Why would non-flanked formations rout?

[Justin Swanton]

And green hoplites fleeing at the mere measured approach of Spartans. But that's a pre-battle rout rather than recoiling in the strict sense.

The big difference is tactical doctrine. Light infantry, of which hastatii were at heart, are expected to give ground and maintain cohesion. This is why light troops are often better trained that line troops. The 5th/4th C hoplite was not trained to give ground, thought they could.  Something you have to remember is that in no ordered line formation can a man break off contact with the enemy and run away. This has nothing to do with overlapping shields or the danger of doing so, but with the mass of men behind him.

Unless his file was trained to allow him to give ground when necessary, keeping in mind that being unable to give ground puts him at a distinct disadvantage in hand-to-hand combat unless he is well armoured and part of a well-protected line that is a phalanx (and even then). Most hoplite wounds didn't come from clever spear/sword fencing, but by spears being rammed right through the shield and/or cuirasse. For Romans it was about finding the weak points in the enemy's armour and shoving a sword into them. That means sparring which means giving ground and coming back, to and fro.

Ok, I too am confused now.  Are you talking about intentionally giving ground-vs-being herded back-vs being pushed back?

I will give you an example.  One could argue, and I do, that many hoplite battles ended with one side being physically pushed back. This also seems to have happened in some manner at Zama.  But the crowded conditions I describe also happened at Cannae, and in that battle no one was pushing the Romans.  Instead the Romans were being herded closer together, made to move by threat of violence, and they were pushing each other into a tight mass. Were the Romans at Pydna being herded back by sarissa or where they intentionally breaking off to trade space for time? Given that many had their shields pinned by sarissa, there may have been an element of push as well.

Let me explain. Soldiers on a battlefield go in to reverse gear for one of three reasons:

a) they are routing and are running for it (green hoplites fleeing Spartans, etc.)

b) they are being physically pushed back (othismos)

c) they are voluntarily giving ground. At Cannae this was done by Hannibal's Gauls and Spaniards, with their wedge gradually flattening into a line then a bow before the Roman advance. This voluntary ceding of ground isn't a deliberated, calculated decision, but natural result of melee combat, in which one side outfights the other. See these examples of fighters giving ground without actually being pushed back:

Fencing
Rapier fighting
Saber fighting
Mediaeval swordfighting
Polearm fighting
Polish spear fighting
Masai spear fighting
Quarterstaff fighting

It's an absolute constant with hand-to-hand combat.

Each line of triplex acies legion would give ground in this way, retiring through the line behind it which then took up the fight (bearing in mind the lines didn't always give ground and execute line relief). IMHO this voluntary ceding of ground was common to infantry with the exception of Greek and Macedonian phalanxes, which were designed precisely to counter it. Giving ground was usually the precursor to defeat but the Romans used it as a clever psychological ploy: hitting a tired enemy with fresh principes and then, if he was persistent, heartening him by withdrawing the principes and then unexpectedly hitting him with fresh triarii who had kept out of sight until then.

I doubt that hastati ever acted as light troops. Velites were, and fought as light troops - chucking missiles at an enemy from a distance and hightailing it when the enemy drew near. The hastati at Zama fought all three of Hannibal's lines without executing line relief. Pretty impressive for light infantry.

So are there any cases of hoplites recoiling = giving ground outside of othismos?

That is hard to say because many will tell anytime hoplites are "pushed" back it is figurative and not from othismos.  But a non-hoplite example that avoids this is Sellasia, where the Spartans beat the Macedonians down a whole hill side, only to have the bastards double their depth (or halve their file frontage) and advance again. It seems to me that your "recoiling", if you do not mean being herded back, would be more like what some see Phillip doing at Chaironea, a feigned retreat. For what it is worth I do not believe it. I find it great propaganda for: " we got our asses kick and broke, but rallied and the overzealous Athenians ran into our reformed phalanx in poor order.

Good examples, and I like your take on Chaeronea. Just possibly: the Macedonian phalanx wasn't handling the rough ground on the Greek left very well, and had to pull back. Once on level ground it came into its element. The Athenians, who had followed it up, fought at a disadvantage but, like true Greeks, had no idea of retiring to their former advantageous position and lost the fight where they stood.

[RichT]

You probably need four categories:

a) Routing - running away (before, during or after fighting).
Examples - lots.

b) Pushed back - physically shoved back (if en masse, scrum othismos or crowd othismos)
Examples - as individuals, Zama. En masse - never happened

c) Forced back - giving ground due to being outfought in a fight with weapons
Examples - Sellasia, most infantry battles

d) Recoiling - more or less voluntarily backing off in an attempt to avoid contact as much as possible
Examples - Gauls/Spaniards at Cannae, Romans at Pydna

Now what was the question?

[Justin Swanton]

Now what was the question?

The extent to which going backwards is a prequel to routing.

I like your c) and d).

[RichT]

Thanks - I expect c) and d) could often merge into each other but even so it's a valid distinction. I also think d) was what  Roman 'line relief' involved.

The extent to which going backwards is a prequel to routing.

The extent to which going backwards is a necessary prequel to routing? I would say not at all, as routs can happen eg before contact, or due to factors other than being outfought from the front (as discussed in the rest of this thread).

The extent to which going backwards was frequently followed by routing? I would say, assuming backwards types b) or c), very often, as it would take great discipline not to rout after being much pushed or forced back - and IMHO the whole purpose of the closed up phalanx formation, file closers pushing etc was to prevent type b) or c) backwards movement.

Hoplites wouldn't do type d) for cultural as well as military reasons - though maybe it's what the Macedonians did at Chaeronea (maybe).

[Erpingham]

The extent to which going backwards was frequently followed by routing? I would say, assuming backwards types b) or c), very often, as it would take great discipline not to rout after being much pushed or forced back - and IMHO the whole purpose of the closed up phalanx formation, file closers pushing etc was to prevent type b) or c) backwards movement.

It depends a bit on the duration too.  Being driven back a spears length on contact didn't prevent the English at Agincourt from stopping the enemy and ultimately defeating them.

[PMBardunias]

Unless his file was trained to allow him to give ground when necessary, keeping in mind that being unable to give ground puts him at a distinct disadvantage in hand-to-hand combat unless he is well armoured and part of a well-protected line that is a phalanx (and even then). Most hoplite wounds didn't come from clever spear/sword fencing, but by spears being rammed right through the shield and/or cuirasse. For Romans it was about finding the weak points in the enemy's armour and shoving a sword into them. That means sparring which means giving ground and coming back, to and fro.

I am not sure where you picked up this notion, maybe from accounts of sarissa going through shields?  But I am as certain as I am about anything related to hoplite combat that this is not the case.  Intentionally hitting a shield with a dory is the fastest way to lose a combat. Even the prodding of shields, done by many in mock combat, cannot be done with a sharp spear without getting your point stuck.  If your point is stuck in my shield, I control it and you die.  Marozzo has a whole set of rules for how to kiss a foe with rotella and partisan if he manages to get his spear stuck in your shield. You should see how poplar wood grips a spear head.

c) they are voluntarily giving ground. At Cannae this was done by Hannibal's Gauls and Spaniards, with their wedge gradually flattening into a line then a bow before the Roman advance. This voluntary ceding of ground isn't a deliberated, calculated decision, but natural result of melee combat, in which one side outfights the other. See these examples of fighters giving ground without actually being pushed back:

Fencing
Rapier fighting
Saber fighting
Mediaeval swordfighting
Polearm fighting
Polish spear fighting
Masai spear fighting
Quarterstaff fighting

It's an absolute constant with hand-to-hand combat.

All of the examples above are Individual combat. This is hugely different.  In a duel, individuals dance forward and back, is a formation, unless the front rank is a few meters ahead of the men behind, this cannot happen.  Instead the whole line surges forward and back. This is not the same thing. A file cannot move forward or back with the front line fighter fast enough to be part of individual fighting movement.

Each line of triplex acies legion would give ground in this way, retiring through the line behind it which then took up the fight (bearing in mind the lines didn't always give ground and execute line relief). IMHO this voluntary ceding of ground was common to infantry with the exception of Greek and Macedonian phalanxes, which were designed precisely to counter it. Giving ground was usually the precursor to defeat but the Romans used it as a clever psychological ploy: hitting a tired enemy with fresh principes and then, if he was persistent, heartening him by withdrawing the principes and then unexpectedly hitting him with fresh triarii who had kept out of sight until then.

I agree with this in principle, but I would reverse the polarity. What you are describing as recoiling, in most historical armies I would call breaking off contact and re charging. This probably happened all the time, and someone cited Sabin's work, which I would as well for Lulls in combat.  Look at the lull at Zama, where it is hard to see why Hannibal passively watched the romans reorganize their whole line and protect its flanks. What Roman's did with line relief is incompletely break off.  By cycling through stacked units, they did not allow the enemy the respite of a lull.  So, it is not the breaking off and giving ground that is unique, it is the not re-attacking with the same men, but with fresh troops behind them.

I doubt that hastati ever acted as light troops. Velites were, and fought as light troops - chucking missiles at an enemy from a distance and hightailing it when the enemy drew near. The hastati at Zama fought all three of Hannibal's lines without executing line relief. Pretty impressive for light infantry.
This is a matter of perspective. Compared to Hoplites, Hastatii fought under a doctrine that was not that of heavy infantry. Thureophroi, the closest greek equivalent, though they were even more reliant on linear formations, clearly fought in a manner that was more like light infantry that hoplites (see Polybius describing the problem with thureophoroi in the context of Phillipoemen's switch to sarissa and the way the mercenaries fought in his battle with Machanidas of Sparta)

[Justin Swanton]

Unless his file was trained to allow him to give ground when necessary, keeping in mind that being unable to give ground puts him at a distinct disadvantage in hand-to-hand combat unless he is well armoured and part of a well-protected line that is a phalanx (and even then). Most hoplite wounds didn't come from clever spear/sword fencing, but by spears being rammed right through the shield and/or cuirasse. For Romans it was about finding the weak points in the enemy's armour and shoving a sword into them. That means sparring which means giving ground and coming back, to and fro.

I am not sure where you picked up this notion, maybe from accounts of sarissa going through shields?

From Homer:

When they had thus armed, each amid his own people, they strode fierce of aspect into the open space, and both Trojans and Achaeans were struck with awe as they beheld them. They stood near one another on the measured ground, brandishing their spears, and each furious against the other. Alexandrus aimed first, and struck the round shield of the son of Atreus, but the spear did not pierce it, for the shield turned its point. - Book 3 He poised his spear as he spoke, and hurled it at the shield of Alexandrus. Through shield and cuirass it went, and tore the shirt by his flank, but Alexandrus swerved aside, and thus saved his life. - ditto He poised his spear as he spoke and hurled it from him. It struck the shield of the son of Tydeus; the bronze point pierced it and passed on till it reached the breastplate. - Book 5 The spear of King Agamemnon struck his shield and went right through it, for the shield stayed it not. It drove through his belt into the lower part of his belly, and his armour rang rattling round him as he fell heavily to the ground. - ditto He poised his spear as he spoke, and hurled it from him. It struck the sevenfold shield in its outermost layer—the eighth, which was of bronze—and went through six of the layers but in the seventh hide it stayed. Then Ajax threw in his turn, and struck the round shield of the son of Priam. The terrible spear went through his gleaming shield, and pressed onward through his cuirass of cunning workmanship; it pierced the shirt against his side, but he swerved and thus saved his life. They then each of them drew out the spear from his shield, and fell on one another like savage lions or wild boars of great strength and endurance: the son of Priam struck the middle of Ajax's shield, but the bronze did not break, and the point of his dart was turned. Ajax then sprang forward and pierced the shield of Hector; the spear went through it and staggered him as he was springing forward to attack; - Book 7 With these words he struck the shield of Ulysses. The spear went through the shield and passed on through his richly wrought cuirass, tearing the flesh from his side, but Pallas Minerva did not suffer it to pierce the entrails of the hero. - Book 11 Meanwhile Ajax sprang on him and pierced his shield, but the spear did not go clean through, though it hustled him back that he could come on no further. - Book 12 Many a man's body was wounded with the pitiless bronze, as he turned round and bared his back to the foe, and many were struck clean through their shields – ditto Meriones took aim at him with a spear, nor did he fail to hit the broad orb of ox-hide; but he was far from piercing it for the spear broke in two pieces long ere he could do so; moreover Deiphobus had seen it coming and had held his shield well away from him. - Book 13 Deiphobus then came close up to Idomeneus to avenge Asius, and took aim at him with a spear, but Idomeneus was on the look-out and avoided it, for he was covered by the round shield he always bore—a shield of oxhide and bronze with two arm-rods on the inside. He crouched under cover of this, and the spear flew over him, but the shield rang out as the spear grazed it - ditto As he was thus aiming among the crowd, he was seen by Adamas, son of Asius, who rushed towards him and struck him with a spear in the middle of his shield, but Neptune made its point without effect, for he grudged him the life of Antilochus. One half, therefore, of the spear stuck fast like a charred stake in Antilochus's shield, while the other lay on the ground. - ditto When the two were hard by one another the spear of the son of Atreus turned aside and he missed his aim; Pisander then struck the shield of brave Menelaus but could not pierce it, for the shield stayed the spear and broke the shaft nevertheless he was glad and made sure of victory - ditto Harpalion son of King Pylaemenes then sprang upon him; he had come to fight at Troy along with his father, but he did not go home again. He struck the middle of Menelaus's shield with his spear but could not pierce it, and to save his life drew back under cover of his men, looking round him on every side lest he should be wounded. - ditto He then struck the middle of the son of Phyleus' shield with his spear, setting on him at close quarters, but his good corslet made with plates of metal saved him – Book 15 And Meriones answered, 'Aeneas, for all your bravery, you will not be able to make an end of every one who comes against you. You are only a mortal like myself, and if I were to hit you in the middle of your shield with my spear, however strong and self-confident you may be, I should soon vanquish you, and you would yield your life to Hades of the noble steeds.' -  Book 16 As he spoke he struck Menelaus full on the shield, but the spear did not go through, for the shield turned its point. - Book 17 He poised and hurled as he spoke, whereon the spear struck the round shield of Aretus, and went right through it for the shield stayed it not, so that it was driven through his belt into the lower part of his belly. - ditto As he spoke he drove his spear at the great and terrible shield of Achilles, which rang out as the point struck it. The son of Peleus held the shield before him with his strong hand, and he was afraid, for he deemed that Aeneas's spear would go through it quite easily, not reflecting that the god's glorious gifts were little likely to yield before the blows of mortal men; and indeed Aeneas's spear did not pierce the shield, for the layer of gold, gift of the god, stayed the point. It went through two layers, but the god had made the shield in five, two of bronze, the two innermost ones of tin, and one of gold; it was in this that the spear was stayed. -  Book 20 Asteropaeus failed with both his spears, for he could use both hands alike; with the one spear he struck Achilles' shield, but did not pierce it, for the layer of gold, gift of the god, stayed the point; with the other spear he grazed the elbow of Achilles' right arm drawing dark blood, but the spear itself went by him and fixed itself in the ground, foiled of its bloody banquet. - Book 21 He poised his spear as he spoke and hurled it. His aim was true for he hit the middle of Achilles' shield, but the spear rebounded from it, and did not pierce it. - Book 22 Ajax pierced Diomed's round shield, but did not draw blood, for the cuirass beneath the shield protected him; - Book 23

In most of these examples the spear is thrown, true, but I count seven instances where one or both combatants drive the spear at the shield of their opponent rather than throw it. How tough is a shield made of 4 - 7 layers of ox hide covered with a layer of bronze, compared to a shield made of wood? I suspect that a Homeric hero could penetrate a wooden shield just as easily as a leather one. And I think these are descriptions of real Archaic pre-hoplite combat rather than impossible exaggerations. The details of the fighting are convincing - the nature and gravity of the wounds, how armour does or doesn't protect its wearer, etc. Homer (or whoever wrote the Iliad) knew all about fighting.

PS: on how tough a leather shield is read the first post here (forget about the remarks on the bronze shield).

[PMBardunias]

From Homer:

In most of these examples the spear is thrown, true, but I count seven instances where one or both combatants drive the spear at the shield of their opponent rather than throw it. How tough is a shield made of 4 - 7 layers of ox hide covered with a layer of bronze, compared to a shield made of wood? I suspect that a Homeric hero could penetrate a wooden shield just as easily as a leather one. And I think these are descriptions of real Archaic pre-hoplite combat rather than impossible exaggerations. The details of the fighting are convincing - the nature and gravity of the wounds, how armour does or doesn't protect its wearer, etc. Homer (or whoever wrote the Iliad) knew all about fighting.

PS: on how tough a leather shield is read the first post here (forget about the remarks on the bronze shield).

Ah, I see. A couple points.  The aspis can be penetrated. We have images on vases of such as well as the famous incident where Brasidas's shield "turned traitor".  But the question is whether I would do this in battle.  I can put mt spear through a slab of wood of shield thickness. I have not tried it through a properly made shield with two layers of thick linen or a bronze face, but I will bet I could even then.  I would never do this in battle.  The chances of me getting through the shield and actually hitting you are astronomically low, the chances of me getting through the shield deep enough to kill you, even more so.  What will most assuredly happen is that my spear will be stuck in your shield face and I will not be able to remove it with out a sawing motion to get it out.  You will not let me do this, but rather simply kill me while you control the point of my spear and have huge leverage advantages.  As to Homer, let us leave aside that this is semi-fantastical, it is crucial that the spears are thrown.  No one is throwing the spear at the shield, rather the men are catching the spear on the shield and it is piercing it.  To me as the attacker, if the throw does not go through the shield, no problem, I have lost it anyway. It is not the same with a strike.  A similar problem exists for penetrating armor, but presumably I have wounded you so severely that yo are no threat.  Getting my spear out of your body anywhere I stab you is a problem. If you roll you swill snap my shaft (which was common and I think what prompted othismos). But at least you are dead and I can draw my sword.

All props to Renfrew, but I do not believe their findings.  I ran tests on the latigo leather that I made my spolas from with a spear head that was right out of the box and "factory sharp".  My armor kicked ass!  I was stopping really hard strikes, and my overhand strikes are far stronger than most dory strikes that have been tested because I am a big dude and my spear is a 9' monster. Woo Hoo!  I got ready to post all about this.  Then I made a mistake.  I took the spear head to my grinding wheel and sharpened it to a razor.  The thing when right through my armor like the proverbial knife through butter.  It was almost nauseating to see it go through the way it did.  So my learned opinion is that their points were not sharp enough.

[Justin Swanton]

Ah, I see. A couple points.  The aspis can be penetrated. We have images on vases of such as well as the famous incident where Brasidas's shield "turned traitor".  But the question is whether I would do this in battle.  I can put mt spear through a slab of wood of shield thickness. I have not tried it through a properly made shield with two layers of thick linen or a bronze face, but I will bet I could even then.  I would never do this in battle.  The chances of me getting through the shield and actually hitting you are astronomically low, the chances of me getting through the shield deep enough to kill you, even more so.  What will most assuredly happen is that my spear will be stuck in your shield face and I will not be able to remove it with out a sawing motion to get it out.  You will not let me do this, but rather simply kill me while you control the point of my spear and have huge leverage advantages.  As to Homer, let us leave aside that this is semi-fantastical, it is crucial that the spears are thrown.  No one is throwing the spear at the shield, rather the men are catching the spear on the shield and it is piercing it.  To me as the attacker, if the throw does not go through the shield, no problem, I have lost it anyway. It is not the same with a strike.  A similar problem exists for penetrating armor, but presumably I have wounded you so severely that yo are no threat.  Getting my spear out of your body anywhere I stab you is a problem. If you roll you swill snap my shaft (which was common and I think what prompted othismos). But at least you are dead and I can draw my sword.

All props to Renfrew, but I do not believe their findings.  I ran tests on the latigo leather that I made my spolas from with a spear head that was right out of the box and "factory sharp".  My armor kicked ass!  I was stopping really hard strikes, and my overhand strikes are far stronger than most dory strikes that have been tested because I am a big dude and my spear is a 9' monster. Woo Hoo!  I got ready to post all about this.  Then I made a mistake.  I took the spear head to my grinding wheel and sharpened it to a razor.  The thing when right through my armor like the proverbial knife through butter.  It was almost nauseating to see it go through the way it did.  So my learned opinion is that their points were not sharp enough.

Very interesting. So a really sharp spearhead and a big dude will get through hoplite armour, which (I presume) includes wooden as well as leather shields.

Christopher Matthew mentions BTW that most injuries sustained in hoplite combat in the classical period were in the chest:

As in Homer, the chest appears to have been the most commonly targeted area in the phalanx warfare of the Classical Age. Euripides' Phoenician Women describes weapon strikes aimed at the face and chest while his Heraclea details strikes aimed at the shield. Epaminondas received a wound to the chest through the breastplate at Mantinea that was not fatal and is even described as not being incapacitating. Chares was able to display his battle scars and his shield, which had been pierced by a spear, in a boastful gesture to the Athenians; suggesting wounds to the chest and arms. The numerous injuries Agesilaus sustained at Coronea in 394BC are said to have pierced his armour and he was in great pain as a result of them. Brasidas was wounded by a spear that pierced his shield but the wound was so minor that he simply pulled the spear out and kept fighting. There are many other references to chest or abdominal wounds, or attacks directed against the chest or shield, including those on Dion and Timoleon. Plutarch relates that Epaminondas was killed at Mantinea while he was turned about encouraging his troops, the blow most likely delivered to the back. Similarly, Plutarch relates the account of a fallen man who, about to be stabbed in the back, pleads to be stabbed in the chest to avoid the shame. This suggests that the chest, and not the throat, was the regular injury sustained in hoplite combat.

Penetrating armour it seems was not such a big deal.

[PMBardunias]

Very interesting. So a really sharp spearhead and a big dude will get through hoplite armour, which (I presume) includes wooden as well as leather shields.

Christopher Matthew mentions BTW that most injuries sustained in hoplite combat in the classical period were in the chest:

As in Homer, the chest appears to have been the most commonly targeted area in the phalanx warfare of the Classical Age. Euripides' Phoenician Women describes weapon strikes aimed at the face and chest while his Heraclea details strikes aimed at the shield. Epaminondas received a wound to the chest through the breastplate at Mantinea that was not fatal and is even described as not being incapacitating. Chares was able to display his battle scars and his shield, which had been pierced by a spear, in a boastful gesture to the Athenians; suggesting wounds to the chest and arms. The numerous injuries Agesilaus sustained at Coronea in 394BC are said to have pierced his armour and he was in great pain as a result of them. Brasidas was wounded by a spear that pierced his shield but the wound was so minor that he simply pulled the spear out and kept fighting. There are many other references to chest or abdominal wounds, or attacks directed against the chest or shield, including those on Dion and Timoleon. Plutarch relates that Epaminondas was killed at Mantinea while he was turned about encouraging his troops, the blow most likely delivered to the back. Similarly, Plutarch relates the account of a fallen man who, about to be stabbed in the back, pleads to be stabbed in the chest to avoid the shame. This suggests that the chest, and not the throat, was the regular injury sustained in hoplite combat.

Penetrating armour it seems was not such a big deal.

The hopite aspis is not made of  leather. We don't even have evidence of it being faced is leather, but rather when not bronze it seems to have been faced in textile- probably linen. I this suprised me to learn because I would have guessed rawhide facings, but in fact the only leather found is a thin kid skin on the inside of the bowl and cosmetic, not structural.

Careful with the Mathew quote. He is trying to show that throat wounds were not common because he used an odd form of overhand strike that has to descend from above and for which the throat would be a major target. Overhand strikes do not have a descending trajectory when done correctly- or at least my way- so this is irrelevant.  But shots to the face are very common.

Be careful as well in looking at recorded injuries and assuming that the frequency of recording equals the frequency of occurrence. We do not know that.  But I know for a fact that men could be injured through armor, because I have pierced reproductions, but also because the Greeks showed us this, see below.

It is worth looking at Euripides Phoenissae to see how men are: protected behind a shield, stabbed in the exposed shoulder, and how both dorys break.

"When the Tuscan trumpet, like a torch, blew the signal for the bloody battle, they darted wildly against one another; [1380] like boars whetting their savage tusks, they joined battle, their beards wet with foam. They kept shooting out their spears, but crouched beneath their shields to let the steel glance off in vain; but if either saw the other's eye above the rim, [1385] he would aim his lance there, eager to outwit him with the point. But both kept such careful outlook through the spy-holes in their shields, that their weapons found nothing to do; while from the onlookers far more than the combatants trickled the sweat caused by terror for their friends.
[1390] Eteocles, in kicking aside a stone that rolled beneath his tread, exposed a limb outside his shield, and Polyneices, seeing a chance of dealing him a blow, aimed at it, and the Argive shaft passed through his leg; [1395] the Danaid army, one and all, cried out for joy. And the wounded man, seeing Polyneices' shoulder bare in this effort, plunged his spear with all his might into his breast, restoring gladness to the citizens of Thebes, though he broke off the spear-head. [1400] And so, at a loss for a weapon, he retreated step by step, till catching up a splintered rock he let it fly and broke the other's spear in the middle; and now the combat was equal, for each had lost his lance.
Then clutching their sword-hilts [1405] they closed, and round and round, with shields clashing, they fought a wild battle. And Eteocles introduced the crafty Thessalian trick, having some knowledge of it from his association with that country. Disengaging himself from the immediate contest, [1410] he drew back his left foot but kept his eye closely on the pit of the other's stomach from a distance; then advancing his right foot he plunged the weapon through his navel and fixed it in his spine. Down fell Polyneices, dripping with blood, [1415] ribs and belly contracting in his agony. But the other, thinking his victory now complete, threw down his sword and began to despoil him, wholly intent on that, without a thought for himself. And this indeed tripped him up; for Polyneices, who had fallen first, was still faintly breathing, [1420] and having in his grievous fall kept his sword, he made a last effort and drove it through the heart of Eteocles. They both lie there, fallen side by side, biting the dust with their teeth, and they have not decided the mastery."

[Patrick Waterson]

Interesting, gentlemen.

Just out of curiosity, and apologies for the slight drift off-topic, but did Greeks have spy-holes in their shields?

[PMBardunias]

Interesting, gentlemen.

Just out of curiosity, and apologies for the slight drift off-topic, but did Greeks have spy-holes in their shields?

No, not that I have ever seen.  He is probably referring to looking over the rim and the translation is garbled somehow.  We have many images of this.

[Patrick Waterson]

Thanks, Paul.

The reason I ask is because a spy hole in the shield is characteristic of 18th Dynasty Egypt, so it may be less a matter of garbled translation than cultural transfer of the original story.  One notes the 'coats of brazen mail' donned by both combatants, which is also characteristically albeit not uniquely Egyptian.  The wounds suffered by Eteocles, incidentally, are precisely consistent with those discovered on the mummy of Tutankhamun in 2005.

But please do not let me interrupt you further.

[Erpingham]

He is probably referring to looking over the rim and the translation is garbled somehow.

I don't think so.  They are explicitly watching for each other to peer over the rim in order to attack with the spear but using the spy hole avoids this, so their weapons "have nothing to do".

but if either saw the other's eye above the rim, [1385] he would aim his lance there, eager to outwit him with the point. But both kept such careful outlook through the spy-holes in their shields, that their weapons found nothing to do;

Given that they are Thebans, is it possible that the idea is they are equipped with the legendary (?) Boeotian shield and Euripedes is interpretting the holes in the edge as spy holes?

I don't know anything about the play but the plot seems based in Greek rather than Egyptian legend.   Presumably, Patrick is aware of theory of an Egyptian origin?  As to theories about Tutankamun's death, there is a whole other thread (or more) there .

[Duncan Head]

One notes the 'coats of brazen mail' donned by both combatants, which is also characteristically albeit not uniquely Egyptian.

Especially not when they are just chalkeois ... hoplois.