3 ms·
I remember reading that swords were more the weapon of choice for portability but spears were more effective in a fight?
by bilsbie 1y ago
I remember reading that swords were more the weapon of choice for portability but spears were more effective in a fight?
- krapp 1y agoYes. All else being equal, reach and leverage win every time. Even the samurai considered their swords to be secondary to spears and bows, and preferred to fight on horseback rather than in the trenches (because they weren't stupid,) and then picked up guns as soon as they were viable.
- some_random 1y agoThere are a whole lot of different types of swords, but in general spears and polearms are more effective combat tools. I like to use the modern analogy of pistols and rifles, rifles are objectively superior combat arms in pretty much every way but anyone who can get away with not carrying one carries a handgun instead.
- gadders 1y agoLindy Beige did an interesting video on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLLv8E2pWdk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLLv8E2pWdk But the gist is it seemed spears won more of the simulated combats.
- hermitcrab 1y agoYou probably don't want to be standing between 2 people swinging swords on a battlefield. A spear (or polearm) is a better choice for massed infantry. The extra range of the spear is also useful. Spears are also much quicker, easier and cheaper to make than swords. Some of the allure of swords perhaps comes from the fact that they are the shape of a Christian cross.