Over-arm spears?

[fallen851]

I found a website that makes a powerful arguement stating that overarm spears were not plausible in the anicent world:

http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/nikolas.lloyd/weapons/spear.html

"There are many writers who insist that spears were used over-arm. I believe these writers to be wrong. The pictorial evidence is very poor. Where spears are shown to be used over-arm, it seems that this is for dramatic effect rather than for authenticity. Archaeology will tell us nothing on this issue, and I have come across no written record from antiquity which strongly backs up the over-arm theory. I shall now present my case for the under-arm use of spears.

The two competing handholds are as follows:

1. Over-arm: the spear is held in the centre, with the right hand. The hand is held at about head-height, with the elbow of the right arm out to the side. The right thumb of the user is on the head-side of his hand, and his four fingers curl over the top of the spear.
2. Under-arm: the spear is held in the right hand, with the thumb on the top of the spear and the spear held typically at around waist height. The fingers curl under the spear shaft. The spear shaft rests along the underside of the forearm with the butt-spike by the right elbow.

With the over-arm hold, the spear is held in the centre. This means that half the length of the spear is wasted, and serves merely as a counter-weight to the front half. No man would be strong enough to hold a spear horizontally over-arm by one end. This goes dead against the whole idea of a spear. A spear is a device for keeping your enemy at a distance. He cannot come close to hit you with a club or sword, because as he advances to his fighting distance, he gets skewered. An eight-foot spear is turned into a four-foot spear if it is held over-arm. If two formations of spearmen clashed, one using spears underarm, the other over-arm, then the fools using their spears over-arm would face their enemies’ spears before they themselves were in striking range.

With the over-arm hold, the rear end of the spear acts as a counterweight to the front end. If a foe were to strike the spearhead sideways with a sword, then the counterweight would act against the spear-user. The front end of the spear would act as a lever, twisting the wrist of the spearman, and the swinging rear counter-weight end would act to exaggerate this effect. To close with a spearman, a sword user has to knock the spearhead aside and rush in at his foe. The over-arm grip would make this enormously more easy. With an under-arm grip, the spearman has his spear braced along his forearm, and has much more control of the spearhead. The spearhead may be knocked aside, but it will resume position a great deal more quickly. If a high thrust over a shield is wanted, this can be achieved by bringing the right elbow up to shoulder height. Also, if the swordsman advances, then the under-arm spear user can retreat a great deal faster, to bring his spearhead between them, as he has the ability denied to the over-arm user, of pulling back his spear, and sliding his right hand up the shaft, to shorten the weapon for close use.

With the under-arm grip, a spearman can thrust with his spear downwards at the feet of his foe, or upward at his face. The strongest thrust he can do it at waist height, and he can disguise his intentions easily. He can hold his shield in position during all of this. Using an over-arm grip, the feet of the foe are out of reach. Greaves, protection for the lower leg, were very common in the ancient world, being part of the standard hoplite panoply. This suggests that the lower leg was a common target. Not only are the feet out of reach, but the thighs are difficult targets. A thrust at waist height is difficult, and the spear point will be travelling downwards, and will glance of a shield more easily. The only really strong thrust will be at the face and neck of the enemy. The neck was seldom armoured in ancient times. Greeks and Romans usually had no armour there at all. This thrust will be easy to see coming. Worse still, the spearman thrusting over-arm will of necessity expose himself as he does this, leaning forwards out of formation, and turning his shield to the left to give himself room for the thrust. If an enemy spearman to the right of the over-arm user saw the thrust coming, he would have an easy victim: a man who has stepped with his weight onto his front foot (thus preventing any evasion by footwork) with an exposed shieldless side.

As I mentioned, most ancient spears had butt-spikes, and spears were used in large formations. An under-arm grip allows the butt-spike to be controlled, tucked away where it will do no one any harm. Anyone standing behind an over-arm spearman will be faced with a butt-spike going in and out at every thrust, and unpredictably sideways whenever an enemy knocks the spearhead. If spears were use over-arm, then a lot of people would have had somebody’s eye out by mistake. "

[QwertyMIDX]

Why would they use a figthing style that didn't exist as a "dramatic effect"?


http://www.xlegio.ru/armies/zhmodikov/chigi_hoplites_fragment.jpg

http://www.sikyon.com/Korinth/Pottery/vase41.jpg

http://www.ac-creteil.fr/lettres/pedagogie/la/louvre/hoplite2.jpg

http://blueoryx.ifrance.com/hoplitesbritishm.jpg

http://individual.utoronto.ca/CLA160Y/Images/MacMillanAryb.jpg

http://cdpe.tripod.com/photos/hoplites.jpg

I suppose that the fact that nearly every image we have of hoplites shows them using an overhand spear is just for laughs? Wouldn't you think we'd have a least an occasional image of hoplites fighting underhand if they in fact fought that way? Nudity is used for dramatic effect and yet we have a mix of both nude and armored hoplites.

