The Pushing Match

[saka-rauka1]

I've changed my stance on the use of overhand spears several times now; the last being when I read posts explaining how hoplites would fight in very close proximity and thus not be able to take advantage of the extra reach of an underhand grip. Just now however, I have seen this video on youtube, and I have decided to change my position again :)

I would like to know what answers you would give to the questions aired on the above video. I now find it increasingly doubtful that hoplite warfare would consist of a great amount of pushing given that from what I've read here, casulties were very light. If such a pushing match occurred, routing would fast get the front lines killed. With a formation 8 ranks deep, I suspect 4/5 would be summarily slaughtered.

[bobbin]

I cannot say much in relation to that specific video (i haven't watched it) but people have posted up some of his stuff before and from what I've seen he's not very convinving

He ignores lots of basic facts, for example in one video he claims that the overhand grip has a shorter reach becuase you need to hold the spear in the middle, completely ingoring the fact that Hoplite spears had counterweights to solve this exact problem.

The main problem with theories is that vast majority of ancient depictions of Hoplites show them using the overhand grip, he says this is due to "artistic license" which is a very weak argument given the tens or hundreds of thousands of depictions that have been found.

[saka-rauka1]

Would the artists involved in the creation of said depictions understand the finer points of combat? One point that is brought up in another video is that even modern media gets many things wrong when it depicts modern combat. He also mentions that he went to a mueseum and counted the number of vases that depicted overarm use as well as the ones that depicted underarm use. Overarm won out but only very slightly.

I'm wondering why, if the two front lines were so close, why they would use spears at all when a smaller, bladed weapon would be much less cumbersome.

Another thing that's nagging at me is that in such formations routing becomes suicidal, when casulties in battle were very low for hoplite vs hoplite battles.

[Rahl]

Haha, I saw the title of the thread and thought "this guy has looked lindybeiges newest vids"^^
All in all I like that guy, he's quite funny and often his claims make sence, but when it comes to ancient warfare it's like bobbin says, most times he's not very convincing.
I don't understand much of combat (I like strategy aspects more) but the arguments for the overhand grip seem the most logical to me. When he argues against this he ignores facts so I don't believe him there. Though on other topics he's not as stubborn.
When it comes to the Hoplite Phalanx and shoving matches I would say pure pushing doesn't make much sence to me, but I've no personal experience (but I don't think he has more with Hoplite combat).

[fomalhaut]

I was actually going to post a video from this guy in regards to the overhand grip 'debate' but nice to see bobbin answer any question i may have had. He is super smart and witty but i don't necessarily use him as a source for anything ancient. Wait! i do like that he says Linen Cuirass and not Linothorax

[Antinous]

You guys should read "The Western way of War". It is a really good book and specifically talks about how hoplites held their spears.

[gamegeek2]

He does make some interesting points but on overhand spears, I have indeed found him quite unconvincing.

[Delta146]

I've seen one of the videos that guy made regarding spears, and his argument seems rather flimsy. As bobbin says, the dory was counterweighted, and I have even read that it was tapered to be very thin at the front and thick at the rear. He also used what seems to be an overly thick dowel. If I remember correctly, I read that spears were thin enough to very easily break during battle. I find it hard to imagine what he's holding would break easily at all.

I am not knowledgeable enough regarding primary sources to make a real argument, but I think I should paraphrase something said on the reenactment sites I visit; it's best to recreate what there is evidence for. Speculation is great, but at the end of the day there is a huge amount of evidence for overhand grips and I don't think that anyone could represent hoplites accurately without overhand grips unless new evidence presents itself.

[Cute Wolf]

underhand shield-wall are too much like viking things

[QuintusSertorius]

Wouldn't fighting using an underhand grip with a shield the size of an aspis be rather clumsy?

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Wouldn't fighting using an underhand grip with a shield the size of an aspis be rather clumsy?

It wouldn't be clumsy to wield - the shield is on the left arm and the spear in the right hand. So the right half of a hoplite's body is not covered by his shield when he thrusts his spear forward underarm.

However, underarm grip would prevent the front rank from closely linking shields. With a tight shoulder to shoulder formation and an overarm grip, the spear can protrude over the top of the shield. But with an underhand grip, it can't protrude from underneath the shield, because the shield covers the body from thigh to neck. An underarm spear would have to be at knee level to protrude from underneath linked shields, and obviously that's impossible.

To use their spears underarm, the hoplites would have to be more widely spaced to leave gaps in the front rank shieldwall for underarm spears to poke through. But that places the front rank shields further apart, and thus the formation becomes slightly more vulnerable to missiles.

So that's one reason for hoplites to use the overarm grip - it allows a tighter and better protected formation. Which is probably why it was used.

Also with the overarm grip, the target for the spearpoint is the enemy's face and neck. The spearpoint dives over the top of the enemy's shield and opens his jugular vein, or stabs into his eye or mouth. Against well-armoured opponents, like other hoplites, this is a good tactic.

With the underarm grip, the target for the spearpoint is the enemy's body core. The spearpoint plunges into the enemy's chest, stomach or groin, nearly always causing an immediately fatal wound. Against poorly armoured or un-armoured opponents, like Gallic barbarians or lightly-armoured Persians with wicker shields and no body armour, the underarm grip would be the most effective tactic.

Since the Greek city-states were in most cases fighting each other, hoplite vs hoplite, using overarm would make the most sense.

[antisocialmunky]

Vikings shieldwalls were somewhat different and the shieldwall ended going up and to the sides while the hoplite variety was only to the side because the shields were so freaking big.

Isn't there evidence that the proto-classical hoplite troops used large shields with a cut out on either side so they could wield spears with some sort of wrist over spear stabbing grip?

[Toorstain]

One thing i wonder is: Why was the back end of the hoplite spear even pointy?

A lot of people uses the argument that "you could accidentaly wound or kill the one behind you" against both underhand and overhand uses, but I have never seen a good explanation of why it was even there. Would you be so kind to enlighten me on this?

First i thougt it maybe was to easily change stance between overhand and underhand, but that seems unlikely and impractical to me?

Was it used to somehow stick the spear in the ground to brace against cavalry, but that seems rather impractical and time consuming. Was it used for this?

Or was it maybe so you could just turn the spear around when it broke and use it as a reserve spearhead?

[bobbin]

One thing i wonder is: Why was the back end of the hoplite spear even pointy?

A lot of people uses the argument that "you could accidentaly wound or kill the one behind you" against both underhand and overhand uses, but I have never seen a good explanation of why it was even there. Would you be so kind to enlighten me on this?

First i thougt it maybe was to easily change stance between overhand and underhand, but that seems unlikely and impractical to me?

Was it used to somehow stick the spear in the ground to brace against cavalry, but that seems rather impractical and time consuming. Was it used for this?

Or was it maybe so you could just turn the spear around when it broke and use it as a reserve spearhead?

It was pointed for a few reasons, firstly it allowed the soldier to stick it in the ground when he wasn't moving, so he won't have to hold it all the time. I believe this is where it's name "Sauroter" comes from which means "lizard killer". It also served as a back up for if the spearhead broke off, which was almost certain for the soldiers in the first ranks.

It may have been used by the rear ranks to kill injured enemy soldiers as the phalanx went over them, this has been theorised from it's construction, it is a long thin spike made of bronze, which is harder that iron and so perfect for punching through armour. The fact that quite a few of the armour peices found from the period have square shaped holes matching the shape of the Sauroter gives some weight to this theory.

Would the artists involved in the creation of said depictions understand the finer points of combat? One point that is brought up in another video is that even modern media gets many things wrong when it depicts modern combat. He also mentions that he went to a mueseum and counted the number of vases that depicted overarm use as well as the ones that depicted underarm use. Overarm won out but only very slightly.

Yes but this would be similar to depicting modern soldiers holding the gun the wrong way round. Most of the artists would have seen the Hoplites performing their drills and quite a few would have probably even being in battles with them. You have to remember that warfare was a lot more closer to everyday life than it is today.

I'm wondering why, if the two front lines were so close, why they would use spears at all when a smaller, bladed weapon would be much less cumbersome.

Usually the spears would break very quickly so it was very common for those in the front ranks to be fighting with their swords for most the battle.

[saka-rauka1]

Would the men in the middle ranks be able to use the reach of their spears properly? If the front ranks were pushing then they would adopt a lower stance such as to move their centre of gravity down and thus be harder to move. Using a spear to attack low would be impractical for an overarm grip wouldn't it?

Also what are the advantages of the hoplon shield vs tower or kite shields?

[jirisys]

Would the men in the middle ranks be able to use the reach of their spears properly? If the front ranks were pushing then they would adopt a lower stance such as to move their centre of gravity down and thus be harder to move. Using a spear to attack low would be impractical for an overarm grip wouldn't it

Why would they use their spears at all? It's like saying that a middle-rank legionary wouldn't be able to use their swords properly. It's just ilogical. Middle ranks only enter in combat by either; becoming the front line (obviously unvalidating your point), being a phalangite (no point here), being a skirmisher (no point here again).

Also, why would you attack low at all, your enemy has this huge shield and greaves that covers him lower body, his neck is completely (if not a classical hoplite that is) vulnerable to your attack. Why would you even think attacking low? (unless your enemies are some uirodusios and gaesatae).

Big, you become a shield-wall, you are encouraged not to rout or leave formation because you would leave yourself and your brothers unprotected (plataia), you can join it with some greaves and a good helmet and you are nearly invulnerable, blows to the side slip off due to its curvature, you cannot hit it straight or your blow would lose force due to it's curvature, you can bash the puny enemy shields, your charge is well protected (it's hard to kill some running guy with a huge-*** shield covering almost his whole body), you can form a spear line, you can rest your spear on the shield-wall so you are ready and not tired by it's weight, etc.

That's all I could think of.

~Jirisys ()

[saka-rauka1]

Middle ranks was probably the wrong term. What I mean is that the 1st rank would be using their swords most of the time, whilst the guys immediately behind them would use spears. If you think about the positioning and stance of each of the soldiers, you will see that in order to hit someone over their shield, you need to angle your spear down. For someone who isn't in the 1st rank that would be impossible. So why carry spears at all?

Why wouldn't a good sized tower shield with a concave shape be just as good as a hoplon shield?

[gamegeek2]

A good sized scutum was a superior weapon for individual fighting, and it also doesn't require the same amount of protective equipment to be effective. A scutum or thureos can easily be lowered to protect the legs, which is not possible to do effectively with a hoplon; that's why hoplites and elite assault troops who carried aspides had to wear greaves, or they would get their legs chopped off.

[jirisys]

Middle ranks was probably the wrong term. What I mean is that the 1st rank would be using their swords most of the time, whilst the guys immediately behind them would use spears. If you think about the positioning and stance of each of the soldiers, you will see that in order to hit someone over their shield, you need to angle your spear down. For someone who isn't in the 1st rank that would be impossible. So why carry spears at all?

Why wouldn't a good sized tower shield with a concave shape be just as good as a hoplon shield?

Ok, so now you're criticizing the whole aspect of warfare? Spears were carried because it was defensive, the sword because it was for when things really got messy. Would you like to argue that every single soldier that carried a spear would make it useless?

Battles were not fought like the TW series shows it. It was thousands of men, spanning miles, most of the time with several more depth than just 8; just going at it, inches from one another. There was really no space or great room to use a spear your way. even phalanxes were not as effective against armoured soldiers; there wer hundreds of men who went into hand to hand with the phalanx. The spear is used as a piercing weapon, you try to insert the pointy thing inside someone; very useful for defense. Swords were used to cut and butcher as much as you could to make your enemy die; great for the offensive.

A good sized scutum was a superior weapon for individual fighting, and it also doesn't require the same amount of protective equipment to be effective. A scutum or thureos can easily be lowered to protect the legs, which is not possible to do effectively with a hoplon; that's why hoplites and elite assault troops who carried aspides had to wear greaves, or they would get their legs chopped off.

Yeah, problem is you get tired because you have your handle on the boss, you have more protection; yes. But you sacrifice stability, force and union.

Remember romans disciplined their troops different than the greeks.

~Jirisys ()

[QuintusSertorius]

The spear isn't simply a defensive weapon; what robs it of much of its offensive force is the need to stay in a tight formation. In a one-on-one fight a spear is an extremely versatile weapon. When you don't have room to use it in the myriad ways it can be wielded, then it becomes something less.

[moonburn]

the spear war normally 4 metters long so hoplite vs hoplite the 1st rank would have 4 pointy things going at them

i read here in a very old thread that there where 4 moments in hoplite warfare and the most important one was the oychos or something similar wich meant the push

in a hoplite batle if you could unbalance the other phallanx they would loose and if things got bad then you went for the swords wich was where the spartans excelled and made them the best warriors of ancient greece but if it got there then most of the times one of the army´s would just pull back and surrender the field

imho greek warfare was initially a ritualized pushing game i mean greece as very few plains and alot of rocky ground in the midle ages they where fighting as skirmishers against the turks and not as hoplites for a reason

hoplites where probably born when greeks had to fight the thessalians asians and others who used horses (shieldwall and spears) and when they fighted amonsgt themselfs nobady wanted to loose too many men because those where the citizens the farmers the bakers the armourers so during those times loosing a farmer meant less taxs to collect meant you would loose your milkman and your baker and your paperboy and they wheren´t easily replacable (ofc this is just pure conjecture)

also i think the regards to men being so crumped up in the phallanx that they shited themselfs with the forçe they had to endure or soldiers dieing and only falling to the ground after the phallanx was broken shows how "close" they where to each other and of the density of the phallanx and that only makes sence in a pushing contest so in such an enviroment underhand spear grapping is basically impossible but if you got your harm up you can move it kind of freely so ...

[bobbin]

the spear war normally 4 metters long so hoplite vs hoplite the 1st rank would have 4 pointy things going at them

4 metres? I think you've confused it with the sarissa, the dory was about 2m in length.

[saka-rauka1]

Ok, so now you're criticizing the whole aspect of warfare? Spears were carried because it was defensive, the sword because it was for when things really got messy. Would you like to argue that every single soldier that carried a spear would make it useless?

Battles were not fought like the TW series shows it. It was thousands of men, spanning miles, most of the time with several more depth than just 8; just going at it, inches from one another. There was really no space or great room to use a spear your way. even phalanxes were not as effective against armoured soldiers; there wer hundreds of men who went into hand to hand with the phalanx. The spear is used as a piercing weapon, you try to insert the pointy thing inside someone; very useful for defense. Swords were used to cut and butcher as much as you could to make your enemy die; great for the offensive.

Doesn't seem like there was any way to use a spear in the conditions described here. A spear's principle advantage is reach, which you don't have anymore; add to that the fact that they apparently broke often, and it seems that carrying one instead of a sword would just be ridiculous.

The spear isn't simply a defensive weapon; what robs it of much of its offensive force is the need to stay in a tight formation. In a one-on-one fight a spear is an extremely versatile weapon. When you don't have room to use it in the myriad ways it can be wielded, then it becomes something less.

A spear is much worse when its used in a 1v1 situation.

[QuintusSertorius]

Doesn't seem like there was any way to use a spear in the conditions described here. A spear's principle advantage is reach, which you don't have anymore; add to that the fact that they apparently broke often, and it seems that carrying one instead of a sword would just be ridiculous.

Later phalangites might have lacked a backup weapon, but no one ever used a spear instead of a sword. You carried both, the spear was primary and as throughout the ages the sword was the backup weapon of choice.

A spear is much worse when its used in a 1v1 situation.

Colour me totally unconvinced by that rather comical display.

[antisocialmunky]

That's like saying a knife beats a gun if the gun can't shoot at you.

[jirisys]

Doesn't seem like there was any way to use a spear in the conditions described here. A spear's principle advantage is reach, which you don't have anymore; add to that the fact that they apparently broke often, and it seems that carrying one instead of a sword would just be ridiculous.

A spear's principle is defensive ability, people stab themselves while they are trying to reach you, then you come to swords. You are pointing out your vision of spears, sarissas were perfect steam-rolling/mass-murdering weapons because people stabbed themselves while charging and they couldn't escape if being pushed.

You carried both. Close combat was always present, even as a phalangite, you would die if you were dumb enough to carry a spear only. Spears are used at the first stage of combat, when the enemy charges against your line; and of course, when swords would be useless. Such as... Say... When you are covered witha huge hoplon... you can use spears without fear of getting hacked by a sword, and you also can kill other hoplites more easily.

~Jirisys ()

[Ibrahim]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Would the artists involved in the creation of said depictions understand the finer points of combat?

well, considering the best pots (IMHO) are from the 5th century BC, a period of constant warfare in Greece, and a time when each tribe in a given city had to contribute men, it's not unreasonable to suppose that they would have seen hoplites, or even been hoplites themselves.

One point that is brought up in another video is that even modern media gets many things wrong when it depicts modern combat. He also mentions that he went to a museum and counted the number of vases that depicted overarm use as well as the ones that depicted underarm use. Overarm won out but only very slightly.

1-so? who said we're getting our ideas from CNN? or any other channel or media outlet? this is a strawman of his on the overarm camp-of which I am actually apathetic about.

2-simply counting stuff makes no sense on it's own. you need a statistical qualifier to show that bias hasn't creeped into your sample (an issue I find likely with him). context also matters: how did the men fight when holding their spears a certain way? in a formation, or one on one? what dates were the pots from? are they regarding RL, or mythology?

I'm wondering why, if the two front lines were so close, why they would use spears at all when a smaller, bladed weapon would be much less cumbersome.

shock? and they'd break anyways from the impact, so the hoplites would have soon turned to bladed weapons anyways.

Another thing that's nagging at me is that in such formations routing becomes suicidal, when casulties in battle were very low for hoplite vs hoplite battles.

you are assuming the Greeks were worth a crap as cavalrymen. outside of Thessaly and maybe Makedonia, they weren't. and the main battle line wouldn't have been able to pursue: heavily burdened in summer weather (the fighting season) and having already spent several minutes in heavy hand to hand fighting (or pushing), the winners likely had no stamina left. the losers would also be bushed, but they'd have dropped their heavy shields-a sign of disgrace as well BTW.

Would the men in the middle ranks be able to use the reach of their spears properly? If the front ranks were pushing then they would adopt a lower stance such as to move their centre of gravity down and thus be harder to move. Using a spear to attack low would be impractical for an overarm grip wouldn't it?

Also what are the advantages of the hoplon shield vs tower or kite shields?

1-the phalanx was only meant to have the first few ranks at a time presenting spears: the rest were for reserve action and giving "depth" to the phalanx. so the middle and rear wouldn't have to lower a thing.

2-are you saying the ancient greeks were willing to castrate their brethren in combat? I wonder how that would fly in a Greek Trial.

3-I don't know, and couldn't give a darn. I'm more into pike, bayonet and shot...and dark age stuff.

Doesn't seem like there was any way to use a spear in the conditions described here. A spear's principle advantage is reach, which you don't have anymore; add to that the fact that they apparently broke often, and it seems that carrying one instead of a sword would just be ridiculous.
A spear is much worse when its used in a 1v1 situation.

1-you are assuming that the overhand had to be held from the middle, reducing reach to 4 ft. what of the bronze counterweights, which we know were at the butt-end of the spear?

2-finally, the whole lot of you seem to make the assumption that just because a pose looks (and may even be) impractical, doesn't mean it wasn't used: Soldiers outside of Prussia (possibly Austria) in the mid-18th century usually charged bayonets chest high-like a 16th century pike-man. it's a crappy posture for a musket (sth only 6.5 ft long at most with bayonet, and about 11 Lbs, as opposed to a 16ft pike), but hey, they used it anyways.

[saka-rauka1]

1-so? who said we're getting our ideas from CNN? or any other channel or media outlet? this is a strawman of his on the overarm camp-of which I am actually apathetic about.

I never made any such claim.

2-simply counting stuff makes no sense on it's own. you need a statistical qualifier to show that bias hasn't creeped into your sample (an issue I find likely with him). context also matters: how did the men fight when holding their spears a certain way? in a formation, or one on one? what dates were the pots from? are they regarding RL, or mythology?

One should ask why they were depicted underarm at all especially since I've been told now that most people would be familiar with hoplite combat and that underarm depictions are:

similar to depicting modern soldiers holding the gun the wrong way round.

shock? and they'd break anyways from the impact, so the hoplites would have soon turned to bladed weapons anyways.

Exactly, from what I have gathered the spears would quickly break and if they didn't then the close quarters would make it irrelevant. Why not ditch the spears and use swords exclusively.

you are assuming the Greeks were worth a crap as cavalrymen. outside of Thessaly and maybe Makedonia, they weren't. and the main battle line wouldn't have been able to pursue: heavily burdened in summer weather (the fighting season) and having already spent several minutes in heavy hand to hand fighting (or pushing), the winners likely had no stamina left. the losers would also be bushed, but they'd have dropped their heavy shields-a sign of disgrace as well BTW.

The lack of cavalry was what led me to believe that casulties were low in the first place. My point, was that if in such a tightly packed formation with people pushing into you from behind, routing would be unfeasable; the enemy could easily catch you, shield or no.

2-are you saying the ancient greeks were willing to castrate their brethren in combat? I wonder how that would fly in a Greek Trial.

And I'm the one posting a strawman? How you reached this conclusion based on what I said, I'll never know.

1-you are assuming that the overhand had to be held from the middle, reducing reach to 4 ft. what of the bronze counterweights, which we know were at the butt-end of the spear?

No, I have accepted that there were counterweights, and that it allowed you to hold it furthur from the centre. The reach of the spear is gone because you have no room to wield it properly.

[FriendlyFire]

I second the recommendation to read "The Western Way of War". It covers pretty much everything discussed in this thread, including the fact that the shield's concavity was nicely designed to (a) partly hang from your shoulder, since the damn thing was so heavy, and (b) wedge into the guy ahead of you for the "push of pike".

One topic we don't seem to have covered in this thread so far is that spears are much better than swords for the initial close-formation charge, when you can get your charging body-weight concentrated into a spearpoint. That was often sufficient to punch through shields, helmets, or body armor. This also explains why the shield WAS so heavy, because they were made thick in an attempt to resist charging spear-points - and they couldn't be made much bigger without becoming too heavy to lift. Also why dropping your shield was an effective way to lighten yourself enough to get away in combat, and also so frowned upon (because you just took away half the protection from the guy on your left). Once you're actually in the melee, you're jabbing down with an overhand grip for your opponent's shoulders and neck, or up with an underhand grip into their groin (there are Greek post-battle stories cite in the book about men bleeding out from their groin).

[Ibrahim]

I never made any such claim.

.

I didn't say you did; in fact, if you actually reread my post (which you ironically quoted), I made it clear my contention was with Lindey-if not, ask yourself why I used the third person, rather than the second person. I was referring to the point lindeybeige himself said, about the media. while his first point is correct, it doesn't actually address why people think overhand, not underhand was used: there are other arguments aside from mere "depiction" of such. you only need to read the other posts here to see: reach, shield shape, the formation itself, prevention of "friendly poking", etc.

One should ask why they were depicted underarm at all especially since I've been told now that most people would be familiar with hoplite combat and that underarm depictions are

as I said in my post: it may depend on the situation at hand; as this is a question of how Hoplites fought in phalanx, we need to establish if overhand use (or underhand), is more relevant to depictions from Greek times of said formation.

Exactly, from what I have gathered the spears would quickly break and if they didn't then the close quarters would make it irrelevant. Why not ditch the spears and use swords exclusively.

shock (amplifying the initial power of the impact)*? knight's lances also shattered on impact most of the time-yet for some reason, Knights to my knowledge never really came to your same conclusion-at least in general. (the lance was only abandoned because the role of cavalry changed after the middle ages; the latter due to the intro of gunpowder in part, in part from the rise of professional modern armies,and so on)

and yes, whether it is knight or Hoplite, it's the same idea: using you velocity concentrated at a sharp point, well away from you, to poke into the enemy and kill him.

*see friendlyfire's post.

The lack of cavalry was what led me to believe that casulties were low in the first place. My point, was that if in such a tightly packed formation with people pushing into you from behind, routing would be unfeasable; the enemy could easily catch you, shield or no.

you also seem to imply that the losing side will just keep pushing-I might be misunderstanding you hear, but that's the implication. they wouldn't-not unless they wanted to die for nothing: if a gap was forced (as in most of these engagements), it would have meant the flanking of the pockets of losing hoplites. those would naturally be seized by fear, and haul it. so any pushing from the losers would stop. unless they're the theban sacred band. it's interesting to note however that much of the killing was when the losers started to run. but even then, you would have to ask yourself: why not be able to kill more of those routing men? and the answer is as I mentioned: once the fleeing survivors dropped their panoply in panic, they could get away from the winning hoppers.

And I'm the one posting a strawman? How you reached this conclusion based on what I said, I'll never know.

again, never said you did. reread the comment-I didn't edit it at all since I first posted it (and again, which you ironically quoted). and I was commenting on the impracticality of the spears being locked underarm in a phalanx situation. and more importantly, it was a joke. yeah, i forgot the clown smiley...

No, I have accepted that there were counterweights, and that it allowed you to hold it furthur from the centre. The reach of the spear is gone because you have no room to wield it properly.

why would that be the case? even if the spear didn't shatter on impact, the hoplite would still be able to plunge it into the 2nd and 3rd ranks-at least in theory. and if that wasn't feasible, then all the better towards explaining why hoplite warfare was inefficient.