Why did the sword become the universal symbol for warfare, martial prowess, chivalry, and state power? It's really not that useful of a weapon compared to other ancient weapons such as spears, axes, and of course ranged weapons like bow/arrow.
my uneducated guess is that it took training and skill to become competent and even more to become good and many of the people back then didn't have money nor training to get skilled in their use, just give them a mace or spear.
Also perhaps the craftsmanship that went into some of them, swords weren't exactly the cheapest weapon around in their time.
>>27942919
it's one of the few a tools specifically designed to be used in combat, other added uses like hunting are minimal compared to a spear or bow.
And it's easy to carry, while still being fairly effective...
>>27942919
>Why did the sword become the universal symbol for warfare, martial prowess, chivalry, and state power? It's really not that useful of a weapon compared to other ancient weapons such as spears, axes, and of course ranged weapons like bow/arrow.
Because they're a bad ass, cool weapon. I'm sure people back then thought along the same lines just like people do now. Plus because they're more expensive and more difficult to master, the people who wielded them tended to be knights and nobility which gave them a certain prestige with ownership.
Plus being made almost entirely out of metal made them family heirloom-tier items, whereas a spear probably isn't going to be passed down for many generations or otherwise be noted as something of tremendous value.
Also the fact you can carry around a sword in a sheath makes it a very convenient weapon for carrying around regularly.
>>27942919
>It's really not that useful of a weapon compared to other ancient weapons such as spears, axes, and of course ranged weapons like bow/arrow
Objectively wrong. Swords are the most versatile weapons of all of those, bar none. They're also sturdier in general due to being entirely made of metal. There's a reason almost every culture figured out swords or things that functioned like swords and they were one of the last melee weapons to be mostly phased out of regular combat use. Even now, a lot of longer bayonets could qualify as very short swords or daggers, although the difference between those categories is very fuzzy.
Spears are good in block formations, but shitty outside of them, axes fill a similar role to swords and were pretty quickly superseded, bows are good in formations and large battles, but most archer units carried swords for when their bows became useless.
>>27942919
"Why did the rifle become the universal symbol for warfare, military equipment, discipline, and state power? It's really not that useful of a weapon compared to other military arms such as RPGs, Handgrenades, and of course short-range weapons like flamethrowers."
That is roughly how spectacularly, stupidly wrong your idea that its "not that useful" is.
The sword is one of the most versatile, adaptable, and plain lethal weapons that remained in use from the Bronze Age for pretty much close to 3,000 years. Its only in the last 100, with the development of rapid reloading semiautomatic firearms that the sword has finally fallen from use. Saying it is "not that useful" shows nothing but an utter ignorance of history, and the reality of warfare.
>>27944027
Could not have been said better
>>27943049
Why's that horse so fat
>>27944027
Spears have been around longer, and if you count bayonets still get used in very rare occasions
>>27942919
>It's really not that useful of a weapon compared to other ancient weapons such as spears, axes, and of course ranged
Except is.
You can't wear a spear, and sword is flatly superior to the ax for most jobs. It's much easier to defend yourself with, buy dint of having guards and being more responsive, will cut padded armor to ribbons, and is good for hacking limbs off of partially armored men.
Axes are severely overrated. So are bows, for that matter, and I say that as an archer. I love my bow, but if I had to go to war with just it or just a close combat weapon in the medieval era, she'd be staying home.
>>27945237
>Hacking off limbs
You know how people are full of bullshit? This is how.
ITT people who actually believe the katana is obsolete
>>27943941
>swords are more practical than spears, bows, and other war weapons
Hmmm, look, while swords were wonderful weapons that filled a multitude of roles, they didn't fit too well into the "meta" of actual warfare, which boils down to reach, ease of use, and armour penetration, all of which aren't strong factors in most blades. Spears, in fact do work wonderfully well in single and non-formation fighting, and easily have quite the advantage in the former, but if I had to guess, you probably meant "pikes", in wich case, yes, they're awful in a melee. This is typically what swords are considered the best at outside of self defence and sporting situations- chaos at relatively short range in cramped quarters. Swords excel in this role slightly ahead of knives due largely to their ability to be used as pretty effective parrying tools, but due to their price and difficulty to maintain, I'm willing to bet knives were more popular.
As for their longevity, this is also wrong. A bayonet on a rifle has the explicit advantage of turning said rifle into a spear, and more contemporary ones served a due function as a knife as well. Swords saw service as decorative or personal defence weapons in the case of officers, or as lightweight alternatives to lances for cavalry long into the age of firearms, but I'm willing to bet this more had to do with the phasing out of heavy slash proof armor that advanced small arms could simply punch through anyways. If you want to be technical, the most modern and closest equivalent to a melee weapon in modern times would probably be the knife, but to my understanding even that is more of an absolute last ditch weapon or tool.
I'm guessing swords are a major symbol of war due to the luxury and skill associated with them in a time where war was romanticized by anyone who had enough money to develop a culture.
A lot of soldiers that used weapons other than swords carried them in addition to their spear or whatever.
>>27945342
Swords are sidearms.
All the long pokey things our ancestors fought each other with in the pre-funz age were rifles.
Ponder that for a bit. And ponder how expensive having sidearms of any sort were before Sam Colt.
>>27945237
>axes have no advantages to swords
Armor penetration, maintenance, ease of use/training/manufacture. You're probably thinking of the tool called an axe and not a war axe.
>swords hacking off limbs
Maybe, MAYBE a solid hit on a largely incapacitated or unaware unarmoured foe with like a falchion or katana or some such heavier cleaving sword, if it hit right between the joints, but generally speaking this is insanely unlikely.
>>27945342
You are so wrong it's not even funny.
Swords were so ubiquitous that they're still the number one item found at archeological battle sites. Every army worth a shit armed everyone they could with a sword along with their other weapons. Pikes are disposable. Bows are useless once melee is joined. Axes were basically only used by early vikings (Who then upgraded to swords). As for spears, well, spears were phased out in favor of pikes before Rome even fell, and swords were ubiquitous long before and long after pikes stopped being used en masse. Daggers are only superior to a sword when you're facing down someone wearing a full plate harness, where you literally have to wrestle them to the ground and stab them in the face or a joint to get an effective hit in.
>>27945363
Some swords are sidearms. Many are not. That's like saying "Rifled firearms are sidearms".
>>27945385
>Armor penetration
No. You want actual armor penetration, you use something with a beak, not a blade of any sort. And even then, armor actually outstripped the ability of weapons to directly penetrate it.
>Maintenance
Barely. You still have to maintain the edge, but you also have to worry about stress on the handle.
>Ease of use/training/manufacture
Debatable. Very, very debatable.
>>27945363
Yeah, I agree. I would equate swords as sidearms to something more like a browning hi-power or other military sidearms of varying sort, with knives being more like cheaper home defence nightstand stuff. I would prefer to have the former to the latter, but both are going to work decently similarly all things considered. Given the choice I would take a dagger and a shield over a sword for a backup if I were a Pileman or archer or something because there's no way I'm going toe to toe with some well fed fucker in plate who has been sword fighting since his childhood unless he's on the ground where I can stab the bajeebus out of him through his visor or armpit or whatever, but that's just me. I think sidearms were totally bring your own blade back then anyways.
Different tools for different jobs.
>>27945430
Literally all of those jobs you describe were filled by swords. Pikemen and archers carried swords. Cavalry carried swords (Especially lancers, since a sharpened length of wood is not going to survive more than one good pass). Civilians carried swords.
They were different types of swords, but it was not uncommon at all for European townsmen to have blades on them, and then it became extremely common with the advent of the rapier and its ilk.
>>27942919
>It's really not that useful of a weapon compared to other ancient weapons such as spears, axes, and of course ranged weapons like bow/arrow.
i love /tg/ armchair warriors
>>27945451
Pic related was the last time melee spears were used by a Western military.
>>27945342
It's great when we have these threads about anything before the 19th Century, because there's always that one guy who is so confident in what is essentially pure unfiltered bullshit.
They are good in a clusterfuck. There is no intense battle where people don't drop their spears, don't drop their swords, don't drop their daggers, and resort to fists. Hell, in today's age you hear report of a melee breaking out.
>>27945488
The nodachi is something of an oddity. Depending on the source, it's either a cavalry weapon that you pretty much used for rideby swipes, or it's an anti-cavalry weapon that doesn't work so well. And then some were purely ceremonial because the samurai class had become glorified paper pushers and liked their cool toys.
>>27945553
>Nodachi
youre thinking of the odachi my man. the sephiroth sword
>>27945553
Big ass blade being used against cavalry isn't something unique. The chinese have their Zhanmadao. Which literally translate to horse chopping blade.
>>27945587
The reports about the Japanese one aren't very positive. Maybe it's just a string of bad luck, but when the guys with the anti-cavalry weapon are consistently losing to the cavalry, it's probably because it's not actually very good.
>>27945565
>>27945553
oops i got my nips words messed up because that webum >>27945488 seems to be mislabel or something. he pretty obviously has a nagamaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagamaki
nodachi and odachi are aparently the same thing and that anon maybe got the swords mixed up
Primarily because they were expensive.
Think back to ancient times, metal was a very rare thing. Extraction of copper and iron was basically limited to exposed veins in caves or surface deposits. The tools to get metal out were primitive even by medieval standards as was the techniques. And it was horribly dangerous even then.
So what limited metal the society did produce had to be used to its fullest potential. Spears make for a great weapon without having to use much metal. Shortswords made of bronze became common as copper became more abundant, but iron remained expensive and rare for a long time. You wouldn't see iron swords except in the higher echelons. Rome comes along and somewhat standardizes shit, they've got a massive Empire, so they can actually afford to arm their core soldiers with both iron swords and even iron armor. Their non Roman soldiers mostly used spears however, they didn't have the luxury of full metal weapons.
The Gaelic peoples were a bit different though, they used swords a lot. They were excellent metal workers, but ultimately they were tribal people and had much smaller armies, any army being made up of dozens if not hundreds of smaller tribes, and they still extensively used spears, swords being reserved for the stronger, older, or more fanatical warriors.
Move into the Middle Ages and steel starts becoming a thing. Iron is more common now, bronze isn't used for armor much if at all. Iron and steel are the mainstays. The metals are more common, but armies are also larger. It's really fucking expensive to equip an army of 50,000. Most of the time they get an iron tipped spear, and heavy jacket and a wooden shield. If they're lucky or part of a particularly wealthy army, or their dad has an old hand me down they might have a short sword or even a helmet. The vast majority are pretty poorly armed though. They carry hatchets or daggers or clubs as a backup if they lose their spear.
>>27945599
Maker of the sword is Angels Sword. They call it a Nodachi and so I just name the webm the same.
>>27945633
Armies that large were almost invariably drawn from Feudal tithes. It's not one entity arming 50,000 men, it's a whole bunch of nobles arming a few thousand men each and then sending them along to the mustering point.
>>27945633
This is really where the sword becomes the weapon of the elite. With copper weaponry swords were fairly common. Not with steel.
The elite can afford swords unlike the peasants. This starts off as merchant sons, princes, duke's and their sons. They can also afford to have horses, so you start seeing a group of wealthy soldiers known as Hobbilars. They're a far cry from the fully armored knights of fiction, but they are significantly better armed and armored than the average soldier in any army, and they're one of the few that carry swords as a backup weapon in addition to their spears and lances.
Eventually armies start "upgrading." You see scalemail start to phase out and chainmail becomes extremely common. You even see early platemail, although it's mostly what you would call "half plate" and not "full plate." Spears are dominant. They give way to pikes. Swords become a bit more common among the peasants but they're still almost entirely a noble thing. In fact laws even get passed that nobles are the only ones allowed to show a weapon in public if not on military duty.
And what do you think a rich petty prince is going to carry around in town, a sword on his hip or a 12 foot lance?
>>27945665
Spears gave way to pikes back when most armor was either heavy textiles or bronze nipple plate. By the time mail armor existed, spears (As opposed to pikes or other polearms) were obsolete in Europe.
>>27945665
In comes the Black Death. Half of Europe dies.
Suddenly swords become a lot more common and cheap now that there's tens of thousands of them without owners. Around this time is also when fencing became incredibly popular, and anyone who's anybody starts taking fencing classes and challenging people who thumb them to duels in the streets just like in the story books. But in all seriousness it's just the fact that for hundreds of years in Europe after the Fall of Rome swords became a status symbol.
Only the Elite could afford to commission a steel sword. Only the Elite could carry it around with them at peace time. And who is going to get stories written about them? The sword wielding Elite or the dirty spear wielding peasant who lives to the ripe old age of 32 before catching a cold and dying?
>>27945671
Depends on the area and time.
Ancient Greece, yes, pikes came quite early.
In Germany they found a fancy for pikes that their Gaelic neighbors did not, and Rome never favored spears let alone pikes. After the Fall of Rome you see spears make somewhat of a comeback and somewhat of a resurgence. Partially due to pikemaking being a bit harder than spear making, and the general lack of strong governments for a time. Europe quickly gets its shit back together of course and pikes become a thing as soon as organized warfare goes back to being the norm.
>>27942919
>Why did the sword become the universal symbol for warfare, martial prowess, chivalry, and state power?
It wasn't really like that till the 19th century. Before that people put more value on pole arms and archery
>>27942919
>state power
Because it is easy to wear around during peace time.
>warfare, martial prowess
Because it was a very handy weapon for a number of uses. People now days down play or do not take about its usefulness in favor talking about the spear. On a open battle field the spear is a better weapon. But inside a building with a cluttered floor, a ship, or claustrophobic press of bodies the sword is far more handy. On the last one it is not hard for a melee to accidentally get closer then planned, even if you plan for it to be close. For example the Romans used a sword that was normally about 24–33 inches in lengths which is on the shorter side of swords. However they made a point to issue a fighting dagger called a pugio as a back up just in case.
>>27945696
The thing is that if you can make a spear, you can make something with a beak, or a small blade, or a hook, or some combination of the above. There are literally dozens upon dozens of polearms that were used in Europe after the fall of Rome. The most famous is probably the Halberd or the Billhook. Many of them can and were adapted from remounted/reshaped farm equipment in addition to being purpose built.
>>27942919
Because when people watch movies they wanna hear CLANG CLANG and see shiny stuff
>>27945715
Oh yeah, I know. I find the Billhook of particular interest as well.
You can pull a man off a horse. You can drag a man out of formation. You can hook a shield with it. You can wack some fucker in the head with the hook even, then shank his friend with the spear head.
It bothers me when people talk about the "Dark Ages" because Europe never stagnated. There was a period of relative chaos after Rome fell, but even then innovations were still being made, just much more slowly for a short time.
As soon as states reassert themselves Europe just continues on its merry way finding inventive new ways to kill people.
>>27945745
>"Dark Ages" because Europe never stagnated.
From about 350 AD till Charles Martel became king of the Franks ( 718) in I can only think of one organizational, technological, or Military feat that was done in Europe that had not been done there before. That one novel feat being the construction of the Hagia Sophia.
Heck I can not even think of new military equipment that was designed in Europe during that time. That is 270 years with nothing to show for it. Before that time frame European innovation had greatly slowed down for about a 120 years. After that time frame it took about another 40 years till in 768 Charlemagne became King of the Franks, for Europe to find its pace again. That's 430 years of not a lot new being done.
I would call that stagnation.
>>27942919
The same reason rifles are the symbol of warfare today despite most killing being done by air and arty. Because its a weapon that requires skill and personal confrontation with the enemy.
Swords were also incredibly expensive for thier era, having a decent sword meant you probably also had land or money.
Think if somebody posted a sillouhette of a drone as a symbol for the war with isis, or if some terror group's symbol was a plastic jug full of ANFO. It would be accurate, but not taken seriously.
>>27942919
You can generally carry swords everywhere.
Spears, not really. Ranged weapons, not really. Axes, you can, but it was generally considered a peasant tier weapon outside of the vikings that used them.
So what happened? Most street fights and duels were fought with swords.
>>27945456
>Ignoring pike and shot formations that dominated 1500's+ Napoleonic era
>Ignoring bayonets that still get used to this day
>>27945956
>Pike
>Spear
everyone point and laugh at this uneducated fool.
>3ft gun with 6 inch blade
>Spear
I bet you think a goedendag is a spear too.
>>27945970
Hey I'm not the faggot trying to act like swords were the best thing ever given how the Roman legion was their only highlight, truth is the West was won on spear point, from phalanxes, to heavy calvary not a status symbol
>>27945986
Pikes are not spears.
Lances are not spears.
They are used differently, made differently, have different lengths, and were used in different time periods. The spear was relevant to Classical Greeks and certain wannabe Greeks. Everyone else used better weapons, including swords.
>>27945989
Sounds like the gladius and katana aren't swords then by your logic
>>27945986
>Status symbol
This meme needs to die. Swords were status symbols for late period samurai and poncy civilians in the rennaisance. Swords were not so difficult to make that they were rare or even uncommon.
>>27945991
You're still clinging to the "Pikes are spears" thing, huh?
Sure, that 20ft long pole is totally useful outside of a block formation, and Europe was using replica Greek spears in combat all the way up through the 19th century.
Spear: Rank and file commoners weapon
Archery: skilled yeoman's weapon (commoner who is allowed to own small amounts of personal property)
Maces, axes: uncommon mercenary weapons, or fielded in small numbers by guys who just held personal preference.
Syoull If you are a commoner that shit is gonna cost ya more thacommone see in a year. And even if you just find one theres no way you can take hours a day out of your "trying not to starve to death" schedual to learn how to use it, and theres nobody willing to teach you anyways because as soon as anyone finds out you have one your lord/baron/local magistrate is just gonna order you hung.
If you had a sword you were either highly skilled and trained landed gentry, or a blood thirsty professional mercenary. Either way you had enough money to make war fighting and martial training your profession (which was paid for at personal expense back then) so it meant you were wealthy, skilled, and probably in a position of power of some sort.
Also peasants didnt make art for themselves, atleast nothing that lasted, so naturally if the only people comissioning paintings and tapestries are landed gentry they sure as hell arent gonna show themselves holding a "filthy commoner's weapon" its gonna be horse and lance, or a big freakin sword on that bitch.
>>27945995
But you are wrong, it is the symbol of a free man, one who has been trusted by whichever form of government to bear arms. Spartacus aside how many slave & peasant rebellions started with swords?
>>27945996
Yup just like they used a gladius on horseback during the Crimean War
:^]
>>27946000
You mean the peasants who were not allowed to carry any weapons at all? No shit they didn't have swords. They didn't have spears either. They used farm tools and simple weapons like clubs. If they were lucky, the local blacksmith reinforced and sharpened their tools. If they were really lucky, they might have remounted scythes (to create something like a glaive) and billhooks and maybe even some hunting bows with moderate draw weight.
>>27946007
>What are sabers
>>27946008
I think thats what he was getting at man.
If you were the sort of person who was allowed to bear arms it meant you haf a whole bunch of freedom compared to the field workers who spent thier lives slaving away to make enough to satisfy the taxes, and only eating meat once a year.
Shit, peasants used to have to ask the lord's local magistrate permission to gather firewood or marry eachother. Fuedal government used to be run more like a mafia than a government. Posessing a weapon that was solely intended for combat meant you were a made man.
I remember reading somewhere a story kind of like this:
>local lord owns a brewery
>charges the peasants for the beer as part of thier taxes
>group of guys say "why should we pay for it even if we dont drink it"
>magistrate contacts the lord
>the lord shows up with a dozen men at arms (sword carriers)
>agrees to see the group
>orders the amount of beer those men would have paid for that year dumped on the ground
>"now the beer is disposed, your payment for such will be rendered immediatey"
>guy says "but we didnt drink it...."
>man at arms runs him through with a sword.
>the rest pay up for the beer that was just dumped on the ground.
Probably would have been better to be one of the men at arms than one of the peasants back then. In fact, it was probably cause for a lot of pride.
>>27945413
>Bows are useless once melee is joined.
As are guns, nig.
>>27945324
Actually modern reactive armor makes the katana obsolete.
>>27946000
>>27946008
>>27946021
>Shit, peasants used to have to ask the lord's local magistrate permission to gather firewood or marry eachother.
Yep, laws where the same everywhere for the entirety of this middle ages thing (from the extinction of the dinosaurs in 338BC to the invention of beer in 1879AD).
>>27946149
Quit taking what was clearly meant to provide a general example for how restrictive life was back then as literal "this was law everywhere" fact.
I swear to god, you semanticfags are worse than that nerd who would ask a thousand questions about homework when class was supposed to be out 5 minutes ago.
Shit, you probably WERE that guy.
Point is, most people in most societies couldnt have swords, so being allowed to have one was a step up.
>>27945995
>This meme needs to die. Swords were status symbols for late period samurai and poncy civilians in the rennaisance. Swords were not so difficult to make that they were rare or even uncommon.
Add the Saxon period to that list as well.
>>27946377
You do know Saxons pretty much were the kick off to every man being seen as an equal right? Their culture and mores about each man being armed for the common defense we enjoy today.
>>27942919
Shut the fuck up Quinn
>>27944027
Bad analogy.
Spears were the rifles of the past. A sword would be more analogous to a pistol.
>>27946030
Guns made melee much less relevant.
>>27942919
1. Swords were the most universal and widespread weapon through history.
2. Swords are bad tools they made for war only and they cost much pre-industrial revolution era. So they mark its owner as a member of warrior class who could afford serious expenses in the name of war and killing.
3. As bad tools swords were only drawn for combat in many cultures this leads to mythological and religious context of swords handling tightly tying them with combat and killing.
4. Swords are handy for everyday carry unlike more specialised two-handed "big" weapons like polearms. Man with the sword became ubiquitous everyday image of warrior class for other population.
>>27945310
>You know how people are full of bullshit? This is how.
