+- 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: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? (/showthread.php?tid=14759)
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - PMBardunias - 06-23-2009
You are very close George to what I believe to be correct. No matter how critical I will seem of some of your points to follow, you are way ahead of the curve on what really occurs when groups of men collide.
Quote:Any theory that proposes a forceful mass push by all ranks, according to my opinion is crucially flawed.
1. During a run, it would be impossible to coordinate the ranks to push at the same time. The first rank would fall on the enemy first, then the second etc and as a result, the force of the push would dissipate causing more problems to the attacker than the defender. 8 ranks of defenders would hold back the impetus of a running man and he would have to keep his balance in order to not break the cohesion of his own phalanx. Multiply by a thousand first rankers and you get the picture.
Bravo, completely correct. Any number of ranks of charging men can be absorbed by a few ranks of close ordered men if they do not arrive at contact essentially simultaneously. The trick is that the attacking force has to be packed together in ranks with so little interpersonal space that they act like an incompressible fluid. This is what occurs when people get crushed in crowd disasters. An analogy would be a comparison between being hit by a stream of 5 lbs of BBs as opposed to being hit with a 5 lb sledgehammer.
Quote:2. Running back ranks would find it impossible to not forcibly fall on the backs of their protostates, however peculiar angles they would have assumed. So, even if they kept their balance, the push would make them lose it again. Just imagine the enemy back stepping and you can imagine what happens if a line pushed on a back without balance... Should the first ranks go down, unable to withstand the pressure of the back ranks, the whole line would crumble.
Correct again, but only because you begin from a flawed premise. First, we know they sometimes ran or at least moved fast enough to threaten disorder (The Cyrean Mercs at Cunaxa for example). We can argue about how fast the run was and how disordered it made them, but clearly they did not advance slowly. The fact that the Spartan advance to flutes was so impressive indicates that the usual advance was less so.
Second, it is a myth that men cannot pull up and stop short before contact with the enemy phalanx. Humans and animals can easily do this. Psychologically it is probably easier than getting them to charge home. It is not like the front rank stops and the rear ranks simply run into them, the rear ranks take their cue from those in front and the whole formation pull sup short. We'd be writing this in French if the horses at Waterloo could not pull up out of a charge prior to contact or if the subsequent ranks simply barreled them into the squares. Humans can do this just as easily.
Third, as you have noticed charging into the enemy line does not work. What does work is closing ranks in tight and pushing like a crowd. If the enemy back-steps, your crowd simply loosens, you don't fall over.
Quote:3. Even at small speeds, uncontrolled pushing would end up in parts of the line (more possibly single files) penetrating the enemy ranks (for 1-2 or more ranks) and not in a mass push. Actually it would be very easy to allow the enemy to penetrate the ranks, only to stab him from his unprotected side. Keep in mind that a man who is pushed from behind is unable to fight, for he cannot keep his balance to do so, while a man being supported by his epistates, as if standing supporting his back on a wall would have the required flexibility to stab, especially if he was trained to oppose blind pushing.
This is a problem, but it is mitigated by the overlap of aspides, which tends to keep men from penetrating by file. Also, as you have noted, the advance is by small steps or half-steps, thus there is no bursting into the enemy line, but a steady pressure.
Quote:4. There is no such instance described in any ancient or medieval account.
There are many instances of crowd-like behavior in roman and later contexts, dead men standing in ranks because there was no room to fall, etc. The problem is that you are looking for othismos as a "tactic". It is not. There surely was no command "start othismos". It is the result of two masses of men colliding and probably occurred to some degree in any combat of mass troops. Where the Greeks differed is not in the occurrence of the crowd-like state, but their ability to withstand the crushing pressure, thanks to the aspis, long enough to fight while in the crowd-like state.
Quote:5. Should the "othismos" occur in the beginning of the battle, then the spear or the pike would not have been the weapon of choice. Striking with a spear while 7-9 or more pen are ready to force you forward would just make things more difficult and would end up in more problems as some spears would break, others would withstand the blow and only keep the assailant away, even if the men were trained to immediately release their spears, another never attested tactic.
Once men pull up from the charge at any speed, closing up into crowd-like density takes time. Time in which men are spear fencing. The battle could simply end there, one side winning the spear fencing and never moving on. But the space between phalanxes could collapse for a variety of reasons, with promachoi colliding shield to shield. I've fought like this, by the way, and it is very interesting. Its a bit like being in a clench while boxing, the man in front of you is perhaps the least of your worries once you lock up swords. The ranks behind then pack in tight and the crowd-vs-crowd pushing competition begins.
Quote:6. Why did other armies deploy in such depths?
Because there are many reasons for depth- morale, replacement, movement, etc.
Quote:7.How come that phalanxes 50 men deep lost to phalanxes 12 men deep?
Sadly for the Spartans and the Thebans, they did not lose. They were held up by a determined crowd of 12 men deep because coordinating the movement of a 50 man crowd is very difficult. Thus it was a much more even battle of ranks that could be coordinated, with the Thebans having essentially a wall of men at their back that kept them from being pushed back too far. This asymmetry governed the outcome.
Quote:8. Why is order so much being praised, since it would be lost in seconds after the charge?
The order reforms at the end of the charge, but most efficiently if they began in proper spacing.
Quote:9. Since raw strength has little to do with experience, why were experienced troops many times arrayed in shallow formations, especially if they were expecting such a forcible push?
Strength may have little to do with experience, but getting massed men to push (actually lean forward) in unison is greatly aided by training in group movement. Mass can to some extent counter such coordination, as we see with the extra-deep phalanxes, but probably even 16 ranks gained from this.
Quote:And of course, why isn't it stated as a tactic to fight against shallow formations?
A key point. Because othismos cannot occur unless one of two conditions is met: 1) your opponents want to push against you. 2) Your opponents cannot get out of the way. This need to almost agree to fight in othismos has led to hoplite combat appearing stylized and agonistic. The alternative of course is to get out of the way, but fleeing the field is no way to win a battle. Mock flight is an excellent way to force your foe into unpacking his ranks and may have been used by the Spartans and perhaps by Phillip at Chaeronea. But keeping a mock flight "mock' is beyond the discipline of most forces.
Quote:Conclusion
Blind pushing, a forceful crowd pushing forward most times ends with the front people crushed, which clearly shows that the front ranks would be unable to coordinate their actions being pushed from behind and so, even a small difference in pushing strength or ability to withstand pressure would end up in chaos which would be easily be exploited by an opponent who would be trained to do so.
The aspis ensures that this does not occur. It allows men to survive being crushed at high pressure by protecting the diaphragm from compression, and through overlapping greatly increases the cohesion of the line along ranks and prevents penetration by files.
Look into forces generated by crowds and the self-organization of groups to learn more.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paralus - 06-23-2009
Clearly order and coordination are the defining factors in phalanx combat. Not to forget of course, summoning the courage to confront what's about to be visited upon you. Such comes from drill and experience. The discussion above about "charging" by George is a part of this. Hoplite phalanxes and Macedonian phalanxes are hardly likely to have galloped at the enemy. George has rightly pointed out the problems with an aspis; it might be noted that the sarisa might have been just as unwieldy at a trot. A fast walk and lean forward (or shove) at contact probably constituted this phase.
