The Hoplite phalanx

[RichT]

PMB:

If we were to transpose this rendering into a hoplite setting, your version would have all the ranks packed forward tight, but the men fighting at some 5-7 feet of space between the promachoi as they spear fence.  This is silly.

Reread the Maurice passage. "They tighten up or close ranks when the line gets to about two or three bow shots from the enemy's line". If two to three bow shots is not silly, then I don't see why 5-7 feet is.

And anyway, why would anyone transpose Maurice's description into a hoplite battle? I think they are totally different things. Hoplites no doubt used some tightening and closing in some circumstances, but really tight formations came in with the Macedonian phalanx, which forms the basis for the tactical tradition which Maurice is inheriting and building on.

the promachoi lead everything.  In spear fencing the rear ranks do not crowd in, but once the promachoi move to the sword, the file moves up in physical support.

I find it hard to envisage a stage of battle that requires everybody (the front several ranks at least, presumably) to drop their spears. I guess the Sir John Smythe passage is an example of something a little bit similar (though how widely his suggestions were adopted isn't clear) but still quite different. A failure of imagination on my part, perhaps.

Good we are getting somewhere.

No, I don't think we are.

Clearly othismos is a state where men are packed together tight.

Depending on what you mean by 'tight', this isn't clear to me at all. To me, othismos is a state where people are pushing and jostling each other. The non-military examples of usage of othismos or otheo words include some crushes (around gates etc) - but just as many (in fact more) that are just the pushing and jostling of crowds or groups of people, often in the open or around a general or whatever - and as I said, Pol 4.58.9 to me suggests that a crush is something additional to, not inherent in, the jostling of a crowd.

The crowd is not simply standing real close together, it has a vector of movement, towards the gate or towards the enemy.

Strictly speaking this can't really be true can it - once the two forces are in contact there can no longer be a vector of movement - unless one falls back but then you have said that when this happens the crush unpacks. There is a vector of force. But I suspect I am splitting hairs here - I know what you mean.

So, we have written of[f] my experiment and literary sources

Not at all. I think your experiment is very useful for the evidence it provides about the survivability of a crush situation - but I don't think it provides any evidence that such a crush situation happened, or would be deliberately sought out. I certainly haven't written off literary sources since I think they provide the answer - I have just written off any chance of persuading some people of my point of view using only literary evidence.

The shape of the shield is a nice argument, I get it. I'm not convinced that crowd-thismos is the only (or even best) explanation for the shape of the shield - we'd have to first rule out all other likely explanations. Now I don't suppose it matters to you whether I'm convinced or not. Any theory stands or falls on its general acceptance, as well as its inherent value. Maybe everyone (nearly everyone) will be won round to crowd-thismos as they were once won round to scrum-thismos. Time will tell! At any rate I suspect we are done here - I do appreciate your practical and experimental approach and have found the discussion interesting.

[Erpingham]

To rally to Sir John's aid, we have focussed a bit on his formation rather than intention.  His men are not going to drop their pikes if the "push" forces the enemy back (or even knocks them down).  But if the enemy hold, the rear ranks will by their momentum push the front men well within the reach of their own pikes.  These will become more of an encumberance than a weapon, hence time to ditch them and draw a shorter weapon.

Now there isn't a direct parallel to hoplites, but we know hoplites could close shield-to-shield, crest-to-crest, in which circumstance a 9ft spear would be a bit awkward.  Similar problem, similar solution.

[RichT]

To be clear, you don't need to rally to SJS's aid. He's not under attack. I can quite see that hoplites would take to swords or daggers when things got close (or spears got broken). Of course.

[PMBardunias]

Reread the Maurice passage. "They tighten up or close ranks when the line gets to about two or three bow shots from the enemy's line". If two to three bow shots is not silly, then I don't see why 5-7 feet is.

I little bit of reenactment would make this clear.  The front ranks of a Fulcum are not fighting, at best they throw something once in a while or ward off cavalry.  Outside of Game of Thrones, a single tiered shield-wall with destroy a multi-tiered fulcum in close combat.  A Greek phalanx would just push the whole mess over like they did the Persian shields on kick-stands at Plataia, or buried in the ground as at Mycale.

And anyway, why would anyone transpose Maurice's description into a hoplite battle? I think they are totally different things. Hoplites no doubt used some tightening and closing in some circumstances, but really tight formations came in with the Macedonian phalanx, which forms the basis for the tactical tradition which Maurice is inheriting and building on.

Depends on what you mean by tight.  I agree that the 45cm frontage is only appropriate for sarissaphoroi. Hoplites can't form much more than 60cm and be effective. By the way, 90cm is about rim to rim, 72cm is an overlap of the shoulder section, and 60cm overlaps well across the shield face. 45 cm, or half a shield face, is obviously impossible with an arm in the porpax.

I find it hard to envisage a stage of battle that requires everybody (the front several ranks at least, presumably) to drop their spears. I guess the Sir John Smythe passage is an example of something a little bit similar (though how widely his suggestions were adopted isn't clear) but still quite different. A failure of imagination on my part, perhaps.

Spears broke quite often, there is much evidence for this in the primary literature. Once your spear broke, you had to move to the sword or stand there and probably die.  Because the dory was 9' and the sword at most 2', usually less, you cannot remain at the same range as your fellow promachoi.  As you move in, they either have to fight around you, or move with you.  From your foe's perspective, he either has to hope the man behind him stops you, or drop his own spear because you are well within the reach of your 9' spear. The objection I often hear that you cannot close on a line of spears is belied by the simple fact that we are told it happened. The result is that once the battle moves in one place to swords, there will be pressure on those men fighting beside them to do so as well. The result is that the whole taxis on taxis battle closes like a zipper.

Strictly speaking this can't really be true can it - once the two forces are in contact there can no longer be a vector of movement - unless one falls back but then you have said that when this happens the crush unpacks. There is a vector of force. But I suspect I am splitting hairs here - I know what you mean.

For our purposes it just means the velocity is zero.  But the force vector is the one we are of course truly interested in, the movement vector is just the reason it exists.

So, we have written of[f] my experiment and literary sources

Not at all. I think your experiment is very useful for the evidence it provides about the survivability of a crush situation - but I don't think it provides any evidence that such a crush situation happened, or would be deliberately sought out. I certainly haven't written off literary sources since I think they provide the answer - I have just written off any chance of persuading some people of my point of view using only literary evidence.

The shape of the shield is a nice argument, I get it. I'm not convinced that crowd-thismos is the only (or even best) explanation for the shape of the shield - we'd have to first rule out all other likely explanations. Now I don't suppose it matters to you whether I'm convinced or not. Any theory stands or falls on its general acceptance, as well as its inherent value. Maybe everyone (nearly everyone) will be won round to crowd-thismos as they were once won round to scrum-thismos. Time will tell! At any rate I suspect we are done here - I do appreciate your practical and experimental approach and have found the discussion interesting.

No, I meant it as written. Shield morphology is an additional avenue of study. Literary sources cannot be convincing in this unless something new pops up. The interpretations are too subjective and the sources unclear.

I very much hope that fellows like you will come around. I think my interpretation goes a long way to reconciling the views of both orthodoxy and heretics. Most of the best features of each are contained within it and some of the true silliness of both sides rejected. The fact that for many now the argument on othismos has come down to a crowd-like push vs men jostling and pushing each other shield on shield while the rear ranks close up on them and push, is as close as I need to come to victory if you realize that my othismos emerges naturally from close in fighting while the rear ranks push forward. When I started this the most common options were a mad charge of unhorsed lancers VS an open order motley mix of heavy and light troops.

To rally to Sir John's aid, we have focussed a bit on his formation rather than intention.  His men are not going to drop their pikes if the "push" forces the enemy back (or even knocks them down).  But if the enemy hold, the rear ranks will by their momentum push the front men well within the reach of their own pikes.  These will become more of an encumberance than a weapon, hence time to ditch them and draw a shorter weapon.

Now there isn't a direct parallel to hoplites, but we know hoplites could close shield-to-shield, crest-to-crest, in which circumstance a 9ft spear would be a bit awkward.  Similar problem, similar solution.

The "grab your spears in the middle and everyone charge together Swiss style" charge is very much what Chris Mathew presented for hoplites and is worth a read, though I disagree on many points.  One reason he is probably wrong about hoplites is that I do think this is directly applicable to sarissaphoroi and anachronistic for hoplites.
Do any of you know of an instance of men fighting with sword and shield within the confines of their own sarissa hedge? A Macedonian pikeman who drops his sarissa is not all that different from a renaissance sword and rotella man.  Here is as close as I have: Polyaenus ii.29.2 At the siege of Edessa, when a breach was effected in the walls, and the spear-men, (whose spears were sixteen cubits long) sallied out upon the assailants, Cleonymus deepened his phalanx, and ordered the front line to use no arms; but with both hands to seize the enemy's spears, and hold them fast; while the next rank immediately advanced, and closed upon them. Their spears thus seized, the men retreated; but the next rank, pressing on them, either took them prisoners, or slew them. By this manoeuvre of Cleonymus the long and formidable spear was rendered useless, and became rather an incumbrance, than a weapon of offence.

[Flaminpig0]

Maybe he simply believes in attrition?

Part of his practise for a Three Billy Goats Gruff cosplay act?

[Erpingham]

The front ranks of a Fulcum are not fighting, at best they throw something once in a while or ward off cavalry.

While I agree on the attacking fulcum (it is only using its double layer shields as a missile defence to get up close - it doesn't try to advance to contact like this), the anti-cavalry version is not deciding on whether it contacts - the cavalry is.  It is pretty clear that spears are intended to be used in this formation, in both the Maurice and Arrian version.

The "grab your spears in the middle and everyone charge together Swiss style" charge

Sir John's version is much more plodding but determined, a bit like some people think of for Spartans.  But I leave it to the experts on whether Spartan practice was notably different fromn, say, Athenian.

[PMBardunias]

The front ranks of a Fulcum are not fighting, at best they throw something once in a while or ward off cavalry.

While I agree on the attacking fulcum (it is only using its double layer shields as a missile defence to get up close - it doesn't try to advance to contact like this), the anti-cavalry version is not deciding on whether it contacts - the cavalry is.  It is pretty clear that spears are intended to be used in this formation, in both the Maurice and Arrian version.

Contact with cavalry is far different that contact with another shield wall.  This is the "Warding" I referred to. The bottom rank probably has their spear butts braced on the ground, the second can thrust in such a limited range that it is more bluster than threat, but the third rank an those behind would be not only stabbing at horsemen, but throwing things at them as well.  Fighting like this against infantry would not go well, though there are incidents of light infantry attacking a fulcum if I recall. I seem to remember a story of some barbarian running across the shields, but I am not sure where I am dragging that up from.  My point refers to a concerted clash of heavy infantry.

Sir John's version is much more plodding but determined, a bit like some people think of for Spartans.  But I leave it to the experts on whether Spartan practice was notably different fromn, say, Athenian.

If I recall Mathew advocates a moderate advance in close order like these pikemen. This is something that I think pretty clearly did not happen, with the possible exception you describe.  As Thucydides tells us, all hoplite armies lose their order in the advance.

[PMBardunias]

I was at the Vatican recently and had a chance to get a close look at the Bomarzo aspis and take pics.  This is the odd profile I wrote of, it is quite easy, correctly or not, to see this as a load bearing structure. I thought some might enjoy seeing the real thing, I know I did.