What they did to fight for many hours/days?

[bnd]

Well, ive always asked myself: "how these warriors fought for long period of time? Is that really possible?"
Im not considering the weight of their weapons/armors, but i think, to kill the other soldier they should trow a hard attack, and defend hard attacks too, run sometimes, so, its really possible, a human do this constantly for many hours, or even for a day?

Im watch MMA fights for a long time, and they cant really fight for more than 5 min, thats why we have rounds.
All MMA fighters train everyday for many hours and eat health food, they do cardio trainings a lot, but i didnt see anyone fight for more than 5 min without get tired.

So, this is my question to you guys.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Ancient Greek battles were some of the shorter battles that existed. Rarely a battle took more than some hours and usually it only took some minutes. The combatants must have become exhausted,though we often read that after the battle they were completing diffcult tasks. Like march 42 kms from Marathon to Athens! The answer I think lays in two things. First the shortness of those battles,and second the fact that those men were farmers,and used to work in conditions much more difficult than today's farmers. Seriously it's a big deal. I see that from my grandfather. He's 77 and he's stronger than me! And still all day in the farm!
Also, they were armed the last moment. And did everything to remain cool til the last moment. I mean servants carrying shields,helmets,arms and water/wine until the last moment before the final charge.
And in some cases the battles ended before they had started. The left of the allied army in Mantineia,for example,retreated before contact with the spartan right. And countless such examples.
Khaire
Giannis

[Na Saighdiuir]

Ancient Greek battles were some of the shorter battles that existed

Thats true.The Battle of Thermopylae, in 480 bc for example,was not a continuous battle.It consisted of a series of "battle pulses" if you like.The persians charged yet broke off shortly after.In a hoplite v hoplite battle i suppose the tendency to step to the right,thus outflanking your opponents left(they also were stepping right) meant that after defeating their left flank there would have been a similar pause as the respective rights eyed each other.
Possible the use of linthorax made it easier to last the pace but these guys were HARD which was another plus!

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Thermopylae was not a typical battle,though,and possibly it lasted more than the other battles. In fact,Thermopylae is the longes battle in ancient Greek history,lasting for days! But yes,it was not a continuous thing.
When the left flank lost IF and WHEN it lost,there usually was not a fight with the resting right flanks. After all,when the one left flank lost,the other was still fighting and often was victorious. Usually when one flank lost the battle was over. The exception was the battle of Koroneia,which again must have been one of the longest battles.
Khaire
Giannis

[hoplite14gr]

Most people thing of battle the clash of opponents.

But a battle can take long as for example

Positioning marshaling roughly 1 hour.

Manouvering into position from 1 to 2 hours

Skirmishing roughly 1 hour or more depending on tactical situation.

Charge and clash of heavy troops roughly 1 hour or more depending on tactical situation.

If the defeated side rallied and counterattacked add more time.

Kind regards

[Chris B]

It is also comparing apples and oranges. MMA and combat are two completely separate fields. MMA, regardless of modern belief, is a sport. Modern combat also can last for hours on end.

The physical exertion for BJJ or stand-up is a harder athletic pulse of one on one combat as opposed to group warfare. I am sure that a phalanx took its toll on a hoplite equally, but they are different types of activity. Before anyone asks, I have had military/Law enforcement training and I have also been in Martial Arts for 25 years to include modern MMA under the Miletich System. They really are two totally different things.

I agree with Giannis that we are whimps compared to each generation before us. They were conditioned to hard long hours of work in the heat and the elements. We are not. Even training for an hour or two a day is not the same.

In MMA, your also taking a pounding the whole 5 minute round in a good match. You have individualized focus on you the ENTIRE time your in the ring which forces you to take and give blows constantly.

In combat, there are numerous people on the field and unless your the front line, it isn't a non-stop barrage of strikes to you individually. Even modern warfare sees pulses within the fighting. That is really overly simplifying the point, but hopefully helps some. Each battle is different, just like each match in a ring is different, and MMA/combat are not the same.

I also think motivation has a LOT to do with it. There is a MONUMENTAL difference between losing a check/ending up with injuries and losing your life, your home, your freedoms, your family, seeing your children/wife raped, carried into slavery, etc. The latter would be one hell of a motivator in fighting until your last breath. Even comparing my own experience with MMA to Law Enforcement is apples to oranges.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

I disagree not with the times given,but with the fact you give time in such things. And especially in greek armies, most of these things took very little or did no happen at all! Look at Mantineia for example. You cannot count as part of the battle the marching of a formation who doesn't even know that is going to battle. Similarly,it seems that it took very little to Xenophon and his men to form the battle position. Alexander also needed not such a considerable time to form his line before the battle of Granicus.It was already getting dark when the desision for battle was taken. Not to mention that in many of those actions the hoplites were not fully armoured.. This is the point of hypaspistes(shield bearers) and servants. In all,a greek battle was a short one,compared to later battles,or the eastern style where missile warfare was common and close combat was not as developed. Skirmishing,especially in earlier greek armies seems limited. We don't hear about light armed lines charging before the hoplites,rather they supported the flanks and probably did not charge much before the phalanx. Much more because these troops were not organised in early times,say the beginning of the 5th century.
Khairete
Giannis

[sonic]

It is probably a mistake to think of battles as 'permanent combat' until one side's will to fight gave in.

In longer battles, as the two sides became exhausted they would slowly pull away from each other and have a rest. No doubt as the battle wore on the pauses for rests became more frequent.

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

Keegan's "The Face of Battle" book and Sabin's "The Face of Roman Battle" article are good references for the subject of how long fighting actually takes place.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

The difference lays in the fact that the Greeks considered victory a retreat of the oponent. And the battle goal was not usually the extermination of the oponent's forces. This changed slowly in greek armies,too. Or perhaps not so slowly,after the Peloponnesian War. There were no reserves,no second lines and the battle was usually an initial strugle to push the oponent out of balance and make him flee or retreat. Once you became master of the battlefield you were winner and the oponent was too ashamed to recover.Again,this changed at some point in late 5th century and the nature of battles and armies changed.
Khaire
Giannis

[Tarbicus]

Though I can never find it again when I try, there's a primary Roman source reference to the 'civilised way' of making battle, and how the Gauls/Celts never followed this. I pointed it out at the linked topics, and it's really frustrating that I can't the source again.
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... 9994#99994
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... 6774#96774

[bnd]

thanks for all your explanations.
Yea, i think they were really much resistent becouse there were no cars, bikes, they were used to walk and run much larger distances.
Im sure that their trainings were heavy too.
But hey, MMA trainings are very hard too, im sure becouse my cousin competes here where i live, and in his trainings he used to fight with 3 diff opponents in a row, plus workout, and fighting techniques trainings.
I cant even imagine the training of top MMA fighters, they are like machines.
Fighting in a ancient battlefield is way different than MMA for sure, and in my opnion much harder, its really impressive.
I was thinking maybe in a "resting system", changing front lines time at time, but maybe this wont work, if the other front line falls, your "resting front line" is dead.
I think the most possible battle scene is that Giannis mentioned, really short and aggressive battles.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

But they did fight all day in some cases......There are instances in the 69 civil war mentioned.

[Tarbicus]

But they did fight all day in some cases......There are instances in the 69 civil war mentioned.

I thought a fair bit of that was dodging artillery and taking cover in vineyards and orchards (ref. Cremona)? It still doesn't exclude troop rotation and rests.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

But they did fight all day in some cases......There are instances in the 69 civil war mentioned.

I thought a fair bit of that was dodging artillery and taking cover in vineyards and orchards (ref. Cremona)? It still doesn't exclude troop rotation and rests.

True, But there were periods of quite intense fighting as well, so it would support the idea of rests, I would think. As opposed to a short sharp battle deciding the day. There was some hard fighting on some narrow roads surrounded by vineyards I recall?