Apologize

Apologize

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=gTVC25hYJaY
youtube.com/watch?v=LQjJavcsNjA
youtube.com/watch?v=O8RWLxlzTiM
youtube.com/watch?v=_FdnA4SyYzE
youtube.com/watch?v=WYKjoosrRRI
youtu.be/_LvjdCxPWys?t=1m13s
hroarr.com/contenders-ready-the-gladiator-revival-of-belle-epoque-france/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

VERSATILE

Black Knight Halberd from DS is the shit

Seriously though, is there any melee weapons that rival the spear? Since the invention of the spear during the wooly mammoth days like 250,000 BC, the spear has carried humanity all the way until the invention of guns in the the 1600s AD. It is literally the perfect melee weapons, and has changed very little since the bronze age with exception of switching from stones to metalwork
1. Cheap. Requires very little metal work, and the metal itself doesn't need to be high quality like halberds, side swords, axes or two hander swords.
2. Easy to use, low skill ceiling. It is easier to train a peasant on how to use spear and shove it onto enemies rather than all the fancy swordsman technique required to use a sword effectively
3. Can be used as projectile
4. Thrust weapons, which are way more effective than cut weapons against armored opponents.
5. Doubles as hunting weapon (same with guns), which is incredibly important if supply lines are cut.

Even after the invention of muskets, the tactics pike & gun were still commonly used, and even in WW1, the bayonet is just a modified spear with gun on it.

sorry dude I didn't mean it, lets go back to being friends

No
You're just a spear that knocks away other spears
Your axe head is useless
The back head is also useless
You're not versatile at all and no one truly understands how you were used

first i must apologize.......for this....

I...I'm sorry

If you think about it guns are just spears that shoot their heads

>You're not versatile at all and no one truly understands how you were used
youtube.com/watch?v=gTVC25hYJaY
There's a whole instruction manual, hell several of them during medieval times on how to fight with poleaxe

we have a weapon thread up already

>Seriously though, is there any melee weapons that rival the spear?
The sword.

Because you can always carry a sword by your side. No matter whether you're on foot, on horseback, on the battlefield or in civilian life, no matter what other primary weapon you carry - whether it's a pollaxe, a spear, a halberd, a bow, a crossbow, a lance, etc.

>[The sword] is such a weapon that all the people use it; the one who knows (how to use it) and the one who does not, young and old are protected by it everywhere. And it (the sword) is (such) a good brother that it does not become inactive in wide or even narrow places. One needs it on the sea and on the land and in crowd. On a very windy day the lance becomes a burden for its possessor, but this (the sword) never becomes useless. And on that day the archer can not shoot his arrow straight, (therefore) no one can do without the sword.

>Although they have many weapons, they would never be able to do without the sword, but those who have swords can do without all the other weapons.
-Muhammad Ibn Yaqub Ibn Ahi Hazzam al-Hattali, Kitab al-Furusiyya va'l-Baytara, 14th century

That's all the bow-and-arrow ever was. Based spears.

But that's not true. Sword is more expensive, the metalwork quality absolutely matters, requires a lot of skill & training, cannot be used to hunt boars/deers in emergency, has no range.

The sword didn't carry humanity throughout the bronze age against lions, sabretooth, and mammoths. The spear did all of that, plus some more.

lol look at this stupid fag

That's not a halberd, that's a poleaxe, you dumb nigger. We know exactly how poleaxes were used.

>play M&B multiplayer with friends
>pick halberd
>hide by tree
>can avoid arrows by running behind tree
>can dance around tree and avoid melee attacks
>can knock out horses from under people if they ride by

Halberd a best

Explain the difference between a halberd and a poleaxe. You fucking can't

>Sword is more expensive, the metalwork quality absolutely matters, requires a lot of skill & training
Using a spear properly requires at least as much training and the price and metalwork requirements have nothing to do with the weapon itself. Not to mention that in the late middle ages, this wasn't really an issue any more.

>cannot be used to hunt boars/deers in emergency
You're lacking historical knowledge then because hunting boars with swords was a hunting discipline. In fact, one of the Kings of Portugal advertised his men to practice it because he believed it prepared his men better for serious combat than fighting in tournaments.

>has no range.
Range is also a downside, since you cannot bring a spear in narrow places. You cannot carry it around easily. This was mentioned in my post.

From the high middle ages on the sword had become a trusted companion of people that was always by their side - even in peace time. The spear on the other hand had been reduced to a weapon of war.

Yeah, I fucking can.

The most obvious difference is that a poleaxe uses a head that is riveted onto the pole with two strips down either side, while a halberd is made as a piece that slips over the pole.

But that's ultimately unimportant. They were used in completely different ways. The poleaxe was a weapon used for personal combat. It is far shorter, it's normally got a reverse striking tip, and it's heads are suited for man-to-man combat (axe head parallel to the shaft rather than at an angle). Meanwhile a halberd is quite a bit longer, and was used in a block formation.

Continuing....

Poleaxe fighting is based on quarterstaff fighting, while a halberd is primarily used like a pike.

Eat a dick

>arguing about which weppun iz bestest
C O N T E X T
O
N
T
E
X
T

Sounds like piercing damage is op and overdue for a nerf

Too bad spear shitters get cut down like the peasants they are if you git gud with a sword.

Halberds are 2-3 meters long and poleaxes are 1.5-1.8 meters long.
Halberds are used in formation and poleaxes are used as 1 on 1 brawling weapons, more akin to swords than to spears.
It really is simple.

lol no u delusional fag

spears are a weapon of war. Swords are sidearms in war. A guy with a sword has zero chance in hell of making it through a phalanx into striking range.

>A guy with a sword has zero chance in hell of making it through a phalanx into striking range.

Except thats fundamentally wrong. The phalanx isn't some unstoppable formation that no one can ever touch - its incredibly vulnerable from 3 sides. A phalanx essentially has only one context where it works, in formation and moving forward.

I'm sure there are people in the audience who aren't retarded and can see why that might not be the tactic you want to permanently rely on.

what game are we talking about here?

in Chivalry the halberd is one of the best weapons in the game. Two pokes from it and you're pretty much done for, and its just as good at swinging

God damn your'e a fucktard

This isn't a videogame you mong, the people on the sides can turn to face you just fucking fine.

Yes. A phalanx has weaknesses. No the weakness isn't a fucking over-wanked sidearm.

>Too bad spear shitters get cut down like the peasants they are if you git gud with a sword.

No, that has been proven to be incredibly hard to do IRL. RL sword is not your weaboo clean cut in mid air katana
youtube.com/watch?v=LQjJavcsNjA
and even here the guy had the spear static planted on the ground. In real combat, most of the force would be absorbed by the spear user's hand making it even more difficult to break a spear tip, unless the sword user managed to parry and deflect the spear into the ground, and wedge the spearhead between the ground and the sword to damage it.

>No the weakness isn't a fucking over-wanked sidearm.

Well, since we've already established just how retarded you are - I'd like to make another point. You're clearly neglecting the use of a shield.

The Romans already disproved your dumbfuck retarded worldview 2000 years ago.

Then why did Greece lose to Rome

hahahaha

Yeah, the romans. Which is why swords became a primary weapon while polearm blcoks fell by the wayside..... Oh wait, no, a phalanx of polearms remained the number 1 most successful strategy for literal thousands of years.

Completely inflexible military strategy

>every nation in Europe until the 17th century had halberdiers
>not versatile

Let's see you try one of those fancy cavalry charges when your horse is on the ground bleeding and there's 30 of those impaled in your ass.

Most formations were mixed weapons. Polearms are good but please don't think it's literally invincible and the ultimate military strategy.

of course it's not invincible, but it beats the hell out of a sword, especially when considering the time of full plate harnesses.

Spears are shit that's exactly why based Todd removed them.

I'm saying that the spear is more practical weapon to use, so you have to take into account price, smith & metalwork requirement, ease of use, etc.

Spear is much easier to use, just thrust and retract multiple times. There's not that high of a skill ceiling, unless you're trying to do chinese kung fu acrobatics which is already impractical in its own ways.

>You're lacking historical knowledge then because hunting boars with swords was a hunting discipline
Exactly proving my point. Hunting with sword is much much more difficult than hunting with spear. A dumb caveman with half the brain size of modern humans can hunt with spear. When you're in an army, supply lines got cut, you have no time to be engaged in hunting boar with swords discipline. Hell it is more expensive (training = expense) to have your army trained in hunting boar with sword technique rather than just being able to hunt using tried and true caveman tactics to feed themselves.

Spear being unusable in close range is also a meme, unless you're doing dynasty warrior style 180 degree crowd control swing with a partizan (which is also a stupid move)

See
youtube.com/watch?v=O8RWLxlzTiM
Look at how much trouble the sword/buckler guy had against spear. You can easily, very fast retract your spear for close distance combat, backstep into long distance combat again. Also due to its length and leverage it is way easier for spear to change directions all over (only requiring slight motion of the wrist) compared to fencing with rapier/sword (which require a full body motion and easier to telegraph).

In HEMA style melee weapon spar, an average 1 year training noob spear user can stand toe to toe with expert swordsman who's been training for years. I would imagine the case is the same during the olden times

>Oh wait, no, a phalanx of polearms remained the number 1 most successful strategy for literal thousands of years.

There are many good reasons for people to have continued using spears up until the machine gun, this doesn't mean you want it to be your primary tactic or technique.

Sword and shield is a better loadout than a spear, as the Romans proved, and as was well known and commented on well up to the 16th century.

>Yet understand, that in battles, and where variety of weapons are, among multitudes of men and horses, the sword and target, the two handed sword, battle axe, the black bill, and halberd, are better weapons, and more dangerous in their offense and forces, than is the sword and buckler, short staff, long staff, or forest bill. The sword and target leads upon shot, and in troops defends thrusts and blows given by battle axe, halberds, black bill, or two handed swords, far better than can the sword and buckler.

>Sword and shield is a better loadout than a spear,

hhahaha this fucking retard actually believes it lol

The spear is not a more practical weapon to carry around in your every day life. The sword is a more practical weapon to both carry and use in the vast majority of situations. In battle with people all around you and carts to carry your gear spears are great.

Also the problem with most spear practice in HEMA is that the spears are too light and flexible and don't represent real spears. They're good and I'd give the advantage to spear most times but in the video you linked the spear has extreme trouble in close range. It's not unusable but you're most likely going to lose at close range, if you don't you got lucky.

>The long staff, morris pike, or javelin, or such like weapons above the perfect length, have advantage against all manner of weapons, the short staff, the Welch hook, partisan, or glaive, or such like weapons of vantage excepted, yet are too weak for two swords and daggers or two sword and bucklers, or two rapiers and poniards with gauntlets, because they are too long to thrust, strike, and turn speedily. And by reason of the large distance, one of the sword and dagger-men will get behind him.

Well history has proven it to be so.

Though, as I said, there are plenty of purposes where it may be advantageous to use one - it is not the weapon I would choose unless it were to be in those contexts.

No it hasn't retard.

There hasn't been a single time where the sword and shield were better than the phalanx. The best it got was the romans, where the mobility of the sword and shield synergized with their revolutionary strategy of having many autonomous military units that could dynamically adapt to the changing conditions of a battlefield. But even with that boom, the sword steadily lost relevance as a main battle weapon as armor technology developed.

BTFO. How can swordaboos ever recover

>The spear is not a more practical weapon to carry around in your every day life. The sword is a more practical weapon to both carry and use in the vast majority of situations.
This is absolutely true and I acknowledge that. You can't even bring pole weapon into a tavern for obvious reason, but you're allowed to bring swords.

>Also the problem with most spear practice in HEMA is that the spears are too light and flexible and don't represent real spears.
I think this is not true, they purposely weighted the spear to match historical spears.

However one missing aspect though in HEMA, or other modern re-enactment is that they're not sparring with real weapons, so despite being fairly hard to cut through, the wooden shaft of the spear in real combat can be damaged, and with every hit the structural damage to the spear weakens its own thrust power&overall effectiveness. This slight edge metal weapons has against pole weapons are impossible to reenact unless you're really sparring with real weapons that can do damage to objects

>But even with that boom, the sword steadily lost relevance as a main battle weapon as armor technology developed.

Thats funny, because the saber was adopted by every military the whole world over and it saw its use even into the 20th century where the spear was not to be seen.

>he saber was adopted by every military the whole world over

....to kill lightly armored archers and the like ya reprobate

THE MOST VERSITILE WEAPON EVER INVENTED

If you think thats the ONLY time sabers was used in WW1 you are clearly brain damaged beyond redemption. The only thing that could get your thinking close to straight is a bullet splitting up all the shit in your head.

The sabres and swords are indeed good sidearms, also hold very high cultural and ceremonial values while spears by then have been replaced with bayonets, but still act like primary weapon.

Primary weapon evolution: pole weapon/spear -> bayonet/rifle -> machinegun

Secondary weapon evolution: swords -> handgun

There's a reason why in war everyone carry pole weapon as their primary and swords as their secondary. If swords are so good, why don't everyone carry swords as their primary weapon?

>its 3 weapons!!!
>and its not good as any of them!!!

jack of all trades, master of none

in world war 1???

Are you fucking serious nigger? Armor and melee weapon technology had long sense faded in favor of the firearm.


God damn you're retarded.

youtube.com/watch?v=_FdnA4SyYzE
Someone needs to make a For Honor version of this.

WE WUZ WISE N SHIT

Swords get BTFO against spears like 9 out of 10 times in modern reenactment
youtube.com/watch?v=WYKjoosrRRI

There's a reason why pole weapons are considered primary and swords are considered sidearms. If you're fighting a spearman with a side sword it is akin to modern soldier fighting assault rifle (primary) with a handgun (secondary).

This is getting embarassing swordboos

No, you don't do sparring with realistically weighted spears in HEMA. They're too dangerous to do it with because the gear won't protect you from hits. It's the same reason why we don't do real sparring with staff.

youtu.be/_LvjdCxPWys?t=1m13s

This is why you don't spar with realistically weighted and rigid spears.

WW1 was about the last time intimate weapons like these were used. Just about every officer carried one, and though they weren't used often, they had more utility than lancers did.

>WW1 was about the last time intimate weapons like these were used

Yeah, so using it as an example is just fucking pathetic.

the sword was a sidearm. It still had use as a sidearm in ww1. Real weapons had long sense moved on.

>Real weapons had long sense moved on.

Except for that spears were also used in WW1.

Ahah, this proves katana is superior.

Yeah, as bayonet attached to rifles. Still as primary weapon, and sword will forever be secondary weapon.

Spear has been primary weapon for humans since hunting the wooly mammoth days and maintained relevance as bayonets up until WW1

This is why I love this place. Among all the shit thrown around you'll find a pile of gold in between. Informative.

>Real weapons had long sense moved on.
Bayonets and daggers are still standard issue to this day.

>woolly mammoth days
things that never happened. mammoths didn't magically live everywhere just like humans didn't either. God the prehistoric human trope is so retarded

How is it informative exactly? It's just an analysis going through points that state the obvious.

You may be right, but my point still stand, since the early hominids spear have been used as hunting weapons and self defense weapon that allows humans to thrive

You can make the exact same case for Reddit and Tumblr, t b h.

Nobody ever argued against the spear being better in the hands of untrained people. The argument is that the spear isn't the ultimate weapon some people are painting it as.

hroarr.com/contenders-ready-the-gladiator-revival-of-belle-epoque-france/

Yeah of course not as the ultimate weapon. There's no such thing as the ultimate weapon. The original argument was spear being the most cost effective, fairly easy, practical weapon for the majority of human history.

Spears of course has its downfall. What has been proven in modern reenactment for example, spear due to its single thrust attack nature is nearly helpless against multiple enemies. When thrusting on enemy #1 enemy #2 can easily closes in, even grapple and grab the spear and defeat the spear user. This is not dynasty warrior where you can start twirling doing 360, turn your back against enemies and suffer no consequences

>ultimate weapon.
Behold, my long lance.

>even grapple and grab the spear and defeat the spear user.
Thats what daggers are for.

If you are at a range where the spear is ineffective; or actively grabbing them with your hands, then the king of weapons is the dagger due to being able to grab both weapon and opponent with the same hand if needed.

Aside from a spear user being able to simply retract the spear or change their grip for an incoming foe: The shaft of the spear can be used for CQC. Polearms are even better at this however due to the axe head allowing hooking CQC atop of shaft CQC.

As a primary weapon Spears and Polearms have very little competition aside from weapons such as bows and crossbows.

why isnt this thread on this is not about videogames at all

the real reason this is here is likely that fantasy; and video games in particular, tend to endlessly fellate swords and ignore polearms.

>get charged with bayonet inside the trench
>shoot the first dude with my Gewehr 98
>pull out Luger and a spare mag
>turn the other guys into sprinklers
Wew

>Using a spear properly requires at least as much training
No, using it masterfully would require training. Give it every average joe and he will know what to do with it.
>and the price and metalwork requirements have nothing to do with the weapon itself
yes they do, a spear uses way less metal compared to a sword, there is a reason why sword were reserved for those with money
>From the high middle ages on the sword had become a trusted companion of people that was always by their side - even in peace time. The spear on the other hand had been reduced to a weapon of war.
So you are saying a sidearm is better than a military issue weapon.

>The Hun

Goebbels kill you are self

This. I think many underestimate how dangerous a proper quarterstave is. With the superior leverage a shafted weapon gives its strange that it has so little representation as a strength weapon.

And that is also something I find odd about the historic re-enactors. So much emphasis on technique without much appreciation for raw force.

There is some real retardation in this thread.

A spear is BETTER against multiple opponents by simple virtue of reach. You can threaten them from further away. If you're in some 1v2 situation, you're in a damn tight spot regardless of what you're using, but at least with a spear you can try to keep them back. If you have to close the distance to even oppose one of your two attackers, you're put at a disadvantage. The long handle of a spear also allows much better leverage, you can swing the point of a spear from one person to another much quicker and with less effort than you can bring a point of a sword form one to the other.

And just because a spear has the reach advantage, it is not nullified by simply trying to close in or bind. Spears are notoriously hard to bind with a sword because, again, the spear wielder has better leverage, and the grip on them can be adjusted quickly enough to still bring the point up if someone is getting past it. The same approach is used when it came to the use of the real big two-handed swords - they could be wielded similarly to spears.

The big advantage of swords is you can fucking walk around with one, even whilst carrying another weapon. You don't just pop down the road with your fucking spear and shield. If you're not some footslogger you probably won't even march with it.

The spear is the less practical weapon because you cannot carry it around in daily life. How much time do you spend on a battlefield? You spend most of your time in your life not being on a battlefield.

>In HEMA style melee weapon spar, an average 1 year training noob spear user can stand toe to toe with expert swordsman who's been training for years. I would imagine the case is the same during the olden times
Again: the central argument is practicality. And spears are battlefield weapons.

Also, HEMA generally simulates unarmoured combat. As soon as armour and shields are involved a spear becomes a lot less practical. Refer to the Icelandic Sagas (e.g. Egilssaga) for example where during the Holmgang people used to tie their swords to their arm to have it immediately ready. If a spear - which they carried as their primary weapons - would have solved all situation there would have been no need to carry swords.

I might add: by no means I hold the point of view that swords are superior to spears. However, they are weapons which generally complement each other. You would rarely find a man going to battle without a sword (or some kind of sword-like weapon, e.g. a seax) as a side-arm, even if they carried a pole-weapon primarily.

>If a spear - which they carried as their primary weapons - would have solved all situation there would have been no need to carry swords.
Professional warriors have always carried multiple weapons. This statement by itself is pretty meaningless.

One of the known benefits of half-swording is superior armor penetration. Its strange that sword fans so readily accept this but refuse to acknowledge that spears are superior weapons against armor.

Your mistake as a whole is believing I were a "sword-fan". I am merely challenging your RPG-like mindset which tries to establish a linear order where there is none. A spear won't be practicable in all situations. A spear won't be available in all situations.

A spear is not a "better" weapon than a sword.

bluntfags need not apply

>As soon as armour and shields are involved a spear becomes a lot less practical.
You are the one implying that swords are preferable for armored combat when they are among the worst kind of weapon for armored combat.

Half-swording is literally turning your sword into a gimped spear.

It depends on what we mean by "armour". Armour might not necessarily mean plate armour. I've already told you about the Egilssaga example and you can look up the 14th century quote again which I've posted where the guy literally praises the sword for its versatility and practicality in all situations. You can look that up if you wish. Also, you should consider that the shorter range results in greater leverage. Do you think it's a coincidence that in most depictions of judicial combat they don't keep using their spears but switch to swords as they close in? Different weapons have different strengths.

Image depictions alone have little implicit value and there are plenty of depictions of polearms being used at close combat.

And once again you essentially stated that swords are superior weapons against armor which is simply laughable.

>Image depictions alone have little implicit value
Which is why we also have descriptions. Like the Egilssaga example I told you about where Egil's spear gets stuck in his opponent's shield and he draws his sword to cut down his opponent (which in the end didn't work out either, forcing him to literally bite his opponent's throat).

>And once again you essentially stated that swords are superior weapons against armor which is simply laughable.
When your opponent happens to be close to you - and when fighting in armour this can happen quite fast because an armoured opponent fears the point of your spear a lot less - then a sword is better than a spear. And if he's even closer to you a dagger is better than either.

I've presented you historical sources which confirm that spears are not the answer to everything. In particular, spears cannot be carried around in daily life, which already makes them significantly less "practical" than swords which even can - and were - carried by people who also carried spears.

...

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to hurt you. I didn't mean to make you cry. Please take me back, weapon. Please. You're my everything. I'll do anything. Anything to have you in my arms once again.

Don't go. I'm so sorry.

And again: by no means I don't believe that a spear doesn't have its own unique strengths. If we have two unarmoured men fight, one of them armed with a spear the other with a sword I put my money on the spear guy.

However, there are countless plausible combat scenarios where a spear will not be available or even practical (e.g. tight spaces).

I might add that was meant in addition to rather than a reply.

>If we have two unarmoured men fight
>implying once again the sword user has the advantage in armored combat

Shaft grip > Sword Blade grip

Spears appropriate for dueling should not have a shaft so comically long that it would be a negative for leverage.

>implying once again the sword user has the advantage in armored combat
Clearly you are not very good at logical thinking. When I say that a guy with a spear has the advantage in unarmoured combat, it does not imply that he does not have the advantage in armoured combat either. The point is that the advantage is a lot less clear cut. Imagine I handed the sword guy a shield. I'd be a lot less careful when it comes to putting my money on the spear guy - which is the whole point why people usually ALSO carried swords when they were using spears.

>Spears appropriate for dueling should not have a shaft so comically long that it would be a negative for leverage.
Rather than a spear, people would have used a pollaxe - which is also what the guy in your picture is using. Those were significantly shorter and they usually had a point as well.

Spears were usually longer because they were commonly carried together with a sword which people would switch to if they met at a distance where the spears would end up cumbersome.

I love how spearfags go into a panic when you mention the romans dominated the strongest spear users in history