P.Krentz - THE OTHISMOS SLAYER

[Gulan]

Now I am perfectly aware that I am not going to make many friends here with this topic, but c'est la vie.
I see that points about othismos made by P.Krentz are a bit misinterpreted here, and wish to discuss it further. As I don't know how many members here read his Nature of Hoplite Combat, I will paraphrase parts of it...there will be a lot of it to read but worth it, of course better choice being to read the whole thing.

I am yet to see well argued derailing of his denying othismos as a hoplite tactic and idea of more open fighting in Archaic era at least.

His work was an eye opener, much more than Cawkwell, or Van Wees – and even they destroyed Pritchett and Hanson and other orthodox theory supporters. I still remember them saying hoplites got their names after their shield – hoplon (to paraphrase). How can one expect them to interpret much more subtle and complex terms like phalanx and othismos if they are struggling with hoplite (or even Molon Labe )..

I really see no proof of close/tight formation and othismos as a way of hoplite tactic in Archaic even early Classical era (And how close did the hoplites have to be to be in a ''close formation'' – in our modern sense of the word?)…and please don’t say Chigi vase, since it raises more questions than gives answers, and it depicting a phalanx in Hellenistic meaning of a word, is as fragile as fragile can be. Same as I don’t see Homeric warfare as just duels of few aristocrats in front of the large but passive crowd, also demystified by Krentz, nicely defined also by guy named Robert Porter http://wicks.ca/Corvusjournal/Corvusjour..._lake.html
I will paraphrase Krentz heavily in what I see being his strongest arguments.And I would like to hear arguments against him.

His views are:

- Macedonian proof about phalanx combat/and phases/ is to be disregarded because neither pyknosis or synaspismos phases of hoplite warfare appears among classical writers, nor by later in reference to the hoplite phalanx.

- Xenophon’s verb synaspidoo in Xen. Hell. 7.4.23 is not sure to represent a technical meaning and could also be translated as ,,formed a battle line’’ especially since Xenophon usually uses word phalanx for an army formation. But not exclusively since he uses some form of the verb τάττω as well. But literal meaning should not be forced - Xen. Hell. 3.5.11 ("if we and you should be clearly συνασπιδοῦντες against the Lakedaimonians, then others will join us") it is figurative, and could be translated "stand together."

- Chigi vase is among very few depictions of group of soldiers that could be interpreted as the (close)formation, in the contrast of the very often depiction of more individual or combat among groups of individuals, and it does not even fit into othismos theory even if we are to follow traditional interpretation. Even Hanson,one of the leading orthodoxists, argues Chigi vase is misinterpreted to produce a proof for archaic phalanx, ill advised practice according to him. Other, much more numerous depictions show individual duels or group duels, but are disregarded by some strange double standard by othismos supporters.

[Gulan]

Continued are quotes,and a bit of paraphrasing

- One passage of Thucydides is said to be a foundation of orthodox view of othismos,since he is describing the norm (5.71.1) But when read it is less helpful than it appears. Hardest to identify is what Thucydides considered a ξῦγχλησις? In the other words how close should they be to be safe or in ,,close formation’’ Thucydides doesn't say? The next [unquoted] paragraph (in which Thucydides uses the verb ξῦγχλησις twice) makes it clear that a lack of a ξῦγχλησις; can mean a gap large enough to hold 2/7 of the Spartan army; a compact ξῦγχλησις, therefore, need hardly have been as tight as three feet per man.

- ,, The maneuverability of the two-handled hoplite shield is part of the issue here.'3 Could it have been used effectively by a soloist? It had several advantages: the porpax or central armband helped support the weight, so that the shield could be larger than earlier round shields;'4 it could be held at an angle more firmly than a single-handed shield, so that blows would tend to glance off it; it would not be lost if the hoplite dropped the antilabe or leather thong, so that he could hold a spare weapon in his left hand. Its disadvantages were that it protected the left side better than the right, and that it did not effectively protect the back. But given that it is difficult for a right-hander to reach the right side of his opponent, and given that a hoplite could protect his right side by turning his body as well as by moving his shield (and would naturally do so in order to deliver a spear thrust), an individual fighter would find the double handled shield preferable to its predecessors. Vase paintings portraying peltasts carrying two-handled shields prove that a double-handled shield is not incom patible with a relatively loose formation.15 Perhaps the clearest indication that individuals found hoplite shields useful is that the epibatai who fought on triremes were armed as hoplites;'6 here there can have been no formation.’’

- ,,Of course hoplites did not always stand exactly six feet apart; special situations, such as the storming of a city wall, induced tighter formations." Nor was the norm necessarily six feet rather than five. But the typical battle order allowed significantly more than three feet per man. Only such a hypothesis would make sense of the evidence that some hoplites fought in a relatively loose formation: Tyrtaios 8.35-38, which pictures javelin- and stone-throwers among seventh-century hoplites, using the hoplites' shields for protection; the vase-paintings which show that between 530 and 500 the Athenians experimented with Scythian archers shooting from between men of the front rank;18 the traditional battle-axes which the Etruscans continued to swing, even after they adopted Greek equipment and tactics, until the end of the sixth century.’’

- There is evidence that it is said Philip II tightened the formation of the phalanx… [If it was shield to shield or shield overlapped already how could he make it tighter?] ,,Pritchett's belief that the hoplite phalanx and the Macedonian phalanx fought with shields almost touching led him to conclude that the difference between the hoplite formation and the Macedonian formation corresponded to the difference in the size of the shields: 0.10 m, according to the archaeological evidence (preferred by Pritchett), or about three times that much, according to the literary evidence.22 But ten centimeters would not have been a noticeable difference on a confused battlefield.23’’ [Krentz sees Philip’s tighter formation as an adaptation because mass of his infantry could not afford the armor necessary for hand-to-hand combat.]

[Gulan]

- Othismos in literary evidence does not imply orthodox view of othismos as battle tactic,even when taken literary. Noun othismos is uncomon and verb otheo and its compounds are seen in sources, In most cases they should be taken figuratively rather than literally. In the Iliad, great heroes and their followers fight now at a distance, now hand-to-hand. The formations are rather loose; the heroes can disengage and go elsewhere as needed. There is no othismos in the sense of "shock," or collision of masses of armed men. Yet Homer repeatedly uses the verb otheo in his battle descriptions. ,,In a few cases the pushing was undoubtedly literal. Take Thucydides' account of the battle of Delion (4.96.2): "No contact was made between the extreme wings of either army, since both were held up by water-courses in the way. But everywhere else the fighting was stubborn, with shield pressing against shield. Or Xenophon's account of the fictitious battle of Thymbrara (Cyrop. 7.1.33-34):’’

,,Neither of these passages need imply a mass shove or shock tactic; there is no proof here that hoplites in the rear ranks pushed their comrades in front. The pushing, though literal, might have been individual, i.e., a single hoplite against a single enemy hoplite. A push with the shield could knock the opponent's shield aside or make him lose his balance-a use of the shield attested specifically for Alexander the Great at Tyre (Diod. 17.46.2). This technique is also found in Homer,27 and I believe that Xenophon had it in mind when he wrote that at the battle of Koroneia "dashing together the shields they pushed , they fought, they killed, they died."28,,Why did the historians single out the clash of shields for specific mention, rather than, say, the thrusting of spears? Perhaps because they meant to indicate that the fighting was at close range; no gingerly feints or tentative jabs at a comfortable distance, but combat so close that a small slip might be fatal. ‘’

,,In most cases Homer's use of otheo makes good sense in the classical historians.29 They even used this verb and its compounds to describe the results of naval battles.30 What they intended to convey is that one side gradually forced the other to give ground as a result of the outcomes of many separate, but closely related, individual combats.31’’

,,When Xenophon tells us that at Leuktra the Spartans held out for a time, but finally ὑπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου ὠθούμενοι ἀνεχώρουν (Xen. Hell. 6.4.14), he means not that the weight of the Thebans literally pushed the Spartans back, but that the Spartans were overcome by the Theban numbers rather than by the superiority of the Theban hoplites or by a failure in their own courage-neither of which the pro-Spartan Xenophon could credit-and forced to retreat, step by step.32’’

,, Pausanias' description of a battle in the First Messenian War (4.7.7-8.13) may be rhetoric rather than history, but the terminology is correct: the Lakedaimonians kept their formation and were superior in weapons-handling, training, and numbers; the Lakedaimonians particularly used othismos and attacked man against man (ἀθρόους ὠθισμῷ χρώμενοι μάλιστα οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι καὶ ἀνὴρ ἀνδρὶ ἐπιόντες.- that is, individual Spartans pushed their individual opponents with their shields); nevertheless the Messenians forced back (βιάζονται) the Spartan right; they "pushed"( ἀπώσαντο) King Theopompos and routed (ἐτρέψαντο) the Lakedaimonians opposed to them.’’

- ,,The effect of my argument that hoplite battle consisted of a multiplicity of individual combats is to increase the emphasis A. M. Snodgrass and John Salmon have placed on gradual transition rather than sudden revolution in the switch from "Homeric" to "hoplite" warfare.’’

- ,, Snodgrass argued that hoplite equipment was adopted piecemeal by individuals who did not at first use "hoplite tactics" in a phalanx.44

- ,,the essence of a hoplite battle remained the hand-to-hand fighting of individual hoplites in the front rank, one-on-one, two-on-one, three-on-two, etc. The painting by the C painter on the bowl of a tripod-pyxis in the Louvre, which shows a variety of one-on-one and two-on-one struggles, may be the most realistic of all the battle-paintings…below

Now I don't pretend to have a definite view on hoplite warfare especially of Archaic period, or support Krentz having it…But the theory that has the least flaws in it should prevail, regardless of what is traditional and what is heretic, and currently any form of othismos as formal or defined/exercised way of warfare or battle tactic is certainly not one of them, and there is a bunch of other contra othismos arguments that I will happily quote.

To note, up until very recently I saw othismos as a well known fact. But now, as many other things I realized about Archaic Greece, not only it is not a fact, but a poorly founded speculation, desperately defended by some mind twisting ideas shaped to fit the traditional othismos view at any price...And only one quote from Herodotus about aristeia (not mentioned by either Thucydides and Xenophon).proves individual exploits mattered by Persian invasion, a thing not possible in othismos battle - and I really don't see awards being given to the men who massacred broken or routing enemy.(which would fit into othismos warfare theory). I can see othismos/if we must use it as massed tactic and not ''individual push of the enemy with own shield''/ when a battle stalemated without a breakthrough for either side, then the battle could evolve into a shoving match[though I would not use these words], although perhaps not at every part of the line and not simultaneously (Wheeler,2008)..But Hellenistic phalanx in 6th BC - no would be the verdict.

What is more, if we presume all kinds of lines and dents in lines would happen in battle as shown here...how is traditional othismos battle even possible?

http://www.ddv.co.nz/hoplites/index.htm


*C painter mentioned above
http://s18.postimage.org/bjq19k2wp/C_pai...falang.jpg

[hoplite14gr]

Dear Nikolas,

It not about friends and enemies abut about quest fro knowledge in this forum.

Mr Krenz is full of theory based on his interpretations of texts.

Here is an example of othismos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLB2m9OFOPI
(17 Celts vs an incomplete phalanx of 6 hoplites and light troops with no spears)
please see 00:31 to 01:54

As for the manuverability of the shield both the old (wrong) 1o kgr and the new more accurate 6 kgr have been found to be very manuverable.

Kind regards

[Macedon]

Now I am perfectly aware that I am not going to make many friends here with this topic, but c'est la vie.

If you look up older discussions about othismos, you will see that in this forum, there is a variety of theories supported by its members, many of them derived from our own experience and interpretation of texts. Our probable disagreement will not be a product of you being untraditional, it will be because most of us are untraditional in our own ways...

I see that points about othismos made by P.Krentz are a bit misinterpreted here, and wish to discuss it further. As I don't know how many members here read his Nature of Hoplite Combat, I will paraphrase parts of it...there will be a lot of it to read but worth it, of course better choice being to read the whole thing.

What do you mean “misinterpreted here”? Are you referring to some older discussion? Please, be more specific. If there was a thread devoted to P. Krentz I might have missed it.

I am yet to see well argued derailing of his denying othismos as a hoplite tactic and idea of more open fighting in Archaic era at least.
His work was an eye opener, much more than Cawkwell, or Van Wees – and even they destroyed Pritchett and Hanson and other orthodox theory supporters. I still remember them saying hoplites got their names after their shield – hoplon (to paraphrase). How can one expect them to interpret much more subtle and complex terms like phalanx and othismos if they are struggling with hoplite (or even Molon Labe )..

I do not see the point here. The suggestion that the hoplite was thus named because of the hoplon shield has been handed over by Diodorus and I happen to disagree with it, but surely it is nothing invented in modern times.

I really see no proof of close/tight formation and othismos as a way of hoplite tactic in Archaic even early Classical era (And how close did the hoplites have to be to be in a ''close formation'' – in our modern sense of the word?)…and please don’t say Chigi vase, since it raises more questions than gives answers, and it depicting a phalanx in Hellenistic meaning of a word, is as fragile as fragile can be. Same as I don’t see Homeric warfare as just duels of few aristocrats in front of the large but passive crowd, also demystified by Krentz, nicely defined also by guy named Robert Porter
icks.ca/Corvusjournal/Corvusjournal/Cor...ons_on_the_lake.html
I will paraphrase Krentz heavily in what I see being his strongest arguments.And I would like to hear arguments against him.

Hmm… you choose a period from which very little has survived in terms of literary evidence. To be frank, there is no proof that the Greeks did not fight on giant eagles too at that time… What I mean to say is that there can be no unrefutable theory of how Greeks fought at that time. One could insist that Homer was perfectly aware of how the Greeks at Troy fought, even though these tactics were not followed in his time and another could just choose to maintain that his descriptions are close to his experience of war in his era, enhanced by tradition and myth. If we cannot really understand the mechanics of warfare in much later times, where literary evidence is abundant, how can we maintain that we understand the mechanics of Archaic and early classical Greek warfare? Of course, this means that the “open order” theory is (at least) as unsupported as any “close order” theory.

His views are:

- Macedonian proof about phalanx combat/and phases/ is to be disregarded because neither pyknosis or synaspismos phases of hoplite warfare appears among classical writers, nor by later in reference to the hoplite phalanx.

Could you clarify whether you want to discuss archaic and early classical (this also needs defining) phalanxes or hoplite warfare in general up to the point that the hoplites took up the sarissa?

- Xenophon’s verb synaspidoo in Xen. Hell. 7.4.23 is not sure to represent a technical meaning and could also be translated as ,,formed a battle line’’ especially since Xenophon usually uses word phalanx for an army formation. But not exclusively since he uses some form of the verb τάττω as well. But literal meaning should not be forced - Xen. Hell. 3.5.11 ("if we and you should be clearly συνασπιδοῦντες against the Lakedaimonians, then others will join us") it is figurative, and could be translated "stand together."

This is a mistake I never understood... Why would anyone think that there is a "synaspidoo" verb in Greek? Whoever does so, clearly shows that he cannot read ancient Greek.

Now, the verb in its proper forms means “to stand as close together as would be enough for the shields to touch.” Even if one was able to support that as a word it could have a broader meaning, one would have to accept that it only received this broader meaning because it described what was usually done. The word “phalanx” cannot be used and was not normally used for “any” army formation (unless it is a later text specifically about Romans, where a phalanx might have been used to denote a whole legion). The formation had to be, or give the appearance of, a single body. No Greek author ever used the term “phalanx” to denote a complete battle-line with its cavalry contingents, heavy and light infantry. On the other hand, the word “tatto” or “tasso” actually means “put in place” and is just another word to use when forming an army. Yet, although I can say “tatto my skirmishers on the hill” I cannot say “synaspizo my skirmishers on the hill”. In order to use the verb “synaspizein” I have to be talking about infantry of the line that is going to be formed up in a phalanx. Of course the word “synaspidountes” in this particular example could be “freely translated” as “stand together”, but that does not mean that its true meaning is changed. If he was a Persian, he might have said “if we and you ride together” and that could also be “freely translated” as “stand together”. It also would not mean that the whole force would have been cavalry in order to ride. This is what is the case here. He is using this word because the hoplite infantry is the main weapon.

- Chigi vase is among very few depictions of group of soldiers that could be interpreted as the (close)formation, in the contrast of the very often depiction of more individual or combat among groups of individuals, and it does not even fit into othismos theory even if we are to follow traditional interpretation. Even Hanson,one of the leading orthodoxists, argues Chigi vase is misinterpreted to produce a proof for archaic phalanx, ill advised practice according to him. Other, much more numerous depictions show individual duels or group duels, but are disregarded by some strange double standard by othismos supporters.

The chigi vase is among the very few depictions of more than four Greeks in some kind of formation taking part in a battle. That does not mean that battles were fought by 2-6 men max. Who said that it depicts an othismos, so that it could fit into the othismos theory? We also have no depictions of any plaision, oblique phalanx, amphistomos phalanx etc. Unfortunately, there are little things we could really understand about tactics by analyzing the depictions on vases, tombs, reliefs etc. Whether there was an archaic phalanx is a totally different issue and has nothing to do with othismos or density within the formation. As for the duels argument it again makes me think that you deny the existence of the phalanx as a whole rather than dispute the concept of othismos. Which is it?

Continued are quotes,and a bit of paraphrasing

- One passage of Thucydides is said to be a foundation of orthodox view of othismos,since he is describing the norm (5.71.1) But when read it is less helpful than it appears. Hardest to identify is what Thucydides considered a ξῦγχλησις? In the other words how close should they be to be safe or in ,,close formation’’ Thucydides doesn't say? The next [unquoted] paragraph (in which Thucydides uses the verb ξῦγχλησις twice) makes it clear that a lack of a ξῦγχλησις; can mean a gap large enough to hold 2/7 of the Spartan army; a compact ξῦγχλησις, therefore, need hardly have been as tight as three feet per man.

Of course Thucydides is not an archaic writer, so I would guess that you indeed want to discuss hoplite warfare as a whole?

Anyways… Thucydides is very descriptive in this text and the word “xygclisis” (or synclisis) does not have to be defined because it just means “coming closer together”. Now, here he is speaking about the need of the soldier to feel safe and the fact that he “comes closer together” to the man on his right to feel safe. He does not speak of proper distances but of further closing in. If one takes into account that a hoplite shield is less than 1 m in width, then this should be the maximum space that Thucydides speaks of as being occupied by a single hoplite. Of course, a hoplite that wanted to feel even safer would go as close as his own shield would allow him to go, that is to a full overlap of shields. This could bring them even closer together.

It is wrong to interpret the noun “xygclisis” as a tactical term that means a certain distance. We could talk about the moon coming closer to earth and that we would also call a “xygclisis”. We could talk about two people discussing an issue and we again could have a “xygclisis” when their differences would be bridged. This whole argument is wrong because of bad Greek understanding, not because Thucydides describes an “othismos”.

- ,, The maneuverability of the two-handled hoplite shield is part of the issue here.'3 Could it have been used effectively by a soloist? It had several advantages: the porpax or central armband helped support the weight, so that the shield could be larger than earlier round shields;'4 it could be held at an angle more firmly than a single-handed shield, so that blows would tend to glance off it; it would not be lost if the hoplite dropped the antilabe or leather thong, so that he could hold a spare weapon in his left hand. Its disadvantages were that it protected the left side better than the right, and that it did not effectively protect the back. But given that it is difficult for a right-hander to reach the right side of his opponent, and given that a hoplite could protect his right side by turning his body as well as by moving his shield (and would naturally do so in order to deliver a spear thrust), an individual fighter would find the double handled shield preferable to its predecessors. Vase paintings portraying peltasts carrying two-handled shields prove that a double-handled shield is not incom patible with a relatively loose formation.15 Perhaps the clearest indication that individuals found hoplite shields useful is that the epibatai who fought on triremes were armed as hoplites;'6 here there can have been no formation.’’

Again, he is discussing phalanx rather than othismos. Anyways. I am aware of the loose formation theories but I find them very lacking. In this whole text, there is no argumentation against close order, just the assertion that the hoplitic shield could be used in irregular combat or loose formation. Of course it could. Did anyone say otherwise?

