Sword vs. Spear

[Red Harvest]

Nelson,

You've got me marked wrong. I've actually been a strong proponent of spear formations vs. swords in head-to-head. In the demo the phalangites were getting waxed in melee and the sword infantry pushed past the "spear wall" like it wasn't even there. Spear formations should suffer from disorder, terrain, and flanking/mobility issues. I'm not really in favor of the kind of rock-paper-scissors you seem to fear (cav/swords/spears). I see most counters as being fairly specific. But specific counters aren't really working that well. Mount effects and terrain effects are muted. Balance issues are numerous and in many instance turned on their ears (archers/slingers/peltasts.)

I've read some discussion and seen in melee a number of things that suggest the animations are indeed used for actual combat calcs in some fashion. Individual soldiers die rapidly when on the corner and the enemy raps around. Certainly angle of attack is important--flank/rear/shield. Some folks tested overhand spear thrusts for hoplites and saw much reduced melee kill rate vs. underhand, for the same stats. The conclusion they seemed to reach was that the head/shoulders was a smaller kill zone than the central mass stabbing action. This would make the animation central to combat calcs. Animations control movement speed and they control attack speed.

Unfortunately, I've not heard of any thread where CA really explained how the combat engine works. So for all of us out here trying to understand it, this is like the proverbial group of blind men touching different parts of a beast and trying to describe it.

[Paul Peru]

this is like the proverbial group of blind men touching different parts of a beast and trying to describe it.

I recently tried touching a few elephants again, and there were several dangly bits.

Other than that, I got myself a group of McPhalanx Pikemen, gave the comp 1 round shield cav, beefed up to cost 100d more than my unit, and tried different depths/ranks for my unit. Luckily the comp obligingly charged me from the front, or near enough for me to be able to realign.
Short story short: 4 ranks ruled. I only tried a couple of times, but the tendency was clear. At 4 ranks, my unit was wider than theirs, while I had enough depth to make sure the jumpers were surrounded. Was left with ~110 men, while default and 3 ranks both yeilded 92-96 survivors. At least the phalanx proved itself able to withstand a frontal charge from light cavalry
This was all vanilla, apart from added ^^^ +W+S for the RSC, btw.

[Puzz3D]

Back to the topic - no, swordsmen should not have any bonuses vs spearmen - a group of swordsmen charging a disciplined phalanx from the front should get murdered - especially in the initial contact of the charge, after that, gaps may well appear in the phalanx spearpoint formation that can be exploited, as pikes get embedded in shields/bodies etc...

The advantage of sword-armed troops on the battlefield should be more related to their vastly increased manouverability, (speed of movement and turning) - allowing them to exploit gaps and flanks more quickly, and increased kill rates when they get close and personal (as opposed to the slow grinding of phalanxes). I always thought that the paper(swords)-rock (spears) part of MTW (specifically) was a bit silly and egged on by peoples' love affair with swords and with images of broad-sword wielding conan's smiting all before them (I smite thee with my F'ing big broad sword!)

Well, you have Creativew Assembly to convince. Remember this thread? https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...4&page=1&pp=10
Longjohn saw that thread, and next thing you know swords got a hidden attack bonus vs spears. LongJohn even posted to that thread announcing the bonus. Apparently, CA thinks swords are supposed to beat spears in frontal assault. That idea goes back to the original STW game where no-dachi and warrior monks beat yari samurai. At least the ND and WM base cost was higher than the YS. The entire rock, paper, scissors in STW is established with the single bonus of spear vs cav. There are no other bonuses due to unit type, and the game plays fine. Problems arise in multiplayer with playbalance and RPS because CA insists on bringing the upgrade system into multiplayer.

[Simetrical]

Why should sword armed troops get any bonus at all against spear armed troops?

In up-close-and-personal combat, the length of spears is a large disadvantage. They're rather cumbersome, so it's harder to get past the enemy's defenses. This is why most (although not all) historical spear troops had a secondary weapon for use if the enemy closed in. If the swordsman can be kept at spear's length, however, the spearman obviously has the advantage—the swordsman can't hurt the spearman from that distance. Thus, a frontal attack by swordsmen on a spear phalanx should usually fail miserably. Once the swordsmen close, however, the spearmen will have to switch weapons.

What I want to know is, why are spears more effective against cavalry? Is it because horses have more trouble maneuvering around the spear, so the rider can be kept at a distance?

-Simetrical

[Red Harvest]

What I want to know is, why are spears more effective against cavalry? Is it because horses have more trouble maneuvering around the spear, so the rider can be kept at a distance?

Formation and stand off distance. A horse can barge into swordsmen and push them aside with its mass, because they can't really threaten it until the horse is in contact with them. For the spear a horse is a large target, and is held back from the formation. If it charges in frontally it will be impaled, probably by multiple spears. Even 1 vs. 1, the spear would be a better choice vs. a mounted man. It can be used to keep the horseman at the end of his weapon's reach, and to keep the horse at bay. A swordsman by contrast would be quite vulnerable to a lance that could strike him down without ever closing into sword range.

That's my take on it.

[Watchman]

That, and spearmen can fight effectively in denser formations. Swords need a bit of "elbow room" to be swung, spears a lot less. And the rear ranks can reach past the front ranks. This creates a nice, immobile hedge of spear-points for the cavalrýman to impale himself and/or his mount.

Spears (and pikes, for that matter) can also be "braced" to receive the charge. This is usually done by placing the butt-end on the ground and standing on it with one leg, holding the point at suitable height to impale the mount or the rider (usually the former). The impact power is about the same, or greater, than what the horseman could get with a couched lance...

For a neat demonstration on how spears work against cavalry, I'd suggest watching Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai (not that it weren't a good movie to see in any case). A handful of footmen poking and shoving with long pointy things keeps horsemen - and, for that matter, footmen, although those are more agile - at bay quite well. Even if they don't penetrate armor or cause notable wounds to the horse, the sheer physical presence of the spears is an obstacle to the foeman and prevents him from easily closing in past them.

AFAIK spears work right fine in mano y mano fights too; in trained hands they're not half as clumsy as one might initially assume, even if used one-handed (so far as I know the fancy moves Achilleus and Hector pull with theirs in Troy aren't particularly "cinematical").

[Ptah]

That, and spearmen can fight effectively in denser formations. Swords need a bit of "elbow room" to be swung, spears a lot less. And the rear ranks can reach past the front ranks. This creates a nice, immobile hedge of spear-points for the cavalrýman to impale himself and/or his mount.

Depends. If a foreign object manages to penetrate the ranks of spears from bypassing the spearpoints and entering from some other direction, then the dense formation will work against them, because spears are much more difficult to redeploy inside the formation. Imagine trying to swing a broom inside a crowded bus or subway cars - exactly the same thing.

AFAIK spears work right fine in mano y mano fights too; in trained hands they're not half as clumsy as one might initially assume, even if used one-handed (so far as I know the fancy moves Achilleus and Hector pull with theirs in Troy aren't particularly "cinematical").

Not clumsy at all. In reality, spears and polearms are vastly superior to swords even in 1vs1 combat. When two people of same skill level meet, the one trained in kendo(swordsmanship) will be smacked around senselessly by another trained in spears or nahinata(Japanese polearm). I've seen videos of Japanese kendo champions beaten senselessly by highschool girls practicing spears or naginata.

Some people think evading the spear-point and closing in will ensure victory for the sword, but in reality this is incredibly difficult and scary. The longer your weapon is, usually the higher your chance of victory.

[Khorak]

Not clumsy at all. In reality, spears and polearms are vastly superior to swords even in 1vs1 combat. When two people of same skill level meet, the one trained in kendo(swordsmanship) will be smacked around senselessly by another trained in spears or nahinata(Japanese polearm). I've seen videos of Japanese kendo champions beaten senselessly by highschool girls practicing spears or naginata.

Some people think evading the spear-point and closing in will ensure victory for the sword, but in reality this is incredibly difficult and scary. The longer your weapon is, usually the higher your chance of victory.

Vastly superior? I think not. Different yes, vastly superior, no. A spear has a single killing point. Miss, or the swordsman has a shield with which to simply knock your blow aside to move inside your guard, and you're up shit creek with nary a paddle in sight. I wouldn't favour a spear against a well armoured bloke in straight 1vs1 either, because your single killing point suddenly has a great deal fewer places in which to actually kill.
I mean, way to go with the cherry picking of examples there. Lets put a completely unarmoured swordsman up against a spearman, in a situation fully favouring the spearman (plenty of room to move and keep the swordsman at the end of the spear, with no shield and no armour with which to close the distance and utilise the vastly superior versatility of the sword). Not to mention the ritualised and codified forms of Eastern combat tend to have an unhealthy disdain for the idea of smashing the spear aside with your sword and holding it so they can't pull it back in time, stepping in, punching the spearman square in the face and then gutting him like a dog.

Spears are a great formation weapon, and easily utilised with little training. Their length allows an amateur a bit of a chance to defend himself and works psychologically to provide courage...a battlefield newbie is going to be happier knowing all his fighting should happen a couple meters away at the end of his pointy stick. In formation, tightly packed with all the guys behind as well viciously stabbing forward to splat anything trying to get close...spears are great. But you're backing a losing horse if you're trying to use a spear for 'standard' melee combat.

[Kraxis]

How can you both have a shield and sword and at the same time grab the spear? And trust me eastern troops did what they could to survive. They wouldn't just accept that they would be impaled in spearpoints. They would swirl and deflect to get within the spear (I take it you mean Japanese samurai when you say easterners, and in that case the weapon would be the long yari). But in that case grabbing the spear won't help you much as the spearman holds it with two hands and you only hold it with one. Who do you think is stronger and can control the next round of action? Also the yari was also used for slashing and grappling (ever wondered what those cross points were for?).
The yari was considered a prime 1v1 weapon by the swordloving Japanese. That says more than just a bit.

If both spearman and swordsman are armoured (now we are back to a more generic situation) the spearman still gets the advantage as his weapon has a smaller frontage, thus is more likely to punch through the armour, while the sword if it is used to cut and slash is likely to 'only' cause nasty bruises. Thus the swordsman has to play the spearman's game with an inferior weapon. And why can't the spearman have a shield as well that he can use to bash the swordsman around with?
Say the swordsman knocks the spear out of the way by swinging the shield out to the side and steps forwards. At that very moment he is very vulnerable to a shieldbash from the spearman, which would send him reeling back or sprawling on the ground. Two situations he most certainly wouldn't like.
Use the sword instead to deflect the spear and he loses his aggresive advantage and the spearman can recover and grip the spear in a fashion that gives him better close quarter control (gripping higher up the shaft). He could even swing around the butt and strike with it at the legs. Even if that not likely to cayse much damage it would be quite disruptive.

[Khorak]

By holding it I meant keeping the sword pushing the spear to the side, it means a far larger and longer movement for him to pull it back in order to retaliate. And since he has both hands on his weapon, he is now effectively defenceless. This is something you'll do when you just have a sword, with a shield its just hilariously easy to push through a single spear, something I've not only seen done but done myself (well, halberd in my case, he didn't seem to realise the blade is there for a reason though), and using the speed of your sword to negate the spear for a moment does not lose you the aggressive advantage, because as I said, the spearman is now open to anything you wish to do to him with your spare hand. Be that punching, kicking, pushing, etc. I pointed this out with the Eastern styles you used as an example, they are simply not the same kind of total bastard brutal tactics I'm going to use when ditching a spearman. And the Japanese were not quite so swordloving. The Samurai put a lot of stock in their swords, and invested them with a 'spirit' and other such things, but they would always have their hands on a bow or a polearm before having to resort to pure swordwork.

In armour, yes the spear has a smaller frontage, and it also requires a VERY direct hit, as that point with no kind of edge like a sword can and will glance off of armour and slide across it. Not only does the wielder require more force behind his blow, he now has even fewer options against a more agile opponent who can move with the blow for only glancing hits. Give the spearman a shield and he has even less agility. The sheer length of the spear works against him as he tries to control it with one hand, and the swordsman is not very inconvenienced because a spear in one hand cannot be pulled back to a more useful grip once the swordsman is within his guard (even easier of course, because of the one handed lack of agility and speed), so the spearman is now essentially one armed and has a shield for offensive weaponry.

A spear of any significant length is just plain and simple too unwieldy. A short spear just doesn't offer the same versatility as a sword.

[Ptah]

Khorak, three words:

"Try it yourself"

In the far east where I live, there is a saying, that goes "the spear is the king of all weaponery". Push a spear aside with a shield? That sounds really easy, right?

Wrong. When I was learning kendo, the students would use to have mock duels all the time(which by the way, was forbidden...so we had to do it when the teacher was not around) with one person with a short wooden sword the size of a wakizashi, and the other guy with a plain wooden sword the size of a katana. The difference between the length of these swords are merely about the size of two palms spread apart, and yet "blocking the initial blow" and then "closing in the distance for a stab" was something even a well-trained student could never do.

Things got even worse when the opposition held a broomstick in his hand to simulate a 'spear'. Block a spearhead? Push aside a spear? You wish. As much as you can cast the spear aside with a blow of a sword, the opponent quickly pushes it back - stabbing with the head is only a small part of spear mastery. These guys can hit you senseless just with sides of the spears and that would knock a man out.

The saying would go, "you need to be 3 dans superior to beat a man with a sword barehanded, and 3 dans superior to beat a spear with a sword" The Roman 'standard' method of shield block, step ahead, stab abdomen is in reality an incredible testament of veterancy the soldiers were in, because anyone with even a simple practice in the real thing knows that its a really, really difficult thing to do.

[Kraxis]

Just want to point out I only used the eastern example in the first part of my argument. The second part is of a more general way.

To say that a spear needs more force to penetrate armour than a sword is about the most wrong statement ever. To penetrate the same armour who do you think will need the most force, a small chiselpoint or a long edged surface? Simple physics will always end up with the opposite result of you. Why do you think the medieval warriors carried a dagger around? It wasn't really a weapon you could use in a straight up fight, so it wasn't there as a backup. It was used to dispatch downed armoured enemies. Mailed opponents with a thrust to the heart and plated opponents with a strike at the armpit or throat (which were still armoured with mail).
If we are talking about a plated warrior scenario then the spear is not great, granted, but then the sword isn't of much use either unless you intend to stab the spearman, and then we are back to the issue of which weapon is better at that.

A spear need not be 4 meters long, a mere 2.5 meters is enough when the spearman has a shield. He will be attacking from varying angles, be it from above or below or even the sides. He won't have the perfect control of the twohanded style but he will have speed and versatility, and he most certainly can attack if you close in on him, his attacks would be down at your back and legs from above while you try and get around his shield. So of course attacking his speararm would be nice, but by doing that you grant him the respite to change his grip and attackstyle.
As said before, the Hector/Achilleus fight isn't that far off the mark (if you exclude all the jumping and odd behind the back active wielding).

And the bows of Japan were very much antiquated by the time of the Sengoku Jidai where the sword rose to its prominence (it was revered before but only as an equal of the bow). The Naginata was indeed a serious weapon as it was more or less a sword on a staff granting both length and freedom at the same time as well as the defensive strength of the staff itself. But it wasn't the Naginata that got the loving attention of the whole society.

[Centurion Simmo]

The Roman 'standard' method of shield block, step ahead, stab abdomen is in reality an incredible testament of veterancy the soldiers.

More a testament to the size of the shield they used I’d say, blocking with one of them is a simple as keeping it between you and the business end of the spear - this isn’t that hard in a big formation.

Still I'd vote for spear, there is just no substitution for reach in a fight!

[The_Emperor]

More a testament to the size of the shield they used I’d say, blocking with one of them is a simple as keeping it between you and the business end of the spear - this isn’t that hard in a big formation.

Still I'd vote for spear, there is just no substitution for reach in a fight!

I'd just like to add though that for the most part the Romans did not limit their shields to being used for blocking... Offensive shield-bashing was a regular tactic for the Romans, forget parry, dodge, spin and all that nonsense... With the Romans it is more like bash, stab & crush!

Reach is good, but as we can see by looking at the Hoplites, once the fight gets very up-close in a tight space you are best switching to a short sword. The length of the spear could work against you in some situations.

[BDC]

Can you imagine the moments on a pike with a heavy spearhead? Could really do you some damage...

[Watchman]

If someone gets inside the spearman formation, they're well advised to straight out forget their spears and go for their backup weapons posthaste. It might not be enough, but even a knife is better than a lenght of wood you can at best ineffectually club the other guy with...

As for "sword vs. polearm" combat, I'd suggest not looking too closely at what most modern practicioners get as results (particularly any is Japanese styles ending with -do; that signifies literally "sport" or "art", and they're to real combat training about what Olympic fencing is to Renaissance rapier combat...). Look at what history says instead.

What it says is that in one-to-one it's all really up to the individuals concerned, insofar as one doesn't possess sunbstantial superiority in equipement (particularly in armor). In mass combat the exact choice of weapons is generally not as important as the discipline, cohesion and teamwork of the groups using them, although there are exceptions.

However, even groups and peoples famed for their skill with other weapons - axes, swords, whatever - more often than not preferred to take a spear along as the initial weapon for combat. The long reach, fair armor-piercing ability and excellent killing power (it's pretty much the same if it's an arrow, spear or sword that goes through you; odds are all of them take you out of combat, piercing wounds are deadly...) combined with low cost and easy handling - AFAIK the easiest in comparision to reach and power of all melee weapons ever - make it a very attractive choice.

(As for armor penetration, it's easier to punch through things with a narrow point than to cut through them with a wide cutting surface; this maxim of concentrating force behind a point can be witnessed even in the kinetic-penetrator munitions of modern tank guns.)

For infantrymen they're good at keeping cavalrymen (and enemy in general) at an arm's lenght, and for cavalrymen they provide a means of reaching well past the horse's head, the ability to concentrate the momentum of the charge behind a single killing point (doable both one- and two-handed, with or without stirrups) and the ability to at least partially counter the reach advantage infantry get from theirs.

Frankly, the only kinds of troops that did not commonly make use of spears were those that needed their hands for other things, like missile weapons, for whom hauling around over two meters of wood would have been highly inconvenient, or who had less rational reasons influencing their choices of armament (such as "looking good").

Spears and knives are just about the first weapons humans manufactured; and of all the melee weapons developed over many millenia, they're the only ones modern gun-toting armies commonly retain "just to be sure" in the form of the bayonet. That ought to be saying something.

[Simetrical]

In reality, spears and polearms are vastly superior to swords even in 1vs1 combat.

Then why did so many spear-armed soldiers carry swords for backup?

When I was learning kendo, the students would use to have mock duels all the time . . . Things got even worse when the opposition held a broomstick in his hand to simulate a 'spear'. Block a spearhead? Push aside a spear? You wish. As much as you can cast the spear aside with a blow of a sword, the opponent quickly pushes it back - stabbing with the head is only a small part of spear mastery.

If I understand correctly, kendo doesn't involve a shield, which would doubtless be a great help. Furthermore, by all accounts, sword-fighting takes much more skill than spear-fighting. Finally, kendo trains you only to fight against other kendo practitioners, doesn't it? You weren't trained on how to counter spears, and neither was that kendo champion beat by a schoolgirl.

These guys can hit you senseless just with sides of the spears and that would knock a man out.

Not if you're wearing proper metal armor and padding.

-Simetrical

[Kraxis]

Then why did so many spear-armed soldiers carry swords for backup?

Because it is the perfect backup weapon. It is easily carried (try carrying an extra spear or halbard and you will understand) and it grants you the ability fight in conditions where a bigger weapon can't be used (imagine taking your halbard into the small hallways of a castle). But axes were also popular secondary weapons, depending on culture (which adds a bit to the point that swords were perhaps also chosen out of cultural preferances).

If I understand correctly, kendo doesn't involve a shield, which would doubtless be a great help. Furthermore, by all accounts, sword-fighting takes much more skill than spear-fighting. Finally, kendo trains you only to fight against other kendo practitioners, doesn't it? You weren't trained on how to counter spears, and neither was that kendo champion beat by a schoolgirl.

Indeed -do is sports, but -jutsu is the actual thing (based on the real manuals and old master to student way of learning). So if anyone have any real experience in that department then we might get a good reference.
But while the kendo people weren't trianed in fighting spearfighters, the opposite is true as well. They wouldn't be trained in deflecting a swordstrike that is feinted. So both parties would fight an opponent they wouldn't know how to fight really, but their training would certainly give them the ability to use their equipment quite well. So such a matchup wouldn't be too far from a matchup between two unproven warriors on a battlefield.
That spearfighting requires less skill than swordfighting only adds to the argument that spears are better/equal to swords.

Not if you're wearing proper metal armor and padding.

-Simetrical

Since you actually wear a metal helmet with good padding in kendo, does indicate that those spearshafts can hit very hard. The difference wouldn't be that big from a real fight. I don't hope that you thought kendo was done unarmoured... Those bokkens can break your skull and bones easily, in fact Miyamoto Musashi's most famous victory was made with a bokkenstrike to the head of his opponent. Dead on impact.

[Khorak]

Khorak, three words:

"Try it yourself"

I have, which is why I rate a spear lower than a sword in a one-on-one situation. You have to be a very good shot to fatally hit a dodging, armoured man who is only concerned with you when you're using a spear.

As I have been saying, a spear makes for an excellent battlefield formation weapon. A guy isn't likely to move out the way of your attack when all his sword armed mates are in the way, it allows you a far superior chance against cavalry, and stuff like the phalanx shows that with proper drill and training you can do some horrible things with it. It's a good primary weapon for all such reasons and I'd take one onto the field myself. But I harbour no delusions of thinking that if I end up playing a personal game of tag with a man-at-arms I'm going to have anything but a bad time of it.

As for the 'difficult to penetrate armour' comment, I was assuming that the guy taking the spear hit knows what he's doing. Move with the hit so a penetrating blow becomes a glancing one. Armour isn't supposed to simply be a case of standing there and laughing as your enemies weapons bounce straight off of you, you should still be working to protect yourself, if not, don't harbour aspirations of surviving the fight or climb into a tank. A spear is a very specific, and much more predictable weapon what with having a single killing point.

[Watchman]

A spear is a very specific, and much more predictable weapon what with having a single killing point.

...and this differs from a sword thrust exactly how...? Remember, especially against armor thrusts tend to be the more lethal attacks. Depends on the blade, naturally - "slashers" like scimitars and katanas and other sabers by all accounts aren't at their best for that stuff.

But then, by all accounts they're none too hot against good armor in general. Around the Crusades Turkish nomads often carried two swords - their trusty saber, and a straight thrusting sword for dealing with armor. Armored samurai usually had to go for each others' joints, and references to High Medieval training manuals I've seen suggest using the edge of the sword mainly to set up an armored opponent for a killing thrust.

Incidentally, don't underestimate the versatility of spears. Many spearheads are quite long - easily as long as a man's forearm, more like short swords stuck atop a shaft. They could slash quite well if needed.

[KyodaiSteeleye]

Khorak - I tend to agree with the others on this. I think that the perceptions people have of spears as second-rate weapons is borne out of hollywood, but also the fact that spears are cheap weapons. Therefore you can equip many men, with limited training with a spear and shield for not much. Therefore, on a lot of battlefields (medieval period i'm thinking) your spear armed troops are also your worst-trained troops, with the least motivation - and the only way to make them half effective is to give them some drilling in formation fighting. However, your sword-armed troops are generally your wealthy, armoured elite, who have been trained in using it effectively since an early age.

John Clements is one of the world's leading authorities on use of medieval weaponry. This is what he has to say on long-sword vs. pole arm combat in his book 'Medieval swordsmanship' :-

'the 'fight' of the pole-arm against the single sword is very probably the most challenging that any swordsman can face. Even in the hands of a novice such weapons can have tremendous advantage in reach and can be very quick.' and '....the brutal speed of a pole-arms thrust and its formidable ability to feint and disengage are often under-estimated'.

He gives various techniques for engaging the spear, grapples etc... - but a large slice of what it comes down to at the end of the day with any weapon is the skill of person wielding it vs the person opposing it. Two opponents, one sword-armed, one spear armed, equal ability, room to manouver, i'm going with the spear.

[Simetrical]

But while the kendo people weren't trianed in fighting spearfighters, the opposite is true as well. They wouldn't be trained in deflecting a swordstrike that is feinted. So both parties would fight an opponent they wouldn't know how to fight really . . .

No, because actual warriors were trained to fight against various types of weapons. An actual spearman would've been trained to fight against swordsmen, and vice versa. Unskilled vs. unskilled is not the same.

That spearfighting requires less skill than swordfighting only adds to the argument that spears are better/equal to swords.

You neglect the possibility that while an unskilled spearman might be able to beat an unskilled swordsman every time, a skilled swordsman might be able to beat a skilled spearman handily. I'm not saying that this is the case, but it seems possible to me.

Since you actually wear a metal helmet with good padding in kendo, does indicate that those spearshafts can hit very hard. The difference wouldn't be that big from a real fight.

I'll concede that that might be possible. It seems unlikely that a helmet would provide such poor protection that you can actually be knocked out just by being hit by a stick, but I'm not what you might call an expert on the matter.

I think that the perceptions people have of spears as second-rate weapons . . .

Hold on. Nobody said that spears are second-rate weapons, just different. For some uses they're clearly very effective; the question is only one-on-one battles, which hardly constitute the alpha and omega of a weapon's usefulness.

John Clements is one of the world's leading authorities on use of medieval weaponry. This is what he has to say on long-sword vs. pole arm combat in his book 'Medieval swordsmanship' . . .

I don't have the book, so—no offense—for all I know that may be taken out of context. I would be interested in hearing the opinions of people who have fought a great deal with spears against swords or vice versa, perhaps in the SCA or LARP. Watchman may have been trained in kendo, but that doesn't prepare you to fight spears, and the equipment used is also very different from ancient European equipment. Khorak says he's fought against spears, but he doesn't say how extensive and varied his experience in sword-fighting is.

I believe the SCA has martial competitions of some sort, to determine who gets to be king or something? Perhaps an SCA monarch or former monarch would be a good person to ask, as one who's clearly an expert fighter. I'm pretty sure you're allowed to use a polearm in SCA fights.

-Simetrical

[Kraxis]

No, because actual warriors were trained to fight against various types of weapons. An actual spearman would've been trained to fight against swordsmen, and vice versa. Unskilled vs. unskilled is not the same.

I think you are overrating the warriors here. Most warriors were not all that welltrained. Of course they would have trained with each other, but like it is now soldiers have a tendency to goof off when they can, even if it cuts into their ability to survive a battle. Strange huh...
But the case presented was two oponents with skills with their weapons, just not trianed skills against the particular enemy, meaning an equal standing. Both parties would have to adapt and be inventive to win, and I don't expect the spearmen to be inherently more adaptable or more inventive. But I do expect the two foes to know the limits of their weapons as well as their capabilities, thus making the fight rather acceptable to us.

You neglect the possibility that while an unskilled spearman might be able to beat an unskilled swordsman every time, a skilled swordsman might be able to beat a skilled spearman handily. I'm not saying that this is the case, but it seems possible to me.

Indeed he could do that. I'm not so much for spear superiority as I'm against sword superiority. I rather think that while the novices will go to the spear that the experts will end up tied.
We must remember that even individual fights were not as aggresive as we sometimes believe they were. The two warriors would mostly just sit behind their weapons or shields waiting for an opening (going at it in Hollywood style would tire out the two fighters far too fast), and the slower the fight the more I tend to believe the spearman will win.

I'll concede that that might be possible. It seems unlikely that a helmet would provide such poor protection that you can actually be knocked out just by being hit by a stick, but I'm not what you might call an expert on the matter.

A helmet saves your life, but it can't save you from getting dazed and confused everytime an enemy strikes you on it, nor remove any pain such a bang on the head might induce. Ever tried the childrens game of putting a metal bin over the head of one person and then bang it real hard? The poor fellow (well not so poor since they go willingly) is completely off his feet afterwards. Not a perfect example but the physics involved are much the same.

[Watchman]

I've never even seen kendo IRL. Though I did a little bit of training with late-medieval longswords (aka "bastard swords"), based on contemporary teachings, a while back. And I've been taught to do fancy things with a staff.

By what little that's worth, and based on everything I've read and heard on the topic, I'd say there's no hard and fast "which is better" division as far as weapons go; different weapons and different ways of using them suit different people and different situations, and when two people fight their choice of weapons is largely secondary to their ability to wield them (with the ever-present caveats regarding armor).

However, it would seem to me that a spear, or similar light and agile polearm (the difference between a more sophisticated fighting-spear and a light halberd/glaive/whatever is often rather fuzzy), wielded with comparatively equivalent skill, has to be among the more difficult weapons for a swordsman to face. Unless one goes to the huge greatswords of Renaissance, approaching two meters in lenght, the advantage in reach is almost certainly on the spearman. Regardless of the sword, a well-made spear or polearm is at least its equivalent in killing power, although many of them can't chop off limbs quite nearly as well.

And everything I've been told and taught, be it by a fencing instructor, a written tratise on such subjects, or an unarmed-combat teacher, tells me the control of distance is very very important in combat.

Quite simply, if the spearman knows his stuff the swordsman is going to have some difficulty even getting his weapon into effective range. As a tactical situation this isn't overly different from facing a sword with a dagger or a rapier with a shortsword, or a rather longer-armed fellow in the boxing ring - rather uncomfortable...

May I make a suggestion ? People truly interested in the issue should, instead of debating conjecturals with only laymen's knowledge on the topic (as we all have), go ask people who actually study this sort of thing in practice. I'd guess the folks at ARMA could be helpful.

[Sinner]

Adding another layman observation: using a spear two-handed gives you all the flexibility of a quarterstaff with the added bonus of a sharp pointy bit. Held in both hands, your swordsman opponent needs to worry about two weapons in effect, since you can attack with either end, aiming to cut/stab with one or club with the other.

[KyodaiSteeleye]

plus that the spearman probably does have a 'side-arm', such as a falchion or sword that he can draw should he not have room to use his pole-arm adequately or the swordsman cut inside his spear's 'kill zone'.

Watchman - agreed, none of us are experienced with hand to hand weapons of the period, so all of what we say is opinion, some of it based on conjecture.

Its still quite fun to have those sorts of conversations though...

[Centurion Simmo]

You have to be a very good shot to fatally hit a dodging, armoured man who is only concerned with you when you're using a spear.

Yes and no, you have to be very good to kill someone in one stab yes but then killing isn’t what your aiming for in a fight

Sound odd?

Well think disable, you miss with the thrust of your spear then whip it away and crack your friendly sword wielder in the legs. Watch as he tumbles about at your feet, swing spear around and stab while on floor.

To be fair spears are a real pain to deal with but yes it can be done, the Scot Highlanders were still fighting with broadsword & buckler when we English were filling them with lead - they were very skilled at deflecting the bayonet and finishing the soldier behind it, but this was more due to the way the Redcoats fought than any failure of their weapon. After the English army changed bayonet tactics the Scots were decimated.

So I would say in battle conditions it depends on training and discipline and an understanding of your enemy - which is what the legions had in abundance and their common foes lacked.

[Watchman]

The issue wasn't really the skill of the British troops - the rank and file of the mass armies always tended to be pretty crappily trained, but they could still roll over much more skilled enemies - but the beyonets themselves; namely, if it's the battle I'm thinking about, the Brits were still using plug bayonets.

Those are essentially knives or short swords unceremoniously plugged into the barrel by their hilt; the deficencies should be rather readily apparent. Socket bayonets, attached to the outside of the barrel by something more than just friction, were a considerable improvement.

Having watched their troopers' asses get kicked by the Scots in hand-to-hand was what prompted the British army brass to upgrade equipement to socket bayonets soon after the incident.

[The Stranger]

In the real world, horsies can't (or won't) jump over spearpoints when charging the front of a phalanx...

yes a horse isnt a cow that will run over everything in its way
i wont trample a living creature thats also wy they call it a noble animal

[Baiae]

The issue wasn't really the skill of the British troops - the rank and file of the mass armies always tended to be pretty crappily trained, but they could still roll over much more skilled enemies - but the beyonets themselves; namely, if it's the battle I'm thinking about, the Brits were still using plug bayonets.

Yes and no. By the time of the '45 the British armies were using socket bayonets and still didn't achieve a decisive victory until Culloden, where they used the infmaous and highly debated 'strike right' tactic, although the socket bayonet was much more effective than it's predecessor.

I don't really think the highland/redcoat analogy is useful, after all even a hoplite's spear was much longer than a rifle with a bayonet, to say nothing of phalangites.