First things First

[shingenmitch2]

I read about how soldiers will cough, taunt, scratch etc., but is CA getting the fundamentals of the the combat animation correct?

But every time I've seen videos of the "hoplite" phalanx in action for TWRome, I'm very dismayed at the inaccuracy of the animation. I'm hoping I've only seen old versions of the game build, but I'm not so sure. I know the Time Commanders Leuctra battle is an old build, but it is also a perfect case-in-point for me...

What I've seen for hoplite phalanx warfare in the TWRome engine... "guys with long spears stabbing underhand (one handed :-( no less) with their shields turning inordinately sideways..."
Now this MIGHT be able to pass for pike-phalanx warfare of the Macedonians (get 2-hands on those darn sarissas), but it certainly not the hoplite warfare of the Spartans, Thebans, etc...

For hoplite warfare this is so off. What should be happening is this:
The shields of the soldiers of the front rank should be over lapping forming a solid wall. They stay locked like this for as long as possible. The soldiers then crash/press into the enemy line with this wall of shields attempting to force the enemy back. The rear-ranks press forward to add weight to the front-line's push. Only the first rank or two can use their spears. They stab in an over-hand, 1-handed method over the top of their shield... leaving the shields completely steady and locked up with that of the soldier to the left and right.

Will we see this in Rome? I hope that CA hasn't gotten so caught up in the "nice extras" of their animations that they have forgotten to get the absolute fundamentals of the fighting correct.

I have similar concerns about the Roman legion's sword and shield fighting techniques.

[SwordsMaster]

have you tried to use a 3 meter pike/spear overhand?
Theres absolutely no way you can get any strength at all and the lance will be easily repelled.

The only weapons that could have been used overhead were the javelins, and those were NOT h2h combat weapons.

[CBR]

IIRC a typical Hoplite spear was about 7-8 feet long..


CBR

[shingenmitch2]

SwordM.... um... did u read the post?
I mentioned the pike-phalanx and thought it was.. okay, but not great.

I'm talking about the hoplite-phalanx with the 8' stabbing spear...
or don't u know the difference?

[SwordsMaster]

ok, ok, even if its shorter, try to hold a spear for 5 mins above your head.You will get tired.If you hold it for 15 mins, your arm will be numb.And after that, try to fight with it...

[shingenmitch2]

look I didn't just decide to make up this version of hoplite warfare today... from all historic accounts, what I described is how the hoplite phalanx functioned. In particular the whole key to the formation was keeping the shields locked as an intact wall.

As for tiring, well that is why hoplite battles were about the shield pushing with shoulder as much as it was about the spear stabbing (if not more so). Yes overhand is more tiring, but it not as bad as u might think. The spear need not be held high for most of the time... ur hand only needs to be above ur shoulder -- this can be done by keeping ur elbow down and just bringing ur fore-arm up as if u were striking with a hammer. The elbow can be tight against ur chest. I have more control with an 8' spear like this than the underhand stab.

[SwordsMaster]

I didnt argue about the shield wall, but just want to point out that they carried swords for h2h combat, and I think they had a good reason for that.

As for the time you have to hold the spear:
How long can it take to stab a guy whos hiding behind a shield and trying to stab you?

And then another guy will take his place, so it is VERY tiring.

Im not saying that my strength is close to the one that hoplites had, but i think they would get very tired in a very short time.

[CBR]

Spears will break or the fighting get so close so people had swords as a backup weapon. The swiss had short swords too along with the underhand pikes.

From the info we have on their fighting style the overhand style was the main use, especially in the initial charge.

*Correction: in the charge it was used underhand but in the close fighting afterwards, overhand style is best way of hitting something*

Combat is tiring and some believe that soldiers only could fight 10-15 minutes (but Im not so sure) But one thing is killing/wounding enemies another thing is making them run away. Not many men were actually killed in direct combat but when being pursued.

AFAIK average losses (in a typical hoplite v hoplite fight) for the loser was less than 10% killed and wounded.


CBR

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] ]AFAIK average losses (in a typical hoplite v hoplite fight) for the loser was less than 10% killed and wounded.


Presumably because the winners could not pursue the losers as effectively... And those Hoplite shields are said to be very heavy to lug about as well as those spears.

[CBR]

Yes the classical early hoplite fighting didnt involve much pursuing and the battle was considered over when one side was routed. And routing men would drop their shield and even armour to run faster

Later on it became much more deadly with more cavalry and light infantry on the battlefield.


CBR

[Shahed]

Good posts Again we talk about accuracy. The thing is how to make the guys at CA realize this. We need a strategy In about two months it will be too late to change anything (I expect).

[SwordsMaster]

But they cant make a fight between hoplites last only 1/4 of the time a fight between roman units would last

That is why they programmed them to use the spears underhand, that way a man lasts much longer.

If they made it the other way around, someone would have complained about the inhuman resistance of the hoplites that can put up a half an hour fight holding the spears overhead.

[CBR]

Why should the fight only take 1/4 of the time?


CBR

[SwordsMaster]

Because the soldiers get tired faster.

[CBR]

Well I dont see how they can tire so much faster compared to a roman soldier. Armour, shield and lots of maneuvering causes fatigue too.

shingenmitch2 already described how fatigue using overhand wouldnt be as bad as one might think.


CBR

[SwordsMaster]

try holding a 2 meter stick overhand for 5 mins, and then try to stab something (or someone). Just for the sake of the experiment. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ May 19 2004,07:59)]I read about how soldiers will cough, taunt, scratch etc., but is CA getting the fundamentals of the the combat animation correct?

But every time I've seen videos of the "hoplite" phalanx in action for TWRome, I'm very dismayed at the inaccuracy of the animation. I'm hoping I've only seen old versions of the game build, but I'm not so sure. I know the Time Commanders Leuctra battle is an old build, but it is also a perfect case-in-point for me...

What I've seen for hoplite phalanx warfare in the TWRome engine... "guys with long spears stabbing underhand (one handed :-( no less) with their shields turning inordinately sideways..."
Now this MIGHT be able to pass for pike-phalanx warfare of the Macedonians (get 2-hands on those darn sarissas), but it certainly not the hoplite warfare of the Spartans, Thebans, etc...

For hoplite warfare this is so off. What should be happening is this:
The shields of the soldiers of the front rank should be over lapping forming a solid wall. They stay locked like this for as long as possible. The soldiers then crash/press into the enemy line with this wall of shields attempting to force the enemy back. The rear-ranks press forward to add weight to the front-line's push. Only the first rank or two can use their spears. They stab in an over-hand, 1-handed method over the top of their shield... leaving the shields completely steady and locked up with that of the soldier to the left and right.

Will we see this in Rome? I hope that CA hasn't gotten so caught up in the "nice extras" of their animations that they have forgotten to get the absolute fundamentals of the fighting correct.

I have similar concerns about the Roman legion's sword and shield fighting techniques.
Not gonna happen. To much work for CA. They have to concentrate in more important aspects of the game, like incenerating lava pigs and nuclear blast catapults... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif

[Shamus]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that the Roman legions fought in layers of three. The first layer would be fighting, the second would be behind them waiting to partake in fighting, and the third would be behind them resting and getting quick medical attention. Then after a short period of time, the front line would drop back, and the second line would take their place. Those who had been resting would then take up positions behind the front fighters. The cycling would then continue to role forward like this, ensuring there were always rested men at the front of the line, as they would tire quickly from all the armor they were wearing. I read that somewhere a while back…

[Oaty]

Train yourself 8 hours a day with a heavy shield and practice an overhead thrust with a spear and hold it up there for hours at a time. Or if want better results take a four year old and make him do this everyday until he is 20 and see how long he can handle the spear overhead.

Considering how many years of training the hoplites had and how prestigous of a position it was I have a feeling they were in very good shape and if they handled there spear overhead, were very adept at doing it for long periods of time.

You are trying to compare physical conditions of people today from back then and there might be quite a difference. I have'nt done any research on how lifespan of the human life over the years and it seems that the wealthy people did have a good chance of getting into there 60's and that is not too different from today its just that the commoner has a much longer lifespan then from years ago.

If any of us went back in time we would have peobably looked scary as huge giants but I have a feeling they were in much better physical condition than most people today

[Spino]

Quote[/b] (SwordsMaster @ May 19 2004,13:06)]try holding a 2 meter stick overhand for 5 mins, and then try to stab something (or someone). Just for the sake of the experiment. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
In the ancient world this was not as big an issue for the average adult male. Intense physical labor was commonplace in agrarian societies prior to the industrial revolution. Furthermore training techniques required that hoplites wield their spears with an overhand thrust so you can bet they got used to it after several hours of drill. I'm sure Sparta's hoplites with their professional approach to training and technique could effectively wield a spear with an overhand grip for hours on end if necessary. For Greek hoplites the overhand grip was the rule, not the exception. Due to the tight confines of the phalanx and the overlapping shield wall there is simply no way to effectively wield a 7-8 foot spear with an underhand thrust.

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (SwordsMaster @ May 19 2004,14:16)]ok, ok, even if its shorter, try to hold a spear for 5 mins above your head.You will get tired.If you hold it for 15 mins, your arm will be numb.And after that, try to fight with it...
My dear friend, have you ever took the time to immerse yourself even the slightest bit in ancient Greek combat?

Every single artwork depicting fighting Greeks - largely vases made by Greeks - shows a hoplite phalanx 'charging' (at an ambling pace no less) into another hoplite phalanx. And each and every time you see them, shields locked, spears above their arms, ready for the ensuing bloody melee.

It is an archaelogically proven fact: Greeks fought like that. There is nothing, not even a sheet of paper, to get through that hoplon wall.


Given, in the time span of RTW, the classical hoplite phalanx did not exist anymore. Greeks had been hellenized, in all its irony. They fought like the Macedonians under Philip had, who had conquered them.

I'd expect Sparta to be the last outpost of the classical Greek phalanx...



~Wiz

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (oaty @ May 19 2004,12:35)]Train yourself 8 hours a day with a heavy shield and practice an overhead thrust with a spear and hold it up there for hours at a time. Or if want better results take a four year old and make him do this everyday until he is 20 and see how long he can handle the spear overhead.

Considering how many years of training the hoplites had and how prestigous of a position it was I have a feeling they were in very good shape and if they handled there spear overhead, were very adept at doing it for long periods of time.

You are trying to compare physical conditions of people today from back then and there might be quite a difference. I have'nt done any research on how lifespan of the human life over the years and it seems that the wealthy people did have a good chance of getting into there 60's and that is not too different from today its just that the commoner has a much longer lifespan then from years ago.

If any of us went back in time we would have peobably looked scary as huge giants but I have a feeling they were in much better physical condition than most people today
Quite correct. That really isn't surprising due to modern habits. But most people don't realize that. As much as any of us (not counting professional athlets) work out, it can't be compared to the amount of work and physical activity those people did everyday. They did it for survival. We do it for fun and health, whenever we have the time, after spending the entire day at the office... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-juggle.gif

[shingenmitch2]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif
Great, we're off topic trying to explain the basics of hoplite warfare to someone who is arguing off of his own "convential wisdom."

Look, read about hoplite-phalanx warfare... virtually every account talks about overhand stabbing. Again, I didn't invent my comments out of thin air this morining.

But let's continue with ur convential wisdom points... if the BIG ROUND argive shields are all overlapping (forming a solid front with your buddy's shield to both the left and right, which is the whole point of the formation) How the hell do u stab underhanded? You can't easily stab thru your sheild. You have to stab over it.

I'm sure if combat somehow broke down into individual battles, the spearman might use an underhand stab, but we're not talking individual combat.

And, no doubt, hoplite-phalanx warfare was more tiring than being in the Macedonian pike-phalanx. The Pike phalanx is a whole different story so please stop comparing the two.

-----------------------------

Wizard,
quite correct on the time issue. But I think CA has had some other anachronisms in the game. And the Battle of Leuctra was fought as a traditional hoplite-phalanx. (although in the Time Commanders it was a bunch of pike-phalanxes -- which was one of the things that prompted this thread in the first place). I was assuming that Leuctra might be one of those "historical" scenarios we'll be able to fight.

Also, the Hypaspists of Alexander/ Hellenistic armies, it could be argued, fought in the old traditional hoplite-phalanx as they would be the "lighter more maneuverable" link between the ponderous pike-phalanx and the cavalry.

[The Wizard]

True... the shield bearers fought like the old hoplite, but then in the form of the Spartan phalanx 8th-6th century, which was built for speed and mobility, rather than the meatgrinder. The difference was that shield bearers were armoured in linen or bronze breastplates if their task for that battle was the melee, and fought like Spartans of old, with hoplon, spear, javelin (Thracian influence) and falchata when they were required to skirmish, or carry out 'commando missions'.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC the only infantry of Greek origin to be good with a sword - for real - were the shield bearers, who had a falchata instead of a mere dagger. The spear, not the sword, was used in close combat. The 'sword' was only a last-ditch defence.



~Wiz

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ May 19 2004,13:13)]True... the shield bearers fought like the old hoplite, but then in the form of the Spartan phalanx 8th-6th century, which was built for speed and mobility, rather than the meatgrinder. The difference was that shield bearers were armoured in linen or bronze breastplates if their task for that battle was the melee, and fought like Spartans of old, with hoplon, spear, javelin (Thracian influence) and falchata when they were required to skirmish, or carry out 'commando missions'.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC the only infantry of Greek origin to be good with a sword - for real - were the shield bearers, who had a falchata instead of a mere dagger. The spear, not the sword, was used in close combat. The 'sword' was only a last-ditch defence.



~Wiz
Falcata - Hispanic
Kopis - Greek

Different designations for the same sword.

[shingenmitch2]

AFAIK, the spear was the first and primary weapon in just about every situation.

I do recall, however, reading about the Spartan's and their short sword. Apparently, in the phalanx crush the Spartan very-short stabbing sword was very effective and they were quite skilled with it.

While other Greeks found the sword size "unmanly," The Spartans had a saying about it, "If your sword is too short to reach your opponant, take a step forward."

[Shamus]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ May 19 2004,13:13)]Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC the only infantry of Greek origin to be good with a sword - for real - were the shield bearers, who had a falchata instead of a mere dagger. The spear, not the sword, was used in close combat. The 'sword' was only a last-ditch defence.



~Wiz
You’ll have to wait in line. I’m still waiting for someone to correct my comment about the Roman legions. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Trax]

Quote[/b] ]I'd expect Sparta to be the last outpost of the classical Greek phalanx...
The Spartans adopted the pike ca 230-220 BC IIRC.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Shamus @ May 19 2004,13:30)]
Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ May 19 2004,13:13)]Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC the only infantry of Greek origin to be good with a sword - for real - were the shield bearers, who had a falchata instead of a mere dagger. The spear, not the sword, was used in close combat. The 'sword' was only a last-ditch defence.



~Wiz
You’ll have to wait in line. I’m still waiting for someone to correct my comment about the Roman legions. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Yes, the Romans fought in lines alternating combat. The three lines that you mentioned were used before the Marian reforms, when Roman armies used the Manipular system. The lines consisted of the Hastati, Princeps and Triari disposed in a alternating patern. The Velites had the frontal line at the beggining of the battle. After initial skirmishing they would retreat to let the sucessive lines of heavy infantry into the hand-to-hand combat. The first line of HI(Hastati) would engage the enemy while the others stayed back. When tired, this first line would retreat, while the second line (Princeps) would engage, using the space between the Maniples of the first line. Generally, this second engagement would solve most battles. If not, the veterans Triari would engage. The expression "going to the Triari" was born out of battles that were hard fought ones.

[DemonArchangel]

It's Hastati first then Princeps

[Kraxis]

We are most certainly not as strong (maybe) but they had much better stamina given they were mainly farmers or fishermen, or in the case of the Spartans, full time warriors. They had the inherent strength to carry the spear above their shoulders. But one thing that is sometimes overlooked is that they spears of those days were rather slimmer weapons than those in the medieval times. So they were lighter as well.

An underhand wielding of a spear (remember it is gripped near the center) is not only going to be harder to hit the enemy with, but it is also going to be a danger to your own friends behind you pushing at your back.
In the push you are basically only two shieldthicknesses from your nearest opponent (shield to shield), you are leaning into the push with the left shoulder. Meaning you are standing in a crouch almost, to get the most balance and weigth into the push without actually using much strength. The guy behind you is doing the same and is pushing at your back/shoulder.
So your hand will be at least 4 feet from the enemy shield, you arm isn't long enough for that, and another 4 feet behind it will be dangerous space. This will make certain you can't use the spear underhand as it is far too long to be used there in such a confined environment.

It is simply impossible.
But the overhand style is not only easier to use in such a confined environment, it is more accurate and stronger (you are stabbing downwards), as well as it has a better chance of hitting something vital, like the head, neck or shoulders.

Now that we have that confirmed.
It is a fact that there is no overhand style in RTW, just like MTW and STW. I'm certain CA knows that is wrong, so I can only suspect it is something technical that makes it impossible. Twohanded pikes also seems impossible, perhaps th two are related?

In any case it is a sad fact that we won't see the destinct differences between the hoplites and the phalangites. Right now they are the same soldiers with different sizes of shields and spears.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (DemonArchangel @ May 19 2004,13:50)]It's Hastati first then Princeps
Thanks. Corrected. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[shingenmitch2]

Krax
(Nice to see we're back on topic)
"It is a fact that there is no overhand style in RTW, just like MTW and STW. I'm certain CA knows that is wrong, so I can only suspect it is something technical that makes it impossible. Twohanded pikes also seems impossible, perhaps th two are related?"

I sure hope you are incorrect here. I don't see why this would be so darn impossible. It is just an animation If they can have guys cough, or fly up in the air at an elephant's charge, you'd think the basics like a good spear-fight animation would be easily possible.

[SwordsMaster]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ May 20 2004,00:51)]We are most certainly not as strong (maybe) but they had much better stamina given they were mainly farmers or fishermen, or in the case of the Spartans, full time warriors. They had the inherent strength to carry the spear above their shoulders. But one thing that is sometimes overlooked is that they spears of those days were rather slimmer weapons than those in the medieval times. So they were lighter as well.

An underhand wielding of a spear (remember it is gripped near the center) is not only going to be harder to hit the enemy with, but it is also going to be a danger to your own friends behind you pushing at your back.
In the push you are basically only two shieldthicknesses from your nearest opponent (shield to shield), you are leaning into the push with the left shoulder. Meaning you are standing in a crouch almost, to get the most balance and weigth into the push without actually using much strength. The guy behind you is doing the same and is pushing at your back/shoulder.
So your hand will be at least 4 feet from the enemy shield, you arm isn't long enough for that, and another 4 feet behind it will be dangerous space. This will make certain you can't use the spear underhand as it is far too long to be used there in such a confined environment.

It is simply impossible.
But the overhand style is not only easier to use in such a confined environment, it is more accurate and stronger (you are stabbing downwards), as well as it has a better chance of hitting something vital, like the head, neck or shoulders.

Now that we have that confirmed.
It is a fact that there is no overhand style in RTW, just like MTW and STW. I'm certain CA knows that is wrong, so I can only suspect it is something technical that makes it impossible. Twohanded pikes also seems impossible, perhaps th two are related?

In any case it is a sad fact that we won't see the destinct differences between the hoplites and the phalangites. Right now they are the same soldiers with different sizes of shields and spears.

Quote[/b] ]They had the inherent strength

what in all the gods is inherent strength??

Anyways.The way you describe the phalanx fight style, it almost looks like they form something like a scrum in Rugby... And I dont really think so.


As for the overhand use, The representations on greek ceramic pots are NOT historically accurate.As usual, painters and artists represented what they wanted, and a guy witha spear overhand always looks more "brave"/heroic/macho, than a guy with a short sword or an underhand spear.So the paintings are not a good source.

I dont know much about the phalanx at the time the game is setup, but earlier phalanx troops had a really long spear, and it was used underhand.Im basing my argument on purely physical and logical considerations.

Also, take into account that the soldiers also wore armour, apart from a shield, a spear and a heavy helm, so they werent too agile and probably couldnt crouch so low.(Im telling you it is hard to crouch low enough even for a rugby game).

The way I see it, is that they used spears while the enemy was far enough and swords in close h2h combat.

[Trax]

Don´t forget the buttspikes of hoplite spears, in case of an underhand thrust you would most probably spear the men behind you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (Trax @ May 20 2004,08:07)]Don´t forget the buttspikes of hoplite spears, in case of an underhand thrust you would most probably spear the men behind you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif
Exactly my point...


Quote[/b] ]Anyways.The way you describe the phalanx fight style, it almost looks like they form something like a scrum in Rugby... And I dont really think so.
That is basically how the hoplite phalanx has been discribed time and again. Of course they would not crouch as low as in a rugbymatch, but you can be sure they leaned heavily into the push. It only makes sense.
If one phalanx pushed the other apart the losing side would lose its defensive strength from the overlapping shields, an absolutely vital part of the fighting line.


Quote[/b] ]I dont know much about the phalanx at the time the game is setup, but earlier phalanx troops had a really long spear, and it was used underhand.Im basing my argument on purely physical and logical considerations.
I don't know what you are talking about. The earliest phalanxes that is known about had spears about 6 feet in length, those were spearmen from the middle east around 700BC, the Greeks more or less adopted that style of fighting. It has some times been credited to the tyrant of Argos, Pheidon, to bring the true hoplite phalanx to Greece.
Anyway, the early hoplites also used this shorter spear as well as a javelin as can be seen on older pots. As time progressed they took the slightly longer spears, of about 8 feet. And later yet Iphikrates armed his troops with 12 foot spears and later yet he Macedonians took up the pike. It is almost a linear progression.



Quote[/b] ]As for the overhand use, The representations on greek ceramic pots are NOT historically accurate.As usual, painters and artists represented what they wanted, and a guy witha spear overhand always looks more "brave"/heroic/macho, than a guy with a short sword or an underhand spear.So the paintings are not a good source.
They might not be the best for representing details. But when you see several lines of men with their spears above their shoulders (the lines are presented as men besides each other in a 3D attempt, where you can only see the outline of the guy next to the first and so on), the pots have a tendency, and that tendency has to come from somewhere. It is not more macho to have the spear over your shoulder, why should it be?
The Greeks favoured the stoic man, not the heroic man. They didn't like people flaunting their skills, but preferred the man who kept his place in the line, not budging even a centimeter.
I'm certain you know the story of the Spartan survivor from Themopylae and how he charged out the lines at Plataea and broke the Persian line. After the battle he wasn't even credited for bravery as he done eaxactly what he shouldn't have, left his place in the lines.
Thus there is little reason for the painters to present th hoplites as more macho than they were.


Quote[/b] ]Also, take into account that the soldiers also wore armour, apart from a shield, a spear and a heavy helm, so they werent too agile and probably couldnt crouch so low.(Im telling you it is hard to crouch low enough even for a rugby game).
As I said earlier they didn't crouch too low. The armour while heavy actually didn't protect them from about the waist and down to the greaves (if they wore those, I will get back to them). That leaves the upper body very much capable of bending and twisting if it should need to. Of course it makes the whole body heavy and slow, but speed was not essential for the hoplites, protection and holding the line was.

It is interesting to note that the early hoplites were extremely heavy. Bronze armour all over, cuirass, greaves, arm protectors, hand protectors. They were heavy. As time went by they began to lighten, the first they threw off were the arm and hand protectors (not a good choice if the sword was the primary weapon and the arm was more or less the only real target down under the shields), then the cuirass was changed into linnen, and shortly thereafter the greaves were quitted as well. Why would they remove their leg protectors of they were likely to get stabbed there with either a spear or a sword? They removed them because it was unlikely they would get into such a situation. People are rational, why carry extra weight that doesn't really help in my protection? And it was not because they got poorer, they actually got richer over time.
Supposedly the Spartans went on to become completely unarmoured around the time of Leuctra. Personally I'm not convinced though.


Quote[/b] ]The way I see it, is that they used spears while the enemy was far enough and swords in close h2h combat.
Why get rid of a weapon in working order? Also if they did throw away their spears, don't you think it would become a hazard? Imagine the frontlines all at once throwing thier spears away. Where would they go? The only real option would be to use it as a javelin and throw it into the enemy ranks. But then why would they add a buttspike to it? The spearbattle would be over in seconds as the two phalanxes sought to push the other out of the way, and then they would throw them. No need for buttspikes.
Further there has been no mention of hoplites throwing their spears, that was considered shameful for him to do. Also the spears were too big for a proper javelin usage. And finally to throw the spear it would need to be in an overhand position.
Would you also have the Triarii have to throw away their spears? Well basically every warrior armed with a spear ans sword?


Quote[/b] ]I sure hope you are incorrect here. I don't see why this would be so darn impossible. It is just an animation If they can have guys cough, or fly up in the air at an elephant's charge, you'd think the basics like a good spear-fight animation would be easily possible.

What do I know... But I can't believe they would make such a great oversight.

[Rosacrux]

Nice thread. Many mistakes/omissions/innacuracies but mostly correct. The overhead grip seems to have been the norm in hoplite warfare according to the various artistic depictions and also given that a great deal of the wounds in hoplite warfare was caused to the face If you took part in a couple of hoplite battles you sure would come out scarred.

Also, the underhand grip was used extensively as well. It is rather a misconception that the underhand weilded spear can't hit the enemy because it can't get through the synaspismos (the interlocked shields wall) - ohe the shields leave a gap excactly in the right hip-thigh area,where the two curves meet, and that's precisely where a low-weilded spear will come through.

Also, there is another thing: the wounds in the face were quite common, but most people in hoplite battle died due to serious wounds in the thighs. The torso was well-protected but the shield only covered the hips, not the thighs. It's rather impossible to hit those with an overhead grip, no?

Also, the typical hoplite battle had distinct phases. As soon as the rituals and stuff was over, and the two phalanxes approached eachother, the first phase was the othismos (otho: push), something like the funny thingy that's going on in a rugby (or even Yankee Footbal) game when they toss the ball: the two phalanxes push eachother and try to break or at least throw off balance the enemy formation. Right after that, the doratismos occurs: the hoplites aim with their spears (dory: spear) at the weak spots and the oppenings, trying to wound as many enemies as possible. In this phase if one or the other phalanx break, the winner starts pursuing (shortly, it's true) the enemy phalanx. If none breaks, usually they take a few steps back, reorganize and take another shot. That could go on forever, especially if they were both disciplined and relatively homegenous, fine-drilled phalanxes.

And one last thing about losses in hoplite phalanxes warfare: when no other elements (peltasts, cavalry) were present, to maximize losses during the pursuit stage, losses were minimal: the winner would loose between 2% and 10% (medium ~5) and the looser between 5% and 20% (medium at ~12).

Some notable exceptions exist, but they are few.

[Trax]

I think most, if not all spearmen fought overhand (much like Zulus in the later times).
For me it seems just much more natural and effective thing to do.

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (SwordsMaster @ May 20 2004,13:38)]
Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ May 20 2004,00:51)]We are most certainly not as strong (maybe) but they had much better stamina given they were mainly farmers or fishermen, or in the case of the Spartans, full time warriors. They had the inherent strength to carry the spear above their shoulders. But one thing that is sometimes overlooked is that they spears of those days were rather slimmer weapons than those in the medieval times. So they were lighter as well.

An underhand wielding of a spear (remember it is gripped near the center) is not only going to be harder to hit the enemy with, but it is also going to be a danger to your own friends behind you pushing at your back.
In the push you are basically only two shieldthicknesses from your nearest opponent (shield to shield), you are leaning into the push with the left shoulder. Meaning you are standing in a crouch almost, to get the most balance and weigth into the push without actually using much strength. The guy behind you is doing the same and is pushing at your back/shoulder.
So your hand will be at least 4 feet from the enemy shield, you arm isn't long enough for that, and another 4 feet behind it will be dangerous space. This will make certain you can't use the spear underhand as it is far too long to be used there in such a confined environment.

It is simply impossible.
But the overhand style is not only easier to use in such a confined environment, it is more accurate and stronger (you are stabbing downwards), as well as it has a better chance of hitting something vital, like the head, neck or shoulders.

Now that we have that confirmed.
It is a fact that there is no overhand style in RTW, just like MTW and STW. I'm certain CA knows that is wrong, so I can only suspect it is something technical that makes it impossible. Twohanded pikes also seems impossible, perhaps th two are related?

In any case it is a sad fact that we won't see the destinct differences between the hoplites and the phalangites. Right now they are the same soldiers with different sizes of shields and spears.

Quote[/b] ]They had the inherent strength

what in all the gods is inherent strength??

Anyways.The way you describe the phalanx fight style, it almost looks like they form something like a scrum in Rugby... And I dont really think so.


As for the overhand use, The representations on greek ceramic pots are NOT historically accurate.As usual, painters and artists represented what they wanted, and a guy witha spear overhand always looks more "brave"/heroic/macho, than a guy with a short sword or an underhand spear.So the paintings are not a good source.

I dont know much about the phalanx at the time the game is setup, but earlier phalanx troops had a really long spear, and it was used underhand.Im basing my argument on purely physical and logical considerations.

Also, take into account that the soldiers also wore armour, apart from a shield, a spear and a heavy helm, so they werent too agile and probably couldnt crouch so low.(Im telling you it is hard to crouch low enough even for a rugby game).

The way I see it, is that they used spears while the enemy was far enough and swords in close h2h combat.
At the risk of sounding rude...

My God man Is there some inherent stupidity or stubornness in you that blocks you from listening to 5-6 people correcting you, using archaeologically proven, generally accepted examples to support their arguments, as well as human logic? Well? Either stop messing up the whole damn discussion with idiotic, stubborn, pointless arguments and take part in the real discussion, or just bugger off.

They didn't use swords in close combat, ok? Get it in your unusually thick skull. Maybe all Greek painters depict hoplties fighting overhand because they did? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif There is no artwork, stragetical guide (Xenophon's Anabasis), or contemporary source talking of them weilding swords or stabbing underhandedly alone.

It's a lot easier to wield a spear overhand, actually. For one, you don't have to move your entire torso to make an attack. Underhand stabs with a classical Greek spear require a man to twist his torso to the left if he is right-handed, which means taking all that weight of armor and heavy hoplon with you. A lot harder than simply keeping your shield close to you and stabbing overhand.

Would you perhaps believe me if I used another example? Would you expect Parthian lancers (cataphracts) to fight overhand with their kontoi? Hmm? But it is true, and acclaimed military books like Osprey's Men-at-arms series mention it, among many. It sounds strange, but it is indeed the true way they fought, and the only way you can actually put some power behind a spear thrust. This is because of the center of gravity, which requires one to stab overhand instead of underhand. A sword is different, take the gladius. But Greeks didn't fight with gladii. Ok?

Greeks also did not use swords in close combat, only as a last ditch defence. One could (hypothetically) say that one of the (many) reasons that the Spartans were so effective was because they did use swords.

Also, the power of the Greek phalanx lay not within its forest of spears, because it didn't have one (overhand fighting), unlike the Macedonian phalanx, which used sarissai. Its power lay within its shield wall, and it was exactly this shield wall of huge hoploi that was unbreakable for the Persians at Thermopylae.

So, after once again attempting to bring this discussion back to what it was intended to be about...



~Wiz

[Kraxis]

Rosa, the wounds to the thighs would be very logical in the chase. The man would be running and the chaser would more easily hit the thigh than the neck. Especially if the chaser knows the fleeing man will outpace him soon (the fleeing man doesn't have to pull along the shield).

The pushing would as I said earlier have the hoplites turn into the shield with their shoulder to generate the best push, his thighs would be protected.
But of course if they pulled back to stab at each other it would not be impossible to use an underhand stab, but it would be damn hard to get the spear there, or the other way in such a confined space. And the danger of the underhand practice would still be there for the men behind you.
I can just see the argument: The thighwound came from te underhandstab from a friend in front. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
But I'm sure you agree it is a dangerous practice.

The lancers would use both underhand and overhand stabbing. Just look at the Bayeaux Tapestry. All three types of lancing is there, overhand, underhand and couched.

[The Wizard]

No no, Sarmatian, Parthian and Sassanian lancers, not medieval ones. They fought exclusively overhand in close combat if they were using a kontos. Otherwise they would use a mace or sword.



~Wiz

[SwordsMaster]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ May 20 2004,15:20)]Rosa, the wounds to the thighs would be very logical in the chase. The man would be running and the chaser would more easily hit the thigh than the neck. Especially if the chaser knows the fleeing man will outpace him soon (the fleeing man doesn't have to pull along the shield).

The pushing would as I said earlier have the hoplites turn into the shield with their shoulder to generate the best push, his thighs would be protected.
But of course if they pulled back to stab at each other it would not be impossible to use an underhand stab, but it would be damn hard to get the spear there, or the other way in such a confined space. And the danger of the underhand practice would still be there for the men behind you.
I can just see the argument: The thighwound came from te underhandstab from a friend in front. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
But I'm sure you agree it is a dangerous practice.

The lancers would use both underhand and overhand stabbing. Just look at the Bayeaux Tapestry. All three types of lancing is there, overhand, underhand and couched.
mostly agree with that.

BTW, wyz, your kindness overhelms me. The tighness of my skull is way off topic as is my natural stubborness stupidity, so I will not answer to that.

And if we have a debate here, it has nothing to do with my stubborness, but with the way I imagine they fought from the descriptions I read, and personal experiences, which can be different from yours. So please dont bring this to personal terrain.

Now, back to the toipc:


So you are saying that only because Brad Pitt jumps around in Troy like a kangaroo, that is the way hoplites, or anyone else fought?

If Achilles an be represented fighting as mr. Pitt does, why cant the greek phalanxes be represented as the autor of that pot wanted them to be?

Do you think that potter ever fought with a phalanx? I doubt it.


I am wrong when I say that swords were used extensively, and I know that. What I wanted to point out is that for the fights the way they are represented in RTW, the overhand grip is NOT practicable, because the phalanxes will no disengage every 5 mins to rest and regroup.

In the other hand, the shield covers a greater part of your body if you stab underhand.

The only guys who had the possibility of stabbing overhand were the guys in the front rank, can you imagine stabbing a short spear overhand evor the head of the guy in front?

So the 2nd and succesive ranks would have to fight underhand.

and I NEVER said they stabbed underhandly alone.
Why would you need a butt on your spear for overhand stabbing?

[shingenmitch2]

Holy fek,

Can't keep this damn thread on topic because someone don't know the difference between a MACEDONIAN-PIKE-PHALANX and a CLASSICAL-GREEK-HOPLITE-PHALANX...



Roseacrux --
the locked shields are the whole point of the hoplite formation. To stab underhand requires breaking the lock of the shields in order to stab, and also puts the man behind you at risk. In a press of bodies, an underhand stab, your arm will get pinned... it is the same reasons that when in a tight crowd, and you hold something and have it not get knocked (or to keep it maneuverable), inevitably you hold it up over your head/shoulder like a waiter.

In a loser context, like skirmishing before the actual shield crush, i could see the under hand method being used. (it is also why the pike-phalanx, which doesn't rely on the crush and push of shields, can employ the underhand method.--- along with the fact that the pikes virtually require it.)

As for the leg wounds, i wonder if the thighs aren't so hard to hit when stabbing down with 4' shaft from between the "v" that the intersection of the overlapping shields make. Certainly they are the least protected part on a hoplite.

-----

Oh and just so certain PEEPS know... The Trojan war occured in BRONZE age GREECE/ANATOLIA before the classic hoplite-phalanx of 600 B.C. even existed. They would be fighting with bilobed wicker shields etc...

And the movie "Troy" is absolutely absurd in all aspects of the fighting and armor.

[Trax]

Quote[/b] ]If Achilles an be represented fighting as mr. Pitt does, why cant the greek phalanxes be represented as the autor of that pot wanted them to be?

The ancient Greeks had a totally different way of thinking and set of values then we do.




Quote[/b] ]Do you think that potter ever fought with a phalanx? I doubt it.

Of course he did Who made up the phalanx - free citizens of the polis with enough money to buy the equipment - this includes the craftsmen like potters.

[SwordsMaster]

Quote[/b] ]The ancient Greeks had a totally different way of thinking and set of values then we do


Ok, that was just an example of absurd representation of fighting.

About the potter...I dont think the guy in the phalanxe would represent himself on a pot. At least not truly, but the way he wants others to see him.

[Trax]

And he wants the others to see him in a proper way, as a part of the shieldwall, holding his position to the end - not showing some fancy tricks or displaying personal courage.

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (SwordsMaster @ May 20 2004,16:51)]Do you think that potter ever fought with a phalanx? I doubt it.

To the Greeks, there was a difference between the world of war and the normal world. Think of it as the Islamic dar-al-Islam and dar-al-harb. For instance, at Marathon, the playwriter Aeschylus was one of the hoplites. Big chance that there were Athenian painters there as well. everyone rich enough to afford themselves hoplite equipment was expected to fight.



~Wiz

[SwordsMaster]

Ok. Now comes the truth:

Sorry for most of my arguments, coz from the beginning I thought we were talking about macedonian type phalanx. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

So, sorry. I assume you are right in most of the aspects, as I know very little about the greek phalanx. This discussion was a good learning and fastforward thru some of greek warfare and I thank you all for that. *bows*.

Again sorry for the mistake. Do you want me to remove my posts?

[The Wizard]

Lol, I didn't realise you didn't see the conversation wasn't about the Macedonian foot companion phalanx.

Don't remove your posts, it is not necessary. At least, to me it isn't.

Now that we have that solved, all is well and we can go on to the real discussion.



~Wiz http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[shingenmitch2]

no worries... it all good.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[Shahed]

So I'll have to agree with the SIDESWIPE King and the King of the Tarraks, here Would be great to see that in RTW.

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (Sinan @ May 20 2004,12:45)]So I'll have to agree with the SIDESWIPE King and the King of the Tarraks, here Would be great to see that in RTW.
I'm lost here... You agree with something I understand but what? And what would you like to see? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

Mitch mentioned something I had forgotten about the fighting, it would be possible to stab down in the 'v' of the shields and hit the guy to the front and right in his left thigh. The line is good for that, but you have to imagine standing in fron of one guy and then stab down at another next to him.
If the injuries are to the left thigh in general we can be pretty certain that they were suffered in a fight, if they were to te left and right thigh in equal parts then they would most likely be suffered during the chase.
The reason for this is rather simple, the left leg is forward to balance you when you lean into the push. thus the right thigh would be comparably much harder to hit (also the reason for the one left greave of warriors in certain societies). In a chase it would be neglible in difference.