- ,,Of course hoplites did not always stand exactly six feet apart; special situations, such as the storming of a city wall, induced tighter formations." Nor was the norm necessarily six feet rather than five. But the typical battle order allowed significantly more than three feet per man. Only such a hypothesis would make sense of the evidence that some hoplites fought in a relatively loose formation: Tyrtaios 8.35-38, which pictures javelin- and stone-throwers among seventh-century hoplites, using the hoplites' shields for protection; the vase-paintings which show that between 530 and 500 the Athenians experimented with Scythian archers shooting from between men of the front rank;18 the traditional battle-axes which the Etruscans continued to swing, even after they adopted Greek equipment and tactics, until the end of the sixth century.’’

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.

- There is evidence that it is said Philip II tightened the formation of the phalanx… [If it was shield to shield or shield overlapped already how could he make it tighter?] ,,Pritchett's belief that the hoplite phalanx and the Macedonian phalanx fought with shields almost touching led him to conclude that the difference between the hoplite formation and the Macedonian formation corresponded to the difference in the size of the shields: 0.10 m, according to the archaeological evidence (preferred by Pritchett), or about three times that much, according to the literary evidence.22 But ten centimeters would not have been a noticeable difference on a confused battlefield.23’’ [Krentz sees Philip’s tighter formation as an adaptation because mass of his infantry could not afford the armor necessary for hand-to-hand combat.]

He could make it tighter (according to the manuals) by bringing the men so close together that they practically touched each other. The pikeman did not stand with his chest perpendicular to the sarisa. Therefore, 45 cm were enough in what was called a hyperpykne phalanx. Yet, this has nothing to do with the hoplite phalanx. The argument that 10 cm (or 30) would not make a difference on the battlefield is totally problematic. One should not see densities in cms but in relative positions. Open order allowed for one more man to stand among two men in the same rank. Close order allowed for each man to fight changing stances, rotating his body while presenting a shieldwall in front of him. Compact (huperpykne) order did not even allow a man to turn in his position. Anyone who has served in any army knows that dressing the ranks does not require any kind of measuring equipment. As for the confusing battlefield argument, it is exactly because of that why keeping your position in a tight formation is necessary. You may not know what is happening 30 feet away but you darn well know that you are “safely” enclosed in a friendly pack. Keeping cohesion was the most important thing for an army as has been stressed by all ancient military authors. And a tight formation safeguards exactly that.

- Othismos in literary evidence does not imply orthodox view of othismos as battle tactic,even when taken literary. Noun othismos is uncomon and verb otheo and its compounds are seen in sources, In most cases they should be taken figuratively rather than literally. In the Iliad, great heroes and their followers fight now at a distance, now hand-to-hand. The formations are rather loose; the heroes can disengage and go elsewhere as needed. There is no othismos in the sense of "shock," or collision of masses of armed men. Yet Homer repeatedly uses the verb otheo in his battle descriptions. ,,In a few cases the pushing was undoubtedly literal. Take Thucydides' account of the battle of Delion (4.96.2): "No contact was made between the extreme wings of either army, since both were held up by water-courses in the way. But everywhere else the fighting was stubborn, with shield pressing against shield. Or Xenophon's account of the fictitious battle of Thymbrara (Cyrop. 7.1.33-34):’’

Both the noun and the verb are very common and indeed they usually do not mean physical pushing. The verb is used as the verb “push” is used in English. When you say “I pushed him” you can mean a number of things including “forcing with words”. This is also the case in Greek. In later texts we witness a preference for the word “viazo” which would mean “force” (via = violence, force), which is used instead (or together with) the word “otheo”. Yet, there are a lot of instances when physical pushing is obvious in the texts not because of the word used but because of the context of the sentence it is used in.

,,Neither of these passages need imply a mass shove or shock tactic; there is no proof here that hoplites in the rear ranks pushed their comrades in front. The pushing, though literal, might have been individual, i.e., a single hoplite against a single enemy hoplite. A push with the shield could knock the opponent's shield aside or make him lose his balance-a use of the shield attested specifically for Alexander the Great at Tyre (Diod. 17.46.2). This technique is also found in Homer,27 and I believe that Xenophon had it in mind when he wrote that at the battle of Koroneia "dashing together the shields they pushed , they fought, they killed, they died."28,,Why did the historians single out the clash of shields for specific mention, rather than, say, the thrusting of spears? Perhaps because they meant to indicate that the fighting was at close range; no gingerly feints or tentative jabs at a comfortable distance, but combat so close that a small slip might be fatal. ‘’

How one interprets a text is most always open to discussion. Looking for proof in order to establish a theory is futile since there are no surviving video footages I am aware of. One should be looking for clues and synthesize a theory. Making up one purely by refuting another is problematic. BTW, there are mentions of the rear rankers physically pushing the front ranks. The example regarding Alexander is unfortunate and a grave mistake in logic… Diodorus is a much later source, in his time there was no hoplite phalanx, so I guess that all sources about hoplites are OK as long as they describe them? The next arguments are also problematic. I also disagree with the traditional theory of othismos and I personally believe there was no such thing as an othismos phase, although I do believe that there was a tactic that was performed by the pushing of shields. Yet, there is no reason to be at close range in order for “any small slip to be fatal”.. If you are armed with a 8-12 foot spear, you can stab at your opponent from a distance and this is what actually makes open order in a spear phalanx less probable. If there is an opening on your flanks then you will be the target of 3 attacks and not 1. Impossible to defend with a single shield.