It appears that, in some battles, one or the other phalanx "received" a charge. Gabiene and Raphia seem to fit this. It may be that one side was in a "defensive" posture or, for some other reason, "accepted" the charge of the other in synaspismos. Ptolemy exhorts his phalanx at Raphia and destroys the Seleucid array; this likely due to the fact the latter, observing their cavalry victory and are largely taken a little by surprise. At Gabiene the Antigonid phalanx, having suffered severely at the hands of Eumenes' men earlier at Paraetecene and thoroughly off put by Antigenes' reminder of just who they faced, are "fallen upon heavily" and "in a rage" by the Eumenid phalanx. Clearly the latter had the initiative and drive as the results show.
What also is consistently emphasised in the source material is the "hardihood and skill" developed over "the great number of battles" the argyraspids had fought. A description Diodorus summarises as: all of them were irresistible because of experience and strength, such was the skill and daring acquired through the unbroken series of their battles. The import is clear. Whilst these blokes were much older than their contemporaries (most likely averaging in their fifties), what they lacked in youth they quite clearly made up for with skill in phalanx fighting learned - not only on a parade or practise ground - but in life and death battle experience. Evidently these blokes possessed a coordination and skill that those about them did not. From such, in closely coordinated “team” efforts such as this fighting comes “strength”. The other word to be noted is "daring". This is a "nerveless intent" rather than a swashbuckling Errol Flynn "daring".
I also find George’s idea of the passing back and forwards of spears in the phalanx interesting. I’d suspect such was more easily achieved in the hoplite phalanx rather than the Macedonian due to the size of the sarisa. That said, I’d always harboured a view that front rank (2-5) sarisae might have been passed forward – if not the rear. Certainly such will have been the case with the tactical square at Gabiene (to present on all sides and replace those lost or broken) though this is after disengagement.
To me there is no logical or fiscal sense in equipping phalangites with swords if they are not meant to use them. In the Macedonian phalanx a phalangite will have had difficulty drawing such if his files were infiltrated (as the levelled sarisae in the front will have prevented it). The attacking infiltrators, whose sarisae are broken or left implanted, are free to do so though. I’d expect they made a mess of their opposites as the Romans later did – as long as they avoided the extant sarisae of their own men. I imagine them working their way down files with the xiphos and thus creating gaps.
Alexander’s phalanx at Issos did manage to defend itself whilst infiltrated – losses notwithstanding.
A time machine would be lovely…
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paullus Scipio - 06-23-2009
Paul B. wrote:
Quote:Look into forces generated by crowds and the self-organization of groups to learn more.
We have debated your 'othismos' theory at length previously,including forces generated by crowds, and one objection I have to it is that whenever Mass Casualties occur in crowds, they are invariably when the crowd in a confined space meets an 'immovable object', such as a wall, or a barrier in football stadiums and suchlike. I have not come across a case of Mass Casualties occurring in the open, without 'immovable objects', or for that matter in instances of crowd pushing against crowd, as in a riot for example.I am skeptical that such events happen.
Have you come across examples of the type of crowd crushing you envisage in such circumstances?
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paullus Scipio - 06-24-2009
Giannis wrote:
Quote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je-c81ww ... re=related...I meant to congratulate you on posting that clip!
Is this the correct place to post this? Perhaps a bit relevant?
D wink: :wink:
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paralus - 06-24-2009
Yes: quite good. Not nice when individuals get under and between the pikes.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - PMBardunias - 06-24-2009
Quote:I have not come across a case of Mass Casualties occurring in the open, without 'immovable objects', or for that matter in instances of crowd pushing against crowd, as in a riot for example.I am skeptical that such events happen.
With respect Paul, as I have mentioned before it is irrelevent to the physics as to what the mass is pushing against. Anything that can push back with enough force to resist the advance of the crowd will do. This can be a retaining barrier, but it can also be other people in a crowd. Even when fatalities occur in a crowd of the type you are thinking of, it is not simply because people are crushed up against a wall, but because they are crushed between people resisting being crushed up against a wall and people behind pushing them forward. The "wall" is irrelevent to all of the people pushing forward behind those immediately up against the wall. The wall simply creates a condition where a bottle-neck occurs. No crowd of rational people want to be in a lethal density, thus if they were free to move they would.
Riots are different all together for they are a single crowd being "herded" by police through physical and psychological threat. They could achieve crowd-like density if encircled as those on the outside backed up into the group to avoid the threat from police. This is essentially what happened at Cannae for example.
There are examples of crowds colliding along streets for example or famously in a very lethal incident in Mexico where part of the crowd was trying to get back into a football stadium while the other part was trying to get out. So yes, there are examples of crowds converging lethally, but there must always be some constraint to movement that causes a crowd to form dense or people would just move past each other. Hoplites are obviously not going to let their foes simply pass through their ranks, but will resist them, by pushing if need be.
In the context of phalanx combat we have two groups of men who are actively resisting each other, not acting like rational pedestrians. Thus they themselves form equal and opposite forces which lead to a each side forming as if a crowd against a wall (the wall being the other phalanx, which is impenitrable, a literal shield "wall" in this sense). They were free to disengage at any time- what we would call a rout- and frequently did.
Asking if there is an example of two groups of people in an open field who crashed into each other like lethal crowds is a bit like asking for an example of pedestrians bumping into each other on the street and breaking out into a full-blown Sumo pushing match. They surely could do it, but why would they? Put the same two guys trying to push through a narrow door in a burning building and you will see lots of pushing.
So why would hoplites do it? Well the short answer is "because they can". More precisely the reason is that nothing short of a crowd (or a wall and it better be real strong because brick walls have been knocked down) can stop a crowd's advance. The obvious way to destroy the cohesion of a linear formation is to disrupt its linearity by pushing through it- which is much faster and safer than trying to kill your way through it. Crowd densities naturally emerge as rear ranks move up to support those in front, the process is gradual and smooth so there is never a moment where the ranks in front are being knocked forward. Unpacking is just as gradual so there is no moment when front rankers suddenly have no resistance and fall forward. They are free to pack and unpack just as cars do on a highway during a traffic jam. You will notice that you (usually) do not plow into the car in front of you as it comes to a stop.
Of course there is an element of "game" involved here because you could simply not resist the crowd and with each few steps back they cannot achieve crowd density. But this required a major shift in tactics, essentially becoming lighter infantry (or perhaps Iphicratids or thureophoroi). What occurred instead early on was an "arms race" where phalanxes got deeper and probably better coordinated. We also see the exploitation of the other main weakness of a linear formation, flanking attacks. But perhaps the best way to short circuit a hoplite phalanx was to force them to push suicidally against a hedge of sharp-pointed sarissa. Othismos and its relative importance as a phase of phalanx combat explains much about the evolution of Greek warfare and the form and function of the panoply.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Macedon - 06-24-2009
Thank you Paul, interesting comments.
Quote:Bravo, completely correct. Any number of ranks of charging men can be absorbed by a few ranks of close ordered men if they do not arrive at contact essentially simultaneously. The trick is that the attacking force has to be packed together in ranks with so little interpersonal space that they act like an incompressible fluid. This is what occurs when people get crushed in crowd disasters. An analogy would be a comparison between being hit by a stream of 5 lbs of BBs as opposed to being hit with a 5 lb sledgehammer.
This is exactly why I referred to charging at a run. It is possible to coordinate when attempting a few small steps at a predetermined rhythm but not when charging at a run.
Quote:Correct again, but only because you begin from a flawed premise. First, we know they sometimes ran or at least moved fast enough to threaten disorder (The Cyrean Mercs at Cunaxa for example). We can argue about how fast the run was and how disordered it made them, but clearly they did not advance slowly. The fact that the Spartan advance to flutes was so impressive indicates that the usual advance was less so.
