The Dory

[Paullus Scipio]

Paul B wrote:

"The changed balance point allowed the production of slightly longer spears - e.g. Iphicrates type, and ultimately led to the design of the macedonian pike - which of necessity had to be tapered in shaft."

Pushing the balance back doesn't produce longer spears; it is a means of increasing the reach without making them longer. By back-weighting, you make the spear length in front of the hand equal to what it would be in a longer, mid-balanced spear. I think this describes what Iphicrates did by the way, and it is the opposite of what you describe.

I think you misunderstand my point. One limitation on how long a normal spear you can wield in phalanx is that for every foot you gain forward, it is counter-balanced by an equal foot backward - which interferes with ranks behind you - not to mention becoming heavier.Thus 7-8 ft is the practical limit to length. A tapered, rear weighted spear allows one to have, say , a 9-10 ft spear, with still only 3 ft protruding behind you. The ultimate expression/development of this design trend was the pike/sarissa which allowed a length of 18 ft or so, yet with still only some 3-4 ft protruding behind.Thus the changed balance point/tapering allowed the production of longer spears, leading to the longest possible practical spear - the pike/sarissa. D

When you take the rear-weighted balance to shorten back-length concept to its logical conclusion we end up with a sword- a very heavy sword.

.....nope! You end up with a pike/sarissa !! D lol: A sword is a very different weapon with characteristics altogether different. The only factor in common is the rear-wighted balance point.