SoA Forums

I've enjoyed the discussion even if work has delayed my participation.

Patrick, I agree that the hoplite enjoys an advantage in equipment for the melee that will usually result in the victory. However, I have for some time been troubled by the assumption of some game designers, and some wargamers, that the hoplite versus the sparabara was a walk over, and this belief resulted in a lower melee factor for the Persians. At Marathon, the Persian center, probably sparabara, was able to push back the Athenian center. I realize that the Athenian center had been thinned out, but the success of the Persian center started me thinking that hoplites needed a minimum depth of formation, that arms and armor were not a guarantee of success, and that the Persian sparabara formation was not as weak in melee as many had assumed.

At Plataea, Herodotus reports that the Persians threw down their bows when the Spartans attacked. Herodotus also describes a battle around the wicker shields that eventually fell over. The mention of the bows and wicker shields indicates this is a sparbara formation. My belief is when Herodotus describes the Persians as throwing their bows down, he is describing the actions of the first two or three ranks behind the shield bearers. I doubt that the rearmost ranks would've immediately thrown their bows down, and during the fierce struggle at the wicker shield barrier the archers for the back would've engaged targets of opportunity adding to the melee effectiveness of the Persians. During the struggle at the shield barrier, some Spartans would've exposed less well protected, or unprotected parts of their body to Persian archery. I grant that this would not have been decisive, but I feel it had affect in extending the melee.

We also have Herodotus' description of the Persians dashing out beyond the front lines individually or in groups of 10 in charge of writing to the Spartan ranks where they perished. This seems to indicate that there was space between the Spartan and Persian lines. Was this space a result of the Spartans at first unable to force the way through the shield barrier, does this indicate that the lines had separated temporarily to regroup, or is this a description of Persian actions immediately preceding the Spartan's contacting the shield wall. In any case, I think it demonstrates that the sparabara formation was at least initially a tougher nut to crack in melee that many of us had assumed over the years.

"At Marathon, the Persian center, probably sparabara, was able to push back the Athenian center. I realize that the Athenian center had been thinned out, but the success of the Persian center started me thinking that hoplites needed a minimum depth of formation, that arms and armor were not a guarantee of success, and that the Persian sparabara formation was not as weak in melee as many had assumed."

Just a point of reference here- at Marathon the centre was not expected to hold and, being an army of citizens, the men there would have understood this. Hoplite formations were more about pushing the enemy over (hence the wicker shields falling at Plataea) and so the more 'depth' you had, the more ability you had to force your opponent back. Later pike phalanx formations and Roman legions did not do this- it was unique to the Hoplite era (and various mobs and so forth). Battle casualties were relatively light for Hoplite-on-Hoplite battles unless one side became snared or encircled.

The Persians did not fight like Hoplites. They chained themselves to fixed positions in defence and so they were easy meat for the more beefy tactics of the Greeks. The Persian war was an example of superior ethos in many respects- citizens over subjects, hoplite formations against fixed lines, imaginative tactics against rigid adherence to doctrine.

However, the Spartan Hoplites were a grade above the normal Greek. Spartan Hoplites were drilled in a manner approximate to Roman legions in that they could turn, retire and otherwise lead the enemy a merry dance at any point in the battle. It would not surprise me if the Spartans did retire to entice the more adventurous Persians into coming into the open, just as the Normans did at Hastings.

Persian formations would have been very good against just about any other of their neighbours, but nobody had anything better than the hoplite at that time until the advent of the long wobbly pole.

From Chuck 'We also have Herodotus' description of the Persians dashing out beyond the front lines individually or in groups of 10 in charge of writing to the Spartan ranks where they perished. This seems to indicate that there was space between the Spartan and Persian lines. Was this space a result of the Spartans at first unable to force the way through the shield barrier, does this indicate that the lines had separated temporarily to regroup, or is this a description of Persian actions immediately preceding the Spartan's contacting the shield wall. In any case, I think it demonstrates that the sparabara formation was at least initially a tougher nut to crack in melee that many of us had assumed over the years.'
I don't think it indicates that the sparabara firmation was tough, rather that, when the Greeks got to close quarters,  the Persians had no effective answer to the agreek spears and resirted to trying to grab them and tear them out of the Greeks' hands. The wall of shields will have been awkward rather than a. real defence as it is designed to stop archery rather than deal with aggressive spearmen.
After Marathon and Plataea the Persian infantry doesn't really face the Greeks in the field. If we believe in Mycale the wall of shields goes down there too.
As. to rear rank archers shooting at the Greeks, well it cannot be ruled out, but such shots will have been few and difficult to make unless both sides break off for a rest and then the wall if shields must be down because otherwise they would prevent direct shooting.

Roy

And just to add something else into the mix:

QuoteCroesus, finding that his Greek allies were slow in coming to his aid, chose out some of the ablest and stoutest of the Lydians, and armed them in the Greek manner. Cyrus' men, who were unaccustomed to Greek weapons, were at a loss how either to attack, or to guard against them. The clang of the spears upon the shields struck them with terror; and the splendour of the bronze shields so terrified the horses, that they could not be brought to charge. Cyrus was defeated by this stratagem, and made a truce with Croesus for three months.  - Polyaenus, Stratagems 8.1

There seems to have been something about Greek weaponry that the Persians never quite came to terms with.  Their greatest (and arguably only real) success against Greeks was during their suppression of the Ionian revolt, when they won an encounter with an outnumbered and poorly-led Ionian army near Sardis (Herodotus V.102).

One may also note that when the Ionians were asking the mainland Greeks for aid, they mentioned:

"... the Persian mode of fighting: how they used neither shield nor spear*, and were very easy to vanquish." - Herodotus V.97

[*oute aspida oute doru - to be understood as not using 'proper' shields and spears, not as being entirely bereft of both.]

In the engagements of 490 and 479 BC (Marathin and Plataea), the Persians attempted to redress their inferiority in armament by dedicated valour.  Herodotus (IX.62) records them seizing Greek spear shafts at Plataea and breaking them, and also as hurling themselves (esepipton) onto the Greeks singly or in groups of up to ten.  They were attempting to break the Greek formation, but to no avail at Plataea.  However similar tactics of desperation at Marathon against a shallow central Athenian line might well have succeeded in breaking the thin formation there.

On the whole, it looks as if the sparabara were seriously inferior to hoplites, and the only equalising factor that kept the sparabara going in battle was the tremendous, desperate courage of the native Persian troops.  Other Persian contingents tended to melt away as soon as the shieldwall (or shield fence) had been breached, perhaps unsurprisingly, as:

"... what harmed them the most was the fact that they wore no armor over their clothes and fought, as it were, naked against men fully armed." - Herodotus IX.63

At Plataea, the Persian army sallied forth in a hurry, thinking they were undertaking a pursuit rather than a battle.  It is quite likely that most if not all infantry left behind their armour as an unnecessary encumbrance.  However at Marathon and Mycale armour did not save the Persians and their subject contingents from defeat, so at Plataea this seems to have been icing on the cake for the Greeks rather than a different cake.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 27, 2015, 08:07:29 PM
In the engagements of 490 and 479 BC (Marathin and Plataea), the Persians attempted to redress their inferiority in armament by dedicated valour.  Herodotus (IX.62) records them seizing Greek spear shafts at Plataea and breaking them, and also as hurling themselves (esepipton) onto the Greeks singly or in groups of up to ten.  They were attempting to break the Greek formation, but to no avail at Plataea.  However similar tactics of desperation at Marathon against a shallow central Athenian line might well have succeeded in breaking the thin formation there.

This brings up something I've been wondering about. Besides othismus, line depth was good for one other thing: a constant supply of fresh spears. If the Greeks were deep enough at Plataea, the rear ranks would be able to feed the front ranks a sufficiently steady supply to keep up the pressure until the Persians gave way. At Marathon the thinness of the Greek line would have meant the Greeks running out of spears before the Persians broke - and hence breaking themselves.

Applying this idea, can one postulate that greater line depth would be employed to remedy situations in which the front rank troops more quickly ran out of spears? Would the greater depth of the pike phalanx correspond to the fact that five ranks of pikes were in the fight, as opposed to the two ranks of spears of a hoplite phalanx, and hence needed more rear ranks to replace broken pikeshafts (which were more easy to break since one was not up close and personal to the phalangite holding them)?

At Matathon the Greeks run in and are likely disordered when they reach the Persian line, but they have crossed the beaten zone with very few dasualties. It matpy well ge that the Persian troops in the centre are not sparabara as the pavise may already be on the ships, but that the troops facing the Athenians are armed with a dipylon style shield and a shirt spear or sagaris. Given the greater depth of the Persians it is likely that in a mixed melee the Persians were able to pysh through the centre of the Greek line, but as the stronger Greek wings closed inwards the Oersians in the centre were only conducting a flight to the front.
Roy

I know this thread is about archery, but I think a little more on hoplites is needed for clarity.

The Hoplite's most functional piece of equipment was his SHIELD. Without it, he could not function as a hoplite. When Cleonymus famously dropped his once, Aristophanes lampooned him in just about every single one of his plays. After the shield comes the armour and only then do the spears and swords come to prominence.

The shield was slammed into the enemy. The hoplites behind the front rank-- all of them going back to the last in the column--- then braced against the men in front of them and pushed like a rugby scrum. Meanwhile, the spears were thrust overhand-- over the tops of the shields--- to inflict such injury as they could and to put the enemy off balance. If you fell, you were more likely to be trampled to death than stabbed (although stabbing was always an option). The importance to the Greeks was one of the unity of the polis in defeating through unified strength and this unity, common purpose and, above all, loyalty to their city gave them terrific morale. Whether democratic or oligarchy, the hoplite embodied a social ethos strengthened often by homosexual love and fear of the public shame that would befall anyone who dropped his shield.

Quote from: Rob Miles on January 27, 2015, 09:48:26 PMThe shield was slammed into the enemy. The hoplites behind the front rank-- all of them going back to the last in the column--- then braced against the men in front of them and pushed like a rugby scrum.

This part, of course, is seriously controversial: many scholars are dead set against the "rugby scrum" model as a complete misinterpretation of hoplite warfare, and some see the "pushing" as figurative rather than physical.

See for example Adrian Goldsworthy's article here (http://www.xlegio.ru/pdfs/othismos.pdf).

Re :"See for example Adrian Goldsworthy's article here."

Ah-- a man from my old college! It was certainly not the prevailing thinking when I did my Classics degree there.... And, frankly, I find the long argument about the real reason for maintaining depth was to maintain cohesion very hollow-- ANY army of that period up until 1815 would have marched in column over any distance for the reasons given AND THEN have stretched out into a line commensurate with its weaponry and training to bring maximum force to bear. The Greek hoplites remained, largely 8 or more ranks deep. The significant evidence comes from vase paintings, which always show the overarm spear thrust (something you would ONLY do if your shield was locked against the enemy) and accounts such as those of Marathon where a deliberate policy of thinning the centre to four ranks led to the outcome of the centre almost collapsing whilst the wings held and pushed back (and eventually into the now-disfigured Persian 'line'.

I will not be unkind here and suggest that my experience with research historians leads me to understand the importance of establishing controversy to their survival (you should have seen the stuff their research chair in critical theory came up with!), but there is nothing in Adrian Goldsworthy's article that amounts to more than conjecture with only spurious or very singular references which are open to interpretation one way or the other. Contemporary historians always write for their own time and do not assume that we have moved on to bombs and drones and suchlike-- so vital detail is usually omitted on the grounds that it, to them, is just stating the bleeding obvious. EVERYONE would have fought in a hoplite formation. It was a condition of citizenship for the ordinary Greek.

The hoplite formation was the embodiment of the polis-- strength through unity. Every man in the hoplite was expected to do his part or face humiliation, exile or death. The idea that the rear six or more ranks of a hoplite formation just waited until their friends in front to die trembles the foundations of the whole identity of the city-state.

And, OK, so not like a rugby scrum in a literal way. Ironically, given the counter-argument, it was a metaphor.

Quote from: Rob Miles on January 28, 2015, 09:53:41 AMThe significant evidence comes from vase paintings, which always show the overarm spear thrust (something you would ONLY do if your shield was locked against the enemy)

Of course, the overarm thrust is controversial, too - though not rejected by anything like the number of academics who reject the "rugby scrum"-othismos. Christopher Matthew, in A Storm of Spears: Understanding the Greek Hoplite in Action, argues, if I remember the details right, that the overarm thrust is an artistic convention going back to the overarm position used to throw spears, and that hoplites really used a high underarm grip (this is the closest I can find in a hurry (http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/31288/hoplite_pilos.jpg)) - almost like a couched lance - in the phalanx. That seems a popular grip with re-enactors of diverse periods, like  these mediaeval guys (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_eNWraLqlvuo/S-Z_B84BX2I/AAAAAAAAB8A/DH-SY_C0sTA/s320/SHIELD+WALL+2.jpg).

(His arguments are rejected here (http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/christopher-mathews-flawed-analysis-of.html).)

I don't find this one at all convincing myself, but I thought I'd just point out that almost everything about phalanx combat seems to be controversial these days.

Quoteand accounts such as those of Marathon where a deliberate policy of thinning the centre to four ranks led to the outcome of the centre almost collapsing

Hans van Wees (in the brilliant [but of course controversial] Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities) points out that this isn't exactly what any of the Greek sources say. Herodotos says that the centre was only a few taxeis, which would normally mean "a few units". If he meant to say "a few ranks", he'd probably have said something more like "a few shields deep".

Yes, the phalanx was strong because of its depth, and a shallow phalanx was weak. But there is still a great deal of disagreement about exactly how the mechanics of this strength worked. Was it primarily physical, or psychological? Did the rear ranks push physically, replace tired front-rankers, or just stop them from falling back? All have been proposed. (And this uncertainty is nothing new, but goes back at least to Fraser's "The Myth of the phalanx-scrimmage" article of 1942 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/176377004/Classical-Weekly-the-Myth-of-the-Phalanx-Scrimmage-by-A-D-Fraser-1942#scribd).)

If you want to understand the current state of thinking on hoplite warfare, I suggest reading the van Wees book and Adam Schwartz, Reinstating the Hoplite: Arms, Armour and Phalanx Fighting in Archaic and Classical Greece which is something of a response to van Wees re-stating something like the traditional views.

Posted by: Duncan Head
« on: Today at 10:37:06 AM »

Thanks for that-- I have also been away for far too long and see that 'rot' has set in. 2,500 years of informed, intelligent analysis swept away in a wave of popular conjecture with very little evidence other than arguments about argument and interpretation. For the record, there are plenty of vase paintings showing a variety of spear grips, but ALL the ones depicting lines of hoplites converging on each other show the overarm grip. When in single combat, spearmen are depicted using underarm. So much for 'artistic convention' for which there is zero evidence-- there is less than zero evidence to suggest the hoplites threw their spears.

The hoplite were named from the hoplon- the shield without which one could not operate as a hoplite. It was designed so that the whole of the arm AND THE SHOULDER could support it. It was DESIGNED for shoving. I know researchers need to earn a living, as do TV evangelists and other such 'modern thinkers'. The difference between the thinking and the truth is the evidence, and there is NO EVIDENCE to support the idea that hoplites engaged in a manner more appropriate to dark-age spearmen than the innovative battle-winner that it was in its day.

Bloody hell- you can tell I'm in my menopause! These young people they don't know they're born etc etc etc...

Quote from: Rob Miles on January 28, 2015, 11:11:10 AMThe hoplite were named from the hoplon- the shield

Not really. Hoplon is a tool or piece of equipment, hopla is arms or equipment in general, but hoplon does not specifically mean the shield. See Lazenby's article (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/639557?sid=21105722770873&uid=3738032&uid=2129&uid=70&uid=4&uid=2). "Hoplite" means "armed man", not "man with a hoplon shield", which is why the word can be used for heavy-armed soldiers who don't have the hoplite's Argive shield.

ὅπλον, in common with most words in all languages, has many meanings. It became associated with the hoplite because of the ὅπλον and so, by extension, to mean an armed man. I believe the Greeks invented the word μετωνυμία.

Boy you guys are making me work hard this morning!

The van wees is a damn good read too, just as an aside.

Quote from: Rob Miles on January 28, 2015, 11:39:31 AM
ὅπλον, in common with most words in all languages, has many meanings. It became associated with the hoplite because of the ὅπλον and so, by extension, to mean an armed man.

Do you have any evidence for this assertion? As far as I know, no classical Greek writer uses "hoplon" to mean a shield: there is one explicit passage in Diodoros saying hoplitai are so named because of their aspis (which is of course written some centuries after the Argive shield went out of fashion - and even that doesn't say that the aspis is called hoplon), and I think some ambiguous uses, but that's all. As Lazenby says, it's one of those things that scholars just repeat from other scholars.

I'll get back to you (source was from around 500BC I think but it's been 27 years since I saw it).

Just had a delivery of long wobbly polesters from Hinds so the rest of the day is glueing and tweezering:)

Don't want to be a party pooper but wouldn't it be better to shift what looks like a good old controversy about hoplite warfare into an appropriate thread and keep this one for archery?  Could Patrick or someone with the appropriate admin permissions do so?

 "and there is NO EVIDENCE to support the idea that hoplites engaged in a manner more appropriate to dark-age spearmen than the innovative battle-winner that it was in its day."

The evidence for how "dark-age" spearmen fought is?  ???

Also on youtube, a test of linothorax armor - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cTnntgMO8o

For more on the linothorax project, search on that topic in google and on youtube.

Oh this one is even better... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qyGge-laQY

Quote from: Erpingham on January 28, 2015, 02:15:08 PM
Don't want to be a party pooper but wouldn't it be better to shift what looks like a good old controversy about hoplite warfare into an appropriate thread and keep this one for archery?  Could Patrick or someone with the appropriate admin permissions do so?

My humble apologies. My first 48 hours on these forums coincided with me running out of an important medication that stops my heart racing and... well, you can see the result. I'll shut up.

Quote from: Dave Beatty on January 28, 2015, 03:14:07 PM
Also on youtube, a test of linothorax armor - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cTnntgMO8o

I wish people would stop calling it "linothorax", which is a noun rarely if ever used in the sources. Homer uses it (though possibly only as an adjective, "linen-corseleted") but the classical writers will usually say something like "thorax lineos". </pedantry off>

The problem with this video, and it's a potential problem with experimental archaeology generally, is that just because something works doesn't prove it was used. There's quite a bit of written evidence that linen armour existed (though there may still be few diehards who will argue that it was only used by Orientals and Italians) but none that the layers were glued together, which is what the project's reconstruction used. So their linen armour is great; but does that prove Greek linen armour was great? It doesn't, really.

Hello everyone

OK, so I'm calm now (takes deep breath, holds and releases).

Let us consider the archaeological evidence which was what formed the basis of my studies. These studies were a long time ago and it's not just a matter of knowing where in the attic my old notes are stored but which HOUSE contained that attic, so much of this is from memory.

1) The vase painting. I cannot accept that there is a convenient 'artistic convention' of showing hoplites converging on each other with raised spears because of some false preconception that their ancient ancestors were in the habit of throwing 10' long spears at each other. Hoplites shown in single combat hold their spears in other ways and single combat (as per Homer) was where, if ever, spear throwing between armoured men occurred. Again, Homer was probably in error. I can understand why people carving careers out of overplaying the importance of the spear in hoplite-on-hoplite action would want to dismiss this ready body of proof to the contrary, but it strikes me as clutching at straws. As every man will have fought in battles containing hoplites, it would not have had credibility to show them holding their spears thus unless they actually did it. More of that later.

The vase paintings generally show lines of men with raised spears. It CAN be a matter of opinion as to whether these men represent ranks or files.

2) The shield. This was very large (over a yard in diameter) which was shaped so it could be supported on the shoulder and bonded to the forearm with a grip near the rim so that the whole of the left arm from shoulder to fist was utilised. It would also allow some measure of control for such a cumbersome shield. It was designed to protect its wielder and the open flank of the man standing to his left. This shield defined the hoplite, providing an armoured wall to the front which any lighter-equipped formation would have found impenetrable. Simultaneously, however, it left the flanks and rear relatively vulnerable and only the Spartans had the drilled discipline, supported by musical signals, to change face.

Given that the shield is so large and that it needed to stay in place to protect both its wielder and his neighbour, this gives further evidence to the fact that spears were used overarm. Thrusting underarm would have been severely hindered by the shield. Similarly, the idea that hoplites dropped their spears or lodged them into the ground to draw side arms is opposed by this shield size and shape. Roman legions, who did do this, had larger but lighter shield with the grip in the centre-- the shield was meant to protect the wielder alone, leaving him the opportunity to strike independently. Besides, the hoplite would almost certainly need his spear again, unlike the Roman pilum or later light spear.

The bowl-like shape of the shield is also suggestive as it matched quite neatly the arc of the back of an adult male. Shaped thus, it would suggest close contact between the men in a file: the men in a file would have been one behind the other. Together with the mutual protection along the ranks, the hoplite formation depended on the quality of its drilling and discipline. You HAD to stay in the right place in relation to everyone else in your unit, just as you had to stay in your right place in the polis. Charge ahead, hang back or shift one direction or the other, and your unit fell apart. States with poor order and discipline, by extension, had weaker hoplite formations and so failed in battle. It was a kind of natural selection of city-states.

3) The spear. It was a girt big stick about 10 feet long with a leaf-shaped head made of iron and a counterbalancing butt-spike (always a dodgy term to use when discussing Greek hoplites). If you charged an opponent with that spearhead on it and penetrated either armour or flesh to any depth greater than the level of its apex, then you would probably be unable to disengage the spear for further use given that you only had one hand free to do so. This, together with the need for cohesion explained above, meant that using spears like lances did not happen, at least not often and certainly against other well-armoured and shielded hoplites.

Against non-armoured troops, the spear could well have been sufficient on its own unless close melee was engaged (ie- less than six feet). Given that most nations had shorter spears, this would almost certainly have been the INTENTION of an opposing non-Greek army. If they had done so, the shield would have required the continued use of the overarm thrust BUT the spear itself would also have required it: that butt spike was not intended as a weapon, but you did not want the person behind you to get constantly rammed in the ribs by it. By holding it above the shoulder, it not only clears the shield but also the body of the person behind, who would naturally be mimicking your posture so as to add his spear to yours and to avoid getting a faceful of buttspike (ooerr!)

Once the enemy is in contact with your body, you have to stab down over your shield at him.

It should be obvious that anyone in the second rank standing behind and between any two men to his front would be bashed by the thrusting of the buttspike (coming soon! Julian Clary does the Hoplite Hippodrome!).

The soldiers stood behind each other. What can I say?

I think I'd better stop for now.... Butt spikes.... the butt spikes.... No! Not the butt spikes!! Pills! Pills! Pills!

Quote from: Rob Miles on January 29, 2015, 10:29:09 AM1) The vase painting. I cannot accept that there is a convenient 'artistic convention' of showing hoplites converging on each other with raised spears because of some false preconception that their ancient ancestors were in the habit of throwing 10' long spears at each other

You may misunderstand slightly, I think: the argument has nothing to do with Homer or pre-hoplite usage or "throwing 10' spears".

It would be that the "artistic convention" of overhanded spear use originated at a point when most hoplites carried both a thrusting spear (and I think eight feet is closer to the accepted norm these days than ten, but there is very little direct evidence) and a shorter throwing-spear, identifiable by its throwing-thong. You can see this combination on innumerable works of art, particularly 7th-century ones - the Chigi vase (http://www.uark.edu/campus-resources/dlevine/chigi_hoplites_full_bw.jpg), for instance. Here the hoplites clearly have two spears; in the scene at the left where you see the arms not yet picked up, it's clear that one spear is shorter, and the thongs are shown. Now, where you see the hoplites advancing into battle, they carry one spear overarm and one vertical. Presumably the overarm spear is the throwing weapon; on a couple of the figures you can see the raised fingers which are a used to hold the thong (the type of grip shown here (http://schoolworkhelper.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ancient-greek-javelin-throw.jpg)). So far, so good; what I think Christopher Matthew is alleging is that this pose continued to be the iconographic convention for massed hoplite combat even when the throwing spear dropped out of use and hoplites only carried the one spear. I can't see it myself, but there you go. There has also been a study, I think in an Australian scientific journal, which confirms that you can generate far more force with an overarm blow than with either the "low" or the "high, couched" underarm grip; I think Matthew had a response to that, but I forget what it was.

(I have seen Nigel Tallis suggest that a similar convention applies in Near Eastern art: that the Assyrians shown holding a spear in what looks like an overarm thrust are in fact being depicted in a long-standing convention that denotes them throwing a spear. I have no idea whether there is supposed to be any connection between the two schools or even whether this is a common view in the ANE art world.)

QuoteGiven that the shield is so large and that it needed to stay in place to protect both its wielder and his neighbour, this gives further evidence to the fact that spears were used overarm. Thrusting underarm would have been severely hindered by the shield.

To be fair, this may apply to the underarm thrust levelled at the waist; but the "high underarm" grip at armpit level actually fits quite neatly between the shields - as here (https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/500x342q90/541/9p19.jpg).

To me, this has always looked like a position suitable for the gentle defensive prodding of re-enactors who don't really want to kill each other, but less so for a real phalanx charge.

I think maybe we should refer to the butt-spike by its Greek designation, sauroter, before someone comes up with a theory that it was used as a means of encouraging mid-file hoplites forward. ;)

Duncan, are you just raising Christopher Matthew and Storm of Spears as a red herring?  What do you really think were the characteristics of hoplite warfare at man-in-the-file level? (And no, I am not picking an argument - just interested.)

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 29, 2015, 12:47:52 PMDuncan, are you just raising Christopher Matthew and Storm of Spears as a red herring?  What do you really think were the characteristics of hoplite warfare at man-in-the-file level? (And no, I am not picking an argument - just interested.)

As I said, it's all a subject of debate and controversy. I'm not certain whether the cat's alive or dead.

Quote from: Duncan Head on January 29, 2015, 11:11:29 AM
To be fair, this may apply to the underarm thrust levelled at the waist; but the "high underarm" grip at armpit level actually fits quite neatly between the shields - as here (https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/500x342q90/541/9p19.jpg).

To me, this has always looked like a position suitable for the gentle defensive prodding of re-enactors who don't really want to kill each other, but less so for a real phalanx charge.

I refer to the armpit level grip as a lancer position. You either steer your entire body at the target, or hope the gormless twit runs onto it. You cannot thrust from there or even guide the point without breaking the shield line. They used the overarm grip. It's the only possible way they could have used their spears without upsetting the formation. And so, we move from that onto the next logical step: contact-- 'the clash of shields'. Most Greek hoplite formations were carefully configured against their common enemy: Other Greeks. Even if the overhand thrust were powerful, it is still very unlikely to do much damage against another hoplite from the front. Get in close and overbear your opposite number and you may well do so. If you fell in that melee, you were dead. You had to keep your feet which is where the depth of your formation came in. The shield of your next-in-file fitted snugly into your back. It kept you up and, when push came to shove, the combined force of the better hoplites either prevailed and the enemy ran away or prevailed and the enemy got stamped on (if they waited too long to run away). I admit the usual metaphor of the Rugby scrum is lost on people who have not played much Rugby-- the tactic in the scrum is to control the direction of the shove and only sometimes keep it straight and level. That is the kind of scrum that would be a good analogy-- you need to preserve the shield line and avoid buckling. If it were just a bundle like the one you organise at your school when you know there's an Ofsted inspector in the corridor (best £5 I ever spent), it would be chaotic and just as likely to break your own phalanx as it would the enemy's.

Quote from: Rob Miles on January 29, 2015, 01:17:32 PMI refer to the armpit level grip as a lancer position. You either steer your entire body at the target, or hope the gormless twit runs onto it. You cannot thrust from there or even guide the point without breaking the shield line. They used the overarm grip. It's the only possible way they could have used their spears without upsetting the formation.

While I don't believe that the armpit-level underarm grip was used, or at least not much used, I don't believe that it breaks the shield wall, either. I think the re-enactment experience shows that you can thrust from that position, without moving your shield arm. The difference from the couched lance is that the spear isn't held rigid under your armpit, so you can thrust your right arm back and forth. The problem is that you're only jabbing with the strength of the arm, not developing any real power.

Quote from: Duncan Head on January 28, 2015, 01:18:23 PM

Quote from: Rob Miles on January 28, 2015, 11:39:31 AM
ὅπλον, in common with most words in all languages, has many meanings. It became associated with the hoplite because of the ὅπλον and so, by extension, to mean an armed man.

Do you have any evidence for this assertion? As far as I know, no classical Greek writer uses "hoplon" to mean a shield...

I've remembered that Tyrtaios 11.38, writing somewhen around 650-600 BC, uses "panoplitēs", "πανοπλίτης", for a heavy-armed soldier. This obviously derives from panoplia, a panoply or full set of armament. It may also be earlier than any use of the word "hoplite" that I can think of.  The obvious inference is that "hoplitēs", hoplite, was derived as a shortened form of panoplitēs, not directly from hoplon, and so does indeed mean "an armed man" rather than "a man with a (particular type of) shield".

Quote from: Duncan Head on January 29, 2015, 02:13:33 PM

Quote from: Duncan Head on January 28, 2015, 01:18:23 PM

Quote from: Rob Miles on January 28, 2015, 11:39:31 AM
ὅπλον, in common with most words in all languages, has many meanings. It became associated with the hoplite because of the ὅπλον and so, by extension, to mean an armed man.

Do you have any evidence for this assertion? As far as I know, no classical Greek writer uses "hoplon" to mean a shield...

