Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Othismos: Classical vs Crowd Theory Othismos
#31
Quote:In addition, one of the arguments against, namely that the pressure from behind must drive the body square to fore does not appear to be borne out by experiment.

Pictures? From both sides and above would be best. Now a thing to test would be how the depth of the shield relates to this benefit. It is unclear to me how you can hold your body at a 45 degree angle to your aspis under pressure. I would like to see you in 3/4 stance under substantial pressure to better know what is happening.
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!"
Reply
#32
That is most interesting, as ever, Cole. Earlier, Paul B. mentioned that American football and also Rugby players push from a square-on stance. Whilst this may be true for ' defensive linemen' in an American scrimmage, it is certainly NOT true of Rugby players. In a formal scrum the players 'pack down' and invariably, even the players like the 'Props' who pack down with shoulders squared, have one leg forward and one back - what I have earlier called 'three-quarter' stance, or what Cole calls 'classical stance'. This stance - with one leg forward and one back - is the stance that all martial artists use, especially sumo wrestlers ( who only go 'square' when trying to lift an opponent close in, or when forced to the edge of the ring, where they invariably lose to an opponent in 'three quarter' stance). This is because this is the most stable stance for all purposes, and it is unsurprising that all 'warriors' instinctively adopt this stance.
'Square on ' is an artificial stance taught to American footballers, and I think that Paul B. may be unduly influenced by his American football background into thinking this inherently unstable stance is 'strong'.....
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#33
By the way, Xenophon does not say "on the shoulder". You will commonly read something like: "as they rest against the shoulder they are a help in shoving" The actual phrase is: ??? ?????????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ???????? ????????????? ???? ???? ????? ?????. Obviously against the side of the shoulder is no more a valid rendering than against the front of the shoulder. The word in question actually has a primary meaning of:

Quote:???? , o(: (v. sub fin.):—
A. [select] the shoulder with the upper arm (????? being the lower), “????? ?????? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ?? ??????? ???? ???????? ??? ??? ?????” Il.5.146, cf. 8.325, Hdt.4.62; “????????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????????” Il.5.41; “?????? ??? ???? ????????” 15.544; ???? ? ???????, ???? ???????, 5.400, 18.204; “??????” 3.210; “?????” 2.217; “???? ??????? ???? ?????” 11.527, cf. S.Fr.453; “??? ???? . . ??????” Od.10.170, cf. Isoc.19.39; “?????? ??? ????” Herod.3.61; ???? ???? ?????? ib.3; “??? ???? ?????? ????” S.Fr.373; “?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?????” Pl.R.613c; “?????? ???????” Il.19.11; “???? . . ????? ???” 15.474; ??? or ??????? ?????, 14.376, 1.45, al.; ????? or ??? ????? ??????, S.Fr.454, Tr564; “????? ??? ??????? ???” Od.11.128, 23.275; “????? . . ???? ??? ?????????” E.IT1381; “??? ????? ??????” Id.Ba.755; “????? ??????? . . ????? ???????” A.Pr.350; ?????? ????? ?????? 'by the strength of mine arms', Hdt.2.106; ?????????? ??? ?. to dislocate it, Ar.Eq.263 (troch.); “? ?? ???? . . ????????” Id.Ra.30; “??? ???? ????????” Id.Fr.323: pl. for sg., “????? ???????????? ????????? ?????” E.Or.1471.


Thus I have been told that it can also be rendered as "supported by resting on the shoulder and upper arm". This then would be a simple description of a shield with a porpax-type grip. The reason this is important is that in the next section we find out what Xenophon is juxtaposing with this:

Quote:34] And because the Persians had to hold out their little shields clutched in their hands, they were unable to hold the line, but were forced back foot by foot, giving and taking blows, until they came up under cover of the moving towers.

They had to hold out their shields in their hands becuase of the single center grip. Thus the whole thing may not tell you they pushed form the side, or me they pushed from the front, but simply that they used a porpax-like double grip and were thus better made for pushing!

I agree with your reading of Arrian, but I am very wary of him as a source for the mechanics of a hoplite phalanx because he had first hand knowledge of a roman shield-wall of the type later called the fulcum. Since these shields had neither porpax, nor great depth, his opinion is probably worth less than yours, for you have the right shield. You'll note the line you cite is not in the earlier tactical manuals and is in fact found in a section of cavalry- which the fulcum was specifically formed to defend from.
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!"
Reply
#34
Following on our previous efforts, we considered the relative performance of square to fore pushing versus side on pushing, as Paul B has argued that the square to fore pose for pushing as performed by football players and so forth will always overpower someone in a side-on stance.

