The Myth of the Phalanx-ScrimmageAuthor(s): A. D. FraserSource: The Classical Weekly, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Oct. 12, 1942), pp. 15-16Published by: Classical Association of the Atlantic StatesStable 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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof 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 accessto The Classical Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

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

CLASSICAL WEEKLY 15

THE MYTH OF THE PHALANX-SCRIMMACGE It has long been a generally accepted belief among

students of Greek history and antiquities that the main function of the Greek phalanx in the classical period was that of pushing, by physical force, its opponent from the field. In the process-not entirely accidentally -wounds mortal and non-mortal were sustained by the members of the opposing forces. This was perhaps in- evitable in view of the great number of lethal weapons which was employed and somewhat recklessly brand- ished. And when one of the phalanxes had been pushed from off the designated area of the battlefield, it must needs request permission to take up its dead. The successful pushers, meanwhile, gathered up their own fellows who had fallen and erected a trophy.

The case has recently been well expressed by the late Professor W. J. Woodhouse: "A conflict of hoplites was, in the main, a matter of brawn, of shock of the mass developed instantaneously as a steady thrust with the whole weight of the file behind it-a literal shoving of the enemy off the ground on which he stood." This was in 1933. As remotely as the Napoleonic era a similar judgment was expressed by W. Mitford (History of Greece 1784-I8Io). Innumerable repetitions of the fundamental idea have occurred in the interval of nearly a century and a half. The date and circum- stances of its birth may not be destitute of significance. The armies of Europe were at the time abandoning hand-to-hand fighting for a conflict in which musket and cannon played a leading part. A theory of warfare that arises in a noteworthy period of armed strife is usually destined to enjoy a long life. The era of its origin stamps it with the professional and, therefore, authoritative seal.

In England, where the accepted theory of phalanx- fighting seems to have arisen, there is, I think, a more or less clear mental association between the workings of the phalanx and 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. Before the ball is put into play, the forwards (seven, sometimes eight, in number) form a compact three- rank wedge, heads down and arms tightly embracing the shoulders nearest. The wedges then push hard against each other while the ball is rolled in beneath their feet by a quarterback. The side exercising the more powerful thrust is likely to win immediate pos- session of the ball.

An analysis of the phalanx-scrimmage might be ex- pressed in terms somewhat as follows: The hostile armies advance to meet each other in formation that is normally eight men deep. The hoplites are all similarly equipped with the protection of helmet, shield, corslet

and greaves; with, for offensive weapons, sword and spear. When the sides make contact, the front-rank opponents come almost, but not quite, into physical touch with one another. As shield presses against shield, 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 battleline of either side becomes compressed to a thickness of not above I5 or 20 feet, and the front-liners are subjected to a degree of squeezing that is distress- ing to contemplate. Though the men of the rear ranks are similarly equipped with those of the front, their weapons are valueless; there is no opportunity for their use. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of any sort of play with spear or sword when the combatants are bent forward, heads down, and pushing for dear life. Still the process of shoving goes on till one or the other army is pushed "from the field"-whatever that may mean. Thereupon it requests a truce for the recovery of its dead; for dead there are, sometimes hundreds of them, despite the seemingly harmless nature of the en- gagement.

The realist might suggest several obvious short-cuts to victory: (i) Let one side bear back suddenly. The opposing front-rankers would fall on their faces; those behind them would stumble over them, and they could be cut to pieces before they could regain their feet. (2) Light-armed forces, sent round the flank, could decimate the enemy while engaged in the game of shoving. There are other possibilities as well, but we hear of none of them in history.

The traditional belief is sadly at fault somewhere. The machine breaks down when put to the first test. Moreover, we have the clear evidence of the Attic vase- paintings where innumerable battle scenes are por- trayed without an example of "compact order, shield against shield."

On what was the belief founded? On very little, it appears, but three literary references: (i) Thucydides (1.6.70) in his account of the battle near the Olympei- um says: "The Argives at first pushed back the left wing of the Syracusans." But the expression 'push back' and its equivalent in many languages are common mili- tary parlance, and in latter days it is sometimes used of foes who never so much as sight one another. (2) Ac- cording to one account of the battle of Leuctra, when the Theban phalanx, 50 men deep, struck the Spartan line of twelve, the issue was in doubt till Epaminondas cried to his men: "Oblige me with one step more, and we shall have the victory." They obeyed, and the Spartan line yielded. Nothing of this is said, however, by the respectable authors Xenophon (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 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

16 CLASSICAL WEEKLY

Pausanias (9.13.2-10). It is in the child-minded chatter- box Polyaenus (2.3.4) that the story occurs. Truly the Spartans of 37I B.C. must have been veritable supermen to have stood for a moment under odds of four to one. (3) Thucydides' account of the battle of Delium (4.96) is regarded as the ulitmate proof. "The center," he says, "was in 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 presence of the word E7rToKoXOV00VV

makes it clear that the process of shoving is not here in question. The crux of the matter lies in the expres- sion 0W'&w dartov. If the author had taken thought to add 7rpoa' art8a 7roEAILLCov, the picture would be immediately clarified. But the road to obscurity be- gins in brevity here as usually, and we are left with such choices as (i) what the usual interpretation im- plies, (ii) shield pushing against shield of fellow- soldier so as to form a solid front, (iii) confusion of ranks. And there may be other possibilities.

Thus the supposed evidence of literature proves on examination to be valueless. What then was the func- tion of the rear ranks, and what was the merit of the 25-rank formation of Delium, the 5o-rank of Leuctra?

The answer that common sense dictates is that the primary function of the rear ranks was that of pro-

viding reserves; the secondary was to prevent a break through at any point by the enemy. With the deep formation of 25, or upwards, an abundance of reserves was available in a stage of warfare that had not yet done more than play with the idea of a mobile body of reserves.

The true picture seems to be this: advancing to the conflict, each front-line man sought out the warrior over against him and at once engaged him in combat. In the broiling Greek sun, the combatants, wearing moderately heavy armor and exerting every effort to kill or disable the foe, must have been close to ex- haustion at the end of five minutes of fighting. A polo pony is relieved after a 7:/2 minute chukker; a boxer rests after three minutes' activity; a football player is in action five seconds, then rests for a hundred. So the warrior has soon to drop to the rear and be replaced by a relief. Also the wounded and dead can be replaced only from the rear ranks. With the great body of reserves involved in the Theban phalanx, a stream of men, fresh and uinimpaired in strength, could be poured to the front every minute to take the place of those whose energies were beginning to flag. At Leuctra it was a case of a team of twelve playing one with three complete teams of substitutes in reserve.

A. D. FRASER

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

REVIEWS Jesus in the Light of History. By A. T. OLM-

STEAD. XiV, 317 pages, 3 maps. Scribner's, New York 1942 $2.75

"Must Jesus always be to us a dimly recognizable figure, seen vaguely through wavering clouds of doubt?" Professor Olmstead thinks not, and in this new study (written originally as chapters in a projected history of the Near East from Cyrus to Muhammad, and forming the substance of the author's Haskell Lectures delivered to the Oberlin Graduate School of Theology in I940)

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 Olm- stead 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. re- ports concerning the preaching of John the Baptist

reached Nazareth. Interested by what he heard, Jesus sought out John and was baptized by him about December X of that year. With the baptism came the awareness that he too, like John, "had been summoned to carry on God's work," although neither then nor at any time did Jesus experience within himself any traces of Messianic consciousness.

The opening of Jesus' ministry was marked by his teaching in the synagogue in Nazareth a few days latet (December i8, 28 A.D.). This date Olmstead regards as definitely established on the basis of the triennial cycle of scripture readings employed in the synagogue. The passage read by Jesus was that set for the 62nd Sabbath of the cycle which commenced on the first Sabbath following the termination of the Feast of Tabernacles on October 13, 27 A.D. Rejected by his townsfolk, Jesus went about in Galilee preaching and ministering to the sick. The Passover of 29 A.D. (April i8) found him in Jerusalem, where he drew to himself the favor of the pilgrims and the wrath of the high- priestly group by "cleansing" the temple area.

There followed a period of attempted withdrawal from the public eye. Danger threatened from two quarters, from the high-priests in Jerusalem and from Herod Antipas, who saw in Jesus a prophet and popular leader even more to be feared than John the Baptist.

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