Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 67

Thread: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

  1. #1

    Default Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    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
    Proving the others wrong does not prove you right.

    Being against war is an evidence in itself but peace is nothing but an absence of wars.

    If capitalism, and all its vices, is the best humanity can do with its energies when at peace, it might as well start fighting again...

    It is said that the people during the Middle Ages when uneducated, gross, naive, fearful of the unknow and uncaring for all but their little pleasures, with the exception of some elites. I can assure you it haven't change to this day.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    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
    Last edited by Megalos; 10-17-2007 at 00:45.

    "Break in the Sun, till the Sun breaks down"

  3. #3
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,852

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    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.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  4. #4
    Whatever Member konny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Germania Inferior
    Posts
    1,787

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    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.

    Disclaimer: my posts are to be considered my private opinion and not offical statements by the EB Team

  5. #5

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    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 ??
    Last edited by Patriote; 10-17-2007 at 01:10.
    Proving the others wrong does not prove you right.

    Being against war is an evidence in itself but peace is nothing but an absence of wars.

    If capitalism, and all its vices, is the best humanity can do with its energies when at peace, it might as well start fighting again...

    It is said that the people during the Middle Ages when uneducated, gross, naive, fearful of the unknow and uncaring for all but their little pleasures, with the exception of some elites. I can assure you it haven't change to this day.

  6. #6
    Ming the Merciless is my idol Senior Member Watchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    7,967

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    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.
    "Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. --- Proof of the existence of the FSM, if needed, can be found in the recent uptick of global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. Apparently His Pastaness is to be worshipped in full pirate regalia. The decline in worldwide pirate population over the past 200 years directly corresponds with the increase in global temperature. Here is a graph to illustrate the point."

    -Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

  7. #7

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    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.

  8. #8
    Clan Takiyama Senior Member CBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    4,408

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    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

  9. #9
    Ming the Merciless is my idol Senior Member Watchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    7,967

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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...
    "Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. --- Proof of the existence of the FSM, if needed, can be found in the recent uptick of global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. Apparently His Pastaness is to be worshipped in full pirate regalia. The decline in worldwide pirate population over the past 200 years directly corresponds with the increase in global temperature. Here is a graph to illustrate the point."

    -Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

  10. #10

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    Then my next question is this one:

    If spearmen had so many advantage and can easily switch to short sword(although you still have to give spearmen a lot of training with the sword) then why did the romans decid to arm most of their troops, and in the end all legionnaires, with sword with the exception of auxilia, instead of giving them spear

    Does it have anything to do with their looser formations ? Was it mean on purpose to cover more frontage with less troops than their enemies as to exhaust them quicker ?

    Here a quote from the website I talked in my first post. I put the link again so
    you are able to read yourself and look at the sources if they are worth it. And because this author seems to have a opinion a little different then a lot of people here, I want to hear different opinions about this quote please.


    The spine of the Roman army was its heavy infantry formations. Unlike infantry formations of the past, the Roman maniples and, later, the heavier cohorts, were more maneuverable than any infantry formations that the world had seen. They also surpassed the killing power of earlier infantry formations to an almost exponential degree. The tactical proficiency and lethality of the Roman legion were not surpassed by another army for almost fifteen hundred years. The secret of the Roman killing machine was that the Roman soldier was the first to fight within a combat formation while at the same time remaining somewhat independent of its movement as a unit. He was also the first soldier to rely primarily upon the sword, the dreaded gladius, instead of the spear. The Roman gladius was responsible for more deaths on the battlefield than any other weapon until the invention of the firearm!
    http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/...z/gabr000c.htm

    Anyone with comments or answers for me, I want them !
    Proving the others wrong does not prove you right.

    Being against war is an evidence in itself but peace is nothing but an absence of wars.

    If capitalism, and all its vices, is the best humanity can do with its energies when at peace, it might as well start fighting again...

    It is said that the people during the Middle Ages when uneducated, gross, naive, fearful of the unknow and uncaring for all but their little pleasures, with the exception of some elites. I can assure you it haven't change to this day.

  11. #11
    EB II Romani Consul Suffectus Member Zaknafien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Somewhere inside the Military-Industrial Complex
    Posts
    3,607

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    The tactical proficiency and lethality of the Roman legion were not surpassed by another army for almost fifteen hundred years.

    He was also the first soldier to rely primarily upon the sword, the dreaded gladius, instead of the spear.


    The Roman gladius was responsible for more deaths on the battlefield than any other weapon until the invention of the firearm!




    Come on now. Really?

    I mean. Really.


    "urbani, seruate uxores: moechum caluom adducimus. / aurum in Gallia effutuisti, hic sumpsisti mutuum." --Suetonius, Life of Caesar

  12. #12

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

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

  13. #13
    Ming the Merciless is my idol Senior Member Watchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    7,967

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    ...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...).
    "Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. --- Proof of the existence of the FSM, if needed, can be found in the recent uptick of global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. Apparently His Pastaness is to be worshipped in full pirate regalia. The decline in worldwide pirate population over the past 200 years directly corresponds with the increase in global temperature. Here is a graph to illustrate the point."

    -Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

  14. #14

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    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
    Proving the others wrong does not prove you right.

    Being against war is an evidence in itself but peace is nothing but an absence of wars.

    If capitalism, and all its vices, is the best humanity can do with its energies when at peace, it might as well start fighting again...

    It is said that the people during the Middle Ages when uneducated, gross, naive, fearful of the unknow and uncaring for all but their little pleasures, with the exception of some elites. I can assure you it haven't change to this day.

  15. #15
    EB II Romani Consul Suffectus Member Zaknafien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Somewhere inside the Military-Industrial Complex
    Posts
    3,607

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    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.


    "urbani, seruate uxores: moechum caluom adducimus. / aurum in Gallia effutuisti, hic sumpsisti mutuum." --Suetonius, Life of Caesar

  16. #16
    Jesus Member lobf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Nazareth
    Posts
    531

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    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.

  17. #17
    Ming the Merciless is my idol Senior Member Watchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    7,967

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    Quote Originally Posted by Patriote
    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.
    "Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. --- Proof of the existence of the FSM, if needed, can be found in the recent uptick of global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. Apparently His Pastaness is to be worshipped in full pirate regalia. The decline in worldwide pirate population over the past 200 years directly corresponds with the increase in global temperature. Here is a graph to illustrate the point."

    -Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

  18. #18
    Ming the Merciless is my idol Senior Member Watchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    7,967

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.
    "Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. --- Proof of the existence of the FSM, if needed, can be found in the recent uptick of global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. Apparently His Pastaness is to be worshipped in full pirate regalia. The decline in worldwide pirate population over the past 200 years directly corresponds with the increase in global temperature. Here is a graph to illustrate the point."

    -Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

  19. #19
    Jesus Member lobf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Nazareth
    Posts
    531

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    Yes. Exactly.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    There is also one thing I would like to remind you fellas, in .81 the attack values of spear were lower and the "short-spear" attribute made them too weak becasue it gave -4 attack.

    So spear units tended to get an unreasonable beating. Also units that switched between swords and spear would pull out the spear instead of keep fighing with the sword. (due to a RTW bug). So -4 attack value made them weaker too.

    I had to take out the spear in many units that carried both weapons. Namely the Soldurus and Arjos.

    To avoid that issue, the attack value of spear was increased so the -4 penalty would not affect the preformance of spear units in game.
    Last edited by NeoSpartan; 10-17-2007 at 03:11.

  21. #21

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    how is it NOT obvious that if one gets stabbed in the neck before even getting close enough to use a sword- that that soldier's battle is over?

    similarly, one could argue that the bayonette is a superior weapon to the gun, because when it's man to man, the gun without the bayonette is unwieldy, therefore the bayonette is superior... shovels too
    Last edited by blitzkrieg80; 10-17-2007 at 04:03.
    HWÆT !
    “Vesall ertu þinnar skjaldborgar!” “Your shieldwall is pathetic!” -Bǫðvar Bjarki [Hrólfs Saga Kraka]
    “Wyrd oft nereð unfǽgne eorl þonne his ellen déah.” “The course of events often saves the un-fey warrior if his valour is good.” -Bēowulf
    “Gørið eigi hárit í blóði.” “Do not get blood on [my] hair.” -Sigurð Búason to his executioner [Óláfs Saga Tryggvasonar: Heimskringla]

    Wes þū hāl ! Be whole (with luck)!

  22. #22
    Clan Takiyama Senior Member CBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    4,408

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    Quote Originally Posted by Patriote
    then why did the romans decid to arm most of their troops, and in the end all legionnaires, with sword with the exception of auxilia, instead of giving them spear
    But Romans had spears, it was just throwing and not thrusting spears.

    They were certainly not alone is such fighting style. Iberian Scutari were very similar and AFAIK Iberian tactics were very much skirmish like with feigned attacks and missile throwing to goat the enemy into advancing.

    Now Romans most likely were not as nimble as the Iberians but if they ever faced a defensive hoplite army, having multiple lines and lots of missile weapons would have enabled them to harass and even directly engage the hoplites and still not risk everything.

    In an era of infantry dominated warfare and missiles being mainly javelins the Roman system worked fine and whenever they faced enemies that had superior shock capability(like Macedonia style phalanx) the Roman system of reserve lines kicked in and won the day (yes yes there were other factors too but no need for an essay)


    CBR

  23. #23
    EB II Romani Consul Suffectus Member Zaknafien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Somewhere inside the Military-Industrial Complex
    Posts
    3,607

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    indeed, the Romans did use spears. the hasta is a spear. Even in the Marian era the pilum is a spear that is thrown. Various auxilary units kept spears as a primary weapon. Rarely did the legions close for the kind of slog-it-out hack and slash you see in Gladiator.


    "urbani, seruate uxores: moechum caluom adducimus. / aurum in Gallia effutuisti, hic sumpsisti mutuum." --Suetonius, Life of Caesar

  24. #24
    Lover of Toight Vahjoinas Member Bootsiuv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,411

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    The answer why Romans preferred the Gladius to a Spear or Pike should be obvious.

    Romans were on the offensive almost constantly in their heyday. They took the fight to the enemy, as quickly and devastatingly as possible. They didn't want to poke at their enemies with long sticks....no, as this is clearly more conducive to defensive warfare.

    It should be noted that as soon as Rome stopped conquering and started defending, they didn't do as well. This isn't to say this was a primary reason for the fall of the empie, or even overly relevant, but it was clear that the offensive gladius did not lend itself to defending ground.

    Also note the increased use of spear auxillaries in the later years of the Empire, when the mindset was defensive, as opposed to the offensive mindset of old.

    The Romans no longer desired to bring the fight to the enemy as quickly as possible. No, by this time, they were stationed at arbitrary borders where they had to sit and wait to be attacked.

    Sword = offensive

    Spear = defensive

    Bootsiuv
    SSbQ*****************SSbQ******************SSbQ

  25. #25

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    that is actually pretty apt, Bootsiuv... it seems simplistic but its very true... if you have a short range weapon and someone is coming at you, you have to wait until the last possible moment to do anything, while they have the ability to do whatever before that range is met....

    OT there's just something interesting in the need of animals "to poke" even dogs and other animals poke stuff with their nose or paws... it's so cute... and no matter what, i just find it amusing to see someone poke anything with a stick (that's not a metaphor you sickos)... maybe i'm easily amused
    Last edited by blitzkrieg80; 10-17-2007 at 04:52.
    HWÆT !
    “Vesall ertu þinnar skjaldborgar!” “Your shieldwall is pathetic!” -Bǫðvar Bjarki [Hrólfs Saga Kraka]
    “Wyrd oft nereð unfǽgne eorl þonne his ellen déah.” “The course of events often saves the un-fey warrior if his valour is good.” -Bēowulf
    “Gørið eigi hárit í blóði.” “Do not get blood on [my] hair.” -Sigurð Búason to his executioner [Óláfs Saga Tryggvasonar: Heimskringla]

    Wes þū hāl ! Be whole (with luck)!

  26. #26
    Lover of Toight Vahjoinas Member Bootsiuv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,411

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    Hmmm, indeed. I too enjoy the fuzzy things in life, although I must admit I do prefer shaved.

    Sorry couldn't help myself.
    SSbQ*****************SSbQ******************SSbQ

  27. #27
    Clan Takiyama Senior Member CBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    4,408

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    I wouldnt class greek hoplite tactics as defensive. And there are several examples of Roman units throwing pilas and insults at their enemies until special encouragement from leaders could bring some cohorts to do a charge.

    In other words your idea about weapons indicating preferred tactic has some truth. But its the other way around: A throwing spear has longer reach than a thrusting spear or pike so sword units were less offensive, as they had missile weapons, compared to pure shock troops that had no missile weapons


    CBR

  28. #28
    Lover of Toight Vahjoinas Member Bootsiuv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,411

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    Quote Originally Posted by CBR
    I wouldn't class greek hoplite tactics as defensive.
    I would. The hoplite phalanx was inherently defensive even when the divisions were employing offensive tactics. It relied on the enemy coming to them eventually, albeit they may have moved right up to the enemy line. The tight formations also didn't lend themselves to great manueverability in the field, hence the introduction of longer spears by Philip. He took the hoplites greatest strength and increased upon it several fold, to try and overcome the hoplite phalanx' inherently defensive nature. This was it's greatest weakness, and Philip attempted to overcome it by magnifying it's greatest strength. Phalangites were also defensive in nature, even on the offense, staying in tight formations and presenting the enemy with the option of running into their sarissas or running home.

    Quote Originally Posted by CBR
    And there are several examples of Roman units throwing pilas and insults at their enemies until special encouragement from leaders could bring some cohorts to do a charge.
    The end of your statement only further supports my point, as the Hastati and the like tended to charge in with swords after exhausting their pila. They charged because the sword is an offensive weapon, and should be used as such.

    Bootsiuv
    Last edited by Bootsiuv; 10-17-2007 at 09:23.
    SSbQ*****************SSbQ******************SSbQ

  29. #29
    Member Member geala's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hannover, Germany
    Posts
    465

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    In single combat a warrior with a spear (not to talk about a sarissa) against a swordman is in dire straits. It is easy to deflect the spear with the sword, pass the tip and bring the sword into play. Try it with two sticks of different lenght.

    In formation the things are different. The swordmen have to face a lot of points, coming from different directions. Remember that the normal Roman formation for hastati and principes was 4 cubits/6 feet/1,80m, while the spearmen stand closer. For sarissai pikemen the normal fighting space was 2 cubits according to Asklepiodotos, which is exactly the same what Polybios told us. A Roman soldier so faced about 2 adversaries when in fight with phalangites.

    Let's have a look to Kynos Kephalae (bad landscape for pikes) and Pydna (perfect landscape for pikes). In both battles the Romans first performed rather badly. They were repulsed by the pikemen who placed their tips on/in the Roman shields and pushed them away. In the end the Romans were victorious because they were able to use gaps in the phalanx (ironically originating from the successful advance of the pikemen) or flank it with their flexible tactics. And not to forget the charge of the Roman elephants against the phalanx flanks (something some people like to ignore). It was not coincidence that at Pydna the left wing of the phalanx which was charged by the elephants broke first.

    Btw, it is one of the frequent fairy tales that the professional Roman legionaries of the principate did not use spears. A lot of spear points were found in pure legionary castras.

    I would say sword against spear should be balanced. In frontal combat the swordman at least should not have an advantage. Up till now I cannot say that the EB 1.0 balance is so bad. (However although I don't play Romani I'm also of the opinion that the cohors evocata should have better stats, to refer to the other thread. If not them who was an elite warrior? And yes, elite is always connected to experience and moral in formation close combat.)
    Last edited by geala; 10-17-2007 at 07:31.
    The queen commands and we'll obey
    Over the Hills and far away.
    (perhaps from an English Traditional, about 1700 AD)

    Drum, Kinder, seid lustig und allesamt bereit:
    Auf, Ansbach-Dragoner! Auf, Ansbach-Bayreuth!
    (later chorus -containing a wrong regimental name for the Bayreuth-Dragoner (DR Nr. 5) - of the "Hohenfriedberger Marsch", reminiscense of a battle in 1745 AD, to the music perhaps of an earlier cuirassier march)

  30. #30

    Default Re: Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

    I might be wrong, if it is so please correct me - I'm not relying on sources here, just using my mind, and as we all know, without proper input the output can't always be trusted. I was just wondering, as at least to posts above mentioned the peculiar ability of swords to block hits.
    Now yes, I am aware that a spear is not really designed for blocking. But is the blocking ability of a gladius really of decisive value? I mean, it is not much longer than half a meter / shorter than two feet. So it lacks not only the length, but the cross guard of later types. It might be more useful in a sword vs. sword-duel, but against spears? Anyway, in most cases the blows are supposed to come (as seen by the defender) from the left, which is your shield arm.
    Arvst

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO