Does the spear get too much flak?

[Yomamashouse]

Anyone who has played M2TW knows that all a cavalry unit has to do is look at a spear the wrong way and they will be thrown from their horses and die a horrible death - I am not an expert in ancient weaponry, but my impression is that the spear does not get enough credit in TW games for its anti-infantry abilities.

Are there any ancient weaponry experts who can put this issue to rest? In the context or RTWII, should the spear retain its anti-cavalry abilities and weaknesses against infantry?

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

I don't think the spear actually had a weakness against infantry in those games, just, sword infantry was better.

In an duel, it would depend on the skill of the users, but, in my mind, the spear is the superior weapon. It's much more versatile, and just as deadly. I would rather take a spear than a sword any day.

[Grimbold]

I don't think the spear actually had a weakness against infantry in those games, just, sword infantry was better.

In an duel, it would depend on the skill of the users, but, in my mind, the spear is the superior weapon. It's much more versatile, and just as deadly. I would rather take a spear than a sword any day.

Like you said it depends on the user. Yet the spear is good to simultaneously maintain your enemy at a distance and thrusting at him.

The spear becomes weaker in close quarters, which is where shorter weapons, such as swords gain advantage.

You'll have hard time killing your enemy if he's up close to you, shield on shield, and he has a sword.

[Yomamashouse]

I don't think the spear actually had a weakness against infantry in those games, just, sword infantry was better.

In an duel, it would depend on the skill of the users, but, in my mind, the spear is the superior weapon. It's much more versatile, and just as deadly. I would rather take a spear than a sword any day.

I believe the standard TW dynamic was that spears had either an attack or defense penalty against sword infantry, while having similar bonuses against cavalry.

[Maklodes]

I believe the standard TW dynamic was that spears had either an attack or defense penalty against sword infantry, while having similar bonuses against cavalry.

Four examples of spear and sword units in Medieval 2: Total War:
High grade spears: Dismounted Sipahi Lancers
High grade swords: Dismounted Feudal Knights
Medium grade spears: Saracen Militia
Medium grade swords: Urban Militia

(Sword units don't go below what I refer to "medium grade": spears go down to the levy spearmen/non-Italian spear militia/Byzantine spearmen level, but the weakest sword units (Urban militia, swordsmen militia, Norse swordsmen, Byzantine infantry) aren't what I'd call low-grade.)

The pattern I'd notice is that for a comparable grade, sword units have 4 higher attack and 4 higher defensive skill than spear units, although their charge bonus is 1 higher. Spear units, though, get the +8 anti-cavalry bonus (I'm not sure exactly whether that's attack or defense or what; I haven't noticed spears to be super-effective against cavalry, contra Yomamashouse). Having an actual penalty to fighting sword infantry seems superfluous when their stats are already so low, although for all I know there's a penalty in M2TW for spears against infantry anyway, just to rub it in.

[Savoyard]

A well-drilled and organized unit of spearmen are probably better off than equally-drilled swordsmen in a head-on engagement.

[General Sultan V]

No, For both it depends very heavily on the shield before everything

considering all, the Sword is superior but it also heavily depends, what kind of warrior are you? what kind of shield do you wield? are you trained? What Kind of spear/Sword is it?

if you are wielding for example a small shield, A sword would go best, to allow you to try to Use your agility to Block hits with your tiny and useless shield, like The Iberians did it

if you are wielding a large protective shield you can both wield a sword or a spear but you can be advantaged if you are using a spear, you are free to use the Range Advantage of the Spear while resting back behind a shield that will protect you be default (without having to swing it around as someone with a small shield would have to)


if you are a horsemen swords are rendered useless unless they are long/curved longswords. a Spear would go best but spears often got broken on the charge which is why most cavalry switched to secondary hand weapons after charging.


and dont forget how the Roman warriors, whom were some of the best in history & the world slowly abandonded spears to swords and Gladii, one of the Reasons why they were so superior

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

Oh, Im not talking about using a shield. I was talking about using the spear two-handed, as more of a quarterstaff.

I still disagree with the sword being better. It depends on the time period, of course, but a unit of well-drilled spearmen can take any unit of swordsmen, AND be useful in a cavalry engagement to boot.

[General Sultan V]

Well yeah, using a spear heavily depends about other stuff

would you wield a Pelte (Peltast shield) And use a dory at the same time or rather Combine it With a Xiphos/Gladius?

the Spear has Poorer Kill ability, Needs accuracy, harder to wield when one-Handed, Heavier, Can be Pulled away, can be easily blocked by A shield, Is harder at piercing most armors (Particularly Chain armor) and needs good thrusting abilities and Requires an Easy-To-Use shield to go with it as Opposed to a Sword, a Swordsman with a Scuta Can beat a Spearman with a scuta. all what matters is the Shield. if you are a Roman Hastati fighting a Hoplite Who is Equally strong in single combat the Trick is simple, he would wield the Dora Right handed, keep your scuta on the left, push it right, and you have his body exposed. this is amongst many other ways

and dont forget the examples of sword superiority over Spears and how they are often rendered obsolete when swords were avilable. Professional armies back in the use of those weapons were incredibly rare and "Well drilled units" are hard to find and few, the Roman Reformed army, the only Professional & Drilled standing armies in Many Centuries was Reliant on Swords rather than spears

[Anna_Gein]

Professional armies back in the use of those weapons were incredibly rare and "Well drilled units" are hard to find and few, the Roman Reformed army, the only Professional & Drilled standing armies in Many Centuries was Reliant on Swords rather than spears

But they adopted the spear on large scale latter. I think you are taking the question the wrong way. Comparison between one warrior with one equipment and one various with an other equipment doesn't make too much sense.

About spear in TW it has mostly been present as a weapon of second category mainly used by militia or levies with a few good unit using it. And shogun use a strong RPS system. I won't make this threat one against RPS system but the flaw of it are know. I hope Rome 2 will put more emphasize on formation rather than weapon type.

[General Sultan V]

But they adopted the spear on large scale latter. I think you are taking the question the wrong way. Comparison between one warrior with one equipment and one various with an other equipment doesn't make too much sense.

When their military dropped to "Barbarian" Standards and lack of professionality Became very widespread.

When it was at its peak, spears were only for The Auxillaries


yes It does, It does'n make much sense to put a naked guy with a spear and a naked guy with a sword, RTW does'n evolve about an era when that happened, much cultures had their own weapons and standards, either a spear or a sword rely very heavily on other factors to be successful in a fight, the sword has less requirements to wield and kill with as opposed to the spear, A well drilled unit of spearmen VS a Well drilled unit of Swordsmen is the question and despite the Rarity of both try Matching for example Hoplites against Hastati/Principies and see who wins, I Don't have many examples on this one though. as said previously engagements between drilled armies were rare, drilled troops in the first lace were rare, even Hoplites were not drilled, spear was a very common weapon and easier to make compared to swords so they'd be normally with even elites and Nobility in many cultures.

[Anna_Gein]

When their military dropped to "Barbarian" Standards and lack of professionality Became very widespread.

When it was at its peak, spears were only for The Auxillaries

And I thought there was no need to ask you to avoid those theory. Even hesitated to ask it in my previous post.

Barbarization and Decadence theory are highly debated among scholar. The late Roman Army been heavily specialized the use of spear have less to do with barbarians recruits than the evolution of warfare. The battle of Strasbourg (357) or the campaign of Majorian are interesting example of the capability of the Late Roman Army in the West. It is not not the subject so I won't go further about it.
(At least that makes me defending our poor Romans once in a time. )

Most fighting involved whole group of soldiers rather than individual duel. As we are discussing about weapon and no specific "unit" you must assume each group is of equal skill if you want to compare them. Truth to be told a group of spearmen formed in shield-wall is a fierce challenge for a group of swordsmen of equal number and skills.

And please don't come with warrior of salon theory about how you would defeat a kind of weapon. This won't add much to the discussion. (Don't take it personally. It is just that I am now cautious)

Like you said swords often took social connotation been consider as a noble weapon and been symbolic of a good statue while the spear been easier to make and more cheaper to produce it was often consider a weapon for the lower and the larger part of the army. But there is surely good reasons why for most era of history you could find soldiers who could equip themselves with swords and good armour that would prefer to use spear, pole weapon or pike over swords as their primary weapon.


