Our presenter presents his theory about the hoplite shield. Also known as the hoplon or aspis, it had a unique design of grip which requires some explanation. www.LloydianAspects.co.uk
Yes, I think greaves would work well against spear thrusts. Some sources say that foot guards were common too, but these are rarely pictured in works of art.
Yes, overarm is shown on many vases. If the technique for overlapping shields and stabbing were as you describe, why would they not just carry one massive continuous shield between the lot of them?
@malkrow21 They might, of course, but if you are parrying with your spear and dancing about defensively, you are not attacking, and attack is a great method of defence (and the only method of attack).
Yes - my point was that you shouldn't bend down with a hoplon to parry. I do have some ideas for a vid on bows, but I doubt it would have much to do with comparisons of the bows you suggest, because I have no personal experience of using all these bow types.
I'm not sure that I understand you perfectly here. I think you are suggesting that you used the men either side of you to brace your shield against, perhaps against an impact from the front. I don't know if this was ever done. It would hamper the movements of my neighbours, and I doubt they'd appreciate that.
My re-enactment experience and LARP experience has all been consistently clear on this point - if you crouch, you die. Like most people, I used to crouch behind my shield for cover, and the old hands killed me every time. It was only when I learned to stand tall (which takes nerve) that I started to win sword fights (crouching with a spear is okay). To kill a man crouching behind his shield simply bring your sword down over the top onto his back.
A moot point. My ancient Greek history lecturer insisted that citizen hoplites did not train at all until I-forget-what date (late). There's no evidence at all for their training in the written or archaeological record, but that doesn't mean that they did no training.
Off-centre strap? I have never seen an example of this, and I have seen many hundreds of contemporary pictures and sculptures, and some archaeological finds of shields. Can you give any evidence for this off-centre strap?
The curvature also means that you hold it in its centre of gravity, which saves energy and makes it much easier to manoeuvre. Yes, Peter Connolly reported that the shield could be rested on the shoulder, but my university lecturer dismissed this as "modern thinking" inappropriate for an ancient Greek. Did he think they were a different shape, or that laws of physics were different then?
1. They wore greaves, which would have protected adequately for the lower leg, and very often they wore foot guards too. 2. I have never used a shield from horseback, so I don't at the moment have anything to say on this topic.
@ElvenAngel Do you have any evidence that most (or even any) ancient battles degenerated in one-on-ones? I have never read of any, and it is difficult to imagine happening.
I don't quite get this. If you are being pushed into your own shield, then not only are you prevented from fighting or protecting yourself, but you will also be crushed, regardless of your shield's shape. The men behind you are clearly not your mates if they do this to you.
@TheKittu Strap generally goes over the right shoulder and round the back. Some shields like hoplons had them with separate fittings, others just used the handles/straps for the arm.
@ajb7876 If both sides did this, then both would be at an equal disadvantage, and the simple way to negate the disadvantage would be to turn to face the enemy flat-on. At Culloden one side had small shields and swords, and the other had no shields and bayonets, so the situation was different.
@bellator11 Plenty of re-enactors use full weight weapons. The only time I have ever heard of a wrist being broken on the shield arm was with a cross-grip shield. The braced arm and strapped-in elbow makes this possible.
@cheezeofages I have used plenty of other cross grip shields, and when in a one-on-one and using a centre-grip shield versus a cross-grip shielded foe, I don't recall ever having lost.
@BlackWaltz5 Yes, the Spartan shield was, so far as we know, the same as that used by other hoplites. If you could hit a foe with your shield, then I imagine that you would. By and large, though, the shield is defensive, and you would seldom open yourself up by trying to strike with it, but if you were in a one-on-one fight, without any foe in a position to take advantage of a vulnerable instant, then you might well give it a go.
Yes, a few did have leather sheets hanging from the shield which would have helped against low blows, and greaves covered the shins, and there were some foot protectors too, and these would have been quite good against spear thrusts. I don't know of any evidence for hoplites with just one greave. I think you have Romans in mind.
