Overhand Vs underhand

[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.