Overarm Spears

[Scutarii]

This has probably been done before but no threads all that recently.

Why are the phalanx spears used overarm and were they only used in this manner when fighting in formation? Or did people use spears overarm when fighting duels/skirmished/etc?

The problems with overarm are pretty apparent, you can't hold it at one end or the other and holding in the middle means that someone hitting the head will get a solid bit of torque sending the thing spinning easily and you'd also sacrifice a lot of the length. Held 1/4 of the way up is similarly weak as you can't brace the weapon against yourself.

Why then did later troops using spears switch to fighting underarm? And if underarm is so much better how did the overarm method develop?

[Watchman]

AFAIK fighting-spears are normally balanced to be grasped about two-thirds from the tip (or in any case that's what them books said was the case with the Greek doru; I don't see much reason to assume the norm was any different with other types, given how simple and straightforward spears are in design and the fact they tend to vary mainly in length), though of course any part of the shaft can be grasped instead if for some reason necessary.

Anyways, under- and overarm grips both have theor pros and cons and one rather suspects warriors switched between the two as the situation demanded - much as with fighting-knives, polearms and swords. I'm under the impression the hoplites used theirs in the overarm "ice-pick" grip when fighting in close order (and theirs was, overall, uncommonly closely packed) mainly to avoid stabbing their mates in the nuts, gut or face with the sharp-ish butt ferrule, and so that the rear ranks could better stab past the front row with their lenghty pig-stickers. I'd imagine it was also easier to thrust the spear over the trooper's rather large, round shield than around it, doubly so as the things were pretty much expected to overlap with his immediate neighbours'...

Also note that AFAIK the "reversed", overarm grip actually results in a stronger thrust - as the user's arm is rotating around the shoulder rather more than it does with the underarm grip and hence adds leverage, plus the usual minor pros of downward blows. Imagine the spear as a really long knife - which it in a real enough sense actually is - being used for a solid downwards stab in the "ice-pick" grip, and you ought to see what I mean. (For the sake of comparision, when late-Medieval warriors wanted to try ramming a sword or polearm tip through heavy armour the SOP was to use downward stabs from a reversed grip, preferably two-handed... by preference on an opponent on the ground mind you, but eh.)

[Genava]

It's simply the best manner to use the spears in formation. The goal in a fight (between hoplites) is hit in the head or in the neck. In a formation, in front of a shield wall, how do you use the spear to hit the head? By the top! You can't use the spear underarm correctly in a dense formation.

Why then did later troops using spears switch to fighting underarm? And if underarm is so much better how did the overarm method develop?

Later? But they used spears overarm.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Overarm is better in a tight formation (greek hoplites), underarm is better in a loose formation (barbarian spearmen).

To use underarm, you've got to thrust the spear round the side of your own shield. That's just impossible if you are packed shoulder to shoulder with your mates, assuming your shield is of a decently large size.

[Watchman]

Except underarm was quite cheerfully used by a fair few "barbarian spearmen" fighting in very close-order shieldwalls. (As were, for that matter, longswords by those among them that could afford such.) So, yeah.

I've a hunch the Greek fondness of the reversed grip mainly came from the sheer size of the aspis, which oughta have made thrusting around it pretty tricky indeed in closed order. Most round infantry shields were, after all, of rather smaller diameter, and most other infantry spearmen desiring large shields instead opted for tall rectangles, ovoids and teardrops which obviously get in the way quite a bit less.

[Mulceber]

Overarm is better in a tight formation (greek hoplites), underarm is better in a loose formation (barbarian spearmen).

Then why is it that pezhetairoi and Klerouchoi Phalangitai are portrayed in the game as under-arming their spears?

-M

[bobbin]

Because they are not hoplites, they fought in the macedonian phalanx style which is different to the greek phalanx hoplites used.

Also the nature of the weapon they used (the Sarissa) meant that there was no real advantage to holding it overarm, infact one would imagine holding a Sarissa overarm would be the poorer choice (more effort would be required to hold it, less effective for bracing against charges etc)

[Watchman]

Shoulder-height grips were actually often enough used by later Medieval and Early Modern pikemen for various purposes. 'Course, unlike the Ancient phalangites, they didn't have a small shield strapped to their left forearm, which would have been rendered rather useless by raising the arm.

Also, compared to shieldwall infantry pikemen actually have a rather loose spacing. They have to, so that the pikes of the rear ranks can be leveled past the front-rankers.

[Ibrahim]

Then why is it that pezhetairoi and Klerouchoi Phalangitai are portrayed in the game as under-arming their spears?

-M

for every case where closely packed fellows are using underarm spears, you'll find two who are overarm:

http://www.1stroyals.org/drill.htm (@ charge bayonet). (the other is a late medieval to early 18th century pikemen-same style as in the links)

[Mulceber]

Thanks for the answers, guys. @ Bobbin - also, thanks for clearing up the different phalanges - up until now I knew that Philip (and of course Alexander) modified the old hoplites, but I didn't realize that it had been called phalanx formation before they came along. -M

[Macilrille]

From experience in individual combat with spears as well, holding a spear underarm in a one-on-one fight against someone who is holding it overhand or has a sword or axe is an invitation for them to take control and push it down with weapon, transfer shield to it instead and while retaining control with the shield, move in and kill with weapon. That is called "spearhunting" in Viking re-enactment, and it is more complicated and thus more difficult to do against someone who holds his spear overarm and points the sharp bit at your face, almost impossible to take control that way.