Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The store up the road from me has dedicated nights for gaming. If I show up unannounced and look for a pick up game, I am indeed at the mercy of whatever is available. That is absolutely true. However, if I post a posting on the game/bulletin board stating explicitly that I'm coming in looking for a game of 6th WFB or 3rd 40K, I know which edition I'll be playing, and either someone will see this posting on the board there and be accommodating, or I won't get a game in. However, I've set the base for what game is being played. That's at a store. KTG is doing it at his house, so he will indeed be in control of what is played. If someone does indeed contact him saying "I want to play 7th with that edition's army books", then KTG will either accept and shift accordingly, or there won't be a game played.
I always return to the "6th is the most balanced" stick, actually
(I am so glad I found this pic) I am trying to max out my banner options from my Bretonnian Battalion, and I noticed options for the top of the flag banner. However, I noticed this smaller banner pole and I am not sure what it is supposed to be for. The wonderful and as usual lacking instructions show the mini cathedral like thing on top of the flag banner, so what is it actually? Can I make a banner like this?
The reason is, within this set, I have 2 knight banners, and 2 man-at-arm/bowmen banners. However, I will be fielding a knight unit, 2 man-at-arms units, 1 bowmen unit, and a mounted squire unit. So I need 5. I was going to give the extra knight one to my bowmen, but it probably makes more sense for the squires to get it. So I need something for the bowmen and was wondering if this was legit.
Its a not-Friar Tuck for your unit, he is in fact a rank and file trooper, the kit contains a full command group on top. Fit him in anywhere or use him for an alternate command.
There is a lot of character in that set.
MOM Miniaturas captured the spirit of it with their levy spearmen set:
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
No I don't mean the guy, I mean whatever he is holding. Whatever is sitting on top of his pole. I don't know what it is called, or if I can use it in place of a standard.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/20 16:30:57
KTG17 wrote: No I don't mean the guy, I mean whatever he is holding. Whatever is sitting on top of his pole. I don't know what it is called, or if I can use it in place of a standard.
Absolutely. It would be a pretty cool standard too.
The word you are looking for is 'headpiece', though 'topper' works fine. While it is common for GW kits to include a choice of standard headpieces you can use other things, or make other use of headpieces.
Bretonnian helmet crests and standard headpieces are fairly interchangable.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For the monks specific headpiece, it is called an 'icon' and was common in medieval art, most notably in the Eastern Orthodox church but also Catholicism.
And icon is a box with a double lid, the double lid also acts as a stan d so the box can stand on its side. On the inside of the box is religious art and the box itself contains ritual paraphernalia for the priest. As the outside of the box is also often highlly decorated, sometimes gilted or inlaid with gems, so it is not really a container as such and would itself need a container for travel. It is nonetheless essentially a portable shrine, though more ornate boxes gilted outside and in were static pieces for permanent display.
It makes sense that the Bretonnians would have an equivalent. The icon present is on a stave, which is possible not normally the case for historic icons and the two side panels are used as candle holders rather than to provide a triptych of religious art. Instead there is a single artform, in this case a statuette of The Lady.
It makes for a fine banner headpiece, but could also be used to grace a table in a diorama.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/21 07:54:10
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Orlanth wrote: The word you are looking for is 'headpiece', though 'topper' works fine. While it is common for GW kits to include a choice of standard headpieces you can use other things, or make other use of headpieces.
Bretonnian helmet crests and standard headpieces are fairly interchangable.
Ah! Well, I thought since it wasn't a flag it might be frowned upon, but then I realized that two of my Orc units just have skulls/heads on banner poles without any kind of flag too, so I figured why not. And I am not crazy about flags getting in the way of shooters too. It doesn't look quite right.
ALSO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I recently bought the Empire State Troops box set (10 guys) with all those options. Terrible models btw. Probably the worst I have seen from WFB. I am making them swordsmen with shields, and if just got me thinking, and I checked with RH AND the Bretonnian army book, and the Bretonnian Man-at-Arms can use spears in place of halberds, but the Bretonnian sprues didn't come with any option for spears. Well, the Empire spear tips are separate from the poles, SO I AM GOING TO MAKE ONE UNIT OF MY BRETONNIAN MAN-AT-ARMS SPEARMEN WHILE THE OTHER ONE WITH HALBERDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! For the same points too! Glorious Friday!
