The hoplite, and how they fought.

Forgive me if this topic is tired, has been done over again and again or is not of interest to some. I'm referring to this apparently age-old debate about how exactly a hoplite would have, and could have fought within their phalanx, specifically of the way the spear was handled with the shield in conjunction, within the phalanx itself.

To save time and space, I'll attempt to be brief. I've always fallen on the side of over-arm spear usage when phalanxes have met each other and the shields have closed all distance. Specifically I'm curious if there's anyone out there at all who has personally wielded a hoplite spear, or a similar spear that has a rear butt-spike that acts to an extent as a counter-weight, and what their experience has told them about how the spear is best handled, especially should you be locked in shield-wall formation, and how practical over-arm usage is or is not. I've seen plenty of re-enactors go for this stance, and yet folks continue to debate it's impracticality. So, if anyone has this experience, I'd love to hear of it.

A second topic I'm curious about, is this pushing act. The Othismos, and why folks debate the push's impracticality as well. A man here has theorized that the aspis would actually give protection against suffocation. Has anyone handled an accurate replication of an aspis, and if so, I'm extremely curious what they think of this assertion.

Here are the links to that as well.

http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/2008/10/aspis-surviving-hoplite-battle-part-1.html

http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/2008/10/aspis-surviving-hoplite-battle-part-2.html

All this is based on the assumption of perfection. That all phalanxes were uniform blocks of equally well trained, disciplined and physically prepared men, who all fought exactly the same way. They probably didn't.

Despite all the hoplite circlejerk going on, I think it's a fair assumption to make that actual phalanxes more resembled all other shield walls than the cinematographic, robotic formations they're usually portrayed as. Therefore, fighting styles must've varied from situation to situation, from location to location, from time to time.

Roach XI the Magnificent said:

All this is based on the assumption of perfection. That all phalanxes were uniform blocks of equally well trained, disciplined and physically prepared men, who all fought exactly the same way. They probably didn't.

Despite all the hoplite circlejerk going on, I think it's a fair assumption to make that actual phalanxes more resembled all other shield walls than the cinematographic, robotic formations they're usually portrayed as. Therefore, fighting styles must've varied from situation to situation, from location to location, from time to time.

Click to expand...

I can agree to this, surely. I've read of surprising engagements where one side of hoplites at some point stood firm and held their ground, probably with the first rows' shields low and them bracing behind it, with the rows after standing. Apparently the opposing phalanx didn't try to attack but stopped, possibly considering the opposing side too much of a hassle to engage once they were well dug in.

That said, what I am very curious about is the practicality of certain manners of fighting. I've noticed that most re-enactors tend to utilize an overhand style, whether or not their shields are interlocked, for instance, and yet some claim that wouldn't give one enough power to kill from that angle. (I'm not sure why, but if anyone has experience wielding a dory or similar spear, I'd be happy to hear it)

I've wielded a spear of similar size to the dory, without butt-spike, and tested the observations of some people who come down on the side of under-arm use of the spears, and I agree with most of what they say.

First off, you do lose a lot of reach with over-arm use, basically nullifying the whole point of spears. And then there's the fact that, holding the spear above you, in the middle of its shaft, basically makes the whole thing act like a see-saw, bearing in mind that a 'counter-weight' is liable to add to that effect significantly.

Then there's the loss of the range of movement of the spear. When spear-formations clash, you should never be killed by the guy standing across from you, instead you'll be killed by the guy two places to his left who reaches over and uses the range of his weapon to stab you in the throat when you're open - if he's using his spear under-arm he might not even stab you in the throat, he could probably get you in the foot just as easily - whereas if you're holding the spear over-arm then you're going to limit the range of movement you have to the extent that you may be able to reach three guys in the opposing formation, and they'll be wary of you, especially since you can only reach their faces effectively.

As for the shape of the hoplon preventing asphyxiation, I can't really comment, but it sounds far-fetched. The idea of the shield-shoving battle is an utterly ridiculous one for more than just the crushing effect it would have on the front ranks.

I'd support the idea of the phalanx being very much a shield wall. Staying at spears' length from each-other and the combat being comprised of the entire front ranks basically probing the other formation for gaps that will let them get a kill in.

Whole reason the Spartans are so lauded as they are. Spartan citizens weren't supermen who routed the enemy with their gleaming bodybuilder muscles, they were professionals who could form a more cohesive formation than the citizen soldiers they fought.

The whole underarm/overarm debate has been going on for years. However it's a bit strange to ask which "they used", because "they" refers to the greeks and their copycat neighbours over a good few centuries.

In different times and places, hoplites probably used a mixture both, or at least, used overhead as opposed to overarm. You see a lot of pottery with hoplites on them, and a lot seem to be using an overhead, but underarm grip, if you get me. Slightly ignoring the fact that they appear beside centaurs and other wierd crap on the same pots, it makes sense to quickly switch to that position if you're in the rank behind and see an opening, or want to surprise your opponent from the side.

Inter-greek warfare was still a largely ceremonial affair when the phalanx was invented, as tends to be the case in certain societies. The majority of hoplites would have been farmers too, so i can't imagine two phalanxes facing each other until one is utterly annihilated. Shieldwall vs shieldwall clashes are relatively short, even by clash standards, since when one formation can't present a solid block of shields, they're utterly screwed. When the "push of shields" is so often mentioned, with weird, physically impossible terms like the "mass" of a formation, it feels like a misunderstanding - the main advantage of having a second and third rank is to prevent the front one from running away or slowly shifting backwards out of fear. Also, if all it took was a bunch of men pushing to win a battle, rugby would have an immense bodycount.

jacobhinds said:

Also, if all it took was a bunch of men pushing to win a battle, rugby would have an immense bodycount.

Click to expand...

Well, there would be an immense body count from the idea of shoving match warfare.

Phalanxes were, if I remember correctly, about 8 ranks deep, which means that when both formations are shoving against each other, there's 16 guys all shoving against each-other. The effect this has on the men at the front is that it crushes them to the extent that they can't breathe and they suffocate to death.

Then, when those men are dead, the bodies aren't even going to fall to the ground because of the two armies pushing against each-other. Basically the front ranks would be guaranteed death, maybe the second ranks as well. It would be the most pointless form of warfare ever conceived.

Look up the Hillsborough Disaster for an example of this crush happening.

Just play Europa Barbarorum.

Ililsa said:

Whole reason the Spartans are so lauded as they are. Spartan citizens weren't supermen who routed the enemy with their gleaming bodybuilder muscles, they were professionals who could form a more cohesive formation than the citizen soldiers they fought.

Click to expand...

Yeah. It seems that a lot of the perceptions about hoplite warfare are based around the assumption that they all formed perfect, straight, robotic formations, and fought like robots. Why the **** would that be? Has any of the historians arguing over petty bull**** like they so often do even seen how a large, close body of men behaves on the move, let alone in a fight? It's only tidy on perfectly flat parade grounds.

A greek phalanx arrayed for battle would've looked less like this:


And more like this:


Professonials might make it more orderly and cohesive, but nowhere near the levels that popular history would have us believe.

I can imagine the formation being made roughly straight by the way the hoplon/aspis actually functioned as a shield, but yeah, I can't imagine them being a perfectly drilled, perfectly straight formation, with the possibly exception of professionals like the Spartiates and Theban Sacred Band (No idea if there are more professional forces I don't know of, but those are certainly the most famous.)

What I mean by pointing out the way the hoplon/aspis would have promoted a strong formation though, is that when held properly, about half of the shield would have jutted out to the left of the hoplite's body and basically covered the man next to him. It was somewhat psychological as the design of the shield meant it was useless if you strayed from the phalanx, but stay together and your shield covers the man next to you and the man on your right is going to cover you.

I think that would probably have instilled some basic discipline to the majority of levied hoplites. It wouldn't have straightened the line out perfectly, but it would have helped.

I like this subject, in-case people haven't noticed.

Ililsa said:

I can imagine the formation being made roughly straight by the way the hoplon/aspis actually functioned as a shield, but yeah, I can't imagine them being a perfectly drilled, perfectly straight formation, with the possibly exception of professionals like the Spartiates and Theban Sacred Band (No idea if there are more professional forces I don't know of, but those are certainly the most famous.)

Click to expand...

I don't understand why you're so fixated on straightness. What matters more is cohesiveness and discipline, rather than theatrics. If you want to see phalanxes in action, perhaps you should look at how police shieldwalls work. They're extremely well drilled, but there's still quite some variation in stance, and the formation is still flexible.

Roach XI the Magnificent said:

I don't understand why you're so fixated on straightness. What matters more is cohesiveness and discipline, rather than theatrics. If you want to see phalanxes in action, perhaps you should look at how police shieldwalls work. They're extremely well drilled, but there's still quite some variation in stance, and the formation is still flexible.

Click to expand...

Not sure where fixated came from, I was just saying that the overlapping of the shields would create a straighter, more solid formation. I've never really seen riot police overlapping their shields, but from experience in a shield wall myself, I'd say it isn't particularly flexible when your shield is essentially locked into place by the two either side of it.

I would imagine though, that as the fight goes on, a phalanx is going to get more ragged as men die and others step back just to distance themselves a little from the incoming spear points.

matmohair1 said:

Spoiler

Click to expand...

Leg day obviously wasn't part of the agoge.

That image actually shows pretty well how much of the aspis juts out to the left.

matmohair1 said:

Spoiler

Click to expand...

I really don't want to know what the artist of this one was thinking.

matmohair1 said:

Spoiler

Click to expand...

eh.

I have seen that pair before and I think those are depicting the Battle of Leuctra and possible Spartan armament. Common consensus seems to be that hoplites got lighter and lighter during and after the Peloponnesian War, but some say that this development was taken to the extreme and Greeks, or at least Spartans had at that point ditched all armour apart from the helmet, and some obviously say they hadn't.

oh sure, I just hadn't seen the more armoured one before. I think I like it a bit better than the droll everyone-wears-a-silly-dress one.

Ililsa said:

jacobhinds said:

Also, if all it took was a bunch of men pushing to win a battle, rugby would have an immense bodycount.

Click to expand...

Well, there would be an immense body count from the idea of shoving match warfare.

Phalanxes were, if I remember correctly, about 8 ranks deep, which means that when both formations are shoving against each other, there's 16 guys all shoving against each-other. The effect this has on the men at the front is that it crushes them to the extent that they can't breathe and they suffocate to death.

Then, when those men are dead, the bodies aren't even going to fall to the ground because of the two armies pushing against each-other. Basically the front ranks would be guaranteed death, maybe the second ranks as well. It would be the most pointless form of warfare ever conceived.

Look up the Hillsborough Disaster for an example of this crush happening.

Click to expand...

Well, my personal view far aside, the folks that posit the idea of it being a shoving match definitely don't believe it was a matter of suffocating two or so lines of both sides to do so. Extreme though it may seem, and I both agree and think you have good cause to be skeptical about it, were the aspis actually able to serve any kind of anti-suffocation function, (and to my knowledge Paul Bardunius, probably the main and only big proponent of this thinking, claims to have sound personal reason why this is so), the concept of the pushing would likely only come after many spears were broken in combat more distant, and that being done, the lines of shields would have closed distance from one another to continue attacking with what's left of their spears and their secondary weapons. Anyway, the idea to my understanding is that the 'pushing' or forward momentum would work against the morale of the enemy, but also potentially to try and break the cohesion of their front lines in the chance they aren't formed up as well and would be brought to buckle, fall, be turned aside, anything like that.  The folks on this side of the argument claim that the whole reason for pushing and driving the enemy was to achieve victory without a massive loss of life by spear-point or sword or whatever other means function at so close a range. If every hoplite is safe from suffocation, (and it is an if)), then the idea of it turning to shoving to cause a rout would altogether minimize casualties and decide the battle quickly and relatively bloodless, one victor and one defeated. It is true that phalanx-to-phalanx combat didn't have as high an attrition rate as later on, when I think advances in technology and outside influences forced the Greeks to change up how this was all handled. I think someone mentioned in this thread that Greek-to-Greek combat was somewhat ritualized, which would support this and has been what I've read as well. It's a possible explanation.

Ililsa said:

That image actually shows pretty well how much of the aspis juts out to the left.

matmohair1 said:

Spoiler

Click to expand...

I really don't want to know what the artist of this one was thinking.

Click to expand...

Hahah, I think it was just a more detailed, though literal interpretation of a vase painting.

Ililsa said:

I like this subject, in-case people haven't noticed.

Click to expand...

Then we are kindred spirits, over the years I've grown very fond of it as well.

Childe_Rolande said:

[pushing and shoving etc] I think someone mentioned in this thread that Greek-to-Greek combat was somewhat ritualized, which would support this and has been what I've read as well. It's a possible explanation.

Click to expand...

Ritualised was probably the wrong word - and I can't think of a better one at this point - but greek-to-greek combat in this period was very much like combat in the rest of the mediterranean. short, small-scale skirmishes where the goal wasn't to capture a neighbouring city, but to show your superiority and raid the countryside, steal wealth etc. it's how warfare was conducted for most of human history.


still not convinced by bloodless shoving matches, though. unless they're all holding on to a single iron frame that can withstand a few tonnes of force and pushing that, there's no way anyone other than the front rank is going to do anything useful.

jacobhinds said:

Childe_Rolande said:

[pushing and shoving etc] I think someone mentioned in this thread that Greek-to-Greek combat was somewhat ritualized, which would support this and has been what I've read as well. It's a possible explanation.

Click to expand...

Ritualised was probably the wrong word - and I can't think of a better one at this point - but greek-to-greek combat in this period was very much like combat in the rest of the mediterranean. short, small-scale skirmishes where the goal wasn't to capture a neighbouring city, but to show your superiority and raid the countryside, steal wealth etc. it's how warfare was conducted for most of human history.


still not convinced by bloodless shoving matches, though. unless they're all holding on to a single iron frame that can withstand a few tonnes of force and pushing that, there's no way anyone other than the front rank is going to do anything useful.

Click to expand...

Welp, I understand. True it wouldn't be bloodless by any stretch, but I don't think they could sacrifice an enormous casualty rate at the time when most still had to do quite a bit of agricultural stuff.