Phalanx drift to the right: movement or contraction or both?

[PMBardunias]

Whoa! My comment (quoting Justin, if you didn't notice) was intended light heartedly as indicated by the smiley. I have explained at very considerable length why I am not convinced by scrum models of hoplite fighting, and have adduced copious evidence - do feel free to read some old threads or articles in Slingshot. I freely admit that I may be wrong, that the scrum models (classic or crowd) may be right, and that it's a tricky problem all round, at best, but one thing I have definitely not done is 'throw statements about' without evidence.

Please email me copies. I have yet to see any evidence by those against othismos that is based on any empirical study or theoretical paradigm of the mechanics, rather than an alternate reading of passages in literature.  As I said, I have no problem with those who say what we read does not describe pushing, or build arguments via analogy because we do not see it elsewhere, but evidence that othismos cannot work requires a higher evidentiary bar. I get armchair objections all the time, read Mathew's book that we just discussed one here somewhere, so perhaps I am overly sensitive an apologize.  This I why I had to fly to Greece and do it with men in panoply.

[Justin Swanton]

Tell you what Paul. You and Richard get together on a field with shields and gear. You push, he doesn't. Let's see who wins. 

[RichT]

so perhaps I am overly sensitive an apologize

That's fine - thank you.

I know it can be highly frustrating if you put a lot of effort into collecting evidence for something, and people just ignore it and carry on regardless as if all your arguments didn't exist. It happens a lot here...

Maybe I should make my position clearer.

I am not 'against othismos' - othismos is clearly a thing, but I don't think it is the same thing you think it is (that is, a scrum or pushing contest). I think the word means something similar to 'press', 'push of pike' and so forth in other periods. My reasons for thinking this are largely literary and comparative; but in addition none of the models of the scrum that I have seen or read about make sense to me as methods of fighting.

I do not think that the scrum othismos is physically impossible as has sometimes been claimed over the years, and if I ever did think that then your experiments would have convinced me otherwise. But I think that proving that a thing could be done is different from proving that it was done. Having an experimental file push successfully dispenses with arguments that it was impossible (front rankers would be crushed, shields would shatter etc) but the conditions in which the experiment takes place are sufficiently different from the real conditions of battle that I do not find it compelling as proof that this is how hoplite battles were actually fought.

Tell you what Paul. You and Richard get together on a field with shields and gear. You push, he doesn't. Let's see who wins

I'm up for it - provided I'm allowed to dodge and parry not stand there like a lemon.

[PMBardunias]

I do not think that the scrum othismos is physically impossible as has sometimes been claimed over the years, and if I ever did think that then your experiments would have convinced me otherwise. But I think that proving that a thing could be done is different from proving that it was done. Having an experimental file push successfully dispenses with arguments that it was impossible (front rankers would be crushed, shields would shatter etc) but the conditions in which the experiment takes place are sufficiently different from the real conditions of battle that I do not find it compelling as proof that this is how hoplite battles were actually fought.

I am with you all the way to the last sentence. The argument that conditions were not realistic enough can go on ad absurdum. Would 7 files be enough, 50? Do we need to sip black broth first? A bigger problem by far is our inability to kill each other. The fact that combat changes greatly with sharp points that stick in shields and people, invalidates a lot of what SCA types do in shield wall combat. The first comment that comes to mind when I read statements, and trust me I do all the time, like "I do not find it compelling proof" would be what are you basing your disbelief upon? I will give you an example. I was in a discussion the other day with a chap who was sure that Boeotian shields were a real thing and they existed because you put your spear through the cut out to fight. He had never tried this, and it is easy to try, but I could not dissuade him. It is a moronic idea, if that is not obvious, to so link your spear and shield. Objections to othismos are usually of this level of actual experience. 

Tell you what Paul. You and Richard get together on a field with shields and gear. You push, he doesn't. Let's see who wins

I'm up for it - provided I'm allowed to dodge and parry not stand there like a lemon.

I can reliably put a 9' dory through a swinging ring no bigger than the eye-hole of a Corinthian. I had to learn this to disprove all of the statements about how accurate underhand is and how innacurate overhand.  So I would never push against him, I would simply stalk around and snipe from about 7' away. One thing that has clouded the study of hoplite combat is that hoplites had to fight well as individuals as well as in a wall of shields. Once one side broke many found themselves in individual combat. And as Plato tells us in Laches, it is only then that the teachings of hoplomachoi are of value.  This is how we can reconcile much of the evidence which seems contradictory. For example, Xenophon telling us that every man knows how to use a sword instinctively and the existence of hoplomachoi. Fighting in a wall of shields limits the options greatly compared to one on one combat.

[RichT]

The argument that conditions were not realistic enough can go on ad absurdum. Would 7 files be enough, 50? Do we need to sip black broth first?

I don't suppose number of ranks or diet are that important. Number of files might well matter, but I couldn't be sure.

A bigger problem by far is our inability to kill each other.

That is the big one surely? It seems self evident to me that this makes an enormous difference.

The first comment that comes to mind when I read statements, and trust me I do all the time, like "I do not find it compelling proof" would be what are you basing your disbelief upon?

Let's try an analogy. The Sealed Knot and similar groups perform 'push of pike' as a stand up push-of-war/scrum, with vertical pikes, all the time. They do it successfully, by their own standards, and have proven, by doing so, that the thing is physically possible. How convincing do you find this as proof, or even evidence, that this is what English Civil War pike fighting was actually like? I do not find it compelling at all, and am firmly convinced that this is not what pike fighting was like. I don't have, and don't need, any empirical study or theoretical paradigm that the Sealed Knot way is impossible - clearly it is not impossible. But I still don't think that is how it was done.

In the case of hoplites, I do not disbelieve that a scrum can be done, in experimental (non violent) conditions - clearly, it can. I do not believe this proves, or even provides very strong evidence either way for, how hoplites actually fought.

From the literary sources, I do not see any evidence for such a scum, and plentiful evidence for more conventional types of fighting. I also do not see such methods of fighting used in any other period.  So a scrum would have to be both unique to Classical hoplites, and not firmly attested by any literary (or indeed archaeological or artistic) evidence. Those facts alone are sufficient basis for my disbelief, even if it can be demonstrated that the thing is possible (in non-violent experimental conditions).

This is off the topic of this thread by the way - as there is a separate othismos thread already running, perhaps we should move off here - though I doubt to be honest there is much more to be said other than bald statements of opinion, which aren't very helpful. I'd be happy to hear more about your experiments though.

[PMBardunias]

Let's try an analogy. The Sealed Knot and similar groups perform 'push of pike' as a stand up push-of-war/scrum, with vertical pikes, all the time. They do it successfully, by their own standards, and have proven, by doing so, that the thing is physically possible. How convincing do you find this as proof, or even evidence, that this is what English Civil War pike fighting was actually like? I do not find it compelling at all, and am firmly convinced that this is not what pike fighting was like. I don't have, and don't need, any empirical study or theoretical paradigm that the Sealed Knot way is impossible - clearly it is not impossible. But I still don't think that is how it was done.

I do not find it at all convincing, but I can tell you exactly why it is not.  What they did is far more a test of hoplite othismos than a push of pike- mostly because no one is pushing with a pike!!! What I tested was a very specific question: Can hoplites perform something that modern scholars interpret as othismos?  I have no need to refer to any of the literary evidence, which is obviously useless if both camps can twist the meaning to fit their model. An argument of whether or not othismos existed is like arguing whether hoplites ever threw spears. Someone can have an opinion, but what they cannot say is that men can't throw spears.  This is what I have now come to demand of those who say othismos is unworkable. In my opinion, the goal post has moved and now critics have to come up with cogent objections based on why they think it unworkable.  If not, the comments are useless to me because I will not know what to test next. I have taken each of the common objections and shown they are no longer valid.  There are still very valid objections to whether othismos could occur.  One is that the rate of death in the front line knife-fight might be too high to account for the casualty figures of actual battles. I cannot easily disprove this without a computer simulation, but I can show techniques that men could use to fight and protect themselves in this setting. 

I do not see any evidence for such a scum

My god man! No need for ad hominem!

[Justin Swanton]

I think we are talking about degrees of certitude here. In another memorable thread on the Macedonian cavalry wedge I posited two kinds of certitude: scientific and moral.

Scientific certitude would be, for example, video footage - tested for doctoring - that showed Alexander's ilae punching through the Sacred Band at Chaeronea, along with samples of horse dung from the field that proved the horses actually came from Macedonia.

Moral certitude is the kind that works in a courtroom, where the testimony of witnesses, even unreliable witnesses, is taken into account. This kind of certitude may lack demonstrable scientific proof, but it can still be enough to send a man to death row.

My take is that if several different sources can all be interpreted in a coherent way that removes any absurdities and apparent contradictions between them, and this interpretation can be shown to be reasonable by experimentation, then we have moral certitude.

There's a third level of certitude: probability. This IMHO exists when the sources are too sparse to demonstrate convergence, or the sources do actually contradict each other and one is obliged to correct or reject one or more of them. In this case the most complete explanation is no more than the most likely one.

On the subject, I suspect that a lot of scepticism about history comes from the fact that we tend to consider scientific certitude as the only real certitude: if something can't be evaluated with scientific instruments then it's not proven. This can lead to an exaggerated doubting of the sources and a readiness to reject or rewrite them if they don't suit a favourite 'scientific' theory. Which makes you wonder what law courts are for.

[Mark G]

Are you being ironic?

I find it so hard to tell.

[Justin Swanton]

Are you being ironic?

No.

I find it so hard to tell.

You'll see one of these: 

[RichT]

What I tested was a very specific question: Can hoplites perform something that modern scholars interpret as othismos?

OK then I think we have a high level of agreement. I'll take a reply off to the othismos thread, to free this one for any more on rightward drift.

I do not see any evidence for such a scum

My god man! No need for ad hominem!

Oops. Freudian slip

[Erpingham]

It's all gone a bit meta, hasn't it?  What is evidence, what is proof?

I do think it is important to distinguish Paul's well-designed tests from re-enactor experience.  Sensible re-enactors realise they are play fighting, not carrying out a careful reconstruction.  Even way back in the 70s when I was an SK pikeman, nobody thought what we were doing was realistic (though it was great fun).  I only once fought in a push where we went in with levelled pikes and that was an accident.  I very nearly took somone's eye out - not fun.  Which leads us back to another point sensibly made by Paul - nobody is actually trying to hurt anybody.  In fact they should be trying to prevent people being hurt.  So this does limit things.

Now, as we should all know by now (risking the 1000 repeat rule) I'm not a classicist - my interest here is in combat mechanics.  Paul's experiments impress and I think he has come as close as we are going to get to showing how shoving in a hoplite combat could go.  He has overcome many of my own concerns about the traditional scrum model by showing how it could be controlled.  However, I'm not convinced the state of othismos was a formal drill rather than what happened, nor that it deliberately intended as a pushing contest, rather than a way of creating forward momentum in support of an actively fighting front rank.

I do think Paul has brought a valuable new insight to our many debates on the subject.

[aligern]

For my  two pennorth I would like to point out that casuakties in hoplite battles seem to be generally small...for the winning side and nit disastrous for the loser. I suspect they go up steeply when there is effective, mounted, pursuit. I doubt that citizens would go to war so light heartedly if casualty rolls were routinely large.
If we can acceot this as fact we could take into account that the best men are in the front rank. One presumes that they are the best men because they survive many battles. Thus their defensive abilities must be good enough, that they fight, learn and come back for  the bext battle. The burn rate on such veterans cannot be too high. Doubtless they are facing men who could match Paul's ability to pick out the eyes of an opponent like olives in a Martini and so must have adequate defences against this.
My vote for othismos  as a push, though modified by Richard's good explanations of the phased nature of hoplite warfare and thus the likelihood that there was a period of stand and jab and hack and slash is really related to their beng a point where the hack and slash has not brought results, tiredness has set in amongst the front ranks, no breakthrough has occurred and its down to the mass and weight of the phalanxes.
Othismos as a push is satisfying in that it is a low casualty option, it takes advantage of the initial phase being disruption and intimidation and the search fir a quick breakthrough and it fits so well with hoplite equipment.
Roy

[Jim Webster]

It's all gone a bit meta, hasn't it?  What is evidence, what is proof?

I do think it is important to distinguish Paul's well-designed tests from re-enactor experience.  Sensible re-enactors realise they are play fighting, not carrying out a careful reconstruction.  Even way back in the 70s when I was an SK pikeman, nobody thought what we were doing was realistic (though it was great fun).  I only once fought in a push where we went in with levelled pikes and that was an accident.  I very nearly took somone's eye out - not fun.  Which leads us back to another point sensibly made by Paul - nobody is actually trying to hurt anybody.  In fact they should be trying to prevent people being hurt.  So this does limit things.

I have limited reenactment experience but was in one push of pike back in the 70s with pikes held upright.
One of the pikes broke in the press and the guy was left holding two halves, both with sharp ends. There was a frantic falling back from everybody

It does make a difference when you're not trying to kill people
You watch the difference between how people act in the paint ball games or laser tag and compare it to veteran troops in an area where people are using live ammunition

that's one reason I rate Paul's tests

[aligern]

It is nteresting that in the ECW push of pike, though with deadly intent caused few casualties. How is it that both pike blocks did not mutually destruct with blows to the face? I wonder if both front ranks jabbed for a while and were then pushed, tired, into physical contact not unlike the pikes vertical push?
At ceresole ? doesn't Blaise de Monluc tell us that both sides created a second line behibd the pike, of arquebusiers and that the result was a voley, a lot of casualties in the oppising front rank, and then back to normal business with exhausting jabbing away on both sides
Roy

[Duncan Head]

It is nteresting that in the ECW push of pike, though with deadly intent caused few casualties. How is it that both pike blocks did not mutually destruct with blows to the face? I wonder if both front ranks jabbed for a while and were then pushed, tired, into physical contact not unlike the pikes vertical push?

Somewhere in an old Arquebusier is an account of a 16th-century internecine Scottish battle where both sides' pikes basically stick in the opponents' jacks, and they push away fairly bloodlessly. Indifferently-trained amateurs with little real motivation to kill their countrymen, perhaps?