Some Aspis Revisionism

[PMBardunias]

The stance portrayed most commonly in art--leg thrust forward, spear overhead--is EXACTLY the way most one-handed spear fightss set tmeselves att he moment of iompact between two sheidl walls.

You will need to show me a picture of this for me to believe you fight this way- thrusting across your body and wasting a length of shaft equal to your width between the shoulders while also not gaining any of the torque from twisting your shoulders into a FRONTAL square on position. A proper torquing stab can only be done if you are rearing back from a position with your hips and shoulders squared to the foe. Standing side-on, like a fencer will not allow you to stab effectively, you will always lose reach and power and you will have to stab around your own head. I really think you misundertand me and do not actually stand side on. I think you are describing the same thing I am, but thinking of what the men look like when they are rearing back, twisting their shoulders and to a less extent their hips.

Further, the spear has to be overhead and thrust down, if fighting men with an aspis. Again, I can only say that you have to try it to get it. And the closer packed you are, fron to tback, the BETTER the overhad stance gets, because your spear cannot be trapped against or under your aspis.

Not sure where that comes from because you will not find a bigger proponent of the overhand thrust than I. I think they never used underhand until one side gave way and the other persued.

Further, the more frontal you orient your body, the worse your balance.

Hips and shoulders squared forward, left leg forward, right leg back is a solid as any stance you'll find.

Finally, the aspis is best used 1/3 to 2/3s on to the opponent--more edge on than fron on, in may cases. You parry with the edge--you can thrust with it too, and use the strength of the porpax desgn to get it back on your shoulder.

I have my doubts about this usage in mass combat since it negates the "Wall" effect and makes synaspismos senseless, but it is actually the only thing consistent will all of the images we see and if you can prove that it works in large groups I'd surely consider it.

One it is "flat on" to the enemy, you make it possible for your oppionent to knock you flat with a blow to the surface--something non-fighters rarely think about, but a real problem in spear and shield fighting, as every one of our beginners learns!

Not as easy as it sounds since your shield will be overlapped by another at that point and you will be supported by a man behind you in any case. At some point this devolves into an arguement about spacing, because you can hypothesize all sorts of combat actions for men with a 6' or even 3' spacing that cannot be carried out in synaspismos. I can only caution that I have seen too many reenactors who analyze mass combat fall into the trap of focusing on the combat and forgetting the mass. Where I sin it is in the other direction. Hopefully together a true picture can emerge.