As we are fairly close in height, Christian took up the side-on "classical" stance, which he is also the most extreme in the execution of (full 90 degree), while I adopted a square to fore stance to push up against him. I am delighted to report that at a mere 270lbs (I overestimated last time) I only outweigh him by a 110 pounds, and he will readily agree that I am significantly stronger than him. Given this mismatch, if the square to fore push is truly superior, it should have been a rout.

However, this was not the case. Despite my best efforts, from the classical stance he was able to more than stand me off. Unlike square-to-fore football player, whom I would readily expect to push his side-on opponent up or over, particular given the mismatch in weight and strength, I found myself being pushed up and back!

This picture will tend to help illustrate why that would appear to be the cause:

[attachment=1:3fmzgsyb]<!-- ia1 Othismos - Classical and Crowd Theory Oopposed.JPG<!-- ia1 [/attachment:3fmzgsyb]

The change in expected results would seem to come from the interface. Unlike the football player, who is able to lock and bear his opponent up, the aspides move against each other, allowing no such advantage. Also, the square to fore pusher is directing his force up along the angle of the body. While a component of the force will be delivered at at shoulder level, there is also a component that will be delivered upwards. On the other hand the side-on stance delivers the force lower from the middle, as the shield is pinned at shoulder and thigh. This caused the shield to twist in my grasp, and rotate in toward my body, which increased the effect driving me up as it slid up under the force I was generating as it rotated.

All this happened with our shields covered in a double layer of painted canvas, which while smooth, are not exactly slippery. The effect could only be exacerbated if they were polished and oiled bronze.

The effect of slipping up is also a problem, as it drives the rim of the aspis into the neck in the square to fore stance. Again, rather than the bowl helping breathing the rim was hindering it.

Next, with spears, we found that while the side on stance allowed Christian to deliver spear strikes, the square to fore position did not, as the upper arm and shoulder were blocked by the shield, and the hips were already fully rotated square to the front.

As we took the experiment out to the extreme Paul showed in his "C" figure the accident happened. Christian said, "what happens if I do this?" He then slipped back a half step before I could cry out. The following resulted:

[attachment=0:3fmzgsyb]<!-- ia0 Othismos Fall.JPG<!-- ia0 [/attachment:3fmzgsyb]

Both hands and knees took a bruise, and I have a livid red scrape next to my left eye, but I managed to land well enough that I was able to get up after I got my wits back about me.

*** Conclusion ***

The introduction of the aspis into the interface changes the dynamic between the pushers. As square to fore pushing delivers its force at shoulder level, the lower point of attack of the side on push tends to rotate the shield under, and cause the pusher's own energy to direct him up and over his opponents shield, an effect increased as the two surfaces slide across one another rather than locking. Square to fore pushing is also dangerous, as the shield edge chokes the pusher, and motion on the part of the party being pushed can leave the square to fore pusher dramatically off balance. Finally, the position does not allow someone employing it to effectively wield a spear.

Have fun!
Cole
Reply
#35
Quote:'Square on ' is an artificial stance taught to American footballers, and I think that Paul B. may be unduly influenced by his American football background into thinking this inherently unstable stance is 'strong'.....

This may well be true

Quote:In a formal scrum the players 'pack down' and invariably, even the players like the 'Props' who pack down with shoulders squared, have one leg forward and one back - what I have earlier called 'three-quarter' stance, or what Cole calls 'classical stance'.


Paul, did you read that long post I did above on stances. You now have me confused, because if you are pushing like a rugby player with both shoulders facing your foe, one leg forward and one leg back, they you are in what I labelled by the term used in archaeology for vases, the striding stance. I told you this was basically the same as your 3/4 because there is minimal shift between them. If my striding stance, your 3/4 and cole's classic are all the same stance we are all in agreement. Whether one leg is back or not is not important, because in the crowd, as in those videos, your legs will have to come closer together. Or conversely if they are able to hold a 45 degree body position is some way, then the difference evaporates the other way. So in terms of stance, you and I are saying the same thing.

