03-30-2014, 06:30 PM
I have always argued that the Macedonian phalanx was ON the battlefield as "nimble" as all heavy infantry lines tasked to fight it out in close combat. However, this is not what you ask here, so I will stick to the OP. Sarisa long pikes were long during Alexander's times and we have information that some generals made them even longer for their armies, but this does not mean that they were of a universal length. Antiochos' sarisas may well have been of a different length to those of Pyrrhus or Mithridates. The length of the sarisa itself is not a real factor of flexibility on the field. However, more weight tires the men more, more length may make the pikes less rigid, will disturb the balance of the pike if not very well balanced. So, although not "less flexible", overall efficiency often suffers when the complexity of the construction of a weapon increases.
We have attestation that it was attempted to make the pikes in front less lengthy than those in the back, so that more of them would be able to take part in the actual combat. However, this stepped variance of length also has its use. You see, it is not difficult to slip past one of those pike points but there is no point in doing so, if then you get to face another one pointing at you behind it and others waiting behind it for your next attempt to slip past.
We have attestation that it was attempted to make the pikes in front less lengthy than those in the back, so that more of them would be able to take part in the actual combat. However, this stepped variance of length also has its use. You see, it is not difficult to slip past one of those pike points but there is no point in doing so, if then you get to face another one pointing at you behind it and others waiting behind it for your next attempt to slip past.
