Over or Under?

[antisocialmunky]

Its sad to see the forum devoid of lively debate about historical controversies. I suppose that will change when EB2 comes out and people start posting about where the LS has gone.

To address this (and because I'm doing research for some art) I've decided to revive the age old Boxers/Briefs debate of how Hoplites in a phalanx formation held their spears. Did they do underarm or overarm or both? It seems like the general consensus seems to be on overhand when in their tightly packed formation but some modern scholarship seems to argue otherwise (Storm of Spears which I'm waiting to arrive form amazon as I write this).

As far as I can recall, the primary arguments for overhand/underhand in phalanx are:

Overhand:
-You can stab down past the shield into the neck and shoulders of your opponent
-You can interlock your shields
-You avoid accidentally stabbing your own guys in the nuts with the Dory's buttspike.
-Other cultures existing in different times who used interlocking round shield walls are depicted using overhand technique (Normans in the Battle of Hastings Tapestry)
-Other cultures who didn't use interlocking shield walls also used overhand techniques

Underhand:
-Less tiring
-Can Parry
-Can Brace the spear against the ground against cavalry
-Frontal damage to armor from the period (of course if you are overhand, you try to stab past the shield and breastplate).

Both:
-There are things that underhand are good at and there are things that overhand are good at
-Both are depicted in classical period art frequently

My current opinion is that overhand was used predominantly in the phalanx with underhand used for specific situations (cavalry charge) but that might change when I read Storm of Spears. Otherwise, underhand and overhand were probably both quite common in single combat because there are advantages to both. The Illiad contains many instances of single combat between heroes and the fatal wound distribution seems fairly even. I guess Diomedes stabbing Aphrodite, trying to kill Apollo, and impaling Ares with a spear doesn't count.

Is there anything I missed?

[Bodeni]

As a historian and reenactor, almost always overhand. Underhand can be braced, and is therefor ideal for holding cavalry, and when on horseback will allow the most efficient transfer of momentum.
Overhand is best for most situations. In close combat, as it's not possible to even hold a spear underhand without hitting someone in your formation. Also works better; as your aim in any shield wall is to strike those to your left and right, the person in front of you being too well protected and too obvious of your actions.
Your arguments in favor of underhand are not true. It's no less tiring, just uses different muscles than you might be used to. A spear cannot be used to parry very well in any situation. You don't jam your spear in the ground to brace against horses. You stick it out as far in front of you as you can, whilst still being able to balance it, and rely on either the animal refusing to charge the wall of pointy sticks, or that the weight of your formation robs them of any impetus. So overhand is as good here, as you can close ranks and better brace yourselves. Hitting someone dead on with any weapon is what armor is designed to negate. Coming from an overhand position you have a better chance of hitting something important. In single combat, you wouldn't use a spear. A spear is for formation fighting.

I've debated this before in academic circles, and I used to think it was a mix of the two. Then I tried actually fighting in that way. Overhand is the only way to go.

[wudang_clown]

Just out of curiosity: which parts of the body do you mostly use when using spear overhand?

[Bodeni]

Forearm and Bicep, using underhand is more shoulder and biceps.

[Arjos]

To add to Bodeni's post, the Styrax/Sauroter/butt-spike weights specifically to shift the point of balance in favour of an overhand grip...

[LusitanianWolf]

Unfortunly in Battle of Nations competitions (medieval full contact) spears aren't allowed, but during battle simulations in some viking/slavic festivals they do use both over and under with sucess, with or without shieldwall formation.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrmV-1IRnTU

[Skullheadhq]

Its sad to see the forum devoid of lively debate about historical controversies.

The forum has been calm as of late. Back in the days there used to be a lot more traffic.

[antisocialmunky]

Yeah I came back and was surprised to see it so depopulated...

Does anyone have a good explanation of why Greek Hoplites dearmored themselves during the Peloponnese War? Of course the amount of armor a soldier would wear varied by state but it seems like this was a general trend during this period.

Some argue that the rise of lighter peltasts led to hoplites needing to be more maneuverable. However the Greeks, especially the Athenians and other members of the Delian League had a great deal of experience fighting missile heavy (relative to Greek armies) Persian armies in Asia Minor during the retaking of Ionia before the start of the first Peloponnesian war which didn't seem to cause them as many issues despite the fact that the Aspis was not very missile resistant. In fact the rise of skirmishers occurred during the 2nd Athenian Empire/Corinthian War/Theban Hegemony and this lead to the adoption of more armor and specialized troops to hunt down skirmishers.

One could also argue that the high body count and the need to fielded larger armies reduced the average amount of equipment that a hoplite could bring to battle but this doesn't explain the Spartans reported armored with only with a Pilos Helm, shield, and not even greaves. You'd think atleast the first couple ranks would have a decent amount of armor. On a side note, I guess this a argument against underhanded spear because you need to open the shield to stab which seems like a terrible idea if you don't have torso armor.

I guess another argument could be for the innovation of tactics during this period for large armies of hoplites. Interestingly the Greeks did not use much cavalry or even light troops but masses of hoplites so marching them around would be one of the easiest ways of increasing the effectiveness of the hoplite. The reduction in armor may have coincided with the need to move around to out flank enemy positions such as the Spartans at Leuktra getting caught in a marching formation when they were trying to outflank the Thebans. Another example of maneuver was when the Athenians surrounded the Thespians on the Theban left at Delium.

[Skullheadhq]

Perhaps because the war was fought on more fronts than any war which preceded it. The war was fought in Attica, the Pelopponese, Thrace, Ionia and Sicily. Moving troops around works better when they're lightly armored. And perhaps the advantage of being heavily armored was lost when your opponent had as much armor as yourself.

[antisocialmunky]

I'm not sure if that explanation makes sense for a few reasons:

1) It seems like a contradiction to say that if there is an advantage in armor that is lost when equally armored, does it in follow that giving up the armor advantage gives you an advantage?
2) If you reduce armor to move around, wouldn't that give defenders a huge advantage?
3) And while battles happened all over the place, usually there were only one or two battles (related) in a given theatre each year because war was expensive and the fighting season was restricted by planting and harvesting times (unless you were Sparta or you paid your troops like Athens did in the later 400's BCE)

Does anyone have some good books on the subject that specifically details the Peloponnessian War? I've already looked at the Osprey 480-323 BC Hoplite book, Storm of Spears and am currently reading Land Battles in 5th Century BC Greece: A History and Analysis of 173 Engagements to try and get a better picture of how battles were fought during this period.

[Ludens]

Does anyone have some good books on the subject that specifically details the Peloponnessian War? I've already looked at the Osprey 480-323 BC Hoplite book, Storm of Spears and am currently reading Land Battles in 5th Century BC Greece: A History and Analysis of 173 Engagements to try and get a better picture of how battles were fought during this period.

It's not specifically about the Peloponnesian War, but "Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities" by Hans van Wees is a very useful source.