An interesting video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afqhBODc_8U) by Lindybeige that pits the two weapons against each other in different ways. Spear wins. A lethal weapon especially when used two-handed.
Interesting, but they did not allow for the swordsman cutting the spearhead off., nor that with a sword you can batter down a shield and man together in a way that a spearman cannot.
Also, I suppose that the combatants, knowing that injury or death took no part in their play were much more aggressive than the actual warriors would be. Lots of the cuts and thrusts looked superficial and might not even be noticed until later.
Lastly, when both have shields, the swordsman can try and get the spearman to stick his point into the shield and then deliver a maasive blow whilst the spearman can only defend. Not possible with a plastick spearhead!
Roy
I must admit, the advantage did seem to be with the person who knew what they were doing, regardless of weapon.
thats the key to it. If you have a very good swordsman, he will know to look for the spearman overreaching so that he can bat aside the spear, step inside and deliver the coup de grace
The video reminded me of Japanese (and to an extent Chinese) spear practice. Japanese samurai, having for centuries extolled and utilised the virtue of the katana as a primary battle weapon, began adopting the yari and naginata, initially as weapons for ashigaru and ronin, but subsequently as principal samurai battle weapons. One suspects the duelling nature of samurai combat may have been a significant driver in this, because although as Anthony says training seems to matter more than weaponry, where training is equal the spear does appear to have an advantage.
Anyone interested in how the samurai actually used their spears (yari) can see a key technique here (https://youtu.be/59fG9QlTdwQ).
Not just samurai Patrick. I was taught spear work I the same way. Fluidity of grip and change of position was key to using the spear well especially if you had no shield and had to rely on using the spear defensively
One thing you get from watching training videos is that an inexperienced person probably has a limited range of moves, and moves between them less fluidly, which costs time. Look at a medieval manual like Fiore dei Liberi's Flos Duellatorum there are plenty of spear moves, positions and grips which would have given a trained man more options.
Another thing we might note is the trade off a spearman has between reach and speed of moving the point (its an angular momentum thing, I believe). Keeping a man at bay with a 12ft spear is probably harder than with an 8ft one (8ft was Silver's ideal length for a pole weapon, I believe).
And, lest we forget, our spearman, unless we are in a small skirmish or a tournament, is probably with his mates. Looking at Justin's video, one successful strategy of the swordsman was to push aside the spear and close. It is a much harder trick if there is the spear of a second rank man between the swordsman and his target.
Here's another video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klOc9C-aPr4) by Lindybeige showing how using a spear underarm has a whole lot of advantages that an overarm hold does not.
Yes, I know he says holding a spear overarm means you halve the reach of your spear and we all know the centre of gravity of a hoplite spear was 3/4 the way up the shaft thanks to tapering and the sauroter, nonetheless I find his points interesting. I tried it: you have far better and stronger control of a spear held underarm.
Here's a third video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p93xUp9GrQ) that examines why so many ancient depictions of spearmen show them using it overarm even though underarm is better. However he doesn't examine using the spear in a high underarm grip - spear gripped along the forearm which is held above the shoulder. Given that very little spear will project back beyond the elbow to bother the hoplites behind, it should be a viable grip.
But it does seem an overarm thrust/throw (https://youtu.be/U5E1vKsDUBo?t=25) has more penetrating power than an underarm thrust. The human body seems designed to chuck things more than to shove them forwards. Also with an overarm grip there's no danger of hitting the chap behind you.
So underarm more sparring control but overarm more hitting power (and a safer formation).
Quote from: Justin Swanton on October 21, 2018, 02:53:05 PM
So underarm more sparring control but overarm more hitting power (and a safer formation).
I would go with that
It may, or may not, be relevant that forensic tests consistently show the overarm knife thrust is more powerful than the underarm. That said, both produce a huge amount more power than is needed to penetrate an unarmoured target.
The abilty to throw is one of the characteristics that differentiates early humans from apes. Apparently it would make a huge difference in their ability to ward off predators because the carnivores are kept at a distance. Similarly I suppose its a great help in hunting if you can strike whist still at a distance that prey still thinks it has a head start.
Overarm has several advantages
It can be converted into a throw so you have freedom of choice!
It strikes at the face which is very off putting for an opponent.
Underarm means opening ip your shield and thus risking the bayonet quandary ( If two men charge each other with the bayonet and make contact both die)
The spear butt is up in the air and less dangerous to the nan hehind.
When carrying out othismos , or just plain pushing, the spear is not in the way of the rank behind and the front ranker's shield is flat and so held for pushing
Lastly, a man defending against an overhead thrust blinds himself by raising his shield and is thus less able to respond.
Roy
Quote from: Justin Swanton on October 21, 2018, 02:53:05 PM
But it does seem an overarm thrust/throw (https://youtu.be/U5E1vKsDUBo?t=25) has more penetrating power than an underarm thrust. The human body seems designed to chuck things more than to shove them forwards. Also with an overarm grip there's no danger of hitting the chap behind you.
Interesting is the letting go of the spear just before the moment of impact. I long wondered about the knob on the end of the Egyptian infantry spear; in addition to serving as a counterweight, it would seem that this could help with retaining the spear as the user re-grasped it while a face-stricken opponent was falling backwards (something a dummy plastic head on a stake does not do when mortally stricken).
Anyone who has endured watching the film
300 will remember the action at Thermopylae pass, in which the actors (as opposed to re-enactors) attempt to use their spears underarm. Their strained efforts are almost painful to watch, and one can sense the palpable relief when they revert to swords and begin their wild slashing sword-dance. It looks as if using the spear underarm in quasi-battle conditions as opposed to individual demonstrations may not be quite as easy or useful as its proponents make out.
I think we need to be careful with the throwing thrust as, AFAIK, we have no evidence it was used. It just seems an interesting idea. There areplenty of medieval illustrations, however, which do show the spear held in the back quarter of the shaft. This may may illustrate the technique, or it may show a different technique entirely. It seems an awkward way to use the weapon though, from a balance point of view.
Roy is again right, I think, to pull back to "What are the advantages used in formation?" arguments. Overhand in a dense, shielded, formation may have advantages that are not apparent to a man with a length of dowel in his front room.
