The Pushing Match

[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.

[Randal]

There's still quite a debate about the meaning of the term "othismos" which in the past has been interpreted as literal "pushing" but nowadays is getting interpreted more as a general term for the "tide of battle."

I've not done a lot of reading on the subject, but I've read R. D. Luginbill, 'Othismos: the importance of the mass-shove in hoplite warfare', Phoenix 48/I(I994), si-6i; and A. K. Goldsworthy, 'The othismos, myths and heresies: the nature of hoplite battle', War in History 4/I ( 997), I-26.

The former defends the traditional interpretation that Greek soldiers were literally shoving eachother like an inverse tug-of-war. Goldsworthy, i.m.o. argues much more convincingly that this is pretty much impossible and shows the term or similar ones being used even when the soldiers involved are not equipped in a way that would make literal "shoving" possible.

Given the low casualty ratings hoplite battles must have been far more tentative affairs than is assumed in the common imagination or shown in Total War. The charges probably either broke the enemy very quickly or failed to hit home as the enemy stood firm, with only brief but important periods of actual hand-to-hand fighting.

As for how they held the spear, I'm assuming over-hand. From what I've read from professional re-enactors, it's a myth that the sword is better than the spear in single-combat. Good spear-fighters apparently are very dangerous. Spear-thrusts are easy to parry, but carry so little momentum that they're also easy to recover from making it a very quick and dangerous weapon. No sources, though. Sorry. This is just what I remember reading.

[antisocialmunky]

Yeah, the reading of 'pushing' has always been an interesting point to me especially in the case of Leuctra where the 50 deep Theban left managed to crush the Spartan right and inflict massive casualties. The interesting bit seems to have been that the Spartans held the initial charge but eventually broke during the course of the fighting so it must have been a slightly drawn out affair. :\

At Coronea, the Spartan right managed to quickly rout the allied left after a mutual charge. Its hard to say what exactly was the nature of hoplite warfare...

[Randal]

It seems pretty ridiculous to me to assume that those 50 men were all pushing forward against eachother in an armoured rugby-scrum... I could picture it with up to half a dozen men maybe, but at the depths hoplites fought in...

I'm not saying, by the way, that hoplite battles were always over quickly. We know that some definitely weren't. Just that actual shield-to-shield mêlée fighting must have been brief.

[Arjos]

Also after each clash, I think always, is said how caos breaks free, many times with same wings killing eachother...

[tujo33]

Another thing to think about is you wouldn't only be attacking the person directly in front of you. A thrust to your right with a spear could pierce the neck of the combatant to your right who would be partially unprotected due to the space between the tops of his and his neighbors aspis. this would also lend to the thought of having your best hoplites on the right of the line. Attacking the soldier to the left or right of you. I like to think that as long as the phalanx stayed together they would fight as a phalanx, not breaking into one on one combat. a spear thrust from the front rank could injure someone in the fourth line.

[Alrik]

Ok, first I thought this was an april-fools thread, but apparently the initial posts were older than that.

I'm not sure what you mean with the different names on the grip, there's two ways of holding a spear, one way for thowing it and one way for hand to hand combat. So I really thought this was a non-issue and hence the thread a joke.

I'll call this the M-grip for Missile

and this H-grip for hand-to-hand combat (I'll thus try to refrain from saying melee)

The M-grip enables you to throw the spear, in hand-to-hand however you'd be a dead idiot, pretty quickly. For one it's not possible to thust with the spear using this grip and a spear is a thusting weapon. You can stab, but as that makes the point follow the arch of your hand, stabbing is thus obviously an attack best suited for short weapons.

There's also the issue of it being "flimsy", you have little controll of the weapon, if someone bumps your weapon it's much harder to get back under control than with the H-grip and it forces you to hold the weapon closer to the center than an H-grip does.

There's also the issue of more or less only being able to stab, if you want the spearpoint to continue forward you actually have to losen your grip on the shaft, otherwise it'll start a downward motion, losening the grip obviously means that you can transfer less force into the attack.

One can only use this grip shoulder height and above as opposed to the H-grip which can more or less be used at any height.

Thrusting as someone using the M-grip also exposes two great targets for your opponent;
For anything with a blade, that can be a spearpoint, but becomes a lot worse if it's a sword or something with a bit more force behind the swipe. The lovely vertical underarm, in front of your body, no less so it's even easy to reach.
Secondly the nice pocket your armpit makes, a wonderful target for anything with a thrustingpoint. Not only does the armpit catch the thrust nicely, and lead it into body, but this area is really hard to armour, because doing so usually limits movement.

The H-grip in turn have:

Greater reach, because you can both hold further back on the spear and extend your arm further.

Greater control, meaning you can wield your spear in numerous ways, like, block, or swipe, or use it to "catch" your opponents spears.

Greater force, not only does this grip enable a movement that generates more force, but it also enables you to transfer your bodyweight and your momentum into the thrust. This combined with the fact that the thrust from this grip continues in a straight line, means that one can pierce something and continue on through.

Greater presision. This is a result from this grip being steadier and giving you more control, but also from the fact that the spearpoint doesn't move in a trajectory. Hitting where you want is pretty important when you're facing an armoured and/or shield wielding opponent.

That's what I find at the top of my head at 1 Am :P

Oh the second spearpoint, like has been said before, it's probably good to have a reserve spearpoint, but as you're probably holding your spear pretty far back with the counterweight and all, if your opponent charges past your spearpoint, then sending the spearpoint skywards you quickly have an M-grip and a short weapon, that you can use to stab your oncoming foe in the face/neck/torso. Perhaps not ideal, but pretty deadly as your charging foe usually wants to see what he's doing (hence his shield probably isn't held up too high enableling you to possibly act over it as an M-grip means you act in the high reagions.) and it's a lot quicker than changing to your secondary weapon.

Ahh and the mentionings on low number of casulties makes me guess that they in those cases fought at more or less maximum reach in what I've come to know and despise as "spear duels", it's a really timeconsuming and low casulty way of fighting where spearmen on both sides poke at each other trying to get through the other's guard. Compared to a headon charge ending at closequaters this type of engagement can take forever without hardly anyone dying.
Obviosly in this kind of fighting you want reach more than anything.

[Ibrahim]

Ok, first I thought this was an april-fools thread, but apparently the initial posts were older than that.

I'm not sure what you mean with the different names on the grip, there's two ways of holding a spear, one way for thowing it and one way for hand to hand combat. So I really thought this was a non-issue and hence the thread a joke.

I'll call this the M-grip for Missile

and this H-grip for hand-to-hand combat (I'll thus try to refrain from saying melee)

The M-grip enables you to throw the spear, in hand-to-hand however you'd be a dead idiot, pretty quickly. For one it's not possible to thust with the spear using this grip and a spear is a thusting weapon. You can stab, but as that makes the point follow the arch of your hand, stabbing is thus obviously an attack best suited for short weapons.

by your very own logic here, you just showed exactly why spears, if used, would be overarm. afterall, when it is so, it has the appearance of a man about to thrown a javelin-and works the same way too: you're using the momentum of your arm to impact with the greatest force.

and if you think the "M grip" (it's an Argive grip, not M grip; I can find this googling it) is better for swords, then why is it that the Romans ditched it?

Yeah, the reading of 'pushing' has always been an interesting point to me especially in the case of Leuctra where the 50 deep Theban left managed to crush the Spartan right and inflict massive casualties. The interesting bit seems to have been that the Spartans held the initial charge but eventually broke during the course of the fighting so it must have been a slightly drawn out affair. :\

At Coronea, the Spartan right managed to quickly rout the allied left after a mutual charge. Its hard to say what exactly was the nature of hoplite warfare...

I think the 50 rank is less to do with "push", and more to do with psycohology and playing the numbers' game: if the spartans only fought an enemy 8 ranks deep, it's all fine and good. but then rank after rank after rank? that would have worn the Spartans out.

EDIT: this indeed had better be a joke.

[Alrik]

by your very own logic here, you just showed exactly why spears, if used, would be overarm. afterall, when it is so, it has the appearance of a man about to thrown a javelin-and works the same way too: you're using the momentum of your arm to impact with the greatest force.

and if you think the "M grip" (it's an Argive grip, not M grip; I can find this googling it) is better for swords, then why is it that the Romans ditched it?

When you throw something, you let go of it, otherwise the tip starts following the downward arch of your hand upsetting the force of the item and ofsetting your aim. The underarm grip as you call it even lets you throw the spear forward all the same, with the difference that you can reach out maximum and still retain your aim, it even lets you change the direction fairly late, should your opponent move or get his shield in the way.

As for the Romans, I would indeed be surprised if they had used a grip that'd only allow them to stab when they used a sword, to be able to thust and exchange blows, not to mention the ability to parry in more ways than one speak against this grip inmost hand-to-hand scenarios. The only weapon I can see it's uce for is a dagger, and then the ability to be able to slit your opponent's unprotected throat, might still be too heavy an argument againt its use.

I mentioned it in hand to hand combat because there is one said circumstance where it has merit and it's when your opponent gets too close for you to use your long weapon and it's quicker than reaching for your secondary weapon.

I also would encourage people to actually wield a weapon, try for one to hit a row of items with a long stick using both grips, should probably be at head height since the head is a promary target unless the opponent doesn't have shields. You'll notice aim, reach and force are all better with the underarm grip and yes you have no problem using it at shoulder height. Neither does your elbow shoot out further and annoy your fellow to your right than the other grip does.

[Ibrahim]

When you throw something, you let go of it, otherwise the tip starts following the downward arch of your hand upsetting the force of the item and ofsetting your aim.

.having actually tried a spear, I find you can always swivel your wrist round to compensate for that. it's still not accurate when starting this, but it has a great deal of force, and with practice you can probably get accurate enough.

As for the Romans, I would indeed be surprised if they had used a grip that'd only allow them to stab when they used a sword, to be able to thust and exchange blows, not to mention the ability to parry in more ways than one speak against this grip inmost hand-to-hand scenarios. The only weapon I can see it's uce for is a dagger, and then the ability to be able to slit your opponent's unprotected throat, might still be too heavy an argument againt its use.

huh?

I mentioned it in hand to hand combat because there is one said circumstance where it has merit and it's when your opponent gets too close for you to use your long weapon and it's quicker than reaching for your secondary weapon.

both shields can do that-they do it differently though. what's your point again?

I'll let someone else handle the rest. though I will tell you, I actually tried this out a long time ago. (a year ago actually). worked out just fine either way. you need practice.

[QuintusSertorius]

How exactly are you supposed to use an underhand grip with locked shields?

[ziegenpeter]

I am sorry that I hadnt got the time to read the whole thread, but I am going to do so and to write a more elaborate answer, but for now I'd like to say that this guy on youtube seems to have very good points when it comes to early european medieval times (when no spear butt spikes were used), for the rest... its debatable.

[saka-rauka1]

Hold on a second. I just realised: if each man in a unit is pushing against his opposing enemy, then if he does gain ground, his shield will no longer be interlocked with those of his neighbours, someone could just poke him with their spear through the gap in the shield wall; moreover, the guy to his left would lose protection too.

[moonburn]

if the shields are interlocked properly he wouldn´t be the only one pushed back but as he gets pushed back and he as 7 other dudes pushing against his back if he isn´t experienced the squeeze can unbalance him and he might forget to duck his head and be speared

the worst that could happen is to loose balance in a more "relaxed" phase of the batle and be trampled if you died during the 8-15 minutes a oychos lasted then it didn´t really mattered the pressure was such that the body and the shield would remain fixed and only when the pressure eased would your body drop to the floor

[jirisys]

Hold on a second. I just realised: if each man in a unit is pushing against his opposing enemy, then if he does gain ground, his shield will no longer be interlocked with those of his neighbours, someone could just poke him with their spear through the gap in the shield wall; moreover, the guy to his left would lose protection too.

Again, don't address my points. And make up new ones.

Interlocking shields means you would not be able to move forward only if you were to move away from formation. Try to look at my drawing to see what an interlocking might look like. Also some small figures on that same thread.

~Jirisys ()

[vartan]

English:
I have a harder question for some of you peeps: What is the significance of the debate over varying reconstructions of hoplite warfare?

Simple English (a la Los Angeles):
time to challenge you punk *** foos. wats so 'portant 'bout weder you push it like diz or push it like dat, huh?

[saka-rauka1]

Again, don't address my points. And make up new ones.

Oh the humanity.

That's it. I give up. Sending him back in time to any hoplite battle is the only way he will be convinced. Oh bloody.

Doesn't seem like there's much point but I'll indulge you.

I can draw a 10 foot soldier with medieval armor and greek shield. But that doesn't make it true is it? It's not a matter of drawings, it's one of actual real life.

Artistic License eh?

Etruscan hoplite. Fought like greeks too. Overarm.

Ah yes how could I forget. These same guys then went on to conquer the world.........oh wait, no they didn't.

No, in fact it would have been easier to rout in an 8 rank deep phalanx than a 256 phalangite unit, or a maniple. As you can clearly see what the bloody is happening about 20 yards away or less. Also you have horns and music and screams to drop the shields. And you just scream "Drop your shields" and try to move back until you can actually move back and get the hell away.

Oh really? So its easier to rout in a closely packed formation than a loose order one?

Mention any other melee weapon known and used by the greeks other than swords. Also, you seem to think that "If x was so bad, then it would have been phased out". It doesn't happen that way. Swords were useful, it doesn't mean

You expect me to say that they should have used axes, or maces? Or that they indeed did use them? Why would I do that? That first point makes no sense at all.



@Ibrahim

looking at 1:26, I might be convinced, though I see no evidence of an opposing force, or that they are charging-they're simply men running in formation to a place. he doesn't address that fact. nor does he address the fact that some very serious scenery-like on the chigi vase, show two forces charging at one another over arm.

Point taken.

and @ 1:44: that's neither under or over: it's just a bunch of Greeks running with their spears upright-compatible with either. that's why I made the point that he just tells you the fact-and expects you to agree: it's one thing to show a picture and declare it to mean sth: it's another to actually look at it yourself and think about it.

Not really, upright using an overarm grip would be incredibly awkward compared to underarm.

and many of these scenes are also of individual combat: in that scenario, either could work, though I do agree underarm was more sensical there. one thing I must point out though is that much of these vases are clearly depicting scenes from mythology-especially Homeric mythology. the Greeks knew people fought differently then-the Illiad pretty much says so. and since those were from the days prior to the phalanx, I doubt they can be used to infer much about the phalanx.

I do agree with him though, the Greeks were stylized in depicting their heroes: Nudity symbolized that well. but again, the Chigi vase, and many others, show them in full panoply, in formation, overarm. and depiction of same in individual combat, does show that the soldiers used underarm. again, see the link I provided.

I agree that he hasn't really explained them in enough detail; many of those could indeed be from mythology, he doesn't say. On another more tangential note, what of later works such as the Bayeux Tapestry? IIRC, it shows someone getting his helmet cleaved in two by an opponents sword, something that is impossible to do. Was it perhaps the case that war wasn't as close to home as it was for Ancient Greeks?

yes, they did ditch the phalanx, when the manipular structure and the legion were perfected: that's also when the Hastati/principes began using swords as the primary melee weapon.

and the first part of your statement makes no sense: especially as I never said, or even implied that. I simply stated that the soldiers you gave as an example simply didn't fight like hoplites-they were more "hands on", with sword and shield. now had you said they were the same men were from before the adoption of the legionary structure and later the maniples-before which their main equipment was the spear, then yes, they were in a phalanx.

I didn't mean to imply that you were saying otherwise, I simply wanted to make my own point clearer. I'm trying to say that the later manipular and legionary structures were better than the older hoplite phalanx. This would then make me question why the Greeks stuck to it for so long.

yeah it could turn quickly-most battles pretty much ended up like that, and it would certainly be harder to escape if you're in the front. but again, it doesn't necessarily mean it will be any harder for the rear to run then in other battle types. as mentioned before, the killing really escalated when the routing began (which was also the case in any battle back then), and men began to run. again, it's clear we don't fundamentally disagree about that either. the main issue here is that while it could get real bloody for the loser, it never really for the most part ended up like say, Cynocephalae: we don't see whole armies cut down in Greek on Greek action. and the reason was given-at least in my estimation-for that. once the men began to run and put some distance from the enemy-often by dropping equipment-they could eventually outrun the enemy. not before obviously quite few men were cut down running.

This is what I've been driving at, the back ranks could rout as easily as any other soldier, but the front ranks have to content with the close quarters of allies as well as the forward momentum of the enemy. I can see how battles were so decisive even with low casulties. The men in the front were the more experienced of the unit, and they didn't have the luxury of being able to fight another day.

