How hoplites carried their spears

[ouragos]

I had not considered that before. If the relief above and others are accurate depictions, this puts the balance point even further back than I thought- less than a quarter of the spear's length

This is not as strange as you would think. Consider...

To use a long spear in a phalanx you need to minimise the risk to anyone behind you. Hence the shorter the distance from the point of balance to the TIP of the sarouter, the better. It also gives you better maneuverability with the business end becuase the butt spike has more relative space to move in without causing serious harm to your colleagues.

We know that tapered shafts were used to draw back the weight. We also know that spear would 'crack' on hard impact as phalanx's closed - which is actually a good thing. In a phalanx on phalanx engagement when two sides are pushing at each other, a 7-9 foot spear is a bit of a liability, but a two or three foot 'club' is actually quite useful. It is but a fraction of a second to close your hand around the shaft (to get a hammer grip) from the description I gave above).

In fact, is not the dory the exocet missile of the ancient world in technology terms? A 'self-shortening' spear?

Not a claim, just an amusing thought!

If you examine finds of sarouters, some of them are quite narrow socketed (and with a straight'ish' socket that suggests we are looking at a shaft base thickness of a similar diameter - else you need to cut a 'T' section and that will weaken the join of the sarouter under pressure).

They can also be small (although I do know that the addition of lead to the butt end of the spear to increase the weight did happen). Perhaps when repairing with new shafts or new heads, when the balance will change?

Of the many spearheads in existance, they are of various sizes and there is a line of debate (which I tend to support from playing with the things) that smaller heads are for the dory and warfare. The larger ones being for hunting.

A sweeping hypothesis I know, and I would not defend it 'absolutely', but the general principle behind it seems sound from reconstruction.

Anyway (it is late and I am starting to ramble), I have a 9 foot 1 inch spear (measured tip to tip) on a tapered shaft and the point of balance is around 24 inches from the end of the tip. So a little less than a quarter of the total length does not seem unrealistic.

Incidentally, I have made up 4 spears and achieved the same basic proportion give or take a couple of inches. The key variable being the shaft itself as the heads and spikes were pretty much consistent.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

There is another way to look at things however...and I'm not saying I'm defending this rather than the other,but both theories have to be presented. Perhaps it is safer in close order if there is much of the shaft left behind the grip. The spear is usually held in a slight angle. The more shaft it left behind,the higher the sauroter goes over the back row's heads,making the but harmless anyway. This is also depicted in early sculptures and vase paintings. For example look at the Siphnian treasury hoplites. Almost half of the shaft is left begind the frip. Also,in many vases and sculptures no sauroter is shown...And I have seen in person sauroters of much different size. Firt of all,many of them are iron,so they don't have extra weight compared with the spear point. And many of them are tiny!In some cases I've seen tiny iron sauroters! And they were not early but late,3rd century bc I think. On the other hand I've seen huge bronze sauroters,often longer than 30 cm of lenght. Also having the point of balance nearer to the center,you have a more maneuverable spear,and shorter at the same time,to be able to work with in a close combat. So there is contradicting evidence. On other representations,there is both a tiny spear point,a huge sauroter,plus the shaft is thicker in the sauroter and much thinner in the spear point. This was indeed true some times,as I've seen preserved shafts in Vergina that had a thickness of about 1,5 cm at the tip ending to a much thicker butt.This would serve in sarissa, but in art it is shown in earlier finds
Khairete
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

For some reason my carefully crafted illustration did not attach correctly in my previous post. I'll try again:

[ouragos]

The illustration works Paul, and as closely as a 2D can show it, looks pretty good to me.

Giannis - you are right of course, many variations of the way to look at things. We must never forget either that there was no real 'regulation pattern' or 'standard issue', so many hypotheses could hold true and it is never a good thing to be so blinkered as to defend one to the death in the deniance of something that contradicts it.

On iron sarouters - I have come across some that are simply hollow, filled with lead and some with lead wrapped around the outside. So just as modern soldiers adapt and amend their kit, I would imagine that plenty of reasons could be found for the smaller butt spikes to exist.... and provided the 'stick was properly balanced and you used a small head, you could still get the same balance proportion.

On top of that, illustrative evidence can be a little 'interpretive' and we need to be realistic in using it, but I accept your point. However I would suggest that having 3 foot plus of the shaft sticking out behind you both impacts upon the 'reach' of the spear point (a key aspect of this type of spear technology) and would cause problems in use. Yes, the spear would be angled down to the front, but once you start fighting with it, recovering, striking, recovering again you will be waving it about and might I suggest that trying to maintan that downward angle when facing a motivated advisary will be quite low down your list of priorities!

[ouragos]

Sorry - small point Paul - little man number 5 - you do not need to lift your arm vertically like that - in reality you can move from 4 to 6.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Andy I think Paul did this to present a way that one could change grip in close order,without striking the hoplite behind. And I think he was inspired of this method because of the short shaft behind the grip.
Khaire
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

you do not need to lift your arm vertically like that - in reality you can move from 4 to 6.

You're right, but if you do step five it works better in a crowd and avoids hitting the faces behind you (I did this standing next to two walls- no jokes about making me go stand in the corner).

Do you find the rear-balanced spears more handy? Do they pivot quicker in the hand?

Also, I have yet to figure out the math, but for any given weight of spear(sauretor, point, and shaft), assuming a uniform taper, there should be an optimum balance point that maximizes the reach of the weapon. Essentially the length of the "lever" in front of the fist balanced by that behind it. This should dictate the ratio of the weight of spear head and sauretor. Perhaps this would help differentiate between dory heads and those of other spear types.

[ouragos]

I understand what you are saying, but there is more control from twisting your wrist lower down and less chance of spearing helmets/faces. (Believe me, in our early days we tried many different options and were VERY glad of the big shields!!)

Also you cannot maintain your grip with the finger backwards to get the spear point vertical - and it is a more complex movement. (Actually, with that grip it is actually easier, albeit impossible because of length, to put the butt in the air and the aichme facing down.

The only way that is practical that I can see is to grip the shaft, thumb up.... and that leaves you with the wrong grip. I am certain there was no formal drill as such though, but it is likely that there was a practical and a less practical approach and as long as it got into position, when needed without killing your compatriots that was probably a result.

....sorry, I know this is more complex and there are issues around working effcetively in a formation... but that's far too deep for now.

On the spear, well it is not complex math but there are two specific variables, the point of balance of the shaft and the weight differentiation between the head and the butt spike. So essentially you need two calculations.

However - again, hand made metalwork, hand turned shafts. So I suspect that this was done by experience more than calculation. As well as the 4 'decent' spears I have made I also had a lot of earlier versions. You start to get a feel for what works and what does not after a time.

[PMBardunias]

On the spear, well it is not complex math but there are two specific variables, the point of balance of the shaft and the weight differentiation between the head and the butt spike. So essentially you need two calculations.

It gets complex when you work in a progressive taper to the shaft. The short and obvious answer is that you want the butt as short as possible and weighted and the spear head as light as possible. The extreme of this exists; we call it a sword. In some ways the dory acts more like a big rapier than a standard spear that is weighted more towards the middle.

However - again, hand made metalwork, hand turned shafts. So I suspect that this was done by experience more than calculation.

I'm sure this is the case- after all they were building domed Aspis long before they new to use domes in architecture. Just like in the natural world, trial and error and selection for the best model can lead to results as elegant as calculation.

[Paullus Scipio]

Paul B. wrote:-

Also, I have yet to figure out the math, but for any given weight of spear(sauretor, point, and shaft), assuming a uniform taper, there should be an optimum balance point that maximizes the reach of the weapon. Essentially the length of the "lever" in front of the fist balanced by that behind it.

...before we get too carried away with the science of "pool cue" spear designs, might it not be as well to remember that right up until sometime around the early 400's ( and maybe later), the spear shaft appears to be non-tapered, and the 'balance point' the middle of the spear, (judging by the majority of the epigraphical evidence)? Notwithstanding this, spears are still shown being held further back, particularly underarm against cavalry....but as the shaft is not tapered and the balance point appears to be in the centre, strong wrists sre implied !!

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

How strong? The spear is heavy. heavier than i expected before making one. Although I haven't seen it clearly in early art, the shaft might as well have been thicker in the end and very thin in the point (as the spear points also imply)
Khaire
Giannis

[Paullus Scipio]

I would certainly agree that the spear ( I too have a reproduction, or rather my 18 year old younger son does!) seems somewhat heavy, when first wielded but pracitice overcomes this.
Design parameters for such a spear will be fairly narrow....for a given length you need the minimum diameter (for lightness) compatible with 'stiffness' ( a spear the 'wobbles' is not much use c.f. Polybius' famous remarks on Roman cavalry spears), and 'breakability' .... you don't want the head to snap off from lateral forces after penetrating a target, or thudding into a shield. The weakest point is just behind the socket, and this may explain why 'tapered' shafts weren't more common.....
Judging by the archaeological finds,spear-heads and sauroters show a very consistent socket diameter - 17-19 mm with a few as narrow as 16mm and rarely 20 mm....clearly this is the optimum.

[Susanne]

That video brings back LOTS of pleasant memories from the first Ancient Greek Festival... I really can't imagine that I moved with a phalanx, in a public display.

My apologies for the rather short reply, I'll make sure to read the thread in its entirety once I return from my recording duties at my excavation site.

[PMBardunias]

Judging by the archaeological finds,spear-heads and sauroters show a very consistent socket diameter - 17-19 mm with a few as narrow as 16mm and rarely 20 mm....clearly this is the optimum.

A diameter of less that 2cm? Surely this is evidence for a taper of some sort or Greeks had tiny hands. As to the pictorial evidence, you know I am always skeptical- in many early vases the shaft is simply a line from a single stroke. I am always worried about artistic foreshortening as well when tapers are clear.

Design parameters for such a spear will be fairly narrow....for a given length you need the minimum diameter (for lightness) compatible with 'stiffness' ( a spear the 'wobbles' is not much use c.f. Polybius' famous remarks on Roman cavalry spears), and 'breakability' .... you don't want the head to snap off from lateral forces after penetrating a target, or thudding into a shield. The weakest point is just behind the socket, and this may explain why 'tapered' shafts weren't more common.....

True to a point, but the spear that breaks off in your opponent is better than the one that is too short to reach him until after his spearhead breaks off in you. :wink:

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Paul,the evidence exists indeed for a less than two cm diemeter. Both the spear points are very narrow,but as I mentioned,the surviving shafts are in some cases very thin. But this I can tell only for the shaft near the tip. In the saurotes the shafts i've seen are considerably wider.
khaire
Giannis