BTW, are we talking about the "Politeia" of Plato (a title woefully mistranslated to English as "The Republic" due to Cicero's translation of the original title as "res publica"), or the "Athenaion Politeia" of Aristotle? Both are rather dry; De Camp is a much better read :P
And how the heck did we go from a discussion of spear use in BG to Roman legionary tactics to ancient Greek philosophical musings on the nature of government, ("Cyropaedia" having a similar topic), to Sci-fi/fantasy from the late 1950's? The mind boggles.
BTW, are we talking about the "Politeia" of Plato (a title woefully mistranslated to English as "The Republic" due to Cicero's translation of the original title as "res publica"), or the "Athenaion Politeia" of Aristotle? Both are rather dry; De Camp is a much better read :P
And how the heck did we go from a discussion of spear use in BG to Roman legionary tactics to ancient Greek philosophical musings on the nature of government, ("Cyropaedia" having a similar topic), to Sci-fi/fantasy from the late 1950's? The mind boggles.
The latter, and I enjoy them quite a bit. Where else can you find Aristotle telling us that in order for a democracy to work well, you need enough people to participate to legitimize it but not too many people (because the many are stupid), and that the solution is to keep the majority of them poor enough that they have to work too much to effectively participate (i.e. the agricultural democracy)?
The Cyropaedia is a narrative as opposed to a treatise and it's pretty spectacular, especially if you buy into Wayne Ambler's interpretation of it (which I do). It's much more "readable" than Aristotle's treatises (even though that's not something that bothers me).
Cyropaedia, while also a discussion of government, is additionally a half fictionalized biography of Cyrus the Great; yes, it's a better read. Also, we understand that Plato and Aristotle had definitions of democracy that were somewhat different from our own. As you mention, Aristotle favored keeping the vote eligible population to a minimum. Democracy, rule by the people, as opposed to kingship or oligarchy; but not necessarily ALL of the people.
I don't recall exactly what Aristotle's criteria were for who should and who shouldn't vote; it's been 45 years since I had to wade through all that. Put the way you stated, it does seem a bit humorous, if not contradictory.
As an instructor, I am challenged to find creative ways to summarize and communicate difficult ideas. To aid me in this, I often employ sarcasm, bluntness, vivid imagery, and absurdity to effectively convey these ideas and help others better remember them. They're techniques that are partly a natural progression of my own pedagogical style and partly influence from my own favorite instructors.
Both P&A analyze pure democracy and never really considered representative styles. Both believe that the average individual is, to put it bluntly, stupid, but Aristotle holds out hope that, in a group, because we're stupid in different ways, one person's stupidity can cancel out another's. Aristotle frequently refers to democracy as a rule of the poor people. It's safe to say, however, that both P&A's relationship to democracy is not a simple one. At times, Aristotle seems to think it's the best of a bad bunch, and while in Plato it looks more straightforward, some academics believe he was just more subtle in his delivery since, considering the Republic, you find (1) that philosophy only flourishes in a democracy and (2) it's listed as the 4th form of government (out of 5) but follows the structure of Hesiod's Works and Days where the 4th age (out of 5) is considered the best.
What's great about Cyropaedia that makes it infinitely more interesting is catching how frequently Cyrus lies, exaggerates, and dissembles, basically mixing both hard and soft forms of diplomacy even if the latter is not entirely rooted in honesty. Ambler resurrected this reading of him by arguing against the translators who noted discrepancies between actual figures on the number of troops that Cyrus had and the numbers that Cyrus stated he had to his (potential) enemies. Translators prior to Ambler presumed, "Oh. A scribe made a typo and this is obviously a mistake," until Ambler pointed out, "Well... This is a political work and thus not entirely out of the question that deception is employed all over the place," effectively giving us a newer, darker look at Cyrus that actually turns out to make the work as a whole more consistent and coherent.
We seem to have totally hijacked this thread; anyone want to get back to spear combat?
Alexander understood the weakness of the phalanx. He would use his main body of heavy infantry to engage the enemy and pin him down, while sending his light mobile forces and heavy cavalry around to hit the opponent's flanks. Phyrrus knew this also, and made sure to have effective numbers of horse and light infantry to support his main body. Other Macedonian and Seleucid commanders opted to use just masses of pikemen in an attempt to grind down the enemy. This was ok when just fighting other phalanx style armies, but proved disastrous against the Romans, who won every battle fought this way.
At the decisive battle of Pydna, the Macedonians had finally learned something, and had half their army composed of cavalry and light infantry. Hence, they initially had some success in the early battle. Their phalanx was actually in the process of pushing the Romans back, but then hit some rough ground which fragmented its front. With the pike wall broken, the Romans were able to infiltrate the gaps and the slaughter commenced.
IMO a "one handed" spear would basically be just a one handed sword for practical purposes since fighting technique with a sword and shield or a one handed spear and shield would be essentially identical.
Surely those fighting styles would be different. most swords are designed to slash and thrust and are capable of parrying, a spear is quite flimsy if someone hits the shaft. spear combat would be about manoeuvring around the enemy and using your shield to throw them off balance so you gen get a solid thrust.
Yeah. Just that the most basic of moves are similar (I'm assuming he's referring to the forward/upward thrust/stab when he says they would be used the same), or the "point" of the weapon so to say (hue hue hue), doesn't mean they're used the same beyond that. Not to mention the vast amount of sword types that exist, or the different martial arts that van develop with any one weapon, and how one's behaviour in combat would be dependant not just on whether you're using sword or spear together with a shield or not but also on how one's armour functions and if you are fighting as part of a formation and so on.
>>a spear is quite flimsy if someone hits the shaft.<<
Ummm .... no. You need to hit a spear shaft at precisely the right angle in order to break it with a one handed sword cut. Otherwise your sword will just bounce off. Spear shafts are not flimsy twigs.
There's a website entitled "Badass of the week". Here's part of what he has to say about the Swiss Pikemen.
>>The idea of No Quarter for Invaders is a time-honored tradition of military badassitude that dates back to the middle ages, when the Swiss Pikemen were the single most badass infantry formation the world had ever seen. An awesome hedge of fast-moving, always-attacking twenty-foot spears that skewered the balls of any army the Kings of Europe could throw at them, the Swiss Phalanx won independence for its country against three separate armies, won several battles against impossible odds, and then became so highly-recruited as mercenaries that monarchs from Spain to Austria would get into bidding wars over who got the opportunity to hire them. <<
OK, a bit overly enthusiastic; I wouldn't go so far as to say "best infantry formation ever" ... but these guys were indeed considered among the elite military organizations of their era. And yeah, if you tried to invade Switzerland itself ... expect no mercy. Ask "Charles the Bold" ... assuming you can find the pieces.
Ahem; we're talking about PRIOR to the invention of gunpowder, Mr. Smartypants. Guns rather made a lot of things obsolete: Crossbows, knights in armor etc. Although, the Swiss whupped good old Charles despite his spiffy new cannons.
They did also develop a technique for dealing with primitive firearms. When the enemy raised their weapons to fire, they would drop to the ground, let the bullets pass overhead, then pop up and resume their charge. Something like an arquebus takes a significant time to reload. If they reached you before your second volley was ready, you were dogmeat.
Which is what happened to Charles the not-so-Bold. They stripped his body and left it for the dogs. Just because you were dead didn't mean they were done having their revenge. They knew how to hold a grudge.
Since "Badass of the Week" tends to be a bit biased, let's see a more objective account of Charles and his battles.
"From Nancy he marched against the Swiss, hanging or drowning, in spite of their capitulation, the garrison of Grandson, a possession of the Savoyard Jacques de Romont, a close ally of Charles, which the Confederates had invested shortly before. Some days later, on 2 March 1476, he was attacked before the village of Concise by the confederate army in the Battle of Grandson and suffered a shameful defeat, being compelled to flee with a handful of attendants, and leaving his artillery and an immense booty (including his silver bath) in the hands of the allies.
He succeeded in raising a fresh army of 30,000 men, with which he attacked Morat, but he was again defeated by the Swiss army, assisted by the cavalry of the Duke of Lorraine (22 June 1476). On this occasion, and unlike the debacle at Grandson, little booty was lost, but Charles certainly lost about one third of his entire army, the unfortunate losers being pushed into the nearby lake where they were drowned or shot at while trying to swim to safety on the opposite shore. On 6 October Charles lost Nancy. (I do believe I mentioned the "No quarter for invaders" policy)
Making a last effort, Charles formed a new army and arrived in the dead of winter before the walls of Nancy. Having lost many of his troops through the severe cold, it was with only a few thousand men that he met the joint forces of the Lorrainers and the Swiss, who had come to the relief of the town, at the Battle of Nancy (5 January 1477). He himself perished in the fight, his naked and disfigured body being discovered some days afterward frozen into the nearby river. Charles' head had been cleft in two by a halberd, lances were lodged in his stomach and loins, and his face had been so badly mutilated by wild animals that only his physician was able to identify him by his long fingernails and the old battle scars on his body."
And finally, one last word about the Swiss pike formations ...
"During the Late Middle Ages, mercenary forces grew in importance in Europe, as veterans from the Hundred Years War and other conflicts came to see soldiering as a profession rather than a temporary activity, and commanders sought long-term professionals rather than temporary feudal levies to fight their wars. Swiss mercenaries (Reisläufer) were valued throughout Late Medieval Europe for the power of their determined mass attack in deep columns with the pike and halberd. Hiring them was made even more attractive because entire ready-made Swiss mercenary contingents could be obtained by simply contracting with their local governments, the various Swiss cantons—the cantons had a form of militia system in which the soldiers were bound to serve and were trained and equipped to do so. Some Swiss also hired themselves out individually or in small bands.
The warriors of the Swiss cantons had gradually developed a reputation throughout Europe as skilled soldiers, due to their successful defense of their liberties against their Austrian Habsburg overlords, starting as early as the late thirteenth century, including remarkable upset victories over heavily armoured knights at Morgarten and Laupen. This was furthered by later successful campaigns of regional expansion (mainly into Italy). By the fifteenth century they were greatly valued as mercenary soldiers, particularly following their series of notable victories in the Burgundian Wars in the latter part of the century. The standing mercenary army of king Matthias Corvinus of Hungary ( Black Army of Hungary 1458-1490 ) also contained Swiss pikemen units, who were held in high honour by the king.[1] As a result, bands of men, sometime acting independently, other times under the banners of their cantons, marched off to foreign lands to fight in the causes of others, for pay. The native term Reisläufer literally means "one who goes to war" and is derived from Middle High German Reise, meaning "military campaign".
The Swiss, with their head-down attack in huge columns with the long pike, refusal to take prisoners, and consistent record of victory, were greatly feared and admired—for instance, Machiavelli addresses their system of combat at length in The Prince. The Valois Kings of France, in fact, considered it a virtual impossibility to take the field of battle without Swiss pikemen as the infantry core of their armies. (Although often referred to as "pikemen", the Swiss mercenary units also contained halberdiers as well until several decades into the sixteenth century, as well as a small number of skirmishers armed with crossbows or crude firearms to precede the rapid advance of the attack column.)
The young men who went off to fight, and sometimes die, in foreign service had several incentives—limited economic options in the still largely rural cantons; adventure; pride in the reputation of the Swiss as soldiers; and finally what military historian Sir Charles Oman describes as a pure love of combat and warfighting in and of itself, forged by two centuries of conflict."
I suppose you could possibly count the yari as a 1-handed spear in some situations. However, my opinion on a one-handed spear is that you should have to have a certain proficiency with the spear before being able to use a shield.
I watched a documentary on Western martial arts a while back - I believe it was called Reclaiming the Blade. Apparently people have been studying European historical texts on swordplay and unarmed combat and then replicating the techniques.
The moves these guys were doing to each other were nothing like the stuff we see coming out of Hollywood. Combat between armored knights, for example, was as much about grappling as about swinging swords - get position, land a hip-toss, then drive your sword into your opponent's gut while he's trying to get back to his feet. There was another move where two guys were grappling while fighting with long swords and one guy grabbed his own sword like the blade was a handle and cracked the other guy in the head with the guard.
When I see people debating about whether spears were wielded under or over-handed, one-handed or two-handed, or whatever, I think of those guys using grappling to set up a sword thrust, flipping a sword upside down and using it as a hammer, choking up on a great sword to use it in close quarters, or holding a sword by the handle and the blade like a quarterstaff and cracking a guy across the windpipe...
Anyway, my guess is that professional warriors were using spears just as creatively and flexibly as they used swords.
As far as the game goes, yeah, there ought to be 1-handed spears for use with shields.
Combat between armored knights, for example, was as much about grappling as about swinging swords - get position, land a hip-toss, then drive your sword into your opponent's gut while he's trying to get back to his feet.
I've heard similar things, it makes sense too. knight armour was really good and even a well aimed thrust could glance off, by knocking down your opponent he has no ability to dodge/deflect blows and either you or the bloke behind you can finish him off.
When I see people debating about whether spears were wielded under or over-handed, one-handed or two-handed, or whatever, I think of those guys using grappling to set up a sword thrust, flipping a sword upside down and using it as a hammer, choking up on a great sword to use it in close quarters, or holding a sword by the handle and the blade like a quarterstaff and cracking a guy across the windpipe...
Actually the people I see debating over/underhand *are* of the WMA/HEMA community (of which I am a part). That is, between many of the folks who appeared in the Reclaiming the Blade doc you watched. Except Clements (red shirt). That guy is in his own world. Does not associate with the rest of the worldwide WMA/HEMA community.
WMA -> Western Martial Arts HEMA -> Historical European Martial Arts
Grappling is when your sword or whatever other weapon you are using fails, either due to poor technique, circumstance or weapon structural failure. If one gives up measure (distance) to jump into grappling, then a Darwinian choice has been made, and things will likely end poorly. Choking up on a sword (Halbschwert in German, aka half sword) is specifically for Harnisfechten (fighting in armour) when one needs the leverage to work the point into a gap ie groin, armpit, under gorget (neck protection) etc. The pommel of course being of use to "soften up" a target (knock them under the chin, or into the faceplate of their helmet) giving time for something more decisive.
Failing the halfswording, *then* the rondel dagger comes out and the grappling (Ringen auf Mh Deutsch) begins.
My background study focuses on German Medieval martial arts as per Sigmund Ringeck & Peter von Danzig (period historical masters).
I also dabble in Italian rapier as per Nicoletto Giganti (1608 manual).
Here I am on the left assisting with an armored combat class at a convention. Two hands are a must in this situation, over or under as appropriate. 2H for this = less range, but a lot more control, leverage, accuracy, but then this is opposed to an armored opponent. Spear + shield is a different creature for a different, earlier time. Rights tools and technique for the job. Time and place.
If I was a Viking era Scandi, then overhand in a gigging fashion for much more measure (reach) or if really needed, underhand. More distance means you can hurt the other without getting hurt. On the other end, two knives or daggers + maybe some grappling, both are going to get hurt, a lot. Real knife fights are ugly.
If I was a Viking era Scandi, then overhand in a gigging fashion for much more measure (reach) or if really needed, underhand.
What do you mean with overhand giving more reach than underhand?
I've read some historical books about the viking age, as well as, depictions of that time and to me (I'm no expert), it seems underhand was the 'standard' for holding spears. Though, spears were often thrown and then ofc overhand is the only option.
Skatan, to clarify, underhand carry until imminent engagement and then if throwing not desired, overhand as one would gig fish/frogs with a modern trident aka "treudd." Throwing the spear forward and letting slide through the hand until contact with the target and then rechambering. In the video up-thread, Thrand also shows the difference in range when using that method vs an underhanded grip.
As an aside Skatan, I cannot recommend the Göteborgs Historiska Fäktskola enough if wanting to delve into Medieval Martial arts. In particular instructor Roger Norling whose main focus in his research is the "Kunst des Fechtens" and primarily the longsword, dussack and polearms.
A friend of mine talked about maybe trying out HEMA and I know there's a good one in Gbg. Kinda creepy that you mention Göteborg etc when I'm from there
Well you *did* post that you're from Göteborg in the Svenskt forum Though my father's paternal grandfather's line is from Uppsala by way of Pomerania sometime back, I'm not by nationality, only by genetics somewhat. My favorite toy when 5 yo+ was a Matchbox Saab 37 Viggen jetfighter, and I've always loved pickled herring (currently Abba brand), and now paired together with Aquavit (Linie brand). I get together with friends in the country on ~June 21st to stuff ourselves with good food/drink and play music, and the same indoors on ~Dec 21st. The family cars growing up were Göteborg-built '66 Volvo 122 wagon and a '68 144S sedan. But strangely, I'm American, living in the US.
Actually I also had a neighbor friend from Göteborg for a few years when I was in grade school. His dad was a design engineer supervising a pulp mill boiler build. Best neighbors ever.
Anyway, yes, you two should really check out the Ghfs HEMA school there in your city, ask for Roger. It might be a bit intense at first, but stick with it, you'll love it. They are some of the best in the world (and I'm chatting with one of their instructors on FB at the moment about... spear usage, lol). It is physical chess and the most fun way to work out. Then on "rest" days/times, play some Baldur's Gate and/or Icewind Dale (I still have a Viking party planned for the latter).
PS: I don't speak Swedish, just some words/phrases of Old Norse and enough German to usually get the meaning of Swedish.
Actually the people I see debating over/underhand *are* of the WMA/HEMA community (of which I am a part). That is, between many of the folks who appeared in the Reclaiming the Blade doc you watched. Except Clements (red shirt). That guy is in his own world. Does not associate with the rest of the worldwide WMA/HEMA community.
WMA -> Western Martial Arts HEMA -> Historical European Martial Arts
Do you mean debating on this forum? Either way, that's pretty funny. Small world.
Grappling is when your sword or whatever other weapon you are using fails, either due to poor technique, circumstance or weapon structural failure. If one gives up measure (distance) to jump into grappling, then a Darwinian choice has been made, and things will likely end poorly.
I don't remember it being portrayed that way in the film. They presented it as a way to gain an advantage in a fight between two heavily armored opponents - something like swordplay fused with judo.
I'm also puzzled by the "Darwinian choice" comment. If two skilled and determined warriors are trying like hell gut each other then things will likely end poorly for somebody no matter what.
Interesting topic, regardless. Thanks for the information.
Talking about spears for me thinking of my major BG (and general fantasy) pet peeve - inaccurate war hammers. In fantasy art the "war hammers" are generally smith's hammers or sledge hammers. They have short handles and heavy heads, and if you tried to hit somebody with one it would pull you off balance and probably get you killed. Real war hammers looked like modern framing hammers - long handles with smallish heads. The force of the blow comes from the mechanical advantage of the long handle, not the weight of the head. War hammers (and framing hammers) are about speed, not mass. Smith's hammers are the opposite.
Anyway I'm guessing this is nothing new to any of you, but I felt like griping a bit and my wife wouldn't have been interested.
"I'm also puzzled by the "Darwinian choice" comment."
I believe his point is that he considers closing in to grapple when your opponent is still using a sword is a bad choice of tactics. You make a bad choice, you get skewered, and consequently, you are no longer contributing to the gene pool, thus proving Darwin correct.
Sure, but if you keep your distance you might get skewered anyway. I imagine it depends on a number of factors. Is the other guy better with a sword? Are you bigger and stronger? Are you starting to get fatigued? Is he standing in front of a tripping hazard?
Basically, it seems like a Darwinian choice was in the works as soon as you hit the battlefield, and your best bet for staying in the gene pool is to be flexible.
