Overarm Spears

[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.)