Boys, boys, boys, please accept my humble apologies for my not being around to answer your questions. I will get to it without further delay. That said, after all this time, I may have to give three rather unsatisfactory answers....
Aynerhoo, Des first. Mate, don't worry about taking up the thread. Your questions are always welcome. They're always a challenge for me and fun to answer.
On this topic though, I must be honest. Although I have heard about these theories of Greek warfare being a little more than a playground ruck, I haven't come across many in-depth articles on it, so I'm not particularly au fait with the technical points of the arguement. If you or zefff has links to any articles or know of any other sources where I can educate myself I'd be grateful!
Looking at it from a general POV though, I'd have to say that it seems unlikely to me. First of all, it would seem to suggest to me a vast conspiracy spanning all the writers of classical history ever, which just doesn't ring true. Accounts of battles from the time are usually quick to mention the huge number of casualties that took place and, while I accept that all writings should be questioned as everyone is prone to embellishing the facts, to say that "4,000 dead" actually meant "one broken ankle, a groin strain, two yellow cards and the substitution of Achilles shortly after half-time" is pushing it somewhat. Of course, as I say, classical writers were no doubt prone to exaggeration, but if the barbarism of war was supposed to offend ancient Greek sensibilities, why glorify it?
Secondly, what self-respecting warlord is going to accept defeat because he was outpostured? You're fighting for territory, riches, power or just in an effort to ensure the survival of your people; would you really let that all go because the opposing army's champion was a big lad and gave the scrum the leverage it needed to win? Even if there was a gentlemen's agreement that that was how war was going to be, surely it would only take one ambitious guy to up the ante in the quest for power. "I've got an idea! What if we were to actually use our swords!?" That one guy would find himself to be king of the world in a very short space of time I would imagine.
Also, in the case that it is a charge that is levelled at the Greeks only, if they were used to playing "touch warfare", how could they possibly have been a match for such elite outfits as the Immortals of Persia? It renders battles such as Thermopylae as entirely meaningless, which, personally, I have a problem with.
So, no, I don't really buy it. But, as I say, I've never read any decent work on the opposing theory so, perhaps I should reserve judgement until I'm in a better position to comment!
Know what you mean. "England: Hating the French since 1066!"
Linear Mode