Comments
And how the heck did we go from a discussion of spear use in BG to Roman legionary tactics to ancient Greek philosophical musings on the nature of government, ("Cyropaedia" having a similar topic), to Sci-fi/fantasy from the late 1950's? The mind boggles.
The Cyropaedia is a narrative as opposed to a treatise and it's pretty spectacular, especially if you buy into Wayne Ambler's interpretation of it (which I do). It's much more "readable" than Aristotle's treatises (even though that's not something that bothers me).
Both P&A analyze pure democracy and never really considered representative styles. Both believe that the average individual is, to put it bluntly, stupid, but Aristotle holds out hope that, in a group, because we're stupid in different ways, one person's stupidity can cancel out another's. Aristotle frequently refers to democracy as a rule of the poor people. It's safe to say, however, that both P&A's relationship to democracy is not a simple one. At times, Aristotle seems to think it's the best of a bad bunch, and while in Plato it looks more straightforward, some academics believe he was just more subtle in his delivery since, considering the Republic, you find (1) that philosophy only flourishes in a democracy and (2) it's listed as the 4th form of government (out of 5) but follows the structure of Hesiod's Works and Days where the 4th age (out of 5) is considered the best.
Alexander understood the weakness of the phalanx. He would use his main body of heavy infantry to engage the enemy and pin him down, while sending his light mobile forces and heavy cavalry around to hit the opponent's flanks. Phyrrus knew this also, and made sure to have effective numbers of horse and light infantry to support his main body. Other Macedonian and Seleucid commanders opted to use just masses of pikemen in an attempt to grind down the enemy. This was ok when just fighting other phalanx style armies, but proved disastrous against the Romans, who won every battle fought this way.
At the decisive battle of Pydna, the Macedonians had finally learned something, and had half their army composed of cavalry and light infantry. Hence, they initially had some success in the early battle. Their phalanx was actually in the process of pushing the Romans back, but then hit some rough ground which fragmented its front. With the pike wall broken, the Romans were able to infiltrate the gaps and the slaughter commenced.
Ummm .... no. You need to hit a spear shaft at precisely the right angle in order to break it with a one handed sword cut. Otherwise your sword will just bounce off. Spear shafts are not flimsy twigs.
>>The idea of No Quarter for Invaders is a time-honored tradition of military badassitude that dates back to the middle ages, when the Swiss Pikemen were the single most badass infantry formation the world had ever seen. An awesome hedge of fast-moving, always-attacking twenty-foot spears that skewered the balls of any army the Kings of Europe could throw at them, the Swiss Phalanx won independence for its country against three separate armies, won several battles against impossible odds, and then became so highly-recruited as mercenaries that monarchs from Spain to Austria would get into bidding wars over who got the opportunity to hire them. <<
OK, a bit overly enthusiastic; I wouldn't go so far as to say "best infantry formation ever" ... but these guys were indeed considered among the elite military organizations of their era. And yeah, if you tried to invade Switzerland itself ... expect no mercy. Ask "Charles the Bold" ... assuming you can find the pieces.
They did also develop a technique for dealing with primitive firearms. When the enemy raised their weapons to fire, they would drop to the ground, let the bullets pass overhead, then pop up and resume their charge. Something like an arquebus takes a significant time to reload. If they reached you before your second volley was ready, you were dogmeat.
Which is what happened to Charles the not-so-Bold. They stripped his body and left it for the dogs. Just because you were dead didn't mean they were done having their revenge. They knew how to hold a grudge.
"From Nancy he marched against the Swiss, hanging or drowning, in spite of their capitulation, the garrison of Grandson, a possession of the Savoyard Jacques de Romont, a close ally of Charles, which the Confederates had invested shortly before. Some days later, on 2 March 1476, he was attacked before the village of Concise by the confederate army in the Battle of Grandson and suffered a shameful defeat, being compelled to flee with a handful of attendants, and leaving his artillery and an immense booty (including his silver bath) in the hands of the allies.
He succeeded in raising a fresh army of 30,000 men, with which he attacked Morat, but he was again defeated by the Swiss army, assisted by the cavalry of the Duke of Lorraine (22 June 1476). On this occasion, and unlike the debacle at Grandson, little booty was lost, but Charles certainly lost about one third of his entire army, the unfortunate losers being pushed into the nearby lake where they were drowned or shot at while trying to swim to safety on the opposite shore. On 6 October Charles lost Nancy. (I do believe I mentioned the "No quarter for invaders" policy)
Making a last effort, Charles formed a new army and arrived in the dead of winter before the walls of Nancy. Having lost many of his troops through the severe cold, it was with only a few thousand men that he met the joint forces of the Lorrainers and the Swiss, who had come to the relief of the town, at the Battle of Nancy (5 January 1477). He himself perished in the fight, his naked and disfigured body being discovered some days afterward frozen into the nearby river. Charles' head had been cleft in two by a halberd, lances were lodged in his stomach and loins, and his face had been so badly mutilated by wild animals that only his physician was able to identify him by his long fingernails and the old battle scars on his body."
Yep; they really really really didn't like him.
"During the Late Middle Ages, mercenary forces grew in importance in Europe, as veterans from the Hundred Years War and other conflicts came to see soldiering as a profession rather than a temporary activity, and commanders sought long-term professionals rather than temporary feudal levies to fight their wars. Swiss mercenaries (Reisläufer) were valued throughout Late Medieval Europe for the power of their determined mass attack in deep columns with the pike and halberd. Hiring them was made even more attractive because entire ready-made Swiss mercenary contingents could be obtained by simply contracting with their local governments, the various Swiss cantons—the cantons had a form of militia system in which the soldiers were bound to serve and were trained and equipped to do so. Some Swiss also hired themselves out individually or in small bands.
The warriors of the Swiss cantons had gradually developed a reputation throughout Europe as skilled soldiers, due to their successful defense of their liberties against their Austrian Habsburg overlords, starting as early as the late thirteenth century, including remarkable upset victories over heavily armoured knights at Morgarten and Laupen. This was furthered by later successful campaigns of regional expansion (mainly into Italy). By the fifteenth century they were greatly valued as mercenary soldiers, particularly following their series of notable victories in the Burgundian Wars in the latter part of the century. The standing mercenary army of king Matthias Corvinus of Hungary ( Black Army of Hungary 1458-1490 ) also contained Swiss pikemen units, who were held in high honour by the king.[1] As a result, bands of men, sometime acting independently, other times under the banners of their cantons, marched off to foreign lands to fight in the causes of others, for pay. The native term Reisläufer literally means "one who goes to war" and is derived from Middle High German Reise, meaning "military campaign".
The Swiss, with their head-down attack in huge columns with the long pike, refusal to take prisoners, and consistent record of victory, were greatly feared and admired—for instance, Machiavelli addresses their system of combat at length in The Prince. The Valois Kings of France, in fact, considered it a virtual impossibility to take the field of battle without Swiss pikemen as the infantry core of their armies. (Although often referred to as "pikemen", the Swiss mercenary units also contained halberdiers as well until several decades into the sixteenth century, as well as a small number of skirmishers armed with crossbows or crude firearms to precede the rapid advance of the attack column.)
The young men who went off to fight, and sometimes die, in foreign service had several incentives—limited economic options in the still largely rural cantons; adventure; pride in the reputation of the Swiss as soldiers; and finally what military historian Sir Charles Oman describes as a pure love of combat and warfighting in and of itself, forged by two centuries of conflict."
The moves these guys were doing to each other were nothing like the stuff we see coming out of Hollywood. Combat between armored knights, for example, was as much about grappling as about swinging swords - get position, land a hip-toss, then drive your sword into your opponent's gut while he's trying to get back to his feet. There was another move where two guys were grappling while fighting with long swords and one guy grabbed his own sword like the blade was a handle and cracked the other guy in the head with the guard.
When I see people debating about whether spears were wielded under or over-handed, one-handed or two-handed, or whatever, I think of those guys using grappling to set up a sword thrust, flipping a sword upside down and using it as a hammer, choking up on a great sword to use it in close quarters, or holding a sword by the handle and the blade like a quarterstaff and cracking a guy across the windpipe...
