SoA Forums

Not sure if this is the right place for this, but I am running some tests on as clash on over 100 men in full HEMA protective gear who will go full tilt and fight in phalanx.  I will have lots of cameras and probably a drone as well.  These people will be equipped with plastic rotella, about the size of an aspis without the rim, so pretty close, and rubber tipped spears of about 7'.

I am planning to test overhand vs Mathew's couched underhand, differential frontage, differential speed, thus cohesion, of the charge, how difficult it is for men to get past the hedge of spears to go shield on shield, differential depth, with a force meter for othismos, and other issues of formation. I have printed "agression cards, so I can control the fighting style of the front ranks, and I will force some promachoi to "break" their spears to see what they do.

I welcome any suggestions for other tests I may not have thought of, or issues that those of you on here would gain from seeing tested.

Paul

Paul - that sounds intriguing and potentially very valuable.

Some random thoughts of things I'd like to see:
- various depths and their effects (may be difficult depending on numbers I guess, though shallow depths should be possible)
- the various possible file intervals (2 m, 1 m. 0.5 m, and maybe in betweens). Marching, running, manoeuvring and fighting in these intervals.
- do you have a way of judging hits from spears (or other weapons) in mass combat? I ask because for example where you intend to test "how difficult it is for men to get past the hedge of spears to go shield on shield" I imagine the answer will be "very easy" if there is no risk of taking a wounding or lethal blow from a spear while doing so; the lethality of real combat must very materially affect its mechanics, and any test without that lethality (or, to be fair to your test subjects, the closest possible representation of it) may give misleading results.
- any chance of testing an underarm sarissa hold? I know the spears are too short, but even just testing (and documenting) the hold for two ranks would tell us something. Particularly in the closest interval.
- use of swords in 'othismos' - also drawing of swords in this state, and use of spears.
- how about non-hoplite combat? eg with swords, or in more fluid order (in order to avoid an assumption that hoplite combat is unique).
- duration of and fatigue produced by combat (at various intensities), and also including charging
- active pushing (othismos, crowd crush) v. passive pushing (bracing)
- ability to retreat (walking backwards) in various circumstances (on what terrain?)

I may think of more...

Quote from: PMBardunias on September 15, 2019, 04:13:20 PM
I will force some promachoi to "break" their spears to see what they do.

Will the spears be double-ended?  Otherwise I foresee the re-invention of the truncheon ...

Richard's list covers just about everything I have thought of, apart from placement of the unit commander.  Is in the front at the right actually the optimal position?  Or does this apply only to an overall comamnder, with lochos commanders being better in the centre of the front rank?  Or should this be a different study?

Cohesion is going to be an interesting aspect; I assume the volunteers will be organised in files with a file leader and closer; it might be interesting to see if a group experienced in moving and formating on this basis has superior staying-power to one which consists only of aggregated individuals (a 'crowd').

Will the duration of combat be set, or 'called' by the referee at his discretion, or allowed to run until a result is achieved?  In the latter event, it would be interesting to see if the loser falls back as a group or breaks and scatters, or what.

This has the potential to be a very informative study, Paul.  I wish you the best of success.

Would it help to have solid 'sides' to the phalanx blocks. After all, you're looking at a narrow frontage of a lot bigger thing. So would you need something to stop your phalanx bulging to both sides as it fights?
Also I assume you don't want overlapping, except when specifically examining overlapping.

So form up with two barriers, one to cover each flank?

Quote from: PMBardunias on September 15, 2019, 04:13:20 PM
I will have lots of cameras and probably a drone as well. 

Drone footage could be very cool, and very new.

Quote from: RichT on September 15, 2019, 05:31:23 PM
Paul - that sounds intriguing and potentially very valuable.

Some random thoughts of things I'd like to see:
- various depths and their effects (may be difficult depending on numbers I guess, though shallow depths should be possible)
- the various possible file intervals (2 m, 1 m. 0.5 m, and maybe in betweens). Marching, running, manoeuvring and fighting in these intervals.

These we are doing

Quote from: RichT on September 15, 2019, 05:31:23 PM
- do you have a way of judging hits from spears (or other weapons) in mass combat? I ask because for example where you intend to test "how difficult it is for men to get past the hedge of spears to go shield on shield" I imagine the answer will be "very easy" if there is no risk of taking a wounding or lethal blow from a spear while doing so; the lethality of real combat must very materially affect its mechanics, and any test without that lethality (or, to be fair to your test subjects, the closest possible representation of it) may give misleading results.

The people involved will be HEMA practitioners and used to reacting to "play" hits as though real.  Obviously it is an honor system, but I will debrief both sides after to see if spearmen felt the other side was cheating.  The real problem is that weapons will not stick in shields or men as they would in real life.

Quote from: RichT on September 15, 2019, 05:31:23 PM
- any chance of testing an underarm sarissa hold? I know the spears are too short, but even just testing (and documenting) the hold for two ranks would tell us something. Particularly in the closest interval.

Probably not, but I may be able to get a bunch together to try something.

Quote from: RichT on September 15, 2019, 05:31:23 PM
- use of swords in 'othismos' - also drawing of swords in this state, and use of spears.
- how about non-hoplite combat? eg with swords, or in more fluid order (in order to avoid an assumption that hoplite combat is unique).
- duration of and fatigue produced by combat (at various intensities), and also including charging
- active pushing (othismos, crowd crush) v. passive pushing (bracing)
- ability to retreat (walking backwards) in various circumstances (on what terrain?)

They will all have nylon Xiphos replicas- there is another class on hoplite xiphos use. We assume a priori that the notion hoplites could not fight outside of a phalanx is crap, so they will be fighting one on one..

Duration and breaking will be covered by filming the event, I can get that data later.

I am bringing a force meter for othismos, but without true, deep, aspides, this may be limited.  Many will have steel back and breast though, it is primarily a renaissance workshop, so they may be able to push in safety.

Jim, we will run the tests between a pair of buildings to simulate extended lines on both flanks.

Patrick, I am hoping to have a group that will follow file leaders, and another than just forms in a mass for at least one test. We have not decided how we will handle duration yet.  I will have an air horn though :)

Thanks everyone.

I think we're all awaiting the results with interest  8)

One last thing: any chance the reenactors could try the overarm hold I propose for phalangites whilst in as close formation as possible with shields overlapping? To see if any hidden problems emerge?

Quote from: Justin Swanton on September 17, 2019, 09:23:50 AM
One last thing: any chance the reenactors could try the overarm hold I propose for phalangites whilst in as close formation as possible with shields overlapping? To see if any hidden problems emerge?

Is this the same as the renaissance pike overhand grip (both hands fingertips down)? remind me.  If I can get a bunch of guys to freelance for me, I will film some two handed spear frontage.

Quote from: PMBardunias on September 18, 2019, 01:13:48 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on September 17, 2019, 09:23:50 AM
One last thing: any chance the reenactors could try the overarm hold I propose for phalangites whilst in as close formation as possible with shields overlapping? To see if any hidden problems emerge?

Is this the same as the renaissance pike overhand grip (both hands fingertips down)? remind me.  If I can get a bunch of guys to freelance for me, I will film some two handed spear frontage.

No, like this. Polevaulter grip.

(https://i.imgur.com/wMcpu6J.jpg)

Quote from: Justin Swanton on September 18, 2019, 05:18:17 PM

Quote from: PMBardunias on September 18, 2019, 01:13:48 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on September 17, 2019, 09:23:50 AM
One last thing: any chance the reenactors could try the overarm hold I propose for phalangites whilst in as close formation as possible with shields overlapping? To see if any hidden problems emerge?

Is this the same as the renaissance pike overhand grip (both hands fingertips down)? remind me.  If I can get a bunch of guys to freelance for me, I will film some two handed spear frontage.

No, like this. Polevaulter grip.

(https://i.imgur.com/wMcpu6J.jpg)

I will see what I can do.

Quote from: PMBardunias on September 18, 2019, 10:46:52 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on September 18, 2019, 05:18:17 PM

Quote from: PMBardunias on September 18, 2019, 01:13:48 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on September 17, 2019, 09:23:50 AM
One last thing: any chance the reenactors could try the overarm hold I propose for phalangites whilst in as close formation as possible with shields overlapping? To see if any hidden problems emerge?

Is this the same as the renaissance pike overhand grip (both hands fingertips down)? remind me.  If I can get a bunch of guys to freelance for me, I will film some two handed spear frontage.

No, like this. Polevaulter grip.

(https://i.imgur.com/wMcpu6J.jpg)

I will see what I can do.

One possible problem - your reenactors will be using hoplite aspides with porpax grips, which I suspect will make a two-handed grip on the spear impossible.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on September 20, 2019, 06:47:20 AM
One possible problem - your reenactors will be using hoplite aspides with porpax grips, which I suspect will make a two-handed grip on the spear impossible.

From Paul's original post:

Quote
These people will be equipped with plastic rotella, about the size of an aspis without the rim, so pretty close

If they are like this one (https://www.theknightshop.com/round-shield-55cm) for example it should be possible to slide the leftmost armband above the elbow, so allowing a two handed grip. We will find out in due course.

Quote from: RichT on September 20, 2019, 09:02:29 AM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on September 20, 2019, 06:47:20 AM
One possible problem - your reenactors will be using hoplite aspides with porpax grips, which I suspect will make a two-handed grip on the spear impossible.

From Paul's original post:

Quote
These people will be equipped with plastic rotella, about the size of an aspis without the rim, so pretty close

If they are like this one (https://www.theknightshop.com/round-shield-55cm) for example it should be possible to slide the leftmost armband above the elbow, so allowing a two handed grip. We will find out in due course.

Ideally you want the armgrip vertical and pretty much in the centre of the shield and loose enough so the bent elbow can fit comfortably in it. The elbow rests in the armgrip and the telamon carries the weight of the shield, elbow and spear. With a little adjustment it works fine and the shield is rigid in the bargain. With the overarm grip it is possible to raise the shield by raising the elbow, all whilst keeping everything else in place. I'm not sure if Paul's reenactors can pull all this off though.

Things went quite well. Still going through the footage. 

In the end, we set out to examine three things: Overhand vs underhand, close order (60cm) vs opened order (90cm), and a true othismos between two opposing masses of men (I took heat for measuring files pushing against a stationary object.

Short results were that Underhand was found to be a problem. Targets were limited when the men were close enough to have to strike from a couched position over the shields. More interestingly, because I did not predict it, the overhand combatants could out range the under by letting the shaft slide as they struck, and by moving in, they could jam up the underhanders, who could not reach back to the same degree as the overhand strikers.

Open vs closed order was a massacre. The opened order combatants could not stand up against the large number of spears facing them.

Lastly, we brought two massed together on 6 ranks deep. We maxed out at 675lbs of crushing force.

Two other interesting things. 6 ranks crashing against 2 ranks broke right through the line, 3 failed pretty quick, but 4 ranks stopped 6 ranks or even 8 ranks cold.  This may explain why we see 4 ranks as a common minima, it can hold up any number of ranks in an intial collision and renders such a collision a bad idea.

We also formed up around 60-70 men in files, assigned a file leader, and then had them follow the leader into line, march a few hundred yards, then fall out back into files. Literally 5 minutes of explanation and they were flawless in their execution, even running around obstacles.

