Do staves get W.P Blunt bonuses and W.P. Staff bonuses?

[Axelmania]

Killer Cyborg perhaps since you care about some unwritten necessity of NPC examples you could point out some NPCs with WP Staff and we can look at how extensively the author fleshed out their bonuses.

Did they have "+ with a staff"? Did they have WP Blunt unaccounted for?

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

I am just going to ask a question here...
What The Heck does real world weaponry or historical combat/recreation combat have to do with this?
No seriously what?

I ask this because other than having the same name the Weapon Proficiencies in question share nothing at all with the real world skills being discussed.

W.P. Shield covers ALL shields of every sort regardless of the size or kind. Even though in the real world there are multiple different kinds that need different training

W.P. Sword covers ALL swords of every sort regardless of size, kind, or usage. This means that one skill covers broad swords, bastard swords, epees, foils, rapiers, katannas, bokken, short swords, great swords... ALL OF THEM

W.P. Pole Arms covers ALL pole arms. All of them, pikes, awls, mancatchers, glaives... everything

W.P. Spear covers, you guessed it any weapon that is like a spear

W.P. Staff covers all staff like weapons

The list goes on and on.

Except for a few exceptions WPs are not a narrow skill that covers a single weapon, but hugely broad skills that cover entire classes of weapons or even entire ideas of weapons. Narrowly arguing how many inches a historical spear had before it was classed as a pike by this army or that army is utterly irrelevant. This is not a history thesis on weaponry and those things don't matter in the game. No seriously they don't. Unless you can find something in the books that talk about how they are limited like that arguing that your pet historical definition is superior to the books definition of a weapon is not just irrelevant, it is trying to replace canon with your personal fanon!

In the broader context, only two of those WPs are too broad, in my experience.

W.P. Sword and W.P. Shield.

The others are (i wont wont say "all" as i dont remember the whole list) actually fine.

99% of the various polearms fall into one of two types - spear outgrowths (Partisan, Ranseur, etc) - W.P. Spear; as well as traditional spears. The others are all headed weapons that are fought with nearly identically. There are SOME finesse differences, but someone with a lot of experience using, say, a Lochaber Axe, would have no trouble picking up and using a Halberd quite effectively, or a Glaive or Guissarme - so those all use W.P. Polearm. The other W.P.s that cover broad ranges are actually pretty similar - if you are skilled in using a club, you're not going to be clueless picking up a mace.

W.P. Sword is a little too broad, only because there are really three lengths of sword that you need to train with - shorter swords, like the Gladius, Small Sword, Backsword, Cutlass, or Wakizashi; "Swords" - one-handed and long swords like Arming Swords, Viking Swords, Sabers, and traditional Long Swords (which most RPG mis-type as a "bastard sword"), and the third type being the truly two-handed weapons like early Claymores (ala William Wallace), German and Swiss zweihanders, etc.

While there are some variations in each type (Short, "regular", and Two-handed being the types) - if you were trained to use, say, a Swiss Katzbalger (a short weapon about the size of a wakizashi that was a common sidearm for Swiss Pikemen, you could pick up and use a Wakizashi just fine. Would you use it like a Samurai would? (In the same motions and forms, etc) No, of course not, but you'd be completely effective with it. Youd use it like you use your Katzbalger, but that wouldnt make you less deadly with it, really.

Same with a Katana. If you were trained to use an Arming Sword (Oakeshotte Type 7-17 or so), you could pick up a Katana and be very deadly with it. You wont wield it like a Samurai, of course, but you're fully cognizant on how to cut and thrust with a bladed sword of that length.

W.P. shield is a little too broad as well, for roughly the same reason - there are really two different types of shield, not including Bucklers (as i do more HEMA, and am learning to love the buckler.. it is NOT a shield and not used like any shield. Its methods of use are entirely, entirely different) - strapped and centerpointed.

The actual size of the shield isn't as relevant as how you hold it. Strapped shields were mostly used early on in the West (Bronze, Iron Ages) and then forgotten until the middle ages, when they became a thing again because Knights would often strap the shield to their off-arm (this is when the Norman Kite became popular). Viking shields, most round shields that evolved from the Viking shield, and "Heater" shields were centerpointed (handle in the middle). Tower Shields like a Scutum were also strapped, but not widely used in the west after the romans - again, until the Normans revived the concept of a shoulder-to-toe shield in the Kite (which was still quite a bit smaller than a Scutum, being quite a bit more narrow, and tapered towards the feet).

Strapped Shields are used more defensively (as they dont really extend past the reach of your arm), and centerpointed shields are used more offensively (as you can extend the rim of the shield up to two feet past your hand, depending on the shield).

Otherwise.. Palladium's W.P. skills really aren't that bad, given that they are, in my opinion meant to reflect general proficiency rather than extreme expertise.

I think they get shields wrong, mechanically (maybe im wrong here, as someone did say that shields can count as cover, but ive never seen that rule - doesn't mean it doesn't exist, as i could have easily missed it) - because i think you should have to make a called shot to get around a shield instead of "parrying" with it (you really dont want to be moving your shield around a lot. Not only is it exhausting, its a great way to get off-line and have the shield be useless), and swords, as a whole could be broken down a bit...

but, on the whole, ive seen a lot worse.

[Axelmania]

Axe covering 1 and 2 hand seems broad, as does 1/2 hand maces, staffs, spears

[eliakon]

or W.P. Chain covering flails, nunchucks, nine part staves...

or W.P. Polearm covers a pike covering a man-catcher, or a Lucerne hammer (i.e. thrusting, slashing, crushing, and entangle weapons)

Or the same skill that covers Bows, Crossbows, Throwing Knives, Shuriken, Boomerangs, Slings, Slingshots...

Or forked covering any and all weapons with tines EXCEPT for tridents. Sooo. tined daggers, tined swords, tined maces, tined pole arms...anything except for the trident.

Or...
I could go on about the insanely broad categories here.

[Axelmania]

Even a more specific weapon skill game like GURPS doesn't seem specific enough to me, they lump short swords and sword clubs together, as if all you can do with blades is a clubbing hack and not a smooth slice.

[Blue_Lion]

Blue Lion,
Your response to Colonel_Tetsuya's post does not match what he actually posted.

What he acutally posted was not worth addressing it amounts to I am an expert and what you presented is wrong.
He made a claim that spears over a certain length where not able to used with a shield. that was the basis of what I been trying to address he instead trying to prove his own intelligence been pulling it out on tangents about minor points.

Dismied evidence of shields being used with spears beyond the size he said they could not because they where from time X. He provided no real evidence other than I am the expert. As we can not check his back ground he needs to support his claim and not just dismiss evidence.

I will not waist any more of my time with no your are wrong because I am an expert debate.

What I said about a one handed staff being a club was (off topic) bracket and not truly the claim of his I was addressing.

Tell me what evidence did he really provide that proves a spear over 44 inches can not be used with a shield? (oh wait he said it was not a claim but reality. Stuck to it even when videos showed people using shields with spears greater than the max length he said making excuses as to why the video does not count.)

The one who failed to address a person post was him when he dismissed evidence and provided no support for his claim that spears longer than 44 inches can not be used with shields. (using no sources but declaring yourself an expert in a online debate, fails to prove your stance.) Spend a few days to watch videos is not presenting evidence but an attempt to waste person time. So I will not respawn to anything he posts, I been trolled enough by some one that can not sight any evidence to back his claim that spears over 44 inches can not be used with shields.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Dismied evidence of shields being used with spears beyond the size he said they could not because they where from time X. He provided no real evidence other than I am the expert. As we can not check his back ground he needs to support his claim and not just dismiss evidence.

Im not your history teacher. You can literally find this info in a high school european history book. I also didn't say that im the sole expert. I told you to watch more of the videos of the expert you posted, because he IS an expert. Dont take my word for it - take Matt Easton's. Seriously. It's not my job to educate you.

I will not waist any more of my time with no your are wrong because I am an expert debate.

thats "waste".

Go ahead and take your time. Ill wait. You find me any (western) army past about 300AD that used spears and shields in a shield wall formation. We're gonna be here a while.

What I said about a one handed staff being a club was (off topic) bracket and not truly the claim of his I was addressing.

Tell me what evidence did he really provide that proves a spear over 44 inches can not be used with a shield? (oh wait he said it was not a claim but reality. Stuck to it even when videos showed people using shields with spears greater than the max length he said making excuses as to why the video does not count.)

Again, not what i said. He also wasn't "using" the spear in that video. You didn't see him fight with it. He was showing how a period-appropriate spear would have been held when fighting with a shield. And to even get it up in the right position he had to choke up 2 1/2 feet on the haft, denying himself the entire advantage of using a spear - reach. You can go watch Skallagrim's video when he does a review of that same exact spear. On a drop thrust, the head drops almost 3 feet at full extension. You basically have to throw the thrust at head-level to get it to end up in your opponents belly.

Hell, i even provided you with an experiment you could do in your own back yard to show you how wrong you are.

The one who failed to address a person post was him when he dismissed evidence and provided no support for his claim that spears longer than 44 inches can not be used with shields. (using no sources but declaring yourself an expert in a online debate, fails to prove your stance.) Spend a few days to watch videos is not presenting evidence but an attempt to waste person time. So I will not respawn to anything he posts, I been trolled enough by some one that can not sight any evidence to back his claim that spears over 44 inches can not be used with shields.

Again. I. AM. NOT. YOUR. HISTORY. TEACHER.

I very specifically did NOT get a teaching certificate with my degree.

The information is there for you to behold. I'm not going to hand hold you using google to "prove" what is verified historical fact that is taught in any high school european history class. Its already hard enough to even read your posts with the awful spelling and inability to use simple grammar.

[Blue_Lion]

I probably should not do this but lets take a look at the main claim I have been trying to address. (I never asked you to be a teacher just provide evidence to your claim.)

You made the claim . Shorter spears (in the 36-44" range) could be used with a shield, but anything much longer than that and it is too forward-heavy to be used with a shield.

That was out of line with the research and knowledge I had on ancient weapons.-You said it was not a claim but a historical fact..

I did a quick search and found lots of videos showing use of spears longer than 4' I chose one that focus on demonstrating the ancient Greek use of a shield and spear and linked it.

Your counter was a statement about the thickness of the spear shaft.

So lets take a look at the facts on this claim. 1 You made a claim spears longer than 44 inches could not be used with a shield. 2 I found a video demonstrating the use of a spear longer than 60 inches with a shield. 3 You counter with a statement about spear shaft thickness.

So 2 is related to the nature of your claim, however 3 is irreverent to the claim that spears longer than 44 inches can not be used with a shield.

If the Greeks used spears longer than 48 inches with a shield(even if it was the bronze or iron age) your claim that it is a historical fact that spears longer than 48 inches can not be used with a shield is not a fact.

I then presented a video of a modern weapon expert talking about how a spear was used with a shield and over hand grip vs underhand.

You then make a counter that he is talking about how they where used together during the time frame they where used together. (When they where used together has no bearing on the fact they where used together.)

You make a claim that most clubs are spiked or have a stone head and while I do know of some spiked clubs most clubs and things used as clubs to my knowledge are not. And as I understand it adding the stone or clay to the head of club was how the mace was born. My understanding of a mace is; a mace is weighted club and that does seam to be the common definition.

You then make a comment that I may believe many things that are untrue like there is a sword called long sword that is one handed. A long sword as I understand it is typically a reference to a sword that has a handle for two handed use. D&D and TV shows have mistakenly called 1 handed sword a long sword. Thus leading to the common myth it is a 1 handed weapon. So your not only launched a personal attack based on what you thought I believed. I knew there was no such weapon as; it to my knowledge is not a specific weapon name but a reference to two handed swords.

So now then if I have proven one of your claims false why should I take you as an expert on weapons? Having you sight sources of your claims is not asking you to be teacher but prove they are facts and not just wild claims. It is not holding my hand but proving what you are claiming is a fact.

I do not need to prove use of a spear in a shield wall after any date to prove they are effective in shield walls. That is something that is commonly held belief, supported by how they are demonstrated used in TV shows and movies. So do not make attacks at my intelligence in place of proving your claims are true.

(If you claim something is a established fact it should be easy to prove. If you do not want to prove facts are facts then do not bring them into a debate.)

My experience with spear and shield training is you counter the forward weight by adjusting your grip forward. I was taught to always try to hold a spear at or in front of its center of balance to maintain control of the spear head. A spear typically to my knowledge becomes impossible to use one handed when the over all length is beyond what you can maneuver.

(As to your to the request for spears in shield walls after 300 ad the Bayeux tapestry depicts a shield wall with spears in it. The spears are being held in the over hand grip, not a two handed grip and seam to have a scale close to the wilder. The calvery are also depicted with a spear(lance) in a over hand grip that also seams to be about the same size as the wielder. This would seam to indicate that spear in a shield wall was used at the battle of Hastings. https://www.deconetwork.com/blog/wp-con ... x-tape.png)

[Killer Cyborg]

Blue Lion,
Your response to Colonel_Tetsuya's post does not match what he actually posted.

What he acutally posted was not worth addressing it amounts to I am an expert and what you presented is wrong.

He didn't just say it, though; he provided support that he is in fact an expert, and that what you presented IS wrong.
He also disagreed with your claim about that his stance actually IS, and he provided his original quote.
If you were talking about that quote, you need to address this part, because currently it seems like you're fighting a straw man.
If you were talking about something else he said, then you need to clarify what you were actually talking about, for the same reason.

[Killer Cyborg]

Discussing real-world contexts is quite useful in forming opinions about what RAI might be.

