If a man will stand on the front lines of a phalanx at all then I wouldn't put anything past him. Really it's pretty much certain slow and painful death any way you look at it. If you're willing to charge forward to be cut open, and be trampled underfoot by a thousand men while you bleed to death, is a pushing match before hand really that unthinkable?
After some time one side normally feels an advantage though and decides to push it, and charge. If the charge is well coordinated they can actually punch a whole in the enemy formation, basically just pushing the fighters off balance and out off the way. If that fails the normal thing is to back off again, because stadning that close is suicide. Sometimes you end up standing that way for some time though, again with the back ranks doing the killing and the front ranks trying to survive.
Now my experience, however small it is, from the few reenactment battles I've fought is that if both sides are evenly matched on one part of the terrain they will stand at a distance to each other and exchange blows for a while. The way I've fought the people in the very first rank are standing behind their shields and warding off all blows they can while the second and third ranks do the killing, working in teams, one man to draw attention the other to kill those who focus on the wrong weapon.
i stand with you on this one i also dont believe the men back then where stupid enough to just march right into their faces and push each other, my theory is that at the start the strategy of the phalanx formation is to close up having the first line of men with spears in a rather low position and then have the second line of men with their spears over their shields making it a true wall of spears from top to bottom, when encountering an other phalanx then they would push and quickly thrust.
I think a further argument in favor of the points made in the video is that stronger, more experienced, older and better drilled veterans were in the front rows... and they would die, if the battle was fought pushing at each others like rams or goats. So would a leader stand in the front row (I think generally on the right?). I doubt it and so wouldn't his best men. Also, I read in comments "medieval chaotic battles" ...Medieval battles were not chaotic. Not more then any other.
@lindybeige What you describe has some logic. But you have to keep in mind that even lax medieval anarchic warfare often included push matches so guess how match a tight formation like the phalanx. However, you are right to say that not always you had a push match.
What I suggest is that the push match was rather just a small phase of the battle, often as little as 1-2 minutes. Soon ranks break (often both sides) and there starts the real spear-battle. Swords were last resort.
Guys, there are reconstruction groups that have tested all possibilities. Pushing matches often occured even in sparse medieval chaotic battles - thus in phalanxes they were even more often. However, to think that the batte was all about a pushing match this is quite simplistic. There were various possible phases in a battle depending on the details of the armies and strategies followed. Phalanxes were dense but not monolithic, they were much more flexible than we think.
If you stand in the front line then certainly you don't want to get close to the guys in front of you. However there are 7 lines of guys behind you who will push you forward with their own momentum and it is possible that eventually the fighting will turn into the pushing contest simply because the lads behind you keep pressing forward.
I think you are overlogic-ing and not taking into account the overriding "Military" tactics of the day. Logic would say, I would not stand in a line, with a one shot rifle, exchanging shots with an adversary........but it happened all over Europe in the 18th Century. It makes very little sense to have to "call in" to see if you are facing enemy forces when you are TAKING fire, before you can return it.....but we had to do that in Vietnam. Logic has it's place, just not too big
The reason the xiphos is so short (and indeed the Spartan xiphos wasn't much longer than a dagger), was because of the othismos, the crush of the shoving match. Why have such a short-bladed weapon if the battle is mostly a big spear standoff?
@eXcommunicate1979 Most hoplite swords were not really short (somewhere between a gladius and spatha in length), though the Spartans used a very short sword. Perhaps Spartans favored shorter swords because they put more faith in their ability to maintain discipline and hold formation even in the face of a dedicated charge (whereas most hoplites would sensibly break and run or fall back if - wearied and outmaneuvered in the spear fight - finally charged by the superior force).
One problem with the interpretation of othismos as a pushing contest is that the cavalry was also performing the othismos. And while the Greek (rather, the Thessalian and Macedonian) cavalry was fighting in very tight formations, it would be physically impossible to push the horseman in front of you. So, othismos must have been the advance against the enemy, and not a literal pushing of multitudes against each other.
@NIKOLAKION Also, cavalry are sometimes described as being in a phalanx, which works against interpreting a phalanx as some kind of special formation involving overlapping shields (more likely it just means any disciplined close-order formation, where men can deploy and maneuver in blocks and are close enough together to back each other up with their shields and weapons when they go into a fight).
@NIKOLAKION Indeed othismos has to be treated in a more general manner. But when we do speak of two heavily clad opposing tight formations armed with close combat weaponry then the most natural occurence is to collide and start by a pushing match. This would not last hours or something, it would be the first minutes, if not the first minute - soon the one or the other would start to break, some room would open and some fighting with spears would take place.
@eXcommunicate1979 The short swords was not a Spartan tradition particularly. They were indeed effective in the initial push. You have to picture this. You are in the first line wearing and carrying 18 kilos of weaponry. You approach jogging in rythm and you fall against the enemy. You CANNOT STOP 5m before collision and even if the plan was so the enemy will not stop but fall on you. The first minute you will have a pushing match but the battle does not end there, this is just the beginning.
For a while, I was wondering why there was a "green-screen" effect on your edges while you were talking. Then your helper arrived and my face went all :D
- The spear could actually go through the shield in a charge, but they clearly often aimed for the groin and thighs, i can imagine a lot of men in the first rank breaking their spears in the charge, and then going for the sword. The spartans adopted a really short sword for this close-up fighting, which tells us fights got really close up and personal. Yet most of the line or center would probably want to keep some distance, for when the rout happend and not lose more men than necessarily.
- one side or small part of the line, so you can roll up the line and rout the army, whoever can do this the fastes, is most likely to win. And the fastes way to accomplish this was probably the push through, the right wing composed of the best troops would have no problem in breaking through the enemy's weaker left wing, while a stabbing duel can drag on. But there is also the charge to consider, where i belive the most kills were made, before a rout that is. to be continued.
@OMGWTFBBQ357 Herodotus says that Marathon was the first time that hoplites had ever charged, and that was against non-hoplites. You wouldn't want your spear to go through a shield, because that would lose you control over your spear. If the left was reliably weaker, then why didn't they realise this and reinforce it?
@lindybeige I'll quote from The Western Way of War: Experience taught the hoplites that the best way to push their iron through the bronze and wood of enemy shields and breastplates was to achieve momentum before both sides became entangled and the chance to drive home a running spear-thrust with real power was lost. The book got a whole chapter on the Charge. The left wing was weaker (quality wise) cause the place of honor was always on the right, unthil Epaminondas changed it.
@lindybeige Additionally, if these guys were reliably spearing through each other's shields, they would not have been using the cross-grip - having your whole forearm against your shield, and your shield generally closer to your body, is a bad idea when you expect your shield to be penetrated. If anything the Greeks had a much lower expectation of having their shields penetrated than other martial cultures, which is why they held them the way they did.
Ok than. An battle reconstructions experience: Usually, battles goes on like you are telling. However it's really bad for morale of armies and it quite offen makec a smal groups of warriors angry. Than the just charges the oponent, skrikes him with shields and uses short sword to break through the shiled wall. If the shield wall is broken, the enemy flees. Thats it.
1) I think that the front row of the phalanx would mostly use the xiphos, a rather short sword, for the reason you explain. Since they would not be able to use the spear effectively due to the close distance.
2) As you describe the way the phalanx would work you have a point, but on the other hand this compact formation intended to provide a better defense especially if the enemy would be running around trying to hit someone, while the back phalanx rows would through spears.
Hello there. The following comment is a statement from completely my point of view but i think its pretty reasonable.
Since you have, as you said, a so long spear then the best way to neutralize the effectiveness of the spear is probably to stick to the enemy so its pretty logical to stick to the enemy as the first row man and let your allies from behind spear the first enemies.
That's true in open-order or one-on-one fighting (that's why almost all infantrymen carried at least a knife or dagger, if not a sword or axe or mace) but not true in close order fighting, as closing in just opens you up to even more spears from every angle from the left, right, and front - not to mention the knife or sword or whatever the guy right in front of you has on him for just such an occasion.
If you got right up to your enemy and started pushing, what use was the big pointy thing in your other hand? And why make it so long? Clearly you would probably want something smaller, so you could reach around the guys shield, and with your now smaller stick, stab him. Or just stab him in the face if the shields were interlocked. I never really liked the pushing theory. As you said, sometimes I'm sure it happened. But other times the pointy thing played a part. Good video, good luck with more.
One thing to say, the men in these battles thought to die in battle was a glorious thing, or they had no choice but to fight. Things were prob very different back then. The Macedonians used 18 foot pikes unlike the hopolites and were able to mow them down as a result because there wasn't the close up fighting like you were talking of. Its sitting on my book shelf unread, but open up "Gates of Fire" by Steven Pressfield. Its a really good explanation of Greek battles and the culture around it.
@sakarauka1 Do you mean infantry boar's snout? Well, if the enemy quailed, as was the hope, then the men in the front would live. If the enemy held fast, then the few psychos at the point of the wedge would die, but the bulk of the men not. The whole formation does not consist of points. If you mean wedge like Alexandrian cavalry, then this was probably just for manoeuvre, and not for charging into formed units.
@lindybeige Was not the wedge used to charge and surround from the inside (?) two blocks of units at the gap in said blocks of units. Exploitation of this formation seems to have allowed inspiration over all else - as alexander could get directly behind the enemy through the small gaps in infantry. The army (and moreover, Companion Cavalry) would then be driven to drive through the enemy to be at his side.
I'm a history novice. I am not TELLING you anything, I'm asking.
@lindybeige Thanks, I just unearthed the wonder that is your channel about 12 hours ago and watched almost all your videos. I would be thrilled to see more rants on ancient warfare, both fact and theory. Lots more....just pick your brain for us lol.
@lindybeige Also, not to tell you 2+2=4, but if you made a few short theory videos with minimal production effort a week or so, you may see an increase in viewers. I know it's obvious that if you could you probably would so please don't think I'm being a prick, I trying to convince you to make more videos so.....your welcome for the complement : )
Wedge formation was not used in frontal assault.And if it was used, wich is very rare , the fron cavalryman was protected on his flanks bu other 2 guys.So he had only to worry about target in front of him.Alexanders cavalry and infatry if broke down to "cells" or units, it consisted 3 men.That's why Alexanders cavalrymen and infantry (even hoplites before) trained in units of 3 men.It's more psihology thing : men in front will advance more boldly, knowing that 2 guys watch his back.
Well I know more about dark age shield walls rather than Greek ones. Now the front ranks would often have spears but they tended to only get one stab with them before they drew a sword (preferably short) or an ax. And this front rows main job was to survive and push while the men behind them did most of the killing with spears and jumped in quickly when one of the front men dropped or else they enemy could rush in and destroy you. And as you mentioned, men did try to grab the enemy spears.
>..and I find you pushing me, I'd around and knife you
You can't be sure about that, because it's one thing trying to imagine yourself in such situation and completely another being in it. The suppression of soldiers as individuals, the brainwashing routine that they're continuously being through, the hive mind\group psychology effect and so on.
It's not an argument against the general idea of yours, though.
@PythonandFelidae When you fight at a distance it is mutually beneficial to stay out of each other's reach which is why such battles tend to drag on for long periods of time. At close range however it is impossible to protect yourself with your skills or equipment for very long so your goal has to be killing the other guy as quickly as possible if you want to survive.
ok, this kind of fight I've seen in too many reconstructions. It¨s something, in modern I could say "geek terminologi" called "Berserker rage". You are facing too many spears. You are scared and you know that there's probably no way, you cold survive. The many of wariors do only thing, that's posible. Switch from underarm to overarm and charge. That gives you quite biger chance to survive(but maybe just psychologickly) Thats the answer both for overarm/underarm and using of shield.
@zhonggao84 Green screen. Shot my spiel against the screen, then shot the background shot which had me in it as my assistant. I didn't time it at all. I just came on, pretended to push for a bit and then fell over. In the edit I used a freeze-frame most of the time for the background and just brought in my other self when needed, and extended the footage to fit by reversing some of the movement.
Weren't casualties even for the losing side in ancient pitched battles usually fairly low unless the winners employed cavalry or chariots or light troops to chase them down and kill them in the route? Or unless there was an envelopment, of course, which Hannibal excelled at. If the shield mash theory were true, we'd expect horrendous casualties even on the winning side, and generally something like 80-100% for the losers (again, even without light cavalry or other troops to chase down routers).
@fakejohnwilkesbooth Yes, casualties were low, specially on the winning side, around 5% while the losing side lost around 12% - 15% if i remember correctly. which tells us that there werent a lot of men killed by spears until one side ran, in which case they got stabbed in the back. A company of 100 men, 8 rank deep, means about 12 men for each rank, so only 5 out of those 12 in the first rank dies, so it was clearly hard to kill a hoplite from the front.
Your shield is too low to be on the first row, and you're too upright.
I do agree that the danger on the front row would have been very high due to the initial violence of spear contact, the push, the jabbing from back-ranks, and cqc among the first ranks as the first row of spears would likely have been broken during initial contact or discarded during the push...
so I doubt the scrim would have lasted long before a route (which might have been the point, no pun intended;)
Just a short note here: If I remember correctly, 5 people leaning up on you and on each other pushing towards a wall something similar is enough to kill the guy in the front row by compression asphyxia.
@lindybeige But the Greek Hoplon shield is designed in sutch a way that allows you to breath, the pressure would go to your thighs, upper chest, shoulders and back, not the stomach.
Also the number of rows was increased where you wanted to break through, The Battle of Leuctra is very clear that the battle was won cause of pushing, there is no sense in having a lot of rows if your gonna just stand off and fight at a distance.
@OMGWTFBBQ357 Depth is an advantage in many ways. You can resupply the front with fresh troops more often, you are more intimidating, less likely to run away etc. Eight people pushing against a stationary fence is enough to kill through asphyxiation. That number pushing both ways would kill the front couple of ranks of both sides. I doubt that extra ranks add much pushing power after a while.
@lindybeige We dont know if the Greeks resupplied the front in battle, like the romans, or late roman system more likely, the first was whole companies/centuries being refreshed. The greeks would have to disengage or backup, and you could get rushed by the oposite while your formation was not in tight shieldwall, Also, for a company to back off the line would jeopardise the whole line. Still you would never need anywhere near 50 ranks to keep the front fresh.
@OMGWTFBBQ357 We have no reason to believe that they used the Roman manipular swap, but individual men can filter to the front and replace fallen, and individuals can pull back into the formation to rest, and there does not need to be a general retreat to make this happen. At the battle of Delium, a formation eight men deep held off a Theban phalanx 24 men deep for ages, which suggests that there was not a pushing match going on.
@lindybeige Then why did they use 24 deep, they sorely needed the men to extend their line, cause they were being outflanked, what won them the Battle was the Theban Phalanx and tactical movement and support. Epaminondas clearly adopted his formation from this battle, and when he crashed into the Spartans with 50 ranks, they were able to hold the gigantic force for a while, but as they held them and pushed, the Theban phalanx became more compressed and the hole force was able to push through.
@OMGWTFBBQ357 The main problem faced by men training an army today and then was how to stop men from running away. A formation 24 deep is far less likely to run away.
@lindybeige Yes Morale has always been key in battles, But they didnt form the hole line that deep, the usual debth was 8-12 ranks, so what good is it to form one part of your line that deep to keep morale high there, while the rest rout, and then your deep column gets surrounded ?. other than the point to score a knockout blow on the enemy left or right wing as Epaminondas did, It's consentration of Force, Greeks usually did this with quality, but turns out numbers can beat quality.
@lindybeige Has this been tested with Hoplon shields and armour ?. I remember a documentary or something witch adressed this and it awnsered why the Hoplon shield is shaped as it is, to allow you to breath, which tells us it was designed for pushing.
@lindybeige Yet it still can performe this purpose. Oh what i would give to actually go back and talk to all these military inventors and strategist's. But i do belive they didnt just go for a push through, but rather what the situation called for, but a typical hoplite battle would probably be the Right wing going for a push through, center having a stabbing match, and left wing doing their best to hold out, if you look at this in a tactical sense, the key is to break through - to be contin..
Since they apparently did drift, I don't think pushing one against another would be interesting, since that by drifting to the right, you expose your left flank to the enemy's right flank and become an easy prey. So if you drift to the right, you're better to stay at spear range. :)
@maaderllin Yes, if everyone were pushing shield-shield, then the whole might rotate, but it would be unlikely to shift left or right. however, the shifting I think would then lead to rotation...
@lindybeige If pushing on the shields of the enemy front, yes, it wouls result in a rotation, but before pushing shield against shield, they would not march straight forward, but march forward AND drift a little bit to the right while seeking cover of the man to their right. (According to the several sources I read, wich make sense I think )
I also read that the hoplite phalanx tend to drift to the right. While advancing toward the other, before using their spears, they would fear death (As any normal people would). As they protected their whole left side with the Hoplon, they would seek the cover of their right arm behind the shield of the man at their right. By doing this, each man contributed to the driftigin to the right.
I think the idea was to bulldoze the front rankers from behind until some degree of combat was intiated, then see how that played out. I expect a degree of complexity in all this, with some portions attempting to shove past the spearpoints to go shield to shield, others hanging back in an effort to use the reach of their spears, and some would fail utterly to do more than posture with pointy things at each other until the display was sufficient to send their foe packing.
@Polymarkos I was watching an evolutionary biology lecture series and the guy who was doing it rags on national geographic style journalism a lot with it which is pretty funny, but one of the things he brought up was something about how some sort of cattle like thing from africa would go about doing stuff, initially people were thinking that the older members of a pack would get into the water and sacrifice themselves to crocodiles or something, but actually they were PUSHED in... by their kids
@Polymarkos and I mean it's not even like they were pushed in by accident, they were pushed all the way from the back, and I can see ancient greeks doing that a bit although apparently they'd usually have veterans in the front, inexperienced people in the middle and the more frail/older/experienced guys in the back rows
granted to be in a phalanx at all you'd probably have to have some physical strength, and it was a patriarchal society, phalanx aren't perfect, and always were changing styles
People do not ralise but Othismos ('pushing match') is not physical shove of lines confronting eachoter.It is euphemism, a methaphor for gaining advantage -gaining ground.
During Marathon battle, Miltiades argued with this generals about wich tactic to use.Author described this retorical argument as OTHISMOS.
This proves that othismos is metaphor and not literal physical shove on wich so many historians rely and base their theories.
This missleading assumption is called HOPLITE ORTODOXY.
i think though that ONE form of shield wall in which this occured would be viking/ dark age where youd have a much larger amount of people wielding swrds and axes.
though now that i think of it, the uthred chronicles (thank you mr cornwell) seems to have a noticable lack of mention of spears being wielded in the shield wall. hmmm.
maybe he hasnt reserched this area QUITE as well as i thought.
at that point youd expect to see it shield to shield nea
and a possible last point is that you don't have to do a rugby scrum sort of pushwar, you could raise your shield so you can shank their gut with a sword or cut their legs a bit or other things.... I'll bet that's why there's armor there and in the greaves in the first place, plus the spears apparently often had something called a lizard basher, which was a round metal thing that you'd slam onto people's toes and might be useful if your spearpoint broke which they apparently did lots
@noobler9 "Lizard killer" and it was a sharply pointed thing. It was supposedly used for finishing off men on the ground that you walked over (N.B. if so, this only works if you are using a spear underarm), and it was a back-up point if the main head was lost.
another couple of points that might make a difference is that apparently the phalanxes would usually come at eachother at some sort of angle or something, umm... the army equivalent of two people holding their arms out, say... right hand forward left hand backwards kung fu style, and then going at each other also he said that the much of the reason for the phalanx's design was so that you couldn't cut and run, and you'd be amazed at how fearless people can be due to culture... allahu ackbah?
a couple points that might be of interest, a little off topic but in starcraft 2 people commonly go for the frontal attack with casualties initially, zerglings are the best example of this, since they have no range they have to go into the line of fire area, as for hoplite groups, they had variations of depth and width, donald kagan at least says that they got people drunk to a certain degree, the "bar room bully" area of drunkenness where you're aggressive but not uncoordinated
would it be possible that going up against eachother with the shields could be a tactic if you had numerical superiority? then you'd be able to topple the other guys, and trample them to death(like what happends in when large mobs go crazy at rock concerts and football matches)
@dejawolf If you outnumbered the opposition by a lot, then yes, although in that case there probably won't be a fight, because if the outnumbering side has good cohesion, aggression, and morale, then the outnumbered side will probably not stick around to get killed, but run instead.
I remember my confusion years back watching the (in)famous Battle of Stirling (Bridge) scene in Braveheart where you have this giant disorganized mass of frantic melee combat, and then Wallace and Co. are all suitably pleased with the outcome. Even as a kid I had a hard time buying it because, well, I just watched at least half of his /own/ guys die. That's not really a victory at all!
I think the problem with this perception is that people really don't understand what ancient and medieval battles were like, at least partly because of what ancient and medieval battles are presented as in popular media. That is, in a battlefield everyone in one formation goes /all out/ fighting the other formation with both sides suffering horrific casualties until the other formation is either killed or runs away all in one go.
Actually, wouldn't that be pretty dangerous for about every line but the last, on top of everything? If everyone's pushing against each other with big, heavy shields, you're probably not going to be looking so good afterwards.
Mobility be damned, you're probably happy just getting out without anything useful crushed. From the middle line that might have gotten out of the scrap without fighting, even!
In my experience with Regia Anglorum, anyone trying to get closer than a couple of yards to the opposing shieldwall is likely to die very quickly with spear thrusts from all angles, or a seax in the gut.
I think another bit of evidence against the shield crush is the fairly steady increase in spear-lengths. It's unlikely that you would bother with a longer and heavier spear if the length of the weapon wasn't really that important.
Whoa, that’s a full Lloyd all the way. Double Lloyd, oh my god. It’s a double Lloyd, all the way. Whoa that’s so intense. Whoa man! Wow! Whoa! Whoa! Whoa ho ho oh my god! Oh my god! Oh my god! Woo! Oh wow! Woo! Yeah! Oh ho ho! Oh my god! Oh my god look at that! It’s starting even to look like a triple Lloyd! Oh my god it’s full on! Double Lloyd all the way across the room! Oh my god. Oh my god. Oh god. What does this mean?
@PaulkyArcher If you mean whoever a short stabbing side arm has a great advantage then I totally agree, the side with a back up plan generally has an advantage over the side that doesn't, but you couldn't equip me with a seax and sheild and get me to charge head on into a phananx.
Good points, but the one issue I have is to EVER generalize what happens in close combat. Close combat is so dynamic that I'm pretty sure it is never happens the same way twice.
I once had to quell a riot in a bar, luckily I was with several more experienced people. Looking back I am still amazed at how the situation changed second to second.
Where have ya been? I missed your humor dripping in information! No videos for a few weeks, then all of a sudden, 4 in a day? lol, good seeing some more :D
Warfare was so much, simpler when heroes and prominent figures would meet in single combat and decide victory that way; rather than get into a massive melee that got lots of people killed.
But You're right. A battle ends when one phalanx breaks, which was usually achieved before they clashed, thrusting with spears to disrupt the front line and throw the opposing formation into disorder allowing for a quick and decisive break. Shield to shield fighting would have been brutal, dirty and no fun.
While I was watching, I was thinking..."Gee, Lloyd looks bluescreened..." heh...
I tend to doubt the whole "shield wall as rugby scrum" idea too, but would it be possible for the shield clashes to have been quick, one-shot crashes, designed to break up an opponents phalanx? I would imagine once a phalanx was broken, most of those on the broken end would run or surrender, which might well end battles quickly and with fewer casualties? Just a thought.
Good points, but there's a third option: both sides charge, spears and shields to the fore. They exchange spear-blows, then they clash, with the force of the charge, shield-to-shield; momentary shoving ensues, one side reels back, the victors close again for another bout of charge-stab-clash-shove. Swords and/or knives would only come into play if the formations stalled at close-quarters, or fell into disorder
obviously the armies of Yester-Millenia were WAY more pre-ocupied with looking cool then they were about killing people, i mean, nobody is going to make movies about boring looking realistic combat in a few thousand years, are they?
i suppose you could say that you've clarified the difference between a well trained group of soldiers, and a not so well trained group, hmm? romans for example worked alot with shield formations and it's one of the main reasons they were so superior compared to other armies at the time
Im sure that shortly after a lot of the spears were broken and the phalanx was compromised and spear less hopolites would try to close the distance and eliminate the advantage of thoes who still had spears it would deteriorate to a shoving match (with swords and knives of course) but I think you are quite right, Also if these shoving matches were the case well you'd be best to leave your spear at home, it would just be clunky and awkward in close distance fighting
well, the phalanx was essentially a pushing formation, you kill as many enemies as you can and try to push your formation in the meantime. These battles must have been tiring and bloody, as the phalanx did not crumble until they tired, routed or possibly died in a big amount, the army would rout and they would be chased or not.
I would like to hear your clarification or commentary on my conception :)
when facing a hoarde of barbarians in a shield wall(or a castle occupied by french kinniggits, in the words of monty python...RUN AWAY!!!!!!RUN AWAY!!!!!!!!
@peacebuntou Frames, yes. I found them, lensless, in the street. Clearly they had been run over by a car and I thought that they were amusingly pathetic.
once shield walls are locked front row would switch to spatha , gladius or saex and cut under shield as uppercut while back rows would poke with spears, by the time shield walls lock it would take long time, and most often in case of Lakedaemonians other side would crumble even before shield walls would lock
This gave me the most hilarious mental image of two armies pushing against each other, with the front ranks of both armies dead all dead and squished between the pressure between both sides, both armies locked in a deadly pushing match where as soon as they stopped pushing for just a moment the bodies of the front tanks would fall to the ground and the second rank would join the first rank in the afterlife, and the winners of the match stumbling over the dead bodies of those under them...
I know I've mentioned this show to you before, but here in the states we have a show called "Deadliest Warrior". When they did their segment on Spartans vs Ninja's. (Spartans won, of course. Because they were actual WARRIORS.) They showed how the shield was used, and how much force is generated when slammed against another man. Basically, they'd get within a couple of feet of the enemy, SLAM their shield into them quickly, knocking them off balance or down. Then, they would stick them.
@SwatShinsengumi Bleah, Deadliest Warrior. More Deadliest weapon. They have no conception of what a battle is, and the "historians" and "experts" they call are just actors who read their lines. It's sensationalism on it's worst. The only value of this show is to present original and ancient weapons, and they often use them really wrong.
