Para Bellum

[andrew881thebest]

it is actually the opposite - overarm is not useable in tight formation. you have no space to move spear around, so unless you leave it like that entire battle, it would be not possible to get a spear into such position, when you have another line of men behind you.

moving spear around within tight formation would be impossible if you want to get spear into overarm position:


practically only workable formation with tightly packed men would be this:


- this allows you to thrust forward accurately, while benefiting from entire spear length keeping enemy at bay. fatigue is not a problem, as spear is supported by the shield rim, while blood loss is not an issue. Sauroter of men in front rank, can be fixed against shields of men in second rank, providing fixed spear position against enemy charges using mass of more ranks, with overarm, enemy charging the spear point, would have to be resisted just by the soldier wrist... such spear would be practically just pushed back and would do no harm

and regarding Greek vases, about 50% of them portray overarm, and 50% underarm. Yet, in majority of overarm posture, it is also possible to identify weapon as Javelin, not a spear... Famous Chigi vase has visible ankyle leather straps which clearly suggest those being javelins and not spears:


entire picture:


notice how those in overarm position, have small black heads, same as the javelin with visible ankyle on far left. thrusting spear are in vertical position, and have much larger "silver" heads
detail:




Another interesting thing about greek vases is that you would hardly find a single picture with spear held in overarm position, with sauroter visible. Sauroter had no place on javelins, it would destroy proper balance of javelin, so it would not fall with the head first. Sauroter was only used on thrusting spears. and so far every picture i seen with sauroter visible, it is in underarm position like this one:




and btw, that video, is quite funny because it show exactly why such posture would not work in real battle.. exposing unprotected armpit, whole spear being fixed just by the wrist, complete waste of standoff with spear held in the middle.. btw, why would Greek use longer and longer spears if they would use them overarm held in the middle? shorter spears would be more controllable (and less fatiguing) in such condition, not longer ones.. that video just shows that some reenactors live in their own world..

Anyway, i think this thread is not good place to discuss this, there are plenty of threads in historic forum for this. I'm sorry Philip for hijacking your thread like this.

so your single picture could be true, those could be javelins, sure, but please, tell me, are all these hundred pictures representing javelins, and not even one spear? and why do they represent hoplites duelling close with JAVELINS hold in overarm grip hoplite+greek+vase&espv=2&biw=1852&bih=1139&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=UHh0VLv6B-fXyQPVkoAo&ved=0CCMQsAQ
Please, look this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rmo_NI1850.jpg or this http://www.timetrips.co.uk/gw-hoplites-fighting.jpg or this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ouvre_E735.jpg or this http://www.dartmouth.edu/~yaleart/wp...ria_detail.jpg https://41.media.tumblr.com/044a6aae...d611o1_500.jpg
Yes, underarm grip is good and effective, BUT IN SINGLE DUELS, not in ultra tight formation. Again, in ultra tight formation you cannot but use spear inclined from above to underneath to prevent thrusting the ranks behind when readying the thrust.
Again, I am sure that there is someone who has written a book about hoplites arguing they kept spears overarm, no need to link those pictures, as there are "historians" writing books on the fact that human race comes from aliens and they will come back soon. I would like to see how those hoplites FIGHT in close order, with shields overlapping, and underarm grip. Yes that picture of them standing steady with spears protudring is ok, this COULD HAPPEN WHEN RECEIVING CHARGES, but then, in COMBAT, how could they THRUST and move spear, since to do each thrust they should put spear behind them, blinding (or thrusting him, or in best case sticking the sauroter into the back shield) the poor guy behind? then, underarm grip is very good to hit at chest level, but in a hoplite phalanx you cannot it straight, there is a big thivk shield, you must hit it from above, so you would constantly use underarm grip with arm raised and ARMPIT EXPOSED. This is so obviously nonsense. The video I have shown shows reenactors, and majority of historians agree on overarm use. Are they all stupid?

Sorry of off topic answer, but when I read some faulse assumption i need to reply; then you are thinking of putting underarm hoplite phalanx into game based on this faulse assumption and it would be absurd.

[JaM]

in ultra tight formation, you would end up unable to put arm down with the spear... which would just make you fatigued even faster. It is all quite simple thing, and you would understand the limitations, if you took something that resembles a spear, and tried it yourself. Limitations are huge. And in battle, techniques that fatigue you fast, are not good at all. It is not something you can train, at least i never heard about a training method that could adjust the blood flow in your body. once you put your arm up, blood will go down. your arm gets fatigued, and you are weaker and weaker every thrust. And now imagine if enemy pushes at you, as well as own men in second rank. With your arm up, you will end up pressed between two shields, unable to even lower your arm, while such spear would end up uncontrollable. and of course, having arm up, while standing sideway with the Aspis in other arm means your armpit is completely exposed. such big area would be very easy to hit, yet every single armor Greeks used, didnt had armpits anyhow protected... besides, why would they wear breastplates, if chest would be not the target at all?

Yes, underarm grip is good and effective, BUT IN SINGLE DUELS, not in ultra tight formation. Again, in ultra tight formation you cannot but use spear inclined from above to underneath to prevent thrusting the ranks behind when readying the thrust.

you actually can, if you look at picture i already posted with two ranks in position:



arm in this position is ready to strike forward. shield of men behind either fixes the spear, or also marks how much you can go back with the spear for another thrust. Now, important advantage of this formation is in the fact, Hoplite is benefiting from the length of his spear. With overarm grip, practically 50% of spear would be facing backwards, so what is the point having long spear if you don't use it? wouldn't shorter one be more suitable for overarm use if it was the dominant way of spear use for Greeks? Besides, whole Phalanx development revolves around lengthening the spear, until it became a pike, but with overarm use spear length is its actual weakness not a strength..

Chris Matthew mentioned a study of combat damage recorded on over 150 pieces of armor in museum of Olympia, where majority of damage is from horizontal strikes which is impossible to do with the overarm grip. Another important fact is angle of impact with overarm grip, which is usually over 30-40degrees against armor, which results in much greater armor resistance, than if strike hit armor directly.

in table below red squares show KE needed against typical bronze breastplate thickness. While with direct thrust you need 38 joules to penetrate 1mm bronze plate, you need 49 joules to penetrate same armor at 40 degree impact angle.. (btw, for arrows and javelins impact angle would be 40-60 degrees, so armor performance would be even higher against such impact)


And if you read "Storm of Spears" by Chris Matthew, you would found more info about graphical portrayals of hoplite combat and its caveats. I dont want to spoil the book more, i already posted several pages from it. I strongly recommend you to get that book (it can be bought as epub at pen and sword page for few $) and make your own opinion on it.

Main problem with historians is they tend to search simple way out. they don't question their theories. Chriss Matthew is actually the first one im aware of, who actually tried Hoplite assembly and tested what is possible to do with it. In the past, i didn't questioned Hoplite combat, i was thinking the same things you are defending. reading that book changed my view completely, and i started to question a lot of things about historical weapon and armors effectivity. It is never good to automatically accept ideas without questioning them first.

[Little Legionaire]

Excellent information JaM,

[Sheridan]

The battle is on! No but really, this craves for new hoplite equipment asap. By the looks of it, it could be rigged and ready as early as tomorrow.

Another minor update launched a couple of hours ago by the way, primarily addressing cavalry effectiveness against pikes. You'll notice how more horsemen drop in a frontal charge (in other words less of them "ignore" the pikes during that part of combat). Both sides are still subject to casualties, however.

[Hoplite of Ilis]

PB does not alter formations. It does change the radius of entities though. A couple of days ago I noticed slight stuttering with certain pikemen (Egyptian primarily, which were using the wrong man entity reference). This was corrected and the radius of all pike soldier entities was lowered a little bit just to make sure it can't happen. In other words, if you were to use pikemen in the mod right now, it wouldn't happen again.

Hoplites on the other hand haven't been finished as mentioned a lot of times before. When enabling their phalanx type it gets rather messy, there's no proper structure. That's also because the radius is too high for them when the formation is enabled. The plan is to delete their "phalanx" entirely and either let formation attack plus new equipment (and possibly animations) represent their way of fighting, or give them a reworked phalanx formation, still with new equipment.

All right, thanks!

[Hoplite of Ilis]

Sheridan there's an abandoned mod titled as Moon' Hoplite.

For Hoplites, i'd suggest you to take have a look.

For example:

Don't... DON'T twist the knife man.... I had hoped to see this mod go on!... Why can't someone pick this up and fix it?

