Testing hoplite combat

[RichT]

Paul:

I really can't comment on doratismos, the term, because it is used only in Helenistic sources.

As I said in 2016 I can only find two uses of the word, both in Plutarch - have you got some other examples? Please share if so!

Spear fighting, whatever you call it though

Please call it spear fighting! Or fighting with the spear or spear combat or whatever you like - but don't apply a Greek word to it if the Greeks didn't do so themselves. Aside from being generally a bit odd, that also gives the mistaken impression that this is a distinct thing referred to by the ancients, rather than a general modern conception (whether or not it matches something that happened in reality - which of course it does in this case, since they did fight with spears). The same goes for 'othismos' but that horse has long since bolted.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

Yes, I suspect the term may have been retrospective rather than contemporary.

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.

That makes sense, especially from a man who has been through the process.  A question that occurs to me is: when Athenians and Argives run (dromon) to contact, do they pile in or pull up when they get to being a spear's length apart?

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.

First Mantinea (418 BC) was a classic case.

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. Romans 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.

There are occasions when Romans do indeed appear to be using othismos, as in Tacitus' account of First Bedriacum (AD 69):

On the raised road they stood foot to foot, they pushed with their bodies and their shields (corporibus et umbonibus niti), and ceasing to throw their javelins, they struck through helmets and breastplates with swords and battle-axes. (Histories II.42)

The 1st Adiutrix and 21st Rapax legions met, apparently in this fashion, and the raw but keen Adiutrix, "overthrowing (stratis) the foremost ranks of the 21st, carried off the eagle."  This insolence, as far as the Rapax was concerned, was not to be borne, and they "repulsed (impulit) the 1st, and slew the legate" and took many standards driving their foe off the field.

The difference in othismos-related suitability between the scutum and aspis does make me wonder how a straight fight between legionaries and hoplites would have worked out.

[PMBardunias]

That makes sense, especially from a man who has been through the process.  A question that occurs to me is: when Athenians and Argives run (dromon) to contact, do they pile in or pull up when they get to being a spear's length apart?


The difference in othismos-related suitability between the scutum and aspis does make me wonder how a straight fight between legionaries and hoplites would have worked out.

So this is not something we can say for certain, and probably differed for different battles, just as Pike could foyne or charge in a block. But if Argives run at Athenians, who run at them, we know from Thucydides that they will not be in close packed ranks (even if the frontage along the rank is maintained, which is debatable). So crashing into each other really means interlacing and a general melee.  Far more likely is that the opposing forces slow and reform upon contact, and spear fighting commences.  They could slow and reform short of spear range, then slam into the enemy en masse, I have seen this and it is easier than I would have thought to not get skewered on the way in.  But remember these are spearmen first, it is from the spear that they get their bread, their Ismian wine! So if you make me carry an 8' spear into battle, I am going to use it rather than slam my shield into the enemy.

As to a clash between  hoplites and Romans, the romans would do what the Persians tried at Plataia, they would attack in detail in hopes of tearing the phalanx apart. Imagine what a roman centurion would have done at Mantinea when the whole Spartan allied line gave way on the left. The Argive select unit simply followed the taxis in front of them out of the battle. I often wonder what Iphicrates could have done with Roman hastatii.

[Patrick Waterson]

As to a clash between  hoplites and Romans, the romans would do what the Persians tried at Plataia, they would attack in detail in hopes of tearing the phalanx apart. Imagine what a roman centurion would have done at Mantinea when the whole Spartan allied line gave way on the left. The Argive select unit simply followed the taxis in front of them out of the battle. I often wonder what Iphicrates could have done with Roman hastatii.

Looking at both sides' tactical doctrine, as the sides close we get a shower of pila against a possible overlap of aspides.  The net effect might be similar to that which Caesar's men inflicted on the Helvetii, with shields pinned together or rendered too heavy for convenient use.  Will this matter?  The Romans then close with drawn sword, while the Greeks retain their spears.  Is the order of the hoplite formation going to be disrupted sufficiently for the Romans to get in and stab?  Or would pinning the Greek shields together and/or leaving pila sticking out of them hinder the Romans more than the Greeks?  How would this affect the othismos stage of the battle - assuming there would be an othismos stage?  How well would the gladius-and-scutum-equipped Romans be able to ply their swords once the crush built up?  Whose line would be favourite to crumble and break first?  And if not the Greeks, how able would the Romans be to relieve their embattled line under conditions of serious pressure?  Or would they attempt to relieve before the pressure built?  And if so, what would happen with (and to) the relieving line?  Would it all end up being down to the triarii?

Incidentally, we may have differing interpretations of Roman tactical doctrine.  A chat on this at some point could be beneficial, or at least illuminating.

[RichT]

'Who would win' always seems slightly pointless (though maybe it's the essence of wargaming). Here's one I saw that Justin might appreciate

[PMBardunias]

Sellasia hill lost.

[Patrick Waterson]

'Who would win' always seems slightly pointless (though maybe it's the essence of wargaming).

Oh yes.

Real-life generals also went through a 'who would win' thought process before validating (or otherwise) their conclusions and in the process presenting us with historical data.  Obviously there are caveats about level of training, leadership etc. when considering potential opposing armies, but some of them got it spectacularly right, e.g. Alexander's and Memnon's estimation of Alexandrian Macedonian vs Achaemenid Persian.

[PMBardunias]

Looking at both sides' tactical doctrine, as the sides close we get a shower of pila against a possible overlap of aspides.  The net effect might be similar to that which Caesar's men inflicted on the Helvetii, with shields pinned together or rendered too heavy for convenient use. 

I don't think the aspides could be pinned like the Gallic shields because of their much greater depth. You would probably have to pin the rim one one aspis to the face of another, which limits the probability of this happening. I do not know for sure, but I doubt that a pila could go through an aspis, a few inches of space and then through another aspis.

The Romans then close with drawn sword, while the Greeks retain their spears. 

How well would the gladius-and-scutum-equipped Romans be able to ply their swords once the crush built up?  Whose line would be favourite to crumble and break first?  And if not the Greeks, how able would the Romans be to relieve their embattled line under conditions of serious pressure? 

Or would they attempt to relieve before the pressure built?  And if so, what would happen with (and to) the relieving line?  Would it all end up being down to the triarii?

I view all combat in a context of ranges. If we look at this match up, then Romans win past dory range, because they can throw pila. Hoplites win at dory range because neither the gladius nor a retained pila can reach a hoplite at this range.  Under dory range the Romans again have a large advantage all the way up until the hoplites all crowd forward. Now the problem of survival without an aspis emerges.

So if we assume both commanders know these strengths and weaknesses, I think combat goes like this:

The Roman Hastatii hold back, raining pila on the hoplite line. Much as at Plataia, faced with unanswerable missile fire, the hoplites can only charge. Initial advantage goes to the hoplites who can out reach the Romans, but soon spears become stuck in scutii or snapped. the Romans give ground and a foolish commander throws his eagel deep in the holite ranks.  The furious romans push past the spears and begin to chop up hoplites, leaving wounds that horrify the watching rear ranks. The hoplites waiver, but the rear rank veterans herd the ranks forward and soon the Romans are trying to push against hoplites, whose wicked little stabbing enchiridia come over the mass of shields like striking vipers. Unused to such close quarters and faced with a line of shields that overlap and spread out force in a manner the scutum cannot, the Hastatii are hampered and begin to break.  Just in time the Princeps move up and maniples of Hastatii break off contact. To the great surprise of the Romans, the hoplites just let them leave, making no move to follow because this would break their own line. The Romans break off, hurling more pila as both sides catch their breath.  Enterprising maniples attack individually, while the hoplites are loathe to move en masse, but instead fight many small battles along the line, while other sections take pila fire. Veteran though they may be, the Hoplites cant take this and eventually each taxa charges. The hastatii and Princeps recoil on the Triarii and an old school spear fight takes place. Many hoplites have lost their spears at this point, so unless their fellows pass spears forward, then have to move to aspis on scutum contact.

The battle ends in a race, one the Hoplites are most likely to lose. If the outmatched triarii, with their shorter hasta, hold long enough for the roman maniples to infiltrate or flank the hoplite line, the hoplites are slaughtered. If their break too soon, there is a chance that the rest of the Romans break and the hoplites have a chance to reform their ranks. The most likely outcome is a broken phalanx being chewed up in detail.

As in reality, this battle hinges on the quality of flank protection and perhaps reserves, not on the quality of the phalanx itself.

[Justin Swanton]

'Who would win' always seems slightly pointless (though maybe it's the essence of wargaming). Here's one I saw that Justin might appreciate

Naturally the hill wins...I mean, the first sizeable mound and the phalanx is done for. Ask any reputable scholar. 

[Dangun]

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

I don't think reenactors like conceding this kind of subtlety. 

[Erpingham]

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

I don't think reenactors like conceding this kind of subtlety.

Those practicing what used to be known as "experimental archaeology" are fine, as they have a grasp of rigorous test design and a concept of critical review of evidence.  I may not fully agree with everything but I can see Paul's "workings" and where he is coming from.

[PMBardunias]

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

I don't think reenactors like conceding this kind of subtlety.

Those practicing what used to be known as "experimental archaeology" are fine, as they have a grasp of rigorous test design and a concept of critical review of evidence.  I may not fully agree with everything but I can see Paul's "workings" and where he is coming from.

It would be helpful to me to know the elements that you believe are incorrect so that I can either make my position clearer or change my thinking.

