Exilian

Art, Writing, and Learning: The Clerisy Quarter => History, Science, and Interesting Information - The Great Library => Topic started by: Jubal on March 06, 2014, 11:15:47 PM

Title: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Jubal on March 06, 2014, 11:15:47 PM
LET THE GREAT ARGUMENT BEGIN!

Some starting matter:
Not a valid youtube URL

Underhand grip and side-facing stance has certainly been argued for in actual academic texts I've read (which I will try to dig out at some point! I'm honestly not sure what I think currently...

What do you all think?
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 07, 2014, 12:26:51 AM
Ok, first thing first, we need to clarify the definitions from the beginning. What do you mean by underarm? This:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Or this:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
?
Because, I've seen people refering to the latter as over-arm, while other, when saying over-arm, are talking about this:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Now, I'm not an expert in ancient greek warfare, neither did I read a lot of books about this matter, so my opinion is built only in what I think makes most sense and, therefore, I don't hold to it like the ultimate truth about hoplite warfare.

First of all, let's note that the great majority of the mods use the over-arm (I'm talking about the one showed in the third picture). This is probably due to the fact that Europa Barbarorum's team decided for it in their mod. Seeing as they're considered the Holy Bible of historicity, it's only natural that the other modders followed their steps. From what I understand, Europa Barborum's team decision was largely due to Peter Connolly's studies, in which he concluded that an over-arm thrust is stronger than an underarm one. Recently, Storm of Spears, a Christopher Matthew’s book, was published, in which tha author apparently (never read it) disproves Connoly's theories and reachs the conclusion that the overhand position was only used to throw the spear and that the underarm thrust it's more powerful than the over-arm counterpart.

Personally, I think that this "which thrust is stronger" discussion is silly. The ancient greeks did not had the current machinery that allow us to conclude that the x thrust it's N stronger than y. Probably, they thought: "Oh well, it seems that this thrust is slightly better than the other". My point being that the peak force of the thrust was not the most important thing an hoplite had in mind in the hour to choose his stance.

This leads us to the question: "What's the most important thing to bear in mind when you're choosing your position?". I would say: "Survivability", in other words, the stance that gives you more chances of surviving. That's why I think the over-arm grip was mainly used, because it allowed you to stay in formation, with your shield interlapped with the man in your side, thus boosting your chance of survival, while you can't do this using the underarm grip without hurting the man behind you. Now, that's not to say that the underarm stance was never used, I'm sure with was used many times, but, while staying in formation, I believe the overarm grip ruled.

Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Jubal on March 07, 2014, 12:42:45 AM
I believe most current studies suggest that hoplites didn't fight anything like that closely ranked as a matter of course, though; the phalanx for the Spartans or Athenians probably wasn't really nearly that much of a crushed shieldwall. (Mausolos would be a good person to ask on this matter I suspect)

I tend to go with the first video I posted; anything where the thumb faces forwards is an underarm, thumb back is overarm (underhand and overhand would be more accurate terms).
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: comrade_general on March 07, 2014, 12:53:24 AM
With the way the shields were supposed to lock together in formation the only possible way was overhand. When not in formation underhand could be used but I would guess because of the extremely large shield that overhand would probably still be used more.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 07, 2014, 12:54:05 AM
Well, it depends of the time, really. In the Hellenistic era, the classical hoplite formula was outdated, and, therefore, more loosened formations were developed. The hoplites were no longer the main line, but had the job of flanking the enemy, while the phanlanx pinned them down. This type of warfare required lighter armour and a looser formation, resulting in the Ekdromoi. The classical phalanx, from the Peloponesian War, for example, was a pretty closely ranked formation, though, similar to this:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Silver Wolf on March 07, 2014, 01:52:55 AM
From entirely different perspective, I believe that overhand makes more sense since it's more aggressive style and has a better grip and more force behind it (try it yourself, you'll see).

However, I believe that they switched it depending on circumstances. In the chaos of battle no one gives a rat's ass about how you hold your spear as long as you're not in the way. That Tactical Errors guys explained that part with formations pretty well.
On the other hand, underhand grip kind of allows you to hide a bigger portion of your body behind a shield, while still being able to stab someone on the side (accompanied by lowering the spear to mid-waist position).
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Jubal on March 07, 2014, 03:33:01 PM
Not a valid youtube URL
Some stuff at the end of this is an interesting counter to the tactical errors video; apparently the armour doesn't actually restrict movement up to shoulder height.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 07, 2014, 04:08:40 PM
Yeah, the heavy bronze cuirasses that the white hair guy refers to in the second video were completely outdated in the Hellenistic period. Almost no one used it. So, that "restric movement" argument doesn't quite hold up.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Clockwork on March 07, 2014, 05:41:51 PM
Just to say that I have tried it and I was much more comfortable, could get more power and had better control with an underarm thrust in the form of Bercor's second picture.

EDIT: With the overarm thrust there you're trying to hold a shield up while making a movement with your body and weapon arm which counteracts that which is why I prefer underarm.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Jubal on March 07, 2014, 05:54:09 PM
Brief testing indicates that I probably agree with Rob, but I don't have a shield or cuirass and I was using a staff rather than a spear so jury out until I can find better kit I think.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Pentagathus on March 07, 2014, 06:01:10 PM
Well, not sure what the greeks did but I'd merrily phalanx you all day long, over or underarm.  ;)
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 07, 2014, 06:04:43 PM
The problem with that stance it's that it's nigh impossible to stay in formation while using it, without stabbing the face of the guy behind you. But I agree with you, an underarm thrust feels more confortable and stronger than an overarm, though, neither of us have any experience of fighting with hoplite gear.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Jubal on March 07, 2014, 06:13:02 PM
Surely overarm would have issues too, particularly ensuring that you didn't stab someone behind when you pulled the spear backwards/if someone knocked your spear sideways?
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 07, 2014, 06:54:26 PM
True, but with overarm you have the possibility of pointing the spear more towards the ground, making that the opposite point would be over that man's head, the one that is behind you, when you pulled it backwards. Like this:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Clockwork on March 07, 2014, 09:31:02 PM
Both have their flaws imo. The downwards thrust surely would be easily blocked with shield or greaves and if aimed at head or neck then with the angle and position along the shaft you'd have to hold the spear, it'd just be more effective to use even a simple club then a spear? But I can see how fighting overarm in formation would be more of a hassle, plus it's a killer on your wrist, even with all the ahem... exercise I get.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Jubal on March 08, 2014, 03:42:57 PM
I asked a LARPer and a re-enactor yesterday, both claimed from experience to prefer underhand grips on account of overhand limiting your reach and your choice of points to attack.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 08, 2014, 03:54:38 PM
It's clear that the overhand grip limits the holder in a way that the undehand does not. However, on the other hand, the overhand allows you to stay in formation. Personally, I would prefer safety to reach, or possibilities of attack, any day.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Silver Wolf on March 08, 2014, 03:57:37 PM
It had to be overarm.

Underarm is more versatile, but it makes no sense in phalanx fights.
As we all know, hoplites fought in shield-wall formations and when two sides clashed their front rows were supported by a huge mass of soldiers behind them, pushing them forward. In such scenarios there is simply no space for underarm fighting style. You would not be able to move you elbows. Even if you could, wounding your enemy would be extremely hard, since he would be standing in your face with his shield for cover.
The only option is thrusting down at your enemy's upper body while his shields is pinned against yours. And that's overarm.


Also for some reason my overarm thrust has more force than underarm (usually the opposite for most folks), but less control (as expected).
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Jubal on March 08, 2014, 04:45:34 PM
I feel like once you got that close the front rank would be likely to drop their spears regardless - a sword would be much more useful once you were actually at pushing range. Also you can get an underarm spear at least to shoulder level or a little above (assuming we're still defining underarm as a thumb-forwards grip), and I suspect that even doing that would give you a crucial advantage for reach compared to an overarm fighter.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 08, 2014, 04:56:08 PM
Yes, it would. But, once again, it also would be impractical in a formation.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: TTG4 on March 08, 2014, 04:57:59 PM
Just reading through this, I hadn't even thought that over-arm was a possibilty! It feels like with overarm you use the bicep muscles more, whereas underarm feels lie you use the tricep muscles more. In general, someones bieps are stronger than their triceps.

