Talysman very kindly wrote a lengthy and detailed reply to my comments on his search for a middle-ground between a cumbersome weapon vs. armour table and no weapon differentiation. I was going to comment on his response, but I got a little carried away, so I'm putting it here. Quotations are from Talysman, unless otherwise noted.
The Goal
As he so often does, Talysman perfectly encapsulates one of the central problems of designing a combat system (and I quote):That's sort of the holy grail, and a particular bugaboo of mine, so I'm always delighted to see other people chipping away at this problem. Now, the spear became sort of a central issue to the discussion, and I think it merits discussing the spear a little more in depth.
- Weapons seem different,
- Each is good at different times,
- There are hardly any rules specifically implementing 1 and 2, and
- They're easy to remember.
The Problems
Now, there's a few problems I see with Talysman's approach, some logical, some verisimilitous, and some mechanical.
- Pole Weapons Nerfed
- Shields Can Hurt Your Defense
- Longer Reach Not Always Advantageous
King of Weapons
There's a couple of reasons why the spear was the most popular weapon right up through the early gunpowder era - one is that it's cheap, and the other is that it is really, really good. Like, really good. There's a reason the spear is known as "The King of Weapons", and it's not because it wears a crown.
Now, for dungeoneering, the spear is essentially useless unless you're forming a mini shield wall. So there's good reason why everyone doesn't just use spears all the time. I talked about that here before.
But in one-on-one combat in an open space, the spear is peerless.
Spears - This One Is Supreme
"Tom Hudson said almost the exact opposite on a previous post about this. "poleaxe = good against plate, but spear = not so much"."
With respect to Tom Hudson, he's wrong. I would point to the Italian Master Fiore dei Liberi's opinion on the subject, from the end of his section on the spear in his 1400-ish combat manual:
And here ends the art of the spear, / With harness and without, this one is supreme.What he's saying is that the spear is awesome, whether or not your opponent is wearing plate.
Fiore also specifically depicted plate armour in the illustrations for the spear section in the Getty MS, which he only does for the halfsword (i.e. using a sword like a spear to defeat armour, with one hand on the blade), the poleaxe (essentially a spear with a hammer on it), and the spear (noticing a spear-theme here?):
Spears and Plate Mail, c. 1400
So, no offense to Tom Hudson, but I'll defer to a man who literally lived by the sword and was one of the great masters of the art of combat.
Spears - Massive Force, Tiny Point
"And my gut instinct is: a spear is a knife on a stick. Stabbing/slashing weapons don't have increased force if attached to a longer shaft; they just have a longer reach. It's the hacking/bashing weapons that have increased force."
The problem with gut instincts is that they're so often wrong.
A spear delivers a great deal more force than a dagger, as you can put both arms on it and thus get much more of your body weight behind the blow as well as double the arm strength. I've worked with swords and spears doing pell drills (i.e. hitting a wooden target), and I can definitively say that a spear packs many times more wallop than a single-handed thrust.
All of this force is concentrated into the point of the weapon, and that point can do some serious damage.
OK, you have more hands-on experience than I do and know Fiore much better than I do, and the only version of it I have around is Price's training guide, but I'm still not sure I buy it. That kind of superlative seems common to me from, say, rapier manuals. Meanwhile Price seems to at least imply (maybe I extrapolate too much?) is that spear is shown as much so you learn to counter it as so you learn to fight with it.
ReplyDeleteI thought I might argue with Vadi: his illustrations are all unarmored except for pollaxe and halfsword. Talhoffer shows armor only for spear-and-sword fighting, but I don't think that's conclusive.
I bet the reason Vadi shows people fencing with spears out of armor is because they couldn't be arsed to armor up on the day the illustrator came by to sketch them, and Vadi assumed that his audience would understand that this was intended to be done in armor. I could be spitballing though since I don't study Italian fencing, but the plates that have Talhoffer showing hablschwert and streitaxt being done out of armor are clearly armored plays.
Delete"That kind of superlative seems common to me from, say, rapier manuals."
DeleteFiore does (in his own way) trash talk a lot, it's true, but he never says anything that's BS, in my experience. If he says the art of the spear is supreme, I'm inclined to believe him.
