Overhand Vs underhand

[PMBardunias]

I don't know what you mean about underhand having more power. In my experience, in published experiments with knives and spears, and in the opinion of 15th century gentlemen who had to use daggers against armour, the reverse is true.

The best study I have seen is: Peter Connolly, David Sim, Celia Watson, AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THREE METHODS OF SPEAR GRIP USED IN ANTIQUITY JOURNAL OF BATTLEFIELD TECHNOLOGY, VOL 4, NO 2, NOVEMBER 2011. I have this, if any need it, email me.

They found that an overhand strike was 5 times stronger than high underhand. Now it is possible that a stab at 1/5 the power of an overhand strike is adequate to at least wound a foe, but assuming the power ratio holds true, then even when an overhand striking hoplite is fatigued and hitting with a fraction of his peak force, he is still out striking a couched dory. Same holds true for glancing blows. You are simply much more likely to cause damage with an overhand strike.

I accept the basic premise about an overarm thrust being more powerful, though I suspect that is mainly due to the greater range of movement if the spear is starting at a point further back, and the extra energy afforded by the use of the shoulder muscles... It is mainly when the right shoulder moves forward past the torso that the power is delivered with that shot.

Rotation of the torso helps in either strike, the couched more than the overhand in fact. But the reduced power of the couched strike results from one of the features Chris holds up as a positive. The fact that the grip is at the ready position already close to the shield rim greatly limits the range of motion of the strike. It is the distance that the spear is accelerated during the strike, the path the hand moves during the strike, that is crucial to power generation.

Reach, stamina and control: What we have found is that the couched shot, with the elbow raised and the dory lying along the forearm with just part of the butt-spike projecting behind, affords a large amount of reach, with minimal amount of exposure for the hoplite. In my case I can put the point of the spear 2.2 metres past the aspis and it is only my arm projecting beyond it; the rest of my body is still in the same position, protected by the aspis. My hand is not that far behind the balance point and I also have the rim of the aspis to rest the dory on. More importantly, the dory is easier to control this way as the forearm helps steady it and it makes for very accurate thrusts. I have always found the main drawback of the overarm thrust to be the problem with it only being my wrist that keeps the dory under control if someone tries to deflect it.

Reach is the main advantage of the couched grip for all the reasons you state. Its a great way to ward off cavalry. The genius of the scheme presented in Chris's thesis is that it completely negates any advantage of the supposed mass charge into othismos, where hoplites are portrayed as running into each other like un-horsed jousting knights.. If given a choice between the two Chris's would dominate. But the mass charge directly into combat is surely incorrect, and a phalanx that marched up to men with couched dorys would gladly trade some 10cm of reach for 5x striking power and the ability to target much more of the foe.

Stamina is a possible advantage, but surely overplayed. Choke up a couple inches past the balance point of your dory and you can stand with it resting on your shoulder all day. The resting position for a dory in overhand would be with the hand back by the shoulder, something like the resting position for an axe.

control is something of a tossup. I am more accurate in overhand, easily hitting a softball on a rope repeatedly with powerful strikes. Always there is a trade-off between power and accuracy though.

It has a significant gouge running above the left eye almost straight up and a neat series of dots running across and up the left cheek guard where a spear skidded across it. Both occasions were accidents, as head shots were avoided, though spears and tridents were never padded (but were blunt). Both pieces of damage show the strikes were coming from underhand shots

This is a part of the argument that makes me think we are not all doing the same motions. The overhand strike has a flat trajectory if striking at the face of a foe...in fact, since it is essentially the same motion as throwing a spear, it could have an upward trajectory if you wished. If your overhand strikes do not have a flat trajectory, then you are gripping the shaft real tight and striking with the arm raised high (which is a valid way of striking overhand, like stabbing with an ice pick). Before hoplites stabbed at each other, they threw things at each other, and i think the motion was similar. A blow to a foe's helmet could still be coming up at an angle in overhand.