Though since you've got a spear, I'm not certain how much difference that would make.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Jubal on March 08, 2014, 05:03:24 PM
I'm pretty sure it would only be impractical in a very close packed fight; the aspis isn't so big that you can't hold a couched spear at shoulder height and have it sticking over the top (though it's perhaps a slightly unwieldy position). I'm sceptical about the idea that hoplite battles purely involved a shoving match of people; it makes sense for some battles, but not others. Also, greek armour design doesn't seem to make that much sense if downward thrusts are the main issue and the aspis is covering the centre of the body; the place that got reinforced most often was the belly.

I think what all this calls for is some test fights between different styles of phalanx, under some sort of re-enactment/LARP rules.  ;D
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: comrade_general on March 08, 2014, 05:05:48 PM
I picked up a stick and tried it. Both seem to have their own pluses and minuses. Who's to say it wasn't a personal preference back then as well and was often interchangeable?
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Jubal on March 08, 2014, 05:09:15 PM
I doubt you could have an effective formation if people varied style within it. I expect that it was fairly interchangeable though.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 08, 2014, 07:00:23 PM
I found this:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Jubal on March 08, 2014, 07:03:48 PM
Cradling the spears between the shields is an interesting one there, particularly. That would make holding a high underarm a much more sustainable option in a push.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 08, 2014, 07:14:31 PM
Yeah, and you can see how there's no possibility of hitting the guy behind you, plus you can rest the spear in your forearm.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: TTG4 on March 08, 2014, 11:45:12 PM
The wrist roll is interesting, would the point be twisting upon contact?

If so, among martial artists, a twist on the end of a technique is considered to increase the damage caused. Whether or not this is relevant to a spear though I'm not too certain.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Alavaria on March 09, 2014, 10:55:20 PM
Quote from: Bercor on March 07, 2014, 04:08:40 PM
Yeah, the heavy bronze cuirasses that the white hair guy refers to in the second video were completely outdated in the Hellenistic period. Almost no one used it. So, that "restric movement" argument doesn't quite hold up.
What are the types of bronze cuirasses that appear in a bunch of the RTW mods?
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Jubal on March 09, 2014, 11:22:00 PM
Not sure - I mean, I'm sure part-bronze was common, but the restriction of movement only really holds if the whole thing is a single block of bronze - if it's just reinforcing a regular piece of leather armour or indeed if it's a breastplate-backplate arrangement with straps I think movement should still be sufficient.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 09, 2014, 11:29:07 PM
Quote from: Alavaria on March 09, 2014, 10:55:20 PM
Quote from: Bercor on March 07, 2014, 04:08:40 PM
Yeah, the heavy bronze cuirasses that the white hair guy refers to in the second video were completely outdated in the Hellenistic period. Almost no one used it. So, that "restric movement" argument doesn't quite hold up.
What are the types of bronze cuirasses that appear in a bunch of the RTW mods?

Most mods are not completely historically accurate.

In regards to the bronze bell and muscle cuirasses, they disappeared from mainland Greece around 480 BC. Linen cuirasses had appeared around 550 BC and gradually replaced the bell cuirass. Muscle cuirasses first appeared around the same time that the bell cuirass finally disappeared, but they were never as popular. They were however used in the 5th and 4th century BC and in the Hellenistic and Roman periods the bronze muscle cuirass became the "uniform" of senior officers.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Alavaria on March 10, 2014, 12:55:50 AM
So you'd basically never see a "unit" all wearing muscle cuirasses, just their officers. (The men would most likely have something less ostentatious.)
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Jubal on March 10, 2014, 01:01:07 AM
Exactly.

