03-09-2009, 04:11 PM
I guess this question comes down to, what is being asked, what is the primary weapon used to take the field, or hold and defend the field? Except primarily for the Greeks, the spear never won the field. As far as a force on the offensive fighting toe to toe with the enemy, armies didn’t go into battle with the idea of fighting hand to hand and not using the sword.
If the purpose of the battle line is defensive however, then the spear may be the right choice if you can hold back the enemy and have them run. Through the ages, one of the most decisive weapons was the commander in charge who knew how to do the right tactic, attack flank, rear attack, feign retreat then charge with reinforcement etc. at the right moment and cause the enemy to flee. There are accounts throughout time of a larger army loosing because the line broke and men ran, when in other battles, fewer men held their ground and won the day. If you are planning on winning a battle with tactics, and don’t plan on the lines fighting toe to toe until one is destroyed, then the spear may work just fine.
Except for the Greeks, if there were two armies, both veterans that won’t run, one equipped only with the sword, and one only with the spear, and both were intent on destroying the other, then the army with swords would win. But, battles weren’t always that simple, in the later days of the eastern empire, too many roman battles were lost against enemy cavalry charges where the line broke and men ran. The Romans didn’t have the caliber of soldiers that they had before, and in that case, if you know men may run, its easier to have them stand with a long spear and hold their ground then hope they’ll stand with a short sword (in comparison to a spear).
So again, I guess this all come down to what’s being asked. There are many answers, depending on what you’re looking for, but in my opinion, (lets say the 3th or 4th bc on) with experienced soldiers, the sword was the primary weapon used for winning the field until gun powder.
If the purpose of the battle line is defensive however, then the spear may be the right choice if you can hold back the enemy and have them run. Through the ages, one of the most decisive weapons was the commander in charge who knew how to do the right tactic, attack flank, rear attack, feign retreat then charge with reinforcement etc. at the right moment and cause the enemy to flee. There are accounts throughout time of a larger army loosing because the line broke and men ran, when in other battles, fewer men held their ground and won the day. If you are planning on winning a battle with tactics, and don’t plan on the lines fighting toe to toe until one is destroyed, then the spear may work just fine.
Except for the Greeks, if there were two armies, both veterans that won’t run, one equipped only with the sword, and one only with the spear, and both were intent on destroying the other, then the army with swords would win. But, battles weren’t always that simple, in the later days of the eastern empire, too many roman battles were lost against enemy cavalry charges where the line broke and men ran. The Romans didn’t have the caliber of soldiers that they had before, and in that case, if you know men may run, its easier to have them stand with a long spear and hold their ground then hope they’ll stand with a short sword (in comparison to a spear).
So again, I guess this all come down to what’s being asked. There are many answers, depending on what you’re looking for, but in my opinion, (lets say the 3th or 4th bc on) with experienced soldiers, the sword was the primary weapon used for winning the field until gun powder.
Steve
