The Pushing Match

[jirisys]

This is total nonsense. Especially without a shield, a spear is a very versatile weapon (effectively being a staff with a blade).

If the other guy does not have a shield of course, but if he has a shield he just blocks the spear and walks in front of him with not much damage (unless the spearman is very skilled).

~Jirisys ()

[QuintusSertorius]

If the other guy does not have a shield of course, but if he has a shield he just blocks the spear and walks in front of him with not much damage (unless the spearman is very skilled).

~Jirisys ()

So he's going to constantly keep his shield in motion to protect his head and legs? A spear isn't just a point, it can be used to trip and entangle, push and batter.

[Arjos]

The shield wielding swordman will also get tired before the spearman...
Every weapon has its pros and cons, but to etiquette one "useless" is too extreme...
Anyway duels aren't the most important aspect...

[bobbin]

If the other guy does not have a shield of course, but if he has a shield he just blocks the spear and walks in front of him with not much damage (unless the spearman is very skilled).

~Jirisys ()

And the spearman would just stand there then? He wouldn't slam his sheild into the swordmans face or dodge out of the way?

[jirisys]

And the spearman would just stand there then? He wouldn't slam his sheild into the swordmans face or dodge out of the way?

I'm stating a simple example, of course he would do that. But I was just talking about the spear itself.

Also you could break it.

Point is, it is quite easy to move around a spear, not a spearman. And, that; sooner or later the spear will crack if your soldiers get stuck constantly. In the end. It is in fact possible, and very likely (that is, with many casualties) to pass a spearwall.

~Jirisys ()

[QuintusSertorius]

If spears were so useless in one-on-one fighting, there wouldn't be two major polearm-wielding gladiators (retarius, hoplomachus) in the standard line-up against all those swordsmen (samnite, murmillo, thracian, etc). Because a one-sided fight is boring, and once they got past the notion of gladiatorial matches being funeral games and into public entertainment, boring is not what people want to see.

[jirisys]

If spears were so useless in one-on-one fighting, there wouldn't be two major polearm-wielding gladiators (retarius, hoplomachus) in the standard line-up against all those swordsmen (samnite, murmillo, thracian, etc). Because a one-sided fight is boring, and once they got past the notion of gladiatorial matches being funeral games and into public entertainment, boring is not what people want to see.

I said spears, not spearmen. It makes a big difference a piece of wood with a blade and a person that can handle them.

~Jirisys ()

[bobbin]

Jirsys that argument doesn't make any sense, of course a spear is useless if you ignore the person holding it, but that would be true for any weapon.

[jirisys]

Jirsys that argument doesn't make any sense, of course a spear is useless if you ignore the person holding it, but that would be true for any weapon.

Drop it. Stomp on it. Put it in a blender. I don't know. Juts stop bringing that up.

~Jirisys ()

[saka-rauka1]

So he's going to constantly keep his shield in motion to protect his head and legs? A spear isn't just a point, it can be used to trip and entangle, push and batter.

Just bat it aside and charge. Unless its something other than a simple spear, you can only really do a few things with it: jab, obviously; throw it, if its balanced; slash across the neck, rare. Most of the time he will be moving back constantly and jabbing to keep the opponent at distance;throwing enters the equation if he has a sword or a different weapon that can be more wieldy in close combat. Slashing isn't gonna happen really, unless the difference in skill is extreme. Tripping won't occurr since you need a hook to perform a move like that. Battering with the haft will do minimal damage, being reduced to nothing if the target is at all armoured.

A spearman will tire a lot faster than a swordsman assuming equal fitness. A swordman doesn't need to move nearly as much. Also, as the two opponents become more armoured, the sword becomes more effective; the spearman tires sonner and his weapon is unable to penetrate really thick armour like full plate or a coat of plates. The sword can still dish out blunt force trauma effectively.

The shield wielding swordman will also get tired before the spearman...
Every weapon has its pros and cons, but to etiquette one "useless" is too extreme...
Anyway duels aren't the most important aspect...

The opposite actually, a spearman needs to keep moving or he's screwed.

If spears were so useless in one-on-one fighting, there wouldn't be two major polearm-wielding gladiators (retarius, hoplomachus) in the standard line-up against all those swordsmen (samnite, murmillo, thracian, etc). Because a one-sided fight is boring, and once they got past the notion of gladiatorial matches being funeral games and into public entertainment, boring is not what people want to see.

A retarius carries nets, which make all the difference. Can't speak for gladiatorial combat though, don't know very much about it.

Jirsys that argument doesn't make any sense, of course a spear is useless if you ignore the person holding it, but that would be true for any weapon.

It does have some merit. Some weapons are simply useless regardless of the man carrying it. Lances on foot, knives, a gladius on horseback. A spear outside of a shieldwall fast approaches uselessness. An extremely competant spearman may be able to gain an edge versus a somewhat skilled swordsman, but otherwise it's simply the wrong weapon.