Later Roman spear length

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Greg,

I tried both positions for holding the spear and holding it overarm is far easier and dynamic than holding it underarm in my first opinion.

Absolutely, but that was not the issue. The issue is spear length, and while I never claimed that one grip was superior to the other, my position is only that spear length of 7 to 9 ft. existed, and that a high underarm grip was IMHO the best way to utilise that length.

So it pleads for keeping freedom in fighting with the spear. If I keep my spear underarm, I don't need such a gap between the two ranks in this case. Moretheless It would almost be better then to stick the first rank in order to protect them a bit like a Phallangian hedgehog. According to ancient authors, each warrior defend a 3 feet (About a yard !) large part of the frontline, then to keep the spear underarm does not allow me enough movement ease.

Why not? This does not mean that the next man is right behind you, but right beside you. If you are standing shield to shield, there is room enough to wield your spear.
Of course, with the spear used overarm, it can be a broblem if the next acies is right behind you. Yes, i agree, it pleads for keeping freedom while fighting with a spear! But when the synaspismos (3 ft. each) position is taken up, I think the point is that in such close formations, there is no room to wield spears and even swords with all freedom.

Of course, in more open formations, you are certainly correct.

If I fight with the spear overarm, I'm fully free and more dynamic to hit someone on feet on the right arm when he prepares to strike, to the neck, in the face without exposing me too much outside my shield shelter. And this way, my shield is not a pain to aim anywhere I want to hit. If the ennemy comes close and stick to my shield, I can react instantaneously without retreating or moving back my spear.
Last but not least, It allows me to be replaced by the guy behind me easily but I go on threatening the ennemy till the end of the turn.

Greg, that makes perfect sense. However, there are three drawbacks that sometimes occur:
1- overarm fighting is more tiring then underarm, let alone high underarm.
2- overarm fighting exposes the right arm much more than the other methods
3- overarm fighting costs you spear lenght. Against cavalry (which is attested by sources) that was costing the defenders dearly.

Again, I'm not claiming that one method was superior, only that certain methods and circumstances called for different ways to fight with a spear. In open formations against infantry, I'm sure overarm use was preferable.
In close formations against infantry, I can see several ways, such as underarm in front and the second line fighting overarm over the heads of the comrades in front of them and/or underarm to get more reach.
In close formation against cavalry, i'm opting for the high underarm method to get as much reach and as little exposition as possible.

So, to strike fast and easily, holding the spear overarm, my opinion is that a spear quite short is the best one. About 2 meters long is quite a pleasure to fight with.

maybe it's a pleasure to fight with, but would it be effective? As I said above, against cavalry that would cost you dearly, and in close formation fighting you would not be able to support the man in the front rank very much because you would not be able to reach very far.

Btw, I appreciate any 'experiment' that we are able to perform, because they can bring us to understand more about what happened in the past and how maybe things were made and used.
However, I draw a line at 'fighting', because no matter how much we try to simulate that, I'm of the personal opinion that battle circumstances can never be fully replicated as long as it is not about killing or being killed.