09-14-2010, 08:30 PM
Thanks Cole. First we have to establish some basic terms for the discussion. I’m not sure what you are calling a “classical stance”. Since we are considering pushing here I want to limit the discussion to othismos, but we need to define it.
There are three basic takes on the concept of othismos:
First, there is the notion that all mention of “pushing” is figurative, and the depth we see in hoplite formations is due to morale and/or mobility consequences.
The second is a literal “pushing” of all ranks in a coordinated and sustained manner. This does not deny morale and mobility benefits, but adds a phase of battle where the primary aim of a unit in a parataxis is to physically push their opposite out of line with adjacent friendly units. It is primarily a psychological tactic as a parataxis break due to loss of cohesion more than loss of life.
The third grouping is broader and covers everything from simply bashing and pushing by the front rankers alone to shoving that occurs only along part of files or sporadically. I describe this by two terms: Pre-othismos, if the limited pushing is in preparation for a more general othismos within a battle, or Proto-othismos if this is the extent of pushing for a given troop type. The reason for this is that surely there was a stage in the history of othismos where this type of limited pushing occurred and was later built upon. I think Proto-othismos occurred in most armies of heavy, line infantry, probably going back to Sumer. There are a variety of Roman examples.
For this discussion we will only consider full, literal othismos. As a side note, I use the term parataxis, which is how Thucydides described hoplite formations, because it is a far more informative word than “phalanx” and implies the fact that these were individual discrete units arranged side by side.
Now on to stances, and as you will see, there is no single stance supported by ancient imagery.
Because we are focused on pushing, we will look at stances from the point of view of generating or resisting pushing force, as opposed to their utility in doratismos. Because of this the shoulder position is only of secondary importance. Any good martial artist, or even dancer, will tell you that all motion in generated from the hips or the “center” midway between them below the navel. We will look at the hips and feet.
1) The first stance to consider is what is called “side-on”, “the fencer’s stance”, “The ‘T’ stance”, etc. (A below in the red box). This is seen on some vases and statues- mostly on late 5th and 4th century images. In this stance the body is perpendicular to the shield. Note that the hips are perpendicular to the shield. You should be able to draw a line from the rear heel through the shoulders and front foot to the middle of the aspis. This is a great defensive stance because the aspis covers the maximum amount of your body. It is also very good at resisting being pushed back. Rather than relying on the muscles of your leg, you lock the rear leg and use the strength of your bones to resist force. The rear foot is turned sideways to increase traction and the body is lowered to form an optimal angle for the rear leg to form a buttress that transfers the force directly into the ground. The foreleg adds little to resisting a push, and its main function is in steadying the body as it is lowered for mechanical advantage. Because only one leg pushes, the force generated is weak, but you can move forward quickly and reset to move ahead against a force.
The problem with this stance is that it is difficult to strike from with a weapon because the body is in the exact wrong orientation to strike with the right hand- note that fencers lead with the right leg. Also, the body is unstable from side to side. There is a danger in getting too low and being pushing down into the ground or standing too high and being bounced up on the back leg if the force exceeds your body weight.
This stance became popular for othismos perhaps because of the fact that some authors likened it to a “reverse tug-o-war”. I did a long time ago too, but the mechanics of pushing are very different. In a tug-o-war, the force it transferred from man to man through the inflexible rope. Thus, the spacing between men is not important as long as they all hold the rope. In pushing, spacing is all-important, but I will address this later.
2) The second stance is called the “striding stance”, and as the name implies it is simply a walking step or stride. Some authors have confused this stance with the side-on stance, but they are very different. (compare the Dodona statuette in A below with the Frieze at the center top for the obvious differences) This stance is by far the most commonly seen on vases.
In this stance the hips are parallel to the shield and the feet point towards the shield as well. In this it is similar to what is known as a “boxer’s stance” or “fore-square”, which is the same stance with less distance between the feet. This is the best pure pushing stance because you can bring the muscles of both legs to bear, and is the way a football player pushes. Obviously humans are designed to move forward, so moving forward while pushing engages all of the strongest muscle groups. You can do a leaning/resting version of this position by angling the body forward and the legs back the way that wrestlers do. The big problem with this “laid out” position, and even the initial two legged push (C below), is that there is nothing supporting you and if pressure suddenly decreases, you fall on your face. I think the Greeks called such a tactic the “Thessalian feint” and hoplites were said to have succumbed to it.
3) It is a curious fact that what I and others consider the most likely fighting stance for a hoplite is perhaps the least frequently seen in imagery. This is the “3/4” stance common to almost all martial arts. This is basically midway between the two above stances. The hips are not parallel to the shield and the foe, but at a 45 degree angle away. The rear leg is held back and the foot is also at a 45 degree angle. In terms of pushing, this stance benefits from neither of the mechanics of the two above, and a hoplite would probably shift to either a side-on or fore-square to push. Also, the ¾ stance probably turns into a for-square stance as you strike forward with a weapon, and the reverse occurs as you rear back to strike from a fore-square stance. They may be essentially the same.
Note that there are artistic conventions that make looking at any imagery for these stances difficult. The early striding stance vases may in fact be 3/4 stances that are stylized in the oriental manner to have the feet point forward for example. Some of the later vases showing the side-on stance are surely conforming to some convention that wants to show the torso and gentical because the feet are actually pointing away from one another in extreme examples and sometimes men facing eachother are both shown with their torsos and hips facing us. As I mentioned, I find imagery very unreliable due to these conventions. Also, a lot of hoplites that we think are in combat are probably shown moving to combat, the Chigi for example.
Now I think all of these stances were used. Remember how easy it is to shift between stances. But I think the ¾ stance the most likely doratismos stance and the fore-square the pushing stance- while the side-on was used to recieve a shield bash. You’ll notice there is no “crowd-stance”. This is because you cannot assume a crowd stance; you have to be forced into it. If you are in a ¾ or fore-square stance, as pressure builds behind you, you will be forced belly to back. In my experience this will also happen in a side-on stance with great pressure. Think of it this way, if you are in a ¾ stance, with a shield on your back, the only thing keeping you from collapsing into your shield is the strength of your left triceps. It does not take much pressure to cause such a collapse.
So we need now to consider crowds. Because I have presented a complete system with many elements that differ from the orthodoxy on othismos, I think there has been an assumption that all of the pieces are needed for a crowd-othismos to function. This is not the case. The basic mechanic of a crowd is not tied to any “stance”. I merely present it with the most likely. All that the crowd mechanic requires is that there is a minimal space between hoplites. Unlike a tug-0-war, men must directly push against one another, and any space between them and the men ahead will sap the force of the push as it moves through the file. Rugby players know this and they literally lock their bodies together in a manner that hoplites cannot. This is analogous to the way a cushion saps force by requiring compression over space. You waste energy accelerating the man into the next man prior to collision.
If it could be shown that hoplites can push in complete files in a side-on stance, then this changes nothing in the basic crowd dynamic. I simply don’t believe they can from what I have seen so far.
In crowds, force travels in waves. A push from the back will move forward like falling dominoes. In order to maximize force, you want to have all of the men in the file push forward in unison. Because of the constrained position, most hoplites will be simply leaning forwards. They are essentially falling into the men ahead of them. The more extreme the lean, the more of their body weight they are transferring forward, and the wave-like nature of the system means they will probably be moving from almost vertical to a marked lean. Remember though that the hoplites must be forced into this position by the rear rankers pushing on them.
Why is the crowd mechanic superior? At short file length it is not. Remember though, our assumption is that all 8-16 ranks are pushing. Only with a crowd mechanic can you add the force of each hoplite in such deep files to the total pushing force. At 12 ranks for example, you would have rear rankers (1, 2, 3 ranks? I don’t know) who are not so compressed pushing hard and each of the compressed men adding some fraction of their body weight to the push. The force could be quite large.
One of the benefits of the crowd-othismos is that it eliminates the need for a powerful initial charge. Because force is much greater when generated by a compact mass than running men, if hoplites were to go directly into othismos from a charge, they would need to pull up short and pack in tight. The concept can be seen here where SCA types have independently hit upon the need for packing to break a shield wall:
http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/2 ... nsity.html
But if you have to pull up from a charge anyway, now we have a period of time that can be used for doratisos, and we eliminate much of the either/or argument. A long time ago, the notion that there was a period of doratismos followed by othismos was a common thought. In this scenario, a period of doratismos may be limited to the time it takes to get your files packed in, or could be quite long, with the transition to othismos occurring due to some factor. The ability of hoplites to prevent their foes from closing has in my opinion been wildly overrated, if for no other reason than that we know hoplites did clash shield to shield. Probably this was a time for swords, since an 8’ dory, with a 5’ reach cannot be brought to bear on the man in front of you in othismos in any stance. You are basically face to face or cheek to cheek with your foe, smelling his breakfast, but this works in your favor, for his head protects you from lateral strikes. Strikes from above are still effective and may explain the popularity of the pilos.
As to what the file would look like in profile, it is hard to say. One thing you don'e want is any of your men leaning backwards (see that link above where the guy leans back to provide pressure on the front of his little file because as I said a crowd cannot be formed without pressure). I drew up a simple diagram that should give some idea below.
There are three basic takes on the concept of othismos:
First, there is the notion that all mention of “pushing” is figurative, and the depth we see in hoplite formations is due to morale and/or mobility consequences.
The second is a literal “pushing” of all ranks in a coordinated and sustained manner. This does not deny morale and mobility benefits, but adds a phase of battle where the primary aim of a unit in a parataxis is to physically push their opposite out of line with adjacent friendly units. It is primarily a psychological tactic as a parataxis break due to loss of cohesion more than loss of life.
The third grouping is broader and covers everything from simply bashing and pushing by the front rankers alone to shoving that occurs only along part of files or sporadically. I describe this by two terms: Pre-othismos, if the limited pushing is in preparation for a more general othismos within a battle, or Proto-othismos if this is the extent of pushing for a given troop type. The reason for this is that surely there was a stage in the history of othismos where this type of limited pushing occurred and was later built upon. I think Proto-othismos occurred in most armies of heavy, line infantry, probably going back to Sumer. There are a variety of Roman examples.
For this discussion we will only consider full, literal othismos. As a side note, I use the term parataxis, which is how Thucydides described hoplite formations, because it is a far more informative word than “phalanx” and implies the fact that these were individual discrete units arranged side by side.
Now on to stances, and as you will see, there is no single stance supported by ancient imagery.
Because we are focused on pushing, we will look at stances from the point of view of generating or resisting pushing force, as opposed to their utility in doratismos. Because of this the shoulder position is only of secondary importance. Any good martial artist, or even dancer, will tell you that all motion in generated from the hips or the “center” midway between them below the navel. We will look at the hips and feet.
1) The first stance to consider is what is called “side-on”, “the fencer’s stance”, “The ‘T’ stance”, etc. (A below in the red box). This is seen on some vases and statues- mostly on late 5th and 4th century images. In this stance the body is perpendicular to the shield. Note that the hips are perpendicular to the shield. You should be able to draw a line from the rear heel through the shoulders and front foot to the middle of the aspis. This is a great defensive stance because the aspis covers the maximum amount of your body. It is also very good at resisting being pushed back. Rather than relying on the muscles of your leg, you lock the rear leg and use the strength of your bones to resist force. The rear foot is turned sideways to increase traction and the body is lowered to form an optimal angle for the rear leg to form a buttress that transfers the force directly into the ground. The foreleg adds little to resisting a push, and its main function is in steadying the body as it is lowered for mechanical advantage. Because only one leg pushes, the force generated is weak, but you can move forward quickly and reset to move ahead against a force.
The problem with this stance is that it is difficult to strike from with a weapon because the body is in the exact wrong orientation to strike with the right hand- note that fencers lead with the right leg. Also, the body is unstable from side to side. There is a danger in getting too low and being pushing down into the ground or standing too high and being bounced up on the back leg if the force exceeds your body weight.
This stance became popular for othismos perhaps because of the fact that some authors likened it to a “reverse tug-o-war”. I did a long time ago too, but the mechanics of pushing are very different. In a tug-o-war, the force it transferred from man to man through the inflexible rope. Thus, the spacing between men is not important as long as they all hold the rope. In pushing, spacing is all-important, but I will address this later.
2) The second stance is called the “striding stance”, and as the name implies it is simply a walking step or stride. Some authors have confused this stance with the side-on stance, but they are very different. (compare the Dodona statuette in A below with the Frieze at the center top for the obvious differences) This stance is by far the most commonly seen on vases.
In this stance the hips are parallel to the shield and the feet point towards the shield as well. In this it is similar to what is known as a “boxer’s stance” or “fore-square”, which is the same stance with less distance between the feet. This is the best pure pushing stance because you can bring the muscles of both legs to bear, and is the way a football player pushes. Obviously humans are designed to move forward, so moving forward while pushing engages all of the strongest muscle groups. You can do a leaning/resting version of this position by angling the body forward and the legs back the way that wrestlers do. The big problem with this “laid out” position, and even the initial two legged push (C below), is that there is nothing supporting you and if pressure suddenly decreases, you fall on your face. I think the Greeks called such a tactic the “Thessalian feint” and hoplites were said to have succumbed to it.
3) It is a curious fact that what I and others consider the most likely fighting stance for a hoplite is perhaps the least frequently seen in imagery. This is the “3/4” stance common to almost all martial arts. This is basically midway between the two above stances. The hips are not parallel to the shield and the foe, but at a 45 degree angle away. The rear leg is held back and the foot is also at a 45 degree angle. In terms of pushing, this stance benefits from neither of the mechanics of the two above, and a hoplite would probably shift to either a side-on or fore-square to push. Also, the ¾ stance probably turns into a for-square stance as you strike forward with a weapon, and the reverse occurs as you rear back to strike from a fore-square stance. They may be essentially the same.
