• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    242 years ago

    Wasn’t the spear also one of the easier weapons to learn? Which is why a big part of a medieval army was made out of spear carriers?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      42 years ago

      In no way, shape, or form am I an expert in martial arts or combat. I would imagine however it depends on the situation. An army with spears and an individual with a spear are two very different things. Armys equipped with swords vs spears, spears win. Individuals fighting with a sword and a spear probably comes down to individual skill more than the specific weapon.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          22 years ago

          I don’t take the opinions of modern “enthusiasts” seriously on this topic.

          Professional warriors for thousands of years clearly saw a point to having weapons other than just spears, we simply don’t have the institutional knowledge anymore to be able to say things like that with a straight face.

          Spears are tools, swords are tools, armor types are tools, but all our actual experts in their use and knowledge of the situations that make one superior to another are dead, and all we have are dorky amateurs fighting in the backyard with sticks and telling themselves “Well this is how it worked out for me, and I’m PRETTY SURE I’m as good as someone that spent their whole life training with and using these things to actually kill people.”

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            I don’t think that was his point. He’s simply saying that the benefit of reach and leverage makes it so that equally skilled and unarmored combatants would make it so you need 2 swordsmen to reliably fight a spearman.

            That being the case doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t have multiple weapons for multiple circumstances, and it doesn’t mean that the appropriate armour wouldn’t impact it.

            Finally, battlefield usage is a totally different situation as you have regiments with mixed skill levels.

            I think the only thing he was trying to say is that if you have two guys with similar skill and fitness, unarmored, the guy with the spear has a large advantage.

            Also, I think he’s a bit more than an Enthusiast. His resume is fairly impressive (https://www.matt-easton.co.uk/about).

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        162 years ago

        From eight-plus feet away. That part is pretty important, you don’t even give them a chance to get close.

    • SmokeyDope
      link
      fedilink
      English
      102 years ago

      From what I understand spears popularity comes from

      1. Being the easiest weapon to craft in prehistory, get a stick and sharpen the end to a point, add some plant fiber for a grip and boom you have one of mans earliest killing tools.

      2. Spears have a great reach and can target pinpoint locations

      3. With proper technique you can throw them as a limited range weapon

      4. Can be wielded easily while managing a shield

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    312 years ago

    Modern conceptions of medieval warfare drastically overestimate the amount of usage that swords saw in battle. At least that’s a thing I’ve heard.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      122 years ago

      The sword was a sidearm. It was a trusty companion you had on you everyday to demonstrate your wealth and power and to be drawn in your defense if need be.

      When it was time for battle, your sword would still be at your side, but in your hands would be some sort of polearm or perhaps an axe.

      Also, commonly used but often forgotten about is a falchion. It was a sidearm that looked like a sword but did not require all the training in swordsmanship to be effective. Instead of being balanced like a sword to enhance the point control, a falchion was point heavy (like a machete) and swung like a hatchet.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      82 years ago

      I wouldn’t be surprised if technology was pushed towards ranged weapons like bows, crossbows, catapults, and trebuchets

      I mean I’m sure there would be a good amount of swords or other close quarters melee units the keep the enemy at bay while everyone else is relatively safe from getting stabbed firing from a distance

      I have no source just pure speculation

      • CalamityBalls
        link
        fedilink
        52 years ago

        For trebuchets at least, they were only siege weapons, took a long time to both assemble and fire. Though I must concede they were better than melee weapons for knocking down walls.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          22 years ago

          Good to know. I just knew that they were just ranged so this is going into the “neat information that will in no way help me with my life” pile

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          22 years ago

          In Monty Python and the Holy Grail, as the Frenchmen start raining animals at the knights and they all turn and run, Lancelot (being the brave one) takes one last whack at the stone castle wall with his sword before joining the rest in retreat. Always loved that little detail.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      No shit ranged weapons were good for warfare but producing good arrows and bows was expensive and most of the time it was needed more for hunting rather than fighting. Plus it doesn’t work against shielded formations. The spear is still the undoubted king of weapons as a cheap and hugely effective way to outfit an army.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    932 years ago

    tbf, it’s too specialized. They’re heavy so they can hurt through armor, which makes them slow. Terrible weapon vs an unarmored opponent, who can more easily just get out of the way or stay out of your reach.

    A spear is at least good everywhere but indoors.

    Like, what is the absolute last medieval weapon you would ever want if you were fighting 3 unarmed guys? All fast, all know what they’re doing. I’d say mace is solidly last.

    Now, are they all wearing heavy plate armor like knights? Then mace becomes really, really good, it’ll break your bones through that steel, dent the steel inward so it compresses your body and the joints stop working properly, all sorts of shitty things. And you’re too slow to get out of the way.

    source: I like maces.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      222 years ago

      I’ve always found them the most scary. If someone has mastered one, able to control and time the weight, opening up opportunities for blows, you’re fucked. A light blow with a blade or spear, you’re taking shallow damage and can scamper back. But with a mace? You’re off-balance now or quite stunned and that’s exactly what leads to the skull being crushed in a second later.

