Le spears were a peasants weapon meme

Why use the Romans as an example when you have so many more appropriate ones? Romans were one of the peoples who actually made effective large scale use of swords as a primary weapon.

>inb4 muh early Roman history
>inb4 muh auxiliaries
>inb4 muh byzantines

Well it's centuries worth of one army. But most barbarians in antiquity and the middle ages used swords and axes over spears too. Spears just don't work in a unit unless it's highly drilled and supported by cavalry or missile.

>one army means fuck all
>even if that army conquered Europe, North Africa and the Middle East and dominated it for hundreds of years

Who used axes over spears?

The same people who used swords over spears: a majority of shield wall based armies.

Name some shield wall based barbarians who used swords over fucking spears.

>take spear
>sit on horse

Now you have a lance!

The fucking franks, for example.

>Middle East

For less then 1 year.

>They were too much reliant on formations and combined arms to be considered superior to swords.

Disagree - spears generally beat swords 1v1 too.

Without shields maybe. Zweihänders would do well against spears too, I think.

>before lance was invented
lance IS a spear

Nope. Even with shields, spear versus sword is totally lopsided in Hema.

Hema isn't real warfare dude.

True, but it's the best approximation we have.

What gives you that impression? The Romans controlled Syria and Palestine for centuries and at its height reached Mesopotamia..

It's not a very good one then, because in a real fight an armored swordsmen will beat a spearmen more often then not.

Your prejudices are not real warfare, dude.

Not true at all, both the Gauls and Germans highly valued spears. Also the reason why the Imperial-era legions (The manipular legion is thought to have used spears before the gladius was adopted, not even counting the Trarii or hoplite warfare before this) primarily used the gladius was because they valued the over-protection of the scutum over something smaller. Once the scutum started being phased out in the later empire for smaller shields you immediately start noticing standard Roman infantrymen being equipped with thrusting spears.

Not even close.

And you base it on what?

The problem with that theory is that a spear has a much better chance of penetrating armor than a sword does, the spear could also be used to slash, and the butt could be deployed as a bludgeon.

spears could also have crossbars of soft iron or bronze which would be used to deflect, disarm, or catch swords. sword blades would sink into the softer metal, allowing it to be bent, snapped or disarmed with a simple twist.

Romans BTFO the fuck out of hoplites with swords

And a better approximation is...?

if anyone has watched S6 E9 of game of thrones, they know this

>Disagree - spears generally beat swords 1v1 too.
I don't think that is (generally) the case.

We have descriptions of Viking duels, e.g. from the Egilssaga where it is specifically mentioned that the duellists, who would be armed with a spear and a sword as well as a shield, would have their swords drawn and tied to their arm, so that they'd have them readied in case they needed them. If spears were enough to decide the outcome of a battle, they certainly wouldn't have bothered to do that, let alone describe it in great detail. When looking at late medieval judicial combat (Talhoffer, Codex Wallerstein and derivative works) one can also see a similar pattern.

A spear obviously has some significant advantages over a sword - especially if we're talking about unarmoured combat (and most people who make modern experiments in sparring essentially simulate unarmoured combat) - however, if you can bring a large weapon like a spear, you can also bring a shield and/or armour, and that is pretty much a game changer since it makes you a lot less vulnerable.

If spears were enough, people wouldn't have bothered to carry swords, yet pretty much every spearman also carried a sword by his side.

>and at its height reached Mesopotamia..
yes, it held mesopotamia for 1 year and then tactically withdrew because they were getting monged.

In melee combat, range is king.

spear>sword>axe

>, because in a real fight an armored swordsmen will beat a spearmen more often then not.

Oh really? Source?

The fact that the spear is the primary weapon despite their also having swords supports the spears > swords case, I think.

Primary means here that they started with the spear, which is likely a consequence of the distance between the opponents at the beginning of the duel and the spear having longer reach. If they were fighting at closer distance, they'd be using a different weapon first. In fact, in the Egilssaga both opponents throw their spears at their opponents - something similar can be seen in late medieval judicial combat in depictions.

People tend to think of medieval weapons in RPG terms, where you focus on a single weapon, but that is too much of a simplified view of the picture.

Artillery is not 'better' than an assault rifle. In the same sense, the spear is not 'better' than the longsword or the dagger.

Jesus christ I'm so sick of these threads

are you a member of a secret fightclub where people fight to the death in medieval panoply? Otherwise HEMA is better then whatever you've got.