06-24-2009, 06:38 AM
Thanks Mike for your comments.
Yet the model I described was about the hoplite phalanx and not the Macedonian. Fighting with a sarissa and a pelti is different to fighting with a spear and a hoplon. "Othismos" as we have described could not happen in a battle involving pike bearing phalanxes according to my opinion. Your examples involve charges of a Macedonian phalanx, but a charge of course should not be taken as a running approach. Most times it involves marching speeds, especially when keeping order is essential, as is the case with this type of phalanx. As I understand ancient combat, the taxeis would also march forward in a "pushlike" manner, counting steps and being very careful not to advance in front of the taxeis next to them. Inexperienced combatants were blindly pushing (their steps) forward and this would lead to fatal mistakes, as was the case in Chaeronea, where Philip slowly withdrew his men, counting on the Athenian inexperience, who instead of keeping cohesion with the Thebans followed him and opened a gap in their lines, which was exploited by Alexander. At Arbela, Alexander's line, already engaged in a complex oblique formation was not able to keep cohesion between the taxeis, so the Persians were able to ride into the formed gap. Yet never was there anything resembling an "othismos" in a Macedonian phalanx.
Giving spears to the front ranks is very logical, Alexander was given a spear when his broke, and very possible since the back rows would have no use for them except in the case of enemy appearing from behind, when the phalanx would form at double front. I know it is not attested in any texts, at least that I know of, but it seems to me very possible that it did happen. In the Macedonian phalanx it would really be much more difficult but surely not impossible, should some pikes be hacked down by the enemy. Keeping in mind that the pike of the man behind was actually a little bit higher than your pike, a quick snap would not be that difficult, although this would mean that then the man behind would have to do the same and so on. I guess, it would be easier to swap weapons than changing places in the ranks.
As for the swords of the phallangites, I also think they were very rarely used. After Alexander, the phalanx was only trained to fight with the sarissa (although there are some translations which have the phallangites put down their pikes and charge, these are just wrong translation, as I have encountered at least twice when comparing the ancient text to the modern interpretation). During Philip and Alexander's time, it seems that the phallangites are more broadly trained warriors than those who fight in later eras. An also very interesting issue to discuss is how a line "infiltrated" another line. It seems to me that most historians imagine a battle between a Macedonian (for example) battle and a Roman one as a contest in which the Macedonians strived to keep lines tight and the Romans to infiltrate. This actually is not entirely correct if we carefully read the relevant accounts. For example, at Pydna, the only battle that the Romans seem to have beaten the phalanx by frontal assaults, we have Aemilius Paulus riding behind the lines of his men shouting for them to break their lines and exploit the gaps that were formed in the enemy line due to the march up the hill. It is evident that it was not that self explanatory, that the Romans should run into the small gaps leaving their place in the line, as we sometimes think it was. And by the time of Pydna, the Romans had much experience against the Macedonian phalanx, so one would really expect from the Romans to act thus by default!
Yet the model I described was about the hoplite phalanx and not the Macedonian. Fighting with a sarissa and a pelti is different to fighting with a spear and a hoplon. "Othismos" as we have described could not happen in a battle involving pike bearing phalanxes according to my opinion. Your examples involve charges of a Macedonian phalanx, but a charge of course should not be taken as a running approach. Most times it involves marching speeds, especially when keeping order is essential, as is the case with this type of phalanx. As I understand ancient combat, the taxeis would also march forward in a "pushlike" manner, counting steps and being very careful not to advance in front of the taxeis next to them. Inexperienced combatants were blindly pushing (their steps) forward and this would lead to fatal mistakes, as was the case in Chaeronea, where Philip slowly withdrew his men, counting on the Athenian inexperience, who instead of keeping cohesion with the Thebans followed him and opened a gap in their lines, which was exploited by Alexander. At Arbela, Alexander's line, already engaged in a complex oblique formation was not able to keep cohesion between the taxeis, so the Persians were able to ride into the formed gap. Yet never was there anything resembling an "othismos" in a Macedonian phalanx.
Giving spears to the front ranks is very logical, Alexander was given a spear when his broke, and very possible since the back rows would have no use for them except in the case of enemy appearing from behind, when the phalanx would form at double front. I know it is not attested in any texts, at least that I know of, but it seems to me very possible that it did happen. In the Macedonian phalanx it would really be much more difficult but surely not impossible, should some pikes be hacked down by the enemy. Keeping in mind that the pike of the man behind was actually a little bit higher than your pike, a quick snap would not be that difficult, although this would mean that then the man behind would have to do the same and so on. I guess, it would be easier to swap weapons than changing places in the ranks.
As for the swords of the phallangites, I also think they were very rarely used. After Alexander, the phalanx was only trained to fight with the sarissa (although there are some translations which have the phallangites put down their pikes and charge, these are just wrong translation, as I have encountered at least twice when comparing the ancient text to the modern interpretation). During Philip and Alexander's time, it seems that the phallangites are more broadly trained warriors than those who fight in later eras. An also very interesting issue to discuss is how a line "infiltrated" another line. It seems to me that most historians imagine a battle between a Macedonian (for example) battle and a Roman one as a contest in which the Macedonians strived to keep lines tight and the Romans to infiltrate. This actually is not entirely correct if we carefully read the relevant accounts. For example, at Pydna, the only battle that the Romans seem to have beaten the phalanx by frontal assaults, we have Aemilius Paulus riding behind the lines of his men shouting for them to break their lines and exploit the gaps that were formed in the enemy line due to the march up the hill. It is evident that it was not that self explanatory, that the Romans should run into the small gaps leaving their place in the line, as we sometimes think it was. And by the time of Pydna, the Romans had much experience against the Macedonian phalanx, so one would really expect from the Romans to act thus by default!
