+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Greek Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: specifics in Spear fighting combat (/showthread.php?tid=11872)
Re: specifics in Spear fighting combat - PMBardunias - 05-24-2008
Quote:Epaminondas' column tactics were 'new' and done for precisely the same reason as French Column tactics of the Napoleonic Wars. (Kineas' post will give you a hint) I suggest you study Military History, the psychology of warfare, and the Principles of War in all their variations; then you will understand that 'linear' versus 'column' tactics have recurred throughout History in naval as well as Land warfare, and the reasons why sometimes one, sometimes the other, prevail.
Ha! You've been reading Goldsworthy's article- I knew it was dangerous to feed you more material! :wink:
But the analogy to a Napoleonic column is dead wrong for one reason: there is no means of deployment! It is often forgotten that the French regularly deployed into 3 lines from those columns. Thus you gain the mobility of a column and still the benefit of a line. Even in the revolutionary period the monstrous columns became swarms, like blobs of light infantry.
A hoplite column with no means of deployment in the face of the enemy gains nothing from moving men quickly. A 50x50 phalanx has no advantage in spear fencing over a 50x8! (or 4). All you have done is hurredly and in good order moved men into a position from which they are useless- unless of course they pushed.
Re: specifics in Spear fighting combat - PMBardunias - 05-24-2008
Quote:Post evidence/source statements first, and then put your position from there and then you may persuade me to come round to your views....
I did not expect to have to post evidence on the rediculously common feature of hoplite battle that is squabbling over who stands where along a battle-line. If I do, then let me know. There were a number of conventions, such as local boys stationing on the right.
Quote:He actually was a Hoplite General! ) is that Hoplites in formation spent most of their time in normal/open formation, probably with their servants/shield bearers alongside ( if the Greek drill command, "Fall out the shield bearers!" is anything to go by) and if an author tells you the 'normal' depth, then you automatically know the 'fighting' depth (half that).
What exactly did they do in this opened order? They simply walked a few hundred yards! There are no complex machinations involved. Maneuver of that sort would have been done in enomotia columns.
Quote:Quote:
And yet Agiselaos countermarches to meet the Thebans at Koronea AFTER combat, presumably in close order.
......that would be a rather incorrect "presumption". Elsewhere (in the 'Constitution', and also described in the Hellenistic manuals) Xenophon tells precisely how this was carried out, in 'open' order, with the rear marker about-turning, then the file leader passes up beside him, leading the file...so clearly, the first move of the 'counter march' was to 'Open Order'. ( try carrying aspides and jostling through in close order! ).
Exactly, first they opened order, then they did it. Just as they could have at any other time then countermarched, so countermarching is not evidence against their previously being in close order.
Quote:Other possible evidence for 'open order' comes from the same battle, though it sounds somewhat strange and is only in later writers, who claim Agesilaos 'open ordered' his ranks to let the Thebans through ....(Frontinus II.6.6 and Polyaenus II.1.19)...I am more inclined to believe Xenophon IV.3.19 Hellenica when he says "some of the Thebans broke through..."[/quote]
sheer suicide! I'm glad you agree with Xenophon.
Quote:....on the contrary, the evidence for the use of 'open order' and 'doubling' by Hoplites is overwhelming. To avoid a lengthy post, I will give but a couple of examples.....
The front rank of a Spartan phalanx comprised the officers and leaders, but from it, the 'younger' age-classes could run out to chase off peltasts....only possible from open order....
For one thing this often took place from enomotia- one of the papers I gave you addressed this. You also overestimate how close the hoplites were- the aspis is quite large.
Quote:or Xenophon's Cyropaedia again for 'doubling' the file from 8 into 4 "..he gave the order to lead each file in twos. On this the dekarchs led up the files by the side into line. And when he judged it proper, he gave the order for each file to form fours. And thereupon the pentarchs in their turn led up by the side to form fours...." (thereby doubling the ranks into close order and halving the depth)
This is good, but could describe the special case of forming fours. In forming 12s they had to make use of this subunit as well.
Quote:Or for non-Spartan Hoplites moving from 'close' to 'open' order, consider Cunaxa (Xen Anabasis I.8.20) where against chariots; ".... some, abandoned by their drivers did go through the Greeks. When they saw them coming, they opened ranks..." or again, (I.10.7) this time the Greek peltasts against Tissaphernes cavalry; "However, he did not kill a single man. The Greeks opened their ranks and struck at his men with their swords and flung javelins at them.."
I could go on, but I don't want this post to get too long.....
There is no way a chariot fits between the files at 6' spacing. Thus the maneuver had to be something other than a simple un-doubling. This is evidence against you since here "opening" involves some other process.
Quote:Quote:
your scheme is vulnerable to absurd reductionism: would a 4 deep line envelop your 6? a 3 that 4? etc...
That is the second time you have assailed my point by the rather poor method ofreductio ad absurdum...unfair rhetoric, and in the words of Mr Spock "Illogical, Captain! "
Dammmit Spock I'm a freelance historian, not a miracle worker! But you have to admit that there is a minimum depth that was acceptable and beyond which they could not thin to extend the line. I can give you much evidence for this being deeper than 4. The ball is in your court to explain why it should be 4 and not 2 if length were so important.
Quote:You might have done better by pointing out that the Spartans tried "my" enveloping tactics against the deeper Thebans at Leuktra....but didn't 'get it right', or were thwarted by Pelopidas and the sacred Band, and the deeper formation won, against Spartan expectations....
That would be "special pleading." Phalanxes were clearly concerned with being outflanked and vulnerable to such.
Re: specifics in Spear fighting combat - PMBardunias - 05-24-2008
Quote:My point is that if "customary" referred to the location of the sub units, I'm pretty sure the sentence would have a referential indication, one of the many Greek markers like "I'm about to say more" like the men de construction (since he goes on to discuss the formation side by side.) As a final linguistic nail, he says "taxthenai" in this sentence and "taxthesan" in the next, which I recall as a nice way of linking the two--same verb, see, so the two thoughts are linked. so...to form lines... formed lines in 4 ranks" are linked thoughts.
I too cannot access it, but if it follows the english at all, then there is the notion of " each general marshalling his own men." between the formation and the rank depth. This would indicate to me that the order of these generals is customary- or both the order and rank depth.
"He ordered the Greeks to form their lines and take their positions just as they were accustomed to do for battle, each general marshalling his own men. So they formed the line four deep, Menon and his troops occupying the right wing, Clearchus and his troops the left, and the other generals the centre........"
Edit:
I found another site with a translation- http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/ ... basis.html
Here the author tyranslates the passage as:
"Here he halted three days; and the Cilician queen, according to the popular account, begged Cyrus to exhibit his armament for her amusement. The latter being only too glad to make such an exhibition, held a review of the Hellenes and barbarians in the plain. He ordered the Hellenes to draw up their lines and post themselves in their customary battle order, each general marshalling his own battalion. Accordingly they drew up four-deep. The right was held by Menon and those with him; the 15 left by Clearchus and his men; the centre by the remaining generals with theirs. Cyrus first inspected the barbarians, who marched past in troops of horses and companies of infantry. He then inspected the Hellenes; driving past them in his chariot, with the queen in her carriage. And they all had brass helmets and purple tunics, and greaves, and their shields uncovered[9]. "
Spear Fighting/Hoplite Drill - Paullus Scipio - 05-24-2008
Paul B. wrote:-
Quote:Ha! You've been reading Goldsworthy's article....uuummm, no, actually....I don't even know which article you are referring to.... :?
Quote:Thus you gain the mobility of a column and still the benefit of a line....this was not what I had in mind - more the psychological reasons why both French and Thebans favoured Columns for the assault....
Quote:I did not expect to have to post evidence on the rediculously common feature of hoplite battle that is squabbling over who stands where along a battle-line. If I do, then let me know. There were a number of conventions, such as local boys stationing on the right....uh,uh,uh...you are side-stepping the point again! As you well know, I was not referring to non-controversial matters...but do post evidence that Hoplites actually engaged one another, generally, 8 or more deep ( except Thebans, of course :wink: )
Quote:Maneuver of that sort would have been done in enomotia columns....in open/normal order, as you acknowledge elsewhere with reference to counter-marching....
Quote:This is good, but could describe the special case of forming fours. In forming 12s they had to make use of this subunit as well....sorry, not following you here. Why would you need pentarchs/half-file leaders to form up in files? The mere existence of file-leaders and half-file leaders demonstrates that files were habitually'doubled' from open order of files to close order of half-files.