[andrew881thebest]

in ultra tight formation, you would end up unable to put arm down with the spear... which would just make you fatigued even faster. It is all quite simple thing, and you would understand the limitations, if you took something that resembles a spear, and tried it yourself. Limitations are huge. And in battle, techniques that fatigue you fast, are not good at all. It is not something you can train, at least i never heard about a training method that could adjust the blood flow in your body. once you put your arm up, blood will go down. your arm gets fatigued, and you are weaker and weaker every thrust. And now imagine if enemy pushes at you, as well as own men in second rank. With your arm up, you will end up pressed between two shields, unable to even lower your arm, while such spear would end up uncontrollable. and of course, having arm up, while standing sideway with the Aspis in other arm means your armpit is completely exposed. such big area would be very easy to hit, yet every single armor Greeks used, didnt had armpits anyhow protected... besides, why would they wear breastplates, if chest would be not the target at all?



you actually can, if you look at picture i already posted with two ranks in position:



arm in this position is ready to strike forward. shield of men behind either fixes the spear, or also marks how much you can go back with the spear for another thrust. Now, important advantage of this formation is in the fact, Hoplite is benefiting from the length of his spear. With overarm grip, practically 50% of spear would be facing backwards, so what is the point having long spear if you don't use it? wouldn't shorter one be more suitable for overarm use if it was the dominant way of spear use for Greeks? Besides, whole Phalanx development revolves around lengthening the spear, until it became a pike, but with overarm use spear length is its actual weakness not a strength..

Chris Matthew mentioned a study of combat damage recorded on over 150 pieces of armor in museum of Olympia, where majority of damage is from horizontal strikes which is impossible to do with the overarm grip. Another important fact is angle of impact with overarm grip, which is usually over 30-40degrees against armor, which results in much greater armor resistance, than if strike hit armor directly.

in table below red squares show KE needed against typical bronze breastplate thickness. While with direct thrust you need 38 joules to penetrate 1mm bronze plate, you need 49 joules to penetrate same armor at 40 degree impact angle.. (btw, for arrows and javelins impact angle would be 40-60 degrees, so armor performance would be even higher against such impact)


And if you read "Storm of Spears" by Chris Matthew, you would found more info about graphical portrayals of hoplite combat and its caveats. I dont want to spoil the book more, i already posted several pages from it. I strongly recommend you to get that book (it can be bought as epub at pen and sword page for few $) and make your own opinion on it.

Main problem with historians is they tend to search simple way out. they don't question their theories. Chriss Matthew is actually the first one im aware of, who actually tried Hoplite assembly and tested what is possible to do with it. In the past, i didn't questioned Hoplite combat, i was thinking the same things you are defending. reading that book changed my view completely, and i started to question a lot of things about historical weapon and armors effectivity. It is never good to automatically accept ideas without questioning them first.

I do not have the book you say but even if this Matthew can say true things readying historical books I noticed that every historian puts his own ideas and tries to demonstrate them so that if you only read him you will be convinced that that is the only plausible and acceptable point of view, while there are many others on same topic, with their own reasons to prove them. As for the things you said, I think that taking into account how much energy is required to penetrate armor is wrong assumption since, on my opinion and for what I have read, hoplites in combat tried to avoid to hit the heavy armor and to hit gaps in it, at same time. This was with a bronze armor exactely as with steel armor for knights of middle age. Trying to penetrate an armor which is designed to resist such strike is stupid. Much more chance of killing hitting the opening in helmet, or the shoulders, the armpits, the arms...and how you do this, with an underarm grip? you must liften your arm in an innatural posture, opening your armpit to enemy spears...yes possible but why do this if you can keep, with very SMALL AMOUNT OF FATIGUE (watch again the video linked, those reenactors said it was not phisical demanding to carry spear overarm....and if they say this, why not believe?) hitting from above lifting only as necessary the arm? Then, your point of long spears VS overarm style: you go from the wrong assumption that if you keep a spear overarm you have to keep it from the middle...faulse! you can keep it where you want, in theory, but the simplest and less demanding thing in terms of effort is to keep it in the center of BALANCE, which is NOT the middle: it would be the middle if you had a simple and simmetrical wooden shaft, but since you have a HEAVY sauroter in the back, heavier than the spear tip, center of mass is very much in the back of the spear...so you can keep the spear from the back, using all the length of it, exactely as with a underarm grip. You can try this quickly at home if you want: take a broom from the shaft in overarm position, with the "cleaning side" (sorry for english) in the back...center of mass will be very much in the back of the shaft, almost in the end of it, and there you will put your hand and will keep the spear raised with no effort.

[andrew881thebest]

Don't... DON'T twist the knife man.... I had hoped to see this mod go on!... Why can't someone pick this up and fix it?

that mod is reasonably ok, but it would need closer order and maybe, in another world, new special animations only for hoplites hitting with overam grip; maybe an Othysmos as special ability would be very cool indeed; oh and obviously, in another world, a real hoplon with no stupid central grip (but it would require some FEW more animations and according to CA they had used all the "animation slots"...sure, they could not change some useless ugly repetitive animations we have now, or some animations we never see, with some real, cool, historical hoplitic fighting...)

[Hoplite of Ilis]

that mod is reasonably ok, but it would need closer order and maybe, in another world, new special animations only for hoplites hitting with overam grip; maybe an Othysmos as special ability would be very cool indeed; oh and obviously, in another world, a real hoplon with no stupid central grip (but it would require some FEW more animations and according to CA they had used all the "animation slots"...sure, they could not change some useless ugly repetitive animations we have now, or some animations we never see, with some real, cool, historical hoplitic fighting...)

That's what I expected in the first place... And for the Romans too...

[JaM]

As for the things you said, I think that taking into account how much energy is required to penetrate armor is wrong assumption since, on my opinion and for what I have read, hoplites in combat tried to avoid to hit the heavy armor and to hit gaps in it, at same time.

If they were avoiding the armor, then they would armour up areas they are being hit at, and would drop armor from areas that are not endangered. What would be the purpose of having 10-15kg of armor on your chest, if the base principle of combat is to hit areas that are not protected by that armor? Besides, Hoplite battles were not that bloody. Most casualties were taken during rout, not in direct combat...

you must liften your arm in an innatural posture, opening your armpit to enemy spears...yes possible but why do this if you can keep, with very SMALL AMOUNT OF FATIGUE

it is not small amount of fatigue.. its huge amount of fatigue.. Testing group that tried to use it in actual mockup combat (not just some poses, but actual thrusting at enemy) reported muscle fatigue in less than 3 minutes, while after 15 minutes they were unable to continue anymore.. Same group using underarm thrusts could fight over 15 minutes without any problems..

Then, your point of long spears VS overarm style: you go from the wrong assumption that if you keep a spear overarm you have to keep it from the middle...faulse! you can keep it where you want, in theory, but the simplest and less demanding thing in terms of effort is to keep it in the center of BALANCE, which is NOT the middle: it would be the middle if you had a simple and simmetrical wooden shaft, but since you have a HEAVY sauroter in the back, heavier than the spear tip, center of mass is very much in the back of the spear...

True, center of balance is in the back, yet if you hold in overarm, whole weight is on your wrist, while your spear-point would aim way too low, while all enemy would have to do is to close up, and fix your spearpoint against their shield and yours, and they would practically disarm you..



Main advantage of using underarm grip with spear over the shield is the standoff you get from enemy. your thrusts are supported by the shield rim.



Besides, Underarm thrusts are more powerful than overarm even could be. In tests, average recorded thrust speed with underarm high thrust (chest height) was 8.3m/s, while with overarm it was just 6.5m/s. With 1.3kg heavy spear, this would do on average 45 joules for underarm, but just 27 Joules with overarm.. now if you look at the energy table for armor penetration of bronze plate, underarm thrust would be capable penetrating 1mm bronze chestplate up to 30 degree impact. Overarm hit would be not able to do anything to such armor even with perfect direct hit at 0 degrees, yet overarm thrust would always hit the armor at some angle, usually 30-40 degrees which would multiply the armor resistance by 1.2-1.3.

And while these are just average values, stronger men would do better, difference between underarm and overarm would just get even bigger due to physiological limitations of human body. Punch forward is the most powerful movement human body can make. It activates all the major muscles of upper body, unlike the overarm which is completely dependent on strength of the shoulder. It is not surprising most powerful strike boxers have is direct punch, and not overhead downward punch, which can be only seen in Bud Spencer movies...

[Havoc04]

Question. When Medium settings is required on the OP's 1st page. Does he mean Normal? Because there is only easy/normal/hard etc etc.

Regards

[Sheridan]

Question. When Medium settings is required on the OP's 1st page. Does he mean Normal? Because there is only easy/normal/hard etc etc.

Regards

Yeah sorry about that, got it mixed up.

[warman222]

For what it's worth, I got Moonhoplite's mod to be compatible with the newest patches. The problem was one of the tables didn't have a prefix, so literally all I did was add a prefix to it and it works now! At least it'll help people expand this mod.

Get it while it's hot folks!

http://www.mediafire.com/download/2c...v1updated.pack

[leonardusius]

Would you care to elaborate why you think that's a mistake?

Because I assume this makes the battles faster and much more predictible

[Sheridan]

Because I assume this makes the battles faster and much more predictible

That assumption has no basis in reality. Battles don't become faster because you use a 1-hp system. Among other titles, Medieval 2 is a particularly great example of this. It doesn't make battles more predictable either for that matter, but using it means you treat every soldier as equally vulnerable to the many dangers that a battle means. As a consequence of using it, battles become far more authentic in many ways. Projectiles are deadly but also consistent in their lethality as long as the circumstances don't change. Cavalry, while very useful when used with care, suffer substantial casualties when used recklessly to charge infantry formations. Those are just a few examples of the benefits. Just as importantly, the tactical focus shifts from determining battles based on unit statistics to relying on solid formations, placing troops so they can best take advantage of their morale and consistent micromanagement in order to best utilize every troop type.

[andrew881thebest]

If they were avoiding the armor, then they would armour up areas they are being hit at, and would drop armor from areas that are not endangered. What would be the purpose of having 10-15kg of armor on your chest, if the base principle of combat is to hit areas that are not protected by that armor? Besides, Hoplite battles were not that bloody. Most casualties were taken during rout, not in direct combat...



it is not small amount of fatigue.. its huge amount of fatigue.. Testing group that tried to use it in actual mockup combat (not just some poses, but actual thrusting at enemy) reported muscle fatigue in less than 3 minutes, while after 15 minutes they were unable to continue anymore.. Same group using underarm thrusts could fight over 15 minutes without any problems..





True, center of balance is in the back, yet if you hold in overarm, whole weight is on your wrist, while your spear-point would aim way too low, while all enemy would have to do is to close up, and fix your spearpoint against their shield and yours, and they would practically disarm you..



Main advantage of using underarm grip with spear over the shield is the standoff you get from enemy. your thrusts are supported by the shield rim.



Besides, Underarm thrusts are more powerful than overarm even could be. In tests, average recorded thrust speed with underarm high thrust (chest height) was 8.3m/s, while with overarm it was just 6.5m/s. With 1.3kg heavy spear, this would do on average 45 joules for underarm, but just 27 Joules with overarm.. now if you look at the energy table for armor penetration of bronze plate, underarm thrust would be capable penetrating 1mm bronze chestplate up to 30 degree impact. Overarm hit would be not able to do anything to such armor even with perfect direct hit at 0 degrees, yet overarm thrust would always hit the armor at some angle, usually 30-40 degrees which would multiply the armor resistance by 1.2-1.3.

And while these are just average values, stronger men would do better, difference between underarm and overarm would just get even bigger due to physiological limitations of human body. Punch forward is the most powerful movement human body can make. It activates all the major muscles of upper body, unlike the overarm which is completely dependent on strength of the shoulder. It is not surprising most powerful strike boxers have is direct punch, and not overhead downward punch, which can be only seen in Bud Spencer movies...

again, underarm grip is useless when you face a big thick shield covering everything from neck to thighs, your super powerful strikes are totally useless, unless you think you can pierce a wooden shield covered with bronze, and bronze armor, and flesh behind... The only way to attack an hoplite in a phalanx is from above, going over the shield, as it was usual in ancient combat (there were special weapons for this purpose, like Sica sword). To attack from above overarm grip is much better, since it exposes less and you can raise the angle of attack more and more easily. This decreases the reach and this is why hoplitic battles were very often shield against shield or almost, rather than distant formations hitting (what, shields?) with underarm grip. If you had a phalanx with long spears and underarm grip, hold parallel as in the pic you linked, you simply have to push the shields on them until the spears break, or the spear holder liften them unable to resist pressure (from a row of 8/12 guys in heavy armor pushing with their whole bodies on 1 -or 2,3 in best cases- spears-). And this is what exactely happened...yes, at the beginning of a battle, withe the charge, sources do tell that spears often broke. Because probably best way to stop a charge was to form a wall of spears as that in the picture. But after, during combat, there is no reason to keep a useless spear wall with spears parallel to ground; this is not even so intimidating when you have a big shield to protect and where spears can stick into (or be deflected by smooth bronze surface) with no damage. Even romans knew what to do when they faced a spear wall: push the shields into it, fix them, while someone else goes forward and kill the spermen in close melee combat; this could be done even by hoplites with their swords.
As for spears piercing a bronze armor, it is fantasy, bronze is even rather soft and does not break but deforms, so in the best case of a very strong strike, you would give the armor wearer a mild blunt trauma... generally speaking plate armor, both in iron, steel or bronze, cannot be pierced.

[JaM]

your super thick shield is 5mm thick, with 0.2-0.4mm bronze cover... nothing special that couldn't be penetrated with enough of power...

The only way to attack an hoplite in a phalanx is from above

again. No weapon they had was suitable for such attacks, while armor they used was not protecting them anyhow from that direction... or do you think they would armor their chests which were not threatened, but they would not cover armpits at all, if that was the most exposed area? Ever since armor was first used in combat, people used in on most vulnerable areas, not on areas which were not endangered...

As for spears piercing a bronze armor, it is fantasy

only fantasy here is thinking somebody would employ combat technique that would leave him totally exhausted in few minutes.. besides being much weaker and unable to penetrate even below average armor used at those times.

If you had a phalanx with long spears and underarm grip, hold parallel as in the pic you linked, you simply have to push the shields on them until the spears break, or the spear holder liften them unable to resist pressure (from a row of 8/12 guys in heavy armor pushing with their whole bodies on 1 -or 2,3 in best cases- spears-). And this is what exactely happened...

right, because when you push shields against spears held overarm, you would be able to fight? good luck pushing shield against fixed spear.. shattering the shank is possible, but even more is that you impale yourself on a spear.. main purpose of shield was not to press it against fixed spear, but to absorb hits by absorbing the energy by its elasticity and elasticity of its grip.

generally speaking plate armor, both in iron, steel or bronze, cannot be pierced.

of course it can be pierced. or how do you want to explain all those pierced armors that are stored in museums? I told you, Matthew used study of 150 pieces of ancient armors stored in museum of Olympia. majority of recorded damage on those armors is from direct thrusts.. I even posted his table from testing bronze plate armors... what do you think those kinetic energies represent then?

this is not even so intimidating when you have a big shield to protect and where spears can stick into

lol, right.. and yet, we have Romans, who used even larger and thicker shields to be in awe when they first faced Macedon phalanx at Pydna... so how is it that Pikemen phalanx with leveled 4-5m "spears" (sarrisa is macedon word for spear btw..) is intimidating, but similar phalanx with 3m spears is not?

Your arguments are not even arguments.. they make absolutely no sense.

[andrew881thebest]

your super thick shield is 5mm thick, with 0.2-0.4mm bronze cover... nothing special that couldn't be penetrated with enough of power...



again. No weapon they had was suitable for such attacks, while armor they used was not protecting them anyhow from that direction... or do you think they would armor their chests which were not threatened, but they would not cover armpits at all, if that was the most exposed area? Ever since armor was first used in combat, people used in on most vulnerable areas, not on areas which were not endangered...




only fantasy here is thinking somebody would employ combat technique that would leave him totally exhausted in few minutes.. besides being much weaker and unable to penetrate even below average armor used at those times.



right, because when you push shields against spears held overarm, you would be able to fight? good luck pushing shield against fixed spear.. shattering the shank is possible, but even more is that you impale yourself on a spear.. main purpose of shield was not to press it against fixed spear, but to absorb hits by absorbing the energy by its elasticity and elasticity of its grip.



of course it can be pierced. or how do you want to explain all those pierced armors that are stored in museums? I told you, Matthew used study of 150 pieces of ancient armors stored in museum of Olympia. majority of recorded damage on those armors is from direct thrusts.. I even posted his table from testing bronze plate armors... what do you think those kinetic energies represent then?

lol, right.. and yet, we have Romans, who used even larger and thicker shields to be in awe when they first faced Macedon phalanx at Pydna... so how is it that Pikemen phalanx with leveled 4-5m "spears" (sarrisa is macedon word for spear btw..) is intimidating, but similar phalanx with 3m spears is not?

Your arguments are not even arguments.. they make absolutely no sense.

so you are telling me that a spear can pierce a shield? a hoplon, seriously? and if not, describe me how you would use your underarm grip against a long line of overlapping shields, covering from neck to thigh.
And yes romans were FIRST intimidated when they FIRST met a pike phalanx....because they were not used to that. Even at Cheronea, pike phalanx did not so well at first against a typical hoplite phalanx....it had to retreat (and it would be strange to retreat if you are winning easily) to create a hole in enemy hoplite phalanx, who pushed in front to pursue enemies. So even a long sarissa, heavier and with more kinetic energy than a dory in striking, could probably do little damage against a hoplite shield wall. This is the same reason why holding spears with underhand grip would be ineffective. Because you cannot thrust a bronze covered thick shield (whose job is exactely that) -well not even a simple wooden shield more than 4-5 mm thick, I can assure you-. UNless you are some kind of Hulk with a full iron spear (otherwise it would break)....maybe in that case. So when I imagine hoplites fighting with underarm grip I imagine a line of guys chipping the enemy shields, until maybe, after some hours of chipping in same spot, they manage to make a small hole where to hit enemy behind. This makes absoltely no sense to me.

[JaM]

why dont you buy that book yourself? I'm starting to be tired from replying same stuff to you without you actually reading it..


and btw, for example,in Illiad, you can find 67 mentions of wounds received in the chest, 31 mentions for head wounds,13 for neck,10 on arms, and 6 in other areas.. so 50% of all wounds were to the chest area..unless Homer was completely making things up, unaware how actually soldiers fought in his time, he would not write something that would not make any sense to people who actually read his work..

Euripides' Phoenician Women describes weapon strikes aimed at the face and chest while his Heraclea details strikes aimed at the shield.(Eur. Phoen. 1385, 1397–1398; Eur. Heracl. 738)

Epaminondas received a wound to the chest through the breastplate at Mantinea that was not fatal and is even described as not being incapacitating.(Plut. Pel. 4–5; Diodorus (15.87.1) says that Epaminondas received a mortal wound to the chest and that the spearhead broke off and remained embedded in his body. Nepos (Epam. 9.1–3) recounts similarly but the weapon that kills Epaminondas is a javelin rather than a spear. Regardless, all of these injuries must have been sustained through the breastplate.)

Chares was able to display his battle scars and his shield, which had been pierced by a spear, in a boastful gesture to the Athenians; suggesting wounds to the chest and arms.(Plut. Pel. 2)
The numerous injuries Agesilaus sustained at Coronea in 394BC are said to have pierced his armour and he was in great pain as a result of them.(Plut. Ages. 18–19; Plut. Mor. 212A, 217E; Xen. Hell. 4.3.20; Xen. Ages. 2.13, 5.2; Nep. Agesilaus 4.6; Diod. Sic. 14.84.2)

Brasidas was wounded by a spear that pierced his shield but the wound was so minor that he simply pulled the spear out and kept fighting.There are many other references to chest or abdominal wounds, or attacks directed against the chest or shield, including those on Dion and Timoleon.(Plut. Dion 30; Plut. Tim. 4.)
Plutarch relates that Epaminondas was killed at Mantinea while he was turned about encouraging his troops, the blow most likely delivered to the back.(Plut. Mor. 214D) Similarly, Plutarch relates the account of a fallen man who, about to be stabbed in the back, pleads to be stabbed in the chest to avoid the shame.

so as you can see, there are plenty oh historical mentions of pierced shields and breastplates by the spears...

Why aim at the chest?
So why would the area of the chest have been commonly targeted if it was so well protected by the shield and body armour? The answer to this question can be found in a number of factors which, in combination, make the chest area the most likely target against which a spear thrust could be directed. Firstly, it is simply the biggest target area on an opposing hoplite that can be both seen and attacked. By probing and jabbing at an opponent's shield during combat, exploitable ‘opportune shots’ may have presented themselves as the opponent moved his shield to deflect blows, became fatigued, made errors or merely had his shield broken during the rigours of the contest. This would then leave the torso, the next biggest targetable area on the opponent, exposed. Vegetius states that a wound inflicted by the Roman gladius only two inches deep was generally fatal.87 A wound of this depth, inflicted with the hoplite spear, would have been incapacitating if not similarly fatal. As such, hoplites could ill afford to go into battle without adequate protection for the vital organs and this explains the dual layering of shield and armour to cover the torso.88 The fact that the throat was also doubly protected by both the cheek flanges of the Corinthian-style helmet and the offset rim of the shield, which are likely to have been conscious considerations in their design, further indicates that the vitality of this area was also recognized by the Greeks. However, this in no manner confirms that the throat was the primary ‘kill shot’ when engaged in combat.

By concentrating attacks against the most central area of the opponent's body, the hoplite's range of vision would have allowed him to see all of his opponent either directly or in the periphery. This would allow him to observe changes in body posture and movement, keep an eye on his opponent's weapon so as to avoid or deflect attacks, align his own attacks and to exploit opportune targets when they presented themselves. Vegetius states that one of the advantages of a stabbing/thrusting action is that it ‘wounds the enemy before he sees it’.89 Only by keeping an opponent's weapon within his range of vision would a hoplite have had any chance of deflecting or avoiding such an attack.
Lastly, by aiming at the chest, members of the rearward ranks are not endangered by the sauroter of the men in the rank before them. If members of both the front and second ranks of a close-order formation focus their attacks at the point directly ahead of where their weapons are pointing when held in the ‘ready’ position, the sauroter is not moved into a position where it could potentially injure the man behind. While it is possible for men in the front ranks to direct attacks at low targets on an opponent, such as the shins or feet, by using the reverse technique to thrust downwards over the top of the shield, this would endanger the man behind with the elevated sauroter. Additionally, raising the arm to strike downwards over the shield would push the spear belonging to the man in the second rank upwards so that it could not be brought to bear against a target. An attack at such low targets as the legs could only have been made by momentarily ‘opening’ the shield wall to attack or when fighting in a more open style of formation where there was little chance of endangering or entangling the members of the second rank.

At Plataea the Spartans aimed their attacks at the chests and faces of the Persians.90 The small amount of elevation required to aim an underarm attack at an opponent's face lowers the sauroter, which does not endanger the rearward man who is protected by his shield from accidental injury. Additionally, the chest of an opponent could easily be targeted by a hoplite in the front rank of the phalanx while the opponent's face was targeted by the man in the second rank. Many helmets in the collection of Olympia contain blade perforations or scarring only on the left side (for example see plate 9).91 This is clearly the result of a blow delivered by a facing opponent wielding a weapon in their right hand against a head that has been partially rotated, due to the adoption of an oblique body posture, so that its left side has been presented towards the angle of attack. It seems unlikely that a member of the second rank could aim at anything but the upper chest or head of an opponent due to the reach that the members of the second rank had and the obstructions caused by the presence of the members of the front rank, which would prevent them from attacking a lower target. Thus the very configuration of the phalanx dictates that the most commonly targeted areas in a hoplite engagement were those directly ahead of the weapon: the shield, the chest (when exposed) and the parts of the head which were above the rim of the aspis.

[Demokritos]

Still, JaM, considering the many depictions of hoplite warfare in contemporary art, your argument has the ancient Greeks often going into battle heavily equipped in phalanx formation with a javelin raised in overarm position. That's a novel idea to me, and a strange one, too. Especially if the art shows no other weapon as backup. I'd find it an odd fighting style even they carried more javelins or a proper spear (for underarm thrusts) as backup.

Now, I'm not too bothered about this issue to engage myself seriously in the discussion. There are so many questions raised by the different positions taken here and I wouldn't have time to go through them all. I just want to point out that your stats about mid height or "horisontal" damages to equipment in support of the underarm grip theory should somehow also show the effect of those javelins thrown from overarm position - as you admit that they very likely held some sort of weapon in that way, which must show on the type of damages seen on the equipment today, too. To assert, like I've seen some people carelessly do, that those overarm poses are nothing more than artistic licence is unfounded speculation not in rhyme with the thorough detail the Greeks captured the rest of the realities in their way of fighting. And if those javelins already show in the damage data somehow, then there's room for proper spears used from same angle, too.

I may be playful modder here, but I'm a serious philosopher in RL. One thing I've learned is to be very careful in interpreting the given data in certain direction before being absolutely certain it can't be construed, in one way or other, to go in a different direction. In this particular debate about the hoplite style of fighting, I know too little to see the case for either direction being closed yet.

That's all I'm gonna say in this matter [scurrying off to work on my mod...].