|
Post by xtremetrainer on Feb 22, 2023 21:01:08 GMT
There has been some debate as to which is a better weapon in battle, the sword or the spear. Well, to the best of my knowledge the sword was the primary weapon of the knight while on foot and knights did not use spears while on foot. The only time knights used spears was while on horseback. Standard infantry used spears and other pole weapons while on foot but a knight was of course much more highly trained with weapons than an infantryman.
Therefore the conclusion I've come to is that it takes more skill to use a sword than a spear but in the hands of a highly skilled person a sword is a more effective weapon, if fighting on foot. In the hands of somebody who has only marginal training the spear would be a better weapon as swords were much more difficult to master which explains why the infantrymen used spears, their training was nowhere near the level of training that a knight would receive, and spears make better weapons when fighting from horseback, which is why knights would use lances while on horseback, but for somebody who has a high level of skill, the sword was a better weapon for fighting on foot, otherwise the knights would've used spears not swords while on foot.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Feb 22, 2023 21:14:24 GMT
Skill goes both ways. Swords are side-arms. Lances where used on horseback.
|
|
|
Post by toddstratton1 on Feb 22, 2023 21:23:34 GMT
Have you ever trained in HEMA or done sparring against a spear? It becomes obvious very quickly why a spear was the primary weapon.
|
|
|
Post by perignum on Feb 22, 2023 21:34:27 GMT
There has been some debate as to which is a better weapon in battle, the sword or the spear. Well, to the best of my knowledge the sword was the primary weapon of the knight while on foot and knights did not use spears while on foot. The only time knights used spears was while on horseback. Standard infantry used spears and other pole weapons while on foot but a knight was of course much more highly trained with weapons than an infantryman. Therefore the conclusion I've come to is that it takes more skill to use a sword than a spear but in the hands of a highly skilled person a sword is a more effective weapon, if fighting on foot. In the hands of somebody who has only marginal training the spear would be a better weapon as swords were much more difficult to master which explains why the infantrymen used spears, their training was nowhere near the level of training that a knight would receive, and spears make better weapons when fighting from horseback, which is why knights would use lances while on horseback, but for somebody who has a high level of skill, the sword was a better weapon for fighting on foot, otherwise the knights would've used spears not swords while on foot. The principle weapon of 14th Century and later dismounted knights and men-at-arms was the pollaxe. The sword was primarily a sidearm. Even in Richard the Lionheart’s exploits he is mentioned wielding a Dane axe rather than a sword. I think there are even period depictions of pretty heavily armoured dudes wielding actual spears in battle. Didn’t Matt Easton do a video on this exact topic?
|
|
|
Post by leviathansteak on Feb 23, 2023 1:56:45 GMT
There are several issues with your claims
- What do you mean "The only time knights used spears was while on horseback"? This sounds like utter nonsense as there is plenty of evidence for knights using spears on foot
- "in the hands of a highly skilled person a sword is a more effective weapon" Again this is nonsense. A "low skill weapon" is not less effective. In fact it is often the opposite!
A highly skilled individual will be able to use the so-called low-skill weapon with greater ease. Have you ever sparred against an experienced swordsman who is instead armed with a spear? It's usually even more difficult than if he were to use a sword because martial skill transfers over to different weapon types, but now he has greater reach.
Would recommend you look into period sources such as combat treatises and artwork, where it is very clear that spears were absolutely used by knights on foot
|
|
|
Post by Eric Bergeron on Feb 23, 2023 15:12:26 GMT
The spear is a very effective weapon and it is by no coincidence that armies for thousands of years equipped their troops with it, I'd even argue further that the spear & axe were used more often than a sword, but movies portray the sword as this mystical weapon and everyone must have a sword to fight.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Feb 23, 2023 19:00:32 GMT
The spear is a very effective weapon and it is by no coincidence that armies for thousands of years equipped their troops with it, I'd even argue further that the spear & axe were used more often than a sword, but movies portray the sword as this mystical weapon and everyone must have a sword to fight. No doubt spears/pole weapons were much more common and effective. It should also be noted that spears are infinitely easier and less expensive to produce when outfitting an army.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Feb 23, 2023 19:40:16 GMT
Early medieval knights became knights by getting a sword from their king or duke (German: Schwertleite). So a knight without a sword is a contradicton in principle. If you have a spear or lance in hand and a sword hanging on your belt what would you use first? Depends on the situation of course.
|
|
|
Post by treeslicer on Feb 23, 2023 21:07:28 GMT
There has been some debate as to which is a better weapon in battle, the sword or the spear. Well, to the best of my knowledge the sword was the primary weapon of the knight while on foot and knights did not use spears while on foot. The only time knights used spears was while on horseback. Standard infantry used spears and other pole weapons while on foot but a knight was of course much more highly trained with weapons than an infantryman. Therefore the conclusion I've come to is that it takes more skill to use a sword than a spear but in the hands of a highly skilled person a sword is a more effective weapon, if fighting on foot. In the hands of somebody who has only marginal training the spear would be a better weapon as swords were much more difficult to master which explains why the infantrymen used spears, their training was nowhere near the level of training that a knight would receive, and spears make better weapons when fighting from horseback, which is why knights would use lances while on horseback, but for somebody who has a high level of skill, the sword was a better weapon for fighting on foot, otherwise the knights would've used spears not swords while on foot. The results of Crecy and Agincourt (some cads would include Thermopylae) suggest that there was a common weapon superior to either, which also takes a lot of skill to use well.
|
|
|
Post by fester on Feb 24, 2023 16:17:04 GMT
Have you ever trained in HEMA or done sparring against a spear? It becomes obvious very quickly why a spear was the primary weapon. Though from an earlier era the Romans proved that trained swordsmen properly equipped can defeat spear men. Having said that the medieval knight was not a Roman soldier and the tactics were different. I think knights did use the sword more often than people think but it depends on the timer period of the middle ages. Later knights used poleaxes quite a bit as has already been posted.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Feb 24, 2023 20:05:29 GMT
Have you ever trained in HEMA or done sparring against a spear? It becomes obvious very quickly why a spear was the primary weapon. Though from an earlier era the Romans proved that trained swordsmen properly equipped can defeat spear men. Having said that the medieval knight was not a Roman soldier and the tactics were different. I think knights did use the sword more often than people think but it depends on the timer period of the middle ages. Later knights used poleaxes quite a bit as has already been posted. I think the question is what is best in a one on one confrontation, as it is difficult to parse or separate battlefield tactics from tool effectiveness. Romans used both spear & (short) sword, and I'd rather go against a man armed with a gladius than long sword. In any event, the shield use and formation tactics are what really made the Roman army.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Feb 24, 2023 20:16:01 GMT
The spear is a very effective weapon and it is by no coincidence that armies for thousands of years equipped their troops with it, I'd even argue further that the spear & axe were used more often than a sword, but movies portray the sword as this mystical weapon and everyone must have a sword to fight. No doubt spears/pole weapons were much more common and effective. It should also be noted that spears are infinitely easier and less expensive to produce when outfitting an army. ^this^ It comes down to money and time. It's expensive to buy enough weapons for an army, then train the soldiers how to use them. Spears are cheap, intuitive, and effective. Swords are very expensive, require skill to manufacture and use, and aren't the best choice to equip an entire army of peasants with. But speaking of armor, a spear is equally useless against armor as a sword, hence the invention of the poleax. But a longsword (or great sword, or whatever you want to call it) can be used effectively against a spear. It comes down to the training and technique. I have videos posted on this topic.
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Mar 7, 2023 17:57:28 GMT
There are mountains of evidence showing that knights and men-at-arms used spears/lances of various lengths and designs extensively, both on foot and on horseback.
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Mar 7, 2023 18:15:29 GMT
To quote "The Book of the Five Rings", by Musashi:
"There is a time and a place for use of weapons.
The best use of the companion sword is in a confined space, or when you are engaged closely with an opponent. The long sword can be used effectively in all situations.
The halberd (naginata) is inferior to the spear (yari) on the battlefield. With the spear you can take the initiative; the halberd is defensive. In the hands of one of two men of equal ability, the spear gives a little extra strength. Spear and halberd both have their uses, but neither is very beneficial in confined spaces. They cannot be used for taking a prisoner. They are essentially weapons for the field.
Anyway, if you learn "indoor" techniques, you will think narrowly and forget the true Way. Thus you will have difficulty in actual encounters.
The bow is tactically strong at the commencement of battle, especially battles on a moor, as it is possible to shoot quickly from among the spearmen. However, it is unsatisfactory in sieges, or when the enemy is more than forty yards away. For this reason there are nowadays few traditional schools of archery. There is little use nowadays for this kind of skill.
From inside fortifications, the gun has no equal among weapons. It is the supreme weapon on the field before the ranks clash, but once swords are crossed the gun becomes useless.
One of the virtues of the bow is that you can see the arrows in flight and correct your aim accordingly, whereas gunshot cannot be seen. You must appreciate the importance of this.
Just as a horse must have endurance and no defects, so it is with weapons. Horses should walk strongly, and swords and companion swords should cut strongly. Spears and halberds must stand up to heavy use: bows and guns must be sturdy. Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative.
You should not have a favourite weapon. To become over-familiar with one weapon is as much a fault as not knowing it sufficiently well. You should not copy others, but use weapons which you can handle properly. It is bad for commanders and troops to have likes and dislikes. These are things you must learn thoroughly."
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Mar 7, 2023 18:17:39 GMT
In short: all weapons are useful in particular circumstances, which is why different kinds of troops exist and why people carried multiple different kinds of weapons.
|
|
|
Post by Murffy on Mar 8, 2023 16:07:36 GMT
To quote "The Book of the Five Rings", by Musashi: [snip] ... You should not have a favourite weapon. To become over-familiar with one weapon is as much a fault as not knowing it sufficiently well. You should not copy others, but use weapons which you can handle properly. It is bad for commanders and troops to have likes and dislikes. These are things you must learn thoroughly." I like this Musashi quote. Swords seem to have a charm effect on the human imagination, all wrapped up in myth and nobility and warriordom, making it easy to become obsessed with them and over-believe in their effectiveness.
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Mar 8, 2023 17:03:47 GMT
To quote "The Book of the Five Rings", by Musashi: [snip] ... You should not have a favourite weapon. To become over-familiar with one weapon is as much a fault as not knowing it sufficiently well. You should not copy others, but use weapons which you can handle properly. It is bad for commanders and troops to have likes and dislikes. These are things you must learn thoroughly." I like this Musashi quote. Swords seem to have a charm effect on the human imagination, all wrapped up in myth and nobility and warriordom, making it easy to become obsessed with them and over-believe in their effectiveness. I think the success and popularity of the sword lies in the fact that it is a very versatile weapon rather than it being any kind of "better" weapon. A typical sword gives decent reach, against longer weapons like spears or poles arms it may have a disadvantage but it's not overwhelming. You can take it into very close quarters and use it fairly well - again, perhaps a large dagger or short sword would work better, but the sword still works pretty well too. A blunt weapon (hammer, mace, pollaxe, etc) is better against armor, but a sword can still be used to stab gaps, half sword, wrestle, etc. An average length sword is fairly easy to carry around anywhere - riding a horse, inside, outside. It may not be specialized precisely for one particular situation, but if you have a sword you should have a fighting chance in any situation. Of course I'm speaking in general terms, as obviously there were plenty of specialized swords.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Mar 8, 2023 18:20:09 GMT
I like this Musashi quote. Swords seem to have a charm effect on the human imagination, all wrapped up in myth and nobility and warriordom, making it easy to become obsessed with them and over-believe in their effectiveness. I think the success and popularity of the sword lies in the fact that it is a very versatile weapon rather than it being any kind of "better" weapon. A typical sword gives decent reach, against longer weapons like spears or poles arms it may have a disadvantage but it's not overwhelming. You can take it into very close quarters and use it fairly well - again, perhaps a large dagger or short sword would work better, but the sword still works pretty well too. A blunt weapon (hammer, mace, pollaxe, etc) is better against armor, but a sword can still be used to stab gaps, half sword, wrestle, etc. An average length sword is fairly easy to carry around anywhere - riding a horse, inside, outside. It may not be specialized precisely for one particular situation, but if you have a sword you should have a fighting chance in any situation. Of course I'm speaking in general terms, as obviously there were plenty of specialized swords. The ability to carry around as a side arm, I think, is a major reason it dwells in the mind and captures the imagination. Until the stabilized handgun, a sword on your belt was the deadliest thing you could walk around with while still having use of both your hands, whether that hand held a spear, axe, bow, pole weapon. In modern times we tend to focus, glamor wise, on the handgun, even though the rifle is superior, because pistol/revolver is yet again at your side. Sure you had a few outliers like Chuck Connors rocking his rifle (note that gun was shrunk as much as possible) and some specific movies featuring snipers and marksmen, but the the six gun (and later, high capacity semi) rules.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Mar 8, 2023 18:31:41 GMT
Don't be too proud about these technological weapons you have created. The ability to wield a sword or spear is insignificant compared to the power of the Force.... Oh, sorry. Got a bit off track..... I should have stayed on target.... stay on target....
|
|
|
Post by Eric Bergeron on Mar 9, 2023 3:04:51 GMT
I find your lack of faith in the spear, disturbing!
|
|