Anyway, my guess is that professional warriors were using spears just as creatively and flexibly as they used swords.
As far as the game goes, yeah, there ought to be 1-handed spears for use with shields.
WMA -> Western Martial Arts
HEMA -> Historical European Martial Arts
Grappling is when your sword or whatever other weapon you are using fails, either due to poor technique, circumstance or weapon structural failure. If one gives up measure (distance) to jump into grappling, then a Darwinian choice has been made, and things will likely end poorly. Choking up on a sword (Halbschwert in German, aka half sword) is specifically for Harnisfechten (fighting in armour) when one needs the leverage to work the point into a gap ie groin, armpit, under gorget (neck protection) etc. The pommel of course being of use to "soften up" a target (knock them under the chin, or into the faceplate of their helmet) giving time for something more decisive.
Failing the halfswording, *then* the rondel dagger comes out and the grappling (Ringen auf Mh Deutsch) begins.
My background study focuses on German Medieval martial arts as per Sigmund Ringeck & Peter von Danzig (period historical masters).
I also dabble in Italian rapier as per Nicoletto Giganti (1608 manual).
If I was a Viking era Scandi, then overhand in a gigging fashion for much more measure (reach) or if really needed, underhand. More distance means you can hurt the other without getting hurt. On the other end, two knives or daggers + maybe some grappling, both are going to get hurt, a lot. Real knife fights are ugly.
I've read some historical books about the viking age, as well as, depictions of that time and to me (I'm no expert), it seems underhand was the 'standard' for holding spears. Though, spears were often thrown and then ofc overhand is the only option.
As an aside Skatan, I cannot recommend the Göteborgs Historiska Fäktskola enough if wanting to delve into Medieval Martial arts. In particular instructor Roger Norling whose main focus in his research is the "Kunst des Fechtens" and primarily the longsword, dussack and polearms.
Njóttu dagsins!
A friend of mine talked about maybe trying out HEMA and I know there's a good one in Gbg. Kinda creepy that you mention Göteborg etc when I'm from there
Actually I also had a neighbor friend from Göteborg for a few years when I was in grade school. His dad was a design engineer supervising a pulp mill boiler build. Best neighbors ever.
Anyway, yes, you two should really check out the Ghfs HEMA school there in your city, ask for Roger. It might be a bit intense at first, but stick with it, you'll love it. They are some of the best in the world (and I'm chatting with one of their instructors on FB at the moment about... spear usage, lol). It is physical chess and the most fun way to work out. Then on "rest" days/times, play some Baldur's Gate and/or Icewind Dale (I still have a Viking party planned for the latter).
PS: I don't speak Swedish, just some words/phrases of Old Norse and enough German to usually get the meaning of Swedish.
I'm also puzzled by the "Darwinian choice" comment. If two skilled and determined warriors are trying like hell gut each other then things will likely end poorly for somebody no matter what.
Interesting topic, regardless. Thanks for the information.
Talking about spears for me thinking of my major BG (and general fantasy) pet peeve - inaccurate war hammers. In fantasy art the "war hammers" are generally smith's hammers or sledge hammers. They have short handles and heavy heads, and if you tried to hit somebody with one it would pull you off balance and probably get you killed. Real war hammers looked like modern framing hammers - long handles with smallish heads. The force of the blow comes from the mechanical advantage of the long handle, not the weight of the head. War hammers (and framing hammers) are about speed, not mass. Smith's hammers are the opposite.
Anyway I'm guessing this is nothing new to any of you, but I felt like griping a bit and my wife wouldn't have been interested.
I believe his point is that he considers closing in to grapple when your opponent is still using a sword is a bad choice of tactics. You make a bad choice, you get skewered, and consequently, you are no longer contributing to the gene pool, thus proving Darwin correct.
Basically, it seems like a Darwinian choice was in the works as soon as you hit the battlefield, and your best bet for staying in the gene pool is to be flexible.