The Pushing Match

[saka-rauka1]

I've changed my stance on the use of overhand spears several times now; the last being when I read posts explaining how hoplites would fight in very close proximity and thus not be able to take advantage of the extra reach of an underhand grip. Just now however, I have seen this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmaYtNW_wR8&feature=channel_video_title) on youtube, and I have decided to change my position again :)

I would like to know what answers you would give to the questions aired on the above video. I now find it increasingly doubtful that hoplite warfare would consist of a great amount of pushing given that from what I've read here, casulties were very light. If such a pushing match occurred, routing would fast get the front lines killed. With a formation 8 ranks deep, I suspect 4/5 would be summarily slaughtered.

[bobbin]

I cannot say much in relation to that specific video (i haven't watched it) but people have posted up some of his stuff before and from what I've seen he's not very convinving

He ignores lots of basic facts, for example in one video he claims that the overhand grip has a shorter reach becuase you need to hold the spear in the middle, completely ingoring the fact that Hoplite spears had counterweights to solve this exact problem.

The main problem with theories is that vast majority of ancient depictions of Hoplites show them using the overhand grip, he says this is due to "artistic license" which is a very weak argument given the tens or hundreds of thousands of depictions that have been found.

[saka-rauka1]

Would the artists involved in the creation of said depictions understand the finer points of combat? One point that is brought up in another video is that even modern media gets many things wrong when it depicts modern combat. He also mentions that he went to a mueseum and counted the number of vases that depicted overarm use as well as the ones that depicted underarm use. Overarm won out but only very slightly.

I'm wondering why, if the two front lines were so close, why they would use spears at all when a smaller, bladed weapon would be much less cumbersome.

Another thing that's nagging at me is that in such formations routing becomes suicidal, when casulties in battle were very low for hoplite vs hoplite battles.

[Rahl]

Haha, I saw the title of the thread and thought "this guy has looked lindybeiges newest vids"^^
All in all I like that guy, he's quite funny and often his claims make sence, but when it comes to ancient warfare it's like bobbin says, most times he's not very convincing.
I don't understand much of combat (I like strategy aspects more) but the arguments for the overhand grip seem the most logical to me. When he argues against this he ignores facts so I don't believe him there. Though on other topics he's not as stubborn.
When it comes to the Hoplite Phalanx and shoving matches I would say pure pushing doesn't make much sence to me, but I've no personal experience (but I don't think he has more with Hoplite combat).

[fomalhaut]

I was actually going to post a video from this guy in regards to the overhand grip 'debate' but nice to see bobbin answer any question i may have had. He is super smart and witty but i don't necessarily use him as a source for anything ancient. Wait! i do like that he says Linen Cuirass and not Linothorax

[Antinous]

You guys should read "The Western way of War". It is a really good book and specifically talks about how hoplites held their spears.

[gamegeek2]

He does make some interesting points but on overhand spears, I have indeed found him quite unconvincing.

[Delta146]

I've seen one of the videos that guy made regarding spears, and his argument seems rather flimsy. As bobbin says, the dory was counterweighted, and I have even read that it was tapered to be very thin at the front and thick at the rear. He also used what seems to be an overly thick dowel. If I remember correctly, I read that spears were thin enough to very easily break during battle. I find it hard to imagine what he's holding would break easily at all.

I am not knowledgeable enough regarding primary sources to make a real argument, but I think I should paraphrase something said on the reenactment sites I visit; it's best to recreate what there is evidence for. Speculation is great, but at the end of the day there is a huge amount of evidence for overhand grips and I don't think that anyone could represent hoplites accurately without overhand grips unless new evidence presents itself.

[Cute Wolf]

underhand shield-wall are too much like viking things

[QuintusSertorius]

Wouldn't fighting using an underhand grip with a shield the size of an aspis be rather clumsy?

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Wouldn't fighting using an underhand grip with a shield the size of an aspis be rather clumsy?

It wouldn't be clumsy to wield - the shield is on the left arm and the spear in the right hand. So the right half of a hoplite's body is not covered by his shield when he thrusts his spear forward underarm.

However, underarm grip would prevent the front rank from closely linking shields. With a tight shoulder to shoulder formation and an overarm grip, the spear can protrude over the top of the shield. But with an underhand grip, it can't protrude from underneath the shield, because the shield covers the body from thigh to neck. An underarm spear would have to be at knee level to protrude from underneath linked shields, and obviously that's impossible.

To use their spears underarm, the hoplites would have to be more widely spaced to leave gaps in the front rank shieldwall for underarm spears to poke through. But that places the front rank shields further apart, and thus the formation becomes slightly more vulnerable to missiles.

So that's one reason for hoplites to use the overarm grip - it allows a tighter and better protected formation. Which is probably why it was used.

Also with the overarm grip, the target for the spearpoint is the enemy's face and neck. The spearpoint dives over the top of the enemy's shield and opens his jugular vein, or stabs into his eye or mouth. Against well-armoured opponents, like other hoplites, this is a good tactic.

With the underarm grip, the target for the spearpoint is the enemy's body core. The spearpoint plunges into the enemy's chest, stomach or groin, nearly always causing an immediately fatal wound. Against poorly armoured or un-armoured opponents, like Gallic barbarians or lightly-armoured Persians with wicker shields and no body armour, the underarm grip would be the most effective tactic.

Since the Greek city-states were in most cases fighting each other, hoplite vs hoplite, using overarm would make the most sense.

[antisocialmunky]

Vikings shieldwalls were somewhat different and the shieldwall ended going up and to the sides while the hoplite variety was only to the side because the shields were so freaking big.

Isn't there evidence that the proto-classical hoplite troops used large shields with a cut out on either side so they could wield spears with some sort of wrist over spear stabbing grip?

[Toorstain]

One thing i wonder is: Why was the back end of the hoplite spear even pointy?

A lot of people uses the argument that "you could accidentaly wound or kill the one behind you" against both underhand and overhand uses, but I have never seen a good explanation of why it was even there. Would you be so kind to enlighten me on this?:book:

First i thougt it maybe was to easily change stance between overhand and underhand, but that seems unlikely and impractical to me?

Was it used to somehow stick the spear in the ground to brace against cavalry, but that seems rather impractical and time consuming. Was it used for this?

:idea2: Or was it maybe so you could just turn the spear around when it broke and use it as a reserve spearhead?

[bobbin]

One thing i wonder is: Why was the back end of the hoplite spear even pointy?

A lot of people uses the argument that "you could accidentaly wound or kill the one behind you" against both underhand and overhand uses, but I have never seen a good explanation of why it was even there. Would you be so kind to enlighten me on this?:book:

First i thougt it maybe was to easily change stance between overhand and underhand, but that seems unlikely and impractical to me?

Was it used to somehow stick the spear in the ground to brace against cavalry, but that seems rather impractical and time consuming. Was it used for this?

:idea2: Or was it maybe so you could just turn the spear around when it broke and use it as a reserve spearhead?

It was pointed for a few reasons, firstly it allowed the soldier to stick it in the ground when he wasn't moving, so he won't have to hold it all the time. I believe this is where it's name "Sauroter" comes from which means "lizard killer". It also served as a back up for if the spearhead broke off, which was almost certain for the soldiers in the first ranks.

It may have been used by the rear ranks to kill injured enemy soldiers as the phalanx went over them, this has been theorised from it's construction, it is a long thin spike made of bronze, which is harder that iron and so perfect for punching through armour. The fact that quite a few of the armour peices found from the period have square shaped holes matching the shape of the Sauroter gives some weight to this theory.


Would the artists involved in the creation of said depictions understand the finer points of combat? One point that is brought up in another video is that even modern media gets many things wrong when it depicts modern combat. He also mentions that he went to a mueseum and counted the number of vases that depicted overarm use as well as the ones that depicted underarm use. Overarm won out but only very slightly.
Yes but this would be similar to depicting modern soldiers holding the gun the wrong way round. Most of the artists would have seen the Hoplites performing their drills and quite a few would have probably even being in battles with them. You have to remember that warfare was a lot more closer to everyday life than it is today.



I'm wondering why, if the two front lines were so close, why they would use spears at all when a smaller, bladed weapon would be much less cumbersome.

Usually the spears would break very quickly so it was very common for those in the front ranks to be fighting with their swords for most the battle.

[saka-rauka1]

Would the men in the middle ranks be able to use the reach of their spears properly? If the front ranks were pushing then they would adopt a lower stance such as to move their centre of gravity down and thus be harder to move. Using a spear to attack low would be impractical for an overarm grip wouldn't it?

Also what are the advantages of the hoplon shield vs tower or kite shields?

[jirisys]

Would the men in the middle ranks be able to use the reach of their spears properly? If the front ranks were pushing then they would adopt a lower stance such as to move their centre of gravity down and thus be harder to move. Using a spear to attack low would be impractical for an overarm grip wouldn't it

Why would they use their spears at all? It's like saying that a middle-rank legionary wouldn't be able to use their swords properly. It's just ilogical. Middle ranks only enter in combat by either; becoming the front line (obviously unvalidating your point), being a phalangite (no point here), being a skirmisher (no point here again).

Also, why would you attack low at all, your enemy has this huge shield and greaves that covers him lower body, his neck is completely (if not a classical hoplite that is) vulnerable to your attack. Why would you even think attacking low? (unless your enemies are some uirodusios and gaesatae).

Big, you become a shield-wall, you are encouraged not to rout or leave formation because you would leave yourself and your brothers unprotected (plataia), you can join it with some greaves and a good helmet and you are nearly invulnerable, blows to the side slip off due to its curvature, you cannot hit it straight or your blow would lose force due to it's curvature, you can bash the puny enemy shields, your charge is well protected (it's hard to kill some running guy with a huge-*** shield covering almost his whole body), you can form a spear line, you can rest your spear on the shield-wall so you are ready and not tired by it's weight, etc.

That's all I could think of.

~Jirisys ()

[saka-rauka1]

Middle ranks was probably the wrong term. What I mean is that the 1st rank would be using their swords most of the time, whilst the guys immediately behind them would use spears. If you think about the positioning and stance of each of the soldiers, you will see that in order to hit someone over their shield, you need to angle your spear down. For someone who isn't in the 1st rank that would be impossible. So why carry spears at all?

Why wouldn't a good sized tower shield with a concave shape be just as good as a hoplon shield?

[gamegeek2]

A good sized scutum was a superior weapon for individual fighting, and it also doesn't require the same amount of protective equipment to be effective. A scutum or thureos can easily be lowered to protect the legs, which is not possible to do effectively with a hoplon; that's why hoplites and elite assault troops who carried aspides had to wear greaves, or they would get their legs chopped off.

[jirisys]

Middle ranks was probably the wrong term. What I mean is that the 1st rank would be using their swords most of the time, whilst the guys immediately behind them would use spears. If you think about the positioning and stance of each of the soldiers, you will see that in order to hit someone over their shield, you need to angle your spear down. For someone who isn't in the 1st rank that would be impossible. So why carry spears at all?

Why wouldn't a good sized tower shield with a concave shape be just as good as a hoplon shield?

Ok, so now you're criticizing the whole aspect of warfare? Spears were carried because it was defensive, the sword because it was for when things really got messy. Would you like to argue that every single soldier that carried a spear would make it useless?

Battles were not fought like the TW series shows it. It was thousands of men, spanning miles, most of the time with several more depth than just 8; just going at it, inches from one another. There was really no space or great room to use a spear your way. even phalanxes were not as effective against armoured soldiers; there wer hundreds of men who went into hand to hand with the phalanx. The spear is used as a piercing weapon, you try to insert the pointy thing inside someone; very useful for defense. Swords were used to cut and butcher as much as you could to make your enemy die; great for the offensive.


A good sized scutum was a superior weapon for individual fighting, and it also doesn't require the same amount of protective equipment to be effective. A scutum or thureos can easily be lowered to protect the legs, which is not possible to do effectively with a hoplon; that's why hoplites and elite assault troops who carried aspides had to wear greaves, or they would get their legs chopped off.

Yeah, problem is you get tired because you have your handle on the boss, you have more protection; yes. But you sacrifice stability, force and union.

Remember romans disciplined their troops different than the greeks.

~Jirisys ()

[QuintusSertorius]

The spear isn't simply a defensive weapon; what robs it of much of its offensive force is the need to stay in a tight formation. In a one-on-one fight a spear is an extremely versatile weapon. When you don't have room to use it in the myriad ways it can be wielded, then it becomes something less.

[moonburn]

the spear war normally 4 metters long so hoplite vs hoplite the 1st rank would have 4 pointy things going at them

i read here in a very old thread that there where 4 moments in hoplite warfare and the most important one was the oychos or something similar wich meant the push

in a hoplite batle if you could unbalance the other phallanx they would loose and if things got bad then you went for the swords wich was where the spartans excelled and made them the best warriors of ancient greece but if it got there then most of the times one of the army´s would just pull back and surrender the field

imho greek warfare was initially a ritualized pushing game i mean greece as very few plains and alot of rocky ground in the midle ages they where fighting as skirmishers against the turks and not as hoplites for a reason

hoplites where probably born when greeks had to fight the thessalians asians and others who used horses (shieldwall and spears) and when they fighted amonsgt themselfs nobady wanted to loose too many men because those where the citizens the farmers the bakers the armourers so during those times loosing a farmer meant less taxs to collect meant you would loose your milkman and your baker and your paperboy and they wheren´t easily replacable (ofc this is just pure conjecture)

also i think the regards to men being so crumped up in the phallanx that they shited themselfs with the forçe they had to endure or soldiers dieing and only falling to the ground after the phallanx was broken shows how "close" they where to each other and of the density of the phallanx and that only makes sence in a pushing contest so in such an enviroment underhand spear grapping is basically impossible but if you got your harm up you can move it kind of freely so ...

[bobbin]

the spear war normally 4 metters long so hoplite vs hoplite the 1st rank would have 4 pointy things going at them


4 metres? I think you've confused it with the sarissa, the dory was about 2m in length.

[saka-rauka1]

Ok, so now you're criticizing the whole aspect of warfare? Spears were carried because it was defensive, the sword because it was for when things really got messy. Would you like to argue that every single soldier that carried a spear would make it useless?

Battles were not fought like the TW series shows it. It was thousands of men, spanning miles, most of the time with several more depth than just 8; just going at it, inches from one another. There was really no space or great room to use a spear your way. even phalanxes were not as effective against armoured soldiers; there wer hundreds of men who went into hand to hand with the phalanx. The spear is used as a piercing weapon, you try to insert the pointy thing inside someone; very useful for defense. Swords were used to cut and butcher as much as you could to make your enemy die; great for the offensive.

Doesn't seem like there was any way to use a spear in the conditions described here. A spear's principle advantage is reach, which you don't have anymore; add to that the fact that they apparently broke often, and it seems that carrying one instead of a sword would just be ridiculous.


The spear isn't simply a defensive weapon; what robs it of much of its offensive force is the need to stay in a tight formation. In a one-on-one fight a spear is an extremely versatile weapon. When you don't have room to use it in the myriad ways it can be wielded, then it becomes something less.

A spear is much worse when its used in a 1v1 situation. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixm6sXe1TYE)

[QuintusSertorius]

Doesn't seem like there was any way to use a spear in the conditions described here. A spear's principle advantage is reach, which you don't have anymore; add to that the fact that they apparently broke often, and it seems that carrying one instead of a sword would just be ridiculous.

Later phalangites might have lacked a backup weapon, but no one ever used a spear instead of a sword. You carried both, the spear was primary and as throughout the ages the sword was the backup weapon of choice.


A spear is much worse when its used in a 1v1 situation. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixm6sXe1TYE)

Colour me totally unconvinced by that rather comical display.

[antisocialmunky]

That's like saying a knife beats a gun if the gun can't shoot at you.

[jirisys]

Doesn't seem like there was any way to use a spear in the conditions described here. A spear's principle advantage is reach, which you don't have anymore; add to that the fact that they apparently broke often, and it seems that carrying one instead of a sword would just be ridiculous.

A spear's principle is defensive ability, people stab themselves while they are trying to reach you, then you come to swords. You are pointing out your vision of spears, sarissas were perfect steam-rolling/mass-murdering weapons because people stabbed themselves while charging and they couldn't escape if being pushed.

You carried both. Close combat was always present, even as a phalangite, you would die if you were dumb enough to carry a spear only. Spears are used at the first stage of combat, when the enemy charges against your line; and of course, when swords would be useless. Such as... Say... When you are covered witha huge hoplon... you can use spears without fear of getting hacked by a sword, and you also can kill other hoplites more easily.

~Jirisys ()

[Ibrahim]

Would the artists involved in the creation of said depictions understand the finer points of combat?

well, considering the best pots (IMHO) are from the 5th century BC, a period of constant warfare in Greece, and a time when each tribe in a given city had to contribute men, it's not unreasonable to suppose that they would have seen hoplites, or even been hoplites themselves.


One point that is brought up in another video is that even modern media gets many things wrong when it depicts modern combat. He also mentions that he went to a museum and counted the number of vases that depicted overarm use as well as the ones that depicted underarm use. Overarm won out but only very slightly.

1-so? who said we're getting our ideas from CNN? or any other channel or media outlet? this is a strawman of his on the overarm camp-of which I am actually apathetic about.

2-simply counting stuff makes no sense on it's own. you need a statistical qualifier to show that bias hasn't creeped into your sample (an issue I find likely with him). context also matters: how did the men fight when holding their spears a certain way? in a formation, or one on one? what dates were the pots from? are they regarding RL, or mythology?




I'm wondering why, if the two front lines were so close, why they would use spears at all when a smaller, bladed weapon would be much less cumbersome.

shock? and they'd break anyways from the impact, so the hoplites would have soon turned to bladed weapons anyways.



Another thing that's nagging at me is that in such formations routing becomes suicidal, when casulties in battle were very low for hoplite vs hoplite battles.

you are assuming the Greeks were worth a crap as cavalrymen. outside of Thessaly and maybe Makedonia, they weren't. and the main battle line wouldn't have been able to pursue: heavily burdened in summer weather (the fighting season) and having already spent several minutes in heavy hand to hand fighting (or pushing), the winners likely had no stamina left. the losers would also be bushed, but they'd have dropped their heavy shields-a sign of disgrace as well BTW.


Would the men in the middle ranks be able to use the reach of their spears properly? If the front ranks were pushing then they would adopt a lower stance such as to move their centre of gravity down and thus be harder to move. Using a spear to attack low would be impractical for an overarm grip wouldn't it?

Also what are the advantages of the hoplon shield vs tower or kite shields?

1-the phalanx was only meant to have the first few ranks at a time presenting spears: the rest were for reserve action and giving "depth" to the phalanx. so the middle and rear wouldn't have to lower a thing.

2-are you saying the ancient greeks were willing to castrate their brethren in combat? I wonder how that would fly in a Greek Trial.

3-I don't know, and couldn't give a darn. I'm more into pike, bayonet and shot...and dark age stuff.


Doesn't seem like there was any way to use a spear in the conditions described here. A spear's principle advantage is reach, which you don't have anymore; add to that the fact that they apparently broke often, and it seems that carrying one instead of a sword would just be ridiculous.
A spear is much worse when its used in a 1v1 situation. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixm6sXe1TYE)

1-you are assuming that the overhand had to be held from the middle, reducing reach to 4 ft. what of the bronze counterweights, which we know were at the butt-end of the spear?

2-finally, the whole lot of you seem to make the assumption that just because a pose looks (and may even be) impractical, doesn't mean it wasn't used: Soldiers outside of Prussia (possibly Austria) in the mid-18th century usually charged bayonets chest high-like a 16th century pike-man. it's a crappy posture for a musket (sth only 6.5 ft long at most with bayonet, and about 11 Lbs, as opposed to a 16ft pike), but hey, they used it anyways.

[saka-rauka1]

1-so? who said we're getting our ideas from CNN? or any other channel or media outlet? this is a strawman of his on the overarm camp-of which I am actually apathetic about.

I never made any such claim.


2-simply counting stuff makes no sense on it's own. you need a statistical qualifier to show that bias hasn't creeped into your sample (an issue I find likely with him). context also matters: how did the men fight when holding their spears a certain way? in a formation, or one on one? what dates were the pots from? are they regarding RL, or mythology?

One should ask why they were depicted underarm at all especially since I've been told now that most people would be familiar with hoplite combat and that underarm depictions are:


similar to depicting modern soldiers holding the gun the wrong way round.


shock? and they'd break anyways from the impact, so the hoplites would have soon turned to bladed weapons anyways.

Exactly, from what I have gathered the spears would quickly break and if they didn't then the close quarters would make it irrelevant. Why not ditch the spears and use swords exclusively.


you are assuming the Greeks were worth a crap as cavalrymen. outside of Thessaly and maybe Makedonia, they weren't. and the main battle line wouldn't have been able to pursue: heavily burdened in summer weather (the fighting season) and having already spent several minutes in heavy hand to hand fighting (or pushing), the winners likely had no stamina left. the losers would also be bushed, but they'd have dropped their heavy shields-a sign of disgrace as well BTW.

The lack of cavalry was what led me to believe that casulties were low in the first place. My point, was that if in such a tightly packed formation with people pushing into you from behind, routing would be unfeasable; the enemy could easily catch you, shield or no.


2-are you saying the ancient greeks were willing to castrate their brethren in combat? I wonder how that would fly in a Greek Trial.

And I'm the one posting a strawman? How you reached this conclusion based on what I said, I'll never know.


1-you are assuming that the overhand had to be held from the middle, reducing reach to 4 ft. what of the bronze counterweights, which we know were at the butt-end of the spear?

No, I have accepted that there were counterweights, and that it allowed you to hold it furthur from the centre. The reach of the spear is gone because you have no room to wield it properly.

[FriendlyFire]

I second the recommendation to read "The Western Way of War". It covers pretty much everything discussed in this thread, including the fact that the shield's concavity was nicely designed to (a) partly hang from your shoulder, since the damn thing was so heavy, and (b) wedge into the guy ahead of you for the "push of pike".

One topic we don't seem to have covered in this thread so far is that spears are much better than swords for the initial close-formation charge, when you can get your charging body-weight concentrated into a spearpoint. That was often sufficient to punch through shields, helmets, or body armor. This also explains why the shield WAS so heavy, because they were made thick in an attempt to resist charging spear-points - and they couldn't be made much bigger without becoming too heavy to lift. Also why dropping your shield was an effective way to lighten yourself enough to get away in combat, and also so frowned upon (because you just took away half the protection from the guy on your left). Once you're actually in the melee, you're jabbing down with an overhand grip for your opponent's shoulders and neck, or up with an underhand grip into their groin (there are Greek post-battle stories cite in the book about men bleeding out from their groin).

[Ibrahim]

I never made any such claim.

.

I didn't say you did; in fact, if you actually reread my post (which you ironically quoted), I made it clear my contention was with Lindey-if not, ask yourself why I used the third person, rather than the second person. I was referring to the point lindeybeige himself said, about the media. while his first point is correct, it doesn't actually address why people think overhand, not underhand was used: there are other arguments aside from mere "depiction" of such. you only need to read the other posts here to see: reach, shield shape, the formation itself, prevention of "friendly poking", etc.


One should ask why they were depicted underarm at all especially since I've been told now that most people would be familiar with hoplite combat and that underarm depictions are

as I said in my post: it may depend on the situation at hand; as this is a question of how Hoplites fought in phalanx, we need to establish if overhand use (or underhand), is more relevant to depictions from Greek times of said formation.


Exactly, from what I have gathered the spears would quickly break and if they didn't then the close quarters would make it irrelevant. Why not ditch the spears and use swords exclusively.

shock (amplifying the initial power of the impact)*? knight's lances also shattered on impact most of the time-yet for some reason, Knights to my knowledge never really came to your same conclusion-at least in general. (the lance was only abandoned because the role of cavalry changed after the middle ages; the latter due to the intro of gunpowder in part, in part from the rise of professional modern armies,and so on)

and yes, whether it is knight or Hoplite, it's the same idea: using you velocity concentrated at a sharp point, well away from you, to poke into the enemy and kill him.

*see friendlyfire's post.


The lack of cavalry was what led me to believe that casulties were low in the first place. My point, was that if in such a tightly packed formation with people pushing into you from behind, routing would be unfeasable; the enemy could easily catch you, shield or no.

you also seem to imply that the losing side will just keep pushing-I might be misunderstanding you hear, but that's the implication. they wouldn't-not unless they wanted to die for nothing: if a gap was forced (as in most of these engagements), it would have meant the flanking of the pockets of losing hoplites. those would naturally be seized by fear, and haul it. so any pushing from the losers would stop. unless they're the theban sacred band. it's interesting to note however that much of the killing was when the losers started to run. but even then, you would have to ask yourself: why not be able to kill more of those routing men? and the answer is as I mentioned: once the fleeing survivors dropped their panoply in panic, they could get away from the winning hoppers.


And I'm the one posting a strawman? How you reached this conclusion based on what I said, I'll never know.

again, never said you did. reread the comment-I didn't edit it at all since I first posted it (and again, which you ironically quoted). and I was commenting on the impracticality of the spears being locked underarm in a phalanx situation. and more importantly, it was a joke. yeah, i forgot the clown smiley...




No, I have accepted that there were counterweights, and that it allowed you to hold it furthur from the centre. The reach of the spear is gone because you have no room to wield it properly.

why would that be the case? even if the spear didn't shatter on impact, the hoplite would still be able to plunge it into the 2nd and 3rd ranks-at least in theory. and if that wasn't feasible, then all the better towards explaining why hoplite warfare was inefficient.

[Randal]

There's still quite a debate about the meaning of the term "othismos" which in the past has been interpreted as literal "pushing" but nowadays is getting interpreted more as a general term for the "tide of battle."

I've not done a lot of reading on the subject, but I've read R. D. Luginbill, 'Othismos: the importance of the mass-shove in hoplite warfare', Phoenix 48/I(I994), si-6i; and A. K. Goldsworthy, 'The othismos, myths and heresies: the nature of hoplite battle', War in History 4/I ( 997), I-26.

The former defends the traditional interpretation that Greek soldiers were literally shoving eachother like an inverse tug-of-war. Goldsworthy, i.m.o. argues much more convincingly that this is pretty much impossible and shows the term or similar ones being used even when the soldiers involved are not equipped in a way that would make literal "shoving" possible.

Given the low casualty ratings hoplite battles must have been far more tentative affairs than is assumed in the common imagination or shown in Total War. The charges probably either broke the enemy very quickly or failed to hit home as the enemy stood firm, with only brief but important periods of actual hand-to-hand fighting.

As for how they held the spear, I'm assuming over-hand. From what I've read from professional re-enactors, it's a myth that the sword is better than the spear in single-combat. Good spear-fighters apparently are very dangerous. Spear-thrusts are easy to parry, but carry so little momentum that they're also easy to recover from making it a very quick and dangerous weapon. No sources, though. Sorry. This is just what I remember reading.

[antisocialmunky]

Yeah, the reading of 'pushing' has always been an interesting point to me especially in the case of Leuctra where the 50 deep Theban left managed to crush the Spartan right and inflict massive casualties. The interesting bit seems to have been that the Spartans held the initial charge but eventually broke during the course of the fighting so it must have been a slightly drawn out affair. :\

At Coronea, the Spartan right managed to quickly rout the allied left after a mutual charge. Its hard to say what exactly was the nature of hoplite warfare...

[Randal]

It seems pretty ridiculous to me to assume that those 50 men were all pushing forward against eachother in an armoured rugby-scrum... I could picture it with up to half a dozen men maybe, but at the depths hoplites fought in...

I'm not saying, by the way, that hoplite battles were always over quickly. We know that some definitely weren't. Just that actual shield-to-shield mêlée fighting must have been brief.

[Arjos]

Also after each clash, I think always, is said how caos breaks free, many times with same wings killing eachother...

[tujo33]

Another thing to think about is you wouldn't only be attacking the person directly in front of you. A thrust to your right with a spear could pierce the neck of the combatant to your right who would be partially unprotected due to the space between the tops of his and his neighbors aspis. this would also lend to the thought of having your best hoplites on the right of the line. Attacking the soldier to the left or right of you. I like to think that as long as the phalanx stayed together they would fight as a phalanx, not breaking into one on one combat. a spear thrust from the front rank could injure someone in the fourth line.

[Alrik]

Ok, first I thought this was an april-fools thread, but apparently the initial posts were older than that.

I'm not sure what you mean with the different names on the grip, there's two ways of holding a spear, one way for thowing it and one way for hand to hand combat. So I really thought this was a non-issue and hence the thread a joke.

https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/arche-seleukeia/seleukid_hypaspistai.gif I'll call this the M-grip for Missile

https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/arche-seleukeia/seleukid_thorakitai_argyras.gif and this H-grip for hand-to-hand combat (I'll thus try to refrain from saying melee)

The M-grip enables you to throw the spear, in hand-to-hand however you'd be a dead idiot, pretty quickly. For one it's not possible to thust with the spear using this grip and a spear is a thusting weapon. You can stab, but as that makes the point follow the arch of your hand, stabbing is thus obviously an attack best suited for short weapons.

There's also the issue of it being "flimsy", you have little controll of the weapon, if someone bumps your weapon it's much harder to get back under control than with the H-grip and it forces you to hold the weapon closer to the center than an H-grip does.

There's also the issue of more or less only being able to stab, if you want the spearpoint to continue forward you actually have to losen your grip on the shaft, otherwise it'll start a downward motion, losening the grip obviously means that you can transfer less force into the attack.

One can only use this grip shoulder height and above as opposed to the H-grip which can more or less be used at any height.

Thrusting as someone using the M-grip also exposes two great targets for your opponent;
For anything with a blade, that can be a spearpoint, but becomes a lot worse if it's a sword or something with a bit more force behind the swipe. The lovely vertical underarm, in front of your body, no less so it's even easy to reach.
Secondly the nice pocket your armpit makes, a wonderful target for anything with a thrustingpoint. Not only does the armpit catch the thrust nicely, and lead it into body, but this area is really hard to armour, because doing so usually limits movement.

The H-grip in turn have:

Greater reach, because you can both hold further back on the spear and extend your arm further.

Greater control, meaning you can wield your spear in numerous ways, like, block, or swipe, or use it to "catch" your opponents spears.

Greater force, not only does this grip enable a movement that generates more force, but it also enables you to transfer your bodyweight and your momentum into the thrust. This combined with the fact that the thrust from this grip continues in a straight line, means that one can pierce something and continue on through.

Greater presision. This is a result from this grip being steadier and giving you more control, but also from the fact that the spearpoint doesn't move in a trajectory. Hitting where you want is pretty important when you're facing an armoured and/or shield wielding opponent.

That's what I find at the top of my head at 1 Am :P

Oh the second spearpoint, like has been said before, it's probably good to have a reserve spearpoint, but as you're probably holding your spear pretty far back with the counterweight and all, if your opponent charges past your spearpoint, then sending the spearpoint skywards you quickly have an M-grip and a short weapon, that you can use to stab your oncoming foe in the face/neck/torso. Perhaps not ideal, but pretty deadly as your charging foe usually wants to see what he's doing (hence his shield probably isn't held up too high enableling you to possibly act over it as an M-grip means you act in the high reagions.) and it's a lot quicker than changing to your secondary weapon.

Ahh and the mentionings on low number of casulties makes me guess that they in those cases fought at more or less maximum reach in what I've come to know and despise as "spear duels", it's a really timeconsuming and low casulty way of fighting where spearmen on both sides poke at each other trying to get through the other's guard. Compared to a headon charge ending at closequaters this type of engagement can take forever without hardly anyone dying.
Obviosly in this kind of fighting you want reach more than anything.

[Foot]

ah, common sense. Isn't it wonderful? Not very good for determining the truth of something though.

It may be more efficient and make more sense for them to fight underhand, but all evidence we have on antiquity points toward the hoplites fighting overhand in the majority and unfortunately what makes sense does not trump that. And you can rationalise the depiction in art all you want, but the arguments are hollow and without merit. They follow only from the assumption that underarm was used, and are not an argument that is ever used in any other situation.

Foot

[Ibrahim]

Ok, first I thought this was an april-fools thread, but apparently the initial posts were older than that.

I'm not sure what you mean with the different names on the grip, there's two ways of holding a spear, one way for thowing it and one way for hand to hand combat. So I really thought this was a non-issue and hence the thread a joke.

https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/arche-seleukeia/seleukid_hypaspistai.gif I'll call this the M-grip for Missile

https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/arche-seleukeia/seleukid_thorakitai_argyras.gif and this H-grip for hand-to-hand combat (I'll thus try to refrain from saying melee)

The M-grip enables you to throw the spear, in hand-to-hand however you'd be a dead idiot, pretty quickly. For one it's not possible to thust with the spear using this grip and a spear is a thusting weapon. You can stab, but as that makes the point follow the arch of your hand, stabbing is thus obviously an attack best suited for short weapons.


by your very own logic here, you just showed exactly why spears, if used, would be overarm. afterall, when it is so, it has the appearance of a man about to thrown a javelin-and works the same way too: you're using the momentum of your arm to impact with the greatest force.

and if you think the "M grip" (it's an Argive grip, not M grip; I can find this googling it) is better for swords, then why is it that the Romans ditched it?



Yeah, the reading of 'pushing' has always been an interesting point to me especially in the case of Leuctra where the 50 deep Theban left managed to crush the Spartan right and inflict massive casualties. The interesting bit seems to have been that the Spartans held the initial charge but eventually broke during the course of the fighting so it must have been a slightly drawn out affair. :\

At Coronea, the Spartan right managed to quickly rout the allied left after a mutual charge. Its hard to say what exactly was the nature of hoplite warfare...

I think the 50 rank is less to do with "push", and more to do with psycohology and playing the numbers' game: if the spartans only fought an enemy 8 ranks deep, it's all fine and good. but then rank after rank after rank? that would have worn the Spartans out.

EDIT: this indeed had better be a joke.

[jirisys]

Ok, first I thought this was an april-fools thread, but apparently the initial posts were older than that.

I'm not sure what you mean with the different names on the grip, there's two ways of holding a spear, one way for thowing it and one way for hand to hand combat. So I really thought this was a non-issue and hence the thread a joke.

https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/arche-seleukeia/seleukid_hypaspistai.gif I'll call this the M-grip for Missile

https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/arche-seleukeia/seleukid_thorakitai_argyras.gif and this H-grip for hand-to-hand combat (I'll thus try to refrain from saying melee)

The M-grip enables you to throw the spear, in hand-to-hand however you'd be a dead idiot, pretty quickly. For one it's not possible to thust with the spear using this grip and a spear is a thusting weapon. You can stab, but as that makes the point follow the arch of your hand, stabbing is thus obviously an attack best suited for short weapons.

There's also the issue of it being "flimsy", you have little controll of the weapon, if someone bumps your weapon it's much harder to get back under control than with the H-grip and it forces you to hold the weapon closer to the center than an H-grip does.

There's also the issue of more or less only being able to stab, if you want the spearpoint to continue forward you actually have to losen your grip on the shaft, otherwise it'll start a downward motion, losening the grip obviously means that you can transfer less force into the attack.

One can only use this grip shoulder height and above as opposed to the H-grip which can more or less be used at any height.

Thrusting as someone using the M-grip also exposes two great targets for your opponent;
For anything with a blade, that can be a spearpoint, but becomes a lot worse if it's a sword or something with a bit more force behind the swipe. The lovely vertical underarm, in front of your body, no less so it's even easy to reach.
Secondly the nice pocket your armpit makes, a wonderful target for anything with a thrustingpoint. Not only does the armpit catch the thrust nicely, and lead it into body, but this area is really hard to armour, because doing so usually limits movement.

The H-grip in turn have:

Greater reach, because you can both hold further back on the spear and extend your arm further.

Greater control, meaning you can wield your spear in numerous ways, like, block, or swipe, or use it to "catch" your opponents spears.

Greater force, not only does this grip enable a movement that generates more force, but it also enables you to transfer your bodyweight and your momentum into the thrust. This combined with the fact that the thrust from this grip continues in a straight line, means that one can pierce something and continue on through.

Greater presision. This is a result from this grip being steadier and giving you more control, but also from the fact that the spearpoint doesn't move in a trajectory. Hitting where you want is pretty important when you're facing an armoured and/or shield wielding opponent.

That's what I find at the top of my head at 1 Am :P

Oh the second spearpoint, like has been said before, it's probably good to have a reserve spearpoint, but as you're probably holding your spear pretty far back with the counterweight and all, if your opponent charges past your spearpoint, then sending the spearpoint skywards you quickly have an M-grip and a short weapon, that you can use to stab your oncoming foe in the face/neck/torso. Perhaps not ideal, but pretty deadly as your charging foe usually wants to see what he's doing (hence his shield probably isn't held up too high enableling you to possibly act over it as an M-grip means you act in the high reagions.) and it's a lot quicker than changing to your secondary weapon.

Ahh and the mentionings on low number of casulties makes me guess that they in those cases fought at more or less maximum reach in what I've come to know and despise as "spear duels", it's a really timeconsuming and low casulty way of fighting where spearmen on both sides poke at each other trying to get through the other's guard. Compared to a headon charge ending at closequaters this type of engagement can take forever without hardly anyone dying.
Obviosly in this kind of fighting you want reach more than anything.

I think This ^ Is an april's fool's post.

As if it were only two kinds of grey. Light and Dark grey.

Fallacies and misunderstanding of combat.

Though nice try.

~Jirisys ()

[Ibrahim]

I think This ^ Is an april's fool's post.

As if it were only two kinds of grey. Light and Dark grey.

Fallacies and misunderstanding of combat.

Though nice try.

~Jirisys ()


actually, it's not.

I forgot to post the reply to that.

EDIT: oh, wait, you're referring to the original post.

[moonburn]

alrik remember formation :| greeks only fighted in sollid formations

as for the thebans 50 deep i suspect that the 1st 2 rows got crushed by the pure weight of the manouver epaminondas was a genius for greek warfare he didn´t expected the spartans to rout he just forçed their lines to tilt opening breaches in the shieldwall as the spartans where pushed back once the shieldwall opened cracks because their left wing was being pushed back the spartans eventually lost cohesion and the boetians won the day because epaminondas knew that 8 deep vs 8 deep the spartans would win in all the phases of the batle (the thebans didn´t had swords for the final prolonged melee i believe)

[Geticus]

The guy in the youtube video argues in an academic manner, in the worse sense of the term. History tends to reflect the personality of the historian, and since most modern historians, military historians included, are sedentary, lazy, brainy people who make their living with their tongue, they make all sorts of generalizations based on that weak, lazy, brainy point of view. This includes the cowardly general attitude of the youtuber post, talking about how "dangerous" it would be to initiate the shove. In contrast Victor Davis Hanson, author of The Western Way of War, and one of the main proponents of othismos as "the shove", is a pretty rustic individual, worked for years on a family owned grape farm, is no stranger to stoop agricultural toil and the like, and as such is somewhat closer to the viewpoint of the ancient Greek farmer-citizen-soldier and therefore IMO better qualified to interpret the Greek.

History gives abundant evidence that two opposed masses that both try to preserve forward motion, tend to come into a messy collision. Classical hoplite phalanx othismos was one such messy collision. Medieval push of pike was another. To understand othismos, it is better to 1) read Xenophon, who was co-strategos of the 10,000 mercenary phalanx and who spent his later life in Lacedaimon, had his son educated in the Spartan agoge, and as such was an expert on hoplite warfare throughout Hellas. 2) read the Greek, and know the meaning of the verb otheo/othizein etc. and the significance of middle/passive voice. What does the word "othoumenoi" mean? If you think it means "turning the tide of war" or some such, you suck at Greek. If you don't know any Greek, you won't learn that much and you can just waste time in more superfluous academic discussions.

Suffice it to say that the average Hellenic hoplite was far more vigorous than the average university academic, be he a rustic Boiotian farmer or a full Spartiate hoplite he had far more guts than the eloquent geek in the video. Their armor was heavy, it required strength to wear it, the Corinthian helmets pretty well buried the head in bronze. The ancient Hellenic world view during the classical era was not that far removed from the late Bronze heroic age, public drama commonly focused on late Bronze era/Trojan War era heroes, and there was a brutish element in the core masculine ideal of the time. War is not about being comfortable, it is about pushing past the limits of comfort and breaking your opponent's limits. The Hellenic othismos, like the push of pike during the medieval period, was an example of two sides trying to do just that. Evidence is not comprehensive about just how decisive othismos was vs. puissant spearplay in each battle, I tend to think that spearplay and point-accuracy were more common among the professional soldiery of Sparta, and less so in Thebes where the men were more known for brute endurance born of rustic agricultural toil. Either way the hoplite shoving match is a result of the basic forward motion of Classical Hellenic warfare. Look at what the 10,000 accomplished at the battle in Persia, the Persian royalists won the battle but no one would oppose the Greek mercenary phalanx. Why? Do you think that they had never seen massed spearmen before? Do you think that they had never seen armored infantry? Armored, serried infantry was common in the middle east since the time of the Assyrian Empire. The issue was compound: heavily armored infantry (read highly resistent to missile showers) with massive, aggressive forward momentum. They weren't used to it in the Babylonian/oriental theater of war. The same at the beginning of Xenophon's campaign under Prince Kuros, Kuros revelled in the dreadful sense of forward momentum created by his mercenary Greek phalanx-- to the Asiatics it was an alien way of war, no one was prepared for that kind of pressure just read Anabasis and it should be evident. Also when the Egyptians marched against the Hellenic polis of Kyrene originally they suffered an ignominious defeat, again because their infantry were not prepared for the Greek style of war. Everyone was used to massed infantry, the Egyptians had massed spearmen from time immemorial. Massed armored spearmen alone were not that revolutionary, it was the extreme forward pressure that tested enemy morale to the limits during the high point of classical Greek warfare.

I could go on and on, discussing this issue gets old when it seems to me that so many people who challenge Hanson's notions on othismos 1)don't read much/any Greek, 2) haven't read the Anabasis or the Hellenica, 3) couldn't translate a single sentence of Xenophon.

Sorry to come off a bit rude, but this whole issue has been done before here in other discussions, if people are going to discuss this issue like academics and arguements like "I think this" "that seems dangerous" et al., you get no where. Xenophon was a very experienced strategos, a seasoned warrior, and THE master historian of war during the 4th century, so any discussion like this should cite Xenophon by the passage or its basically merely academic.

[Alrik]

by your very own logic here, you just showed exactly why spears, if used, would be overarm. afterall, when it is so, it has the appearance of a man about to thrown a javelin-and works the same way too: you're using the momentum of your arm to impact with the greatest force.

and if you think the "M grip" (it's an Argive grip, not M grip; I can find this googling it) is better for swords, then why is it that the Romans ditched it?

When you throw something, you let go of it, otherwise the tip starts following the downward arch of your hand upsetting the force of the item and ofsetting your aim. The underarm grip as you call it even lets you throw the spear forward all the same, with the difference that you can reach out maximum and still retain your aim, it even lets you change the direction fairly late, should your opponent move or get his shield in the way.

As for the Romans, I would indeed be surprised if they had used a grip that'd only allow them to stab when they used a sword, to be able to thust and exchange blows, not to mention the ability to parry in more ways than one speak against this grip inmost hand-to-hand scenarios. The only weapon I can see it's uce for is a dagger, and then the ability to be able to slit your opponent's unprotected throat, might still be too heavy an argument againt its use.

I mentioned it in hand to hand combat because there is one said circumstance where it has merit and it's when your opponent gets too close for you to use your long weapon and it's quicker than reaching for your secondary weapon.

I also would encourage people to actually wield a weapon, try for one to hit a row of items with a long stick using both grips, should probably be at head height since the head is a promary target unless the opponent doesn't have shields. You'll notice aim, reach and force are all better with the underarm grip and yes you have no problem using it at shoulder height. Neither does your elbow shoot out further and annoy your fellow to your right than the other grip does.

[Ibrahim]

When you throw something, you let go of it, otherwise the tip starts following the downward arch of your hand upsetting the force of the item and ofsetting your aim.

.having actually tried a spear, I find you can always swivel your wrist round to compensate for that. it's still not accurate when starting this, but it has a great deal of force, and with practice you can probably get accurate enough.


As for the Romans, I would indeed be surprised if they had used a grip that'd only allow them to stab when they used a sword, to be able to thust and exchange blows, not to mention the ability to parry in more ways than one speak against this grip inmost hand-to-hand scenarios. The only weapon I can see it's uce for is a dagger, and then the ability to be able to slit your opponent's unprotected throat, might still be too heavy an argument againt its use.

huh?


I mentioned it in hand to hand combat because there is one said circumstance where it has merit and it's when your opponent gets too close for you to use your long weapon and it's quicker than reaching for your secondary weapon.

both shields can do that-they do it differently though. what's your point again?

I'll let someone else handle the rest. though I will tell you, I actually tried this out a long time ago. (a year ago actually). worked out just fine either way. you need practice.

[QuintusSertorius]

How exactly are you supposed to use an underhand grip with locked shields?

[Ludens]

Sorry to come off a bit rude,

It's indeed rude.

Just as a reminder to everyone: attack the argument, not the person. No matter how stupid his position may be.

[antisocialmunky]

I don't know if you can come off much less rude if you had to attack 'I think.' Not really a polemic but its an interesting read Geticus :)

[Geticus]

I don't know if you can come off much less rude if you had to attack 'I think.' Not really a polemic but its an interesting read Geticus :)

Yeah, a bit of a rant. More to the point Xenophon's description of Leuktra, which was one of the greatest battles of the era, is pretty explicit in the original Greek. Xenophon Hellenica 6.4.12-15 describes the battle of Leuktra itself and passive use of the verb "otheo" (to push) "otheomai (to be pushed) is critical in the passage.

The passive use of otheo/otheomai is used to describe what happened on the Lakedaimonian right after the Spartan champions- the polemarch, Sphodrias, and his son, were all killed ( 6.4.14)
oi te alloi upo tou oxlou othoumenoi anexoroun
the rest, being pushed back by the Theban throng, fell back.

The chainroute down the Lakedaimonian allied line itself is described in these terms in 6.4.14:

Os eoron to dexion othoumenon, eneklinan
As [the Lakedaimonian allies of good name] saw the right being pushed back, they gave way.
Read in context in Greek, its pretty clear, after 3 Spartan elites were killed in the melee, the othismos pressure of the 50 man Boiotian phalanx pushed back the 12 man deep Spartiate right. The rest of the Spartan allies saw the Spartiate elites giving ground, lost morale, and gave up the field.

[saka-rauka1]

as I said in my post: it may depend on the situation at hand; as this is a question of how Hoplites fought in phalanx, we need to establish if overhand use (or underhand), is more relevant to depictions from Greek times of said formation.

In the video he mentions that underarm depictions correlate with depiction of troops in formation. This is puzzling. Now I'll admit that correlation does not imply causation and this could be due to a third factor amongst other things, the question then is, what is the link?


shock (amplifying the initial power of the impact)*? knight's lances also shattered on impact most of the time-yet for some reason, Knights to my knowledge never really came to your same conclusion-at least in general. (the lance was only abandoned because the role of cavalry changed after the middle ages; the latter due to the intro of gunpowder in part, in part from the rise of professional modern armies,and so on)

and yes, whether it is knight or Hoplite, it's the same idea: using you velocity concentrated at a sharp point, well away from you, to poke into the enemy and kill him.

*see friendlyfire's post.

If it was that useful then I'm sure everyone would have used a spear during the initial charge, afterall, its not an expensive weapon. Yet legionaries and earlier hastati didn't use them, amongst a myraid of other troops. Furthermore, a cavalry charge makes significant headway into a formation, so a lot more men can use their lances in a charge. I doubt as many could do so in an infantry formation, in addition, the shock value of a spear is much greater when wielded on horseback.


you also seem to imply that the losing side will just keep pushing-I might be misunderstanding you hear, but that's the implication. they wouldn't-not unless they wanted to die for nothing: if a gap was forced (as in most of these engagements), it would have meant the flanking of the pockets of losing hoplites. those would naturally be seized by fear, and haul it. so any pushing from the losers would stop. unless they're the theban sacred band. it's interesting to note however that much of the killing was when the losers started to run. but even then, you would have to ask yourself: why not be able to kill more of those routing men? and the answer is as I mentioned: once the fleeing survivors dropped their panoply in panic, they could get away from the winning hoppers.

When the front ranks see that all is lost, the will drop shields and run yes? But the mid/back ranks can't see this as easily given that they are more removed from the fighting. They would continue to push, by the time it became apparent that there was a rout, the front ranks would have been slaughtered. More to the point, how easy would it be for someone in a fierce pushing match to simply turn tail and run. They would have incredibly little room, and as soon as they stop pushing, they would be bowled over.


why would that be the case? even if the spear didn't shatter on impact, the hoplite would still be able to plunge it into the 2nd and 3rd ranks-at least in theory. and if that wasn't feasible, then all the better towards explaining why hoplite warfare was inefficient.

This has been my point from the get-go.

[antisocialmunky]

When the front ranks see that all is lost, the will drop shields and run yes? But the mid/back ranks can't see this as easily given that they are more removed from the fighting. They would continue to push, by the time it became apparent that there was a rout, the front ranks would have been slaughtered. More to the point, how easy would it be for someone in a fierce pushing match to simply turn tail and run. They would have incredibly little room, and as soon as they stop pushing, they would be bowled over.

You couldn't, that's why the most experienced guys were put in the front, this even carried over the the Macedonian phalanx. So they wouldn't crack under the pressure because there is no retreat in that sort of 'push' situation. You drop your shield, you panic everyone, die, and the whole formation beings losing cohesion. Its also probably why so many commanders died at Leuktra.

[moonburn]

a few people should get beaten with a bronze hoplon and experience the crushing power of a true push and then multiply it by 8

with the right balance/momentum a proper men doesn´t even need a spear he just crashes against the other dude gets him off his ballance and then tramples him

for a mental image the americans can even use their kind of football to imagine the power of the push when in practices their players can move 2 ton cars with a shoulder push by almost 2 feet (60 centimeters)

me personally when i was younger and fit i could bend matrisses all the way up to the midle and be projected almost 2 meters back by the backlash such was the strenght and power i could put into it (it was a litle game me and my friends played in gymnastic against the piled up matrisses wich where very flexible)

another game that i used to do when i was younger (6 to 11 years old give or take) was to separate into 2 groups and then each group would give hands (rougly separated by an arms lenght) and if you could break their link with just a "push" you would remove one of their members if not you where out and i remember that it could get very extreme in terms of power we had to stop playing it around 12 years old because a few people broke their wrists and bended a few harms since as we grew we could get greater momentum and we had more strenght

thats how i see the "push" working turn your side with the hoplon to the other guy and try to crush him by forçe and momentum

can you imagine a 80 kilos dude crushing another against a wall with his shoulder at full strenght ? broken ribs and massive internal damages spears are only necessary if the dude was somehow able to whitstand the crush and if he did you use the spear overhand inside your formation by around 10-15 minutes with the adrenalin pumping and then pull back rest for a while and then do it again

thats how i understand hoplite warfare the phallanx (as in with sarissas) warfare did indeed used underhand grip but with a sarissa thats the best you can do normal people with sarissa can´t do more then to have a stationary position and it takes a true veteran to use the sarissa in a true ofenssive way and not just as an anvil wich was infact it´s original design (great veterans could go a bit further and use it a bit like pike formations in the medieval time in an agressive way but the euipment gives itself more for anvil or stationary/defensive warfare then agressive warfare)

p.s: yes i rant alot :\

[Arjos]

If it was a "pushing match", why would Xenophon suggest that a hoplite phalanx 1 rank deep could win any battle?
I think that was all about cohesion and maintaning the formation, so in the end every man would have helped eachother killing the other's frontal opponent and so on...
To me it's obvious that the losing side gets "pushed" back, as people dying lay down and the winning side advances, with the less experienced men obviously giving ground...

[Randal]

I don't know Greek, and have no illusions of deciding this academic debate, let alone by trying to interpret Xenophon, but as shown by the secondary sources I quoted it is a debate and the conclusions are far from clear. I find the counter-arguments to "othismos" as pushing match much more convincing than the classical case, which to me seems to contradict evidence from all other eras and methods of warfare that we know, but again, don't argue with me, argue with Goldsworthy or Sabin.

As for "push of pike" in the early modern era, the term was used but I was under the distinct impression actual eyewitness reports actually said it was mostly a tentative fencing match at maximum range, like what Alrik describes his post.

[Arjos]

The only pushing element I can think there was, is when one side would try to exploit the death of some opponents in certain areas, and so "pushed" men there to distrupt the enemy's phalanx formation...

BTW about grips, underhand can't be the case with an aspis, especially undershield, due to its size, while overshield will expose so much the arm and shoulder with an angle that makes any shoulder guard useless...

[Geticus]

a few people should get beaten with a bronze hoplon and experience the crushing power of a true push and then multiply it by 8

with the right balance/momentum a proper men doesn´t even need a spear he just crashes against the other dude gets him off his ballance and then tramples him

thats how i see the "push" working turn your side with the hoplon to the other guy and try to crush him by forçe and momentum

can you imagine a 80 kilos dude crushing another against a wall with his shoulder at full strenght ? broken ribs and massive internal damages spears are only necessary if the dude was somehow able to whitstand the crush and if he did you use the spear overhand inside your formation by around 10-15 minutes with the adrenalin pumping and then pull back rest for a while and then do it again

thats how i understand hoplite warfare the phallanx (as in with sarissas) warfare did indeed used underhand grip but with a sarissa thats the best you can do normal people with sarissa can´t do more then to have a stationary position and it takes a true veteran to use the sarissa in a true ofenssive way and not just as an anvil wich was infact it´s original design (great veterans could go a bit further and use it a bit like pike formations in the medieval time in an agressive way but the euipment gives itself more for anvil or stationary/defensive warfare then agressive warfare)

p.s: yes i rant alot :\

Yeah that's basically it. Some are saying that there is no evidence for shieldpressure being used in war in other eras- martial cultures. This is incorrect, in the Germanic world it was a standard tactic to use blunt pressure including massed press of shields to take down unbreakable warriors after the weaker warriors were killed off, this was called "bearing him down with shields". IIRC this was the way the English took down the famous viking Ragnar Lothbrok in the Lothbrok Saga. Closer to home, the Romans used their shieldbosses as blunt striking weapons as well. The famous 4th century general Manlius Torquatus Imperiosus, whose name was synonymous with Roman military discipline, gained the cognomen of Torquatus when he killed a Celtic champion in single combat in front of the Roman and Celtic armies, the account that we receive in Livy relate that Torquatus shieldbashed the Celtic champion, knocking him off balance, and then gutted him with the sword. Gaius Marius the great military reformed is also recorded as drilling his legionaries in using shieldbashes during the Cimbri-Teutonic War. The Hellenes just fought in a unified shieldwall and took that principle of shieldpressure to the limit, making a massed blunt impetus to the point that farmers who had greater raw strength but lacked the precision of arms that comes with professional practice, still could have impact on the battlefield throught the application of simple brute strength.

[Randal]

Of course people used their shields to shove and push and bash.

What's being questioned is the theory that in a Hoplite phalanx 8, 16 or 50 ranks of warriors pushed their shields against the back of the guy in front of them to create vastly greater frontal pressure.

I don't doubt for a moment that hoplites, germans and just about anybody else with a big, solid shield used it as an offensive as well as a defensive weapon.

[bobbin]

I think a good argument for hoplites pushing en mass is the Battle of Leuctra, Epaminondas's tactic of concentrating his 50 deep phalanx on the Spartan right would not have made any sense if he hadn't intended to use it to overpower the Spartans with brute force.

[Arjos]

I don't know, think the deep Theban left wing had to tire the Spartans, don't forget the cavarly was put there too...
Was summer it was hot, the Thebans could have even afforded to lose lots of men on the left, but collapsing the Spartan right meant victory, so in the end was the 300-400 hippeis against the Thebans in way...

[Ibrahim]

In the video he mentions that underarm depictions correlate with depiction of troops in formation. This is puzzling. Now I'll admit that correlation does not imply causation and this could be due to a third factor amongst other things, the question then is, what is the link?

really? that's not I or a few other people have found:


a "typical" example of spear use in formation:
www.livius.org/a/1/greece/chigi_phalanx.jpg

http://rtw.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=st&fn=14&tn=5655&f=14,0,480,0&st=25

I'm simply not sure how the man did this: to my knowlege, it must be the opposite. I'd hate to call him a liar, but this isn't what I find; not in online pics of these depictions, not in the museum, or any books on the subject that I have (Goldsworthy included). I would seriously need pictures of the depictions he's talking about. now I went a head and looked at his videos, and he doesn't really seem to do that: he just tells you he did.


If it was that useful then I'm sure everyone would have used a spear during the initial charge, afterall, its not an expensive weapon. Yet legionaries and earlier hastati didn't use them, amongst a myraid of other troops. Furthermore, a cavalry charge makes significant headway into a formation , so a lot more men can use their lances in a charge. I doubt as many could do so in an infantry formation, in addition, the shock value of a spear is much greater when wielded on horseback (nah, really?) :clown:.

.hastati and principes didn't fight in a phalanx, thus requiring the equipment they got.

and of course only the first few ranks could do it-then again, that's all that is required. when you have 6 or 7 people behind you, it's not surprising that the effect of the impact would be violent.



When the front ranks see that all is lost, the will drop shields and run yes? But the mid/back ranks can't see this as easily given that they are more removed from the fighting. They would continue to push, by the time it became apparent that there was a rout, the front ranks would have been slaughtered. More to the point, how easy would it be for someone in a fierce pushing match to simply turn tail and run. They would have incredibly little room, and as soon as they stop pushing, they would be bowled over.

from what I understand, the rout would have begun once the front rankers were killed/pushed back, and a gap as a result was opened. so why are you worried about them? and who said the people further back wouldn't necessarily know? eyes aren't alone (and in all the dust and confusion, they were useless): sounds, and the pushing from the front of men trying to haul it/the enemy moving forward, etc, would have been enough to send a message to the rear, and if they broke down, to run for the hills. the rest of what I said follows. so no, I wasn't specifically talking about any rank of soldiers-just hoplites in general when they have routed.

it does have an interesting implication though, now that you brought it up: it would mean the first to start running would be the rear-most ranks, not the front. explains why leaders tended to meet the great pie in the sky first in some of these battles-they'd have lead from the front.




This has been my point from the get-go.

ok......

[bobbin]

I don't know, think the deep Theban left wing had to tire the Spartans, don't forget the cavarly was put there too...
Was summer it was hot, the Thebans could have even afforded to lose lots of men on the left, but collapsing the Spartan right meant victory, so in the end was the 300-400 hippeis against the Thebans in way...

I find that unlikely, the Thebans were heavily outnumbered in infantry (~4000), it would have been madness to adopt such "cannon fodder" tactics when facing an enemy with superior numbers and training.

The whole crux of the victory rested upon the fact that the Theban left was able to defeat the Spartan right before the weaker centre and right gave way against the more numerous and better trained Spartan soldiers opposing them.

This is why Epaminondas used the echelon formation in the first place, to keep the weaker parts of his army away from the Spartans for as long as possible. If the clash on the Spartan right had been a prolonged slogging match to grind the Spartans down, the Theban left and centre would have given way before a victory could have been achieved.

They needed a quick victory.

[Geticus]

I find that unlikely, the Thebans were heavily outnumbered in infantry (~4000), it would have been madness to adopt such "cannon fodder" tactics when facing an enemy with superior numbers and training.

The whole crux of the victory rested upon the fact that the Theban left was able to defeat the Spartan right before the weaker centre and right gave way against the more numerous and better trained Spartan soldiers opposing them.

This is why Epaminondas used the echelon formation in the first place, to keep the weaker parts of his army away from the Spartans for as long as possible. If the clash on the Spartan right had been a prolonged slogging match to grind the Spartans down, the Theban left and centre would have given way before a victory could have been achieved.

They needed a quick victory.

One might also consider Polyainos' anecdote about Epaminondas calling out to his men during the battle to give him "one more step" and they would thereby gain the victory.
Hen bema charisasthe moi, kai ten niken hexomen. (2.3)
Give me one more step, and we will attain victory.
To me it seems clear evidence that classical historians accepted othismos/shield pressure as potentially decisive in battle

[jirisys]

One might also consider Polyainos' anecdote about Epaminondas calling out to his men during the battle to give him "one more step" and they would thereby gain the victory.
Hen bema charisasthe moi, kai ten niken hexomen. (2.3)
Give me one more step, and we will attain victory.
To me it seems clear evidence that classical historians accepted othismos/shield pressure as potentially decisive in battle

While shield pressure might have been very useful, the Theban right had 50 ranks deep; meaning that they had around 6 times the depth of the enemy, now, it is possible the spartans were pushed back bery easily, creating gaps in the formation; however they stood fighting. But the thebans had 50 ranks, so the possible formation problems in the front wouldn't be as bad as the ones the spartans had. Thus a gap was opened or the spartans tired, and died/routed.

Also, let's try to adress the OP a little bit more, as it seems he turned into a newt.

Again. I'm pretty sure wielding a xyphos with a hoplon on a phalanx formation is quite awkward. And worse if you are trying to hit the only weak spot of the other hoplite; his neck. A spear would give him reach to easily cut the space between your hand, your shield, his shield and his head.

~Jirisys ()

[antisocialmunky]

It was somewhat Pyrrhic as all the commanders died in the fighting.

[bobbin]

At Leuctra? The only commanders who died there were those of the Spartans, the battle was nothing short of a crushing victory for the Thebans.

[moonburn]

i still believe the 1st 2 ranks of the thebans got crushed beteween the spartans and the other 48 ranks pushing

anyway the pressure of 50 against 8 was to tilt the spartan phallanx and make it rotate and not necessarly crush them on the instant (also because i heard the spartans stood the 1st frontal assault and they needed a 2nd turn to rout the spartan phallanx) also the reason why the spartans where so heavily defeated was probably because of the cavalry (no more gentlemans batles epaminondas needed to secure boetia´s freedom so once they rout chase them down and take as many lifes as possible so the regular 8-14% casualties of regular hoplite warfare probably went sky high) another point for the cavalry was that epa probably knew that that pressure applied on the flank would make the phallanx rotate (if the shields where properly interlocked and we´re talking about spartans here people not athenian philosophers) and once it started to rotate gaps would appear and the cavalry could take advantage of those gaps

[saka-rauka1]

I'm simply not sure how the man did this: to my knowlege, it must be the opposite. I'd hate to call him a liar, but this isn't what I find; not in online pics of these depictions, not in the museum, or any books on the subject that I have (Goldsworthy included). I would seriously need pictures of the depictions he's talking about. now I went a head and looked at his videos, and he doesn't really seem to do that: he just tells you he did.

From this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-xtFXThEOc&feature=channel_video_title) at points 1:26 and 1:44. Underarm usage in formation.


.hastati and principes didn't fight in a phalanx, thus requiring the equipment they got.

and of course only the first few ranks could do it-then again, that's all that is required. when you have 6 or 7 people behind you, it's not surprising that the effect of the impact would be violent.

Equipment and drill does change over time, so simply saying that they didn't fight in specific way, thus could never adopt a new weapon does not really make sense, especially considering that the Roman army evolved several times after encountering different weapons and tactics used against them. In fact wasn't it the case that they abandoned their old hoplite model?


it does have an interesting implication though, now that you brought it up: it would mean the first to start running would be the rear-most ranks, not the front. explains why leaders tended to meet the great pie in the sky first in some of these battles-they'd have lead from the front.


Exactly, the back ranks would get away scot free, not being tired in the least and having a clear route behind them. The front ranks would be pushed into from both sides and would have to rely on the rest of the men realising that the battle had gone pear-shaped before the back ranks would get moving. I can't really see how a rout could go well for the people who weren't at the back. The front ranks would turn to rout but not get anywhere because their own men would be blocking their escape, so they would get crushed by the enemy. Then the mid ranks would scramble to leave not being very successful given the momentum of the opposing force. The back ranks would by then have figured out what was going on and left before much damage could be done to them.

Now obviously I'm guessing here, but my point is that in such a fierce pushing match, the tide could turn quickly indeed, and a rout would be all the harder.


Again. I'm pretty sure wielding a xyphos with a hoplon on a phalanx formation is quite awkward. And worse if you are trying to hit the only weak spot of the other hoplite; his neck.

Their spears would break often so they would be fighting with their swords for most of the battle. If they were so awkward, they would have been phased out.


A spear would give him reach to easily cut the space between your hand, your shield, his shield and his head.

Ah, but remember that they were right up against each other, so the reach afforded by a spear cannot be used.

[Ibrahim]

From this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-xtFXThEOc&feature=channel_video_title) at points 1:26 and 1:44. Underarm usage in formation.

looking at 1:26, I might be convinced, though I see no evidence of an opposing force, or that they are charging-they're simply men running in formation to a place. he doesn't address that fact. nor does he address the fact that some very serious scenery-like on the chigi vase, show two forces charging at one another over arm.

and @ 1:44: that's neither under or over: it's just a bunch of Greeks running with their spears upright-compatible with either. that's why I made the point that he just tells you the fact-and expects you to agree: it's one thing to show a picture and declare it to mean sth: it's another to actually look at it yourself and think about it.

and many of these scenes are also of individual combat: in that scenario, either could work, though I do agree underarm was more sensical there. one thing I must point out though is that much of these vases are clearly depicting scenes from mythology-especially Homeric mythology. the Greeks knew people fought differently then-the Illiad pretty much says so. and since those were from the days prior to the phalanx, I doubt they can be used to infer much about the phalanx.

I do agree with him though, the Greeks were stylized in depicting their heroes: Nudity symbolized that well. but again, the Chigi vase, and many others, show them in full panoply, in formation, overarm. and depiction of same in individual combat, does show that the soldiers used underarm. again, see the link I provided.



Equipment and drill does change over time, so simply saying that they didn't fight in specific way, thus could never adopt a new weapon does not really make sense what are you talking about?, especially considering that the Roman army evolved several times after encountering different weapons and tactics used against them. In fact wasn't it the case that they abandoned their old hoplite model?

yes, they did ditch the phalanx, when the manipular structure and the legion were perfected: that's also when the Hastati/principes began using swords as the primary melee weapon.

and the first part of your statement makes no sense: especially as I never said, or even implied that. I simply stated that the soldiers you gave as an example simply didn't fight like hoplites-they were more "hands on", with sword and shield. now had you said they were the same men were from before the adoption of the legionary structure and later the maniples-before which their main equipment was the spear, then yes, they were in a phalanx.



Exactly, the back ranks would get away scot free, not being tired in the least and having a clear route behind them. The front ranks would be pushed into from both sides and would have to rely on the rest of the men realising that the battle had gone pear-shaped before the back ranks would get moving. I can't really see how a rout could go well for the people who weren't at the back. The front ranks would turn to rout but not get anywhere because their own men would be blocking their escape, so they would get crushed by the enemy. Then the mid ranks would scramble to leave not being very successful given the momentum of the opposing force. The back ranks would by then have figured out what was going on and left before much damage could be done to them.


Now obviously I'm guessing here, but my point is that in such a fierce pushing match, the tide could turn quickly indeed, and a rout would be all the harder.

yeah it could turn quickly-most battles pretty much ended up like that, and it would certainly be harder to escape if you're in the front. but again, it doesn't necessarily mean it will be any harder for the rear to run then in other battle types. as mentioned before, the killing really escalated when the routing began (which was also the case in any battle back then), and men began to run. again, it's clear we don't fundamentally disagree about that either. the main issue here is that while it could get real bloody for the loser, it never really for the most part ended up like say, Cynocephalae: we don't see whole armies cut down in Greek on Greek action. and the reason was given-at least in my estimation-for that. once the men began to run and put some distance from the enemy-often by dropping equipment-they could eventually outrun the enemy. not before obviously quite few men were cut down running.

[Arjos]

They needed a quick victory.

That's all right, my point was that Epaminondas most likely knew how depleted was the Spartiatai (due to all the recent events), and his goal was to eliminate the remaining...
Then everything went so smoothly that victory was achieved with such low casualties, but most likely the first Theban ranks got "chewed" and a mass rout didn't take place because the left wing was so deep. Giving time to the cavalry to manouver and the rest of the Thebans to engage...

[antisocialmunky]

At Leuctra? The only commanders who died there were those of the Spartans, the battle was nothing short of a crushing victory for the Thebans.

Must be confusing it with another battle though :/ Also pun.

[jirisys]

From this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-xtFXThEOc&feature=channel_video_title) at points 1:26 and 1:44. Underarm usage in formation.

Yes, while in recreations, YOU try to do that in formation while doing a shield-wall.

I can draw a 10 foot soldier with medieval armor and greek shield. But that doesn't make it true is it? It's not a matter of drawings, it's one of actual real life.


Equipment and drill does change over time, so simply saying that they didn't fight in specific way, thus could never adopt a new weapon does not really make sense, especially considering that the Roman army evolved several times after encountering different weapons and tactics used against them. In fact wasn't it the case that they abandoned their old hoplite model?

Etruscan hoplite. Fought like greeks too. Overarm.


Exactly, the back ranks would get away scot free, not being tired in the least and having a clear route behind them. The front ranks would be pushed into from both sides and would have to rely on the rest of the men realising that the battle had gone pear-shaped before the back ranks would get moving. I can't really see how a rout could go well for the people who weren't at the back. The front ranks would turn to rout but not get anywhere because their own men would be blocking their escape, so they would get crushed by the enemy. Then the mid ranks would scramble to leave not being very successful given the momentum of the opposing force. The back ranks would by then have figured out what was going on and left before much damage could be done to them.

That's why the less experienced were in the back, so they don't mess up the front and are useless fighting the professionals on the other side.


Now obviously I'm guessing here, but my point is that in such a fierce pushing match, the tide could turn quickly indeed, and a rout would be all the harder.

No, in fact it would have been easier to rout in an 8 rank deep phalanx than a 256 phalangite unit, or a maniple. As you can clearly see what the bloody is happening about 20 yards away or less. Also you have horns and music and screams to drop the shields. And you just scream "Drop your shields" and try to move back until you can actually move back and get the hell away.


Their spears would break often so they would be fighting with their swords for most of the battle. If they were so awkward, they would have been phased out.

Mention any other melee weapon known and used by the greeks other than swords. Also, you seem to think that "If x was so bad, then it would have been phased out". It doesn't happen that way. Swords were useful, it doesn't mean


Ah, but remember that they were right up against each other, so the reach afforded by a spear cannot be used.

:inquisitive:

:furious3:

Oh the humanity.

That's it. I give up. Sending him back in time to any hoplite battle is the only way he will be convinced. Oh bloody.

~Jirisys ()

[ziegenpeter]

I am sorry that I hadnt got the time to read the whole thread, but I am going to do so and to write a more elaborate answer, but for now I'd like to say that this guy on youtube seems to have very good points when it comes to early european medieval times (when no spear butt spikes were used), for the rest... its debatable.

[saka-rauka1]

Hold on a second. I just realised: if each man in a unit is pushing against his opposing enemy, then if he does gain ground, his shield will no longer be interlocked with those of his neighbours, someone could just poke him with their spear through the gap in the shield wall; moreover, the guy to his left would lose protection too.

[moonburn]

if the shields are interlocked properly he wouldn´t be the only one pushed back but as he gets pushed back and he as 7 other dudes pushing against his back if he isn´t experienced the squeeze can unbalance him and he might forget to duck his head and be speared

the worst that could happen is to loose balance in a more "relaxed" phase of the batle and be trampled if you died during the 8-15 minutes a oychos lasted then it didn´t really mattered the pressure was such that the body and the shield would remain fixed and only when the pressure eased would your body drop to the floor

[jirisys]

Hold on a second. I just realised: if each man in a unit is pushing against his opposing enemy, then if he does gain ground, his shield will no longer be interlocked with those of his neighbours, someone could just poke him with their spear through the gap in the shield wall; moreover, the guy to his left would lose protection too.

Again, don't address my points. And make up new ones.

Interlocking shields means you would not be able to move forward only if you were to move away from formation. Try to look at my drawing to see what an interlocking might look like. Also some small figures on that same thread.

~Jirisys ()

[vartan]

English:
I have a harder question for some of you peeps: What is the significance of the debate over varying reconstructions of hoplite warfare?

Simple English (a la Los Angeles):
time to challenge you punk *** foos. wats so 'portant 'bout weder you push it like diz or push it like dat, huh?

[saka-rauka1]

Again, don't address my points. And make up new ones.


Oh the humanity.

That's it. I give up. Sending him back in time to any hoplite battle is the only way he will be convinced. Oh bloody.

Doesn't seem like there's much point but I'll indulge you.


I can draw a 10 foot soldier with medieval armor and greek shield. But that doesn't make it true is it? It's not a matter of drawings, it's one of actual real life.

Artistic License eh?


Etruscan hoplite. Fought like greeks too. Overarm.

Ah yes how could I forget. These same guys then went on to conquer the world.........oh wait, no they didn't.


No, in fact it would have been easier to rout in an 8 rank deep phalanx than a 256 phalangite unit, or a maniple. As you can clearly see what the bloody is happening about 20 yards away or less. Also you have horns and music and screams to drop the shields. And you just scream "Drop your shields" and try to move back until you can actually move back and get the hell away.

Oh really? So its easier to rout in a closely packed formation than a loose order one?


Mention any other melee weapon known and used by the greeks other than swords. Also, you seem to think that "If x was so bad, then it would have been phased out". It doesn't happen that way. Swords were useful, it doesn't mean

You expect me to say that they should have used axes, or maces? Or that they indeed did use them? Why would I do that? That first point makes no sense at all.



@Ibrahim


looking at 1:26, I might be convinced, though I see no evidence of an opposing force, or that they are charging-they're simply men running in formation to a place. he doesn't address that fact. nor does he address the fact that some very serious scenery-like on the chigi vase, show two forces charging at one another over arm.

Point taken.


and @ 1:44: that's neither under or over: it's just a bunch of Greeks running with their spears upright-compatible with either. that's why I made the point that he just tells you the fact-and expects you to agree: it's one thing to show a picture and declare it to mean sth: it's another to actually look at it yourself and think about it.

Not really, upright using an overarm grip would be incredibly awkward compared to underarm.


and many of these scenes are also of individual combat: in that scenario, either could work, though I do agree underarm was more sensical there. one thing I must point out though is that much of these vases are clearly depicting scenes from mythology-especially Homeric mythology. the Greeks knew people fought differently then-the Illiad pretty much says so. and since those were from the days prior to the phalanx, I doubt they can be used to infer much about the phalanx.

I do agree with him though, the Greeks were stylized in depicting their heroes: Nudity symbolized that well. but again, the Chigi vase, and many others, show them in full panoply, in formation, overarm. and depiction of same in individual combat, does show that the soldiers used underarm. again, see the link I provided.

I agree that he hasn't really explained them in enough detail; many of those could indeed be from mythology, he doesn't say. On another more tangential note, what of later works such as the Bayeux Tapestry? IIRC, it shows someone getting his helmet cleaved in two by an opponents sword, something that is impossible to do. Was it perhaps the case that war wasn't as close to home as it was for Ancient Greeks?


yes, they did ditch the phalanx, when the manipular structure and the legion were perfected: that's also when the Hastati/principes began using swords as the primary melee weapon.

and the first part of your statement makes no sense: especially as I never said, or even implied that. I simply stated that the soldiers you gave as an example simply didn't fight like hoplites-they were more "hands on", with sword and shield. now had you said they were the same men were from before the adoption of the legionary structure and later the maniples-before which their main equipment was the spear, then yes, they were in a phalanx.

I didn't mean to imply that you were saying otherwise, I simply wanted to make my own point clearer. I'm trying to say that the later manipular and legionary structures were better than the older hoplite phalanx. This would then make me question why the Greeks stuck to it for so long.


yeah it could turn quickly-most battles pretty much ended up like that, and it would certainly be harder to escape if you're in the front. but again, it doesn't necessarily mean it will be any harder for the rear to run then in other battle types. as mentioned before, the killing really escalated when the routing began (which was also the case in any battle back then), and men began to run. again, it's clear we don't fundamentally disagree about that either. the main issue here is that while it could get real bloody for the loser, it never really for the most part ended up like say, Cynocephalae: we don't see whole armies cut down in Greek on Greek action. and the reason was given-at least in my estimation-for that. once the men began to run and put some distance from the enemy-often by dropping equipment-they could eventually outrun the enemy. not before obviously quite few men were cut down running.

This is what I've been driving at, the back ranks could rout as easily as any other soldier, but the front ranks have to content with the close quarters of allies as well as the forward momentum of the enemy. I can see how battles were so decisive even with low casulties. The men in the front were the more experienced of the unit, and they didn't have the luxury of being able to fight another day.

[jirisys]

Ah yes how could I forget. These same guys then went on to conquer the world.........oh wait, no they didn't.

What are you talking about?


Oh really? So its easier to rout in a closely packed formation than a loose order one?

Yes, because it's less deep and it is still pretty tight. You are STILL keeping the TW conception of battles.


You expect me to say that they should have used axes, or maces? Or that they indeed did use them? Why would I do that? That first point makes no sense at all.

Yes it does. You say that every thing that is awkward or is not able to be used in it's completeness must have "faded away". YOUR points make no sense. I was just asking what you were arguing for"


Not really, upright using an overarm grip would be incredibly awkward compared to underarm.

No. We already told you many times.


I agree that he hasn't really explained them in enough detail; many of those could indeed be from mythology, he doesn't say. On another more tangential note, what of later works such as the Bayeux Tapestry? IIRC, it shows someone getting his helmet cleaved in two by an opponents sword, something that is impossible to do. Was it perhaps the case that war wasn't as close to home as it was for Ancient Greeks?

It is artistic license. What you said in the beginning. I guess you cannot see your lack of consistency in your points.


I didn't mean to imply that you were saying otherwise, I simply wanted to make my own point clearer. I'm trying to say that the later manipular and legionary structures were better than the older hoplite phalanx. This would then make me question why the Greeks stuck to it for so long.

Because the legions were great for fighting in the battlefields of the Romans. The phalanx was great to fight in the greek battlefields and the Nomadic hordes were great for fighting in the nomadic battlefields.

Bu you know? The legions got murdered in Carrhae, the phalanx in Cynoscephalae, and the Nomads on Chalons.

It is always good to know some basic history.


This is what I've been driving at, the back ranks could rout as easily as any other soldier, but the front ranks have to content with the close quarters of allies as well as the forward momentum of the enemy. I can see how battles were so decisive even with low casulties. The men in the front were the more experienced of the unit, and they didn't have the luxury of being able to fight another day.

You scream, you sound trumpets, you insult the guy on the back to make way. If you want to live you keep fighting or try to force your way out.

~Jirisys ()

[vartan]

Ah yes how could I forget. These same guys then went on to conquer the world.........oh wait, no they didn't.
Actually, the Romans (originally from an Etruscan settlement) did conquer a big chunk of the world. Observe Augustus.

[Vaginacles]

Actually, the Romans (originally from an Etruscan settlement) did conquer a big chunk of the world. Observe Augustus.

i was under the impression that Rome was a Latin city? The Etruscans were a distinct ethnicity compared to the latins, no?

The idea that underhand thrust would be viable in a close-locked phalanx formation is false. The aspis would cover neck to knee, you would have to hold the spear LOWER than your knee, and this would severely restrict your fighting abilities, nevermind the fact that your spear could be easily trapped underneath the mangle of bodies, feet, and shields of the opposing phalanx. An overhead posture is the only viable way to attack.

However, underhand thrusts would be useful in a looser formation against lightly armored or disorganized rabble. Against cavalry, the buttspike should be used to brace the spear against a cavalry charge.

[fomalhaut]

I just don't see how the point of the Etruscans fighting overarm, yet were not conquerers of the world, leads to the conclusion that overarm hoplite techniques were not used or were inneffective. Pyhrrus adopted the Manipular formations into the Phalanx and don't forget elephants! but with that same logic maniples, phalanxes and elephant using militaries were ineffective because Pyhrrus of Epirote did not conquer the world.

[Vaginacles]

I just don't see how the point of the Etruscans fighting overarm, yet were not conquerers of the world, leads to the conclusion that overarm hoplite techniques were not used or were inneffective. Pyhrrus adopted the Manipular formations into the Phalanx and don't forget elephants! but with that same logic maniples, phalanxes and elephant using militaries were ineffective because Pyhrrus of Epirote did not conquer the world.


He's just using a red herring as a lame attempt of argumentation

[Arjos]

That doesn't make any sense, it wasn't and isn't all about who has the best techniques or weaponry...

[Macilrille]

underhand shield-wall are too much like viking things

We use one-handed spears overhand as well a lot. It is very effective in close quarters. Any doubter is invited to come to an Ask training session where I am in charge.
The pushing I find very unconvincing though as it would be suicide to get in close and push physically on an opponent changing to overhand grip and stabbing down into your neck and chest cavity.
Instead consider that when we Viking Reenactors push we take one step forwards or half a step, and the opponent- if he does not kill us as we step, will try and keep their distance. Stepping forwards is very difficult though as an underarm/underhand cross-strike from the side can easily slip in behind the shield. So often the fighting will be at weapon range while we try to thin his formation out and/or push him back and break the lines so we can roll his formation up from the side and rear. It is in evidence here;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4-Zq0aPZpY.

[gamegeek2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2XLKmWAXyk

Hoplite re-enactment.

Try to fit an underhand strike through that shield-wall.

[fomalhaut]

i like the drills and that those men know them well, but i can never get over how clean and high end everyone's equipment is. they look like they are playing dress up due to the fancy corinthian helms and horse hair as well as the fresh out the washer clothes.

those aspiseseseses look too clean, manufactured, while i had always thought that the designs would be painted on by the owners of the shields themselves. painting whatever deity or symbol was important to them personally.

i would just stab my aspis until it looked rugged :P

[saka-rauka1]

What are you talking about?


Actually, the Romans (originally from an Etruscan settlement) did conquer a big chunk of the world. Observe Augustus.


i was under the impression that Rome was a Latin city? The Etruscans were a distinct ethnicity compared to the latins, no

My point.


The idea that underhand thrust would be viable in a close-locked phalanx formation is false. The aspis would cover neck to knee, you would have to hold the spear LOWER than your knee, and this would severely restrict your fighting abilities, nevermind the fact that your spear could be easily trapped underneath the mangle of bodies, feet, and shields of the opposing phalanx. An overhead posture is the only viable way to attack.

I don't think you're talking to me here, since I've been attacking the pushing aspect and not over vs under. However it seems a few others have gotten that impression, which makes me wonder if they were even reading my posts at all.


I just don't see how the point of the Etruscans fighting overarm, yet were not conquerers of the world, leads to the conclusion that overarm hoplite techniques were not used or were inneffective. Pyhrrus adopted the Manipular formations into the Phalanx and don't forget elephants! but with that same logic maniples, phalanxes and elephant using militaries were ineffective because Pyhrrus of Epirote did not conquer the world.

Not what I was getting at. I was saying that it was the Romans who did eventually conquer a sizeable chunk of the known world, they defeated and assimilated the Etruscans and abandoned the hoplite model. If it worked for them then why would they abandon it? Furthermore even Sparta reformed their phalanx into a sarissa wielding version. People don't reform troops for no good reason.


That doesn't make any sense, it wasn't and isn't all about who has the best techniques or weaponry

Can you tell me what it refers to? I've been trying to find out why hoplite phalanxes fought the way they did, used the weapons they used. For me, it is about the best technique or the best weaponry.


We use one-handed spears overhand as well a lot.

Are they counterweighted? I think that in extreme close-quarters a shortened reach acheived by holding a spear in the centre would be advantageous.


Instead consider that when we Viking Reenactors push we take one step forwards or half a step, and the opponent- if he does not kill us as we step, will try and keep their distance. Stepping forwards is very difficult though as an underarm/underhand cross-strike from the side can easily slip in behind the shield. So often the fighting will be at weapon range while we try to thin his formation out and/or push him back and break the lines so we can roll his formation up from the side and rear.

Sounds pretty normal to me. Anyone fighting should attempt to gain ground.


It is in evidence here; http://<a href="http://www.youtube.c...4-Zq0aPZpY</a>.

Do you mean this video? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4-Zq0aPZpY). If so can you tell me what I am looking for; I see lots of underarm usage but no overarm. Or did you mean rolling up the formation?


Yes, because it's less deep and it is still pretty tight. You are STILL keeping the TW conception of battles.

You are the one repeatedly mentioning TW, not me. Can you at least clarify what you mean by "TW conception of battles" please?


No. We already told you many times.

In reference to that particular depiction? Erm, no you didn't. Look at it if you will, you have your thumb below your little finger if you attempt to hold your spear upright like that. It is awkward in that particular pose. I make no argument of overarm usage being awkward in general, which is what others have based their (counter)arguments around.


It is artistic license. What you said in the beginning. I guess you cannot see your lack of consistency in your points.

What lack of consistency? If you want to enter someone elses discussion you could at least attempt to gain the correct context.


Because the legions were great for fighting in the battlefields of the Romans. The phalanx was great to fight in the greek battlefields and the Nomadic hordes were great for fighting in the nomadic battlefields.

Bu you know? The legions got murdered in Carrhae, the phalanx in Cynoscephalae, and the Nomads on Chalons.

It is always good to know some basic history.

Surely you aren't now trying to argue that armies are only useful for fighting in their home territory? Otherwise I can see no reason for that 2nd point. Nor do I think ad hominem is warranted in any civilised discussion.

[vartan]

i was under the impression that Rome was a Latin city? The Etruscans were a distinct ethnicity compared to the latins, no?
Tomato, tomato. (The expression doesn't really translate well online, as you can see!)

[jirisys]

I don't think you're talking to me here, since I've been attacking the pushing aspect and not over vs under. However it seems a few others have gotten that impression, which makes me wonder if they were even reading my posts at all.

You have done both.


Not what I was getting at. I was saying that it was the Romans who did eventually conquer a sizeable chunk of the known world, they defeated and assimilated the Etruscans and abandoned the hoplite model. If it worked for them then why would they abandon it? Furthermore even Sparta reformed their phalanx into a sarissa wielding version. People don't reform troops for no good reason.

They abandoned it by 240 CE (?) (I'm not certain, just making up the number here, point is; manipular and cohortal tactics weren't really alive by the end of it)


Can you tell me what it refers to? I've been trying to find out why hoplite phalanxes fought the way they did, used the weapons they used. For me, it is about the best technique or the best weaponry.

Well, then you're wrong. It refers to the ACTUAL technique and the ACTUAL weaponry.


Do you mean this video? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4-Zq0aPZpY). If so can you tell me what I am looking for; I see lots of underarm usage but no overarm. Or did you mean rolling up the formation?

That is medieval, possiblyviking, no overlapping shield wall or actual cohesive hoplite formation. You are ignoring the actual evidence and presenting unrelated one.


You are the one repeatedly mentioning TW, not me. Can you at least clarify what you mean by "TW conception of battles" please?

Tiny numbers; people hardly make it through sarissas, unrealistic animations, no direct contact with the other combattant, no close combat melee, etc.


In reference to that particular depiction? Erm, no you didn't. Look at it if you will, you have your thumb below your little finger if you attempt to hold your spear upright like that. It is awkward in that particular pose. I make no argument of overarm usage being awkward in general, which is what others have based their (counter)arguments around.

Because you implied it, several times.


What lack of consistency? If you want to enter someone elses discussion you could at least attempt to gain the correct context.

The fact that you named my depiction as artistic license; but not your depictions, which have most likely; an artistic license.


Surely you aren't now trying to argue that armies are only useful for fighting in their home territory? Otherwise I can see no reason for that 2nd point. Nor do I think ad hominem is warranted in any civilised discussion.

No, formations and equipement are based upon the way of fighting in that particular area, the era or time you are in; and with your most common enemy. The cohorts were flexible while cohesive, yet the invading armies took a toll on them and it was abandoned because formations became less important, and strategy became dominant in the battlefield.

Unless you have seen both the parthians and the celtiberians develop both falcatas and horse archery, idependently; then my point is valid. Imagine parthians with falcatas and celtiberians with hordes of horse archers.

Tactics are also more adapted to your environment. Like the ambushing germanics, horsemen of thessalian hills, nomadic steppe horsemen, etc.

Nor is pettyness and self-importance either; but hey! I have em. Along with possibly someone else.

Also; here's an anacronistic example of how awful a hoplite shield wall is with underarm spear holding

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4RFrcL4aaY&feature=related

~Jirisys ()

[Dutchhoplite]

A bit late but i wouldn't trust Xenophon's description of Leuktra too much. He's hopelessly biased towards Sparta and his description of the battle is an exercise in exculpation and excuse making.

[saka-rauka1]

You have done both.

Where?


They abandoned it by 240 CE (?) (I'm not certain, just making up the number here, point is; manipular and cohortal tactics weren't really alive by the end of it)

I can't really debate past this point since my knowledge of that time period is very limited. I will say however that WRE's declining Heavy Infantry was one of the factors that contributed to its collapse.


Well, then you're wrong. It refers to the ACTUAL technique and the ACTUAL weaponry.

Now I've forgotten what we are even debating :)


Tiny numbers; people hardly make it through sarissas, unrealistic animations, no direct contact with the other combattant, no close combat melee, etc.

Definately not what I think of when I imagine warfare.


Because you implied it, several times.

What I imply and you infer are clearly two different things. I'll clear this up now: overarm usage in general is not awkward. Overarm usage in the pose depicted on that particular vase is laughable. It only takes a few seconds to realise that turning your hand through 180 degrees for any great length of time with a heavy spear in that hand will lead to quite a few sprained wrists.


The fact that you named my depiction as artistic license; but not your depictions, which have most likely; an artistic license.

To go back to the start of the thread you can see that the argument of "Artistic License" doesn't hold water in regards to an overarm/underarm debate. Several posts later I am informed that depicting the wrong pose would be a very illogical thing to do:

"Yes but this would be similar to depicting modern soldiers holding the gun the wrong way round. Most of the artists would have seen the Hoplites performing their drills and quite a few would have probably even being in battles with them. You have to remember that warfare was a lot more closer to everyday life than it is today."

So if this is the case, why would there be any underarm depictions? The point was raised that context was important, that these depictions may not be late hoplite phalanx warfare but rather, mythological battles. So I then brought up a later example asking what the reason behind that was. It should be rather obvious that splitting someones helmet with a sword is simply impossible to do, so then why did the artist depict that? Perhaps warfare was more distant to them, so this did not seem far-fetched. The issue here is suspension of disbelief. People don't really mind the fact the guns never seem to run out in films, yet curving bullets would be a step too far. A soldier who has completed a few tours might care more for the little details however and find it hard to suspend their disbelief when action heroes never have to reload.

This is the context you were lacking when you decried my points as lacking consistency. Furthermore your example was little more than a strawman. You came up with some ridiculous concept for a drawing and then implied that any and all depictions were to be disregarded. Ironically this is the same point Lindybeige makes.


No, formations and equipement are based upon the way of fighting in that particular area, the era or time you are in; and with your most common enemy. The cohorts were flexible while cohesive, yet the invading armies took a toll on them and it was abandoned because formations became less important, and strategy became dominant in the battlefield.

Unless you have seen both the parthians and the celtiberians develop both falcatas and horse archery, idependently; then my point is valid. Imagine parthians with falcatas and celtiberians with hordes of horse archers.

Tactics are also more adapted to your environment. Like the ambushing germanics, horsemen of thessalian hills, nomadic steppe horsemen, etc.

Nor is pettyness and self-importance either; but hey! I have em. Along with possibly someone else.

Also; here's an anacronistic example of how awful a hoplite shield wall is with underarm spear holding

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4RFr...eature=related

Tactics and strategy obviously decide how battles can go but that's not what I'm debating here. I brought up the Romans mainly because of the similarities with Ancient Greece. They fought as hoplites initialy with little (if any) cavalry. The terrain wasn't suited to that sure so they abandoned that method of fighting. Most importantly though, they stuck with it. Their method of fighting worked against an incredbily diverse range of terrains and enemies. This would be why I brought up the size of their empire.

And for the last time, this isn't about overarm spears.

[Toorstain]

What I imply and you infer are clearly two different things. I'll clear this up now: overarm usage in general is not awkward. Overarm usage in the pose depicted on that particular vase is laughable. It only takes a few seconds to realise that turning your hand through 180 degrees for any great length of time with a heavy spear in that hand will lead to quite a few sprained wrists.

I think he meant (if i'm thinking of the right vase) that even though you hold your spear underarm with the point up while marching doesn't mean you won't fight overarm. But i'll let him clarify that himself.

[jirisys]

I've changed my stance on the use of overhand spears several times now; the last being when I read posts explaining how hoplites would fight in very close proximity and thus not be able to take advantage of the extra reach of an underhand grip. Just now however, I have seen this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmaYtNW_wR8&feature=channel_video_title) on youtube, and I have decided to change my position again :)

I would like to know what answers you would give to the questions aired on the above video. I now find it increasingly doubtful that hoplite warfare would consist of a great amount of pushing given that from what I've read here, casulties were very light. If such a pushing match occurred, routing would fast get the front lines killed. With a formation 8 ranks deep, I suspect 4/5 would be summarily slaughtered.

Overarm and underarm.

Pushing.

It's the freaking OP!


I can't really debate past this point since my knowledge of that time period is very limited. I will say however that WRE's declining Heavy Infantry was one of the factors that contributed to its collapse.

Actually, I think the lack of men and economy made the WRE collapse, the lack of proper heavy infantry was a consequence of that.

Remember the romans were beaten multiple times. Tactics and strategy weren't really as important to them as was discipline and numbers.


Definately not what I think of when I imagine warfare.

It seems you do; as you think that a spear is actually useful for keeping men at a distance. While it was rather to kill men with forward momentum.


This is the context you were lacking when you decried my points as lacking consistency. Furthermore your example was little more than a strawman. You came up with some ridiculous concept for a drawing and then implied that any and all depictions were to be disregarded. Ironically this is the same point Lindybeige makes.

I didn't say ALL drawings are to be disregarded. That is YOUR strawman. I implied that I could draw anything. But that didn't mean it's true. It can be or it cannot.


What I imply and you infer are clearly two different things. I'll clear this up now: overarm usage in general is not awkward. Overarm usage in the pose depicted on that particular vase is laughable. It only takes a few seconds to realise that turning your hand through 180 degrees for any great length of time with a heavy spear in that hand will lead to quite a few sprained wrists.

I wasn't addressing that.

~Jirisys ()

[Geticus]

A bit late but i wouldn't trust Xenophon's description of Leuktra too much. He's hopelessly biased towards Sparta and his description of the battle is an exercise in exculpation and excuse making.

Do you think Xenophon didn't know how hoplites fought in phalanx?

[fomalhaut]

i think he is just saying not to take Xenophon as the end all source due to a particular bias he may or may not have

[vartan]

i think he is just saying not to take Xenophon as the end all source due to a particular bias he may or may not have
Most binaries are false, but the interesting case here is that the discussion isn't about ideologies. The discussion is about holding a spear overhand or underhand, and I'm not sure if there is any alternative to those two ways of holding a spear (I've never really used a spear, go easy on me!) Xenophon, if I remember right, was a soldier who recorded stories. If so, the one thing he should not mistake is how he and his fellow troop members held their spears (if that's the weapon they used, or one of the weapons).

[Geticus]

Most binaries are false, but the interesting case here is that the discussion isn't about ideologies. The discussion is about holding a spear overhand or underhand, and I'm not sure if there is any alternative to those two ways of holding a spear (I've never really used a spear, go easy on me!) Xenophon, if I remember right, was a soldier who recorded stories. If so, the one thing he should not mistake is how he and his fellow troop members held their spears (if that's the weapon they used, or one of the weapons).

Xenophon was born an Athenian citizen, one of the most famous pupils of Socrates, co-strategos of the 10,000 man mercenary phalanx which fought under Prince Kyros at the battle of Cunaxa, and then returned successfully and intact to Hellas under harrassment from the Persian King's troops most of the way. He was one of Alexander the Great's inspirations in showing the weakness and dissoluteness of the Persian nobility of that era, and in general a favorite of later historians like Caesar and Arrian, who actually called himself Xenophon.

In my estimation he is very much a heavy hitter due to his in-the-field experience and diversity of education (studied under Socrates in Athens, spent later adult life in Lakedaimon) and one of the most important classical historians regardless of bias.

[saka-rauka1]

Overarm and underarm.

Pushing.

It's the freaking OP!

All that was, was background explaining why I was posting here. I didn't make a point there, did I? My point was made in the second paragraph. You'll notice throughout the thread that I haven't debated the disadvantages/advantages of either grip.


Actually, I think the lack of men and economy made the WRE collapse, the lack of proper heavy infantry was a consequence of that.

Remember the romans were beaten multiple times. Tactics and strategy weren't really as important to them as was discipline and numbers.

Yes this was what I meant to say; it was a secondary factor, certainly not a main factor.

Every army has it share of defeats; take the battle you meantion earlier, Cannae. Numbers were in their favour here, but they still lost; and in the end it was strategy (Fabian Strategy) that saved them from Hannibal in Italy, and tactics that led to Hannibals defeat at Zama. I would say that a lot of things influenced their successful conquests, enough to warrant its one thread.


It seems you do; as you think that a spear is actually useful for keeping men at a distance. While it was rather to kill men with forward momentum.

A spear concentrates is energy behind a single sharp point, thus being better suited to pierce armour than a sword. That said, you can't exactly put full power behind it if your enemy is right on front of your face. I think I should bring up poleaxes though. When full plate armour became prevalent, a means to get through that armour was needed, and poleaxes were one of the solutions. Spears obviously didn't quite cut it. So if you were thinking that the Greeks were after a very good armour piercing weapon; I would say that they could have found a better weapon for that purpose, one that would suit close quarters fighting. Lets not forget, that cataphracts in the east used maces for this purpose despite reach being an issue for someone on horseback.

I would also argue that if a spear isn't useful for keeping people at a distance, they wouldn't have been nearly as long as they were.


I didn't say ALL drawings are to be disregarded. That is YOUR strawman. I implied that I could draw anything. But that didn't mean it's true. It can be or it cannot.

You said: "It's not a matter of drawings, it's one of actual real life" which would definately imply that artistic depictions lack merit. If that was not your intended point, then okay, I'll drop the issue.


I wasn't addressing that.

Then what were you addressing? You quoted that specifically when you first responded.

[bobbin]

A spear concentrates is energy behind a single sharp point, thus being better suited to pierce armour than a sword. That said, you can't exactly put full power behind it if your enemy is right on front of your face. I think I should bring up poleaxes though. When full plate armour became prevalent, a means to get through that armour was needed, and poleaxes were one of the solutions. Spears obviously didn't quite cut it. So if you were thinking that the Greeks were after a very good armour piercing weapon; I would say that they could have found a better weapon for that purpose, one that would suit close quarters fighting. Lets not forget, that cataphracts in the east used maces for this purpose despite reach being an issue for someone on horseback.

I would also argue that if a spear isn't useful for keeping people at a distance, they wouldn't have been nearly as long as they were.

Hoplite spearheads were not designed to penetrate armour, they had a wide leaf shape which was perfect for cutting into flesh but would have been fairly useless against metal armour. They did have a buttspike that was designed to do that but it has been theorised that was more for finishing off enemies who had already fallen. For close quarters there was the Kopis, which was specially meant to pierce armour.

And yes you right, keeping people at a distance was exactly what the spear was invented for.

[moonburn]

herm bobbin not wanting to step on your heels i believe that except for spartans most of the other greeks seldom had a kopis and they relied on the shieldwall and the oychismos to win the day only the spartans had and where prepared to use the kopis since it can be somehow equivalent to the roman "going for the triarii" situation if the batle arrived at a time where the swords where needed for greeks

[jirisys]

And yes you right, keeping people at a distance was exactly what the spear was invented for.

I think it was more for "killing people at a distance".

I could move past a spear by just parrying it to my side. In combat, possibly 4 people in my line would have died trying it, the 5th would have gone hand to hand with the spearmen.

The hoplite shield wall was different, since you couldn't get past the spears because they were so close to the men.

~Jirisys ()

[fomalhaut]

why would the main fighting unit of this age/area only be about 'keeping them away from eachother', rather than being able to kill eachother from farther away? I understand Phalangites long spears meant solely to tie up enemies so the hammer can come down, but im assuming these tactics weren't utilized interpolis warfare.

[jirisys]

why would the main fighting unit of this age/area only be about 'keeping them away from eachother', rather than being able to kill eachother from farther away? I understand Phalangites long spears meant solely to tie up enemies so the hammer can come down, but im assuming these tactics weren't utilized interpolis warfare.

My point exactly, but phalangites also had casualties from hand to hand, imagine a 50 men line pushing into the spears, one of them might as well pass or crack all the spears. I think it was more of a deterrer and steamroller rather than a true impenetrable block.

~Jirisys ()

[fomalhaut]

definitely, but i doubt the average phalangite had the intention of stabbing as many insert here* as possible, but rather keeping those dirty insert heres* far away as possible until the peltasts/cavalry flank and rout them.

I just read that Gauls and Romans would often attempt to chop off the heads of sarissae as to render them useless.

[Delta146]

Overarm usage in the pose depicted on that particular vase is laughable. It only takes a few seconds to realise that turning your hand through 180 degrees for any great length of time with a heavy spear in that hand will lead to quite a few sprained wrists.

I don't know what depiction you are referring to, but I have taken a dowel that is not counterweighted (Offset by the fact that it has no spearhead), not tapered, too thick, and I found it completely comfortable to hold it overarm. The thrust felt more powerful than underarm, I felt no length restriction, and it seemed more natural given the pose, so I object to you implying that it's somehow obvious that you are right and the other argument is laughable.

[Lazy O]

Stupid Argument. Wield a spear underhand, youre only going to hit the shield. And with geticus' post, I dont think it matters if you have x centimetres less grip.

[saka-rauka1]

Hoplite spearheads were not designed to penetrate armour, they had a wide leaf shape which was perfect for cutting into flesh but would have been fairly useless against metal armour. They did have a buttspike that was designed to do that but it has been theorised that was more for finishing off enemies who had already fallen. For close quarters there was the Kopis, which was specially meant to pierce armour.

Actually I think you're right. I remembered a medieval weapon that was essential a spike that was perfect for getting through armour. It featured a rectangular cross-section though, lacking the means to cut a foe.

As for the kopis, how was it designed to defeat armour? I have read of it being a short, curved blade. Seems poorly suited from that description.


I think it was more for "killing people at a distance".

I could move past a spear by just parrying it to my side. In combat, possibly 4 people in my line would have died trying it, the 5th would have gone hand to hand with the spearmen.

The hoplite shield wall was different, since you couldn't get past the spears because they were so close to the men.

You definately could against 1 person; which is why I suggested that in a duel, a spear is useless. But a line of spearmen can make it much harder. The guy in front of you is easy to parry, the guy two to your left, significantly less so.


why would the main fighting unit of this age/area only be about 'keeping them away from eachother', rather than being able to kill eachother from farther away?

To kill someone at a specified distance, you have to keep them there no?


I don't know what depiction you are referring to

Spear held upright, with the point facing straight up. Very natural with underarm, completely unfeasible with overarm.

[jirisys]

As for the kopis, how was it designed to defeat armour? I have read of it being a short, curved blade. Seems poorly suited from that description.

Short, thin and curved are great against armour, because you don't have to move as much mass away like you would with a large, broad and straight sword.



You definately could against 1 person; which is why I suggested that in a duel, a spear is useless. But a line of spearmen can make it much harder. The guy in front of you is easy to parry, the guy two to your left, significantly less so.

That's what I said


To kill someone at a specified distance, you have to keep them there no?

No, that's dumb. That's like saying in order to kill someonw with a bow he has to be at a distance, when in fact he could be distracted and you land an arrow to his neck. If you want to kill people at a distance, you just have to make sure they get to the minimum distance for you to kill them, if they get near, well, you grab your sword and slash his neck. Because he was a brave fool. Even a a sword has a distance. Unless you stab him with your hand inside his body.


Spear held upright, with the point facing straight up. Very natural with underarm, completely unfeasible with overarm.

I recommend you bend your elbows, I can do that without any trouble; I can even reach 135 degrees with overarm.

~Jirisys ()

[QuintusSertorius]

You definately could against 1 person; which is why I suggested that in a duel, a spear is useless.


This is total nonsense. Especially without a shield, a spear is a very versatile weapon (effectively being a staff with a blade).

[jirisys]

This is total nonsense. Especially without a shield, a spear is a very versatile weapon (effectively being a staff with a blade).

If the other guy does not have a shield of course, but if he has a shield he just blocks the spear and walks in front of him with not much damage (unless the spearman is very skilled).

~Jirisys ()

[QuintusSertorius]

If the other guy does not have a shield of course, but if he has a shield he just blocks the spear and walks in front of him with not much damage (unless the spearman is very skilled).

~Jirisys ()

So he's going to constantly keep his shield in motion to protect his head and legs? A spear isn't just a point, it can be used to trip and entangle, push and batter.

[Arjos]

The shield wielding swordman will also get tired before the spearman...
Every weapon has its pros and cons, but to etiquette one "useless" is too extreme...
Anyway duels aren't the most important aspect...

[bobbin]

If the other guy does not have a shield of course, but if he has a shield he just blocks the spear and walks in front of him with not much damage (unless the spearman is very skilled).

~Jirisys ()

And the spearman would just stand there then? He wouldn't slam his sheild into the swordmans face or dodge out of the way?

[jirisys]

And the spearman would just stand there then? He wouldn't slam his sheild into the swordmans face or dodge out of the way?

I'm stating a simple example, of course he would do that. But I was just talking about the spear itself.

Also you could break it.

Point is, it is quite easy to move around a spear, not a spearman. And, that; sooner or later the spear will crack if your soldiers get stuck constantly. In the end. It is in fact possible, and very likely (that is, with many casualties) to pass a spearwall.

~Jirisys ()

[QuintusSertorius]

If spears were so useless in one-on-one fighting, there wouldn't be two major polearm-wielding gladiators (retarius, hoplomachus) in the standard line-up against all those swordsmen (samnite, murmillo, thracian, etc). Because a one-sided fight is boring, and once they got past the notion of gladiatorial matches being funeral games and into public entertainment, boring is not what people want to see.

[jirisys]

If spears were so useless in one-on-one fighting, there wouldn't be two major polearm-wielding gladiators (retarius, hoplomachus) in the standard line-up against all those swordsmen (samnite, murmillo, thracian, etc). Because a one-sided fight is boring, and once they got past the notion of gladiatorial matches being funeral games and into public entertainment, boring is not what people want to see.

I said spears, not spearmen. It makes a big difference a piece of wood with a blade and a person that can handle them.

~Jirisys ()

[bobbin]

Jirsys that argument doesn't make any sense, of course a spear is useless if you ignore the person holding it, but that would be true for any weapon.

[jirisys]

Jirsys that argument doesn't make any sense, of course a spear is useless if you ignore the person holding it, but that would be true for any weapon.

Drop it. Stomp on it. Put it in a blender. I don't know. Juts stop bringing that up.

~Jirisys ()

[saka-rauka1]

So he's going to constantly keep his shield in motion to protect his head and legs? A spear isn't just a point, it can be used to trip and entangle, push and batter.

Just bat it aside and charge. Unless its something other than a simple spear, you can only really do a few things with it: jab, obviously; throw it, if its balanced; slash across the neck, rare. Most of the time he will be moving back constantly and jabbing to keep the opponent at distance;throwing enters the equation if he has a sword or a different weapon that can be more wieldy in close combat. Slashing isn't gonna happen really, unless the difference in skill is extreme. Tripping won't occurr since you need a hook to perform a move like that. Battering with the haft will do minimal damage, being reduced to nothing if the target is at all armoured.

A spearman will tire a lot faster than a swordsman assuming equal fitness. A swordman doesn't need to move nearly as much. Also, as the two opponents become more armoured, the sword becomes more effective; the spearman tires sonner and his weapon is unable to penetrate really thick armour like full plate or a coat of plates. The sword can still dish out blunt force trauma effectively.


The shield wielding swordman will also get tired before the spearman...
Every weapon has its pros and cons, but to etiquette one "useless" is too extreme...
Anyway duels aren't the most important aspect...

The opposite actually, a spearman needs to keep moving or he's screwed.


If spears were so useless in one-on-one fighting, there wouldn't be two major polearm-wielding gladiators (retarius, hoplomachus) in the standard line-up against all those swordsmen (samnite, murmillo, thracian, etc). Because a one-sided fight is boring, and once they got past the notion of gladiatorial matches being funeral games and into public entertainment, boring is not what people want to see.


A retarius carries nets, which make all the difference. Can't speak for gladiatorial combat though, don't know very much about it.


Jirsys that argument doesn't make any sense, of course a spear is useless if you ignore the person holding it, but that would be true for any weapon.

It does have some merit. Some weapons are simply useless regardless of the man carrying it. Lances on foot, knives, a gladius on horseback. A spear outside of a shieldwall fast approaches uselessness. An extremely competant spearman may be able to gain an edge versus a somewhat skilled swordsman, but otherwise it's simply the wrong weapon.

[fomalhaut]

i can't say from personal experience, but my imagination (not the best source..) says that a spear outside of a shield wall isn't worthless.

yes it is usually reserved to those situations in which its ease of use allows for large amounts of untrained levies or citizen soldiers to use them in mass, but i don't think its worth as a weapon wielded by a skilled, individual warrior should be totally discounted.

[Biowulf]

Tripping won't occurr since you need a hook to perform a move like that. Battering with the haft will do minimal damage, being reduced to nothing if the target is at all armoured.

The sword can still dish out blunt force trauma effectively.

1. Why do you need a hook to trip?
2. Have you ever been hit by the handle of any wooden object? It hurts a lot, and can deal a lot of damage to anything except an armoured opponent.
3. So can a spear haft.

Also, if both are lightly armoured professional soldiers/warriors then stamina won't necessarily be an issue. These two men would be in prime physical condition.

I pretty much agree with the rest, especially about moving. However, both fighters would need to keep moving or they're both screwed. You can't expect a guy to stand still whether he's holding a sword, spear, machine gun, or bazooka.

I'll admit I'm not an expert so if anyone has links to any definitive research or sources one way or the other that would certainly help.

[Arjos]

If it's a duel both have to move and my point about stamina referred to both having similar equipment, but the swordman, wielding a shield, would have more weight...
But as I said duels aren't the matter, leave that to epics and movies...
Deciding whether a weapon is superior to another is just pointless, the manufacture can be perfect, but a tool is a tool, a rock is good enough to kill a man...
What matters is training and the tactics in battle, and duels are a complete different world...
Anyway, about haft's blunt damage, Miyamoto Musashi won a duel killing his opponent with a paddle :D

[bobbin]

Drop it. Stomp on it. Put it in a blender. I don't know. Juts stop bringing that up.

My point was that completely ignoring how the user of the spear would react to you knocking it out of the way makes your conclusion pointless. Following that same logic one could say that the sword is equally useless, because if you ignore how the swordsman reacts it is just as easy to knock aside as the spear.


A spearman will tire a lot faster than a swordsman assuming equal fitness. A swordman doesn't need to move nearly as much. Also, as the two opponents become more armoured, the sword becomes more effective; the spearman tires sonner and his weapon is unable to penetrate really thick armour like full plate or a coat of plates. The sword can still dish out blunt force trauma effectively.
It's actually the exact opposite, a swordsman has to cover the distance between the spear point and the spearman to make an attack. The spearman on the other hand can attack with less effort and from a comfortable distance by just jabbing, the only moving they need to do is to keep the minimum safe distance from the swordsman, which in terms of energy expend by both is equal as they are moving the same amount.

And swords were pretty useless against plate armour as they lacked the mass to cause any internal damage, which is why maces and war hammers became the weapon of choice when dealing with armoured knights.


It does have some merit. Some weapons are simply useless regardless of the man carrying it. Lances on foot, knives, a gladius on horseback. A spear outside of a shieldwall fast approaches uselessness. An extremely competant spearman may be able to gain an edge versus a somewhat skilled swordsman, but otherwise it's simply the wrong weapon.
I think a quick look through history disproves that assumption, if the spear was that useless out of a shield wall they why did it see continual widespread use over a vast geographic and social range from the very beginnings of warfare right through to the modern day?

[fomalhaut]

yeah, individual duels seem to stem from the need for a romantic hero in a novel or story. large formations of stabbing spears don't make for an exciting protagonist or for good drama

[jirisys]

Just bat it aside and charge. Unless its something other than a simple spear, you can only really do a few things with it: jab, obviously; throw it, if its balanced; slash across the neck, rare. Most of the time he will be moving back constantly and jabbing to keep the opponent at distance;throwing enters the equation if he has a sword or a different weapon that can be more wieldy in close combat. Slashing isn't gonna happen really, unless the difference in skill is extreme. Tripping won't occurr since you need a hook to perform a move like that. Battering with the haft will do minimal damage, being reduced to nothing if the target is at all armoured.

Depends, he can hit you with the shaft, turn it around and trip you; it can also run back and stab you, jump and stab you, beat you in the head, hold it overarm and cut your neck and heart. It is unorthodox, but a good spearmen can keep the balance on one on one.

You have never been hit with a falling pole, have you? It hurts a lot, and it's a lot worse.
Also, ALL (yes, that is ALL) of the spearmen carried a secondary hand to hand weapon, spears can break, and they aren't really useful when the guy's shield is right next to you (if he doesn't have a shield; he'll get knocked on his donkey). On one on one that is, in formation, they aren't really useful when 10 guys in the line manage to break through the spearwall (and they WILL... After you stab around 20 guys in the same line)


A spearman will tire a lot faster than a swordsman assuming equal fitness. A swordman doesn't need to move nearly as much. Also, as the two opponents become more armoured, the sword becomes more effective; the spearman tires sonner and his weapon is unable to penetrate really thick armour like full plate or a coat of plates. The sword can still dish out blunt force trauma effectively.

Unless it's a sauroter?... Uhm... If the spearman runs away, the swordsman won't magically teleport, he will have to move the same distance. Not really, because with a spear you can bash him or trip him, his sword means lack of range and increased armour means tiredness. The spearman tires less because he has the advantage that he can do things that the swordsman can, like kill him from a distance, trip him; and most importantly, he can knock him out. Blunt damage is only slightly absorbed by armour. A wooden shaft can really do some blunt damage.

Also he can also pull out his own sword or small axe and whatnot. Then he would have a better chance in very close-combat.


The opposite actually, a spearman needs to keep moving or he's screwed.

No, he carries a sidearm. Also, he can stop the other guy from moving by threatening him with a sharp blade in front of his face and that he will stab himself if he is not quick enough.


It does have some merit. Some weapons are simply useless regardless of the man carrying it. Lances on foot, knives, a gladius on horseback. A spear outside of a shieldwall fast approaches uselessness. An extremely competant spearman may be able to gain an edge versus a somewhat skilled swordsman, but otherwise it's simply the wrong weapon.

They are not useless. I was just stating this: "If I am quick enough, I can take the guy by surprise and pass through his spear and quickly stab him without much reaction from him. However, in a spearwall; I cannot do this because there are many people with their spears pointed at me. I could try to break the tips but they coud push the spears into my face. I better just charge and hope at least a spear breaks so my fellows from the same line will have a slightly less hard time with them spears."

"Spear has range of kill, but it doesn't need him to be behind the tip for it to do some damage (one on one). In combat, many guys will chargy at my spear and unfortunately; at some point, it will break. And they could pass through easily and I'll have to resort to my sidearm."

~Jirisys ()

[vartan]

I'm enjoying the discourse, if we may call it that, developing here. It's a good for the a mental health-a.

Bobbin you mention that spears have been used in many regions in various times. What are some explanations for this, offered by you or any historian? If someone asked me, I'd tell them if I was stranded on an island, I'd probably make a primitive wooden spear because the image of the spear is so engrained inside my mind, that it's the first thing I think of when it comes to a hypothetical situation about survival (and I'm no Eagle Scout). What say you?

[moonburn]

spears are easy to make axes are harder for instance

spear is usefull for hunting fishing and walking (the today´s walking sticks that many travellers and adventurers use both in snow and in other enviroments fallow the same principle a stick that helps you use your arms for locomotion thus removing pressure from the legs and help you spend less energy in traversing an x amount of distance)

even shields are harder to make and except for serving as a big plate or if big enough as a litle boat makes it less versatile

swords now thats a harsh thing to do and it requires a s:daisy:load of tecnology to make a good sword so spears are naturally the weapon of choice in almost any enviroment you only need some wood and a sharp point at the end

[antisocialmunky]

They have a great deal of range for something extremely simple and cheap to make especially when your metallurgy skill is limited. It also gives you good leverage (two hand grip, one is the fulcrum), a long standoff distance, and good horizontal and vertical coverage. It can do swinging, slashing, stabbing and throwing.

[bobbin]

I'm enjoying the discourse, if we may call it that, developing here. It's a good for the a mental health-a.

Bobbin you mention that spears have been used in many regions in various times. What are some explanations for this, offered by you or any historian? If someone asked me, I'd tell them if I was stranded on an island, I'd probably make a primitive wooden spear because the image of the spear is so engrained inside my mind, that it's the first thing I think of when it comes to a hypothetical situation about survival (and I'm no Eagle Scout). What say you?

Because they are extremely simple to make and effective, in their most basic form they would just be a sharpened length of wood.
They were probably among the first tools used by humans, although as with all weapons they were initially used for hunting.

A good example of how early the concept of a spear could have developed is that chimpanzees and orangutans have been known to create them for hunting fish and other animals.

[vartan]

Wow, I've seen primates using twigs to catch insects up close and in person, but never even heard about them making something like a spear. How do they sharpen the tip? Have they been doing this for a long time, or have they learned by observing humans?

[QuintusSertorius]

Just bat it aside and charge. Unless its something other than a simple spear, you can only really do a few things with it: jab, obviously; throw it, if its balanced; slash across the neck, rare. Most of the time he will be moving back constantly and jabbing to keep the opponent at distance;throwing enters the equation if he has a sword or a different weapon that can be more wieldy in close combat. Slashing isn't gonna happen really, unless the difference in skill is extreme. Tripping won't occurr since you need a hook to perform a move like that. Battering with the haft will do minimal damage, being reduced to nothing if the target is at all armoured.

A spearman will tire a lot faster than a swordsman assuming equal fitness. A swordman doesn't need to move nearly as much. Also, as the two opponents become more armoured, the sword becomes more effective; the spearman tires sonner and his weapon is unable to penetrate really thick armour like full plate or a coat of plates. The sword can still dish out blunt force trauma effectively.


Dude, you're clueless. You're only making yourself look even more stupid the more you say, quit while you're only a little way behind.

[saka-rauka1]

1. Why do you need a hook to trip?
2. Have you ever been hit by the handle of any wooden object? It hurts a lot, and can deal a lot of damage to anything except an armoured opponent.
3. So can a spear haft.

Also, if both are lightly armoured professional soldiers/warriors then stamina won't necessarily be an issue. These two men would be in prime physical condition.

I pretty much agree with the rest, especially about moving. However, both fighters would need to keep moving or they're both screwed. You can't expect a guy to stand still whether he's holding a sword, spear, machine gun, or bazooka.

1. How else are you going to do it?
2. A spear is too long or unwieldy for this. To get adequate circular momentum would require you to turn through a large arc, an invitation for the swordsman to charge. A shorter weapon can definately pack a punch, you don't need to convince me here. I've seen Kali/Escrima sticks in use and they cause serious damage. I just can't see a long spear doing the same against a skilled opponent, not if they have a shield.
3. Same point as 2, and I would think that had a spear been able to do that, swords wouldn't have been experimented with during the middle ages, when the length, curvature etc were being compared to find a weapon more suited for getting through armour.


If it's a duel both have to move and my point about stamina referred to both having similar equipment, but the swordman, wielding a shield, would have more weight...
But as I said duels aren't the matter, leave that to epics and movies...
Deciding whether a weapon is superior to another is just pointless, the manufacture can be perfect, but a tool is a tool, a rock is good enough to kill a man...
What matters is training and the tactics in battle, and duels are a complete different world...
Anyway, about haft's blunt damage, Miyamoto Musashi won a duel killing his opponent with a paddle :D

I agree, but for the time being we are restricting this to just duels. And to the example, was his opponent using a shield and armour?


It's actually the exact opposite, a swordsman has to cover the distance between the spear point and the spearman to make an attack. The spearman on the other hand can attack with less effort and from a comfortable distance by just jabbing, the only moving they need to do is to keep the minimum safe distance from the swordsman, which in terms of energy expend by both is equal as they are moving the same amount.

And swords were pretty useless against plate armour as they lacked the mass to cause any internal damage, which is why maces and war hammers became the weapon of choice when dealing with armoured knights.

Upon reflection, you are indeed correct.

Yes, hafted weapons are definately the way to go against extremely well protected opponents. But if it came down to spear vs sword, I reckon the sword is a better option.


I think a quick look through history disproves that assumption, if the spear was that useless out of a shield wall they why did it see continual widespread use over a vast geographic and social range from the very beginnings of warfare right through to the modern day?

It's very simple to make/use.


Depends, he can hit you with the shaft, turn it around and trip you; it can also run back and stab you, jump and stab you, beat you in the head, hold it overarm and cut your neck and heart. It is unorthodox, but a good spearmen can keep the balance on one on one.

You have never been hit with a falling pole, have you? It hurts a lot, and it's a lot worse.
Also, ALL (yes, that is ALL) of the spearmen carried a secondary hand to hand weapon, spears can break, and they aren't really useful when the guy's shield is right next to you (if he doesn't have a shield; he'll get knocked on his donkey). On one on one that is, in formation, they aren't really useful when 10 guys in the line manage to break through the spearwall (and they WILL... After you stab around 20 guys in the same line)

I think jabbing is the only real option, for reasons I have explained above.

No, but I have been whacked with a hockey stick a few times, it does hurt. Then again, I didn't have a shield/armour to deflect/absorb damage; nor was I expecting it in any way. Snapping with a spear wont do much damage, whearas swinging it will. Swinging it in a sufficiently large arc will lead to your death though, as you can no longer stop them from moving up. Moreso, you have to hit with the tip/end of the haft; hitting him with the first half of the length will reduce damage considerably.


No, he carries a sidearm. Also, he can stop the other guy from moving by threatening him with a sharp blade in front of his face and that he will stab himself if he is not quick enough.

If he pulls out a weapon more suited to individual fighting..............doesn't that prove my point?

[jirisys]

1. How else are you going to do it?
2. A spear is too long or unwieldy for this. To get adequate circular momentum would require you to turn through a large arc, an invitation for the swordsman to charge. A shorter weapon can definately pack a punch, you don't need to convince me here. I've seen Kali/Escrima sticks in use and they cause serious damage. I just can't see a long spear doing the same against a skilled opponent, not if they have a shield.
3. Same point as 2, and I would think that had a spear been able to do that, swords wouldn't have been experimented with during the middle ages, when the length, curvature etc were being compared to find a weapon more suited for getting through armour.

You just lift it and move it down with force.

No, you just do the above.

Uhm... Middle-age armor until the 14th century was the mail, plates and leather. From the 14th century onwards, with the (now emerging on the west) black powder; more powerful armour had to be designed. This is when the steel (?) full body armour rose to prominence, also from them came Bastard swords, maces, poleaxes, and morningstars.


I agree, but for the time being we are restricting this to just duels. And to the example, was his opponent using a shield and armour?

Duel thing is annoying. I suggest we look at real hellenistic warfare now.

You can put him a shield and armour, whatever you want. My duel was with an unarmored peasant swordsman with a shield versus an unarmored peasant spearman.


Upon reflection, you are indeed correct.

Yes, hafted weapons are definately the way to go against extremely well protected opponents. But if it came down to spear vs sword, I reckon the sword is a better option.

I recon I would rather have a spear and a small sword than just a sword. In fact, a mace or an axe and a spear would be a great combination. Now I would go and steal a horse. And much better now. Now I would go and protect the Sparapet.


It's very simple to make/use.

A stick with a tip. You can just cut the wood obliquely and you have a spear. I have done this with bamboo. It's easier to cut a tip than breaking it with a straight cut.


I think jabbing is the only real option, for reasons I have explained above.

No. You can bash a lot and you can break him off balance.


No, but I have been whacked with a hockey stick a few times, it does hurt. Then again, I didn't have a shield/armour to deflect/absorb damage; nor was I expecting it in any way. Snapping with a spear wont do much damage, whearas swinging it will. Swinging it in a sufficiently large arc will lead to your death though, as you can no longer stop them from moving up. Moreso, you have to hit with the tip/end of the haft; hitting him with the first half of the length will reduce damage considerably.

Blunt damage is not really affected by armour. That's why maces and morningstars were prominent by the end of the dark ages. Cause even if you got all that shiny steel (?) armour, you would get knocked on your donkey


If he pulls out a weapon more suited to individual fighting..............doesn't that prove my point?

No. It just means a spear cannot match the sword on it's short range, but the sword can't match the spear on it's long range. Meaning; a spearwall can kill many swordsmen, but then, when one passes through, the spearwall cannot help the guy he's aiming for. So he drops his spear and pulls out a sword better suited for close combat.

He could knock him out if it was a duel. But it's a battle. And he doesn't have much room, so pull out your sidearm. Even many swordsmen had sidearms. Swords got stuck in the bodies and you had to push it with your leg to get it out. And in close combat, that was gonna get you dead.

~Jirisys ()

[vartan]

This is post #133. The speculation ends now.

[Trax]

Couple of videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_IIHlFOEiI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8RWLxlzTiM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3J-10KfRe8

From these videos it seems to me that a swordsman is in a great disadvantage against a spearman unless he has a shield. Add a shield and it will change everything. On the other hand, the spearman has no shield in these videos, I wonder how much that would change the outcome.

[KyodaiSteeleye]

This is post #133. The speculation ends now.

Awww. We all love speculation. It means that you can have posts that go on for EVAAAAA.

Just to plant my spear-tip of righteousness into the mass of writhing bodies and not help at all -
- all weapons have advantages and disadvantages.
- some weapons have particular advantages when used in formation
- training is more important than the weapon. I think a lot of the spear-dissing is due to the romantic image of swords and maybe that poorly trained levies could be equipped with spears fairly cheaply, and when said levies didn't perform very well in historical battles people imediately think spears are a disadvantageous weapon. A well trained warrior will generally beat a badly trained one, whatever the weapon combo (with proviso they have room to wield it properly and keep correct distance etc.)
- Spears really aren't passive weapons. As stated above, with enough room you can do all sorts of nasty stuff with a spear. Its can do anything any other stabbing weapon can (eg:- I fence with stabbing weapons - the principles in spear combat will be nearly exactly the same).

[bobbin]

Wow, I've seen primates using twigs to catch insects up close and in person, but never even heard about them making something like a spear. How do they sharpen the tip? Have they been doing this for a long time, or have they learned by observing humans?

They use their teeth to trim the end into a point. No one can say how long they have been doing it or if they learned from observing humans, but I think the real importance of the finding was that it demonstrates they can understand the concept, which pushes back the barrier for use of custom tools massively.
IIRC the oldest definite evidence for a spear is from 400000 years ago, so that alone already pre dates modern humans by a huge amount of time.

Link to the research paper concerning tool use by chimpanzees. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-4N3XDTT-1&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F06%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9d064d7e0e179f505aff5e178c158aab&searchtype=a)



It's very simple to make/use.

And effective, tools do not get used for as long as the spear has without being good at what they do.

[vartan]

400,000 YA? Wow. That may very well precede the use of fire, if I'm not mistaken. Thanks for the paper.

[jirisys]

400,000 YA? Wow. That may very well precede the use of fire, if I'm not mistaken. Thanks for the paper.

Use of fire was very late (especially by us). I remember I read in a book that the Homo Erectus already used stone tools and fire. And that was around 30k years ago (number might be wrong).

~Jirisys ()

[saka-rauka1]

And effective, tools do not get used for as long as the spear has without being good at what they do.

It's different when shields enter the equation.

[bobbin]

Yes and how long have the two coexisted? 4 or 5 millenia? A shield may reduce the effectiveness of a spear but it doesn't render it useless.

[saka-rauka1]

Okay I'll admit I very quickly turned to hyperbole.

Do we not agree that a shield user has the advantage?

[vartan]

Do we not agree that a shield user has the advantage?
No, we do not agree, for the simple reason that the opponent has a shield as well.

[jirisys]

No, we do not agree, for the simple reason that the opponent has a shield as well.

Training and the fact that they have different brains, means even if they are virtually the same, one of them will eventually win.

~Jirisys ()

[Arjos]

Duels again?
For those I think one must consider: sleep, food, sun, emotional status, training, equipment, tactic, luck and exterior influences...
But let's try to forget them, those are something very personal, for example take the legend of the Horatii and Curiatii, in the end that was a 1v3, ok it's a narrative story, but shows duels for what they are: anomalies...