Why would anyone use a sword...

Why would anyone drive a sports car?

Pragmatic reasons. Sure, a pike is good for your average infantryman, but since most legendary weapons are swords, might as well learn to get goof with them cause' you're not getting any enchanted pikes.

A pilum can be used as a spear in a pinch, but it isn't a good one. Its designed to break (so it can't be used against the thrower).

You do have a point; swordsmen still existed during WWII, long after the last pikes were discarded. Nevertheless, the bow never completely died from warfare; aside from the occasional African scuffles, China continues to employ crossbowmen.

The KMT army was a disaster on every level, though. Those men probably didn't have any ammunition.

>tfw no enchanted/ legendary pike

>what is a sidearm
>why do people wear sidearms

>hmmm, i wanna have a beer with my buddy ulf. let's go grab the pike, in case I get ambushed in the tavern or an alley.
faggot

Good thing there is only one pilum on the pic.

Look again.

Why does this meme continue to exist?

cause its cool

To remind buttblasted autists like the OP that they are idiots. Also reminder that the Gladius is a very short sword and was used to cut up blocks of muh master race spearmen.

To be fair, given that they're in a trench, it's likely they were meant to hold off any would-be tench divers a-la WWI which a whole lot of nations were expecting WWII to be a repeat of. Purpose-made swords would have been a great improvement over trench clubs/knives which tended to get jammed.

Too bad the war didn't work that way.

Polearms are bulky. You can't carry them around all the time, they're useless in confined spaces, and they don't have the advantage of a scabbard to protect them from the elements or a guard to protect the wielder's hand.

Spears are great at what they do, but swords are more reliable.

that'd definitely be objectively right if every battle was in a giant fucking empty field like autists love to imagine they are

Spears are better for defending. The long reach is nice for stopping charging enemies, but if you're invading something they're a little less useful.

Go down into a winding cave full of trolls with a spear and you'll kill a couple trolls before one gets too close and bashes you.

Go down there with a solid shortsword sword in hand and you have a solid piece of steel for blocking their clubs and a nice close quarters weapon for hacking off troll limbs. Save your spear for when it's time to go poke some harpies out of the sky or when you're hiding in a foxhole keeping watch for your buddies at night.

>long after the last pikes were discarded

No. They are just called rifle + bayonet.

/thread

You covered all the bases.

>Hoplites and immortals largely did their thing in a time before ironworking and steelmaking were sorted out.
The Hoplites and immortals everyone thinks of, the ones from the Persian Wars are all iron age infantry units, they had iron weapons.

>peasant levies
When will this die?

The most effective swords on the battlefield were two-handed swords, though they took a long time to master. The sword was both the weapon and the shield. The master could use it to deflect attacks and seamlessly counterattack. They could use swords to dismantle spear formations and create an opening for a charge. Swordsmen were more mobile than spearmen on a battlefield, and formation wasn't as important, however, swinging a sword is more tiring than stabbing a spear.

He's right, but a poleaxe is a noble weapon.

>it's a "smart user" episode

Hey. Hey, user. Guess what? Nobody cares and you're a gigantic fucking faggot.

>Romans didn't have peasants in the same way that the Medieval world did.
Neither did the actual Medieval world. Only your fantasy-land medieval world had peasant levies.

In reality, because discipline and training are of vital importance in battle, professional troops and mercenaries were the norm. If peasants ever had to be called up to do battle it was because the situation was absolutely fucked.

>es there were so many swordsmen units in the middle ages right?
Yes. Every unit. Swords were a sidearm, so every unit had them. And people need to stop thinking of "sidearm" in the modern sense of "probably won't see use back up weapon."

If a soldier went into battle it was pretty much a guarantee they would have to use their sword once the press got too close for spears, or their primary weapon inevitable got broken or lost. That is why swords were so esteemed and valued; they were the weapon that was most important for keeping a soldier in fighting effective.

"Swords of conuenient length, forme and substance, haue been in all ages esteemed by all warlike Nations, of al other sorts of weapons the last weapon of refuge both for horsemen, and footmen, by reason that when al their other weapons in fight haue failed them, either by breaking, losse, or otherwise, they then haue presentlie betaken themselues to their short arming Swords and Daggers, as to the last weapons, of great effect & execution for all Martiall actions." - Sir John Smythe.

I wonder what that guy's standards for a "warlike Nation" were.

Oh hey, everybody in that picture has both a sword-like thing and a spear-like thing. It's almost like it's a good idea to have both available when heading into battle. Huh.

>professional troops and mercenaries were the norm

Sometimes, not at other times. It's important to note that the Medieval world encompasses an era of nearly a thousand years, depending on personal preference for where it begins (for me, 476 AD) and ends (again, for me, 1453). So the importance of peasant levies waxes and wanes throughout. Peasant levies were the standard for the beginning of the Medieval era but fell out of favor with the growth of urban centers towards the end of it, before taking an upswing again once gunpowder hit the field. Swiss mercenaries, Landschnekts, and Condottiere are a thing of the Late Medieval era, but that doesn't change peasant levies being an important part of the order of battle in the Early Medieval Era.

Also, I didn't say that the peasants were UNtrained, only that the Roman Legions consisted of *highly* trained individuals. Obviously no lord worth his salt was going to just hand some dude a spear and expect him to win a battle for him, but there's a marked difference between a few weeks or months of training in between farming jobs; and the average of 10 years training and combat that the Roman volunteer/conscript Legions had, to say nothing of the 25 years that the all-volunteer professional Legions had under their belts.

The Roman empire owes its rise to combining shield walls and the pilum which renders enemy shield walls useless.

I swear to god spearfags are the worst.

The real question is why we keep getting these threads.

Cause it was true. Though Roman success can also be contributed to how idiotic some of their enemies were. The Celts are one of their dumbest adversaries.

I've heard the rise and fall of Rome attributed to so many things that I'm now convinced they were just simple whims of Iupiter and nothing more.

Honestly I'd rather listen to spearfags wax about "realism" and "a soldier's REEAAL weapon" than swordfags talk about Romans and some nebulous concept of "a hero's weapon"

Basically a spear is like a rifle, and a sword is like a handgun. So I prefer having both.

Contrivances; largely trolls and/or newfags.

This. It's the best backup weapon.

Nope, simply the strength of the Roman state. Other states crumbled upon defeats, the Romans would accept crushing defeats and simply raise another army to try again.

Honestly rather than both of those I would much rather listen to katanafags who have quite honestly gotten more reasonable and less "muh perfect weapon" over the eyars.

Same reason you'd use a pistol. Your rifle's fucked for whatever reason or they're too big/illegal to bring into the place you're at.

It's almost like governments are intricate or something.

>he limits his weapon choices
Good luck when your spear gets stuck or breaks.

Because everyone needs a sidearm.
Also, swords were better in a small fight against unarmoured opponents. Nothing was better for dueling, although quarterstaves and related polearms were better when bandits attacked and spears/pikes were best for war.

Oh dear. This shitty, ignorant story again?

the sword was not "a piece of shit". it was used for approximately, 3,500 years, from the 17th century BCE, to the 19th and even 20th C CE, variants were used by every single culture from the congo to china, and if you include non-metallic ones, Polynesia and the americas too. The entire planet used these weapons.
If it was shit, it wouldnt have been used. These people were not stupid, they used them in life-or-death combat, not sitting on their fat behinds tapping on keyboards.

The sword is loaded with symbolism and meaning in countless cultures because of the importance and reverence it held. A weapon that was "shit" does not gain that sort of social impact.

While I'm sure that you really want to portray yourself as some sort of free-thinker who isnt restrained by old, stuffy ideas, trying to write about how one of the most technologically challenging, lethal weapons created in history is completely wrong, and claiming that they were not used by "professional soldiers" simply shows you to be utterly ignorant of reality.

Each legionare was armed with only 2 Pilums. Although it was a great tool to soften the enemy before engaging in melee, it was only a part of what made the Roman army so great.
Most of there success can be attributed to professional discipline, functional maneuvers and top quality gear for the time.
The only problem with the Pilum is that it can't be re used after battles which reduces it's usefulness in long lasting battles and long dragging campaigns.

Correcting myself.

The Pilum can't be re used after it is "thrown" which is also good since then the enemy won't throw it back but still now you don't have a Pilum and need to either make another one somehow after a battle or wait until you get another one.

If we're taking DnD you probably started with five or six weapons. In that case take a missile weapon, a pole arm, a sword, a magical sword, a magical polearm and like a dagger or shit.

>spear
>a peasant weapon

Uwot

...

When are we going to start treating spearfags like the weaboo katana worshippers they truly are?

When will swordfags understand their weapon was a meme?
>muh sidearm

yeah that's true but you can say the same about handguns and rifles still do all the work

>it's a single line of greentext ad hominem because I don't have a counter argument episode

Indistinguishable from one from the 11th to 13th centuries.

>a weapon can be a meme
you are fucking retarded

>sanded over 1000 times
>100ft reach
>in the right hands can pierce through solid iron

He was agreeing with you dumbass. 'Good doggo' meme means he was applauding.

Not getting enough (You)s on Veeky Forums?

He wasn't agreeing with me, that was my first post itt. You're sure it wasn't sarcastic?

Even though this is the most mediocre bait in history, I will bite it: Medieval Martial Arts, read some fucking manual, a sword with a guard is one of the best weapons ever made, yes a pole weapon has the wantage of lenght but after the hit is parried by a skilled knight with his arming sword you're done for it.

>Why would anyone use a sword?

I like the sword and board look.

And I assume my comrades will just stand there and let the knight who for some reason is dismounted parry my fucking weapon?

>the sword guy was using a tiny little buckler that could not have been more than a foot wide.
Actually that wasn't the problem, simply the guy with the spear was far more skilled then the buckler guy, but anyway perfect answer.

>however, swinging a sword is more tiring than stabbing a spear.
that depends of the sword,a nd most of them are far more balanced than a spear so no, aside from using a zweilhander a sword is always more rapid than a spear.

A man who slays a dragon with a specialized weapon is practical.
A man who slays a dragon with a sidearm is a legend.

No sword is not more rapid than a fucking spear stop playing Dark Souls.

>unarmoured opponents
ever heard of half-swording?

>not including a Pike Rack outside your tavern

>Not putting a Pike Lock on your bec-de-corbin so no local ragamuffins go running off with it while you enjoy a pint.

thank you

stop pretending to knwo what i play lmao, and actually study some history, a medieval arming sowrd is faster than a spear, please do your research.

European oversized knives, maybe, but a katana would cut right through a polearm.

you don't even deserve a response lmao

>tfw you will never grab a sword by the blade or smash a guy's face with the pommel

youtube.com/watch?v=l2YgGY_OBx8

kill yourself

>rifles still do all the work

lol

rifles may do a lot of the work for infantry, but the machine gun is still the king there, and beyond that indirect fire is what wins wars.

That's it. I'm sick of all this "Masterwork Rabble" bullshit that's going on in the d20 system right now. Peasant Levies deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine Peasant Levy in France for 5 chickens (that's about $2) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even smash solid formations of Pikemen with my Peasant Levy.

Feudal Lords spend years working on a single Peasant Levy and train it up to a million times to produce the finest military units known to mankind.

Peasant Levies are thrice as professional as Byzantine Tagmata and thrice as disciplined for that matter too. Anything a charge of knights can rout, a Peasant Levy can rout better. I'm pretty sure a Peasant Levy could easily impale a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical stab.

Ever wonder why Byzantium never bothered conquering Europe? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Feudal Lords and their Peasant Levies of destruction. Even during the Norman Invasion of the Balkans, Byzantine professional soldiers targeted the formations with the Peasant Levies first because their killing power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? Peasant Levies are simply the best military unit that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for Peasant Levies:

(Rural, Militia)
1d12 Morale Damage
19-20 x4 Crit
+2 to morale and damage
Counts as Elite

(Urban, Militia)
2d10 Damage
17-20 x4 Crit
+5 to morale and damage
Counts as Elite

Now that seems a lot more representative of the military power of Peasant Levies in real life, don't you think?

tl;dr = Peasant Levies need a buff in d20, see my new stat block.

>I can't argue so I'll just make a passive-aggressive response!

Please explain how a katana will cut through a metal polearm.

Because its folded a thousand times, which makes it harder.

Thank you

Lads we've already had the katanas in d20 meme, no need to keep going

Touchè, but have you ever tried to unscrew the pommel to end him rightly?

there are literally hundreds other opinion on this from other experts, and no I won't make you happy with suicide I'm sorry.

Gae bolg
Gungnir

I mean if I really do have to asnwer you just so you don't implode, katanas can't cut through a full plater armor, i'm sorry for you, feel free to get mad.

Professional soldiers carried both. Polearms are longer, and cannot be holstered, thus you use the polearm first, and then, if or when it breaks, is lost, or becomes useless, you draw your sword and fight with that.

This "lol swords suck" attitude is carried exclusively by NEET losers who have never trained with any weapon or ever investigated actual history.

This has been tested, though. This is why samurai wore light armor, because the katana would cut right through and they had to be mobile. European knights were basically moving fortresses, good against their lower quality weapons, but it'd be like wearing tin foil against Japanese workmanship.

I'd wager they had the equipment carried on campaign to melt and reforge them as needed. These are the people that brought kit forts with them to set up camp every knight.

>shield walls
>maniple system
>pick one

Spear of Longinus?

>Even then, like I said, a spear is better in a mass combat situation. For most of human history war has consisted of two masses of people pushing against one another until one side breaks whilst the front rows of said masses stab at each other; a spear is better for that since it means that more people than just the front row can actually participate in the killing.

Actually, the data shows that this isn't true. When the Romans faced Phyrrus, they engaged his phalanxes frontally with Post-Polybean Reform troops (almost all sword-armed) and literally nothing happened. The battle lasted for five hours, with huge casualties on both sides and no major outflanking maneuvers. Each side made multiple pushes but no ground was gained until Phyrrus deployed his elephants and broke the Romans. Phyrrus himself was almost killed in the battle-- a man dressed as him WAS killed, meaning that despise the supposed invincible advantage of reach, officers on his side were dying.

Pike armed troops at the time were not invincible grinding machines who could flatten all infantry before them. Quite to the contrary, as Pydna showed, they could not even rout ordered infantry when they had a downhill advantage, they could only slowly push them back. The Macedonians understood this as well, the purpose of pike was not to crush enemy troops, it is to pin them in place and not lose ground so that your cavalry can hit them from the sides and begin the rout. It was not until the late Medieval period that you started to see pike formations actually flatten enemy infantry units, and that was probably because shields had simply fallen out of favor and partial armor was the norm, meaning that serious casualties could actually arise from a frontal engagement.

Pikes cannot function except as part of a combined arms force with strong cavalry to take advantage of their ability to pin the enemy in place.

How many of them actually spar regularly and out of those, how many of them win nation-wide tournaments. That's Matt, "Just the other day, I won a gold medal in a backsword competition by using saber methods," Fucking Easton.

No they wouldn't. Their armor was calculated to be useful against both arrows, and the common weapons encountered such as naginatas, yaris, and your various forms of swords (Katanas, Sords before Katana, etc.)

They were effective probably more than half the time, and even at the low range, probably at LEAST half the time.

The durability of that armor against slashing attacks from Katanas has been tested thoroughly and it's clearly good enough to be pretty good against it. You made do with much cheaper or more incomplete armor if you had it at all depending on the period, and if you could afford good armor, it would have been difficult to penetrate any part of your armor, particularly the chest plate and helmet.

Gaps, which certainly existed, and more-so in the kinds of armor that were lamelar, and while full face armor existed, it wasn't necessarily the norm, and even so, was only ever so thick, so someone could geek you in the face or stick a weapon IN YOUR EYE and kill you.

Or you know, shoot you in the eye. Samurai ADORED such displays of skill, and some were good enough to do it not entirely by luck from horseback at considerable speed.

Yes, that's crazy. Yes, Samurai trained incessantly at Horse Archery when they were relevant and were scarily good at intuitive point and zen shoot stuff.