The Pushing Match

[Randal]

There's still quite a debate about the meaning of the term "othismos" which in the past has been interpreted as literal "pushing" but nowadays is getting interpreted more as a general term for the "tide of battle."

I've not done a lot of reading on the subject, but I've read R. D. Luginbill, 'Othismos: the importance of the mass-shove in hoplite warfare', Phoenix 48/I(I994), si-6i; and A. K. Goldsworthy, 'The othismos, myths and heresies: the nature of hoplite battle', War in History 4/I ( 997), I-26.

The former defends the traditional interpretation that Greek soldiers were literally shoving eachother like an inverse tug-of-war. Goldsworthy, i.m.o. argues much more convincingly that this is pretty much impossible and shows the term or similar ones being used even when the soldiers involved are not equipped in a way that would make literal "shoving" possible.

Given the low casualty ratings hoplite battles must have been far more tentative affairs than is assumed in the common imagination or shown in Total War. The charges probably either broke the enemy very quickly or failed to hit home as the enemy stood firm, with only brief but important periods of actual hand-to-hand fighting.

As for how they held the spear, I'm assuming over-hand. From what I've read from professional re-enactors, it's a myth that the sword is better than the spear in single-combat. Good spear-fighters apparently are very dangerous. Spear-thrusts are easy to parry, but carry so little momentum that they're also easy to recover from making it a very quick and dangerous weapon. No sources, though. Sorry. This is just what I remember reading.

[antisocialmunky]

Yeah, the reading of 'pushing' has always been an interesting point to me especially in the case of Leuctra where the 50 deep Theban left managed to crush the Spartan right and inflict massive casualties. The interesting bit seems to have been that the Spartans held the initial charge but eventually broke during the course of the fighting so it must have been a slightly drawn out affair. :\

At Coronea, the Spartan right managed to quickly rout the allied left after a mutual charge. Its hard to say what exactly was the nature of hoplite warfare...

[Randal]

It seems pretty ridiculous to me to assume that those 50 men were all pushing forward against eachother in an armoured rugby-scrum... I could picture it with up to half a dozen men maybe, but at the depths hoplites fought in...

I'm not saying, by the way, that hoplite battles were always over quickly. We know that some definitely weren't. Just that actual shield-to-shield mêlée fighting must have been brief.

[Arjos]

Also after each clash, I think always, is said how caos breaks free, many times with same wings killing eachother...

[tujo33]

Another thing to think about is you wouldn't only be attacking the person directly in front of you. A thrust to your right with a spear could pierce the neck of the combatant to your right who would be partially unprotected due to the space between the tops of his and his neighbors aspis. this would also lend to the thought of having your best hoplites on the right of the line. Attacking the soldier to the left or right of you. I like to think that as long as the phalanx stayed together they would fight as a phalanx, not breaking into one on one combat. a spear thrust from the front rank could injure someone in the fourth line.

[Alrik]

Ok, first I thought this was an april-fools thread, but apparently the initial posts were older than that.

I'm not sure what you mean with the different names on the grip, there's two ways of holding a spear, one way for thowing it and one way for hand to hand combat. So I really thought this was a non-issue and hence the thread a joke.

I'll call this the M-grip for Missile

and this H-grip for hand-to-hand combat (I'll thus try to refrain from saying melee)

The M-grip enables you to throw the spear, in hand-to-hand however you'd be a dead idiot, pretty quickly. For one it's not possible to thust with the spear using this grip and a spear is a thusting weapon. You can stab, but as that makes the point follow the arch of your hand, stabbing is thus obviously an attack best suited for short weapons.

There's also the issue of it being "flimsy", you have little controll of the weapon, if someone bumps your weapon it's much harder to get back under control than with the H-grip and it forces you to hold the weapon closer to the center than an H-grip does.

There's also the issue of more or less only being able to stab, if you want the spearpoint to continue forward you actually have to losen your grip on the shaft, otherwise it'll start a downward motion, losening the grip obviously means that you can transfer less force into the attack.

One can only use this grip shoulder height and above as opposed to the H-grip which can more or less be used at any height.

Thrusting as someone using the M-grip also exposes two great targets for your opponent;
For anything with a blade, that can be a spearpoint, but becomes a lot worse if it's a sword or something with a bit more force behind the swipe. The lovely vertical underarm, in front of your body, no less so it's even easy to reach.
Secondly the nice pocket your armpit makes, a wonderful target for anything with a thrustingpoint. Not only does the armpit catch the thrust nicely, and lead it into body, but this area is really hard to armour, because doing so usually limits movement.

