Syracusan Hoplites

**athanaric** · 08-05-2009, 20:04

Many Arab, Alpine, Germanic and Celtic units use underhand spears in EB I. Generally speaking, alll tribal militia units and spear-equipped skirmishers use underhand spears.

**Watchman** · 08-05-2009, 20:18

As do the majority of "middleweight" spear-carrying types all over the map, from assorted Celts and Africans to assorted Easterners and Arabs to assorted Indians.

**Phalanx300** · 08-05-2009, 20:29

Originally Posted by athanaric

Many Arab, Alpine, Germanic and Celtic units use underhand spears in EB I. Generally speaking, alll tribal militia units and spear-equipped skirmishers use underhand spears.

Yes, only exception for the Germanics is the Gaut spearmen from Scandinavia and the Celtic-Germanic spearmen.

Would make sense for all spearmen to go overhand (except those who clearly didn't like pikemen and speude Phalanxes) if it clearly overs an advantage with underhand. In one on one combat I'm a bit unsure what would give you an advantage, seems to me that both would be usefull.

**Watchman** · 08-05-2009, 20:43

In one-on-one and diverse special situations (countering cavalry springs to mind) warriors doubtless switched between the two as needed, but for overall mass combat in close order one would assume overhand was by and large preferred - if only because it rather cut down on accidentally broken noses and poked eyes in the rear ranks. AFAIK in thin lines the rear-rankers can use the underhand style, held quite high at around shoulder level, to stab quite effectively past and between the front-rankers, but obviously even trying to depict this kind of situation-dependent detail under the various limitations of the engine is a *rather* stillborn idea...

BTW, don't the infantry of both sides mainly wield their spears overarm in the Bayeux Tapestry ? Not really all *that* relevant as such, but shieldwall is shieldwall...

**Aulus_Hirtius** · 08-05-2009, 22:37

Originally Posted by Watchman

In one-on-one and diverse special situations (countering cavalry springs to mind) warriors doubtless switched between the two as needed, but for overall mass combat in close order one would assume overhand was by and large preferred - if only because it rather cut down on accidentally broken noses and poked eyes in the rear ranks. AFAIK in thin lines the rear-rankers can use the underhand style, held quite high at around shoulder level, to stab quite effectively past and between the front-rankers

I'm not quite sure that I follow this from a practicality standpoint. It seems rather ineffective to hold a spear underhanded at shoulder level since it would be unstable and has limited range of motion. Also, wouldn't the underhanded spear be the style that reduced upper body friendly casualties?

**Watchman** · 08-05-2009, 22:52

Originally Posted by Aulus_Hirtius

I'm not quite sure that I follow this from a practicality standpoint. It seems rather ineffective to hold a spear underhanded at shoulder level since it would be unstable and has limited range of motion.

Your "angles of attack" are pretty darn limited if you're stabbing past your mate from the second rank anyway, making the point somewhat moot. From what I've read of Viking re-enactors and such, in thin (two-rank) shieldwall formations at least shoulder-height horizontal thrusts with an underhand grip work plenty well.

Also, wouldn't the underhanded spear be the style that reduced upper body friendly casualties?

How so ? Depending on the exact height you're wielding your spear in, with the underhand there's kind of an obvious risk of jabbing the guy behind you anywhere from the groin to the face with the spear-butt. Which is particularly inadvisable if you have one of those pointy metal butt-ferrules, nevermind now the big sorts that can double as spare spearheads in a pinch like the hoplites had.
Overhand by and large avoids this as the spear is held fairly high and with the tip "hanging", so the butt points at the sky in a vector passing safely above your mates' noggins.

**Aulus_Hirtius** · 08-05-2009, 23:18

It was your remark about stabbing that threw me off since as you later clarified it would seem to be more of an underhanded thrust. I agree on the second point about the elevation and angle of the spear and clearly the overhand style would be preferable for minimizing accidents overall, though unlike a low elevation underhand style such accidents would be on the upper part of the body (though I admittedly don't have any sources for this.)

**Phalanx300** · 08-06-2009, 17:21

I found this interesting video of some people portraying Gallic one on one combat with the shield and spear, very interesting how they do it and they also show that with overhand sparring is possible. This kind of fighting would also apply for Germanics and Hoplites (though Hoplites with the Butt point to make a deadlier spear) and others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY3G...e=channel_page

**antisocialmunky** · 08-05-2009, 23:13

Originally Posted by Watchman

In one-on-one and diverse special situations (countering cavalry springs to mind) warriors doubtless switched between the two as needed, but for overall mass combat in close order one would assume overhand was by and large preferred - if only because it rather cut down on accidentally broken noses and poked eyes in the rear ranks. AFAIK in thin lines the rear-rankers can use the underhand style, held quite high at around shoulder level, to stab quite effectively past and between the front-rankers, but obviously even trying to depict this kind of situation-dependent detail under the various limitations of the engine is a *rather* stillborn idea...

BTW, don't the infantry of both sides mainly wield their spears overarm in the Bayeux Tapestry ? Not really all *that* relevant as such, but shieldwall is shieldwall...

Does the MII shield wall animation allow you to modify the animations for the first couple ranks like pikewall or no?