"Theban numbers game" Topic

I can't claim any great expertise in Ancients (or probably in anything!) but I was puzzled when reading a Greek history that covered Epaminondas' reforms with the Theban army.

His phalanx of 28 files seemed to just glide through his opponents' traditional 8 file phalanx.

Why?

The only thing I can think of was the replacement of killed & wounded in the front ranks had more fodder from the bigger phalanx?

I've looked through my limited sources & through the net but I have no answer.

The continuing debate on the nature of hoplite combat – among other things, do hoplites physically "push" with their shields (routinely, occasionally, never) – means that there is no universal consensus as to what the rear ranks actually achieved even in a normal depth phalanx, let alone the deep Theban ones. The ancient sources are not very precise – Diodoros says of Leuctra that "the heavy column led by Epameinondas bore down upon the Lacedaemonians, and at first by sheer force caused the line of the enemy to buckle somewhat", but what does that actually mean in detail?

The deeper phalanx would no doubt have a psychological effect, intimidating a shallower enemy line and boosting the morale of its own men. It will be physically harder for the men in the deeper formation to be forced back. Casualty replacement, as you note, can go on longer – but how often did casualty replacement work past the first two or three ranks anyway?

It seems to be generally accepted that when one side started to lose, men ran away from the rear ranks first (which is why the Hellenistic tacticians wanted good men in the last rank); presumably a man in rank 25 is far further from the combat, feels safer and is less likely to panic, than a man in rank 8. But that probably only comes into play once the shallower phalanx has started to lose in the first place.

do hoplites physically "push" with their shields (routinely, occasionally, never) – means that there is no universal consensus as to what the rear ranks actually achieved even in a normal depth phalanx, let alone the deep Theban ones.

Read Goldsworthy's treatise on "Othismos":
PDF link

Yes, I've read it, and would join in recommending it to Ochoin, it's very valuable. As are Hanson, Krentz, van Wees, Schwartz, Matthew… Which is why I am inclined to stress that "there is no universal consensus".

G's view that "The rear ranks did not act as a reserve for the fighters in front in any real sense, but they did provide vital support. As long as they remained in their places it was difficult for the men in the front rank to flee. The deeper a phalanx was, the more remote the danger must have seemed to the men at the back of a phalanx and the easier it was for them to cope with the stress of battle" matches one of the points I made above, but I'm still not sure it's the whole answer: it explains why deeper phalanxes don't lose, rather than why they win.

It looks as if I've walked into an old argument.

Again, a tyro's view but I've seen rugby scrums collapse….pushing in a phalanx doesn't sound that tenable?

I'm in the "yes, they did push, or at the very least prevented the ranks in front from backing up" school, and so attribute a good bit of the effect of a deeper phalanx to mass and momentum, with greater local resources for casualty replacement being a secondary benefit.

The deeper phalanx would no doubt have a psychological effect, intimidating a shallower enemy line and boosting the morale of its own men.

One thought on this – while it might boost the morale of the deeper unit, it might not (depending on circumstances) have much negative effect on the morale of the other, as it might be hard to estimate how deep the enemy formation was, especially on flat land.

Doug

What you have to do is look closely at the design of the hoplite panoply (especially the shield) and how an individual warrior acts in a cohesive unit to take full advantage of it.

The dome and rim of the shield allow a strong locking shield wall that keeps the warrior spacing at the minimum required for an overarm thrust.

The dome shape also allows the hoplite in a rear rank to steady a warrior under pressure directly in front of him.

The helmet protects from the enemy and friendly damage.

The upper and lower arm of a warrior is roughly the same so the domed shield rests snugly over the shoulder and against the fist allowing amongst other things the ability to give a good shove in the crush of melee.

etc

The dome shape also allows the hoplite in a rear rank to steady a warrior under pressure directly in front of him.

Really? How does that work then?

It matches the curve of the back when pressing against the hoplite in front.

Interesting. I'd wondered about this, too, since getting squashed between the shield of the guy behind you and the enemy in front of you didn't seem a very heroic way to die. I'll have to check out some of GurKhan's sources--the only one I have is Hanson.

Grelber

It matches the curve of the back when pressing against the hoplite in front.

But not if the guy in front is wearing a cuirass?

Well maybe the earlier dendritic armours were not curved but latter armours were to match the curvature of the spine. The stance is important of course.

