surprise to me

The point is the Romans were a more settled people living in a safer region (the odd Celtic incursion aside for those north of Rome). Even when the conflicts with the Samnites were going on, they were more ordered affairs than the fairly constant feuding, raiding and cattle-theft that went on in rural Macedonia. Not to mention regular Thracian incursions.

[Basileus_ton_Basileon]

The point is the Romans were a more settled people living in a safer region (the odd Celtic incursion aside for those north of Rome). Even when the conflicts with the Samnites were going on, they were more ordered affairs than the fairly constant feuding, raiding and cattle-theft that went on in rural Macedonia. Not to mention regular Thracian incursions.

You forgot them Illyrians, the main source or woe for the last hundred years until Phillip came along. Piecemeal hoplite warfare is simple ill suited for Makedonia to defend her lands.

[jirisys]

You forgot them Illyrians, the main source or woe for the last hundred years until Phillip came along. Piecemeal hoplite warfare is simple ill suited for Makedonia to defend her lands.

Didn't illyrians have mercenary hoplites?

~Jirisys ()

[antisocialmunky]

Everyone did. :\