Did overhead spear is surprisingly so common?

[Cute Wolf]

Yeah, the title should say it, previously, I think only the Greeks and Persians, and European Tribes fought with overhand spears, but as I read and get more information about ancient warfare wolrdwide, I then know that in India, Indochina, and even Java, the overhand spears used with close order infantrymen is surprisingly a common method of forming a battle line. Did they are envolved naturally (with close packed infantry formation cause them to use overhand spear), or did they are spread from hoplite warfare? (interesting, because Hellens & Persians -> Saka & Nomad Overlords -> Saka conquer india -> Saka rulers fled into southeast Asia -> so all the way of overhand spear warfare has Greek and persian ancestry)

[A Very Super Market]

There are only two ways to hold practically hold a spear (3 if you count two-handed lances). I don't think people needed Greek influence to figure it out. And overhand spear stance holds benefits as well, as it allows a soldier more power. I believe there was a big thread a while ago, centred on the differences between under and overhand spears.

[CBR]

If one uses a shorter spear that can be thrown too, then I'd say the overhand style might be the most natural one to begin with. So I don't even think close order tactics were needed for such a style to develop.


CBR

[Watchman]

Nevermind now that the "ice-pick" reverse grip has various pros and cons entirely independent of any tactical formation used in mass combat, and saw a lot of use with knives, daggers and swords as well. (A two-handed reverse grip was pretty popular too, mostly for specialised purposes, and AFAIK actually something of a default means of handling two-handed cavalry spears/lances.)

[Fragony]

There are only two ways to hold practically hold a spear (3 if you count two-handed lances). I don't think people needed Greek influence to figure it out. And overhand spear stance holds benefits as well, as it allows a soldier more power. I believe there was a big thread a while ago, centred on the differences between under and overhand spears.

Indeed, a spear is a weapon that just makes sense, as well as it's use.

[Drag0nUL]

Sorry if I derail the topic a bit:

For me at least, the underhand and overhand spear grip for infantry has always made sense for different troops and situations. what I fail to understand is overhand spears for cavalry.

I mean, IMHO the main strength of a cavalry unit is the charge. charging with an underhand spear(or lance) puts nearly the whole momentum of charging man+horse behind the spear tip. I really see no way an overhand spear could come even near delivering the same amount of force on a charge.

[Husar]

I mean, IMHO the main strength of a cavalry unit is the charge. charging with an underhand spear(or lance) puts nearly the whole momentum of charging man+horse behind the spear tip. I really see no way an overhand spear could come even near delivering the same amount of force on a charge.

That may be logical in hindsight but the first cavalrymen were in quite a different situation, I'm not all that knowledgable on the subject but you need a saddle that helps you with the shock or you'll just fly out of your saddle. Once you're relatively stationary after the initial charge, the overhead spear would have much more use and would probably not be broken already, gives you a longer reach than a sword as well. The frankish armored riders seemed to be pretty successful using it, with time the tactics developed and perhaps improved but judging it like that you could say it's pretty logical to stop a charge of knights with a .50cal machine gun. ~;)

When using the spear overhead you can still poke someone during a charge and it would be easier to absorb the shock/let got of the spear lacking an appropriate saddle I think.

[al Roumi]

That may be logical in hindsight but the first cavalrymen were in quite a different situation, I'm not all that knowledgable on the subject but you need a saddle that helps you with the shock or you'll just fly out of your saddle.
...
When using the spear overhead you can still poke someone during a charge and it would be easier to absorb the shock/let got of the spear lacking an appropriate saddle I think.

AFAIK that's right, or is conventional wisdom on this topic. Without a saddle or stirrups to oppose forward resistance of the lance, you can't charge very well. I'm sure the type of horse available also matters -it took a while to breed a stock of heavy chargers best suited to charging.

Perhaps this is why most early cavalry were skirmishers.

[Husar]

Well, how you handle the shock is also important, if you don't absorb the shock with some sort of technique , you will just hurt yourself if your saddle keeps you in place. I also remember a guy who tried it(couched lancing) with a relatively normal saddle and no stirrups and it worked, he just had to absorb the shock correctly with his body, with the overhead lance I think this would be easier as the lance/spear would not be locked between your arm and your body but be held rather far away from the body with your arm in a position where it's easier to let go of it if it gets stuck in the enemy or so.
You'd get less force of impact of course but then to kill a human I doubt all that much is required.

[rajpoot]

Far as the use of spears by cavalry goes, the practice of couching the spear, didn't start till quite late.
The early saddles did not have any stirrups and so, like it's already been mentioned, the riders would have been thrown off the horse had an underhand grip been used.
In the later periods, (that is around the time of Charles Martel) the stirrup began to be widely used, and the saddle's too developed with higher pommels and cantles specially to aid in the couching and charging tactic.
Before all this happened, heavy cavalry like Cataphracts still did use spears while charging, but not with the same effect as the heavy cavalry in the middle ages.

Infact far as my knowledge goes, in India at least, the underhand spear technique for cavalry was never used at all.

[Rahwana]

Far as the use of spears by cavalry goes, the practice of couching the spear, didn't start till quite late.
The early saddles did not have any stirrups and so, like it's already been mentioned, the riders would have been thrown off the horse had an underhand grip been used.
In the later periods, (that is around the time of Charles Martel) the stirrup began to be widely used, and the saddle's too developed with higher pommels and cantles specially to aid in the couching and charging tactic.
Before all this happened, heavy cavalry like Cataphracts still did use spears while charging, but not with the same effect as the heavy cavalry in the middle ages.

Infact far as my knowledge goes, in India at least, the underhand spear technique for cavalry was never used at all.



Weird.... the Saka Rulers of India did develop Cataphract with two handed lance, and they clearly shown to use it underhand

[rajpoot]

I'm sorry I should've been clearer. When I said India, I did not mean the people who invaded from the west later. I was referring specifically to the indigenous people who'd been living in the area since the first migration of the Aryans.

That fact that the tribes who came later and settled in north western parts used underhand grip, well you might be right in that, but even they I'll wager, did not use it to the same effect as it was used in Europe many centuries later.

[Fragony]

You guys might want to check the archives for a post of a guy named Rajput on Indian weaponry it is excellent.

[dkdnt]

In number of mods i noticed that lot of units (that are considered phalanx) using overhand spears in formations. This was bit of surprise to me, since i never encounter illustration of Greek hoplites or phalanx of any kind which soldiers wielded spears overhand. And it seemed quite logical to that they dont do that, since long spear pointed downward is not very useful unless fighting some midget cavalry.
Nevertheless, i see that there are number of people defending use of overhand spear usage in formation like phalanx, and that there were interesting topic regarding this (which i cant find >< ).
I understand that overhand grip of some weapons is useful. For instance swords, daggers, throwing spears and some other things. But, their usefulness is limited to individual combat, while in tight formation, such as phalanx, i dont think it is that much useful. Especially long spears, since one soldier must wield a spear that is long even more than 5m, and weight few kilos for sure. And in other arm he is holding shield. And practical usage of spear that long pointed to ground is near zero.

All illustration of phalanx and similar spear formations of ancient world shows that soldiers pointed spear relative to ground and upwards, and in doing so they used their shields and friends shoulders as resting places or even as base for spear.

Such usage of spears is more adequate to needs of time. Although someone mentioned that battles were brief, this is somewhat exaggeration. They were brief in comparison with epic battles that could last for few days, but they were long and exhausting. Phalanx are commonly used in offense, but their main role since beginning of tactics (one may argue that it was Alexandar the Great who brought tactic into warfare ) was to hold and/or slowly progress. In such conditions little faster moving spears held overhand on cost of exhaustion were not acceptable.

On the other hand, fight in formation as opposed to individual fight is more directed by specific usage of equipment. Everyman needs to do similar things in order to prevail. Greek phalanxes, roman legions and other historic formations are such examples, as opposed to free fighting styles of barbarians and some other cultures. When fighting out of formation one can change his grip on weapon easily, he can even change weapon whilst engaged in combat. In formation you fight as you are trained as unit.

Long story short. I never saw something like this:

http://scottthong.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/phalanx5.jpg

except in TW modifications.

Therefore i presume that whole idea of phalanx holding spears overhand is based on misinterpretation and misunderstanding of facts such as somewhat faster and more powerful using of spear in individual usage, that is redundant in formations. Also, i found sebveral images like this:

http://www.ancientopedia.com/uploads/images/display-152.jpg

That could be source of mess, since this picture shows single soldier, out of formation.

All historic data i have found, and that consider usage of spears in ancient world formations shows things like this:

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2004/reviews/589390_20040823_screen004.jpgor
http://www.sgibson.k12.in.us/gshs_new/ms_socstud/marathon_dwmpnl/phalanx.jpg

My comment is only related on usage of spears in ancient world in formations and in greek cultural area (Magnuses expansion and more). For other areas and units is quite logical to use spears and weapons overhand.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Paging EB devs to this thread, paging EB devs...

The Macedonian phalangite was a different beast from the classical Greek hoplite. The former used the underhand two handed grip because his pike (the sarissa) was ginormous, like 20 feet long.

And as far as I understand, hoplite warfare was less about stabbing people with spears (though that was part of it) and more about pushing their formation until it gave way while trying to hold them off. The vast majority of casualties didn't occur until once side broke and then the spear could be stabbed however you wanted.

[dkdnt]

Paging EB devs to this thread, paging EB devs...

I`m sorry but i dont know what this means. :embarassed:

And i agree with everything you said. And also my comment considered only shield and spear type of units, not those with two handed spears like sarissa (to my understanding it was long 6+m). I believe there is no representation of those units with overhand grip?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I`m sorry but i dont know what this means. :embarassed:
To page someone is basically to get their attention. The EB devs are the people who made the Europa Barbarorum mod for Rome: Total War, and they're a bunch of history fanatics familiar with the time period. So I'm (sort of jokingly) calling for experts to help us out. :P


And i agree with everything you said. And also my comment considered only shield and spear type of units, not those with two handed spears like sarissa (to my understanding it was long 6+m). I believe there is no representation of those units with overhand grip?
And this is why I need expert help; I don't really know enough about the historical record of representations to say. A quick google search returns this page of Greek pottery depicting hoplites fighting:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoplite_fights_in_Ancient_Greek_pottery

Most of them appear to use overhand spears, but some of them don't.

[dkdnt]

Thanks for explanation :embarassed:

Now, illustration of hoplites on Greek pottery show us single soldiers engaged in fight with single opponent, who is often subset to one wielding spier overhand (and overhead). Like here. (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hoplite_fight_MAR_Palermo_NI1850.jpg) On the other hand, those illustration shows us that while in formation soldiers carry spears underhand, pointed upside. And only those engaged in combat use spears depending on enemy`s position. It is shown here (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hoplites_Chigi_Vase.PNG).
So to say, those pottery illustrations cant be sole source to determine are hoplites wielded their spears one way or another. Like always in archeology and history, these kind of source must be compared to other evidence, otherwise it is indeterminable. This is one of the most important and most common requirements for valid hypothesis. Therefore all evidence that is based just on some illustration of single units cant be reason for proper conclusion. :no:

As I said i was surprised to see that lot of hoplites in EB, RTR (with some "more historic" add-ons) wielded spears overhand while in formation. This way of holding your weapon that is heavy up to several kgs is something that is just fictional. There is no way that soldiers in one unit could hold their spears this way during combat, let alone all time in battle. Although those men were stronger (when it comes to endurance) than most of us, it is hard to believe that they did something ineffective when it comes to these things. :inquisitive:

Now, I`m also history geek and EB fan (i guess this is rule here :) ) and my history knowledge is sole reason for my comment. I believe that somehow there was wrong assumption made by someone who is verse in text history (as opposed to live history), but also quite inept when it comes to actual use of weapons or deployment of formations, tactic and warfare in ancient world. After that, other history geeks thought that this uncommon version of wielding is actually more historic, because people believe otherwise, and people are always wrong. Long story short, i think that someone wanted to be bigger catholic than Pope (i believe that this is proverb?) and rest just followed. :oops:

Again, my opinion regards only greek type of hoplites that wielded spears and shields. :book:

[Centurion1]

The front ranks of a phalanx wielded their spears underhand for the most part with the hoplon (shield) on the opposite arm. I'm sure that you know this. The ranks behind the first couple used an overhand grip on their spears which they used to strike down on their enemies. This is documented stuff. And in the ranks not yet able to engage the enemy the dpears were held fully upright and these ranks task was to brace the men of the preceding line and add heft to the line. Finally in the very rear were the mens final rankswho dealt with downed enemies or fallen comrades as well as men who had simply fallen to exhaustionand allowed themselves to be trampled over.

In fact there are accounts of in new units men sometimes being struck in the face by buttspikes of their own allies

[dkdnt]

The front ranks of a phalanx wielded their spears underhand for the most part with the hoplon (shield) on the opposite arm. I'm sure that you know this. The ranks behind the first couple used an overhand grip on their spears which they used to strike down on their enemies. This is documented stuff. And in the ranks not yet able to engage the enemy the dpears were held fully upright and these ranks task was to brace the men of the preceding line and add heft to the line. Finally in the very rear were the mens final rankswho dealt with downed enemies or fallen comrades as well as men who had simply fallen to exhaustionand allowed themselves to be trampled over.

In fact there are accounts of in new units men sometimes being struck in the face by buttspikes of their own allies

Hm, where is this documented? Not last part, but part that explains spear grips in phalanx? Based on that description men in lines behind 1st, 2nd, 3rd and few more or so, held spears overhand, pointed downside? Pointed to what? To their own allies in 1st few lines? And if they wielded spears long enough to reach enemies, they had to be superstrong to endure that physical challenge. :dizzy2:

You have to try to wield any polearm in order to understand how difficult it is to do so with overhand grip. Any weapon with reach, such as spear, pike or sarrisa would be impossible to use that way in phalanx formation. For shorter spears it is natural grip, and even for it can be changed, in formation, or in individual fight, but for spears that are longer than 2m, this cant be done easily. It would be overwhelmingly hard and exhausting and weapon reach would be hampered. In overhand grip weapon would behave like rocker (if held near middle pole) or like pendulum (if held near but), and in formation this could be hard. :juggle2:

Also, 1st few lines would probably adapt their grip based on the enemy they face. In case of cavalry they would probably raise their spears higher, and against foot they would lower it. This would be followed by comrades not directly engaged in fight. Guys that tightened formation from behind, and those that were not so tight in formation that finished fallen enemies. Also, i believe that formation consisted somewhat like you explained, with different grips and spear usage through lines. But i find it hard to believe they wielded spears in way that would hamper their battle readiness, no matter we today argue on that subject based on few pottery illustrations. :book:

hope my english didnt kill anyone :skull:

[Kagemusha]

I thought that it was indeed norm in Greek pottery showing Greek Phalanx figting overhand.Like in this one:

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_SUBGzd1BG60/SZzLZYJJOQI/AAAAAAACUGg/90ZlphKnEOo/Chigi+vase,+Hoplite+phalanx+det.jpg

One big problem fighting underhand would have been that the people behind you would not have appreciated a but spike going back and forth amongst them. Also i find it hard to understand how you could create much force at all to an underhand stab, with locked shields preventing any large movement of a hand?

[Karl08]

Far as the use of spears by cavalry goes, the practice of couching the spear, didn't start till quite late.
The early saddles did not have any stirrups and so, like it's already been mentioned, the riders would have been thrown off the horse had an underhand grip been used.
This has been a common misconception for years, but does not hold up under actual testing. While the saddle and stirrups certainly help, they are by no means necessary for couching the spear:

http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.php

One used to think that plate armour would seriously impair a knight's movements, and that the medieval sword was slow, heavy and clumsy as well. But such myths only arise after their use has become a thing of the past.

[Sirex1]

This has been a common misconception for years, but does not hold up under actual testing. While the saddle and stirrups certainly help, they are by no means necessary for couching the spear:

http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.php

One used to think that plate armour would seriously impair a knight's movements, and that the medieval sword was slow, heavy and clumsy as well. But such myths only arise after their use has become a thing of the past.
This man speaks the truth.
This also shows that many problem historians have can easily be solved by getting their ass out fo the office, go to the physic department on their universtity and ask them the question :wiseguy:.



Paging EB devs to this thread, paging EB devs...

The Macedonian phalangite was a different beast from the classical Greek hoplite. The former used the underhand two handed grip because his pike (the sarissa) was ginormous, like 20 feet long.

And as far as I understand, hoplite warfare was less about stabbing people with spears (though that was part of it) and more about pushing their formation until it gave way while trying to hold them off. The vast majority of casualties didn't occur until once side broke and then the spear could be stabbed however you wanted.
This is semi truth. The goal was to break the enemy formation, this involves but is not limited to pushing. Hoplites were trained to push the enemy in the charge and were armored to be able to succeed, rear ranks used put their shield to the back on the man infront and then pushed with their shoulder.

What would happen was that the hoplites would charge into each other with the front man having litterally the force of 8 men since the rear ranks momentum is transferred in the stopping moment, the front ranks tring to have their spears aimed at weak spots in the enemy armor, men would fall of injury,death or shock their would be mild chaos. One side would start with the othismos "push with the shield", to withen gaps that was formed in the first contact. This could in turn allow enough free area for your front hoplites to drop their spears and draw their swords and go for the enemy legs to further disorganize the enemy. Hopefully from the othismos and or the swords the pararrexis "breakthrough" would be formed were some part of the enemy line would break and you would be victorious.

Source: John Keegan, "The history of warfare", section Iron, subsection phalanx warfare.

[Moros]

On the phalanx formation and the overhand formation, it's rather simple. You have a tight formation with a shield wall with overlapping shields. That means you either have to put your spear under or above the shields. As the former is rather hard, makes you stab the guys behind you, makes you aim at not really lethal parts of the enemy it's not the best solution. The overhand spear allows you to aim at the face, neck,... is much easier to preform and allows for much force to be put in the stab and you don't hinder your mates behind you as much. While there are still some that take the overhand formation into question, as is the case with any topic and theory in history and science, it is generally supported. Also it something that rare at all. True in the east it was used, one can also still see it in Africa and probably it was more widespread in Europe than most people think.

Now there seems to be a wee bit of confusion. The term phalanx has more than one meaning. Especially in the Ancient period. A phalanx could be nothing more than a tight packed formation or a shieldwall. (Think of Caesar mentions of german phalanxes). The second meaning refers to the formation shown on the pictures of pottery and the screenshot of the mod above. It's the Classical greek formation which I described above. The last is often referred to as a phalanx because it is a sturdy spear formation, the correct name is however the Makedonian Syntagma somtimes dubbed the Macedonian phalanx. It's a completely different formation which is generally used by soldiers armed not with spears, but pikes (named sarissa) that could reach 7 meters in length and in general smaller shields. Differences are that they hold the pike differently namely underhand, and at different angles depending their position in the formation. The first few front ranks holding the sarissa horizontal, the men behind them hold the pike more vertically at each row. A few lines back all hold their pike vertical. This was because of the length of the weapons they wielded, which already made the formation cumbersome, holding them above their comarades in front of them didn't restrict their movement as much and was said to limit the threat of arrows as well. Due to the length of the spears, the cumbersome movement, this formation was also much more static on the battlefield and could not perform charges like the hoplites could. Difficult terrain could also be a gamebeaker for them.

[RollingWave]

A. there are significant doubts to the whole "push formation" concept of the greek hoplite warfare, as quite a few example exist where the thinner lines won, while simple physics would suggest that even really strong men would have a hard time overcomming the weight of a couple extra line of men.

B. as being pointed out, if you lock your shields completely, a underhand stab would be very difficult to pull off espiecailly for people after the first line.

C. a pike formation type of two handed spear wasn't that uncommon either, it was the primary spear tactic of the far east and many of the early medieval "pike" formations were like that as well (as most records of pre 16th century "pike" were often below 15 feet in length and some barely passing 10 feet)


if anything, the "natural" way to use spear is a two handed grip, obviously being easier to transfer a much better portion of energy that way. and being able to control longer / heavier spears better, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if your wileding a 6 foot spear one handed (which was the general length of the hoplon... though some are even longer). you have to grip fairly close to the front section to maintain any sort of control of the thing (try it with a longish pole or something, see how far you can grab while still making consistent effective stabs either over or underhand with one hand)


Similarly, I think the primary issue with the couch lance wasn't as much in the equipment as in control of the weapon, using a couch lance you'll have very limited capacity to adjust your target, thus you must work in formation to have more realistic effects, where as the more logical way to achieve power and control so that you can reasonablly hit what you want to even while alone would be something like...

http://schnucks0.free.fr/Cataphractaire/avanti6to.jpg