Weapon damage

[Triff]

Hey, it's just like the Gloranthan Digest

Hehehehehehe!!!!

SGL.

[Nightshade]

OK. I can't stay away!

I know the disease. I sometimes call myself a were-poster.

Shot would make a lot of sense. Also, shooting from a stopped horse would make sense. Of course, later on fighting after dismounting was doctrine for the US Army, and probably most other armies. They used the horses for movement and then dismounted, with 3/4 of the men fighting and the other 1/4 tending mounts. This didn't come about until the 1860s with the advent of the repeating rifle though.

Well, honestly, at that point they'd pretty much transformed into mounted infantry rather than true cavalry, even if they didn't want to admit it.

The haft goes directly behind the head. I honestly don't see where you see a problem here. It's very easy to grip a spear closer to the head and let the extra shaft go over the shoulder and back behind the head. The pilum was specifically designed to be used as a javelin with a flexible head, but that also made it worthless as a melee spear.

The problem is that you've got a bunch of back weight that you now need to account for, and that is going to tend to swing when you make the thrusting motion. Find a stick (a broomstick without the broom will do) and grab it up near one end so the short end is in front of you. Thrust with it. I think you'll find the back end tends to flip upward every time you do this. And of course there's plenty of potential for the part behind you to catch on anything that gets at all close to you, such as another combatant.

And I'm aware the pilum was a javelin, but my point was that you should ask yourself _why_ a shortspear wasn't a routine part of the Legionnaire's kit; after all, use from a shield wall is one of the things it does best. But by all evidence I've seen, the only ones they sometimes had were longer anti-cavalry weapons when they know they'd be going against horse warriors (and even that I've heard conflicting statements about). The Romans certainly had spearman in their military in their early years, but they apparently abandoned the practice (other than the pilum, of course, but as you note, they didn't seem to use that as a melee weapon much, at least by choice). I have to conclude they also found that in close in formation fighting, it was a liability.

Back to "formation" discussion here. I noted somewhere else recently that the spear is really a defensive weapon and the shield [wall] is the actual offensive weapon of the formation. Phalanx battles are won by breaking the other sides formation via a shield push, while the spears really just keep the other side at bay. FWIW, I still don't see the problems you're describing about the spear. I don't see it enough to even attempt to address it.

Well, at this point I've explained it as best I can. Its a fine weapon as long as you've kept someone at a distance, and a poor one as soon as you haven't.

Didn't Gygax put together the ultimate polearm list in one of the AD&D books in the mid-80s?

Gygax did seem to have a polearm fetish, but given almost any dangerous piece of metal you can imagine has been stuck on the end of a stick at some point in warfare, I suspect he didn't even get close to exaustive.

[Enpeze]

Well, the romans used their pilum for throwing so soften up their enemies from distance. After throwing the pilum, they draw the gladius and fought with it. (but I am sure they used the pilum from time to time in close combat too...)

Its interesting that the roman infantry as one of the most successful armies in history didnt use the spear or a lance. Instead they used gladius and spatha combined with shield as their main armament. (The cavallery and the cohors equitatae has been the exception to this. They used a medium spear - the hasta - in close combat from horseback)

The romans has been surely experts in fighting techniques (and tactics as well) so I think they knew why they did issue a sword and not a spear as main weapon to their legionaires.

[Enpeze]

Gygax did seem to have a polearm fetish, but given almost any dangerous piece of metal you can imagine has been stuck on the end of a stick at some point in warfare, I suspect he didn't even get close to exaustive.

I guess Gygax was once in Austria or another European country and visited one of our medieval military collections (like the Zeughaus in Graz which has one of the largest medieval weapon collections of the world) There you can see hundreds of those polearms weapons Gygax was so fond of.

His weapon list in AD&D was so ridicolous like the rest of this rule system.

[Atgxtg]

The reasons why a shortspear wasn't the standard weapon for roman infantry.

1) In the early years, the legions were still using longspears in Phalanxes.

2) In latter years, the Legion had worked out how to defeat the Phalanx, and by then had acquired the Spanish thrusting shortsword (gladius), which was ffaster and more effective for the style of fighting used by the Romans. Epscially if you have your front ranks "lock & lift" the enemy's spears and let you shotswordmen duck underneath and butcher them. Which is just what the Romans used to do against Phalanxes. But is is pretty much the gladius that kept the shortspear from becoming the primary weapon of the Legions.

[Joseph Paul]

Well, the romans used their pilum for throwing so soften up their enemies from distance. After throwing the pilum, they draw the gladius and fought with it. (but I am sure they used the pilum from time to time in close combat too...)

Its interesting that the roman infantry as one of the most successful armies in history didnt use the spear or a lance. Instead they used gladius and spatha combined with shield as their main armament. (The cavallery and the cohors equitatae has been the exception to this. They used a medium spear - the hasta - in close combat from horseback)

The romans has been surely experts in fighting techniques (and tactics as well) so I think they knew why they did issue a sword and not a spear as main weapon to their legionaires.

Actually they did issue spears to the legions- in the time of the Republic. THe triarii, princepes, and hastati all had spears at various times. Why they quit in the time of the Empire would take some investigation.

[Nightshade]

The reasons why a shortspear wasn't the standard weapon for roman infantry.

1) In the early years, the legions were still using longspears in Phalanxes.

2) In latter years, the Legion had worked out how to defeat the Phalanx, and by then had acquired the Spanish thrusting shortsword (gladius), which was ffaster and more effective for the style of fighting used by the Romans. Epscially if you have your front ranks "lock & lift" the enemy's spears and let you shotswordmen duck underneath and butcher them. Which is just what the Romans used to do against Phalanxes. But is is pretty much the gladius that kept the shortspear from becoming the primary weapon of the Legions.

Kind of makes my point about the limitations of spears, though. Naturally, this isn't a problem unique to spears; a longsword can be a problem when it gets _really_ close and dirty, which is why in addition to its tool functions, pretty much any serious combatant carries some kind of dagger or knife, too.

[Nightshade]

Actually they did issue spears to the legions- in the time of the Republic. THe triarii, princepes, and hastati all had spears at various times. Why they quit in the time of the Empire would take some investigation.

The material I've seen seems to suggest that was a holdover from Greek tactical influence, and as they changed tactics (among other things, changing shield style) it vanished. Naturally, there doesn't seem much information about the specific thought that lead to the process.

[Atgxtg]

Actually they did issue spears to the legions- in the time of the Republic. THe triarii, princepes, and hastati all had spears at various times. Why they quit in the time of the Empire would take some investigation.

Not much investigation. The Romans began developing more mobile formations for defeating Phalanxes and eventually adopted the thrusting sword encountered during the Iberneian campaign during the Punic Wars.

The spear never actually vanished from the Legions (the Hasta being issued up to the end of the Empire), just that the Gladius became the primary weapon. Mostly becuase it does what a shortspear does, but is a bit stringer and makes wider wounds, and is less likey for the head to snap off or get stuck.

[Nightshade]

Not much investigation. The Romans began developing more mobile formations for defeating Phalanxes and eventually adopted the thrusting sword encountered during the Iberneian campaign during the Punic Wars.

The spear never actually vanished from the Legions (the Hasta being issued up to the end of the Empire), just that the Gladius became the primary weapon. Mostly becuase it does what a shortspear does, but is a bit stringer and makes wider wounds, and is less likey for the head to snap off or get stuck.

I'd gotten the impression the hasta was only used by the triarii with any frequency, and the material I've found seems to be contradictory even there. Certainly most of the entries I can find on the standard Roman kit never mention it (though obviously they must have done _something_ against cavalry rather than just through pila at them.)

[Atgxtg]

Kind of makes my point about the limitations of spears, though. Naturally, this isn't a problem unique to spears; a longsword can be a problem when it gets _really_ close and dirty, which is why in addition to its tool functions, pretty much any serious combatant carries some kind of dagger or knife, too.

Not too much, the limitations isn't that of the of the spear, but that of the Phalanx. Phalanxes overlapped the spears for the front four ranks or so. This made turning somewhat tricky. It is why the Phalanx was eventually abandoned. The spear itself is a fine weapon.

[Nightshade]

Not too much, the limitations isn't that of the of the spear, but that of the Phalanx. Phalanxes overlapped the spears for the front four ranks or so. This made turning somewhat tricky. It is why the Phalanx was eventually abandoned. The spear itself is a fine weapon.

It still seems that, barring two handed use where you can just use the haft as a staff, its far too easy to get up under the business end when you close, and for reasons I stated upthread, I'm dubious of the functionality of choking up on spears of even moderate length.

[Atgxtg]

It still seems that, barring two handed use where you can just use the haft as a staff, its far too easy to get up under the business end when you close, and for reasons I stated upthread, I'm dubious of the functionality of choking up on spears of even moderate length.

It actually ins't that easy to get in under the business end. At least not without getting stuck. That's why the boarspear was so useful in hunting. Since the spear is a thrusting weapon, is is very easy to do a bunch of quick stop thrusts to keep an opponent at bay.

Choking up on a 6-8 foot spear is effective, although if you really want to take it into melee do what the Zulus did and snap it in half. A 3-4 foot spear in great in close.

Also keep in mind that spearmen can use the shaft as a weapon. While the point is the business end, the shaft makes a decent truncheon and can be be rather effective. And then since most weapon are swinging weapons, getting in closer that two feet or so is counterproductive.

Then then is backpedaling. Basically in real fighting whenever somene ts too close you step back. So for spear & shield fighting it would go something like*

Stab, Stab, Stab. Foe knocks spear aside, steps in, spearman retreats, brings spearpoint back into line.

[Nightshade]

It actually ins't that easy to get in under the business end. At least not without getting stuck. That's why the boarspear was so useful in hunting. Since the spear is a thrusting weapon, is is very easy to do a bunch of quick stop thrusts to keep an opponent at bay.

I have to note that boars don't have parrying weapons, particularly shields. I realize it isn't necessarily trivial, but once it happens, it happens, and trying to reingage back to proper spear range is non-trivial.

Choking up on a 6-8 foot spear is effective, although if you really want to take it into melee do what the Zulus did and snap it in half. A 3-4 foot spear in great in close.

That did not seem to be the opinion of the sojutsu instructors I talked to, or perhaps more accurately, they seemed to consider it inadequately stable, and prone to bein too easy to knock out of alignment (there was some disagreement here, but it tended to be in degree, not kind).

(Note I've carefully discussed the longer spears; the shortest ones are another issue, but they also, at that point, tend to eliminate most bonuses to effectiveness they have over other weapons that are otherwise more versitile).

Also keep in mind that spearmen can use the shaft as a weapon. While the point is the business end, the shaft makes a decent truncheon and can be be rather effective. And then since most weapon are swinging weapons, getting in closer that two feet or so is counterproductive.

I've mentioned this when dealing with two handed use several times, but having watched attempts to do so one handed I am, shall we say, unimpressed; frankly, a six foot stick is simply too unwieldy to use as a bludgeon with one hand unless one is _very_ strong.

Then then is backpedaling. Basically in real fighting whenever somene ts too close you step back. So for spear & shield fighting it would go something like*

I'm an ex-fencer, so I'm aware of this, but there are risks to doing so fast enough to be of use, not the least that tripping is a real issue unless you're on firmly even footing, and frankly, there's no guarentee once someone's gotten up in on you, that they won't simply follow. I can't help but think this is even more true if both are moderately to heavily armored, which can't help the lead time of the retreater much.

Stab, Stab, Stab. Foe knocks spear aside, steps in, spearman retreats, brings spearpoint back into line.

And if the foe continues to follow through as he approaches? Keep in mind also, that in a lot of combat, there are any number of reasons unlimited retreating isn't practical.

[RMS]

The problem is that you've got a bunch of back weight that you now need to account for, and that is going to tend to swing when you make the thrusting motion. Find a stick (a broomstick without the broom will do) and grab it up near one end so the short end is in front of you. Thrust with it. I think you'll find the back end tends to flip upward every time you do this. And of course there's plenty of potential for the part behind you to catch on anything that gets at all close to you, such as another combatant.

Part of the reason I've stuck to my guns here is that I've done this and it's not difficult at all to control. The only part of your argument I give any credence to is that part about running into something (or someone) behind. However, I'll flip the argument on you there because that only comes up in an organization formation, such as a phalanx, in which case your shield is the offensive weapon (along with the weight of all the guys behind you pushing). It gets away from the one-on-one fight where the spear is supposed to be at a big disadvantage.

The only thing I can think here is that I am large, athletically inclined person, so perhaps my perception of wielding something like that is skewed when compared to the average person. (Hopefully, that doesn't come across as overly arrogant because it's not meant to be. It's just acceptance that my trying it may well be out of line with what the average person would experience. I've run into similar issues before.)

And I'm aware the pilum was a javelin, but my point was that you should ask yourself _why_ a shortspear wasn't a routine part of the Legionnaire's kit; after all, use from a shield wall is one of the things it does best. But by all evidence I've seen, the only ones they sometimes had were longer anti-cavalry weapons when they know they'd be going against horse warriors (and even that I've heard conflicting statements about). The Romans certainly had spearman in their military in their early years, but they apparently abandoned the practice (other than the pilum, of course, but as you note, they didn't seem to use that as a melee weapon much, at least by choice). I have to conclude they also found that in close in formation fighting, it was a liability.

I'm surprised how long you took to bring this up. I had been waiting for it. I don't have a definite answer for it. However, I'm not willing to universally accept that the short sword is universally superior to the spear simply because the Roman army, during it's height, used the former and not the latter. The Roman army was the most discplined, organized, supported army in the world at the time. All of that outweights any minor differences in weapons IMO, if they exist. Remember that I'm not arguing that the spear is universally superior to anything. I was disputing your assertion that it's universally inferior to the sword.

[RMS]

Not much investigation. The Romans began developing more mobile formations for defeating Phalanxes and eventually adopted the thrusting sword encountered during the Iberneian campaign during the Punic Wars.

I don't disagree with this, but from I also believe the more mobile formations were developed specifically so that the same units could deal with highly organized phalanxes and with the undisciplined "barbarians" that lived on the fringes of the empire. Rome expanded west first and adapted many innovations from there that were different from techniques in the east.

The spear never actually vanished from the Legions (the Hasta being issued up to the end of the Empire), just that the Gladius became the primary weapon. Mostly becuase it does what a shortspear does, but is a bit stringer and makes wider wounds, and is less likey for the head to snap off or get stuck.

The gladius is also smaller and can be sheathed while on campaign, allowing a soldier the freedom to carry other weapons. The same is true in battle. You can carry additional pilum with a sheathed sword as compared to carrying the melee spear in one hand while throwing pilum. An analogy in the modern world is the switch from 7.62 to 5.56 ammo. The larger calibre does more damage without argument. However, a soldier in the field can carry 100+ more rounds of the 5.56 ammo, which is more important in battle than the bit of extra damage the 7.62 individual round does. I don't think we can ever discount how many weapons are chosen due economices, whether of money, weight, etc.

[SDLeary]

Its interesting that the roman infantry as one of the most successful armies in history didnt use the spear or a lance. Instead they used gladius and spatha combined with shield as their main armament. (The cavallery and the cohors equitatae has been the exception to this. They used a medium spear - the hasta - in close combat from horseback)

The romans has been surely experts in fighting techniques (and tactics as well) so I think they knew why they did issue a sword and not a spear as main weapon to their legionaires.

BUZZ! Thank you for playing!

Before the adoption of the pilum (Marian reforms IIRC), Legionaries were spearmen, called Hastati, and used the Hasta (spear). Marius introduced reforms which made the army a more mobile force on the battlefield, and a javelin replacing the spear fit the bill nicely. Enter the Pilum.

Once the army began to encounter massed cavalry (Parthians and later Goths, not to mention their own), the Pilum became a lot less effective, and they moved back to being spearmen. Ideally they would still carry 2 javelins, now called a Spiculum, or darts called plumbata.

Throughout their entire history, as far as can be told, legionaries carried swords also. Exceptions exist. Early on a legionary had to provide his own equipment... skirmishers could have axes or maces in addition to their missiles.

Romans were never primarily swordsmen as we understand it; the gladius being used as a thrusting weapon from within the shield wall. Traditional swordsmen tend to do poorly in a shield wall. Even when they adopted the spatha, it tended to be a thrusting weapon.

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

The reasons why a shortspear wasn't the standard weapon for roman infantry.

1) In the early years, the legions were still using longspears in Phalanxes.

2) In latter years, the Legion had worked out how to defeat the Phalanx, and by then had acquired the Spanish thrusting shortsword (gladius), which was ffaster and more effective for the style of fighting used by the Romans. Epscially if you have your front ranks "lock & lift" the enemy's spears and let you shotswordmen duck underneath and butcher them. Which is just what the Romans used to do against Phalanxes. But is is pretty much the gladius that kept the shortspear from becoming the primary weapon of the Legions.

Until they started facing Cavalry

SDLeary

[TRose]

As far as Roman switching from thrusting spears to the pilum/sword. The first major enemy the Romans ran into where the Sammites Against who the thrusting spear was fairly useless. The Sammites army was almost wholly composed of javelin armed warrior from the hill country of central Italy and they would not stick around for a spear push . They would just throw their javelins and run away so the Romans had to switch to a throwing weapon if they wanted to have any chance against them. Later against the Gauls and Iberians they had the same trouble. Although the Gauls are best noted for fierce frontal charges, they would also skirmish in the Forrest of Gaul throwing spears and disappearing into the trees at times. And in hill country and in Forrest a throwing weapon is much more useful then a long thrusting spear since the enemy will run if you try to close and there often no room to wield a 12 foot spear. Against the Eastern powers, well most of the former Greek and Macedonian kingdoms where quickly on their way down and Rome just had to give them a nudge for them to fall. Rome never really ran into a first class power armed with pikes so How the Legion would have done against the Macedonians when they where in their prime is just a guess. Only first class power Rome ran into on its way to the top was Carthage, and Carthage depended on mercenaries hired from every where and using almost every weapon under the sun, which if under a first class General was fine but under a lesser general they would not know how to use the different troops to their best advantage.

[badcat]

Err, there is another little thingie. That is, the Romans did fight a battle or three with a Macedonian army in good training...and they just about lost. Phillip 5 of Macedon got into it with them, and his army was more or less like the one Alexander clobbered the Persians with, but Phillip was not as flexible a tactician and was defeated when the Romans broke up his phalanx with pila casts and then closed with scutum and gladius to take advantage of the confusion before the Macedonians could recover. Phillip had actually won a previous battle and was getting closer to Italia...the Romans were getting almost as desparate as when the Carthaginians were getting close. Some historians consider this one of the battles that changed history in a major way. If Rome had lost, everything would be different. The battle was the Battle of Cynoscephalae in 197 BC. Philip was aligned with Carthage. The troop composition was as follows:

Roman

2 legions 8,400 men

Allies 10,000 men (2 legions)

Phalanx 4,000 men, Peltasts 2,000 men, Aetolean League

Cavalry, 400 men; Allies 1,800 men; Aetolean League 400 men; Elephants 20

Macedonians

Phalanx 16,000 men

Mercenaries 1,500 men

Peltasts 4,000 men

Illyricum 2,000 men

Cavalry, Macedonia 1,000 men; Thessaly 1,000 men

Source; 'Warfare in the Classical World' John Warry, Univ. of Oklahoma Press, Salamander Books Ltd, UK

Note that the pilum and the gladius were both important in the battle.

[Enpeze]

Kind of makes my point about the limitations of spears, though. Naturally, this isn't a problem unique to spears; a longsword can be a problem when it gets _really_ close and dirty, which is why in addition to its tool functions, pretty much any serious combatant carries some kind of dagger or knife, too.

And this leads us to the multifunctional usability of a short sword like the gladius, no?

its realtively cheap for mass producing, offers a reliable perfomance in different environments (woods, plains and others), has not much ENC, and makes a perfect weapon for advanced roman tactics.

I didnt read the whole discussion, so may I ask if somebody already had defined if we speak about secondary effects (like those mentioned above) too in the comparision between the effectiveness of sword or spear?

[Nightshade]

Part of the reason I've stuck to my guns here is that I've done this and it's not difficult at all to control. The only part of your

Part of the problem may be that we may be talking about different lengths of spear; keep in mind I've been very heavily refering to spears in the 4-6' range here, and if that's what you're talking about, then we've had different experiences; I haven't used them myself (I wasn't a sojutsu student) but I watched quite a bit of work with them done by others, and all but the instructors seemed to have trouble with them choked up unless used two handed. Now, if you're talking about short spears with 3-4' handles (yes, I know it overlaps; the 4' range was exactly the size where the instructors seemed to be in disagreement about shortened up usage), I don't doubt its not that much a problem (though I at that point think you've now got essentially a long dagger in your hand with a stick on the end, since its not going to have any more thrusting power than that).

argument I give any credence to is that part about running into something (or someone) behind. However, I'll flip the argument on you there because that only comes up in an organization formation, such as a phalanx, in which case your shield is the offensive weapon (along with the weight of all the guys behind you pushing). It gets away from the one-on-one fight where the spear is supposed to be at a big disadvantage.

Actually, I'd argue it can come up easily in a battlefield where formation has broken up. To use a not uncommon in-game event, look at what happens when you're fighting back to back with someone to avoid letting someone circle you. Or frankly, just fighting in an environment where there are obstacles around. As I've commented in regard to backing up, fighting on a nice flat plane is sometimes a luxury.

The only thing I can think here is that I am large, athletically inclined person, so perhaps my perception of wielding something like that is skewed when compared to the average person. (Hopefully, that doesn't come across as overly arrogant because it's not meant to be. It's just acceptance that my trying it may well be out of line with what the average person would experience. I've run into similar issues before.)

Not at all. I will freely admit my own grip isn't as strong as it could be, so my own personal perceptions would be skewed here, but the comments I heard about control issues with one handed use of medium length spears (remembering again that sojutsu doesn't use shields, so shields may distort this issue to some degree) were from people who handled them regularly, and in the case of the instructors, as part of their profession.

I'm surprised how long you took to bring this up. I had been waiting for it.

I've been trying to avoid some of the argument-from-history because it ends up being partly conjectural, and frankly, sources often disagree on it. The Legions just happen to be the best of a bad lot because their kit usage is relatively well known over time (noting the disagreements I've seen about later use of the hasta other than as anticavalry weapons) and one can see a direct evolution from spear using troops; as such its less muddy than bringing in things like the nobility's use of spears in jousts, duels and hunting, where other issues can come in.

I don't have a definite answer for it. However, I'm not willing to universally accept that the short sword is universally superior to the spear simply because the Roman army, during it's height, used the former and not the

And I'm not claiming it is. A medium length spear is not at all a bad weapon to have as a first line weapon in many circumstances; it has reach, it can have quite a bit of penetrating power for a cheap weapon, it works fairly well with a shield wall, and if properly designed, it works as an adequate throwing weapon. I've had several characters who used one primarily as a weapon and then had a backup melee weapon (usually a longsword but sometimes a shortsword). I just have sufficient evidence there are downsides to it that make it less than ideal in the light of training overhead (in the sense that you have to train people in more than one weapon if you follow my assumption that it can be situationally bad).

latter. The Roman army was the most discplined, organized, supported army in the world at the time. All of that outweights any minor differences in weapons IMO, if they exist. Remember that I'm not arguing that the spear is universally superior to anything. I was disputing your assertion that it's universally inferior to the sword.

And that's not what I've argued. What I've argued is that if you want a weapon that is overall more useable in more situations without difficulty, a sword is superior to a spear. That doesn't make it the best choice in all cases; it means its the most _generically_ useful weapon.

Frankly, the only reason I don't think you see spears used more often in the game is that they get lost on impales a lot, and most people don't want to take the time to train heavily in two melee weapons.

[Nightshade]

And this leads us to the multifunctional usability of a short sword like the gladius, no?

its realtively cheap for mass producing, offers a reliable perfomance in different environments (woods, plains and others), has not much ENC, and makes a perfect weapon for advanced roman tactics.

I didnt read the whole discussion, so may I ask if somebody already had defined if we speak about secondary effects (like those mentioned above) too in the comparision between the effectiveness of sword or spear?

That's really been my argument, though in looking back, I have to conclude I've expressed it poorly.

[Trifletraxor]

Frankly, the only reason I don't think you see spears used more often in the game is that they get lost on impales a lot, and most people don't want to take the time to train heavily in two melee weapons.

I have a character like that, and I love it. I stab with the spear till the spear gets stuck, then draw the sword and starts hacking! It's great fun.

SGL.

[Nightshade]

I have a character like that, and I love it. I stab with the spear till the spear gets stuck, then draw the sword and starts hacking! It's great fun.

SGL.

Sure. As I said, I've done the same, with shortspear and shortsword. But its hard to deny on purely efficiency grounds that it gives you another skill you have to chase with your training time.