The Hoplite phalanx

[PMBardunias]

I'm going to be a bit nit-picky and that's part of a fulcum.  The minimum formation for Byzantine infantry under Maurice was four ranks and probably six.  Later it would be seven or eight.  If it was an anti-cavalry fulcum, the first two ranks bend down and ground the spearbutts.    The men in it are in 10th century dress, so they should have ranks of integral light infantry behind this formation and the whole should be closed off by two ranks of hoplites - heavy infantry.  The degree to which the file closers could compress the ranks in the 10th century fulcum must surely have been compromised by the light infantry core of the formation, a problem Maurice's fulcum didn't have because its light infantry were outside the hoplite formation.

Sorry first image I pulled offline.  Yes, I believe in the fulcum as Rance describes it.  It represents one of Three main functions of shield-walls- a Barricade from behind which men shoot or throw things.

[PMBardunias]

Maybe a direct question will help clarify: Do you believe that Maurice is describing the same sort of thing as the "othismos" you envisage for classical hoplites?

No.

Excellent, thanks. I think we can now usefully drop the Maurikian subthread until Patrick feels like arguing again that it is the same as (his interpretation of) Classical "othismos".

Before we throw the baby out with the bath water. The Fulcum itself is not a greek phalanx, but Maurice seems to think that men can push in combat as a group. As Rich posted: 2.6 "Horses cannot use their heads to push people in front of them evenly, as can infantry."  Which echoes the Arrian I posted and shows that they two believe men can push.

[Erpingham]

I think we can now usefully drop the Maurikian subthread

Curses - it made for interesting variety. Back to the men in bronze then.

[Andreas Johansson]

Before we throw the baby out with the bath water. The Fulcum itself is not a greek phalanx, but Maurice seems to think that men can push in combat as a group. As Rich posted: 2.6 "Horses cannot use their heads to push people in front of them evenly, as can infantry."  Which echoes the Arrian I posted and shows that they two believe men can push.

Has anyone denied that they can?

But infantry pushing in the Strategicon is, near as I can tell, always by rear ranks on front ranks within the same formation, never on the enemy: whereas, unless I'm much mistaken, pushing on the enemy is central to both your model and the model formerly known as scrum (TMFKAS).

For pushing on enemies you're probably better off looking for parallels in Renaissance pike fighting - I'm sure Anthony can supply a few choice quotations.

[PMBardunias]

Has anyone denied that they can?

But infantry pushing in the Strategicon is, near as I can tell, always by rear ranks on front ranks within the same formation, never on the enemy: whereas, unless I'm much mistaken, pushing on the enemy is central to both your model and the model formerly known as scrum (TMFKAS).

For pushing on enemies you're probably better off looking for parallels in Renaissance pike fighting - I'm sure Anthony can supply a few choice quotations.

A crowd-like othismos begins because the men in subsequent ranks move up to support the promachoi who are shield to shield with their foes.  In the Fuclum, the men are forming very dense, but there is nothing in front of them. Outside of a bad Viking movie, multi-tiered fulcums did not crash into each other.  So the two are not directly comparable.  But when the men in Fulcum did move to engage, they would have formed a plain old shield-wall.  Where you will find situations approaching othismos will be in the most extreme Saxon or Viking shield-wall clashes, or the battle of Zama: Livy 30.34.3 " As a consequence, the Romans made the enemy give ground in their very first charge, then pushing them back with their shields and elbows and moving forward on to the ground from which they had dislodged them, they made a considerable advance as though meeting with no resistance. When those in the rear became aware of the forward movement they too pressed on those in front thereby considerably increasing the weight of the thrust." Renaissance "push of pike" may have devolved into crowd like situations, but I doubt it was the design any more than it was with the Prussian "push of Bayonettes".

Hard to say though, because pre-othismos is universal for lines of men fighting at close quarters in ranks, but the possible level of pushing we see in Hoplite othismos is almost unique. It is usually seen when things go very wrong and one side is crowded in defeat.  The reason it is at all interesting to those studying hoplites is that it is not something seen commonly in other cultures.

[Patrick Waterson]

In Polyaenus' Stratagemata (II.3.,2) we get this passage:

"In the battle at Leuctra, Epaminondas commanded the Thebans, and Cleombrotus commanded the Lacedaemonians. The battle remained finely balanced for a long time, until Epaminondas called on his troops to give him one step more, and he would ensure the victory. They did as he asked; and they gained the victory. The Spartan king Cleombrotus was killed in the fighting, and the Laconians left the enemy in possession of the battlefield."

Evaluation?

[Jim Webster]

In Polyaenus' Stratagemata (II.3.,2) we get this passage:

"In the battle at Leuctra, Epaminondas commanded the Thebans, and Cleombrotus commanded the Lacedaemonians. The battle remained finely balanced for a long time, until Epaminondas called on his troops to give him one step more, and he would ensure the victory. They did as he asked; and they gained the victory. The Spartan king Cleombrotus was killed in the fighting, and the Laconians left the enemy in possession of the battlefield."

Evaluation?

you have two lines of spearmen, fencing or whatever you call it, with their spears. The two lines are separated by less than a spear length but they're not touching each other
Epaminondas notices that whilst the battle has been finely balanced for a long time, the Spartans are beginning to give ground, to drift back slightly to that slightly safer zone where the other guys spear doesn't quite reach.
And The Thebans are tired and are just letting them. So he calls for one step more to put his men back in to the zone where they'll be killing, not merely prodding ineffectively for the look of the thing. His men do step forward and the Spartan morale starts to crumble

The passage doesn't involve any need for pushing

[Flaminpig0]

In Polyaenus' Stratagemata (II.3.,2) we get this passage:

"In the battle at Leuctra, Epaminondas commanded the Thebans, and Cleombrotus commanded the Lacedaemonians. The battle remained finely balanced for a long time, until Epaminondas called on his troops to give him one step more, and he would ensure the victory. They did as he asked; and they gained the victory. The Spartan king Cleombrotus was killed in the fighting, and the Laconians left the enemy in possession of the battlefield."

Evaluation?

I wonder how Epaminondas would actually manage to issue that instruction to several thousand hoplites, particularly if he was fighting in the front rank.

[Flaminpig0]

In Polyaenus' Stratagemata (II.3.,2) we get this passage:

"In the battle at Leuctra, Epaminondas commanded the Thebans, and Cleombrotus commanded the Lacedaemonians. The battle remained finely balanced for a long time, until Epaminondas called on his troops to give him one step more, and he would ensure the victory. They did as he asked; and they gained the victory. The Spartan king Cleombrotus was killed in the fighting, and the Laconians left the enemy in possession of the battlefield."

Evaluation?

you have two lines of spearmen, fencing or whatever you call it, with their spears. The two lines are separated by less than a spear length but they're not touching each other
Epaminondas notices that whilst the battle has been finely balanced for a long time, the Spartans are beginning to give ground, to drift back slightly to that slightly safer zone where the other guys spear doesn't quite reach.
And The Thebans are tired and are just letting them. So he calls for one step more to put his men back in to the zone where they'll be killing, not merely prodding ineffectively for the look of the thing. His men do step forward and the Spartan morale starts to crumble

The passage doesn't involve any need for pushing

That seems much more plausible

The other alternative involves him being able to give a small  inspirational speech whilst being bodily pushed  against some Spartan by the troops behind him.

[Erpingham]

In Polyaenus' Stratagemata (II.3.,2) we get this passage:

"In the battle at Leuctra, Epaminondas commanded the Thebans, and Cleombrotus commanded the Lacedaemonians. The battle remained finely balanced for a long time, until Epaminondas called on his troops to give him one step more, and he would ensure the victory. They did as he asked; and they gained the victory. The Spartan king Cleombrotus was killed in the fighting, and the Laconians left the enemy in possession of the battlefield."

Evaluation?

I wonder how Epaminondas would actually manage to issue that instruction to several thousand hoplites, particularity if he was fighting in the front rank.

He doesn't - this is a heroic leadership story.  He is essentially saying "One more effort and they'll give".  It is actually one of those battle "speeches" which i find quite plausible.  It's very short, sharp and, especially as it leads to victory, memorable.  The error is to take it too literally (did he really think taking one stride forward would break the enemy?) or worse still, as a drill command.  But frankly, this is exactly the conversation we've had so many times before so I don't know why Patrick has raised it again.

[Andreas Johansson]

Maybe he simply believes in attrition?

[Erpingham]

Renaissance "push of pike" may have devolved into crowd like situations, but I doubt it was the design any more than it was with the Prussian "push of Bayonettes".

For clarity, "push" here didn't mean shoving, it meant thrusting pointed weapons into people.  Not necessarily literally but as an intent.  Pike units at "push of pike" weren't standing off, they had collided.  We have discussed before the two basic pike techniques of the 16th century.  We have foyning, where the two sides stop at the pikes length of the first couple of ranks and spar.  This needed men with plenty of weapons training and was popularised by Germans.  Rear pressure was to be avoided in this technique because it forced the front fighters onto the enemy, preventing them using their skills.

The other system was to go straight into "push of pike".  This was better for less well trained pikemen.  Monluc identified it as Swiss style.  I have posted a link to Sir John Smythe's detailed description of this style.  The pike unit closes up front to back, so that men are walking at the heels of the men in front.  It advances steadily at the enemy and when it comes to a pikes distance of the enemy, it lunges forward with its pikes together.  If the enemy don't give way, the formation crushes up as the men at the back continue to press forward.  The front rankers ditch pikes and draw short swords and daggers.  In theory this could be bloody, and there are tales of the front ranks wiping each other out, but by and large this doesn't seem to have happened.

What does offer to our study of hoplites?  I don't know.

[RichT]

Polyaenus' Stratagemata (II.3) we have evaluated numerous times, always with the same result as here. No point whatever in doing it again.

Paul - I've slightly lost track of what you are arguing for WRT the Maurice passage. For one thing, the comparison with the inability of cavalry to push doesn't come (necessarily) direct from Arrian, but from the Asclepiodotus/Aelian/Arrian tradition. What's interesting to me is that the word 'othismos' does not occur in A/A/A but was added by Maurice - but I don't know if that is enormously significant.

Nobody doubts the ability of infantry to push - and the A/A/A and Maurice passages confirm it. The point at issue is the purpose.

"For there can be no pressure (othismos) from the rear up through the ranks, as happens with an infantry formation, which may force the men in front to push forward against their will." requires some mental gymnastics to discount as the plainest meaning when reading it.

Yes I agree - and the plainest meaning is that explicitly given by all authors - that the formation closes up to force all members to keep moving forward and not hang back. Now (if I understand correctly) your position is that two such formations doing this in opposition to each other will necessarily then find themselves in a crowd crush situation when they meet (unless one gives way) - which is fine, but let's be clear that that is an additional assumption not explicitly stated by the sources and not required by the physics or dynamics of the situation (and I say it's not required because so far as I know it didn't happen at any other period of history).

Crowds and struggles around doors and gates etc - yes, and I take this to mean that 'othismos' or 'otheo' words in this case mean 'crowd' or 'struggle', not 'crush' - and indeed Pol 4.58.9 makes this clear by referring to 'the struggle (othismos) and crush (pnigmos - choking, suffocation)' as two things.

I don't think we are making any more forward progress with this. The experimental result of disproving the 'crush to death' objection to the crowd or scrum theories is useful, but it doesn't serve to provide any positive evidence of what did happen (as you recognise). Only literary or comparative evidence can help there - the literary we have done to death, the comparative is most fruitful but will always be subject to the 'hoplites were unique' objection.

[PMBardunias]

Yes I agree - and the plainest meaning is that explicitly given by all authors - that the formation closes up to force all members to keep moving forward and not hang back. Now (if I understand correctly) your position is that two such formations doing this in opposition to each other will necessarily then find themselves in a crowd crush situation when they meet (unless one gives way) - which is fine, but let's be clear that that is an additional assumption not explicitly stated by the sources and not required by the physics or dynamics of the situation (and I say it's not required because so far as I know it didn't happen at any other period of history).

If my sin is addition, yours is omission. They did not simply "close up to force all members to keep moving forward", horses can do that.  They actively pushed the men ahead forward, something that would panic horses.   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.  In the Fulcum it works specifically because the front ranks are not fighting anyone.  When spear fencing in a hoplite setting, you can't be this closely packed.  The packing of othismos happens only when they go shield to shield- as we are told happened in some battles. One of the objections to a literal othismos- I use literal and figurative to differentiate- is that your promachoi is propelled into spears against his will.  True in the orthodox rendering, but in my hypothesis this never happens because 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.

Crowds and struggles around doors and gates etc - yes, and I take this to mean that 'othismos' or 'otheo' words in this case mean 'crowd' or 'struggle', not 'crush' - and indeed Pol 4.58.9 makes this clear by referring to 'the struggle (othismos) and crush (pnigmos - choking, suffocation)' as two things.

Good we are getting somewhere.  Clearly othismos is a state where men are packed together tight. There is no suffocation because the men are not suffocating.  If they were they could not fight in othismos.  Their aspis keeps them breathing, and unless you find yourself in a "battle like no other" at Coronea, your shields will not break.  If we have two armies that are so crowded together that it is as if each were up against a wall, physical crowd forces are inevitable.  The crowd is not simply standing real close together, it has a vector of movement, towards the gate or towards the enemy.  It is this vector that gets them into the crowd density, stop moving towards a common goal and the crowd loosens. The only alternative is the one I derided above, where you are crowding your own front ranks, who push back on you as they fight.

So, we have written of my experiment and literary sources, but I began started on this concept due to another piece of evidence.  I am a biologist, and we often discern an animal's behavior from its morphology.  This I did with the aspis.  It is weird.  In short, it has an odd thickness profile that makes the sides where it turns back to form the depth of the bowl almost twice as thick as the face. Much has been written on how the depth of the aspis allows it to be rested on the shoulder because it is such a heavy shield.  It was this specifically that troubled me.  If you actually calculate where the weight comes from, a large percentage is from the thickened turn-back or shoulder section that was supposedly there to handle the weight of a heavy shield.  There is far more to this than I will write here, but the upshot is that the shoulder section is there to provide depth for its own sake, and to keep the shield from being crushed under pressure on its face- something the aspis does far better than resisting weapon strikes- as when Brasidas's shield turned traitor. Now I could be wrong, look at the tussle over Pachycephalosaurs, but it is more evidence.

[PMBardunias]

In Polyaenus' Stratagemata (II.3.,2) we get this passage:

"In the battle at Leuctra, Epaminondas commanded the Thebans, and Cleombrotus commanded the Lacedaemonians. The battle remained finely balanced for a long time, until Epaminondas called on his troops to give him one step more, and he would ensure the victory. They did as he asked; and they gained the victory. The Spartan king Cleombrotus was killed in the fighting, and the Laconians left the enemy in possession of the battlefield."

Evaluation?

The key to this statement is not that it actually happened, but that the audience for the original source believed you could give one more step and break an opposing taxis. If you are spear fencing and your commander asks for one more step, you tell him to piss off rather than move into the range of opposing spears, but the call works equally well if fighting shield on shield with your foe or in othismos. So suggestive but not definitive.