What do you think?
Rate this book
Storm of Spears
The backbone of classical Greek armies was the phalanx of heavily armoured spearmen, or hoplites. These were the soldiers that defied the might of Persia at Marathon, Thermopylae and Plataea and, more often, fought each other in the countless battles of the Greek city-states. For around two centuries they were the dominant soldiers of the Classical world, in great demand as mercenaries throughout the Mediterranean and Middle East. Yet, despite the battle descriptions of Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon etc, and copious evidence of Greek art and archaeology, there are still many aspects of hoplite warfare that are little understood or the subject of fierce academic debate. Christopher Matthew's groundbreaking reassessment combines rigorous analysis of the literary and archaeological evidence with the new disciplines of reconstructive archaeology, re-enactment and ballistic science. He focuses meticulously on the details of the equipment, tactics and capabilities of the individual hoplites. In so doing he challenges some long-established assumptions. For example, despite a couple of centuries of study of the hoplites portrayed in Greek vase paintings, Matthew manages to glean from them some startlingly fresh insights into how hoplites wielded their spears. These findings are supported by practical testing with his own replica hoplite panoply and the experiences of a group of dedicated re-enactors. He also tackles such questions as the protective properties of hoplite shields and armour and the much-vexed debate on the exact nature of the 'othismos', the climax of phalanx-on-phalanx clashes. rn This is an innovative and refreshing reassessment of one of the most important kinds of troops in ancient warfare, sure to make a genuine contribution to the state of knowledge.
336 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 2011
56 people are currently reading
186 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
April 29, 2022
When Christopher Matthew claims that this book is a reassessment of our understanding of hoplite warrior and phalanx weapon system, he isn’t kidding. Two-thirds of this volume are dedicated to a painstakingly detailed examination of hoplite panoply (shield, armor, helmet spear), practical capabilities and limitations of that equipment and last but not least, physical and cognitive challenges faced by a hoplite warrior using it in heat of battle.
In his examination, the author makes use of every available source - contemporary historical narratives, artistic depictions, archeological finds and perhaps most importantly, practical experiments with reenactors using reproductions of hoplite equipment.
Knowledge extracted from this scrupulous dissection of individual hoplite is next applied to the “bigger picture” of phalanx formation and how it would work in practical terms on a battlefield. In this part of the book, the author applies data extrapolated from the first part of the book to contemporary descriptions of engagements in which phalanx was used, in an attempt to better understand available content.
If your impression is that this book is extremely specialized and narrow in scope, you are absolutely right. I would never recommend this volume as a starting point for someone with only budding interest in this topic. Indeed, I have to admit that once I’ve realized the detail and depth of the author's analysis, I had to ask myself if I was really that interested in warfare during Classical period, and by now I’ve been studying this topic on layman’s level for over thirty years. But I persevered and I’m glad that I did, because the conclusions to which the author arrived at through his re-examination are nothing short of revolutionary. Whether or not those conclusions are correct, I dare not say. But they sure as heck do make much more sense than those presented by historians preceding Christopher Matthew, who most probably never even held a dory or an aspis.
In his examination, the author makes use of every available source - contemporary historical narratives, artistic depictions, archeological finds and perhaps most importantly, practical experiments with reenactors using reproductions of hoplite equipment.
Knowledge extracted from this scrupulous dissection of individual hoplite is next applied to the “bigger picture” of phalanx formation and how it would work in practical terms on a battlefield. In this part of the book, the author applies data extrapolated from the first part of the book to contemporary descriptions of engagements in which phalanx was used, in an attempt to better understand available content.
If your impression is that this book is extremely specialized and narrow in scope, you are absolutely right. I would never recommend this volume as a starting point for someone with only budding interest in this topic. Indeed, I have to admit that once I’ve realized the detail and depth of the author's analysis, I had to ask myself if I was really that interested in warfare during Classical period, and by now I’ve been studying this topic on layman’s level for over thirty years. But I persevered and I’m glad that I did, because the conclusions to which the author arrived at through his re-examination are nothing short of revolutionary. Whether or not those conclusions are correct, I dare not say. But they sure as heck do make much more sense than those presented by historians preceding Christopher Matthew, who most probably never even held a dory or an aspis.
September 5, 2013
Classical scholars have been debating for generations over how ancient Greek hoplites fought. How did they hold their weapons, did they sprint into battle, walk, fight at a spear's distance or was their a great rugby-lie scrum between the combatants? Christopher Matthew does a great job of analyzing hoplite's weaponry, armor, stance, spacing and attack methods to provide fresh insights on the debate and provide some startling new conclusions.
For instance, how did the hoplite wield his spear? Did they use the overhead thrust, underarm thrust or underhand attack position? According to the author, by studying these various attack methods using ancient Greek re-enactors, he claims it would have been impossible for the ancient infantryman to hold his spear over his head for long periods of time, plus he shows that the underarm thrust actually has a longer effective kill range. Too, he questions things like whether or not the phalanax attacked at a run (as described by Herodotus at Marathon where he claims the Athenians ran a mile before hitting the Persian line) or did they attack at a walk and provides convincing evidence that the phalanx was more effective when it attacked in close order and that by running before engaging the enemy it was almost impossible to keep such a tight formation.
I like how Matthew examines the ancient sources, along with what recent scholarship has written, and then provides his own conclusions. I like too that he is not afraid to completely contradict well respected classicists like Victor Davis Hanson. I only have two gripes with his work, which is why I've given his book 4-stars rather than 5-stars.
One, I feel as if he is providing his findings from a scientific, almost sterile laboratory analysis. Real battles and real soldiers hardly perform under such conditions. Sure, it might not make sense for the phalanx to run, but that takes out the human element - soldiers are not laboratory mice. It might make more sense for hoplites to attack a certain way - the results might be more effective - but do humans ever behave in an entirely logical fashion? In the heat of battle, fear, courage, and other emotions can make humans behave in all manner of ways. Maybe it might not make sense for the phalanx to charge or scrum with the enemy, but once a fight has started, anything can happen.
The second thing I have a problem with is his repetitive insistence that the Greeks did not use the overhead thrust with their spears. That all of the ancient pottery showing ancient warriors holding their spears aloft - are not spears at all, but javelins that they are throwing, I simply find this hard to swallow. Again, his conclusion comes after scientific analysis of how re-enactors fought, but I tend to think he is denying the human element. What if among the Spartans, who trained constantly, what if the overhead thrust was not so difficult due to their training? What if using the overhead thrust - because it was so hard - was an attack method that brought kudos upon the soldier?
I understand that the ancient sources do not comment on a lot of these issues, so we are left to try to figure out on our own how hoplites really fought. I admire the author's ability to take a step back from the accepted conclusions, and look at hoplites from a fresh new perspective that is based on experiments with live re-enactors. However, they are re-enactors, not real soldiers engaging in real battlefield conditions. When you really come down to it, we'll never fully understand the ancient mind or how the ancient soldier fought. Though I imagine Matthew's book will provide plenty of discussion for classical scholars for years to come.
For instance, how did the hoplite wield his spear? Did they use the overhead thrust, underarm thrust or underhand attack position? According to the author, by studying these various attack methods using ancient Greek re-enactors, he claims it would have been impossible for the ancient infantryman to hold his spear over his head for long periods of time, plus he shows that the underarm thrust actually has a longer effective kill range. Too, he questions things like whether or not the phalanax attacked at a run (as described by Herodotus at Marathon where he claims the Athenians ran a mile before hitting the Persian line) or did they attack at a walk and provides convincing evidence that the phalanx was more effective when it attacked in close order and that by running before engaging the enemy it was almost impossible to keep such a tight formation.
I like how Matthew examines the ancient sources, along with what recent scholarship has written, and then provides his own conclusions. I like too that he is not afraid to completely contradict well respected classicists like Victor Davis Hanson. I only have two gripes with his work, which is why I've given his book 4-stars rather than 5-stars.
