Bear in mind that not every battle took place in an open field. Spears formations are less effective when storming a castle, or in house-to-house urban combat, or in a forest or on rough terrain. A good army employed both long and short weapons.
If we lump all sword types into “swords”, should we not also lump all pole weapon types together too? If so, then poles have had much more widespread use.
One of the reasons we know more about swords than pole weapons is that, as said above, a sword is more of an individual weapon. Books, comic books, movies, TV shows etc tend to focus on a special flower individual often fighting in open, messy melee or in duels. The sword makes more sense for that kind of fighting and it’s easier to make the fighting look good.
The analogy with handguns is a good one; they’re seldom used in warfare (compared to other weapons) but quite often in war fiction.
In fact, one of the salient characteristics swords share with handguns is convenience – they are easily stowed away neatly, allowing reasonable mobility, but still quickly accessible. Axes are more cumbersome to carry, and most methods of protecting yourself from getting cut on the edge require a moment to undo. Don’t even try to carry a flail or morningstar or 20-foot Sarrissa around in everyday life.
That’s a big factor in how widely they were adopted.
Smallish axes are as easily holstered on the belt as a sword. And consider how the Franks and the francisca are associated, or the Norse and the Dane axe.
That’s the whole point of training - so that the shield wall does not break. That’s why disciplined infantry like the Swiss dominated the battlegrounds of Europe for two hundred years.
Most of the casualties in a hand-to-hand fight occurred after one side or the other broke and ran.
The problem is to get nose to nose against an experienced battle square armed with spears or pikes.
The square is going to stick close together - it’s what they have been drilled to do - so the shields and helmets will protect them. Then they come charging against you in ranks, with their pikes all pointing at you. The pressure of the folks in the back forces the front line to charge. Maybe you can kill the guy in front of you, or knock his pike out of the way. You then have to deal with the pike of the other guy behind him, and the one behind him. All coming at you while you are fighting the one in the front line.
Like Urbanredneck says, swords are expensive and difficult to make. Any farm hand can find an ax, and a club is almost free. And you can make a shield out of wood and leather in an afternoon. Knives are a little more difficult, but there are lots of knives around, and a spear is a knife on the end of a pole.
You got a hundred swordsmen, with shields and helmets. I got a hundred pikemen, with shields and helmets and discipline. I win nine times out of ten.
Regards,
Shodan
In movies like Braveheart, yes. In reality, the first side whose cohesion breaks and whose ranks become fluid usually loses badly against the other side.
Exactly. Generally speaking, as long as the sides kept their formations and cohesion, they continued to stand and fight.
But once that cohesion was lost and the formations started to break up, typically that side was the one that broke and ran, as the (likely marginally) more cohesive and well-formed troops opposing them started to really cause casualties.
This is unsurprisingly why discipline was (and is) considered so important in warfare; the side that is more disciplined and willing to stand and fight longer is ***usually ***the one who will win, whether we’re talking about phalanxes, shield walls or infantry with muskets in line formation.
Typically speaking, the “elite” formations in history weren’t necessarily the ones who were stone-cold killers, or fearsome individual warriors; they were the ones who didn’t EVER break, and who kept their formations. For example, the Spartans were trained from birth to stand in the phalanx and not break and run. This is why they were punished with death if they lost their shield, but merely fined the ones who lost their swords or shields; the shield protected the guy next to them in the phalanx, while the sword and spear were for their own sake. To me, this highlights the importance of staying in formation and not breaking and running.
Everything I’ve read implies that phalanx and the later Germanic shield-wall combat was essentially a pushing match; the ranks would overlap their shields and advance at the double, and basically the front ranks would collide, and the rear ranks would push against them, while stabbing over and under the overlapped shields. If one side faltered or had too many casualties, the pressure from the other side would start pushing them, and it’s likely they’d break and run, unless they were supremely disciplined.
The Romans were the only real military force that fielded sword-armed infantry in huge numbers, and that’s only post-Marian reforms, as before that, they were still spear-armed for the most part. But for the most part, they still fought much like the others did- disciplined, in ranks, with overlapping shields.
Uh…the Dane axe is two-handed and can get as tall as the height of a man.
And small axes easily “holstered” on the belt still aren’t as easily drawn as a sword.
I’ll defer to experts, but I don’t think swords drastically changed warfare. Except for cost, they’re equal to or better than axes or clubs or short spears in just about every way, but from a tactical point of view, they’re used in more or less the same way: get a couple feet from your opponent and swing or thrust (a gladius can both swing and thrust, which is why it’s better on an individual level than an axe or short spear, which can only do one or the other, but the tactical goal is still the same). And swords have the same problem and advantage as axes/clubs/short spears when fighting against long spears, of needing to get within the spear’s reach, but superior once there. Same problem magnified against missile weapons, of course, but again it doesn’t matter whether you’ve got a sword or pointy rock if you’re gotten a foot away from the bowman.
