"Overhand, underhand or underarm?" Topic

How did the Greek hoplite fight?

Do you think he used the overhand technique? This would be what you have seen on a lot of vases. The spear is held with the thumb towards the sauroter and the pinky towards the head. The spear is then held aloft and stabbing would occur downward and forward.

Like this:

Underhand would be held reversed. So the thumb is closer to the spear head. The spear is then held with the arm against the leg and thrusting would be done towards the opponents lower body with a somewhat upward stabbing motion.

Like the guy on the left here:

The underarm position sees the spear held under the arm with the thumb closer to the spear head. The spear then fits over the shield, kind of sitting in the meeting position between the shields of two hoplites that are overlapping. Then thrust forward to aim at the chest or head of the opponent.

Could you use any grip other than overhand in a phalanx? I imagine you could use any grip in individual combat.

Christopher Matthew argues that you could use any of the last two in a phalanx. He actually argues that you could not use overhand because of the issue of switching the hand position of the spear from marching to the overhand position.

D) All of the above

Let me go see what Victor Davis Hanson has to say…

He says A. Which, despite reading Matthew, I am, at this point, inclined to agree with.

I'm asking, and should have stated this in the initial post, about Greeks in the Phalanx. If they are not in phalanx then any of them might have worked, but in phalanx it would seem that you would have to attack all the same way. Possibly the front rank might have had a different way to attack that other ranks.

What did they use in 300?

Pretty much MMA.

Mixed grips could very well work even within the same rank. If an opponent has to lift their shield to block an overhand thrust, that both blocks their lower vision and creates an opening for the hoplite beside you to get in a low thrust under their shield.

But the overhand and underhand grips don't allow for the same reach with the spear.

If they are in a tight phalanx with their shields overlapped the only way they could use their spears would be overhanded. Otherwise, it is just too tight to use underhand.

You could actually use the spear under arm. The spear would rest on the place where the two spears would overlap.

Then with your body turned slightly sideways with your left shoulder forward it is a relatively simple move to push your right hand forward thrusting the spear out. The trouble is that it seems like you wouldn't generate much force.

Though the underhand position is the better one overall, it has two major disadvantages in a tight phalanx. One being the lack of space in a tightly packed battle, the other being that you are holding your weapon at the level where it would have to get past a shield and chest armour.

Overhand would allow you to stab behind the shield at the shoulders arms and face.

I certainly think they would use underarm for looser combats but in a phalanx I don't see how it could work?

Apart from reasons mentioned above about overlapping shields
You have to think about the spear being pulled backwards before the thrust. At hip level you will be spearing the man behind you if it is densely packed. The overhead thrust with spear point angled down and spear butt angled up over your rear rankers heads works.

Underarm looks good on figures however and helps add a bit of individuality to a unit.

Steve.

It does seem like the biggest problem with the underarm position is the target area. Unless you are stabbing at the legs it would seem difficult to hit anything vital.

Same with the underarm position. It seems like it would be aimed right at the enemy shield, maybe elevating it could get the person in the face.

The overhand position does give you targets in the shoulder and the head and, if the other guy is using the same position, the spear arm as well.

This is a good question. I suspect that in a tight phalanx overhand is the only realistic option, although what you would mostly be hitting would be shields and bronze helmets

So then a second question: how much would it matter? Did the phalanxes stop within spear thrust or stab of each other or did they keep going into pushing shield on shield?

Try ranking up 28mm models of hoplites in the underarm position. It simply can't be done. Overhand … easy peasy …

And underhand would make the othismos impossible. Why not ask that classical question too … did they push or not.

Mike B

"It does seem like the biggest problem with the underarm position is the target area. Unless you are stabbing at the legs it would seem difficult to hit anything vital.

Same with the underarm position. It seems like it would be aimed right at the enemy shield, maybe elevating it could get the person in the face.

The overhand position does give you targets in the shoulder and the head and, if the other guy is using the same position, the spear arm as well."

That's exactly my conclusions to, if you are fighting an enemy with graves, you would literally have nothing to stab at in the underarm position.

With overhand, you could get some lucky hits in in shoulders, face and neck (were we know most hit where, from achiological evidence) most hits weather, roman, greek, carthagian, celtic ect. Would be, face, neck, sword/spear arm/shoulder. And shins if not wearing graves. The other parts of the body was coverd by shield and for many armor too.

