Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
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.