Was using spears defensively to kill effectively required little to no training & physical conditioning?

[CenturianCoogan]

I notice many movies portray spears as being a very easy weapon to use. You just hold the spear and wait for the enemy to stupidly run into it.

The best example is the Stirling Battle Scene in which William Wallace's soldiers awaited for the English Heavy Cavalry to charge at the Scots. The Scots merely placed large wooden stakes on the ground and angled it at the English Horses and they were slaughtered as they charged into it. So many other movies with troops using spears as their primary weapon portrays using spears in a similar fashion. You hold it and form whole wall of spears and just wait for your enemies to stupidly run into it and die.

Even after the initial charge, using the spear to kill is portrayed simply as pushing it to the next guy in front of you, wait for that guy to be impaled and fall, then hit the next guy in line with it and repeat. 300 shows this perfectly. Watch the video.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdNn5TZu6R8

As you seen in the clip, the Spartan s decimated the Persians with a tactic so simple. Simply push the spear into the next guy in front of you in line after the initial charge and push the spear into him killing him like he's a human shape cardboard stand that you see in stores and he falls to the ground. Waits for the next Persian in role to appear and they suddenly push the spear into the next guy and kill him and keep repeating until an entire Persian unit was decimated.

Spear battles are often protrayed as this in movies once the initial moment where enemies rush into spears with no regard for their own lives and get impaled like barbecue on a hot fourth of July. Push your spear like your enemy is n inflated baloon and you will kill them by the hundreds.

So its portrayed as so long as you don't lose your balance and remaining holding it pointed at your enemy on the defensive, you simply stay where you are and let your enemy charge you and the killing commences.

Even martial art movies portrays spears int he same manner. Often the master martial artist awaits for his gang of enemies to run at him and suddenly he starts killing hordes of men with simple pushes of the spear as the come nearby with a fancy trick from staff fighting thrown in every 3rd or fourth bad guy.

However I remember a martial arts documentary in which some guys were in Japan trying to learn how to use Yari. The weapon was heavier than many martial arts movie portrays them as. In addition the martial artist teaching them showed them just how clumsy using the weapon was if you are untrained as he made them hit some stationary objects.

The martial artist even made the guests spar with him and he showed them just how goddamn easy it was to deflect and parry thrusts from a spear and he showed them just how vulnerable they were once a single thrust was parried. He also showed that spears were very easy to disarmed if you weren't train.

So I am wondering after seeing this documentary. Movies show spears as being such simple weapons anyone can use them as I stated in my description above. But the Martial Artist int he documentary really makes me wonder how hard it is to simply just stand there and wait for your enemies to charge into your spear and also how simplistic it was to push your spear into new men repeatedly.

Was using a spear much harder than movies portray and require a lot of training like the martial arts documentary I saw show?

Would a spear wall formation be enough to kill raging vikings or naked Celts as long as you stand your ground patiently and wait for them to rush into the wall? Or is physical conditioning and actual training with the weapon required?

[athanaric]

Was using a spear much harder than movies portray and require a lot of training like the martial arts documentary I saw show?

Discipline, coordination, and martial arts skill always require lots of training. You need the former two for moving and fighting as part of a formation (regardless of weapon choice), and the latter for individual combat. That said, the spear is a logical choice for massed infantry formations because of its innate properties - it has great reach, is relatively cheap and easy to manufacture, and because it's mostly used with stabbing movements, it's easier to use in a formation than other weapons. These properties also make it a logical weapon of choice for beginners.
This guy makes some good points about spears and their use for beginners:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Yayattasa]

Losses weren't really expected to be high when phalanxes collided. Soldiers weren't even expected to do much movement (the pike is a really heavy weapon, it can tire the front row easily if they try to continuously stab the enemy).

Also, commanders knew they shouldn't commit their cavalry to a frontal charge against a pike formation. It's simply suicidal.

[Damocles]

Losses weren't really expected to be high when phalanxes collided. Soldiers weren't even expected to do much movement (the pike is a really heavy weapon, it can tire the front row easily if they try to continuously stab the enemy).

Also, commanders knew they shouldn't commit their cavalry to a frontal charge against a pike formation. It's simply suicidal.

Which era of pike usage are you referring to? Because while that sounds like Total War pikemen, it doesn't sound like any I've read about who deserved the name 'phalanx'.

The Macedonian and Swiss phalanxes were supposed to be highly mobile and to enter combat at a quick step which could build to a charge and to keep on punching and moving through the enemy much like a steam roller or Blitzkrieg. What you're describing sounds more like Hoplites or the English Civil War.

The Swiss pikemen were the dominant military force for roughly a hundred years. They would happily run any ranged or even cavalry units off the field and take extremely little in the way of casualties (they weren't Scottish schiltrons). Most units broke when faced with a wall of pikes coming at them at a run.

It was only the development of mobile, effective field artillery in the 16th century that made them obsolete as a stand alone unit (without any other kind of combined arms in support).

[Yayattasa]

Which era of pike usage are you referring to? Because while that sounds like Total War pikemen, it doesn't sound like any I've read about who deserved the name 'phalanx'.

The Macedonian and Swiss phalanxes were supposed to be highly mobile and to enter combat at a quick step which could build to a charge and to keep on punching and moving through the enemy much like a steam roller or Blitzkrieg. What you're describing sounds more like Hoplites or the English Civil War.

The Swiss pikemen were the dominant military force for roughly a hundred years. They would happily run any ranged or even cavalry units off the field and take extremely little in the way of casualties (they weren't Scottish schiltrons). Most units broke when faced with a wall of pikes coming at them at a run.

It was only the development of mobile, effective field artillery in the 16th century that made them obsolete as a stand alone unit (without any other kind of combined arms in support).

A pike can weight up to 6 kg. You can't be expected to keep stabbing when a combat can last for a whole day, specially when it's really hard to move in the formation once the engagement commences.
Your other points aren't even related to what I was talking about.

[Damocles]

A pike can weight up to 6 kg. You can't be expected to keep stabbing when a combat can last for a whole day, specially when it's really hard to move in the formation once the engagement commences.
Your other points aren't even related to what I was talking about.

Oh okay, so you're just relying on your own vaunted personal experience with pike warfare to make the claim of how phalanxes fought. Got it. I think I'll stick with ancient witness accounts of how true professional pikemen actually operated.

[Yayattasa]

Oh okay, so you're just relying on your own vaunted personal experience with pike warfare to make the claim of how phalanxes fought. Got it. I think I'll stick with ancient witness accounts of how true professional pikemen actually operated.

Hold it steady = okay.
Move with it pointing towards the enemy = okay.
Keep stabbing with a heavy weapon for hours = obviously not okay.

[wulfgar610]

Well the spear had that use. One could plant spear butt in the ground and shiver, whether this had much merit didn't matter as long as the troops believed in it. Nothing is easier to ride down than men running away.

[Caligula's_Horse]

Pikes would often be used in such a manner, though being some 4-6 meters long in ranks 10+ men deep meant that there was no dodging or getting around them, effectively forming a more or less solid wall, and even then it was usually marched into the enemy as opposed to braced for impact. Its really the only way to use a pike, seeing as it can't be effectively thrust, at all (the wood sags towards the ends, the weapon itself is slow and cumbersome, and its hard to tell which pike is yours in the pointy mess in front of you).

A normal phalanx or any other formation using what we'd call a proper spear though, is a completely different creature. Spears would be actively thrusted at the enemy. They'd be pretty useless otherwise, given that your average opponent is smart enough not to run into your spear of his own volition. The spearmen would need some training to make effective use of their weapons, and perhaps more importantly, unit cohesiveness to fight alongside one another; a spear and shield setup is pretty much unusable except in a phalanx like formation.
Outside of formation, and where a shield wasn't used, spears would in fact be used a lot like a quarterstaff, which actually requires more training then a sword to use effectively.

[wulfgar610]

They'd be pretty useless otherwise, given that your average opponent is smart enough not to run into your spear of his own volition.

Don't be too sure on that one!

[Ecthelion]

Spears are ubiquitous cause they're cheap and easy to manufacture.

They're also the least dependent on individual training.

Every single infantry force from the Mesopotamians to the Swiss pikemen of the 17th century have been spear and pike based.

The Roman legions of the late Republican and early Imperial period being the sole exception.

It really wasn't until the advent of the bayonet that spears were finally rendered fully obsolete.

[WelshDragon]

Every single infantry force from the Mesopotamians to the Swiss pikemen of the 17th century have been spear and pike based.

The Roman legions of the late Republican and early Imperial period being the sole exception.

Yep, and even they carried a couple of pila to throw or use against cavalry. The spear was the backbone of every army until rifles with bayonets.

[Cope]

Spears are ubiquitous cause they're cheap and easy to manufacture.

They're also the least dependent on individual training.

Every single infantry force from the Mesopotamians to the Swiss pikemen of the 17th century have been spear and pike based.

A rather cataclysmic over generalization, but then you must already know that.

The Roman legions of the late Republican and early Imperial period being the sole exception.

A rather large exception, considering that the Roman Empire was the largest and most successful in European history.

[Ragimund Von Wallat]

pretty sure the bigger pila was also used as a spear too,those guys had pretty sophisticated drills,and a real feild capability of using it with all those lesser officers evenly distributed.so i would be surprised that this would had been totally ignored.

[Drahcir]

The spear and later pike have been a staple of military training for ages. Easy to make, produce and drill with. In Charlemagne's army he made it mandatory every man have a spear in his house for when he called up his levies to march off. Spear and Shield was the staple for thousands of years. Spears are both defensive and very offensive.

