The Hoplite phalanx

[Jim Webster]

One thing that we have to remember is that whilst the Hoplon is associated with phalanx warfare, it was also used by men who weren't fighting as part of a phalanx.

It was used by men fighting on warships, it was used by men storming towns, fighting in streets and similar
When you read Xenophon and his account of the retreat, men with hoplons fight under circumstances that a wargamer would suggest should be left to peltasts.

So it obviously wasn't putting the user at too big a disadvantage under those circumstances.
It wasn't optimum, but was OK.

So the double grip shield could well have been in use before the hoplite phalanx was properly developed.
Indeed the phalanx may have developed to take advantage of the shield.
So it is entirely possible that the phalanx in 500BC was a different beast from the phalanx in 400BC.

(And anyway, at Marathon it makes more sense if you treat the Greeks as Warband  )

Jim

[Rob Miles]

One thing that we have to remember is that whilst the Hoplon is associated with phalanx warfare, it was also used by men who weren't fighting as part of a phalanx.

It was used by men fighting on warships, it was used by men storming towns, fighting in streets and similar
When you read Xenophon and his account of the retreat, men with hoplons fight under circumstances that a wargamer would suggest should be left to peltasts

Yeah, but I bet if you'd asked them, they would rather have been in a phalanx!

It was a condition of citizenship that a man provide his own hoplite armour and shield. I do not know if this extended to the spear, but if he wanted his own side-arms, he would have had to pay for them. Therefore, men who find themselves fighting as something other than hoplites would use their hoplite 'gear' if they qualified as hoplites. Besides, you were proud that you had it. Skirmishers were low-life scum who couldn't be in the 'proper' infantry.

[Jim Webster]

One thing that we have to remember is that whilst the Hoplon is associated with phalanx warfare, it was also used by men who weren't fighting as part of a phalanx.

It was used by men fighting on warships, it was used by men storming towns, fighting in streets and similar
When you read Xenophon and his account of the retreat, men with hoplons fight under circumstances that a wargamer would suggest should be left to peltasts

Yeah, but I bet if you'd asked them, they would rather have been in a phalanx!

It was a condition of citizenship that a man provide his own hoplite armour and shield. I do not know if this extended to the spear, but if he wanted his own side-arms, he would have had to pay for them. Therefore, men who find themselves fighting as something other than hoplites would use their hoplite 'gear' if they qualified as hoplites. Besides, you were proud that you had it. Skirmishers were low-life scum who couldn't be in the 'proper' infantry.

What I'm meaning is that during a campaign pretty well any hoplite could find himself fighting other than in a phalanx, just as part of normal military life.
And for marines, fighting in a phalanx could well have had a degree of novelty, yet they were happy with the Hoplon.
I think we over-play the shield's disadvantages. If it was so bad, marines would have used something more useful, which would probably have been cheaper

Jim

[Imperial Dave]

I am minded with all this excellent discussion to go and try out the different spear grips and thrusts for myself. When I was reenacting as a spearman or halberdeer I generally used a two handed grip (ie no shield).

Just thinking out aloud but the issue in my mind is in close order "phalanx" mode moving spears into position let alone jabbing and thrusting with it (be that over or underarm) is fraught with dangers for rows 2 and 3. I cant offer evidence as my latin and greek is non existent but leans me towards to the othismos interpretation. Following this through I would hesistantly offer the thought that in close formation, with overlapping shields and a impact clash that possibly the spear was either used in a shouldered overarm thrust (with the elbow 'dropped' low) and effectively the spear 'resting' on the shield and thrust horizontally (a bit like the cue action on a snooker bridge) OR that the spear was used underarm to allow for the sauroter to be used quickly and swiftly as you stepped over fallen enemy infantry upon advance

maybe.... 

[Rob Miles]

As far as I know, there were no Greek 'marines'- just ordinary citizens of the Hoplite class who went to sea and did their share of the rowing and fighting.

