The Hoplite phalanx

[Patrick Waterson]

All we have is a squidgy word and some less than explicit literary sources.

Before Jim says it, I shall point out this is about par for much of history.

And these are what we call clues.  From these clues we can work out various possibilities for the 'howdunnit' and test them, or at least test important considerations which arise during thought experimentation.  This provides us with a list of things which could and could not have been done - if the testing is carefully arranged.  Hence Paul's experiments turn squidge into substance.

I would point out that when we have words of ambiguous or extensive meaning, a good way to find their application is to work back from the tactics and military logic of the situation (a sort of non-statistical Bayesian approach).  Hence our knowledge of Hellenic organisation and practice plus accounts of what actually happened - organisation by files, forcing back enemy battlelines, exhortations for a push, even snapping spears and shoving shields - enable us to deduce something of what is going on in a situation where an author uses 'othismos' in the context of a battle.

[Jim Webster]

Without trying to offend anybody I'd say re-enactment is up there on a par with textual analysis of ancient sources and archaeology.
All can provide answers, but none will provide all the answers and not all the answers people come up with when using the techniques will be correct because they're asking the wrong question 

I read the re-enactor who knows his or her stuff with the same interest that I read the new translation by somebody who has done work in the field of ancient warfare.

[Erpingham]

Hence our knowledge of Hellenic organisation and practice plus accounts of what actually happened - organisation by files, forcing back enemy battlelines, exhortations for a push, even snapping spears and shoving shields - enable us to deduce something of what is going on in a situation where an author uses 'othismos' in the context of a battle.

But as we have seen, despite this and the deployment of analogy and experimental information, we can fundamentally disagree.  Unlike some of our othr disagreements, where there is clear consensus and one or two vocal dissenters, this one is where people who are actually know the subject disagree.  The best we cando is to reveal the evidence as well as we can, rule out the impossible and come to a conclusion based on what we see, accepting others weigh evidence differently.

[aligern]

I worry about reenactment much as I worry about archaeology. Both tend to claiming hard fact  because their conclusions are backed by different types of physical evidence.
Long ago I recall a reenactor stateing that Vikings must have used a small shield strapped to the left arm because he had fought that way with a Viking swird and it was the most effective style. Similarly there are those who claim that Late Roman darts were thrown underarm because that would give the greatest range and would gain most momentum when finally travelling on tge down curve and would be over opponet's shields. Quite how the second to eighth ranks behind the first deployed their darts and avoided rank one or how these underarm dart throwers maintained a cohesive formation when needing a clear distance between ranks for the underarm darts to rise above six feet I do not understand. Yet reenactors who are mtivated by the desire to see function follow form and to say something new still claim underarm.
Much as I appreciate the colour that the SK brings to reenacting the ECW I still cannot understand how push of pije worked in real life without mutual mass death amongst pikemen stabbed in the face. Had the armourers addressed such a task they would surely have come up with facemask helmets for the pikemen.We  have one description of both sides in a mid sixteenth century pike coash ( when they had massive units of pike) placing arquebusiers in a second rank so as to gain an advantage with a point blank volley.....As both sides did it the  destruction of the first ranks was mutual. That sort of tells us that , had there been no arquebusiers there would not have been such destruction. We imagine the pike phalanx smacking into its target, like a steamroller, but perhaps it didn't. With Romans the Romans appear to have fallen back in front of tge pikes a considerable distance. Against other pikes, maybe the phalanx stopped and sparred, perhaps they skilfully caught opposing pike on their shields. If they just ran at each ither then I don't see  how Alexander's veterans got to be seventy and still fighting because even raw recruits in a dense formation of pike would kill just by holding their weapons level and running in.
Reenactment has its part to play, reconstructing a Mary Rose bow and having a trained archer shoot it at short range against a reconstructed armour plate tells us someting about potential, but it won't tell us at what range Henry's archers opened up abd why the bow which had been so potent a weapon 100 years before was laughed at by the French in 1513.
I thought Paul B's illustration if an aspis held centrally most illuminating. If we cannot trust how an aspis was held and thus how the weapon system functioned then what is certain?
Roy

[Flaminpig0]

Out of interest are  there any examples of othismos being used in connection with thureophoroi ?

[Erpingham]

Out of interest are  there any examples of othismos being used in connection with thureophoroi ?

An interesting question - perhaps Paul or Rich could answer that.  It is certainly of used of non-aspis bearers.

[Erpingham]

In relation to Roy's points I think it suggests we need a re-enactment - what is it good for thread to do it justice.  But a couple of points :

The usefulness of re-enactment data follows the old rule "Rubbish in, rubbish out".  My experience in the SK has very, very limited relevance to ECW pike fighting.  All it really taught me was the unsuitability of mass scrumming militarily.

Most combat reenactments for our period, perhaps because they date from a rather more mature period in re-enactments history, try to at least look more accurate.  But H&S rules cause serious limitations to authenticity.  If you've ever seen medieval reenactors poking each other with bills and halberds, as opposed to bringing them down on heads and shoulders withthe leverage of an 8ft haft, you'll know what i mean.

There can't really be any xcuse for saying Vikings used shields strapped to their arms - we know how Viking-type shields were held both from images and surviving artefacts.  Again,if you don't use authentic kit, your findings as a re-enactor will be of limited value and potentially misleading.

As to the realities of pike fighting, we know quite a bit of this.  Our frind Sir John Smythe, for example, explains it in some detail.  But that's another discussion.

[Patrick Waterson]

And Macedonian pike fighting appears to have differed somewhat from the 17th century variety, perhaps not least owing to the absence of musketeers and battlefield artillery.

Anthony makes an excellent point about the influence of initial assumptions.  This is where we have to be most careful when attempting to re create a military system or part of it.  Whatever we distort in our input will lead to distortion in our output - not necessarily of everything in the output, but certainly of the aspects directly influenced by the tampered-with input.

[Dangun]

Anthony makes an excellent point about the influence of initial assumptions.

Yep.
But equipment is not the only assumption.
And possible never means probable.

[Patrick Waterson]

But equipment is not the only assumption.

Naturally.   Frontage, depth, closing speed, spear holding position - all of these contribute, and that is not an exhaustive list.  We can address each of these individually (our sources, written and archaeological, give clues ranging from the enigmatic to the explicit) and sort them out as far as we can, and then, when the individual inputs seem to be working, we can have a go at the whole system.

We can also approach the whole system from the other end: known results.  Our sources give the occasional indication of what happened when hoplite phalanx A met hoplite phalanx B, and the sources also give their own explanations for the result (troop quality, formation advantage, care or carelessness in technique, overlapping and outflanking, discipline) which themselves can give useful insights into our unknowns.

In essence, the better we do at putting the whole spectrum of information to use and revealing patterns, the more we learn about the phenomenon of hoplite warfare.  Or anything else, for that matter.

[Jim Webster]

But equipment is not the only assumption.

Naturally.   Frontage, depth, closing speed, spear holding position - all of these contribute, and that is not an exhaustive list.

it's a very modern list
I suspect ancient authors would have put Virtus/arete first as the most important

[PMBardunias]

Out of interest are  there any examples of othismos being used in connection with thureophoroi ?

The closest I can think of is the last push by the Romans at Zama, but obviously there are differences. We also do not know how close to othismos such pushes were. My guess is that there not sustained.  But we do have evidence that Thureophoroi fought in an opened manner never mentioned for hoplites in battle.  I think the whole point of Thureophoroi is that in abandoning the aspis, they abandoned othismos, which was suicidal for hoplites against sarissaphoroi.  From Polybios's description of mercenaries who were probably armed with the Thureos: Plb. 11.13 " in a very short time the whole of the mercenaries on either side were engaged. They fought sometimes in close order, sometimes in pairs: and for a long time so entirely without decisive result, that the rest of the two armies, who were watching in which direction the cloud of dust inclined, could come to no conclusion, because both sides maintained for a long while exactly their original ground."

[PMBardunias]

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.

Not really all that different. I am testing the physical properties of composite wood and linen facings and bone and muscle behind.  Squidgy words just set the backdrop for the testing. We test because academics have offered two exclusive hypothesis, a literal or figurative push.  There is not need to test a figurative push, we can stipulate that it can occur.  Now we can also prove that a literal push can occur.  Academics now must continue the argument without invoking incorrect assumptions.  We may still come to a consensus (unlikely) that there was no literal push, but we can no longer dismiss it based on unfounded claims.

[Dangun]

Academics now must continue the argument without invoking incorrect assumptions... but we can no longer dismiss it based on unfounded claims.

You have just done it again and assumed, "reenactment = history."

Squidgy words just set the backdrop for the testing.

No. Squidgy words are one of only two options you have for building an argument to convince someone that your reenactment bears any resemblance to history. Until you do that, you are just larking around with pointy sticks and big bronze frisbees.

[PMBardunias]

Academics now must continue the argument without invoking incorrect assumptions... but we can no longer dismiss it based on unfounded claims.

You have just done it again and assumed, "reenactment = history."

No, reenactment debunks false claims about history. Skeptics are free to dismiss othismos as an incorrect interpretation of sources.  They just cannot use the demonstrably false arguments, like men would be crushed or how could 12 ranks face 50, etc.  What I have done is a counter claims made without evidence by authors that are really not qualified to make them because they do not understand the underlying physics.

Squidgy words just set the backdrop for the testing.

No. Squidgy words are one of only two options you have for building an argument to convince someone that your reenactment bears any resemblance to history. Until you do that, you are just larking around with pointy sticks and big bronze frisbees.

My work has led to what I believe is a more accurate translation of the word othismos itself. I do not believe it directly means a big coordinated mass push to defeat a foe. I am not sure how well the Greeks themselves understood what was happening in othismos.  The word, a noun, simply refers to a situation where men are crowded and attempting to move forward.  We see it used as hoplites attempt to flee through a gate as in crowd disasters, and also figuratively as when in a debate the two sides reach a log jam in their argument.