07-08-2009, 02:07 AM
Sorry that I'm late to respond.
Paul 9(B) no, balance has nothing to do with it. No one would fight with an unbalanced weapon...
Again, though--if you have a long spear, however well balanced, the MASS of the part in front of your hand--no matter how you counter-weight it--will be easily moved by a short fulcrum (the face of my shield, or my spear point/haft) with a hard blow--and you will have enormous difficulty (in terms of the speed of hand to hand combat) getting it in line again. In fact, in every circumstance, your opponent, armed with a short spear or a sword, will have you down--and dead.
As usual at this point, may I suggest you build some spears and try using them? Honestly--this is something you only have to see once! I wish we had video from last weekend.
Look I admit this is an uncomfortable truth. But the only reason to lengthen spears is because the quality of the infantry is going DOWN, not up. Pikemen aren't really even fighting--they are moving, and the mass of their spear points is dangerous. But swordsmen--whether Spanish or Neapolitan or Roman--make fairly short work of the front of a phalanx for the exact reason that no individual armed with a 20 foot pike is actually targeting and engaging anyone. Pikes are about morale--not about combat ability. Longer spears make worse soldiers feel braver.
Further, I think both you and Paul M-S insist that spear fencing was either infrequent or non-existent. Fine--if that's the logic, then let's ask--why lengthen a spear, if no one is going to use it at long range? I'm pretty sure you, Paul, believe in Othismos. Okay--if you know that all your hoplites pack in to close range, why give them longer spears? Please don't tell me that it's to kill men in the second or third rank--no one in hand to hand combat thinks that way. Men fight the man in front of them, or perhaps to one side or the other. But if you believe that spears grew longer in the 420s, then I assume you think they got longer because a long spear was a better weapon? Or do I have this wrong?
And my I point out from a prior thread that, as sarauters are hollow, they have very little weight. There's no real counterbalance. further, as far as I can tell, most spears that show a taper (and what proportion of all spears shown in contemporary art show a taper?) have a double taper. They taper both ways--usually a long spear to the point, and a shorter taper to the butt. Still, to be fair, even the shorter taper and the lighter sarauter will combine to sabotage your argument because the balance point will still be--pretty much in the middle. Nicholas, who's on this list, just completed a double-tapered 10 foot dory with a sarauter that weighs the same as the head. the balance point--the middle.
Overall, I find this thread frustrating, because I feel that a few of you are arguing from a few isolated piece of art to a general conclusion that flies in the face of the rest of the evidence. I think that it would be fairer to say that the Greeks always (at least from the 8th C.) knew about all sorts of weapons--long and short spears, and probably pikes, too, by sea and by land. In the late 5th century, as the quality of hoplites dropped, all sorts of things were tried to make up for the lack of trained men--long spears, deep formations, cavalry, psiloi, peltasts, mercenaries, improved cavalry--all in response to the lack of trained hoplites and increases in army size.
And Paul (now M-S) I find it odd that anyone believes that the Sarissa is superior. I'm pretty sure that a cursory examination of the evidence will show that Philip's sarrisaphoroi never, ever beat hoplite armed infantry straight up--they required a cavalry victory on the flanks, every time! In fact, I'd bet that Phillip felt his infantry were inferior, and all he expected of them was that they not crumble away before his cavalry won the day. It is possible to rationalize each instance of the Macedonian infantry's failure to win a battle, but taken as an aggregate, they fail--overall--to beat even lack lustre hoplites. Or put another way--where is the battle where Phillip won with his infantry? Against hoplites? Antipater had trouble with Spartans, even at heavy odds--Chaeronea should have been a runaway victory, but the Athenians seem to have shoved Philip's center around, and anyone who believes that an ancient general could control a retrograde has sat in an armchair too long!
Heh, heh. I love dissing Philip and Macedon. Makes me feel better.
) )
Paul 9(B) no, balance has nothing to do with it. No one would fight with an unbalanced weapon...
Again, though--if you have a long spear, however well balanced, the MASS of the part in front of your hand--no matter how you counter-weight it--will be easily moved by a short fulcrum (the face of my shield, or my spear point/haft) with a hard blow--and you will have enormous difficulty (in terms of the speed of hand to hand combat) getting it in line again. In fact, in every circumstance, your opponent, armed with a short spear or a sword, will have you down--and dead.
As usual at this point, may I suggest you build some spears and try using them? Honestly--this is something you only have to see once! I wish we had video from last weekend.
Look I admit this is an uncomfortable truth. But the only reason to lengthen spears is because the quality of the infantry is going DOWN, not up. Pikemen aren't really even fighting--they are moving, and the mass of their spear points is dangerous. But swordsmen--whether Spanish or Neapolitan or Roman--make fairly short work of the front of a phalanx for the exact reason that no individual armed with a 20 foot pike is actually targeting and engaging anyone. Pikes are about morale--not about combat ability. Longer spears make worse soldiers feel braver.
Further, I think both you and Paul M-S insist that spear fencing was either infrequent or non-existent. Fine--if that's the logic, then let's ask--why lengthen a spear, if no one is going to use it at long range? I'm pretty sure you, Paul, believe in Othismos. Okay--if you know that all your hoplites pack in to close range, why give them longer spears? Please don't tell me that it's to kill men in the second or third rank--no one in hand to hand combat thinks that way. Men fight the man in front of them, or perhaps to one side or the other. But if you believe that spears grew longer in the 420s, then I assume you think they got longer because a long spear was a better weapon? Or do I have this wrong?
And my I point out from a prior thread that, as sarauters are hollow, they have very little weight. There's no real counterbalance. further, as far as I can tell, most spears that show a taper (and what proportion of all spears shown in contemporary art show a taper?) have a double taper. They taper both ways--usually a long spear to the point, and a shorter taper to the butt. Still, to be fair, even the shorter taper and the lighter sarauter will combine to sabotage your argument because the balance point will still be--pretty much in the middle. Nicholas, who's on this list, just completed a double-tapered 10 foot dory with a sarauter that weighs the same as the head. the balance point--the middle.
Overall, I find this thread frustrating, because I feel that a few of you are arguing from a few isolated piece of art to a general conclusion that flies in the face of the rest of the evidence. I think that it would be fairer to say that the Greeks always (at least from the 8th C.) knew about all sorts of weapons--long and short spears, and probably pikes, too, by sea and by land. In the late 5th century, as the quality of hoplites dropped, all sorts of things were tried to make up for the lack of trained men--long spears, deep formations, cavalry, psiloi, peltasts, mercenaries, improved cavalry--all in response to the lack of trained hoplites and increases in army size.
And Paul (now M-S) I find it odd that anyone believes that the Sarissa is superior. I'm pretty sure that a cursory examination of the evidence will show that Philip's sarrisaphoroi never, ever beat hoplite armed infantry straight up--they required a cavalry victory on the flanks, every time! In fact, I'd bet that Phillip felt his infantry were inferior, and all he expected of them was that they not crumble away before his cavalry won the day. It is possible to rationalize each instance of the Macedonian infantry's failure to win a battle, but taken as an aggregate, they fail--overall--to beat even lack lustre hoplites. Or put another way--where is the battle where Phillip won with his infantry? Against hoplites? Antipater had trouble with Spartans, even at heavy odds--Chaeronea should have been a runaway victory, but the Athenians seem to have shoved Philip's center around, and anyone who believes that an ancient general could control a retrograde has sat in an armchair too long!
Heh, heh. I love dissing Philip and Macedon. Makes me feel better.
) )
Qui plus fait, miex vault.