The H-grip in turn have:

Greater reach, because you can both hold further back on the spear and extend your arm further.

Greater control, meaning you can wield your spear in numerous ways, like, block, or swipe, or use it to "catch" your opponents spears.

Greater force, not only does this grip enable a movement that generates more force, but it also enables you to transfer your bodyweight and your momentum into the thrust. This combined with the fact that the thrust from this grip continues in a straight line, means that one can pierce something and continue on through.

Greater presision. This is a result from this grip being steadier and giving you more control, but also from the fact that the spearpoint doesn't move in a trajectory. Hitting where you want is pretty important when you're facing an armoured and/or shield wielding opponent.

That's what I find at the top of my head at 1 Am :P

Oh the second spearpoint, like has been said before, it's probably good to have a reserve spearpoint, but as you're probably holding your spear pretty far back with the counterweight and all, if your opponent charges past your spearpoint, then sending the spearpoint skywards you quickly have an M-grip and a short weapon, that you can use to stab your oncoming foe in the face/neck/torso. Perhaps not ideal, but pretty deadly as your charging foe usually wants to see what he's doing (hence his shield probably isn't held up too high enableling you to possibly act over it as an M-grip means you act in the high reagions.) and it's a lot quicker than changing to your secondary weapon.

Ahh and the mentionings on low number of casulties makes me guess that they in those cases fought at more or less maximum reach in what I've come to know and despise as "spear duels", it's a really timeconsuming and low casulty way of fighting where spearmen on both sides poke at each other trying to get through the other's guard. Compared to a headon charge ending at closequaters this type of engagement can take forever without hardly anyone dying.
Obviosly in this kind of fighting you want reach more than anything.

[Foot]

ah, common sense. Isn't it wonderful? Not very good for determining the truth of something though.

It may be more efficient and make more sense for them to fight underhand, but all evidence we have on antiquity points toward the hoplites fighting overhand in the majority and unfortunately what makes sense does not trump that. And you can rationalise the depiction in art all you want, but the arguments are hollow and without merit. They follow only from the assumption that underarm was used, and are not an argument that is ever used in any other situation.

Foot

[Ibrahim]

Ok, first I thought this was an april-fools thread, but apparently the initial posts were older than that.

I'm not sure what you mean with the different names on the grip, there's two ways of holding a spear, one way for thowing it and one way for hand to hand combat. So I really thought this was a non-issue and hence the thread a joke.

I'll call this the M-grip for Missile

and this H-grip for hand-to-hand combat (I'll thus try to refrain from saying melee)

The M-grip enables you to throw the spear, in hand-to-hand however you'd be a dead idiot, pretty quickly. For one it's not possible to thust with the spear using this grip and a spear is a thusting weapon. You can stab, but as that makes the point follow the arch of your hand, stabbing is thus obviously an attack best suited for short weapons.

by your very own logic here, you just showed exactly why spears, if used, would be overarm. afterall, when it is so, it has the appearance of a man about to thrown a javelin-and works the same way too: you're using the momentum of your arm to impact with the greatest force.

and if you think the "M grip" (it's an Argive grip, not M grip; I can find this googling it) is better for swords, then why is it that the Romans ditched it?

Yeah, the reading of 'pushing' has always been an interesting point to me especially in the case of Leuctra where the 50 deep Theban left managed to crush the Spartan right and inflict massive casualties. The interesting bit seems to have been that the Spartans held the initial charge but eventually broke during the course of the fighting so it must have been a slightly drawn out affair. :\

At Coronea, the Spartan right managed to quickly rout the allied left after a mutual charge. Its hard to say what exactly was the nature of hoplite warfare...

I think the 50 rank is less to do with "push", and more to do with psycohology and playing the numbers' game: if the spartans only fought an enemy 8 ranks deep, it's all fine and good. but then rank after rank after rank? that would have worn the Spartans out.

EDIT: this indeed had better be a joke.

[jirisys]

Ok, first I thought this was an april-fools thread, but apparently the initial posts were older than that.

I'm not sure what you mean with the different names on the grip, there's two ways of holding a spear, one way for thowing it and one way for hand to hand combat. So I really thought this was a non-issue and hence the thread a joke.

I'll call this the M-grip for Missile

and this H-grip for hand-to-hand combat (I'll thus try to refrain from saying melee)

The M-grip enables you to throw the spear, in hand-to-hand however you'd be a dead idiot, pretty quickly. For one it's not possible to thust with the spear using this grip and a spear is a thusting weapon. You can stab, but as that makes the point follow the arch of your hand, stabbing is thus obviously an attack best suited for short weapons.

There's also the issue of it being "flimsy", you have little controll of the weapon, if someone bumps your weapon it's much harder to get back under control than with the H-grip and it forces you to hold the weapon closer to the center than an H-grip does.

There's also the issue of more or less only being able to stab, if you want the spearpoint to continue forward you actually have to losen your grip on the shaft, otherwise it'll start a downward motion, losening the grip obviously means that you can transfer less force into the attack.

One can only use this grip shoulder height and above as opposed to the H-grip which can more or less be used at any height.

Thrusting as someone using the M-grip also exposes two great targets for your opponent;
For anything with a blade, that can be a spearpoint, but becomes a lot worse if it's a sword or something with a bit more force behind the swipe. The lovely vertical underarm, in front of your body, no less so it's even easy to reach.
Secondly the nice pocket your armpit makes, a wonderful target for anything with a thrustingpoint. Not only does the armpit catch the thrust nicely, and lead it into body, but this area is really hard to armour, because doing so usually limits movement.

The H-grip in turn have:

Greater reach, because you can both hold further back on the spear and extend your arm further.

Greater control, meaning you can wield your spear in numerous ways, like, block, or swipe, or use it to "catch" your opponents spears.

Greater force, not only does this grip enable a movement that generates more force, but it also enables you to transfer your bodyweight and your momentum into the thrust. This combined with the fact that the thrust from this grip continues in a straight line, means that one can pierce something and continue on through.

Greater presision. This is a result from this grip being steadier and giving you more control, but also from the fact that the spearpoint doesn't move in a trajectory. Hitting where you want is pretty important when you're facing an armoured and/or shield wielding opponent.

That's what I find at the top of my head at 1 Am :P

Oh the second spearpoint, like has been said before, it's probably good to have a reserve spearpoint, but as you're probably holding your spear pretty far back with the counterweight and all, if your opponent charges past your spearpoint, then sending the spearpoint skywards you quickly have an M-grip and a short weapon, that you can use to stab your oncoming foe in the face/neck/torso. Perhaps not ideal, but pretty deadly as your charging foe usually wants to see what he's doing (hence his shield probably isn't held up too high enableling you to possibly act over it as an M-grip means you act in the high reagions.) and it's a lot quicker than changing to your secondary weapon.

Ahh and the mentionings on low number of casulties makes me guess that they in those cases fought at more or less maximum reach in what I've come to know and despise as "spear duels", it's a really timeconsuming and low casulty way of fighting where spearmen on both sides poke at each other trying to get through the other's guard. Compared to a headon charge ending at closequaters this type of engagement can take forever without hardly anyone dying.
Obviosly in this kind of fighting you want reach more than anything.

I think This ^ Is an april's fool's post.

As if it were only two kinds of grey. Light and Dark grey.

Fallacies and misunderstanding of combat.

Though nice try.

~Jirisys ()

[Ibrahim]

I think This ^ Is an april's fool's post.

As if it were only two kinds of grey. Light and Dark grey.

Fallacies and misunderstanding of combat.

Though nice try.

~Jirisys ()

actually, it's not.

I forgot to post the reply to that.

EDIT: oh, wait, you're referring to the original post.

[moonburn]

alrik remember formation :| greeks only fighted in sollid formations

as for the thebans 50 deep i suspect that the 1st 2 rows got crushed by the pure weight of the manouver epaminondas was a genius for greek warfare he didn´t expected the spartans to rout he just forçed their lines to tilt opening breaches in the shieldwall as the spartans where pushed back once the shieldwall opened cracks because their left wing was being pushed back the spartans eventually lost cohesion and the boetians won the day because epaminondas knew that 8 deep vs 8 deep the spartans would win in all the phases of the batle (the thebans didn´t had swords for the final prolonged melee i believe)

[Geticus]

The guy in the youtube video argues in an academic manner, in the worse sense of the term. History tends to reflect the personality of the historian, and since most modern historians, military historians included, are sedentary, lazy, brainy people who make their living with their tongue, they make all sorts of generalizations based on that weak, lazy, brainy point of view. This includes the cowardly general attitude of the youtuber post, talking about how "dangerous" it would be to initiate the shove. In contrast Victor Davis Hanson, author of The Western Way of War, and one of the main proponents of othismos as "the shove", is a pretty rustic individual, worked for years on a family owned grape farm, is no stranger to stoop agricultural toil and the like, and as such is somewhat closer to the viewpoint of the ancient Greek farmer-citizen-soldier and therefore IMO better qualified to interpret the Greek.

