05-04-2010, 04:26 PM
Paul, your cogent and integrated analysis of othismos not only fits the laws of physics and data on crowd behavior, but also provides a poweful tool for making sense out of the ancient Greek battle record. Though othismos (of the sort that you so aptly describe) was a great combat technique and fundamental (along with spear-fighting) to the phalanx's offensive design, its slow development and often poorly coordinated process combined with many matches where neither side had sufficient advantage in pushing capability to allow other techniques to carry the day a majority of the time. I have estimated that only about 30% of the 173 hoplite engagements that I examined in the 5th century B.C. might have been primarily resolved by othismos, with a wide variety of other factors (like front fighting ability, lateral maneuvering, cavalry assaults, ight infantry actions, suprise attacks, etc.) being more dominant in the rest. Moreover, even when it was decisive, a good many of othismos' successes came against barbarian opponents ill-equipped to push back (othismos determining perhaps some two-thirds of the Greek victories in such encounters). It seems that hoplites with othismos were like prize-fighters possessed of a terrific right cross: no matter how great a punch it was, many bouts simply had to be won with jabs, uppercuts, footwork, etc. due to an opponent's particular skill-set or some other element up to and including plain old good or bad luck.- Regards, Fred
It\'s only by appreciating accurate accounts of real combat past and present that we can begin to approach the Greek hoplite\'s hard-won awareness of war\'s potential merits and ultimate limitations.
- Fred Eugene Ray (aka "Old Husker")
- Fred Eugene Ray (aka "Old Husker")
