Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X

[Matthew]

Silver disagrees, at least as regards using a spear in both hands. Based on my own experience, I'm inclined to disagree as well; spears are fast weapons and the highly variable reach can keep swordsmen somewhat off balance. If you're trying to use a 16 foot pike in single combat you are going to have problems, yes, but with a shorter spear you're good.

Well, that is interesting, as it runs contrary to what I have heard up until now. How short are we talking?

[Knaight]

Well, that is interesting, as it runs contrary to what I have heard up until now. How short are we talking?

I've heard five and a half to eight feet as a rule, though I'd be extremely uncomfortable with a spear less than six feet. That said, I'm 6' 3" and have fairly long arms, so I'd imagine I have an edge when it comes to longer spears there.

[Matthew]

I've heard five and a half to eight feet as a rule, though I'd be extremely uncomfortable with a spear less than six feet. That said, I'm 6' 3" and have fairly long arms, so I'd imagine I have an edge when it comes to longer spears there.

Are we talking about armoured combat, and are shields being considered for the sword wielder (sorry to ask all these qualifiers, just interested)?

[Knaight]

Are we talking about armoured combat, and are shields being considered for the sword wielder (sorry to ask all these qualifiers, just interested)?

We're talking about unarmored or relatively lightly armored combat, and I was assuming we were talking about two handed swords. That said, it's basically the same with one handed swords and shields. Taking an arming sword up against a spear without a shield while lacking anything but really nice armor is a gigantic mistake. You'll have less reach, you'll be able to effectively aim at less of the body, and you'll probably be slower on top of all that. It's the sort of thing you'd only want to do if the spearman was incompetent, or you were bringing friends to the fight.

[Matthew]

Ah right, lightly armoured combat I would think Silver would be right, the reach of the spear is a huge initial advantage in that situation. Conners' question seemed to be spear versus sword in general, so I assumed both two-handed and one-handed swords were being considered.

[Knaight]

Ah right, lightly armoured combat I would think Silver would be right, the reach of the spear is a huge initial advantage in that situation. Conners' question seemed to be spear versus sword in general, so I assumed both two-handed and one-handed swords were being considered.

The reach can last surprisingly long if the spearman is any good, and has room to backpedal. In pure mechanics one can move forward far faster than backwards, but the rate at which one moves forward is somewhat reduced when there's a spear head in the way. It's a nearly guaranteed initial advantage, but it can last for a while - and with shorter spears*, you can fight effectively within sword range, with significantly better lunging potential than a sword has.

*Against shorter arming swords, I'd say 7 foot or less, against longer arming swords you can use 8 foot spears reasonably well. Two handed swords have comparable range to shorter spears anyways, so this becomes a non-issue, though the spears have a longer lunge.

[Spiryt]

In most reenacting duels spear does seem to have advantage, however, in most of those situation is abstract, and spearman can backtrack and keep distance pretty much indefinitely, in some gym hall or hedged plain.

Referring to 'loose formation' in battle generally still refers to battle - a lot of people fighting around, rocks, roots, uneven terrain, not so much place to maneuver.

Although in such situations it may often be worth to grapple once the distance's closed instead of using the sword, so it will vary. Using the sword would generally mean giving chance for spearman to gain the distance back.

In pure mechanics one can move forward far faster than backwards, but the rate at which one moves forward is somewhat reduced when there's a spear head in the way. It's a nearly guaranteed initial advantage, but it can last for a while - and with shorter spears*, you can fight effectively within sword range

Even with very limited armor though, the danger presented by spear in the way drops drastically though. Jab once one's closing in will no longer end in the gut with 'standard' mail shirt on.

[Knaight]

Referring to 'loose formation' in battle generally still refers to battle - a lot of people fighting around, rocks, roots, uneven terrain, not so much place to maneuver.

The thing about rocks and roots is that they also slow down people closing in the first place. I quite like fighting with them around actually, though they aren't nearly as useful as deep snow or significant amounts of water. It is amazing how easy it is to maintain a range advantage in knee deep water, and unlike waist deep water or higher the water isn't going to remove all that many useful angles of attack.

[eulmanis12]

The thing about rocks and roots is that they also slow down people closing in the first place. I quite like fighting with them around actually, though they aren't nearly as useful as deep snow or significant amounts of water. It is amazing how easy it is to maintain a range advantage in knee deep water, and unlike waist deep water or higher the water isn't going to remove all that many useful angles of attack.

rocks and roots will slow down the one closing as well as the one backing up. but the one backing up will have to navagate them backwards, making the obstructions on the ground more hazardous to the man giving ground.

[Knaight]

rocks and roots will slow down the one closing as well as the one backing up. but the one backing up will have to navagate them backwards, making the obstructions on the ground more hazardous to the man giving ground.

That really depends on how bad the terrain is. Generally speaking, you probably have a decent knowledge of the area you're fighting in (given that you've at the very least traveled over it once when getting there), so this can be surprisingly irrelevant, particularly if you're defending a picked area in the first place. I find that it's low branches more than anything that cause problems, and can usually give ground in a controlled manner on bad terrain easily enough for it to be a slight benefit. That said, I do use the same bad terrain quite frequently, so I might be underestimating the level of unfamiliarity.

[Galloglaich]

Ah yes... bohurt not Bohun, typo... I've been reading an English translation of ogniem i mieczem and I'm about in the middle, Bohun is up to a great deal of mischief chasing Helena Kurcewiczówna and Zagłoba around the Steppe.

With regard to why the sword remained so popular compared to other weapons.

The first answer is that other weapons were used a lot, a lot more than we see depicted in the media. You have to understand that the current depictions of Medieval warfare, life etc., in modern films, tv, video games, and even documentaries, is equivalent to showing a movie about World War 1 with helicopters, people wearing furs, and fighting in hoplite phalanxes. It's really that badly screwed up.

People did use other weapons, a great deal. And if you were certain that all you were going to face was a fully armored opponent, a poleaxe or poll hammer make a lot of sense and would often be used, as you see here in this judicial combat.




However on the open battlefield full cap-a-pied armor wasn't as common, in fact even a fully armored person typically would not have his face covered, and gauntlets appear to also be relatively rare. On a lot of full harness, much of the backs of the thighs are not covered at all, as well as other areas. All of these places are vulnerable to cuts and thrusts from swords.

So were the horses (even armored horses were vulnerable on their legs), the half armored soldiers, and the unarmored soldiers who always made up a large part of any army.

But of course they are also vulnerable to cuts or thrusts from a pole axe or a spear, or crushing blows from a mace or hammer. So why use swords at all? The short answer is that the sword is more versatile. But what does that mean in practice?


I can only guess, really, but I think this goes to the brutal reality of warfare that we don't often think about in a re-enactment or historical fencing context, because of the one thing we have to leave out, i.e. a sharp edge. We know from FBI statistics that when people are killed with blades they almost always have 'defensive wounds' on their hands. People being killed, cut or smashed to pieces, will tend to grab whatever is striking them.

Any hafted weapon is vulnerable to being grabbed below the business end. Here is where the sword, any sword, has a major advantage. Yes you can grab a sword blade, especially from within a bind, but you have to really know what you are doing, or be really lucky, not to get seriously injured in the process. This is why swords were, as Peter Johnnson has recently pointed out, made very sharp before battle... all the way down the blade at least to the ricasso, if there was one. This is partly, I think, to make it more difficult to grab. Not that you won't try if you are being murdered, all niceties go out the window, but your hands will be sliced to pieces and blood will be everywhere, the sword will be slippery, you'll die before you can get control of it in most cases.

By contrast a spear, an axe, a mace, or any polearm is vulnerable to being grappled as soon as it loses momentum. Now it's still not easy to grab one that is being used against you, but I would guess it's a bit easier. I know from experience it's much easier in fencing, though of course there we don't have the added panic of imminent death, either as a stimulus to action or to despair. A sword can also cause injuries at zero speed, with a slice or a draw - cut. In other words, unlike an axe or a mace, it doesn't have to be moving fast to hurt you.

And this is also where the weakness of the spear showed through in my own fencing experience, you can easily grab a spear haft from a bind.

The other major factor is that with certain swords, such as a rapier or a longsword, there is an enormous scope for advancement by a skilled fighter.

That speaks to another question upthread about whether there is such a thing as a 'final' counter. The answer is yes and no... You see fencing techniques with say, 8 opening attacks, 4 possible counters for each, 3 counters to those counters, 2 responses to each of those counters, and 2 more responses to that... it ends up being hundreds of possibilities you would have to train for. Not just enough to know how to do it, but enough that you can recognize the situation in an instant, think of the appropriate counter immediately, and put it into practice without hesitation and with no major error. In practice, at least so far, to master say 20 or 30 techniques to the point that you can pull them off under the pressure of a tournament is extremely rare. The best fighters might be able to execute counters, and counters to counters, maybe 2 or 3 levels deep, to the most common attacks. I think I'm in the top 10% of longsword fighters in the tournament circuit in the US, and I can only do probably 8 or 10 techniques effectively under that kind of pressure.

But the system I'm studying, Liechtenauer longsword, offers me hundreds of techniques I could do in a fight, if I trained enough. Big if :). It's the same for rapier, the smallsword, the katanna, the jian, and a few other weapons, mainly swords, for which very advanced fencing techniques have been developed in certain cultures. So the trick is to learn to effectively do enough techniques so that you have more tools in your repertoire. The theoretical Bruce Lee of fencing who can do them all perfectly does not seem to have been invented yet. So if you know more than your opponent does, you have a big advantage. I think that is what separates out the guys who make it to quarter finals in a HEMA tournament today from the guys who can't get out of their pools - the former can do a dozen or more techniques while the latter, can also fight pretty well, but can only do two or three techniques at full speed without any hesitation. It's a subtle difference but it stands out.

And there are also differences between one weapon and another, because some just seem to be simpler. Most saber systems, for example, are very simple, with only a few guards, a handful of counters and basic attacks. A very small number of specific techniques compared to a rapier or a longsword. This was partly in order to train conscripts in as short a time as possible, but it's also partly due to the nature of the weapon. It's just a simpler weapon to use.

This is how I see the spear. I know there are some martial arts system which include pretty advanced spear techniques, but I've never seen anybody fight at any tournament or other open format contest, formal or informal, where they could pull them off at the level of the top longsword guys. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist of course, I'm only speaking to my own experiences.


I think in the SCA or re-enactment context, you tend to have a lot of rules limiting how you can fight, which gives the spear a bit more of an advantage. And you also tend to not have a lot of really well trained fencers. Experienced yes, but well trained, no, at least not in the sense that they know dozens of techinques. An average spearman fighting against an average swordsman, the spearman has the edge. An average spearman against an average 'sword and board' guy with a little experience, I think the sword and shield guy might have a slight advantage because the shield gives you enough of a defensive edge to give you a decent chance to stop that first spear thrust, and if the sword and shield guy can bind with his shield, which he's always trying to do, he'll rush in and make that cut an the spearman is helpless. An average spearman against a trained fencer with a longsword, from my experience the longsword has the advantage, consistently. Not decisive, but an advantage.

In theory the highly trained spearman, who can really fence with a spear, could turn the tables again, but I haven't seen this spearman yet. A trained longsword fencer strikes fast with that weapon. You've seen the videos like this one. Sword blades are thin and cut through the air a little faster than a pole does. The reach advantage of the spear is very real, but a good fencer can displace strikes and thrusts very effectively ... an experienced guy isn't as likely to get skewered in that first opening attack at onset, and that is where the spear has it's best advantage. A spear can displace too, but as soon as there is a bind the spear is much more vulnerable to being grabbed, by my experience, or wound into, or caught up on the cross and etc.

The point is a real threat on a longer weapon, but an experienced fighter can get past the point in the onset part of the fight and won't lose to the first thrust. Once you are past the point, the longsword seems to just be faster and more versatile. and more dangerous to grab.

G

[Galloglaich]

One other thing about half-swording; it is not just about the two-handed thrust and the mortschlag, it's mainly about displacing attacks (esp. thrusts) and using the sword as a lever for grappling, holds, disarms and throws. Ringen am schwert, or kriegsringen. This is the principle reason why you see half-swording done in blossfechten or unarmored fencing.



G

[Dead_Jester]

Any hafted weapon is vulnerable to being grabbed below the business end. Here is where the sword, any sword, has a major advantage. Yes you can grab a sword blade, especially from within a bind, but you have to really know what you are doing, or be really lucky, not to get seriously injured in the process. This is why swords were, as Peter Johnnson has recently pointed out, made very sharp before battle... all the way down the blade at least to the ricasso, if there was one. This is partly, I think, to make it more difficult to grab. Not that you won't try if you are being murdered, all niceties go out the window, but your hands will be sliced to pieces and blood will be everywhere, the sword will be slippery, you'll die before you can get control of it in most cases.

Wouldn't most types of hand protection (even light leather gloves) offer decent protection against a blade with little relative motion? Improving the sharpness only does so much, as you need displacement to cut. Of course, peasants probably weren't wearing gloves of any kind, but I would assume most soldiers would, as they allow a better grip on weapons and prevent your hands from tearing up and blistering in combat (from experience, it's not pleasant at all, and can be quite distracting). I would rather attribute the sharpening to the fact that a sharper sword should penetrate deeper and more efficiently into unarmored targets, making successive cuts quicker and more effective.

A sword can also cause injuries at zero speed, with a slice or a draw - cut. In other words, unlike an axe or a mace, it doesn't have to be moving fast to hurt you.

Again, this relies heavily on not wearing any sort of hand protection; you can try it yourself, by using a sharpened sword or, for that matter, a chef's knife, and holding the blade in a leather gauntlet (preferably one you don't mind damaging much, like an old work glove), and having a friend try to move the blade, and to simply cut through without you holding it (you might want to use a human body analogue for this one tough); the difference a bit of padding makes is quite profound.

Also, on the topic of a "final" counter to a series of exchanges, in my experience (in both unarmed and armed sparring), a trained opponent knows the logical sequence of the exchange, and will usually attempt to mix it up, by breaking the sequence or by choosing different actions, often a seemingly "bad" one (the impact of a non-logical action, on a concentrated opponent can be quite profound). As such, in actual combat, there is rarely a "fixed" series of actions, and you rarely have time to plan your use of techniques. Rather, you want to practice until your reaction to the events is instinctively the "right" one (which, incidentally, is entirely variable depending on the combat itself and your opponent); at that point, you can stop thinking about the fight, and simply "feel" what is happening, attacking and counter-attacking reflectively until one of the opponents makes a mistake or until the exchange is broken by one of the two fighters stopping his attacks.

Japanese martial arts tend to call this mushin (Miyamoto Musashi explains some of it in his book, but it's rather hard to understand without doing it), and, if both opponents become sufficiently good, the challenge becomes not to apply the correct technique at the right time, but rather to break the cycle by surprising or destabilizing the opponent with an unexpected maneuver. As such, there is no "maximal" amount of maneuvers in an exchange, but also no "minimal" amount for it to be effective, and it only ends when a decisive blow is struck or if one of the parties disengages from it. Of course, all of this depends immensely on both opponents, as some fighters are naturally adept at predicting the flow of battle, while others are great at improvisation, and as such, understanding your opponent is one of the most important steps towards defeating him.

[Galloglaich]

Wouldn't most types of hand protection (even light leather gloves) offer decent protection against a blade with little relative motion? Improving the sharpness only does so much, as you need displacement to cut. Of course, peasants probably weren't wearing gloves of any kind, but I would assume most soldiers would, as they allow a better grip on weapons and prevent your hands from tearing up and blistering in combat (from experience, it's not pleasant at all, and can be quite distracting). I would rather attribute the sharpening to the fact that a sharper sword should penetrate deeper and more efficiently into unarmored targets, making successive cuts quicker and more effective.

One would think. But gloves can also make it more likely that you will drop your weapon. Ultimately we can't know for sure but in period art there is little evidence of the widespread use of gloves, people either wear gauntlets (or half-gauntlets) or they are usually depicted with bare hands. Beyond that I can't say.

On the other hand in some dueling contexts, notably in Italy in the 16th and 17th Century, they explicitly wore gloves with mail-lined palms, so that they could grab their opponents sword blade. You even see this in some manuals if I remember correctly.

However, I contest your suggestion that a glove is good protection against a sharp sword. Yes if the sword is stable, i.e. completely stopped, and you manage to get a good grip on it, you can get away with this. If it's moving at all and / or you have a loose grip, I don't think it's sufficient protection. I damn sure wouldn't grab my Albion Constable unless I was certain I was in control of it. It's really scary easy to cut through all kinds of things with that using a slice just as much as with a cut or a thrust. Anyway, I guess it is a matter of opinion since I for one will not be testing this any time soon, I need my hands for too many things.

Again, this relies heavily on not wearing any sort of hand protection;

No it doesn't because there are still so many other parts of the body unprotected by armor. The face, the back of the thigh or the calf (in a hamstringing slice, ala coup de jarnac which is taught in several fencing systems) and so on.

you can try it yourself, by using a sharpened sword or, for that matter, a chef's knife, and holding the blade in a leather gauntlet (preferably one you don't mind damaging much, like an old work glove), and having a friend try to move the blade, and to simply cut through without you holding it (you might want to use a human body analogue for this one tough); the difference a bit of padding makes is quite profound.

yeah you can test that and let me know how it works out ;)

Also, on the topic of a "final" counter to a series of exchanges, in my experience (in both unarmed and armed sparring), a trained opponent knows the logical sequence of the exchange, and will usually attempt to mix it up, by breaking the sequence or by choosing different actions, often a seemingly "bad" one (the impact of a non-logical action, on a concentrated opponent can be quite profound).

I think in a more formalized type of fighting, like some versions of Kendo say or Olympic style sport-fencing, there is a more limited set of 'good' options, in a more open rules lite system, ala HEMA or MMA, there are far more.

As such, in actual combat, there is rarely a "fixed" series of actions, and you rarely have time to plan your use of techniques.

I agree with the former though not necessarily the latter.

Rather, you want to practice until your reaction to the events is instinctively the "right" one (which, incidentally, is entirely variable depending on the combat itself and your opponent); at that point, you can stop thinking about the fight, and simply "feel" what is happening, attacking and counter-attacking reflectively until one of the opponents makes a mistake or until the exchange is broken by one of the two fighters stopping his attacks.

Training-in muscle memory for responses and specific techniques is basically what I was trying to describe above, but having said that, I don't think it's as simple as just training your body and letting it do your fighting for you, with all due respect to Musashi. In the KDF, there are three timing concepts both for thought and action: Vor (before), Nach (after), and Indes.

So for example, if I see you are telegraphing an overhand cut, I may take a provocative guard, let you strike, move my sword out of the way, and cut you as your blade goes past. This is a common tactic in both German and Japanese fencing, in the former it's known as a Nachreisen, i.e. 'travelling after'. I'm thinking in the Vor, acting in the Nach. In the KDF ideally you are supposed to both think and act in the Vor if possible, but you are also advised to be flexible.

What you are describing above is acting Indes, which the Masters put great importance upon, but even here you have conscious thinking involved, regardless of how fast the action is (although sometimes you don't realize what you actually did until afterward, there is still thinking involved). What the training does is reduce the mental clutter so that you have the techniques you need 'available' to you, you can do them cleanly with one impulse. Against each guard, I know that there are a limited number of attacks I can make. As I'm observing my opponent, I can pressure him or her in various ways, and typically when they are changing guards, I can make the attack they appear most vulnerable to before they have 'loaded' the next series of appropriate defenses into their memory. By my experience, you are constantly queuing up little clusters of actions for use like this, and a lot of the fight is interrupting the mental preparation your opponent is making during the chess game of the fencing match. Musashi himself described it as moving through the gaps in his opponents thoughts.

But in the fechtbucher I'm also advised to evaluate my opponent, I can't fight everyone the same way. Meyer describes four roles: Frenzied, Artful and Sharp, Cunning and Deceitful, and 'The Fool'. If my opponent is Frenzied, an Artful and Sharp approach (something like a loaded bear-trap) may be a good idea, I pay very close attention to measure and can cut him or stab him the second he enters range. If he is Artful and Sharp, for example tightly wound up into a defensive guard, I'll shift to Cunning and Deceitful, stay at the edge of range and feint and probe as I try to spring his trap before I move in. All these thoughts are very much in your mind as you are fighting, at least in the HEMA tournament world.

Japanese martial arts tend to call this mushin (Miyamoto Musashi explains some of it in his book, but it's rather hard to understand without doing it), and, if both opponents become sufficiently good, the challenge becomes not to apply the correct technique at the right time, but rather to break the cycle by surprising or destabilizing the opponent with an unexpected maneuver.

In a way we are talking about the same thing, I think, but I believe you have a more literal understanding of this, or at any rate a different one.

As such, there is no "maximal" amount of maneuvers in an exchange, but also no "minimal" amount for it to be effective, and it only ends when a decisive blow is struck or if one of the parties disengages from it. Of course, all of this depends immensely on both opponents, as some fighters are naturally adept at predicting the flow of battle, while others are great at improvisation, and as such, understanding your opponent is one of the most important steps towards defeating him.

Yes, but if am lucky enough to have time to gain some insight into your fencing, and can see that you can't properly respond to certain attacks (because you don't 'have' the techniques) I can use this to my advantage and eat you alive.

Spoiler

Show

For example, lets say you are an aggressive fencer and like to make an overhead cut. I can try a variety of strategies but one of the more obvious is to cut into your cut with an overhead cut of my own, achieve a bind, and wind my point into your face or throat. There is a counter to this, (and a counter to the counter) but if you don't know it, no matter how 'unpredictable' or unorthodox your fighting style is, once you have made that cut I can exploit it by controlling your weapon while stabbing you. Now my initial reaction (cutting into your attack) might be Indes (i.e. automatic, muscle memory), if you were say, unpredictable enough to surprise me, but once we are in a bind I will recognize that and exploit it consciously. If you counter my exploitation I'll have something else ready very quickly... if you don't, I'll just stab you in the face. That is how the decision tree works.


Of course the the most basic level of any 'techniques' are fundamental things like simple reach and measure (timing and distance), and if one of us is out of distance without realizing it, or telegraphs their intent to attack or defend in an obvious way, the other will exploit that and the fight will be over in one cut. As it often is especially with less experienced fighters.

G

[Knaight]

In theory the highly trained spearman, who can really fence with a spear, could turn the tables again, but I haven't seen this spearman yet. A trained longsword fencer strikes fast with that weapon. You've seen the videos like this one. Sword blades are thin and cut through the air a little faster than a pole does. The reach advantage of the spear is very real, but a good fencer can displace strikes and thrusts very effectively ... an experienced guy isn't as likely to get skewered in that first opening attack at onset, and that is where the spear has it's best advantage. A spear can displace too, but as soon as there is a bind the spear is much more vulnerable to being grabbed, by my experience, or wound into, or caught up on the cross and etc.

I've seen a few extremely good spearmen (the sort who I'll lose to when using a spear in both hands and they use it in one without anything in the other), and I'd posit that the lack of them is more due to the lack of training than anything else. The infantry spear has always been associated with lower class fighters in Europe, and the cavalry spear isn't exactly something someone fences with. The sword, meanwhile, is romanticized, so that alone is likely to see that it sees a disproportionate amount of training, and insures that many of the best people are swordsmen. I'd also note an advantage that hasn't been mentioned yet, that I suspect is major - spears tend to break. Sure, them getting hacked through by one sword in one strike is pure Hollywood (particularly when said sword cuts through a dozen spears), but over the course of a battle they're going to break. Swords are more durable, and are less likely to suddenly break on you, which is particularly critical for loose formation troops that are going to see heavy fighting.

[Talakeal]

A question that came up in my game this weekend: Can a spear be used as a quarter staff with full effect?

A spear armed player was engaged against an adjacent foe and could not strike with their spear (a reach weapon) and claimed that he could just use a spear as a quarter staff (a non reach weapon) with full effectiveness. He went on to claim that it was common practice, and some Asian fighting styles are based around using full sized spears and alternating between using the pointy end as a spear and the blunt end as a staff. Any truth to this?

[Galloglaich]

Knaight you very well might have a point about training. And cutting through or breaking spear-hafts, though a lot of the historical ones in Europe at any rate had langets near the business end to protect them.

A question that came up in my game this weekend: Can a spear be used as a quarter staff with full effect?

A spear armed player was engaged against an adjacent foe and could not strike with their spear (a reach weapon) and claimed that he could just use a spear as a quarter staff (a non reach weapon) with full effectiveness. He went on to claim that it was common practice, and some Asian fighting styles are based around using full sized spears and alternating between using the pointy end as a spear and the blunt end as a staff. Any truth to this?

Yes this is possible, some people call this half-staffing. A trained fighter will use a spear a lot like a staff, and vise versa (use a staff a lot like a spear), especially if he can hold it with both hands. The general strategy was to hold it from the back quarter when at distance (i.e. 'quarter staff') and poke and strike at your opponent, then choke up when the fight got close so you could defend better (irrelevant in most RPG systems since you can't defend with your weapon, mysteriously) and attack from both ends.

Here is a helpful FAQ

http://quarterstaff.home.comcast.net...staff/faq.html

and a glossary of terms

http://quarterstaff.home.comcast.net...l#halfstaffing

Whether the game system in question allows any of this is another matter entirely.

G

[Spiryt]

I guess that spearhead would make the handling awkward, there's somehow dead weight on the opposite end when one's trying to hit opponent with other parts. But yeah, it could work.

The thing is that to use it effectively one still must move his weapon around, change the grip, work the angles and distance etc.

One can just hold the spear 'normally' and just move it 'other way around for quick stab/strike with other end, but it won't be attack of very much potential.

So for purposes of gaming, I really don't think that this should be equivalent to full scale weapon damage, one can easily see how unbalanced it is anyway.

Perhaps improvised weapon penalty?

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I can't think of any reason why a spear couldn't be used as a rough quarterstaff. The balance probably would be off though, hence the improvised weapon penalty.

[Talakeal]

I can't think of any reason why a spear couldn't be used as a rough quarterstaff. The balance probably would be off though, hence the improvised weapon penalty.

Oh, I totally allow it with an improvised weapon penalty. That is not what I am asking.

The player insisted there is NO mechanical disadvantage for using a spear as a quarter staff and that all spears should also double as staffs with no penalty.

[Galloglaich]

I really don't see why it would be any penalty at all personally, that is how all polearms inicluding spears were actually used. It's just like a staff, only very slightly different balance. A real spearhead doesn't weigh that much. The only problem would be if you were using it one -handed (though they made even that look plausible in Troy). In DnD terms I'd say if you had weapon proficiency with a spear you should be able to use it, at least based on the logic of actual combat and historical use. Of course, that is a big if, the rules aren't based on either of those so how you rule it is another matter entirley.

In the fechtbucher, it's common for all polearms to be used this way in fact, (a mix of quarter and half-staff guards) and also to lead with the queue or butt of the weapon rather than the business end. This is one of the reasons why most spear butts were pointed..

From Marozzo, holding a spear or partisan at half-staff



leading with the queue



EDIT: had to change images because angelfire is a bad website

Peter Falkner, pollaxes


Paulus Kal, pollaxes

Spoiler

Show

Goliath, spears




G

[Yora]

Naginata Championships often get pretty close up. Even considerably closer than kendo fight.

But then, these tournaments are about scoring points, not life and death or keeping all your limbs while there are people with sharp thing running around behind your back. Scoring systems are preferedly set to reflect lethal techniques, but still take that with a grain of salt.
Also, naginata are have sabre-shaped blades, which should make "scratching" the enemy with the tip probably more effective than with a thrusting spear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8J_IkuUbak
In this match, white uses the back end a lot. Didn't work out, but when you make it to the world finals it can't all bad.
At about 3:30 they get really close up and agressive.
At 4:15 gets a good opportunity to go for the head, by keeping reds attention to the floor.

I also noticed that red is often switching hands. Would that be common? I imagine with a sword that would requite a lot of training to get used to.

[rrgg]

The big issue in my experience is that people tend to greatly underestimate the amount of speed a spear has. With a longer weapon you are not only getting significantly more reach, but a ton of leverage as well meaning that the tip of a light spear could easily end up moving far faster than the tip of a dagger or even a bare hand could. It can still be caught of course but the pressure is really on for the person with the shorter weapon to find ways to outsmart the spearman. Simply flailing in circles as you chase after the tip A. generally won't work and B. makes you look pretty stupid.



The real advantage of a sword compared to so many other weapons is that you can put it in a scabbard, freeing your hands to do other things or wield something more useful. It was a good personal defense weapon, a skilled man with an arming sword could hold his own against almost anything else but there aren't many situations where the sword has an inherent advantage.

An important thing to keep in mind is that even during "violent" periods proper battlefield combat would have been extremely rare. Instead, even for someone like a knight the vast majority of actual fighting he was involved in over the course of his life would have been more akin to muggings or bar fights. And so, since he generally wouldn't want to be hauling a polearm around every time he went to the market or went on a trip just on the off chance that a fight brakes out (no, there is no evidence that they were ever strapped to the back either), the iconic image of the nobleman became the important-looking guy strolling around with a big ol' sword on his hip.

The role of the sword as a reactionary self-defense weapon is why, for instance, Samurai martial arts placed so much emphasis on the quick-draw.

[Galloglaich]

I also noticed that red is often switching hands. Would that be common? I imagine with a sword that would requite a lot of training to get used to.

That is basically what you learn to do in half-swording, especially in blossfechten where you don't normally wait in a half-sword guard, but transition into it when certain opportunities present themselves.

It's also what you do when you get a bind with a spear, you seize their weapon with one hand, while cutting them single-handed with the other. Hence the versatility of the 'hand-and-a-half' sword. The Germans called that Ubergreiffen..

G

[Essence_of_War]

I was wondering if anyone could direct me to some reading materials on modern stab-resistant vests/armor.

I'm familiar with how bullet-resistant vests/armor work. Basically, a tightly interwoven (and perhaps twisted, or resin coated!) net of light but strong fibers disperse the impact energy of a bullet over a wide area.

I'm also aware that, to some degree, the problem of "how to minimize damage from cuts/stabs" has been solved by mail, brigandine, etc.

Are there more efficient solutions using modern fibers? Or do modern stab resistant vests basically look like dressed up mail/brigandine?

[Tarinaky]

of leverage as well meaning that the tip of a light spear could easily end up moving far faster than the tip of a dagger

You've actually got your physics wrong. A longer lever will rotate slower under the same torque. Hence why ice skaters spin faster when they tuck their limbs in and slower when they splay out.

[fusilier]

And this is also where the weakness of the spear showed through in my own fencing experience, you can easily grab a spear haft from a bind.

I think it was in the plates of H. H. Angelo's mid-nineteenth century bayonet manual, that I saw this technique called for (i.e. grabbing the musket just behind the bayonet).

Those plates are at the bottom of this page:
http://www.thortrains.com/getright/drillbayang1.htm

[fusilier]

You've actually got your physics wrong. A longer lever will rotate slower under the same torque. Hence why ice skaters spin faster when they tuck their limbs in and slower when they splay out.

That assumes constant torque, instead of constant angular velocity. The limiting factor in this case may be the angular velocity that the human can impart, and not the torque?

[a_humble_lich]

That assumes constant torque, instead of constant angular velocity. The limiting factor in this case may be the angular velocity that the human can impart, and not the torque?

I was just going to say the same thing. I know there are many missile weapons (such as the sling or the Atlatl) that at least in part work by giving you more leverage. The speed you can throw a stone or spear in many cases is limited not by how much force you can generate but how fast you can move your hand.

[Galloglaich]

I think it was in the plates of H. H. Angelo's mid-nineteenth century bayonet manual, that I saw this technique called for (i.e. grabbing the musket just behind the bayonet).

Those plates are at the bottom of this page:
http://www.thortrains.com/getright/drillbayang1.htm

ah yes... a bit harder with a saber than a longsword but essentially the same principle.

I see he also has a counter for the bayonett wielder. :P

G