quick addition to the very interesting things said: the Spartan spear, as well as the Macedonian (sarisa) spear, had point-shaped counterweights at the rear end (called savrotiras), which weighted 3 times the front-end point. This way the spear could be grabbed from further to the rear (increasing reach), since the center of mass was moved backwards. I guess it was also easier to manipulate the spear, as it is with a sword with a counterweight at the pommel. Savrotiras could be pushed into the ground when the phalanx had to withstand a charge (eg cavalry) and finally, it could be used as a backup point, should the "business end" was broken off. Persian cavalry commander, Masistius was killed when a Greek soldier stabed him in the eye with the savrotiras of his spear
The problem with most people, even some historians, is that they dont remember this one simple fact in history - and this statement proves that spear phalanxes were fought in the OVERHAND position(even though for years i believed underhand would be best). -Macedon was known for creating their OWN version of the phalanx, called the Macedonian Phalanx(or pike phalanx). While everyone else used spears, Macedon switched to using an 18ft long Sarissa pike, to give them an edge over the other Greek hoplites and other phalanx using armies. -The IMPORTANT change with the Macedonian Phalanx was that the writings explain how they SWITCHED to an UNDERHAND grip(in order to use the pikes) for the Macedonian Phalanx... It would be impossible to overhand a heavy 18ft pike, which is why they made the switch. This suggests that it was previously an overhand grip(which would make the most sense in a close formation to allow for compacting with no disrupting of the individual behind). -Historically, this was a key innovation within the use of phalanxes, and Macedon decided to have a longer spear(which became a pike) and used an underhand grip because they found it to be more ergonomic when holding a longer spear without tension to the shoulder. -THERES ALSO some writing explaining that Macedon TRIED using an underhand grip with the SPEAR phalanx, where the men held their spears underhanded, and BELOW the bottom curve of the Aspis shield, and attacked the legs and feet of their opponents, killing them as they fell and clogged up their own phalanx. This was met with mix results, but was actually comfortable within the phalanx, but as its stated, was met with mixed results. Additionally, according to a descendant of the Spartans, the way they fought in the phalanx(using an overhand grip) was not to stab up and over and downward at the enemies head... but instead they rested the distal end of the shaft in the crevice of the overlapping shields(each shield protected half of the body of the man to the left) still held in the overhand grip and was used to precisely lunge/stab forward at a straight or lateral angle into the other phalanx. -Through doing this straight lunge motion, the protruding spikes at the proximal end of the spear head(or simply, the protruding angle) was used to grip the edge of the enemies Aspis and upon the pulling motion, opened up the opponents shield allowing for a visual angle to lunge again at the unprotected neck or soft parts of the Lino-thorax armor. -In addition to using the straight lunging motion, the men behind them were arranged in completely straight rows so that the tail of the spear did not disrupt anyone behind them. The men behind the front two rows would have their spears held diagonally, pointing forwards and upwards, and when they moved forward after the man in front dropped, they would simply slide their spear back into the crevice of their own and neighbor's shield. So in short, they were used overhand, but not to strike downward, but to strike straight after resting the shaft within the crevice of their own shield, and the man's to their right. This allowed them to maintain endurance of the shoulder.
I don't think your evidens is particular good... The change for the Macedonian Phalanx was as you said the pike, giving better reach, this however does not really say anything regarding the use of spear, because either with overhand or underhand the pike will stile outreach the spear. Your point on letting the spear rest between shields is interesting, and could perhaps work, however it is not hard to imagine that the same could be done with a underhand grip, or that the spear was under the connection between shields... Regarding your point on the Armour... Would it not make the most sense to armour the areas where you are more worried that you could get hit? I am not saying that you are wrong, but certain armours/or texts from the time, shows extra metal bits put onto the armour around the stomachs... If we imagine that you but on extra protection around the area where you are most likely hit, then that has to show something. Regarding ancient Greece I don't really believe that know enough to say with certainty how the individual soldier, or unit really fought... In a brief period of time, they may well have fought as you describe... but going 50 or so years in either direction, and it would be completely different. We do know that cavalry was part of certain city-stats armies... We also know that light infantry became more and more important... So the way of fighting changed steadily. I am not convinced that Matt is right on his point regarding tapestry, vases and pictures as good evidens either... Mostly because those objects did not serve the purpose of showing how the common soldier fought, it might do, but most often those objects was trying to sell a story/propaganda, and the overhand grip looks more threatening than the underhand grip, and by that be more popular to picture.
But you cant overhand that long of a pike, you would need rotatory cuff surgery every week. The only way to safely hold a pike for prolonged engagements would be underhand. So the only thing they even COULD have been talking about was using SPEARS overhand.
Actually, in Renaissance and later during pike and shot age, they were using pikes from overarm position over the shoulder.. so i would expect if Hoplites used it overarm, Macedonians would be looking for similar style and would come with the same tactics as in Renaissance.. instead, they kept it down underarm...
@Jaroslav Jakubov I looked into it, but all renaissance art and modern reenactments never put the pike higher than shoulder height. The hand positions are almost always a combination of *both* over- and underhand. I'm sure you could temporarily raise the pike over your shoulder, like you say, but I suspect that would tire out your arms rather quickly and thus make you combat ineffective. So, I doubt that was standard practice. It probably was more of a situational thing you could do. It is quite obvious that you can use both over- and underhand with spears, but what do you use when you perform a disciplined shield wall like the ancient southern European armies did, like the Greeks and Early Romans? Tactically speaking, underhand cannot be your default grip that you use in most situations because as soon as the enemy rushes your shield, you will need to take some time switching grip from underhand to overhand before you can stab over your own shield to hit the enemy who's right in your face, and you need to do this while you are being pushed and possibly stabbed yourself if you aren't quick enough. You can see this in a video on this channel where they have spears with shields fighting each other. It seems like underhand is not viable for very close range fighting. Underhand seems good for when you have the space to move around and keep the enemy at a distance, but it is weak against someone who rushes and manages to get really close, especially when you don't have a lot of space to move, like in a formation. Also, what about fatigue? Assume that you do battle for a few hours in the shield wall. What actions will you take to avoid getting tired too quickly? Resting the spears on the shield wall seems kind of obvious. But how would you hold the spear? Overhand or underhand? It seems to me that overhand seems less tiring. Also, if you rest your spear on the shield wall, then you can get exactly the same range using overhand as you can with underhand.
Sascha Kramarenko Regarding the relaxing part of resting the spear on the shield... This makes no sense what so ever! I am sorry, but if you are part of the front line, and fighting, you have no time resting the spear on the shield... If the lines have broken apart or haven't meet yet, there are ample time to let the spear rest on the ground, by standing with it... What we most likely don't know about, is a system like the Romans, where the ranks change position, so the men can be given a bit of rest, before going at it again.
Was agreeing with you until 5.00 when you said 'totally useless'. The guy behind you is safe if he's not closer than he should be, and you are holding the spear near the back, and you can raise your elbow to get the spear over your shield _and_ reach your foe's feet.
I think useless is a term used by the British as a common exaggeration, and is not as strong of an adjective as when used in American English where it is used literally.
Lindybeige You do get more reach. And you also get a decidedly weaker strike. And you're also literally lending your opponents your spears, (Should they be desperate enough or in loose enough a formation to grab it, or if they simply decide to parry your spear and send another attack in simultaneously). For mock re-enactment fights I'm sure this is superior. For holding your ground I could see it as useful as well, to a degree. But I feel it's decidedly inoffensive as a method of using it. Reach is slightly over-rated too, when both you and your opponents are aligned in massive overlapped shieldwalls and covered in armor.
One good reason to use a spear overarm in a duel is that the back end becomes a weapon. A big disadvantage of spear and shield vs say sword and shield is that the spear can very easily be moved, and I usually find that if I fight underarm, my spear gets pushed and held to the side by my opponent's shield, and I can't really do anything at that point but drop it and draw a back up weapon. With overarm, if my opponent pushes my spear downwards or sideways I can then use that motion against them and spin my spear around, hitting them with the back end on the head or shoulders. Sorry if this is kind of hard to follow, trust me, it works brilliantly.
@Hoshea Ashok Kumar it is. Spear and shield is the main choice of weapon for infantry formations since the early days of Sumer to around ~1200-1350s when polearms were needed to pierce plate armours. However... In skirmishes and duels, nobles and other richer off warriors prefer sword and shield. Probably due to the skill needed and ability to fight a couple of enemies at once.
@Hoshea Ashok Kumar I've rewatched the videos now. Spear-shield vs sword shield in one on one, yes. Other than that, they seem to win a lot. For duel, the spear is two-handed/no shield.
@Hoshea Ashok Kumar They didn't even fought against cavalry at all there, what are you on about? in Lindybeige's video, the people that use spear with both hands instead with shield win against people that use swords (any type and combination) most of the time in a one on one fight. Video: th-cam.com/video/uLLv8E2pWdk/w-d-xo.html
Spartiatai300 I don't have a horse in this race, I'm just pointing out the obvious that everyone else seems to be ignoring: painters often value aesthetics over accuracy.
An interesting historical aspect with pikes is that the Swiss grabbed their pikes at about the middle position near the balance point while the Landsknechte (their heirs in a way) grabbed them farther to the back end. The Swiss thus had a bit more of control over their long pointed sticks but lacked range which became a disadvantage.
source? interessting read something simular, to more about that you shouldnt fight the lands knecht like the lands kecht, but like the switz, and get in close as you wount beat them at thier own game
Could it be that a formation of, say, hoplites would use both methods depending on how close they were to the enemy? At 8 ft. range they jab at each-other underarm, then an order goes out and the shieldwall condenses and they go overarm for close range.
+Rafael Fernandez The switch is extremely demanding for men in fear of danger and getting pushed. Close order tactics need to be kept simple to work. I suppose the overarm stance was used until the arm was too tired or the spear spent. The underarm stance was probably not practical in close order tactics at all, but in more disorderly situations it might be the 2nd choice. Artists would naturally prefer to show this stance rather than the 'tired man' stance.
+Jürgen Sven Fuchs Usually, the underarm was the first stance hoplites, or any other army/unit, took. The overarm was unusable in long range engagements, at least when talking about roman/greeks. Also, it wasn't common for troops of spears to close in with one another, let alone face each other. They usually held back, jabbed with their spears, then closed the gap when they felt they would be victorious. Another thing to consider is the difficulty of ordering troops on a battle field. Today we have radios, but back then all they had were their voices. And with a field full of screaming men, it can be hard to hear orders.
Taylor Lang Not really. If you define underarm as thumb forward and overarm as pinky forward, you can still raise the spear above the shield and thrust with it. And if you have a less dense formation, which I think would be easier to maneuver in, with the front line more spread, about two feet or so between the soldiers, you can thrust underneath the shield wall
hoplite warfare was not about having less dense formations. they were packed in tight shoulder to shoulder 8 ranks deep, and it was quite literally a massive deadly shoving match. the front 3 ranks would do the fighting and dying while the rest would be pushing on the backs of those in front. they called it the othismos, or the push. there are plenty of firsthand accounts where opposing phalanxes were literally pressed up shield to shield as each side tried to break through the other formation and cause a rout to begin. theres really no room for underarm thrusting in such a situation outside of perhaps the initial charge. i recommend reading the western way of war by victor davis hanson for more detail on the topic
The overhand grip with the back rised high may work nice in a formation. But it is a really shitty way to hold the spear if you want to test the stance indoors, thanks for the new mark on my ceiling. =)
A thing I noticed a while back (while trying this out, because I wasn't satisfied by Lloyd's spear "dogma") - while held up high (!), the overhand grip is much more convenient for attacking to the right side, while the underhand feels more comfortable on the left side. This stems from the biomechanics of the human arm, obviously. Considering a spearman using a shield would likely and often be fighting a line of other spearmen with shields, attacking left means mostly hitting a shield. Attacking right aims at the "unprotected" right side of your opponent's buddy. Anyway, as I IIRC commented on Lloyd's video - I don't why we shouldn't use both. Line or shieldwall battles surely weren't always perfectly measured by spear distance without any contact, sometimes you pushed in and got close. Then, or if you just wanted to change it up a bit, the overhand comes in handy.
different conclusions but similar opinions. IIRC Lindy doesn't go in depth regarding the use of a spear in a formation, but th agree that overarm has shorter reach and that underarm is potentially better for dueling.
Interesting how many people draw varying conclusions. My approach: Both positions can be switched back and forth and it depends on the situation (and maybe techique) which one is used. Underarm usage: While in formation and in general for defense. Hitting the guy behind is not as much as an issue since the spear end is next to your elbow due to the different hold you have on it. In duels when the spear is the main/only weapon. Advancing formation. (but not in a charge) Overarm: Out of formation, requires much more leg movement since the parrying ability is lacking. (as Lindybeige pointed out as well regarding parrying with an overarm grip sucks) -> Good choice in a chaotic brawl and for skirmishing units. And obviously when charging/attacking, since the formation is anyway pretty loose and the spear most likely will be used as a missile weapon while sprinting. +scholagladiatoria +Miguel Bartelsman +Lindybeige
Heavily depends on formation. If you are in close shield wall - possibly overlapped shields - then over arm would be used. However if you needed the line to be stretched or your unit was under heavy ranged fire then a loose formation allowing for individual shield protection overhead would of been used, allowing for under the arm style. Using under arm while in a loose formation (being up to a meter apart) would still make up for the gaps in formation due to the longer reach. This would keep the enemy further away and cover a wider area due to further reach gained by the under arm method. However this loose under arm formation would have been more likely used against enemies not in a tight formation - such as the Persians. However an over arm tight phalanx may have been used more frequently between Greek factions as they are less likely to use ranged or cavalry units- methods used by the Persians that would've favoured the under arm grip for that extra reach and extra flexibility in protection.
Overarm spears have the range of a sword or hand axe. You would just use one of those instead of getting rid of the main advantage a spear provides (reach).
demomanchaos That doesn't make any sense - why would you throw away a perfectly good weapon and reach for your side arm? You can simply change your grip.
JanPospisil42 Far more control and versatility honestly. In close range, a sword is far handier than a spear, particularly a clumsy overarm gripped one (grab a spear-like object overarm, then have a mate knock it around as if it was being parried and you will see what I mean). Spears are best when you are using their length. Their length is their selling point. Negate the length, negate the purpose of using the thing.
demomanchaos overhand grip is the best way for duel / 1V1 in my opinion because its the closest attack to the enemy head and make him forced to blind himself so you can attack elsewhere easily. underarm is for formation .
demomanchaos I've watched your videos and I agree with the 99% of what you have concluded. I have tried to use overhand grip in the past and, in my experience, it is completely useless. I can see some circumstantial uses for it, but not as your primary stance. One more disadvantage that nobody have mentioned is inability to swing a spear and strike with it while holding it overarm.
Thanks for this. For the longest time I thought I just had weak wrists and I actually sprained my wrist because I was trying to hold the spear too far back while in the overhand podition. I didn't even think to choke up on it because of the drastic loss of range. When my wrist gets better I'll give it a try. Maybe you could do some demonstrations on how to best utilise overhand and maybe a short sparring demo?
I think overarm technique also has some intimidation factor in it. Like animals make themselves bigger to look more intimidating and strong, perhaps it's the same with humans. Scaring the opponent is also widespread tactic used by African tribes.
Interesting thoughts, though personally I still think the underarm grip must have been used a fair bit. While it's true that holding it midway along the shaft underarm could hit your friends in the face, if you hold it right at the end (as you briefly demonstrated), not only do you not hit people in the face but you get a massive great reach, as you described. I noticed, after a cursory glance at some greek vases, that most of them seem to show only the front rank, which leads to my theory. The front ranks probably held their spears overarm, due to being fairly close to the enemy and thus wanting to be able to stab the guy in front of them. The guys behind them, however, held their spears underarm, though still stabbing over the shield and the shoulder of the guys in front, in order to maximise the amount of pointy in any given bit of front. After about three ranks of this, people hold their spears upwards, both to minimise accidental hitting and to provide some protection against missiles (I remember hearing this as a reason for holding pikes up, though I'll admit I don't know how it works. Or indeed if it does). The vase painters, however, only show the front ranks, because otherwise you'd have to turn the pots around to see where people's spears are coming from and the back ranks of each unit would touch. They do still show the spears pointing upwards though, as that's one of the defining characteristics of hoplite formations, and they're nice and close-packed because that way you can fit more bodies in without it looking too silly. With the African tribes who use overarm (particularly the Zulu), I know that they originally used javelins as their primary weapon, so it might come from that. There's also the fact that the Zulu look to me like they fought in a much less organised formation than hoplites (in order to maximise their speed), and thus complicated multi-rank systems won't really work, but you still don't want to hit anyone in the face. Then again, I might be wrong about all of this. The only way to really check is to get two formations of hoplites, one going overarm and one underarm and see who wins, and apparently there's laws about that sort of thing now.
Excellent argument for the over-head position. Makes perfect sense. The tight close quarters fighting of the age would have made under-arm all but completely useless. Thanks for this video. Kurtus
Actually, overarm trumps underarm with defense, maneuverability, and range is not effected if you know how to slide a spear. You do get better bracing from the underarm position, that's just about all you get.
I'm glad you made a video on this topic. There's also been some tests by some respected historians showing that the overarm spear thrust ends up generating considerably more powerful strikes as opposed to the underarm thrust. Thrusts that could effectively defeat the armour of the day.
Can you direct me to one of those tests? I can't speak much to it, but in my limited experience, a horizontal thrust with the hand kept at about hip height was more powerful. The overhand thrust may be more powerful but I find it's harder to execute effectively with a weapon as long as a spear. Not very hard, mind, just harder.
Try this: "An Evaluation of The Effectiveness of Three Methods of Spear Grip Used in Antiquity" Journal of Battlefield Technology, Vol 4, No 2, November 2011, by Peter Connolly and David Sim. They found that high underarm was 3 times more powerful than low underarm, but that overhand was 5 times more powerful than high underarm and 8 times more powerful than low underarm. I'd also recommend Paul Bardunias' articles in Ancient Warfare magazine, and also looking up his blog called "Hollow Lakedaimon". There is also: Gabriel and Metz "From Sumner to Rome, the Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies" 1991, p.85 and Schwartz "Reinstating the Hoplite; Arms, Armor, and Phalanx Fighting in the Archaic and Classical Greece", 2009, p. 80.
Kisk79 I really have a very had time believing those figures aren't made up. I've done more than just a little spear and shield fiddling, and I don't get those numbers. The power for any strike in any martial art comes primarily from the hips and not the arms. That said, at the extent of reach overarm feels incredibly weak compared to underarm. This also is noticeable when your target is the lower body and not the chest or face. The issue is that at the extent of range, you don't have a solid grip on the spear because you have to all but throw it to get max reach (which is still at least a foot shorter than gripping it underarm at the same position, and underarm does not suffer from pathetically weak strikes at the limit of range). Under the right circumstances could overarm generate more power, possibly. Those circumstances would include the target being at a specific height, angle, and within limit of range. Could it be massively more than a properly thrown underarm spear thrust, almost certainly not.
I once saw a documentary about Maasai hunting lions, and they have a shield & spear, but they don't do shieldwalls & they don't throw the spear either - they say if you throw the spear & miss with a lion, you're dead, so they *kind of* do like an overarm throw, but catch the end before it leaves their hand, so that they have the full length of the spear as reach in the thrust, but they then *yoink* it back into a ready position super-quick. I think as far as overarm use in a shieldwall goes, you'd just have to build the muscle & the endurance to cope, much like an archer built the specific muscles he needed for his weapon.
Great vid! Completely agree!! Spears where also used to take away shields by throwing right at the shield and pulling their sword to charge they forced their Opponent to drop their shield because if the stopped right then to break it off of pull it out they would be dead.
I believe that the overarm technique is more powerful as you can apply the torque of the twist of your upper body to the thrust. Many people assume that the thrust is just using arm strength, however a proper thrust uses your core muscles, your back, your shoulders and your arms as you twist and whip your body into the thrust.
You're 'locked' in place only so far as you partially cover your comrade to the left with your Aspis, I think that the right side of the body would have sufficient latitude within those bounds for the quick twist and snap. Again since it's over hand, and thus over shield, you don't expose yourself as much as underhand which would require pulling your shield sightly left to rotate your spear around. Of course this is only conjecture.
I would add to Matt's reasons: Strength. Why are baseballs thrown overhand? Why were daggers and even swords sometimes used with the icepick grip? Strength of the blow. In recreation and sparing situations, you win by _poking_ your opponent. In a battle situation, you win (survive) by murdering or at least disabling your opponent. That means landing a blow that will penetrate muscle and bone. Think sternum or skull bone. Not to mention armor, mail, etc. I am unimpressed with arguments that attempt to explain away the best evidence we have as "artistic license." Oh, it just looks better on a vase. Nonsense.
chapdod With the usage of underarm vs overarm grip on a spear, it's the same as the icepick vs traditional grip on a sword. With the icepick grip you get one really hard strike whereas with the traditional grip the strike may be less powerful but it's much more wieldy to use. Not saying it's the exact same, but it's similar. It also depends on the spear you use, whether it's a dory, a sarissa, or an assegai.
This is late, but yes, the obvious advantage of the overhand grip imo is power. Hammers, axes, ice picks, and every other tool has more power when swung down. If you're trying to penetrate a shield and/or armor, it's the obvious choice. The underhand grip wins on control with the thumb and forefinger in front, but that's not what you need in every situation. Trying to thrust with full power from the underhand can also damage your wrist if the angle gets to obtuse. The best way to break through your enemies guard if speed and control don't work is to punch through with overwhelming force if your weapon is able to do so.
@4:34 also, if they guy behind you is literally pushing his shield into you, potentially crushing you, having your arm elevated like that will allow you to keep jabbing away. If it was at you side it would just be pinned.
I;ve heavily studied this subject and I have a few things to point out. I agree with your point about the throwing, but I disagree on your close group point. Overarm like that is very tiring and lacks real striking power on top of control and reach. You have less reach with an overarm spear than with most swords and axes (which is due to the way the wrist only bends a bit upwards meaning your forearm cannot be in line with your target, that costs about a foot or so of reach by itself). Your control is greatly reduced due to the way the hand and thumb are arranged (the pressure rests on the opening of the hand, the direction you twist a weapon to disarm someone). You also cannot strike low at a foe without them being very very close to you, which removes a lot of your options. You can in fact use a spear underarm in a bunched formation. You can hold it thumb forward and raise it above your shoulder just like overarm, but with the weight resting against the thumb and base of your fingers. That allows more control, but also you get to have more of your spear forward and combined with the wrist allows for much more reach than overarm. The contraction of the biceps gives a bit more power than the triceps when combined with movement of the shoulder, though neither are going to give enough force to get through any armor. Another way is to raise your elbow up so it is at shoulder level. With the butt of the spear right by your elbow and the spear weight resting on your forearm, you get the most possible spear reach while still having power, control, and can use it in tight spaces quite well. It is not a danger to your friends either, as you are much more likely to hit them with your elbow and not the buttspike. This also puts your spear above the shieldwall (and in the case of the aspis/hoplon, the spear rests at the lowest point in the top of the shieldwall due to the placement of the grip). You can also present more ranks of spears between your front rank and the guys you want to do nasty things to.
You cannot use an underarm grip above your shoulder because it will displace any armour that you wear. There is absolutely no evidence to support having the spear butt resting near your elbow for this time period.
Owen James Please, grab a broom or something to simulate a spear. If you hold it overarm near the end, you cannot control it precisely. If you hold it underarm near the end, you will see it naturally wants to rest on your forearm. Raise your elbow up and you will find that you can have it at shoulder level very easily. I really don't know what kind of armor you are talking about that will be displaced by simply moving your shoulder. If your armor is displaced by moving your shoulder, it is shit armor pure and simple. You move your arm around when fighting, particularly with a sword or hand axe but also with spears. If you can't move your arm, you can't fight. If you have not handled weapons, stop trying to debate about them for you can never understand them without handling them or something comparable (Even then it still isn't the real deal).
demomanchaos Also, weren't shields used before plate armor? From what I've learned, plate armor replaced the need for shields. So any shield wall formation, I would assume, would be without the sort of armor Owen was talking about. Also, even if you were wearing armor, the displaced section would be facing your allies, behind the shieldwall. Is this correct, or am I throwing spitballs in a cannon fight?
Matthew Brown People with plate armor generally didn't use shields, but most people didn't have plate armor so they would use a shield still. The non-existent displaced bit of armor would be away from the enemy, unless you have someone in your line that owes you money.
I totally agree with you, but think about one thing: while holding the spear overarm, the weight it's distributed over the whole arm, but in the underarm position ALL the weight concentrates in the shoulder muscle. It´s really tired to hold the spear in an upper possition while holding underarm because the only muscle holdin the weight of the spear is the sholulder.
This was the second video I watched on this topic. The first was footage of an actual sparring match, and on of them added a voiceover explaining this or that. He was quite pleased with the idea of throwing at melee range. So, you’re close enough to stab while maintaining your grip on the middle of the shaft. Then release the spear, and suddenly its reach is more. You end up gripping way back from where you started, but that’s easy to fix.
Interesting thoughts. My first thought when watching was that with this method of spear and shield use, the progression from the Greek hoplites, with the spear as a primary weapon and a sword as backup, to the Roman Legions, with a throwing spear to use before hand and a sword as their main weapon, is very clear.
Thank you very much for this information as I am writing a fan fic where my charecter trains with mainly spear and shield in a viking fight troupe (story set in modern day).
You're exactly right. Overhand is for close order shield wall fighting, where there is no space between the shield rims for a low hold and the butt spike would be a danger to the rear ranks. These guys have it figured out (Greeks of course) VIDEO: th-cam.com/video/-ZVs97QKH-8/w-d-xo.html
Just a thought here about the nature of figurative art and silhouette. A spear held above the head and away from the body has a much clearer silhouette, it really spells out the intention of the spear wielder much clearer than a spear held closer to the body, where the body may obscure artistic clarity. This is a thought off the cuff, so feel free to ridicule as needed. If it sounds interesting enough to investigate, take a look at modern books, "how to draw comics..." Etc. Wonderful video by the way.
I honestly think that both sides (i.e. underarm and overarm fanclubs) are taking way too much of a simplistic approach to this. Firstly, I don't think the art necessarily proves that this is the most common use of the spear, it's simply the most iconic stance for a spear. As you said, underarm feels like a comfortable position because it's similar to how you would fight with a sword. This would be similar to how fighters with two handed swords are often depicted in an overhead parry position. Or how today we would depict a soldier with his rifle in an idle hip height position. Secondly, I think that the situation commands the stance. If a phalanx is bracing for a charge, it would be rather silly to do this in an overarm stance as underarm provides much more stability and a solid grip as well as superior range. When fighting Cavalry, the attack arc of an overarm motion would strike at the rider's midriff and legs, an underarm stance would provide the option of attacking any part of the horse or rider. When advancing, the superior range of underarm allows you to attack before you are attacked. Otherwise your points are all valid of course =)
Much of what you're saying is wildly incorrect when applied to the Greek theater, as the dory spear was rear-weighted, which, when this is done, only avails the underarm thrust a 'range advantage' of something in the centimeters, not at all a big deal in heavily shielded, armored combat that was the hoplite affair. Your notions of overarm's lack of range, *and angle of arc especially*, come from ignorance of proper overarm thrusting techniques. (not trying to be mean/rude to you, I'm speaking generally, these are popular, yet false notions) Firstly a period dory may very well have been rear-weighted so the point of grip/balance is identical regardless of stance. Secondly, a proper overarm thrust sails forward and does not arc at all.
Perhaps a more important reason I would submit for consideration. scholagladiatoria . the overhand would allow you to attack around the shield on the weapon side, a bit like Roland Warzecha shows with the viking weapons here at 13:26 (Sword & Shield Fighting with Roland Warzecha) I don't know if this technique was ever used, but the fact remains that if your opponent is using his weapon underhand, his attacks will only ever come from his right side. Overhand exploits more lines of attack. Also, consider that the sharp, 90 degree-or-more angle at which you hold the spear overhand allows it to attack indirectly (circumventing your opponent's shield) -- both from the left and the right, above and below. Keep that in mind next time you pick the two up. Hold the spear at the balance point with a grip like a "thumbs up" position, thumb on the underside pointing to the back. This is a much more versatile position for single combat with shields.
Also, don't forget that this is art. They might have done it because it looked good. They didn't always pretend to be realistic. But I agree with all your other points. Thanks again for another interesting video!
I always thought of the overhand grip as a grip for close combatants or an aggressive stance. Use it like a rondel dagger with that icepick grip and just jam it in the enemy for a devastatingly powerful attack. You may even be able to jump in order to utilize gravity which is already on your side and easily pierce their armor. Yes you do not have range, but maybe close combat when you are fighting a big man with a sword who is just going to shield bash you it would be smart to bash him back and jam that spear in his neck, chest, or head. Often I see people try to stab forward with reverse grip like they would with underhand and you just cant do that. Instead strike downwards, no stabbing, like you are delivering a hammer-fist.
with a long shaft, an underhand grip prevents movement of the spear to the off-hand or shield side of the body. Whereas one can bring the spear to the opposite side, and strike fairly easily with the overhand grip
Lindybeige made a video on this. What you missed is the fact that you can actually hold your spear pretty high with the under arm grip. What's more, when you showed thrusting over a shield wall, it actually looked pretty easy to dodge from the perspective of a camera, as the blade was hanging very low and not at the level of your opponent's head. Another thing, as Lloyd said, is that Greek cuirasses were reinforced on the sides around the level where a spear that is held under arm could hit, which kind of means that such strikes were expected.
His point still stands, you get much higher up from the overhand, reducing the rist to the people behind you, the rest of your scenarion is pure conjecture and has no evidence supporting it.
SODEMO2007 You do realize you can take the spear over your head with the thumb-forward grip right (which would give far more control and reach, as well as allowing you to use more of your spear forward)?
3rd. Overhand does not cause you to protect less of your body with the shield. Any attack underhand towards the chest opens your chest up to an attack as well. From a simple standpoint on trying not to get killed, self preservation is very key factor in how you will fight.
I agree with both points, and a think that on ancient artworks design could also be important, so it is poosible, that the hoplite often holds the spear overarm, because it looks better on the vase.
great point about the throwing position! it's definitely intimidating to know that someone can throw a spear at you at any moment. it directs a lot of attention to the thrower. everyone in throwing distance has to keep an eye out for the guy in addition to their direct opponents. shield wall fighting can get quite claustrophobic. from my experience, the lower spear position is a huge disadvantage when the enemy "charges" and closes in on sword/axe range. chances are, your spear's shaft will be stuck between shields and or bodies of both your opponents and your allies. as soon as someone gets past the point, your weapon becomes pretty much useless. When that happens, i usually have to drop the spear and switch to a seax or axe. in the higher position it's much easier to draw your weapon back and attempt another stab.
in India we only hold particular type of spears like that, in an over hand grip. but we mostly do it to come down at an angle over his shield and preferably stab him in the throat (because that's the most less guarded part only covered in chain mail. or stab him in the chest, for which u have to come down at an angle as a straight thrust will will surely get stopped by the plate metal breast plate.
First of all, great vids. i believe it is important to note that the Greeks would have counter weights on there spears, allowing them to be held much further back.
In the Greek context, the muscles used for the over hand thrust were also the muscles used to row the ships, so as the soldiers were becoming competent sailors, they were becoming better spearmen as well
Could it be the reason why in art the spear is depicted as being held overhead be the same why shotguns are constantly being cocked and sword make the "schwing" sound when drawn in movies? Artistic license/looks or sounds cooler?
you know just before I read your comment I was thinking along simular lines. my self as an artist. I also would like to add it's possible that Greek potters for example might not have seen War first hand and would be relying on looking at solders on milatary drills rather than actual fighting.?!
The difference is that we have Asian and African cultures that fought Europeans with similar weapons not too long ago. Those cultures still often practice with those weapons using long held fighting traditions. They often use overhand grips. Granted, Europeans may have fought differently, but likely since the weapons are so similar they Europeans often times fight in similar fashion. Granted, much like there were different cultures with different techniques in Asian and Africa you had different cultures with different techniques in Europe.
I had these thoughts almost instantly as well. While i do see how his points would make sense, especially in duelling where making it uncertain whether throwing ot stabbing will be your next move. Which does tie in with that. An artist is more likely to witness a sparring duel, or something alike, rather than battlefield situations. Furthermore, while the point is not entirely similar, horned vikings were also an artists rendition that did not allign with facts. Now, i see how that might be a diffirent situation, with the hroned vikings being depicted long after the vikings were actually there, but even so, artists often take immense liberties. As of such, thinking that, if both stances were used equally, but the overarm throwing position looked 'cooler' and more inspired, that that was depicted disproportionally often.
With ancient Greek art it's more or less 50 - 50. Soldiers in formation are generally shown holding spears underarm (looks more practical), duels are generally shown holding spears overarm (looks more heroic). The usage depends on the tactics used. In a formation you wouldn't be pressed against the guys either side of you, unless your troop's morale was shit and everyone started squeezing together. Also you wouldn't want to get close enough to stab downwards over their shield, because then they can stab down over yours as well. Overarm removes the principle advantage of using a spear (range), so I believe it's mostly good for throwing or if you don't have a side weapon and need to fight at close range. By the way, holding the spear towards the back end (which you can do underarm, but not overarm), there wouldn't really be any spear sticking out behind you.
Good points - one more thing (speaking of hoplites fighting method) we often say that shields interlocked, which is true, but think about it - if shields interlock then only way to attack is from above (or below) shield wall. Opening up to attack underarm would endanger not only yourself but the solider to your left - this was simply not an option. Phalanx was equivalent of ancient era tank - it's shields had to be impenetrable interlocking wall. There was no individualism in phalanx fight - only a teamwork.
Very interesting. I once heard that in the 16th century pike walls. The front row of pikes were held straight out in front, whereas the subsequent rows behind were sometimes held at a slight downward angle to help prevent enemies from slipping down and past the front row of pikes. It would interesting to know if was the same sort of thing with spears, before pikes came into greater use. Anyway really cool video, thanks.
underarm spear position can be very versatile too in one on one combat or wide spaces, as you are able to lunge and swipe around with it, using the weapon as a one-handed glaive or basically a short sword on a stick. Especially great for holding one or multiple opponents at bay or intimidating them
The reason spears were very popular throughout history is not only the reach; the spear is the best weapon to form tight formation like shield wall. The slashing weapons such as the sword and ax take relatively large space to handle. For that, points that Matt made make complete sense.
That is a very logical and reasonable explanation. Especially the second part about the shield wall and phalanx formations, which really would not have left much space to move the spear around much. Seems the Romans partially solved that with switching the legions to the gladius and making the shields larger, thus allowing the legionnaires to get in closer and then thrust their sword at their opponents from any number of surprising locations.
It seems to me that overarm gives you much more impact strength, so you could easily pierce trough a leather or similar armor, underarm wouldn't be as effective at piercing. Also a overarm thrust is harder to parry with a shield than an underarm strike, as you said. Just my two cents on that, I'm not an HEMA fighter so I wouldn't know really. Interesting and insightful videos as always Matt, thanks!
Pikes are weilded underarm because of their weight. They are also typically counterweighted to be carried at the far end for maximum reach. Even the macedonian pike was a two handed weapon, and the shield was attatched to the users shoulder with a leather strap instead of carried in a hand. Spears are used in shield walls, and are always used overhead, because the guy behind you will put his shield up to your back adding his weight to yours and push so your side can roll over the opponents facing you. This is also how you brace for a cavalry charge before the pike square was invented. Even held at the middle of the shaft a spear will outreach most one handed swords used in a similar position, and you can carry more spears in your shield hand to equip after you throw them before a charge.
Others might have already mentioned this ad nauseum but just want to throw it in. Underarm (palm down) grim is superior when you have space. Overarm grip (ice pick) is pretty much the only possible grip in a tight hoplite phalanx because you are limited to using the spear over the shield due to your sides being flanked by your comrades. Edit: Mr. Easton pretty much said the same.
La Nausée Another issue is that when you use overhand/hammer grip, the spear can get parried much easier. I think they simply both have their appropriate contexts with overhand being especially suitable for a battlefield as opposed to a duel.
NakMuayify Thing is, I doubt being parried would matter at all. All the hoplite would have to do is duck his head behind his shield and suddenly no unarmored part of him is exposed (barring the toes), meaning the opening the enemy made is nullified. Simultaniously this gives the second rank hoplite behind the first guy a clear view to see the attacker off with a throw or thrust of his spear. This gives the first guy time to retract his spear if he can, or ditch it and draw his sword, or even grab one of the second ranker's spears and use that.
There's also fighting in the defense of town walls which usually is forgotten but back in the days was common. If your enemies are way below (on a ladder for example) overarm is the way to go.
As a self titled armchair expert, another potential reason i could think of for using the spear overhand is to avoid disarmament. Using a shafted weapon always poses a problem that they can simply be grabbed and disabled or pulled loose from your hands. To disable a spear in the overhand position, it seems the maneuver would demand pulling in closer to the wielder, and exposing yourself more than would be required vs a spear held underhand. No real experience in the matter as far as spears go. But if you have ever been in a real life fight where your weapon gets pulled out of your hand, you learn very quickly that "how" you hold your weapon is of first importance.
Good video. You brought up some interesting points. I would only add that perhaps the over hand stance is so popular in art is because it is more dynamic and tells a better visual story. The viewer can more clearly see that the spear man is about to unleash hell on his target. Underhand is more of a relaxed pose. A little more vague as to the holders intent. I wonder what classical texts or manuals might have to say about the subject.
While I definitely agree that the spear would have been used overhand, isn't it possible that the artists maybe didn't care about their verisimilitude? Maybe the reason why art depicts spears being used overhand is because it *looks* more *manly*. I'm not saying you haven't made valid points, and I'm not saying that the spear wasn't used overhand, but I find it a stretch to base what reality was during a certain time based on what the artistic rendition of the period. For example, I can imagine in 2 thousand years people will look at our movies and assume that we all type incessantly on keyboards and rarely use computer mice because that's how the usage of computers are depicted in our artwork (movies).
I don't think there is much to discuss...#2 ends it. Single combat is, or was, essentially meaningless compared to group combat. #1 was an interesting point though. Thanks for all these great videos!
Thank you and information on the shield is extremely interesting people don't talk about it that much and it was very important in ancient warfare please have a good evening 😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊.
I think an additional benefit of the overhand position in a dense formation/phalanx fight is that if/when the enemy closes to shield distance, you still have the ability to choke up on the spear shaft and engage targets that close in a more manageable position. -Lane
The Dory( Ancient Greek spear) had a counter weight which was pointed so it could be used as a secondary weapon if your spear breaks also it makes it so you can hold the spear further back while your in formation.
As a martial artist who has trained with the spear I'd agree it depends on the situation. It is easy, comfortable and quick to change from forward to backward grip on most spears.
reminds me of the Strategikon by Emperor Maurice (a Byzantine Emperor whole ruled in the last quarter of the 6th century). In describing the standard battle formation (the Foulkon), he explicitly mentioned that the front rank or two couched their spears, while the next two or three ranks held their spears overarm (or "in the matter of a javelin"), so that they could both melee, and if necessary, throw their spears at the enemy.
I agree with almost everything Matt, except that when you are in the 'Underarm Grip' you can still hold the hand above your head by rotation the whole arm up. This allows your thumb to rest along the underside of the spear, pointing forward, which still allows for you to hold the spear at an extended length, and also enables you to keep the same angle of the spear as the overarm grip, with the butt end up above your buddy's face and still thrusting down over the shield of your opponent. As for the argument that the overarm gives more 'power' during a thrust, "how much power do you need?" the difference isn't that much. The only advantage I have found is the ability to throw with the overarm. Holding predominantly in the underarm allows me to transition from the low thrusting to the high thrusting (especially if the formation is breaking up and there is now a gap between the shields) and back again without ever having to change grip. And I can maintain the reach advantage the entire time.
Over arm. Most people are thinking of individual fights where underarm may feel more comfortable. however, in war you fight in units. Think of the Greek armies with their large heavy shields interlocking as the the soldiers stand next to one another. That formation helps protect the full unit. The armies crash into one another as units trying to push their enemy back. Their spears were thrust over their shields into the faces and chests of their enemy. There was no room below to really thrust the spear and it would disrupt the shield wall if they did so.
An overarm stance allows a controlled throw against a close opponent. You can throw it, an by the time it hits you're hand will still be over the back of spear. You pull it back & up and it allows repositioning without hitting your m8 behind you in the phalanx.
I totally agree. In addition I think the overarm is superior because if you use it underarm the shield and spear interfer and you will knock your own spear away when you move your shield to protect or have to open yourself in order to get free movement for the spear to attack. Additionally you have to hold your wrist in a very uncomfortable and bad position that makes your spear prone to disarm when it is hit from above or pushed down because your fingers open downwards. and your wrist cant compensate in this direction because it is at its limits of movement.
My friends and I screw around a lot with foamed covered pvc practice weapons. And, I like spear and shield with a short sword fall back weapon. I've found holding it over arm has it's virtues. Firstly, You don't necessarily need to attack or ward with the point. Choking up on the base of the spear head from the grip that is necessary for holding it overarm, lets you make powerful and easy to recover blunt strikes downward and from the sides, with the shaft. It also gives you a lot of easy to recover reach (easier then with the spear head pointed out) with your shoulder dropped, that doesn't leave you absent the option of slashing upward, and then going back to stabbing with the head, if someone gets past the shaft. You can also do a sort of false throw like that from about any angle , where you do the motion of throwing but just let it slide through your grip and clinch down and yank back when your hand feels the shaft thickening again (even crossing the shield over the shaft to obstruct your main arm side and false thrusting from under your shield arm with the shaft sticking out behind you). My favorite thing to go for though is holding my shield far out and tilted to present my opponent with something they can't resist trying to knock out of the way, but doing so principally to obstruct their view, while I trip them with the shaft. Once their on the ground, my point is already trained at their throat. or abdomen. Overarm is actually a really useful and versatile way to hold it if you think of the point as something you finish with as apposed to starting with.
I can think of 2 other reasons: The first is tje fact that it might be easier to try to poke over the opponent's shield with overarm spear grip. This would be valuable in formations where you can't try to get over the side of your opponent. When there's a bounch of shields before you, the easiest way to get through them is over them. The second is the effect of the thrust on the hand. Try picking any pole object and try having it pulled upwards vs downwards from your hand. You'll see that while the underarm stabbing motion can get painful as the skin of your hand is pulled backwards, the same doesn't happen with the overarm stabbing, because it's the same effect over the hand as if you're climbing a tree or a rope. The hand is made to be good at supporting your weight if you climb something. This means you can put a lot more force on an overarm stab. So yes, each has it's advantages and dissadvantages.
Great video, the points are pretty agreeable. I'd still side with the underarm position as being the better of the two but overarm isn't without its benefits. For anyone interested I'd suggest reading A Storm of Spears by Christopher Mathews; it's a pretty exhaustive look at this question in a classical Greek context.
I was always taught that the Roman Legionary carried two weights of pila. Light pila for throwing as the enemy approached (overarm), and heavy pilum for thrusting as the enemy was engaged (underarm).
Good observation about how dangerous a thrown spear is in sparring for the (lower) legs. Interestingly in the 7th century BC the poet Alcaeus states specifically that greaves provide protection against missiles. Carrying two spears seems to have been a very common thing in many parts of Europe from the Greek and Italic bronze age partly reflected in Italic pilum usage to the Germanic double framae of Tacticus fame. Obviously in Greece we have the evolution towards the classic Hoplite with spear-throwing being taken over by light specialists. Overall it is fascinating how flexible the simple, humble and cheap spear is. It needs more love and more videos!
So, I came to this video very late, and I love the discussion. I agree with most, but, being a re-enactor and having fought in (small) shield walls, I have to agree with the others about using it overhand (under-arm) in a shield wall. The throwing position doesn't really work well in an actual shield-wall formation, but changing it up allows it to be used with much more comfort and variability, including lifting it high to strike down, doing cross cuts in close formation, etc. In fact, it can be used very much like a sword in many situations. The other thing that I'd like to address, at least in this discussion, is the way people want to focus on Greek styles. Many other cultures from various time periods also used shield walls and spear. I do Keltic re-enacting, and our walls are much more dynamic than Greek styles. Norse shield walls would change yet again. There's more than one way.
Let's not forget that many ancient spear wielders such as hoplites carried spear, shield, xiphos AND javelins. Usually 2 or 3 javelins which were shorter thinner pointy sticks specifically intended for throwing. I expect either by command of polemarches at certain intervals during battle or at will of the hoplite based on opportunity. I doubt to the casual onlooker, or the average potter who most likely didn't engage in combat, the javelin and main spear pretty much looked the same. My assumption (yes I know) is that most often overhead depictions in art of long pointy sticks held overhand are actually javelins about to be thrown at medium to close range. Just food for thought - especially since I don't see javelins or pilum mentioned in many of the overhand v. Underhand discussions.
I agree with your points though my theory is that the downwards thrust is a main point instead of a sort of sub point like you presented( or so it seemed to me). With the overarm position you would get at least a little bit more power when thrusting though I doubt it would be a huge factor, as well as being in a prime position to thrust at their head, neck, shoulders, etc. It is true they would just have to raise their shield up to deflect it but to do so I would think they would have to block their line of sight to do so, leaving them open in a sense.
I think that the overhand stance was also done more in formations since in cases such as phalanxes, you got people behind you as well. An underhand stance could possibly mean that you jab (or stab as in the case of the spartans who are said to sport buttspikes in their spears) your mates behind you when you draw your spear back.
If the head of your spear was broken in combat and you were holding it that way, you would have access to a club immediately. In the event your attack was parried, downward rotation of the front of the shaft would allow you an additional strike using the butt end (which frequently also had a spearhead). Also, it is easier to shift from up to down position as needed than down to up against gravity. Lastly, striking from above allows you to strike above the front line without killing your battle buddies. Realistically the front line turns into a wall of corpses after the first few seconds anyway. The people From that time were a lot stronger and had incredible stamina compared to people today.
Most people seem to prefer underhand, but in my opinion overhand makes much more sense for a number of reasons. Two of them are the ones listed here, that is, formation fighting, and throwing position. But the other one is that when you hold a spear underhand, you have to move your shield to get the spear around it. This might be a good tactic for one on one sparring, but in a battle with ten opponents in front of you and arrows or spears flying at you, you want to stay behind your shield as much as possible. So holding the spear overhand means that you can reach over YOUR OWN shield, keeping your shield covering your torso and much of your face. If you have a formation of soldiers around you making a shield wall, the last thing you want to do is move your shield out of the way every time you need to make a thrust with a spear held underhand.
Also if shields are contiguous and overlap in formation, the shields block the spear with underarm grip. In classical Greece some shields were carved somewhat like a crescent to allow underarm grip.
One idea is that they might use their spears underhand in the front row when they were at a distance but the closer they get the less effective it is to use it in that way which is when they would either use their swords and axes (depending) or use it overhand. At which time they would draw closer together. This is when it would be a good idea for the guys behind who might not be using a shield, to hold their spear with two hands allowing them to hold their weapon farther back with greater control, and giving them more reach, allowing them to send more spears at their enemies. Others behind might throw as well.
I believe both where used based on space, and if your like macadon with there pike would use it underhand, and march to battle on the shoulder, simular with the greek hoplites. Its quicker to go to underhand from shoulder rest.
quick addition to the very interesting things said: the Spartan spear, as well as the Macedonian (sarisa) spear, had point-shaped counterweights at the rear end (called savrotiras), which weighted 3 times the front-end point. This way the spear could be grabbed from further to the rear (increasing reach), since the center of mass was moved backwards. I guess it was also easier to manipulate the spear, as it is with a sword with a counterweight at the pommel. Savrotiras could be pushed into the ground when the phalanx had to withstand a charge (eg cavalry) and finally, it could be used as a backup point, should the "business end" was broken off. Persian cavalry commander, Masistius was killed when a Greek soldier stabed him in the eye with the savrotiras of his spear
Thanks
The problem with most people, even some historians, is that they dont remember this one simple fact in history - and this statement proves that spear phalanxes were fought in the OVERHAND position(even though for years i believed underhand would be best).
-Macedon was known for creating their OWN version of the phalanx, called the Macedonian Phalanx(or pike phalanx). While everyone else used spears, Macedon switched to using an 18ft long Sarissa pike, to give them an edge over the other Greek hoplites and other phalanx using armies.
-The IMPORTANT change with the Macedonian Phalanx was that the writings explain how they SWITCHED to an UNDERHAND grip(in order to use the pikes) for the Macedonian Phalanx... It would be impossible to overhand a heavy 18ft pike, which is why they made the switch. This suggests that it was previously an overhand grip(which would make the most sense in a close formation to allow for compacting with no disrupting of the individual behind).
-Historically, this was a key innovation within the use of phalanxes, and Macedon decided to have a longer spear(which became a pike) and used an underhand grip because they found it to be more ergonomic when holding a longer spear without tension to the shoulder.
-THERES ALSO some writing explaining that Macedon TRIED using an underhand grip with the SPEAR phalanx, where the men held their spears underhanded, and BELOW the bottom curve of the Aspis shield, and attacked the legs and feet of their opponents, killing them as they fell and clogged up their own phalanx. This was met with mix results, but was actually comfortable within the phalanx, but as its stated, was met with mixed results.
Additionally, according to a descendant of the Spartans, the way they fought in the phalanx(using an overhand grip) was not to stab up and over and downward at the enemies head...
but instead they rested the distal end of the shaft in the crevice of the overlapping shields(each shield protected half of the body of the man to the left) still held in the overhand grip and was used to precisely lunge/stab forward at a straight or lateral angle into the other phalanx.
-Through doing this straight lunge motion, the protruding spikes at the proximal end of the spear head(or simply, the protruding angle) was used to grip the edge of the enemies Aspis and upon the pulling motion, opened up the opponents shield allowing for a visual angle to lunge again at the unprotected neck or soft parts of the Lino-thorax armor.
