Question of the Hoplite

[Bellum]

Well, I'm not expert, but this guy (http://www.lloydianaspects.co.uk/weapons/spear.html) has some very good practical arguments in favor of under-arm use of spears.

I don't know. Perhaps he's exaggerating and there is more evidence to the contrary than just 'pretty pots'.

[abou]

Here is the thing - we have reliefs, mosaics, pottery, engravings... the list goes on. Also, his argument on counter-weights for spears vs sword is bollocks. A longer spear would probably easier to push aside due to the point of the fulcrum.

Also, he seems to be completely oblivious to the concept of the shield wall and angles of strike. It isn't easy to strike up at the face with with your shield, your neighbor's shield, and your enemy's shield in the way. Overarm, you can strike downwards to one of the few points not protected on the hoplite body: the neck. He mentions this, but seems to sort of gloss over it because he doesn't want to give the overarm many points.

Furthermore, he doesn't seem to address the idea of how the physics work with motion of the body. The idea that in the tight hoplite formation an underhand works better is really odd. There won't be much room at all to move the spear backwards besides into the shields of the row behind you. Overarm, you would have the spear pointing at a downward angle to freely move it about above you - all the while behind the shield wall.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. He is on shaky ground.

[Bellum]

*shrug* I don't know. I've never held a spear before. I'm just trying to imagine both methods and the practical advantages/disadvantages of each. I imagine holding a 7ft spear over your head for any period of time would have an effect on your accuracy, and it'd be harder to maintain a close phalanx formation.

But then, yeah, I can see what your saying about it being hard to hit someone in the face from the underarm position. But that might also be construed as an argument for the other side; if it was a danger, why where the legs protected but not the neck?

The relatively few casualties should also be taken into account. If your trying to hold a spear above your head, I imagine it would be hard for the individual to maintain a defensable position, leading to an increase in casualties. I guess it depends. I have a hard time imagining these things. I suppose I could go out and make a spear and start stabbing people with it, but it'd be a real bother.

[paullus]

very shaky. sure some people used the spear underhand over the 700 years of various forms of hoplite battle. For most of the history of the hoplite phalanx, the overhand grip was almost certianly the preferred grip in the initial, most organized stages. We have far more pictorial evidence for the overhand grip than underhand. I'm not sure on the actual ratio, but from my personal image collection, 3:1 sounds about right, though it may be higher (especially if you count multiple hoplites on the same work of art--the overhand grip predominates in depictions of formations).

[Xehh II]

I personly hold a spear under-arm but I don't fight with a whole gruop of people next to me though. I still think under-arm is better.

[Bootsiuv]

I also prefer to hold my spear under-hand, err, wait, what?....

Oh, this thread is about hoplites.

My bad.

[geala]

The underarm hold and thrust is better in loose order or if you are facing cavalry or light troops. The reasons are that you have a better reach and can move the spear without fear of putting the sauroter in the guts of your comrade behind you.

In close order it is very difficult to use the spear underhand. The overarm hold and thrust is far better. The few casualties in hoplite warfare stem from the fact that it is very difficult to create enough energy (with both thrusting methods) to penetrate shield and/or armour and rather difficult to reach an unprotected part. I just tried it last weekend against a hoplite with shield, helmet and greaves but without body armour: it is nearly impossible to wound him.

Both thrusts were used. We have pictoral evidence for both. We have thigh wounds and groin and belly wounds which are best explained with underhand thrusts (and swords of course). But the most used spear thrust in phalanx was the overhand thrust, just the only possibility in crowded circumstances.

Btw, in phalanx you don't stab at the man before you but at men in the second or third row or to the side of you. Otherwise the spear would be to long and unwieldy. And you cannot stab underhand at men in the second row.

EB is right with the overarm thrust as the regular hoplite method.

[mAIOR]

And under-hand would give way to sime nasty wounds on your team mates thanks to the butt of the spear. It'd make your formation wider and more spaced thus taking out charge effect and Hoplite warfare based a lot on the initial charge. so, a wider formation means less momentum built and that would leave you at a disadvantage. One on one, under hand might be better but in army Vs army I think over hand is the logical choice.


Cheers...

[mcantu]

He makes some very good points about about controlling the spear though. It would be almost impossible for anyone to hold an 8 foot spear overhand for more than a few minutes and the underhand grip allows for much more control.

I'd wager that the front lines of hoplites used an underhand grip while those directly behind used overhand. Although I can see alot of instances of 'whoops, sorry for stabbing you in the back of head....'

[PershsNhpios]

Although it is most certainly provable by so many artworks and carvings, and also writings that the overhand method was the prevailing tactic, under-arm is just as plausible in some cases, this is depending on the manner of the phalanx.
From some writings it can be understood that the shields behind the front line of a phalanx were not held down but tilted up and above the heads of those in front so that a testudo of spear shafts and raised shields was made, eventually becoming as high as possible behind the formation.
This meant that under-hand was free movement given to those beginning rows so that they could thrust easily at the enemy.
I found that alot of celtic phalanxes were formed this way, but I must say I have not as much knowledge of the Greek phalanx formation.
Hoplites have always been depicted in the overhand stance however, so I have seen no proof of why they would be otherwise.

As for whether you yourself could fight in a close formation with an overhand spear- do not even attempt it!
I am a great supporter of Xenophon, for my obvious reasons of enthusiasm and quest for advancement in the art of classical riding.
As an amusing past-time, I have been attempting to mimic Xenophon's cavalry tactics with my young arab.
An active and achievable rider I may be, but I am not sure if I will ever be capable, less I be born in classical Greece, to pursue and fight with javelins on horseback as well as he describes!
(Though I'm getting better!)

Men of that era were of such strength and dexterous ability, through neccessity, that because of our many luxuries that we are born into, the majority of us would find it impossible to match the efforts they could show in warfare!

[Watchman]

Eh, methinks they just trained more. Kinda hard to believe the malnutritioned squirts had some great inherent physical advantages.

[Anastasios Helios]

Glenn, you'll love this. Once, I tried doing some horse archery from a neighbor's horse and after some initial success...I tried to do a "Parthian shot" while the beast was running...haha, the results werent pretty. :)

[PershsNhpios]

Ha ha ha, grand! I found horse archery to be like learning to throw a stone (Though not at steppe distances!), once you could straighten yourself correctly and bend fluently, it was a matter of 'instinctive' guesswork.
I have a young horse whom I am treating like a hunnic steed, running him around the paddock bareback without a bridle and testing my abilities with bow and spear!
Very fun, and very challenging, and a great reprieve from classical riding.

However, for the record, I do not approve of horses being called beasts!

I am glad someone else here as attempted one such thing as cavalry tactics!
I myself had a very ugly result lately, the Arabian I spoke of, whilst doing such things and galloping down hill, tripped, (Arabian- pah!) and we both rolled and slid over each other for a distance of twenty metres down a rather steep descent.
It is just coming into spring here, and wouldn't you know, it was the first day I decided to ride without a shirt!


Talk about welts!

[Kham]

Ever been in a really thick crowd? Like close to the stage in a big concert, where people are so pressed together that everybody has to follow the movement of the crowd and your arms are pinned to your sides from time to time?

I think it should be even worse than that if you and 7 men behind you use all their strength to try to shove 8 other men back. Who are trying the same with you and your buddies. And possibly everybody clashing at a full run. Like in a classical greek hoplite fight.
No way to use a spear underhand in this situation:no:. Only the first row could do one aimed thrust and then their arms would be pinned. And their spears would penetrate the opponents or the belly of the guy behind them, depending on who has the better armor. Or they would break.

In one on one combat if the phalanx is broken, or with units fighting in a looser formation, it is a differnt story. I can imagine that the underhand style is then superior. But you need space for that.

[PershsNhpios]

Watchman, before I retire for the night, the people of Germanica and the forest of Orcynia, who lived on naught but the flesh that they hunted, and fish from the Rhine and other rivers further east, were people who lived on diets which in a modern sense could hardly be called nutritious.
And these men were notably, the most courageous, brutal and warlike people of northern Europe who lived to fight in wars and phalanxes and plunder for their tribe.

Yet you call those who lived in the greatest plenty by the Mediterranean malnutritious?
It may be hard to believe, but the human race has become far weaker over the last 2300 years. We are not exempt from evolution!

We are born into our respective realities and our bodies and minds evolve to suit what lifestyle we choose, warfare was the classical lifestyle of noble and commonality alike, therefore it was rather expected of the simplest of men to be able to fight half the day holding a hoplon and spear.

[Watchman]

Nonsense. Homo Sapiens Sapiens has not undergone a single meaningful evolutionary change since around the time it wandered out of Africa; which is not really surprising given the kinds of time you need for biological evolution to happen and the comparatively short amount of time that has passed since then (all the more so given the comparativaly slow generation cycle of humans, who take well over a decade to even become able to procreate).

And for comparision some of the older invertebrate, fish and reptile species around have not fundamentally changed for millions of years, presumably having hit on a sufficiently winning design they haven't needed to ("don't fix what's not broken").

That aside, the Med is anything but "greatest plenty" - in fact between its relative ecological poverty and high population concentrations it was more often than not chronically short of food. Truly productive agriculture for example has always only been possible in a few specific regions, usually due to random vagaries of geology (eg. the Nile, the volcanic Southern Italy/Sicily region - which then were long the breadbaskets for much of the whole Mediterranean zone) or suitability for intense irrigation. The sea itself, flooded former lowland, is actually almost barren save for a few odd spots which were then duly famous for their fishing.

Conversely the "North" (ie. north of the mountains surrounding the northern Mediterranean coastal zone) is lush with good farmland and deep forests, with many of the more fertile regions (eg. the areas of havy clay soil) only cultivable rather late with the advent of the necessary tools for the job (eg. the heavy iron swing-plough). Moreover the longtime relative cultural backwardness of the region resulted in comparatively low population density with due abundance of untouched wilderness for game animals to roam in and a relative ease to maintain a decent food supply. Nevermind now the rich fisheries of the Atlantic and Baltic to tap.

The end result was that the Mediterraneans on the whole for a very long time subsited on an almost entirely vegetarian diet out of sheer necessity, whereas their northern neighbours long enjoyed one rather more liberally supplanted with animal protein with due differences in average heights (animal protein being a fairly central "building block" for that). Although both probably suffered from assorted deficencies if only because nobody simply had a clue of what exactly a healthy and balanced diet requires - dunno about the Antiquity, but during the Middle Ages and long after at least most Europeans regardless of social status were severely deficient on assorted vitamins simply because few ate fresh vegetables or fruits (althugh if the commoners could gather berries from the woods that probably helped a little).

None of which had anything the do with their warlikleness of course. For the sake of comparision the Japanese were even worse off (among other things lacking much in the way of cattle), but that hardly kept them off each others' throats. Ditto for everyone else; the Med and Middle East had no more shortage of warlike groups and cultures than the temperate North or the steppes, or China or the trans-Eurasian succession of highlands and mountain ranges or South America.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Watchman, before I retire for the night, the people of Germanica and the forest of Orcynia, who lived on naught but the flesh that they hunted, and fish from the Rhine and other rivers further east, were people who lived on diets which in a modern sense could hardly be called nutritious.
And these men were notably, the most courageous, brutal and warlike people of northern Europe who lived to fight in wars and phalanxes and plunder for their tribe.

Yet you call those who lived in the greatest plenty by the Mediterranean malnutritious?
It may be hard to believe, but the human race has become far weaker over the last 2300 years. We are not exempt from evolution!

We are born into our respective realities and our bodies and minds evolve to suit what lifestyle we choose, warfare was the classical lifestyle of noble and commonality alike, therefore it was rather expected of the simplest of men to be able to fight half the day holding a hoplon and spear.

Glenn, everyone is about a foot taller than they were 2000 years ago. I'm 5'9" I'd easily qualify for elite First Cohort status, I'm fit, lean and I've never broken any bones despite hard work to the contrary, I still have all my own teeth.

I'm 20. 2000 years ago I would be considered a prime physical specimin, unusually tall and well kept. Today I'm average, back then I would be maybe six inches above average height as well as being considered handsom because of my straight nose and relatively few facial scars.

Those Northern Barbarians ate better, particually with a higher protein intake but even among them I would be tall, if no unusually so.

[Decimus Attius Arbiter]

The point about overhand being more tiring doesn't take into account that people fought for only 15 seconds or so at a time. I'm wondering about how spartan hoplites were depicted as fighting with the first row underhanded and the second overhanded on the History Channel. If that really happened, you wouldn't have peoples arms bumping into each other.

[Andronikos]

Once here was a thread about phalanx and how it protected against arrows when spears and small shields can cover only samll area.
Perhaps I found an answer: if you hold a 5 - meters long wooden stick - a pike - you will surely feel some oscillations. It is because the wood is not solid but flexible. When a phalanx marches (and when not too) the points of their pikes oscillate and so the moving pikes can hit a flying arrow and considerably make it less dangerous. Of course it requires looking up some constants about wood in some physics book and making some calculations which I am lazy to do.
Another reason could be that soldiers had fast reactions and were extremely good at using their shields

[NeoSpartan]

How about this?

Try to fight with a hoplon shield that goes from shoulder to mid thight. Inside the left of ur hoplon is another guy with another hoplon overlapping urs. And then u are partianly inside the left side of another guy's hoplon. With ur hoplon overlapping his.

Behind you is a guy pressing your back with his shield, in total you have the weight of 7 men pressing on u if you are in ther 1st rank, 6 if ur in the 2nd rank, and so forth. Then all u charge, or walk fast, towards another group of men formed in the same manner.

So, now u have 7 men pushing u forward (ur pushing forward too) and u have 8 men pushing you back. TELL ME HOW IN WORLD ARE YOU GOING TO HOLD, WEILD, POINT, AND TRUST A 7'-8' SPEAR UNDER HAND?????

u ain't! :smash:

The only way to hold, weild, point, trust such a weapon in those tight confindments is overheand.

Even in a loose formation, you have more control of a spear if you hold it overhead. Underhand will give you a more powerful forward thrust, and a 30 degree thrust to ur right (if ur right handed). Thats it, any other direction you have to move ur entire body.

For those who cant hold 5+pound weight overhead with one hand (remember you can move ur shoulder around to shift the effort to other muscles) for 15 mins.... I think thats an hint that you need to start lifting.

Hell, the hoplon shield was about 20-30 pounds, now count the armor, helment, sword, and spear! With all of this wieght, these men FOUGHT!. AND, today the weight carried by soldiers can be up to 100lbs, sometimes more, and YES they have to fight with it too.

[PershsNhpios]

I know that the Romans were people of very small size, as were all horses of antiquity.
Something that annoys me is that Roman conquerors depicted as large, beastly men astride dazzling Andalusian stallions, when they were small, yet very intelligent men, sometimes astride horses which, unless royally bred, were little larger than Shetland ponies! Ha ha ha ha..
It should be noted that the people of Germanica were some of the best breeders in the Ancient world, their horses were the largest in Europe!

What I should of said, which was rather more my point, is that nutrition does very little to one's endurance and strength- very little, in fact, the only thing you need for these two things to develop, is food, and water!
I know this from experience!
If you want to be a body builder- that's different, however even the Spartans, your beloved heroes, were not worried about the shape of their abs!
Take for example the working class men of my country- or any country, a man, scrawny and of little size, who is a stockman or does fencing every day in his life, lives on microwave dinners and Tooheys New, can knock out most weight-trainers in a fight.
This is because of determination, strength, and because he has been immersed in a lifestyle which, although his body is constricted in size, has ordered his mental and physical state to evolve- which they must for him to survive!
It is the same when you are born into a life where war is usually constant, back-breaking work for your country and you are expected to do it!

And by the statement that we are not exempt from evolution, and we have evolved, I mean not that we have grown an extra eye, but that because we now have less physical work, as many do, and we have so many luxuries, the life we are born into gives our bodies a weaker existence to mould to.





On another note, I had mentioned earlier Diadoch, that it is a written fact the many spears held in the air were the main source of protection from arrows.
This means that there were at least two types of phalanx, one of overhand tactics and one for underhand, which makes us all correct.
This is because, a phalanx using the overhand method would have their hoplons covering their chest, and overlapping with the next shield, meaning all men in the phalanx would be holding small spears over thier heads.
The second, underhand phalanx would have the first row covering their chests with the hoplon, and the rows behind holding their shields up along with their pikes/spears, in order to protect from arrows, thus giving the front row room to manoeuver their arms.

There is written evidence the Germans and some Gauls used the latter.

[Watchman]

It should be noted that the people of Germanica were some of the best breeders in the Ancient world, their horses were the largest in Europe!Unlikely, as Caesar replaced the somewhat unimpressive little horsies of his German mercs with fine Iberian stock ASAP. Densely forested regions like Germania tend not quite be top "horse country".


What I should of said, which was rather more my point, is that nutrition does very little to one's endurance and strength- very little, in fact, the only thing you need for these two things to develop, is food, and water!
I know this from experience!
If you want to be a body builder- that's different, however even the Spartans, your beloved heroes, were not worried about the shape of their abs!
Take for example the working class men of my country- or any country, a man, scrawny and of little size, who is a stockman or does fencing every day in his life, lives on microwave dinners and Tooheys New, can knock out most weight-trainers in a fight.
This is because of determination, strength, and because he has been immersed in a lifestyle which, although his body is constricted in size, has ordered his mental and physical state to evolve- which they must for him to survive!
It is the same when you are born into a life where war is usually constant, back-breaking work for your country and you are expected to do it!

And by the statement that we are not exempt from evolution, and we have evolved, I mean not that we have grown an extra eye, but that because we now have less physical work, as many do, and we have so many luxuries, the life we are born into gives our bodies a weaker existence to mould to.That's called "physical conditioning". "Evolution" has entirely different meanings.


On another note, I had mentioned earlier Diadoch, that it is a written fact the many spears held in the air were the main source of protection from arrows.
This means that there were at least two types of phalanx, one of overhand tactics and one for underhand, which makes us all correct.
This is because, a phalanx using the overhand method would have their hoplons covering their chest, and overlapping with the next shield, meaning all men in the phalanx would be holding small spears over thier heads.
The second, underhand phalanx would have the first row covering their chests with the hoplon, and the rows behind holding their shields up along with their pikes/spears, in order to protect from arrows, thus giving the front row room to manoeuver their arms.

There is written evidence the Germans and some Gauls used the latter....you know the difference between the classic hoplite phalanx and the Alexandrian pike phalanx, right ?

[Bellum]

The point about overhand being more tiring doesn't take into account that people fought for only 15 seconds or so at a time. I'm wondering about how spartan hoplites were depicted as fighting with the first row underhanded and the second overhanded on the History Channel. If that really happened, you wouldn't have peoples arms bumping into each other.

Hoplite battles would either last a very short time, or a very long time, from my understanding. Much longer than 15 seconds.


That's called "physical conditioning". "Evolution" has entirely different meanings.

Evolution has more than one meaning. Most generally, it means 'to change'.


Anyway, I can't imagine how using a spear underarmed would be harder to control than overarmed. I think it would be easier to hold a spear farther to the back when fighting underarmed, though you would have to worry about balance with both methods. I'd be worried about hitting the guy behind me in the face fighting overhanded. Perhaps that's something they were able to deal with in training.

You do, of course, have to take the close formation into account. An 8ft can be a liability if held the wrong way. Some have said overhand is ideal in this case. I don't know. The people who said the front rank fought underhand(to reach the opposing front rank) and the second rank fought overhand(to reach farther) sounds sensible, if I try to imagine it. Especially if you take into account, as the essay writer did, that hoplite armor did not include protection for the underarm.

[NightStar]

Fighting as an individual hoplites would probably fight with the doru underhand but I can't see how it would be done in a phalanx. They charged in that formation and there are even instances that they lined up 16 deep. Phalanx against Phalanx was a pushing competition with stabbing in between.

Given that it was common to have a a pike as a counterweight on the end of the doru and also to use if the spearhead broke it would probably impale the man behind during a charge.


For a man that trains it, holding a spear overhand for extended period of time should not pose much of a problem.

One of the training excercies I was made to do regularly in the army was holding a H&K G-3 over my head by the front of the barrel, at first most guys could maybe hold it in under a minute, but after 6 month most could hold it three of four times that or longer, and that is without any balance. The G-3 weighs around 10 lbs, or 4.5 kg.

[Glewas]

I understand the reasoning for the overhand grip, but I've never really understood facing of the hand holding the spear. In EB and in at least one Greek painting, (I sure there are more out there), the palm faces inward. To me this seems possibly a stronger grip, but sacrifices extension and maybe some power. However I doubt it takes much force for a sharp spear to stab or cut exposed flesh...

With the palm facing outward the grip doesn't seem as strong, but the spear can be extended more with greater force, as the arm can fully extend and still keep the spear tip at head/neck level. Whereas as with the inward grip, the further the arm extends the more the tip points to the ground...

Also it seems that the inward grip might conserve more energy per thrust, and the outward grip would allow you to go from overhand to underhand, provided there was room, fairly easily as the grip doesn't change.

Any thoughts?

[NeoSpartan]

[QUOTE=Bellum]
Anyway, I can't imagine ......QUOTE]


Thats the problem.... We can imagine all kinds of posibilities, but few actually work. Thats why there is something called "Testing"


So don't "imagine" it, TRY IT!
Or do the next best thing, go here http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/
and READ from the people who know and actually "try" these things we read about.

[Watchman]

I understand the reasoning for the overhand grip, but I've never really understood facing of the hand holding the spear. In EB and in at least one Greek painting, (I sure there are more out there), the palm faces inward. To me this seems possibly a stronger grip, but sacrifices extension and maybe some power. However I doubt it takes much force for a sharp spear to stab or cut exposed flesh...

With the palm facing outward the grip doesn't seem as strong, but the spear can be extended more with greater force, as the arm can fully extend and still keep the spear tip at head/neck level. Whereas as with the inward grip, the further the arm extends the more the tip points to the ground...

Also it seems that the inward grip might conserve more energy per thrust, and the outward grip would allow you to go from overhand to underhand, provided there was room, fairly easily as the grip doesn't change.

Any thoughts?To me it sounds - and seems and feels, merely by holding out my hand and twisting it in various ways - like that an overhand grip with the palm outwards would not be a good idea. It seems to put the wrist joint in a quite uncomfortable position, and I suspect trying to deliver a strong stab like that, nevermind with extension, would put the somewhat fragile internals of the joint in rather dire risk of damage.

The overhand-inward grip, however, is essentially the same as the tried-and-true "icepick" grip that can be used with knives and other short blades to good effect, bringing fairly considerable power to bear in the downward arc of the arm - with built-in gravity assist to boot. Indeed it is in fact employing the arm itself as a (rather limited) lever and therefore force multiplier.

[TWFanatic]

Out of all the ancient Greek pottery I've ever seen, those portrayed as fighting underhand are never in formation, but rather in 1-on-1 combat. Those using the overhand grip, on the other hand, are quite often portrayed in a phalanx. Though you cannot rely on pottery alone, this does lead me to believe that each soldier would fight however he preferred in single combat or once the formation was broken, but would nearly always fight overhand when in the phalanx.

That time machine the EB team is rumoured to have would be useful about now.

[Watchman]

Then again, a lot of other heavy-infantry spearmen seem to have fought underhand even in closed order.

[Geoffrey S]

Just to enter on the nutrition debate, in modern high-level sport the diet is considered as one of the most important parts of training. The body simply can't recover, let alone improve, if it doesn't receive replenishment after a training. Body building is different, but even for more athletic sports a balanced diet is absolutely necessary for the body to develop effectively without necessarily putting on weight through muscle mass. Another crucial part is getting a good amount of rest at night during which the body is repaired.

As for this supposed negative evolution of the human race, Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla made a good point about our physique when compared to that of people hundreds of years ago, and I'd like to add that the fact that people generally don't need/want to perform hard labout in the Western world doesn't mean they can't; I know a whole bunch of people whose level of fitness before they started rowing was pretty average, in one case at least appalling, but plenty of exercise has increased that tremendously. I don't see any indication for some kind of negative human evolution, perhaps at worst personal neglect.

[Watchman]

And that's mainly because cultural evolution has gone the way that these days not too many people (in the developed countries anyway) have to engage in hard physical labour or train extensively to be able to fight for their lives, which are one the whole positive developements IMO.

Only a century ago a whole lot of people were quite literally getting their health ruined for life with the distinctly unhealthy combination of literally backbreaking labour and poor diet if not outright hunger. Thirty-forty-year olds could often well have passed for today's seventy-plus elderly.

[Glewas]

To me it sounds - and seems and feels, merely by holding out my hand and twisting it in various ways - like that an overhand grip with the palm outwards would not be a good idea. It seems to put the wrist joint in a quite uncomfortable position, and I suspect trying to deliver a strong stab like that, nevermind with extension, would put the somewhat fragile internals of the joint in rather dire risk of damage.


This is me guessing, but I think the akwardness you feel in the wrist joint might be because you have your arm in the same starting position as I guess one would with the inward grip maybe? Where I assume the inward grip has you arm and forearm at about a 45 degree angle, the outward grip has the arm/forearm angle much more acute, because I have my elbow drawn further back. To make things clearer my stance would be almost perpendicular to the "shield" I am holding - my shoulders would not be square to whomever I was attacking.

There shouldn't be any real strain on your wrist other then the weight of the spear as, when exteding a thrust, roll your wrist/forearm so that the palm faces down and the shaft is almost parallel with the forearm...

Now I am just playing around with a 6ft. spear shaft, I haven't studied hoplite formations/techniques, so I don't know if my stance, body position, way I am holding my imaginary shield, etc. is correct or what is thought to be correct.


The overhand-inward grip, however, is essentially the same as the tried-and-true "icepick" grip that can be used with knives and other short blades to good effect, bringing fairly considerable power to bear in the downward arc of the arm - with built-in gravity assist to boot. Indeed it is in fact employing the arm itself as a (rather limited) lever and therefore force multiplier.

The thing is with the icepcik grip for a spear is that the knife/short blade is at the end of long stick. My problem is that because of the long shaft and position of the spearhead at the end, one can only extend the arm so far before the head starts to point to the ground as the wrist can't bend in such a way as to keep the shaft straight. I can see this grip working great for horsemen against infantry as they would be thrusting down more than out.

But of course, if one is colse enough to the enemy there is no need for extension, just a quick short jab would suffice.

[NeoSpartan]

get a broom stick, a piece of plywood and nail a horizontal handle (it will be more like the gauls and romans hold thier shields but that doesn't matter much this time). Get a few buddies to do the same, then form a mock phalanx and slug it out.

Come to us with ur findings.

or read this too

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

[Glewas]

or read this too

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

According to the article it seems that when two enemy phalanax clash, it is shield on shield? If so then the length of thrust based on arm extension isn't that important. Makes more sense now.

[Watchman]

Well, except if you can run the other guy through already before the shield-to-shield collision of course. Probably didn't happen too often though, what with the shield and helmet in the way.


There shouldn't be any real strain on your wrist other then the weight of the spear as, when exteding a thrust, roll your wrist/forearm so that the palm faces down and the shaft is almost parallel with the forearm...

Now I am just playing around with a 6ft. spear shaft, I haven't studied hoplite formations/techniques, so I don't know if my stance, body position, way I am holding my imaginary shield, etc. is correct or what is thought to be correct.I think I'm beginning to see the kind of stance you mean - but AFAIK that's the normal one for fighting from behind a shield with a "high" underhand grip (ie. around shoulder level), with the butt end of the shaft running parallel under and at least partially supported by the forearm. I've seen direct comparisions between this stance and the overhand grip equivalent, in a book on Late Roman infantry combat in the chapter discussing how the spear was most likely employed. That one pointed out one advantage of the underhand grip is that there's extremely little of the user exposed from behind the shield to the enemy, whereas the overhand spear grip requires the arm to be raised fairly high and hence becoming rather exposed.

[NeoSpartan]

Well the exposure is minimal on both stances, but sure ur arm will be more exposed on the overhand.

One thing is for sure though. I would not like be standing too close directly behind you when ur about to thrust with the under arm.

gotta protect the family jewels man..:knight:

[abou]

get a broom stick, a piece of plywood and nail a horizontal handle (it will be more like the gauls and romans hold thier shields but that doesn't matter much this time). Get a few buddies to do the same, then form a mock phalanx and slug it out.

Come to us with ur findings.

or read this too

http://www.4hoplites.com/Warfare.htm
Actually, that article mentions something that I forgot to bring up - balancing the spear. This can be done with a different sized heads and butt spikes or how the wood is shaped.

There is an article by Peter Connolly where he showed that you could indeed wield a xyston one-handed by how the wood is shaped, but unfortunately it seemed far to unwieldy with just the one hand. However, the point is that you can indeed make a spear with a point of balance with more spear forward than back.

[Watchman]

One thing is for sure though. I would not like be standing too close directly behind you when ur about to thrust with the under arm.

gotta protect the family jewels man..:knight:Oh, don't worry - with the shoulder-level stance it's your nose that gets butted in, I reckon. :beam:


There is an article by Peter Connolly where he showed that you could indeed wield a xyston one-handed by how the wood is shaped, but unfortunately it seemed far to unwieldy with just the one hand. However, the point is that you can indeed make a spear with a point of balance with more spear forward than back.The shaft tapering towards the tip and so on, yeah. By what I've read of it you need to leave about 1/3 of the lenght behind the point of balance you're grasping it by - but with the ca. 2.5m dory (or similar long fighting-spear) or the 4m xyston that still leaves a lot to reach out and touch someone with.

Presumably you can get even more effective reach out of the total lenght with a two-handed grip, since you've got two lever points and should thus be able to grasp the weapon effectively at that much further back. Or the underarm couched cavalry-lance technique, since you're using much of the arm and your side for supporting the shaft (Medieval lances were normally around four meters, too).

[Rodion Romanovich]

He makes the argument that the paintings and mosaics are just artistic and that the spear would be preferably kept underhand for fighting and physical reasons. I think however that even if it were true that the paintings and mosaics were incorrect, a more thorough investigation of physics and fighting experiments show that spears kept overhead are more effective. There are several things he forgets:
- an overhand spear doesn't need to be held in the middle. You can hold it at one third or so as well, if you like
- an overhand spear is by default in a high position. The importance of gravity mustn't be underestimated in muscle-based combat! Starting with the spear in a high position gives the user an ability to reach any height he wants much faster than with an underhand grip, as the underhand grip involves a heavy upwards lifting move. Moreover, an underhand spear held very far to the end becomes even less manouverable. A man who starts with overhand grip can quickly switch to underhand if needed, but someone who uses underhand as main grip, will have greater difficulty switching.
- the overhand grip gives a much harder thrust, as you cooperate with gravity, and can also (optionally) use a rotating move of your upper body to reinforce it
- he claims the overhand grip can't reach the feet and is thus inferior. However, he disregards the fact that an underhand grip can hardly reach the face. He also forgets how shields are used. A quick thrust towards the head is a very effective opening move of a spear duel, as it forces the opponent to raise the shield over his own face, thus temporarily blocking his vision. He must lean sideways and/or many other complex moves to be able to simultaneously block and retain his vision, but he will then lose balance etc. This effective opening move can't be done very effectively in overhand grip.
- the underhand grip is effective for long pikes that can't be manouvered and thrusted too quickly anyway, and in wide open terrain. With shorter spears and rougher terrain, the overhand grip is more efficient as it doesn't rely on too strict formations. It's much easier to sweep aside an underhand spear, so unless they are long enough and enough spearpoints point past the first rank, the first man will be reached by the opponent rather easily by just sweeping aside 2 or 3 spearpoints which are difficult, in an underhand grip, to move back again.

I think overhand would be favored in difficult terrain and with shorter spears, whereas underhand would be used more by anti-cavalry fighting and longer pikes.

[Watchman]

A true pike needs two hands anyway, making the distinction somewhat moot. I know they were used at both waist/chest and shoulder level in the Middle Ages and later, incidentally.

The underarm grip ought to reach the face just fine at shoulder height, too.

[Bellum]

That 4hoplites link was pretty interesting.

Anyway, how do you fight with a two handed 15ft sarissa and hold a shield properly at the same time? Tough work, eh?

EDIT:

And, as a slight digression, are those cool mini EB sigs that I see every once in awhile for special members? Can we use them?

[PershsNhpios]

From the middle ages and later, pikes were attached to a holster on the man's foot, and he then leant his entire bodyweight with the angle of the pike in order to be able to sustain charges easier.

Watchman, do not simply make a cheap quote from the ever-resorted-to Commentaries of the Gallic Wars, the chapter you tell me about in order to revoke my stated fact about the Germanic breeding of horses, is a single situation in which horsemen levied from the Ubii over the Rhine were brought in as Auxiliaries to aid against a new rebellion.
All this chapter tells us is that these men arrived on horses in poor -condition-, this meant that they were underfed and in no way fit for warfare.

I shall explain here why this in no way affects what I said.
I may own a purebred Russian Draught stallion, he may be worth over $15,000, he may be bred with the greatest care and a fine contribution to his stud.
However, if I neglect to feed him correctly and I do not take proper caution with his health- what difference does his breeding make?

Look towards the histories of the Dark Ages, you will find that breeders in the Germanic regions had been slowly pefecting since before the conquests of Rome, a horse that was large enough for true cavalry actions.
Germans have quite often in history been the greatest horse breeders, even if, in 62 B.C.E., they did not have the correct resources to feed their stock.
And they would not of, considering they were not people who resorted to farming but plunder and hunting.


Another argument for the debate on nutrition.
Notice the great difference in lifespans between modern and antiquity.
If you were attempting in Classical Greece, to live for over 60 years, you'd be laughed at lest you were nobility.
This meant that people lived in what we now refer to as malnutrition, evolved, (He's right you know, several different meanings!), to the hard lifestyle they faced if they were chosen for the military, and they fought with incredible strength as they were expected to, and lived a short life.
Thus, everything was balanced, and the appearance of the effects of malnutrition is not apparent in the fact of their ability to fight, but in how failing their health was after 30 or so.


I do realise there were several different formations of phalanx right throughout the world, which I was attempting to demonstrate, however, as the title suggests, we are talking about the hoplite here.
So unless we discuss other phalanxes such as the most commonly used (underhand) phalanx mostly outside of Greece, then there is no argument suitable for those who persist that the Hoplite fought underhand, they in every first-hand account of history, fought overhand.

[Thaatu]

Anyway, how do you fight with a two handed 15ft sarissa and hold a shield properly at the same time? Tough work, eh?
With a sarissa the shield was strapped to the left forearm, so the user wasn't actually holding it.

[NeoSpartan]

[QUOTE=Glenn]....

Another argument for the debate on nutrition.
Notice the great difference in lifespans between modern and antiquity.
If you were attempting in Classical Greece, to live for over 60 years, you'd be laughed at lest you were nobility.
This meant that people lived in what we now refer to as malnutrition, evolved, (He's right you know, several different meanings!), to the hard lifestyle they faced if they were chosen for the military, and they fought with incredible strength as they were expected to, and lived a short life.
Thus, everything was balanced, and the appearance of the effects of malnutrition is not apparent in the fact of their ability to fight, but in how failing their health was after 30 or so.
.......QUOTE]

WHAT??????

Glenn..

Back in the day, really back in they day. People didn't live to 60 unless they were very wealth and very lucky. Wealthy that they had good clean food and water, plus good medical care. Lucky in that they didn't die in an accident or combat, nor got a bad desease or infection.

Back then you could die from a cut to ur finger. IF it got infected and you didn't clean it, then most likely the finger would need to be cut to stop the infection. (thats why ampitations were so common) There were no anti-biotics to kill infections caused by bacteria. And unfortunatly many, many people died form wounds that today are nothing.

Back then acute deseases (cold, influenza, and the like) were the #1 killers.
Today cronic deseases (diabetis, canser, etc) are the #1 killers. Chronic desease take many, many years to develop, while Acute desease develop and kill in a matter of days. The latter being mostly dealt with thanks to medical advances, and the former now gaining prominence (compounded by bad diet and lack of physical activity).

Also, if you look at history most casualties of war occured due to injuries that later got infected, or deseases soldiers got.

Another thing.... man has NOT evolved, there has not been any kind of environmental pressure to "select" for a specific genetic trait which allows those individuals witht that trait to have more offsprings. All the while others don't. The difference between u and me, and ancient greeks, is that we have more "knowledge" accumulated over the millennias man has been roaming this planet. Thats why today we have cars, and back then they had weagons.

[Watchman]

If the ugly infant mortality rates didn't nail you, and you managed to avoid an untimely end through injury (from violence or not), starvation and/or disease, then you could well live to ages that would be considered distinctly elderly even today. Most, of course, didn't get that far.


This meant that people lived in what we now refer to as malnutrition, evolved, (He's right you know, several different meanings!), to the hard lifestyle they faced if they were chosen for the military, and they fought with incredible strength as they were expected to, and lived a short life.
Thus, everything was balanced, and the appearance of the effects of malnutrition is not apparent in the fact of their ability to fight, but in how failing their health was after 30 or so.Ridiculous. That's like expecting to get super powers out of radiation exposure. Malnutrition is just the shortage of assorted stuff the body needs; if you still get enough nutrition to "keep body and soul together" (as the expression goes) then you'll survive it, but your metabolism still won't have enough "building blocks" to go with and duly your physical developement in the affected areas will be to a greater or lesser degree compromised. You know where the stereotype of the eyeglass-wearing Japanese comes from ? They did use to have a lot of eyesight problems due to certain nutritional deficiencies, and hence a lot of corrective equipement.

As for "incredible strenght", nuts. The 'barbarians' north of the Mediterranean mountain ranges were similarly used to harsh physical exercise since early age - be it farm labour or whatever - but due to their somewhat richer and more balanced diets tended to grow noticeably bigger. Duly, Mediterranean observers rarely failed to comment on their great stature and physical strenght... The thing is that with the equal level of physical conditioning, the bigger fellow with more muscle volume has the greater power output. If my ca. 190cm 80+ kg martial-arts exercise nut little brother were to arm-wrestle an average Ancient Greek hoplite a full head or two shorter than he is, I know who I'd bet my money on. And I don't think I'd be losing the wager.


From the middle ages and later, pikes were attached to a holster on the man's foot, and he then leant his entire bodyweight with the angle of the pike in order to be able to sustain charges easier.:shocked2: Dude. This has to be the most surreal pike-realated statement I've seen in my life.

...inquiring minds want to know how the pikeman was then supposed to be able to hold his pike level at for example shoulder height when fighting infantry...? :dizzy2:


Look towards the histories of the Dark Ages, you will find that breeders in the Germanic regions had been slowly pefecting since before the conquests of Rome, a horse that was large enough for true cavalry actions.
Germans have quite often in history been the greatest horse breeders, even if, in 62 B.C.E., they did not have the correct resources to feed their stock.
And they would not of, considering they were not people who resorted to farming but plunder and hunting.Good job forgetting actually famous horse breeds like Iberians, Arabians, the Akhal-Teke and Nisean, and why not those Early Modern Polish warhorses which were enough of a strategic military resource their export was banned, BTW... Or that "true cavalry actions" were being executed to very good effect elsewhere long before the Germanics were anything more that a shade on the archeological radar.

And you're not going to maintain very good horse breeds with crappy feed, that's for sure. I'm also sort of failing to comprehend how (and for that matter, why) exactly a bunch of forest tribes with rather simple economic and social organisation, and not too much in the way of a real warrior aristocracy, are supposed to have been "the greatest horse breeders" in the middle of a figgen forest which is about as ill-suited terrain for a horse (a plains animal) as there is. I don't doubt their horses learned to be pretty good at navigating sylvan terrain though.

And if the German tribes hadn't spent most of their time and energy in agricultural pursuits theyd've starved, period.

:inquisitive:

Might I ask where exactly you got this stuff from ?

[PershsNhpios]

Nuts.
Pfiffle.
Absolute golly-waffle.

NeoSpartan, evolution is the progressive change of -anything- over -any- period of time.
This means I could be talking about how we evolved over millions of years and became more intelligent.
Or it could mean that my skills of playing guitar, in the space of a week, evolved dramatically to a very high level (No, I gave up playing guitar a little while ago, too many other interests!).
Or, it could more relevantly mean that I am talking of the ability of a human being, born into whatever lifestyle of existence they may meet with, and their physical, spiritual, and mental states EVOLVING to allow survival in that given life.
This does give people incredible strength, as life, though precious, is persistant and provides what is neccessary- not what is wanted.
And ample stomachs, and minds without the fret of famine- are not neccessary.
If incredible, (In OUR perspective) vast strength is neccessary, then nature, by her laws, must suit them by her greatest efforts to prepare them for this.

Please, do not make the mistake of misunderstanding the use of this word or it's place in this discussion again, or less may you seek the aid of a dictionary.

I also said that living to 60 was a rather rare thing, though I was, much like yourself, trying to inculcate the fact that you could most certainly fight with great strength in the Classical era, no matter how badly starved of the correct nutrients you were- however, I said, you would not expect to live very long as a balanced consequence.
Tell me of how badly undernourished the Numidian people were, yet how renowned they were in fighting. Romans did not recruit cowards!
Goddamnit, I am not so naive as to think their medical technology was up to our standard, and I did not go so far as to mention injuries and other ailments, this is not a neccessary thing!

Watchman,
To elaborate on the issue of this pike, it is not only illustrated but written in many statements of the pikeman, mainly of the late 17th century, holding his pike in a wedged and secure place by his foot, holstered, and aimed out with his formation.
You will note, that I made no mention of infantry, as pikemen would of been used mostly to counter, and therefore I talked of their uses against, cavalry.
I am sure a man in the situation of warfare, would unhook his pike to begin combat with foot.

I have not forgotten Spanish horses, who were, in the times of your beloved Caesar, superior to that of the Germans.
But I saw no reason to talk of them, or any other breed of horses, nor did I see to what effect speaking of Eastern conflicts well before the time-frame I am discussing would have had use.
You are jumping from 500 B.C. to 1800 A.D. in a short few words, so we must agree on at least a century, before we can argue about horse breeding.
This, I think would be very futile, as you are dropping names of famous breeds that flock to your mind, from many different stages of history.
In your more worthy Eastern cavalry actions, before Germanica was a blip in Archaeology, the breed of horse used was not that of Arabians, but of horses taken and bred when they had migrated out of the Steppe and India.
This meant that cavalry actions were rather poor until the Akhal-Teke you mentioned was created and served Alexander.
The true Arabian came much later on, when it was noted for the breed's great speed and agility, and very personal size during the first crusades by European rulers.
The Arabian then fast became a favoured horse by generals and officers.

Until Alexander's time horses were terribly bred, and even the Akhal-Teke itself was for sometime lacking performance- he has changed (Not evolved of course! Wouldn't want to say that word!), a great deal since 500 B.C.

Again, I will say that breeding has little to do with feed, if the horse is living, it can breed, if this horse has a pure bloodline, even if this horse is in poor condition, you can produce from him/her, a foal with the same genes.
You don't have to reserve grain for DNA!
This is why the German people, (And by German I mean generally from the Rhine to modern day Poland), were great breeders in my opinion.
As a natural, untouched horse, wild and uninitiated into human life, the European horse is a thin, weak, and only mildly intelligent creature the size of a shetland pony.
If you were to release a herd of European horses today, Trakehners, Lippizaners, Ardonnais, and leave them for a century or so, when you came back, you would find them degenerating at a remarkable place to the natural state mentioned.
So the German people, faced with a horse like this for their cavalry, over a period of one millenium, bred the great war-horse, a horse so large in size, there is not a horse in modern times that could match his height.

This is why I mentioned their breeding, because with their very natural, and very dedicated efforts in creating larger and more powerful, and more intelligent (When Arabians were introduced), horses, they set the standard for the strongest and most awesome breed of horse in history.
Your mentioned Spanish and Arabian horses, never reached this standard, which was begun before the times of Caesar, like I wrote.



If you think for the most part that people who are brilliant in horsemanship must be aristocracy, and that without agriculture one cannot survive,
That ALL Germanica was simply forest and nothing more, that they were too simple to be capable of these things, it is you who are immersed in a most surreal version of history.

For I don't understand how one who would argue with the words of Julius Caesar's commentaries as a supporting fact, would fail to notice how he dedicated many chapters explaining the customs of both Gallic and Germanic people, and how the Germans differed mainly in their lack of interest in agriculture, that they existed almost singly on flesh.
He also mentions that the German people were moved on a yearly basis by their judges and elders, so as not to allow for development or attachment- both were considered "Effeminating to the mind".
The Ubii were they only tribe mentioned to have fields, the same men from whom Caesar levied his cavalry before the siege of Alesia, that this both disproves the fact that German people lived solely in 'figgin forests' and were too simple to comprehend horse breeding, you cannot doubt yourself.


For it couldn't be stated, that the Romans, a most dreadful empire of horsemen, in regard to their other cultural achievements- although these people were so inexperienced in the art of horsemanship that they almost always relied on their tributaries to provide them with both horses and cavalry, you cannot call them simplistic.


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

But I have had arguments with the likes of you before in forums like this, you will find that which is not even apparent in my words, simply to make it appear as though what I say is fabricated.
Therefore, as I see this debate extending to the efforts of you name-dropping, muttering, "Nubble-wots" at all I say and finding in whatever way neccessary, a perpetual disagreement, for the sanctity of others, 'PM' me with any further discussion. Though I think I have said enough of the Equus!

-- To the new reader, this thread is a shrine to discussion of the Hoplite, not ancient horse breeding!

[Watchman]

Watchman,
To elaborate on the issue of this pike, it is not only illustrated but written in many statements of the pikeman, mainly of the late 17th century, holding his pike in a wedged and secure place by his foot, holstered, and aimed out with his formation.
You will note, that I made no mention of infantry, as pikemen would of been used mostly to counter, and therefore I talked of their uses against, cavalry.
I am sure a man in the situation of warfare, would unhook his pike to begin combat with foot.Seeing as how a frontal attack by cavalry against formed pike was, and was readily recognized to be, downright suicidal, the usual counter to pikemen was... other pikemen and heavy infantry. There was a specific term for it actually, "push of pike" in English. In the 1500s at least pike formations had specialist shock troops armed with halberds and two-handed swords for the express purpose of creating breaches in enemy pike blocks during the "push" (although the Spanish also employed sword-and-buckler men for the same purpose). These disappeared later, and regimental artillery and musketeers shot gaps in the ranks instead.

You are also grossly misinterpreting the sources on the "set to receive horse" stance used by the pikemen. They rammed the butt of the pike into the ground, planted their foot on it to keep it there, and put the other hand to the grip of their sword just for the unlikely occurrence a horseman got through past the points and had to be dealt with up close and personal. No "holster" involved, just stance and body weight.


I have not forgotten Spanish horses, who were, in the times of your beloved Caesar, superior to that of the Germans.
But I saw no reason to talk of them, or any other breed of horses, nor did I see to what effect speaking of Eastern conflicts well before the time-frame I am discussing would have had use.Then please use wording that doesn't make it sound like you're claiming the Germans were the best horse breeders around period. Like, say, "It should be noted that the people of Germanica were some of the best breeders in the Ancient world, their horses were the largest in Europe!" :stare:


Archaeology, the breed of horse used was not that of Arabians, but of horses taken and bred when they had migrated out of the Steppe and India.No duh. Why would the Bactrians for example even have heard of the horses of distant Arabia ? They had good stock much closer anyway.


This meant that cavalry actions were rather poor until the Akhal-Teke you mentioned was created and served Alexander.Well, he was one of the users certainly. I understand the Macedonians wasted no time tapping the superb horse reserves available in Persia.


Until Alexander's time horses were terribly bred, and even the Akhal-Teke itself was for sometime lacking performance- he has changed (Not evolved of course! Wouldn't want to say that word!), a great deal since 500 B.C....you mean like the famed Nisean whose herds were shown to Alex like a great treasure, although at the time they were apparently a bit depleted by military purchases ? Or the steeds which bore the heavily armed Saka proto-cataphracts to battle at Gaugamela perhaps ?

Please. If there ever was a bunch who knew horse breeding and care inside out, it was the steppe nomads and their only slightly less equestrian immediate neighbours.


Again, I will say that breeding has little to do with feed, if the horse is living, it can breed, if this horse has a pure bloodline, even if this horse is in poor condition, you can produce from him/her, a foal with the same genes.
You don't have to reserve grain for DNA!No, but unless I've entirely misunderstood something horses need good feed to support a high-performance physique and its energy requirements. Strains bred for the latter AFAIK tend to suffer more or less dreadfully if reduced to a diet of the relatively low-yield grass alone. Ergo, without reliable supply of good enough feed the breeding of high-performance mounts gets sort of tricky on the basis of the buggers starving...

It's not exactly a coincidence the strains that subsist solely on grazing tend to be comparatively small and wiry.


So the German people, faced with a horse like this for their cavalry, over a period of one millenium, bred the great war-horse, a horse so large in size, there is not a horse in modern times that could match his height.
This is why I mentioned their breeding, because with their very natural, and very dedicated efforts in creating larger and more powerful, and more intelligent (When Arabians were introduced), horses, they set the standard for the strongest and most awesome breed of horse in history....did it at some point occur to you that they might sort of have imported higher-class blood stock to improve on the local strains ? Just wonderin'... we did that a long time here in Finland - steppe stock traded from the Russians was one of the major reasons our horse stock was markedly above that of the geographically essentially identical Sweden.
Warhorses were of great value, and sufficiently organized societies developed elaborate infrastructures to raising, maintaining and breeding them. These duly required fairly elaborate arrangements to be financially possible.


Your mentioned Spanish and Arabian horses, never reached this standard, which was begun before the times of Caesar, like I wrote....what ?


If you think for the most part that people who are brilliant in horsemanship must be aristocracy, and that without agriculture one cannot survive,
That ALL Germanica was simply forest and nothing more, that they were too simple to be capable of these things, it is you who are immersed in a most surreal version of history.In regions that cannot by themselves support great grazing herds, horses tend to be somewhat rare and expensive. Doubly so for ones qualifying for combat use, nevermind now that those blighters need to be trained too. That makes them rather expensive, essentially a luxury item, and not too many people can afford to keep one nevermind now spare the time to practice mounted combat. It follows that they will above all be the possessions of the nobility, the men with the resources to own and maintain them and the free time to practice riding.

The easier horses can be maintained with minimum attention (and/or if they're commonly used as beasts of burden), the more "democratic" horse ownership can become and therefore the easier it is to find skilled horsemen capable of fighting as at least light cavalry. Compare, for example, the Central Asian steppes where virtually every nomad sat on horseback, to for example ancient Greece where the horse was for purely financial reasons already something you only normally saw a nobleman own - the equivalent of a high-end sports car, you could say.

It is perfectly possible to sustain human populations and even civilizations (to a degree) without agriculture; but not in great numbers. Farming has a history going well back into the Stone Age in northern Europe - the Germans certainly were no hunter-gatherers! - and as the region is quite unsuited to nomadism (as evidenced already by the history of steppe conquerors repeatedly failing to penetrate, to any consequence, further than the Hungarian pusta), yes, the Germans sure as heck derived the backbone of their sustenance from agriculture. You'd need to go about as far as northern Scandinavia to find true hunter-gatherer populations, even those days.


For I don't understand how one who would argue with the words of Julius Caesar's commentaries as a supporting fact, would fail to notice how he dedicated many chapters explaining the customs of both Gallic and Germanic people, and how the Germans differed mainly in their lack of interest in agriculture, that they existed almost singly on flesh.
He also mentions that the German people were moved on a yearly basis by their judges and elders, so as not to allow for development or attachment- both were considered "Effeminating to the mind".
The Ubii were they only tribe mentioned to have fields, the same men from whom Caesar levied his cavalry before the siege of Alesia, that this both disproves the fact that German people lived solely in 'figgin forests' and were too simple to comprehend horse breeding, you cannot doubt yourself.Uhhh... yeah. And Caesar traveled extensively in German lands taking notes, right ? He was writing from the perspective of a Mediterranean in Gaul (which was rather more agrarian than the forested Germania), and going by that the Germanics certainly were a bunch of carnivorous savages almost without permanent dwellings.

I'm not saying the Germans were too simple-minded to understand the breeding of domestic animals (which they, too, had also had since the Stone Age anyway...); I'm saying their relatively undifferentiated social organisation and economy were too simple to sustain large-scale horse breeding for military use. There's solid reasons why their military backbone was tribal infantry you know.

And don't try to lecture me on German geography and the forms of ecology applicable there, I live in the about exact same Northern Coniferous Zone.


For it couldn't be stated, that the Romans, a most dreadful empire of horsemen, in regard to their other cultural achievements- although these people were so inexperienced in the art of horsemanship that they almost always relied on their tributaries to provide them with both horses and cavalry, you cannot call them simplistic.The Romans knew their horses well enough. They *also* knew perfectly well their part of Italy, like most of the Mediterranean region, was starkly ill-suited for raising the beasts at least without incurring enormous expenses; little different from most of Greece for example. Which is why they sensibly enough "farmed out" cavalry duty to others, preferably from regions better suited for raising horses and therefore with more people with practical experience with the animals.


To the new reader, this thread is a shrine to discussion of the Hoplite, not ancient horse breeding!Oh, topic deviation isn't anything unusual. Especially if someone decides to toss in controversial statements without offering much in the way of arguments for them. Like, say, "It should be noted that the people of Germanica were some of the best breeders in the Ancient world, their horses were the largest in Europe!"...
Now who was that again ?
I'd say it were entirely within my civil rights to contest the point, among others.



- the overhand grip gives a much harder thrust, as you cooperate with gravity, and can also (optionally) use a rotating move of your upper body to reinforce itWhile I freely agree with the bit about gravity (there's good reasons why some of the most powerful striking techniques have always been vertically descending), I feel like I should point out that "stepping" behind a strike is a virtually universal method of adding power to an attack, and in no way the sole purview of any one technique. Indeed AFAIK the use of changes in body position, balance, footwork etc. are central tenets in combat training, for merely the muscles of your arm and shoulder cannot really generate too much power output. This is as true for a sword-thrust as for the blow of an axe as for the stab of a spear, regardless of how exactly it is now held.


- he claims the overhand grip can't reach the feet and is thus inferior. However, he disregards the fact that an underhand grip can hardly reach the face. He also forgets how shields are used. A quick thrust towards the head is a very effective opening move of a spear duel, as it forces the opponent to raise the shield over his own face, thus temporarily blocking his vision. He must lean sideways and/or many other complex moves to be able to simultaneously block and retain his vision, but he will then lose balance etc. This effective opening move can't be done very effectively in overhand grip.As mentioned already, a "high" shoulder-height stance with the underhand grip isn't going to have any trouble worrying the face - and indeed if the other guy is lurking behind a big shield as well, there won't be too many other targets fot you to aim for anyway... Caracatos' Indo-Hellenic noble hoplite drawing (https://img522.imageshack.us/my.php?image=caratacosindogreeknobilfv8.jpg) demonstrates this stance readily enough, methinks. :yes:

Anyway, in a hoplite-hoplite (or equivalent) fight I'd say the issues of the overhand grip about legs is a valid one; although not because of any considerations of reach. Odds are the other guy's shield is simply going to be more or less squarely in the way, completely obscuring the upper legs, and not only is only a slight movement of it going to be required to deflect a downward stab at whatever little of the leading lower leg might be exposed, but due to the rather acute angle of attack the odds of the spear getting through any greave worn ought to be about nil...

I do understand that if they could by hook or by crook get the shield out of the way hoplites would happily stab others in the thigh or the groin, however. As these would be around the most readily accessible and vulnerable areas not covered by much of any kind of armour (except perhaps pteruges, or those bronze thigh-bands that were sometimes used at certain periods), this would only seem to be sensible.


- the underhand grip is effective for long pikes that can't be manouvered and thrusted too quickly anyway, and in wide open terrain. With shorter spears and rougher terrain, the overhand grip is more efficient as it doesn't rely on too strict formations. It's much easier to sweep aside an underhand spear, so unless they are long enough and enough spearpoints point past the first rank, the first man will be reached by the opponent rather easily by just sweeping aside 2 or 3 spearpoints which are difficult, in an underhand grip, to move back again.Personally I'm suspecting you're selling the underhand much too short here. Not having had much (read as "any") practical experience with either I can't vouch for personal experience of course, but I would imagine underhand would not have been so extremely widely used, even with relatively short spears, if it had as many shortcomings as you claim.

I would rather assume warriors and soldiers most of the time simply used both side by side to adapt their spears to different tactical situations in the fluid chaos of battle; pictorial evidence at least would seem to suggest the overhand went particularly well with the method of combat and war gear the hoplites employed, but there is not all that much reason to make overly sweeping generalisations based on that methinks.


I think overhand would be favored in difficult terrain and with shorter spears, whereas underhand would be used more by anti-cavalry fighting and longer pikes.Uh - wasn't the 2.5m doru pretty much at the top lenght limit of long one-handed fighting-spears, and chiefly used in pitched battles in open terrain...? :thinking:

[NeoSpartan]

Nuts.
Pfiffle.
Absolute golly-waffle.

NeoSpartan, evolution is the progressive change of -anything- over -any- period of time.
This means I could be talking about how we evolved over millions of years and became more intelligent.
Or it could mean that my skills of playing guitar, in the space of a week, evolved dramatically to a very high level (No, I gave up playing guitar a little while ago, too many other interests!).
Or, it could more relevantly mean that I am talking of the ability of a human being, born into whatever lifestyle of existence they may meet with, and their physical, spiritual, and mental states EVOLVING to allow survival in that given life.
This does give people incredible strength, as life, though precious, is persistant and provides what is neccessary- not what is wanted.
And ample stomachs, and minds without the fret of famine- are not neccessary.

.....
I see what ur saying... but I gotta tell you, you are mixing and expanding the meaning of Evolution way beyond what it is. Thereby creating confusion.

You see when you talk about Human Evolution you talk about going from ape to man. But when you use the term Evolution to talk about men getting used to something then you throw people off. Because it seems as if you are saying that traits gained during life through expirience are passed on to the next generation. And that is just wrong.

