Swords and Spears

[Arkatreides]

For the history buffs out there, how did spearmen fare against swordsmen in battles? I know that a solitary swordsmen could easily kill a solitary spearmen (or halberdier) in a one-on-one fight, but how does this work out for ordered ranks? I would guess that a wall of spears is a discouraging thing to fight against, but what once the ranks are broken open? Clearly the spearmen cannot fight effectively in close quarters. But what is the chance of breaking open a wall of spearmen without a cavalry charge?

[Mithrandir]

Actually walls of spears wwere the cavelry charges worst nightmare...
As for how they'd fare vs one another, it all depends on the skill and experience of the troops, though my bet would be the swordsman in all cases since they are (usually better trained as well) armed with a shield to deflect the spears, thrw enemies of balance and thus breaking a bit of the wall.
Anyone saw the docu. on the BBC about the use of the Bajonet? I liked the Highland Charge bit http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif.

------------------
http://www.mith.netfirms.com/Pictures/icontest1.gif http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/kingmith.gif http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/mith3.gif

[Red Peasant]

Sword and Shield vs Spears/Pikes:

Well, the Romans always knocked the crap out of the Macedonian Phalanx. More tellingly, the Swiss were whupped several times by the Spanish swordsmen in Italy [early 16thC], and they were battles where the use of firearms were a negligible factor, i.e. before the development of the Spanish 'Tercio'.

------------------
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And Heaven in a wild flower,
To hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

William Blake.

[This message has been edited by Red Peasant (edited 09-06-2002).]

[Del]

The entire question is irrelevant. Who wins in a head-on spears vs. swords? NO ONE

The battle will be won through some other factor before the spears break for any reason other than shitty morale. If the swordsmen have particularly bad armor or something like that, THEY might be chased off... but not likely.

Now there are any number of situatinal comparsions you could make, cost-benefit analyses, etc. But a direct, quantitative comparison is practically impossible and probably irrelevant.

Del

[Tachikaze]

If I and my opponent were untrained, I would rather have a spear.

Swords were secondary weapons throughout most of the history of infantry warfare. Of course, you could argue that that was formation fighting, but I would still take the spear.

------------------
http://members.cox.net/ramen/icon09.gif

Knowing the Tao saves you thousands of dollars in psychiatric bills and credit card debt.

[Mithrandir]

I wouldn't ,spears require much more training to be effective than swords and are way more effective in a one on one if both are untrained...

------------------
http://www.mith.netfirms.com/Pictures/icontest1.gif http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/kingmith.gif http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/mith3.gif

[Red Peasant]

Sword and Shield is the decisive combination.

A sword on its own would be useless against a disciplined and experienced polearm equipped formation.

As I said, the Romans and the Spanish decide it for me. They encountered and thoroughly defeated the best spear/pike equipped forces in military history. Nuff said. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And Heaven in a wild flower,
To hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

William Blake.

[Red Peasant]

....and Del, it's true that such things can't be analysed and quantified in laboratory-like conditions, but the evidence of history is telling and upholds the general superiority of the Sword and Shield combination.

I rest my case M'Lud! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And Heaven in a wild flower,
To hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

William Blake.

[Mithrandir]

As I said before (?) they both have their uses and it all depends on the level of training and experience, but I'd prefer a spear/lance over a sword anyday when facing a mounted opponent...

------------------
http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/icons/icon1.gif http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/icons/icon2.gif http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/icons/icon3.gif
"There is no alternative for death"-J van Baars,Book of lore.

[Del]

Well, my question, RP, would be how exactly did the Romans and Spanish win?

The Romans may not be THE greatest example for your point. By the time they faced off against the Macedonian war machine, it was definitely passed its tactical prime and suffering from mismanagement. The Phalanx of Alexander's day had been transformed into an even more rigid and cumbersome formation, and the auxiliary forces which were absolutely critical to the success of a Phalanx-centered army had been almost discarded.

That, and the only battle I can specifically recall in which the Romans won was in a rocky area which caused the uber-rigid Phalanxes to suffer even more.

Did the Legions actually break the Phalanxes frontally? I doubt it. If so, it could be easily attributed to situational factors, not necessarily the inherent strength or weakness of the weapons involved. Also, the Legions had Pilia, which were a major factor in their success and don't translate to "Sword and Shield" in general.

As far as the Spanish, I have never heard of or read about these battles, so if you could point me to resources (or at least give me a Google search keyword) I would be most grateful.

Del

[Tachikaze]

Shields add a whole new dimension. With a shield, a swordsman can parry a spear and get inside its minimum effective range.

I agree with Del about the Romans and Greeks. It was more a matter of tactics than weapons.

------------------
http://members.cox.net/ramen/icon09.gif

Knowing the Tao saves you thousands of dollars in psychiatric bills and credit card debt.

[Red Peasant]

Lol! I shall return later with my 'evidence' http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

Glad to see someone interested in this subject...but I'm a bit pushed for time at the moment....and a bit pissed after a long weekend of drinking....got to go and watch the Saints vs Wigan game now....see ya all later http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And Heaven in a wild flower,
To hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

William Blake.

[the Count of Flanders]

Quote Originally posted by Mithrandir:
Actually walls of spears wwere the cavelry charges worst nightmare...
As for how they'd fare vs one another, it all depends on the skill and experience of the troops, though my bet would be the swordsman in all cases since they are (usually better trained as well) armed with a shield to deflect the spears, thrw enemies of balance and thus breaking a bit of the wall.
Anyone saw the docu. on the BBC about the use of the Bajonet? I liked the Highland Charge bit http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif.

[/QUOTE]
Yes, that was cool.
As for swords-spears as an untrained warrior I would certainly take the spear (point and jab), but if I could get some (about a year or so) sword/shield practice I'd definitely take the sword.
Still, most pike/spear formations in medieval times carried secondary weapons (usually maces to finish of dismounted knights, but mostly the unit carried mixed weapons: some maces, some swords, some kitchen knives,..) which could be used against footmen with swords.

------------------
------------------
http://users.skynet.be/fa307901/sig_org.jpg
Proud member of the OOOO (http://www.oooo.freewebspace.com)

[Mithrandir]

Yea, and those forks&spoons were deadly too!
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif.

I wouldn't take the spear since it seems easier to me to deflect the jab of a spear to come in with the sword for kill...

------------------
http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/icons/icon1.gif http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/icons/icon2.gif http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/icons/icon3.gif
Check out the Fantasy Total War mod! (http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000587.html)
Think about it :
"There is no alternative for death"-J van Baars,Book of lore.

[Red Peasant]

Well Del,

there were quite a few battles between the Roman Legions and the Macedonian/Hellenistic Phalanxes. The most important of which were:

1. Cynoscephalae in 197BC, with roughly equal numbers between Philip V of Macedon and Gaius Flamininus.
2. Magnesia in 190 or 189BC, between Antiochus III 'The Great' and Lucius Scipio.
3. Pydna in 168BC, between Perseus of Macedonia (son of Philip V) and L. Aemilius Paullus.

The battle of Cynoscephalae is the one that you allude to as taking place over broken ground. The other battles were fought on level ground, in fact the ground at Magnesia, in central Turkey, was especially prepared by Antiochus for his phalanx formations. This man was the last notable member of the Antigonid line and he was called 'The Great' because he had reconquered all of Alexander's eastern territories as far as the Indus and the Hindu Kush. Therefore, he was a formidable opponent for the Romans and he had some 72,000 troops as opposed to the bare 30,000 of the Romans. He also had the services of Hannibal. Scipio Africanus was also present but was so ill that his brother, Lucius, directed the battle.

It is possible that Antiochus would have won this battle if he had reined in his redoubtable Persian heavy horse who were too busy chasing the Roman cavalry across Asia Minor to do their job of enveloping the Roman legion. The infantry fight became a pure one between the legionaries and the phalangists. The legionaries won as per usual after absorbing the initial 'push' of the phalanx. Once a spear/pike phalanx is compromised the polearms becomes useless and the Roman heavy infantryman can wreak havoc.

As for the Spanish, here's what Sir Charles Oman has to say in his dated, yet still serviceable work "The Art of War in the Middle Ages" vol. II:

"The Spanish infantry of Gonsalvo de Cordova displayed once more to the military world the strength of the tactics of old Rome. They were armed, like the men of the ancient legion, with the short thrusting sword and a shield, and wore the steel cap, breast and back plates, and greaves. Thus they were far stronger in their defensive armour than the Swiss whom they were about to encounter. When the pikeman and the swordsman first met in 1502, under the walls of Barletta, the old problem of Pydna and Cynoscephalae was once more worked out. A phalanx as solid and efficient as that of Philip the Macedonian was met by troops whose tactics were those of the legionaries of Aemilius Paullus. Then, as in an earlier age, the wielders of the shorter weapon prevailed. 'When they came to engage, the Swiss at first pressed so hard on their enemy with the pike that they opened out their ranks; but the Spaniards, under the cover of their shields, nimbly rushed in upon them with their swords, and laid about them so furiously that they made a great slaughter of the Swiss, and gained a complete victory' [Machiavelli, Arte della Guerra] The moment a breach had been made in a Macedonian or Swiss phalanx the great length of their spears became their ruin, there being nothing to do but drop them, and in the combat which then ensued troops using a sword alone, and with little defensive armour, were at a hopeless disadvantage against men with sword, shield and armour. Whatever may be the result of a duel between sword and spear alone, it is certain that when even a light shield is added to the swordsman's equipment, he at once obtains the ascendency."

------------------
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And Heaven in a wild flower,
To hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

William Blake.


[This message has been edited by Red Peasant (edited 09-14-2002).]

[BlackWatch McKenna]

The way Swordsmen break up pike/spear formations is: via missle weapons; or by taking advantage of rough ground; or by working a flank.

Remember, after Alexander died, the pike phalanx, just as the previous poster mentioned, became even MORE cumbersome and rigid - they extended the pikes by, in some cases, up to 50% of their original length. The Successors (and their successors) thought "long pike equals good".

By the time the Romans ran into the Greeks, the Greeks had become to the Romans what the Persians had been to the Greeks!

Meaning,
Rigid Dogma < Creative Combined Use of Arms

ALEXANDER vs. REPUBLICAN ROMANS
hah- that is an Analysis in and of it self.

Light Troops: Advantage Alexander
Cavalry: Advantage Alexander
Up Front Fighting: Advantage Alexander
Army Width: Advantage Romans
Staying Power: Advantage Romans
Missles: Advantage Romans

I reckon it boils down to how much the Pilum could soften up those hard-boiled phalanx...

Let me think on that somemore.

//black

[Warmaker]

Great read over here. Makes me dream of a Roman themed Total War. Rome had so many enemies over its history there'd be a good number of units to play with.

[Ithaskar Fëarindel]

Yep Warmaker and it may be awhile from now but there's the mod coming out for this.
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000529.html

------------------
Fëa-Quendi

[Red Peasant]

Quote Originally posted by BlackWatch McKenna:
The way Swordsmen break up pike/spear formations is: via missle weapons; or by taking advantage of rough ground; or by working a flank.

Remember, after Alexander died, the pike phalanx, just as the previous poster mentioned, became even MORE cumbersome and rigid - they extended the pikes by, in some cases, up to 50% of their original length. The Successors (and their successors) thought "long pike equals good".

By the time the Romans ran into the Greeks, the Greeks had become to the Romans what the Persians had been to the Greeks!

[/QUOTE]

Yeah, the 'Successors' weren't Alexander but they enjoyed overwhelming battlefield success against everyone except the disciplined sword/shield/armour equipped infantry of Rome. They were beaten hands-down every time in a straight infantry fight.

Antiochus the Great did use Alexandrine tactics against the Romans and had sufficient numerical superiority, but he failed to utilise his cavalry advantage correctly. This enabled the Romans to destroy in detail his veteran phalanx formations. By the time he returned to the field he had no infantry, and had to sue for a humiliating peace, a peace that effectively destroyed the Antigonid empire, though it lingered on for a while in a truncated form.

The lesson, oft repeated, is that veteran, disciplined sword/shield/armoured troops beat veteran, disciplined spear/pikemen every time. To be effective the spear troops have never been heavily equipped. However, it would be interesting to put up 300 veteran Marian Romans vs 300 veteran Spartans. The 'hoplite' troops of classical Greece were heavily armoured, equipped with swords and shields, though they used their spears in an overhand fashion. I still think the Romans would win because they had the pilae and they were more specialist swordsmen than the Spartans. Also, they had evolved into their classic form from the Greek hoplite type, and repeatedly beat the powerful Greek states of Magna Graecia and Sicily.

And, you do a great disservice to the 'Successor' Greek states with your last statement which, I'm sorry to say, displays a typical ignorance of these powerful and energetic kingdoms. They weren't weak and cowering before the Romans, and they weren't some kind of watered-down Persians, they were capable, industrious, and ruthless inheritors of the Alexandrine legacy. They just had the misfortune to run into the Roman state war machine and superior infantry tactics....and oh how they tried to break it, but to no avail.

------------------
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And Heaven in a wild flower,
To hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

William Blake.

[Wavesword]

The two handed sword was also employed against formations of spears with success. The phalanx could only triumph on level ground and in good order. In the decisive battle of the 1st Macedonian war King Philip was defeated by a relatively small group of soldiers (200?) being ordered into his rear by a tribune.

[This message has been edited by Wavesword (edited 09-15-2002).]

[BlackWatch McKenna]

Antioch's Battle
----------------
Use of the Pila is one of the things I discussed, the other is that without friendly Cavalry, the flanks are exposed.

The Romans in that example had two of the three advantages and won.

Also, there is a difference between a Kindom's Dynamics and the Method of Warfare it uses. The Successors tactics, in general, tended to grow stale. There was more than one Successor, so lets not let one Exception become the Rule.

Lastly, on this forum, there is no need to direct insults at the Writer in an attempt to prove a point. All discussions should be aimed at the Idea or Proposition.

-------------------
For the original poster, here is an interesting article.
http://www.niderost.com/pages/Battle_of_Marignano.htm

Famous Battles are Famous because something different or unexpected happened. No one wants to hear that the Blue Army beat up the natives for the 1000th time. But, the battle where the natives beat up the Blue Army, now that's newsworthy. That's what gets remembered.

---------------
Lastly, the evolution into the Spanish Tercio and the use of Sword & Buckler is pretty interesting reading.
http://www.lepg.org/warfare.htm

//BlackWatch

Here is a link to a cute little book I've read a few times about Alexander. The hard back version is about 800 pages, but it's a fun read!
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0306806908/ancientgreece/104-0024318-0973568

The books by Dodge about Gustavos and Hannibal are good too. I would recommend starting with the Great Captains.

[Red Peasant]

Genuinely sorry if I offended http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif

However, my comments weren't particularly strong or even personal. There IS a general ignorance of the political, military, economic and cultural significance of the 'Successor' kingdoms....it is a point that has to be stated because it is true.

Cheers! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And Heaven in a wild flower,
To hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

William Blake.

[dancho]

An old legionaire once told me:

"Here is the way you fight spear-men with a sword. The Roman soldiers fight side by side. Each one protect himself with his shield, and advances past the points of the spears by holding it in front. Each soldier protects himself from the spears in front. When we come up close to the enemy, the gladius is used to stab from behind the shield, to the right, attacking the enemy in front of the man *to your right*. Each Roman soldier stabbed up and out to the right, from behind the shield.
There is a line of soldiers behind the first line of Romans. In this line we have our own spear-men, and they watch over what happens in front, constantly calling out to the men with the swords, telling them what is happening. Each soldier and the soldier to his right forms a team with the spear-man behind them. The entire formation is inter-locked and depends upon each man acting as part of the whole."

http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

[spmetla]

Those are all defianlty true facts. My question are those spears with shields?

The problem is in the game the spear also have shields. This makes for very weak akward thrusts.

Because of these shields the spearmen should suck against the swordsman because they can't even make a powerful thrust that would peirce armor.

Like you guys said the swords with shields could deflect the spear until they were in clost quarters at which point the spearmen has even less of a chance and dies.

But how would swords and shields fare against spears w/o shields?

------------------
"samishika wa nai shitte irukara saigo wa itsumo hitori to"

"I'm not lonely Because I know I'll be Alone at the end"

email me at: Luftwaffle@mad.scientist.com

[This message has been edited by spmetla (edited 09-23-2002).]

[Rosacrux]

phalanx vs legion - always a heated debate http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

Two are the decisive factors in the triumphs of the Romans against the diadochs and the legion vs the phalanx and those are:

- Leadership
- Pilum

McKenna tuched both of those and especially the second, which is overloocked often. The use of the pila, with their special design to hook on a shield and drag it down, cannot be stressed out to show of what importance it was. Also, the velites running around and throwing javelins at the phalanx, preparing the ground for the main pilum-drop, cannot be underestimated.

the phalanx could be used effectively only if one could deploy combined arms tactics, otherwise it lacks mobility to keep up with a well trained and disciplined sword-shield-javelin force as was the legion.

Actually, on a pure head-on-head pikes vs sword&shield fight, flanks covered and all, no auxiliaries, the spears would win 9 out of 10. But that wasn't likely to happen, not in that way at least.

[spmetla]

I actually find that the sword units whoop the spears ingame. The trick is to spread them out into one line, the all of them fight, and flank instead of 10 fighting with like 20 guys just standing behind waiting.

------------------
"samishika wa nai shitte irukara saigo wa itsumo hitori to"

"I'm not lonely Because I know I'll be Alone at the end"

email me at: Luftwaffle@mad.scientist.com

[Michael the Great]

Swordsmen had to wear proper armor and shields to face the pikemen.
But what about two-handed swords,how did these do vs pikes???

[Rosacrux]

Hmm... are you thinking the landsknechts, perhaps?

Not too bad, but most of the times the Swiss pikies massacred them http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Red Peasant]

And the Spanish 'Sword and Shield' massacred them both......

------------------
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And Heaven in a wild flower,
To hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

William Blake.

[Hakonarson]

Quote Originally posted by Red Peasant:
And the Spanish 'Sword and Shield' massacred them both......

[/QUOTE]

a little simplistic.

A major victory of "sword and buckler" over pike was Barleta in 1503 - the French assailed the Spanish who were behind temporary fortifications.

The French were repulsed, then attacked in the flanks and routed - no great surprise there - the combination of fortifications and flank attacks weer more than enopugh to do over the French!!

At Ravenna in 1512 the French had revenge - equipped with new artillery and arquebus tactics the French manouvred their artillery to take the Spanish enfilade and blasted great gaps in the entrenched Spanish ranks and then their native and mercenary pikemen massacred the sword and buckler men!

It wasn't one sided, and whichever won (sword or pike) had more to do with whatever else was happening on the battlefield rateh than the simple comparison of weapons.

[redrooster]

and armoured mounted troops would bowl them over.
battles are won with manueveur, economy of force, use of terrain, use of information, application of combine arms tactic and a multitude of other factors. knowing whether a sword or a spear is better would hardly matter. perhaps a swords advantage over a spear is its flexibility to parry, thrust and slash all at the same time. wat if the spear man not only thrust with his spear but also operate it like a quaterstaff. have you seen a chinese martial exponent operate a spear. but i must admit, a sword is a much more glamorous weapon to hold then a glorifiedtoothpick

[Red Peasant]

Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:

A major victory of "sword and buckler" over pike was Barleta in 1503 - the French assailed the Spanish who were behind temporary fortifications.

The French were repulsed, then attacked in the flanks and routed - no great surprise there - the combination of fortifications and flank attacks weer more than enopugh to do over the French!!

At Ravenna in 1512 the French had revenge - equipped with new artillery and arquebus tactics the French manouvred their artillery to take the Spanish enfilade and blasted great gaps in the entrenched Spanish ranks and then their native and mercenary pikemen massacred the sword and buckler men!

It wasn't one sided, and whichever won (sword or pike) had more to do with whatever else was happening on the battlefield rateh than the simple comparison of weapons.[/QUOTE]

At Barletta, for French, read Swiss Pike, the most feared troops in Europe. I trust Machiavelli's contemporary account rather than yours.

As for Ravenna, the Spanish were defeated by new tactics as you describe, not by pikes. As a matter of fact the German Landsknechts followed the defeated Spanish but their detached (pike) column were decimated by the Spanish sword who turned on them for their temerity. The Spanish learned from these campaigns by developing the 'Tercio' of pike and firearms en-masse. The pike survived because it still had a vital use against cavalry, whereas the sword, as a massed infantry weapon had finally been superceded. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

Cheers!

------------------
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And Heaven in a wild flower,
To hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

William Blake.

[Hakonarson]

Red - I know the French pike were Swiss - it's pertty irrelevant.

The destructino of a pursuing force by rallied routers is not new - often pursuers will be highly disorganised and if a small group of the defeated can rally then they can defeat them.

This happened at Hastings, and is remarked upon by authors from Sun Tzu onwards - the Greeks knew it and thought rallied routers more dangerous than the original foe because they were now utterly desperate men.

So I find your objection to my post unimportant - a disorganised pike block with the "temerity (!!) to pursue is certainly a ripe target if any sword and buckler men can rally - however the S&B had already been routed by those same men in "open battle"!!

And yes, the S&B were replaced by massed firearms, but their legacy remained with the swords carried by "ordinary" infantry in Europe untill well after the Napoleonic era, and teh "fire and charge with sword in hand" tactics used my some European infantry until the early 1700's.

the legacy of the pike was eventually the bayonet, and so both troop types came together as a "universal soldier" that is still with us today.

[Red Peasant]

A lot of what you say is pertinent, but my only point was to say that swordsmen, armed and equipped in a certain manner, nearly always had the drop on pikemen. Romans vs. Macedonian Phalanx and Spanish vs. Swiss&Germans. The evidence is certainly selective, but they are the optimum selections of either category in two totally different and distinct historical periods. I ain't heard anything to convince me otherwise.

------------------
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And Heaven in a wild flower,
To hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

William Blake.