Gang combat

[PMBardunias]

Sorry Paul,
I don't see how this can be used as an analogy... no shields, no spears, and none of the good order essential to the success of the phalanx described in the literature...

The point of the video is that there is "good order" all over the place. Men are keeping a personal distance that some authors have conjectured could not be done without precise discipline and training. Don't confuse a box-like appearance and precise placement in ranks with good or close order. These men obviously would be called a phalanx, and a close order one at that, were they fighting in panoply. The shields surely help with spacing, and the spears ultimately determine the stand-off distance between the two front lines, but the general formation of men requires neither of these and is based purely on interpersonal spacing. Remember that this is not a direct analogy to a late 5th century Spartan phalanx, but a view of what surely preceeded it centuries earlier. The "good order" we read of in Greek literature was a means of gaining greater control over a formation like the one seen here, thinning it for example, but not the only means of achieving it. Many modern authors will claim that what you see on those videos is impossible- close-ordered massing of men brought ot "battle" with no boundaries to force them together and neither drilled formation nor command structure.

[Sean Manning]

Many modern authors will claim that what you see on those videos is impossible- close-ordered massing of men brought ot "battle" with no boundaries to force them together and neither drilled formation nor command structure.

If they are claiming that (I'm not saying you are wrong, but I can't recall any off hand and I'm away from my books) then I don't think they have been reading much about medieval warfare. Later medieval infantry had a well-documented problem of getting too tightly packed together in a tough spot, which made it hard to fight and could produce crowd forces inside a formation. One use for drill is to keep men the right distance apart. (Cases of men suffocating inside a medieval infantry formation under attack from multiple directions could be supporting evidence for your theory).

[PMBardunias]

If they are claiming that (I'm not saying you are wrong, but I can't recall any off hand and I'm away from my books) then I don't think they have been reading much about medieval warfare.

I have had many conversations on this topic with a variety of authors, but in fairness it is not simply that men can find themselves in a compact mass, but what this video demonstrates so well. They can spontaneously form, move, break, reform, etc. All things that anyone who has watched a flock of song birds knows can be done.

Later medieval infantry had a well-documented problem of getting too tightly packed together in a tough spot, which made it hard to fight and could produce crowd forces inside a formation.

Do you mean the type of crowding that occurred with envelopment, as at Cannae, amida, adrianople, etc.? I would appreciate references to learn more.

[Sean Manning]

The crowding could result from any flank attack, whether hand to hand or with arrows. Kelly de Vries' Infantry Warfare in the Early 14th Century would be a good place to start; Hardy and Strickland's The Great Warbow is another (but keep in mind that Hardy has some extravagant ideas about the ability of arrows to kill men in armour ... Strickland's chapters are more measured). The basic idea of late Medieval English tactics, when they had a large force of archers and less men-at-arms and spearmen (which wasn't always the case), was to watch the enemy shy away from the arrows and mass in front of the part of the line which was made up of spearmen. Then short-range clouds of arrows, or a charge to the flanks, would complete the work of crowding and disordering. It might not have worked so well if any of their opponents had been drilled to Hellenistic standards.

Keegan's The Face of Battle quotes a primary source on Agincourt who describes the French first line starting out as a continuous formation but dividing into three groups facing the three groups of English men-at-arms as it approached the English. Part of that was the desire to avoid the English arrows, part was a desire to get at the English nobles (fighting them was worth money and glory; dismembering archers less so). Evidence is so scarce in studying ancient warfare that I think its important to use all the anthropological parallels- and scientific evidence- as we can.

[PMBardunias]

Evidence is so scarce in studying ancient warfare that I think its important to use all the anthropological parallels- and scientific evidence- as we can.

I agree, the forcing your foes to "shy" from attack is analogous to herding them, the way dogs herd sheep- a natural behavior that is a ferature of the cooperative hunting of many group predators. You could physically push your surrounded foes into s tight ball, but as you show above, this is not needed. All you need to do is either strike the outer edge so that they move back into the men behind them, or shoot missiles at the group and they will crowd together nicely.