Empirical testing of hoplite performance

[PMBardunias]

Observation leads to theory. Experiment test theory. So what are the observations and the theory that this experiment is meant to explore?

Hey Cole, I'm glad you asked. The set of observations for each experiment will vary widely, much more so in this field than in my own field of science. For most questions we have to bring together historical accounts, anectdotal experiences of reenactors, study of the mechanics of using individual elements of the panoply but not in unison, and previous theory brought in from other fields of human and animal study. So, for example in the test above that is designed to expore spear usage and the interference of rank and file spacing, much of what led to its construction is testemony of reenactors who have tried different styles. Add to that some evidence from ancient authors about how many ranks spear fenced and a bit of behavioral biology.

From this we develop a theory, in this case there is some evidence that more than two ranks of spear-fencers causes interference. Then I construct a test above to be able to add hard numbers to characterize "interference". In this case we should see a drop in accurate stabbing rate as we add a third rank. If we get that result, then the theory is correct. If we don't, then that is just as good, for it shows the opposite. Every good scientist goes into a study with two titles for his next paper. In this case: "Adding a third rank of hoplites causes a drop in accurate stabbing rate in the promachos" or "Promachos accurate stabbing rate unaffected by third rank of spear-fencing hoplites." This data then forms one tiny part of the greater investigation. From here we need to know if the total output of all three ranks drops when a third is added, etc.

The importance of tests like this is that we can get at details that we cannot through other means- a reenactor can stab a target full force, but not another reenactor, and dummy weapons are simply not the same (but for other tests we will still have to use them!).

Will these results be meaningful to re-enactors?

When you reenact, how many ranks do you use? Suppose we can show that three stabbing ranks so lowers the efficientcy of the taxeis that Greeks are unlikely to have used more than two. Obviously this is a contribution to hoplite studies, but you then benefit because you are portraying hoplites in the most accurate style. Just as you would seek the most accurate details of panoply, you would seek the most accurate tactics for demonstration. Also, with some things there may be immediate ramifications for how you design and construct your panoply- shield depth comes to mind.

The key point I'm aiming at here is that re-enactors are volunteers, not paid test subjects. In order to have them make the effort to perform a test you must convince them of the value of doing so, or at least pique their interest in what the results mean. In a way, they are both the proposal review committee and test subjects rolled all into one package.

Any reenactor that takes the time do gather this data with his or her group will first an foremost be adding to the progress of hoplite research. We are standing on the shoulders of previous researchers to bring the quality and accuracy of reenactment to its current level. You are not in a position to give a hand up to those that follow. Frankly, many of the questions we can answer simply cannot be answered by any other means. You would not be out in the heat with heads encased in bronze while wearing archaic slabs of metal and hand-woven flax that together cost as much as an annual vacation if you did not love the subject and want to see it fostered.