OK, I grant you that if the weapon have got sufficient mass, it's gonna be *** hard to deflect, but I think you forget that someone is going to have the strength and stamina to wield such a weapon. If you and I are going to go some rounds, where you wield an 100lbs anvil in a chain/your gigantically heavy axe; and I wield my 5lbs longsword, I think I could win simply by stepping away and avoid you until you're exhausted from swinging your weapon (you said previously that you had to keep theese huge axes going in order to field an effective defence, right?)
What do I prefer? I practice the broadsword and not the spear. The broadsword is not a prestige weapon though, it is classed as a 100 day weapon (that's supposedly how long it takes to learn how to use it. It was a peasants weapon.) For centuries the spear was the armies' main weapon (with a large knife/sabre as a back up.) And for massed combat you'd have to go with it. It proved itself as the main weapon in countless battles. Combined units working in a solid mass. But in smaller engagements? I like the story of the englishman in the spanish court stating that he would fight "any number under sixe" with his quarterstaff. (Four attack and all were soundly thrashed!!) As a side quarterstaffing is holding the first quarter of the staff and half staffing is what Robin Hood keeps doing. I did, for my sins, a spot of re-enactment where we did routines with quarter staffs and I really enjoyed them, especially when we incorporated some of the ideas in Terry Brown's book. Admittedly the chinese spear is not the same as the english one. The flexible, whippy nature of it is vastly different. Looks really cool though. In the end I'd have to side with the sabre, cos my car is too small to get a spear in! That and the fact that I have enough trouble practing my sabre form without trashing stuff! I do find it interesting that most sabre forms are on the basis of defending against a spear and I'm sire I saw an old photo showing to chinese students squaring off with spear and sabre.
Which time-period? This is positively wrong if you're talking about anything older than the 16th century in Europe. It was forbidden for any other than nobility to use/wield swords (with a crossguard) in the 12th to 15th century -europe (that's why you get weapons like the german "Messer", which goes around this law by not having a proper crossguard. It was a blade around 90cm long, used by citicens and merchants without a noble-title)
Wheredidyougetthisinformation? sorry about the lack of spaces stupi computer seems to have a busted space bar
Sword I think the sword is better. The sword has way more attacks, and blacks, the spear has so few moves.
Could you please elaborate. In my experience everny weapons has countless technique tht can be done. By just making a statement with out any additonal information to support your claim doesnt make your opinion a very strong one. Are you trained with weapons? Is what kind of training? Your post justs baised and unimformed. And any ways have u you ever done any sword against sspear sparring? Even if a spear had less techniques ( andit doesnt) its go a lot more reach than a sword. In a fight distance is king cuz if you can conttrol distance you can control the tempo and timming of a fight. its kinda hard to attack a spear man when hes poking you from over 5 feet away.
Kinda related: A couple of years ago I was with a re-enactment group. We used blunt spring steel weapons. We used extensive training to build up speed so that the shows we put on would be as brutal as possible. Anyway, we did a show where we were joined by another group. Most of the fighting we did against our own guys (safer 'cos of the training we had done). I had done a one-on-one sword fight, and a quarterstaff bout and it was all set up for the final 'battle'. A typical last man standing affair, we all killed own guys (we were split into opposing sides.) and I was left facing two spearmen from the other group. This meant I had to 'wing it' There was not much I could do, I was contemplating try so smash the spear points to the side and body checking them when one of the guys saved me the bother my poking me in the guts (cue doubling over and collapsing). From watching their guys fighting each other, I would have thought that our level of traing was better, but I still was unable to deal with those spears. The big problem with spear sparring I would say is that one of the key components is poking the other guy full of holes, swords have a much higher amount of 'hack and slash'. How can you really spar with spears and not die/put the other guy in the A&E? Re-enactment was good for a laugh and got me interested in european martial culture (Talhoffer, Terry Brown's book etc) The group has since disbanded.
one of teh rasons taht psears are so good is that they are so dangersou with very little skill. Like axes.
I agree with the spear remark, but axes? you have to close the distance to get 'in range'. Surely you need a lot of skill to stay alive long enough to hack the guy into wet squishy bits?
ah but you see you dont use a single axe you get a sheild to hide behind. the way I see it humans like to swing things ie we forst start punching round hous all big and wide since we are more or les wired to wing are hands to attack any thing that is meant to be swung> axes reward swinging by hitting very hard for their lenght because of how th weight is distributed, the ame aplies to mace and such as well as large poole arms. Simialrly cutting swods are a lot easier to learn how to use than a purely thrusting sword. Spears are easier to survive with becasu you are so far away from what evr you are attacking that you have more time to react. These are all jsut my oppions take them as you will.
I've got it from my mentor that told me this while showing us pictures from Talhoffers broadswordsection, where there's a joke on the nobility as one technique is called "the robbing of merchants-technique". On this picture the nobleman is having a broadsword with a CROSSguard whereas the freeman/merchant is pictured with a "messer" (messer is german meaning knife, a rather wierd name for a tool allmost 90cm long!) The technique/picture/naming is obviously a little sting in the side of the nobility that this late in the medieval times/early renissanse (1500) often had a lousy economy as land was becoming less profitable than trade. So you have rich people without the privilidge to wield true swords and poor people with a title clinging to their priviliges... Well, I've been told that the latest in poleaxeresearch is that it was used more for thrusting (like a spear) than the way it's used by the barbarian chieftain in the openingbattle of Gladiator. The reason is simply that swinging (heavy) thingies in wide arcs give tons of oppertuneties for swift and simple kills by the opponent. The main advantage with a polearm is the range, and you want to keep that advantage by any means! (look more to late medieval /renissanse hellebardtechniques than conan/gladiator/staff when it comes to the use of 2h axes with long shafts)
Thats an interesting thought aobu the nobility and crossgaurds. Although I do beleive messer translates more acurately as cleaver, but thats jsut me. yeah I was refering to single handed axes. And I wasnt saying that the best way to use a polearm was for swinging but that its more natural to most people and hence requires less training. I have herad that the proper way to use larger axes and poleaxes (which is and isnt an axe) was to use thrusts as opposed to swinging., it makes sense you keep your foes taht much further away. Im actually bing slowly corrupted from a cutter to a thruster since ive starts up leraning period rapier. bt i digress.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the technology that made the spear obsolete in 1 on 1 fighting, the shield. The sword is far better able to deal with the shield then the spear.
I find it interesting htat your feel that the sheild made the spear oboslete considering that the spear was a very poopular weapon through out the ages not lonly amongst peasnts but also nobility. Now i am intereseted where you gained this opinion and I as well as others would not doubt like to have sources to examine.
Not obsolete, but obsolete in 1 on 1 fighting. In groups spears were still very effective but it's quite easy to rush past a spear using a shield. It's not so easy to get past a sword with one.
How big of a shield are we talking about here? If its a really big shield it makes sense but if its one of those round shields I could see how a skilled spear man will get you in the legs.
I could get past him being a much less skilled shield man. Those round shields are still big enough to cover a good section of your body, if I place the center of my shield along the invisible line from the tip of his spear I'm confident with little or no practice I can block him. The spear can only come in at me one way, I have a 3ft radius to block it with and I can adjust my shield faster then he can adjust his spear.
a spear can some in from a multitude of different angles as well as making very deceptive and fast feints. it inst that hard to get in and around a sheild its called using your foot work and moving around. If all you do is stand still and through straight on thurss ofcourse the sheild man will safe. have you ever fought against a modertley skilled spear man or woman?
