The Pushing Match

[Toorstain]

What I imply and you infer are clearly two different things. I'll clear this up now: overarm usage in general is not awkward. Overarm usage in the pose depicted on that particular vase is laughable. It only takes a few seconds to realise that turning your hand through 180 degrees for any great length of time with a heavy spear in that hand will lead to quite a few sprained wrists.

I think he meant (if i'm thinking of the right vase) that even though you hold your spear underarm with the point up while marching doesn't mean you won't fight overarm. But i'll let him clarify that himself.

[jirisys]

I've changed my stance on the use of overhand spears several times now; the last being when I read posts explaining how hoplites would fight in very close proximity and thus not be able to take advantage of the extra reach of an underhand grip. Just now however, I have seen this video on youtube, and I have decided to change my position again :)

I would like to know what answers you would give to the questions aired on the above video. I now find it increasingly doubtful that hoplite warfare would consist of a great amount of pushing given that from what I've read here, casulties were very light. If such a pushing match occurred, routing would fast get the front lines killed. With a formation 8 ranks deep, I suspect 4/5 would be summarily slaughtered.

Overarm and underarm.

Pushing.

It's the freaking OP!

I can't really debate past this point since my knowledge of that time period is very limited. I will say however that WRE's declining Heavy Infantry was one of the factors that contributed to its collapse.

Actually, I think the lack of men and economy made the WRE collapse, the lack of proper heavy infantry was a consequence of that.

Remember the romans were beaten multiple times. Tactics and strategy weren't really as important to them as was discipline and numbers.

Definately not what I think of when I imagine warfare.

It seems you do; as you think that a spear is actually useful for keeping men at a distance. While it was rather to kill men with forward momentum.

This is the context you were lacking when you decried my points as lacking consistency. Furthermore your example was little more than a strawman. You came up with some ridiculous concept for a drawing and then implied that any and all depictions were to be disregarded. Ironically this is the same point Lindybeige makes.

I didn't say ALL drawings are to be disregarded. That is YOUR strawman. I implied that I could draw anything. But that didn't mean it's true. It can be or it cannot.

What I imply and you infer are clearly two different things. I'll clear this up now: overarm usage in general is not awkward. Overarm usage in the pose depicted on that particular vase is laughable. It only takes a few seconds to realise that turning your hand through 180 degrees for any great length of time with a heavy spear in that hand will lead to quite a few sprained wrists.

I wasn't addressing that.

~Jirisys ()

[Geticus]

A bit late but i wouldn't trust Xenophon's description of Leuktra too much. He's hopelessly biased towards Sparta and his description of the battle is an exercise in exculpation and excuse making.

Do you think Xenophon didn't know how hoplites fought in phalanx?

[fomalhaut]

i think he is just saying not to take Xenophon as the end all source due to a particular bias he may or may not have

[vartan]

i think he is just saying not to take Xenophon as the end all source due to a particular bias he may or may not have

Most binaries are false, but the interesting case here is that the discussion isn't about ideologies. The discussion is about holding a spear overhand or underhand, and I'm not sure if there is any alternative to those two ways of holding a spear (I've never really used a spear, go easy on me!) Xenophon, if I remember right, was a soldier who recorded stories. If so, the one thing he should not mistake is how he and his fellow troop members held their spears (if that's the weapon they used, or one of the weapons).

[Geticus]

Most binaries are false, but the interesting case here is that the discussion isn't about ideologies. The discussion is about holding a spear overhand or underhand, and I'm not sure if there is any alternative to those two ways of holding a spear (I've never really used a spear, go easy on me!) Xenophon, if I remember right, was a soldier who recorded stories. If so, the one thing he should not mistake is how he and his fellow troop members held their spears (if that's the weapon they used, or one of the weapons).

Xenophon was born an Athenian citizen, one of the most famous pupils of Socrates, co-strategos of the 10,000 man mercenary phalanx which fought under Prince Kyros at the battle of Cunaxa, and then returned successfully and intact to Hellas under harrassment from the Persian King's troops most of the way. He was one of Alexander the Great's inspirations in showing the weakness and dissoluteness of the Persian nobility of that era, and in general a favorite of later historians like Caesar and Arrian, who actually called himself Xenophon.

In my estimation he is very much a heavy hitter due to his in-the-field experience and diversity of education (studied under Socrates in Athens, spent later adult life in Lakedaimon) and one of the most important classical historians regardless of bias.

[saka-rauka1]

Overarm and underarm.

Pushing.

It's the freaking OP!

All that was, was background explaining why I was posting here. I didn't make a point there, did I? My point was made in the second paragraph. You'll notice throughout the thread that I haven't debated the disadvantages/advantages of either grip.

Actually, I think the lack of men and economy made the WRE collapse, the lack of proper heavy infantry was a consequence of that.

Remember the romans were beaten multiple times. Tactics and strategy weren't really as important to them as was discipline and numbers.

Yes this was what I meant to say; it was a secondary factor, certainly not a main factor.

Every army has it share of defeats; take the battle you meantion earlier, Cannae. Numbers were in their favour here, but they still lost; and in the end it was strategy (Fabian Strategy) that saved them from Hannibal in Italy, and tactics that led to Hannibals defeat at Zama. I would say that a lot of things influenced their successful conquests, enough to warrant its one thread.

It seems you do; as you think that a spear is actually useful for keeping men at a distance. While it was rather to kill men with forward momentum.

A spear concentrates is energy behind a single sharp point, thus being better suited to pierce armour than a sword. That said, you can't exactly put full power behind it if your enemy is right on front of your face. I think I should bring up poleaxes though. When full plate armour became prevalent, a means to get through that armour was needed, and poleaxes were one of the solutions. Spears obviously didn't quite cut it. So if you were thinking that the Greeks were after a very good armour piercing weapon; I would say that they could have found a better weapon for that purpose, one that would suit close quarters fighting. Lets not forget, that cataphracts in the east used maces for this purpose despite reach being an issue for someone on horseback.

I would also argue that if a spear isn't useful for keeping people at a distance, they wouldn't have been nearly as long as they were.

I didn't say ALL drawings are to be disregarded. That is YOUR strawman. I implied that I could draw anything. But that didn't mean it's true. It can be or it cannot.

You said: "It's not a matter of drawings, it's one of actual real life" which would definately imply that artistic depictions lack merit. If that was not your intended point, then okay, I'll drop the issue.

I wasn't addressing that.

Then what were you addressing? You quoted that specifically when you first responded.

[bobbin]

A spear concentrates is energy behind a single sharp point, thus being better suited to pierce armour than a sword. That said, you can't exactly put full power behind it if your enemy is right on front of your face. I think I should bring up poleaxes though. When full plate armour became prevalent, a means to get through that armour was needed, and poleaxes were one of the solutions. Spears obviously didn't quite cut it. So if you were thinking that the Greeks were after a very good armour piercing weapon; I would say that they could have found a better weapon for that purpose, one that would suit close quarters fighting. Lets not forget, that cataphracts in the east used maces for this purpose despite reach being an issue for someone on horseback.

I would also argue that if a spear isn't useful for keeping people at a distance, they wouldn't have been nearly as long as they were.

Hoplite spearheads were not designed to penetrate armour, they had a wide leaf shape which was perfect for cutting into flesh but would have been fairly useless against metal armour. They did have a buttspike that was designed to do that but it has been theorised that was more for finishing off enemies who had already fallen. For close quarters there was the Kopis, which was specially meant to pierce armour.

And yes you right, keeping people at a distance was exactly what the spear was invented for.

[moonburn]

herm bobbin not wanting to step on your heels i believe that except for spartans most of the other greeks seldom had a kopis and they relied on the shieldwall and the oychismos to win the day only the spartans had and where prepared to use the kopis since it can be somehow equivalent to the roman "going for the triarii" situation if the batle arrived at a time where the swords where needed for greeks

[jirisys]

And yes you right, keeping people at a distance was exactly what the spear was invented for.

I think it was more for "killing people at a distance".

I could move past a spear by just parrying it to my side. In combat, possibly 4 people in my line would have died trying it, the 5th would have gone hand to hand with the spearmen.

The hoplite shield wall was different, since you couldn't get past the spears because they were so close to the men.

~Jirisys ()

[fomalhaut]

why would the main fighting unit of this age/area only be about 'keeping them away from eachother', rather than being able to kill eachother from farther away? I understand Phalangites long spears meant solely to tie up enemies so the hammer can come down, but im assuming these tactics weren't utilized interpolis warfare.

[jirisys]

why would the main fighting unit of this age/area only be about 'keeping them away from eachother', rather than being able to kill eachother from farther away? I understand Phalangites long spears meant solely to tie up enemies so the hammer can come down, but im assuming these tactics weren't utilized interpolis warfare.

My point exactly, but phalangites also had casualties from hand to hand, imagine a 50 men line pushing into the spears, one of them might as well pass or crack all the spears. I think it was more of a deterrer and steamroller rather than a true impenetrable block.

~Jirisys ()

[fomalhaut]

definitely, but i doubt the average phalangite had the intention of stabbing as many insert here* as possible, but rather keeping those dirty insert heres* far away as possible until the peltasts/cavalry flank and rout them.

I just read that Gauls and Romans would often attempt to chop off the heads of sarissae as to render them useless.

[Delta146]

Overarm usage in the pose depicted on that particular vase is laughable. It only takes a few seconds to realise that turning your hand through 180 degrees for any great length of time with a heavy spear in that hand will lead to quite a few sprained wrists.

I don't know what depiction you are referring to, but I have taken a dowel that is not counterweighted (Offset by the fact that it has no spearhead), not tapered, too thick, and I found it completely comfortable to hold it overarm. The thrust felt more powerful than underarm, I felt no length restriction, and it seemed more natural given the pose, so I object to you implying that it's somehow obvious that you are right and the other argument is laughable.

[Lazy O]

Stupid Argument. Wield a spear underhand, youre only going to hit the shield. And with geticus' post, I dont think it matters if you have x centimetres less grip.

[saka-rauka1]

Hoplite spearheads were not designed to penetrate armour, they had a wide leaf shape which was perfect for cutting into flesh but would have been fairly useless against metal armour. They did have a buttspike that was designed to do that but it has been theorised that was more for finishing off enemies who had already fallen. For close quarters there was the Kopis, which was specially meant to pierce armour.

Actually I think you're right. I remembered a medieval weapon that was essential a spike that was perfect for getting through armour. It featured a rectangular cross-section though, lacking the means to cut a foe.

As for the kopis, how was it designed to defeat armour? I have read of it being a short, curved blade. Seems poorly suited from that description.

I think it was more for "killing people at a distance".

I could move past a spear by just parrying it to my side. In combat, possibly 4 people in my line would have died trying it, the 5th would have gone hand to hand with the spearmen.

The hoplite shield wall was different, since you couldn't get past the spears because they were so close to the men.

You definately could against 1 person; which is why I suggested that in a duel, a spear is useless. But a line of spearmen can make it much harder. The guy in front of you is easy to parry, the guy two to your left, significantly less so.

why would the main fighting unit of this age/area only be about 'keeping them away from eachother', rather than being able to kill eachother from farther away?

To kill someone at a specified distance, you have to keep them there no?

I don't know what depiction you are referring to

Spear held upright, with the point facing straight up. Very natural with underarm, completely unfeasible with overarm.

[jirisys]

As for the kopis, how was it designed to defeat armour? I have read of it being a short, curved blade. Seems poorly suited from that description.

Short, thin and curved are great against armour, because you don't have to move as much mass away like you would with a large, broad and straight sword.

You definately could against 1 person; which is why I suggested that in a duel, a spear is useless. But a line of spearmen can make it much harder. The guy in front of you is easy to parry, the guy two to your left, significantly less so.

That's what I said

To kill someone at a specified distance, you have to keep them there no?

No, that's dumb. That's like saying in order to kill someonw with a bow he has to be at a distance, when in fact he could be distracted and you land an arrow to his neck. If you want to kill people at a distance, you just have to make sure they get to the minimum distance for you to kill them, if they get near, well, you grab your sword and slash his neck. Because he was a brave fool. Even a a sword has a distance. Unless you stab him with your hand inside his body.

Spear held upright, with the point facing straight up. Very natural with underarm, completely unfeasible with overarm.

I recommend you bend your elbows, I can do that without any trouble; I can even reach 135 degrees with overarm.

~Jirisys ()

[QuintusSertorius]

You definately could against 1 person; which is why I suggested that in a duel, a spear is useless.

This is total nonsense. Especially without a shield, a spear is a very versatile weapon (effectively being a staff with a blade).

[jirisys]

This is total nonsense. Especially without a shield, a spear is a very versatile weapon (effectively being a staff with a blade).

If the other guy does not have a shield of course, but if he has a shield he just blocks the spear and walks in front of him with not much damage (unless the spearman is very skilled).

~Jirisys ()

[QuintusSertorius]

If the other guy does not have a shield of course, but if he has a shield he just blocks the spear and walks in front of him with not much damage (unless the spearman is very skilled).

~Jirisys ()

So he's going to constantly keep his shield in motion to protect his head and legs? A spear isn't just a point, it can be used to trip and entangle, push and batter.

[Arjos]

The shield wielding swordman will also get tired before the spearman...
Every weapon has its pros and cons, but to etiquette one "useless" is too extreme...
Anyway duels aren't the most important aspect...

[bobbin]

If the other guy does not have a shield of course, but if he has a shield he just blocks the spear and walks in front of him with not much damage (unless the spearman is very skilled).

~Jirisys ()

And the spearman would just stand there then? He wouldn't slam his sheild into the swordmans face or dodge out of the way?

[jirisys]

And the spearman would just stand there then? He wouldn't slam his sheild into the swordmans face or dodge out of the way?

I'm stating a simple example, of course he would do that. But I was just talking about the spear itself.

Also you could break it.

Point is, it is quite easy to move around a spear, not a spearman. And, that; sooner or later the spear will crack if your soldiers get stuck constantly. In the end. It is in fact possible, and very likely (that is, with many casualties) to pass a spearwall.

~Jirisys ()

[QuintusSertorius]

If spears were so useless in one-on-one fighting, there wouldn't be two major polearm-wielding gladiators (retarius, hoplomachus) in the standard line-up against all those swordsmen (samnite, murmillo, thracian, etc). Because a one-sided fight is boring, and once they got past the notion of gladiatorial matches being funeral games and into public entertainment, boring is not what people want to see.

[jirisys]

If spears were so useless in one-on-one fighting, there wouldn't be two major polearm-wielding gladiators (retarius, hoplomachus) in the standard line-up against all those swordsmen (samnite, murmillo, thracian, etc). Because a one-sided fight is boring, and once they got past the notion of gladiatorial matches being funeral games and into public entertainment, boring is not what people want to see.

I said spears, not spearmen. It makes a big difference a piece of wood with a blade and a person that can handle them.

~Jirisys ()

[bobbin]

Jirsys that argument doesn't make any sense, of course a spear is useless if you ignore the person holding it, but that would be true for any weapon.

[jirisys]

Jirsys that argument doesn't make any sense, of course a spear is useless if you ignore the person holding it, but that would be true for any weapon.

Drop it. Stomp on it. Put it in a blender. I don't know. Juts stop bringing that up.

~Jirisys ()

[saka-rauka1]

So he's going to constantly keep his shield in motion to protect his head and legs? A spear isn't just a point, it can be used to trip and entangle, push and batter.

Just bat it aside and charge. Unless its something other than a simple spear, you can only really do a few things with it: jab, obviously; throw it, if its balanced; slash across the neck, rare. Most of the time he will be moving back constantly and jabbing to keep the opponent at distance;throwing enters the equation if he has a sword or a different weapon that can be more wieldy in close combat. Slashing isn't gonna happen really, unless the difference in skill is extreme. Tripping won't occurr since you need a hook to perform a move like that. Battering with the haft will do minimal damage, being reduced to nothing if the target is at all armoured.

A spearman will tire a lot faster than a swordsman assuming equal fitness. A swordman doesn't need to move nearly as much. Also, as the two opponents become more armoured, the sword becomes more effective; the spearman tires sonner and his weapon is unable to penetrate really thick armour like full plate or a coat of plates. The sword can still dish out blunt force trauma effectively.

The shield wielding swordman will also get tired before the spearman...
Every weapon has its pros and cons, but to etiquette one "useless" is too extreme...
Anyway duels aren't the most important aspect...

The opposite actually, a spearman needs to keep moving or he's screwed.

If spears were so useless in one-on-one fighting, there wouldn't be two major polearm-wielding gladiators (retarius, hoplomachus) in the standard line-up against all those swordsmen (samnite, murmillo, thracian, etc). Because a one-sided fight is boring, and once they got past the notion of gladiatorial matches being funeral games and into public entertainment, boring is not what people want to see.

A retarius carries nets, which make all the difference. Can't speak for gladiatorial combat though, don't know very much about it.

Jirsys that argument doesn't make any sense, of course a spear is useless if you ignore the person holding it, but that would be true for any weapon.

It does have some merit. Some weapons are simply useless regardless of the man carrying it. Lances on foot, knives, a gladius on horseback. A spear outside of a shieldwall fast approaches uselessness. An extremely competant spearman may be able to gain an edge versus a somewhat skilled swordsman, but otherwise it's simply the wrong weapon.

[fomalhaut]

i can't say from personal experience, but my imagination (not the best source..) says that a spear outside of a shield wall isn't worthless.

yes it is usually reserved to those situations in which its ease of use allows for large amounts of untrained levies or citizen soldiers to use them in mass, but i don't think its worth as a weapon wielded by a skilled, individual warrior should be totally discounted.

[Biowulf]

Tripping won't occurr since you need a hook to perform a move like that. Battering with the haft will do minimal damage, being reduced to nothing if the target is at all armoured.

The sword can still dish out blunt force trauma effectively.

1. Why do you need a hook to trip?
2. Have you ever been hit by the handle of any wooden object? It hurts a lot, and can deal a lot of damage to anything except an armoured opponent.
3. So can a spear haft.

Also, if both are lightly armoured professional soldiers/warriors then stamina won't necessarily be an issue. These two men would be in prime physical condition.

I pretty much agree with the rest, especially about moving. However, both fighters would need to keep moving or they're both screwed. You can't expect a guy to stand still whether he's holding a sword, spear, machine gun, or bazooka.

I'll admit I'm not an expert so if anyone has links to any definitive research or sources one way or the other that would certainly help.