Hoplitai too weak ?

[Dutchhoplite]

s
IIRC accounts of Chaoronea by Diodorus talked about relatively high casualties on both sides during the fighting.

Another bloody and nasty fight was the battle of Megalopolis (331) where the Spartans were beaten by Antipater, also known as the battle of mice ;)

[Mindaros]

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.

Quite a feat to make a pike phalanx move backwards in an orderly fashion with the enemy close by, recalling how clumsy it is even when moving forward.

[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.

[Watchman]

Shorter sword ? What shorter sword ? The last I read up on that, only the Spartans used meaningfully shorter blades (and were occasionally explicitly mocked by other Greeks about that); the standard sidearms AFAIK were the xiphos and the machaira/kopis, all around 50-60cm lenght range...
That's not terribly short.

[Phalanx300]

Shorter sword ? What shorter sword ? The last I read up on that, only the Spartans used meaningfully shorter blades (and were occasionally explicitly mocked by other Greeks about that); the standard sidearms AFAIK were the xiphos and the machaira/kopis, all around 50-60cm lenght range...
That's not terribly short.

Standard Greek sword was about 50-60, Spartans initially used this version as well but over time settled for smaller and smaller swords, eventually getting at around 30-40cm.

Sorry, was talking about Spartans. Always tend to let for me obvious information gone since I never like to write whole essays about stuff but just like to keep it simple.

[ARCHIPPOS]

QUOTED FROM WIKI (COPYPASTA!!!)
Several stages in hoplite combat can be defined:

A)Ephodos: The hoplites stop singing their paeanes (battle hymns) and move towards the enemy, gradually picking up pace and momentum. In the instants before impact war cries would be made.
B)Krousis: The opposing phalanxes meet each other almost simultaneously along their front. The promachoe (the front-liners) had to be physically and psychologically fit to sustain and survive the clash.
C)Doratismos: Repeated, rapid spear thrusts in order to disrupt the enemy formation.
D)Othismos: Literally "pushing" after most spears have been broken, the hoplites begin to push with their large shields and use their secondary weapon, the sword. This could be the longest phase.
E)Pararrhexis: "Breaching" the opposing phalanx, the enemy formation shatters and the battle ends.

some logical assumptions...
1)the running charge offered considerable benefits when facing a better drilled/trained opponent... if you're not that good with your spear and hoplon you might want to make up for this with a ferocious charge... it's the old skill vs raw power debate...
2)the running charge reduces exposure to missiles...
3)the othismos benefited deeper hoplite formations ... in this case the deeper phalanx would look forward to the pushing effect rather than avoid it...
4) within the fluid ,chaotic context of phalanx standout after the initial impact , phases C,D &E were probably overlaping and not that easily to distinguish... some spears might have broken but not all... some guys would push while using their copis against the enemy, others would try to skewer him in the face and so on... also at some point of the battleline breaches would have been formed whereas at the other side they could be still pushing eachother...

i don't think that our movies, reenactements or video games are that able to grasp and "recreate" the fluid ,and violent nature of this type of warfare...

[antisocialmunky]

The thing I've always seen with running charges over distance is that not everyone runs at the same speed.

[ARCHIPPOS]

supposedly though that would be the final hundreds of meters that they ran... surely a fairly fit, trained group of soldiers can do that ... at least the Athenians being draftees managed to pull it out at Marathon...

[Watchman]

The whole purpose of *that*, however, was to get through the killzone of Persian archery ASAP and into hand-to-hand range. That the hoplites were certified to be somewhat out of breath, and their formation screwed up six ways to Sunday, at the point of contact was an acceptable tradeoff.

It would be reasonable to assume the charge would normally be done from a *much* shorter distance, and the speed probably gradually built up from a slow jog or somesuch, both to conserve endurance and avoid distrupting the formation overmuch.

[Phalanx300]

I've seen this guy on TWC say that at Marathon the Hoplites would charge and then reform in front of the enemy, might be what the charging is all about mainly to defend against missle attacks. Otherwise its just a waste of Phalanx cohesion to waste it running at an enemy who doesn't do that and keeps their density.

[ARCHIPPOS]

abt the formation being screwed up...
is it so important though to make contact from one side of the line to the other simulteniously??? i mean the important thing was having a continuous battleline shoulder to shoulder not a parade-like straight formation... they lost some cohesion sure and even some stamina but on the other hand they gained some momentum,no???

anyway i'm just making logical assumptions here , i'm no expert...

[Watchman]

Oh yeah, him. Ignore that nonsense.

Put this way - if the Athenians & Co. *did* pull short right in front of the main Persian line, they'd be pretty much sitting ducks. Out of breath, out of formation with the slower fellows still stumbling into the rear ranks, and within spitting distance of the enemy who might just as well decide to get audacious and charge *themselves*. No point. Better drive home all the way then, and make virtue of the sheer momentum gathered during the long and no doubt rather terrifying hundred-meter dash to crash into the waiting shieldwall and hopefully break it. (Greek chroniclers AFAIK note that Persians could fight holites fairly equally as long as their spara wall held, but were in trouble if and when the hoplites managed to break through it; Athenians ought to have been aware of this from Ionian Revolt experience.)

Plus, I'm anything but convinced the level of discipline and drill present in the Athenian army at the period would have allowed for that kind of fancy-pants trickery in any case. After a shock infantryman has ran a hundred meters through a rain of arrows and finally starts getting close to the enemy, he needs to be *very* disciplined indeed to slow down and reform rather than just single-mindedly follow through straight into the enemy ranks just to get things over with.

[Phalanx300]

abt the formation being screwed up...
is it so important though to make contact from one side of the line to the other simulteniously??? i mean the important thing was having a continuous battleline shoulder to shoulder not a parade-like straight formation... they lost some cohesion sure and even some stamina but on the other hand they gained some momentum,no???

anyway i'm just making logical assumptions here , i'm no expert...

In Hoplite warfare when you have good cohesion it will help in the Phalanx warfare, running for a while with all your men makes you lose some cohesion.

And I never think of an Hoplite line as straight, well yes initially but afterwards I'd like to see it as the waves on a roch, bending and changing shape to paths of less resistance. Something like that.

Oh yeah, him. Ignore that nonsense.

And ignore his crap while you're at it.

[Parallel Pain]

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.

If you had bothered to read it:

Now you're just talking out of your arse, mate. Go read.

And many well sourced wiki articles. On top of that some indirect sourcing of ancient authors (book #, etc).

And ignore his crap while you're at it.

His crap is supported by scholarship and historians and at least a well sourced wiki article.

When the Athenian line was ready, according to one source, the simple signal to advance was given by Miltiades: "At them".[45] Herodotus implies the Athenians ran the whole distance to the Persian lines, shouting their ululating war cry, "Ελελευ! Ελελευ!" ("Eleleu! Eleleu!").[72] It is doubtful that the Athenians ran the whole distance; in full armour this would be very difficult.[78] More likely, they marched until they reached the limit of the archers' effectiveness, the "beaten zone", (roughly 200 meters), and then broke into a run towards their enemy.[78] Herodotus suggests that this was the first time a Greek army ran into battle in this way; this was probably because it was the first time that a Greek army had faced an enemy composed primarily of missile troops.[78]

[A Very Super Market]

I haven't read the whole thread yet, I must say that you're likely missing the point.

[Parallel Pain]

I have

[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 ?"

[antisocialmunky]

Was the left formed as a single phalanx or 3-5 phalanxes? I'd have to conclude hte latter since otherwise its just horribly inefficient.

[Geticus]

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 ?"

Xenophon was a contemporary of Leuctra and I think he outranks all other historians to write on this matter, due to his superior military experience as strategos of the 10,000 in Asia etc., and his text is clear that othismos of the 50 shield deep Theban mass broke the Spartan phalanx.

Xen. Hellenica 6.4.12-15

[12] Such, then, was the cavalry on either side. Coming now to the infantry, it was said that the Lacedaemonians led each half-company three files abreast, and that this resulted in the phalanx being not more than twelve men deep. The Thebans, however, were massed not less than fifty shields deep, calculating that if they conquered that part of the army which was around the king, all the rest of it would be easy to overcome. [13]

Now when Cleombrotus began to lead his army against the enemy, in the first place, before the troops under him so much as perceived that he was advancing, the horsemen had already joined battle and those of the Lacedaemonians had speedily been worsted; then in their flight they had fallen foul of their own hoplites, and, besides, the companies of the Thebans were now charging upon them. Nevertheless, the fact that Cleombrotus and his men were at first victorious in the battle may be known from this clear indication: they would not have been able to take him up and carry him off still living, had not those who were fighting in front of him been holding the advantage at that time. [14] But when Deinon, the polemarch, Sphodrias, one of the king's tent-companions, and Cleonymus,7 the son of Sphodrias, had been killed, then the royal bodyguard, the so-called aides of the polemarch, and the others fell back under the pressure of the Theban mass, while those who were on the left wing of the Lacedaemonians, when they saw that the right wing was being pushed back, gave way. Yet despite the fact that many had fallen and that they were defeated, after they had crossed the trench which chanced to be in front of their camp they grounded their arms at the spot from which they had set forth. The camp, to be sure, was not on ground which was altogether level, but rather on the slope of a hill. After the disaster some of the Lacedaemonians, thinking it unendurable, said that they ought to prevent the enemy from setting up their trophy and to try to recover the bodies of the dead, not by means of a truce, but by fighting. [15] The polemarchs, however, seeing that of the whole number of the Lacedaemonians almost a thousand had been killed; seeing, further, that among the Spartiatae themselves, of whom there were some seven hundred there, about four hundred had fallen; and perceiving that the allies were one and all without heart for fighting, while some of them were not even displeased at what had taken place, gathered together the most important personages and deliberated about what they should do. And as all thought it best to recover the bodies of the dead by a truce, they finally sent a herald to ask for a truce. After this, then, the Thebans set up a trophy and gave back the bodies under a truce.

The critical passage 6.4.14 in Greek reads:

14] ἐπεὶ μέντοι ἀπέθανε Δείνων τε ὁ πολέμαρχος καὶ Σφοδρίας τῶν περὶ δαμοσίαν καὶ Κλεώνυμος ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ οἱ †μὲν ἵπποι καὶ οἱ συμφορεῖς τοῦ πολεμάρχου καλούμενοι οἵ τε ἄλλοι ὑπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου ὠθούμενοι ἀνεχώρουν, οἱ δὲ τοῦ εὐωνύμου ὄντες τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων ὡς ἑώρων τὸ δεξιὸν ὠθούμενον, ἐνέκλιναν

The Greek is more explicit as to othismos because it uses the present participle of the verb Otheo in both instances to describe the action. The above translation is not my own, but taken straight from the Perseus website, a more literal translation of the first emboldened passage would be:

upo tou oxlou othoumenoi anexoroun
being pushed by the throng [the Spartans] fell back

and the second passage

os eoron to dexion othoumenon, eneklinan
as they saw the [Spartan] right being pushed back, they [the Lakedaimonian allied left] gave way

Sorry I don't type in Greek, but this passage is perfectly clear, the oxlos [throng] of the Thebans pushed back and broke the Spartan right, causing a chainroute down the whole Lakedaimonian line. I trust that you will concede that when Xenophon refers to the Theban oxlos (throng) he is referring to the previously mentioned 50 man deep mass cited in 6.4.12, and not some partial 12 man phalanx that you propose, which would never have dared to presume that they could have alone routed the hitherto invincible Spartiate phalanx led personally by a Spartan King. It took a military genius (Epaminondas), revolutionary strategy (oblique attack to the left) and unprecedented mass (50 shields deep).

[Phalanx300]

If you had bothered to read it:

And many well sourced wiki articles. On top of that some indirect sourcing of ancient authors (book #, etc).

I see, when he post something supported he's right, when I do it I'm just being ignorant?

His crap is supported by scholarship and historians and at least a well sourced wiki article.

My crap as well. Do you really think I just make everything up on what I said at Hoplites?

[Satyros]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Xenophon was a contemporary of Leuctra and I think he outranks all other historians to write on this matter, due to his superior military experience as strategos of the 10,000 in Asia etc., and his text is clear that othismos of the 50 shield deep Theban mass broke the Spartan phalanx.

Xen. Hellenica 6.4.12-15

[12] Such, then, was the cavalry on either side. Coming now to the infantry, it was said that the Lacedaemonians led each half-company three files abreast, and that this resulted in the phalanx being not more than twelve men deep. The Thebans, however, were massed not less than fifty shields deep, calculating that if they conquered that part of the army which was around the king, all the rest of it would be easy to overcome. [13]

Now when Cleombrotus began to lead his army against the enemy, in the first place, before the troops under him so much as perceived that he was advancing, the horsemen had already joined battle and those of the Lacedaemonians had speedily been worsted; then in their flight they had fallen foul of their own hoplites, and, besides, the companies of the Thebans were now charging upon them. Nevertheless, the fact that Cleombrotus and his men were at first victorious in the battle may be known from this clear indication: they would not have been able to take him up and carry him off still living, had not those who were fighting in front of him been holding the advantage at that time. [14] But when Deinon, the polemarch, Sphodrias, one of the king's tent-companions, and Cleonymus,7 the son of Sphodrias, had been killed, then the royal bodyguard, the so-called aides of the polemarch, and the others fell back under the pressure of the Theban mass, while those who were on the left wing of the Lacedaemonians, when they saw that the right wing was being pushed back, gave way. Yet despite the fact that many had fallen and that they were defeated, after they had crossed the trench which chanced to be in front of their camp they grounded their arms at the spot from which they had set forth. The camp, to be sure, was not on ground which was altogether level, but rather on the slope of a hill. After the disaster some of the Lacedaemonians, thinking it unendurable, said that they ought to prevent the enemy from setting up their trophy and to try to recover the bodies of the dead, not by means of a truce, but by fighting. [15] The polemarchs, however, seeing that of the whole number of the Lacedaemonians almost a thousand had been killed; seeing, further, that among the Spartiatae themselves, of whom there were some seven hundred there, about four hundred had fallen; and perceiving that the allies were one and all without heart for fighting, while some of them were not even displeased at what had taken place, gathered together the most important personages and deliberated about what they should do. And as all thought it best to recover the bodies of the dead by a truce, they finally sent a herald to ask for a truce. After this, then, the Thebans set up a trophy and gave back the bodies under a truce.

The critical passage 6.4.14 in Greek reads:

14] ἐπεὶ μέντοι ἀπέθανε Δείνων τε ὁ πολέμαρχος καὶ Σφοδρίας τῶν περὶ δαμοσίαν καὶ Κλεώνυμος ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ οἱ †μὲν ἵπποι καὶ οἱ συμφορεῖς τοῦ πολεμάρχου καλούμενοι οἵ τε ἄλλοι ὑπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου ὠθούμενοι ἀνεχώρουν, οἱ δὲ τοῦ εὐωνύμου ὄντες τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων ὡς ἑώρων τὸ δεξιὸν ὠθούμενον, ἐνέκλιναν

The Greek is more explicit as to othismos because it uses the present participle of the verb Otheo in both instances to describe the action. The above translation is not my own, but taken straight from the Perseus website, a more literal translation of the first emboldened passage would be:

upo tou oxlou othoumenoi anexoroun
being pushed by the throng [the Spartans] fell back

and the second passage

os eoron to dexion othoumenon, eneklinan
as they saw the [Spartan] right being pushed back, they [the Lakedaimonian allied left] gave way

Sorry I don't type in Greek, but this passage is perfectly clear, the oxlos [throng] of the Thebans pushed back and broke the Spartan right, causing a chainroute down the whole Lakedaimonian line. I trust that you will concede that when Xenophon refers to the Theban oxlos (throng) he is referring to the previously mentioned 50 man deep mass cited in 6.4.12, and not some partial 12 man phalanx that you propose, which would never have dared to presume that they could have alone routed the hitherto invincible Spartiate phalanx led personally by a Spartan King. It took a military genius (Epaminondas), revolutionary strategy (oblique attack to the left) and unprecedented mass.

Bravo !

Good job mate .

Satyros

[Dutchhoplite]

It took a military genius (Epaminondas), revolutionary strategy (oblique attack to the left) and unprecedented mass (50 shields deep).

Errrr..Epaminondas basicly used the same methods first used by Pagondas at Delium only somewhat further developed. It wasn't that revolutionary.

[Geticus]

Errrr..Epaminondas basicly used the same methods first used by Pagondas at Delium only somewhat further developed. It wasn't that revolutionary.

Point conceded, I didn't know (or had long since forgotten not being much of a Peloponnesian War buff) about that one. Do you know if the attack there was oblique with the deep Theban right leading ahead of the others? On cursory inspection it is not clear.