(08-22-2016, 05:24 PM)JaM Wrote: egg before a chicken? if anything, Thureophoroi were copy of Roman legionaries... Romans fought that way a bit sooner than Greeks came with the Thureophoroi.. Most probable they introduced them only after Pyrrhus came from Italy and fought wars against Macedon and their allies.
and regarding Othismos, If it was really a thing, what would stop somebody from feinting a push? pushing for a brief time, then suddenly give up? that would cause other side to fall down to be beaten quite easily while they are laying on the ground... It is quite common concept even with sports where people use force to fight others.. like for example Greek-Roman Wrestling..
The Thureos came to the Greeks via the Gallic invasions, but I never said that Romans got the Scutum from the Greeks, just that a man with a Scutum and two pila is functionally the same as a thurophoroi. This by the way is probably why the Macedonians had such problems with Rome. They had been used to dominating Thuroephoroi, but the Greeks did not seem to have the same small unit control that the romans did.
This point is one of the objections I get that show immediately that you do not understand my othismos. This is not aspersion, I think many of my friends did not truly get it until I showed them. You don't "push" in othismos, you crowd together. You cannot "othismos" a single enemy, you need two opposing sets of ranks coming together slowly like two crowds of people trying to go opposite directions through a single door. You cannot step back and cause the man in front of you to fall because there is a man at your back in your way. If there is no man pushing you fromthe back you are not in othismos. The only men who can jump back are the rear rankers of each side. Every time you force the enemy back a step, you may fall out of othismos and need to pack in tight again. Othismos, as Epaminondas knew, is a battle of steps.
The word itself probably means what I describe. It is a noun derived from the verb otheo, meaning to push, jostle, shove. Following all linguistic convention, if you make a noun out of a verb it takes the form of "a state where (pushing, jostling, shoving) occurs". Such a state is a crowd like we see on the floor of rock concerts, etc.
08-22-2016, 05:42 PM (This post was last modified: 08-22-2016, 05:52 PM by JaM.)
but you dont need to do it over a whole line... even a local feint would force part of enemy line to fell... and that would be enough... and of course you can do it, you just need coordination which should be not that big problem anyway.. I'm not talking about 50 vs 50 formation with one side feinting.. im talking about let say 4rank vs 8rank with those 4 ranks feinting, let say on the far right side... its a common tactics even in today's sports so i dont see why it would not be possible back then.
Must say, i dont believe in pushing matches same way as i dont believe in a constant combat.. people are not machines, they are not able to fight constantly for long time.. once fatigue kicks in, morale drops.. in such state, you really dont want to be pushed by somebody towards danger no matter if its by one step or two.. Thats why im strong believer in A Zhmodikov work regarding luls on battlefield, and constant use of missile weapons by Roman Legionaries, and that's why i really dont see how that pushing could work, even after the initial clash with spears.. it sounds way too dangerous (for both sides) and completely prevents one side from routing... which might be quite counterproductive, because routing enemy is much easier wiped out than enemy that is "pushed into corner"
yet, im just trying to give points against this theory. Both Matthew and Lindybeige gave valid points i didnt see anybody "debunked"... but yes, i will read Paul's book when available and then will give my feedback.
about Thureos - that it came from Gallic invasion is just one theory.. at the same time, Pyrrhos was fighting Romans and had a lot of Italians in his army as well... he returned home and brought some of them back, to fight his wars in Greece.. he wanted Macedonic throne, because he believed he has a claim on it. and who knows what would happen if he was not killed during that siege... Besides, seen some arguments that Thureos/ Scutum was Italic design altogether and Celts actually adopted it from them. (but that's for a different thread i suppose)
(08-22-2016, 05:42 PM)JaM Wrote: but you dont need to do it over a whole line... even a local feint would force part of enemy line to fell... and that would be enough... and of course you can do it, you just need coordination which should be not that big problem anyway.. I'm not talking about 50 vs 50 formation with one side feinting.. im talking about let say 4rank vs 8rank with those 4 ranks feinting, let say on the far right side... its a common tactics even in today's sports so i dont see why it would not be possible back then.
yet, im just trying to give points against this theory. Both Matthew and Lindybeige gave valid points i didnt see anybody "debunked"... but yes, i will read Paul's book when available and then will give my feedback.
about Thureos - that it came from Gallic invasion is just one theory.. at the same time, Pyrrhos was fighting Romans and had a lot of Italians in his army as well... he returned home and brought some of them back, to fight his wars in Greece.. he wanted Macedonic throne, because he believed he has a claim on it. and who knows what would happen if he was not killed during that siege... Besides, seen some arguments that Thureos/ Scutum was Italic design altogether and Celts actually adopted it from them. (but that's for a different thread i suppose)
You can't do a local feint when fighting in close combat with an enemy, within a phalanx, especially with one that has overlapping shields. To do so breaks the integrity of the line.
Modern sports is not ancient Greek warfare, you can't compare the complexity of plays in a game. For instance,American football, some men draw back, other push forward, while some push left, to open holes, all on a pre-arranged signal, creating new holes in the opponent's line to exploit. But that is not at all how Greek warfare was done. Nor like any other modern sport.
At Thermopylae the Spartans are known to have conducted feigned retreats, but not while actually engaged with the enemy. And even know there is much commentary stating that the Spartans, being the only fully professional Greek soldiers at the time, were capable of pulling off something so complex. Helping them of course was that their enemy, Persian/Mede/Immortal infantry, didn't fight as aggressively as Greek hoplites, and therefore could not take advantage of such a feint. No other hoplite vs hoplite battle repeated the tactic. Macedonians refused lines and possibly withdrew forces under contact, but they had the offset distance of the forward sarissa as safe space, the hoplites, pressing shield to shield, would have had no safe space.
Besides this, exactly how would this maneuver been executed? What Greek signaling device would have been used? Which Greek officer fighting in the very front ranks would give the order? How would you prevent the whole line from acting on said signal, instead of a single part of the phalanx?
but we are not talking about fighting but pushing with shields... that's my main concern.. Paul himself wrote that push was there only after spears were broken..
(08-22-2016, 05:42 PM)JaM Wrote: but you dont need to do it over a whole line... even a local feint would force part of enemy line to fell... and that would be enough... and of course you can do it, you just need coordination which should be not that big problem anyway.. I'm not talking about 50 vs 50 formation with one side feinting.. im talking about let say 4rank vs 8rank with those 4 ranks feinting, let say on the far right side... its a common tactics even in today's sports so i dont see why it would not be possible back then.
Must say, i dont believe in pushing matches same way as i dont believe in a constant combat.. people are not machines, they are not able to fight constantly for long time.. once fatigue kicks in, morale drops.. in such state, you really dont want to be pushed by somebody towards danger no matter if its by one step or two.. Thats why im strong believer in A Zhmodikov work regarding luls on battlefield, and constant use of missile weapons by Roman Legionaries, and that's why i really dont see how that pushing could work, even after the initial clash with spears.. it sounds way too dangerous (for both sides) and completely prevents one side from routing... which might be quite counterproductive, because routing enemy is much easier wiped out than enemy that is "pushed into corner"
yet, im just trying to give points against this theory. Both Matthew and Lindybeige gave valid points i didnt see anybody "debunked"... but yes, i will read Paul's book when available and then will give my feedback.
The feint you describe simply cannot be done. You do not understand a crowd-like othismos. There is only a "push" as long as there is resistance. If you met me in othismos with a synchronized swim team where every rank jumped back at exactly the same moment without telegraphing the move to me, I would simply step forward as you moved. Remember, I am standing almost straight up. I won't fall over.
I find the notion that something is too dangerous for combat a bit humorous. All I have to do it threaten to do it and you run away! I also have no idea why you think othismos prevents a rout. As in all combat, the taxis breaks from the rear. I too believe in lulls in combat, though I came to the notion following Sabin. My hoplites can sit in othismos for quite a while, since they are simply leaning against each other like boxers in a clinch.
Mathew's objections to my othismos were all disproven last fall with Giannis and the group at marathon. While he wrote that the men could not generate large forces and if they did the aspis would be crushed, we generated close to half a ton and no shields or men were harmed.
(08-22-2016, 06:07 PM)JaM Wrote: but we are not talking about fighting but pushing with shields... that's my main concern.. Paul himself wrote that push was there only after spears were broken..
Fighting and pushing with shields weren't separate, both happened at once.
I can't say for sure but from his previous writings it appears to me that Paul is saying is that there were different stages to hoplite battle, and at the closest stage when both sides not only were going shield to shield, but actively shoving in unison, that by then the front rankers best weapon would likely be a sword. I generally agree with that, but I wonder if the spear could still be used in bad breath distance during Othismos.
You've also stated in the past that no shield to shield combat happened (claiming it was too suicidal), and you've stated that pushing occurred when someone placed their spear on an opponent's shield face and pushed them back that way (which just doesn't work as a unit wide fighting tactic, and physics would disagree). I'd like to see some proof for either claim.
(08-22-2016, 06:15 PM)Paul Bardunias Wrote: Mathew's objections to my othismos were all disproven last fall with Giannis and the group at marathon. While he wrote that the men could not generate large forces and if they did the aspis would be crushed, we generated close to half a ton and no shields or men were harmed.
(08-22-2016, 05:57 PM)Bryan Wrote: You can't do a local feint when fighting in close combat with an enemy, within a phalanx, especially with one that has overlapping shields. To do so breaks the integrity of the line.
Bryan brings up an excellent point which I stress in the book. When in a phalanx you do not have the mobility to simply move out of the shield wall to exploit gaps in the enemy line without disrupting your own formation. Mathew for example shows spears being held out to keep the enemy phalanx at a distance, but this is not needed. As long as enough men are jabbing at any given time to keep some of the men at distance, those beside them cannot close without breaking formation. The reverse is true as well. If a some men move to shield on shield, then they are within the reach of the promachoi dorys, and unless the second rankers can keep them back, the whole taxis probably collapses into close range fighting like a zipper closing.
no, i said you can keep enemy at bay by pressing the spear agaisnt his shield and block him.. same way as phalangites did this to Romans - by fixing sarrissa against Scutum so he couldn't get to them... its even mentioned by Ancient historians that they did that, and Romans tried to chop off the pike head with their swords, but for no avail, because they could still push the shield with the remaining of the pike even after head was chopped off (whch would be quite problematic in the first place)
All im telling from day 1 was that it sounds stupid to me using 2.5m long spear and holding it in the middle, and sounds very suicidal getting into pushing match against second group of men doing the same... especially when we know that actual casualties in ancient battles were relatively small, not over 5% of initial force, and large majority of losses happened AFTER one side routed and ran away... with pushing against each other, those who would panic first - men in front rank - had nowhere to run, but would be crushed or would suffocate or even if they managed to survive, they would have no means to get away from that place...
(08-22-2016, 06:28 PM)JaM Wrote: no, i said you can keep enemy at bay by pressing the spear agaisnt his shield and block him.. same way as phalangites did this to Romans - by fixing sarrissa against Scutum so he couldn't get to them... its even mentioned by Ancient historians that they did that, and Romans tried to chop off the pike head with their swords, but for no avail, because they could still push the shield with the remaining of the pike even after head was chopped off (whch would be quite problematic in the first place)
All im telling from day 1 was that it sounds stupid to me using 2.5m long spear and holding it in the middle, and sounds very suicidal getting into pushing match against second group of men doing the same... especially when we know that actual casualties in ancient battles were relatively small, not over 5% of initial force, and large majority of losses happened AFTER one side routed and ran away... with pushing against each other, those who would panic first - men in front rank - had nowhere to run, but would be crushed or would suffocate or even if they managed to survive, they would have no means to get away from that place...
If you put the tip of a spear point, whether it be a one handed dory or a two handed sarissa, and place it firmly against an adversary's shield, and take one step forward, you will have to push them. So unless both sides go completely immobile and stand still in your battle description (which they never did, according to sources), there will be spears pushing against shields, and shields are pushing against spears. That means your version of othismos isn't a hoplite using the curve of his aspis to press his opponent's shield back back, its men using a one handed spear to push their opponent's back.
The reason this technique works with sarissa is that opposing every single Roman has to fight his way past 5-10 sarissa tips to make it to sword distance of the Macedonian phalanx. Should the Roman charge, or not retreat against the Macedonian style phalanx advance, then they will get stuck against spear points (which might penetrate the thinner scutum), or at the very least prevent them from getting close enough to the enemy to thrust/cut them with a gladius.
With a hoplite line, it doesn't work that way, at best there were two rows of spears held to the front, and held much higher (even with Matt Christopher's theory they are held at shoulder height), so they will be relatively simple for anyone with an aspis or thureos to pass the points and close with their enemy.
Let's talk casualties a moment. Say there are 300 hoplites in a battleline, fighting four ranks deep, in 75 files. Let's say 1/4 of the front rankers are killed or wounded in battle (that's 25% of all promachoi, which is pretty significant), that comes out to 18.75 casualties out of 75 hoplites. 5% casualties out of 300 is 15, which is very close to 18. Double the casualties, say its a very horrific fight and 30 out of 75 promachoi are killed or wounded, that's 46% of the promachoi being casualties, with only 10% casualties of the overall force of 300, which is in keeping with From Sumer to Rome casualty estimates for ancient battle winners. And is in keeping with the horrific nature of hoplite close combat.