U may like the word and thats why u use it a lot, I like it too, but check it otherwise people won't take it seriously.

Here are a few tips:
-IF you are going to use the term Evolution adhere to its biological defition.
-When u talk about skills in playing the guitar. Its called "improving" ur skills.
-When you tak about people living in a certain environment call it "getting used to", "accomodating", "learning".

[Rodion Romanovich]

A true pike needs two hands anyway, making the distinction somewhat moot. I know they were used at both waist/chest and shoulder level in the Middle Ages and later, incidentally.

The underarm grip ought to reach the face just fine at shoulder height, too.
What I'm arguing is that a pure underhand usage would be beaten by a flexible use of both, for the reasons mentioned above, and that the link, who argues that overhand grip is ridiculous, is himself more ridiculous than a gaesatae who got his **** chopped off.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Then please use wording that doesn't make it sound like you're claiming the Germans were the best horse breeders around period. Like, say, "It should be noted that the people of Germanica were some of the best breeders in the Ancient world, their horses were the largest in Europe!" :stare:

Germanic and Nordic horses were not particularly good for Medieval fighting styles, but they were well known to be very large. Such horses were probably sturdier than thinner horses with less fur, and my guess is they were superior to most other horses at fighting in wooden terrain, in a more man-to-man style than a charge style. This is probably why roman cavalry had such trouble dealing with Germanic cavalry that, on the paper, would be slaughtered in the open.



...did it at some point occur to you that they might sort of have imported higher-class blood stock to improve on the local strains ? Just wonderin'... we did that a long time here in Finland - steppe stock traded from the Russians was one of the major reasons our horse stock was markedly above that of the geographically essentially identical Sweden.
Warhorses were of great value, and sufficiently organized societies developed elaborate infrastructures to raising, maintaining and breeding them. These duly required fairly elaborate arrangements to be financially possible.

This is by far the most entertaining take on racism discussion I've ever seen... Just face it Watchman: whether you accept it or not the German horses are the master horse race :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :wall:



And don't try to lecture me on German geography and the forms of ecology applicable there, I live in the about exact same Northern Coniferous Zone.

Finland is a completely different climate zone than modern Germany, I'm afraid. Whereas Finland has mostly pines, Germany has more leaf trees, and very different agricultural conditions. Climate data from these periods of history may show a different situation back then however.



I'm not saying the Germans were too simple-minded to understand the breeding of domestic animals (which they, too, had also had since the Stone Age anyway...); I'm saying their relatively undifferentiated social organisation and economy were too simple to sustain large-scale horse breeding for military use. There's solid reasons why their military backbone was tribal infantry you know.
[...]
The Romans knew their horses well enough. They *also* knew perfectly well their part of Italy, like most of the Mediterranean region, was starkly ill-suited for raising the beasts at least without incurring enormous expenses; little different from most of Greece for example. Which is why they sensibly enough "farmed out" cavalry duty to others, preferably from regions better suited for raising horses and therefore with more people with practical experience with the animals.

Back in those days, inbreeding was probably a known concept, but not as well researched as today. I'd guess a lot of "more civilized" cultures would try to pressure their breeding traits harder and end up with more sick and unstable horses after a few generations. It's no surprise that some of the best horses in Europe today, disregarding the excellent horses stemming from steppe breeds, are from the Asturians, who had probably lesser pressure in their breeding process, and thus less inbreeding. It's for the same reason that mustangs are today often captured and trained for riding: many old horse breeds which have been too "refined" are inbred (or have exactly the traits the breeder wanted, but it turned out that what the breeder wanted was a very bad idea) and have a lot of medical problems (for instance they weigh about twice as much as most natural breeds, but their capability in joints and skeleton of supporting this weight has not improved as much).



As mentioned already, a "high" shoulder-height stance with the underhand grip isn't going to have any trouble worrying the face - and indeed if the other guy is lurking behind a big shield as well, there won't be too many other targets fot you to aim for anyway... Caracatos' Indo-Hellenic noble hoplite drawing (https://img522.imageshack.us/my.php?image=caratacosindogreeknobilfv8.jpg) demonstrates this stance readily enough, methinks. :yes:

But the high underhand grip gives one of the weakest, slowest, and least controlled thrusts you can ever make, since you have difficulties using anything except your pectoralis major and triceps to build up force. Another note on the overhand ability to use the rest of the body: unlike most underhand moves, the overhand thrust can be supported by a late full-body move, which means you can initiate the thrust faster. If any of the underhand moves are to be supported by the body, you must initiate that move earlier, thus revealing your intention. Additionally, the laws of torque clearly explain why its advantageous, when using the entire body to support a thrust, to have the spear in a high position.

Note that the argument I'm making isn't that underhand grip is useless, but that the linked writer is talking BS when implying that overhand was fantasy or always inferior.



Anyway, in a hoplite-hoplite (or equivalent) fight I'd say the issues of the overhand grip about legs is a valid one; although not because of any considerations of reach. Odds are the other guy's shield is simply going to be more or less squarely in the way, completely obscuring the upper legs, and not only is only a slight movement of it going to be required to deflect a downward stab at whatever little of the leading lower leg might be exposed, but due to the rather acute angle of attack the odds of the spear getting through any greave worn ought to be about nil...

This is why you start in an overhand position, to force the enemy shield upwards by feigned thrusts, followed by lower, underhand thrusts. Moreover, by constantly forcing your opponent's shield upwards, he will get tired. Holding a spear high is not nearly as tiresome as holding a heavy shield high, even if the shield is very light. It is immensely demoralizing, tiring and thus effective in prolonged engagements. My guess is that the major factor in fighting in the lines back then was to defend yourself against weak, feigned thrusts for a very long time until either side won the fatigue game and thrusted. This makes sense considering the length (in time) of battles, coupled with the usually quite low casualty percentages.



Personally I'm suspecting you're selling the underhand much too short here. Not having had much (read as "any") practical experience with either I can't vouch for personal experience of course, but I would imagine underhand would not have been so extremely widely used, even with relatively short spears, if it had as many shortcomings as you claim.

I'm not claiming it had too many shortcomings to be useful. On the contrary, I'm countering the linked guy's claim that overhand grip is fantasy, which I assume you - being a historian - should be able to denounce as well.



Uh - wasn't the 2.5m doru pretty much at the top lenght limit of long one-handed fighting-spears, and chiefly used in pitched battles in open terrain...? :thinking:
Uh - weren't the sarissas almost worthless in extremely forested and rough terrain?

[Watchman]

Germanic and Nordic horses were not particularly good for Medieval fighting styles, but they were well known to be very large.Then the quality must have collapsed sometime early in the Early Modern period, for in the first Swedish battles of the Thirty Years' War eyewitness accounts don't fail to remark on the small size and general low quality of their cavalry horses. Those were, indeed, at a noticeable disadvantage against the big warhorses of the Germans (of old Medieval charger lineage no doubt) even if the more aggressive "Gustavian" tactics made up for it, and were replaced by the better local stock ASAP - and not just to make up for attrition.

Cavalry was never a very central arm in Scandinavian warfare anyway; the signally poor conditions for horse breeding, relative poverty and abundant "close" terrain advantageous to infantry and restrictive of mobility conspired to make it something of a support arm, even at the heyday of feudal cavalry. Indeed Swedish knights at least apparently often acted more as elite mounted infantry than heavy cavalry. Germany was in this regard at least sufficiently closer to, say, France geographically that systematic large-scale warhorse breeding could be organized once social and economical developement allowed (which probably amounts to "around Charlemagne at earliest"...), and far as I know the mounts of German knights competed equally with those of other European realms. I seem to recall seeing it occasionally mentioned they were on the average much more ready to dismount and fight as heavy infantry than their peers elsewhere though; probably just due to the abundance of forests.

Such horses were probably sturdier than thinner horses with less fur, and my guess is they were superior to most other horses at fighting in wooden terrain, in a more man-to-man style than a charge style.Horses that have spent most of their lives negotiating forest terrain can hardly be but at advantage in such terrain against ones that haven't. Goes for any difficult ground really and applies to humans equally, and the detail turns up often enough in other instances too.


Finland is a completely different climate zone than modern Germany, I'm afraid. Whereas Finland has mostly pines, Germany has more leaf trees, and very different agricultural conditions. Climate data from these periods of history may show a different situation back then however.They do share enough traits of the Northern Forest Belt though - densely wooded (at least before humans did something about that), not all that well suited for agriculture (the fertile heavy clay soil regions could only began to be cultivated with the advent of the iron swing-plough in Medieval times), for much of their history fairly sparsely inhabited, sort of cold in winter (albeit due to the influence of the Gulf Stream not nearly so as they could be)... you get the idea. The basics are similar enough.


I'd guess a lot of "more civilized" cultures would try to pressure their breeding traits harder and end up with more sick and unstable horses after a few generations. It's no surprise that some of the best horses in Europe today, disregarding the excellent horses stemming from steppe breeds, are from the Asturians, who had probably lesser pressure in their breeding process, and thus less inbreeding. It's for the same reason that mustangs are today often captured and trained for riding: many old horse breeds which have been too "refined" are inbred (or have exactly the traits the breeder wanted, but it turned out that what the breeder wanted was a very bad idea) and have a lot of medical problems (for instance they weigh about twice as much as most natural breeds, but their capability in joints and skeleton of supporting this weight has not improved as much).Isn't that a typical issue with any domestic animals specifically bred for certain traits over a long period ? You get it a lot with dogs too. Too much emphasis on certain thing leads to probably a little too small genetic variance in the population, and more importantly any weird "linked" problems get emphasized on the side - nevermind now that what's being bred for may also actually be more or less unsuited for the animal's base physique to begin with. Certainly the introduction of "fresh blood" should improve matters in such situations.

As the Mediterranean peoples could import stock from all around the sea with relative ease they should have had it relatively easy delaing with the matter though. Odds are they at least had a hunch of the "working basics", even if the whole thing was really a bit of a "black box" for them - after all humans had been selectively breeding plants and animals alike for millenia already.

I suspect a bigger problem was probably the relatively small horse populations sedentary civilizations can support in the first place, combined with the over-emphasizing of certain traits in the selection leading to the aforementioned issues.


Note that the argument I'm making isn't that underhand grip is useless, but that the linked writer is talking BS when implying that overhand was fantasy or always inferior.
---
I'm not claiming it had too many shortcomings to be useful. On the contrary, I'm countering the linked guy's claim that overhand grip is fantasy, which I assume you - being a historian - should be able to denounce as well.No problem with that otherwise, but let's not do it in a fashion that goes too far to the other end shall we ? It's usually not a good idea to talk in absolutes, and surely the viablity of either grip can be logically demonstrated without unnecessarily smearing the other.
That the guy in the link talks out of his derriere doesn't mean you should do the same mistakes, right ? :yes:

It's sort of like long vs. short sword, and cutting vs. thrusting sword (esp. for cavalry); both are perfectly good, but for somewhat different things and circumstances.

As an aside I'm no historian, just a hobbyist. I guess it can be considered flattering if people take me for one though... :sweatdrop:


Uh - weren't the sarissas almost worthless in extremely forested and rough terrain?*shrug* Close-order infantry tended not be too hot there anyway, and ones with big tools that got caught up in the foliage doubly so. Hoplites didn't exactly rock there either, even if they did better than pikemen, now did they ? Even today armies tend to have "light infantry" trained to handle such terrain.
Dunno really what that has to do with the way I was pointing out a certain somewhat obvious issue in Legio's hypothesis though.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Then the quality must have collapsed sometime early in the Early Modern period, for in the first Swedish battles of the Thirty Years' War eyewitness accounts don't fail to remark on the small size and general low quality of their cavalry horses.

http://www.acc.umu.se/~wschedin/horses/horse-16.jpg
http://www.fjord-horse.co.uk/1-Kamilla,%202%5B1%5D.%20pr.-3%20edges.jpg
Their smaller horses probably came from introducing faster, more southern horses to be able to form a normal cavalry force. What I'm suggesting could be a possibility (but not a necessity) is that the Germanic tribes could have used rough, sturdy horses like those in the pictures above in warfare - it's not entirely impossible. Such mounts would probably be excellent in difficult terrain where charges are impossible, even if they are pretty much worthless in open terrain. The Asturian horses were probably similarly superior in mountain terrain. In the viking age, such horses as those above were mostly used for working, and to ride to battle (then dismounting), but it's not entirely impossible the Germanic tribes had something in between this type and the lighter southern horses at the time of EB.



I suspect a bigger problem was probably the relatively small horse populations sedentary civilizations can support in the first place, combined with the over-emphasizing of certain traits in the selection leading to the aforementioned issues.

Size of population isn't really very important with inbreeding. You can have 500 humans in a herd and they will not become inbred, but 100,000 humans in modern living conditions and they will inbreed, even with immigration etc. providing "fresh blood" (in fact many scientists claim the X and Y chromosomes are both getting inbred almost all over the world). The lack of "breeding facilities" was rather than a disadvantage, an advantage to many "barbarians". The best horses today are the Arab horses and those coming from steppe horses, where these conditions were met: 1. the horses most likely weren't too heavily bred, 2. they are, if you look at their current traits, more similar to the original wild horses than most overbred horses are, and 3. their populations were large. Having "advanced breeding facilities" wouldn't necessarily constitute an advantage among breeders too eager to make short term profit out of mounts fulfilling the specified traits, even if they would be inbred by the next generation.



No problem with that otherwise, but let's not do it in a fashion that goes too far to the other end shall we ? It's usually not a good idea to talk in absolutes, and surely the viablity of either grip can be logically demonstrated without unnecessarily smearing the other.

The arguments pro underhand have already been given if I'm not mistaken, but here are some of them again:
1. a more robust although more static formation, especially with longer spears, and allows you to easier compress the formation with 2nd row (and 3rd etc) coming a bit closer to the 1st.
2. not as heavy to maintain the grip for a long period of time, provided the enemy doesn't have a capability of forcing up your shield a lot
3. easier for less trained levies to learn, and effective for defense against an enemy charge, until they get close and past the first spearpoints. Especially the hand part of the grip in overhand fighting can probably be difficult to master.
4. better for taking on cavalry, obviously

[Watchman]

Isn't horse size, like human, greatly affected by diet ? If I'm not entirely mistaken you need to feed the beasties a fair bit of cereals if you want them to grow big and strong (which has the unpleasant side effect of leaving them incapable on surviving on grass alone for extended periods I understand). I'm just suspecting the Germans of Antiquity might not have been able to afford the expense incurred, and moreover would probably not even seen a need to in the first place as small tough horses work quite well in rough terrain.


What I'm suggesting could be a possibility (but not a necessity) is that the Germanic tribes could have used rough, sturdy horses like those in the pictures above in warfare - it's not entirely impossible. Such mounts would probably be excellent in difficult terrain where charges are impossible, even if they are pretty much worthless in open terrain. The Asturian horses were probably similarly superior in mountain terrain.This is perfectly possible, if not downright likely. I understand the situation was similar in Ireland around the Early Modern period; the local horses were rather small and not very strong, but robust and tough and startlingly capable of navigating the forests there. Should native Irish cavalry be unfortunate enough to have to fight English horse, mounted on rather larger and more powerful animals, in open terrain their about best bet was to get the Hell out of Dodge ASAP if they didn't want to get blown away (the much heavier war gear of even light English horse didn't help). But for raiding and skirmishing through the forests and swamps they were easily superior, and still faster moving than an infantryman - indeed, Englishmen who settled "beyond the pale" (ie. outside the areas more or less securely in English control) nigh invariably soon adopted local cavalry techniques and mounts, to the degree that they apparently sometimes even abandoned stirrups.

The ancient Germans, similarly indulgent raiders in a very rugged and forested land with limited organizational and economical resources, could well have followed the same pattern. That one tends to pop up in in some form wherever such circumstances occur.

I understand the Bretons were around the late Carolingian and Early Medieval periods also famous for the way their cavalry could navigate forests, although their horses were probably more akin to the common warhorse types.

[Watchman]

Size of population isn't really very important with inbreeding.I was thinking more in terms of the size of the total population through which the desired traits and associated genetic muckety-muckery is spread by the selective breeding being relatively small. And with selective breeding you want the parents with the desired traits to have as many offspring as possible, and then repeat the pattern with the offspring with suitable traits paired with suitable mates etc., potentially leading to relatively few heredity makeups becoming very common in the population and hence the gene pool becoming shallow, right ? On top of whatever unwanted complications the thoroughbred traits themselves may come with.

As settled societies cannot maintain very large horse populations out of ecological necessities, it would follow that the inbreeding issues might start kicking in comparatively fast due to the relatively small gene pools becoming dominated by a small number of genetic patterns.


The lack of "breeding facilities" was rather than a disadvantage, an advantage to many "barbarians".Only if they had reasonably large amounts of essentially free-roaming horses I'd think. After all, living in the middle of an environment ill suited for horses ought to lead the animals being scattered far and wide, where there are people who can keep them - but likely only a few each. Unless some care and effort is taken to avoid inbreeding it could butt in rather soon in such circumstances - the same way small and isolated communities scattered over a large area and with little population echange quickly develop problems. I've no idea of the exact pattern of ancient German horse ownership, but one would imagine they could have some trouble with this issue given their widely scattered populations, somewhat poor communications and the rarity of people capable of footing the bill of owning a horse.


The best horses today are the Arab horses and those coming from steppe horses, where these conditions were met: 1. the horses most likely weren't too heavily bred, 2. they are, if you look at their current traits, more similar to the original wild horses than most overbred horses are, and 3. their populations were large.But isn't that to a large part because those breeds live in environments where they can be relatively easily maintained with relatively little investement ? Particularly in the case of the steppe region, as much the natural haunt of the horse as you can get.
One is reminded of Braudel's observation in The Mediterranean that the Christian part of the Med always had abundant people but too few horses for its needs, whereas the Muslim part had too few people but as many horses as it could find use for...

[Cyclops]

I find the 4 hoplites site very convincing.

On the question of fitness and sustained performance, well agricultural workers used to a hoe, or a pruning hook, could probably wield a spear for longer than a 21st century desk jockey like me.

I suspect before the car and mechanized agriculture that the scrawny little farmers were very tough nuts. Looking at factory workers in the 19th century I am appalled at the hours and intense labour demanded. Looking at the descriptions of rowers in triremes makes me sick: I read of a re-encatment where they used university level rowers and they couldn't keep pace after 5 minutes. They used unsustainable amounts of water just staying hydrated. Apparently the worst part was the smell below decks.

Ancient rowers were a class above in terms of sustained punishing performance. Apprently they were usually proffessionals: galley slaves were more a feature of the early modern Mediterranean Galley, and as likely to serve a christian as a muslim captain. Of course if the modern boys spent their entire lives at the jobs and didn't mind the high attrition rate I'm sure they could match that performance.

I think the demands placed on pre-modern bodies was why they died like flies, caught plagues all the time and took up jobs like pirate and naked beserker so readily. I also think they were genuinely tough because their enviroment and lifestyle made them tough. I suspect I am very soft by ancient standards.

On ancient german horses: they must have been mighty rare because most of modern Germany was forest and swamp, or so ancient history books, paleobotanists and Tacitus keep telling me. My knowledge is limited of course, but never have I heard of German horses ranked with Spanish, persian or Arab. I believe the Hapsburgs imported Spanish horses beause germans were inferior.

Perhaps ancient German "cavalry" rode Shrieking Women into battle? I have heard Hengist invaded England with his wife (or Horsa).:clown: