Since HEMA is predominantly Duel Based, everyone gets into the Duelist mindset when discussing weapons. Every point hit in this video is the battle / soldier mindset and certain things are dictated by the flow of combat, like switching from spear to sword. I think people forget that when discussing historical warfare, its not all 1v1. Soldiers aren't trained to be the ultimate killing machine fighters, but instead how to fight as a team. Be it lines of spearmen or a modern fireteam.
@@grailknight6794 No, knights explicitly fought as a team. Any chanson de geste or halfway decent chronicle makes this clear. Only the least experienced knights attempted to fight individually, and frequently they weren't given that choice by the more experienced knights
Thousands of years of weapons technology: you can't just use a pointy stick against armor, a horse, a shield, a musket!!! Spearmen until like 100 years ago: haha pointy stick go poke
The ultimate "deliver sharp bit into enemy at a distance, repeatedly" technology. Sure, bows and such deliver at a longer distance, but the 'repeatedly' aspect is limited by the number of carried pointy things.
Their is a similar tactic w/ modern weapons as well. Many machine gunners (especially WWI & WWII Germans) would shoot at the troops to their left or right and their comrades in the other nests would shoot at the opposite side.
Hi Matt. The Tercios of Spain, when they were locked in a spear fight with the enemy, some soldiers would drop the spears, crawl between the feet and slice tendons and guts with a dagger. Yes, the job was quite dangerous. I have forgotten how the guys were called.
wimpow sounds somewhat like the Landsknecht Doppelsoldaten (double soldiers). Those troops were in the front ranks and trained to break opposing pike formations. They were called Doppelsoldaten because they received double pay.
In spanish they are called "rodeleros" because they perform that equiped with a sword and a rodela (buckler), time later often the archebusiers and musketeers wich were covering from a cavalry charge or a big pikemen charge (or something that make their position at the front and sides of the tercios untenable) between the ranks of pikemen perform that maneuvre also.
Do you think this applies when fighting in ranks as well, basically stabbing people in the 2nd or 3rd rank in the face when shield to shield with the 1st rank?
Having fought masked in lines, with 1H spear several times, I can tell you that there's a certain joy to stabbing someone in the temple, three shields down the line :)
Also your comrades from the 2nd or even the 3rd rank (if you're fighting in a pike block) can reach the enemy who has closed in to the guy on your 1st rank of your formation. In fact, according to the Hellenistic sources the Macedonian Phalanx had Sarissas so long that even guys from the 4th and the 5th row could reach the enemy who had reached their lines
It's common belief that at Culloden some troops were drilled to counter the Highland charge by thrusting their bayonnets at an opponent on their right to get past their targes.
Maybe not the best analogy. SCA guys are mostly creampuffs there for the group sex with the fat greasy chicks at the after parties. My roommate is into it big; goes to PENNSIC every year. He took me to a melee gathering once. I "killed" a line of 5 guys by holding 2 shields and barrel rolling them by diving into them full force with my body aligned horizontally 4 feet off the ground, and finishing them off with my "dagger" in the ensuing confusion. They whined that it was against "the rules" to use real force. They understand nothing about actual historical combat. 🤣🤣🤣
What seems to get overlooked a lot in these discussions is the point of balance of the spears themselves, that they may have been tapered like pool cues to allow one to grip further back and extend the reach. Later period knightly lances and pikes were tapered to balance the weight further back, and swords are the prime example of weight distribution in weapons. Spears often had counterweights on the rear end as well, like the heavy bronze sauroter of greek spears. If swords were carefully shaped to shift their point of balance, if arrows were barreld to influence their flight characteristics, why can't spears be shaped to shift their balance, extending the reach of a single handed spear by a wide margin.
I take your overall point, and it is a good one. As important as spears were, why wouldn't they have been made to optimize balance like the sword was? In fact, I really don't disagree with you, but just want to add something. And you're not saying that spears necessarily WERE tapered in the shaft, but just suggesting the possibility. Personally, I don't believe they were. All of the illustrations I've seen, and even looking at surviving examples of spears with shafts still intact(which I admit are mostly Late Medieval specimens), has told me that, at least the shafts of infantry-sized, non-pike spears, were not tapered. Regarding butt-caps on the end opposite the head: You already mention that this became less common on Late Medieval spears. On that note, I'm afraid that some HEMA experts(not Matt, btw) are misleading people about the butt-ends of medieval spears by projecting features from spears from Antiquity onto them. Yes, many ancient and Classical spears had some kind of metal butt-cap, butt-spike or "shoe" on the end opposite the head. These were often pointy to some degree as well. However, the vast majority of medieval Western European spears(Viking period and later) did NOT have any sort of thing on the butt at all, not even a cap. Just take a close look at any of the illustrations of the period, like the Morgan Bible or the Gladiatoria Manuscript. Or even look at the surviving examples of intact spears from the 15th and 16th centuries. Their butt-ends are almost always plain. It's always just the unadorned wooden end of the shaft, sometimes squared-off, sometimes rounded. I agree that it makes sense that they would've been balanced, just not via tapering or butt-caps.
I really appreciate you highlighting the thrusts of the spear which come from the sides of the shield, and not directly straight on. I have, in reenactment and in HEMA, had people question whether or not such strikes could be made validly against an opponent. I certainly believe they could be, from my experience, and I was very happy to see them here as well.
Out of the corner of my eye, I lowkey read this as "Social Distancing" and saw you with a spear...made my day even though it's not actually what it said.
I think i remember a video regarding close shield to shield fighting where the conclusion was that was a rare occurrence as it would most probably involve a full dedication in that fight, a live or die kind situation. And those were rare as usual fights were rather an intimidation contest. With casualties of course, but in the grand scheme, most victories would happen when the enemies were routed and not all killed. So part of distance fighting, including the spear use, was to permit some room to retreat when needed. This has some sense if you think about who were the fighters, either poor people under a lord who didn't cared too much about their lord ego and interests to die for and also professionals, mercenaries who would rather live to fight again or whatever, a dead mercenary is a bad mercenary, let alone that you can't spend your pay if you're dead.
I would imagine formations of soldiers would fight eachother (ideally anyway) At spear distance. I doubt most spearmen would Want to go in "shield to shield" But it must have happened in the chaos of battle, like how Renaissance landsknecht and swiss pike formations would occasionally devolved into a brutal scrum or "bad war"
I recall seeing a few early medieval illustrations of shield walls. It wasn’t so uncommon for the two front ranks to come shield to shield with each other. Remember, any soldiers in the rear ranks would have a very difficult time seeing what was happening at the front, so they are likely to keep advancing and so force the men at the front to do the same.
honestly I think that shield wall tactics were so varied across the early middle ages that we can't really make to many inferences. either you stay defensive and fight like a shield fortress, attack in mass the try to break the shield wall or you attack in slow phalanx type marching to steam roll over the enemy.
@@acedragon1456 Yes and I imagine that would be the most dramatic part of the battle, so that's the part that the artists depict. I don't think an 8ft spear would be soooooo common if soldiers started the fight by clashing shield to shield from the start of the fight. However most battles lose cohesion as people start dying running away and pushing into gaps opened up in the opposing formation and That is (I think) when we would see the shield to shield fighting (also at this stage alot more swords daggers axes and hand weapons to make up for the broken and dropped spears)
@@davidblair9877 I'd take those with a pinch of salt. Remember, all artistic depictions are limited by space. If we took that at face value, we'd also conclude that medieval archers shot at each other from about 2 yards apart.
Mind blown. Such a simple detail to overlook. I guess we have been conditioned (mainly through modern media I suppose) to usually think about one-on-one encounters or, at most, small group encounters. Quite an eye-opening video :)
Well, all historical combat in pitched battles was obviously in ranks. That wasn't always possible because pitched battles weren't always possible, but in large scale wars, you would be expected to be in deep rank or column formation a la the Greek or Macedonian Phalanx, Roman Legionary maniples, Swiss pike squares, etc. Running around like a dope in that context trying to duel someone seems pretty idiotic and a great way to get run over by cavalry.
Lovely video. One thing I want to caveat, Matt, is that of course the difficulty at using a spear at closer ranges depends on the overall length of the spear, as well as the point of balance. If you have a slightly shorter spear, (say 6ft in length), you'll have a much easier time bringing that point to bear because the wood south of the spearhead is a little lighter, and if the point of balance is close to the spearhead, it'll be that much easier. Something that also helps with dealing with foes who are close up, is having the tail end of your spear higher upward, because the closer it gets to being straight vertical ||| , the less that long back end wants to pull your wrist and thumb upward.
Just makes me wonder about optimised spear lengths, if the first rank would be sword and shield, second short spear and shield and the third with an 8ft spear, rear ranks...long long spear. Spear newb here, by the way, just making my excuse soon if my words are silly. :-)
The Greek phalanx members carried short swords, if I remember correctly. The Romans added a dagger to the combo when they fought with spears as main weapons (during the Early Republic, and later on the Low Empire). The Byzantines equipped their spear and archer formations with swords. I haven't read about Swiss pikemen's side arms, but the Katzbalger is a well known sidearm used by the Landsknecht, as with daggers of various kinds. I am not sure if it was the rule, but I have seen depictions of Japanese ashigaru carrying a dagger(tantō) or short swords(wakisashi style) as a backup to their pike. It seems an obvious choice, but often overlooked when talking about combat formations. Great video!
Second and possibly third ranks in a formation are something else to consider. In a tight combat, the soldiers behind could have used the long reach of the spear to advantage.
This whole thing is actually reflected in Chess by the way pawns just stop each other dead if they are head to head, but attack on the diagonal. As an additional comment, spear formations are likely to have multiple ranks, so if you can't hit the guy in front of you, the fella behind you might be able to.
Here’s a thought: could the second rank of troops use their spears against an opponent who was shield-to-shield with the first rank? From the video, it seems that the spear should have just enough reach to pull this off. As I understand it, this was how the Macedonian phalanx dealt with men who broke through the first line of pikes. Anyone who makes it past the first line of pike heads is supposed to be stopped by the second line (or the third, or the fourth...).
When I was experimenting with spear and shield I found the spear could be pretty effectively used at close range by sliding the hand down the shaft and holing it just behind the head. Depending on the length of the spear and the context one was fighting in it was often more effective than a sword when bodies were pressed together (keeping in mind we were using viking age and medieval swords, I doubt that would be true of a shorter sword).
I'm not even a novice at medieval or ancient martial matters, but, I would think if someone got into extreme close combat when I had a shield and spear, I would simply try to push forward with my shield rapidly, sort of a shield bash. And hope that threw them off balance and/or backwards enough for me to jab with the spear.
I find interesting the idea of fighting to the sides, in a group fight. It might help to better understand some things about the Greek phalanxes tendency to turn to a side during battle, and to the use of the oplon "to protect your partner to the side".
....Well presented! You should be doing the fight choreagraphy for historical/fantasy productions... ...Another advantage of Phalanx warfare in the Classical World is that fellow warriors not only alongside, but BEHIND you can strike at opponents.
What do you think of Macedonian sarissas? I've seen some videos of modern re-enactors and those guys prove to be very tricky and not as effective as desribed in historic sources. And what about the 16 hundreds pikes? Were they not afraid of missiles like arrows not to have shields? I understand they had really great breastplates and helmets but anyway... - even now most of the wounds come to your extremeties not protected by body armour. And thank you again for your awesome job!
Nice topic ! I have a question. Did charges really exist ? Apparently, Celts used to charge and Herodotos wrote that in Marathon the Athenians and Platenians ran against the Persians. Of course the range is too great (1,6 kilometers if I recall well) but is it realistic ? It would mean that the spearmen acted like medieval knights. A massive charge, then they took their sword to keep fighting.
I used to play SCA, (yes I know not historical) but what we tended to do is have short range weapon and shield on the front line with the spears in the second and third rank. A spearman when not forced to defend himself is pretty much a killing machine. One trick they often used was have 2 or 3 spearman gang up on one shield bearer they could pin/poke/hook his shield to move it out of position and then stab him, or open him up for a killing shot from one of the front rank guys.
Nice video. I liked the point about spears still being useful at close range, if you attacked someone other than your closest foe. This was probably a tactic only used by truly veteran infantry such as Hannibal's African heavy foot, since the natural instinct is to concentrate on the foe who is hitting on you. I also believe that many spear shaft's shattered in a prolonged melee, hence, as you point out, the need for a secondary weapon. Your point about throwing the spear is interesting, maybe we should consider those troops more as javelin armed swordsmen or some sort of hybrid of the two. Anyway, good job.
In SCA battles this is true. Most of the time you don't get the guy straight across from you, you get the guy one or two spaces over when he's not looking.
You said you might have rely on the guy left and right of you to handle the guy in front of you. That's a great point. But might you also rely on the guy behind you to help w.that close up opponent?
One thought on diagonal attacking: I'm sure that was done and it works as I experienced myself in several reenactment line fights. But what about a potential second line? Would you not hit your comrades behind you very likely, when turning your spear side to side? Some may argue, that the second line could keep distance to the first, but then you lose the advantage of packed spear formations... What do you think?
I am quite happy that you mention Distance. In Jugger, we are "fighting" in teams with a mix of spars (ranging from 1.4 meters for Longswords and Q-Tips to 0.8 m for Short Sword and shield). Controlling distance against different reach spars is quite essential (see this timestamp: ruclips.net/video/iqSIv1MQuCY/видео.html for a simple distance drill I use in my trainings). In Jugger, this is especially important since you cannot change your spar during an ongoing round, and you have the team vs. team "brawl" aspect of dynamic distance changing all around. While there are tons of instructions about fighting techniques, there are only few exercises in distance control shown; I found them mostly in modern sports fencing (maybe I overlooked the others). If you know any effective distance control drills, I'd be happy to learn about them!
Actually before the Marian reforms, during the Roman republic, the soldiers were using mostly spears as a weapon. The gladius comes kinda late in roman hinstory.
Matt, please do a video on the spear buttspike. Do a review of a hoplite's dory! This single piece change the entire handling of the spear, making it easier to use with a shield, along with many advantages.
I think with a shield the spear would be much shorter, or the shield would be held in place with a strap around the neck and shoulder, so you could work the spear with both hands and have the shield "floating" in front of you.
Could you discuss whether "intentionally tanking a blow" was a thing in historical combat? I can think of so many scenarios myself. Simply disregarding one's own survival in favor of the death of the opponent, or the weighing of potential damage from a certain opposing weapon, or the strength of one's own armor, or even the evaluation of the opponent to be weak?
As someone with a decent amount of unarmed fighting experience, and a tiny amount of armed experience as well, if you're fighting somebody with a sharp point, you very quickly become very unwilling to risk getting stabbed. If you have armor or a shield, you might try to provoke an attack that you can counter, sure, but not "tank", unless you're a fully armored man-at-arms fighting a peasant with a pointy stick or something, no, that's not really a thing. That said, Roland Warzecha and others have done experimental archaeology with fairly historically accurate Viking era boss-gripped shields, and catching the opponents blade in the edge of your shield and using that as a way to gain control over their weapon seems to have been a likely consideration in the design and possible dueling styles, so something like that is potentially a reasonable facsimile of your idea. Just not that whole "disregarding" one's own survival thing. It may have happened, after all, people jump on grenades to save others. But that's not really a "thing" either. It's considered remarkable and heroic for a reason, and it doesn't seem from your comment like that's what you're really curious about, but rather more mundane sorts of tactical behavior.
If no one is behind you in the formation and if the enemy gets too close, could you simply choke way up on the spear near the point and use it like a dagger for short thrusts? You probably couldn't reach over the shield effectively with all that mass behind you, but you might be able to get some side thrusts in around or below the enemy's shield.
Hi Matt, I just got a celtic style shield (with umbo and all) and with the style of grip i find it's very difficult to resist impact on the upper side of the shield. Either I have to chicken wing my arm so my forearm is against the top of the shield or i need to press against it with my wrist, neither of which seem particularly stable. Any advice?
The exception was the phalangites in the Macedonian phalanx. Their opponents had to get past five ranks of spears, or sarissas, before getting within sword fighting range.
There's another thing as well. If you're in a phalanx or any other formation with depth, the person behind you can offend the person in from of you. True, they can't see as well and if the line is at all ragged, they won't know what's going on. But if you're a tight group fighting another tight group, that might have an effect.
I had an interesting thought while watching this video. looking at how Matt was standing while dropping the spear and pulling the make believe sword, it occurred to me that if someone is right up against your shield and you needed to do that, it might be quite difficult to draw from the left side if the shield is pinned against you. Hence, could this help explain why soldiers might wear their side arm blade on the right hip? The obvious example being the Romans who are noted to have done so. Maybe someone knows of other examples that could add to this point?
What about the allies behind you? Assuming there are some spear-armed allies behind you, when an enemy gets too close to you to get hit by your spear, your allies from the second row might be able to help with their spears... the question is, do you fight in some specific way to make it easier for them to fight over your head? Like, would you hunker down or something?
how strong was an ancient bronze cuirass? could it have been pierced with a strong blow or were they like medieval/renaissance plate armour where you simply had to get around the armour?
They're not going to pierce a shield, they would go straight through leather armor, have a decent shot against linothorax or gambeson with a pronounced thrust, have a pretty pronounced resistance against mail backed by gambeson, and be useless against plate unless you tried to go for the gaps.
It would be pretty hard to get a spear stuck in a shield realistically. Spears dont have the weight and would need great force. Spears are great against light armor. And their small heads can potentially exploit the weaknesses of heavier armor
@@tedhodge4830 That begs the question how was phalanx warfare decided given both sides had well-organized shield walls? I assume by plate you mean medieval plate which is stronger than greek hoplite cuirasses.
@@64standardtrickyness Regarding phalanx warfare, I would refer you to the history. There were a lot of factors. I've given a couple of the most famous historical examples below. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leuctra#Battle en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cynoscephalae#Battle
@@tedhodge4830 So those are instances where one side managed to flank the other. What would happen if that would not be achieved and it was just spear wall on shield wall until one side gave? I'm also curious once you got a large shield it's pretty damn hard to get around it would duels just go until one side's shield broke or what?. Or course small greek shields would be much easier to get around.
Is there any viability to the idea of shifting to an almost dagger grip on the spear head with the back end dragging on the ground against unarmoured foes at extreme close range? Assuming you have no access to a secondary weapon or alternate target
Before the existence of really comprehensive plate armor and helmets too, basically, before late medieval times, such as in the Roman Era, I still think the Romans did it best. They didnt abandon the spear totally. They kept many of the advantages of it, in the Pilum all Legionaires were equipped with(1 at minimum, 2 oftentimes) which they sometimes used in hand to hand combat(like short spears) but usually threw them at the enemy killing them or wounding them or getting stuck in the enemies shield and delivering much impact off balancing them surely, while the Romans would draw their Gladius(and later, Spatha) and charge and engage in combat with their swords and Scutum shields, with Chain mail or segmented plate armor(upper torso and groin and thighs only), later on with segmented plate armor for their sword wielding/striking arm, but they were quite unprotected in whole. The segmented plate armor, which is better than mail, fell out of favor over time, or else just became too hard to produce or they lost the knowledge of making it. Nonetheless Mail got better and covered more -the Romans used Swords as their primary weapons for a good reason. Most of their army later switched to Spears and rounded shields, then they fell in the west; in Constantinople and the East it survived of course for a 1,000 years, but continued declining; and the army gradually no longer resembled neither the classical Roman army(of the West, based out of Rome itself) but more resembled an Eastern army, esp because their best soldiers were cataphract lancers, who also were trained in the bow. The troop quality and discipline esp and arms of the infantry seems to have been neglected largely. Or at least no records survive of much development on the infantry side of things, in the byzantine empire, for a long long time. That was required by the enemies and terrain they faced, but putting discipline into your infantry and training them highly and keeping heavy infantry solid and in good numbers, that would have been an unbelievable POSITIVE for the Empire, if Heavy Infantry like in the time of Augustus or Julius Caesar, or Trajan even better, if those Legionaries still existed. They would have destroyed totally the mostly unarmored Arab Muslim invaders, for one. But I disgress too much. Interesting video and I agree, spears or any other polearms cant be used at the range a sword can be used at, it can be used at point blank pretty much. Esp the shorter swords like Gladius and a Hanger and Cutlass and so on. And you still can cut with a longer sword at any range, and defend.
You mention shields as being fairly essential unless you've got fairly extensive plate armor. I've always been confused about pike blocks then. As far as I'm aware they weren't in full plate, and you can't hold a shield and a pike at the same time, so wouldn't pike blocks just get cut down in a volley of arrows?
pike blocks of the Hellenistic period had small shields strapped to their offhand and ok-ish armor. late medieval pikemen had very decent armor, not full plate but at least a cuirass+helmet+bits. their armor was already too good against arrows, as the transition to firearms could explain
Arrows were never all that lethal, but guns definitely were. You don't see many pike blocks made up of pikemen and longbowmen for example. Guns are lethal, bows are not, in the context of war, where both sides are wearing sufficient amounts of armour. If you think about pike blocks with bowmen against pike blocks with guns, the pike block with guns will suffer some casualties (mostly non fatal injuries), but arrows which hit helmets or armoured areas will do nothing but daze the guys. The bows also need space to be fired, which means the pike block loses melee effectiveness. Guns don't need a lot of space to fire. When the bow pike block comes in range of the gun pike block, any hit by guns is going to take the guy hit out of the fight, regardless if it hits armour or not and many of those hits will be lethal, except in exceptional circumstances. Yes, guns are inaccurate in the pike and shot period, but walking up to an enemy pike block and blasting it with tons of gunfire is going to be more effective than arrow fire, especially if you factor in things like morale, ease of use, ammunition capacity, etc. Being peppered by arrows is annoying. Being peppered by gunfire is terrifying and you know whoever is getting hit is almost certainly going to die. Gun wielding troops can very quickly pop in and out of their formation, even at melee range, something archers cannot do on the same scale.
8:12 I think from the lack of control of your weapon due to holding it in a throwing position shows how futile that grip is in close combat. LindeyBeige did a video explaining why that throwing grip is useless.
how about spear formations or spears in the second rank with perhaps sword and shield in the first
4 года назад+4
If I remember it correctly Lindybeige in his recent video "The fighting method of most soldiers: one-handed spear and shield" posited that when swordsman with shield fights against group of spearmen with shields he most often loses - getting killed by people on the side of the person he is attacking.
Is this not why the front couple of ranks are usually short arms troops? Also frees up the spear armed to use them two handed. Because if the front two ranks go down everything's gone wrong anyway?
This is why you give you frontline ONLY shields and the guys behind spears (shields on their backs). Hell, even have some people holding two shields at once!
One way to look at the history of combat is that it is a constant arms race to find a way to hurt the other guy at a greater distance than he can hurt you.
Love the shield! Does anyone know if there is an advantage to having a smaller boss on a shield, if you don't have a center grip? Or is there any reason to have a smaller rather then a bigger boss. Besides maybe the cost.
A long stick with a pointy end, super easy to make, and keeps the enemy at a distance so they can't put the pointy end of their stick into you. Plus you can throw the pointy end at an animal and maybe not starve this winter!
Think about chess. The PAWN(normally a spearman or swordman with shields) doesn't "defeat" the other chess pieces up front, but from the sides. How chess pieces act kinda offer some interesting insights on how fighting might work in those times. Just a thought.
Even when you have a sword and a shield, it's easier to injure/kill opponents on the sides of the one in front of you than him. They are preoccupied by the ennemy in front of them and they use their shield to protect their front, and not their sides. I regularly train in group fights with norman and viking shields, and it's really easier to hit opponents in the diagonal than to hit the one in front of you.
The questions I have about spear combat that I'm still looking for answers for. If they hadn't figured a way to use a shield, possibly strapped in some way instead of held, with a spear two handed, why didn't they? Is there really no way to do it? The Macedonian phalanxes had super long spears and a shield. It's hard for me to believe they were essentially wielding pikes one-handed. The other, is spear and shield not as good as sword and shield in one on one combat. I realize spears are battlefield weapons and in the battlefield you are not really fighting 1v1, whereas 1v1 happened all the time outside of a battle, but they wouldn't be using large shields, armor and battlefield weapons in that case. I want to know out of curiosity, what would fighting men do if it really came down to a duel of champions. The best fighter chosen by each side to fight each other in full kit before the battle began. Before full plate harness, would they choose sword and shield as the primary weapon set in that duel? Maybe they start with the spear because they intend to throw it. The reason I don't want to believe the spear wouldn't still be the primary weapon is because of the Illiad, the work of a poet. Achilles believed he was screwed when his thrown spear didn't do anything and he thought he was going to have to contend with Hector whom still had his spear with only a sword until Athena brought his spear back to him. It's a passage that will always be in my head. In the Illiad swords were always an afterthought, but like I said, the Illiad was written by a poet. Maybe he knew something, maybe he was chanting metre out of his ass.
Not an expert, but I'll try to answer what I can. Macedonian phalangists had a smaller shield that was either strapped to the arm, keeping the hand free, or looped around the neck. Either way, the mentality was that the distance provided by the pikes would compensate for the smaller size of the shield. Link to spear vs sword test set up by Lloyd of Lindybeige and Matt Easton. Basically the spear was able to determine the fight for the most part, but not all the time. ruclips.net/video/uLLv8E2pWdk/видео.html I can't address the champion duel with certainty, but I assume they'd go with whatever they were most comfortable with.
Assuming they were both wearing chainmail hauberks and solid helmets, I'd guess two champions would go with spears due to superior ability to penetrate armor. Here are a couple videos comparing penetrative ability of a spear and sword: ruclips.net/video/42NDuagLd4k/видео.html ruclips.net/video/6wbZMeK27p8/видео.html . To be fair, the sword used is not one that we would expect to be particularly good at going through armor. But then, your speculation is about pre-plate armor, when longswords would not have been available and no one would have trained in their use. Further, the spear has intrinsic advantages over even a longsword: it's heavier so it will hit harder, it's longer so it's easier to line up the force, and it's more rigid than a lot of longsword blades. Finally, the overarm grip Matt shows in this video allows for a stronger stab than an underarm spear grip or common sword grips. Because of the superior armor penetration afforded by a spear, I think it would be the weapon of choice for two armored champions. Maybe they would choose axes or maces though? I'm not an expert on this topic.
About the illiad passage, as I understand the swords they used back then where very short, so the man with the spear would have a massive range advantage
One of the things I loved about the first battle in 300 was, for all the movie’s inacurracies and the initial ‘othismos’ pushing match, they show the hoplites fought (spearing the enemy either in front or to their right or left with a predominantly *underhand* grip). Besides, for all that history buffs like myself might criticise it, it’s still an awesome film... 😎
You know, they probably did try shooting it with overhand grips at first, but found that made the combat way too awkward and nonsensical to be believable.
Except that their phalanx is wrong,the hoplites should be even closer (even tho for a movie it isnt that bad),with a overhand grip and use the phalanx pro activally,being the ones impacting the enemy to topple them instead of being passive and "tanking" the enemy's impact,a phalanx can easily just tank an impact but it isnt optimal
Since HEMA is predominantly Duel Based, everyone gets into the Duelist mindset when discussing weapons. Every point hit in this video is the battle / soldier mindset and certain things are dictated by the flow of combat, like switching from spear to sword. I think people forget that when discussing historical warfare, its not all 1v1. Soldiers aren't trained to be the ultimate killing machine fighters, but instead how to fight as a team. Be it lines of spearmen or a modern fireteam.
Except knights.
@@grailknight6794 No, knights explicitly fought as a team. Any chanson de geste or halfway decent chronicle makes this clear. Only the least experienced knights attempted to fight individually, and frequently they weren't given that choice by the more experienced knights
@@Cahirable Yeah... an individual knight could be killed pretty easily by three guys with a rock and a pitchfork...
@@limetreelt0384 i never said they dont fight as a team, i said they were trained quite alot to be great 1on 1 fighters!
@@grailknight6794 In duels or duel equivalents, thus the point.
Humans: haha pointy stick go poke
Other humans: “I don’t like being poked. I’m going to wear a tiny wooden wall.”
Thousands of years of weapons technology: you can't just use a pointy stick against armor, a horse, a shield, a musket!!!
Spearmen until like 100 years ago: haha pointy stick go poke
Pointy sticks, the one constant in all human culture.
The ultimate "deliver sharp bit into enemy at a distance, repeatedly" technology. Sure, bows and such deliver at a longer distance, but the 'repeatedly' aspect is limited by the number of carried pointy things.
7:45 is this why pawns attack diagonally in Chess?
Excellent deduction !
Dangit I was gonna say this
I was having the same exact thought.
Their is a similar tactic w/ modern weapons as well. Many machine gunners (especially WWI & WWII Germans) would shoot at the troops to their left or right and their comrades in the other nests would shoot at the opposite side.
Same thought here!
6:36 - Ah yes, the classic "sword and spear" dualwield :-P
Loved the video and hope for more on spears soon.
Infrared Light Saber, to be precise.
The fight goes coke!
Hi Matt. The Tercios of Spain, when they were locked in a spear fight with the enemy, some soldiers would drop the spears, crawl between the feet and slice tendons and guts with a dagger. Yes, the job was quite dangerous. I have forgotten how the guys were called.
wimpow sounds somewhat like the Landsknecht Doppelsoldaten (double soldiers). Those troops were in the front ranks and trained to break opposing pike formations. They were called Doppelsoldaten because they received double pay.
@@davidblair9877 yeah but they were regarded as absolute insane fighters.
In spanish they are called "rodeleros" because they perform that equiped with a sword and a rodela (buckler), time later often the archebusiers and musketeers wich were covering from a cavalry charge or a big pikemen charge (or something that make their position at the front and sides of the tercios untenable) between the ranks of pikemen perform that maneuvre also.
Do you think this applies when fighting in ranks as well, basically stabbing people in the 2nd or 3rd rank in the face when shield to shield with the 1st rank?
Yes absolutely!
Having fought masked in lines, with 1H spear several times, I can tell you that there's a certain joy to stabbing someone in the temple, three shields down the line :)
Also your comrades from the 2nd or even the 3rd rank (if you're fighting in a pike block) can reach the enemy who has closed in to the guy on your 1st rank of your formation.
In fact, according to the Hellenistic sources the Macedonian Phalanx had Sarissas so long that even guys from the 4th and the 5th row could reach the enemy who had reached their lines
RUclips shows that this video was uploaded 1 hour ago and that your comment is 8 hours old. How did you do it?
@@anantasheshanaga3666
Channel members get early access probably.
SCA group battles have found that it's most effective to attack everyone in reach but the guy directly across you.
It's common belief that at Culloden some troops were drilled to counter the Highland charge by thrusting their bayonnets at an opponent on their right to get past their targes.
Maybe not the best analogy.
SCA guys are mostly creampuffs there for the group sex with the fat greasy chicks at the after parties. My roommate is into it big; goes to PENNSIC every year. He took me to a melee gathering once. I "killed" a line of 5 guys by holding 2 shields and barrel rolling them by diving into them full force with my body aligned horizontally 4 feet off the ground, and finishing them off with my "dagger" in the ensuing confusion. They whined that it was against "the rules" to use real force.
They understand nothing about actual historical combat. 🤣🤣🤣
@@archenema6792 This never happened. You can't just show up to an SCA war, you need to be authorised first.
That's true with any weapon (even fists) because the guy right in front of you is the only person devoting most of his attention to you.
thank you for all your time and dedication Mr.Easton, i've learned a whole lot watching your wonderful videos!
Spear&shield combination is something really interested me but not much people talks about. Looking forward to seeing more videos on this topic!
What seems to get overlooked a lot in these discussions is the point of balance of the spears themselves, that they may have been tapered like pool cues to allow one to grip further back and extend the reach. Later period knightly lances and pikes were tapered to balance the weight further back, and swords are the prime example of weight distribution in weapons. Spears often had counterweights on the rear end as well, like the heavy bronze sauroter of greek spears. If swords were carefully shaped to shift their point of balance, if arrows were barreld to influence their flight characteristics, why can't spears be shaped to shift their balance, extending the reach of a single handed spear by a wide margin.
Definitely sounds like a pretty good idea with a spear predominantly designed to be used in one hand. This should be discussed more.
Greek sauroters were three times as heavy as the spearhead.
I had this same thought when watching this video. I noticed he has nothing on the butt end.
I take your overall point, and it is a good one. As important as spears were, why wouldn't they have been made to optimize balance like the sword was? In fact, I really don't disagree with you, but just want to add something. And you're not saying that spears necessarily WERE tapered in the shaft, but just suggesting the possibility. Personally, I don't believe they were. All of the illustrations I've seen, and even looking at surviving examples of spears with shafts still intact(which I admit are mostly Late Medieval specimens), has told me that, at least the shafts of infantry-sized, non-pike spears, were not tapered.
Regarding butt-caps on the end opposite the head: You already mention that this became less common on Late Medieval spears. On that note, I'm afraid that some HEMA experts(not Matt, btw) are misleading people about the butt-ends of medieval spears by projecting features from spears from Antiquity onto them. Yes, many ancient and Classical spears had some kind of metal butt-cap, butt-spike or "shoe" on the end opposite the head. These were often pointy to some degree as well. However, the vast majority of medieval Western European spears(Viking period and later) did NOT have any sort of thing on the butt at all, not even a cap. Just take a close look at any of the illustrations of the period, like the Morgan Bible or the Gladiatoria Manuscript. Or even look at the surviving examples of intact spears from the 15th and 16th centuries. Their butt-ends are almost always plain. It's always just the unadorned wooden end of the shaft, sometimes squared-off, sometimes rounded. I agree that it makes sense that they would've been balanced, just not via tapering or butt-caps.
Andrew Eden ‘olives’ at the butt of spears are mentioned in the Trojan war, meaning they were counterweights
I really appreciate you highlighting the thrusts of the spear which come from the sides of the shield, and not directly straight on. I have, in reenactment and in HEMA, had people question whether or not such strikes could be made validly against an opponent.
I certainly believe they could be, from my experience, and I was very happy to see them here as well.
I appreciate your dedication to the discussion of the spear.
This was very usefull. I'll start training striking not only my own adversaries, but my comerades' ones too.
Thanks mr Easton.
Out of the corner of my eye, I lowkey read this as "Social Distancing" and saw you with a spear...made my day even though it's not actually what it said.
I think i remember a video regarding close shield to shield fighting where the conclusion was that was a rare occurrence as it would most probably involve a full dedication in that fight, a live or die kind situation. And those were rare as usual fights were rather an intimidation contest. With casualties of course, but in the grand scheme, most victories would happen when the enemies were routed and not all killed. So part of distance fighting, including the spear use, was to permit some room to retreat when needed. This has some sense if you think about who were the fighters, either poor people under a lord who didn't cared too much about their lord ego and interests to die for and also professionals, mercenaries who would rather live to fight again or whatever, a dead mercenary is a bad mercenary, let alone that you can't spend your pay if you're dead.
I would imagine formations of soldiers would fight eachother (ideally anyway) At spear distance. I doubt most spearmen would Want to go in "shield to shield"
But it must have happened in the chaos of battle, like how Renaissance landsknecht and swiss pike formations would occasionally devolved into a brutal scrum or "bad war"
I recall seeing a few early medieval illustrations of shield walls. It wasn’t so uncommon for the two front ranks to come shield to shield with each other. Remember, any soldiers in the rear ranks would have a very difficult time seeing what was happening at the front, so they are likely to keep advancing and so force the men at the front to do the same.
honestly I think that shield wall tactics were so varied across the early middle ages that we can't really make to many inferences. either you stay defensive and fight like a shield fortress, attack in mass the try to break the shield wall or you attack in slow phalanx type marching to steam roll over the enemy.
There are depictions of Greek hoplite battles where the two sides are shield to shield
@@acedragon1456 Yes and I imagine that would be the most dramatic part of the battle, so that's the part that the artists depict. I don't think an 8ft spear would be soooooo common if soldiers started the fight by clashing shield to shield from the start of the fight. However most battles lose cohesion as people start dying running away and pushing into gaps opened up in the opposing formation and That is (I think) when we would see the shield to shield fighting (also at this stage alot more swords daggers axes and hand weapons to make up for the broken and dropped spears)
@@davidblair9877 I'd take those with a pinch of salt. Remember, all artistic depictions are limited by space. If we took that at face value, we'd also conclude that medieval archers shot at each other from about 2 yards apart.
Mind blown.
Such a simple detail to overlook. I guess we have been conditioned (mainly through modern media I suppose) to usually think about one-on-one encounters or, at most, small group encounters. Quite an eye-opening video :)
Well, all historical combat in pitched battles was obviously in ranks. That wasn't always possible because pitched battles weren't always possible, but in large scale wars, you would be expected to be in deep rank or column formation a la the Greek or Macedonian Phalanx, Roman Legionary maniples, Swiss pike squares, etc.
Running around like a dope in that context trying to duel someone seems pretty idiotic and a great way to get run over by cavalry.
You need to attend some reenactment eventd in mainland Europe.
Search RUclips for videos from Wolin and Moesgaard.
Never underestimate the human want to not die. Spear and shield maximizes that.
Lovely video. One thing I want to caveat, Matt, is that of course the difficulty at using a spear at closer ranges depends on the overall length of the spear, as well as the point of balance. If you have a slightly shorter spear, (say 6ft in length), you'll have a much easier time bringing that point to bear because the wood south of the spearhead is a little lighter, and if the point of balance is close to the spearhead, it'll be that much easier.
Something that also helps with dealing with foes who are close up, is having the tail end of your spear higher upward, because the closer it gets to being straight vertical ||| , the less that long back end wants to pull your wrist and thumb upward.
