Pikemen and the Phalanx

[Penitent]

Look at these two pictures:

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Swiss pikemen were prized mercenaries due to their loyalty and discipline.  Such discipline and drilling allowed for tight pike formations and maneuvers that were very efficient and unheard of on the medieval battlefield at the time.  It changed much of the way battles were fought from then onward in central Europe.

The Greeks were doing virtually the same thing...but over a thousand years earlier!

What happened?  Was this formation "technology" lost?  Did battlefield conditions change thus that is caused the phalanx formation to no longer be useful, then came full circle around again over 1,500 years later so that this formation was indeed successful again?  What else could be going on?

Does anyone know if there are any major differences between these two formations, or how they were used?  The hoplites had shields, obviously...but what else?

Just some observations and questions.

[Christo]

First of all, it was the Macedonians, who used the "Phalanx" to it's full with their Pezhetaroi, and other types of Sarissa carrying infantry.

The Greeks "Hoplite" didn't disappear, Roman infantry had Spear/Shielders on the field, and guess what was the most used "loadout" in the middle ages. The spear, and the shield. Anyway the Greeks also had to adapt to the Sarissae using Macedonians at some point.

The "loss" of this particular style of fighting could've happened because of two things. First, the Roman way of fighting just made phalanxes obsolete, so it wasn't as useful after that. One could also argue that many re-discoveries happened during the dark ages and after, because of the "barbarians" destroyed Rome, Europe went back centuries in terms of technology and culture.

Then, during the supremacy of the knight, these long spear formations became a pretty good choice, considering they could negate charges easily, the pike was the deciding factor on the battlefields at this point, until Gunpowder became too widespread and popular.

The lack of shields.. well I'd say that they went for more mobility instead of ranged defense. Very odd thing when archery and guns were all over the place, but shields were almost useless at the time period pikes were re-discovered and used en-masse.

Keep it in mind that this is my opinion and I used no website to confirm anything. So feel free to correct me, Must've said something stupid along these lines.

Ah, about to their differences. Well, the Macedonian Phalanx was HUGE. I remember reading about it and it was a MANY miles long line, like a moving frontline armed with 3-5 meter long spears and shields.

The Swiss and others like the Tercio, used other methods like Pike squares, and mixing firearms and pikes, covering the gunners while reloading, etc.

[NuberT]

I came upon Anatoly_Fomenko recently, who claims, like others before him, that the whole ancient history was actually imagined in the renaissance.

I really want to read his books, but I just don't have the time atm and its a lot to read.. its like all those big things either you say: pure bullshit or wow can this actually be

[Bjord]

You mean conspiracy theories, NuberT?

Yeah, they're often made believable on purpose. But it's still just a conspiracy theory.

[[ptx]]

NuberT, really? Come on, you can do better than that. Earth is also round, not flat.

IMHO, it's about military tradition. The hellenic people were conquered by romans, that had a different approach to warfare (which incidentally turned out to counter the phalanx rather well). Thus, they didn't maintain the hoplite/phalanx traditions of the greeks. Roman empire (both halves) maintained their military tradition till they were no more. The "barbaric" europeans, that had overtaken Western Rome had their own approach to warfare. It took the swiss a serious threat from being surrounded by forces that made heavy use of knights to develop this counter for it.

[NuberT]

Did I say anywhere I do believe in any of it? I am interested in such stuff and able to make my own thoughts unlike you small minded people. 

[Turboflex]

I believe part of it is explained been the loss of cohesive states through the dark ages and early/high medieval. A pike/phalanx formation needs constistent training which would come from a state organization (city or nation) and after Rome fell, state-organizations mostly broke down to Kings who only controlled small areas and depended on largely indepedant barons and lords to bring soldiers to them. These lords were not interested in training peasants into soldiers, but maintaining a small professional soldier class of themselves and their household.

Pikes formations made a comeback when states started reforming, the Swiss federation, also city-states in Flanders and Germany were big on pikes and had a population of armed citizens living together who were dedicated to the necessary training. Later in the renaissance major nations of France, Spain, etc. all began fielding standing trained armies which included pike formations.

[Penitent]

Hmmm..good insights.

Here's a followup.  If Rome's tactics were able to make the phalance obsolete (they had large, curved shields and a "decentralized" or "individualistic/loose" formation fighting style, allowing them to slip in between the pikes and stabby them) what stopped other European nations from doing the same thing later on and rendering swiss pike squares obsolete?

Sure the pike squares had cavalry and ranged troops to support the squares, but so did the greeks to an extent.  What do you think?

[[ptx]]

Afaik, the phalanx was somewhat different from the medieval pike-walls, better suited to dealing with infantry, but more rigid and thus less flexible. Not really how did the Romans counter it, but they did, apparently.

Noone said that the pike formations were any good against well armoured sword-and-board troops (dismounted knights?) or other such infantry. It's just that they actually kept the cavalry off, whilst ranged troops (crossbowmen) could deal with other infantry. Or am i mistaken here?

[Turboflex]

Hmmm..good insights.

Here's a followup.  If Rome's tactics were able to make the phalance obsolete (they had large, curved shields and a "decentralized" or "individualistic/loose" formation fighting style, allowing them to slip in between the pikes and stabby them) what stopped other European nations from doing the same thing later on and rendering swiss pike squares obsolete?

Sure the pike squares had cavalry and ranged troops to support the squares, but so did the greeks to an extent.  What do you think?

There's only a couple of battles of Greek phalanx vs Roman legions. The Greek phalax stood up very well head to head but they lost the battles when it was outmaneuvered tactically by better commanders. The Romans did not have any special gear to get through a wall of 8 foot long spears, which remained a very effective frontal tactic through to even napoleonic times. Sword & Buckler soldiers were utried by the Spanish for a while in the renaissance as an anti-pikewall measure, they had limited success and didn't last long.

Pike squares were phased out during the 30 years war as more and muskets were integrated. At the beginning a typical mixed formation was like 20:80 muskets to pikes and by the end was like 80:20. The emphasis on ranged fighting gradually shifting and proving preffered to melee I guess as muskets/artillery improved and became more common. You still needed some pikes and other guys mixed in but the preference had shifted to firepower.

[Lange]

So the real question would be "why didn't the romans use sarissae to complement their way of fighting". Especially against the parthian cavalry or the likes...

Did I say anywhere I do believe in any of it? I am interested in such stuff and able to make my own thoughts unlike you small minded people. 

The normal person made his own thoughts on such ludicrous claims already. Even finding such a read just worth the time to look at it suggests a rather strange disposition, let alone mentioning it in a serious historical debate. (Though the premise sounds at least entertaining to read. Like, the way an animal tripping it's own tail is entertaining.  )

[NuberT]

So the real question would be "why didn't the romans use sarissae to complement their way of fighting". Especially against the parthian cavalry or the likes...

The normal person made his own thoughts on such ludicrous claims already. Even finding such a read just worth the time to look at it suggests a rather strange disposition, let alone mentioning it in a serious historical debate. (Though the premise sounds at least entertaining to read. Like, the way an animal tripping it's own tail is entertaining.  )

I would say the normal person refuses to even to think about such stuff, let alone to read more then 2000 pages .

Apart from that the man has spent like 30 years on his work, its kinda unfair to judge on his work without having read a single piece of it, but probably hes just a mathematician, who went crasy 30 years ago^^

[Uumdi]

Phalanx more like phallus HEH

[Imloxion]

What happened?  Was this formation "technology" lost?  Did battlefield conditions change thus that is caused the phalanx formation to no longer be useful, then came full circle around again over 1,500 years later so that this formation was indeed successful again?  What else could be going on?

No it isnt lost,the battlefield conditions changed due to the low-level of that time .The phalanx requires excellent teamwork and organization and it is the most superior tactic of the time,thats why the people of that time couldnt correspond to it.The swiss pikemen show us how superior was the phalanx in noumerous battles,even as a low class phalanx type.

 The hoplites had shields, obviously...but what else?

The hoplites used much shorter spears than the later sarissa,their shields protect the warrior next to them(shortly you fight to protect the one next to you),a phalanx worked as a very solid body,being unbreakable by the enemy.Their main tactic was a complete pulse against the enemy unit (the soldiers at the back push the soldiers in front of them) disbanding it with a steady march.The classic phalanx had 8 lines and later around 16.But with the usage of firearms and big radius explosive it could be effective anymore

[Sarpton]

         

(click to show/hide)

The phalanx formation reached its height of effectiveness in the conquests of  Alexander  the Great  who was able to move large bodies of men very quickly and whose brilliant strategies on the field made skillful use of the formation; but the phalanx steadily declined in use after Alexander’s death. At the Battle of Cynocephalae in 197 BCE, the Romans defeated the Greek phalanx easily because the Greeks had failed to guard the flanks of their phalanx and, further, the Greek commanders could not turn the mass of men who comprised the phalanxes quickly enough to counter the strategies of the Romans and, after this battle, the phalanx fell out of use. There are some historians who argue the phalanx was already obsolete by the time of Cynocephalae and the Greek commanders failed to use it effectively in that battle because its use was no longer properly understood. However that may be, the Romans themselves took up the phalanx formation and succeeded in using it to effect during the period of the  Roman  Republic  before the formation was discarded in favor of the three-line Roman Legion with which the  Roman  Empire  conquered the known world.




   The Swiss solved the pike's earlier problems and brought a renaissance to pike warfare in the 15th century, establishing strong training regimens to ensure they were masters of handling of the Spiess (The German term for "skewer") on maneuvers and in combat, the Swiss having also introduced marching to drums for this purpose. This meant that the pike blocks could rise to the attack, making them less passive and more aggressive formations, but sufficiently well trained that they could go on the defensive when attacked by cavalry. German soldiers known as Landsknechts later adopted Swiss methods of pike handling.

The Scots predominantly used shorter spears in their schiltron formation; their attempt to adapt the longer Continental pike was dropped in masses after ineffective use led to a humiliating defeat at the Battle of Flodden.

Such Swiss and Landsknecht phalanxes also contained men armed with two-handed swords, or Zweihänder, and halberdiers for close combat against both infantry and attacking cavalry.

The Swiss were confronted with the German Landsknecht who used similar tactics as the Swiss, but more pikes in the more difficult deutschen Stoss (holding a pike that had its weight in the lower 1/3 at the end with two hands), which was utilized in a more flexible attacking column.

The high military reputation of the Swiss and the Landsknecht again led to the employment of mercenary units across Europe in order to train other armies in their tactics. These two and others, who had adopted their tactics, faced off in several wars leading to a series of developments as a result of these confrontations.[3]

These formations had great successes on the battlefield, starting with the astonishing battlefield victories of the Swiss cantons against Charles the Bold of Burgundy in the Burgundian Wars, in which the Swiss participated in 1476 and 1477. In the battles of Grandson, Morat and Nancy, the Swiss not only successfully resisted the attacks of knightly foes, as the relatively passive Scottish and Flemish infantry squares had done in the earlier Middle Ages, but also marched to the attack with great speed and in good formation, their attack columns steamrolling the Burgundian forces, sometimes with great massacre.

The deep pike attack column remained the primary form of effective infantry combat for the next forty years, and the Swabian War saw the first conflict in which both sides had large formations of well-trained pikemen. After that war, its combatants—the Swiss (thereafter generally serving as mercenaries) and their Landsknecht imitators—would often face each other again in the Italian Wars, which would become in many ways the military proving ground of the Renaissance.

Contemporary Japan experienced a parallel evolution of pole weapons. The Japanese style of warfare was, however, generally fast-moving and aggressive with far shallower formations than their European equivalents. The naginata and yari became common weapons for Japanese ashigaru foot soldiers (who sometimes used extremely long yari) and dismounted samurai due to the greater reach than swords, which samurai also carried. Naginata, first used around 750 AD, had a curved sword-like blade on a wood shaft with a metal counterweight, often spiked; it was used more with a slashing action and forced the introduction of sune-ate (shin guards) as cavalry battles became more important. Yari were spears of varying lengths; the straight blade usually had sharpened edges, sometimes protrusions from the central blade, and fitted to a hollowed shaft with an extremely long tang. Around later half of 16th century, pikemen holding pikes with length of 4.5 to 6.5 m (15 to 22 feet) or sometimes 10 m became main forces in armies. They formed lines, combined with arquebusiers and short spearmen. Pikemen formed two or three rows of line, and were forced to move up and down their pikes in unison under the command.

Finally, the rise of firearms and artillery in the 16th century made the big pike columns vulnerable to being shot down despite their awesome close-combat power. The decline of the combat column of pikemen was starkly displayed at the terrible Battle of Bicocca in 1522, for instance, where arquebusiers contributed to the heavy defeat of a force of Swiss pikemen.

TLDR version:   Pikes got out maneuvered by romans then got revived by scots as a cheap and effective way to counter heavy cav.   Pikes fell out of favor as cannons/guns got better .