>Swords were shit spears were better in any way
Not really. Swords could be employed as the standard weapon of the infantry and could be used effectively. The problem with using swords effectively is that it requires strict formations, a lot of resources and training. Something which medieval European armies didn't possess.
See for example the gladius. The gladius is according to some scholars the second deadliest weapon in the world, right behind the AK-47. The gladius worked because the Romans employed tight formations where they could get to stabbing range. The small size and maneuverability of the gladius allowed it to be used from tight shield formations, making the Roman army extremely effective.
This sheer effectiveness is displayed by the fact that in basic flat-ground infantry warfare with no other factors (such as rivers etc), Romans almost always won.
So in conclusion: The reach and clumsy maneuverability of a spear is not always an advantage. A Roman army would easily beat an army consisting mainly of spear infantry, because there was little a spear could do against the advancing legions. But the production required in maintaining such an army was simply too much for most countries throughout history.
Roman production
Even if it isn't a spear shitpost, please go to /k/.
>>1395637
Roman formations were loose as fuck.
>roman formations
>strict
Only in comparison to unruly jews.
>>1395637
Spears (or pikes as I will now call them) really shine when you have a lot of men working in concert.
>>1396013
Fucking pike squares
>>1395999
They were tight was my point. They were tight but flexible
>>1396137
And your point is wrong.
Romans formed looser than celts and hellenic armies. Meaning almost all infantry in their world outside of arabia.
Roman formations were not tight.
>>1396148
[citation seriously needed, especially since the Romans preferred stabbing swords to slashing ones the Celts favored]
>>1396013
A pike is not the same as a spear.
>>1396157
Livy. Polybius. Vegetius.
>especially since the Romans preferred stabbing swords to slashing ones the Celts favored
Most celts bore spears, not swords.
The gladius is a cut and thrust blade, and was noted for delivering terrible cut wounds.
>>1396259
The great benefit of Roman tactics was flexibility granted by the looser, mobile formations.
However, I don't think you can characterize the Celts as always being in a tight or loose formation at all, it seems to depend on the time and the context. Arguably the flexibility (or chaos) of Celtic warfare had an influence on the development of the maniple.
>>1395637
>A Roman army would easily beat an army consisting mainly of spear infantry, because there was little a spear could do against the advancing legions
This is a fact, it's almost like stating potassium's atomic number is 19
>>1395637
Spears only work because humans are soft squishy things, against an armored creature spears are useless you fight as well just use a fucking firearm since it will pierce much better than the pokey stick.
>>1396787
This is bait right
>>1395637
Why is the gladius such an aesthetically pleasing sword?
>>1395637
>AK47
Mosin Nagant surely. Two world wars and then some.
>>1397044
SKS.
Always works, never a truly bad choice, even when it becomes obsolete.
>>1396148
Tight enough for swords to be effective.
>>1398078
They're not tight. Forming tightly had noting to do with the sword being effective.
How do you not get this?
>>1396239
A pike is considered to be a spear, however not designed to be thrown, unlike other types of spears.
>>1398116
No.
You're a retard, and should stop commenting on shit you don't understand.
>>1398292
A pike is an especially long two handed spear. Its still a spear, in the same way a gladius and a claymore are both swords
>>1396013
They got btfo by Roman swords
>>1398305
Spears are not universally desinged to be thrown.
They are not used in the same manner as spears, on an individual or tactical level.
They're about as similar as my mossberg 500 and AR-they're both repeating firearms, and are utterly different beyond that.
>>1398318
Not really, no. Btfo by bad commanders is more accurate.
I was always under the impression that the reason for Rome's military success was the huge militarised society back home, allowing for an essentially endless stream of well trained heavy infantry to flow to war zones, even if the initial invasion force got BTFO or too badly damaged for functionality.
Have I been memed on?
>>1398327
> Btfo by bad commanders is more accurate.
Pyrrhus was a very good commander. A roman army against alexanders macedonians would have been a very uncertain fight
>>1395637
there's a reason the sword was dubbed the "king of weapons".
>>1397015
Get one up ya
>>1398656
Hngggg. Are those yours? Where does /his/ buy their weapons?
>>1397015
Mainz fulham
>>1398353
No that was certainly a factor as well. There is no one single defining advantage of the Roman military. There were several factors that played in.
Roman logistics is not to be underestimated especially when taking their manpower into consideration. Rome had a huge enough population that they could drop two armies and still raise another in a relatively short amount of time. In a time when generally their rivals could only put one army together and if it broke, that was it for years or even decades.
On top of that you have the maniple system which was way more flexible than anything else fielded for centuries, extensive use of auxillaries, a fantastic engineer corps, and other advantages.
>>1395637
Why are roman swords so unaesthetic?
>The gladius is according to some scholars the second deadliest weapon in the world, right behind the AK-47.
bitch please
>>1400708
>middle two are Xiphos, not Gladius
No, left middle is an early gladius, the spanish original, the middle right is a form of pugio, roman dagger
> the gauls that raided Italy in the early days were certainly not celts like we imagine them, but fought and lived closer to the greeks.
Unlikely, the Romans fought in Greek phalanx style against them and lost, they switched to the Samnite maniple system to order to better combat the more manoeuvrable celts
>>1400727
isn't it a bit too long to be a pugio?
>>1400735
Maybe, who cares, these things weren't clearly defined.
>>1398318
Well...no
Roman pilla did a lot more of the damage because the phalanx was so slow that they couldn't out manuever the Romans who had just as complex of tactics. The key difference was partially the gladius. But you have to realize Rome took on the majority of the Hellenic world still using triarii and roarii. They mostly used the hasta thrusting spear.Triarii were the backbone of the Roman military at the time. Mostly because of their morale, but their primary weapon was the hasta
>>1400788
Spear or sword really makes very little difference to the outcome of the battle, far too much importance is placed on it. Tactics will trump weaponry any time, considering both spears and swords are more than capable of killing
>>1399440
I think what OP meant to say was
>The gladius is according to some scholars the deadliest weapon in it's time
I don't think he meant to imply the sword was mightier than a gun, just that it was the AK-47 of it's period.
>>1400800
he means the one thats killed the most people
>>1400788
except the triarii rarely saw combat and many battles didn't even reach the Principes
>>1395637
>gladius
literally means 'sword' in latin
nice meme
>>1400924
>literally means 'sword' in latin
Sword in Latin is "Ensis."
Gladius is a particular type of sword, lifted off from Celtic roots (In Celtic: Kladdibos).
>>1400940
the Short-sword, the one pic related in the OP, was called the Gladius Hispaniensis, or 'Spanish Sword'
there are a few different words for sword in latin, Gladius being one of them
The only reason why people address the Gladius Hispaniensis as simply the Gladius is because that's the classic 'roman sword' and everyone thinks the romans looked like 1st century AD romans forever.
>>1400727
>Unlikely, the Romans fought in Greek phalanx style against them and lost, they switched to the Samnite maniple system to order to better combat the more manoeuvrable celts
The Romans themselves had multiple origin stories for the maniple formation.
They couldn't remember where it came form themselves, the odds of it being this one particular tale that gets it right are fairly low.
>>1400788
No. The greek phalanx is well armored, and individual shields being weighed down doens't matter, because you don't manuver it.
The actual pike phalanx was noted as not giving two shits about pila. If Romans couldn't get them on broken ground, they could not defeat them frontally, being forced to flank it, or, if it formed into squares, get really fucking creative.
>muh rorari
We don't know what they were armed with, but we DO know that if they were fighting, the romans had probably fucking lost.
>>1398353
This is fairly accurate.
The Romans themselves were also, despite common myth, and aggressive, headhunting culture. with a LOT of glory being awarded ot those who were skilled in single combat.
They churned out well armed, skilled killers with good (for the time, most of the time) discipline and exceptional aggression, and could afford to replace them, both economically, and culturally.
That's a winning combination in almost any circumstance.
>>1402180
I remember reading that a poorly disciplined phalanx would break pretty easily, even from pila.
of course this would not apply to say, professionals
>>1402268
Where?
I guarantee you the source was shit.
>>1396148
but poorly trained troops clump up close for the psychological advantage, its well trained troops that can spread out a bit without disintegrating
Two-handing spears feels very natural and good because you can easily adjust the length. Using a spear with a large shield like the scutum feels more awkward compared to using one with a gladius. I'm not a soldier though, so what do I know.
>>1402458
Until you consider the vast number of untrained warriors who fought in open order, or well trained men who fought in close order.
>>1395637
jesus christ, a whole thread and not a single mention of the real reason why romans were so successful with the gladius.
>MANIPLES
The staggered formations that were both flexible and tight. Allowing for exhausted frontline troops to fallback and be relieved by fresh maniples from behind.
Similar tactics were used by Oda Nobugana with great success when he had multiple lines of matchlock ashigaru rotate, allowing for constant fire.
The key to success in the feudal world of warefare is management of troops in such a way that they can continue to fight and endure.
This is why paying mind to moral and exhaustion is critical.
>>1400800
>>1400813
in either case, bitch please
>>1402549
But it was little to do with the gladius, the first 2 centuries of maniples they used spears
As always the ONLY pro sword argument is muh Romans.
>>1396787
1060 armadillo - human war never forget
The real problem with these arguments is that weapons were used by different people, in different circumstances. Whereas a spear was cheap to make, and useful when you got a lot of stupid folks together, swords also had their own uses.
>>1404699
Are you seriously implying only ''stupid folks'' used spears and proffesional soldiers never touched them?
Literally no reason not to bring both. Sword is shit/better than the spear memes need to stop.
>>1398318
Umm no... All the times Roman manipular legions fought Macedonian phalanxes they couldn't do anything against the front. They won at Cynoscephalae for example because they got behind the phalanx, from which they are practically defenseless.
>>1402549
>MANIPLES
MAH NIPPLES
You'll never unhear this
>>1404707
common spear =! pikes, lances, javelins, etc
>>1396960
it isnt
you cannot cut plate easily nor just stab through, dealing pure impact instead is the most viable way. you need more than just human strength , which is why warhammers and front-heavy polearms such as halberds , bardiches , poleaxes etc. were used.
a thrust makes only use of the wielders own strength and a tiny bit from the additional momentum.
a downward halberd strike makes use of all the mass , and accelerates the head a lot due to the slightly circular motion. let that go down on a head with a full plate helmet , and the impact alone bashes the brain against the skull or even dent the helmet to puncture the skull.
either that or you get a stabby sword or dagger and jam it into the eyeslits and other armor gaps.
>>1404674
Shit, I'm dying
>>1395637
>The problem with using swords effectively is that it requires strict formations, a lot of resources and training
Why did OP BTFO himself in his own post?
Spears and other pole arms are only useful when grouped together in large formations of troops.
An individual spearman will be beat by a swordsman (or axeman or other hand weapon) every time, as they can easily get inside the spear and cut them to pieces.
>>1406498
No.
>>1395637
>See for example the gladius. The gladius is according to some scholars the second deadliest weapon in the world, right behind the AK-47
God fucking damnit
>>1406498
The only swords that our equal to a spear in single combat are massive blades like Odachi or perhaps Zweihänders. Swords that were almost as long as a spear and could be swung with tremendous power behind them.
>>1406559
TO make things REALLY easy for summerfags:
If your weapon is so short you can't threaten the other guys hands when he attacks, you're in a lot of trouble.
>>1406565
There may be some exceptions for weapons that can bring incredible force to bear, but in general this is correct
>>1406607
ah , grorius nip steel combined with glorious polearm
>>1406498
Sword/shield = spear/shield >>> spear >>>>>>>>>sword.
Considering both combatants unarmored. Given top protection, you're better off with a big sword than a spear.
>>1398821
bump
>>1403965
That did not kill more people than the romans did during the span of the empire. The gladius killed much more.
>>1396137
Pretty sure the Romans spread each person out with more space than a Greek Phalanx. That was what allowed them to file to the back of a formation etc. They still fought the way you thought by using their shield and stabbing but each member of the Maniple required something like a 6 foot square to move around and fight. Still close enough to stab anyone getting in between but way more room than a Phalanx, Vikings shield wall etc.
>>1410104
We should also remember that the roman army used spears in some role through most of their history.
in early days the spears formed a formation that swordsmen could fall back behind if things went sour.
in later times many auxiliaries, who made up a large percentage of the roman army, were armed with spears.
Fuck swords.
>>1395637
>Romans employed spear infantry
>Gladius and Spartha were both based off celtic swords (originating from celtiberia and gaul respectively)
>Romans almost always won
Plebian where is your Pilum?
>>1409733
and gladius wasn't the only or even the main killing tool for romans during the span of the empire
>butthurt swordfags making shit up because their meme weapon was a meme: the thread
