New hoplite book

[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.