Book Recommendation: Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities

[Dan Diffendale]

I'm only 1/4 of the way into it, but I would already highly recommend the new (2004) book by Hans van Wees, Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities. He argues against tightly packed phalanx formations, against the "othismos"/"rugby scrum" model of combat, against the myth of the citizen-soldier (Victor Davis Hanson fans take note...), and all sorts of other things as well. It's published by Duckworth in London, ISBN 0-7156-2967-0

[Dan Howard]

I have read a few of Van Wees' articles and like his work but haven't read this book. It is about time someone mounted a serious challenge to some of Hanson's theories.

[Antonius Lucretius]

Does Van Wees suggest an alternative to the othismos theory?

[Dan Diffendale]

His proposal reminds me at the moment of Phil Sabin's article "The Face of Roman Battle"... where the armies face off at close range and engagements take place periodically up and down the lines. More room per man resulting in a more open order.

(I'm not at home and I'm rather sleep-deprived so I don't have the book in front of me and my memory's not the best... I'll update as appropriate)

[Dan Howard]

How does he address the Greek aspis? The shield doesn't seem to be designed to effectively cover the man holding it. The only reasonable theory for its design is that it was intended to partially cover the man next to him. The only way this can be achieved is to have very lose ranks.

[Dan Diffendale]

I'll quote (p.168-9):

"It is a common misconception that the shield failed to offer much cover for the bearer's right flank while offering too much cover on the left, so that hoplites were forced to stand close together and in effect shelter behind the redundant left-hand halves of their neighbours' shields. This would be true if hoplites had stood frontally opposed to the enemy, like wrestlers, but since they actually stood sideways-on, like fencers, they automatically found themselves behind the centre of their shields, well covered on both sides."

[Alexandr K]

Hi,
for the reappraisal of the othismos/rugby scrum concept I would also recommend this article:

Goldsworthy, A. K.: The Othismos, Myths and Heresies: The Nature of Hoplite Battle, War in History 4/1, 1997, 1-26.

And as far as I know P. Krentz has written some articles arguing against the rugby scrum hypothesis.
Greetings
Alexandr Kolouch

[Antonius Lucretius]

I'm afraid I do not buy the "alternative" theory which, I suspect, consists of having the answer first and trying to find arguments to fit in.
Goldsworthy's title "Myth and Heresy" seems derogatory. If he begins by talking about "myth" --meaning fairy tale-- and "heresy" --which carries a bit too much odium to me-- it smells like the wrong methodology.
The "periodic fighting" up and down the line is a description of the "heroic" battle, or the "battle of champions" of the hellenic dark ages and has very little to do with classical Greece.
The phalanx existed ever since sumerian times. It was not used only in periods when social organisation did not allow it, like in the case of small villages politically isolated and thus unable to field enough warriors and what's more, unable to withstand heavy losses. Which was the case in the hellenic dark age.
As John Keegan explained much better than I in "A History of Warfare", the way warriors fight and the way they organise the battle reflects the way their society is organised.
In the classical period, every fighting member of the "polis" had to walk in step alongside his neighbour and his peer on the field of battle, lest his peer accuse him not to have stepped in with him and tell everyone in the agora how cowardly he'd behaved.
It's as simple as that..
As for the technicalities about whether they advanced sideways or not, it's a moot point. The "classical" stance, sideways, left leg forward, is very well known.
The theban, then macedonian phalanx, did not pop out of nowhere. But maybe they too, stood motionless and skirmished "periodically up and down the line"?

[Anonymous]

What we need is to get a load of kitted-out warriors together and try it. The suggestion that the shields were specifically designed for formation, rather than individual use is borne out by those shields with offset porpakes, bringing the bearer across the shield to the right, but other porpakes were central. Does the Chigi Vase illustration mean nothing?

[hoplite14gr]

There are Historians and Archaologists who argue that at the Geometrik era the shield had a boss and was used pretty much like the viking shield.
If the vikings could form a shield wall then the greeks could form it too!
I am inclined to agree with Antonius Lucretius on the other things though.

I want also to offer some thought on formations.
Based on my experience on Army I can tell you that you can create drilled troops who manauver en mass in 15 days. Imagine the this when you talk about people that formation was their battle tactic!

The falanx was known in Greece from the bronze age.
Yes it is dificult to do othismos with the "sakkos" or "pyrgos"(tower) shield.
but if you stand with the long "eghos" you stop the chariots and the archers behind you can drive them off!
The heavy skeleton of the "8" shield seems to imply that you could try it.
Seems to me that this was the key to Mycenean-Pylian power.

Initally the phalanx was reformed to in the archaic era to counter the Geometric cavalry. Again you do not need othismos-all you got ot do is stand your ground.
But if you enemy adapts and has a phalanx you must breake their ranks somehow.
In most classical city states existed the Epilektoi or Logadae the better armed hoplites who were expected to make the difference.
They were nearly allways positioned in the right where you might overlap the enemy and it seems that they did close and pushed.
The Spartans more or less made their whole army Epilektoi and that is why the others were reluctant to face them.
War is mostly psychology. In a pitted fight the most aggresive will drive the other away! That is why Spartans seemed to focus on this!

The adoption of the pike was an attempt to increase the number of men engaged. Polyvios wrote that the pikemen were dangerous.
In Pydna they drove the maniples back and only on broken ground the Romans got the better of them. This means that the advanced en mass aggressively and drove the legionaries back. The distance from flat plain to Olympos is considerable. Only aggressive tactics would push the maniples back.

[floofthegoof]

How does he address the Greek aspis? The shield doesn't seem to be designed to effectively cover the man holding it. The only reasonable theory for its design is that it was intended to partially cover the man next to him. The only way this can be achieved is to have very lose ranks.

There is a passage I just read in the last 2 months that is either herodotus or plutarch, I think it's plutarch. Forgive the vagueness of my memory on this. Some Spartan was asked why it was ok to drop ones helmet or ones weapon, but forbidden to drop ones shield. He answered, "Throwing down the weapon and helmet exposes the individual, but throwing down the sheild endangers the whole army."

This statement strongly suggests a tight formation, don't you think?

[Dan Howard]

Just noticed a typo. I said "very LOSE ranks." This was meant to be CLOSE, not LOOSE. I agree that the sources imply that very close ranks were maintained.

[hoplite14gr]

There is a passage I just read in the last 2 months that is either herodotus or plutarch, I think it's plutarch. Forgive the vagueness of my memory on this. Some Spartan was asked why it was ok to drop ones helmet or ones weapon, but forbidden to drop ones shield. He answered, "Throwing down the weapon and helmet exposes the individual, but throwing down the sheild endangers the whole army."

This statement strongly suggests a tight formation, don't you think?

The passage relates to the battle of Amfipolis whre after the battle Vrasidas after ordering parade and inspection had those who were without shields executed. When asked why he did not punish those without helmets he answered with the phrase that you mention and the quote I think comes from Thukidides. Kind regards

[Endre Fodstad]

Awake, ye dead threads!

I'm currently reading this book now, but my knowledge of the corpus of scholarship on this subject is not good enough by far. How is van Wees' book standing up these days, over a year after the last time someone posted on it?

[hoplite14gr]

I feel my last post here is related to the subject.
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... 4&start=20

Kind regards