It is highly unlikely that the phalangite held the sarissa in only one position. Whether through the process of marching, deploying in formation on the battlefield, or through preparing to engage an enemy, the phalangite undoubtedly moved through a number of different positions during the course of a battle. However, no ancient text comprehensively details the movements employed by the individual phalangite to alter the positioning of his weapon in preparation for, and to engage in, combat.
Other than references to the location of the grip found in sources like Arrian, Aelian, Asclepiodotus and Polybius, there are very few references to specific movements which can be considered part of ‘phalangite drill’ in the ancient texts. Even in military manuals, the focus of the work tends to be much broader in its scope; detailing the organization and movement of formations rather than the individual combatant. This may account for why an examination of the elements of phalangite drill have not been a part of any modern exploration of the warfare of the Hellenistic Age other than to recognize that phalangites needed to be well trained in order to effectively use the sarissa within the massed formation of the phalanx.¹ Yet the details of phalangite drill are essential in order to better understand the functionality and limitations of the pike-phalanx. The rudiments of phalangite drill must therefore be gleaned from passages that are scattered throughout the ancient narratives and military manuals.
Aelian, for example, concludes his examination of the phalanx by providing a simple overview of some of the words of command used when deploying an army. Many of these relate to individual drill movements with the sarissa. Among those listed by Aelian are instructions to ‘stand at attention’ (prosechē), to ‘raise spears’ (anō ta doru) – by which he means pikes, to ‘face to the spear’ (epi doru klinai) – in other words, to turn to the right, and to ‘wheel to the spear’ (epi doru epistrophe) – in other words, to have the whole formation swing like a gate to the right.² Asclepiodotus offers similar instructions in his account of phalangite commands, as does Arrian.³
Thus from these passages we begin to see the basic movements of the phalangite with his weapons. The first movement, ‘stand at attention’, for example, is not a combative posture. In such a position, the phalangite most likely stood facing towards the front – with the shield held across the front of his body and the sarissa raised vertically, held only by the right hand, and with the butt placed upon the ground. Such positions are common in funerary stele such as that of Nikolaos (see Plate 8).
In the second position, ‘raise spears’, the phalangite would have raised the pike vertically, lifting the butt off the ground. It seems most likely that when this occurred, the left hand would be brought across to grasp the sarissa as well, in order to help carry its weight. Interestingly, when in the former ‘attention’ position, the right hand would grip a weapon which had its butt on the ground at a point higher than the weapon’s point of balance. Thus as the weapon is raised, the left hand would have to move into a position where it could grasp the shaft at the correct point of balance, and the grip of the right hand would then be momentarily released and the hand moved to its correct location as the weapon was raised.
The final two commands, turning and wheeling to the right, would require the pike to be held in this elevated vertical position due to the confined nature of the phalanx. Aelian specifically states that the process of wheeling could only be undertaken while the sarissa is held vertically.⁴ This would also apply to the process of changing the facing of the individual due to the fact that it is impossible for someone in a massed formation to turn 90° to either their left or right while a weapon like a lengthy pike is leveled for combat.
Perhaps the best description of phalangite drill movements can be found in Arrian’s Anabasis. Arrian describes how, during a demonstration in Thrace in 335BC, Alexander the Great arranged his men in formation:
…and then he gave the infantry the order to raise their pikes vertically then, at the command, to extend them for battle, and now, by inclining to the right, closed up the spears, and then back again to the left. The whole phalanx moved smartly forward and then turned (paragoge) this way and that.⁵
Some earlier translations of this passage do not seem to be entirely correct in regards to the drill movements that are described. For example, de Sélincourt’s translation (Penguin, 1971) reads:
Then he gave the order for the heavy infantry first to erect their spears, and afterwards, at the word of command, to lower their massed points as for attack, swinging them, again at the word of command, now to the right, now to the left. The whole phalanx then moved smartly forward, and, wheeling this way and that…
The term ἐγκλῖναι, translated by de Sélincourt as ‘swinging’, would be much better translated as ‘inclining’. Clearly, phalangites deployed in a massed phalanx would not be able to swing their leveled pikes either left or right to any great extent due to the men positioned in the files beside them. However, de Sélincourt’s interpretation suggests exactly that. What this passage seems to be describing, rather than any movement of the pike itself, is the closing up of the intervals between the files, in effect moving from an open-order to an intermediate one, by having the files side-step (or incline) to the right and then open the intervals back up by side-stepping back to the left. Furthermore, the term translated by de Sélincourt as ‘wheeling’ (paragoge – παρήγαγε) is actually the term for changing the facing of individual phalangites (i.e. turning to face to the right or left) while the term for wheeling, changing the facing of the formation as a whole by having it swing 90° like a gate, is epistrophe (ἐπιστροφή).⁶
Thus from Arrian we get a slightly more detailed image of how a phalangite in the forward ranks deployed his weapon for battle. Firstly, once in formation, the pike would be raised vertically. This would undoubtedly be into a position where the butt was off the ground. The pike was then lowered into a combative position. Polybius describes how, at the battle of Sellasia in 222BC, both sides lowered their pikes (καταßαλοῦσαι τὰς σαρίσας) and advanced upon each other.⁷ Due to the difference in the placement of the feet when standing at attention with the pike held vertically and the oblique posture used to engage in combat, any movement whereby the pike was lowered into position would also have to include a corresponding movement of the feet with the left foot moving forward as the sarissa was lowered so that the body posture could help support the weapon and provide stable footing in combat. Such a combative posture is shown on the only artistic representation of the phalangite in action – the Pergamon plaque (see Plate 7).
Consequently each phalangite, even when standing at attention, would have to be spaced at least 2 cubits from both the man in front of him and behind him so that each member of the phalanx would be able to take the necessary step forward with their left foot to adopt an oblique body posture, have the correct 2-cubit grip on the weapon, and conform with the interval of an intermediate-order phalanx at the very least. However, Arrian’s description of the files closing to their right suggests that, in this instance at least, the phalanx was initially deployed in an open-order interval of 4 cubits per man as, if the phalanx was already in a 2-cubit intermediate order with their pikes lowered, they would not be able to close their files any further.
Arrian goes on to state that, once they had frightened their enemy with this display of drill movements, Alexander’s troops clashed their weapons against their shields (καὶ τoῖς δόρασι δουπῆσαι πρὸς τὰς ἀσπίδας).⁸ Beating on the shield with the pike seems to have been a fairly common practice in the Hellenistic period. Diodorus, for example, states that, in order to frighten the horses pulling the Persian scythe-equipped chariots that they faced at Gaugamela in 331BC, Alexander ordered his men to ‘beat their shields with their pikes’ (ταῖς σαρίσαις τὰς ἀσπίδας τύπτειν).⁹ In another example of such actions, the army of Eumenes was similarly instructed to ‘pick up their shields and beat upon them with their pikes and raise the battle-cry’ (ασπίδας ἀνείλοντο κὰι ταῖς σαρίσαις ἐπιδουπήσαντες ἠλάλαξαν).¹⁰
Despite such passages which clearly describe this action being performed with a pike (except for Arrian who uses the word for spear), Markle says that the sarissa could not be beaten against the shield and concludes that the phalangite was not armed with a pike but rather with a spear.¹¹ However, when standing in an attention position with the butt of the pike resting on the ground, the shaft of the sarissa can be easily beaten against a shield held across the front of the body. Markle’s conclusion is all the more interesting as Arrian describes Alexander’s troops as carrying sarissae only a few paragraphs earlier and holding them leveled in order to flatten a grain field.¹² Importantly, the ability to beat the sarissa against the shield shows that the peltē had to possess an armband at the very least as it is much more difficult to move a shield that is only secured by a shoulder-strap into a position where the shaft of the pike can be beaten against it.
In another reference to a phalangite drill movement, Polybius also refers to how the men of the rearward ranks of the phalanx marched into battle with their pikes held at an angle over the heads of the men in front of them to provide cover from missile fire.¹³ When standing in an oblique posture, with the left elbow tucked into the side of the body, elevating the tip of the sarissa is accomplished by simply raising the left forearm while straightening the right arm downward at the same time. Importantly, raising the left forearm increases the elevation of the shield slightly, due to how the arm bends at the elbow which is also the location of the centre of a shield mounted onto the forearm through the use of a porpax. This places the shield in a slightly higher position to provide better protection to the bearer against incoming missile fire, the very thing Polybius states this type of posture was used for, without compromising the vision of the bearer (see Plate 13).
Pitching a lengthy pike forward in this manner can be facilitated by sliding the left hand forward of the weapon’s point of balance (the point where the left hand would normally hold it) by a short way. Not only does this allow for more of the pike to extend behind the forward left hand, in turn allowing the right hand to maintain its position on a pike which is now held at an angle rather than levelled, but shifting the placement of the left hand forward alters the distribution of weight behind the leading hand. By holding the pike ahead of its point of balance, there is more weight behind the left hand than there is ahead of it. This results in gravity forcing the rearward end of the weapon down, and the forward tip correspondingly up, which makes the weapon much easier to angle over the head of the man in front and keep it there. Importantly, due to the way that the pike is angled rather than levelled, allowing more of the weapon to be behind the leading left hand still allows the weapon to be contained within the 96cm interval of the intermediate-order spacing.
Once battle had begun, the members of the rear ranks of the phalanx would have kept their pikes angled in this manner. This not only maintained the overhead protection given to the forward ranks but, should a man in the front rank fall, the remainder of the file would be able to move forward so that his position was re-occupied and a combative posture adopted. If, for example, a member of the first rank fell, the members of ranks two to five would be able to simply step forward to take his place and they would already be in a combat position as their pikes would have already been leveled. The man who had been in rank six, and who now moved into rank five as the file moved forward, would have originally had his weapon angled upward. However, from this position, the pike could simply be lowered into a combat posture as no change of the grip on the weapon is required in order to adjust its pitch (see Plate 13).
Importantly, as the pike is lowered into a leveled position, the left hand can simply be slid back into place as the pitch of the weapon is decreased. This means that at any stage during the alteration of the pitch of the weapon, either up or down, both hands would remain in contact with it, and the phalangite’s hold on the weapon would always be secure. Additionally, it means that when the sarissa is presented for battle, it would be held again at its correct point of balance by the left hand, and the rearward end of the weapon would remain within the interval that the phalangite was occupying within the massed phalanx.
When simply marching, rather than deploying for battle, the Classical Greek hoplite marched with his spear sloped back over his shoulder. It is most likely that the Hellenistic phalangite operated in the same manner. Polyaenus states how the troops of Philip II undertook lengthy marches of up to 35km carrying a sarissa and other pieces of equipment.¹⁴ It is unlikely that each phalangite held their weapon in some other position, such as carrying it vertically, for the entire duration of one of these marches. Consequently, the sarissa had to be carried in a manner which would allow it to be ported without causing the carrier undue fatigue. This suggests that it was not carried vertically as the arms would become tired long before the march was over. Instead, the pike must have been supported in some way and the only means of accomplishing this would have been to have the weapon supported on the shoulder.
Even here an understanding of this posture can shed light on the configuration of the weapon. Holding the pike near the butt allows for the weapon’s point of balance to be sat on the shoulder with the weapon projecting upwards and slightly to the rear at an angle not too far beyond vertical. However, a weapon over 5.5m long is difficult to maintain in this position for a long time even in open country. Even a slight change in the elevation of the weapon will move the point of balance off the shoulder and make it very difficult to carry. If the weapon is angled back too far, the sheer leverage of the weight of the weapon, working in concert with the force of gravity, will cause the head to tip further and further back, running the risk of becoming entangled with the pikes carried by the men behind, unless an increased amount of counter-pressure is applied through the arms to pull the tip back up. This results in considerable muscular stress being placed on the arms. It is possible that, with a shield slung across the back through the use of the ochane, both hands were used to support a sarissa carried in this manner. However, this would then mean that no other pieces of equipment could be carried.
In wooded terrain the angle of such a lengthy weapon would have to undoubtedly be altered in order to allow the bearer to pass unhindered under trees and other foliage. On uneven terrain, the jostling of the weapon through natural movement would also undoubtedly alter the angle at which it was carried. And yet, for such a lengthy weapon, the range of angle at which it can be ported easily is only very small – much smaller than either of these two types of terrain would allow to be consistently maintained. English suggests that the use of the sarissa was abandoned in 327BC to make Alexander’s army more mobile – possibly for the impending campaign in India. English cites a lack of direct references to the sarissa in the ancient sources as proof of its discontinued use.¹⁵ However, at the battle of the Hydaspes in 326BC, Alexander is said to have noted how the advantage lay with the Macedonians due to their long spears – a statement which can only be a reference to the use of the sarissa by Alexander’s infantry in India.¹⁶ Later in the campaign, Alexander received reinforcements in the form of 30,000 local youths equipped and trained in what is described as ‘the Macedonian manner’.¹⁷ Following the mutiny at Opis in 324BC, Alexander also personally oversaw the training of thousands of youths ‘so that they might be brought up in the Macedonian manner in other respects and especially in the arts of war’.¹⁸ If, following English’s line of argument, the Macedonians had abandoned the use of the sarissa, they must have been using some other weapon instead – such as a spear. However, the spear was such a common weapon across the ancient world that the use of it can hardly be described as specifically ‘Macedonian’. The references to these youths and the manner of their training suggest that they were equipped with weapons that were regarded as a distinguishing feature of the Macedonian military. Such armament can only have been the continued use of the sarissa. Furthermore, coinage that Alexander had struck to commemorate the victory at the Hydaspes in 326BC, shows a standing infantryman, thought by some to be Alexander himself, carrying what appears to be a sarissa.¹⁹ Consequently, if the sarissa was employed on Alexander’s Indian campaign, then it must have been configured in a way that would allow for its easy portage through the terrain. This suggests that the sarissa did not come as a single piece.
With a connecting tube used to join two halves of a sarissa together, the lengthy pike could be disassembled for ease of transport while the phalangite was on the march. If the connecting tube was positioned in the centre of a weapon 5.76m in length as was carried by Alexander’s phalangites, this would mean that each half was 288cm in length. This is not much longer than the traditional hoplite spear which had a length of 255cm.²⁰ The two halves of the sarissa could be laid side-by-side, and then tied together, so that the weapon as a whole could be carried much more easily sloped over the shoulder, and supported only by the right hand, while on the march. Importantly, not only would the shorter length of a disassembled sarissa make it much more easy to carry, but by having each half of the weapon strapped together, the weight of both the butt and the connecting tube (a total of 1,230g) could be situated at the bottom, while only a small head weighing approximately 174g would be at the top. This would greatly reduce the amount of counter force required to maintain the pike in a position sloped over the shoulder if the angle away from the vertical was increased due to movement, terrain, foliage or fatigue. Alternatively, both the butt and the head could be positioned at the bottom of a dis-assembled pike – leaving only the small weight of the connecting tube at the top (see Plate 14).
Once the army had arrived on the battlefield, the two halves of the pike could be untied and assembled by simply slotting the front half onto the rearward section before the phalangite took his place in the line. In all of the accounts of battles across the Hellenistic period there are very few references to spontaneous actions like a column being ambushed. Most engagements are set-piece battles where both sides arrive on a battlefield, sometimes the day, or even days, beforehand, and deploy before any fighting commenced. Under such conditions a phalangite would have ample time to prepare his weapon for combat. Yet set-piece battles with enough time for preparation could not have been guaranteed even though they were the norm. Thus the sarissa needed to be able to be used on short notice if the need arose. Even in a spontaneous action a pike that came in two parts could still be utilized. Should the column that a phalangite was marching in come under unexpected attack, if there was not time for the full sarissa to be assembled for battle, the front half could simply be used either as a javelin or a spear. If even less time was available, the two halves of the sarissa could still be presented even while they were tied together so that the head pointed at an approaching enemy.
Thus from the ancient literary sources we have references (or inferences) to five different positions for the sarissa: sloped over the shoulder, held vertically with the butt on the ground while standing at attention, with the pike raised vertically with the butt off the ground, with it angled forward to provide cover for the men in the forward ranks, and levelled for combat. Using these positions as the basis, the fundamentals of ‘phalangite drill’ can be determined by simply working out the specific movements that needed to be performed in order to move the sarissa from one of these positions to another.
An important aspect of any sequence of drill movements is that it has to be dual directional – with the ability for the phalangite to be able to change the position of his weapon from one stance to another and then back again. There would be no point, for example, in establishing a set of drill movements which allowed the phalangite to lower his weapon for combat which did not, in turn, allow him to raise it back up again once the battle was over. The basic drill movements outlined in the ancient texts provide just such a means. A weapon held vertically, or sloped over the shoulder, can be easily shifted forward to be pitched over the head of the man in front, or directly lowered into a combative posture. This process can also be performed in the reverse order – from lowered to pitched, vertical or sloped over the shoulder. Importantly, in both directions, the placement of the hands is not required to be altered in any significant way, good balance of the weapon is maintained, and both hands never let go of the weapon in the combative postures (pitched, held vertically and lowered). Thus the rudiments of hoplite drill are relatively simple – employing only five set positions – and would have been quite easy for soldiers to train with. The benefits of these simple motions and postures meant that the phalanx as a whole could function effectively on the battlefield and use adaptive combative motions while using the sarissa as both an offensive weapon and a means of supplying limited protection.
Another point to note is that the fundamentals of phalangite drill witnessed something of a resurgence in popularity during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. During this time, the large pike and musket formations which raged across Europe were heavily modelled on the Hellenistic pike-phalanx of two millennia earlier.²¹ Military manuals such as those written by Arrian, Aelian and Asclepiodotus were re-released in a variety of European languages and dedicated to different ruling monarchs of the time as suggestions of how they should marshal their armies. Many of these works contained illustrations to help clarify the concepts that they described (as many of the ancient originals upon which they are based had done). In these later copies, the figures used to represent the phalangite were rendered as contemporary, sixteenth or seventeenth century, pikemen that readers of the time could more easily associate with. However, many of the pikemen of this time presented their weapon for battle in a very different way to the Hellenistic phalangite – holding the pike elevated at shoulder height, with the rearward end cupped in the right hand, rather than held low at waist level.²²
Smith suggests that this was how the phalangite wielded the sarissa, stating that ‘he fought not with a sword, but with an exceptionally long spear used over the shoulders of his comrades…’²³ Similarly, in a diagram of the pikeman in action, Hammond suggests that the sarissa was couched into the armpit – in the same way that a medieval knight carried his lance.²⁴ Both of these postures seem unlikely. Not only do they go against the depiction of phalangites in a combative posture on the Pergamon plaque, and references to the phalangite lowering their weapons for action, but the pike of the sixteenth century was configured differently to the sarissa with no large butt on the end of the shaft.²⁵ This made the pike much lighter (2.5-3kg) compared to the 5.5kg sarissa and, as such, the sixteenth century pike would have been much easier to carry aloft than the sarissa. Additionally, the sixteenth century pikeman did not have a shield strapped to his left forearm (a detail also missing from Hammond’s diagram) and so this weight did not need to be held aloft either. Interestingly, in order to carry the pike in such an elevated position, the shield is also raised due to the way it is strapped to the left forearm. If the pike is raised to shoulder height as per Smith’s suggestion, the shield obstructs the bearer’s view to the extent that he cannot actually see to his front. All of these factors suggest that the pike was not held in any form of elevated position.
Another point to consider is how such a deployment of the sarissa would translate within the confines of the phalanx. If the man in the second rank, for example, was shorter than the man positioned ahead of him, it would be difficult, if not impossible depending upon the difference in height, for the man in the second rank to position his spear at shoulder height and yet still have it project over the shoulder of the man in front and still be considered levelled for combat. Such a configuration of the phalanx would only work if each file of the formation was arranged from the shortest man at the front to the tallest man at the back. And yet, we are told that the front rank of the phalanx was made up of officers.²⁶ It is unlikely that a short stature was the only qualifying criteria for promotion within the Macedonian army and, as such, the height of the men in the front rank could not be guaranteed. This then suggests that the pikes of each file were not deployed ‘over the shoulders’ as Smith suggests, but were positioned in a way that each of the weapons held by the first five ranks could be presented for battle regardless of the stature of the individual. The only way this is possible is by having the pikes lowered to waist height and set side-by-side so that the file then occupies the intermediate-order interval of 96cm per man.
Polybius states that pikes of the Macedonians were ‘lowered’ into position at the battle of Sellasia in 222BC (καταβαλοῦσαι τὰς σαρίσας) to create a hedge of sarissae (συμφρἁξαντες τὰς σαρίσας).²⁷ Variants of a reference to the ‘lowering of pikes’ into a combative posture can be found in the descriptions of many other phalangite engagements.²⁸ This suggests that these weapons were lowered to waist height rather than held at shoulder height otherwise another term, such as ‘raised’ (αvασχόμενος) rather than ‘lowered’, would have been a more appropriate description. Finally, what suggests that the sarissa was not held in the same manner as the later pike is the way that this posture, and all other postures, affected the way in which this weapon could be used in combat.