(08-22-2016, 06:18 PM)Bryan Wrote: Fighting and pushing with shields weren't separate, both happened at once.
Do you have videos of this I can see?
Yes, fighting with the sword was an obligate part of othismos. In the early period, when spears were shorter, they may well have used them too. The 8' dory, if rear balanced can't be choked up on enough for this.
I'll put some videos up on You tube or my blog once the book is out and I check with the other guys. I can show you a pic now. Here is a file of 8 putting out over 200kg peak pressures and sustaining at least 160kg just by leaning. I will let Giannis describe what it is like to be in it if he wishes, I was stuck recording. In this posture their right arms are quite free for fighting. You will note that the first aspis is mine and that is 200kg against that small steel block on the tree that measures pressure.
that picture is a moot - tree doesn't push at you... force would be doubled with same number of men pushing against you... basic physics... and of course, you have single file.. with locked shields, it would be not a single file, but multiple rows at once which would quadruple the force.. really not something anybody in his sane mind would want to be in.. at least not in a front rank..
Quote:The reason this technique works with sarissa is that opposing every single Roman has to fight his way past 5-10 sarissa tips to make it to sword distance of the Macedonian phalanx. Should the Roman charge, or not retreat against the Macedonian style phalanx advance, then they will get stuck against spear points (which might penetrate the thinner scutum), or at the very least prevent them from getting close enough to the enemy to thrust/cut them with a gladius.
not really, because those other sarrissas are half a meter away... they dont have variable length..
(08-22-2016, 06:28 PM)JaM Wrote: ...with pushing against each other, those who would panic first - men in front rank - had nowhere to run, but would be crushed or would suffocate or even if they managed to survive, they would have no means to get away from that place...
Are you sure you read me? I have shown as far back as 2007 that you will not suffocate due to the aspis. No front ranker can "get away" in a phalanx. Phalanxes have to break from the rear.
(08-22-2016, 06:45 PM)JaM Wrote: that picture is a moot - tree doesn't push at you... force would be doubled with same number of men pushing against you... basic physics... and of course, you have single file.. with locked shields, it would be not a single file, but multiple rows at once which would quadruple the force.. really not something anybody in his sane mind would want to be in.. at least not in a front rank..
Quote:The reason this technique works with sarissa is that opposing every single Roman has to fight his way past 5-10 sarissa tips to make it to sword distance of the Macedonian phalanx. Should the Roman charge, or not retreat against the Macedonian style phalanx advance, then they will get stuck against spear points (which might penetrate the thinner scutum), or at the very least prevent them from getting close enough to the enemy to thrust/cut them with a gladius.
not really, because those other sarrissas are half a meter away... they dont have variable length..
From the viewpoint of the Romans they have variable length, because the bearers of the sarissa are staggered, held low, and are close enough together laterally to make passing them very difficult.
(08-22-2016, 06:43 PM)Paul Bardunias Wrote:
(08-22-2016, 06:18 PM)Bryan Wrote: Fighting and pushing with shields weren't separate, both happened at once.
Do you have videos of this I can see?
Yes, fighting with the sword was an obligate part of othismos. In the early period, when spears were shorter, they may well have used them too. The 8' dory, if rear balanced can't be choked up on enough for this.
I'll put some videos up on You tube or my blog once the book is out and I check with the other guys. I can show you a pic now. Here is a file of 8 putting out over 200kg peak pressures and sustaining at least 160kg just by leaning. I will let Giannis describe what it is like to be in it if he wishes, I was stuck recording. In this posture their right arms are quite free for fighting. You will note that the first aspis is mine and that is 200kg against that small steel block on the tree that measures pressure.
Nice. The picture looks like Steven Pressfield's description of "tree f***ing" from Gates of Fire.
Quote:Are you sure you read me? I have shown as far back as 2007 that you will not suffocate due to the aspis. No front ranker can "get away" in a phalanx. Phalanxes have to break from the rear
precisely - but those in rear rank are not being pushed... they are pushing, and don't know whats happening in the front...
Quote:Are you sure you read me? I have shown as far back as 2007 that you will not suffocate due to the aspis. No front ranker can "get away" in a phalanx. Phalanxes have to break from the rear
precisely - but those in rear rank are not being pushed... they are pushing, and don't know whats happening in the front...
And if the phalanx is getting pushed back because they aren't winning the othismos then the only thing the men in the rear ranks of the losing side will know is that they are losing. Hence their morale plummets and then they break and run to save their own skins, because the sooner they break the more distance they get, they might survive the rout.
