Othismos: Classical vs Crowd Theory Othismos

[PMBardunias]

Surely a side-on stance like a fencer is a 'non sequitur', and not under realistic consideration ? hock:

This whole thread was predicated on the use of the side-on fencer's stance, which is supported by Van Wees for fighting and the orthodoxy for pushing. That is what the thread title called "Classical". You and I, I know, believe in at most a 3/4 fighting stance.

If hoplites did not do something that a later shield wall could not, then the special designation of "othismos" becomes frivolous, and the phalanx is simply a wall of shields that pushes against its opposite at times an might even find itself acting a bit crowd-like for short periods like every other shield wall in history.

Ah, Grasshopper !! At long last enlightenment is dawning !

Now, be fair. I have always stated that it is possible that there was no othismos. What I am attempting to present is that IF there was an all-ranks coordinated and sustained push, then it had to occur through the Crowd Model. There are many problems with discarding, or reducing, the role of physical pushing in hoplite combat, but my belief in it is based on the functionality of the panoply. Too many elements are best explained by at least the threat of a literal pushing phase in battle.