Note that there are artistic conventions that make looking at any imagery for these stances difficult. The early striding stance vases may in fact be 3/4 stances that are stylized in the oriental manner to have the feet point forward for example. Some of the later vases showing the side-on stance are surely conforming to some convention that wants to show the torso and gentical because the feet are actually pointing away from one another in extreme examples and sometimes men facing eachother are both shown with their torsos and hips facing us. As I mentioned, I find imagery very unreliable due to these conventions. Also, a lot of hoplites that we think are in combat are probably shown moving to combat, the Chigi for example.
Now I think all of these stances were used. Remember how easy it is to shift between stances. But I think the ¾ stance the most likely doratismos stance and the fore-square the pushing stance- while the side-on was used to recieve a shield bash. You’ll notice there is no “crowd-stance”. This is because you cannot assume a crowd stance; you have to be forced into it. If you are in a ¾ or fore-square stance, as pressure builds behind you, you will be forced belly to back. In my experience this will also happen in a side-on stance with great pressure. Think of it this way, if you are in a ¾ stance, with a shield on your back, the only thing keeping you from collapsing into your shield is the strength of your left triceps. It does not take much pressure to cause such a collapse.
So we need now to consider crowds. Because I have presented a complete system with many elements that differ from the orthodoxy on othismos, I think there has been an assumption that all of the pieces are needed for a crowd-othismos to function. This is not the case. The basic mechanic of a crowd is not tied to any “stance”. I merely present it with the most likely. All that the crowd mechanic requires is that there is a minimal space between hoplites. Unlike a tug-0-war, men must directly push against one another, and any space between them and the men ahead will sap the force of the push as it moves through the file. Rugby players know this and they literally lock their bodies together in a manner that hoplites cannot. This is analogous to the way a cushion saps force by requiring compression over space. You waste energy accelerating the man into the next man prior to collision.
If it could be shown that hoplites can push in complete files in a side-on stance, then this changes nothing in the basic crowd dynamic. I simply don’t believe they can from what I have seen so far.
In crowds, force travels in waves. A push from the back will move forward like falling dominoes. In order to maximize force, you want to have all of the men in the file push forward in unison. Because of the constrained position, most hoplites will be simply leaning forwards. They are essentially falling into the men ahead of them. The more extreme the lean, the more of their body weight they are transferring forward, and the wave-like nature of the system means they will probably be moving from almost vertical to a marked lean. Remember though that the hoplites must be forced into this position by the rear rankers pushing on them.
Why is the crowd mechanic superior? At short file length it is not. Remember though, our assumption is that all 8-16 ranks are pushing. Only with a crowd mechanic can you add the force of each hoplite in such deep files to the total pushing force. At 12 ranks for example, you would have rear rankers (1, 2, 3 ranks? I don’t know) who are not so compressed pushing hard and each of the compressed men adding some fraction of their body weight to the push. The force could be quite large.
One of the benefits of the crowd-othismos is that it eliminates the need for a powerful initial charge. Because force is much greater when generated by a compact mass than running men, if hoplites were to go directly into othismos from a charge, they would need to pull up short and pack in tight. The concept can be seen here where SCA types have independently hit upon the need for packing to break a shield wall:
http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/2 ... nsity.html
But if you have to pull up from a charge anyway, now we have a period of time that can be used for doratisos, and we eliminate much of the either/or argument. A long time ago, the notion that there was a period of doratismos followed by othismos was a common thought. In this scenario, a period of doratismos may be limited to the time it takes to get your files packed in, or could be quite long, with the transition to othismos occurring due to some factor. The ability of hoplites to prevent their foes from closing has in my opinion been wildly overrated, if for no other reason than that we know hoplites did clash shield to shield. Probably this was a time for swords, since an 8’ dory, with a 5’ reach cannot be brought to bear on the man in front of you in othismos in any stance. You are basically face to face or cheek to cheek with your foe, smelling his breakfast, but this works in your favor, for his head protects you from lateral strikes. Strikes from above are still effective and may explain the popularity of the pilos.
As to what the file would look like in profile, it is hard to say. One thing you don'e want is any of your men leaning backwards (see that link above where the guy leans back to provide pressure on the front of his little file because as I said a crowd cannot be formed without pressure). I drew up a simple diagram that should give some idea below.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
