Phalange Mixte

[PMBardunias]

Arrian tells us that Alexander was experimenting with a mixed phalanx of both sarissa and missile troops before his death (Anabasis 7.23.3)

He distributed these foreign soldiers among the Macedonian ranks in the following way. Each company was led by a Macedonian decurion, and next to him was a Macedonian receiving double pay for distinguished valour; and then came one who received ten staters (monthly), who was so named from the pay he received, being somewhat less than that received by the man with double pay, but more than that of the men who were serving as soldiers without holding a position of honour. Next to these came twelve Persians, and last in the company another Macedonian, who also received the pay of ten staters; so that in each company there were twelve Persians and four Macedonians, three of whom received higher pay, and the fourth was in command of the company. The Macedonians were armed in their hereditary manner; but of the Persians some were archers, while others had javelins furnished with straps, by which they were held.

This concept had previously been espoused by Xenophon in his fanciful Cyropaedia, where he had 2 ranks of hoplites backed by missile troops.

Since it appears to be generally accepted that macedonian infantry could be alternately armed with either with the sarissa or a brace of javelins, is there any evidence that different ranks of the phalanx were thus alterntely armed at the same time to form a mixed phalanx prior to (or after) alexander's experiment?

As an aside I think it is interesting that onlt 3 ranks are sarissaphoroi in Alex's scheme. This implies to me that the sarissa length in his phalanx was such that only 3 ranks could functionally bring their weapons to bear at once, or were seen as needing to, as opposed to the 5 ranks polybios describes.

[Sean Manning]

That is an interesting passage!

As an aside I think it is interesting that onlt 3 ranks are sarissaphoroi in Alex's scheme. This implies to me that the sarissa length in his phalanx was such that only 3 ranks could functionally bring their weapons to bear at once, or were seen as needing to, as opposed to the 5 ranks polybios describes.

I don't think it implies a shorter sarissa. If the idea was to stand off enemies and disorder them with missiles, you wouldn't need so many ranks of pikes as you would if the pikes were supposed to charge aggressively forward. But we never see the mixed phalanx in use, so its hard to tell how Alexander wanted to use it. We also don't know if the Persians were still using such mixed formations in Alexander's day as they had in Herodotus'.

Formations of missile troops behind spearmen were very common in the middle ages, but I don't know of any ancient examples other than Alexander. Wait- isn't Arrian's Battle-Array Against the Alans similar?

[PMBardunias]

I don't think it implies a shorter sarissa. If the idea was to stand off enemies and disorder them with missiles, you wouldn't need so many ranks of pikes as you would if the pikes were supposed to charge aggressively forward.

You are right in its itent. If we look back to Xenophon's concept of an imaginary phalanx of hoplites backed by missile troops (for some reason I think he said 2 ranks, but I can't reference it off the top of my head), the idea comes as a response to the super deep Theban phalanxes of his day. These had become unstoppable in direct confrontation, so his answer was to not even try to stand toe to toe with them in a pushing match, but to disrupt them with missiles, including artillery, and outflank them with light troops and cavalry. That the deep phalanx is so vulnerable to outflanking goes a far way in explaining its quick exit from history, and perhaps the course of Mantinea.

My question would be: "can a phalanx of 3 ranks stand off a phalanx of 5?" Polybios makes much of the 5 projecting ranks of sarissa. The persian Spara-bara were one rank of shield-men backed by missile troops and they obviously could not hold off multiple ranks of hoplites. There may be a reason that this mixed phalanx was never seen in fact.

[Marcvs75]

I was also intrigued by the concept of a mixed phalanx. A mixed phalanx of pikeman and archers would in my opinion not work.

Maybe a phalanx of 5 pikeman, behind them a number of ranks of armed (hoplites ?? with short stabbing spear and short sword) men for close quarter fighting when the lines comes to grips. And behind them a number of ranks of javelinmen to throw the javelins over the front ranks to wreak havoc among the enemy ranks.
Just a wild thought

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

What about a shorter sarissa being used only for this particular experiment? I wouldn't risk to say they would use a 6m long sarissa only 3 ranks projecting,because this leaves a huge gap from the third rank of spearheads to the front rankers,making them extremely vulnerable. Nor do I think Alex may had always used three ranks projecting,because this doesn't match with the lenght of the sarissa and the space of the men.
Also I think what alexander was about to do was ingenious(well,of course!) and much more complicated than what we may be thinking. Don't forget,even those persians were positioned in files,and at the end there was a well payed ouragos,who had to have some purpose much different than keeping order of some lightly armed archers and javelineers. And we're talking about the veteran army of Alexander...we cannot expect something that is not equal with the capabilities of the old phalanx. But in addition,we cannot compare the two phalanxes with the same criteria,because lets think what kind of armies had been left in the world when Alexander was experimenting with those new systems? Much different than masses of Persian infantry and greek phalanxes.
I say that these Persians had multiple tasks. Don't forget that a javelineer is useless once he's out of amo. And if,I say if, his javelins are not enough to break the enemy line into pieces,then a three rank phalanx is a risky option. On the other hand,Alexander had successfully used his old phalanx only 4 men deep.Perhaps 12 highly trained Persian javelineers or archers could be proven as lethal as one more macedonian pikeman. But I think these men were supposed to do maneuvers to autflank the enemy line while the shallow phalanx had pinned them down for a while.
Another clue,there were two highly paid officers at the front,and one more Macedonian who lead the remaining Persians. Leading them where,since two more higher officers were in front of him???
Khaire
Giannis

[Mythos_Ruler]

I always thought it would have been good to place swordsmen in the front rank and both left and right hand files of each syntagma. Swordsmen in the front rank would deal with enemies that manage to get past the hedgehog of pikes, while the swordsmen along the sides would plug in the gaps between the syntagmae and guard against flanking.

[Felix]

As far as the Persian Sparabara are concerned, the inferiority of the single rank of Persian spearmen to multiple ranks of hoplites could be related to several factors, not just the depth of the spearmen. As I recall, the shortness of the Persian spear was considered to be one problem. The construction of the spara shield is less substantial than the apsis; and the men were much less heavily armoured. The Sparabara were supposed to protect the archers behind them, not provide the main offensive impetus of a Persian army, whereas the hoplites were by far the main offensive component of a classical Greek army.

[Paralus]

Since it appears to be generally accepted that macedonian infantry could be alternately armed with either with the sarissa or a brace of javelins, is there any evidence that different ranks of the phalanx were thus alterntely armed at the same time to form a mixed phalanx prior to (or after) alexander's experiment?

To my knowledge, no. Alexander, as the anabasis progressed, mixed and matched his armament as the conditions demanded. Thus there is an emphasis on cavalry throughout the Bactrian/Sogdian insurgency with separate columns of infantry following up.

The evidence would suggest that the infantry was armed for the task at hand and that, as the campaign wore on, divisions of the army were deployed in something more closely resembling the hoplite panaoply. No evidence can be readily adduced to support a "mixed" phalanx unit though.

At no stage did Alexander abandon the sarisa armed phalanx as has been suggested by Lane Fox. The refences to the sarisa throughout Diodorus (especially) in the Indian campaign show this. For instance:

Diod. 17.84.4
...hoi gar Makedones tais sarisais anarrêssontes tas tôn barbarôn peltas tas akmas tou sidêrou tois pneumosin enêreidon...

The Macedonians thrust with their long spears through the light shields of the mercenaries.

This, of course, being where Alexander slaughtered the 7,000 Indian mercenaries who had decided not to take up service in his army. In the siege of the town involved Alexander is clearly described by Arrian as leading his hypaspists on foot. It is most likely that these murderous buggers were well involved in the elimination of these mercenaries and their families.

This measure (the mixed phalanx) of Alexander may be due, in part, to the rather lacksadaisical response of Antipater in bringing an army from Macedon to Babylon. Given that Antipater had enormous difficulty in raising an army for the Lamian war, this is understandable. Of more relvance would be the epigoni formed up into "Macedonian" units at Opis. Here Alexander has a troop of companian cavaly (including a Persian royal troop), a unit of aesthetairoi and even a troop of hypaspists (silver shields). His intentions were clear: an army, no longer national, owing its life and allegiance to him. No more argumentative Macedonians who had, by this stage, essentially become professional mercenaries.

[Paullus Scipio]

.....and of course, significantly from a military point of view, none of the Diadochi thought it worthwhile to pursue this idea; preferring to field the purely pike-armed phalanx.....

[Sean Manning]

If I recall, Machiavelli advocated a mixed phalanx of swordsmen and pikemen. His legion would have had pikes in the front to stop the enemy, then sword-and-buckler men who would filter forwards once the pikes on both sides had become entangled and attack the enemy at close range (he was thinking of the Spanish of his day as much as Livy's legions). But Machiavelli was a book soldier, and specialists like these faded away in Europe, probably because coordinating too many different types of troops was difficult. Pikemen could always drop their pikes and draw their swords if the enemy closed, wheareas a swordsman was always vulnerable to cavalry. Paullus has a good point that, whatever Alexander's mixed phalanx was designed for, the Diadohoi don't seem to have been interested.

[PMBardunias]

.....and of course, significantly from a military point of view, none of the Diadochi thought it worthwhile to pursue this idea; preferring to field the purely pike-armed phalanx.....

In my opinion such mixed phalanx is doomed to failure due the inability to coordinate the widely divergent fighting-styles of its component parts. What spacing do the javelineers and bowmen take if the front is down to 1.5' spacing? This phalanx will always essentially be two seperate units superimposed and would be better left as such.

What interests me is why two ancient generals, Xenophon and Alexander, seem to think it would work. At least Xenophon, when he is not blustering about the "steel" of Cyrus' men, admits that the 2 ranks will not hold without a simultaneous attack on the enemy flanks. In his defense it would seem he must start from a point of knowing that holding off 50-100 ranks of hoplites in a frontal assault is impossible. While such a deep phalanx provides the unique possibilty of "outflanking" from its inner as opposed to outer flank due to the lack of cohesion inherent in trying to mix a single line of such disparate depths.

I mention this because I doubt this need for envelopment drove Alexander's decision, except for hoplites he rarely met a foe who could stand up in front of the phalanx. Perhaps that is where it stems from, maybe a 16 deep sarissa phalanx was overkill for the foes he expected to fight. I am of the opinion, based on Xenophon, that hoplites regularly thinned their ranks when facing nonhoplites for this very reason.

This still leaves me wondering why he wanted to integrate what should be left as two units into one. My guess is politics and a need to unite persians and Macedonians into one unit. It also doesn't hurt that there are line of Macedonian's behind them, taking the place of Xerxes whips.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Alexander had done better things to unite persians and macedonians,like training persians to fight as phalangites. Equiping them differently doesn't seem a wise thing in my opinion.
Also,the fact the the Diadochoi didn't continue the idea,doesn't say much either.Some of them were not the most open minded people,and they certainly didn't follow Alexander in all his opinions. Plus,we're not told if the experiment was actually tested by Alexander himself and against what troops.
The Diadochoi were mainly fighting among eachother,all of them having phalanges as their main force. I would say it is obvious alexander didn't have to fear the oposition of any other phalanx than his,tus this new experiment was designed to face other kind of chalenges.
Khairete
Giannis

[Paralus]

.....and of course, significantly from a military point of view, none of the Diadochi thought it worthwhile to pursue this idea; preferring to field the purely pike-armed phalanx.....

Absolutely Paullus (how're you doing old man?). In Diadoch armies the phalanx continued to be formed up in discrete units of Macedonians, epigoni ("men of all races" or "Asians" who were "armed in the Macedonian fashion", Lycians and other Asia-Minor groups( likely hoplites), mercenaries (widely assumed to be either hoplites or armed in the Iphicritean fashion) and light armed.

We are well informed of the battles of the competing dynasts after Alexander via Hieronymus. It is hugely lamentable that his epitomiser, Diodorus, deserts us after the campaign of Egypt in 306 - Ipsos being described up to the point of the contenders going into winter quarters prior to the climactic battle. Before that, though, Diodorus does us the favour of preserving the flavour and a good amount (for Diodorus) of the detail for the closing campaign of the second Diadoch war. Here we have detailed descriptions of the battle lines. In the first, Paraetecene, we even have the sense of awe of the participant / writer (Hieronymus) as Monophthalmus’ great army debouches onto the plain. The lines are described in surprising detail and the One-Eye’s cutting edge – his heavy cavalry and 8,000 Macedonians of the right wing – stand out. The line is further filled out with epigoni, phalanx units from Asia Minor and mercenaries.

None of Alexander’s generals seem enthused over a “mixed phalanxâ€

[Paullus Scipio]

The Diadochoi were mainly fighting among eachother,all of them having phalanges as their main force. I would say it is obvious alexander didn't have to fear the oposition of any other phalanx than his,tus this new experiment was designed to face other kind of chalenges.

Good point, Giannis ! But what kind of enemy could such an arrangement be fruitful against? One clue might be that this was a return in many ways to the old Achaemenid style of Army used by Darius I and Xerxes i.e. a hard edge of spearmen designed to fend off cavalry charges, backed by lots of missile troops armed with bows ......the original Persian array was very effective against the Steppe nomads in particular. The line of spearmen with 'spara'/pavises was a good deterrent to cavalry charges, and the footman's bow behind outranged mounted bows, while the 'spara'/pavises also protected the foot archers from enemy arrows.This array worked well enough to build the Persian Empire, and one can imagine that a sarissa armed 'cutting edge'/front line would work even better, not to mention the morale advantage of having steady Macedonian veterans in front and behind.
Perhaps then, Alexander's runoured campaign in the West was just that - rumour - and the real target was those constant threats to Alexander's empire to the North, the steppe nomads, just as they had been in Achaemenid days.

Another reason might be the political one Paul B. referred to, but even more compelling would be the fact that Alexander could hardly take his Army either West or North and leave so many potential armed rebels behind - they had to be taken along for sound military reasons, and since they had to be brought along, some use needed to be found for them, hence the experimental formation.

Then again, Alexander had all but exhausted Macedonian manpower, and would have been acutely aware of the fact, so his experiment was a way to utilise the manpower of his new Persian Empire, but as Giannis has pointed out, the 'Diadochi'/Successors don't seem to have had any trouble training Asiatic 'sarissaphroi'.....so why the 'mixed order'? That brings me back to the first reason.....an army optimised against cavalry foes and mounted archers....... :evil: :twisted:

P.S. The 'Old Man' is fine, thank you Paralus!! D lol:

[PMBardunias]

the original Persian array was very effective...

This is a point that is all too easily forgotton! Most of what Alexander accomplished with a sarissa phalanx, Cyrus, Darius, et al. had previously done with persian tactics- including the conquest of Ionia and its Greek forces.

Xenophon surely was influenced by this- creating as Paul did above a super-spara bara formation. It makes me wonder if this formation gave Greek troops more trouble than is generally recorded.