,,In most cases Homer's use of otheo makes good sense in the classical historians.29 They even used this verb and its compounds to describe the results of naval battles.30 What they intended to convey is that one side gradually forced the other to give ground as a result of the outcomes of many separate, but closely related, individual combats.31’’

,,When Xenophon tells us that at Leuktra the Spartans held out for a time, but finally ὑπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου ὠθούμενοι ἀνεχώρουν (Xen. Hell. 6.4.14), he means not that the weight of the Thebans literally pushed the Spartans back, but that the Spartans were overcome by the Theban numbers rather than by the superiority of the Theban hoplites or by a failure in their own courage-neither of which the pro-Spartan Xenophon could credit-and forced to retreat, step by step.32’’

Yep, I already described how I view the verb “otheo”. Another mistake here is that the author asserts to know what Xenophon meant, which is wrong and the same mistake he accuses others of doing. He cannot know if Xenophon meant what he wants him to mean or whether he meant that they were eventually physically pushed.

,, Pausanias' description of a battle in the First Messenian War (4.7.7-8.13) may be rhetoric rather than history, but the terminology is correct: the Lakedaimonians kept their formation and were superior in weapons-handling, training, and numbers; the Lakedaimonians particularly used othismos and attacked man against man (ἀθρόους ὠθισμῷ χρώμενοι μάλιστα οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι καὶ ἀνὴρ ἀνδρὶ ἐπιόντες.- that is, individual Spartans pushed their individual opponents with their shields); nevertheless the Messenians forced back (βιάζονται) the Spartan right; they "pushed"( ἀπώσαντο) King Theopompos and routed (ἐτρέψαντο) the Lakedaimonians opposed to them.’’

Here he even makes basic translation mistakes… the phrase ἀθρόους ὠθισμῷ χρώμενοι means that they “used pushing en mass” and NOT individually. Now, this does not necessarily mean “in a single body”, but the translation given is totally off the track. Nothing substantial is offered in this text supporting irregular or loose order fighting.

- ,,The effect of my argument that hoplite battle consisted of a multiplicity of individual combats is to increase the emphasis A. M. Snodgrass and John Salmon have placed on gradual transition rather than sudden revolution in the switch from "Homeric" to "hoplite" warfare.’’

I totally disagree with the multiplicity of individual combats theory. It is totally against all tactical doctrines described by the ancients.

- ,, Snodgrass argued that hoplite equipment was adopted piecemeal by individuals who did not at first use "hoplite tactics" in a phalanx.44

…so?

- ,,the essence of a hoplite battle remained the hand-to-hand fighting of individual hoplites in the front rank, one-on-one, two-on-one, three-on-two, etc. The painting by the C painter on the bowl of a tripod-pyxis in the Louvre, which shows a variety of one-on-one and two-on-one struggles, may be the most realistic of all the battle-paintings…below

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

Now I don't pretend to have a definite view on hoplite warfare especially of Archaic period, or support Krentz having it…But the theory that has the least flaws in it should prevail, regardless of what is traditional and what is heretic, and currently any form of othismos as formal or defined/exercised way of warfare or battle tactic is certainly not one of them, and there is a bunch of other contra othismos arguments that I will happily quote.

I would advise to look up the discussions already made on that matter here in this forum. You will find arguments for and against, theories etc. Then, if you are not satisfied and have more to add or dispute I would be more than happy to participate in a thread where you will discuss your personal views.

To note, up until very recently I saw othismos as a well known fact. But now, as many other things I realized about Archaic Greece, not only it is not a fact, but a poorly founded speculation, desperately defended by some mind twisting ideas shaped to fit the traditional othismos view at any price...And only one quote from Herodotus about aristeia (not mentioned by either Thucydides and Xenophon).proves individual exploits mattered by Persian invasion, a thing not possible in othismos battle - and I really don't see awards being given to the men who massacred broken or routing enemy.(which would fit into othismos warfare theory). I can see othismos/if we must use it as massed tactic and not ''individual push of the enemy with own shield''/ when a battle stalemated without a breakthrough for either side, then the battle could evolve into a shoving match[though I would not use these words], although perhaps not at every part of the line and not simultaneously (Wheeler,2008)..But Hellenistic phalanx in 6th BC - no would be the verdict.

Many do. Not in this forum though. 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.

What is more, if we presume all kinds of lines and dents in lines would happen in battle as shown here...how is traditional othismos battle even possible?

It is. Locally keeping cohesion has little to do with the shape a phalanx has when seen from eagle eye view. I have not used any sources here, just illustrated a rough opinion on the parts of the text presented. If you are interested I can do so wherever you might feel necessary.

About the article as a whole I would suggest that, although I largely agree that the traditional theory of othismos is unsupported and tactically more risky than not and against the notion of good order, it is the product of a poor study based on unsatisfying translations in order to advance a very specific point of view. The omissions are so striking that one could even assume that they were not made by mistake. I also have to say that the issue of loose order being the standard tactic of hoplites is a totally different discussion and although I understand how an othismos would be impossible in such a formation, as a theory Krentz only mentions it and does in no way adequately support it.

[Robert Vermaat]

Here is an example of othismos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLB2m9OFOPI
(17 Celts vs an incomplete phalanx of 6 hoplites and light troops with no spears)
please see 00:31 to 01:54

Is this really a good example? I mean, the pila would have ripped holes in the Celtic assault or defeated it completely.

[hoplite14gr]

Well Robert your statement stands true when the Celts fought the Romans but there were no Romans at Thermopylae in 279 BC.

Kind regards

[Macedon]

To me there is no reason to look for the othismos at the initial charge as the traditional model ordains. All evidence I am aware of points to it being enacted at certain points long within the battle. The Celts of the 3rd century BC (and before that) are attested to have fought with longswords which they used to slash against the enemy in a downwards movement. In order to do so, they needed a distance which such portrayals of othismos do not offer. Furthermore, the Greeks' main arm was the long spear, which again would be useless if they so quickly engaged in such an action. And running to a charge also has nothing to do with othismos as is evident in the description of the battle of Marathon for example. Do not forget that Camillus, in order to more effectively face the Gauls who were again advancing against Rome, equipped his men with spears and thus he kept them at a distance hacking at the spears, damaging their own weapons.

[rrgg]

To me the problem with the Othismos isn't so much the density of the formation, indeed bunching up when threatened may even come as a natural response. Rather how you would convince people to charge full-tilt into a wall of spears and avoid losing cohesion when they get there?

[Dan Howard]

The Celts of the 3rd century BC (and before that) are attested to have fought with longswords which they used to slash against the enemy in a downwards movement.

I'm not sure how important that is. The vast majority of Celts in any host would have had spears, not swords.

[Macedon]

Actually it is because longswords you slash with in the way described as "Celtic" require a good distance from the enemy. The same applies with spears. The only way you can engage in shoving AND use a sword would be by stabbing. The above comments have to do with the video Stefanos posted, his and Rob's comments and whether such an attack (as the one in the video) would be effected by the Celts, not with the othismos per se.

[Robert Vermaat]

Well Robert your statement stands true when the Celts fought the Romans but there were no Romans at Thermopylae in 279 BC.

Nor any Celts I presume. :wink: I was, indeed, referring to the video only.

[PMBardunias]

I unfortunately don't have much time to post, but I addressed many of the concerns you have in my 2011 Ancient Warfare article on hoplite combat in the Marathon issue "Reconcilinig the storm of spears with the press of shields". The article goes a long way towards bridging the gap between the orthodoxy and the heretics. If you cannot access the article, email me.

[Gulan]

Sorry for my late reply..many stuff going around for me this time of year.

I was kidding about the friend part, it's okay. I came here to learn, and to present some of my opinions on the subject. I am not a reenactor, though I done several experiments on my own. I find it being a plus sometimes because my judgment is not being influenced by anything other than fact. And I came across people, reenactors, who we so stubborn accepting even lambda on Spartan shields was a very late 5th BC practice, just because it would make them either redo their shields or simply accept they are not photorealistic hoplites from the past.But stick to the point of the topic…

Mr Krenz is full of theory based on his interpretations of texts.

Don't mind me asking, instead of what. What else did any of us do than interpret texts and pictures. And don't mind saying being very bias at occasions. What would be a ''fact'' concerning hoplite warfare other than the most well founded view, with the least or no gaping holes in it.


@Macedon. Well I stumbled upon some interpretation of his work, maybe by P.Bardunias(once in discussion I feel I can mention members individually)... I thought that Krentz deserved at lest a discussion like this so everyone could figure for himself.
I believe in argumented, not dogmatic approach, so I enjoy countering evidence with evidence, interpretation with interpretation..

I do not see the point here. The suggestion that the hoplite was thus named because of the hoplon shield has been handed over by Diodorus and I happen to disagree with it, but surely it is nothing invented in modern times

THe point is misinterpretation is not a new concept among Hanson and others..It is not a modern invention, but hoplite deriving from hopla not hoplon is, today, much more common fact than what exactly is phalanx, othismos etc...Thinking like a 19th century historian, certainly isn’t a plus.

],,Hmm… you choose a period from which very little has survived in terms of literary evidence. To be frank, there is no proof that the Greeks did not fight on giant eagles too at that time… ......Of course, this means that the “open order” theory is (at least) as unsupported as any “close order” theory.''

I agree, I did choose it since that is the most violated and unrightfully misinterpreted period of Greek history…often defined by copy-pasting late Classical and Hellenistic times.
But if your view is true, then why defining Archaic warfare at all, let’s call it unclear or not well defined…and we both know full well it is usually defined as tight order phalanx battle, especially from Chigi vase/or highly questionable Hysiae, onward rather than either protophalanx or fluid combat.
If we use same standards for later reconstructions, let's use them always...regardless of what the result might be. I almost never hear about uncertainties regarding ancient warfare, historians know exact picture, reenactors know exact picture, even BBC knows exact picture, but at the end everyone is speculating their a** off.

I choose that period exactly because it is foggy yet somehow clearly defined as Hellenistically dense order phalanx fighting with othismos shoving match(shoving match sometimes argued, but Hellenistically dense order never challenged).
I do seek a reasonable explanation why, next to the abundance of representations of open warfare, few close order(not seeing how are they close nor what close even means according to those paintings) representations became a Roseta stone of hoplite revolution/evolution. Why does Chigi vase represent cca 3 feet per man, and not 6?

Could you clarify whether you want to discuss archaic and early classical (this also needs defining) phalanxes or hoplite warfare in general up to the point that the hoplites took up the sarissa?

Clarification. 550-470 BC is later Archaic with a decade of Classical…to me.
I am questioning extremely close order(shields touching but not close order in general) among archaic phalanxes or whatever we call them to differ them from Philip II..I am by no means advocating savage warfare without ranks or any formation or order, but not accepting Macedonian phalanx in 6th BC.
I am also arguing against othismos as a phase, as something all parts of line did on purpose at the same time as an exercised way of warfare,but a spontaneous answer to the stalemate situation or topography or naturall habit of bunching together etc...at some parts of the battle line,in some occasions. Even that is forcing the evidence, and can be a founded speculation at best. Othismos in sources being much more logically push of the shield as part of hoplomachia,not push en masse. And I think Krentz and others who said that before and after him, did show it.
And if we are to found our theories on interpretation of this terms alone than I agree, there is nothing we can definitely conclude, no fluid combat more similar to Homer than to Philip II, but no Hellenistic phalanx eiter - yet everyone accepts the second one more easily than the first,why?
If there are no definite proofs for either what made othismos stick so deeply into our minds today? What quote, what evidence?

[Gulan]

Now, the verb means “to stand as close together as would be enough for the shields to touch.” Even if one was able to support that as a word it could have a broader meaning, one would have to accept that it only received this broader meaning because it described what was usually done…

I do accept your criticism since I don’t know Greek...but I will double check that convenient deifnition if you don’t mind. But what is with the broad term in second example...? And Xenophon does use the term phalanx to denote hoplite formation…If Xenophon uses separate word for regular formation and term for ,,close as would be enough for shields to touch’’ formation doesn’t it mean it the two differed…

Remember also we are speaking about Xenophon a 4th c BC author. And his words being used for 6th BC formation.

Unfortunately, there are little things we could really understand about tactics by analyzing the depictions on vases, tombs, reliefs etc

Of course, I accepted using it only to counter another usage of art. Not as a strong proof itself, although we should be cautious dismissing Macmillian or C painter not basing their work on SCENES from battles.

Whether there was an archaic phalanx is a totally different issue and has nothing to do with othismos or density within the formation. As for the duels argument it again makes me think that you deny the existence of the phalanx as a whole rather than dispute the concept of othismos. Which is it?

I think it has. There is no orthodox othismos without shield to shield formation. Existence of either in Archaic period is in no way implied. Or am I missing some proof.

No, I don’t deny phalanx of course, just denying its Hellenistic meaning and technology in 6th or 7th BC. And denying existence of orthodox othismos as a organized phase or battle tactic trained for.

Yet, there are a lot of instances when physical pushing is obvious in the texts not because of the word used but because of the context of the sentence it is used in.

Exactly, but none of them implying a mass shove rather than individual shove of the shield technique, used even in Illiad. You would not mind me asking what are those, out of a lot, who speaks of en masse shoving or pushing.

Of course Thucydides is not an archaic writer, so I would guess that you indeed want to discuss hoplite warfare as a whole?

Of course he isn't, my point exactly. Neither is Xenophon. So why using them in support of archaic phalanx mechanics?

If we are to remain true to era, our only sources for hoplite combat would be very early one, Tyrtaios.

So again, how did the shield to shield phalanx of later times wander into the 6th and even 7th BC. I just finished a book saying Spartans revolutionized hoplite battle by introducing shield to shield phalanx and instant unity, without individualism, in SECOND MESSENIAN WAR hock: so they won thanks to it..

That lack of individualism dogma is another thing that deserves a separate topic...yeah, the trend by have happened somewhere in the all out crisis during or after Athenian war, but not in Archaic era.

but I find them very lacking.

In what? I would really enjoy creative criticism. Not just saying they are wrong, but what right would be, and what proof is there support it.

In this whole text, there is no argumentation against close order, just the assertion that the hoplitic shield could be used in irregular combat or loose formation. Of course it could. Did anyone say otherwise

I think this was aimed at Hanson and others who invented term hoplite revolution, that started with two-handled shield being introduced, that by some logics had to be followed by immediate change to dense phalanx tactic because of the armor characteristics..He is speaking about armor being gradually introduced not for phalanx usage but for individual, including Argive shield…since it's characteristics in no way imply it being better use for phalanx rather than individual. On the contrary.

I often see evidence being squeezed to fit a certain theory, rather than being judged by on their own. Krentz is arguing against that practice.

I don't like having to disprove shield to shield phalanx in Archaic time because there is no evidence it existed back then in the first place.