Did hoplites in Ancient Greece use spears overarm or underarm?

Bet yall niggas didnt know ancient Greeks wore a gorget with their thorax

Over-arm, there is no doubt. Part of the utility of the spear is that you can also throw it, something you can't do underarm.

>Over-arm, there is no doubt
There's literally so much doubt that no one but idiots think it was overarm.

What about the left arm?

No one but Lindy fanboys think it was underarm.

Underarm. Analysis of extant Greek armor shows no damage consistent with overarm blows. The reverse is not true.

In addition, reinforcement is found on the belly and side, buyt no the upper chest.

Careful analysis of art from the period and reconstruction of Greek weapons shows that "overhand" images are actually of men preparing to hurl javelins.

A Storm of Spears: Understanding the Greek Hoplite-Christopher Matthew

The book goes into so much detail that he even has the likely diameter of the dory.

>parrying ability
There's literlaly no need for the in a phalanx. The aspis is fucking massive.

>there is no doubt
Kill yourself.

Lindy is an even bigger faggot than you.
Unfortunately, even a broken clocks right twice a day.

Ah, that's actually perfectly okay.

Those are some legit sources, unlike that Lloyd faggot.

He was the god of pre-Veeky Forums history threads on /v/, every fucking time some cunt would post his glorified LARP shit

>muh one source

That sure refutes every single depiction ever found that uniformly show over-hand use!

Underarm is better for one-on-one duelling, overarm is the only effective way to use it in formation fighting.

youtube.com/watch?v=6p93xUp9GrQ

Both.
if i stab up at you underarm, I could hit your shield, your armoured torso, deflect off of your helmet, or hit your armoured legs.

If I stab down at you overarm, I could hit your neck, into your helmet(and face) your shoulders, or you could raise your shield or duck and the man behind or beside me could stab your chest.

Your photo accurately shows how it should be used. Hoplites's spears had two point for a reason.

Very little loss of range, significantly more lethal, significantly better suited to combat the armour and equipment of the time.

The reds can only aim at armoured bits, or glance off of shit.

Hoplites stood shoulder to shoulder and three or more ranks deep, there's no way they used the spear underarm. Not saying they wouldn't do so in a 1-v-1 fight although even then the overhead stance allows you to throw your spear unexpectedly, but hoplites fighting in the manner they preferred would have used the overhead stance of necessity, and so would presumably train for that stance, so much so that it might actually become easier for them even in 1-v-1. (tho I doubt that last past because of the range advantage underarm stance gives you).

They didn't fight 1v1, its pointless to account for that.

they could easily stab from under their shields, or over from still an under arm position. the range advantage is perfectly logical from the second or third ranks, but the first rank would have had no reason to use their spear underhand.
The diagram shows exactly the advantages. The disadvantages you stated are nonexistent.

>They didn't fight 1v1, its pointless to account for that.

In the Achean period they did and while it wasn't part of warfare in the classical period they would certainly have fought 1v1 duels, if only for sparring.

>The disadvantages you stated are nonexistent.

Your weapon would be pinned to your side and you would thump the person behind you with the butt of your spear every time you tried to stab. Which you wouldn't be able to do, because your shield wall would block you and the men in the ran behind you would prevent you from drawing your arm back to thrust with any force.

How would you under-arm with shields overlapping like this?

>that doesn't at all matter

>Your weapon would be pinned
>you would hit other shields.
the spear is counter balanced, meaning the end of it doesn't go much farther past your elbow, when actually used. There are gaps under or above the shield in which it can easily be done. the shields were round and they weren't overly tightly packed.

Also when you stab you don't draw back comically, it goes from your side to a lunge outwards. if there were shields pressed against your back and arms you wouldn't be able to accomplish much under any circumstances.

You're a true imbecile.

>PH.D in ancient history from the University of Lancaster

I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about, darling.

>spears were counter balanced for no reason at all
>pottery and artwork show both for no reason at all
>Both have always been used in close formations with large shields throughout history for no reason at all
>hurrdurr Gaps undr sheldz dnt ecsist

Also they fought with short stabbing swords too. which are used underhand.

Read a book.

>HURR

What a dumbass lol

I bet he's also a fan of that crappy Linothorax book.

>That sure refutes every single depiction ever found that uniformly show over-hand use!
Except they don't. They dhow people preparing tho cast javelins, an important phase in homeric duels, which are often depicted in greek artwork, even with more modern equipment. This is also why they routinely depcit combatants nude, or show the helmet tipped back on the head.

Art was not a documentary.

you can't underarm in a shieldwall.....

Except history is full of people who did exactly that.

name one peoples who did that with large shields like the hoplon in a close rank formation, keep in mind when you thrust back you'd be stabbing your mate in the knee.
If its over your head then your mobility and power is increased because you can draw back and have a wider strike range and you wont hit the bloke next to/behind you.

t. A guy who tried it with a few history buffs for shits and giggles

Rome. The saxons. Lagash.

They mostly used spears in an around-the-back attitude, with the shaft of the spear passing between the middle and ring fingers, like a push dagger.

>Rome
Rome never locked shields like hoplites,
>Saxons
Again never locked shields in a hoplite fashion, most Saxons would fight in looser fashions as each man with a spear was usually just a farmer with maybe 2 months of formal training before his campaign.
>Lagash
Again, not fighting in the Greek phalanx style, looser formations for the fast paced warfare of the eastern plains, not to mention their spears weren't as long as the Greek dory, they also wouldn't have had tips on both ends, if a Saxon or a Persian were to wind back and strike his mate in chest or stomach he wouldn't skewer the lad.
The Greek chaps wouldn't made a Barbecue of their formations if they wound back before the strike.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>Rome never locked shields like hoplites,
The late period legions are explicitly describe as fighting with locked shields, and as countering germans pushing through their lines in a "shield castle" by locking their shields and meeting the attack in kind.

>Again never locked shields in a hoplite fashion,
The shield wall at hastings was describe das so tight that the dead could not fall.
>most Saxons would fight in looser fashions
Explicitly fought in shield walls.
>as each man with a spear was usually just a farmer with maybe 2 months of formal training before his campaign.
Just like hoplites.
Of course, you're also missing the thegns and nigher nobility, who made up the front ranks.

>Lagash
Again, not fighting in the Greek phalanx style
We literally have a period dpeicaiton of them locking shield and advancing spears out, you faggot.

>looser formations for the fast paced warfare of the eastern plains,
Have you considered that Mesopotamian warfare like Greek warfare, may have undergone dramatic paradigm shifts over time?
Of course you haven't.
>The Greek chaps wouldn't made a Barbecue of their formations if they wound back before the strike.
Which is why you don't fucking wind up. Winding up will not enable you to penetrate armor. It isn't needed to penetrate flesh with a sharp weapon.

"Don't fucking wind up" is literally the first thing-or among the first things- you learn in any martial art, east or west, armed or unarmed.

You were wrong. You are now trying to shift the goalposts.
You have posted no source, are directly-0and EXPLICITLY, with no room for interpretation-contradicted by period evidence in some of your claims, and are trying to argue from your " shits and giggles" the experimental reconstructions of matthew, a man who wrote his fucking docotral thesis on hoplite warfare, and who is a published author.

You're shit.

They used them under because it would mimick how theyd jerk each other off

>fucking docotral thesis on hoplite warfare, and who is a published author.
While I do agree with him, saying that shouldn't be an immediate "must accept" label. Just look at Aldrete and his Linothorax book for an example.

t. Lloyd