Part One of this two-part series was a concise history of spears from their earliest origins to their eventual redundancy. The spear’s simplicity meant it was adopted by virtually all cultures and societies across the globe. Along with the club, knife, and axe, it is one of the earliest and most widespread tools ever developed by early humans. Even after the invention of other hunting weapons such as the bow and sling, the spear continued in use, either gripped in the hand or thrown as a missile. What is more, spears have also seen widespread use as weapons throughout human history. Wielded with either one or two hands, they have seen action in nearly every conflict up to the modern era where, even now, the spear’s descendent is the bayonet fixed to the muzzle of military rifles.
In this the second part we tackle a debate within re-enactment circles on how spears were wielded. More specifically, the focus is on the recreation of the fighting style of Classical Greek hoplites [1]. Sometime in the 8th- or 7th-century BC, a large, circular, bronze-faced shield (Ancient Greek: aspis, ἀσπίς; pl. aspides, ἀσπίδες) was widely adopted across Hellas, the Greek speaking world. This shield led to the introduction of a new close-order infantry formation called a phalanx (pl. phalanxes or phalanges). To fight in the phalanx (“line of battle” or “battle array”), ancient Greek hoplites equipped themselves with an aspis and a 2.1 m to 2.7 m (7–9 ft) long spear (Greek: doru or dory) featuring an iron head (aichme) and bronze butt-spike (sauroter).
There are essentially two competing theories on how such spears were wielded which for the sake of simplicity will be referred to as “overarm” or “underarm”. In both styles, and across much of history, the norm was to hold weapons in the right-hand with shields in the left. This is not to dismiss notions of people being left-hand dominant but simply that spear fighting formations typically relied on some form of “shield wall” to protect the spearmen [2], either from missiles or when in close contact with an enemy. To maintain a cohesive “wall” meant limiting any gaps appearing between shields as much as possible to prevent an opponent striking through an opening. Any spearman holding their shield in a different hand to that of his comrades creates a break in the shield wall. So, while running contrary to modern notions, it is generally accepted that left-handed men were obliged to train to use weapons in their less dominant hand. It is worth remembering, however, that like any rule it may not always hold true in all circumstances, times and places. History can be fickle.
Before proceeding further, it is worth defining or describing what is meant by “overarm” and “underarm”:
- The overarm style has the spear held in the right hand at its point of balance, typically at or near the haft’s centre. As shown below left, the hand is supported at about head-height by a vertical forearm, with the elbow bent at 90 degrees leaving the upper arm parallel to the ground. The spearman’s right thumb is interior on the head-side of the spear, while the fingers curl over the top of the shaft.
- In the underarm style the spear is also held in the right hand, as shown below right, with the thumb on the top of the haft and the spear typically held parallel to the ground at shoulder height. The fingers curl beneath the spear haft which rests along the underside of the forearm such that the butt-spike (sarouter) is beneath the right elbow. (Disclaimer: the spear pictured is an early version whose balance point is further forward than ideal allowing the bronze sarouter to project beyond the elbow. This is not the case when wielding a more accurate reproduction dory with a tapered haft and heavier butt-spike. This design moves the point of balance rearward and the sarouter is held as described above.)
Convention The author has been a member of the UK-based Hoplite Association [3] for some years, albeit not as actively as one would like. Regarding the topic at hand, the Association’s founding members insisted that the spear was held in an overarm grip; it is a convention that holds to this day. The substantiation for retaining this grip, however, seems based solely on the limited pictorial evidence that survives. Archaeology in this instance cannot help since recovering the component parts of a spear do not tell us how it was carried, in battle or otherwise. Likewise, the author is not aware of any contemporary written source that describes spear carriage in detail or definitively supports the overarm style. Where spears are shown held overarm, for example on the Chigi Vase pictured
below, it appears mostly to be for dramatic effect and thus may not be wholly accurate. Besides, artistic licence is often employed where space to depict something is at a premium, the artist is unfamiliar with the subject, or they are interpreting something they have only been told about and have not witnessed first-hand. Thus, proof that Greek hoplites only ever used an overarm grip is inconclusive at best.
Painted pottery The Chigi Vase is one of the earliest depictions of the hoplite phalanx but note that their spears are shown without butt-spikes and are angled downward. The individuals are clearly shown gripping their spears overarm, however, so it is reasonable to copy the evidence from this one image and recreate this fighting style. Moreover, there are numerous other illustrations on ceramic-wares depicting hoplites in combat gripping their spears overarm. Two such examples are shown below.
Top right is on a black-figure amphora, while
top left is an Attic red-figure
Volute Krater [4] from the Getty Museum collection. There are many others, so many in fact that the argument for an overarm grip seems overwhelmingly compelling. Except, look closely at the other two images depicting “heroes fighting in the Trojan War” and they show hoplites gripping their spears underarm. The first example is on a black-figure vase dated to c. 540 BC (
bottom left). The hoplite staring at the viewer is definitely using an underarm grip with his dory held at waist height. What is more, the man pictured to the first’s immediate left stabbing downward is also holding his spear underarm as evidenced by his hand and finger placement. And both fighters in the second example painted on an Attic amphora (
bottom right) are gripping their spears underarm. What these other illustrations reveal is that there was no consensus amongst artists, and that this may reflect the reality of the time. So, the overarm theory is far from conclusively proved, especially when, from practical experience, the inherent weaknesses of the overarm grip become apparent.
Overarm style Using the overarm style results in the “reverse or icepick grip” often used in knife fighting and ideal for stabbing downward at an opponent. Indeed, body mechanics allows the fighter’s arm to rotate naturally about the shoulder and elbow to deliver a powerful strike. However, the natural inclination of the overarm grip results in the spear, counterweighted or not, to angle downward as shown in both the examples pictured and the author’s demonstration
above. This is significant because spearmen would presumably desire and train to strike at an opponent’s thorax or their head, face or throat. In the former case of the thorax, a puncturing spear thrust to the chest or abdomen risks severe or fatal injury to vital organs - hence the prevalence of protective body armour even today. Using spears overarm, however, does play to the strength of the “icepick grip” as the thrust would naturally arc downward into the chest or abdomen. Nevertheless, evidence from helmets dedicated to Zeus at Olympia show clear signs of targeted attacks made to the head, face and throat. Of note, when wearing a reproduction ancient Greek helmet, it is quickly apparent that one’s eyes remain vulnerable. Attacks directed at the eyes threaten blinding or mortally wounding an opponent. Thrusts to the throat may puncture the windpipe (trachea) or severe a carotid artery both of which are essential to survival. So, strikes directed at the helmet would at least distract an opponent or cause them to react to protect their eyes and throat (duck or turn the head, or dodge backward). To successfully attack these vulnerable areas, however, requires the spear to be thrust straight forward and largely parallel to the ground. Yet to do so in the overarm grip forces the spearman to rotate his wrist backward. From experience this places an unnatural stress on the wrist bones and ligaments. Of course, one might argue that with prolonged training a spearman’s wrist and arm strength will improve thereby lessening the discomfort and increasing the chances of striking an opponent’s chest or head. Indeed, this is true, but thrusts delivered in the overarm style are still weaker and less accurate than the alternative – more of which later.
There are further limitations with the overarm style. Firstly, as can be observed in the author’s demonstration
above, the forward movement of the hoplite’s spear arm can be restricted by the protective shield held in front of the body. The forearm can impact on the shield rim thereby reducing a
dory’s reach. To overcome this, the hoplite might be tempted to rotate his shield to the left to clear the impediment or step forward, leading with the right foot, out of formation to increase his strike’s reach. The danger then is that the shield no longer provides as much protection leaving the spearman temporarily exposed. Whether briefly or not, this would be the opportunity an opponent would be waiting for to initiate a counterattack. An alternative solution is to extend the right-arm upward raising the spear to better clear the shield (
pictured). As shown, this does expose the spearman’s vulnerable armpit to a counterthrust. Worse still, with a raised arm and spear it becomes easier to anticipate or see an attack coming. So, if a facing opponent (offset to the overarm user’s right) saw an attack coming, then said opponent would have an easy victim. The spearman who has stepped forward, out of formation, with his weight planted firmly on his front foot to deliver a powerful overarm thrust, would be less able to evade a counterattack to his exposed shield-less side.
