"Over the last half
century, a schism developed over hoplite combat that has devolved into a bellum sacrum, with an orthodoxy assailed
by an increasingly popular heresy. The
orthodox position, championed by Hanson, Luginbill, and Schwartz, portrays
hoplites as lumbering masses of men that charged directly into each other and
contested the battlefield by attempting to physically push their foes. Van Wees, Krentz, and Goldsworthy, describe
hoplites as closer to skirmishers, fighting in an opened order, and often
paired with missile troops. Any “push”
was either a figurative description or uncoordinated shield-bashing. I believe they are both in some measure
correct, and often equally wrong, because this debate has forced historians to
stray far from their fields of study. Their
arguments suffer from an insufficient understanding of the physics and
mechanics of large masses or crowds. Group
behavior is my field, and, with the context that I can provide for their
arguments, I shall make an attempt at syncretism."
That is how the article opened, and I think both sides in the debate will find explanations for things they hold true and the other side denies. I hope in the end, after reading this, you will see that there really is not such a divide between the opinions of both camps once we cast off what is not physically likely.
