Let's talk about the spears.

Users who are viewing this thread

Sodal

Recruit
Tell that to romans, that famously defeated your beloved spear-loving greeks. And you've provided an argument against yourself without knowing it: the spears worked for phalanx exactly because of the formation, once the romans were able to break the formation it dissolved into a melee where swords are superior.


Who calls/called it that? Here's an actual quote from someone with battle experience:
Tell that to the Germanic tribes and Hunns which defeated sword loving romans and forced them to adopt spears in the 3-4 century.

Your "facts" address to exceptions not to rules. You can not argue that spears were used all around the globe an masse. They were only fazed out by firearms over the centuries.
You seem just like some kind of Hollywood-loving fanboy which disagrees with something that does not correlate with his worldview. You are wrong and there is thousands of facts to prove it.
By the way, Fiore was a fencing instructor and duelist and not a battle-hardened veteran.
00006081.jpg

3555.jpg

wako_zukan.jpg
Battle_Scene%2C_after_Hans_Holbein_the_Younger.jpg
 
Last edited:

Tork789

Knight at Arms
WBNWWF&SM&BVC
@Sodal Most spearmen in your pictures are wearing swords exactly because when(not if) it comes down to melee, the spears are gonna be dropped to the ground in favour of the sword. They stop being the primary weapon after a certain point. You can clearly see that in the last picture of yours, which is called "Bad war" by Hans Holbein I believe. You can clearly see the pikes at the ground and people fighting with swords in the foreground:
GFCDQlp.png


Once again your are proving my point for me. You just need to do your own research instead of blindly believing youtube historians. Here are some other quotes for you from contemporary sources:

This account of the battle of Grunwald was written sixty years afterwards, by Jan Dlugosz, who served as the secretary to the Bishop of Cracow.
"Then knight attacked knight, armor crushed under the pressure of armor, and swords hit faces. And when the ranks dosed, it was impossible to tell the coward from the brave, the bold from the slow, because all of them were pressed together, as if in some tangle. They changed places or advanced only when the victor took the place of the defeated by throwing down or killing the enemy. When at last they broke the spears, all the units and armor clung together so tightly that, pushed by the horses and crowded, they fought only with swords and axes slightly, extended on their handles, and they made a noise in that fighting that only the blows of hammers can raise in a forge. And among the knights fighting hand to hand only with swords, one could observe examples of great courage.”

Alessandro Beneditti, The Battle of Fornovo (1495) Beneditti was a physician working for the Venetian forces and started his diary in May 1495, and a month later, was an eyewitness to this battle.
"A great many French fell and perished at the first onrush, for they carry shorter javelins(lances), wherefore they felt the first blows; however, the French seemed better suited to the sword, for as it is shorter, it is on that account considered better. "

Then there are more facts when we look at perimotem wounds: most of them are cuts, delivered by a sword or an axe:
lpCkf6j.png


Similar dsitribution of cuts vs. thrusts in Wisby, Dornach and Towton. Also interesting to note is that except for Wisby the wounds were concentrated usually on the head. No matter how you look at that, there's no way to conclude that a spear was the main killing weapon, at least in Late Middle Ages, as cuts absolutely dominate the statistics so far. Was spear widely used? Undeniably. Was it the bestest weapon ever? Absolutely not.
 

five bucks

Squire
In real life there was almost no use for other weapons except spears.
Greek hoplites very rarely carried xipos, most of them just used spears.

From ancient world - Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans (as pilum), to medieval ages: vikings, normans, rus, mongols, chinese, japanese - everyone used spears as a main weapon, both in one-on-one combat and in battles. In Scandinavia for every 2 found swords they found 6 axes and 15 spear points
Swords were enormously useful.

The reason they were not as common as spears is simple: Cost.
Swords require much more metal to make, and are more difficult to make, than hammering out a pointy speartip from a small amount of metal.

Since swords were more expensive, if they were also less useful, nobody would have bothered taking them to a battlefield. They just would have made fancier spears.
So you have to ask yourself: Why did people bother with swords? The answer: They were useful.
As for axes, they can be used as both weapons of war and tools (unlike swords), and unlike both swords and spears, were useful against wooden shields.
Tell that to the Germanic tribes and Hunns which defeated sword loving romans and forced them to adopt spears in the 3-4 century.
This is quite an incorrect statement. Here's how it really went.

The Romans began by using spear and large shield, like the Greeks.
But once Rome's Republic grew larger and richer, they could afford to outfit more soldiers with short swords instead, finding it a much more useful weapon in close quarters for stabbing around shields. So short sword+spear became the primary means of combat for legionaries. (Auxiliaries continued to mainly use spears, again for reasons of cost).

The Romans then continued to use the sword+shield method for like 300+ years, and fought with it against many, many spear-using enemies around the world. If it was no good they would have changed it in that time. They also never would have bothered to change from spears to swords in the first place if it was a worse and more expensive option!

Then, the Crisis of the Third Century happened. Rome's economy broke down internally. They could no longer afford to produce and distribute massive amounts of swords.
And this is why the mass use of the gladius was phased out and replaced by the spear. Not because of Germanic tribes (who used swords plenty themselves).

In addition, spears do have a use against cavalry which swords do not. This gives them an additional use swords can't offer, even if they were not necessarily better in a straight melee fight between infantry.
 
Last edited:

Tork789

Knight at Arms
WBNWWF&SM&BVC
Swords were enormously useful.

The reason they were not as common as spears is simple: Cost.
Swords require much more metal to make, and are more difficult to make, than hammering out a pointy speartip from a small amount of metal.

Since swords were more expensive, if they were also less useful, nobody would have bothered taking them to a battlefield. They just would have made fancier spears.
So you have to ask yourself: Why did people bother with swords? The answer: They were useful.
As for axes, they can be used as both weapons of war and tools (unlike swords), and unlike both swords and spears, were useful against wooden shields.

This is quite an incorrect statement. Here's how it really went.

The Romans began by using spear and large shield, like the Greeks.
But once Rome's Republic grew larger and richer, they could afford to outfit more soldiers with short swords instead, finding it a much more useful weapon in close quarters for stabbing around shields. So short sword+spear became the primary means of combat for legionaries. (Auxiliaries continued to mainly use spears, again for reasons of cost).

The Romans then continued to use the sword+shield method for like 300+ years, and fought with it against many, many spear-using enemies around the world. If it was no good they would have changed it in that time. They also never would have bothered to change from spears to swords in the first place if it was a worse and more expensive option!

Then, the Crisis of the Third Century happened. Rome's economy broke down internally. They could no longer afford to produce and distribute massive amounts of swords.
And this is why the mass use of the gladius was phased out and replaced by the spear. Not because of Germanic tribes (who used swords plenty themselves).

In addition, spears do have a use against cavalry which swords do not. This gives them an additional use swords can't offer, even if they were not necessarily better in a straight melee fight between infantry.
Good post. It's interesting how even though romans switched to swords, they continued to use it for thrusting mostly, almost as a tiny spear.
 
I don't really want to get dragged into another discussion that stopped being as much about the game and more about history, but you can't really compare weapons without comparing other aspects of their usage, like discipline, training, formations and so forth. For example, in the battle of Cynoscephalae, the romans were being pushed back on their left flank by the Macedonian phalanx, when the Roman commander saw the rest of the Macedonian phalanx that arrived later still out of formation he took the initiative and attacked them before they could form which resulted in a rout to which he then proceeded to flank the formed phalanx and routed/pursued the Macedonians all the way to their camp.
 
You can buff spears on a case-by-case basis.
Short spears should not be braceable, but just as useful as other melee weapons.
Medium spears should be braceable (but not amazing at that due to shorter length), and slightly worse in general combat than other melee weapons, doing normal damage at long range, worse damage at close range, and attacking at normal-ish speed.
Long 2-handed pikes that are braceable, and can outrange cavalry lances, should be as weak in melee as they are now.

With everything it should be possible to do everything.
what should be different are the CONSEQUENCES.

With a spear you should be able to POINT AND HIT.
But pointing and hitting should not imply that the attack is coming from one direction and therefore can be parried from that direction.

In summary:
- the thrust of a spear, the attack by moving the mouse backwards or forwards and then pressing the left mouse button, should be NON-DIRECTIONAL (in the sense in which the game means the directional attack).
As a result, the only way to block them should be to have the spear hitbox (the tip) collide with that of the equipment you use to defend yourself.
It means that you can aim and strike anywhere with a lunge and that the enemy can only block them if the weapon with which he is defending himself realistically touches the spear when he performs the parry animation.
The longer you hold down the left button, the slower and stronger the lunge becomes.
On the other hand, if you press quickly then the lunge is quick but weaker.

-In addition, it should be possible to execute short and fast horizontal blows (and obviously with a low damage whose type is associated with the tip of the spear), or wide, heavier and slower blows.
These attacks should be performed by moving the mouse to the right or left and using the left button.
The choice between fast swing or slow swing should depend on how long the left key is held down.
The longer you hold it down, the slower and wider the shot will be.

With this set of commands, the oriental style of combat with spears is even reproducible, which often involves short and fast swings, and short and fast thrust.
 

Sodal

Recruit
@Sodal Most spearmen in your pictures are wearing swords exactly because when(not if) it comes down to melee, the spears are gonna be dropped to the ground in favour of the sword. They stop being the primary weapon after a certain point. You can clearly see that in the last picture of yours, which is called "Bad war" by Hans Holbein I believe. You can clearly see the pikes at the ground and people fighting with swords in the foreground:
GFCDQlp.png


Once again your are proving my point for me. You just need to do your own research instead of blindly believing youtube historians. Here are some other quotes for you from contemporary sources:





Then there are more facts when we look at perimotem wounds: most of them are cuts, delivered by a sword or an axe:
lpCkf6j.png



Similar dsitribution of cuts vs. thrusts in Wisby, Dornach and Towton. Also interesting to note is that except for Wisby the wounds were concentrated usually on the head. No matter how you look at that, there's no way to conclude that a spear was the main killing weapon, at least in Late Middle Ages, as cuts absolutely dominate the statistics so far. Was spear widely used? Undeniably. Was it the bestest weapon ever? Absolutely not.
I like your mental gymnastics and confirmation bias. You completely disregarded everything and then just redcircled couple of swords in a FOREST OF SPEARS.
You keep talking about some youtuber or something. But the fact is - you are wrong and you are a joke. The pathetic attempt to bend facts to your own bias is just ridiculous. Go educate yourself.
 

Sodal

Recruit
Swords were enormously useful.

The reason they were not as common as spears is simple: Cost.
Swords require much more metal to make, and are more difficult to make, than hammering out a pointy speartip from a small amount of metal.

Since swords were more expensive, if they were also less useful, nobody would have bothered taking them to a battlefield. They just would have made fancier spears.
So you have to ask yourself: Why did people bother with swords? The answer: They were useful.
As for axes, they can be used as both weapons of war and tools (unlike swords), and unlike both swords and spears, were useful against wooden shields.

This is quite an incorrect statement. Here's how it really went.

The Romans began by using spear and large shield, like the Greeks.
But once Rome's Republic grew larger and richer, they could afford to outfit more soldiers with short swords instead, finding it a much more useful weapon in close quarters for stabbing around shields. So short sword+spear became the primary means of combat for legionaries. (Auxiliaries continued to mainly use spears, again for reasons of cost).

The Romans then continued to use the sword+shield method for like 300+ years, and fought with it against many, many spear-using enemies around the world. If it was no good they would have changed it in that time. They also never would have bothered to change from spears to swords in the first place if it was a worse and more expensive option!

Then, the Crisis of the Third Century happened. Rome's economy broke down internally. They could no longer afford to produce and distribute massive amounts of swords.
And this is why the mass use of the gladius was phased out and replaced by the spear. Not because of Germanic tribes (who used swords plenty themselves).

In addition, spears do have a use against cavalry which swords do not. This gives them an additional use swords can't offer, even if they were not necessarily better in a straight melee fight between infantry.
Cost maybe an issue in Early medieval ages, but from 14-th century metallurgy went a long way and basically any mercenary could afford sword or messer. But they still kept fighting with a spears, pikes and halberds.
Japanese fought with bow and tachi prior to Mongol invasion of Japan, but after they saw how effective mongol-chinese troops were with spears, japanese eventually switched too.

Even though cost argument has some merit on a surface, but in actuality is completely invalid.
 
The point that is missing is simply fear. The AI, either horse or man, will simply charge into a spear wall. The historic shield wall worked because usually the warriors were afraid to get skewered if they simply rushed into a throng of enemies pointing spears in your direction.

I do not really have solution for this. Horses could shy away and try to stop in front of a shield wall or multiple people with spears. But how to accomplish the same mechanism for humans is quite another matter.
The human part is more or less done: Example of formation combat.
 

Ted Striker

Veteran
Despite what some bald youtubers might tell you, spear isn't the ultimate greatest weapon of all time and it's length WAS a disadvantage when an enemy was able to get past the spear point, which is exactly what you see in the game, albeit in an exaggerated manner, but it makes complete sense from both realism and gameplay point of view. I've already explained why it makes sense from the realism point of view, gameplay-wise it makes sense because if we make spears as useful in melee as other weapons, what purpose would other weapons serve then? They would become useless, and why would you do that?

The game has a lot of problems, but not representing your long shaft fetish isn't one of them.
There is already an issue with many melee weapons being useless. All you need is a falx or two handed sword or axe, or a glaive on horseback, because you know historically nothing else even compared.

Spears are woefully underpowered in this game. They're barely useable on foot because of limited animations and some kind of minimum thrusting range for them to do any damage (I don't know the exact mechanic that causes it).

I'm not looking for Game of Thrones spear use but there needs to be more than what there is now.
 

Tork789

Knight at Arms
WBNWWF&SM&BVC
Those death wounds are mostly from behind which implies killing of routing people not people killed directly in formation face to face. For bannerlord the part of combat that happens before the rout is the relevant information.
Good observation and indeed most casualties were caused during the rout, hence the trauma distribution. But not all of the wounds are located on the back of the head and even if those wounds were caused during a rout, it just shows what weapons were in the hands of those dealing the finishing blow and if the spear was the ultimatest greatestest weaponest why would they choose something else to kill the routing foes? Wouldn't it make sense to just use whatever you had in your hands before they routed, during the fight?
 

Sodal

Recruit
Good observation and indeed most casualties were caused during the rout, hence the trauma distribution. But not all of the wounds are located on the back of the head and even if those wounds were caused during a rout, it just shows what weapons were in the hands of those dealing the finishing blow and if the spear was the ultimatest greatestest weaponest why would they choose something else to kill the routing foes? Wouldn't it make sense to just use whatever you had in your hands before they routed, during the fight?
Dude, your arguments getting even more deranged. Just please, stop embarrassing yourself. You are wrong and its ok to be wrong. Just admit it and move on.

I guess your next argument will be - "Why does Aragorn uses sword to fight nazgul if spears are so good"
 

Ser Jon

Squire
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
I've never actually seen someone try to argue that spears were not used commonly around the world, or try to deny that they had better uses than in singular situations. There is a reason they were so popular in warfare since antiquity and it wasn't solely because of cost (though it certainly played a part). Alexander the Great conquered with mostly sarissophoroi for example, and that's just one of many examples (Roman's extensive use of the pilum is another). The sword was often back up for when your polearm broke or because the enemy drew too close for polearm formations to work effectively. The decline in polearms within warfare only really came around the Renaissance, when firearms and gun powder were becoming more and more popular.

Good observation and indeed most casualties were caused during the rout, hence the trauma distribution. But not all of the wounds are located on the back of the head and even if those wounds were caused during a rout, it just shows what weapons were in the hands of those dealing the finishing blow and if the spear was the ultimatest greatestest weaponest why would they choose something else to kill the routing foes? Wouldn't it make sense to just use whatever you had in your hands before they routed, during the fight?

This has got to be a troll.
 

XDaron

Sergeant Knight
history aside, if they reduced glances and made spear hits always knockback enemies that would be a great start already

if they are feeling a little bit wild, they could even make the AI use the polearm bash attack when enemies get too close knocking opponents back a bit, or make it so the bash pushes enemies a bit further to really give the spearman some space.

if they are feeling ultra wild, they could make so if an enemy blocks an spear with a shield in the wrong direction, it briefly stuns the opponent giving the spearman another chance to attack, just like RBM
 
Last edited:

CrazyElf

Veteran
What they can do to fix it, is make all spears swing and add a weapon mod (x) where you hold the spear closer to the pointy end for close combat.
That's how historically spear wielders done it when an enemy got close
main-qimg-0f02ffdd3d509d7530209df87d93e226


That's a lot harder to do in real life than you make it sound.

In the case of their fights against the Greeks, at Cynoscephale and Pydna (and I would argue Magnesia, as well, although not strictly "against the Greeks"), Rome's tactical thinking, discipline, espirit de corps, and ability to take losses without routing were far more important. What it wasn't necessarily was the triumph of the sword vs the spear the way you seem to be implying.

@Sodal Most spearmen in your pictures are wearing swords exactly because when(not if) it comes down to melee, the spears are gonna be dropped to the ground in favour of the sword. They stop being the primary weapon after a certain point. You can clearly see that in the last picture of yours, which is called "Bad war" by Hans Holbein I believe. You can clearly see the pikes at the ground and people fighting with swords in the foreground:


Swords were used as a backup weapon in the images. It would be like saying in the age of musket that people fought mostly with bayonets and that the bayonet was superior to firing the musket.

The main attack came from "push of pike". It did not mostly come down to swords - it came down to push of pike being decisive in infantry warfare of that era.

If swords were so much better as you imply, why bother with spears at all? Evidently, the spear clearly has advantages (reach for one). The sword certainly had its uses, but its drawbacks meant that it was not the main weapon to be used.


Tell that to romans, that famously defeated your beloved spear-loving greeks. And you've provided an argument against yourself without knowing it: the spears worked for phalanx exactly because of the formation, once the romans were able to break the formation it dissolved into a melee where swords are superior.


The Romans won many of their victories against enemies with inferior armor. Another factor that played in their favor was Rome's economic advantages and that the legions were the first truly professional army in the Western world.



The spear (hasta) would later return in the later Roman empire and longer swords (in Bannerlord you will note the Empire, which is based on the late Roman / Byzantine Empire uses the Spatha).

The polearm wasn't the end all be all weapon, but it did dominate until firearms started showing up. Swords tended to be more expensive and harder to train effectively with. They did have the upper hand in close quarters, but closing the distance ins much harder than you make it sound.

They also tended to suffer against armor - polearms had to be used for that reason and especially blunt weapons. About the only real sword use against armor was to use a daggers (or possibly half swording) against weak points when the enemy was pinned. What swords remained became thinner in an attempt to penetrate armor (this would ultimately evolve into the rapier).

Another weak point is that short sword armies tended to do poorly against cavalry - something that would result in quite a few Roman defeats.

These factors would result in the Romans themselves bringing back the phalanx. The phoulkon used in the late Roman and Byzantine empires. It's described extensively in the Byzantine military document, the Strategikon. The late Romans and Eastern Romans would not have brought it back were it not for the advantages (particularly over flat ground). Much like Alexander the Great, the late Romans and Byzantines would rely on combined arms tactics and these spear formations were heavily supported by heavy cavalry and ranged units.





Late Middle Ages and Early Renaissance infantry combat relied heavily on "push of pike" type fights. There were sword like weapons like the Zweihänder, but they acquired the characteristics of polearms due to their sheer size. Pike square tactics were used (the Swiss mercenaries were famous for this and won many victories).

Eventually firearms got to the point where "pike and shot" became the main tactic and eventually, well fewer and fewer pikes until the musket largely took over.
 
Last edited:
That's a lot harder to do in real life than you make it sound.

In the case of their fights against the Greeks, at Cynoscephale and Pydna (and I would argue Magnesia, as well, although not strictly "against the Greeks"), Rome's tactical thinking, discipline, espirit de corps, and ability to take losses without routing were far more important. What it wasn't necessarily was the triumph of the sword vs the spear the way you seem to be implying.
Its hard but possible, the spear won't be as wieldy but at least it is functional. It is much better then the bouncing back that is happening now.
I am not implying that the spear is better then the sword, so your little Rome fanboying was a bit unnecessary. That was just a photo i found on google to clarify what i meant and where approximately the spear would be held. Depending on the length of the spear, you would have to hold it a bit further from the pointy end.
 

five bucks

Squire
Cost maybe an issue in Early medieval ages, but from 14-th century metallurgy went a long way and basically any mercenary could afford sword or messer. But they still kept fighting with a spears, pikes and halberds.
Japanese fought with bow and tachi prior to Mongol invasion of Japan, but after they saw how effective mongol-chinese troops were with spears, japanese eventually switched too.

Even though cost argument has some merit on a surface, but in actuality is completely invalid.
Some spears kept being used when swords became more affordable because (a) just because swords are MORE affordable doesn't mean they still aren't a comparatively more expensive option than spears if you're a poor fighter, and (b) as I already said, spears and pikes had an advantage against cavalry which swords didn't.

Cost is an entirely valid explanation. Again, nobody would have bothered with swords at all if they were more expensive than spears but weren't more effective in some way.
Dude, your arguments getting even more deranged. Just please, stop embarrassing yourself. You are wrong and its ok to be wrong. Just admit it and move on.

I guess your next argument will be - "Why does Aragorn uses sword to fight nazgul if spears are so good"
I don't know if you even read that post. The first post he made wasn't a great argument, but the one you replied to is quite reasonable, and contains historical evidence.
 
Top Bottom