The Pushing Match

[Toorstain]

One thing i wonder is: Why was the back end of the hoplite spear even pointy?

A lot of people uses the argument that "you could accidentaly wound or kill the one behind you" against both underhand and overhand uses, but I have never seen a good explanation of why it was even there. Would you be so kind to enlighten me on this?

First i thougt it maybe was to easily change stance between overhand and underhand, but that seems unlikely and impractical to me?

Was it used to somehow stick the spear in the ground to brace against cavalry, but that seems rather impractical and time consuming. Was it used for this?

Or was it maybe so you could just turn the spear around when it broke and use it as a reserve spearhead?

[bobbin]

One thing i wonder is: Why was the back end of the hoplite spear even pointy?

A lot of people uses the argument that "you could accidentaly wound or kill the one behind you" against both underhand and overhand uses, but I have never seen a good explanation of why it was even there. Would you be so kind to enlighten me on this?

First i thougt it maybe was to easily change stance between overhand and underhand, but that seems unlikely and impractical to me?

Was it used to somehow stick the spear in the ground to brace against cavalry, but that seems rather impractical and time consuming. Was it used for this?

Or was it maybe so you could just turn the spear around when it broke and use it as a reserve spearhead?

It was pointed for a few reasons, firstly it allowed the soldier to stick it in the ground when he wasn't moving, so he won't have to hold it all the time. I believe this is where it's name "Sauroter" comes from which means "lizard killer". It also served as a back up for if the spearhead broke off, which was almost certain for the soldiers in the first ranks.

It may have been used by the rear ranks to kill injured enemy soldiers as the phalanx went over them, this has been theorised from it's construction, it is a long thin spike made of bronze, which is harder that iron and so perfect for punching through armour. The fact that quite a few of the armour peices found from the period have square shaped holes matching the shape of the Sauroter gives some weight to this theory.

Would the artists involved in the creation of said depictions understand the finer points of combat? One point that is brought up in another video is that even modern media gets many things wrong when it depicts modern combat. He also mentions that he went to a mueseum and counted the number of vases that depicted overarm use as well as the ones that depicted underarm use. Overarm won out but only very slightly.

Yes but this would be similar to depicting modern soldiers holding the gun the wrong way round. Most of the artists would have seen the Hoplites performing their drills and quite a few would have probably even being in battles with them. You have to remember that warfare was a lot more closer to everyday life than it is today.

I'm wondering why, if the two front lines were so close, why they would use spears at all when a smaller, bladed weapon would be much less cumbersome.

Usually the spears would break very quickly so it was very common for those in the front ranks to be fighting with their swords for most the battle.

[saka-rauka1]

Would the men in the middle ranks be able to use the reach of their spears properly? If the front ranks were pushing then they would adopt a lower stance such as to move their centre of gravity down and thus be harder to move. Using a spear to attack low would be impractical for an overarm grip wouldn't it?

Also what are the advantages of the hoplon shield vs tower or kite shields?

[jirisys]

Would the men in the middle ranks be able to use the reach of their spears properly? If the front ranks were pushing then they would adopt a lower stance such as to move their centre of gravity down and thus be harder to move. Using a spear to attack low would be impractical for an overarm grip wouldn't it

Why would they use their spears at all? It's like saying that a middle-rank legionary wouldn't be able to use their swords properly. It's just ilogical. Middle ranks only enter in combat by either; becoming the front line (obviously unvalidating your point), being a phalangite (no point here), being a skirmisher (no point here again).

Also, why would you attack low at all, your enemy has this huge shield and greaves that covers him lower body, his neck is completely (if not a classical hoplite that is) vulnerable to your attack. Why would you even think attacking low? (unless your enemies are some uirodusios and gaesatae).

Big, you become a shield-wall, you are encouraged not to rout or leave formation because you would leave yourself and your brothers unprotected (plataia), you can join it with some greaves and a good helmet and you are nearly invulnerable, blows to the side slip off due to its curvature, you cannot hit it straight or your blow would lose force due to it's curvature, you can bash the puny enemy shields, your charge is well protected (it's hard to kill some running guy with a huge-*** shield covering almost his whole body), you can form a spear line, you can rest your spear on the shield-wall so you are ready and not tired by it's weight, etc.

That's all I could think of.

~Jirisys ()

[saka-rauka1]

Middle ranks was probably the wrong term. What I mean is that the 1st rank would be using their swords most of the time, whilst the guys immediately behind them would use spears. If you think about the positioning and stance of each of the soldiers, you will see that in order to hit someone over their shield, you need to angle your spear down. For someone who isn't in the 1st rank that would be impossible. So why carry spears at all?

Why wouldn't a good sized tower shield with a concave shape be just as good as a hoplon shield?

[gamegeek2]

A good sized scutum was a superior weapon for individual fighting, and it also doesn't require the same amount of protective equipment to be effective. A scutum or thureos can easily be lowered to protect the legs, which is not possible to do effectively with a hoplon; that's why hoplites and elite assault troops who carried aspides had to wear greaves, or they would get their legs chopped off.

[jirisys]

Middle ranks was probably the wrong term. What I mean is that the 1st rank would be using their swords most of the time, whilst the guys immediately behind them would use spears. If you think about the positioning and stance of each of the soldiers, you will see that in order to hit someone over their shield, you need to angle your spear down. For someone who isn't in the 1st rank that would be impossible. So why carry spears at all?

Why wouldn't a good sized tower shield with a concave shape be just as good as a hoplon shield?

Ok, so now you're criticizing the whole aspect of warfare? Spears were carried because it was defensive, the sword because it was for when things really got messy. Would you like to argue that every single soldier that carried a spear would make it useless?

Battles were not fought like the TW series shows it. It was thousands of men, spanning miles, most of the time with several more depth than just 8; just going at it, inches from one another. There was really no space or great room to use a spear your way. even phalanxes were not as effective against armoured soldiers; there wer hundreds of men who went into hand to hand with the phalanx. The spear is used as a piercing weapon, you try to insert the pointy thing inside someone; very useful for defense. Swords were used to cut and butcher as much as you could to make your enemy die; great for the offensive.

A good sized scutum was a superior weapon for individual fighting, and it also doesn't require the same amount of protective equipment to be effective. A scutum or thureos can easily be lowered to protect the legs, which is not possible to do effectively with a hoplon; that's why hoplites and elite assault troops who carried aspides had to wear greaves, or they would get their legs chopped off.

Yeah, problem is you get tired because you have your handle on the boss, you have more protection; yes. But you sacrifice stability, force and union.

Remember romans disciplined their troops different than the greeks.

~Jirisys ()