Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

msnplanner t1_j1e4d5r wrote

Reply to comment by DaFuMiquel in How did the Romans manage to arm most of their soldiers with swords? by Horror_in_Vacuum

"a long stick is kinda intuitive". People train for years to master spears in traditional martial arts. Skill levels equal, a man with a spear will eat alive a man with a sword.

If you are talking about massed spears then you might be right that it doesn't take as much training. I've never been in a massed spear formation, so i can't really say. I imagine a good deal of training is needed to have a maneuverable formation with them.

If we are comparing apples to apples, an army equipped primarily with swords is using them in a packed formation close to the enemy. They are stabbing utilities. How is that "trickier" than stabbing with a spear? If anything, I would imagine executing maneuvers would be less tricky. Which is probably a big reasons Romans favored swords. They sacrificed range, for better maneuverability.

1

Dragev_ t1_j1hpqqh wrote

I have been in small spear formations for sparring bouts (viking era skirmishing but a spear is a spear) and they are indeed very efficient even with little to no training. The same goes for one-on-one btw, a spearman with little experience can still beat a seasoned swordsman quite often.

Edit; to clarify, I mean a swordsman with a longsword or a viking-type sword and round shield. I presume the big roman shield that covers almost the entire body would be much more advantageous.

2