The hoplite, and how they fought.

Users who are viewing this thread

The other issue with the shoving match idea is that when you're in that proximity to an enemy, the most sensible thing to do would be to pull out a knife and jam it into the throat of the man you're pushing against.

Even with the size of the aspis it should be fairly easy to reach around both shields and get a stab in, so mortality rates would be worryingly high even without the danger of asphyxiation.
 
Ililsa said:
The other issue with the shoving match idea is that when you're in that proximity to an enemy, the most sensible thing to do would be to pull out a knife and jam it into the throat of the man you're pushing against.

Even with the size of the aspis it should be fairly easy to reach around both shields and get a stab in, so mortality rates would be worryingly high even without the danger of asphyxiation.


I suppose that's possible, personally I think the idea of fighting with 8 foot spears at a kind of standoff position while fighting other hoplites doing the same is actually too safe to get very much done. I don't mean to say your spears couldn't be put into good use, but where would you target? Say everyone's head is armored, most of their torso is taken care of by their locked shields, the greaves are there below. Would it be mostly face/thigh shots? I think one could argue that either way you could get a lot of casualties.  It might be that if othismos did occur, folks might be a bit too tight to use their weapons as effectively as they could at distance. That's an idea, anyway.
 
Faces, arms, thighs and feet would probably be the most hit areas, what with the lack of armour.

The thing with spear combat is that everyone's looking for openings within their striking distance - which, with an 8-10 foot spear in hand, is rather long - so that if someone moves their shield or exposes their arm for too long when thrusting, they become a viable target for about six or maybe even eight men in the opposing phalanx.

The first side to at least wound if not kill a few men in the opposing phalanx is going to have more to work on as the wounded or killed men basically create structural weaknesses in the formation which the 'winning' phalanx can then take advantage of by jabbing at more and causing more casualties.
 
I see. Sounds quite horrific.

What is your view on the lethality of an 8 foot spear with a counter-balanced butt-spike in an overhanded thrust? Some say it is a 'weak' stance. (in that it is better you use a different stnce to get the most out of a spear, even in shieldwall) I see that reenactors almost universally take this stance. Just for show? Does it have potential?

Thanks everyone, for your replies.
 
About othismos, it does not have to be interpreted in terms of entire formations. Better explained by someone wiser than myself:

The ancient evidence cannot support the view that the othismos consisted of the rear ranks packing down behind those in front and literally pushing the enemy into defeat. This would have prevented the opposing front ranks from fighting, but it is quite clear that during the othismos they did so. Rather, the 'shoving of shields' involved individual men in the front rank striking opponents with their shields, seeking to unbalance them or knock them over, so that they could be more easily killed with spear or sword. The 'shoving of shields' was a part of hand-to-hand combat, not an alternative to it. It was a method requiring great aggression, a way of barging into an enemy phalanx in an effort to begin its collapse. It was also a dangerous method, as the attacking hoplite risked losing his own balance. The ranks behind the first were not involved in this. There were no separate phases of fighting and shoving. The only way to break a phalanx was for hoplites to fight their way into it.1

The article also goes into some depth about the depth of phalanxes which I think is applicable to close order formations in general (I share the sentiment that hoplite phalanxes are little different from shield walls).

About ritualization in Hellenic warfare, it seems to me that it was mostly a thing of the Archaic Era and earlier, from which we have few or no contemporary accounts. There is an interesting passage in Herodotos about this; an advisor encourages Xerxes to invade by ridiculing Hellenic warfare:

What have we to fear from them? Have they a massive population or abundance of wealth? Their manner of fighting we know, and we know how weak their power is; we have conquered and hold their sons, those who dwell in our land and are called Ionians and Aeolians and Dorians. I myself have made trial of these men, when by your father's command I marched against them. I marched as far as Macedonia and almost to Athens itself, yet none came out to meet me in battle. Yet the Greeks are accustomed to wage wars, as I learn, and they do it most senselessly in their wrongheadedness and folly. When they have declared war against each other, they come down to the fairest and most level ground that they can find and fight there, so that the victors come off with great harm; of the vanquished I say not so much as a word, for they are utterly destroyed. Since they speak the same language, they should end their disputes by means of heralds or messengers, or by any way rather than fighting; if they must make war upon each other, they should each discover where they are in the strongest position and make the attempt there. The Greek custom, then, is not good; and when I marched as far as the land of Macedonia, it had not come into their minds to fight.2

I think the most interesting aspect of this passage is that it might very well be Herodotos putting the words into the advisor's mouth. Is this how Herodotos thought Hellenes fought before his own time? Is he trying to portray the Persians as silly? Is it the actual sentiment of the Persians (or at least one of them)? In the Classical Era, from which we have better sources, we see rituals like ransoming the dead and setting up trophies, but the fighting itself does not seem to lack in opportunism,  cynicism and brutality, even when Hellenes fight Hellenes. I think this fits with hoplite phalanxes differing little from shield walls as found in other eras and cultures; they fought in a similar manner and did it because it worked.