Maybe it’s easier to use a shield with a one-handed sword than with an axe or club, but that’s about it, I think, as far as any significant change in approach.
Again, swords are better than axes or clubs or short spears, so there’s importance to the economics/industrial aspects of trying to get more swords than the other guys (and steel versus bronze is part of this). But I think shields, armor, discipline and long spears vs short weapons are all more important tactically than which short weapon is used.
Once the blade/handle length ratio approaches 1:1 like in some Asian weapons, it gets ambiguous. A rule of thumb would be whether the hilt/handle was long enough that you’d keep your hands far enough apart to obtain leverage in a swing.
Good thing I mentioned the dane axe in a completely seperate sentence from the one about smallish axes, then.
Have you ever actually drawn a real arming sword from its scabbard?
Sorry to be pedantic but I think you me composite bow(a bow made up of different materials) not compound bow.(One with pulleys.)
I’m well aware of the properties of obsidian. That doesn’t change, that the macahuitl isn’t a sword at all.
Not a nitpick: Germanic cultures were not especially known for the shield wall, although some of them did use it during the collapse of the Roman empire. The Danish were also known for using it during the Viking age. However, this kind of shield wall was not used aggressively, since it couldn’t be moved in formation. Even the Romans were not actually as formation-bound as it sounds, as their units were surprisingly flexible and aggressive on the battlefield. What you describe sounds as though you’re talking about the later pike armies, of which the Swiss were particularly renowned. These tended to eschew the use of the shield altogether, since it just got in the way of the polearms.
But these kinds of packed formations have serious weaknesses, and sword-armed troops can often exploit these weaknesses. The infantry packed in can’t move or maneuver, and it’s a mistake to assume that looser formations were always weaker ones. Sword infantry was very useful to counter close formations, either being able to get inside the pikes or to hew them apart, depending on the details of armament.
Now if you’re talking about the post-Roman / early-Medieval era of warriors across Europe, then we actually don’t know. These were inheritors of both ROman and Germanic martial traditions, but they didn’t write down much that survived. While we have a good idea of their armament, we know very little about how they deployed on the field and fought with those arms.
That’s kind of the thing : we don’t know ! The sources that mention the weapon and still exist today were jotting down stuff they’d heard rather than seen ; as for sculptures (like the Trajan column) some represent a curved longsword, some a kind of polearm ; which could mean that there were two kinds or that the artists were making it up as they went along.
The blades that were found have a pretty long tang (about 1/3 or 2/5 of the actual blade) but that doesn’t mean much, and as usual with grave goods they could have been the ceremonial version anyway. As for the Thracians themselves, they didn’t leave accounts behind that I’m aware of.
All we know for sure is : they were effective and scared the Romans soldiers shitless :).
[QUOTE=Sailboat]
And small axes easily “holstered” on the belt still aren’t as easily drawn as a sword.
[/QUOTE]
Eh, I dunno - granted, my cite is worth what it’s worth, but I managed to develop a kind of axe iaido during reconstitutions. Grasp the axe just below the head, then swiftly jerk your arm upwards and a bit back. When your arm reaches its apex, loosen your grip a bit so that the momentum of the axe head drags the haft with it, but not so much that the butt of the handle flies through your hand. It helps if there’s a pommel of some kind, even if it’s just a metal ring.
If all goes according to plan not only is your axe drawn, it’s already in an overhead stance ready to strike back down or be thrown. If it didn’t, the guy behind you just got a faceful of axe :o.
Nobody ever won a battle by wearing sexy clothing for their country; you make the other poor dumb bastard wear it for his!
I’m pretty sure we’re talking earlier than that. As far as I can make out, the legionaries, including the hastati, were primarily swordsmen from at least the Punic Wars era. Although the triarii, as mentioned, seem to have been hanging on to the earlier phalanx-style formation and gear until the Marian reforms.
In the Marian legions, everyone was basically kitted out as principes. Which makes sense, I guess: The lighter armed hastati are kind of rubbish in one way, and the phalanx-style triarii are kind of rubbish in another way. The principes are great, let’s use them as a template for all our infantry.
Or at least that seems to have been the idea for Marius and other commanders at the time. Personally, as an enthusiastic player of the spectacularly historically accurate battle simulator Total War: Rome II, I find the triarii to be pretty flipping useful. Heck, why use them as a last reserve? Stick those guys up front, I say! But maybe I shouldn’t rely too much on that as source for what the ancient battlefield experience was like. 
The legions, it seems to me, were kind of the best of both worlds, in terms of combining the benefits of a formation with flexible deployment of units. You could peel off separate maniples and use them for flanking maneuvers and such. Although it seems that it took the Romans a while to realize that they could do this. In the Punic Wars, one problem the Romans had against Hannibal was that they tended to fight in a very regimented fashion, while Hannibal was much more tactically creative. It took more experimental commanders, like Scipio Africanus, to take a page from Hannibal’s book and begin deploying the legions in a more flexible fashion.
Actually, to go off on a pointless random tangent for a moment: It just occurred to me that when flexibility is mentioned as an advantage for the legions, we’re probably talking about at least three different things:
Firstly, the individual level: If you do manage to separate an individual legionary from his formation, I’m willing to bet that he’s still not a guy to mess with. He still has a sword, good armor, and some knowledge of man-on-man fighting. By contrast, an individual phalangite, say… probably much less so.
Secondly, the formation level: As I said, you can peel off part of a legion and use that as a flanking force, or hide it in the enemy’s rear, or whatever. One major advantage the legions had was the ability to do this on the fly, and apparently, relatively junior officers were able to make decisions on that level. An unnamed military tribune pulled off the decisive move at Cynecephale. Of course, that battle is pretty unusual, but it’s interesting that it was possible for the legions to operate like that.
Thirdly, the larger theater level: Other armies may have had advantages in certain situations, certain kinds of terrain, or certain climates. But a legion, when you think about it, would be able to fight you pretty much anywhere. Flat terrain, hilly terrain, forest, urban house-to-house street fighting… whatever. Italy, Africa, Syria, Gaul, doesn’t matter: A legion would be formidable mostly anywhere. That’s not really the case for most armies, and it strikes me as kind of handy for carving out a world empire.
Actually, I had the impression that the Principes were more spear-oriented originally, and ended up being more like heavier armored / more experienced Hastati toward the end of their run, armed with the gladius and pila, just like the Hastati and later legionaries.
For all it’s faults, I thought the film Alexander did a pretty good job presenting the phalanx style warfare of the time.
I imagine IRL, it’s pretty hard to maintain those formations during battle though.
Worst example is 300. King Leonidas literally explains to that mutant guy how the Spartans are a superior fighting force due to their disciplined phalanx tactics. Then every battle they just run around free-for-all style stabbing and hacking.
I suppose the reason is that in film, two pointy scrums pushing at each other is actually pretty boring compared to some expert swordsman doing all sorts of ninja shit.
Two reasons. The triarii were made up of two kinds of people. Well, three, but two categories :
- rich guys/guys from prominent families but not prominent enough to be part of the cavalry.
- grizzled veterans and other men waayyy past their prime.
Remember than in Rome, general was very much a political job on top of a military role. It was a great stepping stone to move up in society, and towards the Senate - i.e. cushy life for ever. But while the Republic was very much not democratic, you still had to be elected upwards, which meant a) getting the rich guys and the prominent families to back you (meaning, don’t get them killed you idiot !) and b) getting the respect and backing of other respected folks, such as grizzled veterans who have nothing more to prove to nobody (meaning, don’t get those killed either !)
Besides that, the Roman army in general worked along the lines of an age-old system : seniority. So the more battles you’d racked up, the less likely you were to be on the first line because it’d become some other, younger, dumber guy’s turn to get sworded right inna face.
It’s a system that used to represent everything that was **wrong **with the world a few decades ago, but these days it’s quite palatable and I’m sure in a few more it’ll seem like the best system ever :p.
Now you’re mixing them up. The hastati were the younger and (relatively) lighter troops. They made up the first line of the three-line system. The principes were the heavier / more experienced ones, in the second line. The triarii were the oldest / most experienced ones, in the third line. The triarii were supposedly employed as a last resort, and armed with spears.
As for who had spears or swords, when and where: My impression, as I said, was that both the hastati and the principes were primarily swordsmen from at least the Polybian era, ca. the third century BC, onwards (although at least the hastati used spears before this time, hence the name hastati, as **Kobal2 **said upthread).
Although, I just had a thought about the triarii and their alleged spear-wielding, that for some reason hadn’t occurred to me before now: The triarii don’t actually make any sense to me, if the first two ranks were sword-oriented only. :dubious:
For one thing, as I sort of mentioned, having your toughest and most experienced troops as a rear guard, only for use in a crisis, seems a bit odd to start with. You’d think they’d be useful in a fight, and probably keen to get in on the action. However, that is how I always see it described, so maybe that was how it was done. And anyway, that’s really neither here nor there.
But having them fight as spearmen, if they were veterans from multiple campaigns, used to fighting with swords? That sounds like teaching old dogs new tricks, which doesn’t compute. Or does it?