04-04-2007, 08:23 PM
Hi all,
I've been doing some extra reading and brushing up on hoplite warfare in the 6th and 5th Centuries. I just read an interesting chapter in Oxford's Short History of Europe: Classical Greece that described hoplite fighting in a manner that I have never heard before. I had always heard, and was taught in my classes that hoplites fought in the phalanx, very tightly packed, with their shields held in their left arm. In doing so, the shield (being about 3ft across) covered the bearer's left side, as well as the right side of the man next to him -- leaving only the man on the extreme right vulnerable. It makes sense to me -- I never thought of questioning it.
However, I just read a chapter titled "The City at War" by Hans van Wees where he rejects the traditional accounts, mostly from Thucydides of hoplite warfare. He states that they actually didn't lock shields, but needed plenty of space to wield spears and swords, and gaps in between hoplites were very common and expected. He says:
"In this context, one cannot take too seriously the 'joining' or 'locking' of shields, which also features in classical battle narratives, most explicitly in Thucydides' observation that every hoplite 'brings his unprotected side as near as possible to the shield of the man drawn up on his right and believes that density of the formation is the best protection' (5. 71. 1). The density implied by Thucydides' 'as near as possible' depends on how much room hoplites needed to wield the weapons and we have Polybius' expert opinion that a soldier using a cutting or thrusting weapon as well as a shield required at least six feet of space in every direction (18. 30. 6-9). Most scholars would object that the hoplite shield by its very nature demands extremely close ranks, on the assumption that the hoplite stood squarely behind it an in effect used on the right half of his shield, extending the left half to provide cover for a comrade close behind him in the ranks. In fact, however, a hoplite, in order to wield his spear or sword with any force at all, would have to adopt a sideways-on stance in combat and by doing so automatically placed himself behind the middle of the shield. The shield thus did not extend unnecessarily far to the left, nor did it fall short on the right, and it was no less suitable for open order combat than for dense formations." -- page 101 from Classical Greece, edited by Robin Osborne.
He also claims that the hoplites shield was not carried perpendicular to the ground, but was held at an angle, with the lower half pointing out toward the enemy -- another aspect of hoplite fighting that I have never heard before.
Do any RAT members have any opinions on this information. Agree or disagree? When I first read it, it was revolutionary to me because it was completely new information. However, van Wees provides a diagram in the book that shows how and why it was more effective to adopt a sideways stance, placing your body directly behind the middle of the shield. I think this part of his argument is correct, and especially given the amount and force of the pushing involved in a normal battle, this would allow the hoplite to brace himself for the impending struggle. I'm not sure if I agree with his statement that the hoplite needed around 6 ft to wield a sword or spear. It seems to me that fighting in close formation would still be possible even given the stance of the hoplites. You aren't going to slash or swing a spear in combat like a baseball bat, or a hockey stick. It is going to be a thrusting motion and I can't imagine that such a motion would require a lot of room.
Just my thoughts, but I'd like to know what everyone else thinks.
Thanks!
I've been doing some extra reading and brushing up on hoplite warfare in the 6th and 5th Centuries. I just read an interesting chapter in Oxford's Short History of Europe: Classical Greece that described hoplite fighting in a manner that I have never heard before. I had always heard, and was taught in my classes that hoplites fought in the phalanx, very tightly packed, with their shields held in their left arm. In doing so, the shield (being about 3ft across) covered the bearer's left side, as well as the right side of the man next to him -- leaving only the man on the extreme right vulnerable. It makes sense to me -- I never thought of questioning it.
However, I just read a chapter titled "The City at War" by Hans van Wees where he rejects the traditional accounts, mostly from Thucydides of hoplite warfare. He states that they actually didn't lock shields, but needed plenty of space to wield spears and swords, and gaps in between hoplites were very common and expected. He says:
"In this context, one cannot take too seriously the 'joining' or 'locking' of shields, which also features in classical battle narratives, most explicitly in Thucydides' observation that every hoplite 'brings his unprotected side as near as possible to the shield of the man drawn up on his right and believes that density of the formation is the best protection' (5. 71. 1). The density implied by Thucydides' 'as near as possible' depends on how much room hoplites needed to wield the weapons and we have Polybius' expert opinion that a soldier using a cutting or thrusting weapon as well as a shield required at least six feet of space in every direction (18. 30. 6-9). Most scholars would object that the hoplite shield by its very nature demands extremely close ranks, on the assumption that the hoplite stood squarely behind it an in effect used on the right half of his shield, extending the left half to provide cover for a comrade close behind him in the ranks. In fact, however, a hoplite, in order to wield his spear or sword with any force at all, would have to adopt a sideways-on stance in combat and by doing so automatically placed himself behind the middle of the shield. The shield thus did not extend unnecessarily far to the left, nor did it fall short on the right, and it was no less suitable for open order combat than for dense formations." -- page 101 from Classical Greece, edited by Robin Osborne.
He also claims that the hoplites shield was not carried perpendicular to the ground, but was held at an angle, with the lower half pointing out toward the enemy -- another aspect of hoplite fighting that I have never heard before.
Do any RAT members have any opinions on this information. Agree or disagree? When I first read it, it was revolutionary to me because it was completely new information. However, van Wees provides a diagram in the book that shows how and why it was more effective to adopt a sideways stance, placing your body directly behind the middle of the shield. I think this part of his argument is correct, and especially given the amount and force of the pushing involved in a normal battle, this would allow the hoplite to brace himself for the impending struggle. I'm not sure if I agree with his statement that the hoplite needed around 6 ft to wield a sword or spear. It seems to me that fighting in close formation would still be possible even given the stance of the hoplites. You aren't going to slash or swing a spear in combat like a baseball bat, or a hockey stick. It is going to be a thrusting motion and I can't imagine that such a motion would require a lot of room.
Just my thoughts, but I'd like to know what everyone else thinks.
Thanks!
Gaius Tertius Severus "Terti" / Trey Starnes
"ESSE QUAM VIDERE"
"ESSE QUAM VIDERE"
