Swordsmen and spears are way so different.

**Weebeast** · 11-20-2005, 18:26

Ok spears are longer than swords obviously but why is there such a big difference? Spears can rout a cavalry but not swordsmen? Both of them have shields so that should block lances.

**Mithrandir** · 11-20-2005, 18:35

Because horses can't block spears, swordsmen with shields can.

or something like that :)

**Knight Templar** · 11-20-2005, 19:17

Try to find EYG's topic "weapon length" or sth like that, there was a discussion why should spears always defeat cav

**miho** · 11-20-2005, 19:37

Spears are way longer than swords and therefore spearmen can easily reach a man on a horse. Imagine that you are a CMAA and you have a 5 kilos heavy sword. It isn't easy to lift it up 2 meters high (thats probably height of a man riding a horse). While if you have 3 meters long spear it's easier to attack a horseman. And the main advantage of horsemen is speed. Swordsmen don't have the time to lift their swords while spearmen just lift their spears and wait for the cavalry to charge at them.

**m52nickerson** · 11-20-2005, 22:32

Originally Posted by miho

Imagine that you are a CMAA and you have a 5 kilos heavy sword. It isn't easy to lift it up 2 meters high (thats probably height of a man riding a horse).

5 kilos? I have a Bastard Sword (Larger then a Longsword, but can still be used one handed) and its only about 2.20 kilos.

**miho** · 11-20-2005, 22:48

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

5 kilos? I have a Bastard Sword (Larger then a Longsword, but can still be used one handed) and its only about 2.20 kilos.

I just said that at the top of my head.

**Martok** · 11-20-2005, 19:38

The argument generally goes that swordsmen are a more "professional" class of soldiers than spearmen, and that spearmen do not excel at close-in melee combat. Any spear-equipped unit is largely trained to act in formation, particularly against cavalry. Swordsmen, on the other hand, are better at just charging into enemy infantry, and starting what is essentially a massive brawl--a disorganized mess for which spearmen aren't very well suited.

**Knight Templar** · 11-21-2005, 09:07

Originally Posted by Knight Templar

Try to find EYG's topic "weapon length" or sth like that, there was a discussion why should spears always defeat cav

Advo-san's post in that topic:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...1&postcount=12

**Mithrandir** · 11-21-2005, 13:53

More monasterystuff than Main Hall.

Hence moved to the History-dojo.

**Rosacrux redux** · 11-21-2005, 14:12

Spears have always been (until the gunpowder era, that is) the primary weapon of choice for many more people than sword. Reasons:

- Availability. A spear has only the tip (and the buttspike, if present) made of Iron or any other metal used. A sword is 100% metal and it is rather more refined work than a mere spearhead - any weaponsmith could manufacture a spearhead, but it took a better than average to produce high quality swords.

- Training. There is no such thing as "training a spearman". Although the best spearmen are those that are trained, at least somewhat, you can essentialy give a man a long, pointy stick and place him at a line - wether he holds that line, is another issue. Drilling is something a spearman needs, of course, to coordinate effectively with his companions. The use of sword, OTOH, is nothing easy: if you take a random mr. nobody and give him a pike, he has a good chance of fending off a cavalry charge, if he's got the nerve to stay in line. If you take a random mr. nobody and give him a sword, he most probably will kill or amputate himself before killing anyone else.

- Blocking a cavalry charge with a shield? Are you serious? Combine the weight of the horse, the effect of speed and momentum, the weight of the rider and what you get is a shattered shield, a shattered arm and most probably you on a stick (provided you are behind that shield). The effect of long, pointy sticks is that horses are not fond charging into a wall of these (the sticks) and if they do, they'll eventually do it at reduced speed and most probably get impaled to some of those sticks. If heavy shock cavalry charges on infantry without big, pointy sticks, they'll most probably just run them over. Even Claymores wouldn't do much of a difference. Until the 18th century (when better rifles and bayonettes appeared) the only way to face a cavalry charge on level ground was to have many long, pointy sticks.