Stick + Metal = Spear

Push the pointy ends into the squishy bitz.

>>3927045
I disagree. Long stick - over two metres long with SHARPENED END = spear. Metal is not required.

Or throw it, or trip your foes with it, or plant it in the ground to ward off a cavalry charge, or hold it stiff against you as you run into your foe or have your horse do it for you. Really, it's a very flexible weapon for killing things.

Blunt end in the ground, sharp end in the horse?

>>3927088
No, other way around.

Spears suck in close range.

>>3927104
No, then they become quarter staffs

It depends on the spear in question...the old Greek spears used to have a lighter copper spearhead in the back of them in case the primary one broke, as well as to serve as a counterweight.

for the short ones 1-2m like qurterstaffs or Bo Sticks with a pointy end, you can also throw them. the Longer variants are only usable as Phalanx (Blunt end into soil, pointy end towards charging enemy)

How do spears work? They work aweome.

Spears are decent in D20 3.5, being usable as melee or throwable. Spears are REALLY deadly in low-end games of GURPS, due to the game giving you over 9000 different ways to use them, and because collision damage is so deadly in that system...nothing says pwnage than driving a spear by motorcycle into an opponent's eye.

The pointy end goes in the other man.

>>3927176
A thrown spear is a javelin.

You have your inventory full of them, and when you meet an ogre you throw them at it until it dies, so it can't hit you in melee with a giant spiked club when you run out of mana casting magic missile.

>>3927104

If the spear is longer than, say, six feet, yes. Otherwise, NO NO NO AND NO.

>>3927176
Oh my god, that is one hell of a mental image.

>>3927125
> as well as to serve as a counterweight.

And to finish off wounded foes trampled underfoot.

image is of relevant book, Western Way of War. Dude later served as a consultant for 300.

>>3927190

Wrong. You can still throw a spear, but it isn't made for that. Javelins are specifically made and balanced for throwing, which is why they have a longer range increment in D&D 3.5 than spears.

>>3927198
How about with a naginata?

>>3927250
Spears are cheap, don't require much training or technology, and are good or at least adequate in several roles and ranges. From skirmish or solo combat to closed heavy formations to throwing and more.

Now accepting character sheets for:

GURPS: Motorcycle Jousting

>>3927104
Well everything is a battle of distance and ranges. Especially the spear. If you suck enough to have lost that advantage your best bet is to drop it and draw your shortsword.

>>3927176

Spears are even better in 4e D&D, as they can be used one-handed. They're Versatile, so you deal an extra 1 damage when you use them two-handed.

They don't have reach, though; you get that with the longspear and greatspear.

>>3927288
Nothing's better in 4e.

>>3927261

Well, naginata aren't a thrusting polearm; the blade only has a single edge, IIRC. Hell, they're not technically a polearm at all, they're a long-handled sword. Seems like -- and really is -- splitting hairs, but a polearm is usually affixed to the haft with a socket, whereas naginata and other long-handled swords have a tang that extends into the hilt.

Anyway, my point is that it might be difficult to use naginata on a motorcycle. You pretty much need two hands to swing one, which won't really work with a motorcycle like it could with a horse. You're also going to be slashing with the naginata in wide arcs, instead of thrusting it into shit. I dunno, you might be able to do some awesome drive-by decapitations, but doign this one-handed is gonna be a pain.

Point pointy end toward boar.

Catch dinner.

>>3927297
How are halberds in the various editions of DnD? Because if I get into DND I'm using NOTHING but a halberd.

>>3927288
"greatspear"? is that what kids call pikes these days?

>awesome drive-by decapitations
Yeah, that was pretty much the idea. I can't be arsed to worry about realism right now.

I had a character based on motorcycle jousting years ago

best Toreador antitribu

>>3927338

Halberds are pretty awesome, too. They belong to both the Axe and Polearm groups. As such, they have Reach, like all other Polearms. You can use Axe- or Polearm-centric feats and powers with them. So, while a halberd lacks High Crit like the Greataxe, you can take the Deadly Axe feat to apply High Crit to all axes, and can also take the Polearm Gambit feat to hit things that move adjacent to you from two squares away (you grant combat advantage for this, though).

Polearms are awesome for fighters. The ability to attack and mark shit you wouldn't ordinarily be able to reach is awesome, and at paragon tier you can take Polearm Gambit to keep enemies from approaching you using your opportunity attacks. It's pretty much the best group-defense fighter you can make, actually.

>>3927338
3.5: halberds are not reach weapons (I know, it's stupid). They do an excellent 1d10 damage, either slashing or piercing. Like a spear, it can be readied against a charge for double damage. It is also a special tripping weapon, allowing you to drop it if your trip attempt fails and your opponent takes the opportunity to try to throw you down.

4e: haven't played 4e yet. My group is close-minded as fuck.

>>3927338
Original edition Chainmail, OD&D w/ vs. armor modifiers ala Chainmail, or AD&D1E distinguish between halberds, other polearms and other weapons. I don't think Basic / Classic D&D really distinguished much. Same with AD&D2E on (unless there was something in the Combat Options book).

Or just add bits from Arms Law (from ICE and part of Rolemaster but earlier editions were addons to other rpgs).

Or try out Metagaming's old Melee game that led to GURPS (esp. GURPS Advanced Combat).

>>3927388
>>3927418
I really appreciate your help guys. Thanks for taking time out of your day to answer my questions.

It seems like a halberd is seen as a really defensive weapon. I have not picked up a corebook yet, but the fighter I have outlined in my head would try to get some very good bulky plate armor as soon as possible, and act sort of like a Berserker with a halberd.

Is this idea effective at all? I don't want to min max, but I want to be able to slay some shit.

>>3927444
Guess that depends on what you mean by defensive. They were used in the corners of pike blocks and broke up formations during the "push of pike" phase. That's pretty aggressive IMO. They could chop, block, speak, etc. and with a tighter arc than a spear while still having about the same length as a shorter spear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_of_pike

Somebody say something about spears...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdKiPOkh0K8

>>3927470
I'm not talking historically, I'm talking about the game mechanics. It just seems like my idea of being an armored halberd berserker might not pan out too well in game terms.

>>3927470
And before the widespread use of pikes in the late medieval period, people like the Swiss fielded whole units of halberders. They're a direct inspiration for the Empire Halberd units in Warhammer Fantasy Battles.

For a free good introduction to early Bronze Age to 1500AD warfare and how troop types did against each other, check out DBA Online:
http://www.dbaol.com/

>>3927503
Thanks, I appreciate it.

So what other sytems (be they RPG or 28mm sale wargame ala warhammer) out there actually make polearms decent as they should be /tg/?

After all, they even suck somewhat in warhammer, where halberds are just +1 strength and spears are an extra rank of attacks yet are both outclasses by swords&shields by game mechanics.
And specifically 28mm scale games as smaller scale's I've found focus a hell of a lot less on the weapon types of a unit and more on organization/morale/maneuvering.

>>3927503
>>3927530

The halberd is a cool fuckin weapon.

>>3927485

Well, halberds are Axes, and a lot of the fighter's Axe powers seem to have a very berserker-ish feel to them, IMO. They're all about cleaving through armour and bone like a hot knife through butter. The Deadly Axe feat at paragon tier makes this obvious. Critical hits in 4e usually only deal maximum damage, so critting on any weapon-based power with a halberd would give you 10 damage (from the halberd's d10) plus Strength mod plus any other damage mods (buffs, enhancement, etc.) The High Crit weapon property allows you to apply additional weapon-damage die to a critical hit. One at heroic tier, two at paragon tier, three at epic. These die are rolled normally, not maximised by the critical. Deadly Axe allows you to apply the High Crit property to any Axe, including halberds.

So, if you're looking to do massive damage with polearms, halberds are where it's at.

Another thing you might want to look into, is playing a Battlerager fighter from Martial Power. Powers geared towards the Battlerager all focus on Axes, Maces, Hammers, and I think Picks for dealing extra damage based on your Con mod; many of these powers also have the Invogorating keyword, giving you temporary HP equal to your Con mod when you hit with them. The Battlerager Vigour class feature allows you to stack HP from Invigorating powers indefinitely, unlike other temp HP. Also, you can get a damage bonus when wearing chain or lighter, but it's small enough that sacrificing that for plate armour is a fair trade, if not better. The downside is your accuracy won't be as good as another fighter with a sword, say, both because the weapons you use have a +2 proficiency bonus instead of +3, and because you lack the PHB fighters' +1 attack with one-handed/two-handed weapons. Still, if you want to be Lu Bu, a Battlerager with a halberd would probably tear up battlefields well enough.

>>3927586After all, they even suck somewhat in warhammer, where halberds are just +1 strength and spears are an extra rank of attacks yet are both outclasses by swords&shields by game mechanics.

halberds in warhammer are great in the hands of elite troops like elves and chaos warriors

>>3927063

Under that logic then my penis is a spear.

>>3927479
Better fight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXQBpc8aRt4&feature=related

>>3927485
You could do it pretty well. You'd probably want to stick to medium armor though, such as a breastplate. You could use a feat to get heavy armor but you'd lose the fast movement class feature.

>>3927746
The problem is that Warhammer cares more about static CR than actually killing crap. As such, it's far easier to simply use a MSU detachment of swords to flank an enemy while it's already pinned in combat by your big unit of swords. Of course the exception is stubborn units, which simply refuse to die.

>>3927742
It seems like that would require a big dedication to constitution, I was looking more for a high strengh/charisma character, but I could balance the con/strengh/charisma. Dexterity and wisdom would be a dump stat for RP reasons.

I'm actually okay with never hitting anything, as long as I look cool in my plate and halberd while doing it, and I do some nice damage when it does connect.

>>3927831

It doesn't take quite as much Con as you might think. Really, the only two stats a fighter needs to focus on is Strength and Wisdom: Strength for all of your attack rolls, and Wisdom for your Will defense (highly important!) as well as opportunity attacks. Everything else is gravy.

Unfortunately, though, I'm not sure there's much for Charisma fighters in 4e. If you can play 3.5e instead, you might want to look into a halberd-wielding Barbarian. There's some feat, Terrifying Rage or something, that allows you to Fear enemies while you're raging. If you're really set on 4e, though, there might be a few paragon paths that allow you to use Charisma. One sec.

>>3927746

Spears in unit of Sauruses, or ANY core choice with more than 1 attack are well worth the 1pt per model they cost IMO.
Normally, you'd be doubling your attacks on the first round of combat at least (assuming you have at least 1 extra rank), which for 1 pt is a damn sight cheaper than 2 CCW.
Now factor in the extra attacks (Saurus Warriors have 2) So that one point isn't just paying for 1 extra attack, it's now paying for 2. You normally have to pay like 20pts for a magic item to do that.
Again it's all dependant on having that second rank, but still... a unit of 30 Sauruses (Saurusi, Saurus'? What is the plural of these things?) in 3 ranks of 10 will attack 20 times on the charge with normal CCW's.
Give them Spears, they now attack *40* times on the charge, at WS 3 and Str 4. That's a LOT of dice.

The last time I saw that many dice rolled all at once, I was on the wrong end of a Dire Avenger Bladestorm.

>>3927988
Like I said I have not read a corebook yet.

I just know a few people and from the way you guys talk about it I think it's something I could get into.

>>3927988

Continued.

I thought the Pit Fighter paragon path in the 4e PHB was Str/Cha based, since it gets a fear attack, but it turns out that its fear is Str-based, not Cha. However, the Avenging Slayer paragon path lets you deal additional damage to enemies equal to your Cha mod when they're bloodied and granting you combat advantage. Also, look into powers with the Rattling keyword in Martial Power. They come with a fear-like effect that hits enemies with -2 to all attack rolls until the end of your next turn, and you need to be trained in Intimidate (Cha-based skill) to get this bonus. Combine this with the -2 to all attack rolls against everyone other than you from your Combat Challenge, and maybe throw in Polearm Gambit if you can, and you can be a really aggressive group-defense dude. Take an Invigourating at-will from Martial Power and Battlerager Vigour, and you can stack temp HP. (Although making use of the Invigourating keyword takes training in Endurance.)

Another thing you can look into is multiclassing Warlord, and maybe swapping out some fighter powers for those geared towards the Str/Cha Inspiring warlord. You can do this and keep Battlerager Vigour. Consider paragon multiclassing into Warlord.

>>3928104
>warlord

I like the way that sounds, I'm guessing they can lead minions of some sort? Also,

>group-defense

That sounds kind of like the exact opposite of what I want, I want to be the guy leading the suicidal charge, and maybe the diplomat of the group if I can get away with it.

At what length does a spear become a pike?

hat's it. I'm sick of all this "Masterwork Javelin" bullshit that's going on in the d20 system right now. Paleolithic spear drivers deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.