[fallen851]

I like the over-arm spears, they look neat, but I just found this. To me being 100% historically accurate isn't so important, so over-arms spears are good with me, whether or not that article is correct, but I think he makes a powerful arguement, much of which you didn't respond to. You'll note they are wearing greaves in those pictures, but you can't reach their calves with an over-arm spear why wear greaves? Do you think they wore greaves for fun? Why not wear thigh armor or a breast plate instead, which are much more likely to be hit by over-arm spear?

But to answer your question, it simply wouldn't look as wonderful in the pictures if the spears were held down low. Ever watch a boxing movie? Every boxing movie features extremely unrealistic boxing, for dramatic effect (unless there is one I haven't seen, but I like boxing).

He also writes a neat article on slings: http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/nikolas.lloyd/weapons/sling.html

[SirPoot]

These are my 2 cents after looking at those pictures....if soldiers use spears overarm, I suppose it can allow their shields to overlap easily, and thus forming a denser formation...if used underarm, there must be small openings in the shield wall to allow the spears to protrude out of the formation...

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I must say I'm immediately suspicious of someone who claims to know even a small portion of what this chap seems to boast of on his site. :grin: That's just my suspicious hillbilly nature though I'm sure. It doesn't mean he's wrong - but anyone who posts long essays on their own theories of evolution, poetry, theories on the use of ancient weapons (which contradict the overwhelming majority of scholarship and modern opinion on the topic), movies they have made, methods of spotting kung-fu charlatans, board games he's invented, etc. seems to be stretching things a bit thin.

A very interesting chap it seems though. But I'll stick with what virtually all other classicists and military historians and archaeological evidence does present, instead of the theory whose best proof is "c'mon, what do these desk-bound classicists know!"

Seriously though, he cites not one piece of art, literature, excavated remains, etc. Nothing.

[fallen851]

Well as I check more sources, I can't seem to find one that agrees with him.

Still, authority (believing something because you heard it from a "trusted" or "reliable" source) is not a way we should aquire knowledge. Right is right, and wrong is wrong, no matter who says or does it.

Rather, we should use science (mix of empiricism and logic), and if not science than empiricism, and if not empiricism, than logic.

Logically it does make more sense to fight underarm, doesn't it? Especially considering his points above (which I'd love someone to address), and most importantly, the wearing of greaves suggests three (possibly four) things:

#1 They used the spears underarm and showed them overarm for effect

or

#2 They were using dramatic effect and put the greaves in there for fun (which makes us question the validity of the entire picture...)

or

#3 They wore greaves as status symbols

or

Whatever else you guys think of that is plausible.

Now if anyone wants to get together 20 people and try this out a home (to see if you poke each other in eye) we can get some empirical evidence...

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I'll take what information is passed down to me first, and use that as a starting point. No reason to throw out totally every generation the accumulated knowledge of a few thousand years. Saying we "should" acquire knowledge a certain way is an opinion.

If someone wants to provide proof of every single thing that the mod deals with, they can feel free to do so. Let's start with seasons, necessity of farming, the passage of time itself, the idea that it is the weapons that kill people and not imbalances in their humours or something to do with allignment of crystals, or any idea at all that exists in the game. :grin:

Just playing around here, but asking for evidence of some things just seems unnecessary.

[QwertyMIDX]

Greaves protected from things other than the spear, kicks to the shin or bashing the shin with the shield would have been much more damaging if the Hoplite wasn't wearing greaves. Also it would protect the vulnerable part of the hoplite beneath the hoplon from javelins and arrows.


Blocking an overhand spear thrust with a hoplon would actually have posed more problems than blocking an underhand spear, you'd have to try and raise your shield, which would be problematic in a tight formation especially if your opponent was pressing his shield into yours. The heavy Corinthian helm may have been an attempt to protect the rather vulnerable head from overhand spear attacks. The argument about tight formations and butt spikes has two problems, depictions of hoplites often seem to show them without butt spikes and the angle at which the spear was held would keep the butt probably about a foot or 2 above the head of the man behind you.

[fallen851]

The way you choose to aquire knowledge is your choice, but through authority, intutiton (you get a feeling that something is right), and tenacity (things have been said for so long they are accepted as the truth) are not ways accepted by science. What makes science so great? Real science never proves anything, never claims anything is 100% correct, and is always changeable and amendable, thus science does the best it can with the knowledge it can. Religion doesn't change, if it did, it couldn't claim it was right. Stereotypes don't either.

I mean we've been told for thousands of year that Jesus came back to life, does that make it right? It has been told by the Pope, a respected authority, does that make it right? No it certainly doesn't. People were told for hundreds of years that blacks were inferior from respected people, it even felt right to say blacks were inferior, as Francis Galton and others made strong arguements. Are you going to believe that? Authority, intitution and tenacity have killed millions of people, jailed millions more, as people blindly followed things they didn't understand, that were simply incorrect.

Believe what you want.

