Posts: 4,029
Threads: 90
Joined: May 2005
Reputation:
0
Well, please excuse my bad English syntax.
I wanted to say that the manouver was done with both with 50 ranks depth and with 6 ranks depth. You are right, the depeer formation is more manouverable.
Our staff was US-m1942 helmet (emulates pilos helmet), rifle webbing and a 10 kgr backpack not the 40 kgr "Bergen pack". So it was roughly 15 to 17 kgr each for us.
The ground was tanks' shooting range. I know the distances from the signs and labels existing there. It was flat but not parade ground flat.
That gives a good simulation in my opinion.
It is true that ancient generals tried to get the maximum available flat terrain. Ideally two hoplites armies would choose to fight were the grainfields were and not near the orchards. Trying to mix orchards and grain fields was not a good option for the Greeks as it would hamper the defenders movements too unless he had good ekdromoi or peltasts.
That why lighter loose formation troops are useful.
Platea and Lefktra are relatively flat even today. Marathon minus the Olympic Works and the Hotels was relatively flat at 490 BC while Koropi 10km behind was and still is broken with vine trees. Thats why Miltiades chose Marathon. The "peltastic" asiatic troops would have gotten the better of the phalanx in Koropi (ancient Kropea)
I keep in mind that there is speculation in my arguments that is why I expect to form better viw depending on my Watford experience.
Kind regards
Stefanos
Posts: 489
Threads: 29
Joined: Aug 2002
Reputation:
2
Hi,
I agree the ancient general tried to choose the best possible terrain (although I'm not very familiar with Greek battlefields). But still, it is much easier to march in a formation which is, say, 50 meters long (if we allow 1 meter for each man in your formation), than in a formation which is 1 km (or more) long. In Goldsworthy's own words: "Since each man takes his dressing from those on either side, the entire unit will tend to conform to a shift in direction by one individual.... As a hoplite advanced, the minor irregularities and uneveness of the ground would have caused him to veer to one side or other or slowed him down in comparison to the rest of the front rank. These slight differences in direction or speed would have become more pronounced as the phalanx moved further. The men nearest to the hoplites who had strayed to one side or slowed down had either to conform to this movement or allow a gap to develop between them and their neighbour. All along the line, men encountered slightly different terrain and so began to move at varying speeds in increasingly diverging directions. Larger obstacles caused even greater confution...."
I'm not saying it is impossible to march in large formations, just that it is difficult. The whole part of Goldsworthy's article tries to find alternative explanation for the fact, that the phalanx was formed 8 and more deep. This in fact means, that there are at least four men supernumerary (front ranker to fight, second rank can also with limits participate, and 2 ranks as a reserve would probably be the best choice). Some scholars explained it with the mass shoving theory. This is just another possible aspect. A phalanx formed 4 deep would be twice as long as a phalanx formed 8 deep etc. Are the battlefields of Plataea, Leuktra, Marathon etc. flat enough for such long formation?
Greetings
Alexandr
Posts: 4,029
Threads: 90
Joined: May 2005
Reputation:
0
I feel that the phalanx would move easier in open order and perform Synaspismos (lock shields) only when very close to the enemy or resisting cavalry charge. I must say that I have some reservations if a mens block can jog woth shields locked. I plan to try this in June 2006 to get a 1st hand experience.
Archaic phalanx (700 - 600 B.C.) would be small armies fighting in the small style. The Spartans were the first to coordiante movement by mora (battalion) so they could sunchronize the manouver of larger numbers and perhaps thats why their opponents were afraid of them.
One trik is the command ENA ARISTERO!! When you hear it wou strike the left foot on the Ground. It checks sunchronization and adds psychological press to the opponet. Imagine 600 men doing it and you are on the receiving end.
One other trik to use for synchronizing is the vocal sighnal - evocation of a God. The leader counts 1-2-3-Nekron! and you start chanting while you step your left foot forward. Spartan example: - rythimicaly- AR-TE-MIS-A-GRO-THE-RA. It gives rythm, its a recognition signal, boosts moral and invokes the aid of the godess who hunts in the fields to drive the opposition off the field.
Marathon at the time was wide and contrary to the common belief Miltiades rested his left flank on the river and his right flank on the vineyards with the Agriliki mountain on his back facing the sea.
Plataea was a confused affair where the unsang psiloi helped the hoplites by holding the rough ground spots. Lefktra was the narrower of the three places, thats why Epameinondas did his trik
The real murder was done by rear rankers stampedeing or whacking the fallen enemies with their spear butts.
The idea is to bring your formation as close as possible to the bad gues and whack them. Traninng and dicipline help but there are no guaranties.
Lefktra proved that the dence ser formation would conquer even the Spartans.
Kind regards
Stefanos
Having fought in shieldwall, asa Viking and charged in Boarsnout, I'm convinced you can hurl a phalanx at your foe as a block. But let's forget the theorising and get on with the practice! :twisted:
Posts: 13
Threads: 2
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation:
0
Quote:Having fought in shieldwall, asa Viking and charged in Boarsnout, I'm convinced you can hurl a phalanx at your foe as a block.
I don't think the question is whether or not you can do it or not. I think it's whether or not it happened like that all the time, if that was truly the goal of the phalanx.
Having fought with SCA for many years, I favor the idea of the looser formation over the tight rugby-model and I will have to agree with paulaallen that there's not enough experimentation done with real people in real equipment(or at least suitable equivalents) than just a whole lot of theorizing. We can sit around and type about this stuff all we want but maybe some gutsy scholar will try to get a grant (idealistic, yes) just to fund a live experiment to finally get the answers. Considering how much everyone goes to look at primary source documents, artwork, and so on for information, shouldn't experimentation be used too?
Matthew G. Hlobilek
~Cobra of the Tuchux
"Rome wasn\'t built in a day but they took over in a week."
"The Spartans do not ask how many they are but where they are."
Posts: 354
Threads: 3
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
0
The comments of Goldsworthy cited by Alexandr do refer to realistic problems of marching a long line forwards. I don't know if Goldsworthy addressed the role of the Greek general in this problem. It has always been considered a puzzle as to why Greek generals took their place in battle in the front row of the phalanx; obviously they did very little commanding (as we understand it) once the phalanx got moving, and no commanding once the fighting started. They could set an example of bravery, but few could see them.
Perhaps the function of the general was to keep the pace and alignment of the phalanx. First of all, the other men in the phalanx could anchor their alignment on him (and his file behind him), since he was the general. If there is a clearly designated pace-setter, the problems of the accordion-like breakup of the phalanx may be reduced - everyone knows where the lead is coming from. Movement might still be a bit accordion like, as the general would start marching before the guys at the far end of the phalanx, but there would be a guide. The general is also in a position to set the speed of the attack. The men near him keep to his pace, and while there will be some variation further down the line, the guys too far front (or behind) do know that the pace is being set by someone else, so the tendency of parts of the phalanx to spin out of control might be reduced. This way the general could keep the phalanx from advancing too quickly or irregularly. The generals were, of course, veteran fighters and would know better than most men how the phalanx should advance. This would resemble the role of leaders in a cuneus type formation or a standard bearer later (although a standard is much more visible) - a group of men is much more cohesive and controllable if there is a clearly designated leader.
I find Alexandr's comment very telling: "The whole part of Goldsworthy's article tries to find alternative explanation for the fact, that the phalanx was formed 8 and more deep." This may be a valiant attempt to swim up a waterfall - impressive, but there are very basic facts that are hard to deal with.
With all due respect, the SCA may be of limited value in this kind of analysis. After all, many of the rules of the SCA are designed to enable participants to avoid inflicting serious injuries; the whole function of a battle was to inflict as many serious injuries on the other guys as possible. Two major targets in hoplite warfare were spear thrusts to the face and neck; and I know enough about SCA and re-enactment groups to know that thrusting a spear towards another player's face is not widely encouraged, because it can be so lethal.
Felix Wang
Posts: 4,029
Threads: 90
Joined: May 2005
Reputation:
0
Othismos some more speculation:
I was prompted to that abter I discovered that piercing line is not easy.
I will use the Thurea example. Argives vs Saprtans 6th century B.C.
Two elite battalions of 300 men clash. I give frontage 50 and depth six.
The first to ranks of each group (50 + 50=100 men) engage and the rest 200 give support and try to add their weight to bear.
Spears lock. The leaf shaped edges are sharp-possibly rasor sharp.
Very possibly that instead of stabbing they operate their spear in a right left movement. The corinthian helm does not cover the neck and the aim is to cut the neck artery. In this way rear rankers can be surprised and injured more easily. They might also be induced to retreat weakening the formation.
If the group behind the front ranks is not affected then it can shove the weakened group off. In stichos to stichos contest 4 (assuming 2 casualties) cannot easily bear the weight of 6 (assuming no casualties)
They will be a shortimed crecento action in which men would be a mob in bloodlust(adrenalin high). Then as the cresento goeas done the group that will be affected first will give way. The rear ranks wil bolt but the front rankers entagled with locked spears will be thrown down and murdered.
Just my two pennies worth.
Kind regards
Felix' comment about the difficulty of re-creating phalanx fighting without seriously injuring people applies to any attempt at re-enactment, not just the SCA.
It seems to me, from my re-enactment fighting, that the face and throat must have been the targets of choice in any situation where shields were used, but more especially so where the shields were large enough to cover both the thorax and a substantial part of the legs.
Something that makes it even more attractive in Hoplite combat is the fact that, in close formation, the option to thrust at the enemy from under one's own shield no longer exists.
Re-enacting this, with metal weapons, even blunt ones, would inevitably lead to some terrible eye injuries. There are only two possible ways of overcoming this, to achieve an authentic style of combat. One is to use an inauthentic style of helmet, which has mesh or other eye protection, in conjunction with some form of protection for the throat. (A colleague of mine has seen evidence on Greek skeletons which indicate a spearthrust to the throat, with the neck vertebrae being struck from the inside.) the other method is to use practice speartips which can't penetrate the eyehole of a helmet. This is probably the simpler answer (unless we all discard helmets and use fencing masks instead) and is the one I propose to use. Tough on those who have Attic or other open-face helms, but there you are.
Something that troubles me is the number of representations in art of people with thigh wounds. We also read of men wounded in the groin. The natural assumption is that these wounds would be hard to inflict, striking over the top of an Argive shield, but I think it would be possible to inflict them as the two sides approach. Inded, this would be the ideal way to hit the enemy with a decisive stroke at the earliest possible moment. it might also be possible to strike these areas on somebody in the second or third ranks, as the front ones come to shield contact. I propose to find out!
I think it will prove important that the phalanx formation may have been treated as a weapon, rather than as a grouping of soldiers - it's essentially a big block with spikes sticking out of it, which is carried towards the enemy. The beauty of it is that, if the enemy can destroy the cutting edge, he finds another behind it. What I'm getting at is that, in this way of looking at it, there is no concern for the individual Hoplite's ability to ply his spear; all he needs to do is hold it straight towards the enemy.
Victor Davis Hanson says something like this in his book on Hoplite warfare. He speaks of how the tactic depended on the unwavering courage of the men in the front ranks, who were, effectively, being propelled onto the spiky face of the enemy phalanx. Their only hope, really, was that their spears might do more damage than the enemy's. A "short, crescendo action" indeed!
I don't know that using the edge of the spearblade to cut would be necessary; I think that, once the phalanges locked, it would be possible for men to thrust deep into the opposing formation, to find their targets (indeed this might be the only way the spears could be effective), perhaps striking across the ranks to acjieve the surprise Stefanos speaks of. I've done that sort of thing in Viking shieldwalls but I'd really like to do the Hoplite experiment in Hoplite kit, and in phalanx.
Posts: 922
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2005
Reputation:
0
Quote:Something that troubles me is the number of representations in art of people with thigh wounds.
Paul I once had been thought by a master of martial art, when I was taking some lessons of knife fighting, first I ask him what is the cut of his choice if he has to cut some ones body in a street fight etc.? That after I learn that by law, you couldn't give more than 3 cuts in a person's body!,
So he told me: in the thigh!.... I ask him why?.... He: because if I cut some one's thigh, first the person 'll be unable to move or fight accurately, then because the wound or flesh in that particular area of the body tend to open or become larger more easely than other parts, every time the person try to bend & move so it would be a great impediment for him to fight or run.
Also I heard up to medieval times, unprotected thigh wounds & arms were the most numeral in battle fight for same reason...
Of course!.....Not the Roman choice! :wink:
I try to recall more since it's more than 10 years out of that disipline, I wish to explaind myself better, is near 3:00 am I'm very sleepy! :oops:
Philip the barbarian!!!....Philip the Barbarian!!!
Remarks by Philip on the Athenian Leaders:
Philip said that the Athenians were like the bust of Hermes: all mouth and dick.
Posts: 489
Threads: 29
Joined: Aug 2002
Reputation:
2
Hi,
Quote:So he told me: in the thigh!....
I think, this is not very relevant for ancient Greek warfare. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would say, the first thing your master had in his mind when talking about it, was to incapacitate but not to kill the enemy (because of all the problems with law and the definition of necessary self-defence etc. - I hope you know, what I mean, I'm not sure how is it called in english legal terminology). Perhaps if there wouldn't be any threat of legal sanctions, he would attack other parts of enemy's body, to kill him immediately...
Why so many thigh wounds? Well, if your head is protected by a helmet and your body by armour, than the only parts of your body exposed to the enemy are your limbs, face and throat. What would you protect by your shield? Your legs or rather your face and throat? I'm quite sure the hoplites preferred to guard the face and throat. :wink:
Greetings
Alexandr
Thanks, Alexander,
The reason I was surprised at the number of thigh wounds represented in art is that it seems almost to imply that this was the target of choice and that killing was achieved by first wounding the opponent in order to open him up. My only problem with this notion was the difficulty I imagined in actually achieving such a shot, from over the shield rim.
My experience of shieldwall combat tells me that anyone with a big shield doesn't have to opt to protect either his face or his legs; he can easily do both, except when targeted by multiple opponents - a strategy which has inherent dangers for the said opponents.
Thinking it over, I came to the conclusion I mentioned above, that thigh wounds might be inflicted as the lines closed. I'm pretty confident that practical experiments will prove this.
I know art has license, but I feel that the art and the literature together make a strong case for the popularity of "low-line" attacks and so I see what Gioi wrote as being relevant. The effects of such wounds as he describes would be highly desirable from the attacker's point of view; the fact that the enemy is not killed is a small loss and is compensated for by the fact that his comrades will try to avoid him and thus their order will be disrupted. Also, a wounded man serves as a grim warning to his comrades and as an excuse to the unenthusiastic soldier to withdraw himself from th fray, in order to carry his comrade to the medics. Even if none of this happens, there is a good chance that the wounded man will fall down, disrupting his own phalanx, perhaps presenting an opportunity for another stroke or being trampled to death by his own men. The best he can hope for is to get safely off the battlefield, thus reducing his army's numbers as effectively as if he were dead.
Posts: 4,029
Threads: 90
Joined: May 2005
Reputation:
0
A description of many thigh wounds and choped legs comes from Romano-Carthagenian battles but there both oponent relied heavily on the sword and not in spear figting. No one can be sure if the thigh wounts were inflicted among fighting peltasts.
I think aming for opponents feet unlikely.
Like Paul I expect too that we might get a lot of answers in the summer.
Kind regards
Posts: 489
Threads: 29
Joined: Aug 2002
Reputation:
2
Hi Paul,
please let me explain my comment about the relevance of Gioi's statement. Of course the comment about the effect of thigh wound is relevant and also very interesting. But I think that the fact, that his master of martial arts would prefer to strike thigh in a street fight is irrelevant, because the reasons behind this decision are, I believe, absolutely differend from those of a hoplite in battle.
Of course you're right about the effects of wounds in battle. I think, the limbs were an important target in ancient battles (they were the only unprotected parts of hoplite's body) however difficult it could have been to hit them. I'm looking forward to your practical tests as well
Greetings
Alexandr
Are you going to be there, Alexander? It would be nice to be able to fly the Czech flag as well as all the others...
Posts: 489
Threads: 29
Joined: Aug 2002
Reputation:
2
Hi Paul,
unfortunately not. I would like to come, but I'm a student and in June we have examinational period. I will not have time to travel to UK. 
Greetings
Alexandr
|