You don't need to lob of arms ans heads or run the enemy through. A nasty cut in the sword arm, and the enemy would be forced to retire.

Legs are a great target for disabling an opponent. Look at the very top image in the OP and the hoplite laying on the ground with a bleeding gash in his thigh for example.

Femoral Artery in thigh too …

There are leg wounds in both of the pictures …

Basic combat training with spears….starts out with a number of different holds and thrusts with the intention of going straight through your opponents foot and pinning it to the ground.

As I said in another thread leg wounds probably occur when the othismos has pushed the losers over and they are on the ground with the follow up ranks stabbing downwards to finish off the fallen. If the Greeks were using an underarmnthrust we should expect them to armour the groin and they don't do that. As the phalanx gets tighter and more unified the leather apron that hung from the shield is removed. That makes it likely that the hoplites have moved from a more open combat system in which they might well thrust underarm to one in which closed up bodies of men thrust overarm from behind a wall of shields.
One benefit of overarm thrusting is that you are attacking the face of the opponent and this will have a substantial psychological effect on the enemy, especially if you are say a Spartan and hard as nails.

I think spear fencing is a currently in vogue explanation, that basically says that your best fighters are three or four ranks back, and your front two ranks are pushing shield to shield (and are not really doing anything with their spears) your stabby experts are going for accurate stabs to neck throat or arm, or even a flinching wound to the head which will allow your scrum to break through and cause the enemy to collapse, and if this was the case then overarm is preferred.

Front two ranks could be underarm since they do not expect to use their spears to win the fight, but will be more useful in pursuit…

And ready to brace against cavalry…

The one vase shows individual combat with no one else around (underhand). The other shows ranks (overhand).

What do re-enactors find works?

What do re-enactors find does not work?

What do period texts state?

"What do period texts state?"

Basically nothing.

"And ready to brace against cavalry…"

No cavalry from the period would frontally charge a phalanx.

"What do re-enactors find works?

What do re-enactors find does not work?"

Matthew covers this but I'm not totally convinced by his evidence.

What he concludes from studies with reenactors is that the underarm position is optimal, that the underhand position is next best and the overarm is the worst.

I'm not sure how many he guys he used, but the pictures show about 7. I would guess that you wouldn't get anything like accurate results in this sort of test without at least 50 guys.

I really wanted to say……
…"or Wombling free…"

Take a look at this article by A.K. Goldworthy "The Othismos, Myths and Heresies: The Nature of Hoplite Battle."
Online at: wih.sagepub.com

He (like Hanson and others) makes the argument that with the exception of Spartan units, hoplites rarely maintained their order but usually broke into an all out run anywhere from 400 to 100 yards from the enemy.

If a phalanx maintained close order, the overhand posture makes sense. However, (if you remember running as a kid with a big stick in your hand) if hoplites sprinting towards their enemies are probably not likely to hold their spears overhand but underhand.

What happened next would depend on the reaction of the targets of a charging phalanx. Goldsworthy argues for a series of individual contests at which point hoplites would use a combination of both underhand and overhand thrusts?

What about fatigue?

The most convincing part of Matthew's study is about the ability of the hoplite to maintain the various stances.

Underhand is the easiest and requires very little effort, the reenactors reported that they could keep up the under army thrusting all day pretty much, getting bored before getting tired.

Underarm was more difficult and they did tire from it but they were able to adjust their grip and hold the spear in three different ways which allowed some rest. Also with it resting on the point where the two shields come together they would be bearing the weight of the entire 1.8 kg weapon with just their hand.

With the overhand grip they were only able to continue attacking the target for about 2-4 minutes.

This is opposed to 15 minutes tests for the other two stances.

This would be an easy one to simulate yourself. If you take a four pound weight and hold it above your head and make a stabbing motion with it how long can you do it?

But surely the combination of the hardships of ancient agrarian life and constant physical training would have rendered a hoplite much fitter and stronger than the typical 21st century reenactor, with a commensurately greater level of endurance.

There's an interesting, although not necessarily conclusive discussion of over/underarm spear thrusting here by Nikolas Lloyd:

link

It's mostly from a re-enactor's point of view and doesn't seem to address why the overhead thrust is so often (but not exclusively) seen in artwork depicting hoplite combat.

Hmmmm the idea that hoplites broke into a run 400 yards from the enemy seems really counterintuitive.mEven fit men running 400 yards will be blown. The Greeks took troulble to have the best men in the front rank and as the file closer.nSuch positioning is pointless if the whole thing is going to be jumbled by running even 100 yards. Then there has to be some rationale for running into combat, what use would this impetus be when the hoplites arrive? Against Persians the point would be to avoid spending time under a barrage of arrows, but against other Greeks (The normal enemy) there is no point.bLastly running into battle directly contadicts the evidence that there was command and control during the battle, Epaminondas calls fo one more step…poinless if they have all run there and arrived in any old order.
As to the hoplite only being able to operate overarm fir 2 minutes, have the proponents of this ever seen a blacksmith at work…same muscles, heavy hammer, bang bang bang for twenty minutes at a time.

But not all hoplites were blacksmiths. And not all hoplites trained to be hoplites that much.

It is true that there are probably a lot of people that are stronger than a 21st century reenactor. The conclusion in the book that their reenactors were about the same as the average relatively untrained hoplite (as opposed to a professional one) does stretch things I think.

I would like to find out the previous experience and overall physical condition of the re-enactors.

Are they part of an Hoplite Society or were they just SCA members …

Here is an interview with a gentleman from Military Odyssey in 2013:

YouTube link

Here is one of drill:

YouTube link

I believe having the haft of the spear rest on the rim of the shield may be a key element to help alleviate fatigue. That and not actually holding the spear in the thrusting position until you need to.

I would have to look up the citation, but I believe Herodotus makes a comment that the success of the Spartans was not that they were any better at individual combat, but that they were better at keeping their formation because they did advance at a walk rather than the run like other hoplite formations.

I will see if I can find this.

I have to agree with Lewisgunner. 400 yards is quite a long distance – yet, these are people who lived a much more active normal life than us and it is possible there was the idea of scaring your opponents so they broke and ran before coming into contact with them.

Apparently the battle ended as soon as the first side broke and ran.

Mind you, I guess it all depends upon the kind of running that was being done. Sprinting is one thing, jogging is another.

Can we have a follow-up poll on the pros/cons of fighting in the nude?!!!!

There you go Pictors 'not all hoplites were blacksmiths' Thebpoint about blacksmiths is that if you train to use a certain arm position then you can increase your stamina in using a weapon in that position.
The Greek citizenry are likely a pretty fit lot, but even in groups of fit people there are differences in the ability to run and that will spread them out. To avoid that they would have to advance in step which would be taxing for guys going 100 yards let alone 200 or 400. We should then question what is the point of runnin, or jogging thst distance. It makes some sense to advance quickly for perhaps twenty yards because that gives you momentum , about as much speed as you could get up to in fact. However, if both sides are running even twenty yards then the likelihood is that they will crash into each other with not only destructive , but unpredictable results. If a man weing ten stone crashes into one weighing fourteen stone then the lighter man is going to go bacwards…hard.
There is also the matter that running in builds up kactic acid in the muscles and any significant distance would mean that the soldier would tire just that bit quicker than an opponent and that might be fatal.
So I am still unconvinced about running in, except to avoid an arrow storm

YouTube link

Xenophon Anabasis 1.18-19

And when, as they proceeded, a part of the phalanx billowed out, those who were thus left behind began to run; at the same moment they all set up the sort of war-cry which they raise to Enyalius,1 and all alike began running. It is also reported that some of them clashed their shields against their spears, thereby frightening the enemy's horses.

And before an arrow reached them, the barbarians broke and fled. Thereupon the Greeks pursued with all their might, but shouted meanwhile to one another not to run at a headlong pace, but to keep their ranks in the pursuit.

"If a man weing ten stone crashes into one weighing fourteen stone then the lighter man is going to go bacwards…hard. "

This isn't necessarily true. A man weighing 10 stone running into a man weighing 14 stone walking is going to have more energy. Energy goes up with the speed squared but linearly with mass.

Good point Bushy, but the man doing the resisting will have four to eight men behind him holding their dished shields in each ithers backs. Pkus the runner will be arriving on to the spearpoints if his opponents and will be a lpt less well pkaced to aim his spear as he will be on the move and pitentially breathless, though I buy that the Greeks were pretty fit.

'Thebpoint about blacksmiths is that if you train to use a certain arm position then you can increase your stamina in using a weapon in that position. '

And the point about all hoplites not being blacksmiths is that a lot of hoplites didn't train as hoplites.

But the thing is there are multiple accounts of hoplites advancing quickly into contact with the enemy. Epaminondas and Iphicrates calling for one more step might be the case after the armies had clashed, but what about the initial clash.

As you say, running far would be impossible in hoplite armour, but running into battle would not be. If the enemy held their spears overhead to stab down at the hoplite then there isn't a lot of force behind that stab, there is nothing securing the spear but the hand.

However, if the enemy is in a rigid position with spears held underarm, sauroter possibly wedged against the shield of the man behind them, then that is something that is going to hurt running into. Even if you can take the spear on your shield either the spear is going to break or you are going to have a spear shoved through your shield and possibly into you.

There are a lot of accounts of different types of hoplites battles and some of them don't really make sense where there would be a dense press of bodies.

If there is a dense press of bodies most of the time then the underarm or underhand methods don't make much sense, the overhand would be the only way to go, but if this isn't the case, then the underarm would make some more sense.

I still don't see how you would be able to thrust with it with much force though.

For examples of where it doesn't make sense that armies fought in a dense press Cleombrotus is removed from the Spartan lines after he is wounded at Leuctra, how do you do that in a shield on back press 8 or so deep.

Xenophon states that this was possible because his vanguard was victorious at some point but victorious in a scrum like a literal interpretation of othismos would mean would still make it impossible to pull someone out of the line.

Against that Pictor I suggest that a spear held overarm can be locked with the arm against the body, not totally, but more so than an underarm position and that a body can be removed from th front line during a pause in the fighting as both sides tire and then withdraw a little.. Pike formations can halve their density so the hoplite is deployed tight, but has some room to manoeuvre.nThat hoplites are in a tight formation is evidenced by the drift to the right to get into the area where your unshielded side is protected by your neighbours shield.
As to hoplites and training, they do have sword masters and do train individually. You could, of course, cite the race in arms as training for running into battle. My point on the benefits of training is that if you practicise with sword and spear you develop muscles and stamina in that area, perhaps more than the average reenactor?

"a body can be removed from th front line during a pause in the fighting as both sides tire and then withdraw a little"

Only if there is no press. If there is a press where men are physically pushing on one another forward there couldn't be a pause until one side or the other collapses.

If this is how they fought then the overhand method would be the only way they could swing and attack.

The drift to the right could occur because the soldier is less protected on that side regardless of whether or not they are in a tight formation.

You might develop muscle and stamina in the arm but you would do that with whatever method the hoplites fought in, so underarm, underhand or overarm would all be strengthened with practice. The overarm one is the one that would be the weakest still with the same amount of practice.

I favour the idea that the press if by that ypu jean othisms is s art is f the tactical repertoire, but not all that f it. So hoplites could perform others smos and then mutually step back when both sides tired. In conceptualising Roman legionary warfare it has been called 'punctuated flurries' Groups have a go and the opponent resists, but both tire, step back and ger their breath back. There are accounts of Romans , Celts and Greeks falling back sone considerable dustance duringba battle and that is more st likely done in stages as pressure is apokued,nbut the opponent does not break, but steps back, withdraws a little rests, reorganises and cone on again. During hese periods of recuperation bidding es can be moved to the rear by retainers.

But the phalanx and the legion were very different formations.

I'm not saying it is impossible for the phalanx to back up, if they are fighting with spears in a line it would be relatively easy if you have a musician that could be heard over the clash of arms.

But if it is not a shield on shield shoving match, and shield on shield is the exact term used often, then how does it make sense for the Thebans to form up 50 deep at Leuctra?

What would be the use of such a deep formation when, instead, you could well overlap the 12 deep enemy.

It seems, along with the refused flank used at the time, that the goal was just to bowl over the Spartan line rather than just sustain repeated casualties on both sides until the side with less men lost.

It would not be based upon which side lost the most – it would be based upon which side broke and ran.

Sometimes it seems that being removed from the reality of warfare and with playing games that we all too often forget human nature and the fear and human emotion involved in actual warfare.

This is the one I do not understand, "The overarm one is the one that would be the weakest still with the same amount of practice."

Why is the overarm motion still the weakest, even with practice? Especially if you are resting your spear shaft on the edge of your shield as you wield it.