Wheeling the phalanx

[Anonymous]

I'm glad Stefanos has established the distinction between spear-phalanx and pike-phalanx the original question didn't address this important difference. I notice also the notion of spears or pikes of varying length is present: I, too, was brought up to believe that Alexander's phalanx had (comparatively) short spears in the front rank and progressively longer ones in the succeeding ranks. My subsequent reading has, however, revealed no evidence for this, current theory seeming to favour the notion that the Macedonian Sarissa (as well as the earlier dory) was of uniform length throughtout the phalanx. A wall of points sounds like a great idea until you use a spear in combat. Does anyone have evidence from primary sources?

[Aryaman2]

[
My question stems from a discussion that phalanxes had a difficult time turning themselves to face oncoming threats, even when unengaged.
My question is "If the phalanx needed to could it turn quickly enough to face an oncoming enemy that was approaching it's flank/rear? Or would it be hopelessly disordered or incapable of reforming (not wheeling) to meet the threat head on?"



I did not mean to compare the phalanx with the legion but to compare the phalanx with the cohort. . .Roman flanks were often stripped bare after their cavalry support turned tail and ran. cohorts had the ability to quickly redeploy and meet the new threat. Did the phalanx have any chance of this same kind of ability?


Matt Webster

To answer your question more precisely, I think that in that situation a phalanx would not wheel as a single body, but by sections, besides it would send some sections to skirmish with the advancing enemy and delay its advance, it is relatively easy to convert a young, lightly armoured phalangite in an skirmisher just exchanging the pike for javelins.
In general, I would say that the key element is if the unit is engaged at the front, if not I think practically any experienced unit, being cohors, spearmen, etc, has resources to avoid being outflanked, in actual battles things would be very fluid and the distintion among diferent types of units less rigid.

[hoplite14gr]

Agree with Inaki on the sub units.

Spears.
After the Archaic period the phalanx was devided into tactical sub-units.
Example Mora(Sparta), "tribal" Taxis(Athens), city Taxis (Beotians).
The sub units could wheel more easily when necessary.
In Delion the Beotian cities held the Athenians and the Theban continent after breaking its oponents wheeled to hit Athenians in the flank
Wheeling was the "easy part". The difficult part was to realise the threat in time and wheel and improve your deployment if possible.
By the end of the Pelloponesian War even the 100 men lochos (company) was trusted to operate with some autonomy.

Pikes.

Philip, Alexander and Pyros had the pikemen devided in "suntagmata" subunits. In narrow terrain the formed in to 16 rank files and in wide terrain the formed into 8-10 rank files. Flanks anchored in bad going covered by light toops and in good ground by cavalry.
Ideally non pike troops were expected to turn or wheel.
A pike "syntagma" could wheel and even extend is frontage.
It required more time than the spearmen. Again it was a question of how quick the threat was realised.

Late Hellenistic kingdoms stopped that practise and the only separate unit was Argyraspides or Chalkaspides (elite pikemen).
Worce they increase the pike length of rear ranks to add more punch and relied in their cavalry and peltasts to decide the issue in the flanks.

Kind regards

[Sean Manning]

A pike "syntagma" could wheel and even extend is frontage.
It required more time than the spearmen. Again it was a question of how quick the threat was realised.

Late Hellenistic kingdoms stopped that practise and the only separate unit was Argyraspides or Chalkaspides (elite pikemen).
Worce they increase the pike length of rear ranks to add more punch and relied in their cavalry and peltasts to decide the issue in the flanks.

Kind regards

What do you mean by the italicized sentence above? Are you suggesting that there were no sub-units between the company of 256 and the phalanx of 10-20,000?

[hoplite14gr]

As I said before Phlip, Alexander and Pyrros would have devided the 10000 to 25000 pikemen into 256 men "syntagma" sub units.

Later Hellenistic generals especially Syria and Egypt neglected the infantry and had only an elite well trained unit of pikemen and use the rest of the infantry as amass and tht was finaly their undoing.

Kind regards

[Aryaman2]

As I said before Phlip, Alexander and Pyrros would have devided the 10000 to 25000 pikemen into 256 men "syntagma" sub units.

Later Hellenistic generals especially Syria and Egypt neglected the infantry and had only an elite well trained unit of pikemen and use the rest of the infantry as amass and tht was finaly their undoing.

Kind regards

Do you have a source for that? IIRC Asclepiodotos had the phalanx subdivided in multiple subunits down to 8 men, but talking from memory as I don´t have my books at hand.

[Robert Vermaat]

EPI DORI KLINE (turn to your spear i.e right) or
EPI ASPIDII KLINE (turn to your shield i.e leftt) can turn the trooper in 90 degrees in a matter of seconds.

Almost the same as Late Roman commands, AD SCUTO KLINA and AD CONTO CLINA

METAVOLI = about face can change the frontage 180 degrees also in a matter of seconds.

Maurikios mentions TRANSMUTA for that?

[hoplite14gr]

Aslepiodotos and Polyainos are right.
Philon Byzantios reswues the term Syskoinia (8-10 men)
Philip was accustomed with the Syskoinia (8-10 men) Lochos (100 men) and Taxis (200 - 500 men).
The phalanx was devided in sub-units at least until the early hellenistc period.
It is only the case that later Seleukidic and Ptolemaic armies did not have proprly drilled pike men and used massed uwieldly blocks of ill trained men.
A practice that was continued by Bythinians and Mithradates.

Robert I have read Mavrikios on the Greek text but the comand is also referenced by Polyenos.
Please see the thread "Commands in Greek"
Kind regards

[Ioannis]

METAVOLI = about face can change the frontage 180 degrees also in a matter of seconds.

I remember a particular night at boot camp where we were given the "metavoli" command 40 times in a row!

:roll: [/quote]

[hoplite14gr]

Bahh,h Yannis, 40 times was standard in AVLONA.
:lol: :lol:

[Ioannis]

HAHAHA! Remember, I was in the Air Force! :lol:

[hoplite14gr]

Ahh!! If Paul Allen has kept photos or video while my friend Themistokles drilled me in Watford, we can give you an idea of the single Spearman Drill.
We executed the commnads in Ancient Greek for the benefit of our visitors at the Ancient Greek Festival`Kind regards

[Muzzaguchi]

The following are from A Devine's translation of Aelian's Tactica (The Ancient World Vol 19, 1989 pp. 31-64).

The organisation of 'facings' (klisis) and 'countermarches in Aelian's Tactica are quite elaborate. He advises that the are to be used 'when the enemy appears on our flanks to envelop our wings or for counterattacks.' (25.1).

Facings are where the men turn in place to face another direction the two descriptions Aelian uses are 'shieldward' and 'spearward' (25.1). These were by command ('spearward face' and 'shieldward face' (42.1)). We can assume that these were almost instantaneous with a well drilled phalanx and could be done (according to Aelian) by syntagma of 256 men.

To occupy space not currently occupied by the phalanx is done by countermarch. Aelain describes three 'Laconian', 'Macedonian' and 'chorios' (or Cretan or Persian). Aelian suggests these as used to strengthen the line by moving the 'extreme wings' behind the centre 'half wings'.

The Laconian countermarch was to occupy the space immediately behind the current position. This could be done either by having the file leader countermarch through the syntagma and take up his new position behind the file closer or by having the file closer about-face and then each man in turn followed suit taking position up infront of the file closer.

The Macedonian Countermarch was to occupy the ground immediately in fron of their current position with the file leader about facing and the ranks taking up position behind him.

The chorios was where the phalanx stayed in the same position but the file leaders about-faced and took up the position of the file closers. This suggess an answer to the question above about equipment - the front ranks and file leaders were probably more heavily armed and defended than troops further back in the formation. (Although the file leader file closer and the two other mid rank (the half-file leader and half-file closer)commanders were to be of equal abilities so one assumes of equal armament and defence)

Again these would have been by command (the wildly unexciting: 'Laconian Countermarch' 'Macedonian Countermarch' 'Chorios Countermarch') Again these could have been performed quite quickly by a well trained phalanx as, in unison, it was only a matter of 16 or 32 men deep moving to a new position. With well drilled phalangites, one imagines the entire army could countermarch in a relatively short period of time. That assumes drill conditions and not combat and on ideal terrain.

Aelian allows that 'those who are reluctant, because of the presence of the enemy, to countermarch by large divisions, do it by syntagma (27.6). This suggests that large chunks of the army could be given the command and fulfill it relatively quickly. There seem to be no wheelings described or envisioned as necessary.

The picture Aelian paints is of a phalanx of infinite variety and flexibility. There are issues with his authority (he admits he knows nothing abut war)although with the tactica he was using and transmitting a genre which stretched back to Pyrrhus and even to Alexander's phalanx.

That the phalanx was defeated by Rome in 197 and 168 becuase they failed to adopt these measures, invented to prevent being outflanked, is no reason to assume that the phalanx was incapable of performing them.

Now that you are asleep I will creep away on tippy toes.

Cheers

Murray

[hoplite14gr]

Aelian is not out of reality when he describes movement by sub units.
What he describes can be executed by well drilled unengaged troops.
Most ellaborate actions would be performed when the enemy was at a "safe" distance.

The wheeling was not impossible.
The issue I mentioned was how effective it could be.
It could be effective to the point of devastation if you wheel to attack someone but it would be an act of desperation if you were under attack.

Usually all troop types that had been outflanked lost the battle.

Kind regards

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

A bit late,I suppose, to enter in this discussion...
A Greek phalanx would turn about face as following:The front ranker would turn and walk about face.then every hoplite following would also turn about face and would stand just behind the front ranker,so each one would have the same position in the phalanx as he had fefor.The only think that changes in the whole phalanx is that the right wing becomes left and the oposite.
Now,I don't know how a phalanx would turn and reform in 90 degrees,but I suppose that would be time consuming or even impossible for a not highly trained phalanx.When outflanked a phalanx would usually hope that it's right wing wins first.I'm not aware of any clasical phalanx winning a battle when outflanked by turning even a small unit.On the other hand Spartans managed to wheal considerable part of their formation to flank the enemy,was it in Nemea?That was different though as they din't have to think of an enemy charging against them and we don't know how long it took them.

Now Macedonian phalanxes were actually more flexible due to better organisation.As already stated,they would(like Spartans were supposed)turn by unit.If you form a unit of 256 men 16 deep,you have a square 16x16.In the Macedonian phalanx the "ouragos" would become front ranker and the front ranker ouragos.Now,possibly the ouragos was not so well equiped as front rankers,but anyway this would be a very special occasion to turn about face!In the same way the pikephalanx could turn 90 degrees without willing and would again form a aquare 16x16

As Stefanos said,turning about face was much easier than whealing for all phalanxes.I read somewhere that Alexander was experimenting with putting light troops even between every phalanx syntagma(256 men)

Khairete
Giannis