Question About Hoplites

Ive downloaded Europa Barbarorum today, installed and shockingly when i enter the game as the helenistic greeks i find hoplite spearmen with illogical positioned spears (holding them over the head), is this like some random glitch or were people oddly muscled enough to acctualy hold spears above their heads whilst having sheilds on (the shields could be used to brace the spears and prevent the majority of movement).. slightly mystifying because ive trained with a staff spear with my ninjitsu master, and i can use a spear quite proficiently. the spear would be almost impossible to use unless you were using two hands with the left (or right) hand supporting slightly towards the spear head and the right hand (or left depending on if your kaky handed) holding closer to the end of the spear.

just a random question, because it is utterly illogical to hold a spear over your head simply because of the depth perception problems, But hey odd things work sometimes if trained enough, like that lady that can pop her eyes out a massive distance


-Regards - psp

Oh my. Another katana blonker.

Asian martial arts rule. Katanas are totally the best sword ever. We get it. Move along.

Do a search of the forum, there have been quite a few threads on this topic. From what I can gather on a subject I know little about it seems you can either believe that as modern re-enactors find it difficult to use a spear overarm ancient hoplites couldn't have fought that way, or you can accept the huge amount of ancient art that shows hoplites using spears in an overarm fashion. Not really too much to think about in my view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

Oh my. Another katana blonker.

Asian martial arts rule. Katanas are totally the best sword ever. We get it. Move along.

---

did i say that katanas rule? NO, i dislike katanas especially.... katana's were the weapons that millions of japanese people killed each other with...by far not the perfect weapon if you asked me. i was meerly asking wether it is acctualy possible and considering i have studied staff/spear it just seemed a bad way to use a weapon. but if you would like to go on assuming that your preconcieved idea that people that like the katana as a weapon are foolhardy, then by all means do it somewhere else, especially in a topic where im meerly asking a question.

anyway thanks john
i just didnt think it would work but ill have to investigate it more.
(btw i dont spend all of my time looking at the huge ammounts of ancient art)

The point is that all the actual evidence in art, statuary and writing point to the overarm stance as being prevalent. This is why the EB team, with their emphasis on historical accuracy, decided to implement the overarm animation for hoplites. The game engine is limited and can never be a totally accurate model of the real world, so while it may be true, as has been pointed out a gazillion trillion times in other threads, that under-arm grips may also have been used at times, the team feels (I don't speak for them, just paraphrasing) that they have done the best that one could do.

Modern re-enactments may be fun for everyone involved but do not ever prove anything about what actually happened. At the very utmost they can prove what would have been possible- a very different coloured kettle of sea-horses.

I just love mixed metaphors. Also, the katana blonker poster shouldn't have been so sarcastic. Your original post was not rude and you seem truly interested. But there have been a gazillion very repetitive threads on this issue.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...%3Den%26sa%3DN

ahhh =D thanks oudysseos, i think ill research it a bit to get the fundamentals right about it. =D and i wasnt really refering to modern re enactments but thats all good. and i am in no way attacking at the team of europa barbarorum... its an excellent mod, i guess it just looks a little odd with the game engine =D but thats a given as most things look a little odd in rtw most of the time lol. (once i had upside down samnite mercs in vanilla O.o)

Hoplites fought in a tight formation with overlaping shields, the 2 ranks in the front did most of the fighting while the 6 ranks behind pushed men the men front. (The other side is doing the same). So there is really no room to hold spear at waist level, as u can easely hit the guy behind u, and try to use it like u speak off. UNLESS the men break formation.

Also, the Dori was weighted so the balance point would be farther back, that way the hoplite could have most of the spear in front of him.

In the game keep your Hoplites with "HOLD" on while they fight and you will see what I mean.

my2cents

I would observe that by the sounds of it the OP has trained in two-handed spear/staff techniques - which, like two-handed swordsmanship, are quite the different beast from one-handed techniques with a shield, nevermind ones for such a specialised tactical system as the hoplite shieldwall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psprpg

did i say that katanas rule? NO, i dislike katanas especially.... katana's were the weapons that millions of japanese people killed each other with...by far not the perfect weapon if you asked me. i was meerly asking wether it is acctualy possible and considering i have studied staff/spear it just seemed a bad way to use a weapon. but if you would like to go on assuming that your preconcieved idea that people that like the katana as a weapon are foolhardy, then by all means do it somewhere else, especially in a topic where im meerly asking a question.

anyway thanks john
i just didnt think it would work but ill have to investigate it more.
(btw i dont spend all of my time looking at the huge ammounts of ancient art)

---

No, you were not asking a question. Your entire first post was built around how this form of Western combat technique which was used for over a millennia was illogical, impossible to use without two hands (what are you even talking about? Spears were used one-handed the majority of the times) and only for people with an odd musculature.

Even if you weren't being somewhat insulting towards the team for representing it in its mod, or towards the millions of people who fought and died in this manner, I think I'm just tired of people who practice Japanese/Chinese/Korean martial arts, thinking they've found the end-all, superior form of combat. I'm especially not fond of Westerners who just throw their entire martial heritage out the window, and proclaim to the heavens just how these weapons and combat forms are superior to everything else.

Reminds me of a time this Kenjutsu master had all his pupils over at an arms convention, and he proudly chopped a pair of bamboos with his katana as the crowd behind and his own students cheered on. At one point these 2 guys, who were fencing with German bastards swords in the background, became somewhat angry. So one of these guys jumps over the fence, approaches the bamboos that were all set up for more chopping, and proceeded to do the same as the Japanese guy and cut through all of them. Did I mention that the bastard swords were dull? Heh, funny, ain't it?

Actually, it would be easy to get use to stabbing with a dori in the over hand style. Practice stabbing like that and you'll get all the endurance you need built up, in those small, rarely trained muscles (there are a lot up in the area connecting the arm to the rest of the body).

I've actually seen something like that Sarcasm. Cept, Katana vs. a Bastard sword. Both were like 3000 dollar swords, the bastard sword broke the Katana after a few blows.



No offense, Sarcasm, but what no weapons martial arts wise are there in the west, besides boxing and wrestling? Now if your including BJJ and Sambo ignore this statement then.

