Did the Macedonians use the phalanx underarm or overhead or both?

And the Greeks too?

I think the Macedonian sarissa was mostly underarm, because of it's weight and length. The greek phalanx was most certainly mainly overarm, because of the superior thrust power and speed it gives, especially with short spears. Overhand grip with high aim can also force the opponent to raise the shield so he can barely see anything, then you can quickly stab low. Underhand can seldom threaten the upper parts of the body, and you never need to block your own face and vision to block an underhand thrust. But with a long enough sarissa, the pike will be almost vertical even if you aim high with underhand grip, which gives good reach also for higher parts of the opponent such as the head, which can almost as effectively as short spear with overarm grip threaten the face etc. Most archaeological evidence also confirms that overhand was more common when short spears were used, while the macedonian phalanx was underhand.

thanks thats all i need!

The classical hoplite soldiers from the Greek cities like Athens, Sparta etc. probably wielded their spears overhand. Basicly the hoplite phalanx was so tightly packed that their huge shields overlapped eachother for maximum protection.
Now, if you tried to use your spear underhand, you'd risk stabbing your comrades behind you (as Greek spears had sharp points on both ends) therefore it is far more likely that they lifted their spears above shoulders. Angled slightly down forward (and up behind), you can wield your spear freely without stabbing the guy behind you.
This applies to hoplites up and until the 5th century BC. Possibly, after that hoplites started using longer spears that were used underhand, the so-called Iphicrathian hoplite, think about the hoplites in RTW. Wether this fighting style actually existed, or if hoplites still fought in the way described above is still a matter of debate.

The Macedonians under Philip II and onwards used the sarissa, a 5-6 metre long pike, so large it must be wielded with 2 hands, obviously underhand (try to do an overhand, 2 handed grip on a pole and you'll see what I mean)

Sarissa was deffinetly underarm. Otherwise it would be way too heavy.:2thumbsup:

Kralizec

Quote:

---

The classical hoplite soldiers from the Greek cities like Athens, Sparta etc. probably wielded their spears overhand. Basicly the hoplite phalanx was so tightly packed that their huge shields overlapped eachother for maximum protection.

---

Not necessarily always so tightly packed. Rather than invent mythical Iphicrathian hoplites why not simply allow that hoplites did not always necessary fight in a dense shield wall. Sometimes hoplites even threw their spears, and sometimes an individual soldiers no doubt used an under arm thrust (particularly if their spear head had been snapped off and they were using the butt spike of their spear).

Ditto what Conon said... although he's still in permanent denial regarding the Iphikratians ~D

But I'd partly agree that the Iphikratian hoplite is a myth... although the Iphikratian peltast is not

To the “last ship and the last man…” Rosacrux redux , they will have to pry my keyboard out of my cold, dead hands (or find a 4th century Athenian inscription that suggests new or longer spears… or a fragment of the Oxyrhynchus Historian to the same effect) before I’ll admit defeat about the Iphicrathian hoplites.

So yes, in denial and proud of it.:wall:

Good point about the peltasts thought, I am certainly willing to accept that Iphicrates was a pioneer in using less-than hoplite infantry/but not light infantry. But even in his most famous battle he needed hoplites to make his plans work…

Good old Conon, true to his reputation. But I think even contemporary material evidence does not suggest that the Athenian hoplites have been revamped by Iphikrates... although there's still this nice little theory about the epivates :laugh4:

And I would daresay his reforms were aimed at making the Peltast more worth in pitched battles, rather than downgrading the hoplites to heavy semi-skirmishers.

Take a look at the length of those spears.

https://img49.imageshack.us/img49/3276/falanx9uz.jpg

:thinking: Do you think it might be just a little bit difficult to hold that overhand?

(No offense. I just find the image of someone struggling to hold a 6-meter pike overhand funny. :sweatdrop: :laugh4:)

Eh, pikes can be held 'overhand', no problem. You just still need two hands for it tho'. The further ranks of Medieval and Early Modern pikemen apparently pretty commonly held their pikes at shoulder level in a sort-of overhand grip, particularly in that nasty braced anti-cavalry formation.

Everything I've ever heard about the Hellenic phalangites suggests they never did, though. Those shield-thingamabobs they had might've had something to do with it.

Sure you can, but holding it overhand during battle requires more stamina. With shorter spears you can at least lay them on the layer of shields, on your own or those in front of you.
And I fail to see what the benefit of holding a pike overhand would be...?

If the unit's in the triple-rank anti-cavalry brace - you know, the first rank crouching and so on - then apparently considerable. I understand the third rank raised theirs that high to create a kind of "N on its side" of pikes when viewed from the side. Good luck getting through that thicket with a horse.
:shrug:
In any case, those funky engravings and suchlike from the period, particularly the training-manual types, often feature some pikemen holding their poles at shoulder height. Presumably they knew what they were doing.

Hmmm. If a nation that was fighting a unit with a phalanx had some conficts that were going to be killed anyway, why not use those men to jump on the sarissa's therefore rendering them prettymuch useless. They would die with honor as well as helping the other army very much!

Did you know that in ancient China the generals used a form of psychological warfare like this. The conficts would run in front of the enemy army, stop, then stab themselves or cut their own throats in front of the enemy. Usually the enemy was so disgruntled they left the field of battle.:sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon

Hmmm. If a nation that was fighting a unit with a phalanx had some conficts that were going to be killed anyway, why not use those men to jump on the sarissa's therefore rendering them prettymuch useless. They would die with honor as well as helping the other army very much!

---

Yeah, you try getting a bunch of untrained peasents to do something like that. Not to mention peasents who have been "levied" from various provinces in your empire that have no ties to you, culturally or otherwise. Kinda difficult. And if you actually trained troops to do something like that... wouldn't that be a waste of training? Why not train them how to effectively counter the phalanx, instead of just running up to it and turning it into a giant siskabob?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zorba

Yeah, you try getting a bunch of untrained peasents to do something like that. Not to mention peasents who have been "levied" from various provinces in your empire that have no ties to you, culturally or otherwise. Kinda difficult. And if you actually trained troops to do something like that... wouldn't that be a waste of training? Why not train them how to effectively counter the phalanx, instead of just running up to it and turning it into a giant siskabob?

---

Well, you threaten them with torturous unhonorable deaths because they're convicts, not just peasant folk. They're supposed to die anyway!:dizzy2:

I didn't say it'd be the best idea, just an idea.:sweatdrop:

:skull:

Well, that's wierd... I have been sort of a smartass in this thread... I dunno why. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zorba

Well, that's wierd... I have been sort of a smartass in this thread... I dunno why. :shrug:

---

Ancient history, good friend!:2thumbsup:

Did you read what the Chinese did for psychological warfare?

Quote:

---

Did you know that in ancient China the generals used a form of psychological warfare like this. The conficts would run in front of the enemy army, stop, then stab themselves or cut their own throats in front of the enemy. Usually the enemy was so disgruntled they left the field of battle.:sweatdrop:

---