The reason I wanted to do this is because most of my armies do not have any two units the same, and I really prefer the variety even tho one weapon might be better than another. The exception are my Goblins where I have two units with spears. No big deal. Everyone else is different. Which makes this all really exciting.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/09/21 14:21:56
SolarCross wrote: What are the rules for spears in 6th? In 8th they are no better than hand weapons for units with up to 10 models.
With only single rank melee fighting spears and extra hand weapons are both more viable than in 8th. In 8th the guaranteed extra rank fighting make shields great weapons and halberds preferable. Extra hand weapons become a poor choice as you don' t get the benefit in deeper ranks unless a monsterous infantry. Spears give the extra rank fighting as normal, but 1+1 rank fighting is a better deal than 2+1 rank fighting when compared to +1 save or +1S.
Spears are not necessarily wrong or bad even in 8th, the 6th army boxset contains lots of Empire spearmen, to this day they are still the core of my infantry line, halberdiers may be superior choice, but the difference is not too great that spears are worthless. Spears have always allowed a shield and this should always be taken to claw back a benefit versus extra hand weapons or halberd builds.
Now for Brets the shield is included in the price. I went with both halberd armed and spear armed men at arms. The main hint here is to always try and fit in a knight character on foot and a champion. Virtue of Humility gives you an extra general and some items allow the Blessing to apply to infantry, the unit champion is markedly superior to the rank and file also, and should be included. A Bretonnian man at arms unit built this way has a lot of support element cost built in and thus needs to be large to be worthy of the investment. Minimum of 30 models, preferably 40. Mine are both only 25 strong but are 5th edition metal miniatures and getting more is so prohibitively expensive I didn't bother. However, that being said, the Virtue of Humility knight has a decent bubble and can boost multiple men at arms units.
While on this topic, don't try and stiffen bowmen though, the stakes are a nice looking benefit but will not help them. They are a gimic only. Were they not free I would not upgrade to get them. Caveat: due to a quirk in the rules for terrain features stakes do stop cannon balls from reaching your general, but are removed in doing so. Good to know if you run a Hippogryph or Pegasus lord.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Here’s an image of the Bretonnian Man-at-Arms sprues:
I LOVE the WWI looking helmets for the Man-at-Arms, and was only going to use those for both units. But now thinking to spice things up that maybe I could use the uglier cap looking guys for the Spearmen. What do you think? I actually aren’t fond of them, and I guess it would be more in-tune with the fluff to spread both styles across both units, but I also think it would give each unit their own identity.
What do you think? A - Spread everything out between both units, B - divide the styles between the two units, or C - just use all the WWI helmets for both...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/09/21 18:57:03
Kettle helms, popular in the 12th-15th century for common soldiers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Definitely A.
Dont try and make soldiers like these uniform, its not the aesthetic of the time.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/21 19:43:31
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Ok, I just got my mounted squires in the mail and despite the mess they are in, they are nice figures, except that the horses seem a little small. But each figure is different and dressed differently so I think you are right about the lack of uniformity.
Prob will never happen, but was thinking how cool it would be for the unit of Knights to crash into a line of enemy troops followed by the mounted squires for clean up.
KTG17 wrote: Ok, I just got my mounted squires in the mail and despite the mess they are in, they are nice figures, except that the horses seem a little small. But each figure is different and dressed differently so I think you are right about the lack of uniformity.
Prob will never happen, but was thinking how cool it would be for the unit of Knights to crash into a line of enemy troops followed by the mounted squires for clean up.
These models?
They are riding the original GW plastic horses, yes they are smaller and used to be the standard light cavalry model. Hobilars (the historic equivalent) ride ponies anyway so the rescaling works to your advantage.
Automatically Appended Next Post: About spears:
S3 carnage!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/22 12:34:06
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Slightly off topic but over on the The Grand Alliance forums someone just posted their website where the list their collection (its insanely big) and I figured you'd like the sight of this force
http://www.miniaturenarchiv.de/page.php?2209
That was really interesting. I always thought the Spear was the poor man’s weapon. It’s also interesting as better Armor came on the scene that the spear started to give way to the sword.
As for the squires, I have 10 and 12 above, along with a musician, champ with a sword, and a spear guy who is molded with his spear facing upwards. No idea how they did that, but it’s also barely molded to his boot too. Pretty impressive to do that all in one piece. But I am trimng that spear off and replacing it with the extra Knight banner I have.
I got a random assortment of shields... two long ones like the Knights, two shorter ones in the same shape, and another that takes the shape of a police badge or sign. Not sure how to describe it. I hate the latter one. I was going to try to mold myself copies of one of the first two to have matching shields... but I guess you guys will tell me to keep the randomness?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: Slightly off topic but over on the The Grand Alliance forums someone just posted their website where the list their collection (its insanely big) and I figured you'd like the sight of this force
http://www.miniaturenarchiv.de/page.php?2209
Holy crap... we’ll see, I think this is a bit of a waste. He is never going to play all those models at once. And in that time, could have built a few other armies. Unless he did.
Maybe it’s because I am older now, and more conscientious about money. I want real use from what I own and for them not to just take up space in a closet. And if they do, to not take up a lot of space.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/22 14:40:16
Holy crap... we’ll see, I think this is a bit of a waste. He is never going to play all those models at once. And in that time, could have built a few other armies. Unless he did.
Maybe it’s because I am older now, and more conscientious about money. I want real use from what I own and for them not to just take up space in a closet. And if they do, to not take up a lot of space.
KTG17 wrote: That was really interesting. I always thought the Spear was the poor man’s weapon. It’s also interesting as better Armor came on the scene that the spear started to give way to the sword.
Actually the spear never gave way to the sword, it gave way to the gun. As armour improved spearmen could rely on shields less for protection which enabled them to use their spears with both hands more and thus let the spears get either heavier as with the various polearms or longer as with pikes. You'll note that the main infantry weapon of the 16th century, the era when guns started appearing en masse was the pike which is really just a really long kind of spear.
As for being a peasant weapon what could be more elite than heavy cavalry? What is the classic main armament of heavy cavalry? The lance. What is a lance? It's a spear specialised for cavalry use.... lol
I was trying to think of counter examples but all I could come up with was the classic Roman Legionaire except then I realised that even here the gladius or sword wasn't the main armament it was the pilae, spears specialised for throwing...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/22 15:59:26
KTG17 wrote: That was really interesting. I always thought the Spear was the poor man’s weapon.
It is. The sword has other advantages. Warhammer gets it about right here, the rank and file carry spears their leader wears a sword.
Swords are more expensive and have higher status. In Dar age combat (my former field) swords were important because of their status and because you could carry them as both a primary and secondary weapon with a scabbard. There is no scabbard for a spear, you go around actively armed or you do not, with a sword you are always armed. Short swords/long knbives are common backup weapons for spearmen, also carrying a shield and armour.
Unless a slinger or archer the poor man might or might not have any of thee things, but will still have a spear.
When you prepare your people for war, first make adequate numbers of spears, then get your smiths to concentrate on shield bosses and helmets. These are what you want to prioritise for distribution.
Swords and mail are made more slowly in longer times of peace.
It’s also interesting as better Armor came on the scene that the spear started to give way to the sword.
Yes in part, to the longsword and zwerch, but also the mace & dagger combo. Shields went out of fashion around this time as heavier weapons broke shields.
As for the squires, I have 10 and 12 above, along with a musician, champ with a sword, and a spear guy who is molded with his spear facing upwards. No idea how they did that, but it’s also barely molded to his boot too. Pretty impressive to do that all in one piece. But I am trimng that spear off and replacing it with the extra Knight banner I have.
This guy, if so he is the standard bearer. Give him a paper banner. I use heavy duty foil it painrs well and can be curved nicely for a flow.
I got a random assortment of shields... two long ones like the Knights, two shorter ones in the same shape, and another that takes the shape of a police badge or sign. Not sure how to describe it. I hate the latter one. I was going to try to mold myself copies of one of the first two to have matching shields... but I guess you guys will tell me to keep the randomness?
There was a standard shield sprue, the latter shield is more a later pattern more usable for Empire.
Holy crap... we’ll see, I think this is a bit of a waste. He is never going to play all those models at once. And in that time, could have built a few other armies. Unless he did.
When you want to collect you collect. Armies this size are not uncommon.
Maybe it’s because I am older now, and more conscientious about money. I want real use from what I own and for them not to just take up space in a closet. And if they do, to not take up a lot of space.
I agree with this, which is why I set army size limits. I can have impressively large line ups, but its not too big a burden.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
KTG17 wrote: That was really interesting. I always thought the Spear was the poor man’s weapon. It’s also interesting as better Armor came on the scene that the spear started to give way to the sword.
