Why almost all infantry prefer spear than sword?

[Satapatiš]

I have no doubt that Persians were using kopis. Greek red-figure pottery is usually quite accurate in details and we have even vases with Persians using sagaris, so if there are vases with Persians using kopis it means that certainly someone saw them using kopis.
I have only hard time believing that they were using almost exclusively kopis when Persian reliefs are depicting them with other weapon. More than likely they were using both weapons along with the other blades, as standarisation was almost certainly nonexistent.

Also, it seems that common agreement in this thread is that spears were primary weapon mainly because of tactical reasons, being the most convenient weapon for infantry armed with shields. I'd rather believe in that, than in speculated difficulty with obtaining any sidearm - because we are certainly in agreement that iron sidearm (regardless of its kind) wasn't really that hard to obtain.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

I have only hard time believing that they were using almost exclusively kopis when Persian reliefs are depicting them with other weapon. More than likely they were using both weapons along with the other blades, as standarisation was almost certainly nonexistent.

I never said that. I just said that at least some Persians did use kopis (a sword), not just akinakes (a dagger). About standardization - I always dispute its existence among ancient cultures.

[Satrio Eko]

While the vases might not be completely accurate, the kopis was common everywhere. The Phoenicians used it, the Egyptians (apparently) used it, the Italics used it, the Iberians used it. Why not Persians?

Egyptians Marines in ROP use Khopes,but they are very short sword

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

The khopesh was long gone by RoP's timeframe. And it's facing the wrong way.

[Satapatiš]

Actually, I was never able to watch Kemet troops closely, because I'm usually wiping them fast enough, either with Persia or Babilon.
But, do they are still using khopesh models?

If yes, this probably should be changed in RoP 3?

[Satapatiš]

Sorry for double posting, can't edit my posts yet.
But shouldn't be Saitic Egyptian marines changed to the more iconic look, like this one?

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

The pic doesn't show. But I am pretty sure they'll get rid of the khopesh. That being said, this mod is apparently in coma, and close to death. Their main researcher is doing his PhD, while not much work appears to be going on elsewhere, either.

I'm obviously not on the team, so I don't know for sure, but it appears to be dying

[Satrio Eko]

The khopesh was long gone by RoP's timeframe. And it's facing the wrong way.

Hahahaha,historically innacurate detected
in future,the marines shall using spears or other historically accurate egyptian weapon

[Satrio Eko]

Damn,did the mod was abandoned

[Satapatiš]

Actually, I checked it and Khemet marines indeed are still using khopesh in RoP 2.22.



+edit:
And not only marines, also Khemet charioteers and general bodyguards.

[Satrio Eko]

Well,i an do some skinning to change the khopesh

[ImperialAndre]

But in medieval 2 some infantry use shorter sword than knight sword

Isnt it quite obvious medival 2 and rise of persia is a totaly diffrent time period

Spears have been used by every civilisation because of its superior reach and ability to ward of cavalry.

The heavily armoured citizen soldiers in Greece used spears because it allowed 3 ranks deep to reach the first rank of the enemy and as soldiers die gaps occur that the soldiers will push themselves into thus creating fear in the enemy and possibly making them rout. ( more people die in the rout than in the actual melee)

In Asia archers was the main force showering the enemy with thousands of arrows volley after volley untill the enemy was weak enough for a cavalry charge.

But archers are vulnerble and have no shields so here comes the shield bearer carying a shield big enough to protect an archer and a spear to ward of cavalry.

Cavalry and arcchers were the decisive element the spear and shield soldiers were there to protect the archers and hold the enemy in place untill the other elements came in for the kill.

My final words in this is: in the Rise of Persia forum only discuss things related to Rise of Persia and that specific time period.

[MrExpendable]

Because spears are easier and quicker to produce, easier to use without extensive training and are easily replaceable. Not to mention that spears provides troops with more tactical flexibility whether we are speaking about cavalry, or infantry.
Sword, long knive or cutlass (in fact in the Medieval times majority of infantry "swords" were rather a kind long knives with one cutting edge, like this one) in battle was warriors weapon of last resort, when he expended all arrows, throwing spears, or his thrusting spear was broken. Or when close combat formation was broken and every warrior was fighting on his own. Each of these situations was not very desired in general.
Also, keep in mind that in the RoP time frame most units aren't professional warriors. And even a few of professional troops are issued with their weapons by state - the cheapest is weapon, the better. Babylonian army is a good example, though they were issued with basic swords.
Then there is a matter of training. Most of RoP troops are levies. These men have everyday diuties, jobs and families and not a lot of time for an extensive training - this is true especially with Greeks. Not every hoplite was really trained with sword, many of them doesn't even carried swords.
Spears are far easier for use, especially in larger groups of soldiers. It's easier to attack or defend yourself with large shield in one hand, and spear in another (and it's even easier to attack from horseback with spear, than with relatively short sword).
And the last is matter of tactics. Large group od men armed with long spears are very effective both in attack and in defense. They don't need to have a lot of training, it's enough if they know how to march in more or less tight formation and are disciplined enough to keep their place on the battlefield.
In short - spear, especially paired with a shield -is your everyday "noob friendly weapon". Good for conscripts, good for professionals, cheap, and even if it's lost or broken you can easily find another one.

All of this.

I can imagine that out of a battle between a sword-armed formation and a spear-armed formation (both with equally skilled soldiers), the spears would come out on top. They're just that much better to use in tight formations.

[General Sultan V]

well how come The Gladius Hispanensis Majorly wielded by the Roman army The annihilator and bane of many Spear Wielding Armies around the world then?


maybe the spear is really just an easy weapon guys... It came much before other weapons such as the sword. swords were harder to forge, took several hours to make (sometimes up to days...) unlike spears. Swords slowly became obviously more prominent and preferred Unlike the spear. The spear is not an easy Single-combat weapon, Especially against shields... It is easily blockable and can be pulled from its wielder, Take Roman soldiers for example, they made excellent use of their shields against Greek style spear-warfare which the Romans Abandoned hundreds of years ago in favor of manipular warfare & Blade weapons while only the Rear-most Triarii Wielded spears, in the very early years of the Roman army only the Hastati wielded very early types of swords mixed with spears, the Principes wielded spears mostly, the Triarii Used Hoplons and spears. this was quickly abandoned in favor of the Gladius hispanensis. also note how many un-civilized People around the world only Used spears hundreds of years while other civilizations Mixed other weapons.

the Southern americans when Discovered by the Europeans were still making extensive use of primitive Weapons Including spears, no mention of swords

So maybe the sword was just better. It was used by anyone who owned in the middle ages, slowly the spear was abandoned for the sword as a close combat weapon over the next few centuries, and the spear was slowly wiped out from use despite being the "Easier" And cheaper weapon.

[General Sultan V]

Spears have been used by every civilisation because of its superior reach and ability to ward of cavalry.

Retarded misconception. Unless you are speaking about Pikes or any pole weapon longer then 6 meters

The heavily armoured citizen soldiers in Greece used spears because it allowed 3 ranks deep to reach the first rank of the enemy and as soldiers die gaps occur that the soldiers will push themselves into thus creating fear in the enemy and possibly making them rout. ( more people die in the rout than in the actual melee)

oh the hoplites in the third rank of the phalanx wielding the Dory could reach all the way to the first rank with their 2-3 Meter spears? can you explain is how does this make sense?

Cavalry and arcchers were the decisive element the spear and shield soldiers were there to protect the archers and hold the enemy in place untill the other elements came in for the kill.

RTW and M2TW have got much into you!

[MrExpendable]

well how come The Gladius Hispanensis Majorly wielded by the Roman army The annihilator and bane of many Spear Wielding Armies around the world then?


maybe the spear is really just an easy weapon guys... It came much before other weapons such as the sword. swords were harder to forge, took several hours to make (sometimes up to days...) unlike spears. Swords slowly became obviously more prominent and preferred Unlike the spear. The spear is not an easy Single-combat weapon, Especially against shields... It is easily blockable and can be pulled from its wielder, Take Roman soldiers for example, they made excellent use of their shields against Greek style spear-warfare which the Romans Abandoned hundreds of years ago in favor of manipular warfare & Blade weapons while only the Rear-most Triarii Wielded spears, in the very early years of the Roman army only the Hastati wielded very early types of swords mixed with spears, the Principes wielded spears mostly, the Triarii Used Hoplons and spears. this was quickly abandoned in favor of the Gladius hispanensis. also note how many un-civilized People around the world only Used spears hundreds of years while other civilizations Mixed other weapons.

the Southern americans when Discovered by the Europeans were still making extensive use of primitive Weapons Including spears, no mention of swords

So maybe the sword was just better. It was used by anyone who owned in the middle ages, slowly the spear was abandoned for the sword as a close combat weapon over the next few centuries, and the spear was slowly wiped out from use despite being the "Easier" And cheaper weapon.

Innovation, unit cohesion and standardization in equipment and tactics led to the Roman military being the bane of many spear-armed armies. The legions were mostly a professional fighting force (as opposed to many feudal armies which consisted mostly of conscripts and were incohesive) and as you said their shields were optimally designed to compliment their ways of fighting. Not to discredit the gladius in any way, but the users behind them definitely decided how much of an effective weapon it was going to be.

There are many takes on what we could call civilization. Those Native Southern Americans also carried obsidian-edged wooden swords. They were used by the elite of the Meso-American armies and excelled in duels.

I'd also like to conclude with the fact that polearms eventually came out on top in the arms race during the renaissance, before firearms took over.

[General Sultan V]

actually During the Renassaince Age you could so The swords & Edges weapons were still used to bloody effect. the Pikes were used for self preservation and as a method to fight back against other Tercios, And you could still find many "components" of the Tercios wielding swords, the musketeers for example.

the landsknecht and spanish Tercios were deadly for their special and "bizarre" Use of swordsmen in the Tercios, once battle is joined, Heavily armored swordsmen dock below the spears, crawl, flank the Tercios in a mission to break spear points and kill the Pikemen who are busy holding their pikes


the Native southern americans used more clubs and polearms then what we consider "Swords". planks edged with Poseidan Are more "bats" and polearms Then swords, they were usually very long, and it was not a cutting weapon, It was intended for smashing, as it was obviously half-wooden.

[Sertorio]

Spear is cheaper, requires less training and it works very well in tight formations.
The highly effectiveness of the gladius comes as much from the weapon itself as from the fighting technique, the formations, the training and discipline of the Roman legions.
Worthy of note is that the late Roman army reintroduced the spear when the infantry assumed a more static line on the battlefield and faced strong cavalry based nations.

[Satrio Eko]

well,then in next version we shall give the magadha some spearman
as almost their infantry use sword.that is historically innacurate

[General Sultan V]

but at such very early times The training of roman soldiers was down to their own selves you guys know? Standard & Full training was introduced centuries later When Gaius Marius Reformed the Roman Army