So Veeky Forums, if the standard weapon for the medieval or classical soldier was the spear...

Would it be better to use pikes and the likes vs really big monsters?

So would that mean city guards only get swords?

>Would it be better to use pikes and the likes vs really big monsters
It would be better to use ballistas vs really big monsters

For a long time, swords were too expensive for the average grunt. Later on they became cheaper. That's why primitives and undeveloped cultures use axes instead.

...

But user, spears are even easier to make and use than axes. And they came first.

TL;DR Because they're good adventuring weapons.

It makes sense both practically and historically. Swords are light, easy to carry, can be bared quickly in the event of a surprise attack, leave a hand free for grappling or arming oneself with a shield or other one handed weapon like a dagger and can be used with a variety of techniques to be effective all the way up to reasonably heavy armour. Historically swords were the weapons of merchants and other travelers just as much as knights due to being so versatile and light.

As for why they show up so constantly in media?
Because the wealthy were recorded far, far more in illustrations and effigies. Even in the period where oven the middle class could afford a sword they were mostly used as sidearms throughout medieval history so even if soldiers were pictured with their actual primary weapon it was likely they would still have a sword hanging from their hip. That and swords are far easier to choreograph convincing looking fight scenes with than other weapons and are seen as a symbol of those historical times as they were a mainstay of the period for such a long time.

Because soldiers fight in formation and use weapons that are best used in formation.
Adventurers are Highly mobile skirmish squads, so they use sidearms that are usefull in many tactical situation.
You might as well ask why private citizens go around with guns when the tipical contemporary soldier uses automatic rifles (that's obviously assuming no legal barrier): 99% of the times the private citizen doesn't need an automatic because he's not at war.

Thanks anons

assuming you wouldnt get your ass kicked, remember that even hippos are notorious for fucking people up so imagine a man-eating elephant, shit's not fair.

Piercing weapons do the trick if you hit the vitals, assuming they have the same fortitude as humans (which is pretty high on adrenaline) or higher, nothing else is going to stop it.

Weapons with large width (not thickness) is better for cleaner cuts which ultimately would lead to deeper cuts, one would assume slices would do very little against larger monsters.

Swords have a long association with dueling. Dueling is dramatic and makes for a good adventure story.

Because an adventurer's and a soldier's situation and needs are completely different.
A soldier needs a good weapon that can be used in battle along ranks of other trained soldiers.
An adventurer needs a versatile weapon that is easy to carry around, versatile, can be used in tight spaces and leaves your hands free for climbing, riding a horse, crawling around and opening doors.

While I disagree that spears were more expensive, the caveman's handaxe would like a word with you.

Spears (and later poleweapons in general alongside them) dominated the battlefields as the defining trait of heavy infantry, which was the heart of most armies.

But as it has already been pointed out, this makes it the ideal weapon for soldiers, not necessarily for adventurers.
Adventurers face multiple different situations, not all of whom are combat, and not all their combats take place in an environment where a spear is a viable choice.

Most of the adventuring life is spent traveling through different environments and exploring ruins and dungeons, not to mention gathering information and running errands in civilized settlements. It would be annoying, to say the least, to do all that (which is, again, 90% of your day) running around with a spear permanently in your hand or over your shoulder.
Rather, you'd need a weapon that you can carry around dicreetly and unsheathe quickly when needed.

Because the sword became a symbol that represented many things also associated with heroism and chivalry. Mostly due to the traditions of the noble class which saw both owning and using a sword to be a marker of class, and devised an ever increasingly complex code of ideas and behavior around swords and their use outside of true combat situations.

Because the stories we tell ourselves revolve around these sort of symbolic meanings in many fantasy stories the sword became the weapon of choice, and in turn the games based on those fantasies used it too.

Spears are pretty terrible individually. You can thrust and thats about it. Whereas with a sword you can slash, stab, parry and do a whole hosy of things. Swords > spears for adventuring

>the roman legions used a short sword as their primary weapon when engaged in melee lines

you might have picked a picture that was more... medieval. or fuck, any of the cultures from Roman times that relied on the Phalanx to a fault.

this

the sword was the weapon of a nobleman, even a cheap peasants sword cost a whole days salary for a footman, and could take a week to make, and would take far longer to train to the point you could use it in combat

swords also have a deep symbolism, being the tool of the righteous and noble, and having a cruciform shaped profile. there many references to swords in the English language, due to its place in culture.

think about why modern action heroes prefer handguns, and even when they dont, faith conspires to make the final confrontation a battle with pistols.

>ballerinas
I think baristas would be a more effective choice.

>Firing heavy ballerina

>All these people who actually think swords are multitools and great in every situation
Anons, please. Swords are not anywhere near the perfect tool. They are just as specialized as anything, swords were made for specific uses and to respond to specific threats and defenses. To give an example, the famous katana versus European broad sword debate that's so famous for being troll bait around here. Neither is actually better or worse, but both had been designed for the specific situations one would encounter. The broadsword was made to counter platemail and could be used in accordance with european martial arts in various ways to specifically counter the advantage platemail gave an opponent. However as a general weapon a broadsword is not all that different than a katana, or a halberd, or a spear at poking holes in peasant or whathave you. From what I can recall of Japanese military history, the katana design we know and love (or love to hate) was again a relatively specialized weapon, at the time it was most popular it was often used as a side arm (I believe most armies used spears) and had a lot of ceremonial significance. It too was designed with the armor and specific use in mind and again could not be said to be a very generalist tool. This is also the same with other developments in europe, where for instance the Rapier eventually became a popular design. This was again due to the use it would have, which had started to become more symbolic and ritual rather than for use as a tool of killing, (by this time I think it had become popular fashion in the court for everyone to wear very decorative swords as a status symbol, as well as using them to duel with).

1/2

All that however, means that swords, hell any weapon has a specific use intended for it. There are lots of weapons that are great for killing people in plate that aren't swords, there are weapons for fighting in formations, there are weapons for fighting individually and in closed spaces, there are weapons for fighting duels. Sword or halberd, or pole axe, or war pick, or short spear or whatever the fuck they all have their uses and they all have their drawback.

Anyways, I'm rambling like an idiot, but what I'm saying is that the sword is a specialized tool, but it also had symbolic meaning like I said here (). It's not There was always, and still is, the idea of the sword as a noble and elegant weapon. Something that was fair to use, and was not too deadly (to knights, not to peasants) so we really see it so much in fantasy not because the sword is super fucking general, or the best at doing what it does, or anything of the sort. But because it's got a fuckton of significance in western culture, especially when it comes to fantasy that's all inspired by fantastic and sugar coated depictions of loosely european based medieval fantasy.

To conclude my meandering tirade, this all also forgets one major super important point. It's fucking FANTASY! It's ten times easier to just say "my guy has a sword" than to figure out the stupid fucking "realistic" weapon for the situation. People want to have fun swinging a ten foot Gut's sword around they should instead of figuring out if a short sword or a poleaxe is the best to fight some imaginary shit. Don't try to make sense of fantasy asshole.

2/2

">All these people who actually think swords are multitools and great in every situation"

"The broadsword was made to counter platemail and could be used in accordance with european martial arts in various ways to specifically counter the advantage platemail gave an opponent"

"However as a general weapon a broadsword is not all that different than a katana, or a halberd, or a spear at poking holes in peasant or whathave you."

I think I disagree with you but I can't be entirely sure because I can't even really follow what you're trying to say in the post to begin with.

>So, TG, if the standard military firearm of today is an assault rifle, why do so many hunters use shotguns?

Different users have different needs, and besides, that's a Roman soldiers, they DID primarily use swords, dipahit.

The point being swords are tools like any other, tailor made to certain situations, and there isn't just one "sword" it's a category that covers a whole bunch of specialize tools. The idea that "adventurers carry swords because swords in general are designed for general use" isn't really true. Sure you can use a sword to fight something in many situations, but that doesn't mean it is specifically well suited to it. Therefore it is erroneous to make the claim that "Adventurers use swords as a primary weapon because they are uniquely suited to be used in a variety of situations"

Is that any clearer? I'm having a bit of a hard time expressing myself cogently at this late hour.

How good is a spear for one on one fight?
I don't know shit.

My character actually does use a spear, but he is non-human so it may work differently.

For one on one fights, assuming you have something like a short spear which isn't unwieldy, combat would be more or less like combat with poleaxe but with more emphasis on the thrusting. So it wouldn't be bad or anything, it would probably be fairly effective.

Though since it's fantasy I personally like to imagine spear combat in terms of Chinese theatrical type martial arts exhibitions.

Or like this youtube.com/watch?v=amkDvp--hs4

I like Romans user. Sue me.

while they didnt use the pilum as a standard melee weapon, they did carry them as standard and always used them first to break enemy formations and take out their shields

But user, that's a pilum, a javelin. It's combat usage is entirely different than a spear.

Somehow I have a hard time picturing duel between two people with different weapons.
youtube.com/watch?v=g_MsszLruro

I see, that means that I need a bard.

A sword is only good for killing and if that's your only trade you might as well have the tool for it.

See I just really liked the pic I found. Is that so bad?

There are enough named spears as well... much more obscure, though

Swords are multi use products
you can use them to:
Shave
Open your mail
Roast oversized marshmallows
Scratch your back
Reflect light
Poke things that appear to be dead
Clear a path through dense undergrowth
Cut your freakishly long hair
Scratch a message in soft stone
Cover it in cloth and scrub your toilet
Know when orcs are nearby
Poke holes in soft inanimate objects
Slice dice and chop vegetables and meat
Roast a chicken rotisserie style
Hang above your fire place as a trophy
And much much more.

Call now and we'll throw in a bonus sword for just 19 easy payments of 19.99.
Sword, the last pointy metal thing you'll ever need.

Thanks /k/ but my one love is WJQ-308 the only tool you need.

youtube.com/watch?v=b60OZhrTB6o

Isn't it 'ballistae.'

>Swords are the noble's weapon
>Spears are only formation weapons
Richard I, the most heroic of kings used a battle axe and is frequently depicted with it. St. George slew a dragon with a spear or lance, dragon slaying is the most heroic of quests and typically taken by adventurers. Why do people downplay the cultural and historical significance of both? Granted I believe a sword would be better in the confines of a building, I doubt it has anything to do with historical depictions and entirely the early days of fantasy writing. The sword is easily identifiable as the weapon of the protagonist, if he used a sword you'd think he was a soldier if he used an axe you'd think he was a barbarian.

A soldier spends his time marching from A to B, setting up camp in between, being fed by either local peasants or a dedicated group of camp followers etc. They just need to carry around their weapons and leave everything else to the non-combatants. They can afford carrying around pointy sticks, gigantic shields and other such things.

An adventurer, on the other hand, does a lot more. He gets himself from point A to point B, more often than not without a road in between. He has to survive, live off the land, navigate around, explore abandoned ruins, scale mountains, spelunk under mountains et cetera. That's a lot more moving, climbing, crawling et cetera. What an adventurer prefers above all is a weapon that's easy to carry around. And in that regard, nothing beats a sword (except maybe a dagger). It's understandable that the sword is the adventurer's weapon of preference. How are you going to climb a mountain with a gigantic shield and two to three pila on your person?
>Inb4 bag of holding
Shut up.

Swords are specialized in the sense that they primarily have been used as a sidearm, a general purpose sidearm.

Swords are not multitools as you say, an Axe would be closer in that regard but Swords ARE designed to be effective
in most situations.

The primary reason Swords look the way they do is because the quality of the steel allows it, a flexible, sharp, long, pointy
blade thing is really useful. Previous swords are comparatively short, bronze swords for example. That's because bronze
is not flexible and very hard so if you made them any longer you would constantly bash them out of shape creating weird
bends across the length of it, the edge is extremely durable however so back in the Roman days people actually chose
bronze swords over steel swords in some cases. Also because you can pretty much cast an entire sword blade and is
therefor easier to massproduce.

Now that's the signifigance of the material, which is evident in japanese swords, because their steel was so shit they had
to fold it thousands of memes to get it right, for some reason most of Asia never really took to crossguards so their swords
(war cleavers aside) were again, sidearms. The primary weapons of the Samurai were the Bow and the Spear.

Rapiers are also a product of better craftsmanship, when you say Rapier you probably refer to smallsword or something of
the like but the Rapier specifically is very much a weapon of war, it has about the same amount of material it's just that the
material is spread out more efficiently because reach is one of the best advantages you can have. Halfswording obviously
went out of fashion more or less around this time along with full plate.

Couldn't you use a spear like a pilgrim's staff?
Staff are useful for a lot of things by the way.

>even a cheap peasants sword cost a whole days salary for a footman

So you think 50-100 dollars is a lot of money?

>designed to be effective in most situations.
I would not argue that they are not effective, I would say that they are not noticeably more effective than other weapons to the point that one could justify that is why they overwhelmingly end up as the weapons adventurers are depicted using. I guess I got that point off very poorly. Sorry.

>The primary reason Swords look the way they do is because the quality of the steel allows it,
This is only true to a point. There are various examples of very advanced metal work and indicate good knowledge of metallurgy on ancient blades, but they still resemble the shapes of the prevalent blades of the time. I will continue to assert that blades evolve with the evolving techniques and technology that they must attack against, rather than from the steel.

>Previous swords are comparatively short, bronze swords for example.
I was under the impression that swords have their uses too and continued to be used to good effect even after bronze became outdated. Also as a complete off topic comment I personally find the aesthetic of bronze weaponry to be sadly underappreciated by most.

>Now that's the significance of the material, which is evident in Japanese swords, because their steel was so shit they had to fold it thousands of memes to get it right,
Ehh, well it is true the Jap's ore was total shit, but that isn't the deciding factor of the ultimate metallurgy that goes into the sword once they had done the purification process. I don't think the japs ever got very great at understanding alloys, though they did have a fairly decent knowledge of tempering and lamination.

>Rapier
Actually I did mean rapiers, though I was very much under the impression that they were more for ritualized combat rather than war conditions. While I do realize they were deadly weapons in their own right, their thin flexible and comparatively lighter blades were more suited to fighting one on one armored or unarmored rather than in full skirmish conditions. I also was under the impression that often features often seen on them like the cage around the hand were quite often completely ornamental and in real combat would sometimes buckle and trap the user's hand.

>it has about the same amount of material it's just that the material is spread out more efficiently
Really they have the same amount of material? Do you happen to have a estimate of the average weight in your head? I was sure that Rapiers were some of the lightest types of sword.

>Halfswording obviously went out of fashion more or less around this time along with full plate.
Yeah, but that was more due to the proliferation of various technologies and strategies that made the trade off of maneuverability no longer a good trade, rather than just the rapier.

God the greeks were so gay.

Boar sword

>even a cheap peasants sword cost a whole days salary for a footman
>medieval footman might make $10-$30 a day
>peasant's sword might cost $18 to make
well I'll be damned.
but even so, the cost of a day's wages isn't much

rule of cool basically

>What an adventurer prefers above all is a weapon that's easy to carry around. And in that regard, nothing beats a sword
A battle axe?

Greeks are awesome and the proof that spears can be the heroic weapon by definition. C'mon guys, I know that fapping to catgirls is kosher, but we have all read the Iliad. Human and semi-divine warriors clad in armour, everything described in detail and the result of the work of human and divine artificers. Every casualty a name and a story, every spear trust a symbol of the warrior's strength!

Come fucking on.

"So spake he and hurled; and Athene guided the spear upon his nose beside the eye, and it pierced through his white teeth. So the stubborn bronze shore off his tongue at its root, and the spear-point came out by the base of the chin. Then he fell from out the car, and his armour all bright and flashing clanged upon him, and the swift-footed horses swerved aside; and there his spirit and his strength were undone."

Again, the problem is that fantasy has mostly northern euro origins: mediterranean kultur is far less relevant to modern pop culture. And this matters even in retarded things such as the bow and the spear not being "standard" weapons.

>So Veeky Forums, if the standard weapon for the medieval or classical soldier was the spear, why is it that so many adventurers have swords instead?

Because a lot of role-playing games ignore logistics of travel and common sense laws and social norms.

Go to a medieval german or english city during the late middle ages and it's entirely possible that you'll be asked to relinquish any weapon larger than an eating knife to the safekeeping of an official/guard for your stay, but in fantasy role-playing settings armed bands of murderhobos roam the streets.

If you are travelling with pack horses or carriers you'll have no problem whatsoever bringing a whole arsenal of weapons to suit a variety of situations. Knights or well off proffessional soldiers would have been proficient in a number of different weapons, but in a game where you mostly just appear wherever you need to be for the session, carrying your one favourite weapon that is somehow the only one you are skilled with, things end up looking different.

In the real world, a spear is a great idea because poking big holes in things kills them pretty fast, and anything that is larger than a person is dangerous purely because of their size and strength, so having the advantage of reach is awesome. You can wear full armour and still get your neck snapped by a bear swiping you, or get knocked over and break something.

But in a game where combat revolves around some amount of just standing around, whaling on each other and absorbing injuries that would have killed a real person several times over, with mechanics to represent fighting so primitive that it mainly boils down to an enemy having 1-3 set attacks that are just damage numbers, and where getting hit by a club the size of your leg is just a minor inconvenience, things look different.

>Why do rpg adventurers act different to historical warriors, in games that are shit at representing the circumstances historical warriors lived in?

Gee, I wonder.

>Greeks can't even stop thinking about sticking their long hard poles into the mouths of strapping young male warriors even while writing the greatest literature of their culture
What did we say? Gayyyyyy!

you can (depending on the type of spear) slash, parry, block and swing a spear.

You cannot bring real life into it like that when the sword was the preferred weapon of people who had to travel a lot IRL.

And a spear is not very useful in most dungeons.

So you think 50-100 dollars can get you a sword worth anything at all?

Rapiers are actually fairly heavy and long cut&thrust weapons used for both self-defense/dueling and warfare. The ritual dueling weapon is the smallsword, a later development of the rapier which turned into the foil.

You have to plan somewhat to use a spear and most adventurers are too stupid to do so.

If you want a spear in solo combat you'll need a shield, which means carrying at least one, possibly two of those things in your hands at all times, since you can't rightly sheath a spear or shield on your back too well.

As such your fellow party members have to carry things like light sources, ranged weapons (that arent also spears), free hands for spell-casting and pulling levers, etc.

Running about with a mace, sword, or axe you can easily sling at your side is nice for people doing more in a day than just waking up, walking out of camp, and commencing a nice fair linear massacre.

If the party wants to use spears plan around it.

Have the Fighter with a spear and shield take point, while the cleric stands beside him with a light source and a mace or other shorter weapon to fend off any approaches that come past the tip of the spear.

If there's one problem with most TTRPG combat systems is that people fight like special snowflakes with no awareness of other combatants and the necessity of formation and planning.

My mistake then, thanks for correcting me..

I'll take ten.

/thread

>here mate, have my spear
>o sorry friend i can't accept it

>its a tool designed purely for killing
>boar sword, totally not a tool designed purely for killing

>The broadsword was made to counter platemail and could be used in accordance with european martial arts in various ways to specifically counter the advantage platemail gave an opponent.

Jesus, I got dumber just reading that.
First off, you are talking about what we usually call the knightly LONGsword, not broadsword, outside of fantasy and rpgs broadswords are an early modern form of sword, not a typical medieval one.

Second, it's plate armour, or mail, there's no platemail, there is plated mail, like you see further east or in India, but that's not what you are talking about.

The LONGSWORD evolved to more effectively combat MAIL and transitional armour like the coat of plates and brigandine, before full breastplates and more effective protection for joints came into common use.

In short, swords got thicker cross sections, got longer, stiffer, and with sharper points, compared to earlier swords like the classical snubnosed viking style cutting sword. The extreme examples of this includes stuff like the Estoc, the sword specifically meant to fight people in armour. It had a more narrow profile and much thicker cross section, and was very stiff, with a sharp point and very limited cutting capability, the opposite of what we usually call broadswords, like the basket hilted swords.

Clearly a hand spear.

Guess its easier to carry than a spear, while also being ingrained in culture as being the hero's/noble's weapon

eh close enough, sorry im not so good with the terminology

Try using a spear in a ten foot wide ten foot tall cavern.

Because contrary to what idiots on here believe, swords and other hand weapons have certain advantages over spears that make them ideal for adventurers.

Besides, soldiers mostly used spears because they were cheap weapons for peasant levies. The greeks were the ones who used spears for their elites, but even they used swords as well.

Your picture is idiotic bait because throwing javelins into an enemy formation before attacking with swords is very different from using spears as your primary weapon.

Longinus
Gae Bolg
Uh, that's all I can think of off the top of my head.

because show me some knights with spears.

its that simple

'k

Gugnir
Rhongomiant
Spear of Lugh

It would be pretty easy actually.

For you

I've always thought it would be interesting to have a campaign with three fighters, equipped with spears, tower shields and a shortsword sidearms, to essentially maintain shield walls and do other such formations while protecting the cleric and spellcaster(s). The DM would be forced to figure out interesting ways to spice up the combat, because typical melee creature encounters (like Orcs) would become painfully easy in normal conditions. It would force the DM to consider more creative combat situations.