Stats on overhand spear vs underhand spear.

[abou]

Today I picked up some used books on a lark. One was The Wars of the Ancient Greeks by Victor Davis Hanson. I figured there wouldn't be anything in there that I hadn't read before, but it was only a fraction of the list price so I figured I might as well. To my delightful surprise, in the back of the book are statistics on weapons: weight, impact area, etc. This is pretty nifty, but it certainly adds some evidence to the argument on spears wielded overhand and underhand.

For the same spear wielded by the same person, overhand is not only faster than underhand (55 ft per s vs 24), but also more powerful (70.8 foot-pounds of force compared to 13.5).

Those are some impressive differences in performance that speak for themselves.

[Maion Maroneios]

70.8 foot-pounds of force compared to 13.5

Wow, that's quite a feat

Maion

[seienchin]

Thats true. But imagine to hold a spear overhand all the time. Its impossible!!!
And turning it down and then lift it up in a hoplite like formation seems to be not easy either. What did the Greeks do about that?

[Maion Maroneios]

Thats true. But imagine to hold a spear overhand all the time. Its impossible!!!
And turning it down and then lift it up in a hoplite like formation seems to be not easy either. What did the Greeks do about that?

It's very easy to use your shield and the one belonging to the guy next to you, in order to rest your spear upon and only do a back-and-foth movement when you get tired. Plus, hoplite battles were not very long, and the only thing they actually did was push one another while occasionally trying to hit some weak spot.

As for that second thing you said, I'm not completely sure I understand what you mean.

Maion

[Fabio Scevola]

I don't try to understimate overhand nad english is not my first thonge, but There are two things/questions about that.
1. I always believed hoplite batles were actually long, "push one another while occasionally trying to hit some weak spot" as you said, no too much of fancy cavalry charges nor anything like that. Any way the explanation about the shield and shoulder is very logical to avoid exhaustion.
2. If you want hit a weak spot is as efective the underhand spear, I mean if it is weak you dont really need the extra power, just pierce through the spot. So extra power is no extra lethality maybe the extra speed could mean extra lethality. Just my two cents.

[Nirvanish]

1. I always believed hoplite batles were actually long, "push one another while occasionally trying to hit some weak spot" as you said, no too much of fancy cavalry charges nor anything like that. Any way the explanation about the shield and shoulder is very logical to avoid exhaustion.

It is believed that the fighting times within hoplite battles were actually pretty short. The sides would face off, charge and get into a pushing match. If neither side showed signs of weakness the sides would disengage, wait a while then charge at it again. So in this way a 6 hour battle may only have had fighting for half the time at most.