Phalanx drift to the right: movement or contraction or both?

[Erpingham]

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

[Justin Swanton]

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

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

Link to Marozzo? (if there is one)

[PMBardunias]

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

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

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

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

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

to de allo karterai machêi kai ôthismôi aspidôn xuneistêkei.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[PMBardunias]

Link to Marozzo? (if there is one)

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

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

[Imperial Dave]

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

[Dangun]

A thought has occurred to me while loading the dishwasher.  Why don't we have a pinned entry in Army Research which provides a link to all the times we've discussed hoplite warfare and othismos?  Then no-one will need to keep recycling the same information...

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

[Dangun]

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

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

[PMBardunias]

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

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

[Dangun]

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

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

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

Not the same.

[RichT]

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

I get 5 uses of words based on ὠθέω or a closely related form that are part of battle between hoplites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Justin Swanton]

This thread has gone into herd of cats mode.

So I'll just pick up one thing:

Roy

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RichT]

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

PMB:

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

...

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

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

[Imperial Dave]

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

[Justin Swanton]

OK thanks, and I can see some justice in that, though I don't see why range would be that restricted, since spears can be moved to and fro.

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

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

...

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

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

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

I can see that visibility directly forward would be limited, but what about to the side toward neighbouring files?

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

And what if some men further back in the formation held back just a little and struck the faces of the defenceless front rank men - angling to the sides to avoid the heads of comrades - with their spears?

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

[PMBardunias]

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

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

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

Not the same.

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

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