Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Spear vs Sword Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next 
Author Message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Fri 22 Jun, 2007 4:36 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Felix Wang wrote:
Infantry with shorter weapons have historically had trouble with pikes, at least on a small-unit level.


I think that's a rather upside-down statement of the case. The Roman got the worst of frontal fights between two large unbroken formations, but the rough terrain at Pydna opened up gaps in the Macedonian phalanx that the Romans were able to exploit because of their better small-unit coordination.


Anders Nilsson wrote:
In roman days and in the battle of hastings the charge with lance was not used by knights.
In the Bayuo (Whats that spelling?) tapestry itīs clearly shown that the knights was throwing spears ay Hastings, not charging with a lance. And to make matters worse, they where fighting uphill.

Same goes for the roman era. Cavalry was not used to charge. If so, weapons would have been found. They used spears, not lances.


Er...I think I don't need to speak about the Bayeux Tapestry, but the idea of ancient cavalry not being able to charge is totally false. Alexander the Great's Macedonian cavalrymen often willingly charged their enemies, especially opposing cavalry; against infantry they usually charged against the flanks or rear, but it's charging all the same. And you don't have to read much of Livy to see that the Roman cavalry often mounted ferocious charges against weakened enemies--there was even a specific drill for an infantry formation to open gaps through which the cavalry would charge, probably in a deep column. Such a charge would have had devastating effect at the beginning of a lull in the fighting, when the opposing lines were edging away from each other and a swift, decisive action can dramatically alter the balance.


Now, to address the sword/spear issue against cavalry, remember the battle of Tours-Poitiers? The Muslim chroniclers unanimously state that the Franks, armed with swords, stood like a "wall of ice" and repeatedly repulsed Muslim mounted charges. There is some dispute about whether these swordsmen were only a small contingent of guards or formed a sizable portion of the army, and whether they were foot or mounted--but most historians today seem to favor the interpretation that this "wall of ice" was made up of either foot or dismounted men (or both) because it was said to have simply "repulsed" the Muslim horsemen instead of counter-charging and then pursuing them.
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Fri 22 Jun, 2007 4:51 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Anders Nilsson wrote:
Sheer mass of tighly packed horses in high speed break most formations. (except pikes) Thats why the Swedish and Russian continued to use pikes well into the 1700. 1 in 3 Swedish soldiers were pikemen.


Not quite--the use of a close-range musketry volley done at the right moment could easily repulse such charges. Of course, it had to be done at just the right distance--to far away and the balls wouldn't have any effect, too close and dead horses would crash into the infantry formation, breaking it to pieces. But most experienced infantry officers seemed to have known how to judge this distance very well indeed.


Quote:
The use of the pikes squres started to dimish first when rapid firepower was used. Gustav II Adolf used volley fire at great effect against the German squares in the 30 year war.


Well, the statement is correct to some degree--pikes began to go out of fashion when soldiers began to learn effective methods of repelling cavalry with fire. But this process had begun long, long before the time of Gustaf Adolf; the Spanish tercio, which is usually considered to be the archetypal combined-arms square formations, grew to be less squarish during the course of the 16th and 17th centuries and by the time of the Thirty Years' War it was already quite a linear formation. And the process did not quite come to full fruition until the Wars of Louis XIV, when close-range fire finally became the preferred method for repelling cavalry. The bayonet was just an insurance against accidents--when things went right, the dosctrine stated, the cavalry should have been repulsed well before it came within bayonet reach.
View user's profile Send private message
Elling Polden




Location: Bergen, Norway
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,576

PostPosted: Fri 22 Jun, 2007 4:54 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Using spears underhand gives a lot better reach and point controll, but less punch.
Of course, against unarmoured opponents, it's still plenty.

One on one a swordsman makes pretty short work of a spearman, if he knows what he's doing.
Of course, this is why spearmen quiclky become swordsmen when the fight starts breaking up.

Polearms fare better one on one, but are not as good on the attack, according to period sources.

"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Anders Nilsson




Location: Sweden
Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Reading list: 4 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 145

PostPosted: Fri 22 Jun, 2007 5:37 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

As for the use of ancient cavalry I bow to your wisdom.

But there is still a differense between charge and charge. What I was getting at was that thereīs a differense in effect if you compare the charge of for example macedonian cavalry and say french cavalry from 1450. And the defensive measures of the infantry had to change accordingly.

I know that there are several accounts that state that swordsmen in sheildwall formation repulsed cavalry attacks.
But how was the cavalry armed? With light armour and spears or heavy armour and lances? There are accounts of heavy french gendarmes that has charged clean through landsknecht pikeformations.
What kind of troops was it that repulsed the cavalry in sheildwall? Was it untrained levies or was it proffesionals with high morale?
My bet is well drilled proffesionals. If you want you peasent levies to stand up against cavalry, use polearms.
By fact, we know that polearms was a mayor weapon on most battlefields, and that must be for a reason. If it was better with sword and shields, then that would have been the mayor weapons.


As for muskets against cav. That takes well drilled troops under a good officer to recieve cavalry with a volley. If you time the volley wrong, your in for trouble. Thats probably why the pike remained in use for so long as it did. if you fail your volley, you can still get the cover from the cavalry from the pikes.
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Luka Borscak




Location: Croatia
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Likes: 7 pages

Posts: 2,307

PostPosted: Fri 22 Jun, 2007 9:19 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Theban Sacred Band was armed in hoplite fashion with shields and spears at the battle of Chaeronea and Alexander who commanded the left wing of Macedonian army under his father Philip managed to break through their line with a charge of Companion heavy cavalry armed with lances in a wedge formation from the front. This is one of the very rare examples of succesful cavalry charge on the spearmen line. Maybe even the only one...
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Sat 23 Jun, 2007 12:30 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Anders Nilsson wrote:
But there is still a differense between charge and charge. What I was getting at was that thereīs a differense in effect if you compare the charge of for example macedonian cavalry and say french cavalry from 1450. And the defensive measures of the infantry had to change accordingly.


This is not really much of an issue. When horsemen charge against a foot formation, it's all an issue of morale. If the footmen break, the horsemen will get through and pursue. If the footmen don't break, the horsmen gets repulsed or (rarely) butchered. If neither the footmen nor the horsmeen break, then the horsemen may manage to cut their way through, but it'll end in a bloody, indecisive stalemate.[/quote


Quote:
I know that there are several accounts that state that swordsmen in sheildwall formation repulsed cavalry attacks.
But how was the cavalry armed? With light armour and spears or heavy armour and lances?


If we're talking about the Arabs and Moors that charged at Tours/Poitiers, they were fairly well armored in mail and had long, sturdy lances. They might not exactly be Cursader men-at-arms whose charge could "breach the walls of Babylon," but the ferocity and impact of their charge is not in doubt. Both Frankish and Arab chroniclers agree that holding off the Muslim charge was not an easy matter.

Let's not forget that Alexander's Companions had relatively little armor by medieval standards and did not use couched lances--but they charged all the same, and had quite a few dramatic successes to boot.


Quote:
There are accounts of heavy french gendarmes that has charged clean through landsknecht pikeformations.


I'm quite familiar with those instances--Ravenna and Ceresole. At Dreux they even cut their way through a Swiss pike block. But the results of these encounters were all indecisive, and the battles were decided elsewhere along the line. Not to mention that (if I remember correctly) the horsemen suffered heavy losses in almost every case. Daniel Staberg can probably inform you more about this thing, and I remember him citing some modern scholars who intepret the primary sources for Dreux as saying that the gendarmes charged through lightly-held gaps in the Swiss line instead of a solid block of men.


Quote:
What kind of troops was it that repulsed the cavalry in sheildwall? Was it untrained levies or was it proffesionals with high morale?
My bet is well drilled proffesionals.


Of course they were professionals, or at least very well-trained levies. In the case of Tours/Poitiers, the scholarly opinion is divided on whether these swordsmen were the royal guard (which would certainly have had the best training they could afford, not to mention decent experience) or the "select levy," which worked much like the select fyrd in Anglo-Saxon England to provide a core of well-trained men for the rest of the kingdom's levy. Right now the historical evidence is most often interpreted to say that the Carolingian armies frequently included these select levies (when they brought any non-elite troops at all) but almost never called up the poorly-trained run-of-the mill levies.


Quote:
If you want you peasent levies to stand up against cavalry, use polearms.


No. An untrained peasant levy won't stand against cavalry no matter what weapons you give them. Medieval European levies often carried spears and crossbows but the men-at-arms rode them down all the same--because a spear and a big shield do not automatically guarantee that the man's resolve will not break at the crucial point of the battle. Look at the late Roman/early Byzantine infantry of the 5th and 6th centuries, who often failed to repel the Goths' mounted charges in spite of their spears. The point is amply proved by the fact that identically-armed men with better training and indoctrination did succeed in repelling mounted charges, such as at Carcano and the last stand at Bouvines. Not to forget that at Bremule, four hundred English men-at-arms dismounted and succesfully fended off an equal number of mounted French men-at-arms with their spears/lances and shields.

Once again, it's not the weapon that mattered. It's the training and indoctrination. When the men believed they could repel mounted charges, they generally did regardless of what weapons they were carrying at the time.


Quote:
By fact, we know that polearms was a mayor weapon on most battlefields, and that must be for a reason. If it was better with sword and shields, then that would have been the mayor weapons.


Did I ever[i] say that sword-and-shield was [i]better than polearms?

What I said was that there is no simple answer to the question. I repeat, there is no simple answer to the question. Weaponry is only one among the many factors that determined victory and defeat in battle, and it is naive to think of it as the sole determinant. I think it hs been adequately proven that both spears and swords have records both successes and failures, whether against each other or against cavalry.


Quote:
As for muskets against cav. That takes well drilled troops under a good officer to recieve cavalry with a volley. If you time the volley wrong, your in for trouble. Thats probably why the pike remained in use for so long as it did. if you fail your volley, you can still get the cover from the cavalry from the pikes.


Well, honestly, getting the shot into the pike's protection also required well-drilled troops, because otherwise the shot and the pike would not have been able to coordinate well enough to protect each other. Read the 16th- and 17th-century manuals on infantry tactics and you'll see that the cooperation between pike and shot is quite an intricate matter that required a lot of practice to get it anywhere near right. A poorly-trained army of pike and shot is no better off than a poorly-trained army of muskets and bayonets.


Luka Borscak wrote:
Theban Sacred Band was armed in hoplite fashion with shields and spears at the battle of Chaeronea and Alexander who commanded the left wing of Macedonian army under his father Philip managed to break through their line with a charge of Companion heavy cavalry armed with lances in a wedge formation from the front. This is one of the very rare examples of succesful cavalry charge on the spearmen line. Maybe even the only one...


The interpretation of the battle is still a matter of dispute among military history circles. For one thing, we're not entirely sure that Alexander mounted a frontal charge against an unbroken Theban line--If I remember correctly, the primary accounts of the battle do not rule out the possibility that he either broke into a temporary gap in the Theban formation or struck it from the rear once it had been pinned down by the Macedonian phalanxes.

And, even if it was a succesful frontal charge against a line of spearmen, it is definitely not the only example ever. Just look at medieval italian military history if you wish to see instances of mounted charges succeeding in a frontal assault against spears. We have to admit that these successes were not against an unbroken line of spearmen because in most cases the spearmen fled before contact, but then most cavalry vs. infantry interactions in history were decided well before the moment of hand-to-hand contact!
View user's profile Send private message
Anders Nilsson




Location: Sweden
Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Reading list: 4 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 145

PostPosted: Sat 23 Jun, 2007 4:47 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I have never said that itīs only down to just the weapon that makes or break a battle.
Itīs one of many factors.
Morale, formation, terrain, fatigue, leadership etc etc.

Of course an Elite regiment is better to repulse cav with only sword and shields than peasants. What I know a skilled fighter can take down a mounted knight with a flowerpot and a toothbrush. But I bet my pants thatīs on rare occations. Laughing Out Loud
In one on one combat the better fighter wins, itīs not all down to weapons. The weapons play their part since some weapons are better for some sitiations than others and some weapons are easier to master than others.

And if we look at history. Spear and polearms are dominant on the battlefield for centuries.
In old Swedish laws, from 800 up to ca 1450 (In the text I have read) the main weapon of choise is the spear. When a viking was called to battle he had to bring, helmet, spear, shield, sword or axe. If he didnīt he had to pay.
Even so in the medieval times. Spear was the weapon the levies had to bring. This actually led to the development of the "Swordstaff". When peasant used old swords as spears/halberds. But thats another topic.

As I wrote earlier this is what I have concluded about the spears popularity.
Itīs cheap to produce. Thus enables the raising of big forces.
Itīs easy to use. Thus enables those big forces to be fairly effective at a low traingcost/training time.
Itīs effective against cavalry.

What weapon you use is still important. Itīs important for morale for example. If the weapon at hand makes you feel safe, then youīll stand longer in the heat of battle.
And for recieving a charge. The weapon is of importance.

Try it yourself.
Take a sheild and have someone run at you with a spear and try to recieve the impact of that. If we are talking shieldwall thats what you can do. Because sheldwall a is a quite stationary tactic. Itīs strenght is in the cohesion of overlapping shields.

Then try a long spear. Step the end of the spear inte the ground and have him run at you again an then meet him with the point.

Then imagine that in formation and have a host of armed men on armoured horses charge at you.

Itīs easier for a not so trained solder to hold with the spear than try to hold with the sword and shield.

The weapon of choise does make a difference.
All weapons have pros and cons.

I know that has been stated that there is no easy answer to this question.
Lets then try to find those answers. Not get bogged down in word slugging.
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Anders Nilsson




Location: Sweden
Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Reading list: 4 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 145

PostPosted: Sat 23 Jun, 2007 6:59 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This is a bit OT but Iīll show some pics of musket and pike formations.

http://www.rsmf.nu/coppermine/displayimage.php?album=9&pos=1
Swedish Carolins at exercise at the royal castle in Stockholm.

http://www.algonet.se/~hogman/stridsformeringar.htm
Sorry bout this page beeing in Swedish but you can see the formations.
Look at the formation with 6 man in depth with 2 pikemen in the middle. Formidable at receiving a cavalry charge.

http://st-max.org/FechtWeb/pike.htm
Landsknecht pikedrill

http://www.st-max.org/files/HansDelbruck_Dawn...actics.doc
Speartactics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1dD530tAsY
A clip of infantry with muskets and pikes facing cavalry. Not to accurate but gives a hint of what it could look like.
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Felix Wang




Location: Fresno, CA
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Reading list: 17 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 394

PostPosted: Sat 23 Jun, 2007 9:21 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
Felix Wang wrote:
Infantry with shorter weapons have historically had trouble with pikes, at least on a small-unit level.


I think that's a rather upside-down statement of the case. The Roman got the worst of frontal fights between two large unbroken formations, but the rough terrain at Pydna opened up gaps in the Macedonian phalanx that the Romans were able to exploit because of their better small-unit coordination. ...

.


Which is exactly what I said, hence the phrase "on a small unit level". On a limited front, say, a causeway 100 feet wide, I suspect a phalangite unit could have pushed legionaries back indefinitely, until the Romans broke in dismay. On a 10,000 foot frontage across uneven ground, the phalanx would inevitably break up, and the swordsmen would have the eventual advantage. But the swordsmen would have to hang on long enough for the openings to occur. As you have mentioned subsequently, morale is the most critical thing, although morale goes hand in hand with good training (which leads to greater self-confidence).
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Bosman




Location: Andalucia
Joined: 22 May 2006

Posts: 598

PostPosted: Sat 23 Jun, 2007 10:49 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
If we're talking about the Arabs and Moors that charged at Tours/Poitiers, they were fairly well armored in mail and had long, sturdy lances. They might not exactly be Cursader men-at-arms whose charge could "breach the walls of Babylon," but the ferocity and impact of their charge is not in doubt. Both Frankish and Arab chroniclers agree that holding off the Muslim charge was not an easy matter.


About this period 'we' are very much in the dark about the weaponry used.
What is pretty clear is that the franks did not have a cavalry as such, that moors were mainly a raiding party and the battle as such did not take place. The event was reported in the arab 'press' and the warries slagged for looting the westerners camp and dispersing with their spoils instead of battling with the franks on the field.
Tours/Poitiers may have been a turning point in many aspects. One of them was the morish raiders turning home with rich spoils leaving the franks with a valuable lesson learned.

Concerning spears in the (pre)islamic world I have no yet encountered general use of heavy lances opposed to standard light spears.

Peter
View user's profile
Jared Smith




Location: Tennessee
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 1,532

PostPosted: Sat 23 Jun, 2007 7:16 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This was probably encompassed in one of the previous replies and theories, but it probably should be considered up front that spears and lances, if used competently, can be expended very quickly. Spears were likely the "first close contact weapon" in a wide range of periods and cultures. But, clubs, knifes, swords, grappling, and follow up however possible likely consumed a larger portion of time in long battles. Optimally the spear warrior would have some kind of a back up hand to hand weapon. I kind of hate to see the "sword versus spear" debate as my suspicion is that they were simply each necessary, at different points in time, during the natural progression of a battle that did not end quickly.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Sat 23 Jun, 2007 10:25 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Anders Nilsson wrote:
Even so in the medieval times. Spear was the weapon the levies had to bring.


Well, not always. Some Carolingian capitularies seem to indicate that Charlemagne preferred to have the less well-trained levies to come up with bows. To take another example, the English Commissions of Array procured longbowmen as well as billmen.


Quote:
As I wrote earlier this is what I have concluded about the spears popularity.
Itīs cheap to produce. Thus enables the raising of big forces.
Itīs easy to use. Thus enables those big forces to be fairly effective at a low traingcost/training time.
Itīs effective against cavalry.


I'm not arguing against any of these. Still, I think I should remark that the spear isn't easier to use in the sense of actually using it to kill the enemy, but in learning how to hold it without accidentally cutting or stabbing yourself. Advanced spear tactics and techniques are every bit as complex (and as tricky to learn) as advanced swordsmanship.


Quote:
What weapon you use is still important. Itīs important for morale for example. If the weapon at hand makes you feel safe, then youīll stand longer in the heat of battle.
And for recieving a charge. The weapon is of importance.


But it is of relatively marginal importance compared to morale and training. If the soldiers' morale is already low in the first place, not even the best weapon in the world will convince them to stand and fight. Look at the numerous civil wars in Africa, where the losing faction often had the most modern assault rifles, machine guns, and mortars available but still ran away when faced with a less well-equipped but more confident enemy.


Quote:
Try it yourself.
Take a sheild and have someone run at you with a spear and try to recieve the impact of that. If we are talking shieldwall thats what you can do. Because sheldwall a is a quite stationary tactic. Itīs strenght is in the cohesion of overlapping shields.


That's correct in the sense that cohesion is the key to the formation's strength, but not all shieldwalls were defensive or stationary. Alfred the Great, for example, seemed to have used his shieldwalls offensively, while we all know the Greek hoplites greatly preferred to charge (or countercharge) rather than bracing their spears and waiting for the enemy. Both of them were fairly well-trained and had good morale--these two things created a whole world of difference between them and less confident spear-armed formations.


Quote:
Itīs easier for a not so trained solder to hold with the spear than try to hold with the sword and shield.


I'm still not convinced of that. The central point of the sentence here is not "sword" or "spear" but "not so trained." Poorly-trained and poorly-indoctrinated levies will break regardless of what weapons you give them.


Quote:
I know that has been stated that there is no easy answer to this question.
Lets then try to find those answers. Not get bogged down in word slugging.


And let me reiterate that I'm not arguing against the spear, only against the notion that somehow the spear can turn a scratch levy of peasants or urban lowlifes into a superb knight-killing formation. All successes we can ascribe to spear-, pike- or polearm-armed infantry in the later Middle Ages was not due to the weapons alone but a combination of weapons, training, morale, and good tactical sense on the commanders' part.


Felix Wang wrote:
Which is exactly what I said, hence the phrase "on a small unit level". On a limited front, say, a causeway 100 feet wide, I suspect a phalangite unit could have pushed legionaries back indefinitely, until the Romans broke in dismay. On a 10,000 foot frontage across uneven ground, the phalanx would inevitably break up, and the swordsmen would have the eventual advantage. But the swordsmen would have to hang on long enough for the openings to occur. As you have mentioned subsequently, morale is the most critical thing, although morale goes hand in hand with good training (which leads to greater self-confidence).


In which case perhaps you should have said "on ideal terrain" or "on a restricted front," because it was the Romans' better small-unit tactics that allowed them to inflitrate and exploit the gaps in the phalanx formation. Without excellent small-unit coordination, it would have been impossible for the Romans to get enough men into the breach to make it worth their while.


Peter Bosman wrote:
What is pretty clear is that the franks did not have a cavalry as such, that moors were mainly a raiding party and the battle as such did not take place. The event was reported in the arab 'press' and the warries slagged for looting the westerners camp and dispersing with their spoils instead of battling with the franks on the field.
Tours/Poitiers may have been a turning point in many aspects. One of them was the morish raiders turning home with rich spoils leaving the franks with a valuable lesson learned.


It's true that the facts about the battle are still hotly disputed by military historians, but the opinion that the battle was no more than a glorified skirmish is just one opinion among many--no different from the older interpretation that it was a titanic struggle between East and West. None of those opinions have been proven beyond reasonable doubt, and I'm not saying anything about them--just that whatever happened there, we do have unambiguous accounts of an episode where a number of Franks with swords (and probably fighting on foot) managed to repel a Muslim cavalry charge.


Quote:
Concerning spears in the (pre)islamic world I have no yet encountered general use of heavy lances opposed to standard light spears.


Well, not heavy lances in the European sense, but the spears used by the Arabs and Moors at this period were sturdy enough to give a decent impact when employed in the charge. Moreover, in a massed cavalry charge, it's not the spear that actually worked to break the enemy's morale, but the mass and cohesion of the cavalry--and the Arabic heavy cavalry at this time already had the discipline needed to launch a coordinated charge.


Jared Smith wrote:
I kind of hate to see the "sword versus spear" debate as my suspicion is that they were simply each necessary, at different points in time, during the natural progression of a battle that did not end quickly.


Totally agreed. It's useless to argue about which one is better because each weapon had its own niche and warriors who could afford a choice between the two usually took both.
View user's profile Send private message
Anders Nilsson




Location: Sweden
Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Reading list: 4 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 145

PostPosted: Sun 24 Jun, 2007 2:35 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
Well, not always. Some Carolingian capitularies seem to indicate that Charlemagne preferred to have the less well-trained levies to come up with bows. To take another example, the English Commissions of Array procured longbowmen as well as billmen.


In the laws that I have read the spear is a must. But as you say, Itīl be different in different parts of the world.

Quote:
I'm not arguing against any of these. Still, I think I should remark that the spear isn't easier to use in the sense of actually using it to kill the enemy, but in learning how to hold it without accidentally cutting or stabbing yourself. Advanced spear tactics and techniques are every bit as complex (and as tricky to learn) as advanced swordsmanship.


In one on one combat the spear (In my own experience) is harder to master than the sword. But in formation combat, the spear is at an advantage. If you got a good officer shouting command itīs not to hard to fight in formation. But as you say, experience and training is always better.

Quote:
That's correct in the sense that cohesion is the key to the formation's strength, but not all shieldwalls were defensive or stationary. Alfred the Great, for example, seemed to have used his shieldwalls offensively, while we all know the Greek hoplites greatly preferred to charge (or countercharge) rather than bracing their spears and waiting for the enemy. Both of them were fairly well-trained and had good morale--these two things created a whole world of difference between them and less confident spear-armed formations.


I know. The Vikings for example used the "Svinfylking". An aggressive wedgeshaped formation with locked shields. Designed to smash into opposing heildwalls. What I was getting at was the fact that you canīt evade a charge of cavalry. The formation isnīt fast enough to do that. Hence you have to recieve the charge.

Quote:
I'm still not convinced of that. The central point of the sentence here is not "sword" or "spear" but "not so trained." Poorly-trained and poorly-indoctrinated levies will break regardless of what weapons you give them.


Itīs a great differense if you can fight your enemy at 1,5 yards away or more or if you fight him face to face.

Quote:
And let me reiterate that I'm not arguing against the spear, only against the notion that somehow the spear can turn a scratch levy of peasants or urban lowlifes into a superb knight-killing formation


Iīm not saying that either. Iīm just saying that theyīve got a better chance at some succes with spears.

Quote:
All successes we can ascribe to spear-, pike- or polearm-armed infantry in the later Middle Ages was not due to the weapons alone but a combination of weapons, training, morale, and good tactical sense on the commanders' part.


Amen to that. As for all warfare.

Quote:
Jared Smith wrote:
I kind of hate to see the "sword versus spear" debate as my suspicion is that they were simply each necessary, at different points in time, during the natural progression of a battle that did not end quickly.


Totally agreed. It's useless to argue about which one is better because each weapon had its own niche and warriors who could afford a choice between the two usually took both.


Another Amen. When the enemy gets past your spearpoint, draw your sword and hope for the support of the spearmen in the ranks behind.
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
John Cooksey




Location: NW Ark
Joined: 15 Nov 2003

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Sun 24 Jun, 2007 7:47 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

If we are going to discuss the (Pre) Islamic period we should perhaps mention the kontos, which was not a light spear, and was used by Parthian, Armenian, and early Sassanian cavalry . . . . Admittedly, it was not used couched, but it was a heavy spear with a long reach.
About over-hand spear thrusts . . . have y'all ever tried this? I have, a few times, and it is bloody difficult. Much, much more so, for me, than underhand. I could see how it might work mounted, with some of the horse's energy imparted, but on foot---it seems very difficult.

And Lafayette, I agree about the spear being as difficult (complex) to wield as a sword, offensively. I wouldn't say that either is more or less "effective" than the other, but a spear of moderate length is certainly versatile (especially with a counterweight or buttspike).
Like others on this thread, I think that there is a reason that we see spear/polearm and "short"sword (however you might want to define it, per historical context) being used in combination, over and over throughout history. One weapon for initial contact, and another for up close and personal.

I didn't surrender, but they took my horse and made him surrender.
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Mon 25 Jun, 2007 3:08 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Anders Nilsson wrote:
In one on one combat the spear (In my own experience) is harder to master than the sword. But in formation combat, the spear is at an advantage.


In recent years I've learned that this modern truism isn't as true as it seems. When fighting in a close-order infantry block with limited space for movement, the motion of thrusting a sword is no less natural than that of thrusting with a spear. In many cases the sword's pommel actually makes the action easier by improving the balance of the sword--and this might be part of the reason why the Greek hoplites preferred to carry counterweighted spears.

I'm speaking from personal experience here--the notion that the spear is easier to use than the sword is more fanciful than true. It might be true when it just comes to couching the spear under your armpit and scaring off another formation of equally inexperienced, equally scared levies, but against professional and/or experienced enemies it will only expose your inexperience and low morale.


Quote:
Itīs a great differense if you can fight your enemy at 1,5 yards away or more or if you fight him face to face.


The problem with this kind of reasoning is that, once again, it only works when the enemy is similarly scared and inexperienced. Just about everybody in the Mediterranean basin of the 5th and 4th centuries B.C. were afraid of the Greeks because the Greeks knew the fallacy of this reasoning and were willing to go shield-to-shield even against enemies with longer spears. Most of the time, anyway, the enemies got frightened first and ran away before they got within the reach of the Greeks' spears.

See the parallel with cavalry charges against infantry? It's the same rule that applies throughout the history of shock tactics: seek shock and you won't have to meet shock. It doesn't matter what your weapon is; as long as you feel confident with it in hand-to-hand combat, you'll usually be able to frighten the enemy enough that they'll run away before contact.


Quote:
When the enemy gets past your spearpoint, draw your sword and hope for the support of the spearmen in the ranks behind.


Not always, either. The Greeks would rather put their shield in their enemies' face and shoved--or at least the Spartans did. This was how they drove an opposing hoplite formation for quite a substantial distance (nearly a hundred meters?) in one battle.


If anybody here is curious about my views about the relative advantages of spears and swords, then here it is:

If the spear has any advantage over the sword, then it is strategic rather than tactical--the spear is much easier to make and to repair when broken. Its more rudimentary forms can also be used as a utility tool for hunting or fishing or even as an improvised tent-pole. None of these have any bearing upon its performance in battle.

If the sword has any advantage over the spear, then it is neither strategic nor tactical--it is prestige. A spear might be a huntsman's or fisherman's tool for all we care, but a sword can't be anything other than a weapon, and a rather expensive weapon at that. In many societies (if not most) the mere possession of a sword speaks a lot about the owner's place in the social ladder. Again, this doesn't say much (if anything) about its performance in battle.
View user's profile Send private message
Bruno Giordan





Joined: 28 Sep 2005

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 919

PostPosted: Mon 25 Jun, 2007 2:31 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

David Sutton wrote:
Prior to the early medieval period, swords were an expensive item generally only available to the wealthy and powerful. Therefore most warriors would be armed with the old stand by of spear and shield. later as sword production becomes cheaper and more efficient, they become more widespread. By the c15th most soldiers can easily afford to arm themselves with a decent sword of some sort. I think a good analogy would be car ownership. To begin with they could only be afforded by relatively few people. Later, however, as production increased and they became cheaper, practically most people own one.

The polearm, however, continued to be the primary weapon of most soldiers. It has a longer reach than the sword and is more conducive to massed formations of men. Imagine a close order body of troops, all trying to swing their swords around at once, it would be chaos with, not a few being hit by their own side. Swords are generally a weapon of second resort or of use in the pursuit of a rout.

Im sure someone else could give a much fuller answer but, unfortunately I've run out of time and must be off to work! Sad


Yesterday I was in a XII century infantry line.

We charged our opponents and the only hit I got fwas from a fellow infantryman sword.

To avoid danger we charged with shield and sword.

Actually the problems came from our sword wielding mates.

Since we have steel spears with not so well blunted points (my error, I'm charge of weapons, sorry but I just can't stand blunting any weapon seriously ...) we had to drop them.

A big slap was that one I got with an unsheated sword.

No wonder in period miniatures and paintings close lines of soldiers are represented as porcupines of lances while none ever swirls a sword.
View user's profile Send private message
Bram Verbeek





Joined: 27 Mar 2007

Posts: 217

PostPosted: Tue 26 Jun, 2007 6:46 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

You can use swords in a line, it is just harder, point is, you have to rely on your buddies and use a quite short sword. Use quite vertical techniques, and, more importantly, thrusts, when fighting, you do not fight the one in front of you, you fight the person diagonally to your right. The one in front of you has his shield to defend himself with, sees you right in the eye, and you have to open your body to fight him effectively. The one diagonally to your right is an excellent target for stabbing while protecting your body with your shield (attacking someone in front of you requires a frontal opening, attacking diagonally requires a diagonal opening, this will make a smaller frontal opening or no opening at all. Defense depends on how the other side is trained, and is open for debate.

The group who tought me this thought this would be the way in which the romans fought, and it makes sense to me, as the requirements were met by them. (rigorous training and specific equal equipment, large shields and short swords)

The technique does not allow for a long weapon, as this would drastically decrease the chance to hit your opponent, and it requires large shields (no less than 45 x 80 cm) and lots of practice. If the buddy to your left is not trained in this, you have a major problem; the person in front of you does not get attacked and everyone knows that if someone has nothing to fear, all sorts of different actions are possible. The person most left in the line will have a similar problem and skirmish protection should be provided

I do not know whether this is historic or not, but it seems to work
View user's profile Send private message
Felix Wang




Location: Fresno, CA
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Reading list: 17 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 394

PostPosted: Tue 26 Jun, 2007 1:35 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
...
I'm speaking from personal experience here--the notion that the spear is easier to use than the sword is more fanciful than true. It might be true when it just comes to couching the spear under your armpit and scaring off another formation of equally inexperienced, equally scared levies, but against professional and/or experienced enemies it will only expose your inexperience and low morale.


Quote:
Itīs a great differense if you can fight your enemy at 1,5 yards away or more or if you fight him face to face.


The problem with this kind of reasoning is that, once again, it only works when the enemy is similarly scared and inexperienced. Just about everybody in the Mediterranean basin of the 5th and 4th centuries B.C. were afraid of the Greeks because the Greeks knew the fallacy of this reasoning and were willing to go shield-to-shield even against enemies with longer spears. Most of the time, anyway, the enemies got frightened first and ran away before they got within the reach of the Greeks' spears.

See the parallel with cavalry charges against infantry? It's the same rule that applies throughout the history of shock tactics: seek shock and you won't have to meet shock. It doesn't matter what your weapon is; as long as you feel confident with it in hand-to-hand combat, you'll usually be able to frighten the enemy enough that they'll run away before contact.


Quote:
When the enemy gets past your spearpoint, draw your sword and hope for the support of the spearmen in the ranks behind.


Not always, either. The Greeks would rather put their shield in their enemies' face and shoved--or at least the Spartans did. This was how they drove an opposing hoplite formation for quite a substantial distance (nearly a hundred meters?) in one battle.
...


I am afraid the Greek sources do not support this view. Up until the time of Philip of Macedon, I am not aware of any people who regularly used spears which were noticeably longer than the Greeks. In the great battles with the Persian Empire, Herodotus enumerates the races who went with Xerxes to Greece, and none are described as having clearly longer spears; in fact:

Quote:
The Persians, who wore on their heads the soft hat called the tiara, and about their bodies, tunics with sleeves of divers colours, having iron scales upon them like the scales of a fish. Their legs were protected by trousers; and they bore wicker shields for bucklers; their quivers hanging at their backs, and their arms being a short spear, a bow of uncommon size, and arrows of reed. They had likewise daggers suspended from their girdles along their right thighs. ..
Book VII, http://classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.7.vii.html

At Plataea, the account is very clear that the Persians fought very bravely, despite the disadvantage that their spears were shorter.

As far as usage of a spear was concerned, the Greeks had a specific term for high-level spear fighting: hoplomachia. They were not fully convinced of its value, as Plato shows in Laches. A description of the diologue says this:

"It is in order to help them come to such a decision that Lysimachus and Melesius ask Nicias and Laches to witness a performance given by Stesilaus– a man who claims to be a teacher of hoplomachia or the art of fighting with heavy arms. This teacher is an athlete, technician, actor, and artist. Which means that although he is very skillful in handling weapons, he does not use his skill to actually fight the enemy, but only to make money by giving public performances and teaching the young men. The man is a kind of sophist for the martial arts. After seeing his skills demonstrated in this public performance, however, neither Lysimachus nor Melesius is able to decide whether this sort of skill in fighting would constitute part of a good education. So they turn to well-known figures of their time, Nicias and Laches, and ask their advice [178a-181d].

Nicias is an experienced military general who won several victories on the battlefield, and was an important political leader. Laches is also a respected general, although he does not play as significant a role in Athenian politics. Both of them give their opinions about Stesilaus' demonstration and it turns out that they are in complete disagreement regarding the value of this military skill. Nicias thinks that this military technician has done well, and that his skill may be able to provide the young with a good military education [181e-182d]. Laches disagrees and argues that the Spartans – who are the best soldiers in Greece– never have recourse to such teachers. Moreover, he thinks that Stesilaus is not a soldier since he has never won any real victories in battle [182d-184c] Through this disagreement we see that not only ordinary citizens without any special qualities are unable to decide what is the best kind of education, and who is able to teach skills worth learning, but even those who have long military and political experience, like Nicias and Laches, cannot come to a unanimous decision.

In the end, however, Nicias and Laches both agree that despite their fame, their important role in Athenian affairs, their age, their experience, and so on, they should refer to Socrates – who has been there all along – to see what he thinks..."

http://foucault.info/documents/parrhesia/fouc...ia.en.html

At least some Greeks were of the opinion that basic spear handling was quite adequate for a successful hoplite.
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Tue 26 Jun, 2007 2:02 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Felix Wang wrote:
As far as usage of a spear was concerned, the Greeks had a specific term for high-level spear fighting: hoplomachia. They were not fully convinced of its value, as Plato shows in Laches. A description of the diologue says this:


Generals then as generals now may be very competent leading an army but may be poor judges of individual fighting skills: Emphasis on MAY be poor judges.

They would be very credible judging how well a formation handle their weapons as a group, and as a group individual skill past basic competence might be of little use to a general.

Now, with one on one duels with spear and shield an advanced fighting art could make a very big difference in Homeric times when champions would ride around in chariots and meet other champions and fight it out on foot.

Individual skills might not make a big difference compared to some serious practice and drill in formation fighting and a period general would gain more from the formation skills of his troops than spending a lot of time and resources making each fighter a champion. The individual fighter however might find having enhanced skills personally useful for his own personal survival or should he be forced to fight on his own if a battle turns into a confused mess ! ( Usually a disaster for the most confused force ! ).

Oh, just speculation on my part or a theory but not anything I'm saying is certain fact.

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Tue 26 Jun, 2007 8:41 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Felix Wang wrote:
I am afraid the Greek sources do not support this view. Up until the time of Philip of Macedon, I am not aware of any people who regularly used spears which were noticeably longer than the Greeks. In the great battles with the Persian Empire, Herodotus enumerates the races who went with Xerxes to Greece, and none are described as having clearly longer spears; in fact:


Mmm...Egyptians. They had a spear-based phalanx that had rather unusually long spears; Xenophon mentions them both in the Hellenica and the Cyropaedia, though the latter might not exactly be a very reliable source. There is some speculation that this Egyptian phalanx might have been the inspiration for the Iphicratean reforms, which in turn might have been the precursor of the Macedonian phalanx.

You're right, of course, that most other opponents faced by the Greeks had shorter spears, but look back at my statement--I said "even against enemies with longer spears," which does not imply that all their enemies had longer spears. If that was what I meant, then I would have said "even though their enemies had longer spears."


Quote:
As far as usage of a spear was concerned, the Greeks had a specific term for high-level spear fighting: hoplomachia. They were not fully convinced of its value, as Plato shows in Laches. A description of the diologue says this:

(snip)

At least some Greeks were of the opinion that basic spear handling was quite adequate for a successful hoplite.


See, I said that advanced spear-handling is every bit as difficult as advanced swordsmanship. Nowhere did I say that the Greeks or anybody else needed an advanced knowledge of spearfighting techniques in order to be succesful.

BTW, it wouldn't surprise me that the Spartans gave the most derisive reactions to such "spear-fencing," seeing as they relied most on their shields and had developed the tactics of a massed shield rush into something as an art form.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Spear vs Sword
Page 2 of 4 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum