New hoplite book

[Astiryu1]

I have found personally that by sinking down about a foot in your stance helps your center of gravity. The drop in height also would allow the rear rank to attack more effectively. I "push" against my friend that weighs around 300 lbs. and I weigh a little less than 200 lbs. This is the only way I am able to move him. Unless I pole vault with my spear into him. A tactic that looks similar is the gun volleys from the U.S. Civil War era. Except with shields and forward momentum.
The vault with the spear comes from Kung Fu practice. It would be executed with a dual side kick (both feet out) and connecting with the heels.
I know it is not something that would be widely used to break a shield wall but more for unhorsing someone.

[PMBardunias]

I have found personally that by sinking down about a foot in your stance helps your center of gravity.

Lowering your center of gravity is correct for pushing match between two opponents. One of the first things that football linemen lear is how to stay low- usually by being made to run through a channel with low slung metal bars that make a lyrical and embarrasing chime as your helmet bounces of each. This is also how men push in a rugby scrum. They lower their bodies and more importantly, lock them together by hooking shoulders behind thighs and under arms, to form a single solid mass. They do this because any motion between individuals in the scrum bleeds force from the forward thrust.

Unfortunately hoplites cannot do this with an aspis. Thus, they have to lock their bodies together in the only manner possible, standing almost straight up, shield across their chest, pressed into the man's back in front, with a shield pressed to their back behind. This leads to a less powerful thrust per man than generated by rugby players, but is easier to add additional ranks to. Theoretically there is no limit to how many men you can add, the problem is that in order to push forward with maximal force you all need to lean forward in synchrony. This probably becomes impossible above a certain size, leading to multiple waves of force moving through a long file, often counteracting each other.

[Astiryu1]

What is the view point of a side stance with contact of shoulder, arm, hip, and thigh? The mechanics of the crowd are the points I do not understand fully as of yet. If instead of one continuous push; many controlled pushes would suit this method. One would need preparation, good orders and timing to do so. Think waves on a beach. They crash, recede and crash once again. Many warriors all over the world have turned to their natural surroundings to enhance understanding. Why not the Greeks?

[PMBardunias]

What is the view point of a side stance with contact of shoulder, arm, hip, and thigh?

By this do you mean why was a side stance ever advocated? If you don't follow the mechanics of pushing in a file to their logical conclusion, then this makes some sense. I have shown why the notion of the aspis's concave shape was NOT to rest its weight on the shoulder, but to those who believed this, side pushing was natural. It had a number of good reasons for being put forward 1)The stance facilitates overlapping the shield -left over right. The stance clears the rear, right arm to more effectively wield a spear. 2)Many images show men standing in this side-on position. 3)Xenophon tells that Egyptian shields that rest along the shoulder and upper arm are good for pushing. 4)Arrian describes pushing with the side and knee.

But the aspis did not evolve to be hung from the shoulder to help deal with the weight of a shield growing larger, becuase much of the increased weight is in the turned-back rim itself, which is thicker than the shield face. Lose the rim and the shield is no heavier than many single grip shields.

Also: 1) As I pointed out, right over left is not the optimal pattern for a cohesive shield wall. It is only the default because so many images show phalanxes that appear to do this until you realize that they are not overlapped at all and weapons jut out between the shields. 2) Many images are side on, but many are not. I can explain the side-on images as following a common Asiatic convention where the hips are facing lateral and the shoulders twisted to the fore. This can be commonly seen in Egyptian art, even in unarmed supplicants and has nothing to do with a fighting stance. Additionally many images may be based on javelin throwers (as Mathews paper points out). A while back I noted the similarity between statues such as Zeus throwing his lightening bolt and this stance. Against that I don't think anyone can explain away the many images not in a side-on stance. 3) A careful reading of Xenophon will show, I believe, that he is referring to shields that are held with the shoulder and upper arm to mean those with a porpax, not a physical description of where they lay when pushing, for in the nest section he describes shields held in the hand ad innapropriate for pushing. In any case, the description could just as well fit for a shield held against the front of the shoulder and upper arm as the side. 4) Arrian's description is influenced by a Roman formation, the Fulcum, a relative of the testudo, and not a hoplite phalanx.

The mechanics of the crowd are the points I do not understand fully as of yet. If instead of one continuous push; many controlled pushes would suit this method. One would need preparation, good orders and timing to do so.

