Weapon Reach?

Regarding swords vs spears...

Once the swordsman is past the first rank's spear, and assuming the spearman can't use it to attack (and assuming further that they do not ignore the frenzied swordsman in front of them to strike at the 2nd sword rank), the 1st rank of spears will change to defence - using their mighty (but not necessarily very tough) shield as best they can, purely focussed on defending themselves. Meanwhile, ranks 2 and 3 of the spears are still attacking.

So not only does the swordsman have to try to down the spearman in front of him who is in full defence mode, he also has to dodge the pointy sticks of the men behind.

Still, I think that a sword is much more versatile (it can stab and slash, whereas traditional pointy sticks can only stab), and let's assume most swordsmen have a shield to help defend themselves as well.

I think that overall, the swords should win.

But I think that all units (especially, but not only, cavalry) should get certain penalties when charging the front of a spear unit. Say a free, higher-than-normal-value attack on every unit on the front rank, which is of greater value still against cavalry.

I mean, seriously, even foot-troops are taking considerable risk when running into the front of a wall of spears!

Your analysis is right.

One of the best ways to kill knights was to basically trap them in a formation of men and then beat him to death. It's not so much impaling them on a spike BraveHeart style, but getting rid of his momentum so he's stuck and an easy target. Fighting against impact cavalry is really more about the inertia of the horse. Though the lance is a powerful weapon, the horse is a powerful weapon in itself with the ability to just run over men Lord of the Rings style.

Yup,

done right, the horseman doesn't even need to swing his sword, he could just casually hold it out to the side, crash into a (loose-ish) formation, slashing everything he passes like the proverbial kid rattling a stick against a set of railings. The horse's momentum adds considerable force to the slashing action.

Of course, the density of the spear formation is supposed to stop them breaking in like this but it shows why archers etc are so vulnerable.

Cav impact obviously worked well for some time but the spear unit was developed to counter it. Faced with a wide spear line, Cav is left with nowhere it can make a real impression except out on the flanks where it meets... other cavalry. Depending on the relative qualities of Cav involved, most of its intended impact value has been evened out. Meanwhile, the infantry gets to take and hold ground as well as dictate where the Cav has to go, in order to be of any use.

Need I mention that pointy sticks (bayonet ends, to be precise) were still successfully baulking cavalry charges in the Napoleonic era?

If you've ever watched showjumping trials, you'll realise that, even now, a hedge or a few planks of wood at the wrong height will make a horse 'refuse' and even throw its rider.

By rights, frontal cav charge into spears ought to result in the Cav grinding to a halt, just short of being close enough to start fighting and thus lose no casuaties, thanks to equine common sense. Meleé should not start at all unless the spears actually advance by the few feet required to initiate contact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Advo-san

IMHO swords should always win. This is how I think of it.

---

A standard spear is of around 8-9 feet and be used in several ways: held near the spear butt and supported by the shield (when standing in a shieldwall) or near the middle in over or under arm position.

One nasty thing a spearmen can do it to hit the feet or lower legs of his opponent so although he is limited to stabbing only whereas a swordsman can make swings, the spearmen is not so limited as you might think.

A typical fighting stance for Hoplites was to hold the shield at an angle of about 45 degrees with the top shieldrim at his shoulder. That way his leg and foot was better covered from that threat.

The standard spear also means that there wont be any help from second rank as the spear is simply too short. That is something you will see from pikes only as they have the length to have multiple ranks with leveled pikes. The Macedonian style with first 5 ranks helping each other is a good example.

Except for the most poor soldiers who could only afford a spear and shield you will see most soldiers having a backup weapon so a swordsman would rarely face men armed with spears only. Even knights used their lances dismounted.

We have the advice a Danish knight gave to his son on what to do in different types of situations. One thing he says is that when standing in shieldwall one spear is better than two swords and that he should never throw his spear except if he has two spears.

IIRC the Swiss had swords as backup weapons and they were actually shortswords very much like a gladius. In desperate close in fighting even a longsword is too long. And then we have the sword and buckler men of the renaissance era (using long straight swords) that normally opererated on the flanks of the pikeblock.

That does suggest the close order fighting or shieldwall will give the spear some advantage. And perhaps a slight advantage to swords when fighting in a more loose formation.


CBR

Well, if you want to get some idea of sword fights, this essay has alot of info. While it focuses on Samurai vs Knight(fantasy battles oh my!), it has some interesting info.

http://www.thehaca.com/essays/knightvs.htm

Merged 2 threads into 1.

Thanks muchly, Mithrandir.


@ antisocialmunky,

Haven't checked that link yet but will do... as soon as I've recovered from today's MP session!

Learning curve gradient currently at about 1 in 7. ~;)