[jirisys]

Ah yes how could I forget. These same guys then went on to conquer the world.........oh wait, no they didn't.

What are you talking about?

Oh really? So its easier to rout in a closely packed formation than a loose order one?

Yes, because it's less deep and it is still pretty tight. You are STILL keeping the TW conception of battles.

You expect me to say that they should have used axes, or maces? Or that they indeed did use them? Why would I do that? That first point makes no sense at all.

Yes it does. You say that every thing that is awkward or is not able to be used in it's completeness must have "faded away". YOUR points make no sense. I was just asking what you were arguing for"

Not really, upright using an overarm grip would be incredibly awkward compared to underarm.

No. We already told you many times.

I agree that he hasn't really explained them in enough detail; many of those could indeed be from mythology, he doesn't say. On another more tangential note, what of later works such as the Bayeux Tapestry? IIRC, it shows someone getting his helmet cleaved in two by an opponents sword, something that is impossible to do. Was it perhaps the case that war wasn't as close to home as it was for Ancient Greeks?

It is artistic license. What you said in the beginning. I guess you cannot see your lack of consistency in your points.

I didn't mean to imply that you were saying otherwise, I simply wanted to make my own point clearer. I'm trying to say that the later manipular and legionary structures were better than the older hoplite phalanx. This would then make me question why the Greeks stuck to it for so long.

Because the legions were great for fighting in the battlefields of the Romans. The phalanx was great to fight in the greek battlefields and the Nomadic hordes were great for fighting in the nomadic battlefields.

Bu you know? The legions got murdered in Carrhae, the phalanx in Cynoscephalae, and the Nomads on Chalons.

It is always good to know some basic history.

This is what I've been driving at, the back ranks could rout as easily as any other soldier, but the front ranks have to content with the close quarters of allies as well as the forward momentum of the enemy. I can see how battles were so decisive even with low casulties. The men in the front were the more experienced of the unit, and they didn't have the luxury of being able to fight another day.

You scream, you sound trumpets, you insult the guy on the back to make way. If you want to live you keep fighting or try to force your way out.

~Jirisys ()

[vartan]

Ah yes how could I forget. These same guys then went on to conquer the world.........oh wait, no they didn't.

Actually, the Romans (originally from an Etruscan settlement) did conquer a big chunk of the world. Observe Augustus.

[Vaginacles]

Actually, the Romans (originally from an Etruscan settlement) did conquer a big chunk of the world. Observe Augustus.

i was under the impression that Rome was a Latin city? The Etruscans were a distinct ethnicity compared to the latins, no?

The idea that underhand thrust would be viable in a close-locked phalanx formation is false. The aspis would cover neck to knee, you would have to hold the spear LOWER than your knee, and this would severely restrict your fighting abilities, nevermind the fact that your spear could be easily trapped underneath the mangle of bodies, feet, and shields of the opposing phalanx. An overhead posture is the only viable way to attack.

However, underhand thrusts would be useful in a looser formation against lightly armored or disorganized rabble. Against cavalry, the buttspike should be used to brace the spear against a cavalry charge.

[Dutchhoplite]

A bit late but i wouldn't trust Xenophon's description of Leuktra too much. He's hopelessly biased towards Sparta and his description of the battle is an exercise in exculpation and excuse making.

[saka-rauka1]

You have done both.

Where?

They abandoned it by 240 CE (?) (I'm not certain, just making up the number here, point is; manipular and cohortal tactics weren't really alive by the end of it)

I can't really debate past this point since my knowledge of that time period is very limited. I will say however that WRE's declining Heavy Infantry was one of the factors that contributed to its collapse.

Well, then you're wrong. It refers to the ACTUAL technique and the ACTUAL weaponry.

Now I've forgotten what we are even debating :)

Tiny numbers; people hardly make it through sarissas, unrealistic animations, no direct contact with the other combattant, no close combat melee, etc.

Definately not what I think of when I imagine warfare.

Because you implied it, several times.

What I imply and you infer are clearly two different things. I'll clear this up now: overarm usage in general is not awkward. Overarm usage in the pose depicted on that particular vase is laughable. It only takes a few seconds to realise that turning your hand through 180 degrees for any great length of time with a heavy spear in that hand will lead to quite a few sprained wrists.

The fact that you named my depiction as artistic license; but not your depictions, which have most likely; an artistic license.

To go back to the start of the thread you can see that the argument of "Artistic License" doesn't hold water in regards to an overarm/underarm debate. Several posts later I am informed that depicting the wrong pose would be a very illogical thing to do:

"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."

So if this is the case, why would there be any underarm depictions? The point was raised that context was important, that these depictions may not be late hoplite phalanx warfare but rather, mythological battles. So I then brought up a later example asking what the reason behind that was. It should be rather obvious that splitting someones helmet with a sword is simply impossible to do, so then why did the artist depict that? Perhaps warfare was more distant to them, so this did not seem far-fetched. The issue here is suspension of disbelief. People don't really mind the fact the guns never seem to run out in films, yet curving bullets would be a step too far. A soldier who has completed a few tours might care more for the little details however and find it hard to suspend their disbelief when action heroes never have to reload.

This is the context you were lacking when you decried my points as lacking consistency. Furthermore your example was little more than a strawman. You came up with some ridiculous concept for a drawing and then implied that any and all depictions were to be disregarded. Ironically this is the same point Lindybeige makes.

No, formations and equipement are based upon the way of fighting in that particular area, the era or time you are in; and with your most common enemy. The cohorts were flexible while cohesive, yet the invading armies took a toll on them and it was abandoned because formations became less important, and strategy became dominant in the battlefield.

Unless you have seen both the parthians and the celtiberians develop both falcatas and horse archery, idependently; then my point is valid. Imagine parthians with falcatas and celtiberians with hordes of horse archers.

Tactics are also more adapted to your environment. Like the ambushing germanics, horsemen of thessalian hills, nomadic steppe horsemen, etc.

Nor is pettyness and self-importance either; but hey! I have em. Along with possibly someone else.

Also; here's an anacronistic example of how awful a hoplite shield wall is with underarm spear holding

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4RFr...eature=related

Tactics and strategy obviously decide how battles can go but that's not what I'm debating here. I brought up the Romans mainly because of the similarities with Ancient Greece. They fought as hoplites initialy with little (if any) cavalry. The terrain wasn't suited to that sure so they abandoned that method of fighting. Most importantly though, they stuck with it. Their method of fighting worked against an incredbily diverse range of terrains and enemies. This would be why I brought up the size of their empire.

And for the last time, this isn't about overarm spears.

[Toorstain]

What I imply and you infer are clearly two different things. I'll clear this up now: overarm usage in general is not awkward. Overarm usage in the pose depicted on that particular vase is laughable. It only takes a few seconds to realise that turning your hand through 180 degrees for any great length of time with a heavy spear in that hand will lead to quite a few sprained wrists.

I think he meant (if i'm thinking of the right vase) that even though you hold your spear underarm with the point up while marching doesn't mean you won't fight overarm. But i'll let him clarify that himself.

[Delta146]

Overarm usage in the pose depicted on that particular vase is laughable. It only takes a few seconds to realise that turning your hand through 180 degrees for any great length of time with a heavy spear in that hand will lead to quite a few sprained wrists.

I don't know what depiction you are referring to, but I have taken a dowel that is not counterweighted (Offset by the fact that it has no spearhead), not tapered, too thick, and I found it completely comfortable to hold it overarm. The thrust felt more powerful than underarm, I felt no length restriction, and it seemed more natural given the pose, so I object to you implying that it's somehow obvious that you are right and the other argument is laughable.

[Geticus]

A bit late but i wouldn't trust Xenophon's description of Leuktra too much. He's hopelessly biased towards Sparta and his description of the battle is an exercise in exculpation and excuse making.

Do you think Xenophon didn't know how hoplites fought in phalanx?

[fomalhaut]

i think he is just saying not to take Xenophon as the end all source due to a particular bias he may or may not have

[vartan]

i think he is just saying not to take Xenophon as the end all source due to a particular bias he may or may not have

Most binaries are false, but the interesting case here is that the discussion isn't about ideologies. The discussion is about holding a spear overhand or underhand, and I'm not sure if there is any alternative to those two ways of holding a spear (I've never really used a spear, go easy on me!) Xenophon, if I remember right, was a soldier who recorded stories. If so, the one thing he should not mistake is how he and his fellow troop members held their spears (if that's the weapon they used, or one of the weapons).

[Geticus]

Most binaries are false, but the interesting case here is that the discussion isn't about ideologies. The discussion is about holding a spear overhand or underhand, and I'm not sure if there is any alternative to those two ways of holding a spear (I've never really used a spear, go easy on me!) Xenophon, if I remember right, was a soldier who recorded stories. If so, the one thing he should not mistake is how he and his fellow troop members held their spears (if that's the weapon they used, or one of the weapons).

Xenophon was born an Athenian citizen, one of the most famous pupils of Socrates, co-strategos of the 10,000 man mercenary phalanx which fought under Prince Kyros at the battle of Cunaxa, and then returned successfully and intact to Hellas under harrassment from the Persian King's troops most of the way. He was one of Alexander the Great's inspirations in showing the weakness and dissoluteness of the Persian nobility of that era, and in general a favorite of later historians like Caesar and Arrian, who actually called himself Xenophon.

In my estimation he is very much a heavy hitter due to his in-the-field experience and diversity of education (studied under Socrates in Athens, spent later adult life in Lakedaimon) and one of the most important classical historians regardless of bias.

[saka-rauka1]

Overarm and underarm.

Pushing.

It's the freaking OP!

All that was, was background explaining why I was posting here. I didn't make a point there, did I? My point was made in the second paragraph. You'll notice throughout the thread that I haven't debated the disadvantages/advantages of either grip.

Actually, I think the lack of men and economy made the WRE collapse, the lack of proper heavy infantry was a consequence of that.

Remember the romans were beaten multiple times. Tactics and strategy weren't really as important to them as was discipline and numbers.

Yes this was what I meant to say; it was a secondary factor, certainly not a main factor.

Every army has it share of defeats; take the battle you meantion earlier, Cannae. Numbers were in their favour here, but they still lost; and in the end it was strategy (Fabian Strategy) that saved them from Hannibal in Italy, and tactics that led to Hannibals defeat at Zama. I would say that a lot of things influenced their successful conquests, enough to warrant its one thread.

It seems you do; as you think that a spear is actually useful for keeping men at a distance. While it was rather to kill men with forward momentum.

A spear concentrates is energy behind a single sharp point, thus being better suited to pierce armour than a sword. That said, you can't exactly put full power behind it if your enemy is right on front of your face. I think I should bring up poleaxes though. When full plate armour became prevalent, a means to get through that armour was needed, and poleaxes were one of the solutions. Spears obviously didn't quite cut it. So if you were thinking that the Greeks were after a very good armour piercing weapon; I would say that they could have found a better weapon for that purpose, one that would suit close quarters fighting. Lets not forget, that cataphracts in the east used maces for this purpose despite reach being an issue for someone on horseback.

I would also argue that if a spear isn't useful for keeping people at a distance, they wouldn't have been nearly as long as they were.

I didn't say ALL drawings are to be disregarded. That is YOUR strawman. I implied that I could draw anything. But that didn't mean it's true. It can be or it cannot.

You said: "It's not a matter of drawings, it's one of actual real life" which would definately imply that artistic depictions lack merit. If that was not your intended point, then okay, I'll drop the issue.

I wasn't addressing that.

Then what were you addressing? You quoted that specifically when you first responded.

[bobbin]

A spear concentrates is energy behind a single sharp point, thus being better suited to pierce armour than a sword. That said, you can't exactly put full power behind it if your enemy is right on front of your face. I think I should bring up poleaxes though. When full plate armour became prevalent, a means to get through that armour was needed, and poleaxes were one of the solutions. Spears obviously didn't quite cut it. So if you were thinking that the Greeks were after a very good armour piercing weapon; I would say that they could have found a better weapon for that purpose, one that would suit close quarters fighting. Lets not forget, that cataphracts in the east used maces for this purpose despite reach being an issue for someone on horseback.

I would also argue that if a spear isn't useful for keeping people at a distance, they wouldn't have been nearly as long as they were.

Hoplite spearheads were not designed to penetrate armour, they had a wide leaf shape which was perfect for cutting into flesh but would have been fairly useless against metal armour. They did have a buttspike that was designed to do that but it has been theorised that was more for finishing off enemies who had already fallen. For close quarters there was the Kopis, which was specially meant to pierce armour.

And yes you right, keeping people at a distance was exactly what the spear was invented for.