Bret Devereaux

So, is this a phalanx? No. It's a shield wall. One of the misconceptions I often run into is the idea that locked shields was a uniquely Greek one. It isn't. It shows up all over Eurasia at different times and places, unconnected with each other. 2/23

As near as I can tell, the idea of getting a whole lot of shield-bearing infantry tight together in mutual defense is intuitive enough that it was independently invented a number of times. When we say 'phalanx' we mean a Greek version of this, with some very specific ... 3/23

... cultural and tactical loading. @Roelkonijn can get more specific, but I think to be a true hoplite phalanx (and not just a shield-wall or proto-phalanx), it needs: 1) Be ancient Greeks; this is a culturally embedded institution. 2) Use the aspis shield and dory spear... 4/23

3) Be in close order, generally facing forward. 4) Have pushed all non-hoplites out of the phalanx. 5) Deploy a cohesion derived from Greek polis civic institutions, or else a professional mercenary ethnic which mimics those (e.g. Xenophon's 10k). 5/23

So this is a shield wall, but not a phalanx. The shields they're using are obviously not the large round aspis. Is this a testudo? Nope. The testudo was mostly a siege formation, not a battlefield one and it was all about shield coverage overhead, in addition to in front. 4/23

Also, these riot shields grip differently than the scutum. They employ strap grip at the center of the shield so that it is held up with elbow bent. I don't actually think that's a great grip system. No ancient or medieval shield I know used it like that. 5/23

You do have strap-grips, of course, like the aspis' porpax/antilabe grip, but they are held with the forearm parallel to the ground and the shield is balanced around that. Having the elbow not awkwardly tilted up seems to me to allow for the shield to move more freely. 6/23

But the bigger issue is that the shield *shape* of riot shields is clearly patterned off of the Roman scutum - a nice big rectangular bodyshield. But the scutum doesn't have a strap grip, it's held with a single bar, parallel to the ground. I tell my students... 7/23

...that you hold a scutum like a bag. This is called 'center-grip' though other center-grip shields (like medieval round shields) have the bar run vertically rather than horizontally. That grip system makes a huge difference in wielding, so these shields won't handle...8/23

...like a Roman scuta. Now I think probably the reason riot shields grip like this is that they picked the shape to protect the body, but adopted the only grip that would have been easily familiar in the modern period (because ancient shield grips don't often survive. 9/23

So I think it is possible that these shields are, in fact, not ideally designed and might be better served, in terms of raw effectiveness, by a Roman-style center-grip. You can see how awkward it is to hold them, because everyone has to brace the damn things with their...10/23

...other hand. Obviously, a shield that needs to be braced like that is a no-go for a Roman, whose sword is in his other hand (and as Scipio said, was better to put his faith in his right (sword) arm and not his left (shield) arm). Then again, it is probably GOOD that...11/23

...modern police shields do not handle like the scutum. Center-grip shields seem to have been used a lot more aggressively than strap-grip shields. You slammed, bashed, wedged, and levered with them more. You *can* do those things with an aspis, but in terms of...12/23

...fighting systems, you seem to see a lot *more* of that sort of thing with center grip shields (obligatory caveat on how limited the evidence is and how much we are guessing from late medieval fighting treatises, etc, etc). So probably the awkward grip is actually good. 13/23

What about the formation? It's not a phalanx or a testudo or anything like that. What is it? It's a hollow musket square. I am almost certain that's where this formation has been adopted from. Note that there's a LOT of space inside of the square for people to...14/23

...went with hollow squares to maximize firepower. The square might be just 2 or 3 ranks deep, making it larger with an open center in the middle, so that everyone could be firing at encircling cavalry. To be clear, that's what the square is for - defense against cav...16/23

...it's big advantage is that you cannot be flanked, which matters most against highly mobile cavalry (or evidently, highly mobile protesters). In this case, I'd think that a more pike-like square would be better at resisting shock (like a rush of protesters)...17/23

...but I'm not at all surprised that the version of a square formation that's in the doctrine - and thus the one that someone pulled out the field manual to perform - happens to be the last militarily useful form of square. Cause that's how institutional memory works. 18/23

I can't make out the patches, but these look like Army National Guard soldiers (#miltwitter can correct me, I'm sure), in which case, I'd bet this is the first time any of them have ever had to form square. I'd be surprised if they'd even trained it, but a version of it...19/23

...is in the field manual, FM3-19.15, for 'Civil Disturbance Operations,' though it is three-sided, not four. https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf … In terms of forming square, this would be unconscionably sloppy for a Napoleonic War infantry regiment (too slow, not nearly neat enough)..20/23

...but I think we should give our soldiers (if they are ANG like I think, they're soldiers) a break. I doubt they've had much need or time to drill this, and square is a hard formation to form quickly or well. Early gunpowder armies had to drill a TON to get it right...21/23

...more importantly, they're holding position and keeping their cool in the face of a crowd. They're responding to orders, keeping awareness and not letting themselves be provoked, nor are they provoking. So in the important stuff, in this video, they're doing well. 22/23