Quote from: PMBardunias on October 05, 2019, 07:55:45 PM
Two other interesting things. 6 ranks crashing against 2 ranks broke right through the line, 3 failed pretty quick, but 4 ranks stopped 6 ranks or even 8 ranks cold.  This may explain why we see 4 ranks as a common minima, it can hold up any number of ranks in an intial collision and renders such a collision a bad idea.

This would make a 4-rank centre at Marathon suitably credible (I know it is still really no more than a hypotherical assumption). Related to Marathon, there is also the question of how long four ranks can sustain pressure after an initial impact.  Maybe next time?

QuoteWe also formed up around 60-70 men in files, assigned a file leader, and then had them follow the leader into line, march a few hundred yards, then fall out back into files. Literally 5 minutes of explanation and they were flawless in their execution, even running around obstacles.

Excellent: this is quite a potent finding for the possibilities allowed by classical armies' organisation and tactical deployments - and for the amount of training required to get men operating in files.

I shall leave others to comment on the othismos-related aspects, but the results look really useful.

Nice work, Paul.

fascinating stuff!  8)

a shame there was no time for Justin's bits.  I've been watching quite a bit of Pole Vault footage in recent days and have been struggling with applying it to sarissa warfare.  Partly because the slo-mo sections don't concentrate on the grip changes.  But I suspect the way the pole is never brought to horizontal but passes rapidly through to plant the point might influence the way it is held.  I hope Justin can find a polevaulter to help him clarify this.

Quote from: PMBardunias on October 05, 2019, 07:55:45 PM
We also formed up around 60-70 men in files, assigned a file leader, and then had them follow the leader into line, march a few hundred yards, then fall out back into files. Literally 5 minutes of explanation and they were flawless in their execution, even running around obstacles.

Impressive!

So how do you think the above observation should be reflected in the treatment of hoplites and other close order spearmen on the wargames table?  Presently, most rulesets assume the following:

• Obstacles and rough ground represent a major challenge to the manoeuvre of close order infantry.
• Hoplites and other regular spearmen are far more manoeuvrable than irregular types, such as Scottish schiltrons, on the basis that moving in close order requires extensive practise to get it right.

Quote from: Erpingham on October 06, 2019, 08:11:27 AM
a shame there was no time for Justin's bits.  I've been watching quite a bit of Pole Vault footage in recent days and have been struggling with applying it to sarissa warfare.  Partly because the slo-mo sections don't concentrate on the grip changes.  But I suspect the way the pole is never brought to horizontal but passes rapidly through to plant the point might influence the way it is held.  I hope Justin can find a polevaulter to help him clarify this.

SO we actually did a bunch of things that could be extrapolated to Justin's work.  We had a separate event where we did a clash of medieval partisan, in two hands, vs fully armored knights with Partisan trying to break them and against rotella and swordsmen. They held their partisans much as Justin sees sarissa held. I have not yet gone through these extensively, but the take away is that as long as the partisan stay in close formation, 60cm or less and fight as three solid ranks, they are hard to break, but any loosening of the ranks and knights crunch through them.  If you have never seen a knight in combat, where only strikes that would actually get through the armor are counted, you do not realize that they are freaking outrageous.  We had 15th armor going up against 16th armor, where all you could validly target was armpits and groins. 

At least with shorter partisan, Rotella men could disrupt them in semi-suicidal.

For some time now an idea in my head has been brewing that the front ranks of sarissaphoroi essentially became rotella and sword men after the initial clash or some period of foyning, when their own men behind moving up hampered their ability to reach back to set up a strike as Smythe tells us for later Pike.

Quote from: NickHarbud on October 06, 2019, 10:50:16 AM


So how do you think the above observation should be reflected in the treatment of hoplites and other close order spearmen on the wargames table?  Presently, most rulesets assume the following:

• Obstacles and rough ground represent a major challenge to the manoeuvre of close order infantry.
• Hoplites and other regular spearmen are far more manoeuvrable than irregular types, such as Scottish schiltrons, on the basis that moving in close order requires extensive practice to get it right.

Thanks.  The second is easier to answer. Drill does not make you more maneuverable as long as there is a shared movement vector. Simple proof of this is that every army that has ever broken and ran has done so in a large herd at a speed that usually exceeds that of which they approached battle. Authors have wildly overestimated the amount of drill needed to get an army into formation. Xenophon flat out tells us that Spartan drill is easier than it appears and is just a series of follow the leader events. This is what we saw. The fetishization of drill we have seen from the early modern period to today has more to do with stripping the individuality from raw conscripts and turning them into automata, free will causes hesitation and make them vulnerable to panic. Good luck finding a band of men who travel with more order than a school of sardines, yet the have very limited knowledge.

A tight formation makes you more orderly, and more order makes you steadier and less likely to run away or fragment.  It also makes you more brittle, because if you rely on drill and close order, the moment this is lost, you perceive your side as losing. This is why if you push hoplites back a bit they will break, but you can scatter peltasts over and over and they will reform spontaneously. Loss in battle occurs when expectations are not met.

If you want to take a bunch of hoplites, pull them out of line and have them reform in exactly the same formation then drill can be helpful.  Even what we did would benefit from doing it a few hundred times to counter things that could go wrong when the fear of battle is added. Drill is really more about dealing with fear in my opinion that just moving men.  But a motivated group of men with a strong an visible leader, can simply follow him like a swarm around the battlefield.  This can be far more efficient than even a well drilled unit. If you do not care that the order of the unit is the exact same after moving, then this is fine. The problem is trying to do this with a weak leader and timid men. You will lose men every step of the way.

Obstacles are not as big a problem as often thought. We had no problem marching in formation around trees for example. the file just held up and ran to rejoin after the group had passed. While in a running charge, I, in the front rank tripped on my sandal tie and face planted. The men behind me, at the run, did not fall over me, but simply stopped.  Within a few paces the whole group stopped.  The notion that men will pile up or trip like that scene with the marching band in Animal House is also mistaken.

So, in answer, I would say 1) obstacles are no problem in initial deployment from column. They really don't shred an ordered advance of a formation as long as the files can stop and run to rejoin. A bigger problem is that whole subunits may not link up as effectively if some are slowed in the advance and others are not. Unit cohesion need not suffer, but alignment of units might. 2) The utility of drill is wholly dependent on the quality of the base troop material.  A band of warriors with little drill, if individually motivated, can do anything  a drilled unit can do.  A levy, not so much.  Dot because of the complexity of the maneuvers, but because they lack individual initiative.  In a school of fish, any sardine can function as the first fish being followed. This is not the case with the average militiaman.

Interesting point about movement around obstacles and tying in to what we talked about earlier about terrain I'm not surprised, as I don't believe open ground was ever as open as we picture it. I've just got back from Greece and had a chance to visit a few (possible) battlefields, and though the ground cover now may be different from what it was then (and in one case, utterly different), even so there are obstacles everywhere.

I think the point of drill as you say is not just to make movements possible, but to make them possible while retaining good order (as well as the cohesion, obedience, individuality points).

I look forward to seeing the full results and some video.

Quote from: Erpingham on October 06, 2019, 08:11:27 AM
a shame there was no time for Justin's bits.  I've been watching quite a bit of Pole Vault footage in recent days and have been struggling with applying it to sarissa warfare.  Partly because the slo-mo sections don't concentrate on the grip changes.  But I suspect the way the pole is never brought to horizontal but passes rapidly through to plant the point might influence the way it is held.  I hope Justin can find a polevaulter to help him clarify this.

What do you find a difficulty? I tried holding a long stick with shield in a polevaulter grip and didn't find a problem with it. Moving the shield up and down along with the spear was quite easy in fact. I could also make strikes with the spear by loosening my left hand grip and thrusting the spear forward with my right.

QuoteWhat do you find a difficulty?

Bit difficult to explain.  The primary queries I would have is how does a series of moves designed to be done by an individual quickly at a run translate to a more slow moving group motion?  As I've mentioned above, there isn't a high horizontal carry in the sequence - it goes from raised almost vertical to low level vertical then the arms are thrust over the head as the point is dropped.  How easy is it to freeze the sequence with the pole level at chest height?  Hence the hope you can get a pole-vaulter who knows the moves to test this out.  It may need modifications to the standard grips or moves, it may not - that's the reason for the test.

Paul this is Fascinating...   Any chance of an article...

Quote from: gavindbm on October 11, 2019, 09:20:08 PM
Paul this is Fascinating...   Any chance of an article...

Yes, part of a chapter I am coauthoring right now, and a I will pitch another article with lots of colorful pics to AW next spring. In some ways this ways this was a test run for the great hoplite reenactors invasion of Plataia in 2021 where we should have 100+ men with proper panoply and aspides. We tested the use of drone footage and it worked well. In 2021 you will be able to watch large formations carry out Xenophon's dinner drill, Laconian countermarch, advance and charge at the run in formation. This event was more about actually hitting people with spears, because that had both training and robust protective gear.  I am planning to bring a  range of contraptions that will feel like carnival games to those using them, but give us data on how hard men hit with spears and how accurate they are, as well as my trusty othismos force meter. I am both excited and intimidated to match 12 vs 50 files to show why Spartans were not simply blown off of the field. I will keep you all posted.

Thanks, Paul: this is really interesting.

Quote from: PMBardunias on October 14, 2019, 03:17:00 AM

Quote from: gavindbm on October 11, 2019, 09:20:08 PM
Paul this is Fascinating...   Any chance of an article...

Yes, part of a chapter I am coauthoring right now, and a I will pitch another article with lots of colorful pics to AW next spring. In some ways this ways this was a test run for the great hoplite reenactors invasion of Plataia in 2021 where we should have 100+ men with proper panoply and aspides. We tested the use of drone footage and it worked well. In 2021 you will be able to watch large formations carry out Xenophon's dinner drill, Laconian countermarch, advance and charge at the run in formation. This event was more about actually hitting people with spears, because that had both training and robust protective gear.  I am planning to bring a  range of contraptions that will feel like carnival games to those using them, but give us data on how hard men hit with spears and how accurate they are, as well as my trusty othismos force meter. I am both excited and intimidated to match 12 vs 50 files to show why Spartans were not simply blown off of the field. I will keep you all posted.

Can't wait... :)

This was the position for Partisan.

Quote from: PMBardunias on October 15, 2019, 01:04:36 AM
This was the position for Partisan.

It works. Oh yeah!

Quote from: PMBardunias on October 15, 2019, 01:04:36 AM
This was the position for Partisan.

It is very reminiscent of medieval pictures of battles, with little clumps of men representing the armies and the weapons just crossing before it decends into the press.

(http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/49-38_gallery.jpg)

The position with crossed spears (pikes) reminds me of the quote we talked abut before:

"In their array towards the joining with the enemy, they cling and thrust so near in the fore rank, shoulder to shoulder together with their pikes in both hands straight afore them; and their followers in that order so hard at their backs, laying their pikes over their foregoers shoulders that they do assail undissevered, no force can withstand them. Standing at the defence, they thrust their shoulders likewise so nigh together; the fore rank so well nigh to kneeling, stoop low before their fellows behind holding their pikes in both hands and therewith on their left arms their bucklers, the one end of the pike against their right foot, the other against the enemy breast high, their followers crossing their pike points with them forward; and thus each with the other so nigh as place and space will suffer, through the whole Ward so thick that easily should a bare finger pierce through the skin of an angry hedgehog, as any encounter the front of their pikes." William Patten, The Expedicion into Scotlande

I notice nobody in Paul's picture has shields, unless I'm not seeing them.

