Swordsmen vs Spearmen

[Kyniklos]

Well, from where I know, the main diferences are economic and strategic.

The economic diferences are:

-Spears are cheaper to produce and maintain (less iron, the shaft can be replaced easly)

-Spearmen are easier to train, hold the pointy end aiming to the bad guys and poke when you find an open spot, and preety much it. While swordsmen need more than that, since they have more striking options.

The strategic diferences are:

-The spear is the best weapon when you have big numbers, like Quintus said, since the guys on the second and third row now become a threat. (this is why they counter cavalry, a horse ocupys more space, increasing the number of enemies per soldier even more).

-This, however, requires a well coordinated formation since individualy they lack the striking options that a slashing weapon would, wich makes them rather predictable and easily beaten.

-Thus, this means that swordsmen have the versatility to remain efective in not so coordinated formations. And when this formations take place? After charging. Swordsmen have much more freedom when performing a charge than Spearmen would. And since individualy can fend off better, this makes disengages also less risky.

-Its easier for swordsmen to carry more/heavier javelins since they can hang their weapon in their belts. Spearmen cant afford this luxury.

So, as a conclusion. In practice, Spearmen are the less mobile, denser troops that are more capable of holding the line defensively. They cant charge, nor retreat, only hold the line and advance slowly. On the other hand, Swordsmen act as shock infantry, not needing to keep a perfect formation, runnin to specific points of the battle to deliver a solid punch to the enemy flank and pulling back before they turn their spears on them, leaving a serious dent.

[Ludens]

-This, however, requires a well coordinated formation since individualy they lack the striking options that a slashing weapon would, wich makes them rather predictable and easily beaten.

I just want to point out that the sword-beat-spear principle is more a game-balance convention than a historical fact. Yes, the spearpoint can be batted away, but that is only easy if the spearman is an idiot who holds his spear completely still. Even a half-trained spearman will be constantly moving the point (and himself, if he has the space) in order to prevent that from happening. And a spear has one major advantage over the sword: reach. While attempting to bypass the spearpoint, the swordsman will be within killing range while the spearman is still outside of it.

It's definitely true that the sword is the more flexible weapon, though.

[Vilkku92]

Not that you'd need to choose one over the other, a spearman could always wear a sword at his side.

[Kyniklos]

Not that you'd need to choose one over the other, a spearman could always wear a sword at his side.

True but imagine that you have a 2 vs 2 fight. Who wins? A spearman and a swordsman VS a spearman with a sword on his belt and an unarmed guy?

Since weapons and manpower are the most valuable things to have in your army, you would like to get the most out of them by making each man exelling at the use of a specific weapon. Im not saying that the nobles who could afford to have this luxury didnt do this, but it was rather odd for a common soldier to purchase two very expensive weapons (specially a sword) only for using one. Specially when 90% of your men are common folk who got levied and need to fight ASAP, so there is no point in training a man in more than one melee weapon. As an army, you can have a spearman and a swordsman and have the best of the both worlds.