"What good is a spear?" Topic

I'm writing some simple rules for home use. Scale will be small units, like 3 to 5 warbands on a side. A step above skirmish. Will have both a fantasy and historical version.

I was looking at classifying weapon types, Sword-standard handweapon, axes-extra damage or pentrating armor, that kind of thing. but what about spears?

In a game like WRG(yeah I'm old), Warhammer, or SBG they allow extra ranks to fight. That would make them superior to say Swordsmen, which doesn't feel right.

Perhaps I have the mistaken impression that swords are better in combat than spears. I blame Hollywood. Heroes always had swords, and the common soldier had spears.

Looking at history you see units or armies of spearmen, which I always attributed to spears being easier/cheaper to make. Again reinforcing my ideas of a spear as a less desirable weapon.

So what good are basic spears? (Not the longer anti cavalry spears, of Hoplites and such) How far off are my impressions?

Cheers, Xin

If you have ever tried to hit a spearman with a sword before he hit you, you would know :o)

A spear's reach is about half again as far as a sword's (given a sword of average length). In the movies the spearmen always cringe away from the sword-wielding hero. In reality the sword-wielding hero would have been a pincushion before Scene 2, Take 1 could even start.

Of course this does not comenpensate for organisation and formations. A well-protected swordsman in formation (like a Roman Legionary) would be more than a match for spearmen in loose formation. But one on one the swordsman would be in trouble.

So maybe a spearman hits first or has a +1 on the Initiative roll or something?

Spears allow you to fight in tighter ranks with the ability to overlap shields, giving your warriors more protection. The same goes for thrusting sword units like the Romans. Spears have a range advantage against swords as well.

I would think that the primary advantage (besides the cheap price) is the long reach provided by the spear shaft. Which means that you might be able to get in the first blow against an enemy with a shorter weapon, and if you are in a formation more guys than just the front rank might get to strike.

Also, thrusting a spear takes less room than swinging a sword or axe, and this might be an advantage in a tightly packed shieldwall. Such a formation, bristling with spears, provides some deterrence to attackers.

On the other hand, the length of a spear makes it clumsier to haul around (you cannot hang it from your belt like a sword), and it might become something of a disadvantage in very tight quarters.

As was mentioned spears had length to keep attackers away. You could check out the end of Fearless with Jet Li ( imdb.com/title/tt0446059 ) for some cool spear fighting. I'm a big fan of the spear; simple and cheap and effective if used well.

So maybe let the spear hit from 2 or 3" away? Depends on if characters can easily move out of combat or not I guess. Or receive a bonus if an enemy charges them ( sort of a defensive posture ) or if they charge ( just ramming the spear forward ) . Or if you don't have simultaneous attacks have the spear always strike first.

Really it just depends on how detailed and simulation-y your rules end up being.

At a guess, spears are longer than swords so could keep the man with a sword at a distance, not able to strike the target. Also if allowing a shield war type defense then a spear stabbing out is better than slashing sword which is difficult to use in a packed formation.

And yet we have all upper class types wanting swords which are way more expensive and much harder to make. Why, if the spear is much more effective?

It depends of the training of either the spear or the sword guy if you are speaking at a skirmish level.

Because the upper class do not fight in ranked mass units.

And being upper class, they are twits and fops.

In combat formations spears were better then swords generally. In skirmish games they would be about even – although the spear gets first shot they are reasonably easy for a swordsman to parry or block and a spear is not handy in close combat vs a sword.

In a 1 on 1 fight, with the spearman and swordsman being of equal training, my money is on the swordsman.

The spear is much more useful in formation. As mentioned above, it is cheaper as well. Spears are most useful in presenting a solid hedge of spears. Cavalry would be hard pressed to break a well ordered spear formation.

1 on 1, the spear will most likely get the first jab. If both warriors are armored or at least have a substantial shield, the first jab probably won't do it. After that, the swordsman will be in better shape with the spearman constantly having to back up, to choke up on his spear or to draw his knife.

faster training, cheap to make but needs discipline to use to advantage (i.e.you need to trust the guy on either side). Also it is not an item for the glory seeker (except Odin)

Hardly an expert, but I've studied ancient/medieval warfare and here's my take:

First, spears can differ quite a bit based on role; light spears can be used for both thrusting or throwing, versus long spears like the Greek dory (but still one handed), up to sarissa/pikes. Don't know how detailed your rules are but these might behave differently; throwing spears (and javelins, which could also double as spears in a pinch) in particular were very common in the ancient era.

Second, along with the reach and formation-fighting benefits mentioned by others above, even a light spear is extremely useful against cavalry, much more so than a sword, since a unit of spears can form an obstacle in ways that a unit of sword could not. If you're expected to face a mounted enemy a spear is a very good choice. The ability of the rear ranks to fight as well should not be overlooked.

Third, skill counts. An experienced fighter is probably going to do well with either a sword or a spear, a less experienced fighter will probably find the spear easier/more intuitive to use.

Fourth, you are right that cost did play a role; generally, a bunch of decent spear heads could be turned out for the same time and material cost of making a passable sword.

Fifth, don't overlook the fact that a lot of 'spearmen' probably carried a side-weapon as well; it might be a dagger, but in some eras/regions it might as easily be a sword or axe. The spear would get dropped once things got too close.

-Will

Spear Advantages: Longer reach, cheap, easy to use (just poke the guy), and the buddy behind you can poke as well. Also really good when charging (or charging while mounted— see "knights"). And you can throw it. Also can hold a small banner/pennant for rallying troops.

Disadvantages: Can't really slash well, so despite the length you don't really get the leverage advantage. If your line gets broken or someone gets close in on you, the spear becomes clumsy and can even impede your efforts to defend yourself. Your opponent might even be able to grab the shaft and use the weapon against you, or break the wooden shaft with a solid blow from an edged weapon with better leverage. If that happens, of if you throw it, well, now you're disarmed and need a backup weapon. Something handy and easy to get to, maybe that you can hang from your belt…

Sword Advantages: Long cutting edge and easier to hold. Shorter length makes it easier to swing in less room, so you get better leverage on impact simply because you actually can swing it while in close combat, and you don't have to be as precise as to where the blade hits, due to the blade length— you've got 2 to 3 feet of cutting edge, as opposed to about 6" with a spear. Can cut or thrust. Less likely to impede your buddy or yourself in close combat. Heavier blade adds to damage and increases possibility of breaching armor, or could break a spear shaft being thrust at you. Your opponent can't grab the blade without risking injury. Easier to parry other weapons. Can be carried in a scabbard from your belt, so easier to access when needed, and when not needed, leaves the hands free for other activities. Also can be used as a secondary or backup weapon if you use something else initially— like a thrown weapon, or a bow, crossbow or sling, or a knight's lance.

Disadvantages: Expensive, requires more training to use well, and is shorter, so you can't poke somebody at a distance, nor can your buddy behind you poke him as easily, either. And you can't hang a banner/pennant from it.

There you go.

Also, remember that as a casual "open carry" weapon, the sword is better (rather like a pistol is handier than a rifle, though less powerful and less accurate). Thus, in a violent world where a dispute could happen suddenly, a sword can be at hand when a spear cannot. For the warrior classes, it thus became a popular weapon, as you could do other things and still be readily armed when needed.
Secondly, the upper classes were often cavalry, especially during the medieval era, using shock impact tactics with spears or later longer lances. But after the initial impact, they needed a close action weapon, and the sword became the favorite. So it's not really that they were choosing swords over spears, but that they were choosing swords as well, because they were suitable to their fighting needs.

Instructive is that today we still teach our soldiers spear tactics (bayonet drill), while the sword has largely become ceremonial. Basically, we found a way to make a short spear as convenient (if not more so) as a long blade at the belt.

Also an untrained warrior with a spear pretty much has to inflict thrusting wounds while an untrained warrior with a sword, even one designed for stabbing, might inflict slashing wounds.

And yet we have all upper class types wanting swords which are way more expensive and much harder to make. Why, if the spear is much more effective?

perhaps due to the mythology that formed around swords, also look at the disdain for the bow of many ancient europeans, which was probably the most effective weapon.

In a 1 on 1 fight, with the spearman and swordsman being of equal training, my money is on the swordsman.

Agreed, in general, because all other things being equal the spearman needs to keep the range open while the swordsman needs to close, and it is far easier to go forward in a quick and controlled way while fighting than it is to go backwards. On the other side of the coin is the fact that it is far easier to deal a debilitating blow to an opponent with a thrusting weapon than it is with a cutting one.

Doug

One take YouTube link

x42

Spears are much easier to replace when they break than a sword (and swords bent and broke a lot in the early on), and they had one other ability than reach that a sword did not have. You can throw a spear. Yea, that doesn't work well when you have only one spear, but if you are in ranks and have extra spears around…

In a 1 on 1 fight, with the spearman and swordsman being of equal training, my money is on the swordsman.

If the fighters are of equal quality, my money's actually on the spear. The key to combat -- and you'll see this in period manuals in every language, from German to Italian to Japanese -- is timing and measure (range).

The spear gives you a greater measure over the sword, and thrusts are faster than cuts, so the spear has the timing advantage as well.

There's a reason why armies eventually degenerated to pikes and muskets.

The periods when the sword was ascendant tend to coincide with lots of siege warfare, where there wasn't room to take advantage of the spear's advantage. (That, and warrior quality is more important -- if your knightly orders are only training swords, then you might think swords are better, because the folks who carry them are better.)

Now, as to "why did everyone have a sword?" The simple answer is that it's easier to carry. It was (in places where it was allowed) the first choice for civilian self-defense. You're not going to carry an eight-foot spear on a trip to the baker, but you might carry an arming sword. EDIT: If you're carrying a sword, you'll learn how to use it. See "warrior quality."

(And the OFM is right in some parts of the world -- later Japanese swords were seen as works of art, and status symbols. The actual fighting was usually done with arquebus, spear, and bow.)

So what does this mean for your game? Either spears get a "reach" ability, so they can strike without being threatened; or they strike first in an otherwise simultaneous melee.

I get the impression a lot of people think melee combat was all-out people hammering at each other, this strikes me as exceedingly unlikely. Most people probably spent more time trying to avoid being stuck than trying to stick, more like a police riot line than a boxing match. S.L.A. Marshall's observations apply to melee as well as shooting.

It takes a lot more gumption as well as energy to wield a sword and you have to expose yourself less to use a spear. The Persians got trounced by the Greeks because most of them were missile troops who just wanted to stand around shooting in a civilized manner until one side got tired and ran away and the Greeks were all about getting stabby with a bit of metal on the end of a stick. I imaging this gave the average Persian the willies. Likewise when the Greeks met the Romans it was their turn to get queasy at the thought of getting right in someone's face and chopping off bits of him.

The thing you have to realize is all the stuff ancient writers put down about how brave and fierce they were is BS, it just doesn't jibe with casualties on the battlefield (before one side routs) which show they spent most of the time covering themselves, not covering themselves in glory.

No one has bothered to mention Miyamoto Musashi? There is a wonderful story, anecdotal, regarding a legendary master of the spear in a "friendly" duel with Musashi that ends, after three rounds with the spear wielder throwing down his weapon, to the disgust of his lord and exclaiming, "If I cannot win by this point, I will never win" or something to that effect.
Also, I'd like to point out that the Pilum, favorite of the Romans, was not meant to be a close fighting weapon but was used to disarm the enemy of their shield. The long, thin head of the spear would bend after the spear was thrown and impacted, imbedded through the enemy shield, making it difficult, if not impossible to remove forcing the user of the shield to cast the shield aside due to its encumbered predicament.

Most people probably spent more time trying to avoid being stuck than trying to stick …

I'm currently learning too many fighting techniques right now, and I've got to agree with you. Counter-striking your opponent seems to be a much more efficient way to work, because you're interrupting what he's doing. (And the attacker tends to break his guard himself in order to attack.)

It's also worth remembering that melee is the art of the cheap shot. You're looking for easiest kills, while presenting the hardest target.

No one has bothered to mention Miyamoto Musashi?

I did, obliquely. See "warrior quality."

for spear think of STAVE with a pointy end rather than just thinking of the point end. A stave in the hands of a strong man can be a formidable weapon in close combat.

Great responses and very informative, thanks.

So lets see:
Reach
Shallow learning curve
Easy to make, easy to train
Multiple Ranks
Good in steady formations
If disordered or broken formations, hard to use.
Maybe hard to use in bad terrain

Lots to work with. Thanks again.

Xin

When fighting undead who can push themselves along the shaft you want a boar spear.

Or when fighting boars, I suppose . . . .

Spears can also make a passable shield when held in the off hand. Having an up-and-down barrier running from above your head down to the ground against an opponent determined to slash side-to-side impedes his plans, which is always a good thing.

Spears can also make a passable shield when held in the off hand.

I hope you've got a good gauntlet. That off hand is an easy target.

they are cheap

Maybe hard to use in bad terrain

You forgot the point about siege warfare. A spear is useless in an assault on a castle (imagine climbing a siege ladder with a big clumsy pole in one hand!). The spiral staircase was also invented to hamper the use of weapons by attackers, as the curve of the walls limited the space for swings and prevented thrusts with longer weapons (like trying to play pool with a wall behind your back). But in the other direction (facing down), the walls curved away from the defender, allowing more space to use his weapon.

I might also point out that a spear, once parried, is going to be naturally further out of line and slower to return to attack position than a shorter blade. Levers go both ways sometimes.

There's a reason why armies eventually degenerated to pikes and muskets.

Yes. One reason being heavily armored cavalry. Horses are scared of long pointy sharp things, especially a lot of them, side by side, all pointed at the horse.

But the real reason that warfare changed as you state is simply the musket. When you can shoot a lead ball that will punch through the heaviest armor, the utility of heavy cavalry goes down.

But muskets were slow to load and fire very early on. So the pike was used to protect the musket against the lance-armed cavalry, until the musket became faster to load and easier to aim (and a cavalry charge even less useful), and then the pike was abandoned in favor of letting the musketeer defend himself by shooting and affixing a bayonet when the enemy got too close (or, charging with said bayonet himself— a bayonet in a musket being a heck of a lot easier to run with than a 20 foot pole…)

'Twasn't the pike that ended the era of the sword— 'twas the musket. And it eventually ended the era of the pike, too.

Didn't most samurai prefer to use a naginata or some other form of spear in close combat even though they carried amazingly well made swords?

don't forget they can punch through armor or shields.

I think reach is very vital in melee. I've read some crazy Chinese martial artist who also used spear. It's supposed to be true story. His spear was so fast that even master swordsmen couldn't beat him.

He was eventually killed by poison.

Samurai prefer to use a bow from horse back first.

Single hand Swords are a back up weapon like a pistol is to a modern trooper.
(one on one)
all a spear man needs to do is stick a swords man in the foot or leg fights over and the swords men never gets close enough to even swing the sword. Reach is king! Pole arms and spears ruled the battlefield. even in a modern SCA melee Pole arms and spears out number swords. well because they work.

this might be fun for you all to watch.

YouTube link

Levers go both ways sometimes.

In order to get proper leverage on a spear used with two hands, you need to go to half-sword to get enough leverage. The technique is not one I recommend in a congested battlefield.

Didn't most samurai prefer to use a naginata or some other form of spear in close combat even though they carried amazingly well made swords?

Depends on the era. Before they got their assets handed to them by the Mongols, the samurai liked to ride around and shoot each other with bows. After the Mongols, they'd shifted to yari-heavy massed armies — and yari are your basic thrusting spears.

Back when I did reenactment they considered that the best single weapon (no shield) was the spear, add a shield and the spear is a lot less effective because you can only use it one handed, so sword and shield is a better combination than spear and shield and beats single spear because you can block and strike simultaneously. For a really nasty combo try sword and spear (the spear is held braced under the left arm) gives you reach and a close in weapon, the reason it wasn't seen often is because the training required is more than double that of sword and shield unless your naturally ambidextrous.

Robert

I see Toaster just beat me to it, most posters seem to be forgetting shields.
A lot of combat would be about blocking and longer things are easier to divert, harder to recover with.

The advantages of the spear is it's cheap and you can throw it. There is a minor advantage in closing, unless the person closing has no shield.

A sword is handier and far easier to use once engaged in close combat.
It is harder to block effectively – well unless very long.
You can carry a sword all the time and it doesn't get all snarled up as you try and fight with a load of stuff round you like people, trees, furniture.

If you think length is just an advantage.
It's a disadvantage.
One counter to pike units were sword and buckler.
It's easy to push the pike down or aside and then the pike man has to rely on other pikemen to protect him.
That won't happen if the more manoeuvrable sword and buckler men attack from an angle.

The Roman swordsmen beat the Greek phalanx.

[Quote]The Roman swordsmen beat the Greek phalanx.

More like the Roman shield/sword combo beat phalangites. Long spears without reinforced shafts are asking to be cut off by swords once they are stopped by the shields, that's why Renaissance pikes had those strips of metal going about three feet down from the head.

It's not exactly a spear but I had a kendo sparring match with a girl armed with a naginata (halberd) and myself armed with a shinai (sword). It was supposed to be a fun exhibition match. I didn't find it fun at all.

Extra reach is a serious advantage.

For armies spears are pretty much always superior to swords.

Note that spear-armed infantry were a mainstay of the world, well into the age of firearms. Not so much with the sword.
-Kle.

Naginata is more of a glaive, Rdfraf.
-Kle.

A one on one spear vs sword goes like this

Swordsman tries to close range (he has a reach of maybe 3 feet – length of arm + half the sword)

Spearman steps back to keep swordsman in front of spearpoint- he needs to keep the target at 4ft or more (half of spear length- you hold it half way along – plus arm extention on thrust).

Swordsman steps forward…

Bear in mind spears are often used OVERHAND, stabbing for the head. The movement is fairly one dimensional – stab and back. You can move it in a circle by moving your hand in a circle- the axis moves with the hand. What you have trouble doing is flicking it around like a fencing rapier – you have 3 ft of pole extending behind you. Archimedes takes over.

What a spear is, is a) Cheap, b) Easy to learn, c) Useful in a shield wall- because of the one axis, you don't hit your mates. Swords move in 3 dimensions, and they have momentum. If you miss they keep going. Into the jaw of the person next to you. Even a blunt one is scary, because it is a 3 ft iron bar. The edge is just a courtesy detail. They also need a lot of room to use.

Go find a 1 meter iron bar. Swing it near things – trees, bushes, other people. You will hit them Gygax's famous '10 foot wide corridor' – That's wide enough for one swordsman, assuming it's a one handed sword. A good sword blow starts behind the shoulder so you get maximum speed up. Inertia takes over – yes you can pull a blow, but that means you are holding back at the point you missed the enemy, so if you had hit it wouldn't have been as bad, and it's not something you do in combat, what with all the adrelanine.

2 handed spear? If these are being thrust like a bayonnetted weapon –ie at stomach level: Parry down, step on it (get it right at the end foot or so with the point will break off) the kill the wielder.

What happens 1 on 1 is actually one of 2 things

1) A spiral, as the spearman goes backwards, while both try to get on the unshielded right.

2) And I can not stress enough how this is the CORRECT WAY to win to win 1 v 1: Have a mate with you. You go one way, he goes the other – the target can't shield both sides simultaneously…

Oh and Axes? REALLY scary – short, so they have to advance, and all th weight at the end opposite the pivot.

I'll let you do the physics.

Dunno so much about 10 feet.
Consider the Roman professional army.
They deployed 3 foot per man and trained to primarily stab with their swords.
They chose to throw their spears and fight using swords.

The roman army knew what they were doing.

Apparently a Greek general asked a Roman general "How do you fight with such short swords?"
The Roman simply replied "We take a step forward". That really is the the ethos of the Roman army – heaviy protected men grinding down the opposition

It really depends on where the spear/sword is in history and geography. My point of view when someone asks about them is early medieval Northern Europe- Saxons, Vikings etc.

The thing about the sword isn't that the spear is sneered at by nobles, but the sword is a status symbol: they take a lot of metal, and take a skilled smith time to make, so are expensive. Even if you were carring a spear for practicality – do you want to stand 5 feet away from anybody else? – a sword on your hip proclaimed your status.

Couple of things to add, neither of which impacts on the original question about how to define spears in a set of rules.

Firstly in one to one combat a spear does have two ends! Thrust with the pointy end, sweep with the blunt end (which might not actually be that blunt). I am aware of a couple of training routines that make use of this fact to turn a spear into a composite type of weapon that ends up being a more versatile weapon than a simple thrusting weapon. A spear can always be shortened by changing grip. It is remarkably difficult to trap a spear against the ground and break off the end if it being well used with lots of short fast thrusts.

Secondly, there is a morale effect for the user, the killing happens at a distance (in theory at least)because of the reach advantage and it helps keep horses from riding over the top of you if you have a mass of them. Or to quote (or possibly misquote) Sgt fred Colon on the use of a Pike. "the important thing is that it's really long so the nasty stuff is happening a long way away".

Here is an interesting scene from Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, sword vs spear:
YouTube link

At 1:35 Michelle Yeoh grabs a spear and goes at the Green Destiny sword wielder. Now I know the martial arts Chinese spear is different from say Sven and the boys raiding a Saxon Village type of spear, but it is a cool scene.

Xin