I've remembered that Tyrtaios 11.38, writing somewhen around 650-600 BC, uses "panoplitēs", "πανοπλίτης", for a heavy-armed soldier. This obviously derives from panoplia, a panoply or full set of armament. It may also be earlier than any use of the word "hoplite" that I can think of.  The obvious inference is that "hoplitēs", hoplite, was derived as a shortened form of panoplitēs, not directly from hoplon, and so does indeed mean "an armed man" rather than "a man with a (particular type of) shield".

I was not aware of that. I'm going to have to concede the point largely on my inability to wrestle with it. My Greek is so rusty it should be termed 'corroded' and I can't even find my 'Ath-Pol' never mind my lecture notes on this stuff which were mostly derived from scraps of papyrus found in the African rubbish dumps rather than oft-quoted and published editions of Thucydides, Xenophon and Herodotus. I remember my old professor- a man so grey-goatbearded and wire-rim-glassed that if you lined him up with a thousand million people, he would be the one everyone would point out as being a Classics professor- going through the equipment that a man had to provide if he were to be able to vote as a full citizen and the shield was the first and last- the item that more than any other gave him his place in the phalanx and yet was the last to be adorned. He referred to it as the Hoplon- the identifier of the hoplite above all the rag-tag of the rest of the army. Sure, he may well have just been regurgitating what he had been taught, but his authority in every other respect was profound and based on first-hand archaeology and research.

One thing that we have to remember is that whilst the Hoplon is associated with phalanx warfare, it was also used by men who weren't fighting as part of a phalanx.

It was used by men fighting on warships, it was used by men storming towns, fighting in streets and similar
When you read Xenophon and his account of the retreat, men with hoplons fight under circumstances that a wargamer would suggest should be left to peltasts.

So it obviously wasn't putting the user at too big a disadvantage under those circumstances.
It wasn't optimum, but was OK.

So the double grip shield could well have been in use before the hoplite phalanx was properly developed.
Indeed the phalanx may have developed to take advantage of the shield.
So it is entirely possible that the phalanx in 500BC was a different beast from the phalanx in 400BC.

(And anyway, at Marathon it makes more sense if you treat the Greeks as Warband  ;D )

Jim

Quote from: Jim Webster on January 29, 2015, 04:03:49 PM
One thing that we have to remember is that whilst the Hoplon is associated with phalanx warfare, it was also used by men who weren't fighting as part of a phalanx.

It was used by men fighting on warships, it was used by men storming towns, fighting in streets and similar
When you read Xenophon and his account of the retreat, men with hoplons fight under circumstances that a wargamer would suggest should be left to peltasts

Yeah, but I bet if you'd asked them, they would rather have been in a phalanx!

It was a condition of citizenship that a man provide his own hoplite armour and shield. I do not know if this extended to the spear, but if he wanted his own side-arms, he would have had to pay for them. Therefore, men who find themselves fighting as something other than hoplites would use their hoplite 'gear' if they qualified as hoplites. Besides, you were proud that you had it. Skirmishers were low-life scum who couldn't be in the 'proper' infantry.

Quote from: Rob Miles on January 29, 2015, 05:20:44 PM

Quote from: Jim Webster on January 29, 2015, 04:03:49 PM
One thing that we have to remember is that whilst the Hoplon is associated with phalanx warfare, it was also used by men who weren't fighting as part of a phalanx.

It was used by men fighting on warships, it was used by men storming towns, fighting in streets and similar
When you read Xenophon and his account of the retreat, men with hoplons fight under circumstances that a wargamer would suggest should be left to peltasts

Yeah, but I bet if you'd asked them, they would rather have been in a phalanx!

It was a condition of citizenship that a man provide his own hoplite armour and shield. I do not know if this extended to the spear, but if he wanted his own side-arms, he would have had to pay for them. Therefore, men who find themselves fighting as something other than hoplites would use their hoplite 'gear' if they qualified as hoplites. Besides, you were proud that you had it. Skirmishers were low-life scum who couldn't be in the 'proper' infantry.

What I'm meaning is that during a campaign pretty well any hoplite could find himself fighting other than in a phalanx, just as part of normal military life.
And for marines, fighting in a phalanx could well have had a degree of novelty, yet they were happy with the Hoplon.
I think we over-play the shield's disadvantages. If it was so bad, marines would have used something more useful, which would probably have been cheaper

Jim

I am minded with all this excellent discussion to go and try out the different spear grips and thrusts for myself. When I was reenacting as a spearman or halberdeer I generally used a two handed grip (ie no shield).

Just thinking out aloud but the issue in my mind is in close order "phalanx" mode moving spears into position let alone jabbing and thrusting with it (be that over or underarm) is fraught with dangers for rows 2 and 3. I cant offer evidence as my latin and greek is non existent but leans me towards to the othismos interpretation. Following this through I would hesistantly offer the thought that in close formation, with overlapping shields and a impact clash that possibly the spear was either used in a shouldered overarm thrust (with the elbow 'dropped' low) and effectively the spear 'resting' on the shield and thrust horizontally (a bit like the cue action on a snooker bridge) OR that the spear was used underarm to allow for the sauroter to be used quickly and swiftly as you stepped over fallen enemy infantry upon advance

maybe.... 

As far as I know, there were no Greek 'marines'- just ordinary citizens of the Hoplite class who went to sea and did their share of the rowing and fighting.

The shield was quite weighty, but could still be used in a variety of ways, including one-to-one combat, and you NEVER threw it away without losing your citizen rights/respect/life. Just ask Cleonymus.

if I read aright, the hoplon was quite a piece of manufacturing and certainly took more time to make than a spear and possibly 'made to measure' for the user (as Christopher Matthew alludes to). If this was the case then you had a shield that you had to use for all eventualities and although not ideal for single combat would perform that role if push came to shove (no pun intended)

Quote from: Rob Miles on January 29, 2015, 06:02:55 PM
As far as I know, there were no Greek 'marines'- just ordinary citizens of the Hoplite class who went to sea and did their share of the rowing and fighting.

The shield was quite weighty, but could still be used in a variety of ways, including one-to-one combat, and you NEVER threw it away without losing your citizen rights/respect/life. Just ask Cleonymus.

Somewhere I remember reading that Marines were rather looked down on. Firstly they were paid and spent a lot more time under arms but more importantly from the Hoplite point of view, they didn't keep their place in line, their fighting was a mixture of tactical advances and retreats when they did land.

Jim

For examples of hoplite kit being used in different ways, one needs look no further than our epic dscussion of Early Italian warfare, where we turned up many images and archaeological finds suggesting two spear fighting continued there after it had gone in Greece, and that those two spears could be proto pila.  What we struggled to conclude was how different the mode of warfare was with these different weapons.  Did an Etruscan phalanx fight essentially the same way as an Greek one, complete with its structure and its othismos or very differently?  Not that I'm suggesting a reopening of the debate here but just a cautionary note that the form of the argive aspis dictated its use may not be the case.

I am only broadly aware of the great mass of new material on the study of hoplite warfare from the last twenty years or so - it isn't my period.  But I do have some concerns about the traditional theory, as ably reiterated by Rob.

Firstly, I take the point that a top class scrum is different to a maul or ruck.  But they are hard to sustain and direct for more than a few seconds before they come apart.  Hoplite warfare, even in othismos phase, seems controlled and sustained by comparison.  Troops go forward or retreat over distances locked in combat.  A model where the climax of the action is the shields come together and the front rankers just become "spam in the can" while everybody else just leans in from the back doesn't have that control I'd expect to see.

Secondly, what was the point of a 8-9ft spear if all you are going to do is advance up to each other and lean on each other shields?  Surely a shorter, more manoueverable spear would be better? 

Finally, a question out of ignorance.  The slamming shields into each other and shoving them into your comrades would leave a lot of damage which would be very difficult to get out of a shield without completely dismantling it.  Do we have any surviving examples where we can examine the battle damage and, if so, what does it tell us?

Quote from: Erpingham on January 29, 2015, 10:38:25 PM

Secondly, what was the point of a 8-9ft spear if all you are going to do is advance up to each other and lean on each other shields?  Surely a shorter, more manoueverable spear would be better? 

The point is that when both sides are equal in equipment, you're down to skill, drilling and discipline to beat your opponent. If one side was made up of helot rebels or inadequately armoured spear infantry, you would use your spear to an advantage. Also, the butt spike, being a spike as opposed to a simple counterweight, is suggestive that the spear had the useful function of being planted into the ground at an angle to repel cavalry- something which would require a good length. In a battlefield situation, there are no 'quick change cabinets'- if some cavalry wants to charge your flank-- something we know phalanxes are vulnerable to-- you needed your weapon to be able to adapt to this. Finally, there is the support you give your front rank from successive ranks with a long spear. The overarm grip allows for some useful prodding at the exposed face of the enemy directly to the front.

Hoplite-on-hoplite actions were very short and resulted, generally, in very few casualties because all areas of the body not covered by the shield were armoured. Sometimes on vases the hoplite is actually naked between the top of the torso and the greaves. Given the limited access this left for prodding at a distance charging into physical contact provided the only opportunity for doing some damage. It goes without saying that a longer spear gives an advantage here- getting a faceful of speartip as you close with the enemy is a little off-putting at best and if yours puts him off before his puts you off, the more likely you are to close successfully and with impact.

There are vase paintings which show hoplites closed with hoplites and angling their spears in the manner I have described. And, no, there can be no issue of these paintings showing an overarm grip as some kind of convention- they are in melee.

A couple of other points here-- the 'underarm' lancer position may not be impeded by the shield held by the wielder, but it would be impeded by the shield of the man to his right, which overlapped his body at that point. The shields could reasonably be assumed (as they were the property of the bearer) to have a radius equivalent to the hoplite's inside elbow to the tips of the fingers (thereby allowing for the rim). It would cover the left flank of the bearer to the same width, easily covering the right upper arm of his neighbour. Besides, such a position would put the spear bang in the middle of the opposite hoplite's shield-- a pointless posture, particularly given the limited scope for manoeuvre.

Hoplite shields have been found, largely dented and bashed, but a hoplite would have looked after his shield, repairing it when necessary. Without it, his status would have been severely diminished.

Finally, the image of the scrum you need to have is the scrum that works textbook. The hoplites were standing in a straight line from the front of the file to the back-- they had to avoid the backthrusts. Perhaps a better image would be a tug of war in reverse, with both sides pushing for dear life.

Yea, hundreds of men in a battle that comes to pushing yard- round shields into each other are going to remain perfectly in alignment ..
That's believable.

Quote from: Mark G on January 30, 2015, 10:53:06 AM
Yea, hundreds of men in a battle that comes to pushing yard- round shields into each other are going to remain perfectly in alignment ..
That's believable.

If they were properly disciplined and drilled to act with the same foot on the command being given, quite believable. It was a long way from being disorganised, but well practised. The city with the better order and discipline would prevail over the 'weaker'.

Getting back to an earlier point of contention, why else would they have been in such deep formations and, arguably, derived advantage from it? If it were just a matter of getting some kind of morale boost or some kind of ancillary function, then everyone would have done it. The depth kept the shield wall at the front stable against impact and provided momentum when othismos was ordered.

Remember the main purpose of a butt spike is to allow the spear to be stuck in the ground when you're resting. The spike tends to be non-ferrous metal, so it doesn't rust, and it's there so the wood doesn't rot

Stabbing people with it is handy, but it's something you do far less than you stick it in the ground to lean on :-)

And they didn't brace it to face cavalry, because otherwise Macedonian companions couldn't casually ride down elite infantry  8)

Jim

Quote from: Rob Miles on January 30, 2015, 09:28:33 AM


There are vase paintings which show hoplites closed with hoplites and angling their spears in the manner I have described. And, no, there can be no issue of these paintings showing an overarm grip as some kind of convention- they are in melee.

Yes, they show two lines, advancing spear overarm.  Overarm thrusting, as Duncan has said, allows a lot of mechanical strength to be used, and it goes over the shield.  But I would expect from this evidence that attacking with spears might therefore be important in the hoplite battle, rather than just shield leaning. 

Quote

Finally, the image of the scrum you need to have is the scrum that works textbook. The hoplites were standing in a straight line from the front of the file to the back-- they had to avoid the backthrusts. Perhaps a better image would be a tug of war in reverse, with both sides pushing for dear life.

Even text book scrums don't stay that way for long.  It is hard to keep a scrum up and straight.  As Mark says, multiply this by hundreds of men over a wide front.  I participated in a lot of scrum combats in my youth (or pike pushes as the Sealed Knot called them).  They were great fun but had a very high probability of ending up in a big heap, which would have been positively deadly in a real life fight.  It's too chaotic and uncontrolled a model to my mind.

Quote from: Jim Webster on January 30, 2015, 11:18:59 AMAnd they didn't brace it to face cavalry, because otherwise Macedonian companions couldn't casually ride down elite infantry  8)

Jim

For sure not.  :) The vase illustrations I've seen of hoplites vs cavalry don't IIRC show any bracing of spears in the ground. It's something you would expect to see depicted in Greek art if it was a commonplace tactic.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on January 30, 2015, 11:33:44 AM

Quote from: Jim Webster on January 30, 2015, 11:18:59 AMAnd they didn't brace it to face cavalry, because otherwise Macedonian companions couldn't casually ride down elite infantry  8)

Jim

For sure not.  :) The vase illustrations I've seen of hoplites vs cavalry don't IIRC show any bracing of spears in the ground. It's something you would expect to see depicted in Greek art if it was a commonplace tactic.

I must confess here that I have indulged in a little conjecture. The fact is that the butt spike was maintained in the Macedonian pike for some reason, and it could not have been to be a 'secondary weapon' or even as a way of holding the long wobbly pole upright! But if you needed something better than thin air to brace, it would be ideal. So I'll concede the point on lack of archaeological evidence.

And please note is was not 'hundreds' of men in an uncontrolled move forward, but individual files of 8 men in a straight line, simultaneously stepping with the rest of the unit. There would have been buckles, certainly, but if you were the better disciplined you won. If you were not, you lost. Nothing about the hoplite phalanx was disorderly, or at least, for any length of time. It was not a 'bundle' or a scrum in terms of men 'scrummaging' between the files to become an inflexible mass. Hence the analogy of a tug of war in reverse.

Quote from: Rob Miles on January 30, 2015, 11:44:52 AM

And please note is was not 'hundreds' of men in an uncontrolled move forward, but individual files of 8 men in a straight line, simultaneously stepping with the rest of the unit. There would have been buckles, certainly, but if you were the better disciplined you won. If you were not, you lost. Nothing about the hoplite phalanx was disorderly, or at least, for any length of time. It was not a 'bundle' or a scrum in terms of men 'scrummaging' between the files to become an inflexible mass. Hence the analogy of a tug of war in reverse.

Actually, we're not thinking too far apart. The weight of the files behind was not just leaned onto the men in front but gave inertia to the formation that an individual would not have.  So it made going forward easier and going backwards harder.  Once the initial clash at a run had resolved itself, the lines ordered themselves and a more measured step by step approach took place.  Doubtless there were times where the two sides were pretty static and going through the motions - at that point, the leader should call for othismos - actively pushing into the enemy line - and, if the enemy didn't break quickly, to shout "One more step" in an encouraging manner.

One thing we might differ on is how much individual files did their own thing and how much files either side worked to conform.  If your safety depended on another man's shield, you don't want the file next to you retreating as you advance, so there must have been some co-ordination.  How is another question, as the command structure did seem to work in files rather than ranks.

Is there any source evidence of othysmos as a command?

I understood it to be a description of an aspect of the engagement, not something drilled for and comandable.

Isn't it Epaminondas who asks his men for 'one more step'. That implies that there is a command to 'step' and that it is something the whole unit does at one moment. It is possible that the advance went ' step step step!
Roy

Quote from: Mark G on January 30, 2015, 12:50:01 PM
Is there any source evidence of othysmos as a command?

I understood it to be a description of an aspect of the engagement, not something drilled for and comandable.

I'm thinking leadership here rather than commands.  I don't know what the commands are in a hoplite phalanx but, as Roy notes, my inspiration is Epamonidas calling for "one more step".  Is "step" a command word or is this just an example of the inspirational words a commander was expected to say at the critical moment, when he felt the time for othismos was come?

Or do you feel that othismos was a collective state of mind which arose naturally in the course of the battle?

Quote from: Rob Miles on January 30, 2015, 11:44:52 AM

I must confess here that I have indulged in a little conjecture. The fact is that the butt spike was maintained in the Macedonian pike for some reason, and it could not have been to be a 'secondary weapon' or even as a way of holding the long wobbly pole upright! But if you needed something better than thin air to brace, it would be ideal. So I'll concede the point on lack of archaeological evidence.

The Macedonian pike (sarissa) makes best sense if we take the metal at the butt to be a counterweight.  I would be willing to lay good money on the shaft being tapered, too, to help balance the weapon at the 6' mark, where it would be held by the left hand.  Also, it would not be wobbly - that particular piece of misdirection seems to originate with re-enactors who attempted to construct a pike using the head, sauroter and shaft found at Vergina (well, not the actual items, but replicas thereof).  The result is a forlorn, wobbly piece of apparatus - because the Vergina finds appear to have been for a 6' long logkhe (throwing-thrusting spear if you have not met the term) and not a 21' sarisa.

Quote
And please note is was not 'hundreds' of men in an uncontrolled move forward, but individual files of 8 men in a straight line, simultaneously stepping with the rest of the unit. There would have been buckles, certainly, but if you were the better disciplined you won. If you were not, you lost. Nothing about the hoplite phalanx was disorderly, or at least, for any length of time. It was not a 'bundle' or a scrum in terms of men 'scrummaging' between the files to become an inflexible mass. Hence the analogy of a tug of war in reverse.

Quite so - to the extent that a leader could ask his men for 'one more step' (presumably an exhortation rather than a command per se) and when they achieved it the opposition began to come apart.  I can see that files would have provided their own push but remained aware of their neighbours (they are after all the people whose shields tend to overlap parts of you that you want to keep protected) and tried to stay level with them.

There is a big difference between calling for a step forward, and that indicating organised shoving.

Even a lib dem can call for one more heave, doesn't mean they practised organised othismos.

Quote from: Mark G on January 30, 2015, 03:37:49 PM
There is a big difference between calling for a step forward, and that indicating organised shoving.

But calling for a step forward would be rather useless unless everyone did it together.

Quote
Even a lib dem can call for one more heave, doesn't mean they practised organised othismos.

I shall not comment ... ;)

Imagine my surprise when I return to the forum after a few days to discover I had started a thread on the hoplite phalanx. I didn't remember doing that. Fortunately, I found Justin's posting about separating this thread away from the archery thread. Imagine my relief to discover I hadn't succumbed to old-timers disease yet. ;)

I don't accept the mass shoving model of othismos. If this model of othismos were valid, then the 50 deep Theban phalanx at Leuctra should've just bowled over the Spartan phalanx. Xenophon clearly states Kleombrotos and his troops were winning the battle at first. This was despite the fact that the defeated Spartan cavalry fell on the Spartan line just as the Theban phalanx attacked. Xenophon points to the ability of the Spartans to recover Kleombrotos' body and carry it off the field. Something they could not have done unless the Spartans were getting the better of the Thebans at the time. It was only when Spartan casualties increased that the Spartans retreated under pressure from the Theban attack.

My thought is if the mass shoving model of othismos is correct then the Theban phalanx with a depth of 50 ranks should a push through the Spartan line like a trireme through a fishing boat. Yet Xenophon's account of the battle does not support this viewpoint.

The postings concerning Marathon serve to remind me that I shouldn't rely entirely on my memory, but check my sources. As Duncan pointed out, Herodotus does not describe the Athenian center as being four ranks deep. Both my translations of Herodotus, the Penguin Classics translation and The Landmark Herodotus, say that the Athenian center was "only a few ranks deep." I guess have to plead guilty to repeating an erroneous belief without first verifying it. :-[

Quote from: Chuck the Grey on January 31, 2015, 05:49:34 AM
If this model of othismos were valid, then the 50 deep Theban phalanx at Leuctra should've just bowled over the Spartan phalanx. Xenophon clearly states Kleombrotos and his troops were winning the battle at first.

I'll need to do some reading, but the immediate question here is why the Thebans thought having a 'fifty' (it was probably 48) deep phalanx would work. They were fighting the Spartiates of the highest order and simply 'using up' ranks in traditional hand-to-hand melee one-on-one would have created a pile of bodies so thick they'd have needed ropes to climb over it.

It took over a year for most states (if you take the Athenian hoplite as the average) to drill a young man to the point where he could be trusted with a spear and shield. It is doubtful anyone in Thebes ever trained to fight in such a deep formation- imagine keeping '50' ranks drilled in rank and file when nobody had ever done it before. It is probably more likely that it took a bit of time for them to sort themselves out, but having sorted it out, they would have obliterated the Spartans, which they did, killing the largest number of Spartans in one blow than at any time in their history, effectively wiping out their military elite forever. It was once this had happened that the rest of the Spartan (largely from subject states) ran away. All of this could have taken less than an hour-- about the average time for a hoplite battle.

It proves the point: deep formations in pre-pike phalanxes won battles, even against the top ranks of Spartatiates who were the supreme warriors of Greece.

To summarise from the archaeological evidence: Two columns of spearmen with overlapping thick bowed bronze-fronted wooden shields would engage. The spear was held overarm to avoid butt-spiking the next in file and to fit in the crevice created by the two shields that met approximately down the right side of each man. It would also have had the advantage of being able to attack the exposed face of the enemy and even the relatively vulnerable breastplate whilst avoiding the thick shield against which the spear, with a single-handed thrust, would not have achieved much (and would probably have been damaged or wedged if it had). Distant prodding may have been used against non-hoplites since it would have been possible to do some damage and charging (such as happened at Marathon-- for the first time ever according to Herodotus) would have had an initial impact similar to that seen by spear troops in other contexts. The files would have to have been in alignment to avoid the butt spikes.

That is as far as archaeological evidence can take us. Opposite each spear is a shield designed to counter it. What happens next? We know the formations were too deep for any tangible support other than physical. Whatever it was, it was significant enough for the Greeks to preserve the formation right up until a certain Philip decided to make up for his chicken-hearted subjects by employing a long wobbly pole. Then the game changed.

Quote from: Rob Miles on January 31, 2015, 09:03:39 AM

To summarise from the archaeological evidence: Two columns of spearmen with overlapping thick bowed bronze-fronted wooden shields would engage. The spear was held overarm to avoid butt-spiking the next in file and to fit in the crevice created by the two shields that met approximately down the right side of each man. It would also have had the advantage of being able to attack the exposed face of the enemy and even the relatively vulnerable breastplate whilst avoiding the thick shield against which the spear, with a single-handed thrust, would not have achieved much (and would probably have been damaged or wedged if it had). Distant prodding may have been used against non-hoplites since it would have been possible to do some damage and charging (such as happened at Marathon-- for the first time ever according to Herodotus) would have had an initial impact similar to that seen by spear troops in other contexts. The files would have to have been in alignment to avoid the butt spikes.

That is as far as archaeological evidence can take us. Opposite each spear is a shield designed to counter it. What happens next? We know the formations were too deep for any tangible support other than physical. Whatever it was, it was significant enough for the Greeks to preserve the formation right up until a certain Philip decided to make up for his chicken-hearted subjects by employing a long wobbly pole. Then the game changed.

nicely summarised (in fact one of the better concise summaries I have seen on the subject). I would add that hoplite (aka phalanx combat) had evolved over several centuries to the point that as you say, two opposing bodies largely cancelled each other out. Armour was designed to present an impenetrable wall of bronze from head to foot against....another impenetrable wall of bronze. Other factors would then decide the battle whether that be depth of formation, lapping flanks, cavalry etc.

If we look at the information we could surmise that the first couple of ranks go in with spears ready for overhand thrusts but that the following ranks largely have the spears in reverse position. This would allow a few things: support of pushing behind the front couple of ranks whilst keeping the spear out of the way of impalling your colleagues and keep the sauroter ready for the 'roll over' dispatching of fallen enemies. There is no advantage to having the spear raised overhead 'ready' in ranks 3 onwards as it will not project beyond the front rank and will more likely entangle with others.

However, at the risk of contradicting myself, once lines clash, spears become potentially more of a hinderance. When I did my (admitedly non hoplite!) reenactment, there was a fair amount of 'fencing' between lines of infantry with a small gap of a few feet. If we then 'went in' and clashed, long pole arms tend to get in the way of things (shorter weapons are much more effective) and in fact I had spears pulled out of my hands by opposing combatants. And I can assure you that a 'scrum' melee, even a 'friendly' one, is confusing and difficult to control and you do get into a mode of tunnel vision to your immediate front

Imagine too that you are wearing a Corinthian helmet...very much eyes front there.
Roy

Chuck, 4 ranks at Marathon is a reasnable surmise. If we think a normal depth for hoplites is eight men then a drill system which closes in and creates 16 ranks, or doubles width and creates 4 is by far the most likely to be used. As I suggest that this is how the Greeks operated, by doubling and halving then the Athenians have a choice of being in two ranks, four, eight or sixteen. Four ranks gives extra width to the army but still contains the three to four men pushing that one believes is the core competence of a hoplite unit. At two ranks the Persians will just outnumber and crush them before the wings can take effect.
Of course ,i f the thinning is just caused by running it could be any numbe > 1 . However that seems unlikely.
Roy

To look at how spear tactics changed, you need to look at what happened to the shield after the Hoplite age.

Shields became lighter for a start. No more heavy bronze and wood thick enough so that it could form the dish-shape. Such dish-shapes that persevered were often light enough so they could be strapped to the forearm leaving the hand free to double up the grip on the spear or pike.

With the boss becoming the grip for the shield, it became, once more, an item of personal protection rather than something that protected a third of the man to the left, at least as a default configuration. Some later shields had arm-straps for the forearm to the left of the boss and others straddled it, but the message to the wearer was clear-- unless the command for shield wall is given, you're on your own.

This means the spearman is now independent and can use his spear more freely. The underarm and even 'lancer' grip can be used easily, making the charging spearman capable of penetrating armour and shield at first contact, even with a single handed grip. It allows for wedge formations which were unheard of by hoplites. What is lost is the need for depth-- indeed you want as much frontage as possible to overlap your foe. A column going against a line is only clever so long as the line does not close in around it (along with flanking cavalry).

With this in mind, the greater significance of the spear as the driving force of the combat comes into play. Were spears continued to be used after the clash of a charge? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Sometimes, you needed a shorter spear (Assegai) to continue the combat. Other nations used sidearms. Many assumed the spear would either not survive or become a hindrance.

Hoplites did not want to destroy their spears to pieces on the first rush, hence they rarely ran at another phalanx. If they had side arms (and the Spartans certainly carried them for fear of helots), they were not usually a part of the official equipment. Athenian youths accepted by their Deme were given a spear and shield as their military equipment-- no mention of any other weapon. The spear was a precision weapon- the butt-spike was made of bronze so it was heavier than the tip- meant for aimed precise thrusts.

I think to tackle the 50 man deep Thebans we may have to revert to our sources. 

Was the clash of the Thebans and the Spartans slow and measured? 

Were the Spartans continually driven back, as you'd expect from the weight of 50 men pressing on eight? 

Do our sources ascribe the Theban win to weight difference or do they highlight other factors instead/as well?

Unfortunately, sources close to the time only tend to make a point of something if it was significant to them. We would not need to explain to ourselves that helicopters fly forwards and go up and down, but someone in 4516 may be on this forum expressing frustration that some revisionist with an indoor job and no heavy lifting who needs to pay his plasma bill insists the evidence suggests they flew upside down and sideways.

The increased depth was a significant enough difference to warrant inclusion. Xenophon would have assumed EVERYONE knew what hoplites did normally.

However, one more point of relevance here--  if depth was important to spearmen, does any set of rules allow for this beyond the assumption that at least one more rank adds its spears to the first? I mean, if you refought a battle like this with 50 (48) ranks of hoplites against 6 (Spartans are thought to have used multiples of 6, hence 300 Spartans make a phalanx 50 wide and 6 deep), would the deeper phalanx have any advantage under given rules? I know 6th edition etc. Had 'one casualty per figure' type advantages, but what now? Writing as a newbie who has yet to read DBMM.

Just come across these daft buggers... www.4hoplites.com. Seems their experiments have come up with the same view as the traditional (ie correct ;D) one!

Without prejudice to Rob's other points and observations:

Quote from: Rob Miles on January 31, 2015, 12:18:17 PM
Hoplites did not want to destroy their spears to pieces on the first rush, hence they rarely ran at another phalanx.

Not so sure about this: at First Mantinea (418 BC), the Argives, Athenians and allies closed 'dromon' - at a run.  Spartans seem to have been used to a more deliberate pace of advance (keeping time with the flutes/pipes) and this may be why Agis' attempts to reconfigure his line ran out of time and ended up in a mess.  I seem to recall other instances of hoplites closing at a run, with Athenians being the prime offenders.

Quote from: Erpingham on January 31, 2015, 01:26:55 PM
I think to tackle the 50 man deep Thebans we may have to revert to our sources. 

Was the clash of the Thebans and the Spartans slow and measured? 

Were the Spartans continually driven back, as you'd expect from the weight of 50 men pressing on eight? 

Do our sources ascribe the Theban win to weight difference or do they highlight other factors instead/as well?

I recall mention of Leuctra being the one battle where Thebans went into action to the music of pipes and Spartans did not, which might argue for a certain deliberateness in their advance, but they nevertheless moved fast enough to catch the Spartans in the middle of a deployment change, which suggest they were closing faster than the Spartans were accustomed to.

Our basic source is Xenophon's Hellenica VI.4 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text;jsessionid=98C1E30AE14CD0262A122402ADEF2F34?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0206%3Abook%3D6%3Achapter%3D4), and the key passage this:

"Coming now to the infantry, it was said that the Lacedaemonians led each half-company three files abreast, and that this resulted in the phalanx being not more than twelve men deep. The Thebans, however, were massed not less than fifty shields deep, calculating that if they conquered that part of the army which was around the king, all the rest of it would be easy to overcome.

[13] Now when Cleombrotus began to lead his army against the enemy, in the first place, before the troops under him so much as perceived that he was advancing, the horsemen had already joined battle and those of the Lacedaemonians had speedily been worsted; then in their flight they had fallen foul of their own hoplites, and, besides, the companies of the Thebans were now charging upon them. Nevertheless, the fact that Cleombrotus and his men were at first victorious in the battle may be known from this clear indication: they would not have been able to take him up and carry him off still living, had not those who were fighting in front of him been holding the advantage at that time.

[14] But when Deinon, the polemarch, Sphodrias, one of the king's tent-companions, and Cleonymus, the son of Sphodrias, had been killed, then the royal bodyguard, the so-called aides of the polemarch, and the others fell back under the pressure of the Theban mass, while those who were on the left wing of the Lacedaemonians, when they saw that the right wing was being pushed back, gave way. Yet despite the fact that many had fallen and that they were defeated, after they had crossed the trench which chanced to be in front of their camp they grounded their arms at the spot from which they had set forth. The camp, to be sure, was not on ground which was altogether level, but rather on the slope of a hill."

From this, we can extract
1) The Spartans formed 12 deep
2) The Thebans formed 50 deep (most likely 50 rather than 48 because at Delium in 424 BC and on other occasions they had formed 25 deep)
3) The Spartans attempted to redeploy to 6 deep to flank the Thebans
4) They were caught mid-manoeuvre
5) Cleombrotus was killed
6) The Spartans recovered the body
7) Spartan losses greatly exceeded Theban
8 ) The Spartans were ultimately forced back by 'the pressure of the Theban mass' [tou okhlou ōthoumenoi].  The term ōthoumenoi is from ōtheō, to push back, force back in battle - the relationship to the term 'othismos' should be evident.

Hence it looks as if the Theban depth advantage conferred both weight and an advantageous casualty ratio.  Whether the latter was because Spartans fought until they dropped or for some other reason, the great depth of the Theban formation conferred a winning advantage in a frontal fight.

It took time to mature, though: at Delium, the Thebans deployed 25 deep against an Athenian army apparently 8 deep throughout, but the Thebans were still pushing back the Athenian left while the Athenian right was putting the Theban allies on the Boeotian left to rout.

The interesting point is that the Spartans were able to retrieve the fallen Cleombrotus, which indicates that their 6-8 deep formation was able to thrust back, or at least hold off, the 50-deep Thebans for a short while.  This shows what focussed, dedicated determination can do.  Unfortunately for the Spartans, as soon as they recovered Cleombrotus, the 'emergency stimulus' was gone and the desperation factor went out of their shove, allowing the superior weight of the Theban formation to start forcing them back.

Quote from: Rob Miles on January 31, 2015, 04:01:30 PM
Just come across these daft buggers... www.4hoplites.com. Seems their experiments have come up with the same view as the traditional (ie correct ;D) one!

Funny, that. ;)

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 31, 2015, 05:30:35 PM

8 ) The Spartans were ultimately forced back by 'the pressure of the Theban mass' [tou okhlou ōthoumenoi].  The term ōthoumenoi is from ōtheō, to push back, force back in battle - the relationship to the term 'othismos' should be evident.

Hence it looks as if the Theban depth advantage conferred both weight and an advantageous casualty ratio.  Whether the latter was because Spartans fought until they dropped or for some other reason, the great depth of the Theban formation conferred a winning advantage in a frontal fight.

I think that just about wraps up the argument. Despite buying up all the Loebs I can find on e-bay (only to find they're cheaper and better brand new from Amazon! D'oh!) my reading on the subject is very distant. Thanks for the discussion. It has been the most stimulating discussion I have had since falling ill.

I take it, then, that there are no rules which give Hoplites their historical advantage by advancing in depth and that playing them in that fashion would be detrimental? It seems a pity to play with hoplites lined up just two deep like any other spearmen.

Impetus, has a stab at it, allowing for large units of hoplites, along with the increased danger of a flank attack.
Robert Gargan

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 31, 2015, 05:30:35 PM

From this, we can extract
1) The Spartans formed 12 deep
2) The Thebans formed 50 deep (most likely 50 rather than 48 because at Delium in 424 BC and on other occasions they had formed 25 deep)
3) The Spartans attempted to redeploy to 6 deep to flank the Thebans
4) They were caught mid-manoeuvre
5) Cleombrotus was killed
6) The Spartans recovered the body
7) Spartan losses greatly exceeded Theban
8 ) The Spartans were ultimately forced back by 'the pressure of the Theban mass' [tou okhlou ōthoumenoi].  The term ōthoumenoi is from ōtheō, to push back, force back in battle - the relationship to the term 'othismos' should be evident.

Hence it looks as if the Theban depth advantage conferred both weight and an advantageous casualty ratio.  Whether the latter was because Spartans fought until they dropped or for some other reason, the great depth of the Theban formation conferred a winning advantage in a frontal fight.

So, despite the Spartans being caught changing formation and losing their leader, they didn't cave in quickly (which was a result in other hoplite battles).  In theory, they could have held until rescued by the other flank being victorious but the other flank, though doing better, didn't smash their opposition either.  So any depth rule should count over time in a hoplite fight, not be critical immediately.  It is also clear that the deep mass does not move especially slowly, as perhaps the Spartans anticipated it would.  So special move rules don't seem required.

It is interesting to wonder how the Spartans would have effectively used their overlap if they had been able to complete their manoeuver.

Do the battles with the Thebans 25 deep tell us any more about the mechanisms of fighting in depth (not that we need them for rules purposes - just curious)?

No it is clear enough from Xenophon that it was the depth and the eventual supremacy of their momentum that won. Do not forget that the Spartiates were (I believe) unbeaten in conventional hoplite-on-hoplite battle until this point. Had the Thebans not been in such depth, they would not have defeated them. That they did not cave in immediately could be down to many factors, but 'not caving in immediately' is likely to be measured in seconds rather than hours.

Quote from: Rob Miles on February 01, 2015, 09:53:36 AM
That they did not cave in immediately could be down to many factors, but 'not caving in immediately' is likely to be measured in seconds rather than hours.

Sorry, I can't agree with that from the Xenophon quote Patrick provided.  The Spartans are winning until the fall of Cleombrotus, when the succeed in carry him from the field.  This must have taken at least taken minutes.  The Spartans give way under pressure, which suggests they hold for some time.  The other flank see what is happening and fall back.  So, I'd suggest at least half an hour overall, possibly longer.

Timescale is on of those things which wargames rules are not very good at, and are usually fudged to some degree.  But I do think that we are looking at a situation in most rules where the Spartans hold for several moves.

There can be no question that the Spartiates were the better warriors. Most wargames rules would have heavy infantry (elite) triumph over heavy infantry (average) irrespective of depth. This was the only time (as far as I know) the Spartiates were EVER defeated in a head-on hoplite-on-hoplite encounter and it is clearly stated that the depth and the 'pushing back' were what caused them to lose so drastically on this occasion. As for the left, it managed to retreat in good order to the camp which suggests they hadn't even been engaged, since close pursuit would have resulted in a rout. Recovering a body takes a handful of men about thirty seconds-- the entire unit did not stop to do it.

Quote from: Rob Miles on February 01, 2015, 10:36:54 AM
Recovering a body takes a handful of men about thirty seconds-- the entire unit did not stop to do it.

Xenophon, who knew a bit about hoplite fighting, says

Nevertheless, the fact that Cleombrotus and his men were at first victorious in the battle may be known from this clear indication: they would not have been able to take him up and carry him off still living, had not those who were fighting in front of him been holding the advantage at that time.

I would contend that means that the Spartans didn't disintegrate on impact.

As to the depth issue, is anyone debating this?  The only debate is how, which Xenophon doesn't tell us, quite probably for the reason already given that he didn't explain what should have been obvious to his audience.

For gaming purposes, it doesn't matter much, if we take a "design for effect" approach.  However, whether it was gradual or instant and how inevitable the result was are design parameters I think do matter to a designer.

I do not think the pushing would start at impact since it would need to be very orderly, and things happen at impact which would make that very risky. My own belief is that the excessively large phalanx cobbled together by the Thebans took a bit of time to get its act together, during which the superior discipline and strength of the Spartiates could well have had the advantage. Once the pushing got organised, the huge disparity between troop quality no longer mattered.

Non-hoplite deep spear formations were often a liability not just because of the waste of manpower but because they pinned their front ranks down, and when they did recoil, it was bedlam. Hoplite depth meant something because of the skilled drilling, something the Spartiates took to an extreme.

Actually, I think Plutarch may have the solution <buries head in book> According to him, the vanguard of the Theban mega-phalanx (my term!) rushed ahead of the main body in order to stop the expansion manoeuvre, which would also explain why the Spartans were caught so off guard. The rest of the phalanx lumbered on behind and when it got stuck in, steamed right through them.

The appropriate Plutarch being this bit of Pelopidas?

In the battle, Epaminondas, bending his phalanx to the left, that, as much as possible, he might divide the right wing, composed of Spartans, from the other Greeks, and distress Cleombrotus by a fierce charge in column on that wing, the enemies perceived the design, and began to change their order, to open and extend their right wing, and, as they far exceeded him in number, to encompass Epaminondas. But Pelopidas with the three hundred came rapidly up, before Cleombrotus could extend his line, and close up his divisions, and so fell upon the Spartans while in disorder; though the Lacedaemonians, the expertest and most practised soldiers of all mankind, used to train and accustom themselves to nothing so much as to keep themselves from confusion upon any change of position, and to follow any leader, or right-hand man, and form in order, and fight on what part soever dangers press. In this battle, however, Epaminondas with his phalanx, neglecting the other Greeks, and charging them alone, and Pelopidas coming up with such incredible speed and fury, so broke their courage and baffled their art that there began such a flight and slaughter amongst the Spartans as was never before known. And so Pelopidas, though in no high office, but only captain of a small band, got as much reputation by the victory as Epaminondas, who was general and chief captain of Boeotia.

The 300 is this case are, as I understand it, the Theban Sacred Band.

Could it be that by the time of Leuctra there were not so may highly motivated Spartiates in the section of the army facing the Thebans – or possibly in the rear lines.   If the file leaders needed to be elite troops to carry out drilled movements it could be that rear rankers were no longer life long hoplites and less likely to hold their ground.  After all the Spartans had used thousands of their own serfs, their helots, as hoplites.
Ironically, it was the traditional hoplite army of Epaminondas, a crafty general, who made good use of the Sacred Band, backed up by a deep formation of tough agrarian citizens, which put an end to the innovative Spartans.

Robert Gargan

If this is the case, it would explain matters: the Spartans see the large phalanx heading their way and believe they have time to extend their line. Pelopidas and the Sacred Band who were in the vanguard of the phalanx sped forward to spoil it, managed to pin the Spartans and, perhaps, get a stab in at Cleombrotus at that point (he would have been directing the manoeuvre at the front, like any proper Spartan leader). The Spartans, as Plutarch states, recovered from this (enough to rescue the body which Xenophon confesses he only surmised sufficient to suggest the Spartans held their ground long enough to do this) but then the rest of the phalanx led by Epaminondas arrived and overwhelmed them.

Plutarch was writing some time later, of course, but he was usually thorough in gathering information from a variety of sources (although I think the Roman habit of defamation confused him a bit...). After all, if you interviewed soldiers returning from Arnhem, they'd say they were surrounded by superior numbers. Only by more measured analysis of all accounts some years later do we find that was not the case.

Quote from: RobertGargan on February 01, 2015, 03:34:29 PM
Could it be that by the time of Leuctra there were not so may highly motivated Spartiates in the section of the army facing the Thebans – or possibly in the rear lines.   

Spartan armies tended to have one 'elite' group of Spartiates surrounding their leader deployed on the right. This unit was so superior that in one battle I read about (I think it was Xenophon so it was about the time of the Theban wars) the WHOLE of the rest of the Spartan army routed with just this one unit wheeling this way and that munching up each and every one of their enemy's units as they returned from pursuit with parade-ground precision drilling. To say that the defeat of this very unit at Leuctra was significant is to understate the seismic nature of the destruction of this battle-winning unit.

I think it's worth spelling out the case(s) against the 'traditional interpretation' ie that hoplites fought by literally pushing each other en masse, and that deep formations beat shallower ones because they pushed harder. Cases grouped thematically.

Historical
- sources refer to hoplites fighting each other with weapons (spears, swords) rather than just being jammed together.
- sources refer to pushing as a part of such fighting, by individuals.
- sources don't clearly refer to a pushing phase separate from a fighting phase, or to any mass push.
- there are several occasions were sources are clear that being pressed closely together (and unable to use weapons properly) was a bad thing and made the force so pressed very vulnerable.

Comparative
- in no other period of history for which we have good evidence do we see men fighting by pushing each other en masse.
- in periods in which there definitely was no pushing en masse (eg 18th-19th Century) deep formations could still prove more effective than shallow ones (line v. column).
- Macedonian pike phalanxes formed deep (and presumably gained some advantage from doing so) but it is hard to believe they could have pushed with the weight of 16 men along a pike shaft, or what would have happened to the enemy force (or both forces in the case of phalanx v. phalanx) facing pikes pushed with such force.
- a deep formation could be harder to resist, and harder to defeat, for reasons other than pushing. Polybius gives the reasons for the Macedonian depth - rear ranks prevented the front ranks from fleeing (so making the formation harder to defeat), and pressed on those ahead by their presence (which doesn't necessarily mean pushed them in melee), making the formation easier to keep moving forward.

Practical
- if the weight of a whole formation pushed at once, it should always have been obvious that very deep formations would be more effective than shallower ones, but deep formations were only adopted on occasion, and late in hoplite history, and were not always clearly superior (cf Leuctra).
- if men were pressed together by a mass eight (or more deep) front and back they would have been unable to fight or move or do anything - think of a crowd crush.
- if formations pushed en masse, shallower formations (or those made up of single fighters, like Romans) should have been brushed aside.
- if the pushing phase was decisive (as the 'coming to othismos' theory suggests) why bother fighting - why did formations not just push from the outset?

Linguistic/cultural
- references to pushing are as likely to be metaphorical as literal - after all, we still talk today in military contexts of one force pushing back another when there is certainly no physical contact.
- Greek historians tended to describe battles in terms of mass, weight and pushing. Roman historians talk more of movement, contact and 'virtus'. This may represent differences in fighting techniques, or it could be a cultural difference that does not necessarily reflect battlefield differences.

My own view is that hoplites did not push each other en masse, they fought with weapons, but that in an encounter between two large, deep, close order formations there were crowd dynamics in play which meant a deeper formation might tend to advance and a shallower one tend to fall back and/or to fall apart. These dynamics were partly physical (to do with the tendency of a crowd to maintain forward momentum, without necessarily pushing scrum-style on its forward members), and partly psychological (more resistant to rout, safety in numbers). What's more I think these dynamics were not clearly understood at the time (just as the relative merits of line and column were not clearly understood in the late 18th C/Napoleonic period) - and are still not clearly understood today, of course.

OK so let's take the Roman issue first.

If a phalanx of any type pushed back against a single unit of Roman infantry, it would be in trouble from the units either side hitting it in the flank-- which they did historically. Pike phalanxes did not push each other- they held the pike with both hands and the shields were too small. Nevertheless, when they got out of line through success or failure, the Romans just shrugged their shoulders and ploughed in against defenceless foes. Hoplites were designed to fight other hoplites primarily where a solid block of bronze met another solid block of bronze with overlapping shields that inhibited anything other than overarm jabbing. Even the swords that have been found were very much of the 'downward slash' variety-- bladed and meant to be wielded overarm. It's a bit of a stalemate if no attempt was made to force the enemy back upon itself. They certainly did not suddenly break up their shield wall and begin one-to-one combat. The reason this has been the long-standing view is that it is supported by the archaeological evidence of the armour and shield. Try blocking a blow to your right with a shield fastened to your elbow at the boss. Try underarm thrusts when your neighbour's shield is covering your right elbow. Try not hitting the person behind you with your butt spike if you fight at any height below the shoulder. The lack of written testimony is always going to require a feat of imagination, but, given that hoplite battles did take place, in depth, and that (according to Herodotus) formations did not run into battle before Marathon, it is hard to imagine anything that did not involve dissolving the phalanx on contact-- and that only happened when you were about to lose.

QuoteThey certainly did not suddenly break up their shield wall and begin one-to-one combat.

Sure. I guess there are several schools of thought (with recent proponents of each):

Traditional othismos - hoplite phalanxes 'fought' by literally pushing each other, rugby scrum or reverse tug of war style (Hanson)

Metaphorical othismos - hoplite phalanxes didn't push, they fought, but in close order and solid formation (Goldsworthy)

Revisionist - hoplites fought as individuals in open order (van Wees)

I'm in the second camp (as - I suspect - are most people)

Quote from: RichT on February 02, 2015, 05:00:54 PM
Sure. I guess there are several schools of thought (with recent proponents of each):

Traditional othismos - hoplite phalanxes 'fought' by literally pushing each other, rugby scrum or reverse tug of war style (Hanson)

Metaphorical othismos - hoplite phalanxes didn't push, they fought, but in close order and solid formation (Goldsworthy)

Revisionist - hoplites fought as individuals in open order (van Wees)

I'm in the second camp (as - I suspect - are most people)

I think there is a bit of a misrepresentation here. A combination of weapons fighting (particularly against non-hoplite opponents) and push from non-fighting ranks (ie most of the rest of the unit) is what I and certainly the 'University of Wales College of Cardiff' Classics faculty prior to the recent hubbub believe. They would have used their spears but also braced and used their mass. Had weapons fighting alone been decisive, we would have seen a much higher casualty rate from the losing side (Leuctra was an exception-- perhaps due to the weight of the phalanx used but also because Spartiates generally came back carrying their shield or on it) because once the phalanx began to lose its cohesion the majority rear ranks would have taken to their heels. There are no accounts of bodies piling up between hoplite phalanxes. The spear could not penetrate the shield and as long as the ranks stayed solid (which any one-to-one weapons combat would have negated) there was little hope of doing much damage.

Again, it is the shield that is of prime importance here. Only by grasping the elbow-loop can you use it for individual protection, otherwise you have to turn your whole body to protect your right (which a long spear can easily threaten) which would open you and your neighbour to an attack on an unarmoured part of your body. It is designed for use in a unit (ok so it was used in necessity as well, but you make the best of a bad situation when your life is on the line) that is fighting another unit and it embodies the collective reliance of the members of the polis upon each other. You need to get the other side to break their shield line. You don't do it by poncing about at a distance of six feet.

I do not know of anyone who believes that all hoplites ever did was push each other. I do not consider it a valid argument to dismiss this non-existent thesis as a proof of something else.

 
I suspect that the 'van Wees' option always existed and it's what happened in situations where formations broke down or couldn't be formed.
I'd reckon that the second option came in early and ran in parallel with the van Wees idea, taking over when order could be retained.

I do wonder at times if Marathon was not perhaps a 'van Wees' battle at times.

Jim

I though Richard's summary was a good one.  Even if you allow for the fact that some weapon fighting took place, the decisive othismos phase in the traditional view is the physical pushing.  In what Richard calls metaphorical school, othismos is decisive pressure of forward momentum during fighting or possibly in some interpretations the establishment of psychological dominance of the melee.  It may, therefore, be separate to the role of depth, although having men physically crowding you so it is difficult to go back probably helped with the decisive pressure part.  The revisionist model I know little about but it would be interesting if any of its fans could explain how othismos was supposed to work there.

It is also the case that othismos is not confined to hoplite v. hoplite - Herodotus has hoplites use it against Persians at Plataea and (IIRC) Xenophon has Egyptian infantry doing it, whatever it is.

Hi Robert (Miles)
Is there any chance of you finding "...that in one battle I read about (I think it was in Xenophan so it was about the time of the Theban wars)..." because, although I find Xenophan biased to Sparta this is new information to me and I am ever fascinated by what made the hoplites of Lacedaemon superior to the rest.
Cheers
Robert Gargan

Hi Robert

Hellenica IV Chapter 2. Another battle with an uncommonly deep phalanx featured on the Boeotian side. Maybe they were working their way up to the big one:)

It's not as detailed as I remembered it (everything gets smaller with age(!)). There's a mention of shoving in the following chapter but my Greek and eyesight are too poor to build a rhetorical trophy out of it:)

Xen Hell 4.3.19 - Battle of Coronea
"For while he might have let the men pass by who were trying to break through and then have followed them and overcome those in the rear, he did not do this, but crashed against the Thebans front to front; and setting shields against shields they shoved, fought, killed, and were killed."

Traditionalist: "See - 'setting shields against shields they shoved' - so it was a mass pushing contest, as Xenophon clearly describes it."

Metaphoricalist: "Nonsense - 'they shoved, fought, killed, and were killed' - so while there was pushing, there was also effective fighting with spears. Xenophon says nothing about mass pushing - this is just the front rank men pushing their opponents as they fight them"

Revisionist: "You're both wrong. Xenophon is clearly describing single combats all along the line - shield pushing is just a part of that, knocking the opponent off balance so you can spear him - for which you would need space to dodge and advance, back off and parry".

Very little in ancient history is clear cut.

Both myself and the old codgers who taught me would readily accept that hoplites were not one-trick ponies. If the opposition did not face them with impenetrable armour, they would quite happily chew them up with spears-- I mean why bother shoving when they're already naked? Spartans needed to be able to fight instantly, even when they were going down the pub, so they were skilled in all areas of combat bar shooting. And when you shoved your rival hoplite phalanx into the ground, or followed them up as they retired, what was a relatively useless weapon suddenly had so many more uses...

I've been thinking about that shield issue and one-to-one fighting. Is there any archaeological evidence that the two grips could be used in reverse? A shield with the elbow near the rim and gripped in the centre would make it much better for solo use.

Just had two large parcels from TSS arrive! Soon be ready...

Quote from: RichT on February 03, 2015, 01:29:19 PM
Xen Hell 4.3.19 - Battle of Coronea
"For while he might have let the men pass by who were trying to break through and then have followed them and overcome those in the rear, he did not do this, but crashed against the Thebans front to front; and setting shields against shields they shoved, fought, killed, and were killed."

Traditionalist: "See - 'setting shields against shields they shoved' - so it was a mass pushing contest, as Xenophon clearly describes it."

Metaphoricalist: "Nonsense - 'they shoved, fought, killed, and were killed' - so while there was pushing, there was also effective fighting with spears. Xenophon says nothing about mass pushing - this is just the front rank men pushing their opponents as they fight them"

Revisionist: "You're both wrong. Xenophon is clearly describing single combats all along the line - shield pushing is just a part of that, knocking the opponent off balance so you can spear him - for which you would need space to dodge and advance, back off and parry".

Very little in ancient history is clear cut.

I think it is actually quite clear cut, but we persist in taking offcuts rather than the full picture.

The revisionist sees only the front row of hoplites and completely ignores the remaining ranks, as if they are only there to spectate or discuss the weather.

The metaphoricalist might see a little further but loses the wood with over-concentration on the trees, splitting hairs about 'pushing' against 'mass pushing'.  Again, vision beyond the front rank is limited.

The traditionalist has the advantage of understanding the hoplite ethos and as a result filling in the contribution by the remaining ranks: if your spear cannot reach the foe, your shield can still reach your comrade's back.

It may be worth noting the Greek sequence of events: ephodos, doratismos, othismos.  These were respectively the charge, the initial fighting in which spears featured prominently and the 'shoving', when both sides had done what they could with spear-use and the emphasis was now on formation pushing formation.  A clash could of course end before othismos, as at First Mantinea, when both sides' left wings either broke at first contact or were overwhelmed at the doratismos stage because of gaps in the line.

I think I am in agreement wit Patrick here, and too, with the author of Western Way of War, who I recall,gives a breakdown of an hoplite battle that has phases in which which the hoplites advance to intimidate, clash with spears, then  move to pushing and jabbing and then when one side tires the battle pushes on over the losers with back rank men stabbing downwards to finish off fallen opponents. Once momentum is achieved its a one way street for the losers.
That gives a picture of something more complex than just a straight shoving match. There are periods when exhaustion brings an end to momentum. Then heroes and leaders in the front rank try and kill an opponent to force a gap, or call for that  one more coordinated step that will get the opponent moving backwards.
To me the above reconstruction makes sense of the evidence, of the design of hoplite equipment and of the known short duration of hoplite battles. These seem to be ritualistic encounters, almost deliberately inefficient . An opponent arrives and ravages the crops until  the city hoplites  down out to the flatlands to drive off the invader, the fight occurs, someone wins and the invaders withdraw with or without tribute or the cession of land. VDH makes the very good point that it is unlikely that the attackers would really ravage on a widespread basis as the olive trees and vibes take a long time to be replanted and grow to maturity so the wide destruction is more likely literary than realistic.
Similarly cities are small and have low populations of warriors who have the property qualifications and income to pay for the kit that a hoplite needs. That fits better with a warfare that is a trial of strength rather than a deadly earnest bloodbath, and pushing fits with that style of combat.
Roy

Yes that's certainly what was beaten into me by archaeologists back in the days of my youth.

Perhaps one last observation-- you would never shove on impact. You would crush the front two ranks of each army in a pointless, aimless and chaotic manner that might look good in Hollywood Panavision, but would never achieve the goal of breaking apart your enemy's formation-- at least by design. I daresay you might get lucky. So you would need to get to the shield line, make sure everyone was set, and THEN begin the push.

And you would push as soon as you were able. You would not want to be *not* pushing when the other side were. It's one game of Mornington Crescent where you don't want to go round the Circle Line.

Rob (tentatively setting up a trophy)

I think we can all agree that othismos represents the decisive phase of the hoplite battle.  I'm still not convinced by the argument that it was a big scrum though, prefering something more orderly and less dangerous to its own front ranks.  However, I'm happy enough for Rob to erect his trophy on this battlefield though doubtless the war will continue elsewhere.

Now any other controversies of hoplite warfare we want to tackle :)

Quote from: Erpingham on February 04, 2015, 08:59:04 AM

Now any other controversies of hoplite warfare we want to tackle :)

Just the one suggested by this: how to get wargamers to play hoplites historically when all of the rules I have seen (not got the Italian one yet) only reward long shallow lines. It's interesting in Xenephon's Hellenica IV that the Boeotians have a lot of debate about this. Some, led by the Athenians, argue against deep formations that can be easily overlapped by the skilled Spartans (who, if I read it right, could change formation very quickly to do this). Their allies want the security of a deep formation that can withstand the othismos of their enemy. Clearly, getting the balance right was crucial to the generalship of hoplite warfare.

Most wargame rules don't represent hoplites any better than they do Romans, in my limited experience.

The great othismos debate is at least 70 yeas old and I don't suppose we are going to resolve it here, so trophies on either side are premature. Every time the traditionalists erect a trophy, it transpires that the metaphoricalists have seized the traditionalists' aposkeue. Meanwhile the revisionists continue to hurl javelins from rough ground on both parties' unshielded sides.

Patrick: "I think it is actually quite clear cut"

I expect you do Patrick, but you are, shall we say, a somewhat unusual case!

Roy: "Similarly cuties are small"

I find that statement mildly disturbing.

The Roman problem, which I have as well, is down to how to effectively divide up legionary formations with space for each maniple without falling foul of the homogenous 'battlegroup' formation rules. We used to say a figure represented so many ranks and so many files, and yet we allowed supporting ranks of spears to count even though they would, to scale, have been four or five 'real' ranks behind the front. Compromise is always going to be the order of the day, although the closer you get to 1:1, the more realistic (and expensive!) it becomes. Having been dazzled by the candy-store that is Hinds Figures Ltd, I could probably be up for halving the ratio and doubling the figures on the table, but not much more than that.

As to the other.... I would like to see someone try and take down that trophy. Literary evidence is only valid when confirmed by Archaeological evidence, and I have yet to see any evidence from the 'metaphorical' lobby other than re-interpreting evidence that the 'traditional' lobby has been apparently dependent upon-- only it hasn't. Arguments about semantics do not alter the shape of the shield or its configuration of grip. Arguments about 'artistic conventions' are unprovable (as well as utter fantasy). From what I have read of the 'metaphorical' argument, it is not supported by the very un-metaphorical reality of the debates reported by Xenophon about depth and the ultimate victory of the Leuctra phalanx (supported by a spoiling attack to stop the Spartan overlap) against an unbeaten elite unit of Spartiates. Besides, who ever heard of an order in battle being an ambiguous metaphor? Let him have it?

And for those who think the Hoplites broke into one-on-one combat upon impact-  with THAT shield? Really? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Quote from: RichT on February 04, 2015, 11:18:18 AM
Every time the traditionalists erect a trophy, it transpires that the metaphoricalists have seized the traditionalists' aposkeue.

And trust me, that can be painful!  ;)

"Thereupon some of the traditionalists were already garlanding Agesilaus, when a man brought him word that the metaphoricalists had cut their way through the Orchomenians and were in among the baggage train." - Xenophon, Hellenica IV.3.18

Actually, Alexander has the answer to that one:

"Now, it chanced that at that instant Alexander was about to give the signal for the onset to those under his command; but when he heard Parmenio's message, he declared that Parmenio was beside himself and had lost the use of his reason, and had forgotten in his distress that victors add the baggage of the enemy to their own ..." - Plutarch, Alexander 32.4

So I think we can  allow Rob his trophy and, albeit perhaps second-hand, his baggage.

QuoteMeanwhile the revisionists continue to hurl javelins from rough ground on both parties' unshielded sides.

Which perfectly demonstrates the impossibility of the revisionists' position, at least without quantum bilocation.

Quote
Patrick: "I think it is actually quite clear cut"

I expect you do Patrick, but you are, shall we say, a somewhat unusual case!

Praise warms the heart ... :)

Quote from: Rob Miles on February 04, 2015, 10:30:09 AM

Quote from: Erpingham on February 04, 2015, 08:59:04 AM

Now any other controversies of hoplite warfare we want to tackle :)

Just the one suggested by this: how to get wargamers to play hoplites historically when all of the rules I have seen (not got the Italian one yet) only reward long shallow lines. It's interesting in Xenophon's Hellenica IV that the Boeotians have a lot of debate about this. Some, led by the Athenians, argue against deep formations that can be easily overlapped by the skilled Spartans (who, if I read it right, could change formation very quickly to do this). Their allies want the security of a deep formation that can withstand the othismos of their enemy. Clearly, getting the balance right was crucial to the generalship of hoplite warfare.

The way Justin Swanton covers this in his upcoming Optio system is to confer a morale advantage on deep formations ('morale' in Optio is a combination of training, stamina, elan and skill - with a bonus for depth in armies and troop types which can meaningfully use it).

One does observe that, having agreed to a universal sixteen deep, the Thebans on the day of the battle blithely disregarded this and formed up 'exceedingly deep' - which led to the Athenians on the left being outflanked and rapidly defeated.  The Spartans then tacked and defeated the victorious Argive, Corinthina and Theban contingents as they returned from pursuit and defeated each one.  (Hellenica IV.2.18-22)

Quote from: Rob Miles on February 04, 2015, 12:06:41 PM
The Roman problem, which I have as well, is down to how to effectively divide up legionary formations with space for each maniple without falling foul of the homogenous 'battlegroup' formation rules.

This may be the cue for another conversation on gaps in lines being suicide, even for Romans.  We might note in passing that rules which treat the fighting line of a legion as a homogenous unit are closer to our accounts of how Romans handled things on the battlefield than the idea of subunits popping between gaps.

In fact, this is probably best handled as a fresh topic.

Quote from: Rob Miles on February 04, 2015, 12:06:41 PM
As to the other.... I would like to see someone try and take down that trophy. Literary evidence is only valid when confirmed by Archaeological evidence, and I have yet to see any evidence from the 'metaphorical' lobby other than re-interpreting evidence that the 'traditional' lobby has been apparently dependent upon-- only it hasn't. Arguments about semantics do not alter the shape of the shield or its configuration of grip.

Having allowed you a trophy, you now go an rekindle things :) If by archaeological evidence, we mean remains of shields, it doesn't really affect the metaphoricalist position and I'm sure revisionists will turn up with videos of people skirmishing with the Argive shield.  If there is any other archaeological evidence of relevance, please quote it.  The artistic evidence likewise doesn't affect the metaphoricalist position either, though I would suggest it leaves the revisionists with some explaining to do.  I presume they would argue that hoplites moved in close formation but, when the got close to the enemy, dashed in like a bunch of individuals and jousted?

Rich, 'cities are small'  Its the curse of the iPad, continually hitting the proximate key!!
Roy

I prefered the other interpretation  ;D

Since our discussion around the various dubious revisions of Hoplite warfare, and given that my slow reading pace has just about caught up on DBM and FOG rule sets (still no sign of DBMM), I've been giving some thought to how proper hoplite warfare could be represented on the tabletop. Just as with phalangites, legionaries and panzer divisions, every culture that came into contact with hoplite armies until the next big evolutionary step eventually conceded that the best way to defeat a phalanx was with another, better phalanx. Even the Persians got the message eventually.

The strengths of the hoplite phalanx when opposing non-hoplites are:

1) impregnable frontal armour
2) mutual support across rank
3) rehearsed and familiar drill
4) resistance to recoil
5) propensity to push back
6) long reach of spear

The weaknesses are:

1) depth sacrifices frontage causing vulnerability to overlap or outflanking movement
2) relative weakness of armour on flanks and rear of formation
3) inability to operate as phalanx in broken or wooded terrain
4) burdensome shield if in solo combat
5) restricted manoeuvrability

Reading the 'Immortal Fire' army list, the first eyeball-wrencher is the idea that hoplites can be 'undrilled'. Er.... no. Not even a rubbish city would field hoplites who had not been well rehearsed in knowing their place and how to move and even how to cosy up to their immediate comrades, coming as they would from the same barracks, deme, extended family, tribe, etc. You cannot form any kind of phalanx and be 'undrilled'. Ever. Under any possible circumstances. The only people who could 'throw' a phalanx together on the spur of the moment were the Spartans-- and I mean the Spartiates. Training for war was all they ever did.

The second item which requires the attention of any rule-maker is the notion that, because the 'average' wealth of the citizen in MOST cities changed as a result of reforms (again, not the Spartiates) then the frontal armour value of the later hoplites must be less. No. No. No. No. First of all, the shield isn't your usual hide-covered plank of wood- it guards the whole body from the thighs to the shoulder, has an armoured face and EVERY hoplite had one. Vase paintings show some hoplites only wearing greaves and enough of a breastplate to cover the exposed part of the upper torso. That, plus a helmet, is enough to provide adequate cover PROVIDED the hoplite unit is able to form a phalanx. And, anyway, the poor citizens would be kept towards the back partly because of their lack of armour but mostly because the front of the phalanx would be where the glory-seeking rich would take station.

As discussed earlier, a deep phalanx could 'out-shove' a shallower one, but would be vulnerable to overlap. Only, (once again) the Spartiate phalanx could quickly change face, change frontage, manoeuvre in complex wheels and generally out-fight just about anyone else who did not either shoot at them from a safe distance or pile into them with a fifty man phalanx after stopping their counter-move. The Spartiate phalanx must be considered elite. No other formation of the time ever enjoyed such a long-lived reputation for skill, discipline and unrivalled stompability. The 300 were Spartiates.

So, if there is an invincible hoplite unit on the table, how to kill it? The obvious solution is to fight it in terrain that prevent it from forming in the first place- a disordered phalanx is actually much weaker than an ordinary spear-armed unit as its strength comes from its drill. Outflanking or overlapping are other well-documented ways of dealing with it. Attacking it head on--- better wait until someone invents the long wobbly pole before trying that.

Quote from: Rob Miles on February 28, 2015, 07:13:06 PM
So, if there is an invincible hoplite unit on the table, how to kill it? The obvious solution is to fight it in terrain that prevent it from forming in the first place- a disordered phalanx is actually much weaker than an ordinary spear-armed unit as its strength comes from its drill. Outflanking or overlapping are other well-documented ways of dealing with it.

One could also try a certain wedge-shaped cavalry formation...  ::)

nice summary Rob.

re the drilled/undrilled stuff, I would argue that most troops have a degree of drill (and not just talking about Classical phalanx/hoplites here) so maybe the word undrilled is a bit of a misnomer anyway. I would prefer grading of experience with regards to drill. As you say to call a hoplite body undrilled is a bit of an oxymoron

We probably need a definition of drill here.  We tend to think of drill in connection with formal evolutions of Renaissance and onward Western armies.  My limited knowledge of the modern debates suggests that few but the Spartans practiced to this level.  So perhaps that is where the idea of undrilledness comes from?  Yet Dave and other reenactors know there is a level below this of weapon handling in groups, moving together etc.  which might also be seen as drill, in that you practice it.  I can't see a hoplite phalanx being able to function without this level of drill. 

We could at a pinch term it 'coordination' and stretch the term to include such refinements as men fighting cooperatively as opposed to individually.

Any hoplite phalanx worth its salt, or at least its aspides, would coordinate.  Men would know their place in the file, what they were supposed to do there and how they were supposed to advance and fight without mischiefing the next man along (or sideways).  The Spartans added another level of refinement to this: they practised countermarches, marching backwards, reforming files on the first man you see (and getting the result straight, all while in combat) and just about every variation one could think of.  Herodotus' description of Leonidas' Spartans at Thermopylae suggests their skill and repertoire:

QuoteWhen the Medes had been roughly handled, they retired, and the Persians whom the king called Immortals, led by Hydarnes, attacked in turn. It was thought that they would easily accomplish the task. [2] When they joined battle with the Hellenes, they fared neither better nor worse than the Median army, since they used shorter spears than the Hellenes and could not use their numbers fighting in a narrow space. [3] The Lacedaemonians fought memorably, showing themselves skilled fighters amidst unskilled on many occasions, as when they would turn their backs and feign flight. The barbarians would see them fleeing and give chase with shouting and noise, but when the Lacedaemonians were overtaken, they would turn to face the barbarians and overthrow innumerable Persians. A few of the Spartans themselves were also slain. When the Persians could gain no inch of the pass, attacking by companies and in every other fashion, they withdrew.  - Herodotus VII.211

From this and Herodotus' description of Plataea, one gets the impression that Persians and their subject peoples did not coordinate: they had a place in file, etc. but everyone seems to have fought as individuals and not as pairs, teams or groups - at Plataea 'groups of ten' did throw themselves on the Spartans simultaneously, but they still give the impression of having fought individually and without reference to one another.

Rob's outline of the hoplite system might make the basis of a good short article ...

I think it is dangerous to measure other hoplites and, indeed, every other army in history, against the standards of the Spartiates. They were exceptional-- drilled and beyond drilled. To suggest other hoplites were undrilled by comparison would render Imperial Guards, legions and Unsullied (yeah I know, Game of Thrones. I watch it for the anachronistic use of Gothic architecture you know...) as shiftless, slouching dregs.

The most striking use of a wide range of hoplites is Marathon. A complex plan involving more than just coordination required the wings to keep in contact with the centre whilst it gave way. Any gaps and the Persians would have been halfway to Athens before any <shudder> undrilled hoplites would have worked out where their knees were and remembered what The Poet said about their use. The Athenians threw every man into that battle- rich, poor, experienced and veteran, and they kept their discipline to the end.

I've looked through the army lists for the 'ancient' period (covering 99% of the time humans have been on this planet). Some of the rubbish that gets away with 'drilled' is shocking- part timers called up after the harvest? Gimme a break! The various military/tribal institutions in Greek cities vied with each other to outdo them and so earn a more glorified position on the battle line. Cities which did not keep their young men in training quickly became subject to those that did. Being a citizen and being a hoplite were not two different things.

Quote from: Rob Miles on March 01, 2015, 02:15:49 PM
Being a citizen and being a hoplite were not two different things.

A point which we, being un-Hellenically accustomed to the separation of civil and military functions, can easily miss.

Is it not likely that Hoplite lines matched each other for width with one side sacrificing depth, given that outflanking was so deadly

Quote from: Dave Knight on March 02, 2015, 01:35:42 PM
Is it not likely that Hoplite lines matched each other for width with one side sacrificing depth, given that outflanking was so deadly

Xenophon in the extracts discussed above often describes how hoplite phalanxes would try to 'veer' away to the shieldless side as they advanced in order to gain an advantage there- another argument that even non-Spartan hoplites were well drilled. However, only the Spartan hoplites seem credited with being able to 'dress ranks' to suddenly out-front the enemy as they closed. Frontage occupied the minds of the generals throughout the recorded period, but particularly towards the end as the Thebans seemed to get the idea that the only way to beat the Spartans in a head on clash was to 'out-depth' them-- the more so since the average Spartan was stronger, more agile and more heavily combat trained than even the best of the rest of the Greeks. Many times they tried it, and it worked against all formations apart from the Spartiate one until a bit of quick thinking  by Pelopidas finally got them to succeed at it, bringing about the end of Spartan supremacy and the brief succession of Thebes. I think a 50-man deep phalanx is probably as far as hoplite evolution could go before someone thought up the idea of the long wobbly pole.

I like my games to be authentic, which is why I feel rules should reward players who field their armies historically, taking advantage of those factors that made these ancient empires successful, at least for a time. Rules designed to allow the Hittites to play the Vikings, and which allow the former to trounce the latter, may be 'fair', but they are also reducing the hobby to one of pure gamesmanship with homogenous armies. Viking steel would have seemed like Martian death-rays to the Hittites. I also like to see players having to outwit the historical strengths just as ancient generals had to adapt or die. Scipio personally saw to the raising of extra cavalry to deal with the Carthaginians so he could play them at their own game and win. The Syracusians used a revolutionary ship design to turn the tables on the seafaring Athenians. The Thebans had their sledgehammer phalanx. Philip had his long wobbly pole. If your slow moving infantry army cannot engage fast moving horse-archers, turn up on the day with a load of Skythian mercenaries.

And if the rules give hoplites their historical advantages, play to their historical disadvantages. Phalanxes, shield walls, wedges, quincunx etc. are all common enough to deserve column-inch space, and I at least, for one, would like to see Greek hoplites in deep formations on the tables of conventions, and not spread out in two-rank deep lines like so many basket-weaving Persians.

I would have thought that there would be a generally accepted normal depth - the Thebans then did something new by going deeper against the Spartans.

Quote from: Rob Miles on March 02, 2015, 02:12:45 PM
Xenophon in the extracts discussed above often describes how hoplite phalanxes would try to 'veer' away to the shieldless side as they advanced in order to gain an advantage there- another argument that even non-Spartan hoplites were well drilled.

Really? I'm not sure Xenophon ever says any such thing.

Quote from: Thucydides V.71Before 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, however, argues that hoplite phalanxes would tend, not "try", to veer away to the shieldless side as they advanced, not because of any desire of the commanders or of the phalanx as a whole, but because of individual fear - not to "gain an advantage", but to avoid a disadvantage. This argues that even Spartan hoplites are very imperfectly drilled, since they apparently cannot prevent this automatic drift - even if they sometimes manage to take advantage of it.

Quote from: RichT on February 02, 2015, 05:00:54 PM
Sure. I guess there are several schools of thought (with recent proponents of each):

Traditional othismos - hoplite phalanxes 'fought' by literally pushing each other, rugby scrum or reverse tug of war style (Hanson)

Metaphorical othismos - hoplite phalanxes didn't push, they fought, but in close order and solid formation (Goldsworthy)

Revisionist - hoplites fought as individuals in open order (van Wees)

I'm in the second camp (as - I suspect - are most people)

Sorry to excavate this post, but I've been ignoring this thread.

I think you may slightly misrepresent van Wees, Rich, since he only argues for individual combat in the early part of the hoplite period - he just sees the "mature" phalanx as a later development than most people do. It's Peter Krentz (http://www.xlegio.ru/pdfs/krentz3.pdf) who argues that "hoplite battle consisted of a multiplicity of individual combats" at all period.

There is also a fourth camp, or perhaps "camp 1A": Christopher Matthew argues that "othismos" is sometimes meant literally, and sometimes figuratively; that in some circumstances two phalanxes would end up pushing shield to shield, but the physical push was not a universal, nor even a particularly common, feature of hoplite battles.

Quote from: Duncan Head on March 02, 2015, 02:41:21 PM

Quote from: Rob Miles on March 02, 2015, 02:12:45 PM
Xenophon in the extracts discussed above often describes how hoplite phalanxes would try to 'veer' away to the shieldless side as they advanced in order to gain an advantage there- another argument that even non-Spartan hoplites were well drilled.

Really? I'm not sure Xenophon ever says any such thing.

My Greek is VERY rusty, so I may have got it wrong (when I first translated it I had the flame of youth), but I think Hellenica IV chapter two.

Quote from: Rob Miles on March 02, 2015, 04:20:14 PM
My Greek is VERY rusty, so I may have got it wrong (when I first translated it I had the flame of youth), but I think Hellenica IV chapter two.

I had indeed forgotten that passage, but looking at it I am not sure that it makes your point. Certainly, both sides edge to the right - but Xenophon doesn't actually say why they do it, simply that it happens. He could be taken to imply that it's a nasty sneaky Theban trick, but does not say so outright, nor say that either side did it deliberately or intending to outflank the other. So there is nothing that contradicts Thucydides' explicit statement that this is just what phalanxes do, whether you want them to or not.

As usual, I generally agree with Rob's thoughts, though

Quote from: Rob Miles on March 02, 2015, 02:12:45 PM
Viking steel would have seemed like Martian death-rays to the Hittites.

It might not: the men of Hatti periodically controlled the Anatolian iron supply, and Anatolian iron seems to have had a very superior reputation in its day - Midas becoming rich when he had the monopoly because nobody wanted iron from anywhere else.  It may not have been entirely up to Viking standards but it seems to have been close, as far as I can judge without actual surviving implements.

As Duncan has pointed out, the bit about hoplite lines drifting right comes from Thucydides' description of First Mantinea (418 BC).  However Hellenica IV.2 is useful in other ways (see below).

Now back to agreeing ...

Quote
I at least, for one, would like to see Greek hoplites in deep formations on the tables of conventions, and not spread out in two-rank deep lines like so many basket-weaving Persians.

And presumably most importantly see them gaining some benefit for such a deep formation as opposed to simply blocking each other's retreats.

Quote from: Dave Knight on March 02, 2015, 02:39:13 PM
I would have thought that there would be a generally accepted normal depth - the Thebans then did something new by going deeper against the Spartans.

Yes and no - the Athenians deployed eight deep and the Thebans 25 deep at Delium (Thucydides IV.93-94).  Interestingly, Thucydides remarks of Thebes' allies: "The others were drawn up in varying formation," which might explain why the Thespians held when the contingents to the left and right of them were broken.

Hellenica IV.2 also illustrates a degree of diversity on this point:

"But while they were negotiating about the leadership and trying to come to an agreement with one another as to the number of ranks in depth in which the whole army should be drawn up, in order to prevent the states from making their phalanxes too deep and thus giving the enemy a chance of surrounding them ..." - IV.2.13

"Now the Boeotians, so long as they occupied the left wing, were not in the least eager to join battle; but when13 the Athenians took position opposite the Lacedaemonians, and the Boeotians themselves got the right wing and were stationed opposite the Achaeans, they immediately said that the sacrifices were favourable and gave the order to make ready, saying that there would be a battle. And in the first place, disregarding the sixteen-rank formation, they made their phalanx exceedingly deep, and, besides, they also veered to the right in leading the advance, in order to outflank the enemy with their wing; and the Athenians, in order not to be detached from the rest of the line, followed them towards the right, although they knew that there was danger of their being surrounded." - IV.2.18

The half-sentence in bold is the one Rob remembered about deliberately veering.

Quote from: Duncan Head on March 02, 2015, 02:41:21 PM

... This argues that even Spartan hoplites are very imperfectly drilled, since they apparently cannot prevent this automatic drift - even if they sometimes manage to take advantage of it.

This assumes that someone might actually wish to prevent such drift; if not, it does not really reflect upon their drill status.  One may note that Spartan contingents were able to peel off and move leftward during an advance - even if some declined to do so when ordered at First Mantinea, thus compromising those who did.

Quote from: Duncan Head on March 02, 2015, 02:51:58 PM


There is also a fourth camp, or perhaps "camp 1A": Christopher Matthew argues that "othismos" is sometimes meant literally, and sometimes figuratively; that in some circumstances two phalanxes would end up pushing shield to shield, but the physical push was not a universal, nor even a particularly common, feature of hoplite battles.

of which I currently am sitting in as it stands

I'm going to resist the temptation to re-assert all the above (and, I suspect, previous) arguments concerning the function of the deep phalanx in the pre-wobbly pole era and....<nnnnggghh!> move <nnnnnngggyrrrrrghhh> on <phew>.

Perhaps a ruleset could allow for such 'conventional' factors relating to hoplites as long spears when facing non-hoplites. In such encounters, normal spear mechanics would apply (cavalry gets shafted when attacking stationary spears frontally, not long spear vs long spear suffers penalty, two ranks fully contribute to combat outcome etc.). However, the front of the phalanx would be substantially armoured. Maybe not at the sides and rear, but definitely to the front in the kind of open ground that all hoplite generals tried to fight in. When not in phalanx or if disordered, then the armour level would decrease significantly. Remember that the whole point of the aspis is that half of it protected the neighbour. When it cannot, the hoplite is half exposed.

This raises the issue of whether even the left flank of the hoplite phalanx can be regarded as shielded. The shield is needed to face the front, not the side, and turning such a massive dome of wood and metal to protect the side would at best be inhibited by the man in front and at worst prevent the othismos effect when in use. Later wobbly pole phalanxes had lighter shields BUT the weapon needed both hands for use.

The other, more common manner in which the phalanx would break up into more conventional armoured spearmen would be in pursuit (and rout as well I suppose). Xenophon again writes in the same book about what happens when such hoplites are caught by a formed phalanx- they are lesser men destined for stomping.

The phalanx is more than a concentration of men- it is a machine with a sole purpose executing practised drills. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Metaphors and artistic conventions! Tuh! <damn, nearly made it to the end>

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 02, 2015, 08:51:33 PM
As usual, I generally agree with Rob's thoughts, though

Quote from: Rob Miles on March 02, 2015, 02:12:45 PM
Viking steel would have seemed like Martian death-rays to the Hittites.

It might not: the men of Hatti periodically controlled the Anatolian iron supply, and Anatolian iron seems to have had a very superior reputation in its day - Midas becoming rich when he had the monopoly because nobody wanted iron from anywhere else.  It may not have been entirely up to Viking standards but it seems to have been close, as far as I can judge without actual surviving implements.

The reason I picked on the Hittites was precisely because of their regional supremacy in metal working (learned from the Babylonians). Viking steel was often 'crucible' steel imported via the Volga which was unknown in most of Europe even several hundred years afterwards. Nothing any race of Biblical era could have done would have got a fire THAT hot (IIRC the Indians were the first with their clever valve system in their bellows), never mind make the transition to high-carbon steel. A Hittite would be proud of his iron sword. He would then have watched it get sheared in two by a Viking sword. Hence Martian death-ray analogy.

Quote from: Rob Miles on March 09, 2015, 02:26:58 PM
Nothing any race of Biblical era could have done would have got a fire THAT hot

Daniel 3:19

"Then Nebuchadnezzar was so filled with rage against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego that his face was distorted. He ordered the furnace to be heated up seven times more than was customary ..."

One of these modern translations.  But you get the idea.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 09, 2015, 09:11:06 PM


Daniel 3:19

"Then Nebuchadnezzar was so filled with rage against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego that his face was distorted. He ordered the furnace to be heated up seven times more than was customary ..."

One of these modern translations.  But you get the idea.

Ah, but whenever a Hebrew writer uses the number 7, he means any number up to 7. And, probably, quite a few above it.

Suffice to say they had the furnace - quite a big one too, if three men and one deity could stroll around inside it.  So I think they could manage enough heat - they had enough to kill the stokers.

It is a trivial point anyway, but Biblical era metalwork should not be underrated, particularly if that clever chap Tubal-Cain left any of his secrets lying around.  Or if anyone actually did start alloying chromium - obtainable from Asia Minor - with iron or steel (as opposed to simply plating weapons with it, as per the Terracotta Army).  Intertestingly, Jeremiah 15:12 has:

"Shall iron (brzl) break northern iron (brzl m'tzphun) and steel (u'nchshth*)?"

This suggests that 'northern iron' had a superior quality, rendering it effectively unbreakable - at least by ordinary iron.

*Hebrew 'necosheth' is usually used to mean copper or bronze.  Here it presumably means something different: the King James translator opted for 'steel'.  This may or may not be correct, but it probably signifies an alloy.

But enough about metallurgy.  Is there anything we need to add about the hoplite phalanx?

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 10, 2015, 05:34:40 PMBut enough about metallurgy.  Is there anything we need to add about the hoplite phalanx?

That they were made of iron men with wills of steel and hearts of gold?

Not sure if thread Necromancy is appropriate, but Rich layed out his objections to othismos so clearly that I thought it deserved a reply:

Quote from: RichT on February 02, 2015, 02:40:20 PMI think it's worth spelling out the case(s) against the 'traditional interpretation' ie that hoplites fought by literally pushing each other en masse, and that deep formations beat shallower ones because they pushed harder. Cases grouped thematically.

Historical
A- sources refer to hoplites fighting each other with weapons (spears, swords) rather than just being jammed together.
B- sources refer to pushing as a part of such fighting, by individuals.
C- sources don't clearly refer to a pushing phase separate from a fighting phase, or to any mass push.
D- there are several occasions were sources are clear that being pressed closely together (and unable to use weapons properly) was a bad thing and made the force so pressed very vulnerable.

A-Because the right arm is free in othismos, as we showed in our recreation, there can be no doubt that men could fight as well as push. One of the funnier arguments I have heard is that they should use knives rather than swords if there were othismos. The answer is yes, and Xenophon tells us they did at Coronea.
B- If there is fighting, as described above, then an individual can be the focus of such for his apt killing.
C- See above.  You can't really have pushing without fighting, because if you are not fighting actively, you are being stabbed by your foe- this is not a game.
D-Yes, when othismos does not begin as part of battle- as when jammed trying to get through a gate, or when not a hoplite with an aspis and an expectation of fighting at this spacing- as with Procopius's standing dead men.

Quote from: RichT on February 02, 2015, 02:40:20 PMComparative
A- in no other period of history for which we have good evidence do we see men fighting by pushing each other en masse.
B- in periods in which there definitely was no pushing en masse (eg 18th-19th Century) deep formations could still prove more effective than shallow ones (line v. column).
C- Macedonian pike phalanxes formed deep (and presumably gained some advantage from doing so) but it is hard to believe they could have pushed with the weight of 16 men along a pike shaft, or what would have happened to the enemy force (or both forces in the case of phalanx v. phalanx) facing pikes pushed with such force.
D- a deep formation could be harder to resist, and harder to defeat, for reasons other than pushing. Polybius gives the reasons for the Macedonian depth - rear ranks prevented the front ranks from fleeing (so making the formation harder to defeat), and pressed on those ahead by their presence (which doesn't necessarily mean pushed them in melee), making the formation easier to keep moving forward.

A-We do in fact see it in a number of cases, such as the Roman advance at Zama, but it is always ephemeral because would be crushed without an aspis.
B- Sure, but a negative analogy is not as strong as a positive one. Its like saying that Swiss pikemen did not use shields, so there is no reason sarissaphoroi did.  The notion that depth was ONLY about othismos is wrong in any case. There are many benefits to depth, such as ease of movement and morale that were being tapped into by Revolutionary French columns for example. An important note though is that the foes of the French usually ran before the column arrived.  Napoleonic columns were meant to deploy into 3 lines at close range.  Thus, I find Goldsworthy's argument for this untenable because hoplites had no deployment mechanism in the face of the enemy and were expected to actually fight.  Getting there the fastest with the moistest is useless if only 1/10 of your men can fight.
C-Considering that we know so little of what actually happened when two masses of 8 or 16 ranks pikemen met, I am not persuaded. Surely some pushing through the sarissa occurred when the point was buried in a shield. Perhaps enough to warrant depth.  But there are other good reasons for depth that have to do with the reach of the sarissa and the number of ranks that can enter battle simultaneously. If you have 8 ranks of sarissaphoroi, then more than half are engaged in active battle, whereas ¼ of an 8 rank hoplite phalanx are.
D-See above.

Quote from: RichT on February 02, 2015, 02:40:20 PMPractical
A- if the weight of a whole formation pushed at once, it should always have been obvious that very deep formations would be more effective than shallower ones, but deep formations were only adopted on occasion, and late in hoplite history, and were not always clearly superior (cf Leuctra).
B- if men were pressed together by a mass eight (or more deep) front and back they would have been unable to fight or move or do anything - think of a crowd crush.
C- if formations pushed en masse, shallower formations (or those made up of single fighters, like Romans) should have been brushed aside.
D- if the pushing phase was decisive (as the 'coming to othismos' theory suggests) why bother fighting - why did formations not just push from the outset?

A- This is something easily addressed and shown in our tests. There is a diminishing of returns for each man you add to file above around 12.  It is likely that the sustained force put out by 25 ranks is not that much higher than that of 12 ranks.  The benefit is in resisting backward movement of the file and in the production of random shockwaves.
B- We had no trouble fighting and pushing and surviving. The key is the role of the aspis in protecting your diaphragm and allowing you to breathe. Unless your shield collapses you cannot suffocate in a crowd if you have an aspis. Since your right arm is completely free, you can use it to fight.
C- You cannot enter othismos with any enemy who gives even one step of ground.  Othismos is a crowd-like crush and requires force be put on you from back and front. If your foe gives ground, you are not in othismos.  Essentially both sides have to want to be in othismos or be forced into such a crowd by being unable to give ground- as when the Persians had their shields on kick stands or buried in the ground.
D- Hoplites were spearmen, they fought with spears.  They did not othismos each other. Othismos was an outcome of battle, not an intention, and for most of the period it is no more likely to win than spear fencing. You cannot immediately enter othismos after a charge, it takes some time to all pack in, so there will always be a need to use spears. I do think we begin to see a shift with Pagondas. The Thebans appear to have been more conscious of coordinated pushing as a means to an end. If I had an army of famously large farm boys, who may be less adept with the dory than my Athenian or Spartan foes, I would favor this too.

Quote from: RichT on February 02, 2015, 02:40:20 PMLinguistic/cultural
A- references to pushing are as likely to be metaphorical as literal - after all, we still talk today in military contexts of one force pushing back another when there is certainly no physical contact.
B- Greek historians tended to describe battles in terms of mass, weight and pushing. Roman historians talk more of movement, contact and 'virtus'. This may represent differences in fighting techniques, or it could be a cultural difference that does not necessarily reflect battlefield differences.

A- My mind is crowded with responses to this, but when push comes to shove, I guess I would press on with the notion that the fact that something can be taken as metaphorical does not exclude its use as literal. Looking at the metaphorical uses actually support that the literal translation of the noun othismos is a crowded sate.
B-Or it could be because Greek historians knew that some battles came down to mass, weight, and pushing.

Quote from: RichT on February 02, 2015, 02:40:20 PMMy own view is that hoplites did not push each other en masse, they fought with weapons, but that in an encounter between two large, deep, close order formations there were crowd dynamics in play which meant a deeper formation might tend to advance and a shallower one tend to fall back and/or to fall apart. These dynamics were partly physical (to do with the tendency of a crowd to maintain forward momentum, without necessarily pushing scrum-style on its forward members), and partly psychological (more resistant to rout, safety in numbers). What's more I think these dynamics were not clearly understood at the time (just as the relative merits of line and column were not clearly understood in the late 18th C/Napoleonic period) - and are still not clearly understood today, of course.

With this is mostly agree.  What I would add is that sometimes crowd dynamics do lead to crowd on crowd contests of force generation.

Quote from: PMBardunias on June 27, 2018, 06:06:27 PM
B- We had no trouble fighting and pushing and surviving.

Ahem. You know reenactment 's not real, right?

Quote from: Dangun on July 19, 2018, 02:00:35 AM

Quote from: PMBardunias on June 27, 2018, 06:06:27 PM
B- We had no trouble fighting and pushing and surviving.

Ahem. You know reenactment 's not real, right?

But close enough bar dead bodies to get a good idea of how it worked.

Done well it can be very informative about what is practicable.

A lot isn't done well, but that's true of so many things in life  :o

Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 19, 2018, 07:23:54 AM


But close enough bar dead bodies to get a good idea of how it worked.

As Nik said, it depends how it's done and why.  Paul's experimental approach is at the rigorous end.  Many re-enactors are just there for fun.  Some base their methods on limited research or even a fictionalised, "Hollywood" versions of history. So, as all things, a critical approach to the evidence derived from re-enactment is required. 

Quote from: Erpingham on July 19, 2018, 08:37:17 AM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 19, 2018, 07:23:54 AM


But close enough bar dead bodies to get a good idea of how it worked.

As Nik said, it depends how it's done and why.  Paul's experimental approach is at the rigorous end.  Many re-enactors are just there for fun.  Some base their methods on limited research or even a fictionalised, "Hollywood" versions of history. So, as all things, a critical approach to the evidence derived from re-enactment is required.

Outside our period but by way of example many of  ECW re-enactors seemed to be playing rugby with pikes.

Quote from: Flaminpig0 on July 19, 2018, 11:53:27 AM

Quote from: Erpingham on July 19, 2018, 08:37:17 AM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 19, 2018, 07:23:54 AM


But close enough bar dead bodies to get a good idea of how it worked.

As Nik said, it depends how it's done and why.  Paul's experimental approach is at the rigorous end.  Many re-enactors are just there for fun.  Some base their methods on limited research or even a fictionalised, "Hollywood" versions of history. So, as all things, a critical approach to the evidence derived from re-enactment is required.

Outside our period but by way of example many of  ECW re-enactors seemed to be playing rugby with pikes.

Yes, they have to raise their pikes before closing in order not to poke out the eyes of their opponents.

Quote from: Flaminpig0 on July 19, 2018, 11:53:27 AM
Outside our period but by way of example many of  ECW re-enactors seemed to be playing rugby with pikes.

Indeed - the ECW 'push of pike' re-enactment is a warning that just because something 'works' when done by reenactors, it doesn't mean it ever actually happened. What reenactment can do is rule out impossibilities (or rule in possibilities - such as that an eight deep scrum doesn't squash to death those in the front rank (at least not when pushing against a tree)). Incidentally how deep do ECW push of pike reenactments ever go? The videos I've seen seem to be just a few ranks (four or so) - but they seem to indicate that death by squashing isn't a problem, even without an aspis.

Quote from: RichT on July 19, 2018, 12:49:35 PM

Quote from: Flaminpig0 on July 19, 2018, 11:53:27 AM
Outside our period but by way of example many of  ECW re-enactors seemed to be playing rugby with pikes.

Indeed - the ECW 'push of pike' re-enactment is a warning that just because something 'works' when done by reenactors, it doesn't mean it ever actually happened. What reenactment can do is rule out impossibilities (or rule in possibilities - such as that an eight deep scrum doesn't squash to death those in the front rank (at least not when pushing against a tree)). Incidentally how deep do ECW push of pike reenactments ever go? The videos I've seen seem to be just a few ranks (four or so) - but they seem to indicate that death by squashing isn't a problem, even without an aspis.

From my distant experience, about four deep is right but I've been in big "tercios" maybe two or three regiments deep, so 8-12. The pike held at porte helps stop the crush but getting your arm stuck between two hurts.

The raised pike thing does indeed stop a lot off accidents and is great fun but the fact the SK called them "pushes" confused many over the meaning of "push of pike".  It's so long ago now that the living history/ authentic recreation stuff  was just coming in but this area of the re-enactment societies can help with understanding and generates a lot of detailed research e.g. into clothing patterns which may not have occur otherwise.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 19, 2018, 07:23:54 AM
But close enough bar dead bodies to get a good idea of how it worked.

I don't think so.

It just adds another level of uncertainty. Quite apart from ontological problems, its hard enough to understand whether, or to what degree, the sources reflect reality. Its even harder to make the case for the relevance of reenactment because the reenactment might neither reflect the source nor reality.

Quote from: Dangun on July 19, 2018, 03:27:09 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 19, 2018, 07:23:54 AM
But close enough bar dead bodies to get a good idea of how it worked.

I don't think so.

It just adds another level of uncertainty. Quite apart from ontological problems, its hard enough to understand whether, or to what degree, the sources reflect reality. Its even harder to make the case for the relevance of reenactment because the reenactment might neither reflect the source nor reality.

I would tend to agree with you- we can't factor in how an actual fear of death or being maimed would impact on a persons actions.

Quote from: Dangun on July 19, 2018, 03:27:09 PM
Quite apart from ontological problems, its hard enough to understand whether, or to what degree, the sources reflect reality. Its even harder to make the case for the relevance of reenactment because the reenactment might neither reflect the source nor reality.

One can simplify the ontology and self-inflicted doubts by finding out
1) What works in real life
2) Can we make things work in the manner described in the sources?

Paul's experimental work does this.  He does not claim that it necessarily 'proves' othismos, only that it disproves the objections usually offered.  I cannot see any fault with his assertions there.  Meanwhile, if anyone has a better understanding of what happened when hoplite formations met, we would very much like to hear from you.

Quote from: Dangun on July 19, 2018, 02:00:35 AM

Quote from: PMBardunias on June 27, 2018, 06:06:27 PM
B- We had no trouble fighting and pushing and surviving.

Ahem. You know reenactment 's not real, right?

Thanks to those who came to my defense. In general though, this is quite true, and I have been quite skeptical myself towards the assertions of reenactors. I am just as hard on someone who play fights with a padded spear that cannot target the face or hands but thinks they know combat as I am on those who opine on the limitations of a hoplite shield in combat who have never picked one up. One of the things I push is that sharp weapons change everything when it comes to fighting vs play fighting. Not only behaviorally, fear, but physically, weapons get stuck if you prod shields for example.

I think Patrick has hit it on the head though, done properly reenactment cannot say "hoplites did this", but they can counter "hoplites could not do this".  Take the comment you quoted for example. Many authors have argued against othismos by saying: A) men could not push as a mass, B) if they did the force would squash and kill men, and c) men cannot push and fight at the same time.  If I fit out 4 men and hoplites and have them push against each other or some immovable object like a wall and they generate a half a ton of force but do not die, then this informs us that it can be done by humans in as accurate a panoply as we can recreate. If those men can slap each other in the head while pushing, then they could fight.  There are plenty of reasons they might not do it, it is terrifying and brutal, but these are behavioral reasons, not physical limitations.

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 20, 2018, 12:04:09 AM
done properly reenactment cannot say "hoplites did this", but they can counter "hoplites could not do this".

Could is interesting.
But as you said, its not evidence of anything historical.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 19, 2018, 07:07:43 PM
Paul's experimental work does this.  He does not claim that it necessarily 'proves' othismos, only that it disproves the objections usually offered.  I cannot see any fault with his assertions there. 

I can.
Reenactment does not prove what historical hoplites, "could" do.
It proves what 21st century reenacters can do.
You then have to demonstrate that the exercise is: 1) accurate; and 2) relevant, neither of which is trivial.

Quote from: Dangun on July 20, 2018, 12:35:11 AM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 19, 2018, 07:07:43 PM
Paul's experimental work does this.  He does not claim that it necessarily 'proves' othismos, only that it disproves the objections usually offered.  I cannot see any fault with his assertions there. 

I can.
Reenactment does not prove what historical hoplites, "could" do.
It proves what 21st century reenacters can do.
You then have to demonstrate that the exercise is: 1) accurate; and 2) relevant, neither of which is trivial.

I would agree if you can show that modern humans are in some way fundamentally different from hoplites physically.

While I agree your criteria are non-trivial, I do not agree they are insurmountable. As for accuracy, we know quite a bit about the form and function of elements of panoply. The dimensions and construction of the aspis for example in the case of my study. Relevance is irrelevant if I am just disproving what someone else says is impossible. Historians have by and large set up the standards for the relevance of these arguments. Othismos for example may be a complete lark, but it is relevant if it is one of the main theories on hoplite combat. My work has also shown why charging into othismos is unlikely for example. The orthodox theory was that hoplites charged into battle because this gave them an advantage in pushing and/or they could not stop once the charge set in motion. I have shown both to be wrong when tested with humans.

There are two things in here at least, so I'll separate them.

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 20, 2018, 03:05:26 AM
As for accuracy, we know quite a bit about the form and function of elements of panoply. The dimensions and construction of the aspis for example in the case of my study.

Yes. Equipment is the easy bit. Thankfully it lies around in the archaeological record.
But there is still a lot we don't know - the uniformity of equipment, the weight and flex of wood etc.
But its likely we can get this close.

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 20, 2018, 03:05:26 AM
I would agree if you can show that modern humans are in some way fundamentally different from hoplites physically.

They are physically different. Larger for a start. But again, we can adjust for this. Again, we'll get close.

But we know far less about a lot of other things that make it near impossible to faithfully reenact, e.g. training, role of combat, duration of combat, intensity of combat, conspicuous lack of lethality, risk perception, consequences of failure, training, doctrine, command etc. etc. etc.

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 20, 2018, 03:05:26 AM
My work has also shown why charging into othismos is unlikely for example... The orthodox theory was that hoplites charged into battle because this gave them an advantage in pushing and/or they could not stop once the charge set in motion. I have shown both to be wrong when tested with humans.

Here you overstate your case.
You have not shown either of your two claims, because you have not demonstrated that your reenactment is a faithful representation of history.
Admittedly, given the sources, this is a very tall order, but I don't sense you are engaging with the topic at all. I hear you reiterating that reenactment = history, reenactment = history.

This might sound like boring methodological nitpicking, but I don't think its pedantry? Another example...

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 20, 2018, 03:05:26 AM
Relevance is irrelevant if I am just disproving what someone else says is impossible.

The claim someone else has made is about history, not about reenactment, so you really do need to establish the accuracy of your 21st reenactment to make the argument compelling.

I think we need to consider exactly what we are or are not trying to prove.

Quote from: Dangun on July 20, 2018, 04:14:36 AM
But we know far less about a lot of other things that make it near impossible to faithfully reenact, e.g. training, role of combat, duration of combat, intensity of combat, conspicuous lack of lethality, risk perception, consequences of failure, training, doctrine, command etc. etc. etc.

So how far are these factors going to change the amount and nature of force applied by a file of men in a  push?  Please explain how they would affect the force generated.

Quote
You have not shown either of your two claims, because you have not demonstrated that your reenactment is a faithful representation of history.

Turning this around, nobody has demonstrated that Paul's re-enactment is not a 'faithful representation of history' in considerations that matter, nor specified which elements of 'faithfulness' actually have a bearing on the question of force exerted by a file of men in hoplite equipment.

QuoteAdmittedly, given the sources, this is a very tall order, but I don't sense you are engaging with the topic at all. I hear you reiterating that reenactment = history, reenactment = history.

Not the impression I get; this sounds like a mis-statement, misrepresentation and oversimplification of Paul's findings:
The orthodox theory was that hoplites charged into battle because this gave them an advantage in pushing and/or they could not stop once the charge set in motion. I have shown both to be wrong when tested with humans.

QuoteThis might sound like boring methodological nitpicking, but I don't think its pedantry?

To me it seems more like redefinition beyond the scope of effective meaning.  Setting up 'history' and 're-enactment' as opposite poles and assigning any relatively modern conjecture to 'history' and any modern experimentation to 're-enactment' seems to be loose thinking and an invalid way of approaching problems.

Quote

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 20, 2018, 03:05:26 AM
Relevance is irrelevant if I am just disproving what someone else says is impossible.

The claim someone else has made is about history, not about reenactment, so you really do need to establish the accuracy of your 21st reenactment to make the argument compelling.

The claim is actually about the level of force exerted historically and its effects, not 'about history', and Paul's experimentation checks the level of force exerted and its effects.  This is an engineering, not a philosophical, challenge, and if there are any significant factors which would invalidate his results, they deserve specific mention.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 20, 2018, 06:16:19 AM
The claim is actually about the level of force exerted historically and its effects, not 'about history'

I disagree. I think Paul is clearly arguing for what historical hoplites could historically do.

Quote from: Dangun on July 20, 2018, 06:23:59 AM
I disagree. I think Paul is clearly arguing for what historical hoplites could historically do.

Ultimately, he (and I) would of course be interested in this.  And I would agree that if present-day humans wearing hoplite equipment can do this (i.e. exert a specific degree of force without being suffocated or crushed), then historical hoplites could do it.  There is no logical gap there that I can observe: as I said, it is essentially an engineering problem and not a philosophical one.

Is there any objection to finding out what historical hoplites could have done in this or any other respect, assuming no significant differences between them and their modern counterparts?

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 20, 2018, 06:33:24 AM

Is there any objection to finding out what historical hoplites could have done in this or any other respect, assuming no significant differences between them and their modern counterparts?

Assuming a well-established experiment, picking up parameters like authentic equipment already discussed, the main issues seem to be the applicability of the methodology to the real situation and, most importantly, the interpretation of results.  It seems to me that Paul has quite a good handle the limitations of his study, even if on the subjective side of how it relates to othismos, I don't know if I agree.  I am more concerned as always of how people may snatch at his carefully contextualised results and misapply them to support a pet theory (not just referring to the forum btw).  I think this is a risk of all sorts of experiments and re-enactments, though.

Perhaps the wider issues of the value and difficulties of re-enactment, reconstructions and experimental archaeology as evidence deserve a separate thread.

Quote from: Erpingham on July 20, 2018, 08:57:29 AMI am more concerned as always of how people may snatch at his carefully contextualised results and misapply them to support a pet theory (not just referring to the forum btw).  I think this is a risk of all sorts of experiments and re-enactments, though.

I'm not sure that's a real risk. If Paul hadn't carried out his experiments, I'm expect the pet theorists would have found something else for support.

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on July 20, 2018, 09:37:05 AM

Quote from: Erpingham on July 20, 2018, 08:57:29 AMI am more concerned as always of how people may snatch at his carefully contextualised results and misapply them to support a pet theory (not just referring to the forum btw).  I think this is a risk of all sorts of experiments and re-enactments, though.

I'm not sure that's a real risk. If Paul hadn't carried out his experiments, I'm expect the pet theorists would have found something else for support.

Yes, the joy of pet theorists is that they'll take what they want and if you didn't do the work, they'd claim it was a conspiracy and that would be used as proof they were right  :-[

Paul's experiments can't tell us what hoplites actually did historically. What his experiments do is provide evidence to counter one of the theoretical objections to one of the theoretical versions of what hoplites might have done, by showing that an eight deep scrum wouldn't crush the front ranks to death, assuming that the differences in physique, equipment etc aren't significant, or can be allowed for.

What interests me is Anthony's comment on the deep SK pushes, which seem to me to provide evidence that deep formations could push in this way even if they didn't have aspides - which seems interesting given that it is often said that the form and function of the aspis was specifically to prevent death by crushing. Comments?

Quote from: RichT on July 20, 2018, 10:49:52 AM
Paul's experiments can't tell us what hoplites actually did historically. What his experiments do is provide evidence to counter one of the theoretical objections to one of the theoretical versions of what hoplites might have done, by showing that an eight deep scrum wouldn't crush the front ranks to death, assuming that the differences in physique, equipment etc aren't significant, or can be allowed for.

What interests me is Anthony's comment on the deep SK pushes, which seem to me to provide evidence that deep formations could push in this way even if they didn't have aspides - which seems interesting given that it is often said that the form and function of the aspis was specifically to prevent death by crushing. Comments?

science proved that the bumblebee cannot fly and that if trains went more than 20mph the air would be sucked out, suffocating the passengers
Sometimes you have to do things to show what really happens  8)

Quote from: RichT on July 20, 2018, 10:49:52 AM
What interests me is Anthony's comment on the deep SK pushes, which seem to me to provide evidence that deep formations could push in this way even if they didn't have aspides - which seems interesting given that it is often said that the form and function of the aspis was specifically to prevent death by crushing. Comments?

I wouldn't want to mislead but I can't see how SK reenactments would have continued for so long if their main entertainment was deadly dangerous.  If looking for killing crushes, I'd look at sporting disasters, or incidents on Hajj to see what the parameters of a killing crush were.

I'm reaching back numerous years now to recall what it was like to be in those pushes.  I think, though, it was important in the front ranks to be pushed against other people not a solid surface. There was a degree of intermeshing you could do with the opposite front rank to give a bit more space.  There was little you and your opposite number could do except push and banter.  And, of course, try not to fall over.  falling over was the dangerous bit.  The one big push when we were very deep that I remember was subject to a massive collapse.  I nearly broke my arm and three people were stretchered off.  Pushes collapsing was common.

Looking back on those SK pushes, it is obvious that the scrum model cannot have been used on a real battlefield.  The front ranks can't engage in anything other than staying upright, a task at which they regularly fail.  This doesn't fit descriptions of real pike fighting, even those where the rear ranks were supposed to push against the man in front (the non-foyning ones).  I suspect, from descriptions we have of battlefield "compression" that normal melee in other periods, while it could be compact, was equally unscrumlike.

Quote from: Jim Webster on July 20, 2018, 11:28:29 AM

if trains went more than 20mph the air would be sucked out, suffocating the passengers
Sometimes you have to do things to show what really happens  8)

Thats why I wont go by train, plus what happens when the train reaches the end of the earth and falls off?

Quote from: Dangun on July 20, 2018, 06:23:59 AM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 20, 2018, 06:16:19 AM
The claim is actually about the level of force exerted historically and its effects, not 'about history'

I disagree. I think Paul is clearly arguing for what historical hoplites could historically do.

Well, if I am disproving arguments against a theory, I am de facto arguing for it, but I have consistently written that without a time machine we cannot know what hoplites did. Do you discount all experimental archaeology? I find Barry Molloy's casting of bronze swords and testing their use quite interesting, for example. 

Here is an example of the reason I conducted these tests. When Chris Mathew wrote his book, I kept waiting for a backlash because his main thesis is in fact a failure of reenactment and the anachronistic application of Hellenistic drill to hoplites. To address many of the  problems I saw with his book, and to attempt to clear up and reconcile issues going back to the Hansonites vs the Van Weesies, I did experimentation and wrote my book.  But he did also directly refer to my theory, see attached for snippets from his book.  These are the types of statements I set out to falsify. My results show that you can generate great force with files of men and the aspis does not interfere, rear rankers do transfer force forward through files, neither men nor shields were harmed in anyway (though a porpax was bent), and med can charge a long distance and simply pull up short at spear range rather than being carried into the opposing ranks.

Quote from: RichT on July 20, 2018, 10:49:52 AM
Paul's experiments can't tell us what hoplites actually did historically. What his experiments do is provide evidence to counter one of the theoretical objections to one of the theoretical versions of what hoplites might have done, by showing that an eight deep scrum wouldn't crush the front ranks to death, assuming that the differences in physique, equipment etc aren't significant, or can be allowed for.

What interests me is Anthony's comment on the deep SK pushes, which seem to me to provide evidence that deep formations could push in this way even if they didn't have aspides - which seems interesting given that it is often said that the form and function of the aspis was specifically to prevent death by crushing. Comments?

We would have to test the pushing forces generated. They could be far less than those involved imagine.  When some of our guys tried very hard to push, but not in the proper manner, they generated enough force to feel squished, but not enough to kill. The key is to recreate the crowd disasters that Anthony referenced intentionally.  When we pushed in that fashion, forces skyrocketed. We had some come off their feet.  It is interesting that a line of overlapping aspides presents exactly the type of "wall" that disallows intermeshing that Anthony cautioned against.

Quote from: Holly on July 20, 2018, 01:42:01 PM

Quote from: Jim Webster on July 20, 2018, 11:28:29 AM

if trains went more than 20mph the air would be sucked out, suffocating the passengers
Sometimes you have to do things to show what really happens  8)

Thats why I wont go by train, plus what happens when the train reaches the end of the earth and falls off?

Northern rail appear to have been running experiments which may answer your question  ;D

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 20, 2018, 03:26:25 PMWell, if I am disproving arguments against a theory, I am de facto arguing for it, but I have consistently written that without a time machine we cannot know what hoplites did. Do you discount all experimental archaeology?

If you prefer... we could say: the claim you are trying to falsify is a historical claim, so yes...

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 20, 2018, 03:26:25 PMI find Barry Molloy's casting of bronze swords and testing their use quite interesting, for example. 

The bronze casting is also an interesting example, but you have a much more difficult task.  :) Barry Molloy's task is easier because he has a historical object against which to test results. I am not familiar with what his objective is, so please excuse my ignorance, but we can't dig othismos out of the ground for us to compare with your experimentation. All we have is a squidgy word and some less than explicit literary sources.

Quote from: Dangun on July 21, 2018, 12:41:59 AM
All we have is a squidgy word and some less than explicit literary sources.

Before Jim says it, I shall point out this is about par for much of history. :)

And these are what we call clues.  From these clues we can work out various possibilities for the 'howdunnit' and test them, or at least test important considerations which arise during thought experimentation.  This provides us with a list of things which could and could not have been done - if the testing is carefully arranged.  Hence Paul's experiments turn squidge into substance.

I would point out that when we have words of ambiguous or extensive meaning, a good way to find their application is to work back from the tactics and military logic of the situation (a sort of non-statistical Bayesian approach).  Hence our knowledge of Hellenic organisation and practice plus accounts of what actually happened - organisation by files, forcing back enemy battlelines, exhortations for a push, even snapping spears and shoving shields - enable us to deduce something of what is going on in a situation where an author uses 'othismos' in the context of a battle.

Without trying to offend anybody I'd say re-enactment is up there on a par with textual analysis of ancient sources and archaeology.
All can provide answers, but none will provide all the answers and not all the answers people come up with when using the techniques will be correct because they're asking the wrong question  :-[

I read the re-enactor who knows his or her stuff with the same interest that I read the new translation by somebody who has done work in the field of ancient warfare.

QuoteHence our knowledge of Hellenic organisation and practice plus accounts of what actually happened - organisation by files, forcing back enemy battlelines, exhortations for a push, even snapping spears and shoving shields - enable us to deduce something of what is going on in a situation where an author uses 'othismos' in the context of a battle.

Quote

But as we have seen, despite this and the deployment of analogy and experimental information, we can fundamentally disagree.  Unlike some of our othr disagreements, where there is clear consensus and one or two vocal dissenters, this one is where people who are actually know the subject disagree.  The best we cando is to reveal the evidence as well as we can, rule out the impossible and come to a conclusion based on what we see, accepting others weigh evidence differently.

I worry about reenactment much as I worry about archaeology. Both tend to claiming hard fact  because their conclusions are backed by different types of physical evidence.
Long ago I recall a reenactor stateing that Vikings must have used a small shield strapped to the left arm because he had fought that way with a Viking swird and it was the most effective style. Similarly there are those who claim that Late Roman darts were thrown underarm because that would give the greatest range and would gain most momentum when finally travelling on tge down curve and would be over opponet's shields. Quite how the second to eighth ranks behind the first deployed their darts and avoided rank one or how these underarm dart throwers maintained a cohesive formation when needing a clear distance between ranks for the underarm darts to rise above six feet I do not understand. Yet reenactors who are mtivated by the desire to see function follow form and to say something new still claim underarm.
Much as I appreciate the colour that the SK brings to reenacting the ECW I still cannot understand how push of pije worked in real life without mutual mass death amongst pikemen stabbed in the face. Had the armourers addressed such a task they would surely have come up with facemask helmets for the pikemen.We  have one description of both sides in a mid sixteenth century pike coash ( when they had massive units of pike) placing arquebusiers in a second rank so as to gain an advantage with a point blank volley.....As both sides did it the  destruction of the first ranks was mutual. That sort of tells us that , had there been no arquebusiers there would not have been such destruction. We imagine the pike phalanx smacking into its target, like a steamroller, but perhaps it didn't. With Romans the Romans appear to have fallen back in front of tge pikes a considerable distance. Against other pikes, maybe the phalanx stopped and sparred, perhaps they skilfully caught opposing pike on their shields. If they just ran at each ither then I don't see  how Alexander's veterans got to be seventy and still fighting because even raw recruits in a dense formation of pike would kill just by holding their weapons level and running in.
Reenactment has its part to play, reconstructing a Mary Rose bow and having a trained archer shoot it at short range against a reconstructed armour plate tells us someting about potential, but it won't tell us at what range Henry's archers opened up abd why the bow which had been so potent a weapon 100 years before was laughed at by the French in 1513.
I thought Paul B's illustration if an aspis held centrally most illuminating. If we cannot trust how an aspis was held and thus how the weapon system functioned then what is certain?
Roy

Out of interest are  there any examples of othismos being used in connection with thureophoroi ?

Quote from: Flaminpig0 on July 21, 2018, 10:56:42 AM
Out of interest are  there any examples of othismos being used in connection with thureophoroi ?

An interesting question - perhaps Paul or Rich could answer that.  It is certainly of used of non-aspis bearers.

In relation to Roy's points I think it suggests we need a re-enactment - what is it good for thread to do it justice.  But a couple of points :

The usefulness of re-enactment data follows the old rule "Rubbish in, rubbish out".  My experience in the SK has very, very limited relevance to ECW pike fighting.  All it really taught me was the unsuitability of mass scrumming militarily.

Most combat reenactments for our period, perhaps because they date from a rather more mature period in re-enactments history, try to at least look more accurate.  But H&S rules cause serious limitations to authenticity.  If you've ever seen medieval reenactors poking each other with bills and halberds, as opposed to bringing them down on heads and shoulders withthe leverage of an 8ft haft, you'll know what i mean.

There can't really be any xcuse for saying Vikings used shields strapped to their arms - we know how Viking-type shields were held both from images and surviving artefacts.  Again,if you don't use authentic kit, your findings as a re-enactor will be of limited value and potentially misleading.

As to the realities of pike fighting, we know quite a bit of this.  Our frind Sir John Smythe, for example, explains it in some detail.  But that's another discussion. :)

And Macedonian pike fighting appears to have differed somewhat from the 17th century variety, perhaps not least owing to the absence of musketeers and battlefield artillery.

Anthony makes an excellent point about the influence of initial assumptions.  This is where we have to be most careful when attempting to re create a military system or part of it.  Whatever we distort in our input will lead to distortion in our output - not necessarily of everything in the output, but certainly of the aspects directly influenced by the tampered-with input.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 21, 2018, 08:11:29 PMAnthony makes an excellent point about the influence of initial assumptions.

Yep.
But equipment is not the only assumption.
And possible never means probable.

Quote from: Dangun on July 22, 2018, 02:19:35 AM
But equipment is not the only assumption.

Naturally. :)  Frontage, depth, closing speed, spear holding position - all of these contribute, and that is not an exhaustive list.  We can address each of these individually (our sources, written and archaeological, give clues ranging from the enigmatic to the explicit) and sort them out as far as we can, and then, when the individual inputs seem to be working, we can have a go at the whole system.

We can also approach the whole system from the other end: known results.  Our sources give the occasional indication of what happened when hoplite phalanx A met hoplite phalanx B, and the sources also give their own explanations for the result (troop quality, formation advantage, care or carelessness in technique, overlapping and outflanking, discipline) which themselves can give useful insights into our unknowns.

In essence, the better we do at putting the whole spectrum of information to use and revealing patterns, the more we learn about the phenomenon of hoplite warfare.  Or anything else, for that matter.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 22, 2018, 06:02:04 AM

Quote from: Dangun on July 22, 2018, 02:19:35 AM
But equipment is not the only assumption.

Naturally. :)  Frontage, depth, closing speed, spear holding position - all of these contribute, and that is not an exhaustive list.

it's a very modern list
I suspect ancient authors would have put Virtus/arete first as the most important

Quote from: Flaminpig0 on July 21, 2018, 10:56:42 AM
Out of interest are  there any examples of othismos being used in connection with thureophoroi ?

The closest I can think of is the last push by the Romans at Zama, but obviously there are differences. We also do not know how close to othismos such pushes were. My guess is that there not sustained.  But we do have evidence that Thureophoroi fought in an opened manner never mentioned for hoplites in battle.  I think the whole point of Thureophoroi is that in abandoning the aspis, they abandoned othismos, which was suicidal for hoplites against sarissaphoroi.  From Polybios's description of mercenaries who were probably armed with the Thureos: Plb. 11.13 " in a very short time the whole of the mercenaries on either side were engaged. They fought sometimes in close order, sometimes in pairs: and for a long time so entirely without decisive result, that the rest of the two armies, who were watching in which direction the cloud of dust inclined, could come to no conclusion, because both sides maintained for a long while exactly their original ground."

Quote from: Dangun on July 21, 2018, 12:41:59 AM

The bronze casting is also an interesting example, but you have a much more difficult task.  :) Barry Molloy's task is easier because he has a historical object against which to test results. I am not familiar with what his objective is, so please excuse my ignorance, but we can't dig othismos out of the ground for us to compare with your experimentation. All we have is a squidgy word and some less than explicit literary sources.

Not really all that different. I am testing the physical properties of composite wood and linen facings and bone and muscle behind.  Squidgy words just set the backdrop for the testing. We test because academics have offered two exclusive hypothesis, a literal or figurative push.  There is not need to test a figurative push, we can stipulate that it can occur.  Now we can also prove that a literal push can occur.  Academics now must continue the argument without invoking incorrect assumptions.  We may still come to a consensus (unlikely) that there was no literal push, but we can no longer dismiss it based on unfounded claims.

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 22, 2018, 08:54:50 AM
Academics now must continue the argument without invoking incorrect assumptions... but we can no longer dismiss it based on unfounded claims.

You have just done it again and assumed, "reenactment = history."

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 22, 2018, 08:54:50 AM
Squidgy words just set the backdrop for the testing.

No. Squidgy words are one of only two options you have for building an argument to convince someone that your reenactment bears any resemblance to history. Until you do that, you are just larking around with pointy sticks and big bronze frisbees.

Quote from: Dangun on July 22, 2018, 02:47:12 PM

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 22, 2018, 08:54:50 AM
Academics now must continue the argument without invoking incorrect assumptions... but we can no longer dismiss it based on unfounded claims.

You have just done it again and assumed, "reenactment = history."

No, reenactment debunks false claims about history. Skeptics are free to dismiss othismos as an incorrect interpretation of sources.  They just cannot use the demonstrably false arguments, like men would be crushed or how could 12 ranks face 50, etc.  What I have done is a counter claims made without evidence by authors that are really not qualified to make them because they do not understand the underlying physics.

Quote from: Dangun on July 22, 2018, 02:47:12 PM

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 22, 2018, 08:54:50 AM
Squidgy words just set the backdrop for the testing.

No. Squidgy words are one of only two options you have for building an argument to convince someone that your reenactment bears any resemblance to history. Until you do that, you are just larking around with pointy sticks and big bronze frisbees.

My work has led to what I believe is a more accurate translation of the word othismos itself. I do not believe it directly means a big coordinated mass push to defeat a foe. I am not sure how well the Greeks themselves understood what was happening in othismos.  The word, a noun, simply refers to a situation where men are crowded and attempting to move forward.  We see it used as hoplites attempt to flee through a gate as in crowd disasters, and also figuratively as when in a debate the two sides reach a log jam in their argument. 

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 22, 2018, 04:54:01 PM


No, reenactment debunks false claims about history.

I think this is one thing reenactment can do in some circumstances. It can say, frankly, that "with various provisos, it seems very unlikely that this option is possible."
(Which is pretty much as good as it gets with a lot of history  :-[  )

It can also flag up options, "when using materials produced in as close to authentic conditions as we can manage, this now becomes possible."

There's also the. "Try living with option A and option B for three weeks and option B is the once people gradually reverted to.

None of it is definitive but it informs the debate.  Given that there is very little that is definitive, informing the debate is generally a good thing  8)

Quote from: Jim Webster on July 22, 2018, 05:01:09 PM

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 22, 2018, 04:54:01 PM


No, reenactment debunks false claims about history.

I think this is one thing reenactment can do in some circumstances. It can say, frankly, that "with various provisos, it seems very unlikely that this option is possible."
(Which is pretty much as good as it gets with a lot of history  :-[  )

It can also flag up options, "when using materials produced in as close to authentic conditions as we can manage, this now becomes possible."

There's also the. "Try living with option A and option B for three weeks and option B is the once people gradually reverted to.

None of it is definitive but it informs the debate.  Given that there is very little that is definitive, informing the debate is generally a good thing  8)

Much of the ability to falsify arguments hinges on how they are put forth.  If we take an argument like "when we see spears held overhand on vases they are being thrown", this can be debunked with a few images.  If the argument is "men will die and shields be crushed if men pushed", an experiment can counter this.  But an argument like "Othismos is not a mass coordinated push, but simply an intense period of fighting, where the promachoi may clash shields and even push at each other", I can do nothing to counter that.

Quote from: Erpingham on July 21, 2018, 11:08:46 AM

Quote from: Flaminpig0 on July 21, 2018, 10:56:42 AM
Out of interest are  there any examples of othismos being used in connection with thureophoroi ?

An interesting question - perhaps Paul or Rich could answer that.  It is certainly of used of non-aspis bearers.

Not specifically applied to thureophoroi, no.

Bear in mind (as I point out with tedious regularity) that the word 'othismos' is very rarely applied to anything (outside the pages of Procopius). The search is usually widened to any otheo- word, and in this case such words are applied to heavy infantry, elephants, ships, light infantry, walls etc although not AFAIK to thuerophoroi specifically - though it is generally very difficult to tell who is a thureophoros and who isn't. At any rate, there is no restriction to Argive aspis bearers.

Accepting the 'scrum;' othismos as fact I wonder if having multiple people pushing on a front ranker's back would make it difficult for the individual to defend himself , dodge blows etc.

I am not sure that hoplites would need to bother to dodge blows: they had a big shield to put in the way of trouble and a neighbour on each side with another big shield.  Having the pressure of a file behind them would indeed inhibit dodge options, and more importantly the ability temporarily to adjust their shield position or their own position relative to their shield, but this would be equally true of their opponents, and wielding weapons under such circumstances, while possible, presents its own challenges, because actually getting the sharp end into an opponent in a high-pressure situation is at least in theory fraught with problems of reach, constraint and aim.  So in the circumstances, simply shoving would be easier and more effective.  And coordinated shoving beats uncoordinated shoving any day.

So yes, othismotic pressure would reduce an individual's defensive capabilities, but would correspondingly reduce the ability of the opponent to inflict harm.

Quote from: Flaminpig0 on July 24, 2018, 11:18:42 PM
Accepting the 'scrum;' othismos as fact I wonder if having multiple people pushing on a front ranker's back would make it difficult for the individual to defend himself , dodge blows etc.

given that both sides are in a scrum, both front ranks would be so desperately trying to stay upright then I suspect their spears would be a damned nuisance  :-[

Not only that but if it was a scrum we'd have accounts in battles about when the scrum collapsed and scores of men if not more ended up in an embarrassing heap in the ground with any number of serious injuries

Whatever othismos was, I don't think we should even use the word 'scrum' because whatever our illustrious processors did when they were playing rugby, it's nothing like the sort of scrum we have.
It's nothing like a 'ruck' or a 'maul' either because those start off with half the participants on the ground.

If a hoplite battle degenerated into a scrum both sides had lost control

I will continue to use the word 'scrum'. It's an analogy, not an exact parallel - nobody suggests Greeks bent double and put their heads between the bottoms of the men in front (at least, not in battle).

As a matter of rugby terminology, in a maul nobody is on the ground - otherwise, it would be a ruck. I think maul might be a better analogy for the hoplite scrum than scrum, but that's a debatable point in itself. So I'll stick with scrum, which is the word that the originators of the theory used.

I agree about collapsing the scrum - I think it's a big problem with the theory (as it is with the game of rugby).

As to self defence in a scrum - it would not be reduced, it would impossible, so far as dodging and shield use are concerned. We talked about this with Paul Bardunias in the context of his reenactment experiments in this thread: http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=3276.0

To save time for the interested, I'll post relevant bits here:

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.

Me:

Quote
Fighting while pushing - is there anything a man in the front few ranks can do to avoid being stabbed in the face? "You would want to quickly bind up your foe's blade" - sorry, not sure what that means. If so stabbed and dead or dying in the file, how does this affect the dynamics of pushing? A man in such a state could I suppose still lean, but the direction of his lean would be somewhat undefined, and he could not participate actively. Would he be held up, dead but supported by those around him (like some of these othismos threads)?

PMB

Quote
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.

Me

Quote
OK understand - but you are assuming this would all be with swords/daggers - I would assume most men would still have their spears (why not?), and the reach of a spear would be several ranks back in such a packed formation.

PMB

Quote
I think the driving force to enter othismos was either being outmatched by your opponent, fatigue, or having your spear break (which happened often).  If you are facing a spearman who will kill you, you cannot easily fall back out of range, so the best bet is to close to within the reach of a 8' dory with about 5-6' of reach. We know for a fact that some men in battle ended up fighting shield on shield.  At this range a dory is useless, and the spearman must drop his spear and go to the sword if his opponent does.  One could imagine how this might propagate down the line like a zipper.  However it happened, I think it was only after this occurred that the rear ranks moved up to physically support the front. No one was ever thrust from behind into spears.

I'm still not convinced by any of this; others are. Take your pick (but - let's not just repeat conversations we have already had multiple times - the forum search tool works quite well).

Quote from: Jim Webster on July 25, 2018, 07:23:39 AM

Quote from: Flaminpig0 on July 24, 2018, 11:18:42 PM
Accepting the 'scrum;' othismos as fact I wonder if having multiple people pushing on a front ranker's back would make it difficult for the individual to defend himself , dodge blows etc.

given that both sides are in a scrum, both front ranks would be so desperately trying to stay upright then I suspect their spears would be a damned nuisance  :-[

Not only that but if it was a scrum we'd have accounts in battles about when the scrum collapsed and scores of men if not more ended up in an embarrassing heap in the ground with any number of serious injuries

Whatever othismos was, I don't think we should even use the word 'scrum' because whatever our illustrious processors did when they were playing rugby, it's nothing like the sort of scrum we have.
It's nothing like a 'ruck' or a 'maul' either because those start off with half the participants on the ground.

If a hoplite battle degenerated into a scrum both sides had lost control

Another consideration is that the societies leaders would be expected to be in the front rank; so the othismos would involve social inferiors bodily shoving their betters forward deeper into the enemy formation and corresponding danger whilst the latter having given up any ability to control their fate desperately try and remain upright. Sorry, I just don't find the 'scrum' othismos model at all convincing.

Quote from: Jim Webster on July 25, 2018, 07:23:39 AM
Not only that but if it was a scrum we'd have accounts in battles about when the scrum collapsed and scores of men if not more ended up in an embarrassing heap in the ground with any number of serious injuries

I agree.

The mosh pit is an illustrative experiences.
When several thousand closely packed people surge towards the stage, I have experienced hundreds of people falling down simultaneously.
It is frightening enough without someone trying to kill you with a pointy stick.

Quote from: RichT on July 25, 2018, 09:12:45 AM
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.

Me:

Quote
Fighting while pushing - is there anything a man in the front few ranks can do to avoid being stabbed in the face? "You would want to quickly bind up your foe's blade" - sorry, not sure what that means. If so stabbed and dead or dying in the file, how does this affect the dynamics of pushing? A man in such a state could I suppose still lean, but the direction of his lean would be somewhat undefined, and he could not participate actively. Would he be held up, dead but supported by those around him (like some of these othismos threads)?

PMB

Quote
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.

Me

Quote
OK understand - but you are assuming this would all be with swords/daggers - I would assume most men would still have their spears (why not?), and the reach of a spear would be several ranks back in such a packed formation.

PMB

Quote
I think the driving force to enter othismos was either being outmatched by your opponent, fatigue, or having your spear break (which happened often).  If you are facing a spearman who will kill you, you cannot easily fall back out of range, so the best bet is to close to within the reach of a 8' dory with about 5-6' of reach. We know for a fact that some men in battle ended up fighting shield on shield.  At this range a dory is useless, and the spearman must drop his spear and go to the sword if his opponent does.  One could imagine how this might propagate down the line like a zipper.  However it happened, I think it was only after this occurred that the rear ranks moved up to physically support the front. No one was ever thrust from behind into spears.

I'm still not convinced by any of this; others are. Take your pick (but - let's not just repeat conversations we have already had multiple times - the forum search tool works quite well).

The basic rhythm of this exchange is: P posits the possible without sources. R notes lack of source and disagrees for its implications or assumptions. Repeat.

QuoteIf a hoplite battle degenerated into a scrum both sides had lost control

Given that one of the things we can agree on is that othismos is not the start point of a battle, the chance that it involves progressive chaos must be there in the mix of possibilities.

Re-reading Paul's comments as quoted by Richard,  I am reminded again of Sir John Smythe's instructions on pike fighting in Instructions, Observations and orders Mylitarie , which can be found here (http://www.marquisofwinchesters.co.uk/2017/02/04/sir-john-smythe-on-pike-fighting/).  He notes that, if the first impact with pikes doesn't break the enemy, the use of pikes by the front ranks becomes impossible because of the crowding effect of the rear ranks, so the front men should ditch pikes and go in with short swords and daggers.  Obviously, there's two thousand years of difference (but then we are including re-enactment four hundred years later) but perhaps there are some mechanics of close-order fighting which tend to naturally re-occur.

However, I would not wish to reopen the debate on the big "O" as I suspect nothing new will have occured to change anyone's minds.

Quote
Given that one of the things we can agree on is that othismos is not the start point of a battle

Actually I don't agree about that  :o  But I do (strongly) agree that we don't need to go over it all again. I'm sure we can all predict and formulate in our heads exactly what each of us will say on the topic (e.g. mosh pit not valid analogy - coordinated push by whole file - etc etc etc).

Quote from: RichT on July 25, 2018, 11:04:07 AM

Quote
Given that one of the things we can agree on is that othismos is not the start point of a battle

Actually I don't agree about that 

Dammit, so much for the search for common ground.  :)

Lest people assume there's only two options on that point, bear in mind that Maurice has othismos happen after the start of battle but before contact, which should be incompatible with Rich and Orthodoxy alike :)

(Whether Maurikian othismos is the same thing as the Classical, or if indeed either is really a "thing", is of course at least three further Diets of Worms.)

Avoiding the word 'scrum' and its connotations would certainly be helpful in attempting to understand (as opposed to obfuscate) what went on between two hoplite phalanxes.

What I suggest is that those genuinely interested in trying to find out what happened have an open discussion, while those who are convinced we can never know anything occupy their minds with other matters - we know what they are going to say, anyway.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 25, 2018, 07:09:49 PM
Avoiding the word 'scrum' and its connotations would certainly be helpful in attempting to understand (as opposed to obfuscate) what went on between two hoplite phalanxes.

What I suggest is that those genuinely interested in trying to find out what happened have an open discussion, while those who are convinced we can never know anything occupy their minds with other matters - we know what they are going to say, anyway.

Perhaps we could go with physical force othismos

Quote from: Flaminpig0 on July 25, 2018, 09:30:35 PM
Perhaps we could go with physical force othismos

Sounds good to me: the first step would be to refine and perhaps define exactly what we think we mean.  Should I post a description of sorts or would someone else like to?  This is intended to discover what we understand by the concept and how we think it may have worked as opposed to erecting a target to be torn down. ;)

QuotePerhaps we could go with physical force othismos

It doesn't help a great deal.  Very few othismos theories I've seen have a non-physical othismos.  In fact, while we've done the various variants of physical othismos to death, "othismos as a state of mind" is something no-one has proved particularly keen on.

Perhaps a division of "pushing emphasis" and "combat emphasis" would be better?  Or "formal phased battle" and "evolving situation battle"?

Quote
Perhaps we could go with physical force othismos

The trouble with that as a tag is that all battle (presumably) involves physical force, and using the Greek word 'othismos' to denote something unique and unusual is begging the question.

But really, call it 'pink unicorn foreplay' if you like, I don't think the name matters. The objective is just to make it clear to everyone what we are talking about, and 'hoplite scrum' does that job as well as anything (as does the modern English use of 'othismos' - though I won't be using that for reasons given). It's interesting that the term seems to trigger such insecurity among some.

The trouble with words is they tend to bring a baggage of meanings.  It is clear in our use of "othismos" that some use the term very specifically in line with their preconceptions, others more loosely as an undefined state of being. 

:)

The baggage attached to the meanings of words is probably a more interesting topic than the literal shove itself ('literal shove' - a better name?)

For the Edwardian public school inventors of the literal shove theory, likening hoplite battle to a rugby scrum would have carried entirely positive connotations - manly endeavour, team sports and all that. I watch a lot of rugby, so those positive connotations are familiar to me too, along with being a fitting description for an organised literal shove. For someone who comes across the word 'scrum' only in its alternative modern meaning ('a disorderly crowd of people or things') the term might seem pejorative (though really, when it has been pointed out so many times why this term was originally applied, and why it is still used, it's depressing if not surprising that there is no ability to recognise and acknowledge the distinction).

If it will cause an outbreak of rainbows and unicorns, I'm happy to use 'literal shove' in future.

Quote from: RichT on July 26, 2018, 10:56:40 AM


If it will cause an outbreak of rainbows and unicorns, I'm happy to use 'literal shove' in future.

The trouble I have with that is that jostling and shoving are pretty endemic to combat.  Indeed, there is one school of thought that this is all othismos refers to. The school-formerly-known-as-scrum surely implies an emphasis on the pushing contest ?

It would actually be nice to put the actual form of the Big "O" in a box to one side and look at some of the things that fold around it.  Was hoplite battle compartmentalised, and by implication formalised?  Is the fact othismos does not seem to occur in all battles important or an oversight by our sources?  If hoplite v. hoplite battle was compartmentalised/formalised what does that mean in terms of an asymetric contest (which become increasingly important in professional hoplites lives)?  I think this would be a much more fruitful use of everyone's time than going over the evidence again.

Quote from: RichT on July 26, 2018, 10:56:40 AM
For the Edwardian public school inventors of the literal shove theory, likening hoplite battle to a rugby scrum would have carried entirely positive connotations - manly endeavour, team sports and all that. I watch a lot of rugby, so those positive connotations are familiar to me too, along with being a fitting description for an organised literal shove.

Conversely, my idea of rugby pretty much breaks down to "that weird thing done by Englishmen that's sort of like American football"*, which always leaves me feeling at a certain disadvantage when people talk about "scrum".

I don't think "literal shove" is a good designation, though, for the reasons Anthony gives. How about "organized pushing"? Or, considering nobody objected when I used it above, "orthodoxy"?


* My idea of American football is, of course, "that weird thing done by Americans that's sort of like rugby".

NFL players scrimmage rather than scrummage, of course.  Scrimmage is a variant of skirmish.  Perhaps we've been referencing the wrong sporting analogy all along :)

Quote from: Flaminpig0 on July 24, 2018, 11:18:42 PM
Accepting the 'scrum;' othismos as fact I wonder if having multiple people pushing on a front ranker's back would make it difficult for the individual to defend himself , dodge blows etc.

You cannot dodge or even really move other than to duck your head, though you have free range of motion for your right hand.  Men quickly bind weapons up with those opposite them, second ranks helping protect the promachoi. Then it becomes some hideous mix of arm wrestling and knife fighting.  One of the funnier attacks I have received was a dude on YouTube who suggested that if this type of othismos were real, hoplites would have fought with knives.  He had never read Xenophon: [Xenophon Ages., chapter 2.14] Now that the fighting was at an end, a weird spectacle met the eye, as one surveyed the scene of the conflict — the earth stained with blood, friend and foe lying dead side by side, shields smashed to pieces, spears snapped in two, daggers (ἐγχειρίδια) bared of their sheaths, some on the ground, some embedded in the bodies, some yet gripped by the hand.

Your biggest advantage is that your head is so close to that of your foe that it is hard to hit you and not hit him with anything but a descending strike.  A point heavy sword like the khopis can deliver a chop directly from the wrist like a hatchet, and the short stabbing sword, aimed between the neck and collar bone, would be particularly nasty. Not surprisingly, the period in which I suggest that Othsimos on the battlefield reached its peak, the pilos and other helms that are especially good as protecting from descending blows become ubiquitous.

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on July 25, 2018, 12:13:42 PM
Lest people assume there's only two options on that point, bear in mind that Maurice has othismos happen after the start of battle but before contact, which should be incompatible with Rich and Orthodoxy alike :)

(Whether Maurikian othismos is the same thing as the Classical, or if indeed either is really a "thing", is of course at least three further Diets of Worms.)

This is perfectly in line with my crowd-like definition of othismos. It is not a tactic, it is a condition.  If men crowd up on each other they are in a state of othismos within their own ranks.  In fact, if you ever want to try and break a shield wall by charging into it, you have to crowd together to the point that your crowd is almost incompressible further, then smash into the wall- your own front ranks pushing back on the men behind them to keep things tight. Othismos is used is in situations familiar to anyone studying crowd disasters.  In the worst of these, people are asphyxiated or squeezed either hard enough or long enough to cause them to lose consciousness or die because pressure on their chest and diaphragm prevents them from breathing.  Xenophon (A. 5.2.17), Plutarch (Brutus 18.1), and Appian (Mithridatic wars 10.71) all describe othismos occurring as a crowd of men attempt to exit a gate.  Polybius (4.58.9) describes the Aegiratans routing the Aetolians who fled into a city: "in the confusion that followed the fugitives trampled each other to death at the gates...Archidamus was killed in the struggle and crush at the gates. Of the main body of Aetolians, some were trampled to death..."  It is a maxim that most deaths attributed to trampling are in fact due to asphyxia while still standing. 

Quote from: Erpingham on July 26, 2018, 10:08:54 AM
The trouble with words is they tend to bring a baggage of meanings.  It is clear in our use of "othismos" that some use the term very specifically in line with their preconceptions, others more loosely as an undefined state of being.

I can tell you my issues with the way we commonly describe it.  I call it a crowd-thismos or crowd-like othismos, because it shares mechanics with crowd disasters, not rugby scrums. The two are nothing alike if you understand the physics. I don't believe that othismos was a tactic, not general ever ordered men to othismos their enemies. Thus the "organization" is a problem for me if using the term organized push, because it was not organized in the classical manner of drill. Most accurately it is "an emergent property of close combat by deep ranks of opposing units, whose ranks seek to more forward while they fight".  I don't see that much jargon catching on.  The real question is not why hoplites enter othismos, but why all armies who fight hand to hand do not.

QuoteThe real question is not why hoplites enter othismos, but why all armies who fight hand to hand do not.

Another good question.  It would appear, indeed , that hoplites didn't enter othismos in every battle.  I would turn it back to you (in the spirit of helping the thinking process) and say "How do we know they didn't?"  To some extent, the absence of those who spoke the jargon in the recording process might be involved.  But were there battle conditions that precluded othismos? 

Quote from: Dangun on July 25, 2018, 09:39:29 AM

The basic rhythm of this exchange is: P posits the possible without sources. R notes lack of source and disagrees for its implications or assumptions. Repeat.

What exactly do you consider sources?  For everything in that exchange, I am the source, published and reviewed. Do you wish primary sources for othismos? Compare the usage:

Herodotus book 7, 225. Two brothers of Xerxes accordingly fought and fell there. There was an ὠθισμὸς 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.

Herodotus 9.62. 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 ὠθισμόν. For (because actually) the barbarians laid hold of the spears and broke them short.

Thuc. 4.96 The Athenians hastened forward, and the two armies met at a run. [2] The extreme right and left of either army never engaged, for the same reason; they were both prevented by water-courses. But the rest closed, and there was an ὠθισμῷ ἀσπίδων.

Compare that to the way the same noun is used by Xenophon to describe a crowd disaster:

Xen. Anab. 5.2.17] 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 ὠθισμὸς about the gates. When those who were tumbling out were questioned, they said that there was a citadel within, that the enemy were numerous, and that they had sallied forth and were dealing blows upon the men inside.

and Josephus

J. BJ 2.327) The soldiers therefore encompassed them presently, and struck them with their clubs; and as they fled away, the horsemen trampled them down, so that a great many fell down dead by the strokes of the Romans, and more by their own violence in crushing one another. Now there was a terrible crowding (ὠθισμὸς) about the gates, and while every body was making haste to get before another, the flight of them all was retarded, and a terrible destruction there was among those that fell down, for they were suffocated, an broken to pieces by the multitude of those that were uppermost; nor could any of them be distinguished by his relations in order to the care of his funeral; the soldiers also who beat them, fell upon those whom they overtook, without showing them any mercy, and thrust the multitude through the place called Bezetha, 1 as they forced their way, in order to get in and seize upon the temple, and the tower Antonia.


Or even the way it is used figuratively by Herotodus when he is describing a deadlock or impasse in an argument between leaders:

8.78. Among the generals at Salamis there was ὠθισμὸς.

9.26. During the drawing up of battle formation there arose ὠθισμὸς between the Tegeans and the Athenians, for each of them claimed that they should hold the second1 wing of the army, justifying themselves by tales of deeds new and old.

I submit that in every case these are conditions where two things have come together in opposition that limits forward passage and thus crowds men together, be it two opposing military units, a crowd and a gate wall, or two opposing arguments that are at an impasse.

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 26, 2018, 06:36:53 PM

Not surprisingly, the period in which I suggest that Othsimos on the battlefield reached its peak, the pilos and other helms that are especially good as protecting from descending blows become ubiquitous.

It seems odd to me that unlike the helmets worn during the non-peak Othismos period they happen to be open faced and a lot less sturdy; the Pilos helmet might be a better ballistic shape against blows from the top but gives less protection from getting a dagger or sword in the face. For me the adoption of the Pilos helmet is an argument against scrum Othismos

Quote from: Erpingham on July 26, 2018, 07:20:59 PM

QuoteThe real question is not why hoplites enter othismos, but why all armies who fight hand to hand do not.

Another good question.  It would appear, indeed , that hoplites didn't enter othismos in every battle.  I would turn it back to you (in the spirit of helping the thinking process) and say "How do we know they didn't?"  To some extent, the absence of those who spoke the jargon in the recording process might be involved.  But were there battle conditions that precluded othismos?

Its like I paid you to set that up :)  I think any two armies that fight close together will enter something we can label pre-othismos, but this is just to say that groups of men crowd together. To understand why all armies do not descend into full blown othismos, we must start with the fact that normally being in the crowd conditions I call othismos will kill you.  Before it kills you, it becomes very uncomfortable.  The reason in most armies othismos does not occur is that this is well known to those involved. If a second rank Hastatii crowds up on the fellow in front, the front man will push back at him for room or signal in some other fashion- insert string of Latin curses- to give him room. It will also become uncomfortable for all those involved to be this close together, and they will naturally loosen their packing.  Essentially, we are asking the same question as why don't the attendees at a rock concert crush their way through the doors on the way in?  If we start a fire in the stadium, they will surely crush each other on the way out!  The key is that it is not a natural thing to do, it is a panic response that inhibits the natural reluctance to pack so tight.

So why hoplites?  One simple reason, because they could survive it. This we have shown. If you can survive the great pressures of a crowd-crush and your culture has a meme that states holding the real estate of the battlefield and the fallen upon it is how victory in battle is defined, then pushing your foes away from the site of initial clash signals them they are losing and they rout. There is a reason that othismos does not work against peltasts. You cannot othismos any unit willing to give ground in front of you, and you cannot defeat a foe in othismos that does not see giving up ground as a sign of losing the battle. In general though, losing ground means losing for most linear formations.

Quote from: Flaminpig0 on July 26, 2018, 07:47:48 PM

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 26, 2018, 06:36:53 PM

Not surprisingly, the period in which I suggest that Othsimos on the battlefield reached its peak, the pilos and other helms that are especially good as protecting from descending blows become ubiquitous.

It seems odd to me that unlike the helmets worn during the non-peak Othismos period they happen to be open faced and a lot less sturdy; the Pilos helmet might be a better ballistic shape against blows from the top but gives less protection from getting a dagger or sword in the face. For me the adoption of the Pilos helmet is an argument against scrum Othismos

A dagger to the face is fairly easy to protect against compared to descending blows, You can of course duck your head and you have to envision just how close you are to the head of the men in front of you, screening you from such attacks.  Actually, I would never enter othismos with a Corinthian.  Have you ever worn one?  Too easy to get twisted around or forced up by all the jostling.  Now don't get me wrong, they probably did so, but I am just saying I would prefer a pilos in othismos.

Quote from: Erpingham on July 26, 2018, 07:20:59 PM
To some extent, the absence of those who spoke the jargon in the recording process might be involved. 

This is an important statement.  Oddly, I don't think the ancients had a word for what we now call "othismos".  This is why there are so many otheo- and other words used to describe similar experiences.  They are just describing a crowded battlefield (where what we now call othismos occurred).

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 26, 2018, 06:50:17 PM

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on July 25, 2018, 12:13:42 PM
Lest people assume there's only two options on that point, bear in mind that Maurice has othismos happen after the start of battle but before contact, which should be incompatible with Rich and Orthodoxy alike :)

(Whether Maurikian othismos is the same thing as the Classical, or if indeed either is really a "thing", is of course at least three further Diets of Worms.)

This is perfectly in line with my crowd-like definition of othismos. It is not a tactic, it is a condition.

Er, what? Maurice is explicit that it's something soldiers are ordered to do.

Also, the use of the word othismos is AFAIK the only reason anyone has suggested that it's anything to do with the Classical phenomenon, whatever that is. If you don't accept that othismos is a technical term in the Classical case, what reason do you have to think the Maurikian tactic has anything to do with it?

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 26, 2018, 07:05:30 PM
Thus the "organization" is a problem for me if using the term organized push, because it was not organized in the classical manner of drill.

"Organized pushing" was meant to describe Patrick's interpetation, not yours :)

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 26, 2018, 07:57:57 PM

Quote from: Flaminpig0 on July 26, 2018, 07:47:48 PM

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 26, 2018, 06:36:53 PM

Not surprisingly, the period in which I suggest that Othsimos on the battlefield reached its peak, the pilos and other helms that are especially good as protecting from descending blows become ubiquitous.

It seems odd to me that unlike the helmets worn during the non-peak Othismos period they happen to be open faced and a lot less sturdy; the Pilos helmet might be a better ballistic shape against blows from the top but gives less protection from getting a dagger or sword in the face. For me the adoption of the Pilos helmet is an argument against scrum Othismos

A dagger to the face is fairly easy to protect against compared to descending blows, You can of course duck your head and you have to envision just how close you are to the head of the men in front of you, screening you from such attacks.  Actually, I would never enter othismos with a Corinthian.  Have you ever worn one?  Too easy to get twisted around or forced up by all the jostling.  Now don't get me wrong, they probably did so, but I am just saying I would prefer a pilos in othismos.

What about the other earlier forms of Greek helmets would you prefer them to a Pilos?

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on July 26, 2018, 10:44:40 PM

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 26, 2018, 06:50:17 PM

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on July 25, 2018, 12:13:42 PM
Lest people assume there's only two options on that point, bear in mind that Maurice has othismos happen after the start of battle but before contact, which should be incompatible with Rich and Orthodoxy alike :)

(Whether Maurikian othismos is the same thing as the Classical, or if indeed either is really a "thing", is of course at least three further Diets of Worms.)

This is perfectly in line with my crowd-like definition of othismos. It is not a tactic, it is a condition.

Er, what? Maurice is explicit that it's something soldiers are ordered to do.

Also, the use of the word othismos is AFAIK the only reason anyone has suggested that it's anything to do with the Classical phenomenon, whatever that is. If you don't accept that othismos is a technical term in the Classical case, what reason do you have to think the Maurikian tactic has anything to do with it?

I only have Maurice in English handy, but if I recall the term appears in the formation of the Fulcum, when the first two or three ranks must crowd tight together. That he uses othismos is not a surprise in this case, just as when Arrian does, because it describes men crowded upon each other.  He uses it because it is a valid greek term, not a specific term for some sort of rugby scrum tactic. He is not ordering men into othismos the way we use the term, but using the term as I believe is the proper translation, a crowd or press of men. Something like, "then have the second rank men move into a spacing where they crush up tight to the front rankers". If I have missed the context, please post the quote.

Quote from: Flaminpig0 on July 26, 2018, 11:13:07 PM

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 26, 2018, 07:57:57 PM

Quote from: Flaminpig0 on July 26, 2018, 07:47:48 PM

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 26, 2018, 06:36:53 PM

Not surprisingly, the period in which I suggest that Othsimos on the battlefield reached its peak, the pilos and other helms that are especially good as protecting from descending blows become ubiquitous.

It seems odd to me that unlike the helmets worn during the non-peak Othismos period they happen to be open faced and a lot less sturdy; the Pilos helmet might be a better ballistic shape against blows from the top but gives less protection from getting a dagger or sword in the face. For me the adoption of the Pilos helmet is an argument against scrum Othismos

A dagger to the face is fairly easy to protect against compared to descending blows, You can of course duck your head and you have to envision just how close you are to the head of the men in front of you, screening you from such attacks.  Actually, I would never enter othismos with a Corinthian.  Have you ever worn one?  Too easy to get twisted around or forced up by all the jostling.  Now don't get me wrong, they probably did so, but I am just saying I would prefer a pilos in othismos.

What about the other earlier forms of Greek helmets would you prefer them to a Pilos?

I have worn Early Corinthian, late Corinthian, Illyrian, Chalcidian, Piloi and Boeotian helms (of the Greek helms).  The late Corinthian is probably the worst of them, or perhaps mine just happens to suck. To make it wear right, you need to make sure the cheeks are not too long, and be sure to have a good sea sponge and leather to pad the inside. As you receive them they fit like a bell. Fixed up right they are good helmets.
Early Corinthians fit tighter to the face and are very good helmets. Illyrians often have long cheeks which can be a problem, but less so than the Corinthian. I like the clearer vision, and you can't hear much once things get going anyway so the lack of ear holes is not a huge problem in battle, though it is comical when setting up for battle. Chalcidians are much like wearing a roman helm, so quite nice. Piloi are easy wear if not too high, but can be a bit unwieldy when the peak is very high, but a chin strap helps. Boeotians fit well, I just don't like the look.

I just realized that you are probably asking specifically in othismos.  If so, Pilos would be first choice, Illyrians and chaldicians next.  The points on a Boeotian might catch something, and I am perhaps shy of having the front of my Corinthian grabbed and twisted in such close quarters. My opinion is that the Corinthian owes its design to the fact that in the Archaic hoplites spent a lot of time standing while things were thrown at them and throwing things themselves, then spear fencing at reach, much more than meeting shield on shield.

I think I will decline the otherwise kind invitation to reopen the othismos debate.

But, I have slightly more energy for methodological discussions...

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 26, 2018, 07:37:18 PM
What exactly do you consider sources?  For everything in that exchange, I am the source, published and reviewed. Do you wish primary sources for othismos?

This is tedious and irrelevant.

Your catalogue of quotes, has been repeated many times.
But what you seemingly fail to engage with is that there is no consensus about what these quotes mean. There is no consensus as to what othismos means.
So to repeatedly suggest that reenactment of othismos shows X, Y and Z, is just a big fat logical fallacy.

Quote from: Dangun on July 27, 2018, 05:08:23 AM
But what you seemingly fail to engage with is that there is no consensus about what these quotes mean. There is no consensus as to what othismos means.

The implication of this statement is that divergent opinion on a subject precludes investigation of that subject.  Paul is well aware of the semantic applications of othismos.  Is he to be precluded from investigation and experimentation just because someone else bundles up all the meanings of othismos together and confuses them?

QuoteSo to repeatedly suggest that reenactment of othismos shows X, Y and Z, is just a big fat logical fallacy.

I really do not see how this follows from the earlier assertion, or indeed contains any internal validity of its own (perhaps an explanation would help).  Maybe we should do as Anthony suggested and start a thread on the philosophy of history and in particular historical investigation, as we seem to be approaching matters from very different angles here.

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 26, 2018, 11:33:27 PM
I have worn Early Corinthian, late Corinthian, Illyrian, Chalcidian, Piloi and Boeotian helms (of the Greek helms).  The late Corinthian is probably the worst of them, or perhaps mine just happens to suck. To make it wear right, you need to make sure the cheeks are not too long, and be sure to have a good sea sponge and leather to pad the inside. As you receive them they fit like a bell. Fixed up right they are good helmets.
Early Corinthians fit tighter to the face and are very good helmets. Illyrians often have long cheeks which can be a problem, but less so than the Corinthian. I like the clearer vision, and you can't hear much once things get going anyway so the lack of ear holes is not a huge problem in battle, though it is comical when setting up for battle. Chalcidians are much like wearing a roman helm, so quite nice. Piloi are easy wear if not too high, but can be a bit unwieldy when the peak is very high, but a chin strap helps. Boeotians fit well, I just don't like the look.

I just realized that you are probably asking specifically in othismos.  If so, Pilos would be first choice, Illyrians and chaldicians next.  The points on a Boeotian might catch something, and I am perhaps shy of having the front of my Corinthian grabbed and twisted in such close quarters. My opinion is that the Corinthian owes its design to the fact that in the Archaic hoplites spent a lot of time standing while things were thrown at them and throwing things themselves, then spear fencing at reach, much more than meeting shield on shield.

I understand that Italo-Corinthian helmets became popular in Italy (hence the name).  How would these rate for protection and general desirability in othismos, and can we deduce from this anything about Iapygian warfare of the period?  Could we likewise draw any conclusions from the popularity of Chalcidian and Attic helmet styles in various parts of Italy?  Just a thought.

[Edit: corrected spelling]

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 27, 2018, 07:20:08 AM


I understand that Italo-Corinthian helmets became popular in Italy (hence the name).  How would these rate for protection and general desirability in othismos, and can we deduce from this anything about Iapygian warfare of the period?  Could we likewise draw any conclusions from the popularity of Chalcidian and Attic helmet styles in various parts of Italy?  Just a thought.

[Edit: corrected spelling]

Well Quesada and others (Lumsden, https://www.academia.edu/26292605/Ante_bella_punica_Western_Mediterranean_Military_Development_350-264_BC ) seem to reckon that popularity of these helmet styles, and especially the Montefortino indicate a more open type of warfare with more throwing javelins at each other

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 26, 2018, 11:24:58 PM
I only have Maurice in English handy, but if I recall the term appears in the formation of the Fulcum, when the first two or three ranks must crowd tight together. That he uses othismos is not a surprise in this case, just as when Arrian does, because it describes men crowded upon each other.  He uses it because it is a valid greek term, not a specific term for some sort of rugby scrum tactic. He is not ordering men into othismos the way we use the term, but using the term as I believe is the proper translation, a crowd or press of men. Something like, "then have the second rank men move into a spacing where they crush up tight to the front rankers". If I have missed the context, please post the quote.

I don't think you're missing any important context, but I do think your reading may be a little strange. Maurice isn't describing any sort of rugby scrum tactic, agreed, but the soldiers are deliberately told to press together in order to achieve solidity in the face of the enemy - that's a tactic, not something that just happens. So I don't see how it could be "perfectly in line" with your nondeliberate model of Classical "othismos".

QuoteMaybe we should do as Anthony suggested and start a thread on the philosophy of history and in particular historical investigation, as we seem to be approaching matters from very different angles here.

As I've said in the parallel conversation, I fear this would generate more heat than light.

I would say that we might consider the purpose and practice of our forums - to me they should be a place for like minds to explore ideas and share knowledge and any adversarial element should only be in the service of those goals. 

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on July 27, 2018, 08:39:00 AM

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 26, 2018, 11:24:58 PM

I don't think you're missing any important context, but I do think your reading may be a little strange. Maurice isn't describing any sort of rugby scrum tactic, agreed, but the soldiers are deliberately told to press together in order to achieve solidity in the face of the enemy - that's a tactic, not something that just happens. So I don't see how it could be "perfectly in line" with your nondeliberate model of Classical "othismos".

If I remember correctly, the passage about bracing by the rear ranks is in the context of a cavalry attack, not an infantry pushing fight.  But I do agree with Andreas, it is a deliberate tactical action.

Going back to the wider point of othismos in action (and I admit I am tempted by the idea that othismos is a state that arises under certain battle conditions, not a tactical ploy, as a better fit to the evidence), we are still left with an interesting question of hoplites attitude toward it.  If, as Paul proposes, they find their kit is particularly suited to it (and we need to recall they developed this kit originally for a different type of combat), what would their response to this fortunate circumstance be?  Would they seek the circumstances which trigger othismos, especially against those less well equipped for it?  Or would they just feel secure that, in the event of it happening, they would be OK?  I know the absolute answer is we don't know.  But using it as a thought experiment, what effect would the different attitudes have and can we see traces of them in the evidence?

Wow, do you people not sleep?

Terminology - OK since my suggestions have not met with approval, I will stick with 'scrum'. 'Orthodoxy' I don't like - scrum theory was the orthodoxy in the mid-late 20th C but I'm not so sure it is now (a straw poll on this forum would probably turn up few adherents), though it does still have a firm hold amongst academics.

The Maurice/Maurikios quote - there may be a conflation of two slightly different cases here:

Maurice, Strategikon 12 B 16 (Infantry formations) "They tighten up or close ranks when the line gets to about two or three bow shots from the enemy's line and they are getting set to charge. The command is: 'Close ranks'. Joining together, they close in toward the centre, both to each side and to front and back, until the shields of the men in the front rank are touching each other and those lined up behind them are almost glued to one another. The manoeuvre may be executed either while the army is marching or while it is standing still. The file closers should order those in the rear to close in forcefully on those to the front and to keep the line straight, if necessary, to prevent some from hesitating and even holding back".
...
17 "The depth of our own files should not exceed sixteen men, nor should it be less than four. More than sixteen is useless, and less than four is weak. The middle ranks consist of eight heavily armed infantry. Absolute silence must be observed in the army. The file closers of each file should be instructed that if they hear so much as a whisper from one of their men, they should prod him with the butt of their lance. In combat, also, they should push forward the men in front of them, so that none of the soldiers will become hesitant and hold back."
...
2.6 (concerning cavalry) "As far as the depth of the line is concerned, the ancient authorities wrote that it had formerly been regarded as sufficient to form the ranks four deep in each tagma, greater depth being viewed as useless and serving no purpose. For there can be no pressure (othismos) from the rear up through the ranks, as happens with an infantry formation, which may force the men in front to push forward against their will. Horses cannot use their heads to push people in front of them evenly, as can infantry."

In my article in Slingshot I went through the derivation of this passage - 2.6 is clearly very closely based on the Asclepiodotus/Aelian tradition (the 'ancient authorities' he refers to), though the word 'othismos' in this context is Maurice's own addition. It does appear that the 'othismos' Maurice refers to is that described in detail in 12 B 16-17, ie the tightening up of the formation, the explicit purpose of which is 'so that none of the soldiers will become hesitant and hold back'. Now whether this tightening ALSO served the purpose of physically pushing back the enemy (scrum theory), or whether two such formations opposing each other would indvertently then find themselves in a crush state (crowd-thismos theory) is open to some debate - but at any rate it doesn't clearly say so in Maurice's text.

As to the meaning of the word ('othismos') - naturally enough this may have changed over the thousand or so years it was in use, and from individual author to author who may each have had their own usage, so there's no reason to suppose the meaning is identical in every case. At the same time, without independent evidence there is no reason to assign a specific technical meaning to any period or author - the overall range of meanings - which in English would be expressed by words including 'pushing', 'struggle', 'crowding', 'pressure', 'melee', (sometimes) 'thrusts' - seems consistent across time and authors, and fits perfeclty well in every context in which the word is used.

I'm not convinced by your suggested meaning, Paul, of 'deadlock' or 'logjam' - this seems a case of fitting the meaning retrospectively to match the crowd-thismos model you have developed. 'Crowding', 'melee', 'struggle' seem better translations for all the cases you quote (literally 'pushing' of course, but we are trying to winkle out the meaning). This doesn't preclude the possibility that a crowd deadlock also developed in these circumstantes (perhaps inevitability, from the meeting of irresistable force and immovable object) but it's not the meaning of the word, at any rate.

Quote from: Erpingham on July 27, 2018, 09:19:56 AM
If I remember correctly, the passage about bracing by the rear ranks is in the context of a cavalry attack, not an infantry pushing fight.  But I do agree with Andreas, it is a deliberate tactical action.

Maurice just speaks of "the enemy line" here, so he likely considered it an appropriate response to infantry and cavalry attack alike. Given the hippocentric perspective of the Strategicon in general, I feel tolerably confident that if he'd considered it useful against infantry only, he'd mentioned it.

Quote
Going back to the wider point of othismos in action (and I admit I am tempted by the idea that othismos is a state that arises under certain battle conditions, not a tactical ploy, as a better fit to the evidence), we are still left with an interesting question of hoplites attitude toward it.  If, as Paul proposes, they find their kit is particularly suited to it (and we need to recall they developed this kit originally for a different type of combat), what would their response to this fortunate circumstance be?  Would they seek the circumstances which trigger othismos, especially against those less well equipped for it?  Or would they just feel secure that, in the event of it happening, they would be OK?  I know the absolute answer is we don't know.  But using it as a thought experiment, what effect would the different attitudes have and can we see traces of them in the evidence?

Bold effort Anthony, though it would be hard to answer any of these good questions without first arguing about which model of hoplite combat we have in mind.

But I would say - hoplites (Greeks) did have a perception of themselves as undertaking 'proper' fighting - toe-to-toe, holding your ground, none of this chucking things and running away nonsense, were proud of this, and regarded it as central to their identity and superiority.

If I understand Paul's theory correctly, it is not possible to trigger crowd-thismos against those less well equipped for it, since such simply won't maintain the pressure. This does make Herodotus' two uses for Greeks v Persians problematic for the theory, in my view.

The 'Western Way of War' theory is that yes Greeks would definitely seek circumstances in which close, toe-to-toe, standing your ground fighting was paramount, and they would do this by fighting their social and ethnic equivalents on suitable ground and in fair and open combat, and by excluding non-Greeks and social inferiors. All this holds true whether 'othismos' is a thing or not, and whether that thing is a scrum, a crush or something else we haven't yet dreamt of.

QuoteIf I understand Paul's theory correctly, it is not possible to trigger crowd-thismos against those less well equipped for it, since such simply won't maintain the pressure. This does make Herodotus' two uses for Greeks v Persians problematic for the theory, in my view.

  As you've rightly noted, I was thinking of the majority of cases where our sources have othismos but one side is deficient in hoplites.  Paul can set us straight but I took him to say that othismos needed two sides unwilling, or unable, to give ground. Getting into such a situation when not equipped for it physically or mentally would not be good but it wouldn't be impossible. 

Quote from: RichT on July 27, 2018, 09:54:01 AM
Wow, do you people not sleep?

In this heat? Not much.

Quote from: Dangun on July 27, 2018, 05:08:23 AM
I think I will decline the otherwise kind invitation to reopen the othismos debate.

But, I have slightly more energy for methodological discussions...

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 26, 2018, 07:37:18 PM
What exactly do you consider sources?  For everything in that exchange, I am the source, published and reviewed. Do you wish primary sources for othismos?

This is tedious and irrelevant.

Your catalogue of quotes, has been repeated many times.
But what you seemingly fail to engage with is that there is no consensus about what these quotes mean. There is no consensus as to what othismos means.
So to repeatedly suggest that reenactment of othismos shows X, Y and Z, is just a big fat logical fallacy.

What is tedious is that you bring nothing to the table.  All primary sources cannot be definitive in this debate because both sides have twisted their meaning to fit their view- look at Rich and I in this debate.  The only way forward in this debate is to test the predictions of both sides, most of which are not simply in the words of the text, but based on a wide variety of assumptions about panoply and the mechanics of combat. Many of these assumptions the authors have been ill equipped to make.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 27, 2018, 07:20:08 AM

I understand that Italo-Corinthian helmets became popular in Italy (hence the name).  How would these rate for protection and general desirability in othismos, and can we deduce from this anything about Iapygian warfare of the period?  Could we likewise draw any conclusions from the popularity of Chalcidian and Attic helmet styles in various parts of Italy?  Just a thought.

[Edit: corrected spelling]

Most see the full faced Corinthian as a development for close-in fighting. I think the face protection dates from when hoplites were expected to stand and throw spears at each other before moving in.  In the classical period, when the use of missile weapons in the phalanx were at their lowest, we see open helmets in vogue. In the Hellenistic period we see helmets with face plates come back.  I think cheek plates track, not close in fighting, but the threat of unseen missiles.  So back to your question. In Italy we see the pilos with added face and neck plates. Many of these found around the heel of Italy and Tarentum.  Thus I would guess that othismos was rarer than missile duels. As you know I don't believe that the Magna Grecians ever lost some of the Archaic character of there phalanx.  See my comments on that article on the development of the Roman army.

In othismos, all of these helmets would be fine.  My issue with the Corinthian is a bit like the problem with beards (or capes if you are a super hero). You can be grabbed by the front and it can be jerked around your face. Any helmet with tied down cheek plates suffers from this less.

Quote from: Erpingham on July 27, 2018, 10:34:27 AM

QuoteIf I understand Paul's theory correctly, it is not possible to trigger crowd-thismos against those less well equipped for it, since such simply won't maintain the pressure. This does make Herodotus' two uses for Greeks v Persians problematic for the theory, in my view.

  As you've rightly noted, I was thinking of the majority of cases where our sources have othismos but one side is deficient in hoplites.  Paul can set us straight but I took him to say that othismos needed two sides unwilling, or unable, to give ground. Getting into such a situation when not equipped for it physically or mentally would not be good but it wouldn't be impossible.

Look where they occur. It is quite easy to see how a pushing match would develop over the fallen body of Leonidas- much more likely that simply fighting over it in fact. Once the Persian shields are down at Plataia and the 9 ranks of archers drop their bows and fight close in, they grab and often break the hoplite spears with their hands (Foreshadowing Cleonymus's anti-sarissa tactic).  The Greeks have to go to the sword, which conveniently is the precondition I describe for othismos, and Persians attempt to stand up to them.  They fail, and Herodotus specifically points out that they were "unskilled and no match for their adversaries in craft".  Fighting in such a press IS that craft.  Interestingly, the Persian response to being unable to stand up to the hoplite phalanx was appropriate though derided by Herodotus- they attacked the line in smaller groups, applying uneven pressure to the line. 

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on July 27, 2018, 08:39:00 AM

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 26, 2018, 11:24:58 PM
I only have Maurice in English handy, but if I recall the term appears in the formation of the Fulcum, when the first two or three ranks must crowd tight together. That he uses othismos is not a surprise in this case, just as when Arrian does, because it describes men crowded upon each other.  He uses it because it is a valid greek term, not a specific term for some sort of rugby scrum tactic. He is not ordering men into othismos the way we use the term, but using the term as I believe is the proper translation, a crowd or press of men. Something like, "then have the second rank men move into a spacing where they crush up tight to the front rankers". If I have missed the context, please post the quote.

I don't think you're missing any important context, but I do think your reading may be a little strange. Maurice isn't describing any sort of rugby scrum tactic, agreed, but the soldiers are deliberately told to press together in order to achieve solidity in the face of the enemy - that's a tactic, not something that just happens. So I don't see how it could be "perfectly in line" with your nondeliberate model of Classical "othismos".

The tactic is the Fulcum, a shield-wall with overlapping shields horizontally and vertically.  Othismos is how you get men close enough to form a fulcum.  The Greeks had no word for Fulcum and it is impossible to form one of the same type with aspides with porpaxes.  They had no word for a massed tactical push either. All Maurice is saying is come together close and crowd up on each other. The classical Greeks were saying the battle came to that point when everyone was crowded together and pushing each other.

Quote from: RichT on July 27, 2018, 09:54:01 AM
Wow, do you people not sleep?

Terminology - OK since my suggestions have not met with approval, I will stick with 'scrum'. 'Orthodoxy' I don't like - scrum theory was the orthodoxy in the mid-late 20th C but I'm not so sure it is now (a straw poll on this forum would probably turn up few adherents), though it does still have a firm hold amongst academics.

The Maurice/Maurikios quote - there may be a conflation of two slightly different cases here:

Maurice, Strategikon 12 B 16 (Infantry formations) "They tighten up or close ranks when the line gets to about two or three bow shots from the enemy's line and they are getting set to charge. The command is: 'Close ranks'. Joining together, they close in toward the centre, both to each side and to front and back, until the shields of the men in the front rank are touching each other and those lined up behind them are almost glued to one another. The manoeuvre may be executed either while the army is marching or while it is standing still. The file closers should order those in the rear to close in forcefully on those to the front and to keep the line straight, if necessary, to prevent some from hesitating and even holding back".
...
17 "The depth of our own files should not exceed sixteen men, nor should it be less than four. More than sixteen is useless, and less than four is weak. The middle ranks consist of eight heavily armed infantry. Absolute silence must be observed in the army. The file closers of each file should be instructed that if they hear so much as a whisper from one of their men, they should prod him with the butt of their lance. In combat, also, they should push forward the men in front of them, so that none of the soldiers will become hesitant and hold back."
...
2.6 (concerning cavalry) "As far as the depth of the line is concerned, the ancient authorities wrote that it had formerly been regarded as sufficient to form the ranks four deep in each tagma, greater depth being viewed as useless and serving no purpose. For there can be no pressure (othismos) from the rear up through the ranks, as happens with an infantry formation, which may force the men in front to push forward against their will. Horses cannot use their heads to push people in front of them evenly, as can infantry."

In my article in Slingshot I went through the derivation of this passage - 2.6 is clearly very closely based on the Asclepiodotus/Aelian tradition (the 'ancient authorities' he refers to), though the word 'othismos' in this context is Maurice's own addition. It does appear that the 'othismos' Maurice refers to is that described in detail in 12 B 16-17, ie the tightening up of the formation, the explicit purpose of which is 'so that none of the soldiers will become hesitant and hold back'. Now whether this tightening ALSO served the purpose of physically pushing back the enemy (scrum theory), or whether two such formations opposing each other would indvertently then find themselves in a crush state (crowd-thismos theory) is open to some debate - but at any rate it doesn't clearly say so in Maurice's text.

As to the meaning of the word ('othismos') - naturally enough this may have changed over the thousand or so years it was in use, and from individual author to author who may each have had their own usage, so there's no reason to suppose the meaning is identical in every case. At the same time, without independent evidence there is no reason to assign a specific technical meaning to any period or author - the overall range of meanings - which in English would be expressed by words including 'pushing', 'struggle', 'crowding', 'pressure', 'melee', (sometimes) 'thrusts' - seems consistent across time and authors, and fits perfeclty well in every context in which the word is used.

I'm not convinced by your suggested meaning, Paul, of 'deadlock' or 'logjam' - this seems a case of fitting the meaning retrospectively to match the crowd-thismos model you have developed. 'Crowding', 'melee', 'struggle' seem better translations for all the cases you quote (literally 'pushing' of course, but we are trying to winkle out the meaning). This doesn't preclude the possibility that a crowd deadlock also developed in these circumstantes (perhaps inevitability, from the meeting of irresistable force and immovable object) but it's not the meaning of the word, at any rate.

Ah, my fault, I forgot where it appeared, But "For there can be no pressure (othismos) from the rear up through the ranks, as happens with an infantry formation, which may force the men in front to push forward against their will." requires some mental gymnastics to discount as the plainest meaning when reading it.  This comes from Arrian.

In fact just the opposite when looking at my translation of othismos and otheo- words as a crowd related, I came to the conclusion based not on the usage in combat, but the many times it is used in a crowd disaster as panicked men try to jam though gates, etc.  As in Appian Mith., chapter 10: 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.  Xenophon Cyr. 7.5.38" But when people learned that he was holding audience, they came in an unmanageable throng, and as they crowded up to get in there was no end of trickery and contention". Or Plutarch Brutus 18. "Caesar thus slain, Brutus went out into the middle of the session-room and tried to speak, and would have detained the senators there with encouraging words; but they fled in terror and confusion, and there was a tumultuous crowding at the door, although no one pressed upon them in pursuit". It is pretty obvious that crowd-pushing is going on here.

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 27, 2018, 05:00:01 PM
The tactic is the Fulcum, a shield-wall with overlapping shields horizontally and vertically.  Othismos is how you get men close enough to form a fulcum.

This is pointless hair-splitting. Accepting for the moment that the pushing is not a "tactic", it's still something done deliberately for to achieve a tactical purpose.

QuoteThe Greeks had no word for Fulcum and it is impossible to form one of the same type with aspides with porpaxes.  They had no word for a massed tactical push either. All Maurice is saying is come together close and crowd up on each other. The classical Greeks were saying the battle came to that point when everyone was crowded together and pushing each other.

It's unclear to me what "that point" is supposed to mean here.

Maybe a direct question will help clarify: Do you believe that Maurice is describing the same sort of thing as the "othismos" you envisage for classical hoplites?

ETA: Edited to fix formating of quotes.

Quote from: Erpingham on July 27, 2018, 09:19:56 AM

Going back to the wider point of othismos in action (and I admit I am tempted by the idea that othismos is a state that arises under certain battle conditions, not a tactical ploy, as a better fit to the evidence), we are still left with an interesting question of hoplites attitude toward it.  If, as Paul proposes, they find their kit is particularly suited to it (and we need to recall they developed this kit originally for a different type of combat), what would their response to this fortunate circumstance be?  Would they seek the circumstances which trigger othismos, especially against those less well equipped for it?  Or would they just feel secure that, in the event of it happening, they would be OK?  I know the absolute answer is we don't know.  But using it as a thought experiment, what effect would the different attitudes have and can we see traces of them in the evidence?

Not so much the kit, just the aspis, which originated as a round whicker or whicker and wood shield probably. I think of it this way.  Archaic battles probably were mostly missile throwing with a later advance to close combat.  This close combat could get so packed up that it fit the conditions of othismos.  So it was not an obligate part of battle, but even if this only happened rarely, you need as aspis or you die.  I think this is why the shield remains unchanged for so long. I think it springs from the kind of fighting we see over Leonidas's body. If fighting over a body, or later all of the bodies on the field, pushing is a natural event.

It may have happened before in isolated battles that the spear fencing was short, but I think Delium is a watershed in moving quickly to othismos. Not surprisingly we see the Thebans forming deep most of the time after that.

To be clear, othismos as a crowd can only happen if your forward progress is blocked.  If a nimble enemy unit simply gives ground steadily, as we see Romans moving backwards vs sarissaphoroi, you are not in othismos.  You can imagine the front ranks with my pressure sensor on their shields.  If one side gives ground, there is no elevated pressure.  If they try to make a stand, everyone packs in and pressure goes up.  Before anyone says it, you cannot break off fast enough to make the Greeks fall forward, the pressure is not generated in this way. The promachoi just match your retreat a step and you are out of othismos.

Othismos is how you get men close enough to form a fulcum.

I presume we have switched to the generic meaning of "pushing" here, rather than the previous discussion of a "state" which occurs in combat?  It is pretty clear that it is this generic use which happens in Maurice (in the limited sense of how it is translated - I don't have the language skills of you chaps).  So, when the order to form fulcum is given, men close up from front and sides, the file closers shoving any reluctant middle rankers into place.  I've sure we've all read Rance's paper on the fulcum and its origins but one thing we can say is different to the Classical phalanx.  There is a good case to see it as Roman (against infantry it trundles forward behind its shields till it gets to hand-missile range, bombards the opposition with missiles, supported by overhead shooting, then the front ranks launch themselves at the disrupted enemy with swords.  Against cavalry, the front three ranks form a shieldwall bristling with spears and other ranks prod the cavalry with spears or throw missiles, looking for all the world like Arrian's anti-cavalry formation against the Alans) but you could also imagine a barbarian shieldwall being like this in a more organic way.   

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on July 27, 2018, 05:35:13 PM

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 27, 2018, 05:00:01 PM
The tactic is the Fulcum, a shield-wall with overlapping shields horizontally and vertically.  Othismos is how you get men close enough to form a fulcum.

Quote

This is pointless hair-splitting. Accepting for the moment that the pushing is not a "tactic", it's still something done deliberately for to achieve a tactical purpose.

QuoteThe Greeks had no word for Fulcum and it is impossible to form one of the same type with aspides with porpaxes.  They had no word for a massed tactical push either. All Maurice is saying is come together close and crowd up on each other. The classical Greeks were saying the battle came to that point when everyone was crowded together and pushing each other.

It's unclear to me what "that point" is supposed to mean here.

Maybe a direct question will help clarify: Do you believe that Maurice is describing the same sort of thing as the "othismos" you envisage for classical hoplites?

No. Maurice is clearly describing this- see below.  This IS a tactic.  The difference is that Maurice is describing the men on the same unit crowding together to tighten up.  In the Greek usage it usually describes a global condition of crowed men pushing against a gate or an enemy unit, but each other as well.  It is important to note though that othismos can be used in conjunction with your own men, you can all crowd together in a dense package- a condition we see often in defeat as a Cannae or when Procopius's dead man could not fall where men are herded back on their own men.

I'm going to be a bit nit-picky and that's part of a fulcum.  The minimum formation for Byzantine infantry under Maurice was four ranks and probably six.  Later it would be seven or eight.  If it was an anti-cavalry fulcum, the first two ranks bend down and ground the spearbutts.    The men in it are in 10th century dress, so they should have ranks of integral light infantry behind this formation and the whole should be closed off by two ranks of hoplites - heavy infantry.  The degree to which the file closers could compress the ranks in the 10th century fulcum must surely have been compromised by the light infantry core of the formation, a problem Maurice's fulcum didn't have because its light infantry were outside the hoplite formation.

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 27, 2018, 05:52:23 PM

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on July 27, 2018, 05:35:13 PM
Maybe a direct question will help clarify: Do you believe that Maurice is describing the same sort of thing as the "othismos" you envisage for classical hoplites?

No.

Excellent, thanks. :) I think we can now usefully drop the Maurikian subthread until Patrick feels like arguing again that it is the same as (his interpretation of) Classical "othismos".

Quote from: Erpingham on July 27, 2018, 06:07:41 PM
I'm going to be a bit nit-picky and that's part of a fulcum.  The minimum formation for Byzantine infantry under Maurice was four ranks and probably six.  Later it would be seven or eight.  If it was an anti-cavalry fulcum, the first two ranks bend down and ground the spearbutts.    The men in it are in 10th century dress, so they should have ranks of integral light infantry behind this formation and the whole should be closed off by two ranks of hoplites - heavy infantry.  The degree to which the file closers could compress the ranks in the 10th century fulcum must surely have been compromised by the light infantry core of the formation, a problem Maurice's fulcum didn't have because its light infantry were outside the hoplite formation.

Sorry first image I pulled offline.  Yes, I believe in the fulcum as Rance describes it.  It represents one of Three main functions of shield-walls- a Barricade from behind which men shoot or throw things.

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on July 27, 2018, 06:25:46 PM

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 27, 2018, 05:52:23 PM

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on July 27, 2018, 05:35:13 PM
Maybe a direct question will help clarify: Do you believe that Maurice is describing the same sort of thing as the "othismos" you envisage for classical hoplites?

No.

Excellent, thanks. :) I think we can now usefully drop the Maurikian subthread until Patrick feels like arguing again that it is the same as (his interpretation of) Classical "othismos".

Before we throw the baby out with the bath water. The Fulcum itself is not a greek phalanx, but Maurice seems to think that men can push in combat as a group. As Rich posted: 2.6 "Horses cannot use their heads to push people in front of them evenly, as can infantry."  Which echoes the Arrian I posted and shows that they two believe men can push.

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on July 27, 2018, 06:25:46 PM
I think we can now usefully drop the Maurikian subthread

Curses - it made for interesting variety. Back to the men in bronze then.

Quote from: PMBardunias on July 27, 2018, 06:51:40 PM
Before we throw the baby out with the bath water. The Fulcum itself is not a greek phalanx, but Maurice seems to think that men can push in combat as a group. As Rich posted: 2.6 "Horses cannot use their heads to push people in front of them evenly, as can infantry."  Which echoes the Arrian I posted and shows that they two believe men can push.

Has anyone denied that they can?

But infantry pushing in the Strategicon is, near as I can tell, always by rear ranks on front ranks within the same formation, never on the enemy: whereas, unless I'm much mistaken, pushing on the enemy is central to both your model and the model formerly known as scrum (TMFKAS).

For pushing on enemies you're probably better off looking for parallels in Renaissance pike fighting - I'm sure Anthony can supply a few choice quotations.

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on July 27, 2018, 07:33:43 PM

Has anyone denied that they can?

But infantry pushing in the Strategicon is, near as I can tell, always by rear ranks on front ranks within the same formation, never on the enemy: whereas, unless I'm much mistaken, pushing on the enemy is central to both your model and the model formerly known as scrum (TMFKAS).

For pushing on enemies you're probably better off looking for parallels in Renaissance pike fighting - I'm sure Anthony can supply a few choice quotations.

A crowd-like othismos begins because the men in subsequent ranks move up to support the promachoi who are shield to shield with their foes.  In the Fuclum, the men are forming very dense, but there is nothing in front of them. Outside of a bad Viking movie, multi-tiered fulcums did not crash into each other.  So the two are not directly comparable.  But when the men in Fulcum did move to engage, they would have formed a plain old shield-wall.  Where you will find situations approaching othismos will be in the most extreme Saxon or Viking shield-wall clashes, or the battle of Zama: Livy 30.34.3 " As a consequence, the Romans made the enemy give ground in their very first charge, then pushing them back with their shields and elbows and moving forward on to the ground from which they had dislodged them, they made a considerable advance as though meeting with no resistance. When those in the rear became aware of the forward movement they too pressed on those in front thereby considerably increasing the weight of the thrust." Renaissance "push of pike" may have devolved into crowd like situations, but I doubt it was the design any more than it was with the Prussian "push of Bayonettes".

Hard to say though, because pre-othismos is universal for lines of men fighting at close quarters in ranks, but the possible level of pushing we see in Hoplite othismos is almost unique. It is usually seen when things go very wrong and one side is crowded in defeat.  The reason it is at all interesting to those studying hoplites is that it is not something seen commonly in other cultures.

In Polyaenus' Stratagemata (II.3.,2) we get this passage:

"In the battle at Leuctra, Epaminondas commanded the Thebans, and Cleombrotus commanded the Lacedaemonians. The battle remained finely balanced for a long time, until Epaminondas called on his troops to give him one step more, and he would ensure the victory. They did as he asked; and they gained the victory. The Spartan king Cleombrotus was killed in the fighting, and the Laconians left the enemy in possession of the battlefield."

Evaluation? :)

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 28, 2018, 06:44:35 AM
In Polyaenus' Stratagemata (II.3.,2) we get this passage:

"In the battle at Leuctra, Epaminondas commanded the Thebans, and Cleombrotus commanded the Lacedaemonians. The battle remained finely balanced for a long time, until Epaminondas called on his troops to give him one step more, and he would ensure the victory. They did as he asked; and they gained the victory. The Spartan king Cleombrotus was killed in the fighting, and the Laconians left the enemy in possession of the battlefield."

Evaluation? :)

you have two lines of spearmen, fencing or whatever you call it, with their spears. The two lines are separated by less than a spear length but they're not touching each other
Epaminondas notices that whilst the battle has been finely balanced for a long time, the Spartans are beginning to give ground, to drift back slightly to that slightly safer zone where the other guys spear doesn't quite reach.
And The Thebans are tired and are just letting them. So he calls for one step more to put his men back in to the zone where they'll be killing, not merely prodding ineffectively for the look of the thing. His men do step forward and the Spartan morale starts to crumble

The passage doesn't involve any need for pushing

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 28, 2018, 06:44:35 AM
In Polyaenus' Stratagemata (II.3.,2) we get this passage:

"In the battle at Leuctra, Epaminondas commanded the Thebans, and Cleombrotus commanded the Lacedaemonians. The battle remained finely balanced for a long time, until Epaminondas called on his troops to give him one step more, and he would ensure the victory. They did as he asked; and they gained the victory. The Spartan king Cleombrotus was killed in the fighting, and the Laconians left the enemy in possession of the battlefield."

Evaluation? :)

I wonder how Epaminondas would actually manage to issue that instruction to several thousand hoplites, particularly if he was fighting in the front rank.

Quote from: Jim Webster on July 28, 2018, 07:03:50 AM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 28, 2018, 06:44:35 AM
In Polyaenus' Stratagemata (II.3.,2) we get this passage:

"In the battle at Leuctra, Epaminondas commanded the Thebans, and Cleombrotus commanded the Lacedaemonians. The battle remained finely balanced for a long time, until Epaminondas called on his troops to give him one step more, and he would ensure the victory. They did as he asked; and they gained the victory. The Spartan king Cleombrotus was killed in the fighting, and the Laconians left the enemy in possession of the battlefield."

Evaluation? :)

you have two lines of spearmen, fencing or whatever you call it, with their spears. The two lines are separated by less than a spear length but they're not touching each other
Epaminondas notices that whilst the battle has been finely balanced for a long time, the Spartans are beginning to give ground, to drift back slightly to that slightly safer zone where the other guys spear doesn't quite reach.
And The Thebans are tired and are just letting them. So he calls for one step more to put his men back in to the zone where they'll be killing, not merely prodding ineffectively for the look of the thing. His men do step forward and the Spartan morale starts to crumble

The passage doesn't involve any need for pushing

That seems much more plausible

The other alternative involves him being able to give a small  inspirational speech whilst being bodily pushed  against some Spartan by the troops behind him.

Quote from: Flaminpig0 on July 28, 2018, 07:25:57 AM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 28, 2018, 06:44:35 AM
In Polyaenus' Stratagemata (II.3.,2) we get this passage:

"In the battle at Leuctra, Epaminondas commanded the Thebans, and Cleombrotus commanded the Lacedaemonians. The battle remained finely balanced for a long time, until Epaminondas called on his troops to give him one step more, and he would ensure the victory. They did as he asked; and they gained the victory. The Spartan king Cleombrotus was killed in the fighting, and the Laconians left the enemy in possession of the battlefield."

Evaluation? :)

I wonder how Epaminondas would actually manage to issue that instruction to several thousand hoplites, particularity if he was fighting in the front rank.

He doesn't - this is a heroic leadership story.  He is essentially saying "One more effort and they'll give".  It is actually one of those battle "speeches" which i find quite plausible.  It's very short, sharp and, especially as it leads to victory, memorable.  The error is to take it too literally (did he really think taking one stride forward would break the enemy?) or worse still, as a drill command.  But frankly, this is exactly the conversation we've had so many times before so I don't know why Patrick has raised it again.

Maybe he simply believes in attrition? :P

QuoteRenaissance "push of pike" may have devolved into crowd like situations, but I doubt it was the design any more than it was with the Prussian "push of Bayonettes".

For clarity, "push" here didn't mean shoving, it meant thrusting pointed weapons into people.  Not necessarily literally but as an intent.  Pike units at "push of pike" weren't standing off, they had collided.  We have discussed before the two basic pike techniques of the 16th century.  We have foyning, where the two sides stop at the pikes length of the first couple of ranks and spar.  This needed men with plenty of weapons training and was popularised by Germans.  Rear pressure was to be avoided in this technique because it forced the front fighters onto the enemy, preventing them using their skills.

The other system was to go straight into "push of pike".  This was better for less well trained pikemen.  Monluc identified it as Swiss style.  I have posted a link to Sir John Smythe's detailed description of this style.  The pike unit closes up front to back, so that men are walking at the heels of the men in front.  It advances steadily at the enemy and when it comes to a pikes distance of the enemy, it lunges forward with its pikes together.  If the enemy don't give way, the formation crushes up as the men at the back continue to press forward.  The front rankers ditch pikes and draw short swords and daggers.  In theory this could be bloody, and there are tales of the front ranks wiping each other out, but by and large this doesn't seem to have happened.

What does offer to our study of hoplites?  I don't know.

Polyaenus' Stratagemata (II.3) we have evaluated numerous times, always with the same result as here. No point whatever in doing it again.

Paul - I've slightly lost track of what you are arguing for WRT the Maurice passage. For one thing, the comparison with the inability of cavalry to push doesn't come (necessarily) direct from Arrian, but from the Asclepiodotus/Aelian/Arrian tradition. What's interesting to me is that the word 'othismos' does not occur in A/A/A but was added by Maurice - but I don't know if that is enormously significant.

Nobody doubts the ability of infantry to push - and the A/A/A and Maurice passages confirm it. The point at issue is the purpose.

Quote
"For there can be no pressure (othismos) from the rear up through the ranks, as happens with an infantry formation, which may force the men in front to push forward against their will." requires some mental gymnastics to discount as the plainest meaning when reading it.

Yes I agree - and the plainest meaning is that explicitly given by all authors - that the formation closes up to force all members to keep moving forward and not hang back. Now (if I understand correctly) your position is that two such formations doing this in opposition to each other will necessarily then find themselves in a crowd crush situation when they meet (unless one gives way) - which is fine, but let's be clear that that is an additional assumption not explicitly stated by the sources and not required by the physics or dynamics of the situation (and I say it's not required because so far as I know it didn't happen at any other period of history).

Crowds and struggles around doors and gates etc - yes, and I take this to mean that 'othismos' or 'otheo' words in this case mean 'crowd' or 'struggle', not 'crush' - and indeed Pol 4.58.9 makes this clear by referring to 'the struggle (othismos) and crush (pnigmos - choking, suffocation)' as two things.

I don't think we are making any more forward progress with this. The experimental result of disproving the 'crush to death' objection to the crowd or scrum theories is useful, but it doesn't serve to provide any positive evidence of what did happen (as you recognise). Only literary or comparative evidence can help there - the literary we have done to death, the comparative is most fruitful but will always be subject to the 'hoplites were unique' objection.

Quote from: RichT on July 28, 2018, 11:27:08 AM
Yes I agree - and the plainest meaning is that explicitly given by all authors - that the formation closes up to force all members to keep moving forward and not hang back. Now (if I understand correctly) your position is that two such formations doing this in opposition to each other will necessarily then find themselves in a crowd crush situation when they meet (unless one gives way) - which is fine, but let's be clear that that is an additional assumption not explicitly stated by the sources and not required by the physics or dynamics of the situation (and I say it's not required because so far as I know it didn't happen at any other period of history).

If my sin is addition, yours is omission. They did not simply "close up to force all members to keep moving forward", horses can do that.  They actively pushed the men ahead forward, something that would panic horses.   If we were to transpose this rendering into a hoplite setting, your version would have all the ranks packed forward tight, but the men fighting at some 5-7 feet of space between the promachoi as they spear fence.  This is silly.  In the Fulcum it works specifically because the front ranks are not fighting anyone.  When spear fencing in a hoplite setting, you can't be this closely packed.  The packing of othismos happens only when they go shield to shield- as we are told happened in some battles. One of the objections to a literal othismos- I use literal and figurative to differentiate- is that your promachoi is propelled into spears against his will.  True in the orthodox rendering, but in my hypothesis this never happens because the promachoi lead everything.  In spear fencing the rear ranks do not crowd in, but once the promachoi move to the sword, the file moves up in physical support.

Quote from: RichT on July 28, 2018, 11:27:08 AM
Crowds and struggles around doors and gates etc - yes, and I take this to mean that 'othismos' or 'otheo' words in this case mean 'crowd' or 'struggle', not 'crush' - and indeed Pol 4.58.9 makes this clear by referring to 'the struggle (othismos) and crush (pnigmos - choking, suffocation)' as two things.

Good we are getting somewhere.  Clearly othismos is a state where men are packed together tight. There is no suffocation because the men are not suffocating.  If they were they could not fight in othismos.  Their aspis keeps them breathing, and unless you find yourself in a "battle like no other" at Coronea, your shields will not break.  If we have two armies that are so crowded together that it is as if each were up against a wall, physical crowd forces are inevitable.  The crowd is not simply standing real close together, it has a vector of movement, towards the gate or towards the enemy.  It is this vector that gets them into the crowd density, stop moving towards a common goal and the crowd loosens. The only alternative is the one I derided above, where you are crowding your own front ranks, who push back on you as they fight.

So, we have written of my experiment and literary sources, but I began started on this concept due to another piece of evidence.  I am a biologist, and we often discern an animal's behavior from its morphology.  This I did with the aspis.  It is weird.  In short, it has an odd thickness profile that makes the sides where it turns back to form the depth of the bowl almost twice as thick as the face. Much has been written on how the depth of the aspis allows it to be rested on the shoulder because it is such a heavy shield.  It was this specifically that troubled me.  If you actually calculate where the weight comes from, a large percentage is from the thickened turn-back or shoulder section that was supposedly there to handle the weight of a heavy shield.  There is far more to this than I will write here, but the upshot is that the shoulder section is there to provide depth for its own sake, and to keep the shield from being crushed under pressure on its face- something the aspis does far better than resisting weapon strikes- as when Brasidas's shield turned traitor. Now I could be wrong, look at the tussle over Pachycephalosaurs, but it is more evidence.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 28, 2018, 06:44:35 AM
In Polyaenus' Stratagemata (II.3.,2) we get this passage:

"In the battle at Leuctra, Epaminondas commanded the Thebans, and Cleombrotus commanded the Lacedaemonians. The battle remained finely balanced for a long time, until Epaminondas called on his troops to give him one step more, and he would ensure the victory. They did as he asked; and they gained the victory. The Spartan king Cleombrotus was killed in the fighting, and the Laconians left the enemy in possession of the battlefield."

Evaluation? :)

The key to this statement is not that it actually happened, but that the audience for the original source believed you could give one more step and break an opposing taxis. If you are spear fencing and your commander asks for one more step, you tell him to piss off rather than move into the range of opposing spears, but the call works equally well if fighting shield on shield with your foe or in othismos. So suggestive but not definitive.

PMB:

Quote
If we were to transpose this rendering into a hoplite setting, your version would have all the ranks packed forward tight, but the men fighting at some 5-7 feet of space between the promachoi as they spear fence.  This is silly.

Reread the Maurice passage. "They tighten up or close ranks when the line gets to about two or three bow shots from the enemy's line". If two to three bow shots is not silly, then I don't see why 5-7 feet is.

And anyway, why would anyone transpose Maurice's description into a hoplite battle? I think they are totally different things. Hoplites no doubt used some tightening and closing in some circumstances, but really tight formations came in with the Macedonian phalanx, which forms the basis for the tactical tradition which Maurice is inheriting and building on.

Quote
the promachoi lead everything.  In spear fencing the rear ranks do not crowd in, but once the promachoi move to the sword, the file moves up in physical support.

I find it hard to envisage a stage of battle that requires everybody (the front several ranks at least, presumably) to drop their spears. I guess the Sir John Smythe passage is an example of something a little bit similar (though how widely his suggestions were adopted isn't clear) but still quite different. A failure of imagination on my part, perhaps.

Quote
Good we are getting somewhere.

No, I don't think we are. :(

Quote
Clearly othismos is a state where men are packed together tight.

Depending on what you mean by 'tight', this isn't clear to me at all. To me, othismos is a state where people are pushing and jostling each other. The non-military examples of usage of othismos or otheo words include some crushes (around gates etc) - but just as many (in fact more) that are just the pushing and jostling of crowds or groups of people, often in the open or around a general or whatever - and as I said, Pol 4.58.9 to me suggests that a crush is something additional to, not inherent in, the jostling of a crowd.

Quote
The crowd is not simply standing real close together, it has a vector of movement, towards the gate or towards the enemy.

Strictly speaking this can't really be true can it - once the two forces are in contact there can no longer be a vector of movement - unless one falls back but then you have said that when this happens the crush unpacks. There is a vector of force. But I suspect I am splitting hairs here - I know what you mean.

Quote
So, we have written of[f] my experiment and literary sources

Not at all. I think your experiment is very useful for the evidence it provides about the survivability of a crush situation - but I don't think it provides any evidence that such a crush situation happened, or would be deliberately sought out. I certainly haven't written off literary sources since I think they provide the answer - I have just written off any chance of persuading some people of my point of view using only literary evidence.

The shape of the shield is a nice argument, I get it. I'm not convinced that crowd-thismos is the only (or even best) explanation for the shape of the shield - we'd have to first rule out all other likely explanations. Now I don't suppose it matters to you whether I'm convinced or not. Any theory stands or falls on its general acceptance, as well as its inherent value. Maybe everyone (nearly everyone) will be won round to crowd-thismos as they were once won round to scrum-thismos. Time will tell! At any rate I suspect we are done here - I do appreciate your practical and experimental approach and have found the discussion interesting.

To rally to Sir John's aid, we have focussed a bit on his formation rather than intention.  His men are not going to drop their pikes if the "push" forces the enemy back (or even knocks them down).  But if the enemy hold, the rear ranks will by their momentum push the front men well within the reach of their own pikes.  These will become more of an encumberance than a weapon, hence time to ditch them and draw a shorter weapon.

Now there isn't a direct parallel to hoplites, but we know hoplites could close shield-to-shield, crest-to-crest, in which circumstance a 9ft spear would be a bit awkward.  Similar problem, similar solution.

To be clear, you don't need to rally to SJS's aid. He's not under attack. I can quite see that hoplites would take to swords or daggers when things got close (or spears got broken). Of course.

Quote from: RichT on July 28, 2018, 04:56:00 PM
Reread the Maurice passage. "They tighten up or close ranks when the line gets to about two or three bow shots from the enemy's line". If two to three bow shots is not silly, then I don't see why 5-7 feet is.

I little bit of reenactment would make this clear.  The front ranks of a Fulcum are not fighting, at best they throw something once in a while or ward off cavalry.  Outside of Game of Thrones, a single tiered shield-wall with destroy a multi-tiered fulcum in close combat.  A Greek phalanx would just push the whole mess over like they did the Persian shields on kick-stands at Plataia, or buried in the ground as at Mycale.

Quote from: RichT on July 28, 2018, 04:56:00 PM
And anyway, why would anyone transpose Maurice's description into a hoplite battle? I think they are totally different things. Hoplites no doubt used some tightening and closing in some circumstances, but really tight formations came in with the Macedonian phalanx, which forms the basis for the tactical tradition which Maurice is inheriting and building on.

Depends on what you mean by tight.  I agree that the 45cm frontage is only appropriate for sarissaphoroi. Hoplites can't form much more than 60cm and be effective. By the way, 90cm is about rim to rim, 72cm is an overlap of the shoulder section, and 60cm overlaps well across the shield face. 45 cm, or half a shield face, is obviously impossible with an arm in the porpax.

Quote from: RichT on July 28, 2018, 04:56:00 PM
I find it hard to envisage a stage of battle that requires everybody (the front several ranks at least, presumably) to drop their spears. I guess the Sir John Smythe passage is an example of something a little bit similar (though how widely his suggestions were adopted isn't clear) but still quite different. A failure of imagination on my part, perhaps.

Spears broke quite often, there is much evidence for this in the primary literature. Once your spear broke, you had to move to the sword or stand there and probably die.  Because the dory was 9' and the sword at most 2', usually less, you cannot remain at the same range as your fellow promachoi.  As you move in, they either have to fight around you, or move with you.  From your foe's perspective, he either has to hope the man behind him stops you, or drop his own spear because you are well within the reach of your 9' spear. The objection I often hear that you cannot close on a line of spears is belied by the simple fact that we are told it happened. The result is that once the battle moves in one place to swords, there will be pressure on those men fighting beside them to do so as well. The result is that the whole taxis on taxis battle closes like a zipper.

Quote from: RichT on July 28, 2018, 04:56:00 PM

Strictly speaking this can't really be true can it - once the two forces are in contact there can no longer be a vector of movement - unless one falls back but then you have said that when this happens the crush unpacks. There is a vector of force. But I suspect I am splitting hairs here - I know what you mean.

For our purposes it just means the velocity is zero.  But the force vector is the one we are of course truly interested in, the movement vector is just the reason it exists.

Quote from: RichT on July 28, 2018, 04:56:00 PM
So, we have written of[f] my experiment and literary sources

Not at all. I think your experiment is very useful for the evidence it provides about the survivability of a crush situation - but I don't think it provides any evidence that such a crush situation happened, or would be deliberately sought out. I certainly haven't written off literary sources since I think they provide the answer - I have just written off any chance of persuading some people of my point of view using only literary evidence.

The shape of the shield is a nice argument, I get it. I'm not convinced that crowd-thismos is the only (or even best) explanation for the shape of the shield - we'd have to first rule out all other likely explanations. Now I don't suppose it matters to you whether I'm convinced or not. Any theory stands or falls on its general acceptance, as well as its inherent value. Maybe everyone (nearly everyone) will be won round to crowd-thismos as they were once won round to scrum-thismos. Time will tell! At any rate I suspect we are done here - I do appreciate your practical and experimental approach and have found the discussion interesting.

No, I meant it as written. Shield morphology is an additional avenue of study. Literary sources cannot be convincing in this unless something new pops up. The interpretations are too subjective and the sources unclear.

I very much hope that fellows like you will come around. I think my interpretation goes a long way to reconciling the views of both orthodoxy and heretics. Most of the best features of each are contained within it and some of the true silliness of both sides rejected. The fact that for many now the argument on othismos has come down to a crowd-like push vs men jostling and pushing each other shield on shield while the rear ranks close up on them and push, is as close as I need to come to victory if you realize that my othismos emerges naturally from close in fighting while the rear ranks push forward. When I started this the most common options were a mad charge of unhorsed lancers VS an open order motley mix of heavy and light troops.

Quote from: Erpingham on July 28, 2018, 05:44:03 PM
To rally to Sir John's aid, we have focussed a bit on his formation rather than intention.  His men are not going to drop their pikes if the "push" forces the enemy back (or even knocks them down).  But if the enemy hold, the rear ranks will by their momentum push the front men well within the reach of their own pikes.  These will become more of an encumberance than a weapon, hence time to ditch them and draw a shorter weapon.

Now there isn't a direct parallel to hoplites, but we know hoplites could close shield-to-shield, crest-to-crest, in which circumstance a 9ft spear would be a bit awkward.  Similar problem, similar solution.

The "grab your spears in the middle and everyone charge together Swiss style" charge is very much what Chris Mathew presented for hoplites and is worth a read, though I disagree on many points.  One reason he is probably wrong about hoplites is that I do think this is directly applicable to sarissaphoroi and anachronistic for hoplites.
Do any of you know of an instance of men fighting with sword and shield within the confines of their own sarissa hedge? A Macedonian pikeman who drops his sarissa is not all that different from a renaissance sword and rotella man.  Here is as close as I have: Polyaenus ii.29.2 At the siege of Edessa, when a breach was effected in the walls, and the spear-men, (whose spears were sixteen cubits long) sallied out upon the assailants, Cleonymus deepened his phalanx, and ordered the front line to use no arms; but with both hands to seize the enemy's spears, and hold them fast; while the next rank immediately advanced, and closed upon them. Their spears thus seized, the men retreated; but the next rank, pressing on them, either took them prisoners, or slew them. By this manoeuvre of Cleonymus the long and formidable spear was rendered useless, and became rather an incumbrance, than a weapon of offence.

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on July 28, 2018, 09:41:21 AM
Maybe he simply believes in attrition? :P

Part of his practise for a Three Billy Goats Gruff cosplay act?

QuoteThe front ranks of a Fulcum are not fighting, at best they throw something once in a while or ward off cavalry.

While I agree on the attacking fulcum (it is only using its double layer shields as a missile defence to get up close - it doesn't try to advance to contact like this), the anti-cavalry version is not deciding on whether it contacts - the cavalry is.  It is pretty clear that spears are intended to be used in this formation, in both the Maurice and Arrian version.

QuoteThe "grab your spears in the middle and everyone charge together Swiss style" charge

Sir John's version is much more plodding but determined, a bit like some people think of for Spartans.  But I leave it to the experts on whether Spartan practice was notably different fromn, say, Athenian.

Quote from: Erpingham on July 29, 2018, 09:26:34 AM
The front ranks of a Fulcum are not fighting, at best they throw something once in a while or ward off cavalry.

While I agree on the attacking fulcum (it is only using its double layer shields as a missile defence to get up close - it doesn't try to advance to contact like this), the anti-cavalry version is not deciding on whether it contacts - the cavalry is.  It is pretty clear that spears are intended to be used in this formation, in both the Maurice and Arrian version.

Contact with cavalry is far different that contact with another shield wall.  This is the "Warding" I referred to. The bottom rank probably has their spear butts braced on the ground, the second can thrust in such a limited range that it is more bluster than threat, but the third rank an those behind would be not only stabbing at horsemen, but throwing things at them as well.  Fighting like this against infantry would not go well, though there are incidents of light infantry attacking a fulcum if I recall. I seem to remember a story of some barbarian running across the shields, but I am not sure where I am dragging that up from.  My point refers to a concerted clash of heavy infantry.

Quote from: Erpingham on July 29, 2018, 09:26:34 AM
Sir John's version is much more plodding but determined, a bit like some people think of for Spartans.  But I leave it to the experts on whether Spartan practice was notably different fromn, say, Athenian.

If I recall Mathew advocates a moderate advance in close order like these pikemen. This is something that I think pretty clearly did not happen, with the possible exception you describe.  As Thucydides tells us, all hoplite armies lose their order in the advance.

I was at the Vatican recently and had a chance to get a close look at the Bomarzo aspis and take pics.  This is the odd profile I wrote of, it is quite easy, correctly or not, to see this as a load bearing structure. I thought some might enjoy seeing the real thing, I know I did.