Phalanx

[WriterNotViking]

I'm still not convinced. The arguments seem to be that they couldn't get round the sides due to terrain or enemy light troops. I don't believ the terrain was always or ever that bad and it would be just aslikely for one side to defeat the others light trops and then be able to atack the flanks.

Also The Phalanxs where not always the same size so it would be possible to sorround the smaller Phalanx. Imagine you where the last man on the side of the Phalanx, it would be very tempting to try and flank the enemy if you see an open flank.

Therefore i can not see disadvantages for having spears protruding from the sides.

Francis

I don't think of myself as possessing anywhere near the level of knowledge as some of the major contributors here, but it strikes me that having men face outward on the flanks creates at least three problems:

1) If you are on the left flank, near the front (say, first column, second row) and you aim your spear to the left, the back end of your weapon cuts across the men behind you, who are facing forward. The potential for obstructing or even wounding your compatriots seems substantial.

2) The wings are weakened. If the men on the left flank face left, they are not supporting those in the first line, or lines. The first four rows, at least, would have to face forward, so these men would remain vulnerable from the sides.

3) It would be impossible to advance in such a formation. I believe the hollow square, which has been described as becoming stronger the more it was compressed, was an exclusively defensive formation. Battlefield manoeuvers in those days seem to have been hard to execute effectively, and I can only imagine the difficulty of trying to advance with some of your men walking sideways. Even if this formation was only adopted after engaging the enemy, the effect of reforming at that time would be more likely to disrupt the line rather than add to its defensive capacity.