Spear vs Sword

[Justin Swanton]

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.

Keeping in mind that the third video shows one can penetrate armour with an overarm thrust but not an underarm one.

[Erpingham]

On the subject of the power of spears, this experiment on two-handed spear thrusting is interesting.

[Patrick Waterson]

On the subject of the power of spears, this experiment on two-handed spear thrusting is interesting.

"A person using a thrusting spear literally puts their body mass behind the weapon."

[Imperial Dave]

the spear is truly versatile (not saying the sword isnt mind) and although one handed underarm thrusts might not have as much punch as overhand, as stated above in several places, a two handed thrust especially leaning into it with the body is incredibly powerful. Add to that the ability to 'snooker cue' extra reach and its a really nasty weapon to face in the hands of a competent user

[PMBardunias]

These guys seem to believe that one-on-one a spear beats sword. 

[Justin Swanton]

These guys seem to believe that one-on-one a spear beats sword. 

If the swordsman can close the distance, he has the spearman.

Question: a line of hastati vs line of Athenian hoplites, who wins? Please give reasons for your answer. 5 marks.

[Duncan Head]

If the swordsman can close the distance, he has the spearman.

Not what you suggested in your first post. What changed your mind?

[RichT]

Question: a line of hastati vs line of Athenian hoplites, who wins? Please give reasons for your answer. 5 marks.

Depends. How deep are their formations? What are their intervals? What is the quality of their equipment? How well trained are they? How well motivated? How well led? What does each side have at stake? How many battles have they fought before? How long have they been together as a unit? How did they sleep last night? What did they have for breakfast? Which way is the wind blowing? The sun shining? What's the lie of the land?

I suspect all these questions (or at least, the sum of all these questions) are more important than 'do they have swords or spears?'

I know that's not a fun answer, sorry.

[PMBardunias]

These guys seem to believe that one-on-one a spear beats sword. 

If the swordsman can close the distance, he has the spearman.

Question: a line of hastati vs line of Athenian hoplites, who wins? Please give reasons for your answer. 5 marks.

As someone whose family comes from Laconia, the answer is easy- everybody should beat those damn Athenians.  But in reality, it is difficult.  I assume we are talking a head-on clash scutum and gladius vs dory and aspis.  Were it sarissaphoroi I would easily say the pikes win, we have many examples and Polybios flat out says so.  Are two ranks of dory enough? Probably not, and here is my logic.  We know that hoplites got past the spears of other hoplites and fought "shield on shield", so if they could do it, Romans could.  So my verdict would be that in a straight up fight it depends on range.  At spear range obviously hoplites win.  If the Romans can close to sword range, they win.  But if the battle were to get real close and crowded, I think the hoplites again have the advantage because they are made to fight either at spear range or squashed (by the late 4thc).

[Justin Swanton]

If the swordsman can close the distance, he has the spearman.

Not what you suggested in your first post. What changed your mind?

Nothing. If the swordsman can close the distance... In the video the swordsmen sometimes succeed in doing exactly that and win the contest. If however the swordsmen can't get past the spearman's guard they are at a disadvantage since spearman can poke them but they can't poke spearman.

[Justin Swanton]

These guys seem to believe that one-on-one a spear beats sword. 

If the swordsman can close the distance, he has the spearman.

Question: a line of hastati vs line of Athenian hoplites, who wins? Please give reasons for your answer. 5 marks.

As someone whose family comes from Laconia, the answer is easy- everybody should beat those damn Athenians.  But in reality, it is difficult.  I assume we are talking a head-on clash scutum and gladius vs dory and aspis.  Were it sarissaphoroi I would easily say the pikes win, we have many examples and Polybios flat out says so.  Are two ranks of dory enough? Probably not, and here is my logic.  We know that hoplites got past the spears of other hoplites and fought "shield on shield", so if they could do it, Romans could.  So my verdict would be that in a straight up fight it depends on range.  At spear range obviously hoplites win.  If the Romans can close to sword range, they win.  But if the battle were to get real close and crowded, I think the hoplites again have the advantage because they are made to fight either at spear range or squashed (by the late 4thc).

The Romans obviously won't be interested in fighting at spear range and will charge into sword range at whatever the cost. Once in sword range they fight at an advantage since

a) they have bigger shields and are better protected,
b) they are trained to use the sword (it's their primary weapon) which hoplites, now obliged to use their swords, aren't, and
c) they have fighting space: they can recoil to avoid the hoplites' blows if necessary whereas the hoplites can't recoil to avoid theirs.

If the hoplites try othismos the Romans just give a little ground and  resume the swordfight.

My money is on the Romans. Every time.

[PMBardunias]

The Romans obviously won't be interested in fighting at spear range and will charge into sword range at whatever the cost. Once in sword range they fight at an advantage since

a) they have bigger shields and are better protected,
b) they are trained to use the sword (it's their primary weapon) which hoplites, now obliged to use their swords, aren't, and
c) they have fighting space: they can recoil to avoid the hoplites' blows if necessary whereas the hoplites can't recoil to avoid theirs.

If the hoplites try othismos the Romans just give a little ground and  resume the swordfight.

My money is on the Romans. Every time.

Depends on how easy they can get under the spears.  I have seen people try it, and it is not easy. But if they do, they win.

Fighting space is not an advantage here. Romans would not move back and forth out of range often. Once they are under the spears, they have to stick to the hoplites to be safe. Going back through spear range as they break off and coming back through it would be suicidal. They would surely be ding this at a 3 foot frontage, at 6 foot, I don't see them getting past so many spears.  I do not think they will be recoiling unless to do what they did to the Sarissaphoroi and tear the line apart. This is what the Persians tried by hitting the greek line only in places at Plataia and failed, though it was sound strategy and may have worked in the past unrecorded.

[Justin Swanton]

The Romans obviously won't be interested in fighting at spear range and will charge into sword range at whatever the cost. Once in sword range they fight at an advantage since

a) they have bigger shields and are better protected,
b) they are trained to use the sword (it's their primary weapon) which hoplites, now obliged to use their swords, aren't, and
c) they have fighting space: they can recoil to avoid the hoplites' blows if necessary whereas the hoplites can't recoil to avoid theirs.

If the hoplites try othismos the Romans just give a little ground and  resume the swordfight.

My money is on the Romans. Every time.

Depends on how easy they can get under the spears.  I have seen people try it, and it is not easy. But if they do, they win.

Fighting space is not an advantage here. Romans would not move back and forth out of range often. Once they are under the spears, they have to stick to the hoplites to be safe. Going back through spear range as they break off and coming back through it would be suicidal. They would surely be ding this at a 3 foot frontage, at 6 foot, I don't see them getting past so many spears.  I do not think they will be recoiling unless to do what they did to the Sarissaphoroi and tear the line apart. This is what the Persians tried by hitting the greek line only in places at Plataia and failed, though it was sound strategy and may have worked in the past unrecorded.

A typical hoplite spear has its centre of balance - and hence its grip - between 1/3 and 1/4 from the rear end. The spear is about 9 feet long on average. This means that at least six feet of spear will project in front of the hoplite. The second rank, which will have to be close to the the first rank to be able to freely wield their spears over the shoulders of the front-rank men, will have about four feet of spear or more projecting past the front rankers. When fighting, the legionary doesn't need to recoil more than a couple of feet to avoid a blow from the hoplite in front of him, which means that he is generally within the guard of the spears of the two front ranks of hoplites.

I doubt the earlier Republican Romans had the professionalism to hit a phalanx line only at certain places in order to dislocate it. Did the Persians deliberately try that at Plataea? Infantry or cavalry?

[aligern]

I suspect that the reality of who 'has'  whom is rather more nuanced . A large amount of the effort of both fighting lines was taken up with staying alive. Very likely men were using weapon and shield to parry the opposing attacks and then to attempt to launch attacks of their own when they saw or sensed an opening. This would go on for some time until one or another tired or made a mistake and a blow got through which had some effect. The man who was less fit or less skilled or less brave would  fall back if possible, close up defensively if not, or perhaps launch a frenzied attack if  there was no retiring and the balance of fighting was going against him. 
There are a lot of other factors in play that are not dependent upon weapon characteristics. A well trained and well motivated man with an inferior weapon, armour combination is likely to beat a less fit, less confident but better equipped man.
As a weapon system , hoplite, phalangite and legionary are all effective. Phalangutes do not crush hoplites, Romans do not destroy phalngites frontally or phalangutes Romans. None of these are sufficiently asymmetric. With Gauls, Germans, Dacians and Persians it is a different story.

[Erpingham]

The Romans obviously won't be interested in fighting at spear range and will charge into sword range at whatever the cost.

There is, of course, a theory held by some that the Romans would stay out of spear range and bombard the hoplites with missiles until they had broken them up a bit, then charge in, rather than charge in at the first opportunity.

I think Paul is right to bring us back to the fact that, unlike the guys in the Lindybeige video, these men would fight in formations who will offer mutual support.  Sweep aside the front rankers spear and step beyond the point, you find yourself shieldless facing the spear of the second ranker.

It is also right to emphasise training and experience.  How experienced are the two sides?  Have either fought the other troop type before?  Have they been trained to tackle the situation they are in or are they relying on generic moves?  Or have they not been trained as such but their dad/uncle showed them how it was done when he was called up?