Later Roman spear length

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Ben,

Late roman infantry seems to have fight with the lance overarm. IMO it's more effective in an infantry vs infantry combat, this way you can use your scutum in percussion in full strenght. Fighting with the spear underarm is very static, and I think good only versus cavalry. So spear shouldn't be too long, I would say around 2 meters.

IMO you can use your scutum the same way whether fighting overarm or high underarm (as in the photo). I agree that in a free fight with ample room, an overarm grip is to be preferred (but then I would rather use the sword!), but with locked shields and a synaspismos situation (shoulder to shoulder), I'd go for the high underarm. You'd be surprised how much is possible given a bit of practise. The best advantage remains the extended reach that you get from holding the shaft near the end.

Why should a spear be 2 metres? that's shorter than the pilum! hock: If you hold it mid-shaft, that would give you only 1 metre reach - not much!

Comitatus with underarm and high underarm grip:

[PMBardunias]

The best advantage remains the extended reach that you get from holding the shaft near the end... If you hold it mid-shaft, that would give you only 1 metre reach - not much!

You are forgetting the counterweight of the sauroter and the possible tapering of the shaft. It is unlikely that the dory was gripped at its mid-point.

As well as a greater range of motion and seemingly more power, the overhand grip also has the advantage when in close order of ensuring that your sauroter is not impaling the man behind you.

That's a great late roman panalopy! I can think of 2 images off hand of the high-underarm grip, it may take me a while to locate them.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Paul,

The best advantage remains the extended reach that you get from holding the shaft near the end... If you hold it mid-shaft, that would give you only 1 metre reach - not much!

You are forgetting the counterweight of the sauroter and the possible tapering of the shaft. It is unlikely that the dory was gripped at its mid-point.

No I wasn't, this was a reaction to a claim about Late Roman spear lengths. Afaik, such hastae did not have counterweights.

As well as a greater range of motion and seemingly more power, the overhand grip also has the advantage when in close order of ensuring that your sauroter is not impaling the man behind you.

That'll teach them to be unarmoured. :twisted: [/quote]

[Agraes]

We should test both possibilities to see which is more effective. Yet think your ennemy is covered with his shield, it is far easier to reach an unarmored part while holding your spear overhand. With an underhand grip you can of course hold it better far of you but it's harder to inflict an injury.

Now that's only my own reflexion, this is why it should be experimented.

[PMBardunias]

As 'the fellow above' I would be very much interested in images of the 'high underhand' grip.

Here's one that's somewhat high.

[Paullus Scipio]

Here's one that's somewhat high.

...so much for 'Greek Hoplites used the overhand grip'....like all generalisations, there are exceptions.

Now it may be that a Greek city-state's drill maual, or a Late Roman one, might have specified that spears be held in a certain position, but I am quite sure that lasted an entire milli-second after contact withe enemy, when the grip/position became "whatever it takes"!......
...another small point - overhand or underhand are not the only grip options!
There is a 'compromise' grip which allows both without changing grip. Take up the normal underhand grip - spear can be used as per normal for u/hand. Now raise arm - without changing grip - straight up to overhand position ( save that back of hand is now toward head, and fingers face out)
It feels a little awkward/un-natural, until gotten used to ....it's disadvantage....but the swiftness of the ability to change from one to the other makes up for this......

[PMBardunias]

...so much for 'Greek Hoplites used the overhand grip'....like all generalisations, there are exceptions.

true, though most if not all images of underhand grips are shown against cavalry or in single combat- often against fleeing men.

If they as a matter of course used an overhand grip during the clash of the phalanx, I'd say its a safe bet that lowering the spear for the pursuit of breaking ranks (where we are told that the teachings of weapons-masters comes in handy) would be an attractive option.

I have in the past advocated the overhand, fingers away, grip for rear rank hoplites who begin combat with the sauroter down, to avoid the need to switch grips during combat if they move up to the front.

You'll note as well that this grip would have been used in overhand stabbing with the sword, especially the laconian, and with the sauroter when dorys shivered. You can see this on painting of Leuktra from the last Ancient Warfare.

[Robert Vermaat]

Now that's only my own reflexion, this is why it should be experimented.

Oh absolutely, I wasn't for one minute thinking that there could be 'just the one' manner to hold a hasta. I think that the grip would depend on the enemy, the position in the formation or just whatever situation you would be in!

My main point of this discussion is the hasta length, not so much the manner to grip it.

[Mithras]

Here's one that's somewhat high.

There is a 'compromise' grip which allows both without changing grip. Take up the normal underhand grip - spear can be used as per normal for u/hand. Now raise arm - without changing grip - straight up to overhand position ( save that back of hand is now toward head, and fingers face out)
It feels a little awkward/un-natural, until gotten used to ....it's disadvantage....but the swiftness of the ability to change from one to the other makes up for this......

Mmm, I'll have to try that - it sounds like a great way to fight with the spear, providing flexibility.

[Lothia]

Ave Civitas,

Read through the posts above. It is very interesting, but I wonder, such a long spear shaft must have made fighting in restricted areas more difficult, such as in the streets of cities.

What did the Vigiles use withing the cities for things like riot control?

Me.

[Bran ap Maclou]

Hello,

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.

The first rank is 1.8 m before the second rank according to Vegetius in "de re militari" (Edit : Strategikon=my mistake ! :? ) . 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.

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.

I guess that the underarm holding way can be useful against knights however.

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.

Regards

Greg

[Paulus Claudius Damianus]

Hello,

The first rank is 1,8m before the second rank according to Strategikon (not sure of the source now ?).

No in the "Strategikon" but in Vegetius "De re militari".

So, I think exactly like you bran ap Maclou...

[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.

[caiusbeerquitius]

many weapons seem to have originated in the Roman Empire

Addendum:
[url:hvhq12a9]http://www.illerup.dk/documents/illerup_81.pdf[/url]

[Paullus Scipio]

Getting back to length, it would appear that historical sources are in agreement with practical experimentation, and archaeology ( with reservations because it is of limited assistance here) when it comes to a practical length for an Infantry spear ( defining spear as a single-handed weapon ).

Although evidence for Late Roman spears seems to be somewhat scarce, it appears that from Germany in the West to Anatolia in the East, the length of the Great Spear, across Time and different Cultures is remarkably uniform, at 8-9' (2.4-2.7 m) with most being at the lower end.
Sometimes 'experiments' such as Iphicrates, or certain tribes with exceptionally long spears are quoted ( up to 12' - 3'6m ), but Iphicrates reference may be to Marines ship-board Pikes, and tribal references are prone to exaggeration, or a unique style of fighting.
The significant point is that even if/where such experiments occurred, they did not lead to a wider adoption of such weapons.
Accordingly, I think we can say with reasonable certainty that Late Roman spears were around 8'-2.4m long. D