No, really. Salt has been one of the most valuable substances in history, often surpassing Gold in worth. Salt has so many more uses than Gold. Possessing Salt meant you could preserve food(Example: Pork) to eat later. Salt also offered the Sodium that the human body needed to function, which meant that it could be used to flavour food in a pleasing manner.
I like the idea of Lloyd stood alone in his front room for those 35 seconds making strained noises while leaning against his imaginary self. Would be very funny to look in on. Then again, now I think about it, all of these videos are just him on his own so perhaps it's not too great a departure from the usual content...
It would be an interesting part of a film where the front lines are all dead, but the bodies are stuck standing up by all the people pushing in, so the protagonist is just squished against all these dead guys for days until one army decides to leave. Because if you're going to be historically inaccurate, you might as well follow it to its logical conclusion. In the sequel, the protagonist can defeat an army of female soldiers by stabbing them in the cleavage. With fire arrows.
That’s an actual thing. It’s called push of pike, they didn’t used shields, but they did push against each other so much that the dead were held up, and both sides faced massive casualties.
I would advance my ides tactical advantage by filling our first 3 rows with scarecrows so none of our gurs actually have to die in the push. We could then build a way behind the corpses and spend the next 3 days throwing javelins and drinking tea.
I've never liked the "push match" version of ancient warfare and this argument makes complete sense; it also explains why people clamored to be on the front row and how they often survived entire battles there (Leonidas or Epaminondas being two examples). Not just for the obvious reason of glory, but because they had the chance to make a lot of damage and test their prowess; they didn't think of themselves as merely crush spacers for a push match, but skilled fighters.
Thanks. I'm sorry, but that sounds idiotic. The only reasons for the theory are etymology and that they can't account for phalanx depth? How about if a soldier goes down, there's someone to take his place? I respect Hanson, but this theory, as it's been presented here, sounds moronic. If they were pushing, someone would stab someone and then the other side would retaliate and then we'd have a real battle again.
In the fantasy book ''Left Hand of God'' there's a battle between a heavily armoured army and an army of warrior monks wielding shields. The knights are so confident they'll win that they simply charge in, and are stopped by the shield wall. The monks then proceed to drag soldiers through the wall and kill them with hammers (or mallets, don't remember correctly), while the opposing army is forced forward by the pressure of the confident fools in the back, so nobody at the front can escape. Perhaps not very accurate, but an interesting scenario.
It's a while since I read it, but I enjoyed it. It's heavy dark fantasy, with a nice dash of fucked up Christianity, because who doesn't love that! It's by Paul Hoffman.
+Moosehound To be fair, the knights in that story did have to charge through a field of heavy mud before they got to the Monks. If it was hard ground, they would probably have run them over.
Probably. I haven't read that book in years, so I only remembered the premise of the battle. Still interesting, because it took into consideration factors not often used in fictional battles.
@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...
err..was it a green screen? i thought it was just his background and since the camera doesnt move he can just overlay the same footage on top of each other
You are 100% correct, it is green screen. The Lindybeige on the right is in front of a green screen, while the other one was not. Two obvious signs of green screen. The green glow around the right person. The spear goes through the left person, when he is in front of the couch, not behind it.
I think your ideas are spot on, but I also just love this particular video because having the "assistant" was so damn funny. It didn't expect the guy on the left to "get killed" in the demo.
My reenactment experience and historic documentation supports you on this. In our melees we generally end up with both lines squaring off at spear length and sniping with spears or doing pulse charges (small parts of the line advancing then immediately retreating) until the other line is weak then performing a shield charge to break the enemy line. If you go right in for a charge the enemy spears weaken your charge and even though you usually gain ground, you lose manpower.
"Long stick with spike on end" has been used in warfare since forever, and I seriously doubt that means they used them in such close quarters, no matter how short they were. The whole point is to get "him over there" before he gets you.
Reenactors provide some clue as to how these fights may have gone. Yes, they will often have a clash where both sides slam into one another, but then they tend to back off. When I was doing Viking reenactment we fought a little more than arm's reach apart - too far for knives, but just right for swords and axes. Swordsmen would stab over the shields, axemen would hook shields to open up the enemy, while spearmen in the second rank would be close in trying to poke through gaps, distract people or going for the shins. This is possibly where the "shoving match" comes in. It's not so much about physically pushing as it is making the front rank back up. If the front rank starts pulling back, the second rank has to get out of their way, which means they aren't fighting. That might give you just enough breathing room to lop off a few heads, break a hole in the line, and all of a sudden you can turn a flank and wipe out a big chunk of the enemy shield wall! So, how does this tie in with armies being many ranks deep? Well, if you've got 3-4 ranks of soldiers, then odds are your next two ranks aren't going to be physically pushing the first two - they'll be slightly further back, ready to move up and plug holes. Or, in the case above, to form a second shield wall and force me to repeat the fight all over again. Only this time my shield wall might have enemy shield walls to either flank, forcing me to either give up the ground we've made, or be surrounded and destroyed in turn. And knowing the enemy has reserves might well change your initial tactics. If you know the moment you turn to surround a foe a fresh mob of enemies will run in and murder you, then you can't surround people - you have effectively been "pushed back", and must instead hack at the front rank of enemies until their reserves are depleted, or you can break through in so many places you won't get crushed in a counter-attack. This, finally, offers some light as to what may have allowed ancient battles to go on so long. If both of our shield walls have essentially 2-3 more shield walls close behind, then once the first wave gets tired they can just slowly pull back in good order and let the next lot have their turn. Thus, when the enemy starts pulling back to replenish, you do the same. Ultimately, victory wouldn't be won the moment a single block of infantry are broken; you need to break them, then have the men and stamina remaining to break several more blocks in quick succession - something that is probably not going to happen until either late in the day, or as was commonly the case, when your cavalry can ride around the back and wipe out the shield walls waiting in reserve, thus denying the front rank any means to safely retreat!
Quite possibly. There's some debate as to how the maniples worked, and some have questioned the chequered formation in battle due to individual maniples being easily flanked, but that kind of formation makes a lot of sense if you actually care about your troops and want them to have some means to get out of the fight. Plus, as I mentioned, flanking a hastatii maniple won't work if there's another maniple of princepes ready to flank you right back. You can see this in some strategy games, where it is better to have a long, unbroken shield wall with part of your force not fighting at all than breaking up the line and risking an opening for enemy cavalry, or exposing yourself to missiles.
+JasanQuinn So the initial charge-and-slam ... could that end a battle if one side wavers? if one side falters in that opening charge, would they break in the clash? I can see that happening actually: a first charge and if that fails, a gap forms and it drags out forever, until one side sees an advantage and manages to break the others lines (possibly by charging in a wedge at a weak spot). But if one side was "lesser" then it might not hold at the first charge. Does that make sense?
+JasanQuinn That makes a lot of sense. I would never rule out the huge clash and shoving match, as I've been told often about the troops being given a fairly large dose of hallucinogens etc. this couples with basic training and the sheer chaos of the moment - it could go that way I think. Largely I'm inclined to think along the same lines as you, there will be pieces to try and play out. Break shield wall, drag a guy out of it, hook them into your lines. Anything you can to make the little 3vs1 fights amidst the larger battle.
