07-26-2007, 09:17 AM
Very interesting thread. I did not read it before because I don't like the late Romans so much :oops: , but perhaps it could be also split to the Greek section? So I will only make a few remarks:
1.
We should not mix the body pressure used in classical othismos (which was real I believe) and that used for the forward pressure of compact tactical units in advance.
I don't think that a pike phalanx of the Macedonian kind could and would have used bodily pressure comparable to hoplite othismos. They lacked the substantial shields and also the necessity.
In defence with up to 5 rows able to use their stabbing weapons they could hold the enemy at bay. In the offence the attack is substituted by the body weight of the back rows to achieve a constant forward movement. They could break the enemy line with the pikes alone. Compare it with the Swiss Gewalthaufen of the 15th c. AD who definitely did not use real body pressure.
2.
As mentioned above I believe real body pressure was used in classical close phalanx combat. I could argue more but I think, late Roman combat (of which I don't know much) was different.
3.
To cavalry vs. infantry: there were not few incidents in the time of the 18th and 19th c. AD, when cavalry broke infantry formations, mostly in carree. For the most time the infantry was shattered before with infantry or artillery fire. Garcia Hernandez however was a clear and very debatable exception; not necessary to refer to it.
It is not true that infantry without carrees were regularly a helpless victim of cavalry charges. The Prussian infantry of the 18th c. AD normally repelled cavalry attacks in line, carrees were avoided.
4.
There is one argument I do not understand: why makes the overlapping of shields in both armies the pushing fight impossible? The shields are held by men and men can be moved. If a solid shield wall is victim to pushing, it is in a disadvantage because the rearward movement could result in a break. A break always happened from the rear and when the backward rows were pressed back, moral was in danger. So the only way to deal with the pressure was to press against.
If a Greek phalanx would not break before contact (which seems to have happened quite often) pushing back the enemy line was the only decisive way to gain success. Stabbing at each other from a distance like perhaps in the Homerian times would not explain the sudden breaks of the phalanges.
5.
The danger of being hit when trying to push the opposing line back should not be exaggerated. It depends of course on the shields and helmets/armour used. But when men are pushed back their ability to exercise precise stabs is greatly limited. This is also true for the second line who probably stabbed at the first enemy line. Again, I can only say something what I think about Greek hoplite warfare, not about the early or late Romans.
1.
We should not mix the body pressure used in classical othismos (which was real I believe) and that used for the forward pressure of compact tactical units in advance.
I don't think that a pike phalanx of the Macedonian kind could and would have used bodily pressure comparable to hoplite othismos. They lacked the substantial shields and also the necessity.
In defence with up to 5 rows able to use their stabbing weapons they could hold the enemy at bay. In the offence the attack is substituted by the body weight of the back rows to achieve a constant forward movement. They could break the enemy line with the pikes alone. Compare it with the Swiss Gewalthaufen of the 15th c. AD who definitely did not use real body pressure.
2.
As mentioned above I believe real body pressure was used in classical close phalanx combat. I could argue more but I think, late Roman combat (of which I don't know much) was different.
3.
To cavalry vs. infantry: there were not few incidents in the time of the 18th and 19th c. AD, when cavalry broke infantry formations, mostly in carree. For the most time the infantry was shattered before with infantry or artillery fire. Garcia Hernandez however was a clear and very debatable exception; not necessary to refer to it.
It is not true that infantry without carrees were regularly a helpless victim of cavalry charges. The Prussian infantry of the 18th c. AD normally repelled cavalry attacks in line, carrees were avoided.
4.
There is one argument I do not understand: why makes the overlapping of shields in both armies the pushing fight impossible? The shields are held by men and men can be moved. If a solid shield wall is victim to pushing, it is in a disadvantage because the rearward movement could result in a break. A break always happened from the rear and when the backward rows were pressed back, moral was in danger. So the only way to deal with the pressure was to press against.
If a Greek phalanx would not break before contact (which seems to have happened quite often) pushing back the enemy line was the only decisive way to gain success. Stabbing at each other from a distance like perhaps in the Homerian times would not explain the sudden breaks of the phalanges.
5.
The danger of being hit when trying to push the opposing line back should not be exaggerated. It depends of course on the shields and helmets/armour used. But when men are pushed back their ability to exercise precise stabs is greatly limited. This is also true for the second line who probably stabbed at the first enemy line. Again, I can only say something what I think about Greek hoplite warfare, not about the early or late Romans.
Wolfgang Zeiler
