Is a polearm of any use in confined spaces? Is it something an adventurer would ever consider using, given you can't count on all of your fights taking place out in the open?
>>46556357
You can't swing it around but things like spears in a corridor means it'll be difficult for anything to get in close without first getting pincushioned first.
>>46556357
Define "confined spaces".
Most polearms were used as some part of a formation historically, which would certainly be considered a confined space by some. It's just a confined space where you need to point the spear in only one directly, so it didn't matter too much. If you were wandering through a cave or some narrow space, then a long thrusting weapon would be reasonably useful as well.
Also note that most polearms were meant for poking, not for swinging. Even glaves were mostly for thrusting and slicing. It's only halberds, war scythes, naginatas, and similar weapons intended for swinging up and down - and even some of those (halberds) can be thrust as well.
The biggest concern with polearms was when someone got close to you. In that case, the standard polearm was too long for melee combat and another weapon would generally be better. There might be some historic units which continued to use shield + polearm in closer quarters, although I think most just switched to shield + sword instead.
>>46556357
One weakness of a polearm, especially the stabby kind, is that they leave the wielder vulnerable to flanking.
In a confined hallway, you can maximize the effectiveness of this weapon because your flanks are removed and things can't exactly get around you.
But it'd be hard to move that thing around a series of tight corridors, so a short spear would be better for the job. And make sure you've got a shield and stabbing short sword so you can block when they come close, drop that spear and exchange it for the sword and start gutting them in melee from behind your bulwark of a shield.
When it comes to corridor fighting, you have all the advantages of a Roman Phalanx without the threat of cavalry or being flanked. Ideally, though, with the mix of traps and enemies resistant to stabbing, it's more advantageous to go for a "looser" more versatile combat setup rather than relying on a formation of men that's bound to set off every trap they come across.
>>46556549
An interior corridor in a fort or castle was what I was thinking of.
>>46556736
That would be pretty easy to defend with a polearm that was meant for poking. Imagine a single asshat with a 7-8' spear against a guy with a sword. Now imagine how close onee has to get to the other to draw blood. Spears going to easily have the advantage.
>>46556357
Spears have two downsides, and one is that they only really work in one direction at once.
Corridors and tunnels confine the fighting to exactly one direction.
>>46556736
What >>46556820 said.
Also, now imagine that rather than one asshat, it's five asshats working together with those 8-ft spears. They can stand right next to one another, their weapons don't get in the way of one another, and all of them capable of lancing anyone trying to get closer. Unless they get overwhelmed by numbers or chased out by crossbowmen, you aren't likely to get past them.
Most RPG games don't consider range and keeping an opponent at a distance, though, so it's hard to replicate that in a game system.
>>46556907
How about Song of Swords? They seem pretty turned on by simulationism, and you can't tell me they've neglected spears.
>>46556953
>How about Song of Swords?
Never heard of it.
It looks like some sort of mobile video game, though. I was speaking about tabletop RPGs. Video games tend to be a bit better at handling distance and weapon mechanics, thanks to a lot of little positioning and range minutiae being easier to handle with a computer, and with it being active rather than turn-based. I remember Phantasy Star Online being quite enjoyable because you could keep groups of enemies at range with their polearm and keep hitting/moving to avoid even being attacked.
>>46557040
>>46497722
>Song of Swords is a realistic fantasy tabletop RPG that draws inspiration from historical fechtbuchs, weapons and armor. Its combat system is fast and it can be used for both fantasy and historical/mundane settings.
>>46556588
Just carry a bunch of ten foot sticks
(No, sticks, not spears. Using your spear to set of traps is wasteful.)
>>46556820
>>46556890
>>46556907
You're wrong and obviously have never put any thought into what you're talking about.
Thrusting weapons like spears have the downside that they're only suitable for one way of attack and are cumbersome to wield in confined spaces. Swords, knives, even axes and bludgeons have a huge advantage in that they can be used to attack at multiple ranges and in several ways.
If you're in a narrow corridor and you have a spear and I have a sword, all I have to do is parry your first thrust, step inside your range and murder the fuck out of you. If both parties are armoured, your spear is even more useless.
Never take a pole-weapon into a confined space, you faggots.
>>46560441
Wrong. Spears used in two hands have excellent leverage. You can slide the point back quickly. It is only more difficult for a sword to get in when they have less space to manuever.
Your best bet is to bind the spear, possibly even against a wall, long enough to step in. But remember that every movement you make puts you in direct danger of getting stabbed. The spear wielder has no such disadvantage.
There's a reason swords were a sidearm.
>>46560632
The fuck you're talking about? The long, unwieldy piece of wood with a metal head that you can only stab with is near useless in a confined space like a corridor. The other guy will know where your spear will strike 100 % of the time and all he has to do is parry the thrust, grab the shaft, walk up to you and fuck you over. Swords are much more versatile and easier to use in enclosed spaces than spears, not to speak of knives.
Spears are great in formation and when you have room to use them, but that wasn't the scenario.
>>46560693
I'm not that guy, but everything you said in that post is retarded.
> The long, unwieldy piece of wood with a metal head that you can only stab with
You can use spear as a pokey stick, as a staff (which spear basically is, only with advantage of pokey parts), there are spears such as glaive or bhuj you can chop with...
>The other guy will know where your spear will strike 100 % of the time
>haha... your attack is so predictable... kid...
>grab the shaft, walk up to you and
meet your boot because he has one hand full.
>>46560693
>The long, unwieldy piece of wood with a metal head
You know the thing about wood? It's lightweight. A spear is a very quick and nimble weapon, often moreso than a sword, particularly when you're wielding it with two hands for the additional leverage.
>The other guy will know where your spear will strike 100 % of the time
Is the guy prescient somehow? A thrust can be targeted at any point on your body, be it head, torso, arms, or legs.
>all he has to do is parry the thrust, grab the shaft, walk up to you
You don't fight in slowmotion, dude. The spearman will not just thrust at the guy and then stand there with his spear extended and wait for the swordsman to do whatever. Each attack is a complete, quick motion that includes a swift reset into a ready position.
Coincidentally, there's actually a fairly similar documented historical situation. During the Indian Mutiny, one Major Hobson defended a narrow doorway against about ten attackers armed with swords, and won handily. Here's a video where a HEMA-class recreates that situation, and though the results vary, the attackers almost always suffer at least one casualty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzcDH-MXAWM
>>46560773
>>46560800
Yeah, you can use a spear as a staff. But not in a corridor, as the scenario was presented. Stop changing the scenario.
The other guy WILL know where the spearman is attacking, because all he can do is stab. With a shorter weapon you can stab, cut, slash, hack, thrust, bludgeon, swipe, etc. You have shorter reach, but you have an easier time handling your weapon in an enclosed space and your weapon has no minimum range. All you need to do is get past the tip of the spear and you've won the fight.
>>46560884
Using spear as a staff doesn't require much more space than usual, and if corridor is so thin you cannot use spear as a staff, sword guy is MORE fucked
because he can't step to the sides or maneuver.
>all he can do is stab
Not all stabs are "hurr durr i thrust my spear forward". You can lunge for the legs, poke the head or countless other vulnerable meaty bits.
>your weapon has no minimum range
unless you go in there to hug the dude and tell him everything is gonna be okay, you will be at spear's range.
> All you need to do is get past the tip of the spear and you've won the fight.
Again, spear guy can reset his position very fast. Again, he can use the boot. Again, if a space is so confined spearman cannot do the very basic maneuvers, dodging the spear tip is going to be a very difficult ordeal.
Also we're talking about personal spears, not huge anti-cavalry pikes. Personal spears are rarely taller than the wielder and are much more maneuvrable and lighter.
>>46560693
You know nothing about spear or sword fighting. Open or confined spaces, a spearman beats a swordsman 1v1 most of the time. Even an unskilled spearman vs a skilled swordsman is hardly even. Despite what video games tell you, spears are much faster than swords, MUCH harder to predict, and much more deadly.
Source: HEMA with the Phoenix Society.
>>46560951
These are bayonets but the principle is the same.
>>46560962
and please tell me how these are not choppy, as well as stabby. Go on. I'm waiting.
>>46560693
Range, and how quickly you can bring metal to the other guy are key here. Spears have an advantage over shorter weapons. This is why they are such ubiquitous weapons. It's that simple. You are not slinging the spear around in wide arcs, regardless of if you're in a corridor or not. It doesn't hinder your fightplan in any way, but.
Spears are not "unwieldy pieces of wood", in fact it's their strength at range. Because of the length of the weapon, minor movements with the rear hand translate to large movements at the front of the weapon. You can be standing 5 feet away from someone, with the tip pointed at their face, then very quickly stab at their legs with little time for the other guy to bring his guard down.
The whole purpose of formation fighting with spears is so people, especially multiple people, have a hard time circling you. When you put that spear into a narrow corridor you have removed that need entirely.
Can a swordsmen bring the point offline and close in? Yes. He absolutely needs to.
But the Spear has the advantage.
>>46560884
>The other guy WILL know where the spearman is attacking, because all he can do is stab.
That is a perfectly meaningless statement. Knowing the type of the attack does not automatically tell you its destination. If the swordsman is in a high guard, a thrust towards his legs will leave him in hot water and vice versa.
>With a shorter weapon you can stab, cut, slash, hack, thrust, bludgeon, swipe
Most of those words describe the same general motion, but anyways: By your own logic the spearman will also always know where the swordsman is attacking, because from a given guard you only ever have so many viable vectors of attack. But that's not even particularly important, because the spearman does not really have to worry about parrying. All he has to do is to just stay on the offense and keep pre-empt any attacks by the swordsman with his own, because having a reach advantage makes a huge difference.
>All you need to do is get past the tip of the spear and you've won the fight.
The tip of the spear accelerates and moves much faster than any person could.
Essentially it boils down to this: The swordsman has to get lucky every time he parries a thrust from the spearman. Then he has take an even greater risk in trying to advance and close range on the spearman.
Meanwhile, the spearman only ever has to get lucky once, with a single thrust. The initiative lies wholly with him. Each spear thrust puts the swordsman in acute danger, while risking almost nothing on the side of the spearman.
>>46560980
>>46561009
>>46560962
>>46560955
>>46560951
>ITT: Spearfags who spew bullshit and have no idea about how different weapons actually work.
Keep thinking your thousand-times folded spear has no weaknesses and will always win vs any other weapon in any scenario.
>>46556357
Riesz best girl
>>46561062
>gets [X]TOLD by four separate anons
>resorts to frustrated namecalling and strawmanning
For an adventurer the disatvantage of the spear has less to do with combat and more to do with movement. Polearms are long and awakward and difficult to carry. In straight fight the polearm will own but if it's user has to quickly navigate the twists and turns of a castle complex he'll be fucked.
>>46561092
>Delusional raving = told
Yeah no.
>>46561062
>Didn't even read the counterpoints and insists the sword is not a sidearm
>Muh swords
There's a reason swords are a heroic weapon, the same reason Greek heroes are depicted without armour.
>>46561062
It does not always win, but it usually does. You are ignorant. There are four reasons why the spear is the most commonly used melee weapon in history - cost, effectiveness, simplicity in training, and versatility. Swords do not have any of those benefits.
You are the one acting like a sword vs. a spear would be a nothing personnel tier beatdown and yet you accuse everyone else of being like a katana-fag? Read up on historical fencing and quit embarrassing yourself.
>>46561095
Less to do with running around dungeons and castles and more to do with just your every day adventuring life.
Soldiers can throw their spears on a cart or horse and only need to gear up before a fight or on watch. Adventurers need to walk around town or travel long distances in a small group. A spear and shield or some large polearm is not convenient for this. Imagine going to do some weekend shopping whilst balancing 7 feet of wood with a steel point. Or you can just slip a mace in your belt or strap your sword sheath on.
>>46561095
Forgive me my anime-ass picture, but personal spears/polearms are rarely taller than the guy wielding it, and nobody in their right mind will take 10-foot pike to adventure.
Even if they do, people in fantasy use far weirder weapons and there are races significantly bigger than humans.
>>46561117
If you knew anything about reality you would understand that you are essentially arguing that handguns are more effective than rifles.
>>46561144
>>46561118
You're talking about historical accuracy when one of you faggots earlier dismissed brawling as a part of a medieval fight?
You're even more retarded than you seem.
>>46561117
>i'm not wrong! You're wrong!
Until you again will start supplying arguments instead of butthurt, it's smuglolitown.
>>46561166
>Talking about accuracy
Yes.
What are you talking about?
>>46561186
You have no arguments instead of "lol muh reach", so I see no point in continuing a reasonable discourse.
>>46561195
Aside from the fact we've raised more than just reach, even if it was the only argument it was one more argument than you put forward.
>>46561195
Alright so either you are ignoring the other points like a child, or cannot read. Let me sum it up for you.
Spears vs. swords are:
Longer.
Faster.
Deadlier.
Easier to use.
Much harder to predict.
More effective vs. all forms of armor.
>>46561166
>when one of you faggots earlier dismissed brawling as a part of a medieval fight?
Anon, i literally mentioned a boot as counter to "just grab the shaft" strategy.
>>46561212
Longer and easier to use are the only ones of those points that are actually true.
>>46556357
I would say no, and most sources tend to agree on this point. In WWI, bayonets were largely abandoned during trench raids because a rifle with a knife on the end was too cumbersome and long to effectively maneuver around in a trench where an enemy could come from any direction. Shorter, handy weapons like clubs, knives or even shovels were preferred.
While having a bunch of guys with spears lined up in a corridor is all well and good, at that point you're really just playing the attrition game, and a bunch of guys with swords and shields would probably perform just as well as a bunch of guys with pikes or halberds. There's very little a halberd can do to defend you from a javelin, for example.
Personally, I'd look to what pikemen, spearmen and other troops who relied on reach weapons throughout history kept in case of close-quarters combat. It's always some sort of short sword. The Landsknechts had their famous Katzbalgers, the Greeks had the Kopis. The Romans, who skipped the spears altogether, had the Gladius.
This suggests that in close quarters, when battle loses cohesion and the plan contacts the enemy (and thus, duly disintegrates) the most ideal weapon is a short, handy blade that can hew and give point in equal measure.
>>46561637
>I would say no, and most sources tend to agree on this point. In WWI, bayonets were largely abandoned during trench raids because a rifle with a knife on the end was too cumbersome and long to effectively maneuver around in a trench where an enemy could come from any direction. Shorter, handy weapons like clubs, knives or even shovels were preferred.
Trenches are way more confined than even your average dungeon hallway in tabletops, let alone the rooms. And a battlefield were the lines of battle are broken is way more chaotic and confusing than a small scale skirmish where you could personally keep track of all combatants since there aren't thousands of them to keep track of.
>>46561637
Now as for the eternal subject of "spears versus swords," I would like to offer two pieces of evidence that this entire discussion is missing the point of how troops actually fought in war.
The evidence I offer are two battles that the Romans fought against the Epirotes at Heraclea, and the Macedonians at Pydna respectively.
At Heraclea, Roman forces faced the Greeks of Epirus under Pyrrhus, in a fairly symmetrical contest of Roman Legion against Epirote phalanx. The Romans, who at the time primarily wielded short swords and javelins, faced off against the spear-bearing Greeks in a huge line with very little in the way of tactical mobility on either side, excepting cavalry and elephants.
This battle went on for so long that the Romans and the Greeks alike each made eight attacks, and failed to make significant gains against the other. Finally the Greeks deployed elephants, a weapon unknown to the Romans, and routed them.
But wait. If the spear is, as we are told, the deadlier, faster, more difficult to predict, more dangerous, more armor-penetrating and all-around superior weapon, why were a bunch of guys with switchblades and shields able to repel seven of their attacks?
Why was it later, at Pydna, where not only did the Macedonians have a fully assembled phalanx but an inclined hill to their advantage, that the Romans did not break and run there, either? Why did the invincible spearwall not simply roll over the pitiful line of swordsmen? We hear of the frustration of Roman commanders in that battle, but never of them suffering significant casualties. It was less of a massacre and more of a rage-inducing stalemate.
It seems fairly obvious that at least speaking of antiquity, polearm formations were never intended to actually overrun the enemy, but rather to pin them in place so that cavalry could outflank them and begin the actual rout. Without this element, a bunch of idiots with swords could basically skirmish with spearmen indefinitely.
>>46561737
I don't know about that, the smallest corridor you ever see in D&D is like five feet wide, which is about as wide as the trenches at Verdun were at the foot-level.
I think the real point is that a well-anticipated defense can make very good use of enclosed space, but a conflict that occurs without warning, on nobody's terms and in haste, will never make ideal use of enclosed space, and will inevitably devolve into a melee. And in a melee, one wants not a weapon for formation fighting, but something that can be quickly taken to hand and used to hack someone's head off at spitting distance.
Let’s get an outside opinion, shall we?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2YgGY_OBx8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpUcsIwW0kQ
>>46561757
>so how's the spear outside of formation
>WELL, IN FORMATION...
anon, please, read the thread.
>>46561757
>But wait. If the spear is, as we are told, the deadlier, faster, more difficult to predict, more dangerous, more armor-penetrating and all-around superior weapon, why were a bunch of guys with switchblades and shields able to repel seven of their attacks?
Short answer:
Because weapons don't really have anywhere near as much an effect on the outcome of a battle as discipline, moral, manoeuvre and coordination, unless one side is severely deficient in some manner such as having no anti-tank weapons vs tanks, or having no/few cannon vs having lots of cannon.
But people love to focus on weapon vs weapon because they're easily quantifiable factors, unlike such things that actually win battles like the damp ground of a battlefield being worse than the attackers expected (due to it being concealed from their initial recon), slowing their advance leading to an exploitable split in the frontage that the defending commander having spotted earlier, capitalised on to pull just one example of many.
>>46560951
>master at arms badge
The reason polearms have problems in chaotic fuckfests isn't the close quarters, but the people. All those people obstacles make spear wielding difficult, which is why shortsword backups existed.
>>46562747
yeah, i extremely doubt you would ever see anyone who ever legitimately earned the badge. one of the very first badges they came up with for the first printings of the scout manual. It was discontinued so fast I would be shocked if more the a handful of people earned it, and none of those folk would still be alive consdering 1910's. IIRC it involved mastering at least 3 different forms of combat/self defense skills such as wrestling, karate, fencing, and so on.
Naginata are pretty cool. You can stab or slice, and it's on the small side for a polearm.
>>46561810
>size of trenches
A not insignificant part of a trench raid was crawling over no-mans-land avoiding getting tangled in the wire.
>>46561437
I agree that "deadlier" and "more effective vs. all forms of armor" are situational, in that depending on the type of sword and the situation a sword can be used to bypass armor and kill you just as dead as a polearm, but the rest is absolutely true. They are longer which with proper use makes them faster which in turn makes them harder to predict.
>>46561118
There's nothing 'sidearm' about swords. Swords are the only weapons of their era that were manufactured for the sole purpose of killing other humans. Spears? You hunt with those. Axes? They're tools. Bows? Again, hunting. Why would swords even exist if spears were so superior to them? Swords are hands down more expensive to produce, more difficult to master, a bigger problem if they are damaged because replacements are harder to come by, and have no additional uses. You think everyone for over two thousand years would regard swords with such prestige compared to every other weapon if they were so inferior that they could only be secondary to other weapons? When daggers are cheaper, easier to hide, easier to draw, easier to master, and actually have a range in which they are deadlier than even swords? Daggers are the sidearms of the medieval era. Not swords. Swords are primary weapons. They are not last-resort, they are not objectively inferior to spears, and they were never regarded as weapons purely for self-defense.
>>46569943
Swords became a fashion statement.
>>46569203
>They are longer which with proper use makes them faster which in turn makes them harder to predict.
Longer does not mean faster. What you mean to say is that, because there is less movement involved in making stabbing motions with a weapon like a spear or a rapier, you can make said motions usually faster than you can make swings with things like swords, clubs, axes, etc.
However, you are wrong that this would make them more difficult to predict. Fencing is a gentleman's sport focused around predicting your opponent, and matching their moves, quite like chess except with a physical component involved. This is possible because, with a rapier, the ease of movement allows for a huge variety of rapid motions and adjustments to stance, form, etc. in the blink of an eye.
A spear is not a rapier. If it is a one-handed spear, you will be using it alongside a large shield. Not only is it far more difficult to adjust your grip on a spear one-handed than it is with a rapier since spears are longer, the presence of a shield means a large space where you could normally maneuver your weapon is lost, and predictability goes with it.
>>46570537
If it is a pike, then it is longer than you are tall. This, too, brings with it a number of difficulties in maneuvering the weapon that restricts the variety of movements you can make with it. A singular man with a pike is not very threatening because a pike's greatest weakness is turning, a very difficult feat to accomplish while it is extended for combat. A pike formation was typically trained to lift its pikes vertically and then lower them down in a new direction if turning to face a flank was required, but it still took a lot of time, and more than one pike formation was routed simply by not being able to turn its pikes to face the newest formation in time for the charge.
In general, the range of viable movements with a spear extended to face an opponent is very low. This reduces unpredictability considerably. The mind game, then, would be in how frequently the spear user thrusts his weapon forward, and whether he advances or withdraws while doing so. This could be very tricky when dealing with an experienced spearman, but compared to just what all a swordsman could do to be unpredictable and outthink his opponent, a spearman cannot compete. A spear trades versatility for being absolutely excellent at one, specific purpose: stabbing, and length. Stabbing is the fastest type of attack a human being can make, so it is very effective, but if stabbing alone will not prove sufficient against a given opponent, a spear will offer very little help.
>>46570188
Yes, by the time firearms became prevalent. Everything was a fashion statement after that.
>>46569943
>Axes? They're tools
War axes were definitely not tools.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbDhQYvetr8
>>46560884
There's a very simple technique where the spear wielder keeps the tip moving either in a circle or figure-8 so that he can launch a thrust from several angles. This is very difficult to defend against or predict.
>>46571011
War axes are hot garbage and were basically never used by any professional soldiers. Before you bring up Danish axes, those are polearms and you know it.
>>46571011
A war axe is what happens when you put a sharper, thinner head on the shaft of your woodcutting axe after removing the bigger, better-for-lumberjacking head. When the battle's over, you put the much more useful tool head back on. It's basically an improvisation out of a common tool, much like warscythes where you reposition the sharp bit to be much more practical for combat.
>>46571011
And that's the wrong link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HllAZf6SRU
>>46571167
Persia and India have a long history of using axes as weapons. Axes are often used by cavalry as well, all over the world.
>>46571501
>Persia and India have a long history of using axes as weapons.
That explains so much
>Axes are often used by cavalry as well, all over the world.
I'm gonna need like ten scholarly sources on this one, because I've literally never heard of this before
>>46561146
Not to mention if you need to move through a forest or brambles. That shit's bad enough just getting your body through, never mind negotiating a spear around everything. The head gets looped in some vines and you're going to be very annoyed for several minutes. Then a few minutes later it happens again.
They'd be handy in a bog, though. Poke the ground ahead of you to see if it's solid enough to walk on. And if there's something lurking in the water, just poke harder.
>>46571715
>not carrying a machete on your polearm
Anon, please
The main problem of argument comes when you try to blanket statement all polearms together.
There are huge differences between the roman pilum and the more typical boar spear, for example.
Like, romans loved their pilum, but it's a highly specialized javelin. It's head has a much metal on it as a sword, having a long bar that ends in a small pyramid-like head. It was always taken with a sidearm due to the nature of the weapon, since it was meant for thrusting, throwing, and nothing else. It's too big and heavy for martial fighting, so it was more like a piece of personal artillery. When it was thrown or the iron rod's got too bent to be of practical use, it would fallback to the sword.
The boar spear, another relatively-heavy spear, is a far shorter one with a bladed and lug head that could stab, slash, hook, and parry. A multi-use tool that's more useful for personal martial combat.
Spears were the original anime swords when it comes to variance in designs, except most of their features had some practical application. Changing the shaft length alone substantially alters what sort of techniques are best used.
But the voulge is love, the voulge is life. Stab, slash, chop,kick, punch, it's all in the mind.
>>46561195
>>46571561
https://books.google.com/books?id=KO6Xxn7tsl4C&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=horseman%27s+axe&source=bl&ots=xlytRK0PEz&sig=8leAQSML6YK4ft7vy5WdRpHatII&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivhbu-0YLMAhXKOz4KHYL1B_44HhDoAQhFMAk#v=onepage&q=horseman%27s%20axe&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=ArRCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA438&lpg=PA438&dq=horseman%27s+axe&source=bl&ots=HaYMtX3InO&sig=mYmH2fXgOjDcf8j_H45lLQ6CqMA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivhbu-0YLMAhXKOz4KHYL1B_44HhDoAQg2MAU#v=onepage&q=horseman%27s%20axe&f=false
>>46560884
The present situation was "confined space". Not "hallway" or "corridor" or "doorway". Stop changing the situation.
>>46560800
I appreciate this post, but you have to remember real life is not like that at all. If a guy is holding a spear to the doorway, you're not just gonna bonsai through the door. You're going to be held up there for a long time until either A), he pokes all of you, or B) you manage to pin the pole so he can't recover his stance.
In a confined space, in an ordinary 1v1 fight, you can assume a swordsman will beat a pikeman. The pike is just too big to use effectively.
Counter to that, a Pikeman will be able to defend a narrow hallway or a doorway potentially indefinitely, assuming his opponents do not #yolo him. Which they won't. Because people don't like dying.
The sword is a spear for guys who like more sharp bits.
The spear is a sword for guys who like more handle.
Fucking deal with it.
>>46573463
Historically spears have -more- sharp bits.
Granted, swords might have longer sharp bits.
