Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
[split] Phalanx warfare: use of the spear
(08-25-2016, 01:37 PM)JaM Wrote: ok, but you realize such movement should withstand the shock of the continuous hits? its not just about the length but also about being able to hit something reliably and with some force at that distance? Because must say, i had enough just after few hits, and with repeated hits, id rather held the spear with all fingers around it.

And regarding force, i don't have any means to measure anything, but overall i felt the strongest hits from underarm using same trajectory as with usual direct punch. Id say, you would probably connect more body weight and muscles strength into it, while with Overarm its more about throwing motion, which means you are counting on the momentum of the spear itself. (so technically, would be probably interesting to know what type of muscle tissue hoplites had developed the most... slow/strong one, or the fast/dynamic one..)

Overall, i think the best way how to verify the theory would be to have some volunteers, and drill them for a month or two so they would get into shape while using the panoply, and then have them

(no hussars this time, but who knows what future will bring)

If you are not holding the spear with all of your fingers you are doing something wrong.  The grip is the same over or under in terms of fingers on the shaft right up to the point where the hand extends forward far enough that the spear needs to rotate in the hand.

Yes you are only counting on the momentum of the spear itself.  If you are doing this right, any push coming from your hand will not add much.  The move is just like a throw, which everyone knows is stronger than an underhand thrust and also relies solely on the spear's momentum. 

Perhaps the easiest way to teach this is start by throwing the spear into something.  Then just move closer until the spear hits the target without leaving your hand .
Reply
no worries, i know precisely how to throw a Javelin. thing is, throwing a javelin requires specific release angle, once you are past that angle, your release speed decreases, which results in inferior throw. I have read some works about javelin throws in the past, while trying to understand what distances would be possible with standing throws. Luckily, Javelin throwing is Olympic sport, which is dissected into science. you can find very detailed studies for it.. one interesting fact for those who don't know - 45 degree, which from perspective of a person with a base physic knowledge should guarantee the longest range is actually not the release angle Javelin throwers use.. angle is a bit shallower (30-35) and not greater than 40 degrees precisely due to human physiology which results in less release speed with higher angle.

Which is another reason for actually testing the overarm grip vs underarm, because measuring speed for proper javelin throw is not the same as thrusting overarm with a spear on a downward trajectory. (but of course, javelineers are able to release javelins with speed around 30-33m/s with a running throw and 800g javelin, women around 28m/s with 600g javelin)
Jaroslav Jakubov
Reply
(08-25-2016, 02:34 PM)JaM Wrote: no worries, i know precisely how to throw a Javelin. thing is, throwing a javelin requires specific release angle, once you are past that angle, your release speed decreases, which results in inferior throw. I have read some works about javelin throws in the past, while trying to understand what distances would be possible with standing throws. Luckily, Javelin throwing is Olympic sport, which is dissected into science. you can find very detailed studies for it..  one interesting fact for those who don't know - 45 degree, which from perspective of a person with a base physic knowledge should guarantee the longest range is actually not the release angle Javelin throwers use.. angle is a bit shallower (30-35) and not greater than 40 degrees precisely due to human physiology which results in less release speed with higher angle.

Which is another reason for actually testing the overarm grip vs underarm, because  measuring speed for proper javelin throw is not the same as thrusting overarm with a spear on a downward trajectory. (but of course, javelineers are able to release javelins with speed around 30-33m/s with a running throw and 800g javelin, women around 28m/s with 600g javelin)

This is actually wrong, there is no slow down after a certain angle.  Not sure where you got it from.  Release angle is about optimum trajectory, not highest force.  I fact the whole reason Greeks used the ankle is so that they could keep accelerating the spear past the release point for the optimum trajectory angle.  Ankyles and atlatls have nothing to do with lever arm extension like a sling, and everything to do with extending the time you spend in contact with the shaft accelerating it.

This is why the best release angle is less than 45 degrees- it is a trade off between keeping the contact and accelerating and the best trajectory.
Reply
I just know someone is going to object to the lack of lever effect for the atlatl and ankyle, so I am putting this image up preemptively.  Many who claim to do not know how they work.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply
not really, its not about optimum trajectory, otherwise javelins would be released at 45 degrees, and best javelin throwers used 30-35degrees, while others are not exceeding 40 degrees. its about angle of attack, body position at the release (hips) etc and the bio mechanics of the body. But important thing is to keep the arm at the javelins point of balance at the release, so practically ankyle allows to stay connected with the javelin longer (and by modern tests increases the range by 15-35%, so ranges around or over 60m would be possible). But yes, i made one logical mistake here, as javelin throw is different from the spear thrust, body position is different, you tend to place arm way back and in angle to optimize the speed of release, something you wouldn't do while thrusting.

