The Pushing Match

[Macilrille]

underhand shield-wall are too much like viking things

We use one-handed spears overhand as well a lot. It is very effective in close quarters. Any doubter is invited to come to an Ask training session where I am in charge.
The pushing I find very unconvincing though as it would be suicide to get in close and push physically on an opponent changing to overhand grip and stabbing down into your neck and chest cavity.
Instead consider that when we Viking Reenactors push we take one step forwards or half a step, and the opponent- if he does not kill us as we step, will try and keep their distance. Stepping forwards is very difficult though as an underarm/underhand cross-strike from the side can easily slip in behind the shield. So often the fighting will be at weapon range while we try to thin his formation out and/or push him back and break the lines so we can roll his formation up from the side and rear. It is in evidence here; http://<a href="https://www.youtube....4-Zq0aPZpY</a>.

[gamegeek2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2XLKmWAXyk

Hoplite re-enactment.

Try to fit an underhand strike through that shield-wall.

[fomalhaut]

i like the drills and that those men know them well, but i can never get over how clean and high end everyone's equipment is. they look like they are playing dress up due to the fancy corinthian helms and horse hair as well as the fresh out the washer clothes.

those aspiseseseses look too clean, manufactured, while i had always thought that the designs would be painted on by the owners of the shields themselves. painting whatever deity or symbol was important to them personally.

i would just stab my aspis until it looked rugged :P

[saka-rauka1]

What are you talking about?

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

My point.

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.

I don't think you're talking to me here, since I've been attacking the pushing aspect and not over vs under. However it seems a few others have gotten that impression, which makes me wonder if they were even reading my posts at all.

I just don't see how the point of the Etruscans fighting overarm, yet were not conquerers of the world, leads to the conclusion that overarm hoplite techniques were not used or were inneffective. Pyhrrus adopted the Manipular formations into the Phalanx and don't forget elephants! but with that same logic maniples, phalanxes and elephant using militaries were ineffective because Pyhrrus of Epirote did not conquer the world.

Not what I was getting at. I was saying that it was the Romans who did eventually conquer a sizeable chunk of the known world, they defeated and assimilated the Etruscans and abandoned the hoplite model. If it worked for them then why would they abandon it? Furthermore even Sparta reformed their phalanx into a sarissa wielding version. People don't reform troops for no good reason.

That doesn't make any sense, it wasn't and isn't all about who has the best techniques or weaponry

Can you tell me what it refers to? I've been trying to find out why hoplite phalanxes fought the way they did, used the weapons they used. For me, it is about the best technique or the best weaponry.

We use one-handed spears overhand as well a lot.

Are they counterweighted? I think that in extreme close-quarters a shortened reach acheived by holding a spear in the centre would be advantageous.

Instead consider that when we Viking Reenactors push we take one step forwards or half a step, and the opponent- if he does not kill us as we step, will try and keep their distance. Stepping forwards is very difficult though as an underarm/underhand cross-strike from the side can easily slip in behind the shield. So often the fighting will be at weapon range while we try to thin his formation out and/or push him back and break the lines so we can roll his formation up from the side and rear.

Sounds pretty normal to me. Anyone fighting should attempt to gain ground.

It is in evidence here; http://<a href="http://www.youtube.c...4-Zq0aPZpY</a>.

Do you mean this video?. If so can you tell me what I am looking for; I see lots of underarm usage but no overarm. Or did you mean rolling up the formation?

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

You are the one repeatedly mentioning TW, not me. Can you at least clarify what you mean by "TW conception of battles" please?

No. We already told you many times.

In reference to that particular depiction? Erm, no you didn't. Look at it if you will, you have your thumb below your little finger if you attempt to hold your spear upright like that. It is awkward in that particular pose. I make no argument of overarm usage being awkward in general, which is what others have based their (counter)arguments around.

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

What lack of consistency? If you want to enter someone elses discussion you could at least attempt to gain the correct context.

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.

Surely you aren't now trying to argue that armies are only useful for fighting in their home territory? Otherwise I can see no reason for that 2nd point. Nor do I think ad hominem is warranted in any civilised discussion.

[jirisys]

I don't think you're talking to me here, since I've been attacking the pushing aspect and not over vs under. However it seems a few others have gotten that impression, which makes me wonder if they were even reading my posts at all.

You have done both.

Not what I was getting at. I was saying that it was the Romans who did eventually conquer a sizeable chunk of the known world, they defeated and assimilated the Etruscans and abandoned the hoplite model. If it worked for them then why would they abandon it? Furthermore even Sparta reformed their phalanx into a sarissa wielding version. People don't reform troops for no good reason.

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)

Can you tell me what it refers to? I've been trying to find out why hoplite phalanxes fought the way they did, used the weapons they used. For me, it is about the best technique or the best weaponry.

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

Do you mean this video?. If so can you tell me what I am looking for; I see lots of underarm usage but no overarm. Or did you mean rolling up the formation?

That is medieval, possiblyviking, no overlapping shield wall or actual cohesive hoplite formation. You are ignoring the actual evidence and presenting unrelated one.

You are the one repeatedly mentioning TW, not me. Can you at least clarify what you mean by "TW conception of battles" please?

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

In reference to that particular depiction? Erm, no you didn't. Look at it if you will, you have your thumb below your little finger if you attempt to hold your spear upright like that. It is awkward in that particular pose. I make no argument of overarm usage being awkward in general, which is what others have based their (counter)arguments around.

Because you implied it, several times.

What lack of consistency? If you want to enter someone elses discussion you could at least attempt to gain the correct context.

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

Surely you aren't now trying to argue that armies are only useful for fighting in their home territory? Otherwise I can see no reason for that 2nd point. Nor do I think ad hominem is warranted in any civilised discussion.

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=x4RF...eature=related

~Jirisys ()