History gives abundant evidence that two opposed masses that both try to preserve forward motion, tend to come into a messy collision. Classical hoplite phalanx othismos was one such messy collision. Medieval push of pike was another. To understand othismos, it is better to 1) read Xenophon, who was co-strategos of the 10,000 mercenary phalanx and who spent his later life in Lacedaimon, had his son educated in the Spartan agoge, and as such was an expert on hoplite warfare throughout Hellas. 2) read the Greek, and know the meaning of the verb otheo/othizein etc. and the significance of middle/passive voice. What does the word "othoumenoi" mean? If you think it means "turning the tide of war" or some such, you suck at Greek. If you don't know any Greek, you won't learn that much and you can just waste time in more superfluous academic discussions.

Suffice it to say that the average Hellenic hoplite was far more vigorous than the average university academic, be he a rustic Boiotian farmer or a full Spartiate hoplite he had far more guts than the eloquent geek in the video. Their armor was heavy, it required strength to wear it, the Corinthian helmets pretty well buried the head in bronze. The ancient Hellenic world view during the classical era was not that far removed from the late Bronze heroic age, public drama commonly focused on late Bronze era/Trojan War era heroes, and there was a brutish element in the core masculine ideal of the time. War is not about being comfortable, it is about pushing past the limits of comfort and breaking your opponent's limits. The Hellenic othismos, like the push of pike during the medieval period, was an example of two sides trying to do just that. Evidence is not comprehensive about just how decisive othismos was vs. puissant spearplay in each battle, I tend to think that spearplay and point-accuracy were more common among the professional soldiery of Sparta, and less so in Thebes where the men were more known for brute endurance born of rustic agricultural toil. Either way the hoplite shoving match is a result of the basic forward motion of Classical Hellenic warfare. Look at what the 10,000 accomplished at the battle in Persia, the Persian royalists won the battle but no one would oppose the Greek mercenary phalanx. Why? Do you think that they had never seen massed spearmen before? Do you think that they had never seen armored infantry? Armored, serried infantry was common in the middle east since the time of the Assyrian Empire. The issue was compound: heavily armored infantry (read highly resistent to missile showers) with massive, aggressive forward momentum. They weren't used to it in the Babylonian/oriental theater of war. The same at the beginning of Xenophon's campaign under Prince Kuros, Kuros revelled in the dreadful sense of forward momentum created by his mercenary Greek phalanx-- to the Asiatics it was an alien way of war, no one was prepared for that kind of pressure just read Anabasis and it should be evident. Also when the Egyptians marched against the Hellenic polis of Kyrene originally they suffered an ignominious defeat, again because their infantry were not prepared for the Greek style of war. Everyone was used to massed infantry, the Egyptians had massed spearmen from time immemorial. Massed armored spearmen alone were not that revolutionary, it was the extreme forward pressure that tested enemy morale to the limits during the high point of classical Greek warfare.

I could go on and on, discussing this issue gets old when it seems to me that so many people who challenge Hanson's notions on othismos 1)don't read much/any Greek, 2) haven't read the Anabasis or the Hellenica, 3) couldn't translate a single sentence of Xenophon.

Sorry to come off a bit rude, but this whole issue has been done before here in other discussions, if people are going to discuss this issue like academics and arguements like "I think this" "that seems dangerous" et al., you get no where. Xenophon was a very experienced strategos, a seasoned warrior, and THE master historian of war during the 4th century, so any discussion like this should cite Xenophon by the passage or its basically merely academic.

[Alrik]

by your very own logic here, you just showed exactly why spears, if used, would be overarm. afterall, when it is so, it has the appearance of a man about to thrown a javelin-and works the same way too: you're using the momentum of your arm to impact with the greatest force.

and if you think the "M grip" (it's an Argive grip, not M grip; I can find this googling it) is better for swords, then why is it that the Romans ditched it?

When you throw something, you let go of it, otherwise the tip starts following the downward arch of your hand upsetting the force of the item and ofsetting your aim. The underarm grip as you call it even lets you throw the spear forward all the same, with the difference that you can reach out maximum and still retain your aim, it even lets you change the direction fairly late, should your opponent move or get his shield in the way.

As for the Romans, I would indeed be surprised if they had used a grip that'd only allow them to stab when they used a sword, to be able to thust and exchange blows, not to mention the ability to parry in more ways than one speak against this grip inmost hand-to-hand scenarios. The only weapon I can see it's uce for is a dagger, and then the ability to be able to slit your opponent's unprotected throat, might still be too heavy an argument againt its use.

I mentioned it in hand to hand combat because there is one said circumstance where it has merit and it's when your opponent gets too close for you to use your long weapon and it's quicker than reaching for your secondary weapon.

I also would encourage people to actually wield a weapon, try for one to hit a row of items with a long stick using both grips, should probably be at head height since the head is a promary target unless the opponent doesn't have shields. You'll notice aim, reach and force are all better with the underarm grip and yes you have no problem using it at shoulder height. Neither does your elbow shoot out further and annoy your fellow to your right than the other grip does.

[Ibrahim]

When you throw something, you let go of it, otherwise the tip starts following the downward arch of your hand upsetting the force of the item and ofsetting your aim.

.having actually tried a spear, I find you can always swivel your wrist round to compensate for that. it's still not accurate when starting this, but it has a great deal of force, and with practice you can probably get accurate enough.

As for the Romans, I would indeed be surprised if they had used a grip that'd only allow them to stab when they used a sword, to be able to thust and exchange blows, not to mention the ability to parry in more ways than one speak against this grip inmost hand-to-hand scenarios. The only weapon I can see it's uce for is a dagger, and then the ability to be able to slit your opponent's unprotected throat, might still be too heavy an argument againt its use.

huh?

I mentioned it in hand to hand combat because there is one said circumstance where it has merit and it's when your opponent gets too close for you to use your long weapon and it's quicker than reaching for your secondary weapon.

both shields can do that-they do it differently though. what's your point again?

I'll let someone else handle the rest. though I will tell you, I actually tried this out a long time ago. (a year ago actually). worked out just fine either way. you need practice.

[QuintusSertorius]

How exactly are you supposed to use an underhand grip with locked shields?

[Ludens]

Sorry to come off a bit rude,

It's indeed rude.

Just as a reminder to everyone: attack the argument, not the person. No matter how stupid his position may be.

[antisocialmunky]

I don't know if you can come off much less rude if you had to attack 'I think.' Not really a polemic but its an interesting read Geticus :)

[Geticus]

I don't know if you can come off much less rude if you had to attack 'I think.' Not really a polemic but its an interesting read Geticus :)

Yeah, a bit of a rant. More to the point Xenophon's description of Leuktra, which was one of the greatest battles of the era, is pretty explicit in the original Greek. Xenophon Hellenica 6.4.12-15 describes the battle of Leuktra itself and passive use of the verb "otheo" (to push) "otheomai (to be pushed) is critical in the passage.

The passive use of otheo/otheomai is used to describe what happened on the Lakedaimonian right after the Spartan champions- the polemarch, Sphodrias, and his son, were all killed ( 6.4.14)
oi te alloi upo tou oxlou othoumenoi anexoroun
the rest, being pushed back by the Theban throng, fell back.

The chainroute down the Lakedaimonian allied line itself is described in these terms in 6.4.14:

Os eoron to dexion othoumenon, eneklinan
As [the Lakedaimonian allies of good name] saw the right being pushed back, they gave way.
Read in context in Greek, its pretty clear, after 3 Spartan elites were killed in the melee, the othismos pressure of the 50 man Boiotian phalanx pushed back the 12 man deep Spartiate right. The rest of the Spartan allies saw the Spartiate elites giving ground, lost morale, and gave up the field.

[saka-rauka1]

as I said in my post: it may depend on the situation at hand; as this is a question of how Hoplites fought in phalanx, we need to establish if overhand use (or underhand), is more relevant to depictions from Greek times of said formation.

In the video he mentions that underarm depictions correlate with depiction of troops in formation. This is puzzling. Now I'll admit that correlation does not imply causation and this could be due to a third factor amongst other things, the question then is, what is the link?

shock (amplifying the initial power of the impact)*? knight's lances also shattered on impact most of the time-yet for some reason, Knights to my knowledge never really came to your same conclusion-at least in general. (the lance was only abandoned because the role of cavalry changed after the middle ages; the latter due to the intro of gunpowder in part, in part from the rise of professional modern armies,and so on)

and yes, whether it is knight or Hoplite, it's the same idea: using you velocity concentrated at a sharp point, well away from you, to poke into the enemy and kill him.

*see friendlyfire's post.

If it was that useful then I'm sure everyone would have used a spear during the initial charge, afterall, its not an expensive weapon. Yet legionaries and earlier hastati didn't use them, amongst a myraid of other troops. Furthermore, a cavalry charge makes significant headway into a formation, so a lot more men can use their lances in a charge. I doubt as many could do so in an infantry formation, in addition, the shock value of a spear is much greater when wielded on horseback.

you also seem to imply that the losing side will just keep pushing-I might be misunderstanding you hear, but that's the implication. they wouldn't-not unless they wanted to die for nothing: if a gap was forced (as in most of these engagements), it would have meant the flanking of the pockets of losing hoplites. those would naturally be seized by fear, and haul it. so any pushing from the losers would stop. unless they're the theban sacred band. it's interesting to note however that much of the killing was when the losers started to run. but even then, you would have to ask yourself: why not be able to kill more of those routing men? and the answer is as I mentioned: once the fleeing survivors dropped their panoply in panic, they could get away from the winning hoppers.

When the front ranks see that all is lost, the will drop shields and run yes? But the mid/back ranks can't see this as easily given that they are more removed from the fighting. They would continue to push, by the time it became apparent that there was a rout, the front ranks would have been slaughtered. More to the point, how easy would it be for someone in a fierce pushing match to simply turn tail and run. They would have incredibly little room, and as soon as they stop pushing, they would be bowled over.

why would that be the case? even if the spear didn't shatter on impact, the hoplite would still be able to plunge it into the 2nd and 3rd ranks-at least in theory. and if that wasn't feasible, then all the better towards explaining why hoplite warfare was inefficient.

This has been my point from the get-go.

[antisocialmunky]

When the front ranks see that all is lost, the will drop shields and run yes? But the mid/back ranks can't see this as easily given that they are more removed from the fighting. They would continue to push, by the time it became apparent that there was a rout, the front ranks would have been slaughtered. More to the point, how easy would it be for someone in a fierce pushing match to simply turn tail and run. They would have incredibly little room, and as soon as they stop pushing, they would be bowled over.

You couldn't, that's why the most experienced guys were put in the front, this even carried over the the Macedonian phalanx. So they wouldn't crack under the pressure because there is no retreat in that sort of 'push' situation. You drop your shield, you panic everyone, die, and the whole formation beings losing cohesion. Its also probably why so many commanders died at Leuktra.

[moonburn]

a few people should get beaten with a bronze hoplon and experience the crushing power of a true push and then multiply it by 8

with the right balance/momentum a proper men doesn´t even need a spear he just crashes against the other dude gets him off his ballance and then tramples him

for a mental image the americans can even use their kind of football to imagine the power of the push when in practices their players can move 2 ton cars with a shoulder push by almost 2 feet (60 centimeters)

me personally when i was younger and fit i could bend matrisses all the way up to the midle and be projected almost 2 meters back by the backlash such was the strenght and power i could put into it (it was a litle game me and my friends played in gymnastic against the piled up matrisses wich where very flexible)

another game that i used to do when i was younger (6 to 11 years old give or take) was to separate into 2 groups and then each group would give hands (rougly separated by an arms lenght) and if you could break their link with just a "push" you would remove one of their members if not you where out and i remember that it could get very extreme in terms of power we had to stop playing it around 12 years old because a few people broke their wrists and bended a few harms since as we grew we could get greater momentum and we had more strenght

thats how i see the "push" working turn your side with the hoplon to the other guy and try to crush him by forçe and momentum

can you imagine a 80 kilos dude crushing another against a wall with his shoulder at full strenght ? broken ribs and massive internal damages spears are only necessary if the dude was somehow able to whitstand the crush and if he did you use the spear overhand inside your formation by around 10-15 minutes with the adrenalin pumping and then pull back rest for a while and then do it again

thats how i understand hoplite warfare the phallanx (as in with sarissas) warfare did indeed used underhand grip but with a sarissa thats the best you can do normal people with sarissa can´t do more then to have a stationary position and it takes a true veteran to use the sarissa in a true ofenssive way and not just as an anvil wich was infact it´s original design (great veterans could go a bit further and use it a bit like pike formations in the medieval time in an agressive way but the euipment gives itself more for anvil or stationary/defensive warfare then agressive warfare)

p.s: yes i rant alot :\

[Arjos]

If it was a "pushing match", why would Xenophon suggest that a hoplite phalanx 1 rank deep could win any battle?
I think that was all about cohesion and maintaning the formation, so in the end every man would have helped eachother killing the other's frontal opponent and so on...
To me it's obvious that the losing side gets "pushed" back, as people dying lay down and the winning side advances, with the less experienced men obviously giving ground...

[Randal]

I don't know Greek, and have no illusions of deciding this academic debate, let alone by trying to interpret Xenophon, but as shown by the secondary sources I quoted it is a debate and the conclusions are far from clear. I find the counter-arguments to "othismos" as pushing match much more convincing than the classical case, which to me seems to contradict evidence from all other eras and methods of warfare that we know, but again, don't argue with me, argue with Goldsworthy or Sabin.

As for "push of pike" in the early modern era, the term was used but I was under the distinct impression actual eyewitness reports actually said it was mostly a tentative fencing match at maximum range, like what Alrik describes his post.

[Arjos]

The only pushing element I can think there was, is when one side would try to exploit the death of some opponents in certain areas, and so "pushed" men there to distrupt the enemy's phalanx formation...

BTW about grips, underhand can't be the case with an aspis, especially undershield, due to its size, while overshield will expose so much the arm and shoulder with an angle that makes any shoulder guard useless...

[Geticus]

a few people should get beaten with a bronze hoplon and experience the crushing power of a true push and then multiply it by 8

with the right balance/momentum a proper men doesn´t even need a spear he just crashes against the other dude gets him off his ballance and then tramples him

thats how i see the "push" working turn your side with the hoplon to the other guy and try to crush him by forçe and momentum

can you imagine a 80 kilos dude crushing another against a wall with his shoulder at full strenght ? broken ribs and massive internal damages spears are only necessary if the dude was somehow able to whitstand the crush and if he did you use the spear overhand inside your formation by around 10-15 minutes with the adrenalin pumping and then pull back rest for a while and then do it again

thats how i understand hoplite warfare the phallanx (as in with sarissas) warfare did indeed used underhand grip but with a sarissa thats the best you can do normal people with sarissa can´t do more then to have a stationary position and it takes a true veteran to use the sarissa in a true ofenssive way and not just as an anvil wich was infact it´s original design (great veterans could go a bit further and use it a bit like pike formations in the medieval time in an agressive way but the euipment gives itself more for anvil or stationary/defensive warfare then agressive warfare)

p.s: yes i rant alot :\

Yeah that's basically it. Some are saying that there is no evidence for shieldpressure being used in war in other eras- martial cultures. This is incorrect, in the Germanic world it was a standard tactic to use blunt pressure including massed press of shields to take down unbreakable warriors after the weaker warriors were killed off, this was called "bearing him down with shields". IIRC this was the way the English took down the famous viking Ragnar Lothbrok in the Lothbrok Saga. Closer to home, the Romans used their shieldbosses as blunt striking weapons as well. The famous 4th century general Manlius Torquatus Imperiosus, whose name was synonymous with Roman military discipline, gained the cognomen of Torquatus when he killed a Celtic champion in single combat in front of the Roman and Celtic armies, the account that we receive in Livy relate that Torquatus shieldbashed the Celtic champion, knocking him off balance, and then gutted him with the sword. Gaius Marius the great military reformed is also recorded as drilling his legionaries in using shieldbashes during the Cimbri-Teutonic War. The Hellenes just fought in a unified shieldwall and took that principle of shieldpressure to the limit, making a massed blunt impetus to the point that farmers who had greater raw strength but lacked the precision of arms that comes with professional practice, still could have impact on the battlefield throught the application of simple brute strength.

[Randal]

Of course people used their shields to shove and push and bash.

What's being questioned is the theory that in a Hoplite phalanx 8, 16 or 50 ranks of warriors pushed their shields against the back of the guy in front of them to create vastly greater frontal pressure.

I don't doubt for a moment that hoplites, germans and just about anybody else with a big, solid shield used it as an offensive as well as a defensive weapon.

[bobbin]

I think a good argument for hoplites pushing en mass is the Battle of Leuctra, Epaminondas's tactic of concentrating his 50 deep phalanx on the Spartan right would not have made any sense if he hadn't intended to use it to overpower the Spartans with brute force.

[Arjos]

I don't know, think the deep Theban left wing had to tire the Spartans, don't forget the cavarly was put there too...
Was summer it was hot, the Thebans could have even afforded to lose lots of men on the left, but collapsing the Spartan right meant victory, so in the end was the 300-400 hippeis against the Thebans in way...

[Ibrahim]

In the video he mentions that underarm depictions correlate with depiction of troops in formation. This is puzzling. Now I'll admit that correlation does not imply causation and this could be due to a third factor amongst other things, the question then is, what is the link?

really? that's not I or a few other people have found:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

a "typical" example of spear use in formation:
www.livius.org/a/1/greece/chigi_phalanx.jpg

http://rtw.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/f...,0,480,0&st=25

I'm simply not sure how the man did this: to my knowlege, it must be the opposite. I'd hate to call him a liar, but this isn't what I find; not in online pics of these depictions, not in the museum, or any books on the subject that I have (Goldsworthy included). I would seriously need pictures of the depictions he's talking about. now I went a head and looked at his videos, and he doesn't really seem to do that: he just tells you he did.

If it was that useful then I'm sure everyone would have used a spear during the initial charge, afterall, its not an expensive weapon. Yet legionaries and earlier hastati didn't use them, amongst a myraid of other troops. Furthermore, a cavalry charge makes significant headway into a formation , so a lot more men can use their lances in a charge. I doubt as many could do so in an infantry formation, in addition, the shock value of a spear is much greater when wielded on horseback (nah, really?) .

.hastati and principes didn't fight in a phalanx, thus requiring the equipment they got.

and of course only the first few ranks could do it-then again, that's all that is required. when you have 6 or 7 people behind you, it's not surprising that the effect of the impact would be violent.

When the front ranks see that all is lost, the will drop shields and run yes? But the mid/back ranks can't see this as easily given that they are more removed from the fighting. They would continue to push, by the time it became apparent that there was a rout, the front ranks would have been slaughtered. More to the point, how easy would it be for someone in a fierce pushing match to simply turn tail and run. They would have incredibly little room, and as soon as they stop pushing, they would be bowled over.

from what I understand, the rout would have begun once the front rankers were killed/pushed back, and a gap as a result was opened. so why are you worried about them? and who said the people further back wouldn't necessarily know? eyes aren't alone (and in all the dust and confusion, they were useless): sounds, and the pushing from the front of men trying to haul it/the enemy moving forward, etc, would have been enough to send a message to the rear, and if they broke down, to run for the hills. the rest of what I said follows. so no, I wasn't specifically talking about any rank of soldiers-just hoplites in general when they have routed.

it does have an interesting implication though, now that you brought it up: it would mean the first to start running would be the rear-most ranks, not the front. explains why leaders tended to meet the great pie in the sky first in some of these battles-they'd have lead from the front.

This has been my point from the get-go.

ok......

[bobbin]

I don't know, think the deep Theban left wing had to tire the Spartans, don't forget the cavarly was put there too...
Was summer it was hot, the Thebans could have even afforded to lose lots of men on the left, but collapsing the Spartan right meant victory, so in the end was the 300-400 hippeis against the Thebans in way...

I find that unlikely, the Thebans were heavily outnumbered in infantry (~4000), it would have been madness to adopt such "cannon fodder" tactics when facing an enemy with superior numbers and training.

The whole crux of the victory rested upon the fact that the Theban left was able to defeat the Spartan right before the weaker centre and right gave way against the more numerous and better trained Spartan soldiers opposing them.

This is why Epaminondas used the echelon formation in the first place, to keep the weaker parts of his army away from the Spartans for as long as possible. If the clash on the Spartan right had been a prolonged slogging match to grind the Spartans down, the Theban left and centre would have given way before a victory could have been achieved.

They needed a quick victory.