Actually the spear never gave way to the sword, it gave way to the gun. As armour improved spearmen could rely on shields less for protection which enabled them to use their spears with both hands more and thus let the spears get either heavier as with the various polearms or longer as with pikes.
This much is true. And a very good analysis of weapon evolution in combination with armour improvements.
However then you being to get it wrong and compound.
You'll note that the main infantry weapon of the 16th century, the era when guns started appearing en masse was the pike which is really just a really long kind of spear.
Actually yes and no. You get away with it with the pike,as it is a spear of sprts, but one wielded collectively, and is worse than useless outside of a pike formation. Pikes are not medieval but an extension of the hoplite technology. Hoplites uses spears, the sarissa (pike) allowed 'spears' to be usedin very deep formations with many ranks fighting and covering each other at different range brackets. The close formation spear required discipline, as discipline maintained the integrity of the shieldwall was all that separated victory from defeat. Just to press his point here the principle hoplite fighting method was to lock shields, so you couldn't parry with them and parry your opponents spear with your own while trying to spear the other guy. The places to target are the groin and face, particularly the eyeballs. So you have to stand there and take it, and not move, because moving breaks the formation and causes an opening which leads to a massacre and rout. While you are standing there not moving someone is trying to stick you in the eyeballs or junk. Think about that fora a moment and realise that in massed spear combat victory goes to the bravest, not the most skilled or greater numbers. This explains why such people as the Spartans went full hardcore on making brave soldiers.
Now onto the pike, it works in just the same way, except with several ranks fighting at once. As a rule only highly disciplined soldiers could use the pike effectively. The pike block was the victors tol in the post Macedonian age until the romans came along. the fatal matchup for pike blocks are disciplined soldiers with shield and short sword. Romans used their shields s a lever to crawl under the pikewall and then cut up hoplites with their gladii up close. Again discipline was the key.
I was trying to think of counter examples but all I could come up with was the classic Roman Legionaire except then I realised that even here the gladius or sword wasn't the main armament it was the pilae, spears specialised for throwing...
The gladius was the main Roman weapon, its use was paired with the tower shield. Pilae were NOT spears, they were javelins. Later Romans had spears instead of pilae because of cost and the Roman legionary evolved into something more medieval in the latter years, but that was due to budget cuts, not technical advantages. Technologies to directly counter the combo of lorica, scutum and gladius with pilum did no appear until the invention of plate armour and gunpowder, though arbalests and longbows would have caused Romans problems too. I would match early Imperial or late Republic Romans against any dark age army as they were indistinguishable from the Germanic tribesmen Romans regularly trounced.
As for being a peasant weapon what could be more elite than heavy cavalry? What is the classic main armament of heavy cavalry? The lance. What is a lance? It's a spear specialised for cavalry use.... lol
Sorry no. Cavalry spears were used by the Normans, the lane is different, just because its a stick with a spike doesnt make it a spear, or arrows would be spears. he lance is its own weapon, its use is oddly more similar to the thrusting sword rather than the cavalry spear.
Cavalry spears are used overarm and are either held or thrown, The lance is use couched as you would brace with a cavalry sabre for a straight thrust and you just hold the head on target while you charge, Lances require a charge to do any damage, a cavalry spear does not.
What you are seeing are mostly pikes and halberds. Pikes are close formation 'spears' but again spear skill is irrelevant to them. So again they are not. A master of spear skill has no advantage with a pike, because the only relevant skill is 'pike drill'. Note the word drill rather than skill as the combined focus is of total importance.
When pikes were reinvented in the late middle ages the problems the Macedonian Greeks discovered remained true. in fact early pike adoptions were due to importing of classic literature via the Arabs and Byzantine Empires which Italian city states took note of and tried to mimic. Pike required exteeme discipline. so peoples adapt to that like the Swiss did well. The scots adopted pike because wealthy Scts were educated in mainland Europe and brought the doctrine back with them. Scotland adopted the pike expecting great results. However the Scots were not adapted to the heavy discipline of pike use and their pike blocks were routinely cut apart by English yeomenry armed with the bill, a cheap peasant halberd mostly baaed on agricultural tools. Scots had the courage for pikework, but not the discipline and the English had courage too. Billman vs pikeman matchups usually only went one way, even when the Scots had advantage of numbers.
Halberds including those depicted or the simpler English bill were brutal weapons. They had some dynamics of a spear passable for spearwork but inferior in the specific role) but are NOT spears. In fact if anything they are great axes. Note that at the time both in Europe and Japan, where the naginata uses the same combat form as the halberd, halberd armed troops were considered defensive infantry, wheras pikeman were offensive infantry. Pike worked on the 'push of pike' not on any individual skill per se but on moving forward with a continually advancing walls of spikes. The idea is 'get out of its way or get skewered'. Halberds on the other hand were a meat grinder that was slow to attack but brutal in its effect but difficult t advance with. Yes you could move forward, but not WHILE attacking. They were a case of 'stay out of our way or get chopped'.
Pikes lasted longer than halberds because pikes could adequately support missile troops against cavalry. Halberds being static could not. Furthermore is you did make a static defence against cavalry with pikes it would get very messy indeed for the cavalry. Pikes lingered well into the gunpowder age, when regiments of foot included pike and shot, initially at a ratio of ablout 1:1 then increadingly in favour of shot until pike disappeared altogether with the introduction of improved musket drills and the bayonet.
The bayonet is both a dagger and a spear whether or not it is attached, and is still used today. Modern bayonet practice matches spear drill very closely, and is an active part of any soldiers training. Spearmen (and knife fighters) are part of the modern arsenal.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
The police badge shield is a "Heater shield" from the late 12th century onward. Perfectly legit to use. And yes, go with the hodgepodge as that is typically medieval (even feudal). With some exceptions it was the same in Japan with samurai. Those with rank and money bedeck themselves with the best equipment and bling, the commoners wear whatever their womenfolk could sew for them.
@Orlanth: Pretty good synopsis of the parallel development of pike block versus sword & shield in the Ancient World and late Middle Ages/Renaissance. You could have mentioned how the Renaissance pike block was countered by the Spanish sword and buckler men in the same fashion as the Macedonian phalanx by the manipular Roman Legion. Similar developments in military doctrine resulted in their opponents figuring out the same solution.
About the link with the huge Bretonnian army (among others). That is impressive. It might be possible to play some of the smaller medieval battles at a 1:1 scale with that many figures, but why? Well, its his money and if he enjoys the modelling and painting that much, more power to him.
Not only that, but there's a chance that one day, just to do it, they COULD field the entire army. Make it a mega event, take pics, post online. Get featured in GW's magazines... well, as long as the models were current and the game system as well. I really couldn't see them posting ANY pictures of ranks and flanks from here on out.
Ancestral Hamster wrote: The police badge shield is a "Heater shield" from the late 12th century onward. Perfectly legit to use. And yes, go with the hodgepodge as that is typically medieval (even feudal). With some exceptions it was the same in Japan with samurai. Those with rank and money bedeck themselves with the best equipment and bling, the commoners wear whatever their womenfolk could sew for them.
They are all heater shields except the very long ones which are 'kite shields'. As a rule the plainer they are the earlier they are.
@Orlanth: Pretty good synopsis of the parallel development of pike block versus sword & shield in the Ancient World and late Middle Ages/Renaissance. You could have mentioned how the Renaissance pike block was countered by the Spanish sword and buckler men in the same fashion as the Macedonian phalanx by the manipular Roman Legion. Similar developments in military doctrine resulted in their opponents figuring out the same solution.
I know comparatively little about the continental wars of the late middle ages. You areevidently better suited to tell that tale.
About the link with the huge Bretonnian army (among others). That is impressive. It might be possible to play some of the smaller medieval battles at a 1:1 scale with that many figures, but why? Well, its his money and if he enjoys the modelling and painting that much, more power to him.
The basing is irregular so these are a lot of auction lot purchases in addition to whatever the owner made himself. Bretonnian armies were on sale even before the ebay bonanza of 2015-17. This guy likely bought several armies, hence number of repeated special characters. Even the most avid collector only really needs one Louen Leoncoeur, though making another as an infantry piece makes sense.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
You'll note that the main infantry weapon of the 16th century, the era when guns started appearing en masse was the pike which is really just a really long kind of spear.
Actually yes and no. You get away with it with the pike,as it is a spear of sprts, but one wielded collectively, and is worse than useless outside of a pike formation. Pikes are not medieval but an extension of the hoplite technology. Hoplites uses spears, the sarissa (pike) allowed 'spears' to be usedin very deep formations with many ranks fighting and covering each other at different range brackets. The close formation spear required discipline, as discipline maintained the integrity of the shieldwall was all that separated victory from defeat. Just to press his point here the principle hoplite fighting method was to lock shields, so you couldn't parry with them and parry your opponents spear with your own while trying to spear the other guy. The places to target are the groin and face, particularly the eyeballs. So you have to stand there and take it, and not move, because moving breaks the formation and causes an opening which leads to a massacre and rout. While you are standing there not moving someone is trying to stick you in the eyeballs or junk. Think about that fora a moment and realise that in massed spear combat victory goes to the bravest, not the most skilled or greater numbers. This explains why such people as the Spartans went full hardcore on making brave soldiers.
