There are a lot of armchair historians out there writing new and revolutionary books about how the Greeks fought with spears overhand instead of the classic assumption that it was underhand.

I think it was underhand myself. I've seen vase-paintings for both, but the bulk of the ones I've seen depict underhand phalanx combat. I'd post pics if I wasn't at a cafe right now, but suffice it to say that I've seen evidence for both in the archaeology. Now, however, most overhand depictions show legendary heroic combat or combat between individuals. The most famous depiction of hoplite warfare on a vase shows a two tightly packed units advancing with shields locked and spears leveled underhand.

This implies, in my opinion, that (and many authorities such as N.G.L. Hammond agree) that the bulk of a hoplite combat was simply pushing. The battle was grueling but casualties would be comparatively low due to immediate mortal wounding. Fighting with the spear overhand would give you a better angle at stabbing down, true, but it might be a somewhat ineffective and weak attack considering the close quarters, the size of the shields, and the helmets. Linen corselets certainly aren't chain mail, but will still dampen the effects of an awkward downward stab.

In addition, given the addition of an iron spike on the bottom of the spear, it would seem dangerous to be standing behind a comrade when he could accidently poke your face out with the butt of his weapon. Given the chaos and confusion, as well as constant physical exertion, of a hoplite battle, I'd think that underhanded might be more effective. The underhanded position was primarily designed in order to combat mounted and disorganized opponents. Your primary weapon is actually to push your opponent backwards, unbalancing him and disrupting the enemy's shield wall.

This is one of the reasons that Greek combat overwhelmed the Persians during the early 5th century wars. The lightly armored Persians wielded their spears overhand, and although tightly packed, they didn't have the regimented shieldwall that the hoplites did. In addition, their shields were wicker, and not up to the task in defending against a hard, direct thrust or a shield-punch.

Nevertheless, I still like EB and I'll continue to play it. I just disagree with the whole overhand thing. I acknowledge that it is an ongoing debate, and therefore, EB's interpretation is, in my opinion perfectly legitimate. They are participating in a historical dialogue.