| |
The phalanx was a rectangular mass military formation, usually composed
entirely of heavy infantry armed with spears, pikes, sarissas, or similar pole
weapons. The term is particularly (and originally) used to describe the use of
this formation in Ancient Greek warfare, although the ancient Greek writers
used it to also describe any massed infantry formation, regardless of its
equipment. Arrian uses the term in his Array against the Alans when he refers
to his legions. In Greek texts, the phalanx may be deployed for battle, on the
march, or even camped, thus describing the mass of infantry or cavalry that
would deploy in line during battle. They marched forward as one entity. The
term itself, as used today, does not refer to a distinctive military unit or
division (e.g., the Roman legion or the contemporary Western-type battalion),
but to the type of formation of an army's troops. Therefore, this term does not
indicate a standard combat strength or composition but includes the total
number of infantry, which is deployed in a single formation known as a
"phalanx". Many spear-armed troops historically fought in what might
be termed phalanx-like formations.
This article focuses on the use of the military phalanx formation in Ancient
Greece, the Hellenistic world, and other ancient states heavily influenced by
Greek civilization.
History:
The earliest known depiction of a phalanx-like formation occurs in a Sumerian
stele from the 25th century BC. Here the troops seem to have been equipped with
spears, helmets, and large shields covering the whole body. Ancient Egyptian
infantry were known to have employed similar formations. The first usage of the
term phalanx comes from Homer, used to describe hoplites fighting in an
organized battle line. Homer used the term to differentiate the formation-based
combat from the individual duels so often found in his poems. Historians have
not arrived at a consensus about the relationship between the Greek formation
and these predecessors of the hoplites. The principles of shield wall and spear
hedge were almost universally known among the armies of major civilizations
throughout history, and so the similarities may be related to convergent
evolution instead of diffusion. Traditionally, historians date the origin of
the hoplite phalanx of ancient Greece to the 8th century in Sparta, but this is
under revision. It is perhaps more likely that the formation was devised in the
7th century after the introduction of the aspis by the city of Argos, which
would have made the formation possible. This is further evidenced by the Chigi
vase, dated to 650 BC, identifying hoplites armed with aspis, spear and
panoply. Another possible theory as to the birth of Greek phalanx warfare stems
from the idea that some of the basic aspects of the phalanx were present in
earlier times yet were not fully developed due to the lack of appropriate
technology. Two of the basic tactics seen in earlier warfare include the
principle of cohesion and the use of large groups of soldiers. This would
suggest that the Greek phalanx was rather the culmination and perfection of a
slowly developed idea that originated many years earlier. As weaponry and
armour advanced through the years in different city-states, the phalanx became
complex and effective.
Overview:
The hoplite phalanx of the Archaic and Classical periods in Greece (c.
800–350 BC) was the formation in which the hoplites would line up in ranks
in close order. The hoplites would lock their shields together, and the first
few ranks of soldiers would project their spears out over the first rank of
shields. The phalanx therefore presented a shield wall and a mass of spear
points to the enemy, making frontal assaults against it very difficult. It also
allowed a higher proportion of the soldiers to be actively engaged in combat at
a given time (rather than just those in the front rank). Battles between two
phalanxes usually took place in open, flat plains where it was easier to
advance and stay in formation. Rough terrain or hilly regions would have made
it difficult to maintain a steady line and would have defeated the purpose of a
phalanx. As a result, battles between Greek city-states would not take place in
just any location, nor would they be limited to sometimes obvious strategic
points. Rather, many times, the two opposing sides would find the most suitable
piece of land where the conflict could be settled. Typically, the battle ended
with one of the two fighting forces fleeing to safety. The phalanx usually
advanced at a walking pace, although it is possible that they picked up speed
during the last several yards. One of the main reasons for this slow approach
was to maintain formation. The formation would be rendered useless if the
phalanx was lost as the unit approached the enemy and could even become
detrimental to the advancing unit, resulting in a weaker formation that was
easier for an enemy force to break through. If the hoplites of the phalanx were
to pick up speed toward the latter part of the advance, it would have been for
the purpose of gaining momentum against the enemy in the initial collision.
Herodotus states of the Greeks at the Battle of Marathon, that "They were
the first Greeks we know of to charge their enemy at a run".
Many historians believe that this innovation was precipitated by their desire
to minimize their losses from Persian archery. The opposing sides would
collide, possibly severing many of the spears of the row in front and killing
the front part of the enemy army due to the bone-breaking collision.
Pushing:
The "physical pushing match" theory is one where the battle would
rely on the valour of the men in the front line, whilst those in the rear
maintained forward pressure on the front ranks with their shields, and the
whole formation would consistently press forward trying to break the enemy
formation. This is the most widely accepted interpretation of the ancient
sources thus when two phalanx formations engaged, the struggle essentially
became a pushing match. Historians such as Victor Davis Hanson point out that
it is difficult to account for exceptionally deep phalanx formations unless
they were necessary to facilitate the physical pushing depicted by this theory,
as those behind the first two ranks could not take part in the actual spear
thrusting. No Greek art ever depicts anything like a phalanx pushing match, so
this hypothesis is a product of educated speculation rather than explicit
testimony from contemporary sources and is far from being academically
resolved. The Greek term for "push" was used in the same metaphorical
manner as the English word is (for example it was also used to describe the
process of rhetorical arguments) and so does not necessarily describe a literal
physical push, although it is possible that it did. For instance, if Othismos
were to accurately describe a physical pushing match, it would be logical to
state that the deeper phalanx would always win an engagement since the physical
strength of individuals would not compensate for even one additional rank on
the enemy side. However, there are numerous examples of shallow phalanxes
holding off an opponent. For instance, at Delium in 424, the Athenian left
flank, a formation eight men deep, held off a formation of Thebans 25 deep
without immediate collapse. It is difficult with the physical pushing model to
imagine eight men withstanding the pushing force of 25 opponents for a matter
of seconds, let alone half the battle. Such arguments have led to a wave of
counter-criticism to physical shoving theorists. Adrian Goldsworthy, in his
article "The Othismos, Myths and Heresies: The nature of Hoplite
Battle", argues that the physical pushing match model does not fit with
the average casualty figures of hoplite warfare nor the practical realities of
moving large formations of men in battle. This debate has yet to be resolved
amongst scholars. Practical difficulties with this theory also include the fact
that, in a shoving match, an eight-foot spear is too long to fight effectively
or even parry attacks. Spears enable a formation of men to keep their enemies
at a distance, parry attacks aimed at them and their comrades, and give the
necessary reach to strike multiple men in the opposite formation. A pushing
match would put enemies so close together that a quick stabbing with a knife
would kill the front row almost instantly. The crush of men would also prevent
the formation from withdrawing or retreating, which would result in much higher
casualties than is recorded. The speed at which this would occur would also end
the battle very quickly, instead of prolonging it for hours.
Shields:
Each individual hoplite carried his shield on his left arm, protecting not only
himself but also the soldier to the left. This meant that the men at the
extreme right of the phalanx were only half-protected. In battle, opposing
phalanxes would try to exploit this weakness by attempting to overlap the
enemy's right flank. It also meant that, in battle, a phalanx would tend to
drift to the right (as hoplites sought to remain behind the shield of their
neighbor). The most experienced hoplites were often placed on the right side of
the phalanx to avoid these problems. Some groups, such as the Spartans at
Nemea, tried to use
this phenomenon to their advantage. In this case, the phalanx would sacrifice
its left side, which typically consisted of allied troops, in an effort to
overtake the enemy from the flank. It is unlikely that this strategy worked
very often, as it is not mentioned frequently in ancient Greek literature.
There was a leader in each row of a phalanx, and a rear rank officer, the
ouragos (meaning tail-leader), who kept order in the rear. The hoplites had to
trust their neighbors to protect them and in turn be willing to protect their
neighbors; a phalanx was thus only as strong as its weakest elements. The
effectiveness of the phalanx therefore depended on how well the hoplites could
maintain this formation in combat and how well they could stand their ground,
especially when engaged against another phalanx. For this reason, the formation
was deliberately organized to group friends and family close together, thus
providing a psychological incentive to support one's fellows, and a
disincentive, through shame, to panic or attempt to flee. The more disciplined
and courageous the army, the more likely it was to win – often engagements
between the various city-states of Greece would be resolved by one side fleeing
before the battle. The Greek word dynamis, the "will to fight",
expresses the drive that kept hoplites in formation. Now of those, who dare,
abiding one beside another, to advance to the close fray, and the foremost
champions, fewer die, and they save the people in the rear; but in men that
fear, all excellence is lost. No one could ever in words go through those
several ills, which befall a man, if he has been actuated by cowardice. For
'tis grievous to wound in the rear the back of a flying man in hostile war.
Shameful too is a corpse lying low in the dust, wounded behind in the back by
the point of a spear.
Hoplite armament:
Each hoplite provided his own equipment. The primary hoplite weapon was a spear
around 2.4 metres (7.9 ft) in length called a dory. Although accounts of its
length vary, it is usually now believed to have been seven to nine feet long
(~2.1–2.7 m). It was held one-handed, with the other hand holding the
hoplite's shield (aspis). The spearhead was usually a curved leaf shape, while
the rear of the spear had a spike called a sauroter ('lizard-killer') which was
used to stand the spear in the ground (hence the name). It was also used as a
secondary weapon if the main shaft snapped or to kill enemies lying on the
ground. This was a common problem, especially for soldiers who were involved in
the initial clash with the enemy. Despite the snapping of the spear, hoplites
could easily switch to the sauroter without great consequence. The rear ranks
used the secondary end to finish off fallen opponents as the phalanx advanced
over them. Throughout the hoplite era, the standard hoplite armour went through
many cyclical changes. An Archaic hoplite typically wore a bronze breastplate,
a bronze helmet with cheekplates, as well as greaves and other armour. Later,
in the classical period, the breastplate became less common, replaced instead
with a corselet that some claim was made of linothorax (layers of linen glued
together), or perhaps of leather, sometimes covered in whole or in part with
overlapping metal scales. Eventually, even greaves became less commonly used,
although degrees of heavier armour remained, as attested by Xenophon as late as
401. These changes reflected the balancing of mobility with protection,
especially as cavalry became more prominent in the
Peloponnesian War
and the need to combat light troops, which were increasingly used to negate the
hoplite's role as the primary force in battle. Yet bronze armour remained in
some form until the end of the hoplite era. Some archaeologists have pointed
out that bronze armour does not actually provide as much protection from direct
blows as more extensive corselet padding, and have suggested its continued use
was a matter of status for those who could afford it. In the classical Greek
dialect, there is no word for swordsmen; yet hoplites also carried a short
sword called the xiphos, used as a secondary weapon if the dory was broken or
lost. Samples of the xiphos recovered at excavation sites were typically around
60 cm in length. These swords were double-edged and could therefore be used as
a cutting and thrusting weapon. These short swords were often used to stab or
cut at the enemy's neck during close combat.[18] Hoplites carried a circular
shield called a hoplon (often referred to as an aspis) made from wood and
covered in bronze, measuring roughly 1 metre (3.3 ft) in diameter. It spanned
from chin to knee and was very heavy (8–15 kg). This medium-sized shield
(fairly large for the period considering the average male height) was made
possible partly by its dish-like shape, which allowed it to be supported with
the rim on the shoulder. This was quite an important feature of the shield,
especially for the hoplites that remained in the latter ranks. While these
soldiers continued to help press forward, they did not have the added burden of
holding up their shield. But the circular shield was not without its
disadvantages. Despite its mobility, protective curve, and double straps the
circular shape created gaps in the shield wall at both its top and bottom. (Top
gaps were somewhat reduced by the one or two spears jutting out of the gap. In
order to minimize the bottom gaps, thick leather 'curtains' were used but only
by an [unknown] percentage of the hoplites, possibly mostly in the first row
only since there were disadvantages as well: considerable added weight on an
already heavy shield and a certain additional cost.) These gaps left parts of
the hoplite exposed to potentially lethal spear thrusts and were a persistent
vulnerability for hoplites controlling the front lines.
Phalangite armament:
Macedonian phalanx:
The phalanx of the Ancient Macedonian kingdom and the later Hellenistic
successor states was a development of the hoplite phalanx. The 'phalangites'
were armed with a much longer spear, the sarissa, and less heavily armoured.
The sarissa was the pike used by the ancient Macedonian army. Its actual length
is unknown, but apparently it was twice as long as the dory. This makes it at
least 14 feet (4.3 m), but 18 feet (5.5 m) appears more likely. (The cavalry
xyston was 12.5 feet (3.8 m) by comparison.) The great length of the pike was
balanced by a counterweight at the rear end, which also functioned as a
butt-spike, allowing the sarissa to be planted into the ground. Because of its
great length, weight and different balance, a sarissa was wielded two-handed.
This meant that the aspis was no longer a practical defence. Instead, the
phalangites strapped a smaller pelte shield (usually reserved for peltasts,
light skirmishers) to their left forearm. Recent theories, including
examination of ancient frescoes depicting full sets of weapons and armor, claim
that the shields used were actually larger than the pelte but smaller than the
aspis, hanging by leather strap(s) from the left shoulder or from both
shoulders. The shield would retain handling straps in the inner curve, to be
handled like a (smaller) aspis if the fight progressed to sword-wielding.
Although in both shield size assumptions this reduced the shield wall, the
extreme length of the spear kept the enemy at a greater distance, as the pikes
of the first three to five ranks could all be brought to bear in front of the
front row. This pike had to be held underhand, as the shield would have
obscured the soldier's vision had it been held overhead. It would also be very
hard to remove a sarissa from anything it stuck in (the earth, shields, and
soldiers of the opposition) if it were thrust downwards, due to its length. The
Macedonian phalanx was much less able to form a shield wall, but the lengthened
spears would have compensated for this. Such a phalanx formation also reduced
the likelihood that battles would degenerate into a pushing match.
Phalanx composition and strength:
The basic combat element of the Greek armies was either the stichos (meaning
"file"; usually 8–16 men strong) or the enomotia (meaning
"sworn" and made up by 2–4 stichœ, totaling up to 32 men),
both led by a dimœrites who was assisted by a decadarchos and two
decasterœ (sing. decasteros). Four to a maximum of 32 enomotiæ
(depending on the era in question or the city) were forming a lochos led by a
lochagos, who in this way was in command of initially 100 hoplites to a maximum
of c. 500 in the late Hellenistic armies. Here, it has to be noted that the
military manuals of Asclepiodotus and Aelian use the term lochos to denote a
file in the phalanx. A taxis (mora for the Spartans) was the greatest standard
hoplitic formation of 500 to 1500 men, led by a strategos (general). The entire
army, a total of several taxeis or moræ was led by a generals' council.
The commander-in-chief was usually called a polemarchos or a strategos
autocrator.
Phalanx front and depth:
Hoplite phalanxes usually deployed in ranks of 8 men or more deep; The
Macedonian phalanxes were usually 16 men deep, sometimes reported to have been
arrayed 32 men deep. There are some notable extremes; at the battles of Leuctra
and Mantinea, the Theban general
Epameinondas arranged the
left wing of the phalanx into a "hammerhead" of 50 ranks of elite
hoplites deep (see below) and when depth was less important, phalanxes just 4
deep are recorded, as at the battle of Marathon. The phalanx depth could vary
depending on the needs of the moment and plans of the general. While the
phalanx was in march, an eis bathos formation (loose, meaning literally
"in depth") was adopted in order to move more freely and maintain
order. This was also the initial battle formation as, in addition, it permitted
friendly units to pass through whether assaulting or retreating. In this
status, the phalanx had twice the normal depth and each hoplite had to occupy
about 1.8–2 metres (5 ft 11 in–6 ft 7 in) in width. When enemy
infantry was approaching, a rapid switch to the pycne (spelled also pucne)
formation (dense or tight formation) was necessary. In that case, each man's
space was halved (0.9–1 metre or 2 feet 11 inches–3 feet 3 inches in
width) and the formation depth returned to normal. An even denser formation,
the synaspismos or sunaspismos (ultra tight or locked shields formation), was
used when the phalanx was expected to experience extra pressure, intense
missile volleys or frontal cavalry charges. In synaspismos, the rank depth was
half that of a normal phalanx and the width each man occupied was as small as
0.45 metres (1.5 ft).
Stages of combat:
Several stages in hoplite combat can be defined: Ephodos: The hoplites stop
singing their pæanes (battle hymns) and move towards the enemy, gradually
picking up pace and momentum. In the instants before impact, war cries
(alalagmœ, sing. alalagmos) would be made. Notable war cries were the
Athenian (eleleleleu! eleleleleu!) and the Macedonian (alalalalai! alalalalai!)
alalagmœ.
Krousis: The opposing phalanxes meet each other almost simultaneously along
their front.
Doratismos: Repeated, rapid spear thrusts in order to disrupt the enemy
formation. The use of long spears would keep enemies apart as well as allow men
in a row to assist their comrades next to them. The prodding could also open up
a man to allow a comrade to spear him. Too hard prodding could get a spear
stuck in a shield, which would necessitate someone in the back to lend his to
the now-disarmed man. Othismos: Literally "pushing" after most spears
have been broken, the hoplites begin to push with their spears and spear shafts
against their opponents' shields. This could be the longest phase.
Pararrhexis: "Breaching" the opposing phalanx, the enemy formation
shatters and the battle ends. Cavalry would be used at this point to mop up the
scattered enemy.
Tactics:
Top: simplified schematic of traditional hoplite order of battle and advance
(elite troops in red).
Bottom: the diagonal phalanx utilised by the Thebans under Epaminondas. The
strong left wing advanced while the weak right wing retreated or remained
stationary.
Dispositions during the Battle of Leuctra, 371.
The early history of the phalanx is largely one of combat between hoplite
armies from competing Greek city-states. The usual result was rather identical,
inflexible formations pushing against each other until one broke. The potential
of the phalanx to achieve something more was demonstrated at Battle of Marathon
in 490. Facing the much larger army of Darius I, the Athenians thinned out
their phalanx and consequently lengthened their front, to avoid being
outflanked. However, even a reduced-depth phalanx proved unstoppable to the
lightly armed Persian infantry. After routing the Persian wings, the hoplites
on the Athenian wings wheeled inwards, destroying the elite troop at the
Persian centre, resulting in a crushing victory for Athens. Throughout the
Greco-Persian
wars the hoplite phalanx was to prove superior to the Persian infantry
(e.g. the battles of Thermopylae and Plataea). Perhaps the most prominent
example of the phalanx's evolution was the oblique order, made famous in the
Battle of Leuctra. There, the
Theban general Epaminondas thinned out
the right flank and centre of his phalanx, and deepened his left flank to an
unheard-of 50 men deep. In doing so, Epaminondas reversed the convention by
which the right flank of the phalanx was strongest. This allowed the Thebans to
assault in strength the elite Spartan troops on the right flank of the opposing
phalanx. Meanwhile, the centre and right flank of the Theban line were
echeloned back, from the opposing phalanx, keeping the weakened parts of the
formation from being engaged. Once the Spartan right had been routed by the
Theban left, the remainder of the Spartan line also broke. Thus, by localising
the attacking power of the hoplites, Epaminondas was able to defeat an enemy
previously thought invincible. Philip II of Macedon spent several years in
Thebes as a hostage, and paid attention to Epaminondas' innovations. On return
to his homeland, he raised a revolutionary new infantry force, which was to
change the face of the Greek world. Philip's phalangites were the first force
of professional soldiers seen in Ancient Greece apart from Sparta. They were
armed with longer spears (the sarissa) and were drilled more thoroughly in more
evolved, complicated tactics and manoeuvres. More importantly, though, Philip's
phalanx was part of a multi-faceted, combined force that included a variety of
skirmishers and cavalry, most notably the famous Companion cavalry. The
Macedonian phalanx now was used to pin the centre of the enemy line, while
cavalry and more mobile infantry struck at the foe's flanks. Its supremacy over
the more static armies fielded by the Greek city-states was shown at the Battle
of Chaeronea,
where Philip II's army crushed the allied Theban and Athenian phalanxes.
Weaknesses:
The hoplite phalanx was weakest when facing an enemy fielding lighter and more
flexible troops without its own such supporting troops. An example of this
would be the Battle of
Lechaeum, where
an Athenian contingent led by
Iphicrates routed an
entire Spartan mora (a unit of anywhere from 500 to 900 hoplites). The Athenian
force had a considerable proportion of light missile troops armed with javelins
and bows that wore down the Spartans with repeated attacks, causing disarray in
the Spartan ranks and an eventual rout when they spotted Athenian heavy
infantry reinforcements trying to flank them by boat. The Macedonian phalanx
had weaknesses similar to its hoplitic predecessor. Theoretically
indestructible from the front, its flanks and rear were very vulnerable, and
once engaged it may not easily disengage or redeploy to face a threat from
those directions. Thus, a phalanx facing non-phalangite formations required
some sort of protection on its flanks—lighter or at least more mobile
infantry, cavalry, etc. This was shown at the Battle of Magnesia, where, once
the Seleucid supporting cavalry elements were driven off, the phalanx was
static and unable to go on the offensive against its Roman opponents (although
they continued to resist stoutly and attempted a fighting withdrawal under a
hail of Roman missiles, until the elephants posted on their flanks panicked and
disrupted their formation).
The Macedonian phalanx could also lose its cohesion without proper coordination
or while moving through broken terrain; doing so could create gaps between
individual blocks/syntagmata, or could prevent a solid front within those
sub-units as well, causing other sections of the line to bunch up. In this
event, as in the battles of Cynoscephalae and Pydna, the phalanx became
vulnerable to attacks by more flexible units—such as Roman legionary
centuries, which were able to avoid the sarissae and engage in hand-to-hand
combat with the phalangites. Another important area that must be considered
concerns the psychological tendencies of the hoplites. Because the strength of
a phalanx depended on the ability of the hoplites to maintain their frontline,
it was crucial that a phalanx be able to quickly and efficiently replace fallen
soldiers in the front ranks. If a phalanx failed to do this in a structured
manner, the opposing phalanx would have an opportunity to breach the line
which, many times, would lead to a quick defeat. This then implies that the
hoplites ranks closer to the front must be mentally prepared to replace their
fallen comrade and adapt to his new position without disrupting the structure
of the frontline. Finally, most of the phalanx-centric armies tended to lack
supporting echelons behind the main line of battle. This meant that breaking
through the line of battle or compromising one of its flanks often ensured
victory.
Classical decline and post-classical use:
After reaching its zenith in the conquests of Alexander the Great, the phalanx
as a military formation began a slow decline, mirrored by the decline in the
Macedonian successor states themselves. The combined arms tactics used by
Alexander and his father were gradually replaced by a return to the simpler
frontal charge tactics of the hoplite phalanx. The expense of the supporting
arms and cavalry, and widespread use of mercenaries, caused the Diadochi to
rely on phalanx vs. phalanx tactics during the Wars of the Diadochi. The
decline of the Diadochi and the phalanx was inextricably linked with the rise
of Rome and the Roman legion from the 3rd century BC. Before the Battle of the
Caudine Forks, where the clumsiness of the Roman phalanx was displayed by the
Samnites (the Romans had originally employed the phalanx themselves) but
gradually evolved more flexible tactics resulting in the three-line Roman
legion of the middle period of the Roman Republic. The phalanx continued to be
employed by the Romans as a tactic for their third military line or triarii of
veteran reserve troops armed with the hastae or spear. Rome would eventually
conquer most of the Macedonian successor states, and the various Greek
city-states and leagues. These territories were incorporated into the Roman
Republic, and as these Hellenic states had ceased to exist, so did the armies
which had used the traditional phalanx formation. Subsequently, troops raised
from these regions by the Romans would have been equipped and fought in line on
the Roman model. However, the phalanx did not disappear as a military tactic
altogether. There is some question as to whether the phalanx was actually
obsolete by the end of its history. In some of the major battles between the
Roman army and Hellenistic phalanxes, such as at Pydna in 168, Cynoscephalae in
197 and Magnesia in 190, the phalanx performed relatively well against the
Roman army, initially driving back the Roman infantry. However, at
Cynoscephalae and Magnesia, failure to defend the flanks of the phalanx led to
defeat; whilst at Pydna, the loss of cohesion of the phalanx when pursuing
retreating Roman soldiers allowed the Romans to penetrate the formation, where
the latter's close combat skills proved decisive.
The ancient Greek historian Polybius goes into some detail about the
effectiveness of the Roman legion against the phalanx. He deduces that the
Romans refused to fight the phalanx where the phalanx was most effective and
offered battle only when they felt that they could exploit the clumsiness and
immobility of the phalanx.
Spear-armed troops continued to be important elements in many armies until the
advent of reliable firearms, but did not necessarily fight in the manner of a
phalanx. A meaningful comparison can be made between the classical phalanx and
late medieval pike formations. Particular parallels can be seen in the Middle
Ages and Renaissance city-states of the Low Countries (modern Netherlands,
Belgium and Luxembourg), the cantons of Switzerland and the city-states of
Northern Italy. Armies of the Low Countries were first armed with spears, then
pikes, and were defeating French and Burgundian forces by the 14th century.The
Swiss first used the halberd in the 14th century but—outreached by
Austrian cavalry armed with lances—the Swiss gradually adopted pikes in
the later 15th century. Swiss pike phalanxes of the Burgundian Wars were
dynamic and aggressive resulting in the destruction of the 'modern' Burgundian
army and the death of Charles the Bold. Some Italian states raised their own
pike units as well as employing Swiss mercenary pikemen in the 15th and 16th
century. The Swiss were also copied by German landsknechts leading to
bitterness and rivalry between competing mercenary units. Military historians
have also suggested that the Scots, particularly under William Wallace and
Robert the Bruce, consciously imitated the Hellenistic phalanx to produce the
Scots 'hedgehog' or schiltron. However, this ignores possible Early Middle Ages
use of long spears by Picts and others in Scotland. It is possible that long
spear tactics (also found in North Wales) were an established part of more
irregular warfare in parts of Britain prior to 1066. The Scots certainly used
imported French pikes and dynamic tactics at the Battle of Flodden. However,
this battle found the Scots pitted against effective light artillery and
advancing over bad ground, which disorganised the Scottish phalanxes and left
them easy prey to English longbow shooting and attacks by shorter but more
effective English polearms called bills. Some have interpreted contemporary
sources as describing the bills cutting off the heads of Scots pikes.
|
|
