Othismos tests

[Erpingham]

Paul, your explanation works for me quite well if we assume what in other times we call a spear-foyning phase happens (dorytismos?) although it is interesting you see that individual file leaders close the distance dependent on their personal circumstances rather awaiting a command.  I can imagine glances back and forward down the line to get a feel for whether, if you go now, would others go?  It would be risky to cross that gap not knowing if anyone was going to back you up.  Maybe that's what made a hero?

This could, of course, work for the walkers-into-combat like the Spartans.  But how does it work for the chargers?  Cross the field at a run and crash into the other side.  No dorytismos.  It doesn't work as a line breaking move, as your experiments show.  Does it have other purposes?  Attaque à outrance type morale ideas?  Are we seeing a reflection of something Monluc would reference many years later - if you weren't as well trained as the other side, forget a foyning contest and go in hard together?  So a less well-trained phalanx would charge to avoid the superior spear-skills of an opponent?

[PMBardunias]

It is interesting that your tests use the spears in an overarm position.   A while back there was a discussion about a  book where the author was advocating holding the spear in couched position at the arm pit as he stated doing so would generate more force.

This is Chris Mathew's book.  His book is in large part why I wrote mine.  There are many great things in the book, but some real problems that I and others warned him of before he wrote it.  I had stepped away from hoplites for a few years and was astonished to see no one had seriously challenged the assumptions that most reenactors know are wrong.  The most glaring is his assertion that all overhand strikes on vases are throws. You can disprove that in 2 minutes on CVA by showing an overhand strike sill held in the hand and stuck in a foe. The couched strike he uses is another. there are 4 studies now on striking position and force, and his was the only one to find that overhand was not substantially stronger.  I believe this is because they struck in an odd, constrained fashion. He describes all overhand strikes as angled downwards, and must have held it like an ice pick.  Here is how you strike with a dory, and also an explanation of why that old "how do you transitions from underhand in the march to overhand" is a red herring: http://hollow-lacedaimon.blogspot.com/

The other big problem is that he channels Hellenistic frontages and pushes them back on hoplites.  He never actually shows men in the 45cm spacing he advocates.  This is because he never gets closer than about 60cm.  Here is a figure from his book redrawn and corrected to show that what he calls 45 has to be 60cm.

[Justin Swanton]

On the subject of the overhand strike being stronger than the underhand one: is an overhand strike with a sarissa stronger than underhand? the pike phalanx was a natural development from the hoplite phalanx, and it makes sense that the overhand grip of the hoplite would have migrated to the phalangite as being more workable than underhand (and also explain why Renaissance pikemen eventually settled on the overhand grip even though their generals were convinced that the classical phalanx held their pikes underarm).

[PMBardunias]

On the subject of the overhand strike being stronger than the underhand one: is an overhand strike with a sarissa stronger than underhand? the pike phalanx was a natural development from the hoplite phalanx, and it makes sense that the overhand grip of the hoplite would have migrated to the phalangite as being more workable than underhand (and also explain why Renaissance pikemen eventually settled on the overhand grip even though their generals were convinced that the classical phalanx held their pikes underarm).

That is an interesting question for which I have no answer. Overhand strikes are stronger because the motion is essentially a throw.  Human bodies are specifically designed to throw and our arms and shoulders make use of a catapult-like system of tendons- chimps can't do it, they lob things. So the transition from throw to overhand is fluid.  Now when two hands are brought in, I do not know how this changes.  I am imagining the throwing of a heavy whaling harpoon.  One thing to look at, but I do not have time right now, is how Xenophon tells hunters to hold boar spears in On Hunting.  We forget that many hoplites had more experience holding spears two handed in hunting, than one handed in war.

[Duncan Head]

One thing to look at, but I do not have time right now, is how Xenophon tells hunters to hold boar spears in On Hunting.

This bit?

