So I was having a discussion with a friend and the topic of spears in medieval warfare came up.
My question is this: did plate armoured soldiers (knights/men at arms/ect) commonly utilize generic spears on foot? I almost always see them depicted either on horseback or using some other form of pole arm. Where there many who fought with shield+spear or just spear?
I am specifically interested in the 14th century, but answers for other time periods are also nice.
Why have a spear when you can have a halberd which combines three weapons into one?
>>424165
Where are you drawing the line between "spears" on one hand and "pikes" on the other?
Because pikes were fuck ass common.
As for the other question, about the shields? Once you had plate armor, shields almost disappeared. Two major reasons for that:
1) If you have plate, chances are, the guys you're fighting also have plate. You're going to need a weapon that can get through that shit, which usually means 2 handed to generate enough power.
2) Less marginal protection. If you're in plate, you're only really worried about weapons that can get through plate. Anything that can get through plate is also going to get through a wooden board, unless it's so thick and heavy that your arm will fall off trying to use it.
>>424165
Pretty sure plate armor hadn't developed to the full one we know in 14th century yet. Also it was expensive as hell, naturally, so not every footman (if any at all) could use it.
Pic related is medieval warfare. You're thinking of early modern/Renaissance warfare.
>>424165
Why settle for something with limited functionality like a spear if you can afford to have expensive armor in the first place.
And everything >>424180 said is true, if you and your opponents are wearing plate armor, then some 7ft long pointed stick held in one hand is a colossal waste. You need a much much longer pointed stick or something which can otherwise deliver more damage.
Polearms != Spears
Heavy Billmen
>>424165
yes, spears are purpose built for reach and fill a crucial role
http://www.hroarr.com/manuals/fiore/omsg_lanza.pdf
>pikes
pikes are meant to be used in formation with other pikes, if formations are broken then the spear takes the stage as the most practical weapon with the best reach
>polearms
they are slightly heavier and have slightly less reach, they come in all different shapes and sizes and some inhabit the grey area between polearms and spears, after plate armor became widespread, polearms also became popular, replacing swords and shields or spears and shields as the most widespread choice
>>424165
The thing about having plate armor back then meant you had significant funds at your disposal. Spears and pikes were so common because they were so cheap. Axes were another common weapon, but not nearly as plentiful as spears were in combat.
If you had plate armor, that meant you had a lot of money. Why settle for a plain, cheap spear? Polearms were a good choice for an armored knight because they were versatile. Of course there was the sword too. That weapon, despite being shown so much in every medieval movie ever made, belonged to the most affluent people on the battlefield.
Daggers would be in some footsoldiers' arsenals, but they were not to the quality of the swords being wielded by nobility. They almost appeared magical to the common man.
TL;DR - spears were in the hands of poor men, while armor and swords were in the control of nobility
>>424811
Some equal spears... a pike is not the same length as a poleax
>>424811
>>426869
As seen here with this soldier's glaive length
