The Myth of the Phalanx-Scrimmage Author(s): A. D. Fraser Source: The Classical Weekly, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Oct.

12, 1942), pp. 15-16 Published by: Classical Association of the Atlantic States Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4341528 . Accessed: 15/08/2013 13:09
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Classical Association of the Atlantic States is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Classical Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 65.88.88.42 on Thu, 15 Aug 2013 13:09:57 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CLASSICAL

WEEKLY

15

THE MYTH OF THE PHALANX-SCRIMMACGE

It has long been a generallyacceptedbelief among studentsof Greekhistoryand antiquitiesthat the main function of the Greek phalanx in the classicalperiod was that of pushing, by physical force, its opponent from the field. In the process-not entirelyaccidentally were sustained -wounds mortaland non-mortal by the membersof the opposingforces.This was perhapsinevitablein view of the great numberof lethal weapons which was employed and somewhatrecklesslybrandished. And when one of the phalanxes had been pushed from off the designatedarea of the battlefield, it must needs requestpermissionto take up its dead. The successfulpushers,meanwhile,gatheredup their own fellowswho had fallenand erecteda trophy. The case has recentlybeen well expressed by the late ProfessorW. J. Woodhouse: "A conflict of hoplites was, in the main, a matter of brawn,of shock of the as a steady thrust with mass developedinstantaneously the wholeweight of the file behindit-a literalshoving of the enemy off the groundon which he stood."This was in 1933. As remotelyas the Napoleoniceraa similar judgment was expressedby W. Mitford (History of Greece 1784-I8Io). Innumerablerepetitions of the fundamentalidea have occurred in the interval of nearly a century and a half. The date and circumstancesof its birth may not be destituteof significance. The armies of Europe were at the time abandoning hand-to-handfighting for a conflict in which musket and cannonplayeda leadingpart.A theory of warfare that arises in a noteworthyperiod of armed strife is usually destinedto enjoy a long life. The era of its origin stamps it with the professional and, therefore, seal. authoritative In England,where the acceptedtheory of phalanxfighting seems to have arisen,there is, I think, a more or less clear mental association between the workings of the phalanxand of the Rugby football scrimmage. In this sport, the ball when held does not remain,as in the American game, the "property"of the side holding, but falls instead into a state of neutrality. Beforethe ball is put into play, the forwards(seven, sometimeseight, in number) form a compact threerank wedge, heads down and arms tightly embracing the shouldersnearest. The wedges then push hard against each other while the ball is rolled in beneath their feet by a quarterback. The side exercisingthe more powerfulthrust is likely to win immediatepossessionof the ball. An analysisof the phalanx-scrimmage might be expressed in terms somewhat as follows: The hostile armiesadvanceto meet each other in formationthat is normallyeight men deep. The hoplitesare all similarly equippedwith the protectionof helmet, shield, corslet and greaves;with, for offensiveweapons, sword and spear. When the sides make contact, the front-rank opponentscome almost, but not quite, into physical touchwith one another.As shieldpresses againstshield, their bodies are not more than a foot or two apart. Each member of the file pushes against the man in front of him. By virtue of this rear-to-front pressure, the battlelineof either side becomes compressed to a thicknessof not aboveI5 or 20 feet, and the front-liners are subjectedto a degreeof squeezingthat is distressing to contemplate. Though the men of the rearranks are similarlyequippedwith those of the front, their for their weaponsare valueless; there is no opportunity use. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of any sort of play with spearor swordwhen the combatants are bent forward,heads down, and pushing for dear life. Still the processof shoving goes on till one or the other army is pushed "from the field"-whatever that may a trucefor the recoveryof mean.Thereupon it requests its dead; for dead there are, sometimeshundredsof them, despitethe seeminglyharmless natureof the engagement. The realistmight suggest severalobviousshort-cuts to victory: (i) Let one side bear back suddenly.The would fall on their faces; those opposingfront-rankers behind them would stumble over them, and they could be cut to pieces before they could regain their feet. (2) Light-armedforces, sent round the flank, could decimatethe enemy while engaged in the game of shoving.There areother possibilities as well, but we hear of none of them in history. The traditional belief is sadly at fault somewhere. The machinebreaksdown when put to the first test. we have the clearevidenceof the Attic vaseMoreover, paintings where innumerablebattle scenes are portrayed without an example of "compactorder, shield againstshield." On what was the belief founded?On very little, it but three literaryreferences:(i) Thucydides appears, (1.6.70) in his accountof the battle near the Olympeium says: "The Argives at first pushed back the left wing of the Syracusans." But the expression 'pushback' in many languages and its equivalent are commonmilitary parlance, and in latterdays it is sometimes used of foes who neverso much as sight one another.(2) Accordingto one accountof the battle of Leuctra,when the Theban phalanx,50 men deep, struckthe Spartan line of twelve,the issuewas in doubt till Epaminondas criedto his men: "Obligeme with one step more,and we shall have the victory." They obeyed, and the Spartanline yielded.Nothing of this is said, however, by the respectable authorsXenophon (Hell. 6.4.3-I5), Diodorus (I5.53-6), Plutarch (Pelop. 20-3), and

This content downloaded from 65.88.88.42 on Thu, 15 Aug 2013 13:09:57 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

16
Pausanias (9.13.2-10).

CLASSICAL
It is in the child-minded chatter-

WEEKLY viding reserves;the secondarywas to preventa break through at any point by the enemy. With the deep formationof 25, or upwards, an abundance of reserves was availablein a stage of warfarethat had not yet done more than play with the idea of a mobile body of reserves. The true pictureseems to be this: advancingto the conflict, each front-line man sought out the warrior over againsthim and at once engaged him in combat. In the broiling Greek sun, the combatants,wearing moderatelyheavy armor and exerting every effort to kill or disable the foe, must have been close to exhaustionat the end of five minutesof fighting. A polo pony is relievedafter a 7:/2 minute chukker;a boxer
rests after three minutes' activity; a football player is in

box Polyaenus(2.3.4) that the story occurs.Truly the of 37I B.C. must have been veritable supermen Spartans to have stood for a moment underodds of four to one. accountof the battleof Delium (4.96) (3) Thucydides' is regardedas the ulitmate proof. "The center," he says, "wasin mighty conflict,with pushing of shields ... but the right wing, where the Thebans were, was too strong for the Athenians,and pushing them back little by little followed them." We may dismiss the latter part, for the presenceof the word E7rToKoXOV00VV makes it clear that the processof shoving is not here in question.The crux of the matterlies in the expression 0W'&w dartov. If the authorhad taken thought the picture would be to add 7rpoa' art8a 7roEAILLCov, immediatelyclarified. But the road to obscuritybegins in brevity here as usually, and we are left with imsuch choices as (i) what the usual interpretation plies, (ii) shield pushing against shield of fellowsoldierso as to form a solid front, (iii) confusionof ranks.And theremay be other possibilities. Thus the supposedevidence of literatureproves on to be valueless.What then was the funcexamination tion of the rearranks, and what was the merit of the 25-rankformationof Delium, the 5o-rankof Leuctra? The answerthat common sense dictatesis that the primaryfunction of the rear ranks was that of pro-

action five seconds,then rests for a hundred.So the warrior has soon to dropto the rearand be replaced by a relief. Also the woundedand dead can be replaced only from the rear ranks. With the great body of reservesinvolvedin the Theban phalanx,a streamof men, freshand uinimpaired in strength,couldbe poured to the front every minute to take the place of those whose energieswere beginning to flag. At Leuctrait was a case of a team of twelve playing one with three completeteamsof substitutes in reserve. A. D. FRASER
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

REVIEWS
Jesus in the Light of History. By A. T.
STEAD. XiV,

OLM-

New 317 pages, 3 maps. Scribner's,

York1942

$2.75

"Must Jesus always be to us a dimly recognizable cloudsof doubt?" figure,seenvaguelythroughwavering Olmsteadthinks not, and in this new study Professor history of (writtenoriginallyas chaptersin a projected and forming the Near East fromCyrusto Muhammad, delivered of the author'sHaskellLectures the substance School of Theology in I940) to the OberlinGraduate
he attempts the portrayal of what he considers to be the historical Jesus. "Who was Jesus of Nazareth? When did he live? Where was his home? What was his environment? How did he act? What did he teach? Why did he die?" These are the questions which Olmstead sets out to answer. "At long last," he claims, "Jesus makes his own appearance in the full light of history." According to this latest portrayal Jesus was born in Nazareth around 20 B.C., the firstbom son of Joseph and Mary. Upon Joseph's death Jesus succeeded to his father's trade, serving as the village joiner until he was almost fifty years of age. Late in the year 28 A.D. reports concerning the preaching of John the Baptist

reachedNazareth. Interestedby what he heard,Jesus sought out John and was baptized by him about DecemberX of that year. With the baptismcame the awareness that he too, like John, "hadbeen summoned to carry on God's work," although neither then nor at any time did Jesus experiencewithin himself any tracesof Messianicconsciousness. The opening of Jesus'ministry was markedby his teachingin the synagoguein Nazaretha few days latet (December i8, 28 A.D.). This date Olmsteadregards as definitely establishedon the basis of the triennial cycle of scripture readingsemployedin the synagogue. The passageread by Jesuswas that set for the 62nd Sabbath of the cycle which commencedon the first Sabbath following the terminationof the Feast of Tabernacles on October 13, 27 A.D. Rejected by his townsfolk,Jesuswent about in Galileepreachingand ministeringto the sick. The Passover of 29 A.D. (April i8) found him in Jerusalem, wherehe drewto himself the favor of the pilgrimsand the wrath of the highpriestlygroupby "cleansing" the templearea. There followed a period of attempted withdrawal from the public eye. Danger threatenedfrom two from the high-priestsin Jerusalem quarters, and from HerodAntipas,who saw in Jesusa prophetand popular leadereven more to be feared than John the Baptist.

This content downloaded from 65.88.88.42 on Thu, 15 Aug 2013 13:09:57 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions