Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

[Patriote]

I tried to take part of the conversation about "Spears are very unbalanced" but somehow it degenerated in a fight about Greek phalanxes vs Roman Legions.

What I want here is a conversation about the theory behind the use of spear and sword but not just by Romans, a general one. I want it to be global as I am trying, sincerely, to understand the point of view of people. Although I posted several posts in the other thread, no one has considered them "worthy" of an answer.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=113

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=144

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=161


I added the link only for those who would like to read them or read again without having to read the whole thread again.

BTW, I am not here to prove that I am right at all costs, I want a clean discussion to improve my knowledge and comprehension of ancient warfare. And, if the end I feel that I still prefer my opinion even while knowing that I am wrong then I'll just do something like modifying my EDU

[Megalos]

To be very honest, i'm of the opinion that one is not better than the other. Each has it's own strengths in different situations.

As for a swordsmen against a spearman? well same applies, depends on the situation.


Why not have both I say, saves alot of bother!



Mega

[Hooahguy]

agreeing with Megalos- i personally will spam the persain archer spearmen for my persain-baktrain war, becuase of their bows and spears to fend off cavalry, but when i get to the AS, it will be swordsmen, mostly.

[konny]

Without any decent knowledge in close combat or self-defense, I would say that the sword is better when blocking strikes and, due to the longer blade, when striking the enemy. The spear on the other hand has the longer range; but the pike is much smaller than the blade and it is difficult to block off hits.

The sword seems to require much more skill because the sword fighter has to know much more moves: blocking, sriking, hitting, piercing, blocking again etcpp. The spear fighter is best off when he holds his weapon right before him or over his head, what is even easyer, and makes short stabs. Once the sword fighter has closed in range, there is no point in defending with the spear. For that the spear fighter needs further protection (Shield, armour).


On the bottom line, I would say that for units in formation the spear is the better choice, especially when the soldiers are lesser experienced; while single fighters might prefer the sword.

[Patriote]

Maybe it's the view I had. Like the rock-paper-scissors

Spearmen are good vs cavalry
Cavalry vs swordsmen
and Swordsmen vs cavalry
(not invincible but a slight advantage)

maybe I am wrong about that but that is also why I do not understand when I read that Spearmen's attack profile had to be increase to compensate again swordsmen

Should not they get this penalty after all or I might totally wrong here ??

[Watchman]

Spearmen had their attack values amped because they were all given the short_spear weapon attribute, which gives penalties (-4, to be exact) when fighting infantry. As I seem to recall having pointed out at least once back in the other thread. With spear infantry vs spear infantry this obviously cancels out, and infantry with other weapons (be they axes, phallistically huge swords, clubs or teddy bears) doesn't get the penalty in the fist place.

Now, what *I* am somewhat concerned about is that last I read about it the short_spear attribute affected defense (the "spear" one apparently affects attack)... this could be outdated info of course, and I haven't yet played enough to see how it works in practice. However I do know the team playtests this stuff - and I understand balancing the units stats is a lot of work - so I figure they have a decently good idea of what they're doing, and am erring on the side of "let's see how it works out in the game" before jumping to conclusions.

[Nike]

I certainly am of the belief that one-on-one a swordsmen has an advantage over a spearman. Also there is a good reason why the Spartan hoplites, although their primary weapon was the spear in their group formation, went to their short swords when the enemies got to close and the combat become almost man -to - man. You can just do a lot more damage with a sword in close quarters because you do not need a big thrust to gain momentum.

As for bonuses fighting swordsmen: if a group of swordsmen charged a defensive formation of spearmen or hoplites then i would give the immediate advantage to the spearmen because it is not easy get close enough with a wall of spears in your way. but once that first rush is over and the physical mass of a unit of troops forces itself upon the spear unit then the advantage should turn toward the sword users.

Somehow this seems like a reverse kind of charge bonus. Like the spear unit should have a bonus when the other unit charges but after that it disappears.

[Watchman]

I certainly am of the belief that one-on-one a swordsmen has an advantage over a spearman. Also there is a good reason why the Spartan hoplites, although their primary weapon was the spear in their group formation, went to their short swords when the enemies got to close and the combat become almost man -to - man. You can just do a lot more damage with a sword in close quarters because you do not need a big thrust to gain momentum.

As for bonuses fighting swordsmen: if a group of swordsmen charged a defensive formation of spearmen or hoplites then i would give the immediate advantage to the spearmen because it is not easy get close enough with a wall of spears in your way. but once that first rush is over and the physical mass of a unit of troops forces itself upon the spear unit then the advantage should turn toward the sword users.

Somehow this seems like a reverse kind of charge bonus. Like the spear unit should have a bonus when the other unit charges but after that it disappears.

But then remember that the reach of long spears, and the fact for their size they need startlingly little space to wield in some respects, also means the spearmen can be massed very closely together and at least the second rank can also contribute by thrusting over the first rank. And backup weapons as they may be, the spearmen may also very well be quite dangerous enough with their sidearms in the cramped confines of the shield-to-shield crush at the front ranks; indeed fighting-knives and short swords seem to have been widely popular for just such purpose.

Also, properly articulated aggressive spear infantry was AFAIK quite effective on the charge, both because of the density they could fight in and the sheer phsychological and physical effects of the onrushing wave of long pointy things.

And of course all it takes to convert a long-spear man into a swordsman is him dropping his spear...

[CBR]

Most spearmen would have a sword too. In the end it would be more a question of the effect of javelins thrown from swordsmen versus the effect of spearmen striking and/or keeping swordsmen at a distance.

If swordsmen had the time to throw all their missiles they might have had a small advantage because of enemy being disrupted. If they didnt they might have had a small disadvantage.

The use of spears was more prominent throughout history so that might tell us something.


CBR

[the_handsome_viking]

It really depends on the situation, they are both simply tools of war, sometimes you need a hammer, sometimes you need a screwdriver.

[Watchman]

...and if at all possible, people had both.

I dunno about the rest of that site Patriote linked, but I do know the bit he quotes can IMHO be summed up as "wotta load of CROCK".

Seriously. It really does ooze fanboyism. I've run into the same tone in other contexts (often involving katanas...).

[Patriote]

Zaknafien I don't understand. I am asking for opinions and comments to help me better understand. I quote a passage of a text from a Website, AirWar College of the USA, which I think, although they are not totally dedicated to ancient warfare, might be a good source from people during research about military history and science.

And now, all you do is take a sentence here and there and laugh at it. I mean, how is it supposed to help me understand more or help the conversation ??

All of this and I doubt you read the whole article

[Zaknafien]

No I didnt read the full article, I dont read schlock by amateurs. I know you mean well, but your sources lack credibility--come on, its the air force for chrissakes. I got my degrees from West Point, but even I can say that military scholarship isnt really the best. I dont have the time to write a full essay on the Roman military for you tonight, but I will try to find some links to some more credible sites, or some useful books you can buy.

[lobf]

When the battle moves close and you have men fighting men individually the gladius is much more manuverable. With a spear your opponent has to be a particular disnace away from you for you go get the spear in between you and him. The gladius, however, could be thrusted at the enemy no matter how close they were. Considering that back then a cut of merely 4cm could result in death it's no surprise it was so deadly.

[Watchman]

When the battle moves close and you have men fighting men individually the gladius is much more manuverable. With a spear your opponent has to be a particular disnace away from you for you go get the spear in between you and him. The gladius, however, could be thrusted at the enemy no matter how close they were. Considering that back then a cut of merely 4cm could result in death it's no surprise it was so deadly.

Like anyone tried to fight with a 2.5m longspear or six-meter pike at face-to-face distance anyway; those become patently useless before that already. That's what they carried those sidearms for.

[lobf]

Yes. Exactly.

[Watchman]

All of this and I doubt you read the whole article

I dunno about Zak, but I know that quoted bit alone tells me I don't even want to read the whole article if it's even remotely similar. Because that choice part already not only clearly has very little idea of what it's talking about for the most part, it goes on a major hyperbole trip from there...

Seriously, it gives me that sort of sinking feeling that says "that's so wrong, I don't even know where I should start setting it right." And I've just read a few books on the topic.

[Moros]

Zaknafien I don't understand. I am asking for opinions and comments to help me better understand. I quote a passage of a text from a Website, AirWar College of the USA, which I think, although they are not totally dedicated to ancient warfare, might be a good source from people during research about military history and science.

And now, all you do is take a sentence here and there and laugh at it. I mean, how is it supposed to help me understand more or help the conversation ??

All of this and I doubt you read the whole article

Not sure if this has been saod already but, for some site with more creibility check europabarbarorum.com and go to the links section. There should be a few sites about the romans.

[konny]

It is possible to block strikes with a gladius, even though there were swords around that were much better; and in the end also the Romans changed to longer swords. I think the gladius was introduced because it was not to expensive and could be used like a long knife or dagger, a style of combat that also lesser trained/experienced citizen soldiers were used to.

[On a side note: You shouldn't expect to have come across really untrained soldiers on an ancient battlefield. Most of them fought with their own weapons, i.e. weapons they have at home. It is more than realistic to assume that those even spend a lot of time on training with these weapons if we don't have any lengthy accounts of their drills in the sources.]

For the Romans it's also said that their prime weapon was the pilum, what means that the gladius was a side arm for the occasion of close combat.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The gladius simply means sword. So whatever kind of sword it reffered to; the Romans would keep calling it gladius.

If you mean Gladius Hispaniensis; well that one was introduced after the Iberians had showed the Romans some rope.... Really effective kind of thing; it tended to cause lots of bleeding and to be fairly effective at piercing armour. You can see why: if you pull that gladius out of someone; you are pulling a good deal of that someone out of him too.