The Pushing Match

**antisocialmunky** · 04-02-2011, 13:32

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** · 04-02-2011, 15:01

Originally Posted by 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 :)

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** · 04-03-2011, 01:34

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** · 04-03-2011, 03:25

Originally Posted by saka-rauka1

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** · 04-03-2011, 05:09

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** · 04-03-2011, 10:38

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** · 04-03-2011, 11:58

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.

**Geticus** · 04-03-2011, 17:08

Originally Posted by 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

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** · 04-03-2011, 20:22

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.

**Ibrahim** · 04-03-2011, 22:29

Originally Posted by saka-rauka1

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:

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......