Play video game

>If spears were so great then the sword wouldn't exist.
the handgun to rifle comparsion is good
spears are just a better weapon because it has a longer reach, but that also makes it more unwieldy

uhhh, youre just baiting right? you arent actually this historically ignorant i hope

>butthurt spearfags can't cope with the sword being the prime weapon outside of some famers who couldn't handle anything but a broomstick
go back to circlejerking over greek gayboys standing in some canyon

Wrong. Spears were predominant on the battlefield because they were easy to make and simple to train a newbie with. The spear was not exclusively a peasant weapon on the battlefield. It was the main weapon of several professional warrior classes including hoplites, cavalry before the creation of the lance, and landschnekts at different points in history, to name a few. The spear (and all it's variants) is an excellent defensive when paired with a shield, used in formation, or both. It is also excellent at concentrating momentum into a single point which is why it was used by shock cavalry and further developed into lances.
Also wrong. Swords were used on the battlefield for the majority of human history and were very effective. The most famous example is the roman gladius, but the migration period sword is found in every european culture and are attested to in written record as being weapons on the battlefield. It was a principal weapon amongst the Normans during their invasion of England. In China, the jian and dao were among the most common battlefield weapons alongside the qiang and ji. Swords only stopped becoming relevant when advanced plate armor made it so swords no longer cut it, and gunpowder made it hard to run up to someone and stab them.

>i really don't understand where this argument even comes from.
it comes from the fact that history exists

Good. Spears are boring. Just fucking stab stab stab. Nice "moveset"

In a one on one you'd use a shorter spear or in a different grip and it'd beat axes and swords. The only exception to this is if it were in full armour which they never fucking were. If it's in armour you might as well just get a knife or drop your weapon and start grappling.

>history exist
And you're on the wrong side of it in this instance mate. Swords are a symbolic weapon and were used as a side arm or for dueling. They're a raiding weapon not a tool of war.

>and landschnekts
They didn't stop people using spears you spass they were a potentially costly counter TO spears. A well disciplined spear formation would ALWAYS win unless its support (cav, shot) fucked up really bad. Even then they could still manage quite well.

>principle weapon [...] invasion of England
Most English invasions were skirmish shit because the Brits were too stupid to wall up properly. Once they started getting better defenses it stopped being effective.
He's not wrong at all. Sure swords were side arms and effective ones at that but just as a pistol was carried in war but is a personal defense weapon so too was a sword.

>Most English invasions were skirmish shit because the Brits were too stupid to wall up properly.
>too stupid to wall up properly
>In regards to the Norman invasion

Bitch, the fuck?

Attached: bayeux charging shield wall.jpg (2048x1024, 202K)

Actual physical walls. Their coasts were easy pickings and advantageous staging grounds until they started walling up better.

Also note that you see spears in exclusive use on both sides of that image - lmao

Oh yeah, absolutely. I just had that picture with a 'wall'.

Also here is a picture of a proud Norman using his REAL principal weapon: the stick

Attached: bayeux_tapestry_odo.png (1500x1088, 3.75M)

Patties are the true masters of the stick. Please do not appropriate their culture.

>cavalry skirmishers/archers>all
Seriously that shit wrecked so many armies before the practice of gunpowder formation.

No, what the shit. Where are you getting this idea from?
Basically, there's different contexts in which you'd use all of those weapons. Each weapon is GOAT in its own niche.
From a pure 1vs1 standpoint, spear >>>> sword > axe. Spear has better reach than both sword and axe, and reach is king. Sword can do more complex stuff than axes because it's pointy and slicy.
However, axes get through chainmail a lot better than both spears and swords, so if you're in a predominantly chainmail environment it might be a good idea to pack a massive axe instead. And you can carry a bow and a sword, but you can't carry a bow and a spear. So if you're an archer, a spear would be a pretty shit pick.

But this rock-paper-scissors bullshit doesn't make any sense. Why would an axe beat a sword? If you're looking for REAL rock-paper-scissors, it's more like
>Pikes > Cavalry
>Cavalry > Archers/Muskets
>Archers/Muskets > Pikes
Which is why you end up with armies fielding all three.
There was no such thing as "number one meme weapon every peasant was assigned to" in the west. Peasant conscription didn't start until Napoleon.

You have a very complex headcanon
Basically nothing of what you wrote is true

he's an american. just ignore him.

Oh, and cavalry vs. cavalry = fine and dandy (so long as you're keeping the other guys' cavalry away from your infantry you're doing okay)
But pike vs. pike = megadeath for everyone.
Well, that's me told then.

>fucking Rawlings wasters
Those "swords" are flimsy plastic half the weight of a real one. They have no leverage, you can't resist anything with them.

In my experience, decently skilled guys with swords and shields can quite easily deflect a spear point and charge in.
>but just shorten the grip!
good luck doing that in time, and if you do, congrats, you lost your reach and your front arm's the world's easiest target

Also, most HEMAfags don't know how to use shields properly, and have nearly no experience against polearms, which also skews the results heavily. It's a shame too, because there are actually quite a few fantastic sources on fighting with sword/spear and shield, pic related.

Attached: marozzo_rotella.jpg (786x896, 86K)

Except for those times when it didn't.
The cav/inf/skir relationship was a tricky and ever changing one.

Sorry dude you've only exposed your ignorance on the matter. Not even HEMA but a spearman has an overwhelming advantage over a swordsman in a duel. Watch some videos on YouTube

My HEMA club always started everyone off with sidesword and buckler. Then you'd move onto the real shit (mostly rapier).

It depends on the size of the forces, right? If you have a big force, you can do those impenetrable spear formations.

That's an ass-backwards downgrade in terms of weapon coolness. Sure the rapiers the more optimal dueling sword, but sidesword's more enjoyable and the better general-purpose weapon.

Tard. Sword and shield is unfair, otherwise you'd compare against spear and shield which was just as prevalent albeit at a different time to sword and shield.
Also Spear and Shield wins.
Thrusts are harder to deflect against than strikes, cuts and wraps.

This thread is a fucking piece of shit.

Listen, it's well known that pikes don't work very well Total War Medieval 2, because of a bug, once they're engaged with the enemy they often end up dropping their pikes and start using their swords, making them much more vulnerable, you can see this happen in the webm.

Attached: 1566969568042.png (1109x1110, 1.3M)

That's exactly what I think. The Chad circle-spiral madness > the virgin one thrust and it's over.

HEMA is fucking gay and people need to stop going to them first. I respect the almost literal larpers at the SCA more.
Besides, the real niggers of martial revivals are the reenactors who fuck around in full authentic gear with a mix of SCA and Bohurt rules so the fights account for force, angle and target as well as allowing full contact if both parties consent i.e grapples

HEMA losers with their fake swords are too up themselves and ironic become the truest LARPers of them all.

Not uh! all you have to do is sidestep and then teleport through the spearman just like in my anime!

>at a different time to sword and shield.
Any well-equipped spearman had a sword you dummy. The choice of weapon was based on the situation, both were equally important and complemented each other.
Spears lose quite a few of their advantages when you have them in one hand. The biggest loss is in leverage, meaning that a spear held in one hand is just about the easiest weapon to deflect as if you parry it near the point, you've got this huge lever going against the man wielding it, basically like parrying at the foible of a sword, but a hundred times more extreme.
>wraps
LARPer terminology, opinion discarded

Attached: Marozzo Partisan and Rotella.png (873x1149, 1.05M)

look at that penis. What magnificent men our ancestors were.

>everyone has side arms therefore spears are shit with shields
Yeah okay big boy. In fact you're right and daggers/short arming swords are the best weapon of all.

It's like talking to someone who just keeps repeating that a katana can cut anything.

Well, it can cut anything.

>full authentic gear
Oh you mean HEMAers? Because the SCA/Buhurt people dress in over-padded marshmallow suits, actual armoured fighting with proper armour, suitable weapons and proper techniques (all of which are banned in SCA and Buhurt) are in the domain of HEMA.
>angle and target as well as allowing full contact if both parties consent i.e grapples
Again, HEMA does this too, and HEMA tournaments have the fewest restrictions on what you're allowed to do (Bohurt rules even disallow thrusts), HEMA also allows and straight up condones wrestling as it's part of almost every historical fencing style.
>HEMA losers with their fake swords are too up themselves and ironic become the truest LARPers of them all.
Yeah, those HEMAfags with their real size and weight steel swords are such losers compared to the SCAers wielding rattan sticks

Imagine being so jealous of black-clad HEMA bulls that you make shit up about them

>virgins with plastic weapons are representative of real battle
Its basically LARPing but they moved inside a gymnasium so Chad would stop throwing the football at them in the park

>throwing the football
Ah. This explains it. You're thinking of the American scene.

Or kicking the football
They are virgins in any country

>the Virgin HEMA vs the Chad Reenactor

This is just so not fucking true mate. Reenactors put much more effort into their kit than any other group. HEMA losers RARELY wear proper gear instead opting for fencing gear to cut price. I don't know where you're getting your facts but I think you need to stop cherry picking whatever perfect HEMA club you have apparently found and face the music.
>snags bohurt flaws
Yeah no shit which is why I never said Bohurt was good I said a combination of some of their stuff with other stuff. Most HEMA is just fencers LARPing. I GUARANTEE that for every example you can show me to support your fantasy I could show you far more in opposition.

This. All ya gotta do is dodge or block the inital thrust and get into range. Spearmen can't do shit in close range.

This is the truth of the matter. Reenactment is the peak of all aspects of historic martial autism. It has more authentic combat than HEMA and is more period authentic than SCA.

That's an interesting way of rephrasing "you have to let the guy with the spear hit you first before you get the chance to hit him".

*moves entire body faster than you can withdraw your arm*
Nothing personnel spearman

Maybe reenactment is different where you are, but here it absolutely does not concern itself with mechanical accuracy to the degree HEMA does. It's more about wearing the right stuff and being in the right places and dying at the right times.

i remember playing medieval total war 1 and Swiss armoured Pikemen were strongest units in game

>Reenactors put much more effort into their kit than any other group
Only a small amount of very high tier reenactors actually buy proper authentic armour, and they don't fight in it. Most opt for inauthentic (and non-functional) Deepeeka-tier trash. People who do battle reenactments aren't actually fighting most of the time
When HEMAfags do armoured fighting (admittedly rare), it necessitates proper, authentic armour, because anything else won't do to actually authentically recreate it.
The fencing gear used by HEMAfags is specifically designed for HEMA. It's what lets them fight with full contact (unlike Buhurt and SCAfags) and still have a dayjob, i.e. not get completely mangled.

Oh, but please, tell me more about how fat men in marshmallow suits with sticks and boffers are the true purveyors of historical martial arts

Is this HEMA or is this SCA? Try to figure it out on your own
youtube.com/watch?v=LdVYW9r2G3U
On a side note, the distinction can be a bit gay and it's often a better idea to look at things how are in your specific region. Judging by world averages really means jack shit when the quality of your local groups vary.

HEMA sois dont actually care about history. They just want to play with swords as adults. Chad Reenactors want to immerse themselves in a certain historical period, and playing swords is just one part of that

Where I am they do tourney and it makes HEMA look like shit. I also hear there are group battles but I've never attended. The gear they were is impeccable and the weapons are proper too.

Are all HEMA fags this insufferably smug about playing with plastic swords? Because every video I see, it's two fat guys in shitty looking helmets being embarrassing

>mentions manuals
HEMA
It's almost as if the larpy sois here don't know what HEMA is

>HEMA uses the most authentic gear
>uuuuuuum like I mean they do sometimes I suppose
>also authentic gear is for fatties and umm fuck you
Oh wow.
Also you keep circling Bohurt and SCA. I mentioned them as reference points. I was discussing reenactment you little pussy. Don't go after soft targets like the Push 'um over in armour league and the one-step-up-from-actual-LARP group.

those are pikes you cunt

So your reenactors...don't do reenactments?

HEMA. That's my university, actually. We've got the royal armouries in the city so there's a lot of HEMA stuff, as well as jousting.

>Peasant conscription didn't start until Napoleon

Attached: 14897641339931.jpg (709x843, 89K)

That's the entire issue ITT. People in this thread somehow equate their own regional group experience with the phenomenon at a global scale.
I haven't seen plastics being used in any serious (Euro) HEMA demonstration I've attended myself but apparently Americans have a completely different perspective.

Prove me wrong, nigga. Prove me wrong!

I'm sure they do as well but from what I can tell my local scene is composed of 'reenactment' groups that have splintered off all the other combat groups and no longer want to be associated with their retardation.
They're basically invite only all purpose groups for people who take it seriously rather than being for profit piss takes like HEMA "clubs"

Last I heard American HEMA was being lead by a guy who thinks edge-to-edge fencing never happened lol
>HEMA
>for profit
You bloody what, mate?

mace chad
rest virign
you will never have sex

>HEMA uses the most authentic gear
Why yes, HEMAists are the ones who use authentic swords, and authentic armour when applicable
>uuuuuuum like I mean they do sometimes I suppose
Yes, when they do armoured combat, but most people don't do that because a suitable harness costs 20'000 dollars.
>also authentic gear is for fatties and umm fuck you
Yes, overly padded larp gear that only vaguely looks like historical armour is for fat fucks indeed
>Also you keep circling Bohurt and SCA.
Because you mentioned them, and reenactors typically don't actually fight. If they do, with authentic gear and techniques, then that falls under the category of HEMA anyway.
>I mentioned them as reference points. I was discussing reenactment you little pussy.
Reenactors reenact. The vast majority don't actually fight, they do choreographed prepared acts for a crowd. Again, if reenactors do fight authentically they're doing HEMA by definition.
>Don't go after soft targets like the Push 'um over in armour league and the one-step-up-from-actual-LARP group.
So now you do a 180 on them now that I pointed out how pathetic they are compared to HEMAists? Why'd you mention them as a reference point if they're so shit?

Attached: dussack.jpg (272x185, 19K)

>demonstration
Perhaps look into their actual activities?

>muh membership fees
>muh lessons
The real blokes are far less formal or leech-like. If you're into something for a hobby and a passion project you don't make a School-esque set up to market your product and rake in $$$

>Last I heard American HEMA was being lead by a guy who thinks edge-to-edge fencing never happened lol
Colonials were a mistake.
Although I've seen some amazing jousting videos from western Canada.

HEMA uses literal "muh martial arts" staffs. It's a literal joke.

>western Canada
Canada seems pretty cool for it in general

>if it's good then it's HEMA
Kill yourself. There are groups that identify as HEMA and there are groups that don't. These are the things we are discussing you pedant.

>Last I heard American HEMA was being lead by a guy who thinks edge-to-edge fencing never happened lol
Nah, the Americans ostracised Clements ages ago
Afaik their tendency to use plastic stems from almost all good smithies being based in Europe, so real steel costs a fucking fortune. Imagine buying a Regenyei, but it costing as much as an Albion

Fuck off, if you're not reenacting don't call yourself a reenactor.

We get it, your local group is shit. No need to project it onto the rest of the world though.

>Why'd you mention them as a reference point if they're so shit
I ONLY mentioned their rulesets in fights.
HEMAfags mightn't LARP as warriors (most of the time) but they do certainly LARP as experts and they get a little too distressed when the mere mention of someone doing it better comes up apparently. Maybe stop being up your own ass as much and you'd get an invite to the chad reenactment group instead of wasting away in your HEMA 'club'

There's fees where I am, sure, but you'd never in a million years call it profitable. Barely breaking even, maybe.
The only thing I take issue with is there's a lot of pretentious names going around. Like, I like Matt and all, but "scholar gladiatoria" is a damn poncy name.
>the Americans ostracised Clements ages ago
Ah, that's good. His katana vs. rapier article got me interested in HEMA all those years ago, but he's a massive faggot.

It was the standard weapon for the most powerful militaries on the planet. Sorry swordfag, but the only reason to draw a sword is if your spear fell on the ground or got broken.

Swords are just multi-use general self-defense tools used for non-militaristic purposes. If you are actually going to put your life on the line you bring a spear 100% of the time.

Attached: f8bde982198ebfc3c255bd281574ec30.jpg (208x339, 14K)

Nuh-uh. Plenty of armies around the world at different times relied on swords as their primary weapon. Look at the Spanish in the early 1500s, or the Marathi Empire with their patas.

>I ONLY mentioned their rulesets in fights.
Yes, and as was pointed out, and as you later admitted, their rulesets suck. And yet you initially acted like they were better and had far more leeway than HEMA rulesets until somebody pointed out that the opposite is the case.

It's almost as if you don't know shit, who would've thought
>someone doing it better comes up apparently
But that didn't come up, you talked only about marshmallow fatties and people who don't actually fight

>Axe > Sword
What

why would you post a picture of a roman legionary, whose primary melee weapon wouldve been a sword

But these are clearly pikes, user.

Rules are simple:
cav beats sword
sword beat spear
spear beats cav
archers weaken enemy from range
pike beats everything in melee, but gets destroyed by range and flanks.

invite-only clubs are the worst cesspools of cliquey drama

Peasants were levied at times (such as the Anglo-Saxon fyrd) and free landholders and burghers made their own militias.

>HEMAists are the ones who use authentic swords, and authentic armour when applicable

In my 5 years of medieval fighting I have never encountered this. I shit on people for not being properly academic all the time in re-enactment circles too. but it's just a joke when it comes to HEMA.

SERIOUSLY GUYS STOP ACCEPTING SOMETHING BECAUSE SOME LITERAL WHO PRINCE WROTE A BOOK. APPLY ACADEMIC SCRUTINY FOR ONCE.

Yea Forums - traditional games

>PRINCE
show me one book written by a prince

Literally every club I've been to has authentic swords you dunce.
The Conquest of Bread. :^)

I can't hate anyone who posts Kropotkin.

lol fucking nerds

Pilums could and were used as anti-cavalry spears, but Roman military tactics specifically abandoned phalanx and spears with the exception of the Triarii in favor of the scutum + short sword combination where they would anchor line and bash with the scutum whilst stabbing the enemy with the sword.

Later era Imperial roman garrison soldiery did revert to using spears for their lighter and frontier forces, with the heavier infantry using swords (but as far as I know this had changed by the 5th century)

Guys it's simple
American
European

It's not that difficult to dodge or deflect one spear thrust, once you do successfully do this then the spearman is at a disadvantage as you are getting too close for him to utilise his weapon.

A mass of spearmen is impregnable though and spears/pikes are much better than swords or any other melee weapon. You have to be a idiot to think that any other weapon is better. The main reason gunpowder became so successful is that it forces those densely packed spear ranks to not be so densely packed and forces them to move and attack you.

Swords beat an axe in every single moment. The axe only has one advantage and that is a powerful initial attack, if you can get inside the attack or block it then the attacker is fucked. Axes aren't as balanced as swords and after the initial swing they are harded to control.

Forget all these re-enactment tards or twats saying "achtually if you do mma like me". Just look at fucking history.

How did the Romans manage to do so well? Discipline, ranks, engage the enemy in close formation and short stabbing swords.

Sometimes. Less so when all the invite onlys meet up as well so it functions more as a gateway to the broader community rather than an exclusive thing with one group that serves to isolate you.

>re-enactment tards
When has anyone discussing that said anything about axes. My GOD you're ass hurt.

Most spearmen did not fight without a shield because fighting without a shield on the ancient battlefield was really stupid. Even the phalangites of Philip and Alexander did not completely abandon the shield when adopting the Sarissa, they simply wore a smaller one because that is still much, much better than no shield at all.

Did you even watch the webm, user?

>spears destroy swords.webm
>It's pikemen destroying pollaxes
>half the pikemen are using swords

Attached: fragezeichemeitli.jpg (500x500, 109K)

>short stabbing swords.
The only reason they didn't use longer ones was because of the metallurgy of the time. The moment it became possible, they switched to longer swords. Nothing to do with "barbarisation" or any shit like that.
Also period accounts from when they actually used the Gladius state that they used them to cut a lot, there's plenty of mentions of dudes getting beheaded and getting cut in the legs and shit. The myth of it being only used to thrust stems from Vegetius who lived way after they switched to the Spatha, and he was basically just bitching in the classical "things were so much better back then" way.
Well, Rome wasn't far from collapsing at that point, so I guess he was kinda justified, but either way the shit he said about Roman swords was most probably pulled straight from his ass.

In divide and conquer submod pikes are really good, even lower tier ones. And halberds too. Due to animation bugs.

>The only reason they didn't use longer ones was because of the metallurgy of the time

>celts had longswords
>implying celts had better metallurgy than Romans

Long swords did not work for ROmans and their tactics, the whole point of their chosen weaponry was that it could be used for short tabbing thrusts in a shield wall formation. A thrust of a few inches does a lot more damage than a swing from a longsword. The switch to the spatha was not because of the gladius being useless, but because of the change in battle tactics.

Barbarians had clocked on after years that charging straight at Roman lines wasn't working, no longer were the charging en-masse which in turn caused the Romans to change their tactics. The spatha was mainly sued by Roman cavalry but by the time it was adopted by infantry the legions had become smaller and more mobile, They were a defensive force focusing on containing threats, as such they needed to be faster and have a longer reach with their weapons.

>The moment it became possible, they switched to longer swords

Not entirely true, cavalry were already using the spatha, which was longer than the gladius. The spatha was later adopted for infantry use in the late empire.

That's bishop Odo, who I think according to the legends used club or a mace so as to not spill blood.

>celts had longswords
>implying celts had better metallurgy than Romans
They literally did, yes. Especially the Norii. The Romans were really good at adopting foreign technology and equipment. I mean, even the Gladius itself is of Celtic origin (including the word)

The reason why the Celts had longer swords is because not every Celt had a sword. Their long swords were part of the panoply of nobles and the warrior caste, and thus a far more exclusive and expensive thing than the Gladius.
The Spatha probably originated from Celtic nobles fighting as auxiliary cavalry.
The Romans adopted it, but due to the sheer cost of making a functional sword of that size it was only a cavalry weapon until the technology to produce such weapons in larger numbers was figured out. For some time the infantryman's Spatha was also referred to as a Gladius.

It really just depends on the skill of the fighter. The spear is easier for an inexperienced fighter but a really well trained swordsman can fuck you up

By the way, the Romans actually fought in fairly loose formations most of the time.

Just look at their gear. A tall curved shield, not very useful for making an overlapping shield wall. A short sword, not very useful if you don't have room to move and need to stay in a specific position in formation. A throwing spear, good luck using that thing when you're shoulder-to-shoulder.
The very schtick of the legionaries was that they fought in a looser formation than most others at the time. They had the necessary skills, coordination and gear to do that, which gave them a huge edge in dynamism and flexibility over most of their enemies, especially if they were disrupted by the Pila.

Fighting in a dense shield wall is nothing special. A bunch of inbred Anglo peasants could do it, literally anyone can. The fact that the Romans fought in a looser manner was really a testament to how fucking good they were.

Romans also had incredibly fucking endurance to keep wars going into stalemates and then brutally tipping the scales into their favour
Just consider all of the Punic wars. Through and through it was Romans getting absolutely and utterly assfucked while they kept throwing soldiers onto the battlefield, until they caught Carthage making a slip, turning the whole conflict over
Romans weren't necessarily better on tactical level than their foes, but holy fuck, they did the strategos part amazingly

you don't sound biased at all nigger.

>The Romans adopted it, but due to the sheer cost of making a functional sword of that size it was only a cavalry weapon until the technology to produce such weapons in larger numbers was figured out.
Sheer speculation on your part. I doubt the extra length of the spatha incurred that much of an economic burden on them, seeing as how they were already spending huge amounts of money to be the only nation fielding a standing army of that size at the time.

The longer you make a sword, the better the steel has to be

>medieval 2 pikes
So fucking buggy

This Forging a longer blade is also much harder task for the smith and requires more skill, keeping the blade heated, malleable while forging it ..

But we're not talking about whether or not they had the technology or not, they already did have it and were fielding it in large numbers among their cavalry. The question is if it was cost prohibitive for them to have their infantry adopt it as well. If you have a source that says improvements in swordmaking is the reason for the adoption of the spatha, I would sincerely like to see it.

Oh boy it's another "fat neckbeards who couldn't hold a paper shield correctly pretends to be weapon masters" episode

After all these years Yea Forums is still autistic about spears

Why don't they just hack the tip off the spears? Can't get stabbed when there's no pointy end after all

post body faggot

seething spearcuck

I could be the buffest Chad around and I still wouldn't pretend I'm an experienced medieval warrior

so youre just another fat neckbeard then, just one that's not interested in the topic of this thread. no one heres larping, its a historical discussion. paleontologists dont pretend they're dinosaurs just because they're talking about them.

>WE WUZZing Celts
Kek, must be an angloid

Paleontologists also don't pretend to know shit they have no clue or expertise in. The big difference being though, is that they at least studied for years, while the average Yea Forumstard thinks rpgs is education enough to be a master on the topic

Not him but Romaboos are disgusting.

>calls others gay
>demand to see their bodies
Hmm..

Which topics produce more hilarity? Spears vs. Swords or Katana's vs. Longswords?

>you have to have a degree to talk about something

who here is claiming they're the final authority on classical and medieval warfare you sperglord? you're just butthurt there's a thread about something you dont like so you have to reee and make it about you.

Why'd they just run into the spears? If they'd stop just before they got impaled they could just walk up to the spearman and fuck them up.

It's not disputed at all that many significant military inventions in that time period came from Celts.
It's also not disputed that they kinda sucked at using their own inventions.

Well, the celt poster for one uses final authority wording.
Sorry I burst your euphoric bubble though.

Actually they're sarissas, you fucking stupid N word.

I can't. Just speculating for the sake of it about different aspects
Personally, I'm more towards how differently gladius and spatha behave with the different length, how the distribution of energy behaves when chopping, striking, slicing, slashing, piercing, and especially how it complements the form of how Romans fought on individual, equipment-related level and formation/battlegroup tactics

I don't know if that video proves anything. These dudes stop "fighting" once they've been slightly poked with the spear, like it's fencing. In reality you'd need to put a considerable amount of force into it to do any damage, which would be harder the longer the spear is. Even more so to pierce any kind of armor.

>Peasant conscription didn't start until Napoleon.

You have been visited by the Fox of Horrible Cereal Noises.

YOU HAVE TO B-BUMP THE THREAD! It's c-coming, don't you understand?! It's c-coming! And if you haven't b-bumped the thread by the time it gets here, the thread is going to D-DIE!

Attached: Laura.jpg (634x478, 74K)

Is SS still the best medieval TW experience? I know someone was making a Medieval mod for Attila but the fucking idiot wants to charge money for it and everyone is mad about it, and the creator went into a huff and seemed to stop making it, which sucks because it looked really good.

What about SSHIP?

Attached: 1462341671132.webm (800x450, 2.95M)

How swordfags will ever recover?

Attached: 1457754491874.png (602x629, 815K)

"Pikemen, don't work very well. They're kind of a fucking mess"
Shit, now I gotta rewatch the Sane Critique about Rome 2 for like the hundreth time

This is exactly how spears and pikes work.

>professional warrior classes
>hoplites

If you said Spartiates i would be inclined to agree

Romans defeated the phalanx by making use of their manoeuvrability. Instead of running like a retard into the formation you could attempt to flank them or face them in territory where they can't manoeuvre properly. At the Battle of Ravenna, the Spaniards had experienced soldiers emerge from their own pike formation to dive underneath the enemy pikes and kill the pikemen at close range with their swords.

The Spearfag's days are numbered, eventually a hill of corpses will allow passage