06-23-2009, 11:35 AM
First of all we have to understand what the ancients meant when they used the word "othizein". First, we have to note that it emerges again and again in battles all through antiquity, rarely as some kind of a drill but more as a result of normal fighting. In reality, it was used to describe the withdrawal of the enemy phalanx, sometimes for hundreds of meters. This use (the most frequent one actually) should not be confused with the actual phase we are discussing. Then we have to conclude whether there actually was some special phase or tactic, the one we understand as "othismos". First we have no evidence that this was actually a Greek invention or a tactic not used by other heavy infantry. It is not described in any tactical manual (maybe because these are usually about the Macedonian phalanx and not the hoplite one but it is also not described in any Roman and Byzantine manual, although they also are connected with the word). From these facts, we can infer that this tactic (which is informally described always as basic infantry tactics) was not something that was deemed important enough to be described. This would mean A. that it didn't exist, B. that it was all too common for centuries and for many armies C. that we are unlucky enough to not have any surviving manuscripts regarding the issue. I am not right now inferring that there was no special tactic in a hoplite phalanx that was what we nowadays call othismos, I only try to bring up the complexity of thew issue and justify the many theories and possible mistakes.
Facts.
1. The hoplite phalanxes were usually deployed 4-6-8-10 or 12 men deep, more than 8 being considered deeper than usual, 4 shallow. We have attested depths of up to 50 hoplites.
2. The above is the exact case in many other armies, like the Romans, the Persians, the Egyptians etc. We have attested depths of up to 100 men (the Egyptians who fought against Cyrus), as Xenophon describes in his Cyropedia!
3. The word "othizein" is not usually used for this seemingly special drill, so any text should be individually analyzed to understand the correct context within which the use of the word lies.
4. The hoplite phalanx (and the Macedonian even more) did not usually charge at a run but at slow pace.
5. The hoplites were trained to act as a single unit and not as individuals and all (at least other) tactics they employed demanded teamwork and were focused on the maintenance of their order.
6. Single combat and bold attacks outside the phalanx were scorned (the Romans even imposed capital punishment against those who endangered the cohesion of their line)
7. Deeper phalanxes did not always (not even usually) win the day.
8. Deeper formations are proposed in tactical manuals when there are unreliable troops present.
9. Shallow formations were employed by experienced troops.
10. The main hoplite weapon was the spear.
Myths
1. The Greeks and the Romans usually charged at a run.
2. After the first minutes, battles degenerated into a disordered melee.
3. The accounts of 10-100 dead of victors in huge battles involving thousands, tens of thousands, sometimes even more than a hundred thousand men are nothing but gross exaggeration and simple propaganda. Casualties were much more heavy...
All the above are factors to consider when trying to solve the mystery of "othismos". I do not clam to propose the one and only truth, but the issue is much more complex than we sometimes give credit to.
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.
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 backstepping 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.
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.
(Actually I have rehearsed such maneuvers multiple times and I always came to the conclusion that a warrior who would push his way into the enemy files would die in a matter of seconds unable to really protect himself, especially if he was allowed to penetrate more than one rank. I am a relatively big guy, so at such a match I pushed my opponent some 3-4 meters away and my own impetus drove me into the enemy formation. In the split seconds that took for me to find my steps, I was dead... )
4. There is no such instance described in any ancient or medieval account.
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.
6. Why did other armies deploy in such depths?
7.How come that phalanxes 50 men deep lost to phalanxes 12 men deep?
8. Why is order so much being praised, since it would be lost in seconds after the charge?
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? And of course, why isn't it stated as a tactic to fight against shallow formations?
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.
My proposal is as follows.