I will submit to Qwerty's arguement though about the underarm being easier to block, it makes sense. His greaves arguement is a stretch, but it also makes sense.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Interestingly, we have evidence also that hoplites aren't just shown with overhand spears, but you can see an underhand one here:

http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/Sterile/Images/hoplite.jpg

The cool thing about this one is that it clearly shows an underhand grasp can be shown by an artist when it actually was used (and thus an artistic convention of only using overhand, in order to be more aggressive or aesthetic, can't hold always) - and here it is used against a charging horse, a time when overhand would not be used.

Other overhand shots:
http://www2.unil.ch/iasa/iasa_c_est_aussi/electre/guerre/images/hoplite_armure.jpg
http://socrates.clarke.edu/hop_1_tm.jpg
http://www.peplums.info/images/30thermo/30a-10.jpg
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/greeks/lectures2/images2/hoplate.jpg
http://www.sikyon.com/Athens/Archaic/images/vase37.jpg

And I did say that acquired knowledge is a "starting point". Not the end. That would be idiotic.

[fallen851]

I was stating that aquired knowledge that does not come from science (or at least empiricism, or the very least logic) should not even be considered. Also, there should never be an end of aquiring knowledge, and the problem is that many (all?) sources relying on authority, intitution and tenacity claim to have the end all arguements.

Anyway as for my empirical, here is a hoplite re-enactment, and they said that underarm spears are quite unreasonable.

http://www.4hoplites.com/Warfare.htm

I guess this thread can be deleted, I was incorrect overarm phalanxes seem quite reasonable.

[conon394]

fallen851

Well I can think of a couple of other issues in his article beside those already noted.

First he suggest the under arm spear is potential more useful in the ‘pushing match’ or Othimos, but ignore that is a rather bitter divide about weather such a thing ever occurred (i.e. the hoplite rugby scrum). If the no scrum advocates are correct, than his argument has no weight

More importantly I don’t quite understand his assertion:

“As I mentioned, most ancient spears had butt-spikes, and spears were used in large formations. An under-arm grip allows the butt-spike to be controlled, tucked away where it will do no one any harm. Anyone standing behind an over-arm spearman will be faced with a butt-spike going in and out at every thrust, and unpredictably sideways whenever an enemy knocks the spearhead. If spears were use over-arm, then a lot of people would have had somebody’s eye out by mistake.”

It seems to me an over arm strike is more likely to minimize the risk to the rear ranks since if one angles the spear down even a few degrees the but spike would be over the heads of the rear rankers. In contrast the under stroke seems likely to threaten the abdomen, groin and legs of your mates…

“The armor that soldiers wore seems to have been designed for under-arm spear use. Hoplite and legionary armor involves stiff broad pieces which come over the shoulders. These make holding an arm up very awkward, uncomfortable, weak, and limited. Armpits were generally not armored. If a man were using a spear over-arm, his right armpit would be exposed all the time during a fight. Many shields had cut-aways in the side which allow a spearman to keep his shield nicely in front of him, and his spear in fighting position”

The point about the shoulder amour really only applies to the linothorax, the bronze muscled cuirass is typically shown with a rather narrow shoulder piece. So the hoplites right arm pit would be exposed? Every US soldier in Iraq faces (and according to recent Pentagon studies is at serious risk) from the exact same issue. Just because you can find a weakness in the hoplite panoply (or any other) does not necessarily indicate that it was not an accepted risk. The cut away shield is as far as I know, not attested at all in the Classical or Hellenistic record, it is restricted at least in the hoplite era to the very pots the author distains.

Finally, I think the article rather over focuses on the ideal of at least classical Greeks as being spear armed with a 8ft spear and but spike. The spears did break (or were intentional broken by opponents) and were almost certainly used as short spears subsequently by reversing them. The sword was also a used by hoplites, and not just as a last resort, people tend to forget it was with superior sword work that Timoleon’s Greeks beat Carthage. In is a mistake to suggest the Hoplite as only the wielder of a 8ft spear and bend all his tactics, drill and equipment to that end.

Edit: While I hardly claim to have a mastery of all the published archeology, what I have read tends to suggest to me that the butt spike was heavier than the point – that is the hoplite spear was balanced to be held behind the mid point (toward the butt end). This would contrast the author’s assertion of a over-hand midpoint stance. I am also unclear why if one imagines an equal weight of butt and point, a one armed grip would allow an easier use of a non ‘mid point’ grasp.

[SirPoot]

Let's take it the easy way: they fought both ways! :laugh4:

Maybe the overarm and underarm fighting styles are used in different situations? You can always decide to switch styles in the middle of fighting if it gives an advantage...

[Elthore]

I havent read the whole thread, so sorry if this has been posted already...but


The first post mentions that if you hold a spear in the center, and someone hits it, they would have more leverage. This is not correct. They would actually have LESS leverage since the front end has less length than it would if it were held underhand. This would also give more control, and possibly allow the spearmen to fight more...dexteriously? yea
Also the extra length at the rear would not merely be counter-weight but would still help in penetrating armour(and flesh) in a thrust.

[Wandarah]

Seems to me like in the underarm depiction the hoplite is facing a horse.

In all the overarm depictions shown, they appear to be man vs man.

