06-24-2009, 05:56 AM
Thank you Paul, interesting comments.
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.
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.)
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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?
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?