Hell in the American Civil war pikes and spears were still a weapon to be drilled with and issued. I believe it saw its last "use" as a weapon in WWI by cavalry (though they are lances by true definition.)


Cheers

Drahcir the Total Newb

[Damocles]

It sounds like you already know the answer to this question.

All weapons - spears are no exception - require a great deal of training, physical conditioning and martial spirit to be used effectively in combat. Furthermore, melee combat requires more than just 'training', and much of our beliefs about such things are shaped by our (also inadequate) grasp of modern military techniques. In fact, the psychological mindset that armies and soldiers go about killing with modern firearms and military technology is much different from the past.

In the past, what mattered most was who had training and discipline - yes - but who could combine that with energy and rage. This is why we scoff at the French concept of elan from our comfortable armchairs, and are baffled by how battalions of soldiers could be sent charging to their deaths with bayonets fixed in the ACW and WWI. The truth is because until merely the previous century, a bayonet charge was the surest way to rout the enemy. Troops attacking usually have a greater morale than those troops forced to defend, which is why it was always 'attack, attack, attack' as De Saxe rediscovered from Gustavus Adolphus.

Unfortunately, 'attack, attack, attack' ran afoul of machine guns and rifled barrels.

Now of course in Hollywood, you get movies like the recent Hercules with The Rock, or past movies like Braveheart or Robin Hood, where the hero shows up and puts spears in the peasant's hand and drills them in boot camp for a week, and then they're good to go. That has some validity when mustering a country militia with rifles, which they can use to safely snipe at the enemy from hundreds of yards away. But medieval warfare was entirely different. In the past, it was much much easier for smaller units of soldiers to rout much larger groups, simply by being more intimidating...and take practically zero casualties in battle. (Vikings, Huns, Mongols, Macedonian veteran phalangites, Knights Templar, other examples too numerous to list here).

[daelin4]

Spears being easy to make and arm a number of levies makes them a logical choice. Whether they are the best weapon for the job of killing is not the first consideration when it comes to getting yourself a big army. Force of numbers can accomplish strategic and political goals without necessarily fighting, simply because the enemy knows you got the men. There's more to weapons than martial arts and stabbing/ swinging. If your army has less men than they do, and you don't know just how skilled all those troops are, you're already losing the psychological war. Weapon proficiency is naturally the main concern with martial artists, but other force multipliers like numbers and practical logistics (can the same thousand men be armed with swords instead, plus necessary training) are things generals, not marital artists, need to deal with.
It is easy for any skilled warrior to deal with an individual spearmen, but the point of lots of cheap spearmen is not so you can go toe to toe with a real warrior, force of numbers can make up for relative lack of skill (try going toe to toe with a whole line of spearmen, even alongside more skilled warriors, it's still no longer easy). Looking at it fro a pure skill/proficiency point of view of course the spear in untrained hands makes for terrible soldiers, but the point is, getting yourself lots of spearmen for minimum cost in men and material was never towards anything else. A thousand guys with pointy stick is better than ten guys that know how to use them, or equipped with something better. A thousand guys with pointy sticks are also a bit better than two thousand guys armed with nothing.

In any battle, the odds of encountering a single unskilled spearman against a more skilled warrior alone is rather rare. More often such unskilled troops would run away or at least engage in formation. Movies with characters cleaving through hapless spearmen are meant for entertainment. If anything in a real battle one spearmen goes down, the rest go running for the hills, not wait until it's their turn to get stuck in and die.

So short answer: for martial arts yes they're not great. For generals and military strategy, they're a necessity with far more value besides weapon skill.

[Aeratus]

Pike formations required extremely high discipline. Pike and spear are not comparable in terms of the training involved.

As to the original question, spear should naturally be the easiest to use, because there is only one move that you need to know: poke! poke! and poke!

[PwrdOff]

I think it goes to an even more basic level than discipline or physical fitness. For one thing, a lot of weapons in the hands of an unskilled soldier are probably more dangerous to the user than the enemy, but you can probably be reasonably sure that you won't end up killing yourself with a spear. For another, there's definitely an instinctive tendency to keep the enemy as far from you as possible rather than having to slug it out in a melee.

I doubt that spear and shield wall formations were ever all that effective at actually killing enemies, but that's not really the purpose. War is theater and if you're bringing a large army your main goal is to try and intimidate the enemy into surrendering without much of a fight, all your levy spearmen really need to do is try and look tough and avoid running away until they've at least made contact with the enemy. Putting them into tight formations helps facilitate that more than anything, even if a couple guys get jittery they have nowhere to go.

[6Bagheera9]

Spearmen with minimal training are probably not going to end up killing many enemy soldiers, but they will pin other infantry, absorb missile fire, and discourage cavalry with the potential for impaling their horses if they charge recklessly. All they need to do to be effective is hold the line until professional soldiers break the enemy's or turn its flank. After all, even the biggest hammer needs an anvil to smash anything.