Are we sure they used it overhand? I mean really sure?

[Dayve]

I mean... I've been doing some experimentation with an old punchbag and various different length spears that i made myself over the last day or two... I've been using them underarm and overarm, and i find that overarm, the thrusts are less acurate and less powerful... But overarm the thrusts are more powerful and more accurate, and overall it feels more natural to hold the spear underarm, it's also a lot more comfortable and takes up less space.

So how sure are we that the Greeks and other ancients used their spears overarm?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Are we absolutely positively swear on our own lives sure? No. Of course not.

We will definitely not be going back on this on guys. Sorry. If someone can't play the mod because of the awful problem there or because they have tried to hold a spear a certain way and feels pretty sure that should override all that other evidence, well, we did the best we could.

[Olaf The Great]

You wrote Over-arm twice :)

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

In the end you have to chose between the vanilla armhanging down low or the overhand animation. IIRC, anything in between causes crazy clipping.

If you like this arguement there is one about it that is many pages long over at the "Hegemonia: City States" forum at the TWC.

[Dayve]

Are we absolutely positively swear on our own lives sure? No. Of course not.

We will definitely not be going back on this on guys. Sorry. If someone can't play the mod because of the awful problem there or because they have tried to hold a spear a certain way and feels pretty sure that should override all that other evidence, well, we did the best we could.

I never said there was an awful problem and i never said it was stopping me from playing, and i never said that me stabbing a punchbag in various different ways means you should change anything... I was simply saying that it feels more natural and is more effective to hold a spear underarm where you can thrust harder and more accurately...

Although there is one slight problem with the overarm phalanx in EB... Phalanx lines become extremely disorganised as soon as contact is made, and it doesn't look very much at all like a phalanx, more like a bunch of untrained men who didn't understand their officer when he said "Stand in a straight line and hold your spears out ahead, do not under any circumstances break the line, a break in our line would disrupt our entire way of battle".

But it's not that big a deal for me as i never play as phalanx wielding factions.. Only as Rome.

[Kull]

I never said there was an awful problem and i never said it was stopping me from playing, and i never said that me stabbing a punchbag in various different ways means you should change anything... I was simply saying that it feels more natural and is more effective to hold a spear underarm where you can thrust harder and more accurately...

Although there is one slight problem with the overarm phalanx in EB... Phalanx lines become extremely disorganised as soon as contact is made, and it doesn't look very much at all like a phalanx, more like a bunch of untrained men who didn't understand their officer when he said "Stand in a straight line and hold your spears out ahead, do not under any circumstances break the line, a break in our line would disrupt our entire way of battle".

But it's not that big a deal for me as i never play as phalanx wielding factions.. Only as Rome.

By definition, the overarm guys are not a phalanx. And practicing this stuff by yourself isn't really a good test. You need to line up with a bunch of other guys who use the same style....have even more spear equipped guys behind you, and be opposed by an equivalent group. That will tell you pretty quick how viable it is. Underarm is fine when you are a full spear length away from your foe. But in the shield-to-shield battles described by the ancients, you won't be able to do anything with it. The overarm is not only held above the enemy shield (offering more target area), but equally important, it's also lifted above the press of bodies, giving you a chance to use it.

[Thaatu]

In a hoplite vs. hoplite battle the front row would push the enemy with their shields, who would push back with their shields, so that the front row shields were locked together. The second, third, fourth, etc. rows would push the line in front of them. With the hoplite "unit" being so tightly packed, using a spear underarm would limit it's usage as the torsos and legs of the men behind you would restrict the horizontal movement of the spear.

Using it from the armpit meant that the spear was on the same level with the enemies' shields, so it didn't do much good either. Using it overhand you could make quick short stabs over the linked shield line, disrupting the enemy and maybe hitting something. In a 1 on 1 fight overhand style would be less effective, but it fits in with the hoplite formation.

Maybe those units you described lost their cohesion because they were not on guard mode? If they were an AI unit then I think that's probably it. Plus 1.5 introduced a new bug to phalanx formation itself, where individual soldiers of the unit just wonder off in the heat of battle, so the vanilla phalanx isn't too organized either.


Then again I'm no expert so I don't take any of this as a fact. I only have my common sense, which is not much.

Edit: Kull put it better. I'm jealous.

[Dayve]

Ah. this would make more sense.. I never thought of it that way.

[Brightblade]

yay looks like we all learned something today huh

[GodEmperorLeto]

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.

[Orb]

I think it was overhand, simply because underhand there was no way to actually hit another hoplite in formation with your spear. You'd go straight into the shield every time.

At least, that's what I've picked up from various debates.

@Leto, I also think the Greeks were a) Better armoured (it was considered unusual for the general at Plataia to wear armour) and b) generally larger/stronger (I believe Xenophon mentions one general taking a group of Persian prisoners and stripping them, so the Greeks laugh at their untanned and frail bodies).

I'm not an expert on this, so ignore me if I'm wrong.

[Brightblade]

How about we do this: Bout 20 of ya come to Spain, we go to Toledo, buy us some Greek hoplite gear and lets actually try and see which works! As it is in game mechanics having every unit with hoplite in it have a phalanx ability makes the upgrade from Hoplitai Haploi to Hoplitai Iphikratides not that big of a jump... they should have a big advantage... Carthage is another matter

[Watchman]

Underhand spear seems to have served close-order spearmen well enough in their clashes with their peers. If it didn't, they'd obviously have changed techniques. The particular Greek variation of the principle was apparently better suited for the overhand, but personally I'd rather wager the hoplites altered the technique to suit the situation. Underhand ought to serve a fair bit better when you need to convince nasty horsemen to respect your comfort zone for example.

One sort of wonders if the underhand technique wasn't prone to causing certain amounts of "friendly fire" incidents given the tin-can-packed character of hoplite fights though. With the overhand the tip of the spear is at least angled down and the dangerous enough butt ferrule (called sauroter, "lizarder" or "lizard-killer" by what I've read) conversely mainly aims to the sky over your mates' heads. With the underhand it's moving right on level with their midsections or faces, depending on the height one is employing... This ought to have been a particularly pressing concern around the Peloponnesian War, when the hoplites weren't using body armour.

Wasn't one reason the Macedonian pike phalanx was so absolutely dependent on maintaining drill, rank and file the dire need to keep the pikemen from gutting the guys behind them by accident as well ?

A side note I'd make concerning the OP. Unless our man Dayve has been training both techniques fairly dedicatedly the practical test proves very little, as it is rather common for amateurs to find perfectly working techniques and/or weapons they're unfamiliar with 'unworkable' or somehow deficient. One need merely consider the thoroughly mistaken condemnation of Medieval swordfighting as "clumsy brawl with metal clubs" by later fencers - who were used to the in comparision feather-light and whip-fast foils and smallswords...

Ditto for the thing with stirrups. Perfectly competent horsemen were long convinced it would have been absolutely impossible to fight effectively from horseback without the things (historical evidence to the contrary nonwithstanding) mainly because they had been taught to ride with them from the start and were quickly in trouble if deprived of such aids. People who'd learned their riding without stirrups from the beginning would doubtless have laughed themselves sick. I've also seen it mentioned that military cavalry training long actually took lack of stirrups as the starting point, just to make sure the troopers wouldn't be rendered helpless if their feet slipped from the things in battle...

You get the idea.

[paullus]

@Leto: What? How about the hundreds of little terracotta or metal hoplites--every one I've ever seen is holding his spear overhand. Here are two, for your and others' enjoyment:

and 2:

And the most famous vase? How about the Chigi vase? Its probably the most famous hoplite battle vase, though it is about 350+ years too early for EB. One of the only ones to show multiple hoplite ranks instead of individuals--and they're all overhand:


Or we could move on to the Nereid monument, depicting some late-Classical hoplites:


Now, I'm not saying no one every used their spear underhand, because there are obviously other depictions of individual soldiers with underhand spears. I'd be interested in seeing a famous vase with whole ranks of soldiers carrying spears underhand though. I'd say the overhand was almost certainly more common, so its reasonable for us to use it.

Besides, I've tested the spear thing myself. I really like overhand, probably for the same reason we throw out (American) footballs overhand, and baseballs, and javelins overhand. Oh, and if your overhand is lacking, do regular dips. That'll help!

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Props to Leto for that last paragraph.

[Anthony]

I've done Irish reenactments of medieval and dark age soldiers. They always used their spears overhand (they state so explicitly during the middle ages, describing it as the 'ancient style' versus the way Normans couched their lances and such). It's a perfectly fine way to fight, especially in a tight formation. Underhand would be much easier to block. Overhand, you can manuever your thrust a bit better around defenses, at least to my experience.

[Watchman]

It'd seem to me the overhand way would also make better use of the arm as a lever - think of an ice-pick downward stab with a dagger for comparision - plus it sort of adds the benefit of gravity to the equation, for whatever that now is worth.

The Irish of them olden days were a bit sui generis mind you. Early Modern English soldiery were still a bit puzzled as to why the Irish cavalry insisted on fighting overarm with light spears without stirrups, and the generally rather antediluvian character of the native warfare...

[Piddyx]

On pottery I believe they are shown using them overhanded.

Also, consider how many greeks back then were missing one eye.

edit: Oh, some one allready put up the same pot!

[Shigawire]

The famous Chigi vase, posted by Piddyx, dates from 650 BC - depicts a scene of the Messenian war of 800s BC, between Spartans and Messenians.

It's one of the more famous depictions of overhand.

I think Watchman's points are very valid, in that they would use whatever method suited the situation. For cavalry, underhand might just suffice and be the best method. The same would likely be true in fighting relatively unarmored Persians. But in tight hoplite vs hoplite fighting, overhand is the only way to wield the spear effectively. There's also the issue of how armored the opponent is. With a bell-cuirass, hoplon and corinthian helmet, you basically have one viable anatomical target; the neck and face, which provides further argument for using overhand.

[Watchman]

...and the thighs and the groin. I figure a skilled spearman would have no problems plunging his tip there from an overhand grip should there appaear an opening in the foe's defense though.

[pezhetairoi]

thank goodness the gaesatae don't fight in a hoplite style. >_>

[Watchman]

Eh, I understand it was universally a standard practise to basically aim for what you could reach and thought you could hurt. Ergo, body armour + shield => lots of mangled legs etc.

And when it comes down to it, "no weapon was too short to reach the enemy" as IIRC one commentary on the cavalry fight at Cannae puts it...

[Anthony]

It'd seem to me the overhand way would also make better use of the arm as a lever - think of an ice-pick downward stab with a dagger for comparision - plus it sort of adds the benefit of gravity to the equation, for whatever that now is worth.

The Irish of them olden days were a bit sui generis mind you. Early Modern English soldiery were still a bit puzzled as to why the Irish cavalry insisted on fighting overarm with light spears without stirrups, and the generally rather antediluvian character of the native warfare...

They were also puzzled why they rode ponies. Until native Irish 'knights' started drawing Norman cavalry into woods or bogs and tearing them apart with superior mobility in incredibly poor terrain. The English reports of fighting in Ireland were initially all lauding on their own cavalry until it became readily apparent their knights were useless on so much of the awkward terrain there. Even the English lords of Dublin ended up using the natives for their bodyguards (though there were some Irish knights who fought as English ones did, taken out of Ulster, but they weren't used for fighting in Ireland very much).

There character wasn't so out of date initially though, I'd not call it antediluvian, at least until the late-high middle ages; their infantry was pretty capable, the house soldiers at least were pretty well-trained and equipped (though most infantry would have been levies), and the Cambro-Normans got kind of far, then were turned back most places. The initial part of the invasion went well, the middle saw the Normans getting beaten a lot when the shock had worn off, and pared down to the point where England only technically got Dublin, and some Norman lords got settlement grants, but even they had to subvert themselves to native kings, if outside of the Pale, initially. Ireland post-invasion though steadily became more backward due to being cut off from the world, spending most of their time fighting eachother, as opposed to the unification that was occuring when the Normans first invaded (I say Normans, not English, since it was the former king of Leinster who invaded with Norman and Welsh free companies; England's only involvement so far was that Henry paid for them, since he owed Diarmait, said former king, for the use of his navy in campaigns in Wales).

Their army prior to this was hardly stagnate or out-dated, the annals and such all point to them rather rapidly modernizing, and, at a time, they'd have been more modern than most of their neighbors, in that they combined traditional tactics, things they learned fighting the Norse, and still used cavalry regularly (as opposed to the all infantry Saxon and Norse armies near them). Irish warfare actually degenerated a lot by the late middle ages, because it was rarely ever any large engagements by that point (since the kingdoms and royal houses weren't large or powerful enough anymore to raise large armies, and more of the fief-like units in Ireland were independent and not supplying their soldiers to a king), so how to fight in a large engagement was steadily retarded to the point it was remarkably simplistic. Early medieval Gaelic armies were certainly unique, but not really out-dated, they were pretty effective for the time. Even later, Gaelic soldiers were some of the main mercenaries used in the west because they were reliable and well-equipped, and fairly high morale, since they were pretty beauracratic and had all kinds of contracts that provided things similar to life insurance.

Anyway, the overhand style, initially would not have been out-of-date even then. It shows up as well in Saxon England, reliefs of Norman soldiers (footmen, not cavalry, except maybe outrunners, picking off routers), etc. On foot, it's pretty useful, good leverage. If you know how to fight like that, it's pretty easy and utilitarian, and easy to stab about anywhere overhand combined with good footwork.

[Maeran]

Anthony, are there any decent overviews of Irish history?

All I usually find are lots of stuff about the troubles and maybe some dubious collections of Celtic mythology.

[keravnos]

With the complements of IndoGreeks, a people that existed Long ago in a land far far away...



Lysias' coin 130-110 BCE



Diodotos (the founder) about 250 BCE



And the last one Strato II about 10 BCE (Athena Alkidemos on the right has a shield and a spear on overhand position).

In fact, only VERY few of the coins I have seen, and I have seen a lot of them used them under hand, and all of them on horse, much like Knights in medieval times...

[russia almighty]

keravnos I wonder if the indo-greeks did make use of those Indian toe stirrups or even went the extra mile an used a primitive one .

[abou]

To be fair, Keravnos, the Diodotos coin shows the Thundering Zeus with lightning bolts - not a spear - in his hand.