Swords vs Spears (Serious conversation here plz)

[Bootsiuv]

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?

No. It really isn't. This isn't to say that a well trained swordsmen couldn't block an opposing blow with a gladius. I think it's certainly possible, if not overly easy or sensible.

The attacker employing the Gladius should seek to disable his foe before blocking ever becomes an issue, hence the often overly-aggressive tactics employed by Roman Commanders.

On another note, it isn't the blocking ability of the spear which makes it useful as a defensive weapon. It is the ability of the spear to keep the opposing attacker from ever coming with swordsreach. Multiply these points by hundreds and the prospects for the swordsmen become daunting.

The only way for the commanders to overcome this was to often use over aggressive tactics which attempted to break up the spear formation to allow the swordsmen to get in close enough to gain weapon superiority.

Bootsiuv

[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.

[konny]

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

"Gladius" is usualy refering to the Spanish shortsword, even though dictionaries simply translate it with "sword". Another weapon would be the Northern Europe longsword "Spatha" (also a Roman term, that survived in some Romanic languages). It came in use with the cavalry around the second century AD, and for the infantry some time later - according to the use of Germanic mercenaries in these forces, I guess.

[Zaknafien]

tellos is right--gladius (sword). gladius refers to many bladed weapons aside from the gladius hispaniensis. Spathae and semispathae were also refered to as gladii.

[konny]

[blitzkrieg80]

clearly, anyone who says they "can just block something" in combat as if it's natural, hasn't actually experience true personal combat, especially with ancient weapons... yes, you can block a spear with a sword, if that spearman is an idiot and he sticks it out to be swatted away... that is comparable to someone holding a knife far our in front of them, hoping someone will swat their hand and take it from them... true warriors would have easily have known that you hold a weapon close and attack only when necessary- predictability is the easiest way to die

[Urnamma]

clearly, anyone who says they "can just block something" in combat as if it's natural, hasn't actually experience true personal combat, especially with ancient weapons... yes, you can block a spear with a sword, if that spearman is an idiot and he sticks it out to be swatted away... that is comparable to someone holding a knife far our in front of them, hoping someone will swat their hand and take it from them... true warriors would have easily have known that you hold a weapon close and attack only when necessary- predictability is the easiest way to die

Agreed. This debate is largely moribund, because most of the impassioned people have clearly never held their preferred weapon, much less tested it.

[The_Mark]

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.

Have you actually tried this? A spear (well, obviously not a sarissa in this case) is surprisingly fast and agile, and you can actually do more stuff with it than just poke (more of thrusts below) with it; you can e.g. smack the swordsman with it (not to mention that many spear tips had a slash-capable edge) - it doesn't have to maim the opponent as long as it distracts him long enough for you to do another poke, or stuff.

Right, about the pokey bit. Thrusts, in general, are much faster than slashes of any kind - you don't have to worry about applying angular momentum to the stick you're using, you're operating in the direction of the center of mass of the stick. Naturally, quickness goes both ways - you can disengage the pokey stuff from an attack quickly, which is an insane bonus when the opponent has parried or you're feinting. Thrusts also have more range, or rather, you can add range to your thrusts much more easily (e.g. lunging with a rapier).

Oh, right, if anyone says they'll just cut off the tip of the spear with their sword, I *will* come and poke holes in them while they try to cut it off with their edgy piece of metal of choice.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Uhm it's kinda hard to get past a spear with a sword. For one thing; that a certain spear may be 2m long doesn't mean the tip is 2m away from the one wielding it. Also you can -if a little experienced- whirl the spear around and hit someone with the backside. Since the momentum is mass*acceleration*radius that makes for a pretty nasty blow.

And if the spear was made for war; rather than hunting you could "block" the sword likewise with the shaft; and then thrust the spear forward. That too; makes for some nasty suprises one vs. one. Just as with the sword blocking the spear; this depends on opponent stupidity/ignorance/over-enthusiasm.

[Thaatu]

Not many seem to remember that most spear units in EB also have shields, so spearmen don't have to parry with the spears. The edge in a spear vs. sword fight would be for the swordman, after he got close enough, but it's a whole different situation if they both had shields.

I don't know which the Romans adopted first, the shortsword or the large (almost) rectangle shield. If the shield came first, the shortsword follow up is only natural, because I'd say the method of "hiding" behind the shield and making quick stabs at the enemy is more effective than keeping the enemy at a distance with spearpoints, IF the troops have a large shield that covers their bodies almost entirely.

[Tellos Athenaios]

And indeed; trying to hack off the tip from the spear (apart from being futile; since humanly impossible in many cases) generally means that you're exposing a fairly large part of your body. Think about the ridiculous angles your arm has to make in order for you to even attempt such a thing in a normal situation (i.e. the spearman hasn't made any kind of ludicrous foolish error).

[Moros]

Those who think you can only poke with a spear, clearly haven't seen to many Jet Li movies!

[Bootsiuv]

I don't think too many ancient farmers were hip to the eastern arts.

Even if they were, that fighting style is not conducive to large groups of men.

[Thaatu]

Ah, Jet Li. My mentor in the subject of ancient warfare.


Edit: But Bootsiuv, that style can be used against large masses.

[Bootsiuv]

I don't think you should cite jet li movies as a credible source (although I understand where your coming from).

I still don't think one warrior could kill hundreds of men so easily, as those movies might suggest. Jet Li would have likely took a knife in the back in one of the first scenes.

Unlike movies, in real life, your enemies don't necessarily wait for you to finish fighting someone else before they attack you.

[Thaatu]

Are you serious? Have you seen Kill Bill vol.1? Tell me that's not how it's done, and I'll go kung fu! Just try me...

[Bootsiuv]

Fair enough...

And indeed; trying to hack off the tip from the spear (apart from being futile; since humanly impossible in many cases) generally means that you're exposing a fairly large part of your body. Think about the ridiculous angles your arm has to make in order for you to even attempt such a thing in a normal situation (i.e. the spearman hasn't made any kind of ludicrous foolish error).

But this is unnecessary. One need only get past the point of the shaft, by blocking with sword or shield (easier said than done, admittedly), and then the spearmen is at a clear disadvantage.

No need to worry about hacking spear tips off. Blocking the initial thrust and getting inside the effective attack radius of the spearmen will suffice.

Bootsiuv

[Watchman]

Are you serious? Have you seen Kill Bill vol.1? Tell me that's not how it's done, and I'll go kung fu! Just try me...

GURPS has that filed under "Cinematic Rules" by the term Martial Arts Etiquette; other standbys include Gun Control Law and Bulletproof Nudity...

Anyway, when it really comes down to it the sword/spear issue is really more of a preference thing partially dictated by circumstances (ie. lots of cavalry around tends to make spears popular, as does poverty...). People arrived at different weapon combinations for dizzying numbers of not always necessarily very rational reasons, and sought to do as well with them as possible. Most, when used by skilled and motivated people, worked well enough.

Personally, I strongly suspect the reason swords were so often a feature of "assault" type infantry was really just that especially the longer specimen were rather expensive and required a fair bit of training to be genuinely effective, with the end result that specialised swordsmen simply tended to be of a fighting calibre a notch higher than the average due to their training and, in many cases, social rank or other élite status.

[Patriote]

I agree with Bootsiuv. As the battle lines would clash, the distance between soldiers would be closing pretty quickly. Considering that shields were used a lot for ramming into the enemy, the window of time for the spearmen to strike would be very small and adding the fact that soldiers normally had the habit to cover most of their bodies with their shield, this would make the advantage of spearmen rather slim.

Did anyone read that somewhere too or did I just dream it but did Roman soldiers (and maybe any others soldiers using swords or spear short enough to be used that way) would litteraly "jumped" over the enemy's shield in order to stab them, using the speed and energy gained while closing in ??

As for this Jet Li thing, with closely packed spearmen, I would pay a lot to see them do that "Whirling of Death overhead spear attack" altogether

As for the post of Zak about Gladiator movie, even I, as neophyte about ancient warfare (but with the will to learn hence this thread) there is so many weird stuff. Calvary coming out of nowhere to charge through the wood in the rear of the enemies(being followed by a dog) the germanic guys appaering out of nowhere too, just in range the roman archers and ballistas(how convenient) the roman soldiers walking closely packed, not using their pilla and letting the germans charge them(seems more like classical hoplites than legionaries to me) and the best of all, the roman negotiator who is killed before the battle as if the romans were looking for peace all the time but were forced to war by the bad and evil barbarians

Anyways, keep the posts coming guys, it's getting interesting and I have finally understand the reason why spearmen stats were boosted

[Watchman]

I agree with Bootsiuv. As the battle lines would clash, the distance between soldiers would be closing pretty quickly. Considering that shields were used a lot for ramming into the enemy, the window of time for the spearmen to strike would be very small and adding the fact that soldiers normally had the habit to cover most of their bodies with their shield, this would make the advantage of spearmen rather slim.

Didn't keep for example Viking Age warriors from having a big-ass fighting-spear as their primary weapon though, even if they were bigwig noblemen or household troops with good swords on their belts. And those days shieldwall was pretty much the default formation...

Did anyone read that somewhere too or did I just dream it but did Roman soldiers (and maybe any others soldiers using swords or spear short enough to be used that way) would litteraly "jumped" over the enemy's shield in order to stab them, using the speed and energy gained while closing in ??

Never heard of it anyway. There's actually a Late Medieval longsword-fencing move (called Mortschlag or somesuch) where you actually leap to put even more power behind a downward cut, but seeing as how it's done with a two-handed sword, more likely than not unarmoured, in single combat, and without a ten-kilo shield...

(seems more like classical hoplites than legionaries to me)

Erm... the default hoplite tactic was a massed charge you know. Another thing entirely if the soldiers' nerve didn't hold and they failed to advance. I dunno what the Heck Bootsiuv is talking about regarding this. Period accounts are quite emphatic of the violence of phalanxes ramming together (enough to buckle and crack shields, and the aspis was pretty solidly built...), and had the hoplite tactic been standing around twiddling their thumbs waiting for the other guy to come to them I fail to see how the endemic battles between the city-states could have led much anywhere since they didn't have much in the way of other mobile shock troops.

And the Persians, whose line infantry tactics heavily featured shooting a lot of arrows from behind a static shieldwall, would have merrily decimated them then gone eat lunch.

[mAIOR]

I think the best way I heard to answer this debate is :"it is only required an average spearmen to overcome a good swordsman".


Cheers...

[Bootsiuv]

Erm... the default hoplite tactic was a massed charge you know. Another thing entirely if the soldiers' nerve didn't hold and they failed to advance. I dunno what the Heck Bootsiuv is talking about regarding this. Period accounts are quite emphatic of the violence of phalanxes ramming together (enough to buckle and crack shields, and the aspis was pretty solidly built...), and had the hoplite tactic been standing around twiddling their thumbs waiting for the other guy to come to them I fail to see how the endemic battles between the city-states could have led much anywhere since they didn't have much in the way of other mobile shock troops.

You fail to understand what I was saying. I was stating that hoplite phalanx tactics are inherently defensive, because they are rigid in structure and require the enemy to be directly in front of them to work...as soon as the hoplites were flanked, they were screwed.

I never said they didn't charge. If they employed a 'mass charge', they would be unable to maintain their formations, thus the power of the phalanx would be lost. I don't see the benefits to conducting hoplite warfare in this manner.

No, it was more a slow, steady advance (much like the knights of the middle ages...they did not all charge full gallop at the enemy lines, because it was impossible to maintain ranks. Thus, they would often canter up to the enemy, feign retreat, and repeat this process, hoping to dishearten the peasant levies they often faced). They would be unable to mainain the phalanx otherwise. One does not need to be running to break an Aspis. A few good solid blows will likely do the same thing.

The end of the movie 300 where they all start running like crazy mad men is a joke...it simply didn't work that way. Why even have a phalanx?

My point was that the strength of the hoplite phalanx involved staying in formation, and this formation was inherently defensive.

I didn't say they never attacked. It's just the nature of their attack which we seem to disagree on.

Bootsiuv

[Watchman]

The phalanx (in any version really) certainly had a major problem with uneven ground (which is why the Romans dumped it for the less "sensitive" maniple), and tended to be rather oriented to frontal combat; but I fail to see how this would make the hoplite one at least particularly "inherently defensive". It's not like Roman maniples or looser Celtic tactical sub-units particularly liked being outflanked either - indeed, most of the time any unit be it infantry or cavalry got hit in an unformed flank it was royally screwed period.

And sticking close together isn't an "inherently defensive" tactic; it's good tactical sense in many cases and only tends to improve unit combat performance, and the main reason the Roman infantry wasn't formed denser was their fighting style's need for some "elbow space" (if now less than that the Celtic longswordmen required) and the desire to keep the unit "all terrain".

Most of the actual problems of the hoplite phalanx came simply from the fact it was a KISS shieldwall composed of part-time soldiers who simply couldn't spend that much time on unit drills during peacetime. It worked well enough for its specialised role - frontal assault, most of the time against another of its kind - but was swiftly in trouble in circumstances the militiamen had no training for. More veteran, professional and/or better drilled formations were more versatile and adaptive.

"Inherently defensive" infantry formations are those that aren't actually drilled for offensive maneuvers in the first place, and mainly serve as an "anchor" and/or shield for other troops that handle the actual offense. This is called "unarticulated infantry" in them funny books; the sort that can keep cohesion during offensive movements, and is as such actually capable of reliably executing such, goes by the term "articulated infantry" - and both hoplites and Roman foot rank the latter, ie. "offensive" infantry.

[Bootsiuv]

Hoplites WERE an anchor or shield, while lighter troops attempted to outflank, such as peltastai or the lightly armed Ekdremoi (hmmm, thanks EB, look at how much you've taught me).


That being said, I do see the side to your logic, and feel I stand partially corrected. I still think many of my points were valid and logical. One cannot maintain a tight formation while running at full tilt.

Once the two lines met, it was a defensive battle. The phalanx which maintained it's integrity and fought off all comers was usually the victor. Are these not defensively oriented tactics?

And a swordsmen can turn flank far easier than a spearmen in the relatively tighter formation of the phalanx.

Bootsiuv

[BigTex]

I think most of yall are missing alot. The spear and the sword are merely one weapon a person could use. They also had their shields, their feet and any other part of the body that could be brought to bear, elbows, fingers, teeth. Melee's were a bloody buisness, and the primary weapon was not always the one used. One of the first things a hoplite would use when the lines crashed was a heel kick to the oponents shield to try and break it.

All in all the spear and the sword are rather equal. It was the person using it that would be the sole deciding factor in a duel between the two.

Now in formations they had a few advantages. The pike could have a huge reach, but it was unmanueverable. The short sword was easily manuevered and could shift directions easier. But it had little reach.

The weapon has little baring on victory. Terrian, levels of exhuastion, skill of the user, and even morale were more important then the weapon.

[Watchman]

Hoplites WERE an anchor or shield, while lighter troops attempted to outflank, such as peltastai or the lightly armed Ekdremoi (hmmm, thanks EB, look at how much you've taught me).

Both of those "lights" were a rather late developement in hoplite warfare, and even then a support arm in most cases. For centuries it was basically two blocks of armoured spearmen with big-ass shields smashing together and beating the crap out of each other; it took quite a while before even cavalry developed into much of a battlefield presence in most of Hellas, and horses eat skirmishers for breakfast, lunch and before bedtime in open terrain...

One cannot maintain a tight formation while running at full tilt.

Not over any greater distance, no. But guys lugging around full bronze panoplies and the ten-kilo aspis plus weapons weren't exactly going to engage in lenghty dashes anyway; AFAIK they only accelerated to run shortly before contact, so as to retain both unit cohesion and stamina.

Well, they had to adjust that to deal with the Persians mind you. Armour or no, the phalanxes weren't going to be much to look at after walking hundred meters through an arrow-storm...

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.

Once the two lines met, it was a defensive battle. The phalanx which maintained it's integrity and fought off all comers was usually the victor. Are these not defensively oriented tactics?

No. That's the standard equation of any heavy-infantry combat. Whichever side better maintained its own integrity and cohesion, and compromised that of the other, was the one that won. The other guys became demoralized and routed.

And a swordsmen can turn flank far easier than a spearmen in the relatively tighter formation of the phalanx.

No better than well-articulated or simply otherwise readily mobile (ie. lightly equipped and/or loosely ordered) spearmen, generally. Hoplites were competent enough at turning flanks, whenever they didn't fall foul of the common amateurs' mistake of pursuing their broken opponents too far and forgetting to turn around to assist their mates. Their formation just wasn't designed for mobility, unlike for example the maniple or whatever the fig the Celts called their battle-squares or the nimble skirmish-oriented Iberians.

[Bootsiuv]

Well said and logical.

I stand corrected. Thanks for the enlightenment, Watchman.

The standard EB gift is in order

Bootsiuv

[Watchman]

Nice to see niche reading is useful for something at least.