07-04-2009, 05:48 PM
hey, I know what you mean, and I'm really not as pedantic as I'm sounding, but here's what we keep finding whenever we experiment with grip changes.
If I hold my spear in the standard center grip (and perhaps just a half-hand width forward to that) and you hold yours further back...
you have no point control--that it, the ability to put your spearhead EXACTLY where you want it. I can put it into the T of a Corinthian's face opening 5 out of 10 times.
More important, though--if I catch your spear point on my haft--or on my shield--I can flick it away and you can't ever get it back on line before I push into you. This is the killer that convinced all of us in Toronto that this could only have been a thing rear rankers did. In the front ranks, gripping far back is tantamount to not having a weapon.
But--and I recognize this--it all comes down to how we think hoplites fought. If we imagine mass combat of othismos with little or no skill, then sure, you might hold your spear any way you want--although, just to be contrary, there'd be little reason to grip further back, as no one is using the spears for individual combat, anyway!
But if the men int he front rank are the cutting edge, doing the fighting and killing and dieing in a series of ongoing fights with their immediate three or four opponents to the front, then the loss of control of the length of the spear would be bad--and the greater reach wouldn't account for much, as the front ranker is try9ing to kill men just a few inches away. Look, for instance, at the Spartan sword.
But, to continue Paul M-S's argument, if warfare went through some fairly dramatic changes in the period 475-425 (and despite all our bickering, I think most of us are in secret agreement that some such change started then and ran into the 380s) then it is possible that as the quality of individual hoplites decreased, and/or the states involved had to put untrained men in the phalanx, then the length and grip of spears increased as men tended to rely on "push of the pike" rather than individual skill at the cutting edge--at which point, it would make sense at least for 3rd-6th rankers to have a longer spear with a rearward grip.
Biggest flaw with my attempt at a unified theory there si that I can't imagine any artist showing Achilles as a 3-6 ranker!
Another possibility is that spears were only used int he front rank in the 1.5 seconds before contact--one shot to get a TKO on your front rank opponent with either a jab to the foot or a blow to the helmet as he rushes in. Then drop the spear and use a sword. I know that this is heretical, but again, we find (in 8 vs 8 combat) that after about three seconds of combat, all the front rankers shed their spears, while the rear rankers keep them.
Or (sorry to keep pushing these out) perhaps this is one of those sea-fighting spears that are referred to obliquely in a number of sources.
So much to know...
If I hold my spear in the standard center grip (and perhaps just a half-hand width forward to that) and you hold yours further back...
you have no point control--that it, the ability to put your spearhead EXACTLY where you want it. I can put it into the T of a Corinthian's face opening 5 out of 10 times.
More important, though--if I catch your spear point on my haft--or on my shield--I can flick it away and you can't ever get it back on line before I push into you. This is the killer that convinced all of us in Toronto that this could only have been a thing rear rankers did. In the front ranks, gripping far back is tantamount to not having a weapon.
But--and I recognize this--it all comes down to how we think hoplites fought. If we imagine mass combat of othismos with little or no skill, then sure, you might hold your spear any way you want--although, just to be contrary, there'd be little reason to grip further back, as no one is using the spears for individual combat, anyway!
But if the men int he front rank are the cutting edge, doing the fighting and killing and dieing in a series of ongoing fights with their immediate three or four opponents to the front, then the loss of control of the length of the spear would be bad--and the greater reach wouldn't account for much, as the front ranker is try9ing to kill men just a few inches away. Look, for instance, at the Spartan sword.
But, to continue Paul M-S's argument, if warfare went through some fairly dramatic changes in the period 475-425 (and despite all our bickering, I think most of us are in secret agreement that some such change started then and ran into the 380s) then it is possible that as the quality of individual hoplites decreased, and/or the states involved had to put untrained men in the phalanx, then the length and grip of spears increased as men tended to rely on "push of the pike" rather than individual skill at the cutting edge--at which point, it would make sense at least for 3rd-6th rankers to have a longer spear with a rearward grip.
Biggest flaw with my attempt at a unified theory there si that I can't imagine any artist showing Achilles as a 3-6 ranker!
Another possibility is that spears were only used int he front rank in the 1.5 seconds before contact--one shot to get a TKO on your front rank opponent with either a jab to the foot or a blow to the helmet as he rushes in. Then drop the spear and use a sword. I know that this is heretical, but again, we find (in 8 vs 8 combat) that after about three seconds of combat, all the front rankers shed their spears, while the rear rankers keep them.
Or (sorry to keep pushing these out) perhaps this is one of those sea-fighting spears that are referred to obliquely in a number of sources.
So much to know...
Qui plus fait, miex vault.
