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

[Justin Swanton]

I did not say I am ignorant of  the primary sources, or they have no value in this debate.  What I said is that I have no need to refer to them, because every argument that can be made from them has already been made by historians better than myself.  If you want to have such a debate, I could if you start another thread, but within ten posts we will be deadlocked.

I sometimes find that having a close look at the primary sources can be very illuminating. Inter and all that. 

[Imperial Dave]

although the written word is only as good as the author 

[Erpingham]

For othismos to work everybody has to be pushing. If anyone holds back the entire line buckles and disintegrates.

This, of course, depends entirely on your prefered model of othismos.  Remember, as Paul said, othismos is a state of being.  You don't "do" othismos and it isn't something that "works".  Its something you find yourself in, or taking part in.

I'm not suggesting that hoplites were happily poke spears then suddenly WHAM! they found themselves in othismos.  They doubtless could take actions which created a state of othismos.  They don't seem to have been able to get out of it once it began, except by running away or dying though. 

Also, I think one side could trigger othismos, whatever it was, without the active will of the other - i.e. I don't think both sides had to be doing the same thing.  When the Greeks broke the Persian shield line at Plataea, were the Persians "doing their bit" to make othismos happen?  Or did they find themselves in that state unwillingly?  Paul's experiments have shown the Greeks were well equipped for the big O and doubtless it was part of their battle expectations.  Persians expected to stand behind shields and shoot people. 



   

[PMBardunias]

I should also mention - what makes you say Hdt 7.225.1 and Hdt 9.62.2. are 'part of battle between hoplites'? These are clearly part of battle between hoplites and non-hoplite Persians. Now Persians putatively don't do othismos, and, putatively, it takes two to othismos.

You are right, I should not have said between hoplites, but involving hoplites. That said, these 2 are the exceptions that prove the rule.  To get into the crowded densities that allow othismos, the enemy has to resist and not give ground.  At Plataia this is obvious because the Persian shields are on kick stands. At Thermopylae we have notoriously constrained conditions and a rush to get the body of Leonidas. The only reason to enter othismos is to fight over a patch of ground.  The ground where the King lay is a prime example of this and probably hints at why othismos evolved in the first place.

Or these show that the word could also be used for a crowd, as it could also be used for an argument, and for a mass of ships, and for the charge of elephants, and for the thrust of spears, and for the manoeuvres of wrestlers. At most, these examples show that there are similarities between masses of men engaged in combat, and masses of men engaged in getting through a gate. Again, the English word 'press' does such double (or more than double) service, without anyone concluding that every time the word 'press' is used, it always means the same thing.

But this is exactly my point.  Here my argument is against the orthodox notion that there is a tactic called othismos.  There is not.  Honestly, I doubt that they had an understanding of exactly what was happening during othismos any more than people who are caught in such crowds today do. No polemarch ever said "come on boys, let's othismos them!" They say things like "one more step!" and tells us about fighting when the shields crowded together. They are just fighting and the crowding is happening.

I happily bow before your authority. Indeed this is the great value that you and your experiments can bring to the table. BUT since you have only engaged in non-violent combat in which the aim is to avoid anyone gettng hurt, I think your conclusions must still be treated with a large amount of caution.

This is something I point out in the book, and has led to many in the past erroneously applying things that work in play fighting to real fighting.  I commented on this previously, this discussion is moving so fast, I know comments are being lost. In short, sharp points change everything.

But there remain all sorts of other arguments against scrum othismos based on conjecture on the mechanics of combat that you haven't (yet) refuted - I offered one above (Reply #32), that nobody has responded to. Is that because nobody has a response, or because the question is too obvious or tedious to even consider?

Oddly, my reply to this seems not to have made it, though the image I created for it did.  I will repost here.  There are two reasons what you describe does not happen. As we added men in file, the whole file contracts towards the front like an accordion.  This is because men get crushed into the smalled space their bodies can take before you have to start breaking bones.  The result is that the front rankers are standing almost straight up.  This is what allows them to use their right arms freely. Only ranks that are standing up can effectively use a weapon.  This, by the way, is why I know a dead man will not disrupt the file, because these promachoi are no longer adding much to the press and are much like the dead men in terms of the mechanics. The fact that the harder you push, the more front ranks are constrained to help in pushing may be one reason the force plateaus after ranks get deep. So, no, most ranks cannot use their weapons.  But there is an even bigger problem.  The heads of the men in front of you constrain you to strike down a channel between them- more so with helmet crests.  See the diagram below that shows the only range of targets for successive ranks.  Even these thrusts would be done blind, and past the first two ranks you would also have spears standing up to deal with as well.

I don't know why Paul assumes only swords would be used, not spears. But at any rate, while there are limitations, he does describe a fair ability to strike (at least by the man behind you and the man behind him) as well as restrictions (it is hard to hit you and not your foe's head). I can see that visibility directly forward would be limited, but what about to the side toward neighbouring files? And what if some men further back in the formation held back just a little and struck the faces of the defenceless front rank men - angling to the sides to avoid the heads of comrades - with their spears?

See above, but the reason that you cannot use a spear in othismos is the same as why you can use a dory to fight any time you are shield to shield.  The dory had a reach of some 5-6'.  You cannot rear back far enough to hit a man this close to you.  You have to drop your spear or be killed.  You could use it from ranks further back, but see above.

[PMBardunias]

I did not say I am ignorant of  the primary sources, or they have no value in this debate.  What I said is that I have no need to refer to them, because every argument that can be made from them has already been made by historians better than myself.  If you want to have such a debate, I could if you start another thread, but within ten posts we will be deadlocked.

I sometimes find that having a close look at the primary sources can be very illuminating. Inter and all that. 

Wouldn't it just be easier to read one of the previous threads? I would be surprised if you guy have not exhausted all the possible pros and cons by now. How about this, if there is a particular quote or image that anyone believes is the clincher for their side, post it.  I will respond to it and can probably give you citations of those better than I refuting it.

[RichT]

That said, these 2 are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Then you have two exceptions and only one rule

Oddly, my reply to this seems not to have made it, though the image I created for it did.

I wondered what that diagram was doing on the other post. OK thanks, the reply is clear, if not totally unquibbleablewith - but I suspect that's as far as we can go.

So if I understand correctly, you see scrum othismos as an involuntary state which occurs when two close order infantry formations are fighting, neither wants to give ground, and the rear ranks keep pushing forward? (Must we restrict it to Classical hoplites? At the least you are including Persians with your exceptions). This is (as you say) different from some versions of the orthodoxy (and goes beyond your stated objective of just proving what's not impossible in the orthodox view).

OK, let's turn this around a little. There are a number of references to infantry being so crammed together as to be unable to use their weapons, and this being a bad thing (Romans at Cannae etc). So let's suppose that Greeks had a similar view - being in a crowd crush is dangerous, and it's better to keep at fighting distance and use weapons, even if the more aggressive might (as Romans did) get stuck right in and clash shields, and this is how Greeks fought their battles. But Greeks also fought in a deep formation and part of the job of the rear ranks was to keep closed right up so that front ranks had to keep moving forward into combat, and once there couldn't (or could only with difficulty) step away. Now imagine that in the course of fighting - whether tentative spear fencing, or more aggressive shield bashing, depending on the psychology of the hoplites involved - those on the losing side would take a step back when they could, those behind them knocked or shuffling back nervously to stay out of harm's way, while the winners would step forward, followed up by the ranks behind, like an advancing wall, shouting enouragement and jabbing with their spears where they could reach. Imagine this going on all along the line, and momentum and ebbs and flows setting in, one side gaining a moral as well as physical advantage, more backward steps from the rear rankers of the losing force, then a few peeling off the back and running, those in front sensing growing panic and exposure to their rear, stepping back further, the winners following up all the time, bashing shields and stabbing spears, those behind them following up, pushing forward, until at some point the trickle of men from the back of the losing phalanx becomes a flood and their formation falls apart.

So I hope that's a conventional and uncontroversial description of heavy infantry combat. Now, a couple of questions. First of all, what, if anything, would be different about how ancient Greek historians might describe this process from the actual descriptions of ancient combat that we have? Would they not still talk of othismos (or en chersi, or one of a number of other terms) for the period of fighting before either side gained an advantage - where the fighting is close and brutal with pushing of shields, but is not a crowd crush, and neither side is giving ground (what later writers called a press, among other things). Would they not talk of being 'otheo-ed' - of being pushed back - when one side started to give way and the other followed up. In other words, what is there in the Greek accounts we have that leads us to believe that something unique and special (scrum othismos) is being described (for Classical hoplites only?), rather than the sort of fighting I have described above?

Secondly, if we were reading the Greek accounts of such fighting, and it was 1910 and we were on the Edwardian equivalent of the internet (letters page of The Times?) and were not public school educated classicists and had never played rugby; but we did have a good knowledge of military history, and maybe had some military experience ourselves, or perhaps had fathers or grandfathers who had fought in massed close order infantry formations. What is there in ancient Greek accounts of hoplite battle that might lead us to believe that what was being described was a crowd crush, rather than the sort of fighting I have described above (or something else entirely, if my description above is wrong)?

I know this is a broad (and of course rhetorical) question, but it is the heart of the matter. Given that we can read all the Greek battle literature and understand it in similar terms to our undertanding of combat in other periods, what need is there to come up with a completely different model for hoplite combat? Even if we can prove that such different models are not theoretically impossible.

(And I know one answer is that the shields are suitable for this model of combat - but how certain are we that they are not also suitable for the fighting I describe? Ancient shields came in many shapes and sizes).

[Imperial Dave]

I realise its limitations but when I participated (as a reenactor) in shieldwall 'combat' there was a period of spear fencing as the 2 lines closed and this was fast and furious. (and by the way, you do drift to the right on closing!) Eventually someone would chance their arm and attempt to break up the opposing shieldwall by closing shield to shield and trying to force their way into the opposing formation. Is that essentially osmosis - trying to force an opening in a Greek shieldwall when very long pointy sticks normally keep you separated?

[PMBardunias]

So if I understand correctly, you see scrum othismos as an involuntary state which occurs when two close order infantry formations are fighting, neither wants to give ground, and the rear ranks keep pushing forward?

I am saying nothing about a scrum othismos. The Scrum othismos is a mistaken theory that was based on a flawed understanding of physics and the behavior of massed men. A scrum is an intentional tactic done as part of a rugby game. What I am describing has little to do with it, and is in fact more like what happens when that rugby teams shirts go on sale a department store, and a gaggle of shoppers try to all get through the door at once. This is why it has to be called a crowd othismos, not a scrum othismos, I cannot defend their tactics.  You can surely appreciate that if a member of the orthodoxy jumped into this discussion, he would not agree with my presentation.  For clarity's sake, you cannot lump us together, any more that they would have lumped Cawkwell back in the day with his "late othismos".

(Must we restrict it to Classical hoplites? At the least you are including Persians with your exceptions). This is (as you say) different from some versions of the orthodoxy (and goes beyond your stated objective of just proving what's not impossible in the orthodox view).

No. This type of crowding happens in almost every battle where men meet shield to shield, what I guess we would call shield bashing and opposed to striking with the shield. If I and you meet shield to shield and try to push each other, if I am being pushed back, it is only natural for the man behind me to support me and stop me moving back. In this way ranks can be brought in on both sides.  But rather quickly, both sides loosen up before the force gets all that big because one or both sides give way. This happened with Hoplites as well surely, short circuiting othismos.

So I hope that's a conventional and uncontroversial description of heavy infantry combat. Now, a couple of questions. First of all, what, if anything, would be different about how ancient Greek historians might describe this process from the actual descriptions of ancient combat that we have? Would they not still talk of othismos (or en chersi, or one of a number of other terms) for the period of fighting before either side gained an advantage - where the fighting is close and brutal with pushing of shields, but is not a crowd crush, and neither side is giving ground (what later writers called a press, among other things). Would they not talk of being 'otheo-ed' - of being pushed back - when one side started to give way and the other followed up. In other words, what is there in the Greek accounts we have that leads us to believe that something unique and special (scrum othismos) is being described (for Classical hoplites only?), rather than the sort of fighting I have described above?

Secondly, if we were reading the Greek accounts of such fighting, and it was 1910 and we were on the Edwardian equivalent of the internet (letters page of The Times?) and were not public school educated classicists and had never played rugby; but we did have a good knowledge of military history, and maybe had some military experience ourselves, or perhaps had fathers or grandfathers who had fought in massed close order infantry formations. What is there in ancient Greek accounts of hoplite battle that might lead us to believe that what was being described was a crowd crush, rather than the sort of fighting I have described above (or something else entirely, if my description above is wrong)?

I will do what I wanted to avoid and cite Luginbill's 1994 paper because I find it the simplest answer to this question: "It flows from the natural reading of the best available contemporary witnesses to this sort of combat." I agree with this, the simple reading of lines like "καὶ συμβαλόντες τὰς ἀσπίδας ἐωθοῦντο, ἐμάχοντο, ἀπέκτεινον, ἀπέθνῃσκον" is the most simple: the lines came together, pushed (not hit) with their shields, fought, killed, and died.  As I have said above, any time opposing ranks are pushing each other with their shields, it is likely that the ranks behind them get drawn in. The question then becomes why do they stop pushing and go back to fighting. With most armies it is because they physically cannot sustain or survive a drawn out pushing phase. Hoplites do not have this limitation. That is not a guess, but a fact. We tested this and they can.  So we are now left in need of another reason for them to stop. We could go through each and every such mention. I would probably even agree with you on some- the push of Athenians into the Halae may well be figurative, while the press of shields at Delium is surely not. At Delium we have  men going down hill in deep ranks. It would be harder to keep othismos from happening than to initiate it. On the other hand, when in Thuc. 4.96, we read of a fierce struggle and pushing of shields, I am unmoved by the argument that the othismos aspidon redundantly means a fierce struggle. When the Romans push at Zama, I do not think this a metaphor, I just think it was nowhere near as forceful as the pressure that could be generated by a clash of Sparta and Thebes.  So, I flip the question around, and wonder why we don't see a weaker form of othismos in these other combats.  It is a matter of degree more than design. And the key is that even to the Greeks there was no type of combat known as othismos. If instead of a Victorian student who played the "wall game", we handed a roman history to Xenophon, he would probably assume there was a lot of physical pushing, and probably chuckle to himself that this silly Romans with long peltae could not push like a real army should. [/quote]

(And I know one answer is that the shields are suitable for this model of combat - but how certain are we that they are not also suitable for the fighting I describe? Ancient shields came in many shapes and sizes).

The aspis is wholly suitable for other types of combat. I regularly rail against the bullshit concept that the aspis handicapped men to force them to fight in groups. The aspis surely existed in its wicker precursor long before Greeks pushed anyone. Have you ever seen the Taming shield of a Philipine Moro? See below.  They are the most aspisish shield you will find in a modern (20thc) combat system. They did not othismos-ize anyone.
The key is that the aspis has features that allow it to be used as a life preserved in a crushing crowd of men. These to some extent existed in the previous shields, but were exploited in the Argive aspis. This had to be the case, because no man ever sat down and said let's design a shield that will allow us to push in a group.  Instead the aspis evolved out of shields that existed at the time, with men choosing those that were hollow and had thick sidewalls to give it depth and prevent crushing because they worked better in a crowd.  Over time this got so exaggerated, that the sidewalls in the Argive aspis were thicker, by almost double, that the face of the shield which defended against thrusts.
Here is another problem with the Orthodox presentation by the way. They will tell you that the depth of the shield is to help support the shield's weight on the shoulder.  The problem with this is A) the aspis was only about 5-6kg, and B) much of the mass of the wooden core is because it has thick sidewalls to give it depth! Add to this that fighting with your aspis on your shoulder is suicidal.

[Imperial Dave]

I am saying nothing about a scrum othismos. The Scrum othismos is a mistaken theory that was based on a flawed understanding of physics and the behavior of massed men. A scrum is an intentional tactic done as part of a rugby game. What I am describing has little to do with it, and is in fact more like what happens when that rugby teams shirts go on sale a department store, and a gaggle of shoppers try to all get through the door at once. This is why it has to be called a crowd othismos, not a scrum othismos, I cannot defend their tactics.  You can surely appreciate that if a member of the orthodoxy jumped into this discussion, he would not agree with my presentation.  For clarity's sake, you cannot lump us together, any more that they would have lumped Cawkwell back in the day with his "late othismos".

exactly what I experienced as per my reenacting days....its more haphazard in nature than some suggest....I really dont get the 'planned' scrum theory

[PMBardunias]

I realise its limitations but when I participated (as a reenactor) in shieldwall 'combat' there was a period of spear fencing as the 2 lines closed and this was fast and furious. (and by the way, you do drift to the right on closing!) Eventually someone would chance their arm and attempt to break up the opposing shieldwall by closing shield to shield and trying to force their way into the opposing formation. Is that essentially osmosis - trying to force an opening in a Greek shieldwall when very long pointy sticks normally keep you separated?

That is when the range of battle moves from spear range to sword range in a hoplite battle.  Only if the opposing lines start to push each other and the ranks behind support them, do we enter othimos. I am convinced that Saxons and Vikings got themselves in to some weak form of othismos, I hare read snippets that suggest it. But there is something that need to be clarified about othismos. Norse and Saxon warriors often carried two or more spears, taller than a man, that were centrally balanced so as to be able to be thrown or retained to fight. Their swords were about a yard long. This means that the range of sword and spear were roughly similar, and all fighting happened close to each other. Early hoplites were just like this, and I have proposed that the Saxons are a better model for archaic hoplites than classical hoplites are.  This is because classical hoplites broke up the melee phase of combat into 3 separate phases.  When hoplites first clash as you describe above, they did so with 9' spears that were held near the rear for greater reach. This means that the two lines were so far apart that you could not use a sword if your spear broke. You had to move in close and get beneath the other hedge of spears. This was liberating for the hoplite is a way, because swords could get smaller, and I believe did so, to the point that Xenophon calls them daggers. This ultra close range naturally leads to more pressing with shields and Othismos.

What interests me most at the moment is the use of spear and seax by Saxons, were they doing this as well? Those lenticular shields, though recently they seem to be under attack as hemicylinders, could be made to work in othismos.

[PMBardunias]

exactly what I experienced as per my reenacting days....its more haphazard in nature than some suggest....I really dont get the 'planned' scrum theory

It is one of those things that is far easier to understand if you see it, or better yet, experience it.

[RichT]

OK thank you - I think we are getting somewhere, though I'm not totally sure where we are getting.

I am saying nothing about a scrum othismos. The Scrum othismos is a mistaken theory that was based on a flawed understanding of physics and the behavior of massed men.

OK - so you and I (and probably almost everyone else reading this) can agree that scrum othismos is a nonsense and never happened. Result!

I'm not totally sure though that I am clear on the ways in which crowd othismos (CO) differs from scrum othismos (SO). Is it right to say:
- in CO the stance is flat on not oblique or side on as in SO (inevitably, as the force flattens the man) - I definitely agree with this
- CO happens after initial fighting, while in SO it follows directly from a charge to contact (though many orthodox SOers also say there was an initial fighting phase)
- CO is involuntary, something that just happens, not a drill or tactic like SO

You can surely appreciate that if a member of the orthodoxy jumped into this discussion, he would not agree with my presentation.

Maybe, but be careful what you wish for as that may yet happen...

No. This type of crowding happens in almost every battle where men meet shield to shield, what I guess we would call shield bashing and opposed to striking with the shield. If I and you meet shield to shield and try to push each other, if I am being pushed back, it is only natural for the man behind me to support me and stop me moving back. In this way ranks can be brought in on both sides.  But rather quickly, both sides loosen up before the force gets all that big because one or both sides give way. This happened with Hoplites as well surely, short circuiting othismos.

OK so to be perfectly clear - crowd othismos happens in prety much all heavy infantry combat, just that Classical hoplites sustained it for longer?

Now lots of points, so I hope you won't mind if I take this by line, as I want to be clear in my mind about all this.

I will do what I wanted to avoid and cite Luginbill's 1994 paper because I find it the simplest answer to this question: "It flows from the natural reading of the best available contemporary witnesses to this sort of combat." I agree with this

Well, I disagree with this, as my article (Slingshot 306, 'The Meaning of Othismos') explains. I don't think it is the natural reading, I think it is just a literal reading.

the simple reading of lines like "καὶ συμβαλόντες τὰς ἀσπίδας ἐωθοῦντο, ἐμάχοντο, ἀπέκτεινον, ἀπέθνῃσκον" is the most simple: the lines came together, pushed (not hit) with their shields, fought, killed, and died.

As I explain in the article, I think this is wrong - συμβαλόντες τὰς ἀσπίδας does mean striking together their shields, not pushing with their shields, as other examples show.

For further clarity - you said above about why there wasn't much weapons play in crowd othismos (blocked lines of sight and covered by heads in proximity) - but now you also say that 'they fought, they killed, they died' carried on during othismos, and I've just reread the relevant parts of your book and this suggests continued fighting in othismos. Perhaps just the front two (?) ranks could fight (with swords, only?)

As I have said above, any time opposing ranks are pushing each other with their shields, it is likely that the ranks behind them get drawn in. The question then becomes why do they stop pushing and go back to fighting. With most armies it is because they physically cannot sustain or survive a drawn out pushing phase. Hoplites do not have this limitation. That is not a guess, but a fact. We tested this and they can.

So - crowd othismos always develops, but most would have to 'unpack', restore separation, and go back to weapons play (presumably) once they started getting too crushed or out of breath? While hoplites wouldn't need to unpack and could keep on beng squashed? How would the unpacking happen, since it would have to happen from the back? When the front ranks turn blue, stop pushing?

Has testing confirmed that this is impossible for non-aspis carriers?

So we are now left in need of another reason for them to stop. We could go through each and every such mention. I would probably even agree with you on some- the push of Athenians into the Halae may well be figurative, while the press of shields at Delium is surely not.

I agree on the one being figurative and the other not. To me, the Athenians being pushed back to the marsh, and the men striking together their shields at Delium, are totally different things - descriptions of action on a different scale, using different words, with different intent, for all that an oth- root word is involved in both cases. Men pushing with shields (as Romans also did) is different from phalanxes being pushed back. So I believe we agree on this.

On the other hand, when in Thuc. 4.96, we read of a fierce struggle and pushing of shields, I am unmoved by the argument that the othismos aspidon redundantly means a fierce struggle.

I'm not sure who argues that, but why is it redundant? Since this is the only time this phrase is ever used (until Procopius uses it 1000 years later) it is hard to be certain of meaning, but to me it means just what it says, which is, broadly, the same as συμβαλόντες τὰς ἀσπίδας - it is the contact of individual men (and their shields) in the course of a close fight.

Incidentally, you seem to be saying that shield-shield contact requires that spear use end (and be replaced by sword use)? But vase paintings showing scenes of single combat with spears and shields striking together are common. Comments?

When the Romans push at Zama, I do not think this a metaphor, I just think it was nowhere near as forceful as the pressure that could be generated by a clash of Sparta and Thebes.

Agreed, I don't think it's a metaphor either. I think individual Romans are pushing and striking with their shields, just as individual Greeks could push and strike with theirs. You presumably though think that there was also a crowd othismos taking place, albeit a briefer, weaker one?

So, I flip the question around, and wonder why we don't see a weaker form of othismos in these other combats.  It is a matter of degree more than design. And the key is that even to the Greeks there was no type of combat known as othismos. If instead of a Victorian student who played the "wall game", we handed a roman history to Xenophon, he would probably assume there was a lot of physical pushing, and probably chuckle to himself that this silly Romans with long peltae could not push like a real army should.

Well that we'll never know...

Maybe what you envisage as crowd othismos is what I envisage as the press, close combat supported by rear ranks, and in both cases common to infantry combat in all periods. The difference is that I would regard a start of a crush in which wepons use was impossible as something that might happen involuntarily but would be highly undesirable and avoided if at all possible, whereas you see it as something accepted as a normal, possibly advantageous, part of combat (at least by classical Greeks). If so this isn't really a vast difference.

[PMBardunias]

I'm not totally sure though that I am clear on the ways in which crowd othismos (CO) differs from scrum othismos (SO). Is it right to say:
- in CO the stance is flat on not oblique or side on as in SO (inevitably, as the force flattens the man) - I definitely agree with this
- CO happens after initial fighting, while in SO it follows directly from a charge to contact (though many orthodox SOers also say there was an initial fighting phase)
- CO is involuntary, something that just happens, not a drill or tactic like SO

-Yes, except for the rear rank which is free to stand however he wishes.
-Yes, very often, probably usually, one side broke prior to othismos.
-Yes and no. Yes it is something that just happens in close combat, but no, a general could both set up conditions that make it more likely- deep ranks, shorter swords- and enhance it once it started- one more step!

OK so to be perfectly clear - crowd othismos happens in prety much all heavy infantry combat, just that Classical hoplites sustained it for longer?

In any close combat where men begin to push at each other with shields, yes. The moment one second rank joins in, you are on your way.

As I explain in the article, I think this is wrong - συμβαλόντες τὰς ἀσπίδας does mean striking together their shields, not pushing with their shields, as other examples show.

I do not buy it. Perhaps you misunderstand what I meant.  If you are saying that you can translate it as slamming into a foe with the weight of the body behind it, then I agree it can be read that way.  If you are envisioning punching with the shield like a weapon, then no I do not.  My point, though, is that you cannot get hung up on a Greek saying "everyone pushed together with our shields in that kick ass tactic we developed to push the enemy off the field." Instead a Greek describes othismos just like Thucydides. He tells us that the men moved to push/thrust/clash with their shields. The rest follows naturally.

For further clarity - you said above about why there wasn't much weapons play in crowd othismos (blocked lines of sight and covered by heads in proximity) - but now you also say that 'they fought, they killed, they died' carried on during othismos, and I've just reread the relevant parts of your book and this suggests continued fighting in othismos. Perhaps just the front two (?) ranks could fight (with swords, only?)

Yes, the front ranks fought (at least 2) and pushed and died. The rear ranks pushed and did not die.

So - crowd othismos always develops, but most would have to 'unpack', restore separation, and go back to weapons play (presumably) once they started getting too crushed or out of breath? While hoplites wouldn't need to unpack and could keep on beng squashed? How would the unpacking happen, since it would have to happen from the back? When the front ranks turn blue, stop pushing? Has testing confirmed that this is impossible for non-aspis carriers?

Yes, from the rear.  Same way any army breaks from the rear. Men don't normally run because they themselves are wounded, but because they perceive immanent rout and its best not to be last to go! Information is passed down ranks, mostly tactile. You don't break because you are squishing the men in front, you break because you are going backwards. To a hoplite this means you are losing.  If you are a Roman marching with Aemilius Paullus, you can give way on the battle field and not break.  It has to do with expectations and tactical doctrine.

As to non aspis bearers, we have tons of evidence. A flat shield is a flat plane, and so is a wall.  People get crushed against walls all the time and die. A scutum might have some benefit.

I agree on the one being figurative and the other not. To me, the Athenians being pushed back to the marsh, and the men striking together their shields at Delium, are totally different things - descriptions of action on a different scale, using different words, with different intent, for all that an oth- root word is involved in both cases. Men pushing with shields (as Romans also did) is different from phalanxes being pushed back. So I believe we agree on this.

Again, for my purposes it does not matter how you translate it.  Physically pushing back, or simply crowding them back all work for me. The only thing that would not would be if it explicitly said that they "herded" the enemy back. This by the way is what Riot police usually do, so the oft cited riot police are usually not good evidence for othismos- except those on the Maidan in the Ukraine I posted earlier.

I'm not sure who argues that, but why is it redundant? Since this is the only time this phrase is ever used (until Procopius uses it 1000 years later) it is hard to be certain of meaning, but to me it means just what it says, which is, broadly, the same as συμβαλόντες τὰς ἀσπίδας - it is the contact of individual men (and their shields) in the course of a close fight.

Again, I think you misunderstood that I was differentiating pushing/thrusting from striking like a weapon.

Incidentally, you seem to be saying that shield-shield contact requires that spear use end (and be replaced by sword use)? But vase paintings showing scenes of single combat with spears and shields striking together are common. Comments?

Ah, yes, I waited for this because it introduces another factor. Classical hoplites used very long spears that were also back weighted to project 5-6' forward from the hand.  Thus you had to drop them to fight shield on shield, unless just trying to bash- i.e.: you can't hit with both at the same range. But Archaic hoplites held 2 spears, akin to longche, that were shorter and mid-balanced.  Thus only about 3 feet projected ahead of the hand.  With these you could fight and hit with the rim of an out-thrust aspis. (this has to be done straight armed by the way.  Some think you can thrust the bottom of the aspis forward, but you take the top rim in the throat or face).

Agreed, I don't think it's a metaphor either. I think individual Romans are pushing and striking with their shields, just as individual Greeks could push and strike with theirs. You presumably though think that there was also a crowd othismos taking place, albeit a briefer, weaker one?

Pretty much.

Maybe what you envisage as crowd othismos is what I envisage as the press, close combat supported by rear ranks, and in both cases common to infantry combat in all periods. The difference is that I would regard a start of a crush in which weapon use was impossible as something that might happen involuntarily but would be highly undesirable and avoided if at all possible, whereas you see it as something accepted as a normal, possibly advantageous, part of combat (at least by classical Greeks). If so this isn't really a vast difference.

Yes, it is completely undesirable if you are armed with an arming sword and flattish shield. When it happens you die.  But if you have an aspis and a short sword, you live.  Best is when you have an aspis and a short sword and your foes have a sagaris and a flat or no shield.  This is the whole point of my research.  The phenomena is not unique. The harnessing of its occurrence in battle is. There are many reasons why this would be an advantage if you could pull it off, having to do with everything from economy to Lanchester's equations.

[Dangun]

You are exactly right, but what you don't seem to grasp is that half of the historians working on hoplites are writing that the "particular version of playing-with-pointy-sticks-and-big-bronze-Frisbees" is impossible.  They are writing books on it and making academic careers.

You are correct, I am not abreast of the academic work/consensus on hoplite warfare.
Not really my cup of tea, too much written about it, for me to want to engage with it.

I did not say I am ignorant of  the primary sources, or they have no value in this debate.  What I said is that I have no need to refer to them, because every argument that can be made from them has already been made by historians better than myself.  If you want to have such a debate, I could if you start another thread, but within ten posts we will be deadlocked.

I don't particularly want another othismos thread, but I do think that an argument from the evidence to define othismos is a precursor to the persuasiveness of a reenactment - as cool and visceral as reenactments otherwise are. My posts sought only to make a methodological point because I can't add much value on the sources. I have always enjoyed Richard's cataloguing of the usage of the word othismos, Duncan's murals, and all members' contribution of quotes on hoplite vs hoplite combat because it helps carry me up the knowledge curve. It warrants a wiki.

[Erpingham]

Can I just say for the first time in ages I think we've got somewhere with the Big O debate?  I recognise that this is because Paul and Rich in their learned discussion are pushing (sorry, couldn't resist) in a similar direction to the understanding I was developing, so I think I am biased in this, though

One area that I'd ask for more on is hoplite charges.  Traditional othismos supporters can make much of this, although, oddly, they often want a formal spear fencing phase too.  Paul has shown that just hurling yourself at a wall of well braced hoplites is ineffective.  Why the prevalence of charging?  Or, if we looked into it in a more detailed way, is charging less than universal among non-Spartans?