The Pushing Match

[ziegenpeter]

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.

[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.

[moonburn]

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

[jirisys]

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 ()

[vartan]

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?

[saka-rauka1]

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.

[jirisys]

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 ()

[vartan]

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.

[Vaginacles]

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.

[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.

[vartan]

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!)