The Pushing Match

Originally Posted by bobbin

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

Originally Posted by Geticus

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 ()

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

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.

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

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.

Originally Posted by saka-rauka1

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.

Originally Posted by bobbin

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...

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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 ()

I am sorry that I hadnt got the time to read the whole thread, but I am going to do so and to write a more elaborate answer, but for now I'd like to say that this guy on youtube seems to have very good points when it comes to early european medieval times (when no spear butt spikes were used), for the rest... its debatable.

Hold on a second. I just realised: if each man in a unit is pushing against his opposing enemy, then if he does gain ground, his shield will no longer be interlocked with those of his neighbours, someone could just poke him with their spear through the gap in the shield wall; moreover, the guy to his left would lose protection too.

if the shields are interlocked properly he wouldn´t be the only one pushed back but as he gets pushed back and he as 7 other dudes pushing against his back if he isn´t experienced the squeeze can unbalance him and he might forget to duck his head and be speared

the worst that could happen is to loose balance in a more "relaxed" phase of the batle and be trampled if you died during the 8-15 minutes a oychos lasted then it didn´t really mattered the pressure was such that the body and the shield would remain fixed and only when the pressure eased would your body drop to the floor

Originally Posted by saka-rauka1

Hold on a second. I just realised: if each man in a unit is pushing against his opposing enemy, then if he does gain ground, his shield will no longer be interlocked with those of his neighbours, someone could just poke him with their spear through the gap in the shield wall; moreover, the guy to his left would lose protection too.

Again, don't address my points. And make up new ones.

Interlocking shields means you would not be able to move forward only if you were to move away from formation. Try to look at my drawing to see what an interlocking might look like. Also some small figures on that same thread.

~Jirisys ()

English:
I have a harder question for some of you peeps: What is the significance of the debate over varying reconstructions of hoplite warfare?

Simple English (a la Los Angeles):
time to challenge you punk *** foos. wats so 'portant 'bout weder you push it like diz or push it like dat, huh?

Again, don't address my points. And make up new ones.

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.

Doesn't seem like there's much point but I'll indulge you.

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.

Artistic License eh?

Etruscan hoplite. Fought like greeks too. Overarm.

Ah yes how could I forget. These same guys then went on to conquer the world.........oh wait, no they didn't.

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.

Oh really? So its easier to rout in a closely packed formation than a loose order one?

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

You expect me to say that they should have used axes, or maces? Or that they indeed did use them? Why would I do that? That first point makes no sense at all.



@Ibrahim

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.

Point taken.

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.

Not really, upright using an overarm grip would be incredibly awkward compared to underarm.

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.

I agree that he hasn't really explained them in enough detail; many of those could indeed be from mythology, he doesn't say. On another more tangential note, what of later works such as the Bayeux Tapestry? IIRC, it shows someone getting his helmet cleaved in two by an opponents sword, something that is impossible to do. Was it perhaps the case that war wasn't as close to home as it was for Ancient Greeks?

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.

I didn't mean to imply that you were saying otherwise, I simply wanted to make my own point clearer. I'm trying to say that the later manipular and legionary structures were better than the older hoplite phalanx. This would then make me question why the Greeks stuck to it for so long.

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.

This is what I've been driving at, the back ranks could rout as easily as any other soldier, but the front ranks have to content with the close quarters of allies as well as the forward momentum of the enemy. I can see how battles were so decisive even with low casulties. The men in the front were the more experienced of the unit, and they didn't have the luxury of being able to fight another day.

Ah yes how could I forget. These same guys then went on to conquer the world.........oh wait, no they didn't.

What are you talking about?

Oh really? So its easier to rout in a closely packed formation than a loose order one?

Yes, because it's less deep and it is still pretty tight. You are STILL keeping the TW conception of battles.

You expect me to say that they should have used axes, or maces? Or that they indeed did use them? Why would I do that? That first point makes no sense at all.

Yes it does. You say that every thing that is awkward or is not able to be used in it's completeness must have "faded away". YOUR points make no sense. I was just asking what you were arguing for"

Not really, upright using an overarm grip would be incredibly awkward compared to underarm.

No. We already told you many times.

I agree that he hasn't really explained them in enough detail; many of those could indeed be from mythology, he doesn't say. On another more tangential note, what of later works such as the Bayeux Tapestry? IIRC, it shows someone getting his helmet cleaved in two by an opponents sword, something that is impossible to do. Was it perhaps the case that war wasn't as close to home as it was for Ancient Greeks?

It is artistic license. What you said in the beginning. I guess you cannot see your lack of consistency in your points.

I didn't mean to imply that you were saying otherwise, I simply wanted to make my own point clearer. I'm trying to say that the later manipular and legionary structures were better than the older hoplite phalanx. This would then make me question why the Greeks stuck to it for so long.

Because the legions were great for fighting in the battlefields of the Romans. The phalanx was great to fight in the greek battlefields and the Nomadic hordes were great for fighting in the nomadic battlefields.

Bu you know? The legions got murdered in Carrhae, the phalanx in Cynoscephalae, and the Nomads on Chalons.

It is always good to know some basic history.

This is what I've been driving at, the back ranks could rout as easily as any other soldier, but the front ranks have to content with the close quarters of allies as well as the forward momentum of the enemy. I can see how battles were so decisive even with low casulties. The men in the front were the more experienced of the unit, and they didn't have the luxury of being able to fight another day.

You scream, you sound trumpets, you insult the guy on the back to make way. If you want to live you keep fighting or try to force your way out.

~Jirisys ()

Originally Posted by saka-rauka1

Ah yes how could I forget. These same guys then went on to conquer the world.........oh wait, no they didn't.

Actually, the Romans (originally from an Etruscan settlement) did conquer a big chunk of the world. Observe Augustus.

Originally Posted by vartan

Actually, the Romans (originally from an Etruscan settlement) did conquer a big chunk of the world. Observe Augustus.

i was under the impression that Rome was a Latin city? The Etruscans were a distinct ethnicity compared to the latins, no?

The idea that underhand thrust would be viable in a close-locked phalanx formation is false. The aspis would cover neck to knee, you would have to hold the spear LOWER than your knee, and this would severely restrict your fighting abilities, nevermind the fact that your spear could be easily trapped underneath the mangle of bodies, feet, and shields of the opposing phalanx. An overhead posture is the only viable way to attack.

However, underhand thrusts would be useful in a looser formation against lightly armored or disorganized rabble. Against cavalry, the buttspike should be used to brace the spear against a cavalry charge.

I just don't see how the point of the Etruscans fighting overarm, yet were not conquerers of the world, leads to the conclusion that overarm hoplite techniques were not used or were inneffective. Pyhrrus adopted the Manipular formations into the Phalanx and don't forget elephants! but with that same logic maniples, phalanxes and elephant using militaries were ineffective because Pyhrrus of Epirote did not conquer the world.

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

I just don't see how the point of the Etruscans fighting overarm, yet were not conquerers of the world, leads to the conclusion that overarm hoplite techniques were not used or were inneffective. Pyhrrus adopted the Manipular formations into the Phalanx and don't forget elephants! but with that same logic maniples, phalanxes and elephant using militaries were ineffective because Pyhrrus of Epirote did not conquer the world.

He's just using a red herring as a lame attempt of argumentation

That doesn't make any sense, it wasn't and isn't all about who has the best techniques or weaponry...

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

underhand shield-wall are too much like viking things

We use one-handed spears overhand as well a lot. It is very effective in close quarters. Any doubter is invited to come to an Ask training session where I am in charge.
The pushing I find very unconvincing though as it would be suicide to get in close and push physically on an opponent changing to overhand grip and stabbing down into your neck and chest cavity.
Instead consider that when we Viking Reenactors push we take one step forwards or half a step, and the opponent- if he does not kill us as we step, will try and keep their distance. Stepping forwards is very difficult though as an underarm/underhand cross-strike from the side can easily slip in behind the shield. So often the fighting will be at weapon range while we try to thin his formation out and/or push him back and break the lines so we can roll his formation up from the side and rear. It is in evidence here; http://<a href="https://www.youtube....4-Zq0aPZpY</a>.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2XLKmWAXyk

Hoplite re-enactment.

Try to fit an underhand strike through that shield-wall.

i like the drills and that those men know them well, but i can never get over how clean and high end everyone's equipment is. they look like they are playing dress up due to the fancy corinthian helms and horse hair as well as the fresh out the washer clothes.

those aspiseseseses look too clean, manufactured, while i had always thought that the designs would be painted on by the owners of the shields themselves. painting whatever deity or symbol was important to them personally.

i would just stab my aspis until it looked rugged :P

What are you talking about?

Actually, the Romans (originally from an Etruscan settlement) did conquer a big chunk of the world. Observe Augustus.

i was under the impression that Rome was a Latin city? The Etruscans were a distinct ethnicity compared to the latins, no

My point.

The idea that underhand thrust would be viable in a close-locked phalanx formation is false. The aspis would cover neck to knee, you would have to hold the spear LOWER than your knee, and this would severely restrict your fighting abilities, nevermind the fact that your spear could be easily trapped underneath the mangle of bodies, feet, and shields of the opposing phalanx. An overhead posture is the only viable way to attack.

I don't think you're talking to me here, since I've been attacking the pushing aspect and not over vs under. However it seems a few others have gotten that impression, which makes me wonder if they were even reading my posts at all.

I just don't see how the point of the Etruscans fighting overarm, yet were not conquerers of the world, leads to the conclusion that overarm hoplite techniques were not used or were inneffective. Pyhrrus adopted the Manipular formations into the Phalanx and don't forget elephants! but with that same logic maniples, phalanxes and elephant using militaries were ineffective because Pyhrrus of Epirote did not conquer the world.

Not what I was getting at. I was saying that it was the Romans who did eventually conquer a sizeable chunk of the known world, they defeated and assimilated the Etruscans and abandoned the hoplite model. If it worked for them then why would they abandon it? Furthermore even Sparta reformed their phalanx into a sarissa wielding version. People don't reform troops for no good reason.

That doesn't make any sense, it wasn't and isn't all about who has the best techniques or weaponry

Can you tell me what it refers to? I've been trying to find out why hoplite phalanxes fought the way they did, used the weapons they used. For me, it is about the best technique or the best weaponry.

We use one-handed spears overhand as well a lot.

Are they counterweighted? I think that in extreme close-quarters a shortened reach acheived by holding a spear in the centre would be advantageous.

Instead consider that when we Viking Reenactors push we take one step forwards or half a step, and the opponent- if he does not kill us as we step, will try and keep their distance. Stepping forwards is very difficult though as an underarm/underhand cross-strike from the side can easily slip in behind the shield. So often the fighting will be at weapon range while we try to thin his formation out and/or push him back and break the lines so we can roll his formation up from the side and rear.

Sounds pretty normal to me. Anyone fighting should attempt to gain ground.

It is in evidence here; http://<a href="http://www.youtube.c...4-Zq0aPZpY</a>.

Do you mean this video?. If so can you tell me what I am looking for; I see lots of underarm usage but no overarm. Or did you mean rolling up the formation?

Yes, because it's less deep and it is still pretty tight. You are STILL keeping the TW conception of battles.

You are the one repeatedly mentioning TW, not me. Can you at least clarify what you mean by "TW conception of battles" please?

No. We already told you many times.

In reference to that particular depiction? Erm, no you didn't. Look at it if you will, you have your thumb below your little finger if you attempt to hold your spear upright like that. It is awkward in that particular pose. I make no argument of overarm usage being awkward in general, which is what others have based their (counter)arguments around.

It is artistic license. What you said in the beginning. I guess you cannot see your lack of consistency in your points.

What lack of consistency? If you want to enter someone elses discussion you could at least attempt to gain the correct context.

Because the legions were great for fighting in the battlefields of the Romans. The phalanx was great to fight in the greek battlefields and the Nomadic hordes were great for fighting in the nomadic battlefields.

Bu you know? The legions got murdered in Carrhae, the phalanx in Cynoscephalae, and the Nomads on Chalons.

It is always good to know some basic history.

Surely you aren't now trying to argue that armies are only useful for fighting in their home territory? Otherwise I can see no reason for that 2nd point. Nor do I think ad hominem is warranted in any civilised discussion.

Originally Posted by Vaginacles

i was under the impression that Rome was a Latin city? The Etruscans were a distinct ethnicity compared to the latins, no?

Tomato, tomato. (The expression doesn't really translate well online, as you can see!)

I don't think you're talking to me here, since I've been attacking the pushing aspect and not over vs under. However it seems a few others have gotten that impression, which makes me wonder if they were even reading my posts at all.

You have done both.

Not what I was getting at. I was saying that it was the Romans who did eventually conquer a sizeable chunk of the known world, they defeated and assimilated the Etruscans and abandoned the hoplite model. If it worked for them then why would they abandon it? Furthermore even Sparta reformed their phalanx into a sarissa wielding version. People don't reform troops for no good reason.

They abandoned it by 240 CE (?) (I'm not certain, just making up the number here, point is; manipular and cohortal tactics weren't really alive by the end of it)

Can you tell me what it refers to? I've been trying to find out why hoplite phalanxes fought the way they did, used the weapons they used. For me, it is about the best technique or the best weaponry.

Well, then you're wrong. It refers to the ACTUAL technique and the ACTUAL weaponry.

Do you mean this video?. If so can you tell me what I am looking for; I see lots of underarm usage but no overarm. Or did you mean rolling up the formation?

That is medieval, possiblyviking, no overlapping shield wall or actual cohesive hoplite formation. You are ignoring the actual evidence and presenting unrelated one.

You are the one repeatedly mentioning TW, not me. Can you at least clarify what you mean by "TW conception of battles" please?

Tiny numbers; people hardly make it through sarissas, unrealistic animations, no direct contact with the other combattant, no close combat melee, etc.

In reference to that particular depiction? Erm, no you didn't. Look at it if you will, you have your thumb below your little finger if you attempt to hold your spear upright like that. It is awkward in that particular pose. I make no argument of overarm usage being awkward in general, which is what others have based their (counter)arguments around.

Because you implied it, several times.

What lack of consistency? If you want to enter someone elses discussion you could at least attempt to gain the correct context.

The fact that you named my depiction as artistic license; but not your depictions, which have most likely; an artistic license.

Surely you aren't now trying to argue that armies are only useful for fighting in their home territory? Otherwise I can see no reason for that 2nd point. Nor do I think ad hominem is warranted in any civilised discussion.

No, formations and equipement are based upon the way of fighting in that particular area, the era or time you are in; and with your most common enemy. The cohorts were flexible while cohesive, yet the invading armies took a toll on them and it was abandoned because formations became less important, and strategy became dominant in the battlefield.

Unless you have seen both the parthians and the celtiberians develop both falcatas and horse archery, idependently; then my point is valid. Imagine parthians with falcatas and celtiberians with hordes of horse archers.

Tactics are also more adapted to your environment. Like the ambushing germanics, horsemen of thessalian hills, nomadic steppe horsemen, etc.

Nor is pettyness and self-importance either; but hey! I have em. Along with possibly someone else.

Also; here's an anacronistic example of how awful a hoplite shield wall is with underarm spear holding

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4RF...eature=related

~Jirisys ()

A bit late but i wouldn't trust Xenophon's description of Leuktra too much. He's hopelessly biased towards Sparta and his description of the battle is an exercise in exculpation and excuse making.

You have done both.

Where?

They abandoned it by 240 CE (?) (I'm not certain, just making up the number here, point is; manipular and cohortal tactics weren't really alive by the end of it)

I can't really debate past this point since my knowledge of that time period is very limited. I will say however that WRE's declining Heavy Infantry was one of the factors that contributed to its collapse.

Well, then you're wrong. It refers to the ACTUAL technique and the ACTUAL weaponry.

Now I've forgotten what we are even debating :)

Tiny numbers; people hardly make it through sarissas, unrealistic animations, no direct contact with the other combattant, no close combat melee, etc.

Definately not what I think of when I imagine warfare.

Because you implied it, several times.

What I imply and you infer are clearly two different things. I'll clear this up now: overarm usage in general is not awkward. Overarm usage in the pose depicted on that particular vase is laughable. It only takes a few seconds to realise that turning your hand through 180 degrees for any great length of time with a heavy spear in that hand will lead to quite a few sprained wrists.

The fact that you named my depiction as artistic license; but not your depictions, which have most likely; an artistic license.

To go back to the start of the thread you can see that the argument of "Artistic License" doesn't hold water in regards to an overarm/underarm debate. Several posts later I am informed that depicting the wrong pose would be a very illogical thing to do:

"Yes but this would be similar to depicting modern soldiers holding the gun the wrong way round. Most of the artists would have seen the Hoplites performing their drills and quite a few would have probably even being in battles with them. You have to remember that warfare was a lot more closer to everyday life than it is today."

So if this is the case, why would there be any underarm depictions? The point was raised that context was important, that these depictions may not be late hoplite phalanx warfare but rather, mythological battles. So I then brought up a later example asking what the reason behind that was. It should be rather obvious that splitting someones helmet with a sword is simply impossible to do, so then why did the artist depict that? Perhaps warfare was more distant to them, so this did not seem far-fetched. The issue here is suspension of disbelief. People don't really mind the fact the guns never seem to run out in films, yet curving bullets would be a step too far. A soldier who has completed a few tours might care more for the little details however and find it hard to suspend their disbelief when action heroes never have to reload.

This is the context you were lacking when you decried my points as lacking consistency. Furthermore your example was little more than a strawman. You came up with some ridiculous concept for a drawing and then implied that any and all depictions were to be disregarded. Ironically this is the same point Lindybeige makes.

No, formations and equipement are based upon the way of fighting in that particular area, the era or time you are in; and with your most common enemy. The cohorts were flexible while cohesive, yet the invading armies took a toll on them and it was abandoned because formations became less important, and strategy became dominant in the battlefield.

Unless you have seen both the parthians and the celtiberians develop both falcatas and horse archery, idependently; then my point is valid. Imagine parthians with falcatas and celtiberians with hordes of horse archers.

Tactics are also more adapted to your environment. Like the ambushing germanics, horsemen of thessalian hills, nomadic steppe horsemen, etc.

Nor is pettyness and self-importance either; but hey! I have em. Along with possibly someone else.

Also; here's an anacronistic example of how awful a hoplite shield wall is with underarm spear holding

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4RFr...eature=related

Tactics and strategy obviously decide how battles can go but that's not what I'm debating here. I brought up the Romans mainly because of the similarities with Ancient Greece. They fought as hoplites initialy with little (if any) cavalry. The terrain wasn't suited to that sure so they abandoned that method of fighting. Most importantly though, they stuck with it. Their method of fighting worked against an incredbily diverse range of terrains and enemies. This would be why I brought up the size of their empire.

And for the last time, this isn't about overarm spears.