+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Greek Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Iphicratean Thureophoroi (/showthread.php?tid=13882)
Re: Iphicratean Thureophoroi - PMBardunias - 10-28-2008
Quote:Well--I admire those guys, but I'm not positive there's any one way. Shield directly facing the opponent--yep, if I had a flat shield like that, I'd quickly be forced to do that. But I recommend you get inside an aspis and see what happens--it doesn't lend itself to a straight push.
Hold your aspis across your chest. If its measurements are, I'll not say correct, but similar to those I have seen and been told of, the natural position should be with the rim running from your left shoulder to your right chest, while the bottom rim runs across your thighs. This is the position you push in durng othismos. It is counterintuitive because you are not really "pushing". If it were just you against a fellow with his shoulder in the hollow of his shield, he would knock you over because you are standing straight up. When pushing man on man you should use the shoulder stance.
As I said you are not really pushing, crowds don't work that way. When you have 7 ranks behind or around you, you must fit together as closely as possible and simply lean in one direction. I know this seems silly, but whenever someone gets enough hoplites together to try this you will see I am right.
The reason for this is that you must have the most tightly fit interface between ranks in order to add the strength/weight of each succesive rank to the first. Shield to back is the best- side-on will collapse to shield to back under enough pressure. In a side-on stance the foremost pusher pushes harder, but each succesive ranks adds less and less force so that after a few ranks you are gaining nothing by adding more.
It's a bit like Napoleon's famous quote on cavalry, though not for the same reason. One rank of direct-on hoplites is inferior to one rank of side-on in pushing, 3 ranks vs 3 ranks are probably equal, but 8 ranks of direct-on hoplites can defeat any number of side on since they do not add together.
So for what you are doing side-on is completely appropriate, since the benefit will only be seen at higher depth. It is in no way "innapropriate" since they surely fought this way at times prior to entering full othismos and at different dates.
I think if you can get enough men together to try it my way the meaning of Tyrtaeus' words will be crystal clear:
Quote:Let each man hold, standing firm, both feet planted on the ground,
biting his lip with his teeth, covering with the belly of his broad
shield [or his belly with his broad shield? ] his thighs and his breast and shoulders . . let each man, losing with the enemy, fighting hand-to-hand with long spear or sword, wound and take him; and setting foot against foot, and resting shield against shield, crest against crest, helmet against helmet let him fight his man breast to breast, grasping the hilt of his sword or of his long spear.
Re: Iphicratean Thureophoroi - Kineas - 10-28-2008
I look forward to trying! What you say makes a certain sense, but i have to try it. Where does my head and neck go?
I really hope that everyone who comes to Marathon (assuming we do Marathon) comes prepared for a little sport combat, so that we can at least experiment with theories just as you describe--at the same time, I also hope that the academic and professional end of the hobby (like you!) will write us up neat experiments with clear and scientific parameters so that we can duplicate results.
I love this sort of thing.
Re: Iphicratean Thureophoroi - PMBardunias - 10-28-2008
Quote:I look forward to trying! What you say makes a certain sense, but i have to try it. Where does my head and neck go?
Your head and throat are hanging in the wind. This may be the reason that the extensive face and neck protection of the corinthian and other Greek helmet types emerged along with the phalanx.
Something I would like to know more about is the level of protection gained by being chest to chest with your foe - as in a clinch in boxing or a guard position in MMA. As to your immediate foe, his spear is useless aginst you and even a sword would be difficult to score a strong hit with. As I have said before we can easily understand the dimensions of the short spartan dagger in these conditions, for it is the only weapon that can be used to full effect.
The men behind your foe are obviously more of a problem. I have good reason to beleive that only the first two ranks on each side regularly engaged in spear fencing. Reenactors, on here I think, have told me that three ranks becomes very difficult to coordinate. Also there is a quote, which I cannot recall at the moment, specifically calling out the second rank man to protect the fore-fighter, but not mentioning any deeper ranks. But obviously I can't rule out three ranks.
One advantage you have against them is that there is a head, your foe's, between you and them. Also if you can see the blow coming, even a pilos is well protected from overhand blows. Blows around behind your head may be interfered with by the helmet of the man who has your back. Then there is your right hand and the right hand of the man behind you defending you from blows. Maybe next time you and your friend can stand shield to shield, straight up as though pinned together, and wack at each other.
Quote:I really hope that everyone who comes to Marathon (assuming we do Marathon) comes prepared for a little sport combat, so that we can at least experiment with theories just as you describe--at the same time, I also hope that the academic and professional end of the hobby (like you!) will write us up neat experiments with clear and scientific parameters so that we can duplicate results.
If I can make it, still a possibility, I will surely allow you to beat me with weapons as need be. I can surely get with you before hand and try to come up with a scheme of variables. Something to think about is that we probably need a common semantic scheme for this type of fighting since many elements are subtley different from the usual fencing scheme. Maybe they have some of this for gladiators.
Iphicratean shields and grips - Paullus Scipio - 10-28-2008
Kineas wrote:
Quote:Well--many times we bashed our shields together--in fact, wear and tear ont he very expensive and labour intensive aspis is getting to be a discussion point around here!
.....I have a thought on this. What about making a thin padded shield cover ( say, from foam or similar padding 'stuff' a couple of millimetres thick), with elastic round the rim....a bit like an SUV spare wheel cover. This would slip on and off easily, and the thin padding would serve two purposes - save wear and tear, and assist safety from 'rim' injuries ( which seem common)
Re: Iphicratean Thureophoroi - PMBardunias - 10-28-2008
What about covering the rim with sections of old bicycle tire? Maybe there's a way to cross-strap sections of auto tire across the face too. Obviously I am momentarily biased toward tires.
another thing to consider is that for some tests, don't use your expensive aspis, but instead something that is functionally, but not asthetically, similar. I, embarrasingly, tested some of my ideas about the utility of the hollow of the shield with a contraption that was made of an inner tube and a red plastic disc sled.
Re: Iphicratean Thureophoroi - Kineas - 10-28-2008
Paul, the shield cover idea was just put forth by Aurora (Lorica) about 2 hours ago... we'll work on that.
Other Paul--it may be difficult to believe (or easy) but having made all that kit, most reenactors act like real soldiers and want to fight with it, despite the existence of satisfactory substitutes. I've seen this before.
D D And then they'll complain about it (
) making them act even more like real soldiers...
Re: Iphicratean Thureophoroi - Demetrios - 10-29-2008
Kineas ! do not make my experience as a phalangite much bigger than it is !!! I should train a bit more
As far as "spear fencing" is concerned, I have the same problem as you.
I did fence a little many years ago and did some martial arts too and I cannot prevent myself from misleading my opponent's blows and I try to push their weapons to find my own way, actions that appear natural to me. Without acting as a samurai I do not see why fighting methods should be so different in the similar war conditions.
I tend as you to use my spear as a 10 foot sword, which I was already reproached for not being historically accurate (or referenced) if not "unfair" as a method.
In order to avoid this situation, I tried to come in contact shield to shield, to use this defensive weapon as an active one if not offensive which puzzled my foe again.
I think we are now in a philosophical debate : should we elaborate a common rule or should we push our fighting researches into all directions ?
The foremer way would make it a bit choreographical whereas the latter might become a Jackie Chan show...
May be can we get some advice from reenactors in roman or medieval fight, in which I have no experience at all.
Re: Iphicratean Thureophoroi - Kineas - 10-29-2008
I don't see any value to choreography. I think we'd all like to see what happens when two "phalanxes" at least six deep and ten wide contact each other. I think that we should test dozens of hypotheses--pushing, spear fencing, using swords at close quarters--but that at some point we should do this, not as an SCA style "no holds barred" fight (although that would be fun) but as a series of experiments with controls--and marshals (ie referees and safety monitors).
Mind you, I'm committed to getting as many hoplite reenactors to Marathon in 2011 as can be done. Only at such a venue will we get the numbers to try this sort of thing.
Re: Iphicratean Thureophoroi - Demetrios - 10-29-2008
Paul
Thanks for your remarks about the doubtfull "rush or rams in rut".
This raises nevertheless two questions for me :
1) If two phalanxes with the minimum depth of 4 ranks (and all the more with more ranks deep) run on the battlefield with all cohesion difficulties how can they manage to stop properly at a say 2 meter spear length distance and start to fight in a clean way thru a no man's land.
I guess if I were in the rear I would push my comrades against the ennemy, even unwillingly, and if I were in the front I would be pushed.
Our little phalanxes became very soon desorganized and I guess that if they had been more numerous it would have been easier to maintain cohesion while running but much less (not to say impossible) in stopping the machine.
2) I do not remember which author mentionned the break of shields and spears but, even if I find my aspis fragile and if I cry for any tiny blow it receives, I cannot see how I could break shield and spear without any "rush and clash" after a race. May be I underestimate my strenght and the destructive power of my spear but I must admit that I am known to be rather strong and I am not used to break shafts... may be in true conditions ? ...
Did anybody in this section or in the roman section break shields and shafts in fight ?
I attended some gladiators fights who blew savagely (some were injured) which unsharped but plain swords or tridents, but nobody broke a shield. So I remain a bit puzzled.
Re: Iphicratean Thureophoroi - PMBardunias - 10-29-2008
Quote:1) If two phalanxes with the minimum depth of 4 ranks (and all the more with more ranks deep) run on the battlefield with all cohesion difficulties how can they manage to stop properly at a say 2 meter spear length distance and start to fight in a clean way thru a no man's land.
I guess if I were in the rear I would push my comrades against the ennemy, even unwillingly, and if I were in the front I would be pushed.
Our little phalanxes became very soon desorganized and I guess that if they had been more numerous it would have been easier to maintain cohesion while running but much less (not to say impossible) in stopping the machine.
I used to think this myself, but on further consideration, some problems arise. For example, if animals (humans, horses) could not pull up from charge then Waterloo goes way differently. I think I first thought this while watching Braveheart during the scene where the Irish mercenaries and the scottish charge each other then abruptly stop at a few yards distance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyx0K4WrElo (5 seconds in)
Now I'm sure that was heavily choreographed, but it does show the concept. Remember that they need not stop at spear range exactly, they can stop further away then close. If they halt only as they come into contact and smash into the enemy phalanx, which is also presumably somewhat disorganized, there is a great hazard of the enemy ranks intermingling to a degree that makes the formations mobs.
If you think of situations where the rear of a crowd bowls over the front it occurs either when the rear ranks do not expect the stop or when those in the back are trying to fight their way forward reguardless of the front halting- such as fleeing a fire, rushing a stage, etc. If the hoplites know the men will stop and also accept that they are assigned ranks, then there really is no reason for the type of fouling you describe. One key to this is the important variable of spacing between ranks.
Often reenactors will place ranks at the same distance they place files. This is probably incorrect for a hoplite charge. In my opinion the spacing between ranks either starts out greater, or becomes greater in the charge. When groups run there is a well established tendency to elongate in the direction of the charge as men pull apart, while at the same time the formation becomes more narrow as bunching occurs. Once the front ranks halt, then rear ranks reform behind them at appropriate spacing.
Now it has been said that men can be trained to run in tight formation, and this is surely so as with the Italian military band that has been referenced on here. But most hoplites surely could not do this. My logic for this is simple: running in formation like this is harder than marching in formation and takes more discipline (This is why it is flashy for the Italian band to do it). We are specifically told that Spartans were renouned for their discipline and marched to battle in formation in a way no others could match. Thus, surely no others could run in formation if they could not even march in it.
[quote]2) I do not remember which author mentionned the break of shields and spears but, even if I find my aspis fragile and if I cry for any tiny blow it receives, I cannot see how I could break shield and spear without any "rush and clash" after a race. quote]
You are thinking of Xenophon's description of the aftermath of Coronea. Interestingly the word he uses to describe the broken shields has been variously translated according to preconceptions of the author. One translation labels them as "pierced", showing obvious bias towards spear fencing, the more common translates it as "smashed". The word may rightly be translated as "crushed" and I have seen it used in describing rock crushing as opposed to percussive bashing.
The destruction of these shields occurs during othismos. The compression a shield is subjected to in the middle of a pushing match of 16 men is much greater than the impact of two men colliding at moderate speed, moreso because it would be very difficult for these men to hit cleanly.
