Othismos - When Push Comes to Shove

[Erpingham]

Yes, it is compiled by a gentleman called Hanson, although Thucydides employs some of the terms, notably ephodos and en chersi, in several of his battle descriptions.  Hanson seems to have filled in the gaps by using Greek terms where sources lacked Greek terminology.  I do not think he is wrong as, my learned friend notwithstanding, several hoplite battles do display characteristics consistent with this sequence and structure (albeit some do not, particularly where an imbalance of force causes one wing to break at or before contact, but life is messier than schemata).

Alas, I don't share your faith in Prof. Hanson's analysis.  I think all we've achieved is to note that a hoplite battle has a beginning, a middle and an end and the middle bit can be described by several terms.

[Dangun]

As for the matter of unmentioned files, I can see why Cary interpolated this.  The classical era was one of organisation by files, and the classical reader would understand this, but a modern reader usually needs the classically implicit made succinctly explicit.

Apologies for the distraction, but in regards to translations, I do not find this very persuasive.

Although I can't read Greek, so can't add anything to the interpretation, translations shouldn't add nouns like that, and in the process confuse the object of the adjective. I'd also suggest that translations should never add words for the reason posited, perhaps unless heavily footnoted.

[Patrick Waterson]

Alas, I don't share your faith in Prof. Hanson's analysis.  I think all we've achieved is to note that a hoplite battle has a beginning, a middle and an end and the middle bit can be described by several terms.

'Faith' is the wrong word, and we have noted a good bit more than that.  The good professor has attempted to set up a model framework for a Greek hoplite action, and it does seem to be a useful outline for approaching the workings of a typical hoplite battle.  The beginning, at least after Marathon, includes a charge which brings the armies en chersi, hand to hand.  This, however, does not seem to decide many battles; what does repeatedly emerge as a decider is the push of deeper files or more experienced, and hence better coordinated, troops adding their weight.  Our sources do seem to support, or at least accord with, Hanson's general scheme.  Greek hoplite armies do appear to force back their foes in a way that Romans, for example, do not.

As for the matter of unmentioned files, I can see why Cary interpolated this.  The classical era was one of organisation by files, and the classical reader would understand this, but a modern reader usually needs the classically implicit made succinctly explicit.

Apologies for the distraction, but in regards to translations, I do not find this very persuasive.

Although I can't read Greek, so can't add anything to the interpretation, translations shouldn't add nouns like that, and in the process confuse the object of the adjective. I'd also suggest that translations should never add words for the reason posited, perhaps unless heavily footnoted.

The problem is that there are translations and translations.  There is a difference between translating for sense (you are pretty sure of the meaning and are attempting to convey it to the reader) and translating for research (you render each word literally and leave the reader to extract the meaning).  Most translations are for sense, and therein lie many pitfalls, but for each pitfall there are usually several instances of useful explanatory interpretation.

Besides, the cruel fact is that the more literal your translation, the more incomprehensible it will be.  Here is an example (Judges 15:15-16):

Hebrew:
u.imtza lchi-chmur trie u.ishlch id.u u.iqch.e u.ik b.e alph aish

Literal:
and he-is-finding cheek-of donkey raw-one and he-is-stretching hand-of him and he-is-taking her and he-is-smiting in her thousand-of men

For sense:
And he found a new jawbone of an ass, and put forth his hand, and took it, and slew a thousand men therewith.

Hebrew:
u.iamr shmshun b.lchi e.chmur chmur chmrthim b.lchi e.chmur ekithi alph aish

Literal:
and he-is-saying Samson in cheek-of the donkey donkey donkeys in cheek-of the donkey I-smote thousand-of man

For sense:
And Samson said: with the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon heaps, with the jaw of an ass I have slain a thousand men.

[Dangun]

The problem is that there are translations and translations.  There is a difference between translating for sense (you are pretty sure of the meaning and are attempting to convey it to the reader) and translating for research (you render each word literally and leave the reader to extract the meaning).  Most translations are for sense, and therein lie many pitfalls, but for each pitfall there are usually several instances of useful explanatory interpretation.

Sure there is a difference.
But isn't this a small example of going to far in the direction of let's-make-stuff-up-that's-not-there for the (possibly) poor reason of making it more relate-able for the modern reader.

But I may be being too harsh, the translator may have flagged all of this in a footnote.

[Erpingham]

'Faith' is the wrong word, and we have noted a good bit more than that.  The good professor has attempted to set up a model framework for a Greek hoplite action, and it does seem to be a useful outline for approaching the workings of a typical hoplite battle.  The beginning, at least after Marathon, includes a charge which brings the armies en chersi, hand to hand.  This, however, does not seem to decide many battles; what does repeatedly emerge as a decider is the push of deeper files or more experienced, and hence better coordinated, troops adding their weight.  Our sources do seem to support, or at least accord with, Hanson's general scheme.  Greek hoplite armies do appear to force back their foes in a way that Romans, for example, do not.

Alas, I can't agree.  I think the one thing we have learned is Hanson is projecting a scheme based on very limited evidence.  A special "hoplite" meaning for these terms seems extremely unlikely from examples shared in our deliberations  and, with othismos, almost impossible to uphold as nearly all our examples involve non-hoplites.  The cynical me fears that Prof. Hanson can't believe his civilised Greeks fought the nasty sorts of brawls other nations did and wants there battles to be semi-ritualised, structured affairs.  I will grant we can identify contact melee, sustained melee which will lead to one side giving ground, and a collapse.  Dividing the bit in the middle up into three "phases" seems an academic's desire to impart order on a chaotic process.

[Patrick Waterson]

But isn't this a small example of going to far in the direction of let's-make-stuff-up-that's-not-there for the (possibly) poor reason of making it more relate-able for the modern reader.

It may not be: since learning that emptosis can be used for the influence of an alignment of stars/planets, I have concluded that Cary (the translator) may know his Greek better than we do, and have understood that it meant the pressure generated from a lining up of men, which required some periphrasis for clarity in translation. 

I think the one thing we have learned is Hanson is projecting a scheme based on very limited evidence.  A special "hoplite" meaning for these terms seems extremely unlikely from examples shared in our deliberations  and, with othismos, almost impossible to uphold as nearly all our examples involve non-hoplites.

Not if we are careful about context: I am suspending discussion of my learned friend's literary proclivities until he is back in action and able to answer for himself, but will stretch to saying that if we were 23rd century historians attempting to unravel the features of 20th century armoured warfare, attempting to conflate all 20th century references to "breakthrough" would be wickedly misleading, not least because it has different meaning in English and German ...

In any event, our interest should be the evidence for the actual processes involved in combat rather than the applicability of terminology: if we dislike Hanson's, we can substitute our own.

The cynical me fears that Prof. Hanson can't believe his civilised Greeks fought the nasty sorts of brawls other nations did and wants there battles to be semi-ritualised, structured affairs.

This is quite conceivable, although my impression is that he is attempting to analyse why hoplite battles are discernibly different in form from other recorded engagements.  Not sure about 'semi-ritualised'; I think he is rather looking at how the action took shape and dissecting it on the table so the reader can see the non-moving parts rather than just a blur of action.

The 64,000 drachma question is whether hoplite battles typically followed such a course.

I will grant we can identify contact melee, sustained melee which will lead to one side giving ground, and a collapse.  Dividing the bit in the middle up into three "phases" seems an academic's desire to impart order on a chaotic process.

I sympathise with this outlook: was there really a play of spears before the melee became sidearm-proximity close up and personal?  References to spears breaking and the existence of the butt-spike suggest spear-play as a significant stage; en chersi is a general close proximity expression and would cover the action once broken spears are discarded (along with intact ones which are now just a hindrance at close quarters) and swords brought into play.  So even though our sources are not explicit about the matter, I think there is good reason for supposing that spear-use was followed by closer proximity and shorter weapons.  This would not happen at a signal all along the line, but gradually, as spears shattered and men pressed closer together and blades were drawn.  We are left not so much with clear-cut stages as stages in a process which might not develop uniformly all along the line.  The stages themselves, however, seem reasonable as a sequence.

Once the file leaders or their immediate replacements are hard at it shield-to-shield, what happens then?  As Xenophon (Hellenica IV.3.1) has it at Coronea, "they shoved (eōthounto, from otheo), they fought and they died".  Is this just individuals having a go at pushing each other while everyone else discusses the weather, or is it coordinated pushing of files?

We cannot tell from terminology: Greek authors are notoriously less precise with usage than we tend to imagine (as with the sword words xiphos and makhaira: it used to be believed that one denoted a stabbing, and the other a slashing, sword, but Polybius uses both words for exactly the same sword in a single sentence).  Even Latin authors are not always as precise as we think: it was for a long time believed that catafractarii and clibanarii were different troop types, but Ammianus uses both words for the same troops.  What we have to do is look for pertinent clues, e.g. the weight and pressure of files in Polybius XVIII.30.4, the reference to rear rankers pushing in Xenophon's Memorabilia III.1.8 and the significance of Epaminondas calling for one more step to bring victory and deduce the process involved.  Then, if we want, we can invent our own labels.

[Erpingham]

Glad we have established some common ground.  It would be a false dawn if I didn't mention that we don't agree on the significance of the Xenophon and Epamonidas references for reasons discussed in another of the hoplite threads but never mind  

Leaving othismos alone for a moment, I'm puzzled by doratismos.  If hoplites run into battle and clash shields (which was described in some of the examples we have quoted), how does a spear-duelling phase fit?  Do they bounce off, stop and then re-engage more cautiously?  Or is the term another, perhaps older and more poetic, term for combat without technical significance?

[Mark G]

Have to say, I rather gathered hanson was arguing that greeks full well understood how messy and horrible combat was, and formulated a way of fighting that got it over and done with as fast as possible.

[Patrick Waterson]

Leaving othismos alone for a moment, I'm puzzled by doratismos.  If hoplites run into battle and clash shields (which was described in some of the examples we have quoted), how does a spear-duelling phase fit?  Do they bounce off, stop and then re-engage more cautiously?  Or is the term another, perhaps older and more poetic, term for combat without technical significance?

And why even bother with spears in the first place: why not just chuck the things at a distance, draw blades and go straight into the nitty-gritty action?  (It worked for Romans.)  Unfortunately our sources do not go into detail on this: the Greeks, however, did consider the spear indispensable to the hoplite just as Europeans deemed the lance indispensable to the mediaeval knight.  Yet the lance is usually good for just one charge, and only the contact part of the charge, after which it is sword-work at close quarters.  Should we see the initial contact at closure - Hanson's 'doratismos' - as the functional equivalent among hoplites to the crossing of lances in the knightly charge?  After all, if you have a shield and a spear, with which would you prefer to strike your opponent?  Momentum may dictate that the shield follows a few moments later, or it could be that the mutual receipt of spearpoints, most likely but not always on shield or armour, may have a retarding effect on the progress of individuals to corps-a-corps proximity, slowing the lines at contact so that a distinct flurry of spear-work interposed before the press of friendly troops drove the lines together.  There were times when armies, or parts of armies, broke at this juncture, so 'the spearing' was not necessarily without effect or just a ritual preliminary to the big shove.

Have to say, I rather gathered hanson was arguing that greeks full well understood how messy and horrible combat was, and formulated a way of fighting that got it over and done with as fast as possible.

A fair point.

[Erpingham]

Interesting thoughts on hoplites and their spears.  I had not thought to equate hoplite spears and knight's lances in that way and it certainly marries charging to combat and spearing.  But a second or two of spear-shattering impact is not really a "phase" is it?  Medieval authors may have described cavalry fights as "good jousting" in which lances were splintered but this was mere courtoisie .  I suspect that doratismos is just a literary word for melee, perhaps originating before hoplites ran into battle and there really was a spear-poking phase.

[aligern]

A very good point Anthony. Anglo Saxon Warfare has a ' chuck phase' that continues on when the battle is joined, but I rather magine that it precedes a poking phase and then a contact phase ( then eventually a pull back and rest and re engage) Warriors are sounding each other out, how tough, skilled and motivated are these fellows, who has the edge here? One benefit of running into combat is that you are committed, the opponent cannot eapstablish any moral superiority and the clash of shields will occur first.
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

A worthwhile thought, Anthony, although if that were indeed the case we should expect a fair amount of mention of it prior to Marathon but less so afterwards, as 'en chersi' takes over.  Richard found one mention before and one after, so not sure where that leaves us.

See what you think of the 'Othismos-crowd model' proposed by Paul Bardunias.  (Yes, I prefer direct deductions from sources to 'models', but we may as well give this chap a say, as he has done some thinking on the subject.)

[Erpingham]

A worthwhile thought, Anthony, although if that were indeed the case we should expect a fair amount of mention of it prior to Marathon but less so afterwards, as 'en chersi' takes over.  Richard found one mention before and one after, so not sure where that leaves us.

Trying to impose a rigid schema for hoplite battles based on two uses of a word?

Yes, I prefer direct deductions from sources to 'models', but we may as well give this chap a say, as he has done some thinking on the subject.)

Patrick, we all form our deductions from evidence into models/theories, its just whether they are implicit or explicit (or so I learned in Philosophy of Science)

[aligern]

How many pre Marathon descriptions of hoplite battles are there?

[Dangun]

Greek authors are notoriously less precise with usage than we tend to imagine

I think this is a very useful heuristic.

But I would also suggest that the heuristic should be applied to things like: Xenophon's "they shoved, they fought and they died"; Doratisthmos and en chersi; and the word othismos in general.