Quote:There is no way a chariot fits between the files at 6' spacing. Thus the maneuver had to be something other than a simple un-doubling. This is evidence against you since here "opening" involves some other process....true, but by being in open order, individuals can 'dodge' the odd chariot - something they certainly couldn't do from close order! At least you acknowledge some sort of 'open order' was involved, whereas earlier you seemed to be of the view that there was no such thing as 'open order'....
Quote:Dammmit Spock I'm a freelance historian, not a miracle worker!:lol: :lol: :lol:
They're Hoplites, Jim, but not as you know them....
Quote:But you have to admit that there is a minimum depth that was acceptable and beyond which they could not thin to extend the line. I can give you much evidence for this being deeper than 4.Agreed!
...and on the little evidence we have, that minimum would appear to be 4....re-enactor/SCA experience that a line more than 2 deep cannot be broken/burst, and more importantly the explicit word of Xenophon that four was 'customary' ( at least in his time), and his comments on why deep formations are no good (Cyropaedia)......and being a General, he surely knew !!Quote:Phalanxes were clearly concerned with being outflanked and vulnerable to such.Agreed!
D lol: Hence Linear formations as long as practicable, depending on factors such as terrain, enemy strength and dispositions etc, as I mentioned earlier.... :wink: 
Re: specifics in Spear fighting combat - PMBardunias - 05-25-2008
Quote:Ha! You've been reading Goldsworthy's article
....uuummm, no, actually....I don't even know which article you are referring to....
You should read it, its a good article if ultimately wrong in the details.
Quote:Quote:
Thus you gain the mobility of a column and still the benefit of a line.
...this was not what I had in mind - more the psychological reasons why both French and Thebans favoured Columns for the assault....
They favored columns for mobility- its the fastest way to move a body of men in formation. The psychological factor was more an issue in the revolutionary period. In either case, as I said, they deployed from these columns. It is a modern fiction- well as modern as Oman at least- and English bias that regularly has French columns crashing into lines intentionally in the Empirical period. The truth is more sublte, a combination of the French inability to time the deployment properly against an enemy on a reverse slope and the superiority of the 2 man -vs- 3 man line, but this is not the forum for that discussion.
Again, hoplites could gain from this mobility as well, they surely formed deep at Delium for this reason, but without a means of deployment they gain little advantage if the fight is all about spear fencing. Surely not worth the possibility of being outflanked.
Quote:...uh,uh,uh...you are side-stepping the point again! As you well know, I was not referring to non-controversial matters...but do post evidence that Hoplites actually engaged one another, generally, 8 or more deep ( except Thebans, of course )
Ha! I should know better than to argue with a man of your profession- Shakespeare had the right of it. You haver redefined all of the myriad of depth descriptions to mean this hypothetical "opened" order, based on the tenuous interpretation of a single case from an atypical force of hoplite mercenaries, thus excluding me from using them as evidence.
Not gonna work. All references of phalanx depth should be read as battle depth, be they 4, 8, 12, 16, 25, or 50. Occam is with me on this. If we read them as final depth then there is a single scheme that accounts for the simple 8 man phalanx and the 50 thebans (unless you think they doubled to 25) all the way to the single line of Spartans referenced by Isocrates (unless you think there were half-men, which seems more like a discussion of sociality).
This is the orthodoxy, and though I am a happy to see it flounced as the next guy, it is you who has to make the case for changing it, not I for following it. So far you have a single point of evidence, and that is based on the great supposition that Xenophon's troops were in 8 ranks before they "doubled". For this you have no evidence whatsoever.
Quote:Quote:
Maneuver of that sort would have been done in enomotia columns.
...in open/normal order, as you acknowledge elsewhere with reference to counter-marching....
No in columns of 3s or 2's for gross battlefield maneuvers.
Quote:Quote:
This is good, but could describe the special case of forming fours. In forming 12s they had to make use of this subunit as well.
...sorry, not following you here. Why would you need pentarchs/half-file leaders to form up in files? The mere existence of file-leaders and half-file leaders demonstrates that files were habitually'doubled' from open order of files to close order of half-files.
Because they needed to pull men from the rear of a phalanx at times. Spartans did this on a couple of occasions, and you probably know the references better than I. Four would be the smallest subunit, and in my opinion the ancestral minimum for a phalanx.
Quote:...true, but by being in open order, individuals can 'dodge' the odd chariot - something they certainly couldn't do from close order! At least you acknowledge some sort of 'open order' was involved, whereas earlier you seemed to be of the view that there was no such thing as 'open order'....
You misunderstand, if your "opened" order was too close for chariot dodging, then it is no better than "close order" for doing so. Thus what is being described in niether, and not evidence for there being an opened order phase achieved by undoubling. Even if they undoubled they had to do some other lateral movement to form lanes, and there is no evidence that this required a first undoubling.
Quote:Agreed! ...and on the little evidence we have, that minimum would appear to be 4....re-enactor/SCA experience that a line more than 2 deep cannot be broken/burst, and more importantly the explicit word of Xenophon that four was 'customary' ( at least in his time), and his comments on why deep formations are no good (Cyropaedia)......and being a General, he surely knew !!
Your own arguement is inconsitant. The SCA evidence clearly shows that the minimum depth to stave off a "rush" (I think they call it that) is 3. Thus in choosing four we have to come up with some role for the 4th man. Whatever you choose can be applied to men 5-8 equally well. Of course I disagree with this even being a force in the evolution of the later phalanx, though it was in what may be called the Proto-phalanx, since I do not think they "rushed".
Quote:Quote:Quote:
Phalanxes were clearly concerned with being outflanked and vulnerable to such.
Agreed! Hence Linear formations as long as practicable, depending on factors such as terrain, enemy strength and dispositions etc, as I mentioned earlier....
I agree as well, as long as you realize than in fighting other hoplites the length that was "practicable" was dictated by the need to form most frequently in 8, 12, or 16 ranks in order to resist the opposing line.
Re: specifics in Spear fighting combat - Muzzaguchi - 05-25-2008
Hi all,
I found this; which could be interpreted as an underhand strike (and a stratagem of dropping on to one knee). It is usually interpreted as a heroic combat (but does not match the combat with Sarpedon in the Iliad where he is wounded with a spear (in that instance it is cast not thrust, but then there are never spear thrusts in Homer).
Cheers
Murray
Re: specifics in Spear fighting combat - Giannis K. Hoplite - 05-25-2008
Ha,! This last post is more in the topic of the thread,but way different than the previous discussions
I think you're reading too much into this scene. It's a typical way to show who of the two is about to be killed,the one hoplite falling off balance backwards. There is no significance in his underhand grip either. After all,it is really difficult to fall and wake up again,alive,with full armour. Even with just a helmet this is really frustrating,more so with cuirass and I have not yet tried it with a shield!Khaire
Giannis
Re: specifics in Spear fighting combat - Muzzaguchi - 05-25-2008
Hi Giannis,
And yet it is the 'falling hoplite' who is making a thrust and whose spear is making contact with the left hoplite (wounding him in the thigh?). Is it not possible to read this image as an attack by the figure in the middle (certainly the figure is not crumpled in any way, which Greek artists were capable of depicting, and he seems in complete control of his movements). Artistically it is the 'falling hoplite' which is the most interesting and it is possible to argue that he is in no way defeated or wounded but rather aggressive and being 'tricky' in the context of a spear fight. The limited evidence of the hoplomachia instructors in the Platonic dialogues would argue that such flexibility was possible (specifically Stesilaus who fights with the unprecedented spear and scythe).
I think we need to be very wary of what are argued to be artistic conventions on the one hand and at the same time disreagrd specific artistic details (such as an underhand grip) which don't fit with a modern theory.
Cheers
Murray
Re: specifics in Spear fighting combat - Giannis K. Hoplite - 05-25-2008
The middle hoplite had to hold a spear,and the artist had to paint his spear "throught" the other hoplite's thigh.Remember they couldn't paint three dimentional scenes. If the voctorious hoplite is the middle one,then the artist has painted an "unbalanced" scene,with two against one,whereas the most "logical" is that the victorious left hoplite has killed the middle one and is now about to fight with the remaining one on the right. The position of his body shows no control of his movements at all. He's falling back leaving his body uncovered of his shield. And after all,he stroke him in the thigh!? The painter could very well had painted him stiking in a more vital point. Finally,it's too early. The hoplomachoi must had been a product of the need of proffessional hoplites,in the difficult times of the late 5th century.
Khaire
Giannis
Re: specifics in Spear fighting combat - PMBardunias - 05-25-2008
Quote:The limited evidence of the hoplomachia instructors in the Platonic dialogues would argue that such flexibility was possible (specifically Stesilaus who fights with the unprecedented spear and scythe).
The dorudrepanon was a pirate's weapon- with its own hazards if Plato is to be believed. It probably was fairly common in that context for cutting rigging. Greek navies spent a lot of time siezing merchant ships of thier foes.
Quote:I think we need to be very wary of what are argued to be artistic conventions on the one hand and at the same time disreagrd specific artistic details (such as an underhand grip) which don't fit with a modern theory.
I don't think anyone would argue against there being various underhand strikes and possibly lots of spectacular martial arts-type moves. I would argue that they are inapplicable to phalanx combat and, as we read in Laches, only useful when one side has broken. This phase of combat should not be forgotten, the battle doesn't end when one side gives way. It is then that you are most likely to die in battle.
If you are an artist showing individual combat, then this is exactly the phase of batgtle most like what you wish to depict. Also, single combat was not unheard of even into this later period, so hoplomachia would help there as well. In general I am far more troubled by artistic convention is attempts to show mass combat than I am in individual dual scenes.
Re: specifics in Spear fighting combat - Muzzaguchi - 05-25-2008
Hi All,
I'd say a spear wound to the thigh would be considerably greivous coming especially to an un-protected (and unexpected?) place. The combat effectiveness of a hoplite with a gaping thigh wound would be severely limited (even the Homeric passages regarding thigh wounds make this apparent).
In regard to balance; there have been several arguments recently which argue (convincingly IMO) that the central figures in scenes on oinochoe and lekythoi are those under the central spout or opposite the handle - exactly where this "falling" figure occurs. I would argue that attention is drawn to him by his pose as opposed to the 'convention' of the standing hoplite on his left and his right. Also there are five figures on this scene; three warriors and a female onlooker on either side - the central 'falling figure is arguably most important one. Arguments can be made both ways as to what that importance denotes (you could argue that if this was a grave good then the central 'fallen warrior' is an appropriate subject for a grave good of that warrior. Unfortunately we have no report of a find spot). Just as valid, however IMO, is a feat of martial prowess which this scene can be argued to depict.
We can disagree as to the control of movements (and the interpretation of the figure) but I think we can argue for a different interpretation of the figure and his movements recall to my mind the feats of martial prowess recorded in Norse sagas and of which non-heroic Greek literature leaves little trace.
The feats of Stesilaus using the dorudrepanon (it is called a remarkable weapon for a remarkable man and seems in the dialogue to be described as something quite unusual) are used in the Laches dialogue to undermine his hoplomachia instruction. Instead I would argue that it shows Stesilaus' displays did, at least, have a practical basis. (The fact he survived and embarassing tangle in a naval engagement should not be used against him). It is a pity we do not have more individual martial 'feats' recorded (unless you count Aeschylus' monument of running at Marathon as one such. It is for that reason I am always drawn to the northern sagas whose links with Homer and classical culture are virtually always overlooked. Take a look at Njal's Saga if you want to see what I mean - just glancing through it, the paralells with Greek culture are striking.
Cheers
Murray
Re: specifics in Spear fighting combat - Giannis K. Hoplite - 05-26-2008
Actually thigh woond are one of the most frequently shown in vases,often with blood coming out. This is logical as the thighs may had been some of the most popular targets,given the nature of hoplite armour and weapons. A thigh woond has the tendency to open in itself rather than close with every single movement,and thus makes the woonded uncapable. This is not the real point of the discussion,I think. The point is,what was the nature of "hoplomachia" and could it be depicted in vases refering to those techniques the hoplites supposedly were tought? I think it's too exagerated to interpret a vase painting as reference to what a hoplite could do,and more so when the scene is most likely to depict something else.
I also wonder,what was the view of the ancients about what is a "good fighting". Nowadays we're influenced from Hollywood,which is full of different eastern martial arts combined with anything that looks fancy and clever. i.e. how much time does a soldier usually need to kill another one in a real fight,and how complicated movement does he need to employ? My point is that an ancient Greek would have a very different view of what an "educated" hoplomachos could do that we may imagine today,in a time that not even gladiatorial shows had been invented.
For one,the movements of pankration,ancient boxing and wrestling are far less fancy than the chinese and japanese martial art,but just as lethal.
Khaire
Giannis
Re: specifics in Spear fighting combat - Muzzaguchi - 05-26-2008
Well the view in didactic literature for wider 'strategy' is expediency, whatever gets the job done, and whatever you as a general decide to do, ensure it gets done. I think (the Stesilaus incident aside) a similar expedient attitude must have prevailed in duel type combats - There is no odium attached to Ulysses for being 'tricky'. If you won, however that victory was achieved, you won. I don't know of any references to any individual (or general for that matter) being accused of not fighting fair.