With thrusting i think it would be much more important to keep the link with the point of balance, otherwise weight of the rear would counter some energy downwards, reducing your effective impact energy, so no holding the spear in the middle with a spear weighted with a sauroter..

Anyway, i think it wouldn't be a bad idea to determine when weighted spears with sauroters started to appear.. if I remember correctly, Carthaginians used very small ones with their spears, so they could use them as throwing and thrusting weapons (would also explain why they were shorter than Roman Hastae)
Jaroslav Jakubov
Reply
(08-25-2016, 05:19 PM)JaM Wrote: not really, its not about optimum trajectory, otherwise javelins would be released at 45 degrees, and best javelin throwers used 30-35degrees, while others are not exceeding 40 degrees. its about angle of attack, body position at the release (hips) etc and the bio mechanics of the body. But important thing is to keep the arm at the javelins point of balance at the release, so practically ankyle allows to stay connected with the javelin longer (and by modern tests increases the range by 15-35%, so ranges around or over 60m would be possible). But yes, i made one logical mistake here, as javelin throw is different from the spear thrust, body position is different, you tend to place arm way back and in angle to optimize the speed of release, something you wouldn't do while thrusting.

With thrusting i think it would be much more important to keep the link with the point of balance, otherwise weight of the rear would counter some energy downwards, reducing your effective impact energy, so no holding the spear in the middle with a spear weighted with a sauroter..

Anyway, i think it wouldn't be a bad idea to determine when weighted spears with sauroters started to appear.. if I remember correctly, Carthaginians used very small ones with their spears, so they could use them as throwing and thrusting weapons (would also explain why they were shorter than Roman Hastae)

You misunderstand.  What you are describing is in fact proving my point.  The optimum angle ballistically is 45 degrees from the ground.  Javelin throwers do not release at 45 degrees, they hold onto the javelin longer, until they are 35-40 degrees.  That is degrees from the ground, hence they are not releasing it early, but holding it longer.  They do this because their arm is still accelerating the javelin as it rotates past the 45 degree point- no slow down.  The reason they  let go at 35-40 degrees is that even though the javelin would in fact be going faster at 20 degrees because of continued acceleration is that the trajectory would be so low that gravity pulls the javelin to the ground before I can go as far as the other throws.

You keep bringing up a downwards strike.  There is no downward trajectory, the spear is thrust straight out parallel to the ground at full extension.  It can even be angled up.  If you can't do this you are doing an ice-pick strike like Mathew did, which is weak.
Reply
(08-25-2016, 10:45 AM)JaM Wrote: Giannis K. Hoplite: as i said before,  you cant take art too literally, because artists are not soldiers. These are not photographs, but representations made who know how many years after the battles were fought.. and its not that uncommon for artist to "go with the flow" and make his work based on works of those before him. Artists have tendency to idealize everything, so it would be not that uncommon for them to copy some "heroic" posture from other vases they saw, and use them on their own work.. they definitely saw more art paintings than they saw actual battles...

i can tell you that for example, while i'm working on 17.century themed combat game, a lot of art pictures are showing complete nonsense against all laws of physics.. look at any portrait about naval battles.. you will see a lot of ships sinking, burning etc, yet sinking was something that just didn't happened that very often to wooden ships, and definitely not during battle.. yet all portraits are full of it..  its artistic license, picture painted by somebody who painted it but never actually saw a naval battle in his life (and yes, there were some exceptions.. as always) and why did they paint it? because they heard about ships were lost, yet usually only after battle, when damaged ships got into some bad weather and couldnt return back to ports.. yet, for artist who is painting a naval battle, that is not interesting.. he wants to have ships sinking, because his enemies lost so many ships etc etc...

or another example - just look how many battle paintings from 18-19.century show men killing each other with bayonets.. Yet, if you actually look for details from those battles, or any other, you will find interesting thing - bayonet attacks practically never happened in open terrain, because one side always just rout and ran away... yet, did that stopped artists from painting exactly that? NOPE

You are wrongly making parallels between dissimilar societies. Ancient greek artists, especially high artists like sculptors (vase painting was considered a lesser art, but still there were famous painters) would be respected citizens and thus would serve in their city's army, which in all city states was milita hoplites.
The painters and sculptors would have had a constant contact with the weapons they depicted, unlike most modern artists or artists of other periods.
Same is true for all those that admired the artwork. I have not seen actual war, I don't even know if movies show how war is fought nowadays, they can be as inaccurate as they like, only a small minority will object. Ancient Greece? Completely different!

It is also plain wrong that they "might" have created their artwork many years after battle occured. I'm sure you are familiar with archaic and greek history. It is interconnected with military history, their whole world was spinning around war and preparation for war. We could talk specifically if you want, but it's all in Herodotus and Xenophon. Go look what the Siphnians were doing when they built their treasure in Delphi, or what the Asia Minor cities were used to when the Nereid monument was built. The Nereid monument is also unique in depictling not only mythical scenes, but also real events of the time.

But yes, there is definitely stylization in art. All spears are exactly parallel, the proportions of the body are not always exact to nature, and SOME unusual practise might be shown once in a while.

I cannot call it stylization when it happens to THAT SCALE!

But the Greeks are constantly proving as accurate as ancient art ever has been all the time. They show a cross on the hilt of a sword on a vase painting, this is stylization. Then you see that real swords some times had iron bands crossing over the hilt and you understand. Two lines crossing is stylisation. Of a real event none the less.
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply
really? then how d oyou want to explain for example the famous Chigi vase?

[Image: gal_aow_chigi_vase.jpg]

look how they hold the javelins on it.. they have javelins behind the head...[Sarkasm ON] not sure from which planet are you from, but on earth, thats just not possible... [Sarkasm OFF]

and you can find a lot more of such things on vases.. i used Chigi as example because a lot people know it and consider it almost a bible or something...
Jaroslav Jakubov
Reply
I am on neither side on this part of the debate. I have called for years for someone to come up with a systematic examination of the conventions used in vase imagery. One good example is the side-on stance advocated by both Van wees for spear fightibg anf Schwartz for othismos. We see it on many vases, but when tried it does not work because like the Chigi, you are stabbing through your own head and every strike you make twists your body frontally anyway. Now we know that the side on pose is found in art all over Mesopotamia and Egypt for things like women offering votive gifts, so we should immediately suspect this is not a reflection of reality.

I tend to weigh the vase imagery by a couple of criteria. If something appears, its more important than when its left out. Obvoiusly its easier to leave out a detail. Second, if the level of detail in the image is high, I tust all of its details more. For example I put a lot of stock in the placement, towards the rear, of the grips we see on some spears. That image of a hoplite I posted earlier in this thread is perhaps the most detailed we have, so I trust his long, tapered, rear balanced spear.
Reply
See? A good stylization/artistic lisense! He shows the true grip, still finds a way to not hide his work of art with twenty black lines that would be the spears, in a way completely obvious to everyone from this planet!

By the way, would you call them all javelins, despite an ankle, even though they have already come in close combat and none of them has any fingers inside the ankle?

Later vases about 50-60 years after the Chigi vase go into the whole trouble of showing the two fingers inside the ankyle of javelins.
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply
(08-26-2016, 03:37 PM)Giannis K. Hoplite Wrote: See? A good stylization/artistic lisense! He shows the true grip, still finds a way to not hide his work of art with twenty black lines that would be the spears, in a way completely obvious to everyone from this planet!

By the way, would you call them all javelins, despite an ankle, even though they have already come in close combat and none of them has any fingers inside the ankle?

Later vases about 50-60 years after the Chigi vase go into the whole trouble of showing the two fingers inside the ankyle of javelins.

There is another vase from this period that shows a clear fighting spear, without ankyle, next to a smaller spear with ankyle.  So my guess for the chigi is that the shorter spear was a javelin and the longer the equivalent of a lonchge like the one that Phillipoemen took in the thigh up to the ankyle if I recall. 

I think at the time of the Chigi, and maybe through most of the archaic period, hoplites fought by forming close and throwing things at eachother.  Other cultures that did this form a line of shields, sometimes in more than one layer which the aspis cannot do, then men behind threw things over top.  The front men themselves could move out and throw their spears, or even enter into individual duels in the space between the lines (this happens in viking sagas).  So the men on the chigi may be in this phase of battle, or they may be shown after this phase when the two lines came together to fight with spears in a much more classical hoplite fashion.  The only difference would be how far apart the two lines were- missile range or spear range.
Reply
Look at their shields, they are already interlocking, so probably the artist had a close combat in mind.

