Depth - what is it good for?

[Justin Swanton]

Paul Bardunias  makes the interesting observation that the shape of the Greek shield was a key element in the mechanism of othismos. The shield was about a metre in diameter and was convex, which meant that if held in front of the body, the top edge rested against the upper part of the sternum, the manubrium, whilst the lower edge rested against the thighs. This protected the middle part of the body from being compressed by the pressure of the rear ranks. It was this that made othismos possible and obliged opponents not similarly equipped to recoil if they did not wish to be crushed to death.

[Justin Taylor]

Is there anything that inherently makes physical pressure impractical?

Yes from that diagram the pressure on the right shoulder, causing the man in the front rank to spin round and when he goes down the rest of the guys fall down.

Think about it, humans have a very small area over which to place their centre of gravity (their two feet) and when your centre of gravity (now burdened with armour, a shield and other bits of kit) moves outside of that area, you have to push back or fall over.

But we have the tradition in the SOA, you get a dustbin lid and broom handle and try it for yourself!

[Patrick Waterson]

Actually tradition in the SoA seems to be to pile up academics, so let us have Paul Bardunias hold forth about some academic efforts ...

A few months back, I promised a review of Adam Schwartz's "Reinstating the Hoplite: Arms, Armour and Phalanx Fighting in Archaic and Classical Greece". In this post I am going to specifically address Section 3.4, Othismos. I'll restate that this book is a remarkable resource. If you own only one book on hoplite combat, own this one. Much of the book is a filtering and restatement of arguments put forth in a series of papers that make up the great "Heresy-v-Orthodoxy" debate, meticulously footnoted. If you have read all of these papers, then much of this book will not seem novel, but it is nice to have all of this in one place and Schwartz's commentary is often quite insightful.  His description of othismos is a weakness of the book.

This section begins with a description of othismos as "a common effort, ostensibly by a common push...of the entire phalanx...into the enemy in order to drive them back", following Hanson's usage. I agree with this definition and we will need to keep it in mind as we go forward, for Schwartz deviates from it in important ways in his presentation. Following the prevailing notion, which you now know to be incorrect if you have been reading my previous posts, he goes on to describe men hoplites in othismos:

    "The hoplites in the front stemmed their left shoulder against their shield and thrust it against the shields and bodies of the enemy with all their might; and the ranks behind them in turn stemmed their shields against the backs and right side of the man in front in a ¾ stance, as it were.

    In this way, a tremendous pressure could be generated and conveyed through the entire phalanx from the rearmost rank, its force increasing on the way."


Right away, Schwartz has unwittingly presented us in these two sentences with contradictory mechanics. This is the most glaring problem with the current portrayal of othismos, and the focus of my campaign to correct our understanding. You cannot both stand at a "¾ stance" and sustain "tremendous pressure". A ¾ stance is one in which your body is held at a diagonal behind the shield, which is facing flush to your foes. The arm is bent, with the arm and body forming an acute angle. This is the natural stance for just about all combat sports, from Asian martial arts to renaissance fencing. Hoplites probably stood this way when engaged in spear fencing. I will do a full post on stances and weapons grips used in hoplite combat at a later date, but for now it is important to understand that in this pose, the only thing holding the shield away from the front of your body is the strength of your arm and shoulder. Were I to grab you by the right shoulder with one hand and the shield with the other and try to force your shield to touch your chest, it is easy to see that very little of your musculature resists my pushing.

Now, even the biggest weight lifter cannot resist "tremendous pressure" with the strength of his arm and shoulder alone. Remember that less than 10 men can generate 1,000 lbs of force or more. So if we take the description of men at ¾ and apply anything approaching the force that can be generated by files of hoplites, the end result will be that the hoplites collapse into the bowl of their shields, chest to underside of the shield rim. Once they collapse into the shield in this way, they occupy less space than they did in the ¾ stance. Thus, as the file closes in there is no room to move back into ¾ stance again unless the file spreads out.

This is important because the current orthodoxy posits a stance with the left shoulder inside the bowl of the shield, pushing on the inner shield-face. Many have interpreted Arrian, the Roman tactician, describing this in a section of his Tactica (16.13). Arrian of course was not a hoplite and the passage in question does not exist in earlier sources for his tactia. He did on the other hand live at a time when Romans formed shield-walls, later called a fulcum, wherein men with very different, single gripped, shields may well have pushed standing sideways at far lower pressure than a hoplite with an aspis could survive.

If we toss out the ¾ stance when pushing, then we can also eliminate the notion that the depth of the aspis was to allow the shield to be rested on the shoulder while pushing. I won't go on here, but look back to my previous posts to learn how hoplites stood with their shields and a further examination of why the "shoulder rest" function was a side benefit and not the purpose for the depth.

At 3.4.2, the book moves on to describe arguments for and against a literal othismos defined as above. This section is a good distillation of the various viewpoints, but in rebutting the opinions against othismos, Schwartz goes awry. He specifically addresses two arguments: 1) the tremendous force generated by deep files of men would cause a squeeze that would be "distressing to contemplate" in Fraser's words (1942), and 2) the great pressure would impede weapons usage.

Schwartz is failed here by his reliance on Franz (2002). I must be clear that Franz wrote in German, a language I do not read, so I am only commenting on Schwartz's translated quotations from that work. With that in mind, what is attributed to Franz shows a lack of understanding of how force is generated in groups of pushing men. He is quoted as writing:

    "The mass pressure was not achieved by the weight of the warriors, but by their muscles...the mass of the hoplites played a relatively minor role. It came into play chiefly when brief, thrusting impulses were transmitted from one warrior to another."


Schwartz focuses on this and tells us that it "corrects a common enough oversight in the othismos debate." In fact, Franz, via Schwartz, is propagating a misunderstanding of crowd forces while at the same time being represented as an authority on the subject. Mass is the most important factor in transmitting forces through dense crowds. It is through "leaning" and resting your weight on the man in front, more than "pushing with the legs" that force adds cumulatively in crowds. Members of crowds stand for the most part upright and lean into each other with the upper body angled to some degree. The amount of pressure that can be generated in pushing with the legs is restricted by the angle the legs make with the ground- the closer to perpendicular the less pressure you can generate, with an optimal angle at something acute like 45 degrees depending on how well your feet grip the substrate.

This is important because, as we have seen in crowd data that I presented previously, high pressures within crowds can be maintained for long periods of time. It is in fact the duration of pressure even more than the sheer amount that causes asphyxia in crowds. So, contra Schwartz, the pressure in ranks of hoplites would be "impossible to resisist" without an aspis to protect the diaphragm. His mention of armor as protection against asphyxia, even if true (some reenactors of ECW push of pike battles tell me that the breast and back does help) becomes problematic when we consider the rise in the era of deepest ranks of the organic corslet, sometimes called "tube and yoke" or linothorax.

Schwartz further quotes Franz about what occurs in crowds:

    "When people behind sense that the pushing does not bring about any immediate advantage, they stop pushing. The result is a kind of reverse thrust."

This statement shows a fundamental difference in a "crowd" of pedestrians and a "crowd" of hoplites in othismos. The hoplites want to generate lethal levels of forces, while crowds do so only accidentally. If we start from the definition of othismos presented at the beginning of this post, then the goal of opposing ranks is to produce the maximum pushing force that they can. What he describes is true for pedestrian crowds, and this behavior is also why we don't see othismos in every other battle-line in history. Once the front of the file gets squeezed to their limit, they push back on their own men, causing the file to open. In hoplites this did not happen until the pressure became enormous because of their ability to withstand being squeezed without suffocating.

An analogy to what happens between men in Franz's depiction would be you walking down a hall and pushing against a closed door. If the door does not open, you stop pushing, the feedback telling you it is locked. But if you know the door is locked and your goal is to break down the door, then you do not stop pushing even when the same exact feedback tells you it is locked. You push harder in order to bust it opened. This is what hoplites did. Their "crowds" were meant to push against resistance and overcome it.

