Saxon shield walls and othismos

[PMBardunias]

If you read about hoplites, you will soon come to the debate on the form of the early Greek phalanx. One side has put forth that the early phalanx was exactly like the later classical Greek phalanx of Thucydides and Xenophon, charging right into battle with large spears, pushing each other in mass, with no missile capability for the phalanx oh hoplites.  The other, based initially on an examination of shieldless New Guinenan tribesmen, see a fluid type of battle during this period, where hoplites threw spears and were intermingled with archers and even cavalry into a diffuse cloud. I have challenged both of these, and instead have suggested that both sides are right and wrong in turns.  I believe they are looking, like the blind men and the elephant, at a shield-wall similar to the Saxon scild-weall or bordhaga and the Viking skjald-borg. In this shield-wall, ranks are not so deep as those of the later Greek phalanx and men stand behind the front rank of armored shieldmen and throw or shoot things over the top (much like the Germano-roman fulcum).

I began looking at this comparison when I was looking at how groups of men can appear in ordered ranks, without the formal rank and file drill that had been fetishized in the early modern period. In comparing Saxon poems like The Battle of Maldon with Archaic Greek poems by Tyrtaios, I saw great similarity. A saxon-style shield wall would fit the requirements of both schools of thought on early hoplites if they truly understood it.  Saxons and Vikings threw spears, a Norse work, The Kings Mirror specifically tells its readers not to throw their last spear and men can be seen on the Bayeaux tapestry holding bundles of replacement spears behind the ranks. They also seem to have fought in an overlapping line of shields, with archers shooting over the top.  Thus we have something that from the front looks like a later phalanx, but from the rear is a mixed unit of shield men and missile troops.  No need to mix them randomly. In fact, having been shot at by arrows in a shield-wall, it would be harder to keep me from standing beside other men with big shields, than to stand in a random pattern with light troops. This, by the way is how order arises from chaos on its own, but that is another discussion.

Part of this discussion should be the other elephant in a room of hoplites, othismos, or the mass pushing against the enemy line to break their cohesion.  I do not believe true othismos was a feature of Saxon warfare, but a lesser version of it almost surely was. It is this lesser version that would have been the norm for early hoplites which evolved over time into the great pushing matches that ended battles like Delium and Leuktra.

So let's start with this, attached below is how I envision an archaic Greek shield-wall.  Missile troops, javelins, archers, and stone throwers, make up the rear ranks of the mass. They only move to the fore on the flanks and, as shown to the left, when small groups spall off to fight in the beaten zone between battle lines prior to or between the genereal advance of the line to spear range. Cavalry do not intermix, but the men often ride to the battle and a leader might not dismount until just before combat. How Saxony does this look?  What is the same or different? I am attempting to shore up my argument, so this discussion will benefit me greatly.

[Erpingham]

I'll start with a general opinion, which is I think your reconstruction is pretty plausible.  This may be as close as we can get, given the shortage of evidence.  However, that has never stopped epic debates on the forum before

The problem with comparing early phalanxes with Saxon shieldwalls is we need to be cautious in what we know about them is also limited and rather poetic - a bit like using Tyrtaeus for the early phalanx. 

Shieldwalls do seem to be a common tactical solution.  Early Germans form shieldwalls with the best fighters with big shields at the front and the lesser fighters lobbing spears and other missiles from the back, for example.  Saxon and Viking elite shooters turn up among the shieldwall but we know that lesser types lobbed missiles from the back.  Byzantines placed shooters behind the close-combat shieldwall in the early Middle Ages.  There is an early medieval Spanish picture of an infantry line in close order supported by unarmoured archers shooting over their heads.  Hence, on a parallel evolution answer to a common problem, it seems plausible.

One issue for me was were there a class of partially equipped men who fought in close order in the middle ranks of the phalanx?  When light troops are moved out of the early phalanx to become the Classical phalanx, do those who can convert to hoplites and others drop into a psiloi role?  Trying perhaps to draw some parallels out of Etrusco-Roman phalanx where their were the fully equipped hoplites seconded by lighter big-shield types and finally a lighter group?

One other thing would be the little wedge of men pushing out in the diagram.  This reminds me of the descriptions of Roman warfare where there were surges to close combat in parts of the line while missile exchange continued in others ( a controversial theory, I admit) or the similar thinking behind the so-called Western Mediterranean Way of War theory (even more controversial around these parts).   Or perhaps the "peninsular and inlet" view of shieldwall battle, where battlelines are seperated at spear fencing or missile chucking range and individual bands make attacks, seeking a weakness.  If perceived successful, other bands reinforce them.  If unsuccessful, they fall back to the shieldwall line to lick their wounds. 

[PMBardunias]

I'll start with a general opinion, which is I think your reconstruction is pretty plausible.  This may be as close as we can get, given the shortage of evidence.  However, that has never stopped epic debates on the forum before The problem with comparing early phalanxes with Saxon shieldwalls is we need to be cautious in what we know about them is also limited and rather poetic - a bit like using Tyrtaeus for the early phalanx. 

Agreed. It is a bigger problem because I am not well versed in the primary sources and so am usually a slave to opinion, and opinions seem to be split on almost every topic. Hence my call for more, and more learned opinions. You recently cited a Norse source on how formations came together, that I did not have for example.

Shieldwalls do seem to be a common tactical solution.  Early Germans form shieldwalls with the best fighters with big shields at the front and the lesser fighters lobbing spears and other missiles from the back, for example.  Saxon and Viking elite shooters turn up among the shieldwall but we know that lesser types lobbed missiles from the back.  Byzantines placed shooters behind the close-combat shieldwall in the early Middle Ages.  There is an early medieval Spanish picture of an infantry line in close order supported by unarmoured archers shooting over their heads.  Hence, on a parallel evolution answer to a common problem, it seems plausible.

Can you give me examples of elite shooters among the shield wall?  Are these in the front ranks, are they in front of the wall and then retire back into it? Essentially references for anything you mentioned above would be useful.

One issue for me was were there a class of partially equipped men who fought in close order in the middle ranks of the phalanx?  When light troops are moved out of the early phalanx to become the Classical phalanx, do those who can convert to hoplites and others drop into a psiloi role?  Trying perhaps to draw some parallels out of Etrusco-Roman phalanx where their were the fully equipped hoplites seconded by lighter big-shield types and finally a lighter group?

I think the transition from a system where you had a think front of hoplites backed by psiloi throwing missiles was phased out due to an increase in the number of men who could afford the minimum hoplite panoply. As more hoplites were seen on battlefields, it is likely that they did not just extend the battle line- especially in Greece with so many battlefields in valleys. Instead they formed deeper, perhaps due to limitations in command structure as well.  Deeper phalanxes of hoplites make for better shock combat, but inhibit the direct fire of missiles. Missile troops are now something like (1 meter  x The number of men in depth) behind the front line. They are at a huge disadvantage in that they cannot fire directly at an enemy or effectively aim over the men in front. Xenophon tells us a second disadvantage is that they give up so much ground in range by being far behind the front ranks. A fulcum gets around this by forming the 4 ranks right on top of one another.  So if a shallow line with a strong missile component faces a deep line with a weak one, the obvious answer is for the strong to charge to close quarters. Once the armor/shield allows for most of your men to charge through a barrage of missiles, this become more attractive. I think it was the threat of missiles, more than close combat, that drove all of the various armor pieces we see in early, but not later hoplites like thigh, arm, foot and ankle guards. Part of this is the awkwardness of forming a defensive fulcum with a porpax shield. Maurice specifically tells us that such a fulcum is needed when the front ranks do not have greaves because the two tiers of shields cover a man completely. If you cannot do this, it seems you need better leg armor.  Now this was not a one-time event and a sea change in hoplite warfare. I think the higher numbers of hoplites on battlefields in the Lelantine war, what we could consider Greece's WWI, account for the tradition that no missile troops took part.  But as late as Plataia, we see light troops behind the heavies in the case of at least some of the 7 helots per Spartan hoplite. Of course the joining of Scythian archers behind Athenian hoplites is another.

One other thing would be the little wedge of men pushing out in the diagram.  This reminds me of the descriptions of Roman warfare where there were surges to close combat in parts of the line while missile exchange continued in others ( a controversial theory, I admit) or the similar thinking behind the so-called Western Mediterranean Way of War theory (even more controversial around these parts).   Or perhaps the "peninsular and inlet" view of shieldwall battle, where battlelines are seperated at spear fencing or missile chucking range and individual bands make attacks, seeking a weakness.  If perceived successful, other bands reinforce them.  If unsuccessful, they fall back to the shieldwall line to lick their wounds.

I believe sallies by parts of the line while others stayed at missile range is the primitive condition for shield wall fighting. Once the battle line gets long enough to be made up of individual units, primitively different leaders and their retinues, coordination between them becomes a problem. If battles consisted of cycles of charges, fighting, then pulling apart, which I think likely, then I think such differential fighting along the line would emerge whether you  want it or not.
I think the missile battle phase never ended in Magna Grecia. If true, then the transition from phalanx to the later Roman system becomes straight forward. If we imagine a situation where light troops, and perhaps some of the heavies, come out from behind the ranks of heavies, fight a bit, then retire back behind them, then the big change becomes the acquisition of the scutum. This shield protects so well that is turns light troops into something heavier.  Now the "light" troops do not need to hide behind the heavies any longer. I can take a bunch of guys with a scutum and a little plate on their chests and send to close on enemy line troops. If the enemy heavies brush aside these jumped up peltasts, then I have the remnant of the old hoplite line, in the form of what would become the Triarii, for them to shelter and rally behind.

I recently wrote an article on the functions of shield walls in various cultures and Identified 3 things shield walls do.  Too often we focus on the form of these formations and not their function.  In my analysis, shield wall formations do three things:

1)   A wall of shields can form a Barricade, a literal wall behind which armored warriors throw spears or use missile weapons in a long-range duel. The formation allows a cutting edge of expensively equipped men to support a mass of unarmored men behind.  This is what the Persian Sparabara were optimized for- a wall of shields with high quality missile troops shooting over top. The Fulcum as well.

2)   The shield-wall provides a Bastion from which the troops of the wall itself, or skirmishers behind them, sally forth to attack the enemy line or meet enemy skirmishers in the beaten zone between opposing lines. Roman Triarii seem optimized for this.

3)   Last, the line can directly Bludgeon the enemy line and break them through close combat. Classical hoplites move right into this phase, but there are examples of them doing the other two as well.

I think all shield walls can do each of these, and that the more simple state is a wall that does each job well- like a Saxon wall or a primitive hoplite wall.  The question is to what degree they are optimized for each function.  You can think about where they would lay on a triangular distribution of these three functions.  See my figure attached for what I mean. If interested, I think the issue with this article is in stores now, or just email me for a word file without the pretty pictures.

[Erpingham]

Can you give me examples of elite shooters among the shield wall?

Well, there is the Maldon poem

Then their hostage helped eagerly:
he was of sturdy stock from Northumbria,
Ecglaf's son, he was named Æscferth.
He did not flinch back at all at the war-play,
but he sent forth arrows very frequently;
sometimes he shot into a shield, sometimes he skewered a warrior,
more than once in awhile he gave someone a wound,
so long as he was allowed to wield weapons. (265-72)

Unfortunately, it doesn't tell us any details.

We know that members of the Viking elite used bows in warfare, although the examples come from sea fights.  Other descriptions certainly show archery in shieldwall warfare but these could just as well be related to men shooting over the top of the shieldwall.

We could mention accounts of the legendary Battle of Bravellir.  This is "hero" stuff and its relationship to Viking warfare proper is disputable.  But it does contain plenty of heroes with bows, and bow skills and hand-to-hand fighting (and poetry) can be seen in the same, well rounded hero e.g.

Allied with these were Thorguy, with Thorwig, Tatar (Teit), and Hialte. These men voyaged to Leire with bodies armed for war; but they were also mighty in excellence of wit, and their trained courage matched their great stature; for they had skill in discharging arrows both from bow and catapult, and at fighting their foe as they commonly did, man to man; and also at readily stringing together verse in the speech of their country: so zealously had they trained mind and body alike.

If you've not read Bravellir, Saxo's version is here

[PMBardunias]

Thanks that helps. I agree it is hard to tell where they are standing. But I think either in front of the shield wall or behind shooting over are as likely as within the front rank.

[Erpingham]

Thanks that helps. I agree it is hard to tell where they are standing. But I think either in front of the shield wall or behind shooting over are as likely as within the front rank.

Agreed.  Although I think we are actually short of skirmishing in front of the shieldwall examples.  Most of our examples are either non-specific or relate to shooting from behind.  In the heroic Bravellir model, warriors, including archers, seem to be moving about a lot and less constrained by a rigid formation.  Yet Bravellir is famous for the fact that one army fights in a large wedge, even if the wedge details are probably later practice.  We might compare the descriptions to Irish accounts of Clontarf, where the two sides' formations were so dense you could drive a chariot across the top yet the descriptions of fighting have men penetrating deep into each others lines and fighting single combats.

Personally, given the fact we are deliberately discussing named characters, not anonymous rank and file, they would be part of the fully-armed shieldwall fighting fraternity and may well have stood in the first rank or two of a shieldwall.  But maybe not.


Addendum :

I've tracked down the Sogubrut version of the Bravellir fight.  Here is something on the original "Heroes of Telemark", a band of archers.

Then Ubbi killed the champion named Agnar, and he constantly cleared a path before himself, striking with two hands. Both of his arms were bloody to the shoulders. And then he attacked the Telemark men. When they saw him, they said, "Now we don't need to look for any other position in the ranks. Let's attack this man with arrows for a while, and before (gap) victory. And since it seems to everyone such a little thing that we came here, let's do all the more, so that we may seem bold men,"
They began to shoot at him, they who were the bravest of the Telemark men, Hadd the Hardy and Hroald Toe. They were such bold men at shooting, that they shot two dozen arrows Into his breast, and still he didn't die quickly. These men gave him his death—after he had killed six champions, and besides that had dealt great wounds to eleven champions, and had killed sixteen men of the Swedes and Gauts who stood in the front rank.

Ubbi has been rampaging up and down charging into the Swedish ranks and killing people.  Even the great hero Starkad has only been able to wound him.  Eventually, he comes upon the band from Telemark, who have been rather spurned for a position in the forefront of the battle line (it is unclear if this is because they are archers, or whether it is because they are from Telemark - probably the latter).  In a prefiguring of the great Indiana Jones scene, they just shoot him.