The Dory

[Kineas]

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...

[Paullus Scipio]

For the sake of completeness, one should mention that some Greek cavalry at least, by 400 BC were wielding a spear in addition to javelins. This spear was also longer than usual, with a tapered shaft and small head, and hence a rearward balance point. It was called a Kamax. This raises a "chicken and egg" point. Was the longer-reaching spear developed first for cavalry (who have need of reach before anything else), and then subsequently adopted by infantry?
Or, as would appear from the iconography, did it first appear among Hoplites, later to be adopted by cavalry ?

The widespread depiction of this type of spear, and not in any nautical context makes me doubt very much the idea that it is for sea-fighting, though interestingly Iphicrates 'reforms' may have been to Athenian Marines....

I have attached an example ( which I have posted before, I know, but here for convenience) - The funerary relief of Panaitios c. 395 BC carrying kamax and at least one javelin....

[PMBardunias]

Wow, you go away to celebrate your county's birthday and everyone posts!

A couple of issues, because I can tell we are not all talking about the same thing when we write of changing the grip. Christian is completely correct in that if you move the grip of any given spear rearward you lose control. This is not the same thing as moving the balance rearward. Moving the balance rearward, through weighting and tapering, gives you a spear that is largely equivalent to a larger spear held at the mid-point in its handling characteristics. Everything behind the grip of any spear is a counterweight. You can make use of the leverage of an extended spear-back, as in holding the spear in the middle, to counter the weight before the grip with less weight. If you want to shorten the rearward portion, you have to make the shorter rear section heavier- the spear has to weigh as much as a longer spear if all you do is use a counterweight. This is overcome to some extent by tapering the shaft, which reduces overall weight and puts the weight where you want it. 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.

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.

Fighting with an unbalanced spear is like fighting with an unbalanced sword and so unwise. Your foe is fighting the front of his spear without the aid of the leverage of a proper counterweight. But even a properly back-balanced spear will be slower than a mid-balanced spear of the same length. This is because of leverage. The length of spear out front acts like a long lever arm and resists being pulled back on line. Remember, a back-weighted spear is fundamentally a longer spear. You, with an 8' spear would have an equal advantage in parrying and pointing over a 12' mid-balanced spear.

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. He simply lengthened the non-tapered spears of his Thracian or Egyptian inspired heavy peltasts to match the reach of the tapered spears of hoplites. A tapered Dory at 8' with a grip 1/3 to 1/4 from the rear reaches 5.3 to 6 feet in front. A mid-balanced 12 foot spear reaches 6feet.

As to when the balance point changes on Greek spears I don't know. Clearly they are not so weighted on the Chigi vase, for they have no sauroter and more importantly they seem to have been designed to be thrown as well as held. A rear-weighted spear will turn in flight and so is limited as a thrown weapon.

[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.

[PMBardunias]

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.

I don't think this is such an obstacle. If held overhand ant even a very shallow down-angle, then the first few feet are the most critical in hitting the head of a man behind you. The same is largely true for underhand grips as well. If you can hold a 12 foot spear with one hand, you could surely use it/

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.

This has very little do do with tapering and back-weighting. Surely you don't think a 18' sarissa was balanced at 3' from the rear??? The sarissa is a two handed spear and that changes everything. The balance point should be at or ahead of the left handed fore-grip. A two handed pike can be gripped so that no shaft extends beyond the rear hand- as in early modern pikes.

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 !! A sword is a very different weapon with characteristics altogether different. The only factor in common is the rear-wighted balance point.

A stabbing sword is a essentially a very light, short spear with the balance at the hilt caused by the heavy pommel. The two handed sarissa is not a direct outgrowth of the rear-weighted, one handed dory. In fact the opposite. If sarissa were tapered and rear weighted, then it is a parallel evolution of a simple, non-tapered pike to a tapered form that had the advantages described above. The whole point of the taper and weighting system is to NOT make the spear any longer. A two handed spear may have evolved as a counter to the rear-weighted dory, because they were probably hitting the limit to how long a one handed spear can extend beyond the grip. To get a spear longer than about 8' tapered, 12' untapered, you need two hands I'm guessing.

[Paullus Scipio]

This has very little do do with tapering and back-weighting. Surely you don't think a 18' sarissa was balanced at 3' from the rear???

No....to be exact a replica sarissa balances at about 4 cubits of it's 12 cubit length, but only alittle over 2 cubits protrudes behind the pikeman, as I said. ( see e.g. photo I posted of Matthew Connolly with reproduction sarissa)

The two handed sarissa is not a direct outgrowth of the rear-weighted, one handed dory. In fact the opposite. If sarissa were tapered and rear weighted, then it is a parallel evolution of a simple, non-tapered pike to a tapered form that had the advantages described above.

I would strongly disagree...if you place the simple dory, kamax/late dory, and sarissa side by side, the evolution and similarities are all too obvious. For parallel evolution as you describe, there would have to be a "non-tapered pike" as you describe, and there is no evidence I know of for such a beast. Furthermore, as Connolly has demonstrated and contra Markle, no such beast could exist, for a parallel shafted sarissa can barely be lifted !

The whole point of the taper and weighting system is to NOT make the spear any longer.

I'm not necessarily saying it is. Perhaps the original purpose was to allow increased reach for a given length, but it must have been quickly realised that increased length was now possible.

To get a spear longer than about 8' tapered, 12' untapered, you need two hands I'm guessing

Yes, around 8 ft/2.4 m untapered or 12 foot/3.6 m tapered is the upper practical limit for a single-handed spear......

[PMBardunias]

I would strongly disagree...if you place the simple dory, kamax/late dory, and sarissa side by side, the evolution and similarities are all too obvious. For parallel evolution as you describe, there would have to be a "non-tapered pike" as you describe, and there is no evidence I know of for such a beast. Furthermore, as Connolly has demonstrated and contra Markle, no such beast could exist, for a parallel shafted sarissa can barely be lifted !

Surely there was. It was either from Thrace or the Egyptian naval spears. Non-tapered two-handed spears were around all during the classical period. They were the large bladed hunting spears. I don't believe that Phillip invented the sarissa from whole cloth, but even then we would have to acknowledge some tradition of Homeric boarding pikes.

As to it being lifted, it was surely originally shorter than the later sarissa- say 14-16', something more than could be held with one hand.

[Paullus Scipio]

Paul B wrote:

Surely there was. It was either from Thrace or the Egyptian naval spears. Non-tapered two-handed spears were around all during the classical period. They were the large bladed hunting spears. I don't believe that Phillip invented the sarissa from whole cloth, but even then we would have to acknowledge some tradition of Homeric boarding pikes.

Thrace? Presumably you are referring to the incident where Philip is wounded by a Triballian - but he is specifically said to be sarissa armed, not some supposed earlier parallel sided pike.
Egyptian Naval spears? Do we know anything about these?
Large bladed hunting spears? Homeric boarding pikes? What is known of these?

[PMBardunias]

Thrace? Presumably you are referring to the incident where Philip is wounded by a Triballian - but he is specifically said to be sarissa armed, not some supposed earlier parallel sided pike.
Egyptian Naval spears? Do we know anything about these?

That Triballian spear is a red herring.

Read luke's excellent article on Iphicratids and hellenistic infantry: http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson ... ates1.html

I don't agree with all of it, but its good none the less. I do agree with the notion that Iphicratids were the ancestors of Thureophoroi. Look into J. Best's book for evidence of long spears in Thracian use. I've read it, but I don't have it.

Large bladed hunting spears? Homeric boarding pikes? What is known of these?

I don't have it here but one of the sources records Phillip as being inspired by the long pikes used to defend the ships in the Illiad.

Xenophon, On hunting 10:

The boar-spears should in the first place have blades fifteen inches long, and in the middle of the socket two solid projecting teeth of wrought metal, and shafts of cornel-wood a spear-shaft’s thickness.

A little further down:

Should the animal for all that rain of javelins and stones refuse to stretch the skirting-rope, should he rather relax328 in that direction and make a right-about-face turn bearing down on his assailant, there is nothing for it, under these circumstances, but to seize a boar-spear, and advance; firmly clutching it with the left hand forward and with the right behind; the left is to steady it, and the right to give it impulse; and so the feet,329 the left advanced in correspondence with the left arm, and right with right. As he advances, he will make a lunge forward with the boar-spear,330 planting his legs apart not much wider than in wrestling,331 and keeping his left side turned towards his left hand; and then, with his eye fixed steadily on the beast’s eye, he will note every turn and movement of the creature’s head. As he brings down the boar-spear to the thrust, he must take good heed the animal does not knock it out of his hands by a side movement of the head;332 for if so he will follow up the impetus of that rude knock. In case of that misfortune, the huntsman must throw himself upon his face and clutch tight hold of the brushwood under him, since if the wild boar should attack him in that posture, owing to the upward curve of its tusks, it cannot get under him;333 whereas if caught erect, he must be wounded. What will happen then is, that the beast will try to raise him up, and failing that will stand upon and trample him.

From this extremity there is but one means of escape, and one alone, for the luckless prisoner. One of his fellow-huntsmen must approach with boar-spear and provoke the boar, making as though he would let fly at him; but let fly he must not, for fear of hitting the man under him. The boar, on seeing this, will leave the fallen man, and in rage and fury turn to grapple his assailant. The other will seize the instant to spring to his feet, and not forget to clutch his boar-spear as he rises to his legs again; since rescue cannot be nobly purchased save by victory.334 Let him again bring the weapon to bear in the same fashion, and make a lunge at a point within the shoulder-blade, where lies the throat;335 and planting his body firmly press with all his force.336 The boar, by dint of his might and battle rage, will still push on, and were it not that the teeth of the lance-blade hindered,337 would push his way up to the holder of the boar-spear even though the shaft run right through him.338

This boar spear sounds much like those we are more familiar with and were used two-handed. The stance is that of a phalangite. Those large blades found in the Macedonian tombs are probably hunting spear points.

[Paullus Scipio]

Yes, I am thoroughly familiar with Luke's well-researched articles. I also read Best's work many years ago, and if I recall correctly, it is only ever a small minority of Thracians who use long spears as opposed to the majority 'Longche' dual-purpose spears circa 5 ft long.

In the Iliad there are a couple of references to 'Boarding pikes'...Homer, in the battle by the ships speaks of "long jointed pikes they had lying on deck for sea-fighting" ( 15.390 ) and later Aias fights with "a great sea-fighting pike, fitted together with clamps to a length of twenty-two cubits" (15.677)....on any reckoning a formidable weapon over 30 feet long, which our Hero strides from ship to ship with!!!

Allowing for Heroic Exaggeration the reference to 'joints' and 'clamps' might imply a sarissa- like weapon of unknown length.

I don't think Boar-Spears are overly relevant...while large bladed and used two handed, they are always relatively short, so as to be handy in scrub where the Boars often 'go to earth'.

Perhaps all these influenced Philip's thinking, but I still think one can trace a clear evolution through the tapered dory to the ultimate spear - the sarissa.

[PMBardunias]

Yes, I am thoroughly familiar with Luke's well-researched articles. I also read Best's work many years ago, and if I recall correctly, it is only ever a small minority of Thracians who use long spears as opposed to the majority 'Longche' dual-purpose spears circa 5 ft long.

The evidence is so small I don't think we can know. It is possible that the same troops could be armed with javelins, longche, or long-spear as need be. It would make sense if this long spear evolved as an anti-cavalry weapon in thrace. See below.

Code:

I don't think Boar-Spears are overly relevant...while large bladed and used two handed, they are always relatively short, so as to be handy in scrub where the Boars often 'go to earth'.

They show a spear with a two handed grip and a fighting stance that is that of the sarissaphoroi. So any hoplite that was a hunter was proficient in this style of gripping the spear.

Perhaps all these influenced Philip's thinking, but I still think one can trace a clear evolution through the tapered dory to the ultimate spear - the sarissa.

Perhaps, but I doubt it. Counterweighting does nothing to elongate spears, it can only shorten them. Tapering the shaft can make spears lighter and smaller in diameter while still stronger than spears that were simply thinner, but this effect is not nearly such a big difference as moving from a single overhand grip to a double-handed underhand grip. The change in grip required a change in combat style. Thrusting with a sarissa is nothing like stabbing with a dory- though it is like thrusting a hunting spear. Reguardless of what the tacticians want to call it, Synaspismos as can be done by hoplites cannot be done if the sarissa shaft is held at the right lateral edge of the shield.

[Paullus Scipio]

Perhaps we are partially at cross-purposes here - I was considering the evolution of the Dory from it's traditional form via the introduction of a tapered shaft, possibly larger sauroter, smaller spearhead and so on, which culminated design-wise in the sarissa which had all these characteristics. That is not to deny the influence of all the other factors you have referred to.

However, I do disagree with this:

Counterweighting does nothing to elongate spears, it can only shorten them.

Such evidence as we have suggests that, as I said:

I'm not necessarily saying it is. Perhaps the original purpose was to allow increased reach for a given length, but it must have been quickly realised that increased length was now possible.

The evidence strongly suggests that spears grew longer ( the Iphicratean spear, the kamax and ultimately the sarissa), and there is no evidence I am aware of which suggests they got shorter.

[Paullus Scipio]

Paul B. wrote:

Those large blades found in the Macedonian tombs are probably hunting spear points.

...or quite possibly xyston butts, the equivalent of sauroters.....

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

...or quite possibly xyston butts, the equivalent of sauroters.....

Yes! I second this. Many of them are so wide and the shaft would have been so thick that a javelin like that would have weighted more than a hoplite spear! Not only they were big spear butts,but their shafts were also considerably tappered.
Khairete
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

However, I do disagree with this:
Counterweighting does nothing to elongate spears, it can only shorten them.

This is simply a question of engineering, not a commentary on how the spear was evolving at the time. Spears did not get shorter, but they did not get longer in proportion to the increase in their reach as they would have without counterweighting. The most simple spear is a shaft of any given length, say 6', that is balanced in the middle (actually a bit ahead because of the weight of the spear-head). That leaves 3' extending both ways, fore and aft, that act as levers against the rest of the shaft. Why do we need to add a weight to shift the balance back? Because we are increasing the mass and length of the lever arm of the fore-portion if we elongate it to lets say 4'. To counter this we could just make a longer spear- 4' in front balanced by 4' behind- and 8' spear. If we don't want to make a longer spear, we can shorten the 8' spear by counterweighting to balance the 4' fore-portion. We simply add weight to the 2' rear of the original 6' spear sufficient to balance the 4' section.

Thus a 6' counter-weighted spear is really an 8' spear in its handling characteristics and weight. In fact the 6' spear has to weigh more than the 8' because the shorter rear lever arm requires more weight to counterbalance, while the 4' front section is the same. Counterweighting can only make a large spear smaller, never make a larger spear.

This is where tapering comes in. By reducing the mass of the fore-portion we require less weight to balance it. Tapering can lead to longer spears or lighter spears of the same length. To maximize the effect you want as small a spear-head as you can manage. The trade-off is that the taper conserves the strength of the shaft when stabbing directly ahead, but is much weaker when the shaft is torqued sideways. It will be much more likely to snap if it gets lodged in a shield or man and they twist. Also hitting a surface at an angle could cause the shaft to bend and snap.

This has implications for the utility of the sauroter as a weapon. Since the spear is likely to break up near the head where it is thinnest, you will end up with a long shaft remaining. The shaft will be balanced exactly wrong for you to turn it around and use the sauroter. It will be balanced like a club- a big club with a lead weight on the end perhaps. :lol: I would guess this is very difficult to raise and use as a spear.

Thus, tapering was a means of keeping spears short and light while increasing their range of action. The moment you switch to a double handed grip you don't need it, and all its limitations, if you only want to add a few feet to out-reach a dory. This is because, as you have shown, the desired balance point is now set by the distance between the soldiers hands when they grip the spear. To balance at the fore-hand now you only need a balance point some 6' from the rear if you are ok with 3' projecting behind you. That's the midpoint of a 12' spear and not so far off even for a 14-16 foot spear. Tapering could be used to lighten the spear, but it would have to taper on both ends to keep the balance correct. It is only when you want to extend the sarissa to greater length that you need to invoke all of the mechanisms that were developed for the dory.

Many of them are so wide and the shaft would have been so thick that a javelin like that would have weighted more than a hoplite spear!

The boar-spears described by Xenophon probably did weigh more than a hoplite spear- with a blade as long as a Laconian sword blade. I agree that those blades could be spear-butts though.