Question of the Hoplite

[Bellum]

Well, I'm not expert, but this guy has some very good practical arguments in favor of under-arm use of spears.

I don't know. Perhaps he's exaggerating and there is more evidence to the contrary than just 'pretty pots'.

[abou]

Here is the thing - we have reliefs, mosaics, pottery, engravings... the list goes on. Also, his argument on counter-weights for spears vs sword is bollocks. A longer spear would probably easier to push aside due to the point of the fulcrum.

Also, he seems to be completely oblivious to the concept of the shield wall and angles of strike. It isn't easy to strike up at the face with with your shield, your neighbor's shield, and your enemy's shield in the way. Overarm, you can strike downwards to one of the few points not protected on the hoplite body: the neck. He mentions this, but seems to sort of gloss over it because he doesn't want to give the overarm many points.

Furthermore, he doesn't seem to address the idea of how the physics work with motion of the body. The idea that in the tight hoplite formation an underhand works better is really odd. There won't be much room at all to move the spear backwards besides into the shields of the row behind you. Overarm, you would have the spear pointing at a downward angle to freely move it about above you - all the while behind the shield wall.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. He is on shaky ground.

[Bellum]

*shrug* I don't know. I've never held a spear before. I'm just trying to imagine both methods and the practical advantages/disadvantages of each. I imagine holding a 7ft spear over your head for any period of time would have an effect on your accuracy, and it'd be harder to maintain a close phalanx formation.

But then, yeah, I can see what your saying about it being hard to hit someone in the face from the underarm position. But that might also be construed as an argument for the other side; if it was a danger, why where the legs protected but not the neck?

The relatively few casualties should also be taken into account. If your trying to hold a spear above your head, I imagine it would be hard for the individual to maintain a defensable position, leading to an increase in casualties. I guess it depends. I have a hard time imagining these things. I suppose I could go out and make a spear and start stabbing people with it, but it'd be a real bother.

[paullus]

very shaky. sure some people used the spear underhand over the 700 years of various forms of hoplite battle. For most of the history of the hoplite phalanx, the overhand grip was almost certianly the preferred grip in the initial, most organized stages. We have far more pictorial evidence for the overhand grip than underhand. I'm not sure on the actual ratio, but from my personal image collection, 3:1 sounds about right, though it may be higher (especially if you count multiple hoplites on the same work of art--the overhand grip predominates in depictions of formations).

[Xehh II]

I personly hold a spear under-arm but I don't fight with a whole gruop of people next to me though. I still think under-arm is better.

[Bootsiuv]

I also prefer to hold my spear under-hand, err, wait, what?....

Oh, this thread is about hoplites.

My bad.

[geala]

The underarm hold and thrust is better in loose order or if you are facing cavalry or light troops. The reasons are that you have a better reach and can move the spear without fear of putting the sauroter in the guts of your comrade behind you.

In close order it is very difficult to use the spear underhand. The overarm hold and thrust is far better. The few casualties in hoplite warfare stem from the fact that it is very difficult to create enough energy (with both thrusting methods) to penetrate shield and/or armour and rather difficult to reach an unprotected part. I just tried it last weekend against a hoplite with shield, helmet and greaves but without body armour: it is nearly impossible to wound him.

Both thrusts were used. We have pictoral evidence for both. We have thigh wounds and groin and belly wounds which are best explained with underhand thrusts (and swords of course). But the most used spear thrust in phalanx was the overhand thrust, just the only possibility in crowded circumstances.

Btw, in phalanx you don't stab at the man before you but at men in the second or third row or to the side of you. Otherwise the spear would be to long and unwieldy. And you cannot stab underhand at men in the second row.

EB is right with the overarm thrust as the regular hoplite method.

[mAIOR]

And under-hand would give way to sime nasty wounds on your team mates thanks to the butt of the spear. It'd make your formation wider and more spaced thus taking out charge effect and Hoplite warfare based a lot on the initial charge. so, a wider formation means less momentum built and that would leave you at a disadvantage. One on one, under hand might be better but in army Vs army I think over hand is the logical choice.


Cheers...

