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

[Erpingham]

I am happy if we have moved even slightly towards a middle ground.

I fear this may be because the most passionate voices of orthodoxy are unusually silent.  However, it has been good, as Dave says, to explore from a different angle and free up our thinking a bit.

I'm worried by drifting yet further with this conversation into discussions of Anglo-Saxon othismos, as we may bury a useful conversation somewhere that other members, not so interested in hoplites, won't see it.  I will say, though, that I originally started exploring othismos as a way of looking at shieldwall warfare and there are differences and similarities.  It may be worth a separate thread in which we talk about how othismotic (is that the word) other close order combat was.   

[RichT]

"Arrian comments on this, and in an odd quirk that I love describes the second rank as so crowded up against the promachoi that they are in othismos" is wrong, and a misunderstanding of Arrian.

Please explain. I assumed that Arrian is describing not a phalanx but the Fulcum of his day, where the second rank is quite literally on the back of the front ranker. But in this case I am more than happy to be wrong.

OK. Arrian's whole book is describing the Macedonian phalanx, though he does throw in later examples, such as the end of ch. 11 where he talks about the 'tortoise'. But Ch. 12 is clearly entirely about the Macedonian phalanx, since he says so, and they have sarisas and (most importantly) the text closely mirrors that of Aelian and Asclepiodotus, both exclusively devoted to the Macedonian phalanx.

The sentence in question, in my translation:

Arrian, Tactics 12 "The men next in file to the file leader must be second to the latter in courage. For their spear reaches all the way to the enemy and they support the othismoi of the men deployed in front of them."

Note that 'othismoi' is plural, so it can't be anything like 'a state of othismos'. That it should mean something like '[spear] thrusts' is apparent from the context, and also from Arrian's other usages of othismos, in Anabasis of Alexander:

1.15.2 (Granicus, cavalry v cavalry) "Then ensued an othismos of horses, on the one side to emerge from the river, and on the other to prevent the landing."

3.14.3 (Gaugamela, cavalry v cavalry) - "For a short time there ensued a hand-to-hand fight; but when the Macedonian cavalry, commanded by Alexander himself, attacked with strong othismoi, and striking the Persians' faces with their spears..."

5.17.5 (Hydaspes, elephants v infantry) "The elephants being now cooped up into a narrow space, their friends were no less injured by them than their foes, being trampled down in their turning and othismoi."

So three different uses, and three different meanings, but while the first case could be taken to be 'a state of othismos' (an othismos of horses in this case, compare with Thucydides' othismos of shields) in the next two cases, where the word is in the plural, it clearly means thrusts or something of the kind.

We should also note that Arrian (Tactics), Aelian and Asclepiodotus either share a common source, or use each other as source, and there are close parallels in this passage:

Asclepiodotus 3.6 (Loeb translation):
"The second line must also be not much inferior to the first, so that when a file leader falls his comrade behind may move forward and hold the line together."

Aelian 13 (Matthew translation, very slightly modified for vocabulary):
"Similarly, attention must be paid to those in the second rank, for the spears of those within it are projected forward together with those of the front rank and, being positioned immediately behind the latter, are of great use in emergencies. For in the case that the file leader should fall or receive a wound, the man behind him, stepping into his place, closes the gap in the line and preserves its integrity."

Arrian 12 (my translation, based on deVoto):
"The men next in file to the file leader must be second to the latter in courage. For their spear reaches all the way to the enemy and they support the thrusts of the men deployed in front of them. Indeed someone in the opposite line with a sword (machaira) could reach the man deployed in front delivering the blow from above. If the file leader falls or is wounded and so unfit to fight, the next man in file stepping forward, takes the place and role of the file leader and keeps the phalanx whole and unbroken."

So the sentence about the second rank supporting the spear use of the first is there in Aelian (though he doesn't use the word othismois), but not in Asclepiodotus. Arrian's rather odd aside about the use of the sword is unique to him. Perhaps this is a reference to Roman practice. Perhaps (since Asclepiodotus and Aelian compare the phalanx as a whole with the sword (machaira), with the front rank as its cutting edge, while Arrian, though he has this comparison, slightly garbles it and refers only to the tempering of iron) Arrian, writing from memory, added a sentence about the machaira slightly out of place. It's hard to say, but doesn't alter the meaning of the preceding sentence.

[PMBardunias]

1.15.2 (Granicus, cavalry v cavalry) "Then ensued an othismos of horses, on the one side to emerge from the river, and on the other to prevent the landing."
3.14.3 (Gaugamela, cavalry v cavalry) - "For a short time there ensued a hand-to-hand fight; but when the Macedonian cavalry, commanded by Alexander himself, attacked with strong othismoi, and striking the Persians' faces with their spears..."
5.17.5 (Hydaspes, elephants v infantry) "The elephants being now cooped up into a narrow space, their friends were no less injured by them than their foes, being trampled down in their turning and othismoi."

All of these usages are exactly what I would expect. A crowd is made up of many individual presses. We today speak of a traffic jam, but we can also call it "stop and go traffic". The first describes a global phenomenon of jammed cars, the second is an individual experience. This we could translate the lines like this:
1.15.2 (Granicus, cavalry v cavalry) "Then ensued a press of horses, on the one side to emerge from the river, and on the other to prevent the landing."
3.14.3 (Gaugamela, cavalry v cavalry) - "For a short time there ensued a hand-to-hand fight; but when the Macedonian cavalry, commanded by Alexander himself, attacked with strong presses, and striking the Persians' faces with their spears..."
5.17.5 (Hydaspes, elephants v infantry) "The elephants being now cooped up into a narrow space, their friends were no less injured by them than their foes, being trampled down in their turning and presses."
Remember, I do not require othismos to mean a single thing like the orthodox. I just need it to mean something that denotes close proximity, with or without force transfer.

So three different uses, and three different meanings, but while the first case could be taken to be 'a state of othismos' (an othismos of horses in this case, compare with Thucydides' othismos of shields) in the next two cases, where the word is in the plural, it clearly means thrusts or something of the kind.

Here we can be quite clear.  Arrian flat out tells us that horse cannot push: Tactica 16.-

"..It must not be forgotten that with cavalry, depth is not so useful as it is with infantry; they do not press on those in front of them because it is impossible to push horse against horse in the way that infantry press shoulder to shoulder and side to side..."

The same from Aelian: "For the crowd of horse in rear do not provide the same support that infantry drawn up in depth do as they press forward from the rear. For they contribute nothing to the pressure of the push forward, being neither able to push those in front of them forward nor to link them with the whole mass in a united weight, without hurting those in front of them or disordering their own cavalry more than the enemy."

So no, horses cannot push, but it is hard to escape the fact in opposition is that humans can. And more importantly, that the authors knew they could.

Asclepiodotus 3.6 (Loeb translation):
"The second line must also be not much inferior to the first, so that when a file leader falls his comrade behind may move forward and hold the line together."

Aelian 13 (Matthew translation, very slightly modified for vocabulary):
"Similarly, attention must be paid to those in the second rank, for the spears of those within it are projected forward together with those of the front rank and, being positioned immediately behind the latter, are of great use in emergencies. For in the case that the file leader should fall or receive a wound, the man behind him, stepping into his place, closes the gap in the line and preserves its integrity."

Arrian 12 (my translation, based on deVoto):
"The men next in file to the file leader must be second to the latter in courage. For their spear reaches all the way to the enemy and they support the thrusts of the men deployed in front of them. Indeed someone in the opposite line with a sword (machaira) could reach the man deployed in front delivering the blow from above. If the file leader falls or is wounded and so unfit to fight, the next man in file stepping forward, takes the place and role of the file leader and keeps the phalanx whole and unbroken."
So the sentence about the second rank supporting the spear use of the first is there in Aelian (though he doesn't use the word othismois), but not in Asclepiodotus. Arrian's rather odd aside about the use of the sword is unique to him. Perhaps this is a reference to Roman practice. Perhaps (since Asclepiodotus and Aelian compare the phalanx as a whole with the sword (machaira), with the front rank as its cutting edge, while Arrian, though he has this comparison, slightly garbles it and refers only to the tempering of iron) Arrian, writing from memory, added a sentence about the machaira slightly out of place. It's hard to say, but doesn't alter the meaning of the preceding sentence.

Some background for those reading the thread- so don't take this as me not assuming you know this. Aelian by his own admission to Trajan was clueless about actual combat, for him the Tactica was purely a philosophical work based on earlier sources.  Aslepiodotus was a first century BC philosopher, and his Tactica was derivative of that of his teacher Posidonius- whom Arrian says was too technical.  I find it unlikely that this point would be from Posidonius and not be cited by his own student. It could be from Posidonius that the similar text in each treatise you cite above comes, but it could also be that Posidonius too was just quoting from a common earlier source. There are many such tactica and histories lost to us. I remember that Arrian mentions an Iphicrates and a Clearchus in particular to tell us they are not THE Iphicrates and Clearchus.  A prime candidate for a common source would be the 4th c tactica of Aneas Tacticus, who himself was influential on Polybius, another source for tactics by the three A's above.

Why do I mention this?  Well there are those that believe, me among them, that the concept of the second rank supporting the first with spears has nothing to do with sarissaphoroi. This is why it is not in Asclepiodus. The reason we believe this is that Arrian has 6 sarissa projecting in front of the phalanx. In this he is probably wrong, and misunderstanding Polybius, who was Aelian's source for 5 sarissa projecting in front of the front rank.  Now these sarissa are 3 feet apart.  It is hard to see how a second rank can simultaneously engage with a rank of men pinned by sarissa three feet ahead.  If we suppose sarissa of equal length, some choking up on the sarissa by the first rank, we can make this work, but then why not just choke up more and engage the third rank too? We quickly end up with the staggered sarissa sizes from front to back as a common feature rather than an oddity. Unlikely, and for good reason, no one gives up 3 feet of reach.

Arrian specifically tell us that he is not just writing about Macedonian practice: tactica 32-"an account of the old Greek and Macedonian formations which is adequate for anyone who does not wish to be ignorant even of these."  He lifts from Xenophon in many places. He also in Book 3 he writes of both Spears and Sarissa and the 'piloi of the Spartans and Arcadians.'
If he, like Aelian, are lifting the notion of two ranks, not 1 or 5, being able to engage with spears, this is exactly what we expect, and what I have written of, for a classical phalanx. If you take Arrian one step further in his borrowing than Aelian, it is clear that he could lift the notion from Aneas or some other hoplite source that: " Indeed someone in the opposite line with a sword (machaira) could reach the man deployed in front delivering the blow from above." Which I have also seen translated as the second man can "come at the enemy with a sword, delivering the blow over/past the man in front". Either way, this is prime hoplite stuff.

There is another, perhaps better option though. It may be that Arrian is adding something he is all too familiar from in his experience with the fulcum.  In this case he is describing the type of close physical support from the second rank we see in Maurice. However this made it into the work, I find the idea that it referred to sarissaphoroi, or that Arrian, skilled as he was, would confuse the old trope of a front rank as cutting edge with actual sword fighting at the front rank unlikely. He would really have to have no clue how a sarissa phalanx functioned to think this could happen.

One thing to remember is that I do not need any words for active pushing, I just need words for close proximity and blocked movement. The pushing comes naturally from these. An actual description of pushing is just icing on the cake.