It can be done with no training whatsoever and even without intention. Little girls at rock concerts and old ladies hoping for after Thanksgiving bargains regularly generate crushing forces when they crowd together. In these crowds there is one simple rule- move forward. Maximizing the waves of force, especially over very deep files would take practice, but not necessarily practice at fighting in a phalanx. Anything where men are trained to move in unison- like the many group dances favored by Greeks to this day, would help. Othismos was initially a great leveller, largely eliminating advantages in arms training. As Xenophon writes, how can you miss? Specialized close-in defensive techniques- perhaps the "wrestling with shields" Plutarch speaks of for the Thebans- and means of maximizing crowd pushing or "cheating" by adding ranks are natural later developments. Of course countering the threat of othismos all together by encircling the dense mass of troops as advocated in the Cyropaedia to nullify a thinly veiled analogy to the Theban ultra-deep phalanx, engaging with peltasts that don't try to stand their ground, or creating sarissaphoroi that can keep battles at spear's length are also natural responses.

[Old Husker]

I think it's possible that the 'side-on' stance might have been confined to certain, specific circumstances, such as small unit combat, where the action didn't evolve all the way into othismos proper. This facing along with a defensive crouch might well have been instinctive and dominant unless overridden by the natural forces that irresistably compelled men into the tightly pressed, upright position necessary to survive and effectively apply othismos. It also seems reasonable (as previously suggested) that the last rank in a phalanx might have used an inclined shoulder push with left leg forward (and, perhaps, a grounded spear butt for even greater leverage) to impart maximum force on the rank immediately ahead within the overall othismos effort (we had discussed earlier how this was one way they could have transmited commands for coordinating a concerted push amid the noise and distraction of battle). Indeed, though not the technique applied by most of the hoplites in the phalanx, this approach might have been a key suppliment (both physically and for purposes of command and control) and thus at least a lesser consideration in aspis design. At any rate, such exceptions in stance wouldn't seem to conflict with your conclusion that an 'up-right' stance was required of everyone else in a proper phalanx action (something on which your data seems quite convincing). Existence of multiple techniques for varying circumstances might therefore combine with non-realistic artistic conventions to help explain some of the otherwise confusing depictions of and comments upon hoplite combat that we see in the ancient record. - Regards

[PMBardunias]

Another reason that side-on pushing is attractive is that it is easy for those who have not done any serious pushing to relate to. If pushed against, you will naturally assume this position for two reasons;

You can squat down low on your left leg and extend your right behind you. What this does not only lower your center of gravity, but also makes the angle between your leg and the ground more acute (smaller), which transfers more force directly into the soil.

Second, and related, you increase the traction of your foot by turning it out sideways and increaseing the area of surface in contact with the ground. I was a big advocate of this back in the late '90s, then I realized that it doesn't work because I like everyone else was trying to apply individual pushing methods to group pushing. It does not work.

The main problem is that it is static. You are restisting force based mostly on your bones not your muscles. Bones don't push back. Its like being propped up with a two-by-four (wooden prop). You might think you can scoot ahead and reset, but against someone pushing properly you can never make headvay to scoot into.

To push using maximal muscle power, you need to be facing head-on- like football linemen and rugby players- and keep your feet churning ahead. Your strongest muscles are designed to push you forward.

Also, the tug-o-war analogy commonly used predisposes the image of turning sideways, but pulling on a rope is absolutely nothing like pushing en masse. I wish this analogy had never been used for it is very confusing. The inflexible rope allows force transfer through the file, to be analogous hoplites would need to all grab an iron rod and push it like a battering ram. To push without a bar you need to pack together.


EDIT: (Fred posted while I was writing, so I'll add a response)

think it's possible that the 'side-on' stance might have been confined to certain, specific circumstances, such as small unit combat, where the action didn't evolve all the way into othismos proper.

Quite likely. If a man were coming at me with a shield and I were caught flat-footed, I would stand side-on to recieve it because I can use my bones to absorb his force. Better would be to move towards him head-on and get low.

It also seems reasonable (as previously suggested) that the last rank in a phalanx might have used an inclined shoulder push with left leg forward (and, perhaps, a grounded spear butt for even greater leverage) to impart maximum force on the rank immediately ahead within the overall othismos effort (we had discussed earlier how this was one way they could have transmited commands for coordinating a concerted push amid the noise and distraction of battle).

They might do this to prop up the file in resisting a push- like a wooden strut- but in this pose you are essentially pushing with only one leg, the foreleg being too bent to apply force in anything near an efficient manner.

Indeed, though not the technique applied by most of the hoplites in the phalanx, this approach might have been a key suppliment (both physically and for purposes of command and control) and thus at least a lesser consideration in aspis design.

I'm not sure why, explain. How does turning sideways to the vector of advance and lowering your head below the men in front of you help command?

At any rate, such exceptions in stance wouldn't seem to conflict with your conclusion that an 'up-right' stance was required of everyone else in a proper phalanx action (something on which your data seems quite convincing). Existence of multiple techniques for varying circumstances might therefore combine with non-realistic artistic conventions to help explain some of the otherwise confusing depictions of and comments upon hoplite combat that we see in the ancient record.

I agree, surely there were many stances taken as combat moved from distant to close. My concern is to educate people that only one will allow for maximal pushing force. I have always made the disclaimer that is it possible that files did not push in unison as the "heretics" put forth. If only the front rank were shield bashing or pushing against their opposite then the other poses are actually preferable.

[Old Husker]

If I read you correctly, the idea is that the last rank (unlike those forward) might have the option to use body lean toward increasing the power of its push (each man applying both legs). This would call for a shove into the shield with the chest and forearm rather than the shoulder. If so, it would indeed resemble a rugby scrum or the charge of a lineman in football (even more so should the spear be temporarily grounded at the side to free up the right forearm for pushing as well).

With regard to alternate stances, there would be defensive advantages to both a sideways pose and crouch in the case of dueling/front fighting (in a small unit action or in the front rank prior to or during a lull in othismos, when more open weapons work was possible). This would present the smallest target for an opponent (as per the pose assumed by fencers) and allow an aspis to provide adequate coverage despite only 2/3 or so of its width being available for its bearer's protection (the rest extending off to the left as a benefit for the next man in line). One could then turn more head-on if needed to deliver an offensive blow (especially with a sword, though, like an extended fencing foil, the considerable reach of a spear might make this unnecessary).

As for the reference made to "command and control," this was aimed not at men in the ranks executing othismos, but rather to generals issuing a command to be transmitted forward from the rear rank in an effort to control movement of the entire phalanx, thus creating either an optimally timed and concerted forward surge or a pause/withdrawal as desired. - Regards

[PMBardunias]

If I read you correctly, the idea is that the last rank (unlike those forward) might have the option to use body lean toward increasing the power of its push (each man applying both legs). This would call for a shove into the shield with the chest and forearm rather than the shoulder. If so, it would indeed resemble a rugby scrum or the charge of a lineman in football (even more so should the spear be temporarily grounded at the side to free up the right forearm for pushing as well).

Yes, and they don't even need to drop the dory because they can push through the shaft like a man poling a boat. This would have the last rank pushing forward with both legs and the right arm, the force being transfered through the front of the left shoulder and chest and forearm. He would also be free to turn sideways and brace himself as described above, side-on, to resist being driven back. If he jammed the sauroter in the turf he could even brace his foot against it. Surely men did all sorts of things in times like this.

With regard to alternate stances, there would be defensive advantages to both a sideways pose and crouch in the case of dueling/front fighting (in a small unit action or in the front rank prior to or during a lull in othismos, when more open weapons work was possible).

Oh yes, straight up and flat-footed is a terrible spear fencing position. They surely opened out into the common 3/4 stance of most fighting arts.

This would present the smallest target for an opponent (as per the pose assumed by fencers) and allow an aspis to provide adequate coverage despite only 2/3 or so of its width being available for its bearer's protection (the rest extending off to the left as a benefit for the next man in line). One could then turn more head-on if needed to deliver an offensive blow (especially with a sword, though, like an extended fencing foil, the considerable reach of a spear might make this unnecessary).

