About History: Crossbows

Introduction

As its name suggests a crossbow is a bow perpendicularly attached to a stock to form a “cross shape”. One significant advantage of such weapons is that they can be kept in a loaded state without effort from the user. The stock also allows spanning (bending) and releasing of the bow (also called a lath or prod) to be mechanically assisted. All of which results in a powerful and accurate projectile weapon that can be mastered by anyone lacking the skill or physical strength demanded by conventional bows. Crossbows vary according to method of spanning, the material of the bow itself, the release mechanism, the projectile to be shot, and the intended use.

Shooting with a crossbow differs somewhat from that of “conventional” archery. At its simplest, spanning involves drawing the bowstring back by hand until it is held by the nut. Over time improved mechanical aids allowed more powerful bows to be made and used. Fitting a bolt, or quarrel, entailed holding the weapon roughly horizontal, and laying the bolt in the groove cut into the stock for that purpose. The butt of the bolt shaft was placed close to the nut touching the bowstring. A leaf spring was sometimes fitted to hold the bolt in place at any attitude. Crossbows can be aimed like a rifle, at or near the shoulder, and the trigger pressed with minimum disturbance to the aim. Inherently accurate, crossbows could be aimed precisely using the top of the bolt much as the sights on a rifle. Military crossbows typically relied on simple release mechanisms, while greater ingenuity was shown in trying to perfect this mechanism for later target bows.

Compared to an English or Welsh longbow, the crossbow’s rival in 14th- and 15th-century warfare, crossbows were slower to span and shoot. Depending on the source, longbowmen are said to be able to shoot six aimed arrows per minute (or twelve with less accuracy), while a crossbowman using a windlass might only be able to achieve one shot per minute (four if spanning with a belt and claw). Crossbows, however, could outrange longbows. The extreme range of the former was ca. 360 m (380 yds) against the latter’s ca. 255 m (280 yds), although the effective tactical range for both weapons was far less. At said tactical ranges both crossbow bolts and longbow arrows could pierce plate and mail armour with a correctly tempered arrowhead.

It is not clear when the crossbow was invented, but it is believed to have first appeared in China by the 7th-century BC and in Greece around the 5th- or 4th-century BC (the Classical Greek period). In the case of the former, cast bronze trigger mechanisms have been recovered archaeologically in China dating to around 650 BC. As to the latter, the earliest crossbow-like weapon to emerge in Europe was the gast3raphetes which probably appeared around the late 5th-century BC. This particular weapon was described in Belopoeica (Βελοποιικά, “On War Machines”) written by Hero of Alexandria who lived in Roman Egypt. His work, however, draws on an earlier account by Ctesibius (fl. 285–222 BC), a Greek engineer residing in Ptolemaic Egypt. According to Hero, the gastraphetes was the forerunner of the later catapult, thus placing its invention some, as yet unknown, time before 399 BC.

Greek gastraphetes

The gastraphetes (Koine Greek: γαστραφέτης, lit.” belly-releaser”), also called belly bow or belly shooter, was a hand-held crossbow used by the Ancient Greeks. A fairly detailed description and drawing of the gastraphetes appears in the aforementioned Belopoeica. The weapon was powered by a composite bow but unlike later Roman and mediæval crossbows, it was spanned not by drawing back the bowstring.

A dovetailed slider was pushed forward in the lower stock until the two pivoting “fingers” of the trigger mechanism could grasp the bowstring. A trigger bar locked the fingers in place. The weapon was cocked by resting the belly in a concavity at the rear of the stock and bearing down on it using the bowman’s body weight. In this manner the slider would be driven backward spanning the bow. A ratchet and pawl mechanism would prevent unintended discharge. As with other crossbow-like weapons, the projectile is placed against the bowstring in a groove in the slider. Having taken aim, the bowman pulls the trigger bar rearward allowing the fingers to pivot upward releasing the bowstring. The power stroke accelerates the projectile along the slider towards the intended target. The gastraphetes lets considerably more energy to be summoned up than by using only one arm of the archer as in a conventional bow.

According to some authors, the dimensions of the gastraphetes may have involved a prop but there are no surviving images or archaeological finds. Hero’s description is detailed enough however to allow modern reconstructions, one of which is shown above right.

Arcuballista: the Gallo-Roman crossbow

The gastraphetes was superseded by more powerful torsion-driven catapults which, for several centuries, became the standard “artillery” weapons of the Roman legions. In the 4th-century AD the Roman military historian Vegetius makes the sole mention of the arcuballista in his work Epitoma rei militaris [1]. In book II.15, when describing how the ancient legion was drawn up in battle order, he refers to soldiers who shoot bolts with manuballistae and arcuballistae, terms which are typically translated as catapults and crossbows respectively. Yet, as Joseph Needham explains:

“On the textual side, there is almost nothing but passing references in the military historian Vegetius (fl. + 386) to ‘manuballistae’ and ‘arcuballistae’ which he said he must decline to describe as they were so well known. His decision was highly regrettable, as no other author of the time makes any mention of them at all. Perhaps the best supposition is that the crossbow was primarily known in late European antiquity as a hunting weapon and received only local use in certain units of the armies of Theodosius I, with which Vegetius happened to be acquainted.”

In etymological terms, Latin ballista is taken from the Greek βαλλίστρα ‎(ballístra), itself derived from βάλλω (bállō, “I throw”). So, manuballista (the Latin variant of the Greek cheiroballistra) has the sense of “hand projector”. Most scholars [2][3][4][5] seem to agree that this weapon was a torsion-powered bolt-shooter, but debate on its configuration is effectively divided into two camps: those who accept the translation literally and believe the manuballista was hand-held and, conversely, those who see it as a continuation and technological development of earlier stand-mounted catapults as seen, for example, on Trajan’s Column.

As for the arcuballista, its name suggests it incorporated an arcus (“arch”), but whether this refers to the bow of a non-torsion weapon or to the arched-strut (Latin: arcus ferreus) design of torsion weapons from the 2nd-century AD onwards cannot be unequivocally stated.

However, in Book IV of Epitoma Rei Militaris (op. cit. IV.22), while discussing siege and naval warfare, Vegetius continues to make a clear distinction between the weapons “they used to call ‘scorpions’ that are now called manuballistae” and those such as fustibali (“staff-slings”), arcuballistae (“crossbows”) and slings. Rather unfortunately Vegetius does not describe the latter any further assuming that his contemporary readers would be familiar with their form and function. Weapons such as slings and staff-slings are clearly hand-held weapons however and, by implication, so must arcuballistae. Moreover, by repeatedly referring to manuballistae and arcuballistae separately Vegetius, and other authors such as Arrian, seems clear that the latter are different from torsion powered bolt-shooters and stone-throwers. Interestingly Arrian's earlier Ars Tactica, written around AD 136, mentions “missiles shot not from a bow but from a machine”, and that this machine was used on horseback while in full gallop. It is hard not to believe that Arrian was describing some form of crossbow.

So, if arcuballistae are not torsion-powered, then it seems logical that they were very similar to Mediæval crossbows using flexion bows. We turn, therefore, to the crossbows depicted on the Gallo-Roman carved stone reliefs (shown above right) from Solignac and Saint Marcel. These are obviously not a gastraphetes as they lack the distinctive crescent-shaped stomach rests characteristic of such weapons. Nor is there any sign of winching mechanism for spanning the bows. Are these then the elusive arcuballistae?

From a photograph of the Solignac relief in his article [6], Dietwulf Baatz suggests a plausible reconstruction of an arcuballista as shown left.

It is unclear whether the reliefs depict self-bows or composite laths of wood, horn and sinew; both were known and used by the Romans. Any reconstruction of an arcuballista could, quite reasonably, use either. It is unlikely, however, that a steel prod was used as in later medieval crossbows.

No known contemporary spanning devices have been discovered, and none are shown on the surviving French reliefs. To span an arcuballista, a sketch in Baatz shows the arcuballistarius placing a foot on the belly of the bow, either side of the stock, and drawing the bowstring by hand. If correct, the draw weight of the arcuballista cannot be so great that the bow cannot be spanned by hand.

A visual assessment of the Saint Marcel relief suggests the stock was between 600 mm and 700 mm in length using the forearm of the arcuballistarius as a cubit measure; the average cubit being 480 mm (»0.5 m). Likewise, using the same method of measurement, a bow length of c. 1300 mm (tip to tip), as Baatz' suggests, is plausible.

Using the length of the quiver depicted on the relief from Saint Marcel, Baatz assumes that missiles were of similar length to arrows shot from standard bows. Furthermore, with the nut placed toward the end of the stock, Baatz also imagines that the draw length was longer than that of later crossbows, and thus longer arrows could be used rather than shorter bolts.

The Solignac relief depicts a similar hunting crossbow from above. This clearly shows a revolving-nut release for the bowstring, together with a groove for the bolt. It proves the arcuballista is the ancestor of all Mediæval crossbows that use the same revolving nut release mechanism. Finds of objects resembling revolving nuts have been discovered in Britain and dated to the 5th- or 6th-century AD.

Unsurprisingly, these have been attributed to a form of late Roman crossbow. The author’s reconstruction uses a Mediæval-style trigger bar set beneath the stock to release the nut which freely rotates for the bowstring to begin its power stoke along the stock accelerating a bolt toward its target.

Unlike Mediæval crossbows which tend to have a wholly rectilinear stock or “tiller”, the arcuballista has a unique carved handgrip at the rear. Being so distinctive, it has been conjectured that pulling back on this handgrip, if connected to a straight trigger bar, might have been the means to release the revolving nut. Simply pushing the handgrip forward may have engaged said trigger bar into the locking notch cut in the nut. Precisely how this type of mechanism might have operated remains speculative, but one solution is pictured below:

Mediæval

In post-Roman Europe, from the 5th-century until the 10th-century, there are no known surviving images or references to crossbows. However, according to Bishop Guy of Amien’s poem Carmen de Hastinge proclio, which was completed in 1068 and describes the battle of Hastings two years earlier, crossbows were present at the battle but not one is depicted on the Bayeaux Tapestry. William of Poitou also writes that crossbows were carried by Norman soldiers at Hastings (Payne-Gallwey, 2007, 45).

In AD 1098, a mere thirty years later, the ruling class of western Europe petitioned Pope Urban II to ban the use of crossbows because of their “brutality in war”. This apparent dislike of the weapon most likely stemmed from the ease with which the lower classes could be trained to use crossbows and, by extension, kill the nobility. Such actions upset the established mediæval social order and may explain the nobility’s petition. Yet even though the Pope complied, the Papal edict had little impact and certainly did not prevent the merchant guilds in London, Paris, Genoa, and Prague from manufacturing and selling, at a handsome price, thousands of crossbows each year. Once again strongly encouraged by the European nobility, the Church tried to ban the weapon. In 1139 the Second Lateran Council decreed that crossbows were unfit for use by Christians, and that those who used the crossbow against anyone other than infidels (Muslims and heretics) would suffer the penalty of anathema and be eternally damned. The ban was simply ignored and even Pope Gregory IX employed crossbowmen against the Lombard League a year later (1140).

One might argue that the nobility’s fears were vindicated when Richard I, King of England, besieged the tiny, virtually unarmed castle of Châlus-Chabrol in the Limousin region of France. On 26th March 1199 Richard was reportedly inspecting the castle’s defences. The King’s apparent over confidence in the face of the enemy, allied with underestimating the threat posed by the defenders, meant he was not wearing armour. A crossbowman, often said to be a young man named Pierre Basile, shot the bolt that struck Richard in his left shoulder near the neck. Despite initial removal attempts, the wound became gangrenous leading to Richard’s death on April 6th some eleven days later. In a historic twist of fate, Richard was renowned for his military prowess and strategic innovations, with one of his most significant contributions being the use of crossbowmen. Before his reign (1189 - 1199), the crossbow was not widely used in English warfare until, it is said, Richard recognised its potential and incorporated it into his military strategy. How ironic that a champion of the crossbow was killed by one?

Crossbows are not mentioned in Byzantine sources until the 11th-century when Anna Komnene (1083–1153) [7] documented that the crossbow was a new weapon associated with barbarians and was not known to the Greeks:

“This cross-bow is a bow of the barbarians quite unknown to the Greeks; and it is not stretched by the right hand pulling the string whilst the left pulls the bow in a contrary direction, but he who stretches this warlike and very far-shooting weapon must lie, one might say, almost on his back and apply both feet strongly against the semi-circle of the bow and with his two hands pull the string with all his might in the contrary direction. In the middle of the string is a socket, a cylindrical kind of cup fitted to the string itself, and about as long as an arrow of considerable size which reaches from the string to the very middle of the bow; and through this arrows of many sorts are shot out. The arrows used with this bow are very short in length, but very thick, fitted in front with a very heavy iron tip. And in discharging them the string shoots them out with enormous violence and force, and whatever these darts chance to hit, they do not fall back, but they pierce through a shield, then cut through a heavy iron corselet and wing their way through and out at the other side. So violent and ineluctable is the discharge of arrows of this kind. Such an arrow has been known to pierce a bronze statue, and if it hits the wall of a very large town, the point of the arrow either protrudes on the inner side or it buries itself in the middle of the wall and is lost. Such then is this monster of a crossbow, and verily a devilish invention. And the wretched man who is struck by it, dies without feeling anything, not even feeling the blow, however strong it be.” Anna Komnene

During the 12th-century the crossbow superseded hand bows in many European armies, except in England where the longbow remained more popular. Archers, however, had to train for many years and from an early age to gain the strength, stamina and skill needed to master the longbow. Crossbow use on the other hand could be learned far quicker and did not require the physicality. Crossbows were the obvious weapon of choice for commonfolk. 

The laths of the first mediæval European crossbows were made of wood, usually yew or olive wood. Composite lath crossbows began to appear around the end of the 12th-century, while crossbows with steel laths (also known as prods) emerged in the 1300s. With much higher draw weights the latter, sometimes referred to as arbalests, required mechanical aids for spanning. In the 13th-century, European crossbows started using winches, and from the 14th-century an assortment of spanning mechanisms such as winch pulleys, cord pulleys, gaffles (such as gaffe levers, goat’s foot levers, and rarer internal lever-action mechanisms), cranequins [8], and even screws. Yet, even for a practised crossbowman, using these tools took time reducing the number of bolts shot to two per minute compared to the six or more arrows of a skilled archer. With spanning taking more time, crossbowmen carried a large shield, characterized by its prominent central ridge, known as a pavise (pavis, pabys, or pavesen). The pavise was primarily used by archers and crossbowmen, especially during sieges, to protect themselves as shown. It was carried by a pavisier, usually an archer or, for the larger versions, by a specialist pavise-bearer. The pavise was either held vertically in place by the pavisier or set in the ground with a spike attached to the bottom edge and braced with a support. While reloading, archers and crossbowmen would crouch behind them taking shelter from incoming missiles (www.metmuseum.org).

Crossbowmen recruited in Genoa and other parts of northern Italy were renowned mercenaries in the pay of many armies throughout mediæval Europe. As professionals such crossbowmen often earned higher pay than other foot soldiers, including equivalent mercenary archers. The extra stipend reflected that longbowmen did not have to pay a team of assistants and that his equipment was cheaper. However, with one crossbow team being more expensive to hire it made sense to engage three longbowmen for the same fee, which may explain why English armies favoured the longbow.

At the battles of Crécy in 1346, at Poitiers ten years later (1356) and again at Agincourt in 1415 French forces employing the composite crossbow were simply outmatched by English longbowmen. After these humbling defeats the use of the crossbow declined sharply in France, and the French authorities made attempts to train longbowmen of their own. The experiment did not last long as the French largely abandoned the use of the longbow after the Hundred Years’ War ended. Subsequently, the military crossbow saw a resurgence in popularity continuing in use in French armies by both infantry and mounted troops until as late as 1520. From that point on however the crossbow would be largely eclipsed by the increasing use and popularity of handgonnes across continental Europe. Even with its widespread demise, Spanish forces in the New World made extensive use of crossbows. That said, crossbowmen participated in Hernán Cortés’ conquest of the Aztec Empire and accompanied Francisco Pizarro on his initial expedition to Peru. However by the time of Pizarro’s conquest of Inca Empire in 1531-1532 he would have only a dozen such men remaining in his service.

Modern applications

From their inception crossbows have played a significant role in military history, particularly during the mediæval and early Renaissance periods. They offered common soldiers a weapon that required less training than longbows. Their mechanical advantage allowed for the spanning and holding of heavy draw weights, resulting in considerable power capable of penetrating armour at shorter ranges. Yet no modern military issues crossbows (or bows) as standard combat weapons. That said a surprising number of armed forces around the world still keep them in their arsenals for specialised tasks. For example a special operations team might use a crossbow for a specific mission requiring absolute silence, such as eliminating a guard dog or deploying a rope across a chasm. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is known to use crossbows as “non-lethal” option in countering public disorder. But these are extremely rare circumstances. Today, in many parts of the world, crossbows are more likely to be used for hunting. They are particularly effective for hunting deer, elk, and other large game animals at shorter ranges. Bon appétit!

References:

Blumberg, A., (2003), “The Medieval Crossbow: Redefining War in the Middle Ages”, Warfare History Network, available online (accessed 26 March 2026).

Payne-Gallwey, R. (2007), “The Crossbow: Its Military and Sporting History, Construction and Use”, Chapter IX, Ludlow: Merlin Unwin Books.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, “Crossbow (Halbe Rüstung) with Cranequin (Winder)”, available online (accessed 30 March 2026).

Endnotes:

1. Milner, N.P. (1993), “Vegetius: Epitome of Military Science”, Liverpool University Press.

2. Baatz, D. (1978), “Recent finds of ancient artillery”, Britannia 9, pp. 1-17.

3. Gudea, N., and Baatz, D. (1974) “Teile spätrömischer ballisten aus Gornea und Orşova”, Saalburg Jahrbuch 31, pp. 50-72.

4. Marsden, E.W. (1971), “Greek and Roman Artillery: Technical Treatises”, Oxford.

5. Wilkins, A. (2003), “Roman Artillery”, Shire.

6. Baatz, D. (1991) “Die Römische Jagdarmbrust”, Archäoligisches Korrospondenzblatt 21, pp. 283-290.

7. Anna Komnene (1 December 1083 – 1153) was a Byzantine Greek princess, scholar and historian. She is the author of the Alexiad, an account of the reign of her father, Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos. Her work constitutes the most important primary source of Byzantine history of the late 11th- and early 12th-centuries, as well as of the early Crusades.

8. For heavy crossbows the most practical spanning mechanism was the cranequin, consisting of a rack and reduction gear with handle. The gear box is usually almost circular, with a heavy loop of hemp rope attached to the underside. This loop would be slipped over the butt end of the crossbow stock and brought to rest against the transverse pegs to the rear of the release mechanism. The double claw of the rack, in extended position, would be slipped over the bow string, to be pulled back by turning the handle of the gears. The gear ratio of this winder is twelve to one.

About History: Double weight Roman swords and shields

Many of us have heard or read that recruits to the Roman army trained with double weight swords and shields while practicing their attacks and defences against a wooden stake or post. The notion stems from the extant 5th-century AD writing of Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus in his work Epitoma Rei Militaris (“Epitome of Military Science”). More specifically, in Chapter 11 of Book One on “Recruitment and Training” we read:

Antiqui, sicut inuenitur in libris, hoc genere exercuere tirones. Scuta de uimine in modum cratium conrotundata texebant, ita ut duplum pondus cratis haberet, quam scutum publicum habere consueuit. Idemque clauas ligneas dupli aeque ponderis pro gladiis tironibus dabant. Eoque modo non tantum mane sed etiam post meridiem exercebantur ad palos. Palorum enim usus non solum militibus sed etiam gladiatoribus plurimum prodest.

“The ancients, as is found in books, trained recruits in this manner. They wove shields from withies, of hurdle-like construction, and rounded, such that the hurdle was twice the weight that an official shield normally has. They also gave recruits wooden foils likewise of double weight, instead of swords. So equipped, they were trained not only in the morning but even after noon against posts, for the use of posts is of very great benefit to gladiators as well as soldiers.”

So, we are told that the Romans gave their recruits round wicker shields (Latin: scuta; sing. scutum) twice as heavy as those used on active service. No problem, but what follows - “Idemque clauas ligneas dupli aeque ponderis pro gladiis tironibus dabant.” - has often been mistranslated into English as the recruits trained with “wooden swords”. The sentence begins with idemque meaning “in the same way”. This refers once more to the training shields being double the normal weight. The sentence ends by saying that the training weapon given to recruits (tironibus dabant) was double the weight of a gladius “sword”. So far so good, but clauas ligneas does not mean sword, or more specifically a wooden sword (Latin: rudis). The simplest translation in English would be “wooden foil” but in this context perhaps “wooden club” would be a better fit.

It was these double-weight clubs that were used, in conjunction with the heavier wicker shields, to train recruits at the palus or “post”. The increased weight was clearly intended to strengthen the recruit physically, improve their endurance and, when they took up real, lighter weapons, allow them to fight with more confidence and agility. When recruits moved on to one-on-one full contact sparring, then the clubs were not used in favour of a lighter wooden sword or rudis. Bon appétit!

About History: Testudo

Etymology  The Roman testudo means “tortoise” not “turtle”, even if Rex Harrison, playing Julius Caesar in the 1963 film “Cleopatra”, uses the latter term. To be fair, he was delivering a line from script written by an American, which may sound a little condescending until one realises that in North America “turtle” is used to denote the whole group of creatures. In fact, the order’s name, Testudines, is based on the Latin word testudo meaning “tortoise” and was coined by German naturalist August Batsch in 1788. The word “turtle”, however, is borrowed from the French word tortue or tortre which is seemingly used interchangeably to mean either “turtle” or “tortoise”. In Britain, where tortoises and turtles are not native, “turtle” is reserved for sea turtles as opposed to freshwater terrapins and land-dwelling tortoises.

The ancient Roman army used the term testudo because their soldiers’ shields formed an all-round shell-like defence reminiscent of a tortoise. The front rank of men, possibly excluding those on the two flanks, held their shields from about shin height to their eyes, creating a contiguous “wall” protecting the formation's front. Those men in the succeeding ranks would raise their shields above their heads using the shields to not only protect themselves but also the head of the man preceding them. There has been some debate as to whether shields were underlapped as shown in the colour image above or overlapped as shown in the black and white image from a relief panel on Trajan’s Column in Rome. In fact, contemporary imagery from the Roman period depicts shields being used in both styles so either manner is attested and thus correct.

From experience overlapping shields is easier to execute, even while advancing, but critics have claimed that arrows, for example, could breach the formation passing under the shield rim. As can be observed in the accompanying image of a small testudo, gaps in the overlapped shields are minimal. The biggest danger is the much larger opening where the front rank men’s heads can be seen. While one man has to keep watch to “steer” the formation, the threat to the others can be minimised by tilting the head downward so the crown of the helmet is presented and the face protected. From bitter experience, a well placed arrow can still penetrate the testudo, but such shots are the exception.

The men along the formation’s flanks, however, would present a shield wall to either side of the testudo. If necessary, the soldiers at the rear of the formation could stand backwards with their shields held as the front ranks to protect the formation's rear. In this manner the testudo offered all-round defence against opposing infantry and excellent protection against arrows and other missile attacks, albeit at the cost of reducing the speed and mobility of the formation.

Battlefield use  The two principal uses of the testudo most often quoted are as a defence against enemy missiles or projectiles, or to close on defended positions or fortifications during sieges. The former was most likely employed by stationary troops as Cassius Dio implies in his description of Mark Antony’s campaign in 36 BC:

“This testudo and the way in which it is formed are as follows. The baggage animals, the light-armed troops, and the cavalry are placed in the centre of the army. The heavy-armed troops who use the oblong, curved, and cylindrical shields are drawn up around the outside, making a rectangular figure; and, facing outward and holding their arms at the ready, they enclose the rest. The others, who have flat shields, form a compact body in the centre and raise their shields over the heads of all the others so that nothing but shields can be seen in every part of the phalanx alike and all the men by the density of the formation are under shelter from missiles. Indeed, it is so marvellously strong that men can walk upon it and whenever they come to a narrow ravine, even horses and vehicles can be driven over it.” (Cassius Dio, “Roman History”, XLIX, 30)

Dio does not suggest that Anthony’s troops were moving but the testudo can be used on the march. Because of its density or compact nature of the formation, the primary drawback was that it was more difficult to fight in hand-to-hand combat and because the soldiers are required to move in unison, speed was sacrificed. Yet it is documented that the steadily advancing testudo was used in siege warfare to close on and storm a defended position. Tacitus, for example, recorded its use during the siege of the city of Cremona by the troops commanded by Marcus Antonius Primus, part of Titus Flavius Vespasianus’ army. During the attack the troops advanced under the rampart “holding their shields above their heads in close ‘tortoise’ formation” (Tacitus, “Histories”, III, 27).

The testudo was not invincible. Once again Cassius Dio provides an account of a Roman testudo being defeated by Parthian cataphracts and horse archers at the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BC:

“For if [the legionaries] decided to lock shields for the purpose of avoiding the arrows by the closeness of their array, the [cataphracts] were upon them with a rush, striking down some, and at least scattering the others; and if they extended their rank to avoid this, they would be struck with the arrows.” (Cassius Dio, “Roman History”, XL, 22)

Forming a testudo severely restricted the Romans ability to engage in melee combat. The Parthian cataphracts exploited that weakness and repeatedly charged the Roman line, which caused panic and inflicted heavy casualties. When the Romans tried to open their formation to repel the cataphracts, the latter rapidly retreated, and the horse archers resumed shooting at the legionaries, who were now more exposed. In effect the Parthians were able to pin the soldiers of Marcus Licinius Crassus’ army in place and systematically engage them with cavalry charges and withering volleys of arrows from a distance.

Mythbusting  As an aside, after the defeat at Carrhae an estimated 10,000 Roman prisoners of war appear to have been deported to Alexandria Margiana (Merv) near the Parthian Empire's northeastern border in 53 BC. Employed as border guards they reportedly married local women. Nearly twenty years later the nomadic Xiongnu tribal confederation [1], led by their chieftain Zhizhi Chanyu, had migrated east and established a state in the Talas valley, near modern-day Taraz, Kazakhstan. Fearful that Zhizhi was planning to build a great empire, in 36 BC the Chinese Han Dynasty launched a pre-emptive attack and besieged Zhizhi’s wooden-palisade fortress. According to the Chinese account of one Ban Gu, during the subsequent Battle of Zhizhi about “a hundred men” under the Zhizhi’s command fought in a so-called “fish-scale formation”. In the 1940s, Homer H. Dubs, an American professor of Chinese history at the University of Oxford, hypothesized that this might have been the Roman testudo formation and that these men, who were captured by the Chinese, founded the village of Liqian (Li-chien, possibly from “legio”) in Yongchang County. Dubs proposed that the people of Liqian [2] were thus descended from these Roman prisoners. To date, no artifacts that might confirm a Roman presence, such as coins or weaponry, have been discovered in Liqian. Dubs' theories therefore have been rejected by modern historians and geneticists on the grounds of a critical appraisal of the ancient sources and recent DNA testing of Liqian residents. This “rural myth”, which quite regularly resurfaces on social media, has spawned at least three works of popular fiction. Alfred Duggan used the possible fate of the Roman prisoners as the kernel of his novel “Winter Quarters” suggesting they were employed as frontier guards on the eastern border of the Parthian Empire. Ben Kane used the recurring myth as the basis for his novel “The Forgotten Legion”. While in “Empire of the Dragons”, Valerio Massimo Manfredi deviates slightly from the premise placing the starting point of his novel in AD 260, some 200 years after Crassus’ ill-fated campaign. In Manfredi’s version a small group of Roman soldiers escape the Parthians but end up as the personal bodyguard of an exiled prince accompanying him on his epic journey through the forests of India, the Himalayan mountains, the deserts of central Asia and all the way to the heart of China.

Phoulkon  Despite this apparent weakness the testudo could still be an effective defence against less well-trained cavalry. Thus we encounter in Plutarch’s version of Mark Antony’s campaign in Parthia in 36 BC a description of the testudo being used as a static defensive formation:

“Then the shield-bearers wheeled about, enclosing the lighter armed troops within their ranks, while they themselves dropped on one knee and held their shields out before them. The second rank held their shields out over the heads of the first, and the next rank likewise. The resulting appearance is very like that of a roof, affords a striking spectacle, and is the most effective of protections against arrows, which glide off from it.” (Plutarch, Parallel Lives: Anthony, 45)

The description is reminiscent of the much later “phoulkon” (Greek: φοῦλκον), in Latin: *fulcum, a close-order infantry formation used by the military of the late Roman and Byzantine Empire. The term “phoulkon” is first attested in the Strategikon of Maurice, a military manual written in the AD 590s. Although written in Greek, the author of the Strategikon “also frequently employed Latin and other terms which have been in common military use” (Rance, 2004, 267). Like other military terminology found in the manual, “phoulkon” is likely a Greek transliteration of a hypothetical Latin word *fulcum, a term not attested in any surviving texts (Rance, 2004, 286). The only other early Byzantine author to use the term was Theophanes the Confessor, who describes Rhazates arranging his troops in three phoulka when facing Heraclius's army at the Battle of Nineveh in AD 627 (Rance, 2004, 310–311). Later Byzantine writings, such as De velitatione bellica and Praecepta Militaria, describe keeping a portion of troops, either cavalry or infantry, in phoulka to serve as guard while the rest of the army dispersed for pillaging or foraging. These later usages appear to have evolved to simply mean a “battle formation”, rather than Maurice's specific description of a shield wall tactic (Rance, 2004, 321–324).

Before close contact with the enemy, and while outside archery range, on the command “ad fulco” (αδ φουλκω) the infantry closed ranks and formed a shield wall from the first two lines (Rance, 2004, 271–272). As they advanced, light infantry from the rear would shoot arrows at the enemy while the heavy infantry could hurl martiobarbuli darts or throw their spears before closing and engaging in hand-to-hand combat with the spatha (Rance, 2004, 274–275). In the presence of enemy cavalry, the first three ranks of the phoulkon would form a shield wall and thrust their spears outwards while fixing the ends in the ground. The third and subsequent rear ranks would hurl projectiles, while the light infantry shot arrows (Rance, 2004, 276–280).

Though only the Strategikon explicitly describes this formation as a phoulkon, such tactics appear to have been established Roman practice. In the Strategikon we read:

“If the enemy [cavalry], coming within a bow shot, attempts to break or dislodge the phalanx...then the infantry close up in the regular manner. And the first, second and third man in each file are to form themselves into a phoulkon, that is, one shield upon another, and having thrust their spears straight forward beyond their shields, fix them firmly in the ground...They also lean their shoulders and put their weight against their shields so that they might easily endure the pressure from those outside. The third man, standing more upright, and the fourth, holding their spears like javelins either stab those coming close or hurl them and draw their swords.”

In his work Ektaxis kata Alanon (“Deployment against the Alans”) Arrian describes an almost identical tactic used centuries earlier against the Alans:

“If [the enemy cavalry] do approach, the first three ranks, closing their shields together and exerting pressure with their shoulders, should receive the attack as steadfastly as possible and locking together very closely, pressing themselves together as firmly as they are able. The fourth rank should throw javelins overhead, while the third rank should strike with their spears or throw them like javelins unstintingly at both horses and riders.”

Other tactical uses  Testudines were also employed to cross obstacles if we believe Cassius Dio’s comment: “…whenever they come to a narrow ravine, even horses and vehicles can be driven over it.” One suspects that this might be something performed in extremis when no other options were immediately available. Scrambling up a testudo to scale a palisade or wall appears feasible although curved shields would not offer a particularly good climbing surface. Moreover, in the face of a determined defender it seems a riskier option than using scaling ladders which are attested and would be far more effective. 