Pankration went pretty far along the road of unarmed striking techniques AFAIK (on top of the usual slew of joint lock, strangling techniques, throws, takedowns etc. pretty much every martial tradition everywhere included pretty much by default, and often in rather advanced forms), and Savate's around as kick-crazy as TKD by what I know of it. Dunno if you can count Capoiera in too.

Europeans seem to generally have preferred to do their killing with weapons though, and grappling techniques achieved most of the rest well enough. Probably had something to do with the blunt fact most "Western" societies until quite recently were armed to the proverbial teeth at every level, regardless of what the matter was supposed to be.

Ah, where's Urnamma when you need him.... He could you tell quite a bit about katana's and how they are not superior to other swords.

Nevermind now this daydreaming: the OP wonders about the practice of overhand spear-fighting. We must keep in mind that there is a small but significant difference between martial arts and martial arts. The one used in combat is to be as effective as possible, and not getting yourself killed. Killing the guy opposing you is totally irrelevant, and besides the point (if you are not convinced, I sugges tot try and find statistics of how many soldiers actually aimed during WO2... nevermind now, how many soldiers actually shot...).

The other is more of an art form intent on -basically- showing off how well trained one is...

If we assume both to be the same, then there is also no sense in the Roman fighting techniques: I mean that scutum kinda takes up all the room to manoeuvre. However, since we do not assume this we can easily understand the combination: you hold the scutum frantically in front of you waiting until either the opponent stops stabbing at you or makes a mistake so you can stab at him...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Ah, where's Urnamma when you need him.... He could you tell quite a bit about katana's and how they are not superior to other swords.

---

I can fill in if you need me to - I got a lot of practice at that back when I was still hanging out on the D&D official forums. :beam: And let's just say I wasn't the only well-read hobbyist there either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russia almighty

Actually, it would be easy to get use to stabbing with a dori in the over hand style. Practice stabbing like that and you'll get all the endurance you need built up, in those small, rarely trained muscles (there are a lot up in the area connecting the arm to the rest of the body).

I've actually seen something like that Sarcasm. Cept, Katana vs. a Bastard sword. Both were like 3000 dollar swords, the bastard sword broke the Katana after a few blows.

No offense, Sarcasm, but what no weapons martial arts wise are there in the west, besides boxing and wrestling? Now if your including BJJ and Sambo ignore this statement then.

---

Well first of all you're putting every kind of boxing and wrestling into the same bag, when different regions had different traditions. And I wasn't referring at all to just unarmed martial traditions...staff/spear/polearm fighting techniques in particular were really widespread, and for just two quick examples you have the Jogo Do Pau right here in Portugal or the Bata in Ireland.

I'm staying out of the western-eastern combat techniques debate that appears to be arising here,but IMO the two seperate techniques were developed because they both worked.

As far as the hoplite question,I'm inclined to accept the archeological evidence for dorata being wielded overhand. It just seems like common sense to use it in that manner. I know I wouldn't want that nasty buttspike rammed into my gut or groin.

Besides,classical hoplites just seem to fight better in the overhand style,plus they can charge and seem (at least to me) somewhat more tactically flexible (and Hypaspistai aren't needed to guard the right flank,leaving room for siege artillery!)

People sooooo miss the point. I'm not saying Eastern techniques didn't work. I'm saying Western techniques were just as effective in their own context.

Is there really an argument about this? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

People sooooo miss the point. I'm not saying Eastern techniques didn't work. I'm saying Western techniques were just as effective in their own context.

---

That's what I said,just worded slightly differently. Both one- and two-handed techniques were adopted because they both work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dhampir

Is there really an argument about this? :inquisitive:

---

Maybe 'debate' would have been a better word.

Mortal combat is a Darwinian enough hobby that techniques, weapons etc. that are no good tend to, well, die out pretty fast. Usually with their adherents too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Mortal combat is a Darwinian enough hobby that techniques, weapons etc. that are no good tend to, well, die out pretty fast. Usually with their adherents too.

---

Valid point.

http://www.lloydianaspects.co.uk/weapons/spear.html

Quote:

---

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

---

The OP here had a valid point, and all I see addressing it are a bunch of mindless parrots claiming a "huge amount of ancient art" they've never personally looked at as corroborating evidence. The sense I get is that you all think "it's right because that's how the EB devs did it".

Yeah, like most depictions of non-"lancer" cavalry ever... :dizzy2: I also notice the article you linked seems to have some rather peculiar ideas about the "grip points" of spears which do not seem to be given too much in the way of explanation to back them up, but do seem to play a rather central part in the argument being made...
:inquisitive:
I daresay that smacks of bad form, if not outright bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fjkwgv43

http://www.lloydianaspects.co.uk/weapons/spear.html



The OP here had a valid point, and all I see addressing it are a bunch of mindless parrots claiming a "huge amount of ancient art" they've never personally looked at as corroborating evidence. The sense I get is that you all think "it's right because that's how the EB devs did it".

---

:wall:

now you have done it..... That "author" was brought up a long time ago and it was, how should I say, horribly dismembered.

now please EB, members please, this is NOT the OP. This is another guy, and so take it easy with the fire. Besides it might just be a provocation to start a flame war.

So fellas... again with the flame thrower

:hide:

Every hoplite depicted on vases I've seen fought overhand. And I don't see why overhand spears would add dramatic effect either. Also Logic tells us they used it overhand.

So that's logic+depictions vs. the possiblity they didn't.
In other words you could safely say, they fought overhand.

Well, I've seen a fair few using an "underarm" grip too. At least one which is definitely the ancient equivalent of the Early Modern pikeman's "set to receive horse" stance, and another of a (presumably Spartan) hoplite downing a sword-wielding Persian archer by what looks a lot like a thrust under the shoulder-piece of the latter's linothorax.

But the overarm seems to particularly dominate scenes associated with mass combat, and quite logically so given the way the hoplite phalanx seems to have worked.

Moreover, the OP's argument about "dramatic effect" is kinda dodgy. This was art made for the very people who quite often enough fought that way and regularly enough trained for it; much like with Medieval religious iconography (which quite faithfully reproduces period war gear as well as a lot of the fighting stances known from Fechtbuchs and other surviving sources on the practicalities of combat, to the degree that one of the high wards has been sometimes dubbed "the St. George Guard" due to its prevalence in depictions of the saint...), the target audience well familiar with the nitty-gritty of the action depicted is unlikely to have appreciated half-assed if not outright flawed depictions of the subject.