-In addition to using the straight lunging motion, the men behind them were arranged in completely straight rows so that the tail of the spear did not disrupt anyone behind them. The men behind the front two rows would have their spears held diagonally, pointing forwards and upwards, and when they moved forward after the man in front dropped, they would simply slide their spear back into the crevice of their own and neighbor's shield.
So in short, they were used overhand, but not to strike downward, but to strike straight after resting the shaft within the crevice of their own shield, and the man's to their right. This allowed them to maintain endurance of the shoulder.
I don't think your evidens is particular good...
The change for the Macedonian Phalanx was as you said the pike, giving better reach, this however does not really say anything regarding the use of spear, because either with overhand or underhand the pike will stile outreach the spear.
Your point on letting the spear rest between shields is interesting, and could perhaps work, however it is not hard to imagine that the same could be done with a underhand grip, or that the spear was under the connection between shields...
Regarding your point on the Armour... Would it not make the most sense to armour the areas where you are more worried that you could get hit? I am not saying that you are wrong, but certain armours/or texts from the time, shows extra metal bits put onto the armour around the stomachs... If we imagine that you but on extra protection around the area where you are most likely hit, then that has to show something.
Regarding ancient Greece I don't really believe that know enough to say with certainty how the individual soldier, or unit really fought... In a brief period of time, they may well have fought as you describe... but going 50 or so years in either direction, and it would be completely different. We do know that cavalry was part of certain city-stats armies... We also know that light infantry became more and more important... So the way of fighting changed steadily.
I am not convinced that Matt is right on his point regarding tapestry, vases and pictures as good evidens either... Mostly because those objects did not serve the purpose of showing how the common soldier fought, it might do, but most often those objects was trying to sell a story/propaganda, and the overhand grip looks more threatening than the underhand grip, and by that be more popular to picture.
But you cant overhand that long of a pike, you would need rotatory cuff surgery every week.
The only way to safely hold a pike for prolonged engagements would be underhand.
So the only thing they even COULD have been talking about was using SPEARS overhand.
Actually, in Renaissance and later during pike and shot age, they were using pikes from overarm position over the shoulder.. so i would expect if Hoplites used it overarm, Macedonians would be looking for similar style and would come with the same tactics as in Renaissance.. instead, they kept it down underarm...
@Jaroslav Jakubov I looked into it, but all renaissance art and modern reenactments never put the pike higher than shoulder height. The hand positions are almost always a combination of *both* over- and underhand. I'm sure you could temporarily raise the pike over your shoulder, like you say, but I suspect that would tire out your arms rather quickly and thus make you combat ineffective. So, I doubt that was standard practice. It probably was more of a situational thing you could do.
It is quite obvious that you can use both over- and underhand with spears, but what do you use when you perform a disciplined shield wall like the ancient southern European armies did, like the Greeks and Early Romans? Tactically speaking, underhand cannot be your default grip that you use in most situations because as soon as the enemy rushes your shield, you will need to take some time switching grip from underhand to overhand before you can stab over your own shield to hit the enemy who's right in your face, and you need to do this while you are being pushed and possibly stabbed yourself if you aren't quick enough. You can see this in a video on this channel where they have spears with shields fighting each other. It seems like underhand is not viable for very close range fighting. Underhand seems good for when you have the space to move around and keep the enemy at a distance, but it is weak against someone who rushes and manages to get really close, especially when you don't have a lot of space to move, like in a formation.
Also, what about fatigue? Assume that you do battle for a few hours in the shield wall. What actions will you take to avoid getting tired too quickly? Resting the spears on the shield wall seems kind of obvious. But how would you hold the spear? Overhand or underhand? It seems to me that overhand seems less tiring. Also, if you rest your spear on the shield wall, then you can get exactly the same range using overhand as you can with underhand.
Sascha Kramarenko Regarding the relaxing part of resting the spear on the shield... This makes no sense what so ever!
I am sorry, but if you are part of the front line, and fighting, you have no time resting the spear on the shield... If the lines have broken apart or haven't meet yet, there are ample time to let the spear rest on the ground, by standing with it...
What we most likely don't know about, is a system like the Romans, where the ranks change position, so the men can be given a bit of rest, before going at it again.
Was agreeing with you until 5.00 when you said 'totally useless'. The guy behind you is safe if he's not closer than he should be, and you are holding the spear near the back, and you can raise your elbow to get the spear over your shield _and_ reach your foe's feet.
5:00
I think useless is a term used by the British as a common exaggeration, and is not as strong of an adjective as when used in American English where it is used literally.
Jadervason
You're talking to Lindybeige. There are few people more British than Lindybeige in all of youtube.
sirbobulous
I'll be sure to add him to my TH-cam User Britishness Rankings...
Lindybeige You do get more reach. And you also get a decidedly weaker strike. And you're also literally lending your opponents your spears, (Should they be desperate enough or in loose enough a formation to grab it, or if they simply decide to parry your spear and send another attack in simultaneously).
For mock re-enactment fights I'm sure this is superior. For holding your ground I could see it as useful as well, to a degree. But I feel it's decidedly inoffensive as a method of using it. Reach is slightly over-rated too, when both you and your opponents are aligned in massive overlapped shieldwalls and covered in armor.
One good reason to use a spear overarm in a duel is that the back end becomes a weapon. A big disadvantage of spear and shield vs say sword and shield is that the spear can very easily be moved, and I usually find that if I fight underarm, my spear gets pushed and held to the side by my opponent's shield, and I can't really do anything at that point but drop it and draw a back up weapon. With overarm, if my opponent pushes my spear downwards or sideways I can then use that motion against them and spin my spear around, hitting them with the back end on the head or shoulders. Sorry if this is kind of hard to follow, trust me, it works brilliantly.
But this video is about using a Spear in warfare, not in a duel.
@Hoshea Ashok Kumar it is. Spear and shield is the main choice of weapon for infantry formations since the early days of Sumer to around ~1200-1350s when polearms were needed to pierce plate armours.
However... In skirmishes and duels, nobles and other richer off warriors prefer sword and shield. Probably due to the skill needed and ability to fight a couple of enemies at once.
@Hoshea Ashok Kumar I think I've seen many where the guy with spears win, I think it was by Lindybeige
@Hoshea Ashok Kumar I've rewatched the videos now.
Spear-shield vs sword shield in one on one, yes. Other than that, they seem to win a lot.
For duel, the spear is two-handed/no shield.
@Hoshea Ashok Kumar They didn't even fought against cavalry at all there, what are you on about?
in Lindybeige's video, the people that use spear with both hands instead with shield win against people that use swords (any type and combination) most of the time in a one on one fight.
Video: th-cam.com/video/uLLv8E2pWdk/w-d-xo.html
Here's a third reason: It kinda looks more threatening and painters would like that.
moismyname When holding overarm the spearhead is at head/throat level. Easier to kill with attack to that area.
Spartiatai300 I don't have a horse in this race, I'm just pointing out the obvious that everyone else seems to be ignoring: painters often value aesthetics over accuracy.
moismyname Weird then that Hollywood seems to be going to the one with the worse aesthetics.
+moismyname Maybe it was also easier to paint then underarm, so that it wouldn't overlap the body of the painted warrior
+Spartiatai300
I'm not sure it's fair to compare the aesthetics of movies vs. paintings.
An interesting historical aspect with pikes is that the Swiss grabbed their pikes at about the middle position near the balance point while the Landsknechte (their heirs in a way) grabbed them farther to the back end. The Swiss thus had a bit more of control over their long pointed sticks but lacked range which became a disadvantage.
source?
interessting read something simular, to more about that you shouldnt fight the lands knecht like the lands kecht, but like the switz, and get in close as you wount beat them at thier own game
@@giftzwerg7345 Ortenburg, Georg: Waffe und Waffengebrauch im Zeitalter der Landsknechte. (Reihe Heerwesen der Neuzeit Bd. 1) Verlag Bernard & Graefe
Could it be that a formation of, say, hoplites would use both methods depending on how close they were to the enemy? At 8 ft. range they jab at each-other underarm, then an order goes out and the shieldwall condenses and they go overarm for close range.
+Rafael Fernandez Yes, absolutely possible.
+Rafael Fernandez
The switch is extremely demanding for men in fear of danger and getting pushed. Close order tactics need to be kept simple to work. I suppose the overarm stance was used until the arm was too tired or the spear spent. The underarm stance was probably not practical in close order tactics at all, but in more disorderly situations it might be the 2nd choice.
Artists would naturally prefer to show this stance rather than the 'tired man' stance.
+Jürgen Sven Fuchs
Usually, the underarm was the first stance hoplites, or any other army/unit, took. The overarm was unusable in long range engagements, at least when talking about roman/greeks. Also, it wasn't common for troops of spears to close in with one another, let alone face each other. They usually held back, jabbed with their spears, then closed the gap when they felt they would be victorious. Another thing to consider is the difficulty of ordering troops on a battle field. Today we have radios, but back then all they had were their voices. And with a field full of screaming men, it can be hard to hear orders.
Taylor Lang Not really. If you define underarm as thumb forward and overarm as pinky forward, you can still raise the spear above the shield and thrust with it. And if you have a less dense formation, which I think would be easier to maneuver in, with the front line more spread, about two feet or so between the soldiers, you can thrust underneath the shield wall
hoplite warfare was not about having less dense formations. they were packed in tight shoulder to shoulder 8 ranks deep, and it was quite literally a massive deadly shoving match. the front 3 ranks would do the fighting and dying while the rest would be pushing on the backs of those in front. they called it the othismos, or the push. there are plenty of firsthand accounts where opposing phalanxes were literally pressed up shield to shield as each side tried to break through the other formation and cause a rout to begin. theres really no room for underarm thrusting in such a situation outside of perhaps the initial charge. i recommend reading the western way of war by victor davis hanson for more detail on the topic
The overhand grip with the back rised high may work nice in a formation. But it is a really shitty way to hold the spear if you want to test the stance indoors, thanks for the new mark on my ceiling. =)
You don't even want to see my ceiling...
scholagladiatoria Yes we do!
th-cam.com/video/KdhJhhSUxOs/w-d-xo.html
I just discovered your videos and I find them fascinating. You convinced me that rapiers are fierce and awesome :)
A thing I noticed a while back (while trying this out, because I wasn't satisfied by Lloyd's spear "dogma") - while held up high (!), the overhand grip is much more convenient for attacking to the right side, while the underhand feels more comfortable on the left side. This stems from the biomechanics of the human arm, obviously.
Considering a spearman using a shield would likely and often be fighting a line of other spearmen with shields, attacking left means mostly hitting a shield. Attacking right aims at the "unprotected" right side of your opponent's buddy.
Anyway, as I IIRC commented on Lloyd's video - I don't why we shouldn't use both. Line or shieldwall battles surely weren't always perfectly measured by spear distance without any contact, sometimes you pushed in and got close. Then, or if you just wanted to change it up a bit, the overhand comes in handy.
lindybiege and you have different opinions its interesting
different conclusions but similar opinions. IIRC Lindy doesn't go in depth regarding the use of a spear in a formation, but th agree that overarm has shorter reach and that underarm is potentially better for dueling.
Interesting how many people draw varying conclusions.
My approach:
Both positions can be switched back and forth and it depends on the situation (and maybe techique) which one is used.
Underarm usage:
While in formation and in general for defense. Hitting the guy behind is not as much as an issue since the spear end is next to your elbow due to the different hold you have on it.
In duels when the spear is the main/only weapon.
Advancing formation. (but not in a charge)
Overarm:
Out of formation, requires much more leg movement since the parrying ability is lacking. (as Lindybeige pointed out as well regarding parrying with an overarm grip sucks)
-> Good choice in a chaotic brawl and for skirmishing units.
And obviously when charging/attacking, since the formation is anyway pretty loose and the spear most likely will be used as a missile weapon while sprinting.
+scholagladiatoria +Miguel Bartelsman +Lindybeige
Heavily depends on formation. If you are in close shield wall - possibly overlapped shields - then over arm would be used. However if you needed the line to be stretched or your unit was under heavy ranged fire then a loose formation allowing for individual shield protection overhead would of been used, allowing for under the arm style. Using under arm while in a loose formation (being up to a meter apart) would still make up for the gaps in formation due to the longer reach. This would keep the enemy further away and cover a wider area due to further reach gained by the under arm method. However this loose under arm formation would have been more likely used against enemies not in a tight formation - such as the Persians. However an over arm tight phalanx may have been used more frequently between Greek factions as they are less likely to use ranged or cavalry units- methods used by the Persians that would've favoured the under arm grip for that extra reach and extra flexibility in protection.
Overarm spears have the range of a sword or hand axe. You would just use one of those instead of getting rid of the main advantage a spear provides (reach).
demomanchaos That doesn't make any sense - why would you throw away a perfectly good weapon and reach for your side arm? You can simply change your grip.
JanPospisil42 Far more control and versatility honestly. In close range, a sword is far handier than a spear, particularly a clumsy overarm gripped one (grab a spear-like object overarm, then have a mate knock it around as if it was being parried and you will see what I mean). Spears are best when you are using their length. Their length is their selling point. Negate the length, negate the purpose of using the thing.
demomanchaos
overhand grip is the best way for duel / 1V1 in my opinion because its the closest attack to the enemy head and make him forced to blind himself so you can attack elsewhere easily. underarm is for formation .
demomanchaos I've watched your videos and I agree with the 99% of what you have concluded. I have tried to use overhand grip in the past and, in my experience, it is completely useless. I can see some circumstantial uses for it, but not as your primary stance. One more disadvantage that nobody have mentioned is inability to swing a spear and strike with it while holding it overarm.
Thank you, food for thought. Always like to have my preconceptions challenged.
Exactly. Me too
I discovered this channel a while ago, and it's bloody great, one of the most interesting places on the internet. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for this. For the longest time I thought I just had weak wrists and I actually sprained my wrist because I was trying to hold the spear too far back while in the overhand podition. I didn't even think to choke up on it because of the drastic loss of range. When my wrist gets better I'll give it a try. Maybe you could do some demonstrations on how to best utilise overhand and maybe a short sparring demo?
I think overarm technique also has some intimidation factor in it. Like animals make themselves bigger to look more intimidating and strong, perhaps it's the same with humans. Scaring the opponent is also widespread tactic used by African tribes.
WindHaze10 iremember that Asian guy from norbit did that to Terry crews
Interesting thoughts, though personally I still think the underarm grip must have been used a fair bit. While it's true that holding it midway along the shaft underarm could hit your friends in the face, if you hold it right at the end (as you briefly demonstrated), not only do you not hit people in the face but you get a massive great reach, as you described. I noticed, after a cursory glance at some greek vases, that most of them seem to show only the front rank, which leads to my theory.
The front ranks probably held their spears overarm, due to being fairly close to the enemy and thus wanting to be able to stab the guy in front of them. The guys behind them, however, held their spears underarm, though still stabbing over the shield and the shoulder of the guys in front, in order to maximise the amount of pointy in any given bit of front. After about three ranks of this, people hold their spears upwards, both to minimise accidental hitting and to provide some protection against missiles (I remember hearing this as a reason for holding pikes up, though I'll admit I don't know how it works. Or indeed if it does). The vase painters, however, only show the front ranks, because otherwise you'd have to turn the pots around to see where people's spears are coming from and the back ranks of each unit would touch. They do still show the spears pointing upwards though, as that's one of the defining characteristics of hoplite formations, and they're nice and close-packed because that way you can fit more bodies in without it looking too silly.
With the African tribes who use overarm (particularly the Zulu), I know that they originally used javelins as their primary weapon, so it might come from that. There's also the fact that the Zulu look to me like they fought in a much less organised formation than hoplites (in order to maximise their speed), and thus complicated multi-rank systems won't really work, but you still don't want to hit anyone in the face. Then again, I might be wrong about all of this. The only way to really check is to get two formations of hoplites, one going overarm and one underarm and see who wins, and apparently there's laws about that sort of thing now.
The thing is though that's not what the visual sources show most of the time. That has to be taken into account.
Excellent argument for the over-head position. Makes perfect sense. The tight close quarters fighting of the age would have made under-arm all but completely useless.
Thanks for this video.
Kurtus
Kurtus Brown Except for defence, manueverability, range, stability, etcetera...
Actually, overarm trumps underarm with defense, maneuverability, and range is not effected if you know how to slide a spear.
You do get better bracing from the underarm position, that's just about all you get.
I've never thought about it this way. You, sir, are a genius.
I'm glad you made a video on this topic. There's also been some tests by some respected historians showing that the overarm spear thrust ends up generating considerably more powerful strikes as opposed to the underarm thrust. Thrusts that could effectively defeat the armour of the day.
Can you direct me to one of those tests? I can't speak much to it, but in my limited experience, a horizontal thrust with the hand kept at about hip height was more powerful. The overhand thrust may be more powerful but I find it's harder to execute effectively with a weapon as long as a spear. Not very hard, mind, just harder.
Try this:
"An Evaluation of The Effectiveness of Three Methods of Spear Grip Used in Antiquity" Journal of Battlefield Technology, Vol 4, No 2, November 2011, by Peter Connolly and David Sim.
They found that high underarm was 3 times more powerful than low underarm, but that overhand was 5 times more powerful than high underarm and 8 times more powerful than low underarm.
I'd also recommend Paul Bardunias' articles in Ancient Warfare magazine, and also looking up his blog called "Hollow Lakedaimon".
There is also: Gabriel and Metz "From Sumner to Rome, the Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies" 1991, p.85 and Schwartz "Reinstating the Hoplite; Arms, Armor, and Phalanx Fighting in the Archaic and Classical Greece", 2009, p. 80.
Excellent stuff, thanks very much.
No problem mate.
Kisk79 I really have a very had time believing those figures aren't made up. I've done more than just a little spear and shield fiddling, and I don't get those numbers. The power for any strike in any martial art comes primarily from the hips and not the arms. That said, at the extent of reach overarm feels incredibly weak compared to underarm. This also is noticeable when your target is the lower body and not the chest or face. The issue is that at the extent of range, you don't have a solid grip on the spear because you have to all but throw it to get max reach (which is still at least a foot shorter than gripping it underarm at the same position, and underarm does not suffer from pathetically weak strikes at the limit of range). Under the right circumstances could overarm generate more power, possibly. Those circumstances would include the target being at a specific height, angle, and within limit of range. Could it be massively more than a properly thrown underarm spear thrust, almost certainly not.
I once saw a documentary about Maasai hunting lions, and they have a shield & spear, but they don't do shieldwalls & they don't throw the spear either - they say if you throw the spear & miss with a lion, you're dead, so they *kind of* do like an overarm throw, but catch the end before it leaves their hand, so that they have the full length of the spear as reach in the thrust, but they then *yoink* it back into a ready position super-quick. I think as far as overarm use in a shieldwall goes, you'd just have to build the muscle & the endurance to cope, much like an archer built the specific muscles he needed for his weapon.
That's interesting. I wonder how well that'll go against other humans.
Great vid! Completely agree!! Spears where also used to take away shields by throwing right at the shield and pulling their sword to charge they forced their Opponent to drop their shield because if the stopped right then to break it off of pull it out they would be dead.
I believe that the overarm technique is more powerful as you can apply the torque of the twist of your upper body to the thrust. Many people assume that the thrust is just using arm strength, however a proper thrust uses your core muscles, your back, your shoulders and your arms as you twist and whip your body into the thrust.
Patrick Mathews but how much torque and upperbody can you use when locked in a phalanx?
You're 'locked' in place only so far as you partially cover your comrade to the left with your Aspis, I think that the right side of the body would have sufficient latitude within those bounds for the quick twist and snap. Again since it's over hand, and thus over shield, you don't expose yourself as much as underhand which would require pulling your shield sightly left to rotate your spear around. Of course this is only conjecture.
I would add to Matt's reasons: Strength.
Why are baseballs thrown overhand? Why were daggers and even swords sometimes used with the icepick grip? Strength of the blow. In recreation and sparing situations, you win by _poking_ your opponent. In a battle situation, you win (survive) by murdering or at least disabling your opponent. That means landing a blow that will penetrate muscle and bone. Think sternum or skull bone. Not to mention armor, mail, etc.
I am unimpressed with arguments that attempt to explain away the best evidence we have as "artistic license." Oh, it just looks better on a vase. Nonsense.
chapdod and speaking of, I'm curious if anyone has done penetration tests with javelin grip versus underhand grip.
chapdod With the usage of underarm vs overarm grip on a spear, it's the same as the icepick vs traditional grip on a sword. With the icepick grip you get one really hard strike whereas with the traditional grip the strike may be less powerful but it's much more wieldy to use. Not saying it's the exact same, but it's similar. It also depends on the spear you use, whether it's a dory, a sarissa, or an assegai.
This is late, but yes, the obvious advantage of the overhand grip imo is power. Hammers, axes, ice picks, and every other tool has more power when swung down. If you're trying to penetrate a shield and/or armor, it's the obvious choice. The underhand grip wins on control with the thumb and forefinger in front, but that's not what you need in every situation. Trying to thrust with full power from the underhand can also damage your wrist if the angle gets to obtuse. The best way to break through your enemies guard if speed and control don't work is to punch through with overwhelming force if your weapon is able to do so.
Murder is a purely legal concept, it means the unlawful taking of a human life. You mean killing. A soldier isn't a murderer when he does his job.
@4:34 also, if they guy behind you is literally pushing his shield into you, potentially crushing you, having your arm elevated like that will allow you to keep jabbing away. If it was at you side it would just be pinned.
Old videos of you are way better. Less rambling, strait to the point. Real shame it turned out as it did, this stuff is really amazing.
I;ve heavily studied this subject and I have a few things to point out.
I agree with your point about the throwing, but I disagree on your close group point. Overarm like that is very tiring and lacks real striking power on top of control and reach. You have less reach with an overarm spear than with most swords and axes (which is due to the way the wrist only bends a bit upwards meaning your forearm cannot be in line with your target, that costs about a foot or so of reach by itself). Your control is greatly reduced due to the way the hand and thumb are arranged (the pressure rests on the opening of the hand, the direction you twist a weapon to disarm someone). You also cannot strike low at a foe without them being very very close to you, which removes a lot of your options.
You can in fact use a spear underarm in a bunched formation. You can hold it thumb forward and raise it above your shoulder just like overarm, but with the weight resting against the thumb and base of your fingers. That allows more control, but also you get to have more of your spear forward and combined with the wrist allows for much more reach than overarm. The contraction of the biceps gives a bit more power than the triceps when combined with movement of the shoulder, though neither are going to give enough force to get through any armor.
Another way is to raise your elbow up so it is at shoulder level. With the butt of the spear right by your elbow and the spear weight resting on your forearm, you get the most possible spear reach while still having power, control, and can use it in tight spaces quite well. It is not a danger to your friends either, as you are much more likely to hit them with your elbow and not the buttspike. This also puts your spear above the shieldwall (and in the case of the aspis/hoplon, the spear rests at the lowest point in the top of the shieldwall due to the placement of the grip). You can also present more ranks of spears between your front rank and the guys you want to do nasty things to.
You cannot use an underarm grip above your shoulder because it will displace any armour that you wear. There is absolutely no evidence to support having the spear butt resting near your elbow for this time period.
Owen James Please, grab a broom or something to simulate a spear. If you hold it overarm near the end, you cannot control it precisely. If you hold it underarm near the end, you will see it naturally wants to rest on your forearm. Raise your elbow up and you will find that you can have it at shoulder level very easily.
I really don't know what kind of armor you are talking about that will be displaced by simply moving your shoulder. If your armor is displaced by moving your shoulder, it is shit armor pure and simple. You move your arm around when fighting, particularly with a sword or hand axe but also with spears. If you can't move your arm, you can't fight.
If you have not handled weapons, stop trying to debate about them for you can never understand them without handling them or something comparable (Even then it still isn't the real deal).
demomanchaos Also, weren't shields used before plate armor? From what I've learned, plate armor replaced the need for shields. So any shield wall formation, I would assume, would be without the sort of armor Owen was talking about. Also, even if you were wearing armor, the displaced section would be facing your allies, behind the shieldwall. Is this correct, or am I throwing spitballs in a cannon fight?
Matthew Brown People with plate armor generally didn't use shields, but most people didn't have plate armor so they would use a shield still.
The non-existent displaced bit of armor would be away from the enemy, unless you have someone in your line that owes you money.
I totally agree with you, but think about one thing: while holding the spear overarm, the weight it's distributed over the whole arm, but in the underarm position ALL the weight concentrates in the shoulder muscle. It´s really tired to hold the spear in an upper possition while holding underarm because the only muscle holdin the weight of the spear is the sholulder.
This was the second video I watched on this topic. The first was footage of an actual sparring match, and on of them added a voiceover explaining this or that. He was quite pleased with the idea of throwing at melee range. So, you’re close enough to stab while maintaining your grip on the middle of the shaft. Then release the spear, and suddenly its reach is more. You end up gripping way back from where you started, but that’s easy to fix.
Great video! I also consider the main difference between the two grips is 1on1 vs battlefield situation
Interesting thoughts. My first thought when watching was that with this method of spear and shield use, the progression from the Greek hoplites, with the spear as a primary weapon and a sword as backup, to the Roman Legions, with a throwing spear to use before hand and a sword as their main weapon, is very clear.
Thank you very much for this information as I am writing a fan fic where my charecter trains with mainly spear and shield in a viking fight troupe (story set in modern day).
You're exactly right. Overhand is for close order shield wall fighting, where there is no space between the shield rims for a low hold and the butt spike would be a danger to the rear ranks. These guys have it figured out (Greeks of course) VIDEO: th-cam.com/video/-ZVs97QKH-8/w-d-xo.html
Just a thought here about the nature of figurative art and silhouette. A spear held above the head and away from the body has a much clearer silhouette, it really spells out the intention of the spear wielder much clearer than a spear held closer to the body, where the body may obscure artistic clarity. This is a thought off the cuff, so feel free to ridicule as needed. If it sounds interesting enough to investigate, take a look at modern books, "how to draw comics..." Etc. Wonderful video by the way.
I honestly think that both sides (i.e. underarm and overarm fanclubs) are taking way too much of a simplistic approach to this. Firstly, I don't think the art necessarily proves that this is the most common use of the spear, it's simply the most iconic stance for a spear. As you said, underarm feels like a comfortable position because it's similar to how you would fight with a sword. This would be similar to how fighters with two handed swords are often depicted in an overhead parry position. Or how today we would depict a soldier with his rifle in an idle hip height position.
Secondly, I think that the situation commands the stance. If a phalanx is bracing for a charge, it would be rather silly to do this in an overarm stance as underarm provides much more stability and a solid grip as well as superior range. When fighting Cavalry, the attack arc of an overarm motion would strike at the rider's midriff and legs, an underarm stance would provide the option of attacking any part of the horse or rider. When advancing, the superior range of underarm allows you to attack before you are attacked. Otherwise your points are all valid of course =)
+CloakingDonkey
If not in a formation, underarm is brutal.
The fact you can slam someone in the neck with almost no telegraphing--
It's insane.
th-cam.com/video/KdhJhhSUxOs/w-d-xo.html - over vs underarm - see why overarm is far better choice.
Much of what you're saying is wildly incorrect when applied to the Greek theater, as the dory spear was rear-weighted, which, when this is done, only avails the underarm thrust a 'range advantage' of something in the centimeters, not at all a big deal in heavily shielded, armored combat that was the hoplite affair.
Your notions of overarm's lack of range, *and angle of arc especially*, come from ignorance of proper overarm thrusting techniques. (not trying to be mean/rude to you, I'm speaking generally, these are popular, yet false notions) Firstly a period dory may very well have been rear-weighted so the point of grip/balance is identical regardless of stance. Secondly, a proper overarm thrust sails forward and does not arc at all.
Temenos I love your comment :)
That video doesn't prove anything.
Perhaps a more important reason I would submit for consideration. scholagladiatoria .
the overhand would allow you to attack around the shield on the weapon side, a bit like Roland Warzecha shows with the viking weapons here at 13:26 (Sword & Shield Fighting with Roland Warzecha) I don't know if this technique was ever used, but the fact remains that if your opponent is using his weapon underhand, his attacks will only ever come from his right side. Overhand exploits more lines of attack.
Also, consider that the sharp, 90 degree-or-more angle at which you hold the spear overhand allows it to attack indirectly (circumventing your opponent's shield) -- both from the left and the right, above and below.
Keep that in mind next time you pick the two up. Hold the spear at the balance point with a grip like a "thumbs up" position, thumb on the underside pointing to the back. This is a much more versatile position for single combat with shields.
Also, don't forget that this is art. They might have done it because it looked good. They didn't always pretend to be realistic. But I agree with all your other points. Thanks again for another interesting video!
There is a video I found with people testing this, its called "techniques combat gaulois lance et bouclier". Good to see overarm in action.
Spartiatai300 And very rare too. Spear and shield fighting (sparring) is excessively rare as is on youtube. Shame about it.
I always thought of the overhand grip as a grip for close combatants or an aggressive stance. Use it like a rondel dagger with that icepick grip and just jam it in the enemy for a devastatingly powerful attack. You may even be able to jump in order to utilize gravity which is already on your side and easily pierce their armor. Yes you do not have range, but maybe close combat when you are fighting a big man with a sword who is just going to shield bash you it would be smart to bash him back and jam that spear in his neck, chest, or head. Often I see people try to stab forward with reverse grip like they would with underhand and you just cant do that. Instead strike downwards, no stabbing, like you are delivering a hammer-fist.
with a long shaft, an underhand grip prevents movement of the spear to the off-hand or shield side of the body. Whereas one can bring the spear to the opposite side, and strike fairly easily with the overhand grip
Lindybeige made a video on this. What you missed is the fact that you can actually hold your spear pretty high with the under arm grip. What's more, when you showed thrusting over a shield wall, it actually looked pretty easy to dodge from the perspective of a camera, as the blade was hanging very low and not at the level of your opponent's head. Another thing, as Lloyd said, is that Greek cuirasses were reinforced on the sides around the level where a spear that is held under arm could hit, which kind of means that such strikes were expected.
hehe, I am down here looking for a Lloyd comment myself.
His point still stands, you get much higher up from the overhand, reducing the rist to the people behind you, the rest of your scenarion is pure conjecture and has no evidence supporting it.
The Greek Cuirasses that you are referencing are from the period of Philip II of Macedon's phalanx warfare. Several hundred years later in history.
SODEMO2007 You do realize you can take the spear over your head with the thumb-forward grip right (which would give far more control and reach, as well as allowing you to use more of your spear forward)?
You cannot use an underarm grip over your shoulder or with any height at all because that displaces any armour you are wearing.
Excellent points.
3rd. Overhand does not cause you to protect less of your body with the shield. Any attack underhand towards the chest opens your chest up to an attack as well. From a simple standpoint on trying not to get killed, self preservation is very key factor in how you will fight.
But overhand exposes your armpit, so why didn't the Greeks cover theirs?
I agree with both points, and a think that on ancient artworks design could also be important, so it is poosible, that the hoplite often holds the spear overarm, because it looks better on the vase.
great point about the throwing position! it's definitely intimidating to know that someone can throw a spear at you at any moment. it directs a lot of attention to the thrower. everyone in throwing distance has to keep an eye out for the guy in addition to their direct opponents.
shield wall fighting can get quite claustrophobic. from my experience, the lower spear position is a huge disadvantage when the enemy "charges" and closes in on sword/axe range. chances are, your spear's shaft will be stuck between shields and or bodies of both your opponents and your allies. as soon as someone gets past the point, your weapon becomes pretty much useless. When that happens, i usually have to drop the spear and switch to a seax or axe. in the higher position it's much easier to draw your weapon back and attempt another stab.
in India we only hold particular type of spears like that, in an over hand grip.
but we mostly do it to come down at an angle over his shield and preferably stab him in the throat (because that's the most less guarded part only covered in chain mail. or stab him in the chest, for which u have to come down at an angle as a straight thrust will will surely get stopped by the plate metal breast plate.
I would love to see a comprehensive list of ways spears were mounted to shafts.
First of all, great vids. i believe it is important to note that the Greeks would have counter weights on there spears, allowing them to be held much further back.
In the Greek context, the muscles used for the over hand thrust were also the muscles used to row the ships, so as the soldiers were becoming competent sailors, they were becoming better spearmen as well
Every time you hit the ceiling, I cracked up.
Could it be the reason why in art the spear is depicted as being held overhead be the same why shotguns are constantly being cocked and sword make the "schwing" sound when drawn in movies? Artistic license/looks or sounds cooler?
you know just before I read your comment I was thinking along simular lines.
my self as an artist.
I also would like to add it's possible that Greek potters for example might not have seen War first hand and would be relying on looking at solders on milatary drills rather than actual fighting.?!
The difference is that we have Asian and African cultures that fought Europeans with similar weapons not too long ago. Those cultures still often practice with those weapons using long held fighting traditions. They often use overhand grips. Granted, Europeans may have fought differently, but likely since the weapons are so similar they Europeans often times fight in similar fashion. Granted, much like there were different cultures with different techniques in Asian and Africa you had different cultures with different techniques in Europe.
I had these thoughts almost instantly as well. While i do see how his points would make sense, especially in duelling where making it uncertain whether throwing ot stabbing will be your next move. Which does tie in with that. An artist is more likely to witness a sparring duel, or something alike, rather than battlefield situations.
Furthermore, while the point is not entirely similar, horned vikings were also an artists rendition that did not allign with facts. Now, i see how that might be a diffirent situation, with the hroned vikings being depicted long after the vikings were actually there, but even so, artists often take immense liberties. As of such, thinking that, if both stances were used equally, but the overarm throwing position looked 'cooler' and more inspired, that that was depicted disproportionally often.
With ancient Greek art it's more or less 50 - 50. Soldiers in formation are generally shown holding spears underarm (looks more practical), duels are generally shown holding spears overarm (looks more heroic).
The usage depends on the tactics used. In a formation you wouldn't be pressed against the guys either side of you, unless your troop's morale was shit and everyone started squeezing together. Also you wouldn't want to get close enough to stab downwards over their shield, because then they can stab down over yours as well.
Overarm removes the principle advantage of using a spear (range), so I believe it's mostly good for throwing or if you don't have a side weapon and need to fight at close range.
By the way, holding the spear towards the back end (which you can do underarm, but not overarm), there wouldn't really be any spear sticking out behind you.
Idlehampster, check this video to undertand why overarm is far better choice:
th-cam.com/video/KdhJhhSUxOs/w-d-xo.html
Good points - one more thing (speaking of hoplites fighting method) we often say that shields interlocked, which is true, but think about it - if shields interlock then only way to attack is from above (or below) shield wall. Opening up to attack underarm would endanger not only yourself but the solider to your left - this was simply not an option. Phalanx was equivalent of ancient era tank - it's shields had to be impenetrable interlocking wall. There was no individualism in phalanx fight - only a teamwork.
Very interesting. I once heard that in the 16th century pike walls. The front row of pikes were held straight out in front, whereas the subsequent rows behind were sometimes held at a slight downward angle to help prevent enemies from slipping down and past the front row of pikes. It would interesting to know if was the same sort of thing with spears, before pikes came into greater use. Anyway really cool video, thanks.
The point you make about protecting your legs was addressed by Greek hoplites by wearing bronze greaves. Great subject.
underarm spear position can be very versatile too in one on one combat or wide spaces, as you are able to lunge and swipe around with it, using the weapon as a one-handed glaive or basically a short sword on a stick. Especially great for holding one or multiple opponents at bay or intimidating them
Thegn Thrand has done some interesting videos on this
The reason spears were very popular throughout history is not only the reach; the spear is the best weapon to form tight formation like shield wall. The slashing weapons such as the sword and ax take relatively large space to handle. For that, points that Matt made make complete sense.
That is a very logical and reasonable explanation. Especially the second part about the shield wall and phalanx formations, which really would not have left much space to move the spear around much. Seems the Romans partially solved that with switching the legions to the gladius and making the shields larger, thus allowing the legionnaires to get in closer and then thrust their sword at their opponents from any number of surprising locations.
Great video. Very informative.
It seems to me that overarm gives you much more impact strength, so you could easily pierce trough a leather or similar armor, underarm wouldn't be as effective at piercing. Also a overarm thrust is harder to parry with a shield than an underarm strike, as you said.
Just my two cents on that, I'm not an HEMA fighter so I wouldn't know really. Interesting and insightful videos as always Matt, thanks!
I have nothing to add to this except this video that shows some interesting ideas:
Using the spear in ultra tight phalanx formation
Pikes are weilded underarm because of their weight. They are also typically counterweighted to be carried at the far end for maximum reach. Even the macedonian pike was a two handed weapon, and the shield was attatched to the users shoulder with a leather strap instead of carried in a hand.
Spears are used in shield walls, and are always used overhead, because the guy behind you will put his shield up to your back adding his weight to yours and push so your side can roll over the opponents facing you. This is also how you brace for a cavalry charge before the pike square was invented.
Even held at the middle of the shaft a spear will outreach most one handed swords used in a similar position, and you can carry more spears in your shield hand to equip after you throw them before a charge.
Others might have already mentioned this ad nauseum but just want to throw it in.
Underarm (palm down) grim is superior when you have space.
Overarm grip (ice pick) is pretty much the only possible grip in a tight hoplite phalanx because you are limited to using the spear over the shield due to your sides being flanked by your comrades.
Edit: Mr. Easton pretty much said the same.
La Nausée Another issue is that when you use overhand/hammer grip, the spear can get parried much easier. I think they simply both have their appropriate contexts with overhand being especially suitable for a battlefield as opposed to a duel.
NakMuayify
Thing is, I doubt being parried would matter at all. All the hoplite would have to do is duck his head behind his shield and suddenly no unarmored part of him is exposed (barring the toes), meaning the opening the enemy made is nullified.
Simultaniously this gives the second rank hoplite behind the first guy a clear view to see the attacker off with a throw or thrust of his spear.
This gives the first guy time to retract his spear if he can, or ditch it and draw his sword, or even grab one of the second ranker's spears and use that.
martinjejcic Actually the parrying thing might not be as big of an issue due to simple physical conditioning. Check out his newest video. Great stuff.
you also can use the shield to protect your entire front side rather than one side and it has more power
In formation the underarm grip is used with elbow at the bottom of the spear and mass sparing with other spear formation.
There's also fighting in the defense of town walls which usually is forgotten but back in the days was common. If your enemies are way below (on a ladder for example) overarm is the way to go.
Compelling as always, good reasoning.
In a phalanx formation, it makes it much easier to block both over the top and lower strikes. I've seen it in action in Greek phalanx recreations.
As a self titled armchair expert, another potential reason i could think of for using the spear overhand is to avoid disarmament. Using a shafted weapon always poses a problem that they can simply be grabbed and disabled or pulled loose from your hands. To disable a spear in the overhand position, it seems the maneuver would demand pulling in closer to the wielder, and exposing yourself more than would be required vs a spear held underhand. No real experience in the matter as far as spears go. But if you have ever been in a real life fight where your weapon gets pulled out of your hand, you learn very quickly that "how" you hold your weapon is of first importance.
Good video. You brought up some interesting points. I would only add that perhaps the over hand stance is so popular in art is because it is more dynamic and tells a better visual story. The viewer can more clearly see that the spear man is about to unleash hell on his target. Underhand is more of a relaxed pose. A little more vague as to the holders intent. I wonder what classical texts or manuals might have to say about the subject.
While I definitely agree that the spear would have been used overhand, isn't it possible that the artists maybe didn't care about their verisimilitude? Maybe the reason why art depicts spears being used overhand is because it *looks* more *manly*.
I'm not saying you haven't made valid points, and I'm not saying that the spear wasn't used overhand, but I find it a stretch to base what reality was during a certain time based on what the artistic rendition of the period.
For example, I can imagine in 2 thousand years people will look at our movies and assume that we all type incessantly on keyboards and rarely use computer mice because that's how the usage of computers are depicted in our artwork (movies).
greek art also shows hoplites riding to battle on dolphins.. so i would not take them too literally..
@@JaM-R2TR4 were is this image?
@@NIKOS_GEROSIDERIS ih1.redbubble.net/image.732055378.6352/raf,750x1000,075,t,192033:321fc38aa7.u1.jpg
pbs.twimg.com/media/EWZfFkvWsAE6jCj.jpg
I don't think there is much to discuss...#2 ends it. Single combat is, or was, essentially meaningless compared to group combat.
#1 was an interesting point though.
Thanks for all these great videos!
Thank you and information on the shield is extremely interesting people don't talk about it that much and it was very important in ancient warfare please have a good evening 😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊.
I think an additional benefit of the overhand position in a dense formation/phalanx fight is that if/when the enemy closes to shield distance, you still have the ability to choke up on the spear shaft and engage targets that close in a more manageable position.
-Lane
The Dory( Ancient Greek spear) had a counter weight which was pointed so it could be used as a secondary weapon if your spear breaks also it makes it so you can hold the spear further back while your in formation.
As a martial artist who has trained with the spear I'd agree it depends on the situation. It is easy, comfortable and quick to change from forward to backward grip on most spears.
reminds me of the Strategikon by Emperor Maurice (a Byzantine Emperor whole ruled in the last quarter of the 6th century). In describing the standard battle formation (the Foulkon), he explicitly mentioned that the front rank or two couched their spears, while the next two or three ranks held their spears overarm (or "in the matter of a javelin"), so that they could both melee, and if necessary, throw their spears at the enemy.
There may be actually a third reason: pictures of warriors holding their spears upper arm look more vivid and articulated
I agree with almost everything Matt, except that when you are in the 'Underarm Grip' you can still hold the hand above your head by rotation the whole arm up. This allows your thumb to rest along the underside of the spear, pointing forward, which still allows for you to hold the spear at an extended length, and also enables you to keep the same angle of the spear as the overarm grip, with the butt end up above your buddy's face and still thrusting down over the shield of your opponent. As for the argument that the overarm gives more 'power' during a thrust, "how much power do you need?" the difference isn't that much.
The only advantage I have found is the ability to throw with the overarm. Holding predominantly in the underarm allows me to transition from the low thrusting to the high thrusting (especially if the formation is breaking up and there is now a gap between the shields) and back again without ever having to change grip. And I can maintain the reach advantage the entire time.
In Antiquety soldiers were trained to attack the face and neck, an underhand grip gives more power and you can throw your wight behind the blow.
Over arm. Most people are thinking of individual fights where underarm may feel more comfortable. however, in war you fight in units. Think of the Greek armies with their large heavy shields interlocking as the the soldiers stand next to one another. That formation helps protect the full unit. The armies crash into one another as units trying to push their enemy back. Their spears were thrust over their shields into the faces and chests of their enemy. There was no room below to really thrust the spear and it would disrupt the shield wall if they did so.
An overarm stance allows a controlled throw against a close opponent. You can throw it, an by the time it hits you're hand will still be over the back of spear. You pull it back & up and it allows repositioning without hitting your m8 behind you in the phalanx.
I totally agree.
In addition I think the overarm is superior because if you use it underarm the shield and spear interfer and you will knock your own spear away when you move your shield to protect or have to open yourself in order to get free movement for the spear to attack.
Additionally you have to hold your wrist in a very uncomfortable and bad position that makes your spear prone to disarm when it is hit from above or pushed down because your fingers open downwards. and your wrist cant compensate in this direction because it is at its limits of movement.
My friends and I screw around a lot with foamed covered pvc practice weapons. And, I like spear and shield with a short sword fall back weapon. I've found holding it over arm has it's virtues.
Firstly, You don't necessarily need to attack or ward with the point. Choking up on the base of the spear head from the grip that is necessary for holding it overarm, lets you make powerful and easy to recover blunt strikes downward and from the sides, with the shaft. It also gives you a lot of easy to recover reach (easier then with the spear head pointed out) with your shoulder dropped, that doesn't leave you absent the option of slashing upward, and then going back to stabbing with the head, if someone gets past the shaft.
You can also do a sort of false throw like that from about any angle , where you do the motion of throwing but just let it slide through your grip and clinch down and yank back when your hand feels the shaft thickening again (even crossing the shield over the shaft to obstruct your main arm side and false thrusting from under your shield arm with the shaft sticking out behind you).
My favorite thing to go for though is holding my shield far out and tilted to present my opponent with something they can't resist trying to knock out of the way, but doing so principally to obstruct their view, while I trip them with the shaft. Once their on the ground, my point is already trained at their throat. or abdomen.
Overarm is actually a really useful and versatile way to hold it if you think of the point as something you finish with as apposed to starting with.
I can think of 2 other reasons:
The first is tje fact that it might be easier to try to poke over the opponent's shield with overarm spear grip. This would be valuable in formations where you can't try to get over the side of your opponent. When there's a bounch of shields before you, the easiest way to get through them is over them.
The second is the effect of the thrust on the hand. Try picking any pole object and try having it pulled upwards vs downwards from your hand. You'll see that while the underarm stabbing motion can get painful as the skin of your hand is pulled backwards, the same doesn't happen with the overarm stabbing, because it's the same effect over the hand as if you're climbing a tree or a rope. The hand is made to be good at supporting your weight if you climb something. This means you can put a lot more force on an overarm stab.
So yes, each has it's advantages and dissadvantages.
Great video, the points are pretty agreeable. I'd still side with the underarm position as being the better of the two but overarm isn't without its benefits. For anyone interested I'd suggest reading A Storm of Spears by Christopher Mathews; it's a pretty exhaustive look at this question in a classical Greek context.
Love the video and switched from Lindy's channel. I personally cannot handle the way he speaks. Never grew on me.
I was always taught that the Roman Legionary carried two weights of pila. Light pila for throwing as the enemy approached (overarm), and heavy pilum for thrusting as the enemy was engaged (underarm).
Good observation about how dangerous a thrown spear is in sparring for the (lower) legs. Interestingly in the 7th century BC the poet Alcaeus states specifically that greaves provide protection against missiles. Carrying two spears seems to have been a very common thing in many parts of Europe from the Greek and Italic bronze age partly reflected in Italic pilum usage to the Germanic double framae of Tacticus fame. Obviously in Greece we have the evolution towards the classic Hoplite with spear-throwing being taken over by light specialists.
Overall it is fascinating how flexible the simple, humble and cheap spear is. It needs more love and more videos!
The military still use it :) Bayonet training.
So, I came to this video very late, and I love the discussion. I agree with most, but, being a re-enactor and having fought in (small) shield walls, I have to agree with the others about using it overhand (under-arm) in a shield wall. The throwing position doesn't really work well in an actual shield-wall formation, but changing it up allows it to be used with much more comfort and variability, including lifting it high to strike down, doing cross cuts in close formation, etc. In fact, it can be used very much like a sword in many situations.
The other thing that I'd like to address, at least in this discussion, is the way people want to focus on Greek styles. Many other cultures from various time periods also used shield walls and spear. I do Keltic re-enacting, and our walls are much more dynamic than Greek styles. Norse shield walls would change yet again. There's more than one way.
Let's not forget that many ancient spear wielders such as hoplites carried spear, shield, xiphos AND javelins. Usually 2 or 3 javelins which were shorter thinner pointy sticks specifically intended for throwing. I expect either by command of polemarches at certain intervals during battle or at will of the hoplite based on opportunity. I doubt to the casual onlooker, or the average potter who most likely didn't engage in combat, the javelin and main spear pretty much looked the same. My assumption (yes I know) is that most often overhead depictions in art of long pointy sticks held overhand are actually javelins about to be thrown at medium to close range. Just food for thought - especially since I don't see javelins or pilum mentioned in many of the overhand v. Underhand discussions.
I agree with your points though my theory is that the downwards thrust is a main point instead of a sort of sub point like you presented( or so it seemed to me). With the overarm position you would get at least a little bit more power when thrusting though I doubt it would be a huge factor, as well as being in a prime position to thrust at their head, neck, shoulders, etc. It is true they would just have to raise their shield up to deflect it but to do so I would think they would have to block their line of sight to do so, leaving them open in a sense.
long thrusting spears usually had a counterweight to change the position where you could hold it.
I like it. The only thing I wonder about is how different shield shapes affect how the spear is held.
I think that the overhand stance was also done more in formations since in cases such as phalanxes, you got people behind you as well. An underhand stance could possibly mean that you jab (or stab as in the case of the spartans who are said to sport buttspikes in their spears) your mates behind you when you draw your spear back.
If the head of your spear was broken in combat and you were holding it that way, you would have access to a club immediately. In the event your attack was parried, downward rotation of the front of the shaft would allow you an additional strike using the butt end (which frequently also had a spearhead). Also, it is easier to shift from up to down position as needed than down to up against gravity. Lastly, striking from above allows you to strike above the front line without killing your battle buddies. Realistically the front line turns into a wall of corpses after the first few seconds anyway. The people From that time were a lot stronger and had incredible stamina compared to people today.
Nice addition to Lindy's video. I wonder if it might also be dependent on whether you need to make particularly strong thrusts.
Most people seem to prefer underhand, but in my opinion overhand makes much more sense for a number of reasons. Two of them are the ones listed here, that is, formation fighting, and throwing position. But the other one is that when you hold a spear underhand, you have to move your shield to get the spear around it. This might be a good tactic for one on one sparring, but in a battle with ten opponents in front of you and arrows or spears flying at you, you want to stay behind your shield as much as possible. So holding the spear overhand means that you can reach over YOUR OWN shield, keeping your shield covering your torso and much of your face. If you have a formation of soldiers around you making a shield wall, the last thing you want to do is move your shield out of the way every time you need to make a thrust with a spear held underhand.
Also if shields are contiguous and overlap in formation, the shields block the spear with underarm grip. In classical Greece some shields were carved somewhat like a crescent to allow underarm grip.
That was mostly in the period of single combat
One idea is that they might use their spears underhand in the front row when they were at a distance but the closer they get the less effective it is to use it in that way which is when they would either use their swords and axes (depending) or use it overhand. At which time they would draw closer together. This is when it would be a good idea for the guys behind who might not be using a shield, to hold their spear with two hands allowing them to hold their weapon farther back with greater control, and giving them more reach, allowing them to send more spears at their enemies. Others behind might throw as well.
I believe both where used based on space, and if your like macadon with there pike would use it underhand, and march to battle on the shoulder, simular with the greek hoplites. Its quicker to go to underhand from shoulder rest.