| Author |
Message |
|
Anders Nilsson
|
 Posted: Wed 27 Jun, 2007 2:23 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | 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.
|
Thank you. As I have been saying all the time. If you want your levies to be effective, give them spears. Then they might do something usefull. Especially if led properly.
Some examples
Gulathingslagen
Weapons to bring:
Shield, spear, sword or axe.
Or
Bow and 2 times 12 arrows.
As you can see in lhis old vikinglaw, the spear is a must, but you have options of taking either a swords or an axe. You can also see that to bring bow and arrows is also accepted.
Södermannalagen
Each fightingman had to bring:
Bow/crossbow with 3 times 12 arrows.
Spear
Sword
Shield
Ironhat
Muza or mail or plata
Again you can see the spear as a must.
| Quote: | 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. |
You totaly forget that with the spear you got range and rank. With long spears you can fight with up to 5 ranks and with swords just the first rank. With spears you also have the abilty to mix ranks.
Look at Dolnsteins drawings of Landsknechts fighting Swedish peasants. The peasants have crossbowmen at front and men with spears and swordstaffs in the ranks behind.
Peasant levies in good and mixed formations.
As to compare the sword and spear, there is LOTS of differense.
At first i can quote John Clements in his book, medieval swordsmanship.
"Another advantage of spears and shafted weapons is that, like axes, they are fairly easy to use with little instuction, whereas a sword requires swordsmanship to be used properly."
As you can see, the spear is easier to use than the sword. I train with both spears swords and I agree with mr Clements.
To continue the quotes:
"The brutal speed of a poleweapons thrust and itīs formidable ability to feint and disengage are often underestimated."
As the spear is quite light and has exelent pointcontroll makes it very dangerous. Itīs doesnīt take much practice to learn to make rapid and multiple thrusts at various openings on an opponent.
To defeat a spear you must get past the point. But if you do, the spearman will probably drop his spear and draw his secondary weapon. If he is in formation, his buddies behind him will still thrust at you with thier spears.
The sword however takes lots of practise to use effectivly. You have the three wonders to get to know. But when you know them, you got a lot of more options than a spearman. The whole sword is dangeruos.
In a formation you are at a disadvantage with a sword.
With shields you are better of with a shortsword. (Details on how that works can be found in the exelent statement by Bram Verbeek)
Longer swords are much more difficult in a formations as you risk hitting you buddies.
Fact is that halfsword technics where most often used when in formation. For example thats why the flammenschwerts used by the doppelsöldners have a second grip on the blade.
|
|
   |
 |
|
Nicholas Zeman
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Jun, 2007 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
We seem to mostly be looking at spears vs swords in terms of military combat, and certainly both of these weapons were used extensively across the ages in such a context. They both had their place and proper use, as we can see only in the age of firearms did the sword and spear begin to decline as primary arms of war.
In single combat, I strongly disagree that a swordsman would make short work of a spear wielding opponent. A spear has far greater range than a sword, and if you look at it in terms of tempo and measure, the spearman can be in measure while the sword is out of measure. George Silver reckoned the staff (or the Welsh Hook) as the most superior weapon in this regard, and a spear is a staff with a pointy end. This does not mean that a swordsman isn't capable of defeating a man with a spear, but he is at a serious disadvantage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anders Nilsson
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Jun, 2007 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | In single combat, I strongly disagree that a swordsman would make short work of a spear wielding opponent. A spear has far greater range than a sword, and if you look at it in terms of tempo and measure, the spearman can be in measure while the sword is out of measure. George Silver reckoned the staff (or the Welsh Hook) as the most superior weapon in this regard, and a spear is a staff with a pointy end. This does not mean that a swordsman isn't capable of defeating a man with a spear, but he is at a serious disadvantage. |
I agree to some point. I have trained some from the works of Silver. The book fighting with the quartestaff by David Lindholm is very good. And as you say, a good spearman is very dangerous. The spears drawback is also is strength, the strikingrange of the tip.
As a swordsman, you know that the spearman most probaly will thrust. If you wait for the thrust and then do a passing forward with absetzen, you will get past the point and well into strikingdistance. If you donīt reach him from here, strike at his hands. Thereīs also the option of grabbing the spear, it works like a charm.
In formation combat, you canīt sidestep the spear, since his friends will nail you when doing so.
