>le peasants weapon xD
>who are Hoplites
>who are Immortals
>who are early Romans
>who are samurai
>who are knights
every single army used a spear no matter how wealthy it was you know why? Because it SHITS all over your dog shit meme weapons like swords and other short bullshit for people with short dicks.
The spear is a military weapon, good for fighting in formation as its greater reach allows the second and third ranks to contribute and also deters cavalry charges. What knights used was a lance, again for its reach and its ability to concentrate the horse's kinetic energy.
These weapons are however less ideal for disorganized fighting or single combat, as once the enemy gets too close you really can't use it effectively.
Yes I'm sure someone could just run past the spear tip and the spearman would be too retarded to readjust his grip.
Spears as disgustingly effective for single combat.
Stop talking out of your ass.
He's not even going to know what you're talking about, much less understand how fast it can be done.
Don't bother.
That kind of grip is really awkward though, most of the weight is behind you so it's hard to wield it effectively.
Then why did people invent swords (which are more expensive to make)?
Because you can't wear a spear.
It's like asking why handguns exist if we have rifles.
But its not where they shine. For instance in samurai combat, spears were never popular until massed formation emerged, and combat wound records bare this out.
Most samurai at this time who fought melee preferred, naginata, nodachi, even axes. Weapons with range but are just as good at cutting as stabbing, or crushing.
sojutsu did not come into its own until the 15th or 16th century
>even axes
good thing japanese didn't fucking use battle axes
yes they did. I can provide citation if you want
>disorganized fighting
nice meme. ancient/medieval combat wasn't like hollywood where people just charge in and have a big brawl. Both armies would move slowly towards each other, and be relatively tentative about breaking formation, which would basically lead to certain defeat.
You.
Are.
Retarded.
>axes
Not a weapon they used
>Most samurai at this time who fought melee
Didn't exist, prefering to use bows.
You're also just plain fucking wrong. Sojutsui exploded inpopularity when the mongols invaded, and it never faded.
>But its not where they shine
That's nice. They still outperform swords.
Real life isn't a video game. There's no balance. Swords are easy to wear and carry, and good for defending yourself.
In a straight fight, a spear is a fucking better weapon, in or out of formation.
>You're also just plain fucking wrong. Sojutsui exploded inpopularity when the mongols invaded, and it never faded.
This is the common narrative, but as Conlan highlights in his work, like " State of War" its not born out in period documents.
>Didn't exist, prefering to use bows.
Your right that they preferred bows, but men who fought melee did exist, and they were bushi.
>That's nice. They still outperform swords.
Only one of the weapons I named is a sword, but its a super long sword for the battle field.
Bushido as we know it was invented in 17th century dumb weeb.
Is that why he has a sword on his side?
They are bad for single combat.
Provide it.
That's why there was a whole martial art dedicated to the spear right retard?
Nice meme
Ancient/medieval combat varied immensely, some like the Romans and Greeks were organised, others like the Celts and Germanics were not. Though the commanders and officers knew that breaking led to defeat, as did the soldiers, fear and instinct still took over plenty of times and resulted in their deaths.
Such as?
You don't need to call people retard, this is Veeky Forums not /pol/ or /r9k/
T. Practised with his katana and spear this morning after drinking 4L of Mountain Dew.
T. Played Skyrim this morning after drinking 4L of Mountain Dew
Um I said bushi, not bushido. Bushi was the common term for the warrior class before the 17th century, samurai generally denoted people at the bottom of the bushi class
"Battle axes were also favored by some warriors"
Conlan, Thomas "Weapon and fighting Techniques of the Samurai Warrior. 1200-1877 AD."
he notes there are both literary and visual representations, and gives accounts of named warriors who used them successfully.
We wouldn't need pistols if rifles weren't awkward to handle.
We wouldn't need swords if spears weren't awkward to handle.
That was the goal, yes. Organized formation fighting has pretty much been the norm in professional armies from antiquity up until WWI. But it was an ideal, not something that happened 100% of the time. Formations could and would break up if a battle lasted long enough. And if you relied on long weapons like spears, you were especially disadvantaged if you ended up in a chaotic melee. A sword or axe would be better to have under those circumstances.
And in some cases, staying in formation meant that some individual soldiers would die. That was why discipline was so important - without it, everyone would break and run to try to save themselves, but they'd lose the battle. But a disciplined army that was able to stay in formation could keep fighting and win the battle despite taking losses.
>they are bad for single combat
I would do this thing called Dagorhir alot (essentially HEMA with foam-padded weapons so you go full contact and don't have to wear protection, still hurts though); I would always fight with a sword, usually longsword-sized, and a buddy of mine always had spear.
I sparred with him a lot, and it's eye opening to see just how ridiculously good spears are.
Granted, this isn't necessarily a 1:1 conversion of real life combat, but many of the principles remain.
Even when I manage to grab the shaft of the spear so he can'y maneuver it easily, it was still a challenge trying to hit him in close range due to still moving the rest of the spear to block my attacks.
Even if I get past his point, it was still a big threat because of how quick you can retract the spear to the length of something like a dagger, and thrust at me anyway.
If someone was using a pike, I'd agree with you; but a spear around the length or a couple feet taller than the wielder? That's truly formidable.
Context is also key; armor changes a lot, but with spears of mentioned sizes, you can still use it for leverage in grappling, etc, or just chuck it at a guy and grab your dagger, I guess.
But honestly, I would highly recommend doing some simple sparring with a friend, you with a sword and him with a spear, or vice versa, and see how it goes.
None of the popular atheists know Scripture well enouh to settle debates; neither do I follow the popular nor do your deluded retarded memes apply to me. My post was antitheist. I somewhat doubt your kind can learn new proper words.
Spears are god-like. It's a travesty that they do so little damage in board and video games and axes do like, twice the damage. WTF?
>t. mountain dew shills
>They are bad for single combat.
Except European masters said the opposite.
As do modern practitioners.
Would you care to continue being retarded?
Who could be behind this post
Question. Is he using a shield with the spear.
I used to fight a friend with weapons and if one of us used spear and shield we would always lose because it was just so awkward with one hand. All you can do with it is thrust.
Citation needed
youtube.com
Here's a man who's been fighting and instructing for about as long as you've been masturbating.
There's also George silver.
aemma.org
He maintains that ALL staff type weapons will defeat swords of all types, unless it is too long to be maneuverable.
The average spear, despite idiotic misconception, is maneuverable.
Why do you keep posting this in every thread? Are you a bot?
They're all using spears two handed. Spears would have been used with shields, that is what makes them ineffective in single combat. Of course they're a completely different weapon when used with two hands.
I can't believe you are being this absolutely retarded.
Does George Silver have anything to say on why swords were invented in the first place, if a spear is better in almost every circumstance?
The article concerned polearms not spear/shield combination which was the most common.
>Spears would have been used with shields
Says who?
You're not required to carry a shieldin single combat.
You can wear it.
You can't wear a spear.
It was often entirely illegal to go about with spears. If not illegal, heavily looked down on by society. Swords less so.
There are a handful of circumstances in which the sword is better.
>Says who?
All of history? Very few armies had spearmen without shields. Late medieval armies had men with polearms and no shields, but not simple spears. Now I know you have no idea what you're talking about.
No sir, just spear by itself.
I don't remember if he ever even tried it extensively, just splashed shield in a little here and there.
I feel like that might be more appropriate as a shield wall sort of weapon combination, but that's just my theory. I'm sure someone else could give more information about it for single combat, but I feel that a weapon that long, with only one hand, makes it somewhat difficult to control, along with what you've stated as well.
can we give these weapon shitflinging contests a rest please?
>It was often entirely illegal to go about with spears. If not illegal, heavily looked down on by society. Swords less so.
Lel what the fuck is this. No one cared if someone carried a spear around, that counted as being armed. But they were just big and difficult to carry daily.
You seem to just be a contrarian who wants swords to be bad because they're popular.
>No sir, just spear by itself.
Then that is why. How is that proof that spears are better when historically a spear would have almost always been used with a shield, making it a one handed weapon only really capable of thrusting.
This is literally the reason soldiers/warriors had swords as back up weapons for when the formation possibly broke down and they had to go into more typical skill based combat.
Spears with a shield are not good weapons. Spears alone? sure, but who wants to drop their shield.
>We wouldn't need pistols if rifles weren't awkward to handle.
No, we would need pistols if rifles could fit into the space between your boxers and the waistband of your jeans.
Its not about being awkward to handle, rather ease of carry, and concealment
We're discussing single combat, you absolute retard.
On top of that, you've got the chinese and Japanese ignoring shields.
As well as European knights, who were known to cut down their lances for use on foot.
There are fucking laws on record forbidding the carry of weapons, or specific weapons. You'd know this if you did research rather than just being retarded.
This.
My rifles aren't awkward to handle. They're just impossible to conceal without wearing a fucking greatcoat.
Of course spears are peasants weapons, it's because you can give them to fucking peasants and it will work.
Saying a weapon is effective isn't a pejorative.
You are absolutely retarded.
>Spears alone? sure, but who wants to drop their shield.
People who don't want to fucking die. If droppoing your shield is necessary to give yourself a massive advantge,you iwull do so.
But this is irrelevant, because the idiotic situation you're describing where formations dissolve into 1v1 duels didn't happen outside of Hollywood or small skirmishes.
you know, the single best way to settle these arguments would be to throw you lot on the arena and let you wield your opinions instead of shitting them out all day.
Have there been any good tests on a spear points ability to penetrate various types of armor? I ask because I assume they would try to probe the gaps rather than thrust through the chest, where the armor is heaviest.
...
Yes, but they're not all in one place, and they rarely if ever test multiple types of armor.
I can say that dory isn't typically piercing a bronze cuirass, and most spears arn'e pircring mail single handed.
I've also seen tests with a coat of plate resisting strikes from lances, including couched.
There's no guarantees either way. Single handed, metal armor? Probably not going through.
Two handed? Really depend on the strike and the armor.
>We're discussing single combat, you absolute retard.
No we're not, we're discussing spears vs swords. OP made it extremely clear that he meant with a shield as well.
>There are fucking laws on record forbidding the carry of weapons, or specific weapons. You'd know this if you did research rather than just being retarded.
Oh please show me these laws which ban spears but allow swords.
Dropping your shield doesn't give you a massive advantage, it gives you a huge disadvantage. This is why men had swords as well as spears, which they switched to and used with their shield when order broke down. Swords are much more versatile. Dropping your shield is a great way to get immediately killed unless you're in full 15th century plate armour.
>But this is irrelevant, because the idiotic situation you're describing where formations dissolve into 1v1 duels didn't happen outside of Hollywood or small skirmishes.
Sure but formations still broke down resulting in more versatile fighting styles needed.
Maybe if you stopped calling people "retard" every 2 minutes and actually thought about what you wrote you'd look like less a of a "retard"
Yea thats why spartans dropped their shields all the time, so they could go into epic two handed spear swinging rages!
>No
Huh, well
This
is in response to
that
which is in response to
That
Which is in response to
Which provides evidence of the spears ability in single combat, which is response to a request for citations for such, winding back to:
Posts about the spear in single fucking combat.
I know this hard for you, but ask the tard wrangler to explain it.
>BUT OP SAYS SHILEDS 2
He literally never mentions them. Ever.
You're full on admitting that the sword is a secondary weapon only used when the spear is rendered unserviceable by circumstance.
One that requires you to have fucked up to get into at all.
It is an inferior weapon. It's inferior in organized war, it's inferior on its own. Youyou're not roman, you wear them for personal fucking defense. Which is what they're good at. Nothing more, nothing less.
Were they forced into single combat with a sword armed opponent, they may well do so.
Given that the refused to fight outside of a tight block, the situation rarely if ever came up.
There's also the case of numerous byzantine forces wielding spears sans shields.
Along with, again, the chinese and japanese.
But no, nobody ever did that.
And here's a nice thread by the folks over at myarmoury that cites sources on laws regarding weapons.
myarmoury.com
And yes, the links they give cite sources.
...
Why DO handguns exist if we have rifles?
One of you assholes would get stabbed by a warrior-class pikeman trying to get to him with a s short swrod, and your last words would still be you saying "Peasant weapon"
Easy to carry.
to avoid triggering people whenever you go to the convenience store.
>Posts about the spear in single fucking combat.
And in no way does single combat mean "Without a shield".
>He literally never mentions them. Ever.
You mean other than
1. A picture of a soldier with a shield
2. Mentioning hoplites
3. Mentioning early romans
4. Mentioning knights
All of which used shields with spears
>You're full on admitting that the sword is a secondary weapon only used when the spear is rendered unserviceable by circumstance.
Yes in formation combat. A sword is a sidearm and yet it is superior to a spear in single combat and unformed combat than with a shield.
>It is an inferior weapon. It's inferior in organized war, it's inferior on its own.
Nope, it's the most versatile melee weapon there is, it cuts, it stabs, it hacks, it's well balanced, it does it all.
There are only two ways a spear is superior to a sword
1. Its cheaper
2. Its better in formations
Outside of that, spears are totally inferior to swords. A spear in two hands may beat a normal sword, but a two handed sword beats a two handed spear without question.
And again, nobody ever dropped their shield to fight better, especially not the Spartans, the fact that you just suggested that the Spartans dropped their shields tells me everything, you have no idea what you're talking about.
The word spear appears nowhere on that page.
You have no source that spears were banned while swords were allowed. You made it up.
and most spears arn'e pircring mail single handed.
i would be interested in two handed.
>I've also seen tests with a coat of plate resisting strikes from lances, including couched.
That is impressive though with a cou8ched I imagine it would still do alot of blunt force damage
This.
Also, the effectiveness depends on the wielder as much as the weapon. The spear seems to be easy to learn, but hard to master.
Two handed wasn't tested.
myarmoury.com
I imagine there's data in Knight and the Blast furnace, but i have yet to read anything but excerpts.
but hoplites were peasants
>metal shield
Not even once.
Hoplites were middle class and above, and didn't necessarily own farms.
There's one in every thread.
Spears are objectively the best weapon despite being the most boring.
gun.
Were the Ancient Greeks all that organized? I remember reading in at r/AskHistorian thread that the Greeks didn't even do weapons training and the only ones practicing formations were the Spartans.
And now you are aware that in the age of firearm the vast majority of casualties were caused by artillery and the infantry's job was to help the forward observer move to the next hill.
This really depends on when, where, and who.
the bigger the gun the better
you can't make 150mm spears
So what you are saying is reddit is even dumber than Veeky Forums? Sounds plausible.
Army calls guns that large cannons. It's only the navy that still calls them guns.
Well in the Anglo tradition anyway.
That would still be true if conventional warfare happened.
Nah. r/askhistorians is definitely better than Veeky Forums. Those fuckers have actual mods that know their shit and actually do their job most of the time. I see if I can find it again, it was really interesting desu
>Roman calling Egyptians good people
Which gun? Gun is not a weapon it's a type of it I doubt these .38 little shits are better than anything I mean honestly I'd rather defend myself with a rock than this peashooter.
the right arm of the free world, of course.
Witnessed
>browsing Veeky Forums at 1am reading more and more fucking swords vs spears shitposts
Definitely a low point for this week. Doesnt this topic get old?
>Gun is not a weapon it's a type
>I doubt these .38 little shits are better than anything
>honestly I'd rather defend myself with a rock than this peashooter.
Who would win?
>A US Marine armed with a .38 revolver
>or a retarded Veeky Forumstorian with a rock?
I like how we all think .38 is just one caliber and not a bunch that perform very differently, and which may or may not be totally incompatible with each other.
But, who would win?
I can take on americunt muhreen with a stick easily, he is nothing but another nigger to me.
the Veeky Forumstorian has retard strength, the marine may or may not be a fat reservist
To the american you are a nigger with a rock, fyi they've killed millions like you prior in the middle east
Go grab a wooden broom or something and hold it near the tip. All the wood behind is heavy and it makes it unwieldy, especially on a crowded battlefield.
That of course doesn't mean spears are ineffective weapons, but shortening your grip isn't a magic solution.
>naginata
You mean this thing?
I'd argue it's practically a spear but even if you nitpick it's absolutely a polearm.
Spears
Pros:
>easy to make a shit ton of
>use little metal in comparison to other weapons
>easy to train basic spear usage, especially for formations
>long reach (huge advantage)
>good v most any type of enemy (cav, inf, etc)
Cons
>one axis of attack (stabby, excluding partisans)
>if in extremely tight space, shorter weapons can be more effective
>if shorter weapon guy gets past your point, he has a good chance of getting to you before you can adjust grip
Spears are good in formation, in small skirmish/melee, and one on one due to reach. Once that point is bypassed, it can be hard to reposition the point in time.
Swords are used as sidearms because you can't wear a spear, with the exception of some militaries, specifically the Romans, due to large shield usage allowing the bypass of spears points, and the maneuverability of the maniple system.
That's a spelberd.
>dog shit meme weapons like swords
I mean if you have a shield to go with it it's not exactly shit, now is it?
>Assuming a historian wouldn't use Dolfy's buzzsaw
Ease of carry. A spear is easily better than a sword in single combat.
Wouldn't that point at the back of his spear be really fucking dangerous for the people in the phalanx behind him?
>Is that why he has a sword on his side?
Ever heard of a sidearm?