|
|
Post by William Swiger on Feb 1, 2012 10:57:38 GMT
Man - that was great. Had to go and see the whole program. Excellent!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dalaran1991 on Feb 1, 2012 18:47:40 GMT
Very interesting reply. Thanks everyone. Yes I did my homework and do know that spear is cheaper, more expendable, a lot easier to use and more versatile than sword, even with the samurai. That's why I started to question why sword was still popular given the advantages of spear/polearm. However, we do know that the Roman Legions conquered most of the known world with their gladius and shield, against barbarians who use mostly spear/axes. ... re=relatedAll of it though has to do with how the legions fought as one unit and have superior equipment. Which explains why the sword kept getting use because their users, the knights in armor have way better equipment and training to make the most out of their signature weapons. I'm really curious as to how spear/shield fight against sword and shield in duel though. |
|
|
|
Post by Odingaard on Feb 1, 2012 20:33:29 GMT
Actually, the Roman legion used alot more than a gladius and scutum. The Roman's used javelins, arrows, and spears at onset of most engagements. They would use hastati and velite troops that would pelt the enemy with all manner of projectiles. Then, the legionary soldiers were always armed with two pilium, which was a weighted spear with a triangular head mounted to a thin shaft. At the onset of an engagement, the Romans would launch the pilium into the enemy shield wall. When the pilium hit the shield, the head would imbed into the wood, the thin shaft would bend, and the enemy would have to discard his shield (to try running with a 6-7 foot spear sticking out of his shield). This was the tactic for many, many years. At the very last, when the pilium ran out and the light skirmishers/archers could not longer pelt the enemy without endangering the legion - the gladii would come out. By this time, not as many of the enemy had shields or spears as you would think. The Romans were very well armored and moved as a unit, so an enemy thrusting his spear into the Roman shield wall stood a risk of losing the spear, having it wrenched away because it's caught in a shield or by someone in a rear rank. Try repeatedly thrusting into a wall of head to toe shields marching at you - it's not easy to pick a target to thrust at. In the end, it was more often than not the Roman gladius and scutum against an enemy armed with only a sword or axe, but it took much more than just those things to get to that road. The Romans used spears as well and were quite proficient at it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dalaran1991 on Feb 1, 2012 21:09:57 GMT
Do we know how the Roman beat the Greek Phalanx? That would be a good example of sword and shield vs spear and shield in battle. The hoplite do have short sword but from what I know it's a weapon of last resort only when formation is broken, while the legionary main weapon is the gladius. They use their pillum mostly for throwing or vs cavalry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Student of Sword on Feb 1, 2012 21:15:30 GMT
Phalanx formation is ineffective in broken terrain. It works best on flat, open, and even ground. Roman formation is more flexible and can be adapted to diverse terrain, with the exception of dense forest vegetation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Feb 1, 2012 22:45:54 GMT
The reason for that is as much a cultural as a practical one. The sword was the only weapon solely designed for killing other humans. Spears, bows, axes, etc were all tools in the first place. Therefore, the sword holds a special place in the arsenal of a warrior. Since swords usually also were the most expensive and most difficult weapon to make, it naturally became a symbol of wealth and power. Their making was so complex that magic was associated with swords way more often than with most other weapons.
Swords were never primary weapons, most fighting was not done close up. Yet it's exactly that type of fighting that was often seen as the most honorable way. Why do you think duels were rarely fought with spears? The closer you are to your enemy, the more courage it takes to fight him, to look him in the eyes. And the whole point of duels was to settle disputes in a manly, honorable way. Most cultures where the sword was at the heart of the warrior had a very sophisticated codex of honor and other virtues. The sword was the ideal weapon to represent this. Everybody had a spear or other weapons as bows and axes, but the sword (originally at least) was a nobleman's weapon and required skill and courage to wield. In other words: It was the perfect symbol for a system based on the leadership of a single high class.
|
|
|
|
Post by lamebmx on Feb 1, 2012 22:58:13 GMT
kinda like the sniper today. the rank n file can spray and pray. they dont get to associate with who they kill. Before training a sniper and handing him an expensive customized rifle, you need to know he is going to be able to emotionally handle stalking and killing another human. Possibly seeing the man close up and personal through a scope, being a loving parent. and the next day when he is alone, crack and he is dead. Sorry you post made me think of how killing by the sword is a lot more up close and personal than the bow or the spear (more particular in the initial battle where there is a mass of troops)
|
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Feb 1, 2012 23:48:43 GMT
With one little amendment. Two swords against spear can make the outcome even.
A good swordsman, if he understands the sword vs spear confrontation, is trying to adjust himself. He is not that fatalist as you might think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2012 8:50:27 GMT
Never seen two swords against a spear, not sure there was any historical basis for pitting two backup weapons against a primary battlefield weapon. Only thing that comes to mind was Miyamoto Musashi defeating the opponent with a staff, the opponent then went off and meditated for ages like they always do and came back with the idea of a short staff, the jo, which defeated the two swords - or so the story goes...
In the first encounter between Greece and Rome in the Battle of Heraclea in 280BC, the Greek phalanx led by Pyrrhus of Epirus defeated the Roman legion, but they suffered heavy losses 11,000 men, though less than the Romans who lost 15,000- and this is where the expression a pyrrhic victory comes from, a victory where e a high price is paid. Incidentally, he defeated the Romans again the year after too.
Both used shield and spear, but in different ways. By that time, Greece as an empire was on the decline at this time, there was the Peloponnesian War, from 431 to 404 BC, warring amongst themselves, the whole empire of Alexander the great had come and gone bt 323BC. The Roman empire was on the rise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Feb 7, 2012 23:14:55 GMT
Wushu has 2 swords vs spear and are doing very well against it.
Musashi was not a genius, he was a great swordsman. He put himself in a situation where common sense broke the tradition. That's why you will never find in regular army examples. Except the mongol army.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Feb 8, 2012 7:04:04 GMT
The Romans loved Greek culture, and very early Romans fought using the phalanx, but then adopted the weapons and tactics of the neighboring Samnites, for example the scutum and manipular formation. I agree with what Student of the Sword said, the phalanx, while strong is not very versatile. As for their tactics against enemy phalanx. For starters the pilum would be very effective against a tightly packed phalanx, and if it didn't kill a man, he would lose his shield, which is a big problem in the phalanx. Then the front ranks would use their scutum to pin the spears in place. The men in the second rank would go in between the first rank, and in between the phalanx's spears. Once you get past a spearman's point, he is easy pickings. In this case long range is a detriment against the extreme close ranged gladius. Visual aid: The explanation of these tactics are explained start around the 6:30 mark. It's a little oversimplified I'm sure, but it's probably what they did in many cases. |
|
|
|
Post by K. Vander Linde on May 28, 2012 17:48:34 GMT
The idea of sword vs. a polearm/spear is one I’m familiar with. I have spared with and against this type of situation. Mind you I have only used Western weapons when doing so but I have to say that the spear has no more advantage than the sword and same with the polearm. It’s all about understanding ones limitations with each; remember sword play is the art of defense , one might say it is the art of killing your opponent but, this is only true if they want to die. In other words play to your advantages and use theirs against them.
As, for the bit on cutting the shaft it strictly depends on the wood and if it is reinforced. I’ve cut through a shaft once out of about 8 sparing situations and have had 2 while I used the polearm. So it is possible but you must be using a chopping weapon or strike.
|
|
