The Hoplite phalanx

[PMBardunias]

Not sure if thread Necromancy is appropriate, but Rich layed out his objections to othismos so clearly that I thought it deserved a reply:

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
A- sources refer to hoplites fighting each other with weapons (spears, swords) rather than just being jammed together.
B- sources refer to pushing as a part of such fighting, by individuals.
C- sources don't clearly refer to a pushing phase separate from a fighting phase, or to any mass push.
D- 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.

A-Because the right arm is free in othismos, as we showed in our recreation, there can be no doubt that men could fight as well as push. One of the funnier arguments I have heard is that they should use knives rather than swords if there were othismos. The answer is yes, and Xenophon tells us they did at Coronea.
B- If there is fighting, as described above, then an individual can be the focus of such for his apt killing.
C- See above.  You can't really have pushing without fighting, because if you are not fighting actively, you are being stabbed by your foe- this is not a game.
D-Yes, when othismos does not begin as part of battle- as when jammed trying to get through a gate, or when not a hoplite with an aspis and an expectation of fighting at this spacing- as with Procopius's standing dead men.

Comparative
A- in no other period of history for which we have good evidence do we see men fighting by pushing each other en masse.
B- 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).
C- 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.
D- 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.

A-We do in fact see it in a number of cases, such as the Roman advance at Zama, but it is always ephemeral because would be crushed without an aspis.
B- Sure, but a negative analogy is not as strong as a positive one. Its like saying that Swiss pikemen did not use shields, so there is no reason sarissaphoroi did.  The notion that depth was ONLY about othismos is wrong in any case. There are many benefits to depth, such as ease of movement and morale that were being tapped into by Revolutionary French columns for example. An important note though is that the foes of the French usually ran before the column arrived.  Napoleonic columns were meant to deploy into 3 lines at close range.  Thus, I find Goldsworthy's argument for this untenable because hoplites had no deployment mechanism in the face of the enemy and were expected to actually fight.  Getting there the fastest with the moistest is useless if only 1/10 of your men can fight.
C-Considering that we know so little of what actually happened when two masses of 8 or 16 ranks pikemen met, I am not persuaded. Surely some pushing through the sarissa occurred when the point was buried in a shield. Perhaps enough to warrant depth.  But there are other good reasons for depth that have to do with the reach of the sarissa and the number of ranks that can enter battle simultaneously. If you have 8 ranks of sarissaphoroi, then more than half are engaged in active battle, whereas ¼ of an 8 rank hoplite phalanx are.
D-See above.

Practical
A- 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).
B- 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.
C- if formations pushed en masse, shallower formations (or those made up of single fighters, like Romans) should have been brushed aside.
D- 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?

A- This is something easily addressed and shown in our tests. There is a diminishing of returns for each man you add to file above around 12.  It is likely that the sustained force put out by 25 ranks is not that much higher than that of 12 ranks.  The benefit is in resisting backward movement of the file and in the production of random shockwaves.
B- We had no trouble fighting and pushing and surviving. The key is the role of the aspis in protecting your diaphragm and allowing you to breathe. Unless your shield collapses you cannot suffocate in a crowd if you have an aspis. Since your right arm is completely free, you can use it to fight.
C- You cannot enter othismos with any enemy who gives even one step of ground.  Othismos is a crowd-like crush and requires force be put on you from back and front. If your foe gives ground, you are not in othismos.  Essentially both sides have to want to be in othismos or be forced into such a crowd by being unable to give ground- as when the Persians had their shields on kick stands or buried in the ground.
D- Hoplites were spearmen, they fought with spears.  They did not othismos each other. Othismos was an outcome of battle, not an intention, and for most of the period it is no more likely to win than spear fencing. You cannot immediately enter othismos after a charge, it takes some time to all pack in, so there will always be a need to use spears. I do think we begin to see a shift with Pagondas. The Thebans appear to have been more conscious of coordinated pushing as a means to an end. If I had an army of famously large farm boys, who may be less adept with the dory than my Athenian or Spartan foes, I would favor this too.

Linguistic/cultural
A- 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.
B- 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.

A- My mind is crowded with responses to this, but when push comes to shove, I guess I would press on with the notion that the fact that something can be taken as metaphorical does not exclude its use as literal. Looking at the metaphorical uses actually support that the literal translation of the noun othismos is a crowded sate.
B-Or it could be because Greek historians knew that some battles came down to mass, weight, and pushing.

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.

With this is mostly agree.  What I would add is that sometimes crowd dynamics do lead to crowd on crowd contests of force generation.

[Dangun]

B- We had no trouble fighting and pushing and surviving.

Ahem. You know reenactment 's not real, right?

[Justin Swanton]

B- We had no trouble fighting and pushing and surviving.

Ahem. You know reenactment 's not real, right?

But close enough bar dead bodies to get a good idea of how it worked.

[nikgaukroger]

Done well it can be very informative about what is practicable.

A lot isn't done well, but that's true of so many things in life 

[Erpingham]

But close enough bar dead bodies to get a good idea of how it worked.

As Nik said, it depends how it's done and why.  Paul's experimental approach is at the rigorous end.  Many re-enactors are just there for fun.  Some base their methods on limited research or even a fictionalised, "Hollywood" versions of history. So, as all things, a critical approach to the evidence derived from re-enactment is required. 

[Flaminpig0]

But close enough bar dead bodies to get a good idea of how it worked.

As Nik said, it depends how it's done and why.  Paul's experimental approach is at the rigorous end.  Many re-enactors are just there for fun.  Some base their methods on limited research or even a fictionalised, "Hollywood" versions of history. So, as all things, a critical approach to the evidence derived from re-enactment is required.

Outside our period but by way of example many of  ECW re-enactors seemed to be playing rugby with pikes.

[Justin Swanton]

But close enough bar dead bodies to get a good idea of how it worked.

As Nik said, it depends how it's done and why.  Paul's experimental approach is at the rigorous end.  Many re-enactors are just there for fun.  Some base their methods on limited research or even a fictionalised, "Hollywood" versions of history. So, as all things, a critical approach to the evidence derived from re-enactment is required.

Outside our period but by way of example many of  ECW re-enactors seemed to be playing rugby with pikes.

Yes, they have to raise their pikes before closing in order not to poke out the eyes of their opponents.

[RichT]

Outside our period but by way of example many of  ECW re-enactors seemed to be playing rugby with pikes.

Indeed - the ECW 'push of pike' re-enactment is a warning that just because something 'works' when done by reenactors, it doesn't mean it ever actually happened. What reenactment can do is rule out impossibilities (or rule in possibilities - such as that an eight deep scrum doesn't squash to death those in the front rank (at least not when pushing against a tree)). Incidentally how deep do ECW push of pike reenactments ever go? The videos I've seen seem to be just a few ranks (four or so) - but they seem to indicate that death by squashing isn't a problem, even without an aspis.

[Erpingham]

Outside our period but by way of example many of  ECW re-enactors seemed to be playing rugby with pikes.

Indeed - the ECW 'push of pike' re-enactment is a warning that just because something 'works' when done by reenactors, it doesn't mean it ever actually happened. What reenactment can do is rule out impossibilities (or rule in possibilities - such as that an eight deep scrum doesn't squash to death those in the front rank (at least not when pushing against a tree)). Incidentally how deep do ECW push of pike reenactments ever go? The videos I've seen seem to be just a few ranks (four or so) - but they seem to indicate that death by squashing isn't a problem, even without an aspis.

From my distant experience, about four deep is right but I've been in big "tercios" maybe two or three regiments deep, so 8-12. The pike held at porte helps stop the crush but getting your arm stuck between two hurts.

The raised pike thing does indeed stop a lot off accidents and is great fun but the fact the SK called them "pushes" confused many over the meaning of "push of pike".  It's so long ago now that the living history/ authentic recreation stuff  was just coming in but this area of the re-enactment societies can help with understanding and generates a lot of detailed research e.g. into clothing patterns which may not have occur otherwise.

[Dangun]

But close enough bar dead bodies to get a good idea of how it worked.

I don't think so.

It just adds another level of uncertainty. Quite apart from ontological problems, its hard enough to understand whether, or to what degree, the sources reflect reality. Its even harder to make the case for the relevance of reenactment because the reenactment might neither reflect the source nor reality.

[Flaminpig0]

But close enough bar dead bodies to get a good idea of how it worked.

I don't think so.

It just adds another level of uncertainty. Quite apart from ontological problems, its hard enough to understand whether, or to what degree, the sources reflect reality. Its even harder to make the case for the relevance of reenactment because the reenactment might neither reflect the source nor reality.

I would tend to agree with you- we can't factor in how an actual fear of death or being maimed would impact on a persons actions.

[Patrick Waterson]

Quite apart from ontological problems, its hard enough to understand whether, or to what degree, the sources reflect reality. Its even harder to make the case for the relevance of reenactment because the reenactment might neither reflect the source nor reality.

One can simplify the ontology and self-inflicted doubts by finding out
1) What works in real life
2) Can we make things work in the manner described in the sources?

Paul's experimental work does this.  He does not claim that it necessarily 'proves' othismos, only that it disproves the objections usually offered.  I cannot see any fault with his assertions there.  Meanwhile, if anyone has a better understanding of what happened when hoplite formations met, we would very much like to hear from you.

[PMBardunias]

B- We had no trouble fighting and pushing and surviving.

Ahem. You know reenactment 's not real, right?

Thanks to those who came to my defense. In general though, this is quite true, and I have been quite skeptical myself towards the assertions of reenactors. I am just as hard on someone who play fights with a padded spear that cannot target the face or hands but thinks they know combat as I am on those who opine on the limitations of a hoplite shield in combat who have never picked one up. One of the things I push is that sharp weapons change everything when it comes to fighting vs play fighting. Not only behaviorally, fear, but physically, weapons get stuck if you prod shields for example.

I think Patrick has hit it on the head though, done properly reenactment cannot say "hoplites did this", but they can counter "hoplites could not do this".  Take the comment you quoted for example. Many authors have argued against othismos by saying: A) men could not push as a mass, B) if they did the force would squash and kill men, and c) men cannot push and fight at the same time.  If I fit out 4 men and hoplites and have them push against each other or some immovable object like a wall and they generate a half a ton of force but do not die, then this informs us that it can be done by humans in as accurate a panoply as we can recreate. If those men can slap each other in the head while pushing, then they could fight.  There are plenty of reasons they might not do it, it is terrifying and brutal, but these are behavioral reasons, not physical limitations.

[Dangun]

done properly reenactment cannot say "hoplites did this", but they can counter "hoplites could not do this".

Could is interesting.
But as you said, its not evidence of anything historical.

Paul's experimental work does this.  He does not claim that it necessarily 'proves' othismos, only that it disproves the objections usually offered.  I cannot see any fault with his assertions there. 

I can.
Reenactment does not prove what historical hoplites, "could" do.
It proves what 21st century reenacters can do.
You then have to demonstrate that the exercise is: 1) accurate; and 2) relevant, neither of which is trivial.

[PMBardunias]

Paul's experimental work does this.  He does not claim that it necessarily 'proves' othismos, only that it disproves the objections usually offered.  I cannot see any fault with his assertions there. 

I can.
Reenactment does not prove what historical hoplites, "could" do.
It proves what 21st century reenacters can do.
You then have to demonstrate that the exercise is: 1) accurate; and 2) relevant, neither of which is trivial.

I would agree if you can show that modern humans are in some way fundamentally different from hoplites physically.

While I agree your criteria are non-trivial, I do not agree they are insurmountable. As for accuracy, we know quite a bit about the form and function of elements of panoply. The dimensions and construction of the aspis for example in the case of my study. Relevance is irrelevant if I am just disproving what someone else says is impossible. Historians have by and large set up the standards for the relevance of these arguments. Othismos for example may be a complete lark, but it is relevant if it is one of the main theories on hoplite combat. My work has also shown why charging into othismos is unlikely for example. The orthodox theory was that hoplites charged into battle because this gave them an advantage in pushing and/or they could not stop once the charge set in motion. I have shown both to be wrong when tested with humans.