The shield was quite weighty, but could still be used in a variety of ways, including one-to-one combat, and you NEVER threw it away without losing your citizen rights/respect/life. Just ask Cleonymus.

[Imperial Dave]

if I read aright, the hoplon was quite a piece of manufacturing and certainly took more time to make than a spear and possibly 'made to measure' for the user (as Christopher Matthew alludes to). If this was the case then you had a shield that you had to use for all eventualities and although not ideal for single combat would perform that role if push came to shove (no pun intended)

[Jim Webster]

As far as I know, there were no Greek 'marines'- just ordinary citizens of the Hoplite class who went to sea and did their share of the rowing and fighting.

The shield was quite weighty, but could still be used in a variety of ways, including one-to-one combat, and you NEVER threw it away without losing your citizen rights/respect/life. Just ask Cleonymus.

Somewhere I remember reading that Marines were rather looked down on. Firstly they were paid and spent a lot more time under arms but more importantly from the Hoplite point of view, they didn't keep their place in line, their fighting was a mixture of tactical advances and retreats when they did land.

Jim

[Erpingham]

For examples of hoplite kit being used in different ways, one needs look no further than our epic dscussion of Early Italian warfare, where we turned up many images and archaeological finds suggesting two spear fighting continued there after it had gone in Greece, and that those two spears could be proto pila.  What we struggled to conclude was how different the mode of warfare was with these different weapons.  Did an Etruscan phalanx fight essentially the same way as an Greek one, complete with its structure and its othismos or very differently?  Not that I'm suggesting a reopening of the debate here but just a cautionary note that the form of the argive aspis dictated its use may not be the case.

[Erpingham]

I am only broadly aware of the great mass of new material on the study of hoplite warfare from the last twenty years or so - it isn't my period.  But I do have some concerns about the traditional theory, as ably reiterated by Rob.

Firstly, I take the point that a top class scrum is different to a maul or ruck.  But they are hard to sustain and direct for more than a few seconds before they come apart.  Hoplite warfare, even in othismos phase, seems controlled and sustained by comparison.  Troops go forward or retreat over distances locked in combat.  A model where the climax of the action is the shields come together and the front rankers just become "spam in the can" while everybody else just leans in from the back doesn't have that control I'd expect to see.

Secondly, what was the point of a 8-9ft spear if all you are going to do is advance up to each other and lean on each other shields?  Surely a shorter, more manoueverable spear would be better? 

Finally, a question out of ignorance.  The slamming shields into each other and shoving them into your comrades would leave a lot of damage which would be very difficult to get out of a shield without completely dismantling it.  Do we have any surviving examples where we can examine the battle damage and, if so, what does it tell us?

[Rob Miles]

Secondly, what was the point of a 8-9ft spear if all you are going to do is advance up to each other and lean on each other shields?  Surely a shorter, more manoueverable spear would be better? 

The point is that when both sides are equal in equipment, you're down to skill, drilling and discipline to beat your opponent. If one side was made up of helot rebels or inadequately armoured spear infantry, you would use your spear to an advantage. Also, the butt spike, being a spike as opposed to a simple counterweight, is suggestive that the spear had the useful function of being planted into the ground at an angle to repel cavalry- something which would require a good length. In a battlefield situation, there are no 'quick change cabinets'- if some cavalry wants to charge your flank-- something we know phalanxes are vulnerable to-- you needed your weapon to be able to adapt to this. Finally, there is the support you give your front rank from successive ranks with a long spear. The overarm grip allows for some useful prodding at the exposed face of the enemy directly to the front.

Hoplite-on-hoplite actions were very short and resulted, generally, in very few casualties because all areas of the body not covered by the shield were armoured. Sometimes on vases the hoplite is actually naked between the top of the torso and the greaves. Given the limited access this left for prodding at a distance charging into physical contact provided the only opportunity for doing some damage. It goes without saying that a longer spear gives an advantage here- getting a faceful of speartip as you close with the enemy is a little off-putting at best and if yours puts him off before his puts you off, the more likely you are to close successfully and with impact.

