The Greek phalanx, as a combat formation and tactical technique, existed for a very long time - from the 7th century BC to … Up to the 2nd or 1st century. The Roman legions also tested it hard. For example, in the first Punic War, the North African expeditionary corps of the consul Attilia Regulus was defeated by the Spartan phalanx under the command of the mercenary strategist in the Carthaginian service Xanthippus. But, however, it should be noted that before the attack by his hoplites, Xantippus let about forty war elephants at the Romans, which the legion, in fact, trampled like a chicken chicken. But the phalanx still finished off the Romans …)
Military history knows two main types of phalanx. Spartan - and Macedonian. The Spartan one appeared earlier and lasted much longer, but the Macedonian one brought the small Balkan country incredible fame as the conqueror of half the world.
So how did the Macedonian phalanx differ from the Greek? Clarification: in almost all Greek policies, the Spartan model was adopted as a tactic of the most combat-ready army in the region.
The first difference
This is a spear. The spear of the Greek hoplite was 2.3-2.5 meters long, equipped with a narrow piercing tip, and was intended for quick, maneuverable actions with one hand, because the second held the shield. The Spartiat or the Athenian knew only two or three main blows with a spear, which went either from above, on top of their own shield, to the face or neck of the enemy (while the spear was held with a reverse grip), or from below, from under the shield. The second hit was more risky because it was necessary to move the shield to the left, even if for a moment, but opening it slightly.
Reconstruction of the appearance of the Spartan hoplite.
Promotional video:
The spears of the Macedonian phalangites were of two types: short, according to the Greek model, and huge, 5-7 meters long, peaks. They made it possible to use soldiers from the third or fifth row in the battle, who could not actually participate in the battle in the phalanx of the Spartan model. They could only stupidly wait for their turn - when, choking on blood, a fighter in front would fall, and it would be possible to step in his place …
And with ordinary, normal length spears and Greek shields, the Macedonians armed themselves with hypaspists, whose task was to cover the flanks of clumsy pikemen, who would not suddenly deploy their huge pike. But the hypaspists did not always save the Macedonians (and they did not always have them). At the Battle of Pydna, for example, Roman legionnaires simply slaughtered the Macedonians in close combat. With swords. They broke through the rows of long peaks, deflecting them to the side with shields, came close - and the Macedonian phalanx ceased to exist.
By the way. Such extra-long peaks were called sarissa, and their owners were called sarissophores.
Macedonian phalanx in India.
The second difference
This is a shield. More precisely, not so much the shield itself as the manner of wearing it.
Among the Spartan and Athenian hoplites, the main type of shield was the so-called round Argive shield. It is a large, heavy hoplon, bound with thin plates of copper or bronze.
Interestingly, the Argivian shield had a very perfect … Elbow grip, not a fist grip! This shield was worn on the left forearm, and was controlled, just like a medieval one, by holding the handle at the right edge.
Proof from Connolly's book * The Military History of Greece and Rome *.
The shield of the Macedonian phalangite was also round, but slightly smaller - 60 cm in diameter (Argivian - up to 90 cm). The difference is in the way you wear it.
The Macedonian sarissophorus was holding a spear, which weighed about 8 kg, with both hands. Therefore, he held the shield … No, not with what you thought. He completely hung it on his left arm. The Macedonian shield had no handle at all, only 2 loops to put it on the forearm. The left hand of the Macedonian was absolutely necessary to hold the heavy sarissa.
Such a shield was called - aspis.
Something like this))
The third difference
This is the thickness of the tuning. The Macedonian phalanx had about twice as many rows as the Greek one. By the way, it was invented not by the Macedonians, but by the Thebans, namely the cunning man Epaminondas mentioned in the last article. The Macedonians only creatively modified it …))
So, the main and main difference between the Macedonian phalanx is the number of rows in the formation. They are not 8, like the Greeks, but 16 or 24 - twice or three times against the Greek. Such a tuning thickness is allowed to create extra-long sarissa peaks.
In battle, the Macedonians perly forward like a bulldozer, not wasting time and energy on trifles like jabbing with spears. The enemy, trying to do at least something with such a porcupine, sat on the sarissa himself. The main thing is to keep the line and push with the whole mass. The Spartan phalanx just meant a relatively maneuverable battle with active jabbing of spears. And the Spartan phalanx lost to the Macedonian one in open battle …
Macedonian soldier.
the main problem
The main problem with the Macedonian phalanx was the extreme difficulty of maneuvering. The Macedonians experienced great difficulty when it was necessary to deploy a formation or change its shape - for example, to form a ledge or a wedge - directly in battle. To rebuild, the soldiers had to raise their spears vertically. The enemy, as you know, would be incredibly happy about this …))
As for the internal structure of the Macedonian - we do not have much information about it. The main source on this issue is the Greek-born Roman historian Polybius, but there are other authors as well.
In short, the principles of internal organization and management of the phalanx among the Macedonians were similar to the Greek ones. Only the names of the divisions that made up the phalanx differed.
The main tactical unit of the Macedonians is "syntagma" or "speira". But Polybius also calls the early Roman maniple by the term "speyra", so there is no way without half a liter …))
The smallest separate tactical unit of the Macedonians is a goof, like the Hellenes. The goof himself was divided not into enomoty, but into taxis. Four suckers - tetrachia. Four tetrachia - speyra. The four spacers are chiliarchy. Four chiliarchies - strategy. But this structure is not accurate, since many ancient authors have serious disagreements on this issue.
Most likely, at different times, the word "speyra" was used to refer to units of different numbers. During the time of Philip and Alexander the Great, the speyra had one structure and composition, but during the time of Polybius it was different …
And we don't have a time machine yet …