The Pushing Match

**saka-rauka1** · 04-10-2011, 21:27

Hoplite spearheads were not designed to penetrate armour, they had a wide leaf shape which was perfect for cutting into flesh but would have been fairly useless against metal armour. They did have a buttspike that was designed to do that but it has been theorised that was more for finishing off enemies who had already fallen. For close quarters there was the Kopis, which was specially meant to pierce armour.

Actually I think you're right. I remembered a medieval weapon that was essential a spike that was perfect for getting through armour. It featured a rectangular cross-section though, lacking the means to cut a foe.

As for the kopis, how was it designed to defeat armour? I have read of it being a short, curved blade. Seems poorly suited from that description.

I think it was more for "killing people at a distance".

I could move past a spear by just parrying it to my side. In combat, possibly 4 people in my line would have died trying it, the 5th would have gone hand to hand with the spearmen.

The hoplite shield wall was different, since you couldn't get past the spears because they were so close to the men.

You definately could against 1 person; which is why I suggested that in a duel, a spear is useless. But a line of spearmen can make it much harder. The guy in front of you is easy to parry, the guy two to your left, significantly less so.

why would the main fighting unit of this age/area only be about 'keeping them away from eachother', rather than being able to kill eachother from farther away?

To kill someone at a specified distance, you have to keep them there no?

I don't know what depiction you are referring to

Spear held upright, with the point facing straight up. Very natural with underarm, completely unfeasible with overarm.

**jirisys** · 04-10-2011, 22:52

Originally Posted by saka-rauka1

As for the kopis, how was it designed to defeat armour? I have read of it being a short, curved blade. Seems poorly suited from that description.

Short, thin and curved are great against armour, because you don't have to move as much mass away like you would with a large, broad and straight sword.

You definately could against 1 person; which is why I suggested that in a duel, a spear is useless. But a line of spearmen can make it much harder. The guy in front of you is easy to parry, the guy two to your left, significantly less so.

That's what I said

To kill someone at a specified distance, you have to keep them there no?

No, that's dumb. That's like saying in order to kill someonw with a bow he has to be at a distance, when in fact he could be distracted and you land an arrow to his neck. If you want to kill people at a distance, you just have to make sure they get to the minimum distance for you to kill them, if they get near, well, you grab your sword and slash his neck. Because he was a brave fool. Even a a sword has a distance. Unless you stab him with your hand inside his body.

Spear held upright, with the point facing straight up. Very natural with underarm, completely unfeasible with overarm.

I recommend you bend your elbows, I can do that without any trouble; I can even reach 135 degrees with overarm.

~Jirisys ()

**QuintusSertorius** · 04-11-2011, 14:32

Originally Posted by saka-rauka1

You definately could against 1 person; which is why I suggested that in a duel, a spear is useless.

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

**jirisys** · 04-11-2011, 14:55

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

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** · 04-11-2011, 15:08

Originally Posted by jirisys

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** · 04-11-2011, 15:48

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** · 04-11-2011, 16:32

Originally Posted by jirisys

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** · 04-11-2011, 19:48

Originally Posted by bobbin

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** · 04-11-2011, 23:16

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** · 04-11-2011, 23:29

Originally Posted by 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.

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 ()