A fifth use is revealed by Plutarch comment “enclosing the lighter armed troops within their ranks”. The same sentiment is expressed in Cassius Dio’s description of the testudo being used to protect “[t]he baggage animals, the light-armed troops, and the cavalry…placed in the centre of the army.” Two further uses of testudines have been suggested, namely as a defence when reforming troops during lulls in battle and in critical situations during a melee. The former, presumably resembling the aforementioned “phoulkon”, would rely on the troops breaking contact with the enemy to give them the time and space to re-order their ranks. The latter example seems counter-intuitive in the classic all-round defensive testudo which provides little option for hand-to-hand combat but less so if using “phoulka”.

Later usage  Testudines were a common feature in the Middle Ages. The following examples serve to prove the tactical sense of using shield formations in battle, especially during sieges where attackers are vulnerable to missiles from the defensive works above (Rance, 2004, 286; 310-311; 321-324):

• A testudo was used by Muhammad's forces during the Siege of Ta'if in AD 630 (Muir, 1861, 145).

• The Carolingian Frankish soldiers of Louis the Pious used one to advance on the walls of Barcelona during the siege of the city in AD 800–801.

• During the siege of Paris in AD 885–886 the Norse besiegers would undoubtedly have used their shields to protect against the defenders’ missiles as the approached the walls and during any breaching assault.

• East Frankish soldiers under King Arnulf of Carinthia used a similar tactic during the siege of Bergamo in AD 894, as did the Lotharingians under Conrad the Red at the siege of Senlis in AD 949, and by Lotharingian defenders at the siege of Verdun in AD 984.

• Just over a century later and the Crusaders of Count Raymond IV of Toulouse were employing the same tactic during the siege of Nicaea in AD 1097 (Bradbury, 1992, 280).

The testudo formation was again employed by Mediæval Arabs, who called it the dabbāba or “crawler”. It was employed by Abu Abdallah al-Shi'i in the AD 906 siege of Tobna (in modern-day Algeria), where he used it to protect sappers as they advanced to the city walls to undermine and collapse a tower, creating a breach for their allies to enter the city (Halm, 1996, 110).

Although in popular culture testudines are associated with the Romans, the formation has a much longer history. This makes perfect sense when one considers that this obvious and simple tactic allows shield armed troops to not only safely manoeuvre, whether on the battlefield or during a siege, but also protect themselves against missiles and projectiles. Indeed, testudines can be observed being employed by modern riot police in various countries across the globe. And why would they not – the testudo just works. Bon appétit!

References:

Bradbury, J., (1992), “The Medieval Siege”, Woodbridge: Boydell Press.

Cassius Dio, “Roman History”, Book XL, chapter 22, Volume III of the Loeb Classical Library 1914 edition, available online at LacusCurtius (accessed 25 March 2025).

Cassius Dio, “Roman History”, Book XLIX, chapter 30, Volume V of the Loeb Classical Library 1917 edition, available online at LacusCurtius (accessed 25 March 2025).

Halm, H., (1996), “The Empire of the Mahdi: The Rise of the Fatimids”, (Translated from the German by Michael Bonner), Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Muir, W., (1861), “The Life of Mahomet and History of Islam to the Era of the Hegira: With Introductory Chapters on the Original Sources for the Biography of Mahomet and on the Pre-Islamite History of Arabia”, Smith, Elder & Company.

Plutarch, “Parallel Lives: Antony, chapter 45”, Volume IX of the Loeb Classical Library 1920 edition, available online at LacusCurtius (accessed 23 March 2025). 

Rance, P., (2004), “The Fulcum, the Late Roman and Byzantine Testudo: The Germanization of Roman Infantry Tactics?”, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 44, pp. 265–326.

Tacitus, “Histories”, Book III, chapter 27, Volume II of the Loeb Classical Library 1925 edition, available online at LacusCurtius (accessed 25 March 2025).

Endnotes:

1. The Xiongnu (Chinese: 匈奴) were a tribal confederation of nomadic peoples who, according to ancient Chinese sources, inhabited the eastern Eurasian Steppe from the 3rd century BC to the late 1st century AD.

2. Zhelaizhai (traditional Chinese: 者來寨) is a village on the edge of the Gobi desert in Gansu province, China. The area was renamed after Liqian, an ancient county, and is located in Jiaojiazhuang township, Yongchang County. Some of the modern-day residents of Zhelaizhai, now known as Liqian village, claim to be the descendants of the accounted for Roman prisoners of war after the Battle of Carrhae.

About History: the Spear (Part Two)

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. 

Spear carriage  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).

Other tactics  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.