Schwartz touches upon this in mentioning crowd disasters, but does not connect the crowd of hoplites to the type of crowd that ends in deaths from asphyxia because he cannot describe why hoplites could survive this. My own examination of the aspis's role in protecting against crushing of the diaphragm can. There is no reason to expect a group of motivated pushing hoplites to be "like any other crowd moving in a particular direction."  They are intentionally attempting to generate the maximum sustained force against their opponents, and could generate sustainable forces far in excess of those which occur accidentally in crowds of similar size.

A bit further on, he discusses that othismos could not last long. This has been an objection of many: "How can you push for an extended period?" The answer again comes from an understanding of crowds. Pressure can be maintained within crowds at rock concerts for long periods.  Force will vary over time, but not in the quick oscillations Schwartz envisions.  There could be "lulls", the force reducing as men simply unpack to catch their breath, perhaps even pulling completely apart and engaging at spear range again.

At the end of this section, following the prevalent notion of hoplites charging directly into othismos, he brings up the fact that many units charge, even when occupying positions of superior height. He portrays them as abandoning tactical advantage for momentum. I won't dwell on this, but Polybios specifically describes the problem with not charging downhill during the battle of Sellasia (2.68), and it has nothing to do with momentum for othismos.

The second objection he addresses is that weapons cannot be used in othismos. He quotes Cawkwell's statement that men would "better be able to use their teeth than their weapons". I've addressed this at length, and I was glad to see that Schwartz also saw the utility of the short sword in the press of othismos. He correctly sees the limitations of the spear in othismos and presents the overhand grip as the exclusive strike for use within the phalanx as well. I'll delve into that deeper in a future post.

He also does a great job of showing the folly of van Wees's notion that the aspis cannot be used to push because it was held up at a slant and only the bottom rims would collide. Obviously, the men would simply collapse into their shields as they push and Schwartz points this out. Unfortunately, he did not see that this same logic applies to men standing at ¾ stances as I described above.

He also twists Xenophon (Cyr. 7.1.33) to mean that the aspis was rested on, not against, the shoulder. The clear reading of the passage is that the shield was rested against the shoulder/upper arm, and this can certainly be read as a description of the way I portray hoplites as resting the rim against the front of the shoulder, on the broad shoulder piece of the organic corslet. Note that some depictions show these stiff shoulder pieces extending wider than the shoulder, so if you push with the shield on the shoulder the stiff pad gets jammed into your neck!

Section 3.4.3 is an examination of the morale effects of added ranks, which are in no way incompatible with othismos, but works alongside it. In 3.4.4, he discusses the need to maintain cohesion. Goldsworthy's notion of depth as a means of maintaining cohesion in the presence of broken terrain is mentioned, but as I have shown previously, there is no record of 25 or 50 rank phalanxes deploying from this depth into a shallower, broader line. Unless these men are meant to stand idle until the front ranks somehow break through, getting more men into the area is not helpful unless they can move to a shallower formation and engage the enemy.

He describes the Argive predilection to run too early into the charge and notes that this tore holes in the formation between them an adjacent units. Interestingly, he goes on to describe Spartans foregoing the charge, but does not seem to realize that this too must result in gaps between them and adjacent units that did have a running charge. The whole line cannot have arrived simultaneously against the enemy line if part walked and part ran. This has been overlooked by everyone to my knowledge.

Following the common model of othismos, he mentions hoplites charging 50 m (later 20-25m) in order to impart "a maximum of penetration power at the collision". The real cause of the charge has more to do with the "tremendous nervous pressure" he also describes, because it takes only a few yards to achieve the "ramming speed" suggested by the orthodoxy. Any distance in excess of that simply causes fatigue and a loss of cohesion for no gain of momentum. In fact, the whole notion of a charge like an un-horsed medieval knight imparting maximum pressure is a fallacy, as I have previously demonstrated. Dense packing is far more important for a strong and sustainable force even if it occurs at slow speed.

It is in the final section, 3.4.5, that Schwartz's portrait of othismos falls apart. He again draws on "observations of crowd behavior" to portray othismos as a "phenomenon occurring at intervals". He applies what I is think a wildly inappropriate reference on Spartan leaders having trouble keeping the rear ranks from pushing forward to initiate the charge to show that rear ranks could push forward when locked in combat. I do believe that they did push forward within the file, but this reference cannot be applied. Cavalry were famous for "chomping at the bit" to rush into the charge as well, but there is not corresponding push when engaged in combat.  Using an innapropriate reference gives ammo to the foes of othismos.

Inexplicably, he abandons the ¾ stance, where men push their shields into the back of those in front, for Luginbill's "T" shaped, side-on stance where men push into the side and right shoulder of those in front. Then he has the file leaders being propelled into the enemy ranks by the file behind them "killing left and right". Far more likely is getting "killed from left and right". More importantly, the overlapping of shields within each succesive rank make any single file pushing through the stacked ranks and out of formation, then into the enemy's overlapped ranks, unlikely.

He states that: "Such othismos may have occurred in short bursts, and at random intervals, as the rear ranks felt they might help their comrades by applying pressure. And not all 7 ranks need to participate in shoving simultaneously..." This is a radical departure from Hanson's "a common effort, ostensibly by a common push...of the entire phalanx...into the enemy in order to drive them back". In fact, what he goes on to describe is nothing unique to hoplites. Romans and pretty much any linear formation in ranks surely had disorganized pushing by eager men behind the front ranks. This interpretation makes "othismos" so common in the history of warfare that it hardly warrants a special term in the Greek context. This commonality also goes a long way towards unraveling all of the arguments for the form of the panoply being derived from the need to be effective in the "push". Any Roman with a scutum could do what Schwartz advocates and frequently did.

Part of the problem is that Schwartz is in a bit over his head. I do not say this disparagingly. I applaud him for attempting to bring in concepts from crowd mechanics even if he ultimately does not sufficiently understand them. A statement that hoplite battles were "essentially chaotic" is ironic, because I agree with him, but my understanding of chaos is clearly far different from his own. The phrase "no one to direct the movements of the enormous organism" is so close to what I believe the truth, but we need to add an understanding of how order emerges from seemingly 'chaotic' interactions within groups. The study of how this occurs through what is called self-organization will ultimately yield a clearer understanding of hoplite combat. Groups of men, like flocks of birds or schools of fish, can achieve a great degree of cohesion and coordination through simple interactions between men in a bottom-up fashion, and do not require the top-down direction of generals for much of what occurs in combat. Thus, we do not need "a referee with a whistle" as Holladay (1982) said would be needed to move from one phase to another. Such "phase transitions" can arise simply from the interactions of individual hoplites in the absence of specific orders.

All of which is fair enough.  At the end of the day we are faced with the fact that we have several accounts of deep formations pushing shallow formations, battles consisting largely of shoving matches and generals placing importance on a massed shove.  It happened, whether or not we can explain exactly how.

But for some reason the men involved did not spin round and fall over.

[Justin Swanton]

Is there anything that inherently makes physical pressure impractical?

Yes from that diagram the pressure on the right shoulder, causing the man in the front rank to spin round and when he goes down the rest of the guys fall down.

Unless he faces front at the moment of impact. That way everyone is pushing and being pushed shield to back directly forwards and the whole thing is relatively stable.

[Justin Taylor]

But that it is not supposed to be how it happens, the supposed sequence

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

So just substitute the backwards and forwards nature of the combat for actually pushing people, it all makes sense and no squashing of people required. But thats just my (and Mr Goldworthys) 2p of course.

[Patrick Waterson]

Not everyone will necessarily devote time to each of the stages, especially if one side (often the Athenians) runs into contact.  Then one might find stages 1-3 significantly telescoped.

In any event, if one side just relies on the backwards and forwards nature of combat and the other side is lined up and shoves, I am willing to predict a winner. 

[Erpingham]

Not everyone will necessarily devote time to each of the stages, especially if one side (often the Athenians) runs into contact.  Then one might find stages 1-3 significantly telescoped.

It is perhaps an artefact of the importance of the hoplite battle to the Greek psyche (yes, I'm going a bit Hanson) that we have energy devoted to the phases of the hoplite battle.  Similar phases might have been identified in other traditions but nobody really thought detailed analysis of infantry fighting was a topic for educated people.  However, if we really want to dissect hoplite battle we could do that in another thread - there is certainly enough conflicting evidence to keep us occupied    However, to pick up the depth theme again, does anyone in the classical world say that the reason for more depth is to maximise othismos?  And to repeat, for those to whom othismos is all about the shape of the hoplite aspis, other times, other places, armies saw an advantage in deep formations.  Even if the aspis allowed the perfection of pushing, it clearly wasn't enough to prevent the hoplite being replaced by deep formations with small shields and pikes.

[Patrick Waterson]

However, to pick up the depth theme again, does anyone in the classical world say that the reason for more depth is to maximise othismos? 

Not in so many words, no; if Socrates and Plato had been interested in such things then undoubtedly they would, but what we have is simply description of formation and description of results so we need to evaluate whether the two have a cause-and-effect relationship.  Comparing the consistency of outcomes and the lack of narrator surprise at the results with other actions in which the depths are more even and resolution is attributed specifically to such factors as morale, troop quality and/or leadership leave one with the strong impression that an inferential link between depth of formation and success in othismos (the success of such deep formations seems to be eventual rather than immediate) is quite natural.

And to repeat, for those to whom othismos is all about the shape of the hoplite aspis, other times, other places, armies saw an advantage in deep formations.  Even if the aspis allowed the perfection of pushing, it clearly wasn't enough to prevent the hoplite being replaced by deep formations with small shields and pikes.

A very pertinent observation: we are not told what depth the Thebans used at Chaeronea (338 BC), where the combined armies of Thebes and Athens faced up to Philip II's Macedonians, but it would be surprising if Thebes had abandoned its preferred 50-deep hoplite phalanx.  Athens and Thebes lost.  At the Granicus, a significant force of hoplites was cut apart for trivial loss.  At Issus, a larger force of hoplites seems to have fought one-third of their number of phalangites to a standstill - with the aid of palisades and a river bank (the hoplites at Issus seem to have been deployed in very great depth, which should have given them an irresistible othismotic advantage) and at Gaugamela, as seemingly at Chaeronea, Alexander's cavalry (never mind infantry) went through hoplites like a knife through butter.

It would seem that while in othismos the shield was the principal instrument of transmitting force, the Macedonians used the pike point for this purpose - apparently to greater effect, as to the best of my knowledge a hoplite shield has not impaled anyone yet.

Deep formations seem to have characterised armies of the Biblical period and its tail-end tradition-holder, the Achaemenid Empire.  My impression (without being able to produce source references) is that other armies which relied on mass rather than professionalism had a penchant for deep formations, perhaps as a way of combining the fighting potential of the few (usually front-rankers) with the potential intimidatory effect of the many (Herodotus VII.207 tells us that at the approach of the huge Persian army the Greeks guarding Thermopylae were 'seized with fear') and as a means of allowing a possibly stretched pool of officer talent to maintain control.

[Justin Swanton]

However, to pick up the depth theme again, does anyone in the classical world say that the reason for more depth is to maximise othismos? 

It would seem that while in othismos the shield was the principal instrument of transmitting force, the Macedonians used the pike point for this purpose - apparently to greater effect, as to the best of my knowledge a hoplite shield has not impaled anyone yet.

It occurred to me that the Macedonian phalanx was a very different animal to the Greek one. Even granted that the phalangite gripped his pike with two hands, the forward pressure he could produce with the pike would not be anywhere near the combined forward pressure of a 16 deep (never mind 50 deep) Greek phalanx. There is possibly a clue in the length of the pike: so many pike points projecting beyond the front rank of the Macedonian phalanx would most probably impale any Greek Hoplite who tried to advance into them, penetrating shields and body armour. The Greek othismos would never get a chance to weigh into effect.

[Justin Taylor]

It would seem that while in othismos the shield was the principal instrument of transmitting force,

Or perhaps it was nothing other than a shield and no force was transmitted at all, which is certainly my view.

The Macedonian pike then just becomes a weapon with longer reach, better combat performance and hence wins.

[Justin Swanton]

It would seem that while in othismos the shield was the principal instrument of transmitting force,

Or perhaps it was nothing other than a shield and no force was transmitted at all, which is certainly my view.

The Macedonian pike then just becomes a weapon with longer reach, better combat performance and hence wins.

Let me play devil's advocate and help you out here. Thinking about it, a pike, even if firmly held with two hands, should not deliver enough punch to penetrate a Greek shield, which was made of wood lined with bronze. Theoretically, what should happen when a Greek phalanx moves into a Macedonian one is that the Greek shields, with the enormous pressure conferred by othismos, knock the pikes out of the hands of the front Macedonian ranks, leaving the phalangites helpless when the hoplites ram into them, holding their own spears overarm to jab at their disarmed adversaries.

Comments, anyone?

[Patrick Waterson]

We have a description of what happened when a Roman cohort tried conclusions with a Macedonian phalanx, and this emphasises the penetrative power of the sarissa.

Meanwhile Aemilius advanced, and when he saw not only the other Macedonians, but those who constituted the phalanx, some with their bucklers, and some with their targets removed from their shoulders, and with their pikes inclined in one direction receiving the attack of the Romans, admiring the firmness of the serried ranks, and the bristling rampart of outstretched pikes, he was smitten at once with astonishment and terror, as if he had never seen so fearful a spectacle, and was afterwards in the habit of frequently referring to it, and making this statement respecting himself. Carefully concealing however at the time the agitation of his troubled mind, he with serene countenance and careless aspect, and with his head and body undefended, drew up his line. The Pelignians were now fighting against the targeteers ['caetrati' = peltasts, i.e. hypaspists], who were ranged opposite to them, and when, after long and laborious efforts, they were unable to break through that compact array, Salius, who was commanding the Pelignians, seized a standard and threw it among the enemy. [8] On this a prodigious conflict was excited, whilst on the one side the Pelignians strove with all their might to recover the standard, the Macedonians on the other to retain possession of it. The former strove either to cut through the long spears of the Macedonians, or to repel them with the bosses of their bucklers, or in some instances to turn them aside even with their naked hands, while the latter drove them firmly grasped with both hands with such force against the enemy, who rushed on with rash and heedless fury, that, penetrating shields and bucklers, they overthrew the men transfixed in like manner. The first ranks of the Pelignians having been thus defeated, those who stood behind them were also cut down, and the rest retreated towards the mountain which the inhabitants call Mount Olocrus, though not yet in open flight. - Livy XLIV.40.7-8

We might expect the Roman shields, which were presumably no less tough than hoplite shields, to have the pike points bounce off them - instead, the points went straight through the shield, the armour and the man himself.  Yet where the Romans did not force the issue they were simply held at bay.

As the attack began, Aemilius came up and found that the Macedonian battalions had already planted the tips of their long spears in the shields of the Romans, who were thus prevented from reaching them with their swords. - Plutarch, Aemilius 19.1

The key to what happened seems to be that as long as the fight did not involve mutual pressing forwards, the pikes simply held the enemy at a distance and encouraged him backwards.  The moment the opponent tried to force the issue (and attempting othismos would do this), he adds force to the point where the pike meets the shield and the pike, strongly gripped by its owner (who can feel the application of extra force and so applies stronger grip and counterpressure) has enough poundage per square inch to go through the shield and the armour behind it.

One trick in the days of UK pre-decimal coinage was to drive a needle through a penny.  This could not be done by hand, but a stroke from a small hammer on the end of the needle made it happen.  (Getting the needle out afterwards was well-nigh impossible, but bronze-lined wooden shields and mail/linen armour tend not to grip when penetrated.)  Application of additional force changes what points can and can not penetrate.

[Justin Swanton]

We might expect the Roman shields, which were presumably no less tough than hoplite shields, to have the pike points bounce off them - instead, the points went straight through the shield, the armour and the man himself.  Yet where the Romans did not force the issue they were simply held at bay.

As the attack began, Aemilius came up and found that the Macedonian battalions had already planted the tips of their long spears in the shields of the Romans, who were thus prevented from reaching them with their swords. - Plutarch, Aemilius 19.1

The key to what happened seems to be that as long as the fight did not involve mutual pressing forwards, the pikes simply held the enemy at a distance and encouraged him backwards.  The moment the opponent tried to force the issue (and attempting othismos would do this), he adds force to the point where the pike meets the shield and the pike, strongly gripped by its owner (who can feel the application of extra force and so applies stronger grip and counterpressure) has enough poundage per square inch to go through the shield and the armour behind it.

One trick in the days of UK pre-decimal coinage was to drive a needle through a penny.  This could not be done by hand, but a stroke from a small hammer on the end of the needle made it happen.  (Getting the needle out afterwards was well-nigh impossible, but bronze-lined wooden shields and mail/linen armour tend not to grip when penetrated.)  Application of additional force changes what points can and can not penetrate.

One difference between the Greek and Roman shield is that the former was covered by a thin layer of bronze. A hammer blow to a needle equates to a large force concentrated onto a very small area - the needlepoint. A pike point is much broader and the phalangite does not have a hammer to increase the force he can apply to the pike handle. Is the force he can apply merely by gripping the handle enough to penetrate bronze and wood? Has anyone tried this experimentally? My gut feeling is that it would be impossible without something else coming into play.

Should the phalangite rest the butt of his pike in the ground and let the hoplites press into the point then there would certainly be enough penetrating power. Or should several phalangites grip the same pike one might also get the same effect. But one man by himself? Not so sure...

It clearly did happen, I'm just wondering how.

[Justin Taylor]

Let me play devil's advocate and help you out here. Thinking about it, a pike, even if firmly held with two hands, should not deliver enough punch to penetrate a Greek shield, which was made of wood lined with bronze.

What I would prefer to do, is rather than go through the shield would be to go around it, into the face or shoulder of the enemy (assuming that the legs are not a target area)



Basically the soft and easy targets.

Is there any point in making a shield that does not protect you? Now the pilum is supposed to be able to go through a shield and spear the user behind but thats a very narrow point.

Advantage of the pike over the long spear? More points for the enemy to deal with.

[Erpingham]

One difference between the Greek and Roman shield is that the former was covered by a thin layer of bronze.

IIRC, a very thin layer.  It isn't bronze armour, just a protective/decorative layer.  Other cultures (e.g. Romans) went with a leather cover for the same purpose.

Should the phalangite rest the butt of his pike in the ground and let the hoplites press into the point then there would certainly be enough penetrating power. Or should several phalangites grip the same pike one might also get the same effect. But one man by himself? Not so sure...

It clearly did happen, I'm just wondering how.

You're now coming entangled with the idea that all people are doing is leaning and pushing.  Almost certainly, hoplites didn't throw themselves onto pike points to get them to work   Spear and pike techniques of other times (and bayonet drills) involved a violent thrust over a short distance.  Humans can put a great deal of power into a short, explosive thrust.  With the weight of a pike behind it, it probably had decent armour piercing capabilities.  I'm more baffled as to why you'd want to push your pike into someones shield - seems like a good way of disarming yourself.  Therefore, I suspect that a line of jabbing pike points meets some hoplites.  Unsuccessful ones wedge in shields, successful ones in bodies.