Do swords really deserve their fame?

[neskiairti]

very true.. and i suppose its a sort of riposte when its in a sword.. -chuckles- atleast when your on the defensive.

[Leprechaun]

The symbolism comes from basic human instinct. When threatened, most humans will naturally form a cross shape with their arms (it's both a way of protecting your personal space and body, and one of saying "back the **** off"). Like most of our oldest symbols, it's merely a replication of natural behaviour in an artificial form.

I see what you mean now! It's a way of making yourself look bigger, almost.

[Inasrian]

 I dont know what else is posted here but sword definitey deserve their fame. I mean take any two handed sword. They eat people alive. They rule.

[Merentha]

I dont know what else is posted here but sword definitey deserve their fame. I mean take any two handed sword. They eat people alive. They rule.

Maybe, but a halberd is basically the same thing, except that it simply does the job better.

[Archonsod]

I see what you mean now! It's a way of making yourself look bigger, almost.

More to do with instinctive reaction when threatened. Most people tend to duck slightly, and extend their arms in front of their head and upper chest (crossed just below the wrists).

[Maan]

The symbolism comes from basic human instinct.

Mmh. That may be one explanation, though I wouldn't assume so easily that is the only one.
As an anthropologist, I could think of a lot of explanations for the symbolism of the cross. European missionaries were almost shocked to find native villages in South America with crosses on their huts; but to that people, it was a symbol of the winds.
The Celtic Cross also uses the symbol of the circle, which usually implies protection. The swastika is more related to the concept of rotation (the sun, the cicle of Life and Death...).
That's just to say that there are lots of reasons for symbols... though it seems that some basics beliefs are commonplace in almost any human culture.

[Cumandante]

You're kidding, right? Do the research, man !

The pre-Marian Roman legion decisively defeated the Macedonian phalanx during a number of battles. Heres why:

a) The pikes wielded by phalangites sucked royally when marching in formation on rugged ground.
b) Once they busted past the first line of phalangites, the legionaries would chop them up with their short swords. Pikes were useless, and, being expertly efficient swordsmen, the Romans could outfight the Macedonians once they put down their pikes and drew their swords, which were their secondary weapons.

I'm sorry to revive an old topic, but some people are somewhat poorly informed about this.


First: Macedonians had been fighting other diadochi (or successors) for quite some time before the roman invasion, so they were already weakened. Also, their leaders disbanded most of the heavy cavalry because they couldn't pay for it, so the Macedonian hammer (cavalry) and anvil (phalanx) system couldn't be used properly, which was a requirement to their success.

Second: You don't pass the first line of pikes and "that's it"



as yo can see in the picture above, several ranks of pikes were turned forward, and once one (rank) was down, the first rank with pikes turned up would lower them, so you'd be facing a seemingly endless wall of pikes. You could avoid the first, even the second, with some luck, but the third would catch you. The phalanx was virtually invincible if faced head-on, you needed to outflank or outmaneuver it. That's what the Romans did, and why they did it? Because there wasn't a support force, like cavalry or light infantry (which was also required for success) there to stop it.

-------------------------------------------

Back on topic: couldn't a pike/spear be used for charging the enemy? Not saying it was, just asking if it couldn't if someone wanted to. I could act like a cavalry charge... downside: no horses, so less power; advantage: more men in one place, and more men in general.

I believe swordsmen, when in formation have one main goal: closing on the enemy as soon as possible. If the enemy can keep the distance, you're dead, if you close in, they're dead. They have a secondary goal: disrupt the enemy formation. Swordsmen can fight very effectively in loose formations, while many other types of soldiers can't, especially spearmen, the most common of all troop types. Also, a skilled swordsman is virtually invincible in 1v1.

Swords are famous because they were used by the nobility, and who writes history? The nobility.

[13 Spider Bloody Chain]

Also, a skilled swordsman is virtually invincible in 1v1.

I'd disagree with you here. I've heard from many duelists and martial artists that, on average, a spearman will defeat a swordsman of equal skill provided that the swordsman lacks a shield. Unless, of course, you're assuming that the swordsmen you're refering to are equipped with shields.

Swords are famous because they were used by the nobility, and who writes history? The nobility.

I thought mostly monks wrote history O_o

[Merentha]

I'd disagree with you here. I've heard from many duelists and martial artists that, on average, a spearman will defeat a swordsman of equal skill provided that the swordsman lacks a shield. Unless, of course, you're assuming that the swordsmen you're refering to are equipped with shields.

My experience would certainly back 13SBC's.  A spearman vs swordsman with no shield (either through loss or they're using a two-hander) is going to result in a spearman victory very, very consistently.

[Maan]

I'd say that, overall, assuming equal skills, the one with the longest weapon reach wins.
It's logical, if you think about it: longer reach -> first chance to hit & kill.
That's not to say that a warrior with a longer weapon cannot be defeated in a 1 vs 1, but he does have an advantage. Shields, though, as others pointed out, are a sort of equalizer... pretty good defense, tought to overcome

[Cumandante]

Swords are famous because they were used by the nobility, and who writes history? The nobility.

I thought mostly monks wrote history O_o

Monks wrote history according to the "great deeds" of their nobility...

About the invincibility thing: I said (virtually) invincible

[neskiairti]

no one is invincible.. there is always a way past their defense

[Cirdan]

as yo can see in the picture above, several ranks of pikes were turned forward, and once one (rank) was down, the first rank with pikes turned up would lower them, so you'd be facing a seemingly endless wall of pikes. You could avoid the first, even the second, with some luck, but the third would catch you. The phalanx was virtually invincible if faced head-on, you needed to outflank or outmaneuver it. That's what the Romans did, and why they did it? Because there wasn't a support force, like cavalry or light infantry (which was also required for success) there to stop it.

The Macedonians still had loads of light infantry. At Cynoscephalae they engaged 8,000 light infantry and 2,000 cavalry. That Pezhetairoi (the armoured pikemen who formed the phalanx) constituted a greater part of Macedonian armies at  the time of Philip V than in the days of Alexander the Great is likely, but that is due to the stupidity of later Macedonian generals. Moreover, at Cynoscephalae, as I have already posted (read the bloody thread) the Pezhetairoi were forced to abandon their sarissae and fight with swords, because the pikes were useless against the Roman legionnaires. Also, although Flaminius atatcked the phalanxes on their flanks at Cynoscephalae, he did not actually outflank them; rather, the phalanx on the left flank gave ground and lost contact with the centre and right (largely made up of lighter forces) and units from the Roman centre rushed into the gap, first attaking the phalanx's right flank and then moving behind the light infantry which was still in the fight, after the phalanx had been routed.

Back on topic: couldn't a pike/spear be used for charging the enemy? Not saying it was, just asking if it couldn't if someone wanted to. I could act like a cavalry charge... downside: no horses, so less power; advantage: more men in one place, and more men in general.

A spear is not a better charging weapon than a sword or cutting polearm. However, the pike is much more effective when cahrging than when standing still; indeed, at Cynoscephalae the phalanx was initially successful when charging with lowered pikes, forcing the Romans back until its momentum petered out. Then it was butchered utterly when Flaminius rallied his right flank and counter-atatcked with reinforcements.

[MaddsterOwnz]

raz is absolutely correct 900%.....