1: http://www.xlegio.ru/pdfs/othismos.pdf
2: Herdotos 7.9
 
inox_ionizer said:
About othismos, it does not have to be interpreted in terms of entire formations. Better explained by someone wiser than myself:

The ancient evidence cannot support the view that the othismos consisted of the rear ranks packing down behind those in front and literally pushing the enemy into defeat. This would have prevented the opposing front ranks from fighting, but it is quite clear that during the othismos they did so. Rather, the 'shoving of shields' involved individual men in the front rank striking opponents with their shields, seeking to unbalance them or knock them over, so that they could be more easily killed with spear or sword. The 'shoving of shields' was a part of hand-to-hand combat, not an alternative to it. It was a method requiring great aggression, a way of barging into an enemy phalanx in an effort to begin its collapse. It was also a dangerous method, as the attacking hoplite risked losing his own balance. The ranks behind the first were not involved in this. There were no separate phases of fighting and shoving. The only way to break a phalanx was for hoplites to fight their way into it.1

The article also goes into some depth about the depth of phalanxes which I think is applicable to close order formations in general (I share the sentiment that hoplite phalanxes are little different from shield walls).

About ritualization in Hellenic warfare, it seems to me that it was mostly a thing of the Archaic Era and earlier, from which we have few or no contemporary accounts. There is an interesting passage in Herodotos about this; an advisor encourages Xerxes to invade by ridiculing Hellenic warfare:

What have we to fear from them? Have they a massive population or abundance of wealth? Their manner of fighting we know, and we know how weak their power is; we have conquered and hold their sons, those who dwell in our land and are called Ionians and Aeolians and Dorians. I myself have made trial of these men, when by your father's command I marched against them. I marched as far as Macedonia and almost to Athens itself, yet none came out to meet me in battle. Yet the Greeks are accustomed to wage wars, as I learn, and they do it most senselessly in their wrongheadedness and folly. When they have declared war against each other, they come down to the fairest and most level ground that they can find and fight there, so that the victors come off with great harm; of the vanquished I say not so much as a word, for they are utterly destroyed. Since they speak the same language, they should end their disputes by means of heralds or messengers, or by any way rather than fighting; if they must make war upon each other, they should each discover where they are in the strongest position and make the attempt there. The Greek custom, then, is not good; and when I marched as far as the land of Macedonia, it had not come into their minds to fight.2

I think the most interesting aspect of this passage is that it might very well be Herodotos putting the words into the advisor's mouth. Is this how Herodotos thought Hellenes fought before his own time? Is he trying to portray the Persians as silly? Is it the actual sentiment of the Persians (or at least one of them)? In the Classical Era, from which we have better sources, we see rituals like ransoming the dead and setting up trophies, but the fighting itself does not seem to lack in opportunism,  cynicism and brutality, even when Hellenes fight Hellenes. I think this fits with hoplite phalanxes differing little from shield walls as found in other eras and cultures; they fought in a similar manner and did it because it worked.

1: http://www.xlegio.ru/pdfs/othismos.pdf
2: Herdotos 7.9

Thank you for that source. It was a good read, and is a very interesting interpretation. I cannot express enough how nice it is to see this kind of thing debated, researched and looked into in such a civil and intelligent way, by people experienced and balanced about their opinions. For all their understanding and insight, they retain the ability to admit these are still theoretical views.

Personally I would love to hear about any kind of testing done to attempt to replicate these different viewpoints. I'm sure it isn't easy for a group to scrounge up willing volunteers, appropriate and accurate equipment, and then to go about trying things out safely.

I must also wonder if this thing would ever be understood by us in fullness, and if that is ever to be so, what means would bring us to that point.
 
You are very welcome. Personally, I think it will remain a bit of a mystery, as I do not expect reenactments to handle psychological factors well enough. But it sounds very fun to try!
 
Hey guys, if you want to understand how battles fought were fought by infantry before the advent of guns, you might be interested in following the events in Ukraine. Riot police and rioters in riot police gear clashing. Swarms of skirmishers attacking shieldwalls, shieldwalls distorting and flowing, short bursts of intense action followed by more missile exchanges...

This was present in the Maidan, as well as in the recent clashes in Odessa and other areas with pro-Russian riots.


Now, before you get all "but this is different cause tactics"... Not really. Tactics are largely the same - taking or holding ground using closely packed bodies of men with armour and melee weapons, supported by others using missiles. And I believe human psychology hasn't changed much.
 
:grin:  Yes, this is very true. So much so that it I've seen it brought up among groups that are particularly interested in this kind of ancient combat and that try to glean more from it via re-enactment and more importantly, modern testing with the appropriate equipment.

Now, it's true that some differences are expected. While I'll agree that general, crowd psychology probably is no different then versus now, there's at least some slight difference in the lack of killing and the culture of combatants and the mindset of do or die, and those kinds of things. Not that this wouldn't be fruitful to look into at all. Far from it.

Personally, I was very intrigued and surprised to find that the dissenters in Ukraine actually fashioned their own armor and specifically, shields, a quality of which (steel) at least as good as what a riot officer would use.

Thanks for pointing that out.
 
Being pedantic, but I'd say that just because of the weapons used, that the sort of fighting we see at riots is probably a lot more like dark ages combat (not that they didn't use spears in the dark ages), but it's still interesting to make that comparison.
 
I heard that the hoplon was designed so that it was useless in one on one combat to make people not want to leave the formation because as soon as they leave the formation they will be in trouble (because of how the shields designed with half of it jutting out to the left) and would be better off staying in formation making people less likely to run in battle.

This is one example of this theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__mH8Xa7Sto

I somewhat agree with this but I was wondering if there was any evidence to it.
 
I'm kind of baffled how a large and sturdy round shield could be useless in one-on-one. Edit; is explained fairly well in the video, I forgot about how you hold it.
 
LionStrong said:
I heard that the hoplon was designed so that it was useless in one on one combat to make people not want to leave the formation because as soon as they leave the formation they will be in trouble (because of how the shields designed with half of it jutting out to the left) and would be better off staying in formation making people less likely to run in battle.

This is one example of this theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__mH8Xa7Sto

I somewhat agree with this but I was wondering if there was any evidence to it.

Ahh, this video again. I like Lindy, I do, but some of the things he says there are a bit flawed. Ironically, just today (I work within the furniture business and thusly have access to lots of supplies), I made a very basic mock-up of the aspis, of the shorter length, in cardboard (which is 32'' diameter, though some have been found to be 40''), and I poked holes through it and used tie wraps to closely and in function identically emulate the way it is held. It juts out to the left just as shown, of course. While I agree and I think he's correct in his idea being that at least part of the function of this shield design may have been to enforce the need for formation fighting, I am completely un-moved by the idea that this shield is useless in one-on-one fighting.

Now, I don't think it's the best by any means for single combat, nor do I think that was it's purpose, obviously, but (it needs to be said what I held is nowhere near 20 pounds or so), ergonomically at least, it's still of a fairly massive size, and if you can move your body in such a way as to keep the thing covering most of yourself, I dare say it beats having no shield by miles.

Now, as for what I personally think a hoplite would or at least what I would do when forced to fight alone, (say, your formation has routed, or the enemy has and you're in full pursuit), would be basically to huddle around the shield and use the spear for all of it's range in whatever way physically possible to keep the enemy busy. Now, barring that, say your spear is broken, or you've made the decision to throw it at the enemy, which I also think is very viable, what I would do, and what I think any intelligent person might be given to do, is actually smash into the enemy and immediately move to secondary weapons, which would benefit your freedom of movement if it's small, not much bigger than knife-size.

The shield is not immensely maneuverable, but barring you being stabbed immediately in the face when forced to single combat, which you can use your spear to avoid, you have a greatest chance of restricting your enemy's movement when you're point-blank with them, because the sheer size of the aspis allows them typically only able to go above to attack you. Opposite you, their right arm which is most people's sword-arm/good arm, is simply unable to get around the large part of your shield that juts out to your left, and really the only avenue at that range is above the shields.


That's just my thoughts on it.  Now, another thing Lindy says is that the shield he thinks, was made to be used with a spear under-arm.  Now, if he means under-arm above the shield rim that's one thing, but in the video, he motions under-arm and below the shield. Holding even a mock-up of the aspis that's the right diameter, with the grips in the right place and the shield held even how he's holding it, it would be physically impossible to attack with any strength or amount of dexterity with an 8' counter-weighted spear below an aspis. It's too large, and restricts you to the point where you wouldn't be able to manage that, even more so if you were actually in a shield wall.

Edit:  Okay, take this with a big grain of salt of course, but here's at least some aesthetically and bio-mechanically interesting footage of what it might look like to spar or fight one on one with hoplitic equipment.  Again, there could be a weight or construction difference, but I don't see it is total rubbish in this scenario. If there are more accurate sparring sessions out there, I'm all eyes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Psk31l6ucc
 
Problem with Lindy is that he seems not to believe in martial arts. He seems to go with the assumption that what untrained reenactors can come up with is what was done historically.
 
Papa Lazarou said:
Problem with Lindy is that he seems not to believe in martial arts. He seems to go with the assumption that what untrained reenactors can come up with is what was done historically.

Well as far as western martial arts goes, all we have before about 1300 is pictures drawn by monks or other artists. It isn't until the renaissance that we actually get combat treatises, which is what HEMA practitioners go off.

Before then all we can really do is go off a few pictures and theory-craft by actually using the weapons and guessing, hence Lloyd's approach.

I prefer Matt Easton for talks on weapons, but he sticks to late medieval and onwards.

Childe_Rolande said:
Edit:  Okay, take this with a big grain of salt of course, but here's at least some aesthetically and bio-mechanically interesting footage of what it might look like to spar or fight one on one with hoplitic equipment.  Again, there could be a weight or construction difference, but I don't see it is total rubbish in this scenario. If there are more accurate sparring sessions out there, I'm all eyes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Psk31l6ucc

Something about their form bothers me but I can't put my finger on it. Could actually just be the aspis restricting him.
The spearman seems to move and fight a lot better in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zvcthf4abzg
Though I can't really say anything for anyone's fighting credentials in this, it seems like they're HEMA fighters having a bit of a play.
His shield is obviously a lot better as well.

What really interests me though is the way he raises his spear to strike the head, rather than swapping to the overarm stance, given that I've believed for a while this would be the more common way that a hoplite or other spearman would target their enemy's head or try to get over their defences in general.
 
Ililsa said:
Well as far as western martial arts goes, all we have before about 1300 is pictures drawn by monks or other artists. It isn't until the renaissance that we actually get combat treatises, which is what HEMA practitioners go off.

Before then all we can really do is go off a few pictures and theory-craft by actually using the weapons and guessing, hence Lloyd's approach.
Yeah and the approach is fair enough. His conclusions are just a bit strong for me. It's like someone  trying to teach themselves to play the piano, having no musical training and having never even seen someone play. Such a person would certainly make progress and learn things, but they'd probably think that many of the things a professional can do are impossible.
 
I've also been of the opinion that over-arm would especially be useful in getting over a shield wall. When it comes down to single combat though, I'm sure there's a whole range of areas you could target with some ease so long as your own shield didn't restrict it.

That's a pretty nice video indeed, it looks to decent quality in general.  I love to see people use weaponry with full contact and with the whole body as a target, as I think that allows for better emulation.

The shield of course, is different, it seems like a fairly regular round shield. (I don't honestly know how to identify it)



Papa Lazarou said:
Ililsa said:
Well as far as western martial arts goes, all we have before about 1300 is pictures drawn by monks or other artists. It isn't until the renaissance that we actually get combat treatises, which is what HEMA practitioners go off.

Before then all we can really do is go off a few pictures and theory-craft by actually using the weapons and guessing, hence Lloyd's approach.
Yeah and the approach is fair enough. His conclusions are just a bit strong for me. It's like someone  trying to teach themselves to play the piano, having no musical training and having never even seen someone play. Such a person would certainly make progress and learn things, but they'd probably think that many of the things a professional can do are impossible.

One thing I find dangerous to reason is having such strong opinions on things like this that are hotly debated, and still not known with absolute certainty.
 
Childe_Rolande said:
That's a pretty nice video indeed, it looks to decent quality in general.  I love to see people use weaponry with full contact and with the whole body as a target, as I think that allows for better emulation.

The shield of course, is different, it seems like a fairly regular round shield. (I don't honestly know how to identify it)

The entire body being more or less viable is one of the big appeals of HEMA to me, sadly most groups near me practice late in areas that I utterly despise in the daytime, and I'm astoundingly neurotic, even with a sword in hand.
Though my re-enactment group are great for the way we spar and train with contact, we do have to mind safety, especially given that most of us are in open faced helmets, meaning the amount of blows we can do - and how we deliver them - is restricted so people avoid losing teeth (it's happened.)

As for that shield, I can only really think to compare it to a smaller, less awkward aspis. A round dark ages shield would be the next best comparison but then it would have to be centre-grip.



 
Ililsa said:
Childe_Rolande said:
That's a pretty nice video indeed, it looks to decent quality in general.  I love to see people use weaponry with full contact and with the whole body as a target, as I think that allows for better emulation.

The shield of course, is different, it seems like a fairly regular round shield. (I don't honestly know how to identify it)

The entire body being more or less viable is one of the big appeals of HEMA to me, sadly most groups near me practice late in areas that I utterly despise in the daytime, and I'm astoundingly neurotic, even with a sword in hand.
Though my re-enactment group are great for the way we spar and train with contact, we do have to mind safety, especially given that most of us are in open faced helmets, meaning the amount of blows we can do - and how we deliver them - is restricted so people avoid losing teeth (it's happened.)

As for that shield, I can only really think to compare it to a smaller, less awkward aspis. A round dark ages shield would be the next best comparison but then it would have to be centre-grip.

Aw, that's a shame. But I do understand the safety precautions.  Might there be something you can use to prevent that? For instance, the mouth guards used by fighters?
 
Back
Top Bottom