By the middle of the seventh century BCE, a new style of warfare appeared in Greece requiring a warrior (hoplite, named after his large round shield or hoplon) to fight in close-order, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with his comrades in a battle square. This battle square, called a phalanx, distinguished itself from other heavy infantry formations in the ancient and classical world in that it would evolve into a comparatively articulated weapon system capable of some offensive tactical mobility. How and when this change in emphasis from individual to collective action on the Greek battlefield took place is still a matter of debate, although modern scholars point to either Corinth or Pylos as the originator of hoplite warfare. The revival of trade routes and the beginning of Greek colonization in the early Archaic Period (c.800-c.500 BCE) led to economic prosperity in the Greek mother-cities, prosperity which allowed an increasing number of farmers to equip themselves with helmets, armor, greaves, and shields, and take their place in the battle line. By the beginning of the Hellenic era (c.500-338 BCE), the Greeks possessed the greatest heavy infantry in the ancient world at the time, one employed against the invading Persians during the Greco-Persian War (499-449 BCE), and in the two Peloponnesian wars against one another later in the century.

But how did the Greek hoplite armies engage in battle with one another?  Organized in rank-and-file, with the rank forming the width of the frontage of the formation and the file its depth. The precise constitution of the Greek phalanx depended on the frontage and depth of the enemy formation. Thucydides (460-395 BCE) tells us in his History of the Peloponnesian War that the files were usually eight men deep, but shallower and deeper phalanxes were used at different times in Greek warfare depending on the battle conditions.  Herodotus (c.484-425 BCE) tells us at Marathon in 490 BCE, the Athenians stretched the frontage of their phalanx to meet the width of the Persian lines, requiring a shallow of its dept. Under ordinary circumstances the hoplite force advanced into battle in a compact mass, at a slow step accompanied by music from flute players and shouting battle cries before contact. When the hoplite formation met the enemy, it initially relied on some version of shock tactics, with shields clashing and spears stabbing downward in what the classical Greek authors describe as othismos.

Top photo: Chigi Vase. Hoplites go to battle at the sounds of music. Proto-Corinthian olpe from 650-640 BCE and discovered in an Etruscan tomb at Monte Aguzzo. National Etruscan Museum of Villa Giulia, Rome. Public Domain, click to enlarge.

Middle photo: Calyx krater from Pharsalus, Greece, in black-figure style, c.530 BCE. Homeric battle around the body of a dead warrior, probably Patroclus. Four-horse chariot. In the manner of Exekias. From Farsala. National Archaeology Museum, Athens. Public Domain, click to enlarge.

Bottom photo: Two Greek hoplites demonstrating an overhand and underhand thrust of the doru or Greek thrusting spear. Public Domain, click to enlarge.

When tactical experimentation did take place, it usually involved an increase in the depth of the file of the phalanx rather than a broadening of the rank or frontage of the formation.   Common belief held that by increasing the depth of the phalanx, greater momentum could be gained in the initial collision, but the philosophy that more was better was not universally held.  Xenophon (c.430-354 BCE), an accomplished Athenian soldier and military historian, once asked, “When a phalanx is too deep for the men to reach the enemy with their weapons, what harm do you think they do to the enemy or good to their friends?” With the widespread adoption of identical tactical principles, a cult of symmetry arose in Hellenic hoplite warfare. The idea of tactical symmetry on the battlefield goes back to Bronze Age chariot-based aristocratic warfare, but the ethos was reinforced with Homer’s portrayal of Achilles battling man-to-man with Hector outside the walls of Troy. This infatuation with individual shock combat was projected onto collective warfare in the Archaic and Hellenic periods.  Inasmuch as light infantry was not an acceptable battlefield weapon system for the Greek citizen-soldier (except to screen hoplites as they formed from column to square), phalanx-versus-phalanx combat became the preferred mode of warfare in Greece at the exclusion of other means of killing.

Although the term othismos has multiple meanings, they all focus on the word “push.”  Modern scholars’ debate on whether it was a literal push by the armies or more of a figurative one.  A view advocated by Victor Davis Hanson and others takes a more literal interpretation of the classical sources and argues the othismos was a giant push between the two armies, with hoplites pushing shield against shield to wear down their enemy and break through their lines. This analysis of the othismos is often compared to a scrum in the game of rugby. An alternative view advocated by Adrian Goldsworthy and Christopher Matthew relies on a more figurative approach to the sources and claims that the combat was a more controlled affair between the first ranks of the phalanx, with the rear ranks present to maintain cohesion in the phalanx as it moved into position and to provide some reinforcements when infantry in the forward ranks fell. In this view, shield-pushes did take place, but here the shield should be seen as both offensive and defensive instrument used in conjuncture with the short thrusting spear, rather than a bronze, wood, and leather battering ram.

During the Second Peloponnesian War (431-404 BCE), Thucydides described the moment of impact between Athenian and Boetotian hoplites at the battle of Delium in 424 BCE as “shield against shield.” Xenophon described a similar account of Spartan and Theban phalanxes colliding at the battle of Coronea in 394 BCE. These are examples of the phalanx using othismos in a literal way.  However, there are many accounts that focus on hoplite combat being more of a figurative push, and “shield against shield” describes the shield wall that occurred from the formation in which the hoplites were standing in. Some battle accounts, such as at the “Tearless Battle” in 368 BCE state the Spartans inflicted their first casualties on the Argives once they were in range of their spears, suggesting that until that moment, the armies had not touched each other, so a literal push probably did not take place. Perhaps the truth is somewhere in between, with both versions of this violent moment of impact taking place at different times during this dynamic era of Greek warfare. The othismos debate illustrates different approaches to military history by well-meaning scholars trying to unlock how classical Greek hoplites engaged in battle, but in the end, they are only educated guesses.

Suggested Readings:

Primary sources

Strassler, Robert B., ed. The Landmark Thucydides. Free Press, 2008.

_____. The Landmark Xenophon's Hellenika. Anchor, 2010.

Secondary sources

Goldsworthy, Adrian K. "The othismos, myths and heresies: the nature of hoplite battle." War in History 4, no. 1 (1997): 1-26.

Hanson, Victor Davis. The Western Way of War: Infantry battle in Classical Greece. Univ of California Press, 2009.

Matthew, Christopher. A Storm of Spears: Understanding the Greek Hoplite at War. Grub Street Publishers, 2012.