Just a thought... people in that period fought in formations of 6+ ranks. Now, if everyone is wearing big helmets and carrying big shields, those in back wouldn't necessarily be able to see what's going on up front, right? I'm sure they'd try to stand off and fight with spears underarm from a few meters away, but after a while the momentum from the back few ranks would probably push both sides together. Maybe?
I imagine that this would be something of an advantage when light infantry was forced to engage heavy infantry. A bit of a stand-off distance (spear-jabbing) is more advantageous to heavy infantry, whereas being real close, in those circumstances, while risky, is more advantageous to light infantry. Another situation would be where neither side could break the others' shield wall with normal tactics. I agree though, this was more of an on the fly tactic than an entry strategy for battle.
@DistendedPerinium generally, light troops try to harass heavy ones with missiles, melting away if charged. Mighty Spartan hoplites were defeated this way.
@lindybeige I know that light infantry used hit and run, perhaps I wasn't quite clear in my meaning when I said "forced to engage". By that I meant when light infantry had no choice but to directly confront heavy infantry. A fairly rare occurrence to be sure, but I can think of a few times it probably happened.
Also before the time of the shieldwall Greek warriors would fight more individualistic with javelins etc. in main fighting force. However the soldiers saw a change from that to the Phalanx. So we can assume that the armies dropping weapons which would be great for individual fights you describe can be a sign of most battles not beeing fought that way anymore.
Allways a pleasure to hear a person who knows what they are talking and who know how to demonstrate their case.
I agree a push and shove match would also be a crushing match. Imagine two pjalanxes ten men deep both side pushig. If that gows on for half an hour the front rows might just die from being crushed.
Point is that warfare at that time was close and personal. Your still thinking large battle as small skirmishers. When your in an large battle there are no personal fights like we see in movies its a bigg mess with people not having enough space etc. Why do you think the Spartans adopted smaller knives instead of swords? Because it was more usefull in the Shieldwall and in formations. Similar as why the Romans took the smaller Gladius.
@Spartiatai300 Romans didn't stand and push. They tried to smash into an enemy formation and rout it, or else they fell back, swapped ranks, and tried again with fresh men and pila.
@lindybeige I'm not saying they did. I'm simply saying that warfare was close in your face and not the two armies keeping several metres apart kind of war which you always seem to suggesting. If the latter was the way war was dealt then it would be weird seeing the Romans take an short sword as the primary weapon.
@Spartiatai300 Yes, and as the Roman army got less professional and highly trained, it more and more used spears. Perhaps it took a lot of unit cohesion/morale/trust etc to get men to charge in reliably all at once.
very valid point mate... did you knew that syracusian hoplites fought in loose formation? (mainly because its easier to get away from a african forest elephant) and that shieldwalls were too immoble
I would imagine it rarely happened because shield wall would rarely go up against shieldwall. Somebody sets up a shield wall, and then you try and attack the it at its weakest place. With archers if possible
The thing is, in a formation of four or five ranks, where all of you are carrying big shields and wearing big helmets, the guys in the third and fourth (fifth, etc.) probably couldn't see what was going on up front. So, it probably would start as an attempt to stand off and duke it out at spear range, with spears underarm, but then the momentum might force both sides to close the gap? From experience, even from just the third rank it's hard to tell what's going on up front.
That volunteer looked oddly familiar, has he appeared in any of your videos before?
Anyway, you're right (of course), and more evidence for the preference for somewhat more long-range warfare is in the old favorites bow and sling. If there ever was a good reason for these really close-range battles, there would probably be more focus on weapons which could help when the shield walls were stacked against each other, like variants on battering rams. And I can't get more characters in my message.
If a man will stand on the front lines of a phalanx at all then I wouldn't put anything past him. Really it's pretty much certain slow and painful death any way you look at it. If you're willing to charge forward to be cut open, and be trampled underfoot by a thousand men while you bleed to death, is a pushing match before hand really that unthinkable?
ForeverNoobie 2 weeks ago
@ForeverNoobie Most men given the options of certain imminent death and probable delayed death will pick the latter.
lindybeige 2 weeks ago
Cont:
After some time one side normally feels an advantage though and decides to push it, and charge. If the charge is well coordinated they can actually punch a whole in the enemy formation, basically just pushing the fighters off balance and out off the way. If that fails the normal thing is to back off again, because stadning that close is suicide. Sometimes you end up standing that way for some time though, again with the back ranks doing the killing and the front ranks trying to survive.
MartinTheReader 1 month ago
Now my experience, however small it is, from the few reenactment battles I've fought is that if both sides are evenly matched on one part of the terrain they will stand at a distance to each other and exchange blows for a while. The way I've fought the people in the very first rank are standing behind their shields and warding off all blows they can while the second and third ranks do the killing, working in teams, one man to draw attention the other to kill those who focus on the wrong weapon.
MartinTheReader 1 month ago
i stand with you on this one i also dont believe the men back then where stupid enough to just march right into their faces and push each other, my theory is that at the start the strategy of the phalanx formation is to close up having the first line of men with spears in a rather low position and then have the second line of men with their spears over their shields making it a true wall of spears from top to bottom, when encountering an other phalanx then they would push and quickly thrust.
OliverOReye 1 month ago
the greeks didnt use their shields only for protection but they were also a weapon to bash to enemy to death
loadedClownZ 2 months ago
I think a further argument in favor of the points made in the video is that stronger, more experienced, older and better drilled veterans were in the front rows... and they would die, if the battle was fought pushing at each others like rams or goats. So would a leader stand in the front row (I think generally on the right?). I doubt it and so wouldn't his best men. Also, I read in comments "medieval chaotic battles" ...Medieval battles were not chaotic. Not more then any other.
Lokarsh21 3 months ago
@lindybeige What you describe has some logic. But you have to keep in mind that even lax medieval anarchic warfare often included push matches so guess how match a tight formation like the phalanx. However, you are right to say that not always you had a push match.
What I suggest is that the push match was rather just a small phase of the battle, often as little as 1-2 minutes. Soon ranks break (often both sides) and there starts the real spear-battle. Swords were last resort.
GPlinthon 3 months ago
Guys, there are reconstruction groups that have tested all possibilities. Pushing matches often occured even in sparse medieval chaotic battles - thus in phalanxes they were even more often. However, to think that the batte was all about a pushing match this is quite simplistic. There were various possible phases in a battle depending on the details of the armies and strategies followed. Phalanxes were dense but not monolithic, they were much more flexible than we think.
GPlinthon 3 months ago
If you stand in the front line then certainly you don't want to get close to the guys in front of you. However there are 7 lines of guys behind you who will push you forward with their own momentum and it is possible that eventually the fighting will turn into the pushing contest simply because the lads behind you keep pressing forward.
Mehow80 3 months ago
@Mehow80 "Stop pushing at the back! Stop pushing at the back! STOP PUSHING AT THE BACK!"
lindybeige 3 months ago 19
I think you are overlogic-ing and not taking into account the overriding "Military" tactics of the day. Logic would say, I would not stand in a line, with a one shot rifle, exchanging shots with an adversary........but it happened all over Europe in the 18th Century. It makes very little sense to have to "call in" to see if you are facing enemy forces when you are TAKING fire, before you can return it.....but we had to do that in Vietnam. Logic has it's place, just not too big
MrSmokeyBaer 4 months ago
I was wandering about the bluescreen effect arround you, even though you're standing in your livingroom. ^^
Yora21 4 months ago
@Yora21 green screen
FTFY
ROCK1337ful 4 months ago
@ROCK1337ful Are you sure that it wasn't a magenta screen?
lindybeige 3 months ago
The reason the xiphos is so short (and indeed the Spartan xiphos wasn't much longer than a dagger), was because of the othismos, the crush of the shoving match. Why have such a short-bladed weapon if the battle is mostly a big spear standoff?
eXcommunicate1979 5 months ago
@eXcommunicate1979 Most hoplite swords were not really short (somewhere between a gladius and spatha in length), though the Spartans used a very short sword. Perhaps Spartans favored shorter swords because they put more faith in their ability to maintain discipline and hold formation even in the face of a dedicated charge (whereas most hoplites would sensibly break and run or fall back if - wearied and outmaneuvered in the spear fight - finally charged by the superior force).
fakejohnwilkesbooth 4 months ago
@eXcommunicate1979
One problem with the interpretation of othismos as a pushing contest is that the cavalry was also performing the othismos. And while the Greek (rather, the Thessalian and Macedonian) cavalry was fighting in very tight formations, it would be physically impossible to push the horseman in front of you. So, othismos must have been the advance against the enemy, and not a literal pushing of multitudes against each other.
NIKOLAKION 4 months ago
@NIKOLAKION Also, cavalry are sometimes described as being in a phalanx, which works against interpreting a phalanx as some kind of special formation involving overlapping shields (more likely it just means any disciplined close-order formation, where men can deploy and maneuver in blocks and are close enough together to back each other up with their shields and weapons when they go into a fight).
fakejohnwilkesbooth 4 months ago
@NIKOLAKION Indeed othismos has to be treated in a more general manner. But when we do speak of two heavily clad opposing tight formations armed with close combat weaponry then the most natural occurence is to collide and start by a pushing match. This would not last hours or something, it would be the first minutes, if not the first minute - soon the one or the other would start to break, some room would open and some fighting with spears would take place.
GPlinthon 3 months ago
@eXcommunicate1979 The short swords was not a Spartan tradition particularly. They were indeed effective in the initial push. You have to picture this. You are in the first line wearing and carrying 18 kilos of weaponry. You approach jogging in rythm and you fall against the enemy. You CANNOT STOP 5m before collision and even if the plan was so the enemy will not stop but fall on you. The first minute you will have a pushing match but the battle does not end there, this is just the beginning.
GPlinthon 3 months ago
For a while, I was wondering why there was a "green-screen" effect on your edges while you were talking. Then your helper arrived and my face went all :D
ShadowForge762 5 months ago 11
Brilliant stuff, as always.
I always had my doubts about the whole "othismos" (the shoving) thing....
rattinox 5 months ago
- The spear could actually go through the shield in a charge, but they clearly often aimed for the groin and thighs, i can imagine a lot of men in the first rank breaking their spears in the charge, and then going for the sword. The spartans adopted a really short sword for this close-up fighting, which tells us fights got really close up and personal. Yet most of the line or center would probably want to keep some distance, for when the rout happend and not lose more men than necessarily.
OMGWTFBBQ357 5 months ago
- one side or small part of the line, so you can roll up the line and rout the army, whoever can do this the fastes, is most likely to win. And the fastes way to accomplish this was probably the push through, the right wing composed of the best troops would have no problem in breaking through the enemy's weaker left wing, while a stabbing duel can drag on. But there is also the charge to consider, where i belive the most kills were made, before a rout that is. to be continued.
OMGWTFBBQ357 5 months ago
@OMGWTFBBQ357 Herodotus says that Marathon was the first time that hoplites had ever charged, and that was against non-hoplites. You wouldn't want your spear to go through a shield, because that would lose you control over your spear. If the left was reliably weaker, then why didn't they realise this and reinforce it?
lindybeige 5 months ago
@lindybeige I'll quote from The Western Way of War: Experience taught the hoplites that the best way to push their iron through the bronze and wood of enemy shields and breastplates was to achieve momentum before both sides became entangled and the chance to drive home a running spear-thrust with real power was lost. The book got a whole chapter on the Charge. The left wing was weaker (quality wise) cause the place of honor was always on the right, unthil Epaminondas changed it.
OMGWTFBBQ357 5 months ago
@lindybeige Additionally, if these guys were reliably spearing through each other's shields, they would not have been using the cross-grip - having your whole forearm against your shield, and your shield generally closer to your body, is a bad idea when you expect your shield to be penetrated. If anything the Greeks had a much lower expectation of having their shields penetrated than other martial cultures, which is why they held them the way they did.
fakejohnwilkesbooth 5 months ago
... Is that a green screen?
GTFOVevo 6 months ago
@GTFOVevo Well spotted. You can probably guess why.
lindybeige 6 months ago
@lindybeige Heh I see that you have that same dowel in the picture
GTFOVevo 6 months ago
Ok than. An battle reconstructions experience: Usually, battles goes on like you are telling. However it's really bad for morale of armies and it quite offen makec a smal groups of warriors angry. Than the just charges the oponent, skrikes him with shields and uses short sword to break through the shiled wall. If the shield wall is broken, the enemy flees. Thats it.
Tyrhor 6 months ago
just my opinion:
1) I think that the front row of the phalanx would mostly use the xiphos, a rather short sword, for the reason you explain. Since they would not be able to use the spear effectively due to the close distance.
2) As you describe the way the phalanx would work you have a point, but on the other hand this compact formation intended to provide a better defense especially if the enemy would be running around trying to hit someone, while the back phalanx rows would through spears.
Nikos1978BC 7 months ago
My understanding is that the front row would hold the enemy fast, while the rows behind would reach over and use their incredibly long spears.
MrBluebirdsfc 7 months ago
Hello there. The following comment is a statement from completely my point of view but i think its pretty reasonable.
Since you have, as you said, a so long spear then the best way to neutralize the effectiveness of the spear is probably to stick to the enemy so its pretty logical to stick to the enemy as the first row man and let your allies from behind spear the first enemies.
chicoulatas12333 8 months ago
@chicoulatas12333 And just trust the men in their front row not to slit your throat? Could work, if they look like kindly types.
lindybeige 8 months ago
@chicoulatas12333
That's true in open-order or one-on-one fighting (that's why almost all infantrymen carried at least a knife or dagger, if not a sword or axe or mace) but not true in close order fighting, as closing in just opens you up to even more spears from every angle from the left, right, and front - not to mention the knife or sword or whatever the guy right in front of you has on him for just such an occasion.
fakejohnwilkesbooth 7 months ago
If you got right up to your enemy and started pushing, what use was the big pointy thing in your other hand? And why make it so long? Clearly you would probably want something smaller, so you could reach around the guys shield, and with your now smaller stick, stab him. Or just stab him in the face if the shields were interlocked. I never really liked the pushing theory. As you said, sometimes I'm sure it happened. But other times the pointy thing played a part. Good video, good luck with more.
tomcat2222 9 months ago
One thing to say, the men in these battles thought to die in battle was a glorious thing, or they had no choice but to fight. Things were prob very different back then. The Macedonians used 18 foot pikes unlike the hopolites and were able to mow them down as a result because there wasn't the close up fighting like you were talking of. Its sitting on my book shelf unread, but open up "Gates of Fire" by Steven Pressfield. Its a really good explanation of Greek battles and the culture around it.
Cakevspie94 9 months ago
"Because they're held up by the press"
What? The newspapers were right in the middle of the fighting!? ;)
ZarlanTheGreen 9 months ago
"...people in the past were similar to people today in that they tended towards a desire for self-preservation, and away from reckless bravery"
How would you explain wedge formations in that case? The men in the front were almost certainly going to die.
sakarauka1 10 months ago
@sakarauka1 Do you mean infantry boar's snout? Well, if the enemy quailed, as was the hope, then the men in the front would live. If the enemy held fast, then the few psychos at the point of the wedge would die, but the bulk of the men not. The whole formation does not consist of points. If you mean wedge like Alexandrian cavalry, then this was probably just for manoeuvre, and not for charging into formed units.
lindybeige 10 months ago
@lindybeige Was not the wedge used to charge and surround from the inside (?) two blocks of units at the gap in said blocks of units. Exploitation of this formation seems to have allowed inspiration over all else - as alexander could get directly behind the enemy through the small gaps in infantry. The army (and moreover, Companion Cavalry) would then be driven to drive through the enemy to be at his side.
I'm a history novice. I am not TELLING you anything, I'm asking.
-Chris
BloodfromtheAshes 7 months ago
@BloodfromtheAshes We don't know. I may be doing a video about this, but not very soon.
lindybeige 7 months ago
@lindybeige Thanks, I just unearthed the wonder that is your channel about 12 hours ago and watched almost all your videos. I would be thrilled to see more rants on ancient warfare, both fact and theory. Lots more....just pick your brain for us lol.
BloodfromtheAshes 7 months ago
@lindybeige Also, not to tell you 2+2=4, but if you made a few short theory videos with minimal production effort a week or so, you may see an increase in viewers. I know it's obvious that if you could you probably would so please don't think I'm being a prick, I trying to convince you to make more videos so.....your welcome for the complement : )
BloodfromtheAshes 7 months ago
@sakarauka1
Wedge formation was not used in frontal assault.And if it was used, wich is very rare , the fron cavalryman was protected on his flanks bu other 2 guys.So he had only to worry about target in front of him.Alexanders cavalry and infatry if broke down to "cells" or units, it consisted 3 men.That's why Alexanders cavalrymen and infantry (even hoplites before) trained in units of 3 men.It's more psihology thing : men in front will advance more boldly, knowing that 2 guys watch his back.
elmuerteyu 8 months ago
Well I know more about dark age shield walls rather than Greek ones. Now the front ranks would often have spears but they tended to only get one stab with them before they drew a sword (preferably short) or an ax. And this front rows main job was to survive and push while the men behind them did most of the killing with spears and jumped in quickly when one of the front men dropped or else they enemy could rush in and destroy you. And as you mentioned, men did try to grab the enemy spears.
EvidensInsania 10 months ago
>..and I find you pushing me, I'd around and knife you
You can't be sure about that, because it's one thing trying to imagine yourself in such situation and completely another being in it. The suppression of soldiers as individuals, the brainwashing routine that they're continuously being through, the hive mind\group psychology effect and so on.
It's not an argument against the general idea of yours, though.
PythonandFelidae 10 months ago
@PythonandFelidae When you fight at a distance it is mutually beneficial to stay out of each other's reach which is why such battles tend to drag on for long periods of time. At close range however it is impossible to protect yourself with your skills or equipment for very long so your goal has to be killing the other guy as quickly as possible if you want to survive.
HBOrrgg 10 months ago
ok, this kind of fight I've seen in too many reconstructions. It¨s something, in modern I could say "geek terminologi" called "Berserker rage". You are facing too many spears. You are scared and you know that there's probably no way, you cold survive. The many of wariors do only thing, that's posible. Switch from underarm to overarm and charge. That gives you quite biger chance to survive(but maybe just psychologickly) Thats the answer both for overarm/underarm and using of shield.
Tyrhor 10 months ago
Hello Lloyd. How did you create a virtual self in the video? And how did you time the video so that the matching was so perfect? Thanks!
zhonggao84 10 months ago
@zhonggao84 Green screen. Shot my spiel against the screen, then shot the background shot which had me in it as my assistant. I didn't time it at all. I just came on, pretended to push for a bit and then fell over. In the edit I used a freeze-frame most of the time for the background and just brought in my other self when needed, and extended the footage to fit by reversing some of the movement.
lindybeige 10 months ago
Weren't casualties even for the losing side in ancient pitched battles usually fairly low unless the winners employed cavalry or chariots or light troops to chase them down and kill them in the route? Or unless there was an envelopment, of course, which Hannibal excelled at. If the shield mash theory were true, we'd expect horrendous casualties even on the winning side, and generally something like 80-100% for the losers (again, even without light cavalry or other troops to chase down routers).
fakejohnwilkesbooth 10 months ago
@fakejohnwilkesbooth Yes, casualties were low, specially on the winning side, around 5% while the losing side lost around 12% - 15% if i remember correctly. which tells us that there werent a lot of men killed by spears until one side ran, in which case they got stabbed in the back. A company of 100 men, 8 rank deep, means about 12 men for each rank, so only 5 out of those 12 in the first rank dies, so it was clearly hard to kill a hoplite from the front.
OMGWTFBBQ357 5 months ago
Your shield is too low to be on the first row, and you're too upright.
I do agree that the danger on the front row would have been very high due to the initial violence of spear contact, the push, the jabbing from back-ranks, and cqc among the first ranks as the first row of spears would likely have been broken during initial contact or discarded during the push...
so I doubt the scrim would have lasted long before a route (which might have been the point, no pun intended;)
lowenklee 11 months ago
Just a short note here: If I remember correctly, 5 people leaning up on you and on each other pushing towards a wall something similar is enough to kill the guy in the front row by compression asphyxia.
ImEternalWanderer 11 months ago
@ImEternalWanderer Yes, which is why they removed all the barriers at the front of sports stadia.
lindybeige 11 months ago
@lindybeige But the Greek Hoplon shield is designed in sutch a way that allows you to breath, the pressure would go to your thighs, upper chest, shoulders and back, not the stomach.
Also the number of rows was increased where you wanted to break through, The Battle of Leuctra is very clear that the battle was won cause of pushing, there is no sense in having a lot of rows if your gonna just stand off and fight at a distance.
OMGWTFBBQ357 5 months ago
@OMGWTFBBQ357 Depth is an advantage in many ways. You can resupply the front with fresh troops more often, you are more intimidating, less likely to run away etc. Eight people pushing against a stationary fence is enough to kill through asphyxiation. That number pushing both ways would kill the front couple of ranks of both sides. I doubt that extra ranks add much pushing power after a while.
lindybeige 5 months ago
@lindybeige We dont know if the Greeks resupplied the front in battle, like the romans, or late roman system more likely, the first was whole companies/centuries being refreshed. The greeks would have to disengage or backup, and you could get rushed by the oposite while your formation was not in tight shieldwall, Also, for a company to back off the line would jeopardise the whole line. Still you would never need anywhere near 50 ranks to keep the front fresh.
OMGWTFBBQ357 5 months ago
@OMGWTFBBQ357 We have no reason to believe that they used the Roman manipular swap, but individual men can filter to the front and replace fallen, and individuals can pull back into the formation to rest, and there does not need to be a general retreat to make this happen. At the battle of Delium, a formation eight men deep held off a Theban phalanx 24 men deep for ages, which suggests that there was not a pushing match going on.
lindybeige 5 months ago
@lindybeige Then why did they use 24 deep, they sorely needed the men to extend their line, cause they were being outflanked, what won them the Battle was the Theban Phalanx and tactical movement and support. Epaminondas clearly adopted his formation from this battle, and when he crashed into the Spartans with 50 ranks, they were able to hold the gigantic force for a while, but as they held them and pushed, the Theban phalanx became more compressed and the hole force was able to push through.
OMGWTFBBQ357 5 months ago
@OMGWTFBBQ357 The main problem faced by men training an army today and then was how to stop men from running away. A formation 24 deep is far less likely to run away.
lindybeige 5 months ago
@lindybeige Yes Morale has always been key in battles, But they didnt form the hole line that deep, the usual debth was 8-12 ranks, so what good is it to form one part of your line that deep to keep morale high there, while the rest rout, and then your deep column gets surrounded ?. other than the point to score a knockout blow on the enemy left or right wing as Epaminondas did, It's consentration of Force, Greeks usually did this with quality, but turns out numbers can beat quality.
OMGWTFBBQ357 5 months ago
@OMGWTFBBQ357 It's a balance between these opposing forces. The trick is to pick the best balance in the context of what the enemy is doing.
lindybeige 1 month ago
@lindybeige Has this been tested with Hoplon shields and armour ?. I remember a documentary or something witch adressed this and it awnsered why the Hoplon shield is shaped as it is, to allow you to breath, which tells us it was designed for pushing.
OMGWTFBBQ357 5 months ago
@OMGWTFBBQ357 The shape of it makes sense without this extra purpose. It makes it strong and balanced.
lindybeige 5 months ago
@lindybeige Yet it still can performe this purpose. Oh what i would give to actually go back and talk to all these military inventors and strategist's. But i do belive they didnt just go for a push through, but rather what the situation called for, but a typical hoplite battle would probably be the Right wing going for a push through, center having a stabbing match, and left wing doing their best to hold out, if you look at this in a tactical sense, the key is to break through - to be contin..
OMGWTFBBQ357 5 months ago
I notice, sir, you are using a green-screen... might I ask why?
CaptainCombustion 11 months ago
Since they apparently did drift, I don't think pushing one against another would be interesting, since that by drifting to the right, you expose your left flank to the enemy's right flank and become an easy prey. So if you drift to the right, you're better to stay at spear range. :)
maaderllin 11 months ago
@maaderllin Yes, if everyone were pushing shield-shield, then the whole might rotate, but it would be unlikely to shift left or right. however, the shifting I think would then lead to rotation...
lindybeige 11 months ago
@lindybeige If pushing on the shields of the enemy front, yes, it wouls result in a rotation, but before pushing shield against shield, they would not march straight forward, but march forward AND drift a little bit to the right while seeking cover of the man to their right. (According to the several sources I read, wich make sense I think )
maaderllin 11 months ago
@maaderllin Yes, you fear being outflanked to your right.
lindybeige 11 months ago
I also read that the hoplite phalanx tend to drift to the right. While advancing toward the other, before using their spears, they would fear death (As any normal people would). As they protected their whole left side with the Hoplon, they would seek the cover of their right arm behind the shield of the man at their right. By doing this, each man contributed to the driftigin to the right.
maaderllin 11 months ago
does this also count for phalanx or is this strictly sheild wall
kaindrg 11 months ago
@kaindrg A Greek hoplite phalanx was a type of shieldwall.
lindybeige 11 months ago
@lindybeige so the Shove-fest dilema still applies ?
kaindrg 11 months ago
@kaindrg Yes.
lindybeige 11 months ago
I think the idea was to bulldoze the front rankers from behind until some degree of combat was intiated, then see how that played out. I expect a degree of complexity in all this, with some portions attempting to shove past the spearpoints to go shield to shield, others hanging back in an effort to use the reach of their spears, and some would fail utterly to do more than posture with pointy things at each other until the display was sufficient to send their foe packing.
Polymarkos 11 months ago
@Polymarkos I was watching an evolutionary biology lecture series and the guy who was doing it rags on national geographic style journalism a lot with it which is pretty funny, but one of the things he brought up was something about how some sort of cattle like thing from africa would go about doing stuff, initially people were thinking that the older members of a pack would get into the water and sacrifice themselves to crocodiles or something, but actually they were PUSHED in... by their kids
noobler9 11 months ago
@Polymarkos and I mean it's not even like they were pushed in by accident, they were pushed all the way from the back, and I can see ancient greeks doing that a bit although apparently they'd usually have veterans in the front, inexperienced people in the middle and the more frail/older/experienced guys in the back rows
granted to be in a phalanx at all you'd probably have to have some physical strength, and it was a patriarchal society, phalanx aren't perfect, and always were changing styles
noobler9 11 months ago
lindybeige I very much blame Youtube's new layout for missing your latest uploads, I did however punish myself for it.
Thank you so much for keeping your account alive and coming back with more and more informative stuff!
GERdeathstar 11 months ago
where do you get all those swords and things from?
Slypaperclips 11 months ago
@Slypaperclips Some I make, others I buy, from all manner of sources.
lindybeige 11 months ago
People do not ralise but Othismos ('pushing match') is not physical shove of lines confronting eachoter.It is euphemism, a methaphor for gaining advantage -gaining ground.
During Marathon battle, Miltiades argued with this generals about wich tactic to use.Author described this retorical argument as OTHISMOS.
This proves that othismos is metaphor and not literal physical shove on wich so many historians rely and base their theories.
This missleading assumption is called HOPLITE ORTODOXY.
elmuerteyu 11 months ago
You should call for help that pritty assistent from ''casanova, easy to get'' videos.
archis84 11 months ago
@archis84 She ran off with a rock star, alas.
lindybeige 10 months ago
i think though that ONE form of shield wall in which this occured would be viking/ dark age where youd have a much larger amount of people wielding swrds and axes.
though now that i think of it, the uthred chronicles (thank you mr cornwell) seems to have a noticable lack of mention of spears being wielded in the shield wall. hmmm.
maybe he hasnt reserched this area QUITE as well as i thought.
at that point youd expect to see it shield to shield nea
elgostine 11 months ago
and a possible last point is that you don't have to do a rugby scrum sort of pushwar, you could raise your shield so you can shank their gut with a sword or cut their legs a bit or other things.... I'll bet that's why there's armor there and in the greaves in the first place, plus the spears apparently often had something called a lizard basher, which was a round metal thing that you'd slam onto people's toes and might be useful if your spearpoint broke which they apparently did lots
noobler9 11 months ago
@noobler9 "Lizard killer" and it was a sharply pointed thing. It was supposedly used for finishing off men on the ground that you walked over (N.B. if so, this only works if you are using a spear underarm), and it was a back-up point if the main head was lost.
lindybeige 11 months ago
another couple of points that might make a difference is that apparently the phalanxes would usually come at eachother at some sort of angle or something, umm... the army equivalent of two people holding their arms out, say... right hand forward left hand backwards kung fu style, and then going at each other also he said that the much of the reason for the phalanx's design was so that you couldn't cut and run, and you'd be amazed at how fearless people can be due to culture... allahu ackbah?
noobler9 11 months ago
a couple points that might be of interest, a little off topic but in starcraft 2 people commonly go for the frontal attack with casualties initially, zerglings are the best example of this, since they have no range they have to go into the line of fire area, as for hoplite groups, they had variations of depth and width, donald kagan at least says that they got people drunk to a certain degree, the "bar room bully" area of drunkenness where you're aggressive but not uncoordinated
noobler9 11 months ago
i knew you were in front of a green screen, funny and informative stuff.
FatGuyWithAKatana 11 months ago
would it be possible that going up against eachother with the shields could be a tactic if you had numerical superiority? then you'd be able to topple the other guys, and trample them to death(like what happends in when large mobs go crazy at rock concerts and football matches)
dejawolf 11 months ago
@dejawolf If you outnumbered the opposition by a lot, then yes, although in that case there probably won't be a fight, because if the outnumbering side has good cohesion, aggression, and morale, then the outnumbered side will probably not stick around to get killed, but run instead.
lindybeige 11 months ago
I remember my confusion years back watching the (in)famous Battle of Stirling (Bridge) scene in Braveheart where you have this giant disorganized mass of frantic melee combat, and then Wallace and Co. are all suitably pleased with the outcome. Even as a kid I had a hard time buying it because, well, I just watched at least half of his /own/ guys die. That's not really a victory at all!
Caliburnis 11 months ago
I think the problem with this perception is that people really don't understand what ancient and medieval battles were like, at least partly because of what ancient and medieval battles are presented as in popular media. That is, in a battlefield everyone in one formation goes /all out/ fighting the other formation with both sides suffering horrific casualties until the other formation is either killed or runs away all in one go.
Caliburnis 11 months ago
@Caliburnis it seems later generations always have misconceptions of how the previous fought.
kaindrg 11 months ago
Actually, wouldn't that be pretty dangerous for about every line but the last, on top of everything? If everyone's pushing against each other with big, heavy shields, you're probably not going to be looking so good afterwards.
Mobility be damned, you're probably happy just getting out without anything useful crushed. From the middle line that might have gotten out of the scrap without fighting, even!
Nakedspaceman1 11 months ago
In my experience with Regia Anglorum, anyone trying to get closer than a couple of yards to the opposing shieldwall is likely to die very quickly with spear thrusts from all angles, or a seax in the gut.
TheMetalPenguin 11 months ago
I think another bit of evidence against the shield crush is the fairly steady increase in spear-lengths. It's unlikely that you would bother with a longer and heavier spear if the length of the weapon wasn't really that important.
LordoftheT 11 months ago
Whoa, that’s a full Lloyd all the way. Double Lloyd, oh my god. It’s a double Lloyd, all the way. Whoa that’s so intense. Whoa man! Wow! Whoa! Whoa! Whoa ho ho oh my god! Oh my god! Oh my god! Woo! Oh wow! Woo! Yeah! Oh ho ho! Oh my god! Oh my god look at that! It’s starting even to look like a triple Lloyd! Oh my god it’s full on! Double Lloyd all the way across the room! Oh my god. Oh my god. Oh god. What does this mean?
6rasta6bhoy6 11 months ago
@PaulkyArcher If you mean whoever a short stabbing side arm has a great advantage then I totally agree, the side with a back up plan generally has an advantage over the side that doesn't, but you couldn't equip me with a seax and sheild and get me to charge head on into a phananx.
Statismiks 11 months ago
Good points, but the one issue I have is to EVER generalize what happens in close combat. Close combat is so dynamic that I'm pretty sure it is never happens the same way twice.
I once had to quell a riot in a bar, luckily I was with several more experienced people. Looking back I am still amazed at how the situation changed second to second.
dlmarti 11 months ago
All hail the back-row
MikaelDryden 11 months ago
And that was posted before the clone you entered. I'm not COMPLETELY stupid.:D
Wirrn 11 months ago
Has this been greenscreened?
Wirrn 11 months ago
Keep it up. love your vids
Dimitrij90 11 months ago
Hey you were right Lloyd; He did die out of surprise! ;)
TheScandinavianOne 11 months ago
i wonder what archers or peltasts would be like in this kind of battle, since you cannot pull your shield up since you're being squashed forward
Ojf119 11 months ago
Where have ya been? I missed your humor dripping in information! No videos for a few weeks, then all of a sudden, 4 in a day? lol, good seeing some more :D
landmine21 11 months ago
Warfare was so much, simpler when heroes and prominent figures would meet in single combat and decide victory that way; rather than get into a massive melee that got lots of people killed.
But You're right. A battle ends when one phalanx breaks, which was usually achieved before they clashed, thrusting with spears to disrupt the front line and throw the opposing formation into disorder allowing for a quick and decisive break. Shield to shield fighting would have been brutal, dirty and no fun.
loahnuh 11 months ago
hey look its a British person, this means that he looks just like that guy who plays house!
IssunQuixotic 11 months ago
nice vid
jmikejapan 11 months ago
Are you standing in front of a green screen?
Savaril 11 months ago
Wait, wait... Are you using a chroma?
lkasjdflkjemwna 11 months ago
While I was watching, I was thinking..."Gee, Lloyd looks bluescreened..." heh...
I tend to doubt the whole "shield wall as rugby scrum" idea too, but would it be possible for the shield clashes to have been quick, one-shot crashes, designed to break up an opponents phalanx? I would imagine once a phalanx was broken, most of those on the broken end would run or surrender, which might well end battles quickly and with fewer casualties? Just a thought.
blumbino 11 months ago
Is the face on that shield meant 2 look like u?
44SCB 11 months ago
Who's your friend?
captpan6 11 months ago
Good points, but there's a third option: both sides charge, spears and shields to the fore. They exchange spear-blows, then they clash, with the force of the charge, shield-to-shield; momentary shoving ensues, one side reels back, the victors close again for another bout of charge-stab-clash-shove. Swords and/or knives would only come into play if the formations stalled at close-quarters, or fell into disorder
JCLeSinge 11 months ago
Lidy, i can't beleive how short sigthed you are!
obviously the armies of Yester-Millenia were WAY more pre-ocupied with looking cool then they were about killing people, i mean, nobody is going to make movies about boring looking realistic combat in a few thousand years, are they?
