Over-arm spears?

[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.