pothos.org

Are there any really good (or not so good) treatments of the role of the sarissa-phalanx of the Macedonians? I'm interested in books, articles, etc. that may attempt to explain what the actual role of the sarissa-phalanx was - and explained in detail with references. I'm not sure if I have ever come across something like this outside of a generic and brief description in a textbook. Thanks...

Hammond has written one (and possibly another more to do with the cavalry from recollection) published in Antichthon that was titled "Training in the Use of the Sarissa and its effect in battle, 359-333 B.C". There are aslo Manti's “The Sarissa of the Macedonian infantry” (The Ancient World, 23.2, 1992, pp. 31-42), and “The Macedonian Sarissa, Again” (The Ancient World, 25.1, 1994, 77-91). The latter I do not have: Ancient World can be a bugger to lay hands on. The former I've read but do not have. I must go back to Macqaurie Uni...

There are not many that I'm aware of: most deal with the army organisation and evolution. I shall have a squizz when I get time. Have you read Rahe's paper on the infantry battle of Chaeronea?

I have not read Rahe's or Manti's articles. I have read Hammond's piece but it focuses on the creation of the Macedonian phalanx and its early uses more than anything else (as the title suggests). I am puzzled by that lack of analysis this has received. Thank you for the input.

That lack comes about largely due to the fact there are few passages in the sources describing the phalanx actually at work and, more so, just how it worked. One has to deduce from implications in the material just what is going on and how.

Diodorus – amongst others – is replete with phalanxes (Macedonian) “falling heavily upon” the opposition and “cutting them to pieces” in what is usually described as “hand to hand fighting” where the phalanx is “not to be checked in their charge”. Such laconic descriptive language, in a few words, summarises much action and bloodletting.

Arrian too leaves us largely guessing and his occasional glimpses simply tease. Gaugamela is as close as he comes to describing the phalanx in action:

Alexander wheeled round towards the gap, and forming a wedge as it were of the Companion cavalry and of the part of the phalanx which was posted here, he led them with a quick charge and loud battle-cry straight towards Darius himself. For a short time there ensued a hand-to-hand fight; but when the Macedonian cavalry, commanded by Alexander himself, pressed on vigorously, thrusting themselves against the Persians and striking their faces with their spears, and when the Macedonian phalanx in dense array and bristling with long pikes had also made an attack upon them, all things together appeared full of terror to Darius…

“That part of the phalanx” is clearly the hypaspists and, as we later find out, Koinos’ aesthetairoi. Later he tells us that the two taxeis of the left of the line are unable to follow as they are loath to leave the left wing in dire straits. More likely they were rooted to the spot with the Persian assault pinned upon their sarissae. The Hydaspes account too shows the phalanx, apparently, stepping back and assuming synaspismos for the final liquidation of the rajah’s trapped army.

Polybios (19.21.1-3 via Kallisthenes) tells us of the evolutions of the phalanx as it deployed upon the widening plain of Issos. Here it forms from column into a ‘double phalanx’ (32 deep) then into 16 deep and finally, likely to cover the field, eight deep.

In the later Hellenistic period we have Plutarch’s description (via Scipio Nasica) where Perseus’ phalanx “charges” the Roman maniples and plants their sarissae into the Romans through both shield and breastplate (18.19.1; 20.3-4). Polybios also relates the performance of Philip V’s phalanx at Cynoscephalae. Here Philip gathers that part of his phalanx that has formed up and orders it to double its depth and to “close up to the right” (18.24.8). This would be what Polybios means in his description of Issos where, had the phalanx eight deep formed synaspismos, it will have taken up only half the width of its earlier formation (close order). Polybios also describes the forming of the "double phalanx" by Gonatas at Sellasia (2.69.8-9) though, typically, he does not describe the detail of the evolutions.

After that we are left with the “Tactical Manuals”. These are written well after the event and envisage a geometrically perfect and faultlessly drilled phalanx operating in the perfect world. This is not to discount same, but, to take them at face value is to buy that marvellous three room tent and expect it to set up on the undulating surface of the average camp ground exactly as it did on the perfectly level floor of the showroom.

I will send you Rahe when I get home tonight.

Paralus wrote:That lack comes about largely due to the fact there are few passages in the sources describing the phalanx actually at work and, more so, just how it worked. One has to deduce from implications in the material just what is going on and how.

Diodorus – amongst others – is replete with phalanxes (Macedonian) “falling heavily upon” the opposition and “cutting them to pieces” in what is usually described as “hand to hand fighting” where the phalanx is “not to be checked in their charge”. Such laconic descriptive language, in a few words, summarises much action and bloodletting.

While there may not be many passages that describe the phalanx "actually at work" and "just how it worked," I've found there are quite a few highly descriptive fragments from numerous works that can be used to shed light on the problem. And it can be done without much guesswork, only a little use of the imagination. While it will be probably impossible to exactly reproduce what an actual Macedonian sarissa-phalanx looked like and exactly how it functioned, I think we can definitely gain a better understanding of it and just how it was applied in battle.

After that we are left with the “Tactical Manuals”. These are written well after the event and envisage a geometrically perfect and faultlessly drilled phalanx operating in the perfect world. This is not to discount same, but, to take them at face value is to buy that marvellous three room tent and expect it to set up on the undulating surface of the average camp ground exactly as it did on the perfectly level floor of the showroom.

True, but I think it would be pretty safe to say that these men (the Tacticians) knew more about the sarissa-phalanx than we do, and at least had possibly seen the formation in action or on parade or while drilling. I do not think we should ignore, reject, or disqualify their opinions simply because they were writing under perfect conditions (and I'm not saying that you were doing that -- but just in general). I think their opinions should be carefully received and approached with caution; they should be heard but then applied to actual battles to see if they hold up and to see when we can find similarities.

rocktupac wrote: I've found there are quite a few highly descriptive fragments from numerous works that can be used to shed light on the problem. And it can be done without much guesswork, only a little use of the imagination. While it will be probably impossible to exactly reproduce what an actual Macedonian sarissa-phalanx looked like and exactly how it functioned, I think we can definitely gain a better understanding of it and just how it was applied in battle.

A few passages it is true Scott. Those that mention the actual evolutions of the phalanx are limited and there is – as I’m certain you’re aware from threads elsewhere – much debate as to their import. Polybios preserves some of this but is, in no way, interested in explaining exactly how the phalanx operated (aside from the celebrated passage of 18.29 - 30.4). To convolute matters he describes a far more inflexible beast: the phalanx of the second century. No matter the distraction over “Attic” or “military” cubits, two things are reasonable plain:

• *The sarisa lengthened over time (the ancient arms race) and settled on a “general” length in Polybios’ time.
  
  *The fully integrated use of dedicated light infantry and mixed cavalry in tactical coordination with the “attacking” wing of the phalanx was a rapidly dying art during the wars of the Diadochoi.

The latter is most important: as the phalanx steadily became all on the battlefields of the Epigoni elephants became the panacea to decent coordinated light infantry and cavalry on the attacking wing. It is likely this steady increase in the importance of the phalanx as the military arm of decision that saw the lengthening of its pike.

Alexander fought Issos and Gaugamela with a frontline Macedonian phalanx of 12,000 men. By the time we get to Paraetekene (317) Antigonus fields 28,000 phalanx infantry (16,000 certainly armed in the Macedonian fashion if not the Lycians and Pamphylians). At Raphia (217) Antiochus fields a phalanx – armed in the Macedonian fashion – of 35,000 and Ptolemy a minimum of 25,000 (the 8,000 Greek mercenaries are trained with the phalanx).

The usual take is the phalanx was simply a passive animal that presented sarisae for the enemy to be driven upon. This is an outdated view that is still represented in Stone’s film: “while you pin them on your sarisas my brave Parmenion”. The sources relate a rather more active role for the sarisa-armed phalanx as a reading of Arrian, Plutarch and Polybios would indicate.

rocktupac wrote: True, but I think it would be pretty safe to say that these men (the Tacticians) knew more about the sarissa-phalanx than we do, and at least had possibly seen the formation in action or on parade or while drilling.

The earliest of these is sometime in the first century BC. The rest are more or less contemporary with Arrian. That any of these writers saw a Macedonian phalanx drilling is most unlikely. By the first century BC the Macedonian phalanx was the equivalent of the cavalry charge on the Somme: a quaint recollection of former times not ever to be seen. A bit like the Romans, like Paullus, who came to Sparta to tour the once famous city state: it was, essentially, a theme park.

It really comes down to how much of these are well steeped in previous – contemporary – treatises. Their propensity for a mathematically philosophical perfection does not always inspire confidence. Again, that is not to dismiss such out of hand – they may have access to sources on Philip and Alexander that we now lack.

Now to find time for Agesilaos' "Break in the Line" thread before occupying a tent in the Snowies next week...

Paralus wrote: The usual take is the phalanx was simply a passive animal that presented sarisae for the enemy to be driven upon. This is an outdated view that is still represented in Stone’s film: “while you pin them on your sarisas my brave Parmenion”. The sources relate a rather more active role for the sarisa-armed phalanx as a reading of Arrian, Plutarch and Polybios would indicate.

I couldn't agree more. The Macedonian sarissa-phalanx is almost always touched on briefly by modern authors and its function is largely ignored or simplified to being the anvil to which the cavalry acts as the hammer. As you say, this view is outdated. I also think the sarissa-phalanx had a more active role in engagements, and possibly even sometimes acting as the main offensive role. It can only be viewed in this was when you look at the sources you listed. I think the words of the ancient authors need to be looked at much more closely than they seemingly have been. That is what I am doing currently: starting with the ancient authors and assembling everything they say about the sarissa-phalanx -- from the time of Philip to the battles against the Romans.

The earliest of these is sometime in the first century BC. The rest are more or less contemporary with Arrian. That any of these writers saw a Macedonian phalanx drilling is most unlikely. By the first century BC the Macedonian phalanx was the equivalent of the cavalry charge on the Somme: a quaint recollection of former times not ever to be seen. A bit like the Romans, like Paullus, who came to Sparta to tour the once famous city state: it was, essentially, a theme park.

I was probably over-exaggerating a bit, but what I wanted to get across was that the ancient authors, writing almost contemporaneously, probably had a bit more to rely on to compose their work than we do today.

It really comes down to how much of these are well steeped in previous – contemporary – treatises. Their propensity for a mathematically philosophical perfection does not always inspire confidence. Again, that is not to dismiss such out of hand – they may have access to sources on Philip and Alexander that we now lack.

I don't think you would find many differences if you were to compare these to modern military guidebooks (i.e. the "mathematically philosophical perfection", if I understand you correctly). True, they may have been describing the sarissa-phalanx in the "perfect conditions", but it does not mean that perfect conditions described in a manual cannot help us understand the way a sarissa-phalanx behaved on the battlefield. Or at least how it was suppose to behave.