[Erpingham]

It would be helpful to me to know the elements that you believe are incorrect so that I can either make my position clearer or change my thinking.

I fear the idea of yet another "O" shaped debate  but, as you asked,  I find myself in a great deal of agreement with your position in post #89.  Richard's excellent over view of word-use makes it very clear that the idea of othismos as a singularly hoplite tactic is mistaken.  Your insight that it is a state which hoplites prepared for but didn't trigger on command chimes with that.  As to who had othismos, it seems that the original Greek idea was of a jostling crowd, pushing this way and that, but with some intensity.  It sums up close combat fairly well across many periods.  The aspis does seem to be very well designed for this sort of fight (though I'm not sure it was designed specially for it).  The bit I remain unsure of is whether it ever reduced down to everybody shoving with all their might against the guy in front, unless they were losing control.  Your comments about everyone easing off at this point isn't going to happen easily because only the very rear can pull back - everyone else is pressed forward by the weight of those behind them and there is no quick release forward or back.  So, I think units would apply pressure with more control and less intensity in normal circumstances.   Apologies to all I have not used the correct terminology - I'm not a classicist.   I hope that will bring forth more of your explanation Paul and exposes new treasures rather than just stir up the silt on the bottom and obscure everything again.

[RichT]

I hope that will bring forth more of your explanation Paul and exposes new treasures rather than just stir up the silt on the bottom and obscure everything again.

To which end I humbly propose that everyone who has already expressed their opinion on this topic refrains from doing so again. New material only please!

[PMBardunias]

It would be helpful to me to know the elements that you believe are incorrect so that I can either make my position clearer or change my thinking.

I fear the idea of yet another "O" shaped debate  but, as you asked,  I find myself in a great deal of agreement with your position in post #89.  Richard's excellent over view of word-use makes it very clear that the idea of othismos as a singularly hoplite tactic is mistaken.  Your insight that it is a state which hoplites prepared for but didn't trigger on command chimes with that.  As to who had othismos, it seems that the original Greek idea was of a jostling crowd, pushing this way and that, but with some intensity.  It sums up close combat fairly well across many periods.  The aspis does seem to be very well designed for this sort of fight (though I'm not sure it was designed specially for it).  The bit I remain unsure of is whether it ever reduced down to everybody shoving with all their might against the guy in front, unless they were losing control.  Your comments about everyone easing off at this point isn't going to happen easily because only the very rear can pull back - everyone else is pressed forward by the weight of those behind them and there is no quick release forward or back.  So, I think units would apply pressure with more control and less intensity in normal circumstances.   Apologies to all I have not used the correct terminology - I'm not a classicist.   I hope that will bring forth more of your explanation Paul and exposes new treasures rather than just stir up the silt on the bottom and obscure everything again.

First off, thank you. There are some aspects of the othismos I describe that are counterintuitive and very difficult to teach without being shown. To my great relief you grasp how these work and your question is on a higher level. It is also one that I can answer from empircal testing.

When re ran the last set of othismos tests a few months back, all of the combatants had either metal or hard plastic rotella. These are 60 to 70cm in diameter. The force meter I was wearing was also about that size to fit into my luggage. Theseare deep enough to cover the diaphragm and prevent asphyxiation, but they put the force on the lower abdomen rather than the far more incompressable thigh, as the aspis does. When we hit 675lbs many of us were in real distress because our abdomens were getting squished. Invariably, one side gave way a step, and that is all ot took to drop the pressure. Then it would build again. 

So that is what actually happened, but the mechanism as you suggest is not obvious and requires me to speculate (meaning I may be specacularly wrong).  At this level of packing, force transfers very well through the files, that is afterall the whole point. But it is a two way street. If you are in an 8 man file and you are the first man, you will be experiencing quite a bit of crush, but the 6th man is also being crushed to some extent if they are packed tight.
This may be enough of a crush to signal the rear ranks to ease off. The principle of force tranfer at this density is similar to Newton's cradle.

The other thing that may have been happening is that signals from the front ranks were passed back. So, for example, I was being squished and at one point almost left my feet. The fellow right behind me can see this and if he stops leaning into the push, the fellow right behind him can see that, until it gets to the rear.

Lastly, at this density the opposing files are really one entity, with a point in the middle where the two halves are pushing into each other. If I as a front ranker and the few ranks right behind me give up and stop actively leaning into the opposing file, then the matchup is something like 8 vs 6 or so.  Worse yet, I can lean back on my own men and the matchup become 9 vs 7.

In the above, I hope I have at least offered plausible explanations of what we experienced.  But when we ran othismos experiments with real aspides, the results were quite different. We maxed out at over 800lbs for files of 6 men, and there was no giving way because no one was in actual distress. Each time we ended the trial so as to start another, or because the force sensor collapsed and had to be reset.