Question About Hoplites

[Dhampir]

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.

[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.

[Dhampir]

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.

[Dayve]

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.

[Urnamma]

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

[Olaf The Great]

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 :)

[NeoSpartan]

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.

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).

[MeinPanzer]

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).

[Tellos Athenaios]

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.

[The Persian Cataphract]

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.

[Watchman]

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.

[Lysander13]

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

[Urnamma]

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.

[The Persian Cataphract]

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.

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

[O'ETAIPOS]

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

[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?


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

[Matinius Brutus]

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?


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

I think that this ended the discussion

[Spartan198]

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.

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?


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

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.

[Watchman]

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

[Moosemanmoo]

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

enough lol?

[Spartan198]

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

Oh,so he was serious,then?

[Tarkus]

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, 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...

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.

[pezhetairoi]

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.

[Spartan198]

Well argued,Tarkus.

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

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.

[Tarkus]

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...

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

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

[Spartan198]

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...

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).

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

Thanks.

[Jolt]

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.

[Jolt]

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:

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. ;)

[Xurr]

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.

[J.Alco]

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.