Christopher Matthew, A Storm of Spears: Understanding the Greek Hoplite at War (Goodrich)

Christopher Matthew

A Storm of Spears: Understanding the Greek Hoplite at War

(Pen & Sword, 2012) 336pp.  £25.00

Storm of Spears

This work is one of great importance for the understanding of the ancient Greek hoplite and his gear and overall tactics. The work is based upon Matthew’s 2009 PhD dissertation, and while the work is readable, it is written at that high level.

The work opens with a thoughtful and readable introduction by Richard A. Gabriel, who appropriately points out the problems of doing military history in general, and those of the ancient world in particular. Following this immediately is the work of Matthew, whose primary goal was to reassess the Greek hoplite, beginning with the original sources, incorporating archaeological finds and artistic works, and fleshing out the functioning of the hoplite by using reenactment to challenge traditional assumptions. In the author’s own words, “Any reappraisal of hoplite combat must begin with an examination of the hoplite himself.” (p. 1) There is nothing about this book that suggests it will do anything less, and it delivers a number of challenges to traditionally held views.

The main weapon of the hoplite was, of course, the hoplite spear, and this is the title of the first chapter. Here Matthew relies largely on archaeological material, since he notes that “ancient texts provide few technical details of hoplite arms and armour.” (p. 1) He is able to expound upon a large number of extant spearheads. He builds on this in succeeding chapters, such as ‘Wielding the Hoplite Spear’ and ‘Spears, Javelins, and the Hoplite in Greek Art’. From here, he moves to chapters on body armour, positioning of the spear in combat, the reach of the spear, penetrating power, how the spear was used, and the positioning and reach of the phalanx. Each chapter builds upon the last, and Matthew is able to cite specific sources in Greek when these are available, demonstrating his knowledge of the ancient sources as these progress. He writes extensively of Attic vases, although these vases are from a limited range of dates. Are the even all Attic?

It is the appearance of the hoplites on the vases that allows Matthew to make a serious challenge to conventional ideas. Some vases seem to show a hoplite holding a spear-like weapon with an overhead grip. Matthew suggests however that the weapon in question in reality is a type of javelin rather than a spear. This is due to the presence of a small ring to aid in throwing, and the absence of a balancing tip on the back, which would allow greater comfort in holding the weapon. Matthew demonstrates through reenactment that this method of holding the spear would very quickly tire the hoplite. Field tests indicate a much better position for deploying the spear was from a low or underarm position, which were much better for thrusting the weapon. Hence, those shown being held overhead were javelins about to be thrown. Matthew further challenges conceptions of how these weapons struck lethal blows. “What target areas,” he asks, “did the hoplite aim at his opponent?” (p. 93) He demonstrated convincingly that most blows were to the region of the chest, rather than the head or throat.

The phalanx is likewise investigated in detail. Matthew leaves no stone unturned, from the size of the phalanx to its depth and interval to the method of its deployment. In terms of mutual protection, it appears that the overlapping of shields to the man on the right was most workable in terms of protection, overlap of the spear, and the ability to move in and replace a fallen comrade. An interesting departure is the idea Matthew postulates that suggests that the phalanx most likely marched slowly to conserve its energy for fighting, rather than charging into combat to engage in the famous “push” with the rear ranks pushing forward until one side or the other eventually broke. He does note, however, that “The manner in which the phalanx was deployed could vary greatly and, contrary to modern scholarship, there does not appear to have been a ‘standard’ method of hoplite deployment.” (p. 204) It is clear that the phalanx was adaptable, perhaps more so than previously assumed, in order to meet with the existing circumstances prior to any given battle.

In addition to the fine and readable text itself, the book has a number of illustrations–33, to be exact, that visually aid very well the points that the author is trying to make in the text. There are additionally 19 tables that help to categorize information, and 24 pages of color plates that depict everything from the vases used as source material to reenactors in full kit, called panoply. These photos are extremely useful from a visual angle, and work to supplement the text quite nicely. After the text are extensive notes and a somewhat short bibliography to assist readers interested in sources or in further research.

The book is, on the whole, well written and worth the read. It could work for college level work–even graduate level work–and could be read by anyone in the general public interested in this subject. Matthew makes the effort to cover as much ground as possible, and while no book is perfect, the effort is admirable and the result is positive.

Russ Goodrich, PhD
Moberly Area Community College

This entry was posted in BookReview. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.