08-13-2016, 02:05 AM
I think it is hilarious how Bryan is willing to just categorically dismiss Matthew without actually rebutting any of his arguments.
Matthew was not writing his "opinions." He was writing his findings. There is a world of difference. If you think the result of the experiment is wrong, reproduce the experiment and tell us the results. If you haven't even read the book to begin with, then you have no credibility in attempting to dismiss it.
Bryan also asks questions about the 15 minute underarm technique. The argument is nonsensical. Besides the fact that if you had actually read the book you would know that 15 minutes was just the length of the test. The reenactors suffered little to no fatigue. They describe being bored by it, and could have continued for much longer, whereas the overhand grip couldn't even make it to the 15 minute goal.
The Youtube video is of no relevance because they were not reproducing Matthew's experiment. If they attempted the same technique under the same conditions, THEN it would relevant to the discussion.
Moreover, the question is not whether the soldier could perform for an arbitrary time limit. The question is whether one technique was superior relative to the other techniques. And the overhand grip failed categorically to compete against the low and underarm grip.
If you have contradictory data, please present it.
I concede the point that a hoplite of the era might have tried different grips. People are stupid like that. But to argue that Matthews is wrong is to say that (a) the archaeological evidence of weapon impacts is misleading and (b) the Hoplites, for whatever reason, insisted on using an inferior technique. Unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary, we should assume they did things using their best available technique.
Matthew was not writing his "opinions." He was writing his findings. There is a world of difference. If you think the result of the experiment is wrong, reproduce the experiment and tell us the results. If you haven't even read the book to begin with, then you have no credibility in attempting to dismiss it.
Bryan also asks questions about the 15 minute underarm technique. The argument is nonsensical. Besides the fact that if you had actually read the book you would know that 15 minutes was just the length of the test. The reenactors suffered little to no fatigue. They describe being bored by it, and could have continued for much longer, whereas the overhand grip couldn't even make it to the 15 minute goal.
The Youtube video is of no relevance because they were not reproducing Matthew's experiment. If they attempted the same technique under the same conditions, THEN it would relevant to the discussion.
Moreover, the question is not whether the soldier could perform for an arbitrary time limit. The question is whether one technique was superior relative to the other techniques. And the overhand grip failed categorically to compete against the low and underarm grip.
If you have contradictory data, please present it.
I concede the point that a hoplite of the era might have tried different grips. People are stupid like that. But to argue that Matthews is wrong is to say that (a) the archaeological evidence of weapon impacts is misleading and (b) the Hoplites, for whatever reason, insisted on using an inferior technique. Unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary, we should assume they did things using their best available technique.
