Weapon damage

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I have to note that boars don't have parrying weapons, particularly shields. I realize it isn't necessarily trivial, but once it happens, it happens, and trying to reingage back to proper spear range is non-trivial.

There uis some truth to that, but then again shields are not the big problem to a warrior wielding a spear. Most of the time the spear is going to "rebound" off the shield making it easier to bring back into play.

Another big thing to consider is just how much of a reach advantage a spear has, especially when used in two hands. WIth a 8 foot spear or so, you probably have about 4-6 feet or reach. Now a foe using a sword and shield is probably reposed behind the shield, and so has to lower his guard a little to swing the aword (another plus for the gladius and other thrusting weapons). So that gives the spear user a good three feet or so. Since most combatnatant tend to stay out of reach of the longest weapon and dart in, that gives the spear user an easier time of attacking and retreating. If the foe manages to get in close, step back AND use the shaft to move his weapon out of line or even bind weapons.

If you are fighting with a one-handed spear in a spear and shield arrangement, then you can always fight reposed to get an even fight with a swordsman.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

That did not seem to be the opinion of the sojutsu instructors I talked to, or perhaps more accurately, they seemed to consider it inadequately stable, and prone to bein too easy to knock out of alignment (there was some disagreement here, but it tended to be in degree, not kind).

(Note I've carefully discussed the longer spears; the shortest ones are another issue, but they also, at that point, tend to eliminate most bonuses to effectiveness they have over other weapons that are otherwise more versitile).

I can imagine just how must disagreement there was. There is a lot of variant among spears, especially among Yari. I wouldn't want to try to choke up on a 18-shaku Yari of the Oda clan.

One key to choking up on a spear is just how it is weighted. A Point heavy spear is probably a bit easier to pull that off with.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I've mentioned this when dealing with two handed use several times, but having watched attempts to do so one handed I am, shall we say, unimpressed; frankly, a six foot stick is simply too unwieldy to use as a bludgeon with one hand unless one is _very_ strong.

I'm not that strong and I have done it. You don't need a big sweeping arc, just a few inches. It doesn't need to be a powerful attack, just enough to mess up you foe and get you time and/or distance.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I'm an ex-fencer, so I'm aware of this, but there are risks to doing so fast enough to be of use, not the least that tripping is a real issue unless you're on firmly even footing, and frankly, there's no guarentee once someone's gotten up in on you, that they won't simply follow. I can't help but think this is even more true if both are moderately to heavily armored, which can't help the lead time of the retreater much.


And if the foe continues to follow through as he approaches? Keep in mind also, that in a lot of combat, there are any number of reasons unlimited retreating isn't practical.

[/quote]

There are big risks to backpedalling on a battlefield, although fencing is a bit differernt from easier forms of armed combat. The older weapons are a bit slower, and movement is less along a line. But when I used to use a shinai both us us were jumping a dodging backwards A LOT. Getting some distance was never much of a problem.

While Unlimited retraeating is impractical. In actuallity it doesn't work that way. For one thing almost any retraeat with a thrusting weapon can be used to spring back for a thrusting strike (if you've fenced you know what I mean).
Secondly, a warrior fighting someone using a spear is often forced to give some ground too. Typically there is a lot of step in/jump back stuff from the guy trying to close without getting speared.

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

That's really been my argument, though in looking back, I have to conclude I've expressed it poorly.

I didnt read the whole thread back, but there is no doubt that you are favoritizing the sword. Maybe its more my poor wording in english, because I am not so adept in your native tongue. Sorry for this, I am trying to improve.

I think as long there is no definition about what this discussion is really about we cannot come to a conclusion.
IMO the sword has many advantages and and spear also. So its a draw and which of the weapons is better depend on circumstances like

-fighting against cavalry or from horseback
-cost of the weapon
-which techlevel has the weaponsmith? which material is it?
-weight (how many miles do the soldier have to carry it before battle?)
-unit tactics
-against which enemies is it used?
-flexibility in different terrains
-learning curve in weapon training

So each weapon has its time for use. It cannot just be a rough generalization: this or that weapon is superior. It depends on the specific situation.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

There uis some truth to that, but then again shields are not the big problem to a warrior wielding a spear. Most of the time the spear is going to "rebound" off the shield making it easier to bring back into play.

I was mostly referring to using a shield to deflect the shield upwards so you could come up from under it. Obviously, this isn't certain, but it seems like its much easier to do with a shield than, say, another weapon (or none at all).

Another big thing to consider is just how much of a reach advantage a spear has, especially when used in two hands. WIth a 8 foot spear or so, you

Note I've acknowledged that benefit several times, though it only seems a signfiicant one with medium to long spears.

probably have about 4-6 feet or reach. Now a foe using a sword and shield is probably reposed behind the shield, and so has to lower his guard a little to swing the aword (another plus for the gladius and other thrusting weapons).

I'm told that even slashing swords have an under-shield style technique that works for them; the only risk is of the opponent then coming up underneath the shield, but to some extent _any_ use of a weapon limits shield play.

So that gives the spear user a good three feet or so. Since most combatnatant tend to stay out of reach of the longest weapon and dart in, that gives the spear user an easier time of attacking and retreating. If the foe manages to get in close, step back AND use the shaft to move his weapon out of line or even bind weapons.

The problem with that is a longer weapon is almost always heavier than a shorter, even when the former is made of wood, and as such simple physics makes it slower to bring around.

I can imagine just how must disagreement there was. There is a lot of variant among spears, especially among Yari. I wouldn't want to try to choke up on a 18-shaku Yari of the Oda clan.

It wasn't about the spear types per se, but about how worthwhile spear-and-weapon techniques were, which turn on how wieldy the sword tends to be. They were pretty consistent on deciding it was only useful with spears with short hafts, though; its just how short they suggested (some thought nothing much beyond a jo in length was workable).

One key to choking up on a spear is just how it is weighted. A Point heavy spear is probably a bit easier to pull that off with.

I would imagine so, but at that point I'd think when using it farther back it would also be harder to use. Or put simply, there's going to be an optimal point of grip, one way or another; its just a question as to where that is (of course with some historical setups that use the shield as bracing, this is a bit confused).

I'm not that strong and I have done it. You don't need a big sweeping arc, just a few inches. It doesn't need to be a powerful attack, just enough to mess up you foe and get you time and/or distance.

I'm not convinced with an armored opponent interested in pressing the attack that's sufficient.

There are big risks to backpedalling on a battlefield, although fencing is a bit differernt from easier forms of armed combat. The older weapons are a bit slower, and movement is less along a line. But when I used to use a shinai both us us were jumping a dodging backwards A LOT. Getting some distance was never much of a problem.

I'll bet you were fighting on even footing however, weren't you? And what were you wearing while doing so? I never had any trouble ballistaing back away from an opponent fencer either, but for the most part we were fencing on flat floors with little question there was a clear space behind us. How often is that the case in a real battlefield?

While Unlimited retraeating is impractical. In actuallity it doesn't work that way. For one thing almost any retraeat with a thrusting weapon can be used to spring back for a thrusting strike (if you've fenced you know what I mean).

The problem is, it _doesn't_ do that if the opponent follows _immediately_. Now when fencing, you're able to move extremely fast, so if you're quick and lucky you can retreat and get back into line before the opponent responds (but it requires both, because if he's alert enough to notice you start and immediately follows through, you, at best, won't have changed a thing). I can't imagine that this will be true to the same extent with moderately armored opponents.

Secondly, a warrior fighting someone using a spear is often forced to give some ground too. Typically there is a lot of step in/jump back stuff from the guy trying to close without getting speared.

Of course, as with almost any extension type attack; but the point is, once someone comes up in under spear range, the _last_ thing he's going to do is retreat again given a choice, because he's now at his ideal range, and the other combatant isn't. So if the spearman can't force it, it likely won't happen.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

I think as long there is no definition about what this discussion is really about we cannot come to a conclusion.
IMO the sword has many advantages and and spear also. So its a draw and which of the weapons is better depend on circumstances like

-fighting against cavalry or from horseback
-cost of the weapon
-which techlevel has the weaponsmith? which material is it?
-weight (how many miles do the soldier have to carry it before battle?)

I don't actually have much evidence a typical sword is heavier than a typical spear; there's less metal involved, but by the time you're dealing with a 5' of wood, the difference is generally not going to be significant.

So each weapon has its time for use. It cannot just be a rough generalization: this or that weapon is superior. It depends on the specific situation.

I'm afraid I can't agree; I think its possible to say that a given weapon is _on the average_ a better single choice, without saying that the other has no use, or does not have its virtues.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I was mostly referring to using a shield to deflect the shield upwards so you could come up from under it. Obviously, this isn't certain, but it seems like its much easier to do with a shield than, say, another weapon (or none at all).

That isn't a weakness of the spear per say, but an effect that could apply to any weapon.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Note I've acknowledged that benefit several times, though it only seems a significant one with medium to long spears.

Any advantage is reach is significant. In many cases a foot or soo is more significant edge than 5 or 6 feet. It is sort of an in for a penny thing. If you got a reach advantange it translates into a speed advantage.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I'm told that even slashing swords have an under-shield style technique that works for them; the only risk is of the opponent then coming up underneath the shield, but to some extent _any_ use of a weapon limits shield play.

Sure, but an undershield technique would be vulnerable to a low attack, and reach weapons are best for striking low, since the attacker doen't have to extend himself to strike those areas. Considering that the legs tended to be unarmored for most fighters, going low with a spear would cause most swordmen a lot of problems. Drop down to protect the legs and there goes your speed.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

The problem with that is a longer weapon is almost always heavier than a shorter, even when the former is made of wood, and as such simple physics makes it slower to bring around.

Yeah, so. Speed isn't everything. Look at the axe, mace, flair, and halbeard. All are effective, and all could be used to fight against a swordman. Another thing to consider is that thrusting weapons tend to be two to three times faster than slashing weapons, so that "heavy" spear is probably as faster or faster than a broadsword.

Guys with spears did fight and beat guys with swords. If the skill of the combatants was close, so was the outcome. Everything that you are noting for being able to be used against the spear has ways of being countered.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

It wasn't about the spear types per se, but about how worthwhile spear-and-weapon techniques were, which turn on how wieldy the sword tends to be. They were pretty consistent on deciding it was only useful with spears with short hafts, though; its just how short they suggested (some thought nothing much beyond a jo in length was workable).

Well, ask them why the Spear (and even clumsier naginatas) were so prevant in Japan during the Sengoku peroid. It isn't because of Calvary, since years on warfare reduced the horse to the mount for higher ranking officers. A pointy stick is an effective weapon. Even against a sword.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I would imagine so, but at that point I'd think when using it farther back it would also be harder to use. Or put simply, there's going to be an optimal point of grip, one way or another; its just a question as to where that is (of course with some historical setups that use the shield as bracing, this is a bit confused).

True. But again, that holds for most weapons, and harder does not mean inefective. I have a two handed broadsword at home that I find too heavy to wield two handed, let along with one hand, but there are people who can do so.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I'm not convinced with an armored opponent interested in pressing the attack that's sufficient.

You would be if you had someone jabbing a spear into your face. Keep in mind that plate was very rare, and a spear can penetrate mail and most other armors. A determined foe who presses forward can very likely wind up impaling hilself on a grounded spear. That's one thing the spear can do that can't be done with a sword, axe, or mace.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I'll bet you were fighting on even footing however, weren't you? And what were you wearing while doing so? I never had any trouble ballistaing back away from an opponent fencer either, but for the most part we were fencing on flat floors with little question there was a clear space behind us. How often is that the case in a real battlefield?

You loose. What did you bet? I was fighting outdoors, mostly on grass, and on various types of ground (inclduing mud). We would also move to the side, something that modern fencers don't do. About 90% of our injuries ended to being to the hands (the blades tend to slide down each other on a strike).

Originally Posted by Nightshade

The problem is, it _doesn't_ do that if the opponent follows _immediately_. Now when fencing, you're able to move extremely fast, so if you're quick and lucky you can retreat and get back into line before the opponent responds (but it requires both, because if he's alert enough to notice you start and immediately follows through, you, at best, won't have changed a thing). I can't imagine that this will be true to the same extent with moderately armored opponents.

What yo are failing to consider is that the armor slows down BOTH parties, so there is no advantage for the swordmans. In fact it sort of works the other way. As people get tired, they slow down, and that makes the intial reach advantage more signficant.

Most spear points have a decent edge on them, too, through most RPGs don't note it. If someone cloes you can simple move your arms back and slice with the edge.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Of course, as with almost any extension type attack; but the point is, once someone comes up in under spear range, the _last_ thing he's going to do is retreat again given a choice, because he's now at his ideal range, and the other combatant isn't. So if the spearman can't force it, it likely won't happen.

The hard thing is for the swordsman to get in close in the first place. Once there the sword has an advantage, but it is tough to get there. Buut the thing is ideal sword prange is actually just out of striking distance (unlike an RPG real fights tend to occur outside of weapon ranges.

If the spearman is using spear and sheild, he can push the attacker back with his shield.

[Joseph Paul]

Wow, are you short stroking that 8' spear for some reason Atgxtg? With a 9' one I can get about 12' of throw using a left foot forward/right hand on the butt stance. Start the throw and step with the right foot forward and twist the body to keep things lined up.

Also through out this I have been confused about what situation people are presuming for the spearman. Sometimes it sounds like single combat and sometimes it sounds like a melee. If it is a melee and a spearman is forced to retreat by the vigourous charge of a swordsman the man on the spear guys left kills the swordsman by sticking him in his unshielded right side. Teamwork- it will kill you.

If it is single combat and the spearman has a problem retreating then he needs to use the haft to block the advance of the swordsman, preferably by shoving the haft hard against the shield and using the end to leverage under his swordarm and throw him. Failing that slash at the arm and control it with the haft. In desperation use the butt spike (if so equipped) to strike him in the face or chest.

Single combat spear and 1-handed spear vs sword and shield. Remember to smack the swordsman with your shield on his way in. Step out and regain the range.

Other things to do if you are a spearman. Train,train,train. Shoot for the non-shield side leg as that leg is brought forward. Stick the spear on the shield and screw with it. Learn how to punch the shield so that it moves, then strike where it is not. In melees concentrate on the guy 1-3 men to the let and right of the guy across from you. If one of them gets out of step snipe him.

I need to look at Silver's "Paradoxes of Defense" to see if he has anything to say about it.

Over all a good thread so far.

[RMS]

I'll get back to the game since I think we've discussed the other as far as we can really go with it.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Frankly, the only reason I don't think you see spears used more often in the game is that they get lost on impales a lot, and most people don't want to take the time to train heavily in two melee weapons.

Part of the reason that they aren't seen in a Glorantha game (where I've mostly played) is that the dominant PC cultures have mythical ties to the sword. It fits the background of the characters. From a practical POV, they get magic that favors a sword. Other cultures get magic that favors the spear and will choose to use them. In fact, I'd argue that in the game, magic is far more important to what weapon is used than any minor details in weapon damage.

I'd estimate that 90% of the character in games I've run or played in have used swords as primary weapons, but that's strictly cultural. I currently have been playing a character that's specialized in the javelin + atlatl, and I have to say that's an extremely deadly combination, especially with Speeddate on top of it. This character has also had an uncanny knack for headshotting important foes with impales...probably cursed myself there.

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I don't actually have much evidence a typical sword is heavier than a typical spear; there's less metal involved, but by the time you're dealing with a 5' of wood, the difference is generally not going to be significant.

I never claimed this.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I'm afraid I can't agree; I think its possible to say that a given weapon is _on the average_ a better single choice, without saying that the other has no use, or does not have its virtues.

This theoretical idea about average is not really useful. Especially if you dont define in forefront of the discussion which parameter your "average" includes.

Well then lets agree that we not agree. Reading the postings back the more the more I feel that its a trench war, which neither side will win. Has not much sense for me. I bail out.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

That isn't a weakness of the spear per say, but an effect that could apply to any weapon.

Its not nearly as severe with slashing weapons or impact weapons as it is with thrusting weapons, however, and the longer the weapon is the more vulnerable it is to this.

Any advantage is reach is significant. In many cases a foot or soo is more significant edge than 5 or 6 feet. It is sort of an in for a penny thing. If you got a reach advantange it translates into a speed advantage.

I'm simply suggesting that with actual usage, the practical difference in reach with a 3' spear and a typical longsword (when used to thrust) is minimimal. If you don't agree, you don't, but it certainly seemed the case when watching spear and sword sparring when I was in martial arts.

Sure, but an undershield technique would be vulnerable to a low attack, and reach weapons are best for striking low, since the attacker doen't have to

Sure. But by the time you've already started that low attack, you presumeably have already gotten the shield out of line from above. There's nothing that requires you to do it _until_ you've already eliminated that risk from at least that individual combatant (and I'd have to assume that it wasn't that easy to avoid, since that seems to have been the core of the gladius thrust technique the legionnaires used, though obviously that requires less commitment than a slash would).

Yeah, so. Speed isn't everything. Look at the axe, mace, flair, and halbeard.

It's pretty close to it when it comes to actually delivering a blow to target before he does to you, all other things being equal. There are obviously other issues when things like penetration and damage are involved (against an armored target, getting in the first weaker blow that does little or nothing against him because his armor absorbed most of the force is obviously less useful than getting in the second blow that's heavier and can get through the armor), and in some cases it can be hard to parry a heavier weapon for obvious reasons--but most of this only works on non-thrusting weapons. It isn't appreciably harder to deflect a heavy thrusting weapon than a light. That's one of the trade-offs with them.

All are effective, and all could be used to fight against a swordman. Another thing to consider is that thrusting weapons tend to be two to three times faster than slashing weapons, so that "heavy" spear is probably as faster or faster than a broadsword.

Oh, it is; but that doesn't help much once its brought out of line. Recovery in the end is recovery, and mass is mass.

Guys with spears did fight and beat guys with swords. If the skill of the combatants was close, so was the outcome. Everything that you are noting for being able to be used against the spear has ways of being countered.

Certainly true; but that doesn't say it was as easily countered as the technique. Nothing I've seen suggests that's the case.

Well, ask them why the Spear (and even clumsier naginatas) were so prevant in Japan during the Sengoku peroid. It isn't because of Calvary, since years on warfare reduced the horse to the mount for higher ranking officers. A pointy stick is an effective weapon. Even against a sword.

You can get a lot of answers to that, but only a few of them have to do with advantages to the spear. However, note that there's one important difference here; shield use was _not_ common in Japan. This means in practice you're talking typically about two handed use, where the spear tends to look a lot better (two handed sword use doesn't make nearly the difference at the other end).

True. But again, that holds for most weapons, and harder does not mean inefective. I have a two handed broadsword at home that I find too heavy to wield two handed, let along with one hand, but there are people who can do so.

It matters quite a bit for a weapon that can be moved up inside of, however.

You would be if you had someone jabbing a spear into your face. Keep in mind

If its shortened up enough, why am I more concerned than I would be with him trying to do the same thing with a dagger?

You loose. What did you bet? I was fighting outdoors, mostly on grass, and on various types of ground (inclduing mud). We would also move to the side, something that modern fencers don't do. About 90% of our injuries ended to being to the hands (the blades tend to slide down each other on a strike).

I fenced in the round quite frequently, actually. Don't confuse match fencing with everything that goes on. And you managed to do retreats on that terrain at speed and never tripped? Really? I'm honestly having trouble believing this, having sparred in the martial arts in rough terrain and watched people trip with some frequency in those conditions, while lightly dressed and with good visibility.

What yo are failing to consider is that the armor slows down BOTH parties, so there is no advantage for the swordmans. In fact it sort of works the other

Actually, the slower both parties are, the more things harm someone retreating, because there's not enough time to get any real distance before the opponent can respond. The gap is almost entirely dependent on speed, and that's true even if both are very fast; that's because there's always some lag time between the start of a retreat and response, but if the person retreating can't get far in that time, it means less.

Most spear points have a decent edge on them, too, through most RPGs don't note it. If someone cloes you can simple move your arms back and slice with the edge.

Se my comments elsewhere about use of long knives. I don't doubt it does, but at the point you're effectively reduced to fighting with it as a long knife, I think that's enough to show the problem from my point of view.

The hard thing is for the swordsman to get in close in the first place. Once

Sure. That's an advantage of a reach weapon I've never denied. But once he does, he's easily inside the optimal combat range of the spear, and the guy's got the choice if he can't get back to that of essentially using the stick or the forshortened blade with the problems associated with it.

there the sword has an advantage, but it is tough to get there. Buut the thing is ideal sword prange is actually just out of striking distance (unlike an RPG real fights tend to occur outside of weapon ranges.

Its ideal against most weapons because you want to keep your own options open, but it still loses a lot less (at least if its not _too_ long and thrusting oriented itself--really long thrusting blades have some of the same problems I'm addressing here) than the spear here, so you just accept that.

If the spearman is using spear and sheild, he can push the attacker back with his shield.

Well, he can try, but playing shield push is a game for both; that ends up just turning on who's stronger and has the better balance.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

I never claimed this.

Then I don't see what the point of your comment about weight of kit was.

This theoretical idea about average is not really useful. Especially if you dont define in forefront of the discussion which parameter your "average" includes.

I think it is useful, or I wouldn't have brought it up in the first place.