The phalanx (hoplite and Macedonian) would close in at slow march. If the enemy was armed with bows, the phalanx would sometimes advance at slow run (also very difficult if you are holding your hoplon towards the enemy, maybe it would be better understood as something between a quick march and a slow run, where you do not have to raise your thighs much, for these would be hindered by a forward looking hoplon.) The objective was to reach at spear point distance (1-2 meters much longer for pikemen), where (as all texts state) you would start stabbing at your opponent. The back ranks would discharge javelins, spears, stones, chairs and whatever else they thought heavy or pointy enough to make the enemy uncomfortable. Spears would break, spears would be given to the front from the back, the wounded and the very few dead would be dragged behind and the epistates would take his place in the front rank. At some point, the signal would be given, the spears would be given to the back ranks and swords would be unsheathed (hoplite phalanx only). At the next signal, the front ranks would march forward with small steps, keeping their holpa locked and presenting a single shieldwall. The enemy might try to keep them back for some time, but they would soon get rid of their spears and draw swords too, since, should the enemy line, just a yard away reach them, their spear hands would present a very good target and they would be unable to hit at the front man of the enemy due to the length of their weapons. During this phase, the back ranks would close in (reduce the distance between ranks from half a meter to a meter or so to nil) support their comrades with their spears, stabbing at the enemy, who would now be very reluctant to even raise his face above his shield, since 2, maybe 3 spears from different angles would attack him. Unable to see much, he would stab above the shield with calculated movements, even coordinate with the man next to him for more chances to produce a wound. Should the battle go well, should the commander detect low morale in the enemy lines, he would give the command for "othismos". The enemy would most possibly already have retreated many yards and now it was time to crush their morale, not their bodies. The line would still be in order, the shields locked, the men behind the swordsmen (most possibly 2-3 ranks) stood firm, supporting their countrymen, not allowing them even the thought of cowering out (and because of the proximity and the support (actually small calculated push), even bodies would remain standing, as is also attested by the ancients)... A loud signal would be given, the back rows would pass the word to the front ranks to await the order (most possibly given to the whole line or at least a big part thereof and not to small subunits). The order would be something like "Half a step forward!", certainly not more than 2-3 steps. At this time, the front ranks would take their pushing positions and at the exact time of the signal they would en mass push forward combining their strengths at a rate not dangerous for the balance of the front rankers shouting something like (en! dio! (one! two!)) to coordinate their steps. The back ranks would not really push hard but more like support the steps advanced by keeping their shieldwalls as a wall to support the backs of the front rankers. In this way, the advance would be also made en mass and the shield wall (order) would remain intact, while an unprepared enemy would succumb and some of the opponents would lose balance, fall and subsequently lose their lives... At this time, the heads of the pushing front rankers would be looking down counting steps, sword in hand, to stab at the feet or head and shoulders of an enemy fallen and trodden over. When the maneuver would be complete (1-3 seconds not more), there would be a short interval to remedy any problem which would arise and then a similar order would be given. Ordered swordplay behind the shieldwall would ensue and the battle would go on. In those accounts, where an "othismos" is seemingly described, we have the commanders shout "Give me a step and we have conquered! (Epameinondas, but not the only example)" It seems that when an enemy was ready to give in, this maneuver would deliver the final blow.
Of course the hoplite shieldwall could not maintain a perfectly straight line. But two or three steps forward, especially if the shields were locked on the right side, would not endanger the cohesion. A right lock, would actually hinder the advance of a very strong individual if his right man was not able to push as effectively, thus protecting the phalanx's order.
This is my opinion regarding the "othismos" drill. I support the massiveness of the drill (everyone partook in it) but not in the absence of control and exertion of uncontrollable raw physical strength and without any attention to and coordination with the other ranks.
Facts.
1. The hoplite phalanxes were usually deployed 4-6-8-10 or 12 men deep, more than 8 being considered deeper than usual, 4 shallow. We have attested depths of up to 50 hoplites.
2. The above is the exact case in many other armies, like the Romans, the Persians, the Egyptians etc. We have attested depths of up to 100 men (the Egyptians who fought against Cyrus), as Xenophon describes in his Cyropedia!
3. The word "othizein" is not usually used for this seemingly special drill, so any text should be individually analyzed to understand the correct context within which the use of the word lies.
4. The hoplite phalanx (and the Macedonian even more) did not usually charge at a run but at slow pace.
5. The hoplites were trained to act as a single unit and not as individuals and all (at least other) tactics they employed demanded teamwork and were focused on the maintenance of their order.
6. Single combat and bold attacks outside the phalanx were scorned (the Romans even imposed capital punishment against those who endangered the cohesion of their line)
7. Deeper phalanxes did not always (not even usually) win the day.
8. Deeper formations are proposed in tactical manuals when there are unreliable troops present.
9. Shallow formations were employed by experienced troops.
10. The main hoplite weapon was the spear.
Myths
1. The Greeks and the Romans usually charged at a run.
2. After the first minutes, battles degenerated into a disordered melee.
3. The accounts of 10-100 dead of victors in huge battles involving thousands, tens of thousands, sometimes even more than a hundred thousand men are nothing but gross exaggeration and simple propaganda. Casualties were much more heavy...
All the above are factors to consider when trying to solve the mystery of "othismos". I do not clam to propose the one and only truth, but the issue is much more complex than we sometimes give credit to.
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.
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 backstepping 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.
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.
(Actually I have rehearsed such maneuvers multiple times and I always came to the conclusion that a warrior who would push his way into the enemy files would die in a matter of seconds unable to really protect himself, especially if he was allowed to penetrate more than one rank. I am a relatively big guy, so at such a match I pushed my opponent some 3-4 meters away and my own impetus drove me into the enemy formation. In the split seconds that took for me to find my steps, I was dead... )
4. There is no such instance described in any ancient or medieval account.
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.
6. Why did other armies deploy in such depths?
7.How come that phalanxes 50 men deep lost to phalanxes 12 men deep?
8. Why is order so much being praised, since it would be lost in seconds after the charge?
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? And of course, why isn't it stated as a tactic to fight against shallow formations?
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.
My proposal is as follows.
The phalanx (hoplite and Macedonian) would close in at slow march. If the enemy was armed with bows, the phalanx would sometimes advance at slow run (also very difficult if you are holding your hoplon towards the enemy, maybe it would be better understood as something between a quick march and a slow run, where you do not have to raise your thighs much, for these would be hindered by a forward looking hoplon.) The objective was to reach at spear point distance (1-2 meters much longer for pikemen), where (as all texts state) you would start stabbing at your opponent. The back ranks would discharge javelins, spears, stones, chairs and whatever else they thought heavy or pointy enough to make the enemy uncomfortable. Spears would break, spears would be given to the front from the back, the wounded and the very few dead would be dragged behind and the epistates would take his place in the front rank. At some point, the signal would be given, the spears would be given to the back ranks and swords would be unsheathed (hoplite phalanx only). At the next signal, the front ranks would march forward with small steps, keeping their holpa locked and presenting a single shieldwall. The enemy might try to keep them back for some time, but they would soon get rid of their spears and draw swords too, since, should the enemy line, just a yard away reach them, their spear hands would present a very good target and they would be unable to hit at the front man of the enemy due to the length of their weapons. During this phase, the back ranks would close in (reduce the distance between ranks from half a meter to a meter or so to nil) support their comrades with their spears, stabbing at the enemy, who would now be very reluctant to even raise his face above his shield, since 2, maybe 3 spears from different angles would attack him. Unable to see much, he would stab above the shield with calculated movements, even coordinate with the man next to him for more chances to produce a wound. Should the battle go well, should the commander detect low morale in the enemy lines, he would give the command for "othismos". The enemy would most possibly already have retreated many yards and now it was time to crush their morale, not their bodies. The line would still be in order, the shields locked, the men behind the swordsmen (most possibly 2-3 ranks) stood firm, supporting their countrymen, not allowing them even the thought of cowering out (and because of the proximity and the support (actually small calculated push), even bodies would remain standing, as is also attested by the ancients)... A loud signal would be given, the back rows would pass the word to the front ranks to await the order (most possibly given to the whole line or at least a big part thereof and not to small subunits). The order would be something like "Half a step forward!", certainly not more than 2-3 steps. At this time, the front ranks would take their pushing positions and at the exact time of the signal they would en mass push forward combining their strengths at a rate not dangerous for the balance of the front rankers shouting something like (en! dio! (one! two!)) to coordinate their steps. The back ranks would not really push hard but more like support the steps advanced by keeping their shieldwalls as a wall to support the backs of the front rankers. In this way, the advance would be also made en mass and the shield wall (order) would remain intact, while an unprepared enemy would succumb and some of the opponents would lose balance, fall and subsequently lose their lives... At this time, the heads of the pushing front rankers would be looking down counting steps, sword in hand, to stab at the feet or head and shoulders of an enemy fallen and trodden over. When the maneuver would be complete (1-3 seconds not more), there would be a short interval to remedy any problem which would arise and then a similar order would be given. Ordered swordplay behind the shieldwall would ensue and the battle would go on. In those accounts, where an "othismos" is seemingly described, we have the commanders shout "Give me a step and we have conquered! (Epameinondas, but not the only example)" It seems that when an enemy was ready to give in, this maneuver would deliver the final blow.
Of course the hoplite shieldwall could not maintain a perfectly straight line. But two or three steps forward, especially if the shields were locked on the right side, would not endanger the cohesion. A right lock, would actually hinder the advance of a very strong individual if his right man was not able to push as effectively, thus protecting the phalanx's order.
This is my opinion regarding the "othismos" drill. I support the massiveness of the drill (everyone partook in it) but not in the absence of control and exertion of uncontrollable raw physical strength and without any attention to and coordination with the other ranks.
