Depictions of Underarm Phalanxes

[Sean Manning]

I agree that these discussions often focus on a very tight phalanx, and that raising the spear from a high to a low position would not be a problem in a more open phalanx. If only we had a picture or two of a phalanx from the front ...

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).

My understanding is that in mortal combat most people are highly adrenalized with a high heartrate, leading to a loss of fine motor control and intense focus on one threat. In the 5th century BCE Greek militias did not to a lot of training to counteract this. Someone scared and trying to clear their spear from under to over the shield might well use a lot of force pulling it back. The trouble is that as I've never had a chance to play with spear and Argive shield, and as I fortunately have very little experience with violence, this is all theoretical.

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....

Peter Connolley got a phalanx of 16 Macedonian hoplites together around 10 years ago (published in JRMES). They didn't have a problem fitting the sarissas into the same space at the right side of the file ... because each had the point higher than the hands, the rear ones were above the ones in front.

My impression is that men in a sarissa phalanx probably used short jabbing motions or even planted their spears in the enemy shields and just pushed. We also know that Philip's and Alexander's Macedonian hoplites did a lot more drill than 5th century Greek ones.

[Paralus]

Do not forget that Macedonian phalanxes were renowned for using the hyperpykne order (some attributing its very invention to Philip)

The attribution, though often argued, is unambiguous in Diodorus (16.3.2).

Indeed he devised the compact order and the equipment of the phalanx, imitating the close order fighting with overlapping shields of the warriors at Troy, and was the first to organize the Macedonian phalanx.

Diodorus is not referring to the hoplite phalanx ("compact order and the equipment of the phalanx") but the Macedonian phalanx for the hoplite phalanx was long in the tooth by Philip's time. Later diodorus will write of the epigoni counter phalanx to Alexander's Macedonian phalanx: he is clear and consistent throughout in what he undertands as the "Macedoninan phalanx" and "armed and equipped in the Macedonian manner". He he seems quite certain that his source sees Philip II as the king who first fielded the "Macedonian phalanx".

...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.

I don't know that the swinging back and forth of sarisae would be that easy (or practicable) when in synaspismos. Eighteen inches per man is essentially man pressed to man - shoulder to shoulder (or hip to hip) and rank to rank.

Ael. Tact.11: The close order takes place when the commander contracts his distances and diminishes the extent of the phalanx, closing rank and file that is lessening both its length and depth; yet still leaving room for locomotion. The joining of shield to shield, or compact order, is effected when the entire phalanx is contracted still further in length and depth; so that on account of the contiguity of soldier to soldier, they cannot incline either to the right or to the left.

Having never reenacted such I'm sticking with Aelian's description of the difficulties in movement in this very tight formation - left or right - and see it largely as defensive (as at Atrax where the phalanx held off several cohorts of Roman infantry hurling pila; Livy, 32.17).

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.

Yes: Polybios in his well known discourse allows near a yard behind the phalangite and Aelian says that sarisae could be gripped at the butt and so extend further forward. One wonders if the latter wasn't the more defensive - likely used in synaspismos? Polybios is clearly describing a phalanx "charging" to the attack and this is in the "closed up for action" (close order / puknosis).

As to the sauroter, if the iconic Andronikos suaroter is correctly identified I would not wish for that to be shoved at me. Indeed, I believe it was likely used as a weapon when sarisae shattered and points were left in enemies.

[PMBardunias]

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).

This is not the case. Sarissa can be handled much more readily without sauroters than spears gripped in one hand. The second grip acts to pivot the rear of the spear against the fulcrum of the left hand grip. This by the way is why the couched grip allows you to hold the spear beyond the balance point, the forearm acts as a second contact point. If you have ever used a spear this way, you'll know how much you use the contact with the arm to pivot the spear. It is the main advantage of the couched grip. By analogy, we can see that later Pikemen did not have elaborate sauroters and their pikes were just a s long. Using a spear held back beyond the balance point with two hands or a hand and forearm is tiring. Doing so with a spear held just in the hand is impossible for more than moments.

I can't emphasize enough the difference in stance between sarissaphoroi in combat and hoplites. Sarissaphoroi lead with their left hands, like left-handed fencers. Hoplites have to extend their right arms forwards, making their body square to fore. This is true for any particular stance you want to envision them in for combat- side on, 3/4, etc. If the weapon is in the right hand, then they have to extend it forward to strike or end up with rediculous jabbing over and around their own heads.

The side ways stance of a sarissaphoroi presents a much smaller accidental target to a sauroter. Incidentally, I think it is this side-on stance that allowed the "new" packing density described for the Macedonians. Aspis bearers were limited by the need to stand straight forward at the completion of the strike motion.

[PMBardunias]

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

More information is always better, but that's why I felt the need to jump in and correct some of the assertions if applied to a Greek context. I should note that anything I write here has little bearing on late Roman practice. They may have done things like the Greeks, but there is no reason to expect that they did. I am not expert enough in that period, but my understanding is that they reinvented or at least began using more shield walls and fulcum-style multirank spear hedges to ward off cavalry, and that the spear hedge was essentially a shield for missile troops behind them. (This last function, well armored men protecting light missile troops is probably the origin of the hoplite phalanx though, before it was a hoplite phalanx.) That is not to say they did not eventually come to grips, simply that it is a different mode of fighting than the classical Greek phalanx wherein all ranks were hoplites who charge directly into spear combat.

[Old Husker]

Sorry to be late into this discussion, but relative to Sean's request for a citation, some other data on relative impact energy was provided by Gabriel and Metz (From Sumer to Rome, The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies, 1991) showing (Table 3.1, p. 59) strike energy for spears held overhand at 70.8 foot-pounds and underhand at 13.5 foot-pounds for a ratio of 5.2 to 1 in favor of the former. Schwartz (Reinstating the Hoplite, 2009, p. 80) has repeateded this information, converting it into metric units (newton-meters).

[Sean Manning]

I can't emphasize enough the difference in stance between sarissaphoroi in combat and hoplites. Sarissaphoroi lead with their left hands, like left-handed fencers. Hoplites have to extend their right arms forwards, making their body square to fore. This is true for any particular stance you want to envision them in for combat- side on, 3/4, etc. If the weapon is in the right hand, then they have to extend it forward to strike or end up with rediculous jabbing over and around their own heads.

The side ways stance of a sarissaphoroi presents a much smaller accidental target to a sauroter. Incidentally, I think it is this side-on stance that allowed the "new" packing density described for the Macedonians. Aspis bearers were limited by the need to stand straight forward at the completion of the strike motion.

Connolley's diagrams often show Macedonian hoplites standing with their hips perpendicular to each rank, but photos of reenactors with sarisas show a less extreme stance. Spearmen and pikemen probably both lead with the left foot and left shoulder, and twisted their hips and thrust their right arms forward to strike. You placed a lot of importance on energy earlier, but any strike which doesn't involve the hips will not be very powerful. And again, you don't need much energy to stab someone to death with a spear unless you want to pierce armour. I have a little training in spearfighting so this is not completely theoretical.

Sorry to be late into this discussion, but relative to Sean's request for a citation, some other data on relative impact energy was provided by Gabriel and Metz (From Sumer to Rome, The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies, 1991) showing (Table 3.1, p. 59) strike energy for spears held overhand at 70.8 foot-pounds and underhand at 13.5 foot-pounds for a ratio of 5.2 to 1 in favor of the former. Schwartz (Reinstating the Hoplite, 2009, p. 80) has repeateded this information, converting it into metric units (newton-meters).

I finally got around to reading Gabriel and Metz a few months ago, and found it was such a shoddy piece of scholarship that I'm uncomfortable using anything in it. They don't give you enough information to evaluate their methodology, and lots of the assumptions they do state are unlikely. Even if you give them some credit for less information being available when they wrote than is available today, they make some really basic mistakes (like arguing that spears were not very effective weapons because heavy armour was reasonably effective against them).

Specifically, p. xix of Gabriel and Metz says that they studied one man (his height and weight are given but not his experience in hitting things with hand tools) who used each weapon an unspecified number of times. Horsfal et al. tested 200 people and explain how they were selected.

[Old Husker]

I certainly agree that Gabriel and Metz are often far too vague and there's no doubt that better documented test results are to be preferred if they can be found. All the same, Horsfal's more precise results would appear to confirm (rather than dispute) the general trend shown by G&M with regard to overhanded spear thrusts being more powerful than those made underhand. As for armor penetration, it surely must have taken place, since ancient bronze armor has been found with a sauroter hole in it (most likely from an overhand blow with a reversed spear directed downward against a fallen foe). This would seem to contradict G&M's table 3.2 (p. 63) that shows an overhand spear thrust generating only 52% of that required to penetrate bronze armor (though, again to your point on less than proper documentation, the thickness of the armor is not specified).

[Sean Manning]

I do agree that a lot of these debates would be easier if people had done more experiments and measurements. For example, a few years ago people were still claiming that hoplites carried 70 pounds of kit into battle; and the biggest corpus of helmet weights I know of comes from an auction of Axel Guttman's collection! The old arguments based purely on texts and art will always go around in circles.

I agree that overhand thrusts are more powerful than underhand, but the difference between twice the energy and four times the energy is important.

For what its worth, the 15th and 16th century European sources on fighting in armour have no real preference for rising or falling thrusts, except with the dagger where an overhand 'ice pick' grip was preferred. The emphasis with most weapons was hitting areas with no armour or just mail such as the face or armpits. Armour in that period was thicker and more complete than in the Iron Age Mediterranean (ancient plate armour seems to have been around 1 mm of bronze or steely iron), but its one parallel.

[Old Husker]

Yes, I suspect that the manner of thrusting (overarm or underarm) was more a function of what you could hit even more than how hard you could hit - though both probably played into a general intimidation factor that might force a foe backwards to the attacker's advantage. Given use of greaves (at least in the forward ranks) and a shield that covered to the knees, the most likely target in a hoplite duel would seem to have been above the shield (face and neck, less likely arm) which appears to favor an overhand approach. Of course, there's always the possibility of shoving the shield aside enough to get in a quick shot at an armpit - something akin to the Zulu technique with the asegai in underhand grip. However, I suspect that this might have been difficult to execute against a shield front that was so closely spaced as to nearly overlap. Such a method might better fit shorter weapons (along the lines of the asegai) like a short-sword (especially that employed at Sparta) or broken spear-shaft with sauroter. These could maybe be used more effectively to push an opposing shield to the bearer's right per the Zulu custom and thus allow the side-ways strike.

[Dan Howard]

As for armor penetration, it surely must have taken place, since ancient bronze armor has been found with a sauroter hole in it (most likely from an overhand blow with a reversed spear directed downward against a fallen foe).

This is a completely different situation to armour penetration against a standing foe. The rigidity of the ground helps considerably. And I'd not be surprised to discover that many of the so-called sauroter holes are actually made by large nails driven though the plate to fasten the piece to a temple wall after it was captured in battle and offered as sacrifice. The chance of thrusting a spear through a piece of plate armour during actual combat is so low as to be statistically negligible.

[Old Husker]

Indeed, striking a fallen foe versus a standing one (able to fall back a bit from the impact) would be quite different and I too think it unlikely that bronze armor was often (if ever) penetrated during 'stand-up' combat. The note above was more to dispute the impossibility of penetrating it with a weapon under any circumstance as suggested by the Gabriel and Metz data. You're certainly right in that there are many nail holes to be seen in armor put on display (there's a lot of force over a very small area in that case). However, the specific penetration that I was referring to is a much larger, triangular-shaped hole that most likely came from a butt-spike. All the same, I do think that this sort of thing must have been somewhat rare, with unarmored areas being the much more logical target against standing and fallen foes alike.

[PMBardunias]

Connolley's diagrams often show Macedonian hoplites standing with their hips perpendicular to each rank, but photos of reenactors with sarisas show a less extreme stance. Spearmen and pikemen probably both lead with the left foot and left shoulder, and twisted their hips and thrust their right arms forward to strike. You placed a lot of importance on energy earlier, but any strike which doesn't involve the hips will not be very powerful.

Because the lead arm is the left, you can strike effectively in a completely side on stance with a two handed spear. You essentially lunge like a left handed fencer, but with added strength from the rear hand pushing forward. No need to swivel the hips. I mentioned the extreme side on stance in connection with the (perhaps novel) macedonian spacing on 1.5ft. At greater spacing, so as not to have to crab-walk sideways, they would turn square forwards as well. As you note, with a one handed spear it is irrelevant how the hoplite wants to set his feet, because the moment he uses his spear, he has to swivel his hips to move square on.

Sorry to be late into this discussion, but relative to Sean's request for a citation, some other data on relative impact energy was provided by Gabriel and Metz

Toss the book and do not look back. Didn't they hypothesize greater armor penetration for a slashing gladius than a stabbing gladius!? If I recall, its been a while, they treated the weapons as essentially ballistic, using just the mass of the weapon and acceleration of the weapon, then divided this over what they defined as a cutting edge. This may be a decent approximation for something like a club, where it does not take much energy to overcome the rotation of the wrist, but a good portion of body mass can be transmitted along a spear shaft. Think of it this way, if they did what I seem to recall they did, a punch would have no force, because a spear thrust can be thought of as all of the force of a punch with the added mass and narrow impact area of a spear. (taking into account the difference in accelerating the higher mass).

[Robert Vermaat]

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.

The hasta was probably longer than thought of here. For one, even the pilum could reach 7-8 ft., and the hasta, being a thrusting spear, would not be smaller. besides, as with much Roman terminology, weapons changed shape over time. A Late Roman hasta, also called a contyus, could be 9 ft. or more, judging some images and descriptions.

[abou]

I apologize for the thread necromancy. There has recently been another debate on our EB fora about overarm v. underarm spears. Personally, I see no reason to use an underarm grip. I came across this thread when I was searching for some stats on the power of spears I saw a few years ago.

Macedon, I was looking at your collection of photos and the first one you uploaded looks to me to be a lesson in why not to use an underarm grip in battle. It seems the poor guy on the left just took a nice blow to the gut from his friend. Thank you for posting that.

Unfortunately there are not many depictions of phalanxes in combat generally and even those that exist we are not really sure if they are depicting ranks or files... Generally, we can come to conclusions even from depictions of single combat instances or even better from depictions of battles with ranks/files of 2 or 3 figures. Yet, here are some relative pics. i am not sure about the 3rd image which could either be an overarm or an underarm depiction... I did not look for a more complete image. :

[Macedon]

This is an issue that needs a lot of re enacting to check. Yes, there is always the danger of hurting one of your own but these men surely knew how to do it. Do not forget that the Macedonian sarissa was held underarm and its sauroter was also pointed towards the men behind... Unfortunately, re enacting in deep files is very rare so such "experiments" are difficult to conduct. Maybe they kept some kind of distances when changing grip, maybe they were sufficiently protected by their shields... very hard to say with any degree of certainty.