Thread
What did ancient Greek warfare look like?
There are two major schools of thought:
-Something like a giant shoving match (traditional view)
-A fight between the front few ranks until one side lost its nerve (revisionist view)
One side is very clearly correct.
Thread.
There are two major schools of thought:
-Something like a giant shoving match (traditional view)
-A fight between the front few ranks until one side lost its nerve (revisionist view)
One side is very clearly correct.
Thread.
This debate is usually called the “othismos” question, from the Greek word for pushing (ὠθισμός). Traditionalists argue that this word and its variants meant a coordinated push, while revisionists maintain it referred to the metaphorical back-and-forth of battle.
But before we look at how the phalanx fought, how did individual hoplites fight?
First, armor: a bronze helmet covered his head and face, a 1-meter shield covered from shoulders to knees, and greaves covered his shins. From the front, he was almost entirely protected.
First, armor: a bronze helmet covered his head and face, a 1-meter shield covered from shoulders to knees, and greaves covered his shins. From the front, he was almost entirely protected.
Often he had a breastplate of some sort too, usually bronze or linen, which added protection to his torso. 
All this meant that a hoplite was only really vulnerable when he’d been knocked down, exposing his sides. And indeed, vase paintings usually show killing blows delivered to people on the ground or falling. 
There is something peculiar about these scenes, though. Knocked over hoplites are often shown with the left (forward) leg posted up BEHIND their body. How can that be? 
This is only possible if the hoplite fights in a nearly perpendicular stance: a strong sideways blow to the shield or kick to the leg can force him to catch himself by planting his left foot behind him, even as he keeps his torso aligned to the enemy. 
Which makes perfect sense: a traditional fighting stance with hips squared would make it too easy for the enemy just to bowl the other guy over with his shield. The hoplite needs front-rear stability above all else. 
Hence a lot of scenes appear to show torqueing blows with the shield to knock the other guy over.
This makes wielding a spear awkward, as the hoplite has to twist in order to thrust, but as we’ve seen, spears aren’t usually deadly until someone is on the ground.
This makes wielding a spear awkward, as the hoplite has to twist in order to thrust, but as we’ve seen, spears aren’t usually deadly until someone is on the ground.
Now, place the hoplite in a battle line. With a fellow soldier on either side, it is MUCH more difficult for the enemy standing opposite to knock the hoplite on the ground—he simply can’t get in very easily.
Even if he does knock him down, the rank to the rear can protect him.
Even if he does knock him down, the rank to the rear can protect him.
The man in the second rank can also prop up the man in front before he falls. That seems to be what’s happening here. 
This scene of two lines of hoplites fighting shows a whole sequence. The center pair clashes with shield and spear; a hoplite on the left is downed while the man to his rear guards him; a hoplite on the right delivers the killing blow to an undefended man. 
So we know two important details: hoplites were only vulnerable when off balance, but it was very hard to get them there. Coordinated action therefore has the potential to make it easier. This is where the theory of shoving comes in.
If an attack is especially strong, it can knock down event the rear ranks. A Trojan War scene of the assault on the Greek ships shows this: it probably depicts Hector’s furious attack which nearly breaks through the Achaean lines (Book XV of the Iliad) 
A single coordinated push by an entire line could knock down the first rank or two of the opposing phalanx, leaving hoplites on the ground without men to their sides or rear to protect them. Not everyone would fall, but enough that many could be speared.
In this context, the depth of Greek phalanxes makes more sense. A line 8, 12, or even 16 ranks deep could absorb a concerted shove by bracing the rank in front; alternatively, it could shove forward as a mass. 
A 530 BC painting of the fight over Patroclus’ body seems to show this. Close-packed files of Greek and Trojan warriors face off, their weight on the front foot (rear heel up) and their shields ready to drive into the back of the man ahead as the front men clash. 
An earlier painting (560 BC) is very similar, but somewhat more ambiguous—the rear ranks' shields aren't ideally positioned to support the man in front, but their bodies still could. 
So we know that a coordinated push could theoretically be effective, but was it ever used? That’s an entirely separate question.
In tomorrow's thread, we will look at what led recent scholars to a more revisionist view. This rests on two crucial factors: training and morale.
In tomorrow's thread, we will look at what led recent scholars to a more revisionist view. This rests on two crucial factors: training and morale.
Second part here:
Mentions
See All
Blake Burge @blakeaburge
·
Apr 3, 2022
Great thread.