Was using pole arm weapons such as spears defensively to kill effectively required minimal training?

Griffith

Banned
I notice many movies portray pole arm weapons such as pikes, naginitas, guandaos, halberds, and spears as being a very easy weapon to use. You just hold the spear,pike, or whatever pole weapon and wait for the enemy to stupidly run into it.

The best example is the Stirling Battle Scene in Bravhart where William Wallace's soldiers awaited for the English Heavy Cavalry to charge at the Scots. The Scots merely placed large wooden stakes on the ground and angled it at the English Horses and they were slaughtered as they charged into it. So many other movies with troops using spears as their primary weapon portrays using spears in a similar fashion. You hold it and form whole wall of spears and just wait for your enemies to stupidly run into it and die.

Even after the initial charge, using the pole arms to kill is portrayed simply as pushing it to the next guy in front of you, wait for that guy to be impaled and fall, then hit the next guy in line with it and repeat. 300 shows this perfectly. Watch the video.



As you seen in the clip, the Spartan decimated the Persians with a tactic so simple. Simply push the spear into the next guy in front of you in line after the initial charge and push the spear into him killing him like he's a human shape cardboard stand that you see in stores and he falls to the ground. Waits for the next Persian in role to appear and they suddenly push the spear into the next guy and kill him and keep repeating until an entire Persian unit was decimated.

Spear battles are often protrayed as this in movies once the initial moment where enemies rush into spears with no regard for their own lives and get impaled like barbecue on a hot fourth of July. Push your spear like your enemy is n inflated baloon and you will kill them by the hundreds.

So its portrayed as so long as you don't lose your balance and remaining holding it pointed at your enemy on the defensive, you simply stay where you are and let your enemy charge you and the killing commences as you pull the spear and push it towards the next marching troops in line at the front row after the initial charge was stopped by your spears.

Even martial art movies portrays spears int he same manner. Often the master martial artist awaits for his gang of enemies to run at him and suddenly he starts killing hordes of men with simple pushes of the spear as the come nearby with a fancy trick from staff fighting thrown in every 3rd or fourth bad guy.

However I remember a martial arts documentary in which some guys were in Japan trying to learn how to use the naginata. The weapon was heavier than many martial arts movie portrays them as. In addition the martial artist teaching them showed them just how clumsy using the weapon was if you are untrained as he made them hit some stationary objects.

The martial artist even made the guests spar with him and he showed them just how goddamn easy it was to deflect and parry thrusts from a naginata and he showed them just how vulnerable they were once a single thrust was parried. He also showed that not just naginata but also yari spears, Japanese lances, and such pole weapons were very easy to disarmed if you weren't train.

So I am wondering after seeing this documentary. Movies show spears as being such simple weapons anyone can use them while being on the defensive against a charging army as I stated in my description above. But the Martial Artist int he documentary really makes me wonder how hard it is to simply just stand there and wait for your enemies to charge into your spear and also how simplistic it was to push your spear into new men repeatedly.

Was using a spear-like weapon much harder than movies portray and require a lot of training like the martial arts documentary I saw show?

Would a spear wall formation be enough to kill raging vikings or naked Celts as long as you stand your ground patiently and wait for them to rush into the wall? Or is physical conditioning and actual training with the weapon required?
 

Pangur

Donor
To use a spear would not take any training however to use it in a formation would do so. In the latter case you are acting as part of a unit which requires some discipline
 
You're comparing to different situations, aren't you? I mean even ignoring the fact you're using movies as evidence, there's a big difference between how a soldier and how a martial artist is trained to use a spear.

A soldier using a spear is going to be part of a larger formation and more importantly a defensive formation.
His training is basically not to break ranks, not run off and engage the enemy in a one-on-one fight. If he's forced into a situation where he now has to defend himself in a one-on-other fight with the spear, it means the formation has failed.

A martial artist using a spear is trained for situations where it's one-on-one or one-on-multiple opponents.
He's trained how to use it as an individual weapon, not as part of a larger group. If he's forced to join a formation, that's an entirely different set of skills needed.
 
