Depictions of Underarm Phalanxes

[Macedon]

[quote]I'd be wary about lowering my spear beneath my shield. If the phalanx presses in you might find it stuck down there. Up top you can use it to ward your face.

Not really, since a normal pre Iphicratean spear is not that long as to not being able to draw it back with very quick and simple moves. Someone would have to keep it there in order for you not to be able to draw it back and place it up again and this is highly improbable since that would mean that an enemy first ranker should lay down his own shield and weapon... A spear was supposed to aim at the enemy's face and legs (this is what shin-guards were anyways worn for) and so its length and grip were accordingly calculated.

[PMBardunias]

although oddly enough by far the most penetration came out of outright throwing the spear (maybe it would have been even greater with a throwing string?)

This is to be expected and for the same reason that overarm strikes are more powerful than underarm strikes. It has to do with the range of motion of the arm and the increased amount of time it can take to accelerate the shaft. Also, you engage more, and more powerful, muscle groups. Someplace on here I did a post on how the amentum functions mechanically. It does not follow the same mechanics as a sling, by increasing the radius of the arm, but rather acts to keep the arm and spear in contact for a longer period of time. So yes, it would be more powerful.

Although I don't think it takes much strength to penetrate human skin while the underarm grip still maintains the reach advantage and, if using one of the braced positions suggested by some reenactors, offers significantly more lateral control.

You have to think of strikes as laying on a bell curve, so the percentage of strikes that land strong enough to pierce anything will increase drastically with the overhand strike. In a line of at least two ranks of dorys, I think you can sacrifice the type of sweeping lateral control you get with underhand for a "pecking" fore and aft strike where the vector can be shifted laterally for each forward stroke to hit targets to both right and left over a larger range than underhand can give.

Reach advantage is relative, and clearly not the most important driving force or hoplites would have all used sarissa a few hundred years earlier. In fact, I think the need to strike overhand in the hoplite phalanx is one reason they did not do so and spears topped out at about 8' with extensive tinkering around with tapering and weighting to give maximal reach (about 5 1/2'). The pressure keeping them holding it overhand was probably the diameter of the aspis when coupled with close formation both along ranks, which made bringing the spear up between touching shields impossible, and along files which denied the room to clear some 5' of spear from under the shield without killing a man behind (or rendering him having progeny unlikely ).

[Sean Manning]

Paul, again, could I have the source for the 4:1 difference in energy between overhand and underhand strikes? The idea that using an overhand grip gave just enough energy to increase the chance of penetrating armour isn't completely convincing: not all hoplites had body armour; those who did had lots of unarmoured targets like the face, neck, thighs, and shoulders; and while ancient armour was light its not obvious that a one-handed thrust could penetrate it.

Not really, since a normal pre Iphicratean spear is not that long as to not being able to draw it back with very quick and simple moves. Someone would have to keep it there in order for you not to be able to draw it back and place it up again and this is highly improbable since that would mean that an enemy first ranker should lay down his own shield and weapon... A spear was supposed to aim at the enemy's face and legs (this is what shin-guards were anyways worn for) and so its length and grip were accordingly calculated.

Do you mean that when formed up in a phalanx, with your shield centered in front of your body, you can move a 210-240 cm spear held towards the rear from under the shield to over without spearing someone behind you? Even if the shields get close together and the man behind starts pressing on your back with their shield? That would be interesting if true.

[PMBardunias]

The idea that using an overhand grip gave just enough energy to increase the chance of penetrating armour isn't completely convincing: not all hoplites had body armour; those who did had lots of unarmoured targets like the face, neck, thighs, and shoulders;

It still takes power to penetrate the human body, if all things were equal a strike that will on avaerage be more powerful will be a benefit- i.e. if my "glancing" blows are sticking three inches into your face while yours get stuck im my cheek bone, I win.

and while ancient armour was light its not obvious that a one-handed thrust could penetrate it.

There are many vase images showing this- armor penetrated with blood spewing forth. I would be suprised if it were fantasy.

Paul, again, could I have the source for the 4:1 difference in energy between overhand and underhand strikes?

Oops,I thought I had, here some data from Connolly et al. JOURNAL OF BATTLEFIELD TECHNOLOGY, VOL 4, NO 2, NOVEMBER 2001. The study was very well done. They compared from top to bottom: overhand,the type of high underhand that C. Mathew recently recommended for hoplites (Historia 2009),and low underhand.

[attachment=675]Spearthrustdata.JPG[/attachment]


And here's an image I just whipped up by bastardizing Johnny's excellent illustrations to show the range of targets for high, left, and low, right, overhand strikes. You can still hit the often exposed right thigh and feet as well as coming into the face from below. Note that the shield raised with the bottom tilted up and forward would present the face perpendicular to these descending blows. Perhaps this is why we see it.

[attachment=677]Highandlowoverhandtargets.JPG[/attachment]

[Macedon II]

Do you mean that when formed up in a phalanx, with your shield centered in front of your body, you can move a 210-240 cm spear held towards the rear from under the shield to over without spearing someone behind you? Even if the shields get close together and the man behind starts pressing on your back with their shield? That would be interesting if true.

Yep, you actually can. I know that there has been a lot of speculation on how the hoplites avoided to injure one another, but actually I am of the opinion that the sauroter was not as widely used as we think it was. And of course, you can learn to handle the spear properly and as safely as possible even with a sauroter. If you just do not pull your spear very sharply (no reason why you should do that), even if the spearpoint of your sarauter bumps at an ally, there is no harm done. You could try that with some friends.

PB, your illustration of the threat arcs of the low overarm position is wrong. You cannot reach that high if you keep your elbow down. Parallel to the ground should be the best you can do effectively.

By the way... I think that there is some bug with the off topic section... Today I tried to post something there and the forum (again) kicked me out and I could not reconnect with my normal account (Macedon)... Guys... can you again activate it? Has anyone else experienced such a bug?

[Sean Manning]

Thanks Paul, I'll add those articles to my "to read" list.

Do you mean that when formed up in a phalanx, with your shield centered in front of your body, you can move a 210-240 cm spear held towards the rear from under the shield to over without spearing someone behind you? Even if the shields get close together and the man behind starts pressing on your back with their shield? That would be interesting if true.

Yep, you actually can. I know that there has been a lot of speculation on how the hoplites avoided to injure one another, but actually I am of the opinion that the sauroter was not as widely used as we think it was. And of course, you can learn to handle the spear properly and as safely as possible even with a sauroter. If you just do not pull your spear very sharply (no reason why you should do that), even if the spearpoint of your sarauter bumps at an ally, there is no harm done. You could try that with some friends.

I don't have any Argive shields handy, so I will probably have to pass. The idea that spear-butts were not universal is interesting ... I've never looked into the evidence of how common they were.

[Robert Vermaat]

Well, here's the Late Roman guy again with his 'phalanx'. Yes I know, it's not the same, but apparently the late guys fight differently, or at least have alternative views that might add some leverage to this discussion.

I think the use of the spear would vary due to the circumstances.

I also think that most people misunderstand underarm fighting. In a phalanx you would never try to fight underarm against the enemy's torso (would be protected by his shield) or head (the angle would be too weird). Underarm fighting while in phalanx would aim at the enemy legs and feet, so you would keep your spear well under your shield too. Such harassment can be a real problem, especially if you are not fully armored on the leg area and makes you wanna bend down...

Not necessarily. You can fight underarm but couched, and aim very well at the enemy's head, as shown in this Late Roman formation. As with the Greek phlanx, legs are protected (but feet aren't! How did the Greeks avoid injuries to the feet?) and large shields protect the torso.
[attachment=679]1_2011-04-27.JPG[/attachment]
[attachment=680]2_2011-04-27.JPG[/attachment]

Not really, since a normal pre Iphicratean spear is not that long as to not being able to draw it back with very quick and simple moves. Someone would have to keep it there in order for you not to be able to draw it back and place it up again and this is highly improbable since that would mean that an enemy first ranker should lay down his own shield and weapon... A spear was supposed to aim at the enemy's face and legs (this is what shin-guards were anyways worn for) and so its length and grip were accordingly calculated.

Do you mean that when formed up in a phalanx, with your shield centered in front of your body, you can move a 210-240 cm spear held towards the rear from under the shield to over without spearing someone behind you? Even if the shields get close together and the man behind starts pressing on your back with their shield? That would be interesting if true.

I agree with Sean, it's a bit like the discussion about using the long spatha in a densely packed formation. Does the wielder of the spear have enough room to gather the momentum, without hitting the man behind him? I would say that if the the formation needed to be dense, the answer would be no. Any movement to the rear would ultimately hit the man behind you, since you could never take enough care to avoid this. Therefore, in a packed dense formation (synaspismos or less) you could only stab without much momentum. As in the Late Roman formation, this must have been the case with Greek hoplites as well. In a Late Roman formation, the man in front would use the spear underarm, and the men behind him all stab downwards, overarm.

Now, in a less dense formation, room could be created betwen the men in fron and the line behind them, allowing them to use the full potential of the spear or sword, which could be wielded with full force, without a care about the man to the back. In such a situation, Paul's figures would be correct I think.
In a Late Roman formation, the men in front also use the overarm stab, with the men behind him probably out of reach of the enemy.

[Titvs Statilivs Castvs]

May be it's a stupid question, but isn't it much harder (more tiresome, if that's the correct word) to hold your spear overarm than it is to hold it underarm? The statements Mr. Wink makes in this article are about the hasta, but nevertheless... http://romanarmy.net/hasta.htm

Also, I see a difference in the overarm use depictions: I can't explain very well, but the way the soldiers hold their fist is different in the photograph of Robert and the vase depictions George/Macedon posted.
Would these be used both? Or is it this you're talking about as "heroic depiction"?

[rrgg]

Does that Roman have decoy eyes on his helmet? :wink:

There are many vase images showing this- armor penetrated with blood spewing forth. I would be suprised if it were fantasy.

Into the middle ages there seems to be quite a few of those, mailed knights being cut in two from helm to hip and sword thrusts going clean through breastplates (with an underarm grip nonetheless). I'm not sure you could dub armor effective or ineffective based on such depictions alone.

[Macedon II]

Maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been. When I was talking about underarm fighting I meant with the grip actually at groin level and the spear projecting from under the shield (not over the shield or between shields). Not about underarm grip used from a position over the shoulder.

Also, we have to define compactness of the phalanx. It is obvious that when in compact (hyperpykne) formation, things work differently than when in normal, hoplite fighting closed order (pykne). Spearfighting would have been mainly fought in pykne order, which allows the hoplite (legionary etc) to have enough space to wield his spear whether in an underarm or overarm position (not grip). If the phalanxes tried to close to each other and the hoplites closing up to their frontmen, resting their shields on their backs, hoplites would anyways change to their shorter shortswords in order to try and inflict wounds from over the shield. Spears here would be used only by the back ranks since the first rankers would not be able to actually hit at the enemy first rankers with their spears. Underarm fighting in hyperpykne (not the norm) order would be more difficult than in a Macedonian formation, basically because of the shield size difference. Do not forget that Macedonian phalanxes were renowned for using the hyperpykne order (some attributing its very invention to Philip) and they were surely using very long spears with sarauters (which were much more useful in sarissas than in spears because of the balance they added). Sarissas also had to be swung back and forth and the hyperpykne order is attested as one pechis for each man, about 45 cm or 18 inches. Now, if there was no problem swinging the sarissas back and forth, I can see no real problem in swinging spears practically the same way. Unfortunately I have never been able to experiment such things with many reenactors, but with 6-8 men I have seen that making thrust with the spear under the shield towards the enemy's unseen weak spots (you cannot actually see where you are aiming, so you have to be able to understand where the point of your spear is every moment, something that you can easily get accustomed to with experience). Of course it may seem difficult at first but try to work on this and you will see there are ways to make space for the spear to be able to do these maneuvers. And, as I already mentioned, a saroteur was not a knife, if you do not pull the spear back with force there is no way you can injure anyone and even if you do that it cannot be compared with the force of a forward thrust (although there would be no reason why you should do such quick pull movements).

By the way, has anyone studies how 5-6 ranks of sarisophoroi in hyperpykne order could actually project their sarissas over the first ranker holding their sarissas underarm? The 8 palm shields of course played some role, but even these could be locked leaving a very limited space for 4-5 sarissas from the back to somehow be in the right angles to injure opponents and protect your own... This is something I always wanted to reenact but lacked the resources....

Oh... and.... a reactivation of Macedon... yet again.... for the third time in this forum please?

[Macedon II]

I don't have any Argive shields handy, so I will probably have to pass. The idea that spear-butts were not universal is interesting ... I've never looked into the evidence of how common they were.

In the iconic evidence I would say that spear-butts are more the exception than the rule. I guess that they would have been used according to necessity. Cavalry spears broke often, so a spear-butt there would have been more handy. Maybe some ranks only had them in the phalanx, I do not know, the thing is that the ancients were practical people, so if they thought that spear-butts had a specific combat purpose they would use it accordingly. If they thought that sometimes they would be a hindrance they would surely have used spears without butts in these instance.

[PMBardunias]

PB, your illustration of the threat arcs of the low overarm position is wrong. You cannot reach that high if you keep your elbow down. Parallel to the ground should be the best you can do effectively.

This is one of those things that does not seem doable until you try it. You should not be able to based on the articulation of your wrist, but you can. The reason is that the spear's weight forces your wrist up in the strike beyond its normal range of motion once you push the tip up and start the forward motion. By that way, they did not test this low overhand strike, but I am sure it is very weak, probably comparable to high underhand.

You can fight underarm but couched, and aim very well at the enemy's head, as shown in this Late Roman formation.

Its actually this roman use that Connelly's article was attempting to speak against by showing the loss of power.

As with the Greek phlanx, legs are protected (but feet aren't! How did the Greeks avoid injuries to the feet?)

Early on, the feet could be protected. We have these fully articulated bronze instep, toe and ankle guards from Greek panoplies.

May be it's a stupid question, but isn't it much harder (more tiresome, if that's the correct word) to hold your spear overarm than it is to hold it underarm? The statements Mr. Wink makes in this article are about the hasta, but nevertheless... romanarmy.net/hasta.htm

It sure is, but you can rest a bit by lowering the elbow.

Also, I see a difference in the overarm use depictions: I can't explain very well, but the way the soldiers hold their fist is different in the photograph of Robert and the vase depictions George/Macedon posted.

I think you are noting the difference between low underhand- the typical underarm thrust- and high underhand which can be under the arm and couched like a lance as in Roberts images, or outside the forearm and over the shield top. The last method is akin to how you would stab with a sword from up high.

By the way, has anyone studies how 5-6 ranks of sarisophoroi in hyperpykne order could actually project their sarissas over the first ranker holding their sarissas underarm? The 8 palm shields of course played some role, but even these could be locked leaving a very limited space for 4-5 sarissas from the back to somehow be in the right angles to injure opponents and protect your own... This is something I always wanted to reenact but lacked the resources....

Yes. Connolly again showed this works because the sarissa flex and arch over eachother. Send me an email and I'll find the paper. As to "locking" peltae, I don't know how this could occur when the sarissa was held at the right edge of the shield- its in the way. You may like this though, the only image we have of sarissaphoroi in action could be argued to show them holding the sarissa below the peltae.

Now, if there was no problem swinging the sarissas back and forth, I can see no real problem in swinging spears practically the same way.

I'm not sure we can extrapolate so easily from sarissa. To weild one you lead with the left arm, while the dory of course is thrust from the right. This renders a very different posture for the men. The only tests I know of suggest that being within the range of the sauroter, rather than beyond it is the key for sarissa.

In the iconic evidence I would say that spear-butts are more the exception than the rule. I guess that they would have been used according to necessity. Cavalry spears broke often, so a spear-butt there would have been more handy.

Dory's often broke too. I'd caution that vases often clip the ends of spears because they are out of the frame of the painter's desired image and also that many spears are actually being thrown, not thrust on vase images of heroic combat. This is true for both overhand and underhand thrusts- some underhand thrusts show clear amentum being held- so I don't believe you can make any correlation between the lack of sauroters and spear grip.

[PMBardunias]

The statements Mr. Wink makes in this article are about the hasta, but nevertheless... romanarmy.net/hasta.htm

I just read this, and its good, but I always find it interesting how our experience shapes our knowledge and lack of it- myself included. The author has a number of misconceptions about limitations of overhand spear use. For example, he believes that you need to "toss" the spear in the air in order to move from a rest to fighting position. This has been shown not to be true once you know how to hold a dory at rest and how to bring it down to fight. Stephanos's group has good video of this. Also, the notion that you can't push overhand is flawed. Every boatmen who poled a boat does so. You simply lock the wrist against your shoulder and push forward.

Thighs are quite easy targets and feet not exceptional with an 8' dory- maybe he is used to shorter spears? His whole description of holding a dory at the midpoint is not supported by vases, that clearly show them to be balanced to the rear, so an 8' spear is a 5 1/2' spear. Of course not actually killing anyone renders the fact that he may be generating only 1/4 of the power of the overhand strike less of a problem than in real combat.

Finally many of the lateral slashing movements he describes are far more important when facing single foes or in opened order than in a tight phalanx. Hoplite spears were not foils, they had the aspis for defence if the spear was knocked off line, and a foes who stepped alone into the beaten-zone between lines would not be long for the world assuming he could extricate himself from the shields of his mates faster than I could recover my spear. Moving the spear forward and back and striking with force, both ahead and into the men to the left and right over a range of motion only possible with overhand, is the goal of the hoplite. Perhaps this is harder for us to imagine since we are reared on tales of swashbuckling duels of intertwined swords, but they were raised on tales of men who aimed one good blow of exceptional power at their foes, then recovered behind their shields. The dory had more in common with a javelin that you did not let go than with an extremely long fencing foil.

[Macedon II]

[quote]This is one of those things that does not seem doable until you try it. You should not be able to based on the articulation of your wrist, but you can. The reason is that the spear's weight forces your wrist up in the strike beyond its normal range of motion once you push the tip up and start the forward motion. By that way, they did not test this low overhand strike, but I am sure it is very weak, probably comparable to high underhand.

This is why I said "effectively". I personally was never really able to deliver good thrusts at such angles and grips.

[quote]Early on, the feet could be protected. We have these fully articulated bronze instep, toe and ankle guards from Greek panoplies.

Still all evidence I know of suggests that such armor pieces were very rare. I would suggest that feet were difficult to hit since they present relatively little target, but it surely is an issue worth discussing.

[quote]I think you are noting the difference between low underhand- the typical underarm thrust- and high underhand which can be under the arm and couched like a lance as in Roberts images, or outside the forearm and over the shield top. The last method is akin to how you would stab with a sword from up high.

I have come across a lot of examples of high underhand depictions, so it has to have been a quite common grip, especially if you switch often from high underarm to low underarm as I support hoplites would do during spearfight.

[quote]Yes. Connolly again showed this works because the sarissa flex and arch over eachother. Send me an email and I'll find the paper. As to "locking" peltae, I don't know how this could occur when the sarissa was held at the right edge of the shield- its in the way. You may like this though, the only image we have of sarissaphoroi in action could be argued to show them holding the sarissa below the peltae.

Paul.. it's George, Macedon. We have exchanged lots of email in the past especially about the Sellasia project I was to embark on (and still haven't found the opportunity to carry through...maybe this summer). I have always regarded it as certain that the protostates would have his sarisa projecting from below his pelte. The thing is how did the rear rankers do it... If they aimed below the first rankers' shields the spearpoints would have been too low, especially because of the flex. If they were aiming above the shields then at least some of them would have been aiming to high to be effective against attackers. As for the shields, I think I can support with certainty that they could be locked when in hyperpykne taxis (all sources give it as a total space of 45 cm/18in to be occupied by each man) and of course it is specifically stated that the shields were locked. Yet, we also have mentions about the spearpoints of the sarissas forming a cycle in front of the ranks and generally I think that too few have unfortunately studied this extremely important and interesting issue...

[quote]I'm not sure we can extrapolate so easily from sarissa. To weild one you lead with the left arm, while the dory of course is thrust from the right. This renders a very different posture for the men. The only tests I know of suggest that being within the range of the sauroter, rather than beyond it is the key for sarissa.

No matter where the sauroter is exactly positioned (we have different accounts of how many yards of the sarissa was behind the pelte), the thing is that the sarissa was used in a swinging mode and would also be turned to target the enemy. This would mean that the sauroter would make analogous movements. The only conclusion I can make is that this was no countable danger for the rear rankers, not because the butt never touched anyone but because even when it did hit against a shield, armor, naked leg, it did not present a real harassment. I would suggest (only from my experience with spears though) that this was because 1. the sarauter was not as dangerous as a spear point and 2. because the pulling movement was not nearly as powerful as the thrust. I have had myself hit by spearbutts at low speeds and it was nothing more than a small harassment.

[quote]Dory's often broke too. I'd caution that vases often clip the ends of spears because they are out of the frame of the painter's desired image and also that many spears are actually being thrown, not thrust on vase images of heroic combat. This is true for both overhand and underhand thrusts- some underhand thrusts show clear amentum being held- so I don't believe you can make any correlation between the lack of sauroters and spear grip.

I cannot speak for sure but the almost total lack of sauroters in the iconic evidence certainly does not support the position that all or the vast majority of spears were equipped with the sauroter also. As for the correlation, I do not personally think that a sauroter would make me not use my spear low underarm, but if someone insists that it would be dangerous, then some spears could specifically not be equipped with one for this exact reason. The ancients were very practical people and they would have used weapons to their maximum effectiveness.

[Titvs Statilivs Castvs]

The statements Mr. Wink makes in this article are about the hasta, but nevertheless... romanarmy.net/hasta.htm

I just read this, and its good, but I always find it interesting how our experience shapes our knowledge and lack of it- myself included. The author has a number of misconceptions about limitations of overhand spear use. For example, he believes that you need to "toss" the spear in the air in order to move from a rest to fighting position. This has been shown not to be true once you know how to hold a dory at rest and how to bring it down to fight. Stephanos's group has good video of this. Also, the notion that you can't push overhand is flawed. Every boatmen who poled a boat does so. You simply lock the wrist against your shoulder and push forward.

Thighs are quite easy targets and feet not exceptional with an 8' dory- maybe he is used to shorter spears? His whole description of holding a dory at the midpoint is not supported by vases, that clearly show them to be balanced to the rear, so an 8' spear is a 5 1/2' spear. Of course not actually killing anyone renders the fact that he may be generating only 1/4 of the power of the overhand strike less of a problem than in real combat.

Finally many of the lateral slashing movements he describes are far more important when facing single foes or in opened order than in a tight phalanx. Hoplite spears were not foils, they had the aspis for defence if the spear was knocked off line, and a foes who stepped alone into the beaten-zone between lines would not be long for the world assuming he could extricate himself from the shields of his mates faster than I could recover my spear. Moving the spear forward and back and striking with force, both ahead and into the men to the left and right over a range of motion only possible with overhand, is the goal of the hoplite. Perhaps this is harder for us to imagine since we are reared on tales of swashbuckling duels of intertwined swords, but they were raised on tales of men who aimed one good blow of exceptional power at their foes, then recovered behind their shields. The dory had more in common with a javelin that you did not let go than with an extremely long fencing foil.

He indeed speaks about the hasta, a Roman short spear, which is not much taller than the wielder of it. Also these soldiers he talks about use the clipeus or oval shield, which is narrower than the hoplite shield - when the spear is knocked off the line, this is more dangerous. His statements are more correct for these short spears, for example his remark about length which is lost when using an overhand grip. As far as I know there were no counterweights on this type of spear, so holding it in the middle would be necessary when using an overhand grip.

It's not a good comparison, but I still thought I'd post it.. Better had not may be.:-)