04-27-2011, 11:05 PM
Quote:[quote]This is one of those things that does not seem doable until you try it. You should not be able to based on the articulation of your wrist, but you can. The reason is that the spear's weight forces your wrist up in the strike beyond its normal range of motion once you push the tip up and start the forward motion. By that way, they did not test this low overhand strike, but I am sure it is very weak, probably comparable to high underhand.
This is why I said "effectively". I personally was never really able to deliver good thrusts at such angles and grips.
Quote:[quote]Early on, the feet could be protected. We have these fully articulated bronze instep, toe and ankle guards from Greek panoplies.
Still all evidence I know of suggests that such armor pieces were very rare. I would suggest that feet were difficult to hit since they present relatively little target, but it surely is an issue worth discussing.
Quote:[quote]I think you are noting the difference between low underhand- the typical underarm thrust- and high underhand which can be under the arm and couched like a lance as in Roberts images, or outside the forearm and over the shield top. The last method is akin to how you would stab with a sword from up high.
I have come across a lot of examples of high underhand depictions, so it has to have been a quite common grip, especially if you switch often from high underarm to low underarm as I support hoplites would do during spearfight.
Quote:[quote]Yes. Connolly again showed this works because the sarissa flex and arch over eachother. Send me an email and I'll find the paper. As to "locking" peltae, I don't know how this could occur when the sarissa was held at the right edge of the shield- its in the way. You may like this though, the only image we have of sarissaphoroi in action could be argued to show them holding the sarissa below the peltae.
Paul.. it's George, Macedon. We have exchanged lots of email in the past especially about the Sellasia project I was to embark on (and still haven't found the opportunity to carry through...maybe this summer). I have always regarded it as certain that the protostates would have his sarisa projecting from below his pelte. The thing is how did the rear rankers do it... If they aimed below the first rankers' shields the spearpoints would have been too low, especially because of the flex. If they were aiming above the shields then at least some of them would have been aiming to high to be effective against attackers. As for the shields, I think I can support with certainty that they could be locked when in hyperpykne taxis (all sources give it as a total space of 45 cm/18in to be occupied by each man) and of course it is specifically stated that the shields were locked. Yet, we also have mentions about the spearpoints of the sarissas forming a cycle in front of the ranks and generally I think that too few have unfortunately studied this extremely important and interesting issue...
Quote:[quote]I'm not sure we can extrapolate so easily from sarissa. To weild one you lead with the left arm, while the dory of course is thrust from the right. This renders a very different posture for the men. The only tests I know of suggest that being within the range of the sauroter, rather than beyond it is the key for sarissa.
No matter where the sauroter is exactly positioned (we have different accounts of how many yards of the sarissa was behind the pelte), the thing is that the sarissa was used in a swinging mode and would also be turned to target the enemy. This would mean that the sauroter would make analogous movements. The only conclusion I can make is that this was no countable danger for the rear rankers, not because the butt never touched anyone but because even when it did hit against a shield, armor, naked leg, it did not present a real harassment. I would suggest (only from my experience with spears though) that this was because 1. the sarauter was not as dangerous as a spear point and 2. because the pulling movement was not nearly as powerful as the thrust. I have had myself hit by spearbutts at low speeds and it was nothing more than a small harassment.
Quote:[quote]Dory's often broke too. I'd caution that vases often clip the ends of spears because they are out of the frame of the painter's desired image and also that many spears are actually being thrown, not thrust on vase images of heroic combat. This is true for both overhand and underhand thrusts- some underhand thrusts show clear amentum being held- so I don't believe you can make any correlation between the lack of sauroters and spear grip.
I cannot speak for sure but the almost total lack of sauroters in the iconic evidence certainly does not support the position that all or the vast majority of spears were equipped with the sauroter also. As for the correlation, I do not personally think that a sauroter would make me not use my spear low underarm, but if someone insists that it would be dangerous, then some spears could specifically not be equipped with one for this exact reason. The ancients were very practical people and they would have used weapons to their maximum effectiveness.
