Problems with Chris Mathews analysis of hoplites

[PMBardunias]

*** NOTE: I moved this post and the replies to a new topic because it had drifted from the original intent of the thread***

Hoplites can't form at 45 cm spacing and present the shield face to the enemy by the way, that is surely a spacing for sarissaphoroi. I believe the 45 cm spacing a Macedonian innovation, though we could argue Homeric inspiration.

It is humorous in light of this to read Chris Mathews book, because his whole thesis is based on hoplites forming at 45cm, yet he never once shows hoplites at this spacing. Oh, he thinks he does, but all you need is a ruler to see he never can. See the attached image I made for a future blog post on his book.

[attachment=10784]MathewsDiagram.jpg[/attachment]

I have avoided tearing apart his book because I am such a proponent of reenactment and experimental archaeology, but I am seeing so much baloney from it tossed around as fact that I will have to address it at some point.

[JaM]

Chris Matthew never wrote about Phalangites in his book. It was solely about Hoplites, and he is right in many arguments. especially the whole Overarm dispute.
And for spacing, it is questionable topic, and not just for Greeks but also for Romans. everybody mentions 3ft spacing but nobody mentions if that spacing for for a single men, or it was a distance between files. With 90cm Aspis, you would need a bit tighter formation to have shields overlap. 45cm might be too much, even for Phalangites. after all, you need some space around you to function properly. Nothing is worse than being trapped in close order with everybody pushing against you.. that's a disaster waiting to happen... there are plenty of examples where soldier in such tight situation panicked...

i dont find anything humorous about his arguments. Personally, i find more humorous blind defense of own ideas without making actual test how effective hoplite panoply is in certain situation, especially when battlefield fatigue is added into picture.

[PMBardunias]

Chris Matthew never wrote about Phalangites in his book. It was solely about Hoplites, and he is right in many arguments. especially the whole Overarm dispute..

I don't know if it is correct that hoplites used their spears underhand, I think not, but there is room for argument. What I do know is that his "evidence" is smoke and mirrors- and I and others warned him of this before he wrote the book. The strike force comparisons he comes up with are useless because he evidently does not know how to strike with a spear overhand. They are contradicted by Connolly et al. who he fails to cite. I can hit a man in the face all day long with my dory in overhand, and those strikes can come in from below his eye line. Overhand strikes do not plunge down like you are stabbing with an ice pick. The chapter devoted to how you move a spear from underhand to overhand grip is a red herring, because Greeks did not do any of the odd machinations suggested. Look at the Koryvantes group to see how hoplites leveled their spears into overhand.

In the end this is the great weakness of using reenactment data, and why I did not comment on the failings of this work for so long so as not to tarnish the idea of experimental archaeology for hoplites. There is a certain authority that comes with actually using panoply, but in the end it is still only as good as your beginning biases allow. I had hoped that another reenactment group would show the problems in this work, for I know few agree with it. My guess is that because his hoplites do not actually stab each other with lethal force, the difference in power between over and underhand has not been a limit for them. It is like discerning what renaissance fencers did by watching epee in the Olympics.

And for spacing, it is questionable topic, and not just for Greeks but also for Romans. everybody mentions 3ft spacing but nobody mentions if that spacing for for a single men, or it was a distance between files. With 90cm Aspis, you would need a bit tighter formation to have shields overlap. 45cm might be too much, even for Phalangites. after all, you need some space around you to function properly. Nothing is worse than being trapped in close order with everybody pushing against you.. that's a disaster waiting to happen... there are plenty of examples where soldier in such tight situation panicked....

Well see, then you understand the problem. Mathews whole thesis hinges on the notion that sometimes hoplites formed with each man standing in a box that is 90cm wide and other times formed with each man occupying 45cm. He even illustrates this as above and shows pictures of his group reenacting it. The problem is that those images are misrepresentations, like the obviously bogus labeling of the spaces in the image I posted above. He NEVER shows hoplites in 45cm spacing because it cannot be done and still present the shield face to your enemies.

I am robbing from my own blog post, but here you can see the problem:

His own figures. I added the red dotted line which is roughly 90cm based on the width of the shield with the serpent blazon.

[attachment=10870]mathewsfrontage.jpg[/attachment]

Here I show there is no way to form at 45cm with shields facing forward

i dont find anything humorous about his arguments. Personally, i find more humorous blind defense of own ideas without making actual test how effective hoplite panoply is in certain situation, especially when battlefield fatigue is added into picture.

I assume you have no idea who I am or what I have done, so I will let the ad hominem slide