+- 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: New hoplite book (/showthread.php?tid=16779)
Re: New hoplite book - hoplite14gr - 05-20-2010
Pauls image depicts the situation good.
Yes there was more than othismos like using your spear on the rear rankers.
Kind regards
Re: New hoplite book - Old Husker - 05-20-2010
Many of us (especially those older folk who were movie buffs back in the summer of 1962) saw a very stirring rendition of a hoplite wedge in the final reel of Rudolph Mate's "The 300 Spartans." It was highly dramatic, but pure Hollywood. Even in the film, for anyone looking close at the longer shots, you could see the short-fronted Spartan wedge being litterally surrounded by the enemy. This was a situation that would have led to a massacre in short order (in some respects a minature version of what Hannibal did to the Romans at Canae, only here you wouldn't even need cavalry to hit the very rear). Shortening one's front (essentially by loading up at center, as opposed to the Theban tactic of thickening a wing) would have immediately led to the enemy rolling around your flanks, the worst of this being an attack on the uhshielded right side of your formation and into the backs of those holding the last/longest rank at the tail/base of your array. In real life, the poor soul at the head of the wedge wouldn't last nearly as long as Richard Egan did in the movie, since the man standing to the left of his facing opponent would have killed him right away without help from the shield of a line-mate standing alongside the point man's right/spear arm.
It's possible that such a tactic could be employed with a Macedonian (pike) phalanx, which would be capable of swinging its long weapons to either side for defense. Likewise, a formation armed with center-grip shields might face to the side as needed to fend off the kind of flank attack this arrangement would inevitably trigger. How practical these possibilites might be is another question. However, for a 'Doric' phalanx composed entirely of traditional hoplites, I don't think that it could possibly work and I'm not aware of any Greeks utilizing a formation like this in the period with which I am most familiar (5th century B.C.), nor have I encountered it yet in my initial research on phalanx battle in the 4th century B.C. The closest thing that I can come up with would be the battle of Mylae II on Sicily in 426 B.C., where it seems likely that a force of perhaps 1,600 hoplites (per Diodorus), but more likely only 1,000 (suggested by two other lines of evidence) formed along too narrow a front. As a result, they appear to have suffered a double envelopment by 1,600 hoplites deployed in a longer line for Athens, which cost the Mylaeans a probable 40% of their spearmen killed before they could reach a nearby refuge (over 60% if both Diodorus' less likely manpower and casualties are used). That even a heavy loser normally paid only 5-10% killed under such circunstances in this era (and no more than 20% or so if suffering an extended cavalry pursuit, something that the victors, lacking horsemen, couldn't mount in this case), shows just how devastating it was to have your flanks turned in the way that a short, wedge formation would invite.
Re: New hoplite book - Astiryu1 - 05-20-2010
Please bear with my not so fancy rendition. The squares on top represent buildings, the hot gates, etc. The center can be strengthened with another phalanx. Note the spear overlapping the center. This is brutal at least in the game. Where the V connects is very dense with men and has twice the capacity of the flanks. It would take a very brave man or a very foolish man to attack that center. If you have archers, slingers, or peltasts behind the line you have a "ballista" formation.
Re: New hoplite book - Old Husker - 05-20-2010
I see, thanks much for the clarification, I definitely had it wrong! Your drawing makes a lot more sense than my badly mistaken idea of the concept. Yet I wonder if the men on the far sides of the chevron (against the flank barriers) wouldn't be terribly exposed to a line marching in straight across the opening. Each would be facing at least two men (assuming no help from behind: the one immediately in front and that fellow's companion next in line). This would seem to yield unfavorable 1-2 odds in both cases, with a hoplite on the far left having his right (unshielded) side exposed to attack should he turn more face-on (as would probably be necessary) against the enemy's flank man. Should the two guys go down at the sides, then the flank barriers would be lost and those next along the chevron on either end would be facing 1-3 odds (front plus left and right, again with added risk from an exposed 'shieldless' side). And, while I certainly agree that it would be suicide to march into the center of this array, a straight battle line that held good order would avoid this, engaging only at the sides and then wheeling at some point around one or both flanks (these having been progressively pruned from each tip) in either a single or double envelopment. All the same, I'm still not sure that I've got the true dynamics of your creative array correct as yet and definitely will have to ponder it some more. -Very best regards
Re: New hoplite book - PMBardunias - 05-20-2010
Quote:Pauls image depicts the situation good.
Yes there was more than othismos like using your spear on the rear rankers.
Thanks Stephanos, and yes, othismos in this crowdlike form is only one small part of hoplite combat. To me, the best feature of othismos in this manner is that in showing there is no benefit to charging directly into the enemy ranks we now have lots of timje for good ol fashioned spear-fencing. Many battles were decided "at spear range". I have a hard time believeing that this meant the single thrust by charging opponents like jousting knights. For most battles there was probably an extended period of spear-fencing before men closed to sword range and laid shield on shield. You can think of hoplite battle as discrete entities that correspond to ranges. Early on the phalanx might have thrown javelins as they closed if the Chigi is not holding onto mythical elements. The dory is a long spear, probably 5' of reach towards the enemy in battle. You could not fight it at that range with a greek sword. Once within range of a greek sword though, the dory is at a disadvantage because its too long. Of course once shield to shield you are limited to sword or even bare hands to attack the man in front of you. If someone starts a thread on doratismos or swordplay I will gladly contribute my thoughts, but I have less to offer there than with othismos, because others have more experience in such combat.
When I first presented this crowd-othismos my concern was to show that the current orthodoxy was wrong in its model of charging into othismos. Thus I showed how a "charge" would have to occur given the physics in order to maximize pushing force. They'd have to stop close to the enemy line and pack in tight, they shuffle forward in a mass. Any long distance destroys the packing needed to impart maximal force. While I think that such a "charge" may well have occurred at times, for the most part there is no need for it. A more fluid transition from spear-fencing, to fighting at sword's length with shield on shield, to crowding and othismos was probably the rule.
On the wedge I am with Fred, a wedge of hoplites is suicidal. Every rank presents in indefensable right flank to its opponents. Devine tried to describe such a wedge in a paper on the "Embolon" at Leuktra, but this was well countered in a following article. This, by the way is why we read of the Theban deep phalanx of 50 ranks exactly twice. It was essentially a gimmick or trick. It relied on superior flank protection in cavalry and light troops and helps if your foe has allies who are essentially willing to stand by and watch him get beat. The Spartans at leuktra were in the middle of attempting to extend their line to envelop the deep phalanx when a quick thinking Pelopidas hit them and probably saved the day. If we can read into Xenophon's description of battle in the Cyropaedia Spartan thought on how to deal with extra-deep phalanxes, then there was already a counter by Mantinea- ending in Epaminondas's death.
All of this was anticipated by the way. The Thebans had been forming at 25 ranks for decades and the allies in the Corinthian was specifically tried to limit her to 16 ranks by treaty because of the threat of the line being enveloped. The 25 rank unit had more success, starting with Delium. I think that Greek Andreia was so focused on not giving ground in combat, that it hampered their ability to be flexible in dealing with this formation that was perhaps almost "cheating". The one time we read of Spartans simply attempting to get out of the way of the formation, as Xenophon advised for the second phase of Coronea, Pelopidas simply turns back on their line after cutting it in two. Then again, as at Coronea, the Thebans could cut through an enemy line and still be too mauled to do more than flee.
By the way, I think battles between such asymetrically deep phalanxes can only be described through a crowd model. Without a push, there really is no valid point to such depth, honorable attempts at attributing it to the efficient moving of troops or morale aside, and without valid crowd mechanics the fact that these were still hotly contested battles, rather than a theban steam-roller, is unexplained.
