08-23-2016, 02:13 PM
I understand, and you have hit upon why some of use get quickly frustrated with these discussions. You unfortunately have been put in the position of defending a position that to many of us is simply obviously wrong. If I told you that people throw balls faster underhand than overhand, you would immediately know that was bull because you have done both and know from personal experience what the truth was. That is where many of us are with the dory. Now imagine you are posting on a baseball forum about some guy you read who assures you that underhand throws are best and all of us who have been pitching for years are wrong. Our immediate reaction would be to write you off, but perhaps there is an explanation that you were really reading an author playing softball or cricket where the odd rules they chose to play by made underhand the only option. That is quite literally what has happened to this debate. That is why our first advice is try it yourself.
Mathew was a disappointment because many of us had called for years for historians to pay attention to what reenactors had to say. Then when the first reenactor breaks into their circle, he is peddling crap that none of us believe in and is not representative of our experience. He also played fast and loose with the truth in a manner that if I had done so in my thesis I would not be called Dr. Bardunias. You probably remember his diagram of men formed in close order at 45cm (he often calls this 45-50cm because even he must have realized 45 is impossible) opposed to men at 90cm. He makes it seem like a 2 to 1 match up and his whole schtick relies on this match up going bad for those at 90cm. Take a look at the same drawing below, redrawn with only 2 changes. I lined up the spears instead of staggering them to make the comparison obvious, and I allowed the 90cm to have a second rank behind them, which he conveniently does not. Simple math equation 90cm = 45cm+45cm. Not surprisingly, if three spears line up against 2, this is 90 + 90= 60 +60+60. His hoplites are all at a minimum spacing of about 60cm, which is the limit to how close you can squish hoplites along a front and have them function and present the shield face forward. I leave it up to you to decide if a match up of 6-vs-8 would be decisive, I don't, but at least this is the true presentation.
Mathew was a disappointment because many of us had called for years for historians to pay attention to what reenactors had to say. Then when the first reenactor breaks into their circle, he is peddling crap that none of us believe in and is not representative of our experience. He also played fast and loose with the truth in a manner that if I had done so in my thesis I would not be called Dr. Bardunias. You probably remember his diagram of men formed in close order at 45cm (he often calls this 45-50cm because even he must have realized 45 is impossible) opposed to men at 90cm. He makes it seem like a 2 to 1 match up and his whole schtick relies on this match up going bad for those at 90cm. Take a look at the same drawing below, redrawn with only 2 changes. I lined up the spears instead of staggering them to make the comparison obvious, and I allowed the 90cm to have a second rank behind them, which he conveniently does not. Simple math equation 90cm = 45cm+45cm. Not surprisingly, if three spears line up against 2, this is 90 + 90= 60 +60+60. His hoplites are all at a minimum spacing of about 60cm, which is the limit to how close you can squish hoplites along a front and have them function and present the shield face forward. I leave it up to you to decide if a match up of 6-vs-8 would be decisive, I don't, but at least this is the true presentation.