My concern is with a full side-on stance -vs- all others. This is why I want to see what Cole is doing. My interest here has nothing to do with crowds, for either way they stand, they are a crowd. I am curious because a full side-on stance isolates the shield from the body and would allow asphyxiation if files press together.
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!"
Reply
#36
Quote: This caused the shield to twist in my grasp, and rotate in toward my body, which increased the effect driving me up as it slid up under the force I was generating as it rotated.

This confuses me, because it is just this type of rotation that should cause you to collapse into your shield under pressure, which you said did not happen. I'd need to see pictures.

Quote:The introduction of the aspis into the interface changes the dynamic between the pushers. As square to fore pushing delivers its force at shoulder level, the lower point of attack of the side on push tends to rotate the shield under,

This is occuring because you are hitting with the wrong part of the shield. Try it again and when you make contact, do so with only the upper curve of the aspis. You should be taking all of the force on your shoulder and the left front of the chest. If there is force on the right upper chest, your shield is held wrong for what I propose. You also have to be low. The result should be that the shield is pushed down, not up.


Quote:Next, with spears, we found that while the side on stance allowed Christian to deliver spear strikes, the square to fore position did not, as the upper arm and shoulder were blocked by the shield, and the hips were already fully rotated square to the front.

I have done enough shield and spear play to not understand this. When you strike you end up with both shoulders forward your arm should shoot right over the downward curve of the right rim of your aspis. When you stab in 3/4 your hand does not move out forward past your shield rim?

Quote:As we took the experiment out to the extreme Paul showed in his "C" figure the accident happened. Christian said, "what happens if I do this?" He then slipped back a half step before I could cry out. The following resulted:

This is the famous "Thessalian feint" I described above.
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!"
Reply
#37
I see you guys are posting in parallel, but I'm going to finish my train of thought here (especially after the blow to the head).

We also tried to stack up and push in stance B. I went in first, and Christian locked up and leaned in on me, and finally Aurora pushed from the rear.

There was no increase of pressure to the shoulder. No shields groaned.

I felt a downward pressure on my hips, and Aurora found it almost impossible to "push" Christian with her aspis, as the angle of his body locked up with me prevented her from getting purchase..

I tried to go back to stance C, but the downward pressure on my hips threatened to break me in half backwards, and we called it on account of safety.

Based on this, the only way I can see to generate forward presusure in a square to fore stance would be to be virtually upright, and leaning in with someone pushing from the rear. This matches up with our best results from Zeus Epoptes (unimpressive though they may have been).

That said, we are planning one last round of experiments on this. We're going to measure the pushing force of 8 people with aspides pushing against a football training sled in file in the classical stance, and then 8 pushing from a "crowd-theory" stance.

Paul, if you would like provide some additional input to how we conduct the experiment you are welcome to!

Have fun!
Cole
Reply
#38
Paul B,

Sorry, we didn't get any pictures, due to multiple failures to have a camera handy.

As to why you don't get rolled in when your hips are at a 45, its because in order to push with your shoulder in the shield you have to rotate the right shoulder back a bit. This presents a neat curve the aspis sits in and basically you push in a straight line from the right side through to the left shoulder. Try it with your aspis and you will see.

Cole wrote: This caused the shield to twist in my grasp, and rotate in toward my body, which increased the effect driving me up as it slid up under the force I was generating as it rotated.

Paul wrote: This confuses me, because it is just this type of rotation that should cause you to collapse into your shield under pressure, which you said did not happen. I'd need to see pictures.

This is when I am pushing square to fore in the second case, not side on. The bottom of the aspis rotates under because no matter how low you get the side on opponent can more or less match you, and because his force is coming in at porpax level and you are pushing at shoulder level, he is levering your shield either around your forearm on the porpax, or at the your shoulder

Cole wrote: The introduction of the aspis into the interface changes the dynamic between the pushers. As square to fore pushing delivers its force at shoulder level, the lower point of attack of the side on push tends to rotate the shield under.

Paul wrote: "This is occuring because you are hitting with the wrong part of the shield. Try it again and when you make contact, do so with only the upper curve of the aspis."

First, watch it Paul.

Now, the square to fore was lower overall and on the upper curve, as the diagram shows, but as my force is being delivered at shoulder level versus porpax level from the side on pusher, he has the advantage of an effectively lower point of attack. In addition, as all of his force is delivered laterally, as opposed to angled up as in square to fore, you're actually pushing yourself up and over his shield.

Paul wrote: "You should be taking all of the force on your shoulder and the left front of the chest. If there is force on the right upper chest, your shield is held wrong for what I propose. You also have to be low. The result should be that the shield is pushed down, not up."

Really? Nice in theory, but there's an equal and opposite reaction for every action, and even if you don't start on the right upper chest and shoulder, you're there right after contact.

Finally, you will recall I was low, so low that I fell over when he stepped back.

Cole wrote: Next, with spears, we found that while the side on stance allowed Christian to deliver spear strikes, the square to fore position did not, as the upper arm and shoulder were blocked by the shield, and the hips were already fully rotated square to the front.

Paul wrote: "I have done enough shield and spear play to not understand this. When you strike you end up with both shoulders forward your arm should shoot right over the downward curve of the right rim of your aspis. When you stab in 3/4 your hand does not move out forward past your shield rim?"

Except when you're square-to-fore your opponent's shield is pushing yours back into your right shoulder and upper arm. Your forearm can project the spear beyond the lead edge of the shield, but with the restriction of motion of the shoulder and upper arm the motion is short, weak, and mostly non-linear. On the other hand, the side on pusher has the freedom of motion of the entire arm to strike with.

Again, get your aspis, find a friend with one, and try it out.

Have fun.
Cole
Reply
#39
Quote:Really? Nice in theory, but there's an equal and opposite reaction for every action, and even if you don't start on the right upper chest and shoulder, you're there right after contact.

Except when you're square-to-fore your opponent's shield is pushing yours back into your right shoulder and upper arm.

I see now the difference. In what I describe you should not be able to do this because there is no shield covering your right shoulder. Held as I advocate, the shield curves from your left shoulder to your waist and them down to your left thigh. This may be a simple matter os having different dimensions of aspis with different porpax placement. I had wondered about this with the rim choking you as well. There are many vase images showing this position, see below.

As to collapsing in the bowl, in real life you will be pushed from behind and ground from side to side in an ever tightening crowd. I still think under these conditions you will collapse, and if you do even once, the pressure will keep you there.

Given the shield problem, I don't know that you can replicate what I describe, maybe by holding your arm down at an angle. No worries, at some point we'll all get together and work all this out.

Quote:That said, we are planning one last round of experiments on this. We're going to measure the pushing force of 8 people with aspides pushing against a football training sled in file in the classical stance, and then 8 pushing from a "crowd-theory" stance.

Cole, I would ask you to stop repeating that you are making this comparison. As I wrote above, their is no "crowd-theory" stance. You start off in 3/4 or striding stance and whatever happens, happens. In general you have too many of the variables at odds with what I have described to claim a comparison with my theory. I am very interested in the results of your tests, but they cannot simply be compared to my theory.
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!"
Reply
#40
Paul B,

As your post above indicates, your theory supposes, "whatever happens, happens," or as the old joke goes, "and then a miracle happens." As our experiments have explored possible positions those men could be pushing in conditions your theory requires (i.e. collapsed to front in a packed mass, pushing square to fore) they do represent valid, if negative tests of it.

That said, none of this dervies from any particular desire to prove or disprove your theory, as it , but rather to test the efficacy of Arrian, the only classical source we have describing the mechanism of collective pushing. Since your theory happens to be the only other game in town, even if not rooted in classical sources, it has proven a useful foil for relative testing.

At this point, based on what we've observed, I'm fairly happy with Arrian as a method for collective pushing. A further 8 man test will be sufficient to finalize the discussion from a classical perspective.

However, your defensiveness regarding data that could be perceived as contradicting your theory does require me to discuss what I view to be a number of fundamental flaws in it.

At the foundation you continue to cling to what is an assertion: That pressure to the rear must collapse people from a side on or 3/4 stance into the bowl of their shield. However, this has not been borne out in our experiments. Ultimately we will test with a full 8 man file, but what we saw on Friday tends to indicate that there is no impetus to turn in.

Second, you assert that that this turned in position generates a more effective push than the side on position, which is also not borne out in our experiments with aspides, as a much lighter man was able to stand off a much stronger one despite his best efforts.

Third, as you cannot describe how, "whatever happens, happens," actually happens in a way that can be reproduced by a fairly capable group of people is a fairly gaping hole in the theory. Its also nice that you assert this miraculous collapsed mass generates a far more effective push than Arrian, as this method is fundamentally flawed according to your earlier assertions. A bit circular.

Tieing in to crowd theory to assert that this will generate some massive force seems to me to be a false analogy. Hoplites are not masses rushing away from or towards some point in a panic or frenzy through structural choke points. There are no masses of thousands pressing the unlucky few in those choke points, but a mere 7 men behind the lead man at any point.

So, all in all, for these reasons you'll probably be fairly glad to hear that I'm disinclined to use "crowd-theory" in future historical experiments.

Thanks,
Cole
Reply
#41
Quote:However, your defensiveness regarding data that could be perceived as contradicting your theory does require me to discuss what I view to be a number of fundamental flaws in it.

I'm just going to bow out of the discussion. I have no wish to be confrontational on this. I know you believe you are "testing" this correctly, and you are testing something, but in my opinion you are not testing my hypothesis. I gave you the opportunity to contact me and ask me to help design a test that would be more in line with my model, but you did not avail yourself of it. I do take exception to your assertion that I am just being defensive. I was recently corrected in something I wrote on by Giannis and took all of 2 minutes to see that he was correct and change a position I had invested in because his evidence was clear and overwhelming. That is not the case in your instance. You have almost no data, all anecdotal and none quantitative, yet you presented it as though "science" and declared a comparison with my model.

On the positive side, if what you say about taking the pressure of an aspis in the right side, below the arm is true though, this would be a new contribution because all previous schemes of side-on pushing presuppose bearing the pressure on the right shoulder and upper arm. You should document it and perhaps publish somewhere. I personally have doubts about taking 1,000 pounds on the floating ribs, but I have not seen it and it may well work in some manner.
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!"
Reply
#42
Paul B,

It's my turn to apologize for coming on a bit strong, your comment following the accident did not incline me to a kindly attitiude, particularly as those injuries were endured attempting to follow your advice and diagrams of the fourteenth. A trip to the chiropractor's, a couple of days to heal, and a lot of anti-inflammatorys and Tylenol later I am a little more sanguine, and must say some of my comments about crowd theory othismos were unfair.

I do stand by the results of our two experiments of Friday challenging fundamental assertions of your theory, namely collapsing the stance and the superiority of the square to fore push between aspis bearing men. However, as I myself wrote, neither was conclusive as a full 8 man file will be required, and variations on square to fore pushing can be investigated.

Your comments on bones did lead me too do some research. Fortunately my wife is a AA, and our house is a trove of medical textbooks, so I found some very interesting information. Apparently a rib can be fractured by less than 10 PSI. However, the situation is more complicated than that as the sheathing of muscle and flesh makes it more resilient. In particular, there seems to be differential strength around the ribcage between front ad back, with the front where the ribs connect to the sternum being significantly more susceptible to compression and fracture as ths maximizes the leverage on the bone. I also ran across a fascinating summary online on rib injuries that speaks directly to the situation we are considering as well:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=q8VXAAA ... &q&f=false

In it Malgaigne not only describes the nature of rib fractures, but reports on the bodies of 23 people who died due to crowd pressure on the Champs du Mars. Of those 23, 7 demonstrated rib fractures, some fairly catastrophic. All were in the front, all within 1.5-2.5 inches of the cartilidge.

This result would tend to indicate that the most vulnerable place in the rib cage to crowd pressure is the front of the chest. As I understand your latest clarification of pushing, this is exactly the curve where the inside of the rim of the aspis would push on the chest. I modelled the pose several times last night with an aspis, and if, as you propose the aspis is on the left shoulder in a 3/4 stance and then rolls in to make contact on the mid chest and left thigh in a fairly neat curve. Measuring the area of contact it worked out to be about 30 square inches across the shoulder, collarbone, chest, and thigh. This being the case, your proposed shield position maximizes the 1000 pounds force into a pressure along a sharp line at approximately 33 PSI on the weakest part of the ribcage. This seems like a particularly dangerous result to be a cornerstone of a pushing model.

On the flip side, as 1000 pounds force plays on approximately 100 square inches in Arrian's method, which equates to around 10 PSI. So, the ribs might creak when pushing as Arrian proposes, but shouldn't be at any particular risk as the pressure is on the best protected part of the rib cage.

Have fun,
Cole
Reply
#43
Quote:Apparently a rib can be fractured by less than 10 PSI.

Interesting... I always wondered about how well the bones would hold up in a phalanx pushing situation. Thanks for the info. Considering that evidence is the side on stance better or is the 3/4 stance still useable somehow? I think that there would be an alternation of stances while in "push mode". No martial artist relies on just one stance completely. If one rank was side-on and the next was 3/4 and son what would be the results? Maybe less pressure on bones but still enough to push?
Craig Bellofatto

Going to college for Massage Therapy. So reading alot of Latin TerminologyWink

It is like a finger pointing to the moon. DON\'T concentrate on the finger or you miss all the heavenly glory before you!-Bruce Lee

Train easy; the fight is hard. Train hard; the fight is easy.- Thai Proverb
Reply
#44
Quote:It's my turn to apologize for coming on a bit strong, your comment following the accident did not incline me to a kindly attitiude.

Let us start this again, but I think we need to make one large concession to each other. We are not in fact doing exactly the same thing. Thus I can tell, and you have verified, that many of the elements of your posture and kit are not the same as my own when I have tested this. Because your expressed purpose was to replicate my technique and compare it, I have told you many times that you are doing something "wrong" and you seem to take exception. But this is only "wrong" in its equivalency to my technique, it is not wrong in any other sense, it is simply not what I put forth.

I'll give you an example, though I don't like to bring this up for fear of someone attempting to replicate it. The reason that I am pretty sure that you will collapse into your aspis under pressure is because I have tried it and this has happened to me. Now I did so years back with my pseudo-aspis, if you imagine a blocky 3' top-hat, squashed down to 6" in height, you're close because I could not easily do the outer curve. I did not have a line of willing hoplites, but I did have a car- we'll leave it right there, and I won't ever attempt this again. I collapsed. Why? Because chest to shield is the minimal packing size position for a man with an aspis. This means that you can be forced into this pose and with enough pressure and time you probably will be. Once you are though, there is no going back unless the pushing stops.

Now this was not your experience. I could say from my point of view that you did not have enough force, force of a long enough duration to cause exhaustion, grinding force from varying angles that would make holding a side-on position difficult, etc. You on the otherhand could could point out that my aspis was not bowled properly and I took the weight on my shoulder and this could make all the difference. And you may be right.

This is why when you tell me that you can in a side-on stance defeat a man pushing face on like a sumo wrestler or a football lineman I must first figure out if and what you have done differently, because I can tell you from doing this many times this is not my experience. If I tell you are not doing something "right" it is only because you are claiming to replicate what I did. It is prettly clear from your description that you guys don't know how to push this way. Big deal, I can't do a spinning back kick worth a damn. But again it means we are not doing the same thing. For example, if you kick with the ball of your foot and I replicate your kick, but with the tip of my toe, then I am not correct in telling you that you can't kick or you'll break your toes. I in fact have no evidence that Greeks knew how to push this way, so even if my way was better, it does not mean it was used.

This is why I say that much of this cannot be answered until all of us get together, it is too difficult to explain many elements in text. Moreso because I cannot always tell what you are doing different unless something does not match my experience.

As to rib fracture. Ribs break in the front in crowds because of the lack of protection for the lower chest. The area below your sternum is very vulnerable to compression. Because your sternum is not supported by any attachment on the bottom your whole ribcage acts like a lever against your upper sternum. So a fracture in the upper sternum is actually due to pressure on the lower sternum. It is of course this region covering the diaphragm that is responsible for asphyxia when pressed upon. I could do a shopping list of problems with the side-on stance that have nothing to do with pushing strength, but to me the foremost problem is that if, and I agree this is an if, files start to close laterally, pressure from the sides is a big problem because your posture is so opened and your chest unprotected.

In my position there is really no risk of rib fracture. I can tell you, again don't ask, that you could drive a car over a man with an aspis in my position and he will not only suffer no (lasting) harm, but retain the ability to breathe. The reason for this is that most of the weight is centered on two very strong sections of the body: the left clavicle/shoulder region and the left thigh. This is achieved because of the genius of the aspis's design, creating in essence an arch between the two points to bear the weight.

