Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hoplite spacing and formation
#46
I've some Attic vase paintings at home (I'm at the office reading Melbourne Cup form in between speadsheets) which I'll take a gander at tonight.

I voted "D". This mostly because it's always the way I've imagined the description of the creep right to find cover behind the next man's shield. I'm rather ecumenical though and am open to persuaion.

Just seems to me that, in Greek sculpture, it's going to be somewhat difficult to represent right over left. As well, the long held Spartan penchant for leading from the right might indicate that the forward slant to the line in that direction is likely correct? The Thebans too held this position (as did most states).

Bloody good question though.

Also gives an indication as to why there are no extant representations of sarissa armed infantry in Greek/Macedonian painting/sculpture: can one imagine finding the blokes within that hedge of pikes? Can one imagine having to sculpt such a hedge?
Paralus|Michael Park

Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους

Wicked men, you are sinning against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander!

Academia.edu
Reply
#47
Quote:Their legs and general position clearly show they're not one after the other in line.It was in his choice and he chose to sculpt it like C...
Khaire

I disagree, they clearly look like they are one behind the other. The portrayal is quite confusing.

These two look like the guy in behind is riding his back!
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#48
Oh dear ! What a lot of confusion here...(sigh) Sad

Robert wrote:-
Quote:I agree with Paul here, from the viewpoint of Late Roman formations. A depth of 16 is a depth of 16. You could halve that to 8 if needed (for example to extend the front), or turn 8 ranks around to face an attack from the rear. There were commands for all those formations.

But there was no 'normal' procedure where 16 ranks deployed in open order and then had 8 ranks come up to the front simply to get to a close order. When synaspismos was needed, e.g. in a fulcum formation, the ranks pulled together, no doubt also shorthening the front in such a manouvre.
To begin with, one should not look to compare Greek and later Roman drill, because there was a fundamental difference between the two - Greek drill was based on Files whilst Roman drill was based on Ranks
Thus, to be clear about this, and taking a Spartan formation as an example, and taking a typical age call-out, we have an enomotia of 36 men who, on the march are 3 abreast and 12 deep, in open order ( 6' aprox frontage per man). To form phalanx, each enomotia takes station to the left of the preceding one until all the enomotia are side-by-side, in open order 12 deep. In this formation the phalanx maneouvres, and psiloior peltasts can easily withdraw through the files. When the time for the phalanx to go into action comes, the order is given and the rear half of each file closes up, to the left,. The formation is now in close order ( 3' aprox frontage per man, shields just touching/overlapping) and has a depth of 6. All this is clearly set out in Xenophon's Cyropaedia and no other sensible interpretation is really possible.
Incidently, I am not the originator of this interpretation, and almost all others who study Thucydides, Xenophon and the surviving Hellenistic Manuals ( the 3 are probably drawn from a single source) come to the same conclusions - see e.g. J.K.Anderson or Peter Connolly. There is really no need to 'debate' a subject where there is realistically only one interpretation..... Smile D

P.S. Mike, you'd better chuck yer form guide out the window...it's gonna be a wet track fer the 'Cup........
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#49
Yes,this is what Xenophon said in cyropaedia,with an anomotia of 36. What about the 25 mentioned by Herodotos? This was the archaic enomotia. Agreed that the way of deployment would not change. No debate in this.
Paul B doesn't seem to understand that a phalanx did not have only to push,but also to drill,to change from open to close order,to lock and unlock shields,and that this is impossible in D. Paul,next summer come to Thermopylae,in the even.I'll probably be there with many more hoplites(only the Greeks were about a dozen last year).We will both form a mini phalanx and you'll see that for yourself.To unlock your shield you have to turn it to the left.In D you can't do that simple thing because your shield is restricted by the shield of the man to your left.It is that simple to see it is just not practical.If the man in dront of you dies,you can't take his place because you're stuck in the formation!And by the time the phalanx is formed,you have to be in battle position and you cannot walk easilly,how yould you run?We do know that hoplites often run just befor engagement. This is clearly shown in all the sculptures I posted.
You alone said that while in battle the body is straight and pushed from behind.Now how would the shield in D be kept sideways to the right if the body is straight. On the contrary,you can have your body straight and your shield slightly to the left,and actually this is the normal position.
Khaire
Giannis
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply
#50
Giannis wrote:-
Quote:Yes,this is what Xenophon said in cyropaedia,with an anomotia of 36. What about the 25 mentioned by Herodotos? This was the archaic enomotia
The numbers in an enomotia, sometimes called lochos in other states, would vary depending on the number of age-classes called up for that particular campaign, and as well, different city states favoured different depths - 8,10 and 12 are frequently attested to, and in some states a file-leader was called dekarch, for example. I don't believe there was any such thing as an 'archaic enomotia'.
The beauty of the system is that it doesn't matter how many are called up, or the depth in open order (8,10,12...), close order can always be formed by bringing up the rear half of each file ! Smile D
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#51
In Salamis 2006 was the only time we tried right over left. The result was a lot of hurt elbows, especially when we tried to jog as a group.
We never had this problem with left over right.
Kind regards
Reply
#52
Quote:Paul B doesn't seem to understand that a phalanx did not have only to push,but also to drill,to change from open to close order,to lock and unlock shields,and that this is impossible in D

All it takes is a rightward twist. All the drill in the world is useless if you cannot compete in othismos. If you don't believe in Othismos as literal pushing match, then B or C are perfectly acceptable and we also have nothing more to discuss. The other Paul does not believe in literal othismos, but in the local buffeting espoused by Cawkwell et al., so you notice I am not argueing with him. He in fact would argue with them since they say that you need opened order to do that type of individual fighting, so he is between two worlds of thought on this.

You, I know, follow the Hanson pushing othismos model, which we have both supported on past occaisons, but which I now know to be wrong.
Saddly historians don't learn much in the way of physics in their liberal arts education or someone would have noticed this before. If they pushed, they pushed in D.

I trust nothing in the Cyropaedia to be conclusive about how hoplites fought each other, tactics seem to have been different when fighting asiatics. In the review of the 10,000 in Kilikia Xenophon has them formed in 4 ranks- which by P.'s scheme would be 2 and highly unlikely. What xenophon is probably describing in the later work is how they would half the normal depth of a phalanx, uneeded against asians who can't push properly, and increase the length of the battle-line, always a problem against light troops and cavalry. Be careful extrapolating back from hellenistic sources as well, we cannot assume they are directly applicable.

There is no reason that they could not deploy straight from Enomotia into close order, thus keeping their depth. The notion that the extra file space could be used to allow cavalry through is unlikely based on the difference in width between a hoplite and a horse! The disruption to a phalanx would be unbelievable. Auxillary troops passed back between groups of phalangites, the line was surely not continuous, not through formed ranks of men.

Quote:You alone said that while in battle the body is straight and pushed from behind.Now how would the shield in D be kept sideways to the right if the body is straight.

This may be one reason why just about all ancient hoplite battles pinwheeled counterclockwise, right pushing back left. The line would actually look like D after the fighting had gone on for a while.

The poll has served its purpose by the way, I was curious to see how far the resurgence of support for scheme A had penetrated into common thought. Happily, not much it seems.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#53
Quote:Oh dear ! What a lot of confusion here...(sigh) Sad

Robert wrote:-
Quote:I agree with Paul here, from the viewpoint of Late Roman formations. A depth of 16 is a depth of 16. You could halve that to 8 if needed (for example to extend the front), or turn 8 ranks around to face an attack from the rear. There were commands for all those formations.

But there was no 'normal' procedure where 16 ranks deployed in open order and then had 8 ranks come up to the front simply to get to a close order. When synaspismos was needed, e.g. in a fulcum formation, the ranks pulled together, no doubt also shorthening the front in such a manouvre.
To begin with, one should not look to compare Greek and later Roman drill, because there was a fundamental difference between the two - Greek drill was based on Files whilst Roman drill was based on Ranks
Thus, to be clear about this, and taking a Spartan formation as an example, and taking a typical age call-out, we have an enomotia of 36 men who, on the march are 3 abreast and 12 deep, in open order ( 6' aprox frontage per man). To form phalanx, each enomotia takes station to the left of the preceding one until all the enomotia are side-by-side, in open order 12 deep. In this formation the phalanx maneouvres, and psiloior peltasts can easily withdraw through the files. When the time for the phalanx to go into action comes, the order is given and the rear half of each file closes up, to the left,. The formation is now in close order ( 3' aprox frontage per man, shields just touching/overlapping) and has a depth of 6. All this is clearly set out in Xenophon's Cyropaedia and no other sensible interpretation is really possible.
Incidently, I am not the originator of this interpretation, and almost all others who study Thucydides, Xenophon and the surviving Hellenistic Manuals ( the 3 are probably drawn from a single source) come to the same conclusions - see e.g. J.K.Anderson or Peter Connolly. There is really no need to 'debate' a subject where there is realistically only one interpretation..... Smile D

P.S. Mike, you'd better chuck yer form guide out the window...it's gonna be a wet track fer the 'Cup........
I agree about how drilled Greek armies changed from closed to open order (our soruces are quite clear) but not that "n ranks" always means "in open order". In many cases I think it is clear that our sources are referring to a final (close-formation) or current depth.

And I suspect that many earlier or smaller armies may have drilled just enough to line up across from the enemy, march forwards and charge!
Nullis in verba

I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
Reply
#54
Quote:
Quote:Paul B doesn't seem to understand that a phalanx did not have only to push,but also to drill,to change from open to close order,to lock and unlock shields,and that this is impossible in D

All it takes is a rightward twist. All the drill in the world is useless if you cannot compete in othismos. If you don't believe in Othismos as literal pushing match, then B or C are perfectly acceptable and we also have nothing more to discuss. The other Paul does not believe in literal othismos, but in the local buffeting espoused by Cawkwell et al., so you notice I am not argueing with him. He in fact would argue with them since they say that you need opened order to do that type of individual fighting, so he is between two worlds of thought on this.
Paul, are you arguing for D because shields are overlapped right-over-left, or because the hoplites' bodies are parallel to the shields (ready to be squeezed into a mass for your oisthmos-model)? I think some people may be objecting to the former not the later, and I don't see why the two have to go together.
Nullis in verba

I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
Reply
#55
Hi Sean...your original post, where you quoted mine, referred to the parade in Xenophon's Anabasis where we are told they were four deep and suggested that applying this as open order would leave a 2-deep line.I did not say that the authors always refer to depths in 'open' order, just generally,and you have pointed here to an exception. Here, Xenophon makes it plain that the line is 4 deep in close order ( and hence would have been 8 deep in open order)......I assume you accept this from having altered your post, but since I went to the trouble of looking up the passage in question, I'll post it for the benefit of others.
Here is the passage, with my notes in blue..:-
"He ordered the Greeks to form their lines and take their positions in battle order (since battle was fought in close order, it is self-evident that close order is meant here), each general marshalling his own men. So they formed the line four deep, Menon and his troops occupying the right wing, Clearchus and his troops the left, and the other generals the centre. Cyrus inspected the barbarians first, and they marched past with their cavalry formed in troops and their infantry in companies; then he inspected the Greeks driving past them in a chariot, the Cilician queen in a carriage. And the Greeks all had helmets of bronze, crimson tunics, and greaves, and carried their shields uncovered. When he had driven past them all, he halted his chariot in front of the centre of the phalanx, and sending his interpreter Pigres to the generals of theGreeks, gave orders that the troops should advance arms and the phalanx move forward in a body. The generals transmitted these orders to the soldiers, and when the trumpet sounded, they advanced arms and charged.(notice there is no mention of a change of formation here, they simply point their spears and charge) And then, as they went on faster and faster, at length with a shout the troops broke into a run of their own accord, in the direction of the camp. As for the barbarians, they were terribly frightened; the Cilician queen took to flight in her carriage, and the people in the market left their wares behind and took to their heels; while the Greeks with a roar of laughter came up to their camp."
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#56
Quote:Paul, are you arguing for D because shields are overlapped right-over-left, or because the hoplites' bodies are parallel to the shields (ready to be squeezed into a mass for your oisthmos-model)? I think some people may be objecting to the former not the later, and I don't see why the two have to go together.

The two are inseperable. If and I again stress if we accept that they pushed en mass, then they had to both overlap right over left AND be squared to the enemy. You cannot push properly, and more importantly cannot survive the pressure, if your chest is resting on both you shield's left-side rim and the left-side rim of your neighbor. Any movement between you and your neighbor would rip up your chest and jam the edge of his shield into you. Your own shield rim had to be flat against your chest. That is overlaps at all is less important, but you can see that once you have your shield flat against your chest the only way to overlap is right over left. A sore arm is the least of your worries when you have asphyxiated due to compression.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#57
Quote:The two are inseperable. If and I again stress if we accept that they pushed en mass, then they had to both overlap right over left AND be squared to the enemy. You cannot push properly, and more importantly cannot survive the pressure, if your chest is resting on both you shield's left-side rim and the left-side rim of your neighbor. Any movement between you and your neighbor would rip up your chest and jam the edge of his shield into you. Your own shield rim had to be flat against your chest. That is overlaps at all is less important, but you can see that once you have your shield flat against your chest the only way to overlap is right over left. A sore arm is the least of your worries when you have asphyxiated due to compression.
Humh, I see. Personally I'm undecided between your drawings C and D.

One picture of an ancient aspis-doru phalanx from the front would solve so many problems here! But then, if we had adequate evidence we'd have to find other things to debate (grin).
Nullis in verba

I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
Reply
#58
Quote:Humh, I see. Personally I'm undecided between your drawings C and D.

Yeah, those images are terrible, I lifted them from a paper on hoplite combat and modified a bit. The important point is that no one seems to believe in the opened spacing as shown in A. This is good.

Quote:One picture of an ancient aspis-doru phalanx from the front would solve so many problems here! But then, if we had adequate evidence we'd have to find other things to debate (grin).

It's actually a bit suprising that they seem unable to portray the phalanx clearly. There are a few images I can think of of two lines squared off and facing each other, but they either don't overlap or are ambiguos.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#59
Please accept my apologies, Sean....I seem to have been telescoping your post and Paul B's post together with the reference to Xenophon's Cyropaedia....... :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#60
Paul B,you draw conclusions and you are so "sure" about them that I'm surprised!How do you know you cant't push or that you're terribly harmed if your fellow hoplite's shield is a bit to the right of your chest? You say that right over left and body parallel to the shield are inseperable. How do you know? You base your whole theory on only these two points, that you have not experienced yourself and that other re-enactors disagree with(they may not have expirienced othismos,but they-if nothing else-have been side by side with shields with other hoplites. I posted so many pictures,many of them showing locked shields in battle, but you insist this is incapability to depict the real phalanx(while there are indeed some few depictions of right over left shield) You also don't offer an explanation of how they would deploy,and how this would be practical

Watch this video. Go streight forward to the 3rd minute(nothing else worth anything).Look how easy it is to close shields. And when overlapping the shield of the hoplite to the right is not pressed to your chest but rather to your right arm or shoulder.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ySaI5ypaCcY
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Spartan Hoplite Impression - was "Athenian Hoplite&quot rogue_artist 30 13,709 08-17-2008, 12:31 AM
Last Post: Giannis K. Hoplite

Forum Jump: