The Hoplite phalanx

[Andreas Johansson]

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.

Maurice just speaks of "the enemy line" here, so he likely considered it an appropriate response to infantry and cavalry attack alike. Given the hippocentric perspective of the Strategicon in general, I feel tolerably confident that if he'd considered it useful against infantry only, he'd mentioned it.

[RichT]

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?

Bold effort Anthony, though it would be hard to answer any of these good questions without first arguing about which model of hoplite combat we have in mind.

But I would say - hoplites (Greeks) did have a perception of themselves as undertaking 'proper' fighting - toe-to-toe, holding your ground, none of this chucking things and running away nonsense, were proud of this, and regarded it as central to their identity and superiority.

If I understand Paul's theory correctly, it is not possible to trigger crowd-thismos against those less well equipped for it, since such simply won't maintain the pressure. This does make Herodotus' two uses for Greeks v Persians problematic for the theory, in my view.

The 'Western Way of War' theory is that yes Greeks would definitely seek circumstances in which close, toe-to-toe, standing your ground fighting was paramount, and they would do this by fighting their social and ethnic equivalents on suitable ground and in fair and open combat, and by excluding non-Greeks and social inferiors. All this holds true whether 'othismos' is a thing or not, and whether that thing is a scrum, a crush or something else we haven't yet dreamt of.

[Erpingham]

If I understand Paul's theory correctly, it is not possible to trigger crowd-thismos against those less well equipped for it, since such simply won't maintain the pressure. This does make Herodotus' two uses for Greeks v Persians problematic for the theory, in my view.

  As you've rightly noted, I was thinking of the majority of cases where our sources have othismos but one side is deficient in hoplites.  Paul can set us straight but I took him to say that othismos needed two sides unwilling, or unable, to give ground. Getting into such a situation when not equipped for it physically or mentally would not be good but it wouldn't be impossible. 

[Andreas Johansson]

Wow, do you people not sleep?

In this heat? Not much.

[PMBardunias]

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.

What is tedious is that you bring nothing to the table.  All primary sources cannot be definitive in this debate because both sides have twisted their meaning to fit their view- look at Rich and I in this debate.  The only way forward in this debate is to test the predictions of both sides, most of which are not simply in the words of the text, but based on a wide variety of assumptions about panoply and the mechanics of combat. Many of these assumptions the authors have been ill equipped to make.

[PMBardunias]

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]

Most see the full faced Corinthian as a development for close-in fighting. I think the face protection dates from when hoplites were expected to stand and throw spears at each other before moving in.  In the classical period, when the use of missile weapons in the phalanx were at their lowest, we see open helmets in vogue. In the Hellenistic period we see helmets with face plates come back.  I think cheek plates track, not close in fighting, but the threat of unseen missiles.  So back to your question. In Italy we see the pilos with added face and neck plates. Many of these found around the heel of Italy and Tarentum.  Thus I would guess that othismos was rarer than missile duels. As you know I don't believe that the Magna Grecians ever lost some of the Archaic character of there phalanx.  See my comments on that article on the development of the Roman army.

In othismos, all of these helmets would be fine.  My issue with the Corinthian is a bit like the problem with beards (or capes if you are a super hero). You can be grabbed by the front and it can be jerked around your face. Any helmet with tied down cheek plates suffers from this less.

[PMBardunias]

If I understand Paul's theory correctly, it is not possible to trigger crowd-thismos against those less well equipped for it, since such simply won't maintain the pressure. This does make Herodotus' two uses for Greeks v Persians problematic for the theory, in my view.

  As you've rightly noted, I was thinking of the majority of cases where our sources have othismos but one side is deficient in hoplites.  Paul can set us straight but I took him to say that othismos needed two sides unwilling, or unable, to give ground. Getting into such a situation when not equipped for it physically or mentally would not be good but it wouldn't be impossible.

Look where they occur. It is quite easy to see how a pushing match would develop over the fallen body of Leonidas- much more likely that simply fighting over it in fact. Once the Persian shields are down at Plataia and the 9 ranks of archers drop their bows and fight close in, they grab and often break the hoplite spears with their hands (Foreshadowing Cleonymus's anti-sarissa tactic).  The Greeks have to go to the sword, which conveniently is the precondition I describe for othismos, and Persians attempt to stand up to them.  They fail, and Herodotus specifically points out that they were "unskilled and no match for their adversaries in craft".  Fighting in such a press IS that craft.  Interestingly, the Persian response to being unable to stand up to the hoplite phalanx was appropriate though derided by Herodotus- they attacked the line in smaller groups, applying uneven pressure to the line. 

[PMBardunias]

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".

The tactic is the Fulcum, a shield-wall with overlapping shields horizontally and vertically.  Othismos is how you get men close enough to form a fulcum.  The Greeks had no word for Fulcum and it is impossible to form one of the same type with aspides with porpaxes.  They had no word for a massed tactical push either. All Maurice is saying is come together close and crowd up on each other. The classical Greeks were saying the battle came to that point when everyone was crowded together and pushing each other.

[PMBardunias]

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.

Ah, my fault, I forgot where it appeared, But "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." requires some mental gymnastics to discount as the plainest meaning when reading it.  This comes from Arrian.

In fact just the opposite when looking at my translation of othismos and otheo- words as a crowd related, I came to the conclusion based not on the usage in combat, but the many times it is used in a crowd disaster as panicked men try to jam though gates, etc.  As in Appian Mith., chapter 10: He was driven out of it, however, and fled to the gates of Chalcedon over many walls which greatly obstructed his movement. There was a struggle at the gates among those trying to gain entrance simultaneously, for which reason no missile cast by the pursuers missed its mark.  Xenophon Cyr. 7.5.38" But when people learned that he was holding audience, they came in an unmanageable throng, and as they crowded up to get in there was no end of trickery and contention". Or Plutarch Brutus 18. "Caesar thus slain, Brutus went out into the middle of the session-room and tried to speak, and would have detained the senators there with encouraging words; but they fled in terror and confusion, and there was a tumultuous crowding at the door, although no one pressed upon them in pursuit". It is pretty obvious that crowd-pushing is going on here.

[Andreas Johansson]

The tactic is the Fulcum, a shield-wall with overlapping shields horizontally and vertically.  Othismos is how you get men close enough to form a fulcum.

This is pointless hair-splitting. Accepting for the moment that the pushing is not a "tactic", it's still something done deliberately for to achieve a tactical purpose.

The Greeks had no word for Fulcum and it is impossible to form one of the same type with aspides with porpaxes.  They had no word for a massed tactical push either. All Maurice is saying is come together close and crowd up on each other. The classical Greeks were saying the battle came to that point when everyone was crowded together and pushing each other.

It's unclear to me what "that point" is supposed to mean here.

Maybe a direct question will help clarify: Do you believe that Maurice is describing the same sort of thing as the "othismos" you envisage for classical hoplites?

ETA: Edited to fix formating of quotes.

[PMBardunias]

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?

Not so much the kit, just the aspis, which originated as a round whicker or whicker and wood shield probably. I think of it this way.  Archaic battles probably were mostly missile throwing with a later advance to close combat.  This close combat could get so packed up that it fit the conditions of othismos.  So it was not an obligate part of battle, but even if this only happened rarely, you need as aspis or you die.  I think this is why the shield remains unchanged for so long. I think it springs from the kind of fighting we see over Leonidas's body. If fighting over a body, or later all of the bodies on the field, pushing is a natural event.

It may have happened before in isolated battles that the spear fencing was short, but I think Delium is a watershed in moving quickly to othismos. Not surprisingly we see the Thebans forming deep most of the time after that.

To be clear, othismos as a crowd can only happen if your forward progress is blocked.  If a nimble enemy unit simply gives ground steadily, as we see Romans moving backwards vs sarissaphoroi, you are not in othismos.  You can imagine the front ranks with my pressure sensor on their shields.  If one side gives ground, there is no elevated pressure.  If they try to make a stand, everyone packs in and pressure goes up.  Before anyone says it, you cannot break off fast enough to make the Greeks fall forward, the pressure is not generated in this way. The promachoi just match your retreat a step and you are out of othismos.

[Erpingham]

Othismos is how you get men close enough to form a fulcum.

I presume we have switched to the generic meaning of "pushing" here, rather than the previous discussion of a "state" which occurs in combat?  It is pretty clear that it is this generic use which happens in Maurice (in the limited sense of how it is translated - I don't have the language skills of you chaps).  So, when the order to form fulcum is given, men close up from front and sides, the file closers shoving any reluctant middle rankers into place.  I've sure we've all read Rance's paper on the fulcum and its origins but one thing we can say is different to the Classical phalanx.  There is a good case to see it as Roman (against infantry it trundles forward behind its shields till it gets to hand-missile range, bombards the opposition with missiles, supported by overhead shooting, then the front ranks launch themselves at the disrupted enemy with swords.  Against cavalry, the front three ranks form a shieldwall bristling with spears and other ranks prod the cavalry with spears or throw missiles, looking for all the world like Arrian's anti-cavalry formation against the Alans) but you could also imagine a barbarian shieldwall being like this in a more organic way.   

[PMBardunias]

The tactic is the Fulcum, a shield-wall with overlapping shields horizontally and vertically.  Othismos is how you get men close enough to form a fulcum.

This is pointless hair-splitting. Accepting for the moment that the pushing is not a "tactic", it's still something done deliberately for to achieve a tactical purpose.

The Greeks had no word for Fulcum and it is impossible to form one of the same type with aspides with porpaxes.  They had no word for a massed tactical push either. All Maurice is saying is come together close and crowd up on each other. The classical Greeks were saying the battle came to that point when everyone was crowded together and pushing each other.

It's unclear to me what "that point" is supposed to mean here.

Maybe a direct question will help clarify: Do you believe that Maurice is describing the same sort of thing as the "othismos" you envisage for classical hoplites?

No. Maurice is clearly describing this- see below.  This IS a tactic.  The difference is that Maurice is describing the men on the same unit crowding together to tighten up.  In the Greek usage it usually describes a global condition of crowed men pushing against a gate or an enemy unit, but each other as well.  It is important to note though that othismos can be used in conjunction with your own men, you can all crowd together in a dense package- a condition we see often in defeat as a Cannae or when Procopius's dead man could not fall where men are herded back on their own men.

[Erpingham]

I'm going to be a bit nit-picky and that's part of a fulcum.  The minimum formation for Byzantine infantry under Maurice was four ranks and probably six.  Later it would be seven or eight.  If it was an anti-cavalry fulcum, the first two ranks bend down and ground the spearbutts.    The men in it are in 10th century dress, so they should have ranks of integral light infantry behind this formation and the whole should be closed off by two ranks of hoplites - heavy infantry.  The degree to which the file closers could compress the ranks in the 10th century fulcum must surely have been compromised by the light infantry core of the formation, a problem Maurice's fulcum didn't have because its light infantry were outside the hoplite formation.

[Andreas Johansson]

Maybe a direct question will help clarify: Do you believe that Maurice is describing the same sort of thing as the "othismos" you envisage for classical hoplites?

No.

Excellent, thanks. I think we can now usefully drop the Maurikian subthread until Patrick feels like arguing again that it is the same as (his interpretation of) Classical "othismos".