Besides, what you are describing as possible early hoplite combat is nowhere in the sources. Our best source (in my own opinion) about early archaic combat - Homer (ok there is Tyrtaios, but he's more limited), describes men in ranks, fighting in dense formations, some times coming out of them for duels, using spears that were possibly long, and could be thrown at any time, or not.
Yes, this could be a description of Mycenean combat, but it just as well applies to early hoplites.

And throwing your spear with which you fought overhand is also in the rennaisance manuals for spear and shield. It was meant to be a surprize.
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply
(08-26-2016, 10:27 PM)Giannis K. Hoplite Wrote: Look at their shields, they are already interlocking, so probably the artist had a close combat in mind.

Besides, what you are describing as possible early hoplite combat is nowhere in the sources. Our best source (in my own opinion) about early archaic combat - Homer (ok there is Tyrtaios, but he's more limited), describes men in ranks, fighting in dense formations, some times coming out of them for duels, using spears that were possibly long, and could be thrown at any time, or not.
Yes, this could be a description of Mycenean combat, but it just as well applies to early hoplites.

And throwing your spear with which you fought overhand is also in the rennaisance manuals for spear and shield. It was meant to be a surprize.

Actually, no, they are not interlocking.  They are in fact facing edge-on, with spear shafts between on the lower edges.  We have assumed they are overlapped.  I believe they are supposed to be overlapping, but that is not really what is shown.  The Berlin aryballos is better.

It is the poems of Tyrtaeus that make me think the way I do.  If we accept that the early hoplite had two spears, at least one to throw, then they had to have a formation that allowed this.  There would be no point in running into battle holding a useless javelin.  They had to have stopped at missile range and thrown things.  We also know that they fought hand to hand with sword and spear, thus the lines had to have come together after some period- breif or long- of missile duelling.  Tyrtaeus describes this situation.   In his poems men are being admonished not to skulk back behind the ranks out of missile range, rocks are constantly raining down on the men, and he tells them to get in close and fight shield on shield.  This has been taken to specifically mean othismos, but I think it simply means to get from missile range to sword range.  Othismos was always something that could happen once men were in close fighting, but not a goal in itself in every combat.  So Tyrtaeus is telling his audience to move from a shield wall with men throwing things at range, to a phalanx where men took their "wall" and used it offensively.  Over time the first phase would be eclipsed, because well armored men could charge through the beaten zone of missiles.

Just adding a bit:
This explains some of the confusion in the othismos debate. The heretics want hoplites fighting like peltasts, but a fulcum is a much better model for heavily armored men. All the missile throwing, none of the prancing about. The key is to realize that a phalanx and a shield wall are not the same thing. A classical phalanx is primarily offensive, charging directly to melee. It is the evolution from shield wall tactics to phalanx, not light infantry tactics to phalanx that we watch from archaic to classical periods.
Reply
I agree with all that.

Perhaps interlocked was not the right word, because I meant the shields of the opposing phalanxes. The shields of the last man farrer from us to the right and to the left are "touching", thus hear are two phalanxes already or at the point of contact.

By the way, we have the name "shield wall" in the sources. Herodotus uses it to describe the fence of spara of the Persians. He says that when that fell then the Persians sustained heavy casualties due to not having shields. A clear indication of how the Persians fought. It also indicates that it was not easy to beat the Persians unless the wall fell.
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply
Yes, the Sparrabarra were in essence the same as the early hoplite shield wall, with a much stronger missile component and shields that were a static barricade. You can think of the Persian formation as the ultimate shield wall in a way. It was all defensive "wall", and only less so offensive shock combat.

This I think explains the hoplite's success. By Marathon Greek hoplites on the mainland at least had moved from shield wall to phalanx, which did away with the missile component of the shield wall and instead just had the hoplites run through missile range right into shock combat. I wonder if in Ionia they still fought in the old fashion. It would explain why Herodotus describes the charge of the Athenians as unique, and why the Ionians fared so differently against the Persians. You can't out "shield-wall" Persian archers.

Interestingly, Plataea starts out with the Persian shield-wall winning because of the combination of missile saturation and local skirmishing troops- classic shield wall tactics. The hoplites suffered beneath the arrows and could not easily sally forth from the line to meet the local attacks. It is only when the Tegeans move from static shield-wall to offensive phalanx that they overwealm the Persians.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Phalanx warfare: Closing of the ranks Anatol Wyss 82 44,952 12-11-2019, 03:10 PM
Last Post: Condottiero Magno

Forum Jump: