Spears and sheildwalls

[haereticum]

Yes I do, I practice Fiore mainly myself. We learn these techniques but we're not allowed to use overhand unless both combatants have the right protection to survive a hit in our vitals.

A rubber spear tip is still capable of enacting a killing blow.

[Dago Red]

They used both. The historical evidence is clear, showing BOTH underhand and overhand on all manner of pottery, reliefs, statuary, mosaics, etc.

Who, when, where exactly... that is what we don't know. Perhaps it changed with the circumstances, or with fighting fashions, or during arms races that made one or the other more advantageous.

End of discussion. :p

[athanaric]

Dude again they wouldn't HEMA is a martial art ,do see kenjustsu schools banning techniques that are lethal ?
And you do know that most people wuld use sparing gear when traning?

You ar NOT talking about HEMA but about other NON martial art organizations...

I mean do you who Fiore dei Liberi,Johannes Liechtenauer or Paul Hector Mair is ?

Maybe you guys want to exchange the addresses of your respective re-enactment groups to check whether the other one really is a trve HEMA guy? That way, this discussion won't become a dickwaving contest as quickly.

They used both. The historical evidence is clear, showing BOTH underhand and overhand on all manner of pottery, reliefs, statuary, mosaics, etc.

Who, when, where exactly... that is what we don't know.

We can make educated guesses, and based on the evidence I've seen so far (looked at a lot of vases in many collections... unfortunately didn't take notes. Pro tip of the day: always take field notes when looking for something specific), EB's approach seems to be the right one.

[Sint]

Maybe you guys want to exchange the addresses of your respective re-enactment groups to check whether the other one really is a trve HEMA guy? That way, this discussion won't become a dickwaving contest as quickly.

Ahm again HEMA is not a group it's a term for different european martial arts not reenactment... their are lot of different groups ,but you learn all kinds of techniques not just what is safe .
I have never seen a group that banned overhand thrusts .

Btw. Most people train fight normal protectiv gear not actual medival armor.
I would be weird to train blossfechten while wearing plate armor ...


Ps:

Thrusts are not avoided in HEMA. That's why we use weapons and protective clothing that make thrusts safe.

[LawL_LawL]

They used both. The historical evidence is clear, showing BOTH underhand and overhand on all manner of pottery, reliefs, statuary, mosaics, etc.

Who, when, where exactly... that is what we don't know. Perhaps it changed with the circumstances, or with fighting fashions, or during arms races that made one or the other more advantageous.

End of discussion. :p

Ever consider that artistic depictions are not anywhere close to 100% reliable? Barring modern photography that can capture precisely what is happening exactly as it happens, paintings on walls or elaborate wall-sprawling mosaics are about as useful as an 8-year old doodling by the river-bed with the wet sand and an improvised twig-stylus.

If we were to take into account artistic depictions as being accurate renderings of what battles were to look like our outlook on the Napoleonic wars should be one of bayonets, bayonets, and more bayonets. The frightening truth, however, is running around trying stab someone in the gut and avoid being stabbed is far more difficult and impractical than shooting away with your fire-arm the way it's meant to be. Likewise over-hand thrusts where the thumb points towards the rear of the spear is just as impractical as it's unwieldy, less precise/controlled, and puts excessive strain on the wrist otherwise not present with the normal under-hand grip with the thumb pointing toward the front of the spear. I can see using under-hand GRIPS to perform over-head THRUSTS, as the under-hand grip is naturally more flexible and capable of doing so on-demand, but the arguments for over-hand grips feel like little more than ass-pull arguments with everything attributed to historical text that's vague at best, and a bunch of unreliable works of art rather than perfectly depicted ancient warfare, lacking any possible error.

EDIT: Regarding strain on wrist based on grip, what I meant was that an 'over-hand' grip striking and otherwise receiving force/meeting resistance puts strain on the wrist perpendicular to the joint and it's natural layout. In contrast an 'under-hand' grip can angle the wrist to better brace it alongside one's entire fore-arm where transfer of energy is parallel to the wrist + fore-arm joint and not likely to cause undue injury.

[Cyclops]

This argument seems circular. I feel it has been addressed sufficiently in previous iterations, and overhand it is better attested than underhand so the EB 2 team is justified from a viewpoint of historicity.

