SoA Forums

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 22, 2018, 07:26:52 PMHave you ever seen the Taming shield of a Philipine Moro? See below.  They are the most aspisish shield you will find in a modern (20thc) combat system. They did not othismos-ize anyone.

Unfortunately the attachment says "empty file" and downloads as zero KB, for me at least. If anyone wants to see such a shield, try here.

Quote from: Erpingham on March 23, 2018, 08:51:53 AM
Can I just say for the first time in ages I think we've got somewhere with the Big O debate?

But where?

Seriously, I'm not sure whether we have or not. I've been slightly perplexed by your position, Paul, as you were saying before how your objective was just to demonstrate that orthodox othismos was not physically impossible; but then you say that you don't believe in the scrum othismos, just in crowd othismos; and yet the differences between OC and SC seem, to me as an outsider, quite slight, mostly to do with the stance of those involved.

There are some areas of agreement - such as that hoplites are not exceptional and crowd dynamics (for want of a better term - I really don't think we should be throwing the word othismos around willy nilly, as if it was a Greek word for a particular thing) are involved in many forms of heavy infantry close combat. Also that some 'push backs' (such as the Athenians and the marsh) are figurative not literal. And that pushing with shields in some shape or form did take place in close combat.

There is still fundamental disagreement - to my mind a crowd crush, while it might happen, would always be highly undesirable, even if carrying a shield that made it non-lethal. And (more to the point) I see nothing in the ancient evidence to make me believe that such a crowd crush actually occurred (with any regularity). So when you say:

Quote
My point, though, is that you cannot get hung up on a Greek [not] saying "everyone pushed together with our shields in that kick ass tactic we developed to push the enemy off the field." Instead a Greek describes othismos just like Thucydides.

I have a problem with that, since you seem to be saying that although there is no evidence for this thing, and nobody describes it, we know it must have happened because we have proven that it is not physically impossible, so it just follows naturally.

However - I don't think we are going to get any further with this, and have reached the expected impasse (or othismos?) I'm happy to leave it at that if you are.

As to charging - I'll need to stand down for a bit now and do Other Stuff, so I leave the field to others.

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 22, 2018, 07:42:45 PM

Quote from: Holly on March 22, 2018, 07:04:19 PM
I realise its limitations but when I participated (as a reenactor) in shieldwall 'combat' there was a period of spear fencing as the 2 lines closed and this was fast and furious. (and by the way, you do drift to the right on closing!) Eventually someone would chance their arm and attempt to break up the opposing shieldwall by closing shield to shield and trying to force their way into the opposing formation. Is that essentially osmosis - trying to force an opening in a Greek shieldwall when very long pointy sticks normally keep you separated?

That is when the range of battle moves from spear range to sword range in a hoplite battle.  Only if the opposing lines start to push each other and the ranks behind support them, do we enter othimos. I am convinced that Saxons and Vikings got themselves in to some weak form of othismos, I hare read snippets that suggest it. But there is something that need to be clarified about othismos. Norse and Saxon warriors often carried two or more spears, taller than a man, that were centrally balanced so as to be able to be thrown or retained to fight. Their swords were about a yard long. This means that the range of sword and spear were roughly similar, and all fighting happened close to each other. Early hoplites were just like this, and I have proposed that the Saxons are a better model for archaic hoplites than classical hoplites are.  This is because classical hoplites broke up the melee phase of combat into 3 separate phases.  When hoplites first clash as you describe above, they did so with 9' spears that were held near the rear for greater reach. This means that the two lines were so far apart that you could not use a sword if your spear broke. You had to move in close and get beneath the other hedge of spears. This was liberating for the hoplite is a way, because swords could get smaller, and I believe did so, to the point that Xenophon calls them daggers. This ultra close range naturally leads to more pressing with shields and Othismos.

What interests me most at the moment is the use of spear and seax by Saxons, were they doing this as well? Those lenticular shields, though recently they seem to be under attack as hemicylinders, could be made to work in othismos.

Seax in A-S shieldwall 'combat' works really well when you are pressed up against each other but it helps if you have a 'buddy' trying to go over the top with spear or axe at the same time

Quote from: RichT on March 23, 2018, 09:23:45 AM
Seriously, I'm not sure whether we have or not. I've been slightly perplexed by your position, Paul, as you were saying before how your objective was just to demonstrate that orthodox othismos was not physically impossible; but then you say that you don't believe in the scrum othismos, just in crowd othismos; and yet the differences between OC and SC seem, to me as an outsider, quite slight, mostly to do with the stance of those involved.

It is truly disheartening, for I believed some progress made as well.  Part of the problem is that you keep changing my terms for me. I did not set out to prove anything about orthodox othismos. Orthodox othismos is scrum othismos.  What I present is not scrum othismos and it alters in profound ways not only the description of the course of battle, our expectations for drill and tactical doctrine, but even the presumed evolution of hoplite combat. But for the fact that at the end of some pitched battles, taxeis sought to crowd each other off of the battlefield, what I present is essentially the heretical view with some of the silliness, like standing 6' apart and mixing archers into the front line, stripped away.

Quote from: RichT on March 23, 2018, 09:23:45 AM
I have a problem with that, since you seem to be saying that although there is no evidence for this thing, and nobody describes it, we know it must have happened because we have proven that it is not physically impossible, so it just follows naturally.

I do not recall saying there was no evidence for this thing.  What I have consistently said is that those who interpret passages on pushing the way you have, erroneously in my opinion, have so muddled the discussion that citing literature is irrelevant, as proven by the fact that the thread seems to be wrapping up, one page after we did so.  Trust me, if Paul McDonnel-Staff could not browbeat me over about a decade of arguments into acceptance of your interpretation, what chance do you have  

Your side seems to feel that because words with the otheo root can describe other things besides a mass push, then it never means a mass push. The fact that the Athenians may have been herded into the marsh at Halae rather than physically pushed (note the "may") does not change the fact that young Spartan warriors pushed forward in the ranks to get at Arcadians. They obviously did not intimidate their promachoi forward.

This is where I entered the debate, at a time when no word written by a historian on this topic had an agreed upon meaning.  But I am not a historian. I am a biologist, and now seemingly an experimental archaeologist. If you hand me a dinosaur skull shaped like an aspis, I will tell you that it evolved to bear weight. Too many features of the aspis are optimized for this, at the cost of protection against penetration of the shield face, for any other explanation.  And this is not just me, every engineer I know who has looked at the shield from Blyth to the physicists I work with at Harvard see this immediately. Early on it was thought that the odd shape was to strengthen the shield as you pushed your way between other shields. But I had an epiphany when a reenactor named "Stratocles Joe" whom I wish I could find today to thank, described how he could breathe when being trampled because he was under his aspis. The anti-asphyxiation function of the aspis makes sense of its structure and allows for a literal othismos. I don't think it happenstance that I have a much harder time convincing historians of this than reenactors or engineers. You are in the unenviable position of having none of the evidence you normally look to for authority free from controversy, while having to deal with my descriptions of functions wholly alien to you.

Quote from: Holly on March 23, 2018, 10:58:33 AM

Seax in A-S shieldwall 'combat' works really well when you are pressed up against each other but it helps if you have a 'buddy' trying to go over the top with spear or axe at the same time

The role of second rank men is crucial in a shield-wall, both in close and when spear fencing. Arrian comments on this, and in an odd quirk that I love describes the second rank as so crowded up against the promachoi that they are in othismos. He cuts down the angles that weapons can come in at you and the constant threat of his attack limits your opponent from doing anything too audacious.

Quote from: Erpingham on March 23, 2018, 08:51:53 AM

One area that I'd ask for more on is hoplite charges.  Traditional othismos supporters can make much of this, although, oddly, they often want a formal spear fencing phase too.  Paul has shown that just hurling yourself at a wall of well braced hoplites is ineffective.  Why the prevalence of charging?  Or, if we looked into it in a more detailed way, is charging less than universal among non-Spartans?

Most armies charge. Once you strip away the notion of the charge being a tidal wave of momentum building for the horseless lancers that are the Orthodox hoplites, the hoplite charge becomes a bit mundane.  Early hoplite shield-walls surely charged before there was a phalanx, but because they had a mass of missile troops formed behind them, and they themselves could throw spears, they would already have been within some 30-50 meters by the time they had moved from missile duel to close combat. If you don't have a missile component to your unit, you have to charge as soon as you hear the sling shot hitting shields, as Xenophon would say. So if you optimize your taxis for shock combat, make it deep and hard to shoot over, and arm your men with long, rear-balanced, unthrowable spears, you must pay the price with a charge. 

I think the charge did things to the unit on the approach that were found to be beneficial. It probably exaggerated the rightward veering, and cause a closing of frontage. It might have been more importantly, it was a signal to the other army.  Armies communicate their status to each other in a variety of ways. For example Xenophon and Thucydides make clear that a general could tell if a phalanx was shaky by looking at the wobbling spears or conversely a phalanx standing at ease and in good order could cause even the Spartans to balk at attacking it. One of the crucial moments in hoplite combat was the race to get back into order after the charge. I think losing this race is one reason we see so many hoplite armies break at this point.

Oh dear, it seemed to be going so well

Best not mention it was a post by Paul Mcdonnell-Staff which set me thinking about othismos differently. 

However, in the best traditions of the forum, can I try to suggest areas where I think we have made progress :

• Othismos is a state.  It is not a drill manoeuver. It carries a sense of crowding and pressing, rather than scrumming.
• Oth- words could be used to mean different things and Greek was sophisticated enough to allow the word to be used flexibly. The use of "oth-" words does not automatically involve physical pushing, though it can do.
• Literary allusions to shields crashing together does not mean every shield crashed in unison but that the front ranks were closely engaged, not just poking with spears
• "Just one more step" is a heroic exhortation, not a drill command.  However, it may imply incremental progress.
• In othismos, you didn't  just stop fighting and shove with all your might.  Participants at the front continued to try to kill each other with shorter weapons, those in reach used spears and others pushed, shoved and jostled with a degree of control
• Othismos didn't just happen to hoplites.  However, hoplites had uniquely good kit for it (the Argive aspis) and it was probably an expected part of their battle experience

Its not consensus but it isn't our usual point of attritional exhaustion.

PS This post replies to ideas a couple of posts up, not the one before it. Perils of cross-posting.

QuoteMost armies charge. Once you strip away the notion of the charge being a tidal wave of momentum building for the horseless lancers that are the Orthodox hoplites, the hoplite charge becomes a bit mundane.

This brings in what we mean by charge.  I think it is Herodotus who says that the hoplite charge was invented at marathon and it was away of covering ground quickly, rather than building impetus.  If charged meant close to spear poking distance as rapidly as possible, then there isn't a contradiction.  The psychology idea is interesting.  Like the idea of fixing bayonets, to signal to both your own side and the enemy you were in deadly earnest.

(just dropping in to say)

I'm happy to sign up to the Erpingham Manifesto above - not that I agree with every word of it, but that's the nature of consensus.

Paul - I'm happy to bow to your greater knowledge of dinosaur skulls, but I hope in return you will bow to my greater knowledge of Greek when I tell you that "Arrian comments on this, and in an odd quirk that I love describes the second rank as so crowded up against the promachoi that they are in othismos" is wrong, and a misunderstanding of Arrian.

As to the rest - OK, I appreciate your practical approach, and it does provide some useful data.

and has been a thoroughly informative and 'fresh' set of discussions for me personally

Quote from: RichT on March 23, 2018, 04:35:30 PM
Arrian comments on this, and in an odd quirk that I love describes the second rank as so crowded up against the promachoi that they are in othismos" is wrong, and a misunderstanding of Arrian.

Please explain. I assumed that Arrian is describing not a phalanx but the Fulcum of his day, where the second rank is quite literally on the back of the front ranker. But in this case I am more than happy to be wrong.

Quote from: Erpingham on March 23, 2018, 03:04:00 PM
This brings in what we mean by charge.  I think it is Herodotus who says that the hoplite charge was invented at marathon and it was away of covering ground quickly, rather than building impetus.  If charged meant close to spear poking distance as rapidly as possible, then there isn't a contradiction.  The psychology idea is interesting.  Like the idea of fixing bayonets, to signal to both your own side and the enemy you were in deadly earnest.

I think it highly unlikely that no hoplites charged before Marathon.  To me Herodotus is pointing out that no hoplite force had ever charged in a flat out run from such range. As I have noted, there may be exceptions, perhaps Delium or second phase Coronea, but normally hoplites pulled up from charges like every other army.

There is a lot of psychological warfare going on- both to rattle the other side and shore up your own. Much of this is universal in warfare.  This is one of the problems I have with Goldsworthy's take on depth. The idea that you need deep ranks to keep men from running away gets a bit comical when you consider that an 18th C sergeant could keep shallow ranks of men facing invisible death in line with a Monty Python style pointed stick.  His notion of columns and moving men fails on his lack of understanding of what those columns actually did.  Revolutionary French columns just had to get to the enemy, who in just about every case high tailed it rather than facing a white arm.  While Napoleonic columns were to deploy into three lines at close range.  Hoplites could not expect an enemy to break because they showed up, and they had no tactical doctrine by which to deploy in the face of the enemy (which would be suicidal).

Quote from: Erpingham on March 23, 2018, 03:04:00 PM
Its not consensus but it isn't our usual point of attritional exhaustion.

I am happy if we have moved even slightly towards a middle ground. Shall I paint my rosy picture of where I wish we were?
Much of the orthodoxy has to go. The charge directly into othismos with no prior spear fencing, the notion of strict, rank and file drill for archaic hoplites and all but elites, the portrayal of a full blown exclusionary phalanx of hoplites as the norm rather than the exception prior to the Persian wars (or at least the origin of the hoplitodromos in the mid to latter 6thc). The lack of spear throwing for hoplites. The inability of small groups to spall off from the front of the phalanx for heroic deeds.

On the other side. The ridiculous notion of clumping men at 6' frontage with archers, psiloi and horsemen in between must die immediately. The inability to see that a shield wall of a more simple and flexible type, backed by missile troops, is likely and would look an awful lot like a classical phalanx needs to be corrected. The lack of understanding that you do not need fancy drill to have Mass combat when much of the order needed can provided by bottom-up mechanics. There should be an agnostic take on a literal othismos, and an understanding that it is simply an extension of a phenomenon seen on many battlefields.

What you end up with is something that looks an awful lot like the ordered phalanx of the orthodox, but the chaotic guts of the heretical lack of imposed drill.

so on the charge....was there a slowing down to fencing distance or an initial impact followed by a mutual withdrawal to fencing distance?

Quote from: Erpingham on March 23, 2018, 02:41:11 PM

Best not mention it was a post by Paul Mcdonnell-Staff which set me thinking about othismos differently. 

Not a problem at all. Paul is a personal friend of mine, and probably taught me more about hoplites than any other person- more so if you consider the Warry book was my first book on Ancient Warfare. He just has an ingrained inability to understand the crowd-othismos.  In years of trying I could get him to understand the mechanics, so in large part my experiment with the reenactors was to prove what I had already predicted to try to get over the objections of guys thinking like him.  I have succeeded admirably with everyone I hoped to convince- except him 

Quote from: Holly on March 23, 2018, 07:39:55 PM
so on the charge....was there a slowing down to fencing distance or an initial impact followed by a mutual withdrawal to fencing distance?

A slowing down to fencing distance was probably the norm, but of course you can never say never with hoplites.  If we look at classical hoplites with a spear reach in excess of 6-7', it would seem a mistake to charge past, crash shields, and hope to pull back to range after. Archaic Greeks with shorter throwing/stabbins spears might pull this off, but running into a bucn of spears is not a great idea unless you don't have one yourself. We did this many times, it is no problem for the ranks to pull up short. You don't all crash over the top when the ranks in front halt- but then I am sure you know that.

May I just pose an issue with any Anglo Saxon othismos. Anglo Saxon shields have a central boss with a hand grip inside the boss (well partly inside. Early A/ S shields often have buttons on the end of the boss,suitable for catching an opponent's sword or concentrating pressure in a punching motion.
I'd argue for hoplite othismos on the basis of the suitability of the kit, Anglo  Saxon kit is much less suitable. Chaps with two spears, one for throwing, one for fighting with are much less lijely to get really close once spear one is thrown, because really close contact negates the effect of the spear on the opposing front rank. The Anglo Saxon sword has a total length of about three feet , again not handy at all uf you are going right up clise to an opponent. Of course someone will cite the mostly shorter seax, but the top guys have long cutting swords, not a neat Greek short sword ( xiphos?) which is ideal for real close fighting.. A/S warfare changed over time, but the kit and weapon combination look consistent with standing close enough to an opponent to fence and jab with the spear rather than push hard in files . With a boss the shield is better suited to concentrating weightband thus pressure on a point , whereas the hoplite shield and its method of carrying distributes pressure.
As to the Moro and the form follows function argument, I was impressed by the picture of a warrior in Duncan's cite. He looks to be wearing a Spanish morion...pkume and all and it made me wonder if the Moro kit was an imitation of a Spanish sword and buckler equipped colonial soldier, these having so impressed the Moro that they adopted their weaponry which is suitable for relatively loose order combat??
Roy

Quote from: PMBardunias on March 23, 2018, 08:03:22 PM

Quote from: Erpingham on March 23, 2018, 02:41:11 PM

Best not mention it was a post by Paul Mcdonnell-Staff which set me thinking about othismos differently. 

Not a problem at all. Paul is a personal friend of mine, and probably taught me more about hoplites than any other person- more so if you consider the Warry book was my first book on Ancient Warfare. He just has an ingrained inability to understand the crowd-othismos.  In years of trying I could get him to understand the mechanics, so in large part my experiment with the reenactors was to prove what I had already predicted to try to get over the objections of guys thinking like him.  I have succeeded admirably with everyone I hoped to convince- except him 

Quote from: Holly on March 23, 2018, 07:39:55 PM
so on the charge....was there a slowing down to fencing distance or an initial impact followed by a mutual withdrawal to fencing distance?

A slowing down to fencing distance was probably the norm, but of course you can never say never with hoplites.  If we look at classical hoplites with a spear reach in excess of 6-7', it would seem a mistake to charge past, crash shields, and hope to pull back to range after. Archaic Greeks with shorter throwing/stabbins spears might pull this off, but running into a bucn of spears is not a great idea unless you don't have one yourself. We did this many times, it is no problem for the ranks to pull up short. You don't all crash over the top when the ranks in front halt- but then I am sure you know that.

that was my experience (in a non lethal arena admittedly!). we would speed up and slow down, sometimes just fast walking to spear fencing distance