"How successful was the phalanx?" Topic

Myself and a friend are thinking of starting a 6mm ancients project using the new "Sword and Spear" rules as a starting point, so watched a few clips of Oliver Stone's "Alexander" to get into the mood as it were, after all I'm down for creating a Selucid/ Successor force. So far so good, however watching the Gaugamala clip got me thinking. Two questions, in the film, the phalanx go down like flies under the initial Persian arrow barrage. Is this correct? I was always under the impression the vertical pikes in themselves en masse gave considerable protection against arrows by in effect catching or deflecting them. Secondly, the lightly armed Persians seem to have no trouble getting amongst the phalanx, and in panning shots we see the formations crumble. I was under the impression the phalanx presented a wall of spear points that could cause carnage to even armoured troops, I would imagine lightly armed troops would be no problem at all, it just being a matter of the sheer scale of the Persian formations. I appreciate Stone's need to create dramatic tension, but am I overestimating the strength and shock effect of the phalanx formation? I just imagined it to be more effective than it was depicted in the film.

Many thanks for any insights that can help me on this, sorry just dipping my toe into the period so apologies if this sounds like a daft question.

From the front, the phalanx should be pretty arrow proof. The tangle of pikes, the shield and armor were good missile defense according to Polybius though that was not contemporary to Alexander. Someone else will chime in with a more contemporary account I am sure.

As for the push (and this is true for most scrums that involved armored troops on both sides) the carnage really didn't start until one side or the other broke. That was when the real damage was caused.

I agree with Who asked this joker on both counts! Based on your description the movie doesn't sound very accurate.

The Phalanx was not invincible by any means, but well handled it was extremely hard to defeat.

-Will

It was good enough to enter common usage in the English language, despite being a term from almost two millennia before the English language became what it is!

As for Stone, he may be a talented director, but when it comes to history, he's another ancient term: moron.

The depiction of the battle of Gaugemela in Alexander wasn't one of the best points of what was, otherwise, a brilliant movie.

That being said the phalanxes did almost collapse at Gaugemela and it was only the flight of the Persian king and the subsequent collapse of the Persian army that prevented Alexander's army from being destroyed.

They were outnumbered very badly.

I've always wondered about the accuracy of the statement about pikes "deflecting" arrows.

Where do they deflect them to?

If we are standing in a mass of people and an arrow glances off of my pike it is still going to come down somewhere. I suppose some kinetic energy would be taken off of the arrow but it is still going to cause injury and the pikes might actually drop some arrows on the troops that would otherwise have gone overhead.

In fighting the Persians the numbers did tell, if you can get enough guys pushed into the front of a phalanx you might make some headway when gaps appear. Pike armed troops are vulnerable to people getting inside the reach of the spear tips, difficult as that may be to do.

That being said it was probably more of a threat to the flank of the phalanx than the front that started to cause the the Macedonians problems.

Phalanxes were not typically beaten to the front. Even the Romans couldn't do that.

No ancient historian recorded it, but the pikes were fitted with leather hangings such as some hoplites used at the bottom of their hoplons, to protect legs against arrows. So the projecting spear points actually made a gigantic shield of leather which protected the phalanx from arrows from the front.

The really elite phalanxes would have these leather pieces painted in various colors, making patterns of impressive complexity. Or all might be painted the same color, to resemble the overlapping scales of a giant serpent as the phalanx advanced.

A modern representation:

These are not the Greeks you're looking for. Move along.-:^))

Hi doc, I am interested in researching your point on "leather hangings " and if no historians recorded it what are your sources ?

Thanks

Accounts of the Swiss Pike, particularly in the Italian Wars show that the Phalanx was a much more mobile and dangerous weapon system than it is often portrayed in gaming. The Swiss were often successful under circumstances where many war games would penalize them severely.

Swiss esprit de corp and training were insane. If you look at the willing, but not as well trained Scotts at Flodden, you can see that the system requires a considerable level of training to work at optimum on the offensive.

Toronto, it is my own theory, and as well grounded as most. You can see from Pictor's illustration that it makes perfect sense. Further confirmation is the fact that the Greeks didn't use flags, because who'd have seen them?

Sorry, not a theory I would agree with. If it was that impressive, it would have been recorded. Add to that they would be cumbersome, heavy and facing the wrong way. Difference between a leather hanging on a 14-22 foot long pike used operationally and a cloth hanging on a short pole!

Toronto, it is my own theory, and as well grounded as most.

A theory that is not grounded on any historical record or artifact is just that – a theory.

You can see from Pictor's illustration that it makes perfect sense.

Those are flags, not leather hangings and do not hang low enough to offer any defence even if they were made of leather. Not to say the weight of a leather hanging would be considerable and make the pike less wieldy.

Further confirmation is the fact that the Greeks didn't use flags, because who'd have seen them?

The lack of Greek flags doesn't confirm anything except that we have no record of them using flags. Thye might have done for all we know …

Historical analysis must be based on available evidence.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Back the OP, I wouldn't read to much into Hollywood interpretation of Ancient Warfare (Troy anyone?), however it may have been Stones attempt to depict the particular difficulty the phalangites ran into at Gaugamela.

In general however, the Macedonian/Successor phalanx ran roughshod over everything which stood in its path for some considerably long historical period of time. At least until they met well trained Roman legionaries, or flintlock muskets and spike bayonets…

Good grief. Guys, it was a JOKE.

It must have been pretty successful to have lasted so long!

Frontally the pike phalanx was almost invincible. The Romans defeated it by attacking its flanks or rear or when it was disordered. Polybius' accounts of the battles between the Romans and the phalanx are the best source. IIRC he is also the source of the rear rank pikes deflecting arrows.

Many thanks guys, the comments support my initial thoughts, so yes phalanx is a bit of a beast that even the roman maniples had a tough time trying to crack. It's size being both it's strength and it's weakness against more agile and nimble opponents.

… a bit of a beast that even the roman maniples …

The Roman legionaries weren't even remotely the best soldiers around at the time they beat the Successors. Most of them were draftees for that season, half of them being Latin allies anyway, with veteran legions quite rare (it was the Macedonians who fielded large professional armies). The era of long-serving professional legionaries was later.

Roman armies were dusted up by all and sundry in the early period. They struggled to take out the hoplite style Carthaginians and Samnites, who the pike phalanx could crush pretty quickly.

The Roman war machine was the best going, by some margin, obviously. The won by having more men most of time, better equipped and better fed. The pilum and maniple system was fabulous because it was flexible for all sorts of terrain and opponents, not because it was crushingly effective frontally.

For frontal attack perhaps the early Galatians might be a better measure. Didn't they frontally rub out a couple of pike armies?

That manipular shuffle, replacing tired men with fresh ones, counted a LOT. Hannibal only really beat Rome when he devised ways of counteracting it: cold weather at the Trebia, fog and confined space at Lake trsimene, crushing crowdedness at Canae. But that manipular tactic, though requiring a lot of drill and practice, could be learned by other cultures, and apparently was to an extent.

I remember reading about a Spartan General who did organize a Phalanx for Carthage in Punic War I, and pretty much wrecked the veteran legions he fought with mostly hastily trained civilians.

A wall of spears is very hard to deal with, but I think requires a semi-professional or professional corps of troops to pull off right. Thats why they saw so much use, but only in empires where professional soldiers were a thing.

The Gauls did crush the Macedonian Army of Ptolemy The Thunder, though I am not sure we have much info on the battle.

I remember reading about a Spartan General who did organize a Phalanx for Carthage in Punic War

Bagradas is the battle you speak and the general was Xanthippus.

link

The phalanx was just an array of men. He used war elephants to break up the Roman formation and the infantry followed up, causing great slaughter. This battle left Rome the impression that Carthage was neigh impossible to conquer. It would be more than 50 years before they would try again.

I'd take issue with the Romans not being very good soldiers. They weren't professionals, sure. After the Camillan reforms, Roman power expanded rapidly during the course of the 4th century in which they regularly beat hoplite style Etruscans, hill tribes, Gauls, and by the time of Pyrrhus had "worn the Samnites to a nub". During this time they lost some battles as most nations do over the course of a war, and part of that is the random nature of their war leadership and some of that they were outclassed possibly. But I wouldn't make it sound like everyone thrashed them regularly. Lots of time they had guts and determination (look at their ferocious, almost zealous, attempts against Pyrrhus' phalanx). Just about everyone go an initial win on them before the Romans wised up and came back. Also, even before fighting the Macedonian Wars, there were long terms of service going on, soldiers with a good deal of experience, though surely that was not uniform as new legions were levied at the start of a campaign.

As for Latin allied legions, following 338 with the extinction of the Latin League there's little distinction between Roman and Latin…it all but disappears by the time of the Pyrrhic Wars in terms of the army (I'm sure Latins from Ardea or Lavinium, etc. probably had local pride, but all but a few had full Roman citizenship, which makes them Roman). So after 338 when they say Romans (as opposed to Allies) they're talking about actual citizens of the city of Roma and citizens originating from Latium. A battle where the Allies fought less hardy than the Romans doesn't come to mind, and I don't think there was a great difference in training or performance. At least politically, invaders of Italy had only limited success at severing those alliances.

Overall, I'd agree that they were not the best, but I'd say they were better than most, especially considering that they were citizen soldiers. Even the professional Macedonians seem to have had less stomach for a fight and quickly changed sides many times.

Johny boy
I do not believe you are overestimating the power of the phalanx. The strength of the phalanx depended mainly on the sarissa. The length of the sarissa itself allowed the phalanx to make contact with the enemy a full 15 feet away from its first rank of troops a huge advantage considering most opponents yielded a 6 foot javelin or 9 foot spear in return. Keep in mind the first 5 ranks would level its sarissa so every three feet from the outer sarissa another rank of spear points would be faced. Basically, the front rank sarissa would reach out to 15 feet, the second rank to 12 and on down to the fifth rank at 3 feet out. so upon contact the dense formation of the phalanx could cause heavy casualties while suffering very few in return while its depth(16 deep often utilized) would assist its impact by momentum pushing a breach into the enemy's line that the sarissa provided at contact. As for protection against missile fire, all ranks beyond the fifth would hold their sarissa from just above horizontal to completely vertical presenting a wall of wood which did provide some protection.
Hope this helps as to its strengths In comparison to its enemies. As to its weaknesses I have included some of my thoughts below.
the phalanx did contain some notable weaknesses such as requiring a very level battlefield free of any obstacles to prevent disordering of its ranks which so much depended. And like all linear formations its flanks were vulnerable having no procedure to wheel to the flank to protect itself. And lastly, the phalanx could not engage in hand to hand combat very effectively as seen when engaged against Rome. The phalanx was designed to engage at a distance but if it became disordered and its spear points could be breached the phalanx trooper was in trouble. He was armed with a short sword not well trained in its use(like his roman counterpart) carrying a small shield and not as heavily armored. Being trapped in a tight formation also worked against the use of a sword. These factors caused a very uneven fight where once disordered and its formation was breached even a handful of Romans could cause an out of proportion amount of casualties upon the phalanx formation.

Just wanted to thank everybody for some amazingly thorough and detailed input, superb insights and a terrific thread, thankyou.

A theory that is not grounded on any historical record or artifact is just that – a theory.

No, a theory is a lot better than that. A theory is a model that best explains the available evidence. No evidence…. No theory. I think you mean a hypothesis, which is a proposition based on inadequate evidence that requires further investigation.

Those are flags, not leather hangings and do not hang low enough to offer any defence even if they were made of leather. Not to say the weight of a leather hanging would be considerable and make the pike less wieldy.

To say nothing of enemy light troops grabbing at the leather hangings and rendering the pikes almost useless.

I also wonder about the supposed effectiveness a pike unit affords against arrows. Ancient archery was mostly massed fire, with the arrows raining downward on the enemy. How do leveled pikes protect them?

Couple thoughts bowman
I don't believe the phalanx would stand idle if it came under sustained missile fire for then it would I believe take on heavy casualties. From what I understand a phalanx unit could cover a hundred fifty yard advance in little over a minute or about the distance of arrow fire during that same time? With the rear ranks presenting a 'wall of wood' of holding their sarissa at different angles some protection was afforded during its advance to deflect some of the missile barrage. In addition, some believe that the first couple of ranks of the phalanx also wore heavier armor(not all agree) for additional protection. These combined factors of rapid advance, front rank wearing heavier armor, and the use of the sarissa itself probable did reduce the effectiveness of missile fire against the formation. It is interesting to note that at least the Persians chose to meet the phalanx with different shock of impact ideas (scythe chariots, Greek mercenaries ) instead of attempts to disorder it by missile fire. Maybe an error on the Persians or lesson learned from earlier battles against hoplites when missile fire did not prove effective. Ideas for the table top to try out?

"I also wonder about the supposed effectiveness a pike unit affords against arrows. Ancient archery was mostly massed fire, with the arrows raining downward on the enemy. How do leveled pikes protect them?"

Since only five ranks at best were leveled, the rest were available to sweep at an angle back and forth to knock arrows and missiles off their trajectory.

Missile fire is indeed dangerous to light armored phalanxes--- as the Macedonians suffered some heavy casualties at Issos and Gaugamela to missiles based on anecdotal references. However most missile wounds are not lethal, unless one is incapacitated and overrun by the enemy. In the above cases the phalanx kept moving-- although at Issos, part of the phalanx was heavily defeated. Still even though missile casualties were serious, most would be recoverable… note the toughness of the many one-eyed generals. Or the famous story of tough guy Philopoemen, battling on even though a javelin had gone through both his legs.

The speedy forward movement and basic protection of linked shields and light armor along with the subtle advantage of rear ranks sweeping arrows makes the phalanx less susceptible than Romans (except in testudo) in some ways to arrows. Still the important point for both phalanxes and legions is to keep moving- once in hand to hand range the archers have little chance, if they stand at all.

The key problem for the archers is the moving target-- only the front ranks can level aim, the back ranks are simply trying to hit a box that is moving towards them-- that they cannot see… so unless the phalanx gets stopped (as half the phalanx did at Gaugamela) they just are not going to get many effective shots off.

The phalanx in the ambushes in Bactria fared poorly.. but who does do well against the nomad horsemen when they have you trapped on an islet……