Techniques for a spearman on defeating a shield-bearing warrior?

After watching youtube vids of mock-duels where a spear-and-shieldman was rendered worthless by a cheap shield, I have to wonder how the average spearman was expected to defeat someone equipped with a decent-sized (that is, covering most or all of the upper torso) shield.

Any spear-wielding martial artists around?

Try poking over, under, or around the shield IIRC. If you don't have a shield of your own, however, then you're basically screwed. If you do, the first person to get around the other's shield has essentially won. You don't have to poke the other guy in the torso, a good spear stab through the weapon arm or into the thigh can prove disabling or at least gain you a serious advantage. A pierced femoral artery is usually an incapacitating or even fatal wound, for instance. Feinting might help--you could feint for the face/shoulder and then go for the thigh, or vice versa.

Cirdan said:

Try poking over, under, or around the shield IIRC. If you don't have a shield of your own, however, then you're basically screwed. If you do, the first person to get around the other's shield has essentially won. You don't have to poke the other guy in the torso, a good spear stab through the weapon arm or into the thigh can prove disabling or at least gain you a serious advantage. A pierced femoral artery is usually an incapacitating or even fatal wound, for instance. Feinting might help--you could feint for the face/shoulder and then go for the thigh, or vice versa.

Click to expand...

What about against a swordsman with a shield? I have no combat experience to speak of, but it seems reasonable that a swordsman can simply crouch a bit to have his shield cover all but his head and lower legs and simply bull into the spearman.

13 Spider Bloody Chain said:

What about against a swordsman with a shield? I have no combat experience to speak of, but it seems reasonable that a swordsman can simply crouch a bit to have his shield cover all but his head and lower legs and simply bull into the spearman.

Click to expand...

The spearman can do essentially the same thing, though.  If the spearmen is able to ram into his opponent and knock him off balance, he's likely to get a free shot at some part of the guy.  Besides, if the swordsman crouches so that everything is concealed except his head and shins, well, you stab him in the face.    It also potentially hampers his balance because it restricts the movement of his legs, so if the spearman barrels into him, he'll topple over much more easily (and then get skewered, most likely).

Cheers.

13 Spider Bloody Chain said:

Cirdan said:

Try poking over, under, or around the shield IIRC. If you don't have a shield of your own, however, then you're basically screwed. If you do, the first person to get around the other's shield has essentially won. You don't have to poke the other guy in the torso, a good spear stab through the weapon arm or into the thigh can prove disabling or at least gain you a serious advantage. A pierced femoral artery is usually an incapacitating or even fatal wound, for instance. Feinting might help--you could feint for the face/shoulder and then go for the thigh, or vice versa.

Click to expand...

What about against a swordsman with a shield? I have no combat experience to speak of, but it seems reasonable that a swordsman can simply crouch a bit to have his shield cover all but his head and lower legs and simply bull into the spearman.

Click to expand...

As Landwalker said--a spear won't rpevent you from doing the exact same thing. However, it would be uncommon on a battlefield because, even if you succeed, you're now inside the enemy shield wall, off-balance and with both your flanks exposed; therefore, you are dead. Even one-on-one, crouching restricts your movement, you can't rapidly move forwards without exposing yourself greatly, and you're poorly positioned to attack from a real crouch. Crouching essentially happens in shieldless fighting; with a shield you'll have your knees slightly bent but crouching/kneeling behind your shield is basically "total defence", you might do it to protect yourself from an incoming rain of arrows, but not really in melee.

Cirdan said:

However, it would be uncommon on a battlefield because, even if you succeed, you're now inside the enemy shield wall, off-balance and with both your flanks exposed; therefore, you are dead.

Click to expand...

But if everyone next to you are doing the exact same thing...? What about then? You're inside a spearman's range, while you have a sword in hand. Granted, at that point you're both too close to effectively wield your weapon, but at least the swordsman could stun the enemy with his pommel, place the sharp edge of his sword on a piece of unarmored flesh and draw cut, etc. no?

Even one-on-one, crouching restricts your movement, you can't rapidly move forwards without exposing yourself greatly, and you're poorly positioned to attack from a real crouch.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I should have clarified. By "crouching" I meant "stooping a bit with your knees bent so that all that is exposed is a bit of your head and your lower legs".

Landwalker said:

The spearman can do essentially the same thing, though. 

Click to expand...

But isn't the problem with the spear that, should you charge and your blow get deflected by the swordsman's shield, you're well within the swordsman's reach?

[quote author=13 Spider Bloody Chain]But isn't the problem with the spear that, should you charge and your blow get deflected by the swordsman's shield, you're well within the swordsman's reach?[/quote]
I actually meant the spearman barreling into the swordsman using his shield, not his spear.  The large surface of the shield would be optimal for knocking the opponent off balance and it would make the charge very difficult to deflect (because you can put greater mass behind the shield), and then it's a simple matter of poking him.  In fact, the Roman legions did just that, although they were mostly using short swords rather than spears.

But if everyone next to you are doing the exact same thing...? What about then? You're inside a spearman's range, while you have a sword in hand. Granted, at that point you're both too close to effectively wield your weapon, but at least the swordsman could stun the enemy with his pommel, place the sharp edge of his sword on a piece of unarmored flesh and draw cut, etc. no?

Click to expand...

And the spearman could punch his opponent with his spear hand (without even letting go of the spear), take a step back, and stick that pig.  I think you're shortchanging the spearman when it comes to "maneuvers" -- most of what a swordsman can do, a spearman can do as well in some variation or other.

Another thing that might be useful is more clearly defining "spear".  Are you talking about a longer spear, as one might find in a phalanx or among hoplites, of 8-10 feet, or a short spear / half spear that's probably more on the order of 4 feet in length?

One last point:  Although the two combatants might be inside the optimal range of each others weapons, the spearman's friend in the second row will have perfect range on the swordsman.  The swordsman in the second row?  Probably out of luck.  Spear-based fighting lends itself to much greater teamwork.

Cheers.

I don't know much about combat, but couldn't the spearman just hold out his spear against the swordsman and just strike as soon as he tries to swing?

I would not fight with spear-and-shield against a sword-and-shield opponent. I feel that one-handed spear has too little attack forms, and would either drop my shield and fight two-handed, or drop the spear and pull a secondary weapon. Having a short sword might be a good thing here. (Then again, I have not trained with spear and shield, and not been involved in mass combat training.)

You might be able to "run the shield" against the swordsman, by jabbing the spear high and low in changing pattern so that he has to move the shield all the time. Of course, the swordsman will be doing the same thing to you.

If you have a good spear with large blade and cutting edges, you can fight two-handed. In this case your spear is more agile than the sword, and your can strike with much more strength. A leaf-shaped spear blade can cut as well as sword blade, so the 2-handed spear becomes cut-and-thrust weapon which has similar attack forms as the sword, and has some attack forms which sword does not have.

13 Spider Bloody Chain said:

After watching youtube vids of mock-duels where a spear-and-shieldman was rendered worthless by a cheap shield, I have to wonder how the average spearman was expected to defeat someone equipped with a decent-sized (that is, covering most or all of the upper torso) shield.

Click to expand...

By having plenty of friends. It's not the man in front of him that kills the swordsman, it's the man standing next to him who can thrust behind his shield.

On your own typically the swordsman has the advantage. unless there is some form of lug on the spear then you can hook the shiled edge, yank it back then thrusat downward into him while out of sword range.
But with two or more spearmen you can do many things such as onethrusts to the far right corner of the shield causing it to pop open so his buddy spears him. ect.

Farmind said:

If you have a good spear with large blade and cutting edges, you can fight two-handed. In this case your spear is more agile than the sword, and your can strike with much more strength. A leaf-shaped spear blade can cut as well as sword blade, so the 2-handed spear becomes cut-and-thrust weapon which has similar attack forms as the sword, and has some attack forms which sword does not have.

Click to expand...

The problem is that he has a shield--he can deflect your blows, and once he gets in a good swing you're screwed if you don't have a shield, or very good armour. I wouldn't fight two-handed in anything short of Milanese plate.

Sorry, I should have clarified. By "crouching" I meant "stooping a bit with your knees bent so that all that is exposed is a bit of your head and your lower legs".

Click to expand...

Depends what shield you're using. With an Argive (hoplite's) shield, that's pretty much automatic when you're in fighting stance; if you're using a late medieval pavise or a Roman scutum, you'll have even more coverage. A Nordic centre-grip is only a little smaller. If you're using a 17th-century target, on the other hand, it's just not going to happen.

But if everyone next to you are doing the exact same thing...? What about then? 

Click to expand...

If you train your entire battle-line to drop down and bull-rush the enemy's legs with their shields at the same time, it will work twice. In the third battle, their second line will be expecting it and butcher your first before they recover their balance.

And the spearman could punch his opponent with his spear hand (without even letting go of the spear), take a step back, and stick that pig.  I think you're shortchanging the spearman when it comes to "maneuvers" -- most of what a swordsman can do, a spearman can do as well in some variation or other.

Click to expand...

Yep. The longer, heavier battle-spears (like the Greek doru, Roman hasta or the spears the Vikings used) will tend to have something useful on their butt ends, like a spike or a second head or simply a metal counterweight you can bash the enemy's brains out with. The short spears (I'm thinking the Assyrian spear here) you can just grab by the middle and they're as useable as a sword up close; the half-spears (like M&B's toothpicks or Zulu stabbing assegais) you can use to stab even when grappling, or else wield much like an estoc if you so choose. In short, crowding a spearman is nowhere near as effective as you seem to think. What effectiveness it did had largely stemmed from making teamwork by the spearmens' second rank harder, since they'd have to use their spears at more awkward angles to get them over or around their friends.

were I a spearman against a swordsman, the first thing I would do would be to look for any opening at all. if none were found, I would hold the very end of the spear, and stomp on part of the shaft, breaking it. I would then have a small swrod sized piercing weapon. my advantage with that is, me being right handed and my opponent being right handed, should he begin to slash, I can stab his sword arm. if he shifts his shield to dirstly face me, I might have enough room to stab around the side, to his left. I can stab my lighter weapon before he can slash his heavier one. eventually, one on one, I will most likely be victorious.

that would be the Nord tactic, eh?

13 Spider Bloody Chain said:

After watching youtube vids of mock-duels where a spear-and-shieldman was rendered worthless by a cheap shield, I have to wonder how the average spearman was expected to defeat someone equipped with a decent-sized (that is, covering most or all of the upper torso) shield.

Any spear-wielding martial artists around?

Click to expand...

there are two schools of thought on this....

I preface by assuming that you are referring to a spear of short-medium length.....around 4-8 feet total....anything longer really would be far from ideal in one on one combat.

1) spears are inferior....they were rendered obsolete thousands of years ago, and immediatly disapeared from the battlefield. Not buying it? ok...well, spears were inferior, but it was cheaper to equip an army with spears than it was to equip an army with swords. Ok, calling bs on that one too? (yeah, there was deforestation, good, straight hardwood for spears was not necessarily plentiful, and a good war spear doesn't really save alot of metal or skill compared to a cheap sword.)  Ok, so, we're done with #1

2) spears are best used in formation, while one swordsman is engaging in melee with the first spearman (who would probably drop his spear in favor of his sword or dagger), the spearman to the rear-right and rear-left of the first would be busy poking holes in the swordsmen and the swordmen directly behind him.....spear formations are a beast defensively, but not so much offensively.....the soloution, greater than the sum of it's parts, is combined arm formations.

As for techniques, preparing for the long fight, strategic retreats and advances to maintain proper distance, sidestepping, and straight line, clean thrusting are the keys to victory for the spearman.

The swordsman would want to force the short fight, bait his opponents aggression, parry or draw his opponents weapon into lateral motions, and close distance authoritively.

What the hell? Thousands of years ago? Bull****. Spears were still used during renaissance periods - pikes.

Lances were still used in the 19th century by cavalry men - lances are spears, by the way.

did you actually read the post? lol

Yes, I did. These are your words:

"spears are inferior....they were rendered obsolete thousands of years ago, and immediatly disapeared from the battlefield"

Fei Dao said:

Lances were still used in the 19th century by cavalry men - lances are spears, by the way.

Click to expand...

20th Century. Lance cavalry was still common in WW1, and Polish lancers fought in WW2.

Fei Dao said:

Yes, I did. These are your words:

"spears are inferior....they were rendered obsolete thousands of years ago, and immediatly disapeared from the battlefield"

Click to expand...

actually, these are my words:
'1) spears are inferior....they were rendered obsolete thousands of years ago, and immediatly disapeared from the battlefield. Not buying it?'

Those three words at the end of that section are pretty important.