Overhand Vs underhand

[KrimzonKnight]

Im sure this has probably been discussed somewhere on here, but I cant seem to be able to find the thread by using the search function. Anyway, besides artwork on vases, what evidence is there that dory were held overhand? Underhand has more power, control and reach. I know overhand is the accepted method by historians and reenactors, why?

[Macedon]

Try this.

[Sean Manning]

In the 16th century, Manciolino taught the "high guard" (that is, the position with the spear hand at the level of one's forehead and the point in line) as his first position for single combat with partisan (broad-bladed spear about 240 cm long) and rotella (round strapped shield about 60 cm in diameter). Significantly, he describes this position with the phrase "as if you are about to throw the partisan" but uses that guard to thrust.

I don't know what you mean about underhand having more power. In my experience, in published experiments with knives and spears, and in the opinion of 15th century gentlemen who had to use daggers against armour, the reverse is true.

I think that in single combat and skirmishes all possible grips were used, but that, for reasons discussed in the other thread, men in a classical Greek phalanx probably usually held their spears overhand with the thumb towards the butt of the spear.

[rrgg]

The overhand grip is able to provide far more powerful thrusts, but a question I came across fairly recently is how well does that force translate into a something sustained? For instance if an opponent has put his shield up against the tip of your spear and starts pushing forward with all his body weight, wouldn't something like a couched grip provide more resistance?

[petermac]

Hello folks

A few points, which are based on drilling our group has done over a number of years, partly in support of one of our member's PhD thesis (now published).

* We drill with accurate replicas of the dory (so they cannot be fought with for safety reasons). I have a bronze butt spike made by Craig Sitch of Manning Imperial, based on one in the British museum. It is hollow right down into the spike itself, as per the original. The head was made by Alex Screibner of Talerwin Forge and it would only need a sharpen to be completely accurate in weight. The balance point on my 251cm dory is 87cm from the tip of the butt spike and the Tasmanian Oak shaft tapers from 28mm at the balance point to 22mm at the socket of the head. I would really recommend anyone using the ones out of India to get themselves some accurate weight pieces as some of the ones from India are rubbish (please consider that a plug for Craig at Manning Imperial).

* We hold the aspis with the left shoulder set into the bowl, with the inside of the upper rim resting on the shoulder. The left foot faces forward, but the body is not facing square to the front, but is at an oblique angle to the right. This is helped by placing the right foot back and at right angles to the angle of the left foot. It allows us to lean into the shield if necessary and helps when in a close order with aspides overlapping, as it allows them to still present a flat frontage.

* Now, as to the thrusting power of an overarm, versus underarm, versus 'couched' stance; what I wonder is whether the previous tests have allowed for the constraints when one is in a close order? I accept the basic premise about an overarm thrust being more powerful, though I suspect that is mainly due to the greater range of movement if the spear is starting at a point further back, and the extra energy afforded by the use of the shoulder muscles. However, if you restrict the thrust so that it is only your right arm that projects beyond the aspis and you otherwise hold the aspis in its defensive position,I think you'll find the power in the shot is greatly lessened. It is mainly when the right shoulder moves forward past the torso that the power is delivered with that shot. Twisting the torso this way to allow the right shoulder to follw the thrust, means that the aspis must be rotated back, which is very difficult if in a close order and exposes the hoplite as the aspis is no longer where it needs to be.

* Reach, stamina and control: What we have found is that the couched shot, with the elbow raised and the dory lying along the forearm with just part of the butt-spike projecting behind, affords a large amount of reach, with minimal amount of exposure for the hoplite. In my case I can put the point of the spear 2.2 metres past the aspis and it is only my arm projecting beyond it; the rest of my body is still in the same position, protected by the aspis. My hand is not that far behind the balance point and I also have the rim of the aspis to rest the dory on. More importantly, the dory is easier to control this way as the forearm helps steady it and it makes for very accurate thrusts. I have always found the main drawback of the overarm thrust to be the problem with it only being my wrist that keeps the dory under control if someone tries to deflect it.

* The Chigi vase. Chris (our resident academic) has pointed out that the hoplites on the Chigi vase are most likely using javelins. Please note the throwing loops and the fact they some clearly have a pair of spears each.

* Archaeological evidence. Chris examined over 400 helmets at Olympia as part of his thesis. He found spear damage to be invariably from a relatively flat trajectory, which he surmised was most likely from a couched shot as a head shot from that position will be coming in almost flat, whereas it might be expected that an overarm shot would have more of a downward curve to it. I especially liked his tale of the helmet with the spear thrust through the left cheekguard on a Corinthian, with a small hole at the rear of the helmet that lined up and indicated the tip of the spear had pierced the back of the helmet. Ouch!

Just some ideas to throw in, based on what the club has been doing.

Cheers

Peter MacKinnon
Sydney Ancients

[C Crastinus]

@petermac

I'm assuming that your group's resident expert, Chris, is Christopher Matthew, author of A Storm of Spears, since you mention many of the same points which he discusses in the book. I haven't had time to read it yet, since I'm in the middle of another book, but I plan to read it soon. Just from browsing the book, it seems that he draws upon a wide variety of evidence, so I'm looking forward to reading it in full.

One problem I have with the Corinthian helmet that you've mentioned, which he has a nice photo of in the book, is that we don't know the position the hoplite was in when he received the blow, or if the helmet was even being worn at the time it was punctured. What if he was already lying on the ground and his opponent delivered an overhand thrust from above him? I think that for that type of evidence to be useful in demonstrating the underhand or couched thrust, we'd need to have a large sample of helmets with similar damage. Just one helmet doesn't really tell you anything.

Nevertheless, it looks like an interesting read, and I'm looking forward to sinking my teeth into it and seeing what else he has to offer. I'm glad there are groups like yours out there collecting real data on the subject.

[Dan Howard]

The other problem with analysing holes in armour in a Greek context is that a lot of extant pieces were sacrifices that were hammered to the walls of temples with long nails. The holes were not made in combat. The chances of punching through metal armour of any kind in a combat situation with a one handed weapon is negligible. I agree with Jason that the only real chance of doing this is to thrust down into someone who is lying on the ground.

[petermac]

Hi again

I don't know if the helmet pictured in Chris' book is the same one he mentioned as being pierced at the back of the helmet by the spear (I'll have to ask him). Certainly it wasn't the nail hole for mounting the helmet to a wall, as he knows the difference and in fact cites the nail holes as evidence that they weren't holes made by a sarouter being used to finish the hoplite off.

I don't know if I agree with a blanket statement that the spear couldn't penetrate armour unless the hoplite was prone. Chris demonstrated that the Gabriel and Metz study was using a spear about half the weight of an average dory and also the 2mm thick plates they were using are not representative of the average thickness of hoplite armour. He demonstrated that even the energy from the underhand shot (as calculated by them) could penetrate 1mm armour with a 1.4kg dory (my dory is 1.8kg, perhaps because I'm using hardwood and the taper is only from the balance point on mine and not the entire length of the shaft).

I think the issue of whether armour could be penetrated in combat would be down to a number of factors. If the argument is that the shot would knock a person over before the armour was penetrated, then I would argue that would largely depend on the circumstances. If both sides were moving forward for the initial clash, then the momentum of both persons would also need to be factored in, and if they were locked in close order, with the aspis of the hoplite in the rank behind the victim hard up against their back, then I doubt they would have much room to move to absorb the energy of the shot.

Also, the sample size Chris used wasn't a single helmet, he examined hundreds. I haven't seen the table of the various damage found on all these helmets, but what is identifiable as spear damage is invariably from the front and mainly with a flat trajectory. He also found that in some cases, the damage may be a gouge, rather than penetration of the armour.

A bit of trivia as an example of gouging in helmets: I have in my possession a replica Corinthian made in 1974 in brass by John Harris, a founder of the Ancient and Medieval Martial Arts Society (which I joined in 1979). AMMAS was doing ancient Greek, Roman and gladiator combat from 1971 in Sydney. The Corinthian has been in literally hundreds of combats over the years. It has a significant gouge running above the left eye almost straight up and a neat series of dots running across and up the left cheek guard where a spear skidded across it. Both occasions were accidents, as head shots were avoided, though spears and tridents were never padded (but were blunt). Both pieces of damage show the strikes were coming from underhand shots with the opponents facing each other (they were both from a Persian spear held in a low underarm position).

Cheers

Peter MacKinnon

[Meloncat]

I have to say after starting to read your fellow Sydney member's book (Storm of Spears), Petermac, you guys have made a thorough convert of me. I used to be a die hard believer in the overhand approach, as it felt like low underhand would discount any possibility of overlapping shields. Likewise I was a faithful in the orthodox view of a literal othismos. Color me disappointed when Storm of Spears so analytically convinced me otherwise!

Although when you say

Now, as to the thrusting power of an overarm, versus underarm, versus 'couched' stance; what I wonder is whether the previous tests have allowed for the constraints when one is in a close order? I accept the basic premise about an overarm thrust being more powerful, though I suspect that is mainly due to the greater range of movement if the spear is starting at a point further back, and the extra energy afforded by the use of the shoulder muscles.

I recall in the book that the data for both power and distance (as well as fatigue among others) all benefitted the 'couched underhand', then usually the low position, and finally the overhand was the worst off. If I wasn't feeling lazy I'd grab the book to scan the respective page with the data tables, but I previously scanned the distance table in a discussion I had with a friend of mine: http://i.imgur.com/gO15wFM.jpg

Digging out the book itself on page 139 the recorded velocities of spear thrusts by an encumbered hoplite are cited by Chris as:
26.0ft/sec (8.1m/sec) for low
26.6ft/sec (8.3m/sec) for underhand (couched)
and about 21.2ft/sec (6.5m/sec) for overhead and reverse (I assume reverse is with the sauoter)

Energy of spear thrusts are cited as:
44.3j for Low
46.5j for couched underarm
29.8j for overhead and reverse.

[PMBardunias]

I don't know what you mean about underhand having more power. In my experience, in published experiments with knives and spears, and in the opinion of 15th century gentlemen who had to use daggers against armour, the reverse is true.

The best study I have seen is: Peter Connolly, David Sim, Celia Watson, AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THREE METHODS OF SPEAR GRIP USED IN ANTIQUITY JOURNAL OF BATTLEFIELD TECHNOLOGY, VOL 4, NO 2, NOVEMBER 2011. I have this, if any need it, email me.

They found that an overhand strike was 5 times stronger than high underhand. Now it is possible that a stab at 1/5 the power of an overhand strike is adequate to at least wound a foe, but assuming the power ratio holds true, then even when an overhand striking hoplite is fatigued and hitting with a fraction of his peak force, he is still out striking a couched dory. Same holds true for glancing blows. You are simply much more likely to cause damage with an overhand strike.

I accept the basic premise about an overarm thrust being more powerful, though I suspect that is mainly due to the greater range of movement if the spear is starting at a point further back, and the extra energy afforded by the use of the shoulder muscles... It is mainly when the right shoulder moves forward past the torso that the power is delivered with that shot.

Rotation of the torso helps in either strike, the couched more than the overhand in fact. But the reduced power of the couched strike results from one of the features Chris holds up as a positive. The fact that the grip is at the ready position already close to the shield rim greatly limits the range of motion of the strike. It is the distance that the spear is accelerated during the strike, the path the hand moves during the strike, that is crucial to power generation.

Reach, stamina and control: What we have found is that the couched shot, with the elbow raised and the dory lying along the forearm with just part of the butt-spike projecting behind, affords a large amount of reach, with minimal amount of exposure for the hoplite. In my case I can put the point of the spear 2.2 metres past the aspis and it is only my arm projecting beyond it; the rest of my body is still in the same position, protected by the aspis. My hand is not that far behind the balance point and I also have the rim of the aspis to rest the dory on. More importantly, the dory is easier to control this way as the forearm helps steady it and it makes for very accurate thrusts. I have always found the main drawback of the overarm thrust to be the problem with it only being my wrist that keeps the dory under control if someone tries to deflect it.

Reach is the main advantage of the couched grip for all the reasons you state. Its a great way to ward off cavalry. The genius of the scheme presented in Chris's thesis is that it completely negates any advantage of the supposed mass charge into othismos, where hoplites are portrayed as running into each other like un-horsed jousting knights.. If given a choice between the two Chris's would dominate. But the mass charge directly into combat is surely incorrect, and a phalanx that marched up to men with couched dorys would gladly trade some 10cm of reach for 5x striking power and the ability to target much more of the foe.

Stamina is a possible advantage, but surely overplayed. Choke up a couple inches past the balance point of your dory and you can stand with it resting on your shoulder all day. The resting position for a dory in overhand would be with the hand back by the shoulder, something like the resting position for an axe.

control is something of a tossup. I am more accurate in overhand, easily hitting a softball on a rope repeatedly with powerful strikes. Always there is a trade-off between power and accuracy though.

It has a significant gouge running above the left eye almost straight up and a neat series of dots running across and up the left cheek guard where a spear skidded across it. Both occasions were accidents, as head shots were avoided, though spears and tridents were never padded (but were blunt). Both pieces of damage show the strikes were coming from underhand shots

This is a part of the argument that makes me think we are not all doing the same motions. The overhand strike has a flat trajectory if striking at the face of a foe...in fact, since it is essentially the same motion as throwing a spear, it could have an upward trajectory if you wished. If your overhand strikes do not have a flat trajectory, then you are gripping the shaft real tight and striking with the arm raised high (which is a valid way of striking overhand, like stabbing with an ice pick). Before hoplites stabbed at each other, they threw things at each other, and i think the motion was similar. A blow to a foe's helmet could still be coming up at an angle in overhand.

[Phil Ossiferz Stone]

Cheers

Peter MacKinnon

New guy here (/waves). I have only two things to add to this awesome thread:

1) A Storm Of Spears is one h*ll of engrossing read, and I recommend it without reservation. Mr. Matthew doesn't try and shove his pet theory at the reader. He simply builds it up and presents it to you in exhaustive detail, and along the way dismantles everybody else's, and does it all in such a patient, lucid, non-confrontational, and thoughtful fashion. He's also very good at weaving information into the narrative so the reader can soak it up painlessly, rather than bombarding one with a giant boring infodump. As both a senior-level technical writer and a lifelong history nerd, I appreciate the achievement. Please pass on my best wishes and admiration to him.

2) I fight in the SCA from time to time. It's one thing to debate things like shield weights and weapon holds and stances on the Internet, or even dressed in repro armor in the city park. It's another to have some big fat guy with a scutum hit you at a dead run while yelling FREEEDOMM!!!11!!1!!! This I know: The heavier the shield (to a point), the better. Like the weight of a gunstock, it's part of what protects you and soaks up all that nasty kinetic energy. The stronger your shoulders and knees to alternately park that sucker on (though I use a shoulder strap rather than a bowl-shape), the better. And holding a one-handed pokey thing in an overhand stance when Sir Beergut impacts you at 15 mph is a one-way trip to the clinic with a sprained or broken wrist. I'm sold on the underhand hold... and hope, if it proves possible, to build a fiberglass-shafted dory of correct weight, length, and point of balance to try out next year. Artemis willing, I'll report my results here.

[Phil Ossiferz Stone]

Cheers

Peter MacKinnon

New guy here (/waves). I have only two things to add to this thread:

1) A Storm Of Spears is one h*ll of engrossing read, and I recommend it without reservation. Mr. Matthew doesn't try and shove his pet theory at the reader. He simply builds it up and presents it to you in exhaustive detail, and along the way dismantles everybody else's, and does it all in such a patient, lucid, non-confrontational, and thoughtful fashion. He's also very good at weaving information into the narrative so the reader can soak it up painlessly, rather than bombarding one with a giant boring infodump. As both a senior-level technical writer and a lifelong history nerd, I appreciate the achievement. Please pass on my best wishes and admiration to him.

2) I fight in the SCA from time to time. It's one thing to debate things like shield weights and weapon holds and stances on the Internet, or even dressed in repro armor in the city park. It's another to have some big fat guy with a scutum hit you at a dead run while yelling FREEEDOMM!!!11!!1!!! This I know: The heavier the shield (to a point), the better. The stronger your shoulders and knees to alternately park that sucker on (though I use a shoulder strap rather than a bowl-shape), the better. And holding a one-handed pokey thing in an overhand stance when Sir Beergut impacts you at 15 mph is a one-way trip to the clinic with a sprained or broken wrist. I'm sold on the underhand hold... and hope, if it proves possible, to build a fiberglass-shafted dory of correct weight, length, and point of balance to try out next year. Artemis willing, I'll report my results here.