Quote from: RichT on October 15, 2019, 11:37:17 AM
I notice nobody in Paul's picture has shields, unless I'm not seeing them.

True enough. Did anyone try it with shields?

QuoteThe position with crossed spears (pikes) reminds me of the quote we talked abut before

Though, in that case, we could interpret it as a standard renaissance drill, with all pikes held at chest height on the offensive but the front rank crouching on the defensive and bracing with the right foot.

I believe Justin's innovation is a low horizontal hold for the front rank and a high hold for subsequent ranks (probably several more than in the picture because of the longer weapon).  Justin also advocates the "pole vaulter" grip -front hand on top of pike, back hand underneath - as opposed to the renaissance grip - front hand under, back hand over.  I think the people in the picture are using Justin's grip but can't be sure.

Quote from: Erpingham on October 15, 2019, 05:04:34 PM

QuoteThe position with crossed spears (pikes) reminds me of the quote we talked abut before

Though, in that case, we could interpret it as a standard renaissance drill, with all pikes held at chest height on the offensive but the front rank crouching on the defensive and bracing with the right foot.

I believe Justin's innovation is a low horizontal hold for the front rank and a high hold for subsequent ranks (probably several more than in the picture because of the longer weapon).  Justin also advocates the "pole vaulter" grip -front hand on top of pike, back hand underneath - as opposed to the renaissance grip - front hand under, back hand over.  I think the people in the picture are using Justin's grip but can't be sure.

Following on your earlier remark about the grip, I agree that you can't hold a pike at a 45 degree angle with a polevaulter grip, but only horizontally. However it is quite easy (I tried it) to hold the pike with both hands above the pikeshaft and then tilt it at any angle. The left hand acts as a fulcrum supported by the shield and telamon, whilst the right hand can swivel the pike up and down at any angle. So, theoretically, the ranks presenting their pikes horizontally could hold them using the polevaulter grip, whilst the ranks behind them could hold their pikes with the double overhand grip and angle their pikes above the heads of the ranks in front. I find the polevaulter grip better than the double overhand grip for thrusting the pike at the enemy.

I'm losing track of what grips we are talking about. As I understand it, there are:

Pike in low position (waist height):
Standard grip - back hand on top of pike, front hand underneath
Polevaulter grip - both hands on top

Pike in high position (shoulder height):
Renaissance grip - both hands on top

So 'Renaissance grip' is the same as Polevaulter grip, just with the pike held high. I suppose a high hold with front hand under pike is also possible.

But Justin seems to be using polevaulter in some other sense. A picture or too might be worth a thousand or so words.

This was a medieval partisan fight, so no shields.

Renaissance grip is fore hand under, back hand over
(https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2017/3/8/e/b/4/eb477ebc-03e1-11e7-818a-9f03eef84032.jpg)

Pole vaulter starts like this - forehand over, backhand under.
(https://www.everythingtrackandfield.com/CMS/Site-2/Published/Images/NpvcaPoleCarry.gif)

But the pole is raised like this - the rear hand moves to over.
(https://www.everythingtrackandfield.com/CMS/Site-2/Published/Images/NpvcaPlantPic2.gif)

For what it is worth, medieval and early renaissance pictures show both styles used with polearms e.g.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/German_mercenary_engineer_Paul_Dolnstein%27s_drawing_of_a_Swedish_peasant_host_fighting_German_mercenaries_in_1501.jpg/320px-German_mercenary_engineer_Paul_Dolnstein%27s_drawing_of_a_Swedish_peasant_host_fighting_German_mercenaries_in_1501.jpg)


The renaissance one is probably a reflection of standardisation of drill.

Ah thank you Anthony - it looks as if I have been misusing 'polvaulter' then as I took it to mean both hands over, that's annoying. Though looking at your pole vaulter pictures (and their source on https://www.everythingtrackandfield.com/npvca-curriculum-4) I don't agree with your "But the pole is raised like this - the rear hand moves to over" - I think the rear hand remains under ('palm up' may be clearer) - I don't think there's a change in grip, the hands are just raised and the right thumb remains pointing backwards.

(https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/cb11.jpg?quality=90&strip=all)

(https://www.tutorialspoint.com/pole_vault/images/grip.jpg)

So to define terms some more:
- 'over' = palm down = left thumb backward, right thumb forward
- 'under' = palm up = left thumb forward, right thumb backward
- 'low' = spear at waist height
- 'high' = spear at shoulder height

Then:
'Standard spear grip' = low, left hand under, right hand over
'Polevaulter' = low or high, left hand over, right hand under
'Renaissance' = high, left hand under, right hand over
'Misunderstood Polevaulter' = low or high, left hand over, right hand over

'Renaissance' is then just a high version of 'standard'. From some impromptu tests with a rake, all grips seem pretty interchangeable and it's simple to switch between them (less simple perhaps with a 6 metre sarissa). Also the Renaissance grip feels most awkward as the left arm is quite uncomfortable with a limited range of movement - 'high misunderstood polevaulter' feels to me a lot more natural. However I dare say they knew what they were about...

I think the length/weight of the pike is the missing factor in the rake experiment.  The "renaissance" grip is not really designed for much pike movement.  The left arm is braced against the body for solidity and, importantly, helping support the pike weight.  This may have been less of an issue for a successor pikeman, as according to some theories, they were counterweighted.

True, and there's not much I can do about length without getting a real pike, but weight is supplied by a dangling brick :)

One finding is that the right arm out straight behind of the Renaissance grip more or less requires an under hold, as over is very awkward. Also that left hand over in low position is (surprisingly) much more tiring than left hand under though this may be something one can train for.

As you know the idea of a counterweight on Hellenistic pikes is entirely speculative (and I don't buy it for a second).

Quote from: RichT on October 16, 2019, 01:38:20 PM

As you know the idea of a counterweight on Hellenistic pikes is entirely speculative (and I don't buy it for a second).

I framed my statement with this in mind :)  I would note though that many modern writers take counterweighting as a given, which opinion I had also to acknowledge..

Here are a few pics to clarify what I have in mind. I work on the premise that the sarissa is counterweighted by the sauroter which makes its point of balance 4 cubits or 6 feet from the sauroter tip, i.e. at the place it is gripped by the left hand (following Arrian).

The rear ranks hold the sarissa with the right hand on top, palm away from the body. With this grip it is easy to swivel the shaft up or down at any angle, using the right hand as a fulcrum (in these pics I projected the shield somewhat ahead but it's rim can be easily rested on the hip leaving the left arm completely at rest):

(https://i.imgur.com/C3e0M1W.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/bfMPGPh.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/4iUGZSC.jpg)


The second to fifth/sixth ranks - the ones whose pikeheads can reach the enemy - would grip the shaft with the polevaulter hold. The left arm rests in the ochanon and the telamon supports the shield and arm. The right arm, held fairly close to the body and not giving any support to the sarissa (which rests entirely on the left hand), is not strained and can hold that pose indefinitely.

(https://i.imgur.com/AiibNHB.jpg)

The shaft must of necessity be horizontal, but can be thrust forwards very strongly with a throwing motion similar to throwing a javelin. The left hand loosens its trip and the right hand drives the sarissa forward:

(https://i.imgur.com/QuPRNTj.jpg)

PS: I did I get that old? And where did that second chin come from?

Quote from: Justin Swanton on October 16, 2019, 08:54:16 PM
PS: I did I get that old? And where did that second chin come from?

Just so long as it's all bought and paid for....  ;)

Useful pictures Justin. So as I understand it you have:

Front rank - 'standard low' (left under, right over, low)
Ranks 2-5 (or 6) - 'polevaulter high' (left over, right under, high)
Ranks 6+ (or 7+) - 'double over low' (left over, right over, low)

Why do you have a different grip for ranks 2-5 from 6+? Wouldn't it be easier (in terms of stepping forward as replacements) if they used the same grip? If a front ranker fell, would his second need to change grip or do you assume in the rough and tumble of combat such niceties wouldn't matter? I'm pretty certain your final image (holding the sarissa by the end 30cm or so) would be impossible with a real sarissa, counterweighted or not. You say the telamon suports the shield and/or sarissa arm but given the angle it's at, the amount of support (weight bearing) looks fairly minimal. In order to provide support, would it not need to be so short that it was impossible to lower the left arm? How would this affect eg marching to combat? Both the counterweight and the telamon are speculative, with no hard evidence to support them (as we've discussed previously) so do you feel they are essential to your model?

The standard view of Hellenistic pike grips is:

Ranks 1-16 - 'standard low' (left under, right over, low)

Which has the benefit of simplicity (Occam would be pleased). I understand you feel this standard model is impossible due to the difficulty of the sarissa passing the shields. So isn't the very first step to demonstrate the incompatibility of the standard model with carrying (forward facing) shields? Then once you've shown that the standard model is impossible (or at least unlikely), your alternative three-grip model would become more attractive. As it is, your model is fine, and there's no reason I know of to declare it impossible, but it is also entirely speculative and logically unnecessary, and there doesn't seem any reason to favour it.

QuoteSo isn't the very first step to demonstrate the incompatibility of the standard model with carrying (forward facing) shields?

Didn't Connolley do this 20 years ago - I'm sure I've seen the pictures.  Or am I missing some damning reason why he did it wrong?

Overall, I'm a little concerned that all our experiments with broom handles and rakes might lead us to miss some ergonomic issues.  As mentioned above, different grips are better for different tasks.  Grips with the hand under the pike are, as Richard said, pretty good for bearing weight.  So in the renaissance charge (high) position, the left arm carrying the weight braces down through the body and steadies the weapon.    But that position is quite inflexible.
Polevaulter grip is a better dynamic (stabby) grip.  I think, however, it may be better stabbing down wards rather than level (its what polevaulters use it for if you think on it).  This is probably why it appears in the medieval repertoire - stabbing people over the front line or on the ground. 
I don't think the pool cue approach of sliding through the forehand is particularly good with an 18ft pike - it would pitch down I think - but experiments would be useful.  Also note any dynamic pike use needs more space than static use (especially behind), whichever hold you choose.

Quote from: RichT on October 17, 2019, 10:01:24 AM
Useful pictures Justin. So as I understand it you have:

Front rank - 'standard low' (left under, right over, low)
Ranks 2-5 (or 6) - 'polevaulter high' (left over, right under, high)
Ranks 6+ (or 7+) - 'double over low' (left over, right over, low)

The front rank would be left and right over, low. I find it easier to manage the shield that way.

Quote from: RichT on October 17, 2019, 10:01:24 AMWhy do you have a different grip for ranks 2-5 from 6+? Wouldn't it be easier (in terms of stepping forward as replacements) if they used the same grip? If a front ranker fell, would his second need to change grip or do you assume in the rough and tumble of combat such niceties wouldn't matter?

The only reason for the front ranker holding his sarissa low is as an anti-cavalry stance as shown in the Pergamon plaque. It's quite possible that if cavalry didn't feature then all the ranks could hold their sarissas high. Also quite possible that everyone used the same left and right hand over high grip with nobody using the polevaulter grip. The only advantage of the polevaulter grip is that one can better thrust the sarissa forward.

Quote from: RichT on October 17, 2019, 10:01:24 AMI'm pretty certain your final image (holding the sarissa by the end 30cm or so) would be impossible with a real sarissa, counterweighted or not.

