"pikes (phalanx) vs spear and shield (hoplites)" Topic

Probably an easy answer but spear and shield is obviously superior to pike. Why then did pike gain ascendancy?

more sharp points per square foot where it counts and significantly longer reach

Oh and its pike and shield vs spear and shield both in phalanx :)

more seriously I think there's an element of pikes allowing mass levy to fight and overwhelm citizen toffs – in a shoving match numbers count

Adrian : Can't say that I can see where you came to that conclusion as almost all historical evidence points to the opposite.

M defintion of pikes are two handed weapons thus no shield. Once your past the pike effective range (bout 3 feet in front and behind), easily done with a shield, the pikeman is effectively harmless. To use a secondary weapon requires dropping the pike.

Question, how deep a pike block, since I think it's pike heads until you get into your weapon range…

One against many, oh dear.

GildasFacit: Precisely. If a spear and shield is superior to a spear on its own then it should be superior to a long, less manouverable spear on its own. History proved it wasn't but why?

Maddaz111: Not one against many but a phalanx against a hoplite line. A shield wall doesn't give much of a penetrable target for pikes.

The Romans used sword and shield against them so why would spear and shield be ineffective?

"The Romans not being able to make a breach in the phalanx, one Salius, a commander of the Pelignians, snatched the ensign of his company and threw it amongst the enemies; on seeing which, the Pelignians (as amongst the Italians it is always thought the greatest breach of honour to abandon a standard) rushed with great violence towards the place, where the conflict grew very fierce and the slaughter terrible on both sides. For these endeavoured to cut the pikes asunder with their swords, or to beat them back with their shields, or put them by with their hands; and, on the other side, the Macedonians held their long sarissas in both hands, and pierced those that came in their way quite through their armour, no shield or corslet being able to resist the force of that weapon."

"The Pelignians and Marrucinians were thrown headlong to the ground, having without consideration, with mere animal fury, rushed upon a certain death. Their first ranks being slain, those that were behind were forced to give back; it cannot be said they fled, but they retreated towards Mount Olocrus. When, Aemilius saw this, Posidonius relates, he rent his clothes, some of his men being ready to fly, and the rest not willing to engage with a phalanx into which they could not hope to make any entrance- a sort of palisade, as it were, impregnable and unapproachable, with its close array of long spears everywhere meeting the assailant."

As an individual weapon a pike is more encumbrance than use but en-masse, carried by men trained in its use and working together, it is very effective. The description above tells you why.

The Romans finally beat the phalanx armies more by good strategy and making better use of the advantages the terrain offered than but a stand-up frontal fight.

Much is made by some of the renaissance revival of the 'sword and buckler' but, AFAIK, it was very rarely, if ever, successful against a pike phalanx that was not otherwise distracted.

Missile power was the eventual answer to pike phalanxes but even then they needed to be powerful missiles.

Ah, but a pikeman DID have a shield too. So there's that.

The Romans take an awfully long time to finally come up with an answer to the pike phalanx too. As above, it was strategy/terrain/luck and a number of favourable omens that intervened to make that happen. Finally.

1 on 1- spear and shield wins.
10,000 on 10,000- pike wins.
Everything else being equal.
The spear and shield guy is facing 5 pikes, not one. Even if he avoids them by dodging around he just puts himself in front of the next 5 pikes projecting from the next man in line. On top of that, if the spearman is part of a formed battline he won't have the option as he will have guys either side of him as well as behind. He fights what's directly in front of him, and that's a pikeman with another 4 pikes projecting out from the rear ranks.

The main weakness of the Macedonian phalanx was its inability to preserve order during combat, and disordered pikemen lost all their advantages over spearmen or swordsmen and could be defeated easily.

Pike versus hoplites was relatively neutral. the hoplites could take the pike points on their shields and cpuld negate the push if the pike by having the back ranks push on the backs of those to their fronts with their shields.
What wins it for the Macedonians is superior cavalry. Once the flanks are expiosec pike or hoplite are both eqally vulnerable.

Pikes against Romans is different, the Romans get pushed back a long distance, but their elastic line hilds and when the pike get disrupted by the ground or by casualties from pila and the Romans firce their way into the phalanx.

Initial contact goes to the longer weapon. Stacked up ranks of support weapons continues the long weapon advantage en mass. It requires disordering of the pike phalanx before the shorter weapons can get into lethal contact range. This is why rules should model the "rank bonus" effect for pikes over spears, and spears over swords, etc….

There are some mixed results, but for the most part it seems a very even combat. If it was one sided then Philip II would not have needed to pull tricky maneuvers at Chaeronea. At Issus the hoplites were aided by broken ground and some palisades, so their short lived tactical victory there can be said to have been aided by the ground. Megalopolis is too difficult to anything but surmise.. but the historian's conclusions make sense.. Antipater won because he had more men-- than any other reason.

No offense Adrian, but what makes you think you know better than the likes of Phillip of Macedon, Alexander the Great, and all the Successors? Had much experience fighting in a phalanx?

Had much experience fighting in a phalanx?

and if you say SCA fighting, well, the SCA doesn't allow planting shields into the back of the man in front of you and doing the rugby scrum. It's too dangerous for a sport where you're supposed to buy the winners a beer at the end of the day, but about perfect for permanently removing the loser from the gene pool!

I've seen civil war re-enactments where pike blocks charge each other with their pikes point well over the other sides heads so no, not SCA.

I was thinking along the same lines as Lewisgunner above. A typical hoplite would be covered from crown to neck by a full helmet, from neck to knee by his shield and knee to foot by greaves. The only way to get to the man is around the shield and pikes don't do "around".

Then it comes to the push of pike. I challenge you to push someone back with an 18' foot pole while he's got his shoulder buried in a shield. He's using the full force of his body while all you've got is two arms. If you ground the pike, then you gain strength but lose the 3' front/back striking ability.

Another factor is which type of pike block. Some armies had variable length pikes so the pikes all ended in the same place
in front of the pike block while many had same length pikes with a layered effect.

Then there's "why doesn't the man with the shield just knock the pike up and over" then advance inside the pikes effective reach. within that reach the pikes useless and the second rank spearmen have only to worry about been hit on the head.

It's suddenly occurred to me that it's not the weapon but the who. Macedonia, Spanish, Swiss, etc, were all highly trained and aggressive , not to say fanatical and hard driven soldiers with long experience. If you don't fit into this category then you pretty much. It helps a lot if your opponent doesn't consider avoiding the sharp pointy things a bad idea.

Then there's when. How long did pike vs hoplite happen. Pikes became famous when cavalry was predominant.

"I challenge you to push someone back with an 18' foot pole while he's got his shoulder buried in a shield."
The phalangite also has his shoulder buried in a shield.

The shield is adding nothing to his pushing power. That still relies only on his arms.

If hoplites (spear an shield) and legionaries (sword and shield) where so ineffective, then what were sword and buckler men for. They were supposed to be the answer to pikemen put forward by people who had been dealing with pike blocks for decades if not centuries.

The Phalangites resemblance to a hoplite with a very long spear is telling though. I can imagine that at some point a general thought "my men would be more effective if their spears were a foot longer than everybody else". At which point his opponent thinks "I'll show him a longer spear".

Alexanders pikemen had much less protection that most so did they carry shields as well?

Noticeably, Neither Philip or Alexander considered it the decision arm (that was the cavalry) but the holding arm that pinned the enemy in place so the cavalry could do their thing. Al well and good if the enemy lets themselves be pinned but if they don't….

"Alexanders pikemen had much less protection that most so did they carry shields as well?"

--- Not true, however yes they did carry shields which were slightly smaller than hoplites.

Alexander's phalangites were actually much better protected than many hoplites at that time. Hoplite equipment had become lighter. As Philip II gained more resources he poured them into creating a well armed and trained and fully equipped fighting force. Hoplites had lightened their gear, many mercenaries foregoing cuirasses and even greaves over time, serving only with spear sword and shield as mercenaries, and maybe without helmets. Granted the Macedonian phalanx also had 'lighter' equipped soldiers, but these are presumed to be the back rankers.

Macedonian infantry gear was provided by the state, a Greek mercenary or a citizen had what he owned for the most part as city states were not normally noted for stockpiling (and buying) gear for their forces until after Alexander proved that was the only way to compete. Mercenary Greeks in Persian service would seem to have access to the funds to be fully geared up, but the volunteers that made their way to service probably showed up with a sword spear and shield at best.

Macedonian soldiers:

Macedonian soldiers with hoplite shields dispatch unarmored Greek mercenary:

The problem for the spearman is that he needs to get past 4 rows if pike points before he gets anywhere near the front rank of the pike phalanx.
As others have said, pikes only work in mass formations.
There is also an economic consideration:
Pikemen were cheaper to raise (less armour) than hoplites, so states could field larger armies.
2000 pikemen will definitely beat 1000 hoplites

All in all a very interesting debate.
The Macedonians must clearly have been well trained and disciplined with the pike formation and it must have been successful for the Macedonians to achieve the things they did.
The Swiss used pike formations to outstanding effect, copied by the Landsknecht's, all being well trained with their chosen arm.
The Scots at Flodden tried their hand at pike armed formations and had a crash course in the use of it, and in open battle were destroyed by men armed with bills and halberds.
Clearly pike formations needed to be fully trained in its use!

"I challenge you to push someone back with an 18' foot pole while he's got his shoulder buried in a shield."

Its not really what is happening firstly its not one pike versus one hoplite, its multiple pike versus the front rank hoplite. The aim is to skewer him so the hoplite has to block or avoid multiple points without the ability to retaliate.

Well armoured hoplites can close up their shields and seek to parry the points with their spears but as they tire they will take casualties. Presumably if facing fully armoured hoplites the right arm, face, neck, thighs and groin would be the target areas for the pikemen.

I have come to the belief that why the pike succeeded against the hoplite is simply because it was a new weapon, and new way of fighting, and the men trained in its use were the only people trained in its use. I think all warfare is like that – the new has a tremendous advantage over the old. It is trained in the ways of new and old, whereas older methods know only themselves.

Thus the only constant in war is change, and those who can change at the right time will win. Why did the Wehrmacht smash Europe in 1940? There are those who put it down to the weapon system, but like the pikeman of old, the Wehrmacht knew both itself, and its enemy, while the enemy knew only himself.

No one weapon system dominated for good.

I think it is important to note that when we use the term 'Spear' and 'Pike', they were not static terms during this time period.

The lengths of spears increased over time and some Greek City States utilized spears that were longer (or shorter) than others. The 10 foot Dory of the 4th and 5th Century BCE was different than the footman's spear of mid 3rd Century BCE, the "Iphicratean reforms" saw a further lengthening of the spear to 12-14 feet.

The 18 foot sarissa of Phillip's and Alexander's Macedonia grew to a length of 22 feet during the later wars of the Diadochi (and their resultant kingdoms).

It consistently came down to reach… IMHO, the evidence shows the sarissa and Macedonian Phalanx was a demonstrably incremental evolution of the earlier hoplite system/tactics characterized by the battles of the mid 4th Century BCE.

Polybius is your man (Book 18, 29+):

29 1 That when the phalanx has its characteristic virtue and strength nothing can sustain its frontal attack or withstand the charge can easily be understood for many reasons. 2 For since, when it has closed up for action, each man, with his arms, occupies a space of three feet in breadth, and the length of the pikes is according to the original design sixteen cubits, but as adapted to actual need fourteen cubits, from which we must subtract the distance between the bearer's two hands and the length of the weighted portion of the pike behind which serves to keep it couched — four cubits in all — it is evident that it must extend ten cubits beyond the body of each hoplite when he charges the enemy grasping it with both hands. 5 The consequence is that while the pikes of the second, third, and fourth ranks extend farther than those of the fifth rank, those of that rank extend two cubits beyond the bodies of the men in the first rank, when the phalanx has its characteristic close order as regards both depth and breadth, as Homer expresses it in these verses:

Spear crowded spear,
Shield, helmet, man press'd helmet, man, and shield;
The hairy crests of their resplendent casques
Kiss'd close at every nod, so wedged they stood.1

7 This description is both true and fine, and it is evident that each man of the first rank must have the points of five pikes extending beyond him, each at a distance of two cubits from the next.

30 1 From this we can easily conceive what is the nature and force of a charge by the whole phalanx when it is sixteen deep. 2 In this case those further back and the fifth rank cannot use their pikes so as to take any active part in the battle. 3 They therefore do not severally level their pikes, but hold them slanting up in the air over the shoulders of those in front of them, so as to protect the whole formation from above, keeping off by this serried mass of pikes all missiles which, passing over the heads of the first ranks, might fall on those immediately in front of and behind them. 4 But these men by the sheer pressure of their bodily weight in the charge add to its force, and it is quite impossible for the first ranks to face about.

*****

The pike block, as a formation, was more formidible than anything that opposed it until the Romans came along.

Is not the Hoplite locket into a sheild wall this would make it no easyer to manoeuvre the a Phalangite in his palanx.

The Sword and Buckler where a flash in the pan the late 15th century. They look at the Roman how bet Pike with sword and shield, they did not have the training or a pilum, so sword and buckler disappered in the 16th century.

ECW re-enactors keep the heads of there pikes above the head fo there enamy so they do not kill each other !

So even if the hoplite is relatively safe from injury behind his shield, by the time he reaches, say, the fourth layer, the three pikes on top of his shield make it nigh impossible to move effectively against the fourth not been able to move his shield enough to deflect the point. As is very common in pre-modern battle, the vast majority of casualties occur when one side breaks, in this case the hoplites who simply can't advance and failed to withdraw in good formation. Did the Spartans ever have to face a pike phalanx?

Mac1638; a shield wall only requires brave soldiers in a line, hence the same term is used by professional hoplite formations and Saxon fird militia. They can form, break and reform quickly. Good soldiers at the front and whatever at the rear.

Pikes require serious discipline and everybody doing the same thing at the same time. Changing face by 90 or 180 degrees is hard enough but god forbid you you need to face a rear corner.

Adrian is right, pike systems require series discipline and drill if they are to do anything except move straight forward. Mind you hoplites did not have much of a repertoire of manoeuvre either. With smaller tactical units it was the Romans who could deal with pike by dropping back, but still maintaining overall cohesion.
Pike do not sweep away hoplites on the battlefield. To hear some of the guys earlier in the debate we should expect the pike to just roll over the hoplites, but this does not happen. Instead the pikes hold the hoplites and the Macedonian cavalry win the battle on the flanks.
Arguably the original Macedonian phalangites were less well equipped than citizen and mercenary hoplites as Macedon was a poor country. Up armouring will have come later, but of course front rankers would have had the best armour. Pikes against Persian infantry is effective, but then Persians could not face hoplites. Once the Persian Empire is defeated that is really the end for the hoplite, not because they are not effective, but because the Macedonian system with its better cavalry defeated armies of hoplites.
Perhaps, rather than construing Macedonian armies as pike armies we should really elevate their decisive arm, the Companion cavalry.

Did the Spartans ever have to face a pike phalanx?

Apparently the Spartans converted to pike themselves in the Hellenistic period

Did the Spartans ever have to face a pike phalanx?

Yes at Megalopolis in 331 BC. They lost, as I mentioned above.

link

My "semi-balanced" WAB scenario:

link

I have this little theory of mine, rather contrary to others thoughts. The use of the pike in a mass formation requires less training and experience than the traditional hoplite warefare, and less expensive wargear. That's why Philip II of Macedon invented it.

Philip had neither the money nor the mass of trained soldiers that could compete with the hoplites of the much richer Greek City States. He realized his subjects could not be brought up to that standard shortly. So he relied on numerical advantage, gave evWhat do you thionery capable man a long (loooong) pointy stick and a small shield. With several pikes projecting the first row of soldiers there was no individual fighting, man against man, like in traditional hoplite warefare.

As Lewisgunner pointed out, neither the traditional Phalanx nor the pike block had any need for manoeuvering, so the lack of training didn't matter. The deep pike block would pin the phalanx, both with a similar front widht (with the macedons having numerical superiority and the benefit of deeper units), and the deceisive action would be delivered by cavalry.

What do you think?

The simple fact is that Philip didn't invent anything. He further developed a system (and changes) that were already being utilized by other city-states.

Much (if not all) of the military tactics Philip learned he did so while a hostage in Thebes under the tutelage of Epaminondas. Epaminondas is the same person who crushed the Spartans at the Battle of Leuctra (371 BC) by utilizing revolutionary tactics, 'The Deep Phalanx' as it is often termed today. The lengthening of the spear, and lightening of other equipment is attributed to Iphicrates.

And the army of Macedon, was one of the first standing professional armies in Greece, and was noted for the extensive training and drill of it's troops. Philip, not only added the sarissa, but developed/expanded cavalry tactics (attributed to the Thessalians). The 'rhomboid formation' is attributed to Jason of Pherae.

What Philip did was utilized a combined arms force, which had been unheard of in Greece prior to his reign. He utilized heavy infantry in combination with light and heavy cavalry, supported by highly trained and expert light troops and artillery. Philip put in all into one highly efficient and deadly package.

Sarrissa-21ft,ashen spear 8-12 ft.

The Macedonian phalanx was better drilled and trained than any Greek force of the time… just look Arrian's account of the phalanx against the Illyrians….

Philip II had more resources to pour into his army than any Greek City State. Hoplites became rare because they provided their own armor… Philip came up with a system that not only created a hoplite trumping system, but did it on a budget and in a way that fit the tenor of the manpower he had…. but then he specifically drilled them to a standard higher than almost any Greek soldier…

The constant debate about the armament of Hypaspists shows that hoplite panoply was not disregarded by Philip and Alexander as obsolete, but created a different specialized type of troops.

It is incorrect to say that Philip II was poor, he was the richest potentate in Greece, and his mines in Thrace and the Chalcidice and natural resources of Macedonia fueled the rise of Macedonian power.

J.J. is 100% correct.

Thanks for your input.

There was unarmord hoplites and unarmord phalangites.

Hoplite was just someone with a hoplone shield and spear, a phaslangite was just a pike man with shield.

Everything els depends on money and resources.

The best armord hoploites were the profesjonall mercenaries. they fought for money and so wanted to survive the battle, they therefor had invested alot in armor.
While citizen hoplites probebly did at most get a helmet.

The phalangite isn't the miracle troop type. There is no reliable preModern rolling death mo-sheeeeeen arsenal. Everything is context.

The Minoan enkhos…a pretty pike-ish spear…predates the sarissa by whole meaty chunks of historical time, yet traces for a Knossos-based tyranny reaching from the Atlas mountains to Crete to Balkh are strangely absent.

As regards Romans overcoming Phalanx – with due respect they never fought one commanded By Alexander1

Whereas the Romans did fight and defeat a number of different competent pike armies, Alexander never faced anything like Roman legionaries commanded by Julius Caesar or Scipio Africanus.

And if pikes require an Alexander to command them then they are very poor, legions only require a competent commander.

By and by, who was it that called Antiochus – the great?

The Romans did eventually overcome the Phalanx, but it took a long time and their own fair share of defeats to do so.

By and by, who was it that called Antiochus – the great?

The Jews, it is abbreviated for, "Antiochus the great bastard"….

The Romans were "defeated" by Pyrrhus of Epirus. I am not aware of the phalanx beating legions in any of these battles, although to be fair the legions didn't defeat the phalanx either. They seem to have cancelled each other out. As I recall it was Pyrrhus' elephants and cavalry that decided the battles.

I could be wrong, but I am not aware of any battle that the phalanx actually beat the legion in a one on one fight. In most of the battles of Rome vs the Sucessors the legions always seem to have been able to find the weak spot in the phalanx. That is probably why the legion replaced the phalanx.

Monophagos, Alexander would have used his companions to beat the Roman cavalry whist the phalanx held the legions to the. front. It is their failure to win on the flanks that destroys the Hellenistic armies. The Romans cannot be beaten by a ohalanx because they just fall back in front of it.

"Monophagos, Alexander would have used his companions to beat the Roman cavalry whist the phalanx held the legions to the. front. It is their failure to win on the flanks that destroys the Hellenistic armies. The Romans cannot be beaten by a phalanx because they just fall back in front of it."

Perhaps, but Alexander usually avoided the flank cavalry battles with his companions. He usually reserved the companions to deliver the decisive blow against a weak spot in the heart (center) of the enemy army. This woulld have been more difficult to do against a Roman army than any contemporaries he faced. Although to be fair I am thinking of a Roman army of Scipio or Caesar, not an earlier Roman army (which I view as less competent).

Alexander uncle did not think the earlier Romans were incompetent.

Livy reports that as Alexander of Epirus lay mortally wounded on the battlefield at Pandosia he compared his fortunes to those of his famous nephew and said that the latter "waged war against women".