Ask me about swords.

[Demesnedenoir]

A spear will not push through maille reliably. You have a misconception about riveted maille. Maile is essentially as effective as plate armor, but heavier to gain the protection. To get through good maille or plate, you rely upon impact. Halberds are not spears, and they are pretty good can openers, but their mass production gets more expensive. But halberds are inferior to swords in others ways. Halberds typically don't allow for the use of a shield, swords do. Time period matters in the discussion, too, as effective "long" swords weren't around until steel became readily available. There also seems to be some idea that people run around in armor all the time like they're in a D&D campaign, heh heh. Any good armor is hard as hell to slice through or puncture through, period. A guy I talked to once worked at a museum in England where they put together some serious cuir bouilli and they took several weapons to it... nothing. Roman linothrax, again, you need to not hit the armor to penetrate the good stuff. Ablation was even limited. You need to find gaps or rely upon the concussive energy.

Swords are the best multi-purpose man-killers for hand-to-hand combat, in particular, once out of the bronze age. A war hammer is a helluva tool as well. Spears and their relatives are great pole-range weapons in war and crowd control. Halberds are polearms/axes with specific design purposes.

 

[pmmg]

I might also ask, why would someone wear armor? Cause, swords are so effective.

In a story though, I would prefer a sword for a bunch of other reasons. I could wrap it up by saying they are cooler, and need less explanation.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Battlefield evidence also demonstrates the effectiveness of armor and slicing and dicing weapons, as Roman battles showed high numbers of skeletons with severed arms and legs. This wasn't spears, it was hacking weapons avoiding the armor because the core of the body is the easiest to protect with stiff armor without hindering movement. Even later battlefield excavations point to this. When things got close and ugly, much like the civil war, I'd rather be the guy with a saber than a musket with a bayonet or spear. Or an axe, for that matter. You don't want to rely on the long pointy thing, though I'd take a musket and bayonet over the spear, in general.

And individual combat? Sword. Late in the period of full plate armor, perhaps a halberd. But in general, no armor, I want a sword and shield.

 

[Gray-Hand]

That's what I was thinking. However, the fact that swords were popular across multiple nations, including Europe and Japan, cultures that didn't interact until swords were outdated; both had their versions means that it was an effective weapon. So why do you think they were effective?

When samurai walked around town in their kimonos they carried their Katanas. When they went into a battle they carried spears (or spear type weapons). So did the Spartans. So did the Vikings and the Saxons. That is history.

The Samurai had Katanas as their backup weapon. The Spartans had their xiphos or Kopis. The Saxons and Danes had their swords and Seaxes.

Swords are a great weapon and they are very versatile - but they were outclassed by spears for 95% of human history.

Spear type weapons only became obsolete to the sword once gunpowder arrived. Once earlyish gunpowder weapons began to dominate, the extra few feet of range of a spear didn’t matter much, but the sword maintained its value as a back up weapon.

A spear will not push through maille reliably. You have a misconception about riveted maille. Maile is essentially as effective as plate armor, but heavier to gain the protection. To get through good maille or plate, you rely upon impact. Halberds are not spears, and they are pretty good can openers, but their mass production gets more expensive. But halberds are inferior to swords in others ways. Halberds typically don't allow for the use of a shield, swords do. Time period matters in the discussion, too, as effective "long" swords weren't around until steel became readily available. There also seems to be some idea that people run around in armor all the time like they're in a D&D campaign, heh heh. Any good armor is hard as hell to slice through or puncture through, period. A guy I talked to once worked at a museum in England where they put together some serious cuir bouilli and they took several weapons to it... nothing. Roman linothrax, again, you need to not hit the armor to penetrate the good stuff. Ablation was even limited. You need to find gaps or rely upon the concussive energy.

Swords are the best multi-purpose man-killers for hand-to-hand combat, in particular, once out of the bronze age. A war hammer is a helluva tool as well. Spears and their relatives are great pole-range weapons in war and crowd control. Halberds are polearms/axes with specific design purposes.

I agree that armour is effective against spears - given the ubiquity of spears throughout history and across cultures, it is a safe bet that most armour was designed with spears in mind. My point was that swords are not any more effective against armour than spears. Probably less effective.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

When samurai walked around town in their kimonos they carried their Katanas. When they went into a battle they carried spears (or spear type weapons). So did the Spartans. So did the Vikings and the Saxons. That is history.

The Samurai had Katanas as their backup weapon. The Spartans had their xiphos or Kopis. The Saxons and Danes had their swords and Seaxes.

Swords are a great weapon and they are very versatile - but they were outclassed by spears for 95% of human history.

Spear type weapons only became obsolete to the sword once gunpowder arrived. Once earlyish gunpowder weapons began to dominate, the extra few feet of range of a spear didn’t matter much, but the sword maintained its value as a back up weapon.



I agree that armour is effective against spears - given the ubiquity of spears throughout history and across cultures, it is a safe bet that most armour was designed with spears in mind. My point was that swords are not any more effective against armour than spears. Probably less effective.

I'm going to step back in to say that an armed and armored knight - mostly in reference to the Western European variety but there's a lot of variation on this cross-culturally - was basically a Swiss Army Knight. Swords had specialties. Some had chisel edges for opening armor much like a can of really angry beans. They had shorter, much sharper, swords for dealing with the angry beans once they were vulnerable. Note: there are spear bearers all over the place in this scenario, trying to have their guy's back. Remember, they're armed with sticks. I'm hearing a fair bit about spears being designed to break into armor. Yeaaaaah, sort of, except you've got an early version of steel being pried at by sticks. Who wins? Read your homework.

 

[Gray-Hand]

What would that other weapon be?

Im am wondering why the answer here is not obvious. A sword can cut, stab, hurt and kill people. And did it many times. What does it have to do to be effective?

It may not be the best weapon for any given fight but its the best everyday weapon if one does not what fights are coming. Why would someone want a handgun when rifles are better? Or a spear when they can have a pike? Cause its effective enough and convenient to have.

That is not to say that is why i might arm my MC with it in fiction.

Swords were usually the backup weapon. Samurai used Katanas. Cultures that fought in shield formations like the Greeks or Saxons tended to use some kind of short sword that could be used effectively in very close quarters.

The main advantage of a sword over a spear is that it is more convenient on a day to day basis. You can wear it on your hip in a scabbard. You can can have two hands free to pick up or carry stuff or do the simplest of tasks like opening a door while holding something in your other hand. You can enter a building and walk around without having to awkwardly manoeuvre a big long sharp stick around to avoid knocking things over.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

When samurai walked around town in their kimonos they carried their Katanas. When they went into a battle they carried spears (or spear type weapons). So did the Spartans. So did the Vikings and the Saxons. That is history.

The Samurai had Katanas as their backup weapon. The Spartans had their xiphos or Kopis. The Saxons and Danes had their swords and Seaxes.

Swords are a great weapon and they are very versatile - but they were outclassed by spears for 95% of human history.

Spear type weapons only became obsolete to the sword once gunpowder arrived. Once earlyish gunpowder weapons began to dominate, the extra few feet of range of a spear didn’t matter much, but the sword maintained its value as a back up weapon.



I agree that armour is effective against spears - given the ubiquity of spears throughout history and across cultures, it is a safe bet that most armour was designed with spears in mind. My point was that swords are not any more effective against armour than spears. Probably less effective.

Couple of tiny things because I am the Evil Queen of Why and I am very detail oriented, and some of this is doing you a solid. First: there is no terminal "s" in Japanese, so "kimonos" is spelled and pronounced, "kimono." Same with "katana."

Spears were ubiquitous on the battlefield because they were cheap and easy to replace at a moment's notice. Most of the guys in the ranks will have them or some sort of farm implement and maybe something to cover their heads, and that's your conscript army.

What your spear bearers don't have are blades at the end of their spears. That is called a naginata and was considered a main weapon. It was also a sword on a stick. The other two blades, the katana and the wakizashi, were used is very fast, close quarters fighting and was often determined within seconds. That's your three-foot-razorblade.

 

[Gray-Hand]

I'm going to step back in to say that an armed and armored knight - mostly in reference to the Western European variety but there's a lot of variation on this cross-culturally - was basically a Swiss Army Knight. Swords had specialties. Some had chisel edges for opening armor much like a can of really angry beans. They had shorter, much sharper, swords for dealing with the angry beans once they were vulnerable. Note: there are spear bearers all over the place in this scenario, trying to have their guy's back. Remember, they're armed with sticks. I'm hearing a fair bit about spears being designed to break into armor. Yeaaaaah, sort of, except you've got an early version of steel being pried at by sticks. Who wins? Read your homework.

Very, very little armour was made of steel. It was usually made of iron because steel is difficult to produce on a large scale until blast furnaces are a thing.

Spears weren’t super effective against plate armour, but nor were swords. By the late Middle Ages knights (and even basic infantry who often wore plate armour by that stage) had started to use daggers,axes, maces. war hammers, poleaxes and halberds to deal with armoured opponents. Plate armour was essentially invulnerable to sword slashes.

Spears and pikes remained relevant because they were very effective against cavalry.

 

[pmmg]

So....what are we disagreeing about?

 

[Demesnedenoir]

For 95% of history, swords, in particular how we tend to think of swords, didn't exist. What is used in a war isn't the point anyhow to the actual question. Sword popularity comes down to the "romance" of individual combat and dueling, in particular the great romance of rapier fighting. (It's the Three Musketeers where the musket is forgotten, heh heh.) Some form of sword was the weapon of choice here, and for many good reasons. The sword is not backup—if anything is a backup, it's the dagger, the emergency oh crap weapon—the sword is the primary weapon when shit gets in your face ugly while you carry a ranged stick as your primary pole-range weapon. War sword or spear against heavy armor? Give me the war sword. Not even a question.

 

[Prince of Spires]

Swords are a great weapon and they are very versatile - but they were outclassed by spears for 95% of human history.

The Roman legionair, one of the most effective fighting machines in history, would disagree though. Heavy armor and a large shield, combined with a short sword outclassed most things they came up against.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Yeah, the pilum, the closest thing to a spear in the typical legion, was a chuck it and go to the gladius situation. The gladius' reputation trends thrusting weapon, but battlefield evidence—severed legs in particular—suggest that once formations broke it was also very effective as a slashing weapon. People don't often give bronze its due as a material for weapons... as long as it's a short weapon, heh heh.

The Roman legionair, one of the most effective fighting machines in history, would disagree though. Heavy armor and a large shield, combined with a short sword outclassed most things they came up against.

 

[Gray-Hand]

Yeah, the pilum, the closest thing to a spear in the typical legion, was a chuck it and go to the gladius situation. The gladius' reputation trends thrusting weapon, but battlefield evidence—severed legs in particular—suggest that once formations broke it was also very effective as a slashing weapon. People don't often give bronze its due as a material for weapons... as long as it's a short weapon, heh heh.

The gladius was an iron/steel weapon.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

It was shorthand, I was in a hurry then, and I was combining thoughts, LOL— Much like I am now. Bronze is better than people give credit, although inferior. Cheap iron/steel really isn't better for strength and flexibility, but if my metallurgy memory serves me well, iron is easier to work once you get there, plus the iron supply is greater than bronze. Early iron was more of a cost improvement in many ways until finer steels were developed, and I'm pretty sure even the early irons held an edge better than bronze. Plus, iron is more plentiful. Copper and tin markets were stretched before working iron became common.

I should add, that's not much of a knock on early iron/steel weapons because of how effective bronze was. Then, as steel improved, longer swords could be manufactured without fear of breaking.

Typing and thinking fast are dangerous, I'm outta here, heh heh.

The gladius was an iron/steel weapon.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Just a little visual.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I always liked seax, but that might be a little Freudian.

 

[pmmg]

Just one other comment in this whole swords vs spears convo...

Which is, as an item to include and write about, I find spears an extra aggravation. I find I am constantly having to explain what happened to them. Were they retrieved, who still has one and who does not, or wondering if I can leave it inferred that the character still possesses one, or does not. In one scene, a ship is sunk, and the characters have to swim for it. I never said what happened to the spear, but I suppose it went down with the ship. In the next scene the reader may be like...does he still have his spear?

With a sword, yeah, it might slip out or add weight, but I can just go with, since I did not say it was lost, we can assume they still have it, right there on their belt.

My story is not about group activities but rather individuals, and spears are a nuisance to keep providing updates and inventory for.

Anyway...just spend several hours fixing discrepancies about spears and daggers for three characters who travel together. PITA. Much easier to say no one had a spear.

 

[skip.knox]

OK, you sword people, a practical question. My character is fitted with a sheath on his back. I picture the usual sort of movie thing, but then I try to picture how he withdraws it.

The blade is at least two feet long, more likely three. He reaches over his shoulder, I don't think his arm is long enough for the sword to clear the sheath. Does it rotate somehow, maybe away from the body so as to pull more horizontally? Or some other method? Or this only works for shorter swords?

I sort of want it on the back because MC needs to do some tricky climbing so he can't carry it in hand, and a longer sword at hip would get in the way. Pretty much has to be on the back. A sheath more or less loose on the back seems like it would work but it also seems like it would flop around a lot.

 

[Trick]

OK, you sword people, a practical question. My character is fitted with a sheath on his back. I picture the usual sort of movie thing, but then I try to picture how he withdraws it.

The blade is at least two feet long, more likely three. He reaches over his shoulder, I don't think his arm is long enough for the sword to clear the sheath. Does it rotate somehow, maybe away from the body so as to pull more horizontally? Or some other method? Or this only works for shorter swords?

I sort of want it on the back because MC needs to do some tricky climbing so he can't carry it in hand, and a longer sword at hip would get in the way. Pretty much has to be on the back. A sheath more or less loose on the back seems like it would work but it also seems like it would flop around a lot.

Check out Shadiversity back scabbard on YouTube. Tons of great info.

He even designed a scabbard for the back that works and shows other designs that might be possible. It's been a debate in the sword community whether or not back scabbards are legitimate. I think everyone knows they're cool, but they are impractical when using basic scabbard designs, for the exact reasons you mentioned.

 

[skip.knox]

Hm. Now I'm more puzzled than ever. I know from various specific historical examples that warriors did climb. They scaled ladders but also climbed more improbable surfaces and even leaped onto horseback in full armor. How in the world did they manage to carry battle-ready swords?

Now, no one is going to have specific climbing gear. They would wear the sword in a manner to make it most convenient for most battle situations, which would not involve climbing. But now I'm definitely wondering about the mechanics here.

While I'm at it, I'm also trying to picture how the warrior puts the dang thing back in. If it slides around to the side or some such, then it might be practical, but getting the tip of the sword to hit the scabbard--especially if riding or the like--without being able to see the opening, strikes me as a particular sort of challenge.

I like to keep one eye out for both practical complications and small moments of comic relief.