Gary Teuscher wrote: |
The Hellenisitc kingdoms, modelled after Alexanders army, were based more on a combined arms tactic, where their pikemen were not designed to win battles but hold the main battle line, the cavalry and other troops causing havoc while the pikemen held the main battle line. It's funny though that the later Hellenisitc kingdoms for whatever reason began to rely less on combined arms and more on pikemen. This was I think much to their undoing, a btter combined arms package would have fared better against the Romans. |
The speculations I've heard mostly revolve around the possibility that it was cheaper to just add more pikemen rather than try to recruit a balanced mix of troop types. The idea is supported by the Successors' eagerness to abandon Alexander's experimental pike-and-bow phalanx, which might (or might not) have been effective but would certainly have required much investment for retraining the men.
As for the distance involved in spear-fighting, staying at a spear's length seems to have been the favored distance when neither side broke in the initial charge and the fighting becomes a "fencing" match, but pressing shield-to-shield was definitely the preferred method for particularly aggressive spearmen who wanted to break their enemies' formation in one massive initial blow--the Spartans being the most famous example.
Oh, as for the overhand vs. underhand grip, iconographic sources for Ancient Greece show both kinds of grips. I don't know if it's the same case with medieval iconography for spear-fighting.