It is only useful if
1) there is a question of intent.
and
2) the real world context is relevant to the game

I don't see any possible way that either of those apply here.
I really don't

Since
1) The game is explicit in stating that it intends for the W.P. skills to cover these various weapons there is no possible way to question if that was intent.
and
2) The real world context being cited is examples that run counter the published rules (which have not changed in what? 37 years?)

I mean sure, its neat to see how people in the real world would train to use a weapon, or how they would classify different weapons...
...but we are told, rather explicitly, that those classifications are NOT the classifications that the game uses, which is made abundantly clear by the fact that these same break downs are used every single time.
At this point trying to claim that there was some sort of hidden "intent" to secretly intend that the weapons not be divided up the way that they are listed and actually be divided up a different way is untenable and pure fanon.

The basic claim being investigated is whether or not WPs stack as a defaul, and how this interacts with the canon that WPs stacking is "rare."
The issue of whether WP Spear and WP Staff stack is part of that exploration, and the discussion of real-world combat techniques came up because of that exploration.

I don't know why that spun off into discussion of how certain spears and certain staffs are used, since I think that we can all agree that there ARE many common spears that utilize the same maneuvers that staffs do (and vice-versa).

[Eagle]

I'd say they don't stack by default. The primary reason I'll say that is that I don't want to get into a 7 page argument with some guy who thinks he's an expert on medieval weaponry (we seem to have a lot of those floating around). I don't want to argue over how XYZ weapon was used historically and how certain fighting styles from certain cultures would blah blah blah.

So unless a weapon proficiency specifically said that it stacked with another, I wouldn't allow it. Because I wouldn't want a repeat of this thread at my gaming table.

[Killer Cyborg]

I'd say they don't stack by default. The primary reason I'll say that is that I don't want to get into a 7 page argument with some guy who thinks he's an expert on medieval weaponry (we seem to have a lot of those floating around). I don't want to argue over how XYZ weapon was used historically and how certain fighting styles from certain cultures would blah blah blah.

So unless a weapon proficiency specifically said that it stacked with another, I wouldn't allow it. Because I wouldn't want a repeat of this thread at my gaming table.

That's one of the things that I consider when trying to determine RAI: the playability of the interpretation.
In this case, if you go with the "WPs stack by default," then it's suddenly unclear which WPs stack and which don't. That lack of clarity would lead to a lot of arguments eating up game time, as you say.
While Palladium does have any number of "use your own judgment" rules, I don't believe that this is one of them--the results are far too messy to seem at all deliberate.

[Mack]

I'd say they don't stack by default. The primary reason I'll say that is that I don't want to get into a 7 page argument with some guy who thinks he's an expert on medieval weaponry (we seem to have a lot of those floating around). I don't want to argue over how XYZ weapon was used historically and how certain fighting styles from certain cultures would blah blah blah.

So unless a weapon proficiency specifically said that it stacked with another, I wouldn't allow it. Because I wouldn't want a repeat of this thread at my gaming table.

This guy.

I like him.

[Blue_Lion]

Discussing real-world contexts is quite useful in forming opinions about what RAI might be.

It is only useful if
1) there is a question of intent.
and
2) the real world context is relevant to the game

I don't see any possible way that either of those apply here.
I really don't

Since
1) The game is explicit in stating that it intends for the W.P. skills to cover these various weapons there is no possible way to question if that was intent.
and
2) The real world context being cited is examples that run counter the published rules (which have not changed in what? 37 years?)

I mean sure, its neat to see how people in the real world would train to use a weapon, or how they would classify different weapons...
...but we are told, rather explicitly, that those classifications are NOT the classifications that the game uses, which is made abundantly clear by the fact that these same break downs are used every single time.
At this point trying to claim that there was some sort of hidden "intent" to secretly intend that the weapons not be divided up the way that they are listed and actually be divided up a different way is untenable and pure fanon.

The basic claim being investigated is whether or not WPs stack as a defaul, and how this interacts with the canon that WPs stacking is "rare."
The issue of whether WP Spear and WP Staff stack is part of that exploration, and the discussion of real-world combat techniques came up because of that exploration.

I don't know why that spun off into discussion of how certain spears and certain staffs are used, since I think that we can all agree that there ARE many common spears that utilize the same maneuvers that staffs do (and vice-versa).

My main focus in that debate that derailed it was not how a spear was used two handed. But the claim that spears longer than 44 inches can not be used with a shield. It really derailed into a bunch of time wasting side rants and for that I apologies.

[dreicunan]

@Colonel_Tetsuya: Quick question regarding your statement that pikes were in use as early as AD 800. Wouldn't it be more accurate to state that pikes were in use as early as the 350s BC? Philip II of Macedon took the throne in 359 BC and introduced the sarissa into the Macedonian army (and the Macedonian Phalanx that resulted in Macedonia owning the rest of Greece before going on on to kick a whole lot of Achaemenid butt under his son's command). Is there something about the design of the sarissa compared to later European pikes that would lead you to exclude them from classification as a pike?

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

@Colonel_Tetsuya: Quick question regarding your statement that pikes were in use as early as AD 800. Wouldn't it be more accurate to state that pikes were in use as early as the 350s BC? Philip II of Macedon took the throne in 359 BC and introduced the sarissa into the Macedonian army (and the Macedonian Phalanx that resulted in Macedonia owning the rest of Greece before going on on to kick a whole lot of Achaemenid butt under his son's command). Is there something about the design of the sarissa compared to later European pikes that would lead you to exclude them from classification as a pike?

Nothing, really, other than terminology. And we were talking about the post-bronze age world (Dark Ages to early reniassance - Medieval Europe).

Like a LOT of technology possessed by the Greeks and Romans, the Sarissa (which is basically a leaf-bladed pike - another substantial diference there, pike heads were not bladed and often just pointed caps, to make the weight less of an issue) and other long spears or pike-equivalents fell out of use for centuries. (Romans had plate armor, but Europe forgot how to make plate armor for about 11 centuries, as another example.)

Early Medieval pikes were really just.. long sticks. A lot of the first (re)uses of the weapon type werent even tipped with steel or iron - just sharpened and flame-hardened, and often not even the primary weapons of the people using them - the scene from Braveheart where Wallace is basically like "yeah, long sticks, get some long sticks you idiots" - while historically speaking, is questionable (more for the time period it was taking place in than anything else) - is actually pretty close to how extremely long spears - what came to be called Pikes - got back into the European world. Regular spearmen would often carve them the day before a battle to fend of cavalry and then discard them and go back to using their spears or other weapons when the cavalry was passed or had been fended off.

The (Norman) British would often have their longbowmen carve simple pikes to use in case they got charged by cavalry without cover, as well.

[Blue_Lion]

@Colonel_Tetsuya: Quick question regarding your statement that pikes were in use as early as AD 800. Wouldn't it be more accurate to state that pikes were in use as early as the 350s BC? Philip II of Macedon took the throne in 359 BC and introduced the sarissa into the Macedonian army (and the Macedonian Phalanx that resulted in Macedonia owning the rest of Greece before going on on to kick a whole lot of Achaemenid butt under his son's command). Is there something about the design of the sarissa compared to later European pikes that would lead you to exclude them from classification as a pike?

Honestly he is making lots of false claims.

False claims he has made.
1-Spears greater than 44 inches can not be used one handed. (spears greater than that where used one handed as far back as anchient greace. One of the people he mentions as an expert source Lindybeige stated in a video that maximum spear that can be used one handed was 8 feet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klOc9C-aPr4 If that is true and pikes start at 10 then a spear to large to be one handed would seam to be the length of a pike. )
2-There is little historical evidence that spear and shield lived past the bronze age. (unless you count art work showing battles. Spear and shield art of vikings, Anglo Saxon, frank. Art showed continue use of shield and spear as late as 1500 in southern Europe Spain and Italy. I even linked art work showing the battle of Hastings in the 10 century the Bayeaux Tapestry. http://www.britain-magazine.com/carouse ... -hastings/ this video he dismissed because it was talking about when spear and shield where used https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p93xUp9GrQ he even says the video presenter as an expert but contradicts the the time of spear and shield use listed in the video around the one minute mark.)
3-that if you thrust a spear in a tight formation you would be jabbing the guy behind you with the but. (part of the reason for the over arm grip as was explained in the video on over hand and underhand and Greek use of spear videos I linked of proper shield and spear use was to use it in a tight formation without hitting the guy next to or behind you. Now then if you wield the spear wrong for a formation with a under arm grip and a loose end of the shaft then yea you would. The phalanx of Greek specialized in the use of spear shield in a tight formation. Another video from Lindybeige showing use of full weight iron weapons shield and spear in a reenactment formation he says you would always use your spear two handed if you do not have a shield https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixm6sXe1TYE)
4-He implied that all historical text, icongraphy and arch. evidence supports his claim. (However he provided no such information and a simple search found famous icongraphy in direct contradiction to his claim.)

He claims to be expert on medieval warfare but his spear experiment was to have some one use a improper one handed spear grip to prove that spears can not be used one handed. (yea if you do not hold the spear right it is harder to control I know that from experience, but I can not prove my experience here.)

He makes excuses as to why he is not wrong dismisses any evidence because he claims to be an expert.
He may be able to google obscure facts but he is making mistakes on some basic information. To his credit the Academy of Historical Fencing in southern Wales makes a statement that there is no text on how they where used. (Likely why one "expert" he provided says formations used under arm and another says over arm.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni-h8SH1yUw

Odd that he wants me to watch videos to educate myself when the videos counter some of his claims.

[dreicunan]

@Blue_Lion: That was just the first of the claims that caught my attention. Regarding spear and shield not being used after the bronze age, he'd have an awful hard time explaining the action in a lot of the Norse sagas (and I'm not just talking mythology here). This pageis a great read about the Viking's use of the spear, and mentions the following:

More commonly, the spear was used as a thrusting weapon. The sagas tell us thrusting was the most common attack in melees and one-on-one fighting, and this capability was used to advantage in mass battles. In a mass battle, men lined up, shoulder to shoulder, with shields overlapping. After all the preliminaries, which included rock throwing, name calling, the trading of insults, and shouting a war cry (æpa heróp), the two lines advanced towards each other. When the lines met, the battle was begun. Behind the wall of shields, each line was well protected. Once a line was broken, and one side could pass through the line of the other side, the battle broke down into armed melees between small groups of men.

Before either line broke, while the two lines were going at each other hammer and tongs, the spear offered some real advantages. A fighter in the second rank could use his spear to reach over the heads of his comrades in the first rank and attack the opposing line. Konungs skuggsjá (King’s Mirror), a 13th century Norwegian manual for men of the king, says that in the battle line, a spear is more effective than two swords.

From the same site discussing the Viking shield (and in the sagas it comes across pretty clearly that choosing to NOT use a shield was considered pretty noteworthy):

The stories say that a fighter might hold a second weapon at the ready in his shield hand, while fighting with his primary weapon in the other hand. In chapter 12 of Fóstbræðra saga, Þorgeirr held a shield and an axe in his left hand while he fought with a spear in his right hand. Later in the fight, he threw down his spear and took up the axe in his right hand, using it to cut through Snorri's spear shaft, and then through Snorri's head.

[Blue_Lion]

@Blue_Lion: That was just the first of the claims that caught my attention. Regarding spear and shield not being used after the bronze age, he'd have an awful hard time explaining the action in a lot of the Norse sagas (and I'm not just talking mythology here). This pageis a great read about the Viking's use of the spear, and mentions the following:

More commonly, the spear was used as a thrusting weapon. The sagas tell us thrusting was the most common attack in melees and one-on-one fighting, and this capability was used to advantage in mass battles. In a mass battle, men lined up, shoulder to shoulder, with shields overlapping. After all the preliminaries, which included rock throwing, name calling, the trading of insults, and shouting a war cry (æpa heróp), the two lines advanced towards each other. When the lines met, the battle was begun. Behind the wall of shields, each line was well protected. Once a line was broken, and one side could pass through the line of the other side, the battle broke down into armed melees between small groups of men.

Before either line broke, while the two lines were going at each other hammer and tongs, the spear offered some real advantages. A fighter in the second rank could use his spear to reach over the heads of his comrades in the first rank and attack the opposing line. Konungs skuggsjá (King’s Mirror), a 13th century Norwegian manual for men of the king, says that in the battle line, a spear is more effective than two swords.

From the same site discussing the Viking shield (and in the sagas it comes across pretty clearly that choosing to NOT use a shield was considered pretty noteworthy):

The stories say that a fighter might hold a second weapon at the ready in his shield hand, while fighting with his primary weapon in the other hand. In chapter 12 of Fóstbræðra saga, Þorgeirr held a shield and an axe in his left hand while he fought with a spear in his right hand. Later in the fight, he threw down his spear and took up the axe in his right hand, using it to cut through Snorri's spear shaft, and then through Snorri's head.

Hmm this line in there does seam to indicate they where using shield and spear together as part of the shield wall.
"When the line broke, stories say that people would sling their shields over their shoulders and use the spear two-handed, something that Þórolfr did in chapter 53 of Egils saga. Used this way, the spear has even more reach, since the fighter can bring his hands way back towards the butt end of the spear. "

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

@Blue_Lion: That was just the first of the claims that caught my attention. Regarding spear and shield not being used after the bronze age, he'd have an awful hard time explaining the action in a lot of the Norse sagas (and I'm not just talking mythology here). This pageis a great read about the Viking's use of the spear, and mentions the following:

More commonly, the spear was used as a thrusting weapon. The sagas tell us thrusting was the most common attack in melees and one-on-one fighting, and this capability was used to advantage in mass battles. In a mass battle, men lined up, shoulder to shoulder, with shields overlapping. After all the preliminaries, which included rock throwing, name calling, the trading of insults, and shouting a war cry (æpa heróp), the two lines advanced towards each other. When the lines met, the battle was begun. Behind the wall of shields, each line was well protected. Once a line was broken, and one side could pass through the line of the other side, the battle broke down into armed melees between small groups of men.

Before either line broke, while the two lines were going at each other hammer and tongs, the spear offered some real advantages. A fighter in the second rank could use his spear to reach over the heads of his comrades in the first rank and attack the opposing line. Konungs skuggsjá (King’s Mirror), a 13th century Norwegian manual for men of the king, says that in the battle line, a spear is more effective than two swords.

The guys in the second rank using the spears had their shields slung at their sides.

From the same site discussing the Viking shield (and in the sagas it comes across pretty clearly that choosing to NOT use a shield was considered pretty noteworthy):

The stories say that a fighter might hold a second weapon at the ready in his shield hand, while fighting with his primary weapon in the other hand. In chapter 12 of Fóstbræðra saga, Þorgeirr held a shield and an axe in his left hand while he fought with a spear in his right hand. Later in the fight, he threw down his spear and took up the axe in his right hand, using it to cut through Snorri's spear shaft, and then through Snorri's head.

Spears were used in formations.

I never -once- made a claim otherwise.

Spears were not used by the shieldmen in the front rank. They were used by men in the second, third, and deeper ranks. This continued and evolved all the way through the reniassance with polearms replacing spears, and eventually, entire formations of men using only polearms and/or pikes (when armor had advanced enough that a shield was no longer strictly necessary or beneficial).

Spear-and-shield could (and often was) used by individuals who were strong enough. I never once said that didn't happen.

I said, if you can be arsed to go back and read, that it was not used in formations and that it was not used as a tactic by armies.

Because it wasn't. There's no archaeological evidence to support it. The art of the day doesn't support it. You see shields and spears int he formation, but you dont see men with shields wielding spears.

Were spears used in shield formations? Absolutely. By spearmen. In the rear. The guys in the front were armed with swords and axes. Did spearmen carry shields? Frequently. They were more effective than armor in 90% of cases, particularly the armor afforded to poor infantry (usually just a gambeson). They carried them slung. And had a sidearm, even if it was just a fire-hardened club (though often a dagger or axe).

And while we're at it, Norse spears, particularly Dark Ages, were only about 5ft long, sometimes less. (Remember that people back then weren't 6'+ - not even the norse). They would readily be on the bordernline of being usable with one hand and a shield.

[dreicunan]

Before either line broke, while the two lines were going at each other hammer and tongs, the spear offered some real advantages. A fighter in the second rank could use his spear to reach over the heads of his comrades in the first rank and attack the opposing line. Konungs skuggsjá (King’s Mirror), a 13th century Norwegian manual for men of the king, says that in the battle line, a spear is more effective than two swords.

When the line broke, stories say that people would sling their shields over their shoulders and use the spear two-handed, something that Þórolfr did in chapter 53 of Egils saga. Used this way, the spear has even more reach, since the fighter can bring his hands way back towards the butt end of the spear.

I've cited this again to include the second paragraph. The clear indication here is that the fighters were using the spear one-handed with a shield before the lines broke.

So that would mean that there is evidence that in at least some parts of Europe the spear was being used one-handed with a shield in a formation by an army.

Also, regarding spear length:

Spear heads were fixed to wooden shafts using a rivet. The sockets on the surviving spear heads suggest that the shafts were typically round, with a diameter of 2-3cm (about one inch).

However, there is little evidence that tells us the length of the shaft. The archaeological evidence is negligible, and the sagas are, for the most part, silent. Chapter 6 of Gísla saga tells of a spear so long-shafted that a man's outstretched arm could touch the rivet. The language used suggests that such a long shaft was uncommon. The reproduction spear on the left has a shaft of that length, while the other spear in the photo has a shorter shaft.

Perhaps the best guess we can make is that the combined length of shaft and head of Viking age spears was 2 to 3m (7-10ft) long, although one can make arguments for the use of spears having both longer and shorter shafts. A strong, straight-grained wood such as ash was used.

Whatever the typical length might have been, a story from chapter 15 of Fóstbræðra saga suggests that the amount of wood was not insubstantial. Gaut's men ran out of firewood while cooking their meal. Gautr went to Þorgeir's tent and broke up his spear shaft and shield to provide firewood sufficient to cook the meal. Þorgeirr seemed unperturbed when he returned to the camp and discovered his weapons were missing, but he later returned the favor by splitting Gautr apart down to his shoulders using his axe.

Note that this would place the length and circumference of the spear as about the same length as the Greek Dory (the hoplite's spear). Given that the Dory also had an iron head, they'd be about the same weight. If Greek hoplites wearing fairly heavy armor and wielding a roughly 16 lb shield in their left hand were also capable of wielding a Dory one-handed with their right hand, I'm pretty sure that most Vikings could have pulled off a similar feat with the gear to which they had access.

[Blue_Lion]

The standard battle tacit for spear units was shield wall, hard to do that if your troops where not using shields.

In the Bronze Age, maybe.. but no medieval European power fielded units of men with shields and spears. If they were using shields, they were using swords (or axes, maces, et al - as the individual soldier preferred). There is zero historical evidence that spear and shield lived much past the Bronze Age in most of Europe (as far as infantry goes). Spears, and the lances that grew from them, were commonly used by cavalry with a shield, but not when dismounted.

Go ahead and take your time. Ill wait. You find me any (western) army past about 300AD that used spears and shields in a shield wall formation. We're gonna be here a while.

(Seriously, if you were thrusting with a 5-6' spear out of a formation, you'd be jamming the butt of the spear into the guy behind you every time you struck - not ideal)

Sorry Colonel_Testuya when you make comments like this it is hard to see you as not saying they where not used in formations.

We have evidence in the tapestry I linked of spear and shield being used in the battle of Hastings in formations that appear to be a shield wall(if I recall the king was criticized for relying on shield walls style formation in the battle against the horse and archers of the invaders.) from the 10th century.
The viking text he linked has a passage where they said they slung their shields on there back after the ranks(shield wall) broke. So that implies they where not using them with the shield slung before they broke they had the spear and shield together.

When the line broke, stories say that people would sling their shields over their shoulders and use the spear two-handed, something that Þórolfr did in chapter 53 of Egils saga. Used this way, the spear has even more reach, since the fighter can bring his hands way back towards the butt end of the spear.

(Spears where also one of the most common weapons on the battle field for things like cost and ease of training. Swords where primary a side arm used when your main weapon was lost. The Romans where a little odd that it was their main weapon.)

Giving that a sliding throw (gigging strike) from the over hand position not only does not disturb the formation but allows for use of most the spears reach and deliver powerful blows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtIPp-m69BY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri6X3-muwfM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42NDuagLd4k

these videos show the power of a 1 handed strike.
First one just shows it against a target.
Second one a ranged strike against mail covered clay.
Third two handed and one handed strikes(also shows depictions of it in used from ancient artworks to mediviel art to modern age Africa).

Second and third used viking spear vs 14 century mail replica.

[eliakon]

(I suggest that the argument over the historical use of spears, as it is now utterly off topic, be broken off and moved to its own thread)

[Blue_Lion]

(I suggest that the argument over the historical use of spears, as it is now utterly off topic, be broken off and moved to its own thread)

It is really of topic. I will stop posting about it.

[Greepnak]

HEMA is really cool just because I can post GIFS from HEMA fights into my game's groupchat to remind everybody how little "time" a Rifts "Action" actually represents. That or jet li movies. wapwapwapwapwapwap.

[Blue_Lion]

HEMA is really cool just because I can post GIFS from HEMA fights into my game's groupchat to remind everybody how little "time" a Rifts "Action" actually represents. That or jet li movies. wapwapwapwapwapwap.

Would the SCA not work as well as a source for movies.

[tsh77769]

I would just like to mention one thing regarding the issue of bonus to strike when thrown with weapons that are not designed for being thrown, such as staves. RANGE!!! Yes, I might get a bonus to strike when throwing a staff, but since it is not designed for throwing, the range will be PITIFUL, especially compared to anything that IS designed to be thrown, so it is not such a bad situation as it first appears.

tsh77769

[Axelmania]

If I only had to hit something 10 feet away with a throw, I think I would have better chances with connecting with any part of a staff than the tip of a knife.

[Killer Cyborg]

If I only had to hit something 10 feet away with a throw, I think I would have better chances with connecting with any part of a staff than the tip of a knife.

Perhaps, but what about "than any part of a knife?"

[Axelmania]

This thing again where the 1d6 is intended for hitting with the handle or the knife?

Does this apply to vibro knives too?

[Killer Cyborg]

This thing again where the 1d6 is intended for hitting with the handle or the knife?

Does this apply to vibro knives too?

Not sure if normal vibro-knives can be thrown effectively.
it would depend on how the vibrio-field turns on or off.

[Axelmania]

I imagine they could be designed with or without dead man's switches.

[SpiritInterface]

Spear and Shield were used together commonly and were used into the gunpowder age. Greeks and Romans used 8' spears (Dory) with shields well into the Iron Age. Vikings also used 7-10' Spears and Shield well into the Iron Age. The Assegai (3'-4' spear) and Shield was used by the Zulu with moderate success into the Gunpowder era.

The spear itself lasted into the 20th century. The French and others had Calvary units still armed with lances into WWI