The Hoplite phalanx

[Rob Miles]

Could it be that by the time of Leuctra there were not so may highly motivated Spartiates in the section of the army facing the Thebans – or possibly in the rear lines.   

Spartan armies tended to have one 'elite' group of Spartiates surrounding their leader deployed on the right. This unit was so superior that in one battle I read about (I think it was Xenophon so it was about the time of the Theban wars) the WHOLE of the rest of the Spartan army routed with just this one unit wheeling this way and that munching up each and every one of their enemy's units as they returned from pursuit with parade-ground precision drilling. To say that the defeat of this very unit at Leuctra was significant is to understate the seismic nature of the destruction of this battle-winning unit.

[RichT]

I think it's worth spelling out the case(s) against the 'traditional interpretation' ie that hoplites fought by literally pushing each other en masse, and that deep formations beat shallower ones because they pushed harder. Cases grouped thematically.

Historical
- sources refer to hoplites fighting each other with weapons (spears, swords) rather than just being jammed together.
- sources refer to pushing as a part of such fighting, by individuals.
- sources don't clearly refer to a pushing phase separate from a fighting phase, or to any mass push.
- there are several occasions were sources are clear that being pressed closely together (and unable to use weapons properly) was a bad thing and made the force so pressed very vulnerable.

Comparative
- in no other period of history for which we have good evidence do we see men fighting by pushing each other en masse.
- in periods in which there definitely was no pushing en masse (eg 18th-19th Century) deep formations could still prove more effective than shallow ones (line v. column).
- Macedonian pike phalanxes formed deep (and presumably gained some advantage from doing so) but it is hard to believe they could have pushed with the weight of 16 men along a pike shaft, or what would have happened to the enemy force (or both forces in the case of phalanx v. phalanx) facing pikes pushed with such force.
- a deep formation could be harder to resist, and harder to defeat, for reasons other than pushing. Polybius gives the reasons for the Macedonian depth - rear ranks prevented the front ranks from fleeing (so making the formation harder to defeat), and pressed on those ahead by their presence (which doesn't necessarily mean pushed them in melee), making the formation easier to keep moving forward.

Practical
- if the weight of a whole formation pushed at once, it should always have been obvious that very deep formations would be more effective than shallower ones, but deep formations were only adopted on occasion, and late in hoplite history, and were not always clearly superior (cf Leuctra).
- if men were pressed together by a mass eight (or more deep) front and back they would have been unable to fight or move or do anything - think of a crowd crush.
- if formations pushed en masse, shallower formations (or those made up of single fighters, like Romans) should have been brushed aside.
- if the pushing phase was decisive (as the 'coming to othismos' theory suggests) why bother fighting - why did formations not just push from the outset?

Linguistic/cultural
- references to pushing are as likely to be metaphorical as literal - after all, we still talk today in military contexts of one force pushing back another when there is certainly no physical contact.
- Greek historians tended to describe battles in terms of mass, weight and pushing. Roman historians talk more of movement, contact and 'virtus'. This may represent differences in fighting techniques, or it could be a cultural difference that does not necessarily reflect battlefield differences.

My own view is that hoplites did not push each other en masse, they fought with weapons, but that in an encounter between two large, deep, close order formations there were crowd dynamics in play which meant a deeper formation might tend to advance and a shallower one tend to fall back and/or to fall apart. These dynamics were partly physical (to do with the tendency of a crowd to maintain forward momentum, without necessarily pushing scrum-style on its forward members), and partly psychological (more resistant to rout, safety in numbers). What's more I think these dynamics were not clearly understood at the time (just as the relative merits of line and column were not clearly understood in the late 18th C/Napoleonic period) - and are still not clearly understood today, of course.

[Rob Miles]

OK so let's take the Roman issue first.

If a phalanx of any type pushed back against a single unit of Roman infantry, it would be in trouble from the units either side hitting it in the flank-- which they did historically. Pike phalanxes did not push each other- they held the pike with both hands and the shields were too small. Nevertheless, when they got out of line through success or failure, the Romans just shrugged their shoulders and ploughed in against defenceless foes. Hoplites were designed to fight other hoplites primarily where a solid block of bronze met another solid block of bronze with overlapping shields that inhibited anything other than overarm jabbing. Even the swords that have been found were very much of the 'downward slash' variety-- bladed and meant to be wielded overarm. It's a bit of a stalemate if no attempt was made to force the enemy back upon itself. They certainly did not suddenly break up their shield wall and begin one-to-one combat. The reason this has been the long-standing view is that it is supported by the archaeological evidence of the armour and shield. Try blocking a blow to your right with a shield fastened to your elbow at the boss. Try underarm thrusts when your neighbour's shield is covering your right elbow. Try not hitting the person behind you with your butt spike if you fight at any height below the shoulder. The lack of written testimony is always going to require a feat of imagination, but, given that hoplite battles did take place, in depth, and that (according to Herodotus) formations did not run into battle before Marathon, it is hard to imagine anything that did not involve dissolving the phalanx on contact-- and that only happened when you were about to lose.

[RichT]

They certainly did not suddenly break up their shield wall and begin one-to-one combat.

Sure. I guess there are several schools of thought (with recent proponents of each):

Traditional othismos - hoplite phalanxes 'fought' by literally pushing each other, rugby scrum or reverse tug of war style (Hanson)

Metaphorical othismos - hoplite phalanxes didn't push, they fought, but in close order and solid formation (Goldsworthy)

Revisionist - hoplites fought as individuals in open order (van Wees)

I'm in the second camp (as - I suspect - are most people)

[Rob Miles]

Sure. I guess there are several schools of thought (with recent proponents of each):

Traditional othismos - hoplite phalanxes 'fought' by literally pushing each other, rugby scrum or reverse tug of war style (Hanson)

Metaphorical othismos - hoplite phalanxes didn't push, they fought, but in close order and solid formation (Goldsworthy)

Revisionist - hoplites fought as individuals in open order (van Wees)

I'm in the second camp (as - I suspect - are most people)

I think there is a bit of a misrepresentation here. A combination of weapons fighting (particularly against non-hoplite opponents) and push from non-fighting ranks (ie most of the rest of the unit) is what I and certainly the 'University of Wales College of Cardiff' Classics faculty prior to the recent hubbub believe. They would have used their spears but also braced and used their mass. Had weapons fighting alone been decisive, we would have seen a much higher casualty rate from the losing side (Leuctra was an exception-- perhaps due to the weight of the phalanx used but also because Spartiates generally came back carrying their shield or on it) because once the phalanx began to lose its cohesion the majority rear ranks would have taken to their heels. There are no accounts of bodies piling up between hoplite phalanxes. The spear could not penetrate the shield and as long as the ranks stayed solid (which any one-to-one weapons combat would have negated) there was little hope of doing much damage.

Again, it is the shield that is of prime importance here. Only by grasping the elbow-loop can you use it for individual protection, otherwise you have to turn your whole body to protect your right (which a long spear can easily threaten) which would open you and your neighbour to an attack on an unarmoured part of your body. It is designed for use in a unit (ok so it was used in necessity as well, but you make the best of a bad situation when your life is on the line) that is fighting another unit and it embodies the collective reliance of the members of the polis upon each other. You need to get the other side to break their shield line. You don't do it by poncing about at a distance of six feet.

I do not know of anyone who believes that all hoplites ever did was push each other. I do not consider it a valid argument to dismiss this non-existent thesis as a proof of something else.

[Jim Webster]

 
I suspect that the 'van Wees' option always existed and it's what happened in situations where formations broke down or couldn't be formed.
I'd reckon that the second option came in early and ran in parallel with the van Wees idea, taking over when order could be retained.

I do wonder at times if Marathon was not perhaps a 'van Wees' battle at times.

Jim

[Erpingham]

I though Richard's summary was a good one.  Even if you allow for the fact that some weapon fighting took place, the decisive othismos phase in the traditional view is the physical pushing.  In what Richard calls metaphorical school, othismos is decisive pressure of forward momentum during fighting or possibly in some interpretations the establishment of psychological dominance of the melee.  It may, therefore, be separate to the role of depth, although having men physically crowding you so it is difficult to go back probably helped with the decisive pressure part.  The revisionist model I know little about but it would be interesting if any of its fans could explain how othismos was supposed to work there.

It is also the case that othismos is not confined to hoplite v. hoplite - Herodotus has hoplites use it against Persians at Plataea and (IIRC) Xenophon has Egyptian infantry doing it, whatever it is.

[RobertGargan]

Hi Robert (Miles)
Is there any chance of you finding "...that in one battle I read about (I think it was in Xenophan so it was about the time of the Theban wars)..." because, although I find Xenophan biased to Sparta this is new information to me and I am ever fascinated by what made the hoplites of Lacedaemon superior to the rest.
Cheers
Robert Gargan

[Rob Miles]

Hi Robert

Hellenica IV Chapter 2. Another battle with an uncommonly deep phalanx featured on the Boeotian side. Maybe they were working their way up to the big one:)

It's not as detailed as I remembered it (everything gets smaller with age(!)). There's a mention of shoving in the following chapter but my Greek and eyesight are too poor to build a rhetorical trophy out of it:)

[RichT]

Xen Hell 4.3.19 - Battle of Coronea
"For while he might have let the men pass by who were trying to break through and then have followed them and overcome those in the rear, he did not do this, but crashed against the Thebans front to front; and setting shields against shields they shoved, fought, killed, and were killed."

Traditionalist: "See - 'setting shields against shields they shoved' - so it was a mass pushing contest, as Xenophon clearly describes it."

Metaphoricalist: "Nonsense - 'they shoved, fought, killed, and were killed' - so while there was pushing, there was also effective fighting with spears. Xenophon says nothing about mass pushing - this is just the front rank men pushing their opponents as they fight them"

Revisionist: "You're both wrong. Xenophon is clearly describing single combats all along the line - shield pushing is just a part of that, knocking the opponent off balance so you can spear him - for which you would need space to dodge and advance, back off and parry".

Very little in ancient history is clear cut.

[Rob Miles]

Both myself and the old codgers who taught me would readily accept that hoplites were not one-trick ponies. If the opposition did not face them with impenetrable armour, they would quite happily chew them up with spears-- I mean why bother shoving when they're already naked? Spartans needed to be able to fight instantly, even when they were going down the pub, so they were skilled in all areas of combat bar shooting. And when you shoved your rival hoplite phalanx into the ground, or followed them up as they retired, what was a relatively useless weapon suddenly had so many more uses...

I've been thinking about that shield issue and one-to-one fighting. Is there any archaeological evidence that the two grips could be used in reverse? A shield with the elbow near the rim and gripped in the centre would make it much better for solo use.

Just had two large parcels from TSS arrive! Soon be ready...

[Patrick Waterson]

Xen Hell 4.3.19 - Battle of Coronea
"For while he might have let the men pass by who were trying to break through and then have followed them and overcome those in the rear, he did not do this, but crashed against the Thebans front to front; and setting shields against shields they shoved, fought, killed, and were killed."

Traditionalist: "See - 'setting shields against shields they shoved' - so it was a mass pushing contest, as Xenophon clearly describes it."

Metaphoricalist: "Nonsense - 'they shoved, fought, killed, and were killed' - so while there was pushing, there was also effective fighting with spears. Xenophon says nothing about mass pushing - this is just the front rank men pushing their opponents as they fight them"

Revisionist: "You're both wrong. Xenophon is clearly describing single combats all along the line - shield pushing is just a part of that, knocking the opponent off balance so you can spear him - for which you would need space to dodge and advance, back off and parry".

Very little in ancient history is clear cut.

I think it is actually quite clear cut, but we persist in taking offcuts rather than the full picture.

The revisionist sees only the front row of hoplites and completely ignores the remaining ranks, as if they are only there to spectate or discuss the weather.

The metaphoricalist might see a little further but loses the wood with over-concentration on the trees, splitting hairs about 'pushing' against 'mass pushing'.  Again, vision beyond the front rank is limited.

The traditionalist has the advantage of understanding the hoplite ethos and as a result filling in the contribution by the remaining ranks: if your spear cannot reach the foe, your shield can still reach your comrade's back.

It may be worth noting the Greek sequence of events: ephodos, doratismos, othismos.  These were respectively the charge, the initial fighting in which spears featured prominently and the 'shoving', when both sides had done what they could with spear-use and the emphasis was now on formation pushing formation.  A clash could of course end before othismos, as at First Mantinea, when both sides' left wings either broke at first contact or were overwhelmed at the doratismos stage because of gaps in the line.

[aligern]

I think I am in agreement wit Patrick here, and too, with the author of Western Way of War, who I recall,gives a breakdown of an hoplite battle that has phases in which which the hoplites advance to intimidate, clash with spears, then  move to pushing and jabbing and then when one side tires the battle pushes on over the losers with back rank men stabbing downwards to finish off fallen opponents. Once momentum is achieved its a one way street for the losers.
That gives a picture of something more complex than just a straight shoving match. There are periods when exhaustion brings an end to momentum. Then heroes and leaders in the front rank try and kill an opponent to force a gap, or call for that  one more coordinated step that will get the opponent moving backwards.
To me the above reconstruction makes sense of the evidence, of the design of hoplite equipment and of the known short duration of hoplite battles. These seem to be ritualistic encounters, almost deliberately inefficient . An opponent arrives and ravages the crops until  the city hoplites  down out to the flatlands to drive off the invader, the fight occurs, someone wins and the invaders withdraw with or without tribute or the cession of land. VDH makes the very good point that it is unlikely that the attackers would really ravage on a widespread basis as the olive trees and vibes take a long time to be replanted and grow to maturity so the wide destruction is more likely literary than realistic.
Similarly cities are small and have low populations of warriors who have the property qualifications and income to pay for the kit that a hoplite needs. That fits better with a warfare that is a trial of strength rather than a deadly earnest bloodbath, and pushing fits with that style of combat.
Roy

[Rob Miles]

Yes that's certainly what was beaten into me by archaeologists back in the days of my youth.

Perhaps one last observation-- you would never shove on impact. You would crush the front two ranks of each army in a pointless, aimless and chaotic manner that might look good in Hollywood Panavision, but would never achieve the goal of breaking apart your enemy's formation-- at least by design. I daresay you might get lucky. So you would need to get to the shield line, make sure everyone was set, and THEN begin the push.

And you would push as soon as you were able. You would not want to be *not* pushing when the other side were. It's one game of Mornington Crescent where you don't want to go round the Circle Line.

Rob (tentatively setting up a trophy)

[Erpingham]

I think we can all agree that othismos represents the decisive phase of the hoplite battle.  I'm still not convinced by the argument that it was a big scrum though, prefering something more orderly and less dangerous to its own front ranks.  However, I'm happy enough for Rob to erect his trophy on this battlefield though doubtless the war will continue elsewhere.

Now any other controversies of hoplite warfare we want to tackle