Greek hoplite battles traditionally encompassed (in the Greek view) the following stages:
1) Ephodos (the charge)
2) Doratismos (the spearing)
3) En Chersi (the hand-to-hand)
4) Othismos (the shoving)
5) Trope (the collapse)
We may note from the above that first contact involved spearing rather than shoving, although the frequent references to spears being broken at contact suggests a certain violence in mutual closure. However one does note that a close melee (en chersi) precedes the stage of shoving (othismos), indicating that the latter may be a way in which men further back in the files lend their weight to an otherwise basically static melee once the men nearer the front are exhausted and no longer capable of giving their best.
Conversely accounts of battles such as First Mantinea (418 BC) indicate that the collapse (trope) of one side could occur very rapidly, even at or before first contact. Perhaps it is safest to say that the stages above could be telescoped or drawn out depending upon the relative effectiveness of opponents: two fairly evenly balanced sides may well find themselves going through all the stages until during othismos it becomes a case of "One more push, men, and they will break!"
The general pattern appears to be that the lines close (at and after Marathon in 490 BC) with some rapidity, and if one side does not fold at this point an intense (or variable, or lackadasical, depending upon point of view) struggle begins, at first with weapons, then, when the weapon-wielders get tired/wounded and can no longer fight effectively, with a surge in which whole files push forwards, trying to overcome the foe by 'main shove'. Given that this would seem to be a stage at which the men in both armies who can actually reach the foe are exhausted, once one army starts to yield ground it would be unlikely to recover, whereas if one went straight into othismos with both armies fresh then a push back might not necessarily produce a collapse.
For the input of a modern-day Spartan who has studied hoplite warfare as his life interest, see the website of Paul Bardunias:
http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/quantitative-evaluation-of-hoplite.html (http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/quantitative-evaluation-of-hoplite.html)
His assessments do not necessarily coincide with mine, so should be worth looking at just from that standpoint. ;) He also gives much thought to detailing and modelling hoplite combat in general and othismos in particular, so is well worth checking out by interested parties.
I was introduced to the following book by Phil Sabin, I believe the author is a previous student of his. I've not actually read the book myself yet, but I did flick through a copy. My understanding is it's a Phd work revolving around scholarly research and reconstructive archaeology, and is really quite revealing and considered. Might be of interest if you haven't seen it already.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Storm-Spears-Understanding-Hoplite-Action/dp/1848842953
It appears to be a controversial work, judging from the reception it has received on Ancmed.
True.
The central tenets of Storm of Spears, or at least the points that always come up for discussion, seem to be the way the spear was held and the frontage of individual hoplites. The consensus of informed opinion (as least as far as I have seen on three continents and one island) is that Christopher Matthew is wrong about how a spear was held and wrong about his 18" frontage for hoplites. He seems to be superimposing an incomplete Macedonian pattern on a misunderstood Greek one.
One could say that compared to Hans van Wees it is a move in the right direction that went rather too far.
That said, I would suggest reading through it and coming to your own conclusions.
Patrick
I came across this in another discussion and it may be relevant
http://www.xlegio.ru/pdfs/othismos.pdf
by Mr Goldsworthy
In summary he (as do I) does not agree with the shoving theory but since he takes 24 pages to explain, its probably best for you to read yourself and make your own minds up.
I'll just reiterate the passing comment I made a few months ago.
The only thing I can see as believable from othismos, is that it is a description which sort of fits when viewing from the back of the battle - the ebb and flow, forward and back of combat - and which is the best description which the Greeks had to describe that effect for the audience who were not there.
but which is unrelated to what is happening at the front, at which time, they are far to focussed on more immediate concerns to be looking for a way to better describe things.
its about as believable as some of the fantastical creatures in Herodotus.
Text or not text (noting our recent discussions on the texts for Zama and Cannae), and I would add that I could find no single modern author discussing models of combat who gave it any credence whatsoever when we were researching our articles on Roman Combat. Even those who believe in continuous melee models do not buy into Othismos.
Which means they should read period sources instead of each other. ;)
I think we should differentiate between not believing in othismos (an undefined entity) and othismos (the traditional rugby scrum explanation). It is hard not to believe in the former as there are large numbers of references to it. Some of these references come from men with combat experience like Xenophon or Thucidides. So it is hard to believe that there wasn't a critical phase in a hoplite battle which contemporaries called othismos. What it was, if it was in fact always the same and if it had a physical rather than psychological manifestation, seems to be much more fruitful lines of enquiry.
A very sensible comment.
Quote from: Erpingham on July 23, 2013, 02:13:16 PM
I think we should differentiate between not believing in othismos (an undefined entity) and othismos (the traditional rugby scrum explanation). It is hard not to believe in the former as there are large numbers of references to it. Some of these references come from men with combat experience like Xenophon or Thucidides. So it is hard to believe that there wasn't a critical phase in a hoplite battle which contemporaries called othismos. What it was, if it was in fact always the same and if it had a physical rather than psychological manifestation, seems to be much more fruitful lines of enquiry.
This is probably about as explicit as a source gets about 'othismos, an undefined entity':
"The Tyrrhenians, looking upon the folly of the [Roman] general as a piece of great good fortune, came down from their camp with numbers fully twice those of their foe. 7 When they engaged, there was a great slaughter of the Romans, who were unable to keep their ranks. For they were forced back by the Tyrrhenians, who not only had the terrain as an ally, but were also helped by the vigorous pressure of those who stood behind them, their army being drawn up with deep files. When the most prominent centurions had fallen, the rest of the Roman army gave way and fled to the camp; and the enemy pursued them, took away their standards, seized their wounded, and got possession of their dead." - Dionysius of Halicarnassus IX.23.6-7
This particular battle occurred in 478 BC, when many of Rome's opponents, notably the Etruscans, were probably still using hoplite-style tactics. In this battle the Etruscans had a 2:1 advantage and were attacking downslope, and won not by envelopment but through "the vigorous pressure of those who stood behind them, their army being drawn up with deep files."
Dionysius' explicit statement conforms that pressure by files, and the deeper the better, was a physical manifestation. It doubtless also had psychological aspects, but the physical shove by files in depth is given as the significant reality.
I recently read the othismos article in the last slingshot and for what it's worth my interpretation of all the sources quoted is that the word did indeed have a separate meaning in the context of a hoplite battle (semi formalised shoving contest) in contrast to everyday use (panicky, un co-ordinated, swirling mass of people or things).
Yes, just like scrum in rugby and scrum as a rough simile used in non sporting life. Obviously one had its root in the other, but the nuance of meaning has changed over time. Quite possibly the exact same dynamic operated on othismos.
I can think of words that have subtly or mot so subtly changed their meaning in the last ten years anyway, so who knows what happened to othismos in the millennium covered by the article.
Hello has someone been archive diving? This thread is from July 2013!
I'm really not sure it's worth flogging this particular dead horse any more, but...
Patrick:
Quote
Dionysius' explicit statement conforms that pressure by files, and the deeper the better, was a physical manifestation. It doubtless also had psychological aspects, but the physical shove by files in depth is given as the significant reality.
What this Dionysius passage does (and this was true also in the more recent thread, 'How continuous was combat?', where you also quoted it) is demonstrate yet again how the translation can be coloured by the pre-existing interpretation (and to quote Sam Koon again, "a translator necessarily has to put the original language into target language using the conceptual tools at his disposal. The predominant model of combat will influence a translation, but we should limit how much a translation influences the model of combat".
The translation of Dionysius you use is Cary's Loeb from 1937-1950, when the 'hoplite scrum' was at its most fashionable. Not suprisingly, Cary interprets this also as a hoplite scrum. But look at the original Greek of Dionysius for the sentence translated "For they were forced back by the Tyrrhenians, who not only had the terrain as an ally, but were also helped by the vigorous pressure of those who stood behind them, their army being drawn up with deep files."
A more literal translation would be:
"They were driven back by the Tyrrhenians, having the nature of the country as an ally, and assisted by.the great emptosis of those standing behind - for they were drawn up in depth."
Notice there is no reference to files in the Greek - just to depth. The 'deep files' are Cary's interpolation.
'Driven back' translates our old friend, exotheo. As has been demonstrated clearly, unequivoclally and at length, 'exotheo' carries no required interpretation of physical force or pushing. That finding is not in dispute, I assume.
Then we have that strange word, 'emptosis', which I haven't attempted to translate above, and which Cary translates 'pressure'. As you can see from LSJ, this is the one and only usage of this word in the whole of Greek literature where it is given the meaning 'pressure' (and it's a rare word anyway). Other meanings are 'incidence, impact, propensity, inundation'. I think 'pressure' is probably a fair translation in this case, but you really can't use it to draw any conclusions about the nature of the fighting, and as for "the physical shove by files in depth is given as the significant reality" - no, this is just plain wrong.
All this Dionysius passage shows is that being uphill and being drawn up in depth (whatever the details of that might mean) conferred an advantage in combat - no surprises there, we already know that. This passage sheds no new light on the nature of hoplite combat, or on the 'hoplite scrum'.
Any chance of leaving it at that? At any rate I'll be in and out for the next week so can't, sadly, engage in one of our usual enjoyable, if exhausting, shoving matches.
Interesting sometimes to dip back into the history of a discussion. I noted this at the very beginning
QuoteGreek hoplite battles traditionally encompassed (in the Greek view) the following stages:
1) Ephodos (the charge)
2) Doratismos (the spearing)
3) En Chersi (the hand-to-hand)
4) Othismos (the shoving)
5) Trope (the collapse)
I think one thing our discussions have clarified is that this is not a Greek view, because we find no reference to this scheme, only the individual terms. We also now at least suspect some of these terms are alternates rather than sequential. Personally, I'm tempted to think this formal scheme of hoplite battle is a modern interpretation. However, if unless we've got something new to bring to the table (e.g. a source from antiquity that does lay out this or another scheme of formal phases for hoplite battle) there's not much point in pushing it further.
Quote from: RichT on October 07, 2016, 09:16:32 AM
Hello has someone been archive diving? This thread is from July 2013!
But it's one of those subjects that never goes away.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 07, 2016, 09:51:51 AM
Interesting sometimes to dip back into the history of a discussion. I noted this at the very beginning
QuoteGreek hoplite battles traditionally encompassed (in the Greek view) the following stages:
1) Ephodos (the charge)
2) Doratismos (the spearing)
3) En Chersi (the hand-to-hand)
4) Othismos (the shoving)
5) Trope (the collapse)
I think one thing our discussions have clarified is that this is not a Greek view, because we find no reference to this scheme, only the individual terms. We also now at least suspect some of these terms are alternates rather than sequential. Personally, I'm tempted to think this formal scheme of hoplite battle is a modern interpretation.
Yes, it is compiled by a gentleman called Hanson, although Thucydides employs some of the terms, notably
ephodos and
en chersi, in several of his battle descriptions. Hanson seems to have filled in the gaps by using Greek terms where sources lacked Greek terminology. I do not think he is wrong as, my learned friend notwithstanding, several hoplite battles do display characteristics consistent with this sequence and structure (albeit some do not, particularly where an imbalance of force causes one wing to break at or before contact, but life is messier than schemata).
Quote from: RichT on October 07, 2016, 09:16:32 AM
A more literal translation would be:
"They were driven back by the Tyrrhenians, having the nature of the country as an ally, and assisted by.the great emptosis of those standing behind - for they were drawn up in depth."
Notice there is no reference to files in the Greek - just to depth. The 'deep files' are Cary's interpolation.
'Driven back' translates our old friend, exotheo. As has been demonstrated clearly, unequivoclally and at length, 'exotheo' carries no required interpretation of physical force or pushing. That finding is not in dispute, I assume.
What is in dispute is whether that is actually a finding. ;) While it is constructive and correct to point out that the otheo family of words have more abstract applications than simple physical pushing, it is quite insupportable to conclude that the existence of such abstractions excludes any concrete (or flesh and blood) pushing applications whatsoever, which seems to be the thrust of my learned friend's argument. 'No
required interpretation' becomes a generic blanket for the total exclusion of any such interpretation.
My learned friend in his esteemed Slingshot article amply demonstrated that exotheo denotes driving or driving back, but did not address the matter of
pressure except to mix up usage by various authors and selectively interpret the occasional statement, e.g. in Thucydides V.71.1. (I actually blame Thucydides for this one, for reasons which will be apparent):
"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."
So far, it is pretty clear: each man is trying to shelter his unshielded right with the shield of the next man along, so he tries to tuck himself in rightwards and in doing so nudges that man to the right. But now Thucydides adds a codicil:
"The man primarily responsible for this is the first 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."
This is a straight contradiction of what he has just said. Instead of the chaps each seeking the protection of their right-hand neighbour's shield and in the process shoving the fellow aside, the blame is now on the rightmost man for leading the rest astray. No wonder people draw opposite conclusions from the same passage.
One or the other statement has to be correct, and logic suggests it is the first, namely each man seeking protection from his neighbour's shield and displacing the said neighbour rightwards in the process. If the second were the true cause, the man on the right would cease to worry about his exposed flank as soon as his wing had a slight overlap, yet the impression Thucydides gives is that the overlap keeps growing as the armies close; in other words, it is driven from within the phalanx, not guided from the flank.
Quote
Then we have that strange word, 'emptosis', which I haven't attempted to translate above, and which Cary translates 'pressure'. As you can see from LSJ, this is the one and only usage of this word in the whole of Greek literature where it is given the meaning 'pressure' (and it's a rare word anyway). Other meanings are 'incidence, impact, propensity, inundation'. I think 'pressure' is probably a fair translation in this case, but you really can't use it to draw any conclusions about the nature of the fighting, and as for "the physical shove by files in depth is given as the significant reality" - no, this is just plain wrong.
I have even seem 'emptosis' given as 'alignment', e.g. of planets, the idea being that the lineup has a unified force and significance not possessed by the individual planets wandering around in the ordinary way. In this particular passage in Dionusius, if the pressure (or impact) here is not a physical shove, then what is it? It breaks opposing ranks, forces (or drives) opponents back and wins ground. This has all the signs of forced physical progress.
As for the matter of unmentioned files, I can see why Cary interpolated this. The classical era was one of organisation by files, and the classical reader would understand this, but a modern reader usually needs the classically implicit made succinctly explicit.
Quote
All this Dionysius passage shows is that being uphill and being drawn up in depth (whatever the details of that might mean) conferred an advantage in combat - no surprises there, we already know that. This passage sheds no new light on the nature of hoplite combat ...
It does however help to confirm old light over which a shadow had been drawn.
Quote
Any chance of leaving it at that? At any rate I'll be in and out for the next week so can't, sadly, engage in one of our usual enjoyable, if exhausting, shoving matches.
We can leave it at that for a week. :)
QuoteYes, it is compiled by a gentleman called Hanson, although Thucydides employs some of the terms, notably ephodos and en chersi, in several of his battle descriptions. Hanson seems to have filled in the gaps by using Greek terms where sources lacked Greek terminology. I do not think he is wrong as, my learned friend notwithstanding, several hoplite battles do display characteristics consistent with this sequence and structure (albeit some do not, particularly where an imbalance of force causes one wing to break at or before contact, but life is messier than schemata).
Alas, I don't share your faith in Prof. Hanson's analysis. I think all we've achieved is to note that a hoplite battle has a beginning, a middle and an end and the middle bit can be described by several terms.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 07, 2016, 11:20:19 AM
As for the matter of unmentioned files, I can see why Cary interpolated this. The classical era was one of organisation by files, and the classical reader would understand this, but a modern reader usually needs the classically implicit made succinctly explicit.
Apologies for the distraction, but in regards to translations, I do not find this very persuasive.
Although I can't read Greek, so can't add anything to the interpretation, translations shouldn't add nouns like that, and in the process confuse the object of the adjective. I'd also suggest that translations should never add words for the reason posited, perhaps unless heavily footnoted.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 07, 2016, 01:01:59 PM
Alas, I don't share your faith in Prof. Hanson's analysis. I think all we've achieved is to note that a hoplite battle has a beginning, a middle and an end and the middle bit can be described by several terms.
'Faith' is the wrong word, and we have noted a good bit more than that. The good professor has attempted to set up a model framework for a Greek hoplite action, and it does seem to be a useful outline for approaching the workings of a typical hoplite battle. The beginning, at least after Marathon, includes a charge which brings the armies
en chersi, hand to hand. This, however, does not seem to decide many battles; what does repeatedly emerge as a decider is the push of deeper files or more experienced, and hence better coordinated, troops adding their weight. Our sources do seem to support, or at least accord with, Hanson's general scheme. Greek hoplite armies do appear to force back their foes in a way that Romans, for example, do not.
Quote from: Dangun on October 07, 2016, 02:20:20 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 07, 2016, 11:20:19 AM
As for the matter of unmentioned files, I can see why Cary interpolated this. The classical era was one of organisation by files, and the classical reader would understand this, but a modern reader usually needs the classically implicit made succinctly explicit.
Apologies for the distraction, but in regards to translations, I do not find this very persuasive.
Although I can't read Greek, so can't add anything to the interpretation, translations shouldn't add nouns like that, and in the process confuse the object of the adjective. I'd also suggest that translations should never add words for the reason posited, perhaps unless heavily footnoted.
The problem is that there are translations and translations. There is a difference between translating for sense (you are pretty sure of the meaning and are attempting to convey it to the reader) and translating for research (you render each word literally and leave the reader to extract the meaning). Most translations are for sense, and therein lie many pitfalls, but for each pitfall there are usually several instances of useful explanatory interpretation.
Besides, the cruel fact is that the more literal your translation, the more incomprehensible it will be. Here is an example (Judges 15:15-16):
Hebrew:u.imtza lchi-chmur trie u.ishlch id.u u.iqch.e u.ik b.e alph aishLiteral:and he-is-finding cheek-of donkey raw-one and he-is-stretching hand-of him and he-is-taking her and he-is-smiting in her thousand-of men
For sense:And he found a new jawbone of an ass, and put forth his hand, and took it, and slew a thousand men therewith.
Hebrew:u.iamr shmshun b.lchi e.chmur chmur chmrthim b.lchi e.chmur ekithi alph aish
Literal:and he-is-saying Samson in cheek-of the donkey donkey donkeys in cheek-of the donkey I-smote thousand-of man
For sense:And Samson said: with the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon heaps, with the jaw of an ass I have slain a thousand men.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 07, 2016, 08:24:17 PM
The problem is that there are translations and translations. There is a difference between translating for sense (you are pretty sure of the meaning and are attempting to convey it to the reader) and translating for research (you render each word literally and leave the reader to extract the meaning). Most translations are for sense, and therein lie many pitfalls, but for each pitfall there are usually several instances of useful explanatory interpretation.
Sure there is a difference.
But isn't this a small example of going to far in the direction of let's-make-stuff-up-that's-not-there for the (possibly) poor reason of making it more relate-able for the modern reader.
But I may be being too harsh, the translator may have flagged all of this in a footnote.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 07, 2016, 08:24:17 PM
'Faith' is the wrong word, and we have noted a good bit more than that. The good professor has attempted to set up a model framework for a Greek hoplite action, and it does seem to be a useful outline for approaching the workings of a typical hoplite battle. The beginning, at least after Marathon, includes a charge which brings the armies en chersi, hand to hand. This, however, does not seem to decide many battles; what does repeatedly emerge as a decider is the push of deeper files or more experienced, and hence better coordinated, troops adding their weight. Our sources do seem to support, or at least accord with, Hanson's general scheme. Greek hoplite armies do appear to force back their foes in a way that Romans, for example, do not.
Alas, I can't agree. I think the one thing we have learned is Hanson is projecting a scheme based on very limited evidence. A special "hoplite" meaning for these terms seems extremely unlikely from examples shared in our deliberations and, with
othismos, almost impossible to uphold as nearly all our examples involve non-hoplites. The cynical me fears that Prof. Hanson can't believe his civilised Greeks fought the nasty sorts of brawls other nations did and wants there battles to be semi-ritualised, structured affairs. I will grant we can identify contact melee, sustained melee which will lead to one side giving ground, and a collapse. Dividing the bit in the middle up into three "phases" seems an academic's desire to impart order on a chaotic process.
Quote from: Dangun on October 08, 2016, 06:17:30 AM
But isn't this a small example of going to far in the direction of let's-make-stuff-up-that's-not-there for the (possibly) poor reason of making it more relate-able for the modern reader.
It may not be: since learning that
emptosis can be used for the influence of an alignment of stars/planets, I have concluded that Cary (the translator) may know his Greek better than we do, and have understood that it meant
the pressure generated from a lining up of men, which required some periphrasis for clarity in translation.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 08, 2016, 10:00:07 AM
I think the one thing we have learned is Hanson is projecting a scheme based on very limited evidence. A special "hoplite" meaning for these terms seems extremely unlikely from examples shared in our deliberations and, with othismos, almost impossible to uphold as nearly all our examples involve non-hoplites.
Not if we are careful about context: I am suspending discussion of my learned friend's literary proclivities until he is back in action and able to answer for himself, but will stretch to saying that if we were 23rd century historians attempting to unravel the features of 20th century armoured warfare, attempting to conflate all 20th century references to "breakthrough" would be wickedly misleading, not least because it has different meaning in English and German ...
In any event, our interest should be the evidence for the actual processes involved in combat rather than the applicability of terminology: if we dislike Hanson's, we can substitute our own.
Quote
The cynical me fears that Prof. Hanson can't believe his civilised Greeks fought the nasty sorts of brawls other nations did and wants there battles to be semi-ritualised, structured affairs.
This is quite conceivable, although my impression is that he is attempting to analyse why hoplite battles are discernibly different in form from other recorded engagements. Not sure about 'semi-ritualised'; I think he is rather looking at how the action took shape and dissecting it on the table so the reader can see the non-moving parts rather than just a blur of action.
The 64,000 drachma question is whether hoplite battles typically followed such a course.
Quote
I will grant we can identify contact melee, sustained melee which will lead to one side giving ground, and a collapse. Dividing the bit in the middle up into three "phases" seems an academic's desire to impart order on a chaotic process.
I sympathise with this outlook: was there really a play of spears before the melee became sidearm-proximity close up and personal? References to spears breaking and the existence of the butt-spike suggest spear-play as a significant stage;
en chersi is a general close proximity expression and would cover the action once broken spears are discarded (along with intact ones which are now just a hindrance at close quarters) and swords brought into play. So even though our sources are not explicit about the matter, I think there is good reason for supposing that spear-use was followed by closer proximity and shorter weapons. This would not happen at a signal all along the line, but gradually, as spears shattered and men pressed closer together and blades were drawn. We are left not so much with clear-cut stages as stages in a process which might not develop uniformly all along the line. The stages themselves, however, seem reasonable as a sequence.
Once the file leaders or their immediate replacements are hard at it shield-to-shield, what happens then? As Xenophon (Hellenica IV.3.1) has it at Coronea, "they shoved (
eĊthounto, from
otheo), they fought and they died". Is this just individuals having a go at pushing each other while everyone else discusses the weather, or is it coordinated pushing of files?
We cannot tell from terminology: Greek authors are notoriously less precise with usage than we tend to imagine (as with the sword words
xiphos and
makhaira: it used to be believed that one denoted a stabbing, and the other a slashing, sword, but Polybius uses both words for exactly the same sword in a single sentence). Even Latin authors are not always as precise as we think: it was for a long time believed that catafractarii and clibanarii were different troop types, but Ammianus uses both words for the same troops. What we have to do is look for pertinent clues, e.g. the weight and pressure of files in Polybius XVIII.30.4, the reference to rear rankers pushing in Xenophon's
Memorabilia III.1.8 and the significance of Epaminondas calling for one more step to bring victory and deduce the process involved. Then, if we want, we can invent our own labels.
Glad we have established some common ground. It would be a false dawn if I didn't mention that we don't agree on the significance of the Xenophon and Epamonidas references for reasons discussed in another of the hoplite threads but never mind :)
Leaving othismos alone for a moment, I'm puzzled by doratismos. If hoplites run into battle and clash shields (which was described in some of the examples we have quoted), how does a spear-duelling phase fit? Do they bounce off, stop and then re-engage more cautiously? Or is the term another, perhaps older and more poetic, term for combat without technical significance?
Have to say, I rather gathered hanson was arguing that greeks full well understood how messy and horrible combat was, and formulated a way of fighting that got it over and done with as fast as possible.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 08, 2016, 02:02:07 PM
Leaving othismos alone for a moment, I'm puzzled by doratismos. If hoplites run into battle and clash shields (which was described in some of the examples we have quoted), how does a spear-duelling phase fit? Do they bounce off, stop and then re-engage more cautiously? Or is the term another, perhaps older and more poetic, term for combat without technical significance?
And why even bother with spears in the first place: why not just chuck the things at a distance, draw blades and go straight into the nitty-gritty action? (It worked for Romans.) Unfortunately our sources do not go into detail on this: the Greeks, however, did consider the spear indispensable to the hoplite just as Europeans deemed the lance indispensable to the mediaeval knight. Yet the lance is usually good for just one charge, and only the contact part of the charge, after which it is sword-work at close quarters. Should we see the initial contact at closure - Hanson's 'doratismos' - as the functional equivalent among hoplites to the crossing of lances in the knightly charge? After all, if you have a shield and a spear, with which would you prefer to strike your opponent? Momentum may dictate that the shield follows a few moments later, or it could be that the mutual receipt of spearpoints, most likely but not always on shield or armour, may have a retarding effect on the progress of individuals to corps-a-corps proximity, slowing the lines at contact so that a distinct flurry of spear-work interposed before the press of friendly troops drove the lines together. There were times when armies, or parts of armies, broke at this juncture, so 'the spearing' was not necessarily without effect or just a ritual preliminary to the big shove.
Quote from: Mark G on October 08, 2016, 06:27:36 PM
Have to say, I rather gathered hanson was arguing that greeks full well understood how messy and horrible combat was, and formulated a way of fighting that got it over and done with as fast as possible.
A fair point.
Interesting thoughts on hoplites and their spears. I had not thought to equate hoplite spears and knight's lances in that way and it certainly marries charging to combat and spearing. But a second or two of spear-shattering impact is not really a "phase" is it? Medieval authors may have described cavalry fights as "good jousting" in which lances were splintered but this was mere courtoisie . I suspect that doratismos is just a literary word for melee, perhaps originating before hoplites ran into battle and there really was a spear-poking phase.
A very good point Anthony. Anglo Saxon Warfare has a ' chuck phase' that continues on when the battle is joined, but I rather magine that it precedes a poking phase and then a contact phase ( then eventually a pull back and rest and re engage) Warriors are sounding each other out, how tough, skilled and motivated are these fellows, who has the edge here? One benefit of running into combat is that you are committed, the opponent cannot eapstablish any moral superiority and the clash of shields will occur first.
Roy
A worthwhile thought, Anthony, although if that were indeed the case we should expect a fair amount of mention of it prior to Marathon but less so afterwards, as 'en chersi' takes over. Richard found one mention before and one after, so not sure where that leaves us. :)
See what you think of the 'Othismos-crowd model' (http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/crowd-othismos-model.html) proposed by Paul Bardunias. (Yes, I prefer direct deductions from sources to 'models', but we may as well give this chap a say, as he has done some thinking on the subject.)
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 09, 2016, 11:53:53 AM
A worthwhile thought, Anthony, although if that were indeed the case we should expect a fair amount of mention of it prior to Marathon but less so afterwards, as 'en chersi' takes over. Richard found one mention before and one after, so not sure where that leaves us. :)
Trying to impose a rigid schema for hoplite battles based on two uses of a word? :)
Quote
Yes, I prefer direct deductions from sources to 'models', but we may as well give this chap a say, as he has done some thinking on the subject.)
Patrick, we all form our deductions from evidence into models/theories, its just whether they are implicit or explicit (or so I learned in Philosophy of Science) :)
How many pre Marathon descriptions of hoplite battles are there?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 08, 2016, 12:30:27 PM
Greek authors are notoriously less precise with usage than we tend to imagine
I think this is a very useful heuristic.
But I would also suggest that the heuristic should be applied to things like: Xenophon's "they shoved, they fought and they died"; Doratisthmos and en chersi; and the word othismos in general.
One should indeed keep an open mind about the precision and (assumed) accuracy of Greek terms. However we should also not be misled into assuming that because certain terms are used in differing ways and contexts that the processes they refer to in a particular context thereby cease to exist. Just because a sword can be described interchangeably as
xiphos and
makhaira does not mean that all swords were undifferentiated stab-and-slash types. And just because
othismos can be used to describe crowd pressure at a gate or the expulsion of Persians from the Chersonese does not mean that coordinated pressure by files must be abolished in favour of a flavour of generalised mob violence.
Quote from: aligern on October 09, 2016, 12:59:07 PM
How many pre Marathon descriptions of hoplite battles are there?
A few, although they tend to be sketchy and not particularly informative, e.g. Herodotus III.54:
"The Lacedaemonians then came with a great army, and besieged Samos. They advanced to the wall and entered the tower that stands by the seaside in the outer part of the city; but then Polycrates himself attacked them with a great force and drove them out. [2] The mercenaries and many of the Samians themselves sallied out near the upper tower on the ridge of the hill and withstood the Lacedaemonian advance for a little while; then they fled back, with the Lacedaemonians pursuing and destroying them."
Herodotus is of course our source for mentioning about the Athenians at Marathon:
"These are the first Hellenes whom we know of to use running against the enemy." - Herodotus VI.112.3
Even after Marathon, not everyone ran into contact against an enemy. At First Mantinea, Thucydides (V.70) contrasts the steady, flute-regulated Spartan advance with the rapid onset of the Argives, Athenians and their allies. There is thus more scope for
doratismos, spear-work, in such a situation than if both armies raced into collision with each other.