SoA Forums

The discussion on othismos triggered this topic in my mind.

From what's been discussed, my take is that othismos is unworkable unless the shields of each file overlap considerably, creating an interlocking shieldwall in which one file is unable to push individually into the enemy formation where it would be butchered. Overlapping shields means that one shield is pressing against two or three others - friendly and enemy - and hence spreading the pressure. I notice that the shield rims are subject to a lot of stress which perhaps explains their relative thickness compared to the rest of the shield

(https://i.imgur.com/MoBcB8a.png)

This however raises a problem. The manuals give the hoplite file a space of 2 cubits with shields just touching or slightly overlapping, and this is a natural measures since shields were almost certainly used as measuring sticks when the files formed up alongside each other. So how do you get the substantial overlaps necessary for othismos to work properly?

According to Thucydides hoplite phalanxes tended to move to the right for two reasons: a) so the rightmost file leader would  remove his exposed right flank from danger, and b) as each individual hoplite sought the shelter of the shield of the man to his right:

Before they had actually closed a thought occurred to Agis. All armies, when engaging, are apt to thrust outwards their right wing; and either of the opposing forces tends to outflank his enemy's left with his own right, because every soldier individually fears for his exposed side, which he tries to cover with the shield of his comrade on the right, conceiving that the closer he draws in the better he will be protected. The first man in the front rank of the right wing is originally responsible for the deflection, for he always wants to withdraw from the enemy his own exposed side, and the rest of the army, from a like fear, follow his example.  - Thucydides V.71

There's a difficulty here though. If all the men just move to the right the same angle and distance then nobody will get more protection from his neighbour's shield than he originally had. So with the idea of diagonal movement goes the notion of contraction: each man gets his shield partially behind the shield of the man on his right, and the files contract from 3 feet in width to something more like 2 feet. This creates the necessary shield overlap required for effective othismos besides giving each file leader the protection he needs. It also means a phalanx line will contract quite substantially, losing a quarter or more of its original width. This, plus the move to the right, will leave the left flank impressively overlapped.

Thoughts?

Quote
Thoughts?

Quote
From what's been discussed, my take is that othismos is unworkable

Agreed. Shall we leave it at that? :)

Quote
The manuals give the hoplite file a space of 2 cubits

Not really - remember, there are no manuals for hoplites (classical Greek one hand short spear hoplites). The manuals that give the two cubit spacing are all talking about hoplites 'armed in the Macedonian fashion' ie with a two handed sarisa. This is often applied anachronistically to Classical hoplites, but it shouldn't be - we just don't know what the file spacing was for Classical hoplites (it's a not unreasonable guess that it was also two cubits, but it is a guess).

Otherwise I wouldn't disagree with what you describe - I imagine the right drift would contian an element of squashing up as much as an element of moving right - I doubt the whole formation moved perfectly rightward without (involuntarily) changing its intervals at all. Most hoplites were amateurs with little drill, practice or training, so we shouldn't envisage precise, rigid drill moves, but rather a more or less well organised crowd.

That sounds a bit too disorganised Richard. A hoplite phalanx has quite rigid parameters for its ranks and files . The file leader and closer are experiencd and know what they have to do. Within tge phalanx there is no mobility , a man from file a does not migrate to file c. A ohalanx might struggle to wheel in formation, but I expect they could advance, retreat, turn left and right and 190% move at different speeds and halt and start in unison.  Plus, again the better ones, can order forward specific ranks of younger hoplites in order to deal with irritating peltasts.

Well according to Thucydides they couldn't advance, at least not in a straight line. :)

But OK, I knew I was courting trouble with the word 'crowd'. Dial it back a bit. I just think hoplite drill would be more Militia or maybe Trained Band standard, than Trooping the Colour.

must be covered elsewhere but if the shields arent exactly face on, they would tend to slant/angle slightly to the left because of the natural position of the arm which would encourage right hand drift

Quote from: RichT on March 20, 2018, 01:52:03 PM
Well according to Thucydides they couldn't advance, at least not in a straight line. :)

But OK, I knew I was courting trouble with the word 'crowd'. Dial it back a bit. I just think hoplite drill would be more Militia or maybe Trained Band standard, than Trooping the Colour.

given that city state hoplites were militia, with less drill, I don't think a lot of them would reach even trained band standard who did at least drill  :-[

Quote from: RichT on March 20, 2018, 09:57:06 AM

Quote
From what's been discussed, my take is that othismos is unworkable

Agreed. Shall we leave it at that? :)

It is incumbent upon you to explain why it is unworkable, especially in light of my working it. I am fine with any argument that says we have misinterpreted the reading to describe pushing, but statements like this, based on no actual evidence, can no longer be thrown about unchallenged.


As to Justin's question, both.  I have experienced this first hand as the right-most man in an advancing phalanx of 4 ranks.  I think it was Fraser, a century ago who noted that you will veer right if you move your shield in front of you from the left side. This definitely happens. The twist of your torso makes you veer to the right.  Now as the rightmost man, I did not want to veer, so I had to use the spotting of two consecutive points in the distance to stay on track. I spent half my time pushing back on the rank to the left of me.  Because I did not veer, they converged to a smaller frontage.  Now there are instances where veering was essentially harnessed as a tactic, the Thebans at Nemea for example, and here I cannot say if convergence happened as well.

An interesting point there Paul that you could stay the drift by maintaining your line and resisting lateral pressure.  Other file leaders ought to have been able to do the same, both in your experiment and in history.  We might suggest that the file leaders in the historical example(s) weren't as skilled as they might have been.  Alternatively, that it was accepted as something that always happened and no one looked to correct it.

Quote from: Erpingham on March 20, 2018, 05:18:17 PM
An interesting point there Paul that you could stay the drift by maintaining your line and resisting lateral pressure.  Other file leaders ought to have been able to do the same, both in your experiment and in history.  We might suggest that the file leaders in the historical example(s) weren't as skilled as they might have been.  Alternatively, that it was accepted as something that always happened and no one looked to correct it.

I'm guessing that the file leaders were quite happy with the rightwards drift/contraction since they initiated it. It gave them more protection, it enabled othismos to work, and for the rightmost file leader, it got him clear of any danger of an attack on his exposed right flank (besides putting him in a good position for a nice little outflanking move of his own).

Little tiny detail: Thucydides says: "The first man in the front rank of the right wing is originally responsible for the deflection, for he always wants to withdraw from the enemy his own exposed side". But if the rightmost file leader knows the enemy phalanx will contract towards its own right and away from him, why does he move to the right in the first place?

I have noticed, several times when I've had to cross 'featureless' areas in fog or the dark, that I've a natural tendency to drift to the right anyway. It appears when there are no landmarks to aim at

Quote from: Jim Webster on March 20, 2018, 05:39:43 PM
I have noticed, several times when I've had to cross 'featureless' areas in fog or the dark, that I've a natural tendency to drift to the right anyway. It appears when there are no landmarks to aim at

Curious how the weather affects ones politics :)  Seriosly though, are you right handed - do people drift to the dominant side?

Quote from: Erpingham on March 20, 2018, 05:58:33 PM

Quote from: Jim Webster on March 20, 2018, 05:39:43 PM
I have noticed, several times when I've had to cross 'featureless' areas in fog or the dark, that I've a natural tendency to drift to the right anyway. It appears when there are no landmarks to aim at

Curious how the weather affects ones politics :)  Seriosly though, are you right handed - do people drift to the dominant side?

That's where it gets even more interesting, I'm definitely left handed  :-[

Quote from: Erpingham on March 20, 2018, 05:18:17 PM
An interesting point there Paul that you could stay the drift by maintaining your line and resisting lateral pressure.  Other file leaders ought to have been able to do the same, both in your experiment and in history.  We might suggest that the file leaders in the historical example(s) weren't as skilled as they might have been.  Alternatively, that it was accepted as something that always happened and no one looked to correct it.

This is true. The question becomes was there value in ending up with overlapped shields.

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 20, 2018, 04:44:59 PM

Quote from: RichT on March 20, 2018, 09:57:06 AM

Quote
From what's been discussed, my take is that othismos is unworkable

Agreed. Shall we leave it at that? :)

It is incumbent upon you to explain why it is unworkable, especially in light of my working it. I am fine with any argument that says we have misinterpreted the reading to describe pushing, but statements like this, based on no actual evidence, can no longer be thrown about unchallenged.

Whoa! My comment (quoting Justin, if you didn't notice) was intended light heartedly as indicated by the smiley. I have explained at very considerable length why I am not convinced by scrum models of hoplite fighting, and have adduced copious evidence - do feel free to read some old threads or articles in Slingshot. I freely admit that I may be wrong, that the scrum models (classic or crowd) may be right, and that it's a tricky problem all round, at best, but one thing I have definitely not done is 'throw statements about' without evidence.

As to walking in a straight line - yes it is hard - in fog especially it is very easy to walk in a circle.

Justin's point, that if both sides drifted right neither really needed to, is a good one, to which I guess the answer may be that it wasn't a rational choice sort of thing, so much as something that just happened, and also maybe we set a lot of store by this passage because it is one of the few bits of hard data there are about hoplite battles, but maybe really it's more of an off the cuff observation by Thucydides than a hard and fast rule (closer in spirit to 'the British army always fights its battles on the join of two maps', if not quite that flippant). Maybe?

Quote from: RichT on March 20, 2018, 07:01:39 PMJustin's point, that if both sides drifted right neither really needed to, is a good one, to which I guess the answer may be that it wasn't a rational choice sort of thing, so much as something that just happened, and also maybe we set a lot of store by this passage because it is one of the few bits of hard data there are about hoplite battles, but maybe really it's more of an off the cuff observation by Thucydides than a hard and fast rule (closer in spirit to 'the British army always fights its battles on the join of two maps', if not quite that flippant). Maybe?

Paul more-or-less gave the answer, now that I think about it:

QuoteI think it was Fraser, a century ago who noted that you will veer right if you move your shield in front of you from the left side. This definitely happens. The twist of your torso makes you veer to the right.  Now as the rightmost man, I did not want to veer, so I had to use the spotting of two consecutive points in the distance to stay on track. I spent half my time pushing back on the rank to the left of me.

If the rightmost man wants an overlap in the first place, he wouldn't have a reason to try and compensate for the natural tendency to veer right, augmented by the constant pressure on his left by the man in that adjacent file. He'd go with the flow since it tactically suits the situation (and ensures him additional protection on his right flank).

Quote from: RichT on March 20, 2018, 07:01:39 PM

Whoa! My comment (quoting Justin, if you didn't notice) was intended light heartedly as indicated by the smiley. I have explained at very considerable length why I am not convinced by scrum models of hoplite fighting, and have adduced copious evidence - do feel free to read some old threads or articles in Slingshot. I freely admit that I may be wrong, that the scrum models (classic or crowd) may be right, and that it's a tricky problem all round, at best, but one thing I have definitely not done is 'throw statements about' without evidence.

Please email me copies. I have yet to see any evidence by those against othismos that is based on any empirical study or theoretical paradigm of the mechanics, rather than an alternate reading of passages in literature.  As I said, I have no problem with those who say what we read does not describe pushing, or build arguments via analogy because we do not see it elsewhere, but evidence that othismos cannot work requires a higher evidentiary bar. I get armchair objections all the time, read Mathew's book that we just discussed one here somewhere, so perhaps I am overly sensitive an apologize.  This I why I had to fly to Greece and do it with men in panoply.

Tell you what Paul. You and Richard get together on a field with shields and gear. You push, he doesn't. Let's see who wins.  ;D

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 20, 2018, 07:34:22 PM
so perhaps I am overly sensitive an apologize

That's fine - thank you.

I know it can be highly frustrating if you put a lot of effort into collecting evidence for something, and people just ignore it and carry on regardless as if all your arguments didn't exist. It happens a lot here...

Maybe I should make my position clearer.

I am not 'against othismos' - othismos is clearly a thing, but I don't think it is the same thing you think it is (that is, a scrum or pushing contest). I think the word means something similar to 'press', 'push of pike' and so forth in other periods. My reasons for thinking this are largely literary and comparative; but in addition none of the models of the scrum that I have seen or read about make sense to me as methods of fighting.

I do not think that the scrum othismos is physically impossible as has sometimes been claimed over the years, and if I ever did think that then your experiments would have convinced me otherwise. But I think that proving that a thing could be done is different from proving that it was done. Having an experimental file push successfully dispenses with arguments that it was impossible (front rankers would be crushed, shields would shatter etc) but the conditions in which the experiment takes place are sufficiently different from the real conditions of battle that I do not find it compelling as proof that this is how hoplite battles were actually fought.

Quote
Tell you what Paul. You and Richard get together on a field with shields and gear. You push, he doesn't. Let's see who wins

I'm up for it - provided I'm allowed to dodge and parry not stand there like a lemon. :)

Quote from: RichT on March 20, 2018, 08:02:11 PM
I do not think that the scrum othismos is physically impossible as has sometimes been claimed over the years, and if I ever did think that then your experiments would have convinced me otherwise. But I think that proving that a thing could be done is different from proving that it was done. Having an experimental file push successfully dispenses with arguments that it was impossible (front rankers would be crushed, shields would shatter etc) but the conditions in which the experiment takes place are sufficiently different from the real conditions of battle that I do not find it compelling as proof that this is how hoplite battles were actually fought.

I am with you all the way to the last sentence. The argument that conditions were not realistic enough can go on ad absurdum. Would 7 files be enough, 50? Do we need to sip black broth first? A bigger problem by far is our inability to kill each other. The fact that combat changes greatly with sharp points that stick in shields and people, invalidates a lot of what SCA types do in shield wall combat. The first comment that comes to mind when I read statements, and trust me I do all the time, like "I do not find it compelling proof" would be what are you basing your disbelief upon? I will give you an example. I was in a discussion the other day with a chap who was sure that Boeotian shields were a real thing and they existed because you put your spear through the cut out to fight. He had never tried this, and it is easy to try, but I could not dissuade him. It is a moronic idea, if that is not obvious, to so link your spear and shield. Objections to othismos are usually of this level of actual experience. 

Quote from: RichT on March 20, 2018, 08:02:11 PM

Quote
Tell you what Paul. You and Richard get together on a field with shields and gear. You push, he doesn't. Let's see who wins

I'm up for it - provided I'm allowed to dodge and parry not stand there like a lemon. :)

I can reliably put a 9' dory through a swinging ring no bigger than the eye-hole of a Corinthian. I had to learn this to disprove all of the statements about how accurate underhand is and how innacurate overhand.  So I would never push against him, I would simply stalk around and snipe from about 7' away. One thing that has clouded the study of hoplite combat is that hoplites had to fight well as individuals as well as in a wall of shields. Once one side broke many found themselves in individual combat. And as Plato tells us in Laches, it is only then that the teachings of hoplomachoi are of value.  This is how we can reconcile much of the evidence which seems contradictory. For example, Xenophon telling us that every man knows how to use a sword instinctively and the existence of hoplomachoi. Fighting in a wall of shields limits the options greatly compared to one on one combat.

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 20, 2018, 10:10:11 PM
The argument that conditions were not realistic enough can go on ad absurdum. Would 7 files be enough, 50? Do we need to sip black broth first?

I don't suppose number of ranks or diet are that important. Number of files might well matter, but I couldn't be sure.

Quote
A bigger problem by far is our inability to kill each other.

That is the big one surely? It seems self evident to me that this makes an enormous difference.

Quote
The first comment that comes to mind when I read statements, and trust me I do all the time, like "I do not find it compelling proof" would be what are you basing your disbelief upon?

Let's try an analogy. The Sealed Knot and similar groups perform 'push of pike' as a stand up push-of-war/scrum, with vertical pikes, all the time. They do it successfully, by their own standards, and have proven, by doing so, that the thing is physically possible. How convincing do you find this as proof, or even evidence, that this is what English Civil War pike fighting was actually like? I do not find it compelling at all, and am firmly convinced that this is not what pike fighting was like. I don't have, and don't need, any empirical study or theoretical paradigm that the Sealed Knot way is impossible - clearly it is not impossible. But I still don't think that is how it was done.

In the case of hoplites, I do not disbelieve that a scrum can be done, in experimental (non violent) conditions - clearly, it can. I do not believe this proves, or even provides very strong evidence either way for, how hoplites actually fought.

From the literary sources, I do not see any evidence for such a scum, and plentiful evidence for more conventional types of fighting. I also do not see such methods of fighting used in any other period.  So a scrum would have to be both unique to Classical hoplites, and not firmly attested by any literary (or indeed archaeological or artistic) evidence. Those facts alone are sufficient basis for my disbelief, even if it can be demonstrated that the thing is possible (in non-violent experimental conditions).

This is off the topic of this thread by the way - as there is a separate othismos thread already running, perhaps we should move off here - though I doubt to be honest there is much more to be said other than bald statements of opinion, which aren't very helpful. I'd be happy to hear more about your experiments though.

Quote from: RichT on March 20, 2018, 10:44:37 PM
Let's try an analogy. The Sealed Knot and similar groups perform 'push of pike' as a stand up push-of-war/scrum, with vertical pikes, all the time. They do it successfully, by their own standards, and have proven, by doing so, that the thing is physically possible. How convincing do you find this as proof, or even evidence, that this is what English Civil War pike fighting was actually like? I do not find it compelling at all, and am firmly convinced that this is not what pike fighting was like. I don't have, and don't need, any empirical study or theoretical paradigm that the Sealed Knot way is impossible - clearly it is not impossible. But I still don't think that is how it was done.

I do not find it at all convincing, but I can tell you exactly why it is not.  What they did is far more a test of hoplite othismos than a push of pike- mostly because no one is pushing with a pike!!! What I tested was a very specific question: Can hoplites perform something that modern scholars interpret as othismos?  I have no need to refer to any of the literary evidence, which is obviously useless if both camps can twist the meaning to fit their model. An argument of whether or not othismos existed is like arguing whether hoplites ever threw spears. Someone can have an opinion, but what they cannot say is that men can't throw spears.  This is what I have now come to demand of those who say othismos is unworkable. In my opinion, the goal post has moved and now critics have to come up with cogent objections based on why they think it unworkable.  If not, the comments are useless to me because I will not know what to test next. I have taken each of the common objections and shown they are no longer valid.  There are still very valid objections to whether othismos could occur.  One is that the rate of death in the front line knife-fight might be too high to account for the casualty figures of actual battles. I cannot easily disprove this without a computer simulation, but I can show techniques that men could use to fight and protect themselves in this setting. 

Quote from: RichT on March 20, 2018, 10:44:37 PM
I do not see any evidence for such a scum

My god man! No need for ad hominem!

I think we are talking about degrees of certitude here. In another memorable thread on the Macedonian cavalry wedge I posited two kinds of certitude: scientific and moral.

Scientific certitude would be, for example, video footage - tested for doctoring - that showed Alexander's ilae punching through the Sacred Band at Chaeronea, along with samples of horse dung from the field that proved the horses actually came from Macedonia.

Moral certitude is the kind that works in a courtroom, where the testimony of witnesses, even unreliable witnesses, is taken into account. This kind of certitude may lack demonstrable scientific proof, but it can still be enough to send a man to death row.

My take is that if several different sources can all be interpreted in a coherent way that removes any absurdities and apparent contradictions between them, and this interpretation can be shown to be reasonable by experimentation, then we have moral certitude.

There's a third level of certitude: probability. This IMHO exists when the sources are too sparse to demonstrate convergence, or the sources do actually contradict each other and one is obliged to correct or reject one or more of them. In this case the most complete explanation is no more than the most likely one.

On the subject, I suspect that a lot of scepticism about history comes from the fact that we tend to consider scientific certitude as the only real certitude: if something can't be evaluated with scientific instruments then it's not proven. This can lead to an exaggerated doubting of the sources and a readiness to reject or rewrite them if they don't suit a favourite 'scientific' theory. Which makes you wonder what law courts are for.

Are you being ironic?

I find it so hard to tell.

Quote from: Mark G on March 21, 2018, 08:43:30 AM
Are you being ironic?

No.

Quote from: Mark G on March 21, 2018, 08:43:30 AMI find it so hard to tell.

You'll see one of these:  ::)

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 20, 2018, 11:45:57 PM
What I tested was a very specific question: Can hoplites perform something that modern scholars interpret as othismos?

OK then I think we have a high level of agreement. I'll take a reply off to the othismos thread, to free this one for any more on rightward drift.

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 20, 2018, 11:45:57 PM

Quote from: RichT on March 20, 2018, 10:44:37 PM
I do not see any evidence for such a scum

My god man! No need for ad hominem!

Oops. Freudian slip :)

It's all gone a bit meta, hasn't it?  What is evidence, what is proof?

I do think it is important to distinguish Paul's well-designed tests from re-enactor experience.  Sensible re-enactors realise they are play fighting, not carrying out a careful reconstruction.  Even way back in the 70s when I was an SK pikeman, nobody thought what we were doing was realistic (though it was great fun).  I only once fought in a push where we went in with levelled pikes and that was an accident.  I very nearly took somone's eye out - not fun.  Which leads us back to another point sensibly made by Paul - nobody is actually trying to hurt anybody.  In fact they should be trying to prevent people being hurt.  So this does limit things.

Now, as we should all know by now (risking the 1000 repeat rule) I'm not a classicist - my interest here is in combat mechanics.  Paul's experiments impress and I think he has come as close as we are going to get to showing how shoving in a hoplite combat could go.  He has overcome many of my own concerns about the traditional scrum model by showing how it could be controlled.  However, I'm not convinced the state of othismos was a formal drill rather than what happened, nor that it deliberately intended as a pushing contest, rather than a way of creating forward momentum in support of an actively fighting front rank.

I do think Paul has brought a valuable new insight to our many debates on the subject.

For my  two pennorth I would like to point out that casuakties in hoplite battles seem to be generally small...for the winning side and nit disastrous for the loser. I suspect they go up steeply when there is effective, mounted, pursuit. I doubt that citizens would go to war so light heartedly if casualty rolls were routinely large.
If we can acceot this as fact we could take into account that the best men are in the front rank. One presumes that they are the best men because they survive many battles. Thus their defensive abilities must be good enough, that they fight, learn and come back for  the bext battle. The burn rate on such veterans cannot be too high. Doubtless they are facing men who could match Paul's ability to pick out the eyes of an opponent like olives in a Martini and so must have adequate defences against this.
My vote for othismos  as a push, though modified by Richard's good explanations of the phased nature of hoplite warfare and thus the likelihood that there was a period of stand and jab and hack and slash is really related to their beng a point where the hack and slash has not brought results, tiredness has set in amongst the front ranks, no breakthrough has occurred and its down to the mass and weight of the phalanxes.
Othismos as a push is satisfying in that it is a low casualty option, it takes advantage of the initial phase being disruption and intimidation and the search fir a quick breakthrough and it fits so well with hoplite equipment.
Roy

Quote from: Erpingham on March 21, 2018, 09:04:21 AM
It's all gone a bit meta, hasn't it?  What is evidence, what is proof?

I do think it is important to distinguish Paul's well-designed tests from re-enactor experience.  Sensible re-enactors realise they are play fighting, not carrying out a careful reconstruction.  Even way back in the 70s when I was an SK pikeman, nobody thought what we were doing was realistic (though it was great fun).  I only once fought in a push where we went in with levelled pikes and that was an accident.  I very nearly took somone's eye out - not fun.  Which leads us back to another point sensibly made by Paul - nobody is actually trying to hurt anybody.  In fact they should be trying to prevent people being hurt.  So this does limit things.

I have limited reenactment experience but was in one push of pike back in the 70s with pikes held upright.
One of the pikes broke in the press and the guy was left holding two halves, both with sharp ends. There was a frantic falling back from everybody

It does make a difference when you're not trying to kill people
You watch the difference between how people act in the paint ball games or laser tag and compare it to veteran troops in an area where people are using live ammunition

that's one reason I rate Paul's tests

It is nteresting that in the ECW push of pike, though with deadly intent caused few casualties. How is it that both pike blocks did not mutually destruct with blows to the face? I wonder if both front ranks jabbed for a while and were then pushed, tired, into physical contact not unlike the pikes vertical push?
At ceresole ? doesn't Blaise de Monluc tell us that both sides created a second line behibd the pike, of arquebusiers and that the result was a voley, a lot of casualties in the oppising front rank, and then back to normal business with exhausting jabbing away on both sides
Roy

Quote from: aligern on March 21, 2018, 11:06:39 AM
It is nteresting that in the ECW push of pike, though with deadly intent caused few casualties. How is it that both pike blocks did not mutually destruct with blows to the face? I wonder if both front ranks jabbed for a while and were then pushed, tired, into physical contact not unlike the pikes vertical push?

Somewhere in an old Arquebusier is an account of a 16th-century internecine Scottish battle where both sides' pikes basically stick in the opponents' jacks, and they push away fairly bloodlessly. Indifferently-trained amateurs with little real motivation to kill their countrymen, perhaps?

Quote from: aligern on March 21, 2018, 11:06:39 AM

At ceresole ? doesn't Blaise de Monluc tell us that both sides created a second line behibd the pike, of arquebusiers and that the result was a voley, a lot of casualties in the oppising front rank, and then back to normal business with exhausting jabbing away on both sides
Roy

Yes, they successfully proved that you could get a lot of people killed to no overall effect on the result.  It never seems to have been tried again.

As to front rank casualties two examples could be given.  At Novara, Florange (who was there and badly wounded himself) says of the 300 - 400 men in the landsknecht's front ranks, only six came through unscathed.  At Ceresole, Monluc records his men's charge (with pikes) flattened the enemy front rank. 

Most descriptions of renaissance pike fighting suggest if you got past the foyning stage and went in at "push of pike" (push meaning to push forward or to lunge rather than anything to do with scrummaging), a vicious fight broke out in the front rank involving throwing pikes, dropping pikes that get tangled up in enemy armour, hacking at pikes with swords and generally going about your opposite number with sword and dagger (pikemen needed short swords, according to Sir John Smythe, not rapiers).

There is some good stuff on pike fighting and what "push of pike" really meant in this article (http://www.marquisofwinchesters.co.uk/2017/02/04/reenactment-pike-fighting-by-julian-tilbury/).

Quote from: Duncan Head on March 21, 2018, 11:54:56 AM

Quote from: aligern on March 21, 2018, 11:06:39 AM
It is nteresting that in the ECW push of pike, though with deadly intent caused few casualties. How is it that both pike blocks did not mutually destruct with blows to the face? I wonder if both front ranks jabbed for a while and were then pushed, tired, into physical contact not unlike the pikes vertical push?

Somewhere in an old Arquebusier is an account of a 16th-century internecine Scottish battle where both sides' pikes basically stick in the opponents' jacks, and they push away fairly bloodlessly. Indifferently-trained amateurs with little real motivation to kill their countrymen, perhaps?

I think this was the Battle of Langside in 1568 - its quoted in the article I linked to.

This thread has gone into herd of cats mode.

So I'll just pick up one thing:

Roy

Quote
Othismos as a push is satisfying in that it is a low casualty option.

Is it? Why do you think so? May main objection to the types of tests Paul describes is precisely that because they are non-violent (without weapons, nobody trying to hurt anybody) they are not testing anything that could ever, in real life, have really happened. As such their conclusion, that files of men could indeed exert force by pushing, is largely irrelevant to the question of what happened in hoplite battles (though it's an interesting conclusion so far as it goes, and does dispense with the squishy humans, fragile shields and asphyxiation type of objections).

In my mental model of scrum othismos, everybody is squashed up immobile and helpless against the man in front, behind (and to the sides?), unable to move, shield jammed uselessly between bodies. Yet everybody has their right arm free, and many, if not most, will still have their spears (those of the front ranks might have broken theirs, but the ranks behind won't have). In such a press, the spears of many ranks will be able to reach an opponent (not just ahead, but to the sides also), and the only defence possible would be either to kill your opponent first, or perhaps to parry away every spear aimed at you (how possible is this?) In such a situation I would expect a very high casualty rate indeed (with head, face and neck wounds) - and with the added complication of the dead and dying remaining jammed in place, no longer pushing or under any control, but still a part of the supposedly controlled file.

I'm open to being told why this mental model is incorrect, or what I am missing.

Quote from: RichT on March 21, 2018, 12:36:21 PM
This thread has gone into herd of cats mode.

This thread on drifting has drifted.  Apologies on my part.  Although it is difficult when we are running two or more conversations on overlapping themes what should go where.

I don't apologise for the anachronistic 16th and 17th century examples though.  Provided we don't literally claim they are the same as ancient examples, we can see people in real killing situations, their problems and solutions and this can help us evaluate things, in the same way that modern experiments and even general re-enacting can. 

Quote from: Duncan Head on March 21, 2018, 11:54:56 AM

Quote from: aligern on March 21, 2018, 11:06:39 AM
It is nteresting that in the ECW push of pike, though with deadly intent caused few casualties. How is it that both pike blocks did not mutually destruct with blows to the face? I wonder if both front ranks jabbed for a while and were then pushed, tired, into physical contact not unlike the pikes vertical push?

Somewhere in an old Arquebusier is an account of a 16th-century internecine Scottish battle where both sides' pikes basically stick in the opponents' jacks, and they push away fairly bloodlessly. Indifferently-trained amateurs with little real motivation to kill their countrymen, perhaps?

Indeed you do wonder how many of the men genuinely did have any real enthusiasm for killing. Stay in the back ranks, stay alive and you'll get to go home and get on with your real life

Quote from: Erpingham on March 21, 2018, 12:57:59 PM
I don't apologise for the anachronistic 16th and 17th century examples though.  Provided we don't literally claim they are the same as ancient examples, we can see people in real killing situations, their problems and solutions and this can help us evaluate things, in the same way that modern experiments and even general re-enacting can.

Absolutely, do not apologise, and please continue to provide these examples. Part of the problem with scrum othismos is that it depends on hoplite exceptionalism. Examples from other periods provide perspective.

Quote from: Jim Webster on March 21, 2018, 01:12:54 PM

Quote from: Duncan Head on March 21, 2018, 11:54:56 AM

Quote from: aligern on March 21, 2018, 11:06:39 AM
It is nteresting that in the ECW push of pike, though with deadly intent caused few casualties. How is it that both pike blocks did not mutually destruct with blows to the face? I wonder if both front ranks jabbed for a while and were then pushed, tired, into physical contact not unlike the pikes vertical push?

Somewhere in an old Arquebusier is an account of a 16th-century internecine Scottish battle where both sides' pikes basically stick in the opponents' jacks, and they push away fairly bloodlessly. Indifferently-trained amateurs with little real motivation to kill their countrymen, perhaps?

Indeed you do wonder how many of the men genuinely did have any real enthusiasm for killing. Stay in the back ranks, stay alive and you'll get to go home and get on with your real life

Paul has a section on that in Hoplites at War - men's fundamental reluctance to take the lives of others, and how those who do get used to killing have psychological hangovers from it. We're really hardwired to help each other out.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 21, 2018, 02:19:35 PM


Paul has a section on that in Hoplites at War - men's fundamental reluctance to take the lives of others, and how those who do get used to killing have psychological hangovers from it. We're really hardwired to help each other out.

I think we should be cautious about expanding into this area of battlefield psychology.  It can be hard to break from our cultural perceptions and try to enter those of ancient peoples.  It is certainly true in most societies war is an "exceptional" state where different rules apply.  But whether all societies are equally reluctant to kill in war is very moot and too big to tag on here.  Whether there would be a different set of motivations for hoplites if they were citizens doing their duty, mercenaries or a militaristic state might be tacklable (elsewhere), as may how much it mattered who the opponent was (was it easier to kill barbarians than fellow Greeks?). 

Yes, the ancients seem to have been able to overcome their reservations quite readily when faced with a defenceless enemy running away, or civilians in a captured city. I expect they felt bad about it the next day.

Perhaps stronger and more universal is the urge to avoid putting oneself in harm's way, which explains hefty shields, armour, and a fairly tentative style of fighting.

Is there any topic we haven't yet raised in this thread? :)

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 20, 2018, 11:45:57 PMI have no need to refer to any of the literary evidence, which is obviously useless... 

You don't have much other evidence. Your reenactment is certainly not evidence for what did happen.

I am fairly confident that I could demonstrate that frying an egg on a hoplite's breast plate was possible, and I am equally confident that it doesn't qualify as evidence of anything.

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 20, 2018, 11:45:57 PM
Someone can have an opinion, but what they cannot say is that men can't throw spears.  This is what I have now come to demand of those who say othismos is unworkable. In my opinion, the goal post has moved and now critics have to come up with cogent objections based on why they think it unworkable.  If not, the comments are useless to me because I will not know what to test next. I have taken each of the common objections and shown they are no longer valid.  There are still very valid objections to whether othismos could occur. 

This diatribe seems to miss the important historiographical point that we actually care much more about what did happen as opposed to identifying what was not impossible.

Quote from: RichT on March 21, 2018, 03:39:53 PM

Is there any topic we haven't yet raised in this thread? :)

The bit after othismos, where one side ran away?  Spartans, as everyone knows, came back with their shield or on it (unless they were poets).  Other cities seem to think it OK to leg it. 

Oh, sorry.  You meant that as a rhetorical question :)

Quote from: Dangun on March 21, 2018, 03:42:42 PM

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 20, 2018, 11:45:57 PMI have no need to refer to any of the literary evidence, which is obviously useless... 

You don't have much other evidence. Your reenactment is certainly not evidence for what did happen.

I am fairly confident that I could demonstrate that frying an egg on a hoplite's breast plate was possible, and I am equally confident that it doesn't qualify as evidence of anything.

If you read anything of mine, I am always careful to say that I cannot prove that othismos happened, I can only refute some arguments against it that have been raised by others.  This is exactly the equivalent of a whole bunch of authors telling you that you cannot cook an egg on a breastplate because you can't heat it up enough, or that the bronze would melt before the egg cooks, and you go out and make a video of a breast plate over a fire making omlettes. If every single mention of eggs cooked on breastplates could also be interpreted as a figure of speech, "Damn, its hot enough to fry an egg on a breast plate!", then such references are rendered useless to answering the question.  You don't prove that hoplites were short order cooks, you just prove that they could be when others say they cannot.

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 20, 2018, 11:45:57 PM
Someone can have an opinion, but what they cannot say is that men can't throw spears.  This is what I have now come to demand of those who say othismos is unworkable. In my opinion, the goal post has moved and now critics have to come up with cogent objections based on why they think it unworkable.  If not, the comments are useless to me because I will not know what to test next. I have taken each of the common objections and shown they are no longer valid.  There are still very valid objections to whether othismos could occur. 

This diatribe seems to miss the important historiographical point that we actually care much more about what did happen as opposed to identifying what was not impossible.
[/quote]

On the contrary, you miss the point of my diatribe. I am only interested in proving what could be done. I am a scientist, and all I can bring to this study is an experimental means of falsifying unfounded objections. If you would like to have the millionth round of debate on the historiography of othismos, that is fine, but I will just be vomiting Luginbill and Schwartz at you, with some Van Wees and Goldsworthy where the others go off the rails. There is literally nothing new to say based on the literature.

Quote from: Erpingham on March 21, 2018, 03:30:53 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 21, 2018, 02:19:35 PM


Paul has a section on that in Hoplites at War - men's fundamental reluctance to take the lives of others, and how those who do get used to killing have psychological hangovers from it. We're really hardwired to help each other out.

I think we should be cautious about expanding into this area of battlefield psychology.  It can be hard to break from our cultural perceptions and try to enter those of ancient peoples.  It is certainly true in most societies war is an "exceptional" state where different rules apply.  But whether all societies are equally reluctant to kill in war is very moot and too big to tag on here.  Whether there would be a different set of motivations for hoplites if they were citizens doing their duty, mercenaries or a militaristic state might be tacklable (elsewhere), as may how much it mattered who the opponent was (was it easier to kill barbarians than fellow Greeks?).

This is a very complicated topic.  The short answer is that humans have an innate reluctance to kill humans, just as we have against eating humans.  Both of these can be over come by culture. For killing, the prime component is the dehumanization of the enemy, and the passing of guilt from the individual to the group. Sadly, we are very good at rationalizing otherness, usually for perceived threat, and easily convince ourselves that we are "only following orders". I think that last sentence describes the whole expansion of the Roman empire.

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 21, 2018, 04:22:13 PM
If you would like to have the millionth round of debate on the historiography of othismos, that is fine, but I will just be vomiting Luginbill and Schwartz at you, with some Van Wees and Goldsworthy where the others go off the rails. There is literally nothing new to say based on the literature.

I'm not sure that's true. No, dammit, I am sure that's not true :) I've read Schwarz and Luginbill and Frazer and Van Wees and Hanson and Goldsworthy and Lazenby and goodness knows who else, yet when I did some research myself, it came as a total surprise to me that the word 'othismos' is used just three times in the context of hoplite battles, and just once for a battle of hoplite against hoplite, in the whole if ancient literature. That is something new to say, I think.

But I agree that there's no point going over the literary arguments again (let's not). I also agree there is some value in establishing what is not impossible - or rather, to be more precise, in establishing that certain factors do not make something impossible (it remains open whether that thing is still impossible, or at least highly unlikely, for other reasons).

Quote from: RichT on March 21, 2018, 03:39:53 PM
Perhaps stronger and more universal is the urge to avoid putting oneself in harm's way, which explains hefty shields, armour, and a fairly tentative style of fighting.

This is a topic I really tried to hammer in my book.  When chatting with you I will of course often plead authority by way of having physically done much of this in panoply, but I have to caution even more those who think they know how to fight in a shield-wall because they have done some sort of SCA fighting as well.  Everything changes when you can be killed. I believe that hoplites rarely committed to a full strength strike.  Most of the time the jabbed or just feinted.  The reason for this is that you expose so much of the body when fully extending a strike and you are at your most vulnerable.  I am sure we have all seen the kind of windmilling blows seen n some play fighting.  A bigger problem for shield-wall combat is the common technique of prodding a shield to make an opening.  This is suicide with a sharp spear, because it will surely get stuck in the shield-face. Marozzo in his treatise on renaissance spear and large shield show how to kill someone foolish enough to do this.

A thought has occurred to me while loading the dishwasher.  Why don't we have a pinned entry in Army Research which provides a link to all the times we've discussed hoplite warfare and othismos?  Then no-one will need to keep recycling the same information, especially literary information.  We can get used to saying "I refer my honorable friend to the debate that took place in Another Place".  New members can be advised to read the many thousands of words already typed.  We can go on adding to the corpus by by discussing aspects which we have not covered already (e.g. the two spear hoplite and his impact on Western Mediterranean warfare or hoplites in the post-Classical era).

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 21, 2018, 05:31:09 PM

Quote from: RichT on March 21, 2018, 03:39:53 PM
Perhaps stronger and more universal is the urge to avoid putting oneself in harm's way, which explains hefty shields, armour, and a fairly tentative style of fighting.

This is a topic I really tried to hammer in my book.  When chatting with you I will of course often plead authority by way of having physically done much of this in panoply, but I have to caution even more those who think they know how to fight in a shield-wall because they have done some sort of SCA fighting as well.  Everything changes when you can be killed. I believe that hoplites rarely committed to a full strength strike.  Most of the time the jabbed or just feinted.  The reason for this is that you expose so much of the body when fully extending a strike and you are at your most vulnerable.  I am sure we have all seen the kind of windmilling blows seen n some play fighting.  A bigger problem for shield-wall combat is the common technique of prodding a shield to make an opening.  This is suicide with a sharp spear, because it will surely get stuck in the shield-face. Marozzo in his treatise on renaissance spear and large shield show how to kill someone foolish enough to do this.

Link to Marozzo? (if there is one)

Quote from: RichT on March 21, 2018, 04:54:28 PM

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 21, 2018, 04:22:13 PM
If you would like to have the millionth round of debate on the historiography of othismos, that is fine, but I will just be vomiting Luginbill and Schwartz at you, with some Van Wees and Goldsworthy where the others go off the rails. There is literally nothing new to say based on the literature.

I'm not sure that's true. No, dammit, I am sure that's not true :) I've read Schwarz and Luginbill and Frazer and Van Wees and Hanson and Goldsworthy and Lazenby and goodness knows who else, yet when I did some research myself, it came as a total surprise to me that the word 'othismos' is used just three times in the context of hoplite battles, and just once for a battle of hoplite against hoplite, in the whole if ancient literature. That is something new to say, I think.

Hopefully you have not responded to this yet, because I am editing it  ;)

I get 5 uses of words based on ὠθέω or a closely related form that are part of battle between hoplites (6 if we include Pausanias who is not contemporary):

1)   Thukydides 4.96.1
XCVI. Hippocrates had got half through the army with his exhortation, when the Boeotians, after a few more hasty words from Pagondas, struck up the paean, and came against them from the hill; the Athenians advancing to meet them, and closing at a run. [2] The extreme wing of neither army came into action, one like the other being stopped by the water-courses in the way; the rest engaged with the utmost obstinacy, shield against shield.

to de allo karterai machêi kai ôthismôi aspidôn xuneistêkei.

2)   Thuc. 6.70
The armies now came to close quarters, and for a long while fought without either giving ground. Meanwhile there occurred some claps of thunder with lightning and heavy rain, which did not fail to add to the fears of the party fighting for the first time, and very little acquainted with war; while to their more experienced adversaries these phenomena appeared to be produced by the time of year, and much more alarm was felt at the continued resistance of the enemy. [2] At last the Argives drove in the Syracusan left, and after them the Athenians routed the troops opposed to them, and the Syracusan army was thus cut in two and betook itself to flight.

[2] ὠσαμένων δὲ τῶν Ἀργείων πρῶτον τὸ εὐώνυμον κέρας τῶν Συρακοσίων καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτοὺς τῶν Ἀθηναίων τὸ κατὰ σφᾶς αὐτούς, παρερρήγνυτο ἤδη καὶ τὸ ἄλλο στράτευμα τῶν Συρακοσίων καὶ ἐς φυγὴν κατέστη.


3)   Herodotus, The Histories book 7, chapter 225, section 1
CCXXV. Two brothers of Xerxes accordingly fought and fell there. There was a great struggle between the Persians and Lacedaemonians over Leonidas' body, until the Hellenes by their courageous prowess dragged it away and routed their enemies four times. The battle went on until the men with Epialtes arrived. [2] When the Hellenes saw that they had come, the contest turned, for they retired to the narrow part of the way, passed behind the wall, and took their position crowded together on the hill, all except the Thebans.

Xerxeô te dê duo adelpheoi enthauta piptousi machomenoi, kai huper tou nekrou tou Leônideô Perseôn te kai Lakedaimoniôn* ôthismos egineto pollos, es ho touton te aretêi hoi Hellênes hupexeirusan kai etrepsanto tous enantious tetrakis*. touto de sunestêkee* mechri hou hoi sun Epialtêi paregenonto**.

4)   Herodotus, The Histories book 9, chapter 62, section 2
LXII. While he was still in the act of praying, the men of Tegea leapt out before the rest and charged the barbarians, and immediately after Pausanias' prayer the sacrifices of the Lacedaemonians became favorable. Now they too charged the Persians, and the Persians met them, throwing away their bows. [2] First they fought by the fence of shields, and when that was down, there was a fierce and long fight around the temple of Demeter itself, until they came to blows at close quarters. For the barbarians laid hold of the spears and broke them short. [3] Now the Persians were neither less valorous nor weaker, but they had no armor; moreover, since they were unskilled and no match for their adversaries in craft, they would rush out singly and in tens or in groups great or small, hurling themselves on the Spartans and so perishing.

LXII. tauta d' eti toutou epikaleomenou proexanastantes proteroi* hoi Tegeêtai* echôreon es tous barbarous*, kai toisi Lakedaimonioisi autika meta tên euchên tên Pausanieô egineto thuomenoisi ta sphagia chrêsta: hôs de chronôi* kote egeneto, echôreon kai houtoi epi tous Persas, kai hoi Persai antioi ta toxa metentes*. [2] egineto de prôton peri ta gerra machê. hôs de tauta epeptôkee*, êdê* egineto hê machê ischurê par' auto to Dêmêtrion** kai chronon epi pollon, es ho apikonto es ôthismon*: ta gar dorata epilambanomenoi kateklôn hoi barbaroi.

5)   Xen. Hell. 2.4.34
The Athenians did indeed accept battle at close quarters; but in the end some of them were pushed into the mire of the marsh of Halae and others gave way; and about one hundred and fifty of them were1 slain.

οἱ δ᾽ εἰς χεῖρας μὲν ἐδέξαντο, ἔπειτα δὲ οἱ μὲν ἐξεώσθησαν εἰς τὸν ἐν ταῖς Ἁλαῖς πηλόν, οἱ δὲ ἐνέκλιναν


6) Pausanias, Description of Greece book 4, chapter 8, section 2VIII.
[2] When they were about to come to close quarters, they threatened one another by brandishing their arms and with fierce looks, and fell to recriminations, these calling the Messenians already their slaves, no freer than the Helots; the others answering that they were impious in their undertaking, who for the sake of gain attacked their kinsmen and outraged all the ancestral gods of the Dorians, and Heracles above all. And now with their taunts they come to deeds, mass thrusting against mass, especially on the Lacedaemonian side, and man attacking man.

[[] hôs de plêsion eginonto, apeilais echrônto tôn te hoplôn têi kinêsei kai enorôntes es allêlous deinon: es te loidorias proêgonto hoi men oiketas hautôn êdê tous Messênious kai ouden eleutherôterous apokalountes tôn heilôtôn, hoi de ekeinous tôi te encheirêmati anosious, epei pleonexias heneka epi andras sungeneis epiasi, kai theôn asebeis hosoi Dôrieusi patrôioi, tôn te allôn kai malista Hêrakleous. êdê te homou tois oneidesi kai ergôn hêptonto, athrooi te pros athroous [ôthismôi chrômenoi malista hoi Lakedaimonioi kai anêr andri epiontes.


But to me the uses that are of interest are those showing the word used as in crowd disasters.  These show that othismos was a crowd:

Anabasis 5.2.1
[16] Thereupon the peltasts and the light troops rushed in and proceeded to snatch whatever plunder they severally could; but Xenophon, taking his stand at the gates, kept out as many as he could of the hoplites, for the reason that other enemies were coming into view upon certain strong heights. [17] After no long interval a shout arose within and men came pouring forth in flight, some carrying with them what they had seized, then soon a number of men that were wounded; and there was a deal of pushing about the gates.

[17] ou pollou de chronou metaxu genomenou kraugê te egeneto endon kai epheugon hoi men kai echontes ha elabon, tacha de tis kai tetrômenos: kai polus ên ôthismos amphi ta thuretra.

Polybios 4.57  Philip Starts for Aetolia
Finally the invading Aetolians were repulsed: and the Aegiratans, taking advantage of their higher position, made a fierce and vigorous charge down the slope upon the enemy; which struck such terror in them, that in the confusion that followed the fugitives trampled each other to death at the gates.

ho men oun Alexandros en cheirôn nomôi kat' auton epese ton kindunon, ho d' Archidamos en tôi peri tas pulas ôthismôi kai pnigmôi diephtharê.

Appian foreign wars   X.[71]
He was driven out of it, however, and fled to the gates of Chalcedon over many walls which greatly obstructed his movement. There was a struggle at the gates among those trying to gain entrance simultaneously, for which reason no missile cast by the pursuers missed its mark.

ephugen epi tas pulas tês Chalkêdonos dia thrinkiôn pollôn panu duscherôs. amphi te tas pulas ôthismos ên espêdôntôn homou

Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 21, 2018, 05:44:52 PM
Link to Marozzo? (if there is one)

http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Achille_Marozzo/Fourth_Book

Easier to watch.  You particularly want to see minute 21: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGX0LWcFyKQ

very interesting video. re the spear and shield bit, assumes a relatively small and lightweight shield and a shortish spear

Quote from: Erpingham on March 21, 2018, 05:32:20 PM
A thought has occurred to me while loading the dishwasher.  Why don't we have a pinned entry in Army Research which provides a link to all the times we've discussed hoplite warfare and othismos?  Then no-one will need to keep recycling the same information...

Agreed. Like an othismos argument wiki. And a collection of all literary quotes pertaining to xyz. In general the quotes and literary links are useful stuff and difficult sometimes to summon with the search function.

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 21, 2018, 04:22:13 PM
If you read anything of mine, I am always careful to say that I cannot prove that othismos happened, I can only refute some arguments against it that have been raised by others.  This is exactly the equivalent of a whole bunch of authors telling you that you cannot cook an egg on a breastplate because...

Unfortunately, the set of all possible things is very large. (Almost as large as the set of all othismos threads.) So your experimental method is going to take a long time to go not very far.

Quote from: Dangun on March 21, 2018, 11:42:21 PM
Unfortunately, the set of all possible things is very large. (Almost as large as the set of all othismos threads.) So your experimental method is going to take a long time to go not very far.

Actually, I have already refuted all of the major arguments against othismos that have been based on conjecture on the mechanics of combat and what men and material could not do. It is up to individuals what they believe likely to have happened based on probability. We have no direct evidence that the armor we see on vases consisting of a tube with epomides above and pteryges below is made of anything but articulated iron, but this does not stop the linothorax debate.  Yes, the "L" word, almost as bad as the "O" word.

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 21, 2018, 11:52:22 PM
Actually, I have already refuted all of the major arguments against othismos that have been based on conjecture on the mechanics of combat and what men and material could not do.

But you have done little to justify that what you believe is othismos had anything to do with the othismos of history. To do this will be more convincing if you engage with the literary evidence, but since you said earlier, "I have no need to refer to any of the literary evidence," I guess you could focus on the archaeology and paintings?

You have not demonstrated that othismos is not impossible, you have demonstrated that a particular version of playing-with-pointy-sticks-and-big-bronze-frisbees is not impossible.

Not the same.

What with having to sleep at night and occasionally do things other than add to othismos threads, it is hard to keep up with all this. A sticky thread or some such would be a splendid idea as the degree of repetition is wearisome.

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 21, 2018, 05:51:15 PM
I get 5 uses of words based on ὠθέω or a closely related form that are part of battle between hoplites

Sure - note that I said the word 'othismos', ie the noun, so bringing in the verbal form and compounds (exotheo) is not really the point. But yes I have looked at the verb too, and at its common compounds - it's all in the articles I mentioned. I can send you copies though I should first urge you to buy the back issues of Slingshot in which they are contained - then you will get all the other good stuff in those issues too and do the Society a little good financially (and who doesn't want that?). I'll need to look up which issues they are. (Why isn't there an index pinned somewhere on this forum? That would be useful too).

I should also mention - what makes you say Hdt 7.225.1 and Hdt 9.62.2. are 'part of battle between hoplites'? These are clearly part of battle between hoplites and non-hoplite Persians. Now Persians putatively don't do othismos, and, putatively, it takes two to othismos.

Quote
But to me the uses that are of interest are those showing the word used as in crowd disasters.  These show that othismos was a crowd:

Or these show that the word could also be used for a crowd, as it could also be used for an argument, and for a mass of ships, and for the charge of elephants, and for the thrust of spears, and for the manoeuvres of wrestlers.

At most, these examples show that there are similarities between masses of men engaged in combat, and masses of men engaged in getting through a gate. Again, the English word 'press' does such double (or more than double) service, without anyone concluding that every time the word 'press' is used, it always means the same thing.

Quote
When chatting with you I will of course often plead authority by way of having physically done much of this in panoply,

I happily bow before your authority. :) Indeed this is the great value that you and your experiments can bring to the table. BUT since you have only engaged in non-violent combat in which the aim is to avoid anyone gettng hurt, I think your conclusions must still be treated with a large amount of caution.

Quote
Actually, I have already refuted all of the major arguments against othismos that have been based on conjecture on the mechanics of combat and what men and material could not do.

Yes and I think that's useful and advances the discussion. But there remain all sorts of other arguments against scrum othismos based on conjecture on the mechanics of combat that you haven't (yet) refuted - I offered one above (Reply #32), that nobody has responded to. Is that because nobody has a response, or because the question is too obvious or tedious to even consider?

Quote from: RichT on March 21, 2018, 12:36:21 PM
This thread has gone into herd of cats mode.

So I'll just pick up one thing:

Roy

Quote
Othismos as a push is satisfying in that it is a low casualty option.

Is it? Why do you think so? May main objection to the types of tests Paul describes is precisely that because they are non-violent (without weapons, nobody trying to hurt anybody) they are not testing anything that could ever, in real life, have really happened. As such their conclusion, that files of men could indeed exert force by pushing, is largely irrelevant to the question of what happened in hoplite battles (though it's an interesting conclusion so far as it goes, and does dispense with the squishy humans, fragile shields and asphyxiation type of objections).

In my mental model of scrum othismos, everybody is squashed up immobile and helpless against the man in front, behind (and to the sides?), unable to move, shield jammed uselessly between bodies. Yet everybody has their right arm free, and many, if not most, will still have their spears (those of the front ranks might have broken theirs, but the ranks behind won't have). In such a press, the spears of many ranks will be able to reach an opponent (not just ahead, but to the sides also), and the only defence possible would be either to kill your opponent first, or perhaps to parry away every spear aimed at you (how possible is this?) In such a situation I would expect a very high casualty rate indeed (with head, face and neck wounds) - and with the added complication of the dead and dying remaining jammed in place, no longer pushing or under any control, but still a part of the supposedly controlled file.

I'm open to being told why this mental model is incorrect, or what I am missing.

Anybody with a spear that can strike an opponent has an opponent whose spear can strike him. In addition each spear has a fixed range - he can effectively target only one rank of the enemy phalanx. So what you get are two spearmen who are cautiously sparring with each other, and who are protected by the men in front of them which their opponent's spear can't reach. In addition to all this, your compatriot's head is right in front of you - I mean you have his helmet crest in your eyes, so it is very difficult to see where your opponent is and where to strike him - and his head is right behind his buddy's head too. As a final point, there is zero depth space between you and your buddies in front and behind you. That means you are likely to hit the arm of the guy in front of you with your own arm if you try doing a spear thrust, and spears are likely to get tangled together too.

Putting all this together, I don't think one can do much effective spear sparring when in an othismos crush. It is the front rank, knives and swords out, who are able to do real damage.

OK thanks, and I can see some justice in that, though I don't see why range would be that restricted, since spears can be moved to and fro. Can you cautiously spar if you can't move? While Paul is presumably on US time and not currently able to speak for himself, I will quote him from the other thread.

PMB:

Quote
5) It says they fought and pushed! You can't use weapons in othismos. In fact you can. When done properly you are free to use your right arm for a vicious, close range fight. It helps that the head of your foe helps shield you from strikes of his friends. You would want to quickly bind up your foe's blade.

...

You both have one free hand, so have to hook his arm or catch his weapon blade to blade.  You are essentially arm wrestling while pushing. The man behind you is trying to get to him as well, while the man behind him is defending him. The strikes that work in this type of battle are all delivered from above, which makes sense of the growth in popularity of the pilos, which best deflects strikes from above due to its conical shape. The khopis and to a lesser extend the xiphos are point heavy and can be used close-in like a hatchet, with all the power coming from the wrist rotation. The best weapon for this though is surely whatever Xenophon calls an enchiridion (dagger) in his description of the second phase of Coronea in Agiselaus. We have some great vase images of swords being brought down into the joint of the shoulder and neck in the classic gladiator coup de gras strike, perfect for this. Your best defense is that it is hard to hit you and not your foe's head, so his allies cannot easily strike at you.

I don't know why Paul assumes only swords would be used, not spears. But at any rate, while there are limitations, he does describe a fair ability to strike (at least by the man behind you and the man behind him) as well as restrictions (it is hard to hit you and not your foe's head). I can see that visibility directly forward would be limited, but what about to the side toward neighbouring files? And what if some men further back in the formation held back just a little and struck the faces of the defenceless front rank men - angling to the sides to avoid the heads of comrades - with their spears?

My, we are bouncing from one thread to another and drifting with it  ;)

Quote from: RichT on March 22, 2018, 12:12:19 PM
OK thanks, and I can see some justice in that, though I don't see why range would be that restricted, since spears can be moved to and fro.

How? The depth available to you, shield included, is something like 35cm. That's the space available for your arm to move back and forth without bumping into the arms of the hoplites in front of and behind you. That effectively limits you to striking at one enemy rank.

Quote from: RichT on March 22, 2018, 12:12:19 PM

Quote
5) It says they fought and pushed! You can't use weapons in othismos. In fact you can. When done properly you are free to use your right arm for a vicious, close range fight. It helps that the head of your foe helps shield you from strikes of his friends. You would want to quickly bind up your foe's blade.

...

You both have one free hand, so have to hook his arm or catch his weapon blade to blade.  You are essentially arm wrestling while pushing. The man behind you is trying to get to him as well, while the man behind him is defending him. The strikes that work in this type of battle are all delivered from above, which makes sense of the growth in popularity of the pilos, which best deflects strikes from above due to its conical shape. The khopis and to a lesser extend the xiphos are point heavy and can be used close-in like a hatchet, with all the power coming from the wrist rotation. The best weapon for this though is surely whatever Xenophon calls an enchiridion (dagger) in his description of the second phase of Coronea in Agiselaus. We have some great vase images of swords being brought down into the joint of the shoulder and neck in the classic gladiator coup de gras strike, perfect for this. Your best defense is that it is hard to hit you and not your foe's head, so his allies cannot easily strike at you.

I don't know why Paul assumes only swords would be used, not spears.

You have much more flexibility in how you hold a sword. You can jab with it just over your front buddy's shoulder.

Quote from: RichT on March 22, 2018, 12:12:19 PMI can see that visibility directly forward would be limited, but what about to the side toward neighbouring files?

Same problem - you can't properly see the enemy ranks further back, even in adjacent files, since the heads of your own men and enemy hoplites in the file you are facing are in the way. Remember that in othismos, with a spear that has a reach of 6 feet, if you are in the third rank you will be able to target only the 4th enemy rank. How do you see what you are hitting?

Quote from: RichT on March 22, 2018, 12:12:19 PMAnd what if some men further back in the formation held back just a little and struck the faces of the defenceless front rank men - angling to the sides to avoid the heads of comrades - with their spears?

For othismos to work everybody has to be pushing. If anyone holds back the entire line buckles and disintegrates.

Quote from: Dangun on March 22, 2018, 07:16:13 AM

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 21, 2018, 11:52:22 PM
Actually, I have already refuted all of the major arguments against othismos that have been based on conjecture on the mechanics of combat and what men and material could not do.

But you have done little to justify that what you believe is othismos had anything to do with the othismos of history. To do this will be more convincing if you engage with the literary evidence, but since you said earlier, "I have no need to refer to any of the literary evidence," I guess you could focus on the archaeology and paintings?

You have not demonstrated that othismos is not impossible, you have demonstrated that a particular version of playing-with-pointy-sticks-and-big-bronze-frisbees is not impossible.

Not the same.

You are exactly right, but what you don't seem to grasp is that half of the historians working on hoplites are writing that the "particular version of playing-with-pointy-sticks-and-big-bronze-Frisbees" is impossible.  They are writing books on it and making academic careers. They are erroneously saying that what I have shown is possible cannot be done. For example, I can not with confidence answer your own question raised on another thread I just saw about how 50 ranks of Thebans could be pushed back by 12 or Spartans. This is surely of value to the field.

You misunderstood my original comment about literary evidence.  I did not say I am ignorant of  the primary sources, or they have no value in this debate.  What I said is that I have no need to refer to them, because every argument that can be made from them has already been made by historians better than myself.  If you want to have such a debate, I could if you start another thread, but within ten posts we will be deadlocked. 

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 22, 2018, 02:25:53 PM
I did not say I am ignorant of  the primary sources, or they have no value in this debate.  What I said is that I have no need to refer to them, because every argument that can be made from them has already been made by historians better than myself.  If you want to have such a debate, I could if you start another thread, but within ten posts we will be deadlocked.

I sometimes find that having a close look at the primary sources can be very illuminating. Inter and all that.  ::)

although the written word is only as good as the author  ;)

QuoteFor othismos to work everybody has to be pushing. If anyone holds back the entire line buckles and disintegrates.

This, of course, depends entirely on your prefered model of othismos.  Remember, as Paul said, othismos is a state of being.  You don't "do" othismos and it isn't something that "works".  Its something you find yourself in, or taking part in.

I'm not suggesting that hoplites were happily poke spears then suddenly WHAM! they found themselves in othismos.  They doubtless could take actions which created a state of othismos.  They don't seem to have been able to get out of it once it began, except by running away or dying though. 

Also, I think one side could trigger othismos, whatever it was, without the active will of the other - i.e. I don't think both sides had to be doing the same thing.  When the Greeks broke the Persian shield line at Plataea, were the Persians "doing their bit" to make othismos happen?  Or did they find themselves in that state unwillingly?  Paul's experiments have shown the Greeks were well equipped for the big O and doubtless it was part of their battle expectations.  Persians expected to stand behind shields and shoot people. 



   

Quote from: RichT on March 22, 2018, 09:33:26 AM
I should also mention - what makes you say Hdt 7.225.1 and Hdt 9.62.2. are 'part of battle between hoplites'? These are clearly part of battle between hoplites and non-hoplite Persians. Now Persians putatively don't do othismos, and, putatively, it takes two to othismos.

You are right, I should not have said between hoplites, but involving hoplites. That said, these 2 are the exceptions that prove the rule.  To get into the crowded densities that allow othismos, the enemy has to resist and not give ground.  At Plataia this is obvious because the Persian shields are on kick stands. At Thermopylae we have notoriously constrained conditions and a rush to get the body of Leonidas. The only reason to enter othismos is to fight over a patch of ground.  The ground where the King lay is a prime example of this and probably hints at why othismos evolved in the first place.

Quote from: RichT on March 22, 2018, 09:33:26 AM
Or these show that the word could also be used for a crowd, as it could also be used for an argument, and for a mass of ships, and for the charge of elephants, and for the thrust of spears, and for the manoeuvres of wrestlers. At most, these examples show that there are similarities between masses of men engaged in combat, and masses of men engaged in getting through a gate. Again, the English word 'press' does such double (or more than double) service, without anyone concluding that every time the word 'press' is used, it always means the same thing.

But this is exactly my point.  Here my argument is against the orthodox notion that there is a tactic called othismos.  There is not.  Honestly, I doubt that they had an understanding of exactly what was happening during othismos any more than people who are caught in such crowds today do. No polemarch ever said "come on boys, let's othismos them!" They say things like "one more step!" and tells us about fighting when the shields crowded together. They are just fighting and the crowding is happening.

Quote from: RichT on March 22, 2018, 09:33:26 AM
I happily bow before your authority. :) Indeed this is the great value that you and your experiments can bring to the table. BUT since you have only engaged in non-violent combat in which the aim is to avoid anyone gettng hurt, I think your conclusions must still be treated with a large amount of caution.

This is something I point out in the book, and has led to many in the past erroneously applying things that work in play fighting to real fighting.  I commented on this previously, this discussion is moving so fast, I know comments are being lost. In short, sharp points change everything.

Quote from: RichT on March 22, 2018, 09:33:26 AM
But there remain all sorts of other arguments against scrum othismos based on conjecture on the mechanics of combat that you haven't (yet) refuted - I offered one above (Reply #32), that nobody has responded to. Is that because nobody has a response, or because the question is too obvious or tedious to even consider?

Oddly, my reply to this seems not to have made it, though the image I created for it did.  I will repost here.  There are two reasons what you describe does not happen. As we added men in file, the whole file contracts towards the front like an accordion.  This is because men get crushed into the smalled space their bodies can take before you have to start breaking bones.  The result is that the front rankers are standing almost straight up.  This is what allows them to use their right arms freely. Only ranks that are standing up can effectively use a weapon.  This, by the way, is why I know a dead man will not disrupt the file, because these promachoi are no longer adding much to the press and are much like the dead men in terms of the mechanics. The fact that the harder you push, the more front ranks are constrained to help in pushing may be one reason the force plateaus after ranks get deep. So, no, most ranks cannot use their weapons.  But there is an even bigger problem.  The heads of the men in front of you constrain you to strike down a channel between them- more so with helmet crests.  See the diagram below that shows the only range of targets for successive ranks.  Even these thrusts would be done blind, and past the first two ranks you would also have spears standing up to deal with as well.

Quote from: RichT on March 22, 2018, 09:33:26 AM
I don't know why Paul assumes only swords would be used, not spears. But at any rate, while there are limitations, he does describe a fair ability to strike (at least by the man behind you and the man behind him) as well as restrictions (it is hard to hit you and not your foe's head). I can see that visibility directly forward would be limited, but what about to the side toward neighbouring files? And what if some men further back in the formation held back just a little and struck the faces of the defenceless front rank men - angling to the sides to avoid the heads of comrades - with their spears?

See above, but the reason that you cannot use a spear in othismos is the same as why you can use a dory to fight any time you are shield to shield.  The dory had a reach of some 5-6'.  You cannot rear back far enough to hit a man this close to you.  You have to drop your spear or be killed.  You could use it from ranks further back, but see above.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 22, 2018, 02:34:27 PM

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 22, 2018, 02:25:53 PM
I did not say I am ignorant of  the primary sources, or they have no value in this debate.  What I said is that I have no need to refer to them, because every argument that can be made from them has already been made by historians better than myself.  If you want to have such a debate, I could if you start another thread, but within ten posts we will be deadlocked.

I sometimes find that having a close look at the primary sources can be very illuminating. Inter and all that.  ::)

Wouldn't it just be easier to read one of the previous threads? I would be surprised if you guy have not exhausted all the possible pros and cons by now. How about this, if there is a particular quote or image that anyone believes is the clincher for their side, post it.  I will respond to it and can probably give you citations of those better than I refuting it.

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 22, 2018, 03:06:41 PM
That said, these 2 are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Then you have two exceptions and only one rule :)

Quote
Oddly, my reply to this seems not to have made it, though the image I created for it did.

I wondered what that diagram was doing on the other post. OK thanks, the reply is clear, if not totally unquibbleablewith - but I suspect that's as far as we can go.

So if I understand correctly, you see scrum othismos as an involuntary state which occurs when two close order infantry formations are fighting, neither wants to give ground, and the rear ranks keep pushing forward? (Must we restrict it to Classical hoplites? At the least you are including Persians with your exceptions). This is (as you say) different from some versions of the orthodoxy (and goes beyond your stated objective of just proving what's not impossible in the orthodox view).

OK, let's turn this around a little. There are a number of references to infantry being so crammed together as to be unable to use their weapons, and this being a bad thing (Romans at Cannae etc). So let's suppose that Greeks had a similar view - being in a crowd crush is dangerous, and it's better to keep at fighting distance and use weapons, even if the more aggressive might (as Romans did) get stuck right in and clash shields, and this is how Greeks fought their battles. But Greeks also fought in a deep formation and part of the job of the rear ranks was to keep closed right up so that front ranks had to keep moving forward into combat, and once there couldn't (or could only with difficulty) step away. Now imagine that in the course of fighting - whether tentative spear fencing, or more aggressive shield bashing, depending on the psychology of the hoplites involved - those on the losing side would take a step back when they could, those behind them knocked or shuffling back nervously to stay out of harm's way, while the winners would step forward, followed up by the ranks behind, like an advancing wall, shouting enouragement and jabbing with their spears where they could reach. Imagine this going on all along the line, and momentum and ebbs and flows setting in, one side gaining a moral as well as physical advantage, more backward steps from the rear rankers of the losing force, then a few peeling off the back and running, those in front sensing growing panic and exposure to their rear, stepping back further, the winners following up all the time, bashing shields and stabbing spears, those behind them following up, pushing forward, until at some point the trickle of men from the back of the losing phalanx becomes a flood and their formation falls apart.

So I hope that's a conventional and uncontroversial description of heavy infantry combat. Now, a couple of questions. First of all, what, if anything, would be different about how ancient Greek historians might describe this process from the actual descriptions of ancient combat that we have? Would they not still talk of othismos (or en chersi, or one of a number of other terms) for the period of fighting before either side gained an advantage - where the fighting is close and brutal with pushing of shields, but is not a crowd crush, and neither side is giving ground (what later writers called a press, among other things). Would they not talk of being 'otheo-ed' - of being pushed back - when one side started to give way and the other followed up. In other words, what is there in the Greek accounts we have that leads us to believe that something unique and special (scrum othismos) is being described (for Classical hoplites only?), rather than the sort of fighting I have described above?

Secondly, if we were reading the Greek accounts of such fighting, and it was 1910 and we were on the Edwardian equivalent of the internet (letters page of The Times?) and were not public school educated classicists and had never played rugby; but we did have a good knowledge of military history, and maybe had some military experience ourselves, or perhaps had fathers or grandfathers who had fought in massed close order infantry formations. What is there in ancient Greek accounts of hoplite battle that might lead us to believe that what was being described was a crowd crush, rather than the sort of fighting I have described above (or something else entirely, if my description above is wrong)?

I know this is a broad (and of course rhetorical) question, but it is the heart of the matter. Given that we can read all the Greek battle literature and understand it in similar terms to our undertanding of combat in other periods, what need is there to come up with a completely different model for hoplite combat? Even if we can prove that such different models are not theoretically impossible.

(And I know one answer is that the shields are suitable for this model of combat - but how certain are we that they are not also suitable for the fighting I describe? Ancient shields came in many shapes and sizes).

I realise its limitations but when I participated (as a reenactor) in shieldwall 'combat' there was a period of spear fencing as the 2 lines closed and this was fast and furious. (and by the way, you do drift to the right on closing!) Eventually someone would chance their arm and attempt to break up the opposing shieldwall by closing shield to shield and trying to force their way into the opposing formation. Is that essentially osmosis - trying to force an opening in a Greek shieldwall when very long pointy sticks normally keep you separated?

Quote from: RichT on March 22, 2018, 04:29:42 PM
So if I understand correctly, you see scrum othismos as an involuntary state which occurs when two close order infantry formations are fighting, neither wants to give ground, and the rear ranks keep pushing forward?

I am saying nothing about a scrum othismos. The Scrum othismos is a mistaken theory that was based on a flawed understanding of physics and the behavior of massed men. A scrum is an intentional tactic done as part of a rugby game. What I am describing has little to do with it, and is in fact more like what happens when that rugby teams shirts go on sale a department store, and a gaggle of shoppers try to all get through the door at once. This is why it has to be called a crowd othismos, not a scrum othismos, I cannot defend their tactics.  You can surely appreciate that if a member of the orthodoxy jumped into this discussion, he would not agree with my presentation.  For clarity's sake, you cannot lump us together, any more that they would have lumped Cawkwell back in the day with his "late othismos".

Quote from: RichT on March 22, 2018, 04:29:42 PM
(Must we restrict it to Classical hoplites? At the least you are including Persians with your exceptions). This is (as you say) different from some versions of the orthodoxy (and goes beyond your stated objective of just proving what's not impossible in the orthodox view).

No. This type of crowding happens in almost every battle where men meet shield to shield, what I guess we would call shield bashing and opposed to striking with the shield. If I and you meet shield to shield and try to push each other, if I am being pushed back, it is only natural for the man behind me to support me and stop me moving back. In this way ranks can be brought in on both sides.  But rather quickly, both sides loosen up before the force gets all that big because one or both sides give way. This happened with Hoplites as well surely, short circuiting othismos.

Quote from: RichT on March 22, 2018, 04:29:42 PM
So I hope that's a conventional and uncontroversial description of heavy infantry combat. Now, a couple of questions. First of all, what, if anything, would be different about how ancient Greek historians might describe this process from the actual descriptions of ancient combat that we have? Would they not still talk of othismos (or en chersi, or one of a number of other terms) for the period of fighting before either side gained an advantage - where the fighting is close and brutal with pushing of shields, but is not a crowd crush, and neither side is giving ground (what later writers called a press, among other things). Would they not talk of being 'otheo-ed' - of being pushed back - when one side started to give way and the other followed up. In other words, what is there in the Greek accounts we have that leads us to believe that something unique and special (scrum othismos) is being described (for Classical hoplites only?), rather than the sort of fighting I have described above?

Secondly, if we were reading the Greek accounts of such fighting, and it was 1910 and we were on the Edwardian equivalent of the internet (letters page of The Times?) and were not public school educated classicists and had never played rugby; but we did have a good knowledge of military history, and maybe had some military experience ourselves, or perhaps had fathers or grandfathers who had fought in massed close order infantry formations. What is there in ancient Greek accounts of hoplite battle that might lead us to believe that what was being described was a crowd crush, rather than the sort of fighting I have described above (or something else entirely, if my description above is wrong)?

I will do what I wanted to avoid and cite Luginbill's 1994 paper because I find it the simplest answer to this question: "It flows from the natural reading of the best available contemporary witnesses to this sort of combat." I agree with this, the simple reading of lines like "καὶ συμβαλόντες τὰς ἀσπίδας ἐωθοῦντο, ἐμάχοντο, ἀπέκτεινον, ἀπέθνῃσκον" is the most simple: the lines came together, pushed (not hit) with their shields, fought, killed, and died.  As I have said above, any time opposing ranks are pushing each other with their shields, it is likely that the ranks behind them get drawn in. The question then becomes why do they stop pushing and go back to fighting. With most armies it is because they physically cannot sustain or survive a drawn out pushing phase. Hoplites do not have this limitation. That is not a guess, but a fact. We tested this and they can.  So we are now left in need of another reason for them to stop. We could go through each and every such mention. I would probably even agree with you on some- the push of Athenians into the Halae may well be figurative, while the press of shields at Delium is surely not. At Delium we have  men going down hill in deep ranks. It would be harder to keep othismos from happening than to initiate it. On the other hand, when in Thuc. 4.96, we read of a fierce struggle and pushing of shields, I am unmoved by the argument that the othismos aspidon redundantly means a fierce struggle. When the Romans push at Zama, I do not think this a metaphor, I just think it was nowhere near as forceful as the pressure that could be generated by a clash of Sparta and Thebes.  So, I flip the question around, and wonder why we don't see a weaker form of othismos in these other combats.  It is a matter of degree more than design. And the key is that even to the Greeks there was no type of combat known as othismos. If instead of a Victorian student who played the "wall game", we handed a roman history to Xenophon, he would probably assume there was a lot of physical pushing, and probably chuckle to himself that this silly Romans with long peltae could not push like a real army should. [/quote]

Quote from: RichT on March 22, 2018, 04:29:42 PM
(And I know one answer is that the shields are suitable for this model of combat - but how certain are we that they are not also suitable for the fighting I describe? Ancient shields came in many shapes and sizes).

The aspis is wholly suitable for other types of combat. I regularly rail against the bullshit concept that the aspis handicapped men to force them to fight in groups. The aspis surely existed in its wicker precursor long before Greeks pushed anyone. Have you ever seen the Taming shield of a Philipine Moro? See below.  They are the most aspisish shield you will find in a modern (20thc) combat system. They did not othismos-ize anyone.
The key is that the aspis has features that allow it to be used as a life preserved in a crushing crowd of men. These to some extent existed in the previous shields, but were exploited in the Argive aspis. This had to be the case, because no man ever sat down and said let's design a shield that will allow us to push in a group.  Instead the aspis evolved out of shields that existed at the time, with men choosing those that were hollow and had thick sidewalls to give it depth and prevent crushing because they worked better in a crowd.  Over time this got so exaggerated, that the sidewalls in the Argive aspis were thicker, by almost double, that the face of the shield which defended against thrusts.
Here is another problem with the Orthodox presentation by the way. They will tell you that the depth of the shield is to help support the shield's weight on the shoulder.  The problem with this is A) the aspis was only about 5-6kg, and B) much of the mass of the wooden core is because it has thick sidewalls to give it depth! Add to this that fighting with your aspis on your shoulder is suicidal.

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 22, 2018, 07:26:52 PM

I am saying nothing about a scrum othismos. The Scrum othismos is a mistaken theory that was based on a flawed understanding of physics and the behavior of massed men. A scrum is an intentional tactic done as part of a rugby game. What I am describing has little to do with it, and is in fact more like what happens when that rugby teams shirts go on sale a department store, and a gaggle of shoppers try to all get through the door at once. This is why it has to be called a crowd othismos, not a scrum othismos, I cannot defend their tactics.  You can surely appreciate that if a member of the orthodoxy jumped into this discussion, he would not agree with my presentation.  For clarity's sake, you cannot lump us together, any more that they would have lumped Cawkwell back in the day with his "late othismos".

exactly what I experienced as per my reenacting days....its more haphazard in nature than some suggest....I really dont get the 'planned' scrum theory

Quote from: Holly on March 22, 2018, 07:04:19 PM
I realise its limitations but when I participated (as a reenactor) in shieldwall 'combat' there was a period of spear fencing as the 2 lines closed and this was fast and furious. (and by the way, you do drift to the right on closing!) Eventually someone would chance their arm and attempt to break up the opposing shieldwall by closing shield to shield and trying to force their way into the opposing formation. Is that essentially osmosis - trying to force an opening in a Greek shieldwall when very long pointy sticks normally keep you separated?

That is when the range of battle moves from spear range to sword range in a hoplite battle.  Only if the opposing lines start to push each other and the ranks behind support them, do we enter othimos. I am convinced that Saxons and Vikings got themselves in to some weak form of othismos, I hare read snippets that suggest it. But there is something that need to be clarified about othismos. Norse and Saxon warriors often carried two or more spears, taller than a man, that were centrally balanced so as to be able to be thrown or retained to fight. Their swords were about a yard long. This means that the range of sword and spear were roughly similar, and all fighting happened close to each other. Early hoplites were just like this, and I have proposed that the Saxons are a better model for archaic hoplites than classical hoplites are.  This is because classical hoplites broke up the melee phase of combat into 3 separate phases.  When hoplites first clash as you describe above, they did so with 9' spears that were held near the rear for greater reach. This means that the two lines were so far apart that you could not use a sword if your spear broke. You had to move in close and get beneath the other hedge of spears. This was liberating for the hoplite is a way, because swords could get smaller, and I believe did so, to the point that Xenophon calls them daggers. This ultra close range naturally leads to more pressing with shields and Othismos.

What interests me most at the moment is the use of spear and seax by Saxons, were they doing this as well? Those lenticular shields, though recently they seem to be under attack as hemicylinders, could be made to work in othismos.

Quote from: Holly on March 22, 2018, 07:40:49 PM

exactly what I experienced as per my reenacting days....its more haphazard in nature than some suggest....I really dont get the 'planned' scrum theory

It is one of those things that is far easier to understand if you see it, or better yet, experience it.

OK thank you - I think we are getting somewhere, though I'm not totally sure where we are getting.

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 22, 2018, 07:55:25 PM
I am saying nothing about a scrum othismos. The Scrum othismos is a mistaken theory that was based on a flawed understanding of physics and the behavior of massed men.

OK - so you and I (and probably almost everyone else reading this) can agree that scrum othismos is a nonsense and never happened. Result!

I'm not totally sure though that I am clear on the ways in which crowd othismos (CO) differs from scrum othismos (SO). Is it right to say:
- in CO the stance is flat on not oblique or side on as in SO (inevitably, as the force flattens the man) - I definitely agree with this
- CO happens after initial fighting, while in SO it follows directly from a charge to contact (though many orthodox SOers also say there was an initial fighting phase)
- CO is involuntary, something that just happens, not a drill or tactic like SO

Quote
You can surely appreciate that if a member of the orthodoxy jumped into this discussion, he would not agree with my presentation.

Maybe, but be careful what you wish for as that may yet happen...

Quote
No. This type of crowding happens in almost every battle where men meet shield to shield, what I guess we would call shield bashing and opposed to striking with the shield. If I and you meet shield to shield and try to push each other, if I am being pushed back, it is only natural for the man behind me to support me and stop me moving back. In this way ranks can be brought in on both sides.  But rather quickly, both sides loosen up before the force gets all that big because one or both sides give way. This happened with Hoplites as well surely, short circuiting othismos.

OK so to be perfectly clear - crowd othismos happens in prety much all heavy infantry combat, just that Classical hoplites sustained it for longer?

Now lots of points, so I hope you won't mind if I take this by line, as I want to be clear in my mind about all this.

Quote
I will do what I wanted to avoid and cite Luginbill's 1994 paper because I find it the simplest answer to this question: "It flows from the natural reading of the best available contemporary witnesses to this sort of combat." I agree with this

Well, I disagree with this, as my article (Slingshot 306, 'The Meaning of Othismos') explains. I don't think it is the natural reading, I think it is just a literal reading.

Quote
the simple reading of lines like "καὶ συμβαλόντες τὰς ἀσπίδας ἐωθοῦντο, ἐμάχοντο, ἀπέκτεινον, ἀπέθνῃσκον" is the most simple: the lines came together, pushed (not hit) with their shields, fought, killed, and died.

As I explain in the article, I think this is wrong - συμβαλόντες τὰς ἀσπίδας does mean striking together their shields, not pushing with their shields, as other examples show.

For further clarity - you said above about why there wasn't much weapons play in crowd othismos (blocked lines of sight and covered by heads in proximity) - but now you also say that 'they fought, they killed, they died' carried on during othismos, and I've just reread the relevant parts of your book and this suggests continued fighting in othismos. Perhaps just the front two (?) ranks could fight (with swords, only?)

Quote
As I have said above, any time opposing ranks are pushing each other with their shields, it is likely that the ranks behind them get drawn in. The question then becomes why do they stop pushing and go back to fighting. With most armies it is because they physically cannot sustain or survive a drawn out pushing phase. Hoplites do not have this limitation. That is not a guess, but a fact. We tested this and they can.

So - crowd othismos always develops, but most would have to 'unpack', restore separation, and go back to weapons play (presumably) once they started getting too crushed or out of breath? While hoplites wouldn't need to unpack and could keep on beng squashed? How would the unpacking happen, since it would have to happen from the back? When the front ranks turn blue, stop pushing? :)

Has testing confirmed that this is impossible for non-aspis carriers?

Quote
So we are now left in need of another reason for them to stop. We could go through each and every such mention. I would probably even agree with you on some- the push of Athenians into the Halae may well be figurative, while the press of shields at Delium is surely not.

I agree on the one being figurative and the other not. To me, the Athenians being pushed back to the marsh, and the men striking together their shields at Delium, are totally different things - descriptions of action on a different scale, using different words, with different intent, for all that an oth- root word is involved in both cases. Men pushing with shields (as Romans also did) is different from phalanxes being pushed back. So I believe we agree on this.

Quote
On the other hand, when in Thuc. 4.96, we read of a fierce struggle and pushing of shields, I am unmoved by the argument that the othismos aspidon redundantly means a fierce struggle.

I'm not sure who argues that, but why is it redundant? Since this is the only time this phrase is ever used (until Procopius uses it 1000 years later) it is hard to be certain of meaning, but to me it means just what it says, which is, broadly, the same as συμβαλόντες τὰς ἀσπίδας - it is the contact of individual men (and their shields) in the course of a close fight.

Incidentally, you seem to be saying that shield-shield contact requires that spear use end (and be replaced by sword use)? But vase paintings showing scenes of single combat with spears and shields striking together are common. Comments?

Quote
When the Romans push at Zama, I do not think this a metaphor, I just think it was nowhere near as forceful as the pressure that could be generated by a clash of Sparta and Thebes.

Agreed, I don't think it's a metaphor either. I think individual Romans are pushing and striking with their shields, just as individual Greeks could push and strike with theirs. You presumably though think that there was also a crowd othismos taking place, albeit a briefer, weaker one?

Quote
So, I flip the question around, and wonder why we don't see a weaker form of othismos in these other combats.  It is a matter of degree more than design. And the key is that even to the Greeks there was no type of combat known as othismos. If instead of a Victorian student who played the "wall game", we handed a roman history to Xenophon, he would probably assume there was a lot of physical pushing, and probably chuckle to himself that this silly Romans with long peltae could not push like a real army should.

Well that we'll never know...

Maybe what you envisage as crowd othismos is what I envisage as the press, close combat supported by rear ranks, and in both cases common to infantry combat in all periods. The difference is that I would regard a start of a crush in which wepons use was impossible as something that might happen involuntarily but would be highly undesirable and avoided if at all possible, whereas you see it as something accepted as a normal, possibly advantageous, part of combat (at least by classical Greeks). If so this isn't really a vast difference.

Quote from: RichT on March 22, 2018, 09:42:47 PM
I'm not totally sure though that I am clear on the ways in which crowd othismos (CO) differs from scrum othismos (SO). Is it right to say:
- in CO the stance is flat on not oblique or side on as in SO (inevitably, as the force flattens the man) - I definitely agree with this
- CO happens after initial fighting, while in SO it follows directly from a charge to contact (though many orthodox SOers also say there was an initial fighting phase)
- CO is involuntary, something that just happens, not a drill or tactic like SO

-Yes, except for the rear rank which is free to stand however he wishes.
-Yes, very often, probably usually, one side broke prior to othismos.
-Yes and no. Yes it is something that just happens in close combat, but no, a general could both set up conditions that make it more likely- deep ranks, shorter swords- and enhance it once it started- one more step!

Quote from: RichT on March 22, 2018, 09:42:47 PM
OK so to be perfectly clear - crowd othismos happens in prety much all heavy infantry combat, just that Classical hoplites sustained it for longer?

In any close combat where men begin to push at each other with shields, yes. The moment one second rank joins in, you are on your way.

Quote from: RichT on March 22, 2018, 09:42:47 PM
As I explain in the article, I think this is wrong - συμβαλόντες τὰς ἀσπίδας does mean striking together their shields, not pushing with their shields, as other examples show.

I do not buy it. Perhaps you misunderstand what I meant.  If you are saying that you can translate it as slamming into a foe with the weight of the body behind it, then I agree it can be read that way.  If you are envisioning punching with the shield like a weapon, then no I do not.  My point, though, is that you cannot get hung up on a Greek saying "everyone pushed together with our shields in that kick ass tactic we developed to push the enemy off the field." Instead a Greek describes othismos just like Thucydides. He tells us that the men moved to push/thrust/clash with their shields. The rest follows naturally.

Quote from: RichT on March 22, 2018, 09:42:47 PM
For further clarity - you said above about why there wasn't much weapons play in crowd othismos (blocked lines of sight and covered by heads in proximity) - but now you also say that 'they fought, they killed, they died' carried on during othismos, and I've just reread the relevant parts of your book and this suggests continued fighting in othismos. Perhaps just the front two (?) ranks could fight (with swords, only?)

Yes, the front ranks fought (at least 2) and pushed and died. The rear ranks pushed and did not die.

Quote from: RichT on March 22, 2018, 09:42:47 PM
So - crowd othismos always develops, but most would have to 'unpack', restore separation, and go back to weapons play (presumably) once they started getting too crushed or out of breath? While hoplites wouldn't need to unpack and could keep on beng squashed? How would the unpacking happen, since it would have to happen from the back? When the front ranks turn blue, stop pushing? :) Has testing confirmed that this is impossible for non-aspis carriers?

Yes, from the rear.  Same way any army breaks from the rear. Men don't normally run because they themselves are wounded, but because they perceive immanent rout and its best not to be last to go! Information is passed down ranks, mostly tactile. You don't break because you are squishing the men in front, you break because you are going backwards. To a hoplite this means you are losing.  If you are a Roman marching with Aemilius Paullus, you can give way on the battle field and not break.  It has to do with expectations and tactical doctrine.

As to non aspis bearers, we have tons of evidence. A flat shield is a flat plane, and so is a wall.  People get crushed against walls all the time and die. A scutum might have some benefit.

Quote from: RichT on March 22, 2018, 09:42:47 PM
I agree on the one being figurative and the other not. To me, the Athenians being pushed back to the marsh, and the men striking together their shields at Delium, are totally different things - descriptions of action on a different scale, using different words, with different intent, for all that an oth- root word is involved in both cases. Men pushing with shields (as Romans also did) is different from phalanxes being pushed back. So I believe we agree on this.

Again, for my purposes it does not matter how you translate it.  Physically pushing back, or simply crowding them back all work for me. The only thing that would not would be if it explicitly said that they "herded" the enemy back. This by the way is what Riot police usually do, so the oft cited riot police are usually not good evidence for othismos- except those on the Maidan in the Ukraine I posted earlier.

Quote from: RichT on March 22, 2018, 09:42:47 PM
I'm not sure who argues that, but why is it redundant? Since this is the only time this phrase is ever used (until Procopius uses it 1000 years later) it is hard to be certain of meaning, but to me it means just what it says, which is, broadly, the same as συμβαλόντες τὰς ἀσπίδας - it is the contact of individual men (and their shields) in the course of a close fight.

Again, I think you misunderstood that I was differentiating pushing/thrusting from striking like a weapon.

Quote from: RichT on March 22, 2018, 09:42:47 PM
Incidentally, you seem to be saying that shield-shield contact requires that spear use end (and be replaced by sword use)? But vase paintings showing scenes of single combat with spears and shields striking together are common. Comments?

Ah, yes, I waited for this because it introduces another factor. Classical hoplites used very long spears that were also back weighted to project 5-6' forward from the hand.  Thus you had to drop them to fight shield on shield, unless just trying to bash- i.e.: you can't hit with both at the same range. But Archaic hoplites held 2 spears, akin to longche, that were shorter and mid-balanced.  Thus only about 3 feet projected ahead of the hand.  With these you could fight and hit with the rim of an out-thrust aspis. (this has to be done straight armed by the way.  Some think you can thrust the bottom of the aspis forward, but you take the top rim in the throat or face).

Quote from: RichT on March 22, 2018, 09:42:47 PM
Agreed, I don't think it's a metaphor either. I think individual Romans are pushing and striking with their shields, just as individual Greeks could push and strike with theirs. You presumably though think that there was also a crowd othismos taking place, albeit a briefer, weaker one?

Pretty much.

Quote from: RichT on March 22, 2018, 09:42:47 PM
Maybe what you envisage as crowd othismos is what I envisage as the press, close combat supported by rear ranks, and in both cases common to infantry combat in all periods. The difference is that I would regard a start of a crush in which weapon use was impossible as something that might happen involuntarily but would be highly undesirable and avoided if at all possible, whereas you see it as something accepted as a normal, possibly advantageous, part of combat (at least by classical Greeks). If so this isn't really a vast difference.

Yes, it is completely undesirable if you are armed with an arming sword and flattish shield. When it happens you die.  But if you have an aspis and a short sword, you live.  Best is when you have an aspis and a short sword and your foes have a sagaris and a flat or no shield.  This is the whole point of my research.  The phenomena is not unique. The harnessing of its occurrence in battle is. There are many reasons why this would be an advantage if you could pull it off, having to do with everything from economy to Lanchester's equations.

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 22, 2018, 02:25:53 PMYou are exactly right, but what you don't seem to grasp is that half of the historians working on hoplites are writing that the "particular version of playing-with-pointy-sticks-and-big-bronze-Frisbees" is impossible.  They are writing books on it and making academic careers.

You are correct, I am not abreast of the academic work/consensus on hoplite warfare.
Not really my cup of tea, too much written about it, for me to want to engage with it.

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 22, 2018, 02:25:53 PMI did not say I am ignorant of  the primary sources, or they have no value in this debate.  What I said is that I have no need to refer to them, because every argument that can be made from them has already been made by historians better than myself.  If you want to have such a debate, I could if you start another thread, but within ten posts we will be deadlocked.

I don't particularly want another othismos thread, but I do think that an argument from the evidence to define othismos is a precursor to the persuasiveness of a reenactment - as cool and visceral as reenactments otherwise are. My posts sought only to make a methodological point because I can't add much value on the sources. I have always enjoyed Richard's cataloguing of the usage of the word othismos, Duncan's murals, and all members' contribution of quotes on hoplite vs hoplite combat because it helps carry me up the knowledge curve. It warrants a wiki.

Can I just say for the first time in ages I think we've got somewhere with the Big O debate?  I recognise that this is because Paul and Rich in their learned discussion are pushing (sorry, couldn't resist) in a similar direction to the understanding I was developing, so I think I am biased in this, though :)

One area that I'd ask for more on is hoplite charges.  Traditional othismos supporters can make much of this, although, oddly, they often want a formal spear fencing phase too.  Paul has shown that just hurling yourself at a wall of well braced hoplites is ineffective.  Why the prevalence of charging?  Or, if we looked into it in a more detailed way, is charging less than universal among non-Spartans?

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 22, 2018, 07:26:52 PMHave you ever seen the Taming shield of a Philipine Moro? See below.  They are the most aspisish shield you will find in a modern (20thc) combat system. They did not othismos-ize anyone.

Unfortunately the attachment says "empty file" and downloads as zero KB, for me at least. If anyone wants to see such a shield, try here (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=17247).

Quote from: Erpingham on March 23, 2018, 08:51:53 AM
Can I just say for the first time in ages I think we've got somewhere with the Big O debate?

But where? :)

Seriously, I'm not sure whether we have or not. I've been slightly perplexed by your position, Paul, as you were saying before how your objective was just to demonstrate that orthodox othismos was not physically impossible; but then you say that you don't believe in the scrum othismos, just in crowd othismos; and yet the differences between OC and SC seem, to me as an outsider, quite slight, mostly to do with the stance of those involved.

There are some areas of agreement - such as that hoplites are not exceptional and crowd dynamics (for want of a better term - I really don't think we should be throwing the word othismos around willy nilly, as if it was a Greek word for a particular thing) are involved in many forms of heavy infantry close combat. Also that some 'push backs' (such as the Athenians and the marsh) are figurative not literal. And that pushing with shields in some shape or form did take place in close combat.

There is still fundamental disagreement - to my mind a crowd crush, while it might happen, would always be highly undesirable, even if carrying a shield that made it non-lethal. And (more to the point) I see nothing in the ancient evidence to make me believe that such a crowd crush actually occurred (with any regularity). So when you say:

Quote
My point, though, is that you cannot get hung up on a Greek [not] saying "everyone pushed together with our shields in that kick ass tactic we developed to push the enemy off the field." Instead a Greek describes othismos just like Thucydides.

I have a problem with that, since you seem to be saying that although there is no evidence for this thing, and nobody describes it, we know it must have happened because we have proven that it is not physically impossible, so it just follows naturally.

However - I don't think we are going to get any further with this, and have reached the expected impasse (or othismos?) I'm happy to leave it at that if you are.

As to charging - I'll need to stand down for a bit now and do Other Stuff, so I leave the field to others.

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 22, 2018, 07:42:45 PM

Quote from: Holly on March 22, 2018, 07:04:19 PM
I realise its limitations but when I participated (as a reenactor) in shieldwall 'combat' there was a period of spear fencing as the 2 lines closed and this was fast and furious. (and by the way, you do drift to the right on closing!) Eventually someone would chance their arm and attempt to break up the opposing shieldwall by closing shield to shield and trying to force their way into the opposing formation. Is that essentially osmosis - trying to force an opening in a Greek shieldwall when very long pointy sticks normally keep you separated?

That is when the range of battle moves from spear range to sword range in a hoplite battle.  Only if the opposing lines start to push each other and the ranks behind support them, do we enter othimos. I am convinced that Saxons and Vikings got themselves in to some weak form of othismos, I hare read snippets that suggest it. But there is something that need to be clarified about othismos. Norse and Saxon warriors often carried two or more spears, taller than a man, that were centrally balanced so as to be able to be thrown or retained to fight. Their swords were about a yard long. This means that the range of sword and spear were roughly similar, and all fighting happened close to each other. Early hoplites were just like this, and I have proposed that the Saxons are a better model for archaic hoplites than classical hoplites are.  This is because classical hoplites broke up the melee phase of combat into 3 separate phases.  When hoplites first clash as you describe above, they did so with 9' spears that were held near the rear for greater reach. This means that the two lines were so far apart that you could not use a sword if your spear broke. You had to move in close and get beneath the other hedge of spears. This was liberating for the hoplite is a way, because swords could get smaller, and I believe did so, to the point that Xenophon calls them daggers. This ultra close range naturally leads to more pressing with shields and Othismos.

What interests me most at the moment is the use of spear and seax by Saxons, were they doing this as well? Those lenticular shields, though recently they seem to be under attack as hemicylinders, could be made to work in othismos.

Seax in A-S shieldwall 'combat' works really well when you are pressed up against each other but it helps if you have a 'buddy' trying to go over the top with spear or axe at the same time

Quote from: RichT on March 23, 2018, 09:23:45 AM
Seriously, I'm not sure whether we have or not. I've been slightly perplexed by your position, Paul, as you were saying before how your objective was just to demonstrate that orthodox othismos was not physically impossible; but then you say that you don't believe in the scrum othismos, just in crowd othismos; and yet the differences between OC and SC seem, to me as an outsider, quite slight, mostly to do with the stance of those involved.

It is truly disheartening, for I believed some progress made as well.  Part of the problem is that you keep changing my terms for me. I did not set out to prove anything about orthodox othismos. Orthodox othismos is scrum othismos.  What I present is not scrum othismos and it alters in profound ways not only the description of the course of battle, our expectations for drill and tactical doctrine, but even the presumed evolution of hoplite combat. But for the fact that at the end of some pitched battles, taxeis sought to crowd each other off of the battlefield, what I present is essentially the heretical view with some of the silliness, like standing 6' apart and mixing archers into the front line, stripped away.

Quote from: RichT on March 23, 2018, 09:23:45 AM
I have a problem with that, since you seem to be saying that although there is no evidence for this thing, and nobody describes it, we know it must have happened because we have proven that it is not physically impossible, so it just follows naturally.

I do not recall saying there was no evidence for this thing.  What I have consistently said is that those who interpret passages on pushing the way you have, erroneously in my opinion, have so muddled the discussion that citing literature is irrelevant, as proven by the fact that the thread seems to be wrapping up, one page after we did so.  Trust me, if Paul McDonnel-Staff could not browbeat me over about a decade of arguments into acceptance of your interpretation, what chance do you have  ;)

Your side seems to feel that because words with the otheo root can describe other things besides a mass push, then it never means a mass push. The fact that the Athenians may have been herded into the marsh at Halae rather than physically pushed (note the "may") does not change the fact that young Spartan warriors pushed forward in the ranks to get at Arcadians. They obviously did not intimidate their promachoi forward.

This is where I entered the debate, at a time when no word written by a historian on this topic had an agreed upon meaning.  But I am not a historian. I am a biologist, and now seemingly an experimental archaeologist. If you hand me a dinosaur skull shaped like an aspis, I will tell you that it evolved to bear weight. Too many features of the aspis are optimized for this, at the cost of protection against penetration of the shield face, for any other explanation.  And this is not just me, every engineer I know who has looked at the shield from Blyth to the physicists I work with at Harvard see this immediately. Early on it was thought that the odd shape was to strengthen the shield as you pushed your way between other shields. But I had an epiphany when a reenactor named "Stratocles Joe" whom I wish I could find today to thank, described how he could breathe when being trampled because he was under his aspis. The anti-asphyxiation function of the aspis makes sense of its structure and allows for a literal othismos. I don't think it happenstance that I have a much harder time convincing historians of this than reenactors or engineers. You are in the unenviable position of having none of the evidence you normally look to for authority free from controversy, while having to deal with my descriptions of functions wholly alien to you.

Quote from: Holly on March 23, 2018, 10:58:33 AM

Seax in A-S shieldwall 'combat' works really well when you are pressed up against each other but it helps if you have a 'buddy' trying to go over the top with spear or axe at the same time

The role of second rank men is crucial in a shield-wall, both in close and when spear fencing. Arrian comments on this, and in an odd quirk that I love describes the second rank as so crowded up against the promachoi that they are in othismos. He cuts down the angles that weapons can come in at you and the constant threat of his attack limits your opponent from doing anything too audacious.

Quote from: Erpingham on March 23, 2018, 08:51:53 AM

One area that I'd ask for more on is hoplite charges.  Traditional othismos supporters can make much of this, although, oddly, they often want a formal spear fencing phase too.  Paul has shown that just hurling yourself at a wall of well braced hoplites is ineffective.  Why the prevalence of charging?  Or, if we looked into it in a more detailed way, is charging less than universal among non-Spartans?

Most armies charge. Once you strip away the notion of the charge being a tidal wave of momentum building for the horseless lancers that are the Orthodox hoplites, the hoplite charge becomes a bit mundane.  Early hoplite shield-walls surely charged before there was a phalanx, but because they had a mass of missile troops formed behind them, and they themselves could throw spears, they would already have been within some 30-50 meters by the time they had moved from missile duel to close combat. If you don't have a missile component to your unit, you have to charge as soon as you hear the sling shot hitting shields, as Xenophon would say. So if you optimize your taxis for shock combat, make it deep and hard to shoot over, and arm your men with long, rear-balanced, unthrowable spears, you must pay the price with a charge. 

I think the charge did things to the unit on the approach that were found to be beneficial. It probably exaggerated the rightward veering, and cause a closing of frontage. It might have been more importantly, it was a signal to the other army.  Armies communicate their status to each other in a variety of ways. For example Xenophon and Thucydides make clear that a general could tell if a phalanx was shaky by looking at the wobbling spears or conversely a phalanx standing at ease and in good order could cause even the Spartans to balk at attacking it. One of the crucial moments in hoplite combat was the race to get back into order after the charge. I think losing this race is one reason we see so many hoplite armies break at this point.

Oh dear, it seemed to be going so well :(

Best not mention it was a post by Paul Mcdonnell-Staff which set me thinking about othismos differently.  :)

However, in the best traditions of the forum, can I try to suggest areas where I think we have made progress :

• Othismos is a state.  It is not a drill manoeuver. It carries a sense of crowding and pressing, rather than scrumming.
• Oth- words could be used to mean different things and Greek was sophisticated enough to allow the word to be used flexibly. The use of "oth-" words does not automatically involve physical pushing, though it can do.
• Literary allusions to shields crashing together does not mean every shield crashed in unison but that the front ranks were closely engaged, not just poking with spears
• "Just one more step" is a heroic exhortation, not a drill command.  However, it may imply incremental progress.
• In othismos, you didn't  just stop fighting and shove with all your might.  Participants at the front continued to try to kill each other with shorter weapons, those in reach used spears and others pushed, shoved and jostled with a degree of control
• Othismos didn't just happen to hoplites.  However, hoplites had uniquely good kit for it (the Argive aspis) and it was probably an expected part of their battle experience

Its not consensus but it isn't our usual point of attritional exhaustion.

PS This post replies to ideas a couple of posts up, not the one before it. Perils of cross-posting.

QuoteMost armies charge. Once you strip away the notion of the charge being a tidal wave of momentum building for the horseless lancers that are the Orthodox hoplites, the hoplite charge becomes a bit mundane.

This brings in what we mean by charge.  I think it is Herodotus who says that the hoplite charge was invented at marathon and it was away of covering ground quickly, rather than building impetus.  If charged meant close to spear poking distance as rapidly as possible, then there isn't a contradiction.  The psychology idea is interesting.  Like the idea of fixing bayonets, to signal to both your own side and the enemy you were in deadly earnest.

(just dropping in to say)

I'm happy to sign up to the Erpingham Manifesto above - not that I agree with every word of it, but that's the nature of consensus.

Paul - I'm happy to bow to your greater knowledge of dinosaur skulls, but I hope in return you will bow to my greater knowledge of Greek when I tell you that "Arrian comments on this, and in an odd quirk that I love describes the second rank as so crowded up against the promachoi that they are in othismos" is wrong, and a misunderstanding of Arrian.

As to the rest - OK, I appreciate your practical approach, and it does provide some useful data.

and has been a thoroughly informative and 'fresh' set of discussions for me personally

Quote from: RichT on March 23, 2018, 04:35:30 PM
Arrian comments on this, and in an odd quirk that I love describes the second rank as so crowded up against the promachoi that they are in othismos" is wrong, and a misunderstanding of Arrian.

Please explain. I assumed that Arrian is describing not a phalanx but the Fulcum of his day, where the second rank is quite literally on the back of the front ranker. But in this case I am more than happy to be wrong.

Quote from: Erpingham on March 23, 2018, 03:04:00 PM
This brings in what we mean by charge.  I think it is Herodotus who says that the hoplite charge was invented at marathon and it was away of covering ground quickly, rather than building impetus.  If charged meant close to spear poking distance as rapidly as possible, then there isn't a contradiction.  The psychology idea is interesting.  Like the idea of fixing bayonets, to signal to both your own side and the enemy you were in deadly earnest.

I think it highly unlikely that no hoplites charged before Marathon.  To me Herodotus is pointing out that no hoplite force had ever charged in a flat out run from such range. As I have noted, there may be exceptions, perhaps Delium or second phase Coronea, but normally hoplites pulled up from charges like every other army.

There is a lot of psychological warfare going on- both to rattle the other side and shore up your own. Much of this is universal in warfare.  This is one of the problems I have with Goldsworthy's take on depth. The idea that you need deep ranks to keep men from running away gets a bit comical when you consider that an 18th C sergeant could keep shallow ranks of men facing invisible death in line with a Monty Python style pointed stick.  His notion of columns and moving men fails on his lack of understanding of what those columns actually did.  Revolutionary French columns just had to get to the enemy, who in just about every case high tailed it rather than facing a white arm.  While Napoleonic columns were to deploy into three lines at close range.  Hoplites could not expect an enemy to break because they showed up, and they had no tactical doctrine by which to deploy in the face of the enemy (which would be suicidal).

Quote from: Erpingham on March 23, 2018, 03:04:00 PM
Its not consensus but it isn't our usual point of attritional exhaustion.

I am happy if we have moved even slightly towards a middle ground. Shall I paint my rosy picture of where I wish we were?
Much of the orthodoxy has to go. The charge directly into othismos with no prior spear fencing, the notion of strict, rank and file drill for archaic hoplites and all but elites, the portrayal of a full blown exclusionary phalanx of hoplites as the norm rather than the exception prior to the Persian wars (or at least the origin of the hoplitodromos in the mid to latter 6thc). The lack of spear throwing for hoplites. The inability of small groups to spall off from the front of the phalanx for heroic deeds.

On the other side. The ridiculous notion of clumping men at 6' frontage with archers, psiloi and horsemen in between must die immediately. The inability to see that a shield wall of a more simple and flexible type, backed by missile troops, is likely and would look an awful lot like a classical phalanx needs to be corrected. The lack of understanding that you do not need fancy drill to have Mass combat when much of the order needed can provided by bottom-up mechanics. There should be an agnostic take on a literal othismos, and an understanding that it is simply an extension of a phenomenon seen on many battlefields.

What you end up with is something that looks an awful lot like the ordered phalanx of the orthodox, but the chaotic guts of the heretical lack of imposed drill.

so on the charge....was there a slowing down to fencing distance or an initial impact followed by a mutual withdrawal to fencing distance?

Quote from: Erpingham on March 23, 2018, 02:41:11 PM

Best not mention it was a post by Paul Mcdonnell-Staff which set me thinking about othismos differently.  :)

Not a problem at all. Paul is a personal friend of mine, and probably taught me more about hoplites than any other person- more so if you consider the Warry book was my first book on Ancient Warfare. He just has an ingrained inability to understand the crowd-othismos.  In years of trying I could get him to understand the mechanics, so in large part my experiment with the reenactors was to prove what I had already predicted to try to get over the objections of guys thinking like him.  I have succeeded admirably with everyone I hoped to convince- except him  ;D

Quote from: Holly on March 23, 2018, 07:39:55 PM
so on the charge....was there a slowing down to fencing distance or an initial impact followed by a mutual withdrawal to fencing distance?

A slowing down to fencing distance was probably the norm, but of course you can never say never with hoplites.  If we look at classical hoplites with a spear reach in excess of 6-7', it would seem a mistake to charge past, crash shields, and hope to pull back to range after. Archaic Greeks with shorter throwing/stabbins spears might pull this off, but running into a bucn of spears is not a great idea unless you don't have one yourself. We did this many times, it is no problem for the ranks to pull up short. You don't all crash over the top when the ranks in front halt- but then I am sure you know that.

May I just pose an issue with any Anglo Saxon othismos. Anglo Saxon shields have a central boss with a hand grip inside the boss (well partly inside. Early A/ S shields often have buttons on the end of the boss,suitable for catching an opponent's sword or concentrating pressure in a punching motion.
I'd argue for hoplite othismos on the basis of the suitability of the kit, Anglo  Saxon kit is much less suitable. Chaps with two spears, one for throwing, one for fighting with are much less lijely to get really close once spear one is thrown, because really close contact negates the effect of the spear on the opposing front rank. The Anglo Saxon sword has a total length of about three feet , again not handy at all uf you are going right up clise to an opponent. Of course someone will cite the mostly shorter seax, but the top guys have long cutting swords, not a neat Greek short sword ( xiphos?) which is ideal for real close fighting.. A/S warfare changed over time, but the kit and weapon combination look consistent with standing close enough to an opponent to fence and jab with the spear rather than push hard in files . With a boss the shield is better suited to concentrating weightband thus pressure on a point , whereas the hoplite shield and its method of carrying distributes pressure.
As to the Moro and the form follows function argument, I was impressed by the picture of a warrior in Duncan's cite. He looks to be wearing a Spanish morion...pkume and all and it made me wonder if the Moro kit was an imitation of a Spanish sword and buckler equipped colonial soldier, these having so impressed the Moro that they adopted their weaponry which is suitable for relatively loose order combat??
Roy

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 23, 2018, 08:03:22 PM

Quote from: Erpingham on March 23, 2018, 02:41:11 PM

Best not mention it was a post by Paul Mcdonnell-Staff which set me thinking about othismos differently.  :)

Not a problem at all. Paul is a personal friend of mine, and probably taught me more about hoplites than any other person- more so if you consider the Warry book was my first book on Ancient Warfare. He just has an ingrained inability to understand the crowd-othismos.  In years of trying I could get him to understand the mechanics, so in large part my experiment with the reenactors was to prove what I had already predicted to try to get over the objections of guys thinking like him.  I have succeeded admirably with everyone I hoped to convince- except him  ;D

Quote from: Holly on March 23, 2018, 07:39:55 PM
so on the charge....was there a slowing down to fencing distance or an initial impact followed by a mutual withdrawal to fencing distance?

A slowing down to fencing distance was probably the norm, but of course you can never say never with hoplites.  If we look at classical hoplites with a spear reach in excess of 6-7', it would seem a mistake to charge past, crash shields, and hope to pull back to range after. Archaic Greeks with shorter throwing/stabbins spears might pull this off, but running into a bucn of spears is not a great idea unless you don't have one yourself. We did this many times, it is no problem for the ranks to pull up short. You don't all crash over the top when the ranks in front halt- but then I am sure you know that.

that was my experience (in a non lethal arena admittedly!). we would speed up and slow down, sometimes just fast walking to spear fencing distance

QuoteI am happy if we have moved even slightly towards a middle ground.

I fear this may be because the most passionate voices of orthodoxy are unusually silent.  However, it has been good, as Dave says, to explore from a different angle and free up our thinking a bit.

I'm worried by drifting yet further with this conversation into discussions of Anglo-Saxon othismos, as we may bury a useful conversation somewhere that other members, not so interested in hoplites, won't see it.  I will say, though, that I originally started exploring othismos as a way of looking at shieldwall warfare and there are differences and similarities.  It may be worth a separate thread in which we talk about how othismotic (is that the word) other close order combat was.   

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 23, 2018, 07:21:31 PM

Quote from: RichT on March 23, 2018, 04:35:30 PM
"Arrian comments on this, and in an odd quirk that I love describes the second rank as so crowded up against the promachoi that they are in othismos" is wrong, and a misunderstanding of Arrian.

Please explain. I assumed that Arrian is describing not a phalanx but the Fulcum of his day, where the second rank is quite literally on the back of the front ranker. But in this case I am more than happy to be wrong.

OK. Arrian's whole book is describing the Macedonian phalanx, though he does throw in later examples, such as the end of ch. 11 where he talks about the 'tortoise'. But Ch. 12 is clearly entirely about the Macedonian phalanx, since he says so, and they have sarisas and (most importantly) the text closely mirrors that of Aelian and Asclepiodotus, both exclusively devoted to the Macedonian phalanx.

The sentence in question, in my translation:

Arrian, Tactics 12 "The men next in file to the file leader must be second to the latter in courage. For their spear reaches all the way to the enemy and they support the othismoi of the men deployed in front of them."

Note that 'othismoi' is plural, so it can't be anything like 'a state of othismos'. That it should mean something like '[spear] thrusts' is apparent from the context, and also from Arrian's other usages of othismos, in Anabasis of Alexander:

1.15.2 (Granicus, cavalry v cavalry) "Then ensued an othismos of horses, on the one side to emerge from the river, and on the other to prevent the landing."

3.14.3 (Gaugamela, cavalry v cavalry) - "For a short time there ensued a hand-to-hand fight; but when the Macedonian cavalry, commanded by Alexander himself, attacked with strong othismoi, and striking the Persians' faces with their spears..."

5.17.5 (Hydaspes, elephants v infantry) "The elephants being now cooped up into a narrow space, their friends were no less injured by them than their foes, being trampled down in their turning and othismoi."

So three different uses, and three different meanings, but while the first case could be taken to be 'a state of othismos' (an othismos of horses in this case, compare with Thucydides' othismos of shields) in the next two cases, where the word is in the plural, it clearly means thrusts or something of the kind.

We should also note that Arrian (Tactics), Aelian and Asclepiodotus either share a common source, or use each other as source, and there are close parallels in this passage:

Asclepiodotus 3.6 (Loeb translation):
"The second line must also be not much inferior to the first, so that when a file leader falls his comrade behind may move forward and hold the line together."

Aelian 13 (Matthew translation, very slightly modified for vocabulary):
"Similarly, attention must be paid to those in the second rank, for the spears of those within it are projected forward together with those of the front rank and, being positioned immediately behind the latter, are of great use in emergencies. For in the case that the file leader should fall or receive a wound, the man behind him, stepping into his place, closes the gap in the line and preserves its integrity."

Arrian 12 (my translation, based on deVoto):
"The men next in file to the file leader must be second to the latter in courage. For their spear reaches all the way to the enemy and they support the thrusts of the men deployed in front of them. Indeed someone in the opposite line with a sword (machaira) could reach the man deployed in front delivering the blow from above. If the file leader falls or is wounded and so unfit to fight, the next man in file stepping forward, takes the place and role of the file leader and keeps the phalanx whole and unbroken."

So the sentence about the second rank supporting the spear use of the first is there in Aelian (though he doesn't use the word othismois), but not in Asclepiodotus. Arrian's rather odd aside about the use of the sword is unique to him. Perhaps this is a reference to Roman practice. Perhaps (since Asclepiodotus and Aelian compare the phalanx as a whole with the sword (machaira), with the front rank as its cutting edge, while Arrian, though he has this comparison, slightly garbles it and refers only to the tempering of iron) Arrian, writing from memory, added a sentence about the machaira slightly out of place. It's hard to say, but doesn't alter the meaning of the preceding sentence.

Quote from: RichT on March 24, 2018, 04:36:07 PM
1.15.2 (Granicus, cavalry v cavalry) "Then ensued an othismos of horses, on the one side to emerge from the river, and on the other to prevent the landing."
3.14.3 (Gaugamela, cavalry v cavalry) - "For a short time there ensued a hand-to-hand fight; but when the Macedonian cavalry, commanded by Alexander himself, attacked with strong othismoi, and striking the Persians' faces with their spears..."
5.17.5 (Hydaspes, elephants v infantry) "The elephants being now cooped up into a narrow space, their friends were no less injured by them than their foes, being trampled down in their turning and othismoi."

All of these usages are exactly what I would expect. A crowd is made up of many individual presses. We today speak of a traffic jam, but we can also call it "stop and go traffic". The first describes a global phenomenon of jammed cars, the second is an individual experience. This we could translate the lines like this:
1.15.2 (Granicus, cavalry v cavalry) "Then ensued a press of horses, on the one side to emerge from the river, and on the other to prevent the landing."
3.14.3 (Gaugamela, cavalry v cavalry) - "For a short time there ensued a hand-to-hand fight; but when the Macedonian cavalry, commanded by Alexander himself, attacked with strong presses, and striking the Persians' faces with their spears..."
5.17.5 (Hydaspes, elephants v infantry) "The elephants being now cooped up into a narrow space, their friends were no less injured by them than their foes, being trampled down in their turning and presses."
Remember, I do not require othismos to mean a single thing like the orthodox. I just need it to mean something that denotes close proximity, with or without force transfer.

Quote from: RichT on March 24, 2018, 04:36:07 PM
So three different uses, and three different meanings, but while the first case could be taken to be 'a state of othismos' (an othismos of horses in this case, compare with Thucydides' othismos of shields) in the next two cases, where the word is in the plural, it clearly means thrusts or something of the kind.

Here we can be quite clear.  Arrian flat out tells us that horse cannot push: Tactica 16.-

"..It must not be forgotten that with cavalry, depth is not so useful as it is with infantry; they do not press on those in front of them because it is impossible to push horse against horse in the way that infantry press shoulder to shoulder and side to side..."

The same from Aelian: "For the crowd of horse in rear do not provide the same support that infantry drawn up in depth do as they press forward from the rear. For they contribute nothing to the pressure of the push forward, being neither able to push those in front of them forward nor to link them with the whole mass in a united weight, without hurting those in front of them or disordering their own cavalry more than the enemy."

So no, horses cannot push, but it is hard to escape the fact in opposition is that humans can. And more importantly, that the authors knew they could.

Quote from: RichT on March 24, 2018, 04:36:07 PM

Asclepiodotus 3.6 (Loeb translation):
"The second line must also be not much inferior to the first, so that when a file leader falls his comrade behind may move forward and hold the line together."

Aelian 13 (Matthew translation, very slightly modified for vocabulary):
"Similarly, attention must be paid to those in the second rank, for the spears of those within it are projected forward together with those of the front rank and, being positioned immediately behind the latter, are of great use in emergencies. For in the case that the file leader should fall or receive a wound, the man behind him, stepping into his place, closes the gap in the line and preserves its integrity."

Arrian 12 (my translation, based on deVoto):
"The men next in file to the file leader must be second to the latter in courage. For their spear reaches all the way to the enemy and they support the thrusts of the men deployed in front of them. Indeed someone in the opposite line with a sword (machaira) could reach the man deployed in front delivering the blow from above. If the file leader falls or is wounded and so unfit to fight, the next man in file stepping forward, takes the place and role of the file leader and keeps the phalanx whole and unbroken."
So the sentence about the second rank supporting the spear use of the first is there in Aelian (though he doesn't use the word othismois), but not in Asclepiodotus. Arrian's rather odd aside about the use of the sword is unique to him. Perhaps this is a reference to Roman practice. Perhaps (since Asclepiodotus and Aelian compare the phalanx as a whole with the sword (machaira), with the front rank as its cutting edge, while Arrian, though he has this comparison, slightly garbles it and refers only to the tempering of iron) Arrian, writing from memory, added a sentence about the machaira slightly out of place. It's hard to say, but doesn't alter the meaning of the preceding sentence.

Some background for those reading the thread- so don't take this as me not assuming you know this. Aelian by his own admission to Trajan was clueless about actual combat, for him the Tactica was purely a philosophical work based on earlier sources.  Aslepiodotus was a first century BC philosopher, and his Tactica was derivative of that of his teacher Posidonius- whom Arrian says was too technical.  I find it unlikely that this point would be from Posidonius and not be cited by his own student. It could be from Posidonius that the similar text in each treatise you cite above comes, but it could also be that Posidonius too was just quoting from a common earlier source. There are many such tactica and histories lost to us. I remember that Arrian mentions an Iphicrates and a Clearchus in particular to tell us they are not THE Iphicrates and Clearchus.  A prime candidate for a common source would be the 4th c tactica of Aneas Tacticus, who himself was influential on Polybius, another source for tactics by the three A's above.

Why do I mention this?  Well there are those that believe, me among them, that the concept of the second rank supporting the first with spears has nothing to do with sarissaphoroi. This is why it is not in Asclepiodus. The reason we believe this is that Arrian has 6 sarissa projecting in front of the phalanx. In this he is probably wrong, and misunderstanding Polybius, who was Aelian's source for 5 sarissa projecting in front of the front rank.  Now these sarissa are 3 feet apart.  It is hard to see how a second rank can simultaneously engage with a rank of men pinned by sarissa three feet ahead.  If we suppose sarissa of equal length, some choking up on the sarissa by the first rank, we can make this work, but then why not just choke up more and engage the third rank too? We quickly end up with the staggered sarissa sizes from front to back as a common feature rather than an oddity. Unlikely, and for good reason, no one gives up 3 feet of reach.

Arrian specifically tell us that he is not just writing about Macedonian practice: tactica 32-"an account of the old Greek and Macedonian formations which is adequate for anyone who does not wish to be ignorant even of these."  He lifts from Xenophon in many places. He also in Book 3 he writes of both Spears and Sarissa and the 'piloi of the Spartans and Arcadians.'
If he, like Aelian, are lifting the notion of two ranks, not 1 or 5, being able to engage with spears, this is exactly what we expect, and what I have written of, for a classical phalanx. If you take Arrian one step further in his borrowing than Aelian, it is clear that he could lift the notion from Aneas or some other hoplite source that: " Indeed someone in the opposite line with a sword (machaira) could reach the man deployed in front delivering the blow from above." Which I have also seen translated as the second man can "come at the enemy with a sword, delivering the blow over/past the man in front". Either way, this is prime hoplite stuff.

There is another, perhaps better option though. It may be that Arrian is adding something he is all too familiar from in his experience with the fulcum.  In this case he is describing the type of close physical support from the second rank we see in Maurice. However this made it into the work, I find the idea that it referred to sarissaphoroi, or that Arrian, skilled as he was, would confuse the old trope of a front rank as cutting edge with actual sword fighting at the front rank unlikely. He would really have to have no clue how a sarissa phalanx functioned to think this could happen.

One thing to remember is that I do not need any words for active pushing, I just need words for close proximity and blocked movement. The pushing comes naturally from these. An actual description of pushing is just icing on the cake.