Spear Usage in Ancient times

[JaM]

In original EB mod all Hoplites use spears overhand. While this is portrayed on many sources, technically, it is much less effective use than underarm use.
If you hold Spear overarm, you have to do it in the middle, so the rear can work as a counterbalance. This greatly reduces the effective reach to half, but also makes you quite dangerous to men in rear rank - almost all spears had tips on both ends, if you hold the spear overarm, enemy parry can easily move the spear sideway, which would mean other end would move the other direction making quite a dangerous move to those in second rank. That practically means, second rank HAD to be be further away to not be hit by spears from the first rank.

Underarm usage at the other side, didnt require spear to be held in the middle, but you could held it fine at the end, supported with your elbow. thanks to this grip, underarm spear had much greater reach, and more momentum in attack (spear used whole length to give the tip enough of speed) Underarm usage didn't meant it couldn't be used over the shield - you still can rise your hand over shield, anyway with over shield usage, you will present your side and unprotected armpit to enemy - no armor can effectively cover that. And it also require much less energy when held underarm.

So, there are two options - give Hoplite underarm/ over shield spears, while keeping the length of spear and full effectivity, or give them overarm posture, but then spears should be much less effective and with less protection (unprotected armpit area), which is actually a reason why some military historians think Greeks didn't used spears that way as it was just too ineffective.


Last thing - in original EB all spears are extremely long, anyway its almost not possible to effectively use in single hand spear longer than 9 feet (2.7m). standard length was just about 7-8 feet (2-2.5m). Everything longer than 9feet, would be considered a Pike, and would need to be used in both hands.

[bobbin]

Most spears will be overhand, this has been decided a long time ago as being the most plausible given the evidence available, plus it is the accepted view of most military historians. You haven't been watching that lindybeige youtube channel have you?


As for the spears in EB you need to be more specific about which units you are talking about, I know some models had problems with incorrect spear lengths but I woundn't say that ALL spears were too long.

[Dago Red]

Most spears will be overhand, this has been decided a long time ago as being the most plausible given the evidence available, plus it is the accepted view of most military historians.

The argument for overhand is compelling, and the many depictions which you point to cannot be ignored. But there are equally as many shown underhand (if not more?). I'm talking battle depictions, not just a guy standing around or walking.

I'm looking here at several depictions, a Boeotian relief, the exterior of an Apulian calyx-krater, and a funerary stele of a Tegean all showing underhanded spear holding in combat. (i could scan these, but I know you know of them or their equals).

The conclusion then is both were used. It may be that styles changed over time and we've lost the note about when so and so formed his ranks up with overhand spears for the first time and defeated so and so at exoticplacename, and henceforth all fought that way for a while. But it also makes sense that both techniques they were used at the same time, for different situations.

No one would fight a mounted attacker overhand with a spear (unless it is really a javelin to be thrown), and you'll note depictions -- such as the calyx-krater I mentioned showing a Spartan confronting a mounted figure -- clearly showing an underhanded spear hold against cavalry.

Has anyone cataloged the overhand depictions and seen a trend in time? Or noted that, Lakedaimonians for example, are never depicted that way - or anything to narrow it down?

You haven't been watching that lindybeige youtube channel have you?

And then he did just that! Hilarious. But I do love some of those lindybeige musings.

Major problem for overarm use is that it is very easily parried sideways and you can do nothing about it. Any parry sideways, with twist your wrist.(and second half of your spear would travel opposite direction hitting heads of guys in the second rank

...[snip]...
Oh, and there is another thing not mentioned so far - if you hold your hand up for longer time, blood will move down, so after some time, you wont be able to keep it that way.. its only possible for few minutes and you will get fatigued.

Extremely good points. In fact people cannot hold their arm up all that long while holding nothing (15 minutes? Try it), let alone holding and thrusting a spear in battle. I think this was a technique, clearly used, but in limited capacity. Reason seems to dictate that it was initial contact only, perhaps only by certain city-states/groups of people, and after a while the battle continued with underarm fighting.