If, in spite of javelins and stones, he [the boar] refuses to pull the rope tight, but draws back, wheels round and marks his assailant, in that case the man must approach him spear in hand, and grasp it with the left in front and the right behind, since the left steadies while the right drives it. The left foot must follow the left hand forward, and the right foot the other hand. As he advances let him hold the spear before him, with his legs not much further apart than in wrestling, turning the left side towards the left hand, and then watching the beast's eye and noting the movement of the fellow's head. Let him present the spear, taking care that the boar doesn't knock it out of his hand with a jerk of his head, since he follows up the impetus of the sudden knock.

Compare this scene from the Thracian Alexandrovo tomb.

[PMBardunias]

One thing to look at, but I do not have time right now, is how Xenophon tells hunters to hold boar spears in On Hunting.

This bit?

If, in spite of javelins and stones, he [the boar] refuses to pull the rope tight, but draws back, wheels round and marks his assailant, in that case the man must approach him spear in hand, and grasp it with the left in front and the right behind, since the left steadies while the right drives it. The left foot must follow the left hand forward, and the right foot the other hand. As he advances let him hold the spear before him, with his legs not much further apart than in wrestling, turning the left side towards the left hand, and then watching the beast's eye and noting the movement of the fellow's head. Let him present the spear, taking care that the boar doesn't knock it out of his hand with a jerk of his head, since he follows up the impetus of the sudden knock.

Compare this scene from the Thracian Alexandrovo tomb.

Hi Duncan,

Yes, that is what I was thinking of. Xenophon seems to be describing an underhand strike like the one in the Alexandrovo tomb- left steadying, right driving. Since this is the 2-handed strike familiar to hoplites, I think it is the default for 2 handed sarissa unless there is other information.

[aligern]

A single handed strike with a weapon such as a duty has the advantage of flexible aiming...looking for that eye hole. Two handed underarm the dory is too short, the hop lite would be very close to his ppponent and committed to a jab with little opportunity go aim his point. Two handed underarm with a long weapon such as the sarissa again has little ability to aim, but a great advantage in the amount of weight that can be put through the pike. It makes most sense if the hop lite fights over arm and the phalangite underarm because the objective of both is different, one is fighting individually, the other as part of a wall of spearheads,
Roy

[Justin Swanton]

One thing to look at, but I do not have time right now, is how Xenophon tells hunters to hold boar spears in On Hunting.

This bit?

If, in spite of javelins and stones, he [the boar] refuses to pull the rope tight, but draws back, wheels round and marks his assailant, in that case the man must approach him spear in hand, and grasp it with the left in front and the right behind, since the left steadies while the right drives it. The left foot must follow the left hand forward, and the right foot the other hand. As he advances let him hold the spear before him, with his legs not much further apart than in wrestling, turning the left side towards the left hand, and then watching the beast's eye and noting the movement of the fellow's head. Let him present the spear, taking care that the boar doesn't knock it out of his hand with a jerk of his head, since he follows up the impetus of the sudden knock.

Compare this scene from the Thracian Alexandrovo tomb.

Notice in the tomb fresco that the hunter is aiming for the neck. This requires a low strike hence an underhand grip. This doesn't tell us much about how a phalangite would hold his sarissa in a phalanx with shields and bodies in the way of an underhand grip, and opponents whose vulnerable area - the head - could be reached only by a high strike.

[PMBardunias]

Notice in the tomb fresco that the hunter is aiming for the neck. This requires a low strike hence an underhand grip. This doesn't tell us much about how a phalangite would hold his sarissa in a phalanx with shields and bodies in the way of an underhand grip, and opponents whose vulnerable area - the head - could be reached only by a high strike.

This is counterintuitive, but with a sarissa, if you want to strike high, you are better off using a low grip, and downward you are better off with a high grip.  It has to do with the way you lever the shaft with your left hand. This is perhaps most obvious when you consider the position pikes are held in to receive cavalry.

[Justin Swanton]

Notice in the tomb fresco that the hunter is aiming for the neck. This requires a low strike hence an underhand grip. This doesn't tell us much about how a phalangite would hold his sarissa in a phalanx with shields and bodies in the way of an underhand grip, and opponents whose vulnerable area - the head - could be reached only by a high strike.

This is counterintuitive, but with a sarissa, if you want to strike high, you are better off using a low grip, and downward you are better off with a high grip.

And the hunter?

[Erpingham]

Notice in the tomb fresco that the hunter is aiming for the neck. This requires a low strike hence an underhand grip. This doesn't tell us much about how a phalangite would hold his sarissa in a phalanx with shields and bodies in the way of an underhand grip, and opponents whose vulnerable area - the head - could be reached only by a high strike.

It's a pretty common way of tackling a boar - try calydonian Boar image search.  Incidentally, one image shows two men using two-handed overarm grips . 
They are at the bum end though.  For a charging boar you want to get the whole shaft braced and square to the animal, so that he doesn't knock it aside.

Whether this tells us much about pike fighting I don't know but I seem to remember that a Hellenistic phalanx just pushes forward behind its rows of spear heads.  In one case they just embed their spears in Roman shields and drive them back, if I recall an earlier quote.  The solid braced head on boar fighting grip may have been prefered in these circumstances.

[Justin Swanton]

A single handed strike with a weapon such as a duty has the advantage of flexible aiming...looking for that eye hole. Two handed underarm the dory is too short, the hop lite would be very close to his ppponent and committed to a jab with little opportunity go aim his point. Two handed underarm with a long weapon such as the sarissa again has little ability to aim, but a great advantage in the amount of weight that can be put through the pike. It makes most sense if the hop lite fights over arm and the phalangite underarm because the objective of both is different, one is fighting individually, the other as part of a wall of spearheads,
Roy

One question: haven't tests shown that a human body can put more force behind an overarm strike than an underarm one? I increasingly favour the overarm hold for pikes because they have more flexibility with their pikes - they can move them around and aim them - and hence they can actually create a homogenous wall of spears which IMHO underarm, with pikes jammed together between shields, especially shields in close formation, is much more difficult to achieve (but that returns to beaten ground so I'll just leave it at my question).

[Justin Swanton]

Notice in the tomb fresco that the hunter is aiming for the neck. This requires a low strike hence an underhand grip. This doesn't tell us much about how a phalangite would hold his sarissa in a phalanx with shields and bodies in the way of an underhand grip, and opponents whose vulnerable area - the head - could be reached only by a high strike.

It's a pretty common way of tackling a boar - try calydonian Boar image search.  Incidentally, one image shows two men using two-handed overarm grips . 
They are at the bum end though.  For a charging boar you want to get the whole shaft braced and square to the animal, so that he doesn't knock it aside.

Whether this tells us much about pike fighting I don't know but I seem to remember that a Hellenistic phalanx just pushes forward behind its rows of spear heads.  In one case they just embed their spears in Roman shields and drive them back, if I recall an earlier quote.  The solid braced head on boar fighting grip may have been prefered in these circumstances.

So both grips are used for hunting depending on the circumstances (or perhaps just depending on the preference of the hunter).

The only extant image of phalangites shows them using the underarm grip. My own take is that that is the only way the front rank could hold pikes if they wanted to simultaneously use their shields to protect themselves, but the second and following ranks were under no such contraints. Renaissance pikers, who didn't have shields, had no reason for the front rankers to hold their pikes underarm except to receive a cavalry charge and then they used their pikes like a skewer. Otherwise they preferred overarm, no arguments. And that after plenty of battle experience. Why, one wonders...

We're now on the wrong thread - should be the overarm/underarm one - but this is fun. 

[Erpingham]

Mediaeval pikers, who didn't have shields, had no reason for the front rankers to hold their pikes underarm except to receive a cavalry charge and then they used their pike like a skewer. Otherwise they preferred overarm, no arguments.

I think you may have misunderstood the evidence I presented.  Visual evidence shows that, for pikes and long spears in formation, the prefered medieval mode was underarm, with some use of couched.  Overarm is rarely depicted, and then as individuals in melee.  This seems to change in the 16th century - we have formation use of overarm depicted by 1502-1505 ish by landsknechts and it goes on to predominate by the middle of the century.  So far, we have not found a contemporary source which explains why the change happened.

[Imperial Dave]

no problem for me

nice to see a deliberate and well reasoned set of discussions