Second, it is a myth that men cannot pull up and stop short before contact with the enemy phalanx. Humans and animals can easily do this. Psychologically it is probably easier than getting them to charge home. It is not like the front rank stops and the rear ranks simply run into them, the rear ranks take their cue from those in front and the whole formation pull sup short. We'd be writing this in French if the horses at Waterloo could not pull up out of a charge prior to contact or if the subsequent ranks simply barreled them into the squares. Humans can do this just as easily.
Third, as you have noticed charging into the enemy line does not work. What does work is closing ranks in tight and pushing like a crowd. If the enemy back-steps, your crowd simply loosens, you don't fall over.
Yes, they did, as I have already said but these were the exceptions, as is clear in all texts and not the rule. We cannot surmise that a tactic (I still think that othismos can be called a battle tactic) which is supported by many to be the core of the Greek hoplite phalanx, the one main difference between it and other contemporary armies, was only performed in exceptional cases. Again the key word is "run". I clearly state that a "run" is possible only if performed in fast small steps without raising the thighs high or if the shield is kept at the side and not forward towards the enemy (and his arrows). A coordinated run also requires to keep a good distance from the man before you or else you will be unable to stop in time. It is also very important that the men behind the second or third rank would not know when to stop, because they would not be able to see the actual enemy before the impact. As for the horses, it was unusual for horses (unless specific tricks were employed) to really fall into a massed opponent. Among others Machiavelli also states that horses do not blindly ride into a packed infantry opponent, they view it as a wall. This is exactly why during the Napoleonic era, the squares were so effective against cavalry. Because they just did not ride into them unless the defenders lost their formation before the impact. In the image in page 9, it is evident that the first three ranks actually do little in respect of pushing. They are just pushed from the back ranks and supported by the front ranks. This is typical untrained crowd behavior and actually contribute very little to the total force of the push. Should their stance be correct, the result would be much different, but then a strict coordination would be needed for that.
And, of course, we also have many instances of horses and horsemen falling onto each other because the first line sustained casualties and stopped galloping... Cavalry also very rarely galloped to attack. Usually they charged at trot, whenever order was essential.
You also say "pushing like a crowd". This is what I perceive (correct me if I am wrong) as blind, forceful pushing. 7 or more people pushing forcibly on the back or side of a man do not allow him to coordinate his movements, attack or stop. If the enemy man for example falls or kneels, the foreman would trip over him and fall himself. Should othismos be that uncontrollable (with that I mean that the man in front is not able to keep his balance or stop the process, as is implied by the proponents that othismos was a prolonged phase and not one that only lasted for some seconds), then countermeasures would be described In order for the protostates to keep his pace and his place in the phalanx, he has to be shoved no more than centimeters. 5 quick steps back would make the whole phalanx crumble. Even in victory, should they burst through at some uncontrolled point, the pushing ranks would lose their balacne and fall over having armed enemies on their sides and maybe in the back (why not keep a reserve 20 meters behind your lines to attack the moment a breach is made, at the same moment when your men will be falling down under the pressure exerted on their backs. This is exactly what happens in a big room with a small door. The people who first have noone to support their fronts fall and are trampled, because the people pushing do not know when to stop pushing.)
Quote:This is a problem, but it is mitigated by the overlap of aspides, which tends to keep men from penetrating by file. Also, as you have noted, the advance is by small steps or half-steps, thus there is no bursting into the enemy line, but a steady pressure.
This is what i also propose further on, although it would need a right overlap to work and not a left one. You also talk here about small steps, so it seems that our opinions are closer than it might seem at first. My only question here would be: Do you think that the "othismos" would last for a prolonged period of time or for just seconds as I proposed? My opinion, as already stated is that the men were already told whether they would push for half, one or two steps. This would make keeping order possible, but just signalling "start" and then "stop" is, to my mind, very difficult to imagine.
Quote:There are many instances of crowd-like behavior in roman and later contexts, dead men standing in ranks because there was no room to fall, etc. The problem is that you are looking for othismos as a "tactic". It is not. There surely was no command "start othismos". It is the result of two masses of men colliding and probably occurred to some degree in any combat of mass troops. Where the Greeks differed is not in the occurrence of the crowd-like state, but their ability to withstand the crushing pressure, thanks to the aspis, long enough to fight while in the crowd-like state.
I also said that such cases are at hand, but this does not mean that they were descriptions of "othismos". Pushing your foreman just enough to support and keep him in place as is proposed by all ancient and medieval tacticians is enough to account for these descriptions. It doesn't have to be "othismos" and it is very rare for a text to connect these images to "othismos".
As for your latter argument, I have to disagree. The hoplite phalanx, as well as the Macedonian phalanx, did not have to withstand nor exert pressure, because they were armed with spears, so their first combat technique (does it sound better than tactic?) would be to keep the enemy at spearpoint. In later stages, the hoplites did attack with swords and then such a push would be possible, but hoplites relied heavily on keeping order and relying on raw strength to push is unlike any other technique they used, On the other hand withstanding such pressure is another story. To withstand the pressure allows the fighter to fight, to exert it uncontrollably is impossible without breaking ranks and endanger order. As for commands, I think that such commands existed to facilitate othismos as a combat technique (not to withstand but to exert pressure).
Quote:Once men pull up from the charge at any speed, closing up into crowd-like density takes time. Time in which men are spear fencing. The battle could simply end there, one side winning the spear fencing and never moving on. But the space between phalanxes could collapse for a variety of reasons, with promachoi colliding shield to shield. I've fought like this, by the way, and it is very interesting. Its a bit like being in a clench while boxing, the man in front of you is perhaps the least of your worries once you lock up swords. The ranks behind then pack in tight and the crowd-vs-crowd pushing competition begins.
I also disagree with you here. Pulling up from a running charge takes fragments of a second, just the time to cover the 1-2 meters distance at that speed. Reducing the speed would also make such a technique peculiar, for it would negate any speed bonuses that might apply to the initial shock of the push. So, there was no time to fight with the spears, should we assume that running to push was the basic tactic. If you are supporting that no matter the speed of the charge, in the beginning they used their spears, then we agree. But then, there would be no reason to immediately tighten the ranks and push the enemy, so this phase would need a command to commence. Of course it would leave the running push theory out of the scope of our conversation (I think we both agree there).
Quote:Because there are many reasons for depth- morale, replacement, movement, etc.
Of course, this is my point. There are many reasons for deploying in depth. Yet, since you support othismos was a natural phenomenon in a battle (something I disagree with, since a few ranks can keep order, they are not a crowd), then withstanding or exerting pressure would also be a reason.
Quote:Sadly for the Spartans and the Thebans, they did not lose. They were held up by a determined crowd of 12 men deep because coordinating the movement of a 50 man crowd is very difficult. Thus it was a much more even battle of ranks that could be coordinated, with the Thebans having essentially a wall of men at their back that kept them from being pushed back too far. This asymmetry governed the outcome.
So, pushing en mass does not need depth but coordination? This exactly is my point. You cannot easily withstand the pressure of 8 coordinated men shoving at a command (en! dio!). On the other hand, 8 men holding their places steadfast and supporting each other with correct body stance and distances will be able to easily stop the advance of a 50 men deep uncoordinated crowd. To really push you need correct placement of the feet, your shoulders, your shield, your back has to be at a position to receive the force exerted by the man on your back. Just standing up, tight between your shield and the shield of your epistates pushing with your hands cannot do the job. Since you are a reenactor, you have to have rehearsed that. Now all this demands a rigorous training and a very ordered phase.
Quote:The order reforms at the end of the charge, but most efficiently if they began in proper spacing.
This is not what I meant. Of course experienced men charging at a slow run and keeping correct intervals will possibly regain their order. But keeping order until the first impact and then blindly push your protostates will lead to a loss of order, since they will be unable to keep their places in line according to the force of the push and the one of the resistance (this was the meaning of this point).
Quote:Strength may have little to do with experience, but getting massed men to push (actually lean forward) in unison is greatly aided by training in group movement. Mass can to some extent counter such coordination, as we see with the extra-deep phalanxes, but probably even 16 ranks gained from this.
Again I agree. This is why I propose an ordered push, with orders being given in an orderly fashion. A slow, gradual push by men trained to do so can be really effective. Hear you say "push (actually leaning forward)". Do you mean that this is how you envisage "othismos" as a series of leaning forward movements. Then our opinions are even closer than I thought at the beginning.
Quote:A key point. Because othismos cannot occur unless one of two conditions is met: 1) your opponents want to push against you. 2) Your opponents cannot get out of the way. This need to almost agree to fight in othismos has led to hoplite combat appearing stylized and agonistic. The alternative of course is to get out of the way, but fleeing the field is no way to win a battle. Mock flight is an excellent way to force your foe into unpacking his ranks and may have been used by the Spartans and perhaps by Phillip at Chaeronea. But keeping a mock flight "mock' is beyond the discipline of most forces.
So, then, othismos can only work between hoplite phalanxes? This is an interesting idea, although I would expect more literary evidence to be available, if such peculiar tactics were employed during hoplite battles. On the other hand I think that "othismos" as I describe it will work even against those who do not want to push and lastly, what happens if the enemy wants to push but loses and retreats? Do you think that during the centuries of "not that gallant" hoplite battles, there would be no account of someone exploiting this "arrangement"? I think that the hoplites fought to win. They would use such a weakness against their opponents as they did at multiple other instances.
Quote:The aspis ensures that this does not occur. It allows men to survive being crushed at high pressure by protecting the diaphragm from compression, and through overlapping greatly increases the cohesion of the line along ranks and prevents penetration by files.
Look into forces generated by crowds and the self-organization of groups to learn more.
The aspis could protect you from asphyxiation but not from chaos, which is the major argument here nor can they be used against an opponent ready to exploit the tactical weaknesses your model offers.
Yet, I would appreciate a fuller description of your proposal. As I understood (correct me if I am wrong), you suggest that "othismos" was not actually a phase that would commence after a specific order, but the natural flow of a battle of hoplites, a type of combat not feasible for phalanxes which did not agree to such a match. It would begin seconds or minutes after the first contact and end after many minutes of constant pushing and shoving the backs of the men in front with full force, who were protected from asphyxiation because of the shape of the shield. Did I get it right?
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Macedon - 06-24-2009
Thanks Mike for your comments.
Yet the model I described was about the hoplite phalanx and not the Macedonian. Fighting with a sarissa and a pelti is different to fighting with a spear and a hoplon. "Othismos" as we have described could not happen in a battle involving pike bearing phalanxes according to my opinion. Your examples involve charges of a Macedonian phalanx, but a charge of course should not be taken as a running approach. Most times it involves marching speeds, especially when keeping order is essential, as is the case with this type of phalanx. As I understand ancient combat, the taxeis would also march forward in a "pushlike" manner, counting steps and being very careful not to advance in front of the taxeis next to them. Inexperienced combatants were blindly pushing (their steps) forward and this would lead to fatal mistakes, as was the case in Chaeronea, where Philip slowly withdrew his men, counting on the Athenian inexperience, who instead of keeping cohesion with the Thebans followed him and opened a gap in their lines, which was exploited by Alexander. At Arbela, Alexander's line, already engaged in a complex oblique formation was not able to keep cohesion between the taxeis, so the Persians were able to ride into the formed gap. Yet never was there anything resembling an "othismos" in a Macedonian phalanx.
Giving spears to the front ranks is very logical, Alexander was given a spear when his broke, and very possible since the back rows would have no use for them except in the case of enemy appearing from behind, when the phalanx would form at double front. I know it is not attested in any texts, at least that I know of, but it seems to me very possible that it did happen. In the Macedonian phalanx it would really be much more difficult but surely not impossible, should some pikes be hacked down by the enemy. Keeping in mind that the pike of the man behind was actually a little bit higher than your pike, a quick snap would not be that difficult, although this would mean that then the man behind would have to do the same and so on. I guess, it would be easier to swap weapons than changing places in the ranks.
As for the swords of the phallangites, I also think they were very rarely used. After Alexander, the phalanx was only trained to fight with the sarissa (although there are some translations which have the phallangites put down their pikes and charge, these are just wrong translation, as I have encountered at least twice when comparing the ancient text to the modern interpretation). During Philip and Alexander's time, it seems that the phallangites are more broadly trained warriors than those who fight in later eras. An also very interesting issue to discuss is how a line "infiltrated" another line. It seems to me that most historians imagine a battle between a Macedonian (for example) battle and a Roman one as a contest in which the Macedonians strived to keep lines tight and the Romans to infiltrate. This actually is not entirely correct if we carefully read the relevant accounts. For example, at Pydna, the only battle that the Romans seem to have beaten the phalanx by frontal assaults, we have Aemilius Paulus riding behind the lines of his men shouting for them to break their lines and exploit the gaps that were formed in the enemy line due to the march up the hill. It is evident that it was not that self explanatory, that the Romans should run into the small gaps leaving their place in the line, as we sometimes think it was. And by the time of Pydna, the Romans had much experience against the Macedonian phalanx, so one would really expect from the Romans to act thus by default!
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paullus Scipio - 06-24-2009
Paralus wrote:
Quote:The most important activity of an army is fighting a battle and, hopefully, winning. If your statement is correct then the most important officer at "platoon level" is the half file leader. Seems Alexander's army did not have such - as far as I can recall. We have file leaders (and closers) but no attested haf file colleagues....I'm afraid your recollection is incorrect, but then no-one can be expected to remember every piece of minutiae about Alexander or his army - not even such a prominent member of the "Pothos" forum as yourself !
In fact we do hear of dekadarchs(file leaders), dimoiritai(double pay men) and two dekastateroi ( ten-stater men) (Arrian Anabasis 7.23) where the incorporation of Persians into the Phalanx is being described. These are generally agreed as 'file leader', 'half-file leader' and two 'half-file closers' - which points to actual fighting taking place in half-files 8 deep, since why would you place a man with a pike at rank nine, where he is completely useless?...
Alternately, Arrian may not be correct, and the two 'ten stater men' are not half file closers at all and do not stand at the rear, since once more, what use is a man with a pike at the back? ( in the manuals these rear rank men are called ' ouragoi lit: followers/covering men/bringers up of the rear)' Thus they could be 'quarter file leaders', which would facilitate forming synaspismos (locked shields, 4 deep), with a front rank bristling with pikes backed up by archers. Lest it be argued that this is a peculiarity of A.'s re-organisation, clearly the terms existed beforehand in order for them to be applied. Further, support for this comes from a fragment of Papyri ( Pros. Ptol. 2273-2287) from Ptolemy 1's reign which refers to dekanikoi (file leaders) and dimoiritai ( double pay men/half file leaders) and Ptolemy's Phalanx was certainly a traditional Macedonian one !
Needless to say, the Hellenistic manuals also refer to 'file leaders' and 'half-file leaders' - Aelian even claims he is referring to Alexander's Phalanx. Aelian also says:
"It is necessary that the 'File leaders' should exceed the others in bravery; and next to them the 'Half-file leaders' and also the 'File closers' ( ouragoi)."
Why should the 'Half File Leaders' need to be the second bravest, if they skulked eight ranks back in action? Indeed why have 'Half file Leaders' at all? This clearly implies that the 'Half File Leaders' actually fought in the front rank. Since any 'rout' must necessarily begin from the rear, it is clear that the ouragoi needed to be brave men who would stand their ground and prevent runaways. But notice that an 'ouragos' brings up the rear of each 'half-file' - which if he is to be at the rear, and not in the eighth rank half way back, also means that the Phalanx fights in half -files, with the ouragoi at 'eighth' and 'sixteenth' in the file thus forming the rear rank !
Quote:You insistence on the one line in Xenophon's Anabasis that the fighting depths of Greek pahalanxes was four is a stretch of one single line. I might as well state that Thucydides' mention of Spartan "felt caps" at Sphacteria means Spartan hoplites always wore same, as did the other Greeks. One mercenary army; one place and one pre-dinner display drill. Xenophon himself later states that the army fell into battle order (in another drill at Byzantium if I remeber) eight deep. You hang much wedding tackle on a single line...You'll have to be more specific about your Byzantium reference - the city is referred to too many times in Xenophon for me to track down what you are referring to.....
I'm afraid that is an old 'canard' that the Spartans wore 'felt caps' at Sphacteria. In fact some/many of them wore bronze helmets in the conical shape of the 'pilos' cap...several forms of Greek headgear - the 'pilos cap', 'Boeotian cap', and the 'petasos hat', were all made in bronze as helmets.
As to hanging one's 'wedding tackle', I will bet on Xenophon - a General of Hoplites, let it be remembered- than on no information at all as to how the Phalanx actually fought ! And I will bet on Kallisthenes, Alexander's official historian for Macedonian depth of eight as 'fighting depth', again rather than no information at all. Notice that Polybius, who also knew a thing or two about Phalanxes, does not comment on the 'eight' depth as being in any way out of the ordinary, which implies it was the norm.
The point is that there is plenty of evidence for the Phalanx, be it Greek or Macedonian, actually fighting in 'Half files' in close order, rather than 'Files' which we know "normally" stood in 'Open ' order.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Macedon - 06-24-2009
As for the role of half files, no matter what the norm of a file depth (could be 6, 8 sometimes in barbarian armies 10), sometimes they would deploy shallow, that is in half depth. This would be the case in mainly two circumstances. First, in case the line was too short and the enemy not especially well trained or experienced (Caesar in Pharsalus) and secondly, as most manuals suggest , in case an enemy appeared behind the line and there was no reserve line available. In this case, a file would split and a diphalangia (double phalanx) would form, each one facing a different direction. In the Macedonian phalanx there was an additional reason. Macedonian phalanxes would sometimes deploy in synaspismos, a density tighter than close formation. Although the term is used very often in many texts, we have to keep in mind that the macedonian synbaspismos was different from normal synaspismos, mainly, because the Macedonian shields were much shorter in diameter and synaspismos as we all kow means "overlapping of shields". Philip II is accredited its invention (inspired by the Iliad), at a time when the hoplites of course fought in their own compact formation also called synaspismos, yet with much larger shields. Thus, whereas we have two main types of density in the hoplite (and Roman) lines (open and close), we have an additional one for the pike phalanx, the "hyperpykni" as is called in contrast to the simple "pykni". So, a normal depth of 16 men in a Macedonian phalanx was necessary for it to be able to deploy in the "hyperpikni" density (it would then fall down to files of 8 men). It seems that this type of density was very common, so should we talk about final depths, I would suggest that normally a Macedonian phalanx would fight 8 men deep but in double density. It seems that armies not fighting with pikes would not be able to fight in "hyperpikni" formation, with absolutely no room to move your weapon and shield (a phallangite didn't actually have to. His small shield was strapped on his shoulder, his pike was only swung back and forth and in very short angles ), so this density was not applicable to them.
In conclusion, half files were tactically important, so it is not peculiar that there was an officer in charge and we have to keep in mind that for the Macedonian phalanx there were three available densities, not just two (araie (normally 32 men deep during march), pykne (16) and hyperpykne (8)).
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Archelaos - 06-24-2009
You all argue back and forth that "a lot of men inside phalanx were useless", but it can be quite well explained. During Korean War US army made some tests that shown that only 2% of soldiers were actually shooting towards opponents. Rest either not shot at all or shot in the air. I assume that in ancient societies this % would be much higher, but still no more than 10%. Others wouldn't be that useful in battle as numbers only would suggest, on the other hand if placed inside the phalanx they could add to formation strength, if only a little.
This can also explain well known "ferociousness" of mountain tribes, who due to living conditions had higher percentage of "natural warriors". On the other hand settled communities, especially city dwellers had lower percentages of such men and thus their fighting ability (as a group) is much lower. This may be the answer why phalangitai of Philip II and Alexander were more effective than those of Philip V and Perseus - later period soldiers were simply more civilised and due to this much worse warriors. If it is so, then it is obvious that mercenary armies like the Xenophon's** were able to fight in much shallower formation than typical citizen army.
On the topic of pike phalanx - it should be noted that its depth may have much stronger connection to mobility than to fighting. Depth of sixteen may simply reflect depth needed to create nice 256 men square (speira). When 32 deep phalanx is mentioned, at Magnesia, phalanx is divided into 1000 men strong units - most probably 4 speira sized units placed together in a nice big square. Actually the formation of Antiochos's army seem to resemble early modern army with pike/musketeer squares with guns between them.
Edit: ** Not his at this point, but you know what I mean.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - PMBardunias - 06-24-2009
Quote:A coordinated run also requires to keep a good distance from the man before you or else you will be unable to stop in time. It is also very important that the men behind the second or third rank would not know when to stop, because they would not be able to see the actual enemy before the impact
This is not correct. You don’t “stop in time” because you see the enemy ranks; you stop in time because you watch the back of the man in front of you slow down. This is obvious from a traffic example. You don’t look ahead to the accident to know when to stop in the line of cars in a jam, but at the decelerating car right in front of you. Because the ability of the person in front of you to slow down is similar to your ability to slow down, all you need is enough time to perceive that he is slowing down so you can match it- a few paces will do.
Let me clear up some things about charging, because I think we are in general in agreement:
1) Charging any distance past that which it takes you to accelerate to whatever speed you want to impact the enemy line adds nothing to the force of collision. Thus a “Charge” of more than a few meters has nothing to do with impact, but must be due to other factors.
2) Men are slow; they do not gain enough energy in a charging collision to break through more than a few ranks of formed men. This has been shown many times in re-enactment.
3) As we both noted a series of impacts by individuals is not much more effective than a single impact- perhaps worse because your own men in front absorb much of the force. The force of any amount of ranks of men hitting in series is no greater than the force of any single man. The shorter the interval is between impacts the better- real short intervals will benefit from hitting while the enemy line is recovering from the previous blow, on their heels, but this effect is not really the same as adding force.
4) The only way to add the force of subsequent ranks to the forward push is to minimize the interval of impacts to the point where the mass acts as single entity- this is what we call a “crowd” (a specific meaning here referring to a lack of space between men). In this state force can transfer forward through ranks, so even small force of forward pressure by each man simply leaning forward and transferring his weight to the man in front adds up quickly to be a stronger forward pushing force than an individual impact of a running man. Just as important, this force is sustained, not an impact.
5) This basic form of a crowd leaning forward takes absolutely no training and happens all the time when people are in mass- sometimes with fatal results. Force can be increased if the crowd moves rhythmically to push/lean in unison and this will benefit from training to move in rhythm-i.e. group dances of the sort we know were common in Greece.
Quote:In the image in page 9, it is evident that the first three ranks actually do little in respect of pushing. They are just pushed from the back ranks and supported by the front ranks. This is typical untrained crowd behavior and actually contribute very little to the total force of the push. Should their stance be correct, the result would be much different, but then a strict coordination would be needed for that.
Each man adds some fraction of his body weight. Special pushing stances are less important than cohesion. The point is to transfer as much of your weight/pushing force to the man in front of you while keeping the absolute minimal distance between you and he (and the man behind you). This will dictate just how wide a range of “stances” men can assume because there is a trade-off between pushing and being close enough to transfer efficiently. You’ll note that this requirement becomes less important as you move back in rank and by the last rank. The front ranks add more force by simply standing up and transferring the force of 7-11 men behind them than they would if they adopted a stance that interfered with this transfer no matter how hard they push individually. Rear rank men have no such restriction and they should be pushing as hard as they can and in any stance that maximized pushing. One of the reenactors on here tried a collision of one man against a line standing at minimal distance. It worked perfectly as a proof of concept. When the foe ran into the front rank, the rear rank man was knocked back on his butt. I should have told them that the rear ranker needs to brace and not stand up, but the force transferred fluidly through the mass of men just like in a “Newton’s cradle” See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLZV0Y-VtGw
Quote:You also say "pushing like a crowd". This is what I perceive (correct me if I am wrong) as blind, forceful pushing. 7 or more people pushing forcibly on the back or side of a man do not allow him to coordinate his movements, attack or stop. If the enemy man for example falls or kneels, the foreman would trip over him and fall himself.
The enemy cannot kneel and will find it difficult to fall even in death when the push is at its height. He will only fall when pressure decreases, as it does rhythmically, and when that occurs the promachos is no longer being thrust forward so forcibly. The key to this, and perhaps the hardest part to grasp, is that othismos cannot occur unopposed. There will never be a case like the experiment I wrote of above where a man can run into a phalanx in this density because it will only be at this density in reaction to another phalanx being also at this density.
Quote:In order for the protostates to keep his pace and his place in the phalanx, he has to be shoved no more than centimeters. 5 quick steps back would make the whole phalanx crumble.
No advance beyond a shuffle is possible in this density- just as no retreat beyond a shuffle is possible at this density. They cannot take 5 quick steps back any faster than you can take 5 steps forward. When one side routs, breaking from the rear, then both sides loosen their order.
Quote:This is what i also propose further on, although it would need a right overlap to work and not a left one.
Not sure what you mean by “right overlap”. In terms of keeping order there is little difference, though right-over-left is a little stronger, but for other reasons I think right-over-left superior.
Quote:My only question here would be: Do you think that the "othismos" would last for a prolonged period of time or for just seconds as I proposed? My opinion, as already stated is that the men were already told whether they would push for half, one or two steps. This would make keeping order possible, but just signalling "start" and then "stop" is, to my mind, very difficult to imagine.
It could last for a very long time. I just put some data on my blog recorded from a concert where huge pressures were recorded for 85 minutes- causing many to be removed from the crowd for medical reasons. My guess is that it lasted for a period of some time and if one side did not give way, the two sides loosened up like two weary wrestlers- perhaps back to the 4-5’ or so between phalanxes that was conducive to doratismos. Then the whole thing cycled again.
Quote:I also said that such cases are at hand, but this does not mean that they were descriptions of "othismos". Pushing your foreman just enough to support and keep him in place as is proposed by all ancient and medieval tacticians is enough to account for these descriptions. It doesn't have to be "othismos" and it is very rare for a text to connect these images to "othismos".
They were definitely not true othismos, which I would define as an ability to survive and fight at crowd density for extended periods of time. They were more like what the othismos evolved out of, a proto-othismos, where lots of pushing occurred and even crowd densities were reached, but not maintained. Ammanius’ description of Strasbourg is close to what hoplite combat must have been like before true othismos (Though the fulcum was a bit different than the phalanx):
“the infantry stoutly protected their flanks by making a front of 285their bucklers joined fast together, clouds of thick dust arose. Then there were various manoeuvres, as our men now stood fast and now gave ground, and some of the most skilful warriors among the savages by the pressure of their knees tried to force their enemy back; but with extreme determination they came to hand-to hand fighting, shield-boss pushed against shield, and the sky re-echoed with the loud cries of the victors or of the falling.”
As you see, lots of pushing by individuals and even groups, very close to othismos. Hoplites could surely fight at this less dense formation as well. The key is that they can take it further- hoplites can go to 11 :lol:
Quote:As for your latter argument, I have to disagree. The hoplite phalanx, as well as the Macedonian phalanx, did not have to withstand nor exert pressure, because they were armed with spears, so their first combat technique (does it sound better than tactic?) would be to keep the enemy at spearpoint.
I agree, it is a major point where I diverge from the common portrayal. They stopped short of the enemy and engaged in doratismos before entering into othismos.
Quote:In later stages, the hoplites did attack with swords and then such a push would be possible, but hoplites relied heavily on keeping order and relying on raw strength to push is unlike any other technique they used, On the other hand withstanding such pressure is another story. To withstand the pressure allows the fighter to fight, to exert it uncontrollably is impossible without breaking ranks and endanger order.
Being crushed in a crowd like a sardine is pretty orderly, so this is no problem. Withstanding and exerting pressure is exactly the same thing in othismos. It is interesting that you “see” the need for order and cohesion for “withstanding’ but don’t realize the same rules apply for “exerting” in mass. They are the same. Here's an image done by one of our RAT members that I advised on. It shows how I envision many elements, most important how they could still fight in the press:
http://community.imaginefx.com/fxpose/j ... 47476.aspx
Quote:I also disagree with you here. Pulling up from a running charge takes fragments of a second, just the time to cover the 1-2 meters distance at that speed. Reducing the speed would also make such a technique peculiar, for it would negate any speed bonuses that might apply to the initial shock of the push. So, there was no time to fight with the spears, should we assume that running to push was the basic tactic. If you are supporting that no matter the speed of the charge, in the beginning they used their spears, and then we agree. But then, there would be no reason to immediately tighten the ranks and push the enemy, so this phase would need a command to commence. Of course it would leave the running push theory out of the scope of our conversation (I think we both agree there).
Yes. Running to charge is fine if you are fighting one man and want to bull him over, but it is worse than useless against a mass. They surely stopped short and spear fences because of the need to pack in as tight as possible before moving against the enemy. They might do this while the front rankers are spear fencing, and then move forward as a group. They could also pull up short and get themselves in order then make a shorter charge as we see on the Vyborg video (I have a link on my blog to this. It is perhaps the closest thing ever re-enacted to hoplite combat, though it is medieval: http://www.hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/ )
They could move quickly into othismos with very little wait to re-order, but that would require a slow, very ordered march, probably to the sound of flutes, and would result in you enemy sometimes running away either before contact or quickly after because they cannot match your order as fast. It helps to wear red when you do this. :wink:
Quote:So, pushing en mass does not need depth but coordination? This exactly is my point. You cannot easily withstand the pressure of 8 coordinated men shoving at a command (en! dio!). On the other hand, 8 men holding their places steadfast and supporting each other with correct body stance and distances will be able to easily stop the advance of a 50 men deep uncoordinated crowd. To really push you need correct placement of the feet, your shoulders, your shield, your back has to be at a position to receive the force exerted by the man on your back. Just standing up, tight between your shield and the shield of your epistates pushing with your hands cannot do the job.
This is “common knowledge” but not true. You can find a football player to push as hard and as skilfully as he wishes and I can block him with a group of cheerleaders if they form a crowd. You need depth and/or coordination. That fact that a single man cannot break into formed men is evidence of this. Some minimal depth is needed because each man is pushing less than he would were he in a stance as you describe, but by being close they can add their pushing force while a group trying to push as individuals cannot. Thus if we graphed it out over different phalanx depths, you’d see an initial benefit to all out pushing which then starts to lose to the crowd-like group as more men are added.
Quote: Since you are a reenactor, you have to have rehearsed that. Now all this demands a rigorous training and a very ordered phase.
Not a reenactor, perhaps for Marathon though. Training is always a benefit, but the beauty of othismos is that it allows the maximum use of less well trained troops.
Quote:So, then, othismos can only work between hoplite phalanxes? This is an interesting idea, although I would expect more literary evidence to be available, if such peculiar tactics were employed during hoplite battles.
Not only against hoplites, but against any foe who does not give way before you- Persian Spara-lines at Plataea and Mycale for example. Probably many of the Persian’s troops at Thermopylae, trapped in the limited space and pushed on from behind died this way.
Quote:On the other hand I think that "othismos" as I describe it will work even against those who do not want to push and lastly, what happens if the enemy wants to push but loses and retreats?
You fight him as any heavy infantry would. The hoplite was quite capable of fighting outside of the pushing of phalanx combat. Othismos is simply a phase of battle, one that need not be achieved in all cases. It is after one side gives way that all of the ‘martial arts’ taught by hoplomachoi can be brought into play.
Quote:Yet, I would appreciate a fuller description of your proposal. As I understood (correct me if I am wrong), you suggest that "othismos" was not actually a phase that would commence after a specific order, but the natural flow of a battle of hoplites, a type of combat not feasible for phalanxes which did not agree to such a match.
Or any foe who did not give ground before your advance- this means most heavy infantry. It results from two forces trying to push each other back. If you have the tactical flexibility to spear-fight and give ground before your foes then they cannot enter othismos. Few bodies of line infantry have this flexability.
Quote:It would begin seconds or minutes after the first contact and end after many minutes of constant pushing and shoving the backs of the men in front with full force, who were protected from asphyxiation because of the shape of the shield. Did I get it right?
Or never, or almost immediately if you are a Spartan or perhaps being led by Pelopidas. There is a minimum delay in that you must pack in tight to form a crowd, but there is no maximum. Also you can do lots of pushing prior to pushing in the crowd-like state that I define as othismos. The less organized pushing, as at Strasbourg, can still be very effective- it simply is not as effective as the crowd-like pushing. You could spear fence for hours and never do it. “Full force” needs defining in this context, because each individual need not produce much force, it is the aggregate that is important.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paullus Scipio - 06-25-2009
Paul B. wrote:
Quote:With respect Paul, ....oh, dear, in my experience that phrase usually means the opposite! :wink: as I have mentioned before it is irrelevent to the physics as to what the mass is pushing against. Anything that can push back with enough force to resist the advance of the crowd will do. This can be a retaining barrier, but it can also be other people in a crowd. ...this is where we differ! Unlike an inanimate immovable object, people generally can and do move, and psychology/fear prevents the deliberate 'crushing' of the front of one crowd against another...in this instance I would venture to suggest that the leading ranks of Hoplites would push back against their own side rather than be propelled forward onto the spearpoints of their opponents! Even when fatalities occur in a crowd of the type you are thinking of, it is not simply because people are crushed up against a wall, but because they are crushed between people resisting being crushed up against a wall and people behind pushing them forward. The "wall" is irrelevent to all of the people pushing forward behind those immediately up against the wall. The wall simply creates a condition where a bottle-neck occurs. No crowd of rational people want to be in a lethal density, thus if they were free to move they would....but it is clear that the wall/barrier plays a key role in every case, for without it the conditions necessary simply don't occur - as you say, people free to move do!
Quote:Riots are different all together for they are a single crowd being "herded" by police through physical and psychological threat. They could achieve crowd-like density if encircled as those on the outside backed up into the group to avoid the threat from police. This is essentially what happened at Cannae for example.The rioters are often armed also, and sometimes battles take place between rival groups. Even when rioters form up with the intent of 'pushing through' a thin line of police, they rarely succeed. I agree with you that something of this sort probably occurred at Cannae, and other battles too - there are rare instances described of the crowd being 'dense' enough that the dead can't fall. This is not however a regular occurrence, deliberately brought about, as you envisage. It occurs accidently, and rarely enough to be commented on, not something deliberately done.
Quote:There are examples of crowds colliding along streets for example or famously in a very lethal incident in Mexico where part of the crowd was trying to get back into a football stadium while the other part was trying to get out. So yes, there are examples of crowds converging lethally, but there must always be some constraint to movement that causes a crowd to form dense or people would just move past each other. Hoplites are obviously not going to let their foes simply pass through their ranks, but will resist them, by pushing if need be.....once again, your examples involve 'crowds' in constrained circumstances, and I am not aware of crowds confronting one another on a street generating sufficient force to cause Mass Casualties. Could you be more specific?
Quote:In the context of phalanx combat we have two groups of men who are actively resisting each other, not acting like rational pedestrians. Thus they themselves form equal and opposite forces which lead to a each side forming as if a crowd against a wall (the wall being the other phalanx, which is impenitrable, a literal shield "wall" in this sense). They were free to disengage at any time- what we would call a rout- and frequently did.You agree, I think, that initially the two phalanxes would be divided by a short ( the length of the spears! ) 'no man's land', and that spear fencing and thrusting took place (doratissimos) Just how does that convert to your 'othismos' of two 'shield walls' shoving? Mutual consent? How is this 'shoving' co-ordinated along a line a thousand yards long? Isn't it more likely that, assuming both sides were willing to fight, they "charged", spontaneously stopped at spear-fighting distance and fought in groups alternately attacking and withdrawing to catch their breath, so that the 'battle-front' seethed and writhed until one sides 'will to fight' wavered, through casualties and/or morale? ( We see similar fighting in modern riots, sometimes lasting hours, just like ancient battles).
At that point, sensing this, the other side might well 'push' the other back, but it need not be a literal push, rather a 'push' in the sense that modern armies push one another back. Epaminondas' infamous "Just one more step" need not involve any literal 'shoving' at all, rather just the morale pressure of getting the other side to start falling back. However, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that no physical 'shoving' ever took place, just that it was more likely to be spontaneous and localised to small groups or individuals seeking to 'break' the line rather than some mass co-ordinated shove by thousands of men acting as a thousand yard long human bulldozer. I believe your idea would fall down on that point alone ! The pressure could not possibly be even all along the front.
Quote:Asking if there is an example of two groups of people in an open field who crashed into each other like lethal crowds is a bit like asking for an example of pedestrians bumping into each other on the street and breaking out into a full-blown Sumo pushing match. They surely could do it, but why would they? Put the same two guys trying to push through a narrow door in a burning building and you will see lots of pushing....have you not just handily demonstrated that some sort of physical constraint is needed to produce what you envisage? A Hoplite battle on an open battlefield has no such constraints. Any attempt by part of the formation to 'squeeze' others would simply result in equal and opposite resistance. Without a 'wall' or similar there is nothing to push against. No huge forces, just a crowd packed like sardines trying to shuffle forward and impale their front line officers on their opponents spears, and you can bet that in such a situation the front couple of ranks would be 'pushing' alright - back against those behind them !!! :lol: :lol:
Quote:Crowd densities naturally emerge as rear ranks move up to support those in front, the process is gradual and smooth so there is never a moment where the ranks in front are being knocked forward. Unpacking is just as gradual so there is no moment when front rankers suddenly have no resistance and fall forward. They are free to pack and unpack just as cars do on a highway during a traffic jam. You will notice that you (usually) do not plow into the car in front of you as it comes to a stop.
Surely you have demolished your own case !
If the front ranks aren't being propelled forward by the mass force of those behind and can't be knocked forward, then there is no pressure on them, just as in the car analogy you describe there is no pressure on the cars in front. But perhaps what you really mean is that each rank begins 'shoving' gradually, until all are, and disengage similarly, so that the build-up or die-down of your postulated shove is gradual. If so, as I suggested, the front ranks, being all too human will resist and push back !Quote:But perhaps the best way to short circuit a hoplite phalanx was to force them to push suicidally against a hedge of sharp-pointed sarissa.....or push equally suicidally against a hedge of sharp-pointed dorys?
D lol:
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paralus - 06-25-2009
Quote:...I'm afraid your recollection is incorrect, but then no-one can be expected to remember every piece of minutiae about Alexander or his army - not even such a prominent member of the "Pothos" forum as yourself !
In fact we do hear of dekadarchs(file leaders), dimoiritai(double pay men) and two dekastateroi ( ten-stater men) (Arrian Anabasis 7.23) where the incorporation of Persians into the Phalanx is being described.
One needs to be careful in extrapolating information from Alexander's "mixed" phalanx.Ditto late tactical manuals. Arrian only denotes the position of "file leader". Nowhere does Arrian state that the "double pay men" or "ten stater" men are half file leaders or officers of any description. Indeed he describes them being paid such due to their valour and that the ten stater man is held as more honoured than the ordinary soldier. He nowhere describes these men as officers of any description - that descriptor is clearly only applied to the file leader. Were either of these an officer - half-file leader as you claim - Arrian would no doubt have stated so. He felt oblidged to identify the file leader why would he omit the half-file leader?
Arrian, when finishing off this description then baldly states: so that in each company there were twelve Persians and four Macedonians, three of whom received higher pay, and the fourth was in command of the company. Again, only one is denated officer status.
Alexander is likely making the best of what he has ergo, limited numbers. The fighting is going to be done by the front ranks and so he places his bravest men in front - men honoured for their bravery not because they are officers. If we are to apply this information as reflecting the Macedonian phalanx prior to making do with Persians then such men occupied the same positions and there is no "half-file" leader.
The "tactical manuals" - idealised treatises - are written with an ideal phalanx in mind - not neccessarily Philip II's or Alexander III's. In the grand tradition of Greek art it quite possible they apply current armament to earlier centuries.
Quote: You'll have to be more specific about your Byzantium reference - the city is referred to too many times in Xenophon for me to track down what you are referring to.....
No distractions about "en machen" or "en taxei" as Giannas has clealry explained that.
Quote:Anab, 7.22-23:
Then he proceeded to pass along this order himself and bade the others send it on--to ground their arms in battle line. [23] The men acted as their own marshals, and within a short time the hoplites had fallen into line eight deep and the peltasts had got into position on either wing.
Quote:I'm afraid that is an old 'canard' that the Spartans wore 'felt caps' at Sphacteria.
Why does Thucydides mention them as not keeping out the arrows? They are translated as felt helemts or "caps".
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paullus Scipio - 06-25-2009
Paralus wrote:
Quote:One needs to be careful in extrapolating information from Alexander's "mixed" phalanx.Ditto late tactical manuals. Arrian only denotes the position of "file leader". Nowhere does Arrian state that the "double pay men" or "ten stater" men are half file leaders or officers of any description. Indeed he describes them being paid such due to their valour and that the ten stater man is held as more honoured than the ordinary soldier. He nowhere describes these men as officers of any description - that descriptor is clearly only applied to the file leader. Were either of these an officer - half-file leader as you claim - Arrian would no doubt have stated so. He felt oblidged to identify the file leader why would he omit the half-file leader?
.....This is something of an assumption on your part, he does not omit the dimoirites/half-file leader, and if Arrian does not specifically tell us that the Dimoirites was the 'Half-file leader', Aelian very specifically does!
" ..the half-file of course consists of a like number of men and is called a semi-dekuria and it's leader is called dimoirites..." and Aelian also tells us he is writing of the Phalanx of Alexander.....
Quote:Arrian, when finishing off this description then baldly states: so that in each company there were twelve Persians and four Macedonians, three of whom received higher pay, and the fourth was in command of the company. Again, only one is denated officer status.No mystery here, the others are equivalent to "NCO's"...we might say in modern terms the file was led by an officer, his second in command a sargeant, and two corporals...only the Leader has officer status
Quote:Alexander is likely making the best of what he has ergo, limited numbers. The fighting is going to be done by the front ranks and so he places his bravest men in front - men honoured for their bravery not because they are officers. If we are to apply this information as reflecting the Macedonian phalanx prior to making do with Persians then such men occupied the same positions and there is no "half-file" leader.Again, this is mere supposition, and when considered holistically, the evidence is consistent and surely points to 'Half-file Leaders' and probably quarter-file Leaders too...
Quote:The "tactical manuals" - idealised treatises - are written with an ideal phalanx in mindThis is an old-fashioned view propagated by the likes of Lammert, or Kochly and Rustow. Whist the value of the Hellenistic manuals, likely all deriving from Poseidonius, in turn relying probably on a lost section of Polybius is debated, most modern students of Macedonian Military Systems accept them as largely accurate. You are also in a minority regarding the Phalanx having 'Half-file Leaders' - Connolly, Sekunda, Devine and many others all posit, like me, that Alexander's Phalanx had 'Half' and 'Quarter' file leaders.
Quote:Anab, 7.22-23:The troops here are in a town (Byzantium) and are told to 'fall in' in their 'normal/proper' formations for a Parade and address by Xenophon in a paved square, and naturally they form up in files in 'normal/open' order, eight deep. They are not about to meet a foe, forming up in the last stages of an advance.Elsewhere, Xenophon tells us that for a fight they stood four deep i.e. 'half files' in close order.
Then he proceeded to pass along this order himself and bade the others send it on--to ground their arms in battle line. [23] The men acted as their own marshals, and within a short time the hoplites had fallen into line eight deep and the peltasts had got into position on either wing.
D Quote:Why does Thucydides mention them as not keeping out the arrows? They are translated as felt helemts or "caps".Again, the idea that the Spartans were wearing "felt caps' is an old-fashioned one, but nowadays most accept the 'piloi' were of bronze, not least because of contemporary iconography. The reason they did not keep out arrows is simple. Unlike the 'Corinthian' or 'Chalcidian' which protected the face and sides of the head, the 'pilos' with it's rim around the temples, did not.