The Harmodios blow

I recently re-read a paper on Greek swordsmanship:

“Footwork in Ancient Greek Swordsmanship”
Brian F. Cook, Metropolitan Museum Journal, Vol. 24 (1989), pp. 57-64

In this paper an overhead strike is discussed. With minor variations it appears as below.



From the paper:

“The so-called "Harmodios blow" studied by Shefton, who coined the useful term by which it is now fairly generally known. This is a slashing movement named for the action of Harmodios in the marble statuary group of the Tyrant-slayers best known from a Roman copy in Naples. The moment most frequently represented is the point of stillness when the sword- hand has been raised head-high with the sword pointing backward over the shoulder in readiness for a downward slash. The blow may be delivered either forehand (Figure 1) or backhand (Figure 2). Philip Lancaster, of the Department of Edged Weapons at the Tower of London, who kindly gave advice on some practical aspects of swordsmanship, pointed out that this movement would be hazardous under normal combat conditions: not only is there some danger that it would put a swordsman off balance, but the action would also leave the sword-arm unprotected and vulnerable. B. B. Shefton had already noted that the sword when raised could not be used for parrying, and that in close combat the blow therefore required careful timing. It would have been particularly dangerous for a Greek hoplite in leaving the armpit exposed above the edge of the cuirass.' A further disadvantage of the Harmodios blow is that it was less effective than a thrust against a well-equipped opponent: it would probably have been resisted even by a padded linen corselet, which would have been vulnerable to a thrust, and would certainly have been ineffective against a metal cuirass." In combat, then, the Harmodios blow can only have been a desperate measure, employed when the vulnerability it imposed was outweighed by a greater danger.”

“Finding no examples of the use of the Harmodios blow before the closing years of the sixth century B.C.,' Shefton connected it with the introduction of the spatulate sword, a more versatile weapon than the straight-edged sword, which is most effective in an underhand stabbing or thrusting movement. It is around the same time that warriors began to be represented in Attic red-figure in a stance that, al- though it soon became conventional, may reflect the kind of simple drill-movement for which no literary evidence survives. The movement is in fact so simple that no specific comment was made by ancient authors: like so many minor details of life, it was too familiar at the time to call for explanation.”

Now the above may all be true, but the Harmodios may not have been so dangerous and unlikely as thought by the authors above. In fact the Harmodios blow might be one of the few strikes available to men who are standing in synaspismos, close order with overlapping shields. If men are in close as I have described previously, shield to shield, then the right arm needs to not only strike in this fashion, but also move in this way to ward the head. I have been experimenting with how one could fight in so close, with only the raised right arm given freedom of movement. The answer is very much like the harmodios blow. Better yet would be to adopt a shorter blade like the Spartans may have done.



An interesting note on swords is that the sword (xiphos) is slung in a sheath high under the left arm, almost like a shoulder-holster for a pistol. I have been told by hoplite reenactors that this makes drawing the sword much easier in the confined space of a fighting phalanx. The manner of hanging the sheath may thus be yet another feature of the panoply designed for fighting in crowded conditions.

More on crowd pressures

Here is some information from a paper on the pressures generated by crowds:

"Prediction of human crowd pressures"
Accident Analysis and Prevention 38 (2006) 712–722
Ris S.C. Lee, Roger L. Hughes

In situations where pedestrians are crushed, the density of the crowd is extremely high and the physical movement of pedestrians is almost impossible. When crushing occurs, the high pressures developed within the crowd, which can bend steel barriers or push down brick walls, can be unbearable to some members of the crowd, producing fatalities from asphyxiation while still standing. Generally, the highest pressures are felt by those pedestrians near any barrier that is checking the advance of the crowd. Such pressures will gradually restrict these people from breathing. Each time a breath is exhaled the weight of the load restricts inhalation of the next breath. A slow death caused by suffocation usually follows, unless rescue is immediate. The internal pressure in a crowd on the time scale of a minute or so is thus the critical criterion for determining the likelihood of an accident involving crushing in the crowd. Tests on live subjects conducted by Evans and Hayden (1971) found that the tolerable force was typically 623N for men when pushed against a 100mm wide flat bar. This force increased to typically 800N when the subject was allowed to push against the bar to reduce loading on his rib cage. For women, Evans and Hayden (1971) reported the tolerance levelwas significantly less. Apart from Evans and Hayden (1971), studies on exploring the magnitude of loadings that could cause crush asphyxia found that death was estimated to have occurred 15 seconds after a load of 6227 N and 4–6 min after 1112 N was applied, see Hopkins et al. (1993). It should be noted that loadings of such as these magnitudes are affected by various factors including age, gender and anatomical build.

From the paper we can see the crushing force generated by the crowd at a rock concert over time (the lighter plot is a prediction, ignore it).



The amount of pressure that is fatal to a human varies depending on the duration, since the asphyxiation can occur over time as described above. Very high pressure (6000+ N) can be almost immediately lethal. From the plot above we can see that over the time period of recording from 5-10 minutes, the crowd pressure was almost never below 800N and reached a peak of 1,500N. Since 623-800N were described as a tolerable limit above, and pressures of 1112N lethal, this crowd would have been intolerable and potentially lethal for most of the period. In the concert many people had to be passed out of the crowd and treated by medical professionals.

From another paper:

“Experiments to investigate the level of ‘comfortable’
loads for people against crush barriers”
R.A. Smith*, L.B. Lim
Safety Science 18 (1995) 329-335

The same authors measured loads at several ‘pop concerts’, where at one they measured
instantaneous peak values of up to 4.2 kN/m, 30-second average values up to 1.8 kN/m
and sustained loadings of typically 1.5 kN/m lasting for 10 minutes. Throughout the first half of an act the sustained average load was 0.8 to 1 kN/m. During the concert, people pressed against the barriers and in distress were rescued by being pulled over the barriers and being treated by medical staff.

This paper had an interesting figure that showed how the pushing force could vary with the degree to which men leaned forward against the man ahead. How this would correlate with forces that hoplite would generate is not really known, but the important thing is to note that the behavior of the men in the crowd can alter the amount of pressure generated. As few as 4-8 men are producing lethal pressures (note the scale of the y-axis is Kilonewtons (1,000N). This data is not even from an especially dense crowd, they can be almost double that density and proportionally more deadly.




The importance of this graph is that it shows that through behavior the amount of force generated by a crowd can be increased. Here simply leaning forward more transmits more force forward. The implication is that through training men can transfer greater force forward more efficiently. This, and other behaviors, is how the system can be tweeked to produce more with training.

Modeling hoplite combat

I have, after years of trying off and on, finally gotten in contact with Rob McDermott. If you have not seen his simulation of hoplite combat take a look:

http://www.ddv.co.nz/hoplites/

There are many elements that could be added to raise the realism of the model, but the most important thing is to show how a group behavior, such as phalanx combat, can be self-organized. In this model there is no leader. Each simulated hoplite is an "agent" endowed with a list of very simple responses. The only information they recieve is from their immediate surroundings- from the few men around them acting to push or fight them. One of the biggest problems that those who follow my blog have with my view of phalanx combat is that they don't see how such crowd-wide behavior could be coordinated. Rob's model gives an example, though I would change/add a variety of the details I've exposed in previous posts. I plan to create a model with those elements in the future.

Crowds don't need to be big to generate extreme forces.

One of the most common objections to my model of the othismos phase of hoplite combat as essentially two crowds moving against each other stems from the fact that for most readers the mechanics of crowd pushing is counter-intuitive. They simply do not believe that "crowds" of only a few ranks deep can generate lethal force. To make this clearer I'm posting some snippets from J. Fruin's "The causes and prevention of crowd disasters."

Crowd forces can reach levels that almost impossible to resist or control. Virtually all crowd deaths are due to compressive asphyxia and not the "trampling" reported by the news media. Evidence of bent steel railings after several fatal crowd incidents show that forces of more than 4500 N (1,000 lbs.) occurred. Forces are due to pushing, and the domino effect of people leaning against each other.

So our common notion of "pushing" may not be adequate to completely describe what occurs. The most force may actually be transferred through coordinated "leaning" when crowd densities are very high.

Experiments to determine concentrated forces on guardrails due to leaning and pushing have shown that force of 30% to 75% of participant weight can occur. In a US National Bureau of Standards study of guardrails, three persons exerted a leaning force of 792 N (178 lbs.) and 609 N (137 lbs.) pushing. [9] In a similar Australian Building Technology Centre study, three persons in a combined leaning an pushing posture developed a force of 1370 N (306 lbs.). [10] This study showed that under a simulated "panic", 5 persons were capable of developing a force of 3430 N (766 lbs.).

Only three people exerted a force horizontally against a target by simply leaning into each other that would be the equivalent of the weight of a grown man laying on top of you. Now, you may think that you could bear this weight without suffering from asphyxia, but for how long? If the pressure from even this small group were maintained for any length of time you would succumb to exhaustion and be unable to inflate your lungs. The effect is similar to what occurs when constricting snakes, like pythons and boas, kill. The don't so much crush the breath out of you as simply make it incrementally more difficult for you to expand your diaphragm to take in air.

Another common assumption is that two opposing groups could not generate these forces against each other, that a crowd must be pushing in one direction against a wall. This next quote shows how crowd collisions can be deadly.

In the Cincinnati rock concert incident, a line of bodies was found approximately 9 m (30 ft) from a wall near the entrance. This indicates that crowd pressures probably came from both directions as rear ranks pressed forward and front ranks pushed off the wall.

I hope this demonstrates that phalanxes of 8 ranks could be deadly. Simply scaling up the leaning force from 3 people (178 lbs)to 8 people gives us 475 lbs. There is surely a loss due to lack of coordination, so this figure is probably high, but it shows the principle.

Taking just the conservative leaning estimate, 12 on 12 would be over 720lbs and 16 on 16 ranks might approach 1,000lbs.

Now how exactly to scale up these pressures I do not know, so these are simply ballpark figures. Perhaps they reflect peak pressures, or peak pressures might be much higher. Sustained pressures are smaller, but even a fraction of this force would be deadly unless the hoplites were protected by the aspis. Peak pressures could surely even crush the aspis, as we know occurred in some battles, which would then leave the hoplite defenseless against further compression.

For some further reading: http://www.crowddynamics.com/Main/Fruin%20-%20causes.htm

Crowd othismos model

If you've read the paper below then you already know this, but I will summarize the key points and contrast them with the other two alternative views (simplified of course).

Orthodox view: Othismos is literally a mass pushing match with the aim being to push the opponents back until their cohesion breaks. In its most widely proposed form the clash of hoplite phalanxes progresses along the following pattern. Both phalanxes charged at a slow run from about 200 meters apart. Hoplites move directly into shield-on-shield contact from the charge using the momentum to smash their shields together like rams and stabbing with spears underhand like cavalry lances. Spears are often shriven and opposing ranks become to some extent interlaced. This is followed by intense infighting with swords as ranks reform through a process not well explained and the ranks behind the front-rankers begin to push forward. This pushing phase is labelled othismos and the pushing is done side-on to the man in front with the left shoulder in the bowl of the shield. This othismos continues until one side gives way and collapses. Once one side collapses the victors pursue (but not too far) and the losers sustain many casualties.

Heretical view: Frankly this view can get a bit silly, with hoplites fighting according to tactics more appropriate to a Roman legion. I shall present it as I think most consistent with the hoplite panoply. The progress of battle differs from the orthodoxy in that there is no running charge. They note that the run would cause disorder in the ranks that this would be counter to the whole idea of forming ranks in the first place. Combat occurs at spear's length, perhaps with shields overlapped, perhaps not, in a phase known to the Greeks as doratismos. Fighting might then progress to infighting with shield-bashing on an individual, uncoordinated scale. While the front-rankers fight, the men behind provide only moral support and make ready to step over his corpse to take his place in the battle line. The advance of the phalanx is figuratively labelled othismos (pushing) as we might speak of an armored "push" of tanks and mechanized infantry. Fighting occurs until one side gives way due to mounting casualties and morale failure. As before, the losing side suffers as the victors pursue.

Othismos-crowd model: This view incorperates elements of both of the above. In my view there is a running charge from a couple hundred meters as in the view of the orthodoxy, but with spears held up overhand. This does not lead directly into othismos, for there is no crash of hoplites seeking to use momentum to bash into their foes, and thus no interlacing of opposing ranks. Front ranks pull up from the charge, perhaps on shield contact with their foes after a quick, powerful stab of the spear, perhaps pulling up shorter at the approximately 5' of distance from their foes that reflects the reach of their spears and entering doratismos as in the heretic's view. What follows is a progressive closing up of the ranks, remeber that at even a modest 6' distance between ranks the rear is about 16 meters (48') behind. Only the second rank uses their spears in support of the front rank. The ranks continue to tighten until the men are close to belly to back with the men in front and behind. How long this takes can vary by polis or over time, but eventually this compact mass enters the othismos phase of battle. If the opposing front rankers are already shield to shield, then the progression to othismos is gradual and fluid. If they are at a distance, then there is a short and shuffling charge by the whole mass (as seen in the video of Vyborg). The two phalanxes now function like crowds, generating intense force as they push against each other. Men in the middle of the mass do not control their own movement, but ride the waves of flesh, all the while fighting and defending with sword or broken spear in their upraised right arm. The pressure is enough that these men would be asphyxiated without the aspis. If shields break under the pressure men die, unless they can breathe within the bowl of the overlap of the man to their right's shield. There may be lulls in the combat where the opposing phalanxes loosen this tight level of packing due to exhaustion, the front men may still be fighting or may pull apart. Eventually one side gives way and the same pursuit seen in the other models occurs.

As you see, my model incorporates the possibility of extended initial doratismos with literal othismos. My othismos is a far more brutal thing than that described by the orthodoxy. Men pushing side-on with the shoulder in the shield cannot generate the enormous crowd-like crushing forces that men pushing belly to back can. As the pressure builds, side-on men will collapse to belly to back if there is room to, and if there is no space between them and the men beside them, then they are vulnerable to asphyxia since their diaphragm is not in the belly of the shield.

To a buzzard circling the battlefield othismos would look like this, with only the rear rankers able to push sideways.



If we compare a side-on to belly to back postures of hoplites n the phalanx, you will see the difference in the density of the crowd packing, though the side-on man have a more narrow frontage. Under pressure these sideways men will collapse to face forward, absorbing the force of the men pushing them from behind instead of transferring it to the man in front of them. The pushing forces generated by a crowd can be greater than the smashing force of an initial running collision of shields, and there is no disruption of order from interlacing front ranks.



As I am able I will add more comparative details of the mechanics. So far I have not leaned heavily on primary sources, but I am putting together a post in which I shall interpret the words of ancient authors to support my position, just as both the heretics and orthodoxy have used alternate interpretations of many of the same quotes to support their position and rule out the other.

How phalanxes clashed

To date there has been no hoplite reenactment groups with enough men and the will to go at it full speed to properly recreate phalanx on phalanx combat. There are reenactors of other periods who have "discovered" the same crowd mechanics that I elucidated below. The following is a video that my friend Giannis Kadoglou found thst shows how large groups of armed and armored men collide. At about 20 seconds into the video you will see a close approximation a clash of shallow phalanxes. Note that as I described, they stand facing their opponents, not side-on as had been widely proposed and now seems generally accepted.

The Aspis: surviving hoplite battle. Part 2

Those who support a literal interpretation of the othismos as a pushing match have pointed out that the hollow design of the shield allows the left shoulder to be placed within it both to support the weight of the shield and to allow for a sideways pushing stance, while the flattened face provides a broad surface for pushing against the men in front of you. While correct in some details, this scheme fails when we apply a realistic model of othismos mechanics.

John Keegan, in The Face of Battle, noted that a crowd is the opposite of an army when he applied crowd psychology to formed men, and that crowd-like behavior signaled immanent defeat, but the ancient Greeks harnessed the force of a panicked crowd and turned it into an offensive weapon. The modeling of how force is generated in crowds is in its infancy, but the destructive potential is shown by the many tragic deaths caused by crowds colliding during sports events or fleeing in panic.

The outcome of a collision of ranked hoplites is not simply a matter of the number of men on either side. Most of the force applied by the rear ranks will be simply absorbed by the mass of their own men in front of them. In order to maximize the pushing force of a crowd, the distance between bodies must be minimized to the point that individuals lose control of their own movement and the group becomes one mass pushing in synchrony. In crowds of this density, shock waves are produced that can tear off clothing, lift people off their feet, and propel them 3 m or more through the air. These forces are generated by a domino effect of people leaning against each other and pushing in the same direction at once, and have been shown to exceed 1000 lbs of force and bend metal retaining structures. Death occurs in these conditions due to compressive asphyxia when the diaphragm is crushed and breathing is impossible.

Men must protect against asphyxiation if they are to subject themselves to these forces for the duration of battle. This is the aspis’ primary function and a role for which it is uniquely designed. The shield’s large diameter arose from the need to hold the shield across the front of the body, its flat rim resting on the upper chest and thighs, while the depth protected the diaphragm and allowed the hoplite to draw breath. The central position of the porpax ensured proper alignment, but left about a third of the shield extending beyond the hoplite to the left. As individuals with their shields tight to their chest came up behind the overhanging shields of men to their right, overlapping right over left, a phalanx assembled like building blocks. The job of rear rank veterans, who could push with their shoulders, was not simply to keep men from fleeing battle, but to keep them packed belly to back and as tightly as possible. The lethal zone in a crowd of this density extended well back into the phalanx, so the risk of death by asphyxiation was shared more equally among ranks than the danger from weapon strikes.

Along with the characteristic aspis, a second element of the panoply associated with the emergence of hoplites is the sauroter, a specialized butt-spike for the spear. The sauroter has been linked to phalanx combat through its use as an auxillary weapon, but this role was secondary to its use as a staff in steadying a man in the rear ranks and allowing him to add the strength of his right arm in pushing.

Weapons could still be used in the press of othismos, as the raised right arm would have just enough room to brandish a weapon in an overhand strike in the “V” formed by overlapped shields. The downward stabbing strike of a spear would require very little range of motion to be deadly, while the point-heavy chopping swords commonly used relied on a snap of the wrist more than a broad slash. The most deadly weapon in this press would be the short Laconian dagger stabbing in a downward strike from above. If the othismos gradually became the phase of battle that decided hoplite battles, this may explain the abandonment of body armor and enclosed helms for the high-peaked pilos that protected from overhead strikes. Any benefit of armor in the crowd would be outweighed by the need for increased stamina and the ability to breathe freely and hear commands.

That the Spartans developed a specialized weapon for the othismos is perhaps indicative of their role in perfecting this phase of combat. We are told that the Spartans did not excel in combat because of the martial arts teaching of hoplomachoi, but because of their singing and dancing. The reason for this is obvious if we accept the model presented above. Accidental synchronicity of effort is what builds lethal shock waves in crowds, so men who have trained to coordinate their motions through group dancing and rhythmically chanted songs will have an advantage in producing and amplifying forces in the othismos. Theban success in battle was explained in part by their skill in wrestling which develops kinesthetic sense and ability to read and anticipate motions.

Thebes met Sparta in battle again at Leuktra in 371 B.C. in the ultimate othismos battle. In an outcome presaged by Koronea, the Thebans countered Spartan skill with mass. The 12 ranks of Sparta collided with 50 ranks of Theban hoplites, who had added Boetian merchants and baggage-carriers to the rear of the phalanx. Our model of othismos helps us understand what happened next. The deep Theban formation did not crash into the Spartans and immediately drive it from the field. What followed was an almost tidal play of crowd against crowd. The synchronized Spartans could push back the Thebans, as they did to claim their wounded King, but each time they did this they packed them tighter, forcing them into a coordination that they may not have achieved on their own. There may have been long lulls where exhausted men simply fought for breath in the loosening crowds. Epaminondas’ called-for “one more step” was in reality a shuffle, but the Thebans eventually gained ground in a ratcheting advance that broke the Spartan ranks and their hegemony.

The othismos turned a phalanx into more than sum of its ranked hoplites. To fight within such a crowd was to submerge one’s individuality, and facing one was like standing against single scale-breasted beast, a many-headed hydra of down-thrusting weapons. Perhaps it is fitting that the states who mastered it were both descended from Heracles.



Paul M. Bardunias is not a historian, but an entomologist who studies group behavior in social insects- termites and ants. On the theory that one Myrmidon is as good as another, he is applying concepts from his background in biology and crowd behavior to an examination of the evolution of Greek weapons and tactics. He was born to the topic, his family comes from Sparta, but this is his first publication specifically on Greek warfare. He lives and works in Hollywood, Florida, USA.


Further reading:

J. Fruin, The Causes and Prevention of Crowd Disasters, in: R. A. Smith, J. F. Dickie (Eds.), Engineering for Crowd Safety. Elsevier, New York, 1993.

A. K. Goldsworthy, The Othismos, Myths and Heresies: The Nature of Hoplite Battle. War in History 4: 1, 1-26, 1997.

V. D. Hanson, The Western Way of War: Infantry battle in Classical Greece. New York, Hodder & Stoughton, 1989.

J. Keegan, The Face of Battle. London, Cape, 1976.

R. D. Luginbill, Othismos: The Importance of Mass-Shove in Hoplite Warfare. Phoenix, 48:1, 51-61, 1994.

N. Secunda, Greek Hoplite 480-323 BC. Osprey Publishing Ltd., 2000.

A. Snodgrass, Early Greek Armour and Weapons. Edinburgh University Press, 1964.