Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hoplite spacing and formation
#31
Giannis wrote:-
Quote:There was not a standard depth.
....Quite right, there was no 'standard' depth, but 8 especially, and twelve ( in open order) seem to have been common - much would depend on the space available for a given number of Hoplites on a particular battlefield...
Quote:My point is simple.First they took position in loose order and then they locked shields.To do so,the half rear came forward.
......again, quite right, no disagreement there.
Quote:It seems you imply they actually fought in open order.
Where?...in 30 years I have not suggested that Hoplites generally fought in open order ( though I could give examples of them doing so :? ).

The 'typical' Hoplite battle ( if there was such a thing...every battle was unique in some way or other) was fought in close order, as we both agree.
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace, ODES
(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" -GeorgeC Scott as General George S. Patton
Paullus Scipio/Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#32
Then i kindly ask you to say again were was our disagreement,only in the number 16-8?
Khaire
Giannis
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply
#33
If I may intrude into your arguement, I think the discrepancy between you two is in what the ancients are labelling when they give rank numbers. Paul believes these numbers reflect the "natural" opened order. I and I think you believe these represent the functional, final deployment.

I think our disagrrements lately have all been on this topic. This is because my research has led me to the conclusion that formation C is not compatable with Othismos, though most of the authors you have read portray it in just this manner. If you believe that they fought by pushing then D is the only option, it will always defeat C. If you don't believe in the pushing phase of battle, then any of them is fine.
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
Quote:Giannis said:-
Quote:First they formed a 16 deep phalanx in loose order and then the 8 rear came to the front.
Sorry, Giannis, but this is simply incorrect. We are told in the sources that Hoplites generally stood 8 or 12 deep ( less on occasion, more for e.g. Thebans). We are also told in the few surviving manuals that 'open' order is the 'natural' order and has no special name, that the phalanx normally 'closed up' to close order, shields touching/overlapping to fight, and that when a desperate defence demanded it, an even closer formation with only 18" front per man could be utilised ( overlapped shields). There are two ways to interpret '8deep' - either it means open or closed formation. The moment you put this onto physical battlefields it becomes apparent that formations '8 deep' or '12 deep' must mean in open order, which then closed up, halving its depth, just before action.This also makes much more sense from an efficiency point of view as well. Only a Macedonian phalanx generally formed up 16 deep, in open order, and then closed up to '8 deep', close order to fight.

I agree with Paul here, from the viewpoint of Late Roman formations. A depth of 16 is a depth of 16. You could halve that to 8 if needed (for example to extend the front), or turn 8 ranks around to face an attack from the rear. There were commands for all those formations.

But there was no 'normal' procedure where 16 ranks deployed in open order and then had 8 ranks come up to the front simply to get to a close order. When synaspismos was needed, e.g. in a fulcum formation, the ranks pulled together, no doubt also shorthening the front in such a manouvre.
_________________________________
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR: Forum rules
FECTIO Late Roman Society
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
[Image: artgroepbutton.jpg]
Reply
#35
Lets talk about Sparta.I believe the order was given in each enomotia just befor the battle.The enomotia had the way to form a phalanx of several depths.
Lets say that the archaic enomotia was 25 men.If they wanted to fight 12 deep,each enomotia would stay still in line.This was the open order.Just befor engaged,the 13 rear men would come forward.This way you had the enomotia in two lines with the ouragos in the rear.
Lets say now that they wanted to fight 8 deep.The phalanx would again be formed with each anomotia in single line. Then the first eight would stay still, the next eight would come next to them and the rear 9 would take position just next to the folowing enomotia.
To fight 6 deep, again they would form phalanx in single file,each enomotia several steps apart.Then the first 12 stay still while the folowing 13 march in the middle space between the two enomotiae.This is open order.Manouver takes place with this formation.Then with the signal for battle the rear 6 would come forward,the fourth file of the enomotia having 7 instead of six.
25 is the number given by Herodotos,and given that the front of the phalanx has locked shields with the enomotarch in the extreme right,then it is the ouragos who stays out of formation,to keep the lines in order during deployment and othismos.
There are also other posibilities as to how the enomotia formed 8 deep,but I think what i said is the more likely.In taking more steps to form 8 deep,the phalanx could make 4 deep.It is always the same thing,what changes is the space between each enomotia when they first form phalanx with each enomotia in single line.It was the responsibility of the enomotarch to take the correct number of steps,acording to the order for the depth of the phalanx.
Xenophon changes the number of the enomotia and possibly in that age the ouragos was part of the phalanx.But the deployment would be the same.
What do you think about this model? I repeat there are other possibilities but I find this one most likely.
Paul B,the othismos was not how a battle had to be fought.It is the result of two phalanxes of similar strenght and marale opposing each other. The synaspismos helped in the protection of the soldiers,in the number of soldiers fighting in the first line,in the ability of the enemy to penetrate the formation, and to keep order in the phalanx.The C model helps in anouvering,deploying,protecting and allows for the second in line take the place of the dead front ranker.It may be weaker in othismos against D,but I'm saying that D was impossible and inpractical,so it is not likely that a phalanx locked in C would ever face another deployed with D.
I remind you,also that pressure was a characteristic in battles with no locked shields.Our Roman friends could shed some light to that battle where the dead were staying still because of the pressure. Both C and D allow for better and systematic pushing than any other formation.
And by the way, I'm not even sure that a hypothetical D(that i've never seen in reenactors,only in history channel) would beat a C in pushing.Someone has to try it.
Khairete
Giannis
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply
#36
[Image: delph44.jpg]
[Image: trysa6.jpg]
[Image: trysa5.jpg]
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply
#37
[Image: TheNereidMonumentwasprobablybuiltfo.jpg]
[Image: battleofgodsfrieze.jpg]
[Image: xanthos-nereid-reliefs-4.jpg]
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply
#38
http://www.aeria.phil.uni-erlangen.de/p ... anth39.JPG
http://www.aeria.phil.uni-erlangen.de/p ... anth41.JPG
http://www.aeria.phil.uni-erlangen.de/p ... anth42.JPG
Why not a single one of these sculpture doesn't show right over left(D) :?:
They depicted much more difficult things,for example not only the front buat also the second rank of the phalanx :!:
Note also that some of them do not show locked shields,just because they're not yet engaged in battle.Theonly thing they have to do is just bring their shields in fron of them and here we are,with a very nice C
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply
#39
What would be wrong if the artist had shown this:
[Image: delph44-1.jpg]
Their legs and general position clearly show they're not one after the other in line.It was in his choice and he chose to sculpt it like C...
Khaire
Giannis

PS.I don't even touch the loads of vases showing lift shield over right.Even if you find one or two"(and I know there are some) it does not explain that general notion of all artists,painters,sculptors metal workers...
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply
#40
[Image: delph43.jpg]
[Image: delph47.jpg]
[Image: delphi08-21b.jpg]
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply
#41
[Image: Delphi---z---Archaeological.gif]
[Image: delph50.jpg]
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply
#42
Forgive the so many pictures Two last ones here,that are very strange.
Mods,if you find they're too many,shall I delete some?I think I made my point clear,after all.
Khairete
Giannis
------------------------------------------
[Image: phalanxb.jpg]
[Image: wholeside.jpg]
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply
#43
Giannis was faster than me but
Zoophoros of the "Sifnian treasure"
http://www.sikyon.com/Delphi/Monuments/delphi_gr09.html
(Delphoi museum)

Geryones sclupture photo is in Ospreys "Greek hoplite".

All depictions of Geriones show left shield overlaping right shield
All depiction of Gigantomacheia that show Giagates as hoplites
depict left shield overlaping right shield

And as I said first hand practical experience in phalanx maneuvering and
hoplitodromy.

The case is really closed. Thanks Giannis

Kind regards
Reply
#44
Quote:Forgive the so many pictures Two last ones here, that are very strange.
The last two pictures are from a 4th century BC painted tomb at Paestum in Lucania (I took them).
Dan Diffendale
Ph.D. candidate, University of Michigan
Reply
#45
Quote:Why not a single one of these sculpture doesn't show right over left(D)

Why have you not posted a single image of hoplites with shields facing forwards toward an enemy battle line and a left over right overlap as in C:?: Everything you have shown has the shield edge forwards and half of them clearly show no overlap since men's weapons or arms appear between them :!:

In fact that last one with the Swastika looks like right over left to me :!:

If these images do not show D which is very hard to depict why can't they even show C which is less so??? Modern artists depict this all the time, so it is obviously a limitation of the conventions of Ancient Greek artists. All of these images could just as easily be said to portray men advancing with their shields on their shoulder to their sides- clearly the case with the Lycians.

Case reopened :!: :!: :!:
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


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Spartan Hoplite Impression - was "Athenian Hoplite&quot rogue_artist 33 7,809 08-17-2008, 12:31 AM
Last Post: Giannis K. Hoplite

Forum Jump: