Hoplites fighting in Phalanx formation

[TraderTrey9785]

Hi all,

I've been doing some extra reading and brushing up on hoplite warfare in the 6th and 5th Centuries. I just read an interesting chapter in Oxford's Short History of Europe: Classical Greece that described hoplite fighting in a manner that I have never heard before. I had always heard, and was taught in my classes that hoplites fought in the phalanx, very tightly packed, with their shields held in their left arm. In doing so, the shield (being about 3ft across) covered the bearer's left side, as well as the right side of the man next to him -- leaving only the man on the extreme right vulnerable. It makes sense to me -- I never thought of questioning it.

However, I just read a chapter titled "The City at War" by Hans van Wees where he rejects the traditional accounts, mostly from Thucydides of hoplite warfare. He states that they actually didn't lock shields, but needed plenty of space to wield spears and swords, and gaps in between hoplites were very common and expected. He says:

"In this context, one cannot take too seriously the 'joining' or 'locking' of shields, which also features in classical battle narratives, most explicitly in Thucydides' observation that every hoplite 'brings his unprotected side as near as possible to the shield of the man drawn up on his right and believes that density of the formation is the best protection' (5. 71. 1). The density implied by Thucydides' 'as near as possible' depends on how much room hoplites needed to wield the weapons and we have Polybius' expert opinion that a soldier using a cutting or thrusting weapon as well as a shield required at least six feet of space in every direction (18. 30. 6-9). Most scholars would object that the hoplite shield by its very nature demands extremely close ranks, on the assumption that the hoplite stood squarely behind it an in effect used on the right half of his shield, extending the left half to provide cover for a comrade close behind him in the ranks. In fact, however, a hoplite, in order to wield his spear or sword with any force at all, would have to adopt a sideways-on stance in combat and by doing so automatically placed himself behind the middle of the shield. The shield thus did not extend unnecessarily far to the left, nor did it fall short on the right, and it was no less suitable for open order combat than for dense formations." -- page 101 from Classical Greece, edited by Robin Osborne.

He also claims that the hoplites shield was not carried perpendicular to the ground, but was held at an angle, with the lower half pointing out toward the enemy -- another aspect of hoplite fighting that I have never heard before.

Do any RAT members have any opinions on this information. Agree or disagree? When I first read it, it was revolutionary to me because it was completely new information. However, van Wees provides a diagram in the book that shows how and why it was more effective to adopt a sideways stance, placing your body directly behind the middle of the shield. I think this part of his argument is correct, and especially given the amount and force of the pushing involved in a normal battle, this would allow the hoplite to brace himself for the impending struggle. I'm not sure if I agree with his statement that the hoplite needed around 6 ft to wield a sword or spear. It seems to me that fighting in close formation would still be possible even given the stance of the hoplites. You aren't going to slash or swing a spear in combat like a baseball bat, or a hockey stick. It is going to be a thrusting motion and I can't imagine that such a motion would require a lot of room.

Just my thoughts, but I'd like to know what everyone else thinks.

Thanks!

[Alexandr K]

Hi,
this thread could be interesting for you.
Greetings
Alexandr

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Hi Trey.
The first bit about open formation is rubish!The man does not only dissagree with a respectful source(Thoucydites)but he simply ignores every single pieceof arcaelogical and literal evidence we have!AND common sence,because if you imagine a battle in that formation described,it wouldn't be any different than Homeric battles.And he simply bases his theory on the mobilty needed to achieve a powerful hit.
The only thing that deserves to be discussed is the part with the shield angle.In many vases and in some sculptures hoplites are depicted that way and there is e very simple explanation.Given that most enemy hits would come downwards,if you hold the shield in an angle you protect larger part of your body and legs.However,you cannot do this once that fpalanxes have clashed because there is preshure from behind and what comes is the "othismos".So it is possible that hoplites used their shield that way only when the phalanx broke.In addition,theshield is far too heavy to hold it like that for a long time.
Khaire
Giannis

[TraderTrey9785]

Alexandr K -- thanks for the threat, it was very informative and I think the rugby discussion was great.

Giannis -- I agree with you that the loose order formation is inflammatory and probably incorrect, but he does bring up a good point about the stance. It would make sense to turn sideways and brace for impact, but I think a hoplite army could do that and still maintain locked shields in formation. I just can't believe more work hasn't been done on the subject.

Thanks for the info on the shield too. After thinking about it (and picking up a shield), it makes sense that the 45 degree angle is appropriate and offers more protection until the forces collide in the battle. That famous bronze statue of a hoplite shows the shield at an angle as well -- pretty solid if you ask me. I just hope someone takes the time to do an intense study, and hopefully reject Polybius' notion that a hoplite would need 6 feet of space to fight effectively.

[M.H. White]

I don't like his reasoning.

Read Victor Davis Hanson's "The Western Way of War" for a very good counter argument. Hanson argues that spears were carried for two reasons: fighting against non-hoplites, and against hoplites, for use in the initial charge. He details the piling up and the shoving match that he (and most people) believe hoplite fighting was. Personally, I think that expecting that kind of space to be given between men is ridiculous. Think about it: the amount of armor these men are wearing, especially when bronze cuirasses are popular (Linen cuirasses may be as effective, but trying to stab a man encased in metal still presents a more daunting prospect). The battle becoming a shoving match between close-ranked formations seems more likely than hoplites standing apart and trying to skillfully wield their spears at their well-armored opponents. The early Corinthian helms also give the lie to this, I think. Ever put one on? You can't see or hear much, and I think that says something about how they were used.

[Matthew]

Also, according to the translation I last read, Polybius says that the Romans had a facing of six feet, not twelve, and that the Greek Pike Phalanx they faced had half that facing [i.e. three feet]. I think Vegetius also gives three feet as a facing (maybe six, I don't recall).

Matthew James Stanham

[hoplite14gr]

Alexandr pointed to the right direction.
Many scholars make rational statement but they have no military experience. This thread and also the thread "wheeling the phalanx" and "commands in Greek" offer more insight.
Kind regards

[Arthes]

Hmmmh,
I can see both sides of the argument...
If you have the aspis resting on the shoulder and stand sideways on, it is less tiring than holding the aspis in front.
There again, I presume we are talking highly trained men here..
Phillip II developed the Macedonian phalanx with the long sarissas, which operated differently to the Greek phalanx. The sarissa was used underarm and if used two handed, the aspis would need to be on the arm of the soldier.
This was not developed in Thucydide's time..
The classic Greek phalanx of his time used an overarm thrust and the aspis was held. The Spartan's aspis was important as it also protected others, not only himself...
I have never used a Sarissa in a phalanx....although I would like to...but to stand face on would seem awkward compared with a slightly sideways stance.
I would say that both are correct, depending on whether you are approaching, pushing or fighting in short weapon combat...

[Arthes]

ps...I would also add that a few years back I fought in a Viking shield line using a spear two handed/underarm, which would seem to me a very similar situation to the Macedonian phalanx..

[Tarbicus]

The Macedonian style of holding the sarissa with both hands surely makes it impossible to be fully front on to the enemy? You have to turn at least the upper body sideways for the left hand to reach the sarissa to hold it, which brings the left shoulder forwards in front of the body to at least a 45 degree angle.

[Arthes]

The Macedonian style of holding the sarissa with both hands surely makes it impossible to be fully front on to the enemy? You have to turn at least the upper body sideways for the left hand to reach the sarissa to hold it, which brings the left shoulder forwards in front of the body to at least a 45 degree angle.

Exactly...and the placement of the feet for bracing purposes...!

[TraderTrey9785]

The Macedonian style of holding the sarissa with both hands surely makes it impossible to be fully front on to the enemy? You have to turn at least the upper body sideways for the left hand to reach the sarissa to hold it, which brings the left shoulder forwards in front of the body to at least a 45 degree angle.

That's what I would have expected -- even with earlier hoplites and a shorter spear, it just makes sense. So the whole notion of the left half of your shield protecting the right side of the man on your left? Where does that fit in? If you turn your body sideways to brace for impact, obviously your entire body will be planted directly behind the middle of your hoplon. I disagree with the idea that hoplites engaged in single combat. But I wonder how the shields overlapped, and I think van Wees makes a good point in describing the phalanx formation based on individual stance.

[Tarbicus]

A piccy:

http://www.satrapa1.com/articulos/antig ... alange.jpg

[Arthes]

That's what I would have expected -- even with earlier hoplites and a shorter spear, it just makes sense. So the whole notion of the left half of your shield protecting the right side of the man on your left? Where does that fit in? If you turn your body sideways to brace for impact, obviously your entire body will be planted directly behind the middle of your hoplon. I disagree with the idea that hoplites engaged in single combat. But I wonder how the shields overlapped, and I think van Wees makes a good point in describing the phalanx formation based on individual stance.

The notion of the shield protecting the right side of the man on your left, is from the earlier Greek phalanx. The overarm use of the dory makes it easier to keep a close formation. The lip on the rim of the aspis was used used for the overlap with the men fighting over the top.
If you lost your dory, you had a protective wall while you drew the xiphos..etc..
The later Macedonian aspis did not have the lip..as far as I know.
Hoplites would have trained in single combat, as the phalanx could be broken and what do you do - retreat, yes maybe... or run....no way!...
They would have kept together as much as possible, like the later Viking and Saxon spearwalls did in smaller groups..but if needed, they would have fought man to man!

[Matthew]

Could the concept of overlapping shields not just be related to resisting ranged attacks, rather than melee?