Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
I thought (just in my head without reading anything from CA) they didn't animate the phalanx formation properly, because it would have been too difficult to do... until I saw the tight, detailed testudo formation.
So, I don't know why CA didn't do the phalanx properly. <shrug> It would have been very cool to have seen it in action in this game.
Hm i dont think it would have been difficult just make them stab with their spear and do 6-7 animations against phalanxes. Fixed i dont understand how that would have been to much to ask for since phalanx was a big deal at the timeframe :<
I believe the phalanx function both overhand and underhand. The frontrow could be using underhand to force his opponent to lower his shield, then the man behind him could jab his neck while he's focused on the man infront of him.
^^ I think thats what it is, even though in some ancient pictures you just see overhand. Its completely possible both was used at the same time, since there is conflicting evidence on each side. Besides, its easier to draw several ranks of soldiers with overhand spears versus several overlaping underhanding or a mix.
I dont see how you could use the spear underhand when shields are locked. Did you watch the video?
How could the guys in the middle of such a formation take the spear underhand without breaking line. It is IMPOSSIBLE :p
That said, I disagree with the idea that spears were held overhand in the phalanx. The parry demonstrated in this video for instance would exert almost no leverage, and be unable to deflect an actual attack that had any real power. Also, the actual spear used by hoplites (called a doru) had a heavy butt-spike (called a sauroter) at its rear which shifted its point of balance well back from the middle of the shaft. It makes no sense to make a weapon with a point of balance near its rear, and then grip it by the middle in combat.
For more details check out "A Storm of Spears" by Christopher Matthew. He actually used accurate reproductions of greek weaponry to see what type of techniques actually worked. The guy in the video is using a very poor reproduction of a hoplite shield. It is cearly way too lightweight, and the fighting techniques he demonstrates are probably from medieval fighting techniques.
Matthew makes a convincing argument that hoplites probably most often used a so-called "underarm" grip roughly similar to the way medieval knights held a couched lance. This way they;
1. Held the wepon by its actual PoB, thus reducing exertion in prolonged fights.
2. Left almost none of the rear of the spear shaft protruding behind them, which would have been problematic in a phalanx with more than one rank.
3. Were able to target more of an opponents body, from the feet to the head. Overarm grip only allows you to target shoulders to hips.
4. Had greater reach, always a huge advantage.
5. Could engage with both first AND second ranks of their fighters easily, with overarm grip you can only really fight actively from the front rank.
6. Could rest their spears in the "cradle" created between interlocked shields, thus further reducing fatigue from exertion.
There are some pictures in this old thread showing what I am talking about:
http://forums.totalwar.com/showthread.php/128789-Correct-Hoplites-(Video)/page3
Underhand is not the same as underarm. There are actually THREE potential grip/postures in which to use the hoplite spear, not two.
UnderARM, still holds the spear over the top rim of the shield in a neutral posistion. In fact, with the underarm posture it is possible and quite easy to use the rim of the shield as a rest when in a neutral posistion.
In the TW:R2 formations, the guys are just standing kinda close together instead of locking shields.
I see and your right too. Its both... to bad there is no mod out there that adresses this issue
Just one and that doesnt really fixed the problem.. i guess its not possbile to add animations so yeah :(
More and more I come to believe that I was born to take part in this discussion. (:
Not to sound silly, I just happen to be greatly interested in hoplite combat.
Let me take it piece by piece that I might respond to each part appropriately.
'That said, I disagree with the idea that spears were held overhand in the phalanx. The parry demonstrated in this video for instance would exert almost no leverage, and be unable to deflect an actual attack that had any real power. Also, the actual spear used by hoplites (called a doru) had a heavy butt-spike (called a sauroter) at its rear which shifted its point of balance well back from the middle of the shaft. It makes no sense to make a weapon with a point of balance near its rear, and then grip it by the middle in combat.'
- I think this is a bit silly, in a few ways. The parry that you do with the overarm spear, what you need to do, mainly, is deflect the enemy spear by some 10-20 degrees and let it sail onward; it will miss it's target at that point. Parrying a direct spear thrust with another spear held overarm is nothing like blocking a swinging sword strike with a hard block. In other words, you don't need a whole lot of strength because you're not stopping all the enemy weapon's momentum. You're just pushing it aside to redirect it so that it misses it's target. This is how spear-fighting works overarm, and it's a tried and true method. Here are some instances of sparring or practice where this is done. By the way, if you're to assert, 'has no real leverage to deflect an attack', you'd better damn well provide evidence for that, because that's kind of out of left field. It's a big claim, that only hands-on evidence and practice would influence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY3GtNoxAdM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qxwm5aIgXik
Secondly, and this is a big point for you to miss, you hold the spear at it's point of balance regardless at which grip you use, whether the couched shoulder level (thumb forward), the low underarm, or the overarm grip. At each instance you hold the spear *AT* the point of balance. Stray too far from this either way and you've got an awkward grip on a spear, one that is not tenable in combat. So no, you wouldn't hold a spear in the middle if it's balance is rearward, you'd still hold it where the center of balance is.
'The guy in the video is using a very poor reproduction of a hoplite shield. It is cearly way too lightweight, and the fighting techniques he demonstrates are probably from medieval fighting techniques.'
- You're absolutely right in one respect, his shield is extremely lightweight, likely made out of platics/synthetics if not just a thin metal disc. I own an aspis, and can vouch for that. However, the techniques he used, are not whatsoever based on medieval techniques. They are not only entirely valid, but they apply to any kind of soldier with a large circular shield, in a shield wall, fighting with a spear. So I would call them universal, not medieval. Overarm is quite simply the best stance from which you can strike and deflect with a spear over a shieldwall. Period. If your spear is not balanced to the rear, you might try the thumb-forward grip for more length, but in that case the entire spear forward is a long lever from which the enemy may manipulate your spear. It definitely still works, but you run a higher risk of getting the spear grabbed and manipulated against you.
'Matthew makes a convincing argument that hoplites probably most often used a so-called "underarm" grip roughly similar to the way medieval knights held a couched lance. This way they;'
- Ironically, this stance, (with the spear couched beneath the shoulder), is entirely impossible to perform with overlapped aspides. (simply because the aspis is higher than the shoulder! Therefore you would have to have more space between men if you wished to hold it couched.) However, it can be used much better with space between hoplites. If you'll notice in your own examples, from the Hoplite Group in Sydney, Australia, they don't have them couched beneath their shoulders. They have them in the high shoulder position above the shield. So no, this is nothing like knights couching lances after all.
Now, on to your particular points, point by point:
'1. Held the weapon by its actual PoB, thus reducing exertion in prolonged fights.'
- Incorrect. The point of balance on a spear is entirely a product of where you put the weights, how much weight you put in the front and how much you put in the rear. A dory can be made with a rearward point of balance and be held overarm at the point of balance with ease. I have done this, so have numerous other re-enactors. So this is a complete BS assertion, the high-underarm grip is not the "actual" point of balance, the PoB itself is the PoB, wherever it may be, and this is where you would hold the spear regardless of stance.
'2. Left almost none of the rear of the spear shaft protruding behind them, which would have been problematic in a phalanx with more than one rank.'
- This is purely conjecture. And I'll show you why it's a subjective matter here. As you can see, regardless of stance, the possibility of striking a comrade behind you is still present. Chris Matthew has come to the same opinion that I believe the Hoplite association of Sydney, Australia has, which is that hoplites must have fought like pikemen holding the spears at the very rear, with a big gap of space between rank 1 and rank 2, such that there was no danger of hitting the rank behind the first. Personally, I think this lacks common sense. It's been proven that among the three stances a spearman can strike from, the high thumb-forward grip offers the weakest strike. If you would just try this yourself, as I have, you might come to the opinion that it is also by far the most awkward grip type to strike with, though better to brace with. Overarm however, is the only stance which, by nature of the spear being raised, has the highest chance to clear any of the heads of the men behind you, especially if the spear is angled slightly downward.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtIPp-m69BY
'3. Were able to target more of an opponents body, from the feet to the head. Overarm grip only allows you to target shoulders to hips.'
- Um, the primary target for overarm thrusting, especially against another hoplite phalanx, is the face, then neck, arm, and rearward shoulder/chest area. This is an arguing point made from severe tunnel vision. Let's explain why. Say you're in this hoplite phalanx, with the high thumb-forward grip. Your shields are overlapped to provide maximum protection, and they do that job quite well. Do you think you're gonna be targeting anything below the face with this extremely awkward grip? Believe me, this grip only gets worse if you try to attack downward, from above, which is precisely what you'll be trying to to if your shieldwall is overlapped. That's where overarm excels. Of course, you can argue that hoplites did not fight in a close order, and that's an argument for another day, but for now we're assuming they are. For the conditions and constraints of hoplite fighting, overarm is more than necessary. The rear ranks can strike downward with their sarouters, rank 1-3 can fight, and the rest can keep their spearheads up to help negate enemy missiles. The right-most rank can use their spears in whatever fashion they desire. Basically, this point is also not true, because, considering the stance in general, (without being in a shieldwall), overarm can attack you head to toe at the right distance. There's also the issue which the video of Thrand's above demonstrates, which is that, from the high-underarm stance, thrusts outward might de-rail the sarouter with it's comfortable position against your arm, and on the way back, you may actually drive the sarouter into your own arm or shoulder, specifically if there was a closing to shield distance between both formations. Overarm can dodge that issue by raising the dory higher.
'4. Had greater reach, always a huge advantage.'
- Almost nonsensical here as well. As I said, in each stance you hold the spear at the point of balance. The only time you are not holding a spear at the point of balance is if you're using it with two hands. Otherwise, you do. In the hoplite's case, you would, so this is a non-issue. Reach, in armored combat, is also not as strong a selling point, but again, that's another matter.
'5. Could engage with both first AND second ranks of their fighters easily, with overarm grip you can only really fight actively from the front rank.'
- Ironically, the Australian version of the hoplite phalanx, with only two ranks able to fight, and even so, at a distance of at least two feet from one another, is actually much flimsier than the classical approach, which allows three ranks of men to fight overarm, back to front. As you can see, the sarouters of rank two and rank three are all along an avenue to the right of each man's face. This means, go figure, that there wouldn't be any eyes gouged out by regular fighting.
http://www.timetrips.co.uk/gw-reenact-file.jpg
Here are some ideal overhead shots of hoplites in phalanx formation. As you can see, so long as men are properly aligned front to back, the avenue of the sarouters is always away from the avenue of heads.
Two 8x8 phalanxes joined at the sides. http://i.imgur.com/uYmFUav.png
(This was from the topic of othismos, in comparing density of a side-on stance and the squared stance) http://i.imgur.com/61nzLFI.jpg
So that you don't think I'm making this up, here is a live-action, HD video of some men in hoplite panoply forming three-ranks-deep, wielding in overarm stance, and ready to strike, clearly with no risk of eyes-stabbing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_UAlRSuc-g
'6. Could rest their spears in the "cradle" created between interlocked shields, thus further reducing fatigue from exertion.'
- And lastly, you can rest your spear arm in a number of ways from the overarm stance, so that point is irrelevant. I will say this though, resting your spears on someone else's shield with the thumb-forward stance doesn't seem smart to me, because if you wanted to strike out from resting, your fingers would smack against the rim of the shields up top, whereas I can actually jab from the overarm stance with the majority of my arm under cover.
Lastly, there's this point about fatigue and exertion, and this view I espouse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG0Q2mzn0Ok
Personally, (and I can show you boring video proof if you need it), I have thrusted a proper length, weight, and PoB dory mockup in all three positions and I found that regardless of style I was tired after about two minutes of nothing but spear-thrusting, and I didn't want to continue in either style. All that tells me is that at the time of making it, I'd have made a pretty ♥♥♥♥♥ hoplite. Or, I wouldn't be thrusting constantly during the combat.
--------------------------
Now that I've taken a go at your arguments here, I think it's time to focus on Christopher Matthews' mistakes, and the mistakes made perhaps by the hoplites of Sydney, Australia.
First off, I had seen this. http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img843/6649/o2it.png
It looks like they tried every other method except the one that could actually work. You start with your right index finger on the rear end of the shaft, and.. well it's a lot easier to show than explain. Check this video precisely at 2:00, at the command that sounds like 'Proktosis' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_UAlRSuc-g . This raising of the dory can be done in close order.
Then there was this bit I noticed, where you might as well not have had the aspis at all for what good it's doing. I need not point it out, but notice how he drops the shield to the side, exposing himself completely so that he can complete his thrust. Yes, that is impossible with overlapped shields. - http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img835/6402/ncgv.png
In the end, they give you this. https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/500x342q90/541/9p19.jpg Which, believe it or not, would not be a difficult formation to push in on at all. I use a zooming tool for windows 8 and firefox, but, take a closer look I suppose. Notice that the enemy only has to deal with one rank of spears at first. And they have 90% of the leverage on the wielder of the spear, because they're holding it at the very back. If I were, say, a Roman, I'd easily get within range, contact the spear with my shield, push it a way, and move in toward the reach of the second spear. That second spear you can parry with your sword, and then you move in to kill hoplite number one. Apparently the third rank couldn't help them here, and the spacing means the spears are further apart.
This moves into the realm of combat tactics theory, but it simply appears to me that this is a much weaker, flimsier formation than one would think. There's too high a value put on length and range of the spear, despite the fact that a spear's thrust is weakest at the very end of it's arc anyway, despite also that you lose the three-rank protection you get from the traditional method. Pushing past one spear to find two others right in your face is tough. Pushing back one spear to find just one, wielded by a man five feet away from you, three feet behind the first guy, that's a lot easier to penetrate through.
But this, on the other hand, 8 men deep, however many wide, with two spears close together behind the third. That's something I'd not want to contend with alone. http://www.timetrips.co.uk/gw-reenact-file.jpg It's one thing to push past one spear and anticipate another, it's tougher to push past one and immediately have two others to deal with.
My very last point, Christopher Matthews had mentioned something in an Ancient Warfare magazine article that roughly anyone with the proper technique can refute easily. And that's that the overarm thrust is limited in range *because the natural motion of the arm/body are such that the strike angles downward*. That's entirely untrue and can be proven quite quickly and easily.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK1R0kDy0mY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS87KRTO-X4 You can see it's a straight thrust, (although ideally you may still want to strike angled downward from above, if you're especially worried about striking the men behind you).