Hoplitai too weak ?

[Phalanx300]

Says Merriam-Webster:

Bite me and keep your misplaced value-additions away from technical terminology.

As I said, its merely an opinion, and individual opinions are worth nothing right? So now its time to kick some Watchman ass.

Who said anything about the film? Phalanx in itself in your name tells me as a professional historian with a firm base on source criticism that we Danes are almost obsessive about (it is the only thing distinguishing history science from fiction) that you are biased to like Greeks and Macedonians with spears. IE you are biased.

I said that since thats the usual reaction of people when seeing my name. And yeah everyone is baised, I gues you're baised for fish?

Edited to add, on what source do you build your 10- 20 cm statement? Unless you have sources, which you have continuously refrained from backing your claims with, I cannot take you seriously, sorry.

I have nowhere come across a historical source saying that. And my actual experience with re-enactment fighting tells me that to get your mobility hindered like that is suicide. Show me Thycidid saying it and I believe you, but not before.

There aren't any sources which explain precisely, I´ve read the reason somewhere, it being that at the time it was way to obvious to explain such an thing since it was a part of life.

This reenacted Hoplites Phalanx shows very well how such a density would be, and in an pushing match you´re opponent would surely be not a meter apart trying to poke at you.

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

[Macilrille]

As I said, its merely an opinion, and individual opinions are worth nothing right? So now its time to kick some Watchman ass.



I said that since thats the usual reaction of people when seeing my name. And yeah everyone is baised, I gues you're baised for fish?



There aren't any sources which explain precisely, I´ve read the reason somewhere, it being that at the time it was way to obvious to explain such an thing since it was a part of life.

This reenacted Hoplites Phalanx shows very well how such a density would be, and in an pushing match you´re opponent would surely be not a meter apart trying to poke at you.

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

No I am not, I am biased for Vikings, German tribesmen and Romans, but through mindset and years of learning I have become as objective as one can, being a professional historian. I hope this is evident in my posts to those with skill.

So you present no sources, but say "well everybody knew". Sorry that is no source at all, nor are those amateurs marching around. First of all they are amateurs (come on at least have plant-dyed clothes...), secondly nowhere do even they push enough that they get so close to their opponent. As I said, I have 16 years of experience of fighting and if you get locked so close to your enemy you die for you are defenceless. Especially if you wield a long weapon, the whole idea of a long weapon is to stay at a distance where you can reach your enemy. If you go close in your long spear is just a very long and unwieldy club. You can easily push with spear at a distance so even if those pushing matches happened and is not just a label for one side pushing the other back by stabbing them or putting them on the defensive, it can easily be done at distance.

And if the enemy is a legionaire with a Scutum and a Gladius Hispanensis you should be even more wary of getting in close for there he han stab you and you cannot stab him.

Again you fail to present sources for your statements, it is getting very close to where no serious student or practitioner of history can take you seriously. Try actually reading some history and see how professionals present their case, and learn from it. You have in fact agreed to do so when you installed EB.

I am sorry to be arrogant, but I am sort of fed up with people who continuously persist in unbacked claims even when asked for sources repeatedly, the net is full of them, but the EB forum should not be.

Maion and others with knowledge and sources, how are those "pushing matches" described in the ancient sources?

[Maion Maroneios]

Maion and others with knowledge and sources, how are those "pushing matches" described in the ancient sources?

Just search for "othismos" (literaslly "shoving" in Greek) on the Internet. There are sources describing a hoplite clash, with the armies chanting paeans and shouting battlecries just before the clash. I believe there is even one guy who described the whole phase of the battle, deviding it in phase one [name], phase two [name], etc. with "othismos" being the phase when, after the initial clash, the two hoplite armies start pushing each other.

Maion

[Phalanx300]

No I am not, I am biased for Vikings, German tribesmen and Romans, but through mindset and years of learning I have become as objective as one can, being a professional historian. I hope this is evident in my posts to those with skill.

So you present no sources, but say "well everybody knew". Sorry that is no source at all, nor are those amateurs marching around. First of all they are amateurs (come on at least have plant-dyed clothes...), secondly nowhere do even they push enough that they get so close to their opponent. As I said, I have 16 years of experience of fighting and if you get locked so close to your enemy you die for you are defenceless. Especially if you wield a long weapon, the whole idea of a long weapon is to stay at a distance where you can reach your enemy. If you go close in your long spear is just a very long and unwieldy club. You can easily push with spear at a distance so even if those pushing matches happened and is not just a label for one side pushing the other back by stabbing them or putting them on the defensive, it can easily be done at distance.