[O'ETAIPOS]

The two competing handholds are as follows:

1. Over-arm: the spear is held in the centre, with the right hand. The hand is held at about head-height, with the elbow of the right arm out to the side. The right thumb of the user is on the head-side of his hand, and his four fingers curl over the top of the spear.
2. Under-arm: the spear is held in the right hand, with the thumb on the top of the spear and the spear held typically at around waist height. The fingers curl under the spear shaft. The spear shaft rests along the underside of the forearm with the butt-spike by the right elbow.

Does this guy try to persuade us that people used couched lance grip when fighting on foot?
Fallen851, this man wrote article about hoplite shield usless in melee (completely against what we know -there were hoplomache - 1vs1 training fights, way you hold aspis is almost the same as medieval knights shields)

If you look in this guy article about sabre you will see what kind of info he has. I am Polish so I know quite a lot about sabre (our national weapon i could say). Almost very statement he makes there is b******t! Sabre is better than straight sword, and its better in every aspect. I could later provide some more info on sabres, when I will stop :furious3: :furious3: :furious3:

[Ano2]

Heres a link for Overhand vs underhand spears for hoplites.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1029754#post1029754

The debate is whether the Iphikrate's reforms actually happened. So far we have had evidence from both sides, and are currently awaiting an EB team member response.

[O'ETAIPOS]

I would like to say sorry for being aggresive in my last post.

As I said sabre is better than straight sword, because it is more versatile, much more "moves" like parrying, blocking etc is possible with curved blade.

Sabre could cut through flesh while sword could only crush trough - the result is long and deep wouds from sabre.

Curved blade hit is more powerful than straight one of the same weight because energy delivering is better.

You could deliver blows much, much faster with sabre than with sword because sabre allow to attack from the whist, while sword needs whole arm movement. Due to the same reason sabre hits could be more accurate.

I have to say that I do not undertand how people from the "west" underestimate sabre which is probably the best weapon for cavalryman.
It probably has sth to do with sword being symbol of chivalry (as it has the form of the Cross)

[manbaps]

I think its pretty clear that they used both grips in certain circumctances. Now its just a shame that there cant be more than one animations for each unit depending on what one is fighting.

[Iskandr]

Regarding sabre (curved) use- while sabres certainly are better in some situations, there has been a huge debate over the relative merits of stright-vs-curved, so saying "a sabre is better...in every circumstance" is a little simplistic. In fact, from an energy point of view, the delivery (i.e. swing) is far more important than the blade style. And frankly, you'll note that most sabre weilding societies had very good metallurgical skills- this is because sabres are inherently weaker from a structural standpoint. A poorly made sabre is much, much weaker than a poorly made sword. Also, though this is conjecture, it is difficult to balance a straight sword, a sabre is probably even more difficult, unless you're just going to use it for hacking away. Finally, as several ancient authers were fond of noting, stabbing is far more lethal than slashing regardless of the era. As late as the Napoleonic era, in sword vs. sword fights, EVERY army except Poland preferred straight swords, or better yet, lances. More relevant to our time frame, note that even curved swords tended to have straight backs (falcata) or "leaf" shape blades (i.e. curved on both sides for balance). Wether this is for reasons of balance or metallurgy, I am not certain, but you can be fairly certain that if curved swords were so markedly superior, they would have been used, and widely used. As far as the "cross shaped" argument, considering how fast the Christians adopted Halberds, crossbows and other "unchristian" weapons when they proved useful, that seems unlikely at best.
Anyway, back to underhand vs. overhand, I'd agree that in chest-to-chest fighting between equal hoplite armies (most of our images appear to be either idealizations or of this sort) the overhand probably makes more sense. But against cavalry or sword bearing infantry, underhand use would occaissionally come in pretty handy, and presumably was used in these situation. The armpit idea is nice, but in fact, their is no effective way to armor an armpit- even the full gothic plate would have been vulnerable here, except the really complete sets that restricted movement. The normal ones just had some chainmail here. However, against other spears, also striking downwards, the armpit isn't so vulnerable, and if both sides had the shields linked, there isn't really any way to strike from a lower angle anyway, till the formation is broken, at which point I was under the impression most men dropped their spears and drew their swords anyway.
Well, I'm glad we're debating how to animate one of the many unit types and not something trivial, like the economy or demographics anyway :book:

Iskandr

[fallen851]

I think its pretty clear that they used both grips in certain circumctances. Now its just a shame that there cant be more than one animations for each unit depending on what one is fighting.

I actually don't know enough about it because I've never tried it, but you couldn't make the primary attack underarm, and the secondary attack overarm (or vice versa)?

This would mean no sword though...

[Barbarossa82]

Why would they use a figthing style that didn't exist as a "dramatic effect"?

Maybe for the same reasons that modern media depict fighting styles that don't exist, e.g. more suitable for the medium, more easily depicted, greater aesthetic potential, political/ideological propaganda purposes, or just good old-fashioned ignorance.

Depictions of hoplites using spears overarm may be entirely accurate...alterntively they might rank alongside guns with limitless ammo, faster-than-the-eye kung-fu moves, jet-packs, and all the other movieland fictionalised combat clichés.

[the tokai]

1. Over-arm: the spear is held in the centre, with the right hand. The hand is held at about head-height, with the elbow of the right arm out to the side. The right thumb of the user is on the head-side of his hand, and his four fingers curl over the top of the spear.
2. Under-arm: the spear is held in the right hand, with the thumb on the top of the spear and the spear held typically at around waist height. The fingers curl under the spear shaft. The spear shaft rests along the underside of the forearm with the butt-spike by the right elbow.

That's not the underarm grip, it's the couched lance, wich was used by medieval knights, but definitely not by hoplites.


This goes dead against the whole idea of a spear. A spear is a device for keeping your enemy at a distance.

Not necesseraly. A spear is also often used because it is much cheaper than a sword and requires less training.


If two formations of spearmen clashed, one using spears underarm, the other over-arm, then the fools using their spears over-arm would face their enemies’ spears before they themselves were in striking range.

Ever heard of shields?


With the over-arm hold, the rear end of the spear acts as a counterweight to the front end. If a foe were to strike the spearhead sideways with a sword, then the counterweight would act against the spear-user. The front end of the spear would act as a lever, twisting the wrist of the spearman, and the swinging rear counter-weight end would act to exaggerate this effect. To close with a spearman, a sword user has to knock the spearhead aside and rush in at his foe. The over-arm grip would make this enormously more easy. With an under-arm grip, the spearman has his spear braced along his forearm, and has much more control of the spearhead. The spearhead may be knocked aside, but it will resume position a great deal more quickly. If a high thrust over a shield is wanted, this can be achieved by bringing the right elbow up to shoulder height. Also, if the swordsman advances, then the under-arm spear user can retreat a great deal faster, to bring his spearhead between them, as he has the ability denied to the over-arm user, of pulling back his spear, and sliding his right hand up the shaft, to shorten the weapon for close use.

Well, what he says here is already wrong because of the fact that he confuses the underhand grip with the couched lance. Because the overhand spear is shorter, the user obviously has more control. He says: "The spearhead may be knocked aside, but it will resume position a great deal more quickly." Well, even idf this were actually true, you'd still be dead before you had your spear back in postition. "the under-arm spear user can retreat a great deal faster" What? Why? How? "the ability denied to the over-arm user, of pulling back his spear, and sliding his right hand up the shaft, to shorten the weapon for close use." And what exactly denies a overhand spearman this ability? Just try it, take a long stick, hold it overhand and try grabbing it closer to the spearpoint, in the same way a fully armed hoplite would have to. Believe me, it works, and probably much faster than an underhand spearman could do it.

He also says this: "If a high thrust over a shield is wanted, this can be achieved by bringing the right elbow up to shoulder height." What the hell is he suggesting here? That the spearman holds his arm completely streched? What the hell? How is he supposed to thrust then? Or even control his weapon at all? And even if he does hit something, the spear will most likely immediately be knocked out of his hand.


With the under-arm grip, a spearman can thrust with his spear downwards at the feet of his foe, or upward at his face. The strongest thrust he can do it at waist height, and he can disguise his intentions easily. He can hold his shield in position during all of this. Using an over-arm grip, the feet of the foe are out of reach. Greaves, protection for the lower leg, were very common in the ancient world, being part of the standard hoplite panoply. This suggests that the lower leg was a common target. Not only are the feet out of reach, but the thighs are difficult targets. A thrust at waist height is difficult, and the spear point will be travelling downwards, and will glance of a shield more easily. The only really strong thrust will be at the face and neck of the enemy. The neck was seldom armoured in ancient times. Greeks and Romans usually had no armour there at all. This thrust will be easy to see coming. Worse still, the spearman thrusting over-arm will of necessity expose himself as he does this, leaning forwards out of formation, and turning his shield to the left to give himself room for the thrust. If an enemy spearman to the right of the over-arm user saw the thrust coming, he would have an easy victim: a man who has stepped with his weight onto his front foot (thus preventing any evasion by footwork) with an exposed shieldless side.

"With the under-arm grip, a spearman can thrust with his spear downwards at the feet of his foe, or upward at his face. The strongest thrust he can do it at waist height" ...wich is where your opponents shield is most likely to be. "The only really strong thrust will be at the face and neck of the enemy. The neck was seldom armoured in ancient times. Greeks and Romans usually had no armour there at all." Greeks often wore helmets that covered most of the face, so that part of the body was well protected. Neck armour was not very practical for the kind of fighting that was done in those days.

[O'ETAIPOS]

Regarding sabre (curved) use- while sabres certainly are better in some situations, there has been a huge debate over the relative merits of stright-vs-curved, so saying "a sabre is better...in every circumstance" is a little simplistic. In fact, from an energy point of view, the delivery (i.e. swing) is far more important than the blade style.

Yes. And shape of sabre and its handle enables easier swing, with greater force. this is reinforced by fight style designed to utilise sabre shape. I have to say I hate Hollywood movies where actors use sabre as if it was a sword ("King Artur" for example)


And frankly, you'll note that most sabre weilding societies had very good metallurgical skills- this is because sabres are inherently weaker from a structural standpoint. A poorly made sabre is much, much weaker than a poorly made sword.

Yes, but do this mean that ordinar sword was more sturdy than ordinar sabre?


Also, though this is conjecture, it is difficult to balance a straight sword, a sabre is probably even more difficult, unless you're just going to use it for hacking away.

Sword fight is much easier to learn - only few cuts and some blokcs. Sabre is much more difficult but result is fast attack or defence with many, many combinations of cuts, blocks, and other "moves". Ability to use many different techniques is one of the biggest pluses of sabre, as enemy will never know what you want to do.


Finally, as several ancient authers were fond of noting, stabbing is far more lethal than slashing regardless of the era.

Curved blade could cut cross body opening chest and stomach. But maybe it won't kill you ...
Obviously hitting somebody in the heart, lungs etc. will kill man very fast. But delicate, not deep cut on neck, inner part of thight etc. will kill you also.
Sword is made to crush armour and bones and stabbing while with sabre you can almost de-skin man.


As late as the Napoleonic era, in sword vs. sword fights, EVERY army except Poland preferred straight swords, or better yet, lances.

It was Poland where lances were used ALL the time, from medieval till almost Napoleonic period. Other lance using units before N. wars were in Prussia, Russia and Austria - enemies of Poland. Many countries used sabres - Napoleon has his own made around 1800, "mameluk" type sabres became very popular in French army after Egiptian expedition. In XIX century sabres were used by many armies in Europe as cav side arm. Do you know what was US cav side arm (both North and South, also later US cav)? well ... sabre.

Just to remind you - Japanese Katana is, from technical point of view type of sabre.


More relevant to our time frame, note that even curved swords tended to have straight backs (falcata) or "leaf" shape blades (i.e. curved on both sides for balance). Wether this is for reasons of balance or metallurgy, I am not certain, but you can be fairly certain that if curved swords were so markedly superior, they would have been used, and widely used.


Ancient curved swords had stright back probably to give more weight and so more power to the cut.

The main point that made sword more suitable in the west was amount of armour. To kill gothic knight you need either huge sword 1 1/2 handed or 2 handed or very stright and pointy one - and western types of swords are either one or second.
if your enemy has less armour the sabre is better - it allows more cuts per time period, and is more accurate than sword due to completely different style of fighting.

Plebeian units in europe used sabres much in XVI and XVII centuries. Swiss for example. Knight had to use symbolic, Christian weapon.

As the reference I could PM you book title but it is in Polish :)


back on the subiect, obviously both grips were used, but we have sources saying "overhand is so natural to man that it needs no training"
I made some experiments with 3m stick and those show that you need to hold spear in point of gravity. Even with two hands I could hold this stick at the end only for very short time. I didn't check couched lance grip (this is what author of article name underhand grip) as I thought it is medieval cav type of fight. Proper underhand is arm stright down, spear horisontaly. This probably wasnt very accurate - contrary in overhand spear point is on the eye level so you could target easly, even in Corinthian helmet.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As regards the sword debate I would simply point out the following.

1. Much of the Medieval swordfighting technique has not come down to us.

2. A sword can be very accurate when properly balanced.

3. Hollow-ground and fullered blades are light and quick.

4. Straight balded weapons are not that heavy and were not, as a rule, used to crush armour.

5. Straight blades were capable of all the slashing attacks of a sabre but they could also take off arms and legs.

6. The idea that the blade crushed and did not cut is simply wrong and is in fact a product of literature and a belief that the straight sword must be worse is a 19th Century idea.

7. The skill in using both types effectivly is the same, sabre is not more complex, its just that more of the teaching has come down to us.

8. A sabre is a blade-only weapon for the most part, a cruciform sword incorporates use of every part of the weapon.

Regarding spears I would simply point out that the phalanx relied on overlapping shields, which would require overhand use in at least the first rank. Added to which an overhand spear can be thrown, something attested in Greek literature.

[BDC]

Regarding over or under-hand, just think about it.

You have a hoplon. It's a hell of a lot easier to block and knock aside a spear held underarm than risk clashing with another hoplon and an overhand spear. Plus if you block an overhand spear you are left ridiculously open (or hiding behind a shield and blind) to the enemy.

[Steppe Merc]

If you look in this guy article about sabre you will see what kind of info he has. I am Polish so I know quite a lot about sabre (our national weapon i could say). Almost very statement he makes there is b******t! Sabre is better than straight sword, and its better in every aspect. I could later provide some more info on sabres, when I will stop :furious3: :furious3: :furious3:
Sabres are better than straight swords for the people that used them. It is easier to slash from horse back (which is all that matters to most sabre wielders), and it becomes a status thing. Hell, the Avars would not have made first single edged blades and then have sabres coming in if straight swords were better. The first sabre wielders started as straight sword wielders, so why wouldn't they just continue the straight sword?

Also stabbing is less of an option when mounted. Yes, it can be sometimes, and the Sassanians even seem to have had a style of fighting based on stabbing primarily. But when your riding down an infantryman, it's easier to slash at him and continue, than the stick him and risk him getting caught on your sword.

But the straight sword continued to be used primarily because the sabre was harder to make, and military conservatism (I'm reffering to areas in the East, not the West that wouldn't have had any contact with sabre wielding nomads).

[Ranika]

Straight and curved swords often existed side-by-side, but served seperate purposes. Celts used curved swords (the Carduci and Parisi both used them, and they're mentioned in the Tain) as well as straight-edged swords. Presumably, they served different purposes and different fighting styles. To whine and moan about the superiority of one over another is patently ignorant of the realities of weaponcraft. Weapons don't simply appear out of a void, but they're developed for specific forms of warfare and for styles that accomodate their weighting and shape. Curved swords are not that difficult to make, depending on how one works metal (the poorest quality Celtic swords often had 'leaf' blades depending on period and region, which were a weapon of poor warriors; if they were difficult to make it's unlikely they would have been using them). And Europeans long had various curved swords (the French version of a falchion has a curvuture to it), mainly used for engaging lightly armored enemies and to double as a tool on campaign (using them like a machete). However, the common fighting styles greatly favored the straight-edged swords (which were not intended to smash armor; they existed commonly in regions where armor wasn't necessarily a factor).

On horseback in western Europe, spears, axes, cudgels, etc., were preferred over swords, though a sword could be coupled with a lance or spear to be used if one was bogged down after a charge (but then was little more than fighting in a melee from an elevated position; one did not charge with the sword if they had a different weapon available). The straight-edge sword wasn't some bashing hunk of iron, it was a very well-developed, light weight, particularly well-balanced weapon. It wouldn't have been so popular if it were difficult to use. Its value lay in manueverability, versatility, and relative quality compared to other weapons of the day (another point of reference, curved swords were more popular in the middle east; however, they often had them made and imported from Italian merchants, so the ability to make them was clearly apparent, but their value in local Italian warfare was about nil; a sword that can both easily cut and thrust was prefered for the necessity of stabbing joints in armor and other weak points, something a sheering sword would have more difficulty exploiting).

[O'ETAIPOS]

Thanks Steppe Merc, now I'm not alone!

[Conqueror]

Also stabbing is less of an option when mounted. Yes, it can be sometimes, and the Sassanians even seem to have had a style of fighting based on stabbing primarily. But when your riding down an infantryman, it's easier to slash at him and continue, than the stick him and risk him getting caught on your sword.

But the straight sword continued to be used primarily because the sabre was harder to make, and military conservatism (I'm reffering to areas in the East, not the West that wouldn't have had any contact with sabre wielding nomads).

Weren't Polish husars equipped with both a sabre and a straight sword (in addition to their lances, of corse)? I guess they'd choose either for different situations.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Also stabbing is less of an option when mounted. Yes, it can be sometimes, and the Sassanians even seem to have had a style of fighting based on stabbing primarily. But when your riding down an infantryman, it's easier to slash at him and continue, than the stick him and risk him getting caught on your sword.

This is also something of a falacy, a straight sword is just about as effective in a charge as a sabre and can be used effectivly in melee. When charging with a sword you drop your arm and extend the sword parralel to the ground, then ride at your opponent. Momentum gives you killing power, not a curved blade.

The sabre is not better than the long sword, however when used one handed it is self sufficient, that is you don't need a shield. Additionally a single cutting edge usually makes a weapon cheaper, e.g. the seax.

The point of leaf blades is to shift the balance further down the blade without making it longer, this results in a more powerful cutting action.

[O'ETAIPOS]

Conqueror: They had Koncerz (don't know english term) its stabbing only weapon with circular or semi-circular profile in cross-section. It is very long - over 1.5m so it could be used in charges after lance broke.

Wigferth, when you claim sabre is self sufficient it means sabre is better than sword in melee :)) Without shield you could be more agile and fast moving. "When used one handed" - sabre is one handed almost by definition.

Most dangerous sabre cuts are delivered with whist movement + small forearm move. Sword will not have enough momentum from such light move, so you have to use whole arm which is slower.

Sabres were usually at least same well made that knight swords. Do not compare sabre quality to plebeian slashing, curved swords.

[Teutobod II]

As regards the sword debate I would simply point out the following.


6. The idea that the blade crushed and did not cut is simply wrong and is in fact a product of literature and a belief that the straight sword must be worse is a 19th Century idea.


I saw a documentary on medieval weapons a few month ago and it mentioned swords were razor sharp on the last third of the blade. (At least the North European ones)

[Chester]

I agree with Ranka's comment.

It's all relative to the job. If you want to smash away at armor, choose a heavey bastard sword. If you want something for slashing, take a samurai blade.
------
Curved swords helped to absorb the shock, while a straight sword transfers the shock into your arm.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes a sabre is self sufficiant where a short sword isn't, quite but that only matters if you have no armour, no friends and no shield or dagger. You will always have an open line, where with sword and shield you aren't open until you attack. Its really hard to compare because they are totally different weapons.

Chester, you will ruin a sword "smashing away at armour." If thats what you want to do you use a warhammer.

Teutobod II, sounds like a long sword (two handed version) where the warrior fought sometimes with his hand on the blade. With shorter weapons the whole blade might be that sharp.

The weight of a large medieval sword is not more than 4-5 pounds. Thats only 2.3kg maximum. Medieval weapons were totally ineffective against armour. I've seen a guy go at an iron Norman helmet with a 30 inch odd blade and barely dent it. The only way to get around armour is to find the chinks and cracks.

[Steppe Merc]

I honestly do not know if sabres are better than swords in general, but I do believe that each was good for the styles of warfare that they were used in. Sabres are primarily mounted weapons, and while longswords were often used by mounted knights, non mounted warriors also used them. For the nomadic style of warfare with an emphasis on speed, the sabre was ideal.
That said, the Iranian nomads never devoloped a sabre, and stuck with the straight sword. Whether that is due to tradition or them not thinking it up or whatever, I'm not sure.
And straight swords were still even used after the adoption of the sabre by many in the East, but it was less common.

And yes, a well crafted longsword was light and agile. But when were these methods made common? I honestly don't know, but if they came into use later, then at the time perhaps sabres were lighter.

[Lord_Morningstar]

Personally, I prefer straight swords. I find them easier to use – it’s easier to keep track of where the point is.

Also, straight swords are good stabbing weapons, and stabbing is far more energy efficient than slashing. You can take down a man just as well by giving him four inches of steel between the ribs as you can by decapitating him. This was one advantage the Romans had IIRC – the low thrust with the gladius that Roman soldiers employed was much less tiring than slashing or hacking.

All being said, different swords have different advantages and disadvantages. It’s fun to consider them, but there is no ‘ultimate sword’ for every purpose.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I also prefer a straight blade, as it is more versatile. Steppe Merc, for your information swordsmiths were highly skilled even in the dark ages, infact the Saxon and Viking Spatha swords are almost the same in form as the later arming swords used by knights.

[Steppe Merc]

Ok, thanks, I didn't know. Well for whatever reason, the Avar's (probably) sabre started out slowly and became insanely popular amongst the East. There has to be a reason for it, and I do believe it has to do with the style of fighting in the east, based more on speed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Absolutely, it does have to do with fighting style, I'm not dissagreeing there. It just gets me, this misconception that everyone in the dark ages and Medieval period was a big idotic brute using an iron club with an edge.

[Chester]

Swords became more heavy and large as armor became more prevailent in the medieval ages. The heavy larger sword would transfer the blow through the armor. So some swords were used to smash away at armored units.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There is some truth in that but the long Sword and Great Sword were both fully develped by the 1100s and they didn't really change that much. What did happen is that they became narrow and more rigid as the emthasis went from cutting to stabbing. The fact of the matter is that up against armour most people used something else.

[the_handsome_viking]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/30/Solokhacomb.gif

[Rodion Romanovich]

Interesting discussion. I recognize the reasoning in the quoted article in how I used to reason until I had reasoned enough to realize overhand spears are indeed logical. It's sound to be critical to facts, it both helps you find errors if the facts were incorrect, and if not, it helps those who have good proof of the facts refine their argumentation and summarize their arguments and proof in a comprehensible form with a good overview. This is a good example of the latter.

Unfortunately I can't add any historical knowledge not yet mentioned here, but I can add a basic physics argument, to respond to the physics arguments made by the quoted article. A spear weighs a lot, and so did most early swords. A spear is usually also so long that you get a tremendous torque, and much weight is also concentrated to the spear point. Lifting the spear or sword upwards is more difficult and slower than lowering the spear or sword when needed in combat. Thus the many fighting positions based on keeping the weapons high at the start of combat. Also one of the basics behind why height advantage and being tall matters in fighting with spears and swords etc. Plus another argument for overhand spear is that you can use stronger muscles for the thrusting move, with a smaller torque due to shorter distance to the joint. Underhand spear would require usage of the shoulder muscles for a quick, hard thrust, while overhand allows usage of a combination of the pectorialis muscles, biceps and to some extent latissimus dorsi.

Two simple experiments to make that would ensure anyone of why overhand spears are effective would be:
1. try to throw a javelin with underhand grip and with overhand grip, and compare how far they go. This shows why overhand gives superior speed and power to the thrust.
2. grab a broom underhand and try to parry an imagined thrust against your head with an underhand grip. Then try overhand grip to parry a thrust against your stomach. You'll probably notice how a higher starting position of the weapon gives the ability to minimize the time it takes to cover all body parts with parrying moves. This might not be applicable in most cases due to shields doing much of the parrying though.

The one major disadvantage with overhand spear is that it's more difficult to pull the spear back towards you after a thrusting move, or make it easy for your to drop it in the thrusting move, but I imagine the risk of getting any problems with that wouldn't be too big, plus there was always the backup swords.