Receiving a spartan charge (altho they didn't run like other hoplites) could send you back a good 20-30 feet,
I thought you were the one who said not to be too literal? That aside, I do wonder where this fact comes from - sounds like speculation turned into fact to me.

Heh, let's not try to be so literal..imagine a spartan man who's been training during the entirety of his life, getting some nice "battle tips" from good ol' mum
I don't see what's so strange about a boy receiving advice from his mom. Besides, it is well-established that Spartan swords were extremely short, and there are other similar comments; e.g., that of Agesilaos when the length of the Spartan swords is mocked by an Athenian (he says they are so short a juggler could swalllow them) Agesilaos replies "Because we fight close to the enemy".

I would comment like this some (not all) passages from Xenophon (among others) you provided in the other thread regarding morale, but I'll just say that these weren't written as a way to portrait the way hoplites fought, more rather as a bit of glorification of the ideals a warrior should cherish.
Hmmm... so explicit statements should be viewed as idealistic glorification, but a widely used metaphor should be considered as good evidence?

Spears break often in battle...what happens next ,apart from sword fighting, is ... well, I'll not push this forward
Most likely, the Hoplite would reverse the spear and use its buttspike, as is described in the sources. Several other possibilities spring to mind (and none of them require pushing) as well: fighting on with the broken spear, using just his sword, grabbing hold of the enemy's spears (all of the above supported by the sources), getting a spear from one of the men behind him, or even exchanging places with the man behind (the last two being just speculation).

The fact that one of the men in the front ranks may lose their spears is not very much of an issue here; the presumption here is that under normal circumstances the hoplite (like most normal people) is more interested in surviving than in killing.

Worth noting, btw, that iconographic evidence indicates that early hoplites carried two spears. Actually, the archeological evidence suggests that one of them may have been a throwing spear.

I don't find this consistent with the idea the ancient Greeks developed for themselves, that is the "group above the individual" and the notions in literature texts, that one placed his life on the hands of his fellowmen, while they invested upon him their own fates.
While there is much to admire about the Ancient Greeks, what makes you think the Greeks were any less narcissistic than people are today? Certainly it can't be the behavior described in their literature and letters.

I think warfare departed a lot from it's Homeric form,esp. in the Classical Ages, particularly as personal combat wasn't seen as way to gain glory, but as a foolish action,...
I'd say both yes and no. Personal combat was discouraged, but clearly heroic courage was still esteemed (see e.g., the story of the naked hoplite in the surprise attack on Sparta). The big change was that where before courage was primarily associated with offensive action (i.e., the single combat), courage in the hoplite era also got associated with a defensive action (protecting one's neighbour with one's shield). I don't think that weakens the arguement; quite the contrary.

Of course, just going in with the spear line was a big step up from the "old-fashioned" way of fighting - everyone showing (or trying to show) courage, rather than just a few. It is no surprise that armor became progressively more massive as hoplite fighting developed. In fact, it seems fairly clear that to the Greeks, the men standing in the first line, have taken over the "role" of the heroic warriors. As Tyrtaios says:
"Those who dare, standing by one another, to join in the hand to hand fighting in the front line lose fewer men and protect the people behind; when they flinch, the courage of all is perished."

And it is worth remembering that the "Homeric ethos" didn't dissappear - it survived for quite a few centuries among the "barbarians" (such as the Romans ).

This is an attempt to disclaim the "othismos" eh? For me this argument isn't convincing, as it could be used by any side. If you lenghten the spear, you just have an overall advantage,something that in general can be described as "strike before getting hit". This applies even today (mostly today ) and it s natural that people will want to have the range advantage.
Is it natural to increase the range if your object is to get in close and personal? I have to say I disagree... troops that wanted and needed to get in close adopted shorter weapons, not the other way round. Short weapons (as also commented above) force you to go in close, whether you want it or not.

Even the pilum throwing has a similar role in battle, bridging the melee range disadvantage the Romans had due to the gladius being most of the times shorter than enemy arms
I would have to disagree again (I tend to do that, don't I ), but the pilum still placed the Roman at a range disadvantage; the javelins carried by most of their opponents would have had further range.

I think that you 'll start thinking lateral and try to avoid a very close encounter, thus we get the pike, consider it a counterweight to othismos.
This is pretty hard to do, since at least half (and probably more than that) of the arguement for the othismos is based on anecdotes and interpretation about the pike phalanx.

Regards,

Michael A.