Overhand vs Underhand.

[Vyktrius]

There is little debate that I have see on this topic, at least here, but if this thread is a repeat by all means close it and send me to the original. If not I wish to hear your imput.
As you know it is claimed that the Hoplites of ancient Greece held their spears overhand. But that may not be true. There is much evidence against such a theory. Let me lay out what I know.
1. The human arm cannot properly thrust a spear if held overhand. If thrust overhand it is more of a downward chop and less effective than it should be.
2. If a spear is held overhand you must haft the spear half way or slightly less inorder to balance and hold it. This would almost defeat the purpose of a spear.
3. When held overhand you cannot reach anything but the head, a notoriously hard target to hit. You cannot reach the feet without exposing yourself and the man beside you.
4. You do not have a prober grip. If you opponent deflects your spear it is much more difficult to regain controll of it because the counter end of you spear will work against you.
5. You can't put full force into a blow. When the spear is held overhand you must rely almost completely on the srength of your arm. If held underhand you can put the weight of your body into the blow.

There are a few more but you get the idea. I would love to hear what any of you have to say.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

There is little debate that I have see on this topic, at least here, but if this thread is a repeat by all means close it and send me to the original. If not I wish to hear your imput.
As you know it is claimed that the Hoplites of ancient Greece held their spears overhand. But that may not be true. There is much evidence against such a theory. Let me lay out what I know.
1. The human arm cannot properly thrust a spear if held overhand. If thrust overhand it is more of a downward chop and less effective than it should be.
2. If a spear is held overhand you must haft the spear half way or slightly less inorder to balance and hold it. This would almost defeat the purpose of a spear.
3. When held overhand you cannot reach anything but the head, a notoriously hard target to hit. You cannot reach the feet without exposing yourself and the man beside you.
4. You do not have a prober grip. If you opponent deflects your spear it is much more difficult to regain controll of it because the counter end of you spear will work against you.
5. You can't put full force into a blow. When the spear is held overhand you must rely almost completely on the srength of your arm. If held underhand you can put the weight of your body into the blow.

There are a few more but you get the idea. I would love to hear what any of you have to say.

Firstly, that analysis sounds like a comfortable armchair view of things. I know plenty of re-enactors who use spears overhand with large shields quite effectively. I've fought that way myself many times.

Secondly, you'd better explain the ineffectiveness to the overhand style to all those ancient Greek sculptors and painters. Either they were all idiots or they knew a bit more about how hoplites fought than you do. My money would be on the latter.

[Vyktrius]

Firstly, that analysis sounds like a comfortable armchair view of things. I know plenty of re-enactors who use spears overhand with large shields quite effectively. I've fought that way myself many times.

Secondly, you'd better explain the ineffectiveness to the overhand style to all those ancient Greek sculptors and painters. Either they were all idiots or they knew a bit more about how hoplites fought than you do. My money would be on the latter.

First off, yes it is an "armchair" assesment, but only of the phalanx and the hoplite. But just because that is the case does not invalidate my views or the research I've done especially since some of it is from re-enactors. And though I do not have any real first hand experience of my own does not mean I can't get any. With my short time on this earth and all the constraints and limitations that young age bears I have had little time for such frivolties.

Secondly, consider this. How long was the hoplite spear. 16 feet, right, around there. And they got longer in the end didn't they? Greek artists and sculpters wouldn't build statues with proportionate spears. They would reach across the painting and detract for the scene. Statues would have spears reaching high in the air well beyond the reach of any who could errect one, especially the larger ones. Imagine a sculptor building a 12 foot replica of some great hoplite. His spear would be 36 feet long. That's a lot of material not to mention weight. Yes, weight. A bronze spear that long would be lible to bend in a strong wind. And bas reliefs wouldn't depict proportionality. That would be insane. Half the wall would be devoted to the spears. Have you ever seen the paintings of the "hundred years" war between France and England? Do you really think that the English longbowmen and the French crossbowmen were standing that close? No, they weren't it was for dramatic emphasize. So I would say it is safe to assume that the Greeks employed the same devises in their art, wouldn't you?

And here's another thing, we don't even know how long there spears were. No real evidence gives a clear definition of how long they wore. We can't even tell from graves. They may have been buried with their spears but if they used a 16 foot long spear in life do you really think that they would dig a 16 foot long hole for the man?

And let me once again reiterate the one of my earlier points. If you use a spear overhand you waste nearly half the spear. Go, pick up a spear by the butt end and see if you can hold the entire thing, all 16 feet of it, at head level and parallel with the ground. You can't. I know you can't. No one can. So you have to choke up on it, quite signifigantly I might add (and for this part I actually do have experience believe it or not). Now on the converse if you hold it underhand and use your forearm to support it you can get much more of the spear out in front of you. That, if I'm not mistaken, is the entire point of a spear, to stab your opponent before he can stab you.

Think of it though. If you are stiking underhand you have to somehow get around that huge shield. An overhand attack would allow you to slip over the top of the shiled and stab your opponent in the chest. Try it. Take a staff of some sort and hold it underhand. You can generate a lot more power that is for sure, but if your opponent was holding a large shiled your underhand attack would be very difficult! You also dont have to hold it half way. I am sure while you are marching you could rest the spear on your shield.

That may be true. But in doing so you have to extend your arm and keep you arm somwhat level. You can't strike out more than a few degrees before your wrist starts to go with it and the thrust becomes a downward stab. And the stabbing of the chest is not that easy. The shield covers most of the torso and "sliping" over it would mean you would have to be either 12 feet tall or right up next to the guy. Then you might as well use a sword. Yes you could rest the spear but you could not hold it level full length for more than maybe a dozen seconds at best. Let's hope you win by then. And finally, why stab there head when you can stab the foot? You get that, they fall, and they are useless. Sorry for being so erratic but you get the point.

So there you have it. Anything else?

[Wild Bill Kelso]

Secondly, consider this. How long was the hoplite spear. 16 feet, right, around there. And they got longer in the end didn't they? Greek artists and sculpters wouldn't build statues with proportionate spears. They would reach across the painting and detract for the scene.

I am no historian, but wasnt it the macedonians who had the massive spears while the hoplites of earlier centries had shorter ones?

That may be true. But in doing so you have to extend your arm and keep you arm somwhat level. You can't strike out more than a few degrees before your wrist starts to go with it and the thrust becomes a downward stab. And the stabbing of the chest is not that easy. The shield covers most of the torso and "sliping" over it would mean you would have to be either 12 feet tall or right up next to the guy. Then you might as well use a sword. Yes you could rest the spear but you could not hold it level full length for more than maybe a dozen seconds at best. Let's hope you win by then. And finally, why stab there head when you can stab the foot? You get that, they fall, and they are useless. Sorry for being so erratic but you get the point.

I just can't imagine in the thick of battle a bunch of guys trying to stab each other in the foot. It would create quite a funny image if you think of it. Why do you suppose hoplites wore such thick chest protection if their enemies were content to stab them in the foot? Also if you did strike at the foot and missed, all your opponent would have to do is step on your spear and you would be done for. What we need is someone more qualified than I to argue this point with you


Would you consider the overhead attack more acceptable if hoplites were using shorter spears?

[Vyktrius]

I am no historian, but wasnt it the macedonians who had the massive spears while the hoplites of earlier centries had shorter ones?




I just can't imagine in the thick of battle a bunch of guys trying to stab each other in the foot. It would create quite a funny image if you think of it. Why do you suppose hoplites wore such thick chest protection if their enemies were content to stab them in the foot? Also if you did strike at the foot and missed, all your opponent would have to do is step on your spear and you would be done for. What we need is someone more qualified than I to argue this point with you


Would you consider the overhead attack more acceptable if hoplites were using shorter spears?

To tell you the truth I agree with the over hand style. I may be arguing against it but that doesn't mean I didn't think they used it. You didn't think that's what I thought did you? :wink:
Yes the Macedonians had the longer spears but the hoplite spears (before they were hoplites that is) started at about 6 feet and grew till they reached much longer. They probably stopped when they stopped being able to controll them but I'm not sure. And about stabbing them in the foot, sure why not. It may be a funny scene but if it works it works. You wouldn't necessarily be done for if he stepped on your spear. Since its at and angle you have more torque so he couldn't push it down with much force. One good jerk and you could probably get it out. And if he did manage to flaten it, that is, make you drop it, just draw your draw you sword and close in for the kill, remember he is using a spear. You'll have that split second advantage and that may be enough.

[Vyktrius]

To tell you the truth I agree with the over hand style. I may be arguing against it but that doesn't mean I didn't think they used it. You didn't think that's what I thought did you? :wink:

Obviously you missed that little piece. And what in the hell is a "dory"? I thought is was a Xyston. But you all have to remember two things. One, I'm not completely inexperienced in this whole thing. I have actually picked up a few weapons and used them. And secondly, this was really just to see what other people know and think. This was by no means a thread to declare what I know. I was prepared to admit that I was wrong. Unlike your armchair case, Thiu. But like I said, I think that the overhand aproach is the way it was so you couldn't have proved me wrong. Come on think about it, would I have gotten much of a response from anyone had I said "I think the overhand style was completely correct. What do you think? " But thanks for your insight , I'm always willing to learn.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

First off, yes it is an "armchair" assesment, but only of the phalanx and the hoplite. But just because that is the case does not invalidate my views or the research I've done especially since some of it is from re-enactors. And though I do not have any real first hand experience of my own does not mean I can't get any. With my short time on this earth and all the constraints and limitations that young age bears I have had little time for such frivolties.

As an old (retired) re-enactor, you'll have to excuse me if I'm a bit sceptical of armchair views: I've seen them collapse in a heap on the fighting field many times. I once had an armchair expert assure me that Norman-style kite shields were 'too heavy' to be used actively to block high blows and were held firmly against the body and not moved. He was so insistent about this that we put him in a helmet and hauberk, gave him a kite shield and wooden baton and put him up against one of our less-proficient fighters to see if his armchair view stood up to scrutiny.

After he'd been hit in the helmet about half a dozen times he found himself using his shield to block blows even without realising what he was doing. He was eventually forced to admit that all the armchair study of the Bayeux Tapestry in the world doesn't count for much against actually getting out there and experimenting with how it was done.

Secondly, consider this. How long was the hoplite spear. 16 feet, right, around there.

No, that's about twice as long as the average hoplite spear:

The hoplite's main weapon was the spear. An example from the dark age was found in a grave at Vergina in Macedonia with the iron head and butt still in position. This spear was about 2.34 m long (7.5 ft) and would seem to be about the standard length - those shown on vase paintings appear to be between 2 and 3m long (6.56 and 9.8 ft). By the end of the 8th Century the Greeks stopped burying their warriors with weapons, but the practice continued in Italy. Spears varying from 1.5 and 2.5m (4.9 and 8.2 ft) long have been found in graves at Campovalano di Campli near Teramo.
(Peter Connolly, Greece and Rome at War, p. 63)

Connolly also mentions that the weight of the longest of these hoplite spears - the 2.5m/8.2 ft ones - was about one kilogram (2.2 pounds). Counterweights and the tapering the shaft also moved the centre of gravity on even these longer weapons to make them more usable one-handed.

Spears didn't aproach anything like 16 ft (4.8 metres) until they were being used two-handed as pikes. So if you're starting your assumptions from a premise that a hoplite's spear was 16 ft, you're out by about eight feet to begin with.

Here's what some hoplite re-enactors have to say about using the spears of the actual length:

So, the first point on dory use, any 'underarm / over arm' debate has to begin with the fact that hoplites initially fought shoulder to shoulder, not independently. Taking this further, as they closed on the enemy the shields would be to the fore AND they would be locked together.

If you advanced with the dory underarm, therefore, it would be at waist height but you would have no real ability to move it as any upward movement would be blocked by the locked shields and there is little scope for lateral or downward movement / control either. In effect it would just stick out straight with no real force behind it. Pretty useless, it could be argued, in a phalanx fight.

In addition, you are not just in one rank but many (6-8). So let us now think about the colleagues behind and consider, dories have metal points... at both ends.

If your dory is at waist height and you are locked in a phalanx with the sarouter pointing at groin level towards the rear ranks, what do you think would be the effect of a sudden clash with another block of troops? Dories would be thrust backwards from the impact and potentially cause more damage to your own troops than the enemy.

Incidentally, this is drawn from a degree of practical experience not from conjecture. My aspis and those of my colleagues from the early days of trial and error are testimony to this, as are the scars in legs, dents in greaves and torn chitons!

The conclusion - in a phalanx, the only practical means of advancing to engage is over arm.
('The Nature of Ancient Warfare: The Lessons of Re-enactment' - www.4hoplites.com)

Which is precisely what we see in the iconographical evidence, both in terms of the overhand stance and the length of the spears. Years of re-enactment also taught me to (generally) trust the pictorial evidence. Practical experiment showed me time and time again that when the Armchair Brigade and the ancient and medieval artists disagreed, it was always the artists who were proved correct.

Here's those re-enactors supporting what Connolly says about the length of spears:

Archaeological evidence appears to suggest that a stabbing spear (dory) would be between 7'3" and 9'. We have built at both extremes and various lengths in-between and whilst I can understand various comments in the past that, for instance, 8' was most likely the longest from a practical viewpoint, my current dory is 8'10" tip to tip and balanced so that my grip is 2' from the bottom - and I have total control for use, so I would argue that 9' is practical BUT would be very sceptical about making something longer. Mine is really at the edge of technological capability whilst remaining an effective weapon. Greater length requires the shaft becoming too narrow, thus weak, at the business end and the subsequent instability (wobble) in the shaft coupled with an immense weight at the other end makes handling quite difficult despite the centre of gravity effect.
('The Nature of Ancient Warfare: The Lessons of Re-enactment' - www.4hoplites.com)

And here's another thing, we don't even know how long there spears were. No real evidence gives a clear definition of how long they wore. We can't even tell from graves. They may have been buried with their spears but if they used a 16 foot long spear in life do you really think that they would dig a 16 foot long hole for the man?

See above about the archaeological evidence and your incorrect assumption about the length of hoplite spears. You seem to be confusing the hoplite dory with the later, two-handed sarissa. False premises lead to false conclusions.

[4th Regiment]

If you advanced with the dory underarm, therefore, it would be at waist height but you would have no real ability to move it as any upward movement would be blocked by the locked shields and there is little scope for lateral or downward movement / control either. In effect it would just stick out straight with no real force behind it. Pretty useless, it could be argued, in a phalanx fight.

In addition, you are not just in one rank but many (6-8). So let us now think about the colleagues behind and consider, dories have metal points... at both ends.

If your dory is at waist height and you are locked in a phalanx with the sarouter pointing at groin level towards the rear ranks, what do you think would be the effect of a sudden clash with another block of troops? Dories would be thrust backwards from the impact and potentially cause more damage to your own troops than the enemy.

Incidentally, this is drawn from a degree of practical experience not from conjecture. My aspis and those of my colleagues from the early days of trial and error are testimony to this, as are the scars in legs, dents in greaves and torn chitons!

Hmmm, but if you say this how it was possible to fight in phalanxs formation without causing such a mess with two handed and far longer spears?

[Vyktrius]

What I would like to know thought is how the Macedonian pike phalanx is/was better than the hoplite style. This may sound a bit stupid but think about it. When the hoplites fought they would basically crash into each other. After that initial crash the front ranks at least would draw swords and carry on the fighting in that manner. Now the Macedonians would have a different approach, correct me if I'm wrong. With that long spear, and with the way they held it, they would at least atttempt to keep the enemy at bay. I don't think they would crash into the enemy. But if a spear has one weakness, it is the shaft. And this is doubly true of really long spears. Not only is that shaft easily severed with a good chop, from a sword that is, but that massive sarissa couldn't have posibly been that easy to move. Now the hoplites knew that their spears were shorter, and me personally, I don't think I would, or that the Greeks did, say "Hey, lets try and get em' with our spears". That would be suicide. Instead they could have, or should have, whatever the case may be, used their swords to hack and chop at the spears, a difficult job but far more rewarding than lunging into them and hoping for the best. And given the tactics and methods of the pikemen it could almost be assumed that they wouldn't be as well trained in the use of a sword as the hoplites, because if they get that far you're screwed anyways. But again, correct me if I'm wrong. So if the hoplites employed the "spear chopping" tactic and managed to carve a path to the body of the phalanx it would be over right there. The line broken all the phalanxes to the left and right would be open for flanking. But I suppose that had such been the case that the Greek hoplites employed their swords agains the Macedonian pikes the would have proven not to be the ridgid adhearers of tradition they are painted to be. They would have proved to have been as flexible as the romans, which is exactly how they defeated the last phalanx army. So either the Greeks actually had no sence, or at least no real will to live, or I'm missing something.

[Imperator of Rome]

First off, yes it is an "armchair" assesment, but only of the phalanx and the hoplite. But just because that is the case does not invalidate my views or the research I've done especially since some of it is from re-enactors. And though I do not have any real first hand experience of my own does not mean I can't get any. With my short time on this earth and all the constraints and limitations that young age bears I have had little time for such frivolties.

Secondly, consider this. How long was the hoplite spear. 16 feet, right, around there. And they got longer in the end didn't they? Greek artists and sculpters wouldn't build statues with proportionate spears. They would reach across the painting and detract for the scene. Statues would have spears reaching high in the air well beyond the reach of any who could errect one, especially the larger ones. Imagine a sculptor building a 12 foot replica of some great hoplite. His spear would be 36 feet long. That's a lot of material not to mention weight. Yes, weight. A bronze spear that long would be lible to bend in a strong wind. And bas reliefs wouldn't depict proportionality. That would be insane. Half the wall would be devoted to the spears. Have you ever seen the paintings of the "hundred years" war between France and England? Do you really think that the English longbowmen and the French crossbowmen were standing that close? No, they weren't it was for dramatic emphasize. So I would say it is safe to assume that the Greeks employed the same devises in their art, wouldn't you?

And here's another thing, we don't even know how long there spears were. No real evidence gives a clear definition of how long they wore. We can't even tell from graves. They may have been buried with their spears but if they used a 16 foot long spear in life do you really think that they would dig a 16 foot long hole for the man?

And let me once again reiterate the one of my earlier points. If you use a spear overhand you waste nearly half the spear. Go, pick up a spear by the butt end and see if you can hold the entire thing, all 16 feet of it, at head level and parallel with the ground. You can't. I know you can't. No one can. So you have to choke up on it, quite signifigantly I might add (and for this part I actually do have experience believe it or not). Now on the converse if you hold it underhand and use your forearm to support it you can get much more of the spear out in front of you. That, if I'm not mistaken, is the entire point of a spear, to stab your opponent before he can stab you.



That may be true. But in doing so you have to extend your arm and keep you arm somwhat level. You can't strike out more than a few degrees before your wrist starts to go with it and the thrust becomes a downward stab. And the stabbing of the chest is not that easy. The shield covers most of the torso and "sliping" over it would mean you would have to be either 12 feet tall or right up next to the guy. Then you might as well use a sword. Yes you could rest the spear but you could not hold it level full length for more than maybe a dozen seconds at best. Let's hope you win by then. And finally, why stab there head when you can stab the foot? You get that, they fall, and they are useless. Sorry for being so erratic but you get the point.

So there you have it. Anything else?

1.No hoplite ever used a spear that huge overhand,its not possible.I think a hoplite spear would be near half that size,16feet spears would be held with two hands.
2.Its easier to stab overhand and you would be able to stab the upper area,plus who would want to stab someones foot with a spear.

[Ahlerich]

Firstly, that analysis sounds like a comfortable armchair view of things. I know plenty of re-enactors who use spears overhand with large shields quite effectively. I've fought that way myself many times.

Secondly, you'd better explain the ineffectiveness to the overhand style to all those ancient Greek sculptors and painters. Either they were all idiots or they knew a bit more about how hoplites fought than you do. My money would be on the latter.

ever screwed in a screw overhand? makes u sweat.
ever hold 1-2kg overhead for 5, 10, 30 minutes?
fighting? constantly moving, putting power in you thrust...the strongest man can not do that overhand for 30 min

i did reenactment too for years when i was living in germany..i know how heavy a shield gets after 20min and a sword as well.
i also know the weight of an spear and how heavy it gets.

if you put power in an upperhand thrust it will pull you forward and you will lean forward which exposes you.
if you dont lean forward by the power of the thrust, you can not do a powerful thrust.
im not sure about greek phalanxes, how heavy and long their spears were but i can say for sure that germanic tribes with their typical spears cannot fight like that for long.

charge - yes
initial attack - yes
fight for a few min-lon time..no way

[Ringeck]

ever screwed in a screw overhand? makes u sweat.
ever hold 1-2kg overhead for 5, 10, 30 minutes?
fighting? constantly moving, putting power in you thrust...the strongest man can not do that overhand for 30 min

Yes. I have. For well over thirty minutes. I must be a really strong man, then. You get enough pauses in a fighting situation to keep going for hours. If you are constantly pressured, it is another thing. But unless one fights completely alone against several people, that situation won't pop up very often.

And you don't need to put all your body weight into a thrust. That is very, very stupid - it gets you off-balance and exposed. We've test thrusted spears quite a bit in my medieval group, and the only time you need a great deal of force for penetration is when you are thrusting at an armoured target (there is practically no resistance in flesh against a hand-held spear); in which is is ususally more clever to thrust at an unprotected area than to try to pucnh your way through forty layers of textile armour, mail, and coat-of-plates.

[Ahlerich]

Yes. I have. For well over thirty minutes. I must be a really strong man, then. You get enough pauses in a fighting situation to keep going for hours. If you are constantly pressured, it is another thing. But unless one fights completely alone against several people, that situation won't pop up very often.

And you don't need to put all your body weight into a thrust. That is very, very stupid - it gets you off-balance and exposed. We've test thrusted spears quite a bit in my medieval group, and the only time you need a great deal of force for penetration is when you are thrusting at an armoured target (there is practically no resistance in flesh against a hand-held spear); in which is is ususally more clever to thrust at an unprotected area than to try to pucnh your way through forty layers of textile armour, mail, and coat-of-plates.

you prolly are a very strong man, but why do you need 30min to get a screw in? lol, just kidding. anyways a screwdriver is not as heavy as a spear...i just said that example to remember how much power you need to hold something over your head for a long time.

now how long in a row did they fight usually? at least 10-30 minutes until there was a break between another contact i just assume. this would be already to long to hold a spear over your hand. but when you did it in your medieval groub you will confirm that even thrusts with not much power do pull you forward a bit each time ((moving mass (spear) way above mans gravity point))

[Kagemusha]

When fighting overhand with a spear,why would hoplite hold his spear up all the time with only with his hand.I would think that easiest way would be to rest your spear so it touches your shield or maybe the shield of man next to you and your shoulder when you are standing in a phalanx.And only pick it up when you are stabbing the enemy.Also i would imagine that the actual stab would be very short.First you dont want to drive your spear through the opponent and thatway loose your spear.Second becouse you are fighting in a close formation you cant loose your balance and risk opening the rank.If any of you have ever tryed spear fishing i believe those know how much better is to stab with an spear overhand then underhand.Over hand you really dont have to move your arm much at all to make a short stab.