Just makes me wonder about optimised spear lengths, if the first rank would be sword and shield, second short spear and shield and the third with an 8ft spear, rear ranks...long long spear. Spear newb here, by the way, just making my excuse soon if my words are silly. :-)
The Greek phalanx members carried short swords, if I remember correctly. The Romans added a dagger to the combo when they fought with spears as main weapons (during the Early Republic, and later on the Low Empire). The Byzantines equipped their spear and archer formations with swords. I haven't read about Swiss pikemen's side arms, but the Katzbalger is a well known sidearm used by the Landsknecht, as with daggers of various kinds. I am not sure if it was the rule, but I have seen depictions of Japanese ashigaru carrying a dagger(tantō) or short swords(wakisashi style) as a backup to their pike. It seems an obvious choice, but often overlooked when talking about combat formations. Great video!
Second and possibly third ranks in a formation are something else to consider. In a tight combat, the soldiers behind could have used the long reach of the spear to advantage.
that's the macedonian phalanx definition
8:08 explains why the chess pawn doesn't attack up front but frontal left and right :)
Sorry, but the wonderful chorus of birds you have in and around your yard is awesome.
This whole thing is actually reflected in Chess by the way pawns just stop each other dead if they are head to head, but attack on the diagonal.
As an additional comment, spear formations are likely to have multiple ranks, so if you can't hit the guy in front of you, the fella behind you might be able to.
Here’s a thought: could the second rank of troops use their spears against an opponent who was shield-to-shield with the first rank? From the video, it seems that the spear should have just enough reach to pull this off.
As I understand it, this was how the Macedonian phalanx dealt with men who broke through the first line of pikes. Anyone who makes it past the first line of pike heads is supposed to be stopped by the second line (or the third, or the fourth...).
Distance part 1
Rule 1: keep it
Isn't the guy behind you also relevant in a group fight context, in addition to the ones left and right. That's asuming he's got a spear too ofc.
When I was experimenting with spear and shield I found the spear could be pretty effectively used at close range by sliding the hand down the shaft and holing it just behind the head. Depending on the length of the spear and the context one was fighting in it was often more effective than a sword when bodies were pressed together (keeping in mind we were using viking age and medieval swords, I doubt that would be true of a shorter sword).
Nice to see Matt wearing a far more period appropriate t-shirt than his normal anachronistic Superdry garb.
I'm not even a novice at medieval or ancient martial matters, but, I would think if someone got into extreme close combat when I had a shield and spear, I would simply try to push forward with my shield rapidly, sort of a shield bash. And hope that threw them off balance and/or backwards enough for me to jab with the spear.
I find interesting the idea of fighting to the sides, in a group fight. It might help to better understand some things about the Greek phalanxes tendency to turn to a side during battle, and to the use of the oplon "to protect your partner to the side".
Very Useful, Thank You.
7:11 - Could this be the Origin of the Pawn's Attack Sequence in Chess?
....Well presented! You should be doing the fight choreagraphy for historical/fantasy productions...
...Another advantage of Phalanx warfare in the Classical World is that fellow warriors not only alongside, but BEHIND you can strike at opponents.
What do you think of Macedonian sarissas? I've seen some videos of modern re-enactors and those guys prove to be very tricky and not as effective as desribed in historic sources. And what about the 16 hundreds pikes? Were they not afraid of missiles like arrows not to have shields? I understand they had really great breastplates and helmets but anyway... - even now most of the wounds come to your extremeties not protected by body armour. And thank you again for your awesome job!
The birds in the background, Mats voice ... I almost went into a meditative state right there xD
"Relax, find your center. Stab the Pict."
Nice topic ! I have a question. Did charges really exist ? Apparently, Celts used to charge and Herodotos wrote that in Marathon the Athenians and Platenians ran against the Persians. Of course the range is too great (1,6 kilometers if I recall well) but is it realistic ? It would mean that the spearmen acted like medieval knights. A massive charge, then they took their sword to keep fighting.
I used to play SCA, (yes I know not historical) but what we tended to do is have short range weapon and shield on the front line with the spears in the second and third rank. A spearman when not forced to defend himself is pretty much a killing machine. One trick they often used was have 2 or 3 spearman gang up on one shield bearer they could pin/poke/hook his shield to move it out of position and then stab him, or open him up for a killing shot from one of the front rank guys.
Nice video. I liked the point about spears still being useful at close range, if you attacked someone other than your closest foe. This was probably a tactic only used by truly veteran infantry such as Hannibal's African heavy foot, since the natural instinct is to concentrate on the foe who is hitting on you. I also believe that many spear shaft's shattered in a prolonged melee, hence, as you point out, the need for a secondary weapon. Your point about throwing the spear is interesting, maybe we should consider those troops more as javelin armed swordsmen or some sort of hybrid of the two. Anyway, good job.
I'm pretty sure I commissioned my norman and viking shield from the same guy you did, Matt!
In SCA battles this is true. Most of the time you don't get the guy straight across from you, you get the guy one or two spaces over when he's not looking.
You said you might have rely on the guy left and right of you to handle the guy in front of you. That's a great point. But might you also rely on the guy behind you to help w.that close up opponent?
Very interesting ! Thanks.
One thought on diagonal attacking: I'm sure that was done and it works as I experienced myself in several reenactment line fights. But what about a potential second line? Would you not hit your comrades behind you very likely, when turning your spear side to side? Some may argue, that the second line could keep distance to the first, but then you lose the advantage of packed spear formations... What do you think?
I am quite happy that you mention Distance. In Jugger, we are "fighting" in teams with a mix of spars (ranging from 1.4 meters for Longswords and Q-Tips to 0.8 m for Short Sword and shield). Controlling distance against different reach spars is quite essential (see this timestamp: ruclips.net/video/iqSIv1MQuCY/видео.html for a simple distance drill I use in my trainings). In Jugger, this is especially important since you cannot change your spar during an ongoing round, and you have the team vs. team "brawl" aspect of dynamic distance changing all around. While there are tons of instructions about fighting techniques, there are only few exercises in distance control shown; I found them mostly in modern sports fencing (maybe I overlooked the others).
If you know any effective distance control drills, I'd be happy to learn about them!
Actually before the Marian reforms, during the Roman republic, the soldiers were using mostly spears as a weapon. The gladius comes kinda late in roman hinstory.
Matt you could've taught us this in February to help with social distancing!
Custom Spears & custom axes are my two favorite edged weapons.
Gungnir (ODIN)
Leviathan Axe (Kratos)
(Kratos') Gauntlet w/Shield via God of War 4
Matt, please do a video on the spear buttspike. Do a review of a hoplite's dory! This single piece change the entire handling of the spear, making it easier to use with a shield, along with many advantages.
I think with a shield the spear would be much shorter, or the shield would be held in place with a strap around the neck and shoulder, so you could work the spear with both hands and have the shield "floating" in front of you.
Hi Matt, what are your thoughts on Spanish Rodeleros? How were they used and how did they interact with the spearmen of the times?
Could you discuss whether "intentionally tanking a blow" was a thing in historical combat?
I can think of so many scenarios myself. Simply disregarding one's own survival in favor of the death of the opponent, or the weighing of potential damage from a certain opposing weapon, or the strength of one's own armor, or even the evaluation of the opponent to be weak?
As someone with a decent amount of unarmed fighting experience, and a tiny amount of armed experience as well, if you're fighting somebody with a sharp point, you very quickly become very unwilling to risk getting stabbed. If you have armor or a shield, you might try to provoke an attack that you can counter, sure, but not "tank", unless you're a fully armored man-at-arms fighting a peasant with a pointy stick or something, no, that's not really a thing.
That said, Roland Warzecha and others have done experimental archaeology with fairly historically accurate Viking era boss-gripped shields, and catching the opponents blade in the edge of your shield and using that as a way to gain control over their weapon seems to have been a likely consideration in the design and possible dueling styles, so something like that is potentially a reasonable facsimile of your idea.
Just not that whole "disregarding" one's own survival thing. It may have happened, after all, people jump on grenades to save others. But that's not really a "thing" either. It's considered remarkable and heroic for a reason, and it doesn't seem from your comment like that's what you're really curious about, but rather more mundane sorts of tactical behavior.
If no one is behind you in the formation and if the enemy gets too close, could you simply choke way up on the spear near the point and use it like a dagger for short thrusts? You probably couldn't reach over the shield effectively with all that mass behind you, but you might be able to get some side thrusts in around or below the enemy's shield.
You can certainly choke up on the spear quickly, making it into a dagger for an overhead thrust. I did this many times in Regia combat.
Hi Matt, I just got a celtic style shield (with umbo and all) and with the style of grip i find it's very difficult to resist impact on the upper side of the shield. Either I have to chicken wing my arm so my forearm is against the top of the shield or i need to press against it with my wrist, neither of which seem particularly stable. Any advice?
The exception was the phalangites in the Macedonian phalanx. Their opponents had to get past five ranks of spears, or sarissas, before getting within sword fighting range.
There's another thing as well. If you're in a phalanx or any other formation with depth, the person behind you can offend the person in from of you. True, they can't see as well and if the line is at all ragged, they won't know what's going on. But if you're a tight group fighting another tight group, that might have an effect.
How often did shields touch in formation battles? Was most of the battle fought at spear length or not? I’ve seen lots of conflicting suggestions...
What about the second line behind you....can they also be giving point to prevent the enemy getting too close?
I had an interesting thought while watching this video. looking at how Matt was standing while dropping the spear and pulling the make believe sword, it occurred to me that if someone is right up against your shield and you needed to do that, it might be quite difficult to draw from the left side if the shield is pinned against you. Hence, could this help explain why soldiers might wear their side arm blade on the right hip? The obvious example being the Romans who are noted to have done so. Maybe someone knows of other examples that could add to this point?
Oh yeah, spears are always an interesting topic!
Sounds like chess rules for pawns.
It finally makes sense. 😁
good point!
What about the allies behind you? Assuming there are some spear-armed allies behind you, when an enemy gets too close to you to get hit by your spear, your allies from the second row might be able to help with their spears... the question is, do you fight in some specific way to make it easier for them to fight over your head? Like, would you hunker down or something?
When is part 2 coming?
how strong was an ancient bronze cuirass? could it have been pierced with a strong blow or were they like medieval/renaissance plate armour where you simply had to get around the armour?
Don't forget the second rank of spearmen attacking from behind.
Odd. I definitely subscribed to you years ago, but I just now noticed that I needed to re-subscribe.
Why did you drop the spear on the ground when you could have just stuck it to your back?
Can you talk about spears being used to pierce shields or getting stuck in shields or armor piercing capabilities?
They're not going to pierce a shield, they would go straight through leather armor, have a decent shot against linothorax or gambeson with a pronounced thrust, have a pretty pronounced resistance against mail backed by gambeson, and be useless against plate unless you tried to go for the gaps.
It would be pretty hard to get a spear stuck in a shield realistically. Spears dont have the weight and would need great force. Spears are great against light armor. And their small heads can potentially exploit the weaknesses of heavier armor
@@tedhodge4830 That begs the question how was phalanx warfare decided given both sides had well-organized shield walls?
I assume by plate you mean medieval plate which is stronger than greek hoplite cuirasses.
@@64standardtrickyness Regarding phalanx warfare, I would refer you to the history. There were a lot of factors. I've given a couple of the most famous historical examples below.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leuctra#Battle
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cynoscephalae#Battle
@@tedhodge4830 So those are instances where one side managed to flank the other. What would happen if that would not be achieved and it was just spear wall on shield wall until one side gave?
I'm also curious once you got a large shield it's pretty damn hard to get around it would duels just go until one side's shield broke or what?. Or course small greek shields would be much easier to get around.
Is there any viability to the idea of shifting to an almost dagger grip on the spear head with the back end dragging on the ground against unarmoured foes at extreme close range?
Assuming you have no access to a secondary weapon or alternate target
Before the existence of really comprehensive plate armor and helmets too, basically, before late medieval times, such as in the Roman Era, I still think the Romans did it best. They didnt abandon the spear totally. They kept many of the advantages of it, in the Pilum all Legionaires were equipped with(1 at minimum, 2 oftentimes) which they sometimes used in hand to hand combat(like short spears) but usually threw them at the enemy killing them or wounding them or getting stuck in the enemies shield and delivering much impact off balancing them surely, while the Romans would draw their Gladius(and later, Spatha) and charge and engage in combat with their swords and Scutum shields, with Chain mail or segmented plate armor(upper torso and groin and thighs only), later on with segmented plate armor for their sword wielding/striking arm, but they were quite unprotected in whole. The segmented plate armor, which is better than mail, fell out of favor over time, or else just became too hard to produce or they lost the knowledge of making it. Nonetheless Mail got better and covered more -the Romans used Swords as their primary weapons for a good reason. Most of their army later switched to Spears and rounded shields, then they fell in the west; in Constantinople and the East it survived of course for a 1,000 years, but continued declining; and the army gradually no longer resembled neither the classical Roman army(of the West, based out of Rome itself) but more resembled an Eastern army, esp because their best soldiers were cataphract lancers, who also were trained in the bow. The troop quality and discipline esp and arms of the infantry seems to have been neglected largely. Or at least no records survive of much development on the infantry side of things, in the byzantine empire, for a long long time. That was required by the enemies and terrain they faced, but putting discipline into your infantry and training them highly and keeping heavy infantry solid and in good numbers, that would have been an unbelievable POSITIVE for the Empire, if Heavy Infantry like in the time of Augustus or Julius Caesar, or Trajan even better, if those Legionaries still existed. They would have destroyed totally the mostly unarmored Arab Muslim invaders, for one.
But I disgress too much. Interesting video and I agree, spears or any other polearms cant be used at the range a sword can be used at, it can be used at point blank pretty much. Esp the shorter swords like Gladius and a Hanger and Cutlass and so on. And you still can cut with a longer sword at any range, and defend.
Are there any textual sources where people dropped their spears and switched to using their swords?
Last time I was this early the word context hadnt been invented yet
You mention shields as being fairly essential unless you've got fairly extensive plate armor. I've always been confused about pike blocks then. As far as I'm aware they weren't in full plate, and you can't hold a shield and a pike at the same time, so wouldn't pike blocks just get cut down in a volley of arrows?
As mentioned, pikes were usually used with missile troops. They are complimentary.
pike blocks of the Hellenistic period had small shields strapped to their offhand and ok-ish armor. late medieval pikemen had very decent armor, not full plate but at least a cuirass+helmet+bits. their armor was already too good against arrows, as the transition to firearms could explain
Arrows were never all that lethal, but guns definitely were. You don't see many pike blocks made up of pikemen and longbowmen for example. Guns are lethal, bows are not, in the context of war, where both sides are wearing sufficient amounts of armour.
If you think about pike blocks with bowmen against pike blocks with guns, the pike block with guns will suffer some casualties (mostly non fatal injuries), but arrows which hit helmets or armoured areas will do nothing but daze the guys. The bows also need space to be fired, which means the pike block loses melee effectiveness. Guns don't need a lot of space to fire. When the bow pike block comes in range of the gun pike block, any hit by guns is going to take the guy hit out of the fight, regardless if it hits armour or not and many of those hits will be lethal, except in exceptional circumstances. Yes, guns are inaccurate in the pike and shot period, but walking up to an enemy pike block and blasting it with tons of gunfire is going to be more effective than arrow fire, especially if you factor in things like morale, ease of use, ammunition capacity, etc. Being peppered by arrows is annoying. Being peppered by gunfire is terrifying and you know whoever is getting hit is almost certainly going to die. Gun wielding troops can very quickly pop in and out of their formation, even at melee range, something archers cannot do on the same scale.
@Радован Кубурић and pike blocks fade away with the implementation of more accurate field artillery, so in a way missile fire was their doom
@Радован Кубурић Halidon Hill was primarily Scots men at arms rushing the English uphill, as I recall.
Stabbing into the armpit of the clansman not in front but diagonal to you was how the British Army was drilled when fighting the Jacobites.
Yes, spear and shield in formation can prevent opponents getting too close. Otherwise, the person next to you can spear them.
8:12 I think from the lack of control of your weapon due to holding it in a throwing position shows how futile that grip is in close combat. LindeyBeige did a video explaining why that throwing grip is useless.
when hoplites charged each other, the spears of the front rank would often break as they tried to puncture each others' armor
how about spear formations or spears in the second rank with perhaps sword and shield in the first
If I remember it correctly Lindybeige in his recent video "The fighting method of most soldiers: one-handed spear and shield" posited that when swordsman with shield fights against group of spearmen with shields he most often loses - getting killed by people on the side of the person he is attacking.
He also made a silly point against overarm spear usage
I don't count him as a very reliable source, especially when compared to experts like Easton or Metatron.
Aren't there usually people behind you poking there spears out at the enemy also?
Is this not why the front couple of ranks are usually short arms troops? Also frees up the spear armed to use them two handed. Because if the front two ranks go down everything's gone wrong anyway?
"Drop the shield"
Don't do that
I think i have a sollution or atleast an idea of how it was supposed to work , and why. I think it has to do with rotation of the shoulders
This is why you give you frontline ONLY shields and the guys behind spears (shields on their backs). Hell, even have some people holding two shields at once!
One way to look at the history of combat is that it is a constant arms race to find a way to hurt the other guy at a greater distance than he can hurt you.
Matt would you please send me a link to wherever I can buy the same T-shirt as you?
Love the shield! Does anyone know if there is an advantage to having a smaller boss on a shield, if you don't have a center grip? Or is there any reason to have a smaller rather then a bigger boss. Besides maybe the cost.
Why does the shield have a center boss if it's not used as a grip?
Side arms could be axes, maces, knives/daggers or even clubs, as well as swords.
I imagine spear length plays a role. Many african spears from what I understand were almost sword substitutes
It's not by happenstance that the spear is the most successful weapon in the history of mankind.
Seems to be the # 1 weapon of choice in some form or another by every peoples from Native Americans all the way East to Japan.
I point that out when I begin teaching Wushu spear class.
A long stick with a pointy end, super easy to make, and keeps the enemy at a distance so they can't put the pointy end of their stick into you.
Plus you can throw the pointy end at an animal and maybe not starve this winter!
pointy stick is op pls nerf
the bow is probably human histories most successful weapon. or the Gun.
Honestly Matt, how many holes and divots do you have in your ceiling?
Think about chess. The PAWN(normally a spearman or swordman with shields) doesn't "defeat" the other chess pieces up front, but from the sides. How chess pieces act kinda offer some interesting insights on how fighting might work in those times. Just a thought.
Which is, probably, the reason, why chess pawn moves forward, but strikes diagonally - it represents a spear-man in formation.
Even when you have a sword and a shield, it's easier to injure/kill opponents on the sides of the one in front of you than him. They are preoccupied by the ennemy in front of them and they use their shield to protect their front, and not their sides.
I regularly train in group fights with norman and viking shields, and it's really easier to hit opponents in the diagonal than to hit the one in front of you.
Yesterday I found out that Richard III was riddled with worms, and it raised the question, how fit were medieval soldiers?
The questions I have about spear combat that I'm still looking for answers for.
If they hadn't figured a way to use a shield, possibly strapped in some way instead of held, with a spear two handed, why didn't they? Is there really no way to do it? The Macedonian phalanxes had super long spears and a shield. It's hard for me to believe they were essentially wielding pikes one-handed.
The other, is spear and shield not as good as sword and shield in one on one combat. I realize spears are battlefield weapons and in the battlefield you are not really fighting 1v1, whereas 1v1 happened all the time outside of a battle, but they wouldn't be using large shields, armor and battlefield weapons in that case.
I want to know out of curiosity, what would fighting men do if it really came down to a duel of champions. The best fighter chosen by each side to fight each other in full kit before the battle began. Before full plate harness, would they choose sword and shield as the primary weapon set in that duel?
Maybe they start with the spear because they intend to throw it. The reason I don't want to believe the spear wouldn't still be the primary weapon is because of the Illiad, the work of a poet. Achilles believed he was screwed when his thrown spear didn't do anything and he thought he was going to have to contend with Hector whom still had his spear with only a sword until Athena brought his spear back to him. It's a passage that will always be in my head. In the Illiad swords were always an afterthought, but like I said, the Illiad was written by a poet. Maybe he knew something, maybe he was chanting metre out of his ass.
Not an expert, but I'll try to answer what I can.
Macedonian phalangists had a smaller shield that was either strapped to the arm, keeping the hand free, or looped around the neck. Either way, the mentality was that the distance provided by the pikes would compensate for the smaller size of the shield.
Link to spear vs sword test set up by Lloyd of Lindybeige and Matt Easton. Basically the spear was able to determine the fight for the most part, but not all the time. ruclips.net/video/uLLv8E2pWdk/видео.html
I can't address the champion duel with certainty, but I assume they'd go with whatever they were most comfortable with.
Assuming they were both wearing chainmail hauberks and solid helmets, I'd guess two champions would go with spears due to superior ability to penetrate armor. Here are a couple videos comparing penetrative ability of a spear and sword: ruclips.net/video/42NDuagLd4k/видео.html ruclips.net/video/6wbZMeK27p8/видео.html . To be fair, the sword used is not one that we would expect to be particularly good at going through armor. But then, your speculation is about pre-plate armor, when longswords would not have been available and no one would have trained in their use. Further, the spear has intrinsic advantages over even a longsword: it's heavier so it will hit harder, it's longer so it's easier to line up the force, and it's more rigid than a lot of longsword blades. Finally, the overarm grip Matt shows in this video allows for a stronger stab than an underarm spear grip or common sword grips. Because of the superior armor penetration afforded by a spear, I think it would be the weapon of choice for two armored champions. Maybe they would choose axes or maces though? I'm not an expert on this topic.
About the illiad passage, as I understand the swords they used back then where very short, so the man with the spear would have a massive range advantage
What about Spear and Magic Helmet???
One of the things I loved about the first battle in 300 was, for all the movie’s inacurracies and the initial ‘othismos’ pushing match, they show the hoplites fought (spearing the enemy either in front or to their right or left with a predominantly *underhand* grip).
Besides, for all that history buffs like myself might criticise it, it’s still an awesome film... 😎
You know, they probably did try shooting it with overhand grips at first, but found that made the combat way too awkward and nonsensical to be believable.
Except that their phalanx is wrong,the hoplites should be even closer (even tho for a movie it isnt that bad),with a overhand grip and use the phalanx pro activally,being the ones impacting the enemy to topple them instead of being passive and "tanking" the enemy's impact,a phalanx can easily just tank an impact but it isnt optimal
Overarm, 2/3 choked up grip. That will do for shield to shield distance.