Does anyone know if there have been good academic studies of fighting styles as depicted on vase paintings?
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 01:05:30 AM
Most mods use exceptional equipment, in the sense that it was only used by some individuals, mostly officers, and make it the standard equipment of an elite unit (an example of this is nomad units with horned horses or the hellenic cataphracts units with the face mask). Personally, I prefer to give that unusual equipment to the officers, as they were the ones that most probably actually used it.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Silver Wolf on March 10, 2014, 01:19:01 AM
It's a trade-off really. And I mostly welcome it. And here's why:
The problem is that if you equip every unit with standard equipment, you're going to end up with a very visually dull mod, despite your best effort. And that's extraordinarily frustrating if you're a modeler, like myself.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 01:24:40 AM
I understand your point but don't quite agree with it. Ever played RTRVII? They use standard equipment for every unit and, yet, each unit looks distinctive. I think it's possible to make them look interesting, while also historically accurate. Remember, you can only use one set of equipment for each unit, but you have various historical and interesting examples of standard equipment that you can use, for example. Plus seeing an unit of horned horses galloping through the battlefield just looks ridiculous.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Alavaria on March 10, 2014, 01:31:53 AM
Yeah, all hoplites use the same round-type shield, and the oval shaped shields are also about the same between them. But their designs are different, and it looks pretty great (though RTW sadly doesn't let you have different styles in a single unit). There's different styles of armor around, most mods have different colors or designs. Colorful !

Only the player faction would do something like "lets have all the line troops in metal armor". Or it's the Romans :D
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 01:37:32 AM
Yeah, but it's good they do. I have to admit that I feel strangely delighted when bashing those shiny romans with some stiking barbarians. ;D
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Alavaria on March 10, 2014, 01:41:25 AM
Well, I recently fought against these horned mounted troops in RSII, it's somewhat satisfying to be fighting all these elites that are ridiculously powerful. I imagine any victorious army would tell tales of how everyone they killed had muscle cuirasses on...

BUT

Someone mentioned that in the relevant time period, hoplites weren't using the dense heavy formations they had earlier. In a looser formation, does one style of spear use have an advantage over the other?
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Clockwork on March 10, 2014, 02:14:40 AM
In less dense formations underhand is even more preferable. Although get too loose and a hoplon is just weighing you down and its worth discarding (aside from respective punishments for deserting). It isn't a fighting shield it's a formation shield.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Alavaria on March 10, 2014, 02:37:53 AM
That does explain why many of their lighter units (that also use javelins etc) used pelte shields. Though I think the spear-using ones of those are generally depicted as overarm in mods. I guess there's no reason for that since they are in loose formation instead of interlocking shields.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 08:21:25 AM
Some people (cough... cough... EB) still argue that overhand was used even when not in formation and with smaller shields.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Jubal on March 10, 2014, 10:24:35 AM
I agree with Colossus, overhand makes no sense at all out of formation except as a throwing action.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 10:52:58 AM
One of the arguments it's that tribesmen in Africa still use the overhand stance till this very day.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Jubal on March 10, 2014, 11:44:50 AM
Zulu spears I'm pretty sure were used underhand... an overhand makes sense if perhaps the spear is throwable so it can be easily hurled in a pinch? Can't see a good reason other than that.

Also, for out of formation fighting compare the pretty good control on this guy's underhand grip:

To this farce:

Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 12:07:54 PM
Here's some pics:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I agree with you, though. While in formation, some kind of over-the-shield stance must have been used. When not in formation, underhand seems more effective than overhand.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Silver Wolf on March 10, 2014, 12:22:13 PM
@ Jubal.

Yes the first one is a good example of underhand grip and it's fighting style, but it's totally unrelated to Classical phalanx. That guy has a whole basketball court of free space at his disposal.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 12:24:53 PM
Plus, the shield that guy is using it's much smaller than an aspis shield.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Jubal on March 10, 2014, 12:32:43 PM
Yeah... as somewhat expected, most of those spears are built like javelins.

SW: I was posting that related to the point that Alavaria was discussing on the previous page as to use of grips when not in formation, not to the original phalanx discussion.  :)
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 12:35:18 PM
Some of that spears are clearly to big to be javelins. However, you can always argue that they're simply carrying it, and not fighting with it.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: comrade_general on March 10, 2014, 12:36:01 PM
Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 12:38:21 PM
What's the matter CG?
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Silver Wolf on March 10, 2014, 01:09:38 PM
Naked tribesmen, I guess.

Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 01:16:47 PM
Oh. I had now idea he was so prudish...
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: comrade_general on March 10, 2014, 01:42:56 PM
It's not prudism, it's just gross old naked men. :P
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Jubal on March 10, 2014, 01:51:20 PM
Hey, they're probably a lot fitter and better looking than we'll be at that age.  :P
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: comrade_general on March 10, 2014, 01:56:43 PM
But we have industry, science and technology!

(http://www.menshealth.co.uk/cm/menshealthuk/images/4M/02-oldmuscle-230212-de.jpg)
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 02:05:57 PM
Yeah, but they do have the looks.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Alavaria on March 10, 2014, 06:17:34 PM
Quote from: Bercor on March 08, 2014, 07:00:23 PM
I found this:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
This actually seems like it work work well in formation, and also use the same style even when not in formation. Which might be a plus, as you wouldn't have to train the hoplite for two fighting styles, and they don't have to switch ever.

Interestingly enough, if you look, they also have most of the spear sticking out in front, you could have a guy behind you or even the one behind him extending their spears in front of you.

The overhand grip style generally seems to have half (or close enough) of the spear behind you, which means you'd have somewhat of a range disadvantage.


The downward angle of the higher overhand grip does let you do a useful thing though, if the enemy is charging you with heads down and shields in formation, you may be able to thrust over their shield and strike downwards, instead of just going over the top of their helmet (or striking a glancing blow across the top of their helmet). The shorter range may also be useful if frequently groups closed and fought with spears at ranges that would leave the longer grip at a disadvantage.
Quote from: Bercor on March 07, 2014, 12:26:51 AM
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Looks like it would work in both formation and when loosely fighting (like say Ekodromoi hoplites). You can also see how they would raise their shield (incoming arrows!) and shift their stance so the spear is coming below the shield now, so it is at the ready while they are defending themselves from missiles.

Interestingly enough that is EB, unless they refer to that as overarm somehow? Do they have a unit with animations reflecting that stance? Hmm, time for some RTW playing
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 06:48:55 PM
No, they only have the overhand animation. That's merely an artistic representation.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Clockwork on March 10, 2014, 09:18:33 PM
Quote from: Jubal on March 10, 2014, 11:44:50 AM
Zulu spears I'm pretty sure were used underhand... an overhand makes sense if perhaps the spear is throwable so it can be easily hurled in a pinch? Can't see a good reason other than that.

The reason that anyone with access to a river would fight overarm is because that is how you fish with a spear. Give a peasant a spear and he'll try and 'fish' someone instead of attack them. I get that you mean for a professional army which wouldn't be likely to do that, I'm just trying to think of reasons why somebody (anybody) would :P

I would agree with Jubal though that the main reason would have to be because you would be throwing whatever you have overarm. Then again the hoplon shield isn't made for jav throwing at all, counterbalance is all wrong again.

The Zulu's and tribesmen did not have a hoplon. There is point fighting without a heavy shield overarm, you have a lot larger angle of attack at kill hits (face, through top of shoulder, neck) whereas underarm is better for doing *any* damage such as a stick in the fleshy side, which is unlikely to outright kill unless you hit an organ which leaks various hazardous fluids, giving your opponent free reign to do whatever as you're momentarily weaponless. Zulus and tribesmen also didn't fight in formation and would run at and leap at enemies, which a 2 handed overarm grip is much more powerful for.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 09:29:10 PM
Agreed, but, once again, in an hoplite formation, this type of underhand would be completely impossible:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Only this stance could be used:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Alavaria on March 10, 2014, 10:02:37 PM
Another question: was adding cloth or leather to the bottom of the shield also used in the relevant time period?
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 10:10:06 PM
Sorry, I don't follow. You mean leather inside the shield (as where you hold it) or around it?
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Silver Wolf on March 10, 2014, 10:17:41 PM
The part where forearm meets shield surface, probably.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Alavaria on March 10, 2014, 10:19:10 PM
It hangs below the lower edge of the shield. I think they did it to help defend against missiles that might go underneath it.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 10:26:12 PM
During the Hellenistic era, there's not any mention that I know of. The hoplite aspis was quickly becaming obsolete and it was slowly being replaced by the thureos. Personally, I think it's improbable that they would strap cloth or leather to the shield with the intention of protecting the legs from missiles, seeing as the thureos offers a good protection, height wise.

Of course, there could have been some isolated cases.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Alavaria on March 10, 2014, 10:30:48 PM
There was some greek name for it that I don't recall. Something like this:

(http://www.aeroartinc.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/6/2/6230.jpg)
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 10:33:59 PM
Interesting figure.

Yeah, but, as I said, during the Hellenistic times, that probably was not widely used.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Silver Wolf on March 10, 2014, 10:35:39 PM
I must admit that I've never seen that...

Maybe it was used in some cases to distinguish officers?
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Alavaria on March 10, 2014, 10:53:36 PM
I think it was suggested you might add it if you couldn't afford the metal greaves... but I can't find more details. Was hoping some of the historians here might have heard of it.

I guess chaps able to afford things like bronze armor wouldn't bother, it would've made the shield more annoying to use I guess...

(http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/1424/greciaaspisaadido.jpg)
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 10:55:39 PM
Mausolos is probably your best chance to give you an insight on that. You should post that question in the RTR subforum, or pm him.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Silver Wolf on March 10, 2014, 11:50:29 PM
Quote from: Alavaria on March 10, 2014, 10:53:36 PM
Was hoping some of the historians here might have heard of it.

Jubal is the only historian here, if I'm not mistaken? :P
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 11, 2014, 12:17:52 AM
Yeah, Mausolos it's just a wannabe historian.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Jubal on March 11, 2014, 01:05:50 PM
No, technically Mausolos I think has done more than I have, he's doing his master's whereas I'm halfway through my first degree? And xeofox IIRC is actually a professional, though his stuff would more usually be put with archaeology than history departments.

It's partly (as usual) the quirks of my Uni, history students are always referred to as historians here regardless of level. That said, I am planning to at least do a doctorate, so we'll see.  :)
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Silver Wolf on March 11, 2014, 11:28:55 PM
So what's our final verdict here?

I believe that overarm had to be used in marching formations and underarm (with interlocked shields) in stationary shield walls, since it offered better range and some possibility of deflecting enemy spears.

And if the formations were broken?
Then it was probably every man for himself, just looking to get a kill any way possible and live another day.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Clockwork on March 12, 2014, 01:12:38 AM
And I'm just a portugalwit that has to have a say no matter how uneducated he actually is.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Silver Wolf on March 12, 2014, 11:56:33 AM
Hey I never said that...

I just said that we should hear what our site's history students have to say.
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Clockwork on March 12, 2014, 07:18:58 PM
Nah man I was just taking the piss at my own actions :P
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Silver Wolf on March 13, 2014, 12:52:28 AM
Aaand apparently they have noting to say right now...

Come on guys we need a conclusion. Dig harder.  :llama1:
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Jubal on March 13, 2014, 10:39:03 AM
My own opinion is that an overhand (thumb-backwards) grip would have been relatively unusual and that for most purposes the control of the underhand would have been more important; a high underhand grip with the spear rested between the shields makes most sense to me as the "tight" formation, the overhand seems too unwieldy and the armour design seems to very much discourage overhand fighting (as it exposes the armpit, for example, which I consider a very major point against overhand being usual). The issue with the idea that overhand would be used when the formation was mobile is just that it'd then be quite hard to switch quickly into the shieldwall; seems more likely that the formation would move with it underhand then switch into a wall and slowly start pushing when they got close.

Of course there would be variation though, probably quite a lot of it. And you'll get people like Wolfy whose preference is for overhand because their muscle distribution favours it.

That said I should note that I consider the above a personal opinion not really a historian's opinion; if I get a chance to read some actual papers on the subject I'll get back to you on the latter :P
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Bercor on March 13, 2014, 10:44:06 AM
As any historian knows, the ultimate conclusion for any highly debated subject is:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?
Post by: Jubal on March 13, 2014, 10:48:17 AM
Hold onto that thought and I'll get back to you in a couple of weeks. :P

*yay mysterious hinting*