+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Greek Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: [split] Phalanx warfare: use of the spear (/showthread.php?tid=27459)
RE: [split] Phalanx warfare: use of the spear - JaM - 08-24-2016
on a side note, look what i found - Thrand defending underarm for a tight formation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q50S2Vdd-zI
I'm guessing this was before he started with that throwing slide.
Giannis K. Hoplite:
regarding the phalanx, i think i have somewhere a screenshot from that book
![[Image: 9p19.jpg]](https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/500x342q90/541/9p19.jpg)
why would this be impossible in a formation? Only issue I see is the fact they are way too close on each other, 45cm is way too small distance, 60cm would be probably much more serviceable and you would not even hit guy behind shield that way..
and i will comment on that video, i saw it some time ago and had my concerns about it, mostly to the technique that guy used with overarm.
Also, when Paul gets here, i would like him to explain what did Matthew wrong during spear positioning into ready position with overarm (moving from vertical to horizontal in formation):
![[Image: o2it.png]](https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1390x641q90/843/o2it.png)
and also, as he posted the very similar picture, here is the trajectory pictures from Matthew book:
![[Image: j8y1.png]](https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/460x724q90/835/j8y1.png)
with the overarm (besides the obvious weight of sauroter issue, as he is holding it a bit more forward, but thats on all three grips) ending point is quite down below, as your own palm would practically force it down if thumb aims back.
RE: [split] Phalanx warfare: use of the spear - Bryan - 08-24-2016
JaM wrote:
"with the overarm (besides the obvious weight of sauroter issue, as he is holding it a bit more forward, but thats on all three grips) ending point is quite down below, as your own palm would practically force it down if thumb aims back.
Look at where the faces and eyes of the hoplite reenactor is. Take a straight edge and draw a line from the face to the pole on the left. Now tell me why a hoplite would use an overhand thrust to target what appears to be the belly region of a target? The low angle alone takes a good bit of distance away from the thrust. Of the three tests only the bottom one has the thrust being conducted on anything like a straight line. I bet if you had the underhand grip low thrust aim at the face it would be a shorter distance. That test was conducted poorly, to say the least.
RE: [split] Phalanx warfare: use of the spear - Giannis K. Hoplite - 08-24-2016
The first picture has two faults. First, it is static. As long as I am static I can put my sauroter in the eyeslit of my buddy's helmet and take a picture, no problem. Things change when you have to move violently.
Second fault is that they are using unnanutally rear weighted spears. I believe they are using MI's older version of sauroters which were solid. Rear sauroters, even the largest type, because as we said there are many types of sauroters, were hollow all the way until 4cm from the tip, and very thin, as little as 1mm at places. I know because I actually own one of those sauroters. If you are in doubt, ask them!
I see nothing wrong with the speca between the ranks, only in battle they would often get more compressed. At times the second ranker would take a step forward for better reach ans at times the front ranker would take a step back, if overwhelmed by the enemy. And of course there would be occasions of othismos, where this underhand grip is both unuseful and dangerous.
RE: [split] Phalanx warfare: use of the spear - JaM - 08-24-2016
Quote:Look at where the faces and eyes of the hoplite reenactor is. Take a straight edge and draw a line from the face to the pole on the left. Now tell me why a hoplite would use an overhand thrust to target what appears to be the belly region of a target? The low angle alone takes a good bit of distance away from the thrust. Of the three tests only the bottom one has the thrust being conducted on anything like a straight line. I bet if you had the underhand grip low thrust aim at the face it would be a shorter distance. That test was conducted poorly, to say the least.
that was actually his point.. with the overarm grip and holding the spear in the back, palm would force it to go down at the farthest trajectory position during the thrust. it would automatically go down due to anatomy of the hand.
Quote:The first picture has two faults. First, it is static. As long as I am static I can put my sauroter in the eyeslit of my buddy's helmet and take a picture, no problem. Things change when you have to move violently.
thats the rearrest position you would have. thrust forward (per Mathew) would be then like this (bottom one, screenshoted it as a whole):
![[Image: z7w3.png]](https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/407x506q90/838/z7w3.png)
and sorry, only have pictures.. that book doesnt include any videos (joke)
RE: [split] Phalanx warfare: use of the spear - Bryan - 08-24-2016
Using the spear in ultra tight phalanx formation
You've made enough comments in this youtube video that we shouldn't have to keep using it to remind you that your assumptions are incorrect. Does it look like the spear bearer with the overhand grip has his spear point angling downwards? Or that his wrist is angled when the thrust reaches his opponent? No, because that's not what happens.
Besides which, the pictures you're posting from your old twc threads only reiterate what I've been saying since page one, in a phalanx the optimum thrust with an underhand grip only targets the middle portion of the enemy's body, which is PROTECTED BY A LARGE, STURDY SHIELD. If the hoplite actually attempted a distance thrust at his opponent's face, the weapon would be traveling on a 20-30 degree upward angle, making it simple to block, parry, or pass while the opponent closes the distance and uses the overhand grip which is more suited to closer range fighting (fencing distance and othismos).
RE: [split] Phalanx warfare: use of the spear - JaM - 08-24-2016
what was wrong with my comment there? aren't they holding it in the middle? even Paul's picture shows him holding it in the back while they want to demonstrate something while using incorrect weapons..
I'm telling that if you hold the spear in its point of balance, which for Dory is at back, and if you thrust with it overarm at maximum reach, your palm/wrist/fingers would limit the trajectory at the farther reach. It would be impossible to aim directly forward and keep the same reach as with underarm posture. (how much important that is, remains to be seen)
And regarding hitting the enemy, as stated in that book, you would look for openings, and not necessarily just in front of you, but also to both sides. guys in flank are easier to hit because they are not as well covered by the shield from that direction.
RE: [split] Phalanx warfare: use of the spear - Bryan - 08-24-2016
The point wasn't so much about your comment (though I don't agree with it), its just that pretty much every forum in the last couple years that even mentions this debate you come bull rushing in to defend Matthew's theory, while trying to argue around any other evidence that is contradictory, even if that evidence isn't even related to the discussion. In the age of the internet, that screams fanboy.
You keep commenting that the mid shaft grip in the "Using the spear in ultra tight phalanx formation" video, or the Thrand videos, somehow nullifies their message, neither of which had anything to do with distance (which you keep bringing up as if a few inches of reach is the deciding factor in hoplite warfare). If the spear mockups they are using aren't perfectly balanced like an actual dory, it doesn't matter for the sake of what they are describing. Held in the middle with a evenly balanced spear, or held more in the rear with a tapered or rear heavy dory, an overhand grip makes for a more natural thrust, and gives the ability to properly parry and riposte an enemy's thrust, which is the point of the "Using the spear in ultra tight phalanx formation", not to discuss which spear grip allowed for the longer reach. Thrands videos show that an overhand grip can deliver more power than an underhand and does not interfere with any hoplite in the second rank at all (where as with Matthew's ready guard, the sauroter of the promachoi is going to smash into the second ranker's aspis after every thrust). Again, not something that reach or spear balance has any effect on.
Besides, you keep going on about weight and balance, based on Matthew's work, means you're working on a false assumption. Someone more knowledgeable than you or I (and more knowledgeable than Chris Matthew apparently) has already stated that the sauroters used by Matthew in his tests are too large and too heavy, they are not realistic, making the spear too back heavy.
Further, since Hoplites didn't run at each other with couched spears, as if they were knights without horses (as you claimed a few pages back), it means that a few inches of distance in spear fencing is not going to be the winning factor in a hoplite battle, especially when the only true part of the opponent harmed with the spear will be the ornate painting on the face of an aspis. The ability to accurately and quickly put the spear point into exposed flesh, that is what will win the hoplite fight for the promachoi. Either that or driving them back through intimidation or outright pushing them back (shield to shield othismos).
Why would men only a few inches away to the left or right, with shield's overlapping, be easy targets to a weak, easily telegraphed, underhanded upwards angled thrust?
![[Image: maxresdefault.jpg]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/3R95N0b0HAw/maxresdefault.jpg)
Show me where all the easy openings to the sides are.
RE: [split] Phalanx warfare: use of the spear - JaM - 08-24-2016
you mean like this?
that's Paul's picture...
And just for futher info, here is why Horstfall measured data was not really relevant to spears (rare pictures, but Dan should recognize them probably):
(he measured with dagger, with completely different movement trajectories, therefore these values cannot be used to depict spears or even swords)
here is that Lindybeige mock combat video (about at 1:15 you have that side attack):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixm6sXe1TYE
and to the picture you posted, thats not from the book, here is one from that book:
![[Image: 4DggwH.jpg]](http://imageshack.com/a/img922/9027/4DggwH.jpg)
RE: [split] Phalanx warfare: use of the spear - Bryan - 08-24-2016
(08-24-2016, 04:20 PM)JaM Wrote: here is that Lindybeige mock combat video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixm6sXe1TYE
Does that look anything at all like how Greek Hoplites fought in the classical period? Nope, not even in the slightest.
RE: [split] Phalanx warfare: use of the spear - Paul Bardunias - 08-24-2016
(08-24-2016, 02:27 PM)JaM Wrote:
why would this be impossible in a formation? Only issue I see is the fact they are way too close on each other, 45cm is way too small distance, 60cm would be probably much more serviceable and you would not even hit guy behind shield that way..
Also, when Paul gets here, i would like him to explain what did Matthew wrong during spear positioning into ready position with overarm (moving from vertical to horizontal in formation):
with the overarm (besides the obvious weight of sauroter issue, as he is holding it a bit more forward, but thats on all three grips) ending point is quite down below, as your own palm would practically force it down if thumb aims back.
This will have to be my last post on this thread if I can't get you to agree with a couple points of reality- not opinion, but simple physical reality. In the image above, no hoplite is formed in anything approaching a 45cm spacing. They barely have their aspides overlapped, which means more like 75cm at the tightest. Another example of how he simply lied in the book. I had hoped that when I presented to you the number of times things were misrepresented, or how regardless of low energy values, the fact that he did not cite Connolly, some doubt might creep in.
All of Connolly's values were low. This is because his test subjects were not so big and strong. What is important is the RELATIVE strike force. They are equally weak on all the strikes.
As to his readying for the overarm position. Its all fine. Those are great ways to get a spear from underhand to overhand. But I don't believe hoplites ever had to do this. The marched into battle with the thumb already facing downwards on the shaft. See image attached.
With your last argument, you are making exactly the same mistake that Mathew made. If you hold onto the shaft as tight as possible with all your fingers, what I describe as an "Ice pick" strike in the book, then yes the spear cannot be extended straight out or upwards. But you don't do this. Instead you let your pinky come off the back and the spear stays on a flat trajectory. The grip is quite secure with just your first 2 or 3 fingers holding it. The strike is so much faster/stronger than underhand, that any loss of linkage, i.e. if you don't keep pushing after it hits, is irrelevant. In all but game situations, you don't push with a weapon, you strike with it. He was playing a game so this was not so important.
RE: [split] Phalanx warfare: use of the spear - JaM - 08-24-2016
no, but it shows you how useful reach is. If you held the spear in the middle like you suggest, you would have quite a disadvantage to somebody with a weighted spear who would use it from the back (and it would not matter if overarm or underarm)
Paul, i posted that picture again not because of the spacing, but because of the grip position (im using those pictures to show specific things, and from that side picture, its actually impossible to tell how close together they actually are, only how far the second rank is). btw, on that vase, isnt that grip a bit unnatural for such position? i tried it and it kinda feels quite awkward.
Quote:With your last argument, you are making exactly the same mistake that Mathew made. If you hold onto the shaft as tight as possible with all your fingers, what I describe as an "Ice pick" strike in the book, then yes the spear cannot be extended straight out or upwards. But you don't do this. Instead you let your pinky come off the back and the spear stays on a flat trajectory. The grip is quite secure with just your first 2 or 3 fingers holding it. The strike is so much faster/stronger than underhand, that any loss of linkage, i.e. if you don't keep pushing after it hits, is irrelevant. In all but game situations, you don't push with a weapon, you strike with it. He was playing a game so this was not so important.
and thats why i think main problem is that everybody is using different techniques when comparing.. he used incorrect one with overarm. Yet that doesnt make his underarm technique wrong..
RE: [split] Phalanx warfare: use of the spear - Paul Bardunias - 08-24-2016
(08-24-2016, 04:20 PM)JaM Wrote: And just for futher info, here is why Horstfall measured data was not really relevant to spears (rare pictures, but Dan should recognize them probably):
and to the picture you posted, thats not from the book, here is one from that book:
Hmm...we are getting close to my last post it seems. The first pic is from a DIFFERENT PAPER looking at stabbing with knives.
As to the second pic. Yes, that is the figure he used that is a total lie. You now see why I redrew it. 45 +45 has to equal 90!!! This I hope is a universal math concept. Can you fit two of his 45-50cm arrows in the space of one of his 90cm arrows?? Show me.
RE: [split] Phalanx warfare: use of the spear - JaM - 08-24-2016
Quote:As to the second pic. Yes, that is the figure he used that is a total lie. You now see why I redrew it. 45 +45 has to equal 90!!! This I hope is a universal math concept. Can you fit two of his 45-50cm arrows in the space of one of his 90cm arrows?? Show me.
and you are totally right on that one. That's a valid point.
Quote:All of Connolly's values were low. This is because his test subjects were not so big and strong. What is important is the RELATIVE strike force. They are equally weak on all the strikes.
and yet in Matthew book he posted own findings giving undearm 8.3m/s and overarm 6.5m/s.. so again, i would like to see what technique Connoly used in his test, but also technique of Matthew. (or actually, i would like to see some unbiased test, with somebody who knows how to strike with a spear, familiar with both techniques. then measure his speeds..)
RE: [split] Phalanx warfare: use of the spear - Bryan - 08-24-2016
If reach was the main criteria for hoplite effectiveness, why didn't the Greeks go longer? Iphicrates' spear and the Macedonian cavalry's xyston were both one handed weapons much longer than the traditional dory. You'd think if hoplite battle came down to couched arm spear assaults and nothing more, then they would have figured out centuries earlier that the side with the slightly longer spear will always win. And yet, that's not at all how it happened.
RE: [split] Phalanx warfare: use of the spear - JaM - 08-24-2016
Bryan:
on your picture:
I'd say guy with the Spartan shield would be most vulnerable to side strike from enemy that faces guy with the warthog or even the chicken shield..
Quote:If reach was the main criteria for hoplite effectiveness, why didn't the Greeks go longer? Iphicrates' spear and the Macedonian cavalry's xyston were both one handed weapons much longer than the traditional dory. You'd think if hoplite battle came down to couched arm spear assaults and nothing more, then they would have figured out centuries earlier that the side with the slightly longer spear will always win. And yet, that's not at all how it happened.
and why exactly it would have to be one or another? they could easily close in like this, and fight whatever gives them advantage if enemy got too close.. You should consider the possibility spear could be used in various role, and crouched lance is also one of the options..
didn't wanted to post this before, but look at this video (of badly executed TV show on a channel that should not use name History) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuuehdOPTPQ