Spears huh? Everybody is lance-a-lot until someone grabs their shaft.

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

Oh you. ;P

@MarkMiller304

Жыл бұрын

You can grab their shaft but all they need is just the tip

@ivobleijenberg3171

Жыл бұрын

That's why you don't keep the tip pointed to your body.

In the few spear experiments I've done, I've found that spears are very reliable when they are at hand but against a swordsman, you must be on guard for the following: - Swords (and shorter weapons in general) can have some small advantage in a bind. If your weapon is long, that length might translate into giving the opponent leverage against you in some cases. A wider grip helps but there's no panacea (in either direction) - Swords have a cutting edge and you should be on guard for this possibility at tighter measure. Rubbing the haft of a spear against your enemy's neck doesn't quite have the same effect - Shorter swords (like the messers you see in Leckuchner) can present from the scabbard quickly. When fighting spear-on-spear, if your opponent closes measure and then draws his sidearm fast, the dynamic can change and you'd better stay alert for this possibility. - Longer swords (spadone/montante, zweihänder or the Korean two-handers [쌍수도]) can be used as polearms and come close to having some of the spear's advantages while still having a cutting edge. They're not _equivalent_ but they get close enough for things to be interesting -- especially when considering use of a crossguard - Polearms in formation can have some mobility constraints. Buddies standing to either side of you might keep your spear from moving in all the ways it would in a 1v1 duel. Like all matters of martial arts, it's easy to exaggerate this but when attempting some small group combat, we found swordsmen occasionally had movement options that just weren't available to those who had spears in-hand.

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

Lovely! I'll go over all your points, since I've noticed similar things. I noticed that swords were great for the bind, but the spear was great at avoiding it. If the spear fencer really didn't want to bind, it required them to mess up for the swordsman to able to get a bind. The cutting edge advantage was super clear with the armoured fencing for me. You can pretty much just eat a few shots, get up close and use your swords edge and point to go for any opening. Drawing is indeed a thing, but I think I should practice it more. With protective equipment on, I still find it very hard to find the grip in time. Probably a matter of practice though. I'm definitely going to do some greatsword versus polearm stuff, but I still need to think about what equipment is safe and workable to do it right, so that's for a later time. :) Similarly, I am now working on a project that tries to determine to what extent fight book inspired 1v1 fighting still makes sense in early Landsknecht formations. The big question here is of course: just how much space do you need to be able to move. In a tightly packed formation you will have too little, obviously, but we don't even know how tightly packed those early pike formations were, and if they even needed to be tightly packed to achieve their intended goal. More on that later as well! :D

@Sk0lzky

Жыл бұрын

Hi, do you have access to any decent sources (primary or secondary) about the use of ssangsudo, hyeopdo or similar weapons? I found some translated excerpts about the tactical use years ago but that's it - and my korean speaking friends could only find videogame guides lol

@Ishpeck

Жыл бұрын

@@Sk0lzky I use Dr. Sang H. Kim's translation of the Muye Dobo Tongji ( 무예도보통지 ) influenced by the 해동검도 tradition. I also found some English translations of Chinese miao dao stuff. It's pretty similar.

Great video! Regarding the difference made by taking armour in consideration, I wonder, what changes, with a set of armour 100 years older than yours. Especially the amounts of Maille worn, I imagine could make quite a difference. Especially if we talk about very high quality steel Maille (if I haven't misunderstood, Arne Koets wears Maille with a ring diameter of 3mm, that to some extent even protects from lances), maybe being even protecting against an amount of thrusts (I mean, over the usually expected amount of uncommitted thrusts with bad structure). I indeed digressed a from the original topic, but I imagine, that this would make it even with a sword quite a bit harder to penetrate, maybe directing the combat faster into grappling and dagger fighting?

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

Nothing wrong with digressing. :D I think that from about 1150 onwards, any set of full armour would inevitably have made the wearer almost impervious to most threats, meaning that grappling and close quarters fighting would become far more likely. What's most interesting to me though, is that even a relatively light set of armour makes you impervious to most attacks. The biggest difference between full and half armour, in my experience so far, is how vulnerable you are to lucky shots and concerted halfswording efforts. A simple mail and brigandine setup would function similar to what I wear here, though perhaps with my set being slightly better against penetration by nasty pointy bits.

