Hoplite spacing and formation

[hoplite14gr]

Thermopylae 2006
http://www.hoplites.net/intro2_gr.php
I was standing between the hoplites with the boar and the bull.
They could push and shove me without difficulty.
Kind regards

[PMBardunias]

How do you know you cant't push or that you're terribly harmed if your fellow hoplite's shield is a bit to the right of your chest?

Did you read my article? What I describe is a very specific use of the aspis in the press of othismos. This cannot occur if the edge of a shield is compressing your diaphragm.

You say that right over left and body parallel to the shield are inseperable. How do you know? You base your whole theory on only these two points, that you have not experienced yourself and that other re-enactors disagree with(they may not have expirienced othismos,but they-if nothing else-have been side by side with shields with other hoplites.

To my knowledge no modern man has experience othismos. Reinactment without othismos tells you nothing about what othismos is like. In fact it leads to misconceptions since other formations might work better if there is no othismos. Saying that you can push in C is meaningless because it is not the pushing I describe.

I have been in crowds at pressures that can lead to asphyxiation. If there was a literal mass pushing it would have resembled such a crowd. The manner in which force can be maximized in a crowd is the same that would be applicable to maximizing force in othismos. This is the basis of my theory. If they literally pushed en masse, then the scheme I outline will always win, men in C can neither generate or withstand the same pushing force as D. That is really all there is to it. Without the shield rim flush to your chest, you do not gain the protection from asphyxiation.

I posted so many pictures,many of them showing locked shields in battle, but you insist this is incapability to depict the real phalanx(while there are indeed some few depictions of right over left shield)

Giannis, not a single of your images show men with their shields in front of them facing off against men opposite them. The Lycian rhomphaia-men for example are advacning to battle and the Xanthos relief clearly show space BETWEEN the shields. These images all show shields EDGE FORWARD which we agree is unlikely. Even the images I think are showing right over left are unreliable and I would not use as evidence. Art is of little help with this question. You have read that Schwartz article- he makes the same point in argueing against scheme A.

You also don't offer an explanation of how they would deploy,and how this would be practical

I thought I had. They can deploy exactly the same way as you would deploy them, only twisting to the right not the left. More likely they simply stacked up like Tetris pieces or building blocks upon contact with the enemy phalanx after losing some of their order in the charge.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Sorry Paul,last time I thought about your article was when you were still preparing it. Have you got a link to it?
Khaire
Giannis

[hoplite14gr]

Left over right Hermitage Museum:
http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/fcgi-bin ... From=quick

Kind regards

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Stefane,I can't see it either.
Gioi,i'm sorry but I seen only C in this video. And it shows very well how natural it is to form the phalanx this way.It also shows that the depth of the shields(arround 10 cm) is so small that the shields are almost paraller with each other,so the overlapping is no matter in the othismos. In anyway,in the othismost the two formations become one thing,and such details as the small angle of the shields play no role. What would matter most would be to be tightly next to your fellow and to keep order in the ranks,so that each man can push as streight as pssible the man in the front.
The truth is that in this video the change from loose to tight formation is in a very wrong way,and we can't see how C favours the process.
Khaire
Giannis

[Paullus Scipio]

Giannis said:-

The truth is that in this video the change from loose to tight formation is in a very wrong way,and we can't see how C favours the process

....in fact in an impossible way! The maker of this video has made a huge error...what is possible on a front of 10 ( having each man squeeze up a foot or so...so the furthest man moves 10 feet sideways, patently doesn't work for a phalanx on a front of a thousand ( where the endmost man would have to run a thousand feet sideways... hock: )

Oddly enough, Xenophon makes a similar mistake in his Cyropaedia! The Spartan drills he describes would work well for a few thousand men, but not the hordes he attributes to the imaginary Cyrus and his foes.......it is all a question of scale! :wink:

[hoplite14gr]

Sorryu their linkage is ... So here it is...

Similar exmples with left over right exist in Loubre.
When y computer is resurected I will pos Geryones too.

[PMBardunias]

....in fact in an impossible way! The maker of this video has made a huge error...what is possible on a front of 10 ( having each man squeeze up a foot or so...so the furthest man moves 10 feet sideways, patently doesn't work for a phalanx on a front of a thousand ( where the endmost man would have to run a thousand feet sideways... hock: )

The way in which it works over larger groups is that the spacing between each group increses. Gaps form between sub-phalanxes that make up for this space rather than the men on the left running a hundred yards sideways to keep up.

Here's snippet from Cawkwell's paper that gives Hellenistic references for such action. While I do not agree with his doubt that hoplites could do this, it is easier to paste it than rewrite the sources.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Pyknosis in depth and lenght...It is imposible to do both! If you just come closer to the rigth soldier,like in the video, then you have the same depth! If you bring the rear hoplites to the front,you have the same length.Am I missing something?
Paul,could you post a link to your othismos article?
Khaire
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

There are images on vases that can be interpreted tho show many formations, they are of little use as evidence. Many scholars have recognized this problem in the past.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Yes,that's why I avoided quoting vase paintings,though the VAST majority show left over right shield. I'm sure you have to make another comment on your part,but I interprete the right over left depiction as follows: The painter makes the first hoplite to the left or the first shield to the left and then adds shields/hoplites. This is the natural way and it has happened to me. Remember we right from left to right.
I wouldn't say it depicts a line of hoplites,as you fear. It doesn't seem like that and the shields are overlapping-this is not the ase in a marching line.
Anyway,I agree such kinds of arguements(one vase of each type) are not convincing... But when I'm talking about representations of left over right in art,I'm not talking about one or two vases. I'm talking about the majority of the depictions in all kinds of art.
Khaire
Giannis

[Paullus Scipio]

Giannis wrote:-

Paul,could you post a link to your othismos article?

The article is in 'Ancient Warfare' issue 3, recently out....
Paul B. wrote:-

The way in which it works over larger groups is that the spacing between each group increses. Gaps form between sub-phalanxes that make up for this space rather than the men on the left running a hundred yards sideways to keep up.

....I was hoping someone else might pick up on the rather obvious flaw here......however......it is necessary in Paul's tightest- of- tight Othismos formation for this 'bunching up' to occur. Let us say each man closes up 18"(45cm) so that his shield rim is touching his neighbours elbow ( the maximum physically possible). Let us take the Spartan army of around 8,000 Hoplites at full strength as an example( as Demaratus told Xerxes) - divided into 6 Mora, each of 2 Lochoi. The Lochoi were the 'tactical units' which equate to Paul's 'sub-phalanx'. Let us have them form up 12 deep, 6' frontage, and then 3' frontage (shields touching, as Xenophon tells us) 6 deep. Now as far as Xenophon (and I would believe him and follow him here) that's it...fighting formation! The whole formation is on a front of 1280 men and yards(1180 metres), each of the 12 Lochoi occupying a little over 105 yards (96 metres).
Now for Paul's Othismos, the 'sub-phalanxes/Lochoi' formation tightens up, by half, to a front of around 50 yards, with a 50 yard gap between each one.......why bother forming this complex 'Othismos' formation to try to create a gap/break-through if the enemy are going to obligingly open up eleven 50 yard gaps for you? This is not a recipe for phalanx fighting, it is a recipe for a massacre !! :roll: Imagine the glee of the enemy as they swarm through/surround each little clump of men so tight they can barely use their weapons.....and cut them down. :evil: :twisted: :lol:
This is but one of many impossibilities which make me feel that Paul's ingenious theory was not the way Phalanx-fighting and/or 'Othismos' generally occurred in Practise.......

[PMBardunias]

Now for Paul's Othismos, the 'sub-phalanxes/Lochoi' formation tightens up, by half, to a front of around 50 yards, with a 50 yard gap between each one.......

Don't add details that are not neccesary. My Othismos works just fine if shields are not overlapped. The shield resting on the chest is what is important.

A secondary point, and the one we are argueing here is overlap. My scheme only allows this right over left since nothing can come between a man's chest and his shield rim.

As to "halving" the frontage, this is nothing I have espoused, and I doubt the accuracy of reports of this even in hellenistic formations. When I say gaps I do not mean 50 yard gaps! I think you are mistaken in applying your hellenistic distances to Hoplites- hoplites probably began closer and ended looser than what you call "close order" and "overlapped shields". The linearity of the phalanx made it difficult to exploit such smaller gaps without breaking up your own formation.


Giannis, your "vast majority" simply do not show right over left. I will say this once more since you seem to be ignoring it. They almost all show edge forward. I am not the first to point this out- cawkwell did and Van Wees makes much of it. You cannot simply say "I know they meant left over right".

[Paullus Scipio]

Paul B. wrote

Don't add details that are not neccesary. My Othismos works just fine if shields are not overlapped.

......O.K. - but in your article and elsewhere you have the files with shields overlapping, right-over-left, which is a formation tighter than 'close' formation.....and if each file is not laterally tight up against the next then the file will 'buckle' concertina fashion, or individuals will be 'squeezed out'.

When I say gaps I do not mean 50 yard gaps!

...Fair enough, but my understanding was that your 'model' of 'Othismos' required the tightest possible formations both laterally and depth-wise, which is why I discussed the tightest formation. Nevertheless, you do say that the formation tightens up at some stage, and that gaps are created....even a gap of a few metres is fatal to the whole 'phalanx/shieldwall' concept of fighting.
Let us do the exercise with a minimal overlap, say 6". The gaps between Lochoi then become 17.5 yards(16 metres)...11 of them, each one more than wide enough to be fatal to your phalanx... (
My objection is perfectly sound, unless you have your formation form up well outside 'battle distance' and then shuffle forward into combat..which you can't have, because of the frequency we are told of Hoplite lines 'running' or 'charging'....and battlefield frontages simply do not support such tight formations......

I think you are mistaken in applying your hellenistic distances to Hoplites- hoplites probably began closer and ended looser than what you call "close order" and "overlapped shields".

....The distance I gave for close order is Xenophon's, not from a Hellenistic manual ( see, for example, the detailed description at Hellenicavii.4.22 "...But the Arcadians(Hoplites) stood firm.They formed up in close order and stood there quietly.......(Archidamus) led his men up in double file, just as they were on the march, and so as the troops came to close quarters, the troops....were in column and the Arcadians were in close order, shield to shield." (interestingly, the Spartans come off second best in this fight! ). .....any tighter formation is your idea of Hoplite fighting, not mine. ( I hasten to add we are speaking generally...I don't doubt that in the ebb and flow of battle, formations grew tighter or loosened somewhat)

The linearity of the phalanx made it difficult to exploit such smaller gaps without breaking up your own formation.

...since the whole point of 'Othismos' was to create such gaps, your argument is self-evidently mistaken.....anyone can give numerous examples of gaps leading to defeats.

My scheme only allows this right over left since nothing can come between a man's chest and his shield rim.

...eer..rr.m, don't you mean left-over-right ?? I thought it was Giannis who was arguing for the 'natural' grip, with the left rim slightly trailing,hence right-over-left....? :? ?

Giannis, your "vast majority" simply do not show right over left.

.....In any event, you seem to be both agreed that pot depictions and reliefs cannot be conclusive, though the vast majority do indeed show right-over-left .... :wink: :wink:

[PMBardunias]

...Fair enough, but my understanding was that your 'model' of 'Othismos' required the tightest possible formations both laterally and depth-wise,

The model only requires tightness in depth, but I do believe that they overlapped shields. The only way this can occur consistant with the model in right over left (you have confused r-l and l-r in your description of "natural", which is l-r)

....even a gap of a few metres is fatal to the whole 'phalanx/shieldwall' concept of fighting.
Let us do the exercise with a minimal overlap, say 6". The gaps between Lochoi then become 17.5 yards(16 metres)...11 of them, each one more than wide enough to be fatal to your phalanx..

You forget that lateral drift of the entire line occurred as well, and was probably asymetrical along the front, though not the 50 yard dash you ascribed to the men on the left. The combined effect would perhaps reduce this to 15'- 30' gaps. Hoplites could not effectively exploit gaps such as this without breaking their own battle-line and exposing their unshielded flanks. This is the weakness of such linear tactics. Xenophon tells of this a bit of this effect on light troops when he describes that odd formation of a battle line of spaced Lochoi, Orthioi lochoi.

...since the whole point of 'Othismos' was to create such gaps, your argument is self-evidently mistaken.....anyone can give numerous examples of gaps leading to defeats.

The point was not to create a gap, but to beat back a section of the line causing a buckling effect. This is a matter of scale, but bending your battle line into your foes and pushing him back is different than fragmenting your battle line to exploit a gap. I seriously doubt that hoplites had the tactical flexibility to exploit a gap that would require breaking their units front line into fragments to fit in it- ending with them being flanked on both sides!