      So, sure they’re slower and harder to land, but patiently, just one good hit and it’s game very quickly and violently over. Not to mention, the wielder doesn’t have to worry about their weapon being stuck in the dead guy.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      182 years ago

      Good plate armor was nowhere near as ungainly as many people imagine. A knight wearing a well-made suit would actually retain a surprising amount of agility and speed. The downside was that they obviously had to be custom made and were so expensive that only the wealthiest nobles could afford them.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        62 years ago

        While true, it doesn’t take much speed reduction to make a mace, or anything else, no longer miss you. Inertia is what it is, and the margins are not always large. The armor can deal with a lucky sword stroke, unless it’s really, really lucky. It can’t deal with a lucky mace stroke, you’re a casualty. Broken arm, leg, skull, something.

        Otherwise maces wouldn’t have much of a point, anyway. Tiring to swing, shorter reach, yeah it hurts, but so does a sword if there’s no armor in the way. Takes minimal training, but so does a spear, and spearmen can stand in close order and poke. A maceman can’t do that, you gotta swing that thing. It’s not much of a poker, like say, a roman gladius is.

        If there’s no heavy armor on the field, leave your mace at home. If there’s heavy armor, bring the mace. Battering through that shit is what it’s for.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          32 years ago

          All true, just want to add to it.

          You can bring the mace anyway, just in case, as long as you don’t mind carrying it. One other major benefit is that the things could be dirt cheap because you don’t need good quality metal.

          But if you want to hit people, and have a money and time for training, go for an axe. Pretty much all the advantages of a mace, but can cut on top (and usually poke too).

          The other part of the equation is not getting killed, and usually the guys in heavy armor are good at killing you. Getting in striking range for a medium range weapon like a mace/axe/sword is damn dangerous, so a slower weapon like a mace or axe that’s additionally bad at defending because of a more distant point of balance means a much increased risk to your life. So if it’s one on one, you should really think twice about trying to getting that lucky strike in.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            22 years ago

            So as a mace guy I should just follow around some dude in armor and we just go fuck up everyone who also is wearing armor

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      62 years ago

      tbf, it’s too specialized. They’re heavy so they can hurt through armor, which makes them slow. Terrible weapon vs an unarmored opponent, who can more easily just get out of the way or stay out of your reach.

      There’s just one lesson in mace school: “come at them from behind”.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      132 years ago

      Maces tended to be lighter and shorter than equivalent swords.

      Maces aren’t as good against unarmored opponents, because unarmored opponents bleed and get incapacitated from a few well placed cuts. Swords tend to balance their weight closer to the handle to offer precision to make those cuts.

      Maces specialize in delivering nearly the entire energy behind a strike. They were balanced to the tip of the weapon for that reason. Which is great against cut resistant armor due to energy transfer. Note that this places maces utility well before invention of plate armor.

      If it’s heavy and slow, it’s not a weapon. Slow weapons kill their weilders. Rare armor rendered the user so slow as to let you swing in a game-like “lumberjack dealing with a stubborn log” fashion. There are plenty demonstrations around that show how fast and deadly an armored swordsman is.

      The statement about spears indoors is game logic. The variability in spears and swords designs is such that most swords and spears would be equally dogshit indoors, but those that wouldn’t would all work quite ok. In a narrow, defensibly built passageway, thrusting attacks are nearly the only attacks available to combatants. A short spear then can offer a good deal of utility that sword wouldn’t, and vise versa. Short maces are nowhere near being useless there either.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        12
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        The haft with a long chain and ball on the end is fantasy. However, I fought with one for a couple of years as a combat actor/choreographer and ren-faire reenactor and would say that the flail is a duelist’s weapon only. And in a duel its chief function is to remove your opponent’s shield.

        A well placed flail strike will go around the guard of your opponent and potentially break fingers, hand, wrist, or arm.

        You can also try to use it to disarm their primary weapon but it’s less reliable in this regard as it becomes a tug of war strength contest.

        Use your flail to break their hand and make them drop their shield and then drop the flail and draw your side sword or whatever else you happen to have.

        Too slow and clumsy of a weapon to fight against a group or near allies.

        • cassie 🐺
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 years ago

          Seems to me like a bearded axe does many of the same things while being easier to control and being more effective as a striking weapon, no?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            52 years ago

            Yeah pretty much, which is why the axe was actually used and flails as we know them are fantasy weapons. The flail has the intimidation and cool factor but otherwise I’d rather have an axe.

            The flail might have more reach, but the longer the chain the slower the weapon and more skill required to land a blow.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 years ago

        Hits really hard. Probably kinda hard to use. If I picked up a real one I’d probably end up giving myself a concussion somehow.

        I guess I don’t know very much about flails… I thought they were more of a cavalry weapon irl, but I’d have to look that up. Unless it’s the old makeshift farm implement version that some peasants probably picked up at different points.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        42 years ago

        One handed flails were never used in warfare. They were made for decoration. There was a 2 handed flail that couldn’t reach the user but it was still not very effective.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      142 years ago

      Even if you’re armed with the choice weapon, and skilled, 3 knights on foot looking to fuck you up are gonna do so lol. Those guys were brawlers more than anything else

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      I’d put a pair of Sai behind the mace against the unarmed guys. Those things are useless, unless you know exactly what you’re doing. A mace is just an improvement on a warhammer, so even untrained, I have a pretty good idea of how to use it. A sledgehammer is similar enough.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      42 years ago

      not sure i agree people tend to wield baseball bats the same just swinging for the fences but a quick jab with the base or top is the most effective way to use them.

      i think it’s all technique