Para Bellum

[JaM]

Surprisingly enough, they usually show second weapon..

check the Chigi Vase again:



you can clearly see two weapons there - spear with large white head, and javelin with small black head. Javelin with black head also has visible ankyle attached on far left.

[Little Legionaire]

Sorry for being off topic but i love that guy most

[JaM]

Hell, when i'm at it:

The overhead posture

Another indicator that the overhead posture represents the use of the javelin is that the positioning of the body is more consistent with a throwing, rather than a thrusting, action and has artistic parallels with representations of the use of the javelin by non-hoplites. Scenes involving light troops, cavalry, hunters and athletes regularly depict the use of the javelin in the overhead posture, commonly with the fingers positioned to use the agkulē. In many instances the configuration of the weapon and the posture of the bearer correspond with the short weapons and overhead stance used in the portrayal of hoplites wielding the javelin. The overhead posture also finds parallels with the actions of a modern athlete casting the javelin, in which the athlete begins with the centrally balanced javelin in the overhead position, and then draws their arm back to gain leverage for the throw. The extension of the arm behind the caster to gain leverage also finds parallels in artistic representations such as the Poseidon of Artemision in the National Museum, Athens (15161) and on the north frieze of the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi, which clearly show the raised fingers used in association with a throwing loop and the wielding of a weapon with a point of balance forward of the centre of the shaft. (see plate 2.1). Thus it is likely that these depictions are also of the casting of either a javelin or some other shafted missile.
Depictions of athletes and cavalry with the javelin in vase illustrations fall into two categories within the artistic record. Some are shown with the javelin angled upwards, throwing in competitions where distance is the primary goal as in the modern athletic event. This is confirmed by the writings of Xenophon who advises javelin-armed cavalry to throw the missile angled upwards to get the best range.37 Other images show the javelin held level or angled downwards, aimed at specific targets.38 Most representations of hoplites in the overhead stance fall into this second category. The javelin, angled downwards, is directed at a specific target, generally another figure in the vase painting. Additionally, the downward angle of many of the weapons depicted in the overhead stance may be an accurate representation of what happens to a shafted missile held in this position. The manner in which the hand grasps the shaft in the overhead position results in the grip being much stronger towards the back, due to the placement of the thumb and forefinger, with a weaker, more open, grip towards the front. As such, shafted weapons held in this position tend to naturally ‘droop’ towards the forward tip unless the arm is drawn back behind the body, which allows the palm to better support the shaft of the missile.
Vegetius states that, for the Romans, standing with the left foot forward is the best posture for throwing the javelin.39 Markle states that this would have been a natural position for any Greek similarly casting a missile.40 Images of hoplites in combat are generally shown with the left foot forward, regardless of whether they are armed with the spear or the javelin. Not only is this the best way for wielding the javelin, but this footwork is the only way for a hoplite to position his body in order to effectively use his shield and the rest of his panoply (see Chapter 4, Bearing the Hoplite Panoply). It is only the positioning of the upper body that changes with the weapon. Thus the depiction of an upper body posture more conducive with the casting of a missile is yet another indication that the weapons shown held in the overhead position in Greek art are javelins and not the thrusting spear as has been previously assumed.

The angle of impact

Perhaps the most telling sign that the overhead position was not used to wield the thrusting spear in combat comes from the damage left by weapons on the armour worn by the hoplite. Any thrusting attack delivered with a weapon held in the overhead position will follow a downward-curving trajectory (see Chapter 6, The Reach and Trajectory of Attacks made with the Hoplite Spear). However, there is no evidence of any weapon impacting with a piece of hoplite armour in this manner. A forensic survey of more than 300 helmets, 100 greaves, shields, breastplates, thigh guards and groin protectors (dated from the eighth to the fifth centuries BC) housed in the collection of the Deutsche Archaeological Institute at Olympia in Greece found evidence of weapon impacts on more than 150 pieces of defensive armour. Of these, not one helmet had been struck with a weapon following the downward-curving trajectory of an overhead thrust; all damage had been received from weapons following a shallow upward path (for example, see plate 9.1). This is consistent with strikes delivered with weapons carried in the underarm position (see Chapter 6, The Reach and Trajectory of Attacks made with the Hoplite Spear). The archaeological evidence also demonstrates that wounds received to the lower limbs, as indicated by damage sustained to the greaves and thigh guards, are also the result of blows delivered at a relatively flat downward angle; delivered from either a low or underarm position at a low ‘opportune target’. There is little evidence that a sharply descending overhead strike was ever brought to bear against a low target. The nature of this evidence confirms the use of the underarm and low techniques to wield the spear and indicates that the overhead technique was not used by the hoplites of ancient Greece to engage in melee combat. Consequently, the depictions of the use of the overhead stance to wield a shafted weapon therefore must be representations of the use of the javelin

The themes of the illustrations

The propensity for the depiction of the javelin in art, in an age where missile warfare had been replaced by the thrusting phalanx, can be accounted for by the themes of the combative imagery. Contemporary combat scenes are infrequently depicted in the artistic record. There are far fewer scenes commemorating the Persian Wars, for example, than there are for the labours of Heracles or of the gods.41 During the Peloponnesian War, the depiction of combat on vases became markedly less popular, possibly due to the undesirability of glorifying war while one was raging against fellow Greeks.42 The dedication of arms and armour at cult centres like Olympia may have also declined at this time for similar reasons.43 The most common combative scenes are those that are Homeric, heroic or mythological in theme. The epic cycles appear to have had a strong influence on the themes of vase illustrations as early as the seventh century BC, even though many of the depicted scenes bear no correlation to the extant written epics.44 Characters such as Achilles and events such as conflicts with Amazons, take pride of place in the catalogue of combat scenes in the artistic record. This may have been due to the influence of oral traditions, folklore and the increased interest by other genres of art, such as drama, sculpture and mural painting in mythological and legendary scenes during the late Archaic Period.45 It has been suggested that ‘vase paintings show mythological scenes with contemporary armour’.46 This is undoubtedly the case with respect to items such as helmets. Characters such as Achilles or Hektor are unlikely to have worn the later-style Corinthian helmets with which they are so regularly depicted. Lorimer claims that it is a moot point whether the art has a heroic theme or not.47 However, surely the theme of the illustration would have a major impact on how any combative scene was portrayed. While much of the arms and armour may be contemporary, the style of fighting is commonly reflective of an earlier age; especially the Heroic individual combat of epic poetry.
A minority of vase illustrations show the thrusting spear, long and equipped with a sauroter, held in the overhead fashion. This may be a representation of a contemporary weapon placed into an earlier context. In many instances these spears are still shown with the weapon held in the centre of the shaft, contrary to the weapon's point of balance. An even smaller minority of images show the spear held correctly by the rear of the shaft yet still raised above the head. This is also likely to be a depiction of a contemporary spear, held by its correct point of balance, but placed in an anachronistic context; the missile warfare of an earlier age. It has been suggested that many of the poses found in Greek art were copied from one artist to the next, until their popularity and versatility became a standard artistic convention.48 The occasional depiction of a centrally balanced weapon in the underarm position, and rearwardly balanced spears in the overhead position, suggests that in some instances the artists may have been using models, or at least contemporary weapons as props, when constructing a scene with a Homeric or mythological theme.49 The use of models is confirmed by Xenophon who refers to a woman who posed for artists.50 It is possible that models acted out some heroic scenes while bearing contemporary arms and armour in an archaic context. This scene would have then been transferred by the artist into his respective medium. In some cases the characteristics of these contemporary weapons may have been incorrectly incorporated into the scene. Lowenstam suggests that many Archaic illustrations with ‘Homeric’ themes pre-date the written record of the epics.51 As such, the scenes could only have been based upon the artist's imaginative interpretation of an oral tradition. If, within these oral traditions, the spear is used as a missile weapon as regularly as it is in the later ‘Homeric’ versions of the epic, then it is little wonder that the majority of the images show the spear/javelin held in an overhead posture representative of a throwing action.
Thus, the use of the overhead stance satisfies several criteria for the vase illustrator. It places the scene in an antiquated context. Those viewing the piece will recognize the heroic nature of the scene through the regular depiction of the shorter javelin and the overhead posture used to wield it. Other features, such as the depiction of the Dipylon or Boeotian style shield, chariots, or the bearing of a secondary weapon, similarly place the scene into an earlier context.52 The heroic nature of the overhead stance also adds dramatic effect to the illustration. The characters in the painting take up a larger area of the available space and strike an imposing figure when portrayed in the overhead posture, creating a stronger presence within the illustration. This secures their place as the focus of the image. In many illustrations that show a confrontation between two figures, it is common that the victor is represented adopting the overhead posture while the vanquished is not.53 This is similar to, and may have been influenced by, the ‘smiting poses’ often attributed to kings and heroes in earlier Assyrian and Egyptian art, which show a weapon wielded above the head being brought down upon a subjugated victim. Chase claims that the eastern influence on Greek design can be seen as early as Mycenaean and Homeric period shield devices.54 The Assyrian influence can also be seen in the eighth century (c. 725BC) ‘kegel-helm’ found in Argos.55 Avenues of trade between early Greece and the East allowed for the migration of peoples, the transference of goods and for the transmission of artistic styles.56 It is therefore possible that aspects of eastern art, including the ‘smiting pose’, were also transferred to Greek culture.57 The club, sword or mace often associated with the eastern representations was merely replaced with the contemporary Greek weapon of the time: the javelin or thrown spear. This trend in imagery would have continued until it became a fully ingrained convention among Greek artisans, even into the Classical Age when the javelin was no longer used and the overhead posture rarely adopted on the battlefield. Everson claims that the conventions of late Geometric period art depicting battle scenes, including the depiction of the spear and the javelin, continued into the Hellenistic Era.58 This being the case, the depiction of the use of the javelin in the overhead posture would have also translated into the art of the Classical Age

there is entire chapter on artistic portrayal with a lot of details there.. who is interested, should really just get that book.. you can buy it cheaply at sword and pen for approximately 5$ as epub


and now something for fun:

Imagine historians in 1000 years from now, who would study art of war of 20th century, and they would only had this picture showing how RPG-7 was used:

[Sheridan]

Sorry for being off topic but i love that guy most

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

He looks hysterical. Perhaps the helmet doesn't feel comfortable

[andrew881thebest]

Hell, when i'm at it:









there is entire chapter on artistic portrayal with a lot of details there.. who is interested, should really just get that book.. you can buy it cheaply at sword and pen for approximately 5$ as epub


and now something for fun:

Imagine historians in 1000 years from now, who would study art of war of 20th century, and they would only had this picture showing how RPG-7 was used:

OK, still you do not explain how do you pierce armors (let's assume they made piercable bronze armors, very very thin, while it is demonstrated that padded linen is enough to stop piercing) with a thick wooden+bronze plated shield in front of it. All sources prove that armors can be pierced, ok, and FEW sources (according the ones you mention) say that a shield was pierced and the guy behind LIGHTLY wounded (probably in the arm keeping the shield?)....one thing is a possible thing, another thing is what happened USUALLY. What I really do not understand is HOW those armors were pierced...why would you expose your chestm when you can simply keep a shield in front of it and be safe? you do not even to move the shield to strike/thrust beause you can do that keeping the shield where it is. Keeping the shield in place was not only important for your sake, but even for the man at your left who was protected by the same shield. So, again and again, HOW do you hit a chest totally covered by a shield? (I know I am repeting same question but you still do not answer).

As for the picture linked, again, yes, it shows javelins...ok! who said they did not use javelins (assuming they are javelins)? that pic does not explain, though, all the other hundreds pictures representing melee fighting ALWAYS with overarm grip.

[JaM]

why don't you read what i wrote? there are plenty of mentions of pierced armors.. and besides, i posted short parts from the book, so again, i would recommend you to get the book and read it.

[andrew881thebest]

Jam I read all you say, you are the one who still does not read me or otherwise does not answer my question. Ok, I give up.

[JaM]

ok, once more:

Table for resistance of Bronze plate armor:



Table for kinetic energy for various spear thrusts:


Thrusts from overarm will hit the armor at certain angle, usually around 40 degrees. Hits from underarm position will hit the armor directly or at very low angle (0-10)

now, to penetrate 1mm bronze plate you need to get 38j, yet average spear thrust would give you 46j. To penetrate from overarm, you need to get to 49j (due to angle), yet overarm thrust will give you just 30j, therefore it wont penetrate... and again - these are for average thrusts, of course strong man will deliver a bit more, usually about 25% more energy than this. which means, with underarm thrusts, you can get up to 60j, while with overarm you would get to 37j... so, Bronze Musculata that will resist strong thrusts, has to be at least 1.5mm thick.


