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.

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


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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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  
Greetings,
Mauro.

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.