Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 36

Thread: Spears vs Swords

  1. #1

    Icon4 Spears vs Swords

    So watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afqhBODc_8U

    And after, let's begin the discussion, what you think is better? Fighting with a sword or with a spear? And in what conditions would this change? Lastly, the debate about the under-arm vs over-hand spears

  2. #2

    Default Re: Spears vs Swords

    As much as I love watching Lindybeige, he is not a martial arts related scientist/instructor/active practitioner and his commentary isn't scientific research.

    Even though elements of things I consider to be true were shown in that video, all we can see there is a couple dozen of guys who have never trained with spears have some fun in single or small group fights. It has nothing to do with with pitched battles involving thousands of trained (to various degrees) combatants and massive formations.

    He is awfully dismissive of the overhand grip, I will say that. Maybe it is because he doesn't have the strength, the knowledge and the opportunity to use it effectively (do your pushups, kids).
    Last edited by Rad; October 08, 2018 at 12:12 AM.

  3. #3
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Spears vs Swords

    Honestly, I have moderate trust in re-enactment like this. Especially because I did medieval fencing in the past and honestly it doesn't give you any foresight to talk about historical fighting. It's fun but it's a hobby or a sport, nothing else.

    In this case the uses of the shield and of the spear are so bad that it ruins everything. The testing part with small tight group versus mobile fighters is just absurd. How does it relate to anything real? The size effect is clearly significant there.

    Just to point out why I don't trust this kind of test. I found it excessively arrogant to draw conclusion from an amateur test while it contradict a great part of the historical evidence about the use of the spear.
    LOTR mod for Shogun 2 Total War (Campaign and Battles!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywmAgUxQU

  4. #4

    Default Re: Spears vs Swords

    Yeah, I must admit I've never been all that impressed by Lindybeige. And he does seem to have a strange fixation with overhand being "unrealistic".

  5. #5

    Default Re: Spears vs Swords

    Surely for someone who's not acquainted with Muay Thai(and similar arts) hitting someone with your shin must look like an terrible and unrealistic idea...
    Last edited by LusitanianWolf; October 08, 2018 at 04:45 AM.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Spears vs Swords

    Quote Originally Posted by Rad View Post
    As much as I love watching Lindybeige, he is not a martial arts related scientist/instructor/active practitioner and his commentary isn't scientific research.
    I haven't watched the above video (its title is a tad too clickbaity for my taste), but Matt Easton, who is a certified expert (historian and HEMA instructor), has made some similar points. However he said something to the effect that in order to stand a decent chance against spear-armed opponents of comparable skill, swordsmen need shields (which, incidentally, most historical swordsmen had, at least on the battlefield) and ideally armour as well. In that case, the matchup isn't as imbalanced, if at all. IMO the main contributing factors are fighting style and cost. I think the Romans of the late Republic and early Empire did just fine with sword-and-shield as their main melee weapons, because they had armour and and large shields, plus their swords didn't need a lot of room for swinging.

    TL;DR: if swords really were categorically worse than spears, nobody would've used them. I think the broader point that Lindybeige and others are making is that the spear doesn't get the respect it deserves from popular media.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Spears vs Swords

    I think the video was an fun experiment and the conclusions weren't that different than what we were expecting (spears being relatively easy to use and better when used in formations, swords having the advantage when the distance is breached) but of course this wasnt in any way serious proof for anything and calling impractical overhand usage of spear because someone who never trained with it didn't managed to win a sparring match against a trained swordsman was just silly.

  8. #8
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    8,451

    Default Re: Spears vs Swords

    I usually find the Schola Gladiatoria arguments more convincing, in this case it's here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d86sT3cF1Eo
    A discussion on the Stainless Steel webpage is currently under way, as well.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Spears vs Swords

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    I usually find the Schola Gladiatoria arguments more convincing, in this case it's here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d86sT3cF1Eo
    That's the one I was referring to.

  10. #10
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Spears vs Swords

    However he said something to the effect that in order to stand a decent chance against spear-armed opponents of comparable skill, swordsmen need shields (which, incidentally, most historical swordsmen had, at least on the battlefield) and ideally armour as well. In that case, the matchup isn't as imbalanced, if at all.
    The problem is to use this argument to talk about sword vs. spear, since the main parameter here is the shield. This argument will be true for all the one-handed weapons. You can apply it to mace vs. sword, axe vs. spear, dagger vs. mace etc. A shield is a very strong asset in a duel between light-armored men. Medieval warriors with two-handed swords were simply replacing the shield by steel armor. I don't see the point to test a sword+shield combo against a spearman without a shield. Any combo of a shield with a one-handed weapon will win against a not-shielded spearman, even with a butcher knife. Furthermore if the fighter known how to use correctly the shield to hit the opponent. With a 4kg wooden shield, you can easily break the leg or the ribs of the opponent, even by accident during a training session.

    I think the Romans of the late Republic and early Empire did just fine with sword-and-shield as their main melee weapons, because they had armour and and large shields, plus their swords didn't need a lot of room for swinging.
    Don't forget the pilum too, but you are right to highlight the scutum, the lorica and the helmet. With good training formation, good military organization, good officers, tactical flexibility and good equipment, having a sword or a spear is a minor factor. The sword is enough polyvalent to be used in tight formation. But I will say that the spear work fine and is clearly cheaper.

    In the end, even the Roman army gave up the gladius and the pilum for the spear and the long sword. Probably without any effect on the efficiency.

    TL;DR: if swords really were categorically worse than spears, nobody would've used them.
    The talk should be more difficult if we include cavalry.
    Last edited by Genava; October 08, 2018 at 07:04 AM.
    LOTR mod for Shogun 2 Total War (Campaign and Battles!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywmAgUxQU

  11. #11

    Default Re: Spears vs Swords

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    TL;DR: if swords really were categorically worse than spears, nobody would've used them. I think the broader point that Lindybeige and others are making is that the spear doesn't get the respect it deserves from popular media.
    Worse at what? That's the critical thing, it was almost never an either/or, the sword was your backup/sidearm regardless of your main weapon. Note how many of EBII's spearmen units have inactive swords on their models, because in reality they'd carry more than just one weapon. The spear is the superior weapon for fending off cavalry and in properly ordered formations. That's why some of the later phalangites dispensed with their sidearms altogether, they never had need of them under normal circumstances.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Spears vs Swords

    The video I posted was just for fun, I had no intention to start a scientific discussion based solely on the video because its data isn't sufficient and the people on the video are just amateurs that seem to never have picked up a spear. Still, it seems to show that spears are better on most cases. The Romans really changed how war was fought...

  13. #13

    Default Re: Spears vs Swords

    I think it all depends on the tactic/formation. The best weapon it's the one which works better with the tactic/formation a commander would use and the best tactic/formation always depends on the opponent and terrain. That's it, one don't need to be martial arts expert or even an historian to understand this

  14. #14
    Decanus
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Virginia, US of A
    Posts
    586

    Default Re: Spears vs Swords

    It's not so much that spears are better, but rather do you want javelins or spears? As has been mentioned plenty, the sword is your secondary weapon since it's so very easy to carry on your person. The primary weapon you carry in your hand will almost always be something else. The spear has some advantages in reach. The javelin can be thrown. The sarissa has even more reach. Etc etc. So for the Romans, it really wasn't a choice between sword and spear, it was between spear and pila.

    As far as swords were concerned, the primary factor was cost. If you could afford it, the sword had a lot of advantages due to having so much metal, and thus a lot of cutting edges. If you didn't have the money, then axes, daggers, and clubs were your next best bet.

    And even more important than that would be the time you spent practicing. Knowing how to use your axe was far more important than having a sword (and not practicing it). Experience outweighs equipment in most cases.

    TW games have too much of a tendency to focus on technological differences (sword vs. spear vs. axe vs. pike vs. horse) and generate improper rock/paper/scissor relationships. The focus really should be more on experience, training, and tactics.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Spears vs Swords

    And of course some spears are also javelins, like the longche, which originated from a heavy hunting javelin that was robust enough to be used as a spear too. A lighter one like an akontio wouldn't survive being used as a hand weapon, and you'd struggle to throw a dedicated spear like a dory very far.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Spears vs Swords

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    I haven't watched the above video (its title is a tad too clickbaity for my taste), but Matt Easton, who is a certified expert (historian and HEMA instructor), has made some similar points.
    This statement is untrue in regards to the overhand grip.

    In this video

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Matt Easton comments about why he thinks that the ovearm spear grip is so commonly seen throughout history:
    1. It's the throwing position, so one can stab/throw at will. That gives the user a lot of options and makes his opponent more careful.
    2. One can effectively use the spear with overhand grip in tight formations like the hoplite phalanx/shield wall.
    3. Because the attack comes from above, overhand spear attacks usually target the face and neck, areas that most often aren't covered with a shield and/or armor.

    He concludes by saying that undearm is just fine in 1vs1 situations.

    I agree with his statements.

    In the video that started this discussion, Matt very politely stays silent whenever Lindybeige lets out something that blatantly contradicts him, presumably because it is not his video and he doesn't want to start a fruitless discussion with a diehard like Lloyd. I swear I saw the pain in his eyes.

    Edit: Added some clarifications and made the text more readable, I hope.
    Last edited by Rad; October 08, 2018 at 10:07 AM.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Spears vs Swords

    the one thing which sort of annoyed me in the original video is, when talking about the prevalence of spear use vs. sword use in warfare, the most obvious reason isn't touched upon.. cost. how many spearheads can you supply in equivalence to one sword?

  18. #18

    Default Re: Spears vs Swords

    Yeah, I must admit I've never been all that impressed by Lindybeige. And he does seem to have a strange fixation with overhand being "unrealistic".
    Which is incredibly silly, since 99,99% of the extant ancient era depictions of Spearmen show it being used... overhand. From Greek hoplitai to Roman equites, they all use it that way. The overhand grip seems to have only fallen out of fashion, for a reason I can't phantom, during the Middle Ages.
    "Romans not only easily conquered those who fought by cutting, but mocked them too. For the cut, even delivered with force, frequently does not kill, when the vital parts are protected by equipment and bone. On the contrary, a point brought to bear is fatal at two inches; for it is necessary that whatever vital parts it penetrates, it is immersed. Next, when a cut is delivered, the right arm and flank are exposed. However, the point is delivered with the cover of the body and wounds the enemy before he sees it."

    - Flavius Vegetius Renatus (in Epitoma Rei Militari, ca. 390)

  19. #19
    Decanus
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Virginia, US of A
    Posts
    586

    Default Re: Spears vs Swords

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    And of course some spears are also javelins, like the longche, which originated from a heavy hunting javelin that was robust enough to be used as a spear too. A lighter one like an akontio wouldn't survive being used as a hand weapon, and you'd struggle to throw a dedicated spear like a dory very far.
    Yup. No matter the type/length/design, the spear type weapon seems to consistently provide some sort of ranged advantage over the sword (plus cost). And since you can always carry the sword as a backup........there's almost no reason why you'd intentionally go for a sword when you could probably afford a spear and an axe instead. At least for war. Status symbol is totally different.

  20. #20
    Decanus
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Virginia, US of A
    Posts
    586

    Default Re: Spears vs Swords

    Quote Originally Posted by Marie Louise von Preussen View Post
    Which is incredibly silly, since 99,99% of the extant ancient era depictions of Spearmen show it being used... overhand. From Greek hoplitai to Roman equites, they all use it that way. The overhand grip seems to have only fallen out of fashion, for a reason I can't phantom, during the Middle Ages.
    True, though the only thing I'd caution is that ancient art, like our modern art/cinema, is not intended for super realism. Art conveys emotion, story, presence, etc. There are definite reasons why the overhand grip was used in art, but that may not be 100% because they were showing the "correct" way to use something in battle. Doesn't mean that all art from back then was completely unrealistic, either. Much like modern war films, some things are right, some things are wrong, and usually, things are shown to convey an emotional/narrative point, not to display complete fidelity to reality.

    To me, art is the starting point, and then we as a society really should provide the reenactment people with lots of money so that they can actually test out proper battles.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •