New hoplite book

[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.