You have hit upon why I don't favor the side-on stance. Van Wees also likened it to fencers who reduce their cross sectional area. The problem is that fencers have their weapons in the front arm. With the spear in the back arm you either have to jab over your own body, or take an extra step or long extention. Renaisance fencers when they did use large round double-gripped shields and long stabbing weapons (admittedly shorter) actually stood with their right leg forward! Then you are exposed when you strike in any case. I think the 3/4 stance more likely since it allows quicker, longer strikes and faster recoveries. That said, this has nothing to do with othismos, so I'm game for anything :wink:

Edit: A caveat to the above analysis is that it presupposes that a hoplite wants to strike at his foe efficiently. If all he wants to do is hide behind his aspis, then side-on becomes a more attractive option. This is a distinct possibility for many hopites. In That recent Mathews paper on othismos he makes a statement that all hoplites would surely try to stab into an oncoming foe, making close approach difficult, but I am reminded of the extensive studies on how most soldiers fire high and many never discharge their weapons at all in premodern and modern armies. Perhaps there is a parallel to be seen with hoplites simply trying to stay alive. One more reason for othismos, they cannot avoid being part of the crowd.

As for the reference made to "command and control," this was aimed not at men in the ranks executing othismos, but rather to generals issuing a command to be transmitted forward from the rear rank in an effort to control movement of the entire phalanx, thus creating either an optimally timed and concerted forward surge or a pause/withdrawal as desired

I think you'll agree that this would best be done standing forward like a lineman as you described in your last post.

[Astiryu1]

Are there any pictures or diagrams describing techniques of the sort? I am far to used to martial arts manuals for visual aid.
Besides it gives a good reason to break out the camera and play with friends.

[hoplite14gr]

Askelpiodotus saves a few commands but does not give details on their execution.
Oneasnders "Strategikon" talks about manouvers and not details of man to man combat.

Herodotus Thukidides and Xenophon wrote for an audience that understood these things and don't bother with exact details

There are lots of works and suggestions on these two sources but some come from people who don't know one end of a spear from another.

That why we do lots of trial and error as we are actually struggling in the dark.

P Connoly does a good job with manouvers in my opinion

Kind regards

[Astiryu1]

2000 years since actual use, limited visual aid and vauge firsthand descriptions. I feel your pain!

I study the Ninja on a regular basis. Sometimes I wish I did not like one of the most secretive groups on the planet so much!
Then I remember jumping from rooftop to rooftop and having alot of fun on Halloween when younger.
Besides without that I wouldn't have gotten my nickname in High School. :lol:

[PMBardunias]

Are there any pictures or diagrams describing techniques of the sort?

I have been in crowds of this density only on the floor at rock concerts, at two of which we had to hand up passed out people to the security staff. In these cases we were pushing forward only moderately and unconciously towards the stage and due to barriers we were probably less than 20-30 deep. Even 8 men pushing intentionally could produce a much higher sustained force. Sustaining it is the big difference between an intentional movement such as in othismos or a crowd fleeing a fire, as opposed to at a concert where many people are pushing backwards.

For some video of modern medieval reenactors who have come up with the same solution of packing in close to push against a shield-wall, see by blog listed on page 1 of this thread. I recently noticed I was mentioned on a Russian website, where a fellow ridiculed the use of such a video. Some people just do not understand the value, within limitations, of reenactment.

By the way, you wrote of water analogies earlier, here is the account of a victim of a crowd disaster that took 9 lives in NY a few years ago. People were pushing to get through a door and into a basketball game:

"I thought to myself, 'If I don't hurry up and get through the door, I am going to pass out.' My arm was pinned against my body and I couldn't move it, but I had one hand free and I grabbed hold of the door hinges and pulled myself through. It was like you were underwater and you came above and got air."

Importantly, it also shows that even at these densities if you have a raised arm, you can use it effectively- like to stab someone.

[Astiryu1]

Thanks! I shall keep this in mind. The only way to show effectiveness of some tests is to try it oneself. The previously mentioned Russian man should try and see what resistance he comes across while in front of a shield wall. It is like people that ridicule martial arts in general. What is practiced is admittedly not always used but for tradition and history we keep these techniques alive. Same goes with the shield wall!

[PMBardunias]

This image might help to show just how deep and crowdlike a phalanx could be. We usually don't see them to proper scale. It shows a 12 rank Spartan Mora against an 8, 16, and 24 rank foe.

[Astiryu1]

What if there was more to the phalanx than just the push? I know it is a game but in RTW I use the phalanx as a defensive formation. Greek warfare was dominated by the phalanx so it would make sense to use it to full capacity. An inverted chevron is a very effective formation due to positioning of spears. I usually put the commander dead center of the 2 units comprising the formation. I also protect the forward flank by walls or trees. I understand the traditions but question the solid adherence to it; especially in battle. I would post pictures but "fraps" doesn't work as an image for some reason.