Weapon damage

[drohem]

Umm...maces and axes are not an evolutionary trend towards swords.

Swords evolved out of knives due to better metallurgical technology.

[RMS]

Originally Posted by drohem

As I understood the concept of Strike Ranks in RQ, it was a representation of weapon reach and wieldability.

I think that RQ3 combat mechanics are fairly detailed as written, and do a good job of represtation the basics of combat simuation.

Yes. RQ has SR based on SIZ (persons reach) and weapon (weapon reach and to a lesser extent speed). Also, RQ has rules for long weapons vs. short weapons in combat that gives more detail to this. Someone with a longer weapon, always gets first strike unless they allow the shorter weapon wielder to close, in which case the shorter weapon gets first strike. I thought RQ handled this pretty well, and fairly simply.

[drohem]

Yes, so do I.

[Joseph Paul]

Knights, the elite warriors of Western Europe, fought each other with spears on foot in tourneys and used cut down lances when on foot in battle. Boar, bear and deer were taken with spear on foot. The spear can be a dandy offensive weapon and can be used at long and short ranges, just choke up on it. They are not handed out to just the militia.

[RMS]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

This disagrees with the statements I've heard on the matter from everyone who's ever trained with both swords and spears (usually in a martial arts context) so you'll excuse me if I take it dubiously.

That doesn't surprise me. There's a lot of misinformation on how actual combat works floating around due to reenactors. Just keep in mind that your sources here are hobbiests, not professionals. They frequently don't have the correct techniques, or even technology, for a specific era.

Oh, and it's your choice whether to listen to me or not. It doesn't affect me one way or the other. (You could argue there's a little difference here and there with a specific sword design and technique vs. a specific spear and technique, but any blanket statement is impossible.)

I didn't say that was the only reason, but its often a big reason. An effective spear doesn't even really require metal, something you can't say about a sword or really an axe.

Sure, a spear can be created without metal, which is a bonus. So can an axe or a club/mace for that matter. However, metallurgy is advanced enough to produce swords for over 3000 years now, so I'm willing to skip the time periods before casting bronze was developed.

Lances are the only really effective horseback weapon until you get horse pistols, and pikes were formation weapons; I'd never deny the benefit of spears as a formation weapon, but that says little about their benefit as an individual weapon.

Don't forget the bow as a dominate horseback weapon and the javelin (still a spear, granted). Both saw large scale horseback use throughout history.

Formation fighting has hardly been the only form of warfare, especially the tight formations necessary for effective shield walls and spear use. In fact, its effectively disfunctional in certain environments.

All premodern professional armies base their core around disciplined formation fighting. The exact details of this vary significantly, and obviously some formations have advantages on one environment over another. This carries well into the era of firearms dominating the battlefield and doesn't totally dissappear until the 20th Century.

You don't think this happens to have anything to do with the fact that the sword requires effective metallurgy and a spear doesn't? Maces and axes have limited life because in the end, they are an evolutionary trend toward the sword; they kept some benefit in certain periods because they all interact slightly differently with different types of armor. But of course the sword isn't going to have as long a history as the spear; a spear requires a relatively straight stick and something to sharpen the end with, in the end. The closest you can get to a sword at the same technology level is a club.

As already mentioned, swords develop from knives. Maces and axes have their own parallel evolution, but both start as tools that are adopted for warfare on and off. Spears are the only weapon, I can think of, that starts and ends as a weapon: granted initially a hunting weapon.

The issue is more that spears are used in abundance (by more than just militia) in time periods when metallurgy is sufficient to build excellent swords. Obviously, there is a time when it's possible to build a spear and not a sword, but that's not what this conversation has ever been about and it completely misses the point.

[soltakss]

Originally Posted by RMS

Obviously, there is a time when it's possible to build a spear and not a sword, but that's not what this conversation has ever been about and it completely misses the point.

What was this conversation about? I forget .....

[TRose]

As far a the development of weapons go. The ax started out as a tool and had a big advantage for part time warriors in that you could use it to cut wood when you where not cutting off people head. Might add one of the first pole arms to see large scale use was the English Bill , which was first used to prune tree limbs before the English used to to prune limbs from French Knights. The Flail also start out as an agriculture tool. And BTW Wooden tip spears where still used in Scotland and Norway by those who could not afford better even in the middle ages. I remember how at the start of William Wallace rebellion how some English Knights scoffed at the Naked Scots, many armed with only sharpen wooden stakes.

[drohem]

Originally Posted by TRose

I remember how at the start of William Wallace rebellion how some English Knights scoffed at the Naked Scots, many armed with only sharpen wooden stakes.

hmmm...what's your secret?

Are you an immortal (i.e. Highlander), vampire, etc.?

hehe...just playing around.

[drohem]

Originally Posted by drohem

hmmm...what's your secret?

Are you an immortal (i.e. Highlander), vampire, etc.?

hehe...just playing around.

Ok, I apologize. I realized that English my not be a primary language for some posters. I meant no offense.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by drohem

Umm...maces and axes are not an evolutionary trend towards swords.

Swords evolved out of knives due to better metallurgical technology.

Both are true. Swords certainly show a relationship to knives, but they also are a progression of the idea of focused force. A basic mace delivers force in an extremely broad fashion (spikes confuse this, but they still tend to spread the force around); the axe does the job better, but still has wieldiness issues because its mass is not really balanced. The cutting sword is (at least with simple material technology) the ultimate derivation of concept; it provides the best comprimise of force over area against anything but completely rigid armors, while still staying comparatively wieldy.