As stated, the downward nature of an overarm thrust favours strikes to the head and abdomen, but can the same be said of legs and feet? Considering the thighs first, instances of bronze thigh protectors are known from the archaeological record, but these were not fashionable for very long. Instead, like the thorax, thighs were, by and large, protected by the spearman’s shield. Not so the lower legs, however. A characteristic part of the hoplite panoply, the primary purpose of greaves (Ancient Greek: κνημίδες,
knēmidas) was to protect the tibia, or shinbone, from harm as each bone is very close to the skin and thus extremely vulnerable to just about any kind of attack. A successful wounding to the shin may result in the leg being rendered useless, greatly hampering the ability to manoeuvre. The widespread adoption of greaves in the ancient world therefore strongly suggests that shins were a common target. The typical set of greaves consisted of a metal exterior sheathing the lower leg from the knee downward together with an inner padding of felt. The padding was particularly important because without it any blow would transfer directly from the metal plating to the shin. The example
pictured, a greave from Thrace (modern Romania), has holes piercing the edges of the metal presumably for the attachment of said padding. While the lower leg seems to have been a common target, the same cannot be said of feet. Using the overarm grip has revealed that feet are by and large out of reach and strikes aimed at them are far more difficult to deliver effectively. Similarly, thrusts at waist height are challenging and, with the spear point still arcing downwards, are more likely to glance off the opponent’s shield.
Keeping your opponent at bay Any spear lacking a heavy butt-spike or sarouter to counter the weight of the haft and spearhead will typically have a balance point at or near the centre of the haft. All the contemporary examples pictured so far appear to be missing a counterweight. In effect this means half the length of the spear is redundant as it merely serves to counterbalance the front half. By gripping the haft at the balance point, the length of spear projecting forward and threatening an opponent is much reduced. Yet, this seems contrary to the whole idea of employing a spear to keep your enemy at a distance where he cannot close to strike with a club, sword or similar weapon. Practical experiments quickly reveal that no one has the strength to realistically keep an opponent at bay by holding a lengthy spear horizontally, overarm, by one end. The stress on the wrist is immense. Similarly, while it might just be possible to hold a spear at one end in an underarm grip, this is still not a practical fighting style as it is exceptionally tiring, and the accuracy of thrusts are highly compromised. In simple terms, if held overarm a sarouter-less eight-foot spear is effectively reduced to a four-foot spear. So, if two formations of spearmen clashed, one using spears underarm, the other overarm, then the latter would be disadvantaged and outranged. The Greek hoplite’s spear had a counterweight for very practical reasons.
Body mechanics As we have discussed, the hoplite dory was a relatively long spear at 2.1 m to 2.7 m (7–9 ft). To improve its effective reach, the spear’s length and its bronze or iron spearhead were counter-balanced by a weighty butt-spike (sarouter) at the other end. This allows the point of balance to be shifted rearward thereby increasing the amount of spear projecting beyond the hoplite’s shield. In both demonstrations pictured above, the author’s hand is visibly rearward of the centre point of the dory haft. Yet ironically this leads to another problem exacerbated by the overarm grip. To close with a spearman, a swordsman, for example, must parry and deflect his opponent’s spearhead aside and rush forward to close with his foe. In contrast, the spearman must resist deflecting strikes or quickly realign his spear to threaten the opponent if it is knocked to one side. In sparring it becomes clear that the overarm grip does not make this at all easy. As the hoplite’s dory is deflected sideways, then the counterweight acts against the spearman. The forward length of the spear behaves as an extended lever that twists and applies rotational stress on the spearman’s wrist, while the swinging counterweighted end pivoting about the right hand exaggerates the effect. The spearman must work much harder to contest such parries or attacks but once again the body’s own mechanics lessen his ability to do so. Wielding a spear overarm will not leave the wrist and forearm ideally aligned to resist the rotational forces involved and thus the grip is much weaker.
