05-20-2021, 08:07 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-20-2021, 09:46 AM by Justin Swanton.)
My own take is that there were quite a few differences, and the Macedonian and Successor phalanx had no difficulty defeating the hoplite phalanx. I go into some detail in this in my book. :-)
First, the sarissa. It was never a short weapon, and much longer than the Greek dory. Vase paintings show dories about one and a half times longer than the height of a hoplite. Since the average height of a Greek in Antiquity was about 170cm, that gives a dory length of between 230cm to 280cm, a little under 8 feet to a little over 9 feet.
The sarissa came in two lengths, the first 8 - 12 cubits (12 - 18 feet):
… their spear, moreover, is not shorter than ten cubits, so that the part which projects in front of the rank is to be no less than eight cubits – in no case, however, is it longer than twelve cubits, so as to project ten cubits. – Asklepiodotus, Tactics: 5.1.
The spear should not be shorter than 8 cubits and the longest pike should not exceed a length that allows a man to wield it effectively. – Aelian, Tactics: 12.
Theophrastos, writing at the time of the death of Alexander, gives 12 cubits as the longest length of a sarissa:
The height of the ‘male’ tree [of the Cornelian Cherry] is at most twelve cubits, the length of the longest sarissa, the stem up to the point where it divides not being very tall. – Causes of Plants: 3.12.
The second length was 16 cubits, later reduced to 14:
The length of the sarissas, when the phalanx was first created, was 16 cubits but is, in fact, now 14 cubits. – Aelian, Tactics: 14.
… the length of the sarissae is sixteen cubits according to the original design, which has been reduced in practice to fourteen. – Polybius, Histories: 18.29.
Polyaenus, describing Cleonymus’s (end 4th century – beginning 3rd century BC) siege of Edessa in Macedonia, gives 16 cubits:
At the siege of Edessa a breach was made in the walls, the phalangites, whose sarissas were sixteen cubits long, sallied out against the assailants. – Stratagems: 2.29.
It is quite possible reconcile these two lengths. Asklepiodotus and after him Arrian described the sarissa as it was originally conceived under Philip and Alexander. This is the 8–12 cubit weapon. Theophrastes, writing in 322 BC, gives this length. Polyaenus gives a length of 16 cubits for Macedonian sarissas around the year 300 BC. This is the ‘original design’ of Polybios, which had been reduced to 14 cubits by the battle of Pydna (168 bc). This 16 to 14 cubit reduction is echoed by Aelian. The sarissa started out as a shorter weapon but quickly increased to 16 cubits as rival Successor pike phalanxes tried to gain an advantage in reach against each other, eventually settling back to 14 cubits as the longest realistically manageable length. Even the shortest sarissa easily outranged the dory that was no longer than 6 cubits (9 feet).
The really interesting part though is how the pike phalanx fought. What really surprised me is the fact that the sources are abundantly clear on this: the pike phalanx, like the hoplite phalanx, practised othismos, applying pressure against the enemy with all the ranks in order to drive him back. It's in black and white in the tacticians' manuals:
Just as a sword presents the effect of its edge, increased by the stroke and the weight of the iron towards its back, so the rank of file leaders may be considered the edge of the phalanx, receiving its power, impetus and momentum from the mass of men that presses forward from the rear. Similarly, attention must be paid to those in the second rank, for the pikes of those within it are projected forward together with those of the front rank and, being positioned immediately behind the latter, are of great use in emergencies – Aelian, Tactics: 13.
Compactly [literally ‘in a circle’] they stand back successively so that each hoplite [phalangite in this context] in the front is covered by six sarissas and presses on with six forces whenever they bear down. Those standing in the sixth row press on with the weight of their bodies, if not with their sarissas, so that the phalanx’s push against the foes does not become endurable and flight [becomes] difficult for the front row men. – Arrian, Tactics: 12.
And the Macedonians, men say, with this line of spears do not merely terrify the enemy by their appearance, but also embolden every file-leader, protected as he is by the strength of five; while the men in the line behind the fifth, though they cannot extend their spears beyond the front of the phalanx, nevertheless bear forward with their bodies at all events and deprive their comrades in the front ranks of any hope of flight. But some, who wish to bring all the projecting spear-points to the same distance in front of the line, increase the length of the spears of the rear ranks. – Asklepiodotus, Tactics: 5.
Of these sixteen ranks, all above the fifth are unable to reach with their sarissas far enough to take actual part in the fighting. They, therefore, do not lower them, but hold them with the points
inclined upwards over the shoulders of the ranks in front of them, to shield the heads of the whole phalanx; for the sarissae are so closely serried, that they repel missiles which have carried over the front ranks and might fall upon the heads of those in the rear. These rear ranks, however, during an advance, press forward those in front by the weight of their bodies; and thus make the charge very forcible, and at the same time render it impossible for the front ranks to face about. – Polybios, Histories: 18.30.
How was this pressure transmitted to the enemy? Only one possible way: by jamming the sarissa pikeheads into the shields (or ideally bodies) of the enemy troops. Plutarch mentions that "the Macedonian battalions had already planted the tips of their long spears in the shields of the Romans, who were thus prevented from reaching them with their swords."
Hoplites could not win an othismos contest with phalangites for two reasons: first, the phalangites' sarissas were jammed in their shields whilst their dories could not reach the phalangite shields. So if the othismos pressure became too great, it was the hoplite shields that would be pierced and the hoplites killed. This made it inevitable that they would give way if they saw the sarissa spearpoints penetrating their aspides.
Secondly, the phalangites, with smaller shields, were able to deploy in close order at 1 cubit or 48cm per file. The closest the hoplites could deploy with overlapping shields was about 60cm per file (any closer and shield rims would knock against elbows of adjacent files). So about 3 phalangite files could oppose 2 hoplite files, supplying 50% more pressure than the hoplites could bring to bear. They simply had no chance.
My own take is that this use of othismos was not effective if the pike phalanx was fighting uphill. This is what happened at Chaeronea. The Athenians were deployed on a hill and were able to hold against the Macedonian phalanx that had jammed their sarissas into the hoplite shields. Anticipating this, Philip ordered the pike phalanx to fall back several hundred yards until they reached high ground and were now uphill of the Athenians. The phalangites had no problem doing this since they were trained professional troops. The Athenians were driven back and - since recoiling for a non-professional hoplite phalanx was a sure signal of defeat - they eventually broke and ran.
A hoplite phalanx's only chance then against a pike phalanx was to defend an elevated position like a river bank (Issus), raised field defences (Sellasia) or similar high ground. But in that position it could not defeat the pike phalanx, only hold its ground until it was eventually outflanked.
As regards the hypaspists, a pike phalanx subunit could not wheel with pikes lowered so I suspect the hypaspists were hoplite-equipped in order to be able to outflank the left of the enemy line in classic hoplite fashion (or more accurately Spartan fashion). We need to realise that in all points the pike phalanx was an evolution of the hoplite phalanx and in many regards worked in a similar albeit more effective way.
First, the sarissa. It was never a short weapon, and much longer than the Greek dory. Vase paintings show dories about one and a half times longer than the height of a hoplite. Since the average height of a Greek in Antiquity was about 170cm, that gives a dory length of between 230cm to 280cm, a little under 8 feet to a little over 9 feet.
The sarissa came in two lengths, the first 8 - 12 cubits (12 - 18 feet):
… their spear, moreover, is not shorter than ten cubits, so that the part which projects in front of the rank is to be no less than eight cubits – in no case, however, is it longer than twelve cubits, so as to project ten cubits. – Asklepiodotus, Tactics: 5.1.
The spear should not be shorter than 8 cubits and the longest pike should not exceed a length that allows a man to wield it effectively. – Aelian, Tactics: 12.
Theophrastos, writing at the time of the death of Alexander, gives 12 cubits as the longest length of a sarissa:
The height of the ‘male’ tree [of the Cornelian Cherry] is at most twelve cubits, the length of the longest sarissa, the stem up to the point where it divides not being very tall. – Causes of Plants: 3.12.
The second length was 16 cubits, later reduced to 14:
The length of the sarissas, when the phalanx was first created, was 16 cubits but is, in fact, now 14 cubits. – Aelian, Tactics: 14.
… the length of the sarissae is sixteen cubits according to the original design, which has been reduced in practice to fourteen. – Polybius, Histories: 18.29.
Polyaenus, describing Cleonymus’s (end 4th century – beginning 3rd century BC) siege of Edessa in Macedonia, gives 16 cubits:
At the siege of Edessa a breach was made in the walls, the phalangites, whose sarissas were sixteen cubits long, sallied out against the assailants. – Stratagems: 2.29.
It is quite possible reconcile these two lengths. Asklepiodotus and after him Arrian described the sarissa as it was originally conceived under Philip and Alexander. This is the 8–12 cubit weapon. Theophrastes, writing in 322 BC, gives this length. Polyaenus gives a length of 16 cubits for Macedonian sarissas around the year 300 BC. This is the ‘original design’ of Polybios, which had been reduced to 14 cubits by the battle of Pydna (168 bc). This 16 to 14 cubit reduction is echoed by Aelian. The sarissa started out as a shorter weapon but quickly increased to 16 cubits as rival Successor pike phalanxes tried to gain an advantage in reach against each other, eventually settling back to 14 cubits as the longest realistically manageable length. Even the shortest sarissa easily outranged the dory that was no longer than 6 cubits (9 feet).
