specifics in Spear fighting combat

[hoplite14gr]

Chrisitan,
some useful info in the "commands in Greek" thread.
When you try remember that if you have any army vet in your group let him drill you. A drill instructor is worth a million scholar in this thing.
Modern armies close order drill is a good place to start.

Kind regards

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Ehem...are you expecting to find dozens of hoplites in Greece? :? There is only on group here,the Hoplites Mores,who have a good number of hoplites compared to most hoplite groups.The most crouded one,and one of the most accurate,too,is the Spanish Athenea promachos who can field more than 25 troops. This makes at least an enomotia! Perhaps all the greek re-enactors on earth could form a lochos??? Perhaps not...
What maneuvers do you think you can het them do? Could you try forming the open order and the close order next from a single line?
Khaire
Giannis

[Kineas]

What's the classical source about training ephebes?

[Paullus Scipio]

Giannis wrote:-

before the final charge,the phalanx was doubling its thickness by halfing its depth and keeping its lenght the same. Usually there was considerable time for both phalanxes to do so.

This is correct, the length of line stayed the same throughout....if a phalanx formed up in open order ,with ,say, files of 12 deep and 6,000 strong with 6 ft per man, they would have a frontage 1000 yards long. To form close order the rear half of the files marches forward into the intervals, leaving them in close order, 6 deep, still on a 1000 yard front.
The mistake here is to think in terms of modern, or Roman, drill which was based on ranks. Greek/Macedonian drill was based on files...

I never said they would switch to close order only about 100 m from the enemy.

....but they would have formed close order at around this distance, and not much before, if an advance/charge were intended.
Christian wrote:-

My memory is that Athenian ephebe training was only instituted in the late 4th century, as I noted in my post. Is there any other source that speaks to hoplite training earlier?

Yes, Xenophon mostly, but also Thucydides, Plato's Laches and many other sources refer to Hoplite training ( or rather, lack of it ! ) so we have a fairly good picture of what Hoplites could and couldn't do....
Prior to the ephebic reform (reform in recruitment) at Athens in 335 BC, Athenian hoplites were generally expected to provide their own arms and armour, and responsible for their own training ( see for example, the discussion in Plato's Laches, where the pros and cons of professional teachers of Hoplomachia = hoplite fighting, are discussed.).
While their defeat at Macedonian hands at Chaeironea in 338 caused the Athenians to rethink how to assure their military preparedness, little was done until Alexander the Great departed for the Near East in the spring of 335. The resulting ephebic reform involved a massive increase in the city's hoplite forces, with the thetes, the poor of Athens, admitted to the hoplite ranks for the first time. The need to equip the thetes(lower class citizens) as hoplites resulted in the likely adoption of a system of issue-and-return, which was the most economical one available. Each of the ephebes, the new recruits to the system, was given a shield and spear at state expense, trained for a year and was then sent on garrison duty for a year.

[Kineas]

Hmmm.

Well, I have fifteen years of military service in some of the world's finest vacation areas--I've done both "garrison" military and ship military and on the ground wandering the jungle military. And about 50% of my reenactor friends are veterans. We drill once a month in the winter and a weekend a month in the summer. I (briefly) ran the US Navy drill team (away back in 1988).

So I'm not a complete tyro about drill. But I am very interested in yours. And all my years of reenacting other periods and being an officer in the Navy and doing drill doesn't equal anything compared to you folks who've already done some drill and learned things. Please don't confuse my willingness to question sources (the duty of every living historian, right?) with lack of respect.

As to groups in Greece--I'd just like to meet you gentlemen, and perhaps see your groups in action--perhaps receive some drill.

As to my own experiments, the first thing I'm going to try, if my friends and sometime enemies will tolerate me at Lansing Manor, is moving in open order (your order) with an 8 x 16 man block, and then going from open to close, and then charging. My experience of wheeling large blocks is one of the things that has made me so argumentative on this list, but then, I note that most attempts to wheel in period ended in disaster, like the Spartans at Corcyra.

Then, at the other end of the spectrum this fall I'm organizing a very small (could be just 5-6 of us) immersion/camping event in the Adirondacks. That';s why I have another thread about packs...

Thanks for the debate. I think I've sounded off too much for a new guy, and I'll lie in the weeds for a while!

If I get the guys at Lansing to do some marching, I'll post the results. Please send me any advice you have to offer about Greek marching and the open to close order drill you practice.

Giannis, I still owe you a diagram to explain my thoughts on the spartan marching. I think it is important because Xenophon mentions it in the Constitution of the Lacs, and then Asclepiodotus and Arrian call the very same drill the 'Spartan" method of forming from the rear to the front, and that satisfies my two source criterion for accuracy--in other words, I think it is something that the Spartans actually did. If so, it means that the Spartans kept a full file distance between men, as the counter marching files had to fit between the standing files.

"Or again, if the enemy appears in the rear while they are in this formation, each file counter-marches, in order that the best men may always be face to face with the enemy. [9] True, the leader is then on the left, but instead of thinking this a disadvantage, they regard it as a positive advantage at times." Xenophon Constitution of the Lacedaemonians 11.8 and following.



Asclepiodotus is a debatable source--he's contemporary with Seneca (AD 50 or thereabouts.) But the current fad in academia is to take Asclepiodotus as a re-write on Posidonius, who was Pompey's friend, and who had access to the Greek tactical manuals now lost. I'm with Arrian, that the whole manual is too full of useful stuff to be made up.

Anyway, hope this explains my point of view a little.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Right,Christian,I now see what you mean. Yes this was the way to do it. Only have in mind this must have been very rare thing to do.If they had time most probably they would reverse their whole formation,so the officers were again in the right end of the phalanx. They just had to be in open order. They would need less than 3 feet to do this,as while marching their shields would rest to the side on their shoulders,and perhaps,if no danger of instant battle existed,hung on their backs.
I have just made two models of how the phalanx would probably deploy.

Number 1 is more probable than 2 but I wonder if it could be done for more speed.In model one each file leader would have to count just two steps farhter for where the previous file turned. In model two each file leader would have to know exactly how many paces he should count to find his position when everyone would be in place,not caring about where the previous file turns. Of cource model two is not possible for the whole phalanx at once,as it requires that instatly the whole marching line would brake to form the phalanx. Of cource this is impossible as a marching line could be kms long! However,could it be done in the scale of lochoi? Do you find it logical at all?
Khaire Giannis

[Kineas]

Well...

In my other period, we practice breaking and reforming by battalion. I have to confess it would sure help Hoplites.

In 18th C. warfare, every soldier knew his file parters and his place in the ranks--sometimes for years (and then some disease or a battle would ruin everything.) I suspect from lines in Plato that Hoplites were the same--once you were appointed to a place in the phalanx, you kept it all summer long. So in fact, a general COULD break and reform. Tough, but doable.

I mention this because once you know your place in the line, so to speak, all those file maneuvers are really easy. We do your illustration 2 all the time with 60-100 men. You don't have to count paces--if everyone knows their spot, and if the file leaders all stick out their spear arm as they "come up on line" to insure the spacing, you'll find that the whole block forms naturally, and very fast. No one needs to count their paces after they've done it ten or fifteen times, even with 300 men. I suspect with enough practice, even 1000s of men could do it without so much counting.

[Kineas]

Whoops, sorry. I also wanted to say that I really like your diagrams, as they finally explained to me how "doubling" as explained in Arrian works. Nice! And simple! And I'll try it next weekend with 120 people...

And yes, I totally think this could be done on the scale of the lochoi. If you imagine a column of sub-divisions, each, say, eight men deep and eight wide... which would be the taxis of Asclepiodotus (that's four double files, or four dilochoi, according to his system). So let's have our army in a column of taxis. If you want to form front (that's the 18th C. order) the first Taxis halts, and the second forms, let's say, to the left. The third forms to their left, and the fourth to their left, and so on. In a small Hoplite phalanx (about 2000 men seems reasonable) you have 250 files, or roughly 33 Taxis. At open order, your column is only 250 men deep, or roughly 1500 feet. Given inertia and marching error and real terrain, you'll still have your line formed in about half an hour. (Hey, I've done this. Don't laugh!). Given weeks to practice and lots of people in shape, you can form up at the jog, and cut the time to about ten minutes. You can do it faster, but then you run the risk of somebody making a mistake that could really cost you.
You can 1/2 the time by having alternating Taxis form left and right, to either side of the first one that halts. I haven't seen any evidence of this, and frankly, it is a very late innovation in the 18th C., although I've heard (pure hearsay) that Spanish Pike tercios and roman Legions formed this way.
Does this need a diagram?

[Paullus Scipio]

This is far too big a subject to go into a wealth of detail here, but the manuals (Hellenistic though they are) do tell us much.

The manuals, for example, tell us of 'open' order of 4 cubits (4 x18inches/45 cm aprox) per man, also called 'normal' order which has no special name.All manouevring was done in this formation.

Next is 'pyknosis' (close order) of 2 cubits, and lastly, 'synaspismos' ( locked shields) of one cubit. This last refers to a Macedonian formation, where the men necessarily stand side on ( normal for men holding a two-handed pike) and with a shield (pelta) only 24-26 inches/60-65 cm in diameter.

A Hoplite shield is typically 36-42 inches/93.5 cm-100.5 cm, or 2 cubits, so in close order the shields are all but touching ( bearing in mind they are held at a slight angle) thus forming a 'shieldwall' but leaving each man free to attack/defend.

Xenophon seems to use 'pyknosis' and 'synapsismos' synonymously, and that makes a great deal of sense given the size of shield, and the fact that 'fighting stance' for a Hoplite is more front on and less sideways than a 'Sarissaphoroi' - you can't squeeze up so much, though in battle conditions we might expect 'bunching', and edging behind a neighbours shield to occur, as we are told famously by Thucydides referring to the famous 'rightward drift' - which we should be careful not to over-exaggerate.

I also believe that when we are told that a formation is 8 ranks deep or 12 ranks deep, that this usually (but not always) means in 'normal'/open order, and that 'fighting'/close formation was thus typically 4 or 6 ranks deep. If this seems insufficient depth, consider that it is the general experience of re-enactors/SCA fighters that a line more than 2 deep cannot be physically 'burst through' by columns, flying wedges etc, so 4 or 6 is ample and allows deployment of maximum 'fighting power'.

[Kineas]

Xenophon seems to use 'pyknosis' and 'synapsismos' synonymously, and that makes a great deal of sense given the size of shield, and the fact that 'fighting stance' for a Hoplite is more front on and less sideways than a 'Sarissaphoroi' - you can't squeeze up so much, though in battle conditions we might expect 'bunching', and edging behind a neighbours shield to occur, as we are told famously by Thucydides referring to the famous 'rightward drift' - which we should be careful not to over-exaggerate.

I think we have the same Loeb in front of us

i just wanted ot add that linear warfare era reenactors and professionals both comment on this same effect. If troops are at 'Shoulder Arms" (British or French) they tend to drift left, and if at "advance arms" (British) they tend to drift right. Troops doing the 1758 drill bayonet charge (which is a leg over leg advance much like the Greek Phalanx with shield, at least as illustrated on many vases) also have a natural "oblique" which has ot be overcome by careful judgment. David Dundas in his 1787 pre-manual comments on this tendency several times.
I wonder if Thuc. was just wrong in his reasoning as to why the phalanx drifted, thus confusing generations of scholars?

Just 2 cents worth!

[Paullus Scipio]

Like you, Christian, I have a similar military background, and there are many other examples of 'rightward drift' - for example when teaching soldiers navigation in close country, they invariably end up well right of where they should be, even when closely following a compass bearing....until they are told that people have a tendency to step to the right to go round obstacles such as trees etc, and this has a cumulative effect. Once they are aware of this, and make a conscious effort to alternate round obstacles, their ability to follow a bearing improves markedly !

Hence my remark on not over-doing Thucydides - I am of similar views to you....

Also like you, one of my other interests is 18th century warfare ( though not re-enacting), particularly the Seven Years War......

[PMBardunias]

I also believe that when we are told that a formation is 8 ranks deep or 12 ranks deep, that this usually (but not always) means in 'normal'/open order, and that 'fighting'/close formation was thus typically 4 or 6 ranks deep.

I know of no author who agrees with the notion that hoplites did not charge in the depth given as "normal" (8-16) besides yourself. Any modern authors agree with you?

[PMBardunias]

I wonder if Thuc. was just wrong in his reasoning as to why the phalanx drifted, thus confusing generations of scholars?

Not so much wrong as incomplete. If you advance with an aspis held before you you will veer right without some sort of vusual spotting. This occurs even without a leg over leg advance due to the twisting of the upper body to hold the shield before you- your shoulders are off center line to the right.

[PMBardunias]

If this seems insufficient depth, consider that it is the general experience of re-enactors/SCA fighters that a line more than 2 deep cannot be physically 'burst through' by columns, flying wedges etc, so 4 or 6 is ample and allows deployment of maximum 'fighting power'.

I know of no SCA group that has come close to a realistic hoplite phalanx. Extrapolating from the only published crowd force model an 8 rank phalanx will break a 4 rank phalanx because they cannot reliably pack properly at that depth- 6 is feasable. The "burst through" idea of initial crash probably has very little to do with the mechanics of hoplite combat. As you note it is next to useless against properly formed men. Two linear phalanxes charging like this into each other would accomplish nothing more than the mutual distruction of their formations.

[PMBardunias]

I think what you've diagrammed is the "Cretan" countermarch. I know of three- Cretan, Laconian and Macedonian. I'm not sure we know exactly how the differed- I know that I do not know.