Things you have discover that nobody else seems aware of

[EternalOptimist]

A list of battles where a smaller number of troops with 3 foot swords defeated larger number of troops armed with spears or pikes

off the top of my head ?


not Cannae
Zama
Metaurus
Alesia (against the gauls)
Britain - against boudicca


not bad for those silly little swords eh ?

[Gentile]

There seem to be a couple of people interested in this so pm ing will not work, perhaps we should start a separate thread?

Maybe. But feel free to continue if other people are enjoying it: I just thought this was quite a good thread about interesting discoveries in its own right.

[MyUserName]

A list of battles where a smaller number of troops with 3 foot swords defeated larger number of troops armed with spears or pikes

off the top of my head ?


not Cannae
Zama
Metaurus
Alesia (against the gauls)
Britain - against boudicca


not bad for those silly little swords eh ?

I will have a look in to these although my first thought is "Out of how many battles?"

And btw that is not what I asked, I asked how many armies had swords as primaries. Please do not hide from the questions.

Also, how did you do in my thought experiment?

[realityhack]

I have discovered that recessions are terrible things, that make otherwise intelligent people argue about nonsense on the internet when they would otherwise be applying their intellects and critical skills to meaningful work!

I absolutely disagree - recessions are great, this is informed, interesting nonsense, I prefer this over house prices, the European economy and xenophobia any day.

[EternalOptimist]

I will have a look in to these although my first thought is "Out of how many battles?"

And btw that is not what I asked, I asked how many armies had swords as primaries. Please do not hide from the questions.

Also, how did you do in my thought experiment?

well the Romans fought thousands of battles over hundreds of years, they lost many and won most.

Other armies that were primarily sword (off the top of my head)
Samnite
Etruscan
Samurai
Teutonic knights (two handed)
The Gauls had a lot of swords (mostly mild steel)


The point is, as a weapons system, against the right weapons sytem, they are deadly. They do not 'suck'
that should be clear to you now

[Gentile]

I absolutely disagree - recessions are great, this is informed, interesting nonsense, I prefer this over house prices, the European economy and xenophobia any day.

I quite liked Lucy Lawless back in the day.

[EternalOptimist]

I quite liked Lucy Lawless back in the day.

[EternalOptimist]

Keep a small toothbrush next to your computer.

use it to

clean bottom of mouse
clean keyboard
scratch that irritating bit just between your shoulderblades

[MyUserName]

well the Romans fought thousands of battles over hundreds of years, they lost many and won most.

The fact that this was despite the gladius and not because of it was covered above.

Other armies that were primarily sword (off the top of my head)
Samnite
Etruscan
Samurai
Teutonic knights (two handed)
The Gauls had a lot of swords (mostly mild steel)

Teutonis knights were not an army. They were ... well ... knights which were formed as part of an army. One normally staffed by polemen. Not all of them used zweihänders. Although this is a moot point as I stated previously two handed swords are an exception as they are basically used as short pole weapons.

Samurai were not an army - they were a social class. They fought on the battlefields originally as horse archers and by the time they were mainly carrying their swords they did not do much other than fight other samurai. They actually made very little difference on battlefields by then and would have been killed by a few spearmen.

So these two examples are simply wrong.

I doubt very much that the Samnite, Etruscan and Gauls field armies of primarily swordsmen. This is due to the high cost of swords compared to spears and the increased amount of training required to use a sword rather than a spear.

Being as this is your subject, could you provide some primary sources for this?

Also, please see my thought experiement which you have forgotten to mention.

Pretty much every army used polearms in some form as its primary weapon. This is mainly due to the facts that swords:

1 Take a lot of space to use effectively unless you are going to use them as short spears like a gladius

2 Have limited range (compared to polearms)

3 Are ineffective against armoured opponents unless you can use two hands on it which requires that you have heavy body armour to avoid being stabbed by long range polearms or hit by an arrow.

4 Are expensive due to the cost of production compared to a spear

5 Take much longer to learn to use effectively than a spear

6 Cannot be used in multiple lines like spear

The point is, as a weapons system, against the right weapons sytem, they are deadly. They do not 'suck'
that should be clear to you now

The only time a sword is a good weapon is when your enemy has a shorter sword or is asleep. Otherwise you have to rely on other advantages to win (like the Romans did) and not use the swords as sword (like the Roman's didn't).

It would be suicide for army of roughly equal equipment, skill and organisation to it's enemy to have fielded swords against polearms, that is why it never happened apart from the extreme example of the Romans and probably a couple of edge cases.

If the above reasons and my thought experiment did not make it clear to you then I am at a loss, it simply does not get any more obvious.

[NickFitz]

I have discovered that recessions are terrible things, that make otherwise intelligent people argue about nonsense on the internet when they would otherwise be applying their intellects and critical skills to meaningful work!

FTFY