Spears: Why they defeat swords & how to ruin their benefits. Also finally a consideration of perfect length for fighting against swords. / scholagladiatoria / historicalfencing
You can thrust with a spear, you can cut with a spear, you can use it in formation, you can use it alone, you can use it on foot, you can use it riding a horse, you can use it against armour, you can use it against plain clothes, you can keep it by your side, you can throw it away, you can use it two handed, you can use it with a shield... Hunting, battling, duelling or jousting, indoors or outdoors; spear is good for any situation!
I am convinced that the way you use it makes it a weapon. After all the first spears were also just sticks that happened to already have a pointy end. If we are talking about the first tool that was specifically only designed to kill or harm other people that would be the sword.
One thing you skipped over, the spear is a staff with a pointy bit. All staff techniques work with spears, meaning you don't just have stabby but also bashy moves.
Not really.. A quarter staff is a much thicker diameter.. 1.5 inches min. A spear shaft is never as thick, as I look up at my Cold Steel, man at arms spear.. It's an ash handle but only 1 inch diameter.. Not suitable for bashing with so much steel on the end. It would snap, albeit not easily..
Also, why use the opposite end if you can use the more efficient killing tool, the spear head? I would think think that the blunt is for pushing and tripping to allow to bring the sharp pointy bit to bear.
It's more than just the other end. Thinking of it like a sharp-ended quarter staff means you can use the whole shaft. You can parry with the middle, swing it like a long bat, harass using both ends to strike twice as often as a sword could alone... The *bonus* is your "staff" has a lethal bit on the end to end the fight, completely. Edit: Oh, and the blunt end is capped in metal so you can get some momentum going and dent armor and smash into mail and damage the squishy stuff underneath!😁
+Mattias- Waiting on Swordsage's info on the Shaolin for the DW review, hopefully I can get it this week. +Aaron- Spear shaft thickness varies quite a bit, as I've got one that has a 2 inch diameter (I hold Cold Steel in low regard and would never base anything about real weapons from their designs). That said the thinness may make it where some techniques aren't advisable, but doesn't change that you can do them. There isn't a staff technique that I know of that you cannot also do with a spear. +Philip- As for why you wan tot use them, your point isn't always on line and your opponent can sometimes get past it. You thrust; they deflect and step forward; instead of retreating yourself and your point you advance into their attack and knock a few teeth out with the butt of your spear; then either use the time to reclaim distance, switch to your short weapon, or use the spear as a lever for grappling. Another scenario is you feint low, then whip the point above their head, when they raise to defend there you snap it back down and give their knee the business (be it cutting with the spear head or hitting with the haft). Third scenario is you are fighting spooky scary skeletons and thrusts are not stopping their terrifying doot-doots, so because skeletons are strong against thrust damage but weak to blunt you use your spear as a staff in order to silence the doot.
An important point. A lot of the usual discussion assumes we're in a metal-rich place with lots of economic surplus and the fighting is by professional armies
Another key thing is a spear is a hunting weapon as well which means the average person would have far more familiarity with said weapon. As such he would require less training to be useful in warfare.
More importantly they are better weapons overall, which is why even people who could afford expensive armor and their pick of swords would take spears or other polearms into battle as primary weapons.
-The Spear (Qiang), known as "The King of Weapons" -The Single-Edged Sword (Dao), known as "The General of Weapons" -The Two-Edged Straight Sword (Jian), known as "The Gentleman of Weapons" -The Staff (Gun), known as "The Grandfather of Weapons" I remember reading this when I was younger. What's your opinion?
Seems right. The spear is what you give to most of your infantry. The sword is more suited for a general, amplifying his moves when giving orders. A double-edged sword is versatile and isn't cumbersome, good for self-defence if you can afford it. As for the staff, the simplest weapon possible, of course it was the first weapon invented.
The Chinese considered the spear the "King of All Weapons" and Odin carries the spear Grungnir, so your idea might be one held by the people of the past as well.
The chinese calling the spear king of all weapons is not a good example for several reasons, 1 the title king of all weapons will go to the spear or the streight juan depending on who you ask, possibly because, 2 title king of all weapons can refer as to the skill involved in mastering a weapon as much as if not more than the utility of the weapon depending on who you ask, and 3 when the chinese say that the spear is king of all weapons they are talking as much about a 9-15 foot military pike as a 6-7 foot spear, or even some type of partisan since in chinese all of these fall under the hood of qiang.
