Empirical testing of hoplite performance

[PMBardunias]

Some of us have been discussing ways in which we can being all of the experience of various hoplite reenactors together in a way that will be comparable and publishable rather than the anectdotal evidence we now commonly use. The basic problem is that we need something to quantitative to measure rather than a qualitative "we think this works better".

There are many elements of hoplite combat that need to be tested, but my main concern is the safety of reenactors, thus no othismos for the time being. I've attached an image that could serve as a first attempt at a standardized test for hoplite groups. This set-up is a basic stabbing test. The data will give us a rate of striking for a hoplite in formation. I think this rate can be fairly well correlated to the offensive potential of hoplites engaged in doratismos. By altering the size of the target and requiring more accuracy, we can simulate strikes that would "kill" or wound. Because we are simulating group combat, at least three men side by side are needed to create a hoplite bounded on both flanks by other men. For our purposes only the central hoplite can be have his strike number recorded, for only he in flanked by others.

Within this basic set-up, we can alter a variety of variables:

Duration of test period: stamina
Size of target (moving target): accuracy
Grip type: underhand or overhand
Number of ranks in the phalanx
Lateral inter-hoplite spacing
Fore-and-aft spacing
Number of ranks stabbing forward at targets (1, 2 or 3)
Striking while under physical pressure from rear ranks of various length files
Change focus to record the striking rate of the second or third man in the file

This is largely off the top of my head, and I welcome input. Whatever we are able to do I will runs appropriate statistics on and we'll try to publish someplace so that we can all refer to it. Obviously a large number of individuals being tested is good to control for variation between hoplites, but I'd like to get multiple groups involved as well if possible. I welcome discussion on this experiment and hopefull we can plan other experiments as well to examine questions of the mobility and cohesion of phalanxes.

[Dithrambus]

This is something that has fascinated me for a long time now, there are three of us here in the Chattanooga, Tn area, so I suppose we could do some limited testing. I will talk with the others and I am sure they would be happy to participate. I have been curious as to how multiple ranks would interact in combat without the rear ranks being subjected to 'friendly fire', I noticed in your diagram that the ranks are somewhat at an angle from those ahead, is this speculative or is there evidence to support this formation? It certainly makes sense, but I can still see a potential for injury to rear rankers. In practice with my own dory I have to be very careful that one of my children does not walk behind me, I reduced the length of my spear from 9' to 7'8" to allow for it to be held upright indoors (8' ceiling height) and I still must be cautious of anyone or anything that may be to my rear as the butt-cap still protrudes about two to three feet back, especially when drawing back to strike. Send me a pm if there is anything our limited number can do to help with the research.

Has anyone tried computer simulation of the othismos?

[PMBardunias]

Has anyone tried computer simulation of the othismos

On a limited scale yes. I have done some and about 5 years ago an excellent beginning was made by a New Zealand Master's student Rob McDermitt, but sadly he won't take it further. I need a more experienced programmer- or need to become one myself.

http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/2 ... ombat.html

Three is better than one! Let me think about what would be best.

[PMBardunias]

Here is a second simple test. This one is to quantify the loss of cohesion that we all know occurs as a phalanx advances rapidly in close order. You simply measure the distance between a point on any adjacent hoplites in rank or file- I suggest the left foot. Then you have the formation advance at whatever speed and in whatever formation you wish to test. The men are made to stop at some signal, a horn or simple shout is preferable to a demarkation so that it is harder to predict. Then you simply remeasure the distances between hoplites. The deviation between each pair from their original spacing is a measure of a loss of order. From there you can ask if they became tighter or looser. The test can be repeated varying the with different starting formations, individual advancing posture, distance, and speed of advance, etc.

[immortal]

It’s worth pointing out that the Hoplites in your diagrams would not stand like that. One push on the shield and they would fall over backwards.
Pretty much every soldier throughout history that uses a large shield stands in what is called a 'T' stance. Left foot forwards and right foot back, with the left hand side of your body facing the enemy. This is a very stable stance, reduces your body area as a target and moves your vital areas away from the enemy.

I don’t know how relevant this test would be, unless you get a large number of people who have lived in the conditions that a Greek would have for an extended period of time. Modern man would be quite unfit compared to the average hoplite!

[PMBardunias]

It’s worth pointing out that the Hoplites in your diagrams would not stand like that. One push on the shield and they would fall over backwards. Pretty much every soldier throughout history that uses a large shield stands in what is called a 'T' stance. Left foot forwards and right foot back, with the left hand side of your body facing the enemy. This is a very stable stance, reduces your body area as a target and moves your vital areas away from the enemy.

I don't want this thread to degenerate into a discussion on stance, but the full "T" stance is not optimal for fighting. You do lower your target area, but you also bring your weapon hand too far back to strike optimally without taking a step forward with the right foot. Van Wees went so far as to compare hoplites fighting in this stance to fencers who gain from the reduction in target area. What he missed is that fencers have their weapons in their forward hand. Hoplites probably fought in a 3/4 stance, common to almost all warriors (see below). But their stance has to change as the rear ranks close up behind the front, they become more frontal as the shield of the man behind them is pressed against their backs. They become still more frontal as pressure increases (if you believe in othismos and pressure from the rear) until they are packed belly to back. This need to become more frontal under pressure is the single biggest oversight by the current orthodoxy on hoplite fighting- you can't push in files all in a "T" stance. Of course this is just the type of thing that can be tested.

Also, the charge required a more frontal orientation of the hip and legs if not the upper body.

In terms of being pushed over, this is not a problem for a frontal stance. You simply lean forward into the force. Professional football players who get paid gross sums to not be pushed backwards always push like this- never side-on.

I don’t know how relevant this test would be, unless you get a large number of people who have lived in the conditions that a Greek would have for an extended period of time. Modern man would be quite unfit compared to the average hoplite!

This is not a problem because their performance will be compared to their own performance under different conditions. We're not saying "this is the stabbing rate of ancient hoplites", we're saying a man's stabbing rate under condition X is lower than under condition Y. Thus even if their stabbing rate is on average lower than that of a trained ancient hoplite, we don't care, because we are comparing the rates of the same men when there are 2 ranks striking-vs- 3 ranks striking, etc.

[nikolaos]

A few things here Paul.

Observation leads to theory. Experiment test theory. So what are the observations and the theory that this experiment is meant to explore? Will these results be meaningful to re-enactors?

The key point I'm aiming at here is that re-enactors are volunteers, not paid test subjects. In order to have them make the effort to perform a test you must convince them of the value of doing so, or at least pique their interest in what the results mean. In a way, they are both the proposal review committee and test subjects rolled all into one package.

So, in this case, what's in it for me?

Have fun!
Cole

[PMBardunias]

Observation leads to theory. Experiment test theory. So what are the observations and the theory that this experiment is meant to explore?

Hey Cole, I'm glad you asked. The set of observations for each experiment will vary widely, much more so in this field than in my own field of science. For most questions we have to bring together historical accounts, anectdotal experiences of reenactors, study of the mechanics of using individual elements of the panoply but not in unison, and previous theory brought in from other fields of human and animal study. So, for example in the test above that is designed to expore spear usage and the interference of rank and file spacing, much of what led to its construction is testemony of reenactors who have tried different styles. Add to that some evidence from ancient authors about how many ranks spear fenced and a bit of behavioral biology.

From this we develop a theory, in this case there is some evidence that more than two ranks of spear-fencers causes interference. Then I construct a test above to be able to add hard numbers to characterize "interference". In this case we should see a drop in accurate stabbing rate as we add a third rank. If we get that result, then the theory is correct. If we don't, then that is just as good, for it shows the opposite. Every good scientist goes into a study with two titles for his next paper. In this case: "Adding a third rank of hoplites causes a drop in accurate stabbing rate in the promachos" or "Promachos accurate stabbing rate unaffected by third rank of spear-fencing hoplites." This data then forms one tiny part of the greater investigation. From here we need to know if the total output of all three ranks drops when a third is added, etc.

The importance of tests like this is that we can get at details that we cannot through other means- a reenactor can stab a target full force, but not another reenactor, and dummy weapons are simply not the same (but for other tests we will still have to use them!).

Will these results be meaningful to re-enactors?

When you reenact, how many ranks do you use? Suppose we can show that three stabbing ranks so lowers the efficientcy of the taxeis that Greeks are unlikely to have used more than two. Obviously this is a contribution to hoplite studies, but you then benefit because you are portraying hoplites in the most accurate style. Just as you would seek the most accurate details of panoply, you would seek the most accurate tactics for demonstration. Also, with some things there may be immediate ramifications for how you design and construct your panoply- shield depth comes to mind.

The key point I'm aiming at here is that re-enactors are volunteers, not paid test subjects. In order to have them make the effort to perform a test you must convince them of the value of doing so, or at least pique their interest in what the results mean. In a way, they are both the proposal review committee and test subjects rolled all into one package.

Any reenactor that takes the time do gather this data with his or her group will first an foremost be adding to the progress of hoplite research. We are standing on the shoulders of previous researchers to bring the quality and accuracy of reenactment to its current level. You are not in a position to give a hand up to those that follow. Frankly, many of the questions we can answer simply cannot be answered by any other means. You would not be out in the heat with heads encased in bronze while wearing archaic slabs of metal and hand-woven flax that together cost as much as an annual vacation if you did not love the subject and want to see it fostered.

[nikolaos]

Paul,

Its an interesting question, but I think you are getting ahead of where we are.

The first priority of a re-enactor is to be able to interpret historical practice for an audience. That practice may not neccessarily effective, such as French tactics at Nicopolis or Agincourt, or easy to understand, like the complex interactions of 18th century linear warfare that require your being able to see the men you command, communicate with them, and have them deliver effective musketry or charge with zeal and bayonet only.

The first questions we need to answer, or evolve theories around, involve interpreting the sources and images we see, and then the scholarship deriving from them as effectively as possible for the public.

So, to take a piece of discussion from earlier in the thread, a critical question is what is the fighting stance of the hopite? How does he thrust with his spear? How does he cut with his sword? And once we have theories to test for these, how does he do things with those who stand behind him based on the images we see?

This is the foundation work that needs to be done to interpret effectively before we can start to dig down into the really gray areas. If we're not doing the basics right.

The worst part is that having this discussion makes me reconsider the experiments we really need to do on labour day.

Have fun!
Cole

[PMBardunias]

So, to take a piece of discussion from earlier in the thread, a critical question is what is the fighting stance of the hopite? How does he thrust with his spear? How does he cut with his sword? And once we have theories to test for these, how does he do things with those who stand behind him based on the images we see?

It is unlikely that we will be able to add anything to the discussion by extrapolating from images on vases. The interpretation of these images is far too subjective. Almost any arguement I can rasie based on images I can also counter using other images- or more disconcerting, the same images interpreted another way. Men have been doing this type of investigation for centuries and you see how far we still are from consensus.

We run into a different problem with any analysis focused solely on the individual- fighting stance, etc. The main weakness of using reenactment to understand hoplites is that we cannot go full speed, which allows men to do all sorts of things on the field that would get them or their neighbors killed, and we cannot replicate the sheer mass of men involved, certain patterns emerge spontaneously in large groups. Any style of fighting has to work in a 3' fontage per man, perhaps as low as 1.5' at times. I can tell you that I have seen many "hoplite fighting techniques" reenacted which are useless without at least a 6' spacing, probably more. The only way to get at this is to do testing in groups at varying spacing between rankers and between men in file.

My approach would be the opposite of what you suggest. Men have not changed much in 2,000 years, so I would throw a body of hoplites together in ranks and give them some measurable task, like stabbing targets, and then let them take on stances, spear grips and striking vectors that work in a 3' spacing most efficiently. Then alter the spacing, rank number, add some dulled spears being thrust at them, and various other elements and see what positions work under all conditions and which are better for some. Only then would I reconcile the derived data with art.

Short of a full-on hoplite phalanx Kumite, this is best way we have.

[Astiryu1]

Short of a full-on hoplite phalanx Kumite, this is best way we have.

Sounds like fun... 8)

I believe that all ways of training can contribute equally. Like in martial arts training in a specific task yields a specific result.
What about a set of exercises with kit that would help build strength, technique, etc.?
For example I have started to raise my shield up (in the classical vase pose) in sets of ten. This helps me build strength and endurance with my gear and the repeated motions become easier to perform. With a standardized set we could (as reenactors) follow the same patterns of movement thereby improving the unit performance as a whole.

I am sure that the Greeks did something along these lines, they did develop the Olympics after all. :wink:

[jkaler48]

I am guessing You need a good number of fit persons who have at least some basic drill experience and equipment that the owner doesn't mind getting banged about a bit to do. Let's say 100 sets of equipment and a company from the Greek Army for example. Throw in a couple of PHDs and a film crew a good ancient battle location and you have the basis for an interesting documentary. Cost maybe 1 million if you were frugal.

[PMBardunias]

Cost maybe 1 million if you were frugal.

Not to mention the legal consequences. But if any would-be producers/financiers are about, I'll gladdly take care of the rest. :wink:

Until I come up with a way of training white lab-rats to wield dory and aspis, the best we can do is small groups.

Edit: Actually, with the unfortunate economic situation in Greece, now might be a good time to do something like this. I wonder if the Greek army would be interested in supplying volunteers.

[nikolaos]

Paul,

I've read all of the scholarship I can lay my hands on, and what I see is a lot of discussion based on the surviving literature which occasionally references the art where it supports the overall thesis, but no comprehensive study of the artistic representations.

My own foray in that area says that not only are there patterns, but significant ones that may be illuminating if we explore them.

Now I have to write the article... Good thing I'm going on vacation.

Have fun
Cole

[PMBardunias]

My own foray in that area says that not only are there patterns, but significant ones that may be illuminating if we explore them.

I welcome any new analysis on the topic, but take a look a Chris Mathew's 2009 paper on othismos. He read vases and came to a conclusion about spear use that I have yet to find another supporter of. To me it is simply too subjective. For example, he came away denying the overhand thrust by explaining that when hoplites are seen holding the spear in this position they are actually throwing them- as per the Homeric heroes. I would think any of the highly detailed vases that show two men engaged in combat, one with spear overhand, one underhand would speak volumes against this. He also relies to some extent on the frequency with which elements appear on vases, something that I think useless unless there is a way to weight vases by their attention to detail. Then there are conventions that artists were using that we simply have not defined. For example, is a sauroter more likely to be shown when it is within the main frame of the scene, and less so when it is at the very edge of the scene- sometimes the spear extends off frame? If so, then using the presence of sauroters to determine if a spear is a dory or a longche, as Chris does, is unreliable. I don't mean to pick on Chris, but his work is the most recent. I don't think it is his problem, but that the whole endeavor of reading high levels of behavioral detail from vases is probably intractable. As long as we don't seek to get too much from the images, they can be informative. There are papers on Hoplite footwork and sword strikes based on images, for example, that seem useful. As always though, too much is in the eye of the beholder.