[John I Tzimisces]

I'd imagine it'd be easier to counter, strike, or parry or whatnot overhand...your opponent needs to strike higher in order to parry a blow...

[Wild Bill Kelso]

Think of it though. If you are stiking underhand you have to somehow get around that huge shield. An overhand attack would allow you to slip over the top of the shiled and stab your opponent in the chest. Try it. Take a staff of some sort and hold it underhand. You can generate a lot more power that is for sure, but if your opponent was holding a large shiled your underhand attack would be very difficult! You also dont have to hold it half way. I am sure while you are marching you could rest the spear on your shield.

[Ringeck]

My WMA/LH group has been experimenting with a variety of non-display fighting styles in freestyle combat - rebated steel with hit area restrictions, padded wood, wood, etc. In one of the systems we fight with rebated steel for all except the spears and thrusting polearms, where we use a pole with a shock absorber in place of the spearhead, weighted to have about the same weight as a medieaval spearhead. In this system we also wear padded armour and reinforced fencing masks, and while we don't use full force (that would lead to whiplash injuries every time we thrust to the face, a problem even when we fight at reduced strength) we are still able to fight at full speed. The spears we use are between 7 and 15 feet in length, depending on whether you favor the close-in fight or the distance fight (they will typically be long in line fighting, shorter for skirmishing or 1 vs 1).

With spears; overhand, underarm, two hands; whatever works. Two hands give better control, but you have no or a static (strapped) shield and limit yourself somewhat (not much, though) to where you can thrust. Underarm gives you a non-static shield and a bit more flexibility in the thrust, with a somewhat reduced degree of control. Overarm sacrifices a bit of control to more flexibility in where to thrust to the upper body and head (which is not that difficult to hit, even with the swiftest opponents - remember, it is a bad thing for a fighter to cover his head with his shield, as it takes away almost all his visibilty. And visibility is....life, in a fight. Most of us shift between overarm and underarm depending on the situation. It's not all that difficult unless you are in a 1 vs 1 situation and your opponent is waiting for your grip shift to rush you. There is *plenty* of force available in all three grips.

The fun thing about fighting with spears on foot, especially in lines, with no hit area restrictions is that you realize just how deadly they are, and why texts like the King's Mirror describe the spear as "worth two swords on the field". The range, the opponents difficulty in tracking the business end, the rapid target-shift feints...deadly

[edit: got my feet and meter conversion confused, corrected]

[Rosacrux redux]

Even though Thiu is using again his "I-know-better-than-thou" act, and his teutonic charm he is 100% on spot on this. Overhand has been proven again and again to be the only practical way for engaging in a phalanx fight at least for the first rank. That agrees also with material evidence and various reenactment attempts. The basic dory also was not longer than 2.5 meters usually, although in some extreme cases there must've been longer dorata (some suggest even 3 m. but I am very sceptical about that).

The 16 feet (almost 5 meters?) "dory" was the famed Sarissa, the one in use in Makedonia from the times of Philipos. It was held with both arms, as weilding effectively such a thing with one hand is practically impossible.

[Ringeck]

The 16 feet (almost 5 meters?) "dory" was the famed Sarissa, the one in use in Makedonia from the times of Philipos. It was held with both arms, as weilding effectively such a thing with one hand is practically impossible.

4.88 meters. Most european books just say 5. Spears that long works for line purposes if you balance it properly and couch them a bit, but you do end up trailing a few meters of shaft, and they get a bit unwieldy. I prefer two-handed spears anyway, as I like the control you get.

Has any complete spearshafts been found from antiquity?

I thought Thiudareiks was from down under?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Even though Thiu is using again his "I-know-better-than-thou" act, and his teutonic charm

It's actually the 'evidence indicates ...' act. One that historians have tended to use for centuries now, to great effect.

... he is 100% on spot on this.

Why, thank you.

I thought Thiudareiks was from down under?

That I am. Eh, why do you mention this, Viking? :laughing: