SoA Forums

I'll get back to you (source was from around 500BC I think but it's been 27 years since I saw it).

Just had a delivery of long wobbly polesters from Hinds so the rest of the day is glueing and tweezering:)

Don't want to be a party pooper but wouldn't it be better to shift what looks like a good old controversy about hoplite warfare into an appropriate thread and keep this one for archery?  Could Patrick or someone with the appropriate admin permissions do so?

 "and there is NO EVIDENCE to support the idea that hoplites engaged in a manner more appropriate to dark-age spearmen than the innovative battle-winner that it was in its day."

The evidence for how "dark-age" spearmen fought is? 

Also on youtube, a test of linothorax armor - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cTnntgMO8o

For more on the linothorax project, search on that topic in google and on youtube.

Oh this one is even better... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qyGge-laQY

Quote from: Erpingham on January 28, 2015, 02:15:08 PM
Don't want to be a party pooper but wouldn't it be better to shift what looks like a good old controversy about hoplite warfare into an appropriate thread and keep this one for archery?  Could Patrick or someone with the appropriate admin permissions do so?

My humble apologies. My first 48 hours on these forums coincided with me running out of an important medication that stops my heart racing and... well, you can see the result. I'll shut up.

Quote from: Dave Beatty on January 28, 2015, 03:14:07 PM
Also on youtube, a test of linothorax armor - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cTnntgMO8o

I wish people would stop calling it "linothorax", which is a noun rarely if ever used in the sources. Homer uses it (though possibly only as an adjective, "linen-corseleted") but the classical writers will usually say something like "thorax lineos". </pedantry off>

The problem with this video, and it's a potential problem with experimental archaeology generally, is that just because something works doesn't prove it was used. There's quite a bit of written evidence that linen armour existed (though there may still be few diehards who will argue that it was only used by Orientals and Italians) but none that the layers were glued together, which is what the project's reconstruction used. So their linen armour is great; but does that prove Greek linen armour was great? It doesn't, really.

Hello everyone

OK, so I'm calm now (takes deep breath, holds and releases).

Let us consider the archaeological evidence which was what formed the basis of my studies. These studies were a long time ago and it's not just a matter of knowing where in the attic my old notes are stored but which HOUSE contained that attic, so much of this is from memory.

1) The vase painting. I cannot accept that there is a convenient 'artistic convention' of showing hoplites converging on each other with raised spears because of some false preconception that their ancient ancestors were in the habit of throwing 10' long spears at each other. Hoplites shown in single combat hold their spears in other ways and single combat (as per Homer) was where, if ever, spear throwing between armoured men occurred. Again, Homer was probably in error. I can understand why people carving careers out of overplaying the importance of the spear in hoplite-on-hoplite action would want to dismiss this ready body of proof to the contrary, but it strikes me as clutching at straws. As every man will have fought in battles containing hoplites, it would not have had credibility to show them holding their spears thus unless they actually did it. More of that later.

The vase paintings generally show lines of men with raised spears. It CAN be a matter of opinion as to whether these men represent ranks or files.

2) The shield. This was very large (over a yard in diameter) which was shaped so it could be supported on the shoulder and bonded to the forearm with a grip near the rim so that the whole of the left arm from shoulder to fist was utilised. It would also allow some measure of control for such a cumbersome shield. It was designed to protect its wielder and the open flank of the man standing to his left. This shield defined the hoplite, providing an armoured wall to the front which any lighter-equipped formation would have found impenetrable. Simultaneously, however, it left the flanks and rear relatively vulnerable and only the Spartans had the drilled discipline, supported by musical signals, to change face.

Given that the shield is so large and that it needed to stay in place to protect both its wielder and his neighbour, this gives further evidence to the fact that spears were used overarm. Thrusting underarm would have been severely hindered by the shield. Similarly, the idea that hoplites dropped their spears or lodged them into the ground to draw side arms is opposed by this shield size and shape. Roman legions, who did do this, had larger but lighter shield with the grip in the centre-- the shield was meant to protect the wielder alone, leaving him the opportunity to strike independently. Besides, the hoplite would almost certainly need his spear again, unlike the Roman pilum or later light spear.

The bowl-like shape of the shield is also suggestive as it matched quite neatly the arc of the back of an adult male. Shaped thus, it would suggest close contact between the men in a file: the men in a file would have been one behind the other. Together with the mutual protection along the ranks, the hoplite formation depended on the quality of its drilling and discipline. You HAD to stay in the right place in relation to everyone else in your unit, just as you had to stay in your right place in the polis. Charge ahead, hang back or shift one direction or the other, and your unit fell apart. States with poor order and discipline, by extension, had weaker hoplite formations and so failed in battle. It was a kind of natural selection of city-states.

