I really enjoyed the video, thank you for posting all the videos. Just analyzing the combat you can tell why in history battles started with a pike/spear phase and many soldiers favored this type of weapon. The range advantage is incredible on the spear and when the spears are outnumbered the effectiveness isn't lost either. 6 to 5 out of 11 is really good odds. A group of us in my city love sparing and melees and being able to see your clubs techniques and being able to study them is great use for all of us. Again thank you for the videos.
So this shows what we've always known: spear and shield destroys basically everything else in an unarmoured melee. From the look of it, the only times the swordsmen won were where some of them undertook suicidal charges, which real soldiers would be... reluctant at least to do. EDIT: I stand by the points I've made but I apologise for the snarkiness of my early replies. That kind of attitude contributes to the shit quality of online discourse, whether I'm right or wrong or whether the topic's important or not.
Robert R Seemed pretty one-sided for swordsmen. Besides this is an unarmored demonstration. Spearmen weren't effective in battle unless against calvary. Spear and Shield is ineffective without
+WatchesYouAtNight No that's not true at all. The spearmen were massively outnumbered in the video. Spearmen were the *staple* in battle basically from the beginning of human warfare through to the development of modern firearms (yes musketeers were spearmen too).
Robert R They weren't effective, I'm not referring to hoplites or the Macedonians right now. I'm talking about the medieval era were armor was more readily available to the average troop. A broad spear is going to have a tough time mortally wounding someone in a gambeson and chainmail behind a shield. In the middle of combat you can't properly distance yourself and your spear can be broken. In close combat they're almost useless.
+WatchesYouAtNight Again, that's observably and historically wrong. Sure, if you're facing down a man-at-arms in full plate, a pike isn't much use (although a shorter spear still is). But at no point in history (not even the 15th or 16th centuries) was the majority of an army equipped with that level of armour. Many types of spears (who said it has to be a "broad spear"?) are effective against mail and gambesons; no they won't reliably penetrate but neither will swords, axes, maces, daggers or arrows. At the end of the late medieval period, when plate armour was at its most developed and affordable, what do we see: pike blocks becoming the most dominant unit on the battlefield. And no I'm not claiming that pikes are a counter to full plate, merely that at no point in history was plate enough of a factor to counteract pikes' (or other types of spears') prominence on the battlefield.
With swords, you can play a classy game of sword fight, duel, and fencing With spears, you can play a game of a mobile arrow,a speeding charge, and the best of all being a sharp battering ram Id prefer spears most of the time
@theFareulookinat it is not a preference thing, spears are objectively a much better weapon and since Neanderthal days it is FAR more effecient to wield spears and ranged weapons like a bow.
This Melee certainly was better than the last one you guys did, last time you were far too gentle about it, this time I see you all actually did do some ganging up, last time was more like several duels occurring at the same time. A nice improvement.
This is why Romans used the Scutum for a shield with a short sword. The shield covered body from head to knee and they were greaves for the shins. They were able to use shield walls to make it impenetrable against the most common weapon of all time (spears) and get close and stab them with the gladius (sword).
No, they used the pila to disorder the ranks of thier mainly undisiplined inprofessional forces breaking thier cohision, then they could move in and beat them one to one in close combat
I like that every single sword fighter died, every time... including the only sword fighter on the spear side. No spear-men were injured during the filming of this slaughter.
The defenders of Gondor are overwhelmed by the relentless orc assault. But then, over the hill, a beacon of hope! It's the mighty Rohan cavalry with their spears! The Rohirrim let out a mighty roar as they slowly approach the orc flank and proceed to kinda lunge-jab with their spears... Yeah, not as cool that way.
Hm, maybe a fun thing to try next time - I personally would definitely prefer spear in two hands when going against just swordsmen, as opposed to spear and shield.
A two handed grip allows massive leverage, and therefore speed in the chance of direction, as well as the use of staff cutting techniques. Against a swordsman the spear in two hands is a huge advantage, but in melee scenarios, or against other polearms, or when the enemy have bows, the shield is a huge advantage.
Wouldnt be most effective combination first line - shield wall with swords and second line spearmans? If they would manage to be coordinated, it could connected advantages of two hand grip of spear and protection and close combat effectivity of swordman with shield.
@@Lea_Kaderova I know this is old , but for knowledge sake. simply No. because there’s no guarantee your swordsman won’t catch a spear or arrow to the face and now you have a shieldless spearman in a shield wall. Until the next line of sword/shields + rear spears advance forward to replace the line that was just lost. In theory you have a thrusting advantage. But there’s an advantage that’s often overlooked in shields and can be seen in todays Riot police. Rows on rows of shields are great for bracing the back of the man in front of you and helping to disperse the force of the enemy charge who’s entire purpose is to break your formation and win the fight.
Seen that style of fighting a zillion times on every everage rennaisance fair. Same mistake every time. Swordsmen must not keep the distance to the spears or they will be massacred. Swordsmen must pass the tips of the spears as fast as possible, especially if they have the numerical advantage. One has to push the spear aside with his shield NOT falling back afterwards, comrade immediately closes in on the spearman. If you leave the range advantage willingly to the spearmen, they surely will win.
True on the first part. But it is far from suicidal for the soldiers if trained properly. It works fine and the risk you have to take is nothing different from the risk you have to take in a any fight. - Romans showed this was possible against the greek phalanx. I admit that the greek phalanx is not the same as the "formation" shown in the vid above. But the basic principle is the same. - Swiss showed this is possible against the burgundians. - Ancient combat manuals like the strategikon (6th century) describe another typical tactic: Phalanx itself is not attacked at first. Cursores (Attackers) placed on the own right flank try to flank the enemys left flank (usually defended by enemy defensores placed on the own left flank). Battle is decided by this flanking maneuvre if succesful. In a situation where the swordsmen have numerical advantage, so flanking should be possible. They just had to press it more vigorously. This tactiv however is not very suitable for the situation in the vid, because there are too few combatants on each side. No real flanking would result, the handful of men just would turn into a more or less chaotic melee of some sort or the other. With that few men the spearmen can react and move too fast. Anyway, with heavily outnumbering the speramen, the swordsmen could give it a serious try. We have played that often enough. When the swordsman (or axeman or similar) is past the spearhead it gets very unpleasant for the spearman. Even more so if in plural. There is a good reason for medieval and renaissance spearmen carrying a short and nimble secondary weapon. Keeping the distance is the worst the man with the shorter weapon can do. THAT is suicidal.
@@papaschlumpf5894 Your right! Plus it is obvious that these guys don't do team battles very often as they passed up every chance they had to take advantage of teamwork. It's hard to explain but if they did this kind of stuff regularly they would get it really quick.
There are plenty of HEMA groups in the US. Go to the HEMA Alliance page, a collective of US groups. Or join the HEMA international discussion group on FB and post a question to ask for your nearest group.
It begs a question. It seems the shield and sword is highly esteemed by Romans Viking nobles and Knights etc. So why did they? I know it's a status symbol but obviously more than that. Romans to the point a lot of their troops were armed with them instead of spears, and for quite some time. Perhaps there are some things that cannot be replicated with synthetics and blunts which I imagine would likely include would include spear points in shields, sword blades cutting into spear wood, nobles and Romans with significantly more armour, limited room to move in a larger melee. Perhaps armour and arming swords are often used in combination
Even though there are famous uses of sword and shield, the spear was still far more dominant throughout history. Context is still hugely important. The roman use of sword and shield for example, was pre-dominately using massive shields, and that changes things significantly. The Vikings still favoured spear and bow over sword. But the sword was revered and romanticised with them. Also they frequently fought in smaller skirmishes and melees where swords are really useful. Overall, the spear and other pole arms are much more useful battlefield weapons than swords in the vast majority of circumstances, which is why they have been so dominant. Cost of manufacture, maintenance, repair, and training is also really important. Spears are cheap and easy, as well as much quicker to train the users than sword. Armour changes things, so does room to manoeuvre, multiple ranks, skirmishers, all sorts of factors.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing as far as I know, Romans have used infantry with only swords just for very small moment in history, most of time of Roman Empire infantry has had spears
I would like to say that most people used a spear and sword, and not just one or the other they both have their specialties, and while I prefer the spear that’s my opinion and it wouldn’t be great in close combat
We don't sorry, but we will do some montante stuff in the new year. Ultimately it is very difficult to do with any level of realism though, simply down to the striking mass.
I'd be curious about the different amount of kinetic energy a spear can impact when used this way versus a sword. Real life isn't one touch and you fall down.
Depends on point of impact and if they are armoured. People are very easily killed. I cut myself shaving quite often so it doesn't take much to make us bleed.
That's what I don't understand. The less of the world almost always used spear and shield over two handed spears, but only Japanese that used two handed spear a lot. I can't see how a two handed spear would beat spear and shield. Especially if they fought in formation. Or your enemies can just storm you with arrows.
You know that had armor on typically, right? You can't get a kill or incapacitating wound as easy with a spear. I have no idea why no one takes this into consideration
Almost everything we study at the AHF is unarmoured combat, and so we assume opponents are unarmoured unless wearing actual armour (as opposed to sportive protections). This kind of melee combat is really just a fun extra. As for armour, well of course what was worn varied immensely historical for this situation from no armour to a lot and everything in between. Though if you want to consider the effects of armour, you'd have to significantly downplay the effectiveness of the sword also.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing of course you would, but crushing power plays a huge role, and you don't have to kill someone to take them out of a fight. There is a reason ancient peoples went through such painstaking lengths to make swords.
Hello Nick! I love this combat videos haha... very nice. I have a question. This question I did to many other channels when I don´t know yours, and no one answer. No ofense to other channels, but you answer ALL my questions always. I unsubscribed this channels (yes, I´m very rencorous LOL! xD ). Anyway, my question: ¿If i have to choose a self defense weapon for self defense in an chaos / apocaliptic situation (like civil war for example), ¿what do you think about smallsword?.. I mean, is light and supposedly very lethal weapon (I call it ¨little Gladius¨ xD ), but... ¿is it really trustworthy for stoping people in furious combats?. I think that the thin point is lethal, but my doubt is if its inmediatly lethal. I think it´s a nice topic. Thank you very much for sharing this with us all. (and sorry for my english) Bye!
That is one of the most unique questions I've had! I'd say no to a smallsword in an apocalypse scenario. Firstly because it has no cutting ability, and that is really important in many scenarios, specifically when facing multiple opponents. The next problem is parring ability. You might have to face all kinds of heavy weapons, can it can be beaten through by weapons with substantial mass. Whilst you can use footwork and distance to protect yourself this isn't so much a problem, but in many scenarios you do not have that much room to move. Next problem is armour. It is likely that in these kinds of scenarios that people are going to equip themselves with all kinds of body armour, and the smallsword is just not built for that. It's rigidity means that if it doesn't penetrate on impact that it is very prone to snapping. Same goes if facing someone with any kind of a shield, you'll have a real hard time finding a target and they'll just run you down. Something that could be interesting though is to use smallsword in the offhand, and something like a sabre or similar in the main hand. You can lunge and thrust with the offhand from a distance, whilst always having the cutting/stopping power of a good cutter in the main hand. Great for melee scenarios too.
Wow! your ideas and points of view are awesome! I had never think about having a smallsword in my offhand or about armor people. You really know what you are talking about :) One thing I was sure to read: Sabre! haha... I know you loves it, and lets face the true, you are right, is the better weapon in most scenarios. I love sabres too, but more english backsword or italian sidesword is my style. But in short swords, maybe Gladius or Messer I think can be the most devastator weapons. Thank you very much for your time and great ideas. I love your channel.
zeroa6 No problem. I love backsword and sidesword too though. Ultimately all three are often used in much the same way, and I train with all three, would be happy with any of them.
No doubt Nick! For me, the sabre is a modern version of Backsword and Sidesword in the use, like you said, are used in the same way. The combat style is very european style, but in your opinion, ¿is sabre really an meddle east inspired weapon? Maybe sabre have a little advantage in cutting, but I love the european style of the sidesword and backsword. I´m more 1200-1700 styles, and always european! Thanks!
zeroa6 Well the sabres origin is in Asia and the middle east, but then we are talking a very long time ago. When the backswords and sideswords were being used, the sabre was already popular in Europe. Just look at the vast number of dussacks / tessacks that would made in the 16th century. Curved blades are just as European as straight ones are. Gunpowder and Tea weren't invented here either, but we sure made them our own :-)
Make a shield wall ;) And HEMA people say that reenactors always fight worse then them ;) And in fact this look exactly how not to fight in groups, very loos "formation" and more of many duels then fight of two teams.
You realize that loads of shield users, in formation, fought very loosely? Both with sword and shield. Tight formation shield walls are just one method, and to use successfully with spear, needs defence in depth, using mutliple ranks,
Academy of Historical Fencing I say that even in this situation (small teams) shield wall would be more successful. But my comment wasn't meant to very serous ;) It is shame that are no (at least for my knowledge) tractate about group fighting.
In this scenario, larger shields would have given the swordsmen a substantial advantage. But that is of course only in this context. With deeper ranks and battlefield conditions that changes everything. Swordsmen have in most parts of history, used smaller shields, as they operated as light infantry. So flexibility and speed is key on the battlefield.
Thanks, I see your point, medieval footmen relied on spears and bows, so the sword was a kind of auxiliary weapon and swordmen were flexible auxiliary troops, right?
@@karayama100na eveypne had a sword, but when people droped thier spears it was usually bc of caos, or bc they fought more mobile, like on a quick flanking attack, RAID or bc they couldnt Form up extera
All sorts of shields and buckler sizez were used historically. You have to use what you have got. Many swordsmen did carry smaller shields than a lot of spear equipped troops for the simple reason of agility and flexibility on a battlefield. Not every matchup/fight is fair,
yes I understand but, I think, that is why these guys did not do so well against the spearmen, changing the type of shield would change the balance of power
No doubt, the larger the shield the better the swordsmen will do. But any change can have a massive effect. Adding second ranks to both groups weights it back in the spear direction even with the larger shields for example.
yes it would but then we go into the phalanx against maniple situation and we know how the advantages and disadvantages of each of these units are. I was only considering a confrontation of the type you have presented in the video a group of spearmen against a group of swordsmen, not full formations.A larger shield would even things out greatly. The spearmen also have an ideal condition an even ground with a defended back, while the swordsmen are forced into suicidal attacks because they lack space for movement. I think the spearmen were given far too many advantages.
Not really a like for like comparison, as both European and Asian cultures used the spear in both highly evolved 1 on 1 encounters and also massed combat with militia.
1:06 Excellent strike spearman, you knocked the sword and boardsman to humility, a technical submission via optimal striking, by defeat, on the behalf of the spearman!
It wasn't by frontally defeating spear formations by marching up to them with a sword in hand. Romans had a number of advantages when they conquered the hellenic powers, like superior logistics, a larger pool of experienced manpower, superior support troops (like the light infantry that made up a large bulk of most armies), better officers, more training, ect. When we have examples of well trained spearmen facing roman swordsman face to face (like Hannibal's Libyan spearmen at Cannae) and massacring them. Even in the siege of Corinth, a veteran roman legion was stopped dead in its tracks by an outnumbered and hastily raised levy of citizen spearmen, despite the Corinthian cavalry being driven from the field early. They held until a "picked" unit managed to attack them from the flank.
And other factors change things substantially. The size of the shield, the amount of armour worn. The discipline of the troops, and ability to move and adapt on the battlefield. So many other factors. You cannot watch one video like this and apply it to a broad subject area. This only represents exactly what is shown, and that goes for the spearmen too. As having massed ranks helps further, due to the reach of the spear in the ranks behind, as does having skirmishes in the flanks to stop outflanking actions,
I imagine, Romans probably would've had several cohorts or maniples hold the phalanx defensively and have another flank, along with cavalry charges into the rear.
the Romans take what they think is useful and they ditch what isn't so it seems they are very practical. Perhaps waves of pilums seem to be more effective for them. Probably more so against small bucklers too. And maybe the fact that pike formations were unsteady in rugged terrain seems too ineffective in the minds of the Romans. You don't really see pikes making a comeback for a long time after all. A Roman was fairly short too which might be a blessing if you're using a tower shield? Als
If you speak about Kinoskephal, It was just because Macedonian cavalry decided to run out of battlefield, and Roman cavalry could charge to the back of Greeks.
It's a misconception that all shields used for this kind of combat were the huge types associated with the Vikings. The Vikings had many size shields, and many other cultures, for example the Saxons, favoured much smaller shields as the norm. A classic issue of a broad category of weapon being judged by the standard of a single type.
The same could be said for changing all sorts of things in a particular fight, but in HEMA we work to emulate certain weapons and styles, not look for optimal for a particular scenario. If that was the case for example, nobody would ever use bucklers, because shields are better.
It was out of necessity years ago. The only decent jackets available were sport fencing coaches equipment, which is black, and as it became the standard, when HEMA companies started making dedicated equipment they went with black. That is now starting to change though as the supply of equipment becomes much more varied. Check out some of our more recent videos and you will see a number of us now wear red.
Oh, that makes sense. Sort of - though I've only ever seen white fencing jackets, not that I see many. (apart from movies where they wanted the viewer to be able to differentiate the "good" guy and the "bad" guy and are for some reason fencing, standard cinematography antics )
Coaches equipment In sport fencing is black, to distinguish them from everyone else. But more importantly for us back then, they are much sturdier with a lot more protection and padding, as they are designed to allow a coach to be hit repeatedly whilst teaching students.
It would be far more realistic to have a mass of 20 or so men with a wall of spears and a couple swordsmen mixed in. They wouldn't engage in solo combat like this.
It was just a fun little melee game, which are great training tools that also teach a lot of useful skills. Though there would be plenty of historical scenarios similar, you can't always choose how or where you fight, nor the weapon you have equipped, nor quickly adapt tactics in a quickly evolving scenario.
1:05 That was a Beautiful Dead Animation, where can I download it?
I really enjoyed the video, thank you for posting all the videos. Just analyzing the combat you can tell why in history battles started with a pike/spear phase and many soldiers favored this type of weapon. The range advantage is incredible on the spear and when the spears are outnumbered the effectiveness isn't lost either. 6 to 5 out of 11 is really good odds. A group of us in my city love sparing and melees and being able to see your clubs techniques and being able to study them is great use for all of us. Again thank you for the videos.
So this shows what we've always known: spear and shield destroys basically everything else in an unarmoured melee. From the look of it, the only times the swordsmen won were where some of them undertook suicidal charges, which real soldiers would be... reluctant at least to do.
EDIT: I stand by the points I've made but I apologise for the snarkiness of my early replies. That kind of attitude contributes to the shit quality of online discourse, whether I'm right or wrong or whether the topic's important or not.
Very powerful indeed. And of course we only had a single rank, additional ranks would stop a lot of the closing done by the swordsmen.
Robert R Seemed pretty one-sided for swordsmen. Besides this is an unarmored demonstration. Spearmen weren't effective in battle unless against calvary. Spear and Shield is ineffective without
+WatchesYouAtNight No that's not true at all. The spearmen were massively outnumbered in the video. Spearmen were the *staple* in battle basically from the beginning of human warfare through to the development of modern firearms (yes musketeers were spearmen too).
Robert R They weren't effective, I'm not referring to hoplites or the Macedonians right now. I'm talking about the medieval era were armor was more readily available to the average troop. A broad spear is going to have a tough time mortally wounding someone in a gambeson and chainmail behind a shield. In the middle of combat you can't properly distance yourself and your spear can be broken. In close combat they're almost useless.
+WatchesYouAtNight Again, that's observably and historically wrong. Sure, if you're facing down a man-at-arms in full plate, a pike isn't much use (although a shorter spear still is). But at no point in history (not even the 15th or 16th centuries) was the majority of an army equipped with that level of armour. Many types of spears (who said it has to be a "broad spear"?) are effective against mail and gambesons; no they won't reliably penetrate but neither will swords, axes, maces, daggers or arrows.
At the end of the late medieval period, when plate armour was at its most developed and affordable, what do we see: pike blocks becoming the most dominant unit on the battlefield. And no I'm not claiming that pikes are a counter to full plate, merely that at no point in history was plate enough of a factor to counteract pikes' (or other types of spears') prominence on the battlefield.
It's awesome how you can clearly see a right hand drift, even in such a small formation.
With swords, you can play a classy game of sword fight, duel, and fencing
With spears, you can play a game of a mobile arrow,a speeding charge, and the best of all being a sharp battering ram
Id prefer spears most of the time
@theFareulookinat that's why you use your superior range with a spear to make sure that never happens
@theFareulookinat right into a spear? unless there's a huge skill discrepancy, the swordsman is gonna get skewered
@theFareulookinat because why else throughout history would they switch to spears? it's 100% the superior weapon in any melee circumstance.
@theFareulookinat it is not a preference thing, spears are objectively a much better weapon and since Neanderthal days it is FAR more effecient to wield spears and ranged weapons like a bow.
@theFareulookinatit's nothing about bandwagonning, only with a skill gap will a sword user beat a spear user, kiddo
Awesome! Someone scream "Shieldwall" please 😁
wow! finally you had your own Intro, also this combat became more mediaval. good job.
This Melee certainly was better than the last one you guys did, last time you were far too gentle about it, this time I see you all actually did do some ganging up, last time was more like several duels occurring at the same time. A nice improvement.
That looks like too much fun!
This is why Romans used the Scutum for a shield with a short sword. The shield covered body from head to knee and they were greaves for the shins. They were able to use shield walls to make it impenetrable against the most common weapon of all time (spears) and get close and stab them with the gladius (sword).
No, they used the pila to disorder the ranks of thier mainly undisiplined inprofessional forces breaking thier cohision, then they could move in and beat them one to one in close combat
Gotta love that jump attack at 3:54
Indeed, that double suicide
Achilles :D
spear master race unite!
i liked the guy in the background's smiley face head gear :)
Probably one of my favorite HEMA videos on TH-cam
Where's the shield wall ;)
thats for a large battle, this little clash is to mobile
Swordsmen can takedown but that requires great skills
Were these actual dedicated spearmen, or were they swordsmen that were armed with spears?
Their stance, and fighting style seemed... Amateurish.
Now I believe in a spear. Inspeared :))).
I like that every single sword fighter died, every time... including the only sword fighter on the spear side. No spear-men were injured during the filming of this slaughter.
The defenders of Gondor are overwhelmed by the relentless orc assault. But then, over the hill, a beacon of hope! It's the mighty Rohan cavalry with their spears! The Rohirrim let out a mighty roar as they slowly approach the orc flank and proceed to kinda lunge-jab with their spears...
Yeah, not as cool that way.
Hm, maybe a fun thing to try next time - I personally would definitely prefer spear in two hands when going against just swordsmen, as opposed to spear and shield.
Get bigger shields & have rapier vs spear/shield & maybe some weighted sticks to simulate axes to overcome your rapiers & bite around shields.
What are the pros and cons of going spear only? Does the increase in spear control ever outweigh the shield's benefits?
A two handed grip allows massive leverage, and therefore speed in the chance of direction, as well as the use of staff cutting techniques. Against a swordsman the spear in two hands is a huge advantage, but in melee scenarios, or against other polearms, or when the enemy have bows, the shield is a huge advantage.
Wouldnt be most effective combination first line - shield wall with swords and second line spearmans? If they would manage to be coordinated, it could connected advantages of two hand grip of spear and protection and close combat effectivity of swordman with shield.
@@Lea_Kaderova I know this is old , but for knowledge sake. simply No. because there’s no guarantee your swordsman won’t catch a spear or arrow to the face and now you have a shieldless spearman in a shield wall. Until the next line of sword/shields + rear spears advance forward to replace the line that was just lost.
In theory you have a thrusting advantage. But there’s an advantage that’s often overlooked in shields and can be seen in todays Riot police. Rows on rows of shields are great for bracing the back of the man in front of you and helping to disperse the force of the enemy charge who’s entire purpose is to break your formation and win the fight.
It would be good to see this with bigger numbers. A second row of spearmen would be interesting
the spears needed more aggression
Seen that style of fighting a zillion times on every everage rennaisance fair.
Same mistake every time.
Swordsmen must not keep the distance to the spears or they will be massacred.
Swordsmen must pass the tips of the spears as fast as possible, especially if they have the numerical advantage.
One has to push the spear aside with his shield NOT falling back afterwards, comrade immediately closes in on the spearman.
If you leave the range advantage willingly to the spearmen, they surely will win.
That's easier said than done the spearman can easily back up when charged and no actual soldier would have done a suicide rush into a spear formation
True on the first part.
But it is far from suicidal for the soldiers if trained properly.
It works fine and the risk you have to take is nothing different from the risk you have to take in a any fight.
- Romans showed this was possible against the greek phalanx.
I admit that the greek phalanx is not the same as the "formation" shown in the vid above. But the basic principle is the same.
- Swiss showed this is possible against the burgundians.
- Ancient combat manuals like the strategikon (6th century) describe another typical tactic:
Phalanx itself is not attacked at first. Cursores (Attackers) placed on the own right flank try to flank the enemys left flank (usually defended by enemy defensores placed on the own left flank). Battle is decided by this flanking maneuvre if succesful. In a situation where the swordsmen have numerical advantage, so flanking should be possible. They just had to press it more vigorously. This tactiv however is not very suitable for the situation in the vid, because there are too few combatants on each side. No real flanking would result, the handful of men just would turn into a more or less chaotic melee of some sort or the other. With that few men the spearmen can react and move too fast.
Anyway, with heavily outnumbering the speramen, the swordsmen could give it a serious try.
We have played that often enough. When the swordsman (or axeman or similar) is past the spearhead it gets very unpleasant for the spearman.
Even more so if in plural. There is a good reason for medieval and renaissance spearmen carrying a short and nimble secondary weapon.
Keeping the distance is the worst the man with the shorter weapon can do. THAT is suicidal.
@@papaschlumpf5894 Your right! Plus it is obvious that these guys don't do team battles very often as they passed up every chance they had to take advantage of teamwork. It's hard to explain but if they did this kind of stuff regularly they would get it really quick.
Man I immigrated to the wrong country, wish the US had these type of stuffs.
(or maybe they do and I just don't know about any of them.)
There are plenty of HEMA groups in the US. Go to the HEMA Alliance page, a collective of US groups. Or join the HEMA international discussion group on FB and post a question to ask for your nearest group.
thanks, will try to look for some after my next moving to a new state
good! i think there is a bit of lack coordination in the groups but it thats ok ☺
I've watch it again, and again...Mike was warning us not to hit shields too hard...I was bashing them like hell...I apologize for that!
You the one up close to the spearman at 3:28 that made the loud noise?
I am the one who goes down in 1:06 ...
Sword - cut
Spear - pierce
It begs a question. It seems the shield and sword is highly esteemed by Romans Viking nobles and Knights etc. So why did they? I know it's a status symbol but obviously more than that. Romans to the point a lot of their troops were armed with them instead of spears, and for quite some time. Perhaps there are some things that cannot be replicated with synthetics and blunts which I imagine would likely include would include spear points in shields, sword blades cutting into spear wood, nobles and Romans with significantly more armour, limited room to move in a larger melee. Perhaps armour and arming swords are often used in combination
Even though there are famous uses of sword and shield, the spear was still far more dominant throughout history. Context is still hugely important. The roman use of sword and shield for example, was pre-dominately using massive shields, and that changes things significantly. The Vikings still favoured spear and bow over sword. But the sword was revered and romanticised with them. Also they frequently fought in smaller skirmishes and melees where swords are really useful. Overall, the spear and other pole arms are much more useful battlefield weapons than swords in the vast majority of circumstances, which is why they have been so dominant. Cost of manufacture, maintenance, repair, and training is also really important. Spears are cheap and easy, as well as much quicker to train the users than sword.
Armour changes things, so does room to manoeuvre, multiple ranks, skirmishers, all sorts of factors.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing as far as I know, Romans have used infantry with only swords just for very small moment in history, most of time of Roman Empire infantry has had spears
I remembered my old times at sport fencing playing "guerra" (war). Damn sabers at sport fencing... they got total advantage.
well... depends on the rules.
Hope play this in school history classes
@ academy of historical fencing do you also teach use of Greek Xiphos, if yes could you show it? :)
As expected, swords level the plainfield whenever aggressive and fail when passive.
They really didn't level playing field even when aggressive...
@@franklinvonfrankenstein1137 wouldn't say that...
I would like to say that most people used a spear and sword, and not just one or the other they both have their specialties, and while I prefer the spear that’s my opinion and it wouldn’t be great in close combat
Depends what time period.
I definitely wish my fencing club was like this.
We really need an accurate portray with people who have been drilled in formation.
Nah, I saw "300" movie. Everything in that movie was so beautiful - poses, show off, "dances" - not like in this video:)
You guys should do spoon versus fork LOL
Fork wins, because you don't eat meat with a spoon.
Not the best shieldwall for spearmen, but it worked.
Was interesting watching the strategy change
Do you have anymore videos on montante combat with the application of Figueirdo's 16 rules in particular? Also 1:05 IN THA FACE, IN THA FAAAACE!
We don't sorry, but we will do some montante stuff in the new year. Ultimately it is very difficult to do with any level of realism though, simply down to the striking mass.
I'd be curious about the different amount of kinetic energy a spear can impact when used this way versus a sword. Real life isn't one touch and you fall down.
Depends on point of impact and if they are armoured. People are very easily killed. I cut myself shaving quite often so it doesn't take much to make us bleed.
there is a reason its called a side arm, spears have killed more people in history than swords
Tell that to the Roman Empire.
Not a fucking one of them using a two handed spear?! good concept,so-so execution
wiggalama Two handed spears wouldn't be a good idea against shield men.
WatchesYouAtNight The samurai against korean shield users disagree. The visigotha against roman soldiers in wooded areas disagree.
That's what I don't understand. The less of the world almost always used spear and shield over two handed spears, but only Japanese that used two handed spear a lot. I can't see how a two handed spear would beat spear and shield. Especially if they fought in formation. Or your enemies can just storm you with arrows.
@@wiggalama the romans againest the greek phalinx would dis agree
do it in phalanx formation noob
If it was 7 v 7 that would be the smart thing but not in this case.
These guy can barely parry 1 thrust from a spear
You know that had armor on typically, right? You can't get a kill or incapacitating wound as easy with a spear. I have no idea why no one takes this into consideration
Almost everything we study at the AHF is unarmoured combat, and so we assume opponents are unarmoured unless wearing actual armour (as opposed to sportive protections). This kind of melee combat is really just a fun extra. As for armour, well of course what was worn varied immensely historical for this situation from no armour to a lot and everything in between. Though if you want to consider the effects of armour, you'd have to significantly downplay the effectiveness of the sword also.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing of course you would, but crushing power plays a huge role, and you don't have to kill someone to take them out of a fight. There is a reason ancient peoples went through such painstaking lengths to make swords.
Where can I do this?
Hello Nick! I love this combat videos haha... very nice.
I have a question. This question I did to many other channels when I don´t know yours, and no one answer. No ofense to other channels, but you answer ALL my questions always. I unsubscribed this channels (yes, I´m very rencorous LOL! xD ).
Anyway, my question: ¿If i have to choose a self defense weapon for self defense in an chaos / apocaliptic situation (like civil war for example), ¿what do you think about smallsword?.. I mean, is light and supposedly very lethal weapon (I call it ¨little Gladius¨ xD ), but... ¿is it really trustworthy for stoping people in furious combats?. I think that the thin point is lethal, but my doubt is if its inmediatly lethal. I think it´s a nice topic.
Thank you very much for sharing this with us all.
(and sorry for my english)
Bye!
That is one of the most unique questions I've had! I'd say no to a smallsword in an apocalypse scenario. Firstly because it has no cutting ability, and that is really important in many scenarios, specifically when facing multiple opponents.
The next problem is parring ability. You might have to face all kinds of heavy weapons, can it can be beaten through by weapons with substantial mass. Whilst you can use footwork and distance to protect yourself this isn't so much a problem, but in many scenarios you do not have that much room to move.
Next problem is armour. It is likely that in these kinds of scenarios that people are going to equip themselves with all kinds of body armour, and the smallsword is just not built for that. It's rigidity means that if it doesn't penetrate on impact that it is very prone to snapping. Same goes if facing someone with any kind of a shield, you'll have a real hard time finding a target and they'll just run you down.
Something that could be interesting though is to use smallsword in the offhand, and something like a sabre or similar in the main hand. You can lunge and thrust with the offhand from a distance, whilst always having the cutting/stopping power of a good cutter in the main hand. Great for melee scenarios too.
Wow! your ideas and points of view are awesome! I had never think about having a smallsword in my offhand or about armor people.
You really know what you are talking about :)
One thing I was sure to read: Sabre! haha... I know you loves it, and lets face the true, you are right, is the better weapon in most scenarios.
I love sabres too, but more english backsword or italian sidesword is my style.
But in short swords, maybe Gladius or Messer I think can be the most devastator weapons.
Thank you very much for your time and great ideas. I love your channel.
zeroa6 No problem. I love backsword and sidesword too though. Ultimately all three are often used in much the same way, and I train with all three, would be happy with any of them.
No doubt Nick! For me, the sabre is a modern version of Backsword and Sidesword in the use, like you said, are used in the same way. The combat style is very european style, but in your opinion, ¿is sabre really an meddle east inspired weapon?
Maybe sabre have a little advantage in cutting, but I love the european style of the sidesword and backsword. I´m more 1200-1700 styles, and always european!
Thanks!
zeroa6 Well the sabres origin is in Asia and the middle east, but then we are talking a very long time ago. When the backswords and sideswords were being used, the sabre was already popular in Europe. Just look at the vast number of dussacks / tessacks that would made in the 16th century. Curved blades are just as European as straight ones are. Gunpowder and Tea weren't invented here either, but we sure made them our own :-)
Seems like most spear-man first time holding a spear. Or at least not practiced with it. Still. Good job.
Make a shield wall ;)
And HEMA people say that reenactors always fight worse then them ;)
And in fact this look exactly how not to fight in groups, very loos "formation" and more of many duels then fight of two teams.
You realize that loads of shield users, in formation, fought very loosely? Both with sword and shield. Tight formation shield walls are just one method, and to use successfully with spear, needs defence in depth, using mutliple ranks,
Academy of Historical Fencing
I say that even in this situation (small teams) shield wall would be more successful.
But my comment wasn't meant to very serous ;)
It is shame that are no (at least for my knowledge) tractate about group fighting.
swietoslaw Congratulations, you failed at sarcasm.
1:05 LOL
Spears need some hardcore nerfs they too op.
Well, spears are so fucking cool.
unsullied vs sons of the harpy
What if swordsmen get larger shields like roman for instance?
In this scenario, larger shields would have given the swordsmen a substantial advantage. But that is of course only in this context. With deeper ranks and battlefield conditions that changes everything. Swordsmen have in most parts of history, used smaller shields, as they operated as light infantry. So flexibility and speed is key on the battlefield.
Thanks, I see your point, medieval footmen relied on spears and bows, so the sword was a kind of auxiliary weapon and swordmen were flexible auxiliary troops, right?
@@karayama100na eveypne had a sword, but when people droped thier spears it was usually bc of caos, or bc they fought more mobile, like on a quick flanking attack, RAID or bc they couldnt Form up extera
This is a pretty poor example of sword and shield vs. Spear and shield...
LOVE IT!
it seems to me the swordsmen had far too small shields against the spearmen
All sorts of shields and buckler sizez were used historically. You have to use what you have got. Many swordsmen did carry smaller shields than a lot of spear equipped troops for the simple reason of agility and flexibility on a battlefield. Not every matchup/fight is fair,
yes I understand but, I think, that is why these guys did not do so well against the spearmen, changing the type of shield would change the balance of power
No doubt, the larger the shield the better the swordsmen will do. But any change can have a massive effect. Adding second ranks to both groups weights it back in the spear direction even with the larger shields for example.
yes it would but then we go into the phalanx against maniple situation and we know how the advantages and disadvantages of each of these units are. I was only considering a confrontation of the type you have presented in the video a group of spearmen against a group of swordsmen, not full formations.A larger shield would even things out greatly. The spearmen also have an ideal condition an even ground with a defended back, while the swordsmen are forced into suicidal attacks because they lack space for movement. I think the spearmen were given far too many advantages.
Were Hannibal's outnumbered Libyan spearmen "given too many advantages" when they killed many times their number in Roman swordsmen?
Using spears overhand? Why not?
harder to attack the lower half of the body with that grip
The unsullied..
Yo, sign me up!!!
300 Spartans
Clearly these guys never heard of a phalanx.
European guys doing martial arts: Medieval peasant army
Asians doing martial arts: Master teaches spear fighting at dojo: th-cam.com/video/lcB2ILcDYj4/w-d-xo.html
Not really a like for like comparison, as both European and Asian cultures used the spear in both highly evolved 1 on 1 encounters and also massed combat with militia.
What is this! One man of the other team has sword and board! I watch still..
1:06 Excellent strike spearman, you knocked the sword and boardsman to humility, a technical submission via optimal striking, by defeat, on the behalf of the spearman!
1:24 to 1:27, excellent encirclement and closing of the distance by the swordsmen. Collapse the flank men!
1:32 A coordinated victory via technicality! Good strategum men!
1:45 to 1:51 Excellent encirclement on the right flank, the sword and boardsmen win!
2:16 Excellent strike man to the right; The spearman is incapacitated!
This video gave me the plague
How the hell did the Romans win against the Greek hoplites?
It wasn't by frontally defeating spear formations by marching up to them with a sword in hand. Romans had a number of advantages when they conquered the hellenic powers, like superior logistics, a larger pool of experienced manpower, superior support troops (like the light infantry that made up a large bulk of most armies), better officers, more training, ect. When we have examples of well trained spearmen facing roman swordsman face to face (like Hannibal's Libyan spearmen at Cannae) and massacring them. Even in the siege of Corinth, a veteran roman legion was stopped dead in its tracks by an outnumbered and hastily raised levy of citizen spearmen, despite the Corinthian cavalry being driven from the field early. They held until a "picked" unit managed to attack them from the flank.
And other factors change things substantially. The size of the shield, the amount of armour worn. The discipline of the troops, and ability to move and adapt on the battlefield. So many other factors. You cannot watch one video like this and apply it to a broad subject area. This only represents exactly what is shown, and that goes for the spearmen too. As having massed ranks helps further, due to the reach of the spear in the ranks behind, as does having skirmishes in the flanks to stop outflanking actions,
I imagine, Romans probably would've had several cohorts or maniples hold the phalanx defensively and have another flank, along with cavalry charges into the rear.
the Romans take what they think is useful and they ditch what isn't so it seems they are very practical. Perhaps waves of pilums seem to be more effective for them. Probably more so against small bucklers too. And maybe the fact that pike formations were unsteady in rugged terrain seems too ineffective in the minds of the Romans. You don't really see pikes making a comeback for a long time after all. A Roman was fairly short too which might be a blessing if you're using a tower shield? Als
If you speak about Kinoskephal, It was just because Macedonian cavalry decided to run out of battlefield, and Roman cavalry could charge to the back of Greeks.
Those shields are too small
It's a misconception that all shields used for this kind of combat were the huge types associated with the Vikings. The Vikings had many size shields, and many other cultures, for example the Saxons, favoured much smaller shields as the norm. A classic issue of a broad category of weapon being judged by the standard of a single type.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Larger shields would give the swordsman here a better advantage
The same could be said for changing all sorts of things in a particular fight, but in HEMA we work to emulate certain weapons and styles, not look for optimal for a particular scenario. If that was the case for example, nobody would ever use bucklers, because shields are better.
This shows how good spears were
Against meele weapons an Calvary, since spears were actually used to buy time and stop enimies from afar
interesting!
Why black?
It was out of necessity years ago. The only decent jackets available were sport fencing coaches equipment, which is black, and as it became the standard, when HEMA companies started making dedicated equipment they went with black.
That is now starting to change though as the supply of equipment becomes much more varied. Check out some of our more recent videos and you will see a number of us now wear red.
Oh, that makes sense. Sort of - though I've only ever seen white fencing jackets, not that I see many. (apart from movies where they wanted the viewer to be able to differentiate the "good" guy and the "bad" guy and are for some reason fencing, standard cinematography antics )
Coaches equipment In sport fencing is black, to distinguish them from everyone else. But more importantly for us back then, they are much sturdier with a lot more protection and padding, as they are designed to allow a coach to be hit repeatedly whilst teaching students.
Up man
😂if the spear army use Sparta
skill on this fights the sword shield will be defeat easily😂
It would be far more realistic to have a mass of 20 or so men with a wall of spears and a couple swordsmen mixed in. They wouldn't engage in solo combat like this.
It was just a fun little melee game, which are great training tools that also teach a lot of useful skills. Though there would be plenty of historical scenarios similar, you can't always choose how or where you fight, nor the weapon you have equipped, nor quickly adapt tactics in a quickly evolving scenario.
Roman legions would've messed those spearmen up.
comment