One, I feel as if he is providing his findings from a scientific, almost sterile laboratory analysis. Real battles and real soldiers hardly perform under such conditions. Sure, it might not make sense for the phalanx to run, but that takes out the human element - soldiers are not laboratory mice. It might make more sense for hoplites to attack a certain way - the results might be more effective - but do humans ever behave in an entirely logical fashion? In the heat of battle, fear, courage, and other emotions can make humans behave in all manner of ways. Maybe it might not make sense for the phalanx to charge or scrum with the enemy, but once a fight has started, anything can happen.
The second thing I have a problem with is his repetitive insistence that the Greeks did not use the overhead thrust with their spears. That all of the ancient pottery showing ancient warriors holding their spears aloft - are not spears at all, but javelins that they are throwing, I simply find this hard to swallow. Again, his conclusion comes after scientific analysis of how re-enactors fought, but I tend to think he is denying the human element. What if among the Spartans, who trained constantly, what if the overhead thrust was not so difficult due to their training? What if using the overhead thrust - because it was so hard - was an attack method that brought kudos upon the soldier?
I understand that the ancient sources do not comment on a lot of these issues, so we are left to try to figure out on our own how hoplites really fought. I admire the author's ability to take a step back from the accepted conclusions, and look at hoplites from a fresh new perspective that is based on experiments with live re-enactors. However, they are re-enactors, not real soldiers engaging in real battlefield conditions. When you really come down to it, we'll never fully understand the ancient mind or how the ancient soldier fought. Though I imagine Matthew's book will provide plenty of discussion for classical scholars for years to come.
March 1, 2019
This is a book on Ancient Greek battlefield tactics, but not quite what I was expecting. Over its history the phalanx evolved in some sophisticated ways; it was never just two armies butting against each other and stabbing away until one side broke. Phalanxes were capable of some flexibility, such as moving at an angle to the main line of attack, and made good use of auxiliary troops, including light infantry (pelasts) and stone slingers. By Alexander’s time elephants were used, and the dory, a thrusting spear 6-10 feet in length, had grown to become the fearsome sarissa of 13-20 feet. Although it dates from 1957, a good source for information on general strategy and tactics in Ancient Greece is F.E. Adcock’s The Greek and Macedonian Art of War.
I was expecting a modernized version of Adcock’s book, using more contemporary scholarship, and while that is partly true, Storm of Spears has a much narrower focus, looking at the individual hoplites and their equipment. For anyone with an interest in ancient warfare, the book’s detailed analyses of spear, shield, and armor help bring to life what the soldiers would have experienced at the point of contact.
Hoplite warfare in Ancient Greece originated around 800 BC, and over time the armor steadily evolved to reduce weight and improve vision and maneuverability. Heavy bronze armor never disappeared entirely but it was modified repeatedly over the centuries. Greaves, for instance, largely disappeared by 400BC, and even the bronze breastplate was often replaced by a lighter multi layer corselet of scale mail and leather. The Greeks understood that if they made the armor thick enough to stop a direct spear thrust it would be too heavy to be practical, so they made it to deflect a glancing blow and accepted that in some cases it could be fatally penetrated.
The shield (aspis, or hoplon, from which the term hoplite was derived) was cleverly designed so that its weight rested primarily on the soldier’s left shoulder and had internal straps to make it easy to hold and maneuver. It was intended to overlap and partially protect the man on the left, maximizing coverage but still allowing the the spear to be employed to best effect.
It is an analysis of the hoplite spear that forms the center point of the book. Extant depictions from vases show it held overhead and stabbing downward at the enemy, and with nothing to counter that assumption, accounts of hoplite warfare for the past two thousand years have followed suit, describing it as a stabbing weapon.
Christopher Matthews, the author of Storm of Spears, has done considerable research on this subject and come to the conclusion that the dory was actually held underarm. He says the images on the vases actually depict javelins, not the spears which formed a hoplite’s main weapon, and to support this idea he has performed a formidable amount of research. For instance, he examined the center of mass of the surviving examples and found that they are weighted so that the most plausible answer is that they were designed for underarm thrusting. The traditional view, that they were used for overhead stabbing, is undermined by the fact that it would be exhausting to hold the spear overhead for more than a few minutes, and we know from ancient accounts that some battles went on for hours. Matthews used laboratory analysis and historical re-enactors to bolster his argument. For the reader it sounds pretty convincing, but it is not universally accepted among classical military historians, and so must remain an interesting but unproved theory for now.
The scientific tests do not drag down the narrative, and the details and anecdotal stories of the hoplite’s life enliven the story. It is not a sweeping view of the grand strategy of warfare in the classical world, but it is nevertheless worth reading for students of this period.
I was expecting a modernized version of Adcock’s book, using more contemporary scholarship, and while that is partly true, Storm of Spears has a much narrower focus, looking at the individual hoplites and their equipment. For anyone with an interest in ancient warfare, the book’s detailed analyses of spear, shield, and armor help bring to life what the soldiers would have experienced at the point of contact.
Hoplite warfare in Ancient Greece originated around 800 BC, and over time the armor steadily evolved to reduce weight and improve vision and maneuverability. Heavy bronze armor never disappeared entirely but it was modified repeatedly over the centuries. Greaves, for instance, largely disappeared by 400BC, and even the bronze breastplate was often replaced by a lighter multi layer corselet of scale mail and leather. The Greeks understood that if they made the armor thick enough to stop a direct spear thrust it would be too heavy to be practical, so they made it to deflect a glancing blow and accepted that in some cases it could be fatally penetrated.
The shield (aspis, or hoplon, from which the term hoplite was derived) was cleverly designed so that its weight rested primarily on the soldier’s left shoulder and had internal straps to make it easy to hold and maneuver. It was intended to overlap and partially protect the man on the left, maximizing coverage but still allowing the the spear to be employed to best effect.
It is an analysis of the hoplite spear that forms the center point of the book. Extant depictions from vases show it held overhead and stabbing downward at the enemy, and with nothing to counter that assumption, accounts of hoplite warfare for the past two thousand years have followed suit, describing it as a stabbing weapon.
Christopher Matthews, the author of Storm of Spears, has done considerable research on this subject and come to the conclusion that the dory was actually held underarm. He says the images on the vases actually depict javelins, not the spears which formed a hoplite’s main weapon, and to support this idea he has performed a formidable amount of research. For instance, he examined the center of mass of the surviving examples and found that they are weighted so that the most plausible answer is that they were designed for underarm thrusting. The traditional view, that they were used for overhead stabbing, is undermined by the fact that it would be exhausting to hold the spear overhead for more than a few minutes, and we know from ancient accounts that some battles went on for hours. Matthews used laboratory analysis and historical re-enactors to bolster his argument. For the reader it sounds pretty convincing, but it is not universally accepted among classical military historians, and so must remain an interesting but unproved theory for now.
The scientific tests do not drag down the narrative, and the details and anecdotal stories of the hoplite’s life enliven the story. It is not a sweeping view of the grand strategy of warfare in the classical world, but it is nevertheless worth reading for students of this period.
December 17, 2017
How exactly did the ancient Greeks fight? Christopher Matthew conducts a masterful piece of experimental archaeology to discover the basic mechanics of the hoplite manual of arms. Using archaeological relics, modern reconstructions, and the willing assistance of the Sidney Ancients reenacting society, Matthews lays out a convince case for the lethality of close-order legion.
Simple biomechanics show that the spear was most likely held underarm, couched just under the armpit, or lower. The overhead pose commonly found of Greek pottery is simply impossible to maintain for more than a few minutes, strikes with less accuracy, and leaves vital gaps in defenses. The round aspis shield is full of clever devices to ensure proper positioning balanced on the left shoulder, providing cover without tiring out the hoplite. Bronze cuirasses and helmets can be penetrated by direct thrusts, but deflect glancing blows, and if made any thicker would impair mobility and endurance. The mechanics of the individual are sound and convincing, but I am less sure about his conclusions about how a phalanx would behave in battle. His arguments, that a close-order formation was all but invincible, yet required superior troops, and that most killing took place at spears' length rather than in a literal pushing crush, make sense, but for obvious reasons cannot be safely tested.
Matthew ably blends his experiments with historical backing from ancient chroniclers, including variant translations, artistic depictions and recovered artifacts. The scholarship is impressive, to say the least. There's some repetition, and Matthew at times seems to carry a grudge against other classicists who have never picked up a spear, and odd factions in the historical martial arts world that I can only begin to comprehend. Still, this is a great book, and I have to give props to a guy who turned his very geeky obsession in a PhD and a job.
Simple biomechanics show that the spear was most likely held underarm, couched just under the armpit, or lower. The overhead pose commonly found of Greek pottery is simply impossible to maintain for more than a few minutes, strikes with less accuracy, and leaves vital gaps in defenses. The round aspis shield is full of clever devices to ensure proper positioning balanced on the left shoulder, providing cover without tiring out the hoplite. Bronze cuirasses and helmets can be penetrated by direct thrusts, but deflect glancing blows, and if made any thicker would impair mobility and endurance. The mechanics of the individual are sound and convincing, but I am less sure about his conclusions about how a phalanx would behave in battle. His arguments, that a close-order formation was all but invincible, yet required superior troops, and that most killing took place at spears' length rather than in a literal pushing crush, make sense, but for obvious reasons cannot be safely tested.
Matthew ably blends his experiments with historical backing from ancient chroniclers, including variant translations, artistic depictions and recovered artifacts. The scholarship is impressive, to say the least. There's some repetition, and Matthew at times seems to carry a grudge against other classicists who have never picked up a spear, and odd factions in the historical martial arts world that I can only begin to comprehend. Still, this is a great book, and I have to give props to a guy who turned his very geeky obsession in a PhD and a job.
October 10, 2018
An incredibly in-depth and well-researched consideration of the hoplite method of warfare. The author takes nothing on authority and has gone out to test with re-constructed weapons and armour, the way the Greek hoplites could have fought. Quantifying as much as possible, from the length of time a hoplite might be able to engage in a certain style of attack before fatigued, to the likely energy transfer from different strikes at different angles, the author strongly supports his contention that previous scholarship on hoplite warfare worked under many misunderstandings, leading to faulty analysis.
I don't think there is a more comprehensive consideration of the actual technique of the hoplite available.
I don't think there is a more comprehensive consideration of the actual technique of the hoplite available.
May 7, 2019
While there are many books that look upon hoplite through the lenses of economics, society, state and strategy, it is refreshing to read about the actual weapons, tactics and other basic elements of hoplite combat, well-researched and meticulously described.
The author has claimed that ‘It is only by comprehending the basic principles of hoplite warfare, gained through physical re-creation, experimental archaeology and ballistics testing, and then analyzing the results of these tests in conjunction with the literary, artistic and archaeological evidence, that scholarship begins to approach the concept of ‘understanding’ both the armies and the warfare of Classical Greece’. This is exactly what you will find here.
The author has claimed that ‘It is only by comprehending the basic principles of hoplite warfare, gained through physical re-creation, experimental archaeology and ballistics testing, and then analyzing the results of these tests in conjunction with the literary, artistic and archaeological evidence, that scholarship begins to approach the concept of ‘understanding’ both the armies and the warfare of Classical Greece’. This is exactly what you will find here.
August 18, 2025
A Storm of Spears by Christopher Matthew claims very early on to be a book that is challenging the general notions of Greek Hoplite warfare. Personally, I am always skeptical of books that claim to have figured out something in history that no one else has. If you go to the history section of your local bookstore you will find numerous books with the words in the title like secret history, or hidden history or lost history. There are so many authors that claim to have knowledge about that past that others have missed or misinterpreted. So, it was with healthy skepticism that I approached this book. That being said, I did have high hopes for this book, as the topic sounds fascinating and an area my knowledge was only superficial.
From the beginning Matthew did not disappoint. It was clear in the preface that he was approaching the topic from many different angles, and an important one was from attempting to physically recreate by means of experimentation and trial the actual hoplite experience through equipment and reenactors. Coming from a background in business, I appreciate the value of hard data that comes from large data sets of what actually happened, not simply from anecdotes or from interpretations of art/written sources. This ‘getting you hands dirty’ approach very much appeals to me and helps me approach the book with an open mind.
The opening chapters of the book are the best part of the book. Matthew’s breaking down of the spear, especially the weight of the spear head compared to the sauroter was something I have never heard. The fact that the weight of the sauroter shifts the balance point of the spear towards the rear is such an important practical factor that can so easily be missed. I appreciated the way Matthew in this section also brings in prevailing scholarly work and their interpretations of the material remains. He clearly shows how many interpretations of the spear have been made without an attempt to understand how the tool would function. I also like how Matthew even works through the different possible diameters for the shaft, and the different ways it could have been constructed, whether even or tapered. Even something as simple as testing to see that a shaft of 19mm would bend under its own weight. I think it was also smart on his part to start with this examination of the spear, as it lays a foundation for how the whole panoply of the hoplite works, and he references back to the fundamentals of the spear numerous times.
Following up the chapter on the spear with how it was used was the best next step, and this chapter was my favorite. I think Matthew’s arguments for the underarm position are very compelling, and I really appreciate his relentless deconstruction of the overhead position. By looking at the practical functionality of the spear and how it could be used helps to open up interpretations of the artistic record. It goes to show how we can think we understand something by the way we look at the art or read the text, but that view point can be blind to alternative interpretations. The artistic record and written record do not change, but in the way Matthew has demonstrated the practicality of the underarm position, it makes it clear that presumptions clouded much of the interpretations of the art record. This is where I think works of reexamination are so helpful, because knowledge often builds upon itself, and we do not look closely at some of the initial conclusions that we hold to be true.
From this point much of the book continues to flow from one topic to another, strengthening his case for why his interpretation of hoplite combat is more accurate then previous models. I particularly like the discussion on the shield, the way it overlaps with the hoplite on the left and how the stance was at an oblique angle. This in particular was an area that I was blind to. I never thought to challenge the notion of facing strait on or fighting at a 90 degree angle, but in retrospect I would never stand that way if I was holding a spear and shield. So much of this seems so natural, but it is so easy to miss it when your primary source is artistic or written records, and you take them at face value.
I do think that this book slows down in the middle. The endurance, thrust power, accuracy of the hoplite are all useful information, but I am not sure he needed it to be so long. This is to me where one of the book’s strengths actually become a weakness. While Matthew has done a great job of bringing in other scholarly arguments and perspectives, often to contradict them, this becomes somewhat redundant. He continues to bring them in and disagree with them, but I would think at this point of the book he has already persuaded the reader to his positions or not. If a scholar was wrong about the spear being held in an overhead position, then of course that scholar is wrong about the thrust power of the overhead position. Again, the data is useful, and I greatly appreciate the actual testing that was done of how much thrust power and endurance is possible, but it slows the book and argument down to continue to argue with people who Matthew has already shown to be wrong.
I thought this book was great. I enjoyed the structure, the practical approach to the topic and the use of data/experimentation to examine the topic. His insights into how hoplites fought help contribute to better understandings of hoplite tactics and uses as he demonstrated in the latter half of the book. For the most part, I thought Matthew kept the discussion moving forward, making a logical structure to his argument while leading with the best stuff first.
From the beginning Matthew did not disappoint. It was clear in the preface that he was approaching the topic from many different angles, and an important one was from attempting to physically recreate by means of experimentation and trial the actual hoplite experience through equipment and reenactors. Coming from a background in business, I appreciate the value of hard data that comes from large data sets of what actually happened, not simply from anecdotes or from interpretations of art/written sources. This ‘getting you hands dirty’ approach very much appeals to me and helps me approach the book with an open mind.
The opening chapters of the book are the best part of the book. Matthew’s breaking down of the spear, especially the weight of the spear head compared to the sauroter was something I have never heard. The fact that the weight of the sauroter shifts the balance point of the spear towards the rear is such an important practical factor that can so easily be missed. I appreciated the way Matthew in this section also brings in prevailing scholarly work and their interpretations of the material remains. He clearly shows how many interpretations of the spear have been made without an attempt to understand how the tool would function. I also like how Matthew even works through the different possible diameters for the shaft, and the different ways it could have been constructed, whether even or tapered. Even something as simple as testing to see that a shaft of 19mm would bend under its own weight. I think it was also smart on his part to start with this examination of the spear, as it lays a foundation for how the whole panoply of the hoplite works, and he references back to the fundamentals of the spear numerous times.
Following up the chapter on the spear with how it was used was the best next step, and this chapter was my favorite. I think Matthew’s arguments for the underarm position are very compelling, and I really appreciate his relentless deconstruction of the overhead position. By looking at the practical functionality of the spear and how it could be used helps to open up interpretations of the artistic record. It goes to show how we can think we understand something by the way we look at the art or read the text, but that view point can be blind to alternative interpretations. The artistic record and written record do not change, but in the way Matthew has demonstrated the practicality of the underarm position, it makes it clear that presumptions clouded much of the interpretations of the art record. This is where I think works of reexamination are so helpful, because knowledge often builds upon itself, and we do not look closely at some of the initial conclusions that we hold to be true.
From this point much of the book continues to flow from one topic to another, strengthening his case for why his interpretation of hoplite combat is more accurate then previous models. I particularly like the discussion on the shield, the way it overlaps with the hoplite on the left and how the stance was at an oblique angle. This in particular was an area that I was blind to. I never thought to challenge the notion of facing strait on or fighting at a 90 degree angle, but in retrospect I would never stand that way if I was holding a spear and shield. So much of this seems so natural, but it is so easy to miss it when your primary source is artistic or written records, and you take them at face value.
I do think that this book slows down in the middle. The endurance, thrust power, accuracy of the hoplite are all useful information, but I am not sure he needed it to be so long. This is to me where one of the book’s strengths actually become a weakness. While Matthew has done a great job of bringing in other scholarly arguments and perspectives, often to contradict them, this becomes somewhat redundant. He continues to bring them in and disagree with them, but I would think at this point of the book he has already persuaded the reader to his positions or not. If a scholar was wrong about the spear being held in an overhead position, then of course that scholar is wrong about the thrust power of the overhead position. Again, the data is useful, and I greatly appreciate the actual testing that was done of how much thrust power and endurance is possible, but it slows the book and argument down to continue to argue with people who Matthew has already shown to be wrong.
I thought this book was great. I enjoyed the structure, the practical approach to the topic and the use of data/experimentation to examine the topic. His insights into how hoplites fought help contribute to better understandings of hoplite tactics and uses as he demonstrated in the latter half of the book. For the most part, I thought Matthew kept the discussion moving forward, making a logical structure to his argument while leading with the best stuff first.
June 25, 2021
while a thorough critique of hoplite techniques and formation; I'd have to disagree with his notion that hoplite armies could have only used and underhand method as his source seems to be [and granted I'm oversimplifying here] "well this is what worked the best for my friends and I when we tried it for ourselves".
December 1, 2018
An exhaustive (and sometimes exhausting) study of the arms, armor, and battle techniques employed by the Greek hoplite. Refutes much of the conventional wisdom about how Classical Greek warfare was conducted.
February 28, 2025
I’ve never been so interested in a book that I could never recommend to a single other person in real life. Matthew brings logic, experience, and razor sharp reasoning to provide a balanced view of hoplite warfare that, above all, actually makes sense.
November 11, 2017
lot of scientific studies in the way the hoplite fought very fascinating not sure I agree with it all but does make a lot of good points
August 6, 2015
Truly excellent book. Gives extremely valid reasoning behind each of his hypotheses with practical and academic backup. Occasionally becomes a little technical, but that is being exceptionally picky. Found this to be completely enjoyable and answered a few questions that i had about Greek and Persian warfare.
May 2, 2016
Magnificent analysis of Classical Greek warfare; he overturns many of the standard interpretations by giants in the field like Hanson. He used reenactors from Australia panoplied like the Classical hoplite to prove his case. His arguments are well reasoned and convincing. It is a must read for any historian of ancient warfare.
June 8, 2015
SPARTA
May 12, 2017
If you are interested in military history of the Greek city-states, this is a very interesting book since it uses a variety of techniques to work out how the Greek Hoplites actually fought. A combination of reassessment of classic art, of examination of archaeological evidence (Spears, javelin, armor, Shields and bones), of linguistic reevaluation and of reenactment and examination of all of this creates a new and much clearer picture of how the Greek phalanx worked and how the individual Hoplite fought within it. Excellent work.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews