The Hoplite phalanx

[Rob Miles]

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

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.

[Erpingham]

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.

[Mark G]

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.

[aligern]

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

[Erpingham]

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?

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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.

[Mark G]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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

I shall not comment ...

[Chuck the Grey]

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.

[Rob Miles]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

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

[aligern]

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

[aligern]

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

[Rob Miles]

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.

[Erpingham]

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?