Treifla 11 months ago
i suppose you could say that you've clarified the difference between a well trained group of soldiers, and a not so well trained group, hmm? romans for example worked alot with shield formations and it's one of the main reasons they were so superior compared to other armies at the time
MrTrykster 11 months ago
Im sure that shortly after a lot of the spears were broken and the phalanx was compromised and spear less hopolites would try to close the distance and eliminate the advantage of thoes who still had spears it would deteriorate to a shoving match (with swords and knives of course) but I think you are quite right, Also if these shoving matches were the case well you'd be best to leave your spear at home, it would just be clunky and awkward in close distance fighting
Kooletz71 11 months ago
well, the phalanx was essentially a pushing formation, you kill as many enemies as you can and try to push your formation in the meantime. These battles must have been tiring and bloody, as the phalanx did not crumble until they tired, routed or possibly died in a big amount, the army would rout and they would be chased or not.
I would like to hear your clarification or commentary on my conception :)
jirisysklatoon 11 months ago
Did you see 1066: The Battle for Middle Earth and how they portrayed the shieldwall?
Amarksyhk 11 months ago
when facing a hoarde of barbarians in a shield wall(or a castle occupied by french kinniggits, in the words of monty python...RUN AWAY!!!!!!RUN AWAY!!!!!!!!
1x93cm 11 months ago
is that a pair pf spectacles hanging on the wall?
peacebuntou 11 months ago
@peacebuntou Frames, yes. I found them, lensless, in the street. Clearly they had been run over by a car and I thought that they were amusingly pathetic.
lindybeige 11 months ago
"I would knife YOU, sunshine." Ahahahahaha.
Another great point made. And the perfect mix of knowledgeableness and humor. Well done!
tylrfshr12 11 months ago
But if one side adopts a looser formation more suitable for skirmishing they risk being bowled over and trampled by a charging denser formation.
MrMonkeybat 11 months ago
@MrMonkeybat Yes. Dilemma.
lindybeige 11 months ago
Why is this green-screened?
Fablezzz 11 months ago
@Fablezzz To give the impression that I and my assistant are in my lounge. We are actually on the 007 soundstage at Pinewood.
lindybeige 11 months ago
once shield walls are locked front row would switch to spatha , gladius or saex and cut under shield as uppercut while back rows would poke with spears, by the time shield walls lock it would take long time, and most often in case of Lakedaemonians other side would crumble even before shield walls would lock
Cardan011 11 months ago
This gave me the most hilarious mental image of two armies pushing against each other, with the front ranks of both armies dead all dead and squished between the pressure between both sides, both armies locked in a deadly pushing match where as soon as they stopped pushing for just a moment the bodies of the front tanks would fall to the ground and the second rank would join the first rank in the afterlife, and the winners of the match stumbling over the dead bodies of those under them...
MrCattlehunter 11 months ago
@MrCattlehunter That's 'hilarious'?
lindybeige 11 months ago
@lindybeige
In a macabre way, sure.
MrCattlehunter 11 months ago
I know I've mentioned this show to you before, but here in the states we have a show called "Deadliest Warrior". When they did their segment on Spartans vs Ninja's. (Spartans won, of course. Because they were actual WARRIORS.) They showed how the shield was used, and how much force is generated when slammed against another man. Basically, they'd get within a couple of feet of the enemy, SLAM their shield into them quickly, knocking them off balance or down. Then, they would stick them.
SwatShinsengumi 11 months ago
@SwatShinsengumi Only works if the enemy either doesn't get out of the way, or doesn't also have a shield, and a friend to hold him up.
lindybeige 11 months ago
@lindybeige
Like I said then. Gorillas. With Machetes. Ultimate Infantry.
SwatShinsengumi 11 months ago
@SwatShinsengumi Bleah, Deadliest Warrior. More Deadliest weapon. They have no conception of what a battle is, and the "historians" and "experts" they call are just actors who read their lines. It's sensationalism on it's worst. The only value of this show is to present original and ancient weapons, and they often use them really wrong.
maaderllin 11 months ago
Just a thought... people in that period fought in formations of 6+ ranks. Now, if everyone is wearing big helmets and carrying big shields, those in back wouldn't necessarily be able to see what's going on up front, right? I'm sure they'd try to stand off and fight with spears underarm from a few meters away, but after a while the momentum from the back few ranks would probably push both sides together. Maybe?
MisdirectedSasha 11 months ago
I imagine that this would be something of an advantage when light infantry was forced to engage heavy infantry. A bit of a stand-off distance (spear-jabbing) is more advantageous to heavy infantry, whereas being real close, in those circumstances, while risky, is more advantageous to light infantry. Another situation would be where neither side could break the others' shield wall with normal tactics. I agree though, this was more of an on the fly tactic than an entry strategy for battle.
DistendedPerinium 11 months ago
@DistendedPerinium generally, light troops try to harass heavy ones with missiles, melting away if charged. Mighty Spartan hoplites were defeated this way.
lindybeige 11 months ago
@lindybeige I know that light infantry used hit and run, perhaps I wasn't quite clear in my meaning when I said "forced to engage". By that I meant when light infantry had no choice but to directly confront heavy infantry. A fairly rare occurrence to be sure, but I can think of a few times it probably happened.
DistendedPerinium 11 months ago
Sounds like someone's been watching some 300.
oopsIdidasuper 11 months ago
I like the assistant.Much more handsome that the host,I'm affraid.
GreenEyedSerb 11 months ago
@4:07 look! THE SHIELDS MELD TOGETHER! I didn't know you could use witchcraft in a battle! (:
PresidentDRCI 11 months ago
why are u in front of a green screen?
CastFire001 11 months ago
Also before the time of the shieldwall Greek warriors would fight more individualistic with javelins etc. in main fighting force. However the soldiers saw a change from that to the Phalanx. So we can assume that the armies dropping weapons which would be great for individual fights you describe can be a sign of most battles not beeing fought that way anymore.
Spartiatai300 11 months ago
@Spartiatai300 Homer tells of armies of men armed with large shields and spears, and these we see pictured on frescos from the bronze age.
lindybeige 11 months ago
Thumbs Up
Allways a pleasure to hear a person who knows what they are talking and who know how to demonstrate their case.
I agree a push and shove match would also be a crushing match. Imagine two pjalanxes ten men deep both side pushig. If that gows on for half an hour the front rows might just die from being crushed.
take care and have a nice weekend
silk
;-)9
blacksilkblacksilk 11 months ago
Point is that warfare at that time was close and personal. Your still thinking large battle as small skirmishers. When your in an large battle there are no personal fights like we see in movies its a bigg mess with people not having enough space etc. Why do you think the Spartans adopted smaller knives instead of swords? Because it was more usefull in the Shieldwall and in formations. Similar as why the Romans took the smaller Gladius.
Spartiatai300 11 months ago
@Spartiatai300 Romans didn't stand and push. They tried to smash into an enemy formation and rout it, or else they fell back, swapped ranks, and tried again with fresh men and pila.
lindybeige 11 months ago
@lindybeige I'm not saying they did. I'm simply saying that warfare was close in your face and not the two armies keeping several metres apart kind of war which you always seem to suggesting. If the latter was the way war was dealt then it would be weird seeing the Romans take an short sword as the primary weapon.
Spartiatai300 11 months ago
@Spartiatai300 Yes, and as the Roman army got less professional and highly trained, it more and more used spears. Perhaps it took a lot of unit cohesion/morale/trust etc to get men to charge in reliably all at once.
lindybeige 11 months ago
very valid point mate... did you knew that syracusian hoplites fought in loose formation? (mainly because its easier to get away from a african forest elephant) and that shieldwalls were too immoble
FaakedLillebror 11 months ago
I would imagine it rarely happened because shield wall would rarely go up against shieldwall. Somebody sets up a shield wall, and then you try and attack the it at its weakest place. With archers if possible
300warrior300 11 months ago
@300warrior300 In fights between Greek city states hoplites often fought against other hoplites.
lindybeige 11 months ago
The thing is, in a formation of four or five ranks, where all of you are carrying big shields and wearing big helmets, the guys in the third and fourth (fifth, etc.) probably couldn't see what was going on up front. So, it probably would start as an attempt to stand off and duke it out at spear range, with spears underarm, but then the momentum might force both sides to close the gap? From experience, even from just the third rank it's hard to tell what's going on up front.
MisdirectedSasha 11 months ago
Would it be too contrived to imagine that the sort of shieldwall v shieldwall shoving match you described was some sort of basis for the rugby scrum?
;)
wesmatron 11 months ago
That volunteer looked oddly familiar, has he appeared in any of your videos before?
Anyway, you're right (of course), and more evidence for the preference for somewhat more long-range warfare is in the old favorites bow and sling. If there ever was a good reason for these really close-range battles, there would probably be more focus on weapons which could help when the shield walls were stacked against each other, like variants on battering rams. And I can't get more characters in my message.
TMTVL 11 months ago
what if the first row had a short sword and shield and the second row used the spear ?
skots 11 months ago
@skots Then the first row