At the same time the Spartan view in the Platonic dialogues is that hoplomachia was not useful since in non-phalanx combat a hoplite would 'know what to do'.
The explosion of attested hoplomachia teachers during the last quarter of the fifth century (and then the subsequent move in literature to write down sophistic knowledge) would tend to suggest that there was an appetite for whatever was taught. Of course the only attested hoplomachia handbook comes from much later and is probably spurious. Yet it was clearly a subject connected with sophists early - Gorgias, one of the first sophists, was meant to have taught generalship (synonymous with the teachers of hoplomachia in Plato and Xenophon) and was born in 487.
The derision of Socrates towards these teachers suggests that they may have taught all manner of techniques (when they did not just teach tactics and drawing up the phalanx). But Stesilaus clearly taught some form of technique (its probably going too far to suggest that he taught the dorudrepanon) but the brothers Dionysodorus and Euthydemus are described as teaching generalship, rhetoric and as pankratiastai so actual techniques are not out of the question. Their depiction as charlatans, however, might also suggest that the techniques they taught were a sham and not at all useful. Men who followed the teachings they have received seem to come to a bad end - Proxenos for example.
Unfortunately no source goes into enough detail on what were the right techniques by contrast. The closest we come to that are the very general lyric poetry references in Tyrtaeus and others like Archilochus - stand your ground, grip your shield, bite your lip and face up to the manly work.
Cheers
Murray
Re: specifics in Spear fighting combat - Kineas - 05-26-2008
Quote:I too cannot access it, but if it follows the english at all, then there is the notion of " each general marshalling his own men." between the formation and the rank depth. This would indicate to me that the order of these generals is customary- or both the order and rank depth.
Why would the "customary" or the "in the manner to which they are accustomed" refer to "General"? Someone help me--show me the word generals? Ekaston means each/every, and clearly (to me) refers to the Greeks. Where's the generals part?
Ekeluese de tous Ellenas (He ordered the Greeks) hos nomos autois (in the manner customary to them) eis Maxen outw taxthenai kai stenai, (to form lines and to stand just as into battle). suntaxai d'Ekaston tous eautou (each having to form for themselves). Etaxthesan sun epi tettarwn. (So they formed lines in four deep.)
I'm fairly humble about my Greek translating abilities, but none of the words like strategos seem to appear in these sentences.
Quote:hey favored columns for mobility- its the fastest way to move a body of men in formation. The psychological factor was more an issue in the revolutionary period. In either case, as I said, they deployed from these columns. It is a modern fiction- well as modern as Oman at least- and English bias that regularly has French columns crashing into lines intentionally in the Empirical period. The truth is more sublte, a combination of the French inability to time the deployment properly against an enemy on a reverse slope and the superiority of the 2 man -vs- 3 man line, but this is not the forum for that discussion.
The statement that they favored columns for mobility is something like an assertion, isn't it? I'm a believer in a fairly flexible hoplite who's a marine one summer and a partisan the next, and then fights in a phalanx the third--in the 4th century, mind you--but on the battlefield, I don't see the least indication of a Napoleonic mindset in forming. Rather the opposite--everyone seems to mostly give the other side all the time they need to form. And surely the Diodorus I quoted above added to Xenophion shows that the Theban problem was, in fact, morale? My assertion
is that the only reason to form a column deep is for the support of morale. If you try to push with fifty men deep, you'll very quickly see what the limits of the system are. Try it--you'll be convinced. And I'd like to say again that as far as I can see, we have only Xenophon, a very biased source, to suggest that it was the DEPTH of the Thebans that won. I thought that Brent Nosworthy had pretty much debunked the reverse slope? If you haven't read "Anatomy of Victory" (which he's got a really nice re-write of coming out soon) you should--I think Brent understands the period manuals better than any other historian writing on the subject--in fact, he's the ONLY historian to dump myth and read all the manuals and all the journals and discuss the actual battlefield mechanisms vice re-hashing the Victorian accepted truth.
Spear-fighting/Hoplite Drill - Paullus Scipio - 05-26-2008
Kineas wrote:-
Quote:And surely the Diodorus I quoted above added to Xenophion shows that the Theban problem was, in fact, morale?....which was my point too.....French revolutionary generals had problems getting their conscript armies to assault the faster-firing professional armies of their foes, and the answer was the column - mainly for morale reasons ( the guys in back can't see much, and keep the momentum going). By Napoleonic times, the French Army was more sophisticated and usually meant to deploy, but for a variety of reasons often failed to succeed in the teeth of fierce firepower ( rash generalisation, I know.....sorry, guys!
)Back on topic:
Likewise Theban commanders too must have had problems getting their Hoplites ( with the possible exception of the Sacred Band) to assault the dreaded Spartans with their invincible reputation......same problem, same solution... :wink: :wink:
Quote:If you try to push with fifty men deep, you'll very quickly see what the limits of the system are. Try it--you'll be convinced.Uh, oh !.........
lol: Quote:And I'd like to say again that as far as I can see, we have only Xenophon, a very biased source, to suggest that it was the DEPTH of the Thebans that won.....I don't think Xenophon believed 'Depth' was the secret per se....he is pretty scathing of deep formations in the Cyropaedia, as I mentioned earlier......Neither in his description of Leuktra or Mantinea does he give the credit for the Theban success to their depth.....rather, at Leuktra, he credits their success to "..they calculated that, if they proved superior in that part of the field where the King was, all the rest would be easy.." elsewhere pointing out the effect on an army if one part starts to retreat. Compare Epaminondas' famous analogy to cutting off the head of the snake. So at Leuktra it is Concentration of Force at the critical point that wins the day....the same at Mantinea "...By overwhelming the force against which he struck, he caused the whole enemy army to turn and fly.." ( But to catch the Spartans off-guard, interestingly he needs to resort to ruses second time around). Depth plays no physical part on either occasion, but is how Epaminondas both concentrates his strike force, and gets it to assault the invincible Spartans....a question of Morale, as Kineas has said.But just as the death of Cleombrotus led to Spartan defeat at Leuktra, so the death of Epaminondas at Mantinea robbed Thebes of her victory.
For an example of a 'column' failing against a line, how about this passage from Xenophon VII.4.22
"Presently espying a certain rising ground, across which the Arcadians had drawn their outer stockade, Archidamus (Spartan prince, son of King Agesilaus) proposed to himself to take it. If he were once in command of that knoll, the besiegers at its foot would be forced to retire. Accordingly he set about leading a body of troops round to the point in question, and during this movement the peltasts in advance of Archidamus, advancing at the double, caught sight of the Arcadian Eparitoi (Diodorus calls these 'Epilektoi'/chosen troops) outside the stockade and attacked them, while the cavalry made an attempt to enforce their attack simultaneously. The Arcadians did not swerve/give way: in close/compact order they waited impassively. The Lacedaemonians charged a second time: a second time they did not give way, but on the contrary began advancing. Then, as the hoarse roar and shouting deepened, Archidamus himself advanced in support of his troops. To do so he turned aside along the carriage-road leading to Cromnus, and moved onward in column two abreast/ double file,which was his normal/natural order. ( meaning on the march...he did not stop to deploy into line or form close order) When they came into close proximity to one another--Archidamus's troops in column, because they were marching along a road; the Arcadians in close/compact order with shields interlinked --at this conjuncture the Lacedaemonians were not able to hold out for any length of time against the numbers/mass of the Arcadians. Before long Archidamus had received a wound which pierced through his thigh, whilst death was busy with those who fought in front of him, Polyaenidas and Chilon, who was wedded to the sister of Archidamus, included. The whole of these, numbering no less than thirty, perished in this action. Presently, falling back along the road, they emerged into the open ground, and now with a sense of relief the Lacedaemonians got themselves into battle order, (i.e. line, and close order) facing the foe. The Arcadians, without altering their position, stood in close/compact line, and though falling short in actual numbers, were in far better heart--the moral result of an attack on a retreating enemy and the severe loss inflicted on him. The Lacedaemonians, on the other hand, were sorely down-hearted: Archidamus lay wounded before their eyes; in their ears rang the names of those who had died, the fallen being not only brave men, but, one may say, the flower of Spartan chivalry. The two armies were now close together, when one of the older men lifted up his voice and cried: "Why need we fight, sirs? Why not rather make truce and part friends?" Joyously the words fell on the ears of either host, and they made a truce. The Lacedaemonians picked up their dead and retired; the Arcadians withdrew to the point where their advance originally began, and set up a trophy of victory"
As clear example as one could wish for of Hoplites in column/open order, even Spartan ones, being unable to prevail against a close order line....