|
|
Post by xtremetrainer on Nov 8, 2018 5:25:22 GMT
Judging by montante, the two handers were not the clumsy hackers some here seem to imagine. They flow freely and create real problems for a spear attack. And they solve the reach problem that bedevils smaller swords. I'd give odds to the two hander. Dang, impressive. That is a good video. And yes, those big swords are much less heavy than what you might think. Im the hands of inexperienced combatants I can see how the spearman might win since the spear is easier to use when you don't have much training but in the hands of experienced and skilled combatants I would bet on the swordsman to win. If we're talking about skilled combatants and we're within melee range there's only two weapons I can think of that I would say could reliably beat a two handed sword like the one in the video, a gun or another two handed sword. |
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Nov 8, 2018 6:12:18 GMT
So then why didn't knights always use spears instead of swords? They often used spears.       The advantage of spears has been recognised by a number of writers who knew the subject well. George Silver, Paradoxes of Defence: Miyamoto Musashi, Book of Five Rings: (This is comparing the spear with the naginata - Musashi is discussing the two most effective common hand-to-hand weapons for the battlefield.) Why not always spears? Sometimes, you might prefer to have a shield, and then you might prefer a sword rather than a one-handed spear (one-handed spear is much slower, rotation-wise, than two-handed spear) - shields reduce the advantage that spear has over sword. Armour also reduces the advantage, since it's harder to reliably get a hit in before a swordsman can close. Swords are versatile, and can be useful. Why was the sword invented if the spear is a better weapon? One might as well ask why the pistol was invented if the musket is a better weapon. There is more to being a useful weapon than "A beats B". A sword is a better EDC weapon - you can wear it at your side, and have both hands free. To quote more from the above writers: Musashi: Silver: |
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Nov 8, 2018 7:24:22 GMT
That's one of the simpler weapons to face with a spear. The simple summary: the spear has a huge advantage. While it's true enough that the "only chance the spearman has is of being able to stab the greatsword man before the greatsword man gets close", it's easier for the spearman to stab his opponent than for the swordsman to close with his. The big heavy two-hander is relatively better against a spear (but IMO still inferior). So then why didn't knights always use spears instead of swords? A spear is a much simpler weapon just a shaft and a head with a point. Spears were around long before swords, they've been in use since the stone age. And, in medieval times a spear would be much less expensive than a sword. Why was the sword invented if the spear is a better weapon? As well as the reasons stated above, the sword is also a better weapon in a melee, as can be seen in the book "Swordsmen of the British Empire", where British lancers are said to be inadequate in a melee situation when compared with their sword wielding foes, and when French lancers wounded a cavalry man multiple times but were unable to kill him. The sword is also a sidearm, like a pistol. You can't wear a spear, but you can very easily and comfortably wear most types of sword. The spear is a better weapon, but not in every situation. Both swords and spears have been independently invented multiple times, though not necessarily always using metal. |
|
|
|
Post by howler on Nov 8, 2018 19:17:43 GMT
You must better understand the spear and polearm. Greatsword was a niche battlefield weapon used against group formations (like pike), not a dueling implement. Can't just cut through a spear shaft. A head half chopped off (some pole arms can completely cleave a head from neck, btw) is as instantaneous a death as a fully chopped off head. You will never get close enough, or past the point (movement, range, speed) to an experienced spearman, who can simply choke up (unless in confined space) to turn a long spear into a short one. Well I could be wrong but when I think of greatswords I think of any kind of sword that's primarily used with two hands. With the sword lessons I've taken they teach us to use the sword with both hands on the handle. If by greatsword we're talking about those huge unwieldily swords which were mostly meant to be used only from horseback than I cannot say how it would faire against a spear. I have no experience with such weapons. As for pole arms, that is again a different weapon. From what I understand this thread is about spears and greatswords. Yes, I was mainly talking Greatsword (not really used on horseback) which were not necessarily unwieldy in their respective battlefield roles. Longswords were best used two handed but could certainly be used one handed. Longsword would also fall easily to the spear/polearm as the spear/polearm (polearm, many examples being quite similar to spear) was the main weapon and longswords were basically a sidearm by comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by howler on Nov 8, 2018 19:31:53 GMT
That was pretty cool. I wonder how much that particular sword weighed, as it almost looked like between longsword and greatsword (I know there was variation in size, like with most things). Lots of tactics involved the grabbing of the blade (half swording) and using it like a small (or not so small) spear. My understanding is that none of the actual combat weapons in this class weighed more than 8 lbs or so. On par with a wwII military rifle, and maybe a bit less. They had to be well balanced and light enough to move fast or they wouldn't work. I've also been told that we shouldn't confuse the fighting blades with the "parade" swords that often show up on walls in old castles. Those were for carrying in procession and are a lot bulkier. Yes, the "presentation" swords were basically for show and to project power, intimidation, phallic symbol, look at me, don't mess with me, etc... I'm thinking the lighter specimens would be more effective in a one on one confrontation. What were the weights of the lightest greatswords, or for that matter the heaviest longswords, and did they blur the line between greatsword and longsword? Was there a sort of "no mans land" for weight, were you didn't see a greatsword under 5lbs and you didn't see a longsword over 4lbs? |
|
|
|
Post by howler on Nov 8, 2018 19:36:44 GMT
That's one of the simpler weapons to face with a spear. The simple summary: the spear has a huge advantage. While it's true enough that the "only chance the spearman has is of being able to stab the greatsword man before the greatsword man gets close", it's easier for the spearman to stab his opponent than for the swordsman to close with his. The big heavy two-hander is relatively better against a spear (but IMO still inferior). So then why didn't knights always use spears instead of swords? A spear is a much simpler weapon just a shaft and a head with a point. Spears were around long before swords, they've been in use since the stone age. And, in medieval times a spear would be much less expensive than a sword. Why was the sword invented if the spear is a better weapon? An armored knight would carry a type of polearm known as a poleaxe over any longsword, though he still may have had a longsword (sidearm) on his belt while wielding the polearm. Knights used a lot of different weapons based on the task at hand. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2018 21:03:19 GMT
When was this? What timeline?
Don't paint yourself into a corner, be more specific.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Nov 9, 2018 1:23:07 GMT
The source for using pole weapons over swords?
That's an interesting question. It's taken as a given by most medievalist but I can think of contrary evidence including Fiore himself.
But of course, what we know of combat by the 14th and 15th strongly indicates (if not proves) that lances, powerful bows and pole weapons were the mainstay of fighting. Both from descriptions and illustrations. And practical experience. Pole weapons are terrifying even in simulated combat. And it takes many years of constant training with a sword to hope to match even an adequate spearman.
Earlier medieval? Hard to say because we have less information.
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,659 
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Nov 9, 2018 1:59:26 GMT
The source for using pole weapons over swords?
That's an interesting question. It's taken as a given by most medievalist but I can think of contrary evidence including Fiore himself.
But of course, what we know of combat by the 14th and 15th strongly indicates (if not proves) that lances, powerful bows and pole weapons were the mainstay of fighting. Both from descriptions and illustrations. And practical experience. Pole weapons are terrifying even in simulated combat. And it takes many years of constant training with a sword to hope to match even an adequate spearman.
Earlier medieval? Hard to say because we have less information.
Leave it to a nob to wax poetic about butchering people. Our little Italian flower probably suffered from a bit of motivated reasoning when in came to puffery and the sword. In other words, caveat emptor. Don't put too much faith in the veracity of ad copy. |
|
|
|
Post by howler on Nov 9, 2018 2:43:40 GMT
When was this? What timeline? Don't paint yourself into a corner, be more specific. I cannot say what knights used the most and did make an assumption in my statement. There's a constellation of two handed polearm spear type, so I shouldn't have specified a poleaxe. After browsing (various internet articles say they used them, and in the medieval period, but I wouldn't take as gospel) I can only confirm my second point, that they used a lot of different weapons. It does seem like quite an effective weapon against armor, whether used by armored or unarmored people. |
|
|
|
Post by howler on Nov 9, 2018 2:51:03 GMT
The source for using pole weapons over swords?
That's an interesting question. It's taken as a given by most medievalist but I can think of contrary evidence including Fiore himself.
But of course, what we know of combat by the 14th and 15th strongly indicates (if not proves) that lances, powerful bows and pole weapons were the mainstay of fighting. Both from descriptions and illustrations. And practical experience. Pole weapons are terrifying even in simulated combat. And it takes many years of constant training with a sword to hope to match even an adequate spearman.
Earlier medieval? Hard to say because we have less information.
Yeah, I only was parroting internet claptrap and am IN NO WAY an authority on armored combat and knightly affairs. I sure as hell will say (my opinion) a heavy duty can opener/spike/hammer type two handed pole weapon is orders better than those narrow tipped longswords which were used to pierce the gaps while grappling. |
|
|
|
Post by howler on Nov 9, 2018 3:38:18 GMT
The source for using pole weapons over swords?
That's an interesting question. It's taken as a given by most medievalist but I can think of contrary evidence including Fiore himself.
But of course, what we know of combat by the 14th and 15th strongly indicates (if not proves) that lances, powerful bows and pole weapons were the mainstay of fighting. Both from descriptions and illustrations. And practical experience. Pole weapons are terrifying even in simulated combat. And it takes many years of constant training with a sword to hope to match even an adequate spearman.
Earlier medieval? Hard to say because we have less information.
Well, I can agree with Fiore on the dagger part, except in a phone booth (do they still have phone booths). He's all wet on the spears/polearms part. Swords do make fine side arms, however, as a spear/polearm would REALLY suck hanging on a belt at a cocktail party (talk about one hell of a cocktail party). |
|
|
|
Post by xtremetrainer on Nov 9, 2018 16:00:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by xtremetrainer on Nov 9, 2018 16:13:11 GMT
One might as well ask why the pistol was invented if the musket is a better weapon. There is more to being a useful weapon than "A beats B". A sword is a better EDC weapon - you can wear it at your side, and have both hands free. A musket is certainly a better weapon at a distance but a pistol is much better for close quarters. You can move much faster with a pistol and you can swing it into position much easier in tight spaces where you can a musket. This would not be much of a concern in the battlefield when the enemy is 100 or so yards away but lets say you engaged in a firefight that was indoors. A pistol might be better as you would have much less room. Also a pistol you can carry with you much easier than a musket so you're more likely to have it with you. So to say a musket is a better weapon than a pistol that is not always the case, it depends on the situation. A sword might be a better EDC weapon than a spear some of the time but I would say that also depends on the sword and the spear. A smaller spear you can carry strapped across your back so you have both hands free. And since this thread is about greatswords I would think most greatswords can be as hard to carry around as lots of the spears. A short sword might be a better EDC weapon and I believe the knights often did carry short swords in scabbards at their sides but the larger swords were kept in scabbards that were attached to the horse. |
|
|
|
Post by xtremetrainer on Nov 9, 2018 16:18:21 GMT
Yes, civilizations such as the Aztecs used a sword called the macuahuitl which was made out of wood with obsidian blades lining the edges. The ancient Hawaiians used swords made out of wood that had shark teeth lining the edges so the shark teeth were used to cut with. Fascinating stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by xtremetrainer on Nov 9, 2018 16:23:38 GMT
So anyway, in my martial arts class I am just starting to learn how to use the naginata which is not the same thing as a spear but its in some ways similar. It consists of a pole with a blade at the end and when you use a naginata from what little I know as of now, your hands do move quite a bit along the pole so you do lots of choking up and choking down with the weapon as its been mentioned here about a good spearman being able to choke up with the spear if they're in close quarters. The naginata is a green belt weapon in my system and I do know they used spears of some sort in some of the Japanese and Okinawan fighting systems so maybe I will be learning the spear sometime in the future.
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
"Lord of the Memes"
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 10,362
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Nov 9, 2018 16:41:09 GMT
Not a greatsword vs. spear but at least a longsword:  |
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Nov 9, 2018 17:24:42 GMT
The fact is that a lot of late medieval battle illustrations show mixed weapon use including the use of various swords. Whether or not this is an accurate reflection of battlefield reality is difficult to establish. We've sort of taken it as granted that the bulk of the killing was done with bow, lance and pole-arm certainly after late 13th. These are the weapons that can be shown to penetrate riveted mail. Esp. lances and pole weapons that have four-sided spikes starting with the goedendag. But the fact is that the commentary about this comes later on--from Silver and others in the 16th. Fiore is the earliest of the longsword masters who's writings survive and he pretty clearly states that the sword is the ultimate weapon. We can accuse him of being a pasta head, and we will, but it's still solid primary source commentary from someone who was actually living in the period.
It is possible that medieval battles involved a wide range of weapons used together for different roles. So there might be men with spears and pole-arms to keep some attackers out of measure, while sword-armed men cut down those who were allowed to get close. Creating a fence with small openings, and using the pressure of the crowd against the enemy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Nov 9, 2018 22:29:26 GMT
One might as well ask why the pistol was invented if the musket is a better weapon. There is more to being a useful weapon than "A beats B". A sword is a better EDC weapon - you can wear it at your side, and have both hands free. A musket is certainly a better weapon at a distance but a pistol is much better for close quarters. You can move much faster with a pistol and you can swing it into position much easier in tight spaces where you can a musket. This would not be much of a concern in the battlefield when the enemy is 100 or so yards away but lets say you engaged in a firefight that was indoors. A pistol might be better as you would have much less room. Also a pistol you can carry with you much easier than a musket so you're more likely to have it with you. So to say a musket is a better weapon than a pistol that is not always the case, it depends on the situation. Exactly so. While spear might be better than sword in the hypothetical duel in the OP, it depends on the situation. (The pistol first became popular as a cavalry weapon - a muzzle-loading pistol is much easier to reload on horseback than a musket.) A sword might be a better EDC weapon than a spear some of the time but I would say that also depends on the sword and the spear. A smaller spear you can carry strapped across your back so you have both hands free. Tiny spears don't have the advantage of range. Especially against a greatsword. One does see spears slung on the back, but it's a cavalry thing. Especially useful for mounted archers.    And since this thread is about greatswords I would think most greatswords can be as hard to carry around as lots of the spears. A short sword might be a better EDC weapon and I believe the knights often did carry short swords in scabbards at their sides but the larger swords were kept in scabbards that were attached to the horse. That's one reason why greatswords are relatively rare weapons. They have two advantages over spear, pike, and halberd: they control more space more effectively, so are useful for guarding flanks, and are better for one-against-many, so are useful bodyguard weapons. But note that spears, pikes, and halberds were much more common on the battlefield. There were reasons for that. (Haven't fought enough with greatsword vs halberd (or anything vs halberd) to say anything useful about that.) |
|
|
|
Post by xtremetrainer on Nov 12, 2018 2:29:05 GMT
So anyway, the OP talked about a duel to the death where both opponents aren't wearing armor, one has got a spear the other has a greatsword. Both opponents are of equal size and skill. So, this is the conclusion I've come to. If they're both relatively unskilled or just have beginner level skill with their weapons I would bet on the spearman. If they're both relatively highly skilled, they're both really advanced experts with their weapons, I would bet on the swordsman.
|
|
Nov 1, 2024 0:13:58 GMT
Nov 1, 2024 0:13:58 GMT