"Meanwhile Price seems to at least imply (maybe I extrapolate too much?) is that spear is shown as much so you learn to counter it as so you learn to fight with it."
I wouldn't agree with that, and I would offer this as evidence: the only plays of other weapons against the spear are little bits thrown in as bridging material (staff and dagger vs. spear, and two clubs and dagger vs. spear).
The spear is kind of the acme of the halfsword - bigger, heavier, and more devastating.
"I thought I might argue with Vadi: his illustrations are all unarmored except for pollaxe and halfsword. Talhoffer shows armor only for spear-and-sword fighting, but I don't think that's conclusive."
I would point out that Fiore claims that the spear is supreme in armour and out of it.
Fiore also indicates that the spear is to be used for delivering blows and not just thrusts yes? My understanding is that properly made spears are terrible for swinging blows due to the way the hafts are tapered.
DeleteThere's some debate as to that. My personal opinion is that the spear was used for more than just thrusts. My reasoning is that Fiore is presenting us with a system, and there are common threads through all the weapons. That's certainly not universally accepted, though.
Delete" My understanding is that properly made spears are terrible for swinging blows due to the way the hafts are tapered. "
I've heard that theory, and, quite frankly, it's a load of crap. For reference, go out to your shed, take a spade or shovel, and smash the head of it against a tree (not a shovel you like).
It's not going to break the haft. Nor would conking some poor schmo on the head with the blade or shaft of a spear break the spear.
I think it's a typical case of assuming people 500 years ago were morons, and couldn't build a proper weapon.
In all honesty the haft for a shovel or a spade is an entirely different thing than the shaft of a spear.
DeleteFurther more I am not saying that using a spear to deliver blows would damage the shaft, but that it is simply a terrible way to attack with a spear as they will not impart force the same way swinging a weapon intended for delivering blows is.
And I can see you have already made up your mind on this, and have discussed this with Hugh.
"In all honesty the haft for a shovel or a spade is an entirely different thing than the shaft of a spear."
DeleteI don't see how - they're both a metal cone wrapped around a tapered shaft of wood that's a comfortable thickness to hold in your hand.
"Further more I am not saying that using a spear to deliver blows would damage the shaft,"
Sorry, some people who argue against the historicity of spear blows make that claim, it seemed like you were. You seem to have found my discussion with Hugh about this - I seem to recall him making that claim.
"but that it is simply a terrible way to attack with a spear as they will not impart force the same way swinging a weapon intended for delivering blows is."
Sorry, you've lost me. From doing pell drills with spears, I can tell you that I can deliver a truly enormous amount of force with a swung spear shaft - the leverage from the long lever of the spear and the two hands on the shaft is immense.
"And I can see you have already made up your mind on this, and have discussed this with Hugh."
I wouldn't say I've made up my mind - I realize the historical evidence is less than clear, it just seems to me that striking with a spear can deliver a truly devastating blow - only slightly less so than a poleaxe blow.
And a short spear is much like a poleaxe with no beak.
It follows to me that you could swing a short spear like a poleaxe to similar effect, and I've never seen any convincing evidence that this is not the case.
I would like to point out how important the spear is. The spear in one form or another has been successfully used in combat up until the 19th century, the last successful bayonet charge was during Gettysburg, on the little round top, and led by Col. Chamberlain. The bayonet, when fixed onto the end of a rifle, is simply a spear with a crappy handle. this weapon has been taught to the U.S. Infantryman up until 2010.
ReplyDeleteIndeed - the king of weapons. In one form or another, it was the backbone of pretty much every army up until WWII - even in WWI there was widespread use of the bayonet, which, as you point out, is really just a crappy spear.
DeleteI've seen combats indoors with a large number of folks using padded weapons and it is a comic mess. I've sen a doorway absolutely filled with spears and polearms to suchh an extent no one could fit through the door. Two men really can defend a single doorway against dozens, the only way to get in is to convince an ally to commit probable suicide. Spears are a daarned good weapon.
ReplyDeleteA friend of mine made what he called a durable pylum (it weighed a ton); when we were testing it against the target and backing I was using for knife and axe throwing I (with a running throw not at all disimilar to how I fought in fake combat) hurled the javelin into target and backing deep enough it penetrated a few inches. A shield or armor wouldn't do much against that.