View Full Version : Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)
Patriote
10-17-2007, 00:37
I tried to take part of the conversation about "Spears are very unbalanced" but somehow it degenerated in a fight about Greek phalanxes vs Roman Legions.
What I want here is a conversation about the theory behind the use of spear and sword but not just by Romans, a general one. I want it to be global as I am trying, sincerely, to understand the point of view of people. Although I posted several posts in the other thread, no one has considered them "worthy" of an answer.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1713127&postcount=113
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1713774&postcount=144
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1714146&postcount=161
I added the link only for those who would like to read them or read again without having to read the whole thread again. :yes:
BTW, I am not here to prove that I am right at all costs, I want a clean discussion to improve my knowledge and comprehension of ancient warfare. And, if the end I feel that I still prefer my opinion even while knowing that I am wrong then I'll just do something like modifying my EDU :2thumbsup:
To be very honest, i'm of the opinion that one is not better than the other. Each has it's own strengths in different situations.
As for a swordsmen against a spearman? well same applies, depends on the situation.
Why not have both I say, saves alot of bother!
Mega
Hooahguy
10-17-2007, 00:48
agreeing with Megalos- i personally will spam the persain archer spearmen for my persain-baktrain war, becuase of their bows and spears to fend off cavalry, but when i get to the AS, it will be swordsmen, mostly.
Without any decent knowledge in close combat or self-defense, I would say that the sword is better when blocking strikes and, due to the longer blade, when striking the enemy. The spear on the other hand has the longer range; but the pike is much smaller than the blade and it is difficult to block off hits.
The sword seems to require much more skill because the sword fighter has to know much more moves: blocking, sriking, hitting, piercing, blocking again etcpp. The spear fighter is best off when he holds his weapon right before him or over his head, what is even easyer, and makes short stabs. Once the sword fighter has closed in range, there is no point in defending with the spear. For that the spear fighter needs further protection (Shield, armour).
On the bottom line, I would say that for units in formation the spear is the better choice, especially when the soldiers are lesser experienced; while single fighters might prefer the sword.
Patriote
10-17-2007, 01:09
Maybe it's the view I had. Like the rock-paper-scissors
Spearmen are good vs cavalry
Cavalry vs swordsmen
and Swordsmen vs cavalry
(not invincible but a slight advantage)
maybe I am wrong about that but that is also why I do not understand when I read that Spearmen's attack profile had to be increase to compensate again swordsmen:inquisitive:
Should not they get this penalty after all or I might totally wrong here ?? :inquisitive:
Watchman
10-17-2007, 01:19
Spearmen had their attack values amped because they were all given the short_spear weapon attribute, which gives penalties (-4, to be exact) when fighting infantry. As I seem to recall having pointed out at least once back in the other thread. With spear infantry vs spear infantry this obviously cancels out, and infantry with other weapons (be they axes, phallistically huge swords, clubs or teddy bears) doesn't get the penalty in the fist place.
:juggle2:
Now, what *I* am somewhat concerned about is that last I read about it the short_spear attribute affected defense (the "spear" one apparently affects attack)... this could be outdated info of course, and I haven't yet played enough to see how it works in practice. However I do know the team playtests this stuff - and I understand balancing the units stats is a lot of work - so I figure they have a decently good idea of what they're doing, and am erring on the side of "let's see how it works out in the game" before jumping to conclusions.
I certainly am of the belief that one-on-one a swordsmen has an advantage over a spearman. Also there is a good reason why the Spartan hoplites, although their primary weapon was the spear in their group formation, went to their short swords when the enemies got to close and the combat become almost man -to - man. You can just do a lot more damage with a sword in close quarters because you do not need a big thrust to gain momentum.
As for bonuses fighting swordsmen: if a group of swordsmen charged a defensive formation of spearmen or hoplites then i would give the immediate advantage to the spearmen because it is not easy get close enough with a wall of spears in your way. but once that first rush is over and the physical mass of a unit of troops forces itself upon the spear unit then the advantage should turn toward the sword users.
Somehow this seems like a reverse kind of charge bonus. Like the spear unit should have a bonus when the other unit charges but after that it disappears.
Most spearmen would have a sword too. In the end it would be more a question of the effect of javelins thrown from swordsmen versus the effect of spearmen striking and/or keeping swordsmen at a distance.
If swordsmen had the time to throw all their missiles they might have had a small advantage because of enemy being disrupted. If they didnt they might have had a small disadvantage.
The use of spears was more prominent throughout history so that might tell us something.
CBR
Watchman
10-17-2007, 01:41
I certainly am of the belief that one-on-one a swordsmen has an advantage over a spearman. Also there is a good reason why the Spartan hoplites, although their primary weapon was the spear in their group formation, went to their short swords when the enemies got to close and the combat become almost man -to - man. You can just do a lot more damage with a sword in close quarters because you do not need a big thrust to gain momentum.
As for bonuses fighting swordsmen: if a group of swordsmen charged a defensive formation of spearmen or hoplites then i would give the immediate advantage to the spearmen because it is not easy get close enough with a wall of spears in your way. but once that first rush is over and the physical mass of a unit of troops forces itself upon the spear unit then the advantage should turn toward the sword users.
Somehow this seems like a reverse kind of charge bonus. Like the spear unit should have a bonus when the other unit charges but after that it disappears.
But then remember that the reach of long spears, and the fact for their size they need startlingly little space to wield in some respects, also means the spearmen can be massed very closely together and at least the second rank can also contribute by thrusting over the first rank. And backup weapons as they may be, the spearmen may also very well be quite dangerous enough with their sidearms in the cramped confines of the shield-to-shield crush at the front ranks; indeed fighting-knives and short swords seem to have been widely popular for just such purpose.
Also, properly articulated aggressive spear infantry was AFAIK quite effective on the charge, both because of the density they could fight in and the sheer phsychological and physical effects of the onrushing wave of long pointy things.
And of course all it takes to convert a long-spear man into a swordsman is him dropping his spear...
Patriote
10-17-2007, 02:10
Then my next question is this one:
If spearmen had so many advantage and can easily switch to short sword(although you still have to give spearmen a lot of training with the sword) then why did the romans decid to arm most of their troops, and in the end all legionnaires, with sword with the exception of auxilia, instead of giving them spear :help:
Does it have anything to do with their looser formations ? Was it mean on purpose to cover more frontage with less troops than their enemies as to exhaust them quicker ? :inquisitive:
Here a quote from the website I talked in my first post. I put the link again so
you are able to read yourself and look at the sources if they are worth it. And because this author seems to have a opinion a little different then a lot of people here, I want to hear different opinions about this quote please.
The spine of the Roman army was its heavy infantry formations. Unlike infantry formations of the past, the Roman maniples and, later, the heavier cohorts, were more maneuverable than any infantry formations that the world had seen. They also surpassed the killing power of earlier infantry formations to an almost exponential degree. The tactical proficiency and lethality of the Roman legion were not surpassed by another army for almost fifteen hundred years. The secret of the Roman killing machine was that the Roman soldier was the first to fight within a combat formation while at the same time remaining somewhat independent of its movement as a unit. He was also the first soldier to rely primarily upon the sword, the dreaded gladius, instead of the spear. The Roman gladius was responsible for more deaths on the battlefield than any other weapon until the invention of the firearm!
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/gabr000c.htm
Anyone with comments or answers for me, I want them ! :2thumbsup:
Zaknafien
10-17-2007, 02:14
The tactical proficiency and lethality of the Roman legion were not surpassed by another army for almost fifteen hundred years.
He was also the first soldier to rely primarily upon the sword, the dreaded gladius, instead of the spear.
The Roman gladius was responsible for more deaths on the battlefield than any other weapon until the invention of the firearm!
:inquisitive:
:laugh4:
Come on now. Really?
I mean. Really.
the_handsome_viking
10-17-2007, 02:14
It really depends on the situation, they are both simply tools of war, sometimes you need a hammer, sometimes you need a screwdriver.
Watchman
10-17-2007, 02:27
...and if at all possible, people had both. :beam:
I dunno about the rest of that site Patriote linked, but I do know the bit he quotes can IMHO be summed up as "wotta load of CROCK".
:yes:
Seriously. It really does ooze fanboyism. I've run into the same tone in other contexts (often involving katanas...).
Patriote
10-17-2007, 02:27
Zaknafien I don't understand. I am asking for opinions and comments to help me better understand. I quote a passage of a text from a Website, AirWar College of the USA, which I think, although they are not totally dedicated to ancient warfare, might be a good source from people during research about military history and science.
And now, all you do is take a sentence here and there and laugh at it. I mean, how is it supposed to help me understand more or help the conversation ?? :inquisitive:
All of this and I doubt you read the whole article :shame:
Zaknafien
10-17-2007, 02:34
No I didnt read the full article, I dont read schlock by amateurs. I know you mean well, but your sources lack credibility--come on, its the air force for chrissakes. I got my degrees from West Point, but even I can say that military scholarship isnt really the best. I dont have the time to write a full essay on the Roman military for you tonight, but I will try to find some links to some more credible sites, or some useful books you can buy.
When the battle moves close and you have men fighting men individually the gladius is much more manuverable. With a spear your opponent has to be a particular disnace away from you for you go get the spear in between you and him. The gladius, however, could be thrusted at the enemy no matter how close they were. Considering that back then a cut of merely 4cm could result in death it's no surprise it was so deadly.
Watchman
10-17-2007, 02:38
All of this and I doubt you read the whole article :shame:I dunno about Zak, but I know that quoted bit alone tells me I don't even want to read the whole article if it's even remotely similar. Because that choice part already not only clearly has very little idea of what it's talking about for the most part, it goes on a major hyperbole trip from there...
Seriously, it gives me that sort of sinking feeling that says "that's so wrong, I don't even know where I should start setting it right." And I've just read a few books on the topic.
Watchman
10-17-2007, 02:41
When the battle moves close and you have men fighting men individually the gladius is much more manuverable. With a spear your opponent has to be a particular disnace away from you for you go get the spear in between you and him. The gladius, however, could be thrusted at the enemy no matter how close they were. Considering that back then a cut of merely 4cm could result in death it's no surprise it was so deadly.Like anyone tried to fight with a 2.5m longspear or six-meter pike at face-to-face distance anyway; those become patently useless before that already. That's what they carried those sidearms for.
NeoSpartan
10-17-2007, 03:10
There is also one thing I would like to remind you fellas, in .81 the attack values of spear were lower and the "short-spear" attribute made them too weak becasue it gave -4 attack.
So spear units tended to get an unreasonable beating. Also units that switched between swords and spear would pull out the spear instead of keep fighing with the sword. (due to a RTW bug). So -4 attack value made them weaker too.
I had to take out the spear in many units that carried both weapons. Namely the Soldurus and Arjos.
To avoid that issue, the attack value of spear was increased so the -4 penalty would not affect the preformance of spear units in game.
blitzkrieg80
10-17-2007, 03:57
how is it NOT obvious that if one gets stabbed in the neck before even getting close enough to use a sword- that that soldier's battle is over?
similarly, one could argue that the bayonette is a superior weapon to the gun, because when it's man to man, the gun without the bayonette is unwieldy, therefore the bayonette is superior... shovels too
then why did the romans decid to arm most of their troops, and in the end all legionnaires, with sword with the exception of auxilia, instead of giving them spear :help:
But Romans had spears, it was just throwing and not thrusting spears.
They were certainly not alone is such fighting style. Iberian Scutari were very similar and AFAIK Iberian tactics were very much skirmish like with feigned attacks and missile throwing to goat the enemy into advancing.
Now Romans most likely were not as nimble as the Iberians but if they ever faced a defensive hoplite army, having multiple lines and lots of missile weapons would have enabled them to harass and even directly engage the hoplites and still not risk everything.
In an era of infantry dominated warfare and missiles being mainly javelins the Roman system worked fine and whenever they faced enemies that had superior shock capability(like Macedonia style phalanx) the Roman system of reserve lines kicked in and won the day (yes yes there were other factors too but no need for an essay)
CBR
Zaknafien
10-17-2007, 04:23
indeed, the Romans did use spears. the hasta is a spear. Even in the Marian era the pilum is a spear that is thrown. Various auxilary units kept spears as a primary weapon. Rarely did the legions close for the kind of slog-it-out hack and slash you see in Gladiator.
Bootsiuv
10-17-2007, 04:28
The answer why Romans preferred the Gladius to a Spear or Pike should be obvious.
Romans were on the offensive almost constantly in their heyday. They took the fight to the enemy, as quickly and devastatingly as possible. They didn't want to poke at their enemies with long sticks....no, as this is clearly more conducive to defensive warfare.
It should be noted that as soon as Rome stopped conquering and started defending, they didn't do as well. This isn't to say this was a primary reason for the fall of the empie, or even overly relevant, but it was clear that the offensive gladius did not lend itself to defending ground.
Also note the increased use of spear auxillaries in the later years of the Empire, when the mindset was defensive, as opposed to the offensive mindset of old.
The Romans no longer desired to bring the fight to the enemy as quickly as possible. No, by this time, they were stationed at arbitrary borders where they had to sit and wait to be attacked.
Sword = offensive
Spear = defensive
Bootsiuv
blitzkrieg80
10-17-2007, 04:51
that is actually pretty apt, Bootsiuv... it seems simplistic but its very true... if you have a short range weapon and someone is coming at you, you have to wait until the last possible moment to do anything, while they have the ability to do whatever before that range is met....
OT there's just something interesting in the need of animals "to poke" ~:) even dogs and other animals poke stuff with their nose or paws... it's so cute... and no matter what, i just find it amusing to see someone poke anything with a stick (that's not a metaphor you sickos)... maybe i'm easily amused ~;p
Bootsiuv
10-17-2007, 04:58
Hmmm, indeed. I too enjoy the fuzzy things in life, although I must admit I do prefer shaved. :yes:
Sorry couldn't help myself.
I wouldnt class greek hoplite tactics as defensive. And there are several examples of Roman units throwing pilas and insults at their enemies until special encouragement from leaders could bring some cohorts to do a charge.
In other words your idea about weapons indicating preferred tactic has some truth. But its the other way around: A throwing spear has longer reach than a thrusting spear or pike so sword units were less offensive, as they had missile weapons, compared to pure shock troops that had no missile weapons :clown:
CBR
Bootsiuv
10-17-2007, 05:44
I wouldn't class greek hoplite tactics as defensive.
I would. The hoplite phalanx was inherently defensive even when the divisions were employing offensive tactics. It relied on the enemy coming to them eventually, albeit they may have moved right up to the enemy line. The tight formations also didn't lend themselves to great manueverability in the field, hence the introduction of longer spears by Philip. He took the hoplites greatest strength and increased upon it several fold, to try and overcome the hoplite phalanx' inherently defensive nature. This was it's greatest weakness, and Philip attempted to overcome it by magnifying it's greatest strength. Phalangites were also defensive in nature, even on the offense, staying in tight formations and presenting the enemy with the option of running into their sarissas or running home.
And there are several examples of Roman units throwing pilas and insults at their enemies until special encouragement from leaders could bring some cohorts to do a charge.
The end of your statement only further supports my point, as the Hastati and the like tended to charge in with swords after exhausting their pila. They charged because the sword is an offensive weapon, and should be used as such.
Bootsiuv
In single combat a warrior with a spear (not to talk about a sarissa) against a swordman is in dire straits. It is easy to deflect the spear with the sword, pass the tip and bring the sword into play. Try it with two sticks of different lenght.
In formation the things are different. The swordmen have to face a lot of points, coming from different directions. Remember that the normal Roman formation for hastati and principes was 4 cubits/6 feet/1,80m, while the spearmen stand closer. For sarissai pikemen the normal fighting space was 2 cubits according to Asklepiodotos, which is exactly the same what Polybios told us. A Roman soldier so faced about 2 adversaries when in fight with phalangites.
Let's have a look to Kynos Kephalae (bad landscape for pikes) and Pydna (perfect landscape for pikes). In both battles the Romans first performed rather badly. They were repulsed by the pikemen who placed their tips on/in the Roman shields and pushed them away. In the end the Romans were victorious because they were able to use gaps in the phalanx (ironically originating from the successful advance of the pikemen) or flank it with their flexible tactics. And not to forget the charge of the Roman elephants against the phalanx flanks (something some people like to ignore). It was not coincidence that at Pydna the left wing of the phalanx which was charged by the elephants broke first.
Btw, it is one of the frequent fairy tales that the professional Roman legionaries of the principate did not use spears. A lot of spear points were found in pure legionary castras.
I would say sword against spear should be balanced. In frontal combat the swordman at least should not have an advantage. Up till now I cannot say that the EB 1.0 balance is so bad. (However although I don't play Romani I'm also of the opinion that the cohors evocata should have better stats, to refer to the other thread. If not them who was an elite warrior? And yes, elite is always connected to experience and moral in formation close combat.)
Ariovistus
10-17-2007, 08:26
I might be wrong, if it is so please correct me - I'm not relying on sources here, just using my mind, and as we all know, without proper input the output can't always be trusted. ~;) I was just wondering, as at least to posts above mentioned the peculiar ability of swords to block hits.
Now yes, I am aware that a spear is not really designed for blocking. But is the blocking ability of a gladius really of decisive value? I mean, it is not much longer than half a meter / shorter than two feet. So it lacks not only the length, but the cross guard of later types. It might be more useful in a sword vs. sword-duel, but against spears? Anyway, in most cases the blows are supposed to come (as seen by the defender) from the left, which is your shield arm.
Arvst
Bootsiuv
10-17-2007, 08:35
Now yes, I am aware that a spear is not really designed for blocking. But is the blocking ability of a gladius really of decisive value?
No. It really isn't. This isn't to say that a well trained swordsmen couldn't block an opposing blow with a gladius. I think it's certainly possible, if not overly easy or sensible.
The attacker employing the Gladius should seek to disable his foe before blocking ever becomes an issue, hence the often overly-aggressive tactics employed by Roman Commanders.
On another note, it isn't the blocking ability of the spear which makes it useful as a defensive weapon. It is the ability of the spear to keep the opposing attacker from ever coming with swordsreach. Multiply these points by hundreds and the prospects for the swordsmen become daunting.
The only way for the commanders to overcome this was to often use over aggressive tactics which attempted to break up the spear formation to allow the swordsmen to get in close enough to gain weapon superiority.
Bootsiuv
Zaknafien I don't understand. I am asking for opinions and comments to help me better understand. I quote a passage of a text from a Website, AirWar College of the USA, which I think, although they are not totally dedicated to ancient warfare, might be a good source from people during research about military history and science.
And now, all you do is take a sentence here and there and laugh at it. I mean, how is it supposed to help me understand more or help the conversation ?? :inquisitive:
All of this and I doubt you read the whole article :shame:
Not sure if this has been saod already but, for some site with more creibility check europabarbarorum.com and go to the links section. There should be a few sites about the romans.:egypt:
It is possible to block strikes with a gladius, even though there were swords around that were much better; and in the end also the Romans changed to longer swords. I think the gladius was introduced because it was not to expensive and could be used like a long knife or dagger, a style of combat that also lesser trained/experienced citizen soldiers were used to.
[On a side note: You shouldn't expect to have come across really untrained soldiers on an ancient battlefield. Most of them fought with their own weapons, i.e. weapons they have at home. It is more than realistic to assume that those even spend a lot of time on training with these weapons if we don't have any lengthy accounts of their drills in the sources.]
For the Romans it's also said that their prime weapon was the pilum, what means that the gladius was a side arm for the occasion of close combat.
Tellos Athenaios
10-17-2007, 14:38
The gladius simply means sword. So whatever kind of sword it reffered to; the Romans would keep calling it gladius.
If you mean Gladius Hispaniensis; well that one was introduced after the Iberians had showed the Romans some rope.... Really effective kind of thing; it tended to cause lots of bleeding and to be fairly effective at piercing armour. You can see why: if you pull that gladius out of someone; you are pulling a good deal of that someone out of him too.
The gladius simply means sword. So whatever kind of sword it reffered to; the Romans would keep calling it gladius.
"Gladius" is usualy refering to the Spanish shortsword, even though dictionaries simply translate it with "sword". Another weapon would be the Northern Europe longsword "Spatha" (also a Roman term, that survived in some Romanic languages). It came in use with the cavalry around the second century AD, and for the infantry some time later - according to the use of Germanic mercenaries in these forces, I guess.
Zaknafien
10-17-2007, 15:58
tellos is right--gladius (sword). gladius refers to many bladed weapons aside from the gladius hispaniensis. Spathae and semispathae were also refered to as gladii.
blitzkrieg80
10-17-2007, 16:34
clearly, anyone who says they "can just block something" in combat as if it's natural, hasn't actually experience true personal combat, especially with ancient weapons... yes, you can block a spear with a sword, if that spearman is an idiot and he sticks it out to be swatted away... that is comparable to someone holding a knife far our in front of them, hoping someone will swat their hand and take it from them... true warriors would have easily have known that you hold a weapon close and attack only when necessary- predictability is the easiest way to die
clearly, anyone who says they "can just block something" in combat as if it's natural, hasn't actually experience true personal combat, especially with ancient weapons... yes, you can block a spear with a sword, if that spearman is an idiot and he sticks it out to be swatted away... that is comparable to someone holding a knife far our in front of them, hoping someone will swat their hand and take it from them... true warriors would have easily have known that you hold a weapon close and attack only when necessary- predictability is the easiest way to die
Agreed. This debate is largely moribund, because most of the impassioned people have clearly never held their preferred weapon, much less tested it.
The_Mark
10-17-2007, 17:33
In single combat a warrior with a spear (not to talk about a sarissa) against a swordman is in dire straits. It is easy to deflect the spear with the sword, pass the tip and bring the sword into play. Try it with two sticks of different lenght.
Have you actually tried this? A spear (well, obviously not a sarissa in this case) is surprisingly fast and agile, and you can actually do more stuff with it than just poke (more of thrusts below) with it; you can e.g. smack the swordsman with it (not to mention that many spear tips had a slash-capable edge) - it doesn't have to maim the opponent as long as it distracts him long enough for you to do another poke, or stuff.
Right, about the pokey bit. Thrusts, in general, are much faster than slashes of any kind - you don't have to worry about applying angular momentum to the stick you're using, you're operating in the direction of the center of mass of the stick. Naturally, quickness goes both ways - you can disengage the pokey stuff from an attack quickly, which is an insane bonus when the opponent has parried or you're feinting. Thrusts also have more range, or rather, you can add range to your thrusts much more easily (e.g. lunging with a rapier).
Oh, right, if anyone says they'll just cut off the tip of the spear with their sword, I *will* come and poke holes in them while they try to cut it off with their edgy piece of metal of choice.
Tellos Athenaios
10-17-2007, 18:46
Uhm it's kinda hard to get past a spear with a sword. For one thing; that a certain spear may be 2m long doesn't mean the tip is 2m away from the one wielding it. Also you can -if a little experienced- whirl the spear around and hit someone with the backside. Since the momentum is mass*acceleration*radius that makes for a pretty nasty blow.
And if the spear was made for war; rather than hunting you could "block" the sword likewise with the shaft; and then thrust the spear forward. That too; makes for some nasty suprises one vs. one. Just as with the sword blocking the spear; this depends on opponent stupidity/ignorance/over-enthusiasm.
Not many seem to remember that most spear units in EB also have shields, so spearmen don't have to parry with the spears. The edge in a spear vs. sword fight would be for the swordman, after he got close enough, but it's a whole different situation if they both had shields.
I don't know which the Romans adopted first, the shortsword or the large (almost) rectangle shield. If the shield came first, the shortsword follow up is only natural, because I'd say the method of "hiding" behind the shield and making quick stabs at the enemy is more effective than keeping the enemy at a distance with spearpoints, IF the troops have a large shield that covers their bodies almost entirely.
Tellos Athenaios
10-17-2007, 18:51
And indeed; trying to hack off the tip from the spear (apart from being futile; since humanly impossible in many cases) generally means that you're exposing a fairly large part of your body. Think about the ridiculous angles your arm has to make in order for you to even attempt such a thing in a normal situation (i.e. the spearman hasn't made any kind of ludicrous foolish error).
Those who think you can only poke with a spear, clearly haven't seen to many Jet Li movies! ~;)
Bootsiuv
10-17-2007, 19:38
I don't think too many ancient farmers were hip to the eastern arts.
Even if they were, that fighting style is not conducive to large groups of men.
Ah, Jet Li. My mentor in the subject of ancient warfare.
Edit: But Bootsiuv, that style can be used against large masses.
Bootsiuv
10-17-2007, 19:47
I don't think you should cite jet li movies as a credible source (although I understand where your coming from).
I still don't think one warrior could kill hundreds of men so easily, as those movies might suggest. Jet Li would have likely took a knife in the back in one of the first scenes.
Unlike movies, in real life, your enemies don't necessarily wait for you to finish fighting someone else before they attack you.
Are you serious? Have you seen Kill Bill vol.1? Tell me that's not how it's done, and I'll go kung fu! Just try me...
Bootsiuv
10-17-2007, 20:01
Fair enough...:laugh4:
And indeed; trying to hack off the tip from the spear (apart from being futile; since humanly impossible in many cases) generally means that you're exposing a fairly large part of your body. Think about the ridiculous angles your arm has to make in order for you to even attempt such a thing in a normal situation (i.e. the spearman hasn't made any kind of ludicrous foolish error).
But this is unnecessary. One need only get past the point of the shaft, by blocking with sword or shield (easier said than done, admittedly), and then the spearmen is at a clear disadvantage.
No need to worry about hacking spear tips off. Blocking the initial thrust and getting inside the effective attack radius of the spearmen will suffice.
Bootsiuv
Watchman
10-17-2007, 20:09
Are you serious? Have you seen Kill Bill vol.1? Tell me that's not how it's done, and I'll go kung fu! Just try me...GURPS has that filed under "Cinematic Rules" by the term Martial Arts Etiquette; other standbys include Gun Control Law and Bulletproof Nudity... :clown:
Anyway, when it really comes down to it the sword/spear issue is really more of a preference thing partially dictated by circumstances (ie. lots of cavalry around tends to make spears popular, as does poverty...). People arrived at different weapon combinations for dizzying numbers of not always necessarily very rational reasons, and sought to do as well with them as possible. Most, when used by skilled and motivated people, worked well enough.
Personally, I strongly suspect the reason swords were so often a feature of "assault" type infantry was really just that especially the longer specimen were rather expensive and required a fair bit of training to be genuinely effective, with the end result that specialised swordsmen simply tended to be of a fighting calibre a notch higher than the average due to their training and, in many cases, social rank or other élite status.
Patriote
10-17-2007, 20:47
I agree with Bootsiuv. As the battle lines would clash, the distance between soldiers would be closing pretty quickly. Considering that shields were used a lot for ramming into the enemy, the window of time for the spearmen to strike would be very small and adding the fact that soldiers normally had the habit to cover most of their bodies with their shield, this would make the advantage of spearmen rather slim.
Did anyone read that somewhere too or did I just dream it :laugh4: but did Roman soldiers (and maybe any others soldiers using swords or spear short enough to be used that way) would litteraly "jumped" over the enemy's shield in order to stab them, using the speed and energy gained while closing in ?? :inquisitive:
As for this Jet Li thing, with closely packed spearmen, I would pay a lot to see them do that "Whirling of Death overhead spear attack" altogether :laugh4:
As for the post of Zak about Gladiator movie, even I, as neophyte about ancient warfare (but with the will to learn hence this thread) there is so many weird stuff. Calvary coming out of nowhere to charge through the wood:wall: in the rear of the enemies(being followed by a dog:inquisitive:) the germanic guys appaering out of nowhere too, just in range the roman archers and ballistas(how convenient) the roman soldiers walking closely packed, not using their pilla and letting the germans charge them(seems more like classical hoplites than legionaries to me) and the best of all, the roman negotiator who is killed before the battle as if the romans were looking for peace all the time but were forced to war by the bad and evil barbarians:sweatdrop:
Anyways, keep the posts coming guys, it's getting interesting and I have finally understand the reason why spearmen stats were boosted :shame: :laugh4:
Watchman
10-17-2007, 21:04
I agree with Bootsiuv. As the battle lines would clash, the distance between soldiers would be closing pretty quickly. Considering that shields were used a lot for ramming into the enemy, the window of time for the spearmen to strike would be very small and adding the fact that soldiers normally had the habit to cover most of their bodies with their shield, this would make the advantage of spearmen rather slim.Didn't keep for example Viking Age warriors from having a big-ass fighting-spear as their primary weapon though, even if they were bigwig noblemen or household troops with good swords on their belts. And those days shieldwall was pretty much the default formation...
Did anyone read that somewhere too or did I just dream it :laugh4: but did Roman soldiers (and maybe any others soldiers using swords or spear short enough to be used that way) would litteraly "jumped" over the enemy's shield in order to stab them, using the speed and energy gained while closing in ?? :inquisitive:Never heard of it anyway. There's actually a Late Medieval longsword-fencing move (called Mortschlag or somesuch) where you actually leap to put even more power behind a downward cut, but seeing as how it's done with a two-handed sword, more likely than not unarmoured, in single combat, and without a ten-kilo shield...
(seems more like classical hoplites than legionaries to me)Erm... the default hoplite tactic was a massed charge you know. Another thing entirely if the soldiers' nerve didn't hold and they failed to advance. I dunno what the Heck Bootsiuv is talking about regarding this. Period accounts are quite emphatic of the violence of phalanxes ramming together (enough to buckle and crack shields, and the aspis was pretty solidly built...), and had the hoplite tactic been standing around twiddling their thumbs waiting for the other guy to come to them I fail to see how the endemic battles between the city-states could have led much anywhere since they didn't have much in the way of other mobile shock troops.
And the Persians, whose line infantry tactics heavily featured shooting a lot of arrows from behind a static shieldwall, would have merrily decimated them then gone eat lunch.
I think the best way I heard to answer this debate is :"it is only required an average spearmen to overcome a good swordsman".
Cheers...
Bootsiuv
10-17-2007, 21:28
Erm... the default hoplite tactic was a massed charge you know. Another thing entirely if the soldiers' nerve didn't hold and they failed to advance. I dunno what the Heck Bootsiuv is talking about regarding this. Period accounts are quite emphatic of the violence of phalanxes ramming together (enough to buckle and crack shields, and the aspis was pretty solidly built...), and had the hoplite tactic been standing around twiddling their thumbs waiting for the other guy to come to them I fail to see how the endemic battles between the city-states could have led much anywhere since they didn't have much in the way of other mobile shock troops.
You fail to understand what I was saying. I was stating that hoplite phalanx tactics are inherently defensive, because they are rigid in structure and require the enemy to be directly in front of them to work...as soon as the hoplites were flanked, they were screwed.
I never said they didn't charge. If they employed a 'mass charge', they would be unable to maintain their formations, thus the power of the phalanx would be lost. I don't see the benefits to conducting hoplite warfare in this manner.
No, it was more a slow, steady advance (much like the knights of the middle ages...they did not all charge full gallop at the enemy lines, because it was impossible to maintain ranks. Thus, they would often canter up to the enemy, feign retreat, and repeat this process, hoping to dishearten the peasant levies they often faced). They would be unable to mainain the phalanx otherwise. One does not need to be running to break an Aspis. A few good solid blows will likely do the same thing.
The end of the movie 300 where they all start running like crazy mad men is a joke...it simply didn't work that way. Why even have a phalanx?
My point was that the strength of the hoplite phalanx involved staying in formation, and this formation was inherently defensive.
I didn't say they never attacked. It's just the nature of their attack which we seem to disagree on.
Bootsiuv
Watchman
10-17-2007, 21:52
The phalanx (in any version really) certainly had a major problem with uneven ground (which is why the Romans dumped it for the less "sensitive" maniple), and tended to be rather oriented to frontal combat; but I fail to see how this would make the hoplite one at least particularly "inherently defensive". It's not like Roman maniples or looser Celtic tactical sub-units particularly liked being outflanked either - indeed, most of the time any unit be it infantry or cavalry got hit in an unformed flank it was royally screwed period.
And sticking close together isn't an "inherently defensive" tactic; it's good tactical sense in many cases and only tends to improve unit combat performance, and the main reason the Roman infantry wasn't formed denser was their fighting style's need for some "elbow space" (if now less than that the Celtic longswordmen required) and the desire to keep the unit "all terrain".
Most of the actual problems of the hoplite phalanx came simply from the fact it was a KISS shieldwall composed of part-time soldiers who simply couldn't spend that much time on unit drills during peacetime. It worked well enough for its specialised role - frontal assault, most of the time against another of its kind - but was swiftly in trouble in circumstances the militiamen had no training for. More veteran, professional and/or better drilled formations were more versatile and adaptive.
"Inherently defensive" infantry formations are those that aren't actually drilled for offensive maneuvers in the first place, and mainly serve as an "anchor" and/or shield for other troops that handle the actual offense. This is called "unarticulated infantry" in them funny books; the sort that can keep cohesion during offensive movements, and is as such actually capable of reliably executing such, goes by the term "articulated infantry" - and both hoplites and Roman foot rank the latter, ie. "offensive" infantry.
Bootsiuv
10-17-2007, 22:09
Hoplites WERE an anchor or shield, while lighter troops attempted to outflank, such as peltastai or the lightly armed Ekdremoi (hmmm, thanks EB, look at how much you've taught me).
That being said, I do see the side to your logic, and feel I stand partially corrected. I still think many of my points were valid and logical. One cannot maintain a tight formation while running at full tilt.
Once the two lines met, it was a defensive battle. The phalanx which maintained it's integrity and fought off all comers was usually the victor. Are these not defensively oriented tactics?
And a swordsmen can turn flank far easier than a spearmen in the relatively tighter formation of the phalanx.
Bootsiuv
I think most of yall are missing alot. The spear and the sword are merely one weapon a person could use. They also had their shields, their feet and any other part of the body that could be brought to bear, elbows, fingers, teeth. Melee's were a bloody buisness, and the primary weapon was not always the one used. One of the first things a hoplite would use when the lines crashed was a heel kick to the oponents shield to try and break it.
All in all the spear and the sword are rather equal. It was the person using it that would be the sole deciding factor in a duel between the two.
Now in formations they had a few advantages. The pike could have a huge reach, but it was unmanueverable. The short sword was easily manuevered and could shift directions easier. But it had little reach.
The weapon has little baring on victory. Terrian, levels of exhuastion, skill of the user, and even morale were more important then the weapon.
Watchman
10-17-2007, 22:47
Hoplites WERE an anchor or shield, while lighter troops attempted to outflank, such as peltastai or the lightly armed Ekdremoi (hmmm, thanks EB, look at how much you've taught me).Both of those "lights" were a rather late developement in hoplite warfare, and even then a support arm in most cases. For centuries it was basically two blocks of armoured spearmen with big-ass shields smashing together and beating the crap out of each other; it took quite a while before even cavalry developed into much of a battlefield presence in most of Hellas, and horses eat skirmishers for breakfast, lunch and before bedtime in open terrain...
One cannot maintain a tight formation while running at full tilt.Not over any greater distance, no. But guys lugging around full bronze panoplies and the ten-kilo aspis plus weapons weren't exactly going to engage in lenghty dashes anyway; AFAIK they only accelerated to run shortly before contact, so as to retain both unit cohesion and stamina.
Well, they had to adjust that to deal with the Persians mind you. Armour or no, the phalanxes weren't going to be much to look at after walking hundred meters through an arrow-storm...
Also mind you, Swiss pikemen delivered charges at full run (although their level of drill *was* long the top in Europe mind you). So, AFAIK, did Roman infantry and indeed most any offensive infantry.
Once the two lines met, it was a defensive battle. The phalanx which maintained it's integrity and fought off all comers was usually the victor. Are these not defensively oriented tactics?No. That's the standard equation of any heavy-infantry combat. Whichever side better maintained its own integrity and cohesion, and compromised that of the other, was the one that won. The other guys became demoralized and routed.
And a swordsmen can turn flank far easier than a spearmen in the relatively tighter formation of the phalanx.No better than well-articulated or simply otherwise readily mobile (ie. lightly equipped and/or loosely ordered) spearmen, generally. Hoplites were competent enough at turning flanks, whenever they didn't fall foul of the common amateurs' mistake of pursuing their broken opponents too far and forgetting to turn around to assist their mates. Their formation just wasn't designed for mobility, unlike for example the maniple or whatever the fig the Celts called their battle-squares or the nimble skirmish-oriented Iberians.
Bootsiuv
10-17-2007, 22:57
Well said and logical.
I stand corrected. Thanks for the enlightenment, Watchman. :yes:
The standard EB gift is in order :balloon: :2thumbsup:
Bootsiuv
Watchman
10-17-2007, 23:00
:bow: Nice to see niche reading is useful for something at least. :sweatdrop:
AntiochusIII
10-18-2007, 08:36
Also mind you, Swiss pikemen delivered charges at full run (although their level of drill *was* long the top in Europe mind you). So, AFAIK, did Roman infantry and indeed most any offensive infantry.As a side note, that ought to be downright scary for any poor fools on the other side of the charging wall of pikes. :worried2:
Achilleus
10-18-2007, 09:00
Not that I have much experience in ancient warfare formation fighting, but I've trained in Chinese martial arts for a couple of years and have studied some of the history and strategy behind the techniques. What I'm mainly writing about is personal experience from use of these weapons. Keep in mind, ancient Chinese warfare was quite different in many regards to ancient Western classical warfare and not all Chinese martial arts were used on the battlefield (and there are lots of Chinese martial arts; this is merely based on personal experience!).
Two of the weapons we use are the pole/staff/spear and the double butterfly swords. The pole/staff (and likewise spear) movements involve lots of powerful stabbing/poking actions as well as small circle movements and good old fashioned smacks that are meant to redirect, avoid the opponent's defenses, and open a pathway to strike a target. It's definitely not as agile as the swords! The double butterfly swords (think of them like Chinese cleavers with rounded ends and protective hilts, roughly about a cubit in length) involve lots of slashing, stabbing, and dynamic footwork in order to close with an opponent and deliver that fatal blow.
A really interesting two-man set involves the pole vs. butterfly swords. Some principles of this set in order for the butterfly swords to defeat the pole requires that the swords utilize dynamic stepping to avoid the powerful frontal thrusts of the pole and parrying in order to close the gap, disable to pole wielder's hands, and deliver a fatal blow whilst either parrying or avoiding the pole. The pole wielder, in general, attempts to keep the swordsman at a distance and deliver fatal blows to physiological weak points (i.e. head, neck, groin crease, etc). As is fairly obvious, the swords have a distinct advantage up close if they can successfully bridge the gap whereas the poles have a distinct advantage at distance. Superior understanding and utilization of each weapon's strengths and defending against its weaknesses leads to victory as it should when we properly use our EB units in world conquest :-D I hope this may give some insight into how actual ancient battles may have taken place; albeit, weapons, armor, formations, etc were different back then and varied from society to society. Thanks to the EB team :-D
Watchman
10-18-2007, 09:26
As a side note, that ought to be downright scary for any poor fools on the other side of the charging wall of pikes. :worried2::sweatdrop: No doubt. But then some argue the impact of a charging Swiss square was little short of that of heavy cavalry... well, those boys didn't get their "killer rep" for nothing certainly, anyway.
oudysseos
10-18-2007, 09:29
These threads often miss the point: peoples/armies used the weapons they did for all kinds of reasons, few of which had anything to do with the fanboy hotbutton issues of "The gladius killed more men than the a-bomb" or some such nonsense.
Spears, for one thing, are easier and cheaper to make than swords- less metal, and a spearhead is smaller and subject to less complex stresses than a sword blade. But if your country has lots of iron ore and not many tall straight trees suitable for spear shafts (Spain?), you might end up favouring the sword. If you come from wide open steppes with lots of grazing you probably end up being a cavalry army, but if you come from a rocky peninsula you might specialize in close-order infantry. Armies and weapons are cultural adaptations to the places and circumstances that people found themselves in, and not the result of fanboy debates about the gladius versus the sarissa. For a really good discussion of some of the cultural background to the Greek and Roman styles of war, try Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities by Hans van Wees.
I dont think I've seen anyone mention the fact that Hoplites used spears AND swords. This is represented in EB by the skins on most hoplite units having a sword. It is a bug with the RTW engine that does not allow the overhand spear animation to be used properly with the sword animation...
Phalanx units to not have this problem and switch it swords when an enemy soldier gets in very close
Watchman
10-18-2007, 14:29
Well there have been numerous references to sidearms... Even poor-ass tribal warriors would normally have a big knife after all - those were universally carried for utility purposes if nothing else.
Patriote
10-19-2007, 08:14
Very interesting StinkoMan20X6, really :2thumbsup:
As for Watchman, I sure showed us that you know what you are talking about. It sure taught me a lot reading your posts :yes:
And oudysseos, I am not sure what you meant by this:
few of which had anything to do with the fanboy hotbutton issues of "The gladius killed more men than the a-bomb" or some such nonsense.
but I'm certainly not the one who said that, it was merely a sentence from a part of a text I copied/cut from a website. You would be totally off the track to think that I am roman/gladius fanboy.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.