The Pushing Match

[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...

[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.

[Geticus]

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.

One might also consider Polyainos' anecdote about Epaminondas calling out to his men during the battle to give him "one more step" and they would thereby gain the victory.
Hen bema charisasthe moi, kai ten niken hexomen. (2.3)
Give me one more step, and we will attain victory.
To me it seems clear evidence that classical historians accepted othismos/shield pressure as potentially decisive in battle

[jirisys]

One might also consider Polyainos' anecdote about Epaminondas calling out to his men during the battle to give him "one more step" and they would thereby gain the victory.
Hen bema charisasthe moi, kai ten niken hexomen. (2.3)
Give me one more step, and we will attain victory.
To me it seems clear evidence that classical historians accepted othismos/shield pressure as potentially decisive in battle

While shield pressure might have been very useful, the Theban right had 50 ranks deep; meaning that they had around 6 times the depth of the enemy, now, it is possible the spartans were pushed back bery easily, creating gaps in the formation; however they stood fighting. But the thebans had 50 ranks, so the possible formation problems in the front wouldn't be as bad as the ones the spartans had. Thus a gap was opened or the spartans tired, and died/routed.

Also, let's try to adress the OP a little bit more, as it seems he turned into a newt.

Again. I'm pretty sure wielding a xyphos with a hoplon on a phalanx formation is quite awkward. And worse if you are trying to hit the only weak spot of the other hoplite; his neck. A spear would give him reach to easily cut the space between your hand, your shield, his shield and his head.

~Jirisys ()

[antisocialmunky]

It was somewhat Pyrrhic as all the commanders died in the fighting.

[bobbin]

At Leuctra? The only commanders who died there were those of the Spartans, the battle was nothing short of a crushing victory for the Thebans.

[moonburn]

i still believe the 1st 2 ranks of the thebans got crushed beteween the spartans and the other 48 ranks pushing

anyway the pressure of 50 against 8 was to tilt the spartan phallanx and make it rotate and not necessarly crush them on the instant (also because i heard the spartans stood the 1st frontal assault and they needed a 2nd turn to rout the spartan phallanx) also the reason why the spartans where so heavily defeated was probably because of the cavalry (no more gentlemans batles epaminondas needed to secure boetia´s freedom so once they rout chase them down and take as many lifes as possible so the regular 8-14% casualties of regular hoplite warfare probably went sky high) another point for the cavalry was that epa probably knew that that pressure applied on the flank would make the phallanx rotate (if the shields where properly interlocked and we´re talking about spartans here people not athenian philosophers) and once it started to rotate gaps would appear and the cavalry could take advantage of those gaps

[saka-rauka1]

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.

From this video at points 1:26 and 1:44. Underarm usage in formation.

.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.

Equipment and drill does change over time, so simply saying that they didn't fight in specific way, thus could never adopt a new weapon does not really make sense, especially considering that the Roman army evolved several times after encountering different weapons and tactics used against them. In fact wasn't it the case that they abandoned their old hoplite model?

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.

Exactly, the back ranks would get away scot free, not being tired in the least and having a clear route behind them. The front ranks would be pushed into from both sides and would have to rely on the rest of the men realising that the battle had gone pear-shaped before the back ranks would get moving. I can't really see how a rout could go well for the people who weren't at the back. The front ranks would turn to rout but not get anywhere because their own men would be blocking their escape, so they would get crushed by the enemy. Then the mid ranks would scramble to leave not being very successful given the momentum of the opposing force. The back ranks would by then have figured out what was going on and left before much damage could be done to them.

Now obviously I'm guessing here, but my point is that in such a fierce pushing match, the tide could turn quickly indeed, and a rout would be all the harder.

Again. I'm pretty sure wielding a xyphos with a hoplon on a phalanx formation is quite awkward. And worse if you are trying to hit the only weak spot of the other hoplite; his neck.

Their spears would break often so they would be fighting with their swords for most of the battle. If they were so awkward, they would have been phased out.

A spear would give him reach to easily cut the space between your hand, your shield, his shield and his head.

Ah, but remember that they were right up against each other, so the reach afforded by a spear cannot be used.

[Ibrahim]

From this video at points 1:26 and 1:44. Underarm usage in formation.

looking at 1:26, I might be convinced, though I see no evidence of an opposing force, or that they are charging-they're simply men running in formation to a place. he doesn't address that fact. nor does he address the fact that some very serious scenery-like on the chigi vase, show two forces charging at one another over arm.

and @ 1:44: that's neither under or over: it's just a bunch of Greeks running with their spears upright-compatible with either. that's why I made the point that he just tells you the fact-and expects you to agree: it's one thing to show a picture and declare it to mean sth: it's another to actually look at it yourself and think about it.

and many of these scenes are also of individual combat: in that scenario, either could work, though I do agree underarm was more sensical there. one thing I must point out though is that much of these vases are clearly depicting scenes from mythology-especially Homeric mythology. the Greeks knew people fought differently then-the Illiad pretty much says so. and since those were from the days prior to the phalanx, I doubt they can be used to infer much about the phalanx.

I do agree with him though, the Greeks were stylized in depicting their heroes: Nudity symbolized that well. but again, the Chigi vase, and many others, show them in full panoply, in formation, overarm. and depiction of same in individual combat, does show that the soldiers used underarm. again, see the link I provided.

Equipment and drill does change over time, so simply saying that they didn't fight in specific way, thus could never adopt a new weapon does not really make sense what are you talking about?, especially considering that the Roman army evolved several times after encountering different weapons and tactics used against them. In fact wasn't it the case that they abandoned their old hoplite model?

yes, they did ditch the phalanx, when the manipular structure and the legion were perfected: that's also when the Hastati/principes began using swords as the primary melee weapon.

and the first part of your statement makes no sense: especially as I never said, or even implied that. I simply stated that the soldiers you gave as an example simply didn't fight like hoplites-they were more "hands on", with sword and shield. now had you said they were the same men were from before the adoption of the legionary structure and later the maniples-before which their main equipment was the spear, then yes, they were in a phalanx.

Exactly, the back ranks would get away scot free, not being tired in the least and having a clear route behind them. The front ranks would be pushed into from both sides and would have to rely on the rest of the men realising that the battle had gone pear-shaped before the back ranks would get moving. I can't really see how a rout could go well for the people who weren't at the back. The front ranks would turn to rout but not get anywhere because their own men would be blocking their escape, so they would get crushed by the enemy. Then the mid ranks would scramble to leave not being very successful given the momentum of the opposing force. The back ranks would by then have figured out what was going on and left before much damage could be done to them.

Now obviously I'm guessing here, but my point is that in such a fierce pushing match, the tide could turn quickly indeed, and a rout would be all the harder.

yeah it could turn quickly-most battles pretty much ended up like that, and it would certainly be harder to escape if you're in the front. but again, it doesn't necessarily mean it will be any harder for the rear to run then in other battle types. as mentioned before, the killing really escalated when the routing began (which was also the case in any battle back then), and men began to run. again, it's clear we don't fundamentally disagree about that either. the main issue here is that while it could get real bloody for the loser, it never really for the most part ended up like say, Cynocephalae: we don't see whole armies cut down in Greek on Greek action. and the reason was given-at least in my estimation-for that. once the men began to run and put some distance from the enemy-often by dropping equipment-they could eventually outrun the enemy. not before obviously quite few men were cut down running.

[jirisys]

From this video at points 1:26 and 1:44. Underarm usage in formation.

Yes, while in recreations, YOU try to do that in formation while doing a shield-wall.

I can draw a 10 foot soldier with medieval armor and greek shield. But that doesn't make it true is it? It's not a matter of drawings, it's one of actual real life.

Equipment and drill does change over time, so simply saying that they didn't fight in specific way, thus could never adopt a new weapon does not really make sense, especially considering that the Roman army evolved several times after encountering different weapons and tactics used against them. In fact wasn't it the case that they abandoned their old hoplite model?

Etruscan hoplite. Fought like greeks too. Overarm.

Exactly, the back ranks would get away scot free, not being tired in the least and having a clear route behind them. The front ranks would be pushed into from both sides and would have to rely on the rest of the men realising that the battle had gone pear-shaped before the back ranks would get moving. I can't really see how a rout could go well for the people who weren't at the back. The front ranks would turn to rout but not get anywhere because their own men would be blocking their escape, so they would get crushed by the enemy. Then the mid ranks would scramble to leave not being very successful given the momentum of the opposing force. The back ranks would by then have figured out what was going on and left before much damage could be done to them.

That's why the less experienced were in the back, so they don't mess up the front and are useless fighting the professionals on the other side.

Now obviously I'm guessing here, but my point is that in such a fierce pushing match, the tide could turn quickly indeed, and a rout would be all the harder.

No, in fact it would have been easier to rout in an 8 rank deep phalanx than a 256 phalangite unit, or a maniple. As you can clearly see what the bloody is happening about 20 yards away or less. Also you have horns and music and screams to drop the shields. And you just scream "Drop your shields" and try to move back until you can actually move back and get the hell away.

Their spears would break often so they would be fighting with their swords for most of the battle. If they were so awkward, they would have been phased out.

Mention any other melee weapon known and used by the greeks other than swords. Also, you seem to think that "If x was so bad, then it would have been phased out". It doesn't happen that way. Swords were useful, it doesn't mean

Ah, but remember that they were right up against each other, so the reach afforded by a spear cannot be used.

Oh the humanity.

That's it. I give up. Sending him back in time to any hoplite battle is the only way he will be convinced. Oh bloody.

~Jirisys ()

[antisocialmunky]

At Leuctra? The only commanders who died there were those of the Spartans, the battle was nothing short of a crushing victory for the Thebans.

Must be confusing it with another battle though :/ Also pun.

[Arjos]

They needed a quick victory.

That's all right, my point was that Epaminondas most likely knew how depleted was the Spartiatai (due to all the recent events), and his goal was to eliminate the remaining...
Then everything went so smoothly that victory was achieved with such low casualties, but most likely the first Theban ranks got "chewed" and a mass rout didn't take place because the left wing was so deep. Giving time to the cavalry to manouver and the rest of the Thebans to engage...

[Lazy O]

Stupid Argument. Wield a spear underhand, youre only going to hit the shield. And with geticus' post, I dont think it matters if you have x centimetres less grip.

[saka-rauka1]

Hoplite spearheads were not designed to penetrate armour, they had a wide leaf shape which was perfect for cutting into flesh but would have been fairly useless against metal armour. They did have a buttspike that was designed to do that but it has been theorised that was more for finishing off enemies who had already fallen. For close quarters there was the Kopis, which was specially meant to pierce armour.

Actually I think you're right. I remembered a medieval weapon that was essential a spike that was perfect for getting through armour. It featured a rectangular cross-section though, lacking the means to cut a foe.

As for the kopis, how was it designed to defeat armour? I have read of it being a short, curved blade. Seems poorly suited from that description.

I think it was more for "killing people at a distance".

I could move past a spear by just parrying it to my side. In combat, possibly 4 people in my line would have died trying it, the 5th would have gone hand to hand with the spearmen.

The hoplite shield wall was different, since you couldn't get past the spears because they were so close to the men.

You definately could against 1 person; which is why I suggested that in a duel, a spear is useless. But a line of spearmen can make it much harder. The guy in front of you is easy to parry, the guy two to your left, significantly less so.

why would the main fighting unit of this age/area only be about 'keeping them away from eachother', rather than being able to kill eachother from farther away?

To kill someone at a specified distance, you have to keep them there no?

I don't know what depiction you are referring to

Spear held upright, with the point facing straight up. Very natural with underarm, completely unfeasible with overarm.

[jirisys]

As for the kopis, how was it designed to defeat armour? I have read of it being a short, curved blade. Seems poorly suited from that description.

Short, thin and curved are great against armour, because you don't have to move as much mass away like you would with a large, broad and straight sword.

You definately could against 1 person; which is why I suggested that in a duel, a spear is useless. But a line of spearmen can make it much harder. The guy in front of you is easy to parry, the guy two to your left, significantly less so.

That's what I said

To kill someone at a specified distance, you have to keep them there no?

No, that's dumb. That's like saying in order to kill someonw with a bow he has to be at a distance, when in fact he could be distracted and you land an arrow to his neck. If you want to kill people at a distance, you just have to make sure they get to the minimum distance for you to kill them, if they get near, well, you grab your sword and slash his neck. Because he was a brave fool. Even a a sword has a distance. Unless you stab him with your hand inside his body.

Spear held upright, with the point facing straight up. Very natural with underarm, completely unfeasible with overarm.

I recommend you bend your elbows, I can do that without any trouble; I can even reach 135 degrees with overarm.

~Jirisys ()

[QuintusSertorius]

You definately could against 1 person; which is why I suggested that in a duel, a spear is useless.

This is total nonsense. Especially without a shield, a spear is a very versatile weapon (effectively being a staff with a blade).

[jirisys]

This is total nonsense. Especially without a shield, a spear is a very versatile weapon (effectively being a staff with a blade).

If the other guy does not have a shield of course, but if he has a shield he just blocks the spear and walks in front of him with not much damage (unless the spearman is very skilled).

~Jirisys ()

[QuintusSertorius]

If the other guy does not have a shield of course, but if he has a shield he just blocks the spear and walks in front of him with not much damage (unless the spearman is very skilled).

~Jirisys ()

So he's going to constantly keep his shield in motion to protect his head and legs? A spear isn't just a point, it can be used to trip and entangle, push and batter.

[bobbin]

If the other guy does not have a shield of course, but if he has a shield he just blocks the spear and walks in front of him with not much damage (unless the spearman is very skilled).

~Jirisys ()

And the spearman would just stand there then? He wouldn't slam his sheild into the swordmans face or dodge out of the way?