Well, that depends. Carolingian-era armies certainly used quality swords; it was a major advantage over their less well-equipped enemies. And the Norse loved them, although they would use whatever was convenient. Did they suddenly stop being warriors and start being soldiers whenever they gathered into large armies? In practice, the line between “warrior” and “soldier” doesn’t exist.
True. We’re not even certain how many actually died from them. Unless it was a deep wound to a vulnerable spot infection was more dangerous, and probably still was survivable. We have, in some case, illustrated manuals from various places showing how to take care of wounded people so presumably enough people survived that it was a regular issue. However, wounded men aren’t going to put up effective resistance, and would arguably be better for an attacker than another dead foe.
(1) Norse swords were very useful, but they were also status symbols. The Norse did not possess much iron, so any metal implement was valuable. Anyone who owned a sword was wealthy and successful.
(2) Samurai swords are NOT the pinnacle of human achievement. They are beautiful, but the fact is that Japan didn’t have much high quality metal, either. The process of folding a blade was to remove impurities. This technique didn’t evolve in western Europe because it was unnecessary. Somehow, over time a myth has sprung up that the katana somehow has extraordinary qualities and was just the best thing ever… it wasn’t.
(3) A sword isn’t meant to take the blow of another sword. This is why people owned shields. That said, it might be equally wrong to say that a sword shatters the first time it is used. A properly constructed sword with high quality steel can flex quite a bit. The truth, as usual, is somewhere in between the two extremes.
(4) Samurai were NOT principally swordsmen for much of their history. They began as mounted archers. The notion of them being swordsmen comes from the fact that (like their European counterparts) a Samurai had the income necessary to buy expensive swords and spend hours of their day training. After the age of civil war was over, the sword became a status symbol for the noble class. A lot of the Samurai fiction we see is set in the Edo and Meiji periods, when actual warfare was not a daily concern.
Correct. Striking someone in the back is also handy when you are filming on a budget in an era before special effects became really sophisticated. Ever see Reservoir Dogs? Where the one guy gets shot early on and then spends the entire movie dying a slow, agonizing death? That’s what real life is like. Most movies let the nameless Stormtroopers die quick and quiet deaths because having them lay around weeping and bleeding and crying for their mothers would not be very entertaining.
Well, and the fact that the stormtroopers didn’t have mothers.
And the impressive thing about Japanese swordsmithing is that they were able to apply such clever tricks to mostly overcome the handicap imposed by their poor materials. Even with good quality steel, making a usable sword is a lot harder than making, say, horseshoes. Making a usable sword with just the materials available to feudal Japan? Yeah, that takes some real craftsmanship.
Not form what I see. The primary weapon for infantry was still the spear. The soldiers would have a crude sword as well but that was at best a secondary weapon.
The spear and ax were the mainstays, mostly because they were cheaper.
It does, actually. A Soldier is disciplined and meant to work with other soldiers. A Warrior is trained to fight things out mostly by himself. The result is a different mindset, a different ‘attitude’ and a different way of making war. Just because you pile a bunch of Warriors together does not make them Soldiers, and very often groups of Warriors were just fighting other groups of Warriors.
A single Soldier meets a single Warrior and he probably loses all things being equal. But a 100 Soldiers meeting 100 Warriors will likely shatter the Warriors.
The good Generals in history were able to hold enough sway over Warriors to turn them into passable Soldiers. The best Generals had soldiers to begin with.
This is quibbling over verbiage. The Oxford Dictionary defines a “Warrior” as “a brave or experienced soldier or fighter.” The US Army routinely invokes the word “warrior” to instill a combat-oriented mindset (and whatever your opinion of US policies, the US Army is one of the most highly trained and well organized militaries in human history).
I understand how useful swords are, but spears? They are a long pole with a blade at the end. You are exposed when you reach out. Sure, if you hit your target, great, but they are long and go in one direction. With a quick target that can evade your blow, you lose precious seconds in readying another thrust, because it’s such a big weapon.
Even TMNT knew this. Donatello had the advantage of long range with his bo, but his weapon was slowest. In Soul Calibur, Astaroth’s axe did the most damage, but was slowest.
Not trying to compare life to video games, but isn’t speed everything in battle?
In a battle setting, I would certainly not want to go in carrying a spear. The long ones require two hands, and the short ones still expose your arms when you extend outwards to strike.
I mean, don’t they even teach in self-defense martial arts classes that you can just grab an incoming weapon and shove it aside using its momentum against it? I would not want to be in battle with a large weapon like this. What am I missing?
And I am the farthest thing from an expert on weapons. I just know a long range weapon leaves you vulnerable.
Hardly. Spears were the mainstay of battle implements for centuries because, as you point out, they are quite long. More importantly, they are easy to construct and require minimal training to use effectively. I suspect more troops have gone into battle using only a spear than any other weapon in history.
I’m confused about your remark about martial arts classes. You can’t “just” grab a weapon someone is trying to stab you with. This is MUCH easier said that done. Citing Ninja Turtles and video games as evidence of what a real weapon is like is… sad.
The truth of the matter is that trying to penetrate a mob of men armed with spears is like trying to fight a porcupine. You have to push your way through a wall of spearpoints, and then there is another row of spears behind that. The Greek Hoplites were anything but fast… They were almost immobile. Even after guns were becoming more common on the battlefield, massed units of pikemen remained because there was really no substitute for a forest of spearpoints. And after pikemen started to disappear, people kept using bayonets as ad hoc spears. For example, a unit threatened by cavalry would form a defensive square with bayonets sticking in every direction. Once this formation was assembled, they were all but impervious to cavalry attack. It wasn’t until the mid-nineteenth century that increasing rates of fire made the bayonet obsolete.
Tv Tropes is merely the easy reference. Do a search on Warrior vs Soldier and you’ll find plenty of discussion that shows it goes well beyond a dicitonary definition.
Yes, I know it’s sad. But it’s the only thing I know! Don’t take it away from me.
But I’m talking more about one spearman versus a guy with a sword. I can see how a spear is useful when in formation, but that doesn’t get around the fact that they’re unwieldy and long.
As to grabbing, I’ll concede that, but I’m still not convinced that they can’t knock away a poorly-aimed spear thrust and leave the person skewed holding on to a top-heavy weapon with their flank vulnerable.
Two unarmored combatants and one has a sword and one has a spear. Doesn’t the faster weapon (i.e) the sword, have an advantage?
Its not as slow as you might think, and not everyone has the precense of mind to overcome their instinct of “GET OUT OF WAY OF SHARP THING!” to go grabbing a spear a foot down the shaft.
Furthermore, some units would thrust in unison. Real hard to start grabbing spears when the one you can reach is a foot awya from the one about to go into your chest.
Nope. Speed helps, but don’t think that Video games reflect how a weapon actually moves. Spears can come in with incredible speed, and don’t think that a batte ax is super slow either.
This really is not a limitation you think it is. your arm is exposed for very little time. I’d be more concerned with lacking a wepaon if someone got inside your spear - but that is why spears work best in groups.
Again, the SCA isn’t the best reference but here is a Spear vs. Sword and Shiled fight:
Notice the swordsman is not going for the spearmans arm. He is trying to get inside the spears effective range.
Also watch the following HEMA video:
[QUOTE]
I mean, don’t they even teach in self-defense martial arts classes that you can just grab an incoming weapon and shove it aside using its momentum against it? I would not want to be in battle with a large weapon like this. What am I missing?
[/QUOTE]
Note how fast the spear (polearm) in that video is going and ask youself if you could grab it.
Grabbing a weapon is unlikely in combat - be in in a fighting line or one on one. Parrying and deflection is a much more likely thing to happen. Keep in mind that martial arts assume you are unarmed and doing whatever you can to keep the sharp thing from going into your body. In a fight you want a weapon that can parry the other guy’s weapon - and preferably one as long as your opponents.
Range actually can be the opposite of vulnerability.
Disclaimer: All of these things I have said are assuming single combat, which is far different from organzied unit fighting.
I am not sure that TV Tropes, drawing upon a quote from a video game, is an authoritative source on how those words have to be used. I’m also not super clear on why we’re capitalizing common nouns. If there’s a difference to be made that goes to the OP’s subject it’s kind of on you to explain it.
The idea that in war people working together are superior to those working individually is a pretty well understood one but the “Warrior vs. soldier” distinction does little to explain it, since of course some soldiers are better, or better led, or better organized, than others.
I take it the spear is being used (a) two-handed, and, (b) to stab.
How is the sword being used?
Also, I take it the lone unarmored guy with a spear chokes up on the grip so as to only have a small reach advantage over the lone unarmored guy with a sword. So however long as the heavy metal blade of the sword happens to be, that’s maybe how long a comparatively lightweight length of wood the spearman is moving around. Which is faster? Who gets bayoneted?
Sadly, the Higgins Armory in Worcester is now gone, but their sword enthusiasts remain, and still give demonstrations.
They had a vast collection of books on swordplay from the periods. They heavily studied them, and practiced what they learned.
1.) swordplay often does look a like dance – you want efficient and smooth motions.
2.) On the other hand, real swordplay often doesn’t look at all like stage or movie fighting. I recall one demonstration they gave of two knights in armor fighting. Rather than what it looks like in Excalibur, or even Monty Python and the Holy Grail, it looks like two crabs trying to find chinks in each other’s armor to exploit. Which is basically what they were. a lot less wild swinging and a lot more close-quarter digging into each othewr’s joints.
3.) As they keep saying, “every part of the sword is a weapon”. If circumstances allow or encourage, they’d hit each other with hilts and pommels as well as blades and tips.
4.) I’ve come to the conclusion that in any type of fighting, there are three forms – competition, street fighting, and display. Stage and movie is display – moves are showy and the competition goes on a long time, because you want to give the audience something to see. Competition is where you don’t want people really hurt, and you’re concentrating on technique and scoring. Street fighting is what really gets used – it’s fast, often “dirty”, and it’s over quick. People get hurt, and showiness is no advantage.