And if the enemy is a legionaire with a Scutum and a Gladius Hispanensis you should be even more wary of getting in close for there he han stab you and you cannot stab him.

Again you fail to present sources for your statements, it is getting very close to where no serious student or practitioner of history can take you seriously. Try actually reading some history and see how professionals present their case, and learn from it. You have in fact agreed to do so when you installed EB.

I am sorry to be arrogant, but I am sort of fed up with people who continuously persist in unbacked claims even when asked for sources repeatedly, the net is full of them, but the EB forum should not be.

Maion and others with knowledge and sources, how are those "pushing matches" described in the ancient sources?

Then show me any source which precisely shows how Hoplite combat went, from what we have we can derive it was a dense formation which went another dense formation with probably overhand spears.

As I said at the time it was obvious how combat went and wasn't precisily writen, the same happens today as you as the perfect allknowing historian most probably know.

Which is how it was shown in the video and how it is shown in EB which you are apparantly totally ignoring as well.

Amateurs? Members of them are Historians and a member of them is the leading researchers on Greek heraldy.

And are you now seriously blaiming them for not using plant material to paint their capes? Do you even know how expensive a full Hoplite gear is even today?

You post is full of insult and arrogance towards those who know their stuff far better then you.

http://www.spartasmores.gr/

[Dutchhoplite]

Hmmm, the point is that no one actually knows the nature of actual hoplite combat and the othismos. At best you can call this *a* interpretation. Besides that , i don’t think you can simulate hoplite combat with so few people.

Though from a different period I find these videos much more instructive, especially on crowd behavior.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keLe...layer_embedded

[Exosus]

Not to leap in in the middle here, but I think I have located the problem this argument is having. The phalangite side (I'm bad with names) is going on the commonly-taught concept that the rise of Makedon under Phillipos II and Alexandros III signaled the death or decline of traditional hoplite combat. This is credited to the 16-foot sarissa, and rightly so. When taken at face value, history education at the college level would lead to the conclusion that the phalangite is superior to the hoplite and therefore would win a 1v1 (or 1kv1k) battle.

However, these two things do not necessarily equate. The phalangite is a superior unit in some sense, but only when properly supported. If the hoplitai are forced to (or choose to for whatever reason) move directly into the spear wall of the phalangitai and cannot or do not wrap around the edges, they will lose, and they will lose dependably, assuming similar numbers. This results from the fact that there will be heavy casualties in the process of even reaching a range at which they can be effective. This is the entire purpose and strength of the philangitai - the maintenance of a range longer than that at which their enemies can engage.

If they are able to wrap around, the phalangitai will be defeated for two main reasons. Firstly, they are not as well-trained in close-range combat as the hoplitai, for which such range is the only range. Secondly, they are not as heavily armed or armored and have vastly smaller and less maneuverable shields.

In short, a supported phalangite unit > a supported hoplite unit; an unsupported phalangite unit < an unsupported hoplite unit.

[ARCHIPPOS]

i totaly agree with the guy above me

a very thined out HOPLITE battleline would behave much better in battle against a thined out SARISOFOROI line... the sarisa phallanx needs at least 5-8 lines of depth to work its best ... why??? to create the pike wall effect spear density is essential ... bc of smaller shields sarisoforoi absolutely need to produce the maximum possible number of projected spears as an extra means of defense ...

inadequate spear density could lead to HOPLITES actually dealing with the sarisa spears relatively easy by hacking them ,breaking them or simply avoiding them or even passing in between (very matrix-like i know but perhaps it could be done???) ... the pike wall actually works by saturating the enemy with lowered spears...

pike phalanx -----> pike wall=defense

this is what watchman claims and i tend to be convinced by his explanations... i don't understand why people have to get all personal over this though

some other aspects

1)the HOPLITES were certainly more mobile than the SARISOFOROI... for one they could perform a running charge and maintain some cohesion which i doubt the SARISOFOROI could do...
2)using their shields they could perform othismos (=the pushing effect)
points 1+2 = hoplites could use their mass better than sarisoforoi... this could be crucial in breaking a thined out line of opponents...

3)HOPLITES were also more manouverable... i think we can all agree that a 90 or 180 degree phallanx turn is more difficult to perform holding the sarisa than a spear...

4) THIS I THINK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT TO BE MADE
the whole idea of a 1000 spears against a 1000 sarisae is missing the point ... the whole idea is that the MAKEDONES introduced a different revolutionary doctrine of warfare=combined weapons... to the effective yet monolithic hoplite battleline they answered with pinning and flanking manouveurs ... it's not the sarisae by itself that won the battles but the hammer and anvil...

[Phalanx300]

While a Phalangite formation is very good at the defensive I doubt that in a frontal fight they can push the Hoplites back. And as Dutchhoplite posted, the power of an crowd shouldn't be underestimated, the pure pushing power would, in an prolonged melee be enough to break the Phalangites. I think that the spears of the Phalangites wouldn't be able to take that much presure, unless the formation slowly walks backwards. Might be what happened at Chaoronea with the Thebans staying where they stood because they were the more disciplined troops, or with Phillip actually risking his left by having them stay put and his right slowly walk backward.

[Geticus]

No I am not, I am biased for Vikings, German tribesmen and Romans, but through mindset and years of learning I have become as objective as one can, being a professional historian. I hope this is evident in my posts to those with skill.

So you present no sources, but say "well everybody knew". Sorry that is no source at all, nor are those amateurs marching around. First of all they are amateurs (come on at least have plant-dyed clothes...), secondly nowhere do even they push enough that they get so close to their opponent. As I said, I have 16 years of experience of fighting and if you get locked so close to your enemy you die for you are defenceless. Especially if you wield a long weapon, the whole idea of a long weapon is to stay at a distance where you can reach your enemy. If you go close in your long spear is just a very long and unwieldy club. You can easily push with spear at a distance so even if those pushing matches happened and is not just a label for one side pushing the other back by stabbing them or putting them on the defensive, it can easily be done at distance.

And if the enemy is a legionaire with a Scutum and a Gladius Hispanensis you should be even more wary of getting in close for there he han stab you and you cannot stab him.

Again you fail to present sources for your statements, it is getting very close to where no serious student or practitioner of history can take you seriously. Try actually reading some history and see how professionals present their case, and learn from it. You have in fact agreed to do so when you installed EB.

I am sorry to be arrogant, but I am sort of fed up with people who continuously persist in unbacked claims even when asked for sources repeatedly, the net is full of them, but the EB forum should not be.

Maion and others with knowledge and sources, how are those "pushing matches" described in the ancient sources?

Ditto what Maion said, the word was "othismos" from Greek "othizein" meaning to shove, othismos essentially meaning "the shove" similar to the concept of push of pike. The characteristic movement of a Polybian era Roman army was a slow step back (i.e. Romans fought rather defensively) as observed by Polybius himself whereas the characteristic movement of a Classical Hellenic phalanx was forward motion. If you want to read about hoplite war as described by an authoritative Classical Hellenist military historian read "The Western Way of War" by Victor Hanson who is arguably the top modern authority on 5th and 4th century BCE Hellenic Warfare.

The key is that the Greek phalanx tried to conserve forward motion. After the opposed phalanxes collided many spears tended to shatter and others could be simply be discarded in favor of the kopis. If you want source, I think Maion was probably alluding to Xenophon's description of the second battle of Koroneia c. 394 BC between the Spartan allied forces and the Thebans/Athenians, as described by Xenophon in the Hellenica, I don't have the Greek with me offhand but I have read it, it said more or less "and so they charged, they collided, they pushed, they died" or something to that effect. This was classic othismos between the Theban and Spartan phalanx. Phalanx conflicts tended to devolve into press of shield on shield. Similarly at the Battle of Leuctra Epaminondas massed his Thebans on the left 50 men deep precisely to maximize the othismos impact of the Thebans and overwhelm with sheer pressure the small fraction of actual Spartiates in the opposing army. The strategy worked and the king of Sparta died in the press and subsequent rupture. According to Hanson in fact one of the leading causes of death in classical hoplite warfare is trampling.

Since you are biased for vikings et al. then perhaps you are aware that in north europe shield press was also used, as for example one account of the death of Ragnar Lothbrok holds that since none of the Anglo-Saxons could beat Ragnar in battle the Anglo-Saxon king commanded his men to bear Ragnar down with shields, he was then flattened to the ground by grouped shield pressure, imprisoned in a pit and subsequently executed. It might be in the Saga of Ragnar Lothbrok if you are curious to verify.

In short shields are weapons that can be used to inflict blunt trauma by shieldboss strikes (a tactic often used by the Romans as for example at the Battle of Aquae Sextiae consistent with Marius' instructions) as well as general pressure through massed press of shields, and that tactic was used all over Europe in some degree from ancient times up to and including the viking era.

[Macilrille]

Ditto what Maion said, the word was "othismos" from Greek "othizein" meaning to shove, othismos essentially meaning "the shove" similar to the concept of push of pike. The characteristic movement of a Polybian era Roman army was a slow step back (i.e. Romans fought rather defensively) as observed by Polybius himself whereas the characteristic movement of a Classical Hellenic phalanx was forward motion. If you want to read about hoplite war as described by an authoritative Classical Hellenist military historian read "The Western Way of War" by Victor Hanson who is arguably the top modern authority on 5th and 4th century BCE Hellenic Warfare.

The key is that the Greek phalanx tried to conserve forward motion. After the opposed phalanxes collided many spears tended to shatter and others could be simply be discarded in favor of the kopis. If you want source, I think Maion was probably alluding to Xenophon's description of the second battle of Koroneia c. 394 BC between the Spartan allied forces and the Thebans/Athenians, as described by Xenophon in the Hellenica, I don't have the Greek with me offhand but I have read it, it said more or less "and so they charged, they collided, they pushed, they died" or something to that effect. This was classic othismos between the Theban and Spartan phalanx. Phalanx conflicts tended to devolve into press of shield on shield. Similarly at the Battle of Leuctra Epaminondas massed his Thebans on the left 50 men deep precisely to maximize the othismos impact of the Thebans and overwhelm with sheer pressure the small fraction of actual Spartiates in the opposing army. The strategy worked and the king of Sparta died in the press and subsequent rupture. According to Hanson in fact one of the leading causes of death in classical hoplite warfare is trampling.

Since you are biased for vikings et al. then perhaps you are aware that in north europe shield press was also used, as for example one account of the death of Ragnar Lothbrok holds that since none of the Anglo-Saxons could beat Ragnar in battle the Anglo-Saxon king commanded his men to bear Ragnar down with shields, he was then flattened to the ground by grouped shield pressure, imprisoned in a pit and subsequently executed. It might be in the Saga of Ragnar Lothbrok if you are curious to verify.

In short shields are weapons that can be used to inflict blunt trauma by shieldboss strikes (a tactic often used by the Romans as for example at the Battle of Aquae Sextiae consistent with Marius' instructions) as well as general pressure through massed press of shields, and that tactic was used all over Europe in some degree from ancient times up to and including the viking era.

Now here we are making some sense, thanks for the sources, sense and case. I shall try and see what we may glean from it.

Regnar and other heroes were caught between shields, yes, it was apparently a common tactic when many faced a hero/champion that none could take individually and they wanted to preserve (nevermind that most of the stories attributed to Regnar is pure myth, the point was the shield-against-hero, which is valid). As such the Vikings are not in fact described anywhere to fight in such a press. But that matters little, we can agree that shields against champion was done and was a good and valid way of neutralising such a one.

Now for ancient armies doing it, I still fail to see any source validating Phalanx' claim that it was 10- 20 cm. But of course I also have no source for them not doing so. I also have no source saying that they did not fly...

Now I shall try and elaborate my reasoning and arrogant as I am, my source is me. yes me!!! With 16 years of experience as a fighter, commander, trainer, organiser and tactician of one of the two most famous and praised Viking Re-enactment group around I do believe I can claim to have some small knowledge of group fighting. And as TDH said we do not actually know, so we have to use some sense and interpretation. Actual fighting experience is not a bad basis to build this on I would say.

1. Hoplitai fought with spears, spears are most effective at the sharp end. Basically you want to keep your opponent at a distance where your spearpoint can reach him, your spear is your primary weapon, so no need to immediately ditch it and move in to dagger distance.

2. In a press of people, you cannot move. Seriously, consider the implication of this. All of us have been in a press of people where we have been penned in, arm and leg movement restricted, your long nice spear useless if you had one (why have it then?), as is your shield wielded offensively- you need room for that as well. Now imagine that while people are trying to kill you. And as you are not wearing full medieval plate you have vulnerable points where you can actually be killed or severely injured. I have tried such situations (try searching for "Wolin" on Youtube) and it is suicide (especially at Wolin where the battle pins Russians and Poles hating each other against each other- there are serious injuries every year).

3. Fighting like that is extremely exhausting, especially in the temperatures one can get around the Mediterenean. Unless relieved, no one can do that for much more than half an hour. The consensus today is that ancient and medieval armies would clash- seperate- clash- seperate, not fight continuosly. The ones doing the actual fighting would simply pass out from overheating, dehydration and exhaustion (the two first being in my experience the worst). Again, recall when you have been in a press of people, did you sweat and get overheated? Did you have to drink lots water to avoid dehydration?

These are my reasons for saying, "No Phalanx300, Hoplite/Phalanx combat did not, as a rule, take place at 10- 20 cm". However, I have no doubt that it sometimes happened, my point is that the smart commander would try to avoid it.

Instead I suggest that we interpret the push as happening at spear point length (which it can, I have seen it often) and only in rare cases getting close, and never at 10- 20 cm, which is what I originally opposed. I suggest Phalanx300 that you line up a few of your friends, equip them with broomsticks and move in so close to each other, I am fairly certain you will understand my point then. 10- 20 cm is very close, too close to do anything defensively and effectively too close for even a short sword like the kopis or the infamous and nasty Gladius Hispanensis to be very effective.

As for the nice parade soldiers marching about Phalanx, I have no doubt they are very good at what they do as a profession, but they are not fighters.
All of us here know a lot of history. That does not make us fighters, even I cannot say with certainty how Vikings did things, but I can make a hell of a lot better guess than some archelogist or historian who has never held a weapon, while my sword is well-worn by hundreds of hours of use.


Anyway, my general point is that though "Rugby Scrums" could happen, it was best to avoid them for the reasons above. Though of course hemming in the enemy and pressing them was desirable.
Will you guys buy this? Or perhaps Geticus can elaborate to a new interpretation from which we can actually build an understanding?

Now I will go and use my own pike and sword- shield ;-)

[Mikhail Mengsk]

Maybe the effective "push" was done to definitively break a line that was effectively willing to break.

FIrst, hoplite fought at spear-distance, THEN they push forward, trying to smash the enemy with shields. When pushing, they were at direct contact with the enemy, so 10cm as Phalanx300 said, and spear was useless in this phase as Macrille said. If the enemy broke, they can rout him.

So, maybe the huge tiring rate due to heavy pushing lasted only 30seconds or a minute: if the enemy resists, maybe the hoplite line step backwards and got back to spears. This avoided the Hoplite to get too tired in a continuate push against a still fresh enemy.

Just my tought, but it seems logical.

[Phalanx300]

Now for ancient armies doing it, I still fail to see any source validating Phalanx' claim that it was 10- 20 cm. But of course I also have no source for them not doing so. I also have no source saying that they did not fly...

Yes, and EB which also support my claim obviously has Hoplites flying to the sky right? And there are sources which indicate a shield wall formation, and from vase painting we can conclude that overhand was used in the shield wall.

Now I shall try and elaborate my reasoning and arrogant as I am, my source is me. yes me!!! With 16 years of experience as a fighter, commander, trainer, organiser and tactician of one of the two most famous and praised Viking Re-enactment group around I do believe I can claim to have some small knowledge of group fighting. And as TDH said we do not actually know, so we have to use some sense and interpretation. Actual fighting experience is not a bad basis to build this on I would say.

Indeed, and from Chinese martial arts we can decide what Western European martial arts were all about?

1. Hoplitai fought with spears, spears are most effective at the sharp end. Basically you want to keep your opponent at a distance where your spearpoint can reach him, your spear is your primary weapon, so no need to immediately ditch it and move in to dagger distance.

In one on one combat yes, but we're talking about a closely packed formation here.

2. In a press of people, you cannot move. Seriously, consider the implication of this. All of us have
been in a press of people where we have been penned in, arm and leg movement restricted, your long nice spear useless if you had one (why have it then?), as is your shield wielded offensively- you need room for that as well. Now imagine that while people are trying to kill you. And as you are not wearing full medieval plate you have vulnerable points where you can actually be killed or severely injured. I have tried such situations (try searching for "Wolin" on Youtube) and it is suicide (especially at Wolin where the battle pins Russians and Poles hating each other against each other- there are serious injuries every year).

Which is exactly why an overhand use with the spear is used, you retain control and use of an spear, even when closely packed together.

3. Fighting like that is extremely exhausting, especially in the temperatures one can get around the Mediterenean. Unless relieved, no one can do that for much more than half an hour. The consensus today is that ancient and medieval armies would clash- seperate- clash- seperate, not fight continuosly. The ones doing the actual fighting would simply pass out from overheating, dehydration and exhaustion (the two first being in my experience the worst). Again, recall when you have been in a press of people, did you sweat and get overheated? Did you have to drink lots water to avoid dehydration?

I doubt it, why would the pushig otherwise be deadly if the Hoplites stopped fighting all the time? How could Hoplite Phalanxes envelop other formation when they stopped fighting all the time? How come dead soldiers kept standing in an battle when they stopped fighting all the time.

All of this points at the direction that a Hoplite phalanx kept going till the enemy routed, which usually happened as one side's formation was broken by another Phalanx.

These are my reasons for saying, "No Phalanx300, Hoplite/Phalanx combat did not, as a rule, take place at 10- 20 cm". However, I have no doubt that it sometimes happened, my point is that the smart commander would try to avoid it.

The essence of Hoplite Phalanx combat is an dense formation, that way vs less dense formation your Phalanx has an definately advantage. Hoplites would thus get very closely together, probably around the 20 cm.

Instead I suggest that we interpret the push as happening at spear point length (which it can, I have seen it often) and only in rare cases getting close, and never at 10- 20 cm, which is what I originally opposed. I suggest Phalanx300 that you line up a few of your friends, equip them with broomsticks and move in so close to each other, I am fairly certain you will understand my point then. 10- 20 cm is very close, too close to do anything defensively and effectively too close for even a short sword like the kopis or the infamous and nasty Gladius Hispanensis to be very effective.

Perhaps its more 20-30 cm also counting shield thickness and armour. As I said, overhand effectively terminates any problems which underhand has in close formation. Why do you think Spartans got a small sword? Smaller then the rest of the Greeks? Spartans perfected the Hoplite Phalanx, this prooves that Hoplite combat was closely packed, in which short swords such as the Spartans used it excells. The 60cm sword of other Greeks was less usefull in such a closely packed formation.

As for the nice parade soldiers marching about Phalanx, I have no doubt they are very good at what they do as a profession, but they are not fighters.
All of us here know a lot of history. That does not make us fighters, even I cannot say with certainty how Vikings did things, but I can make a hell of a lot better guess than some archelogist or historian who has never held a weapon, while my sword is well-worn by hundreds of hours of use.

Neither are you yet you are talking they don't know shit and you do, while I can guarantee they know their stuff about Spartans and Hoplites far better then you, remember members of them are Historians and Researchers as well. Actually, an Hoplite reenactor died in an accident while filming a documentary, it has its risks obviously.

Anyway, my general point is that though "Rugby Scrums" could happen, it was best to avoid them for the reasons above. Though of course hemming in the enemy and pressing them was desirable.
Will you guys buy this? Or perhaps Geticus can elaborate to a new interpretation from which we can actually build an understanding?

Now I will go and use my own pike and sword- shield ;-)

Staying at a meter away and trying to hit your enemy is way to ineffective, lets see how that works out against an formation which holds it density:

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

Compare this "Phalanx" vs the other one I posted, you should be able to tell that the denser one would have been far more effective.


Maybe the effective "push" was done to definitively break a line that was effectively willing to break.

FIrst, hoplite fought at spear-distance, THEN they push forward, trying to smash the enemy with shields. When pushing, they were at direct contact with the enemy, so 10cm as Phalanx300 said, and spear was useless in this phase as Macrille said. If the enemy broke, they can rout him.

So, maybe the huge tiring rate due to heavy pushing lasted only 30seconds or a minute: if the enemy resists, maybe the hoplite line step backwards and got back to spears. This avoided the Hoplite to get too tired in a continuate push against a still fresh enemy.

Just my tought, but it seems logical.

First in loose formation fighting at a metres away and then quickly make a dense formation without the enemy attacking in a dense formation first and easilly breaking your line? I don't really see how this would work it.

[antisocialmunky]

Indeed, and from Chinese martial arts we can decide what Western European martial arts were all about?

Still doesn't change the principles that its built upon. You can deduce intent and context so you're better off than someone who comes in fresh.

No offense but I still don't see any reason to listen to your claims. You're not citing anything or explaining your reasoning. You're just repeating what you've heard. What I've heard other people say.

@Mac - What they are talking about isn't fighting, its the stereotypical pushing match when you see people do after some sort of crazy suicidal charge in the movies where people get impaled on spear points and then really compressed. You're talking about actually being able to move around and fight. The Wolin battle I found was a slow merge same with most of the other medieval reenactment groups. I've always felt this was the most realistic take on it since you have to maintain your shield wall, you don't want to die. Certainly it didn't happen always but it was probably the case with more disciplined units. Merge at a walking pace or a little faster so people don't get crushed as much and can kinda fight.

Wolin 2007 shows a slower merge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoshKASFGOw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj8P...eature=related

Vyborg 2007? shows chaos and a running charge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zGjex6qDtM

@Mikhail
Hoplite warfare as you described might have been at spear point with a slow merge or they get within spear point, then do a quick charge. You don't need a whole lot of room to get to your max speed so why waste it? Plus you can catch your opponent off guard if you do it at the last minute. Saw a Vyborg video that was taken down where a bunch of guys ran straight into the other formation at the last minute.

Somewhat like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipr_IH5ffRo&feature=fvw

[Watchman]

Don't period chroniclers often describe shield buckling and splitting in the collision of hoplite phalanxes, though ? Or that's the impression I've gotten anyway. Would seem to suggest they at least at times charged right into contact (and naturally tried to spear someone while at it too)...

So is war in general, Watchman. Less healthy things have been done like WWI where men advanced into a hail of bullets as opposed to a forest of spear tips.

Yeah, well. And we know how well it worked to advance troops into that hail of bulltets, don't we ? All of the participants learned right fast an assault had not a shred of hope to succeed unless the defenders were first thoroughly suppressed by artillery and whatnot...

Regarding Chaeronea, that was pretty early in the pike phalangites' evolutionary arc and at the time AFAIK their pikes were still relatively short (ie. 4m or so)... which probably rather contributed to the casualties, as enemies had fewer successive ranks of spear-points to navigate through to get into close-combat range. The Greeks may also have been able to at least partially wrap around the Macedonian infantry line - from what I gather, theirs was longer and Philip's cavalry and lighter infantry (presumably at times somewhat busy with their Greek opposite numbers) may not have been entirely able to prevent such attempts at turning the flanks.

[Phalanx300]

Still doesn't change the principles that its built upon. You can deduce intent and context so you're better off than someone who comes in fresh.

No offense but I still don't see any reason to listen to your claims. You're not citing anything or explaining your reasoning. You're just repeating what you've heard. What I've heard other people say.

Then please show me who in this tread posted sources? No one did, every one here has thus far just posted his opinion and records and experiences.

I personally compare the different posibilities of how thing could have went and choose the best one accordingly. In fact I thought that Hoplite fought overhand because the Hoplite helmet lost lower protection and in this article of ancient warfare turns out I was right on that. Same with shorter sword. Those two things I thought of myself and afterwards read it being said by some Historians.

[Geticus]

1. Hoplitai fought with spears, spears are most effective at the sharp end. Basically you want to keep your opponent at a distance where your spearpoint can reach him, your spear is your primary weapon, so no need to immediately ditch it and move in to dagger distance.

2. In a press of people, you cannot move. Seriously, consider the implication of this. All of us have been in a press of people where we have been penned in, arm and leg movement restricted, your long nice spear useless if you had one (why have it then?), as is your shield wielded offensively- you need room for that as well. Now imagine that while people are trying to kill you. And as you are not wearing full medieval plate you have vulnerable points where you can actually be killed or severely injured. I have tried such situations (try searching for "Wolin" on Youtube) and it is suicide (especially at Wolin where the battle pins Russians and Poles hating each other against each other- there are serious injuries every year).

3. Fighting like that is extremely exhausting, especially in the temperatures one can get around the Mediterenean. Unless relieved, no one can do that for much more than half an hour. The consensus today is that ancient and medieval armies would clash- seperate- clash- seperate, not fight continuosly. The ones doing the actual fighting would simply pass out from overheating, dehydration and exhaustion (the two first being in my experience the worst). Again, recall when you have been in a press of people, did you sweat and get overheated? Did you have to drink lots water to avoid dehydration?

These are my reasons for saying, "No Phalanx300, Hoplite/Phalanx combat did not, as a rule, take place at 10- 20 cm". However, I have no doubt that it sometimes happened, my point is that the smart commander would try to avoid it.

Instead I suggest that we interpret the push as happening at spear point length (which it can, I have seen it often) and only in rare cases getting close, and never at 10- 20 cm, which is what I originally opposed. I suggest Phalanx300 that you line up a few of your friends, equip them with broomsticks and move in so close to each other, I am fairly certain you will understand my point then. 10- 20 cm is very close, too close to do anything defensively and effectively too close for even a short sword like the kopis or the infamous and nasty Gladius Hispanensis to be very effective.

Anyway, my general point is that though "Rugby Scrums" could happen, it was best to avoid them for the reasons above. Though of course hemming in the enemy and pressing them was desirable.
Will you guys buy this? Or perhaps Geticus can elaborate to a new interpretation from which we can actually build an understanding?

Now I will go and use my own pike and sword- shield ;-)

Agreed with what Archippos cited about the fluid phases of hoplite phalanx battle.

Othismos did ultimately reach shield on shield pressure. Classical Hellenic hoplites had no uniform station or skill level, their skill with their spears could vary greatly, with the Spartans on average having the highest skill with point weapons and the Boiotians including the Thebans having a reputation for being agrarian rustics who emphasized raw bodily strength. So in 5th and 4th century battles up through Charonea you are likely to see a fluid dynamic with othismos *often* being the final and decisive phase of battle.

You have to consider that the Classical hoplite was very heavily armored and to this we must add the well documented tendency of the classical hoplite to move slightly to his right so that the shield of the man to his right offers him better protection. This was a tightly packed formation. Now when the opposed armies meet different things can happen, and the lethality of the spearplay can delay or totally prevent othismos entirely. If the enemy routes on contact by melee casualties no press of shields takes place. But othismos press did occur, and this is the degeneration of hoplite battle to its most brutish and clumsy form.

In an othismos the phalanx degrades into a massed human battering ram. Each successive row of men presses his shield into the back of the man in front of him, and the front row presses shield to the shield of the enemy. The pressure in this situation is extreme as you very well envision, and this is precisely why classical sources allude to men urinating or even defecating in battle under the extreme crushing pressure of the othismos. The goal of the othismos was similar to a group tug of war, but in this case it was a push of war, with the goal being to propel the enemy formation backward, make them lose their footing, collapse to the ground, turn in flight and terror from the sheer brute violence and crushing pressure. Those who lost their footing, grew faint and exhausted, or otherwise fell to the ground were trampled and the rear ranks of the victorious phalanx would spearbutt them to death as they trod over them. Generally when an phalanx line ruptured extensively and turned in route then the victorious phalanx would only pursue for a moderate distance, in part due to exhaustion.

So you say that it seems unbearable and exhausting, and I believe that was the entire point. Many free Greeks had the wealth to buy a hoplite panoply, but not all free men had the time, or skill, to become puissant spearmen, the aikhmetes (point warrior) of Homer. This is to say that they owned the weapons and armor, but weren't all that good with them, many of them being basically freeholder farmers, so they had brute force and endurance, and patriotism and they got by with that, so this is why the battles often devolved to othismos.

The greatest example of this is the battle of Leuctra which ended Spartan hegemony in Hellas and signalled the definitive decline of Spartan power. The Spartan phalanx, undefeated in hoplite combat in 200 years, was finally beaten not by spearmanship but by the sheer brute grunt power of Theban hoplites massed 50 deep on the left. The Theban general Epaminondas did this because he knew that if he could crush the small force of true Spartiate hoplites on the Lacedaemonian right, the morale of the rest would subsequently fail. And it worked. Epaminondas did not mass his left 50 deep to have extra spear fodder to feed to the Spartans, and obviously not merely for morale, he did it to create an overwhelming human battering ram that no small force of spartans could withstand, and it worked.

So that's how it worked, the battle descriptions by Thukudides, Herodotos, Xenophon et al. are not consistently minutely detailed enough to let us know precisely what percentage of battles were decided by shield press and rupture, vs. spearmanship as you envision. But the descriptions are clear enough that clumsy human battering ram effect of othismos did rupture and route enemy phalanxes under conditions of exhaustion and morale collapse.

[antisocialmunky]

By all accounts, the Spartans managed to hold out for a time against that ridiculous man-ram. 50 thick was probably pretty bad for the guys up from because of all the pushing force that gets added up when you get up to the first couple ranks.

[Watchman]

I for one *sincerely* doubt the very deep Theban column had anything to do with "push weight" - it would appear to me as physically impossible for even a fraction of the depth to contribute their "weight" to the match, nevermind now without flatly crushing the front-rank guys.

Overly focusing on the hoplite column also entirely misses the importance of the contribution the Theban cavalry made by variously distrupting the Spartan ranks and harrying their flanks and rear.

Rather, it would appear to me that the point of the exercise was to leave rather major chunk of the Theban hoplites in the flank of the Spartan line after the immediate resistance was routed - and in excellent position to roll up the whole thing from the side. After all, consider the tactical situation this left the remaining Spartans in - not only were they facing fresh and unengaged, if rather thin, hoplite line to their front, but also had a veritable army (including the the Sacred Band, the Thebans' hardcore shock troops) right in their side and busily wheeling around towards them...
"So tell me... do you feel lucky, punk ?"