I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine rock from a museum for 2,400,000 Euros (2,300 000 fine for stealing, 1 99 950 euros for breaking windows, alarm system and other things and 50 for bribing a guy in prison so he would look the other way while I was picking up the soap) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even smash blocks of solid steel with my spear driver.

Paleolithic age hunters spend hours working on a single spear driver and cut it up to a million times to produce the deadliest wooden weapons known to mankind.

spear drivers are thrice as powerful as common javelins and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a javelin can smash through, a spear driver can break through better. I'm pretty sure such spear driver could easily break a knight wearing full plate in two with a throw.

Ever wonder why medieval Europeans never bothered conquering Paleolithic Europe? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined hunters and their deadly spear drivers. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the men with the spear drivers first because their killing power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? spear driversare simply the deadliest weapons that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for rocks:

(Superior ranged Weapon)
2d12 base damage
+5 proficiency bonus
+3 universal familiarity bonus
High crit, off-hand, reach, spec. thrown (+5 To-Hit bonus), versatile

Now that seems a lot more representative of raw power of Spear drivers in real life, don't you think?

tl;dr = Rocks need to do more damage in d20 system, see my new stat block.

>>3927044

Depends on the spear, etc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3A8LCaRuxU

>>3928153

If by "minions" you mean "the rest of your party", then yeah. The warlord pretty much leads from the front, getting right into combat and smashing faces while granting bonuses to other party members. Some powers just give attack or damage bonuses, others allow allies to move a few squares on your turn, others let you make openings for them to attack on your turn. Overall, the warlord is probably the coolest class in 4e, and their focus on melee combat makes them a great multiclass option for fighters.

As for group defense, if you're a fighter, the best way to protect your party is by charging right into the thick of it. Your Combat Superiority class feature allows you to stop enemy movement on opportunity attacks, which they'll provoke when they try to move out of your threatened area. Also, you get more than just one OA per round; you get one per combatant's turn. So, let's say you threaten eight enemies all around you. On their turns, they all try to move past you to your less-defended party members. You take opportunity attacks when they do, and whenever you hit with them, you cancel their movement completely. If you can hit accurately enough, they're pretty much forced to engage you. And this isn't even getting into your Combat Challenge: Any adjacent enemy that shifts (moves one square, sometimes more with powers, to avoid OAs) or makes an attack that doesn't include you leaves themselves open to a free melee basic attack. You can't cancel their movement with this, but it's still going to hurt.

>>3928162
19 feet.

>>3928343

Thanks.

>>3927768

He means in 4e.

>>3928305
What the fuck?

>>3928343
What? Most pikes didn't even exceed 16 feet in length, 18 being the recommended length, and many only had 14 foot long pikes through either cutting them down for being easier to travel with or being earlier on in the main era of pikes (note I'm not referring to the greek ones, but the pike as it came to dominate european warfare in the late 15th century onwards).

>>3927044
the whole point of a tactical engage ment is to hit the enemy without him hitting you.

having a weapon with a longer range gives you stand off capability, and puts the enemy at a disadvantage. (also why archers and harchers are so great)

Spears are a poor weapon for individuals, but a great weapon for armies. Life is weird like that.

>>3928622

Learn 2 martial arts.

>>3928679
sure is hard to stop a wooden pole with your bare hands

>>3928622
Actually they're pretty great for individuals too. The speed, reach and versatility combine to be pretty useful when you have room to maneuver on your own.

Reach is undervalued in most games, but then its hard to simulate. If a person can't get to hitting you without putting them self at high risk of being hit, then the guy with the longer weapon has a distinct advantage. This works in armies oddly less than it does with individuals, as with many people working together its easier to close the distance, which is why most combats after the initial clash turned into brawling knife-fights as units pushed together.

Also, in individual combat, theres usually room to step back away from an opponent or attempt to come in at another angle, which works to spear-user's advantage greatly, as they should really be on the offense and pushing back their opponent and forcing them to make mistakes, rather than just standing there and waiting for their opponent to come to them, as is a common misconception.

tl:dr Spears are great in single combat, especially if your opponent is using something shorter and you have room to move.

>>3928734
*fake*
*fake*
*fake*
*fake*
*fake*
*fake*
*fake*
*fake*
*fake*
*DOINK*

>>3928734
>sure is hard to stop a woodOH JESUS MY HAND IS BROKEN

>>3928734
Actually it's pretty fucking hard to stop a long pointy stick when it's stabbing and cutting the shit out of you. There are a multitude of reasons spears saw continuous use from prehistory through to the bayonet.

Gauntlets, bros. Shields too.

>>3928766
>>3928679

No.

Spears are poor weapons in personal combat. There are dozens of better weapons you could put in your hand. Giving ground in personal combat is hard and, believe it or not, unlikely to work if someone has crossed the reach of your spear.

There are very few ways to use a spear. It's difficult to surprise someone when all your options are variants of thrusting or trying to use it as a staff.

Your assertion that a spear is less useful in massed combat then individual is moronic. In a disciplined formation a spear's weaknesses are eliminated and the strengths are emphasized. The battlefields of the western world were dominated by pikemen for hundreds of years for a reason. In antiquity the phalanx dominated the battlefield.

Generally using a spear/pike/etc against a single person is suicide if they know anything about anything.

It's just too easy to reflect them. And then you're fucked.

>>3928847

Anything worth killing is worth bringing several buddies along. I think we all understand that there isn't a perfect weapon, including the spear.

The spear is best used as a pike (basically a long ass spear) used with infantry. They are especially good at cover as they can harry any sort of assault, defensive or offensive. Extremely well paired with foot-crossbowmen. The crossbowmen are usually at a defensive disadvantage due to the necessity to reload however with a defensive pike formation backing them up the combined formation of soldiers is a solid and formidable foe both to mount and foot

In other words, spear work good.

>>3928873

A pretty solid point. Weapons = tools. Ever see how many different types of hammer there are? Same thing here.

>>3928814
hell its pretty hard to stop someone with a short blunt stick (baseball bat for instance) when they're trying to kill you with it and you're unarmed, let alone a long one with a sharp end.

>>3928831
Gauntlets will still let you enjoy the fun of broken hands from the force of the blows hitting it should they guy with the stick not just beat you in the head, which, armoured or not, is just not fun.
Shields alone will get beaten down as its damn tiring to keep one held up, especially when someone is beating on it repeatedly. But if they're beating on it repeatedly rather than being smart and getting you to make mistakes (classic stab high/stab in the shin/foot for instance) then you should be pushing in past and killing them.