That's just because all I had on hand was short stick. Visualise about 4 feet of sarissa projecting back past my right hand.

Quote from: RichT on October 17, 2019, 10:01:24 AMYou say the telamon suports the shield and/or sarissa arm but given the angle it's at, the amount of support (weight bearing) looks fairly minimal. In order to provide support, would it not need to be so short that it was impossible to lower the left arm? How would this affect eg marching to combat? Both the counterweight and the telamon are speculative, with no hard evidence to support them (as we've discussed previously) so do you feel they are essential to your model?

I find that even when projecting the shield forwards as in the photos the telamon does give support. And if I rest the lower edge of the shield on my hip the telamon entirely supports the shield and my arm. Zero muscular strain.

Quote from: RichT on October 17, 2019, 10:01:24 AMThe standard view of Hellenistic pike grips is:

Ranks 1-16 - 'standard low' (left under, right over, low)

Which has the benefit of simplicity (Occam would be pleased). I understand you feel this standard model is impossible due to the difficulty of the sarissa passing the shields. So isn't the very first step to demonstrate the incompatibility of the standard model with carrying (forward facing) shields? Then once you've shown that the standard model is impossible (or at least unlikely), your alternative three-grip model would become more attractive. As it is, your model is fine, and there's no reason I know of to declare it impossible, but it is also entirely speculative and logically unnecessary, and there doesn't seem any reason to favour it.

This will be definitively resolved by a reenactor phalanx trying out the two models and seeing which one works. For now we know three things: a) the height of a man in Antiquity, b) the size of a pike pelta, c) the width of a close order file. Putting these three together, I find it utterly impossible to make a close order phalanx work with the pikes presented low. From the second rank going back, the pikes will of necessity be horizontal about two feet or less above the ground. The phalanx will stop dead in its tracks if it tries to go up a slope inclined at more than about 9 degrees, or pass over an obstacle more than two feet in height. The second rankers going back will be unable to target the shields or any vulnerable part of their opponents' bodies, and those pikes will be useless against cavalry. Finally, the pikes, all jammed together in a space barely 10cm wide, will foul each other.

To overcome these difficulties one is obliged to deny a), b) or c). To date I haven't seen any convincing recreation of a close-order phalanx, shields overlapping, pikes low, anywhere.

Quote from: Erpingham on October 17, 2019, 12:14:07 PM

QuoteSo isn't the very first step to demonstrate the incompatibility of the standard model with carrying (forward facing) shields?

Didn't Connolley do this 20 years ago - I'm sure I've seen the pictures.  Or am I missing some damning reason why he did it wrong?

His experiments don't include pictures of a pike phalanx in close order with shields to the front and pikes held low. What I saw was an intermediate order setup with about a foot of space between the shields of each file.

Quote from: Erpingham on October 17, 2019, 12:14:07 PMOverall, I'm a little concerned that all our experiments with broom handles and rakes might lead us to miss some ergonomic issues.  As mentioned above, different grips are better for different tasks.  Grips with the hand under the pike are, as Richard said, pretty good for bearing weight.  So in the renaissance charge (high) position, the left arm carrying the weight braces down through the body and steadies the weapon.    But that position is quite inflexible.
Polevaulter grip is a better dynamic (stabby) grip.  I think, however, it may be better stabbing down wards rather than level (its what polevaulters use it for if you think on it).  This is probably why it appears in the medieval repertoire - stabbing people over the front line or on the ground. 
I don't think the pool cue approach of sliding through the forehand is particularly good with an 18ft pike - it would pitch down I think - but experiments would be useful.  Also note any dynamic pike use needs more space than static use (especially behind), whichever hold you choose.

All true. I need to make me a proper imitation pike and see how it handles.

Connolly did it (one cubit order, low pikes, forward shields) and said it worked fine (but Justin, as he says, wants pics).
Delbruck did it (one cubit order, doesn't specify the pikes or whether they had shields) and said it worked fine, and poured scorn on those who didn't accept his experiment.
Matthew so far as I know hasn't done it (one cubit order, low or high pikes, forward shields) but concludes it is impossible based, so far as I can tell, on drawing diagrams.
Justin hasn't done it but concludes it is impossible based on thinking about it and not being able to envisage it.

I have, broadly speaking, an exceptionally low opinion of the value of such experiments (practical or thought), though sometimes practical experiments can be better than nothing, so long as they are properly designed, properly conducted and (above all) properly documented, which they so rarely are.

But in this case we have a simple question: is one cubit order, low pikes, forward shields physically possible? Proving that it is or isn't should be quite straightforward given a modest outlay of time and effort (and yes, lone experiments with rakes and sticks in the back garden will not do the job). I think Justin and I were quite hopeful that Paul's experiment might be an opportunity to do this, but Paul reasonably enough had a different agenda (hoplites). My point is that until this point is proven, alternatives likes Justin's model are unnecessary and pointless, and recreating them is a waste of time - the first step has to be to prove that the standard model is not possible (or otherwise), and we can go from there.

Quote from: RichT on October 17, 2019, 01:48:31 PM
My point is that until this point is proven, alternatives likes Justin's model are unnecessary and pointless, and recreating them is a waste of time - the first step has to be to prove that the standard model is not possible (or otherwise), and we can go from there.

This may be an unduly restrictive approach: while I am essentially happy with the standard model, I would not seek to prohibit the offering of alternatives*, particularly testable alternatives.  Testing (or re-testing) the standard model is also a good thing to do, as it should inter alia help to determine whether or not slopes would actually be any sort of impediment and might provide further insights to question - or strengthen - the basic model itself.

*Cave canem in praesepio.

It may be that both the standard and alternative models work, the obvious objective in this eventuality being to find which works better.

I feel thought experiments are useful in that they point the way to further experimentation and hopefully an eventual certitude (that is the role of hypotheses in scientific investigation). Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here are my pictorial objections to the classical low hold system, derived from thought experimentation (and some measuring). Everything is to scale. The second picture shows the approximate maximum steepness of a slope that can be traversed by a phalanx using a low hold. It naturally applies to any obstacle two feet high or even less. Crossing the Pinarus at Issus and fighting up the opposing embankment isn't going to happen, and neither is the Macedonian attack across the ditch and palisade fieldwords at Sellasia.

(https://i.imgur.com/Hil483U.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/8bsS3mq.jpg)

As usual I admire your graphic skills but I am unclear at to why the phalangites don't raise their left arms, thus lifting their shields, in unison.  Does the suggested shield suspension prevent this? 

Quote from: Erpingham on October 18, 2019, 09:13:30 AM
As usual I admire your graphic skills but I am unclear at to why the phalangites don't raise their left arms, thus lifting their shields, in unison.  Does the suggested shield suspension prevent this?

Yes. The shield is braced by the taut telamon, ochanon and arm working together. I find it impossible to raise the shield in the low hold position. Also if you did raise the shield too much you wouldn't be able to see where you're going.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on October 18, 2019, 09:17:43 AM

Quote from: Erpingham on October 18, 2019, 09:13:30 AM
As usual I admire your graphic skills but I am unclear at to why the phalangites don't raise their left arms, thus lifting their shields, in unison.  Does the suggested shield suspension prevent this?

Yes. The shield is braced by the taut telamon, ochanon and arm working together. I find it impossible to raise the shield in the low hold position. Also if you did raise the shield too much you wouldn't be able to see where you're going.

The obvious question would be is the shield suspension system right, or should it be adjusted?  I've no idea but raising questions is part of the thought experiment process.  On the latter point, from your scale diagram the phalangite could easily raise his shield 30cm without blocking his view forward, whch would make a difference. 

As a follow up to Anthony's observation, I wonder whether a phalangite might, in lieu of raising the shield, simply depress the right shoulder/arm/hand a small distance, thus elevating the point the necessary few degrees to avoid ploughing it into terra firma.  Any thoughts on this?  Would bodily stance adjust slightly when moving uphill, when one's line of advance is no longer level?

I'm not (obviously) proposing the prohibition of speculative alternative models of Hellenistic pike use. I'm just saying that, given the lack of evidence supporting Justin's model, the only point in its favour is that it solves the problem of the standard model being physically impossible; but the physical impossibility of the standard model is (to say the least) undemonstrated. Connolly's practical experiments found that the standard model worked fine. Justin's thought experiments and diagrams find that it is impossible. In this case we just have to take our pick (and I pick Connolly).

If some future experiment proves the standard model impossible, then we can turn with delight to the solution offered by Justin's model. If future experiment proves both standard model and Justin's model possible, then we still have to chose. If that turns out to be the case, then I would argue 1) that Hellenistic pikes were in use for 300 years from Italy to India and we should no more expect every phalanx that used them to have done so in exactly the same way than that pikes from 1300 AD to 1600 AD were always used identically but also 2) that such evidence that we have (Pergamon plaque) and suggestions from literary descriptions (Polybius, tacticians) would tend to suggest that the standard model is probably correct (or I should say, much the most common).

Justin - as when we've discussed this before I think your problem is your insistence on the shields being held parallel to the front of the unit. If they are angled, then your objections would seem to go away. Now whether holding a shield at an angle would be practical in a combat formation is something we have no data on either so probably isn't a fruitful line of enquiry. As to shield hold, this is also entirely speculative. If your way of holding the shield is incompatible with the standard model, then most likely you are holding the shield wrong.

Edit to add re raising the pike - it's also possible to lean back slightly, as most people do naturally when carrying a pike (because it's heavy), which would also raise the point. I think (TBH) that the idea that pikes held low can't be carried up hills is not one we need to devote any time at all to refuting.

One thing I can tell you from many experiences, is that you can never get caught with your spear under the line of overlapped shields. Your weapon is rendered useless and your foe will just step on it. Stabbing beneath a shield wall might seem like a good idea, but it does not work in practice once the shields overlap.

Quote from: PMBardunias on October 18, 2019, 05:48:21 PM
One thing I can tell you from many experiences, is that you can never get caught with your spear under the line of overlapped shields. Your weapon is rendered useless and your foe will just step on it. Stabbing beneath a shield wall might seem like a good idea, but it does not work in practice once the shields overlap.

With respect to your experience, may the experience of the pike phalanx be different?  In Justin's diagram, the pike head is 60cm off the ground.  That is a big step, perhaps difficult in a formed line.  Also, there are five more pikes behind the first which might target the exposed stomping leg.

We might note that the accepted anecdotal way in the Middle Ages (which may not in each circumstance be true but clearly circulated as an idea) was to bear down the pikes with the body of a hero, or hero on a horse.  This would take out a group of pikes at once, allowing following attackers into close contact.

Quote from: Erpingham on October 18, 2019, 06:11:10 PM


With respect to your experience, may the experience of the pike phalanx be different?  In Justin's diagram, the pike head is 60cm off the ground.  That is a big step, perhaps difficult in a formed line.  Also, there are five more pikes behind the first which might target the exposed stomping leg.

Ha, no sorry. I did not mean they just step on your spear.  When using these things they will move up and down while you strike and in general your foe will either knock it up and away, as is best with a hoplite dory, or down. Were we foyning and you were under the shield like that, I would pin your spear to the ground and you have very little ability to get over the top of my pike because you have very limited elevation. Then I would step on it if I advanced.

Add to this what i have stated previously, that the deep pelta is not a good design to overlap. So much so that I think it is only because they stopped overlapping that the depth was possible in a rimless shield. I do not have a pair of deep peltae, but I do eat cereal.  See my experimental image below. The curve is similar to that of a roman, hemicylindrical scutum, and I have never seen these overlapped.  What they were probably doing is holding the front arm at 45 degrees or more as Connolly drew.

I had a thought on the cereal bowl concept concerning the purpose of such a dished shield - a flat shield held at 45 degrees just deflects on oncoming pike point deeper into the formation, but a bowl shaped shield at 45 degrees has at least some flat surface facing forward which could catch and hold a pike point (assuming that is a desirable thing). So the need to carry shields at an angle in close formation might account for the adoption (in at least some cases) of the dished shape.

The overlapping shields in a close order formation would probably look like this, with the shield taken from a Seleucid tetradrachm coin. I've given two options that reflect the range of pelta shields sizes. Would the overlapping be workable?

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

Justin, how would it look if the shields were held the other way round - I mean with the edges at 2 o'clock and 8 o'clock rather than 4 o'clock and 10 o'clock as in the picture?

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 21, 2019, 07:25:33 PM
Justin, how would it look if the shields were held the other way round - I mean with the edges at 2 o'clock and 8 o'clock rather than 4 o'clock and 10 o'clock as in the picture?

Thus. It might be rather awkward holding the shield this way with the right arm though.

(https://i.imgur.com/Z6FhixO.png)


Unless done like this?
(https://i.imgur.com/SZ5FkDf.png)

The bottom pictures are closer, but move the men across to the right relative to the shields so that the left shoulder is more or less in the centre of the shield, left hand (elbow bent 90 degrees) poking out of the right side of the shield. You'll need to angle the shields a bit more so that sarissas can fit past them (:o) - try 45 degrees. It works for me.

Also your men are rather slender - I'm not the bulkiest but my shoulders are about 48 cm across.

Quote from: RichT on October 21, 2019, 07:41:57 PM
The bottom pictures are closer, but move the men across to the right relative to the shields so that the left shoulder is more or less in the centre of the shield, left hand (elbow bent 90 degrees) poking out of the right side of the shield. You'll need to angle the shields a bit more so that sarissas can fit past them (:o) - try 45 degrees. It works for me.

Also your men are rather slender - I'm not the bulkiest but my shoulders are about 50 cm across.

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

There are problems. You can move the men only so far to the right before they knock against the shield to their right. Re shoulders, I'm working on an average shoulder width of about 45cm for men in Antiquity. In this model the sarissas go over or under the shields. To leave a little space between shields you would need to angle them to this extent (which makes me wonder why they would bother with shields at all):

(https://i.imgur.com/VO1TtFX.png)

if the shields all have a clear ridge, why are they overlapping in some random bit of curved shield with no purchase?

Quote from: Mark G on October 21, 2019, 09:19:36 PM
if the shields all have a clear ridge, why are they overlapping in some random bit of curved shield with no purchase?

To keep the files 48cm (1 cubit) wide, as per the Tacticians' width for close order.

This whole thing really needs to be tried out by reenactors with deep shields.

Your bottom left picture looks fine. Your bottom right, the shields are so big they are like coracles, and they don't need to be at such an extreme angle. Of course with your under/over sarissa model the upper row of pictures would work fine, only with the standard (low hold) model does the angle need to open out more. As to whether an angled shield is worse than no shield at all - well they still protect the body from the front, which is what matters. Pikemen managed for centuries without having shields at all, so I don't think having the shield at an angle is too great a disadvantage. But as you say, diagrams can only get you so far, it really needs to be done for real (and it has been...).

Do keep in the back of your mind that they wouldn't really be spaced '48 cm' apart - I don't suppose officers went up and down the line with a measuring stick. Also that this isn't 'close order' but 'closest order' or 'locked shields' or what have you - close order is two cubits.

Quote from: RichT on October 22, 2019, 11:09:25 AM

Do keep in the back of your mind that they wouldn't really be spaced '48 cm' apart - I don't suppose officers went up and down the line with a measuring stick. Also that this isn't 'close order' but 'closest order' or 'locked shields' or what have you - close order is two cubits.

It is best to not get too caught up in the precision of the Hellenistic manuals. These are just average or idealized figures. Also, do not assume these are square boxes- 48x48cm or 90x90cm.  Hoplites in combat might be 90cm apart with the second, maybe 3rd, ranks right on their backs and the 3rd or fourth rank 6 feet back.

I readjusted the figure because the arm was not in the center of the shield where the center arm grip was. Note as well that just above the level of the mid line of the shield is also a workable solution while still bearing the weight on the strap, see on the right.

Quote from: PMBardunias on October 22, 2019, 03:07:10 PM
It is best to not get too caught up in the precision of the Hellenistic manuals. These are just average or idealized figures. Also, do not assume these are square boxes- 48x48cm or 90x90cm.  Hoplites in combat might be 90cm apart with the second, maybe 3rd, ranks right on their backs and the 3rd or fourth rank 6 feet back.

I agree with your agreement with me but also want to disagree on one small thing. :)

No doubt in combat conditions there would be lots of variation and these neat intervals, like all plans, would not survive contact with the enemy. However in principle, intervals were 'by rank and file', that is the interval was the same between ranks and between files, making a square box. Note I'm talking Hellenistic drill here - I expect hoplites, being largely undrilled, would vary more, and I think it's very bad practice to apply the Hellenistic manuals to Classical hoplites anyway.

Quote from: RichT on October 22, 2019, 03:40:02 PM
However in principle, intervals were 'by rank and file', that is the interval was the same between ranks and between files, making a square box. Note I'm talking Hellenistic drill here - I expect hoplites, being largely undrilled, would vary more, and I think it's very bad practice to apply the Hellenistic manuals to Classical hoplites anyway.

This is exactly my point. Hellenistic drill cannot be anachronistically applied back in time.  Note as well that all of the existent manuals were not written until rather late in the history of the sarissaphoroi. The "rank and file" in equal measure may well be the fevered dream of philosophers dabbling at applying mathematics to military drill, rather than a true statement about what one of Alexander's men did on a battle field. Never mind a hoplite.

This is perhaps worth testing next time one can assemble 60 or so would-be phalangites - and alert them that from time to time you will want to freeze the action and take measurements!

I would think - for what it is worth - that Hellenistic officers would insist on lining up properly, hence the idea of mathematically precise intervals is perhaps not so far-fetched as it may seem on first thought.  The actual results achieved would probably vary somewhat with familiarity and experience, and troops like the original Argyraspides may have derived as much of their effectiveness from accurate and interdependent station-keeping as from skilled weapon use.

(Yes, I am pretty much agreeing with Richard Taylor.  It can happen. :)))

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 24, 2019, 08:42:03 PM
This is perhaps worth testing next time one can assemble 60 or so would-be phalangites - and alert them that from time to time you will want to freeze the action and take measurements!

I would think - for what it is worth - that Hellenistic officers would insist on lining up properly, hence the idea of mathematically precise intervals is perhaps not so far-fetched as it may seem on first thought.  The actual results achieved would probably vary somewhat with familiarity and experience, and troops like the original Argyraspides may have derived as much of their effectiveness from accurate and interdependent station-keeping as from skilled weapon use.

(Yes, I am pretty much agreeing with Richard Taylor.  It can happen. :)))

We may not be writing about the exact same thing when we discuss precision.  For example, when I line up a bunch of hoplites in close order they line up shield rim to shield rim. If their aspides are of similar diameter, their intervals will look amazingly precise.  So much so that they appear to be measured with a yardstick- because they have if the aspides are some 90cm wide. line up in opened order, they use their left arms and aspides as a measuring stick.  If the men's arms and shields are of similar length, then this will appear to be a precise measure.  Around 72cm is another natural distance, a "comfort zone". 60 cm is just "hey get really close".

But these are deployment intervals, not fighting intervals.  It is the fighting intervals that I say are not precise because keeping such is more difficult the further apart men are. So 2m is near impossible to maintain accurately, 90cm difficult, 72 fairly easy, 60cm easier still, though many will want to open out if you are moving. As I am sure I have written here before, I believe much of the famous rightward drift is really a closing to the right.

An example I can share is that we lined up at 3'x 3' spacing, then charged. The spacing between files is maintained or actually converges right, but the ranks pull apart to almost double distance as men run.  So at the moment you arrive at the enemy line, your force looks like the depiction on the Chigi, which I think was the design, with the first rank engaging while the second is still coming up.

PS: by the way, generals could and did walk the ranks and put men into alignment prior to battle, so it could be quite exact prior to engagement. Think Byrhtnoth at Maldon.

In 2021 we will have a drone over the battlefield and enough men to measure just this sort of thing.  They will be hoplites, but some will have peltae with them, maybe we can try.  We will have a lot more time than I had a few weeks back. By the way, you guys should give some thought to coming to Greece to be a part of this. We can always throw chitons on you and you can be kibbutzy sophists watching the action :)

Quote from: PMBardunias on October 24, 2019, 10:44:58 PM
As I am sure I have written here before, I believe much of the famous rightward drift is really a closing to the right.

"All armies are alike in this: on going into action they get forced out rather on their right wing, and one and the other overlap with this their adversary's left; because fear makes each man do his best to shelter his unarmed side with the shield of the man next him on the right, thinking that the closer the shields are locked together the better will he be protected." - Thucydides V.71.1

So yes, this sort of thing would, or at any rate should, result in closing. Thucydides does note actual rightward drift, and ascribes it to:

"... the first (protostates) upon the right wing, who is always striving to withdraw from the enemy his unarmed side; and the same apprehension makes the rest follow him." - idem

Whether the majority of frontage change is compression or displacement is something we can consider.  What was apparently most noticeable was the drift, which at First Mantinea led the Sciritae on the Spartan left being overlapped, enveloped, minced and routed.

How far the closure manages to overtake the drift, or vice versa, could perhaps be a hidden agenda for the next experiment.

QuoteAn example I can share is that we lined up at 3'x 3' spacing, then charged. The spacing between files is maintained or actually converges right, but the ranks pull apart to almost double distance as men run.  So at the moment you arrive at the enemy line, your force looks like the depiction on the Chigi, which I think was the design, with the first rank engaging while the second is still coming up.

This Thucydides confirms, at least for armies which close rapidly.

"After this they joined battle, the Argives and their allies advancing with haste and fury, the Lacedaemonians slowly and to the music of many flute-players—a standing institution in their army, that has nothing to do with religion, but is meant to make them advance evenly, stepping in time, without breaking their order, as large armies are apt to do in the moment of engaging."  - Thuc V.70

The Spartans prized order over enthusiasm and, presumably, impact.  Looking at how often they won, perhaps they were right.  Of course, being on the right of the line helped ...

QuotePS: by the way, generals could and did walk the ranks and put men into alignment prior to battle, so it could be quite exact prior to engagement. Think Byrhtnoth at Maldon.

True.  We even have instances which suggest that individuals may have been stationed specifically by generals, e.g. Phocion's "Young man, are you not ashamed to have twice quitted your post, first the one to which I assigned you, and second the one to which you assigned yourself?"

QuoteIn 2021 we will have a drone over the battlefield and enough men to measure just this sort of thing.  They will be hoplites, but some will have peltae with them, maybe we can try.  We will have a lot more time than I had a few weeks back. By the way, you guys should give some thought to coming to Greece to be a part of this.

Nice!

QuoteWe can always throw chitons on you and you can be kibbutzy sophists watching the action :)

Or tipsy kottabus-players, depending ... regarding another possible role, I am not sure if we have many, or even any, flute-players. ;D

Quote from: PMBardunias on October 24, 2019, 10:44:58 PM
In 2021 we will have a drone over the battlefield and enough men to measure just this sort of thing.  They will be hoplites, but some will have peltae with them, maybe we can try.  We will have a lot more time than I had a few weeks back. By the way, you guys should give some thought to coming to Greece to be a part of this. We can always throw chitons on you and you can be kibbutzy sophists watching the action :)

I might very well do so! I assume this is the event described eg here

https://1phokion.com/2019/03/29/the-road-to-plataea-2021-part-1/

Dates appear to be June 28-July 5, 2021 (hmm it will be hot then...)

Patrick- one of the things we will test in 2021 is exactly what happens as men move across a battlefield in formation like this.  This is why the drone will be key.

and yes, we will be playing Kottabus!

Rich- Please come. I am sure I can convert you to believing in at least the possibility of othismos once you see how different it is from the orthodox presentation.

Quote from: PMBardunias on October 27, 2019, 03:14:57 PM
Rich- Please come. I am sure I can convert you to believing in at least the possibility of othismos once you see how different it is from the orthodox presentation.

I've never had the impression anyone denied othismos happened, just what it was, what caused it and when it happened :)

I have seen plenty of denials on one interpretation or another, though.

I suppose if you hold to your own version you may well gave seen it denied.

Quote from: Erpingham on October 27, 2019, 03:37:08 PM

Quote from: PMBardunias on October 27, 2019, 03:14:57 PM
Rich- Please come. I am sure I can convert you to believing in at least the possibility of othismos once you see how different it is from the orthodox presentation.

I've never had the impression anyone denied othismos happened, just what it was, what caused it and when it happened :)

(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/eating/popcorn.gif)

Quote from: Erpingham on October 27, 2019, 03:37:08 PM

Quote from: PMBardunias on October 27, 2019, 03:14:57 PM
Rich- Please come. I am sure I can convert you to believing in at least the possibility of othismos once you see how different it is from the orthodox presentation.

I've never had the impression anyone denied othismos happened, just what it was, what caused it and when it happened :)

I am referring to a literal interpretation of the word, indicating pushing in some fashion. The traditional Orthodox opinion as popularized by authors like V.D. Hanson is a distinct tactic,  charging mass of men who build up momentum in a long, swift advance and crash into the opposing ranks, then all ranks pushing with the body in the bowl of the shield. The Heretical/Nouveau Orthodox sees othismos as just a word meaning a fierce battle, maybe with some shield butting.

My presentation posits both are incorrect, and othismos is not a tactic, but simply what happened in battles that went to the sword and men were shield on shield. The two sides crowded forward and what followed is a "push" akin to what happens in the pit of a rock concert. I can tell you that the orthodox mechanics are all wrong and reality does not work the way they believe. With the Heretics, I cannot prove a negative, but to date I have through experimentation proven false every one of the common "Othismos can't work because x" arguments. I still can't say if they really did it, or in only modern men for some reason can physically pull it off.

This probably would be better somewhere else, but I will put it here because I just found it.  This renaissance text describes using spears and polearms and the grips you can use. Particularly note the advocation of holding the front hand so that the spear is point heavy.

"The hand that is closer to the iron should be able to hold the weapon so that it balances almost equally on either side. This is because the hand that is forward is the one making the most effort in using the weapon while holding it and performing defensive and offensive actions; therefore, this hand should be placed where the weapon feels lighter, which is near the middle. However, you will notice that I said that the balance should be almost equal, not perfectly so. The leading hand should in fact allow the weapon to balance ever so slightly towards the point. In this manner, attacks will have more force, and the weapon will have a longer reach." p.107

"The leading hand can grip the weapon in two manners: one is the natural way [with the back of the hand down, or underhand], the other is the opposite, with the back of the hand up and the palm down [i.e. overhand]. The way you hold it depends on your training, your intent, and even on the situation. Both ways, in fact, have peculiar advantages in defending and attacking. For instance, the first way feels more natural and makes thrusting and cutting attacks more effortless, although the wielder has to be experienced in hand-switches. The second way is better for delivering stramazzoni, fendenti, montanti and some punte roverse, but it makes hand-exchanges less convenient and it is not as ideal for close-quarter combat. This is why I favor the first method of holding the weapon: although the other may be better for the defense, the first is superior for the offense and for speed. " p. 138

Bonaventura Pistofilo, Oplomachia

Interesting, Paul.  This would, other things being equal, indicate the sarissa being held with the right hand at the point of balance (or only just past it) and raised/lowered by the left.

Balancing towards the point has another advantage: if someone tries to knock the point upwards, it will not go up.

Is Pistofilo describing the fine points of this hold?

(https://i.imgur.com/l3PpY39.jpg)

Quote from: Justin Swanton on October 28, 2019, 07:09:21 PM
Is Pistofilo describing the fine points of this hold?

(https://i.imgur.com/l3PpY39.jpg)

Yes, though for shorter pole arms. The principles should be the same.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 28, 2019, 06:45:44 PM
Interesting, Paul.  This would, other things being equal, indicate the sarissa being held with the right hand at the point of balance (or only just past it) and raised/lowered by the left.

Balancing towards the point has another advantage: if someone tries to knock the point upwards, it will not go up.

This is something I have been pushing for the one handed hoplite spear- holding it just a bit point heavy.  Two big advantages: First, as you surmise, putting the natural pivot point in front of the hand makes it far harder to knock aside.  Second, if it is knocked aside, just pulling the arm back for the next strike automatically puts the point back online.  The downside is that it is point heavy and would have added torque to the wrist, but this is mitigated by allowing the point to drop as you will be doing anyway to achieve the proper parrying position with the overhand strike (I call this windshield wiper parrying because that is what it resembles as you move the hand from the right shoulder to the left to parry).

QuoteIs Pistofilo describing the fine points of this hold?

He describes two, depending on what you have trained with.  The de Gheyn pose has the hand too close to the body to be at the balance point - it is actively using the rear hand to counterbalance the weight - release that hand and you are unlikely to have the wrist strength to stop the pike nosing down.  So, I think Pistofilo has the fore hand further toward the point.

As we are talking late Renaissance fighting masters, here's George Silver talking about pike fencing in his "Brief Instructions"



If he continues his fight with his point above, & you lie with your pike breast high & higher with you hand & point so, that you make your thrust at his face or body with your point directly towards his face, holding your pike with both your hands on your back hand with your knuckles upwards & your foreward hand with your knuckles downwards & there shaking your pike & falsing at his face with your point as near his face as you may, then suddenly make out your thrust single handed at his face & fly out withal, which thrust he can hardly break one of 20 by reason that you made your space so narrow upon his guard, so that you being first in your action he will still be too late in his defence to defend himself.

4. But note while you lie falsing to deceive him look to your legs that he in the mean time toss not up the point of his pike single handed & hurt you therewith in the shins.

Note he uses a polevaulter grip.  The single handed throws here would be very risky in a battlefield fight, I would think.

Quote from: PMBardunias on October 28, 2019, 10:39:43 PM
This is something I have been pushing for the one handed hoplite spear- holding it just a bit point heavy.  Two big advantages: First, as you surmise, putting the natural pivot point in front of the hand makes it far harder to knock aside.  Second, if it is knocked aside, just pulling the arm back for the next strike automatically puts the point back online.  The downside is that it is point heavy and would have added torque to the wrist, but this is mitigated by allowing the point to drop as you will be doing anyway to achieve the proper parrying position with the overhand strike (I call this windshield wiper parrying because that is what it resembles as you move the hand from the right shoulder to the left to parry).

When things self-organise like this, it is an indication you are on the right track.  Parrying with the spear itself is also something I had not really considered, and apart from its important capacity for preservation of the individual (and lowering of the overall casualty rate) helps to explain why doratismos was called doratismos: it was not just jabbing and thrusting, but was the stage of fighting in which the spear was doing a fair amount of all-round work (unless it got caught and broken).

I suspect that a spear held slightly point-heavy might also deliver a stronger stroke. If you ever have time, occasion and an impact meter ...

From 2016:

http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=2244.msg25899#msg25899

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 29, 2019, 09:40:07 AM

Quote from: PMBardunias on October 28, 2019, 10:39:43 PM
This is something I have been pushing for the one handed hoplite spear- holding it just a bit point heavy.  Two big advantages: First, as you surmise, putting the natural pivot point in front of the hand makes it far harder to knock aside.  Second, if it is knocked aside, just pulling the arm back for the next strike automatically puts the point back online.  The downside is that it is point heavy and would have added torque to the wrist, but this is mitigated by allowing the point to drop as you will be doing anyway to achieve the proper parrying position with the overhand strike (I call this windshield wiper parrying because that is what it resembles as you move the hand from the right shoulder to the left to parry).

When things self-organise like this, it is an indication you are on the right track.  Parrying with the spear itself is also something I had not really considered, and apart from its important capacity for preservation of the individual (and lowering of the overall casualty rate) helps to explain why doratismos was called doratismos: it was not just jabbing and thrusting, but was the stage of fighting in which the spear was doing a fair amount of all-round work (unless it got caught and broken).

I suspect that a spear held slightly point-heavy might also deliver a stronger stroke. If you ever have time, occasion and an impact meter ...

I really can't comment on doratismos, the term, because it is used only in Helenistic sources. Spear fighting, whatever you call it though, requires the use of the spear shaft to parry when in a phalanx.  You can protect yourself quite well with the shaft, and between your parrying and the spear shafts of your companions coming over your shoulders, you can make up for the fact that you lose shield mobility- though you can move the shield more than many suppose and even step right out of an overlapping aspis phalanx.

To me it is clear that most battles went through two phases. You cannot fight with an 8-9 foot spear and be shield on shield to your foe. I am highly skeptical of any recreation that tries to get around this by saying your front ranks are stabbing behind the enemy front rank.  You fight the man in your face.  SO if you were with the Spartans at Coronea, with a 8-9' dory and a 14" Enchiridion, you have two distinct ranges for combat- the reach of your spear and shield on shield with a big dagger.

Othismos was never a tactic in my opinion.   It is just what happened when men with short swords fought shield on shield. There were battles, like Delium perhaps, where men moved quickly to this phase, but there are many battles where one side broke before it ever came to this.

To head off the question some may have of why if this is some universal happening does it seem only Greeks did it.  Good question Paul!  But not only they did it. Roman's did it at Zama, and I am sure Saxons did it as well.  I can say now what happens because I have been in othismos with a shield that was not an aspis.  You start just like hoplites, but abort before everyone dies. The crush is so intense that blood rushed to my head and I thought I might pass out (or maybe stroke out). Everyone pushes until things get this bad, then we all stop and pressure reduces.  With a proper aspis that put the force on my thigh and collar bone/shoulder, we would not even feel the levels of force that caused us to tap out as threatening.

Paul:

Quote
I really can't comment on doratismos, the term, because it is used only in Helenistic sources.

As I said in 2016 I can only find two uses of the word, both in Plutarch - have you got some other examples? Please share if so!

Quote
Spear fighting, whatever you call it though

Please call it spear fighting! Or fighting with the spear or spear combat or whatever you like - but don't apply a Greek word to it if the Greeks didn't do so themselves. Aside from being generally a bit odd, that also gives the mistaken impression that this is a distinct thing referred to by the ancients, rather than a general modern conception (whether or not it matches something that happened in reality - which of course it does in this case, since they did fight with spears). The same goes for 'othismos' but that horse has long since bolted.

Quote from: PMBardunias on October 29, 2019, 02:02:21 PM
I really can't comment on doratismos, the term, because it is used only in Helenistic sources. Spear fighting, whatever you call it though, requires the use of the spear shaft to parry when in a phalanx.  You can protect yourself quite well with the shaft, and between your parrying and the spear shafts of your companions coming over your shoulders, you can make up for the fact that you lose shield mobility- though you can move the shield more than many suppose and even step right out of an overlapping aspis phalanx.

Yes, I suspect the term may have been retrospective rather than contemporary.

QuoteTo me it is clear that most battles went through two phases. You cannot fight with an 8-9 foot spear and be shield on shield to your foe. I am highly skeptical of any recreation that tries to get around this by saying your front ranks are stabbing behind the enemy front rank.  You fight the man in your face.  SO if you were with the Spartans at Coronea, with a 8-9' dory and a 14" Enchiridion, you have two distinct ranges for combat- the reach of your spear and shield on shield with a big dagger.

That makes sense, especially from a man who has been through the process.  A question that occurs to me is: when Athenians and Argives run (dromon) to contact, do they pile in or pull up when they get to being a spear's length apart?

QuoteOthismos was never a tactic in my opinion.   It is just what happened when men with short swords fought shield on shield. There were battles, like Delium perhaps, where men moved quickly to this phase, but there are many battles where one side broke before it ever came to this.

First Mantinea (418 BC) was a classic case.

QuoteTo head off the question some may have of why if this is some universal happening does it seem only Greeks did it.  Good question Paul!  But not only they did it. Romans did it at Zama, and I am sure Saxons did it as well.  I can say now what happens because I have been in othismos with a shield that was not an aspis.  You start just like hoplites, but abort before everyone dies. The crush is so intense that blood rushed to my head and I thought I might pass out (or maybe stroke out). Everyone pushes until things get this bad, then we all stop and pressure reduces.  With a proper aspis that put the force on my thigh and collar bone/shoulder, we would not even feel the levels of force that caused us to tap out as threatening.

There are occasions when Romans do indeed appear to be using othismos, as in Tacitus' account of First Bedriacum (AD 69):

On the raised road they stood foot to foot, they pushed with their bodies and their shields (corporibus et umbonibus niti), and ceasing to throw their javelins, they struck through helmets and breastplates with swords and battle-axes. (Histories II.42)

The 1st Adiutrix and 21st Rapax legions met, apparently in this fashion, and the raw but keen Adiutrix, "overthrowing (stratis) the foremost ranks of the 21st, carried off the eagle."  This insolence, as far as the Rapax was concerned, was not to be borne, and they "repulsed (impulit) the 1st, and slew the legate" and took many standards driving their foe off the field.

The difference in othismos-related suitability between the scutum and aspis does make me wonder how a straight fight between legionaries and hoplites would have worked out.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 30, 2019, 08:38:39 AM


That makes sense, especially from a man who has been through the process.  A question that occurs to me is: when Athenians and Argives run (dromon) to contact, do they pile in or pull up when they get to being a spear's length apart?


The difference in othismos-related suitability between the scutum and aspis does make me wonder how a straight fight between legionaries and hoplites would have worked out.

So this is not something we can say for certain, and probably differed for different battles, just as Pike could foyne or charge in a block. But if Argives run at Athenians, who run at them, we know from Thucydides that they will not be in close packed ranks (even if the frontage along the rank is maintained, which is debatable). So crashing into each other really means interlacing and a general melee.  Far more likely is that the opposing forces slow and reform upon contact, and spear fighting commences.  They could slow and reform short of spear range, then slam into the enemy en masse, I have seen this and it is easier than I would have thought to not get skewered on the way in.  But remember these are spearmen first, it is from the spear that they get their bread, their Ismian wine! So if you make me carry an 8' spear into battle, I am going to use it rather than slam my shield into the enemy.

As to a clash between  hoplites and Romans, the romans would do what the Persians tried at Plataia, they would attack in detail in hopes of tearing the phalanx apart. Imagine what a roman centurion would have done at Mantinea when the whole Spartan allied line gave way on the left. The Argive select unit simply followed the taxis in front of them out of the battle. I often wonder what Iphicrates could have done with Roman hastatii.

Quote from: PMBardunias on October 31, 2019, 04:03:38 AM
As to a clash between  hoplites and Romans, the romans would do what the Persians tried at Plataia, they would attack in detail in hopes of tearing the phalanx apart. Imagine what a roman centurion would have done at Mantinea when the whole Spartan allied line gave way on the left. The Argive select unit simply followed the taxis in front of them out of the battle. I often wonder what Iphicrates could have done with Roman hastatii.

Looking at both sides' tactical doctrine, as the sides close we get a shower of pila against a possible overlap of aspides.  The net effect might be similar to that which Caesar's men inflicted on the Helvetii, with shields pinned together or rendered too heavy for convenient use.  Will this matter?  The Romans then close with drawn sword, while the Greeks retain their spears.  Is the order of the hoplite formation going to be disrupted sufficiently for the Romans to get in and stab?  Or would pinning the Greek shields together and/or leaving pila sticking out of them hinder the Romans more than the Greeks?  How would this affect the othismos stage of the battle - assuming there would be an othismos stage?  How well would the gladius-and-scutum-equipped Romans be able to ply their swords once the crush built up?  Whose line would be favourite to crumble and break first?  And if not the Greeks, how able would the Romans be to relieve their embattled line under conditions of serious pressure?  Or would they attempt to relieve before the pressure built?  And if so, what would happen with (and to) the relieving line?  Would it all end up being down to the triarii?

Incidentally, we may have differing interpretations of Roman tactical doctrine.  A chat on this at some point could be beneficial, or at least illuminating. :)

'Who would win' always seems slightly pointless (though maybe it's the essence of wargaming). Here's one I saw that Justin might appreciate :)

(https://pics.me.me/who-would-win-40-000-macedonian-a-hill-soldiers-in-phalanx-17886933.png)

Sellasia hill lost.

Quote from: RichT on October 31, 2019, 10:18:38 AM
'Who would win' always seems slightly pointless (though maybe it's the essence of wargaming).

Oh yes. :)

Real-life generals also went through a 'who would win' thought process before validating (or otherwise) their conclusions and in the process presenting us with historical data.  Obviously there are caveats about level of training, leadership etc. when considering potential opposing armies, but some of them got it spectacularly right, e.g. Alexander's and Memnon's estimation of Alexandrian Macedonian vs Achaemenid Persian.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 31, 2019, 07:03:51 AM

Looking at both sides' tactical doctrine, as the sides close we get a shower of pila against a possible overlap of aspides.  The net effect might be similar to that which Caesar's men inflicted on the Helvetii, with shields pinned together or rendered too heavy for convenient use. 

I don't think the aspides could be pinned like the Gallic shields because of their much greater depth. You would probably have to pin the rim one one aspis to the face of another, which limits the probability of this happening. I do not know for sure, but I doubt that a pila could go through an aspis, a few inches of space and then through another aspis.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 31, 2019, 07:03:51 AM
The Romans then close with drawn sword, while the Greeks retain their spears. 

How well would the gladius-and-scutum-equipped Romans be able to ply their swords once the crush built up?  Whose line would be favourite to crumble and break first?  And if not the Greeks, how able would the Romans be to relieve their embattled line under conditions of serious pressure? 

Or would they attempt to relieve before the pressure built?  And if so, what would happen with (and to) the relieving line?  Would it all end up being down to the triarii?

I view all combat in a context of ranges. If we look at this match up, then Romans win past dory range, because they can throw pila. Hoplites win at dory range because neither the gladius nor a retained pila can reach a hoplite at this range.  Under dory range the Romans again have a large advantage all the way up until the hoplites all crowd forward. Now the problem of survival without an aspis emerges.

So if we assume both commanders know these strengths and weaknesses, I think combat goes like this:

The Roman Hastatii hold back, raining pila on the hoplite line. Much as at Plataia, faced with unanswerable missile fire, the hoplites can only charge. Initial advantage goes to the hoplites who can out reach the Romans, but soon spears become stuck in scutii or snapped. the Romans give ground and a foolish commander throws his eagel deep in the holite ranks.  The furious romans push past the spears and begin to chop up hoplites, leaving wounds that horrify the watching rear ranks. The hoplites waiver, but the rear rank veterans herd the ranks forward and soon the Romans are trying to push against hoplites, whose wicked little stabbing enchiridia come over the mass of shields like striking vipers. Unused to such close quarters and faced with a line of shields that overlap and spread out force in a manner the scutum cannot, the Hastatii are hampered and begin to break.  Just in time the Princeps move up and maniples of Hastatii break off contact. To the great surprise of the Romans, the hoplites just let them leave, making no move to follow because this would break their own line. The Romans break off, hurling more pila as both sides catch their breath.  Enterprising maniples attack individually, while the hoplites are loathe to move en masse, but instead fight many small battles along the line, while other sections take pila fire. Veteran though they may be, the Hoplites cant take this and eventually each taxa charges. The hastatii and Princeps recoil on the Triarii and an old school spear fight takes place. Many hoplites have lost their spears at this point, so unless their fellows pass spears forward, then have to move to aspis on scutum contact.

The battle ends in a race, one the Hoplites are most likely to lose. If the outmatched triarii, with their shorter hasta, hold long enough for the roman maniples to infiltrate or flank the hoplite line, the hoplites are slaughtered. If their break too soon, there is a chance that the rest of the Romans break and the hoplites have a chance to reform their ranks. The most likely outcome is a broken phalanx being chewed up in detail.

As in reality, this battle hinges on the quality of flank protection and perhaps reserves, not on the quality of the phalanx itself.

Quote from: RichT on October 31, 2019, 10:18:38 AM
'Who would win' always seems slightly pointless (though maybe it's the essence of wargaming). Here's one I saw that Justin might appreciate :)

(https://pics.me.me/who-would-win-40-000-macedonian-a-hill-soldiers-in-phalanx-17886933.png)

Naturally the hill wins...I mean, the first sizeable mound and the phalanx is done for. Ask any reputable scholar.  ::)

Quote from: Erpingham on October 27, 2019, 03:37:08 PM
I've never had the impression anyone denied othismos happened, just what it was, what caused it and when it happened :)

I don't think reenactors like conceding this kind of subtlety. 

Quote from: Dangun on November 02, 2019, 01:31:22 PM

Quote from: Erpingham on October 27, 2019, 03:37:08 PM
I've never had the impression anyone denied othismos happened, just what it was, what caused it and when it happened :)

I don't think reenactors like conceding this kind of subtlety.

Those practicing what used to be known as "experimental archaeology" are fine, as they have a grasp of rigorous test design and a concept of critical review of evidence.  I may not fully agree with everything but I can see Paul's "workings" and where he is coming from.

Quote from: Erpingham on November 02, 2019, 02:04:02 PM

Quote from: Dangun on November 02, 2019, 01:31:22 PM

Quote from: Erpingham on October 27, 2019, 03:37:08 PM
I've never had the impression anyone denied othismos happened, just what it was, what caused it and when it happened :)

I don't think reenactors like conceding this kind of subtlety.

Those practicing what used to be known as "experimental archaeology" are fine, as they have a grasp of rigorous test design and a concept of critical review of evidence.  I may not fully agree with everything but I can see Paul's "workings" and where he is coming from.

It would be helpful to me to know the elements that you believe are incorrect so that I can either make my position clearer or change my thinking.

Quote from: PMBardunias on November 03, 2019, 02:21:40 PM


It would be helpful to me to know the elements that you believe are incorrect so that I can either make my position clearer or change my thinking.

I fear the idea of yet another "O" shaped debate  :-\ but, as you asked,  I find myself in a great deal of agreement with your position in post #89.  Richard's excellent over view of word-use makes it very clear that the idea of othismos as a singularly hoplite tactic is mistaken.  Your insight that it is a state which hoplites prepared for but didn't trigger on command chimes with that.  As to who had othismos, it seems that the original Greek idea was of a jostling crowd, pushing this way and that, but with some intensity.  It sums up close combat fairly well across many periods.  The aspis does seem to be very well designed for this sort of fight (though I'm not sure it was designed specially for it).  The bit I remain unsure of is whether it ever reduced down to everybody shoving with all their might against the guy in front, unless they were losing control.  Your comments about everyone easing off at this point isn't going to happen easily because only the very rear can pull back - everyone else is pressed forward by the weight of those behind them and there is no quick release forward or back.  So, I think units would apply pressure with more control and less intensity in normal circumstances.   Apologies to all I have not used the correct terminology - I'm not a classicist.   I hope that will bring forth more of your explanation Paul and exposes new treasures rather than just stir up the silt on the bottom and obscure everything again.

Quote
I hope that will bring forth more of your explanation Paul and exposes new treasures rather than just stir up the silt on the bottom and obscure everything again.

To which end I humbly propose that everyone who has already expressed their opinion on this topic refrains from doing so again. New material only please!

Quote from: Erpingham on November 03, 2019, 07:07:21 PM

Quote from: PMBardunias on November 03, 2019, 02:21:40 PM


It would be helpful to me to know the elements that you believe are incorrect so that I can either make my position clearer or change my thinking.

I fear the idea of yet another "O" shaped debate  :-\ but, as you asked,  I find myself in a great deal of agreement with your position in post #89.  Richard's excellent over view of word-use makes it very clear that the idea of othismos as a singularly hoplite tactic is mistaken.  Your insight that it is a state which hoplites prepared for but didn't trigger on command chimes with that.  As to who had othismos, it seems that the original Greek idea was of a jostling crowd, pushing this way and that, but with some intensity.  It sums up close combat fairly well across many periods.  The aspis does seem to be very well designed for this sort of fight (though I'm not sure it was designed specially for it).  The bit I remain unsure of is whether it ever reduced down to everybody shoving with all their might against the guy in front, unless they were losing control.  Your comments about everyone easing off at this point isn't going to happen easily because only the very rear can pull back - everyone else is pressed forward by the weight of those behind them and there is no quick release forward or back.  So, I think units would apply pressure with more control and less intensity in normal circumstances.   Apologies to all I have not used the correct terminology - I'm not a classicist.   I hope that will bring forth more of your explanation Paul and exposes new treasures rather than just stir up the silt on the bottom and obscure everything again.

First off, thank you. There are some aspects of the othismos I describe that are counterintuitive and very difficult to teach without being shown. To my great relief you grasp how these work and your question is on a higher level. It is also one that I can answer from empircal testing.

When re ran the last set of othismos tests a few months back, all of the combatants had either metal or hard plastic rotella. These are 60 to 70cm in diameter. The force meter I was wearing was also about that size to fit into my luggage. Theseare deep enough to cover the diaphragm and prevent asphyxiation, but they put the force on the lower abdomen rather than the far more incompressable thigh, as the aspis does. When we hit 675lbs many of us were in real distress because our abdomens were getting squished. Invariably, one side gave way a step, and that is all ot took to drop the pressure. Then it would build again. 

So that is what actually happened, but the mechanism as you suggest is not obvious and requires me to speculate (meaning I may be specacularly wrong).  At this level of packing, force transfers very well through the files, that is afterall the whole point. But it is a two way street. If you are in an 8 man file and you are the first man, you will be experiencing quite a bit of crush, but the 6th man is also being crushed to some extent if they are packed tight.
This may be enough of a crush to signal the rear ranks to ease off. The principle of force tranfer at this density is similar to Newton's cradle.

The other thing that may have been happening is that signals from the front ranks were passed back. So, for example, I was being squished and at one point almost left my feet. The fellow right behind me can see this and if he stops leaning into the push, the fellow right behind him can see that, until it gets to the rear.

Lastly, at this density the opposing files are really one entity, with a point in the middle where the two halves are pushing into each other. If I as a front ranker and the few ranks right behind me give up and stop actively leaning into the opposing file, then the matchup is something like 8 vs 6 or so.  Worse yet, I can lean back on my own men and the matchup become 9 vs 7.

In the above, I hope I have at least offered plausible explanations of what we experienced.  But when we ran othismos experiments with real aspides, the results were quite different. We maxed out at over 800lbs for files of 6 men, and there was no giving way because no one was in actual distress. Each time we ended the trial so as to start another, or because the force sensor collapsed and had to be reset.

Does anyone own this book? I need pages 95-98. Rogers hypothesizes something very othismos like at Agincourt. Rogers, C. (29 August 2008). "The Battle of Agincourt". In L. J. Andrew Villalon; Donald J. Kagay (eds.). The Hundred Years War (Part II): Different Vistas. History of Warfare. 51. Leiden: Brill. pp. 37–132. ISBN 978-90-04-16821-3. ISSN 1385-7827.

I have actually never read Rich's etymology of othismos, but I looked at the word myself in an article back in 2011:

Othismos was a noun that derived from the word otheo, a verb meaning "to thrust, push, or shove".  The modern definitions of othismos treat the noun othismos as a verb, for example Liddell and Scott render it as either "thrusting, pushing" or secondarily "jostling, struggling".  As a noun, the word would have to be defined as "a state wherein thrusting, pushing, jostling or struggling occurs".  We commonly call such a state a dense crowd.  Perhaps the best English equivalent would be the way we derive a state of dense crowding, a press, from the verb "to press".  This is not a crowd in the sense of many people or a throng, because the Greeks had other words to describe that.  It is essentially a traffic term, like jam or deadlock, implying that many individuals are locked together and cannot move past.  Crowds can "push" with extreme force, but the word focuses on density, more of a squeeze directed within the group than without.

The term "Othismos" had three common uses.  First, it is used to describe hoplite battle.  Thucydides (4.96.2) describes fierce combat, noting that it is accompanied by "othismos aspedon".  This description has been held up as the clearest evidence for othismos as "pushing with shields", but perhaps a better reading is a "deadlock of shields", emphasizing the crowding of the opposing ranks together, with or without pushing.  Arrian (Tactica 12.3) used the same word to describe not opposing ranks, but the crowding of second rankers in a phalanx against the backs of the front rankers, after which they can reach the enemy front rankers with their swords.

Second, 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.

The third use of othismos occurs where literal pushing could not occur.  When Plutarch (Aristides 9.2) describes ships in othismos, he refers to crowding, not mass pushing.  In many cases, "othismos" is completely figurative.  Herodotus twice (8.78, 9.26) uses othismos to describe an argument.  This is often translated as a "fierce argument", but traffic terms are commonly used to describe arguments.  For example, we regularly call for an arbiter when two sides in negotiation come to an impasse or a log jam.  At Plataea, the Tegeans and Athenians (Herodotus 9.26) found themselves at an impasse in negotiations because they both put forth equal claims to an honored place in the army's formation.

Quote from: PMBardunias on November 04, 2019, 05:20:46 AM
Does anyone own this book? I need pages 95-98. Rogers hypothesizes something very othismos like at Agincourt. Rogers, C. (29 August 2008). "The Battle of Agincourt". In L. J. Andrew Villalon; Donald J. Kagay (eds.). The Hundred Years War (Part II): Different Vistas. History of Warfare. 51. Leiden: Brill. pp. 37–132. ISBN 978-90-04-16821-3. ISSN 1385-7827.

I have a photocopy.  I'll see what I can do.

QuoteI have actually never read Rich's etymology of othismos, but I looked at the word myself in an article back in 2011:

Thanks Paul.  A very similar etymology to Richard's.  He also looked at other parts of speech involving otheo derivatives, and noted the use similar to English of push = advance.  Another thing noted was the word othismos in relation to hoplite v. hoplite combat was rare.  Finally, he looked at Byzantine usage, where it was clear the word could mean forward pressure through the ranks of infantry (by the convoluted route that rear cavalry ranks couldn't do it).  This last fits to me with the idea it is a combat state that doesn't need hoplites (well, not classical ones) or aspides, although, as your experiments show, they are well suited to it.

Picking up on the Agincourt (or other similar events - Dupplin Moor, Westroosebeke and others) combat, what I think we see is a normal situation of pressure of depth going out of control - the French second division advanced into the back of the first division, who were held forward by the English and were attacked from the flanks, which prevented them flowing sideways.  One of the interesting questions is what would have happened had the second division sat back?  The first division was still deeper than the English but perhaps shallow enough to regulate itself better.  It couldn't push the four rank line of English back after the initial "spear's length", but maybe it could have succeeded through attrition.  Anyway, I shall stop there - I could talk all day about working out how medieval combat worked.

Quote from: Erpingham on November 04, 2019, 09:38:56 AMI could talk all day about working out how medieval combat worked.

Think you could talk to article length?  ;)

Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 04, 2019, 10:33:59 AM

Quote from: Erpingham on November 04, 2019, 09:38:56 AMI could talk all day about working out how medieval combat worked.

Think you could talk to article length?  ;)

One day :) 

Quote from: Erpingham on November 04, 2019, 09:38:56 AM

QuoteI have actually never read Rich's etymology of othismos, but I looked at the word myself in an article back in 2011:

Thanks Paul.  A very similar etymology to Richard's.  He also looked at other parts of speech involving otheo derivatives, and noted the use similar to English of push = advance.  Another thing noted was the word othismos in relation to hoplite v. hoplite combat was rare.  Finally, he looked at Byzantine usage, where it was clear the word could mean forward pressure through the ranks of infantry (by the convoluted route that rear cavalry ranks couldn't do it).  This last fits to me with the idea it is a combat state that doesn't need hoplites (well, not classical ones) or aspides, although, as your experiments show, they are well suited to it.

Picking up on the Agincourt (or other similar events - Dupplin Moor, Westroosebeke and others) combat, what I think we see is a normal situation of pressure of depth going out of control - the French second division advanced into the back of the first division, who were held forward by the English and were attacked from the flanks, which prevented them flowing sideways.  One of the interesting questions is what would have happened had the second division sat back?  The first division was still deeper than the English but perhaps shallow enough to regulate itself better.  It couldn't push the four rank line of English back after the initial "spear's length", but maybe it could have succeeded through attrition.  Anyway, I shall stop there - I could talk all day about working out how medieval combat worked.

I agree that something like othismos was not an uncommon occurrence on a variety of battlefields, usually when things went fubar. The key is that, whether they actually did or not, hoplites with aspides could harness this condition and weaponize it. That much we have proven.

An interesting feature of you description is that we found 4 ranks to be the depth that can hold up any depth of opponents without being immediately pierced.