>>27947887
>no limbs hacked off
>>27945633
>not knowing basic metallurgy
u wot m8.
The reason iron started being used wasn't because it was originally better, it wasn't. Not until carburization of metal was invented did iron stand next to bronze. Old bloomeries formed two primary types of iron, extremely hard iron which had more than 1% of carbon in it (similar to what we'd now call cast iron), and shitty wrought iron which could contain as low as 0.2% carbon, if not less.
The reason iron was originally more expensive than bronze was because of the high amount of work needed to form and melt and form it, considering how easily it forms into slag and rust, not because it was better than bronze.
Then the question is "why did we use iron at all?". The answer is simple. Tin is hard as christ to find. Look up the primary locations of cassiterite in the world. There are very few. The unavailability of tin led to the use of iron, which was made possible by technological developments in smelting. Overall, you have it backwards. Iron was cheap as fuck once we were able to smelt it, and bronze was expensive because muh tin.
Now good iron on the other hand required pattern welding, carburization, etc, etc.
>>27947845
>most universal and widespread weapon
I hope you mean widespread in the sense that swords are present in different cultures all over the world, otherwise that's pretty stupid anon
>>27942919
Middle ages /mu/ tier elitism.
Swords were expensive. Most people fought with a spear, only a tiny bit of metal with no real worksmanship required to make them. Swords were, for the most part, reserved as a symbol of status, or for people who earned it by being good at fighting. Only people who were very dedicated to fighting, like knights and masters-at-arms, had swords. It's associated with chivalry for the most part because of knights--the chivalrous and skilled fighters were knighted, incompetent or unscrupulous peasants and conscripts (and bandits) were stuck with spears.
Because of that, it was put on everyone's symbolism. The sword was the symbol of professional, wealthy, and skillful fighters, so it went on everyone's coats of arms, flags, shields, logos, etc. Because of that, we still use it now for heritage reasons, to make our logos and symbols look like the medieval symbols of knights.
Religion factors into it as well. First of all, a longsword with a straight crossguard resembles a cross. Also, the straight sword was shown as a symbol of the Crusades because it contrasted so much with the scimitars of the Arabs. Because of that, it's deeply entwined in lots of Christian symbolism.
Here's a brief intermission
Generally speaking. The more armor there is the less useful swords are. So in the classical word were shields provided most of the protection because a lot less people had armor, swords made a lot of sense.
The more armor the less useful shields become, and the more useful two handed weapons are. In the classical ages, almost nobody used two-handed melee weapons (The Dacian falx swordsmen are an exception, because they were fanatics).
Once gun weapons became dominant, armor all but disappeared and swords made a comeback in usefulness until gun technology became so advanced AND we became industrially sound enough to produce and transport ammo everywhere.
If industry ever breaks down and bullets become less common and expensive, you would be glad to have a sword.
>>27950158
This is good info.
That's why I'm a fencefag, if armor is not involved, the rapier has an edge over other sword types, and if it is you're better off with a mace or a spear.
>>27949737
>>27942919
People like sidearms, same reason the people mainly think of revolvers when they think of the Old West weapons instead of the shotguns and rifles available at the time.
>>27942919
In a 1v1 duel the sword is probably the most effective weapon there is. It can outmaneuver any other spear axe or mace easily and is just as deadly.
>>27951461
Spear shits on longsword in 1v1, unless sword guy is really good with a big shield and arming sword and shield has a slightly better chance, and it goes up if the sword guy is really good with his shield and has a big one
>>27953496
dindu, iz u dumb. A longsword doubles as a spear, and much more. Spear gets fucked because in the case of a thrust, a longswordsmen just needs to half sword and redirect it. Then walk forward and suddenly, ohshit.jpg hes going to murder that spearmen.
>>27954222
Then why does every hema instructor who talks about spear vs weapons says a spear has an overwhelming advantage against a longsword, and whenever they do practice spear vs sword the spear wins most of the time?
Reach is a huge benefit and a spear thrust is much faster than a sword cut but is still safe to do because you're so far away
>>27949784
"can i have a sword?"
"no"
"but raheesh, you have soooo many"
>>27950869
>and if it is you're better off with a mace or a spear.
It depends on what kind of armor we're talking about, but it most cases spears aren't any more effective against armor than swords are.
>>27949673
>Most people fought with a spear
Most people didn't fight at all. War was privilege of warrior class.
>>27942919
it's easy to draw.
it's also a class thing as it would represent the officer class.
It represents the male triad. You know, cock and balls.
