Why is it that, despite being a weaker weapon than the speak, the sword has become the symbol of war and combat in ancient and medieval history?
The fact that it is more portable and more accepted in society does not make it a better symbol for war than the spear. These are civilian-life advantages. But if you read any of the old Greeks' speeches (and I would assume the same theme persists throughout medieval europe) the sword is always used synonymously with war or combat.
Is the spear not a better fit for it? Unlike the sword, it does not fit civilian life. It is a tool made only for the battlefield, and the battlefield is its only home.
Because the spear was a civilian tool that got reused as a weapon of war, like most other melee weapons. Only the sword was made for killing other humans first, it's a tool with the single purpose of war.
Julian Perez
1) Swords are designed for the sole purpose of showing off, and killing other humans. A spear is also used for hunting, thus the sword might seem more "warlike" 2) What do you mean by "weaker"? 3) Spears have always been a symbol of war anyways. e.g. the vikings talked about "dying by the spear" as much as "dying by the sword." 4) You also talk about how swords are more for civilian life. Well, a rapier is that for sure, but a greatsword isn't something you just carry around in the street
Julian Miller
It is a versatile weapon that requires skill to use.
Zachary Sanders
It isn't a weaker weapon than the spear, it's a better weapon.
It's a symbol of war because it was used by those who most represented war, the warrior classes, as they are more individual fighters.
Ayden Cook
oddly enough spears are still in use in the form of baynots and still evoke the same fear and wodner. Swords are now mostly used in ceremoney because they are, by themselves, more ornate.
Lucas Rivera
>Is the spear not a better fit for it? Unlike the sword, it does not fit civilian life. It is a tool made only for the battlefield, and the battlefield is its only home. Spears were used for hunting in the stone age, before the sword ever became a thing, its not a "tool designed for the battlefield"
>It isn't a weaker weapon than the spear, it's a better weapon. But that's wrong. Up to, and even afterwards, the introduction of firearms the spear was the main weapon on the battlefield along with the bow, mounted or unmounted.
The sword was a sidearm.
Juan Rodriguez
inb4 spear=/=pike=/=lance
Ryan Mitchell
bla bla roman maniples used swords bla bla bla not the same uses blabla
Oliver Ward
the sword is the weapon of higher class soldiers and the lesser nobility; the spear is the weapon of levy soldiers and other units lower in discipline/skill to the armored, sword carrying units.
swords are the tool of war because the highest class of soldiers used them as primary weapons throughout the ages.
Levi Wood
Because the sword is a weapon of personal self-defence and the last resort between a man and certain death. A spear is something you can only carry on a battlefield, while a sword is something you carry always by your side.
Jayden Jackson
Its funny because they used several variations of the spear (hastati anyone?) and the roman elite, the triarii, fought with spears. Which would be the exact opposite as to what the post below you states.
>swords are the tool of war because the highest class of soldiers used them as primary weapons throughout the ages. But that's wrong. Just because it was a status symbol across many cultures does not make it the primary weapon they used on the battlefield. While you can make a case for certain types of swords being the primary weapon for certain periods of history, the sword can hardly be called "primary weapons throughout the ages".
From the stereotypical medieval European knight across the Eurasian steppes to the Japanese Samurai, exceptions excluded, the sword was not the primary weapon on the battlefield.
Hunter Bell
Because everybody used a sword of some sort. You're a spearman? You'll also have a sword. You're a lancer? You'll also have a sword. You're a bowman? You'll also have a sword. You're a musketeer? You'll also have a sword.
The sword is practical and useful for everyone, plus it's a common civilian weapon as well.
Juan Harris
>the sword was not the primary weapon on the battlefield. No, but it was the primary weapon everywhere else, and non-battlefield conflicts where by far more common than large field battles. Like there was tons of violence back then, and most of it was small scale and not huge organized wars like some people think today.
Caleb Baker
>No, but it was the primary weapon everywhere else Yeah, like pistols today, but you don't see people calling pistols the primary battlefield weapons of the 21st century.
Liam Gray
>inb4 spear=/=pike=/=lance this for fucks sake, like German language makes it pretty clear what is what. A spear is a throwing weapon, a lance is for horseback use and a spiess for foot combat, the lang-spiess is what became known as pike.
Jace Williams
Those are all spears. A spear is a weapon that is meant to be thrust or thrown thus a javelin is a thrown spear, a lance is a spear for horseback use, a pike is a particularly long spear used by infantry, etc.
>the German language Who exactly gives a fuck?
Andrew Hall
>Yeah, like pistols today, yeah, no, maybe the problem is this definition lacks some critical points, like swords where preferred for some type of actions like inside buildings or confined spaces, or that swords where a secondary weapon with the clear intent to use them in an offensive role, like fire 2 shots from your pistols, then bumrush the fuckers and mow them down with swords, which was the gold standard for cavalry.
Mason Cruz
>Those are all spears. well, apparently weapons collectors and researchers have a different views on nomenclature
>Who exactly gives a fuck? People that research historic weapons and their uses, people that collect historic weapons.
You sure you have something meaningful to contribute to this thread?
Dominic Lewis
>bayonets are spears wew
James Watson
And here comes the germanocentrist.
Jaxson Davis
>well, apparently weapons collectors and researchers have a different views on nomenclature I don't really care because I use words that have established definitions that are used universally. The spear category includes all of those.
>People that research historic weapons and their uses, people that collect historic weapons. I'm asking you why should I give a flying fuck about how Germans call spears? You dumb fucking faggot, they can call it ahmed's dildo for all I know, how does that make it relevant? Are spears a specifically German thing? How would Germans call a Yari because obviously we can't discuss spears without knowing how Germans call them you inbred retard.
Connor Howard
main problem is the name wasn't used like that in historic sources. so if you read "spear" in a high medieval source likely a javelin was meant which was a common hunting weapon, while the therm "lance" indicates a noble horseback warrior.
Wyatt Clark
you might have trouble lashing with one, depending on the kind you use, but they're the spear of this age
Jaxson Walker
the illiad called both of those things spears and germans are known for being retards who are incapable of writing and reading
Grayson Perez
Guys, it is the same in pre 1066 English if that helps you not to get triggered. Like spear today doesn't mean what it meant back then. Deal with it.
Julian Martinez
Do you really think we care about what was in use in pre-French England...?
Isaac Clark
>spear today doesn't mean what it meant back then. Back then when? Whenever you arbitrarily decide "back then" was? Here's a good tip for you, we're in the now, not in the back then so let's communicate with words from the now, not words from the back then. Would that work for you?
>From Middle English spear, spere, from Old English spere, from Proto-Germanic *speru (compare West Frisian spear, Dutch speer, German Speer, Old Norse spjǫr), related to *sparrô (compare Middle Dutch sparre (“rafter”), Old Norse sparri (“spar, rafter”), sperra (“rafter, beam”)), from Proto-Indo-European *sperH- (compare Latin sparus (“short spear”), Albanian ferrë (“thorn, thornbush”)). See park.
It appears that in proto-indo-European it means "to kick".
This is not my experience when dealing with high medieval German texts. In my experience they're usually using the term "sper" for both infantry and cavalry spears (i.e. lances). The distinction between the spear and the lance seems to be a later addition when cavalry spears became different in shape, e.g. having a counter-weight added at the end, while during the high middle ages cavalry mostly used regular spears from horseback.
Brody Rodriguez
Craftsmanship
Nolan Jones
This. Aslo, because it's easier to recognise I suppose. A spear can be misinterpreted as a stick
Elijah Adams
>the illiad called both of those things spears The Iliad (learn to spell, nigger) called the fighting pole arm EYXOS and the lesser prestigious AXWV which was predominantly for throwing. >sorry don't know how to old greek on Veeky Forums
Now can you please go and be a brainlet in another thread?
