I always find it fascinating the kind of things people will say because they saw a YouTube video once while ignoring all the actual historical context, like the Romans building their empire by fighting spear phalanxes with sword (and javelin) based legions.
Comment on Swords suck, spears are a way more effective weapon
dwindling7373@feddit.it 1 month agoAbsolutely not. It’s the other way around there’s a reason any army get spears while swords are just a simbol for nobility.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 month ago
dwindling7373@feddit.it 1 month ago
The Romans swords were not actual swords.
They also had shields and that changes things a lot.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 month ago
Ugh.
prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
That reason is price to produce and skill to wield my dude
dwindling7373@feddit.it 1 month ago
I’m not an expert, are you? All the in dephts historical weapon stuff I met in my life has told me and confirmed me spears win against swords.
prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
I didn’t say spears didn’t win against swords.
Spears are easier to wield, it’s a pointy stick. It requires less training to use. Requires significantly less materials to make.
They are a standoff weapon though, in close combat a sword or small bladed weapon wins. Different tools for different purposes.
The information I’m parroting is from experts and historians and literature and everything I’ve read over my 4 decades, it’s common knowledge at this point and not really worth “arguing” imo.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 month ago
There’s this really annoying trend on the YouTube HEMA-type channels where they give unarmored and unshielded amateur college students swords and spears to “test” swords and spears and then crown the spear best weapon, no notes.
dwindling7373@feddit.it 1 month ago
Well my anedoctal evidence is diametrally opposite to yours.
It’s time to invoke the sacred sources.