Best option is to not be there or kill them before they start trying to kill you. but life rarely gives you the best option, so its down to training and adapting to the situation and stopping them hitting you at all, or running like fuck for being unprepared or ill-equipped for that situation.

In personal combat, a good, short but solid blunt weapon is your best bet. In modern day, crowbars and iron pipes work nicely as improvise weapons.

>>3928912
So don't allow them to keep beating you up. Tackle them with your shield and beat them to death with your weapon of choice while they're crushed under you.
Why would you keep in five foot range of a spear with your 2~3 foot weapon?
Alt, archers on horseback.

in 1v1 combat you know you wana go with the quarterstaff, speed and reach baby, speed and reach.

also, torque.

>>3928965
Don't mind me while I push it out of the way, then impale you.

>>3928847 Your assertion that a spear is less useful in massed combat then individual is moronic.

That was not the assertion, only that combat in formations works differently to when operating as an individual, and that the options of personally maneuvering are far more limited when in formations, so that its easier for a mass of people to close the distance than it would be in an individual on individual situation, where you don't get a bunch of people helping out with doing so.

>>3928847
>In antiquity the phalanx dominated the battlefield.
...for a while, here and there.

The Romans, for instance, beat the phalanx with cheap iron short-swords and darts, and a loose formation.

In the Renaissance, sword-and-buckler fighters were sometimes used as a counter to pike formations.

War changed constantly with new tactics and new weapons and armor appearing all the time. There were counters and counters to counters.

Spears have their strengths and their weaknesses. More than any other reason, they've probably appeared over and over again because they're cheap and simple to use. Costs and training requirements are important factors.

>>3928932
>In personal combat, a good, short but solid blunt weapon is your best bet.
Why the fuck would you want it to be blunt?

People who knew what they were doing usually chose swords when it came to duelling, for a reason.

>>3928734

No, I think it was referring to spears being used by individuals in martial arts to great effect.

>>3929006
Swords were preferred for one reason: Because they were an elegant status symbol.

>>3929028
I, admittedly, know jack shit about spear using martial arts, but damn does it look cool.

>>3928847
>Your assertion that a spear is less useful in massed combat then individual is moronic

Indeed, yet nobody made that assertion.

Also, by your standards, ANY weapon is limited in personal combat. The sword is doing nothing but STAB AND CUT, and has only one real set of motions, while the spear has two.

>>3928868

Fast, poking stabs. Knock it away once...oh, look, they're already stabbing again. And keeping you back out of range. And if you miss that point is going right into your chest or shoulder or throat. Oh, and almost anyone can do this.

>>3929033
>Swords were preferred for one reason: Because they were an elegant status symbol.
Swords became a status symbol because so many successful warriors rose to greatness carrying them, not the other way around.

>>3928950

Because coming closer gets you stabbed all to shit.

>>3929060

Swords became a status symbol because they took time and effort to make, so only the rich could afford them. Nobles used swords, it's just that simple. Most "great" warriors of the time period were either great DUELISTS, or mythological. Even in myth, the "commoner" spear still had some of the best shit. Gae Bolg, anyone? Or Gungnir?

>>3928981
>The Romans, for instance, beat the phalanx with cheap iron short-swords and darts, and a loose formation.

By picking their terrain well. The Romans were SMART, their troops were as much engineers as soldiers.

Which is why Lookshy, being Exalted's version of Rome, is the greatest city-state ever.

>>3929067
Once more: shield. Center the shield, turn the spear to your side, charge.

>>3929056
>Fast, poking stabs. Knock it away once...oh, look, they're already stabbing again.
The longer and heavier the spear, the slower it stabs.

Due to having most of their weight at the tips, spears have a lot of angular momentum. This actually helps a lot with precision thrusting, but it makes it slow to bring the point to bear when it has been knocked aside.

Compare to a good fencing sword, where the blade is feather light at the tip and the angular momentum is very small. Even when the point is knocked to the side, it can be brought back on guard quickly, and with a cutting edge, the act of bringing the sword back to bear can be an attack in itself.

Spears are good at powerful, precise thrusting, but they aren't very agile or versatile in a duel.

>>3929107

Spear-user moves to the side to avoid your charge, thrusting the butt of his spear into the back of your head in passing. Hope you're wearing a helmet.

Or if he sees the charge coming, he'll just swing the spear at your legs to trip you. Advantage goes to him.

Fuck off Spearfags. This is the best weapon!

>>3929060
Primarily its because they requite a significant amount of good quality steel, worked by an experienced smith if they're going to be good. To contrast, Polearms can pretty much be turned out by almost any old blacksmith (and by some really craply made examples we have, were at times) with lower quality metal and still be of use.
Swords suffer greatly from crap quality metal and craftsmanship, compare a cheep 100$ katana wallhanger to a 1000$ reproduction. One is likely to snap if you hit someone with it, the other is only likely to snap if you hit someone where they are wearing metal armour with it and you use a hell of a lot of force in doing so.
And since resources were expensive and time not back in them thar days, a good sword would cost a lot, and thus be a good status symbol, showing you can throw money at whats mostly a good sidearm.

>>3929122

Depends a whole bunch on how long and heavy the spear is, like you said. No one would try to use a pike in personal combat; the damn things were heavier than bihaenders and claymores, ffs. Even some of the longer, non-pike spears would do poorly in personal combat. A spear of about six to seven feet in length, wielded two-handed? It'll do just fine, assuming the opponent isn't wearing heavy armour.

And then if they ARE wearing armour, just put an axe blade or hammer head below the thrusting blade, for a halberd or lucern hammer, respectively. These things were great armour breakers.

>>3929079
>Swords became a status symbol because they took time and effort to make, so only the rich could afford them. Nobles used swords, it's just that simple.
No, it is not "just that simple" that people wasted their money on an inferior weapon because they were expensive.

That is fucking stupid.

And not all swords were expensive. Look at the gladius: cheap mass-produced wrought iron, issued to common soldiers. Used in battle to defeat phalanx tactics.

Your theories of the history of weapons are bad and you should feel bad.

>>3929125
So good even the samurai carried Yari into battle as their primary weapon (when not a bow).

>No, it is not "just that simple" that people wasted their money on an inferior weapon because they were expensive.

Why not? People do that with vehicles all the time.

>>3929125
Kriss was here. Sword is compensating.

If I learned one thing from Seven Samurai, it's that you can defeat any foe with enough pointy sticks.

>>3929107

A spear takes a lot less effort to go "stab stab stab" up and down at your face and stomach and shins, forcing you to move that shield all over, while the guy with the spear abuses his reach to do a merry little dance in a circle around you, preventing a proper charge. Oh, and if you do charge, he can sidestep in the direction of your shield, which will hinder your sword's range of motion, and get you from behind.

>>3929123
....you seriously think that a stick can trip a charging armored soldier?
It thuds against a shin plate. If you sidestepped to his right, you get bisected. To the left, he blocks it or stomps on it, and you're still fucked.

>>3929161
NOt all swords are. but good swords are.
the romans also had many things working for them like huge shields and lots of training and discipline, and even the romans used spears too. The gladius gets away with being cheep as its small for a sword and simple in design (until you start getting to the fancy ones for officers, quite like the katzbalgers used by landsknect pikemen co-incidentally).

>>3928981
Additionally, in a head-on battle the phalanx was in the right conditions superior to a legion; the initial stages of Pydna where the Romans were repulsed prove this. However, by pursuing into difficult terrain, the Antigonid phalanxes lost cohesion...additionally the phalanx was designed to be used as an anvil for cavalry to deliver a killing blow, which is good when the cavalry does arrive but when your king pussies out and runs away...you're pretty fucked.

>>3929122

You ever see a martial arts spear? They've got flexible hafts for a reason, it's incredibly easy to bring that point right back in, and jabbing is such a short, quick motion that it takes virtually no effort.

>>3929193
If the charging soldier is competent he'll half-crouch and keep damn near all his body blocked with his shield. All a good shield fighter has to do is turn it.
And if the spearman keeps dancing about you break his weapon.

>>3929213
How're you going to bring it back to place when it's by his leg and he's already inside your effective range?

>>3929198

Because you have to severely injure someone's leg to trip them, right? All it takes for someone to go down is a mis-step. Just knock their foot around, they'll lose their balance and fall. Especially if they're holding a shield, since they can't use their off-hand to help them balance.

Hell, you don't even need a weapon to trip anyone. Just get in close, and sweep your leg through theirs. They'll go down. And armour won't keep them from falling.

>>3929179
I chuckled.

>>3929198 ....you seriously think that a stick can trip a charging armored soldier?

Dunno about him but I do, I've seen it happen many times. Try to avoid it happening cos falling over in armour freakin' hurts, and thats not even with the pain of someone taking advantage of your fallen ass to finish you off for real.

Just sayin' cos a bunch of us here actually take part in SCA/battle-reenactments/western martial arts as well as playing games or researching history. Little bit of practical experience goes a long way at times.

>>3929224

Charging while crouching? Are you shitting me? You'd need wheels on your ass.

>>3929212
Hannibal and Pyrrhus used phalanxes to defeat the Romans on several occasions. The Legion was not necessarily superior, its simply that Greek successor states had few great generals who could use it properly, while the Romans had many great commanders.

The legion was definitely more flexible though, the Phalanx requires cavalry and skirmishers to support it.

>>3929264

Oh, and this isn't even getting into the fact that spear vs. sword+armour isn't an even match anyway, because the spear will have a tough time thrusting through armour.

If I'm going up against an armoured opponent, I'll be using a pollax or lucern hammer, as they were made for breaking armour. As a bonus, they have flukes on the back of the heads, which are made for tripping and grappling. They're better at it than a spear is.

>>3927329


A naginata is a polearm. Its pretty much just a glaive, the only difference is in the mounting, and even then, there are exceptions that would allow you to argue that there isn't any difference outside of the name. Also wouldn't say they're primarily a slashing weapon either, since the naginatajutsu ryu I do has soujutsu and they slash with those too.

>>3929263

Lol, SCA. Fail.

>>3929298

Actually, Europeans stuck with heavier spears *because* they were better able to deal with armor.

>>3929149
>A spear of about six to seven feet in length, wielded two-handed? It'll do just fine,
...right up until your sword-wielding opponent parries one of your thrusts, grabs your spear behind the point, and cuts you up.

That is seriously a major disadvantage of the spear. It is a thrusting weapon that the enemy can grab.

If it's spear alone vs. sword and shield, the spearman has only offense, while the swordsman has both offense and defense. The swordsman has the advantage.

If it's spear and shield vs. sword and shield, the versatility and quickness of the sword will tell. If the spear-point is knocked aside, it will be slow to bring back to bear.

If it's spear alone vs. sword alone, the swordsman can control and pass the spear point, and again the swordsman has the advantage.

When you consider how consistently cheaper the spear always was, you've got to realize that people splashed out for relatively costly swords for a good reason.

If you're going to duel against a man with a sword, you're probably better off with a plain staff. You lose the quick lethality of steel, but now you have the unambiguous advantages of speed and reach, and it's not feasible for anyone to catch a staff when you're striking hard blows.

A good spear might serve as a staff, but the extra weight of the point and butt would not be your friends. Agility is key in a duelling weapon.

Is this /k/?

>>3929347
There's semi intelligent discussion about weapons that aren't guns. So no.

>>3929332


The sword was considered to be just a sidearm for a reason. Historical records and archaeological sites show it all the time. More people were killed by arrows, spears, and knives (in that order) on damn near every battlefield.

>>3929437
Because all were cheap weapons that you can hand to a bunch of levied peasants and have them fight a bunch of other levied peasant with, you guessed it, spears.

There was a reason the elite troops usually fought with axes/swords. They killed infantry better.

>>3929488
Peasants also came in greater numbers than elites/nobles, if my first post wasn't clear.

>>3929332
the whole 'grabbing the spear' is actually a pretty bad idea and rather a rare event. Even if its been deflected first so you're not trying catch it whilst avoiding the sharp point cutting your fingers apart, the spearman still has options. if he's in a group, he can just let you have it, or get into a tugging match, either way you've just left yourself open to the guys next to him, and are in a very bad position, even if you do injure your original target. Even on his own he can thrust or yank on it to put the grabber off balance, drop it, go to a backup weapon or run like fuck now he's free of the spear.
Spears are also pretty good at parrying when held with both hands, and if in not both hands you should damn well have a shield for doing that in your would-be-free hand.

Counters upon counter upon counters until someone is dead or running.

On the staff issue, a good staff acts like a spear, you really don't want to be hit in the face by a staff thrust even without the point. Spear points really don't weight much either, and barely hinder the mobility of the pole. A spear is in effect a more directly lethal staff, with adding cutting rather than just crushing.

>>3929437

You'd be right.. uh.. other then the battles of the Roman Legions and every battle in the early modern period when broken armies were harried by Calvary to keep them from reconstituting, and most nautical battles in the age of sail. And pretty much every mounted force past the invention of the stirrup.

Swords are a great weapon in personal combat and as a weapon for a mounted solder to strike down on someone. It's not a huge role, and not the biggest in war. The Romans used them because they offered a considerable improvement over spears when using well equipped and disciplined heavy infantry. (Not that the Romans were above using spears.)

>>3929538
Eh, with a spear in single combat, you only have to sidestep it, close in and kill the person holding a now useless weapon*. Pikemen were slaughtered by men with -muskets with bayonets fixed- when there formations broke. An extream example, admittedly, but one that serves to remind you that the only way to employ a spear in combat is to have a dozen well disciplined friends with the same weapon.

*Spears are easy to parry, and once one thrust has failed it's nearly impossible to ready it for another attack. Believe it or not, people move more quickly forward then in reverse, and getting away from a charge by backing up is not possible.

>>3929575

Unless he whacks you in the ribs/head?

>>3929575
>>3929546
>>3929538
eh, fuckit

All of your arguments are ignoring a very important fact. The battles you cite were not conducted in fucking tunnels, underground. Having no flanking opportunities drastically reduces the effectiveness of getting out of the way.

>>3929575

>>with a spear in single combat, you only have to sidestep it, close in and kill the person holding a now useless weapon

You'd think that, but the first thing that my teacher taught me?

As you stab, start to pull back.

The stab will finish, you won't get your spear stuck in someone, and you are now ready for another strike.

Against untrained peasants, that might work, but there's a reason the spear was the longest used weapon in war. Pic related.

>>3929597
Wacks you in the head with something with all the lethality of a broom handle? I think you get a nasty bruise, and he gets dead. You can still call that a win.

>>3929629

You've...never been hit in the head with a spear, have you?

>>3929626
Your teacher taught you to strike with zero follow though? Great teacher.

Spears were used because they are cheap, simple, require minimal training and were great weapons when employed in massed groups. In single combat, your best bet is to drop it and run away.

>>3929629
yeah because you would never flinch from a broom handle?

>>3929629

If you've ever watched isshi-jiai or watched any of the ARMA guys go at it, the guy with the spear usually wins. Grabbing a polearm is also a very, very bad idea since it opens you up to getting shanked with a knife. IIRC George Silver mentioned quite a few things along these lines in his books, among what he mentioned was some commentary on how someone who was mediocre with a glaive or spear would usually win in a duel against a good or decent swordsman.


Also, not all spears are the 8 ft long monstrosities you usually think of, iirc the average guard etc. had a spear that was only about 5-6 ft long.

>>3929642
>>3929662

Someone trying to kill you isn't going to stop because you managed to land a wack with the middle of a spear. You have to seriously injure or kill them. Unlike what you see on TV, you are only going to get one real chance. Trying to hit them with the spear's shaft means you are accpecting that they will have a chance to strike at you, and likely will have a rather more lethal plan then "hit with a broom handle".

No, it wouldn't be death every time. It's a bad idea though, and the vast majority of the time it's going to get you killed.

>>3929659

Now that's a misinterpretation. A strike with follow through is exactly that, a strike that is supposed to end past the target and then you quickly withdraw for the next strike. What you're imagning here is some sort of full body strike where the person ends up overbalancing and tripping over, of course that'll get you killed but that takes utter retardation for anyone to think that's a good way to use any weapon in combat.

>>3929629
And being smacked in the face with a large solid staff certainly couldn't break your nose/cheek bones/jaw/teeth/ burst your eyeball at all. Oh no.

>>3929437
>The sword was considered to be just a sidearm for a reason.
Swords were sometimes considered mere sidearms by some soldiers. And some soldiers laughed at bows as useful only for harassment. Neither was true universally, or a smart way to think.

>More people were killed by arrows, spears, and knives (in that order) on damn near every battlefield.
First of all, this particular thread of discussion was about duelling, so that's irrelevant.

Secondly, GOOD SWORDS WERE EXPENSIVE, and therefore relatively scarce, generally carried by professional soldiers or wealthy men. Arrows, spears, and knives are cheap, and therefore common.

Thirdly, body count is not a good way of determining the decisive weapons in battles. The people who died most often were the most poorly trained and equipped, yet killing them off would generally not be enough to win the battle. A battle was generally won when the enemy broke and fled, and much of the killing would be done after this point, often by the more lightly armed and less trained, but fleeter-of-foot and less worn out skirmishers.

In ancient Greece when the phalanx was king, a fight between archers or slingers or light infantry might get very bloody indeed. But the phalanx would usually just chase people away, too slow to catch and kill. Even phalanx vs. phalanx fights were not terribly bloody - there would be a clash, one side would break and be forced to run, and the victor, keeping formation, would not give be able to catch them.

Or think of trench warfare. Machine guns would prevent the other side from advancing, while artillery would do most of the killing. Yet if one side had no artillery, while the other side had no machine guns, the ones with machine guns would be able to easily advance and destroy the enemy artillery.

I repeat: death toll is a very poor way of judging the importance of weapons.

>>3929659

Way to go, internet tough guy. I'm sure you could school me with your sword while you're five feet away.

Oh, wait.

And I can still attack you from here? Leaving small painful wounds in your arms so you can't move your sword? Huh. It seems that while you were whining about my strikes not killing you, you've been struck down by the people on my right and left, or have been removed from the fight because you can't hold a sword.

Combat is a game of inches. If you'd ever held a sword, you would know that. Besides, the first lesson any martial artist learns is defensive techniques. Best to not get killed as opposed to charging in with your sword held high against a spear and shield.

>>3929706

Thrusting a spear and resetting for a second thrust isn't instant, and isn't the sort of thing you can do twice while someone is crossing your reach. Doing it while backing up and not having your feet properly planted is weak, clumsily and again, doesn't buy you time for a second thrust. Once they cross the reach of your spear you are holding an awkwardly long stick. This isn't a problem if your first thrust gives them noplace to go because your buddies are right there with you, and yes, an experienced and skillful fighter can use a spear in single combat. It's better then a club or fist sized rock, but that doesn't make it good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdPTakHXPQ8&feature=related

okay, it's not historic footage, so obviously it's not an authority on historical warfare, but it gives food for thought.

>>3929743

Right, and crossing 5 feet while deflecting a blow, running at full tilt is not the perfect setup for a killing blow. You've just used your weapon for deflecting a heavy, solid weapon and you need to reset for your blow while the rear end of the spear is now swinging for your face. Maybe you can't get two thrust in, but you could make a thrust and reset in a defensive position/reach for a shank.

/tg/- weapon experts

>>3929730
Your post doesn't make any sense. Try not being a faggot and sending again.

Eh, when attacking someone with a spear, either kill them or don't attack at all, using the threat of a thrust keeping them at bay. Nobody uses a spear to slow and bleed someone.

Fighting someone armed with a sword when your holding a shield and spear, your best bet is to use the shield more then the spear, then drop the spear and grapple. Getting inside the reach of the sword means at least you have even odds grappling.

>>3929575

Muskets with bayonets were spears. Those pikemen were killed by guys wielding shorter spears, which we have already established are infinitely better for closer combat.

The argument isn't about pikes vs. swords, it's spears vs. swords. Pikes are but one type of spear, and purely a formation weapon. Shorter spears can be used in close combat just fine, especially when used two-handed. Spear and shield is more of a formation thing, but then again, shield use in general is more of a formation thing. In personal combat, mobility and agility are paramount, so I would take a buckler, a free off-hand, or a lighter two-handed weapon over a large shield. Spears wielded two-handed would work against unarmoured opponents, and possibly some forms of heavier armour as well. Against plate, I'd go with a polearm.

>>3929319
>Actually, Europeans stuck with heavier spears *because* they were better able to deal with armor.

And these spears were much larger, longer, and heavier overall, making them more poorly suited to one-on-one combat, but still just fine in formation. In one-on-one against armour, you'd want a heavy, but shorter polearm, about six to six and a half feet in length, possibly seven, with the centre of gravity around the head for powerful, armour-breaking strikes. Weapons like the halberd and lucern hammer, which are basically shorter spears with added axe or hammer heads.

Greatsword > spear.

>>3929743

A spear is much better close up than a sword. While you have a semi-sharpened metal beat stick, I have three to six inches of metal and a big handle. If you think someone with a spear in two hands won't change grips during the fight, that's the last mistake you'll make.

I'm not saying that swords aren't good, balanced weapons for close combat and excellent for versatility, but every example you're giving is just making it sound more worthless.

Take chinese spear, for example. No, not the wushu spinning spear, the one that looks like fencing with a spear when it's being used. A lot of it is testing your opponent, feinting, and placing it in front of them as they advance.

And before you try that arguement, a thrust is faster than a slash. if you don't know where a thrust is coming from, and you're walking forward, you should probably pray you're not fighting someone with experience.

Or carry a shield. That works too.

>>3929538
>the whole 'grabbing the spear' is actually a pretty bad idea and rather a rare event. Even if its been deflected first so you're not trying catch it whilst avoiding the sharp point cutting your fingers apart, the spearman still has options. if he's in a group, he can just let you have it, or get into a tugging match, either way you've just left yourself open to the guys next to him, and are in a very bad position, even if you do injure your original target.
We were talking about dueling. This comment is irrelevant.

>Even on his own he can thrust or yank on it to put the grabber off balance, drop it, go to a backup weapon or run like fuck now he's free of the spear.
These options all fucking suck, when a guy has just taken control of your weapon and still has his own weapon free. You'll probably have about half a second before you're run through or cut open.

Even when sword dueling was almost all about stabbing your enemy with the point, and there was no consideration in the design given to chopping or slashing, almost all of them still kept an edge on their sword.

Why? So people wouldn't grab the tip as often. (they'd still do it from time to time, but at least they'd get hurt and distracted, start bleeding, and lose the strength of their hand so they couldn't try again)

Eh..

What can you do with a spear that you can't do with a sword?

>>3929806

Someone who's trying not to die will attack with short, fast thrusts at their opponent. Grappling someone with a fucking SHIELD on your arm is, in fact, the DUMBEST thing I've ever heard. Go troll somewhere else, or if you're serious, go learn some actual combat techniques from the SCA or a better teacher. You're a fucking swordaboo and nothing is going to change that.

Grappling someone with one arm while they're holding a sword. Man, I'm going to be laughing for weeks.

>>3929853

stab someone 6 feet away without walking up to them.

>>3929853
Throw it at someone.

>>3929853

Adjust your reach. Slide the spear's shaft forward and backwards (pretty gay sounding I know) in your grip to keep them at bay. Make a crude one yourself with a sharp stick.

>>3929859

FOUND THE HALFLING!!!

>>3929877

Weeeell you *can* hold a sword halfway up and use it in a more axe like fashion if you were wearing a gauntlet. What was that called... half handing a sword?

>Nobody uses a spear to slow and bleed someone.

Err.. yes they do. namely when the target is armoured, you hit them in non-vital exposed locations (usually the feet/shins/hands depending on amount and type of armour) to get them in a state where they start making mistakes, such as falling on the floor because they just had a spear through their foot. Well, not much of a mistake but the target is has still fucked up enough for you to now get an easier shot at more lethal locations.

Its like with with a fully plate armoured target when you don't have a battlefield tin-opener to hand such as a poleaxe, one of the main targets is the joints, because even if you don't hurt them you can fuck up the connections, and being unable to move your arms or legs properly really does suck when people are trying to kill you.

note to swordfags: just because a sword looks cool doesn't mean it's THE ULTIMATE WEAPON or anything

spear = pike + javelin.

>>3929894

True, but I mean using the bottom two thirds of the weapon. You could half hand a sword if the middle wasn't sharpened as well, even without a gauntlet, and many bastard swords were like that.

>>3929822
Intimidation weapon only. Since they are hard to make and expensive you give some to your tallest beefiest troops and have them scare the fuck out of the enemies more green troops. They could only be used in loose formation otherwise they were used like spears.

>>3929859
I wouldn't put it in such harsh terms, but I don't think it would be smart to go Captain America.

For sword and shield vs. spear and shield, I think the sword and shield man has the advantage, but I don't think the spear is so useless that you should drop it (unless you've got a sword on your belt).

The spear has got a powerful and deadly thrust, so use it. It's not easy to stab around a shield with a spear, but it's not easy to get around a shield with a sword either.

tl;dr fighting is complicated

A stick is your friend

A pointy stick is your good friend

A wall of pointy sticks is your best friend

>>3929964
>tl;dr fighting is complicated

More true words have never been spoken.

>>3929952
>Intimidation weapon only.
Bullshit. Greatswords were almost ideal for very large men to break pike formations.

Smaller or poorer men would use halberds to do the same thing, and they did strike more forceful blows at longer ranges with them, but the swords' crossguards gave them better defense and control of enemy pike points.

And a loose formation isn't such a bad thing. Loose formations are more mobile. You can tire the enemy out in shifts, letting your friends come up and take turns on them, while they have to keep formation and wear themselves out.

The main problem is finding men large enough. So mostly they stuck with the halberdiers.

Whoever wanted to make a STR-CHA halberd using fighter who charges the enemy like a badass... make a STR-CHA halberd using Baruva Warlord (Martial Power). Those will be your only important stats, so you can max them, and the whole Baruva class theme is about heedless risky frontlines hacking.

Greatswords are the only MANLY type of swords. Halberds are a manly weapon. Lu Bu uses one, and so should you.

>>3930289
>>Greatswords are the only MANLY type of swords.

Zweihanders were here. Greatswords are for weak wristed faggots.

>>3930314

Correct me if I'm wrong: is not a zweihander a greatsword?

>>3930314
ZWEIHANDERS ARE NOT A REAL FUCKING CLASSIFICATION. IT MEANS "TWO HANDED". JESUS TITTYFUCKING BEA ARTHUR CHRIST.

>>3930344
That doesn't make it not a classification. "Zweihander" is still the name of a type of sword. Specifically, it's a renaissance greatsword, which typically had an elaborate crossguard and often had a wavy or saw-like blade (ostensibly for cutting pike shafts).

I mean, a "longbow" is not just a long bow, and a "zweihander" is not just anything that you hold with two hands.

Spears + Longbows

give me an army of peasants. I'd conquer medieval Europe.

Swords are a more versatile weapon, but decidedly a sidearm.

If a sword or knife is available, you'd be stupid not to carry one in addition to your more specialized weapon (spear, halberd, axe, etc.) for when things get too close for comfort.

The spear will serve you well, but eventually you're gonna wish you had a convenient sidearm for those cases it won't be enough on its own.

>>3931147
>give me an army of peasants. I'd conquer medieval Europe.
You should read this post to yourself, and think about the depth of ignorance and misconception it implies.

This whole thread... all because one person asked an incredibly stupid and probably troll-intent question.

>>3931707
It might have looked like a question to you, but it looked like a topic to us.

>>3931096 (ostensibly for cutting pike shafts).

This has been found through testing to be pretty much a myth, a zweihander vs an ash shaft of a pike leads to the edge on the sword being dented and the shaft moving from the force applied. It has only been found possible if the shafts have been pinned to the ground, and then it still fuxes the edge of the sword in a way you really don't want to happen to a large expensive weapon that shortly after you're going to be needing to carve people apart with.

But! they are very good at pushing, holding and slicing. Which is very useful as they can be used to pin and hold more than multiple pikes at once and prevent them from being of any use, and their draw-cuts once they get into striking distance are vicious.
Of note though is that unless your breach is immediately and effectively followed up by your own pikemen, you're fucked in the manner of being stabbed and carved repeatedly with katzbalgers.

>>3931773
In my defense, I did say "ostensibly" because I doubted it, although people do make that claim. On the other hand, I didn't go fact-checking.

Thanks for the correction. That's a good picture, too.

>>3931825
Thank KM on /k/ for visiting museums and photoing large amounts of things. And that 'ostensibly' looked questioning and in need of an answer some how.

>>3931707
You're probably right in it being a troll, but the answer is a hell of a lot more complicated than the OP may have realized. >>3929964 put it best as >fighting is complicated.

One hell of a lot more complex than people realize.

ITT theorycrafting neckbeards who think they are experts in dueling and fighting with medieval weapons

Also, I have something to add in this war of theories:
In a real battle of life and death you would be fucking afraid and nervous, you wouldn't just grab a spear after it's thrust or throw some wild buttswings with the said spear. Also, dodging is hard as hell.

>>3931959
>herp derp everybody fights like a spaz because they're nervous

>>3931969
Oh you silly boi, not like a spaz. Just afraid and nervous. ^___^

>>3931994
Modern soldiers seem to cope ok.
Can't really say they have more/less training either, the English said for instance that it took 2 years to train a decent bill or pikeman. And a large number of soldiers for the medieval period, though mainly after the black death hit, were either career mercenaries or retainers for lords who had years of fighting with outlaws, neighboring lords and vicious foreigners hopping across the boarder to steal cattle ala the scots.

/tg/ should really stick to talking about games and not about the merits of different weapons in a fight.

>>3932047
But we do it so much better than the board meant for it...

>>3932050
No, we really don't.

>>3932050
Which is like saying you're better at eating shit than the other guy. Both boards suck at it.

>>3932026
Yea well modern soldiers just pull the trigger while the enemy is a little dot on the horizon, doesn't have much to do with emotions and such.

>>3932069
Now come on, you know thats wrong, why did you even bother to finish posting it?

>>3932080
Nothing wrong with it 8D

Anyone who is siding with sword is an idiot who doesnt know even the basics of fighting.

what games out there actually have a (playable mind you) combat system that works even slightly like the crap described in this thread about counters and all that?

>>3932242
FATAL. Perfectly playable.

If i was a medieval soldier i'd have all weapons with me I can steal, loot, scavenge, buy or rent.

>>3932269
In your backpack of course, because backpacks are mystical trans-dimensional places where you can carry everything without burden amirite?

>>3932273

No. I'd buy little ass with cart.

>>3932294
Enjoy your [spoiler]nice ass[/spoiler]

Step one: hire the movie '300'
step two: watch movie
step 3: ????????
step four: profit
thats how a spear is used.... gentlemen

>In the Renaissance, sword-and-buckler fighters were sometimes used as a counter to pike formations.

The Spanish - who were pretty much the only ones to use that type of unit - found that they got utterly crushed whenever they attacked an intact formation. In the end their SwordBorders only ever attacked pikemen on the march.

>You ever see a martial arts spear? They've got flexible hafts for a reason

Those're whush-weapons. They're about as real or practicyl as the electrified swords every highlander-movie's been using to produce all these neato sparks.

>>3929198

You obviously don't know how tripping works. The spear is a pretty fast weapon, you're not going to be able to stomp on it, and you'll be taking attacks the whole time you're trying to come into range. I like how swordfags feel the need to bring armor into it, that's cute. See...a spear outclasses a sword when it comes to piercing armor. So if the spearman has armor? You're fucked.

>>3929332
>grabbing a moving spear

Enjoy your broken hand.

>>3929629

Have you ever been whacked in the head, hard, by a blunt object? You're going to be stunned, and easy prey for a quick throat-stab.