Were spears and shields used together, or at least were they common to use together. I can't see people using both because a spear would seem unwieldy and weak to use with one hand.
Printable View
Were spears and shields used together, or at least were they common to use together. I can't see people using both because a spear would seem unwieldy and weak to use with one hand.
Hoplites.
check
Even better, Triari or Alexander's Hypaspists.
Spears were NORMALLY used with shields.
They are the basic infantry weapon pre-gunpowder for all societies in almsot all ages - even troops who were "swordsmen" usually carried a spear of some sort.
Spears are difficult to use well one handed - they are easy to deflect because you can get an enormous sideways moment with a little force at the tip compared to how much force your hand can exert holding it in the middle.
But importantly they are about the only weapon you can use in a shield wall - a sword or axe requires teh individual to "dance around" - so he can't really be part of a shield wall.
Well, then if the spear was so unwieldy in a combat situation, wouldn't it be almost useless on the attack because a spear thrust couldn't go through armor/?
Unwieldy does not men ineffective or useless
Spears are perfectly capable of penetrating armour if they strike well and the armour is not too strong, and most people throughout history were unarmoured - even those in some armour generaly have large areas of their body unarmoured.
When armour became more extensive and effective spears were generally supersceeded by weapons better suited to piercing armour tho.
Where shields generally held by the hand, or were they strapped on to the forearm? If they were strapped to the arm then I can see the the thrusting power of a spear because both hands are still free.
both systems were used - sometimes on a single shield - for example a hoplon (Greek infantry shield) has a tube the forearm passes through, but it's also held at he rim by the hand.
Similarly many much later shields such as Norman kite shields are secured by straps at the forarm and also held by hand.
"Centre grip" shield such as roman & Gallic Scuta and Viking roundshields are well known but seem to be predominatnly used by swordsmen
easy enough to deliver a solid bow with a spear held one-handed - it's just that the blow can be relatively easily deflected.
both systems were used - sometimes on a single shield - for example a hoplon (Greek infantry shield) has a tube the forearm passes through, but it's also held at he rim by the hand.
Similarly many much later shields such as Norman kite shields are secured by straps at the forarm and also held by hand.
"Centre grip" shield such as roman & Gallic Scuta and Viking roundshields are well known but seem to be predominatnly used by swordsmen
easy enough to deliver a solid bow with a spear held one-handed - it's just that the blow can be relatively easily deflected.
Okey Dokey, thanks for the response guys. Definatley cleared things up for me.
There seems to be an impression here that spears do not penetrate armor as well as swords. This is certainly not true. The spear has three advantages over swords: lower cost, longer reach, more power. The power comes from the weight. When a spear impacts a target, all of the momentum in the long shaft turns into energy concentrated on the point. This is related to the principle behind the penetrating power of a battleaxe.
Swords, for most of history, were side arms. They were not preferred. Even Roman soldiers, who had perfected sword/shield tactics, were armed with some kind of spear or missile weapon (javelin) initially.
The most advanced spearmen in history may have been the Zulus. They solved the shield and spear dilemma by making their spears (iklwa, also incorrectly known as assegai) very short, long bladed (allowing slashing attacks), and well-balanced.
Not from me - spears are probably better at penetrating armour in many circumstances,.
But htey have many limitations.
For example the force generated by a straight thryust with a spear is much less than yuo can get swinging a mass such as a sword. Thrusting swords have hte same limitation.
However swords penetrating armour with swings generally contact more armour along the length of their impact, so have more work to do.
The main problem with a spear is that it is easily deflected.
the Zulu assegai can be fairly said to have become a sword rather than a spear.
Yes, it was this marriage of the two weapons (or more accurately, the evolution of the spear towards a more-swordlike form) which made it so effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Well I'm not exactly an expert on spears, but they do have quite a decent amount of power, even if unwieldly. This is probably one of the reasons Halberd formations evolved, as cavalry dominated swordsmen and held their own against normal phalanx style spearmen. So cavalry were prefered, ans as a result a shield was less important as it didn't provide as much protection from all the weight of a knight in all his armor charging on a horse, the spearman would at least be knocked over and due to his unwieldly one-handed spear not provide enough stopping power to take out a knight. A halberd with out spears could not only be used as an axe and slashing weapon against other foot soldiers but a spear against a knight with more stopping power due to two hands being involved. Pikes were similar, being longer but not as effective against infantry weapons. Pikes were better against cavalry, but halberds more often won the day against swordsmen (this is not to say that they won it often, only more than pikemen).