The Pushing Match

[Arjos]

If it's a duel both have to move and my point about stamina referred to both having similar equipment, but the swordman, wielding a shield, would have more weight...
But as I said duels aren't the matter, leave that to epics and movies...
Deciding whether a weapon is superior to another is just pointless, the manufacture can be perfect, but a tool is a tool, a rock is good enough to kill a man...
What matters is training and the tactics in battle, and duels are a complete different world...
Anyway, about haft's blunt damage, Miyamoto Musashi won a duel killing his opponent with a paddle :D

[bobbin]

Drop it. Stomp on it. Put it in a blender. I don't know. Juts stop bringing that up.

My point was that completely ignoring how the user of the spear would react to you knocking it out of the way makes your conclusion pointless. Following that same logic one could say that the sword is equally useless, because if you ignore how the swordsman reacts it is just as easy to knock aside as the spear.

A spearman will tire a lot faster than a swordsman assuming equal fitness. A swordman doesn't need to move nearly as much. Also, as the two opponents become more armoured, the sword becomes more effective; the spearman tires sonner and his weapon is unable to penetrate really thick armour like full plate or a coat of plates. The sword can still dish out blunt force trauma effectively.

It's actually the exact opposite, a swordsman has to cover the distance between the spear point and the spearman to make an attack. The spearman on the other hand can attack with less effort and from a comfortable distance by just jabbing, the only moving they need to do is to keep the minimum safe distance from the swordsman, which in terms of energy expend by both is equal as they are moving the same amount.

And swords were pretty useless against plate armour as they lacked the mass to cause any internal damage, which is why maces and war hammers became the weapon of choice when dealing with armoured knights.

It does have some merit. Some weapons are simply useless regardless of the man carrying it. Lances on foot, knives, a gladius on horseback. A spear outside of a shieldwall fast approaches uselessness. An extremely competant spearman may be able to gain an edge versus a somewhat skilled swordsman, but otherwise it's simply the wrong weapon.

I think a quick look through history disproves that assumption, if the spear was that useless out of a shield wall they why did it see continual widespread use over a vast geographic and social range from the very beginnings of warfare right through to the modern day?

[fomalhaut]

yeah, individual duels seem to stem from the need for a romantic hero in a novel or story. large formations of stabbing spears don't make for an exciting protagonist or for good drama

[jirisys]

Just bat it aside and charge. Unless its something other than a simple spear, you can only really do a few things with it: jab, obviously; throw it, if its balanced; slash across the neck, rare. Most of the time he will be moving back constantly and jabbing to keep the opponent at distance;throwing enters the equation if he has a sword or a different weapon that can be more wieldy in close combat. Slashing isn't gonna happen really, unless the difference in skill is extreme. Tripping won't occurr since you need a hook to perform a move like that. Battering with the haft will do minimal damage, being reduced to nothing if the target is at all armoured.

Depends, he can hit you with the shaft, turn it around and trip you; it can also run back and stab you, jump and stab you, beat you in the head, hold it overarm and cut your neck and heart. It is unorthodox, but a good spearmen can keep the balance on one on one.

You have never been hit with a falling pole, have you? It hurts a lot, and it's a lot worse.
Also, ALL (yes, that is ALL) of the spearmen carried a secondary hand to hand weapon, spears can break, and they aren't really useful when the guy's shield is right next to you (if he doesn't have a shield; he'll get knocked on his donkey). On one on one that is, in formation, they aren't really useful when 10 guys in the line manage to break through the spearwall (and they WILL... After you stab around 20 guys in the same line)

A spearman will tire a lot faster than a swordsman assuming equal fitness. A swordman doesn't need to move nearly as much. Also, as the two opponents become more armoured, the sword becomes more effective; the spearman tires sonner and his weapon is unable to penetrate really thick armour like full plate or a coat of plates. The sword can still dish out blunt force trauma effectively.

Unless it's a sauroter?... Uhm... If the spearman runs away, the swordsman won't magically teleport, he will have to move the same distance. Not really, because with a spear you can bash him or trip him, his sword means lack of range and increased armour means tiredness. The spearman tires less because he has the advantage that he can do things that the swordsman can, like kill him from a distance, trip him; and most importantly, he can knock him out. Blunt damage is only slightly absorbed by armour. A wooden shaft can really do some blunt damage.

Also he can also pull out his own sword or small axe and whatnot. Then he would have a better chance in very close-combat.

The opposite actually, a spearman needs to keep moving or he's screwed.

No, he carries a sidearm. Also, he can stop the other guy from moving by threatening him with a sharp blade in front of his face and that he will stab himself if he is not quick enough.

It does have some merit. Some weapons are simply useless regardless of the man carrying it. Lances on foot, knives, a gladius on horseback. A spear outside of a shieldwall fast approaches uselessness. An extremely competant spearman may be able to gain an edge versus a somewhat skilled swordsman, but otherwise it's simply the wrong weapon.

They are not useless. I was just stating this: "If I am quick enough, I can take the guy by surprise and pass through his spear and quickly stab him without much reaction from him. However, in a spearwall; I cannot do this because there are many people with their spears pointed at me. I could try to break the tips but they coud push the spears into my face. I better just charge and hope at least a spear breaks so my fellows from the same line will have a slightly less hard time with them spears."

"Spear has range of kill, but it doesn't need him to be behind the tip for it to do some damage (one on one). In combat, many guys will chargy at my spear and unfortunately; at some point, it will break. And they could pass through easily and I'll have to resort to my sidearm."

~Jirisys ()

[vartan]

I'm enjoying the discourse, if we may call it that, developing here. It's a good for the a mental health-a.

Bobbin you mention that spears have been used in many regions in various times. What are some explanations for this, offered by you or any historian? If someone asked me, I'd tell them if I was stranded on an island, I'd probably make a primitive wooden spear because the image of the spear is so engrained inside my mind, that it's the first thing I think of when it comes to a hypothetical situation about survival (and I'm no Eagle Scout). What say you?

[moonburn]

spears are easy to make axes are harder for instance

spear is usefull for hunting fishing and walking (the today´s walking sticks that many travellers and adventurers use both in snow and in other enviroments fallow the same principle a stick that helps you use your arms for locomotion thus removing pressure from the legs and help you spend less energy in traversing an x amount of distance)

even shields are harder to make and except for serving as a big plate or if big enough as a litle boat makes it less versatile

swords now thats a harsh thing to do and it requires a sload of tecnology to make a good sword so spears are naturally the weapon of choice in almost any enviroment you only need some wood and a sharp point at the end

[antisocialmunky]

They have a great deal of range for something extremely simple and cheap to make especially when your metallurgy skill is limited. It also gives you good leverage (two hand grip, one is the fulcrum), a long standoff distance, and good horizontal and vertical coverage. It can do swinging, slashing, stabbing and throwing.

[bobbin]

I'm enjoying the discourse, if we may call it that, developing here. It's a good for the a mental health-a.

Bobbin you mention that spears have been used in many regions in various times. What are some explanations for this, offered by you or any historian? If someone asked me, I'd tell them if I was stranded on an island, I'd probably make a primitive wooden spear because the image of the spear is so engrained inside my mind, that it's the first thing I think of when it comes to a hypothetical situation about survival (and I'm no Eagle Scout). What say you?

Because they are extremely simple to make and effective, in their most basic form they would just be a sharpened length of wood.
They were probably among the first tools used by humans, although as with all weapons they were initially used for hunting.

A good example of how early the concept of a spear could have developed is that chimpanzees and orangutans have been known to create them for hunting fish and other animals.

[vartan]

Wow, I've seen primates using twigs to catch insects up close and in person, but never even heard about them making something like a spear. How do they sharpen the tip? Have they been doing this for a long time, or have they learned by observing humans?

[QuintusSertorius]

Just bat it aside and charge. Unless its something other than a simple spear, you can only really do a few things with it: jab, obviously; throw it, if its balanced; slash across the neck, rare. Most of the time he will be moving back constantly and jabbing to keep the opponent at distance;throwing enters the equation if he has a sword or a different weapon that can be more wieldy in close combat. Slashing isn't gonna happen really, unless the difference in skill is extreme. Tripping won't occurr since you need a hook to perform a move like that. Battering with the haft will do minimal damage, being reduced to nothing if the target is at all armoured.

A spearman will tire a lot faster than a swordsman assuming equal fitness. A swordman doesn't need to move nearly as much. Also, as the two opponents become more armoured, the sword becomes more effective; the spearman tires sonner and his weapon is unable to penetrate really thick armour like full plate or a coat of plates. The sword can still dish out blunt force trauma effectively.

Dude, you're clueless. You're only making yourself look even more stupid the more you say, quit while you're only a little way behind.

[saka-rauka1]

1. Why do you need a hook to trip?
2. Have you ever been hit by the handle of any wooden object? It hurts a lot, and can deal a lot of damage to anything except an armoured opponent.
3. So can a spear haft.

Also, if both are lightly armoured professional soldiers/warriors then stamina won't necessarily be an issue. These two men would be in prime physical condition.

I pretty much agree with the rest, especially about moving. However, both fighters would need to keep moving or they're both screwed. You can't expect a guy to stand still whether he's holding a sword, spear, machine gun, or bazooka.

1. How else are you going to do it?
2. A spear is too long or unwieldy for this. To get adequate circular momentum would require you to turn through a large arc, an invitation for the swordsman to charge. A shorter weapon can definately pack a punch, you don't need to convince me here. I've seen Kali/Escrima sticks in use and they cause serious damage. I just can't see a long spear doing the same against a skilled opponent, not if they have a shield.
3. Same point as 2, and I would think that had a spear been able to do that, swords wouldn't have been experimented with during the middle ages, when the length, curvature etc were being compared to find a weapon more suited for getting through armour.

If it's a duel both have to move and my point about stamina referred to both having similar equipment, but the swordman, wielding a shield, would have more weight...
But as I said duels aren't the matter, leave that to epics and movies...
Deciding whether a weapon is superior to another is just pointless, the manufacture can be perfect, but a tool is a tool, a rock is good enough to kill a man...
What matters is training and the tactics in battle, and duels are a complete different world...
Anyway, about haft's blunt damage, Miyamoto Musashi won a duel killing his opponent with a paddle :D

I agree, but for the time being we are restricting this to just duels. And to the example, was his opponent using a shield and armour?

It's actually the exact opposite, a swordsman has to cover the distance between the spear point and the spearman to make an attack. The spearman on the other hand can attack with less effort and from a comfortable distance by just jabbing, the only moving they need to do is to keep the minimum safe distance from the swordsman, which in terms of energy expend by both is equal as they are moving the same amount.

And swords were pretty useless against plate armour as they lacked the mass to cause any internal damage, which is why maces and war hammers became the weapon of choice when dealing with armoured knights.

Upon reflection, you are indeed correct.

Yes, hafted weapons are definately the way to go against extremely well protected opponents. But if it came down to spear vs sword, I reckon the sword is a better option.

I think a quick look through history disproves that assumption, if the spear was that useless out of a shield wall they why did it see continual widespread use over a vast geographic and social range from the very beginnings of warfare right through to the modern day?

It's very simple to make/use.

Depends, he can hit you with the shaft, turn it around and trip you; it can also run back and stab you, jump and stab you, beat you in the head, hold it overarm and cut your neck and heart. It is unorthodox, but a good spearmen can keep the balance on one on one.

You have never been hit with a falling pole, have you? It hurts a lot, and it's a lot worse.
Also, ALL (yes, that is ALL) of the spearmen carried a secondary hand to hand weapon, spears can break, and they aren't really useful when the guy's shield is right next to you (if he doesn't have a shield; he'll get knocked on his donkey). On one on one that is, in formation, they aren't really useful when 10 guys in the line manage to break through the spearwall (and they WILL... After you stab around 20 guys in the same line)

I think jabbing is the only real option, for reasons I have explained above.

No, but I have been whacked with a hockey stick a few times, it does hurt. Then again, I didn't have a shield/armour to deflect/absorb damage; nor was I expecting it in any way. Snapping with a spear wont do much damage, whearas swinging it will. Swinging it in a sufficiently large arc will lead to your death though, as you can no longer stop them from moving up. Moreso, you have to hit with the tip/end of the haft; hitting him with the first half of the length will reduce damage considerably.

No, he carries a sidearm. Also, he can stop the other guy from moving by threatening him with a sharp blade in front of his face and that he will stab himself if he is not quick enough.

If he pulls out a weapon more suited to individual fighting..............doesn't that prove my point?

[jirisys]

1. How else are you going to do it?
2. A spear is too long or unwieldy for this. To get adequate circular momentum would require you to turn through a large arc, an invitation for the swordsman to charge. A shorter weapon can definately pack a punch, you don't need to convince me here. I've seen Kali/Escrima sticks in use and they cause serious damage. I just can't see a long spear doing the same against a skilled opponent, not if they have a shield.
3. Same point as 2, and I would think that had a spear been able to do that, swords wouldn't have been experimented with during the middle ages, when the length, curvature etc were being compared to find a weapon more suited for getting through armour.

You just lift it and move it down with force.

No, you just do the above.

Uhm... Middle-age armor until the 14th century was the mail, plates and leather. From the 14th century onwards, with the (now emerging on the west) black powder; more powerful armour had to be designed. This is when the steel (?) full body armour rose to prominence, also from them came Bastard swords, maces, poleaxes, and morningstars.

I agree, but for the time being we are restricting this to just duels. And to the example, was his opponent using a shield and armour?

Duel thing is annoying. I suggest we look at real hellenistic warfare now.

You can put him a shield and armour, whatever you want. My duel was with an unarmored peasant swordsman with a shield versus an unarmored peasant spearman.

Upon reflection, you are indeed correct.

Yes, hafted weapons are definately the way to go against extremely well protected opponents. But if it came down to spear vs sword, I reckon the sword is a better option.

I recon I would rather have a spear and a small sword than just a sword. In fact, a mace or an axe and a spear would be a great combination. Now I would go and steal a horse. And much better now. Now I would go and protect the Sparapet.

It's very simple to make/use.

A stick with a tip. You can just cut the wood obliquely and you have a spear. I have done this with bamboo. It's easier to cut a tip than breaking it with a straight cut.

I think jabbing is the only real option, for reasons I have explained above.

No. You can bash a lot and you can break him off balance.

No, but I have been whacked with a hockey stick a few times, it does hurt. Then again, I didn't have a shield/armour to deflect/absorb damage; nor was I expecting it in any way. Snapping with a spear wont do much damage, whearas swinging it will. Swinging it in a sufficiently large arc will lead to your death though, as you can no longer stop them from moving up. Moreso, you have to hit with the tip/end of the haft; hitting him with the first half of the length will reduce damage considerably.

Blunt damage is not really affected by armour. That's why maces and morningstars were prominent by the end of the dark ages. Cause even if you got all that shiny steel (?) armour, you would get knocked on your donkey

If he pulls out a weapon more suited to individual fighting..............doesn't that prove my point?

No. It just means a spear cannot match the sword on it's short range, but the sword can't match the spear on it's long range. Meaning; a spearwall can kill many swordsmen, but then, when one passes through, the spearwall cannot help the guy he's aiming for. So he drops his spear and pulls out a sword better suited for close combat.

He could knock him out if it was a duel. But it's a battle. And he doesn't have much room, so pull out your sidearm. Even many swordsmen had sidearms. Swords got stuck in the bodies and you had to push it with your leg to get it out. And in close combat, that was gonna get you dead.

~Jirisys ()

[vartan]

This is post #133. The speculation ends now.

[Trax]

Couple of videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_IIHlFOEiI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8RWLxlzTiM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3J-10KfRe8

From these videos it seems to me that a swordsman is in a great disadvantage against a spearman unless he has a shield. Add a shield and it will change everything. On the other hand, the spearman has no shield in these videos, I wonder how much that would change the outcome.

[KyodaiSteeleye]

This is post #133. The speculation ends now.

Awww. We all love speculation. It means that you can have posts that go on for EVAAAAA.

Just to plant my spear-tip of righteousness into the mass of writhing bodies and not help at all -
- all weapons have advantages and disadvantages.
- some weapons have particular advantages when used in formation
- training is more important than the weapon. I think a lot of the spear-dissing is due to the romantic image of swords and maybe that poorly trained levies could be equipped with spears fairly cheaply, and when said levies didn't perform very well in historical battles people imediately think spears are a disadvantageous weapon. A well trained warrior will generally beat a badly trained one, whatever the weapon combo (with proviso they have room to wield it properly and keep correct distance etc.)
- Spears really aren't passive weapons. As stated above, with enough room you can do all sorts of nasty stuff with a spear. Its can do anything any other stabbing weapon can (eg:- I fence with stabbing weapons - the principles in spear combat will be nearly exactly the same).

[bobbin]

Wow, I've seen primates using twigs to catch insects up close and in person, but never even heard about them making something like a spear. How do they sharpen the tip? Have they been doing this for a long time, or have they learned by observing humans?

They use their teeth to trim the end into a point. No one can say how long they have been doing it or if they learned from observing humans, but I think the real importance of the finding was that it demonstrates they can understand the concept, which pushes back the barrier for use of custom tools massively.
IIRC the oldest definite evidence for a spear is from 400000 years ago, so that alone already pre dates modern humans by a huge amount of time.

Link to the research paper concerning tool use by chimpanzees.

It's very simple to make/use.

And effective, tools do not get used for as long as the spear has without being good at what they do.

[vartan]

400,000 YA? Wow. That may very well precede the use of fire, if I'm not mistaken. Thanks for the paper.

[jirisys]

400,000 YA? Wow. That may very well precede the use of fire, if I'm not mistaken. Thanks for the paper.

Use of fire was very late (especially by us). I remember I read in a book that the Homo Erectus already used stone tools and fire. And that was around 30k years ago (number might be wrong).

~Jirisys ()

[saka-rauka1]

And effective, tools do not get used for as long as the spear has without being good at what they do.

It's different when shields enter the equation.

[bobbin]

Yes and how long have the two coexisted? 4 or 5 millenia? A shield may reduce the effectiveness of a spear but it doesn't render it useless.

[saka-rauka1]

Okay I'll admit I very quickly turned to hyperbole.

Do we not agree that a shield user has the advantage?

[vartan]

Do we not agree that a shield user has the advantage?

No, we do not agree, for the simple reason that the opponent has a shield as well.

[jirisys]

No, we do not agree, for the simple reason that the opponent has a shield as well.

Training and the fact that they have different brains, means even if they are virtually the same, one of them will eventually win.

~Jirisys ()

[Arjos]

Duels again?
For those I think one must consider: sleep, food, sun, emotional status, training, equipment, tactic, luck and exterior influences...
But let's try to forget them, those are something very personal, for example take the legend of the Horatii and Curiatii, in the end that was a 1v3, ok it's a narrative story, but shows duels for what they are: anomalies...