[mcantu]

He makes some very good points about about controlling the spear though. It would be almost impossible for anyone to hold an 8 foot spear overhand for more than a few minutes and the underhand grip allows for much more control.

I'd wager that the front lines of hoplites used an underhand grip while those directly behind used overhand. Although I can see alot of instances of 'whoops, sorry for stabbing you in the back of head....'

[PershsNhpios]

Although it is most certainly provable by so many artworks and carvings, and also writings that the overhand method was the prevailing tactic, under-arm is just as plausible in some cases, this is depending on the manner of the phalanx.
From some writings it can be understood that the shields behind the front line of a phalanx were not held down but tilted up and above the heads of those in front so that a testudo of spear shafts and raised shields was made, eventually becoming as high as possible behind the formation.
This meant that under-hand was free movement given to those beginning rows so that they could thrust easily at the enemy.
I found that alot of celtic phalanxes were formed this way, but I must say I have not as much knowledge of the Greek phalanx formation.
Hoplites have always been depicted in the overhand stance however, so I have seen no proof of why they would be otherwise.

As for whether you yourself could fight in a close formation with an overhand spear- do not even attempt it!
I am a great supporter of Xenophon, for my obvious reasons of enthusiasm and quest for advancement in the art of classical riding.
As an amusing past-time, I have been attempting to mimic Xenophon's cavalry tactics with my young arab.
An active and achievable rider I may be, but I am not sure if I will ever be capable, less I be born in classical Greece, to pursue and fight with javelins on horseback as well as he describes!
(Though I'm getting better!)

Men of that era were of such strength and dexterous ability, through neccessity, that because of our many luxuries that we are born into, the majority of us would find it impossible to match the efforts they could show in warfare!

[Watchman]

Eh, methinks they just trained more. Kinda hard to believe the malnutritioned squirts had some great inherent physical advantages.

[Anastasios Helios]

Glenn, you'll love this. Once, I tried doing some horse archery from a neighbor's horse and after some initial success...I tried to do a "Parthian shot" while the beast was running...haha, the results werent pretty. :)

[PershsNhpios]

Ha ha ha, grand! I found horse archery to be like learning to throw a stone (Though not at steppe distances!), once you could straighten yourself correctly and bend fluently, it was a matter of 'instinctive' guesswork.
I have a young horse whom I am treating like a hunnic steed, running him around the paddock bareback without a bridle and testing my abilities with bow and spear!
Very fun, and very challenging, and a great reprieve from classical riding.

However, for the record, I do not approve of horses being called beasts!

I am glad someone else here as attempted one such thing as cavalry tactics!
I myself had a very ugly result lately, the Arabian I spoke of, whilst doing such things and galloping down hill, tripped, (Arabian- pah!) and we both rolled and slid over each other for a distance of twenty metres down a rather steep descent.
It is just coming into spring here, and wouldn't you know, it was the first day I decided to ride without a shirt!


Talk about welts!

[Kham]

Ever been in a really thick crowd? Like close to the stage in a big concert, where people are so pressed together that everybody has to follow the movement of the crowd and your arms are pinned to your sides from time to time?

I think it should be even worse than that if you and 7 men behind you use all their strength to try to shove 8 other men back. Who are trying the same with you and your buddies. And possibly everybody clashing at a full run. Like in a classical greek hoplite fight.
No way to use a spear underhand in this situation. Only the first row could do one aimed thrust and then their arms would be pinned. And their spears would penetrate the opponents or the belly of the guy behind them, depending on who has the better armor. Or they would break.

In one on one combat if the phalanx is broken, or with units fighting in a looser formation, it is a differnt story. I can imagine that the underhand style is then superior. But you need space for that.

[PershsNhpios]

Watchman, before I retire for the night, the people of Germanica and the forest of Orcynia, who lived on naught but the flesh that they hunted, and fish from the Rhine and other rivers further east, were people who lived on diets which in a modern sense could hardly be called nutritious.
And these men were notably, the most courageous, brutal and warlike people of northern Europe who lived to fight in wars and phalanxes and plunder for their tribe.

Yet you call those who lived in the greatest plenty by the Mediterranean malnutritious?
It may be hard to believe, but the human race has become far weaker over the last 2300 years. We are not exempt from evolution!

We are born into our respective realities and our bodies and minds evolve to suit what lifestyle we choose, warfare was the classical lifestyle of noble and commonality alike, therefore it was rather expected of the simplest of men to be able to fight half the day holding a hoplon and spear.

[Watchman]

Nonsense. Homo Sapiens Sapiens has not undergone a single meaningful evolutionary change since around the time it wandered out of Africa; which is not really surprising given the kinds of time you need for biological evolution to happen and the comparatively short amount of time that has passed since then (all the more so given the comparativaly slow generation cycle of humans, who take well over a decade to even become able to procreate).

And for comparision some of the older invertebrate, fish and reptile species around have not fundamentally changed for millions of years, presumably having hit on a sufficiently winning design they haven't needed to ("don't fix what's not broken").

That aside, the Med is anything but "greatest plenty" - in fact between its relative ecological poverty and high population concentrations it was more often than not chronically short of food. Truly productive agriculture for example has always only been possible in a few specific regions, usually due to random vagaries of geology (eg. the Nile, the volcanic Southern Italy/Sicily region - which then were long the breadbaskets for much of the whole Mediterranean zone) or suitability for intense irrigation. The sea itself, flooded former lowland, is actually almost barren save for a few odd spots which were then duly famous for their fishing.

Conversely the "North" (ie. north of the mountains surrounding the northern Mediterranean coastal zone) is lush with good farmland and deep forests, with many of the more fertile regions (eg. the areas of havy clay soil) only cultivable rather late with the advent of the necessary tools for the job (eg. the heavy iron swing-plough). Moreover the longtime relative cultural backwardness of the region resulted in comparatively low population density with due abundance of untouched wilderness for game animals to roam in and a relative ease to maintain a decent food supply. Nevermind now the rich fisheries of the Atlantic and Baltic to tap.

The end result was that the Mediterraneans on the whole for a very long time subsited on an almost entirely vegetarian diet out of sheer necessity, whereas their northern neighbours long enjoyed one rather more liberally supplanted with animal protein with due differences in average heights (animal protein being a fairly central "building block" for that). Although both probably suffered from assorted deficencies if only because nobody simply had a clue of what exactly a healthy and balanced diet requires - dunno about the Antiquity, but during the Middle Ages and long after at least most Europeans regardless of social status were severely deficient on assorted vitamins simply because few ate fresh vegetables or fruits (althugh if the commoners could gather berries from the woods that probably helped a little).

None of which had anything the do with their warlikleness of course. For the sake of comparision the Japanese were even worse off (among other things lacking much in the way of cattle), but that hardly kept them off each others' throats. Ditto for everyone else; the Med and Middle East had no more shortage of warlike groups and cultures than the temperate North or the steppes, or China or the trans-Eurasian succession of highlands and mountain ranges or South America.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Watchman, before I retire for the night, the people of Germanica and the forest of Orcynia, who lived on naught but the flesh that they hunted, and fish from the Rhine and other rivers further east, were people who lived on diets which in a modern sense could hardly be called nutritious.
And these men were notably, the most courageous, brutal and warlike people of northern Europe who lived to fight in wars and phalanxes and plunder for their tribe.

Yet you call those who lived in the greatest plenty by the Mediterranean malnutritious?
It may be hard to believe, but the human race has become far weaker over the last 2300 years. We are not exempt from evolution!

We are born into our respective realities and our bodies and minds evolve to suit what lifestyle we choose, warfare was the classical lifestyle of noble and commonality alike, therefore it was rather expected of the simplest of men to be able to fight half the day holding a hoplon and spear.

Glenn, everyone is about a foot taller than they were 2000 years ago. I'm 5'9" I'd easily qualify for elite First Cohort status, I'm fit, lean and I've never broken any bones despite hard work to the contrary, I still have all my own teeth.

I'm 20. 2000 years ago I would be considered a prime physical specimin, unusually tall and well kept. Today I'm average, back then I would be maybe six inches above average height as well as being considered handsom because of my straight nose and relatively few facial scars.

Those Northern Barbarians ate better, particually with a higher protein intake but even among them I would be tall, if no unusually so.

[Decimus Attius Arbiter]

The point about overhand being more tiring doesn't take into account that people fought for only 15 seconds or so at a time. I'm wondering about how spartan hoplites were depicted as fighting with the first row underhanded and the second overhanded on the History Channel. If that really happened, you wouldn't have peoples arms bumping into each other.

[Andronikos]

Once here was a thread about phalanx and how it protected against arrows when spears and small shields can cover only samll area.
Perhaps I found an answer: if you hold a 5 - meters long wooden stick - a pike - you will surely feel some oscillations. It is because the wood is not solid but flexible. When a phalanx marches (and when not too) the points of their pikes oscillate and so the moving pikes can hit a flying arrow and considerably make it less dangerous. Of course it requires looking up some constants about wood in some physics book and making some calculations which I am lazy to do.
Another reason could be that soldiers had fast reactions and were extremely good at using their shields

[NeoSpartan]

How about this?

Try to fight with a hoplon shield that goes from shoulder to mid thight. Inside the left of ur hoplon is another guy with another hoplon overlapping urs. And then u are partianly inside the left side of another guy's hoplon. With ur hoplon overlapping his.

Behind you is a guy pressing your back with his shield, in total you have the weight of 7 men pressing on u if you are in ther 1st rank, 6 if ur in the 2nd rank, and so forth. Then all u charge, or walk fast, towards another group of men formed in the same manner.

So, now u have 7 men pushing u forward (ur pushing forward too) and u have 8 men pushing you back. TELL ME HOW IN WORLD ARE YOU GOING TO HOLD, WEILD, POINT, AND TRUST A 7'-8' SPEAR UNDER HAND?????

u ain't!

The only way to hold, weild, point, trust such a weapon in those tight confindments is overheand.

Even in a loose formation, you have more control of a spear if you hold it overhead. Underhand will give you a more powerful forward thrust, and a 30 degree thrust to ur right (if ur right handed). Thats it, any other direction you have to move ur entire body.

For those who cant hold 5+pound weight overhead with one hand (remember you can move ur shoulder around to shift the effort to other muscles) for 15 mins.... I think thats an hint that you need to start lifting.

Hell, the hoplon shield was about 20-30 pounds, now count the armor, helment, sword, and spear! With all of this wieght, these men FOUGHT!. AND, today the weight carried by soldiers can be up to 100lbs, sometimes more, and YES they have to fight with it too.

[PershsNhpios]

I know that the Romans were people of very small size, as were all horses of antiquity.
Something that annoys me is that Roman conquerors depicted as large, beastly men astride dazzling Andalusian stallions, when they were small, yet very intelligent men, sometimes astride horses which, unless royally bred, were little larger than Shetland ponies! Ha ha ha ha..
It should be noted that the people of Germanica were some of the best breeders in the Ancient world, their horses were the largest in Europe!

What I should of said, which was rather more my point, is that nutrition does very little to one's endurance and strength- very little, in fact, the only thing you need for these two things to develop, is food, and water!
I know this from experience!
If you want to be a body builder- that's different, however even the Spartans, your beloved heroes, were not worried about the shape of their abs!
Take for example the working class men of my country- or any country, a man, scrawny and of little size, who is a stockman or does fencing every day in his life, lives on microwave dinners and Tooheys New, can knock out most weight-trainers in a fight.
This is because of determination, strength, and because he has been immersed in a lifestyle which, although his body is constricted in size, has ordered his mental and physical state to evolve- which they must for him to survive!
It is the same when you are born into a life where war is usually constant, back-breaking work for your country and you are expected to do it!

And by the statement that we are not exempt from evolution, and we have evolved, I mean not that we have grown an extra eye, but that because we now have less physical work, as many do, and we have so many luxuries, the life we are born into gives our bodies a weaker existence to mould to.





On another note, I had mentioned earlier Diadoch, that it is a written fact the many spears held in the air were the main source of protection from arrows.
This means that there were at least two types of phalanx, one of overhand tactics and one for underhand, which makes us all correct.
This is because, a phalanx using the overhand method would have their hoplons covering their chest, and overlapping with the next shield, meaning all men in the phalanx would be holding small spears over thier heads.
The second, underhand phalanx would have the first row covering their chests with the hoplon, and the rows behind holding their shields up along with their pikes/spears, in order to protect from arrows, thus giving the front row room to manoeuver their arms.

There is written evidence the Germans and some Gauls used the latter.

[Watchman]

It should be noted that the people of Germanica were some of the best breeders in the Ancient world, their horses were the largest in Europe!

Unlikely, as Caesar replaced the somewhat unimpressive little horsies of his German mercs with fine Iberian stock ASAP. Densely forested regions like Germania tend not quite be top "horse country".

What I should of said, which was rather more my point, is that nutrition does very little to one's endurance and strength- very little, in fact, the only thing you need for these two things to develop, is food, and water!
I know this from experience!
If you want to be a body builder- that's different, however even the Spartans, your beloved heroes, were not worried about the shape of their abs!
Take for example the working class men of my country- or any country, a man, scrawny and of little size, who is a stockman or does fencing every day in his life, lives on microwave dinners and Tooheys New, can knock out most weight-trainers in a fight.
This is because of determination, strength, and because he has been immersed in a lifestyle which, although his body is constricted in size, has ordered his mental and physical state to evolve- which they must for him to survive!
It is the same when you are born into a life where war is usually constant, back-breaking work for your country and you are expected to do it!

And by the statement that we are not exempt from evolution, and we have evolved, I mean not that we have grown an extra eye, but that because we now have less physical work, as many do, and we have so many luxuries, the life we are born into gives our bodies a weaker existence to mould to.

That's called "physical conditioning". "Evolution" has entirely different meanings.

On another note, I had mentioned earlier Diadoch, that it is a written fact the many spears held in the air were the main source of protection from arrows.
This means that there were at least two types of phalanx, one of overhand tactics and one for underhand, which makes us all correct.
This is because, a phalanx using the overhand method would have their hoplons covering their chest, and overlapping with the next shield, meaning all men in the phalanx would be holding small spears over thier heads.
The second, underhand phalanx would have the first row covering their chests with the hoplon, and the rows behind holding their shields up along with their pikes/spears, in order to protect from arrows, thus giving the front row room to manoeuver their arms.

There is written evidence the Germans and some Gauls used the latter.

...you know the difference between the classic hoplite phalanx and the Alexandrian pike phalanx, right ?

[Bellum]

The point about overhand being more tiring doesn't take into account that people fought for only 15 seconds or so at a time. I'm wondering about how spartan hoplites were depicted as fighting with the first row underhanded and the second overhanded on the History Channel. If that really happened, you wouldn't have peoples arms bumping into each other.

Hoplite battles would either last a very short time, or a very long time, from my understanding. Much longer than 15 seconds.

That's called "physical conditioning". "Evolution" has entirely different meanings.

Evolution has more than one meaning. Most generally, it means 'to change'.


Anyway, I can't imagine how using a spear underarmed would be harder to control than overarmed. I think it would be easier to hold a spear farther to the back when fighting underarmed, though you would have to worry about balance with both methods. I'd be worried about hitting the guy behind me in the face fighting overhanded. Perhaps that's something they were able to deal with in training.

You do, of course, have to take the close formation into account. An 8ft can be a liability if held the wrong way. Some have said overhand is ideal in this case. I don't know. The people who said the front rank fought underhand(to reach the opposing front rank) and the second rank fought overhand(to reach farther) sounds sensible, if I try to imagine it. Especially if you take into account, as the essay writer did, that hoplite armor did not include protection for the underarm.

[NightStar]

Fighting as an individual hoplites would probably fight with the doru underhand but I can't see how it would be done in a phalanx. They charged in that formation and there are even instances that they lined up 16 deep. Phalanx against Phalanx was a pushing competition with stabbing in between.

Given that it was common to have a a pike as a counterweight on the end of the doru and also to use if the spearhead broke it would probably impale the man behind during a charge.


For a man that trains it, holding a spear overhand for extended period of time should not pose much of a problem.

One of the training excercies I was made to do regularly in the army was holding a H&K G-3 over my head by the front of the barrel, at first most guys could maybe hold it in under a minute, but after 6 month most could hold it three of four times that or longer, and that is without any balance. The G-3 weighs around 10 lbs, or 4.5 kg.

[Glewas]

I understand the reasoning for the overhand grip, but I've never really understood facing of the hand holding the spear. In EB and in at least one Greek painting, (I sure there are more out there), the palm faces inward. To me this seems possibly a stronger grip, but sacrifices extension and maybe some power. However I doubt it takes much force for a sharp spear to stab or cut exposed flesh...

With the palm facing outward the grip doesn't seem as strong, but the spear can be extended more with greater force, as the arm can fully extend and still keep the spear tip at head/neck level. Whereas as with the inward grip, the further the arm extends the more the tip points to the ground...

Also it seems that the inward grip might conserve more energy per thrust, and the outward grip would allow you to go from overhand to underhand, provided there was room, fairly easily as the grip doesn't change.

Any thoughts?

[NeoSpartan]

[QUOTE=Bellum]
Anyway, I can't imagine ......QUOTE]


Thats the problem.... We can imagine all kinds of posibilities, but few actually work. Thats why there is something called "Testing"


So don't "imagine" it, TRY IT!
Or do the next best thing, go here http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/
and READ from the people who know and actually "try" these things we read about.

[Watchman]

I understand the reasoning for the overhand grip, but I've never really understood facing of the hand holding the spear. In EB and in at least one Greek painting, (I sure there are more out there), the palm faces inward. To me this seems possibly a stronger grip, but sacrifices extension and maybe some power. However I doubt it takes much force for a sharp spear to stab or cut exposed flesh...

With the palm facing outward the grip doesn't seem as strong, but the spear can be extended more with greater force, as the arm can fully extend and still keep the spear tip at head/neck level. Whereas as with the inward grip, the further the arm extends the more the tip points to the ground...

Also it seems that the inward grip might conserve more energy per thrust, and the outward grip would allow you to go from overhand to underhand, provided there was room, fairly easily as the grip doesn't change.

Any thoughts?

To me it sounds - and seems and feels, merely by holding out my hand and twisting it in various ways - like that an overhand grip with the palm outwards would not be a good idea. It seems to put the wrist joint in a quite uncomfortable position, and I suspect trying to deliver a strong stab like that, nevermind with extension, would put the somewhat fragile internals of the joint in rather dire risk of damage.

The overhand-inward grip, however, is essentially the same as the tried-and-true "icepick" grip that can be used with knives and other short blades to good effect, bringing fairly considerable power to bear in the downward arc of the arm - with built-in gravity assist to boot. Indeed it is in fact employing the arm itself as a (rather limited) lever and therefore force multiplier.

[TWFanatic]

Out of all the ancient Greek pottery I've ever seen, those portrayed as fighting underhand are never in formation, but rather in 1-on-1 combat. Those using the overhand grip, on the other hand, are quite often portrayed in a phalanx. Though you cannot rely on pottery alone, this does lead me to believe that each soldier would fight however he preferred in single combat or once the formation was broken, but would nearly always fight overhand when in the phalanx.

That time machine the EB team is rumoured to have would be useful about now.

[Watchman]

Then again, a lot of other heavy-infantry spearmen seem to have fought underhand even in closed order.

[Geoffrey S]

Just to enter on the nutrition debate, in modern high-level sport the diet is considered as one of the most important parts of training. The body simply can't recover, let alone improve, if it doesn't receive replenishment after a training. Body building is different, but even for more athletic sports a balanced diet is absolutely necessary for the body to develop effectively without necessarily putting on weight through muscle mass. Another crucial part is getting a good amount of rest at night during which the body is repaired.

As for this supposed negative evolution of the human race, Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla made a good point about our physique when compared to that of people hundreds of years ago, and I'd like to add that the fact that people generally don't need/want to perform hard labout in the Western world doesn't mean they can't; I know a whole bunch of people whose level of fitness before they started rowing was pretty average, in one case at least appalling, but plenty of exercise has increased that tremendously. I don't see any indication for some kind of negative human evolution, perhaps at worst personal neglect.