The "Fred thread": the Argead Macedonian Army

[PMBardunias]

(Pherae I 357/356, Pherae II 354, Olynthus III 348, Olynthus IV 348, Megalopolis 331, and Crannon 322, etc.)

Usually we cite sources when listing battles like this, because 1) it saves me from searching for them, 2) I know which version of the battle you are basing your opinion on.

Even then, it should be noted that adoption of the Macedonian manner of fighting doesn't necessarily mean universal use of the sarissa. Indeed, at the time the Achaeans acquired this military style they had long abandoned the hoplite, yet they now set about equipping some of their men with a large shield (aspis, suggesting a return to hoplites) and others as phalangites with sarissai, indicating that both warrior types were considered necessary to make the system work. In contrast, the Spartans, who had never abandoned the hoplite, needed only to add sarissai to complete a transition to Macedonian warfare.

Both the Achean transition and the use of shields larger than peltae are hotly debated topics.

I would propose that each warrior type, hoplite and phalangite, had its strengths and weaknesses, with the former offering better offensive potential at greater expense and the latter offering excellent defensive characteristics at lower cost. Ultimately, just like in modern trench warfare, defense ended up ruling the day; once pikes got long enough, it was simply too hard for hoplites to cut their way through their overlap and kill/wound the phalangites holding them.

I don't think there is such a solid trend in sarissa lengthening for you to correlate against. Don't forget the simple dominance of Macedonian-derived militaries. Just as the US derived 5.56mm has replaced other calibers- some of which would have been superior in the Gulf war setting- there was surely cultural pressure to rearm that was not of neccesity tied to peformance.

This probably was what prompted a revival of the throwing spear, which could (like the Roman pilum) project offense forward into fronting phalangites and, perhaps, give the hoplite a chance to disrupt and get at some of the pikemen (note, however, that such missiles would have been carried only in additon to the dory, which was retained for its shock combat value).

Be careful, I know of no battle where thrown spears were significant in breaking formed sarissaphoroi. You'll need to correlate thureophoroi-vs-phalanx battles, being sure to recall that phalangites could be longche armed as well. Where the Romans, who were essentially thureophoroi, succeeded was in having the tactical flexibility to exploit terrain effects and attack a phalanx with smaller modular units.

The rather weak prodding of a sarissa was more of a hinderance than a deadly threat to a well-protected hoplite, but it was very dangerous for a nearly unprotected fellow phalangite. Fighting each other, they could fence for advantage and actually break through an enemy phalanx. So things must have stood as long it was Macedonian against Macedonian, but entry of the Romans onto the scene changed all that.

I'm not sure the prodding was all that weak compared to the protection offered by an aspis, and the 60 cm pelta was still a robust shield in its own right for catching sarissa points.

Protected like hoplites, but more flexible and well able to take advantage of disruptons in the Macedonian array over rough terrain or as devloped during the course of a battle, the Roman swordsman put an end to the phalangite era, causing Hellenistic armies to adopt Roman gear and techniques after 168 B.C. - Fred

Polybious (here I should be giving you the reference) is clear that Romans could not stand up to the frontal assault of a phalanx. Remember that the hastatii that first faced a phalanx was rather poorly armored, and the scutum was often "pinned" by the sarissa.