The Hoplite phalanx

[Dangun]

There are two things in here at least, so I'll separate them.

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.

Yes. Equipment is the easy bit. Thankfully it lies around in the archaeological record.
But there is still a lot we don't know - the uniformity of equipment, the weight and flex of wood etc.
But its likely we can get this close.

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

They are physically different. Larger for a start. But again, we can adjust for this. Again, we'll get close.

But we know far less about a lot of other things that make it near impossible to faithfully reenact, e.g. training, role of combat, duration of combat, intensity of combat, conspicuous lack of lethality, risk perception, consequences of failure, training, doctrine, command etc. etc. etc.

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.

Here you overstate your case.
You have not shown either of your two claims, because you have not demonstrated that your reenactment is a faithful representation of history.
Admittedly, given the sources, this is a very tall order, but I don't sense you are engaging with the topic at all. I hear you reiterating that reenactment = history, reenactment = history.

This might sound like boring methodological nitpicking, but I don't think its pedantry? Another example...

Relevance is irrelevant if I am just disproving what someone else says is impossible.

The claim someone else has made is about history, not about reenactment, so you really do need to establish the accuracy of your 21st reenactment to make the argument compelling.

[Patrick Waterson]

I think we need to consider exactly what we are or are not trying to prove.

But we know far less about a lot of other things that make it near impossible to faithfully reenact, e.g. training, role of combat, duration of combat, intensity of combat, conspicuous lack of lethality, risk perception, consequences of failure, training, doctrine, command etc. etc. etc.

So how far are these factors going to change the amount and nature of force applied by a file of men in a  push?  Please explain how they would affect the force generated.

You have not shown either of your two claims, because you have not demonstrated that your reenactment is a faithful representation of history.

Turning this around, nobody has demonstrated that Paul's re-enactment is not a 'faithful representation of history' in considerations that matter, nor specified which elements of 'faithfulness' actually have a bearing on the question of force exerted by a file of men in hoplite equipment.

Admittedly, given the sources, this is a very tall order, but I don't sense you are engaging with the topic at all. I hear you reiterating that reenactment = history, reenactment = history.

Not the impression I get; this sounds like a mis-statement, misrepresentation and oversimplification of Paul's findings:
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.

This might sound like boring methodological nitpicking, but I don't think its pedantry?

To me it seems more like redefinition beyond the scope of effective meaning.  Setting up 'history' and 're-enactment' as opposite poles and assigning any relatively modern conjecture to 'history' and any modern experimentation to 're-enactment' seems to be loose thinking and an invalid way of approaching problems.

Relevance is irrelevant if I am just disproving what someone else says is impossible.

The claim someone else has made is about history, not about reenactment, so you really do need to establish the accuracy of your 21st reenactment to make the argument compelling.

The claim is actually about the level of force exerted historically and its effects, not 'about history', and Paul's experimentation checks the level of force exerted and its effects.  This is an engineering, not a philosophical, challenge, and if there are any significant factors which would invalidate his results, they deserve specific mention.

[Dangun]

The claim is actually about the level of force exerted historically and its effects, not 'about history'

I disagree. I think Paul is clearly arguing for what historical hoplites could historically do.

[Patrick Waterson]

I disagree. I think Paul is clearly arguing for what historical hoplites could historically do.

Ultimately, he (and I) would of course be interested in this.  And I would agree that if present-day humans wearing hoplite equipment can do this (i.e. exert a specific degree of force without being suffocated or crushed), then historical hoplites could do it.  There is no logical gap there that I can observe: as I said, it is essentially an engineering problem and not a philosophical one.

Is there any objection to finding out what historical hoplites could have done in this or any other respect, assuming no significant differences between them and their modern counterparts?

[Erpingham]

Is there any objection to finding out what historical hoplites could have done in this or any other respect, assuming no significant differences between them and their modern counterparts?

Assuming a well-established experiment, picking up parameters like authentic equipment already discussed, the main issues seem to be the applicability of the methodology to the real situation and, most importantly, the interpretation of results.  It seems to me that Paul has quite a good handle the limitations of his study, even if on the subjective side of how it relates to othismos, I don't know if I agree.  I am more concerned as always of how people may snatch at his carefully contextualised results and misapply them to support a pet theory (not just referring to the forum btw).  I think this is a risk of all sorts of experiments and re-enactments, though.

Perhaps the wider issues of the value and difficulties of re-enactment, reconstructions and experimental archaeology as evidence deserve a separate thread.

[Andreas Johansson]

I am more concerned as always of how people may snatch at his carefully contextualised results and misapply them to support a pet theory (not just referring to the forum btw).  I think this is a risk of all sorts of experiments and re-enactments, though.

I'm not sure that's a real risk. If Paul hadn't carried out his experiments, I'm expect the pet theorists would have found something else for support.

[Jim Webster]

I am more concerned as always of how people may snatch at his carefully contextualised results and misapply them to support a pet theory (not just referring to the forum btw).  I think this is a risk of all sorts of experiments and re-enactments, though.

I'm not sure that's a real risk. If Paul hadn't carried out his experiments, I'm expect the pet theorists would have found something else for support.

Yes, the joy of pet theorists is that they'll take what they want and if you didn't do the work, they'd claim it was a conspiracy and that would be used as proof they were right 

[RichT]

Paul's experiments can't tell us what hoplites actually did historically. What his experiments do is provide evidence to counter one of the theoretical objections to one of the theoretical versions of what hoplites might have done, by showing that an eight deep scrum wouldn't crush the front ranks to death, assuming that the differences in physique, equipment etc aren't significant, or can be allowed for.

What interests me is Anthony's comment on the deep SK pushes, which seem to me to provide evidence that deep formations could push in this way even if they didn't have aspides - which seems interesting given that it is often said that the form and function of the aspis was specifically to prevent death by crushing. Comments?

[Jim Webster]

Paul's experiments can't tell us what hoplites actually did historically. What his experiments do is provide evidence to counter one of the theoretical objections to one of the theoretical versions of what hoplites might have done, by showing that an eight deep scrum wouldn't crush the front ranks to death, assuming that the differences in physique, equipment etc aren't significant, or can be allowed for.

What interests me is Anthony's comment on the deep SK pushes, which seem to me to provide evidence that deep formations could push in this way even if they didn't have aspides - which seems interesting given that it is often said that the form and function of the aspis was specifically to prevent death by crushing. Comments?

science proved that the bumblebee cannot fly and that if trains went more than 20mph the air would be sucked out, suffocating the passengers
Sometimes you have to do things to show what really happens 

[Erpingham]

What interests me is Anthony's comment on the deep SK pushes, which seem to me to provide evidence that deep formations could push in this way even if they didn't have aspides - which seems interesting given that it is often said that the form and function of the aspis was specifically to prevent death by crushing. Comments?

I wouldn't want to mislead but I can't see how SK reenactments would have continued for so long if their main entertainment was deadly dangerous.  If looking for killing crushes, I'd look at sporting disasters, or incidents on Hajj to see what the parameters of a killing crush were.

I'm reaching back numerous years now to recall what it was like to be in those pushes.  I think, though, it was important in the front ranks to be pushed against other people not a solid surface. There was a degree of intermeshing you could do with the opposite front rank to give a bit more space.  There was little you and your opposite number could do except push and banter.  And, of course, try not to fall over.  falling over was the dangerous bit.  The one big push when we were very deep that I remember was subject to a massive collapse.  I nearly broke my arm and three people were stretchered off.  Pushes collapsing was common.

Looking back on those SK pushes, it is obvious that the scrum model cannot have been used on a real battlefield.  The front ranks can't engage in anything other than staying upright, a task at which they regularly fail.  This doesn't fit descriptions of real pike fighting, even those where the rear ranks were supposed to push against the man in front (the non-foyning ones).  I suspect, from descriptions we have of battlefield "compression" that normal melee in other periods, while it could be compact, was equally unscrumlike.

[Imperial Dave]

if trains went more than 20mph the air would be sucked out, suffocating the passengers
Sometimes you have to do things to show what really happens 

Thats why I wont go by train, plus what happens when the train reaches the end of the earth and falls off?

[PMBardunias]

The claim is actually about the level of force exerted historically and its effects, not 'about history'

I disagree. I think Paul is clearly arguing for what historical hoplites could historically do.

Well, if I am disproving arguments against a theory, I am de facto arguing for it, but I have consistently written that without a time machine we cannot know what hoplites did. Do you discount all experimental archaeology? I find Barry Molloy's casting of bronze swords and testing their use quite interesting, for example. 

Here is an example of the reason I conducted these tests. When Chris Mathew wrote his book, I kept waiting for a backlash because his main thesis is in fact a failure of reenactment and the anachronistic application of Hellenistic drill to hoplites. To address many of the  problems I saw with his book, and to attempt to clear up and reconcile issues going back to the Hansonites vs the Van Weesies, I did experimentation and wrote my book.  But he did also directly refer to my theory, see attached for snippets from his book.  These are the types of statements I set out to falsify. My results show that you can generate great force with files of men and the aspis does not interfere, rear rankers do transfer force forward through files, neither men nor shields were harmed in anyway (though a porpax was bent), and med can charge a long distance and simply pull up short at spear range rather than being carried into the opposing ranks.

[PMBardunias]

Paul's experiments can't tell us what hoplites actually did historically. What his experiments do is provide evidence to counter one of the theoretical objections to one of the theoretical versions of what hoplites might have done, by showing that an eight deep scrum wouldn't crush the front ranks to death, assuming that the differences in physique, equipment etc aren't significant, or can be allowed for.

What interests me is Anthony's comment on the deep SK pushes, which seem to me to provide evidence that deep formations could push in this way even if they didn't have aspides - which seems interesting given that it is often said that the form and function of the aspis was specifically to prevent death by crushing. Comments?

We would have to test the pushing forces generated. They could be far less than those involved imagine.  When some of our guys tried very hard to push, but not in the proper manner, they generated enough force to feel squished, but not enough to kill. The key is to recreate the crowd disasters that Anthony referenced intentionally.  When we pushed in that fashion, forces skyrocketed. We had some come off their feet.  It is interesting that a line of overlapping aspides presents exactly the type of "wall" that disallows intermeshing that Anthony cautioned against.

[Jim Webster]

if trains went more than 20mph the air would be sucked out, suffocating the passengers
Sometimes you have to do things to show what really happens 

Thats why I wont go by train, plus what happens when the train reaches the end of the earth and falls off?

Northern rail appear to have been running experiments which may answer your question 

[Dangun]

Well, if I am disproving arguments against a theory, I am de facto arguing for it, but I have consistently written that without a time machine we cannot know what hoplites did. Do you discount all experimental archaeology?

If you prefer... we could say: the claim you are trying to falsify is a historical claim, so yes...

I find Barry Molloy's casting of bronze swords and testing their use quite interesting, for example. 

The bronze casting is also an interesting example, but you have a much more difficult task.  Barry Molloy's task is easier because he has a historical object against which to test results. I am not familiar with what his objective is, so please excuse my ignorance, but we can't dig othismos out of the ground for us to compare with your experimentation. All we have is a squidgy word and some less than explicit literary sources.