Spear vs Sword

[Justin Swanton]

An interesting video by Lindybeige that pits the two weapons against each other in different ways. Spear wins. A lethal weapon especially when used two-handed.

[aligern]

Interesting, but they did not allow for the swordsman cutting the spearhead off., nor that with a sword you can batter down a shield and man together in a way that a spearman cannot.
Also, I suppose that the combatants, knowing that injury or death took no part in their play were much more aggressive than the actual warriors would be. Lots of the cuts and thrusts looked superficial and might not even be noticed until later.
Lastly, when both have shields, the swordsman can try and get the spearman to stick his point into the shield and then deliver a maasive blow whilst the spearman can only defend. Not possible with a plastick spearhead!
Roy

[Erpingham]

I must admit, the advantage did seem to be with the person who knew what they were doing, regardless of weapon.

[Imperial Dave]

thats the key to it. If you have a very good swordsman, he will know to look for the spearman overreaching so that he can bat aside the spear, step inside and deliver the coup de grace

[Patrick Waterson]

The video reminded me of Japanese (and to an extent Chinese) spear practice.  Japanese samurai, having for centuries extolled and utilised the virtue of the katana as a primary battle weapon, began adopting the yari and naginata, initially as weapons for ashigaru and ronin, but subsequently as principal samurai battle weapons.  One suspects the duelling nature of samurai combat may have been a significant driver in this, because although as Anthony says training seems to matter more than weaponry, where training is equal the spear does appear to have an advantage.

Anyone interested in how the samurai actually used their spears (yari) can see a key technique here.

[Imperial Dave]

Not just samurai Patrick. I was taught spear work I  the same way. Fluidity of grip and change of position was key to using the spear well especially if you had no shield and had to rely on using the spear defensively

[Erpingham]

One thing you get from watching training videos is that an inexperienced person  probably has a limited range of moves, and moves between them less fluidly, which costs time.  Look at a medieval manual like Fiore dei Liberi's Flos Duellatorum there are plenty of spear moves, positions and grips which would have given a trained man more options. 

Another thing we might note is the trade off a spearman has between reach and speed of moving the point (its an angular momentum thing, I believe).  Keeping a man at bay with a 12ft spear is probably harder than with an 8ft one (8ft was Silver's ideal length for a pole weapon, I believe).

And, lest we forget, our spearman, unless we are in a small skirmish or a tournament, is probably with his mates.  Looking at Justin's video, one successful strategy of the swordsman was to push aside the spear and close.  It is a much harder trick if there is the spear of a second rank man between the swordsman and his target.

[Justin Swanton]

Here's another video by Lindybeige showing how using a spear underarm has a whole lot of advantages that an overarm hold does not.

Yes, I know he says holding a spear overarm means you halve the reach of your spear and we all know the centre of gravity of a hoplite spear was 3/4 the way up the shaft thanks to tapering and the sauroter, nonetheless I find his points interesting. I tried it: you have far better and stronger control of a spear held underarm.

Here's a third video that examines why so many ancient depictions of spearmen show them using it overarm even though underarm is better. However he doesn't examine using the spear in a high underarm grip - spear gripped along the forearm which is held above the shoulder. Given that very little spear will project back beyond the elbow to bother the hoplites behind, it should be a viable grip.

But it does seem an overarm thrust/throw has more penetrating power than an underarm thrust. The human body seems designed to chuck things more than to shove them forwards. Also with an overarm grip there's no danger of hitting the chap behind you.

So underarm more sparring control but overarm more hitting power (and a safer formation).

[Imperial Dave]

So underarm more sparring control but overarm more hitting power (and a safer formation).

I would go with that

[Erpingham]

It may, or may not, be relevant that forensic tests consistently show the overarm knife thrust is more powerful than the underarm.  That said, both produce a huge amount more power than is needed to penetrate an unarmoured target.

[aligern]

The abilty to throw is one of the characteristics that differentiates early humans from apes. Apparently it would make a huge difference in their ability to ward off predators because the carnivores are kept at a distance. Similarly I suppose its a great help in hunting if you can strike whist still at a distance that prey still thinks it has a head start.

Overarm has several advantages
It can be converted into a throw so you have freedom of choice!
It strikes at the face which is very off putting for an opponent.
Underarm means opening ip your shield and thus risking the bayonet quandary ( If two men charge each other with the bayonet and make contact both die)
The spear butt is up in the air and less dangerous to the nan hehind.
When carrying out othismos , or just plain pushing, the spear is not in the way of the rank behind  and the front ranker's  shield is flat and so held for pushing
Lastly, a man defending against an overhead thrust blinds himself by raising his shield and is thus less able to respond.
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

But it does seem an overarm thrust/throw has more penetrating power than an underarm thrust. The human body seems designed to chuck things more than to shove them forwards. Also with an overarm grip there's no danger of hitting the chap behind you.

Interesting is the letting go of the spear just before the moment of impact.  I long wondered about the knob on the end of the Egyptian infantry spear; in addition to serving as a counterweight, it would seem that this could help with retaining the spear as the user re-grasped it while a face-stricken opponent was falling backwards (something a dummy plastic head on a stake does not do when mortally stricken).

Anyone who has endured watching the film 300 will remember the action at Thermopylae pass, in which the actors (as opposed to re-enactors) attempt to use their spears underarm.  Their strained efforts are almost painful to watch, and one can sense the palpable relief when they revert to swords and begin their wild slashing sword-dance.  It looks as if using the spear underarm in quasi-battle conditions as opposed to individual demonstrations may not be quite as easy or useful as its proponents make out.

[Erpingham]

I think we need to be careful with the throwing thrust as, AFAIK, we have no evidence it was used.  It just seems an interesting idea.  There areplenty of medieval illustrations, however, which do show the spear held in the back quarter of the shaft.  This may may illustrate the technique, or it may show a different technique entirely.  It seems an awkward way to use the weapon though, from a balance point of view.

Roy is again right, I think, to pull back to "What are the advantages used in formation?" arguments.  Overhand in a dense, shielded, formation may have advantages that are not apparent to a man with a length of dowel in his front room.

Finally, time from another quote from the "frontline" of people who actually used spears to kill other people - this time 13th century Denmark

You must also be specially careful, when in the battle line, never to throw your spear, unless you have two, for in battle array on land one spear is more effective than two swords.  The Kings Mirror.

[Imperial Dave]

as an aside (as demonstrated in the Samurai clip), I did use the semi throwing thrust with a spear. The guiding hand loosely grips the spear further up the shaft than the delivering hand which firmly holds the spear near the butt. As the thrust goes in, the guiding hand can allow or restrict the speed/force distance the spear moves forward for a strike. If there is a small butt spike/ball or similar it can help with spear retention (I never used one). The best analogy I can think of is the snooker cue action

[Erpingham]

The best analogy I can think of is the snooker cue action

The snooker (or pool) cue action is illustrated in medieval fight manuals, so a legitimate move.  But does it involve a throw?  It's also a two hand move.

The overarm throw/thrust relies on the spear moving through the propelling hand by momentum and being caught before it leaves the hand, so could be used with a shield.  But I'd be worried about recovering the spear if it was deflected or parried.  Unlike a throw, you'd be both closer to the opponent and have your right hand encumbered wrestling to recover the spear again, which would make dashing forward and hitting you about the head easier.