At the end of the day Hoplites fought with locked shields, if you actually think about it just under two thirds over every man's shield was in contact with the shields to left and right. How would you get a spear under that? It's a litteral wall of bronze.

On the other hand, in looser formations we get the underarm versian as often as not.

Okay, first of all, the hoplite spear was called a doru (ΔΟΡΥ, that's delta omicron rho upsilon, and pronounced 'doe-roo), not a dori, so right there anyone calling it a dori automatically doesn't know what they're talking about. Ancient Greek was not pronounced the same as Modern Greek, and upsilon has changed pronunciation between now and then. In Modern Greek, ΔΟΡΥ would indeed best be pronounced "dori". But in Ancient Greek, "dori" would be the dative case of this word, as in for instance ΔΩΡΙΕΙΣ / Dorieis ("Dorian"); tribe of the spear (dative, see?). The usage of omega here instead of omicron represents a shift in pronunciation too. Doe (ΔΟ) vs. daw (ΔΩ). This is another difference between Ancient and Modern Greek. Knowing how to pronounce Modern Greek doesn't give you mystical information about ancient Greek weaponry. Neither does being Greek, for that matter.

Second of all, the doru had a hollow metal spike (ΣΑΥΡΩΤΗΡ) at the butt, which would have been an extreme hazard if the doru had been wielded overhand above the body. In fact, if you're looking to kill your mates behind you and your enemies in equal number, that's a great way to do it.

Not to mention the obvious point about why spears intended to be wielded overhand would even have butt-spikes, which are meant to dig into the ground for added stability. There's no ground above head-level, unless you've already lost.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...try%3D%2393462

http://www.cig-icg.gr/images/Fig.%204.jpg
A sauroter.

http://www.christybeall.com/images/greek_small.jpg
"Look at me, with the slightest jolt to my doru I can quite effectively stab the guy behind me in the face, neck, shoulder, or chest! Go team!"

vs.

http://www.livius.org/a/1/greece/phalanx.jpg
"Look at us, we're not stabbing our buddies! Forward to India!"

Third, the doru was replaced by the sarissa in Macedon, and they otherwise used similar (but admittedly not identical) tactics compared to Greek hoplites. The sarissa is physically too long to wield overhand to any reasonable effect -- due to the leverage and weight distribution of it -- so there can be no dispute whatsoever that pezhetairoi carried their spears exclusively underhanded, even if you want to argue that hoplites did not. The situation of the sarissa is pretty much rock-solid, for a variety of reasons.

http://www.clas.canterbury.ac.nz/gra...sarissa_1b.jpg

Well, if the sarissa was used that way and the doru was not, it represents a severe difference between pezhetairoi and hoplites which is not attested or emphasized in any known text which talks about both (e.g. Polybius), though those texts do list other differences in equipment and tactics.

Fourth, why would the doru and sarissa be wielded overhand when the Macedonian xyston (which was of a size between the doru and sarissa) was typically wielded underhand? The xyston situation implies that even without access to the ground, it's still better to wield the spear underhand, for reasons of control.

http://www.ancientbattles.com/Macedo...ston_large.jpg
http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/He...ginal/d14d.jpg

What about the kamax, the spear that the xyston replaced?

https://img339.imageshack.us/img339/7702/kamaxxc0.png

Here it's wielded overhand. What does that imply? The underhand xyston being more recent than (and a replacement for) the overhand kamax implies that the underhand posture is fundamentally better, and represents an advantageous evolution from the old style. This could be used to suggest that the hoplite attacked overhand and the pezhetairoi attacked underhand, but again, why no contemporary mention of this difference?

Finally, the fact that this point has multiple threads devoted to it already, repeating the same arguments over and over again, doesn't mean the issue is contentious or unresolved. It just means that none of you know what you're talking about, and rather than take personal initiative and do independent research, you'd rather just repeat what other people have said before, when you don't even know where to find the evidence for yourself. That's pretty pathetic, even for a web forum (which is assumed to be pathetic from the start anyway).

This is no more "controversial" than the "argument" between evolution and intelligent design, or between people who believe the moon landings are a hoax and people not on Prozac. Meaning that it's basically a contest between fact and stupidity. I'm going to have to go with fact, since it has a proven reputation for being able to correctly explain things.

Also, just because it needs emphasis:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

Even if you weren't being somewhat insulting towards the team for representing it in its mod, or towards the millions of people who fought and died in this manner

---

That is an extremely over-the-top stupid and contrived accusation, and you pretty much just lost all credibility, forever.

Without getting into scientific and other discussions may I ask why on earth every artist painted hoplites with the spears over their shoulders if nobody used it that way?

Plus I can't imagine how can a man use a 2-meter long spear underarm while he doesn't even have room to move. Macedonian phalanxes were much more loose than the classical ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fjkwgv43

---

---

Aw ferchrissakes. Just go away you bloody fool, and come back when you actually understand what the fig you're talking about.

And have learned some basic debate etiquette.

Just for the record, but you've got to be the first guy to make it onto my personal loathing list with so few posts.

I once asked the same question. I haven't read the whole thread and i'm sure somebody will have already said this but what the hell, i feel like typing.

A lot of ancient artworks show Greek hoplites holding their spears over-arm. I tried it one day with a mop handle, hitting the sofa. Under-arm, you can get a good hard thrust. Over-arm, not so good, so i came here and asked the question you asked.

It's so simple when you think about it though. The ancient Greeks used very large round shields and fought in tight formation, shield-wall, side by side, presenting a wall of shields.

If you hold the shield under-arm you have two big problems. Firstly the guy on the right's shield is going to restrict you from doing anything but a straight-forward thrust. Secondly all you're going to hit with a straight-forward thrust is your enemies shield, over and over and over again.

However! Overarm, your spear is above the man on the right's shield, giving you more room to move it about. Not much more i'll grant you that but more room nonetheless. Also, you can poke over your enemies shield rather than directly into it, and rape your enemies face with your spear.

:smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

A lot of ancient artworks show Greek hoplites holding their spears over-arm. I tried it one day with a mop handle, hitting the sofa. Under-arm, you can get a good hard thrust. Over-arm, not so good, so i came here and asked the question you asked.

---

I tried it with a broom handle on my brother and the over-arm stab-down hurt him more than the under-arm thrust.

Holding a broom isn't really the best way to get a feel for the technique. Short of having an actual balanced spear there's really not much you can do to have the full experience. It really is a comfortable grip, and not at all awkward to use. I dunno where these guys come from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

Holding a broom isn't really the best way to get a feel for the technique. Short of having an actual balanced spear there's really not much you can do to have the full experience. It really is a comfortable grip, and not at all awkward to use. I dunno where these guys come from.

---

I don't have a spear, though. I have a couple of muskets that I can attach bayonets to, but they're really off balance when you hold them over your head.:clown:

I wasn't comparing a broom handle to a spear, i was wondering why, if i could get a better thrust under-arm, did the Greeks use it over-arm.

However, even if i was, a good comparison could actually be made. A spear is a long piece of wood with a pointed piece of metal on each end. A broom handle is a long piece of wood. Both are balanced. The broom can be sharpened at each end to make it a spear. 5,000 men can stand side-by-side presenting a shieldwall using sharpened brooms and would have the same problems if using them underhand as the ancient Greeks would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fjkwgv43

Okay, first of all, the hoplite spear was called a doru (ΔΟΡΥ, that's delta omicron rho upsilon, and pronounced 'doe-roo), not a dori, so right there anyone calling it a dori automatically doesn't know what they're talking about. Ancient Greek was not pronounced the same as Modern Greek, and upsilon has changed pronunciation between now and then. In Modern Greek, ΔΟΡΥ would indeed best be pronounced "dori". But in Ancient Greek, "dori" would be the dative case of this word, as in for instance ΔΩΡΙΕΙΣ / Dorieis ("Dorian"); tribe of the spear (dative, see?). The usage of omega here instead of omicron represents a shift in pronunciation too. Doe (ΔΟ) vs. daw (ΔΩ). This is another difference between Ancient and Modern Greek. Knowing how to pronounce Modern Greek doesn't give you mystical information about ancient Greek weaponry. Neither does being Greek, for that matter.

---

Congratulations, you semi-passed first year Greek. I have to hand it to you, you pulled me out of my self-imposed exile on the public fora. There's no reason to insult our fans who haven't taken first year Greek. Doing so is called rude.

Quote:

---

Second of all, the doru had a hollow metal spike (ΣΑΥΡΩΤΗΡ) at the butt, which would have been an extreme hazard if the doru had been wielded overhand above the body. In fact, if you're looking to kill your mates behind you and your enemies in equal number, that's a great way to do it.

---

I'm glad you've seen every example of the spear, or the scores of variations used from the Geometric to the late Hellenisitc periods. Nice over-generalization.

Quote:

---

Not to mention the obvious point about why spears intended to be wielded overhand would even have butt-spikes, which are meant to dig into the ground for added stability. There's no ground above head-level, unless you've already lost.

---

That's the only thing that butt-spikes are used for, huh? What about that, umm, counterweight function so that you can hold a longer spear in one hand? Nah...

Quote:

---

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...try%3D%2393462

---

Because philologists are the greatest authority on history and archaeology... This also assumes that scholarship hasn't changed since that definition was compiled. The purpose of a dictionary is to define a word, not pass judgment. It isn't an authoritative source in this instance.

Quote:

---

http://www.christybeall.com/images/greek_small.jpg
"Look at me, with the slightest jolt to my doru I can quite effectively stab the guy behind me in the face, neck, shoulder, or chest! Go team!"

vs.

http://www.livius.org/a/1/greece/phalanx.jpg
"Look at us, we're not stabbing our buddies! Forward to India!"

---

You do realize that those could realistically still be 'stabbing' the people behind them, right? Also... one cartoony picture is definitive evidence, right? For that, we throw out hundreds of cataloged images. It should be noted that there is literally no debate about this in academia. None.

Quote:

---

Third, the doru was replaced by the sarissa in Macedon, and they otherwise used similar (but admittedly not identical) tactics compared to Greek hoplites. The sarissa is physically too long to wield overhand to any reasonable effect -- due to the leverage and weight distribution of it -- so there can be no dispute whatsoever that pezhetairoi carried their spears exclusively underhanded, even if you want to argue that hoplites did not. The situation of the sarissa is pretty much rock-solid, for a variety of reasons.

---

Non-sequitur. You're arguing... nothing here. Of course the sarissa was wielded underhand. The tactical disposition of the Makedonian phalanx was entirely different. The smaller shield, the shield strap, etc, allowed two handed use of the pike, and the shields didn't close to form a shield wall.

Quote:

---

Well, if the sarissa was used that way and the doru was not, it represents a severe difference between pezhetairoi and hoplites which is not attested or emphasized in any known text which talks about both (e.g. Polybius), though those texts do list other differences in equipment and tactics.

---

Dude, your method of argument is just getting silly. First of all, plenty of ancient authors talk about the difference between hoplites and phalangites.

Quote:

---

Fourth, why would the doru and sarissa be wielded overhand when the Macedonian xyston (which was of a size between the doru and sarissa) was typically wielded underhand? The xyston situation implies that even without access to the ground, it's still better to wield the spear underhand, for reasons of control.

---

Ok, I hate to point this out to you, but you're doing something called building a strawman. You're building a caricature of the argument presented by others, and then attacking that caricature, rather than attacking the argument.

Quote:

---

What about the kamax, the spear that the xyston replaced?

---

I think you need to look at the sources more closely. There are plenty of shorter spears still in use during the Hellenistic period, especially by the shield-bearing cavalry. (note that I don't use a lot of Greek terms in my text. Doing so simply alienates those who would learn from our logic. I don't try to look smart by doing so.)

Quote:

---

Here it's wielded overhand. What does that imply? The underhand xyston being more recent than (and a replacement for) the overhand kamax implies that the underhand posture is fundamentally better, and represents an advantageous evolution from the old style. This could be used to suggest that the hoplite attacked overhand and the pezhetairoi attacked underhand, but again, why no contemporary mention of this difference?

---

It implies that... it's newer. In fact, the reversion back to having a lot of cavalry with large shields during the middle Hellenistic period is a good counterweight to your sophistry here.

Quote:

---

Finally, the fact that this point has multiple threads devoted to it already, repeating the same arguments over and over again, doesn't mean the issue is contentious or unresolved. It just means that none of you know what you're talking about, and rather than take personal initiative and do independent research, you'd rather just repeat what other people have said before, when you don't even know where to find the evidence for yourself. That's pretty pathetic, even for a web forum (which is assumed to be pathetic from the start anyway).

This is no more "controversial" than the "argument" between evolution and intelligent design, or between people who believe the moon landings are a hoax and people not on Prozac. Meaning that it's basically a contest between fact and stupidity. I'm going to have to go with fact, since it has a proven reputation for being able to correctly explain things.

---

Yes, you've shown everyone. I should point out that there is no scholarly opinion that I am aware of that agrees with the 'overhand doesn't work' position. That isn't an argument in itself, but it does make the situation interesting. Your being an ass to everyone here certainly doesn't help anything, and in fact only makes people defensive. In case you didn't notice, electronic communication is rapidly gaining credibility. That argument may have had weight in 1995, but not any longer. Grow up.

Quote:

---

That is an extremely over-the-top stupid and contrived accusation, and you pretty much just lost all credibility, forever.

---

Because ad hominem certainly helps you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Pankration went pretty far along the road of unarmed striking techniques AFAIK (on top of the usual slew of joint lock, strangling techniques, throws, takedowns etc. pretty much every martial tradition everywhere included pretty much by default, and often in rather advanced forms), and Savate's around as kick-crazy as TKD by what I know of it. Dunno if you can count Capoiera in too.

Europeans seem to generally have preferred to do their killing with weapons though, and grappling techniques achieved most of the rest well enough. Probably had something to do with the blunt fact most "Western" societies until quite recently were armed to the proverbial teeth at every level, regardless of what the matter was supposed to be.

---

Pankration, I remember hearing about it before.

The gastro-something kick with the heel of the foot into the stomach that can break shields(ie This is Sparta, literally) came from Pankration...right :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dhampir

I tried it with a broom handle on my brother and the over-arm stab-down hurt him more than the under-arm thrust.

---

OK now do this.

take 7 of your buddies give them all broom sticks, have them hold their left arm as if they had a shield, and hold the spear under hand.

Then put 2 of them in the front rank, then 2 behind, 2 behind, and another 2 behind (make sure you are in the center).

Next step make sure you are all very close to eachother.

Finaly walk up to a wall 5feet (1.5 meters) tall and try to PUSH the wall. Yes PUSH the wall. The guys in the front push on the wall and the guys in the back push on the guys in the front. :yes:

Once u do that try the same thing, BUT hold the broom stick overhead.


Thats how the greek phalanx of old works son.

2 opposite phalanxes are literally 2 shield walls slamming against eachother and pushing.

p.s. watch out for ur nuts. Also for added realism RUN into the wall at a decent pace (not full speed or u will break formation).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urnamma

It implies that... it's newer. In fact, the reversion back to having a lot of cavalry with large shields during the middle Hellenistic period is a good counterweight to your sophistry here.

---

To be fair, many of the depictions of later Hellenistic cavalrymen with large round shields depict them wielding their spears underhand (whether that is a xuston or some other kind of spear).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dhampir

I tried it with a broom handle on my brother and the over-arm stab-down hurt him more than the under-arm thrust.

---

If you'd been fair to him, you'd be the one to get hurt though. ~;)

EB Forum Debates: Brings out the experimental archeologist in you.

It's not just about Greeks wielding their spears over-hand; Near Eastern infantry formations, later Egyptian infantry, and especially Persian shield-bearer contingents formed a shield-wall where spears could be used over-hand. All of these formations remind of an Argos phalanx. This technique of using the spear largely applied to the majority of cavalry forces as well if they ever had spears to begin with; A notable exception could of course have been the Lydian heavy cavalry who were noted for their long lances, perhaps wielding it like a xyston.

There were certainly many situations even a large lance, such as the kontos, could have been used over-hand as well, however it appears to need a few prerequisites in order to facilitate such usage; The late Sassanian bas-relief of Tâq-î Bûstân shows a clibanarius wielding its kontos in such manner. However, the feet are damaged, making it impossible to make out with any greater accuracy if the rider is wearing stirrups; The Pûr-î Vahman bowl shows stirrups, and a similar posture with the knees slightly protruding in a sharper angle; Previously we see Partho-Sassanian chivalry riding in the "ballerina"-posture where the feet droop. Nevertheless, the technique of stabbing with the spear, given the situation, even on horse-back prevailed for a long time.

Sarcasm is pretty damn spot-on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

To be fair, many of the depictions of later Hellenistic cavalrymen with large round shields depict them wielding their spears underhand (whether that is a xuston or some other kind of spear).

---

Fair enough - but then again, you still run into the overhand grip (on both infantry and cavalry) in the Bayeux Tapestry so...

As an aside: ifantry pikes and two-handed cavalry lances both were often enough wielded with a "reverse" grip, which is about as close to the overhand as you now get with them. :book:

I don't necessarily have anything to contribute to this thread by way of insightful points, as I'm certainly no academic when it comes to the topic. I'm just a history fan and some of you fellas are just way too smart for lil o' me. Just wanted to say as someone who's around professional "debating types" for a living. Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I truly enjoy these types of threads when the likes of Urnamma, The Persian Cataphract, or. Paullus come here and completely and utterly wipe their arse with someone's argument. By all means you would be debaters...keep it going. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

To be fair, many of the depictions of later Hellenistic cavalrymen with large round shields depict them wielding their spears underhand (whether that is a xuston or some other kind of spear).

---

Agreed, but so do earlier depictions. His argument didn't make any reasonable sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Fair enough - but then again, you still run into the overhand grip (on both infantry and cavalry) in the Bayeux Tapestry so...

As an aside: ifantry pikes and two-handed cavalry lances both were often enough wielded with a "reverse" grip, which is about as close to the overhand as you now get with them. :book:

---

Hmmm... It can be somewhat subject to debate because the front arm (I suppose this is where this reverse grip could have been most relevant, though of course, you could use a standard grip as well) was more or less intended to aim the spear-head; The arm to the rear holding the rest of the shaft held more momentum as the horse moved. It's probably a more natural approach, even on foot; You don't really aim with the arm to the rear, and you don't really stab with the arm to the front. It's more about where to concentrate the effort. This is the usual "stance" when you use the kontos.

Of course, if we speak of two-handed reverse grip, over-hand, as I think you indeed do, then of course point acknowledged :bow:

Connolly performed tests with rider without saddle and stirrups using 4m long replica of xyston with 1 hand.
Both overhand and underhand were similarly accurate when used from horseback.
Overhand prooved to be just below 100% hits due to vibrations, but instead was much easier to retrieve after hit.

Journal of Roman Military Equipement Studies, 2000, p.103-112

people I have concrete proof as to how hoplites fought
I think we can all rely in it's 100% historical accuracy
need I say anymore?:eyebrows:


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SEArhDxosgs

:2cents:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moosemanmoo

people I have concrete proof as to how hoplites fought
I think we can all rely in it's 100% historical accuracy
need I say anymore?:eyebrows:


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SEArhDxosgs

:2cents:

---

I think that this ended the discussion :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fjkwgv43

Fourth, why would the doru and sarissa be wielded overhand when the Macedonian xyston (which was of a size between the doru and sarissa) was typically wielded underhand? The xyston situation implies that even without access to the ground, it's still better to wield the spear underhand, for reasons of control.

---

Just for mentioning sake,cavalry wings also didn't fight in close-knit formations with their shields locked together,so they had a lot more freedom of movement compared to a hoplite phalanx.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moosemanmoo

people I have concrete proof as to how hoplites fought
I think we can all rely in it's 100% historical accuracy
need I say anymore?:eyebrows:


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SEArhDxosgs

:2cents:

---

You're kidding,right? No offense,but if you are serious,I'd really hate to be in your shoes when an EB team member sees that.

*poke* You'd think the Monty Python eyebrows were an obvious enough hint... :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

*poke* You'd think the Monty Python eyebrows were an obvious enough hint... :beam:

---

:eyebrows: :eyebrows: :eyebrows: :eyebrows: :eyebrows: :eyebrows: :eyebrows: :eyebrows: :eyebrows: :eyebrows: :eyebrows: :eyebrows:

enough lol?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

*poke* You'd think the Monty Python eyebrows were an obvious enough hint... :beam:

---

Oh,so he was serious,then? :eyebrows:

At the risk of treading over old territory yet again, here's some information I found really interesting on the subject of the hoplite panoply and its use in battle. The passages I quote below are from Victor Davis Hanson's edited book Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience (Routledge, 1993) and there's alot of good information in there on this topic. So here goes...sorry about the rather gross length:dizzy2:, but I hope it's valuable...

Regarding the butt spike, or sauroter: I paraphrase information presented by J.K Anderson in the V.D Hanson book:

A butt-spike or "lizard killer" (sauroter), generally made of bronze, was a feature of the classical hoplite spear...Its primary purpose was probably always to enable the spear to be stuck upright in the earth when not in use; but it might also have served for a downward thrust to finish off a fallen enemy, and square holes in pieces of armor found at the great sanctuaries were, it has been suggested, made with the sauroter. But there is also a possibility that dedicated armor may have been fixed to boards with spikes; perhaps not all of these holes were made in battle.

From this, it seems that the sauroter was used as much for offense as for defense as fjkwgv43 argues so vehemently. It seems that the scholars offer alternative opinions.

Now, regarding the more relevant and controversial "spear thrusting style" of the Greek hoplites: Once again, I first offer this analysis from Anderson, in Hanson:

On the march, including the final approach, as shown on the Chigi vase and other works of art, the spear was carried at the slope on the right shoulder, at an angle of perhaps 30 degrees behind the vertical, with the spear-head upwards...From the slope, the spear could be brought straight down to an underhand thrusting position. The force of the underhand thrust, delivered at a run, has rightly been emphasized. Charging at the double against a mob of demoralized Asiatics, the Greeks at Cunaxa (401BC) evidently carried their spears in this way, since some of them beat their spears against their shields in order to frighten the Persian chariot-horses...But when two hoplite phalanxes met face to face and it was important to preserve the coherence of rank and file, the lowering of the spears was merely a preliminary to raising them again to an overarm position above the right shoulder. Before bringing the spear up, it is necessary to reverse the grip. Not much practice or dexterity are needed to do this by tossing the spear upwards a few inches and catching it again with the grip reversed. This does seem to involve a check in the forward movement of the phalanx, and lacks he warrant of even such slight ancient evidence of the Chigi vase supplies for the other method. The overarm thrust would be directed in the first place at the enemy's throat, which might be left bare if his left arm grew tired and he dropped his guard. But especially in archaic vase-painting it is sometimes aimed more sharply downwards, against the thighs or buttocks below the cuirass, which is generally worn at this period, or against the back of a collapsing enemy. In these circumstances the underhand thrust is the weak retort of the defeated, who turns back as he retreats and jabs at the enemy in the hope of finding an unprotected spot.

I now provide a passage from J. Lazenby, taken from the same Hanson volume:

It may be the case that advancing hoplites carried their spears in the underarm position, but it is unlikely that they delivered their first thrusts underarm, and then changed grip in the melee. More likely they brought their spears to the overarm position, before they came "within spear range", though it is difficult to see how this was done. The change, it must be remembered, involved not just raising the spear, but also turning the hand around on the spear-shaft, since when a thrust is underarm, the thumb is towards the point but when overarm, towards the butt.

The change-over could have been effected by sticking the spear in the ground, then picking it up again with the hand reversed. But this would have required a momentary halt -- difficult when charging at the double, but perhaps possible for the Spartans, or any other troops who halted during the advance. Alternatively, a momentary shift of the spear to the left hand, gripping the strap or cord near the rim at the right of the shield, might have done the trick. More risky, but perhaps easier, would have been to lift the spear above the head, still with the underarm grip, then let go of it for a moment, and catch it as it fell, with the grip reversed. Even lifting the spear from below the waist to above the shoulder would have been much easier if hoplites had not been standing shoulder to shoulder, let alone marching or running, and the difficulties would certainly have been compounded if the change was only made after battle had been joined. But somehow or other it seems to have been done.

With spears probably held high, then, hoplites in at least the front rank, and possibly the front two, thrust downwards, aiming for the face and presumably the throat or shoulders, over the rim of the shield, or for the chest through shield and cuirass. There was, however, no loosening of the close-packed formation, at this point, as some have suggested. Plato's Laches makes it clear that this only happened when one side or the other fled the field, and what would have been the point of each man seeking the protection of the right-hand neighbor's shield during the advance if they then parted company when battle was actually joined?

Passages such as this, and others found elsewhere in this excellent text, provide stout evidence for a predominantly overarm thrusting position for the Greek hoplite's spear while in battle.

fjkwgv43 -- As already pointed out very compellingly by Urnamma, there's really no point in trying to compare the phalangite's sarissa with the hoplite's doru. How could anyone argue that a 6m spear was to be used in a single-handed, overarm grip?! We're not talking about sarissae in this thread, we're talking about the Greek hoplite's weapon of choice. Which, by the way, was most likely used in battle with an overarm grip...:yes:

And, finally, may I join others in this thread in reminding you that smart-ass, poorly-researched, half-assed claims made in an offensive manner ain't gonna win you too many admirers in this crowd...you wanna talk credibility, my friend???

I hope this information is helpful to some of you...happy hunting.

I find it super amusing when some incredible upstart with a name that is nothing more than a bunch of random letters comes in here, challenges with his first posts the most eminent members of this forum, makes completely idiotic and immature arguments and accusations, generalises the EB forum as a crappy pathetic place when you'd be hardpressed to find another forum that had quite as much academic debate going on, and then gets completely pulverised by 18-inch broadsides from all quarters of the compass.

I'll bet he's never going to show his face on this forum again, either from disgrace or from his own self-imposed disgust. If he ever does, I swear I'll unleash my own broadsides at him. I may not be a debating type, but on a person-to-person level, there's some quality of behaviour that should be followed, otherwise if you want to play barbarian, well, we can play barbarian too.

My two cents is based completely on pure common sense.

1) Your doru is the best way you have to reach an enemy. Closing with a kopis or (insert name of sword here) is only a far second best.

2) Your phalanx requires you close ranks tight and overlap shields. That is, after all, its defining feature.

3) You have two choices, underarm leaving a gap in the shieldwall of the phalanx for spears to pass through (or poking THROUGH the shields somehow), or overarm over the rims of the hoploi.

4a) Underarm means you will hit his shield over and over. Overarm means it's bloody uncomfortable and not quite as powerful, but at least you have a chance of hitting the face/jugular/chest.

4b) Underarm, you hold the spear horizontal. Overarm, you incline the business end at worst horizontal also and at best downwards, meaning the nonbusiness end is inclined slightly upwards, clear of faces (hopefully). But either way, some people are going to get poked. And anyway, it's not like a spring where you have to thrust backwards powerfully before you can thrust forwards powerfully an equal distance. You don't have to draw back so fast and hard that it will kill the man behind you, you can still thrust fast to hit the enemy, and what's a few bruises and scratches on the face anyway?

5a) You go with the overarm in phalanx formation because it's the only chance of even remotely hitting the enemy, and because it is patently impossible and pointless to thrust underarm.

5b) You go with the underarm in skirmishing mode as an ekdromoi, or if your name is Leonidas, because the thrust is way more powerful that way, and heck comfortabler too.

6) Just because the Federal and Confederate soldiers used their rifles to shoot doesn't mean that we automatically treat paintings of them using rifle butts to crack skulls or bayonetting people as a 'counter-case' to the accepted one. They are only different usages of the same weapon, and each may be practical or not depending on the situation.

There, done.

Well argued,Tarkus.

Yet another response that takes fjk-whatever's argument and virtually uses it as toilet paper. :smash:

Is that book still in print? I'd like to get a copy.

And as for the accusation of the EB crew not doing any research,I think everyone here except fjk-whatever will agree that that's entirely redundant considering that we're all playing the fruit of that tireless research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan198

Well argued,Tarkus.

---

Thanks, man...I've learned SO MUCH from so many of you on this forum that it feels good to give a little back to the community...well, those of you who actually listen and think objectively...:book:

Quote:

---

Is that book still in print? I'd like to get a copy.

---

Yup...available here from Amazon. I highly recommend it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tarkus

Thanks, man...I've learned SO MUCH from so many of you on this forum that it feels good to give a little back to the community...well, those of you who actually listen and think objectively...:book:

---

I'm learning a lot in these threads myself (most prominent lesson: don't mention that specific Roman plate armor and EB in one sentence).

Quote:

---

Yup...available here from Amazon. I highly recommend it!

---

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

Well first of all you're putting every kind of boxing and wrestling into the same bag, when different regions had different traditions. And I wasn't referring at all to just unarmed martial traditions...staff/spear/polearm fighting techniques in particular were really widespread, and for just two quick examples you have the Jogo Do Pau right here in Portugal or the Bata in Ireland.

---

Pauliteiros de Mirandela. Bartix worsest dream.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fjkwgv43

Okay, first of all, the hoplite spear was called a doru (ΔΟΡΥ, that's delta omicron rho upsilon, and pronounced 'doe-roo), not a dori, so right there anyone calling it a dori automatically doesn't know what they're talking about.

---

You are implying that any Greek historian who knows Ancient Greek (Or whatever) and teaches History in Primary School is inherently more capable of determining Academic Scholars specialized in Helenistic History, but who doesn't know Ancient Greek? How does a word determine the overall knowledge of an issue? I'm Portuguese, therefore anyone who doesn't know Portuguese can never, ever exceed me in my knowledge of Portuguese History? That's an odd point of view.[/QUOTE]

But of all which you spoke, I'm not an expert in Helenistic Ancient History, I only have one question:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fjkwgv43

That's pretty pathetic, even for a web forum (which is assumed to be pathetic from the start anyway).

---

Then...Why do you even bother posting long posts, and making mocking commentaries, making links to images and books/authors, etc... On:
1- An issue which is not scientifically certain, so unless you come up with new evidence you will not prove much to the true expertees.
2- On a forum you assume it's pathetic from the start?

That's a paradox of stupidity. And since you prove nothing for certain, you don't look better in the picture either.. Oh well.. "You have also lost all your creditibility forever and ever and ever till the end of times!"

Funny post mate. I'll grant you that. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fjkwgv43

Not to mention the obvious point about why spears intended to be wielded overhand would even have butt-spikes, which are meant to dig into the ground for added stability. There's no ground above head-level, unless you've already lost.

---

Actually this just tells us that it was a versatile weapon that could be used both over hand for stabbing over the top the shield wall as well as set in the ground to receive a charge. That type of versatility is exactly what one would expect from the Greeks.

I'm just going to throw in my two cents here for the hell of it:

As Dayve says, overarm techniques for spears make sense when you're in a tightly packed formation and maintaining a shield wall. Also, I imagine that realistically, at some point in the battle, you'd angle your spear in such a way that it rested on the rim of your shield while still pointing towards the enemy in a vaguely threatening manner. It seems only natural keeping in mind that battles could last several hours.

But EB is a game, and a game has graphical restraints, and so the hoplites fight with the spear held higher than would have been done in real life, but hey, you can't do anything about that so there's little point in complaining.

Although, OP, if it is an issue that bugs you, I recommend downloading TWFanatic's mod. It improves the Hoplites.

And OP, this comment isn't directed towards you, so if I offend you I apologise. Personally, I'm also sick and tired of Katana fanboys. Good God what I would give to see some decent Bastard sword fighting on TV or in the movies some day.

EDIT
Oh, and I just remembered. European Martial Arts that aren't wrestling or boxing include: Savate (French kick-boxing), Palo Canario (Canary Islands Stick-fighting), Bartitsu (Yes, the name is hilarious, and it's basically hand-to-hand combat developed in England), and I'm sure there're a few more buried around.

A few points people seem not to be grasping about this. First a typical picture of hoplite combat...

https://img237.imageshack.us/img237/...lfosnq9.th.jpg

The spear for one isn't held like they did in 300. It's used more like if one was stabbing with a knife; it's a pretty powerful jab and just as accurate as any one-handed underarm once you get the hang of it.

People are saying it's dangerous and can hit people in the face if the spear was used overhand. They seem to forget that it is probably as dangerous in that respect when you use a spear underhanded. Especially considering that pretty much everyone had some form of head protection and not everyone owned a piece of armour. The spear itself would be at an acute angle pointing upwards anyway. In any case it would only really be a problem for the first rows, the others could hold their spear normally as they pushed forward.

The spear-butt itself can obviously be used to rest. You weren't expected to be in that pose for the entire battle, or hold your shield for that matter. The combat itself would be rather short, and most probably not all in one single bout. Not only wouldn't the whole line engage at the same time, you would probably be able to rest and rotate at least the front ranks before joining battle again. Another thing people are probably missing is that this piece enables you to use the spear farther to the back due to its weight.

You can argue that the shield would protect the back rows (what about the front ones?) from the spear-butt, but if they did indeed push forward with an underhand grip, the spears would have to pass through some space, and then you're breaking up the formation and loosing shock value. Same thing applies to the front ranks - to use an underhand grip you have to open the shield wall a bit, something that you can take advantage. The trajectory of the spear itself would mean that you would be aiming at the most protected part of the other guy, the shield.

As for cavalry, you can hardly apply the same principle here. It's a whole new ball game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J.Alco

Personally, I'm also sick and tired of Katana fanboys. Good God what I would give to see some decent Bastard sword fighting on TV or in the movies some day.

---

Testify!

Granted I don't have an extensive knowledge of ancient Japanese swordplay,but a logical mind knows that a katana has its limitations,just like a xiphos,gladius,falcata,or any other weapon,both past and present.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

You can argue that the shield would protect the back rows (what about the front ones?) from the spear-butt, but if they did indeed push forward with an underhand grip, the spears would have to pass through some space, and then you're breaking up the formation and loosing shock value. Same thing applies to the front ranks - to use an underhand grip you have to open the shield wall a bit, something that you can take advantage. The trajectory of the spear itself would mean that you would be aiming at the most protected part of the other guy, the shield.

---

And to add, having your spear-butt constantly bang against your mates' shields/cuirasses is somewhat unlikely to improve its handling and wieldability - doubly so in the already very cramped maneuvering space that would be available with an underhand grip between the closely spaced aspi (sp?).

We're talking about like a third or so of the total lenght behind the grip point, after all. This ain't no Medieval couched lance.

Quote:

---

The spear-butt itself can obviously be used to rest.
---
Another thing people are probably missing is that this piece enables you to use the spear farther to the back due to its weight.

---

In addition, it gives you a passable spare spearhead. All kinds of uses for that, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

The spear for one isn't held like they did in 300.

---

When I watched the movie I was like "What the...?" They used an over-head, inverted arm technique of sorts. I always laughed at how easy it would have been for any Persian soldier to pierce their unarmored spear arm with a spear, thus rendering that soldier practically inoperable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

aspi (sp?).

---

Aspides. :wink:

:sweatdrop:

it's asspides! (INSULTING PUN)
ayce hacked onto my computer! come and stop the EB council of 10!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

And to add, having your spear-butt constantly bang against your mates' shields/cuirasses is somewhat unlikely to improve its handling and wieldability - doubly so in the already very cramped maneuvering space that would be available with an underhand grip between the closely spaced aspi (sp?).

---

Hehe, can you say "broken spear"? How about "hoplites with only swords are useless"? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

We're talking about like a third or so of the total lenght behind the grip point, after all. This ain't no Medieval couched lance.
In addition, it gives you a passable spare spearhead. All kinds of uses for that, too.

---

Well yeah. One of the main uses people figure it had was to finish off any guys that would be lying on the floor once the phalanx started moving forward.

Well, it's arguably nicer than just trampling the poor sods to death...

...unless they didn't stab their spears into the USUAL places. *wince*

*poke*

*ouch*

Agreed...I simply don't buy the "spear-butt as anchor-point in the ground for better defense" theory. I would imagine that, in the chaotic clash between phalanxes as the first few rows are getting squeezed together, alot of spears would snap in two. A second weapon housed at the back is a nice way to deal with this. And its use to finish off those that have been trampled underfoot seems more than logical to me...but nasty and painful indeed...

I think the general opinion is that when the shieldwalls crash together a lot of people die in the initial clash, lots of spears are broken and then it's just a Rugby scrum.

I doubt they'd die in the crash. Just get a lot of bruises. Unless some hoplites got lucky that their spears hit the enemy formation at the right location to sever a carotid, or puncture a heart... or rape a face.