There are vase paintings which show hoplites closed with hoplites and angling their spears in the manner I have described. And, no, there can be no issue of these paintings showing an overarm grip as some kind of convention- they are in melee.

A couple of other points here-- the 'underarm' lancer position may not be impeded by the shield held by the wielder, but it would be impeded by the shield of the man to his right, which overlapped his body at that point. The shields could reasonably be assumed (as they were the property of the bearer) to have a radius equivalent to the hoplite's inside elbow to the tips of the fingers (thereby allowing for the rim). It would cover the left flank of the bearer to the same width, easily covering the right upper arm of his neighbour. Besides, such a position would put the spear bang in the middle of the opposite hoplite's shield-- a pointless posture, particularly given the limited scope for manoeuvre.

Hoplite shields have been found, largely dented and bashed, but a hoplite would have looked after his shield, repairing it when necessary. Without it, his status would have been severely diminished.

Finally, the image of the scrum you need to have is the scrum that works textbook. The hoplites were standing in a straight line from the front of the file to the back-- they had to avoid the backthrusts. Perhaps a better image would be a tug of war in reverse, with both sides pushing for dear life.

[Mark G]

Yea, hundreds of men in a battle that comes to pushing yard- round shields into each other are going to remain perfectly in alignment ..
That's believable.

[Rob Miles]

Yea, hundreds of men in a battle that comes to pushing yard- round shields into each other are going to remain perfectly in alignment ..
That's believable.

If they were properly disciplined and drilled to act with the same foot on the command being given, quite believable. It was a long way from being disorganised, but well practised. The city with the better order and discipline would prevail over the 'weaker'.

Getting back to an earlier point of contention, why else would they have been in such deep formations and, arguably, derived advantage from it? If it were just a matter of getting some kind of morale boost or some kind of ancillary function, then everyone would have done it. The depth kept the shield wall at the front stable against impact and provided momentum when othismos was ordered.

[Jim Webster]

Remember the main purpose of a butt spike is to allow the spear to be stuck in the ground when you're resting. The spike tends to be non-ferrous metal, so it doesn't rust, and it's there so the wood doesn't rot

Stabbing people with it is handy, but it's something you do far less than you stick it in the ground to lean on :-)

And they didn't brace it to face cavalry, because otherwise Macedonian companions couldn't casually ride down elite infantry 

Jim

[Erpingham]

There are vase paintings which show hoplites closed with hoplites and angling their spears in the manner I have described. And, no, there can be no issue of these paintings showing an overarm grip as some kind of convention- they are in melee.

Yes, they show two lines, advancing spear overarm.  Overarm thrusting, as Duncan has said, allows a lot of mechanical strength to be used, and it goes over the shield.  But I would expect from this evidence that attacking with spears might therefore be important in the hoplite battle, rather than just shield leaning. 

Finally, the image of the scrum you need to have is the scrum that works textbook. The hoplites were standing in a straight line from the front of the file to the back-- they had to avoid the backthrusts. Perhaps a better image would be a tug of war in reverse, with both sides pushing for dear life.

Even text book scrums don't stay that way for long.  It is hard to keep a scrum up and straight.  As Mark says, multiply this by hundreds of men over a wide front.  I participated in a lot of scrum combats in my youth (or pike pushes as the Sealed Knot called them).  They were great fun but had a very high probability of ending up in a big heap, which would have been positively deadly in a real life fight.  It's too chaotic and uncontrolled a model to my mind.

[Justin Swanton]

And they didn't brace it to face cavalry, because otherwise Macedonian companions couldn't casually ride down elite infantry 

Jim

For sure not.  The vase illustrations I've seen of hoplites vs cavalry don't IIRC show any bracing of spears in the ground. It's something you would expect to see depicted in Greek art if it was a commonplace tactic.