Of course, front lines could be replaced too, so overhand fighting might continue. Crap, now I'm back at the beginning again aren't I?

[Risasi]

...The conclusion then is both were used...

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" -A fictitious character

[amekka01]

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" -A fictitious character

nice sherlock holmes quote, hopefully my memory serves me right

[AnthoniusII]

Make a simple and cheap experiment.
Cut 3-4 paper cycles 1m in diameter.
Take 2-3 of your friends to hold them as hoplon shields.
Place the right end of each "hoplon" behind the left end of your friend that is in your right side.
Move 3-4 m together.
See if you can hold broom sticks in your waist hight!
Upper arm hold of spear was the only way for hoplites to keep their formation.
They did NOT try to stick the opponet in his torso but on his head!
Modern people that saw to many hollywood movies about Samurais and knights believe that in the entire human history warriors faught the same style. Forget that stereotype.
Example: Xifos was now a sword with the medieval sence.
It was actuall a short spear.
When the shield walls of two hoplite formations were in contact there was no room for a spear to be used in the 1st rank!
So hoplites needed a spearhead without the spear stick to aim the opponets heads OVER their own shields.
Only Spartans used an even shorter knive/sword but they were true proffesionals.
Kopis and other kind of "swords" were used after the pelloponiasian war start because new warfare tacktics were introdused.
Also kopis was the main cavalry weapon that was used actually as "axe".
Xifos had no use for them because it was to short.

[JaM]

Practically all Hoplite spears are too long.. plus, instead of holding them in the middle, they are holding them like if underarm (in the middle of second half). Can you post some link for those videos? i only saw some that were saying it was highly impractical to use spear overhand..


Practically only way how overarm could be effectively used was if it was used by second rank of men, while first rank would just held the shieldwall.. anyway still the issues would exist due to length, spearpoints on both ends and overall balance.. i guess it wouldnt be apreciated by guys in rear ranks to get hit into head by second half of the spear each time spear is parried sideways. Hoplites didnt fought alone - they couldnt survive alone as they were protected by shield of men standing next to them - once out of formation they would be in trouble.. so its kinda difficult to imagine they would use spears such problematic way...

[bobbin]

Practically all Hoplite spears are too long.. plus, instead of holding them in the middle, they are holding them like if underarm (in the middle of second half). Can you post some link for those videos? i only saw some that were saying it was highly impractical to use spear overhand..

If you are talking about actual hoplite units then yes there were a few that had issues with spear length, the classical hoplites come to mind. The position of the hold is fine as it is, most depictions of hoplites show this hold and reenactors can do it easily too, remember the buttspike would allow the spear to be held further back comfortably, I also recall reading somewhere that the thickness of the spear shaft varied over the length to help shift the weight backwards.

Just google lindybeige and you'll see the videos, personally I think he is pretty selective of facts and a little too keen on "debunking" things for the hell of it rather than because of any logical reason.

Practically only way how overarm could be effectively used was if it was used by second rank of men, while first rank would just held the shieldwall.. anyway still the issues would exist due to length, spearpoints on both ends and overall balance.. i guess it wouldnt be apreciated by guys in rear ranks to get hit into head by second half of the spear each time spear is parried sideways. Hoplites didnt fought alone - they couldnt survive alone as they were protected by shield of men standing next to them - once out of formation they would be in trouble.. so its kinda difficult to imagine they would use spears such problematic way...

The spear end wouldn't hit the soldiers behind because it goes above their heads, look at depeictions of hoplites fighting and you see the spears are always held at a downward angle. The underarm grip would actually cause the most problems because it is so low, the buttspike would be stomach height for the soldier behind, not exactly a good idea if someone jerks back their spear too far.

If formation the overhand grip was most likely used because it gave a a more powerful thrust and allowed the ranks to be closer, this is the how practically all depictions of hoplite formations show them to be too. Out of formation I can certainly see the advantages of having the underarm grip as it is more flexible, plus it is shown in depictions of hoplites in single combat quite a lot (although many show overarm grip too).

on a side note, how do you plan to balance the weapon/armor stats? in M2TW engine lethality factor is ignored (not used) which means same stats you have in EB1 wont work in M2TW engine.

We are using the a custom version of the EDUmatic with core values set by one of our members (gamegeek), who also done the unit stats for Broken Crescent.

[smitty]

We are using the a custom version of the EDUmatic with core values set by one of our members (gamegeek), who also done the unit stats for Broken Crescent.

Please don't tell me he's doing your unit costs as well? Every experimental EDU I've seen him make for that mod is totally imbalanced in regards to unit costs. He's a long way to go with refining unit stats too.

I'm sure its much too late now, but has the team considered utilizing Point Blank's Real Combat statistics? He has some 2.0 guides out as well that many people are using as a resource for an even better and more accurate depiction of combat values.

[torzsoktamas]

Please don't tell me he's doing your unit costs as well? Every experimental EDU I've seen him make for that mod is totally imbalanced in regards to unit costs. He's a long way to go with refining unit stats too.

I'm sure its much too late now, but has the team considered utilizing Point Blank's Real Combat statistics? He has some 2.0 guides out as well that many people are using as a resource for an even better and more accurate depiction of combat values.

There were a few times when I wanted to play Broken Crescent but the unit costs and upkeep are soo high in that mod that is was 100% unplayable for me.Hope it is not the case in EB2.

[JaM]

on a side note, how do you plan to balance the weapon/armor stats? in M2TW engine lethality factor is ignored (not used) which means same stats you have in EB1 wont work in M2TW engine.

[JaM]

I;m not sure it would deliver more powerful thrust. While short weapon like Gladius would definitely deliver more powerful thrust overarm (115 joules vs 60 joules), with spears it would depend on other factors as well - while Gladius is quite heavy weapon held ideally at the end, you wont be holding the spear anywhere as effectively. Average Gladius weight was about the same as weight of standard one handed spear (1.2-1.6kg vs 1-2kg heavy Doru, Hasta was slightly shorter therefore lighter.) you definitely loose some of the weight of the spear that is working as counterbalance, so in the end, resulting power of strike will be smaller (than with Gladius used overarm/high stab)

If spear would be held further back, then it would be more problematic to control especially with heavier spears, (its actually no joke to hold a 2kg spear at the end and keeping it up.. its fine for few seconds but not that easy for extended period of time , that is why holding it in the middle would be easier due to counterbalance)

[bobbin]

There were tests done in a academic paper which showed the overarm thrust was more powerful than the underarm one, I can't remember the values though but is was buy quite a margin IIRC.

And you wouldn't really lose anything in the thrust strength due to having a counterbalance weight, think about it, the whole mass of the spear is still contributing to the force of the strike, all you arm does is get that mass moving, where arm is does not factor that much into how much momentum and therefore force is created.

[JaM]

It is the 115 joules vs 60 joules, but that was for overarm and underarm stab, i have seen that too.

from physic point of view, thats not correct. due to gravity, part of spear behind the hand would have its weight vector pointing down. Also, length of spear makes a difference as you wont make same distance to target with shorter one (if held in the middle). How big difference, it would depend on distance to target. (but of course we are talking about very small margins, so it could reduce the energy just a bit, my guess would be to 80-100 joules, which is still good enough)

penetration wise, rivetted chain-mail would resist about 120-150 (depends on type of spear point, where thin ones would be better at penetration) joules of energy, so even with overhand stab, it was not enough to go through directly (they actually used strong athlete to that test, so average man would do much less).


Ok, so if we assume they used it that way, they would not have same amount of standoff from enemy as underarm used spears (length) and also they would have armpit weakspot in the armor presented to enemy.

[bobbin]

It is the 115 joules vs 60 joules, but that was for overarm and underarm stab, i have seen that too.

No this was specifically relating to spears, not stabbing with swords.

from physic point of view, thats not correct. due to gravity, part of spear behind the hand would have its weight vector pointing down.

As opposed to up? The weight vector is always pointing down across the whole length of the spear, gravity isn't selective. To be honest I don't get what you are trying to say here at all.

Also, length of spear makes a difference as you wont make same distance to target with shorter one (if held in the middle). How big difference, it would depend on distance to target. (but of course we are talking about very small margins, so it could reduce the energy just a bit, my guess would be to 80-100 joules, which is still good enough)

Again I don't understand what you are getting at. Surely the distance to the target depends on how far that target is in relation the the spear tip, it has nothing to do with where your hand is on the shaft.

Ok, so if we assume they used it that way, they would not have same amount of standoff from enemy as underarm used spears (length) and also they would have armpit weakspot in the armor presented to enemy

The standoff distance would be similar or slightly less than with the underarm grip (assuming a grip 2/3rds towards the back of the spear), it would deliver a much more powerful thrust and allow fighting in a closer formation, it is also the most common stance in ancient depictions (something you can't just ignore).

The armpit thing doesn't really apply to phalanx fighting as the soldiers are protected by the shields of their neighbours (even their own would probably provide enough protection), outside of the phalanx it could be different and surprise surprise this is where we start seeing depictions of the underarm grip.

[JaM]

smitty: good point.. M2TW is not RTW. Lots of things works differently, several things that are crucial in RTW, dont work in M2TW.. Point Blank's combat system is probably the best there.. Strongly suggesting checking it out.

[Peucestas]

JaM, bobbin is correct that the overhand use was the more powerful way to control the spear and that it is historically correct. All of the my Professors of ancient history are agree on this. Your calculation are well wrong to be frank and I wonder where you pull your info from.

[JaM]

Then please provide some relevant info, because so far i talked to/ seen some reenactors that says exactly the opposite

check this please:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klOc9...feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-xtF...feature=relmfu

[yuezhi]

Then please provide some relevant info, because so far i talked to/ seen some reenactors that says exactly the opposite

check this please:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klOc9...feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-xtF...feature=relmfu

so this is lindybiege. i doubt an army of his clones could stop even pantadapoi with his level of mediocrity awesomeness

EDIT: apparently there's a gap of agreement between reenactors and professors. now i don't know who's the lesser of two evils.

[JaM]

If you hold the spear underarm, you can hold it at the end, not necessary at the 2/3 position. (please check the videos i have posted). Major problem for overarm use is that it is very easily parried sideways and you can do nothing about it. Any parry sideways, with twist your wrist.(and second half of your spear would travel opposite direction hitting heads of guys in the second rank - this would happen if you try to attack anything over the enemy shield wall, as those targets would be at the same height as your head, you wont rise your hand even more up..) Another thing is, that overarm use practically makes you impossible to attack against low targets as you would completely open your defense.

No this was specifically relating to spears, not stabbing with swords.

technically its the same.. same muscles are used for this, and its the same movement. Spear is just less controllable.

Again I don't understand what you are getting at. Surely the distance to the target depends on how far that target is in relation the the spear tip, it has nothing to do with where your hand is on the shaft.

you can hold the spear at the end if held underarm, which would provide you with much grater reach, than if you held it in the middle.

Oh, and there is another thing not mentioned so far - if you hold your hand up for longer time, blood will move down, so after some time, you wont be able to keep it that way.. its only possible for few minutes and you will get fatigued. holding spear underarm/ lower guard is prone to such things.


please, watch the videos i have posted. If you have some more detailed info, please post it too. I'm not doing this just to argue.. my intention is to have all info, i have no problem to say i was wrong if i see some relevant info about the subject.