Spear vs. Sword & Shield
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- Spear vs. Sword & Shield - What's better in a Duel?
A highly requested video, which we are glad to deliver to present another data point in this discussion. As always, you'll get commented freeplay footage and our first impressions after the bout. But now it's time to place your (imaginary bet) before watching the video - what do you think will perform better?
Probably many of you have seen Lindybeige's video on spear vs. sword, but there the spear fighters weren't regular practicing with that weapon ;)
• Spears are better than...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you would like to support us, visit our patreon:
/ schildwachepotsdam
Follow us on instagram:
/ schildwachepotsdam
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪
Music: The Witcher 3 - OST
Music Created By: Marcin Przybyłowicz, Mikolai Stroinski and Percival ♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪
Asymmetric play like this is highly dependent on field situation. In an open field, where the spear person can backpedal indefinitely, the spear has a huge advantage. In a restricted field, such as a HEMA tournament or small room, the play is a lot more even. (Stephan mentions this at the end of the video.)
Yes, always use any advantage you can get 😊👍
Spear is even better in small room.
@@cem_peterpainbut not if it us against shield.
2 questions:
1) A larger shield like a scutum may give the swordsman an advantage over the spear user?
2) Wouldn't it be a good idea to use the spear as a quarterstaff against a light sword like this and even against the shield, as you could possibly break through his guard with a commited swing?
From experience, against an equally experienced or more experienced Partisan or Polearm-armed opponent, I'll win with sword and rotella usually in 2/3 of the rounds.
Trying to bind or parry the spear with the sword is why he's failing, it's not even worth bothering to do that. You need to close that distance as soon as you see a slight opportunity (opponent changing guards, footing, whatever). Use the shield to keep you covered or just smack the spear out of the way, it's the only thing you have with the mass and surface area to do it, and stab them.
This is just a pair up that being sensibly aggressive works.
I agree that this is the best approach. Maybe whacking with a sharp sword into the shaft for a second of control would be beneficial, we'll find out.
The swordsman can win if he closes distance and applie pressure to break his offense however if he stays in front of the spear he is dead!.
Yup, finding the right moment to close the distance ist key
Really great :) All I can say is that the outcome of the video tends to line up with my limited experience with this kind of asymmetric sparring. I would also add that I have had the chance to hold some original 16th-century polearms (partisan and ronca, but no light spear). We did not even mimic techniques, but just standing in front of those barbs and tips with the reach disadvantage felt utterly terrifying.
The psychological aspect is super important as well, thank you for sharing that insight 😊
In my experience, spear vs sword and shield gives a decent advantage to the sword and shield, to the tune of 7-3 score in a 10 round match (having both hit at the same time is very rare for obvious reasons). The main reason why that doesn't happen when people who did "standard" HEMA (i.e. symmetrical swords against each other with a lot of binding) is because they try to treat this matchup as they would, say, longsword vs longsword. This particular match was far better than usual, but we still saw some of it.
When fighting, as an example, arming sword on arming sword, you tend to stay just inside the opponent's measure and try to get a decisive advantage in a bind, then go in, and in that situation, it works really well. Once someone has a spear, though, it stops working, because that decisive advantage in a bind is meaningless, your opponent can ignore it and attack around it, or sometimes just win the bind anyway, having two hands on the spear against your one. So staying in that "trying to get a bind" zone is the single worst thing you can possibly do.
The solution is intelligent but dedicated aggression. Don't try to bind as much as you would normally - any attack that didn't hit you is an opportunity to advance, whether you had a good bind, a sort of a bind or a deflection, and you want to take the first opportunity you can. Don't stay at the edge of measure, stay well out of it and once you get to that edge (by your movement or your opponent's) endeavour to leave as soon as possible, preferably towards the spearman.
It doesn't feel as safe as fishing for solid binds does, but that is an illusion - a solid bind will get you to your opponent much safer, but fishing for it when you have a halfway decent bind already will probably just get you shanked. And yeah, it is exhausting, but sword and shield are just about THE most physically tiring weapon combination there is, maybe except spear and shield.
As for sharp swords, I don't think it would matter too much - there aren't that many blows where you hit hard enough with a good enough angle to really bite into the wood, at least not in a (relatively very short) duel. If we're talking formation fights, sharp swords will chip away at your shaft far more quickly and possibly cut it off eventually.
100% agreed. It's completely pointless trying to bind with the spear. Just whack that bitch with the shield or use the shield to keep you from getting hit with it to begin with and close the distance as fast as possible.
Thanks and I agree, it's all about getting that timing right and then going in without hesitation. I did that quite a bit more when training for reenactment - seems I got a bit rusty 😅
Insightful. Thank you!
I'll add, the vast majority of uneducated individuals and a good bunch of the more savvy HEMA practicioners or historians REALLY underestimate how sharp swords were, or even where were they sharpened. I personally think you could get a good bind on a spear shaft with a properly sharpened one-handed sword like the ones used in the Bolognese style.
my answer is always depends
Hehe, as a scientist I'd say that's not falsifiable 😉
Ihr demonstriert hier sehr schön, wieso Stangenwaffen die am meisten verwendeten Waffen in der Menschehitsgeschichte waren.♥️🤗
Als hätten die damals auch an ihrem Leben gehangen - unglaublich 😅❤️
Great video! People often think it's just a matter of getting past the point of the spear. Much easier said than done, they can usually get in a couple more attacks before you get there, or back up, or turn around and attack with the back end. All things you said, but bears repeating ;) Looked like fun, need to try it in our club!
Thank you mate and exactly this :) Getting that timing to rush in just right is harder than one thinks and even then it doesn't guarantee success. Next time, we'll equip the spearperson with a sword as well as look at some other points that were brought up here 😊
Various folks in the comments find that the spear apparent advantage in this video conflicts with their experience. Notably, it aligns with what George Silver wrote at the end of the 16th century. He gave the "short staff" (an 8-9ft staff with metal spikes on each end) & similar spear-type weapons (including the partizan) odds over sword & target, & nothing indicates he thought it was particular close. Unlike with rapier against his "short sword" or the staff against the (heavy) halberd or buckler versus dagger, he didn't bother to justify the staff's advantage over the sword & target beyond generally mentioning the effectiveness of alternating between thrusts at the body & blows at the head against shorter weapons.
"Now for the vantage of the short staff against the sword and buckler, sword & target, two handed sword, single sword, sword and dagger, or rapier and poniard, there is no great question to be in any of these weapons. Whensoever any blow or thrust shall be strongly made with the staff, they are ever in false place, in the carriage of the wards, for if at any of these six weapons he carries his ward high & strong for his head, as of necessity he must carry it very high, otherwise it will be too weak to defend a blow being strongly made at the head, then will his space be too wide, in due time to break the thrust from his body. Again, if he carries his ward lower, thereby to be in equal space for readiness to break both blow & thrust, then in that place his ward is too low, and too weak to defend the blow of the staff: for the blow being strongly made at the head upon that ward, will beat down the ward and his head together, and put him in great danger of his life. And here is to be noted, that if he fights well, the staff man strikes but at the head, and thrusts presently under at the body. And if a blow is first made, a thrust follows, and if a thrust is first made, a blow follows, and in doing of any of them, the one breeds the other. So that however any of these six weapons shall carry his ward strongly to defend the first, he shall be too far in space to defend the second, whether it be blow or thrust."
People don't typically spar with full-force staff/spear blows because of safety concerns, so some sparring may miss that element.
Loving these cross references, thanks! And I completely agree, if we use the full offensive capability of the spear & the staff, there will be a strike or a thrust that lands. Maybe having the swordsman in armor would change the game once again. After all Fiore values the sword over the spear and that has to come from somewhere.
@@SchildwachePotsdam As mentioned in another comment, I'm skeptical of that reading of Fiore if it's based on the introductory passage about the sword, as the dagger's also indicates it trumps all other weapons (& armor). However, it's certainly possible that longsword would have the advantage over spear in armor, especially over an 8-9ft spear as Sliver used. He did note that the short staff was a suboptimal weapon for armored soldiers fighting in formation, & that pike, short & heavy halberd, longsword, & sword & target were better for that context.
"Yet understand, that in battles, and where variety of weapons are, among multitudes of men and horses, the sword and target, the two handed sword, battle axe, the black bill, and halberd, are better weapons, and more dangerous in their offense and forces, than is the sword and buckler, short staff, long staff, or forest bill. The sword and target leads upon shot, and in troops defends thrusts and blows given by battle axe, halberds, black bill, or two handed swords, far better than can the sword and buckler.
"The morris pike defends the battle from both horse and man, much better than can the short staff, long staff, or forest bill. Again the battle axe, the halberd, the black bill, the two handed sword, and sword & target, among armed men and troops, by reason of their weights, shortness, and great force, do much more offend the enemy, & are then much better weapons, than is the short staff, the long staff, or the forest bill."
War is fought with full force. Always. How can you exactly mimic the effectiveness of a weapon in a dual without using full force?
More than not men in medieval/ancient warfare come out of battle wounded, but alive and heal. He's counting light taps with the spear as points won, when in battle that would do nothing against armor, and at the most feel like a thumbtack through bare skin.
@@feudinggreeks3316 It takes very little force to deliver a dangerous thrust with a sharp point against ordinary clothing or bare skin. & folks often wisely hold back out of courtesy to their sparring partners & to avoid injury. However, sparring in general has a problem with modeling the effect of hits. With various weapons, people often pause after a tap that might not be serious wound at all & certainly wouldn't immediately stop anyone with decent motivation. Wounding is so complicated that it's hard to address this problem. It makes sense to simply try to avoid getting hit.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 "folks often wisely hold back out of courtesy to their sparring partners & to avoid injury. "
That's exactly my point! How can you measure the efficiency of a deadly weapon meant to be used with full force, and at the same time spar not using full force and claim it's an accurate depiction of "which weapon is better?". To me it makes this dual wholly inadequate to use a demonstration of what's better in historical warfare - "a spear or sword and shield".
My point is full force is often used to kill someone in war. The demonstrators in the video restrain themselves not to use full force and count light taps as sufficient to determine which weapon is better. When In fact light taps are not enough to wholly incapacitate an enemy in battle. My reasoning for this is almost all soldiers that come out alive after battle are wounded or were wounded during combat, but ultimately survived by KILLING his opponent, not merely tapping him with a spear.
Marozzo suggest the guard of posta longa e alta (left foot dorward) as starting point when facing a polearm , an active use of the shield to deflect the polearm .... and after an attack to step back twice to keep distance. Be patient and not be the first to attack. (chap. 157.158.159).
What do you think, would a sharp sword make a difference?
How about a sharp spear? Marozzo mentions the possibility of a partisan getting stuck in the rotella, advising you to drop your shield and take your partisan in two hands if that happens. If there's the possibility of the spear getting stuck, the spearman would have to be more worried about committed attacks, but it could also result in some very silly situations if the swordsman can't get his shield off his arm.
Yes, as would a sharp & full-weight (if it's not already) spear. In rare cases, a sharp sword could cut through a staff. Joseph Swetnam mentioned an example of this happening with pikestaff against sword & dagger, but he thought the man holding the staff unskillful. Mainly I guess it'd shift binding dynamics a bit.
No, I really don't think it would. When I did some bouts against a very skilled longsworder, using a rattan shaft, it didn't matter, at all. Now, his sword was not sharp (for obvious reasons), but the rattan is light enough to be easily cut. He attacked the spear shaft many times, and there was obvious damage to the shaft where his blade bit into the rattan, much as a sharp sword would to a wooden shaft. It gave him no advantage. Even though I was ONLY doing thrusts, and no cuts or strikes, with the spear, he was still not able to deflect and control the spear enough to win the bout. In fact, the only bouts he won were those where I let him lightly parry and charge, not backing out, or countering with the shaft. I felt bad winning every single exchange, so I had to give him a couple.
And the longsword did better than the single handed swords in the bind, regardless of which opponent I faced. Most of my opponents are more skilled fencers than I am, unless one or both of us have a spear. Opponents who dominate me with most weapons combos lose to the spear. If they also have a spear, it becomes much more even (even though I have the experience advantage with the spear). I really think that the measure and speed advantage is key.
quite an interesting video. One thing that I realize might change this a decent bit the materials used. I know it isn't safe to do this and should not be tested but would it be likely for a metal spear to pierce partially into a wooden shield and get stuck resulting in a vulnerable spearman? Often times it's gone on records for spears to remain impaled in opponents and shields ect.. which would result in a move vulnerable spear man (though realistically any reasonable spearman would have a sword for a situation like that, and potentially a buckler.) not only that the shield being a smooth metal also appears to give levels of sliding allowing for the spearman to more easily disengage from the bind.
The spear's tip also had some give, so for moments it would have likely gotten caught it was still able to freely disengage.
The shield was also easily more on the smaller side compared to what would typically be seen unless the combatant was wearing armor.
outside of the shield size, I wouldn't recommend any of those suggestions because it would be too dangerous to reasonably test them out even in armor.
It would also be interesting to see how halberds, Billhooks, and zwiehanders handle the spear with their wide swinging motions. (though I feel like that would also be too dangerous to test accurately due to leverage. ) .
Incredible video :) Thanks
Thank you! :)
Yeah fighting against polearms is all fun until you stop ignoring the amount of force either end of a polearm can generate, that you can smash through probably half of the parries and that a staff against your leg would be enough to give you the worlds hurtiest banana or crush your skull even without the metal bit. I had a guy try a Meyer Hirnhau with a 3 cm diameter staff once against a soft grassy floor and the staff exploded from the force. You try parrying that with any sword it will obliterate your hands joints and your skull.
Polearms are actually my favorite thing about buhurt - they do blunt impact pretty well I'd say 😅😁
George Silver did explicitly write about this, claiming people armed with sword & target, sword & dagger, single sword, longsword, etc. have to hold their ward very high to safely stop a blow to the head. If they do this, Silver wote, then they won't be able to stop a thrust to the body. If they don't carry their ward high enough, a staff blow "will beat down the ward and his head together, and put him in great danger of his life."
I can see you keep changing the leading feet with the spear, is there any advantage on each side?
Awesome video
Thank you! :)
always upvote the Schildwache!
I don't intend to offend Stephan, but you did better against him when you had the sword and shield and he had the spear than he did when he had the sword and shield and you had the spear
Well of course the individual's experience always makes a difference. I am doing this since 14 years after all - that's why we switch roles and give the immediate feedback 😊
I never understood why the popular statement is to say hat sword and shield is dominant over the spear. Great spear handlers will most often come out on top.
"Great spear handlers will most often come out on top."
I don't know, my friend. Greeks, Germanics and Gallic tribesmen oriented in fighting primarily with spears, lost more often than not against their sword and shield-wielding adversaries - the Romans.
3:25 that spear thrust totally didnt connect. pause
I wouldn't count it as a thrust, but my head certainly felt the push, so I wanted to mark it. In the situation I was pretty sure that I didn't get thrust either, so I kept going 😊
The spear is called the king of the battlefield in China. Yes, spears are especially preferred in East Asia.
In particular, long spears of 3 m or more were also preferred, even one-on-one.
Try something as long as a European pike!
My personal sweets pot / preference is just under 3m for a thrust pole weapon, but yes - there are certainly even a few European sources that would agree with you 😊
@@SchildwachePotsdam
I think the duel weapon is ultimately a personal preference!
I want to see the video you tried with a pike-length spear
I am also amused by the spear game.
Was the only Bolognese spear a partisan?
I forgot if there was a pike.😁
@@papermap1646 there is a pike, a lance, spear, javelin and even more polearms 😊
@@SchildwachePotsdam Are there any European sources that explicitly disagree? Pietro Monte wrote that a single finger (7-8cm?) of reach advantage counted for a lot at higher skill levels: "those who embrace great art have a great
advantage or security by one finger’s weapon-length." Antonio Manciolino recommended longer weapons over shorter ones, such as the partizan over the two-handed sword & the lancia (3.66-4.27+m) over the spiedo (2.44m). George Silver did give 2.44-2.74m staff weapons the odds over longer ones, but gave staff weapons up the full pike odds over everything else. Joseph Swetnam claimed an inch can kill & stressed the advantage of reach in general, specifically giving the staff (with a thrusting point, so a spear) odds over the rapier & dagger & writing that it was pretty easy to learn to use a staff to defeat sword & dagger.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 So Fiore explicitly states that: "I am the sword, deadly against all weapons. Neither spear, nor poleax, nor dagger
can prevail against me."
Other then that, more reach is generally preferred from what I know - up to a certain point at least. In Manciolino or Marozzo there is something along the lines to shorten your longer polearm via the grip to only have around an arms length more reach and not more.
Both swordsmen in the video take too long and stall the attack giving the spearmen advantage of reach. As a swordsman you're supposed to close that gap by blocking the spear with the shield and quickly following up by closing in with the sword. I've done it before countless time against a spear wielder.
In war, win or lose, you almost always come out with wounds that heal. Getting hit in battle does not mean game over in warfare. You counting the light taps of the spear as a win, is a rule of fencing, not warfare. The rule of warfare is to attack your enemy until he no longer moves. Men incur damage to themselves all of the time in warfare and still keep fighting. It especially doesn't mean anything if the man hit by the light tap of the spear is wearing armor of a mail or wool type. It wouldn't be anything more then a chain lost or a thread undone. Like I said melee contact as a victory is a rule of fencing, not a rule of war.
I think you would have a better chance against a spear without any shield at all. Grabbing the spear and pulling yourself into the enemy sounds like it would make more sense rather than trying to block something that gives you no real advantage because the spear can easily be reset/pulled back and pushed forward again. Maybe I'm stupid here though 😀
This is certainly not true. I've done Poleaxe or Partisan vs. Longsword/Sidesword and you will win practically 100% of the rounds against someone armed only with a sword.
I'd definitely prefer having the shield over having none to be honest, but we might redo this experiment with a few different setups as well if there is interest 😊
@@SchildwachePotsdam there are correct techniques for fighting against a polearm-armed opponent with a longsword, as you probably well and good know. Most people just don't know them. I don't think we're going over the Bolognese ones for a while yet either.
@@nuancedhistory I think Jan Gosewinkel recorded Marozzo's Chapter on the spada a dui mani vs. polearms recently :)
@@SchildwachePotsdam nice I'll take a look.