Testing hoplite combat

[PMBardunias]

Does anyone own this book? I need pages 95-98. Rogers hypothesizes something very othismos like at Agincourt. Rogers, C. (29 August 2008). "The Battle of Agincourt". In L. J. Andrew Villalon; Donald J. Kagay (eds.). The Hundred Years War (Part II): Different Vistas. History of Warfare. 51. Leiden: Brill. pp. 37–132. ISBN 978-90-04-16821-3. ISSN 1385-7827.

[PMBardunias]

I have actually never read Rich's etymology of othismos, but I looked at the word myself in an article back in 2011:

Othismos was a noun that derived from the word otheo, a verb meaning "to thrust, push, or shove".  The modern definitions of othismos treat the noun othismos as a verb, for example Liddell and Scott render it as either "thrusting, pushing" or secondarily "jostling, struggling".  As a noun, the word would have to be defined as "a state wherein thrusting, pushing, jostling or struggling occurs".  We commonly call such a state a dense crowd.  Perhaps the best English equivalent would be the way we derive a state of dense crowding, a press, from the verb "to press".  This is not a crowd in the sense of many people or a throng, because the Greeks had other words to describe that.  It is essentially a traffic term, like jam or deadlock, implying that many individuals are locked together and cannot move past.  Crowds can "push" with extreme force, but the word focuses on density, more of a squeeze directed within the group than without.

The term "Othismos" had three common uses.  First, it is used to describe hoplite battle.  Thucydides (4.96.2) describes fierce combat, noting that it is accompanied by "othismos aspedon".  This description has been held up as the clearest evidence for othismos as "pushing with shields", but perhaps a better reading is a "deadlock of shields", emphasizing the crowding of the opposing ranks together, with or without pushing.  Arrian (Tactica 12.3) used the same word to describe not opposing ranks, but the crowding of second rankers in a phalanx against the backs of the front rankers, after which they can reach the enemy front rankers with their swords.

Second, othismos is used is in situations familiar to anyone studying crowd disasters.  In the worst of these, people are asphyxiated or squeezed either hard enough or long enough to cause them to lose consciousness or die because pressure on their chest and diaphragm prevents them from breathing.  Xenophon (A. 5.2.17), Plutarch (Brutus 18.1), and Appian (Mithridatic wars 10.71) all describe othismos occurring as a crowd of men attempt to exit a gate.  Polybius (4.58.9) describes the Aegiratans routing the Aetolians who fled into a city: "in the confusion that followed the fugitives trampled each other to death at the gates...Archidamus was killed in the struggle and crush at the gates. Of the main body of Aetolians, some were trampled to death..."  It is a maxim that most deaths attributed to trampling are in fact due to asphyxia while still standing.

The third use of othismos occurs where literal pushing could not occur.  When Plutarch (Aristides 9.2) describes ships in othismos, he refers to crowding, not mass pushing.  In many cases, "othismos" is completely figurative.  Herodotus twice (8.78, 9.26) uses othismos to describe an argument.  This is often translated as a "fierce argument", but traffic terms are commonly used to describe arguments.  For example, we regularly call for an arbiter when two sides in negotiation come to an impasse or a log jam.  At Plataea, the Tegeans and Athenians (Herodotus 9.26) found themselves at an impasse in negotiations because they both put forth equal claims to an honored place in the army's formation.

[Erpingham]

Does anyone own this book? I need pages 95-98. Rogers hypothesizes something very othismos like at Agincourt. Rogers, C. (29 August 2008). "The Battle of Agincourt". In L. J. Andrew Villalon; Donald J. Kagay (eds.). The Hundred Years War (Part II): Different Vistas. History of Warfare. 51. Leiden: Brill. pp. 37–132. ISBN 978-90-04-16821-3. ISSN 1385-7827.

I have a photocopy.  I'll see what I can do.

[Erpingham]

I have actually never read Rich's etymology of othismos, but I looked at the word myself in an article back in 2011:

Thanks Paul.  A very similar etymology to Richard's.  He also looked at other parts of speech involving otheo derivatives, and noted the use similar to English of push = advance.  Another thing noted was the word othismos in relation to hoplite v. hoplite combat was rare.  Finally, he looked at Byzantine usage, where it was clear the word could mean forward pressure through the ranks of infantry (by the convoluted route that rear cavalry ranks couldn't do it).  This last fits to me with the idea it is a combat state that doesn't need hoplites (well, not classical ones) or aspides, although, as your experiments show, they are well suited to it.

Picking up on the Agincourt (or other similar events - Dupplin Moor, Westroosebeke and others) combat, what I think we see is a normal situation of pressure of depth going out of control - the French second division advanced into the back of the first division, who were held forward by the English and were attacked from the flanks, which prevented them flowing sideways.  One of the interesting questions is what would have happened had the second division sat back?  The first division was still deeper than the English but perhaps shallow enough to regulate itself better.  It couldn't push the four rank line of English back after the initial "spear's length", but maybe it could have succeeded through attrition.  Anyway, I shall stop there - I could talk all day about working out how medieval combat worked.

[Justin Swanton]

I could talk all day about working out how medieval combat worked.

Think you could talk to article length? 

[Erpingham]

I could talk all day about working out how medieval combat worked.

Think you could talk to article length? 

One day  

[PMBardunias]

I have actually never read Rich's etymology of othismos, but I looked at the word myself in an article back in 2011:

Thanks Paul.  A very similar etymology to Richard's.  He also looked at other parts of speech involving otheo derivatives, and noted the use similar to English of push = advance.  Another thing noted was the word othismos in relation to hoplite v. hoplite combat was rare.  Finally, he looked at Byzantine usage, where it was clear the word could mean forward pressure through the ranks of infantry (by the convoluted route that rear cavalry ranks couldn't do it).  This last fits to me with the idea it is a combat state that doesn't need hoplites (well, not classical ones) or aspides, although, as your experiments show, they are well suited to it.

Picking up on the Agincourt (or other similar events - Dupplin Moor, Westroosebeke and others) combat, what I think we see is a normal situation of pressure of depth going out of control - the French second division advanced into the back of the first division, who were held forward by the English and were attacked from the flanks, which prevented them flowing sideways.  One of the interesting questions is what would have happened had the second division sat back?  The first division was still deeper than the English but perhaps shallow enough to regulate itself better.  It couldn't push the four rank line of English back after the initial "spear's length", but maybe it could have succeeded through attrition.  Anyway, I shall stop there - I could talk all day about working out how medieval combat worked.

I agree that something like othismos was not an uncommon occurrence on a variety of battlefields, usually when things went fubar. The key is that, whether they actually did or not, hoplites with aspides could harness this condition and weaponize it. That much we have proven.

An interesting feature of you description is that we found 4 ranks to be the depth that can hold up any depth of opponents without being immediately pierced.