Lord Engineer said:
I didn't really watch the whole video, I have already viewed many similar videos and more often then not the rules and regulation stop realism or true recreation. For good reason, they are techniques designed to maim and kill. It's kind of like why they don't use real sword fighting in movies: you actually would injure people, well that and it doesn't look as flashy.
Of course. I do not question that for a moment. Just tryind to remind, that reanacment has it's flaws. It's not final argument in anything.
About Roman legions, they did still use spears but the sword and shield combination was still more prevalent.
After Marius reforms Pila were mainly throwing weapons. AFAIK they used mainly auxillaries for classical close combat spears.
About piercing maille, apart from the fact that you don't actually need to penetrate maille to do damage and that there would be something underneath it, the amount of energy needed to actually break the rings may not be necessary. If you had a sword with a severe enough taper (or pointiness) then you effectively don't need as much energy. The same applies to spears, and a spear is basically a pointed stick which was primarily a thrusting weapon. Now considering that an 11th century sword generally wasn't as tapered as swords in later centuries whereas a spear is a simply a pointy stick then a spear, even a one-handed one, would have a much easier time piercing maille than a sword. Arm both of them in chain and the swordsman is at a disadvantage.
TL;DR:Chain is good at stopping slashes and cuts and the best way to beat it is with something pointy, like a spear.[/quote]
Apart from blunt damage part (which is 100% correct), no, this test was done with wide range of swords, most of them with narrow, sharp end (mailpiercers). And no, still no one handed ring penetration. Even bodkin (FFS) needed 120 J to penetrate avarage mail, Lances needed staggering 140J, halebards 170J! So no, spears were most likely not mail destroyers. If they were, noone would invent more expensive, harder to learn weapons.
Besides, I doubt that Bannerlord will simulate armour in a realistic manner anyway, otherwise the game will become much, much harder.
I agree it won't. Would it become harder though? Or easier?
[quote author=Roccoflipside]
In addition to the above comment, just because your maille stops the blade from actually cutting/stabbing you doesn't mean that an 8' wooden shaft with a metal point jabbed as hard as possible into your abdomen is going to just disappear. Rather, that force is still transferred through the maille (and gambeson or whatever padding is under) to your body, probably knocking air out or at least forcing a double-over, which leaves you vulnerable. [/quote]
Well yes and no.
Of course it hurts. But I do not think lenght of the spear adds here anything to force. In fact, I believe it does otherwise. You decrease acceleration with unwieldy weapons.
Unless you get direct hit in the liver, blunt force trauma to the abdomen is painfull, but nothing a grown man can't handle. Boxers often use a tactic of hitting "body" of an opponent. In course of 12 rounds of bout it adds up. But unless it's delivered straight to the liver (Gasijev's style), body shots are there mainly to make opponent uncomfortable, not knock him down.
Also, much of the point of using spear+shield was the idea that, when you have a bunch of people all armed with spears standing in a line at least two deep, they can help cover each other/take advantage of openings created by others. Imagine you've got 200 men all armed w/ shields & spears and you get them in a double line. Each man on the front row can cover the area in front of him, as well as in front of the people on his left/right, while the back row can stab past the front row as well, meaning that attacking this formation potentially puts you in position to be attacked from 4/5 directions at once, and even if all of those end up being 'superficial' wounds, that many holes put in just about anyone will at least slow them down, if not take them out of the fight once and for all.
This is 100% true, and one of main reasons why shield+spear was dominant combination for many centuries in many places of the world.
Having said that, more agressive force could always try to come closer. Be it with a boar tusk's tactics or something like modern reaanacment "the bomb"
It can be observed for example here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOx4dSiVdqs&t=767s
at 8:40 center of shield wall breaks through.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEvx4pn6dM
same battle from drone perspective. 1:40 you can see a breakthrough. DESPITE pointy spears, and DESPITE the fact it's just reanacment (so one tap = you're dead).
I believe spears were mainly used for keeping the line, defensive purposes where lower quality troops could hold their ground for extended periods of time. But facing elite warriors in mail they were overrun.
I believe every shield wall battle would start with spear match, but sooner or later one side would try to close in. Not in whole line, mostly in part where best, most valiant warriors were.