In my own experince, both when fighting with a swords or with a spear, I find that itīs harder to use a spear in singlecombat.
But in singlecombat, it comes down to the most skilled fighter, not that much down to the weapon.
Or why not, use both. There are some beatiful illustrations of knight bashing it out with both longswords in halfsword and spears used at the same time in Hans Talhoffers Alte armature und Ringkunst 1459.
http://www.thearma.org/temp/Fight-Earnestly.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Thu 28 Jun, 2007 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have to disagree that short swords are superior in tight formations. You just need to be used to fighting in a line.
In fact, long swords give better cross striking possibilities, which is what will kill you most of the time.
If you are to close for your 75-85 cm sword to be efficient, you are in dagger range anyhow.
Sword and shield in a tight line differs a lot from figting duels. The sword guard is a lot tighter; Most of the time, your sword will be in front of your face, tilted back to protect the head, or above your head, pointing the sword forward in a hanging guard.
(these two poses are predominant in depictions of such lines.)
Your hands and body will move a lot less. Stepping and twisting your body to generate power is not a real option; Blows are made using only the hand and wrist. (which also goes to legitimate a long sword, like the Xa, XI, XII, or late roman spatha/spathion, which will deliver a decent punch even with low speed.)
Your chances to take out the guy directly in front of you is slim. Your main target is the guys to your right and left, while defending againt the guy opposed to you, and make sure that he does not whack any of your friends.
Spears follow the same principles, but your can reach a lot more people. Your defense is weaker, but you have a lot more friends that can help you, and if your are armoured or carring a shield, chances are a swordsman will not be able to take you down in the initial rush.
In these settings, the first guy that steps out of line is usually dead, as he opens up both his flanks in doing so. getting a coordinated rush is thus quite hard once a standoff is established.
"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
|
|
 |
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 28 Jun, 2007 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Elling;
Would it be fair to say that the fight turns into mostly a shoving match and a who can last the longest ( endurance ) with a slow but still constant attrition causes by the weapons. The attrition not significant until one of the formation breaks up due to fatigue or loss of morale: Once a formation loses cohesion it becomes very vulnerable unless it can make an orderly retreat or if the " victors " are too exhausted to take advantage ! This is when a small but fresh reserve or cavalry can pursue and cause the majority of the casualties to the loser.
The sword might become more useful in the pursuit of the loser when the formations loosen up ?
A clever General might use a false rout to tempt the opposing force to break formation in a general charge, and if really well executed the General would be able to reform his troops before the opposing force catches up to them.
Again, reserves or hidden cavalry might be critical as well as having very well trained fighters willing and capable of pulling it off ! Disaster if the phoney retreat become a real retreat ! Timing and the room to back up fast as well as a small reaction time delay would probably be needed: If the enemy charges quickly there would be no time or space to reform into an effective shield wall ? Does any of this sound plausible or possible and if not I'm as interested in understanding any reasons why as I am getting any confirmation that I have it mostly right.   ( Look at it as a long question and not a statement of fact ).
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Thu 28 Jun, 2007 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
It might turn into a showing match, if the forces involved have enough protection (shields or armour) to not die right away.
If they have less protection, they will probbly stay at range and snipe or fence.
If, of course, the front ranks get to decide. A lot of the time they don't.
The fate of the formation is also determined by these rear ranks. Once the rear ranks are no longer willing to move into the "grind", the formation is about to break, as you say.
It doesn't matter if you have more reserves if they do not want to fight.
As a genral rule, individuals will very seldom attack a formation, simply because it's to dangerous.
In sport figthing, where dying isn't all that scary, a swarm of skirmishers might successfully take down a formation. In real life, however, you need to have a incredible fighting morale to pull this of...
So, a formation that smashes into a loose mass of enemy infantry will most of the time break it.
The feigned retreat tactic has been used with sucses several time trough history.
Generally, the break is the phase where the swords come out; The mutual support of the spears are no longer as effective, and fighing takes on a more individual nature.
Often the weapon sequence goes spear-dagger-sword, as the initial stabbing is followed by a rush from one of the sides, again resulting in loose chaos.
In Norway, the core troops of King Sverre's Birkebeiner faction where famous for figting in loose formation, swarming and breaking conventional shield wall formations. They where however elite guerrillas, legndary for their prowess.
(to the point where "What would the old Birkebeiner have said!?!?" was a standard complaint among the later birkebeiner when people start talking about going home or backing out.)
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Felix Wang
|
| Posted: Thu 28 Jun, 2007 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | ....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.
... |
That sounds interesting; late Egyptian history is not one of my stronger points, but I don't recall anything in Egyptian sources that suggested they used especially long spears, or trained and fought in a phalanx. (I am using the term in a narrow sense, as I do not consider every crowd of spear + shield men to be a phalanx.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Thu 28 Jun, 2007 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Elling Polden wrote: | It might turn into a showing match, if the forces involved have enough protection (shields or armour) to not die right away.
If they have less protection, they will probbly stay at range and snipe or fence.
If, of course, the front ranks get to decide. A lot of the time they don't. |
Well, it's more a matter of morale and training (again!) than protection. A shoving match implies the two opposing lines pressing shield-to-shield, and this is an extremely terrifying experience; no sane warrior would engage in such unless he had been adequately trained, indoctrinated, and psyched up for it before the battle. Men have to be made to believe themselves invincible before they'll engage in this kind of shield-rush--but once they've started believing in that, they could become nearly invincible in practical terms. We're getting a bit tired of the Spartiates, aren't we?
| Quote: | The fate of the formation is also determined by these rear ranks. Once the rear ranks are no longer willing to move into the "grind", the formation is about to break, as you say.
It doesn't matter if you have more reserves if they do not want to fight. |
Ah. Ardant du Picq. ( http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/7294 ) In his age, the "press of bullets" exerted an additional kind of pressure on the field of battle, but it worked much in the same way that hand-to-hand attrition did--albeit perhaps at a faster pace.
| Quote: | As a genral rule, individuals will very seldom attack a formation, simply because it's to dangerous.
In sport figthing, where dying isn't all that scary, a swarm of skirmishers might successfully take down a formation. In real life, however, you need to have a incredible fighting morale to pull this of... |
In sport fighting, men will naturally open up their formation--so that they'd have space to fight! Of course, this almost certainly bears little resemblance to the behavior of soldiers, who would rather bunch up for mutual protection.
| Felix Wang wrote: | | That sounds interesting; late Egyptian history is not one of my stronger points, but I don't recall anything in Egyptian sources that suggested they used especially long spears, or trained and fought in a phalanx. (I am using the term in a narrow sense, as I do not consider every crowd of spear + shield men to be a phalanx.) |
Well, I must admit that this phase in Egyptian history is not very well known toi the general public--though, to be fair, the general public doesn't even know the difference between the pyramid-building Old Kingdom and the imperial expansion of the New Kingdom, regularly conflating the two even though they were separated by many centuries.
Returning to the topic, there is fairly strong literary and pictorial evidence that the infantry core of ancient Egyptian armies gradually shifted from the bowmen and swordsmen/axemen of the New Kingdom to spear-and-shield phalanxes under the Kushite and Saitic dynasties. And I say phalanx, because what evidence we have tend to point towards close-order rather than loose-order fighting, and the Greek authors who later commented on them could find no better word than phalanges to describe their formations.
Last edited by Lafayette C Curtis on Mon 02 Jul, 2007 9:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 28 Jun, 2007 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | Returning to the topic, there is fairly strong literary and pictorial evidence that the infantry core of ancient Egyptian armies gradually shifted from the bowmen and swordsmen/axemen of the New Kingdom to spear-and-shield phalanxes under the Kushite and Saitic dynasties. And I say phalanx, because what evidence we have tend to point towards close-order rather than loose-order fighting, and the Greek authors who later commented on them could find no better word than phalanges to describe their formations. |
Maybe contact and warfare with Sumerians and Babylonians and later Assyrians as well as Philistines may have exposed the Egyptians to close quarter phalanx fighting and they may have adapted to it to survive: The Egyptians seemed to be very conservative in all things and the protection of the Nile river and desert would have let them be slow learners without consequences but eventually new fighting techniques would have been adopted through necessity ?
The chariot seems to have been adopted later than the Sumerians and their other neighbours.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bram Verbeek
|
| Posted: Thu 28 Jun, 2007 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I still think a short sword in the range of 60-80 cm would be better, when people use a really tight formation, it is hard to stab with a longer weapon, if you like to fight a little less organised and a little more personal, a longer weapon becomes an option. About the remark about being in dagger range anyway, between 40 cm for a dagger and 70 cm for a short sword is a whole lot of difference; you need to factor in that your opponent occupies space, and if your weapon is too short you will not be able to effectively threaten the person diagonally left of you. You will not attack him often, but you wish to have the option if opportunity dictates it. Persons on the right flanks will have different options, they could use a longer sword (or, still a short sword and put a lefthanded person there to have a shield on the outer rim).
What I can see is a block of spearmen with a tight formation of sword and shield trained fighters in the front ranks, since short swords focus on stabbing, overhand thrusts over the front rank could still work, since the front row has large shields the shields of the spearmen can be smaller to non existant (thus allowing longer spears, and the front row can advance to break up other people's spearmen). This would of course be very dependant on the swordmen, as there would be quite little of those in comparison to the spearmen.
Ah well, I am probably talking nonsense, no sense in talking tactics so early in the morning
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Jun, 2007 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
80 cm is not a particularly short sword; most one handed blades are somewhere between 75 and 85 cm.
Dagger range implies that you are so close that you can actually touch or move into your foe. This range is about a meter; fighting at this range usually takes place when someone rushes or is pushed into close combat.
At this point, crosstriking is less of an option, since you are busy trying to dispatch the foe you are locked in with. Once this phase is over, you revert to sword.
Compare to the longsword concept of Zu fechten, Fechten and Krieg.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Jun, 2007 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bram Verbeek wrote: | | What I can see is a block of spearmen with a tight formation of sword and shield trained fighters in the front ranks, since short swords focus on stabbing, overhand thrusts over the front rank could still work, since the front row has large shields the shields of the spearmen can be smaller to non existant (thus allowing longer spears, and the front row can advance to break up other people's spearmen). This would of course be very dependant on the swordmen, as there would be quite little of those in comparison to the spearmen. |
Well, a mixed formation like that is actually quite unnecessary. If we look at the Hellenistic phalanxes and their Neoclassical successors in the 16th and 17th centuries, many of them seem to actually have had men fighting with swords in the front rank--and these were not any kind of specialized swordsmen, but rather pikemen who had dropped, lost, or broken their longer weapons. The good thing about swords is that they can be kept sheathed until you need them, so you can carry them even if you've got another substantial weapon.
Believe it or not, Machiavelli advocated a formation of swordsmen covered in front by a line of pikemen; the pikes were supposed to break the shock of the enemy's charge and then retreat through the swordsmen's formations. Of course, Machiavelli seems to have misunderstood the actual mechanism of the Roman line-relief system, and he probably forgot that the enemy could pursue the pikemen as they tried to find their way to the rear...
(Needless to say, his impractical suggestion does not seem to have ever been adopted by any European powers of the time)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Felix Wang
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Jun, 2007 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | ...
| Felix Wang wrote: | | That sounds interesting; late Egyptian history is not one of my stronger points, but I don't recall anything in Egyptian sources that suggested they used especially long spears, or trained and fought in a phalanx. (I am using the term in a narrow sense, as I do not consider every crowd of spear + shield men to be a phalanx.) |
Well, I must admit that this phase in Egyptian history is not very well known toi the general public--though, to be fair, the general public doesn't even know the difference between the pyramid-building Old Kingdom and the imperial expansion of the New Kingdom, regularly conflating the two even though they were separated by many centuries.
Returning to the topic, there is fairly strong literary and pictorial evidence that the infantry core of ancient Egyptian armies gradually shifted from the bowmen and swordsmen/axemen of the New Kingdom to spear-and-shield phalanxes under the Kushite and Saitic dynasties. And I say phalanx, because what evidence we have tend to point towards close-order rather than loose-order fighting, and the Greek authors who later commented on them could find no better word than phalanges to describe their formations. |
I checked Xenophon's Cyropaedia, and find this:
| Quote: | | 33] There followed a desperate struggle with lance and spear and sword, and still the Egyptians had the advantage, because of their numbers and their weapons. Their spears were immensely stout and long, such as they carry to this day, and the huge shield not only gave more protection than corslet and buckler, but aided the thrust of the fighter, slung as it was from the shoulder. |
which occurs just after a Persian charge with scythed chariots in http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl...edia_7.htm . It does clearly say the Egyptians used long spears, and also says they continued to do so into later times. This passage raises as many questions as it does answers. First of all, the scythed chariot starred as a novelty weapon at Gaugamela, but I am not aware of its use by the early Persians. Other sources cite Persian archery and horsemanship rather than scythed chariots. Second, is there other, especially graphic evidence, to support Egyptian phalanxes with large spears and huge shields? Citations would be appreciated. Third, if Egyptians did use a proper phalanx, and the Persians did certainly conquer Egypt, why did the Persians have such trouble with the Greek hoplite phalanx? Why didn't they mobilize their own subjects' phalanx as a counter?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Jun, 2007 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's why I said the Cyropaedia might not exactly be the most reliable source of all. Afterwards I remember Herodotus mentioning these Egyptians with long spears and large shields fighting as marines on Persian ships. I'll certainly be looking out for citations, though that might take some time--the last time I read about the subject was more than a year ago.
As for why the Persians did not mobilize the Egyptian phalanxes for the invasion of Greece, I think we simply don't have enough information to make anything more than educated guesses. One strong possibility is that they didn't trust these Egyptians--after all, the Ptolemies several centuries later also found that their Egyptians were good soldiers but not very reliable in political terms. Alexander's invasion of Egypt was also one of least bloodless (relatively) of all his conquests, perhaps because the Egyptians so intensely disliked the Persians that they'd trade them for any other ruler. Another possiblity is that they mobilized the Egyptians but used them for garrison duty within their Empire to free up other troops that (they thought) were better and more reliable for the invasion. A third is that they mobilized the Egyptians--and deployed them as marines, like the Egyptians that the Greeks encountered somewhat later. A fourth is that the Egyptians had abandoned the phalanx altogether after more than half a century under Persian rule, although I'd deem this possibility the least likely of all.
That's all speculation, however, and even if we could prove that the Persians didn't use Egyptian phalanxes it does not prove at all that the Egyptian phalanxes never existed. For that I'll try to find some quotations and perhaps a couple of relief images as well, since that's what I recall seeing back then when I read about this subject.
BTW, does anybody here have information about Gastron of Sparta? I recall Frontinus mentioning him in connection with a Spartan expedition sent to the aid of Egyptians against the Persians. Maybe we can get some information out of this
Last edited by Lafayette C Curtis on Mon 02 Jul, 2007 10:32 pm; edited 5 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Sun 01 Jul, 2007 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I have to disagree that short swords are superior in tight formations. |
I don't know. A number of Renaissance English sources suggest short swords. Smythe thought a 27-inch blade was best, but tolerated blades up to 36 inches, which was a fairly common length. A slightly later writer on pike warfare thought things often got too close for swords anyway, and that daggers were typically more useful. Fourquevaux liked swords, but noted how tight things got after the first thrust of the pike. I suspect short blades could have the advantage in the press.
The 16th-century texts I've read also make me question the idea that the spear is easier to use than the spear, or at least that this matters. 16th-century military writers seem to have expected each and every soldier to be a decent with a blade. Pikemen had to resort to their swords and/or daggers after the first thrust. Archers usually carried swords for backup, and I bet halberdiers did too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sun 01 Jul, 2007 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe I was wrong in mentioning the Hellenica as a source, since I actually found the quotation I was looking for in the Anabasis:
| Xenophon wrote: | It was now mid-day, and the enemy was not yet in sight; but with the approach of afternoon was seen dust like a white cloud, and after a considerable interval a black pall as it were spread far and high above the plain. As they came nearer, very soon was seen here and
there a glint of bronze and spear-points; and the ranks could plainly be distinguished. On the left were troopers wearing white cuirasses. That is Tissaphernes in command, they said, and next to these a body of men bearing wicker-shields, and next again heavy-armed infantry, with long wooden shields reaching to the feet. These were the Egyptians, they said, and then other cavalry, other bowmen; all were in national divisions, each nation marching in densely-crowded squares. |
And while Xenophon's mention of scythed chariots in the Cyropaedia might cast doubts about his accuracy in depicting troops at the time of Cyrus the Great, his description of the Egyptian troops might not really be all that wrong. At most, he was guilty of thinking that the Egyptians of Cyrus the Great's day must have fought in a similar way to the Egyptians of his day, as this quote bears out--the report of Cyrus's spy about the army mustering to oppose him:
| Quote: | | Large numbers of Thracians, armed with the short sword, had already been enrolled, and a body of Egyptians were coming by sea, amounting--so said the Indians--to 120,000 men, armed with long shields reaching to their feet, huge spears (such as they carry to this day), and sabres. |
And again:
| Quote: | | Their spears were immensely stout and long, such as they carry to this day, and the huge shield not only gave more protection than corslet and buckler, but aided the thrust of the fighter, slung as it was from the shoulder. |
Mark the words "such as they carry to this day." Since Xenophon had fought against the Egyptians at Cunaxa, there is a fairly strong reason to believe that the description is accurate for the Egyptians of the 4th century B.C., though it might or might not have been accurate for those in Cyrus's day.
The Kushite and Saitic Egyptians will have to wait a bit longer...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anders Nilsson
|
| Posted: Sat 07 Jul, 2007 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was at an event today. We had some longsword fighting (HEMA) and some reenactment fighting as well. Me and a friend of mine was experimenting with a spear. We where trying some technics in sparring an then we decided to test the spears power.
We took a quite regular spear, about 180 cm plus the point. A cheap not to sharp point.
Then we took a vikingshield. Made after the finds. 1 cm planks fastened with 3 bars on the inside and a steel boss. Then we hung it from a tree so that it could swing and not be to rigid.
We tried some throws and some thusts at the shield. The result was stunning.
The boss was repetedly penetraded and the spear went all though the middlebar as well (Handle). You didnīt need much effort to do that.
The planks was actually harder to penetrate since the wood flex. Never the less the spear penetrated quite easily. It went through both the planks and the inside bars with a good 5cm. That makes for about 3 cm of wood penetrated with 5 cm of spear all though to possibly harm the shields user.
Most effective was the twohanded thrusts and the throws, we didnīt get the same results from the onehanded thrusts, but that was expected. Still good penetration thou.
I think that this shows that the spear is awsome, With quite litte training you can get nice results. I wouldnīt like be in a shieldwall if they were throwing spears at me. Even more so if charged by spears. If I can penetrate deep with a spear imagine a knight with a charging horse, he could penetrate 2 guys with shields if ha had a good lance.
I also spoke to some norwegians on anonther forum, they hade made testcutting with a spear. The spear cut 7 cm deep in flesh with a overhand cut.
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Welch
|
| Posted: Sun 08 Jul, 2007 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
An exercise I like (that I learned from Jake Norwood) for beginning pole arms is to take a rank novice and give him a 7 foot staff and put him up against two moderate swordsmen.
The only instructions are no overhead blows and no strikes or thrusts above the chest, and I tell them to try to keep mobile and not let the swordsmen get the them in between.
The beginner with a stick can regularly keep the swordsmen at bay almost indefinitely.
"A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand."
Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4BC-65AD
|
|
|
|
|
Robin Smith
|
| Posted: Sun 08 Jul, 2007 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| David Welch wrote: | An exercise I like (that I learned from Jake Norwood) for beginning pole arms is to take a rank novice and give him a 7 foot staff and put him up against two moderate swordsmen.
The only instructions are no overhead blows and no strikes or thrusts above the chest, and I tell them to try to keep mobile and not let the swordsmen get the them in between.
The beginner with a stick can regularly keep the swordsmen at bay almost indefinitely. |
Well if no overhead blows are allowed, then of course the swordsmen are severely disadvantaged, as that limitation affects them much more than the spearman. When I am fighting sword and shield against a spearman, my primary tactic is to bind their spear with my shield when they thrust, and rush in with an overhead shot to the head or shoulders. If done rapidly, it allows you to move past the spear, and once inside the swordsman has the advantage. With this tactic, against a spearman of equal skill I am at better than 50% success rate. Of course this for 1-on-1, not multiple spearmen, in which case it could be suicidal. Also if the spearman is significantly more experienced than I, it can make getting and staying inside more difficult.
A furore Normannorum libera nos, Domine
|
|
 |
|
|
David Welch
|
| Posted: Sun 08 Jul, 2007 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, I should have been clearer.
The guy with the staff can't do over head blows. The swordsmen can do whatever they want.
A helmet can protect the head, but the neck is at risk with a brain blow from a staff, and a full on oberhaw from a staff is just too dangerous. The force generated from a pole weapon can not be over estimated in training, and unlike a sword there is no "waster" equivalent... the "waster" is the weapon.
"A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand."
Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4BC-65AD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
This is a standard topic