>Spears are shit tier close combat weapons, only useful in groups, all I need to do is get past your point, or grab your spear and its all over hyukhyuk
t. overweight swordfag
How easy is it to get past the point of a spear or grab it in a close combat situation?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
>How easy is it to...?
How skilled is your opponent?
Parry or sidestep. Easy.
>Be fat overweight swordfag.
>Get past point
>THPARTAAAA
>Quarterstaff'd by spear haft
"The blade is not the only part of a weapon." -Liam Neeson, 21st Century.
Hard to say, because spears weren't regularly used in duels or other one on one combat. It'd probably be influenced by the spear length and training of both parties.
Use a halberd and go for something that either 4ft - to your height
Its all over in East Asian literature.
Not as easy as it sounds, however it worth noting in feudal japan the spear was never a very popular weapon until they began using it in massed formations. Before that other pole arms like Naginata, nagimaki, and huge blades like nodachi were more popular.
Let's say they are both amateurs. Considering that spears are easier to use than swords, the spear user would most likely win.
>How easy is it to get past the point of a spear or grab it in a close combat situation?
One man with a sword beats one man with a spear, but one hundred men with spears beat one hundred men with swords.
The spear is a formation weapon. Its chief strength lies in having more spearmen on either side of you and another rank of spearmen behind. The more of you there are, the better. An enemy may be able to push past one spear point easily enough, but then he's run right onto the spears of the rank behind, with nowhere to go to the sides because of more spearmen.
Hard
Moving past a point of attack without being molested is obscenely hard
As for grabbing it its easy to do, hard to do it and not get your hand sliced from the guy pulling it back
What makes the spear so effective is that its hilariously simple, easy to use/maintain/train with, and is effective. If you try to maneuver around a spear, they merely step back and jab you, most likely fatally
A spearman has the same maneuverability as a swordsman, pikes and the like had the somewhat unweidly qualities to it due to length, therefore if we assume two combatants of equal skill, one with a spear and another with a sword, we can assume the spearman has an advantage and will win more often than not
>spears weren't regularly used in duels
In the Germanic Holmgang tradition and the judicial combat as it was still practised in Germany during the middle ages it was fairly common to use a spear.
Hans Sachs writes:
[...]
Zu fuß man auch der zeyt noch kempffet.
Gerüst eyner den andren dempffet
Inn drey wehren, schwerd, dolch und spieß,
Wo einer auff den andern stieß,
Verwundet oder gar umb-bracht.
[...]
Translation attempt:
On foot one also fights at this time
Armoured one opposes the other
Using three weapons, sword, dagger and spear
When one thrusts for the other
To wound or even kill
Parrying is only very effective when you put your weight into blows
Which with a spear, you do not
If you parried a jab from a spear or a fixed spear it barely moves and if it moves enough they pull back and jab your gut
Parrying works best when weight is put into blows, even with Rapier + Dagger fencing weight is put into lunges and thrusts allowing parrying to be an effective means of counterattack. But the greatest use of parrying comes from longsword and greatsword manuals. IE, where weighted blows are prolific
Not nearly as easy as you might assume. Its a gamble, and not an ideal situation. You're already at range, and the second you grab the haft, the spear user has leverage.
I am very familiar with the manual you post from, and with the practice of countering the partisan is clearly written to be last resort. You have to basically bumrush the guy.
There are a lot of risky or theoretical techniques in fighting manuals that are more batshit (pic related). Its about "what if", not common practice.
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
getting past a polearm isnt easy. There are many stratagies to do so but the spear has the advantage
Who the fuck wields a spear in 18th century Europe?
That is a partisan, and Officers above the rank of Sergeant carried them. Sergeants carried halberds.
It was as much a badge of office as a practical weapon, and they were indeed practical, in a trained officer's hands.
Furthermore, pike were still in use, though not in as great of numbers. They were quite popular in siege and naval warfare, and would still see use in secondary combat roles, typically in the hands of less well off militia and public levees. The more skilled men would have the muskets, and the lesser ones would have pike for engaging in close combat.
Funfact: Turnpike- as in the road way- is from the use of pike on roads to stop carriages and horses for inspections and tolls.
Take your pick.
>Constables and guardsmen.
>Lancers
>Officers with Spontoons.
Don't forget
*Militia levees
*Sailors
*The Irish
Also:
>Spontoons
Fucking Anglos.... I bet you say "leftenant" too.
Alexander the Great conquered almost the entire known world by giving his men spears that were a foot longer than regular spears
You're assuming the spearman is a fucking dolt like in movies and just stands there after being parried. Spears are levers and can move quickly. He can also retreat and keep thrusting at the swordsman. Ofcourse...there are other factors that must be considered here. Is armor involved? How long is the spear? Is the swordsman using a shield?
If it's two equally skilled fighters with the same fitness level and no armor, 9 times out of 10, the spearman will win.
>decide to branch out from home board /k/
>weapon thread on humanities thread.
humanities was a mistake.
/k/ has no idea how premodern weapons work. They still buy memes like "Guns killed armor" or "Katanas are shit swords because we dislike weeabs."
I was always under the impression that spears were mostly used against cavalry and in tight formation. I imagine in a one on one, on foot scenario, a sword would be preferable.
...
What are swiss pikemen
/k/ is now dreadfully weeab.
Part of the reason I left that place.
and training them to use it, and supporting them with companion cavalry, and bringing Greece under his system so he can utilize their navy and trade networks to support his armies
People were spearing the shit out of each other even before the first horse-mounted cunts showed up.
Range is always good. Most especially out in the open.
I dun goofed.
Spears are overall better than most melee weapons, unless the enemy has good set of plate armor, that's when blunt weapons come in.
t. armchair general
Watch HEMA videos of spear versus sword. Spear wins 9 times out of 10.
not the guy you're replying to, but you're retarded. contemporary LARPers are not as good of a source on historical battle as historical battle.
The spear might not be the best polearm for single combat that would be things like halberds and naginata, but against most swords it has a huge advantage.
You dont just see it in hema, you see it in the living lineages of Japan as well.
HEMA is the closest we can actually get in seeing the effectiveness of various weapons paired against other weapons. And what historical battles are you referring to which definitively prove the superiority of the sword over spears? Face it, the belief that a swordsman will naturally triumph over a spearman is based on nothing more than the fetishization of swords as le uber undefeated weapon xD
japan didn't use shields. read a fucking book and quit basing your speculation of combat on contemporary LARPing.
>living lineages of japan
more LARPing.
>HEMA is the closest we can actually get in seeing the effectiveness of various weapons paired against other weapons.
>HEMA
that's a funny way of spelling koryu
widespread historical accounts from all over the world of people actually killing each other with stuff > LARPers.
I have a pile of history books both a warfare and martial arts.
The spear was alway considered a supieroir weapon to the sword in most situations. What book are you reading that suggests otherwise?
So basically you think everything training with weapons is larping
nice set of asian literature you have there.
Again I say
>what historical battles are you referring to which definitively prove the superiority of the sword over spears?
I have Keegan and sir Oman too, I took a course on renaissance warfare. If your going to argue the sword easily beats the spear provide a fucking source
spears are a formation weapon, of course they are superior in battles. read up on european and mediterranean duels and blood sports. it will serve you better than watching people with no combat experience and fantasy/imagination-fueled training play with toy sticks.
pay me if you want me to be your professor. quit pretending larping has anything to do with history.
Why dont you point us to your source? Cause it conflicts with pretty much every text on the martial arts ive ever read, and the experience of pretty much everyone who trains with swords and polarms
Alright please provide sources of these european and mediterranean duels and blood sports which specifically show swords beating spears.
>spears are a formation weapon
Wrong. Spears and be used in formation but calling them a formation weapon infers that's their only use. Spears and incredibly versatile weapons and while they can be used in formation they're also quite able to be used outside of formation as well.
Spear > Sword
>Presents several videos of a long pointy stick beating a sword consistently
Sword > Spear
>Presents nothing
Holy shit you utter faggot. Stop getting all your history from video games you sperg.
The only truth in what he is saying is its probably not the best polearm for a duel, or one on one armored combat but its better than a sword
>get past the point
It's faster than you are.
>grab it
He has two hand and you have one.
good luck.
>foot longer
No. No they weren't. The dory ranges from 7-9ft. The sarrisa comes in at 13-20.
Nor does Alexander have anything to fucking do with it. That army was built by his father.
This. /k/ doesn't understand anything before 1930 or so.
They also don't really understand anything after 1930.
Why do you comment on something you have no knowledge of?
And "historic battle" is dominated by men with spears and polearms.
It's not the best, but you will be at an advantage against all but the longer varieties of sword.
Sweden and Russia
Plus this was probably the early 18th century.
>only useful in groups
Only. Because of course we all know history was settled by one-on-one duels.
youtube.com
Nick is the instructor yet gets pwned against a spear....
Good to actually have a museumfag in the thread.
And that's with a short spear, too.
The problem with modern sparring is that most dudes are pussies who do not charge or close in.
They instead just parry like cowards and get stabbed a lot.
I am not saying that closing in on a spear is easy, I am just saying that they should definitely be far more aggressive when fighting a weapon with more reach, as closing in that reach advantage is basically their only way of winning.
It can be done, but you have to be very aggressive in your charge towards the spearman, something most dudes in modern HEMA aren't.
Of course you can.
There is a video on youtube of Matt Easton pwning his spear wielding students with a dagger lol.
You just need balls.
Come and get me bitch.
Oh noes, not a wooden club, it's not like I'm wearing body armor or anything.
Pretty fucking easy if you're properly armored.
Even if you are not wearing bodyarmor, getting hit with a spearshaft is quite unlikely and even if hit, just hurts like hell and does no real damage.
I saw people getting smashed on the head with a baseball bat and continued fighting, not so much after getting stabbed by a large knife.
Actually he seems to be doing a bit better against a longer spear or at least not any worse, quite a few disarms there (but still loses most of the time):
youtube.com
The spearman is the longsword instructor of the club while Nick is the sabre/rapier instructor.
Maybe it's because even with a shorter spear the reach advantage is quite huge so it is worth it to sacrifice a bit of the reach for nimbleness?
None of that shit matters though, because real fights did not work like HEMA matches. An armored man with sword and shield isn't going to be deterred by a spear.
Why would an armoured man with a shield and spear be deterred by a guy with a sword?
Because swords are more versatile weapons then spears and can be used to both stab, cut and hack at an enemy, which means you can get at least some damage in on an armored opponent in order to disorient him and then stab through the weak points in his armor. With a spear all you can do is poke and that isn't good enough once the armored swordsman gets in close, which he will because his armor and shield provide more then adequate protection against spear poking.
> t. man who has never been hit in the balls by a bo staff.
This is a fucking joke. A bunch of skinny fat nerds larping with swords has nothing to do with ancient martial arts as it was practiced by disciplined full time warriors.
Fucking kill yourself retard.
is usually the best board for medieval weapons, but it suffers a lot from "rpg-itis".
It's not really a fair comparison, a spear is a weapon while a sword is merely a sidearm, a back-up for when you lose your weapon (probably some kind of polearm). It would be extremely uncommon to go to war with ONLY a sword, but quite typical for lower ranks of soldiers to have only a spear or pike and no sword (they'd probably have a sharp knife instead).
Assuming equal skill, the spearman will generally beat the swordsman, but in a real fight he'd have to disarm the swordsman's REAL weapon first,
>this entire thread
How awful that people post about historical weapons on a board about history, rather than on a board consisting almost entirely of gunfags.
ARMORED CODPIECES MOTHERFUCKER, HAVE YOU HEARD OF THEM?
>>A sword is mostly a sidearm
Tell that to the roman legions that conquered a large swathe of europe, most of north africa, and a decent chunk of the near east as well.
Go whine about pointless philosophy, feminism and lefties somewhere else, humanities cuck.
There are so many significant exceptions to the "rule" that a sword is merely a sidearm that it's not really a rule at all. Sometimes it's a sidearm, sometimes it's the primary weapon.
youtube.com
So in a summary a sword is a viable primary weapon...
-when used with a large shield
-when used with heavy armour
-when they are very large (greatswords)
-when used with a pistol (both are primary weapons in that case, arguably)
-for light cavalry
-for sailors
if you actually paid attention to OP's post, you'll realize that his question has nothing to do with history. it's just claiming spears are better than swords, that's it.
nice projection m8. also
>philosophy
>pointless
how's it feel to be a brainlet?
>if you actually paid attention to OP's post, you'll realize that his question has nothing to do with history. it's just claiming spears are better than swords, that's it.
Swords and spears are historical and archaic weapons (unless we are talking about fantasy swords or something) and thus inherently a historical subject.
> Moron thinks hitting someone in the balls while he is charging at you is a likely scenario
> Moron hasn't heard of adrenaline rush
They used their swords like spears.
>2382986
Yeah, an oak shaft can do enough percussive damage to hurt you through steel armor. Hits to the wrists or head could break bone
because spear actually does have a minimum range, the sword is much more forgiving in a grapple
>b-but you just choke up on the shaft
sure kid
>sword is merely a sidearm
tell that to the Roman legion you utterly retarded ponce
>used their swords like spears
idiot
WEll you can, or you can drop it and grapple, thats why so many spearman kept a short sword or dagger,
But even if a guy get past the point you still have options, you can pull back, or do a sweeping technique, or reverse the spear and use the butt of the weapon, or if they leave themselves open smash them with the shaft.
There are of course ways to overcome that,but the spear is always at the advantage against the sword.
These plays date back hundreds of years, They show even if the sword man aggresivly parries and gets past the point there are ways to defend, and as the hema videos show modern people have trouble overcoming the spear in free play.
>spearman kept a short sword or dagger
hmm
>the spear is always at the advantage against the sword
>always
no, this is obviously untrue
Granted in closed quarters or with certain super long swords that isnt true, in most situations the spear has the advantage
The thing is that the sword user is likely not a amateur because being skilled with it is a mark of pride in many cultures. In china standerd for being a trained swordman was 6 to 8 months of training. In 15th century Europe it was 6 months of training.
...
>How easy is it to get past the point of a spear or grab it in a close combat situation?
Is the spear a light headed light bodied spear made by a culture that fights against people with little or no body armor or a heavy bodied heavy headed? The heavier spears also have a smaller cutting surface and have a hard time doing draw cuts. The heavier spears are a touch easier to get pass.
Does the swordsman have a shield? That greatly improves his odds.
Is there armor with wide coverage? The makes it harder for both people in this but more so for the spearman.
Is the fighting happening in doors, on top of a fortification, or in a ship? If so the spear has to be down sized notably to still be useful. That down size greatly mattered in this because the most common board pike, the half pike at 7'6 to 9ft, was viewed as a losing solo match against a well trained swordsman of the time. This is very important because it did not have the possible favorable terms listed above.
Or let me put this another way: swords were useful in a number of ways else they would not of being used as long they were or by as many cultures as they were.
Go back to your video games.
Something that didn't exist for most of history, and wasn't universal even among the small portion of the populace that wore full harness.
That's nice. Still doesn't change that the vast majority of people didn't use the sword as a primary arm, or that the romans themselves... used fucking spears, in both the early to mid republican and late imperial legions.
Even when the hasta wasn't in wide use by regulars, the pilum could be and WAS used as a spear from time to time.
lol no.
Of course hitting with full swing and strength will, but in combat with an opponent you will basically never even come to a position where that is viable.
What your saying is true for things like the torso, but things like the joins and a few other places are necessarily more vulnerable to such attacks.
Of course such an attack would need to be followed up with the blade, but your underestimating what a skilled practitioner can do with an oak staff.
Sword being used as a sidearm is a matter of convenience, not efficiency.
You can have a sword at your side while holding a spear, the reverse isn't very convenient.
Yep, their short sword which was used for cutting was actually a spear.
The romans thrusted with their sword,they even commented on how those who cut with the sword lost to them
Were the sword superior, they would have it in their hands. They didn't. Were they of equal value, you'd see heavy variation in EVERY military force of wearing swords vs carrying them.
You don't.
They did both, and the gladius was known for cutting power. Fuck off with that pop history bullshit.
>you'd see heavy variation in EVERY military force of wearing swords vs carrying them.
or you know, material conditions and the fact you need less iron (or bronze) to make a spear point than a sword. your thesis is dumb, and you would be better at making your point if you calmed down/tried to argue it as a rational human being.