"Athenian Hoplite Lochos per Christopher Matthew" Topic

I have posted some new images on my Blog of hoplites in the under-arm spear-thrusting position argued by Christopher Matthew in his controversial study "A Storm of Spears".

I wanted to see if I could capture his ideas using Victrix plastic models. Toby at Artmaster has followed my requests exactly, as he always does.

Please see the post at:

horseandmusket2.blogspot.com

If the point of balance of a traditional doru (hoplite spear) is significantly closer to the butt spike than to the tip as Matthew claims, then overhand position would seem to be one that would be difficrlt to control while his under arm position would make more sense for reach and control.

Chris

hmm, I have heard this theory before…

I have heard others pooh pooh it before as well.

I am still a firm believer that spear drill featured both overhand spear fencing, and underhand rigid spear defence.

I still think, based on my limited understanding, that the greek troops rear ranks fenced with their spears whilst the front ranks remained in a push pose and their spears out of the way.

The problem with underhand thrusting is what is your target, against a hoplite shield?

Underhand destroys the main feature of a hoplite phalanx, the overlapping shields. I can see it in individual fighting but surely when facing a phalanx using overhand you'd be at a huge disadvantage. Also contradicts the only, AFAIK, image of a phalanx, the Chigi vase.

I haven't read the book though so maybe he makes a compelling argument.

Here's some data cited in Victor Hanson's 'Wars of the Ancient Greeks' (Smithsonian).

Impact energy in foot-pounds | Speed in feet per second |
Spear (overhand) 70.8 | 55
Spear (underhand) 13.5 | 24

Overarm, of course !

Phil

The book is worth a read even if you disagree with the conclusions. The issue of Greek vase-art and how to interpret it is a large part of the argument. I'm not arguing for Matthew, I just wanted to see how a phalanx could be constructed in the underarm position with the best available plastic figures.

What I don't understand is the devotion of many wargamers to the overarm position. Is the subject not open to debate and further research? Why not read the book first and then reject it?

Because I'd have to buy it only to almost certainly disagree with it. If I was an academic seeking to counter it I'd make the effort but as a gamer I won't bother as the basic premise makes no sense to me (as outlined above).
If you can successfully challenge my arguments above I'll think about it.