Technically, it’s an axe.
I’ve seen depictions of such relatively short spears. However, if they weren’t hoplites, what was the name of the soldiers, also organized in phalanxes, who used extremely long spears which, at first glance, couldn’t possibly be used at short range?
Also, regarding the “drop shield and run” : is it attested that it was customary to drop one’s shield in such a situation? I’m asking because it would explain the “with it or on it” Spartan saying.
Huh? What’s the “technical” definition of an axe?
Well, why wouldn’t you drop the shield? It’s mostly useless in a rout - it’s designed to be used by someone standing right next to other soldiers, with their shields overlapping. It’s also heavy. So, if you’ve been routed, the shield won’t offer much protection, and it will slow you down. You’d be a fool to keep it.
I’d always pegged the cut-off at around 18"- anything longer than that is a sword, anything shorter than that is a knife or a dagger.
Unless it’s mounted on the end of a rifle, in which case it’s a bayonet, regardless of length…
Try playing Baldur’s Gate (D&D based computer RPG). There seem to be more magical daggers in there than clouds in Seattle. And flaming +1 auto-returning throwing knives, as well, IIRC.
Yes, I don’t think that’s right Lumpy. An axe is a hafted weapon, whereas apart from the lack of a cross-guard a machete looks pretty much like a Falchion style sword.
Or this gorgeous thing, which I’ll reluctantly admit I’ve considered purchasing before.
Geek? Me? Perish the thought :D!
A knife is shorter than a dirk. A sword is longer. Never bring either to a gun fight.
What you are probably thinking of is the sarissa, a phalanx of soldiers carrying absurdly long and heavy spears. This unit and its accompanying tactics were invented by Philip of Macedon. Alexander used them to conquer the world. Sarissai soldiers didn’t even have sidearms. When the pikes were breached, they cut and run. They wore significantly lighter armor than hoplites.
Many dropoed their shields because they were heavy and did you no good when the enemy was cutting you down from behind. The saying about the Spartans comes from Plutarch, which was not exactly contemporary. My favorite example comes from the antique poet Archilochus, also a soldier:
I still think there’s a difference between secondary weapons and backup weapons. The former may not be your most important weapons, but there are various tactical situations in which they’re preferred; the latter are only used when things are going badly.
It’s like with a modern tank - the main gun is the primary weapon, the coaxial machine gun is the secondary weapon, and the crew’s own personal firearmes are backup. A tank may alternate between main and coaxial guns while following proper tank tactics, but if it reaches the point that the crew are firing their carbines and pistols, things have pretty much gone FUBAR.
I think in this context, the nuance between a secondary weapon and a sidearm is a distinction without a difference. The couched lance or spear was without any doubt the preferred weapon for a cavalry engagement.
You can see here in the Bayeux tapestry: the Norman cavalry charges the English shield-wall with raised spears. Only the last soldier in the line has a sword.
When the initial spear charge was complete, highly disciplined cavalry like the Normans could turn around, ride off, and charge again. Alternatively, they could draw their swords, maces, or axes and engage at closer range. The legendary power of medieval heavy cavalry was rooted in this original charge, hence fighting as a unit, the primary weapon was the spear. Whether the sword, mace, or axe alternative was “secondary” or “backup”, I don’t really have a comment on.
My point being, while the lance or spear may have been the knights’ preferred weapon, there were many situations (fighting afoot, siege warfare, running down routed infantry, engaging in melee with other cavalry) in which they chose to attack with swords. I know of very few circumstances in which soldiers chose to attack with daggers.
Knights used knives all the time. They had to cut their food, too.
More seriously, they were occasionally useful if you actually wanted to kill someone in heavy armor rather than just beat him down and take him for ransom. A dagger was about the only thing you could drive into the eye slits of a helm.
Even while fighting on foot the spear would have been the preferred weapon. It’s simplicity and range afforded the user with a significant advantage.
The masters of combat in the middle ages and renaissance would occasionally comment on the spear and the sword and would casually state that even a poor spear man could hold off several swordsmen, and that it would take an exceptional one to overcome him.
The sword gave up that range and simplicity for versatility which was an advantage in and of itself and one of the reasons WHY the sword was the side arm of choice.
And also likely to have been psychological in character rather than physical impact – see John Keegan’s masterpiece, The Face of Battle, specifically the chapters on “shock” tactics.
Sailboat
Right, it really must have taken an incredible amount of discipline to stand your ground against charging heavy cavalry. I think I would have been the one guy that turns tail and runs causing everyone else to panic and run too. 
It did take discipline, but it happened. A lot. The shield wall at Hastings held, and Swiss pikemen’s reputation was built on repelling horseman. The cavalry’s only hope was to strike a flank before the slow-wheeling pikemen could reform.
This site seems to be blocked by google on the following basis :
Huh. Weird. They’re a pretty respected company ( within their very rarefied field of business, anyway ). Here’s the homepage: http://www.albion-swords.com/.
The specific link is to a “authentic recreation” of an early Viking sword ( possibly in use as late as the early 10th century ). It has a single-edged, machete-like 75cm Geibig type I4 blade, with a Peterson type B hilt. Limited run of 1,000, priced at $1,100.00 American. A very threatening looking piece of cutlerly designed for hacking at unarmored or lightly armored opponents.
Here’s a link to a review of a somewhat similar, but later-period double-edged Viking blade from the same company: Jarl Viking Sword -- myArmoury.com