Why is the humble spear so underrated?

[Kiero]

Admittedly, the spear is an unassuming weapon, essentially just a spike on a pole. Yet it's one of our oldest, serving first our hunting ancestors, then later appearing as a weapon of war in pretty much every culture on the planet. It's a versatile weapon, serving both infantryman and cavalryman alike, and even persisting in a form today in the form of longarm tipped with bayonet. Good for fighting individually and in formation with a unit. Can be thrown as a last resort as well. It even has a strong showing in myth.

Yet when we turn to both Western* fantasy fiction, and many roleplaying games inspired by them, the spear isn't well represented. It often does mediocre damage and offers little that isn't trumped by a sword. Rarely do we see characters who use spears by choice, indeed the only one I can think of off the top of my head is Trull Sengar from the Malazan Empire series.

So what gives? The sword might be the dedicated weapon of the warrior, having no other uses besides combat, but why isn't the spear worthy of some glory? Do any games make it a worthwhile combat choice?


*The spear is much better represented in Eastern fantasy

[de-trick]

Legend of the Dragoon, I forget the guys name but hes the green dragon dude.

[Dark_Wind]

First: Malazan Book of the Fallen FTW.

Second: Who says the spear isn't worthwhile in D&D? Sure, swords have a better threat range and similar damage, but they're martial weapons. Not everyone's proficient in those. Ever played a Cleric*? The longspear, if you're counting that, is even better, as the only Simple Weapon with reach.

As to why it isn't better represented in fiction, I don't know, really.

*Harder to cast in combat with a two-handed weapon, of course, but... That's what the Somatic Weaponry feat is for. Still lack a shield, but I tend not to use those, myself.

[Jorkens]

How about Aiglos?

[Kiero]

The fact that you can't use a shield with a spear in D&D is rather bizarre. Given spear and shield was about the most popular historical weapon combo, not just the Greek hoplite.

[Dausuul]

First: Malazan Book of the Fallen FTW.

Second: Who says the spear isn't worthwhile in D&D? Sure, swords have a better threat range and similar damage, but they're martial weapons. Not everyone's proficient in those. Ever played a Cleric*? The longspear, if you're counting that, is even better, as the only Simple Weapon with reach.

As to why it isn't better represented in fiction, I don't know, really.

*Harder to cast in combat with a two-handed weapon, of course, but... That's what the Somatic Weaponry feat is for. Still lack a shield, but I tend not to use those, myself.

The glaive is basically just a fancy spear, and it's a quite effective weapon in D&D; it's the weapon of choice for those who want reach and can't stomach the absurdity of the spiked chain.

[Dark_Wind]

The fact that you can't use a shield with a spear in D&D is rather bizarre. Given spear and shield was about the most popular historical weapon combo, not just the Greek hoplite.

You can do it with the shortspear... But yeah, you're right. It is wierd that the spear needs to be two handed.

[Quietus]

The fact that you can't use a shield with a spear in D&D is rather bizarre. Given spear and shield was about the most popular historical weapon combo, not just the Greek hoplite.

You can if you use a shortspear. Spears come in three varieties : Short, Garden, and Long. Short you can throw and use a shield with, while Garden and Long can bet set against charges, and Long has reach.

The spear is generally overlooked because when you get into Martial weapons, you have a lot of better choices. You can pick up a Ranseur or Glaive, for more base damage plus other benefits, for example, or grab a Greatsword, which is the best option of all the two-handed weapons in terms of average damage.

For those with access to simple weapons only, however, the spear is an excellent option. And I have a level 20 NPC in one of my games that uses a spear, fighting in the style of the Final Fantasy Tactics dragoons - leap + fall on the opponent at spearpoint for extra damage.

[Chadwick]

*Harder to cast in combat with a two-handed weapon, of course, but... That's what the Somatic Weaponry feat is for. Still lack a shield, but I tend not to use those, myself.

It should not be harder to cast with two handed weapon. You only need one free hand to cast AND two handed weapons can be held with one hand, just no USED profiently.

The Still Spell feat should be required if a cleric wants to hold a weapon and a heavy steel shield, cause the hand that a heavy steel shield can t hold anything else. So most clerics/bards prolly should use a small shield or a buckler.

[Yechezkiel]

It should not be harder to cast with two handed weapon. You only need one free hand to cast AND two handed weapons can be held with one hand, just no USED profiently.

The Still Spell feat should be required if a cleric wants to hold a weapon and a heavy steel shield, cause the hand that a heavy steel shield can t hold anything else. So most clerics/bards prolly should use a small shield or a buckler.

That's exactly how is it.

[Chadwick]

The fact that you can't use a shield with a spear in D&D is rather bizarre. Given spear and shield was about the most popular historical weapon combo, not just the Greek hoplite.

I made a feat for this in a campaign I am creating. Most people forget you can use a bastard sword, katana, or a dwarven war axe as a two handed martial weapon.

[Matthew]

That's exactly how is it.
Not really. The FAQ gives two versions of whether a Light Shield can be used for Spell Casting, the latter answer contradicting the former. A Buckler is your best bet if you think your Cleric needs a free hand. Chances are, he won't, though and even if he does, it's just a matter of dropping the melee weapon (in which case his Shield becomes his Primary Weapon for a bit). It's not worth losing the point of AC at low levels, in my opinion, and at high levels you either don't need a Shield or have an Animated version.

As for the Spear in D&D 3.x, it's been often observed that this is odd (and it wasn't the case in previous editions, where both the Spear and Long Spear could be used One Handed). The easiest solution is to introduce a House Rule that allows Characters with Martial Weapon Proficiency to use a Spear or Long Spear as One Handed Martial Weapons.

The downside to allowing this is that it makes the Trident a little less useful. My solution is to give it +2 to Disarm attempts.

If you are looking for offical resources, then there was a Feat published in Dragon called Pyke and Shield, which allowed a Character to use a Spear and Light shield in combination, but it was pretty lame, in my opinion.

[Chadwick]

That's exactly how is it.

But most people I see just use a heavy steal shield anyway. Often they state that you can do it in the computer games, and its true none of them requires it. I want to look at my mini clerics when I get home cause I am betting that they don t use small shields either.

Side note: I also don t like that when your on a mount you don t take some kind of penalty for using a Heavy shield either. I am sure you dont, I could be wrong though.

getting back to topic: I love spears BTW they are my favorite weapon. I even use them on characters that can use martial weapons.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Basically it's because Fantasy is based on a very, very narrow window. It's mostly set in a serial-numbers-filed-off version of northern europe circa fifteenth century. So it's swords and knights all the way.

[Matthew]

I think it's possibly because Fantasy more often depicts small scale skirmishes or personal combats than full scale warfare, where the Spear is most useful. Actually, I'm a bit bemused by this accusation at Fantasy, I guess it depends what kind you read. I tend to steer away from the Full Plate versions.

[Iku Rex]

You can use a shield and a Small longspear. It's harder to use (-2 attack) and easier to sunder (fewer hit points) than a normal longspear, but you get the reach.


As for the OP I think it's the same reason why you don't see a lot of modern day action heroes with AK-47s. Sure, like spears they're cheap, effective and easy to use, but that's what makes them mook-weapons. A Hero needs a Hero's weapon.

[Telonius]

About why it isn't glamorized in Western fiction ... it's cheap. That's really about it. A sword takes years of hard labor to make - from mining the metal, to cutting the trees to fuel the forge, to the training of the craftsman, to actually making the thing. With a spear, really all you need is a pointy rock or piece of metal, a pole, and a bit of leather to tie it on. It's easy to make, it's easy to use, it's easy to replace or repair, it's common to see; and because of all that, it's utterly boring. It's low-class. You don't need to be a noble to have one. So no songs or poems or ballads are made up for it.

[Bassetking]

About why it isn't glamorized in Western fiction ... it's cheap. That's really about it. A sword takes years of hard labor to make - from mining the metal, to cutting the trees to fuel the forge, to the training of the craftsman, to actually making the thing. With a spear, really all you need is a pointy rock or piece of metal, a pole, and a bit of leather to tie it on. It's easy to make, it's easy to use, it's easy to replace or repair, it's common to see; and because of all that, it's utterly boring. It's low-class. You don't need to be a noble to have one. So no songs or poems or ballads are made up for it.

Ignore Odin's "Gungnir". Favorite weapon of the chief of the Norse Deities.

Ignore "Gáe Bulg". Spear of Cúchulainn.

Ignore Lancea Longini; the "Lance of Longinus". Spear of Destiny, King-maker, and piercer of the side of Christ...

No... No famous spears. :smallbiggrin:

[Matthew]

Not so sure about that. I mean, we have Odin's Spear and the Spear gets a fair bit of press in the Illiad. Even Arthur's Spear was repudetly magical, in at least one version I can think of. Lances are also failry commonly depicted and those are often interchangable with Spears.

[Edit]Oop. Simued...

I'm not sold on this whole Spears are underused in Fantasy. I mean, the whole of Dragonlance revolves around it's namesake...

[Quietus]

I'm not sold on this whole Spears are underused in Fantasy. I mean, the whole of Dragonlance revolves around it's namesake...



Lances != spears, in D&D. Lances get double damage on a charge. Spears don't.

[Storm Bringer]

and one of the great elf lords in LORT, Gil-galad has a spear.

but the main reason i think is that it's the weapon of the commoner. It's somthing a ordinary warrior uses, while the rich use swords.

[Kiero]

You can if you use a shortspear. Spears come in three varieties : Short, Garden, and Long. Short you can throw and use a shield with, while Garden and Long can bet set against charges, and Long has reach.

Which is silly given both the garden-variety spear, and indeed the pike have been used with a shield throughout history.

[Telonius]

Ignore Odin's "Gungnir". Favorite weapon of the chief of the Norse Deities.

Ignore "Gáe Bulg". Spear of Cúchulainn.

Ignore Lancea Longini; the "Lance of Longinus". Spear of Destiny, King-maker, and piercer of the side of Christ...

No... No famous spears. :smallbiggrin:

Yes, and ignore the Pelian Spear as well. They're simply not well-known enough to qualify as famous. But who hasn't heard of Excalibur? Even Balmung or Durandal are a little easier to bring to mind, for classical mythology. And in more modern fiction .... lightsabers, Anduril/Narsil and a load of others from Tolkien, the Vorpal Sword from Jabberwocky, Callandor, the Heron Sword, Gryffindor's Sword ... anyone who knows anything at all about fantasy literature knows most of those.

[Matthew]

Lances != spears, in D&D. Lances get double damage on a charge. Spears don't.
Yeah, I know, but in Dragonlance (at least in the books) there are Foot Lances and Horse Lances; if I recall correctly, Sturm uses one in his final combat.

[martyboy74]

A sword is generally more useful for taking down large numbers of foes at time; it has a larger killing edge. It also is easier to perform crippling blows with slashing weapons than primarily piercing weapons. That, and the medieval Europeans used swords.

[Flying Elephant]

In D&D spearman blocks are cheap, since they can be used by regular-old Commoner mooks, and are the bane of Leap-Attack Greatsword users, since a line three wide gets 8 double-damage attacks.

[Matthew]

Martyboy, that's quite an over generalisation. Spears were very present in Medieval Warfare and Swords are no more capable of giving death blows than Spears. Swords are more versatile, but chances are it's going to be a secondary weapon in almost all cases on a battlefield. For personal defence, on the other hand, a Sword is more usual than a Spear.

[Wehrkind]

The fact that you can't use a shield with a spear in D&D is rather bizarre. Given spear and shield was about the most popular historical weapon combo, not just the Greek hoplite.

I had to scroll over to make certain I didn't type that... I think I have said that at least 30 times to SCA people who ask why I want to bother learning to use a spear with a shield...

I think the general idea that the spear is a peasants weapon in the west is a good point, considered with the fact that the sword is seen as the weapon of knights, kings and heros, specifically in the "serial-numbers-filed-off version of northern europe circa fifteenth century." (splendid turn of phrase by the way!) Earlier periods would put the spear and sword together as main weapons as in the Illiad, or different locations spear sword and bow (most Japanese stories for instance.) We also think of big axes being barbaric, big hammers as being for strong dumb people for most of the same reasons.

I personally want a hero with a pole arm, preferably one of those with 34 word names in the AD&D Arms and Equipment Guide. "Glaive-glaive-guisarme-glaive-bec-de-corbine-glaive".

[Deepblue706]

The humble spear is underrated because it's humble.

While effective, it's too plain. Swords can be shiny, and that shinyness extends across the length of the weapon. Spears...not so much.

I mean, look at Axes. Not shiny enough. They're more haft than blade, and usually dirty. Icky. Yuck.

Bows? Not very shiny either. We see more of these, though, just simply because of Elves.

Daggers? Kinda shiny - that's why they see some action.

[Quietus]

Which is silly given both the garden-variety spear, and indeed the pike have been used with a shield throughout history.

Yes, but I wasn't arguing history, I was pointing out D&D rules. I agree that D&D rules don't accurately represent historical uses of weapons, from time to time.

[Quietus]

The humble spear is underrated because it's humble.

While effective, it's too plain. Swords can be shiny, and that shinyness extends across the length of the weapon. Spears...not so much.

I mean, look at Axes. Not shiny enough. They're more haft than blade, and usually dirty. Icky. Yuck.

Bows? Not very shiny either. We see more of these, though, just simply because of Elves.

Daggers? Kinda shiny - that's why they see some action.


I don't know whether to agree or disagree here... But here's my somewhat similar-in-spirit breakdown.

Spears : Humble weapon, as noted.
Swords : Hero's weapon! Look at 90% of video games... if the hero's using a melee weapon, it's a sword. Sometimes a ridiculously oversized one, hence Monkey Grip
Axes/hammers/etc : The "big dumb" weapons. If you aren't the hero, but you have muscle to spare, pick up the biggest hammer or axe you can and go to town. Frequently the weapon of the "big dumb sidekick".
Bows : Everyone loves a marksman. Elves and Robin Hood come to mind.
Daggers : A little backstabbin' action, anyone? What weapon is better suited for coming up behind that Noble Lord and showing him what-for?

[Tough_Tonka]

Robert Jordan's book series The Wheel of Time gives the spear a good deal of love.:smallbiggrin: A group of dessert nomads called the Aiel use spears and bucklers as their primary weapons and they're known to defeat groups of swordsmen and calavery when the Aiel are outnumber more than 3 to 1.

[Leon]

The fact that you can't use a shield with a spear in D&D is rather bizarre. Given spear and shield was about the most popular historical weapon combo, not just the Greek hoplite.

I rally against this a lot in the games i play - ive come to the conclusion of seeing if i can take EWP - Spear to allow for one handed use

Its a idea i took from NQ in the Article on Iron Fangs - they weild Blasting Pikes One handed via a EWP (a Blasting Pike is basicaly a Longspear with a shaped charge on the end)


A sword is generally more useful for taking down large numbers of foes at time; it has a larger killing edge. It also is easier to perform crippling blows with slashing weapons than primarily piercing weapons. That, and the medieval Europeans used swords.

Most Didnt, the better trained and Equiped ones may have, but the Polearm family (inc the Spear) is a lot easier to use and create in large numbers



I personally want a hero with a pole arm,

I like the concept too - Hence why i playing a Glaive Armed Druid

[Matthew]

Yes, but I wasn't arguing history, I was pointing out D&D rules. I agree that D&D rules don't accurately represent historical uses of weapons, from time to time.
Not really, you were just being pedantic. Kiero's question is clearly broader than D&D definitions of Swords and Spears.

Anyone know anything about 3.x versions of Dragonlances? Do they still have Foot Dragonlances and do they behave like Spears?

[Nnanji]

Yeah, I know, but in Dragonlance (at least in the books) there are Foot Lances and Horse Lances; if I recall correctly, Sturm uses one in his final combat.

Actually, I believe he uses hit father's two handed sword. The Dragonlances are all being hustled inside for the surprise trap. The lance Kitiara grabs is taken from Laurana.


Robert Jordan's book series The Wheel of Time gives the spear a good deal of love. A group of dessert nomads called the Aiel use spears and bucklers as their primary weapons and they're known to defeat groups of swordsmen and calavery when the Aiel are outnumber more than 3 to 1.

Aren't the Aiel spears shortened? I thought they were just 2-3 feet long and worn on the back in groups of 3 or 4. Now Mat's weapon is spear-like. Maybe another pole arm represents it better because it has a slashing edge as well as the piercing tip.

Man, I read too much. :smallbiggrin:

[martyboy74]

Most Didnt, the better trained and Equiped ones may have, but the Polearm family (inc the Spear) is a lot easier to use and create in large numbers

My bad. I didn't indicate clearly enough that I was referring the knights, and other character that have lived on in legend.

[Matthew]

Actually, I believe he uses hit father's two handed sword. The Dragonlances are all being hustled inside for the surprise trap. The lance Kitiara grabs is taken from Laurana.

Fair enough, my memory of events is pretty hazy. That's probably why he got beat! :smallwink:

[Leon]

Well Armoured Vs Well Armoured - i'd worry more about the Blunt Weapon family than the Thrust or Slashing ones

but if your in cuir bouilli with but a pointy stick then a Sword or Spear is going to be a word of pain to you

[Kaolins]

Legend of the Dragoon, I forget the guys name but hes the green dragon dude.

It's been bugging me since I read the thread awhile go. Lavitz. Replaced by Prince Albert later on...

Gust of wind DANCE! XD

[lukelightning]

Re: Lance vs. Spear

Some scholars use the word "spear" to mean weapons that are meant to be thrown, while "lance" is for weapons meant to be used in hand-to-hand combat. This isn't universal, though, but you can often come across references to footmen using lances, etc.

[Joran]

In Chinese martial arts, the spear (qiang) is enshrined, along with the sword (jian), sabre (dao), and staff (gun), as one of the four major weapons.

That said, most wuxia heroes wield a jian (the straight sword); think something like the Green Destiny from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

I agree with everything said so far about swords being high-class weapons, compared to spears as commoner-class weapons, and swords being extremely shiny when polished (ooh, shiny).

Also, along with this, many heroes have special weapons that are centuries old. Spears in general don't last too long; they're too easily replaced and the wood can deteriorates with age. Also, who ever heard of a mastercraft spear, where examples of superior sword making can last for generations.

[Nnanji]

Fair enough, my memory of events is pretty hazy. That's probably why he got beat! :smallwink:

No doubt! Well, and he decided to fight fair against Kitiara on a Blue Dragon. The only reason I remembered is because my friend was about to throw out the annotated DL Chronicles and I took it after yelling at him for 20 minutes. Throwing away books... :smallsigh:

[Chadwick]

About why it isn't glamorized in Western fiction ... it's cheap. That's really about it. A sword takes years of hard labor to make - from mining the metal, to cutting the trees to fuel the forge, to the training of the craftsman, to actually making the thing. With a spear, really all you need is a pointy rock or piece of metal, a pole, and a bit of leather to tie it on. It's easy to make, it's easy to use, it's easy to replace or repair, it's common to see; and because of all that, it's utterly boring. It's low-class. You don't need to be a noble to have one. So no songs or poems or ballads are made up for it.

You haven t heard celtic ballads and poems then. A big named weapon of the Irish is called the Spear of Light.

[lukelightning]

I agree with everything said so far about swords being high-class weapons, compared to spears as commoner-class weapons, and swords being extremely shiny when polished (ooh, shiny).

Plus you can wear it sheathed at your belt in a fancy scabbard, and not just walk around town with it in your hand as you would a spear.

[Flakey]

I think to go along with them being shinny and have the potential to last for a 1,000 years, as noted above. You also have the film reason of you can bang two together and make lots of clanging noises, and sometimes sparks.

Also you can do the Hollywood thing of grappling, and jumping around the sceanery. Since most spearwork, on a spear greater than 5 foot is a mixture of bannoet drill and snooker/pool, its a lot less visually exciting to a person with no experience in it.

My biggest thing though is not spears. Even though I agree with that point. It is shields. Another object that lasted 1,000's of years and only really died out when gunpowder came common and made them useless.

The best western armies that exsited relied heavily on them for a reason, Greek, Roman, Norse, Norman etc.. etc.. yet in fantasy they hardly exsist. They do a bit better in "historical" movies.

[Amphimir Míriel]

Re: Lance vs. Spear

Some scholars use the word "spear" to mean weapons that are meant to be thrown, while "lance" is for weapons meant to be used in hand-to-hand combat. This isn't universal, though, but you can often come across references to footmen using lances, etc.

Furthermore, we Spanish speakers always get confused since for us, thrown-spears, melee-spears and horseback-lances all share the same name ("lanza")

[Matthew]

Re: Lance vs. Spear

Some scholars use the word "spear" to mean weapons that are meant to be thrown, while "lance" is for weapons meant to be used in hand-to-hand combat. This isn't universal, though, but you can often come across references to footmen using lances, etc.
That's because texts do the same. Interestingly, the Old French word for Sword (Glaive) is also used for Spear, which makes for some confusing medieval passages ("hmmn, does he mean Spear or Sword here?").
In the majority of cases, Spear is used generically, with Javelin and Lance denoting Spears specialised for throwing and whilst mounted, respectively. However, these terms are not only used in this way; part of the confusion is that the Latin lancea usually refers to a Javelin type weapon in Ancient and Classical texts, but there are a plethora of used and misused terms outside of that instance. Pike is most often used to mean a Foot Spear not intended for throwing or using from a mount, but again, there is no set in stone rule. Dart also appears to cause some consternation.
Regardless, whilst D&D does place very specific meanings on these terms, Fantasy in general follows no such convention.

Swords aren't really high class weapons. High class swords are high class weapons. Niether do they take years to make (less than a month generally) or last for centuries, especially if they see any actual use. Wearing a sword was a symbol of military status, but it wasn't synonymous with social rank [That is to say, high rank folk pretty much all wore swords, but that does not mean all those who wear swords are of high rank].

The Sword, though, does have a more glorious image than the Spear

[lukelightning]

I noticed that you can use tridents one-handed...and throw them!

[Joran]

You also have the film reason of you can bang two together and make lots of clanging noises, and sometimes sparks.

Also you can do the Hollywood thing of grappling, and jumping around the sceanery. Since most spearwork, on a spear greater than 5 foot is a mixture of bannoet drill and snooker/pool, its a lot less visually exciting to a person with no experience in it.

Hero actually solved a bunch of those problems; have a spear with a metal shaft and attach a Chinese-style tassel to the head. (Ooh, shiny) The fight between Jet Li and Donnie Yen was probably the best fight within the entire movie.

I assume an actual, real-life version of the spear would be too heavy to the point of being unwieldy, unless it's uses a modern material like a hollow aluminum or titanium shaft.

P.S. On viewing it on Youtube, it seems like they just added in the sound of metal clanging, but by the way the spear bends, it seems like the shaft is just silver painted wood.

[Flakey]

.
Swords aren't really high class weapons. High class swords are high class weapons. Niether do they take years to make (less than a month generally) or last for centuries, especially if they see any actual use. Wearing a sword was a symbol of military status, but it wasn't synonymous with social rank

Until the mass production (and radical drop in quality) of the later medieval era, swords were expensive though. There are several texts quoting the price of a sword exceeding the price of a peasant family home, and all its belongings. Swords were not always a symbol for status, but they were always the symbol for wealth. Weather individual, or state wealth depended on the country, and system.

[Fizban]

I pretty much agree with all the points made so far, especially the idea of treating the spear (and presumably long spear) as one handed martial weapons, but I also have a comment about spears in video games: in Fire Emblem, spears tend to be the workhorse weapon, taking advantage over swords in the rock paper scissors matchup, an even match against the common spear wielding enemies, and the skill of your spear wielders normally beats the axe bearing enemies.

But that's pretty much the only game I've seen where they can play a prominent role. And the main characters of fire emblem normally use swords instead of spears (there was one game where the male lead used a spear though).

[Kurald Galain]

More fantasy spears...

Ember from ElfQuest (and her legendary ancestor Two-Spear the Mad)
IIRC Talon of the Silver Hawk starts with a spear, but I'm not sure
Evan Heals-The-Past from Werewolf
The Pliocene Exile saga has a mythical spear, but it turns out to be a laser weapon
...and that's about all I can think of (not counting mythology mentioned earlier in the thread), whereas heroes with swords are a dime a dozen.

Oh yeah and Malazan is awesome!

[Matthew]

Until the mass production (and radical drop in quality) of the later medieval era, swords were expensive though. There are several texts quoting the price of a sword exceeding the price of a peasant family home, and all its belongings. Swords were not always a symbol for status, but they were always the symbol for wealth. Weather individual, or state wealth depended on the country, and system.

Yes there are and there are several texts putting them at a much lower cost, I think Oman quotes one or two - I'll see if I can dig them up. Roman Swords, for instance, certainly did not cost such a great deal to produce nor the Frankish swords during the reign of Charlemagne. Problem is, of course, that Swords varied in quality and design right over the period. Good swords got a lot cheaper to produce sometime in the twelfth century, but prior to that swords were no more equally priced than they were equal.

Saying, that, very high quality swords could get extremely expensive, as could high quality warhorses (many times the cost of an ordinary one).

[Edit] Here we go:

Sixth and Seventh Centuries (Franks of the Merovingian Era)

12 Solidi ~ Mail Shirt
6 Solidi ~ Helmet
6 Solidi ~ Greaves
7 Solidi ~ Sword
[Oman, p. 56]

6 Solidi ~ Horse
1 Solidi ~ Cow
[Oman, p.59]

60 Solidi ~ Fine for failing to perform military service levied against a Frank
30 Solidi ~ Fine for failing to perform military service levied against a Roman
200 Solidi ~ Killing a Free Frank
600 Solidi ~ Killing Free Frank in the King’s Trust

and for comparison:

Sixth and Seventh Centuries (Lombards)

100 Solidi ~ Fully Equipped War Horse [Oman, p. 49]
50 Solidi ~ Household Slave
150 Solidi ~ Lombard of Low Degree

[Joran]

Until the mass production (and radical drop in quality) of the later medieval era, swords were expensive though. There are several texts quoting the price of a sword exceeding the price of a peasant family home, and all its belongings. Swords were not always a symbol for status, but they were always the symbol for wealth. Weather individual, or state wealth depended on the country, and system.

In the Chinese experience, swords didn't always have to be expensive. One theory about why the Qin were able to militarily dominate their foes was because they wielded iron swords of cheaper manufacture and superior quality than the bronze swords wielded by their enemies.

But the jian is known as the gentleman's weapon.

[Kiero]

In Chinese martial arts, the spear (qiang) is enshrined, along with the sword (jian), sabre (dao), and staff (gun), as one of the four major weapons.

That said, most wuxia heroes wield a jian (the straight sword); think something like the Green Destiny from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

Indeed, there are plenty of examples in wuxia and Chinese cinema more widely of spear-armed heroes. Shaolin lance technique and others.

[Dausuul]

Well Armoured Vs Well Armoured - i'd worry more about the Blunt Weapon family than the Thrust or Slashing ones

I'd worry more about the Thrust weapon that's being driven forward by the full weight of a charging warhorse. :smallbiggrin:

[Stormcrow]

About why it isn't glamorized in Western fiction ... it's cheap. That's really about it. A sword takes years of hard labor to make - from mining the metal, to cutting the trees to fuel the forge, to the training of the craftsman, to actually making the thing. With a spear, really all you need is a pointy rock or piece of metal, a pole, and a bit of leather to tie it on. It's easy to make, it's easy to use, it's easy to replace or repair, it's common to see; and because of all that, it's utterly boring. It's low-class. You don't need to be a noble to have one. So no songs or poems or ballads are made up for it.

And now I _have_ to write a bard song about spears. :P Thanks.

[ClericofPhwarrr]

Don't forget that swords are one of the only types of weapons that are designed only for war. Spears/bows were used for hunting, axes for chopping wood, hammers for smithing/building, etc. There's not much you do with a sword other than kill other people.

(Yes, you can do demonstrations and cool tricks with it, but you can do that with anything.)

[The Valiant Turtle]

I think a big portion of the problem is that while it is an excellent military weapon, especially in formation with others who know how to use it, it is not a good "adventuring" weapon. It doesn't do well in confined spaces or close combat, can't usually be sheathed like a sword, and is to easily broken. Oftentimes it's rather fun to ask what the party is doing with these types of weapons in confined spaces and times when they need both hands.

[Exarch]

The Wheel of Time was brought up earlier, and I'd just like to comment on that.

Aiel spears are, indeed, shorter...to the point of almost being sturdier javelins. And I always envision Mat's weapon to be a glaive.

There are some other notable polearm weapons; for instance, in the Dragon Lance fifth age books, one of the heroes (Dharmon or something) uses a glaive that ignores armor. He butchers a company of Knights of Takhsis nude.

Also, in the Suikoden series for Play Station...the main hero never uses a sword (3 and 4 never happened), it's a bo staff and tonfas.

Didn't King Arthur use a spear to slay his son at the end? And I think Mordred used a spear to kill Arthur as well...

Lastly, in FF12 the strongest weapon in the game is actually the Zodiac Spear. Nasty piece of equipment that.

So, yeah...swords get a lot of loving in popular fantasy, but there's a fair amount of loving for pole arms are well. If you really want to look at a shafted (no pun intended, honest! :smallbiggrin:), look at axes or maces/hammers.

[Leon]

I'd worry more about the Thrust weapon that's being driven forward by the full weight of a charging warhorse. :smallbiggrin:

Good Point :biggrin:

[Flakey]

Film anoyance of mine is when (European style setting, even if its fantasy) a rare person does have a spear, what he do run up to 1 foot of the hero and then get killed. Its a damm spear its got over a 4 to 7 foot range. The same to even a greater extent applies to guns in martial arts movies (The bad ones). The bad guys do the same then. Hello any one ever tell you that you can shoot a person without having to jam the gun into them? *sighs*

[Tallis]

"Glaive-glaive-guisarme-glaive-bec-de-corbine-glaive".

spam-spam-spam-spam, Spammity-Spam!

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

I agree, the spear could use some help in D&D rules. I've had an idea for a character that specializes in the spear for a few months now, but it's hard to make it a viable choice. Luckily the main "powergamer" (he tries anyway) in my group isn't playing right now. Next to the others I might be able to make it work.

[Seffbasilisk]

Believe it's a R.A. Salvatore Book.

The Spearweilder Trilogy. Read it. It's good.

Intelligent spear.

[raspberrybadger]

I think I am responsible for by far the majority of the longspear wielding I have seen among D&D PCs. The weapon is consistently underrated by players - it has reach, is two handed, and really doesn't do much less damage than a greatsword in the long run. Strictly, a glaive is better if you have martial weapons, but plenty of characters don't, and would need a feat to get one. What I clearly need to do is, as a DM, just start inflicting longspear wielding NPCs on people - the weapon is cheap and effective certainly.

I suspect that one of the issues is that spears give you more tactical options than other D&D weapons, but are less outright obviously powerful. Though the people who make a point about how shiny they are have a point.

[Kurald Galain]

a rare person does have a spear, what he do run up to 1 foot of the hero and then get killed.

Yep. I saw some reenactment guys last month, and one of them was using a spear by holding it in one hand at the very end of it, and whacking enemies with the pointy side. It was quite funny, and quite ineffective.

[Kiero]

I think a big portion of the problem is that while it is an excellent military weapon, especially in formation with others who know how to use it, it is not a good "adventuring" weapon. It doesn't do well in confined spaces or close combat, can't usually be sheathed like a sword, and is to easily broken. Oftentimes it's rather fun to ask what the party is doing with these types of weapons in confined spaces and times when they need both hands.

Long, slashing swords aren't too great in close quarters either. Spears double up as poles for testing the ground ahead, too. Or something to lean on.

[AtomicKitKat]

Long, slashing swords aren't too great in close quarters either. Spears double up as poles for testing the ground ahead, too. Or something to lean on.

You can wiggle the sword point around to deter opponents in front of you, whereas the spear takes more effort to move in any direction except forwards and back. Just my 2 cp.

[Matthew]

Have to agree there. I cannot see a six foot Spear being any more useful than a four foot Sword in very close quarters. Perhaps, though, we ought to move such discussion to the Real World Weapons and Armour Thread. I know this question has received quite a bit of attention in the past there.

[Awetugiw]

Long, slashing swords aren't too great in close quarters either. Spears double up as poles for testing the ground ahead, too. Or something to lean on.

Which is of course also one of the reasons spears are good for town guards.
Commander: "Good news, we got some extra money for the militia, so now we can use swords instead of those spears!"
Militia soldier: "But then what do we do against a cavalry charge?"
Commander: "But we don't fight any cavalry here, we're in the middle of a swamp!"
Militia soldier: "Oh, yeah, I forgot... Well... But with swords we wouldn't fight that well in a tight formation, now would we?"
Commander: "Since we now the terrain better than the enemy our strength lies in quick ambushing and retreating. Not something where a tight formation would do us any good."
Militia soldier: "Oh, yeah, I forgot... But... Ehm... Well... There is..."
Commander: "What is it."
Militia soldier: "Then what would we lean on all day long?"
Commander: "..."

[Kiero]

Have to agree there. I cannot see a six foot Spear being any more useful than a four foot Sword in very close quarters. Perhaps, though, we ought to move such discussion to the Real World Weapons and Armour Thread. I know this question has received quite a bit of attention in the past there.

There's an old maxim which applies there: point beats edge.

[Matthew]

Yes, indeed, but it's a hotly disputed maxim. More importantly, though, Swords tend to have a point as well as an edge, it's what makes them so versatile, so I cannot really see how that maxim would apply.

[lukelightning]

Don't forget that swords are one of the only types of weapons that are designed only for war.

Someone's been reading the Wheel of Time series....

Maces, flails, warhammers, and morningstars were all designed for war. And don't tell me you can use warhammers for making things other than making dead people.

[Kiero]

Incidentally someone upthread mentioned Aiel spears from Wheel of Time. From the desciptions of them, they're more like Zulu assegai than full-length spears.

[Citizen Joe]

Someone's been reading the Wheel of Time series....

Maces, flails, warhammers, and morningstars were all designed for war. And don't tell me you can use warhammers for making things other than making dead people.
Flails were originally made for agricultural uses, beating wheat from the chaff.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Flails were originally made for agricultural uses, beating wheat from the chaff.

And swords were originally knives, which were originally tools.

Take a tool designed to change the shape of something, apply it to a person: instant weapon.

[Matthew]

And swords were originally knives, which were originally tools.

Take a tool designed to change the shape of something, apply it to a person: instant weapon.
Exactly. Many weapons no longer resemble very closely the tools from which they are derived, but almost all have the potential to have been 'invented' for other purposes (very often hunting). Saying that, it doesn't have to be an X leads to Y situation, parallel development is another possibility (i.e. did humans kill one another with spears first or animals?).

[Kiero]

Exactly. Many weapons no longer resemble very closely the tools from which they are derived, but almost all have the potential to have been 'invented' for other purposes (very often hunting). Saying that, it doesn't have to be an X leads to Y situation, parallel development is another possibility (i.e. did humans kill one another with spears first or animals?).

They killed the animal first, then the other human so they could keep the whole carcass to themselves. :smalltongue:

[Matthew]

Possibly, or the spear could have been invented to keep possession of mating rights and then turned to hunting...

[Knight_Of_Twilight]

spam-spam-spam-spam, Spammity-Spam!

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

I agree, the spear could use some help in D&D rules. I've had an idea for a character that specializes in the spear for a few months now, but it's hard to make it a viable choice. Luckily the main "powergamer" (he tries anyway) in my group isn't playing right now. Next to the others I might be able to make it work.

Last time I used a spear guy, I used TOB with Desert Wind and Diamond mind kind of stuff. Based him of Zhao Zhilong from Romance of the Three Kingdoms...worked pretty well. :D

[hewhosaysfish]

Oftentimes it's rather fun to ask what the party is doing with these types of weapons in confined spaces and times when they need both hands.

Have you never played any video games? :smallsmile: Your weapons disappear into "sword space" when not being used. Or you push them down over your shoulder as though into a baldric and they stick to your back.

[AtomicKitKat]

Hammers were derived from rocks, the same way as flint "axes", used to beat skins into shape, or crack bones for the marrow.

[ClericofPhwarrr]

Someone's been reading the Wheel of Time series....

Maces, flails, warhammers, and morningstars were all designed for war. And don't tell me you can use warhammers for making things other than making dead people.

Never read the Wheel of Time series, and after hearing about it from friends who have, I don't plan to.

Other people have already covered the mundane origin of the other weapons you've described. It's not that the weapons need to be usable in their current state as non-killing tools, it's where they came from that makes them not a war-only device.

While they're mentioned, warhammers were amazing, and really underrated by most authors.

[lukelightning]

Step one: Get a spear.
Step two: Fasten a bundle of twigs to head of spear, disguising it as a broom.
Step three: Dress up like a lowly servant, sneak into enemy castle with your "broom spear"
Step four: "I'm just here to clean up this mess, m'Lord"...*sneak attack*

[Leon]

While they're mentioned, warhammers were amazing, and really underrated by most authors.

Sadly the Warhammer = a Sledgehammer effect is a feature of Fantasy

[Lapak]

Last time I used a spear guy, I used TOB with Desert Wind and Diamond mind kind of stuff. Based him of Zhao Zhilong from Romance of the Three Kingdoms...worked pretty well. :DSince I don't have the book in front of me: which disciplines have spear or longspear as an associated weapon?

[Thexare Blademoon]

So, yeah...swords get a lot of loving in popular fantasy, but there's a fair amount of loving for pole arms are well. If you really want to look at a shafted (no pun intended, honest! :smallbiggrin:), look at axes or maces/hammers.

In Vandal Hearts, the strongest weapon that wasn't limited to just being used by Ash was the Ragnarok axe, 39 Atk.

Sadly, that's the only good example I can come up with, so I guess it kinda supports your point.

[Bassetking]

Someone's been reading the Wheel of Time series....

Maces, flails, warhammers, and morningstars were all designed for war. And don't tell me you can use warhammers for making things other than making dead people.

One word.

Applesauce.

http://www.matadorrecords.com/matablog/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/gallagher.jpg

[lukelightning]

One word.

Applesauce.


That ain't a warhammer.

[Hurlbut]

Sadly the Warhammer = a Sledgehammer effect is a feature of Fantasy

Uh? you mean looking like a sledgehammer? I mean there are hammers that were used in real life wars.

[Lycurgus]

1. Mat's spear is a naginata
2. the actual warhammer was as much pick as hammer and was designed as a can opener for plate armor
3. spears (or staffs used like a spear) can be wonderful in alleys, halls, etc [see the dragon pole style from southern chinese kung fu]
4. for a more realistic view on d&d spears, change shortspear to spear, spear to longspear, and longspear to pike...it works better in my brain this way, might in yours too:smalltongue:

[lukelightning]

Plus you might be able to adapt Elan's Dashing Swordfighter PrC for spear use.

"Let me spear you the details"
"Once again you get the shaft."
"Excuse me while I point out some flaws in your defense."
"I'm a visitor from far-off lance."
"Shut your pike-hole!"

[Matthew]

2. the actual warhammer was as much pick as hammer and was designed as a can opener for plate armor

I dunno, 'can opener' suggests such the wrong image to me. "Hold him down lads, I'll soon get him out of there..."


3. spears (or staffs used like a spear) can be wonderful in alleys, halls, etc [see the dragon pole style from southern chinese kung fu]

Not so good when you have to turn a tight corner, though...:smallbiggrin:


4. for a more realistic view on d&d spears, change shortspear to spear, spear to longspear, and longspear to pike...it works better in my brain this way, might in yours too:smalltongue:

Yeah, I hear this suggestion a lot, but it doesn't make much sense to me. The Short Spear was formerly known as the Half Spear in 3.0 and was basically there so Small Characters could use a Spear. The thing is, it is a pretty sucky D&D weapon. I'd hate to inflict it on just about any Character.
Short Spear, Long Spear and Great Spear always made the best nomenclature sense to me, but I'd apply them to Spear, Long Spear and Awl Pike, with Spear and Long Spear being treated as both Simple Two Handed Weapons and Martial One Handed Weapons. Solves a lot of problems when trying to model historical configurations. The only caveat being that Spears used as Martial One Handed Weapons may create annoying aesthetic possibilities (like Dual Spear Fighters and other such things - still, no more aesthetically displeasing than Dual Bastard Swords...)

[Chadwick]

You can wiggle the sword point around to deter opponents in front of you, whereas the spear takes more effort to move in any direction except forwards and back. Just my 2 cp.

I would suggest you only using this tactic with untrained combatants and I would not use it at all. Well trained fighters would take advantage of this.

[AtomicKitKat]

I would suggest you only using this tactic with untrained combatants and I would not use it at all. Well trained fighters would take advantage of this.

"Wiggle" is just a word. If it makes you feel better, you can shift your sword around to cover all available attack points easier than you can with a spear.:smalltongue:

[Lycurgus]

Turning a corner with a pole weapon: "Hang on guys, it's going to be really difficult for me to hold this vertically"

And if you've ever used an old fashioned rocker can opener, or the kind they sell at camping stores that fits on a keychain, that initial stroke into the can is almost exactly the same effect that the pick has on plate. Also, I forgot to mention that the hammer face is faceted in order to bend the plate to cause it to bend and buckle.

In D&D, as in history, the spear is a fine weapon. It doesn't have the massive damage capability of some weapons, but is decent. It is utilitarian and good for light and mobile characters as a multipurpose weapon. Following the pattern of the Greek hoplite or the Aiel from the Wheel of Time, you can carry mulitple spears. The Greeks would thrown one, fight with the other, and when it broke they moved to their shortswords. At the cost and weight of the spear, this is affordable from the monetary and encumbrance perspective.

[Matthew]

Sorry, Lycurgas, but in D&D's cramped Dungeon type environment there are going to be places where it's difficult to maneouvre a 9' Spear (never mind the 12' Long Spear of D&D myth). That's what I was trying to express. 90 degree turns, 5' wide corridoors and 6' ceilings are bad news for Long Spears.

War Hammers were good impact weapons, but they weren't significantly better than other weapons of war at cracking plate armour.

[Corolinth]

SPARTA!

I can't believe nobody's posted that in a thread about spears.

[Lycurgus]

I've been playing D&D for almost 20 years...never been in a dungeon crawl and most settings with spears as a common weapon don't really require you to be. If so, leave it outside. A quiver of Ehlonna or Glove of Storing comes in handy at times like these.

The design of the warhammer was specific for combating plate. Where swords and spears would tend to skip off of the angles of plate, the pick would punch through or the hammer head would bend it. Flanged maces and morning stars were also very good for this. All three were also exceptionally good for collapsing helms. Yes, it is possible for any weapons to damage the plate and correspondingly the person in the plate, but they do not have the consistent effectiveness that these weapons do. The rules of D&D don't do much to take this type of thing into account, true, but historically this is the case.

[Tor the Fallen]

Yes there are and there are several texts putting them at a much lower cost, I think Oman quotes one or two - I'll see if I can dig them up. Roman Swords, for instance, certainly did not cost such a great deal to produce nor the Frankish swords during the reign of Charlemagne. Problem is, of course, that Swords varied in quality and design right over the period. Good swords got a lot cheaper to produce sometime in the twelfth century, but prior to that swords were no more equally priced than they were equal.

Saying, that, very high quality swords could get extremely expensive, as could high quality warhorses (many times the cost of an ordinary one).

[Edit] Here we go:

Sixth and Seventh Centuries (Franks of the Merovingian Era)

12 Solidi ~ Mail Shirt
6 Solidi ~ Helmet
6 Solidi ~ Greaves
7 Solidi ~ Sword
[Oman, p. 56]

6 Solidi ~ Horse
1 Solidi ~ Cow
[Oman, p.59]

60 Solidi ~ Fine for failing to perform military service levied against a Frank
30 Solidi ~ Fine for failing to perform military service levied against a Roman
200 Solidi ~ Killing a Free Frank
600 Solidi ~ Killing Free Frank in the King’s Trust

and for comparison:

Sixth and Seventh Centuries (Lombards)

100 Solidi ~ Fully Equipped War Horse [Oman, p. 49]
50 Solidi ~ Household Slave
150 Solidi ~ Lombard of Low Degree

So a sword costs more than a horse. That's a pretty significant price, wouldn't you say? Somewhat equivalent to a gun costing as much as a truck.


Yes, indeed, but it's a hotly disputed maxim. More importantly, though, Swords tend to have a point as well as an edge, it's what makes them so versatile, so I cannot really see how that maxim would apply.

The point is farther away from you and closer to the enemy? Extrapolate that further, and you get the pike, the pilum, the crossbow, the rifle; all devestating weapons that specialize in delivering a point while keeping the deliverer as far as way as possible.

[Matthew]

Sad for you, I guess. Everyone should get to play at least one Dungeon Crawl, but I can see why you wouldn't consider it a problem.

Yes, War Hammers gained in popularity as Plate Armour did, but they weren't alone. Spears, Swords and other familiar weapons of war didn't disappear, nor did Hammers suddenly become the definitive weapon to have. What exactly is the evidence for them being particularly great against Plate Armour? Do we have any sources that come out and say so? Halberds also gained in popularity during the same period. Long Bows were supposedly so powerful that they could puncture Plate Armour... It's just another 'super weapon' myth. War Hammers are good impact weapons, they have the potential to double up as puncture weapons, but breaking through plate is just one way to try and kill somebody in Plate Armour. Swords with exaggerated thrusting points appeared at the same time, as did a sudden surge in the depiction of Falchions in manuscripts and Daggers on Tombs. War Hammers were one good weapon amongst many.

So a sword costs more than a horse. That's a pretty significant price, wouldn't you say? Somewhat equivalent to a gun costing as much as a truck.

Not really. It's the cost of seven cows as well, or a Helmet. Horses aren't trucks, keeping them in good condition and feeding them was the real cost. Notice the relative costs for failing to perform military service. A Solidi, by the by, is a Gold Coin weighing around 4.5g. Swords are expensive compared to Spears, but they weren't prohibitively expensive


The point is farther away from you and closer to the enemy? Extrapolate that further, and you get the pike, the pilum, the crossbow, the rifle; all devestating weapons that specialize in delivering a point while keeping the deliverer as far as way as possible.
You need to read this in context. We were talking about their relative value in very close quarters. Once you get past the reach of your enemy, he is at a disadvantage and has to back up. It's always a trade off.

[Nevermore]

Don't fprget Aravan's spear in Eye of the Hunter and Silver Wolf black Falcon amongst other novels.

I do enjoy the spear as a weapon and also agree the spear should be one handed. May I also point out a few other uses for spears in fantasy?

1) Staking vampires. A crude spear could be lanced into the chest of the undead and broken off to form a stake by a strong enough character.

2) Crowd control. If there is ever a rioting scenario you could use them to keep peasents back.

3) Cover. A great weapon to thrust through windows, etc and stop from losing an arm.

Also, the idea of stopping a charging axe wielding berserker dead is very nice. Oh, they got past my point! Quick draw a short sword, or any other weapon for that matter!

[Tor the Fallen]

Not really. It's the cost of seven cows as well, or a Helmet. Horses aren't trucks, keeping them in good condition and feeding them was the real cost. Notice the relative costs for failing to perform military service. A Solidi, by the by, is a Gold Coin weighing around 4.5g.

Do you have the numbers for what 2000 Cal of grain would cost? That's something of an, uh, gold standard for PPP.



Swords are expensive compared to Spears, but they weren't prohibitively expensive

In what context, though? Simply buying one because? For all but a very few people, yes, it would be prohibitively expensive, through out most the middle ages. Why? Because why buy a sword when you're hungry and overworked?

Buying one to equip your army? Depends on how good you are at manufacturing swords. If you lack the productivity levels of the ancient world, then yes, you're certainly going to be outfitting your peasant rabble with spears. You aren't outfitting Roman legions; besides, most of those poor bastards are going to get killed or route if your real men-at-arms and knights don't pull through.

Again; it's a question of context. Who's buying the sword? When, and for what? Are the spear-wielders going to be wearing armor? Will they be fighting armored opponents?


You need to read this in context. We were talking about their relative value in very close quarters. Once you get past the reach of your enemy, he is at a disadvantage and has to back up. It's always a trade off.

The whole idea of a spear is to keep the guy out of very close quarters; especially if you're both unarmored.

[Matthew]

Do you have the numbers for what 2000 Cal of grain would cost? That's something of an, uh, gold standard for PPP.

Afraid not. There are serious problems with saying anything about how much X costs in the Early Medieval period. In the end, it's only going to be as much as people are willing to pay/charge [i.e. there is no real standard, just ballpark figures]. What would really be useful is the cost of a Spear during the same period in the same record, but sadly I don't have a comparative answer.


In what context, though? Simply buying one because? For all but a very few people, yes, it would be prohibitively expensive, through out most the middle ages. Why? Because why buy a sword when you're hungry and overworked?

To be clear, I am not arguing that every peasant owned a sword (though most would have owned a knife of varying length, if for nothing else but to eat with). What I am saying is that Swords were common amongst the professional military class. That is not the same thing as saying only the nobility or only knights have swords. Only those who could afford them had them (or were lent or gifted them), but it doesn't follow that we can therefore say that only the cream of the army were equipped with them. If we take William the Conqueror, for instance. His Army at Hastings is estimated to have been around 10,000 strong. The number of Feudal Knights he provided for in England (which is not the sum total) was 5-6,000, with perhaps an equivalent number or more in Normandy. Knights were not in the minority, they were relatively common, because they were professional soldiers (for comparison there were at least 50,000 Knight Fiefs in France and the French speaking Imperial territories at the end of the eleventh century).


Buying one to equip your army? Depends on how good you are at manufacturing swords. If you lack the productivity levels of the ancient world, then yes, you're certainly going to be outfitting your peasant rabble with spears. You aren't outfitting Roman legions; besides, most of those poor bastards are going to get killed or route if your real men-at-arms and knights don't pull through.

Again; it's a question of context. Who's buying the sword? When, and for what? Are the spear-wielders going to be wearing armor? Will they be fighting armored opponents?

Yes it is exactly a question of context. However, you seem to be labouring under the impression that Medieval Society suddenly lacked the means to produce arms and armour on a reasonable scale and that they employed 'Peasant rabble' as the majority arm of their forces. The number of armed and armoured troops in a given army (including Ancient ones) is always difficult to evaluate, but I am not saying everybody had a sword, I am saying a significant proportion of any army would be bearing one. Military Commanders, such as Charlemagne, put strictures on who was fit to fight and how they should be equipped, they took great pains to ensure that the maximum number of soldiers possible were armed and armoured, and a halt was placed on the export of arms to foreign powers. It's possible to say that they were therefore in need of such items, but I am not disputing that. Any army needs to deny it's enemies arms and horde their own.


The whole idea of a spear is to keep the guy out of very close quarters; especially if you're both unarmored.
Yes it is, but that was not what we were talking about.

[Leon]

Uh? you mean looking like a sledgehammer? I mean there are hammers that were used in real life wars.

D&Ds Warhammer is a Sledgehammer, a real Warhammer is a cross between a Pick and a hammer, the head it quite small and the handle long to allow for a good leverage in striking the blow

This is a War Hammer - http://www.by-the-sword.com/acatalog/images/sg-3001.jpg

[Tor the Fallen]

Afraid not. There are serious problems with saying anything about how much X costs in the Early Medieval period. In the end, it's only going to be as much as people are willing to pay/charge [i.e. there is no real standard, just ballpark figures]. What would really be useful is the cost of a Spear during the same period in the same record, but sadly I don't have a comparative answer.

The entire idea of purchasing power parity is to say "this is something everyone has needed, across all time [a 1500-2000 Cal diet]," and "this is how much of [x] you could trade it for." Works surprisingly well. They've even got one called the Big Mac Index (which, although amusing, has obvious problems).


To be clear, I am not arguing that every peasant owned a sword (though most would have owned a knife of varying length, if for nothing else but to eat with). What I am saying is that Swords were common amongst the professional military class. That is not the same thing as saying only the nobility or only knights have swords. Only those who could afford them had them (or were lent or gifted them), but it doesn't follow that we can therefore say that only the cream of the army were equipped with them.

But in most conflicts throughout medieval Europe, how many involved the professional military class? Certainly a sword, as a weapon, would be associated with what, several hundred thousand people, at most, in Western Europe? That's 1% of the population. Even if one in ten was a professional soldier, only 10% of the population could 'afford' to own a sword.


That is not the same thing as saying only the nobility or only knights have swords. Only those who could afford them had them (or were lent or gifted them), but it doesn't follow that we can therefore say that only the cream of the army were equipped with them. If we take William the Conqueror, for instance. His Army at Hastings is estimated to have been around 10,000 strong. The number of Feudal Knights he provided for in England (which is not the sum total) was 5-6,000, with perhaps an equivalent number or more in Normandy. Knights were not in the minority, they were relatively common, because they were professional soldiers (for comparison there were at least 50,000 Knight Fiefs in France and the French speaking Imperial territories at the end of the eleventh century).

But how big was the population that supported them? If you look at median income for this period, then it was really only the wealthy who could afford to spend so much on a tool for killing. Certainly you couldn't call any of them a 'middle class', as the median income was somewhere between 'brutish' and 'starving'.

A sword's association with hero is much the same as the Kalashnikov's association with terrorist or the Thompson with gangsters.



Yes it is exactly a question of context. However, you seem to be labouring under the impression that Medieval Society suddenly lacked the means to produce arms and armour on a reasonable scale and that they employed 'Peasant rabble' as the majority arm of their forces. The number of armed and armoured troops in a given army (including Ancient ones) is always difficult to evaluate, but I am not saying everybody had a sword, I am saying a significant proportion of any army would be bearing one. Military Commanders, such as Charlemagne, put strictures on who was fit to fight and how they should be equipped, they took great pains to ensure that the maximum number of soldiers possible were armed and armoured, and a halt was placed on the export of arms to foreign powers. It's possible to say that they were therefore in need of such items, but I am not disputing that. Any army needs to deny it's enemies arms and horde their own.

Charlemagne was one dude marching around for a very short time. How many conflicts were there through out the medieval period, and how many were led by as a competent commander as Charlemagne? How many were composed of only professional soldiers, and not a coerced peasantry?




Yes it is, but that was not what we were talking about.


Yes, indeed, but it's a hotly disputed maxim. More importantly, though, Swords tend to have a point as well as an edge, it's what makes them so versatile, so I cannot really see how that maxim would apply.

You couldn't see where it would apply. I was trying to elucidate when one applies points.


[edit]
It should be said that I'm laboring here under the quasi-real medieval assumptions of D&D.
Were there exceptions in the medieval period to 'peasant rabble' and the exorbitant cost of a horse, armor and sword? Certainly. But they're exceptions. When comparing the medieval period to the ordered legions of the ancient's, and the regiments of the renaissance, we can see the aptness of the term 'dark' for these ages (and that's ignoring the millenia of human knowledge tossed aside!).

[Matthew]

You couldn't see where it would apply. I was trying to elucidate when one applies points.

Read the context, Tor!



I think a big portion of the problem is that while it is an excellent military weapon, especially in formation with others who know how to use it, it is not a good "adventuring" weapon. It doesn't do well in confined spaces or close combat, can't usually be sheathed like a sword, and is to easily broken. Oftentimes it's rather fun to ask what the party is doing with these types of weapons in confined spaces and times when they need both hands.



Long, slashing swords aren't too great in close quarters either. Spears double up as poles for testing the ground ahead, too. Or something to lean on.



You can wiggle the sword point around to deter opponents in front of you, whereas the spear takes more effort to move in any direction except forwards and back. Just my 2 cp.



Have to agree there. I cannot see a six foot Spear being any more useful than a four foot Sword in very close quarters. Perhaps, though, we ought to move such discussion to the Real World Weapons and Armour Thread. I know this question has received quite a bit of attention in the past there.



There's an old maxim which applies there: point beats edge.



Yes, indeed, but it's a hotly disputed maxim. More importantly, though, Swords tend to have a point as well as an edge, it's what makes them so versatile, so I cannot really see how that maxim would apply.


I'll get to your other points presently.


The entire idea of purchasing power parity is to say "this is something everyone has needed, across all time [a 1500-2000 Cal diet]," and "this is how much of [x] you could trade it for." Works surprisingly well. They've even got one called the Big Mac Index (which, although amusing, has problems).
I'm sure, but creating one for the Medieval period, where our information is so scarce, is misguided.


But in most conflicts throughout medieval Europe, how many involved the professional military class? Certainly a sword, as a weapon, would be associated with what, several hundred thousand people, at most, in Western Europe? That's 1% of the population. Even if one in ten was a professional soldier, only 10% of the population could 'afford' to own a sword.

All of them. You are thinking of a 'Total War' mindset. Warfare was almost exclusively the province of the professional military and small scale. Once Knights became more scarce, Serjeants took their place and were armed accordingly.


But how big was the population that supported them? If you look at median income for this period, then it was really only the wealthy who could afford to spend so much on a tool for killing. Certainly you couldn't call any of them a 'middle class', as the median income was somewhere between 'brutish' and 'starving'.

Any figures are just ball park, but I think the population of England might have been something like a million. Divide that in half for gender and you end up with around 500,000. Then you have to knock out a proportion for age, I suppose, but yeah, let's say about 1% of the population would be Knights - the same proportion of professional military to civillian in modern America. [Edit] whoop, doing my Math wrong; can't remember the figures in America, I thought it was 0.1% (300,000), but it might be more. Obviously, we should use the total population for the medieval period as well, so say 0.5% or if we double the population 0.25% - sorry, too tired here to do this properly!


A sword's association with hero is much the same as the Kalashnikov's association with terrorist or the Mac10 with gangsters.

So what?


Charlemagne was one dude marching around for a very short time. How many conflicts were there through out the medieval period, and how many were led by as a competent commander as Charlemagne? How many were composed of only professional soldiers, and not a coerced peasantry?

Please look into Charlemage, he was King for fifty years. There were many leaders as compotent as Charlemagne, but not many as successful or powerful.



It should be said that I'm laboring here under the quasi-real medieval assumptions of D&D.
Were there exceptions in the medieval period to 'peasant rabble' and the exorbitant cost of a horse, armor and sword? Certainly. But they're exceptions. When comparing the medieval period to the ordered legions of the ancient's, and the regiments of the renaissance, we can the aptness of the term 'dark' for these ages (and that's ignoring the millenia of human knowledge tossed aside!).

Look, Tor, peasant rabble was the exception. The cost of equipping a knight varied vastly over the Medieval period, but that's because the role of Knights changed. as the number of Knigts decreased, the number of Serjeants increased, who were every bit the professional soldier, but without the title Knight.
We're not even supposed to use the term 'Dark Ages' any longer, because it has become quite inappropriate. That was a term created by a modern age looking back on a history it knew virtually nothing about and used as a foil to show how 'modern' it truly was. We now see a great deal more continuity from Ancient to Medieval to Modern than that model would suggest.

[Edit] Jeeze, we're getting way off topic; I'm going to move this to the Real World Weapons and Armour Thread.

[Wojiz]

The sword is the hero's weapon, used by officers, kings and nobility. It gleans, it shines, and it rends enemies in two. The spear, on the other hand, is a much less glorified weapon, meant more for practical, large-scale combat than dueling.

Usually, a protagonist would be better fitted with a sword, whether for the purpose of symbolism or otherwise.

[Matthew]

The sword is the hero's weapon, used by officers, kings and nobility. It gleans, it shines, and it rends enemies in two. The spear, on the other hand, is a much less glorified weapon, meant more for practical, large-scale combat than dueling.

So, what exactly leads you to this conclusion?

[Lycurgus]

The halberd developed when most of the other fancy polearms developed. It was a time period for large blocks of infantry, and most of those weapons were multi-purpose tools, just like the warhammer. The longbow could punch through plate, especially with pile-headed arrows. Do the calculations. The thinner sword points were an answer to mail. They could slip into the links and stretch them as they went through, injuring the person and ruining that part of their armor. Most medieval armies were made up mostly of light infantry (the peasant rabble) which had maybe brigandine armor, but not much heavier and they were equipped with a polearm of somesort and a shortsword or large dagger. Even later in the period when standing mercenary companies were more common this "standard kit" held with minor modification, and those were usually to armor. Most of Willam's Normans carried a spear with a broadsword or axe as a backup weapon, the same as their Viking forefathers. Edit:I almost forgot, a huge number of knights and heavy infantry used a poleaxe, which is kinda like a mini-halberd with a spear point on the butt of the haft. Charlemagne was indeed competent, but if you look at the earlier barbarian kings his charisma kind of fades. He pretty much picked up their leavings and ran with them. Think Charles "the Hammer" Martel (sounds like a boxer doesn't he) or some of the Lombard kings. Throughout history the spear shows up over and over as a lead-in weapon. It may or may not be the primary, but it's there for the initial charge or throw.

[Setra]

Maybe in the end, spear vs. sword is just personal preference.

Also, another note, isn't it kind of funny how an arrow is pretty much a "mini-spear"?

The spear is an interesting weapon, as is the sword, hammer, dagger, and so on. However, one weapon is more awesome than all those combined.

Club :smallcool:

Why am I still awake?

Edit: Isn't a Naginata like.. a Sword on a Stick?

[CockroachTeaParty]

This may just be another example of Eastern fantasy favoring the spear, but in Final Fantasy XII the most powerful weapon in the game is a spear. The 'Zodiac Spear,' to be precise. And damn if it isn't a tricky trinket to land one's fingers on...

I was pleased to see a change of pace, as most final fantasy games boast a sword as the most powerful weapon in the end.

[AtomicKitKat]

Isn't a Naginata like.. a Sword on a Stick?

Naginata is a bit more like a glaive/halberd cross. Slightly curved, with the sharp edge on the outside curve.

Yari is the one with a longer straight blade(similar to a sword sans pommel, hilt, and possibly crossguard).

For examples, Bankotsu of the Shichinintai in Inuyasha used a Yari, Guan Yu of the Three Kingdoms used a Naginata.

[Lycurgus]

Naginata is a bit more like a glaive/halberd cross. Slightly curved, with the sharp edge on the outside curve.

Yari is the one with a longer straight blade(similar to a sword sans pommel, hilt, and possibly crossguard).

For examples, Bankotsu of the Shichinintai in Inuyasha used a Yari, Guan Yu of the Three Kingdoms used a Naginata.

On the contrary, a naginata is precisely a short curved sword-type blade on a spear length shaft. In some works of translation, it is called a long-sword. Halberds are axes with a spike or pick on the back of the head and a spearhead at the tip of the shaft. A glaive generally refers to something similar to a naginata as a western bastard sword is similar to a katana. The simplest form of glaive is a cleaver on a staff. Guan Yu used what is called a kwan dao. The blade is broader and heavier than that of a naginata, and the balance of the weapon allows for many spins and can be used one handed more easily than many equivalent weapons. The statues that lionize Guan Yu show his kwan dao as having a huge blade. (and yes the name of the weapon and man are very similar, it is named after him)

[Matthew]

I would say what what Atomickitkat wrote would be in agreement with you if you remove the reference to Halberd from it.

In any case I've moved this discussion up to the Real World Weapons and Armour Thread, since we seem to have strayed well into the bounds of the discussion of historical arms.

[Setra]

This may just be another example of Eastern fantasy favoring the spear, but in Final Fantasy XII the most powerful weapon in the game is a spear. The 'Zodiac Spear,' to be precise. And damn if it isn't a tricky trinket to land one's fingers on...

I was pleased to see a change of pace, as most final fantasy games boast a sword as the most powerful weapon in the end.
Technically, the Masamune is stronger.

The Zodiac spear rarely combos, the Masamune does more damage on average, especially once Zodiac's damage caps.

Edit: On that note the Wyrmhero Blade is also infinitely better, as it adds 50 evasion, combos better, and only has 5 less attack.

[Lycurgus]

Technically, the Masamune is stronger.

The Zodiac spear rarely combos, the Masamune does more damage on average, especially once Zodiac's damage caps.

Edit: On that note the Wyrmhero Blade is also infinitely better, as it adds 50 evasion, combos better, and only has 5 less attack.

Rough quote of the strategy guide: "the Zodiac Spear, the most powerful weapon in the game"

[Chadwick]

"Wiggle" is just a word. If it makes you feel better, you can shift your sword around to cover all available attack points easier than you can with a spear.:smalltongue:

Sounds much better, the first one left the impression that someone was wasting energy swing the sword around just to keep people away. Though this one still sounds to all defense. But then I now see your just covering the defensive side.

All blocks should be as strikes. All strikes should block. Quote from many-a-martial artist.

[Setra]

Rough quote of the strategy guide: "the Zodiac Spear, the most powerful weapon in the game"
Let me ask you something.

What is more powerful.

9999, or 6000 and 6000?

The spear is "stronger", but in terms of actual use, the Masamune is "better".

It's akin to saying a Barbarian is Stronger than a Wizard.

[Kiero]

All blocks should be as strikes. All strikes should block. Quote from many-a-martial artist.

Sounds more like an empty aphorism from people over-complicating things.

[CockroachTeaParty]

Let me ask you something.

What is more powerful.

9999, or 6000 and 6000?

The spear is "stronger", but in terms of actual use, the Masamune is "better".



Interesting. I'm yet to beat the game, actually, and I rely on magic more as it is. But a good point none the less.

[Lolth]

Interesting thread. I have two quick comments:

1. Re: Sword Wiggle. A spear has a long shaft, ergo leverage, ergo it's easier to "wiggle" it, not harder. And you get to be farther away too, and reach is a good thing.

2. Re: Warhammers. Having looked these things up a while ago for house rules' sake, yeah, can opener is the correct term, and definitely supplanted swords or whatever as the preferred weapon for such tasks. People picture these big slow hammers swung around like you're pounding railroad spikes. Wasn't like that at all.

[Kiero]

I don't even know why the "wiggle" comment is being treated seriously. Wiggling your weapon at someone isn't threatening if they know what they're doing.

[Setra]

Interesting. I'm yet to beat the game, actually, and I rely on magic more as it is. But a good point none the less.
To be completely honest, before things start getting damage way up there, the spear IS probably better.

Especially if you use the trick to get it early.

Edit: As to spears in general, Spears are cool, but I'll take a Guan Dao over any other polearm, and most swords too.

Exceptions:
Schiavona
Rapier
Katana

[Chadwick]

Sounds more like an empty aphorism from people over-complicating things.

Not sure what you mean so I ll just explain my rational.

In my style of fighting blocks are broken down into 3 types.

The basic block just keeps you from getting hit.

The advanced block hurts your opponent. Such as a a knifehand into the thigh of an incoming kick.

The master block is a strike. Just beating your opponent to the punch.

Every thing you do should set up more strikes.

Getting back to topic. I love spears in D&D. One of my favorite characters I have played was a spear chucking barbarian based off of Cu Cuchulainn.

[Matthew]

2. Re: Warhammers. Having looked these things up a while ago for house rules' sake, yeah, can opener is the correct term, and definitely supplanted swords or whatever as the preferred weapon for such tasks. People picture these big slow hammers swung around like you're pounding railroad spikes. Wasn't like that at all.

So, what evidence did you turn up for this? Actually, could you post it in the Real World Weapons and Armour Thread? I think it would be an interesting subject for discussion.

[Lolth]

Short version, it was developed to deal with plate armors, either by concussion/crushing or by punching through it by concentrating the striking force on the reinforced spike on the back.

Here's a good basic reference, though there's more detailed treatises out there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_hammer

Feel free to cross-post this if you like, I'm not in the other thread.

[Lycurgus]

Not sure what you mean so I ll just explain my rational.

In my style of fighting blocks are broken down into 3 types.

The basic block just keeps you getting hit.

The advanced block hurts your opponent. Such as a a knifehand into the thigh of an incoming kick.

The master block is a strike. Just beating your opponent to the punch.

Every thing you do should set up more strikes.

Getting back to topic. I love spears in D&D. One of my favorite characters I have played was a spear chucking barbarian based off of Cu Cuchulainn.

As my sifu puts it, a punch will stop a punch and a kick will stop a kick

[raistlin807]

i don't know if anyone mentioned this before but in Robert Jordan's The Weel of Time, not only is the spear used by one of the main protagonists, but it is also an intregal part of the culture of a warrior nation known as the Aiel. They are my favorites in the book series and they use the spear to devastating effect.

[Lycurgus]

i don't know if anyone mentioned this before but in Robert Jordan's The Weel of Time, not only is the spear used by one of the main protagonists, but it is also an intregal part of the culture of a warrior nation known as the Aiel. They are my favorites in the book series and they use the spear to devastating effect.

we did, but I like the Aiel well enough to support a second instance :smalltongue:

[Chadwick]

As my sifu puts it, a punch will stop a punch and a kick will stop a kick


Yep, thats what I am talking about.

[Matthew]

Short version, it was developed to deal with plate armors, either by concussion/crushing or by punching through it by concentrating the striking force on the reinforced spike on the back.

Here's a good basic reference, though there's more detailed treatises out there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_hammer

Feel free to cross-post this if you like, I'm not in the other thread.

Yeah, I have read that Wiki Article before. Unfortunately, to judge by the level of discussion and the lack of sources, it appears to be nothing more than hearsay. I'll post this question up in the Real Weapons and Armour Thread and we'll see what can be dug up. If you can link or recommend any sources there, I would be grateful.

[Bassetking]

To be completely honest, before things start getting damage way up there, the spear IS probably better.

Especially if you use the trick to get it early.

Edit: As to spears in general, Spears are cool, but I'll take a Guan Dao over any other polearm, and most swords too.

Exceptions:
Schiavona
Rapier
Katana

You sir, get Mansnuggles for mentioning that.

[Lolth]

Yeah, I have read that Wiki Article before. Unfortunately, to judge by the level of discussion and the lack of sources, it appears to be nothing more than hearsay. I'll post this question up in the Real Weapons and Armour Thread and we'll see what can be dug up. If you can link or recommend any sources there, I would be grateful.

Actually, it's physics. Concentrating mass on a smaller point = more penetration. It's miles from hearsay, and easily demonstrable. I'm not sure why it would matter, except intellectually, but for what it's worth, there's a site that reviews modern (functional) reproductions of period swords and some other weapons. Lemme look that up for you, it's a generally interesting site, but the bottom line is, again, physics.

http://www.myarmoury.com/review_aa_wham.html

[Matthew]

Hah, hah; sure, I know about Physics and concentrated masses. That's not what I was disputing. The question is to what degree did that make such a weapon more suitable than other weapons for killing blokes in Plate Armour? When does the War Hammer appear? With what frequency is it used? How is it used? How effective was it relative to other weapons? Anyway, yeah, I moved the question up to the Real World Weapons and Armour Thread.

As I am sure you know, the internet is not entirely trustworthy. Do a search for maces and you'll find everybody and their mother telling you they were used by Clerics to avoid shedding blood - totally false, and yet it's on any number of otherwise trustworthy sites.
Wikipedia Articles that are unsourced are not suitable as evidence of anything except hearsay, especially if they are lacking in discussion. Footnotes linking or citing Primary Sources or Secondary Sources that present first hand accounts from the period or scientific data that demonstrates the value of a War Hammer over a Mace or an Axe or a Pick against various types of Plate is the kind of thing that is needed to substaniate claims of this sort. [Edit] Saying that, I missed this link: http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_spot_poleaxe.html, which is a much better read.

The MyArmoury Article just says the same sort of thing, which is unusual, as they usually source to Articles. The guy giving first hand experience of using the weapon seems to be comparing it to the Mace on a relatively equal footing.

[Lolth]

The blunt-ish end of a warhammer would be about on a level with a mace in terms of blunt trauma. Both concentrate mass on relatively small surfaces.

As far as being better at plate, it's why they designed it as a can opener.

A sword's center of percussion is not as efficient at penetrating thick, angled metal surfaces. Of course, most swords used against plate did not try to cut (totally ineffective), they instead were basically used like big awls to jab at joints.

And for a reference there, look at ditch diggers. They use picks (swinging motion) rather than swordlike tools for the same reason. You get much more efficient transfer of energy that way.

If you are not looking to be convinced, I'm not sure what more I can say; I'm neither a period arms expert nor a construction worker. I do know that the warhammer was developed in the 14th-15th centuries to counter plate armors specifically, and I presume that the people who did so had a good reason to. After all, it wasn't just an intellectual exercise for them.

[Matthew]

Lloth, it's not that I am not looking to be convinced. What I want is accurate information. There's no disputing how physics effects weapons, but the conditions under which weapons are used and for what purpose are of great interest to me. if I didn't bother to look up sources and investigate this sort of thing, I would be saying silly things like Katanas are the best swords ever and Maces were used by Clerics because they were forbidden from spilling blood. Please do not misconstrue my interest in arms and armour to be obstinancy. You said you had looked into the matter and I was interested to know what you had learned.

[Kiero]

As my sifu puts it, a punch will stop a punch and a kick will stop a kick

A kick will stop a punch or a kick, if it's put into the front of someone's hip. No hip means no power nor forward momentum. Jamming is far more efficient than all this counter-strike frippery. Course it does require you to be able to read someone's movement.

[Flakey]

As I am sure you know, the internet is not entirely trustworthy. Do a search for maces and you'll find everybody and their mother telling you they were used by Clerics to avoid shedding blood - totally false, and yet it's on any number of otherwise trustworthy sites.



I find it kind of interesting on the evolution of this. The whole tale is based on one source. That Bishop Odo is "reputed" to have used the mace with that justification. It may have changed, but last time I checked only one semi reliable source related the tale, and so was regarded as possible, but not nesseciarily true. Yet its gone over time to many clerics using a mace, when theres no basis for it.

[Lycurgus]

A kick will stop a punch or a kick, if it's put into the front of someone's hip. No hip means no power nor forward momentum. Jamming is far more efficient than all this counter-strike frippery. Course it does require you to be able to read someone's movement.

Jamming is well and good, but punches are always faster than kicks. You can use a counterstrike at any range or position. Deflection and controlling your opponent's balance is more effective than either. A hip stopped from the front is always free to rotate or move laterally or retreat. These are all effective positions to counterstrike from. Counter-striking is anything but frippery. It is an effective and useful tool, just like jamming, balance control, foot work, joint control, or anything else. Tools have to be used in the right time and the right situation.

Edit: Lolth and Mathew: http://www.history.com/media.do?id=darkages_conquest_warhammer_broadband&action=clip

http://www.history.com/media.do?id=darkages_conquest_mace_broadband&action=clip

[Matthew]

I find it kind of interesting on the evolution of this. The whole tale is based on one source. That Bishop Odo is "reputed" to have used the mace with that justification. It may have changed, but last time I checked only one semi reliable source related the tale, and so was regarded as possible, but not nesseciarily true. Yet its gone over time to many clerics using a mace, when theres no basis for it.
What is the semi reliable source you have in mind? I heard it might be in the Roman de Rose, but I have yet to find the passage. As far as I am aware, the main source is the Bayeux Tapestry and an interpretation of the image there by a nineteenth century historian (whose name escapes me at the moment).
David R. Bates, in his article, 'The Character and Career of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux (1049/50-1097)' in Speculum, Vol. 50, No. 1. (Jan., 1975), pp. 1-20 cites on page 6 : Maistre Waces Roman de Rou, ed. R. Andresen, 2 vols. (Heilbronn, 1877), 352-53. The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, ed. C. Morton and H. Muntz (Oxford, 1972), pp. 20, 28, refers to the hasta as a symbol of command. See Bourrienne, p. 25, to support his arguments against such an interpretation. (Notice he cites the Roman de Rose ).
Here's the relevant passage:


1066 is obviously a decisive turning-point. The Bayeux Tapestry assigns to Odo a prominent role as soldier and counsellor in the Hastings campaign. His portrayal as an active participant in full armour led Freeman to assume that he was a combatant, and that he wielded a mace rather than a sword to circumvent canonical prohibitions against the shedding of blood. The decisive phrase Hic Odo Eps. Baculum Tenens Confortat Pueros does, however, suggest support and command: Odo's baculw is a similar instrument to that carried by duke William in plates 57, 60 and 73 as a symbol of authority and direction. Wace, writing in the late twelfth century, derived his account from the Tapestry and certainly understood the scene in the sense that Odo encouraged the troops from the rear. William of Poitiers' statement that Odo and Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances were there to help only by their prayers suggests that the former's contribution may have been exaggerated in these sources which are closely connected with Bayeux. But Odo's jointcommission of vice-regency with William fitz Osbern and his early creation as earl of Kent indicate that the Conqueror from the first intended his half-brother to take a major part in the government of England.


Lycurgas: Good videos. That's about what I would expect a Pick to do. Was I watching that right or did they really hit a guy in Full Plate with the spike of the War Hammer there? It looks like it would seriously annoy a guy to have his armour damaged in that way; I would love to see the damage from a Pole Axe for comparison.
Also, that's the guy from Crusade, but for crying out loud! Why promogulate the myth of the Mace and the Cleric?! Stupid History Channel.

[Lolth]

For some reason when I click on those videos I get a weird commercial instead. :(

Can someone tell me what they show?

[Matthew]

Press refresh or else go here: http://www.history.com/media.do?mediaType=Video&searchTerm=Conquest&action=search&showName=-1

Basically, they show History Channel demonstrations of the various weapons in question. The one on the Bill Hook is pretty cool, as well. Looks plausable to me.

[Flakey]

Sorry Mathew, its been 10 years since I studied the period in detail, so I can not remember, but I think it was a work mostly based on the tapestry like you said, with secondary sources to show where it was right and wrong.

As for that clip, I know guys who would let thier equipment be used for that just to see what it did, let alone be on the tv as well.
You notice how the breast plate is forced away from the stomach. You can just about see where they added a second folded up padded jacket under there to absorb the blow, and not get the guy hurt.

[Matthew]

Righto. Do you know if there even is a prohibition against the Clergy drawing blood? Last I heard the prohibition was against bearing arms, but I have heard that the former might be true as well.

I'll watch out for that on the video. The problem with recreated gear is that the quality is hard to gauge. I know that is very often the complaint against the conclusions from 'Arrow Testing'. [Edit] I was meaning it would probably be quite annoying for the medieval owner of such gear - given that he survived the blow.

[Chadwick]

counter-strike frippery. Course it does require you to be able to read someone's movement.

Its not even a counter-strike. Counter-strike means the opponent got a strike first. The Master block strikes first. Yes you should be reading someones movement in a fight it isn t that hard.

[Flakey]

I just watched the other clips and as you said they got the bill right. The mace was almost right, they just left out that it was sometimes used as a close range missile weapon against a charging line too. The Flail unfortunately is wrong. Note how the arm goes on the oposing persons shield. The best tatic for the flail, when the oppent moved his shield away from his body, was to clip the top of the shield with the tip of the wooden part of the flall in an overarm strike. Ball swings down to take the arm behind the shield.

[Lycurgus]

I always laugh when they say "Use maces to prevent drawing blood." Ever seen someone hit with something hard and metal? Hell, ever watched a boxing match? They should really say "Use maces to prevent stabbing and/or slashing people" but I guess that wouldn't hold up to whatever supposed prohibition the mace supposedly avoids. Another thing to consider in the spear vs. sword vs. whatever debate is that most people couldn't afford heavy armor. A piercing weapon like the spear and thrusting swords would work really well versus the lighter armor and would not require the forces necessary to penetrate the heavier armor. At that point, if you are not acting as part of a unit, you'd have to decide if you wanted the reach of the pole or the slashing ability of the sword. Lolth, that site plays a commercial before it plays the video usually. It's their way of paying for it. If you search medieval armor, there are a couple good ones on that too. Chadwick, don't forget to beat your opponent's weapons! :smallwink: Nothing can be more efficient than protecting yourself and destroying their ability to harm you simultaneously! (Well, maybe a one hit knockout, but those are rare enough)

[Matthew]

Yeah, I don't know how common it was to throw a Mace, but it certainly seems to have been done. I really enjoyed the close up and personal business with the melee.

Don't know much about Flails, I'm afraid, but it wouldn't surprise me to find that they didn't quite do it 'right' or cut corners for the sake of the show.

You know, I always wonder about the Spear's ability to pierce Plate. I know it can be done from horseback and I know Arrows can be shown to go through plate under certain conditions, but why not Spears? Seems to me that they would also be capable of piercing plate (and so I gathered from the Bill Hook demonstration)... and if Spears can penetrate Plate, why not Swords? I think it's all a matter of degree and trade offs.

[Bassetking]

I always laugh when they say "Use maces to prevent drawing blood." Ever seen someone hit with something hard and metal? Hell, ever watched a boxing match? They should really say "Use maces to prevent stabbing and/or slashing people" but I guess that wouldn't hold up to whatever supposed prohibition the mace supposedly avoids. Another thing to consider in the spear vs. sword vs. whatever debate is that most people couldn't afford heavy armor. A piercing weapon like the spear and thrusting swords would work really well versus the lighter armor and would not require the forces necessary to penetrate the heavier armor. At that point, if you are not acting as part of a unit, you'd have to decide if you wanted the reach of the pole or the slashing ability of the sword. Lolth, that site plays a commercial before it plays the video usually. It's their way of paying for it. If you search medieval armor, there are a couple good ones on that too. Chadwick, don't forget to beat your opponent's weapons! :smallwink: Nothing can be more efficient than protecting yourself and destroying their ability to harm you simultaneously! (Well, maybe a one hit knockout, but those are rare enough)

The primary reason? A mace avoids just by being a mace.
In the Garden of Gethsemane, at the time of Judas's betrayal, Peter hauls off and lops a roman soldier's ear off with, and this is the important part, a sword.

Matthew 26:52: Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

That's it. That's the big reason. Since a Mace isn't a Sword, the Clerics and Priests weren't, in fact, living by the sword.

The reasoning is entirely semantic.

[Matthew]

Basset King, can you point to any evidence for that? As far as I know that is never stated during the medieval period and it might as well apply to Axes and Spears as much as Maces. That episode is often cited and for a variety of purposes, but not that one.

[Lolth]

Well, unless it's really, really cheap replicas, modern metallurgy tends to be far better than period work. So in terms of quality, I would expect the breastplates shown there are likely as good as the old days™.

[Flakey]

The spear could go through plate, in the right conditions. The question you asking is all about penetration. A two handed spear has a lot more force behind it than a one handed sword. To get even more force behind the blow they developed into things like the pike and ahlspiess, which basically are heavy spears with thrills on.

The sword developed in 2 divergent ways with the development of plate. Way one was lighter and narrower. You end up with the rapier, and bollock dagger. Still one handed, but the point of impact a much small surface area, and therefore more force at the point of impact. Way two, bigger. You end up with the bastard sword and two handed sword. Many are litterly only semi sharp crow bars. Relying far more on crushing damage than cutting.

[Matthew]

Indeed, but that's rather the point. Are the weapons too good? Are they not good enough? What was the disparity of quality of arms between the less wealthy and the more wealthy? The protective value of Body Armour is an ongoing debate in Academia and a hotly contested one.

[Bassetking]

Basset King, can you point to any evidence for that? As far as I know that is never stated during the medieval period and it might as well apply to Axes and Spears as much as Maces. That episode is often cited and for a variety of purposes, but not that one.

This was the information I was given by one of the Tower Guides at the Tower of London. They have an early version of a true "Holy-Water Sprinkler", and imparted the aforementioned information in regards to it.

[Matthew]

The spear could go through plate, in the right conditions. The question you asking is all about penetration. A two handed spear has a lot more force behind it than a one handed sword. To get even more force behind the blow they developed into things like the pike and ahlspiess, which basically are heavy spears with thrills on.
Yes, and I think that is part of the reason Shields become less prominent as Body Armour becomes better.


The sword developed in 2 divergent ways with the development of plate. Way one was lighter and narrower. You end up with the rapier, and bollock dagger. Still one handed, but the point of impact a much small surface area, and therefore more force at the point of impact. Way two, heavier. You end up with the bastard sword and two handed sword. Many are litterly only semi sharp crow bars. Relying far more on crushing damage than cutting.

Now this is an odd comment. This is a very old school view of the development of Swords, as far as I am aware. Bastard Swords and Two Handed Swords were not much heavier than Single Handed or Long Swords. Rapiers just don't feature on the battlefield much.

This was the information I was given by one of the Tower Guides at the Tower of London. They have an early version of a true "Holy-Water Sprinkler", and imparted the aforementioned information in regards to it.
I wouldn't take him at his word if I were you; it's the kind of thing you hear a lot, but rarely hear any actual evidence for.

[Flakey]

Indeed, but that's rather the point. Are the weapons too good? Are they not good enough? What was the disparity of quality of arms between the less wealthy and the more wealthy? The protective value of Body Armour is an ongoing debate in Academia and a hotly contested one.


Indeed and even today a question of quality remains. What you see being tested, what is it? Tin, cast iron, mild steel, spring steel, high quality spring steel. All these I seen used for modern recreations of armour and weapons used in demonstrations.

[Matthew]

There are some good articles over at Arma, I always find this one useful: ARMA Top Myths (http://www.thearma.org/essays/TopMyths.htm) ...but there are plenty of more interesting ones: ARMA Articles (http://www.thearma.org/essays.htm)

[Flakey]

Now this is an odd comment. This is a very old school view of the development of Swords, as far as I am aware. Bastard Swords and Two Handed Swords were not much heavier than Single Handed or Long Swords. Rapiers just don't feature on the battlefield much.


What I was calling a rapier, appears to be a sword equivilent of a bollock dagger, and not a true rapier.

Bastards swords could be as little as a few ounces heavier. The only difference being the length of the hilt. The blade length remaining the same size as the broad sword, the two handed sword could weigh twice as much as a broad sword, but still your not looking at more than 10 pounds at the very most. Most were much lighter than that. The "comedy" sketchs were someone dragging the weight of a two handed behind them are false. The more force came from the two handed approach, and heavier was a bad word and I corrected it to bigger.

[Lolth]

I bow out of this discussion.

It's easier to cast doubt on anything presented than it is to otherwise argue, and I have no particular stake in this issue.

Back when people did this for a living, and their lives depended on it, people decided that things like warhammers were a good idea, specifically in response to the rise of plate armors.

That's good enough for me.

[Mike_G]

You know, I always wonder about the Spear's ability to pierce Plate. I know it can be done from horseback and I know Arrows can be shown to go through plate under certain conditions, but why not Spears? Seems to me that they would also be capable of piercing plate (and so I gathered from the Bill Hook demonstration)... and if Spears can penetrate Plate, why not Swords? I think it's all a matter of degree and trade offs.


I would say it depends on the blade.

Slashing swords have a thin blade (as opposed to narrow) which makes for a better cutting blade, which makes it very flexible in one direction. I would think if you jammed the point against a breastplte, the blade would flew and slide off, or at least lose much of its energy in flexion. The spike on a bec de corbin is ver stout and inflexible. Like a pick, it delivers it's energy to the surface struck, with little lost in flexion. It's also quite short, which also makes it less likely to flex or break.

Now, that's a bad desing for a cutting blade, and the larger cross section and greater stiffness requires heavier construction, which would make a long, stiff spike of a sword heavier and less weildy, and less able to cut than a specific anti plate sword.

So, carrying a cutting blade for use against lighter armored foes and a hammer or mace for armored ones seems a better idea than trying to design a sword that can do both.

Spear heads could well be made shorter, stiffer and heavier to punch through armor, or more swordlike to allow a slash. I would imagine a lance head designed for the impact of a charging horse would be stiff, and on a stout haft, with little flex or cutting ability. A flat, broad edged spear head delivered against a solid surface at the speed of a galloping horse would probably bend or break.

[Matthew]

Sure Lolth, but they didn't only use War Hammers and War Hammers were in use before Plate Armour, which brings up plenty of questions. Nobody has a particular stake in this, as far as I am aware we're all just interested parties sharing our views and discussing the possibilities.

I would say it depends on the blade.

Slashing swords have a thin blade (as opposed to narrow) which makes for a better cutting blade, which makes it very flexible in one direction. I would think if you jammed the point against a breastplte, the blade would flew and slide off, or at least lose much of its energy in flexion. The spike on a bec de corbin is ver stout and inflexible. Like a pick, it delivers it's energy to the surface struck, with little lost in flexion. It's also quite short, which also makes it less likely to flex or break.

Now, that's a bad desing for a cutting blade, and the larger cross section and greater stiffness requires heavier construction, which would make a long, stiff spike of a sword heavier and less weildy, and less able to cut than a specific anti plate sword.

So, carrying a cutting blade for use against lighter armored foes and a hammer or mace for armored ones seems a better idea than trying to design a sword that can do both.

I would tend to agree, but I suppose that's what the estoc was all about. On the other hand, there was that demonstration somebody posted a while back from YouTube that showed Swords punching through bath tubs and things. Somebody must have experimented with Sword thrusts against plate, though. Actually, I might have some video footage on Arma. [Edit] Couldn't find any, must have been misremembering.

Still, it's not like the Cut/Chop was the best form of attack against Mail either.

[Fhaolan]

Well, unless it's really, really cheap replicas, modern metallurgy tends to be far better than period work. So in terms of quality, I would expect the breastplates shown there are likely as good as the old days™.

Ah, well, there is a fallacy there. Not a really bad one, but enough of one to be a slight issue.

Modern metallurgy does in fact tend towards better steel on average than period work. However, the skill of armoury is not as well developed in modern times as in the period. What this means is that most armourers take short-cuts now as they depend on the quality of the steel rather than their own skill of manufacture.

Period armour is of variable thickness due to hand forging, the areas needing more protection will have thicker steel. Modern reproduction armour, even the mid-priced stuff, is usually of rolled steel cut and formed via presses and cold hammering, which means it's of uniform thickness. This is why most modern full suits of armor are about half again as heavy as the period models. There is simply more steel in the suit now than technically needs to be.

Also, since the period armor was hot forged, the smith would temper the steel. Modern repros normally don't have any temper at all. The modern armourer then has the choice of making the armour even heavier by using thicker steel again, or just let it be so the armor takes damage more easily than it should.

Now, there are modern armourers who do hand-forge their wares, and they are tempered and shaped appropriately. However, they are very rare and *very* expensive. I have a 15th century Itallian white harness repro that cost me $5,000 US several years ago, and took about 6 months to construct. It is of reasonable, if modern, manufacture. A more historically accurate reproduction of that same suit of armor costs approximately $50,000 US, last time I priced it, and that was supposed to take about two years to make. (Just as a footnote on how silly the prices get, the highest estimate I received when I was looking for a new suit was $750,000 US for a five year project. I doubt any TV show would throw three quarters of a million dollars on a re-enactor and then let him be beaten about by pollaxes, so I'm discounting that one completely.)

So, to sum up: It's not that we *can't* make armor as good as, if not better than, the average period piece. It's just that it's normally too expensive and time consuming to bother.

[Matthew]

What I was calling a rapier, appears to be a sword equivilent of a bollock dagger, and not a true rapier.
Righto.


Bastards swords could be as little as a few ounces heavier. The only difference being the length of the hilt. The blade length remaining the same size as the broad sword, the two handed sword could weigh twice as much as a broad sword, but still your not looking at more than 10 pounds at the very most. Most were much lighter than that. The "comedy" sketchs were someone dragging the weight of a two handed behind them are false. The more force came from the two handed approach, and heavier was a bad word and I corrected it to bigger.
Check these articles out (if you're not already aware of them): What Did Historical Swords Weigh? (http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm) and The Weighty Issue of Two Handed Great Swords (http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html)

[Lycurgus]

Yeah, I could see the sword bending on plate if it caught, but that's the instance where it could punch through as well. That catch and bend is where a "cheaper" blade would shatter, or at least bend rather than flex. A quality sword would flex and spring quite a bit. We're not saying a sword wouldn't punch through plate, just that it is less likely. The force delivered on the tiny point of the pick head, which is delivered in an arc, blah blah physics blah blah is more likely to go through and not glance off. The spear, sword, axe, halberd, or whatever is more than capable to punch through or at least damage the person inside enough to stop the fight when you knock them down, pull them off their horse or whatever. It's kinda like a kickboxer using the big spinning kicks that will damn near rip someone's head off. They are great when there is the opportunity to use them, but most of the time jabs, crosses, front/round/side kicks are the tools to use. On the sledgehammer thing, I still like the scene in Braveheart where they have the big mallet and go hip, back, head on the guy on the ground.

Edit: I personally think the flail was used as much as it was because it's so crazy hard to predict it's reaction when you parry it. That and I'm sure it would hit like a ton of bricks.

[Matthew]

I am just thinking of Talhoffer's Armoured Long Sword Combat Manuals, where he has them basically two handing the weapons like spears (a kind of half swording, I think) Quick Article (http://www.thearma.org/essays/Talhoffer/HT-Web.htm). Yeah, I mean, I'm not saying War Hammers are inferior or anything, I'm just saying they weren't the exclusive weapon for taking down Plate Armoured foes. Whether they were the best weapon and by what degree is what is under discussion.

[Edit] Flails are a bit of a mystery to me, but I suppose that the ones with lengthy chains must have enjoyed some element of unpredicability or 'reach around', as you say.

[Flakey]

Modern metallurgy does in fact tend towards better steel on average than period work. However, the skill of armoury is not as well developed in modern times as in the period. What this means is that most armourers take short-cuts now as they depend on the quality of the steel rather than their own skill of manufacture.


10 years ago you could not even guarentee the steel (Things have gotten better, but your point still valid). My friends and I during the biggest 14th to 16th British re enactment of the the year, used to go with the "low" standard of man at arms with chain, padded jacket, helmet and spear. Find a group of knights that had low quality armour, and promtly disable the whole group in less than a few miinutes, by using spear points to buckle the side of a knee joint. Then laugh as then tried to hop after us, or stood there trying to bash their knee so the buckled plates would unlock.

[Lycurgus]

I am just thinking of Talhoffer's Armoured Long Sword Combat Manuals, where he has them basically two handing the weapons like spears (a kind of half swording, I think) Quick Article (http://www.thearma.org/essays/Talhoffer/HT-Web.htm). Yeah, I mean, I'm not saying War Hammers are inferior or anything, I'm just saying they weren't the exclusive weapon for taking down Plate Armoured foes. Whether they were the best weapon and by what degree is also of interest.

[Edit] Flails are a bit of a mystery to me, but I suppose that the ones with lengthy chains must have enjoyed some element of unpredicability or 'reach around', as you say.

Dude, no one said they were the only weapon to fight someone in plate. We were saying that its development and evolution was hinged on plate's increased use.
The choking up on the ricasso was a standard technique from everything I've seen too. I've seen quite a few of longish broadswords/bastard swords that had at least a hands'width of ricasso too. The body can deliver harder thrusts if your hands are a bit further apart, which is where the piercing polearms sit firmly, as well as the big sword like in your earlier article, Matthew.
I'm not sure where I saw it, but I saw a demonstration of a flail against the kind of standard leather-over-wood shield and it didn't break them, it shattered them. Granted it took quite an obvious body motion to do it, but still.
A note about the spear (not that we ever got off point :smallwink: ) remember the Roman throwing spear (pilum (?)) with it's tactic of throwing them hoping that the enemy would block them with their shields so that the light neck of the spearpoint would bend, binding the shield from further effective usefulness until the spear was pried out.

Edit: The old-school cuirasses had quite a bit of spring to them as well. The crazy British guy that gets all excited did a thing with armorers on History. The modern armorer he had with him said, "I think I've got how to get that figured out." Just one of the techiques that has been lost.

[Matthew]

Dude, no one said they were the only weapon to fight someone in plate. We were saying that its development and evolution was hinged on plate's increased use.
Sure, but all I am saying is that it wasn't the only weapon that underwent development during that period and it existed before Plate Armour was in use. The effectiveness of the War Hammer compared to other weapons is what I am interested in. So far, I haven't seen much that makes me think it would be any more of a 'can opener' than a Military Pick or a Pole Axe or, indeed, a Bill. It's relative value with regard to other weapons is what we have been discussing (as far as I can tell).


A note about the spear (not that we ever got off point :smallwink: ) remember the Roman throwing spear (pilum (?)) with it's tactic of throwing them hoping that the enemy would block them with their shields so that the light neck of the spearpoint would bend, binding the shield from further effective usefulness until the spear was pried out.

Yeah, the Pilum is a nice weapon (and one that also receives a great deal of attention). Caesar claims that it was useful for pinning enemy Shields together (or so said the translation I was reading...), the actual breaking or bending mechanism is also often discussed. Sometimes the Pilum is rated as an 'Armour Piercing' Weapon, but then others point out that it was probably not developed for use against armoured foes (which doesn't preclude the possibility, since Romans were often fighting Romans). The development, adoption, frequency and abandonment of the Pilum is a subject all of its own (and a very interesting one).
So to go back on subject, I think we can safely say that Spears were not underrated historically and we have plenty of instances of its use as a 'signature' weapon. There's no denying that that Swords (usually double edged straight ones, but then we have Katanas playing exception) are more readily identified as a 'Hero's Weapon'. Their association with the professional military class and the nobility is probably responsible for this (i.e. those who fought regularly and could afford them, most often had them, albeit usually in addition to their other arms).

[Lycurgus]

Ok ok ok, "pick/spike type weapons capable of delivering high force blows developed and evolved as plate armor evolved in response to the need to punch through that armor" That suit you better? :smallannoyed:

[Diggorian]

Would it be realistic to give spears, pikes, and other similar piercing weapons in D&D the ability to reduce the bonus of any type of armor (equipment and natural) by 2? I'm sure it would screw game balance, but would it be a good reflection of these weapons in real life?

[Matthew]

Better, sure, but it's still not necessarily an accurate statement without caveats and explanations; I might say:

"The rise in popularity of the Pick/Spiked type weapon can probably be best explained by the relative increase in frequency and standard of Body Armour in the late Medieval period. Pick/Spiked type weapons... physics, blah, blah, blah."

Picks are not only useful for punching through Plate, they also do a great job against Mail and the Footman is not exclusively fighting Plate Armoured foes. Further explanation would be with regard to how the Two Handed version often doubled as a Spear and could have an Axe or Hammer of varying design, as well as a Spike.

Single Handed Pick/Spiked type Weapons also saw an increase in use alongside Hammers and Axes.

[Edit] Diggorian: (A)D&D played around with the idea, but the tables rarely got used, even in their simplified forms. The up and down of it is that you can give various weapons any 'armour piercing' bonuses you like and find evidence to support it, but you'll never have an absolutely realistic mechanic (partly because of the nature of D&D and partly because translating reality onto a game when we don't fully understand the reality is next to impossible).
In short, no reason not to, but no reason to do so either, except that it might help suspension of disbelief and fun in your game. However, almost any sword could be used to deliver a thrust and the impact of Maces and Hammers may be just as effective as the penetrating of Armour, so a lot will come down to how you imagine what's going on (penetration, circumvention, etc...) and how simple you want to keep the mechanics.

Technically, in default D&D, Armour is never damaged unless subject to a Sunder. Logically, it could be concluded that AC represents only coverage and that all hits bypass Armour. Really, though, AC is a combination of coverage and effectiveness.

[Kiero]

Jamming is well and good, but punches are always faster than kicks.

Legs are usually longer than arms, unless the other guy is a lot taller than you. Someone trying to punch me, who hasn't closed the distance is at a disadvantage against my leg. Jamming is easy, and you don't even have to stop them. If they're much heavier they'll push you back - again out of range of the punch.


You can use a counterstrike at any range or position.

Not any range; you've got to be within striking distance, which means you're also likely to be within their striking distance.


Deflection and controlling your opponent's balance is more effective than either.

Except again, you have to be on the inside. Or worse in contact the whole time.


A hip stopped from the front is always free to rotate or move laterally or retreat.

Couldn't care less if it can move laterally - there's hardly any power left. Nor am I fussed if they retreat - they're no longer a threat outside of striking distance.

I'll go for the simple over the complicated every time in a real situation, and to my mind counter-striking is too fiddly to be practical.

[calebcom]

The biggest reason for the use of the spear is cost. nothing else.

Understand that this is all tainted by the view of the vikings. and how they operated, but would probably apply to any army besides the super rich.

1 Longsword could be turned into 5-6 spearheads. this alone will increase the men you can equip for battle by *shock* 4-5 times.

Heavy steel shields were rarely used except by rich knights. Expensive.
Wooden shields. Cheap to create, fast to produce.

Greatswords, unwieldly, and ineffective against a faster fighter with a shield. the momentum of the blade leaves you open and defenseless for far too long in real combat.

Axes. Tools on the farm, and a weapon of war in 1. Requires little metal, so it's inexpensive.

Arrows. Almost never had metal heads for peasant militia. The metal could be used in other places rather than thrown at the enemy.

shortswords. Cheaper than a long sword. More effective in close massed combat. Light and fast. a decent fighter with a shortsword and wooden shield will destroy a greatsword user.

Shortspear. Mass produced, cheap to make. Fast to make.
Simple stab and retract for shieldwall formations.

Longspear. again, cheap to make and easily produced. Reach can sit behind shield wall and pick off people with stabs to the foward rank while foward rank impedes progress. average longspear, 12-15 feet long and 2-3 inches thick. had to be capable of killing the cavalry without shattering and leaving the spearmen weaponless. when closed in combat with footmen, spears were dropped in favor of smaller weapons.

Poleaxe, Huge heavy weapon smashed through shields, creating openings in shieldwalls. countered by longspears. if you saw one of these, you prayed that the spearman behind you killed him before he could swing that huge axe.

Longbows, used often until crossbows came about. Crossbows were the superior weapon in that they had more penetrating power, longer range, and easier use. as well as being harder to break while traveling to combat. and taking up less room.

the only change the D&D spear needs is perhaps giving the short spear a +2 against mounted targets, because they could reach the face/chest easier than a sword could.

Edit: Unlike in D&D a even light slash to the normally poorly armored and protected inner thigh could slash an artery which caused bloodloss that will render one unconscious in under 30 seconds. Great big weapons of mass damage lose to a well placed slash by a speedy combatant in 1 on 1.

[Diggorian]

@ Matthew

Ok, just wondering. I didnt think it would be worth it. Your reference to the AD&D rules brings to mind some funky armor damage houserules we used to have. They werent worth it either, didnt make the 3.x transition.

I remedied spears in a minor way for my Antiquity era homebrew by houseruling in the greek Doru, basically a martial longspear/shortspear hybrid that can be "long-hafted" it as a move action into a reach weapon with a -2 to hit.

[Spiryt]

I don't really think that it's all true...




Greatswords, unwieldly, and ineffective against a faster fighter with a shield. the momentum of the blade leaves you open and defenseless for far too long in real combat.

And yet greatswords were used... It's right it was hard to defend yourself with one but...



shortswords. Cheaper than a long sword. More effective in close massed combat. Light and fast. a decent fighter with a shortsword and wooden shield will destroy a greatsword user.

Totally untrue. Asside from fact that something like shortsword wasn't used in medieval Europe in the same time with Greatsword, and asside that statements like "destroy user" are untrue (beacuse it all depemds on how well you can fight with your weapon) - it's untrue. Defence with GS against short sword wouldn't be easy - but defence with shortsword against GS is also impossible. And wooden shield can be destroyed quite quickly.



Poleaxe, Huge heavy weapon smashed through shields, creating openings in shieldwalls. countered by longspears. if you saw one of these, you prayed that the spearman behind you killed him before he could swing that huge axe.

Decide. Yeah halberds and bardiches delivered sick cutting and smashing force if only your arm was dtrong enough to swing them hard.
But are even less capable for defence than greatsword - fencing with Two handed swords existed. So according to your statemnet decent fighter with a shortsword and wooden shield will destroy a polearm user.



Longbows, used often until crossbows came about. Crossbows were the superior weapon in that they had more penetrating power, longer range, and easier use. as well as being harder to break while traveling to combat. and taking up less room.

Longbows, and other bows were used at the same time with crossbows (famous english longbowmen). When crossbows disappeared due to firearms expansion, bows were still in use up to XVIII age.

Crossbow (medieval one, many today;s too) was VERY easy to damage. It was quite complex thing. How you damage a bow?:smallconfused: I have bow and have no idea how to break it (accidentaly of course, breaking it knowingly won't be so hard) . They are flexible after all.
And bows have BETTER range (arc, not in straight line), beacuse weren't flying well in high arc (shorter and thicker)
Real problem with bows - archer had to be REALLY skilled, strong, sharp-eyed guy to be dangerous against armored targets. And, yes even famous longbows or janissary composite bows weren't able to give missile power which could be compared to guns or heavier crossbows.

[Skjaldbakka]

Edit: Unlike in D&D a even light slash to the normally poorly armored and protected inner thigh could slash an artery which caused bloodloss that will render one unconscious in under 30 seconds. Great big weapons of mass damage lose to a well placed slash by a speedy combatant in 1 on 1.

Problem with that. Striking low targets causes you to lose reach, when you are already at a disadvantage in reach. And contrary to popular opinion, greatswords were not heavy and slow. I largely agree with you metal-conservation comments though. If I had the men for it, I would rather have X number of spearmen over fractional amount of greatswords. How many spearheads could you make with the amount of steel in a greatsword?

[Matthew]

Depends on the size of the Spear Heads. There's quite a lot of wastage in Sword forging, or so I am led to believe, but Spear Heads can be forged in very sophisticated ways as well. The skill and length of time involved in forging a Sword will usually be a lot greater than in forging a Spear Head.

As Spiryt points out, much of what Calebcom is saying sounds spurious. Some evidence to back up such statements would go a long way. Here are a couple of links to some very good Websites that discuss Viking fighting techniques and arms; they should prove a surer guide to those interested:

http://www.hurstwic.org/index.html
http://www.regia.org/village/drengham.htm

and a less good site that has some interesting content:

http://www.vikingsonline.org.uk/resources/authenticity.htm

[Talya]

Longbows, used often until crossbows came about. Crossbows were the superior weapon in that they had more penetrating power, longer range, and easier use. as well as being harder to break while traveling to combat. and taking up less room.


This isn't true. Longbows and crossbows filled entirely different roles. Longbows were artillery. They were frequently not even aimed at "single-target" enemies, instead they arched them into the sky (hence, "archers") aiming at a spot on the ground. Cheap and quick to make compared to a crossbow, longbows had a longer maximum range when used this way, and a much higher rate of fire, meaning you could sit 400 meters away and rain destruction on the enemy. The Crossbow was a direct, straight-line targeted weapon, used like a shortbow (or later, a gun), not a longbow, (and even then, the shortbow had a huge rate-of-fire advantage.) Even with superior technology we have today, modern crossbows have a maximum effective target shooting range of 60 to 100 meters. It never replaced the longbow, the longbow survived in mass use until the advent of the musket.

[GoblinJTHM]

the crossbow was developed to pierce metal armor at close range, an advantage the bow fails to provide.

[Talya]

the crossbow was developed to pierce metal armor at close range, an advantage the bow fails to provide.

Like I said, the crossbow was designed for an entirely different purpose. Calebcom suggested that "Longbows, used often until crossbows came about. Crossbows were the superior weapon in that they had...longer range."

Crossbows were, as you said, a close range weapon. He got the penetrating power thing right, but they were never artillery, and never replaced the longbow, which was used to take down enemies at extreme range. (And note that very few members of an average army wore heavy armor.)

[Matthew]

No it wasn't. When first developed, the Cross Bow was in general no more powerful than the Bow. The key difference between the two is that one relies on skilled and strong practitioners to a much greater degree than the other, but has a much faster shooting rate. Cross Bows, because of their slow reload time, were better suited to protracted slow moving combat, such as during Sieges. However, they also saw plenty of battle use in conjunction with Bows and by themselves, such as at Crecy when the the French Mercenary Cross Bow Men were routed by the English Long Bow Men. Later Cross Bows *could* be very powerful, but that was as much to increase their range as to provide Body Armour Penetration (which Long Bows did fine at close range).

They more or less fulfilled the same roles on the battlefield, but with different degrees of success and use.

[Spiryt]

Shaft of crossbow (even big one) was (tadaaam) much shorter than 6 feet shaft of longbow. So it was much harder to draw. Also, it delivered less power.

Early "standard" french crossbows standard had 10 times (!) bigger draw force than not very hard longbow 70Ibs - 740Ibs, and yet both weapons could give the same velocity to missile. And yet, bow arrow was heavier, so bow still had advantage!

So even though a crossbow may have more stored energy when spanned, the tips of the lathe do not have enough time to reach the maximum velocity that the amount of stored energy would otherwise allow.This problem could have been alleviated with a longer draw length or a longer lath, but that would increase the weight and bulkiness of the crossbow, which are already two distinct disadvantages of crossbows.

Through the use of modern engineering and advanced materials, modern crossbows are now much more efficient. But bows can be made the same way too.

Of course crossbow even with Medieval sience, could be , and indeed was often made better than this "standard french". Still with medium crossbow reloading time must be 12-20 seconds even with experienced shooter. It's a lot of time, when you are defensless like hell.

Still, crossbow is more advanced weapon, and could have enormous draw force ( 5000 Ibs of 15 century arbalest!), so could be much more dangerous.

Bow depend more on shooter, but can be awesome weapon too, anyway

[GoblinJTHM]

The harder a bow is to draw the more power it delivers. a 55 lb draw bow is a heck of a lot stronger than a 10lb draw bow. And how on earth do you draw a 740lb draw crossbow?

The crossbow's advantage is that it's highly accurate, and the close range = much less air resistance, meaning more of the
original power reaches the target. Most games do not factor this.

Also the crossbow has been used in a grand scale as a siege weapon, which is where the artillary idea usually comes from. Weather it was actually used as artillary or not can be argued. See the Roman Scorpion.

[Spiryt]

The harder a bow is to draw the more power it delivers. a 55 lb draw bow is a heck of a lot stronger than a 10lb draw bow. .

Sorry for the sarcasm, but seriously ?:smalltongue:

I was just writing, that even when crossbow had enormous draw, it was not so much more powerful than a bow.

[GoblinJTHM]

Then explain why arrows won't pierce plate but crossbow bolts will :P

[InsaneOrb]

'Greatswords, unwieldly, and ineffective against a faster fighter with a shield. the momentum of the blade leaves you open and defenseless for far too long in real combat.'

By the time plate armour was developed, the shield was essentially uneccessary for individual combat. Power was more important for killing someone in plate than not. The blade has a longer reach than a typical sword, and you can put more power behind it.

I agree with longbow superiority, but Crecy is a weak example. the rain essentially crippled the Genoese as the crossbowmen could not easily unstring their weapons like the longbowmen could. Additionally, their supporting pavise-bearers didn't turn up, IIRC.

'The biggest reason for the use of the spear is cost. nothing else.'

False. The spear also provides excellent penetrative power, and made out of inferior metals (bronze, copper, for example) is more reliable than a sword or axe made from the same material. With superior advances in metalwork, the sword naturally became more effective.

'View Post
shortswords. Cheaper than a long sword. More effective in close massed combat. Light and fast. a decent fighter with a shortsword and wooden shield will destroy a greatsword user.'

No. The man with the greatsword would win. Easily. A short sword is additionally far less effective in individual combat because it lacks reach. Not to mention that men with greatswords tended to own very good armour which obsoleted the need for a shield. Furthermore, the speed isn't actually improved from a longsword. The price isn't actually significantly less for a gladius-styled-blade than a longsword excluding the fact that 'longswords' tended to be stylised, improved and made *on request* for nobles. The actual production cost is about the same.

'Heavy steel shields were rarely used except by rich knights. Expensive.
Wooden shields. Cheap to create, fast to produce.'

Metal shields were a late development and essentially unused because they weren't necessary and were too heavy. A 'wooden' shield isn't actually cheap or fast to create, depending on the type. Optimally said shield would have a metal rim and boss.

'Arrows. Almost never had metal heads for peasant militia. The metal could be used in other places rather than thrown at the enemy.'

Wrong. Explain javelins, and throwing axes. Both used frequently. By militia forces. Peasants used metal arrow-heads.

'Poleaxe, Huge heavy weapon smashed through shields, creating openings in shieldwalls. countered by longspears. if you saw one of these, you prayed that the spearman behind you killed him before he could swing that huge axe.'

Misconception as to what a poleaxe is, I feel. A poleaxe is not simply an elongated axe (that would be a halberd). Note that halberdiers and polaxes were used to break apart and *defeat* renaissance pike formations. Additionally, the length makes it difficult to swing in a pressed mass.

'Edit: Unlike in D&D a even light slash to the normally poorly armored and protected inner thigh could slash an artery which caused bloodloss that will render one unconscious in under 30 seconds. Great big weapons of mass damage lose to a well placed slash by a speedy combatant in 1 on 1.'

Amazingly enough, you'd need to reach the thigh first. Great big weapons have much larger reach. Go figure. One-on-one, you'd more often die going for the thigh than reaching it.

'Axes. Tools on the farm, and a weapon of war in 1. Requires little metal, so it's inexpensive.'

Axes don't require little metal. Compared to a sword yes, but the people who can *afford* a sword aren't concerned about that.

'Longspear. again, cheap to make and easily produced. Reach can sit behind shield wall and pick off people with stabs to the foward rank while foward rank impedes progress. average longspear, 12-15 feet long and 2-3 inches thick. had to be capable of killing the cavalry without shattering and leaving the spearmen weaponless. when closed in combat with footmen, spears were dropped in favor of smaller weapons.'

We call it a pike. Training and discipline were needed to use these effectively. Also extremely tiring to use (heavy, and needs to be held straight). Can't be sheathed. Unwieldy in a formation.

'Longbows, used often until crossbows came about. Crossbows were the superior weapon in that they had more penetrating power, longer range, and easier use. as well as being harder to break while traveling to combat. and taking up less room.'

Crossbows had *less* penetrating power at a distance, were less encouraging to physical strength, couldn't be quickly unstrung and restrung in the event of bad weather and are substantially slower-firing. They also couldn't be used very effectively in mass firing. They certainly had advantages, but weren't actually more effective.

The D&D stats are fantasy, rather than realism based (just look at the sling, realistically it had a far greater range and power than early bows, and also would certainly not be a 'simple' weapon). I, for one, don't care.

Edit: Early crossbows won't pierce plate most of the time. The arbalest probably would at a relatively close range. But at a distance the crossbow doesn't have enough power to go through the mail 'weak points', while the longbow does.

[Spiryt]

Hello InsaneOrb.

It's good that you helped ilustrate that most of what Calebcom said is... well, untrue.
But you should use
quote made by [quote ] text you quote[/quote ] to make it easier to read. Just an advice :smallwink:

[Kiero]

Oh dear, I think I saw someone talking about greatswords (ie the zweihander) being used in individual combat. It was designed for breaking up pike formations.

[Matthew]

I agree with longbow superiority, but Crecy is a weak example. the rain essentially crippled the Genoese as the crossbowmen could not easily unstring their weapons like the longbowmen could. Additionally, their supporting pavise-bearers didn't turn up, IIRC.
Heh. That's not quite what I was saying. I was citing it as an example of Cross Bows being deployed against Long Bows, rather than commenting on their relative effectiveness (though that must play a role somewhere along the line). The commonly cited reasoons for their rout are indeed rainfall damaging their Cross Bows and being rushed forward without their Pavises. Of course, people have a tendency to create reasons after the fact and these do not feature in every text. They probably are true, but they may not be; I think they generally are accepted as being true, though.

Oh dear, I think I saw someone talking about greatswords (ie the zweihander) being used in individual combat. It was designed for breaking up pike formations.
Ah, well, that's a nomenclature problem. Great Sword means different things to different folk. Take a look at this Article: ARMA Definitions and Terminology Study (http://www.thearma.org/terms4.htm#Medieval%20&%20Renaissance%20Sword%20Forms%20and%20Companion%2 0Implements)

[Talya]

No it wasn't.


Yes, they were. Longbows were used primarily as artillery. They fired the arrows into the sky in an "arch" and they fell toward the targets. They had a 400 meter range as artillery, which was their primary use. Crossbows were never used that way.

[Matthew]

Sorry, I wasn't replying to that, I was actually replying to the Cross Bow being designed as an Armour Piercing weapon. All the same, I have heard the odd discussion claiming Cross Bows could be used in a similar manner. No idea how to source something like that. I would love to hear some evidence for what you are saying about Cross Bows never being used for indirect shooting.

[Edit] Looks like the Cross Bow Wiki Article has received some serious attention lately, but nothing about whether they could be used for indirect shooting or if they were restricted to direct shooting: Cross Bow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_bow) Wiki Article.

[Skjaldbakka]

Oh dear, I think I saw someone talking about greatswords (ie the zweihander) being used in individual combat. It was designed for breaking up pike formations.

Two-handed longswords were used in single combat. I in fact own a copy of a German swordmaster's instructions in such, which have very little to say on the subject of mass combat.

[Matthew]

Yeah, as I said, a lot depends on how you define 'Great Sword'. Take a look at the ARMA Article I referenced to see how these sorts of arguments end up coming at each other from separate definitions.

For example:

Calebcom said 'Great Sword'
Kiero said 'Great Sword (Zwei Hander)'
Skjaldbakka said 'Great Sword (Long Sword)'

I think the problems in that discussion will be a direct result of the needlessly vague starting point.

Here are some entertaining videos: Testing Blades and Materials (http://www.thearma.org/Videos/NTCvids/testingbladesandmaterials.htm)

[Chadwick]

Legs are usually longer than arms, unless the other guy is a lot taller than you. Someone trying to punch me, who hasn't closed the distance is at a disadvantage against my leg. Jamming is easy, and you don't even have to stop them. If they're much heavier they'll push you back - again out of range of the punch.



Not any range; you've got to be within striking distance, which means you're also likely to be within their striking distance.



Except again, you have to be on the inside. Or worse in contact the whole time.



Couldn't care less if it can move laterally - there's hardly any power left. Nor am I fussed if they retreat - they're no longer a threat outside of striking distance.

I'll go for the simple over the complicated every time in a real situation, and to my mind counter-striking is too fiddly to be practical.

Now your arguing over styles. In a fight you want to use your strength vs their weakness. If you want to keep em away thats fine. If you want to get up close thats good to. Its all about you controlling the fight no matter how you do it.

Anyways hitting someone first is way more simple then anything else. Like I said before its not a COUNTER-strike it is just a strike.

No style of fighting is better then another, some are only more advanced.

Do what ever works for you man but these principles that Lycurgus and I are talking about are sound. If you don t want to use em thats fine.

[Lycurgus]

Matthew good clips.

As for use periods of the long bow, there were actually units in WWII that used the longbow. I'd say that's quite a run.

InsaneOrb, as we covered earlier, not everone was in plate. If I'm running around in brigandine or hardened leather with a broadsword or battle axe or mace (maybe even a warhammer!:smallwink: ) as a skirmisher, I'd like to have a shield on my other arm. But maybe that's just me. :smallamused: Often, they were wood and leather, but metal was common as well.

The argument that counterstriking is ineffective and useless is very weak. A jam can just as easily be countered as an attacking kick.

"Counterattacking is a subtle art, safer to the man using it and more damaging to his opponent. Attacking by force sometimes does little damage because the opponent is moving in the same direction as the force. His going with the punches removes their sting.

With two evenly-matched competitors, the advantage lies with the man who counters because when a man leads, he cannot help but expose more than the one who remains on-guard. Any commitment automatically opens and invitation or target area." - Bruce Lee, Tao of Jeet Kune Do

[Kojiro Kakita]

Sorry if I am interrupting the current train of posts, but wouldn't it be easier to choose specific crossbows and bows of the same time period and then discuss the apparent advantage and disadvantages of each. For example, say we do take a crossbow, couldn't I bring in the chinese repeating crossbow, which did not have the penetrating power of a bow of the period(which were mostly composite), but could prove to be more effective due to the amount of shots it could fire. Besides, if we were going to discuss the penetrating power between bow and crossbow, wouldn't it be better to compare a composite bow and a crossbow.

Anyway back to the original thread idea. Cultures of the east have a large amount of stories that deal with spears. IIRC many of the weapons used in the Three Kingdom were spears, only few warriors wielded something else. Even the Japanese legends deal with spears, (the founding myth of Japan involves a spear). The spear or bows were commonly used in combat, the katana being a secondary weapon (battle swords were normally larger. The No-dachi draws to mind).

[Kiero]

Now your arguing over styles. In a fight you want to use your strength vs their weakness. If you want to keep em away thats fine. If you want to get up close thats good to. Its all about you controlling the fight no matter how you do it.

Anyways hitting someone first is way more simple then anything else. Like I said before its not a COUNTER-strike it is just a strike.

I don't have a lot of use for grappling, except as a means to avoid being grappled. Not only does it give the advantage to the bigger, stronger guy, you're then vulnerable to his mates.


No style of fighting is better then another, some are only more advanced.

That's a crock. No such thing as "more advanced" though there are those so rarified and detached from reality as to be actively harmful in a situation. It's more about a match between the person's mindset (how aggressive they are, how fast to switch), their body shape and capabilities, and the style itself. Different people are better suited to different styles.


Do what ever works for you man but these principles that Lycurgus and I are talking about are sound. If you don t want to use em thats fine.

Sound enough to have been tested the hard way? I've seen plenty of examples of so-called Masters who've never been in a real fight. I've been fortunate enough to have several who have actually applied what they've learned, and can handle themselves outside of the classroom, or an ajudicated competition.


The argument that counterstriking is ineffective and useless is very weak. A jam can just as easily be countered as an attacking kick.

Which isn't what I said. I said overly complicated, which makes it less useful in a real situation.


"Counterattacking is a subtle art, safer to the man using it and more damaging to his opponent. Attacking by force sometimes does little damage because the opponent is moving in the same direction as the force. His going with the punches removes their sting.

With two evenly-matched competitors, the advantage lies with the man who counters because when a man leads, he cannot help but expose more than the one who remains on-guard. Any commitment automatically opens and invitation or target area." - Bruce Lee, Tao of Jeet Kune Do

Funny, I know people who've been training as long as him, yet are still alive. Lee talked a good game, but I wouldn't be surprised if his training regimen was what killed him. He was also a hothead, and lied about who he fought.

[Lycurgus]

I don't have a lot of use for grappling, except as a means to avoid being grappled. Not only does it give the advantage to the bigger, stronger guy, you're then vulnerable to his mates.



That's a crock. No such thing as "more advanced" though there are those so rarified and detached from reality as to be actively harmful in a situation. It's more about a match between the person's mindset (how aggressive they are, how fast to switch), their body shape and capabilities, and the style itself. Different people are better suited to different styles.



Sound enough to have been tested the hard way? I've seen plenty of examples of so-called Masters who've never been in a real fight. I've been fortunate enough to have several who have actually applied what they've learned, and can handle themselves outside of the classroom, or an ajudicated competition.



Which isn't what I said. I said overly complicated, which makes it less useful in a real situation.



Funny, I know people who've been training as long as him, yet are still alive. Lee talked a good game, but I wouldn't be surprised if his training regimen was what killed him. He was also a hothead, and lied about who he fought.

Funny, you don't have a shred of evidence to back that up. My sigung also trained under Yip Man, with Bruce, so I'll trust what he says about him more than you. And if counterstriking seems too complicated to you, you have some pretty serious problems. All it is is throwing kicks and punches with appropriate timing and footwork. Sounds an awful lot like attacking, or jamming for that matter, doesn't it? The Tao of Jeet Kune Do is accepted as one of the foremost treatises of unarmed combat. Dan Inosanto, among other gurous, has used his theories to help the development of a huge number of great martial artists. Also, balance control can be delivered through any joint. It only requires the proximity for contact. The jamming you are so fond of is an example of balance control.

[InsaneOrb]

'Hello InsaneOrb.

It's good that you helped ilustrate that most of what Calebcom said is... well, untrue.
But you should use
Quote:
quote made by
text you quote[/quote ]
to make it easier to read. Just an advice '

Old habits die hard, I know how to do quotes, but usually I'm too lazy ;)

[quote]Oh dear, I think I saw someone talking about greatswords (ie the zweihander) being used in individual combat. It was designed for breaking up pike formations.

Depends entirely on the era you're talking about. The medieval era two handed swords were used for personal combat (duels and tournaments) as well as on the battlefield.


InsaneOrb, as we covered earlier, not everone was in plate. If I'm running around in brigandine or hardened leather with a broadsword or battle axe or mace (maybe even a warhammer! ) as a skirmisher, I'd like to have a shield on my other arm. But maybe that's just me. Often, they were wood and leather, but metal was common as well.

Not quite what I meant. A man who could afford an (extremely expensive) greatsword could generally also afford good, high quality armour. Once he has plate, he has no real need for a shield. The dominance of larger swords and smaller shields was essentially resultant from advances in body armour.

I certainly agree that not everyone had plate, and I agree that for those unable to afford very expensive armour, a shield was very useful. Unfortunately, Calebcom seems to be taking the greatsword out of its medieval historical context, which was basically being used by rich people in very expensive armour, rendering shields a non-neccessity.

[Matthew]

That Soldiers abandoned Shields when Body Armour rendered them unnecessary is an interesting and often voiced opinion. Earlier in the Thread, though, it was also pointed out that penetrating Heavy/Plate Body Armour is much more likely with a Two Handed Blow. So, I think it's worth noting that the relative abandonment of Shields was probably down not only to Body Armour making them less necessary, but also Body Armour making Two Handed Blows more necessary.

[Lycurgus]

That Soldiers abandoned Shields when Body armour rendered them unnecessary is an interesting and often voiced opinion. Earlier in the Thread, though, it was also pointed out that penetrating Heavy/Plate Body Armour is much more likely with a Two Handed Blow. So, I think it's worth noting that the relative abandonment of Shields was probably down not only to Body Armour making them less necessary, but also Body Armour making Two Handed Blows more necessary.

Ha! Two Handed Blow! Excellent use of capitalization! Changes swinging something with two hands to really cranking that thing around! :smallamused:

[Matthew]

Heh, comes of typing D&D definitions out too much and a Germanic pedantic mindset [i.e. 'Two Handed Martial Weapons', 'Two Handed Fighting', 'Two Weapon Fighting']. I have to admit, though, as I was typing it, I thought the emphasis suited the meaning...

[Lycurgus]

Heh, comes of typing D&D definitions out too much and a Germanic pedantic mindset [i.e. 'Two Handed Martial Weapons', 'Two Handed Fighting', 'Two Weapon Fighting']. I have to admit, though, as I was typing it, I thought the emphasis suited the meaning...

Remember Tasslehoff with Something Important and Big Ideas too...somebody else wrote that way...can't...remember...too...many...books... sorry, went JTK

InsaneOrb: ok, clarified. Yeah, the guys with the big swords got the double pay.

[Matthew]

jtk? i Have No Idea What You Are Talking About Now; i Try To Steer Clear Of Anything Involving Too Much kender.

[Lycurgus]

jtk? i Have No Idea What You Are Talking About Now; i Try To Steer Clear Of Anything Involving Too Much kender.

James. Tiberius. Kirk. The Once and Future Pimp! :smallcool:

[Chadwick]

I don't have a lot of use for grappling, except as a means to avoid being grappled. Not only does it give the advantage to the bigger, stronger guy, you're then vulnerable to his mates.
That's a crock. No such thing as "more advanced" though there are those so rarified and detached from reality as to be actively harmful in a situation. It's more about a match between the person's mindset (how aggressive they are, how fast to switch), their body shape and capabilities, and the style itself. Different people are better suited to different styles.
Sound enough to have been tested the hard way? I've seen plenty of examples of so-called Masters who've never been in a real fight. I've been fortunate enough to have several who have actually applied what they've learned, and can handle themselves outside of the classroom, or an ajudicated competition.
Which isn't what I said. I said overly complicated, which makes it less useful in a real situation.
Funny, I know people who've been training as long as him, yet are still alive. Lee talked a good game, but I wouldn't be surprised if his training regimen was what killed him. He was also a hothead, and lied about who he fought.

I have been in several "real" fights. One gentleman pulled a knife on me, I took it from him. Another was a 300lbs crazy person who I tossed over my head and sent to the mental hospital. So yeah I ve used this stuff.

Bruce Lee die of a brain clot. Lots of people anybody can die that way.

[Matthew]

James. Tiberius. Kirk. The Once and Future Pimp! :smallcool:

Ah, well, since he is one of my all time childhood heroes, it's probably not surprising I would subconsciously seek to imitate him - Kirk Punch! Khaaan! (http://www.khaaan.com/)

[Fhaolan]

Then explain why arrows won't pierce plate but crossbow bolts will :P

Errr... Longbow arrows *will* penetrate plate.

The problem here is what plate, what longbow, and what crossbow. Unless you can get *really* specific, it's easy to throw out examples of things. I've seen longbows with 150lb pull being used, and with the correct pile on the arrow, it will go right through most breastplates. I've also seen early crossbows with 200lb pulls which could barely place a bolt 30 yards down range. Then throw in Maximillian plate, which was supposed to be 'proof against quarrels'. You have to get really specific in weapon/armor terminology, so big sweeping statements like 'arrows won't pierce plate but bolts will' is pretty close to being meaningless.

[calebcom]

I don't really think that it's all true...



And yet greatswords were used... It's right it was hard to defend yourself with one but...



Totally untrue. Asside from fact that something like shortsword wasn't used in medieval Europe in the same time with Greatsword, and asside that statements like "destroy user" are untrue (beacuse it all depemds on how well you can fight with your weapon) - it's untrue. Defence with GS against short sword wouldn't be easy - but defence with shortsword against GS is also impossible. And wooden shield can be destroyed quite quickly.


Decide. Yeah halberds and bardiches delivered sick cutting and smashing force if only your arm was dtrong enough to swing them hard.
But are even less capable for defence than greatsword - fencing with Two handed swords existed. So according to your statemnet decent fighter with a shortsword and wooden shield will destroy a polearm user.




Longbows, and other bows were used at the same time with crossbows (famous english longbowmen). When crossbows disappeared due to firearms expansion, bows were still in use up to XVIII age.

Crossbow (medieval one, many today;s too) was VERY easy to damage. It was quite complex thing. How you damage a bow?:smallconfused: I have bow and have no idea how to break it (accidentaly of course, breaking it knowingly won't be so hard) . They are flexible after all.
And bows have BETTER range (arc, not in straight line), beacuse weren't flying well in high arc (shorter and thicker)
Real problem with bows - archer had to be REALLY skilled, strong, sharp-eyed guy to be dangerous against armored targets. And, yes even famous longbows or janissary composite bows weren't able to give missile power which could be compared to guns or heavier crossbows.

Let me clarify. Polearms were used behind a shieldwall, not in skirmish fights.
I used the term shortsword to differentiate from the classical "Longsword" all the blades I used were 22 inches and shorter. The best ones I used were around 18. Fast and light.

The greatsword wasn't heavy. but they build momentum fast because of how long they are. this momentum is very hard to counter. go take out a 36-48 inch piece of steel and see how fast you can swing it around. This is why the claymore was choked up on when in close combat, making the guard on it almost useless.

I've fought guys who trained exclusively in 2 handed swords. They smash things decently, but a decent wooden shield lasted more than long enough to get in close and make a decent cut. Again, the sword is too long and became useless when nose to nose with an opponent. the steel center on a wooden shield is where you caught a greatswords blade if you had any amount of skill.

equal skill, I'll put ten bucks per dollar you set down on a guy using a shorter blade and shield over a two handed weapon every time.


Depends on the size of the Spear Heads. There's quite a lot of wastage in Sword forging, or so I am led to believe, but Spear Heads can be forged in very sophisticated ways as well. The skill and length of time involved in forging a Sword will usually be a lot greater than in forging a Spear Head.

As Spiryt points out, much of what Calebcom is saying sounds spurious. Some evidence to back up such statements would go a long way. Here are a couple of links to some very good Websites that discuss Viking fighting techniques and arms; they should prove a surer guide to those interested:

http://www.hurstwic.org/index.html
http://www.regia.org/village/drengham.htm

and a less good site that has some interesting content:

http://www.vikingsonline.org.uk/resources/authenticity.htm

I"ve been to iceland, I've fought with the guys who've handed down the techniques the vikings used. I don't have "evidence" since it's all from personal experience.

[Matthew]

I"ve been to iceland, I've fought with the guys who've handed down the techniques the vikings used. I don't have "evidence" since it's all from personal experience.

Now that's funny. I was under the impression that no such 'Masters' exist. If you don't need evidence, that's fine. However, I do, especially considering some of the outright mistaken claims you made.

[Lycurgus]

The shortsword may not have been popular during the medieval period, but it was used. In one place or another, it has been used since its evolution from the knife until the American civil war where it was issued to cannoniers for close fighting after their sidearms ran out of ammo. Actually, it may have been used longer, but that's the latest example I know of. Come to think of it, the bayonet on a rifle or musket is an awful lot like a spear...that would make the spear and knife the longest contiguously used weapons wouldn't it?

[Matthew]

Depends what you count as a 'Short Sword'. The similarity between the Medieval Cultellus and Ancient Gladius has been noted by more than one scholar. The Saxon/Viking/whatever Seax also seems to have had a varied length and could in many instances be designated a 'Short Sword', though more commonly in English they were referred to as 'lang cnives', which only really suggests their length and was interchangable with the term 'lang saex' in the Brut, as distinguished from a 'hond saex'. I think Beowulf uses something similar to kill the Dragon when his Sword breaks, but I don't recall the word used in the original text (have to look it up ...again).

The Knife is probably the longest continuously used weapon (though there are moments where it seems to disappear from the visual record), but the Spear would be a close runner up (especially if you counted the Bayonet). Frequency of use is harder to discern.

I like to use Japanese Sword terminology when designating Daggers / Short Swords / Long Swords / Great Swords in D&D. Blade length, up to 12" is a Dagger, 12"-24" is a Short Sword, 24"-36" is a Long Sword, 36"+ is a Great Sword. It's just a rough guide, though.

[Lycurgus]

Depends what you count as a 'Short Sword'. The similarity between the Medieval Cultellus and Ancient Gladius has been noted by more than one scholar. The Saxon/Viking/whatever Seax also seems to have had a varied length and could in many instances be designated a 'Short Sword', though more commonly in English they were referred to as 'lang cnives', which only really suggests their length and was interchangable with the term 'lang saex' in the Brut, as distinguished from a 'hond saex'. I think Beowulf uses something similar to kill the Dragon when his Sword breaks, but I don't recall the word used in the original text (have to look it up ...again).

The Knife is probably the longest continuously used weapon (though there are moments where it seems to disappear from the visual record), but the Spear would be a close runner up (especially if you counted the Bayonet). Frequency of use is harder to discern.

I like to use Japanese Sword terminology when designating Daggers / Short Swords / Long Swords / Great Swords in D&D. Blade length, up to 12" is a Dagger, 12"-24" is a Short Sword, 24"-36" is a Long Sword, 36"+ is a Great Sword. It's just a rough guide, though.

Short sword (noun): Something you stab people with that you don't have to get as close to them as if you were using a dagger but closer that if you were using a broadsword. :smalltongue:

I think those ranges are usually about what people think when they use those terms.