Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

[AntiochusIII]

Also mind you, Swiss pikemen delivered charges at full run (although their level of drill *was* long the top in Europe mind you). So, AFAIK, did Roman infantry and indeed most any offensive infantry.

As a side note, that ought to be downright scary for any poor fools on the other side of the charging wall of pikes.

[Achilleus]

Not that I have much experience in ancient warfare formation fighting, but I've trained in Chinese martial arts for a couple of years and have studied some of the history and strategy behind the techniques. What I'm mainly writing about is personal experience from use of these weapons. Keep in mind, ancient Chinese warfare was quite different in many regards to ancient Western classical warfare and not all Chinese martial arts were used on the battlefield (and there are lots of Chinese martial arts; this is merely based on personal experience!).

Two of the weapons we use are the pole/staff/spear and the double butterfly swords. The pole/staff (and likewise spear) movements involve lots of powerful stabbing/poking actions as well as small circle movements and good old fashioned smacks that are meant to redirect, avoid the opponent's defenses, and open a pathway to strike a target. It's definitely not as agile as the swords! The double butterfly swords (think of them like Chinese cleavers with rounded ends and protective hilts, roughly about a cubit in length) involve lots of slashing, stabbing, and dynamic footwork in order to close with an opponent and deliver that fatal blow.

A really interesting two-man set involves the pole vs. butterfly swords. Some principles of this set in order for the butterfly swords to defeat the pole requires that the swords utilize dynamic stepping to avoid the powerful frontal thrusts of the pole and parrying in order to close the gap, disable to pole wielder's hands, and deliver a fatal blow whilst either parrying or avoiding the pole. The pole wielder, in general, attempts to keep the swordsman at a distance and deliver fatal blows to physiological weak points (i.e. head, neck, groin crease, etc). As is fairly obvious, the swords have a distinct advantage up close if they can successfully bridge the gap whereas the poles have a distinct advantage at distance. Superior understanding and utilization of each weapon's strengths and defending against its weaknesses leads to victory as it should when we properly use our EB units in world conquest :-D I hope this may give some insight into how actual ancient battles may have taken place; albeit, weapons, armor, formations, etc were different back then and varied from society to society. Thanks to the EB team :-D

[Watchman]

As a side note, that ought to be downright scary for any poor fools on the other side of the charging wall of pikes.

No doubt. But then some argue the impact of a charging Swiss square was little short of that of heavy cavalry... well, those boys didn't get their "killer rep" for nothing certainly, anyway.

[oudysseos]

These threads often miss the point: peoples/armies used the weapons they did for all kinds of reasons, few of which had anything to do with the fanboy hotbutton issues of "The gladius killed more men than the a-bomb" or some such nonsense.
Spears, for one thing, are easier and cheaper to make than swords- less metal, and a spearhead is smaller and subject to less complex stresses than a sword blade. But if your country has lots of iron ore and not many tall straight trees suitable for spear shafts (Spain?), you might end up favouring the sword. If you come from wide open steppes with lots of grazing you probably end up being a cavalry army, but if you come from a rocky peninsula you might specialize in close-order infantry. Armies and weapons are cultural adaptations to the places and circumstances that people found themselves in, and not the result of fanboy debates about the gladius versus the sarissa. For a really good discussion of some of the cultural background to the Greek and Roman styles of war, try Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities by Hans van Wees.

[mcantu]

I dont think I've seen anyone mention the fact that Hoplites used spears AND swords. This is represented in EB by the skins on most hoplite units having a sword. It is a bug with the RTW engine that does not allow the overhand spear animation to be used properly with the sword animation...

Phalanx units to not have this problem and switch it swords when an enemy soldier gets in very close

[Watchman]

Well there have been numerous references to sidearms... Even poor-ass tribal warriors would normally have a big knife after all - those were universally carried for utility purposes if nothing else.

[Patriote]

Very interesting StinkoMan20X6, really

As for Watchman, I sure showed us that you know what you are talking about. It sure taught me a lot reading your posts


And oudysseos, I am not sure what you meant by this:

few of which had anything to do with the fanboy hotbutton issues of "The gladius killed more men than the a-bomb" or some such nonsense.

but I'm certainly not the one who said that, it was merely a sentence from a part of a text I copied/cut from a website. You would be totally off the track to think that I am roman/gladius fanboy.