I'd say you've answered the question in the only really meaningful way, really enjoyed this one. The memes at the start reminded of people getting into heated arguments about katanas versus claymores, totally ignoring context and the fact that they were the results of different situations designed to get around different defenses.

A major factor in the 'versatility' is that side-arms can enable you to be able to offend someone whose defenses (such as armor) might shut down. If you are using a lighter choppy-stabby polearm (eg a bill), it might get shut down pretty hard by plate; carrying a light mace, hammer, or a sword that emphasizes penetrating the gaps can mean that you are not completely screwed instead. A matter that often gets neglected in discussion is the benefit of having weapons of different reaches. If you breach a tight formation, then space is limited and wide swings with long weapons can be difficult to perform, much as they are in confined spaces (narrow city alleys, crowds, indoors, forests). Shorter weapons are less subject to environmental obstruction, which can make then advantageous in confined spaces against long weapons that have the advantage in more open areas. This extends doubly to grappling, which is a major factor to consider against the heaviest of plate armor; much of the surviving material that we have for armored combat is about the use of daggers. And while discussions in-period about it seem to have been less common than in places such as Japan (iaijutsu), the shorter the weapon is, the faster it is in rapid deployment (twenty-one foot rule and all that). Swords are not 'worse'; they are a secondary strategy and EDC weapons. Polearms and period missile weapons (which people also often leave out of the discussion; cross/bows and firearms did not render polearms obsolete for almost a millennium) were the equivalent to modern military-grade small arms as a sword was to a modern pistol and combat knife.

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

Exactly, I fully agree. One of the interesting things about the concept of Bad War (like in the Holbein illustration) is that the pikes become useless if no side decides to budge, meaning that everyone suddenly whips out the katzbalger /degen and that those soldiers with battleswords suddenly get free reign to start dealing death all around.

@b.h.abbott-motley2427

Жыл бұрын

I'm very skeptical that any sort of mace or hammer that could be worn as a sidearm would be more effective against plate armor than a lighter bill would be. I don't know of any case of Renaissance infantry having such sidearms. Raimond de Fourquevaux did complain that halberds shouldn't be too light, so that could be issue if trying to bludgeon an armored foe into submission. But a lighter bill could still hit pretty hard as well as thrust into gaps & hook, etc. English bills at Flodden 1513 ultimately succeeded against armored Scottish pikers, even though it sometimes took multiple hits to drop one of these soldiers (based on one account).

@nevisysbryd7450

Жыл бұрын

@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 Yeah, my example was more to illustrate the point; single-handed hammers and maces were more of a cavalry weapon than infantry, as I understand it. My point is that sidearms can be selected to mitigate the drawbacks of whatever one's primary weapon is specialized for, which applies to archers, gunners, infantry, light and heavy cavalry alike.

@nevisysbryd7450

Жыл бұрын

@@VirtualFechtschule Yeah, the push-of-pike/bad war is exactly what I was thinking of. I have encountered some people who are at a loss in understanding katzbalgers and some who think it is an outright bad design. My working interpretation is that it was designed specifically for the context in which it was used-pike-block infiltration. They do not _need_ to be 'as good as' more common sword designs; they need to be more effective for the problems they are used to resolve and for these problems to occur frequently enough to justify them.

@pyrrhusofepirus8491

10 ай бұрын

⁠​⁠@@nevisysbryd7450I’ve always been sceptical of the whole sidearm comparison when it comes to swords, maces, axes and other supposed ‘sidearms’. Mostly because there’s barely any scenarios in modern war wherein a pistol would be preferable to an AR, and are pretty much only pulled out in the most desperate of circumstances. The only one I can think of of the top of my head is Vietnam tunnel fighters because the tunnels were simply that cramped and tiny. I imagine you’d see swords being openly wielded a ton more then pistols and would probably be extensively used in urban warfare, siege assaults, fortification attacks and by heavily armoured elites with shields to act as a punchy shock unit, utilising their armour to close the gap and exploit their close range superiority.

The way i look at it is that we dont say "this bulldozer is so much better than that dumptruck" b/c while they are both construction equip the role they are meant to fill is different. They support one another. Sword & spear are similar in this way.

