Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Friendly fire (don\'t use your dory underhanded in a phalanx)
#1
Presumably he is stabbing the fellow behind with his sauroter on purpose, or stabbing behind him with the tip and the sauroter is the point we see, but it does illustrate the hazards of using a double-ended spear with men behind you.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#2
LOL! :lol: :lol:

Nice find !....I would suggest that since the transgressor is not looking behind him, the artist did indeed intend to portray "friendly fire", emphasised further by the victims lack of body-armour.....
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#3
A lot of people might feel incline to discuss artistic interpretation.
I am not going through that.

In real life and after a few bruises and cuts and nearly avoided mishaps I say from personal experience
that under hand thrust can be used in open order and better if no one is behind you.

In our club we still research the way that a second line can give support with under hand factor in mind- no conclusion yet.

Kind regards
Reply
#4
Stephanos, have you read Chris Mathew's 2009 paper "WHEN PUSH COMES TO SHOVE: WHAT WAS THE OTHISMOS OF HOPLITE COMBAT?"? email me if you want it. He attempts to make the case that hoplites regularly used what we have sometimes called the "high underhand" grip- either under the arm like a couched lance or parallel to the outer forearm- over the top of the shields. You'll see this in 300, Hollywood loves it. I disagree with this, and I found this image while putting together a review of the paper for my blog. He obviously started out from well within the paradigm of hard charging hoplites crashing together. In that context, what he describes could be superior, for such hoplites may well impale themselves en mass on couched dorys. Where his tactic falls short is that his grip is far inferior to the overhand grip if the enemy simply pulls up and enters doratismos.

The high underhand strike is very weak, moreso than low underhand, and allows for a remarkably restricted range of targets compared to an overhand strike.

He does claim to have a forthcoming analysis of impact angles of weapons on helmets that I am interested in seeing. of course it is a mistake to think that the angle of impact is radically different between a high underhand and an overhand strike. Many of these strikes are probably from after one side broke anyway, when underhand strikes come into their own.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#5
Paul I am having trouble understanding "high underhand strike ".
Please try explain so I can commend.
Kind regards
Reply
#6
Quote:Paul I am having trouble understanding "high underhand strike ".

Here's a link showing it: http://www.fectio.org.uk/groep/2003pos5.jpg For some reason late Roman reenactors like this grip. Perhaps because their spears are untapered and it allows you to choke up on the shaft more, extending more of the spear towards your foe and bracing it along the forearm. The strike from this position is very slow and weak compared to an overhand strike. If any late Roman reenactors who use this strike happen to read this, I'd love your opinion.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#7
Quote:Here's a link showing it: http://www.fectio.org.uk/groep/2003pos5.jpg For some reason late Roman reenactors like this grip. Perhaps because their spears are untapered and it allows you to choke up on the shaft more, extending more of the spear towards your foe and bracing it along the forearm. The strike from this position is very slow and weak compared to an overhand strike. If any late Roman reenactors who use this strike happen to read this, I'd love your opinion.

I fight alot with one handed spear so I'll give you my thoughts, the grip in that picture, where by you brace the shaft of the spear along your forearm is very useful for fancy work,
this includes applying pressure to the shaft and thrusting at the rim of the shield in a feigned attack, when they move their shield to block you allow the spear to follow the rim of the shield around and go into their legs or feet, that position is also very good for "machine gunning" where by a line of single handed spears can advance, all stabbing at chest head and feet height in quick succession, the muscles in your forearm are much stronger than your wrist and allow for quicker, more accurate thrusts. When a rank of spear men advance doing this, the opposite side will go backwards unless they're doing the same.

The high over head stance is quite difficult to control, mainly because it is only your wrist that is supporting the entire weight of the spear, if anyone knocks it aside it will fly sideways before you can reign it back in. It is a much better stance to go for a face shot, or over the top rim of a shield and into the throat or upper chest however you really need to be able to put your weight behind it and be able to lunge forward with the thrust, in a tight phalanx you could not do this so the shot would be very weak and you would have very poor reach because of this. It is a very good stance if you intend to throw the spear though.

I find I switch between the two grips depending on what situation is infront of me, if I need to lunge at an exposed body under or to the side of a shield in the enemy line that is 2, or 3 men away I will go under arm and use my arm strength to push it forward, If I want to take a sniping shot at a chest over a shield I move into an over arm grip and since I am over 6ft tall, I can go over most peoples shields. In tight formations it is difficult to go under arm because it knocks into the guy next to you, over arm works much better in tight formation.

I would imagine they used both formations, over head in the initial formation when they were at their tightest, going in for face and feet shots, as gaps start to appear in the phalanx and there is abit more space lower stance grips would work better for thrusting into the exposed holes.
Stuart
Reply
#8
Quote:In tight formations it is difficult to go under arm because it knocks into the guy next to you, over arm works much better in tight formation.

Thank you for responding Stuart. Perhaps I should have been clearer from the get-go, because that vase image is men in opened order. We're really concerned with the strike used by men in a close packed phalanx. I think much of what you describe, much that I agree with as I'll show below, cannot be done under crowded conditions where you must strike over your own shields. So, for example, low strikes from high underhand are near impossible unless the shields in front of you lower. You'll see in that picture that the fellow on the right already has is spear about as depressed as he can with the shaft under his arm and the shield up. The exception to this is when you raise an "underhand" grip so high that it becomes a an overhand strike with the thumb towards your enemy- a useful grip with swords. It also largely rules out sweeping sideways with the spear or even hitting targets laterally because of the waving sauroter behind you.

Your mention of switching between underhand and overhand grips I take to mean simply moving the arm up or down with the thumb always pointing towards the enemy. Or do you actually reverse the grip, thumb facing backwards? In general in discussion of hoplites you'll find that "underhand" means thumb towards the enemy, while "overhand" means thumb away as in a throwing motion.

Quote:where by you brace the shaft of the spear along your forearm is very useful for fancy work,

I agree. This is because you are essentially holding the spear at more than one point. You can move the spear right strongly for example by pulling the elbow into the shaft and levering it against the hand which acts as a fulcrum. You will probably find that you pull the shaft against your flank to swing it left for the same reason.

Quote:this includes applying pressure to the shaft

Again I agree, pushing away with the shaft is strong this way, but you can bear down from an overhand strike by leaning into the shaft. You can also push forwards into a pinned shield with an overhand grip if you rest the back of the shaft on your shoulder and push through your shoulder.

Quote:the muscles in your forearm are much stronger than your wrist and allow for quicker, more accurate thrusts.

I think you'll find that accuracy is simply a matter of practice. I am at least as accurate stabbing overhand as I am underhand. For example you will find that most people are far more accurate throwing overhand than underhand because they were raised doing so. As for strength, there really is no comparison. Overhand strikes are much stronger than even low underhand strikes (this has been tested with spears and knives for example). High underhand strikes are the weakest. It is like comparing a straight punch with a round house in terms of the muscle groups engaged and the amount of torque imparted by the body. I do agree that, like a jab, this strike can be faster. But at the end of the day, and this is a weakness of deriving data from reenactment, the high underhand strike is still very weak and lacks penetration. So you might find such quick, weak strikes too ineffective to really drive back foes in actual combat.

There is a slight reach advantage for underhand strikes, but not because of an inability to stretch the arm forth. The problem is that the underhand thrust is a straight line, whereas the overhand strike is a curve. This curved path is what imparts more power, but it does slightily limit reach.

Quote:The high over head stance is quite difficult to control, mainly because it is only your wrist that is supporting the entire weight of the spear, if anyone knocks it aside it will fly sideways before you can reign it back in.

Although I can disengage with a overhand dory to some extent the way a fencer does, it is as hard as you imply. Overhead strikes are more ballistic, in-and-out affairs. Of course if your spear gets knocked aside with an underhand grip, the sauroter is probably in someone's teeth.

So then the advantages within a close phalanx would be a slightly greater reach, a more rapid strike, better tip control if not more accuracy, and a better ability to push through the shaft. The disadvantages being: the relative weakness of the strike, the hazard to the men behind you, greatly reduced target area, and less shield coverage when striking.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#9
I think I will agree with Stuart too.

Points:
Well training and practice are important factors.
In the photo the roman re-enactors are spaced more widely than we usually do.
Those with military training usually are being taught to stab underhand and overhand is not encouraged.
They might feel "unnatural" practicing with the spear over arm initially.

We feel though in the club that we need to practice what happens if 1st and 2nd get killed and 3rd ranker needs to level his vertically held spear.
Seems easy in single file but what in synaspismos.
Here is a case of at least attempted "high underhand strike " but I have not research it and am uncertain.

Kind regards
Reply
#10
Quote:We feel though in the club that we need to practice what happens if 1st and 2nd get killed and 3rd ranker needs to level his vertically held spear.

I'm pretty sure I've seen your group level spears via a method I agree with where you hold the spear against your shoulder with the hand gripping the shaft thumb down, then simply bring the hand out and up around your head. If you do this you know what I mean, if not I'll need to explain more. The same thing can be done in a very tight space by simply gripping the shaft between thumb and forefinger, palm forward, and raising the hand straight up over your head until the sauroter clears your shoulder and the spear falls forewards. Tinker with this and you'll see it works, so there is no need for the third rankers to fight underhand.

I should be clear that I think hoplites did fight underhand, but not in tight phalanxes. If I were holding up my dory the whole battle, I'd want to change grip as soon as the other side broke and I could. With room to work the underhand grip has real advantages, some described above. It may have actually accounted for more killed hoplites during the pursuit.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#11
Quote:I'm pretty sure I've seen your group level spears via a method I agree with where you hold the spear against your shoulder with the hand gripping the shaft thumb down, then simply bring the hand out and up around your head. If you do this you know what I mean, if not I'll need to explain more. The same thing can be done in a very tight space by simply gripping the shaft between thumb and forefinger, palm forward, and raising the hand straight up over your head until the sauroter clears your shoulder and the spear falls forewards. Tinker with this and you'll see it works, so there is no need for the third rankers to fight underhand.
Yes but we do this before synaspismos and tightening the formation

Quote:I should be clear that I think hoplites did fight underhand, but not in tight phalanxes. If I were holding up my dory the whole battle, I'd want to change grip as soon as the other side broke and I could. With room to work the underhand grip has real advantages, some described above. It may have actually accounted for more killed hoplites during the pursuit.
Yes agree no underhand in tight phalanx

The think that I want to research is (please see photo in the middle) this: http://spartasmores.gr/index.files/Page849.htm
Here there are no other people behind 3rd rank.

My question is what to do if 1st 2nd get out of action and 4rth 5th pressure 3rd ranker who suddenly has to engage and level his spear.
No clear view on this issue for me yet.

Kind regards
Reply
#12
Hi Paul,
Quote:
hoplite14gr:1diis6g4 Wrote:Paul I am having trouble understanding "high underhand strike ".
Here's a link showing it: http://www.fectio.org.uk/groep/2003pos5.jpg For some reason late Roman reenactors like this grip. Perhaps because their spears are untapered and it allows you to choke up on the shaft more, extending more of the spear towards your foe and bracing it along the forearm. The strike from this position is very slow and weak compared to an overhand strike. If any late Roman reenactors who use this strike happen to read this, I'd love your opinion.
Since I'm one of the LR in the picture I’ll give my views, although Stuart has already said most about it.
One - this grip is pure theory, I have not come across pictorial evidence for it yet (but then no LR image of any sort of grip is available, most images that we have show shorter shafts).
Two - this grip maximizes the length of the shaft. An overhand grip is only possible roughly in the middle of the shaft, this one allows you (by tucking the end under your armpit) to get the best reach. We use this because we have the complaint by Syrianus in mind that the soldiers found their spears to be too short against cavalry, and this might be part of an answer.
Three - It's a matter of protection. Where an overhand grip would expose your arm, this does not, and it allows you to raise your scutum to cover your the lower part of your face. I realize that our LR scuta are larger than your hoplite shields, and that may also account for a difference.

I'm not sure how much different that would be from your situation, but I think we do not need to be too agile with the spears because our enemies are either heavy cavalry or similarly hiding behind large shields. But this grip allows the 3 ranks behind me to cover my front and still not threaten any of the guys behind us with 'friendly fire'.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#13
Quote:The thing that I want to research is (please see photo in the middle) this: http://spartasmores.gr/index.files/Page849.htm
Here there are no other people behind 3rd rank.
I think the guys in the picture bend the 1st rank will also have a problem with that overhand grip. Especially the ones in ranks 3 and 4 (and I think that you had deeper formations than that, am I right?) will experience problems when the 1st, 2nd and 3rd ranks have to level their spears - the end will no doubt get in the face of the men behind them. How do you cover that problem? You can't always point your spear downwards and still stab at the enemy, can you?
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#14
Quote:Hi Paul,
PMBardunias:3nwvg7t7 Wrote:
hoplite14gr:3nwvg7t7 Wrote:Paul I am having trouble understanding "high underhand strike ".
Here's a link showing it: http://www.fectio.org.uk/groep/2003pos5.jpg For some reason late Roman reenactors like this grip. Perhaps because their spears are untapered and it allows you to choke up on the shaft more, extending more of the spear towards your foe and bracing it along the forearm. The strike from this position is very slow and weak compared to an overhand strike. If any late Roman reenactors who use this strike happen to read this, I'd love your opinion.
Since I'm one of the LR in the picture I’ll give my views, although Stuart has already said most about it.
One - this grip is pure theory, I have not come across pictorial evidence for it yet (but then no LR image of any sort of grip is available, most images that we have show shorter shafts).
Two - this grip maximizes the length of the shaft. An overhand grip is only possible roughly in the middle of the shaft, this one allows you (by tucking the end under your armpit) to get the best reach. We use this because we have the complaint by Syrianus in mind that the soldiers found their spears to be too short against cavalry, and this might be part of an answer.
Three - It's a matter of protection. Where an overhand grip would expose your arm, this does not, and it allows you to raise your scutum to cover your the lower part of your face. I realize that our LR scuta are larger than your hoplite shields, and that may also account for a difference.

I'm not sure how much different that would be from your situation, but I think we do not need to be too agile with the spears because our enemies are either heavy cavalry or similarly hiding behind large shields. But this grip allows the 3 ranks behind me to cover my front and still not threaten any of the guys behind us with 'friendly fire'.
Sixteenth century Italian masters called thrusting with that grip (with a spear in two hands couched at your right armpit) the punta portata. Pretty far from the Late Roman world, but it shows that it was definitely used in combat.

Its really annoying that the Renaissance manuals appear just when spear and shield was falling out of fashion.
Nullis in verba

I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
Reply
#15
Quote:Hi Paul,
Since I'm one of the LR in the picture I’ll give my views, although Stuart has already said most about it.

First, let me thank you guys for piping in and in fact thank you for the work you guys and Stephanos are doing. I know you spend a lot of time and money on this and don't recieve the credit you deserve in unraveling these questions.

Quote:One - this grip is pure theory, I have not come across pictorial evidence for it yet (but then no LR image of any sort of grip is available, most images that we have show shorter shafts).

Its a bit more than that. It is a solution to a problem of how best to use a specific item derived by humans with similar ergonomic contraints to those who originally used it. In biology we extrapolate from such sub-samples used in experiments all the time. Where care needs to be taken is that we cannot safely recreate all of the appropriate constraints and we must account for biases that both the original users and yourselves bring to the question. Even if you are wrong, as I think Mathew is for example, the data you provide is useful.

Quote:Two - this grip maximizes the length of the shaft. An overhand grip is only possible roughly in the middle of the shaft, this one allows you (by tucking the end under your armpit) to get the best reach. We use this because we have the complaint by Syrianus in mind that the soldiers found their spears to be too short against cavalry, and this might be part of an answer.

I do love when my predictions are verified. How much of your spear shaft extends back beyond you, or is the end of the spear under your arm?

Quote:Three - It's a matter of protection. Where an overhand grip would expose your arm, this does not, and it allows you to raise your scutum to cover your the lower part of your face. I realize that our LR scuta are larger than your hoplite shields, and that may also account for a difference.

This is probably a bit complex, with the amount of coverage changing during the strike and recovery. It would be nice to have video from the front of warriors doing both to see this. I thought that the overhand grip, allowing the spear to be held higher, would allow the shield to be raised higher as well.

Quote:I'm not sure how much different that would be from your situation, but I think we do not need to be too agile with the spears because our enemies are either heavy cavalry or similarly hiding behind large shields.

Was the driving force behind the adoption of this formation by the later Romans the need to fend off cavalry? I am interested in the evolution of various shield walls, for I think they are functionally far more different than generally accepted.

Quote:I think the guys in the picture bend the 1st rank will also have a problem with that overhand grip. Especially the ones in ranks 3 and 4 (and I think that you had deeper formations than that, am I right?) will experience problems when the 1st, 2nd and 3rd ranks have to level their spears - the end will no doubt get in the face of the men behind them. How do you cover that problem?

We always have to remember that hoplites had a long history, but hoplites by the end of the 5th c, which is the usual default period when discussing hoplites, were using spears that did not balance in the middle, but much closer to the rear. This limited the length of shaft poking behind them and helped to keep rear rankers safe. I notice that your spears need to be held in the middle. Is there a possibilty of such back-weighting in your weapons as well?

Also, there is some evidence that only the first two ranks of hoplites used their spears in combat. This too keeps the formation simpler and safer.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  dory Quintus Aurelius Lepidus 19 3,973 12-23-2010, 07:18 PM
Last Post: Giannis K. Hoplite
  The Dory PMBardunias 46 8,767 08-19-2009, 02:10 PM
Last Post: Paralus
  Friendly Fire, Blue-on-Blue in ancient battles? Immortales 7 2,222 06-30-2009, 07:48 PM
Last Post: PMBardunias

Forum Jump: