P.Krentz - THE OTHISMOS SLAYER

[Gulan]

Where do these “6 feet apart” come from? Of course 6 feet apart is not even open formation… It means that each hoplite stands in the middle of a 14 feet opening! Regularly, when talking about densities, one speaks of the space occupied by a single warrior plus the distance from the one next to him. Anyways, I do not think that anyone disputes the existence of the open order. Discussing it surely does not rule out close order. Mixing light infantry with heavy infantry was very rare but not unheard of and is proposed in several later military manuals of armies that certainly drew up in close order AND could under circumstances fight in open order too. I do not see how any one of these arguments refutes close order.

The point exactly is how did a close order (and we should really not call it close but overlaping shields order)come to the piedestal in the first place so that it had to be challenged, which is always hard thing to do…

He is challinging that practice.If somehow more open order was in the place of overlapping shields it would be even harder if not impossible at all chalinging it in favor of the overlaping shield order.
I don’t have a text with me but he mentioned distances in the text, using later sources, but I think that is just an example not a definition.

He is arguing phalanx (I presume archaic) being in such a close order, stressing order, it was order, though not as close as for them to overlap shields,.order that was open enough for fluid combat and individual skills, opening or closing spontaneously due to the different factors, and in different parts of the battle line. In comparison with overlapping shields and 7 men on my back, 6 feet is extremely open, although I think Krentz calculated only distance from shield to shield not space occupied by man himself.

Nope… this discussion would be very long, if you really want to, we can embark on it.

No please do.I doubt discussion will be long since I am interested in hearing countering oppinions not making you change your mind. I do want to know why are these representations dismissed? And Chigi vase accepted as the only true depiction?

Yet, discussing othismos is not the same thing as discussing densities and you should keep that in mind. If in order to support an opinion, a loose ordered battle is necessary, you should first discuss that. And, a small mistake, of course there would be no Hellenistic phalanx in the 6th century, the term is reserved for the post-Alexander era.

Okay. I thought it did, since those are the two foundations of orthodox view on hoplite battle mechanic.

I am well aware of what Hellenistic is, I am deliberately using the term to denote the backward projection.

Thank you for a nice discussion, and taking time to answer.

[Dithrambus]

If I may throw in my .02 worth, I recently embarked on a several week long study of all texts (that I could find) dealing with the mechanics of hoplite/phalanx warfare, I thoroughly enjoyed reading Krentz, van Wees (I highly recommend Hans van Wees, Greek Warfare - Myths and Realties), Caukwell, Snodgrass, Luginbill etc. Of course I had previously read Hanson and various other 'mass shove' protagonists and eventually decided that the orthodox views were too...simplistic? That may not be the best word to describe my feelings, but it will suffice. After spending much time reading the opposing views (the heretics ) I have found myself in the middle of the road..so to speak, I see the argument from both sides and feel that both have something to offer, though I must say that in my opinion the open order (heretical) point of view is more plausible in many ways and I still struggle with the very idea of the mass-shove, but as I said, I am now in the middle and try to see both points of view.

[Gulan]

I think one thing should be noted...I am making my points for Arhcaic age only, arguing fighting at that time did not yet ''evolve'' into what Hansen, or better say ''revised Hansen'' describe...(if ''evolved'' is the right choice of the word, concerning the nature of Peloponnesian war,ethos and principles of that time)

[Dithrambus]

I think one thing should be noted...I am making my points for Arhcaic age only, arguing fighting at that time did not yet ''evolve'' into what Hansen, or better say ''revised Hansen'' describe...(if ''evolved'' is the right choice of the word, concerning the nature of Peloponnesian war,ethos and principles of that time)

Fair enough and one should specify the time frame of reference for these discussions, at the risk of being labeled a 'heretic' I believe some of the aspects of Archaic age warfare persisted well into the Classical period.

[Nikanor]

I have expressed myself in various forums on the issue of othismos and - paraphrasing the iniator of this discussion - I made no friends either.

Searching for explicit mentions of what we call "othismos" in ancient texts is like searching in modern texts descriptions such as:

"George took out his pocket the little metal piece called key and introduced it to the little hole in the front left door and enterred in the chariot and then using again this same key into the orifice of the starter of the engine positioned under the axis of the steering wheel so as to start the car's engine positioned in the front part of it".... instead of

"George enterred in his car and started the engine"

We can certainly have no such description and then we do not have many artistic work depicting whole military units. Artwork preferred to depict single heros and duels and this was maintained even in Roman times at times when the Imperial propaganda required the depiction of the collective heroics of the Roman legions.

I am of the view that we have to comprehend that we have very little chance to find explicit descriptions in texts and art and even these will not be highly descriptive. So we have to stick it to the basic facts:

1. "Othismos" is not a "military tactic" but the unavoidable result of the clash of two infantry armies armed with close-combat weapons and positioned in any other formation apart loose formations.

2. "Othismos" no matter if resulting out of an unwanted move or out of a military tactic goes one during the initial seconds of the clash and concerns the 3, maximum 4 first lines of each side while the rest cannot do anything else but push or throw any projectile they can have. "Othismos" can thus be not the main part of the battle as in no such case can both sides be perfectly matched to each other and stay blocked for hours, not even for minutes.

Due to 1 and 2, "othismos" had to be taken for granted by ancient writers, even by military experts, let alone by non-military specialist historians and in it being such it is only 1 little detail in the 10s of 1000s of extremely basic things regarding military affairs that historians have not made a single reference. Historians of the times wrote not for us but for readers who were perfectly knowledgeable.

But we do have lots of hyper-strong hints to realise that armies of that time not only recognized that battles among heavily armored infantries armed with close-combat weapons would often at least if not most of the times pass by the "othismos" stage at a certain point during the duration of a battle if facing armies that were not archers. Mentioning the numerous references to the value of the shield as a means to protect the formation is a well known one but then we do even have depictions of shields with eccentric (in the initial cense of the word, i.e. off-centered) positioning of the arm grip so as to position the largest part of the shield on the left side and in front of the next soldier in line, thus (apparently) permitting an easier and tighter lock. Now, how such a tight lock would clash with another formation is not difficult to imagine: mathematically they would end up in at least several moments of "othismos" - an act which in ancient texts would go under the general term "the unit engaged the enemy". It is not a question of "we cannot know for sure", it is a question of simple human mechanics. Said this, that does not mean that the phalanxes were all about othismos or that all battles among Greek armies circulated around that. With all the above I am actually claiming that othismos was a small % of the overall battle in terms of time and that it did not necessarily bring the result of the battle.

[Marja]

I suppose some of the reenactors, depending on their experience, might know more.

But the standard description of the Othismos as the push of shields, with the second and following ranks shoving the first from behind, seems like it would knock the first rank off-balance.

I expect the 2nd rank might keep about 6 feet behind the 1st rank [guesstimate], until needed, while the fighters in each rank might try to keep about 3 feet apart [as was late Roman practice]. 6 feet seems awfully far.

[Dithrambus]

For the most part I agree with Nikanor on this (BTW, hello Nik!) and I do not necessarily see Peter Krentz as the "othismos slayer". I think he and others like him, such as Hans van Wees are simply trying to put it in the proper perspective, as a part of and perhaps unavoidable occurrence in hoplite/phalanx combat as opposed to the whole of the battle.

@ Marja, spacing within a hoplite phalanx is a much debated topic. While I agree that six feet apart may be a bit much, there will be plenty who disagree. Though I would hesitate to place the hoplites much closer simply because they needed room to fight, at least until the ranks became compressed...resulting in the othismos phase. This is only my opinion, but there are plenty who would agree and just as many who will disagree.

Of course, as Gulan has pointed out, he is arguing form the perspective of the Archaic period. This really should be made clear when one is discussing this subject as it is important to specify which period one is referring to as hoplite/phalanx warfare no doubt evolved over time.

[Nikanor]

Hi Marja and Dithyrambus. I would like to add a couple of point of observation on top of my above long text. I think it is more the fighters of SCA who can hint. They may use armors of less historic accuracy and rattan-made blunt weaponry but they gather greater numbers and clash near-full strength something re-enactors are far from being able to do given security considerations and more expensive armors - re-enactors tend to be a more refined lot of people ;-)

So during such SCA fights it has been repeatedly shown that even very sparse initial formations may end up in a quite dense push match that lasts for some seconds during which the 3 front lines of each side cannot even use short rattan weaponry (let alone longer spear-like one) which lasts for several seconds until one side losens up a bit. Imagine that these are amateurs and while using force they will not go for a kill but will try and avoid accidents. We have to transfer that to a real battle. It always pays off to stick to shield than spear for the first impact.

The above is characterised by the usual description of the phalanxes acquiring during the last meters a rather diagonal line with the well-guarded left side moving forward and the least guarded right side remaining back (this as seen from own side) - if really the first thing to do in the collision would be to use the spear and attack then that should not happen - this is a quite strong hint (in my eyes at least) for main use of shield rather than spear.

I have seen depictions of more sparse 1-2-3 front lines and I am highly sceptical. Such lines can be dropped to their knees by a compact group falling on them. At the end of the day, why not? Sacrifice the first lines to provide a damping effect? But this sounds not that Greek. It sounds quite Asiatic or Roman, cultures that amassed thousands and thousands of armies. Roman armies were caste armies and their tactics aimed at practically consuming the soldiers rather than maintaining their lifes - and there is a lot of policy behind that (as it was more prudent to consume vassals, allies and mercenaries and even lose the battle rather than permit them to go back to their homes where you have to pay them while one day may as well turn against you). In Greek armies it was not the poor class but the middle and upper classes and even the sons of aristocracy enterred and led the battles in the front lines. The fighters formed tight military units that would move to achieve the best results suffering the least of casualties. Essentially this is a "conservative" style of fighting - this is what differentiated this mode from the previous more "heroic" mode of fighting (which also was not similar to Roman methods as this too did not aim at consuming soldiers).

Said the above (and I am sure many will find points to disagree) we have to bear in mind one basic thing:The hoplite weapons were already developed in pre-phalanx days and essentially these were weapons and armors taylored more for Homeric-like fighting rather than phalanx one. And then one has really to wear the armor and go try a duel. It is there where one can realise that over-playing with the spear can be fatal while it always pays off to stick to shield use for attacking. The main issue is always to bring the enemy to the ground. There you can finish him off with the savroter - which often saw far more use in the battles than the spearhead. If this is a case in a duel, then imagine how it can be the case in dense close combat fighting.