For comparation, average light javelin, would get up to 90 joules, yet it will strike the armor at 40-60 degrees, which reduces it penetration capability. Yet 1mm bronze plate will be still in danger, while 1.5mm will resist it soundly. Against Pilum things will be more complicated. Pilum could get up to 200j, which means, you need at least 2.5mm thick bronze plate to resist it. Thickest armors were around 2mm, yet those were around 25kg heavy...


And there is another way how to penetrate armor wit the spear - Charge. if you crouch the spear under your arm, and charge enemy like this, your entire body weight and your movement speed will be transfered to the spear point. In this case, lets asume average hoplite is 75kg heavy and has about 20kg of armor and weapons, so together he is 95kg. He is charging at light run at enemy, let say 2m/s, which means his impact energy will be 180j.. This kind of energy will be able to penetrate both enemy armor and shield, or, it will actually shatter the spear, in case spear is damaged or weakened. even walked charge, with speed around 1.2m/s would still deliver around 60j..

But that requires spear being fixed, as energy you deliver also needs to be absorbed (basic law of physics), which is impossible with the wrist grip, as it would be not able to fix such energy and would be pushed backwards mitigating the resulting kinetic energy.. which is another reason why overarm is unpractical.

[andrew881thebest]

....yes, sure angle of impact with overarm is 40 degrees...no matter where you hit, always 40. Man, those numbers are invented. I could hit you directely perpendicular with an overarm grip exactely as with underarm, depending how I place my spear and which part of armor I hit. For example, I could hit right under shoulders area more or less perpendicular. Anyway this is not relevant at all because I never said that overarm is stronger than underarm. No doubt underarm is stronger!!! If you remember, my opinion was that they tried to hit gaps more than armor, GENERALLY (but surely they hit armor too, and this is why we have pierced armors). Even roman soldiers were trained, when they met an armored opponent, to stab in the face, or neck, or pelvis, usually less protected.

And yet, my question was not concerning this subject at all because...for 4th time, it is, I try to spell: How - would - you - stab - with - underarm - grip - in - chest - a - man - who - keeps - a - hoplon - in - front - of - the - chest -? I do not expect an answer, I gave up.

[JaM]

no i give up, there is no point continuing this.

[Exiled Spartan]

Not that the hoplite discussion isnt important, but any new news or reviews of the mod recently? Thinking about bailing on DEI, but would like to know how this is shaping up currently.

[Sheridan]

Not that the hoplite discussion isnt important, but any new news or reviews of the mod recently? Thinking about bailing on DEI, but would like to know how this is shaping up currently.

At the moment we're still awaiting the new models from the Antiqua Imperium team. There's been a lot of minor updates since launch, properly implementing things like loose formation and tweaking unit stats and cost a bit further. There's also been a couple of fine adjustments to some of the mechanics. Other than that, it's remained the same pretty much. As soon as the models are finished, we'll be working to make hoplites as interesting as possible as a unit type. If you've followed the discussion, you probably already know that there are plenty of ways to do this. So it might boil down to which changes give the best functionality and work the best with all other unit types (pike phalanxes in particular). Hope that gives an idea about what we're up to

P.S. If you have any concrete ideas of further things that would be nice to have implemented, or changes for the current features, feel very welcome to share these.

[Sheridan]

Since there are still no news on the hoplite stuff, I thought it'd be appropriate to at least give an hint on where the particle effects are at. Here's a very early WIP picture,



The intention is to make it look similar to this as far as it's possible. It'll likely take a week or so - quite possibly more - to finish this project.

[diego007]

why did they remove it?

[Sheridan]

why did they remove it?

Due to modifications to the engine they probably need to remake these effects for each new game. Particles didn't seem to come out on top of the priority list.

[JaM]

or maybe it just caused way too big FPS drop for them so they dropped it literally..

[Sheridan]

Here is a brief status update;



The colour still needs to be more white-ish, but other than that it's really shaping up. If things work out, there'll be similar effects for cavalry and also units in combat.

[Tenerife_Boy]

or maybe it just caused way too big FPS drop for them so they dropped it literally..

Agree with this plus I see Seem mod particles better.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...atch-8)/page16

[Sheridan]

Update launched that reduces pike efficiency significantly. If any unit, they truly were overpowered - but no longer fortunately. Particles are being worked on at the moment and a stand-alone mod should be out in a matter of days from now. Here's an additional sneak peak for those who are interested.

[Anonter]

I'm very much interested in this 1hit point system but things seem off with the morale system :/ will there be any changes to it in the new update? I'll check back when the new update is here either way.