Ancient weapon choices: why swords?

[wtw]

Yes, for one on one.
Spear alone dominated sword alone.
Spear alone narrowly beat sword+shield.
Spear+shield tended to lose to sword. The spears lost too much reach, speed, control, and power when used one handed, at least by inexperienced users.

However, they did try a formation of spear+shield, a rough shield wall, and in formation it appears the shield and spear combination is the way to go.

On the skill vs. courage for swords, the Roman fascination with martial virtue and ideals may play into that, and both explain their heavy use of swords and success with them. They seemed to try to be trained and disciplined soldiers and mad berserk warriors all at once in a way. Psychology of that must have been interesting... with rather a lot of inner tension that they seem to have then externalized in various violent ways...


My memory on this is vague, but I had in mind the attempts at lance use by the USA and CSA was distinctly unprofessional by European standards. Union cavalry once it finally got sorted tended more towards a mounted infantry or dragoon model, while the CSA did some of the same plus tended toward something more like light cavalry with particular skill in scouting, raiding, and ranging.

US cavalry spent a lot of thought on fighting against lance armed cavalry (Indians, Mexicans, Europeans) but seems never to have made much effort on sorting how best to fight as lance armed cavalry itself. Poor showing with lance is thus rather expected I should think.

The biggest drawback of the lance is that it is long, bulky, heavy, awkward, etc. It is a pain to carry and it has to be discarded to use other weapons. Saber and pistol were more versatile side arms, and convenient to carry. Even a carbine could be holstered or hung from a saddle easily compared to a lance.

That and they had a tendency to snap into pieces in the East where trees were an issue.

 

[wtw]

I will do with a spear/lance( maybe is because my native is spanish, but i can´t really see the diference betwen one and the other), a barbed axe and utility knife, of course I wil build a sling if I need a ranged weapon, because i suck with bows

I find myself being able to use a bow reasonably well, which to be honest I did not expect.

 

[RousseauX]

What made ancient cultures choose swords as their main weapon, rather than pole arms, slings, maces/clubs, or something else?

I understand why archers are a rarer option, given the practise needed to get good at it. (Same might apply to slingers.)

What puzzles me is why swords, which are by all appearances harder to make, would be preferred to maces.

Anybody know if there are reasons, & what they are?

The primary battlefield weapon for most ancient/medieval civilizations (Rome being the notable exception) were always spears I think

 

[piratedude]

I will do with a spear/lance( maybe is because my native is spanish, but i can´t really see the diference betwen one and the other)

Well in english lance reffers to spears designed for use on horseback. I've rarely, if ever, seen it used to refer to spears used on foot

 

[dandan_noodles]

Well in english lance reffers to spears designed for use on horseback. I've rarely, if ever, seen it used to refer to spears used on foot

Depends on era. For most of the medieval period, English knights used lances on foot as well as horseback, even after it did develop into a more specialized mounted weapon; before the 12th century, there was no real distinction between the lancea of the footmen and the knights.

 

[Stephanus Meteu]

A well trained man with an arming sword and large shield is more effective than a spear man of comparable skill.

Do you have any reasoning or evidence for believing so?

The Lindybiege test certainly doesn't agree with this.

Nor do the basic mechanical properties of the weapons.

Shields are certainly a huge plus, especially provides a big psych confidence boost, and like armor allows for a bit more aggressive style, and I think in formation the shield really starts to become more decisive, but in solo spar, duel, or battle if the opponents are of identical skill my bet goes on spear not sword.

no, not really you could more easily train a mediocre lancer than a mediocre swordman, but is easier to train a superb Swordman than is to train a great lancer, so if you need to rapidly arm an army you use lances with the "elite" units using swords, as is clear that they will have time to practices the use of the sword.

Really the elite cavalry will have BOTH lance AND sword, probably a couple other weapons, too.

Also, the US Army was perhaps the exception and seemed able to teach any idiot to swing a saber but never trained a single competent lancer ever.

That and they had a tendency to snap into pieces in the East where trees were an issue.

Umm... that doesn't speak well of the troopers carrying those lances. At all. Calls the horsemanship of those into question as well, too.

The infantry would certainly never have gotten away with that kind of mishandling of the government's property.

Dreadful as the individual drill obviously was, one must suspect the formation drill and tactics would have been even worse, which given the frequently terrible mishandling of cavalry isn't surprising.

The American Civil War is pretty much a case study in how to do war badly. (With some notable exceptions and with improving competency by late stages.)

 

[bernardz]

Not that tight; even with the Hellenistic pike formations, six feet per man was considered the natural spacing if we can believe the tactical literature of people like Aelian and Arrian. There were tighter deployments, sometimes with as little as 1.5 feet, but this was the exception. Three feet per man is generally enough to use slashing swords pretty effectively, and this was probably the most common tight formation for ancient armies.

This is in length for pikes, I say about 7 ft for line and there would be many lines behind you. I expect that once the lines crashed they would go into an extremely tight formation.

I find myself being able to use a bow reasonably well, which to be honest I did not expect.

I have used crossbows a lot so I can speak with some experience. The problem with bows it is takes time to build up muscle and it takes some time for a person to get a decent aim. How long would it take for the longbow, I am not sure? I think firing from a horse like a Mongol would take awhile.

Interestingly I think a crossbow would not take very long at all for a reasonably strong man to learn.

The primary battlefield weapon for most ancient/medieval civilizations (Rome being the notable exception) were always spears I think

Generally yes but there are Mongols too. Most of the armies of the steppes used archer riders.

The primary battlefield weapon for most ancient/medieval civilizations (Rome being the notable exception) were always spears I think

The Romans primary weapon was the spear, the legionnaire would throw the spear and then afterwards come in with a sword although sometimes they would fight hand-to-hand combat with spears too. You may find this useful on this question.

https://about-history.com/the-advancement-and-effectiveness-of-the-late-roman-weapons/

 

[Lenwe]

Really the elite cavalry will have BOTH lance AND sword, probably a couple other weapons, too.
Also, the US Army was perhaps the exception and seemed able to teach any idiot to swing a saber but never trained a single competent lancer ever.

Are you speaking of Infantry men or cavalry units the one the USA teach how to swing a saber? Because in the part of become a superb swordman or spearman the capacity of use one or the other mounted in a horse is a clear example of mastery,
in the use of the weapons if you are speaking about cavalry units you are suporting my point

 

[elkarlo]

The arguments between sword and lance continued almost to the end of Cavalry.

Very true. It's also easier to stay in formation with a spear walls than with swords. But still swords up close are better, and though Spears are great, there are times when distance makes them useless.
With a sword I wouldn't want to close with a spear and shield wall. But in that wall, I'd want a shower melee weapon too.
Even a small axe is unevenly weighted and is probably exhausting to use for more than a fee minutes.

 

[Zen9]

Sword of course covers a wide spectrum of shapes and sizes.

Comparing a Egyptian Kopesh with a Japanese No-Dachi and Rapier covers different uses, different types of opponent and different fighting methods.
Each made sense in their time and place.
Perhaps the problem here is the word 'Sword' itself?

 

[Johnrankins]

Unless you are equipped with superior armor, not using a shield means you are highly vulnerable to missile weapons. Shields are a low cost solution in lieu of expensive armor.

No shields mean you are vulnerable to almost everything. Forget arrows, shields are good protection against swords and spears and maces as well.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

A well trained man with an arming sword and large shield is more effective than a spear man of comparable skill.

Not the experience of the British in India, a Bayonet man can always beat a good sword and shield man was an article of faith, and proven elsewhere.

 

[Johnrankins]

It is not just honor, for hundreds of years, generals have debated the military merits of cold steel, not just lances and swords but also pikes and bayonets vs guns. the answer was not clear cut.

The important thing was muskets were inaccurate and short ranged. Once the rifled musket, and worse yet the breech-loading rifle were invented melee weapons became useless, including lances.

 

[Richard V]

Not the experience of the British in India, a Bayonet man can always beat a good sword and shield man was an article of faith, and proven elsewhere.

Well no wonder, Indian dhal shields are marginally larger than bucklers. Small shields are almost useless against spear thrusts. They simply don’t have the coverage to deal with quick change in thrusting direction. They are designed for convenience of carry not battlefield effectiveness. This is why I said “arming sword and a large shield”. A Highland targe or better yet a Viking shield is a whole different matter.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Not the experience of the British in India, a Bayonet man can always beat a good sword and shield man was an article of faith, and proven elsewhere.

To be fair, there are example of the opposite occurring -- e.g., the Scottish Highlanders were able to chew up multiple British armies in hand-to-hand combat.

 

[Kaze]

Then there are the myths behind them. The story of Gordius' knot would sound weird if Alexander suddenly drew his yo-yo and poked it until it untied. Or King Arthur drew the spear from the stone and became right-wise High-King. Or Musashi using his two ax style against a man with a fifteen feet pike. It just does not have the same ring of legend and myth.

 

[Zen9]

And yet....

Wotan/Odin/Woden has the treaty with the Giants carved on a spear.
And I seem to recall that an oath was made on a spear in the Niebelunglied.

 

[bernardz]

The important thing was muskets were inaccurate and short ranged. Once the rifled musket, and worse yet the breech-loading rifle were invented melee weapons became useless, including lances.

It largely depends on your enemy. For example, a banzai charge was very effective against Chinese National Troops in China in the 1930s, it proved to be much less effective in the Pacific against American troops.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

To be fair, there are example of the opposite occurring -- e.g., the Scottish Highlanders were able to chew up multiple British armies in hand-to-hand combat.

No they were able to chew up local militias. Once they faced trained troops - Culloden.

A Highland targe or better yet a Viking shield is a whole different matter.

Not really a war shield is about the same size as a targe or Viking round shield. The very small buckler types are duelling/martial arts weapons.

 

[Lenwe]

Even a small axe is unevenly weighted and is probably exhausting to use for more than a fee minutes.

No, not really, in general, a battle axe is really well balanced and tend to weight less than a similar lenght sword, wood could be more resistant and ligther than most form of pre-industrial iron, and the fact a battle is weigthed in both extremes, in the axe head proper and with a counterbalnce near the handle, making his use as fast a sword, and with more weight in the strike zone that coud mean you do blunt damage even againts a heavily armored oponet,

now if your are thinking ina typical utily axe or woodsman´s axe you are right they are cumberstone and exhausting to use in battle, but they aren´t designated or balanced to be used in battle, but will do in a pinch