3) The spear. It was a girt big stick about 10 feet long with a leaf-shaped head made of iron and a counterbalancing butt-spike (always a dodgy term to use when discussing Greek hoplites). If you charged an opponent with that spearhead on it and penetrated either armour or flesh to any depth greater than the level of its apex, then you would probably be unable to disengage the spear for further use given that you only had one hand free to do so. This, together with the need for cohesion explained above, meant that using spears like lances did not happen, at least not often and certainly against other well-armoured and shielded hoplites.

Against non-armoured troops, the spear could well have been sufficient on its own unless close melee was engaged (ie- less than six feet). Given that most nations had shorter spears, this would almost certainly have been the INTENTION of an opposing non-Greek army. If they had done so, the shield would have required the continued use of the overarm thrust BUT the spear itself would also have required it: that butt spike was not intended as a weapon, but you did not want the person behind you to get constantly rammed in the ribs by it. By holding it above the shoulder, it not only clears the shield but also the body of the person behind, who would naturally be mimicking your posture so as to add his spear to yours and to avoid getting a faceful of buttspike (ooerr!)

Once the enemy is in contact with your body, you have to stab down over your shield at him.

It should be obvious that anyone in the second rank standing behind and between any two men to his front would be bashed by the thrusting of the buttspike (coming soon! Julian Clary does the Hoplite Hippodrome!).

The soldiers stood behind each other. What can I say?

I think I'd better stop for now.... Butt spikes.... the butt spikes.... No! Not the butt spikes!! Pills! Pills! Pills!

Quote from: Rob Miles on January 29, 2015, 10:29:09 AM1) The vase painting. I cannot accept that there is a convenient 'artistic convention' of showing hoplites converging on each other with raised spears because of some false preconception that their ancient ancestors were in the habit of throwing 10' long spears at each other

You may misunderstand slightly, I think: the argument has nothing to do with Homer or pre-hoplite usage or "throwing 10' spears".

It would be that the "artistic convention" of overhanded spear use originated at a point when most hoplites carried both a thrusting spear (and I think eight feet is closer to the accepted norm these days than ten, but there is very little direct evidence) and a shorter throwing-spear, identifiable by its throwing-thong. You can see this combination on innumerable works of art, particularly 7th-century ones - the Chigi vase, for instance. Here the hoplites clearly have two spears; in the scene at the left where you see the arms not yet picked up, it's clear that one spear is shorter, and the thongs are shown. Now, where you see the hoplites advancing into battle, they carry one spear overarm and one vertical. Presumably the overarm spear is the throwing weapon; on a couple of the figures you can see the raised fingers which are a used to hold the thong (the type of grip shown here). So far, so good; what I think Christopher Matthew is alleging is that this pose continued to be the iconographic convention for massed hoplite combat even when the throwing spear dropped out of use and hoplites only carried the one spear. I can't see it myself, but there you go. There has also been a study, I think in an Australian scientific journal, which confirms that you can generate far more force with an overarm blow than with either the "low" or the "high, couched" underarm grip; I think Matthew had a response to that, but I forget what it was.

(I have seen Nigel Tallis suggest that a similar convention applies in Near Eastern art: that the Assyrians shown holding a spear in what looks like an overarm thrust are in fact being depicted in a long-standing convention that denotes them throwing a spear. I have no idea whether there is supposed to be any connection between the two schools or even whether this is a common view in the ANE art world.)

QuoteGiven that the shield is so large and that it needed to stay in place to protect both its wielder and his neighbour, this gives further evidence to the fact that spears were used overarm. Thrusting underarm would have been severely hindered by the shield.

To be fair, this may apply to the underarm thrust levelled at the waist; but the "high underarm" grip at armpit level actually fits quite neatly between the shields - as here.

To me, this has always looked like a position suitable for the gentle defensive prodding of re-enactors who don't really want to kill each other, but less so for a real phalanx charge.

I think maybe we should refer to the butt-spike by its Greek designation, sauroter, before someone comes up with a theory that it was used as a means of encouraging mid-file hoplites forward.

Duncan, are you just raising Christopher Matthew and Storm of Spears as a red herring?  What do you really think were the characteristics of hoplite warfare at man-in-the-file level? (And no, I am not picking an argument - just interested.)

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 29, 2015, 12:47:52 PMDuncan, are you just raising Christopher Matthew and Storm of Spears as a red herring?  What do you really think were the characteristics of hoplite warfare at man-in-the-file level? (And no, I am not picking an argument - just interested.)

As I said, it's all a subject of debate and controversy. I'm not certain whether the cat's alive or dead.

Quote from: Duncan Head on January 29, 2015, 11:11:29 AM
To be fair, this may apply to the underarm thrust levelled at the waist; but the "high underarm" grip at armpit level actually fits quite neatly between the shields - as here.

To me, this has always looked like a position suitable for the gentle defensive prodding of re-enactors who don't really want to kill each other, but less so for a real phalanx charge.

I refer to the armpit level grip as a lancer position. You either steer your entire body at the target, or hope the gormless twit runs onto it. You cannot thrust from there or even guide the point without breaking the shield line. They used the overarm grip. It's the only possible way they could have used their spears without upsetting the formation. And so, we move from that onto the next logical step: contact-- 'the clash of shields'. Most Greek hoplite formations were carefully configured against their common enemy: Other Greeks. Even if the overhand thrust were powerful, it is still very unlikely to do much damage against another hoplite from the front. Get in close and overbear your opposite number and you may well do so. If you fell in that melee, you were dead. You had to keep your feet which is where the depth of your formation came in. The shield of your next-in-file fitted snugly into your back. It kept you up and, when push came to shove, the combined force of the better hoplites either prevailed and the enemy ran away or prevailed and the enemy got stamped on (if they waited too long to run away). I admit the usual metaphor of the Rugby scrum is lost on people who have not played much Rugby-- the tactic in the scrum is to control the direction of the shove and only sometimes keep it straight and level. That is the kind of scrum that would be a good analogy-- you need to preserve the shield line and avoid buckling. If it were just a bundle like the one you organise at your school when you know there's an Ofsted inspector in the corridor (best £5 I ever spent), it would be chaotic and just as likely to break your own phalanx as it would the enemy's.

Quote from: Rob Miles on January 29, 2015, 01:17:32 PMI refer to the armpit level grip as a lancer position. You either steer your entire body at the target, or hope the gormless twit runs onto it. You cannot thrust from there or even guide the point without breaking the shield line. They used the overarm grip. It's the only possible way they could have used their spears without upsetting the formation.

While I don't believe that the armpit-level underarm grip was used, or at least not much used, I don't believe that it breaks the shield wall, either. I think the re-enactment experience shows that you can thrust from that position, without moving your shield arm. The difference from the couched lance is that the spear isn't held rigid under your armpit, so you can thrust your right arm back and forth. The problem is that you're only jabbing with the strength of the arm, not developing any real power.

Quote from: Duncan Head on January 28, 2015, 01:18:23 PM

Quote from: Rob Miles on January 28, 2015, 11:39:31 AM
ὅπλον, in common with most words in all languages, has many meanings. It became associated with the hoplite because of the ὅπλον and so, by extension, to mean an armed man.

Do you have any evidence for this assertion? As far as I know, no classical Greek writer uses "hoplon" to mean a shield...

I've remembered that Tyrtaios 11.38, writing somewhen around 650-600 BC, uses "panoplitēs", "πανοπλίτης", for a heavy-armed soldier. This obviously derives from panoplia, a panoply or full set of armament. It may also be earlier than any use of the word "hoplite" that I can think of.  The obvious inference is that "hoplitēs", hoplite, was derived as a shortened form of panoplitēs, not directly from hoplon, and so does indeed mean "an armed man" rather than "a man with a (particular type of) shield".

Quote from: Duncan Head on January 29, 2015, 02:13:33 PM

Quote from: Duncan Head on January 28, 2015, 01:18:23 PM

Quote from: Rob Miles on January 28, 2015, 11:39:31 AM
ὅπλον, in common with most words in all languages, has many meanings. It became associated with the hoplite because of the ὅπλον and so, by extension, to mean an armed man.

Do you have any evidence for this assertion? As far as I know, no classical Greek writer uses "hoplon" to mean a shield...

I've remembered that Tyrtaios 11.38, writing somewhen around 650-600 BC, uses "panoplitēs", "πανοπλίτης", for a heavy-armed soldier. This obviously derives from panoplia, a panoply or full set of armament. It may also be earlier than any use of the word "hoplite" that I can think of.  The obvious inference is that "hoplitēs", hoplite, was derived as a shortened form of panoplitēs, not directly from hoplon, and so does indeed mean "an armed man" rather than "a man with a (particular type of) shield".

I was not aware of that. I'm going to have to concede the point largely on my inability to wrestle with it. My Greek is so rusty it should be termed 'corroded' and I can't even find my 'Ath-Pol' never mind my lecture notes on this stuff which were mostly derived from scraps of papyrus found in the African rubbish dumps rather than oft-quoted and published editions of Thucydides, Xenophon and Herodotus. I remember my old professor- a man so grey-goatbearded and wire-rim-glassed that if you lined him up with a thousand million people, he would be the one everyone would point out as being a Classics professor- going through the equipment that a man had to provide if he were to be able to vote as a full citizen and the shield was the first and last- the item that more than any other gave him his place in the phalanx and yet was the last to be adorned. He referred to it as the Hoplon- the identifier of the hoplite above all the rag-tag of the rest of the army. Sure, he may well have just been regurgitating what he had been taught, but his authority in every other respect was profound and based on first-hand archaeology and research.