@@thusspakevespasian5587 my comment on length is relevant in the context of this video, and grand master yang jwing ming among others calls the jian king of all weapons you nonk. I should also point out that i have never studied under yang jwing ming and have studied spear from Li style Baji Quan. I would aldo like to point out that none of what you said invalidates the fact that the term king of all weapons is used as much to refer to the training required to master a weapon as the utility of said weapon if not more.
I think once a war starts, they realize the advantage of the spear real early. Romans are the only real outlier to mass use of spears, though you could say they still did with pilum.
+Cafelogis , Roman formations still used combat spears during the period you're talking about. The most veteran soldiers in a legion were usually armed with spears and made up the back line units... partly to keep the other soldiers from running but also to join in as a reserve if the legion was loosing. Many axilliary units attached to the legion also used spears. Other people could give you more specifics but I'd guess a sizeable percentage of non missile/skirmisher roman soldiers in any particular battle would still have been using spears during the period.
We definitely need to see more spears in historical and fantasy tv & movies. Oberyn Martell was cool partly because he was a badass spearman. And there are really cool fantasy designs out there too, they don't need to look bland.
Ryan Cauffman The gun is what happens when the spear that took a left turn in weapons history and got flung out of a well made stick with a string for thousands of years, miniaturized, given a chemical charge and shoots precision spearheads at people, whilst also maintaining the ability to fix bayonets and go mk.1 if need be.
@@sunshadow7XK and some time in the course of that process, a sibbling of that string-thrown spear got a significant slew of gigantism, and had a number of bastard children with the offspring of a hollow log, a kite and any number of carriages... eventually resulting in the battleship, the self-propelled artillery, the tank and the flying gunship...
Even in relatively close-ranged combat aboard ships spears (boarding pikes) were liked and common. A suggestion for a new video: Hand-to-Hand Combat aboard ships.
I saw a reference to a Portuguese trading ship that got boarded by pirates near Japan. The pirates were winning the swordfight, so the Portuguese said "F that noise, break out the boarding pikes", and were able to repel the pirates.
There you have it : "In the original days before bullfighting became recognizable in today's form, the picador was the central attraction and his name would be billed on the promotional flyers. In these bullfights the bull would charge the horse and the spectacle was watching the rider's skill in protecting his horse whilst lancing the bull. The picador would lance the bull as many times as necessary. The matador and other bullfighters were on hand to help the picador, to direct the bull to the picador, and finally to finish off the injured bull."
I've always loved spears! Even when I was a little kid, I regarded the spear as being on equal footing with the sword in terms of coolness. It's only now that I'm able to have had the benefit of the expertise of people like Matt, that I know why it is considered the "King of Weapons"! I've managed to get my hands on a beautifully made reproduction of a medieval thrusting/infantry spear of the type that you'd see from late Viking Era all the way through the 15th century. She was hand-forged right here in my region of the US, and her name is "Jaffa", after the 1192 battle of the same name, in which spears played a critical role in the outcome.
"...or they get dead" Love your channel! Great info, well-presented, and just enough humour (without becoming distracting). Thank you so much, keep it up!
Thank you so much for covering spears! They don't get nearly enough attention in HEMA. My spear is beautiful, hand-forged by a maker in the Minneapolis, Minnesota area, and exactly 7ft. in length. Her name is "Jaffa". She looks exactly like the ones depicted in the "Gladiatoria" series of manuscripts from the mid 15th century.
Back when I was in school we would have this sort of mach fights loosely based in the time of Imperial Rome. We would fight in formations but it would always inevitably break out into chaotic fighting. In my last year, I used only a spear, and it was as if no one could touch me. Mind you I have no real training in combat of any sort (aside from shooting) and I believe this is a testament to how incredible the spear really is. I could easily take on 2-3 people with swords simply because if one tried to get close he'd get jabbed. Looking back if we had all used spears, and kept formation we would have undoubtedly won every battle with ease.
Extremely interesting and much needed discussion on the spear. It's great that the spear is getting similarly nuanced treatment as we're used to having regarding swords.
the reason spears are typically much longer than the "optimum" for fighting swords is because they usually fought other spearmen. if your formation is using 7 foot spears but the opposition is using 9 foot spears you're in trouble
George Silver's way of measuring perfect length for a quarterstaff is pretty good, it ranges from 7 to 9 ft depending on who uses it, for me, a 6ft tall guy, it's exactly at 8ft
I`ve usually heard it`s at the length where you can put the tip of your finger over the top of the staff. Or was that the length of cross country skis? I forget.
Thanks Matt! Now in case I find myself in a situation where I have to fight in a duel against an unarmoured and shieldless opponent I know what weapon to pick! Thank god we got this sorted out.
And just in case you come up against a highly armored opponent, make sure you have a poleaxe in your other hand. It might be hard to go about your day with two polearms, but your life could depend on it.
Nice meme but if you were fighting against someone wearing a hauberk with a shield and another spear you'd be better off taking another spear than a broad arming sword.
FUCKING FINALLY. Been waiting for you to talk more about spears. Now for another video on warhammers and maces and my life is complete. Thank you for the video.
I sincerely hope not: placing that many Superdry shirts in the wash together could well lead to drought in the south of England as the Thames basin is drained trying to get them all wet at once.
Pikes really are a formation weapon only. 1-on-1, a pike is probably at a disadvantage against swords, spears, even knives and it's definitely at a disadvantage against shield + anything.
Most often I see spears being used with two hands and doing a good job of showing the speed with which the point changes angles, positions, in, out, etc. I hear comments about using it with a shield, but I don't see individuals using spear and shield. In a formation, with multiple lines of spear and shield, the advantages are obvious. But for the individual, the spear now seems to be clumsy and vulnerable. All that reach creates a long lever and your opponent will be exerting force near the end and the spearman's wrist, hand, arm is just not strong enough to overcome that. So I for one would really, really appreciate some demonstrations of a 6-8' spear and shield in single combat with a sword and shield. Thanks in advance for a future video!!
The Libyan spearmen Hannibal brought to Italy killed many times their number in Roman swordsman, and assuming we can trust Polybius, they used shorter spears than the 7 foot Roman hasta. I think there's very little knowledge today on using a spear effectively in an overarm position which is necessary for shield and spear fighting against shield and sword wielding opponents.
If the might wikipedia is to be believed, English militia with muskets & bayonets got their butts kicked by smaller numbers of Zulu with shields & spears early in the English-Zulu war, due primarily to differences in fighting experience & strategy and inferior British supply chains. (Not a phrase one hears very often in 19th-century colonial conflicts.) Eventually the Brits built fortifications and brought in field artillery. The great wiki doesn't specify, but this was probably in formation, as the Zulu were fairly well known for formation fighting, and against bayonets, which are not the most nimble of weapons.
'english got their butts kicked by zulus' is factually incorrect, there were 7 battles in the zulu war, of which the zulu's won one and had one 'draw' and in every battle the zulu's had 10 times the casualties as the british and in 3 of those battles the zulus didn't even get in close combat before breaking and running away. of the 4 remaining 1, the british withdrew after the main zulu army arrived (as their flank was exposed) killing thousands of zulus in the process (the draw). 2 the british repulsed the zulus inclose couter combat and the last one was the famous isanduawana. one pyhrric victory against a vastly smaller force does not equal butt kicking. in adition they were not militia with muskets they were armed with The Martini-Henry rifles (which is a breech-loading single-shot lever-actuated rifle) and bayonetts. there was of coarce a war where militia with muskets faught zulu warriors, it called the battle of blood river, basically the afrikaans people made a treat with the zulus (attack another tribe in exchange for land) after which the zulus backstabbed the afrikaaners (murdering their leadership, they don't deny it but say it was due to an insult of being on horse back in front of the king) the zulu army of 10 000 to 15 000 then attacked the 470 afrikaans settlers who used mussel loading muskets to slaughter the zulu army at Ncome river killing 3 000 to 3 wounded afrikaaners (granted they were surrounded and had a wagon lagger for defence but still). zulu also didn't really fight in what we think of as formation, they used battle stratgies as units, but they didn't form phalanxes or shield walls or anything, just a rough line.
Another point about the heavy spear, and indeed any heavy weapon, is the situation of a prolonged fight. If you are in battle, and have to fight opponent after opponent, or even just stay on guard for a long time, the heavy weapon is going to fatigue you faster. I don't practice HEMA, so this is pure theoretical conjecture, but as a pretty skinny and weak-armed person, I suspect I would prefer a light spear, in that I would worry that a heavier weapon would quickly slow me down because of the weight of the weapon fatiguing me. And while they could last longer than me, pressumably this would still be true for a trained warrior in peak physical condition. As the spear was the preferred weapon of large battles for centuries, I am sure this must have been a consideration as well. Equip a bunch of peasants with huge glaives (if you can afford it) and sure, you'll have a powerful formation for the first few minutes of a battle, but give them lighter spears, and you won't just be saving money, but also creating a unit of men that should be able to hold a line effectively for longer, as they won't fatigue as quickly as they thrust and feint and wobble their weapons about again and again. It's just a thought of mine, and I am anything but an expert, so what do you guys think?
First of all, great video. I personally prefer polearms and staves over swords. But there's 2 things i'm surprised u didn't talk about. 1. Spears have wooden shafts. I get that in a 1-on-1 duel, this wouldn't be much of an issue, since your opponent probably wouldn't have many opportunities to hit the shaft with a lot of force, but could it be something to consider if u were on the battlefield and your formation broke (assuming you kept your spear, to use the advantages you mentioned in the video). 2. (And probably more of an issue) Hand protection. Assuming you're not using a shield, all you have between your hands and your opponent's weapon is the spear head and perhaps a small guard like the one on your larger spear. I'd say that's a big disadvantage for the spear. Yes you can parry, etc., but a sword would be more forgiving to a hand in combat than a spear (in general).
You did skip over some of the advantages of the heavier spears though. For one, they make an effective quarterstaff, so can be used for strikes (maybe cuts) as well as thrusts. Also, though they're harder for you to bring back on line, they also require much more commitment from the opponent to successfully knock aside, which helps to counteract the slower movements. Plus, in the "opponent wearing chainmail" case, a heavy spear is probably just about the best anti-maille CQC weapon that exists. Busting maille is pretty difficult, but if anything can do it, it's a strong thrust from a stout spear. I'd consider George Silver's opinion on the matter, where he claimed that the half-pike/short staff (around 7-9 feet long by his definitions, varying based on height, personally I'd go for the shorter end, between 7'6" to 8') granted the advantage against anything except a longer polearm. However, longer polearms in turn lost to smaller weapons again because they become too easy for an opponent with a short weapon to control.
I get about 9ft in total length with Silver's method for measuring the staff. I'm 5' 10". Silver thought the 8-9ft staff of perfect length was the only weapon that trumped larger staff weapons like pikes. He give the full pike odds over even the 5-6ft halberd & all shorter weapons. In 16th-century England, folks apparently cared staves (pikes) up to at least 13-14ft on the roads at times, so the fight of longer staff against shorter staff probably came up in practice.
Maces and warhammers are extremely effective anti-mail weapons. Definitely arguably superior to a spear, as mail is virtually useless against blunt force.
@@TheAchilles26 Of course the superior range of spears put a mace/axe user at a disadvantage. And a two handed spear stab to the torso that did not penetrate mail will easily deliver as much blunt force trauma as a mace or axe blow, breaking ribs and rupturing internal organs and knocking the wind out of the opponent.
Note that Antonio Manciolino, George Silver, & Joseph Swetnam all favored somewhat longer spears for single combat than Matt does. Manciolino recommended the lancia (12-14ft?) over the spiedo (8ft?). Silver considered 8-9ft optimal for dueling. Swetnam gave 7-8ft as the standard staff length, but generally thought longer was better. Swetnam's method uses only thrusts, while Silver's employs both thrusts and blows. You need a reasonably thick & heavy staff/spear to make effective blows. Folks also used pikes in single combat, including in armor, & Silver rated the pike as superior to shorter weapons to up a spear/staff/bill/etc. of his perfect length of 8-9ft.
As someone well-versed in both spear and various swords, I can vouch for your argument. 9 foot is an excellent battlefield length, and wielded two handed, would allow up to 15 feet of range with a step. A 7 footer, however, is a much better choice for dueling or tournament use, not just for the mechanics, but also as you mentioned because the field of play often would be limited. Warry's "Warfare in the Classical World"--though its subject matter predates the medieval by many centuries--does a wonderful job of documenting the dominance of the spear as a formation weapon, the rise of the pike (the sarissa), and its eventual fall to the Roman javelin (the pilum). Anyway, great topic! All else being equal, my money is always on the spearman. :)
Very interesting, one thing that I may say is that for all the “dueling tests” I’ve seen with any weapons there is to take into an account that most of those people are not afraid to get killed nor seriously injured (since they are sparring and/or simply testing blunt weapons or at least not aiming to kill each other). So the outcome of a real fight would eventually be quite different considering a swordsman May think twice before trying to hit a score against a spearman, well knowing that could be cut, pierced or paled with a certain degree of possibility. So, I guess there are way more daredevil because most of the matches are kind of “Olympic “ styled ones, where it matter to make a score more than prevent by getting killed. Very nice video as always :)
You really know the art of fighting Matt. I read in one of the saga's that a king or jarl said that very same thing that a spear would always beat a sword, that was in the Viking age and I'm sure he had seen lots of real battles.
Matt, I remember Lloyd saying in one of his videos that 8 feet was the absolute longest anyone in his group could use a spear. For me personally 6' 8" (2,032 meters) is the longest spear I can use with anything like precision. That would be with a medium to lightweight head. This is about a foot longer than I am tall, and I practice (alone) with a galvanized steel pipe to improve my strength , although this ppe is just over 5.5 feet. Good video, thanks.
A little trick one should learn if they plan on fighting with a spear, especially a heavy spear where they plan to use it not merely for stabbing but for leg sweeps and other power moves is to go a long hand slide swing which allows one to bring around a quite heavy spear at quite a high rate of speed, seemingly 'from nowhere' since it starts out partly behind and across, [diagonally behind the user], allowing one to accelerate while it is in close, and once it gains some momentum, also allow its own centrifugal force to cause it to project its self rapidly at the target [usually ankles and knees, below the shield, at the weakest point where the proponent is standing] where it will be accelerating essentially in 2 directions at one time, making it hard to judge its speed or position, harder to dodge and also landing a particularly nasty blow to the bone joints at an angle they are not designed to compensate for. This 'slip swing' maneuver was perfected by the Chinese in the art of Wu Shu, using the Guan Dao and more normal types of spears so that men had to be very nimble and light on their feet as well as their upper half. Add the peculiar hook that the Guan Dao and similar spear like weapons employ and you can really manhandle an opponent! (~_^)-b
Very interesting how armor started out as helmets, mail shirts, shields during melee combat in the medieval period, then evolved into plate armor. But if you take a look at modern day armor, we primarily use helmets, kevlar vests, shields(riot shields) during melee combat. Strange coincidence, aye?
In Japan you have the Bo, Jo and Hanbo which are three different sticks for fighting. The rule I learned is that the Bo is as long as the person using it, the Jo (which supposedly was used against swords) reached to the users armpit and the hanbo to his hip. I always found these three different measurements to work rather well for single combat, the Bo being used against anything, the Jo against swords and shorter and the hanbo against knifes and sticks.
I feel this so much. Both as a Japanese history channel, and as a martial artist. Everyone wants to focus on the sword, yet the spear was king on the battlefield
@John Doe They absolutely did! Many of the Segoku period samurai that were praised for their combat ability were depicted with them, such as Kato Kiyomasa!
Optimal length, IMO is +/- 7ft in proportion to user size. I'm 6ft and 7ft seems proportionally correct. Something I think that is very key that you missed is sriking with the butt. Fiore reccomends a hardened steel cap on spears and I can testify from experience its very useful in shafted weapon combat.
'If you're fighting in a toilet cubicle'. Hahah, that killed me. Tremendous respect for you, your views and your perspective, Matt. :) Love the video. Your proficiency is clear and admirable as well. I know that two-handed slide as 'Pool-cueing it'! In my experience, for solo combat I'd feel very comfortable with something about 6' or shorter. I'm about 5'9'' and my favorite spear was a lightweight thing that when stood up reached just about my cheekbone. You can easily outrange a sword with bit o' sliding, and you can also choke up on it and basically use it like a dagger up close. Very versatile.
Thanks for mentioning training as part of effective spear (or any weapon) weilding. Holding a pointy stick no more makes you a fighter than owning a guitar makes you a musician.
For a point of comparison, the spears on display at the 17th-century Mukden (Qing) imperial palace in contemporary Shenyang are pretty similar to what you describe, being around two meters with light points. It's been a couple of decades, and my Chinese at the time was minimal, but I believe they had a few slightly later era surviving originals and reconstructions based on the originals and period illustrations. They were specifically labeled as being weapons for imperial guards, and were of much higher quality than what would be issued to infantry. Based on illustrations, these are also shorter than infantry spears/pikes. An additional detail, which is interesting but not essential for comparison purposes, is that the shafts consisted of a fairly thin hardwood core wrapped with a layer of horsehair and 'resin' (which could mean pretty much anything), and covered in a layer of thin leather coated with tree lacquer (similar to samurai armour). I believe the final shaft diameter was somewhere around 3cm.
While I'm a huge spear fan, I think Matt is underselling the effect of light armor. Even a light gambeson makes it more difficult for the spearman as it not only denies draw/push cuts, but means that light spears can hardly cut at all _and_ all of your thrusts to the limbs need to be perfectly centered or they're likely to glance off (which even with perfect accuracy, can still mean your opponent need only move said limb about 1/2 an inch (1.5cm) to defend against every thrust. This greatly reduces the available attacks and the amount of area your opponent has to guard. Likewise, even thin grieves make someone basically immune to shin thrusts, so someone with only grieves a helmet, and a large shield could easily adopt a guard where only their face and feet were exposed to thrusts. That's actually quite hard to deal with. Also, while those light spears would be great for unarmored combat, the heft of a heavy one makes for better chances of getting through armor (excluding plate, of course), so it can be a tradeoff worth making depending on what you're going up against, at which point it takes a lot more skill to use it effectively without making yourself vulnerable.
While armour certainly changes everything in any fight, a spear will penetrate armour more easily than just about any sword. Where the armour changes things is that it increases the swordsman's chance of closing distance on the spearman and not being incapacitated in the process, but weapon vs weapon, the spear is generally more effective against armour than a sword is. And of course armour does not generally cover all areas - if someone only has a gambeson, then firstly you can thrust through that and secondly, they are likely to have exposed face, hands, legs etc.
The sources are annoying vague, but it seems that the first Chinese forces that gave the British any difficulty in the First Opium War (I think at the Battle of Zhenjiang) were equipped to some degree with brigandine/钉甲/dingjia. (As to how vague, the period English sources and modern writers describe the armour as 'bits of metal nailed to cloth'. Chinese sources for this battle are fairly reliable, but unlikely to contain this level of detail.) At any rate, nobody thought to record for posterity how well brigandine worked against bayonets.
@@scholagladiatoria Agreed, light armor will also inhibit the cutting ability of a sword, while spear points are (in testing anyway), are consistently superior to swords at penetrating armor.
This is one of the primary advantages of (arming) swords. There's lots of combat situations were a spear, battle axe, etc. would be far more advantageous; but they can't be stowed effectively to avoid attracting unwanted attention, or possibly being barred entry from certain places. In many > most "genre" settings you can wear a sheathed sword damn near anywhere without too much concern, more so if you wear a cloak or such over it.
The key to spear vs sword is still closing distance. Between equal opponents, I still have edge to the spear. Different weapons for different scenarios. Great video
Awesome analysis as usual. I would love to see u making a video about pros and cons of a mounted spearmen fighting infantry, archers or riders armed with short weapons. Here in Argentina pampas indians were fighting this way and were very hard to beat.
What practicing Viking style line fighting has taught me, is that (one-handed) sword/axe and shield are the defenders (they hold the line, literally) and try to open the enemy shield wall (particularly if they have axes with which you can hook and pull down an enemy weapon or shield, but also with swords with which you can try to bat any enemy weapon) so that the spear wielders (who stand behind their shield wall) and try to exploit on these openings to score the kills. It is no accident that Odin, who is a Norse god of war (and berserkers), wields a spear as his weapon.
What you'r missing in this kind of fighting, is the spears ability to render shield useless. A spear was often used, by setting it in you'r opponent's shield, thus making it very difficult to move around. Using the spear like this today, is problematic, since it needs to be sharp and thrust against an opponent. This I can imagine, would make for many an unhappy ending, to an otherwise joyous occasion.
There is one obvious reason for swords being more common than spears I never hear people about. Spears, being longer are less portable. Carrying around a sword is a lot easier and in a sword versus knife fight, the sword wielder can expect to have the advantage. Socially it is the dominant weapon. In many societies bearing swords would be prohibited to commoners or those would probably have so little use for it, they would not spend time (and capital) training its use. Same for spears really. I can imagine only professionals would train with those and they be even less common in the street view than swords. Spears and other pole arms were used a lot on the battle field for sure, but apart from hunting boars not in other context than warfare. Walking around town with your spear you'd probably look a bit daft as well. Over time, the expensive sword, much like eating with knife and fork, would trickle down to the commoners to obtain status by affiliation. So spears are better, but swords more practical, thus common and more people would know how to use them. Knowing how to use a weapon makes them more efficient and at the end of the battle that would count.
Got my 1st smallsword yesterday, and it is way cooler than I initially thought it would be, and a lot of fun to play around with. Took an empty milk carton, threw some nails in for a bit of weight, and hung it from a string in the doorway and practiced some lunges. Those little buggers sure have a nasty penetration.
The French knights, I'm not sure it was in Crecy or Agincourt, "shortened their lances" to fight on foot. Sounds to me as if their main weapon then was what in essence was a spear, perhaps one intended for individual combat rather than formation fighting? Furthermore, I believe it was Milanese dismounted knights, using lances while on foot, who made the Swiss mercenaries begin to switch over to mostly using the pike over the halberd. What I'm trying to say...context of the use of the lance, both on foot and when mounted in battle and one on one, please? :D
Reach is why I gave my hero a five foot spear and an office desk when she was attacked by an assassin. Distance felt like the best way for a girl with minimal training to be able to fend off a professional with a blade long enough for her long term enemy to stab the killer in the back, declaring, "No one kills her but me." Which also gives him a good line he can repeat in the third book.
Yay I love me some spear and staff talk. Nothing like a hard wood shaft in your hands ;) When you talked about passing the foot forward letting go with the front hand and just holding with the back I've seen 1sources that include that move for longsword as well, though it may be more commonly known than that :)
And there is one problem : almost every skeleton found on archeologist sites of battle fields etc marks damage caused by axe, sword or mace.... So i think in most cases the spear was good in the first wave of battle, the first contact... But soon when the battle turns into chaos, i am pretty convinced smaller arms did the killing damage. In a rage of beserk you seek close contact to kill your enemy. So i did not surprise me that in close combat you took the spear by the wooden shaft and give a firm strike with your one handed weapon. There must be a reason so many swords, axes, maces, warhammers, clubs with spikes where used...... And all of them more expensive to produce....so well we will never exactly know what our ancestors did in the past :)
Because damage to flesh caused by a stabbing weapon is not as easy to trace as a bashed in skull. Even so, your presumption of "almost every corpse" is simply ridiculous and untrue. Very rarely can the actual cause of death be determined with high accuracy. It is mostly speculation.
The truth about Spears: The spear-shaft often shattered at the first blow (Aeschylus, Ag. 64-6). Once his spear was broken the hopilite drew his sword. Plutarch (Tim.28.1; Pyrrh. 7.5) states that skill rather than strength was required when the spear-fighting or doratismos was over and it came to fighting with swords. The Athenian general Nikias noted that those who had paid for extra individual weapon training from the hoplomachoi now reaped the benefit, when the ranks had broken and had to fight man to man (Plato, Laches 182 A).
If you draw a square across the shoulders down the flanks corner to corner flat side to flat side, you get the orient, and your blocks and parries are the other side of the spear. This formation is the star format. You touched on it slightly in the video with techniques you can use.
You're making a lot of sense for a 1v1 context, but I'll be curious to see you address the same points in a formation context. It seems to me it would reverse everything, i.e. reach becomes the best thing ever since it's much harder to close on a formation of spears (because you's be in reach of multiple ranks and of multiple guys in each rank) and the longer you make the spears, the tougher it is to close on them. Also if you expect shieldwall VS shieldwall, having just a little bit of reach would mean your guys are safe when attacking since the other party won't be able to advance (see above) to get into their range, which is why cultures fighting in dense spear formation always (?) went for the maximum reach, for example the Dori in Ancient Greece. I think the little story of Alexander the Great shows what happens when a side has a decisive reach advantage (ofc there were others factors...). The only (?) exception that comes to mind is the Romans during the period in which most legionnaries had throwing spears and a Gladius, period in which they successfully faced Gallic spears with longer reach.
I always understood one of the advantages to the Roman formations using throwing spears and gladius+shields was that the shower of spears from the romans just before hand combat ensued effectively broke up the enemy formations and rendered most of their shields ineffective, given a shield with a spear hanging out of it is not very handy. So then the Romans get stuck in, in tight formation and at very close distance, and that is mostly that
what Joyful said. also the romans, when facing the sarissa during the conquest of greece, didnt just charge straight into the spearpoints. they moved around the formation, utilising their more flexible formation (granted the greeks were not completely ready and hadnt deployed as they would want to in that battle). the other thing is that the roman shield was so large that forced both sides to be very very close to have any chance of doing any serious damage
Indeed, I believe it was a Mithridatic phalanx that Pompey defeated by surrounding them and showering them with arrows and javelins until they broke. It's worth noting that even the better trained post-Marian reform army he had didn't want to take the fight to the pikemen head on.
I love it when he slams his big important context into me. Also, the four quadrant system matches up pretty well with something I recently learned from the fighting game community, a "compass-rose" mixup, where you have to guess between high-low and left-right. I love finding parallels between FGC stuff and HEMA stuff. xD
Finally explaining the close fight. I am often amazed by how people eagerly give away their range and hold the spear always extended to allow the opponent to knock it aside more easily before closing in. In a duel, the default stance is imho with spear pointing down close to your body. I have done a lot of solo spear vs sword and shield in the past and I would agree that in skirmishing scenarios, 220 cm seems optimal. In fact, a while ago, people started adopting a battle combo of main force with long pikes protected by shields front row against missiles and supported by 100% solo short spear flankers running around and causing all sorts of chaos, outmanoeuvering the reserves with ease.
When you mentioned the length, I thought of the hasta. I always look at the fact that Gallic nobles did not shun the spear, even though the sword was typically the weapon of the wealthy.
About the optimum length, it is possible move your grip towards the pointy end and "shorten" the spear, but it is not possible to lengthen it. Obviously there are drawbacks because the part of spear behind you still weighs some and will slow down, will change the balance, may catch on something and may also block certain angles you could use. But I also believe the guys who used spears *professionally* in the past very likely knew what they were doing and that additional foot to three could be explained partly because you needed something that could stick through the ranks so the guys from behind could help the ones in the front but also because a little bit additional length could be ignored in close combat (to some extent). It is also, I think, worth pointing out that with 8-9 feet spear you can block charging opponent by bracing it against the mud and this could be very effective.
The internet needs a cassetteboy style mashup of this channel. I reckon there's enough in this video alone for the chorus of Whitesnake's "Slide it in", but across the whole channel we could see Matt come out with some real filth. Can you fix it for me?
Not really correct, at least in the 1v1 sort of scenario. You're cherry-picking 'advantages', and applying them based on tournament sparring, rather than applying a look at actually comparative combat methods. For example, the Chinese Butterfly swords existed as a close-range counter to polearm weapons (probably only in duels)... their close-range effectiveness was specifically their advantage against polearms in singular combat. Do you know what has been an actual large advantage in historically documented 1v1 sword duels? Grappling has. 'The better grappler' usually determined the result of the duel. In a 1v1 melee duel, reliance on superior range is not actually an advantage at all, not unless you can keep that range reliably. A spear can shorten it's range, but it's not a knife, and it's not a sword... it can still succeed, but unless you are significantly more mobile, or your opponent sucks, the sword will gain advantage. A duel to the death has rarely ever been determined by the first attempted strike, and nor would the fighters just circle each other like on TV/movies/sparring games. The spear definitely gets the first chance to win a fight, but if that doesn't work, the advantage goes to the sword. ...Or the better grappler, because that's still an option ...But a sword is generally less useless in a grapple than a spear is. Spears/polearms absolutely dominated the battlefield melee, and when used in formations with others, etc.
