Iphicratean Thureophoroi

[PMBardunias]

I was pondering the nature of Iphicrates reforms (Diodoros 15.44):

"Hence we are told, after he had acquired his long experience of military operations in the Persian War, he devised many improvements in the tools of war, devoting himself especially to the matter of arms.1 For instance, the Greeks were using shields which were large (megalais aspisi) and consequently difficult to handle; these he discarded and made small oval ones (peltas summetrous) of moderate size, thus successfully achieving both objects, to furnish the body with adequate cover and to enable the user of the small shield, on account of its lightness, to be completely free in his movements. After a trial of the new shield its easy manipulation secured its adoption, and the infantry who had formerly been called "hoplites" (hoplitai) because of their heavy shield (aspidon), then had their name changed to "peltasts" (peltastai) from the light pelta they carried. As regards spear (doratos) and sword (xiphous), he made changes in the contrary direction: namely, he increased the length of the spears by half, and made the swords almost twice as long. The actual use of these arms confirmed the initial test and from the success of the experiment won great fame for the inventive genius of the general. He made soldiers' boots that were easy to untie and light and they continue to this day to be called "Iphicratids" after him.2 He also introduced many other useful improvements into warfare, but it would be tedious to write about them"

Usually this troop type is seen as a means of turning peltasts into hoplite-equvalents. They are often portrayed as proto-sarissaphoroi, armed with a "pike" held in a double-handed, underhand fashion that requires a small pelta to free the left hand to aid in supporting.

I have been wondering though. Adding half again to an 8' dory, gives us a 12' spear. Hardly a pike and as seen on another thread here still able to be wielded with a single hand. If the Iphicratid spear does not require two hands, then there is no constraint on the shape of the shield, and more importantly the grip. Now a circular or oval single, central grip shield is quite possible. I lean towards oval since it makes an underhand grip of the spear more efficient and I believe experimentation will show that an underhand grip is best with such a long spear.

Now a guy with an oval, single-grip shield and a spear is what will be called a thureophoroi 100 years later. In between he was probably simply called a "mercenary" or a hoplite or peltast by the author's choice.

If I am right, then Iphicrates did little to inspire sarissaphoroi other than to push a trend towards longer spears. What he did was "invent" thureophoroi, though they would only acquire this name after the barley-corn pommel shield is adopted from a gallic source. They would also reduce the length of their spears over time since their primary opponent was no longer hoplites and they could not match the length of a sarissa.

Just some thoughts of mine, perhaps they have been said before.

[Kineas]

Eventually, I want to start a thread on spear fighting like the Romans have for Gladiatorial combat--we're doing it every week and the learning curve is more like a slippery, ice covered road.

But there's some pertinence to the issue at hand.

yesterday, there were only three of us and we only had a pair of aspides between us--and a Thracian shield. Because we didn't have enough bodies to have a line fight, we fought some duels with the two fighters using dory and aspis, and then, because it was cold and no one likes to sit out, we added the "Thracian" who had a pelte and a ten foot spear.

The surprising development was this--the man with the Pelte could do everything the hoplite could do as long as the battle was fluid. We've already learned that a pelte is a terrible thing in a line fight (ie, against a phalanx) because once the shields get 'close" the pelte carriers are at an enormous disadvantage from strikes delivered from either side--ie, from fighters not apparently engaged against the man who takes the hit. In a more open, fluid fight, that danger is removed--as long as the peltast can see his opponent, he can easily deflect the blows.

We also spent considerable time running and fighting yesterday, which showed us that the aspis is a bit of a liability in a straight out sprint--the Pelte less so.

Never has the description of the peltasts picking apart the Spartans made better sense!

As a curiosity, the other thing the Peltast can't do as well is defend himself from javelin throws that he can't see coming--whereas the Hoplite has no such concern. The Hoplite's not showing more than about 6 square inches of target... I was able to bring a pesky peltast down with a javelin cast right at the outset of the last engagement--right over the horns of his shield. Sorry, had to brag--and moment later he beheaded me in another engagement. Ah, how fleeting is glory!

I eagerly await the opportunity to try eight on eight or twelve on twelve. Then we'll start learning some verifiable things, I suspect.

[PMBardunias]

As a curiosity, the other thing the Peltast can't do as well is defend himself from javelin throws that he can't see coming

Hence the eyes painted on Pelta

Your peltas are double-grip? Try fighting both peltast and hoplite in single combat with a single-grip shield and from everything I have been told you will have an advantage- again as long as you are not bound in formation.

This is comforting news because there are those who would deny that the aspis was most effective when used as part of a phalanx as opposed to opened single combat.

As to missiles, if you were in a phalanx with a little pelta, then not only would your vision be decreased, but the range of motion for your response might be limited. I'm glad to see you doing this, I look forward to more results.

Do you find an underhand grip more suited to a longer spear? I realize that there are many variables, but there is a formulae, which I have yet to determine, for an optimal spear of any length or weight. For example if you take an 8' spear of weight (X) and want to move the balance point back, it must weigh more than (X) due to the need for a counterweight. You can then shave off some weight of the shaft by tapering, or making the head smaller, but there are limits to this. So length, center of balance, weight, taper, and blade weight are all variables that can be traded off and each has its limitations.

[MeinPanzer]

I was pondering the nature of Iphicrates reforms (Diodoros 15.44):

"Hence we are told, after he had acquired his long experience of military operations in the Persian War, he devised many improvements in the tools of war, devoting himself especially to the matter of arms.1 For instance, the Greeks were using shields which were large (megalais aspisi) and consequently difficult to handle; these he discarded and made small oval ones (peltas summetrous) of moderate size, thus successfully achieving both objects, to furnish the body with adequate cover and to enable the user of the small shield, on account of its lightness, to be completely free in his movements. After a trial of the new shield its easy manipulation secured its adoption, and the infantry who had formerly been called "hoplites" (hoplitai) because of their heavy shield (aspidon), then had their name changed to "peltasts" (peltastai) from the light pelta they carried. As regards spear (doratos) and sword (xiphous), he made changes in the contrary direction: namely, he increased the length of the spears by half, and made the swords almost twice as long. The actual use of these arms confirmed the initial test and from the success of the experiment won great fame for the inventive genius of the general. He made soldiers' boots that were easy to untie and light and they continue to this day to be called "Iphicratids" after him.2 He also introduced many other useful improvements into warfare, but it would be tedious to write about them"

Usually this troop type is seen as a means of turning peltasts into hoplite-equvalents. They are often portrayed as proto-sarissaphoroi, armed with a "pike" held in a double-handed, underhand fashion that requires a small pelta to free the left hand to aid in supporting.

I have been wondering though. Adding half again to an 8' dory, gives us a 12' spear. Hardly a pike and as seen on another thread here still able to be wielded with a single hand. If the Iphicratid spear does not require two hands, then there is no constraint on the shape of the shield, and more importantly the grip. Now a circular or oval single, central grip shield is quite possible. I lean towards oval since it makes an underhand grip of the spear more efficient and I believe experimentation will show that an underhand grip is best with such a long spear.

Now a guy with an oval, single-grip shield and a spear is what will be called a thureophoroi 100 years later. In between he was probably simply called a "mercenary" or a hoplite or peltast by the author's choice.

If I am right, then Iphicrates did little to inspire sarissaphoroi other than to push a trend towards longer spears. What he did was "invent" thureophoroi, though they would only acquire this name after the barley-corn pommel shield is adopted from a gallic source. They would also reduce the length of their spears over time since their primary opponent was no longer hoplites and they could not match the length of a sarissa.

Just some thoughts of mine, perhaps they have been said before.

This has been widely discussed before, and the unfortunate conclusion that must be reached is that "peltas summetrous" can be interpreted numerous different ways and we simply don't have any more evidence on the matter. We can't say for sure whether the shields were round, or oval, or crescent shaped.

[Kineas]

We don't double grip our spears with or without pelte. An old SCA spear fighter once said "double gripping a spear is for a man who fears his opponent" or words to that effect. I agree. White you should deliver a stronger blow, the aggregate effect is a series of prods rather than blows that will have effect--and of course, you can't throw the thing when it is gripped two-handed.
As to under hand vs. over hand--it's funny, because I did quite a bit of bayonet fencing in a former life and I have a natural pre-disposition for the underhand--but I have to admit that I think it is merely a guard, neither more nor less useful than overhand--in fact, I think it slightly LESS useful. The reasons are subtle, but I'll try to encapsulate them.
First, underhand has slightly better reach but only at the expense of power. This summer, I did some tests striking at a steel 55 gallon drum with a lonche. The spear point more frequently penetrated the steel from an overhand strike, even at three feet, using the overhand. Again, these are one man's results and further, the difference wasn't broad enough to be significant--except that the overhand position DID generate a lot of power.
Second, overhand offers the fighter a wider selection of targets and a greater capability to feint. An underhand thrust has a very limited line--the swing of the arm, the fighter's own shield, etc. Overhand allows a fighter--especially one with a full sized aspis--the full range of options, including a very deceptive strike down into the foes upper thigh. Most importantly, though, the high or overhand guard ensures that the fighter's spear will NOT be trapped between or below shields when the press gets close, nor will the butt interfere with his file partner. All this has doubtless been said before, but it is more exciting when you experience it for yourself!
Finally, the underhand thrust is "in line" with the fighter's body and the foe's shield, where the overhand thrust is "out of line" or rather from an angle--close in, it is possible to strike OVER a shield, and farther out, some other geometries can play. The most important (although we're just beginning to experiment with this as we produce more aspides!) is that a fighter in the high guard can thrust diagonally at opponents to his right and left in the full press of "othismos" or the like, which is deadly, especially when someone with good point control is able to start working "across the grain" (that is, into the unshielded sides of fighters to his front and right due to line problems.) In one experiment, one fighter was able to down eight opponents and shatter a 24 person block simply by feinting at the immediate enemy and thrusting diagonally--the experiment was to determine what would happen when a phalanx formed too closely or was packed in by othismos and faced a lighter armed enemy.
We still have so much learning to do that I fear to announce "results". But I think I'm starting to get a feel for hoplite fighting, and I think I see why they de-emphasized "fencing" hoplomache in favor of endurance sports such as running and pankration. We find that with a big shield and armour, the odds of taking a killing blow are very small--at first. But--as you tire, your odds of taking a killing blow rise, and rise. It's an interesting question how this would play into morale with real weapons and death as a potential result. I have a growing suspicion that, when the first men start to die, their deaths signal to the whole phalanx that they have reached a point of fatigue where men die (hope that sentence makes sense) and suddenly the game changes--and the rules of morale take over. The side with the better physical fitness and endurance can keep their shields up and their spears engaged longer, and so they reach the point of mortality more slowly. Deeper, stiffer formations don't have the same contact with the front rank that a shallower formation (4 deep or even eight) has, so whether or not the men are "pushing" (and I won't begin to weigh in on that!) a deeper formation tires, as a body, more slowly and is less immediately concerned with front rank losses.

That's a LOT of guesswork based on about forty hours of spear fighting with an aspis. I can smell the hubris from here! But I'm finding it all so fascinating I had to report on it. And I'd really like to hear from anyone else doing Greek style fighting. I'd like to discuss safety, arms and armour, and what we're learning.

[Demetrios]

Kineas Just to make sure : when you fought in that particular trail, were you just three people ? How close did you come ? What is the difference with a simple duel ?
I ll give you my own impressions afterwards.

[Kineas]

Khaire, Demetrios--this weekend we only had three. (Sometimes we have quite a few more!).

How close did we come? Well--many times we bashed our shields together--in fact, wear and tear ont he very expensive and labour intensive aspis is getting to be a discussion point around here! So we get quite close--but in general, I think we're about 1.5 meters apart in a sparring or duel. I have very long arms, so I can land a good blow five or six feet from my shield, but not everyone can, so naturally they force the distance...

When we fought two on one, we were interested in the single man retreating--simulating the seconds when a phalanx broke. We has some simple rules to cover flanks and distances, and it was quite a useful drill. Mostly, the lone man died.

[Demetrios]

I see... thanks for the details.
Our main problem is that we are never enough people to get the mass feeling of a phalanx. Either not deep enough or not wide enough.
I figured the phalanx with Athenea Promakhos, gathering (when I was attending, I do not know about other events) a maximum of 20 - 22 people. So we could build a 2 rank phalanx 10 men wide but without fight againts anybodyelse.
Or we could build 2 phalanxes of a max 10 people, that is to say 5 front men and 2 ranks deep fighting one phalanx against the other. (A 3 rank deep phalanx by 3 men wide front would have made a square, not very interesting)
With the "wide" phalanx design, even the 2nd rank had the impression to be on the front line = had no feeling of being protected by one or two ranks in the front, missing IMO this protection feeling one should have at the 3rd or 4th rank in a phalanx.
This was for the place setting...

As far as the fight is concerned, we charged one phalanx against the other, marching, then at a given distance, we started running.
I would have personnally liked to get in true contact with the opponents BUT at say, 2 meter distance, both phalanxes stopped and started fighting with spears, maintaining this 2 meter gap. So we lost the benefit of the running charge and avoided the "othismos aspidon" .
In that way, the battle was transformed into a juxtaposition of duels.
The explanantion for it was that everybody was reluctant in crashing the nice shields costing hours of work. I'd nevertheless like to come once to contact which seems more real to me.

I have a few other questions about your spear fight experience :

1 do you "fence" with your spear = do you use your shaft to turn blows aside or to free your way before you deal your own blow ?
2 do you strike with your shields too ? if you ever came to contact shield to shield, could youmanage to fight with your spears ?

Thanks for sharing your skills.

[Sean Manning]

Fascinating, Kineas! What are you doing for safety gear?

In defense of two-handed spear use, its the only form of spearfighting which the medieval masters teach, so its clearly effective for duelling. I don't have personal experience though.

[PMBardunias]

We can't say for sure whether the shields were round, or oval, or crescent shaped.

This is a very different question than our usual symmetry arguements. I am focussed solely on the grip, a single central grip, like a scutum- vs- a double-grip like the porpax and antilabe of the aspis or most pelta.

We don't double grip our spears with or without pelte.

I think we are semantically crossed I mean is your pelta held in a double-grip along the forearm or with just the hand.

I've written a bit on this on my blog- go back a few months:

http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/

Second, overhand offers the fighter a wider selection of targets and a greater capability to feint.

I think of it as a gun in a turret -vs- a gun in a sponson. You've probably seen me write this before, but don't think that hoplites EVER fought in formation with spears held underhand. After the enemy breaks is when underhand becomes a possibility- and if I had held my spear up that long I would surely do this! Late Romans seem to use a "high underhand", almost couched like a lance, which one to hold a spear from behind it's balance point, but I doubt this for hoplites. The "raised underhand", I just coined the term for holding the spear above your shoulder with the fingers facing away and the thumb towards the point, is possible, but limits the range of motion.

The reason I think an underhand thrust will be favored in a long spear is the inertia of the length of spear behind the hand. As you have probably noticed a counterweighted spear with less than a third of its length behind the hand points faster and easier than the same spear held in the center. A taper and a small head will improve this even more. To show the concept in its extreme, try turning your counterweighted spear backward and pointing the saroter.

My thought on the 12' spear is that it is not meant to be held overhand and thus not counterweighted as extremely as a dory. An 8' dory counterweighted to be gripped at about a third from the base projects about 5' 4" from the hand. A 12' spear gripped in the middle projects about 6' from the hand. So the larger spear is simply to create parity and really not much longer in useful length.


You probably know all of this so I am writing for the lurkers

[PMBardunias]

I would have personnally liked to get in true contact with the opponents BUT at say, 2 meter distance, both phalanxes stopped and started fighting with spears, maintaining this 2 meter gap. So we lost the benefit of the running charge and avoided the "othismos aspidon" .

Don't worry, you are not missing much. The notion of a running charge leading directly into othismos like a bunch of rams in rut is incorrect. Hoplites surely pulled up from the charge at spear's length and entered doratismos. Othismos only occurs later when the men regain their close order after the charge, with almost no space between ranks. A short "charge" may ensue, but we are talking feet, not yards.

My latest posts were on this:
http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/


One way that I have seen to simulate rear ranks is in this video below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DH-BmrV ... re=related

The pole across their backs takes the place of the pressure of their mates' shields quite effectively. You will also note the short "charge" and the position of the men- directly facing their foes, not shoulder first. These guys are hard core and they have "rediscovered" same very interesting techniques. I recommend watching the related videos. So much for those who denegrate reenactment.

[MeinPanzer]

We can't say for sure whether the shields were round, or oval, or crescent shaped.

This is a very different question than our usual symmetry arguements. I am focussed solely on the grip, a single central grip, like a scutum- vs- a double-grip like the porpax and antilabe of the aspis or most pelta.

Regardless, we have no idea what sort of grip these shields would have had, so any sort of speculation is purely hypothetical.

[PMBardunias]

Regardless, we have no idea what sort of grip these shields would have had, so any sort of speculation is purely hypothetical.

Ruben, that is the point of this thread, to hypothesize that it was a single grip shield as opposed to the currently widely accepted speculation that it was a double-grip shield and the forerunner of that of the sarissaphoroi.

[Kineas]

Well--I admire those guys, but I'm not positive there's any one way. Shield directly facing the opponent--yep, if I had a flat shield like that, I'd quickly be forced to do that. But I recommend you get inside an aspis and see what happens--it doesn't lend itself to a straight push. Still, it is early days and I will stop claiming to "know" anything! Please do not take this to mean I'm disagreeing--I just work hard to avoid getting into that "flat" stance.

think of it as a gun in a turret -vs- a gun in a sponson.

I think I'll quote you one that! Excellent simile.

Demetrios, it sounds like your experiences are "bigger" than mine. So far, in about 40 hours of trying to recreate Greek combat, I've mostly done 4 on 4 or 3 on three. One afternoon, NOT with my group, I dragooned an entire history class of 17 year-olds (including a front rank of athletes) and made a 24 man block to maneuver and practice with--but only the front rank had aspides and protective gear.

Your two questions are excellent--because this is just what we're all trying just now. So first, the simple answers.

1) I don't often fence with my spear, but I do do it. Let me say (aside) that I'm a swordsman of 35 years experience, so I have a natural but possibly "un-Greek" desire to use my spear as a ten foot sword. As I develop a standard repertoire of attacks and feints, I have found that, just as in fencing and SCA style-fighting and every other martial art, there are times when I want to put my weapon in contact with my opponent's weapon--if only to mislead.

2) We go shield to shield all the time, and my brand-new aspis has 6 coats of gesso over 2 layers of linen and glue with another 15 coats of paint atop the gesso--and I STILL have to repaint it after every fight. But that only takes five minutes--it still beats cleaning black powder guns (my other reenacting hobby). Have to say that the only injury I've received so far was the massive bruise to my jaw from taking some impact on the shield rim (That was a 270 pound hoplite crashing into me.) Shield to shield is quite exciting. However! I rather agree with Paul--I suspect the formations slowed and stopped at fighting range. Sometimes not. (I don't believe that there is any one unified field theory to what happened in a Hoplite fight).

Thanks, Sean. As we do more of this, we wear more protection. At the moment, we require heavy gloves (we're just transitioning to the WMA gloves from Purpleheart Armoury) with fencing masks, cups for all (men and women). However, at the moment we are using very light weapons--bamboo stave spears and Nitoryu Shinai as our xiphos and Kopis. This is a little unfair--after all, our aspides are full weight--but I'll always err on the side of defense and safety.

As a general aside, late archaic Greek kit--closed face helm, aspis, and greaves, with a linen, leather, or bronze thorax--is one of the few periods I can think of where the warrior is fully and sufficiently protected IN HIS REENACTMENT GEAR against period weapons. Since no one has the equivalent of a 2-handed sword or axe, a great many problems of the later periods are avoided. As our group gets more kit, we'll fight in Corinthians, or in our Boeotians with a wire-mesh mask in place underneath.

If I had the computer skills to do it, I'd move this to its own thread and stop polluting Paul's rather excellent question with all this spear-fighting recreation. Sorry, Paul!

[Kineas]

Whoops-sorry. All our peltes have a porpax and an antelabe. I understand the question now!