In the fourth century BC a new style of warfare came onto the world stage which was to become the dominant form of fighting in the eastern Mediterranean for two centuries. That new system of combat was the Hellenistic pike-phalanx – a block of ranks and files made up of men wielding a long pike known as the sarissa.¹ The sight of such a serried array of lengthy pikes, wielded in the hands of heavily-armoured phalangites, struck terror into all who witnessed it. Polyaenus calls the formation an ‘invincible beast’.² The Roman historian Livy states that ‘the phalanx is irresistible when it is closely packed and bristling with extended pikes’.³ At the battle of Gaugamela in 331BC, the phalanx of Alexander the Great is said to have ‘rolled forward like a flood’.⁴ Plutarch tells us that Aemilius Paulus, the Roman commander facing a Macedonian phalanx at the battle of Pydna in 168BC, ‘had never seen a more fearful sight’.⁵ Diodorus, in one of the greatest understatements found anywhere in ancient literature, states that the sight of the Macedonian phalanx merely ‘causes concern’.⁶
The pike-phalanx has been an object of fierce study and endless debate almost from the moment that the first phalangite stepped forward onto the field of battle. Indeed, almost every facet of phalangite warfare is contested in some regard. Scholars have argued for ages over the origins of the pike-phalanx, its composition and deployment, the arms and armour of the phalangites therein, the formation’s tactics, strategies, logistics and function. In fact, in regards to the campaigns of Alexander the Great, the only things that can be stated without touching upon one or more contested topics is that Alexander went on a long campaign against the Persians, made it all the way to India, came back to Babylon, and then died. Almost every other facet of Alexander’s campaign is debated at some level or to some extent. Due to the limited source material, examinations of the conflicts of the later Hellenistic Age are equally contentious.
This lack of a total understanding of the Macedonian way of war seems quite strange when the influences it had on the development of military technology and the arts of war are considered. As well as dominating the conflicts of the eastern Mediterranean for two centuries, the principles of the Hellenistic pike-phalanx would influence later armies during the Byzantine periods, the Muslim armies of the crusades, and even the large pike and musket armies of sixteenth and seventeenth century Europe. Yet, as noted, despite the long and extensive influence of the Hellenistic way of war, the specifics of this style of combat have been much debated. Markle states that, ‘to understand these developments [i.e. the changes in military tactics brought about by the adoption of the sarissa] it is necessary to be clear about the limitations of the size and weight of the sarissa, since these factors determined how the weapon could be wielded in battle’.⁷ Thus, at least according to Markle, one cannot expect to understand the broader construct of warfare in the Hellenistic Age without first understanding the very nature of the lengthy pike which changed the face of that warfare. Unfortunately, the investigation into Hellenistic warfare has not entirely held to this fundamental underlying principle. A comprehensive analysis of the behaviour of the individual phalangite, and the mechanics involved in wielding his weapons and armour correctly, on the battlefields of the Hellenistic world has really only begun with the advent of investigative techniques which have allowed scholars to move beyond the examination of literary accounts of battles and place themselves, quite literally in many regards, into the sandals of the warriors of the past.
What many of these newer techniques have demonstrated is that, in order to fully appreciate and understand what warfare in the Hellenistic world was like, things such as the sights, sounds, physical limitations and the weaponry of the time need to be carefully examined as a combined whole if modern scholarship is to have any hope of working out what it was like to take part in one of the large-scale battles of the Hellenistic Age. As Pietrykowski notes:
Understanding the sights, sounds and emotions of the ancient battlefield is an often ignored prerequisite to understanding the temperament of the armies, the decisions of the commanders and the overall course of the action.⁸
This is where processes such as physical re-creation, experimental archaeology and ballistic science come to the fore. By re-creating the panoply of the Hellenistic phalangite to the best of modern ability, and then putting the elements of this equipment to the test in the physical world, many of the passages of the ancient texts are literally brought to life. This then allows for the validity of such passages, and of prior theories which may have been solely based upon an interpretation of them, to be seen in a way that is not possible using any other means of analysis.
The value of practical experience in historical investigation is not a new concept. Indeed, it is older than the pike-phalanx itself. Writing at the end of the fifth century BC, the Greek military writer Xenophon stated that, ‘how to use a weapon can often be determined by simply holding it’.⁹ At the end of the Hellenistic Age, the writer Polybius commented on the worth of prior military writings of his time by declaring that, ‘any history, written solely on the review of memoirs and prior historical writings, is completely without value for its readers’ – by which Polybius was declaring that, without an appreciation of the physical aspects of the topic being examined, any historical analysis or narrative is somewhat limited.¹⁰ Such are the principles which underpin the use of physical re-creation as a means of examining history. Despite the early acknowledgement of the value of these techniques, the use of such methodologies has only been recently taken up by those investigating the past.
This, however, is not a negative reflection on the nature of previous scholarship as a whole. Rather it is the result of the focus of much of this earlier work. A great extent of the previous work done on the Hellenistic Period has focused more on the personalities and strategies of the time rather than attempting to understand the functionality of the men who fought the battles which helped shape the age. As Snodgrass notes, for the times of Philip II and Alexander the Great we know a good deal on the human and tactical side, but very little in term of arms and armour.¹¹
Sekunda notes that, ‘the literature dealing with all aspects of the military conquests of Alexander [the Great] is vast and growing constantly’.¹² In the opening of his book Conquest and Empire, Bosworth notes how, in 1976, books on Alexander the Great were being released at a rate of more than one per year.¹³ Thirty-one years later, in 2007, Thomas noted that the number of books that had been published on Alexander the Great (as listed on Questia) numbered 4,897 and that the inclusion of articles on the same subject would more than quadruple that number.¹⁴ If books and articles on Alexander’s father Philip, earlier Macedonian history, and the time of the Successors following Alexander’s death in 323BC were also counted, not to mention the vast corpus of extant ancient literature, and publications on art, inscriptions and archaeological reports, the sheer number of published works that touch on aspects of the warfare of the Hellenistic Age would be staggering. As Bosworth states, reading all of this literature would be a Herculean, and somewhat redundant, effort.¹⁵ This is because, by and large, the majority of these works fall into one or more of a number of sub-categories (regardless of whether they are ancient or modern, book or article):
• Works which concentrate on the major personalities of the Hellenistic Age and their character.
• Works that examine specific elements of warfare in the Hellenistic Age, such as tactics, weaponry, organization or logistics, with a view to better understanding them.
• Narrative overviews and examinations of the battles and campaigns of the time.
• Examinations of topography, particularly of battlefields, to understand the part that terrain played in some of the major events of the age.
• General works on the time period, or on ancient warfare, and even on specific armies of the Hellenistic Age.
• Works that are a combination of all or part thereof.
Thus, many of these works often cover similar material – often accepting and reiterating what a previous work has stated as part of their broader narrative – and only some of them attempt to examine any part of Hellenistic warfare in a new way. Consequently, across this vast library of literary resources, all of the elements needed to compile a comprehensive understanding of the functionality of the foot-soldier of the Hellenistic Age are present – although the finer details required for such an analysis may be hidden within broader narratives, scholarly debates and/or investigations of other areas not specifically relating to that topic. However, a comprehensive understanding of the Hellenistic man-at-arms needs to be undertaken in order for a lens to be held up to other works, both ancient and modern, to see how they compare and correlate with each other. A detailed understanding of how the individual combatant of the time operated on the field of battle helps put things such as strategy, tactics, logistics, deployment, topography and operational functionality into their correct context within the larger construct of Hellenistic warfare. What this means is that, similar to the principles set out by Polybius centuries beforehand, without understanding the role of the individual (which is only really possible through physical re-creation), you cannot fully understand the role and function of the army and, therefore, it is more difficult to understand the true nature of the broader aspects of war in this time period. Consequently, a thorough understanding of how each member of the pike-phalanx performed on the battlefield is of the utmost importance to any investigation into an aspect of warfare in the Hellenistic Age.
However, unlike Polybius, it must be acknowledged that the review of prior historical memoirs and other writings is an integral part of the examination of history, and of the role of the individual in particular, and must, in fact, be the place in which any investigation has to begin. Polybius was fortunate enough to be able to compose his own analysis of the pike-phalanx in action at a time when, although in its waning years, such formations were still used on the battlefield. For the modem scholar this is no longer possible (at least not on a large scale) and, consequently, the ancient literary accounts of the pike-phalanx must always be where any investigation into this style of combat must commence. However, the review of the ancient literary record is only one element of that investigation. Along with ancient texts, any examination of warfare in the ancient world must also come to grips with other sources of evidence such as numismatics, epigraphy, archaeological interpretation, topographical analysis, art history, an understanding of logistics, physical dynamics, and every other piece of information and evidence that the researcher can access – usually through many of the modern works that have come beforehand. In essence, all of the things that are examined in the different categories of analysis must be combined to create a holistic image of Hellenistic combat.
But for all of their value, many ancient sources still only provide a limited amount of information that can be used when reconstructing an ancient battle or examining a style of ancient combat. Artistic depictions of massed combat are rare, for example, and are additionally burdened by the varying interpretation of the viewer as well as the limitations imposed by the skill of the artist and the medium they have used. Similarly, the archaeological record may provide the researcher with examples of weapons or armour from the time period in question, but provides no details about how they were used without careful and critical analysis.¹⁶ Modern scholars derive their conclusions from the interpretation of a variety of sources and mediums found within the available evidence; yet they commonly reach greatly differing conclusions. This uncertainty shows that the precise nature of warfare in the Hellenistic world has been far from fully understood.
The use of purely theoretical reconstructions of a style of fighting does not allow for physical experimentation which is controlled, measurable and repeatable in order to test any conclusion based solely upon an interpretation of the source material. The ability to create tactical reconstructions and simulations of ancient battles, whether they are computer based or on paper, does provide a somewhat controlled means of replicating ancient warfare. However, such avenues of investigation are still limited by the amount of variables that are placed within the model and the rules under which these variables will operate.¹⁷ It is unlikely that every possible variable can be considered and included in such an exercise.
Thus this examination follows a simple, yet still rather complex, premise: in order to fully understand the functionality of the phalangite on the battlefields of the Hellenistic world, the traditional sources of evidence, and the methodologies used to interpret them, cannot be solely relied upon. Rather, the best way to understand what the phalangite within the pike-phalanx was faced with and, in turn, to understand Hellenistic warfare even in its most basic context, the phalangite himself has to be re-created, along with his environment, by combining the information available in the traditional sources of evidence with the investigative techniques of physical re-creation, experimental archaeology and ballistic science.¹⁸
To aid this process, a complete set of phalangite equipment was created by skilled craftsmen; this was then worn and tested in a variety of experiments which analysed different aspects of combat in the Hellenistic world. It is only by wearing the phalangite’s equipment, experiencing all of the limitations to movement and the senses that this panoply creates, extrapolating information from the imagery and descriptions of Hellenistic warfare given in the ancient source material, and then trying to replicate, via physical re-creation, the functions of the phalangite as is suggested by these sources, that the true nature of Hellenistic warfare can be understood. This process then allows for the accuracy of these sources and previous scholarship on the topic to be determined.
The design of this examination follows a series of progressive investigations with each one building on, and expanding upon, the findings of those that came before it. It begins with an examination of the scholarly debate over who created the pike-phalanx. It then moves on to examine the phalangite’s primary weapon, the sarissa; its constituent parts, the length, weight and balance of the assembled weapon and how it could be wielded in combat. This understanding of the physical properties of the sarissa, and how this dictated the way the weapon could be used, allows for many theories on Hellenistic warfare to be assessed. The results of this examination demonstrate that many of the models forwarded by previous scholars for how the individual phalangite wielded his primary weapon have been based upon an incorrect interpretation of the available evidence and this has then influenced subsequent investigations into the nature of Hellenistic warfare. This, in some cases, in not totally the fault of these models as these same results show that some of the ancient literary descriptions of both the sarissa and the phalanx do not correlate with what is physically possible. Thus the results of these investigations not only highlight the value of physical re-creation as a research tool, but also show where these ancient sources need to be reconsidered and modern models appropriately revised.
However decades, if not centuries, of investigation into the Hellenistic pike-phalanx cannot be simply dismissed based solely on a re-examination of the phalangite’s primary weapon. As such, physical re-creation, experimental archaeology and ballistic science are subsequently used to examine the functionality of the sarissa in the combat environment of the time by analysing such things as: how the pike could be repositioned within the massed confines of the phalanx, the strength and angle of impact of attacks made with this weapon, how long such offensive actions could be maintained, how well protected the phalangite was by the armour of the time and, therefore, what both he and his opponent would have aimed at during the course of a battle. The results of these tests are then compared to the literary, artistic and archaeological evidence to correlate (if possible) the test results with the ancient sources and modern theories. The results of these tests demonstrate that phalangite warfare was conducted in a manner that was vastly different to the way it has been interpreted by some previous scholars.
This holistic understanding of the dynamics of the phalangite in action is then used as the basis for a greater interpretation of the mechanics of Hellenistic combat; including the creation and maintenance of formations on the battlefield, tactics and strategy. Many of these facets cannot be fully understood without first developing a comprehensive understanding of the role of the individual who took part in these engagements. The use of physical re-creation allows for many of the questions relating to these areas to be addressed in a level of detail that is not possible through any other means of research. The results of this final part of the examination into the Hellenistic pike-phalanx at war show that much of the earlier written work is incomplete, inconclusive or simply incorrect.
An Invincible Beast is a follow-up work to an earlier investigation into the mechanics of warfare in Classical Greece which was published by Pen & Sword in 2012 as A Storm of Spears: Understanding the Greek Hoplite at War. However, An Invincible Beast is also intended to be a stand-alone work which assumes no familiarity with this earlier project on the part of the reader. People who have read the earlier work may find certain parts of this book (particularly areas where examination processes are described) somewhat familiar and possibly even slightly repetitive. This is not an attempt to deceive the reader by simply rehashing old material. On the contrary, this is an unavoidable by-product of using techniques that were successfully employed in a prior examination of one type of warfare in order to better understand the mechanics of conflict in a different part of the ancient world. I apologize for any sense of repetitiveness encountered by readers of A Storm of Spears and hope that it does not detract from the examination that follows.
One of the biggest problems facing anyone who attempts to examine the warfare of the Hellenistic world is the varied, and often ambiguous, terminology used by the ancient writers. The Hellenistic pikeman, for example, goes by a number of names in the ancient texts – even in works (and even paragraphs) written by the same author. Aelian calls them ‘peltasts’ and ‘hoplites’.¹⁹ Asclepiodotus also refers to them as ‘hoplites’.²⁰ Polybius calls them ‘hoplites’, ‘phalangites’, and ‘peltasts’, while he also calls them, along with Arrian and Livy, sarissophoroi, or ‘sarissa bearers’.²¹ Diodorus calls them ‘hoplites’ and ‘phalangites’, as does Livy in other parts of his work.²² Plutarch, along with using many of the other, more common terms, also calls the pikemen of the army of Antiochus (c.196BC) logchophoroi (λογχοφόροι).²³ Troops are also collectively referred to as ‘infantry’ (πεζοι) or ‘fighters’ (πυκνότητα) in more generalized terms – which may or may not be including pikemen.²⁴ Livy calls some of the units fighting at battles such as Magnesia in 190BC and Pydna in 168BC caetrati, which some interpret (somewhat controversially) as a reference to pike-wielding phalangites.²⁵ There are numerous other examples of the interchangeable use of terms to describe the Hellenistic pikeman, but these few suffice to illustrate the point.
These various and interchangeably used terms create several problems when reading the ancient texts as many of them have dual meanings. The term ‘hoplite’, for example, was also the name of the heavily armoured spearman of Classical Greece who was armed and equipped in a completely different manner to the Hellenistic pikeman. The term could also be used to simply mean ‘equipped’. Similarly, the term ‘peltast can be used to distinguish a Macedonian pikeman – Aelian uses the term as meaning ‘one who carries the peltē, the small Macedonian shield – as well as being the term used to describe skirmishers, missile troops and light infantry (which Aelian called the psiloi) by other writers who also carried a small shield. The only term that cannot be misinterpreted in any way is sarissophoroi.
Similarly, parts of the Hellenistic pikeman’s equipment go under a variety of names. The pike itself, for example, could be referred to specifically as a sarissa or generally as a spear (doru) – which is the same name for the weapon carried by the classical hoplite.²⁶ Additionally, the pikeman’s shield could be referred to specifically as a peltē or generally as an aspis – which is, again, the term used for the shields carried by the classical hoplite. In an attempt to avoid similar confusion within this work, unless the specific terminology of a passage is being addressed and is therefore required to be reproduced verbatim, the following terms will be used to distinguish the different troop types of the Classical and Hellenistic Age:
| hoplite | The spearman of Classical Greece – armed with a large shield (aspis) 90cm in diameter and wielding a spear (doru) approximately 2.5m long and wielded in the right hand. |
| phalangite/pikeman | The pikeman of the Hellenistic Age – armed with a small shield (peltē) 64cm in diameter and wielding a long pike (sarissa) over 5m in length and wielded in both hands. |
| psiloi/light troop/skirmisher | Lightly-armoured troops fighting as slingers, archers or javelineers – often functioning in the guise of a protective screen ahead of the main formations of infantry. |