This book came up for me in my Amazon feed today, and it has me wondering whether or not it's worth buying this book. From the very little I've been able to gather on the internet, Matthews apparently accepts the idea of a two piece pike, which I thought was largely agreed to be a misinterpretation of the archaeological find, and apparently some of his methodology in A Storm of Spears was flawed. I'm also uneasy about his application of Alan William's energy values for penetration of mild steel to bronze which, while in the same range of hardness, could well have different mechanical properties that alters the energy requirements for penetration.
This leaves me wondering: just how good is Christopher Matthew's scholarship, and is it worth buying the book? Are there any authors who examine the subject better or in more detail?
That post was a guest post on my blog by Fred Ray, so I can take no credit for his arguments. That said, Mathew's thesis shows the hazards of reenactment as a source of understanding hoplite battle. I am obviously a big proponent of this, but your results can only be as good as your initial assumptions. There are some things in his book and papers that I agree with- the analysis of the proportions of the dory for example. Here are some of the main problems with his book:
He never shows hoplites at 45cm spacing- because hoplites with aspides can not form at 45cm. He has mistakenly applied Hellenistic drill for men with pelta back in time to hoplites.
He seems to not know how to strike overhand. He describes a strike like a stab with an ice pick, one that always comes in at a downward angle. Properly done, an overhand strike has a flat trajectory and is very much like a throw that you do not release. It is the strongest strike a human can make, and why pitchers throw overhand for example. Worse, he seemed to ignore data that contradicted him, or claim it represented throwing. His is the only of many studies now that show underhand even close to overhand.
The whole section on how to move a spear from underhand to overhand in the charge is irrelevant because myself and other reenactors have shown that there is an easy way to carry and level the spear that avoids the issue.
Perhaps most importantly as a warning to those using mock battle to understand battle is that you have to always be aware of the "mock" part. Sharp weapons make everything different. The type of prodding aside if shields so commonly seen in these battles would lead to spear points stuck in shield faces, followed by death. The lack of targeting of faces also makes a huge difference. In play-fighting, the low-powered underhand thrust is sufficient because you only need touch with moderate force to "kill". It is much like attempting to understand renaissance duelling from looking at Olympic fencing.
I have a book coming out this fall that will address some of this. Recent othismos experiements have shown his objection to my crowd-othismos to be unfounded. Both the aspis and the man can sustain great pressure, and relatively short files 4-10 men can generate high sustained pressures.
As to the overhand strike, I have posted online a few times about what we call a "J" strike that is an overhand strike that ensures the sauroter will not hit thise directly behind you- most recently on a couple of Thrand's video comments. None of reenactors I know use an underhand strike. For references, there is a study by Peter Connolly on over and underhand strikes and a paper just out by Kevin De Groote, you can google them. Thrand is a friend and he shows this type of overhand very well, with the stipulation that the long, rear weighted dory was probably never actually released from the hand- no need to because they are gripped near the rear. Earlier spears may have been. Remember early holites threw at least one spear.
For the manner in which hoplites level spears. I think Korybantes has a video showing it. Its quite simple: you start with your the spear in your hand with your fingers pointing down, palm up. You will see this on many vases and sculptures. Then just let the spear fall forward off your shoulder and bring the hand out to the side and up into overhand strike position. If things are tight, just bring your hand straight up instead of out and let it fall forward. Get a stick and try it.
My book is being publisged by Mcfarlane press: HOPLITES AT WAR, A comprehensive analysis of heavy infantry combat in the Greek world c.750-100B.C. It will be available from Amazon.
Matthew's book has its problems, but it is by far the most detailed examination of the subject of how hoplites fought. If you're interested in that aspect of Greek warfare, it's probably worth getting the book. I've written in more detail about Matthew's view here; the post also addresses some of the points in Bardunias' blog post that you linked to. It sounds from your post that you're keen on the technical stuff, so you might also be interested in Adam Schwartz' Reinstating the Hoplite (2009), which treats all aspects of hoplite equipment in exhaustive detail (although I think he is wrong on just about everything). There are some shorter overviews like Anderson's chapter in Hanson's Hoplites (1991), Van Wees' article in his own volume War and Violence in Ancient Greece (2000) and Krentz' contribution to Kagan and Viggiano's Men of Bronze (2013).
What Bardunias makes clear is not necessarily that Matthew is wrong, but that the topic is controversial. Matthew's ideas have triggered a lot of debate in an area where there was previously a more generally held consensus. Whether you think his views hold water is up to you; in controversial topics, you simply have to weigh the different arguments and decide which way you lean. Reading both Schwartz and Matthew will introduce you to the main views that are out there.
"To be fair, for Classical Greece we do not have anything like the Renaissance swordfighting manuals that allow us to reconstruct the fighting style of that era. Both Matthew's view and yours are, at their core, entirely speculative."
I would be the first to admit it, but this gets to the heart of how we need to work evidence from reenactment and historical analogy into our arguments. For example, I cannot tell you there was definitely othismos, but I can tell you that if men in files pushed, doing it in the fashion I have described would generate more force. Same goes for strikes. If an argument is raised that says a certain strike was probably used because it was stronger, easier, more accurate, better in massed ranks, etc. All of that can be tested by modern reenactors.
We do have renaissance rotella and spear fighting manuals that can tell something about how to fight in a duel with spear and double-grip shield.
"I take it you are not persuaded by Krentz' argument that the notion of literal othismos is a mirage of 20th century "
If you have access to my 2011 paper or my blog, you will see that I believe most arguments against othismos do not hold water. My analysis has allowed me to disprove many of the objections that arose. For example, I have shown via experiment that hoplites could generate great pressure, some denied they could. It has also been claimed that men could not survive such pressure, but I have shown it is the aspis's shape that keeps men able to breathe in the crush. There are many objections, but I believe I can answer all of them.
Feel free to ask me and I will tell you my opinion. You mentioned machaira above as incompatible with othismos, but I would counter that those who have fought in shield walls will tell you the best weapons to use in the press are daggers and hatchets. The xiphos could be quite short- the term enchiridion applied to Spartan swords means dagger. The machaira on the other hand, is used very much like a hatchet, with descending blows that can be delivered over shields at very close range.
As to Krentz, the argument really comes down to the definition of some greek words. He would have us read all uses of pushing terms as figurative. I believe I have countered that in my 2011 paper.