Spears vs Swords

[LusitanianWolf]

One interesting question the video does (re)raise is: why is it that while spears historically did the majority of the "hard work" it is swords that (almost) always get the majority of the fame and attention?

Why there are so few persons interested in learning and mastering a weapon that had such importance in human history and survival (probably there are still persons who depend on it to survive) compared to the number of people playing around with swords.

I suppose it has to be not only to the sword being a simbol of status and thus associated with legends but also due to people being more interested in the flashy/ duelish side on fighting than in what really worked..... That being reinforced by how battles and fighting is usually represented in pop culture (movies, games, etc)

[MagusCaligula]

One interesting question the video does (re)raise is: why is it that while spears historically did the majority of the "hard work" it is swords that (almost) always get the majority of the fame and attention?

Why there are so few persons interested in learning and mastering a weapon that had such importance in human history and survival (probably there are still persons who depend on it to survive) compared to the number of people playing around with swords.

I suppose it has to be not only to the sword being a simbol of status and thus associated with legends but also due to people being more interested in the flashy/ duelish side on fighting than in what really worked..... That being reinforced by how battles and fighting is usually represented in pop culture (movies, games, etc)

Well my guess is that the sword fighting style (especially short swords) can be used with knives which can be used for self defense, while learning to use a spear wouldn't be of much use nowadays most of the time, unless you're living some kind of tribal lifestyle.

[athanaric]

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.

Wouldn't go quite as far as that. Iv'e never formally counted, but after a cursory glance at lots of ancient pottery and art in museums throughout Europe (including Athens), IIRC I found that both grips were depicted. We also have to account for the possibility that the overhand grip might indicate throwing spears, in a lot of cases (also, what Geffalrus said).

Well my guess is that the sword fighting style (especially short swords) can be used with knives which can be used for self defense, while learning to use a spear wouldn't be of much use nowadays most of the time, unless you're living some kind of tribal lifestyle.

With the caveat that people don't really "fight" with knives (because owing to their size, knives aren't great for parrying; also, one of the main uses of knives is as a surprise weapon, if not an outright murder tool).
I think it's because swords were more common in a civilian context (easier to lug around than a polearm or a bow), and hence more relevant for spontaneous duelling or self defence, and of course they're more glamorous because they're difficult and expensive to make.

[QuintusSertorius]

Also worth cautioning that a lot of the "spears" on jars and such are actually javelins. Look at their length, the small size of the heads, lack of sauroter and how some have ankyle cords. That's not universal, but there are quite a few taken to be spears which are javelins on closer examination.

[Rad]

The overhand grip seems to have only fallen out of fashion, for a reason I can't phantom, during the Middle Ages.

It didn't fall out of fashion during the Middle ages, you need more sources mate

Here are some images. Feel free to find more by spending endless hours on that site, like I do

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/5169/16207/

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4053/11480/

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4423/10351/

[LusitanianWolf]

Some "ritualized warfare" from Papuan tribes. While this is mock fighting and they arent trying to kill each other it's interesting to see the way they use the weapons, in particular the big spears. While they will probably throw these are clearly being used overhand for the "melee".
https://youtu.be/PdgqvPv3suw

[Mamlaz]

The problem of even arguing this in a total war context is the issue of following it with the hard fact that total war games do not simulate the primary weapon + secondary weapon factor of soldiery.

A load of soldiery most often used both spear and sword, and for a good reason.

The thing is, swords were probably really good for war, we know this simply because so many cultures kept making so many of them, even since the ancient Egyptians, Myceneans etc.

They were secondary weapons sure, but they were absolutely a weapon of war, not a mere sight sidearm, and were definitely more effective than spears in some contexts, like sieges and pinned-push combat.

The issue of the simulation of the lindy "overhead is lame because my arms are weak" beige is that it does not simulate two large troops of men meeting in a clash, it does not simulate the fixated relation between the spear and the shield, it does not simulate the lack of space that allows any serious movement because there are dudes around you(hell the dudes in the video sometimes literally run backwards) and it definitely does not simulate what happens when the lines clash or close in, and the spears reach becomes nullified whilst the swords versatility becomes a major advantage.

As Matt Easton keeps telling us, context context.

[Dargaron]

One interesting question the video does (re)raise is: why is it that while spears historically did the majority of the "hard work" it is swords that (almost) always get the majority of the fame and attention?

Why there are so few persons interested in learning and mastering a weapon that had such importance in human history and survival (probably there are still persons who depend on it to survive) compared to the number of people playing around with swords.

I suppose it has to be not only to the sword being a simbol of status and thus associated with legends but also due to people being more interested in the flashy/ duelish side on fighting than in what really worked..... That being reinforced by how battles and fighting is usually represented in pop culture (movies, games, etc)

I always figured the reason why swords were more "popular" in cultural references wasn't for their battlefield role, but because of their function as personal defense weapons. In situations outside a pitched battle, a sword would be more convenient to carry around than a full-sized spear (sheaths and stuff), and more useful in close quarters. So in situations like attempted robberies (the ever-popular "highwayman" scenario where your hero can show he's serious business), ambushes, spontaneous altercations with rivals, etc. the hero would be using a sword, because he wasn't kitted for combat.

Think about the kinds of guns used in most TV series: especially police procedurals. I bet that 80%+ of the time, characters will be using pistols, and whenever folks show up with longarms, it's for an end-of-season/plotline setpiece. Because pistols are the kind of weapon one can carry around in public (especially for authority figures) without looking like they're spoiling for a fight. Same with swords (as I understand it): walking around with a sword on one's belt is less threatening than walking around with a spear in hand. EDIT: And aside from anything else, a sheathed sword leaves two hands free for doing whatever it is you're doing, while if you're carrying a spear, you're either leaning it against something (and having to move it when you get too far away) or doing everything one-handed.

[LusitanianWolf]

Good points!

[Neyak]

Another reason for the prominence of spears is that they're cheap to make. A decent piece of wood and a metal spear head is way cheaper and easier to make than a high-quality sword. The quality of the metal needed for a spear head is way lower than what you need for a sword (for example, it won't shatter as easily if too brittle). During certain eras (e.g. early medieval) it is a reasonable supposition that one of the primary functions of the sword is to convey the status of the bearer. The Roman standard equipment seems to have been something of an exception, having a fairly uniform army equipped with swords (and even here they were short gladii rather than longer swords, hence again cheaper and easier to make, leaving aside the longer swords of late Rome though).

[Mamlaz]

I always figured the reason why swords were more "popular" in cultural references wasn't for their battlefield role, but because of their function as personal defense weapons. In situations outside a pitched battle, a sword would be more convenient to carry around than a full-sized spear (sheaths and stuff), and more useful in close quarters. So in situations like attempted robberies (the ever-popular "highwayman" scenario where your hero can show he's serious business), ambushes, spontaneous altercations with rivals, etc. the hero would be using a sword, because he wasn't kitted for combat.

Think about the kinds of guns used in most TV series: especially police procedurals. I bet that 80%+ of the time, characters will be using pistols, and whenever folks show up with longarms, it's for an end-of-season/plotline setpiece. Because pistols are the kind of weapon one can carry around in public (especially for authority figures) without looking like they're spoiling for a fight. Same with swords (as I understand it): walking around with a sword on one's belt is less threatening than walking around with a spear in hand. EDIT: And aside from anything else, a sheathed sword leaves two hands free for doing whatever it is you're doing, while if you're carrying a spear, you're either leaning it against something (and having to move it when you get too far away) or doing everything one-handed.

But swords were very popular already by the Mycenean period though, and throughout antiquity, well over 2000 years before the sword was given a carried presence by the gentry.

Men(aside from bodyguards ofc) did not really walk around with swords on their belts in civilian life well into late antiquity until the migration period

Caesar was stabbed by knives and daggers, not swords.

[Geffalrus]

Another reason for the prominence of spears is that they're cheap to make. A decent piece of wood and a metal spear head is way cheaper and easier to make than a high-quality sword. The quality of the metal needed for a spear head is way lower than what you need for a sword (for example, it won't shatter as easily if too brittle). During certain eras (e.g. early medieval) it is a reasonable supposition that one of the primary functions of the sword is to convey the status of the bearer. The Roman standard equipment seems to have been something of an exception, having a fairly uniform army equipped with swords (and even here they were short gladii rather than longer swords, hence again cheaper and easier to make, leaving aside the longer swords of late Rome though).

I can attest to this quite directly. I have a blacksmith friend who is crafting a sarissa for me (10 ft sections, metal sleeve, basic metal point/buttspike). During the course of our pricing negotiations, it became very clear that the wood was the cheapest part of the process by a large margin. The more metal I wanted and the more work that metal needed, the faster the price increased. To put it simply, a 20ft sarissa was within my budget, but an actual forged sword less than halft that size was well, well beyond it. If I had to go into battle, I'd be rocking the spear and simple axe combo and put the excess money NOT spent on a sword into some body armor and my shield. Sword prices are a luxury.

[Yue Fei]

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).

I almost always categorically disagree with anything Lindybeige says, but a minor correction to your point that he's not an active practitioner. He is actually, and he trains with the Academy of Historical Fencing (a very good HEMA club) run by Nick and Michael Thomas in South-West England/Wales.

[Rad]

My bad, did not know that. Thanks to the recent spear video, I can reliably guess that he's into swords, just like 90% of the folks practising hema. Hopefully, he will run into a few spear+shield treatises one day...
Edit: Isn't he from Newcastle or something?

[Yue Fei]

No idea where he's from specifically, but he's appeared in a fair number of sparring videos from Academy of Historical Fencing on YouTube, and he's quite good with British military sabre and sword and shield. If he's not featured directly in the video, you can often see him in the background against someone else, he's the tall guy (he's quite considerable in height) in the red fencing jacket, white pants, and black calf high boots for a very sharp look that is reminiscent of a British officer.

[Rad]

Will have a look. Thanks for the info.