You're comparing to different situations, aren't you? I mean even ignoring the fact you're using movies as evidence, there's a big difference between how a soldier and how a martial artist is trained to use a spear.

A soldier using a spear is going to be part of a larger formation and more importantly a defensive formation.
His training is basically not to break ranks, not run off and engage the enemy in a one-on-one fight. If he's forced into a situation where he now has to defend himself in a one-on-other fight with the spear, it means the formation has failed.

A martial artist using a spear is trained for situations where it's one-on-one or one-on-multiple opponents.
He's trained how to use it as an individual weapon, not as part of a larger group. If he's forced to join a formation, that's an entirely different set of skills needed.

Polearms aren't necessarily a defensive weapon, and individual skill did matter in a "push of pike". For example, this anecdote from Blaise De Monluc at the battle of Ceresole describes how individual skill at handling pikes was a major advantage for the Landsknecht, but could be overcome with discipline and aggression.

`Gentlemen, it may be that there are not many here who have been in battle before, and therefore let me tell you that if we take our pikes by the hinder end and fight at the length of the pike, we shall be defeated; for the Germans are more dexterous at that kind of fight than we are. But you must take your pikes in the middle as the Swiss do and run headlong to force and penetrate into the midst of them, and you shall see how confounded they will be.’

The Germans came up to us at a very round rate, insomuch that their battle being very great, they could not possibly follow, so that we saw great windows in their body and several ensigns a good way behind, and all on a sudden rushed in among them, a good many of us at least, for as well on their side as ours all the first ranks, either with the push of pikes or the shock at the encounter, were overturned, neither is it possible amongst foot to see greater fury. The second rank and the third were the cause of our victory, for the last so pushed them on that they fell in upon the heels of one another, and as ours pressed in the enemy was still driven back. I was never in my life so active and light as that day and it stood me well so to be, for above three times was beaten down to my knees.

And that is with pikes, probably the clumsiest and most formation orientated type of polearm.
This is also a good example of a headlong rush onto points actually working, if only because armour actually does it's job in real life-the author describes plenty of his men, and himself, being knocked down after hitting pikes, but not being killed or seriously injured.

However I remember a martial arts documentary in which some guys were in Japan trying to learn how to use the naginata. The weapon was heavier than many martial arts movie portrays them as. In addition the martial artist teaching them showed them just how clumsy using the weapon was if you are untrained as he made them hit some stationary objects.

The martial artist even made the guests spar with him and he showed them just how goddamn easy it was to deflect and parry thrusts from a naginata and he showed them just how vulnerable they were once a single thrust was parried. He also showed that not just naginata but also yari spears, Japanese lances, and such pole weapons were very easy to disarmed if you weren't train.

So I am wondering after seeing this documentary. Movies show spears as being such simple weapons anyone can use them while being on the defensive against a charging army as I stated in my description above. But the Martial Artist int he documentary really makes me wonder how hard it is to simply just stand there and wait for your enemies to charge into your spear and also how simplistic it was to push your spear into new men repeatedly.

Was using a spear-like weapon much harder than movies portray and require a lot of training like the martial arts documentary I saw show?

Would a spear wall formation be enough to kill raging vikings or naked Celts as long as you stand your ground patiently and wait for them to rush into the wall? Or is physical conditioning and actual training with the weapon required?
With a line of infantry with spears/halberds/pikes, getting the point offline isn't enough-you also have to worry about the points to the left and right, and even once you get past the first layers of points there are more behind. And that's without taking into account the fact that most pike/spearmen would carry a sword or other sidearm that they can use once things get ugly.

In a single combat context, a good fighter would have no problem gripping the polearm near the middle for close-in fighting, striking or parrying with the butt end, or simply switching to a backup weapon.

In short:
Polearms of all sorts are nasty, nasty weapons and they were the preferred close-combat weapon for virtually all militaries up to the present day for a reason.
 
You are missing several points on the why those weapons were used and its mostly because you use movies has a source.

I notice many movies portray pole arm weapons such as pikes, naginitas, guandaos, halberds, and spears as being a very easy weapon to use. You just hold the spear,pike, or whatever pole weapon and wait for the enemy to stupidly run into it.

Put yourself on the shoes of the "stupid enemy" and think if charging against a pointy object is a good idea. Movies tend to overlook things like that. In reality it would take long periods of time between the two lines clashing and when they advanced against eachother they would move slowly, to keep formation, and when the fight begins the shields would clash against the other.

240px-Two_hoplites.jpg


This image shows how the Hoplites would engage. The first rank would keep the spear high so that they could hit the enemy from above, thus passing by their shield, while the second line would place their spears on the small gaps on the shieldwall.

I suggest you see this to get a better understanding of spear use.

The best example is the Stirling Battle Scene in Bravhart where William Wallace's soldiers awaited for the English Heavy Cavalry to charge at the Scots. The Scots merely placed large wooden stakes on the ground and angled it at the English Horses and they were slaughtered as they charged into it. So many other movies with troops using spears as their primary weapon portrays using spears in a similar fashion. You hold it and form whole wall of spears and just wait for your enemies to stupidly run into it and die.

Braveheart...Braveheart...never use that movie as a historical source, example number one on why not: Stirling was fought on a battlefield that was divided by a bridge not on a open field.

Also you will find out that Medieval armies knew what part of the spear was the pointy one and no one would charge against spears without support. Plus the spears were supposed to kill the horse and then someone armed with a dagger or other kind of weapon would kill the cavalrymen while he's on the floor, because unlike what Movies show armour wasn't just used for show.

Even after the initial charge, using the pole arms to kill is portrayed simply as pushing it to the next guy in front of you, wait for that guy to be impaled and fall, then hit the next guy in line with it and repeat. 300 shows this perfectly. Watch the video.
As you seen in the clip, the Spartan decimated the Persians with a tactic so simple. Simply push the spear into the next guy in front of you in line after the initial charge and push the spear into him killing him like he's a human shape cardboard stand that you see in stores and he falls to the ground. Waits for the next Persian in role to appear and they suddenly push the spear into the next guy and kill him and keep repeating until an entire Persian unit was decimated.

Strangely enough the movie 300 was inspired by a comic book and not by the actual historical battle. In reality the longer spear used by the Greeks allowed them to keep the Persians at bay because their smaller weapons couldn't close the gap. During their fight against the Immortals the Spartans also used, apparently, the fake retreat tactic. The 5000 Greek force also had the advantage of fighting with the relative protection of a wall that they had partially rebuilt before the battle.

It wan't just thrust, kill, repeat.

Spear battles are often protrayed as this in movies once the initial moment where enemies rush into spears with no regard for their own lives and get impaled like barbecue on a hot fourth of July. Push your spear like your enemy is n inflated baloon and you will kill them by the hundreds.

So its portrayed as so long as you don't lose your balance and remaining holding it pointed at your enemy on the defensive, you simply stay where you are and let your enemy charge you and the killing commences as you pull the spear and push it towards the next marching troops in line at the front row after the initial charge was stopped by your spears.

I think I already pointed out enough time that usually men didn't charged into suicidal charges and that armour, strangely, did its work.

You appear to have the idea that spears and other pole arms were just used on defensive tactics and yet both the Macedonian phalanx and the Spanish tercio, both mostly made up of pikes and can be considered the best formations of their time, were most of the time used offensively. Large bodies of men advancing with pikes can do others things other than stay static on the battlefield.

Even martial art movies portrays spears int he same manner. Often the master martial artist awaits for his gang of enemies to run at him and suddenly he starts killing hordes of men with simple pushes of the spear as the come nearby with a fancy trick from staff fighting thrown in every 3rd or fourth bad guy.

However I remember a martial arts documentary in which some guys were in Japan trying to learn how to use the naginata. The weapon was heavier than many martial arts movie portrays them as. In addition the martial artist teaching them showed them just how clumsy using the weapon was if you are untrained as he made them hit some stationary objects.

The martial artist even made the guests spar with him and he showed them just how goddamn easy it was to deflect and parry thrusts from a naginata and he showed them just how vulnerable they were once a single thrust was parried. He also showed that not just naginata but also yari spears, Japanese lances, and such pole weapons were very easy to disarmed if you weren't train.

Movies exaggerate. If I used the Gladiator has a source on how the Roman Empire was during the time of Marcus Aurelious then I wound't believe how the actual Empire was, and this is coming from a person that likes the movie, as a movie not as a source.

So I am wondering after seeing this documentary. Movies show spears as being such simple weapons anyone can use them while being on the defensive against a charging army as I stated in my description above. But the Martial Artist int he documentary really makes me wonder how hard it is to simply just stand there and wait for your enemies to charge into your spear and also how simplistic it was to push your spear into new men repeatedly.

Was using a spear-like weapon much harder than movies portray and require a lot of training like the martial arts documentary I saw show?

Would a spear wall formation be enough to kill raging vikings or naked Celts as long as you stand your ground patiently and wait for them to rush into the wall? Or is physical conditioning and actual training with the weapon required?

Spears were used because they were simple to make and were effective, but it took training. You had to train to gain enough nerve and discipline not to break during a battle. Halberds were used because they were a good, and cheap, offensive, and defensive, weapon that could kill or incapacitate a horse, it could be used as an axe and it was able to throw a good punch against plate and in some cases it could make a hole on the plate. Pikes were good to attack and to defend and were, like the others, cheap. Training and discipline was what mattered. A legionary by his own wasn't that much of a warrior and on one-on-one we would most likely loose against other warriors but 100 of them, relying on discipline, formation and training would be able to defeat larger numbers of undisciplined men.

The Nordics, the ones that went Vikingr, weren't mindless fouls, they were intelligent. They choose there targets carefully and avoided fighting when the enemy had the apparent upper hand. A dead warrior isn't of much use. If the Saxons just formed a spear wall the Nords would do the same, they wouldn't just do a mindless charge.

The same about the Celts. I have a fascination about the Celtic culture, mostly because I love mythology and the Celtic one was, and is, one of my favorites, and the idea of the "naked Celt" charging against the Roman lines is an insult to the actual Celts, because the Romans first came into contact with mail while fighting Gauls!!!! Now assuming that this is the late Celtic style of warfare then the chief and his personal guard would have the best armour the rest would have leather armour or something similar, if they had the means but at the least they would use their cloths, and most would had helmets, there is actually an argument on if it were the Celts that influenced the Roman helmets or if it was the other way around. Their tactics, according to Caesar, were the Furor Celtica a frontal assault that would rely on shear momentum to break the enemy formation, the Celtic Phalanx a deadly shield wall and guerrilla tactics and even Caesar admitted that at one point his army wasn't destroyed thanks to luck.
 
Last edited:
However I remember a martial arts documentary in which some guys were in Japan trying to learn how to use the naginata. The weapon was heavier than many martial arts movie portrays them as. In addition the martial artist teaching them showed them just how clumsy using the weapon was if you are untrained as he made them hit some stationary objects.

The martial artist even made the guests spar with him and he showed them just how goddamn easy it was to deflect and parry thrusts from a naginata and he showed them just how vulnerable they were once a single thrust was parried. He also showed that not just naginata but also yari spears, Japanese lances, and such pole weapons were very easy to disarmed if you weren't train

actually, rereading this can I bring something up?

If I understand that right, you're saying that a bunch of guys who have no idea how to properly use the weapons have trouble hitting stationary targets and are no match for a martial artist who know what he's doing in a one-on-one fight?

That's...not really evidence to say that a spear/polearm is a weak weapon. It's more evidence on the importance of training.
 
actually, rereading this can I bring something up?

If I understand that right, you're saying that a bunch of guys who have no idea how to properly use the weapons have trouble hitting stationary targets and are no match for a martial artist who know what he's doing in a one-on-one fight?

That's...not really evidence to say that a spear/polearm is a weak weapon. It's more evidence on the importance of training.
Pretty much. A crummy fighter with a spear beats a crummy fighter with a sword. A good fighter with a spear beats a good fighter with a sword. A crummy fighter with a spear gets stomped by a good fighter with a sword, because the good fighter knows how to negate his own weapons disadvantages, exploit his opponents disadvantages, and most importantly has a better understanding of timing, distance and leverage.
 
Pretty much. A crummy fighter with a spear beats a crummy fighter with a sword. A good fighter with a spear beats a good fighter with a sword. A crummy fighter with a spear gets stomped by a good fighter with a sword, because the good fighter knows how to negate his own weapons disadvantages, exploit his opponents disadvantages, and most importantly has a better understanding of timing, distance and leverage.

Whats your opinion of the results of the various wars the Romans fought against the Greek successor kingdoms, where you pretty much did have skilled swordsmen versus skilled spearmen?
 
Whats your opinion of the results of the various wars the Romans fought against the Greek successor kingdoms, where you pretty much did have skilled swordsmen versus skilled spearmen?

It was a clash of generations and the Roman one won. The generation that lead the Roman side had been the one that had been forged on the Second Punic War they had been born and had lived during the time in which the Republic suffered its greatest humiliations and defeats and that time of war forged the Roman Army that would fight the Macedonians and Seleucids. As they say hard times breed hard men.

The Romans had experience and Hannibal had thought them the lesson of adapting to the circumstances and this made them the ideal war machine to face the Greeks that had stagnated and simply decided that adding more and more men into the phalanx, thus making it into a very slow human ram, was the answer. For example at Cynoscephalae it was the initiative of a tribunus that won the Romans the battle. If we believe that in Pydna the battle begun because a donkey, or some other animal, got captured by the Macedonians and then a fight begun the Latin Legions, not the Roman ones, fighting the Macedonians and with both sides just being dragged into the growing fight it shows that the Roman ability to adapt and to use the terrain to their advantage as the phalanx would be useless on broken terrain.

At Magnesia it was their use of elephants, and Eumenes cunning thinking, that won the battle.

On a open plain and in equal conditions the phalanx and the legions would butcher each other, but it would be hard to decide a victor. The legions only have to flank the phalanx to destroy their formation but on a frontal assault the legion would be butchered by the phalanx.

My take is that they were both good tactics and it was the circumstances of the Republic leadership that played the decisive role, the men that fought on those wars were the best the middle Republic had to offer. If we placed Alexander the Great and Scipio Asiaticus or the Africanus on a open plane with their armies at the best of times expect it to be a butchery.
 
Polearms were used by base line "infantry" mainly for the reason that it doesn't require as much skill to use as would a sword, axe, etc. Swords require the skill to be able to have proper edge aliment, have more experience in terms of attacking and closer quarter combat. With a spear, all that the soldier needs to learn is how to stay in formation, point the pointy end at the enemy and thrust. (possibly cut too if the spear is designed for that). The spear has the advantage of reach and means that the person using it is a little more confidence since he has a reach advantage against his opponent, if you're more comfortable in battle, that can go a very long way to improve your effectiveness. The person with a sword in close quarters has the advantage but they have to get past the point first. Someone with a polearm that has more training can react and defend effectively in close quarters with a polearm, but that requires more training.

Another main reason that they were used was simply because it was cheap, an axe is cheaper to make then a sword and a spear is cheaper then an axe. Combine that with the polearm being able to be used while in a formation, as a skirmishing weapon (granted, they would generally be armed with an axe as well for closer combat) as a ranged weapon (to an extend and depending on the polearm), as a way to defend against Calvary (horses don't like running into pointy things, what a shock) and many other things that other weapons simply don't have the capacity to do. A main disadvantage that they do have (besides the a-for-mentioned close quarters) is that the opponent can use the strong part of his weapon (somewhere near the hilt) against the weak of your weapon (the longer the weapon is, the less control you have at the tip) and could easily push it aside if the person wielding the polearm doesn't react to it. That would really only be a problem with something un-skilled in a polearm however, as it's more or less a basic as to how to counter a parry.

This video might help a little bit.
 
Top