On the overhand spear (learning with EB)

[konny]

I was always certain that the hoplites didn't use the spear overhand because they fought in phalanx, but that the hoplites fought in phalanx because they used the spear overhand. The reason is that when useing the spear overhand the hoplite exposes his entire right side that would be otherwise protected by his arm and weapon. He isn't also able to block strikes on his right side with his weapon, he would so if he uses the spear underhand.

So, the best protection for his right side would be the shield of his neighbour - if that uses a large round shield, not a longshield which were more coustom during the Bronze Age. For that both fighters had to stand very close togther; and if the second man is useing a spear too, he needed protection by his neighbour - and so on until we have a phalanx.


The only thing that was unclear to me was why?. Why did the Greeks (and other people) started to use the spear overhand at some time in the early Iron Age. This manner seems to have disadvantages only. Until I saw this picutre last night in an EB battle:





You can see that the only protection against an overhand attack is to raise the shild hould over your head. But with this you expose your body and can be hit by the fighter next to the one who is attacking you. You can also see how well protected the hoplite is against underhand attacks. The only real target he offers are his legs - and these are protected as well.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

The Overhand vs. Underhand argument has come up many times in many different places. Greek hoplites used both types of attack, but when in formation overhand works better. Greek art seems to show hoplites using the overhand attack. Though, some art shows them using the underhand attack, these seem to depict one on one duels.

When you are in tight formation, with a huge sheild that is overlapped with the guy next to you, carrying a large spear with a point on both ends, with your friends pushing you from behind, it would be nearly impossible to wield your weapon freely without stabbing the guys behind you if you use the under attack.

I'm sure there are people who can elaborate better than I.

[The God of War]

overhand use of spears has more impact and damage while lesser movement .... under hand use of spear .... vice versa ..... and more than that do you notice the butt end of their spears are pointed (as far as hoplites are concerned) this means using spear underhand could injure the groin of the man behind the first rank when the enemy collides pushing the spear !!!!!

[Lupu]

When you are in a tight formation with overlapping shields, where is your spear supposed to be if you fight underhand, in a hole in ur shield or down at ur legs?

[nemgod]

Well I always was under the impression that while the front row indeed fight underhand the rest of the hoplites in formation almost certainly attacked over hand for obvious reasons.

[AqD]

Hmmm the article gives good arguments against over-arm spear use. It would seem over-arm is not realistic because it's very tiring and inflexible.
________
WASHINGTON MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES

[chenkai11]

Hmmm the article gives good arguments against over-arm spear use. It would seem over-arm is not realistic because it's very tiring and inflexible.

I hope he has a video to show his point just like the one he made regarding the shield.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

"I hope that I have made a convincing case for under-arm spear use. To date, I have encountered very strong opposition to my case, from academics who have never wielded anything heavier than a pen. They argue that spears were used over-arm because 1. That’s the way they’d always imagined them to be used. 2. Some pretty pictures on pots show this. 3. There’s no proof in the ancient texts that they were used under-arm. The modern classical tradition holds that spears were used over-arm, much as it holds that hoplite cuirasses were linen. Classicists have had expensive educations telling them of these things, and they do not want those educations to be proven worthless."

Citations included are limited to exactly himself standing in a field holding reproductions of the equipment and belittling academics. It may also be that his arm got tired more quickly from that massive chip on his shoulder.

[captainbloodloss]

Yes, the overhand thrust is tiring. Yes, the overhand thrust is impractical and inflexible. Yes, there is no room for an underhand thrust between the shields of a phalanx (A term technically incorrect anyways for the Greek Hoplite of c. 500 BC to c. 300 BC. A true phalanx is what the Macedonians used from c. 300 BC onwards with the sarissa spear).

All that misses the main concern of the ancient hoplite: to kill his enemy in as little time as possible. Consider this, a man's torso is protected by 3 layers of defense: The linen jerkin, a bronze bell cuirass, and the shield. An iron (not steel, which is much harder) spearhead stands no chance of getting through all of those and even if it did there is no guaruntee of a kill. If you thrust at the head however, you now only have one partial layer of defense standing between you and your opponent's head, a sure kill if you connect.

Tiring their spear arm was not a concern of the hoplites as they were trained soldiers. The Romans carried 22 lb. shields with one handle during their conquest of the known world, and it was never though too heavy.

Furthmore, I'd like to cite Adrian Goldsworthy's The Complete Roman Army, "...Even a victorious phalanx suffered on average five per cent casualties." compared with other how he describes the casualties of other, post Hellenistic battles, "Victorious armies usually suffered comparatively light casualties, which might have been as much as 5 per cent, but were usually far less."

This is perfect anecdotal evidence for the deadliness of the overhand spear thrust aimed at the head and upper chest.

[Ludens]

All that misses the main concern of the ancient hoplite: to kill his enemy in as little time as possible.

Er... the main concern of most soldiers would be to keep alive. Taking down the enemy is usually a secondary goal. Also, it did not need to be a kill: incapacitating would be pretty much the same from the attackers point of view.

[Watchman]

...especially as the guy would just get trampled to death in the crush anyway. Or attract a sauroter.

[Giuliano Taverna]

lead us not forget that heavily armed soldiers made up an elite minority in most armies compared to lightly armed levees.

a spear will go through a wicker shield and a tunic quite easily I would imagine, tough break for the Persians.

and of course once the light infantry are routed and the elites are surrounded they can be attacker from all side's thus mitigating the phalanx.

[Watchman]

a spear will go through a wicker shield and a tunic quite easily I would imagine, tough break for the Persians.

People for some reason often seem to think it was somehow remarkable and unusual for a spear-thrust to pierce a shield. Never quite understood why - you could drive a solid two-handed thrust through Medieval steel plate armour with a square hit on a suitable spot (one reason two-handers became so popular), whereas it was simply accepted as the way of the world shields would get pierced and pincushioned by arrows, javelins and whatnot and seriously generally mauled in hand-to-hand combat.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

For eight-foot spears:

Underarm for the first rank, overarm for the second rank, third rank and others behind them have spears pointing straight up in the air, waiting till they are needed to step into the second rank.

Most of the mentioned drawbacks of the overarm method are negated if you're in the second rank, since the enemy will have a job hitting your exposed armpit from that distance and you have your first ranker in front of you as a human shield.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

For eight-foot spears:

Underarm for the first rank, overarm for the second rank, third rank and others behind them have spears pointing straight up in the air, waiting till they are needed to step into the second rank.

Most of the mentioned drawbacks of the overarm method are negated if you're in the second rank, since the enemy will have a job hitting your exposed armpit from that distance and you have your first ranker in front of you as a human shield.

Isn't holding an eight foot spear overarm immensely hard? Even with the counterbalance, you'll tire yourself out by doing that, and if the front rank goes down you're ****ed. Are you sure in such tight phalanx formations, with such long spears, the second line had overarm? Source?

[Maelkoch]

Isn't holding an eight foot spear overarm immensely hard? Even with the counterbalance, you'll tire yourself out by doing that, and if the front rank goes down you're ****ed. Are you sure in such tight phalanx formations, with such long spears, the second line had overarm? Source?

Well, if the second rank was using the spear overhand it'd be of some actual use, rather if used underhand, especially in a tightly packed hoplite formation (with those huge shields). I mean, how'd they be pushing the guys in front of them with their shields unless they kept their spears either vertically (and being of no use) or simultaneously trying to poke enemies using the spears overhanded. With the shields overlapping one another, I really don't know how the spears could be used underhand. Unless hoplites weren't in such a tightly packed formation as thought after all, but in a more loose formation which would allow underhand fighting... But this, methinks, is less likely than overhand spearuse. I mean, the tightly-packed, disciplined (spear-and-)shield-wall-formation was what the hoplites were known for, right?

Aside, of course, those smexeh Corinthian helmets.

I've got no sources, just tryin' to apply me some logics 'ere.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Well, if the second rank was using the spear overhand it'd be of some actual use, rather if used underhand, especially in a tightly packed hoplite formation (with those huge shields). I mean, how'd they be pushing the guys in front of them with their shields unless they kept their spears either vertically (and being of no use) or simultaneously trying to poke enemies using the spears overhanded. With the shields overlapping one another, I really don't know how the spears could be used underhand. Unless hoplites weren't in such a tightly packed formation as thought after all, but in a more loose formation which would allow underhand fighting... But this, methinks, is less likely than overhand spearuse. I mean, the tightly-packed, disciplined (spear-and-)shield-wall-formation was what the hoplites were known for, right?

Aside, of course, those smexeh Corinthian helmets.

I've got no sources, just tryin' to apply me some logics 'ere.

Absolutely. Just logic really.

Only the hoplites in the first rank of a tightly-packed formation can use their spears underarm. If those in the second rank try it, they'll be stabbing their own first rank in the back! So the second rank either have to use their spears overarm, to stab down over the shoulders of the first rank into the throats of the enemy, or alternatively, not attack at all - just brace the backs of the first rank with their shields, and wait for a gap to appear in the first rank, and then step into the breach.

My guess is that the second rank would rather attack overarm than not attack at all.

Attacking overarm IS more tiring, but because the second rank isn't in anywhere near as much danger of being killed as the first rank (because they are farther away from the enemy) the second rank don't have to strike as often as the men in the first rank. They can take their time, and only strike when they see a good target in the enemy first rank - thus saving energy.

[Watchman]

The first rank using their spears underarm would be stabbing their second-rank mates in the gut with the butt ferrule though...

[Teleklos Archelaou]

We cast our lot in with the people who say the spears were held over the shields when fighting hoplite vs. hoplite (vs. cavalry they are often shown holding the spears from a crouched position and not up high). Depictions of hoplites in art for many centuries have probably been the most significant factor in the decision. It's fun to debate the different "spear holds", but we aren't changing it and we don't have to "convince" anyone of it either if we don't want to do so.

Personally, I tend to take the point of view, on any particular scholarly matter or scientific issue, of the people who work on or study something all the time or as a profession or such. On that particular matter that is. Folks who do enjoy experimenting with weapons as hobbies (that goes for any subject, not really just this weapon issue) and put down academic research into the same topic in favor of their personal experience can always make whatever argument they want, but it doesn't mean that it should be favored, especially when such hostility and bias towards those holding the opposing viewpoint is apparent in their own comments.

[Maelkoch]

Personally, I tend to take the point of view, on any particular scholarly matter or scientific issue, of the people who work on or study something all the time or as a profession or such. On that particular matter that is. Folks who do enjoy experimenting with weapons as hobbies (that goes for any subject, not really just this weapon issue) and put down academic research into the same topic in favor of their personal experience can always make whatever argument they want, but it doesn't mean that it should be favored, especially when such hostility and bias towards those holding the opposing viewpoint is apparent in their own comments.

Especially true this is when the people trying these ancient fighting methods/weapons/etc aren't physically fit professional soldiers, or either physically fit or soldiers/martial arts practitioners, but rather either more of the academic-or-nerd-body type and/or ordinary laymen without proper instructions and such on how to use the weapons etc.