Over-arm spears?

[fallen851]

I like the over-arm spears, they look neat, but I just found this. To me being 100% historically accurate isn't so important, so over-arms spears are good with me, whether or not that article is correct, but I think he makes a powerful arguement, much of which you didn't respond to. You'll note they are wearing greaves in those pictures, but you can't reach their calves with an over-arm spear why wear greaves? Do you think they wore greaves for fun? Why not wear thigh armor or a breast plate instead, which are much more likely to be hit by over-arm spear?

But to answer your question, it simply wouldn't look as wonderful in the pictures if the spears were held down low. Ever watch a boxing movie? Every boxing movie features extremely unrealistic boxing, for dramatic effect (unless there is one I haven't seen, but I like boxing).

He also writes a neat article on slings: http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/nikolas.l...ons/sling.html

[SirPoot]

These are my 2 cents after looking at those pictures....if soldiers use spears overarm, I suppose it can allow their shields to overlap easily, and thus forming a denser formation...if used underarm, there must be small openings in the shield wall to allow the spears to protrude out of the formation...

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I must say I'm immediately suspicious of someone who claims to know even a small portion of what this chap seems to boast of on his site. That's just my suspicious hillbilly nature though I'm sure. It doesn't mean he's wrong - but anyone who posts long essays on their own theories of evolution, poetry, theories on the use of ancient weapons (which contradict the overwhelming majority of scholarship and modern opinion on the topic), movies they have made, methods of spotting kung-fu charlatans, board games he's invented, etc. seems to be stretching things a bit thin.

A very interesting chap it seems though. But I'll stick with what virtually all other classicists and military historians and archaeological evidence does present, instead of the theory whose best proof is "c'mon, what do these desk-bound classicists know!"

Seriously though, he cites not one piece of art, literature, excavated remains, etc. Nothing.

[fallen851]

Well as I check more sources, I can't seem to find one that agrees with him.

Still, authority (believing something because you heard it from a "trusted" or "reliable" source) is not a way we should aquire knowledge. Right is right, and wrong is wrong, no matter who says or does it.

Rather, we should use science (mix of empiricism and logic), and if not science than empiricism, and if not empiricism, than logic.

Logically it does make more sense to fight underarm, doesn't it? Especially considering his points above (which I'd love someone to address), and most importantly, the wearing of greaves suggests three (possibly four) things:

#1 They used the spears underarm and showed them overarm for effect

or

#2 They were using dramatic effect and put the greaves in there for fun (which makes us question the validity of the entire picture...)

or

#3 They wore greaves as status symbols

or

Whatever else you guys think of that is plausible.

Now if anyone wants to get together 20 people and try this out a home (to see if you poke each other in eye) we can get some empirical evidence...

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I'll take what information is passed down to me first, and use that as a starting point. No reason to throw out totally every generation the accumulated knowledge of a few thousand years. Saying we "should" acquire knowledge a certain way is an opinion.

If someone wants to provide proof of every single thing that the mod deals with, they can feel free to do so. Let's start with seasons, necessity of farming, the passage of time itself, the idea that it is the weapons that kill people and not imbalances in their humours or something to do with allignment of crystals, or any idea at all that exists in the game.

Just playing around here, but asking for evidence of some things just seems unnecessary.

[fallen851]

The way you choose to aquire knowledge is your choice, but through authority, intutiton (you get a feeling that something is right), and tenacity (things have been said for so long they are accepted as the truth) are not ways accepted by science. What makes science so great? Real science never proves anything, never claims anything is 100% correct, and is always changeable and amendable, thus science does the best it can with the knowledge it can. Religion doesn't change, if it did, it couldn't claim it was right. Stereotypes don't either.

I mean we've been told for thousands of year that Jesus came back to life, does that make it right? It has been told by the Pope, a respected authority, does that make it right? No it certainly doesn't. People were told for hundreds of years that blacks were inferior from respected people, it even felt right to say blacks were inferior, as Francis Galton and others made strong arguements. Are you going to believe that? Authority, intitution and tenacity have killed millions of people, jailed millions more, as people blindly followed things they didn't understand, that were simply incorrect.

Believe what you want.

I will submit to Qwerty's arguement though about the underarm being easier to block, it makes sense. His greaves arguement is a stretch, but it also makes sense.

[QwertyMIDX]

Greaves protected from things other than the spear, kicks to the shin or bashing the shin with the shield would have been much more damaging if the Hoplite wasn't wearing greaves. Also it would protect the vulnerable part of the hoplite beneath the hoplon from javelins and arrows.


Blocking an overhand spear thrust with a hoplon would actually have posed more problems than blocking an underhand spear, you'd have to try and raise your shield, which would be problematic in a tight formation especially if your opponent was pressing his shield into yours. The heavy Corinthian helm may have been an attempt to protect the rather vulnerable head from overhand spear attacks. The argument about tight formations and butt spikes has two problems, depictions of hoplites often seem to show them without butt spikes and the angle at which the spear was held would keep the butt probably about a foot or 2 above the head of the man behind you.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Interestingly, we have evidence also that hoplites aren't just shown with overhand spears, but you can see an underhand one here:

http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/Steril...es/hoplite.jpg

The cool thing about this one is that it clearly shows an underhand grasp can be shown by an artist when it actually was used (and thus an artistic convention of only using overhand, in order to be more aggressive or aesthetic, can't hold always) - and here it is used against a charging horse, a time when overhand would not be used.

Other overhand shots:
http://www2.unil.ch/iasa/iasa_c_est_...ite_armure.jpg
http://socrates.clarke.edu/hop_1_tm.jpg
http://www.peplums.info/images/30thermo/30a-10.jpg
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/greeks...s2/hoplate.jpg
http://www.sikyon.com/Athens/Archaic/images/vase37.jpg

And I did say that acquired knowledge is a "starting point". Not the end. That would be idiotic.

[fallen851]

I was stating that aquired knowledge that does not come from science (or at least empiricism, or the very least logic) should not even be considered. Also, there should never be an end of aquiring knowledge, and the problem is that many (all?) sources relying on authority, intitution and tenacity claim to have the end all arguements.

Anyway as for my empirical, here is a hoplite re-enactment, and they said that underarm spears are quite unreasonable.

http://www.4hoplites.com/Warfare.htm

I guess this thread can be deleted, I was incorrect overarm phalanxes seem quite reasonable.

[conon394]

fallen851

Well I can think of a couple of other issues in his article beside those already noted.

First he suggest the under arm spear is potential more useful in the ‘pushing match’ or Othimos, but ignore that is a rather bitter divide about weather such a thing ever occurred (i.e. the hoplite rugby scrum). If the no scrum advocates are correct, than his argument has no weight

More importantly I don’t quite understand his assertion:

“As I mentioned, most ancient spears had butt-spikes, and spears were used in large formations. An under-arm grip allows the butt-spike to be controlled, tucked away where it will do no one any harm. Anyone standing behind an over-arm spearman will be faced with a butt-spike going in and out at every thrust, and unpredictably sideways whenever an enemy knocks the spearhead. If spears were use over-arm, then a lot of people would have had somebody’s eye out by mistake.”

It seems to me an over arm strike is more likely to minimize the risk to the rear ranks since if one angles the spear down even a few degrees the but spike would be over the heads of the rear rankers. In contrast the under stroke seems likely to threaten the abdomen, groin and legs of your mates…

“The armor that soldiers wore seems to have been designed for under-arm spear use. Hoplite and legionary armor involves stiff broad pieces which come over the shoulders. These make holding an arm up very awkward, uncomfortable, weak, and limited. Armpits were generally not armored. If a man were using a spear over-arm, his right armpit would be exposed all the time during a fight. Many shields had cut-aways in the side which allow a spearman to keep his shield nicely in front of him, and his spear in fighting position”

The point about the shoulder amour really only applies to the linothorax, the bronze muscled cuirass is typically shown with a rather narrow shoulder piece. So the hoplites right arm pit would be exposed? Every US soldier in Iraq faces (and according to recent Pentagon studies is at serious risk) from the exact same issue. Just because you can find a weakness in the hoplite panoply (or any other) does not necessarily indicate that it was not an accepted risk. The cut away shield is as far as I know, not attested at all in the Classical or Hellenistic record, it is restricted at least in the hoplite era to the very pots the author distains.

Finally, I think the article rather over focuses on the ideal of at least classical Greeks as being spear armed with a 8ft spear and but spike. The spears did break (or were intentional broken by opponents) and were almost certainly used as short spears subsequently by reversing them. The sword was also a used by hoplites, and not just as a last resort, people tend to forget it was with superior sword work that Timoleon’s Greeks beat Carthage. In is a mistake to suggest the Hoplite as only the wielder of a 8ft spear and bend all his tactics, drill and equipment to that end.

Edit: While I hardly claim to have a mastery of all the published archeology, what I have read tends to suggest to me that the butt spike was heavier than the point – that is the hoplite spear was balanced to be held behind the mid point (toward the butt end). This would contrast the author’s assertion of a over-hand midpoint stance. I am also unclear why if one imagines an equal weight of butt and point, a one armed grip would allow an easier use of a non ‘mid point’ grasp.

[SirPoot]

Let's take it the easy way: they fought both ways!

Maybe the overarm and underarm fighting styles are used in different situations? You can always decide to switch styles in the middle of fighting if it gives an advantage...

[Elthore]

I havent read the whole thread, so sorry if this has been posted already...but


The first post mentions that if you hold a spear in the center, and someone hits it, they would have more leverage. This is not correct. They would actually have LESS leverage since the front end has less length than it would if it were held underhand. This would also give more control, and possibly allow the spearmen to fight more...dexteriously? yea
Also the extra length at the rear would not merely be counter-weight but would still help in penetrating armour(and flesh) in a thrust.

[Wandarah]

Seems to me like in the underarm depiction the hoplite is facing a horse.

In all the overarm depictions shown, they appear to be man vs man.