I personally think that the spear used in formation is as good if not better than the sword all things equal. But this is only my humble opinion on the matter.

[General Sultan V]

And I thought there was no need to ask you to avoid those theory. Even hesitated to ask it in my previous post.

Barbarization and Decadence theory are highly debated among scholar. The late Roman Army been heavily specialized the use of spear have less to do with barbarians recruits than the evolution of warfare. The battle of Strasbourg (357) or the campaign of Majorian are interesting example of the capability of the Late Roman Army in the West. It is not not the subject so I won't go further about it.
(At least that makes me defending our poor Romans once in a time. )

Most fighting involved whole group of soldiers rather than individual duel. As we are discussing about weapon and no specific "unit" you must assume each group is of equal skill if you want to compare them. Truth to be told a group of spearmen formed in shield-wall is a fierce challenge for a group of swordsmen of equal number and skills.

And please don't come with warrior of salon theory about how you would defeat a kind of weapon. This won't add much to the discussion. (Don't take it personally. It is just that I am now cautious)

Like you said swords often took social connotation been consider as a noble weapon and been symbolic of a good statue while the spear been easier to make and more cheaper to produce it was often consider a weapon for the lower and the larger part of the army. But there is surely good reasons why for most era of history you could find soldiers who could equip themselves with swords and good armour that would prefer to use spear, pole weapon or pike over swords as their primary weapon.


I personally think that the spear used in formation is as good if not better than the sword all things equal. But this is only my humble opinion on the matter.

lol.


I never said the army was barbarized. many goths were recruited in Illyricum bot nothing else than that

I mean the lack of professionality. The roman legions still infact heavily relied on Swords. AKA the spatha. a good open order weapon and also good for close order. The spearmen were put aside into their own divisions in a Legion (Lancarii) and The limes, Poor low-ranked soldiers were also given spears instead of swords as opposed to the Legionaries whom were still deadly warriors despite dropping shamefully Low compared to their fathers and even Their old camillan & Polybian forefathers.


As said guys it depends on what other things you are carrying with you, If its pure sword vs sword fight with NOTHING else than a spear is obviously your pick.


and as said above once you are past the sharp end its over for you spearman. the sword can be heavily combined to deadly effect. also hence the fact that the Romans who would later Control the entire known world dropped spears for swords when they became easily Available and the spear was slowly and slowly given to the lowest-end troops in a legion. showing the effectiveness of the sword over the spear

[sabaku_no_gaara]

When their military dropped to "Barbarian" Standards and lack of professionality Became very widespread.

When it was at its peak, spears were only for The Auxillaries

I read that they changed back to spears and close formation tactics in an effort to recreate the days of old epics and fight in a phalanx

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Against the theory of Barbarian influences would speak the fact that the Gladii become longer and longer over the years. There is no point where we can say they start to use Spatha. There Swords become longer out of several reasons which are most likely related to the enemies. For example we have in the Lorica Segmentata only in the Northern Provinces and in the eastern still over all times the good old Lorica Hamata, Military Theorist would argue that would be because they is better against arrows and cavallery attacks. Which could be a hint why the Segmentata is out of use in later times. Against the Barbarization Theory would also speak that the Gaulish Legions didn't use Spatha and they were rised shortly after the gallic wars. The several Auxillary Troops of the later Roman Empire use also Roman Weapons and Tactics and there are just a few exceptions.

Warriors use what is practical, not what they like, specially Roman Soldiers. Even in later Roman Legions served only romanized people. "Barbarians" fight as foederatii with their own army.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

Well yeah, using a spear heavily depends about other stuff

would you wield a Pelte (Peltast shield) And use a dory at the same time or rather Combine it With a Xiphos/Gladius?

the Spear has Poorer Kill ability, Needs accuracy, harder to wield when one-Handed, Heavier, Can be Pulled away, can be easily blocked by A shield, Is harder at piercing most armors (Particularly Chain armor) and needs good thrusting abilities and Requires an Easy-To-Use shield to go with it as Opposed to a Sword, a Swordsman with a Scuta Can beat a Spearman with a scuta. all what matters is the Shield. if you are a Roman Hastati fighting a Hoplite Who is Equally strong in single combat the Trick is simple, he would wield the Dora Right handed, keep your scuta on the left, push it right, and you have his body exposed. this is amongst many other ways

and dont forget the examples of sword superiority over Spears and how they are often rendered obsolete when swords were avilable. Professional armies back in the use of those weapons were incredibly rare and "Well drilled units" are hard to find and few, the Roman Reformed army, the only Professional & Drilled standing armies in Many Centuries was Reliant on Swords rather than spears

Now, we're not talking about pikes. We're talking about spears, with a maximum length of six feet. At least, that's what I was refering to.

Personally, I would rather have a spear, because I am confident that I can defeat most enemies with a spear. In a formation, I would still rather have a spear, since, even if an enemy tried to get past my defences, I could rely on my friend next to me to kill him. Plus, I would have the reach of a spear.

Besides, Im not sure the OP was really talking about formations and such. It's so easy to carry both a spear and a small sword, that it wouldn't really make sense to take both into battle.

So, if he is talking about which is the better weapon, in general, I would have to say a spear. Without a shield. If you use it like a quarterstaff, it's nearly unstoppable.Musashi Miyamoto himself said he would never face an opponent armed with a spear, if he had only a sword.

[Wowwars]

Wow this thread is starting to become a nerd derp, I'm sure CA has settled this, a slight penalty as all other games other than phalanx/Spearwall form at a distance.

[Ichon]

Obviously there are a huge amount of factors- generally well drilled and close order spears have an advantage in line to line combat as the rear ranks can join the fight while the mutually supporting shields offer superior protection. The longer the spears the more advantage at least initially. Once the press becomes really close then shorter weapons have an advantage but only extremely disciplined or courageous armies are likely to endure the front ranks being slaughtered by 2-3 layers of phalanx spears to get to the close range required where swords become useful. Only stabbing swords like the gladius can operate when the fighting becomes extremely close so then it becomes a superior weapon. The main lack with a short thrusting sword is range and while a shield might ward off a blow or two, when advancing against ranks where 2 or 3 spear points are aimed at you it becomes difficult. On the other hand swords don't have quite as disadvantage in 1v1 single combat where they can move faster and strike from more directions than a spear. Swords against shorter spears are more balanced at least simply on that single factor but other equipment also plays a role. Large shields offer protection but also weight which slows movement and decreases stamina similar to armor. A large, light, strong shield would be ideal but given the materials available such shields did not exist.

More important that just the weapon used though is the rest of the system- support from other units and the command structure, discipline, terrain, and overall morale.

TW games have seemed to portray spears at a disadvantage by stats but in MTW2 some of the lower stats was countered by the fact spearmen had smaller radius so could fight more closely packed and were usually cheaper. In general though it seems to have been that swords were made superior to equal tier spear units which I don't think is accurate in general though it makes sense in loose order formations. Also the idea that all spears are anti cavalry weapons is false. Longer spears offered some advantages compared to swords against cavalry, especially in a close formation but probably not to the degree shown in TW games so far though phalanx might be the exception aside from first RTW.

If the spears have deeper formation and wider formation swords would be likely outclassed, if the swords can absorb losses in the front ranks to close with spears or flank the spears so the serried ranks of spears lose the advantages of mutual support on the flanks then its likely to be a very bloody battle more often won by morale or other factors besides the weapons.

[RagingCroppy]

Swords should generally be better than spear units but there should be exceptions. The main ones I can think of are phalanxes. In a Macedonian phalanx the sarissas are long enough to keep swordsman at a distance. The swordsmen would be slaughtered unless they could open up a gap in the lines. Once they come into melee with the men in a phalanx they would get the advantage again.

also a shield wall/phalanx would have large, interlocked shields with the spear-men covering each other with their spears. Swordsmen would have a hard time against this formation unless they could break up the formation and the wall of shields.

So basically I think both types of phalanx ought to be able to defeat swordsmen despite being spear-men, so long as they are able to maintain their formation.

[Dodge]

no because i wear a flak-jacket LOL