Iphicratean Thureophroi and Aspis use - Paullus Scipio - 10-29-2008
Paul B. wrote:
Quote:The destruction of these shields occurs during othismos. The compression a shield is subjected to in the middle of a pushing match of 16 men is much greater than the impact of two men colliding at moderate speed, moreso because it would be very difficult for these men to hit cleanly........as you know, Paul, I am of the view that your suggestion is an extremely dubious one - and can only be even made feasible by testing it. Even in extreme 'crowd force' conditions ( which I doubt can be generated on an open battlefield, as opposed to a confined space), I don't believe that sufficient forces could be generated to 'crush' shields. In addition, given that the Aspis can support the weight of a man easily, it is hard to visualise a situation where the aspides themselves will suffer structural failure before the Humans sandwiched between them, if your postulated 'othismos' does take place !!
hock: The 'smashed' shields may be literary hyperbole ( though that is not usually Xenophon's style), or damaged by spear thrusts or even more likely, from being 'chopped' by swords, especially machaira, as you referred to......
But testing one day will be the way to shed light on this subject.....
Re: Iphicratean Thureophoroi - PMBardunias - 10-29-2008
Quote:.......as you know, Paul, I am of the view that your suggestion is an extremely dubious one - and can only be even made feasible by testing it. Even in extreme 'crowd force' conditions ( which I doubt can be generated on an open battlefield, as opposed to a confined space),
If you are more than a few ranks inside a phalanx, you are in a confined space. The individuals are being packed tight by those at the edge of the formation- who just happen to be officers on the right where the most discipline is needed to maintain phalanx packing.
We already have evidence for this from reenactors- men passing out due to their inability to breathe in the pressure of the ranks and the reenactors having to stop to get them out of formation. So I consider the case closed for existance of this phenomenon. We can still of course argue whether its existance mattered to hoplites who could have fought in a way that did not allow these conditions to arise- as romans generally did.
That said, we have a phenomenon that can be deadly to men in a phalanx and an almost perfect means of protecting against it in the aspis. We are in a position to ask why men who can create a condition for which their foes are likely to suffer far more than they would not do it.
Quote: I don't believe that sufficient forces could be generated to 'crush' shields. In addition, given that the Aspis can support the weight of a man easily, it is hard to visualise a situation where the aspides themselves will suffer structural failure before the Humans sandwiched between them, if your postulated 'othismos' does take place !!
Remember that the aspis rests on a man's thighs and upperchest and the front of the left shoulder. How much weight do you think your thigh or left shoulder can bear before failure? The whole point of the domed shield is to protect the rib cage and belly which we could expect to fail before an aspis.
An aspis will surely fail before my thigh. Especially because the dome edge is not uniformly supported as it would be on the ground. Put one edge of your aspis up on a brick and watch what happen's to it's ability to bear weight. It is this force that a truss or brace inside will counteract.
Quote:The 'smashed' shields may be literary hyperbole ( though that is not usually Xenophon's style), or damaged by spear thrusts or even more likely, from being 'chopped' by swords, especially machaira, as you referred to......
This is highly unlikely given the word Xenophon chose. I would accept the former percussive crash before a notion that it was weapon damage. We have many instances of shields and armor being pierced by weapons, so why would he not follow the word convention for this?
Iphicratean Thureos - Paullus Scipio - 10-29-2008
Paul B. wrote:
Quote:If you are more than a few ranks inside a phalanx, you are in a confined space....here we must disagree. AFIK, the sort of 'crowd forces' that you envisage only occur when the 'irresistable force'( in the form of hundreds/thousands of people moving in a given direction) meets the 'immovable object' in the form of walls or barriers at pop concerts, or barriers/crowd control fences at soccer games and the like.....Being in the ranks, which, being of movable/moving people is not a confined space to me. I can't recall any 'crowd force' incidents that have occurred in unconfined spaces/open areas that generate the sort of forces that you postulate and that would 'crush' shields.
Certainly crowd pressure is a known ancient battlefield phenomenon - we hear for example, of troops compressed ( even Roman ones) so much that the dead can't fall, or of being so crowded that they can't use their weapons etc, but again, none of these situations come about deliberately, as your hypothesis postulates....and it is usually the result of panic.
Quote:Remember that the aspis rests on a man's thighs and upperchest and the front of the left shoulder. How much weight do you think your thigh or left shoulder can bear before failure?I was thinking more of that domed shield being pressed into the back of the man in front, assuming your hypothesis for a moment; that the phalanx really can generate these sort of forces, and that the enemy phalanx proves to be the 'immovable object' ( all unlikely in my view)
In my mind's eye for this 'thought experiment', the aspis dome is strong enough to prevent asphyxiation by crushing from the front , the hollow allowing breathing....(in which case, by definition it should not suffer structural failure??), but tremendous, and equal force is being exerted into the Hoplite's back by the convex dome of the man behind, compressed in turn by the ranks deep ( and the depth they stood in is another matter of debate - a thin line 8-12 deep on average at best, or 4-6 if my thoughts on depths are correct - is simply not going to generate the 'crowd forces' of the massively 'deep' crowds at a sporting event or rock concert)
The Hoplite has no domed shield to protect his back ! He is surely in danger of being crushed/asphyxiated in such a situation, because to breathe, a person's ribcage must be free to expand in all directions equally, not just to the front.....
But we digress into one of our favourite never-ending debates, and have hijacked this thread way off-topic.... :oops: :oops:
Let us leave this for another day/thread, and get back on-topic ( sort of! )
Kineas wrote:
Quote:Paul, the shield cover idea was just put forth by Aurora (Lorica) about 2 hours ago... we'll work on that.....one possible source for such material, and relatively cheap too, are the exercise mats sold in most large store such as 'Walmart', though two of these may have to be joined to be wide enough.....
Re: Iphicratean Thureophoroi - Kineas - 10-29-2008
Quote:Remember that the aspis rests on a man's thighs and upperchest and the front of the left shoulder. How much weight do you think your thigh or left shoulder can bear before failure? The whole point of the domed shield is to protect the rib cage and belly which we could expect to fail before an aspis.
An aspis will surely fail before my thigh. Especially because the dome edge is not uniformly supported as it would be on the ground. Put one edge of your aspis up on a brick and watch what happens to it's ability to bear weight. It is this force that a truss or brace inside will counteract.
I'm very leary of engaging in anything like argument with either of you, but I can tell you that my thigh will fail long before my aspis. I can stand on my aspis, rock back and forth on the rim, play "king of the castle' on it, etc. I can rest the center of it on a sharp rock and balance on it. I can put the edge up on a saw horse and balance on it...
Most important, i think, to me--and the reason why I'm 'suspicious" of othismos as a recurring theme in a hoplite fight (and let me be plain--I'm sure it happened!) is that IMHE of line fighting, the side that collapses its ranks first LOSES. You suggest that the men should stand up straight, using the aspis for breathing room--I suggest that you ask a tug-of-war team to do that, and pit them against another team using their thighs to pull. But...despite all that, the only way to know is to try. I've been wrong so many times that it won't hurt me a bit to discover, when we test it, that the theory works!
Frederick the Great said that you could tell militia at a great distance because they packed too tight, lost their order, and could never be recovered. This is my experience--once the ranks "pack up" you have to re-sort the whole formation. They become a mob. And... that means that the Spartans, for instance, couldn't change direction against the Thebans. This is a hard argument to sell unless you've drilled a couple of hundred guys... then it is intuitively obvious and has to do with the fact that in drill, time and space are synonymous--if your men over-pack, the time you take separating them and re-gaining space is astronomical.
In my mind, balance plays a role, too. Once the men are "square on" to the enemy, men lose their balance in heartbeats--as you see over and over in those Russian videos. If they held their off-angle stances, they'd be harder to push over.
Also, no matter how tight you pack your files front to back, you'll never achieve the same consistency side to side--so men will "squirt out" or simply be pushed over.
Finally, the men being pushed forward--the front rankers--can't move their heads and are now meat for the opposing spearmen. Look, those helmets are no real protection. A good whack from a spear shaft will still knock you silly--three or four will knock you out. There's very little padding and 18-24 gauge bronze. I can put a spear right through a helmet like that--kill shot, because it's the head. Or, with nothing but some desperate flailing, I can hit that helmet five or ten times while I get pushed backwards. When we tested this idea with files five deep against a single opponent, the single opponent ALWAYS killed all five men facing him. It may well NOT have been a fair test of othismos--but it did suggest that any form of pushing would simply serve to rob the front rank of the footwork they need to survive.
Also, you'll note in the Russian videos that the flanks bleed out to individual fights in seconds--literally heartbeats--which is what ALWAYS happens at the edge of a linear fight--the flanks bleed outwards into duels, until (seen from overhead) what started as a pair of blocks ends up as something shaped like a double headed axe seen from above, with the "linear" part eventually breaking down altogether. I've done quite a few of these in the SCA (years ago) and even three or four deep, the edge bleeding very quickly defeats the central organization.
Please don't mistake me--I am not suggesting that there was no pushing--merely that the pushing was part of the overall scheme of melee, and on a much more local and limited basis than I think you support.
I'll try this on Sunday--I stand eight men deep as you suggest. And I'll have one hoplite push back. I'll bet he can knock the whole file down. Perhaps not--I'll take pictures!
(Now I'll duck and cover and run for safety.)
Re: Iphicratean Thureophoroi - PMBardunias - 10-29-2008
Quote:...here we must disagree. AFIK, the sort of 'crowd forces' that you envisage only occur when the 'irresistable force'( in the form of hundreds/thousands of people moving in a given direction) meets the 'immovable object' in the form of walls or barriers at pop concerts, or barriers/crowd control fences at soccer games and the like.....being in the ranks, which, being of movable/moving people is not a confined space to me.
Not so at all. In models of this crowd phenomenon, as little as 4 people packed behind you are enough to render you imobilized and at maximun crowd density. Part of this misunderstanding is that even in giant crowd conditions, it need not be the whole crowd pushing at once in one direction to cause these pressures. In fact it is subsections of the crowd that become accidentally coordinated that cause the damage. We are here talking about 16 ranks of men who are all trying to push against each other.
Quote:I can't recall any 'crowd force' incidents that have occurred in unconfined spaces/open areas that generate the sort of forces that you postulate and that would 'crush' shields.
As I said the question is somewhat resolved because we know that these pressure do come into play in real-life recreations of mass combat with as little as 6 ranks. The arguement over whether these forces in a phalanx can kill has been resolved. Do you deny the account of those who have succombed to this in reenactment?
Quote:Certainly crowd pressure is a known ancient battlefield phenomenon - we hear for example, of troops compressed ( even Roman ones) so much that the dead can't fall, or of being so crowded that they can't use their weapons etc, but again, none of these situations come about deliberately, as your hypothesis postulates....and it is usually the result of panic.
Right, so how deadly the phalanx that learned to use this force intentionally against a foe who cannot? This is a great example of a tactical innovation.
Quote:I was thinking more of that domed shield being pressed into the back of the man in front, assuming your hypothesis for a moment; that the phalanx really can generate these sort of forces, and that the enemy phalanx proves to be the 'immovable object' ( all unlikely in my view)
If two men of equal strength and weight push against each other, they are immovable objects to one another. Why would 8 ranks of men on each side be any different?
Quote:In my mind's eye for this 'thought experiment', the aspis dome is strong enough to prevent asphyxiation by crushing from the front , the hollow allowing breathing....(in which case, by definition it should not suffer structural failure??), but tremendous, and equal force is being exerted into the Hoplite's back by the convex dome of the man behind, compressed in turn by the ranks deep ( and the depth they stood in is another matter of debate - a thin line 8-12 deep on average at best, or 4-6 if my thoughts on depths are correct) - is simply not going to generate the 'crowd forces' of the massively 'deep' crowds at a sporting event or rock concert)
See above, you are overestimating how much of the crowd is involved in the actual crushing. The large crowds simply set the stage for sub-units of crowd to crush each other unintentionally.
Quote:The Hoplite has no domed shield to protect his back ! He is surely in danger of being crushed/asphyxiated in such a situation, because to breathe, a person's ribcage must be free to expand in all directions equally, not just to the front.....
This is very important to get clear. You do not need protection from the back. Your spine is better protection that any shield could be. You do not expand in all directions when you breathe- this is why it is easier to breathe when laying on your back than on your belly. In addition the broad, flattened face of the aspis spreads the force broadly across your back. In the front all of the force rests on two points of contact with the shield. I have experimented extensively with this and the aspis concept is about as good as you can get for protecting the diaphragm.