Quote:particularly as those injuries were endured attempting to follow your advice and diagrams of the fourteenth

It is instances like this that have made me warn again and again about how dangerous such things can be. I think you missed it in your first reading of what I wrote, but I warned specifically against what happened to you. It should not have occurred in your instance though, because your initial charge should have popped him up and you should have been driving into him so hard with your legs that he could not step back away if he wanted to. If he tried to get lower than you, then you should have taken a step towards his back side and changed the angle, this will drive him face first into the ground because he is vulnerable to any lateral moves in a way you are not. If he still doesn't go down, pop him again, and brace your hand against your shield rim on the right if it helps- you can use two hands even around the hilt of your sword, he has to reach across his own chest do do so. Also, his shield his on the vertical brace of his shoulder and thigh, with the very weak leverage of the forearm to cotrol side to side pivoting. Yours is braced in a triangle with the left shoulder at its peak and the forearm its base. You simply need to "swim' him a bit- make him take your weight on either lateral face of his shield where it is weak and you will collapse him. But you need to drive hard. One of your main advantages is that you have far greater mobility and driving force, while he has an advantage in static resistance. Don't play his game. I did not go into too much detail previously for this one on one match up because I don't know how important it really is in massed hoplite combat. It is something of a side-note. But now I wish I were there, because if I could show you how this works, maybe some of the rest would be clearer as well.

In real life what would occur is that you would be shield to shield with him, but your right arm would be over the right rim of your own shield and the back side of his. He would be attempting to slash your left side, protected by the maximum rise of your aspis, by reaching all the way across his body in the most awkward fashion. Meanwhile, you have full arm extension and would either be tickling his neck or reaching down for the steel enema. Big Grin

I'm going to be making another batch of rough cut aspides- I make mine from a series of arches cut with a band saw and they are not pretty because I don't bother to finish them like I should since I am destroying them. Maybe I'll round up my brother and see if I can get Craig to meet me halfway, in the middle of the Everglades, and film some stuff this winter. :wink:
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!"
Reply
#45
Paul B,

We'll be having another go at this, and will do our best to have a camera and photographer on hand at the time.

One thing I would like to visit is the question of the geometry of packing. I do agree that chest to shield would represent the minimum pack in depth, but when it comes to the question of lateral packing, I think we should be able to agree that even if we disregard the classical sources which require maintenance of good order in the phalanx in order for it to be good at anything, there is a fundamental geometrical limitation on any lateral pack imposed by the presence of the aspis.

So, assuming the average man is about 8" thick at the chest and aspides 36" in diameter, and overlapping of shields from the left to right, and shields relatively square to the frontage:

A chest-to-chest side-on lateral pack which could produce dangerous pressures on the sternum would mean you would have to have two men packed against you in the distance from your chest to the outer edge of your aspsis. Of course, each of them would be bearing an aspis as well, so in order to be packed that tightly the man to the right's aspis would have be projecting about 10" past the left side of your arm, which is not really geometrically possible. In fact, its far enough that the man packed to your left's arm would also have to project through the plane of the shield.

In fact in order to laterally pack anywhere close to the point where there woul be the risk of lateral pressure, the aspides of the men to your left and right would have to be completely above or completely below the arm. Entertaining to consider, but not feasible, and certainly not something represented anywhere in the art.

So, as the arm represents a fundamental limitation on the pack of the aspides, assuming a maximum lateral pack where the rim of your neighbours' aspis is pressed against the inside of your left arm, and yours against the arm of the man on your left, every man has a 28" wide space to work in. The numbers don't change if you're side on or square to the front, as the arm is still in the way.

Now by angling the aspides out from the plane of the frontage of the phalanx, which is a frequently depicted shield guard in the art, you can make for a tighter lateral pack, but you are no longer in an effective pushing position, but you could dramatically increase the number of men fighting along a particularly piece of frontage.

This leads to an interesting outcome when you consider the classical sources that describe compacting the frontage of the phalanx to increase its effectivenessWhen we read about compressing the frontage. Proponents of mass-pushing like Luginbill have pointed to this as evidence that a mass-shove played an important role in hoplite warfare.

But as this fairly simple thought exercise shows, to truly compact your frontage you have to adopt a shield guard that is not well suited to pushing, but doubles or more the number of spear points at play on a particular point in the line while still leaving room to work.

That's a fairly interesting result.

Have fun,
Cole
Reply


Forum Jump: