Quote:Do I understand you correctly that the idea was to virtually knock the enemy over and then presumably slaughter them on the ground?
Thearos' description says it. Not really knock over, but push back, keep your own line in order and seek opportunities to inflict damage on the enemy. The main idea was to break the cohesion in the enemy's army. It was a lot more collective work than individual martial art.
An "exemplary" battle in my opinion would be like this: First, there is the "missile phase" with far distance weapons like slings and bows which test the other one's "structural integrity". Quite a few battles in antiquity already ended at this point when one side suffered too heavy losses and fled to fight another day. If not, there may be a second missile phase (e.g. for Roman armies) when infantrymen throw spears at each other from a short distance (<15 m).
If, after that, both sides are still willing and able to continue, the hand-to hand-phase follows, or better shield-to-shield-phase, and this is indeed a lot more shoving and pushing against each other than picturesque sword duels. Shield lines clash, each side tries to impose pressure on the other, and out of the cover of one's (and one's neighbour's) shield, the fighters seek an opportunity to inflict wounds with the sword on unprotected parts of enemy bodies if possible. Short, biting stings rather than blows (which would expose your own arm dangerously to the enemies' blades). It is not necessary to kill an opponent; one successful hit with your sword to his arm or leg or face will stop him from fighting (even if the injury is not very serious), and while he retreats to seek shelter, he disturbs the order of his own ranks. One can as well imagine blows with the edge of the shield towards enemy shinbones, feet etc which can have a similar consequence. Maybe there are not even many killings in this phase, but losses due to wounds, pain, or the impossibility to use one's own sword or shield (because of exhaustion, or as it may be damaged or have a few of these damned pila sticking in it). At one point, the order of the front line is dissolved when the warriors see the men next to them go back and leave them unprotected from the sides, so they get nervous and start withdrawing too, and the order collapses and turns into a hasty retreat which is quickly adapted by the fellow soldiers at the rear. The side with the stronger cohesion, better protection of the individual soldier by his shield and his comrades and more effective system of exchanging its wounded or exhausted fighters from and to the front line will prevail.
After this, with the enemy running, comes the hour of the cavalry pursuit (which causes most of the killings as they generally hack the poor ones down from behind and above).
The Greeks and, even more, the Macedonians, were masters of the "cohesion aspect" during infantry battle (heavy hoplites, phalanx) whereas the Romans added a lot more flexibility to the whole system and gave a lighter yet larger and probably more versatile shield to its legionaries (edge just above ground which can be used to flatten enemies' toes).
Sorry for the abundance of words. I guess we drifted a bit away from the topic Balearic slingers' arms