I think you mean Plataea, at which the hoplites quick-marched from 300 yards and broke into a run in the last 60 yards or so, and the Persians were on foot, not mounted, and "decimating" means something else. Apart from that, spot on.
A fair question, and a problem for armies of the period. Armies tended to have their flanks guarded by lighter-equipped more mobile troops, such as skirmishers, light auxilia, or cavalry. Otherwise, armies tended to give ground and wheel about to keep from being outflanked. Also, if one side thinned out too much to avoid being overlapped at the sides, the other side might break through its centre.
@KatakiDoragon What is the evidence for this? An artery is soft tissue and damage to one would not show on a skeleton. Do you mean that there have been many complete Greek skeletons found with thrust marks to the thigh bones, and no marks elsewhere?
@ratmilkcheese Another video on this in the unforeseeable future. If the men stood so close together that their shields overlapped, then they would hinder themselves a fair bit, but one can still use a spear underarm above a shield. Perhaps, though, the men were not so closely packed. There are many disadvantages of being closely packed.
300 is not a manual in infantry tactics. Yes, if you could knock a man down in a duel, you probably would. I have fought with foam weapons and found them to be very much less instructive than steel weapons, but not totally useless. One big problem with them is that they have a bounciness absent in hard weapons.
@Donatellangelo Any hoplite could. In battle, you use whatever is to hand, including fists and teeth. The shield is designed as a defensive measure. If it had sharp edges, these would be a menace to your friendly neighbours.
I can't help thinking that if spear length alone were so significant, then the increase in spear lengths would have happened very quickly, and then stayed long. The word you were looking for may have been pike, or sarissa, which was Greek for pike.
Thanks. According to Peter Connolley's "Greece and Rome at War", an Etruscan shield of this type would have weighed fifteen and a half pounds (7 kg). So if a Greek weighed eleven stone, that's about an eleventh of a Greek.
I suppose that it is not _useless_, but it is massively inferior to a centre-grip shield. I write from experience - having fought using a centre-grip shield against these shields I can report that without much need for skill I consistently won. Centre grip shields can cover at least as much of you. Hoplites were citizens and did not train as you might think. Indeed, I probably did more training than they.
I see your point, but I remain with my view. I'll have to explain it in another video one day. The trouble is, to illustrate it properly would take several people rather than one man in his front room. Perhaps I could do it with models and drawings. That, or lots of description, mime, and hopping about. Perhaps the attempt to explain something so difficult to picture would be more entertaining than clear pictures.
In one-on-one, both men would draw a shorter weapon as quickly as possible. My experience of fights between groups in rustic terrain is that footwork alone is never enough. There's always a comrade, a body, a dropped weapon, tangled roots and shrubs, wall, something in the way, and backing away in order to avoid blows is a great way to trip over. They did wear greaves, of course, so another possibility (not convincing to me) is that they just accepted low blows, relying on the armour.
@zdkezios These moves may have been used, but they are speculations. When you are at spear distance, you are outside shield-bashing range. If you are having to bash people with your shield edge, things must have either gone very wrong, or you are just finishing the enemy off.
I agree. I'll either have to do a bad one on spears, or one involving a lot of work with graphics and stuff, because to make the point requires a lot of illustration. But yes, I will make one... one day. Thank you,
Having used a center grip shield against various steel weapons, I can tell you it doesn't strain your wrist much. It might at first, but that is because your muscles aren't used to it. After a short time, it isn't a bother. Moving the shield just slightly will cover you low and high, that and a proper guard. Bending your knees enough to cover low with an aspis would leave your back wide open still. A center grip shield is much better, strap shields are mainly for cavalrymen
Yes you can drop your shield for a weak parry as you say, but that then exposes your upper arm and neck. I have fought against users of cross-grip shields many times, and pretty consistently won with a centre-grip shield.
Interesting theory. But I think you block a low shot by rotating the shield, so I'm skeptical of his claim that it doesn't work for single combat. One explanation of how it is mounted is that the strap holding it to the arm is at the center of mass of the shield, making it easier to hold it up-no need to apply torque to keep it from rotating down. And since the shield is convex, a strap nearer the edge would put the center of mass in front of the arm, requiring effort to keep the shield from rotating forwards.
This guy is hilarious even if I don't agree with everything he says. I think I am going to try the under arm spear and shield. In other vids it looks pretty effective.
Yea I spent the whole weekend watching his videos. I didn't agree with a lot but his presentation of the material is entertain. His views on pikes is way off in my opinion and my experience with SCA pikeing.
the problem is, rotating the shield you will only gain a very few inches, because the palm is nearly at the edge of the shield (more simple said, the elbow is in the center, the forearm is the radius).The real covering of the shield is on the left side, meaning he protected his left mates right and his mate on the right protected his right side.
@Switchfeet360 In the desperation of combat, you use whatever you have. Yes, the edge would be effective if you had an opportunity to use it, but I think these would be rare.
@pzshi It would be presumptuous of me to think that I might know better than the ancient Greeks how ancient Greek shields should be designed. The shields were very odd, and the design lasted for centuries, so there must have been something good about it.
while the hoplon was not good for shield bashing it was amazing for crashing someone with the rim. it is meant to be used much like a boxer would throw a cross punch. trust me it has terrible effect used that way, and the design of the handles just helps you, practice with your mockshield and tell me if i'm wrong. 2nd just for your info, the hoplon was the most crucial thing a soldier should carry. that was your main weapon, everything else was euther secondary or used for formation. even the word greeks use today for describing weapons or even firearms is oplo, the word hoplite comes from it because he was carrying it. and yes you are 100% right about the philosophy behind it, it meant to keep the formation together. it was the gear that father passed to son, that if you left it on the ground with the front of the shield looking upwards you have dishonored your shield and probably would get a very nasty beating from superiors if discovered as a punishment. sorry for my runt but the hoplon was not just a shield, much more like the katana to the samurai. have a glorious day.
+Toshiro Mifune You probably can get a nice bash with the rim, I won't dispute that. It would involve making a big opening in the shield wall, exposing your fellow soldier, but there could be a use for it sometimes. But I find your conclusions on the etymology a little stretched. "hoplon" has a basic meaning of "tool", "equipment" in Homer, and from that, in classical sources it is commonly used in plural as, "military equipment, weapons, arms," referring to all the soldier's gear. In the Attic dialect, the "hoplon" was the large shield which gave heavy infantry their name - distinguishing them from light infantry that don't carry a shield. It isn't relevant that in modern Greek the word means "weapon", even "firearm", since the Ancients never saw firearms nor called them hopla (by the same logic, would you say that the ancient Greek word "dunamis", "power", has a particularly strong meaning for the ancients because we get our word dynamite from it? It's anachronistic to think that the ancients were aware of modern uses of the word). I don't see how the ancient etymology from "equipment" suggests that "hoplon" meant "especially offensive weapon" to them. "Important equipment defining the hoplite soldier", yes, but "primary offensive weapon"?
No reason to believe that he was left-handed. The flank could be anchored to some terrain feature, or could be guarded by lighter troops, or could thin out to match the enemy's frontage, or could wheel back in the hope that victory comes from the left. Yes, it is a problem.
You can also parry by turning left, and then rotating all the way around and striking immediately as you come back to face. This could never have been the standard way of carrying on, though. Incidentally, the Greek hoplite sword is not a short sword, as most people think - they were dirty great choppers. History does not record that the Spartans did flash individual moves.
@TDIfansonicX Sometimes it is difficult to tell if a comment is perfectly serious. Are you using '300' as historical evidence? Hoplites never retreated? Have you thought about that much?
Against an arrow or spear coming from the front this may work, but against a sword, axe or mace wielded by someone standing next to you, this will not work.
The pilum was thrown before contact. I thought you were going to say that Caesar writes they sometimes pinned shields together (therefore overlapping?). I'll have to make my over-hand spear video one day, but I'd need more room, and perhaps some helpers. Re-enactors have devised all manner of fighting techniques, and they can't all be the correct norm. One big thing missing is the fear of death, another is the deliberate destruction of enemy equipment.
Well, anyone can step back, whether they have a shield or not. The shield has to make s difference. Also, you can't step back forever, and as anyone who has done re-enactment can tell you, walking backwards on a battlefield will pretty quickly trip you up or bring you to a halt.
There is no evidence that they trained formally to fight in groups with shorter weapons. In fact, in the classical hoplite period, there is no evidence that they trained at all, but personally I think they must have done. There were people who charged money for lessons in fighting, but these were personal tutors teaching nobles how to defend themselves individually.
@Jaiyeson The shields are rounded, not solid blocks. If you draw 2 circles next to each other, you'll see a small gap on both the top and bottom where a weapon can be used.
Yes, I don't personally believe that they had overlapping shields. The world is 3D, not 2D, and the left part of my shield protects the guy to my left from spears coming at him from his right. The two big advantages of spears are long reach and an ability to cooperate with neighbours as a team. Both of these are thrown away if the front rank ditches its spears. Life expectancy of men doing what you describe: 6 seconds. Men are not suicidally brave.
Recently I found some old Super-8 cine film I took of people fighting with underarm spears, and I intend to use it to illustrate this point. Watch this space...
In battle, both hoplite formations would start in good formation, and then as casualties mounted and both sides manoeuvred for advantage, men would get isolated. Two men fighting is not a "battle", but in the confusion of battle, a man will sometimes end up having to fight on his own, not by choice but by necessity.
@ChishioAme In one-on-one combat, a flat shield is fine for this, and in group combat it would be suicide to rush forward like this. I'm not saying it's impossible or that it never happened, but I have no reason to believe that it was common.
I really must get round to making the video addressing this issue. I'm unconvinced by "locked" shields. The curve was, I'd say, for strength, and to bring the arm holding the shield into its centre of gravity. If you stab underarm, you hold the spear differently, and have good control over the lizard-killer.
As I make clear in the video, real hoplons had bronze edging and were far more concave, but they were if anything more ornate than the mock-up I show. There were heavier too, but not so heavy that they were impractical to hold.
The spear is of course overarm, in a grip with the thumb to the rear, *IF* you fight in formation. Otherwise you can not attack anything in front of you (which is wearing the same armor/shields) and the *other tip* of the spear "behind you" would always be in the balls of the ranks behind you. However: there are fighting formations where the second rank has the spears lowered below the shields of the first rank. The first rank would always have the spears over the shoulder, unless in a cavalry attack, which were not really common in those times. Keep in mind nearly all spears used in war fare, regardless of culture, have a second smaller tip at the rear end.
I read somewhere that that is why the shields are curving, to still allow breathing when being pushed at the back. Also, underhand seems unlikely when having locked shields. With overhand you'll be able to strike down and have alot of targets and you also don't have the chance(when held at a certain angle) of stabbing the Hoplites behind you with the butt spear point.
So, i'm a Larper and I currently use a medium length sword with a shield, my grip is similar to the shield you are using, except my shield is very much a kite shield design, i've picked up a technique of if somebody swings for my ankles, I lift my leg up behind my shield when I block and holding my sword above my head horizontally to parry any blows to my head, it's worked pretty well for me so far! Front line fighting in a shield wall is very fun though I have to admit! Love the video's!
Not quite, because your body and the shields are not in the same plane. You are behind the shields, and so you are protected from spears coming diagonally from your right, and these are the deadliest spears.
@bellator11 Your wrist doesn't take the force of a blow with a center grip shield either, that is what the shield is for. The shield takes the blow so you don't have to. My reenactment group uses full weight steel axes, including the 2 handed dane axe which delivers tremendous amount of force (I've seen it go right through a shield, which is another reason to not have it strapped to your arm).
Would you prefer a large round Viking shield? A straight wooden shield with an iron cover around the edge and an iron boss in the center. Like your Celtic-style (or Gaulish, or Britannian, or Roman auxiliary style) round elliptical/oval shield, you grip it in the middle behind the protective metal cup in order to maneuver it better.
@lindybeige isn't the whole point of having greaves to protect your lower legs so you wouldn't have to lower your shield to perry the blade since the blade would just strike the greaves. that would leave them open for you to attack....just a thought that came across...would love your input
Brilliant group psychology theory. Makes perfect sense when you also account for the fact that asside from the Spartans, all greek armies were non proffesionals and while they might recieve some training in phalanx tactics and battle experience, would still be amateur soldiers prone to running when things got looking bad.
@tolaros2 This is spear combat. As someone tries to spear me, if I duck, then I expose the men either side of me to the attacks by OTHER men in the enemy formation.
In my interpretation of the Othismos, both sides must try to break the formation of the other. To do this requires pushing and shoving. I believe the concave inner surface of the aspis allows for breathing with the solar plexis while bracing the flat shield rim against your shoulder or upper chest. With an overarm thrust, you can still fight in this position. Underarm thrust, notsomuch.
@lindybeige: I think it's pretty obvious why the hoplon/aspis was "dome" shaped, being that it makes the grip closer to the center of gravity and deflects hits away from the shield. However, why do you think that the hoplon/aspis was the only majorly "dome"-shaped or curved shield in this regard? Is it that it takes longer to manufacture, or what? To me, at least, it seems like the dome shape gives plenty of advantages with little drawbacks. Why doesn't it show up elsewhere, then?
You seem like you've been doing shot-blocks for shield parries - from personal experience these tend to be fast and easily instinctive, but hard to correct in mid-throw and expending a lot of energy to do a maneuver that often makes the full concussive force of the blow hit you and your shield, tiring you out faster. A circular deflecting motion is what I use for any particular setup, holding the shield before me with the forward rim of it pointed at my opponent. There's twelve different motions, each one meant for a certain direction of attack from afore, to the side, or to the back. When parrying, it winds up deflecting and angling a blow away from me rather than stopping it cold - something capable of unbalancing my opponent or giving me an opening for my sword, which thus far being unoccupied can stab at leisure. While I don't believe an Aspis would be particularly good for that - my style's a light italian skirmisher's style meant for a circular wooden shield - the design of the Aspis is such that I think it would feasibly work for one-on-one fights and make a fighter with sword and aspis a very solid defensive fighter in a duel, particularly with the built up arm muscles necessary to hold and move an Aspis in combat.
@lindybeige I have to make a point here, according to your spear-shield usage for hoplites, from what I've read, the hoplite formations closed in on each other at full speed, which makes (for me) under arm grip very unpractical at best, you can't have the spear in ready position, because if you hit the other guy on the shield with you spear first, it's going to get pushed back so you en up holding the spear head and just knocked over the guy behind you.
As a left hander, I would have been totally screwed as a hoplite. I'd be a totally awesome shield wielder and almost useless with my spear or sword. Given hoplite formations' tendency to drift to the right, I'm somewhat surprised that it never seems to have occurred to hoplite armies to create a left-handed unit to form an end cap for the right side of the hoplite formation to check that rightward drift.
@@warmonkey3216 As a lefty myself, I can assure you one cannot train someone out of being left-handed. Sinistrality is as innate to the left-handed as dextrality is to the right-hander. If someone forced me to fight right-handed, I would be far less effective. And there's absolutely no way I could ever be trained to throw competently with my right hand. All I was saying in my original comment was that if the ancients didn't recognize sinistrality and take advantage of it, they failed to utilize their resources as effectively as they could have.
@@Marmocet you might never be as good as if you would if you trained left handed but you certainly can be trained to be right handed. In a lot of countries such as china students are taught to write right handed in order to be uniform
@lindybeige Do you get tired more easily doing so? The shield formations were set up so that the front rank could easily fall back when they were tired and have the second rank advance to take up the shield wall of the former front rank.
Well, the Roman legionaries were generally professionals, whereas the classical hoplite Greeks were mainly amateurs. Also, armies using these shields beat centre-grip using armies a fair few times. Pyrrhus and Hannibal and Alexander didn't always do so badly. If hoplite shields were rubbish, they wouldn't have become the standard shield of many for centuries.