There were battles where the rear ranks pushed the front ranks. A famous example was Agincourt, and the result was a slaughter of the front ranks who got pushed.
*Gets in time machine to observe hoplite battles, returns to 21st century Dr. Who style* Turns out it was mish-mash of underarm and overarm spear usage. :P
Lloyd, you should make a commentary video over what the troops on the sides and rear of a phalanx did when faced with opposition. In Hellenistic Era depictions of pike phalanxes, even the men on the last row held a pike, what would they do if attacked from the side or behind? Abandon their phalanx, drop their pike and draw a sword? Hopefully you have some insight on this
Well round curved hoplite shield was called hoplon this means weapon in today modern Greek, as in ancient. We say panoply derived from hoplon meaning literally “with a lot of weapons on you”. So, the word keeping its original meaning even if used out of context. Regarding the pushing part, the idea is not to stand still pushing each other. It’s to break formation of the other side, same time along the pressing you see in vases and such drawing 2 first lines trying to spear from up to down and 2 next rows extending spears going for underhits. Now granted this style will work miracles against not very cohesive units, it was not easy to pull with phalanx against phalanx and we know against Roman legions even when winning they were suffering great losses in many cases
There is a lot of historical evidence that a too close formation is totaly lethal for an army. Just think of Hannibals greatesd victory. As he incircled the roman legions with his army, the lines of the ligenears became so tight that they coulnt move anymore and where just sloughtered of the spot.
@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.
It is more difficult to get a large formation to run away, and a large formation can replace casualties for longer, and replace tired men at the front. It is also intimidating by its mere presence. If you can see three times as many men in front of you as are in your own unit, how would you feel?
Is that what they meant with the pushing match thing? I'd never seen it illustrated, honestly. I always thought they meant pushing match as a sort of metaphor for each side trying to push away (aka by basically making them break formation since they don't want to be stabbed in the face with a spear) the other side with a wall of spears. And that that's why the huge macedonian spears were that good. Because you'd have an even larger amount of spears aimed at the enemy at once. And I'd always thought that that's why Hoplites were so formidable. Because any non-hoplite or heavily armoured individual without a tight formation would be like "fuck that, I'm not marching into that." But other hoplites would be wel armoured enough and be covered enough by the shield to make it harder for that to work.
There are actually Roman illustrations of Shieldwalls. One made in late 400's or early 500's Britain (or Gaul, though most historians seem to agree with the British theory) show two sides of Sub-Roman Britons (or Sub-Roman Gauls) fighting in a shield wall. They're relatively close, and basically just clobbering each other with swords, spears and even some people shooting bows and arrow. Google "Vergilius Romanus" if you're curious. I'm not sure I can post the link here.
+Geong Leasere I would've never imagined a Roman shield wall doing the thing I described above anyway though. I mean, their armies were fairly different in armament, flexibility and tactics, no?
I didn't... know people actually thought of the phalanx pushing match as a LITERAL pushing match, whenever I had it explained to me as "a pushing match" I always thought of it in a metaphorical sense since they'd have their spears out front and the two sides would be presenting this "armored porcupine" formation to each other, and your side would be trying to push your porcupine into the opponent without getting impaled on their porcupine, thus the metaphorical "pushing" that I always envisioned, and also the reason most phalanx battles had extremely low casualties because tbh having an "armored porcupine" of spears shoved into your face and your guys start dropping would be goddamn terrifying
I recall having heard that the romans used their large shields and short gladius for something like the situation you describe, but to their advantage: By forming shield wall, moving in close, real close to the enemy, to immobilize and keep them from using their spears, for the reason yuo sdescribe here, then stabbing with their gladius. Is this feasible?
@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.
What is your opinion on Benard Cornwell way of describing a shieldwall battle? When I read The Saxon Chronicles, the battles seemed quite real, not the usual "several duels" battlefield so often depicted.
People were actually killed doing formations like this in rugby, and that is why rugby has offside rules, Amercan football has the forward lateral pass, and both have rules against holding.
I think the confusion might come from a very different sort of shieldwall, of the sort employed by Norsemen and their ilk. Formations of men with shields pushing up against one another, but much more sensibly. Of course the point wasn't to push and crush eachother to death, but rather to both protect your fellows and get in close enough for your short weapons to do damage to your enemy. The idea that men would voluntarily crush their fellows to death in some sort of mad frontal press is one that would never be employed by any sane general.
Malcolm Wright The most reasonable proponent of the push deigns that the aspis shield aids against suffocation, and of course, voluntarily crushing your own front lines would be utter madness. You're ignoring some other potent understandings. Understandings which take the hoplite phalanx a step above it's norse friends. Wielding a spear overarm at the length of the dory, so 7-9', that is rear-weighted, allows three ranks at least to fight along the frontline at once. Push or no push, this allows the phalanx to employ three rows of spears to jab and thrust at the faces, necks, arms, hands, and shoulders of their norse counterparts if the two should ever come shield-to-shield. It is not a *confusion*, it is a popular theory based on our understanding of how this particular ancient people fought. It does not require "*modern*" re-interpretation under vikings settings for some reason. Different equipment, different military ethos, different purpose behind the shieldwall.
Crowds who shove cause someone to fall over, such as football crushes or religious festival tragedies. Nasty. And they can see well. Soldiers with helmets and shields can't see their feet very well at all. Result? Chaos. Nope, no shoving. Also, ritual and display. Not all battles were going to start off deadly, surely. There was show, name calling, challenges. Running away (me especially). People were scared and it all depended on politics and just how serious the argument was. And how popular the bosses were. Every battle would have been unique....terrain, causes, whatever. Watch hunter gatherers have a fight with spears in New Guinea in recent times (rare now,sure but it happens) it can get ugly fast or end in lols and beer. But there is always a lot of show and theatre first.
+Sean Coyne some nice points here, additionally im sure casualties would have been low if a skirmish ever got serious, considering all the armor which would justify the greeks city states fighting relentlessly.
+Alistair Shaw I don't think proportion works when you're talking about the "most bloody," blood isn't proportionate, when people say that they are referring literally to the amount of casualties on all sides, and WW2 wins by a mile
+Aaron Brougham but blood is proportionate. to the number of combatants. That is why the American civil war is the most deadly/bloody/casualty high war that America has ever fought, because everyone involved was American. Compared that to ww2 where I was trying to find numbers on this but as a proportion of Americas population (this bad, I wanted combat soldiers) the casualty rate was 0.3%.
I've been in the shield crush, the way we organised it was the front two ranks were shields, behind them were pikes, glaives, etc. who did all the killing. Two ranks of shields are easy to use spears over, (only about 1.5m thick). but they keep the two handers alive from arrows etc. until they get to killing range. When you're in the crush, your main job is to stay alive. You are pinned, so cannot swing a weapon with power, I used to use a weapon with a but-spike for the occasional target of opportunity, the blade was for parrying pikes trying to get over my shield. If you give your opponents space, they can do wedge charges, which break up the shieldwall, and then it's shooting fish in a battle for their pole-weapons. Also, it's a lot harder for their archers to separate friend from foe in the crush, as opposed to two separate lines.
A great article! It made me think of a few things:1:To see shield wall techniques in action, have a look at riot police dispersing a crowd.2: Ancient battles probably didn't last very long for exactly the reasons Lindy brings up.3: Discipline and training could alleviate the crushing problem. If your soldiers know how to march in step, back and forth, left and right; they might be less prone to shoving their colleagues to their demise.4: The front of a shield wall was a dangerous place to be. There is a reason the Romans didn't put many valuable veterans in the Hastati!5: I agree with the overall argument made here, if the shield wall battle was just a shoving match, both sides would have merely tallied up the numbers and yielded the field to the larger force without all that bloodletting and risk.
My understanding of the shield wall is to support the front rank in a similiar fashion to how a rugby player would support in a scrum. Also i know the romans had a system in place where the front ranked soldier would withdraw to the rear once he got tired and so on a so forth so that fresh troops would always be fighting (it makes sense if you've ever sparred in a martial art before) Great video man keep it up!
@PaulkyArcher They would sometimes stab low, yes, but that was when they had room to wield their shields. Here I am imagining that the shields of both sides are stuck up against each other.
As a viking reenactor, I can tell you how the skjaldborg works. The front line locks shields like scales on a fish, the polearms (Spears/dane axe) behind them. The goal is to open up a hole in their wall and strike. Axes and lugs on a boar spear are very good for that. Swords and seaxs are best used to exploit the gaps, and the reach of a sword really helps hit areas not immediately in front of you. The reach advantage isn't a big deal in duels, I've had no issues getting in to use my hand axe.
lindybeige I very much blame RUclips'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!
I always wonder how those Macedonians with those huge spears managed to stab a dude dead with those things. Obviously, it must have worked. They conquered half the world with it. I just don't quite get how. The Roman method I get. You get a short stabby sword and you stab the guy dead. Simple but those Macedonian things were like 16 feet long I think.
I think they were mainly used to keep enemy formations in place. The death blow was dealt by cavalry from behind. Hammer and Anvil tactics I think it's called.
Noah Severwright Well, not literally but from Greece to India is a pretty big damn empire for the time. It would've been half of the entire known world to the people of the time. I think it's fair to say that the people of Greece of that time have never heard of Japan but the learned among them would've known about India. Of course that's not precise but I meant it hyperbolically, not literally.
Maybe, what we are missing is the big picture. A phalanx would obviously need to be flexible, if formations are so tight that the frontline cannot be replaced, you might as well place army in rows and lines, 2 man deep. But the ones at front and supporting spears at 2nd will need water, medical help, some injured will need to be replaced without creating gaps in the line. So would the formation be a loose one? But if that happens, a suicidal enemy front row, could easily put their shields over their faces and run and bash at the gaps and they might get through, thus ruining the phalanx. A shoulder to shoulder formation would, however, create a big problem if someone dies, and soldiers wouldn't be able to replace broken spears, replace dead or injured, turn their bottom spear heads if the other is broken etc, as the line would be too rigid to do that. I, personally, think that gaps in line or lack of it could be a deliberate thing the leaders of each row could order their soldiers to do.
Then again, many people didn't go into battle hoping to defeat the enemy: They hoped to stay alive, so logic would say you stay behind the shield as much as possible. Also you would think the goal of a battle on that time was to conquer land, which could then be used as a leverage when the negotiations for peace should happen. So trying to push the enemy seems logical... for an IT programmer and internet expert like me with zero knowledge in historical warfare.
Are you referring to pushing them from their land in a metaphorical way, or just pushing them away by using shields? Because frankly the latter wouldn't make any difference whatsoever in terms of conquered lands.
I meant "conquer land" as in gaining an advantage on battlefield over the enemy as in gaining a better foothold. "Conquer land" wasn't a very good way of saying this.
I understand now, but i don't know how conquering a vantage point from an army will do you much good other than securing the area, because i imagine most of the times that vantage point would be relevant in reference to the battlefield up front, and wouldn't do much good otherwise against a retreating army (but again, securing a vantage point was crucial in many battles, so maybe you do have a point there).
I think the whole point of war is to kill the other dude. If the life expectancy of an enemy in the front rows isn't long, then mission accomplished right?
Antonella Weisner Both of you are wrong. Its a combination of both. you are supposed to take proportionately less casualties than the enemy whilst obtaining a specific objective, for instance, driving the enemy off a mountain.
All I know is, if I were a soldier, my first priority would be keeping *me* alive, and there's no way I would ever get in the front row of a horrifying mess like that voluntarily.
The general wish his soldiers were fearless killing machines. But they’re generally not, unless they’re religious fanatics or something. Money is a big motivation for many combatants. But money is not going to be any use if you’re going to die. So combatants want to fight wars without dying. So, if they’re in the front row and told “go shove yourself as hard as possible against the enemy”, chances are they won’t do it.
The thing to remember about the shieldwall is it requires training and discipline. Training to get into formation correctly (especially since you will not always assume the same position each time, or face in the same direction as the direction of march, training to be able to move in this formation and replace those who fall out) and discipline to not break and run during combat. You see examples of longer spears, which are great for the forward march, bulldozer effect. This means those longer spears can outdistance the shorter ones of the enemy, thus overwhelming the enemy formation into either losing their nerve and running, or killing enough troops and disorganizing them to the point where the phalanx marches on through. In cases where the spears are relatively the same length, and if the soldiers have a variety of weapons (axes, swords, maces), you would likely see two lines form of shields facing each other, spear shafts extending across as fighters tried to take out faces and shins. Conceivably, the Spartans, being so well trained and discipline, and religious fanatics, would have their formation drive forward and even go shield-to-shield in a pushing match. This would overwhelm a lesser disciplined and trained foe.
@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.
I agree that most of the time the front line didn't want to get into the shield wall pushing matches. But we know it was fairly common because the Romans effectively decided to give up on the spear thing entirely and JUST do a short sword and the shield wall. They must have been fairly confident that shield wall scenarios were going to be the norm rather than the exception. The shield formation doesn't lend a lot of mobility to an individual troop. They get a little bit of side to side, but if they take too much they leave the guy beside them vulnerable. They basically can't back up because a back up would have to cascade backwards, they are blocked by the guy behind them. They most freely move forwards. If you're boxing with a guy two feet taller than you, there's a natural intuition that you don't want to stand right at the end of his punch range... Likewise, I think pretty quickly when people start getting stabbed, especially if your side seems like it's loosing, you want to move away from the most effective range of the pointy bits. You can't move back, but like the tall boxer, if you move forwards suddently his punches go over your head and not into your head. I'd echo that most front lines that found themselves in this situation probably immediately regretted it, but I'd guess that all but the most disciplined skirmishes generally ended up in that state, because it's just the natural path of least resistance. Knowing this, it's pretty clear why the Romans made the choice they did. If you have a bunch of guys in formation with shields they almost don't have any choice BUT to get into a shield wall pushing match.
For a second, I was thinking "holy crap, his twin looks JUST like him. Even for identical twins, that is impressive!". Then I was proven wrong, and I was reminded of my own stupidity...Great video though! Been binging your channel for a while now. Lots of great content and humour here! Thank you!
@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.
I'm glad you bring this up, using practical demonstration. The reservations you mention can be overcome with a great deal of training and discipline, yet the average Greek hoplite would not have had that kind of training (unit training that is), because he was essentially a weekend warrior. He was a landowner who had a farm or some other business that he had to attend to during the course of the year, and could only campaign part time. For the most part he would also be going up against . . .
Lindy! Great video as always, great food for thought. Victor Davis Hanson in several of his works used primary documentation to make the case for the "shoving match" version of events... and some of your objections for why the shoving match would be a bad idea are EXACTLY what happened frequently... The casualties in hoplite warfare are often HORRIBLY one-sided... first side to flinch or falter would get slaughtered... this happens to be close to the thesis of V.D.H.'s book "Western Way of War".
Arrianos Techne Taktike, 12.10 and 16.13. You're welcome :) Get two shilds and try to knife your opponent when he is pushing you. Good luck. Maby you look on new books like Adam Schwartz "Reinstating the Hoplite" The main question, why is it so important that you have deep ranks, couldn't be answered without othismos.
Boar snout: It was a wedge formation of shields whose whole purpose was to break up an enemy shield line by running into the enemy shield wall and hope to punch through, breaking the wall. Yes, the head of the snout and his mates were most likely dead, but they were also 'heroes' as they probably won the battle for their side (or so they hoped). This is the only example I can think of where you'd get a 'crush' happen.
@Dalarna3 I would apply all that I say to Germanic shieldwalls as well. As to absorbing charges, I was making just the one point, and even that took me six minutes.
This has always been my viewpoint too. The other factor backing this is that a typical Hoplite's spear was pretty long - around 9-12ft. Even with a counterweight, such a spear would have a fair bit of itself protruding back behind the wielder. These spears also had rather pointy back-ends too. I can't imagine 8 rows of hoplites squashed that tightly together whilst holding such unwieldy weapons. Firstly there would be no room to use them, and secondly you are very likely to take the eyes out of the chaps behind you (assuming over arm was the order of the day, but that's another discussion :) ).
Anyone who has ever been at a concert near the front row when "the main band" comes on-stage knows how horrifying it is during "the crunch" as everyone else tries to get as close as possible. Your lungs are compressed. It becomes hard to breathe. You can't move any direction. You start wondering whether you might get hurt, or die... at a concert. Now imagine the same thing in a war. Who would willingly be in the front line when you're as likely to be killed by the row behind you as you are the enemies in front? That's suicide. Especially considering a bunch of strong men wearing heavy armor and weaponry are pushing a heck of a lot harder than a bunch of fans at a concert just trying to get a good view. I imagine a similar scenario would be a bunch of people trying to leave through a blocked fire escape during a fire. People die in those scenarios! How much worse would an active battle be!
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.
Spartans were taught to pull their shields back against the man next to him. I agree here. I don't see 2 sides in a pushing match if most were pulling their shields actively back against the man next to him. And the Spartans would make a wall of shields and just spear the hell out of any in range. If they lost their spear, they had their sword. I don't see a pushing match benefiting either side. The weapons alone tells that they kept at range. The wouldn't get right up close with a spear. It's not used for that. Idk. I agree Lindy has it right and the others not so much. Great vid, and great work as always! Love your channel. Cheers
The winner of a phalanx battle 'turned the flank' of the enemy. This was done through the use of terrain and good planning. Alexander was very good at planning and using terrain to his advantage. Alexander also used an integrated army (his army had more than token light infantry and heavy cavalry) of more than one weapon system (Heavy Infantry, Light Infantry, and Heavy Cavalry.)
==============================
[Dark Spirit Lindybeige has invaded!]
==============================
+Whitex Blacky ...."HEELLOOOOOOOHHH...."
....VERY...GOOD..
...I'M...SORRY
HELP..ME!
*Poked to death by katana*
prepare the gank
THIS CHANNEL IS A GOLD MINE
Thank you for all you have done.
yes but salt is more valuable
+frombaerum No! That's filth! Get that out of your mind.
No, really. Salt has been one of the most valuable substances in history, often surpassing Gold in worth.
Salt has so many more uses than Gold. Possessing Salt meant you could preserve food(Example: Pork) to eat later. Salt also offered the Sodium that the human body needed to function, which meant that it could be used to flavour food in a pleasing manner.
+Isaac Fenigsohn pepper once was though.
but salt is far less rare then gold, so gold is more valuable. Basic economics, mr potato.
You should really cut down on the uranium. Starting to glow there.
omfg hahahaha
A nuclear reactor could have eaten that uranium.
He Ka You guys are mad 😄😄
How would he power the cloning machine? Hamster wheel?
lmfao
I like the idea of Lloyd stood alone in his front room for those 35 seconds making strained noises while leaning against his imaginary self. Would be very funny to look in on. Then again, now I think about it, all of these videos are just him on his own so perhaps it's not too great a departure from the usual content...
+TheIrateSPider that impressed me a bit tbh
I fantasise about twin Lindybeige porn this video is what material I use.
+Angus Rhodes hot
+Angus Rhodes what the shit
That's just called acting, bro.
"...I would turn around, and I would knife YOU, Sunshine...." Oh good GOD I laughed my ass off.
LOL I actually thought it was his twin at first!
the CGI is just amazing
It is his twin
IT was so beatifull done!
It would be an interesting part of a film where the front lines are all dead, but the bodies are stuck standing up by all the people pushing in, so the protagonist is just squished against all these dead guys for days until one army decides to leave. Because if you're going to be historically inaccurate, you might as well follow it to its logical conclusion.
In the sequel, the protagonist can defeat an army of female soldiers by stabbing them in the cleavage. With fire arrows.
Isn't that basically a beautiful sequel for Life of Pi?
This kind of happened in a recent game of thrones episode.
When would he kill a bunch of enemies by throwing pommels at them?
That’s an actual thing. It’s called push of pike, they didn’t used shields, but they did push against each other so much that the dead were held up, and both sides faced massive casualties.
I would advance my ides tactical advantage by filling our first 3 rows with scarecrows so none of our gurs actually have to die in the push.
We could then build a way behind the corpses and spend the next 3 days throwing javelins and drinking tea.
Quite dangerous to be a demonstration assistant on this channel . . .
MrMonkeyLint he killed his future self.. did he!
His past self - he's closing the loop.
" we're going to need another Timmy!"
@@BobfromSydney seen something like that on Flash.
I've never liked the "push match" version of ancient warfare and this argument makes complete sense; it also explains why people clamored to be on the front row and how they often survived entire battles there (Leonidas or Epaminondas being two examples). Not just for the obvious reason of glory, but because they had the chance to make a lot of damage and test their prowess; they didn't think of themselves as merely crush spacers for a push match, but skilled fighters.
I'm not even familiar with this theory. Why do people even think it's true in the first place? What are the spears for? After the formation breaks?
+Mitch Johnson terrible time to be using a spear for, that
Mitch Johnson Like.. Victor Davis Hanson for one? It's super popular. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx#Pushing
Thanks. I'm sorry, but that sounds idiotic. The only reasons for the theory are etymology and that they can't account for phalanx depth? How about if a soldier goes down, there's someone to take his place? I respect Hanson, but this theory, as it's been presented here, sounds moronic. If they were pushing, someone would stab someone and then the other side would retaliate and then we'd have a real battle again.
Couldn't agree more. Like I believe Lloyd says here, it's not that it never happened but I highly doubt it was the objective of phalanx commanders.
THIS IS WHAT THE WORLD NEEDS, MORE THAN ONE OF THEM.
"You've got this very long thing in your hand" I know Lloyd, but can we talk about shieldwalls
thank you lindybeige for making a playlist. it makes it easier to watch several videos in a sitting. lindybinge, if you will.
In the fantasy book ''Left Hand of God'' there's a battle between a heavily armoured army and an army of warrior monks wielding shields. The knights are so confident they'll win that they simply charge in, and are stopped by the shield wall. The monks then proceed to drag soldiers through the wall and kill them with hammers (or mallets, don't remember correctly), while the opposing army is forced forward by the pressure of the confident fools in the back, so nobody at the front can escape. Perhaps not very accurate, but an interesting scenario.
+Moosehound Would you recommend the book as a whole? I'm interested.
It's a while since I read it, but I enjoyed it. It's heavy dark fantasy, with a nice dash of fucked up Christianity, because who doesn't love that! It's by Paul Hoffman.
+Moosehound
To be fair, the knights in that story did have to charge through a field of heavy mud before they got to the Monks. If it was hard ground, they would probably have run them over.
Probably. I haven't read that book in years, so I only remembered the premise of the battle. Still interesting, because it took into consideration factors not often used in fictional battles.
+Moosehound I remember that book it was good
3:36 oh my god, he multiplied
yes, I do have this really long thing in my hand
Because she can't see it because its too small and must hold it just to make sure its actually there
@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...
I was wandering why the green screen ahahahah
err..was it a green screen? i thought it was just his background and since the camera doesnt move he can just overlay the same footage on top of each other
Hum... maybe you're right. But I can see some weird effects when he moves, even before the second Lloyd appears
You are 100% correct, it is green screen. The Lindybeige on the right is in front of a green screen, while the other one was not.
Two obvious signs of green screen.
The green glow around the right person.
The spear goes through the left person, when he is in front of the couch, not behind it.
Bullshit. It's a LindyLookaLike
Ian Harries you don't think this brit figured out cloning? he had no problem killing him
I think your ideas are spot on, but I also just love this particular video because having the "assistant" was so damn funny. It didn't expect the guy on the left to "get killed" in the demo.
My reenactment experience and historic documentation supports you on this. In our melees we generally end up with both lines squaring off at spear length and sniping with spears or doing pulse charges (small parts of the line advancing then immediately retreating) until the other line is weak then performing a shield charge to break the enemy line. If you go right in for a charge the enemy spears weaken your charge and even though you usually gain ground, you lose manpower.
"Long stick with spike on end" has been used in warfare since forever, and I seriously doubt that means they used them in such close quarters, no matter how short they were.
The whole point is to get "him over there" before he gets you.
Sal sean In other words,
I doubt wars were fought using the "Hillsborough disaster" method.
Reenactors provide some clue as to how these fights may have gone. Yes, they will often have a clash where both sides slam into one another, but then they tend to back off.
When I was doing Viking reenactment we fought a little more than arm's reach apart - too far for knives, but just right for swords and axes. Swordsmen would stab over the shields, axemen would hook shields to open up the enemy, while spearmen in the second rank would be close in trying to poke through gaps, distract people or going for the shins.
This is possibly where the "shoving match" comes in. It's not so much about physically pushing as it is making the front rank back up. If the front rank starts pulling back, the second rank has to get out of their way, which means they aren't fighting. That might give you just enough breathing room to lop off a few heads, break a hole in the line, and all of a sudden you can turn a flank and wipe out a big chunk of the enemy shield wall!
So, how does this tie in with armies being many ranks deep? Well, if you've got 3-4 ranks of soldiers, then odds are your next two ranks aren't going to be physically pushing the first two - they'll be slightly further back, ready to move up and plug holes. Or, in the case above, to form a second shield wall and force me to repeat the fight all over again. Only this time my shield wall might have enemy shield walls to either flank, forcing me to either give up the ground we've made, or be surrounded and destroyed in turn.
And knowing the enemy has reserves might well change your initial tactics. If you know the moment you turn to surround a foe a fresh mob of enemies will run in and murder you, then you can't surround people - you have effectively been "pushed back", and must instead hack at the front rank of enemies until their reserves are depleted, or you can break through in so many places you won't get crushed in a counter-attack.
This, finally, offers some light as to what may have allowed ancient battles to go on so long. If both of our shield walls have essentially 2-3 more shield walls close behind, then once the first wave gets tired they can just slowly pull back in good order and let the next lot have their turn. Thus, when the enemy starts pulling back to replenish, you do the same. Ultimately, victory wouldn't be won the moment a single block of infantry are broken; you need to break them, then have the men and stamina remaining to break several more blocks in quick succession - something that is probably not going to happen until either late in the day, or as was commonly the case, when your cavalry can ride around the back and wipe out the shield walls waiting in reserve, thus denying the front rank any means to safely retreat!
Similar to the roman use of maniples*?
*not sure if I spelled that right
Quite possibly. There's some debate as to how the maniples worked, and some have questioned the chequered formation in battle due to individual maniples being easily flanked, but that kind of formation makes a lot of sense if you actually care about your troops and want them to have some means to get out of the fight. Plus, as I mentioned, flanking a hastatii maniple won't work if there's another maniple of princepes ready to flank you right back.
You can see this in some strategy games, where it is better to have a long, unbroken shield wall with part of your force not fighting at all than breaking up the line and risking an opening for enemy cavalry, or exposing yourself to missiles.
+Ronin Mahony OK, I'm gonna be that guy... Man nipples HAHAHA
+JasanQuinn So the initial charge-and-slam ... could that end a battle if one side wavers? if one side falters in that opening charge, would they break in the clash? I can see that happening actually: a first charge and if that fails, a gap forms and it drags out forever, until one side sees an advantage and manages to break the others lines (possibly by charging in a wedge at a weak spot). But if one side was "lesser" then it might not hold at the first charge. Does that make sense?
+JasanQuinn That makes a lot of sense. I would never rule out the huge clash and shoving match, as I've been told often about the troops being given a fairly large dose of hallucinogens etc. this couples with basic training and the sheer chaos of the moment - it could go that way I think. Largely I'm inclined to think along the same lines as you, there will be pieces to try and play out. Break shield wall, drag a guy out of it, hook them into your lines. Anything you can to make the little 3vs1 fights amidst the larger battle.
There were battles where the rear ranks pushed the front ranks. A famous example was Agincourt, and the result was a slaughter of the front ranks who got pushed.
This is getting out of hand. Now there are two of them!
Well 'now', ten years ago, whatever...
Found your channel today, Lindybeige, and I've been watching your videos for hours and hours! Absolutely brilliant, thank you for posting.
This is how battles of today should be fought, but with politicians in the front row.
How about we all just shoot at them! It'll be a real unifying activity for all the countries.
Could they take the place of the shields? We could just tell them "oh don't worry, you aren't going to be doing any fighting" before the battle.
Watch norsemen to see what happens to that kind of society
For the same weight of shield, a flat shield protects a wider arc. I suspect that the curve was for strength.
Lindy. Thank you, I have never seen someone so excited to be on screen with themselves and honestly its probably made my day.
The fact that Lloyd had a glowing aura in the video because of the lighting was foreshadowing how brilliant the channel was gonna be :D
*Gets in time machine to observe hoplite battles, returns to 21st century Dr. Who style* Turns out it was mish-mash of underarm and overarm spear usage. :P
Lloyd, you should make a commentary video over what the troops on the sides and rear of a phalanx did when faced with opposition. In Hellenistic Era depictions of pike phalanxes, even the men on the last row held a pike, what would they do if attacked from the side or behind? Abandon their phalanx, drop their pike and draw a sword? Hopefully you have some insight on this
TheThirdPtolemy couldn't the back rows just turn around and make a sort of rectangle.
Well round curved hoplite shield was called hoplon this means weapon in today modern Greek, as in ancient. We say panoply derived from hoplon meaning literally “with a lot of weapons on you”. So, the word keeping its original meaning even if used out of context.
Regarding the pushing part, the idea is not to stand still pushing each other. It’s to break formation of the other side, same time along the pressing you see in vases and such drawing 2 first lines trying to spear from up to down and 2 next rows extending spears going for underhits. Now granted this style will work miracles against not very cohesive units, it was not easy to pull with phalanx against phalanx and we know against Roman legions even when winning they were suffering great losses in many cases
I love this channel!! Lloyd you are. one of the best narrators on RUclips and your command on your audience is amazing!!
There is a lot of historical evidence that a too close formation is totaly lethal for an army.
Just think of Hannibals greatesd victory.
As he incircled the roman legions with his army, the lines of the ligenears became so tight that they coulnt move anymore and where just sloughtered of the spot.
Volunteer Lindy is my favourite Lindy
Lindy commentary is so good even 9 years back. This is so hilarious.
@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.
It is more difficult to get a large formation to run away, and a large formation can replace casualties for longer, and replace tired men at the front. It is also intimidating by its mere presence. If you can see three times as many men in front of you as are in your own unit, how would you feel?
Is that what they meant with the pushing match thing? I'd never seen it illustrated, honestly. I always thought they meant pushing match as a sort of metaphor for each side trying to push away (aka by basically making them break formation since they don't want to be stabbed in the face with a spear) the other side with a wall of spears. And that that's why the huge macedonian spears were that good. Because you'd have an even larger amount of spears aimed at the enemy at once.
And I'd always thought that that's why Hoplites were so formidable. Because any non-hoplite or heavily armoured individual without a tight formation would be like "fuck that, I'm not marching into that." But other hoplites would be wel armoured enough and be covered enough by the shield to make it harder for that to work.
There are actually Roman illustrations of Shieldwalls. One made in late 400's or early 500's Britain (or Gaul, though most historians seem to agree with the British theory) show two sides of Sub-Roman Britons (or Sub-Roman Gauls) fighting in a shield wall. They're relatively close, and basically just clobbering each other with swords, spears and even some people shooting bows and arrow.
Google "Vergilius Romanus" if you're curious. I'm not sure I can post the link here.
+Geong Leasere I would've never imagined a Roman shield wall doing the thing I described above anyway though. I mean, their armies were fairly different in armament, flexibility and tactics, no?
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/RomanVirgilFolio188v.jpg
^
www.ancient.eu/uploads/images/3012.jpg?v=1485680860
and read Arrianos Techne Taktike 16.13 and 12.10 :)
I find it glorious that youtube recommends me a video from 7 years ago. A Great Video at that!
Your channel is absolutely amazing, nothing makes me laugh as hard while it teaches me things.
I didn't... know people actually thought of the phalanx pushing match as a LITERAL pushing match, whenever I had it explained to me as "a pushing match" I always thought of it in a metaphorical sense since they'd have their spears out front and the two sides would be presenting this "armored porcupine" formation to each other, and your side would be trying to push your porcupine into the opponent without getting impaled on their porcupine, thus the metaphorical "pushing" that I always envisioned, and also the reason most phalanx battles had extremely low casualties because tbh having an "armored porcupine" of spears shoved into your face and your guys start dropping would be goddamn terrifying
I recall having heard that the romans used their large shields and short gladius for something like the situation you describe, but to their advantage: By forming shield wall, moving in close, real close to the enemy, to immobilize and keep them from using their spears, for the reason yuo sdescribe here, then stabbing with their gladius. Is this feasible?
nanuaraq0409 the Romans were professional soldiers, most Saxon farmers are not professional
the part where he introduces his "assistant" was more than enough a reason for me to hit like
@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.
What is your opinion on Benard Cornwell way of describing a shieldwall battle? When I read The Saxon Chronicles, the battles seemed quite real, not the usual "several duels" battlefield so often depicted.
People were actually killed doing formations like this in rugby, and that is why rugby has offside rules, Amercan football has the forward lateral pass, and both have rules against holding.
"I would knife YOU, sunshine." Ahahahahaha.
Another great point made. And the perfect mix of knowledgeableness and humor. Well done!
I absolutely love how he got the volunteer part down.
I think the confusion might come from a very different sort of shieldwall, of the sort employed by Norsemen and their ilk. Formations of men with shields pushing up against one another, but much more sensibly. Of course the point wasn't to push and crush eachother to death, but rather to both protect your fellows and get in close enough for your short weapons to do damage to your enemy. The idea that men would voluntarily crush their fellows to death in some sort of mad frontal press is one that would never be employed by any sane general.
*cough* Saxon Stories *cough*
Toussaint Gervais Someday I'll rule Bebbanburg...
Not if Uhtred or Finan have anything to say about it!
Malcolm Wright The most reasonable proponent of the push deigns that the aspis shield aids against suffocation, and of course, voluntarily crushing your own front lines would be utter madness.
You're ignoring some other potent understandings. Understandings which take the hoplite phalanx a step above it's norse friends. Wielding a spear overarm at the length of the dory, so 7-9', that is rear-weighted, allows three ranks at least to fight along the frontline at once. Push or no push, this allows the phalanx to employ three rows of spears to jab and thrust at the faces, necks, arms, hands, and shoulders of their norse counterparts if the two should ever come shield-to-shield.
It is not a *confusion*, it is a popular theory based on our understanding of how this particular ancient people fought. It does not require "*modern*" re-interpretation under vikings settings for some reason. Different equipment, different military ethos, different purpose behind the shieldwall.
Janas Aurora Question: Die the line behing the Front, in the norse shieldwall protect the Front line with their shield?
Crowds who shove cause someone to fall over, such as football crushes or religious festival tragedies. Nasty. And they can see well. Soldiers with helmets and shields can't see their feet very well at all. Result? Chaos.
Nope, no shoving.
Also, ritual and display. Not all battles were going to start off deadly, surely. There was show, name calling, challenges. Running away (me especially).
People were scared and it all depended on politics and just how serious the argument was. And how popular the bosses were.
Every battle would have been unique....terrain, causes, whatever.
Watch hunter gatherers have a fight with spears in New Guinea in recent times (rare now,sure but it happens) it can get ugly fast or end in lols and beer. But there is always a lot of show and theatre first.
+Sean Coyne some nice points here, additionally im sure casualties would have been low if a skirmish ever got serious, considering all the armor which would justify the greeks city states fighting relentlessly.
+Nik apart from the Second World War was the least bloody war in human history, by proportion
+Alistair Shaw ...really? Proportionately/bloody how?
+Alistair Shaw I don't think proportion works when you're talking about the "most bloody," blood isn't proportionate, when people say that they are referring literally to the amount of casualties on all sides, and WW2 wins by a mile
+Aaron Brougham but blood is proportionate. to the number of combatants. That is why the American civil war is the most deadly/bloody/casualty high war that America has ever fought, because everyone involved was American. Compared that to ww2 where I was trying to find numbers on this but as a proportion of Americas population (this bad, I wanted combat soldiers) the casualty rate was 0.3%.
I've been in the shield crush, the way we organised it was the front two ranks were shields, behind them were pikes, glaives, etc. who did all the killing. Two ranks of shields are easy to use spears over, (only about 1.5m thick). but they keep the two handers alive from arrows etc. until they get to killing range. When you're in the crush, your main job is to stay alive. You are pinned, so cannot swing a weapon with power, I used to use a weapon with a but-spike for the occasional target of opportunity, the blade was for parrying pikes trying to get over my shield. If you give your opponents space, they can do wedge charges, which break up the shieldwall, and then it's shooting fish in a battle for their pole-weapons. Also, it's a lot harder for their archers to separate friend from foe in the crush, as opposed to two separate lines.
A great article! It made me think of a few things:1:To see shield wall techniques in action, have a look at riot police dispersing a crowd.2: Ancient battles probably didn't last very long for exactly the reasons Lindy brings up.3: Discipline and training could alleviate the crushing problem. If your soldiers know how to march in step, back and forth, left and right; they might be less prone to shoving their colleagues to their demise.4: The front of a shield wall was a dangerous place to be. There is a reason the Romans didn't put many valuable veterans in the Hastati!5: I agree with the overall argument made here, if the shield wall battle was just a shoving match, both sides would have merely tallied up the numbers and yielded the field to the larger force without all that bloodletting and risk.
"getting 2 groups of men to form up, walk at each other, and almost certainly die." Well, that's a pretty good description of war, isn't it?
Not really, if a side starts losing they will retreat.
Dear Lindybeige, in what dimension did you film this? You look like a dead jedi ghost! :D
My understanding of the shield wall is to support the front rank in a similiar fashion to how a rugby player would support in a scrum.
Also i know the romans had a system in place where the front ranked soldier would withdraw to the rear once he got tired and so on a so forth so that fresh troops would always be fighting (it makes sense if you've ever sparred in a martial art before)
Great video man keep it up!
@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.
Listen to 3:45 to 4:22 with your eyes closed...
Your welcome ;)
you bastard XD LoL
You're*
YOU GOTS A TWIIN? :O ERR MAH GAD!
@PaulkyArcher They would sometimes stab low, yes, but that was when they had room to wield their shields. Here I am imagining that the shields of both sides are stuck up against each other.
As a viking reenactor, I can tell you how the skjaldborg works. The front line locks shields like scales on a fish, the polearms (Spears/dane axe) behind them. The goal is to open up a hole in their wall and strike. Axes and lugs on a boar spear are very good for that. Swords and seaxs are best used to exploit the gaps, and the reach of a sword really helps hit areas not immediately in front of you. The reach advantage isn't a big deal in duels, I've had no issues getting in to use my hand axe.
Are you in front of a greenscreen where the background is just some random institutional wall?
see 3:26
I broke three ribs in such a scrum at an event. They do it every bloody time.
The people, that is, not my ribs. Luckily.
John Lazenby was my tutor at the University of Newcastle. He was my lecturer for Hannibal's War and the Spartans.
lindybeige I very much blame RUclips'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!
How come LindyBeige is greenscreened on such a simple background?
are you recruiting assistants from a cloning vat?
Yes, shallow formations were used, but deeper ones have higher morale and stamina.
@BloodfromtheAshes We don't know. I may be doing a video about this, but not very soon.
300 wasn't even based on history. It was based on a graphic novel.
300 was based on a fictional novel which was based on real events.
Saito Touhara SO LOOSELY!
I always wonder how those Macedonians with those huge spears managed to stab a dude dead with those things. Obviously, it must have worked. They conquered half the world with it. I just don't quite get how. The Roman method I get. You get a short stabby sword and you stab the guy dead. Simple but those Macedonian things were like 16 feet long I think.
I think they were mainly used to keep enemy formations in place. The death blow was dealt by cavalry from behind. Hammer and Anvil tactics I think it's called.
Johannes De Grote Oh. That actually makes sense. Thanks.
Paul TheSkeptic I dont think it was anywhere near to half the world
Noah Severwright Well, not literally but from Greece to India is a pretty big damn empire for the time. It would've been half of the entire known world to the people of the time. I think it's fair to say that the people of Greece of that time have never heard of Japan but the learned among them would've known about India. Of course that's not precise but I meant it hyperbolically, not literally.
yeah i understand that it must have seemed incredibly big for people who could not go faster than horse riding
Maybe, what we are missing is the big picture. A phalanx would obviously need to be flexible, if formations are so tight that the frontline cannot be replaced, you might as well place army in rows and lines, 2 man deep. But the ones at front and supporting spears at 2nd will need water, medical help, some injured will need to be replaced without creating gaps in the line. So would the formation be a loose one? But if that happens, a suicidal enemy front row, could easily put their shields over their faces and run and bash at the gaps and they might get through, thus ruining the phalanx. A shoulder to shoulder formation would, however, create a big problem if someone dies, and soldiers wouldn't be able to replace broken spears, replace dead or injured, turn their bottom spear heads if the other is broken etc, as the line would be too rigid to do that.
I, personally, think that gaps in line or lack of it could be a deliberate thing the leaders of each row could order their soldiers to do.
each time I watch a video of yours, I always take some sort of new idea with me. Keep up the good work.
Then again, many people didn't go into battle hoping to defeat the enemy: They hoped to stay alive, so logic would say you stay behind the shield as much as possible.
Also you would think the goal of a battle on that time was to conquer land, which could then be used as a leverage when the negotiations for peace should happen. So trying to push the enemy seems logical... for an IT programmer and internet expert like me with zero knowledge in historical warfare.
Are you referring to pushing them from their land in a metaphorical way, or just pushing them away by using shields? Because frankly the latter wouldn't make any difference whatsoever in terms of conquered lands.
I meant "conquer land" as in gaining an advantage on battlefield over the enemy as in gaining a better foothold. "Conquer land" wasn't a very good way of saying this.
I understand now, but i don't know how conquering a vantage point from an army will do you much good other than securing the area, because i imagine most of the times that vantage point would be relevant in reference to the battlefield up front, and wouldn't do much good otherwise against a retreating army (but again, securing a vantage point was crucial in many battles, so maybe you do have a point there).
"Internet expert."
I don't even know what to say to that
I think the whole point of war is to kill the other dude. If the life expectancy of an enemy in the front rows isn't long, then mission accomplished right?
Antonella Weisner ur forgetting the main objective is really keeping your men alive
Antonella Weisner Both of you are wrong. Its a combination of both. you are supposed to take proportionately less casualties than the enemy whilst obtaining a specific objective, for instance, driving the enemy off a mountain.
All I know is, if I were a soldier, my first priority would be keeping *me* alive, and there's no way I would ever get in the front row of a horrifying mess like that voluntarily.
The general wish his soldiers were fearless killing machines. But they’re generally not, unless they’re religious fanatics or something. Money is a big motivation for many combatants. But money is not going to be any use if you’re going to die. So combatants want to fight wars without dying. So, if they’re in the front row and told “go shove yourself as hard as possible against the enemy”, chances are they won’t do it.
The thing to remember about the shieldwall is it requires training and discipline.
Training to get into formation correctly (especially since you will not always assume the same position each time, or face in the same direction as the direction of march, training to be able to move in this formation and replace those who fall out) and discipline to not break and run during combat.
You see examples of longer spears, which are great for the forward march, bulldozer effect. This means those longer spears can outdistance the shorter ones of the enemy, thus overwhelming the enemy formation into either losing their nerve and running, or killing enough troops and disorganizing them to the point where the phalanx marches on through.
In cases where the spears are relatively the same length, and if the soldiers have a variety of weapons (axes, swords, maces), you would likely see two lines form of shields facing each other, spear shafts extending across as fighters tried to take out faces and shins.
Conceivably, the Spartans, being so well trained and discipline, and religious fanatics, would have their formation drive forward and even go shield-to-shield in a pushing match. This would overwhelm a lesser disciplined and trained foe.
@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.
I agree that most of the time the front line didn't want to get into the shield wall pushing matches. But we know it was fairly common because the Romans effectively decided to give up on the spear thing entirely and JUST do a short sword and the shield wall. They must have been fairly confident that shield wall scenarios were going to be the norm rather than the exception.
The shield formation doesn't lend a lot of mobility to an individual troop. They get a little bit of side to side, but if they take too much they leave the guy beside them vulnerable. They basically can't back up because a back up would have to cascade backwards, they are blocked by the guy behind them. They most freely move forwards. If you're boxing with a guy two feet taller than you, there's a natural intuition that you don't want to stand right at the end of his punch range... Likewise, I think pretty quickly when people start getting stabbed, especially if your side seems like it's loosing, you want to move away from the most effective range of the pointy bits. You can't move back, but like the tall boxer, if you move forwards suddently his punches go over your head and not into your head.
I'd echo that most front lines that found themselves in this situation probably immediately regretted it, but I'd guess that all but the most disciplined skirmishes generally ended up in that state, because it's just the natural path of least resistance.
Knowing this, it's pretty clear why the Romans made the choice they did. If you have a bunch of guys in formation with shields they almost don't have any choice BUT to get into a shield wall pushing match.
Exactly. If you stay far away you're not going to be able to kill anyone very effectively. If you're too close, it'll turn into a shoving match.
For a second, I was thinking "holy crap, his twin looks JUST like him. Even for identical twins, that is impressive!". Then I was proven wrong, and I was reminded of my own stupidity...Great video though! Been binging your channel for a while now. Lots of great content and humour here! Thank you!
@300warrior300 In fights between Greek city states hoplites often fought against other hoplites.
@PaulkyArcher Getting low is dangerous. It is easy to reach over a shield and go for a vital part...
@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.
@kaindrg Yes.
I'm glad you bring this up, using practical demonstration. The reservations you mention can be overcome with a great deal of training and discipline, yet the average Greek hoplite would not have had that kind of training (unit training that is), because he was essentially a weekend warrior. He was a landowner who had a farm or some other business that he had to attend to during the course of the year, and could only campaign part time. For the most part he would also be going up against . . .
Top 10 most ambitious crossovers
Also loved how excited lindybeige2.0 seemed at the thought of being included in the video
The editing here is genius level. Brilliant.
Lindy! Great video as always, great food for thought. Victor Davis Hanson in several of his works used primary documentation to make the case for the "shoving match" version of events... and some of your objections for why the shoving match would be a bad idea are EXACTLY what happened frequently... The casualties in hoplite warfare are often HORRIBLY one-sided... first side to flinch or falter would get slaughtered... this happens to be close to the thesis of V.D.H.'s book "Western Way of War".
Arrianos Techne Taktike, 12.10 and 16.13. You're welcome :)
Get two shilds and try to knife your opponent when he is pushing you. Good luck.
Maby you look on new books like Adam Schwartz "Reinstating the Hoplite"
The main question, why is it so important that you have deep ranks, couldn't be answered without othismos.
Boar snout: It was a wedge formation of shields whose whole purpose was to break up an enemy shield line by running into the enemy shield wall and hope to punch through, breaking the wall. Yes, the head of the snout and his mates were most likely dead, but they were also 'heroes' as they probably won the battle for their side (or so they hoped). This is the only example I can think of where you'd get a 'crush' happen.
@Dalarna3 I would apply all that I say to Germanic shieldwalls as well. As to absorbing charges, I was making just the one point, and even that took me six minutes.
This has always been my viewpoint too. The other factor backing this is that a typical Hoplite's spear was pretty long - around 9-12ft. Even with a counterweight, such a spear would have a fair bit of itself protruding back behind the wielder. These spears also had rather pointy back-ends too. I can't imagine 8 rows of hoplites squashed that tightly together whilst holding such unwieldy weapons.
Firstly there would be no room to use them, and secondly you are very likely to take the eyes out of the chaps behind you (assuming over arm was the order of the day, but that's another discussion :) ).
Anyone who has ever been at a concert near the front row when "the main band" comes on-stage knows how horrifying it is during "the crunch" as everyone else tries to get as close as possible. Your lungs are compressed. It becomes hard to breathe. You can't move any direction. You start wondering whether you might get hurt, or die... at a concert.
Now imagine the same thing in a war. Who would willingly be in the front line when you're as likely to be killed by the row behind you as you are the enemies in front? That's suicide. Especially considering a bunch of strong men wearing heavy armor and weaponry are pushing a heck of a lot harder than a bunch of fans at a concert just trying to get a good view.
I imagine a similar scenario would be a bunch of people trying to leave through a blocked fire escape during a fire. People die in those scenarios! How much worse would an active battle be!
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.
@kaindrg A Greek hoplite phalanx was a type of shieldwall.
@PaulkyArcher When someone is within arm's reach, the shorter the weapon the more lethal, as long is it is long enough to reach to an artery.
@PaulkyArcher When you are that close, you are not attacking from the front with the dagger. You reach over his shield, so ducking doesn't help.
@OMGWTFBBQ357 The shape of it makes sense without this extra purpose. It makes it strong and balanced.
That clone lindy made me burst out laughing great video as always brother
Spartans were taught to pull their shields back against the man next to him. I agree here. I don't see 2 sides in a pushing match if most were pulling their shields actively back against the man next to him. And the Spartans would make a wall of shields and just spear the hell out of any in range. If they lost their spear, they had their sword. I don't see a pushing match benefiting either side. The weapons alone tells that they kept at range. The wouldn't get right up close with a spear. It's not used for that. Idk. I agree Lindy has it right and the others not so much. Great vid, and great work as always! Love your channel. Cheers
You've got this very, very long thing in your hand.
-Lloyd, 2011
This is the funniest of your videos, keep up the good work
The winner of a phalanx battle 'turned the flank' of the enemy. This was done through the use of terrain and good planning. Alexander was very good at planning and using terrain to his advantage. Alexander also used an integrated army (his army had more than token light infantry and heavy cavalry) of more than one weapon system (Heavy Infantry, Light Infantry, and Heavy Cavalry.)