Great video! Spears are amazing, but everything has a weakness, and armor does change the game quite a bit. I would like to see follow up videos with different types of spears and polearms.

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

They will definitely be coming. I got my hands on pikes recently, so when I stop sucking with those, I'll be definitely shooting some bouts with those. :)

The situation for spearman can be more difficult if swordsman brought a shield and also has an armor. Thanks for the video

@mekingtiger9095

4 ай бұрын

That's in part what leads me to believe is the reason swords became romanticized in Western culture. When you are a highly plated knight with all the advantages that your "heavy" protective gear can provide to utterly tear through a mob of peasants or a formation of men-at-arms in a decisive battle and you don't really have much of a need for reach anymore other than the initial cavalry charge with your lance and can use other weapons to greater effect, of course you're gonna think highly of the sword and write about your "epic" battles with thw weapon. And since nobles were pretty much the only ones with the privilege of being able to write down documents about their personal experiences in war alongside with nobility itself being romanticized..... tadaaaaaaaaah! Swords now then become the weapons that get the nost attention historically. Couple it with the fact that they were such dominant forces on the field for centuries specially durkng the High Middle Ages where swords were still quite expensive and thus still a pricilege to them and yeah, there is *some* grain of merit in praising the sword during those times if you were the lucky one to be born a knight, I would say.

There was a experiment quite some time ago where they "fought" with a blunt and a sharp sword vs a spear. The blunt sword got only a w/l-ratio of about 20% but that changed quite drasically to a 70% win-ratio with the sharp one. I think Roland Warzecha was the guy who did this experiment.

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

Some observations on that are coming very soon! :D

Its like building a house. A hammer and saw are both used to build a house. A hammer isn't better than a saw at building a house, it depends on what task you are doing at the time.

I love how thoughtfully considered this video has been. I practice HEMA in Zwolle, Netherlands (you might know the club ;) ), and I have seen my instructor sparring with a club member who carried a pole-arm. Getting past the tip seemed to have been the hard part. Once that is done, other factors come into play but it seemed like the context of the exchange favoured the longsword. I'd love to see more videos like this! Oké doei!

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

Er komt zeker nog meer aan! En dank voor je comment! :D

One thing I never see mentioned outside of greatsword vs pikes is the material difference. It's actually pretty easy to cause serious damage to a spear shaft if you know a few tricks to get in a hit. And by threatening the weapon you encourage the spear user to get more reckless, which in turn makes closing in for you much easier.

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

Although spear shafts can break surprisingly easily (pikes were pretty much consumables) I'm not sure about that statement. I tried it and although I'm sure I could have done a better job of it, it was still almost impossible to defend well against a spear. Added to that, a lot of polearms started having langets (metal strips) along the shaft to both help secure the head and protect the shaft, so damaging a shaft is perhaps not as easy as you would think. Wearing armour makes a huge difference, a sharp sword maybe a little, but not as much.

@smokerxluffy

Жыл бұрын

I wrote 3000 words before deciding to give up... I'll make a video once the snow smelts and get back to you :S

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

@@smokerxluffy that would be pretty cool. Looking forward to it! :)

@smokerxluffy

Жыл бұрын

@@VirtualFechtschule For now made this: kzread.info/dash/bejne/kaqEmcWIltfFoNY.html

Excellent video as usual! Please do videos using half armor and mixed weapons. You always make great points!

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

There will be more eventually! :D

Love these sorts of videos. I tend to play KZread while I drive and just listen, so I appreciate discussion and lecture and rants about these topics

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

Nice. Same here, as well as for my other niche hobbies. Just nice to have some background stuff to low key interact with. :D

The pendulum has swung so far in that the sword was never used in combat, especially two handed ones (despite the fact that the 1472 Burgundian Ordonnance has the vast majority of men carrying them). "I then immediately made fifteen or twenty Soldiers leap in after the four Captains, and as all these were within, le Bourg, Signior Cornelio, and the Count de Gayas passed and entred into the Fort. I caused the Torches to be set upon the Rampire, that we might see, and not kill one another, and my self entred by the same way Signior Cornelio had gone before me. Now neither Pikes, Halberts, nor Harquebuzes could serve us for any use here, for we were at it with Swords and Steeletto's, with which we made them leap over the Curtains by the same way they had entred, excepting those who were killed within." - Blaize de Montluc

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

Oooh, lovely references. It's easy to gloss over the swords in Burgundian ordonnances, so thanks for bringing those up! :)

@Red-jl7jj

Жыл бұрын

@@VirtualFechtschule thanks! i also love your landsknecht kit. probably the best one i have seen, along with the glorious mustache

I was a little skeptical about this video's content until I got to the part when you said, "The first thing we need to know is that it's a stupid question." Now I have a much more positive outlook on what I think is to come. lol

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

Hehehe. Title was a bit clickbaity I suppose. :P

check out stoccata's video on sword vs staff. it's an interesting look at the civilian half.

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

Ooh! I'll definitely do that soon! :D

I wonder if for fencing duels, whether or not there generally were rules that both duelists during the period would generally use swords. I have not spent as much time reading medieval history during the past years. Often when we see a duel happening between two persons, whether it be a duel for honour or just for sport, they often seem to be wielding a sword of some type. Was it generally frowned upon to bring a polearm, and would that be exactly for the earlier stated reasons, being that it is considered a weapon of war, as well as the legality regarding having one?

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

A duel is an equal competition of course, so that implies symmetrical weapons. Usually, duels where with swords, because, at least in earlier periods, the duel would often be fought out on the spot, and that's what people had to hand. And of course the noble connotations of the sword might have played a role too.

The difference is in the fighter, not the weapon. Although the spear is more effective due to reach, it can really only thrust, and while thrusts are challenging to see coming in, if the sword fighter can grab the spear, the spear fighter is in trouble. But if the spear fighter is a better fighter and knows how to avoid getting grabbed, then he’s your huckleberry. So many factors go into determining the end of a single combat, which weapons they use is not the only one.

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

Very true, although statistically you can say a few things about this subject without the individual skill of fighters being too much of a deciding factor. :)

@b.h.abbott-motley2427

Жыл бұрын

Many of the historical spear-type weapons praised for unarmored combat in the open could both strike & thrust. George Silver's short staff, which has a metal point on each end, uses strikes as much as thrusts. It's unfortunate that this is difficult to simulate in sparring because of safety concerns.

@ScottGrow117

Жыл бұрын

@@VirtualFechtschule also true.

In the SCA I had to face 3 spearmen with just a poleaxe. I didn't win that one. But we once took on a fantastic spearwoman with 2 shieldmen and one spearwoman. Spear occupied spear and the two of us ethusiastically mugged her. About that time she was the BOTN Womens Polearm champion too.

11:55 This so much Indoors with a sword and outdoors with a spear are worlds apart imo

A landsknecht shit talking peasant militiamen? Better be careful, or you're gonna have some very angry reisläufer to deal with! More to the point, though, great video! I too am starting to get sick of the memes. I think a big part of the problem here is that we have this idea of every person having one weapon that defines them as a fighter. This goes back at least as far as Tolkien where the Fellowship marches off, each member carrying the traditional weapon of their people (Gimli has his axe, Aragorn has a sword, Legolas is the only one who has a missile weapon and a side arm, but it's just a knife.) So people think in terms of spearman vs swordsman, without realizing that the spearman probably also has a sword, and the swordsman would know to have armor or a polearm or missile weapon if he's getting into a fight with spearmen. I remember reading a comment on one of these "polearm vs swords" videos where someone said something like: "polearms are the best. When I write my fantasy novel my main character is going to fight with a halberd and kick the crap out of all the swordsmen." And I thought, "does this guy think people in the Middle Ages didn't know about the relative advantages of different weapons. Why are all these swordsmen going up against a halberdier?" I do know of at least one instance of someone carrying a polearm for self-defense, though. Cellini, that old brawler, talks about riding around with a pike for personal protection! Of course, Cellini also proves the point that different weapons worked best for different contexts, carrying and wielding, at various points in his memoir, a pike, a sword, a dagger, and a gun. The right tool for the job indeed! The one area I'd push back a little bit on is the ineffectiveness of militia. From what I've seen in historical records, militiamen were *very* effective in defensive roles, not just the big battles like Bannockburn and Courtrai, but also a lot of sieges of German towns and cities like Hambourg (which resisted a number of very serious sieges by Catholic armies after it became Protestant.)

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

Well, I don't think the Reislaüfer need any excuse to be angry. I talk about Marignano more than often enough. :P Wasn't Cellini the guy who travelled around a lot and talk about German lands being quite violent in comparison to Florence? Carrying a polearm when out in the country would indeed not be a bad idea. Especially if you don't have any chores and such to do. As for the Urban militia's, that's fair. I do consider them effective when in a defensive role, but to me that comes down to a combination of high motivation and the use of fortification. When campaigning further afield, with offensive roles as well, professionals generally did way better as far as I can find out. During the late 1500's, urban militia's could hold Spanish Tercio's at bay in their cities, or swamplands, but not in a straight up battle. And after the defeated defenders of Haarlem were press ganged into becoming a forlorn hope for the siege of Alkmaar, they pretty much died to a man.

I am really impressed by how your videos went from being meh in terms of the quality, to really good in quite a short time

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

Thanks! A decent camera and an actual microphone can make a world of difference! :D

Context is the most important thing.

Wheres the link to your patreon?

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

Whoops, my bad! Here it is: www.patreon.com/virtualfechtschule?fan_landing=true (and I also updated the video description)

What is the main difference of roles between polearm and greatsword in the battle? What about dueling polearm and two-handed swords? What would you have chosen personally in the duel or in battle?

@VirtualFechtschule

9 ай бұрын

The answer to all of these questions is contextual as heck, so I'm going to answer based on my hobby horse: the early 16th century. The biggest three roles on the battlefield were pike, gun and halberd/greatsword. Pikes formed the reliable base of a unit, with halberds or greatswords for versatility, breaching or guarding duties. The guns just did loads of really lethal boom, in orde to wreck morale or make it easier to breach enemy formations.

@VirtualFechtschule

9 ай бұрын

Personally, I really prefer the greatsword, as that's what I have a lot of practice in and good greatswordsmen were highly sought after as bodyguards, and the versatility of a sword is something I really enjoy. In a duel though, reach gives such an advantage that I would probably pick a halberd.

@samoilenko3887

9 ай бұрын

@@VirtualFechtschule Thank you very much for your answer

This is video covers a lot of important points about the question. I agree the memes are getting over the top. Unarmored combat in the open is only one particular kind of fighting. In confined spaces, spears & other staff wepaons become much less useful. We know Renaissance battlefields sometimes got so tight that soldiers resorted mainly to their daggers. It's also worth noting that ranged weapons generally trump both spear & sword for unarmored combat in the open, assuming some initial distance between the combatants. There's a bit from Garcilaso de la Vega's account of Hernando de Soto's expedition to Florida that has seven Spaniards with melee weapons (mostly halberds) & little or no armor getting defeated by seven Native warriors with bows. Only the one Spaniard with a shield survived, badly wounded, while the Native side experienced no losses. Does that make the bow the best historical weapon? In England, we have evidence that fights similar to modern sword-vs.-spear sparring did happen. From the 14th century through the 17th century, folks often carried staves with one or more metal points. This was called a pike-staff among other names. While not exactly a spear, a pike-staff could be functionally almost identical to many spear designs. Writing in the early 17th century, Joseph Swetnam specifically recommended having a staff for self-defense for people carrying large amounts of money on foot outdoors. It's not mentioned in that section, but elsewhere Swetnam was clear that he meant a staff with pike (spike) for serious fighting. & his staff system uses thrusts exclusively. He gave an example of a fight between a person with a pike-staff & another with sword & dagger. Folks in England seem to have be fond of traveling with such weaponized staves. William Harrison's description of England from the later 16th century even mentions people on the way bearing 13-14ft pikes (staves with 12in points) on their shoulders & prompting riders to wear pistols. So traveling outdoors with a pike-staff might cause alarm & arouse suspicion, but it's not clear it was illegal in England. If it was illegal, enforcement appears to have been minimal. Speaking of enforcement, we know people tasked with enforcing laws in the English countryside sometimes carried spear-like staff weapons such as the forest bill. There's one account of an enforcement official, a park keeper, killing a hunter who refused to surrender with a thrust to the breast from a forest bill. I'm not sure about other parts of Europe, but regulating staves in rural environments strikes me as difficult. A staff with a single metal point could be used as a walking stick with the point down yet still be very effective for unarmored fighting in the open. German-region fencing manuals certainly cover spear-type weapons against swords. Joachim Meyer addressed the situation of being attacked be someone with a partizan or the like while only having a single-handed sword. It seems people did sometimes carry staff weapons in towns/cities, though it may have been illegal or they may have required special permission to do so.

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

Cool! Most of the regulatory source I have are from the Low Countries and Southern Germany and the density of urban communities there was so high it seems that fights with pikes or spears would generally get noticed and pretty severely punished. Same goes for wearing armour. That said, even there I think policing the countryside would have been difficult. When German fight books cover sword versus spear it might have been more an exception than a rule. Somebody would have to clearly be breaking the law for such a figh to happen. The only exemptions were generally related to being a nobleman or being on duty for the neighbourhood watch.

@mekingtiger9095

4 ай бұрын

The thing I'd like to address here is the emphasis on the phrase "Unarmored combat". Late Middle Ages saw not only a popularization in swords as secondaries, but most importantly armor in general. In the Early Middle Ages, it was incredibly rare someone would wear any kind of armor outside of nobles. But the end stages of the Medieval Era, it started to become more and more common for armored combat in some form to take place. Swords were not the only equipment to cheapen by that time period: Armor was also becoming more and more widespread. Plate armor wasn't *that* super duper expensive anymore and even common soldiers could afford decent protection in the form of brigandines which are still considerably sturdy. Warfare in general was trending more and more towards armor until the "you know which kind of weapon" happened.

It's unusual that people who talk about the carte blanche superiority of the spear over the sword will link Lindeybeige's video from fightcamp as proof ignoring points that it brought up. Shields were a significant factor mano e mano. Once they were introduced for the swordsmen, the bouts won by either swung from being firmly in favour of the spearman down to being a coin toss as to whom would win, and as for spear and shield versus sword and shield, it'd completely flipped to complete landslide. In group fights, spears held an uncontested advantage in a fixed position whilst swords held the advantage with room to manoeuvre. However even when talking about this video, these points get ignored in what is in actuality a complex discussion. Beyond a showing a poor understanding of statistics, it's shorn of all caveats and context down to a three word meme and repeated ad nauseum by lay people.

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, that's the thing that really annoyed me. Introducing literally any form of context makes the whole debate far more interesting, but no: pointy stick goes brrrr. :P

Wonderful if a little short video 😁

I do love me some Italian bills and early 16th century halberds. But I also love me some arming swords, longswords, lange Messer, and Kriegsmesser. Also, how in the world does the German language work? Google translate is telling me that lange Messer is plural, but langes Messer is singular? But Kriegsmesser is both the singular and plural form of itself? And what’s up with the capitalization? I’m so confused.

I like your opinion. The spear is a good weapon and also cheap. Can you tell me from who the longsword ist in your back. Greetings Jan from Löwenfechter e.V.

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

The longsword was made by Malleus Martialis. :)

My gripe with the armor argument is that it's usually so one sided that the sword user gets to have armor while the spearman doesn't.

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

Maybe so. But even if both have heavy armour, this context still favours the sword more as it has greater versatility up close.

@horseradish7585

Жыл бұрын

@@VirtualFechtschule I don't think it favors the sword more, I think it's about even which put us back to square one.

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

@@horseradish7585 only if we accept that it is about even, which I'm not sure about. The tests I ran were with an opponent that wasn't wearing armour (because he doesn't have one), but we did only count hits to areas that would not be protected by armour. My experience with this doesn't match yours I suppose.

@mekingtiger9095

5 ай бұрын

I'd argue that giving both of them armor still changes the balance more in favor of the sword for the simple fact that spears aren't all that accurate at aiming for gaps when compared to a sword due to (ironically!) their longer shafts. Armored combat in general favors close engagements more than longer ranged ones. Sure, you can half-spear, but it's still not gonna be as maneuverable as the sword. And will you excuse me, but in my opinion, the anti-armor capacities of poleaxes and halberds are somewhat overrated. You'd be surprised by how effective armor is at mitigating blunt damage, specially with a layer of gambeson underneath it. Sure, it might be *some* damage as opposed to a failed thrusting hit that glanced, but it's not gonna magically negate its effectiveness entirely and just simply one-shot him unless you get a *REALLY* good hit at him.

@horseradish7585

4 ай бұрын

​@@mekingtiger9095 I think that would depends on how we classify "close engagements" is. I agree that the sword does have the upper hand when it gets pass the thrusts of the spear. However, I believe the sword is also worthless if the spearman fruther closes the distance and at that point it's down to wrestling or whoever draw a dagger first. I think poleaxes and halberds are known for their anti-armor capability because you can hook and spike the armor with the halberd. And you can also discombobulate them with the poleaxe "safely".

You should go to Lauchröden next year.

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

Yeah! I totally should. I saw the videos and I would love to go next year! :D

Interesting I like your videos. But the spearman also has a sword? So the question should be what is better, sword, or spear AND sword? Also we seem to be restricted to late medieval era? You don't need to answer these questions I'm just talking sh.t

1:30 I'd love to primarily study (and compete but not in this universe i guess lol) spear or other polearms but without viable high intensity sporting option it just fails to gain popularity. You can't exactly whack someone full force on the head with a thick ass shaft* without messing up their equipment and alignment of the vertebrae so it naturally isn't a very popular thing, duh Oh and let's not forget that without flex a thrust in the armpit or to the side of the neck (even with plastic gorget and in heavy kit) is likely to cause nerve damage, that too doesn't really play into the sport aspect *ehhh...

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

Yeah. I sometimes see some high intensity sparring from China, but it looks like the polearms there are light and flexible, making it somewhat safe. Spears are somewhat okay with control and super floppy heads, but I tried pikes this week and that was... an experience. A super light thrust just knocks back your head into whiplash territory. :P Halberds are worse. I really only want to do that with super experienced partners I know well.

@Sk0lzky

Жыл бұрын

@@VirtualFechtschule yes, the lighy rattan shafts they use do work and afaik sca uses them to an extent (thicker, dense rattan type isn't as flexible and I think one HEMA group in north England uses it), but these spears require different approach and lots of western treatises become essentially useless in this scenario. (I tried playing with it based on meyer and it just didn't work at all) China actually has a XVI century source mentioning this flexible type of spear (rattan was used in weapons of war, including longspears, for centuries) and from what I could deduce from the sample I've seen it's mostly fine point work with a lot of emphasis on "corkscrew" motion and "sliding thrusts" (the kind where you push the shaft with one hand and it slides through the other) - I'm 100% sure it's meant for soldiers fighting in line, not a duelling context.

As always: aarsgewei met letters: kontext. You need to arm 100 un trained men by next week? : Spear You need to defend yourself in a dark alleyway? : Knife.

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

Lol, love that one! But indeed context. Although if you'd ask me, arming 100 untrained people in a week, I would probably prefer shovels, so they can actually make some sort of field fortification. Untrained dudes in a formation in the open are really just field decoration. :P

From today's point of view, the use of the sword is more comparable to that of a pistol. Polearm more likely with an assault rifle.

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

Very apt comparison, with rifle being a primary and pistol a sidearm. I've heard people mention laptop versus smartphone as well, and that makes sense too. :)

@dashiellharrison4070

Жыл бұрын

The one issue I have with this analogy is that most combat these days doesn't involve a whole lot of people shooting with rifles either. Artillery and mortars (plus airpower in recent years) have caused the vast majority of casualties since at least WW1. And machine guns cause a lot of the casualties inflicted by bullets. In medieval and renaissance battles, on the other hand fighting with spears and pikes was a major source of casualties. I'd almost be more inclined to say that swords are the equivalent of rifles (they're about the same size) and spears are more like heavy machine guns.

@nevisysbryd7450

Жыл бұрын

@@dashiellharrison4070 Heavy machine guns would probably be more comparable to cross/bows. And while yes, the nature of war was a bit different. Disease was the primary cause of death up until around the Spanish-American war.

@dashiellharrison4070

Жыл бұрын

@@nevisysbryd7450 Yeah, for sure, disease was the biggest killer, but I don't know how much that relates to weapons systems. My point is more that in modern warfare, soldiers are so far out of pistol range its rare to even see an enemy fighter. That's not the case on a Medieval battlefield, where a soldier with a pike is only a few meters outside sword range. So the chance of a pike fight collapsing into a swordfight strikes me as a good bit higher than the odds that a modern soldier might need to use a pistol.

@nevisysbryd7450

Жыл бұрын

@@dashiellharrison4070 The disease factor is relevant in that modern war is already categorically removed in the primary source of casualties regardless which weaponry inflicts it. As for distance, that depends on _which_ modern conflicts. Over 50% of American casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq have been caused not by IEDs, not artillery. Occupying forces in urban environments or contending with guerilla forces are liable to engage at closer distances than sieges or pitched battles, and often occur where artillery may not be prepared or are not feasible to use. Pistols are furthermore equivalent to swords in being _civil/ian_ EDC sidearms, not exclusively military. While there are territorial legal restrictions, a pistol is similarly the most powerful modern weapon that lends itself reasonably well to everyday wear without interfering with general life activities _too_ much. Carrying around a rifle on your shoulder more often than not does not work that well outside of specifically armed force lifestyles, which was similarly one of the major limiting factors of polearms and cross/bows.

I think spear is cheap weapon to mass produce and equipping it to multiple soldiers at once you have cost effective army.

@VirtualFechtschule

9 ай бұрын

It's not that cheap though! A good shaft is difficult to source and still costs a significant part of a soldier's monthly wage in the for those periods for which we have some data. But that doesn't matter too much in fairness. During most of the middle ages, most force constitution happened through feudal levies, that were required to bring their own weapons. Late 15th century you start seeing mercenary units where soldiers still owned their weapons, but there were some standards, and only at the later part of the 16th century you get equipment of an army being planned and arranged at a strategic level.

OwO pointy stick go brrrrrrrr

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

Hahaha, lol!

i choose a spear with a sword as secondary weapon

@VirtualFechtschule

10 ай бұрын

Ah. I see you too are a person of culture!

Swordstaff; enough said.

@VirtualFechtschule

9 ай бұрын

It's not the point, it's the shaft that makes the polearm. And swordstaff still has all the properties of a polearm, and very little of the properties of a sword.

Swords can definetly defeat spears. If they have shields.

@VirtualFechtschule

Жыл бұрын

It's one very effective way! :)

I hate how the internet now has entirely shifted the whole "sword best weapon of all, armies all composed of swordsmen" myth into the complete opposite direction to make it mean "Sword worst and most useless military weapon of all time! Only used by desperate soldiers who already lost their fight anyway, brrrrrrrrrr". I swar, I'm not even a HEMA guy, but all these memes and annoying brats who like to D-ride the spear at every possible opportunity actively burning down all context and nuance to make it go their favor has truly gotten into my nerves even when I'm not even really a sword guy myself. Yes, I get it: Swords are overrepresented too much in media while other potentially equally cool weapons are often sidelined for no good reason, I get it. But it's just ironic that the HEMA and Arms & Armor communities will go to such huge lenghts to demystify this idea that they end up swinging in the other direction and becoming the very thing they've sworn to destroy. Great video! Subscribed!

@VirtualFechtschule

4 ай бұрын

Thanks! And yes, this sentiment really grinds my gears as well. :)

@mekingtiger9095

4 ай бұрын

​@@VirtualFechtschule Furthermore, another thing to take into account is that just like swords became prolific in the Late Middle Ages, armour in general also became too. Sure, not everyone had a high end quality full plate harness, but even by then this type of armor wasn't *that* horrendously expensive as it used to be in previous centuries anymore and even outside of full plate, brigandines and medium quality breastblates along with mail and gambeson underneath were starting to become so commonplace amongst infantrymen that close range combat past the zone of control of spears became more frequent by the end of the day specially during the 15th century (Bad War). And as you said, armor changes the equation of everything. So imagine how much warfare has been changed once every soldier started wearing metal protective clothing! As an armor enthusiast myself, it pains me a lot that no one seems to talk about this part of pre-musket historical fighting and only focus on the "touchy touchy game" of unarmored sparring.