In the other thread I think there may have been some misunderstanding so I thought to split this discussion away from that so as not to detract from the fantastic handwork and pictures by members like Paleoarts etc. I hope this is ok with the mods. I know a bit about spears and how to use them in a certain context. Of course there are other contexts also. One thing about combat though is that for most of us, although we may write about fighting with this or that weapon, are we really fighting? Perhaps it's just semantics but sparring to test weapon skills or taking part in tournaments which use medieval weapons involves scoring points and not (I hope) trying to kill or seriously hurt your opponent. By the same token you would hope/trust your opponent also understands this. Therefore, the modern tournament approach will modify true combat behaviour and you will take risks you might never do if the weapons were sharp and pointed.

For some reason my other posts seem to have irritated Knaight, I'd like to get some discussion going about spears and the contexts some forum members train with them. So I'll begin like this and address Knaight directly:

May I ask about your experiences? I could share some of mine too.

When did you start your martial arts training? For me, kyokushin karate for 4 years and HEMA since 2004.

Do you do Historical European Martial Arts (western) or mainly Eastern Martial Arts,  a mix, something else? I do HEMA based on the treatise of Fiore dei Liberi. This system covers wrestling, dagger, sword in one hand, longsword, spear and pollaxe, and the same again in armour and on horseback. We concentrate on dagger and longsword but also occasionally spear and pollaxe. It's a feature of the system that some of the guards and strikes for sword are shared with the staff weapons so in theory, if you know one weapon you have a built in familiarity with another, although of course, each has their own peculiarities.

Are you a SCAdian? I never tried it but it looks like fun.

Have you fought in plate armour or jousted? I'm asking because you mentioned both above. I've not done either. For steel longsword freeplay, we use padded gambesons and otherwise modern protective gear and fencing masks.

Have you used hewing spears much? I haven't but I'd like to mainly becaus we thrust rather than cut with our spears. There's no reason why it couldn't be done with similar cut lines as with a sword or polleaxe, even if a cut is slower than a thrust.

Are we talking about spear versus spear or spear versus something else or in combo with a large round shield ,Viking style? What lenght spear? About 6 feet or much longer?

Looking forward to some discussion with as many people as possible.
Cheers.

Well, for one we clearly aren't truly fighting. Its an approximation, and while scoring points is largely about managing good strikes without also being struck it isn't quite the same. It isn't just risks being different either, it isn't uncommon for various groups to ban certain strikes that one would outright rely on in actual combat. The SCA below knee restriction completely alters combat, particularly involving pole arms, some spear groups don't allow one handed lunges despite their utility, so on and so forth.

Also, snowcelt, there was no irritation, merely a correction of incorrect details. I've picked up enough of an academic demeanor to be a bit blunt and tactless sometimes, but this isn't a topic I'm likely to actually get emotional about, at least not without people holding on to really, really stupid claims* despite hard data stating they are wrong.

On martial arts: I have a little HEMA experience, with a local group, and lots of practice out of large scale organizations. I actually started with Thai swordfighting, in 2004 or so, and have kept that up. I picked up the spear in 2005, and by 2006 it was my favorite weapon by a long shot. I have a pretty mixed background, from HEMA to historical Chinese and historical Thai combat. That said, many of the same stances, same strikes, and same general principles appear all over the place. I haven't tried SCA per se, but have sparred with SCA members using SCA rules.

I have not fought in plate armor or jousted. However, I have seen jousting up close and personal, as I live relatively near Estes Park Colorado, which has a large annual jousting tournament. That said, I've studied the history of both of these.

I actually favor hewing spears. That said, it is important to remember that you can still thrust with hewing spears - this is critical, as you probably will be thrusting more than cutting.

On spears, I usually do two handed spear combat. That is sometimes against spears, sometimes against swords and shields, and sometimes as part of larger skirmishes. I haven't had the opportunity to be part of a large scale battle, unfortunately. As for spear dimensions, I usually use a spear anywhere from 6'6" to 8'. That said, I'm fairly tall, and used somewhat smaller spears when I was shorter.

*For instance, the people who insist that 40 pound swords and axes were in use, and continue to do so despite being shown the actual weights of actual swords.

Ok! Thanks for that. You have a very interesting hobby too! I would be wary though about making quite blunt statements when writing on the net. Whenever we say, "This is how it was, that's it. Period", we close off any possibility for further discussion, not to mention coming off as kind of rude.

I made some comments about the possibility of a spear being flexible or of having some advantages. I didn't say a flexible spear would be always better than one with a rigid shaft. Remember that even an ash spear shaft will have some flex in it. At the end of the day, I was talking about flexible not floppy. A six foot shaft that has some flex along its entire length will have a lot less in the thirds, i.e. the top, middle and butt sections. So if you use your spear two-handed, the small amout of flex in any one of these sections would still be low enough to let you beat an incoming thrust aside, close the line and make a counterthrust. Also, as spears are used primarily to thrust, the energy is directed along the long axis not across it. So even a moderate amount of flex wouldn't make a huge difference in the thrust.

I never mentioned armour but why would you try to thrust a spear through plate? It would be a daft thing to do. Obviously you would work to control the opponent's weapon and go for the weak points, face, armpits, inside elbow, palms, the seat and the backs of the legs. I guess that's one reason why the pollaxe was the preferred weapon against plate armour due to it's versatility to thrust, smash and cut with top,butt and back
spikes (bec de faucon/corbin) and an axe/hammer. if I remember correctly, jousting lances were relatively stiff but they were
designed to break on impact so as not to impart the full impact to the jouster being struck. This may have been a later development after the death of Henry the Second of France. Not much point to the sport if it's going to start bumping off the young nobility of Europe.
Finally leg strikes using a hewing or even a thrusting spear are risky as they leave your head exposed. This is the same for sword also. IMO they are a bit of a one-trick pony, you might get away with it once, you won'tget a second chance. One-handed thrusts with a long spear will allow incredible reach and they are very fast. However, to quote George Silver, "Thrusts may be set aside with te force of a child". He was referring to longsword but thrusts are easy enough to  exchange or break.

I guess it's all about context, isn't it?  :)

snowcelt wrote on Dec 13^th, 2011 at 4:02am:

I never mentioned armour but why would you try to thrust a spear through plate? It would be a daft thing to do. Obviously you would work to control the opponent's weapon and go for the weak points, face, armpits, inside elbow, palms, the seat and the backs of the legs. I guess that's one reason why the pollaxe was the preferred weapon against plate armour due to it's versatility to thrust, smash and cut with top,butt and back spikes (bec de faucon/corbin) and an axe/hammer. if I remember correctly, jousting lances were relatively stiff but they were designed to break on impact so as not to impart the full impact to the jouster being struck. This may have been a later development after the death of Henry the Second of France. Not much point to the sport if it's going to start bumping off the young nobility of Europe. I guess it's all about context, isn't it?  :)

I like you last statement, it is all about context. If you're thinking about late medieval plate at the height of it's combat use no spear would have a chance at getting through with an un-aimed thrust. Earlier versions of European plate armor weren't as robust. A quick "hail Mary" and a jab may have been enough to get through earlier plate armor if the spearman was lucky. Not that I'd expect much damage from that, but there would probably be a hole that the knight would have to work harder to protect during the rest of the battle. Stepping out of Europe, there are versions of plate-and-mail that are less well protected against thrusting weapons and were more suited to warding off saber blows, such as mirror armor. A spear thrust to plate-and-mail armor would, IMO, be a lot more effective. Although I would try and target the joints and any exposed mail if at all possible.

snowcelt wrote on Dec 13^th, 2011 at 4:02am:

Ok! Thanks for that. You have a very interesting hobby too! I would be wary though about making quite blunt statements when writing on the net. Whenever we say, "This is how it was, that's it. Period", we close off any possibility for further discussion, not to mention coming off as kind of rude. I made some comments about the possibility of a spear being flexible or of having some advantages. I didn't say a flexible spear would be always better than one with a rigid shaft. Remember that even an ash spear shaft will have some flex in it. At the end of the day, I was talking about flexible not floppy. A six foot shaft that has some flex along its entire length will have a lot less in the thirds, i.e. the top, middle and butt sections. So if you use your spear two-handed, the small amout of flex in any one of these sections would still be low enough to let you beat an incoming thrust aside, close the line and make a counterthrust. Also, as spears are used primarily to thrust, the energy is directed along the long axis not across it. So even a moderate amount of flex wouldn't make a huge difference in the thrust. I never mentioned armour but why would you try to thrust a spear through plate? It would be a daft thing to do. Obviously you would work to control the opponent's weapon and go for the weak points, face, armpits, inside elbow, palms, the seat and the backs of the legs. I guess that's one reason why the pollaxe was the preferred weapon against plate armour due to it's versatility to thrust, smash and cut with top,butt and back

Plate is relevant in jousting. However, individual plates are much older - for instance, in China lamellar is very, very old. A flexible spear will just sort of move out of the way, a stiff spear will slide some, and might actually slide up into the neck, or into the upper arm, or possibly downward into the legs.

snowcelt wrote on Dec 13^th, 2011 at 4:02am:

If I remember correctly, jousting lances were relatively stiff but they were designed to break on impact so as not to impart the full impact to the jouster being struck. This may have been a later development after the death of Henry the Second of France. Not much point to the sport if it's going to start bumping off the young nobility of Europe. Finally leg strikes using a hewing or even a thrusting spear are risky as they leave your head exposed. This is the same for sword also. IMO they are a bit of a one-trick pony, you might get away with it once, you won't get a second chance. One-handed thrusts with a long spear will allow incredible reach and they are very fast. However, to quote George Silver, "Thrusts may be set aside with te force of a child". He was referring to longsword but thrusts are easy enough to  exchange or break.

Lances shatter all over the place - to the point where modern jousting often scores based on lance breakage. They aren't very flexible however. As for one handed thrusts, they are an important option, but only one of many you want. Incredible reach, incredible speed, and just asking for a counter attack if you try them on someone when they are in a particularly stable position. As for leg shots being a one trick pony, I disagree entirely. The nice thing about spears is that when striking for the legs the back of the spear can still be used to block - moreover, you can go from a leg shot to a head shot very quickly due to the wider grip. Compared to one handed swords in particular, spears also have a shallower angle, so a leg shot represents less of a commitment, which all combines to them being very important for spear combat. They are easier to perform, don't leave your head nearly as exposed as when using most any other weapon, and on top of all that significant damage that impedes leg movement makes your reach that much harder to deal with.

Hi Masi.

I agree. The plate and maille combo's effectiveness would I imagine also depend on other factors, like whether the maille was butted, welded or riveted and what was worn underneath, i.e. a padded linen gambeson, leather surcoat, etc. Viking period maille and early Norman may have been relatively effective too, otherwise why bother wearing it? One thing we haven't discussed yet is that the spear, although devastatingly effective may not necessarily have been a fight finisher. The spear could have been used to deliver an incapacitating blow before closing and administering the coup de grace with a sword, long knife or spike (depending on period).

I looked for some spear versus maille clips on YT. I found this on which had an interesting conclusion that riveted maille backed by leather and cotton somehow better absorbed the spear tip by the rings. Ok, it's a YT clip and not definitive but interesting.

http://youtu.be/VGu4bpb4eTI

Here's a link to the spear in Mike Loades' programme "Weapons that made Britain". Watch also the episode on armour.
http://youtu.be/LsSS5D7GCCM

Then there's this gentleman. he witters on a bit but his videos are fun. He also has some points to make about maille!  :)
http://youtu.be/I-xtFXThEOc

snowcelt wrote on Dec 13^th, 2011 at 11:09am:

Hi Masi. I agree. The plate and maille combo's effectiveness would I imagine also depend on other factors, like whether the maille was butted, welded or riveted and what was worn underneath, i.e. a padded linen gambeson, leather surcoat, etc. Viking period maille and early Norman may have been relatively effective too, otherwise why bother wearing it? One thing we haven't discussed yet is that the spear, although devastatingly effective may not necessarily have been a fight finisher. The spear could have been used to deliver an incapacitating blow before closing and administering the coup de grace with a sword, long knife or spike (depending on period).

Riveted mail is basically the only historical kind. Butted makes sense for modern recreation, as it looks close enough and drastically cuts down on work. However, given how much making the rings was a pain historically (decent wire creation methods are pretty modern really), not riveting was just lazy - particularly given that armor was very important, and needed to work well. However, not everyone would be wearing mail by any stretch of the imagination - and it wouldn't necessarily cover them. A byrnie doesn't cover the face or lower legs well, both of which are major target areas anyways. Lamellar without mail tends to poorly cover limbs in general, and even a full mail hauberk probably didn't have a full face helmet until 800 AD or so. So on and so forth.

Also, as for backing, felt is surprisingly good. Basically, felt isn't woven, it is pounded - which means that arrows, which actually can puncture mail at a few angles don't slip through the weave, but instead hit a pounded tangle with minimal energy and stop. The same thing applies to a lesser degree to other weapons, but the point is, felt works better than cotton. Mail is very good stuff, and tends to stop most everything short of crossbow bolts - though you might hurt someone through it if there is enough force in the blow.

I noted, from experience, that Dark Age reenactors, for safety reasons, use spears two-handed. But I would argue, based on pictures, that in a large number of western historical contexts, spears, usually quite long (say 7 ft) were used one-handed and overarm, in conjunction with a shield. At least, that is how the Classical Greek hoplites (say 550 BC onwards) fought, the Roman auxiliary, the Viking, and Italian mediaeval militiamen

http://rovereto.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/collage-castello-avio.jpg

(h/t M. Easton, Schola Gladiatoria forum)

Presumably, the point is the killing thrust to the throat, or the disabling thrust to the thigh-- both wounds attested on vases and in literature.

Personally, I've found what was obviously a very widespread body technique surprisingly awkward and difficult-- spear gets knocked out of the way  

I like underarm better than the ridiculous overarm method,  probably used to inspire a sense of unity and cohesion but its very unwieldy to say the least  ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klOc9C-aPr4

One of the Zulu kings, Chaka or Cetswayo (spelling?) decided to find out whether the short or long spear was superior in combat. So he had an equal number of young warriors armed with each and had them battle it out. To the death. The short spears won. In one of those Zulu movies they show them, used underhand, much like the Roman gladius in conjunction with those long, narrow shields.

(Anyhow, that's the way I read it. I can't vouch for its historical accuracy.)

Thearos wrote on Dec 28^th, 2011 at 2:53pm:

Presumably, the point is the killing thrust to the throat, or the disabling thrust to the thigh-- both wounds attested on vases and in literature. Personally, I've found what was obviously a very widespread body technique surprisingly awkward and difficult-- spear gets knocked out of the way

I agree with anything Thearos wrote - we have examples of this habit from at least the VIth Century b.C. in my Region - and would like to add my supposition: perhaps the spear was used two-handed when it has to be used defensively, for example to stop a cavalry charge?
Greetings,
Mauro.

Most kind, though I think you mean "everything", not "anything".

In the meantime:

http://flavianomega.tripod.com/spartan/spartanvscavalry.jpg

-- one-handed underhand (held close to the spearbutt), against cav.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-xtFXThEOc&feature=relmfu

Lindybeige arguing that you can't trust ancient Greek vases as a visual source. I disagree. Why would those buying the vases, in a society where lots of men have experience of fighting, accept a completely fanciful representation. ? In addition, the Chigi Olpe is very clear on this, and the whole point of the representation is that overarm is used consistently in formation.

http://www.archeoguida.it/005128_ceramica-greca-tabella-degli-stili.html

(scroll down)

Yes, I meant "everything"  :)

I usually tend to trust most of ancient resources, even if I found a pleasant hobby to spend some time trying either to decipher them or make different suppositions about their common interpretation.
For example, could it be that the overarm style depicted in vases and frescos represent the warriors wielding javelins in the very last moment before throwing them? It could be, even if I find your view more plausible for a number of reasons.

Meanwhile, I've found some pictures of the Picenian culture (I know I'm repetitive, but it's the only age that I've studied more deeply than I was usually asked for at the university - so I have plenty of pictures for share  :D ), and these shows both ways to use a spear:

http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc428/MauroFiorentini/domenica19ottobrematelicamostradeipiceni009.jpg
http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc428/MauroFiorentini/domenica19ottobrematelicamostradeipiceni008.jpg
overarm style adopted by warriors in this VIIth Century b.C. vase - note that each spearman had 2 spears: maybe because he had to thrown them, or maybe because he had a reserve one in case the first was no more of use (for example, he broke the first one)?;

http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc428/MauroFiorentini/BronzettiperarmaturePicene01.jpg
http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc428/MauroFiorentini/BronzettiperarmaturePicene00.jpg
"Attacking Mars", typical votive VIth Century bronze figures. They do not wield any weapon, but since they've got armour and helm we know they are Mars, and Mars always wield a spear. If they were naked (as the biggest one is), they would have been Hercules, and Hercules has an olive club. If they were females, and withouth the cuirass, they would have been Diana, the hunting goddess, usually armed with a bow or a spear as well.

http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc428/MauroFiorentini/PC290001.jpg
http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc428/MauroFiorentini/PC290023.jpg
Two VIth Century steles, the first one depicting a battle and, lower, a hunting moment. Most warriors in the battle are using a spear, one has an axe and another a sword. At least two spearmen are using their weapon with two hands. Note that some archaeologists have argued about these actually being spears, they tend to view them as another Greek weapons, which I don't remember - I personally disagree with this view. The second stele is missing the whole left half, so we can't understand who is the horseman fighting. His spear has been engraved with a softer touch, so it's hard to recognize, but it is to be found near the base of the horse's neck.

Hope it helps!
Greetings,
Mauro.

Thearos wrote on Dec 28^th, 2011 at 2:53pm:

I noted, from experience, that Dark Age reenactors, for safety reasons, use spears two-handed. But I would argue, based on pictures, that in a large number of western historical contexts, spears, usually quite long (say 7 ft) were used one-handed and overarm, in conjunction with a shield. At least, that is how the Classical Greek hoplites (say 550 BC onwards) fought, the Roman auxiliary, the Viking, and Italian mediaeval militiamen.

That's standard for formation fighting, and works quite well. However, it consistently doesn't show up in individual combat, because you are better off dropping the shield and grabbing the spear if you are fighting anything other than an archer, javelin thrower, slinger, or similar.

As far as overhand being weak and awkward, could that be in part because today the re enactors don't practice for several hours at a time at least two or three times per week with practice weapons that are weighted to weigh more than the actual weapon?  The Greeks and Romans both practiced with weapons that were heavier than the actual weapons, specifically to build muscles and strengthen the wrist, forearm and shoulder.

For what concerns me, and my activity of historical archery, what Bill wrote is absolutely true.
Our bows, which have been carefully built, have powers that vary from a minimum of 25 to a maximum of 65 pound.
The most powerful of them has been able to throw a "historical" arrow to the maximum distance of 180 meters (about 590 feet), while others have sent the same arrow from a minimum of 120 to a maximum of 160 meters.
The difference between our Mongolian replica, which sent the arrow 160 meters far, and the Yesunigge (Gengis Khan brother) one, which is said to have thrown an arrow about 536 meters away, demonstrate the limits of our experiments.
Even if we are quite good archers (when throwing at a fixed target at a maximum of 40, 50 meters), we would have been under the fire of any Medieval (or earlier) archer long before we could get close enough to throw an arrow to them: we train regularly, but evidently not as thorougly as they did.
Greetings,
Mauro.

Knaight wrote on Dec 29^th, 2011 at 11:04am:

Thearos wrote on Dec 28th, 2011 at 2:53pm: I noted, from experience, that Dark Age reenactors, for safety reasons, use spears two-handed. But I would argue, based on pictures, that in a large number of western historical contexts, spears, usually quite long (say 7 ft) were used one-handed and overarm, in conjunction with a shield. At least, that is how the Classical Greek hoplites (say 550 BC onwards) fought, the Roman auxiliary, the Viking, and Italian mediaeval militiamen. That's standard for formation fighting, and works quite well. However, it consistently doesn't show up in individual combat, because you are better off dropping the shield and grabbing the spear if you are fighting anything other than an archer, javelin thrower, slinger, or similar.

Not sure I understand this.

In Greek vases at least, single fighters do fight quite a lot with spear overhand-- and it's also well attested in e.g. Italic art-- the Piceni which Mauro knows about, also other "middle Italian" reliefs of guys fighting with long shields.

In close fight, I am better off doing what, exactly ? Why would I drop the shield ? I can understand dropping the *spear once you close-- and draw your sword.

Thearos wrote on Dec 29^th, 2011 at 3:40pm:

In close fight, I am better off doing what, exactly ? Why would I drop the shield ? I can understand dropping the *spear once you close-- and draw your sword.

Used in two hands, a spear is far faster, far more versatile, has some use as a lever, and is in general a very useful weapon. That's usually less useful than a shield wall, though pike blocks have been in use for some time (Japan and China have been using them for far longer than Europe. China at least has used them at least two and a half thousand years ago, although they also used spear and shield formations concurrently). Moreover, there are a lot of military texts showing how to use even short spears in two hands, for use outside of formation. Some of these are ancient - again, one sees this in China fairly early on, though that probably has more to do with widespread paper making and fairly early printing than anything else - and some are more recent, such as the renaissance texts, many of which include sections on polearm use.

yeppp,  two-handed spear fighting is faster and more powerful;  you can parry and attack,  fight multiple opponents(if you're skilled enough)yeah...but I like Roman and Greek style shields soo I like some protection from javelins and other such missiles  ;).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7h6P53T8tU

Interesting that in the Graeco-roman world, there is, so to speak, no polearm fighting (there is one mentioned in Plato's Laches, but as a curiosity, and for naval warfare). Two-handed spears are used only for hunting; or in the very specialized form of pikes.

I agree with Little: these are fighting environments which really privilege the shield. The Greek for "deserter, runner-away" is "shield-dropper"; skeletons of fighting men show very developed muscles on the left arm.

Thearos wrote on Dec 30^th, 2011 at 4:20am:

I agree with Little: these are fighting environments which really privilege the shield. The Greek for "deserter, runner-away" is "shield-dropper"; skeletons of fighting men show very developed muscles on the left arm.

Greece and Macedonia developed most of the forms of the phalanx, which is basically contingent upon use of the hoplon or a similar shield. The phalanx was the single most effective formation for quite some time, and is arguably significantly better than the Roman manipole that mostly replaced it as long as you are fighting on fairly flat, continuous ground. It's not just that they privilege the shield, it's that the shield is what allowed the core of their armies to work.

Well, I think now we can say almost for sure that spear fighting depends on a relevant number of factors:
the concept of "army" adopted by this or that culture, the battle ground, the kind of war adopted in a certain context, and so on....

Just look at some ancient spearheads: we have short ones (around 15, 20 centimeters), medium ones (30, 35) and huge ones (even 60 centimeters, like a sword!) - I think they have been built from different use  :)

Greetings,
Mauro.

Mauro Fiorentini wrote on Dec 30^th, 2011 at 7:13am:

Just look at some ancient spearheads: we have short ones (around 15, 20 centimeters), medium ones (30, 35) and huge ones (even 60 centimeters, like a sword!) - I think they have been built from different use  :)

Different use is part of it. Part of it is also metallurgy, variants in forging technology, resources, and similar. Bigger spear heads use more metal, are more difficult to produce on the baseline (where the baseline basically comes down to being sharp and not breaking), and a whole host of other reasons. Still, length of the spear head - and for that matter, variance in length of the spear shaft - have fairly immense effect on how one ends up fighting.

Yes, of course - I was assuming that all kind of spear heads I mentioned were produced by the same smith  ;)
Greetings,
Mauro.

Mauro, you place more faith in the accuracy of ancient writings than I do. Were the people in the old days more honest than we are now? I think not. People lie now and they lied back then. The fact that current measured distances are less than ancient claims can be attributed to exaggeration or wishful thinking in my opinion. And who is going to call Genghis Khan's brother a liar? Someone with a death wish?

The Turks recorded similar distances with the same type of composite bow.  However, they used extremely heavy draw weight bows, super light arrows and a siper, which is an arrow rest that sits on the forearm and they drew those bows past their shoulder.  The set up was pretty much totally usless for anything else other than shooting specialized arrows really far.  

Thom, your thinking is also mine, in fact I wrote that "is said to have trown at 536 meters".
Even if I'm prone to accept that an exceptional bowman, armed with an exceptional bow and an equally exceptional arrow, could reach such a distance, I also think that this result would be an unicuum.
Experimental archaeology's purpose is this: to confirm or deny some suppositions, or to create completely new ones.
We have proven that a 65 pound English longbow can thrown a 26'' arrow (with goose low and long feather and iron bodkin arrowhead) at a maximum distance of 180 meters, which is not so far than the distance these bows were said to reach.
But it's not that distance, and this means either that the tradition is wrong, or, more probably in my opinion, that we are 1) not as trained as a Medieval professional archer, and/or 2) using a longbow not as powerful as the ancient ones.
The most beautiful thing is that we have to keep shooting arrows, which mean a surplus of fun  :D
Greetings,
Mauro.

HurlinThom wrote on Dec 30^th, 2011 at 11:52am:

Mauro, you place more faith in the accuracy of ancient writings than I do. Were the people in the old days more honest than we are now? I think not. People lie now and they lied back then. The fact that current measured distances are less than ancient claims can be attributed to exaggeration or wishful thinking in my opinion. And who is going to call Genghis Khan's brother a liar? Someone with a death wish?

On top of that, ancient units of measurement tend to be inconsistent at best. Even if they are exact, they have a tendency to be revised without being renamed, and to do so in a fashion that is somewhat less than an instantaneous shift. The cubit is by far the most famous of these, at least in the west, but it is by no means the only one. China, for instance, can't go through a minor governmental reform without changing every unit of distance (and don't even get me started on the utter mess that was the Warring States period, and the later similar mess in the Three Kingdoms period).

There's a big difference in technique between using the spear as an individual weapon, as the Japanese did, and using it as a military-formation weapon with the shields as did the Greeks, Vikings, and sundry others.
Regarding ancient archery....Beg, borrow, or buy a copy of The Gray Goose Wing, a fine history of archery.
The Turks held ALL "flight" records for a very long time, using their complex composite/recurve bows and nearly-non-existent arrows.  
English longbows threw heavy, destructive arrows intended for use against armored foes...Not for long-distance.

This is also true, that's why we're working on building a lighter arrow - it will be made with cane, very light iron arrowhead, light wood for its back, light glue and so on... the challenge between English longbow and Mongolian composite is on the way  :)
Greetings,
Mauro.

For unarmored infantry composite wins hands down. In 1798 a turkish composite bow was said to shoot 972 yards! (That's the record btw) If you shot a turkish flight arrow at english armor it would probably just bounce off with ver little damage done at all If the english longbowmen could actually manage to get in range and hit the extremely mobile hores archers they probably wouldn't last the battle.

However the main factor to be considered here is terrain and purpose both weapons worked supremely well for their designed purpose and enemy and that I can say with all confidence.

Anyway going back to spears I would think your tactics would vary due envirement and training. Most likely if deployed in mass infantry it would be a darn good idea to have a shelid to defend against peltist. However when using small unit tactics or 1 on 1 you would be more moible, faster, and more effective with both hands on the spear  

Back to spears, a couple of years back I went to a local reenactment get together where many periods were represented and there was one Celtic group that demonstrated at least their interpretation of spear use. They lined up a bunch of warriors together shoulder to shoulder with shields locked and used the spears overhand (no other way would have been practical in this formation).

One of the ways long spears were used in formation was for the first row to thrust under their shield wall with short swords aiming for their enemies' shins while the second row supported them buy using their spears overhand and thrusting down with the hopes of catching their enemies in the spot between their helmets and their chest pieces.

Masiakasaurus wrote on Dec 31^st, 2011 at 11:39am:

One of the ways long spears were used in formation was for the first row to thrust under their shield wall with short swords aiming for their enemies' shins while the second row supported them buy using their spears overhand and thrusting down with the hopes of catching their enemies in the spot between their helmets and their chest pieces.

I've never heard of that before. Where did you get that information from ?

How would that have worked ? Can't visualize it.

From what I was told, it was a short lived tactic used by Macedonians as they transitioned from using sarissa based phalanxes to a more flexible system based on the roman gladius. It was explained to me by a history professor as being a standard macedonian phalanx, save for the first row of infantry abandoning their sarissa and using short swords underneath their shields. I was told that it was developed as a reaction to being flanked by roman legionarii shortly before the phalanx was abandoned in favor of the legion. Then men in the front and on the sides of the phalanx were more flexible than those in the center holding sarassae, and could turn more quickly to face a threat from a new direction to keep the formation from breaking before any of the spearmen had a chance to turn.

Thanks, Masi. Good catch, and good recall of details-- if I'm not mistaken, what your prof. was referring to is the "infantry reform of the 160s" which Nick Sekunda has been talking about--  in the Ptolemaic and the Seleukid armies, where guys appear with swords and long shields (which after all had been present in Hellenistic armies).

I'm not sure, though, that shield-and-sword guys were integrated within the phalanx, as opposed to serving in different units (e.g. alongside elephants). Anyways, this is presumably the type of army that fought e.g. against the Jewish rebels in the late 160s and 150s etc BC (i.e. the Maccabees-- hat tip to any Hannukah-celebrating slinger.org members).

Another reason to stab overhand, if you are in a formation and your spear is held underhand, your spear butt will be low and dragging.  The following ranks can trip on it, accidently kick your point out of line, step on it and strip it out of your hand, plus, the following ranks , if they want to deploy to a flank, has to back up to prevet fouling on the length that is sticking out behind the leading rank.  Overhand is very practicle if you are fighting in a formation, even a loose formation simply to prevent the following rank from fouling the leading ranks, as far as individual combat, in a high stress situation, you will always fall back on what you have practiced.  And if you spend many hours practicing formation combat, you will simply have spent many hours practicing overhand fighting.

Bill Skinner wrote on Dec 31^st, 2011 at 1:26pm:

Another reason to stab overhand, if you are in a formation and your spear is held underhand, your spear butt will be low and dragging.  The following ranks can trip on it, accidently kick your point out of line, step on it and strip it out of your hand, plus, the following ranks , if they want to deploy to a flank, has to back up to prevet fouling on the length that is sticking out behind the leading rank.  Overhand is very practicle if you are fighting in a formation, even a loose formation simply to prevent the following rank from fouling the leading ranks, as far as individual combat, in a high stress situation, you will always fall back on what you have practiced.  And if you spend many hours practicing formation combat, you will simply have spent many hours practicing overhand fighting.

I like that

never used a spear, and i haven't gotten around to reading classical texts on spear usage...yet.

however, if i was going to use a medium length spear, something around 6ft, i would go overhand assuming i wasn't in a formation. it feels much more natural. however, if i was in a formation i might go and smack the person behind me's head when preparing to stab. plus since one on one/dueling means more maneuvering space i would probably go for larger thrusts that would require the muscles used in overhand (assuming if i didn't get killed within 5 seconds).

if i was in a formation i would go for underhand. i won't have much space for overhand, plus since i'll be neck to neck with other people and working together it would be much more efficient to go underhand and use jabs. plus holding a long pike overhand sounds extremely tiring- more tiring than holding underhand that's for sure.

i've also heard of an anti calvary technique where to turn back a calvary charge, a loose formation of infantry would jam the butt's of the spear onto the ground and have the points in a row where the horse's torso would be. i recall them having a line of infantry standing in front of the spear men with the spear shafts around them. their shields would be locked and swords ready. if the spears didn't turn back the horses, then the swordsmen could take them out.  

/endrambling

Spears against cav-- on late C5th vase. Commented e.g. in H. Sidebottom, Very Short introduction to ancient warfare; or N. Sekunda, Ancient Greeks (Osprey Elite-- an astonishing book).


http://flavianomega.tripod.com/spartan/spartanvscavalry.jpg

For light infantry against heavy armored calvary, underhand where you spport the butt of the spear in the ground is undoublty the best option. Like @ 3:30 in this vid  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3H-Sx1Y6Cg&feature=related


For me preference between overhand and underhand is based on factors like enviroment, if I have one or 2 hands on the spear, tactics, mass infantry or small unit, length of spear, etc.

For small unit "spread out" fighting I'd probably use both depending on whatever opening the opponent gave me.

Anybody know which the Spartans prefered?

Spartans ?-- I'd say

In formation, against infantry: overhand, almost certainly.

In loose formation, for instance when pursuing light infantry, or in running street fighting: who knows.

In any case, what the Spartans (Spartiate elite) are good at is formation manoeuvers; the particular biomechanics of phalanx fighting are presumably the same for any hoplite.

here's a quick pic from the bayueax tapestry on the norman invasion. i found it from wikipedia.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Normans_Bayeux.jpg

the guys here are taking on calvary with overhand spears. not sure how accurate this would be, as the tapestry was made after the campaign.

It seems to me to remember that some sources say that the warriors under shields used javelins; while it is important to see how the mounted units uses overhand spears: the medieval technique of wielding the spear under the arm is still to come, and will bring higher saddles and different armours with it!
Greetings,
Mauro.

xxkid123 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2012 at 2:31pm:

here's a quick pic from the bayueax tapestry on the norman invasion. i found it from wikipedia. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Normans_Bayeux.jpg the guys here are taking on calvary with overhand spears. not sure how accurate this would be, as the tapestry was made after the campaign.

Dude I just saw that pic in my text book and was gonna post about it! Once again the artist rendition is almost always inaccurate, but the spears in this pic look way lighter and shorter than the lances that you pretty much have to use underarm. Maybe they are javelines? It might be the kinda of thing where you stick the first line of infantry with your spear and leave it there and just use your sword for the rest of the battle.

Bill Skinner wrote on Dec 31^st, 2011 at 1:26pm:

Another reason to stab overhand, if you are in a formation and your spear is held underhand, your spear butt will be low and dragging.  The following ranks can trip on it, accidently kick your point out of line, step on it and strip it out of your hand, plus, the following ranks , if they want to deploy to a flank, has to back up to prevet fouling on the length that is sticking out behind the leading rank.  Overhand is very practicle if you are fighting in a formation, even a loose formation simply to prevent the following rank from fouling the leading ranks, as far as individual combat, in a high stress situation, you will always fall back on what you have practiced.  And if you spend many hours practicing formation combat, you will simply have spent many hours practicing overhand fighting.

Underhand does not mean low to the ground. One can use an underhand grip well over a shield, and in doing so that prevents tripping, kicking, and stepping. I actually think the video linked has more credibility than it is being given, though it is deeply flawed for several reasons. One of the counter arguments given is that the Greeks wouldn't tolerate inaccurate portrayal of combat due to the amount of war they were involved in. However, we see Greek sources showing inaccurate portrayals all the time - we've got the Illiad, for one, which is basically a gigantic pile of impossible martial feats. Plus, as was mentioned in the video there were inaccurate portrayals on the vases, in that the figures were all nude. I certainly wouldn't count overhand out - there is the Bayeaux tapestry, there are sculptures, so on and so forth - but underhand is also very possible.

Plus, even if the spears are low to the ground, underhanded use lets you grip very near the end, and as such there simply isn't enough past your hand to get tangled.

There are guys who like to dress up as hoplites. Is there any data from what it's like to fight in formation as hoplites e.g. 8 or 16 deep, in blocks of say 800 or 2000 (perfectly normal for hoplite battles) ? E.g. how to guys in row six hold their spear ? How do guys in row 3 bring their spear to bear ? (to "incline your spear" as the Greek has it: J K. Anderson or J. Lazenby have written on this).

There is a view that the front line might have been a lot less hard-pressed than usually said (the "heretical" view, put forward e.g. by G. Cawkwell or Hans van Wees, as opposed the train-wreck style of battle favoured by Victor Hanson).

The Boiotian stelai of late C4th and early C4th do show hoplites, alone, with spear in some kind of underhand / sidehand.

The Normans galloped up and then threw their spears, they did this for several hours without much effect on the shield wall.  They had to bring up archers to inflict causaulties to weaken the shield wall and cause gaps before the mounted knights could finally force their way in to kill the already wounded, from an arrow, Saxon king.  

The men on the ground would have been stabbing underhand, upward at the mounted Norman knights, the Normans would have been stabbing overhand, downward at the English foot.

Which only shows that both were used, in an actual fight.

 The Greek vases could have shown more overhand style  than underhand because when you show the overhand style, you get to show the manly chests of the fighters.  And, as a lot of the vases were commissioned by the winners of the fights, they wanted to look glorious, instead of dirty, sweaty, and scared which they actually were at the time.    

Bill Skinner wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2012 at 1:38pm:

And, as a lot of the vases were commissioned by the winners of the fights, they wanted to look glorious, instead of dirty, sweaty, and scared which they actually were at the time.

Just an aside:

We don't actually know a lot about who commissioned vases-- some seem to have been made specifically for the Etruscan market , some perhaps as special commissions, but most are nearly mass produced, with specialization of labour; fighting is actually not that common (and most of it is myth). Most vases were not commissioned by victorious warriors as portraits or commemmoration. A great deal of stuff is produced specifically for the social consumption of wine, hence the representation of drinking, myth, deities.  

It does seem clear (from prices scratched on the bottom) that Greek painted pottery was not very expensive.

Rats, another great theory shot down.

How long, on average, were the hoplite spears?

The dory was between 2-3 meters (6-10 feet), and the sarissa was usually between 4-7 meters (13-21 feet). Longer sarissa were experimented with, but weren't common.

Bill Skinner wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2012 at 7:15pm:

Rats, another great theory shot down. How long, on average, were the hoplite spears?

No I was just being pedantic: you could say that vases etc are made for consumption in the aristocratic or semi-aristocratic drinking party, and hence women are shown as either submissive or wild fantasies, and warrior men all have smooth pecs, shown off to great effect by the overhand pose: like nakedness, the aesthetics point of male body being displayed is actually pretty interesting IMHO

So, if holding at the balance point, which will be slightly past the middle of the spear as the point is larger and heavier than the butt spike, quite a bit will be behind the hoplite, forcing the rear ranks to back off that distance plus some amount for the leading ranks to draw their arm back.  All the old drawings and paintings show the ranks to be fairly close order, overhead is starting to look a lot more practicle, at least for the shorter spear in the leading ranks.  The longer lances or pikes would have to be used pretty much underhand, using the armpit to stabilize the length.

That point about point of balance seems absolutely crucial to me. I do wonder where it is: Nick Sekunda (again) in his Ospreybook on hoplites, claims that the staves were thicker at the back end than the front. Also, the relative weight of point to buttspike is unclear to me.

Do the guys who reconstruct hoplite spears have hard data on this ? I'd like to know, because this would affect any reconstructed "spear simulator" to be used in hoplite style sparring (with e.g. fencing masks to avoid injury).

Thearos wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 2:05pm:

That point about point of balance seems absolutely crucial to me. I do wonder where it is: Nick Sekunda (again) in his Ospreybook on hoplites, claims that the staves were thicker at the back end than the front.

Well, yes. Tapering is basically inevitable given the construction methods, and while you can remove it there really isn't any point in doing so.

Knaight wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 5:46pm:

Thearos wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 2:05pm: That point about point of balance seems absolutely crucial to me. I do wonder where it is: Nick Sekunda (again) in his Ospreybook on hoplites, claims that the staves were thicker at the back end than the front. Well, yes. Tapering is basically inevitable given the construction methods, and while you can remove it there really isn't any point in doing so.

The mode of construction is, of course, using a sharp "stave-shaver" to whittle a pole into smoothness. The pole is, presumably, a shoot, preferably of ash, from a pollarded tree, so, yes, you're right, it must be tapered, slightly. But how to know which end goes front ? By comparing the diameter of spearhead sockets to buttspike sockets ?

A Greek buttspike is a pretty massive affair-- in the attached picture, note that one has been specially weighted, to modify or improve balance (from dedications found on the Akropolis.

---

Why don't they show the point that goes with the butt spike?  For that matter, how long was the wood part between the point and the butt on the spear?  That would have a lot of bearing on how it was used, if the weighted spike was on a short spear with a small head, it would change the balance point way back to the rear of the spear, if it were on a short spear with a large heavy point, the balance would be more central and so on...and the balance point would change how it could be used in a fight and whether or not it could be used overhand or underhand.

Don't forget the large hoplite shield, with it up in the guard position, it covers the upper body but you have to stab around it, underhand works for hitting your opponent in the lower leg, but now you have to get up past his shield to get to his face or head, which has a metal helmet on it.  Stabbing overhand will let you come over the top of his shield into his upper body, which has armor made of linen.  When you stab, even if the point doesn't penetrate, you can still break ribs or a collar bone which will win the fight for the breaker.

I can think of the following reasons:

- these were found (I assume) in the late C19th excavations on the Athenian Akropolis, so I doubt that the excavation techniques were careful enough to associate buttspikes with spearheads

-in any case, the material might already have been disturbed in antiquity, especially since a lot of what was found was basically the archaic and early classical material, i.e. the considerable debris from sack of the Akropolis in 480 BC by the Persians, which were then buried by the reorganization and rebuilding process

--the spearheads, made of iron, won't have survived as well as the bronze buttspikes.

From the vase paintings, and surviving spear heads, i suppose it's a longish 2m+ shaft, with usually a smallish iron leaf-shaped point (will fit in your palm).  

Actual tactics wise, assuming I had a wicker shield lke the persians, if the spear was held low and underhand I could probabley just puch it down with my shield and counter with my sword before the spatan had a chance to counter with his sword in the tight ranks (Not really easy to draw a sword without cutting the guy next to you when you are only a foot or so appart). Now granted if the shafts were 15ft long it would be much harder. But with overhand you would have much better control and cause you are over the top of the shields and much better range of motion so while the Persian is trying to get inside the spear range you have 2-4 spartans with their spears in your face.

If I rember the spartans did have normal length spears fit for CQB if needed.

Dan wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 9:13am:

Actual tactics wise, assuming I had a wicker shield lke the persians, if the spear was held low and underhand I could probabley just puch it down with my shield and counter with my sword before the spatan had a chance to counter with his sword in the tight ranks (Not really easy to draw a sword without cutting the guy next to you when you are only a foot or so appart). Now granted if the shafts were 15ft long it would be much harder. But with overhand you would have much better control and cause you are over the top of the shields and much better range of motion so while the Persian is trying to get inside the spear range you have 2-4 spartans with their spears in your face.

Again, underhand-high is being overlooked. Underhand low is pretty much a terrible style for tight formation fighting with a shield - it might work in loose formation fighting with a shield, and it does work for two handed use (as seen in much of what is now eastern Asia. China had this as well as formations with shields, Manchuria (Korea) used a similar mix with different proportions, Japan used this exclusively and mostly avoided shields in general), where you look at the back hand - the front is highly variable. Underhand high also works with two handed use, but it's really something one uses for a few specific strikes and little else, with underhand low being more or less the default. That does oversimplify some.

Here's an example of the underhand stab, well protected by shield (Greek hoplite stabbing a Persian)

---

Looks like a scythian..and seems like he has a bronze sword,but i'm no expert..

Presumably a member of the Persian army, at any rate: the Greeks never quite got the various headgear right. This guy has the big chopper attested for other units of the Persian army, and, interestingly, wears the composite ("linen") cuirass which Greeks also wore.

Underarm allows you to aim for the groin.

Okay I might prefer to use underhand if it was just one line of infatry and if I had a cool sheild designed for holding next to a spear like the ones in Troy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpLtXIlkyYA

But even then it would disrupt the lnking of the sheilds a little bit. Also in troy in a later battle scene that actual soldiers of Troy have roman style shelids with notches cut into them where the spear goes so you you could still lnk the shelids together and impalet the incoming force more comfortably.  ;)

If the Persian had a big shield like the Greek, that thrust would have been easily blocked, look how much of the hoplites' body is covered  by his shield.  

Hi people!
I've just found a recent book about warfare in Etruscan culture written by a Florence archaeologist; a whole chapter is about spear fighting, with results achieved with experimental archaeology and evidences analysis (pottery, written sources and so on).
The text is in Italian, but if some of you is interested, I may try to translate the chapter.
This would not be strictly legal, so for major safety I'd send the translation to those interested rather than making it downloadable from my page at academia.edu.
Let me know, it's very interesting!
Greetings,
Mauro.

For this thread, a brief overview would be acceptable and quite welcome.  There is nothing like throwing a few facts into this thread to keep it interesting.  There are several re enactors, SCA, various martial arts fighters and lots of history buffs following this.

Ok then I'll begin translation soon - a pity there are many nice pictures and the file is a pdf, but perhaps I'll manage to extract them!
Greetings,
Mauro.

Summarizing what is in there, as well as indication of the sources is entirely legal.

Wow. This thread really took off! :o

I'd like to know the weight and point of balance of a hoplite spear. Will look at Nick Sekunda's Greek Hoplite (Osprey Elite ??) book.

In the meantime, lazy googling throws up a very recent book:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NK5H2Pv7IjEC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=point+of+balance+hoplite+spear&source=bl&ots=oE12Oi4lGZ&sig=chkcPtJbr65BQkVGFY8PWphb8Ac&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5CMPT4PsCoXC8gPowp3NAw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=point%20of%20balance%20hoplite%20spear&f=false

putting the grip at the point of balance (maybe), perhaps closer to butt than point (say 1/3 down the shaft from the butt).

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OBsUFB0ZLJYC&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=point+of+balance+hoplite+spear&source=bl&ots=riNQuk6CRo&sig=MvnLUxlwAMjO4ZlMgr38TjmugSY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oiQPT7O3NMaC2wXxiY29Ag&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=point%20of%20balance%20hoplite%20spear&f=false

Thearos wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 1:20pm:

I'd like to know the weight and point of balance of a hoplite spear. Will look at Nick Sekunda's Greek Hoplite (Osprey Elite ??) book. In the meantime, lazy googling throws up a very recent book: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NK5H2Pv7IjEC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=point+of+balance+hoplite+spear&source=bl&ots=oE12Oi4lGZ&sig=chkcPtJbr65BQkVGFY8PWphb8Ac&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5CMPT4PsCoXC8gPowp3NAw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=point%20of%20balance%20hoplite%20spear&f=false putting the grip at the point of balance (maybe), perhaps closer to butt than point (say 1/3 down the shaft from the butt).

From my extensive reading of the book (looking at the picture on the cover  :P ) it looks like a combonation of overhand and underhand. Idealy they would use overhand to stay in a tighter formation, however if they needed to push the guy back further and get more distance, they would bring the spear around the side and thrust forward with more reach. They would proably start overhand but I would imagine facing a 10s of thousands of persians it would probably be rpetty crazy and if your arm got tired after taking down a few hundred persians and your unit starts splitting up a little bit you would probably use underhand as well. Just my 2cents.

here's a picture at the top of this page: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NK5H2Pv7IjEC&pg=PA34&dq=Herodotus+sets+the+orders+of+battle+at+the+beginning+of+the+long+middle+phase&hl=en&sa=X&ei=p3APT9HeMfTXiQKLhJmyDQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Herodotus%20sets%20the%20orders%20of%20battle%20at%20the%20beginning%20of%20the%20long%20middle%20phase&f=false

one of them is stabbing in an underhand grip, another seems to be off balance or retreating the the spear held overhand

xxkid123 wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 6:48pm:

here's a picture at the top of this page: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NK5H2Pv7IjEC&pg=PA34&dq=Herodotus+sets+the+orders+of+battle+at+the+beginning+of+the+long+middle+phase&hl=en&sa=X&ei=p3APT9HeMfTXiQKLhJmyDQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Herodotus%20sets%20the%20orders%20of%20battle%20at%20the%20beginning%20of%20the%20long%20middle%20phase&f=false one of them is stabbing in an underhand grip, another seems to be off balance or retreating the the spear held overhand

Achilles on the right, victorious and pressing; Hector staggers, already spuring blood from a wound.

A pike is still a spear, and this is a rather good demo of pikes, I think.  Underhand armor, no shield.  Back then I would prefer not to join the pike men, if I could choose.  The real fun begin at apprx 0,45 sec http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26C758K4Fc0&feature=related.  
This is some relevant input from Lloyd http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbhANeJL_T4
In my little spear vs sword boffer fight experience underhand has been necessary to at least having a chance against the aword.
timann

timann wrote on Jan 15^th, 2012 at 1:42pm:

In my little spear vs sword boffer fight experience underhand has been necessary to at least having a chance against the aword. timann

Was this formation fighting? As I understand it boffer usually avoids formation, and what works in formation is completely different from what works out of formation.

Knaight wrote on Jan 15^th, 2012 at 5:12pm:

timann wrote on Jan 15th, 2012 at 1:42pm: In my little spear vs sword boffer fight experience underhand has been necessary to at least having a chance against the aword. timann Was this formation fighting? As I understand it boffer usually avoids formation, and what works in formation is completely different from what works out of formation.

It was one spear agaist one sword, not formation.

timann wrote on Jan 16^th, 2012 at 11:09am:

Knaight wrote on Jan 15th, 2012 at 5:12pm: timann wrote on Jan 15th, 2012 at 1:42pm: In my little spear vs sword boffer fight experience underhand has been necessary to at least having a chance against the aword. timann Was this formation fighting? As I understand it boffer usually avoids formation, and what works in formation is completely different from what works out of formation. It was one spear agaist one sword, not formation.

Overhand is absolutely terrible under those circumstances. Underhand two handed is highly effective.

Hey!
I had to quit my translation for some days, but now I'm back and will continue the work!  :)
Greetings,
Mauro.

Probably stating the obvious here but I don't really understand why this has become an "overhand" versus "underhand" debate. Surely both were used although one or other would be preferred depending on the circumstance. Both have advantages and disadvantages. I've seen historic manuals for single combat which show both underhand and overhand guards (two-handed-no shield scenario). There is no overall "best" or right, only an optimum for a given situation. We can re-enact all we like, if we are not actively trying to kill our opponents either in single combat or in formation, short of time travel, although we have clues from vases, manuals, art, etc.,we will never really know. Combat for "points" just isn't the same.

As an aside, re-enactors in northen Europe are not allowed to use the underhand grip in formation due to an unfortunate accident where a member in the opposing group got a spear through the throat because the second line in the formation trapped the butt and the victim was pushed onto the point. What did this prove exactly? Not a lot, the person was very unlucky. If though this was used as "evidence" that an overhand grip is "superior" and was "always" used in formation fighting, it ignores other historical  evidence which shows exactly the opposite. With a shield, both grips can readily be used, with your your thumb toward the spear head, it simply involves lifting or dropping your arm. Changing the grip direction should be natural for a spearman. Also, formation fighting in a shield wall or not, you'd need to be ready to thrust to any available opening.

snowcelt wrote on Jan 19^th, 2012 at 9:21am:

a member in the opposing group got a spear through the throat because the second line in the formation trapped the butt and the victim was pushed onto the point. What did this prove exactly? If though this was used as "evidence" that an overhand grip is "superior" and was "always" used in formation fighting, it ignores other historical  evidence which shows exactly the opposite.

To me, this accident show too well that underhand grip is deadly enough, since it can kill the other even without you meaning it.

The only thing I can add to the spear subject is :
I would prefer be far away and sling my stones to the spearmen than be close, even with a shield and sword or another spear :p

snowcelt wrote on Jan 19^th, 2012 at 9:21am:

Probably stating the obvious here but I don't really understand why this has become an "overhand" versus "underhand" debate. Surely both were used although one or other would be preferred depending on the circumstance. Both have advantages and disadvantages. I've seen historic manuals for single combat which show both underhand and overhand guards (two-handed-no shield scenario). There is no overall "best" or right, only an optimum for a given situation. We can re-enact all we like, if we are not actively trying to kill our opponents either in single combat or in formation, short of time travel, although we have clues from vases, manuals, art, etc.,we will never really know. Combat for "points" just isn't the same. As an aside, re-enactors in northen Europe are not allowed to use the underhand grip in formation due to an unfortunate accident where a member in the opposing group got a spear through the throat because the second line in the formation trapped the butt and the victim was pushed onto the point. What did this prove exactly? Not a lot, the person was very unlucky. If though this was used as "evidence" that an overhand grip is "superior" and was "always" used in formation fighting, it ignores other historical  evidence which shows exactly the opposite. With a shield, both grips can readily be used, with your your thumb toward the spear head, it simply involves lifting or dropping your arm. Changing the grip direction should be natural for a spearman. Also, formation fighting in a shield wall or not, you'd need to be ready to thrust to any available opening.

I think it does matter. In Europe, for centuries, say from 800 BC to AD 1350, fighting with shield + something was the norm for battle infantry. If the something was a spear, how was it used ? Visual sources suggest that a lot of times, it was overhand. If it doesn't feel right when you do it, either the visual sources are not reliable, or we don't have the right body techniques, or we're not getting something.

Did I post a link to the worst piece of reenacting / reconstruction ? "Hoplite-fu"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=OjjU6tSUp34&feature=endscreen&list=ULFv-Vut0xb9Y

Horrible, horrible. And disabled comments, too.

Very Funny  :D
Mauro.

snowcelt wrote on Jan 19^th, 2012 at 9:21am:

What did this prove exactly? Not a lot, the person was very unlucky. If though this was used as "evidence" that an overhand grip is "superior" and was "always" used in formation fighting, it ignores other historical  evidence which shows exactly the opposite. With a shield, both grips can readily be used, with your your thumb toward the spear head, it simply involves lifting or dropping your arm. Changing the grip direction should be natural for a spearman. Also, formation fighting in a shield wall or not, you'd need to be ready to thrust to any available opening.

It probably proves a lot regarding the formation of legal precedent, but that's about it.

Relevant to the debate, and adduced already by e.g. Dan, is the use of "waisted" shields, (figure 8, whatever), in Greece during the Mycenaean period and the Dark ages, so say 1400-800

e.g.
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=figure+8+shield&um=1&hl=en&client=safari&sa=N&rls=en&biw=1225&bih=675&tbm=isch&tbnid=4nHOXzZjaOpzpM:&imgrefurl=http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/shields1.htm&docid=37HIEB8nC2sC7M&imgurl=http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/images/bodyshield42.jpg&w=250&h=193&ei=tAEcT6jxHMfk8QOiwK2vCw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=670&vpy=188&dur=407&hovh=154&hovw=200&tx=145&ty=44&sig=106665622061892212027&page=1&tbnh=154&tbnw=200&start=0&ndsp=19&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0

or
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=figure+8+shield&um=1&hl=en&client=safari&sa=N&rls=en&biw=1225&bih=675&tbm=isch&tbnid=D-rH78aHJ24o7M:&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/vittoriosa/3355256610/&docid=fdOk9ntZ1Rd2aM&itg=1&imgurl=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3253/3355256610_51ded47dc3.jpg&w=500&h=375&ei=4gEcT5GZD8bA8QOw-cWoCw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=246&sig=106665622061892212027&page=1&tbnh=138&tbnw=185&start=0&ndsp=19&ved=1t:429,r:15,s:0&tx=99&ty=29


etc. Do they not show that this is an age where men do, in single fight, stab underarm ? (but in that case, why have symmetrical cutouts, ? to balance the shield ?)

Hey, concluing from my vast expierince on ancient greek tactics (I watched the entire movie Troy like 3 times). I would think that the fig. 8 sheild was more for using the short sword so you didn't have to open yourself up as much in CQB as you would with say the spartan or roman sheilds. Instead you could just hook around and hit your opponent while still staying sheilded.

Dan wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2012 at 7:49pm:

Hey, concluing from my vast expierince on ancient greek tactics (I watched the entire movie Troy like 3 times). I would think that the fig. 8 sheild was more for using the short sword so you didn't have to open yourself up as much in CQB as you would with say the spartan or roman sheilds. Instead you could just hook around and hit your opponent while still staying sheilded.

A great cast. But the fighting was fanciful, even though it did sometimes make you dream of what Homer calls the dancing of war.

Thearos wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2012 at 7:59pm:

Dan wrote on Jan 22nd, 2012 at 7:49pm: Hey, concluing from my vast expierince on ancient greek tactics (I watched the entire movie Troy like 3 times). I would think that the fig. 8 sheild was more for using the short sword so you didn't have to open yourself up as much in CQB as you would with say the spartan or roman sheilds. Instead you could just hook around and hit your opponent while still staying sheilded. A great cast. But the fighting was fanciful, even though it did sometimes make you dream of what Homer calls the dancing of war.

As I understand it, they deliberately made it highly fanciful due to some verbiage in the Illiad that implies that Achilles fights in a way completely different than everyone else because he's just that good.

Knaight wrote on Jan 26^th, 2012 at 8:10pm:

Thearos wrote on Jan 22nd, 2012 at 7:59pm: Dan wrote on Jan 22nd, 2012 at 7:49pm: Hey, concluing from my vast expierince on ancient greek tactics (I watched the entire movie Troy like 3 times). I would think that the fig. 8 sheild was more for using the short sword so you didn't have to open yourself up as much in CQB as you would with say the spartan or roman sheilds. Instead you could just hook around and hit your opponent while still staying sheilded. A great cast. But the fighting was fanciful, even though it did sometimes make you dream of what Homer calls the dancing of war. As I understand it, they deliberately made it highly fanciful due to some verbiage in the Illiad that implies that Achilles fights in a way completely different than everyone else because he's just that good.

If that was the goal they did a very good job of it. Under normal circumstances the group of a couple dozen seperated troops wouldn't have lasted long at all with sufficeint enemy archers coverage followed by infantry. But those fig 8 sheils sure looked like they came in handy And I am pretty sure if I was in battle and had to have a sheild, that's what is would be.

Knaight wrote on Jan 26^th, 2012 at 8:10pm:

Thearos wrote on Jan 22nd, 2012 at 7:59pm: Dan wrote on Jan 22nd, 2012 at 7:49pm: Hey, concluing from my vast expierince on ancient greek tactics (I watched the entire movie Troy like 3 times). I would think that the fig. 8 sheild was more for using the short sword so you didn't have to open yourself up as much in CQB as you would with say the spartan or roman sheilds. Instead you could just hook around and hit your opponent while still staying sheilded. A great cast. But the fighting was fanciful, even though it did sometimes make you dream of what Homer calls the dancing of war. As I understand it, they deliberately made it highly fanciful due to some verbiage in the Illiad that implies that Achilles fights in a way completely different than everyone else because he's just that good.

I've read through the Iliad in Greek (twice, doing it for the third time now), and I think it just says he kills lots and lots of people with no real hint how. Hector think of taking him on once he thinks his bro is with him (alas, it;s Athena in disguise).

I would have thought a "hewing spear" would be a pole axe. (see photo below. Very old photo, very old camera.)
Not to be confused with a throwing axe, a pole axe is for access denial and/or hand to hand combat, not for artillery like a javelin.
Hook-em, slice-em, stab-em. Move on.

But as far as I can tell, a long pike in a bunch (Phalanx) was effective atstopping cavalry.
But a spear? I thought those were made for hunting.
Naturally, you could fight with one but you would want to use it like a quarterstaff first to knock your opponant down, then you could dispatch him like a wild boar.

Just my opinions, no actual experiance.

---

ChuckRocks wrote on Jan 28^th, 2012 at 8:21am:

I would have thought a "hewing spear" would be a pole axe. (see photo below. Very old photo, very old camera.) Not to be confused with a throwing axe, a pole axe is for access denial and/or hand to hand combat, not for artillery like a javelin. Hook-em, slice-em, stab-em. Move on. But as far as I can tell, a long pike in a bunch (Phalanx) was effective atstopping cavalry. But a spear? I thought those were made for hunting. Naturally, you could fight with one but you would want to use it like a quarterstaff first to knock your opponant down, then you could dispatch him like a wild boar. Just my opinions, no actual experiance.

That's not a pollaxe, that's a halberd. Spears are the basic weapon for a lot of infantry for a lot of the world for a lot of history-- including e.g. W. Europaean middle ages.