Phalanx in the era of charlesmagne?

[Bruncla]

Hello TWC-forum. Was phalanx formation used in the time of and by Charlesmagne? I had a history lesson in my school and our teacher started talking about phalanx and how it was famously used by Charlesmagne and the phalanx is famous because of him. That shocked me because I never heard anything about this before. I always assumed that phalanx formation was used in ancient greece and in the time of Alexander Macedon and his succsesor and became obsolete because on Rome tacticts and dissapered. So is it true that Charlesmagne used phalanx?

[Ecthelion]

I assume you mean "Charlemagne"... and that your spell checker isn't turned on.

I can also assume your history teacher is actually a con-man, or working in a public school and taking the piss out of it.

[Himster]

He famously used a phalanx-like formation in the battle of Tours, one of the very rare instances of infantry formations withstanding repeated cavalry charges in medieval military history.
The difference between a shieldwall and a phalanx is vague at best.

[Ecthelion]

He famously used a phalanx-like formation in the battle of Tours, one of the very rare instances of infantry formations withstanding repeated cavalry charges in medieval military history.
The difference between a shieldwall and a phalanx is vague at best.

If you read his whole post you see that he's specifically referring to the Macedonian sarissa phalanx of Alexander and Philip.

Tours was a typical no frills Germanic shield wall. I don't think you can call that phalanx by any stretch.

[Bruncla]

Yes I don't have spell checker. My history teacher is she and I think she is probably just misguided. She was telling that with incredible self-confidence. She was refering to it as phalanx and she was describing it as pike formation from the late medieval so I was really confused. I don't mean specific type of phalanx but the Macedonian phalanx is probably most famous so that is that. Thank you for replies.

[Ecthelion]

Yes I don't have spell checker. My history teacher is she and I think she is probably just misguided. She was telling that with incredible self-confidence. She was refering to it as phalanx and she was describing it as pike formation from the late medieval so I was really confused. I don't mean specific type of phalanx but the Macedonian phalanx is probably most famous so that is that. Thank you for replies.

It's too late at night on my side for a full response.

Short response: ignore everything your history teacher says from now on. Like most people in academia, she is not qualified and has no idea what she's talking about. A shield wall is not a phalanx. The Macedonian phalanx is inherently different from the Classical Greek one used at Marathon, and neither are "shieldwalls" in the Germanic sense that Charlemagne employed.

Also Charlemagne was not at the Battle of Tours. That was Charles Martel, the Hammer of God.

[Caligula's_Horse]

Well, shield and spear formations, with or without interlocking shields were used the world over, including by Charlemagne's forces. It was most prevalent in Greece, and indeed saw extensive use there, but its hardly the only example, and may not have even been the first. Spear and shield formations are often only referred to as a phalanx if they're Greek for some reason, though the only real difference is semantics, and the exact type of equipment used (different types of shields and spears).
Charlemagne certainly wasn't the man who made the phalanx famous, however.

The Macedonian style pike phalanx did almost completely replace the older hoplite phalanx in Greece and across the so-called Hellenic world (mostly Macedonian successor states) due to its many advantages, but it never replaced it the world over. A combination of simple human conservatism and the way information traveled across the ancient world saw to that; for example, when Caesar invaded Britain, he encountered chariots, which by that point, where obsolete for hundreds of years.

[Ecthelion]

Well, shield and spear formations, with or without interlocking shields were used the world over, including by Charlemagne's forces. It was most prevalent in Greece, and indeed saw extensive use there, but its hardly the only example, and may not have even been the first. Spear and shield formations are often only referred to as a phalanx if they're Greek for some reason, though the only real difference is semantics, and the exact type of equipment used (different types of shields and spears).
Charlemagne certainly wasn't the man who made the phalanx famous, however.

The Macedonian style pike phalanx did almost completely replace the older hoplite phalanx in Greece and across the so-called Hellenic world (mostly Macedonian successor states) due to its many advantages, but it never replaced it the world over. A combination of simple human conservatism and the way information traveled across the ancient world saw to that; for example, when Caesar invaded Britain, he encountered chariots, which by that point, where obsolete for hundreds of years.

Locking shield is bit of a no brainer, so it's seen the world over as you said. But phalanx refers to spears/pikes and shields specifically Also it implies that the men are all standing. A Germanic shield wall just specifies shields, weapons can differ, and were often axes instead of spears. Also the Germanic version in a defensive posture had the front rank kneeling not standing. So calling a Germanic shield wall a phalanx is more than semantic mistake.

[hellheaven1987]

Yes I don't have spell checker. My history teacher is she and I think she is probably just misguided. She was telling that with incredible self-confidence. She was refering to it as phalanx and she was describing it as pike formation from the late medieval so I was really confused. I don't mean specific type of phalanx but the Macedonian phalanx is probably most famous so that is that. Thank you for replies.

I assume your history teacher is not Bernard S. Bachrach.

Anyway, your teacher probably is not misguided, but rather mistake the meaning of word; it was quite common for ancient sources to refer any dense infantry formation as "phalanx" (for example, I remember Caesar used it twice to describe dense formation of German and Gaul during Gallic War). In fact, Bachrach, in his "Early Carolingian Warfare", states that his primary sources, written in Latin, refered the Carolingian formation as "phalanx" (himself used that term in the book most time too). Yet a close look into Carolingian "phalanx" would show it was more like German shield wall instead Greek phalanx, although the actual formation might be quite close to Greek phalanx too (as archaeological evidences suggests the primary weapon of Carolingian soldiers were spear instead short sword like the primary source suggested, so perhaps it was a shield wall with spear? Not surprise though since it was used by late Roman military anyway, and a lot of Carolingian military reorganization was rip off directly from Byzantium and Rome).

He famously used a phalanx-like formation in the battle of Tours

That was Charles Martel; he in fact specifically ordered his heavy cavalries all dismounted and fought as infantries.

[Caligula's_Horse]

Locking shield is bit of a no brainer, so it's seen the world over as you said. But phalanx refers to spears/pikes and shields specifically Also it implies that the men are all standing. A Germanic shield wall just specifies shields, weapons can differ, and were often axes instead of spears. Also the Germanic version in a defensive posture had the front rank kneeling not standing. So calling a Germanic shield wall a phalanx is more than semantic mistake.

My mistake then. I was not aware the German version is more or less stationary. Doesn't sound terribly useful if that's the case, but then, I'm sure they had a kneel-free more mobile version as well that probably resembled a phalanx just fine. Its not that big an intuitive leap after all; I'm sure the front rank would just get up if it was time to attack. Or maybe just break formation instead in favor of an infamous barbarian mass charge, which I would not call a phalanx at all (though a Greek historian of the time might have; I believe they referred to almost any body of infantry as a phalanx).

Not sure how you're supposed to use an axe or any other non-stabbing weapon in dense formation though. Those things require a fair bit of room to swing around and accommodate the legwork, which would imply a formation so loose I'd hesitate before calling it a formation.

[O'Hea]

Yes I don't have spell checker. My history teacher is she and I think she is probably just misguided. She was telling that with incredible self-confidence. She was refering to it as phalanx and she was describing it as pike formation from the late medieval so I was really confused. I don't mean specific type of phalanx but the Macedonian phalanx is probably most famous so that is that. Thank you for replies.

So let's go through the number of ways in which your teacher is wrong, in order:
-You're right in thinking that the phalanx is Greek and not Frankish. It's a little vague, and can refer to both the Classical dory-and-aspis phalanx or the Hellenistic (Macedonian) pike phalanx, but is a Greek word not commonly used outside a Greek context.
-Charlemagne's ancestor, Charles Martel, did famously win the battle of Tours with a shieldwall. Not a phalanx and not Charlemagne.
-The battle of Tours was fought in 732, in the very early medieval era.
-Pikes were widely used from the late medieval period on but not under the name 'phalanx.'

So I get the impression that your teacher probably slept through all her history courses in college and just smashes together remembered facts to come up with something that sounds true. The ingredients of actual historical knowledge are there but she's making no effort to actually keep them straight.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Phalanx just means pretty much any tight formation with a spear wall.
So to those ends yes Charlemagne's main infantry used a tight formation with spears. The regular troops of Charlemagne's army were mostly equipped with spears as the primary weapon and a broad bladed sword, usually shorter than the swords we think of in the Medieval period (yet longer than the typical Roman sword) which were used as side arms. I would assume some of his other auxiliary units from Spain, the Saxons of Western Germania, the Slavs of Eastern Germania, the Italians and the Slavs at the top of the Balkans were equipped rather similarly with the spears as a main weapon in Charlemagne's army as well (the main part of his army was composed of Franks, Aquitanians and Germanic tribes to the west of the Rhine which were conquered by his grandfather Charles Martel and his father Pippin, although later large amounts of Italians and Germanic peoples were incorporated as garrison troops and campaigning armies in their own right as Charlemagne expanded his empire eastwards).

Although they may have had varying features, like maybe the Saxons were also equipped with axes and that sort of thing.

But whether Charlemagne used the long pikes like the Makedonian Sarissas the answer is no. He did not use the Makedonian style phalanx formation.

[Ecthelion]

My mistake then. I was not aware the German version is more or less stationary. Doesn't sound terribly useful if that's the case, but then, I'm sure they had a kneel-free more mobile version as well that probably resembled a phalanx just fine. Its not that big an intuitive leap after all; I'm sure the front rank would just get up if it was time to attack. Or maybe just break formation instead in favor of an infamous barbarian mass charge, which I would not call a phalanx at all (though a Greek historian of the time might have; I believe they referred to almost any body of infantry as a phalanx).

Not sure how you're supposed to use an axe or any other non-stabbing weapon in dense formation though. Those things require a fair bit of room to swing around and accommodate the legwork, which would imply a formation so loose I'd hesitate before calling it a formation.

The German version comes in 3 main flavors:

1. Neutral standing:
Basically just a line of men standing with their shields locked and braced. Can be used to defend or advance. Just about any type of weapon is valid. But usually it will be a combination of spears and short axes, swords were rare and not particularly useful from behind a shield wall anyway.
2. Kneeling defensive:
Front rank kneels and rear ranks form a tortoise sort of structure. Obviously spears were required to make this work.
3. Boar snout:
The offensive wedge formation. It was meant to crash into the enemy shieldwall and force into it. This lead to shield to shield combat. So axes were preferred since it allows good work when closely packed, and overhand blows are the only practical option.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Here are some Frankish troops.
Although I'm not sure how accurate the sword is for the guy on the right. It is my understanding that the Frankish swords were wider on the blade and maybe half the length of the sword depicted here.

[Bruncla]

Ok I thank all for answers to my question. The teacher is not that bad but the problem is that in our school we learn absolutely zero things about historical military and tactics. I think that very few teachers in our school know about that particular part of history. I knew she was wrong and I wanted to be sure about it so I asked.

[hellheaven1987]

Although I'm not sure how accurate the sword is for the guy on the right. It is my understanding that the Frankish swords were wider on the blade and maybe half the length of the sword depicted here.

It was a Frankish cavalry; cavalry used armed sword like Spatha.

Overall, Frankish infantry phalanx has:

- Shield lock, just like Greek phalanx.

- The shield Carolingian infantry used was round, and according to Bachrach the primary sources suggest the size and design was standardized.

- The weapon of choice is short sword, but archaeological evidences suggest primary weapon of Carolingian period was always spear.

- Often it was deployed in deep rank, and in defensive method. It could, however, deployed in offensive formation and even engaged in short burst charge (like Greek phalanx), often in column (as the last day of Tours showed).

[Cyclops]

...
Also Charlemagne was not at the Battle of Tours.. .

Assinine rookie mistake, so embarrassing. Still even decent academics can blunder, I had a competent history professor tell my how Stonewall Jackson defended New Orleans from the English in 1815. At least he didn't say it was Harald Godwinson invading. He took it well when a first year up the back raised his hairy hand and set him straight.

Its a shame the subdiscipline of military history and general history are so divided, I see a few howling errors in both about the other and I'm an amateur.

... That was Charles Martel, the Hammer of God.

I think Karl was just Marteau? The Hammer of the Lord was Judas Maccabeus IIRC.

Now I have an image in my head of a Frankish warlord in baggy pants saying " Arrêtez ! temps de marteau".

There's something in the wiki article on Charles Martel about a nutty historian theorising that Martel used church funds to train Frankish horsemen as a phalanx. Maybe the teacher misread that?

I agree with the posts above that a Germanic shieldwall might be broadly described as a "phalanx-like formation", but a specific attribution as suggested is just wrong. Phalanx and pike phalanx have a specific historical meaning and context, and Late Merovingian/early Carolingian Neustria is not it.

[Manco]

Just as an aside, far a resurgence of something that resembles the Macedonian Phalanx you have to wait for the late 13th and 14th century in the Low Lands, Northern Italy and Switzerland who all fielded militias that operated on a similar principle of long pikes in dense formations. That's 500 years later though.

Anyway, you can't really blame a teacher not knowing about military tactics. High Schools ignore that stuff, even though it was a big part of many historical figures and in many cases is what enabled them to do their non-military endeavours. If I remember my stuff, if anything the later Carolingians should be remembered for introducing the change from harassing cavalry/mobile infantry to the better known heavy shock cavalry.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Same, just the other week I had a very good Roman history teacher say that Truman fired general Douglas Macarthy the commander of Europe. I mean we know it was Douglas MacArthur the commander of Asia but whatevs.

Charlemagne's campaigns did not have heavy cavalry that would charge into battle. If I'm not mistaken the stirrup was not introduced to the Franks until the conquest of the Avars I believe which was fairly late in Charlemagne's career. Many historians actually debate whether the Avars gave the stirrup to the Franks or whether it was even under Charlemagne at all. Others say it was upon coming into direct contact with the Bulgars during the time of his son Clovis (Louis the Pious).

Either way the mounted troops under Charles the Great's disposal had to practice most of the time in infantry formations and drills. Due to their lack of stirrups the Frankish cavalry generally could not hold its own in a direct combat with infantry. They were forced to use temporary shock tactics which would attack weak spots in enemy formations and then withdraw in order to charge again should the combat become too fierce. There is also evidence to suggest that they carried javelins and even fought as horse archers to weaken an enemy from a distance before they came into close combat, which might go together with the idea that they retreated, possibly to lure the enemy closer and decimate them with arrows. These soldiers could actually switch rather quickly between a column formation to a line formation which might imply that they might charge and the choice of line or column depended on the circumstances behind the charge. Column might provide a way to maneuver easily on the field only to switch to the line before closing in. Or the column is used to concentrate the mounted troops into one critical area of the enemy's formations.

But because of their drilling as infantry troops this also suggests they would dismount on occasion. In a battle in the Suntel mountains Widukind wiped out one of the Frankish armies and succeeded in killing 3 of Charlemagne's generals, which is interesting since the terrain of the area suggest that the Frankish cavalry was ineffective. More than that they were probably forced to dismount and got ambushed in the terrain but could not escape on horseback in that mountainous and wooded terrain.

The other suggestion is that perhaps the cavalry of Charlemagne did receive stirrups late in his reign but if they did there are no remains to prove it. Maybe they cannot be found in graves due to how precious they were seen as.

[hellheaven1987]

Hmm nope, stirrup was known by Franks probably around late 7th/early 8th Century. However it was not known why Franks did not adopt it extensively, nor did we know Franks learn it from Byzantium or Central Europe. Overall, it might be possible to say the introduction of stirrup was part of Charles Martel's campaign to "reshape" Frankish cavalry into Byzantine model, but how success the remodeling was during Charlemagne's time is not known.