The really interesting part though is how the pike phalanx fought. What really surprised me is the fact that the sources are abundantly clear on this: the pike phalanx, like the hoplite phalanx, practised othismos, applying pressure against the enemy with all the ranks in order to drive him back. It's in black and white in the tacticians' manuals:
Just as a sword presents the effect of its edge, increased by the stroke and the weight of the iron towards its back, so the rank of file leaders may be considered the edge of the phalanx, receiving its power, impetus and momentum from the mass of men that presses forward from the rear. Similarly, attention must be paid to those in the second rank, for the pikes of those within it are projected forward together with those of the front rank and, being positioned immediately behind the latter, are of great use in emergencies – Aelian, Tactics: 13.
Compactly [literally ‘in a circle’] they stand back successively so that each hoplite [phalangite in this context] in the front is covered by six sarissas and presses on with six forces whenever they bear down. Those standing in the sixth row press on with the weight of their bodies, if not with their sarissas, so that the phalanx’s push against the foes does not become endurable and flight [becomes] difficult for the front row men. – Arrian, Tactics: 12.
And the Macedonians, men say, with this line of spears do not merely terrify the enemy by their appearance, but also embolden every file-leader, protected as he is by the strength of five; while the men in the line behind the fifth, though they cannot extend their spears beyond the front of the phalanx, nevertheless bear forward with their bodies at all events and deprive their comrades in the front ranks of any hope of flight. But some, who wish to bring all the projecting spear-points to the same distance in front of the line, increase the length of the spears of the rear ranks. – Asklepiodotus, Tactics: 5.
Of these sixteen ranks, all above the fifth are unable to reach with their sarissas far enough to take actual part in the fighting. They, therefore, do not lower them, but hold them with the points
inclined upwards over the shoulders of the ranks in front of them, to shield the heads of the whole phalanx; for the sarissae are so closely serried, that they repel missiles which have carried over the front ranks and might fall upon the heads of those in the rear. These rear ranks, however, during an advance, press forward those in front by the weight of their bodies; and thus make the charge very forcible, and at the same time render it impossible for the front ranks to face about. – Polybios, Histories: 18.30.
How was this pressure transmitted to the enemy? Only one possible way: by jamming the sarissa pikeheads into the shields (or ideally bodies) of the enemy troops. Plutarch mentions that "the Macedonian battalions had already planted the tips of their long spears in the shields of the Romans, who were thus prevented from reaching them with their swords."
Hoplites could not win an othismos contest with phalangites for two reasons: first, the phalangites' sarissas were jammed in their shields whilst their dories could not reach the phalangite shields. So if the othismos pressure became too great, it was the hoplite shields that would be pierced and the hoplites killed. This made it inevitable that they would give way if they saw the sarissa spearpoints penetrating their aspides.
Secondly, the phalangites, with smaller shields, were able to deploy in close order at 1 cubit or 48cm per file. The closest the hoplites could deploy with overlapping shields was about 60cm per file (any closer and shield rims would knock against elbows of adjacent files). So about 3 phalangite files could oppose 2 hoplite files, supplying 50% more pressure than the hoplites could bring to bear. They simply had no chance.
My own take is that this use of othismos was not effective if the pike phalanx was fighting uphill. This is what happened at Chaeronea. The Athenians were deployed on a hill and were able to hold against the Macedonian phalanx that had jammed their sarissas into the hoplite shields. Anticipating this, Philip ordered the pike phalanx to fall back several hundred yards until they reached high ground and were now uphill of the Athenians. The phalangites had no problem doing this since they were trained professional troops. The Athenians were driven back and - since recoiling for a non-professional hoplite phalanx was a sure signal of defeat - they eventually broke and ran.
A hoplite phalanx's only chance then against a pike phalanx was to defend an elevated position like a river bank (Issus), raised field defences (Sellasia) or similar high ground. But in that position it could not defeat the pike phalanx, only hold its ground until it was eventually outflanked.
As regards the hypaspists, a pike phalanx subunit could not wheel with pikes lowered so I suspect the hypaspists were hoplite-equipped in order to be able to outflank the left of the enemy line in classic hoplite fashion (or more accurately Spartan fashion). We need to realise that in all points the pike phalanx was an evolution of the hoplite phalanx and in many regards worked in a similar albeit more effective way.
![[Image: MOIzcsu.png]](https://i.imgur.com/MOIzcsu.png)
