Testing hoplite combat

[RichT]

In 2021 we will have a drone over the battlefield and enough men to measure just this sort of thing.  They will be hoplites, but some will have peltae with them, maybe we can try.  We will have a lot more time than I had a few weeks back. By the way, you guys should give some thought to coming to Greece to be a part of this. We can always throw chitons on you and you can be kibbutzy sophists watching the action

I might very well do so! I assume this is the event described eg here

https://1phokion.com/2019/03/29/the-road-to-plataea-2021-part-1/

Dates appear to be June 28-July 5, 2021 (hmm it will be hot then...)

[PMBardunias]

Patrick- one of the things we will test in 2021 is exactly what happens as men move across a battlefield in formation like this.  This is why the drone will be key.

and yes, we will be playing Kottabus!

Rich- Please come. I am sure I can convert you to believing in at least the possibility of othismos once you see how different it is from the orthodox presentation.

[Erpingham]

Rich- Please come. I am sure I can convert you to believing in at least the possibility of othismos once you see how different it is from the orthodox presentation.

I've never had the impression anyone denied othismos happened, just what it was, what caused it and when it happened

[Mark G]

I have seen plenty of denials on one interpretation or another, though.

I suppose if you hold to your own version you may well gave seen it denied.

[Justin Swanton]

Rich- Please come. I am sure I can convert you to believing in at least the possibility of othismos once you see how different it is from the orthodox presentation.

I've never had the impression anyone denied othismos happened, just what it was, what caused it and when it happened

[PMBardunias]

Rich- Please come. I am sure I can convert you to believing in at least the possibility of othismos once you see how different it is from the orthodox presentation.

I've never had the impression anyone denied othismos happened, just what it was, what caused it and when it happened

I am referring to a literal interpretation of the word, indicating pushing in some fashion. The traditional Orthodox opinion as popularized by authors like V.D. Hanson is a distinct tactic,  charging mass of men who build up momentum in a long, swift advance and crash into the opposing ranks, then all ranks pushing with the body in the bowl of the shield. The Heretical/Nouveau Orthodox sees othismos as just a word meaning a fierce battle, maybe with some shield butting.

My presentation posits both are incorrect, and othismos is not a tactic, but simply what happened in battles that went to the sword and men were shield on shield. The two sides crowded forward and what followed is a "push" akin to what happens in the pit of a rock concert. I can tell you that the orthodox mechanics are all wrong and reality does not work the way they believe. With the Heretics, I cannot prove a negative, but to date I have through experimentation proven false every one of the common "Othismos can't work because x" arguments. I still can't say if they really did it, or in only modern men for some reason can physically pull it off.

[PMBardunias]

This probably would be better somewhere else, but I will put it here because I just found it.  This renaissance text describes using spears and polearms and the grips you can use. Particularly note the advocation of holding the front hand so that the spear is point heavy.

"The hand that is closer to the iron should be able to hold the weapon so that it balances almost equally on either side. This is because the hand that is forward is the one making the most effort in using the weapon while holding it and performing defensive and offensive actions; therefore, this hand should be placed where the weapon feels lighter, which is near the middle. However, you will notice that I said that the balance should be almost equal, not perfectly so. The leading hand should in fact allow the weapon to balance ever so slightly towards the point. In this manner, attacks will have more force, and the weapon will have a longer reach." p.107

"The leading hand can grip the weapon in two manners: one is the natural way [with the back of the hand down, or underhand], the other is the opposite, with the back of the hand up and the palm down [i.e. overhand]. The way you hold it depends on your training, your intent, and even on the situation. Both ways, in fact, have peculiar advantages in defending and attacking. For instance, the first way feels more natural and makes thrusting and cutting attacks more effortless, although the wielder has to be experienced in hand-switches. The second way is better for delivering stramazzoni, fendenti, montanti and some punte roverse, but it makes hand-exchanges less convenient and it is not as ideal for close-quarter combat. This is why I favor the first method of holding the weapon: although the other may be better for the defense, the first is superior for the offense and for speed. " p. 138

Bonaventura Pistofilo, Oplomachia

[Patrick Waterson]

Interesting, Paul.  This would, other things being equal, indicate the sarissa being held with the right hand at the point of balance (or only just past it) and raised/lowered by the left.

Balancing towards the point has another advantage: if someone tries to knock the point upwards, it will not go up.

[Justin Swanton]

Is Pistofilo describing the fine points of this hold?

[PMBardunias]

Is Pistofilo describing the fine points of this hold?

Yes, though for shorter pole arms. The principles should be the same.

[PMBardunias]

Interesting, Paul.  This would, other things being equal, indicate the sarissa being held with the right hand at the point of balance (or only just past it) and raised/lowered by the left.

Balancing towards the point has another advantage: if someone tries to knock the point upwards, it will not go up.

This is something I have been pushing for the one handed hoplite spear- holding it just a bit point heavy.  Two big advantages: First, as you surmise, putting the natural pivot point in front of the hand makes it far harder to knock aside.  Second, if it is knocked aside, just pulling the arm back for the next strike automatically puts the point back online.  The downside is that it is point heavy and would have added torque to the wrist, but this is mitigated by allowing the point to drop as you will be doing anyway to achieve the proper parrying position with the overhand strike (I call this windshield wiper parrying because that is what it resembles as you move the hand from the right shoulder to the left to parry).

