The Hoplite phalanx

[PMBardunias]

Not surprisingly, the period in which I suggest that Othsimos on the battlefield reached its peak, the pilos and other helms that are especially good as protecting from descending blows become ubiquitous.

It seems odd to me that unlike the helmets worn during the non-peak Othismos period they happen to be open faced and a lot less sturdy; the Pilos helmet might be a better ballistic shape against blows from the top but gives less protection from getting a dagger or sword in the face. For me the adoption of the Pilos helmet is an argument against scrum Othismos

A dagger to the face is fairly easy to protect against compared to descending blows, You can of course duck your head and you have to envision just how close you are to the head of the men in front of you, screening you from such attacks.  Actually, I would never enter othismos with a Corinthian.  Have you ever worn one?  Too easy to get twisted around or forced up by all the jostling.  Now don't get me wrong, they probably did so, but I am just saying I would prefer a pilos in othismos.

[PMBardunias]

To some extent, the absence of those who spoke the jargon in the recording process might be involved. 

This is an important statement.  Oddly, I don't think the ancients had a word for what we now call "othismos".  This is why there are so many otheo- and other words used to describe similar experiences.  They are just describing a crowded battlefield (where what we now call othismos occurred).

[Andreas Johansson]

Lest people assume there's only two options on that point, bear in mind that Maurice has othismos happen after the start of battle but before contact, which should be incompatible with Rich and Orthodoxy alike

(Whether Maurikian othismos is the same thing as the Classical, or if indeed either is really a "thing", is of course at least three further Diets of Worms.)

This is perfectly in line with my crowd-like definition of othismos. It is not a tactic, it is a condition.

Er, what? Maurice is explicit that it's something soldiers are ordered to do.

Also, the use of the word othismos is AFAIK the only reason anyone has suggested that it's anything to do with the Classical phenomenon, whatever that is. If you don't accept that othismos is a technical term in the Classical case, what reason do you have to think the Maurikian tactic has anything to do with it?

[Andreas Johansson]

Thus the "organization" is a problem for me if using the term organized push, because it was not organized in the classical manner of drill.

"Organized pushing" was meant to describe Patrick's interpetation, not yours

[Flaminpig0]

Not surprisingly, the period in which I suggest that Othsimos on the battlefield reached its peak, the pilos and other helms that are especially good as protecting from descending blows become ubiquitous.

It seems odd to me that unlike the helmets worn during the non-peak Othismos period they happen to be open faced and a lot less sturdy; the Pilos helmet might be a better ballistic shape against blows from the top but gives less protection from getting a dagger or sword in the face. For me the adoption of the Pilos helmet is an argument against scrum Othismos

A dagger to the face is fairly easy to protect against compared to descending blows, You can of course duck your head and you have to envision just how close you are to the head of the men in front of you, screening you from such attacks.  Actually, I would never enter othismos with a Corinthian.  Have you ever worn one?  Too easy to get twisted around or forced up by all the jostling.  Now don't get me wrong, they probably did so, but I am just saying I would prefer a pilos in othismos.

What about the other earlier forms of Greek helmets would you prefer them to a Pilos?

[PMBardunias]

Lest people assume there's only two options on that point, bear in mind that Maurice has othismos happen after the start of battle but before contact, which should be incompatible with Rich and Orthodoxy alike

(Whether Maurikian othismos is the same thing as the Classical, or if indeed either is really a "thing", is of course at least three further Diets of Worms.)

This is perfectly in line with my crowd-like definition of othismos. It is not a tactic, it is a condition.

Er, what? Maurice is explicit that it's something soldiers are ordered to do.

Also, the use of the word othismos is AFAIK the only reason anyone has suggested that it's anything to do with the Classical phenomenon, whatever that is. If you don't accept that othismos is a technical term in the Classical case, what reason do you have to think the Maurikian tactic has anything to do with it?

I only have Maurice in English handy, but if I recall the term appears in the formation of the Fulcum, when the first two or three ranks must crowd tight together. That he uses othismos is not a surprise in this case, just as when Arrian does, because it describes men crowded upon each other.  He uses it because it is a valid greek term, not a specific term for some sort of rugby scrum tactic. He is not ordering men into othismos the way we use the term, but using the term as I believe is the proper translation, a crowd or press of men. Something like, "then have the second rank men move into a spacing where they crush up tight to the front rankers". If I have missed the context, please post the quote.

[PMBardunias]

Not surprisingly, the period in which I suggest that Othsimos on the battlefield reached its peak, the pilos and other helms that are especially good as protecting from descending blows become ubiquitous.

It seems odd to me that unlike the helmets worn during the non-peak Othismos period they happen to be open faced and a lot less sturdy; the Pilos helmet might be a better ballistic shape against blows from the top but gives less protection from getting a dagger or sword in the face. For me the adoption of the Pilos helmet is an argument against scrum Othismos

A dagger to the face is fairly easy to protect against compared to descending blows, You can of course duck your head and you have to envision just how close you are to the head of the men in front of you, screening you from such attacks.  Actually, I would never enter othismos with a Corinthian.  Have you ever worn one?  Too easy to get twisted around or forced up by all the jostling.  Now don't get me wrong, they probably did so, but I am just saying I would prefer a pilos in othismos.

What about the other earlier forms of Greek helmets would you prefer them to a Pilos?

I have worn Early Corinthian, late Corinthian, Illyrian, Chalcidian, Piloi and Boeotian helms (of the Greek helms).  The late Corinthian is probably the worst of them, or perhaps mine just happens to suck. To make it wear right, you need to make sure the cheeks are not too long, and be sure to have a good sea sponge and leather to pad the inside. As you receive them they fit like a bell. Fixed up right they are good helmets.
Early Corinthians fit tighter to the face and are very good helmets. Illyrians often have long cheeks which can be a problem, but less so than the Corinthian. I like the clearer vision, and you can't hear much once things get going anyway so the lack of ear holes is not a huge problem in battle, though it is comical when setting up for battle. Chalcidians are much like wearing a roman helm, so quite nice. Piloi are easy wear if not too high, but can be a bit unwieldy when the peak is very high, but a chin strap helps. Boeotians fit well, I just don't like the look.

I just realized that you are probably asking specifically in othismos.  If so, Pilos would be first choice, Illyrians and chaldicians next.  The points on a Boeotian might catch something, and I am perhaps shy of having the front of my Corinthian grabbed and twisted in such close quarters. My opinion is that the Corinthian owes its design to the fact that in the Archaic hoplites spent a lot of time standing while things were thrown at them and throwing things themselves, then spear fencing at reach, much more than meeting shield on shield.

[Dangun]

I think I will decline the otherwise kind invitation to reopen the othismos debate.

But, I have slightly more energy for methodological discussions...

What exactly do you consider sources?  For everything in that exchange, I am the source, published and reviewed. Do you wish primary sources for othismos?

This is tedious and irrelevant.

Your catalogue of quotes, has been repeated many times.
But what you seemingly fail to engage with is that there is no consensus about what these quotes mean. There is no consensus as to what othismos means.
So to repeatedly suggest that reenactment of othismos shows X, Y and Z, is just a big fat logical fallacy.

[Patrick Waterson]

But what you seemingly fail to engage with is that there is no consensus about what these quotes mean. There is no consensus as to what othismos means.

The implication of this statement is that divergent opinion on a subject precludes investigation of that subject.  Paul is well aware of the semantic applications of othismos.  Is he to be precluded from investigation and experimentation just because someone else bundles up all the meanings of othismos together and confuses them?

So to repeatedly suggest that reenactment of othismos shows X, Y and Z, is just a big fat logical fallacy.

I really do not see how this follows from the earlier assertion, or indeed contains any internal validity of its own (perhaps an explanation would help).  Maybe we should do as Anthony suggested and start a thread on the philosophy of history and in particular historical investigation, as we seem to be approaching matters from very different angles here.

[Patrick Waterson]

I have worn Early Corinthian, late Corinthian, Illyrian, Chalcidian, Piloi and Boeotian helms (of the Greek helms).  The late Corinthian is probably the worst of them, or perhaps mine just happens to suck. To make it wear right, you need to make sure the cheeks are not too long, and be sure to have a good sea sponge and leather to pad the inside. As you receive them they fit like a bell. Fixed up right they are good helmets.
Early Corinthians fit tighter to the face and are very good helmets. Illyrians often have long cheeks which can be a problem, but less so than the Corinthian. I like the clearer vision, and you can't hear much once things get going anyway so the lack of ear holes is not a huge problem in battle, though it is comical when setting up for battle. Chalcidians are much like wearing a roman helm, so quite nice. Piloi are easy wear if not too high, but can be a bit unwieldy when the peak is very high, but a chin strap helps. Boeotians fit well, I just don't like the look.

I just realized that you are probably asking specifically in othismos.  If so, Pilos would be first choice, Illyrians and chaldicians next.  The points on a Boeotian might catch something, and I am perhaps shy of having the front of my Corinthian grabbed and twisted in such close quarters. My opinion is that the Corinthian owes its design to the fact that in the Archaic hoplites spent a lot of time standing while things were thrown at them and throwing things themselves, then spear fencing at reach, much more than meeting shield on shield.

I understand that Italo-Corinthian helmets became popular in Italy (hence the name).  How would these rate for protection and general desirability in othismos, and can we deduce from this anything about Iapygian warfare of the period?  Could we likewise draw any conclusions from the popularity of Chalcidian and Attic helmet styles in various parts of Italy?  Just a thought.

[Edit: corrected spelling]

[Jim Webster]

I understand that Italo-Corinthian helmets became popular in Italy (hence the name).  How would these rate for protection and general desirability in othismos, and can we deduce from this anything about Iapygian warfare of the period?  Could we likewise draw any conclusions from the popularity of Chalcidian and Attic helmet styles in various parts of Italy?  Just a thought.

[Edit: corrected spelling]

Well Quesada and others (Lumsden, https://www.academia.edu/26292605/Ante_bella_punica_Western_Mediterranean_Military_Development_350-264_BC ) seem to reckon that popularity of these helmet styles, and especially the Montefortino indicate a more open type of warfare with more throwing javelins at each other

[Andreas Johansson]

I only have Maurice in English handy, but if I recall the term appears in the formation of the Fulcum, when the first two or three ranks must crowd tight together. That he uses othismos is not a surprise in this case, just as when Arrian does, because it describes men crowded upon each other.  He uses it because it is a valid greek term, not a specific term for some sort of rugby scrum tactic. He is not ordering men into othismos the way we use the term, but using the term as I believe is the proper translation, a crowd or press of men. Something like, "then have the second rank men move into a spacing where they crush up tight to the front rankers". If I have missed the context, please post the quote.

I don't think you're missing any important context, but I do think your reading may be a little strange. Maurice isn't describing any sort of rugby scrum tactic, agreed, but the soldiers are deliberately told to press together in order to achieve solidity in the face of the enemy - that's a tactic, not something that just happens. So I don't see how it could be "perfectly in line" with your nondeliberate model of Classical "othismos".

[Erpingham]

Maybe we should do as Anthony suggested and start a thread on the philosophy of history and in particular historical investigation, as we seem to be approaching matters from very different angles here.

As I've said in the parallel conversation, I fear this would generate more heat than light.

I would say that we might consider the purpose and practice of our forums - to me they should be a place for like minds to explore ideas and share knowledge and any adversarial element should only be in the service of those goals. 

[Erpingham]

I don't think you're missing any important context, but I do think your reading may be a little strange. Maurice isn't describing any sort of rugby scrum tactic, agreed, but the soldiers are deliberately told to press together in order to achieve solidity in the face of the enemy - that's a tactic, not something that just happens. So I don't see how it could be "perfectly in line" with your nondeliberate model of Classical "othismos".

If I remember correctly, the passage about bracing by the rear ranks is in the context of a cavalry attack, not an infantry pushing fight.  But I do agree with Andreas, it is a deliberate tactical action.

Going back to the wider point of othismos in action (and I admit I am tempted by the idea that othismos is a state that arises under certain battle conditions, not a tactical ploy, as a better fit to the evidence), we are still left with an interesting question of hoplites attitude toward it.  If, as Paul proposes, they find their kit is particularly suited to it (and we need to recall they developed this kit originally for a different type of combat), what would their response to this fortunate circumstance be?  Would they seek the circumstances which trigger othismos, especially against those less well equipped for it?  Or would they just feel secure that, in the event of it happening, they would be OK?  I know the absolute answer is we don't know.  But using it as a thought experiment, what effect would the different attitudes have and can we see traces of them in the evidence?

[RichT]

Wow, do you people not sleep?

Terminology - OK since my suggestions have not met with approval, I will stick with 'scrum'. 'Orthodoxy' I don't like - scrum theory was the orthodoxy in the mid-late 20th C but I'm not so sure it is now (a straw poll on this forum would probably turn up few adherents), though it does still have a firm hold amongst academics.

The Maurice/Maurikios quote - there may be a conflation of two slightly different cases here:

Maurice, Strategikon 12 B 16 (Infantry formations) "They tighten up or close ranks when the line gets to about two or three bow shots from the enemy's line and they are getting set to charge. The command is: 'Close ranks'. Joining together, they close in toward the centre, both to each side and to front and back, until the shields of the men in the front rank are touching each other and those lined up behind them are almost glued to one another. The manoeuvre may be executed either while the army is marching or while it is standing still. The file closers should order those in the rear to close in forcefully on those to the front and to keep the line straight, if necessary, to prevent some from hesitating and even holding back".
...
17 "The depth of our own files should not exceed sixteen men, nor should it be less than four. More than sixteen is useless, and less than four is weak. The middle ranks consist of eight heavily armed infantry. Absolute silence must be observed in the army. The file closers of each file should be instructed that if they hear so much as a whisper from one of their men, they should prod him with the butt of their lance. In combat, also, they should push forward the men in front of them, so that none of the soldiers will become hesitant and hold back."
...
2.6 (concerning cavalry) "As far as the depth of the line is concerned, the ancient authorities wrote that it had formerly been regarded as sufficient to form the ranks four deep in each tagma, greater depth being viewed as useless and serving no purpose. For there can be no pressure (othismos) from the rear up through the ranks, as happens with an infantry formation, which may force the men in front to push forward against their will. Horses cannot use their heads to push people in front of them evenly, as can infantry."

In my article in Slingshot I went through the derivation of this passage - 2.6 is clearly very closely based on the Asclepiodotus/Aelian tradition (the 'ancient authorities' he refers to), though the word 'othismos' in this context is Maurice's own addition. It does appear that the 'othismos' Maurice refers to is that described in detail in 12 B 16-17, ie the tightening up of the formation, the explicit purpose of which is 'so that none of the soldiers will become hesitant and hold back'. Now whether this tightening ALSO served the purpose of physically pushing back the enemy (scrum theory), or whether two such formations opposing each other would indvertently then find themselves in a crush state (crowd-thismos theory) is open to some debate - but at any rate it doesn't clearly say so in Maurice's text.

As to the meaning of the word ('othismos') - naturally enough this may have changed over the thousand or so years it was in use, and from individual author to author who may each have had their own usage, so there's no reason to suppose the meaning is identical in every case. At the same time, without independent evidence there is no reason to assign a specific technical meaning to any period or author - the overall range of meanings - which in English would be expressed by words including 'pushing', 'struggle', 'crowding', 'pressure', 'melee', (sometimes) 'thrusts' - seems consistent across time and authors, and fits perfeclty well in every context in which the word is used.

I'm not convinced by your suggested meaning, Paul, of 'deadlock' or 'logjam' - this seems a case of fitting the meaning retrospectively to match the crowd-thismos model you have developed. 'Crowding', 'melee', 'struggle' seem better translations for all the cases you quote (literally 'pushing' of course, but we are trying to winkle out the meaning). This doesn't preclude the possibility that a crowd deadlock also developed in these circumstantes (perhaps inevitability, from the meeting of irresistable force and immovable object) but it's not the meaning of the word, at any rate.