Underarm style Using an underarm grip allows the spear to be braced along the spearman’s forearm. Almost immediately this offers far more control of the spearhead and strengthens the spearman’s ability to parry strikes intended to deflect his spear. Conversely, spears held underarm are very effective for raking the enemy’s spears aside. Longer spears braced firmly in this manner also means parries can be performed further from the spearman, keeping an opponent at greater distance, and the additional reach allows each man to guard a larger volume of space. Even if knocked aside, a spear braced underarm can be recovered much more quickly. Thus, each man in a formation can protect not only himself, but his neighbours thereby improving group cohesion and resilience.
As described above and as demonstrated, the underarm grip typically has the spear held parallel to the ground at shoulder height. This position has three distinct advantages:
1. The spear can be thrust directly at the opponent over the rim of the hoplite’s circular shield. Driven from shoulder height permits strikes to be delivered with greater force by using the arm, shoulder and back muscles in a more natural boxing-style punch. Once again, the body’s mechanics are being employed more efficiently and to greater effect.
2. There is no limitation from where on the right-side of the shield rim a strike can be initiated. The underarm grip allows spears to be held at a “low port” (see right) such that strikes to the opponent’s lower body and legs are an option.
3. If a thrust over an opponent’s shield is wanted, this can be delivered from a “high port”. By raising the right arm above head height while still retaining the underarm grip allows the spearman’s shoulder to rotate naturally forward in an arc to deliver forceful, downward thrusts.
Employing the underarm grip, allows spearman greater range of movement and the freedom to thrust downwards at his opponent’s feet or upward at his face. The strongest thrust he can deliver is at shoulder height, but the spearman can disguise his intentions easily and quickly change the point of attack to waist height or lower. Throughout he does not have to move his shield out of a robust defensive position.
With due regard to the disclaimer above, when wielding a more accurate reproduction dory (with a tapered haft and heavier butt-spike), the point of balance moves further rearward than pictured. The underarm grip allows the butt-spike, the sarouter on the hoplite’s dory, to be better controlled and tucked beneath the elbow where it will not threaten or harm those in the ranks behind. In contrast, anyone standing behind a spearman employing the overarm style of grip will be faced with a butt-spike punching forward and, more worryingly, backward at every thrust. What is more, the risk of being hit is further increased if the spear in front is deflected unpredictably sideways by an opponent.
There are further advantages to the underarm grip. Firstly, unlike the alternative, held underarm the spear is grasped in a more natural way, close to the body, and is thus far less tiring to wield. During a lull in battle, the spearhead can even be lowered and rested on the ground to reduce fatigue. When needed, it can be rapidly redeployed. Secondly, the underarm grip enables the spearman to jab or prod with his spear. While this does not sound particularly aggressive, jabs or prods are very useful. For example, by prodding an opponent’s shield off-centre, towards an edge, the shield might be turned or rotated slightly creating an opening in the enemy’s defence for strike to be made. Jabbing at his shield not only acts to occupy the opponent’s attention but forces him to repeatedly parry these harassing attacks until, perhaps, a mistake is made and an opening presents itself for a quick wounding or killing thrust.
Powerful strikes Experiments conducted by Christopher Matthew, the author of “A Storm of Spears”, revealed that “attacks from the low posture [underarm style] were the least taxing on the muscles of the arm” (Matthew, 2012, 122). Moreover, strikes using the underarm grip simply involved swinging the arm forward to impact a target, with the power delivered from the rotation of the shoulder that meant the arm muscles did not tire so quickly. Participants found that fatigue was further reduced if they “rolled the wrist”. As Matthew writes:
“Underarm strikes can be performed by beginning with the hand beneath the spear with the shaft cradled in the palm. As the strike is made the arm and hand can be rotated anticlockwise as the arm extends so that the strike finishes with the hand on top of the spear with the palm facing down” (Matthew, 2012, 123).
“Rolling the wrist” is a technique used by boxers to align the muscles of the forearm and the tendons of the wrist to deliver powerful punches. By contrast, using an overarm grip significantly increased the fatigue experienced by the test participants. Most found “merely holding the weapon aloft, without any thrusting motion, could only be endured for a few minutes before the first signs of muscular fatigue began to manifest themselves” (Matthew, 2012, 124). Remember that to change position from the carry to the overarm grip would require the hoplite to adopt this posture before the phalanx began to advance or charge. Consequently, his arm would have already begun to experience muscular fatigue, reducing his ability to fight, before the two opposing sides clashed. Moreover, the awkward and unnatural flexing of the wrist meant that thrusts slowed and the power behind them diminished as fatigue set in.
As well as endurance, the accuracy of strikes was tested. When in the “ready” position spears in both the underarm and overarm grips point toward the general region of an opponent’s throat, this being determined as the favoured “kill shot”. It was ascertained that for an overarm strike to be effective the spearman had to stand close enough to the intended target to counter the downward curving trajectory of the spear. In contrast, “the stronger supportive grip of the underarm stance, its flat trajectory and the axis of the head, which visually aligns the spear to its target, allowed for attacks…to be delivered with a greater level of accuracy from a greater distance” (Matthew, 2012, 126). Indeed, the results revealed the underarm style of fighting to be more accurate over a longer period with over 83% of strikes hitting within the target. Matthew’s tests provide demonstrable and repeatable evidence that the underarm style of spear wielding is more efficient, less tiring and as far as hitting an intended target, much more accurate.
.JPG)
Attention so far has been lavished on fighting with a
dory, but what of the more mundane carriage of one. What to do with a spear when not in use, on the march, or when manoeuvring on the battlefield but not in contact. The hoplite pictured is at rest. His helmet is pushed back for comfort revealing his face and permitting him to better observe his surroundings, perhaps take on some water and cool down on a hot, dusty Greek plain. Note that the supporting hand grips the haft with the right-hand thumb uppermost and on body-side of the spear thus forming a natural fist. Moreover, as well as counterbalancing the spearhead the
sarouter can be driven into the earth such that the spear stands vertically without needing to be constantly held. When it becomes necessary to move, the hoplite therefore has two hands free with which to pick up his shield and set it in position on the left arm. To recover the spear, the hoplite need only squat slightly, grasp the haft at or near the point of balance, straighten and rest the spear at angle on his right shoulder. The shallow angle and elevated position limit the chances of the hoplite in front being clipped in the calf or ankle by the
sarouter of the man behind. Marching any distance with the spear canted in this manner is easy and not at all tiring. This characteristic way of carrying spears is shown on “Warrior Vase” (
below left), dated to the 13th-century BC, found during Heinrich Schlieman’s excavations of ancient Mycenae.
Interestingly, the re-enactors in both the
Hoplite Association and the
Roman Military Research Society - the author being one – have adopted a slightly different carrying method for their spears and javelins (
dory or
hasta and
pilum respectively). To recover the spear from the “at rest” position, where the spear’s (or
pilum’s) butt-spike is grounded, the hoplite once again squats slightly to grasp the haft, with the thumb of the right-hand close to the body and pointing toward the ground, at or near the point of balance. As the hoplite straightens the spear rests naturally in the cruck of the arm and angled over the right shoulder. Once more the shallow angle and elevated position limit the chances of injuring the hoplite in front. Carriage in this manner allows the spear to carried comfortably on the march as shown (
above right). However, to be deployed into a battle ready position requires the hoplite to halt so that the spear can be allowed to slip through his righthand, in a controlled manner, until the
sarouter contacts the ground.
Ready to fight It is when readying for battle that the two competing styles are noticeably different. As one can see from the picture of the hoplite at rest (above), it is quite natural to hold the haft in a fist-like grip such that the right thumb is uppermost and close to the body. To achieve the underarm presentation simply requires the hoplite to rotate his spearpoint forward and downward to a battle ready posture either at shoulder- or waist-height. To assume the overarm style however requires the hoplite to reverse his grip. Temporarily the hand must leave the haft, the forearm rotated outward - into a somewhat uncomfortable, twisted position - until the right hand can grip the haft once more. With the thumb now on the outside of the haft the spear may be raised by rotating the arm backward and then upward into the overarm position. Try it and you will find the motion is clumsy and feels wholly unnatural. One cannot help questioning whether this is indeed how ancient Greek hoplites executed the movement. Moreover, readying spears into the overarm grip cannot easily be competed when moving necessitating the phalanx to halt, ready spears and then continue the advance to contact. In doing so, however, it quickly becomes apparent that “holding a spear in the overhead position for a prolonged period of time, even without the actions of combat, is extremely taxing on the muscles of the arm” (Matthew, 2012, 62).
One defence against cavalry is for a stationary phalanx to present a hedge of spears angled at the horse’s chest or head. Similarly, as
pictured, a defence against archers is to kneel behind the large aspis which is angled to protect the body, especially the legs and feet. Having been shot at while in this formation, the author can confirm its effectiveness while recognising that in doing so the phalanx is pinned in place, unable to advance to threaten the enemy or indeed retire from danger. Adopting either formation requires the
sarouter to be firmly planted in the ground and the spear lowered forward. The underarm style makes this a simple proposition. From the fighting position the spearpoint need only be raised and the
sarouter lowered as described above for standing at rest. Conversely, the overarm style places the hand in completely the wrong orientation to change the position of the spear. To ground the
sarouter necessitates a reversal of the arm movements and handhold just described - again an awkward manoeuvre.
A conclusion? Undoubtedly arguments championing the underarm fighting style in hoplite warfare will be resisted by those favouring the “traditional” view. Spears were used overarm, they will claim, because firstly that is how they are depicted on contemporary painted ceramicware and, secondly, there is no evidence in surviving ancient textual sources for the underarm style. Yet, it is hoped that the discussion above may persuade some that an underarm grip has far more advantages. The spear, especially the long hoplite
dory, can be held more firmly in a grip that is more natural and works with the body’s mechanics rather than against. This alone lessens the stress on arms and wrists and, importantly, reduces muscle fatigue, all the while increasing endurance. The underarm grip controls a spear far better than the alternative, enabling forceful, resistant parries and more accurate and powerful thrusts delivered on target.
And finally, if still in need of convincing, try wielding a long pole, perhaps a curtain pole, in both the “traditional” overarm grip and the underarm fighting style to experience which feels more natural, comfortable and is most effective. We think you will discover that the conventional thinking is long overdue a revision. Bon appétit!
References:
Lloyd, N., (2000), “The Spear”, lloydianaspects.co.uk, available online (accessed January 19th, 2024).
Matthew, C.A., (2012), “A Storm of Spears”, Barnsley: Pen and Sword.
Endnotes:
1. From the perspective of art, architecture, and culture, Classical Greece was a period of roughly 200 years corresponding to most of the 5th- and 4th-centuries BC. The commonly accepted dates range from the fall of the last Athenian tyrant in 510 BC to the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC.
2. The male pronoun is used throughout to reflect the perhaps inconvenient yet undeniable fact that, until more recent times, soldiering and armies were predominantly the preserve of men. In no way does this diminish women’s roles in warfare or suggest women could not fight. It is evident that they can and did.
3. The Hoplite Association was formed in 2001 as the world’s first re-enactment society solely dedicated to recreating the life and experiences of the Classical Greek period. Over the years members have developed a wide variety of characters, activities and demonstrations for the Association’s historical displays that can be experienced at venues across the UK.
4. A krater or crater (Ancient Greek: κρᾱτήρ, Romanised: krātḗr) was a large two-handled type of vase in Ancient Greek pottery and metalwork mostly used for the mixing of wine with water.
.JPG)
.jpg)
.png)
