Hoplite Battle, the Speed of Advance, and The Nature of Othismos

Some present-day Hoplites advancing quickly. Photo by Ana Belen Rubio

Dear Reader,


Today we ask the question, what was combat between two opposing Hoplite Phalanxes like? Historians generally fall into two positions on this issue, although a third group is starting to emerge. These camps find different meaning in the Greek word ώθίσμός (othismos):  pushing/thrusting. To the ancient Greeks, othismos could mean both literal shoving, or be used in figuratively, as in "the thrust of his argument." Othismos was a very common word, used by ancient authors in a variety of situations.

 The literal model, or orthodox view, maintains that Hoplite combat unfolded like a game of rugby, with groups of opposing Hoplites massed 8 or more deep pushing in an effort to gain ground from the enemy. For historians who subscribe to this model, the Greek term othismos describes literal pushing by massed groups of Hoplites.  In this view, soldiers both fought and pushed on each other, leading to causalities as men were stabbed by spears and crushed by the weight (perhaps  asphyxiated and unable to breathe) of the opposing phalanxes. The unique shape of a Hoplite's sheild would have prevented him from being crushed or asphyxiated, as has recently been shown.  (Bardunias, Ancient Warfare Magazine, 2011) This view, then, takes Xenophon's account of the Battle of Coronea literally, when according to a recent translation, "Crashing together their shields, they shoved, they fought, they killed and were killed..."( καὶσυμβαλόντες τὰς ἀσπίδας ἐωθοῦντο, ἐμάχοντο, ἀπέκτεινον, ἀπέθνῃσκον.) Another passable translation of the first part might be: "they threw their shields together."(Ed. Strassler, Landmark Hellenica, 138/ Xenophon, Hellenica, 4.3.19.) 

By contrast, the figurative model, sometimes called the heretical view, argues that our understandings of Hoplite phalanx combat are incorrect. In reality, according to these scholars,  Hoplite combat occurred in a more spread out fashion, with combatants using their weapons with plenty of space between them. Suggested by Peter Krentz and others, this viewpoint used common sense to indicate that 10,000 men in a rugby scrum might not be the most realistic way to envision Greek battle- as physics might interfere. If the pressure was constant from both sides, then a battle might be maintained, but textual records from ancient Greek sources indicate that battles often broke down into localized encounters, not one unified push. (Krentz, "The Nature of Hoplite Battles, Classical Antiquity, 1985.)

 A third view has also developed, arguing that pushing developed after a series of loose order duels. Perhaps best expressed in an article by G. L. Cawkwell, this viewpoint has attempted to fuse both camps. In order to make this claim, Cawkell used a number of non-traditional sources, such as writings from Plato and Socrates, to show that use of weapons did occur on the Hellenic battlefield. (Cawkwell, "Orthodoxy and Hoplites," Classical Quarterly, 1989.)  Many historians find this view implausible, as Garrett Fagan has argued in his course on Ancient Battles for the Teaching Company, because how would Hoplites know when these distinct phases of the engagement where occurring?

It may seem that these views might be irreconcilable, because they have arrived at very different conclusions while utilizing the same source base. However, without question, written historical accounts remain our best tool for understanding the past, rather than experimental archaeology, and image analysis. Both of these useful tools should be employed by historians in understanding the past, but should not be the main vehicle for doing so. With that being said, let us attempt to reconstruct the phases of how a Hoplite battle occurred.

Chigi Vase, Louvre

After the completion of pre-battle rituals, in most circumstances, one or both armies would advance towards one another. (Hdt. 9.62, Thuc. 6.69, Xen. Hellenica 7.1.31.) These armies, which by the 5th-4th centuries B.C.E., usually numbered 10,000 men or more often advanced into battle at the run.  (Thuc. 5.70, Xen. Hellenica 4.3.17.)  This was a relatively recent phenomenon, as Herodotus tells us about the Greek Hoplites at Marathon: "They were the first Greeks that I know of who went into battle at the run." (πρῶτοι μὲν γὰρ Ἑλλήνων πάντων τῶν ἡμεῖς ἴδμεν δρόμῳ ἐς πολεμίους ἐχρήσαντο,) (Hdt. 6.112.3) We know that at least by the time of the Battle of Mantinea in 418, the Spartans still did not advance into the battle in this way, and by 394, there is circumstantial evidence from the Battle of Coronea that they still did not. (Thuc. 5.70, Xen Hellenica, 4.3.17) Rather, Thucydides informs us that the Spartans advanced slowly to the music of flute players. If the Chigi Vase does indeed depict Hoplites from the 640s, it may support this method of slowly advancing into battle as being an older method of Hoplite combat. While the second rank on the Chigi vase appears to be running, this may well be a stylized device, a chance to depict the beauty of the Hoplites body. If the Chigi vase does indeed present running Hoplites, there would be no need for the flute player to keep time.  Since the Spartans may have been loathe to accept new methods of Hoplites advancing, this may show a sharp distinction between how Hoplites advanced before and after Marathon.  I would submit this theory as quite tentative, and open to debate.It should be realized- I do not view the Spartans as hide-bound and unimaginative. The decisions of Brasidas at Amphipolis or Kleomenes at Sepeia quickly prove such ideas incorrect.

We can now envision two scenarios: 1) the slower early Hoplite clash, where two groups of Hoplites advanced slowly, to the playing of flutes, and 2) the later running method, seemingly prevalent in most non-Spartan Hoplite forces after Marathon. In the next post, we will compare these two different manners of Hoplite advance, and what battles between them might have looked like.


Thanks for Reading,


Alex Burns