I encourage dissenters to create their own version of the mod to include their own interpretation, I would play both versions. I lack the skills to contibute sadly so its a big ask but it can only add to the rich diversity of M2TW games.

However at this stage the argument is definitely generating more heat than light.

[Mr.IAmHere]

WHY DID YOU GUYS RESURRECT THIS??

[Antonius]

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

What some dude on YouTube says is relatively irrelevant compared to tons of depictions from the era showing an overhand grip....

[Thesmellypocket]

[QUOTE=Appius Pulcher;13491794]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.[/Q]

He does mention about vase painting in a later video. They are designed to sell the pot. e.g, if there was a vase made today, you would not study that to learn modern warfare. It looks better overarm, therefore, it'll sell. It's overarm cause it sells.

[Sint]

He does mention about vase painting in a later video. They are designed to sell the pot. e.g, if there was a vase made today, you would not study that to learn modern warfare. It looks better overarm, therefore, it'll sell. It's overarm cause it sells.

Sorry but Lindy is wrong in most if his video about actaul combat... and besides you think that HE knows better than people who actually fought in a Hoplit phalanx?
He doesn't have a clue about musket,pike,bayonet or sword fighting so I doubt that he is right with this one...

[Thuycidides]

They used both. The historical evidence is clear, showing BOTH underhand and overhand on all manner of pottery, reliefs, statuary, mosaics, etc.

Who, when, where exactly... that is what we don't know. Perhaps it changed with the circumstances, or with fighting fashions, or during arms races that made one or the other more advantageous.

End of discussion. :p

I tried to say the same thing earlier. But this is the internet, one answer has to be completely right and the other completely wrong.

[Rad]

Overhand, underhand... you can't know what's right until you get a spear and shield and FIGHT FOR YOUR LIFE
The mods have picked one and they are sticking with it. Will it really matter if some ancient Greek guy travels through time and informs us EB fans that we're doing it wrong?

[Appius Pulcher]

He does mention about vase painting in a later video. They are designed to sell the pot. e.g, if there was a vase made today, you would not study that to learn modern warfare. It looks better overarm, therefore, it'll sell. It's overarm cause it sells.

And why would it sell more to depict a wrong posture?
The Greek armies were mostly made up of levies, and at such the buyers of these pots would know how it's supposed to look. That means getting it wrong would be a miserable selling point. Writing these depictions off as a weird ancient marketing scheme is just something he does because the available doesn't point his way.
The strange thing is that it doesn't help his case at all. He now just has two claims he needs to provide evidence for instead of one. Now he needs to evidence that pots with wrong depictions would sell better than the ones with the right depictions, as well as provide evidence for underhand grip.

Other than that: Can we please let this thread die?

[Darkan]

Other than that: Can we please let this thread die?

Best point made so far!

[Yerevan]

Both camps seems to have a good grip on the subject but none will have the upper hand...

[Tighd Mhic Dubhghaill]

Read an account of a battle or of Spartan training. You will find that phalanxes (pre-Macedonian style) didn't stand a couple of metres apart and jab at each other. The opposing front ranks were pressed shield to shield, the Spartans specifically are recorded as training to brace and push through the opposing formation. When the phalanxes meet anyone holding their spear underhand would find it unusable. The front rank would use a short sword after contact while the second and third ranks used spears. Even if you were using a spear, the only way in this situation is overhand, over your enemies shield, which would be to impracticable. The spear lost it's use for the front rank after contact because you were shield to shield, less than a foot from your enemy, and you were busy pushing the bugger. The goal isn't to slaughter each other slowly using spears, it's to break the enemy formation and then kill them.

There is plenty of evidence for the use of spears underhand when in a looser formation. An underhand spear has added range when fighting with space. You lunge with an underhand spear and add a little length as well as bringing force from everything above your waste. On the other hand you use an overhand grip and the tip of your spear can only move 0.5 m. Any person on this forum can pick something up overhand and realise that if you stab at something further away then the difference between the tip and the distance you can use your elbow you end up stabbing down. An overhand grip can't use the opening motion of your arm (as in if you hold it with your fist by your shoulder and straighten it) because your spear would en up vertical.

If anyone on this forum can stab with an overhand grip without pointing downwards I'll eat my underpants. Physics and biology say it can't be done. That doesn't mean it wasn't used in a phalanx, but that it would only serve in a charge or when your enemy is held stationary at the right distance.

When used in the phalanx fighting another phalanx the first rank's spear is almost like a lance, it's impact is in the initial contact.

A lot of those are holding actually spears, in case you couldn't tell.


So when Connolly says that at least 70% of vase paintings depict the overarm grip, he's wrong then?
Do you want to start throwing coins in the mix? Because I have some nifty ones from Bactria that show an overarm/overhand grip.

I realise that my answer so far has nothing to do with this quote but I hate idiots. Connolly says 70%, grand. But any idiot can count the number of depictions of a vase and you don't need a PhD to count. I myself have a Bachelors in Accountancy, and I count count just as well as someone with a PhD in history, if not better.

Don't start throwing around PhD's as a way to win your argument. You may have heard of Niells Bohr. He had a PhD. He was wrong.No-Garb.

[Tighd Mhic Dubhghaill]

[QUOTE=Thesmellypocket;13647641]

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.[/Q]

He does mention about vase painting in a later video. They are designed to sell the pot. e.g, if there was a vase made today, you would not study that to learn modern warfare. It looks better overarm, therefore, it'll sell. It's overarm cause it sells.

I'd just like to point out that your depictions also include a black woman playing some sort of instrument about a foot behind the phalanx (incidentally the depiction isn't of a phalanx but of a battle line, phalanxes have multiple ranks). An that everyone's naked. So I'm wondering where we decide it stops being historical and becomes art.

[Cohors_Evocata]

I'd just like to point out that your depictions also include a black woman playing some sort of instrument about a foot behind the phalanx (incidentally the depiction isn't of a phalanx but of a battle line, phalanxes have multiple ranks). An that everyone's naked. So I'm wondering where we decide it stops being historical and becomes art.

After this they joined battle, the Argives and their allies advancing with haste and fury, the Lacedaemonians slowly and to the music of many flute-players—a standing institution in their army, that has nothing to do with religion, but is meant to make them advance evenly, stepping in time, without breaking their order, as large armies are apt to do in the moment of engaging.

-Thucydides, The Peleponnesian War; 5.70 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...3A1999.01.0200)

I'm certainly not qualified to comment on hoplite warfare and/or its depiction in art, but at least the depiction of someone with a musical instrument might have a historical basis. As for them being naked, I dunno what to make of that, perhaps it's an attempt to make them more heroic?

That's all I have to say regarding this thread, btw. I'm not gonna add more to this. I know it sounds hypocritical, given I that just posted this, but I'd like to see this thread meet its way outlasted end. Not out of censorship or anything like that, but because I don't think this thread has added anything substantial yet and I don't think it's going to either. If you have relevant information to add, though, feel free to go ahead and bring it up.

[Garbarsardar]

I don't want to interfere with local moderation and you don't want me around, stop please stop the insults and the baiting.
Thank you,
Garb.

[TiagoJRToledo]

-Thucydides, The Peleponnesian War; 5.70 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...3A1999.01.0200)

I'm certainly not qualified to comment on hoplite warfare and/or its depiction in art, but at least the depiction of someone with a musical instrument might have a historical basis. As for them being naked, I dunno what to make of that, perhaps it's an attempt to make them more heroic?

That's all I have to say regarding this thread, btw. I'm not gonna add more to this. I know it sounds hypocritical, given I that just posted this, but I'd like to see this thread meet its way outlasted end. Not out of censorship or anything like that, but because I don't think this thread has added anything substantial yet and I don't think it's going to either. If you have relevant information to add, though, feel free to go ahead and bring it up.

Well, that's why forums like this exist.

This is a hard topic to discuss, of which there is no consensus amongst the academic community. But threads like these, that foster discussion, are greatly necessary for the advancement of knowledge. Even if at times it seems that the discussion is going nowhere.

From my perspective and my studies, I believe that the hoplite fighting stance had to be with an overhand grip. Just consider a tightly packed phalanx, with interlocked shields charging against another formation of men equally packed, and it is not hard to come to the conclusion that the only way to hit your opponents without lowering your guard and risking the integrity of the phalanx is by griping the dory with a throwing stance, and lunge at the enemy over the hoplon, trying to deal a killer blow to the space between the head and the shoulder. In single combat, adaptations would surely occur, but in a phalanx, were formation integrity is key to success, there is no comfortable way to wield a dory underhand.
And I don't even get into the written and graphical sources that we possess.

But these are just my two cents to the discussion