| 商家名称 | 信用等级 | 购买信息 | 订购本书 |
 |
 |
A Storm of Spears: Understanding the Greek Hoplite in Action |  |
 |
|
A Storm of Spears: Understanding the Greek Hoplite in Action | |
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.
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.
网友对A Storm of Spears: Understanding the Greek Hoplite in Action的评论
While strident, the author brings two attributes to his arguments that many academics lack: Practical experience as a former soldier (and thus a soldier's mindset) and a willingness to physically recreate hoplite equipment and see how it best works. While I don't agree with all his conclusions, as a reenactor and former Marine infantryman (who's shaken his head at historian' s conventional wisdom more than once after practical experience) I can appreciate his methodology. I for shake my head at still oft-repeated facts that, somehow, a bronze cuirass only 1mm thick weighed over 60ins; not likely. Worse, many books state the 1mm average armor thickness...then give that weight. And even if the gear weighed in at 60+ibs, they ignore that folks like me, at 5'9" routinely carry 90ins of non-breathing body armor, ammo, water, weapons etc, far less well distributed and patrol, fight, crawl, climb walls, run etc...for hours on end. It's normal. It's the average weight of gear soldiers have carried and fought under for centuries!
Thus I can buy the bulk of his thesis, more so when (such as when covering tactics) the author, unlike many, proposes that there likely more than one way to fight and these multiple ways were used. To many academics take all or nothing stands on such nuanced subjects as tactics and techniques.
Dry, but if you want a near complete primer on the subject as you'll ever see, buy it. If nothing else, many solid questions are asked that need a deeper look. Such living archaeology and reenactment methods have radically changed our views on Medieval European warfare, such could happen here!
MOD
Classical scholars have been battling for generations over how the ancient Greek hoplites fought. Christopher Matthew does an incredible 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, using 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.
A Storm Of Spears is one h*ll of engrossing read, and I recommend it without reservation. Christopher Matthew doesn't try and shove his pet theory at the reader. He simply builds it up and presents it to you in exhaustive detail, and along the way dismantles everybody else's, and does it all in such a patient, lucid, non-confrontational, and thoughtful fashion.
The author's also very good at weaving information into the narrative so the reader can soak it up painlessly, rather than bombarding you with a giant boring infodump. As both a senior-level technical writer and a lifelong history nerd, I appreciate the achievement. Armchair historians and reenactors alike will love this book. After a couple of passes you'll be able to picture the famous battles of antiquity much more clearly in your mind's eye.
Next time I teach Warfare in the Ancient World, I'm assigning portions of this book. As it is, it made a great guide for a field exercise with cardboard shield-and-spear. As a professional ancient historian, I found the research impeccable and the argument game-changing. It's written well enough for casual readers, but with the substance I expect from a proper academic book.
This is everything that scholarship in the Ancient World should be. Get it.
I always had a feeling that the overhand stabby stabby idea was bull. Exposing an unarmored arm, just seemed like a lame way to fight when you could hide the arm behind the shield. This book tells you what conclusions the author drew, and why. It also talks about the psychology of the warriors a bit, and the intra-unit formations, and how that played a part in determining his views on the hoplite fighting style.
Very detailed, plenty of diagrams, and pictures of artifacts to back up his theories. And a fun read as well!
喜欢A Storm of Spears: Understanding the Greek Hoplite in Action请与您的朋友分享,由于版权原因，读书人网不提供图书下载服务