Re: New hoplite book - Astiryu1 - 05-21-2010
With "othismos" in mind. The opposition would continue to be pushed into the center of the wedge thereby being contained and/or killed on all sides by the defenders. The only way I have ever lost is by morale issues and getting tired. This method usually makes the attackers turn tail and run. Though I am playing a game. I use it as a what if scenario. If someone has RTW please try it. I recreated Thermopylae as best I could with "custom battle" and watched the "Sassanid" ( no Persian faction ) run back and forth into my wall of Spartans. One problem; some of my Spartans broke rank and waded into a tangled mass of light infantry and died...eventually!!! Those men each had names and I feel sorry for their loss; but they will be remembered forever.
Re: New hoplite book - PMBardunias - 05-21-2010
Here's a little diagram on spacing along a file and between files. You can see the way hoplites close up to the men in front. Also notice that this othismos can work even if there is a meter or so spacing between files. All that matters is that there is not enough room for hoplites to simply move up beside the man ahead. On the right you'll see a few files showing that this need not look all that orderly and surely did not in practice.
In all of this it is the aspis which makes it possible. Not only does it keep you from getting asphyxiated, but it is a measuring stick for your spacing and creates a minimum size for the hoplite/aspis combimation that governs how hopites pack in tight.
Re: New hoplite book - Astiryu1 - 05-21-2010
Ah! That helps immensely!!! I can guess why the drift appears simply by the placement of the aspis. The placement is something that has confused me from the start. If the 2011 goes off I hope there are pictures and videos for us stuck across the Atlantic. Regardless! The phalanx looks much more applicable due to the photo. The aspis itself was technology for the phalanx.
Re: New hoplite book - hoplite14gr - 05-21-2010
Some observations:
"Emvolon" in Leyktra if memory serves me right has to do with cavalry.
"Emvolon" can be done with pike armed phalanx. ! unit at the head and 2 units covering the flanks with their pikes.
Bad idea with spear due to insufficient length.
Romans and Vikings who used wedges with the infantry but the used multiple wedges and not one.
Usually they had poorly trained equipped and motivated opposition when they did it.
Viking wedges did not impress very much the Byzantine infantry
Hoplite wedge is only for Hollywood. I would NEVER put myself on its leading edge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kind regards
Re: New hoplite book - Astiryu1 - 05-21-2010
Aw come on! It wouldn't be that bad...for long!!! :lol:
Re: New hoplite book - Old Husker - 05-25-2010
I've now managed to read Adam Schwartz's Reinstating the Hoplite. In truth, I think that the hoplite's position is probably not actually so precarious as to really need "reinstating" (at least here in the USA, where Victor Hanson's high valuation of that warrior type and its phalanx - othismos and all - seems to define orthodoxy, his work having recently been taught at West Point and studies of similar opinion currently being referenced at the Army's Infantry School at Fort Benning, GA). Nonetheless, Swartz here offers a most welcome defense of the primacy these themes had in ancient Greek battle that's both vigorous and very well researched.
After some introductory material (24 pages), the book gives an in- depth (77 page) evaluation of hoplite equipment (defensive and offensive) in support of the idea that it was developed specifically to support the phalanx. This is followed by a similarly detailed review (99 pages) of the phalanx and then a discussion on the duration of hoplite battles (25 pages), concluding with a brief (9 page) summary of the author's conclusions. Among Schwartz's major contentions are: a) the phalanx existed prior to the devlopment of hoplite equipment, which was designed specifically for use in that array; b) othismos was real, a physical shoving from the entire formation that combined with weapon strikes along the front to define the offensive capability of the phalanx; c) there was very little change in the nature of phalanx warfare from its inception in the 8th century B.C. into the late 4th century B.C. Appended is an inventory of 41 battles (40 on land plus one naval action) selected from the period 490 B.C. (Marathon) to 338 B.C. (Chaironeia), each with a systematic listing of important characteristics. There is an extensive bibliography, a list of illustations (there are 19), a 14-page general index, and indices of sources (one literary and the other for inscriptions and papyri).
Schwartz is a sound wordsmith, with writing that is both clear and concise, obviously meant to embrace general readers despite the study's origins as an academic dissertation. For the most part, he maintains a reasoned, patient tone, which makes his well mounted arguments all the more convincing, though he still offers the occasional brief burst of passion on a given subject that lets the reader know that heart as well as head are in this subject. One feature Schwartz offers for which I am most grateful is an English translation to accompany every major quote (and most minor ones as well) from German, Latin, or Greek sources, as this is something most works of such academic bent don't usually bother to provide those of us who are language-challenged.
One weakness of the work (not of the author) is that it apprently went to the publisher early in 2007 (a single entry that year being the latest reference dated), thus it couldn't include information from Paul Bardunias' ground-breaking article on the aspis and othismos published in Ancient Warfare later that year (Oct.). This is a real pity, since Paul's concepts would have greatly bolstered Swartz's positions regarding othismos on several fronts. Instead, he employs the side-on stance, shoulder-first, muscular concept of othismos offered previously by Hanson and others (myself included). Thus, while the overwhelming literary and logical support for a real, physical othismos is established here in effective arguments against its detractors, the 'smoking gun' mechanism that Paul's work provides is lacking. To take an analog from my old field of geology, Swartz is very much in a position like the proponents of continental drift prior to the discovery of the sea floor spreading mechanism that proved it was true.
Another weakness stems from what is otherwise a strength - strong academic roots. While this gives access to a great deal of vital data, it tends to ignore information from other, more popular sources. Thus, there is no reference here to many works published by Osprey and others for a more general readership, which contain unique and very valuable information relative to issues being discussed. On a similar note, there is such a strong focus on information about classical Greek warfare (the obvious subject of the original academic dissertation) that vital supporting information on other topics is weak. As a result, some conclusions presented about the nature of Macedonian warfare are (in my opinion) quite wrong (lacking reference to key research from folks like Waldemar Heckel and Nick Secunda among others in popular publications) and his concept of Persian warfare is likewise vague and incomplete (Nick Secunda's popular-edition works on this subject would have been of great use here). Since conclusions are drawn relative to hoplites from their performance against these differing military systems, it was important to have had a better grasp of their true attributes.
Overall, I think this book offers an excellent introduction to anyone not particularly familiar with hoplite battle, while at the same time providing a considerable wealth of detail that should inform even very deeply steeped devotees. However, as I feel that Hanson's The Western Way of War provides an even better intro at much, much lower cost, I can wholeheartedly recommend Reinstating the Hoplite for personal aquisition only to the truly serious student of hoplite warfare with a rather hefty bank account.
Re: New hoplite book - Paralus - 05-26-2010
Quote: [...] to 338 B.C. (Chaironeia), each with a systematic listing of important characteristics.
Given the wretched source tradition on this defining battle, I'd love to see his treatment. I've always had a soft spot for Paul Rahe's contention of an Alexander on foot in this battle; I certainly can't subscribe to Markle's contention of the Sacred Band being broken by an Alexander leading a sarisa-armed cavalry charge. Generally Diodorus' figure of 30,0000 infantry is accepted for the Macedonians. There will, of course, have been many "lights" amongst this total as well as mercenaries. Surprising, though, is the ready assumption of 24,000 Macedonian phalangites amongst this array. This is often seen as the full Macedonian levy and can only be based on the wobbly assumption that Alexander took 12,000 and supposedly left Antipater 12,000. Far more likely is a lower figure - possibly half or little more - and those likely brigaded in "wing" phalanxes in the manner of Doson's array at Sellasia. Did Philip leave Macedonia without troops?
Quote: As a result, some conclusions presented about the nature of Macedonian warfare are (in my opinion) quite wrong (lacking reference to key research from folks like Waldemar Heckel and Nick Secunda among others in popular publications) and his concept of Persian warfare is likewise vague and incomplete (Nick Secunda's popular-edition works on this subject would have been of great use here). Since conclusions are drawn relative to hoplites from their performance against these differing military systems, it was important to have had a better grasp of their true attributes.
The great question: just how the Macedonian phalanx physically fought. The big gap in any understanding is a near complete lack of any artistic evidence or clear “guts and all” literary descriptions of this formation engaging an enemy. We are reduced to literary conventions such as “fell heavily upon” and “cut to pieces in hand to hand fighting” etc. Thus many have assumed a somewhat less than “active” participation: the phalanx "charges" a formation and pins it with those serried sarisae. Such assumptions then do not bother to ask what happens after front rank sarisae are buried in opponents’ shields or guts.
That the phalanx was more active is indicated by the routs it occasioned and the descriptions of its enemies suffering great slaughter. Describing same, in a logical and defensible manner, has tasked me I must say. Be nice to have a time machine…
Re: New hoplite book - MeinPanzer - 05-26-2010
Quote:Old Husker:37lzf0de Wrote:[...] to 338 B.C. (Chaironeia), each with a systematic listing of important characteristics.
Given the wretched source tradition on this defining battle, I'd love to see his treatment.
Here you go:
http://antiquemilitaryhistory.com/images/chaeronea1.jpg
http://antiquemilitaryhistory.com/images/chaeronea2.jpg
Re: New hoplite book - Paralus - 05-26-2010
You're a gentleman Ruben - thanks.
I note that Hammond - by a coincidence of alphabetical listing - is the first authority listed in the bibliography. The battle summary is a near direct summation of Hammond's reconstruction in his Philip of Macedon. He seems not to have utilised Rahe much though he's listed.
Re: New hoplite book - Old Husker - 05-26-2010
If you ever get ahold of that time machine please reserve a spot for me! Sadly, the battle inventory in Schwartz's Reinstating the Hoplite is long on catagories for each engagement but pretty thin on content within many of those catagories. He hasn't, as far as I can tell, made any attempt at his own reconstructions, but rather offers either largely unfiltered info out of the ancient sources or brief recountings of the most commonly printed reconstructions in the modern literature (I have serious problems with several of these, but those are conversations for another time and place). This follows in the footsteps of John Drogo Montagu who published a much more comprehensive compendium of 667 Greek and Roman battles from 724-31 B.C. (Battles of the Greek and Roman Worlds, 2000, Greenhill Books, London and Stackpole Books, Pennsylvania), a work that is included in Swartz's bibliography. Unlike the Montagu book, which breaks the engagements into Greek and Roman sets and then lists them in chronological order within those sets, Swartz lists his battles in alpha order by geographic names (mind you, at least a few of these engagements have collected more than one name over the centuries); otherwise, the approach is similar, though Swartz nicely adds a list of modern reference for each action to the ancient references that appear here and in Montagu.
With reference to the Macedonian phalanx, the only battle listed here is the one at Chaironeia in 338 B.C. This is an action which I plan to reconstruct for my next book and, though I haven't completed the research on it yet, what I have to date seems to heavily conflict with the story Swartz presents here (probably via the pre-1950 work of N.G.L. Hammond and J.F.C. Fuller, both listed in his bibliography). There is, in fact, a good deal of linguistic, literary, pictorial, archaeologic, and circumstantial evidence out there that can be brought to bear on the Macedonians' way of war to significantly advance and alter these early 20th century interpretations of their phalanx. And once you get a good handle on how this formation must really have worked, then it fundamentally changes how you go about reconstructing its engagements. As I say, I'm not through with my research yet, but I would offer the opionion that Alexander was indeed on foot among the Macedonian pikemen of his phalanx's left/defensive wing and center, his father Philip was leading the far right/offensive wing composed of traditional hoplites (hypaspists and mercenaries, the former of whom carried the day with a Spartan-style faux retreat maneuver), and the Macedonian cavalry (what little was present) was engaged across a creek off the far left flank with their Greek opposite numbers and played no significant role in the action until the pursuit phase. Saying this will likely open a can of worms with those fond of Alexander having a larger part (complete with cavalry exploits) or with those who see a more offensive role for the sarissa. Naturally, I could be way off base here; still, I really think that a sound case can be made for such strong revisionism. At any rate, all this veers well off the present subject of Swartz's book and might be better handled within a new thread should anybody be interested. Regards, Fred