Nice curve there and a shield directly behind you keeps that weapon arm up.

Bear in mind it's hoplite v hoplite warfare so domed interlocking shieldwall versus another. Locked into that individuals could not shove 2 or 3 opponents back and crush them.

The stance is important of course.

Yes, but with that stance it would be difficult to push him in the back with a 3ft diameter shield. For one thing, it would get in the way of his spear arm. For another, his back is actually turned away from the guy to the rear. And the position of the front ranker's right leg would make it difficult to get your shield into his back.

Be that as it may, the whole idea of trying to fight while a mate is shoving a shield into your back (and thus preventing you from dodging sword or spear thrusts) just seems ludicrous…

Nice curve there and a shield directly behind you keeps that weapon arm up.

The curve doesn't look at all the same to me.

Bear in mind it's hoplite v hoplite warfare so domed interlocking shieldwall versus another. Locked into that individuals could not shove 2 or 3 opponents back and crush them.

Doesn't that just contradict what you said about pushing from behind?

He's not shoving unless the unit is shoving it's to steady him when he is being shoved.

He's not shoving unless the unit is shoving it's to steady him when he is being shoved.

??? Eh?

Who is shoving whom then?

An individual warrior would have as much a 6 or more enemy capable of pushing or thrusting spears against his shield or himself. Even if he is not wounded or killed that might be enough to off balance him. The close proximity of the rank behind him can counter that when it happens.

An individual warrior would have as much a 6 or more enemy capable of pushing or thrusting spears against his shield or himself.

No. A hoplite spear was only 9 feet long so it would be no more than 2 or 3 not 6 or more.

The close proximity of the rank behind him can counter that when it happens.

How?

I believe that the deep Theban phalanx was not intended as a way to beat Spartans, but rather to make it more difficult for the Thebans to be beaten.

Mike B

I think that the fact that the Theban steamroller at Leuctra hit the Spartan line exactly where the Spartan King was stationed was no coincidence. It was a surgical strike… intended to decapitate the Spartan army.

But that doesn't answer the question of why it was so deep.

The idea that you want to inflict casualties on the enemy doesn't really wash. In hoplite combats the loser suffered far more casualties than the winner, presumably in the route and by being stabbed in the back.

So we know there weren't that many casualties in a hoplite combat in the actual stabbing at each other phase.

If they did plan on beating them like that then it would have been better to have a second phalanx behind the first that could move out onto the Spartan flank once combat was engaged. Having more than twice as many ranks would allow you to absorb some punishment and then fall on their flank with a large number of men still.

But they didn't do this.

I think that pushing was a very important function of Hoplite warfare.

"For one thing, it would get in the way of his spear arm. "

But if the spear isn't the primary battle winner then this isn't that important. Also if you are stabbing down with an overhead thrust it would get that much in the way.

The traditional hoplite battle saw both sides win on their right in a 'revolving door' battle (as Phil Sabin likes to call them). What Epaminondas did was the opposite: he reinforced his left and refused his right, thus getting local superiority where the enemy least expected it, first negating and then defeating the best troops of the enemy army.

Or so Delbruck would have it :)

Cheers,
Aaron

No. A hoplite spear was only 9 feet long so it would be no more than 2 or 3 not 6 or more.

You would be assuming the front ranks are standing off at 4 or 5 feet.

I'm assuming at some point they would be shield to shield with the enemy so the second rank would be comfortably in range for weapon use and capable of reaching the enemy hoplite directly either side of the one in front.

I think that pushing was a very important function of Hoplite warfare.

But pushing how, exactly?

No. A hoplite spear was only 9 feet long so it would be no more than 2 or 3 not 6 or more.

You would be assuming the front ranks are standing off at 4 or 5 feet.

No, I'm assuming the ranks are formed up close behind with no more than 2 to 3 ft (if that) between ranks. You have to remember that you don't hold a 9ft spear at one end. You hold it about 1/3 of the way along it or even near the centre. In other words you have at the most 6ft of spear sticking out in front of you.

Has the 'pushing' theory (as described by Hanson) ever been tried by reenactors? While Hanson's literary evidence is formidable, the actual body mechanics involved sound awkward at best and lethal (to one's own side) at worst. OTOH, I myself have never fought in a phalanx, so what do I know?

In other words you have at the most 6ft of spear sticking out in front of you.

Plenty if the enemy front rank have their shields against your front rank. It's a shield wall not a spear wall with only a 6 foot reach and that wont stop the two heavily armoured sides sides clashing shields at the first charge albeit with an almighty noise and splintering of spears and such.

Perhaps Total War 4 running on Unreal Engine 5 will crack it.

YouTube link

YouTube link

Plenty if the enemy front rank have their shields against your front rank. It's a shield wall not a spear wall with only a 6 foot reach and that wont stop the two heavily armoured sides sides clashing shields at the first charge albeit with an almighty noise and splintering of spears and such.

But your original argument was not about the effectiveness of those spears or the clashing of shields between the opposing front ranks but how many spears would be presented to an advancing enemy.

As to the "clashing shields", what evidence is there that this even took place? Would it not make more sense if the opposing sides stood off a few feet from each other and endeavoured to attack the other with their spears? After all pushing your shield against his won't achieve much except possibly make him fall over. And if he does he then becomes an obstacle to your further advance (he's not going to let you just step over him if he can help it).

Perhaps Total War 4 running on Unreal Engine 5 will crack it.

??? Any computer game will only have the preconceptions of the game designer. A simulation does not prove reality.

Strangely enough I've been in more rugby and rugby league scrums than hoplite battles.

Observers may note that in the recent rugby world cup teams might load extra players (backs) into scrums and mauls to gain the momentum to push the other guys back or to push them over to gain penalties.

Interestingly the risk for this possible reward is to have fewer players free to extend the attacking line – sorta like how DBA used to model spears.

Xenophon, who had been in more hoplite battles than rugby scrums, says the first two ranks could strike with weapons, and he stressed the importance of having a good man behind you…

regards

David F Brown

Observers may note that in the recent rugby world cup teams might load extra players (backs) into scrums and mauls to gain the momentum to push the other guys back or to push them over to gain penalties.

Observers may also note that rugby players are not generally armed with spears and shields …

Xenophon, who had been in more hoplite battles than rugby scrums, says the first two ranks could strike with weapons, and he stressed the importance of having a good man behind you…

Did he say why?

I believe battles were an exercise in crowd management. There might be something to the idea that at some point people started to push and shove into each other, but knowing how fast a crowd can turn into a deadly trap and people get squashed and suffocated …

I'm skeptical of the pushing and shoving match for two reasons, one is that scrums last less than a few minutes and battles went on for hours. Second such pushing is a complex and exhausting matter yet hoplites are expected to go into battle armed with a long pointy stick which is just about the worst idea for a weapon to fight with in the middle of a bunch of bodies pushing against each other. You want something quick and handy like a xiphos or a gladius.

Any exercise of strength, scrums, tugs of war or even average fighting last only minutes before a person is exhausted. Without a chance to manage your exhaustion (keeping at spear distance and fight in surges of activity before raking a short break) I find it very hard to imagine people pushing and shoving for as many hours as the battles have been said to last.

The Thebans didn't just push the Spartans aside with greater numbers, they were able to manage their battle line and keep it going for much longer than the Spartans could, who ended up being completely exhausted and running out of reserves. Their flank collapses and they lose.

Out of period reference but in the English civil war infantry units in "push of pike" (don't ask we don't know what was meant by push) are described as separating for a few moments before engaging again. Is there any primary source evidence for several hours of units pushing against each other, or for them separating for a breather? and I know its dangerous to take evidence for one period as evidence for how things were done in other periods.

Not that he's an expert on Hoplites, but I recently had a discussion with my nephew (Greco-Roman wrestler in High School, drilled in urban combat and riot control by the military) about whether he thought he could fight in melee with someone pushing against his back.

He said that he would definitely feel better knowing that people were behind him and next to him, and that, for example, when his squad enters a room, the point man is literally shoved through the door, guns blazing. (After the grenades, of course.)

He didn't think he'd have any trouble at all either physically shoving the guy in front of him to help him break the enemy line, or being that guy himself.

But the salient point to me was that he was talking about a literal instantaneous shove, not necessarily a steady pressure from behind.

Again, he's not an expert (or really even knowledgeable) about Hoplite warfare, but he knows a lot more than I do about actually fighting, and I found his opinion interesting and relevant to this discussion.