[Erpingham]

Is Pistofilo describing the fine points of this hold?

He describes two, depending on what you have trained with.  The de Gheyn pose has the hand too close to the body to be at the balance point - it is actively using the rear hand to counterbalance the weight - release that hand and you are unlikely to have the wrist strength to stop the pike nosing down.  So, I think Pistofilo has the fore hand further toward the point.

As we are talking late Renaissance fighting masters, here's George Silver talking about pike fencing in his "Brief Instructions"



If he continues his fight with his point above, & you lie with your pike breast high & higher with you hand & point so, that you make your thrust at his face or body with your point directly towards his face, holding your pike with both your hands on your back hand with your knuckles upwards & your foreward hand with your knuckles downwards & there shaking your pike & falsing at his face with your point as near his face as you may, then suddenly make out your thrust single handed at his face & fly out withal, which thrust he can hardly break one of 20 by reason that you made your space so narrow upon his guard, so that you being first in your action he will still be too late in his defence to defend himself.

4. But note while you lie falsing to deceive him look to your legs that he in the mean time toss not up the point of his pike single handed & hurt you therewith in the shins.

Note he uses a polevaulter grip.  The single handed throws here would be very risky in a battlefield fight, I would think.

[Patrick Waterson]

This is something I have been pushing for the one handed hoplite spear- holding it just a bit point heavy.  Two big advantages: First, as you surmise, putting the natural pivot point in front of the hand makes it far harder to knock aside.  Second, if it is knocked aside, just pulling the arm back for the next strike automatically puts the point back online.  The downside is that it is point heavy and would have added torque to the wrist, but this is mitigated by allowing the point to drop as you will be doing anyway to achieve the proper parrying position with the overhand strike (I call this windshield wiper parrying because that is what it resembles as you move the hand from the right shoulder to the left to parry).

When things self-organise like this, it is an indication you are on the right track.  Parrying with the spear itself is also something I had not really considered, and apart from its important capacity for preservation of the individual (and lowering of the overall casualty rate) helps to explain why doratismos was called doratismos: it was not just jabbing and thrusting, but was the stage of fighting in which the spear was doing a fair amount of all-round work (unless it got caught and broken).

I suspect that a spear held slightly point-heavy might also deliver a stronger stroke. If you ever have time, occasion and an impact meter ...

[RichT]

From 2016:

http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=2244.msg25899#msg25899

[PMBardunias]

This is something I have been pushing for the one handed hoplite spear- holding it just a bit point heavy.  Two big advantages: First, as you surmise, putting the natural pivot point in front of the hand makes it far harder to knock aside.  Second, if it is knocked aside, just pulling the arm back for the next strike automatically puts the point back online.  The downside is that it is point heavy and would have added torque to the wrist, but this is mitigated by allowing the point to drop as you will be doing anyway to achieve the proper parrying position with the overhand strike (I call this windshield wiper parrying because that is what it resembles as you move the hand from the right shoulder to the left to parry).

When things self-organise like this, it is an indication you are on the right track.  Parrying with the spear itself is also something I had not really considered, and apart from its important capacity for preservation of the individual (and lowering of the overall casualty rate) helps to explain why doratismos was called doratismos: it was not just jabbing and thrusting, but was the stage of fighting in which the spear was doing a fair amount of all-round work (unless it got caught and broken).

I suspect that a spear held slightly point-heavy might also deliver a stronger stroke. If you ever have time, occasion and an impact meter ...

I really can't comment on doratismos, the term, because it is used only in Helenistic sources. Spear fighting, whatever you call it though, requires the use of the spear shaft to parry when in a phalanx.  You can protect yourself quite well with the shaft, and between your parrying and the spear shafts of your companions coming over your shoulders, you can make up for the fact that you lose shield mobility- though you can move the shield more than many suppose and even step right out of an overlapping aspis phalanx.

To me it is clear that most battles went through two phases. You cannot fight with an 8-9 foot spear and be shield on shield to your foe. I am highly skeptical of any recreation that tries to get around this by saying your front ranks are stabbing behind the enemy front rank.  You fight the man in your face.  SO if you were with the Spartans at Coronea, with a 8-9' dory and a 14" Enchiridion, you have two distinct ranges for combat- the reach of your spear and shield on shield with a big dagger.

Othismos was never a tactic in my opinion.   It is just what happened when men with short swords fought shield on shield. There were battles, like Delium perhaps, where men moved quickly to this phase, but there are many battles where one side broke before it ever came to this.

To head off the question some may have of why if this is some universal happening does it seem only Greeks did it.  Good question Paul!  But not only they did it. Roman's did it at Zama, and I am sure Saxons did it as well.  I can say now what happens because I have been in othismos with a shield that was not an aspis.  You start just like hoplites, but abort before everyone dies. The crush is so intense that blood rushed to my head and I thought I might pass out (or maybe stroke out). Everyone pushes until things get this bad, then we all stop and pressure reduces.  With a proper aspis that put the force on my thigh and collar bone/shoulder, we would not even feel the levels of force that caused us to tap out as threatening.