Othismos - When Push Comes to Shove

[Patrick Waterson]

Greek hoplite battles traditionally encompassed (in the Greek view) the following stages:

1) Ephodos (the charge)
2) Doratismos (the spearing)
3) En  Chersi (the hand-to-hand)
4) Othismos (the shoving)
5) Trope (the collapse)

We may note from the above that first contact involved spearing rather than shoving, although the frequent references to spears being broken at contact suggests a certain violence in mutual closure.  However one does note that a close melee (en chersi) precedes the stage of shoving (othismos), indicating that the latter may be a way in which men further back in the files lend their weight to an otherwise basically static melee once the men nearer the front are exhausted and no longer capable of giving their best.

Conversely accounts of battles such as First Mantinea (418 BC) indicate that the collapse (trope) of one side could occur very rapidly, even at or before first contact.  Perhaps it is safest to say that the stages above could be telescoped or drawn out depending upon the relative effectiveness of opponents: two fairly evenly balanced sides may well find themselves going through all the stages until during othismos it becomes a case of "One more push, men, and they will break!"

The general pattern appears to be that the lines close (at and after Marathon in 490 BC) with some rapidity, and if one side does not fold at this point an intense (or variable, or lackadasical, depending upon point of view) struggle begins, at first with weapons, then, when the weapon-wielders get tired/wounded and can no longer fight effectively, with a surge in which whole files push forwards, trying to overcome the foe by 'main shove'.  Given that this would seem to be a stage at which the men in both armies who can actually reach the foe are exhausted, once one army starts to yield ground it would be unlikely to recover, whereas if one went straight into othismos with both armies fresh then a push back might not necessarily produce a collapse.

For the input of a modern-day Spartan who has studied hoplite warfare as his life interest, see the website of Paul Bardunias:
http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/quantitative-evaluation-of-hoplite.html

His assessments do not necessarily coincide with mine, so should be worth looking at just from that standpoint.    He also gives much thought to detailing and modelling hoplite combat in general and othismos in particular, so is well worth checking out by interested parties.

[TDF]

I was introduced to the following book by Phil Sabin, I believe the author is a previous student of his.  I've not actually read the book myself yet, but I did flick through a copy.   My understanding is it's a Phd work revolving around scholarly research and reconstructive archaeology, and is really quite revealing and considered.  Might be of interest if you haven't seen it already.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Storm-Spears-Understanding-Hoplite-Action/dp/1848842953

[Erpingham]

It appears to be a controversial work, judging from the reception it has received on Ancmed.

[Patrick Waterson]

True.

The central tenets of Storm of Spears, or at least the points that always come up for discussion, seem to be the way the spear was held and the frontage of individual hoplites.  The consensus of informed opinion (as least as far as I have seen on three continents and one island) is that Christopher Matthew is wrong about how a spear was held and wrong about his 18" frontage for hoplites.  He seems to be superimposing an incomplete Macedonian pattern on a misunderstood Greek one.

One could say that compared to Hans van Wees it is a move in the right direction that went rather too far.

That said, I would suggest reading through it and coming to your own conclusions.

Patrick

[Justin Taylor]

I came across this in another discussion and it may be relevant

http://www.xlegio.ru/pdfs/othismos.pdf

by Mr Goldsworthy

In summary he (as do I) does not agree with the shoving theory but since he takes 24 pages to explain, its probably best for you to read yourself and make your own minds up.

[Mark G]

I'll just reiterate the passing comment I made a few months ago.

The only thing I can see as believable from othismos, is that it is a description which sort of fits when viewing from the back of the battle - the ebb and flow, forward and back of combat - and which is the best description which the Greeks had to describe that effect for the audience who were not there.

but which is unrelated to what is happening at the front, at which time, they are far to focussed on more immediate concerns to be looking for a way to better describe things.

its about as believable as some of the fantastical creatures in Herodotus. 

Text or not text (noting our recent discussions on the texts for Zama and Cannae), and I would add that I could find no single modern author discussing models of combat who gave it any credence whatsoever when we were researching our articles on Roman Combat.  Even those who believe in continuous melee models do not buy into Othismos.

[Patrick Waterson]

Which means they should read period sources instead of each other. 

[Erpingham]

I think we should differentiate between not believing in othismos (an undefined entity) and othismos (the traditional rugby scrum explanation).  It is hard not to believe in the former as there are large numbers of references to it.  Some of these references come from men with combat experience like Xenophon or Thucidides.  So it is hard to believe that there wasn't a critical phase in a hoplite battle which contemporaries called othismos.  What it was, if it was in fact always the same and if it had a physical rather than psychological manifestation, seems to be much more fruitful lines of enquiry.

[Patrick Waterson]

A very sensible comment.

[Patrick Waterson]

I think we should differentiate between not believing in othismos (an undefined entity) and othismos (the traditional rugby scrum explanation).  It is hard not to believe in the former as there are large numbers of references to it.  Some of these references come from men with combat experience like Xenophon or Thucidides.  So it is hard to believe that there wasn't a critical phase in a hoplite battle which contemporaries called othismos.  What it was, if it was in fact always the same and if it had a physical rather than psychological manifestation, seems to be much more fruitful lines of enquiry.

This is probably about as explicit as a source gets about 'othismos, an undefined entity':

"The Tyrrhenians, looking upon the folly of the [Roman] general as a piece of great good fortune, came down from their camp with numbers fully twice those of their foe. 7 When they engaged, there was a great slaughter of the Romans, who were unable to keep their ranks. For they were forced back by the Tyrrhenians, who not only had the terrain as an ally, but were also helped by the vigorous pressure of those who stood behind them, their army being drawn up with deep files. When the most prominent centurions had fallen, the rest of the Roman army gave way and fled to the camp; and the enemy pursued them, took away their standards, seized their wounded, and got possession of their dead." - Dionysius of Halicarnassus IX.23.6-7

This particular battle occurred in 478 BC, when many of Rome's opponents, notably the Etruscans, were probably still using hoplite-style tactics.  In this battle the Etruscans had a 2:1 advantage and were attacking downslope, and won not by envelopment but through "the vigorous pressure of those who stood behind them, their army being drawn up with deep files."

Dionysius' explicit statement conforms that pressure by files, and the deeper the better, was a physical manifestation.  It doubtless also had psychological aspects, but the physical shove by files in depth is given as the significant reality.

[eques]

I recently read the othismos article in the last slingshot and for what it's worth my interpretation of all the sources quoted is that the word did indeed have a separate meaning in the context of a hoplite battle (semi formalised shoving contest) in contrast to everyday use (panicky, un co-ordinated, swirling mass of people or things).

Yes, just like scrum in rugby and scrum as a rough simile used in non sporting life. Obviously one had its root in the other, but the nuance of meaning has changed over time.  Quite possibly the exact same dynamic operated on othismos.

I can think of words that have subtly or mot so subtly changed their meaning in the last ten years anyway, so who knows what happened to othismos in the millennium covered by the article.

[RichT]

Hello has someone been archive diving? This thread is from July 2013!

I'm really not sure it's worth flogging this particular dead horse any more, but...

Patrick:

Dionysius' explicit statement conforms that pressure by files, and the deeper the better, was a physical manifestation.  It doubtless also had psychological aspects, but the physical shove by files in depth is given as the significant reality.

What this Dionysius passage does (and this was true also in the more recent thread, 'How continuous was combat?', where you also quoted it) is demonstrate yet again how the translation can be coloured by the pre-existing interpretation (and to quote Sam Koon again, "a translator necessarily has to put the original language into target language using the conceptual tools at his disposal. The predominant model of combat will influence a translation, but we should limit how much a translation influences the model of combat".

The translation of Dionysius you use is Cary's Loeb from 1937-1950, when the 'hoplite scrum' was at its most fashionable. Not suprisingly, Cary interprets this also as a hoplite scrum. But look at the original Greek of Dionysius for the sentence translated "For they were forced back by the Tyrrhenians, who not only had the terrain as an ally, but were also helped by the vigorous pressure of those who stood behind them, their army being drawn up with deep files."

A more literal translation would be:

"They were driven back by the Tyrrhenians, having the nature of the country as an ally, and assisted by.the great emptosis of those standing behind - for they were drawn up in depth."

Notice there is no reference to files in the Greek - just to depth. The 'deep files' are Cary's interpolation.

'Driven back' translates our old friend, exotheo. As has been demonstrated clearly, unequivoclally and at length, 'exotheo' carries no required interpretation of physical force or pushing. That finding is not in dispute, I assume.

Then we have that strange word, 'emptosis', which I haven't attempted to translate above, and which Cary translates 'pressure'. As you can see from LSJ, this is the one and only usage of this word in the whole of Greek literature where it is given the meaning 'pressure' (and it's a rare word anyway). Other meanings are 'incidence, impact, propensity, inundation'. I think 'pressure' is probably a fair translation in this case, but you really can't use it to draw any conclusions about the nature of the fighting, and as for "the physical shove by files in depth is given as the significant reality" - no, this is just plain wrong.

All this Dionysius passage shows is that being uphill and being drawn up in depth (whatever the details of that might mean) conferred an advantage in combat - no surprises there, we already know that. This passage sheds no new light on the nature of hoplite combat, or on the 'hoplite scrum'.

Any chance of leaving it at that? At any rate I'll be in and out for the next week so can't, sadly, engage in one of our usual enjoyable, if exhausting, shoving matches.

[Erpingham]

Interesting sometimes to dip back into the history of a discussion.  I noted this at the very beginning

Greek hoplite battles traditionally encompassed (in the Greek view) the following stages:

1) Ephodos (the charge)
2) Doratismos (the spearing)
3) En  Chersi (the hand-to-hand)
4) Othismos (the shoving)
5) Trope (the collapse)

I think one thing our discussions have clarified is that this is not a Greek view, because we find no reference to this scheme, only the individual terms.  We also now at least suspect some of these terms are alternates rather than sequential.  Personally, I'm tempted to think this formal scheme of hoplite battle is a modern interpretation.  However, if unless we've got something new to bring to the table (e.g. a source from antiquity that does lay out this or another scheme of formal phases for hoplite battle) there's not much point in pushing it further.

[Duncan Head]

Hello has someone been archive diving? This thread is from July 2013!

But it's one of those subjects that never goes away.

[Patrick Waterson]

Interesting sometimes to dip back into the history of a discussion.  I noted this at the very beginning

Greek hoplite battles traditionally encompassed (in the Greek view) the following stages:

1) Ephodos (the charge)
2) Doratismos (the spearing)
3) En  Chersi (the hand-to-hand)
4) Othismos (the shoving)
5) Trope (the collapse)

I think one thing our discussions have clarified is that this is not a Greek view, because we find no reference to this scheme, only the individual terms.  We also now at least suspect some of these terms are alternates rather than sequential.  Personally, I'm tempted to think this formal scheme of hoplite battle is a modern interpretation.

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).

A more literal translation would be:

"They were driven back by the Tyrrhenians, having the nature of the country as an ally, and assisted by.the great emptosis of those standing behind - for they were drawn up in depth."

Notice there is no reference to files in the Greek - just to depth. The 'deep files' are Cary's interpolation.

'Driven back' translates our old friend, exotheo. As has been demonstrated clearly, unequivoclally and at length, 'exotheo' carries no required interpretation of physical force or pushing. That finding is not in dispute, I assume.

What is in dispute is whether that is actually a finding.   While it is constructive and correct to point out that the otheo family of words have more abstract applications than simple physical pushing, it is quite insupportable to conclude that the existence of such abstractions excludes any concrete (or flesh and blood) pushing applications whatsoever, which seems to be the thrust of my learned friend's argument.  'No required interpretation' becomes a generic blanket for the total exclusion of any such interpretation.

My learned friend in his esteemed Slingshot article amply demonstrated that exotheo denotes driving or driving back, but did not address the matter of pressure except to mix up usage by various authors and selectively interpret the occasional statement, e.g. in Thucydides V.71.1.  (I actually blame Thucydides for this one, for reasons which will be apparent):

"All armies are alike in this: on going into action they get forced out rather on their right wing, and one and the other overlap with this their adversary's left; because fear makes each man do his best to shelter his unarmed side with the shield of the man next him on the right, thinking that the closer the shields are locked together the better will he be protected."

So far, it is pretty clear: each man is trying to shelter his unshielded right with the shield of the next man along, so he tries to tuck himself in rightwards and in doing so nudges that man to the right.  But now Thucydides adds a codicil:

"The man primarily responsible for this is the first upon the right wing, who is always striving to withdraw from the enemy his unarmed side; and the same apprehension makes the rest follow him."

This is a straight contradiction of what he has just said.  Instead of the chaps each seeking the protection of their right-hand neighbour's shield and in the process shoving the fellow aside, the blame is now on the rightmost man for leading the rest astray.  No wonder people draw opposite conclusions from the same passage.

One or the other statement has to be correct, and logic suggests it is the first, namely each man seeking protection from his neighbour's shield and displacing the said neighbour rightwards in the process.  If the second were the true cause, the man on the right would cease to worry about his exposed flank as soon as his wing had a slight overlap, yet the impression Thucydides gives is that the overlap keeps growing as the armies close; in other words, it is driven from within the phalanx, not guided from the flank.

Then we have that strange word, 'emptosis', which I haven't attempted to translate above, and which Cary translates 'pressure'. As you can see from LSJ, this is the one and only usage of this word in the whole of Greek literature where it is given the meaning 'pressure' (and it's a rare word anyway). Other meanings are 'incidence, impact, propensity, inundation'. I think 'pressure' is probably a fair translation in this case, but you really can't use it to draw any conclusions about the nature of the fighting, and as for "the physical shove by files in depth is given as the significant reality" - no, this is just plain wrong.

I have even seem 'emptosis' given as 'alignment', e.g. of planets, the idea being that the lineup has a unified force and significance not possessed by the individual planets wandering around in the ordinary way. In this particular passage in Dionusius, if the pressure (or impact) here is not a physical shove, then what is it?  It breaks opposing ranks, forces (or drives) opponents back and wins ground.  This has all the signs of forced physical progress.

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.

All this Dionysius passage shows is that being uphill and being drawn up in depth (whatever the details of that might mean) conferred an advantage in combat - no surprises there, we already know that. This passage sheds no new light on the nature of hoplite combat ...

It does however help to confirm old light over which a shadow had been drawn.

Any chance of leaving it at that? At any rate I'll be in and out for the next week so can't, sadly, engage in one of our usual enjoyable, if exhausting, shoving matches.

We can leave it at that for a week.