Finally, time from another quote from the "frontline" of people who actually used spears to kill other people - this time 13th century Denmark
You must also be specially careful, when in the battle line, never to throw your spear, unless you have two, for in battle array on land one spear is more effective than two swords. The Kings Mirror.
as an aside (as demonstrated in the Samurai clip), I did use the semi throwing thrust with a spear. The guiding hand loosely grips the spear further up the shaft than the delivering hand which firmly holds the spear near the butt. As the thrust goes in, the guiding hand can allow or restrict the speed/force distance the spear moves forward for a strike. If there is a small butt spike/ball or similar it can help with spear retention (I never used one). The best analogy I can think of is the snooker cue action
Quote from: Holly on October 22, 2018, 12:55:27 PM
The best analogy I can think of is the snooker cue action
The snooker (or pool) cue action is illustrated in medieval fight manuals, so a legitimate move. But does it involve a throw? It's also a two hand move.
The overarm throw/thrust relies on the spear moving through the propelling hand by momentum and being caught before it leaves the hand, so could be used with a shield. But I'd be worried about recovering the spear if it was deflected or parried. Unlike a throw, you'd be both closer to the opponent and have your right hand encumbered wrestling to recover the spear again, which would make dashing forward and hitting you about the head easier.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 22, 2018, 08:20:55 AM
It may, or may not, be relevant that forensic tests consistently show the overarm knife thrust is more powerful than the underarm. That said, both produce a huge amount more power than is needed to penetrate an unarmoured target.
Keeping in mind that the third video shows one can penetrate armour with an overarm thrust but not an underarm one.
On the subject of the power of spears, this experiment (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwibybvCopreAhXSN8AKHdrTCWkQFjAAegQIBxAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdiscovery.ucl.ac.uk%2F1520915%2F7%2FPope_YJASC-S-15-00816%2520extracted.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3ghvbBo5bp8moXn3QVDQow) on two-handed spear thrusting is interesting.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 22, 2018, 03:38:01 PM
On the subject of the power of spears, this experiment (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwibybvCopreAhXSN8AKHdrTCWkQFjAAegQIBxAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdiscovery.ucl.ac.uk%2F1520915%2F7%2FPope_YJASC-S-15-00816%2520extracted.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3ghvbBo5bp8moXn3QVDQow) on two-handed spear thrusting is interesting.
"A person using a thrusting spear literally puts their body mass behind the weapon."
the spear is truly versatile (not saying the sword isnt mind) and although one handed underarm thrusts might not have as much punch as overhand, as stated above in several places, a two handed thrust especially leaning into it with the body is incredibly powerful. Add to that the ability to 'snooker cue' extra reach and its a really nasty weapon to face in the hands of a competent user
These guys seem to believe that one-on-one a spear beats sword. ;)
Quote from: PMBardunias on December 04, 2018, 04:53:47 AM
These guys seem to believe that one-on-one a spear beats sword. ;)
If the swordsman can close the distance, he has the spearman.
Question: a line of hastati vs line of Athenian hoplites, who wins? Please give reasons for your answer. 5 marks.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on December 04, 2018, 02:28:23 PMIf the swordsman can close the distance, he has the spearman.
Not what you suggested in your first post. What changed your mind?
QuoteQuestion: a line of hastati vs line of Athenian hoplites, who wins? Please give reasons for your answer. 5 marks.
Depends. How deep are their formations? What are their intervals? What is the quality of their equipment? How well trained are they? How well motivated? How well led? What does each side have at stake? How many battles have they fought before? How long have they been together as a unit? How did they sleep last night? What did they have for breakfast? Which way is the wind blowing? The sun shining? What's the lie of the land?
I suspect all these questions (or at least, the sum of all these questions) are more important than 'do they have swords or spears?'
I know that's not a fun answer, sorry.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on December 04, 2018, 02:28:23 PM
Quote from: PMBardunias on December 04, 2018, 04:53:47 AM
These guys seem to believe that one-on-one a spear beats sword. ;)
If the swordsman can close the distance, he has the spearman.
Question: a line of hastati vs line of Athenian hoplites, who wins? Please give reasons for your answer. 5 marks.
As someone whose family comes from Laconia, the answer is easy- everybody should beat those damn Athenians. But in reality, it is difficult. I assume we are talking a head-on clash scutum and gladius vs dory and aspis. Were it sarissaphoroi I would easily say the pikes win, we have many examples and Polybios flat out says so. Are two ranks of dory enough? Probably not, and here is my logic. We know that hoplites got past the spears of other hoplites and fought "shield on shield", so if they could do it, Romans could. So my verdict would be that in a straight up fight it depends on range. At spear range obviously hoplites win. If the Romans can close to sword range, they win. But if the battle were to get real close and crowded, I think the hoplites again have the advantage because they are made to fight either at spear range or squashed (by the late 4thc).
Quote from: Duncan Head on December 04, 2018, 02:49:39 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on December 04, 2018, 02:28:23 PMIf the swordsman can close the distance, he has the spearman.
Not what you suggested in your first post. What changed your mind?
Nothing.
If the swordsman can close the distance... In the video the swordsmen sometimes succeed in doing exactly that and win the contest. If however the swordsmen can't get past the spearman's guard they are at a disadvantage since spearman can poke them but they can't poke spearman.
Quote from: PMBardunias on December 04, 2018, 06:05:49 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on December 04, 2018, 02:28:23 PM
Quote from: PMBardunias on December 04, 2018, 04:53:47 AM
These guys seem to believe that one-on-one a spear beats sword. ;)
If the swordsman can close the distance, he has the spearman.
Question: a line of hastati vs line of Athenian hoplites, who wins? Please give reasons for your answer. 5 marks.
As someone whose family comes from Laconia, the answer is easy- everybody should beat those damn Athenians. But in reality, it is difficult. I assume we are talking a head-on clash scutum and gladius vs dory and aspis. Were it sarissaphoroi I would easily say the pikes win, we have many examples and Polybios flat out says so. Are two ranks of dory enough? Probably not, and here is my logic. We know that hoplites got past the spears of other hoplites and fought "shield on shield", so if they could do it, Romans could. So my verdict would be that in a straight up fight it depends on range. At spear range obviously hoplites win. If the Romans can close to sword range, they win. But if the battle were to get real close and crowded, I think the hoplites again have the advantage because they are made to fight either at spear range or squashed (by the late 4thc).
The Romans obviously won't be interested in fighting at spear range and will charge into sword range at whatever the cost. Once in sword range they fight at an advantage since
a) they have bigger shields and are better protected,
b) they are trained to use the sword (it's their primary weapon) which hoplites, now obliged to use their swords, aren't, and
c) they have fighting space: they can recoil to avoid the hoplites' blows if necessary whereas the hoplites can't recoil to avoid theirs.
If the hoplites try othismos the Romans just give a little ground and resume the swordfight.
My money is on the Romans. Every time.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on December 04, 2018, 08:02:26 PM
The Romans obviously won't be interested in fighting at spear range and will charge into sword range at whatever the cost. Once in sword range they fight at an advantage since
a) they have bigger shields and are better protected,
b) they are trained to use the sword (it's their primary weapon) which hoplites, now obliged to use their swords, aren't, and
c) they have fighting space: they can recoil to avoid the hoplites' blows if necessary whereas the hoplites can't recoil to avoid theirs.
If the hoplites try othismos the Romans just give a little ground and resume the swordfight.
My money is on the Romans. Every time.
Depends on how easy they can get under the spears. I have seen people try it, and it is not easy. But if they do, they win.
Fighting space is not an advantage here. Romans would not move back and forth out of range often. Once they are under the spears, they have to stick to the hoplites to be safe. Going back through spear range as they break off and coming back through it would be suicidal. They would surely be ding this at a 3 foot frontage, at 6 foot, I don't see them getting past so many spears. I do not think they will be recoiling unless to do what they did to the Sarissaphoroi and tear the line apart. This is what the Persians tried by hitting the greek line only in places at Plataia and failed, though it was sound strategy and may have worked in the past unrecorded.
Quote from: PMBardunias on December 04, 2018, 08:31:02 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on December 04, 2018, 08:02:26 PM
The Romans obviously won't be interested in fighting at spear range and will charge into sword range at whatever the cost. Once in sword range they fight at an advantage since
a) they have bigger shields and are better protected,
b) they are trained to use the sword (it's their primary weapon) which hoplites, now obliged to use their swords, aren't, and
c) they have fighting space: they can recoil to avoid the hoplites' blows if necessary whereas the hoplites can't recoil to avoid theirs.
If the hoplites try othismos the Romans just give a little ground and resume the swordfight.
My money is on the Romans. Every time.
Depends on how easy they can get under the spears. I have seen people try it, and it is not easy. But if they do, they win.
Fighting space is not an advantage here. Romans would not move back and forth out of range often. Once they are under the spears, they have to stick to the hoplites to be safe. Going back through spear range as they break off and coming back through it would be suicidal. They would surely be ding this at a 3 foot frontage, at 6 foot, I don't see them getting past so many spears. I do not think they will be recoiling unless to do what they did to the Sarissaphoroi and tear the line apart. This is what the Persians tried by hitting the greek line only in places at Plataia and failed, though it was sound strategy and may have worked in the past unrecorded.
A typical hoplite spear has its centre of balance - and hence its grip - between 1/3 and 1/4 from the rear end. The spear is about 9 feet long on average. This means that at least six feet of spear will project in front of the hoplite. The second rank, which will have to be close to the the first rank to be able to freely wield their spears over the shoulders of the front-rank men, will have about four feet of spear or more projecting past the front rankers. When fighting, the legionary doesn't need to recoil more than a couple of feet to avoid a blow from the hoplite in front of him, which means that he is generally within the guard of the spears of the two front ranks of hoplites.
I doubt the earlier Republican Romans had the professionalism to hit a phalanx line only at certain places in order to dislocate it. Did the Persians deliberately try that at Plataea? Infantry or cavalry?
I suspect that the reality of who 'has' whom is rather more nuanced . A large amount of the effort of both fighting lines was taken up with staying alive. Very likely men were using weapon and shield to parry the opposing attacks and then to attempt to launch attacks of their own when they saw or sensed an opening. This would go on for some time until one or another tired or made a mistake and a blow got through which had some effect. The man who was less fit or less skilled or less brave would fall back if possible, close up defensively if not, or perhaps launch a frenzied attack if there was no retiring and the balance of fighting was going against him.
There are a lot of other factors in play that are not dependent upon weapon characteristics. A well trained and well motivated man with an inferior weapon, armour combination is likely to beat a less fit, less confident but better equipped man.
As a weapon system , hoplite, phalangite and legionary are all effective. Phalangutes do not crush hoplites, Romans do not destroy phalngites frontally or phalangutes Romans. None of these are sufficiently asymmetric. With Gauls, Germans, Dacians and Persians it is a different story.
QuoteThe Romans obviously won't be interested in fighting at spear range and will charge into sword range at whatever the cost.
There is, of course, a theory held by some that the Romans would stay out of spear range and bombard the hoplites with missiles until they had broken them up a bit, then charge in, rather than charge in at the first opportunity.
I think Paul is right to bring us back to the fact that, unlike the guys in the Lindybeige video, these men would fight in formations who will offer mutual support. Sweep aside the front rankers spear and step beyond the point, you find yourself shieldless facing the spear of the second ranker.
It is also right to emphasise training and experience. How experienced are the two sides? Have either fought the other troop type before? Have they been trained to tackle the situation they are in or are they relying on generic moves? Or have they not been trained as such but their dad/uncle showed them how it was done when he was called up?
Quote from: Erpingham on December 05, 2018, 09:58:54 AM
QuoteThe Romans obviously won't be interested in fighting at spear range and will charge into sword range at whatever the cost.
There is, of course, a theory held by some that the Romans would stay out of spear range and bombard the hoplites with missiles until they had broken them up a bit, then charge in, rather than charge in at the first opportunity.
That would be the velites, most likely chucking javelins at their Greek counterparts who stood before the main hoplite line. One skirmishing preliminaries are finished and the skirmishers withdraw I would image the Roman hastati would waste no time getting into sword length of the hoplites. There would be no point their staying at spear length since they can't do any damage to the hoplites from that distance.
Quote from: Erpingham on December 05, 2018, 09:58:54 AMI think Paul is right to bring us back to the fact that, unlike the guys in the Lindybeige video, these men would fight in formations who will offer mutual support. Sweep aside the front rankers spear and step beyond the point, you find yourself shieldless facing the spear of the second ranker.
Or rather, kill the hoplite in the front rank whilst retaining your shield and then attack the next man - and you are already within his spear guard to begin with. Once he is down the phalanx will start to panic and run for it. The idea is that the hastatus can keep within the guard of the two front ranks whilst third rank cannot effectively use its spear over the heads of the two ranks in front.
Quote from: Erpingham on December 05, 2018, 09:58:54 AMIt is also right to emphasise training and experience. How experienced are the two sides? Have either fought the other troop type before? Have they been trained to tackle the situation they are in or are they relying on generic moves? Or have they not been trained as such but their dad/uncle showed them how it was done when he was called up?
Didn't Romans have plenty of experience fighting hoplite-equipped armies in Italy (like the Etruscans) and weren't early Republican armies outfitted as hoplites to begin with?
Quote from: Justin Swanton on December 05, 2018, 11:10:03 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on December 05, 2018, 09:58:54 AM
QuoteThe Romans obviously won't be interested in fighting at spear range and will charge into sword range at whatever the cost.
There is, of course, a theory held by some that the Romans would stay out of spear range and bombard the hoplites with missiles until they had broken them up a bit, then charge in, rather than charge in at the first opportunity.
That would be the velites, most likely chucking javelins at their Greek counterparts who stood before the main hoplite line. One skirmishing preliminaries are finished and the skirmishers withdraw I would image the Roman hastati would waste no time getting into sword length of the hoplites. There would be no point their staying at spear length since they can't do any damage to the hoplites from that distance.
Honestly, Justin, there is a theory, that legionaries - not just velites - spent a lot of their time standing off and throwing pila at the enemy. I believe a historian called Alexander Zhmodikov originated it but Phil Sabin has refered to it. Quesada-Sanz too perhaps. I recall it from the WMWW debate. It is sometimes referred to (dismissively?) as "pilum skirmishing" and does divide opinions. Perhaps someone could provide some links?
QuoteQuote from: Erpingham on December 05, 2018, 09:58:54 AMI think Paul is right to bring us back to the fact that, unlike the guys in the Lindybeige video, these men would fight in formations who will offer mutual support. Sweep aside the front rankers spear and step beyond the point, you find yourself shieldless facing the spear of the second ranker.
Or rather, kill the hoplite in the front rank whilst retaining your shield and then attack the next man - and you are already within his spear guard to begin with. Once he is down the phalanx will start to panic and run for it. The idea is that the hastatus can keep within the guard of the two front ranks whilst third rank cannot effectively use its spear over the heads of the two ranks in front.
Certainly, if the Roman can dodge or brush aside two ranks of spears he is in there. But can he? Isn't this the question?
QuoteQuote from: Erpingham on December 05, 2018, 09:58:54 AMIt is also right to emphasise training and experience. How experienced are the two sides? Have either fought the other troop type before? Have they been trained to tackle the situation they are in or are they relying on generic moves? Or have they not been trained as such but their dad/uncle showed them how it was done when he was called up?
Didn't Romans have plenty of experience fighting hoplite-equipped armies in Italy (like the Etruscans) and weren't early Republican armies outfitted as hoplites to begin with?
When do our hastati date from? I'm assuming we are talking the guys with Scutum, pilum and sword, which is post the Roman hoplite period. Others can say how many hoplites the Romans fought later but it still falls to how prepared our individuals are to face them, unless you believe that the Roman army had an anti-hoplite drill every hastatus was trained in?
Quote from: Erpingham on December 05, 2018, 11:54:25 AM
I believe a historian called Alexander Zhmodikov originated it but Phil Sabin has refered to it. Quesada-Sanz too perhaps. I recall it from the WMWW debate. It is sometimes referred to (dismissively?) as "pilum skirmishing" and does divide opinions. Perhaps someone could provide some links?
That would be interesting.
QuoteQuoteOr rather, kill the hoplite in the front rank whilst retaining your shield and then attack the next man - and you are already within his spear guard to begin with. Once he is down the phalanx will start to panic and run for it. The idea is that the hastatus can keep within the guard of the two front ranks whilst third rank cannot effectively use its spear over the heads of the two ranks in front.
Certainly, if the Roman can dodge or brush aside two ranks of spears he is in there. But can he? Isn't this the question?
Hoplites didn't seem to have much trouble getting to shield contact if othismos is a thing to be believed, and even Homer mentions "shields clashing against shields" often enough to conclude it was a fairly common occurrence. If hoplites, why not legionaries?
Quote from: Erpingham on December 05, 2018, 09:58:54 AMWhen do our hastati date from? I'm assuming we are talking the guys with Scutum, pilum and sword, which is post the Roman hoplite period. Others can say how many hoplites the Romans fought later but it still falls to how prepared our individuals are to face them, unless you believe that the Roman army had an anti-hoplite drill every hastatus was trained in?
My point is that the Roman army had plenty of experience in fighting against/as hoplites, and evolved a system that was designed to overcome the hoplite phalanx and did so, successfully enough to become the default fighting method in Italy. A hastatus didn't require special drill - his armament, formation and fighting methods made him organically superior to a hoplite phalanx even if he was encountering one for the first time.
Well, that's my provisional hypothesis (gotta make sure I can recoil. ::) )
Quote from: Justin Swanton on December 04, 2018, 07:57:32 PM
Quote from: Duncan Head on December 04, 2018, 02:49:39 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on December 04, 2018, 02:28:23 PMIf the swordsman can close the distance, he has the spearman.
Not what you suggested in your first post. What changed your mind?
Nothing. If the swordsman can close the distance... In the video the swordsmen sometimes succeed in doing exactly that and win the contest. If however the swordsmen can't get past the spearman's guard they are at a disadvantage since spearman can poke them but they can't poke spearman.
I agree Justin. That is my problem with the video in fact. If we look at a hoplomachus, he was "light" compared to his opponent, and was supposed to dance back away and keep his opponent at spear range just like a Retiarius would. One on one with a spear vs sword, you have to be nimble enough to control the distance. Those swords should never have been allowed to close the way they did. The problem of course is that the spea rmen in the video have no idea how to use spears.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on December 04, 2018, 08:44:26 PM
Quote from: PMBardunias on December 04, 2018, 08:31:02 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on December 04, 2018, 08:02:26 PM
The Romans obviously won't be interested in fighting at spear range and will charge into sword range at whatever the cost. Once in sword range they fight at an advantage since
a) they have bigger shields and are better protected,
b) they are trained to use the sword (it's their primary weapon) which hoplites, now obliged to use their swords, aren't, and
c) they have fighting space: they can recoil to avoid the hoplites' blows if necessary whereas the hoplites can't recoil to avoid theirs.
If the hoplites try othismos the Romans just give a little ground and resume the swordfight.
My money is on the Romans. Every time.
Depends on how easy they can get under the spears. I have seen people try it, and it is not easy. But if they do, they win.
Fighting space is not an advantage here. Romans would not move back and forth out of range often. Once they are under the spears, they have to stick to the hoplites to be safe. Going back through spear range as they break off and coming back through it would be suicidal. They would surely be ding this at a 3 foot frontage, at 6 foot, I don't see them getting past so many spears. I do not think they will be recoiling unless to do what they did to the Sarissaphoroi and tear the line apart. This is what the Persians tried by hitting the greek line only in places at Plataia and failed, though it was sound strategy and may have worked in the past unrecorded.
A typical hoplite spear has its centre of balance - and hence its grip - between 1/3 and 1/4 from the rear end. The spear is about 9 feet long on average. This means that at least six feet of spear will project in front of the hoplite. The second rank, which will have to be close to the the first rank to be able to freely wield their spears over the shoulders of the front-rank men, will have about four feet of spear or more projecting past the front rankers. When fighting, the legionary doesn't need to recoil more than a couple of feet to avoid a blow from the hoplite in front of him, which means that he is generally within the guard of the spears of the two front ranks of hoplites.
I doubt the earlier Republican Romans had the professionalism to hit a phalanx line only at certain places in order to dislocate it. Did the Persians deliberately try that at Plataea? Infantry or cavalry?
it is not that simple. First, I can choke up on my spear and stab you. The point of balance is not as solid a thing as many believe. In fact, I hold my spear just behind the point of balance, making it a little front heavy. This allows almost instant recovery of the spear is knocked aside. By simply drawing the hand back, the front end of the spear comes back on line automatically. Also, you have to remember that men on each side can stab laterally. With romans at 6' frontage this would be a huge issue. I don't want to over stress this though, because generally men fight who is in front of them. The second rank can also take a step back and just stab you as well. All in all, you cannot stand anywhere within spear reach in front of hoplites and be safe.
As to the Persians at Plataia, it is hard to tell. Herodotus seems to denigrate them for attacking in small groups rather than a proper line. But if you are fighting an enemy in a tight linear formation, attacking at any point means that the whole line must stop and watch the fight or break up into sections. Hoplite lines did break into individual taxa all the time. this is why I prefer Thucydides' term parataxeis to phalanx, since it implies modularity. But within a taxa, stopping the formation at one point probably stopped the whole thing. So, the Persians may have held up the line for quite some time by hitting it is waves at different places. Roman maniples could have done the same.
Quote
I believe a historian called Alexander Zhmodikov originated it but Phil Sabin has refered to it. Quesada-Sanz too perhaps. I recall it from the WMWW debate. It is sometimes referred to (dismissively?) as "pilum skirmishing" and does divide opinions. Perhaps someone could provide some links?
A Zhmodikov, 'Roman republican heavy infantrymen in battle (IV - II centuries BC)',
Historia 49 (2000) pp. 67-79
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4436566 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/4436566)
Criticisms - he is too reliant on early Livy (formulaic and unreliable battle accounts), and too ready to take examples of Roman officers killed by missiles as evidence that both sides were fighting only with missiles.
Quote from: PMBardunias on December 05, 2018, 01:53:36 PM
it is not that simple. First, I can choke up on my spear and stab you. The point of balance is not as solid a thing as many believe. In fact, I hold my spear just behind the point of balance, making it a little front heavy. This allows almost instant recovery of the spear is knocked aside. By simply drawing the hand back, the front end of the spear comes back on line automatically.
I don't quite follow this. If you hold the spear behind the point of balance you will have even more spear projecting in front of you and hence even more of an inner guard area for the legionary to shelter in. The point is that once the legionary charges to shield contact the spears of hoplite ranks 1 and 2 are out of commission.
Quote from: PMBardunias on December 05, 2018, 01:53:36 PMAlso, you have to remember that men on each side can stab laterally. With romans at 6' frontage this would be a huge issue.
6' frontage?
Quote from: PMBardunias on December 05, 2018, 01:53:36 PMI don't want to over stress this though, because generally men fight who is in front of them. The second rank can also take a step back and just stab you as well. All in all, you cannot stand anywhere within spear reach in front of hoplites and be safe.
They would need to stand about 4-5' behind the first rank for their spears to be able to target the Romans just beyond. How easily can a hoplite use his spear against a Roman at that distance without hitting the man in front or the man in front's shield? Has anyone tried it? Plus the fact that most hoplite injuries are caused by shoving the spear through the armour of the man in front at the right moment, rather than trying to probe weak points. Can a second ranker 4' back do that?
Quote from: PMBardunias on December 05, 2018, 01:53:36 PMAs to the Persians at Plataia, it is hard to tell. Herodotus seems to denigrate them for attacking in small groups rather than a proper line. But if you are fighting an enemy in a tight linear formation, attacking at any point means that the whole line must stop and watch the fight or break up into sections. Hoplite lines did break into individual taxa all the time. this is why I prefer Thucydides' term parataxeis to phalanx, since it implies modularity. But within a taxa, stopping the formation at one point probably stopped the whole thing. So, the Persians may have held up the line for quite some time by hitting it is waves at different places. Roman maniples could have done the same.
Interesting.
Quote from: Erpingham on December 05, 2018, 11:54:25 AM
I believe a historian called Alexander Zhmodikov originated it but Phil Sabin has refered to it. Quesada-Sanz too perhaps. I recall it from the WMWW debate. It is sometimes referred to (dismissively?) as "pilum skirmishing" and does divide opinions. Perhaps someone could provide some links?
Archaic hoplites, like those on the Chigi olope, did this as well, as do later Saxons. There is a period of spear throwing prior to contact. Classical hoplites rid themselves of their second, throwing spear, and charge through missile range with one big spear that cannot be thrown due to its balance.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on December 05, 2018, 12:06:43 PM
Hoplites didn't seem to have much trouble getting to shield contact if othismos is a thing to be believed, and even Homer mentions "shields clashing against shields" often enough to conclude it was a fairly common occurrence. If hoplites, why not legionaries?
This is a point I made above, but there are caveats. We do not know how hard it is to get within the spears. Just because it happens does not mean it was predictably easy. Also, the spear plays a role in closing to shield range. The fact that spears are all around you blocking enemy spears makes this MUCH easier. It is hard to convey the feeling of the moment when your allies spears all come down around you to the ready position.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on December 05, 2018, 12:06:43 PM
My point is that the Roman army had plenty of experience in fighting against/as hoplites, and evolved a system that was designed to overcome the hoplite phalanx and did so, successfully enough to become the default fighting method in Italy. A hastatus didn't require special drill - his armament, formation and fighting methods made him organically superior to a hoplite phalanx even if he was encountering one for the first time. Well, that's my provisional hypothesis (gotta make sure I can recoil. ::) )
It was the Samnites who first fought the romans in what would become the "roman fashion" while the Romans were themselves hoplites. Gauls as well broke the Roman phalanx, but maybe they just panicked. But in each case we do not know if they did so frontally, or, more likely, they broke them through flanking as the Romans later would sarissaphoroi. One thing that does say perhaps it was the latter is that when facing Gauls after Telamon, the Romans armed their hastatii with the hasta from the Triarii to make them an old style spear phalanx. Whether we believe that gaullish swords were crap that bent or that a spear phalanx is not easily broken by swordsmen is another debate.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on December 05, 2018, 02:10:01 PM
I don't quite follow this. If you hold the spear behind the point of balance you will have even more spear projecting in front of you and hence even more of an inner guard area for the legionary to shelter in. The point is that once the legionary charges to shield contact the spears of hoplite ranks 1 and 2 are out of commission. .
If I am holding my 8-9' dory at the balance point, there is some 6' of spear in front of my hand. Buy I can simply move my hand forward and only have 4' in front of my hand if I want. This is not a barbell, the spear is light enough that I can use it when holding it beyond the balance point either forward or back.
Quote from: PMBardunias on December 05, 2018, 01:53:36 PMAlso, you have to remember that men on each side can stab laterally. With romans at 6' frontage this would be a huge issue.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on December 05, 2018, 02:10:01 PM
6' frontage?
According to Polybios Romans fought in a spacing that would for a hoplite be opened order, where each roman has 6' of lateral space to stand in. I do not believe they actually fought in this spacing, I think they doubled to 3' spacing, but many do.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on December 05, 2018, 02:10:01 PM
They would need to stand about 4-5' behind the first rank for their spears to be able to target the Romans just beyond. How easily can a hoplite use his spear against a Roman at that distance without hitting the man in front or the man in front's shield? Has anyone tried it? Plus the fact that most hoplite injuries are caused by shoving the spear through the armour of the man in front at the right moment, rather than trying to probe weak points. Can a second ranker 4' back do that?
See above, they would not have to stand very far back. But as long at they do not draw the point of the spear back farther than the man in front of them, they cannot hit him.
I am not sure where you got the idea that hoplites shoved spears through armor. Hoplites picked away at unarmored, portions of their foes. Stabbing through armor of course happened, but it is not easy, or no one would wear armor, and even if successful, most of the time you end up disarming yourself as your spear gets stuck in your foe.
The point about spear (or pike) v. sword is that as Polybius argues, the first may be better than the second in the right circumstances, but the second may be better than the first in more circumstances.
For Greeks with their cultural attachment to pitched battle between matched forces, or Macedonians buying into the same tradition, or fighting cavalry and missile armies in the east, spear, pike and phalanx would be best. Romans may have decided that the type of opponents they faced, the terrain they fought on, and the types of engagement they fought, made missiles, open order and swords more useful. This doesn't mean that swords are 'better than' spears, nor does it answer 'who would win in a fight between...' questions (which I think are never good or interesting questions anyway, because of all the variables).
Without going the full WMWW route, this discussion is interesting (and accessible online)
https://www.academia.edu/727113/_Not_so_different_individual_fighting_techniques_and_small_unit_tactics_of_Roman_and_Iberian_armies_
I have been unable to find the Sabin paper online unfortunately.
Quote from: RichT on December 05, 2018, 02:39:06 PM
The point about spear (or pike) v. sword is that as Polybius argues, the first may be better than the second in the right circumstances, but the second may be better than the first in more circumstances.
The "right" circumstances might be the commoner ones, though, given that spearmen are a commoner troop type that swordsmen across history.
(Or maybe they aren't but it's typically more important to have spears to fend of cavalry than to be optimized against other foot. Are spears less common in places like Mesoamerica?)
I was thinking, what HI swordsmen do we have besides Romans? Spaniards and Gauls with similar javelin-and-sword combos I guess. Army lists for various Chinese and Indian armies have troops called swordsmen but I know little about them.
Quote from: PMBardunias on December 05, 2018, 02:21:43 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on December 05, 2018, 12:06:43 PM
My point is that the Roman army had plenty of experience in fighting against/as hoplites, and evolved a system that was designed to overcome the hoplite phalanx and did so, successfully enough to become the default fighting method in Italy. A hastatus didn't require special drill - his armament, formation and fighting methods made him organically superior to a hoplite phalanx even if he was encountering one for the first time. Well, that's my provisional hypothesis (gotta make sure I can recoil. ::) )
It was the Samnites who first fought the romans in what would become the "roman fashion" while the Romans were themselves hoplites. Gauls as well broke the Roman phalanx, but maybe they just panicked. But in each case we do not know if they did so frontally, or, more likely, they broke them through flanking as the Romans later would sarissaphoroi. One thing that does say perhaps it was the latter is that when facing Gauls after Telamon, the Romans armed their hastatii with the hasta from the Triarii to make them an old style spear phalanx. Whether we believe that gaullish swords were crap that bent or that a spear phalanx is not easily broken by swordsmen is another debate.
Very good. The point remains however that in the state of near-continuous warfare that was Italy in early and mid-Republican times, the swordsman came to dominate the battlefield over the spearman. The Romans were always good at adopting the equipment and fighting techniques of their adversaries if these proved superior.
Quote from: PMBardunias on December 05, 2018, 01:53:36 PMAlso, you have to remember that men on each side can stab laterally. With romans at 6' frontage this would be a huge issue.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on December 05, 2018, 02:10:01 PM
6' frontage?
According to Polybios Romans fought in a spacing that would for a hoplite be opened order, where each roman has 6' of lateral space to stand in. I do not believe they actually fought in this spacing, I think they doubled to 3' spacing, but many do.
OK, Polybios. We had a
bunfight discussion about that here somewhere. At grave risk of going off topic here is my take on that passage. I can create a separate thread if anyone wants to pursue it further.
It is commonly assumed that Polybius's legionaries each occupied a width of 6 feet since he affirms that one legionary faced two phalangites in battle and each phalangite occupied a space of 3 feet. This however arises from a misunderstanding of Histories 18:29 which is commonly rendered as follows:
| Many considerations may easily convince us that, if only the phalanx has its proper formation and strength, nothing can resist it face to face or withstand its charge. For as a man in close order of battle occupies a space of three feet; and as the length of the sarissae is sixteen cubits according to the original design, which has been reduced in practice to fourteen; and as of these fourteen four must be deducted, to allow for the distance between the two hands holding it, and to balance the weight in front; it follows clearly that each hoplite will have ten cubits of his sarissae projecting beyond his body, when he lowers it with both hands, as he advances against the enemy: hence, too, though the men of the second, third, and fourth rank will have their sarissae projecting farther beyond the front rank than the men of the fifth, yet even these last will have two cubits of their sarissae beyond the front rank; if only the phalanx is properly formed and the men close up properly both flank and rear |
And then a little later:
| The result of this will be that each Roman soldier will face two of the front rank of a phalanx |
So three feet plus three feet equals six feet. The phrase 'three feet of space' is interpreted as three feet of width, which means that for Polybius a close-order phalanx corresponds to the intermediate order of the tacticians, clearly a contradition.
But what exactly is Polybius saying? The phrase 'space of three feet' translates the Greek: ἐν τρισὶ ποσὶ – en trisi posi – literally 'in three feet'. What do the three feet refer to? The answer lies in the passage that follows this phrase. After establishing the three feet distance, Polybius goes on to do some maths. A sarissa is 14 cubits (21 feet) long – a cubit being about 1½ feet. Of the 14 cubits, only 10 project in front of the phalangite's grip. This allows one to calculate how many ranks would have their sarissa project past the front rank. The answer is 5 ranks, with sarissa of the 5th rank projecting 2 cubits past the front rank men.
But something is missing from the equation: the distance between each rank. Without that factor it is impossible to calculate how many ranks can bring their sarissas to bear beyond the front of the phalanx. Polybius gives that distance. Where? When he states that a phalangite in close order occupied three feet (or 2 cubits), that is, three feet of
depth. With that figure the maths is easy: 10 cubits minus 2 cubits (4th rank) minus 2 cubits (3rd rank) minus 2 cubits (2nd rank) minus 2 cubits (front rank) = 2 cubits of sarissa projecting ahead.
Polybius indicates the width occupied by the phalangite file when he mentions that the phalanx is in 'close order'. Each file of a close order phalanx occupies a frontage of one cubit, or 1½ feet, as described by the tacticians. Hence a Roman soldier occupying a space three feet wide will face two phalangites in close order and ten sarissa-points along with them.
Does Polybius affirm that Roman soldiers occupied a frontage six feet wide? Here is a standard translation of the relevant passage:
| Now, a Roman soldier in full armour also requires a space of three square feet. But as their method of fighting admits of individual motion for each man—because he defends his body with a shield, which he moves about to any point from which a blow is coming, and because he uses his sword both for cutting and stabbing,—it is evident that each man must have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet both on flank and rear, if he is to do his duty with any effect. - Histories 18:30 |
The phrase 'a Roman soldier in full armour also requires a space of three square feet.' translates the Greek: ἵστανται μὲν οὖν ἐν τρισὶ ποσὶ μετὰ τῶν ὅπλων καὶ Ῥωμαῖοι istantai men oun en trisi posi meta ton hoplon kai Romaioi. Word for word: ' they stand so then in three feet with arms also the Romans'. Or in better English: ' So the Romans also occupy three feet when in arms.' The 'also' refers back to the three feet of depth occupied by the phalangites, hence the meaning is that Romans ranks, like phalangite ranks, are three feet apart.
'it is evident that each man must have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet both on flank and rear' translates the Greek: προφανὲς ὅτι χάλασμα καὶ διάστασιν ἀλλήλων ἔχειν δεήσει τοὺς ἄνδρας ἐλάχιστον τρεῖς πόδας κατ᾽ ἐπιστάτην καὶ κατὰ παραστάτην, prophanes hoti chalasma kai diastasin allelon echein deesei tous andras elachiston treis podas kat' epistaten kai kata parastaten.
Literally: 'Clear that looseness [i.e. not to be too tightly packed] and standing-apartness from each other need to have the men at least three feet in respect of those behind and those on the side.'
In better English: 'Clearly the men need to be loosely arrayed and have space between each other – at least three feet to the men behind and the men on either side.
One measures the three feet from which point to which point? There can be only two points that apply in all cases: from the midpoint of one file to the midpoint of an adjacent file, or from the midpoint of a rank to the midpoint of the rank behind it. This means in fact that each man occupies a space measuring three by three feet.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on December 05, 2018, 04:34:45 PM
In better English: 'Clearly the men need to be loosely arrayed and have space between each other – at least three feet to the men behind and the men on either side.
One measures the three feet from which point to which point? There can be only two points that apply in all cases: from the midpoint of one file to the midpoint of an adjacent file, or from the midpoint of a rank to the midpoint of the rank behind it. This means in fact that each man occupies a space measuring three by three feet.
As I noted, I too believe this, but I did not know if you did or if you were imagining romans in 6'. Measuring from the center point or from the spear makes no difference, the men are still included within the three feet, it is not a man and three feet. This is, I believe the standard way we discuss frontages. Hoplites by the way, cannot form at 1.5 feet, that is the specific formation Phillip came up with for sarissa modelled after his take on passages in the Illiad we are told. You have to lead with the weapon hand like a fencer to stand at 1.5 feet. All of this said, there are many who believe based on the afore mentioned Polybius in part that hoplites stood at 6' (which is a three foot aspis and three more feet). The logic is that Romans used swords and needed by their reading 6', so hoplites used machaira and needed 6'. This is crazy from my experience. Hoplites could form rim to rim, about 3 feet or 90cm, overlapped on the deep shoulder section of the aspis, 72cm, or at maximum overlap, about 60cm. Past that you can't really fight if your spear is in the rear hand. Those who say you can are wrong.
Spare us! I certainly don't want to go over this old ground again since in all the times we've been over it, it's never shifted anyone's position one millimetre. Maybe Paul will want to, but be warned - it seems to be a topic people were just born certain about.
Your argument is word for word the same as Patrick Waterson's (but at least you don't drag Homer into it); and if I just say you are both wrong, would that convince you? Thought not. Well, fair enough - what I will say is you can't get to your conclusion from re-translating or re-interpreting the passage of Polybius, no matter how hard you manipulate the Greek. Your conclusion (Romans at 3 feet, Macedonians at 1.5 feet) is a common one (going back at least as far as Delbruck) and who knows, it may be right. But you'd have to conclude either that Polybius is wrong, or that Polybius' text is corrupt - both perfectly reasonable things to conclude, and might well be true. But you can't get Polybius' words as they stand to say what you want them to say, you just can't.
As to whether Romans were usually at 3 feet and Macedonians at 1.5 feet - could be. I don't think so, but other opinions are certainly available.
Quote from: RichT on December 05, 2018, 05:01:15 PM
As to whether Romans were usually at 3 feet and Macedonians at 1.5 feet - could be. I don't think so, but other opinions are certainly available.
Are we certain that Polybios should be read as 3'x3' when he says "For as a man in close order of battle occupies a space of three feet". I know the hellenistic manuals, written by philosophers love such geometric consistency, but for example hoplites would not have fought at 3' x 3' if the second line was expected to support them, they would be something like 3' wide by 1.5' deep. What could polybius not mean: "For as a man in close order (which you my reader know is 1.5' for men in rank) of battle occupies a space of three feet (deep between men in file). I have not tried it, but it seems unlikely that a sarissaphoroi can stand in a 1.5 x 1.5' box and have room to sing his sarissa back and forward to strike for example.
As we are moving beyond the original topic (unless someone can provide a sword v. spear angle) I suggest we either reopen one of the discussions we've had on this before or we start a new one on the same topic.
Quote from: Erpingham on December 05, 2018, 06:35:57 PM
As we are moving beyond the original topic (unless someone can provide a sword v. spear angle) I suggest we either reopen one of the discussions we've had on this before or we start a new one on the same topic.
That's fine. I'll start a new thread if anyone's interested, otherwise happy to leave it at that.
Quote from: PMBardunias on December 05, 2018, 02:34:39 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on December 05, 2018, 02:10:01 PM
I don't quite follow this. If you hold the spear behind the point of balance you will have even more spear projecting in front of you and hence even more of an inner guard area for the legionary to shelter in. The point is that once the legionary charges to shield contact the spears of hoplite ranks 1 and 2 are out of commission. .
If I am holding my 8-9' dory at the balance point, there is some 6' of spear in front of my hand. Buy I can simply move my hand forward and only have 4' in front of my hand if I want.
How? This is the heat of battle so you have to be able to switch your grip fast. You are holding the spear at or around the centre of balance, which is not only easiest on the wrist muscles but also makes it easier to rotate the spear as necessary. But now you need to grip the spear say 3' from the front, so you raise the spear to a vertical position and ground it. You then grip it at the 6' mark - just above your head. Then what? If you try to lower the spear forwards the sauroter will strike against the legs or shields of the hoplites behind you (that's six feet to rotate upwards going backwards).
The only other way is to gradually shuffle your grip from the point of balance to a point about 3' forwards whilst holding the spear horizontally. How much time to you have to do that?
Quote from: Justin Swanton on December 06, 2018, 05:57:26 AM
How? This is the heat of battle so you have to be able to switch your grip fast.
This is wildly easy to do, and one of the big advantages of a spear over a sword. A sword has a fixed reach. With a spear you can slide your grip up and down the shaft at will. The only limitation is that there is more torque on the wrist as you move towards either end. So if you closed to within my spear's reach when held near the balance point, I would simply loosen my grip slightly and toss the shaft back in my hand and grab it again tightly. Try this with a broomstick, it is easier than explaining. I am not sure if this translates because it is baseball jargon, but we call this "choking up" on the shaft. I can tell you from experience that you can easily move a foot or two off from the balance point and still use the spear. Is it as easy as holding it at the mid point, no, can I still fight with it, yes. You will not make a dagger out of a spear this way- too much torque- but you can easily match the reach of a swordsman. If I needed a dagger by the way, Marozzo tells us what to do. Drop your shield and grab the front of the spear in your left hand, essentially half-swording as with a longsword, but with a partizan.
By the way, it works the other way too. Suppose you as a swordsman are sitting at the maximum reach of my spear held at the balance which you have gauged threw a bit of sparring. I would simply either let the spear slip forward through my grip to make it effectively longer and strike, or better yet, gig, where I essentially throw the spear but only through a loosened grip. If the spear does not hit you, I grab it back before the sauroter leaves my grasp. (Gigging is not so useful with a heavily rear weighted spear because there is not much shaft left to let slide before the sauroter. It was probably a feature though in Archaic times with any spear that could be effectively thrown, like the later longche.)
I have before me an issue of Ancient Warfare (the 2011 Marathon special issue) in which one of the more noted contributors makes an interesting observation:
"A 2.5m dory had a reach of over 1.5m, similar to a 3.3m mid-balanced spear. The great reach of this spear was a handicap in single combat, because it would be useless if a foe managed to move up shield to shield. A man cannot reach back far enough to bring a point that is 1.5m from his grip to bear with any force against a foe this close. However, in a battle line, the extra reach enabled hoplites to support the men beside them, the reach of their spears overlapping to a greater extent. Moving within the reach of the combined spears of a phalanx would be much more difficult than evading any single spear."
The whole would seem to be greater than the sum of its parts.