Spears and sheildwalls

[Abaddon55]

So, this has probably come to your attention at one point or another, but anyway i would like to know if this has been considered.
please watch both.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmaYtNW_wR8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klOc9C-aPr4

[Garensterz]

The guy has a good point. I think underhand grip really makes sense. But it's up for the EB team if they still prefer overhand. But either way this mod will still kick a s s!

[Sint]

Hmm I still think that they would use the overhand grip in formation.
And using the underhand grip in a tight formation ,when using a dory seems to be bad idea.

And there are quite a few videos from Lloyd that are just planly wrong.

[abou]

Honestly, none of us on the team care what that guy thinks. Most of the spear units in game will be using overhand.

[Phalanx300]

Really his videos are spreading way too much misinformation, everyone believes him for his words and his videos keep popping up anywhere. Underarm has its uses in a more loose formation but in a dense shieldwall overhand definately is the way to go.

[yuezhi]

This has been talked about before in this very forum. It went on to no end, good god.

[Appius Pulcher]

Basically a shield wall and a hoplite phalanx is not the same thing. The weaponry used also differs for the very same reason. Using a description of a shield wall to explain why hoplites did not use their weapons the way we think they do is nonsensical.


In a shield wall you do use shorter weapons. Axes and short sword and the likes are great for a shield wall.


Hoplites did mostly use overhand grip. In a hoplite phalanx formation it makes the best sense as you can lower yourself to the ground, and cover as much of your body as possible with your shield, while keep striking the at the enemy. But don't take my word for it! Most ancient depictions of hoplites in action show a overhand grip. I kind of think the discussion should end there.






There are exceptions to this rule, but they mostly depict single combat. I could also imaging an underhand grip would be the most effective against cavalry, but I don't have any sources and sincerely doubt the engine would support different formations for different types of enemy units.

[pestkop]

Which vases are those? If I'm correct the first one is the Chigi vase right? I believe the phalanx wasn't as dense as depicted in, for example, Europa barbarorum 1. Hans van Wees actually states a theory about the density of hoplite phalanx which is quite believable. He states that

'A Macedonian phalangite, for instance did require only three feet, since he held his pike and small shield steady in front of him and needed minimal room to manoeuvre, but a Roman legionary, who actively wielded his shield on his left arm and his sword in his right hand, required at least an additional three feet of elbow room, a total of six feet (Polybius 18.29.2, 30.6-9) (...) Classical hoplites must indeed have fought more like Romans than like Macedonians, since they not only wielded their weapons energetically, but instead of the Roman short sword used spears up to eight feet long, pointed at both ends. The classical phalanx can therefore hardly have operated with intervals of much less than six feet (1,8 meters), enough for neighbours in the ranks to swing their arms fully extended without hitting one another. The 'protection of which Thucydides spoke (he said that protection was in density of formation) was therefore not direct cover provided by a neighbour's shield, but the general protection of having a friend close by: at six feet a man was still within a spear's thrust from his neighbour which would have deterred enemy soldiers from trying to enter the gap' (Hans van Wees, Greek Warfare. Myths and Realities, 2004 pg. 185-186)

He then argues that the classical phalanx wasn't organised enough to maintain a dense formation in which shields 'interlock' and that 'joining shields' (synaspizein) could mean that a phalanx formation densified from 6 feet to 3 feet intervals between the men in a line. I believe it is a sound theory which actually substantiates the theory that hoplites fought with an underhand grip, but it doesn't contradict the fact that they might have fought in an overhand manner.

I don't know, but the overhand/underhand debate interests me highly and I think we'll never know. If you believe phalanx warfare developed from archaic phases like horde-style fighting with the predominant position for missile weapons (javelins) as depicted in the Ilias and discussed in H. van Wees to a hybrid form in early classical times as discussed in J.E. Lendon's Soldiers and Ghosts. A history of battle in classical antiquity(pg. 48) then the Chigi vase might prove useless as a source for the overhand/underhand discussion. (Note that each hoplite on the vase has two spears, perhaps one for throwing and one for fighting, so the first spear they hold in their right hand would be used for throwing and that something you definitely do in an overhand grip) Also note that the Chigi vase is from the 7th century BCE, which is the timeframe in which the hybrid transition fighting from javelins to close order combat takes place.

[Sint]

Really his videos are spreading way too much misinformation, everyone believes him for his words and his videos keep popping up anywhere. Underarm has its uses in a more loose formation but in a dense shieldwall overhand definately is the way to go.

Well his Renaissance pikes ,dual wield and double bited axes videos are also wrong .
Some of his videos are actually quite good ,but his videos on how people fought are usually wrong.

[SD_Man]

All I care is that the non-hoplite units are as accurate and sensible as possible, meaning no overhand thureophoroi.

This also means that factions with distinctive fighting styles should be depicted in their respective natures. For example, the Carthaginians were special in that their hoplites (in phalanx formation) fought with their spears underhand. Not all hoplite-phalanx units fought the same way but whenever their formation broke you can count on it that those spears went straight down.

EDIT: @Appius, sourcing art over real documentation is the same as sourcing the Trajan Column (or the media) on Roman army compositions.

[abou]

All I care is that the non-hoplite units are as accurate and sensible as possible, meaning no overhand thureophoroi.

Evidence?

This also means that factions with distinctive fighting styles should be depicted in their respective natures. For example, the Carthaginians were special in that their hoplites (in phalanx formation) fought with their spears underhand. Not all hoplite-phalanx units fought the same way but whenever their formation broke you can count on it that those spears went straight down.

Evidence?

[yuezhi]

EDIT: @Appius, sourcing art over real documentation is the same as sourcing the Trajan Column (or the media) on Roman army compositions.

So is sourcing Youtube.

[pestkop]

Ooh come on, it's not like we haven't learned/can't learn anything from Trajan's Column concerning the Roman army

[SD_Man]

Evidence?

Evidence?

You don't need any evidence against simple logic:

"In certain circumstances it would be better to use underhand. The reason the Hoplites used overhand was because of the formation that they were in it permitted the men in the rank behind the front to also be able to thrust their spears over the shoulder of the man in front of him. And thrusting over the shoulder can be very powerful yes. But if you were in a relatively loose formation like the Thureophoroi or Thorakitai are then it would definitely be better to wield the spear underhand. Because it's much more useful to be able to thrust below the hip as well which is better when fighting alone."

The thureophoroi were "accessory" units for the frontline that would most definetly would have been fighting as offensive flankers. Of course there would be exceptions when the thureophoroi would have to form the shieldwall but this was generally uncommon. Both stances are appreciated but due to obvious engine limitations only one can be observed.

As for the Carthaginians:

"They were armed and armored much the same as their Greek enemies on Sicily. They were armored in a mail shirt, Thracian helmets, and bronze greaves. They have the traditional round shield of the Greek hoplite, but use longer spears with the underhand thrust, much like the reformed hoplites of the Greek mainland."

As for the source, you'd never guess

[abou]

You don't need any evidence against simple logic:

Yes, you do, because your simple logic does not hold up.

"In certain circumstances it would be better to use underhand. The reason the Hoplites used overhand was because of the formation that they were in it permitted the men in the rank behind the front to also be able to thrust their spears over the shoulder of the man in front of him. And thrusting over the shoulder can be very powerful yes. But if you were in a relatively loose formation like the Thureophoroi or Thorakitai are then it would definitely be better to wield the spear underhand. Because it's much more useful to be able to thrust below the hip as well which is better when fighting alone."

It is not more useful, despite what you keep thinking. It is a slower attack. It is a weaker attack. It loses energy in the excessive motion of the joints of your arm. You are starting from a position that is unable to reach over a shield to attack vulnerable areas of the face and neck of your opponent. It exposes your right side simply to make an attack around your own shield.

You have no logic other than your arm is weak and you can't hold it up for any length of time.

As for the Carthaginians:

"They were armed and armored much the same as their Greek enemies on Sicily. They were armored in a mail shirt, Thracian helmets, and bronze greaves. They have the traditional round shield of the Greek hoplite, but use longer spears with the underhand thrust, much like the reformed hoplites of the Greek mainland."

As for the source, you'd never guess

Interesting. Outdated description with a game we are in the process of re-inventing from the ground up. Also, the very picture that corresponds to that unit shows an overhand grip. And as a team member, I can tell you that in EB2, all hoplites, regardless of faction, are using an overhand grip.

[pestkop]

I'd figure that in a real battle, you want to use as many moves as possible. Just out of curiosity, are there maybe any sources that describe the use (overhand/underhand) of the spear in Medieval times?

[Sint]

I'd figure that in a real battle, you want to use as many moves as possible. Just out of curiosity, are there maybe any sources that describe the use (overhand/underhand) of the spear in Medieval times?

The Bayeux Tapestry(Battle of Hastings)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[pestkop]

Damn, the Bayeux Tapestry, how could I forget. Beautiful piece of art. Just a travel tip for everyone here: If you're ever visiting France to sightsee the landing beaches of D-Day, please take a little trip to Bayeux (and Caen) and see the tapestry for yourself. I found it to be a very welcome and interesting change from all the WWII-related sights.

But more forum related: does this tapestry then proves that medieval spearmen also fought overhand and can it contribute to our discussion about the hoplite way of fighting? Maybe we can detect here a continuity in the way of fighting? But I'm still not really convinced that the hoplite 'shieldwall' was as maybe a medieval shieldwall.



Would it have been like this? Or more like this (I know these are supposed to be Macedonians, but my question concerns only the space between men and the relation to their use of the spear.

And can we even compare a phalanx to this:

[Achilles Lacedaemon]

You cant wield it correctly with overhand, just try for yourself.

[yuezhi]

That's because you're not a pro. Seriously, what makes you think hoplites are amateurs like Lindy?