View Full Version : How doe's it become that a swordsman is stronger against spearman
I mean a spear has a longer range + u can swing with it etc. without being in his range
1) spear is too long to be possible thrown (and hit the target and endanger the target)
2) When you hold 2meters long or longer spear, you can controll it far less than 1-1,5 m long sword. Swordsmen is faster, can use his shield (in one hand) to block the spear and use the sword to hit the spear. It is far fiferent than using spear aggainst a horse running to spearmen. A horse in charge can change direction of his move far les than a guy in leather armour with shield and sword.
Originally posted by Elewyn
1) spear is too long to be possible thrown (and hit the target and endanger the target)
2) When you hold 2meters long or longer spear, you can controll it far less than 1-1,5 m long sword. Swordsmen is faster, can use his shield (in one hand) to block the spear and use the sword to hit the spear. It is far fiferent than using spear aggainst a horse running to spearmen. A horse in charge can change direction of his move far les than a guy in leather armour with shield and sword.
i mean spears like ancient greeks used those were about 1.80 meters i am 1.85m and ofcourse too heavy armor would be too silly:p
Sir Turylon
13-06-2004, 19:45
Originally posted by Hector
i mean spears like ancient greeks used those were about 1.80 meters i am 1.85m and ofcourse to heavy armor would be to silly:p
those were not spears. They were javelins, or pilums. If you are talking about a phalanx... a group of Gothic Swordsmen would cream a phalanx. All they would have to do is attack the phalanx from the rear or sides.
@ Elewyn said.
Don't forget... spears are so long that a trained swordsman could just knock the spear out of the way and charge in right at the spearmen. :) (think the scene from Two Towers where Aragorn rushes the orcs in the blown wall section... he just knocks the spears out of the way.)
Originally posted by Sir Turylon
those were not spears. They were javelins, or pilums. If you are talking about a phalanx... a group of Gothic Swordsmen would cream a phalanx. All they would have to do is attack the phalanx from the rear or sides.
Well, i think that the Greeks - no i mean the Macedonians :rolleyes: had incorporated a counter-meassure for this "event" into their tactics.
Please bear in mind that Aleander the great conquered almost all of the know world by using the phalanx !
Originally posted by Sir Turylon
those were not spears. They were javelins, or pilums. If you are talking about a phalanx... a group of Gothic Swordsmen would cream a phalanx. All they would have to do is attack the phalanx from the rear or sides.
@ Elewyn said.
Don't forget... spears are so long that a trained swordsman could just knock the spear out of the way and charge in right at the spearmen. :) (think the scene from Two Towers where Aragorn rushes the orcs in the blown wall section... he just knocks the spears out of the way.)
Yes i meant the phalanx javalin is to trow and pilums were used by romans to trow also:)
com on in real live those horse's would have been crushed
Crap i am to late, i agree with elwyn. You have more manuverability plus the shield which you can use to stop the spear or pike from getting to ya. Plus if ya slow down maybe you can hit it away with your sword or grap it and pull it away and maybe give the enemy splinters if its made of wood. :)
Originally posted by Cork2
Crap i am to late, i agree with elwyn. You have more manuverability plus the shield which you can use to stop the spear or pike from getting to ya. Plus if ya slow down maybe you can hit it away with your sword or grap it and pull it away and maybe give the enemy splinters if its made of wood. :)
com on do u even have a idea how heavy a sword is? plus the armor:confused:
phalanx versus swordsmen who wins?
do you have an idea how heavy a spear, over 2 m's long spear is heavy. I mean good wooden one, not easy to be broken, so 5-8 cm in diameter?
Long sword was mainly held in 1 or 2 hands, short sword, much more lightweight, was held in 1 hand. They were both approximately of the same weicht in comparison to spear! and far easier to controll.
it was effective to get riders out of saddle or to stop fast moving horse which cannot change the direction so easily in a moment, but when a swordsmen got to body to body fight he had one big advantage better weapon to manipulate with. Spears were effective only in very tight formations like falanga was.
phalanx versus swordsmen who wins? probably falanga. But it was not used in middle ages. Not exactly. Knights were some kind of it, but on horses.
But imagine. You are single soldier. You have 2 m long spear and swordsman in charge runs towards you. He will easily move to be missed by the spear and when you once missed, you have lost.
Advantage of falanga was depth of this formation. First row attacked,second row attacked (about 3m long spears) and third was defending the first one, but still when a swordsman got to the first row it was not easy to controll so long weapon.
Originally posted by Elewyn
do you have an idea how heavy a spear, over 2 m's long spear is heavy. I mean good wooden one, not easy to be broken, so 5-8 cm in diameter?
Long sword was mainly held in 1 or 2 hands, short sword, much more lightweight, was held in 1 hand. They were both approximately of the same weicht in comparison to spear! and far easier to controll.
it was effective to get riders out of saddle or to stop fast moving horse which cannot change the direction so easily in a moment, but when a swordsmen got to body to body fight he had one big advantage better weapon to manipulate with. Spears were effective only in very tight formations like falanga was.
probably falanga. But it was not used in middle ages. Not exactly. Knights were some kind of it, but on horses.
But imagine. You are single soldier. You have 2 m long spear and swordsman in charge runs towards you. He will easily move to be missed by the spear and when you once missed, you have lost.
Advantage of falanga was depth of this formation. First row attacked,second row attacked (about 3m long spears) and third was defending the first one, but still when a swordsman got to the first row it was not easy to controll so long weapon.
but if i am correct phalanx ( spearman in the medieval age ) had always a second weapon a sword when their spear broke they used their swords like in the movie Troy.
remember that ancient and medieval warfare was not the same. Yes, most weapons were similar or same, but the main diference was style of fight. In iddle ages it was cavalry who was decisive, in ancient times "mid-class" heavy infantry.
Falanga was not common in middle ages. And to use their second weapon (which was not so usual for normal soldiers, remember: ancient hoplites were "mid-class" citizens wealthy enough to buy themselves armour and also some weapon-they had privilegue to fight, medieval infantry were poor farmers-privilegue of fight belonged to knights) they must drop the spear, what means break formation.
Sir Turylon
14-06-2004, 02:15
simple fact is this.
Phalanx formation wasn't used past... what? around 300 AD? Spearmen would not have the same training, same equipment, same armor as the phalanx soldiers.
Sure, you can arm somebody with a lightweight spear and give him a shield, a helm, and maybe some mail armor... You'd have one heck of a defender. On the attack, the guy would be awefully slow.
And. no...
A charge of heavy horse would crush a spearman formation if the spearmen loosened the grip on their spears.
@Henrik. yep. Alexander did use the phalanx, but he also used heavy cavalry, archers, javliners and I believe chariots... IIRC.
Originally posted by Sir Turylon
simple fact is this.
Phalanx formation wasn't used past... what? around 300 AD? Spearmen would not have the same training, same equipment, same armor as the phalanx soldiers.
Sure, you can arm somebody with a lightweight spear and give him a shield, a helm, and maybe some mail armor... You'd have one heck of a defender. On the attack, the guy would be awefully slow.
And. no...
A charge of heavy horse would crush a spearman formation if the spearmen loosened the grip on their spears.
@Henrik. yep. Alexander did use the phalanx, but he also used heavy cavalry, archers, javliners and I believe chariots... IIRC.
chariots ah one of my favorite but when u get enouch wealty u should be able to buy arms for your mans right?
Angryminer
14-06-2004, 14:21
When you are wealthy you can buy arms for yourself.
Compared to the modern age a good armor is more expensive than an Abrams Tank ;) .
Angryminer
HappyAdolf
14-06-2004, 19:45
Hmm.... I surly like swords the best, you can handle them best.
if i was a soldier in the medieval age i would have a longbow, spear and sword and horse whahaha
HappyAdolf
15-06-2004, 16:05
But which of those weapons would you use the most;) ?
Originally posted by HappyAdolf
But which of those weapons would you use the most;) ?
i think longbow and sword
HappyAdolf
15-06-2004, 19:31
yeah, sword is cool. You can block, hit, and have many attackstiles available
Sir Turylon
15-06-2004, 20:29
so untrue angryminer.
a good suit of armor... chain hauberk, maybe some pauldrons, vambraces, couple of styles of gauntlets, some leggings, and plat greaves... ONly set you back about $1,300. Add a helm, shield, sword, warbelt, maybe a leather jerkin and pair of wool twead pants and leather boots.... looking at only $2,400 :)
The killer is actually the longbow. since... for a good quality one... you'd need to order it specially made... it'll cost ya $1,400 or so. YIKES!
Then again, who needs amor when you got an M1A2?
I admire the US Cavalry units. Those guys are cool. They ride around in their tanks with black stetson hats. lol
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2007, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.