A guy with a spear vs a guy with a sword

Both are equally skilled, and there's no running away from the fight.

Lancer/Staff or an actual spear? The guy with the sword should beat the guy with the spear due to a stronger defense and striking.

@thedeathstroke: A staff=/=spear. And a lance is a huge special version of a spear, which I'm not counting.

This battle makes no sense whatsoever.

On average I'd say if you gave a random person a spear and a random person a sword and had them fight, the person with the spear would win because it's far easier to use and its range advantage is difficult to overcome. Saying that they're "both very skilled" however means there's really no way to determine a winner.

Sword wielder could grab the spear and hold it for the kill or just slice the spear in half due to it being wood besides the tip itself.

A spear would have no chance of defending any strikes from a sword being that the general spear is a wooden stick with the blade at the tip. Not saying someone with a spear couldn't win but the sword has the majority.

The guy with the Spear has a better chance due to the distance he can put between him and the swordsman

@thedeathstroke: What? The entire length of the spear is capable of deflecting sword strikes. Swords are nothing but back up weapons. Polearms are the main weapons of the battlefield. The spear has far greater reach and versatility.

I can guarantee you that unless in a cramped space, a spear will almost always beat a sword if the fighters are fairly even in skill. Go to any martial arts school that does weapons training and you'll see how massive of an advantage a spear or staff has over a sword.

The guy with the sword would obviously win. What are you going to do with a spear? Jab? The guy with the sword can knock the spearman off balance.

@renny: You can do just about anything with a spear that you could with a sword.

@shadowwaker: Why would a swordsman be able to knock a spearman off balance any more easily than the spearman could do to a swordsman?

A full metal staff yes, but a typical wooden spear? no. Your literally only striking one sort of way with the spear.. and if you try to sweep or whatever with the spear and the sword defends then the spear ends up damaged due to material. Not to even mention that the sword's strikes are going to be much to heavy for someone with a spear to defend.

@xlr87t3: There are many types of spears. A spear meant for pike formations is different from a spear meant for duels and skirmishes. The latter can be used much like a staff.

@thedeathstroke: lol no. You can thrust with a spear, you can slash with a spear (depending on the blade type), and you can use the shaft for blocking, parrying, and even bludgeoning.

A sword is not damaging a spear made for battle. Not even a wooden spear.

@zetsumoto: The guy with the sword is faster and the guy with the spear can mainly jab. Limiting attacking. A swordman would just knock that flimsy spear out of the spearmans side and win.

@shadowwaker: Tons of swords specialize in jabbing. In fact, most dueling swords specialize in jabbing.

A spear can be used to jab or slash (depending on the blade type), and the shaft can be used to either attack or defend, and spears are FAR from flimsy. In fact, I'd rather block a sword with a spear, than block a spear strike with a sword.

Swords are not always faster either. Spears are well balanced and the entire length of the shaft can be used for leverage allowing for far faster strikes/jabs and recovery time than a lot of swords offer.

@xlr87t3: What kind of sword?

The sword is the better weapon, and when skill is equalized, it will come down to the weapon. Reason being that you have a much greater array of moves.

Thats only because most armies in the olden days tended to be made up mostly of peasants and other people of few means who couldn't afford to have a sword. And a polearm is something else entirely, since it's made to deal with armored opponents.

Because the people using them in those videos are amaturs and the spear is much easier to use effectively.

Plus you have to consider that a spear is something thats practically designed to be used in a group, but in a duel like this a swordsman has a much greater advantage.

@outside_85: Uh, no. Swords were primarily back up weapons, even for those who could afford them. Spears are a type of polearm, and yes they were used even by the warrior class in battles and skirmishes.

Spears were the main weapon for the samurai, the main weapon for many knights, as well as the main weapon for the norse.

Also, there are different kinds of spears. Pikes are specialized for group formations. Shorter spears are perfect for dueling and have a hell of a lot more advantages than a sword.

I am not just talking about videos, and they are not amateurs. You're completely talking out of your arse... Spears may be easier to pick up and use, but when you actually train in spear fighting, the intricacies of what you can do with a spear are just as complex if not more so than any sword.

The Spear-user is going to win. Full stop. A spear user, and other polearm users, are one of the hardest matches imaginable for a straight out swordsmen. They always have been. Spears have greater range, incredible versatility as you can freely change your grip on it to length or shorten the distance and they are amazingly easy to recover (so, if you miss a jab, it is super easy to regain control and be back into a fighting position compared to a sword), and my personal favorite? You have more areas to attack. It is harder to change a strike from top to bottom as you have to move your entire arm, a spear can go from your head to your leg in a moment with minimal movement making it a pain in the rear to deal with.

So, lets debunk some common misconceptions:

"A spear is made of wood, it can't block a sword!"

Yes. Yes, it can. Reality is not a movie or video game. Physics is a thing. You are not going to be able to swing a sword hard enough to break a spear that someone is holding before he pokes holes in you:

Keep in mind he was using inferior wood and it was being held in place, now another one:

Once again. Not. Something. That. Is. Going. To. Happen. You would need the other user to hold it still for you and not parry it, like any skilled fighter would do, and, you know, be nice and helpful and stand there.

"Just get close and you win!"

Spears are incredibly fast and it is incredibly difficult to close the distance to get in, and 'Oh, just get close'... you.. do know you can change the grip on a spear to shorten or length it and.. crazy, but if they step forward.. you can step backwards..

"Swords are better weapons!"

Swords are pretty. They are cool looking, but if you want to survive a fight, you pick a polearm, in most periods of history, swords were secondary weapons, not primary (not always, but normally speaking, people who had swords had a primary ranged weapon or a polearm because they were better for war whilst swords are simply more convenient to carry around when not in battle, thus, a sidearm). There is a reason there are ton of techniques developed to beat spears and other longer weapons with the shorter sword, it is not because swords are amazing, it is because they need those to give them a chance against a polearm user:

TL;DR Spear user wins.

Spear would win the majority, due to the massive reach advantage it has. Cutting through the spear, as some above have said, is not very realistic, unless the spear is of extremely low quality or already badly worn. Best chance the swordsman would have would be to deflect the spear while slowly advancing until the reach advantage is no longer present (at which point the advantage would go to the swordsman), but the spearman would of course know that and thus retreat with every parried thrust.

At low skill level I'd say the spearman would win over 90% of the time. At high skill levels it would be closer, but the spearman would still win about 55%.

For what it's worth, a Zweihander would probably be the best sword to use against a spear, as the reach advantage wouldn't be as great (though still prevalent), and due to it's high cutting power, would have the best chance of actually cutting through the spear (but still highly unlikely).

I know but spears are still decidedly not staffs. They are different things. However, quarterstaff training is basically what you learn for spear training, so yeah the spear can still pummel a person due to the staff-like thickness. There's videos of how much it takes to cut a spear in half with a sword.

You must be joking? No, they were used by peasants who couldn't afford the amount of metal that would go into making a sword or other weapon.

You must be talking about the lower classes then. If a norseman could afford one, he would have a sword and it would be family heirloom. Knights? Only if they were on horse, you wouldn't deck yourself out in expensive armor made of metal and then show up with a budget-weapon like the spear.

They have one, exactly one, advantage here, and that is range. A spear can only wound or kill with a specific move, which is the thrust, and that's easy to keep an eye on since the only part of the spear that's dangerous is the tip. If a swordsman knows what he is doing, then all he has to do is get past the tip and either stab or slash the spearman and call it a day.

Says the guy trying to make the spear out to be a knightly weapon.

This would be better as an Off-Topic or Gen. Discussion thread entitled "Which is the more effective weapon, a spear or a sword?"

@outside_85: Uh, no. The norse burried the swords with the dead. Swords are fancy symbols of status, comfotable tools of self defense during daily life, and backup weapons on the battlefield.

Edit: With a bit of a review, the norse actually did use sword heirlooms. I might be mixing up the burying with a more relatively modern culture.

Yes, samurai used spears. Knights used spears, which late evolved into more complex polearms. Wealthy norsemen still used spears and/or axes (in addition to the swords, that they carried as comfotable sidearms)

One advantage? You are completely talking out of your arse. Someone in this thread, literally just posted videos explaining and demonstrating why you are wrong.

Spears do a LOT more than thrust. Also your criticism of a supposed overspecialization, is completely asinine, as the best dueling swords are all thrusting based!

@outside_85:

If a norseman could afford one, he would have a sword and it would be family heirloom.

And yet they would still use spears as their primary weapon... Norsemen who could afford swords would use them as an alternative to axes, which again were backup weapons. Polearms have virtually always ruled the battlefields.

Knights? Only if they were on horse, you wouldn't deck yourself out in expensive armor made of metal and then show up with a budget-weapon like the spear.

Well strictly speaking a knight by definition is horse mounted, so they virtually always had either spears or lances. And if they weren't using a spear, they were still primarily using a polearm, such as a halberd or poleaxe.

They have one, exactly one, advantage here, and that is range.

Which has proved to be the single most important advantage in combat throughout history.

A spear can only wound or kill with a specific move, which is the thrust, and that's easy to keep an eye on since the only part of the spear that's dangerous is the tip. If a swordsman knows what he is doing, then all he has to do is get past the tip and either stab or slash the spearman and call it a day.

This makes about as much sense as saying "if the spearman knows what he's doing, all he has to do is stab the swordsman and call it a day".

Says the guy trying to make the spear out to be a knightly weapon.

Try reading, I don't know, anything that's historically accurate. Spears were used by Knights. This is not arguable.

Spear 9/10. @wut said everything what I wanted to say. Hema experts are saying via their experience that there's a reason why spears dominated Ancient and Medieval times: massive reach advantage.

Saying that swordsman can grab the spear or cut it in half with ease is fantasy/comic bullshit. Hema experts with even 10 years of 1v1 duel/tourney practical experience are showing that spears are simply better even in 1v1 duels.

@xerolot: Pfft. Wut and his sources. Clearly Outside_85 is the biggest expert here, He has more historical knowledge and practical experience than any of the guys in ose videos!

The spearman will win. This is a bit of an open and shut case.

I was going to say it depends on which type but I think Wut has a better answer. There is a lot of myths people think are true but aren't.

@wut:

Spears are incredibly fast and it is incredibly difficult to close the distance to get in, and 'Oh, just get close'... you.. do know you can change the grip on a spear to shorten or length it and.. crazy, but if they step forward.. you can step backwards..

The swordsman in the video is actually far more inexperienced than the spearman. I've been fencing with AHF for about 3 years now and I can tell you that I've never seen a skilled fencer close in that early.

That video also doesn't completely represent OP's battle because 1. the epee the swordsman is using is far too flimsy to represent a real sword. 2. the spear used is lighter (rubber head vs iron head) 3. both fighters are not equally skilled.

Swordsman 7/10 times with nothing, 8/10 times with chainmail, 9/10 times with a shield

If they were sufficiently important, yes. But then we are talking about kings and the jarls, not people who could not easily afford a new sword. And no, what you are thinking about is likely a seax, which is more of an oversized kitchen knife, that, or a small axe was the backup weapon for the norse.

Not as the main weapon and not if they had the choice to use something else. Especially not the knights, because in their case it really was a peasant's weapon.

Good for him, if found one to believe in that bullshit.

No they dont, do you actually know which way a spear is supposed to go, or are you just making this up as you go? If they are made of bronze or cheap pig-iron, and then it's because the sword would simply break if you did anything other than stabbing or thrusting.

If you were a peasant, those were the people who used spears. If you had the money, you have something else.

And by that definition, they'd be using a spear or lance because that would save them the efforts of having to lean over to strike at their targets. And no, they would not have a polearm if mounted, it's far too heavy and clumsy to move around while on a horse (because all the weight tends to be at the far end of it and you only have one hand to use it with). If you didn't have a spear or lance, you'd likely have an axe or a warhammer to deal with all the helmets you would likely have to hit. And I'll let you in on a little secret, polearms were designed to specifically deal with mounted knights and other people in heavy armor... because you can't pierce plate armor with anything really, what you can do is knock them over and then basically leap onto them and jam a knife into the joints before they can get up again.

Really? I would have thought the improvement of the craftsmanship of your equipment and your tactics was the big advantage everyone had always been after. Rome didn't claim most of Europe because they had a ranged advantage after all.

Yes and the swordsman is just going to stand there? Look, the scenario I outlined meant the swordsman has to get within the guard of spearman, which is any point to the side or behind the tip of the spear, the only really dangerous part of it. If he gets in there, there is almost nothing the spearman can do to him thats going to stop him. And all the swordsman has to do is sidestep the spearman's thrust, and move in... heck if he is good enough he can move aside and simply grab the spear with his free hand while it's there.

Tell me which knights these were, I'd like to know. But note I am going to discount them if they turn out to be mounted.

this

Spear easily. More range and takes much less skill to use.

But what is the advantage in that unless we are dealing with people who have never used these weapons before?

1on1 I'd say the swordsman.

Spears were meant to be used in formations & against mounted cavalry not in 1on1 duels.

Spears were considered main weapons while swords were off weapons, spears were the main weapon of this type of warfare.

Superior range as well.

As well as faster strikes.

Spear wins.

Ask anyone with knowledge on HEMA or Warfare from these times.

1. He was also given a buckler, an amazing luxury this swordsmen is not given. If you are facing someone with a spear, you need to close. Pure and simple. You don't have a choice. If you fight at range, you lose as their recovery is far faster then your own, and you are never going to be able to close in without them thrusting at you and spears are incredibly fast and hard to parry and dodge since they can stab low to high in silly fast times. The fighter in the video had likely faced spearmen before and knew his only chance was to to parry the first blow, close the distance and get the thrust in, he is not facing another swordsmen and you need to understand that.

2. The sword he used was also lighter. I ask have you ever used a spear? Because they are incredibly easy to maneuver around, hilariously so, even with a steel head thanks to how you can grip them.

3. We are not told the experience of the two fighters in that video. Saying one is not as good because he does not fight as you do is not a mark of experience nor skill. It was to demonstrate the pain of fighting a spearman using a much shorter weapon even with the luxury of being given a shield.

@easternwind:

spears were used for countering cavalry or breaking enemy lines, not for 1v1 like handy said above.

@outside_85:

If you were a peasant, those were the people who used spears. If you had the money, you have something else.

Spears were used by everyone. Peasants just didn't have the luxury of a backup weapon like a sword.

And by that definition, they'd be using a spear or lance because that would save them the efforts of having to lean over to strike at their targets. And no, they would not have a polearm if mounted, it's far too heavy and clumsy to move around while on a horse (because all the weight tends to be at the far end of it and you only have one hand to use it with).

I was specifically referring to knights using them instead of spears while dismounted, since that seems to be what you're talking about.

If you didn't have a spear or lance, you'd likely have an axe or a warhammer to deal with all the helmets you would likely have to hit.

Do you have any sources for knights riding into battle and choosing an axe or warhammer instead of a spear or lance?

And I'll let you in on a little secret, polearms were designed to specifically deal with mounted knights and other people in heavy armor... because you can't pierce plate armor with anything really, what you can do is knock them over and then basically leap onto them and jam a knife into the joints before they can get up again.

I'm aware of this? What is your point exactly? They ended up replacing spears as the primary weapons of many soldiers because of their increased capacities to fight against armour. A pole weapon is a pole weapon, and their main advantage is still reach. Just that the polearms created in the 14th century onwards were better than spears against the majority of enemies they faced.

Really? I would have thought the improvement of the craftsmanship of your equipment and your tactics was the big advantage everyone had always been after. Rome didn't claim most of Europe because they had a ranged advantage after all.

I'm talking about single combat...

Yes and the swordsman is just going to stand there? Look, the scenario I outlined meant the swordsman has to get within the guard of spearman, which is any point to the side or behind the tip of the spear, the only really dangerous part of it. If he gets in there, there is almost nothing the spearman can do to him thats going to stop him. And all the swordsman has to do is sidestep the spearman's thrust, and move in... heck if he is good enough he can move aside and simply grab the spear with his free hand while it's there.

Well I guess a single swordsman can solo entire armies now. All he has to do is sidestep every attack and simply disarm them and win.

Seriously, do you not realise how moronic that sounds? Look at the video @wut posted. Your example is the definition of "easier said than done".

Tell me which knights these were, I'd like to know. But note I am going to discount them if they turn out to be mounted.

Lol what? Knights are horse mounted warriors by definition. Asking for unmounted knights makes no sense.

If you're asking for knights who for whatever reason were forced to dismount, then either way this is basically the same as saying "Tell me which knights used swords, I'd like to know". You don't seem to grasp how common and how dominant of a weapon the spear was in history. So to answer you... virtually every knight up to the 14th century.

@k0pi: Lol, Nick is a certified HEMA instructor. He is anything but inexperienced.

A very good point really. We don't know how skilled these two fighters are (not in the video or in this thread), only they are equally skilled in this thread... and that puts the swordsman at a disadvantage depending on how little skill these equals have. The spear is very easy to use, while the sword requires a certain amount of training to use properly.

@outside_85: They are HEMA instructors, so I assume they have a respectable amount of training and skill, however, as I do not know an exact time of reference, nor have I personally met them, I chose to not comment on that particular part of his post and merely mention that I do not, in fact, know the amount of experience they have and point out how saying someone does not fight like you =/= them not skilled.

@wut:

If you fight at range, you lose as their recovery is far faster then your own, and you are never going to be able to close in without them thrusting at you and spears are incredibly fast and hard to parry and dodge since they can stab low to high in silly fast times. The fighter in the video had likely faced spearmen before and knew his only chance was to to parry the first blow, close the distance and get the thrust in, he is not facing another swordsmen and you need to understand that.

The video is tilted in spearman's favor because the swordsman is not as skilled. You can tell because he spends way too much time in the spearman's killzone, and his relatively slow reaction time doesn't really help.

I ask have you ever used a spear? Because they are incredibly easy to maneuver around, hilariously so, even with a steel head thanks to how you can grip them.

Only twice against people around my skill range, and they got the best of me almost every time. They are NOT easier maneuver once the sword gets too close.

3. We are not told the experience of the two fighters in that video. Saying one is not as good because he does not fight as you do is not a mark of experience nor skill. It was to demonstrate the pain of fighting a spearman using a much shorter weapon even with the luxury of being given a shield.

Again, you can tell simply because of where he's standing. Has nothing to do with "He isn't as good as me." It may have been because they wanted more footage so they tried to minimize the distance between them. A match where they both could roam freely would be pretty long and boring.

For the record I would poke holes in that guy

@pipxeroth:

Being a HEMA instructor is basically the equivalent to being a college TA. If you are qualified and want to teach, you can be a HEMA instructor, but chances are there are a LOT of people who are better than you (unless youre rotti)

@k0pi: The video is tilted in spearman's favor because the swordsman is not as skilled. You can tell because he spends way too much time in the spearman's killzone, and his relatively slow reaction time doesn't really help.

He tries to close the gap numerous times. He actively tries to get in close to where he can preform better. 'slow reaction time', everything looks slower when you are watching from the side rather then watching the spear point come at you.

Only twice against people around my skill range, and they got the best of me almost every time. They are NOT easier maneuver once the sword gets too close.

So you have only used a spear twice in your life.. and somehow that equates to you knowing enough to judge others based upon their own fighting styles?

Again, you can tell simply because of where he's standing. Has nothing to do with "He isn't as good as me." It may have been because they wanted more footage so they tried to minimize the distance between them. A match where they both could roam freely would be pretty long and boring.

A match where they both could roam freely would still end in the spear's victory. More distance is badfor the swordsmen.

For the record I would poke holes in that guy

I don't care.