Heavy infantry fighting density

[Justin Swanton]

Below is how we double from open order (a bit less than 2m) to close order (about 72cm). For 1m intervals, the aspis itself is a yardstick, for opened order you simply hold out your aspis, which extends a bit further than your hand, but not another 1m because of the central porpax placement- some of the apsis is behind your own back in this position. You could of course lean a bit to get the full 2m spacing if so trained.

Contrary to what you might read, hoplites cannot form up at 45cm with 1m aspides with the shield faces in a line towards the enemy. Even if you could fight in this tight a spacing, you have an arm in the porpax that gets in the way. Mathews spacing was mentioned earlier, but he never shows hoplites in 45cm (18") spacing.  See my measurement of his figure using one of the shield diameters for scale.  The only way you can form at 45cm with an aspis is to angle it behind the man to your left, obliquely across your front- much like the sarissaphoroi did. The 45cm spacing has to be for Sarissaphoroi.

I get how hoplites could use their outstretched shields to establish open order. Question: open order is marching order, so how would they maintain a constant distance between files? I doubt they would keep on stretching out their shields. My take is that the file leaders eyeballed it.

[Erpingham]

I get how hoplites could use their outstretched shields to establish open order. Question: open order is marching order, so how would they maintain a constant distance between files? I doubt they would keep on stretching out their shields. My take is that the file leaders eyeballed it.

It may be that starting off in march order set by the shield method and trying to hold their distance as best they could till they halted and could reform (either back to open order or to close up) was good enough.  We are talking practical drill not parade or display, after all.

If we look at what Kellie says, you couldn't practically reset the ranks on the march according to his method either.  In fact, his wording is a bit obscure - you could read it that the soldiers learn their distances using the method he gives, not that they used the method in action.  So you may be right that, once set in their ranks and files, it relied on the experienced leaders and closers (and any potential half file or pempad leaders) to keep things in order with their experienced eye.

[PMBardunias]

I get how hoplites could use their outstretched shields to establish open order. Question: open order is marching order, so how would they maintain a constant distance between files? I doubt they would keep on stretching out their shields. My take is that the file leaders eyeballed it.

This is going to be way more than you asked for, but here goes:

The study of swarm behavior has shown how this works.  The equivalent term to "frontage" in our military context is nearest-neighbor distance. One thing that I am trying to push is that for most armies this distance was not determined by a leader in what we call a top-down fashion, but determined by individuals in a bottom-up fashion as we see in animal herds, swarms, or flocks. The counter argument that I often get is that everyone knows a crowd is the opposite of a well-drilled army, but this is only true if the order for the army was originally imparted by drill. WHat we do see in some descriptions, like the Saxon Battle of Maldon, is a leader walking the front and dressing ranks that have formed on their own.

So how do animals do it?  They eyeball spacing. Obviously nothing else would work for flying birds.  We do this as well. Pay attention to your spacing next time you are walking with an acquaintance, then with a friend, then with a significant other. You have natural spacings, identified through studies, for each of these (see the image below).  You will also walk closer together as the street gets more crowded. Birds do this as the flocks get bigger.  I work on termites, and their soldiers naturally form "shield walls" because all of their weapons (a bite and a chemical release) are in the head, so they need to shield their soft hindquarters from attack (see below).  They are blind, so they judge this by tactile interactions. Men with big shields that protect them on one plane group for similar reasons.

If you have never seen a murmuration of starlings, take a look here.  Such coordination would be the envy of any general: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pRC-lPuhuU

This is about as close as you will get the coordination of ancient combat for groups like the archaic Greeks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqIAWcTLKx8&spfreload=10

This last video shows the problem with spacing by eyeball.  A "natural" 6' frontage can be eyeballed and work fine if you are marching in long files only a few files wide.  It you are in 2 to 5 files lets say, and each file veers a bit at random, it is no problem for the other files to give out a bit to compensate.  If you watch people walk down the street, as a pair they veer, but they match each other's random veering so it looks like constant spacing. This is impossible with very wide ranks. Random veering cannot be compensated for easily because you simply have too many men who need to move, all of whom are on a slight reaction delay.  Now you need some more concrete connection that allows you to limit your own veering, or at least communicate it through tactile information down the line immediately, and get immediate feedback.  This is why most armies advance either in minimum spacing or literally shoulder to shoulder. With hoplites the aspis helps greatly. The large projection to the left lets you keep frontage uniform. Running makes this even harder because you are more likely to veer and have to react even faster. For this reason if you watch a bunch of kids run, they tend to converge towards the center and transform from a line into a narrower blob as some pull ahead and some get squeezed out of rank behind. Again my experience is with hoplites, and the aspis really helps you stay in line while running, but Thucydides tells us that all armies lose their form in the charge.

[Justin Swanton]

Many thanks for this Paul. However the question remains: was open order a marching order or an order that simply permitted file penetration by light troops? If the latter then no problem: it would be formed by files in intermediate order fusing together to create the open order. If it was a marching order then how was the spacing maintained, since natural correction was difficult given the width of the line?

[Andreas Johansson]

Again my experience is with hoplites, and the aspis really helps you stay in line while running, but Thucydides tells us that all armies lose their form in the charge.

It's a constant observation in works on early modern warfare that wide formations inevitably degrade when advancing. The introduction of cadenced marching reduced but didn't eliminate the problem.

[Jim Webster]

Another thought to follow on from Paul's comments is that a hoplite or shield and spear carrying infantryman is going to feel 'larger' and is going to want more room around him than if he's just in his tunic walking down to the gymnasium with his friends. His 'eyeball' spacing probably insists on a little more room.
So a bunch of hoplites milling about would probably naturally stand further apart than the bunch of football supporters

[Patrick Waterson]

Interesting to note with the Russian football hooligans the initial forming up into a deep formation, use of war cries, slow mutual advance to contact, rear rank missile fire, extension to cover flanks after contact, skirmishing on the flanks, distortion of the batle line under pressure and the eventual rout and pursuit.

[Mark G]

Sounds like you had an interesting weekend then , Pat.

[Imperial Dave]

its equally useful for looking at spacing as well as the 'flock' mentality of responding to a charge by horses in a semi real combat!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qhUTF4hOp8

[PMBardunias]

Interesting to note with the Russian football hooligans the initial forming up into a deep formation, use of war cries, slow mutual advance to contact, rear rank missile fire, extension to cover flanks after contact, skirmishing on the flanks, distortion of the batle line under pressure and the eventual rout and pursuit.

That video changed my thinking about archaic hoplites. I think Tyrtaeus could easily have described that scene.

[PMBardunias]

its equally useful for looking at spacing as well as the 'flock' mentality of responding to a charge by horses in a semi real combat!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qhUTF4hOp8

Yes, the crowd looks just like a school of fish as a shark goes through.  It also shows the whole conflict between cavalry and infantry.  The crowd broke and parted for the horses in fear.  Had an author been describing this they would have "charged right through the infantry", though of course that is not what happened.  Had the crowd been denser and unable to part, the horses would have been stopped. Then they and their riders would have to try to wade into the crowd, which is very dangerous for the horse, but the rider gains a huge height advantage with weapon strikes. We see some riders raining down blows from above in the video with their clubs.

[PMBardunias]

Many thanks for this Paul. However the question remains: was open order a marching order or an order that simply permitted file penetration by light troops? If the latter then no problem: it would be formed by files in intermediate order fusing together to create the open order. If it was a marching order then how was the spacing maintained, since natural correction was difficult given the width of the line?

Personally, I think the designation of more than 3' of frontage as "natural" comes from its use in marching columns only a few abreast where the spacing is set by 2 or 3 (or more, but a few) column leaders and the rest snake out behind in long marching file. I think the mathematical precision of 3' and 6' spacing most likely a figment of the hellenistic imagination, but such could be eyeballed.  My experience tells me that marching in 6' spacing with a long rank would end up in clumping and gaps, and charging would be impossible without tearing the line apart.

[Erpingham]

We do need to remember that we are seeing a crowd of protestors armed with plackards, not a beweaponed, formed body. The cavalry are trained on trained horses (themselves much bigger than any warhorse of our period), wearing body armour and with effective close combat weapons (batons rather than clubs, though the difference is probably a bit academic when you are hit with one).  So, I think this may tell us something about, say, knights charging a peasant mob but not so much about Companions against hoplites. 

[PMBardunias]

We do need to remember that we are seeing a crowd of protestors armed with plackards, not a beweaponed, formed body. The cavalry are trained on trained horses (themselves much bigger than any warhorse of our period), wearing body armour and with effective close combat weapons (batons rather than clubs, though the difference is probably a bit academic when you are hit with one).  So, I think this may tell us something about, say, knights charging a peasant mob but not so much about Companions against hoplites.

I agree. A group of hoplites would have provided a very different experience for those horsemen   But we do see men pull apart to make way for scythed chariots for example.

[davidb]

Remember police horses are not taught to charge home at the gallop, nor are they trained as a warhorse.  They are usually trained to push their way into a crowd, not run over them. So it doesn't give us much insight into charging cavalry.