This is all rambling and irrelevant to my point which was that the spear never gave way to the sword that it was the still mainstay infantry weapon even when guns began to appear. Moreover you seem to imply that the spear is a less skilful weapon which is neither relevant nor true. The fact that the spear has longer reach means a spearman does not need the same level of skill as swordsmen to win however in no way does the longer reach inhibit skill development. What you are doing is the equivalent of saying the rifle is a less skilful weapon than a pistol because of the longer range.
Now onto the pike, it works in just the same way, except with several ranks fighting at once. As a rule only highly disciplined soldiers could use the pike effectively. The pike block was the victors tol in the post Macedonian age until the romans came along. the fatal matchup for pike blocks are disciplined soldiers with shield and short sword. Romans used their shields s a lever to crawl under the pikewall and then cut up hoplites with their gladii up close. Again discipline was the key.
Here you are dead wrong and it should be obvious why because Macedonian pikeman also carried a short sword very like the gladius and they carried shields so the macedonian pikeman can flip into sword and board at the drop of a pike. The Roman isn't going to beat the Macedonian by barging through a wall of spikes only to get on even terms up close... and they didn't. The Roman tactic was to carry two light throwing spears instead of one really long spear. The first throw catches the shield and drags on it, the second throw puts a dirty great hole in the enemy and this is all outside of pike range.. Once he has thrown his spears the roman must then fallback on his personal defence weapon but by that point he has already won. Roman vs Macedonian is battle of throwing spear vs long spear. As it happens throwing spears have the longer reach so once again reach is the winner.
I was trying to think of counter examples but all I could come up with was the classic Roman Legionaire except then I realised that even here the gladius or sword wasn't the main armament it was the pilae, spears specialised for throwing...
The gladius was the main Roman weapon, its use was paired with the tower shield. Pilae were NOT spears, they were javelins. Later Romans had spears instead of pilae because of cost and the Roman legionary evolved into something more medieval in the latter years, but that was due to budget cuts, not technical advantages. Technologies to directly counter the combo of lorica, scutum and gladius with pilum did no appear until the invention of plate armour and gunpowder, though arbalests and longbows would have caused Romans problems too. I would match early Imperial or late Republic Romans against any dark age army as they were indistinguishable from the Germanic tribesmen Romans regularly trounced.
You assume the short sword is the main weapon but actually the throwing spear is. Everybody carries a shortsword of some kind as a sidearm in battle there is nothing special about the gladius.
As for being a peasant weapon what could be more elite than heavy cavalry? What is the classic main armament of heavy cavalry? The lance. What is a lance? It's a spear specialised for cavalry use.... lol
Sorry no. Cavalry spears were used by the Normans, the lane is different, just because its a stick with a spike doesnt make it a spear, or arrows would be spears. he lance is its own weapon, its use is oddly more similar to the thrusting sword rather than the cavalry spear.
Cavalry spears are used overarm and are either held or thrown, The lance is use couched as you would brace with a cavalry sabre for a straight thrust and you just hold the head on target while you charge, Lances require a charge to do any damage, a cavalry spear does not.
Sorry but no, the lance is a kind of spear, one specialised for horse mounted combat. There is a direct line of evolution from the Parthian two handed long spear used by their elite heavy cavalry to the Byzantine kontos to the Roman contus and to the single handed couched lance of the western European knight.
What you are seeing are mostly pikes and halberds. Pikes are close formation 'spears' but again spear skill is irrelevant to them. So again they are not. A master of spear skill has no advantage with a pike, because the only relevant skill is 'pike drill'. Note the word drill rather than skill as the combined focus is of total importance.
When pikes were reinvented in the late middle ages the problems the Macedonian Greeks discovered remained true. in fact early pike adoptions were due to importing of classic literature via the Arabs and Byzantine Empires which Italian city states took note of and tried to mimic. Pike required exteeme discipline. so peoples adapt to that like the Swiss did well. The scots adopted pike because wealthy Scts were educated in mainland Europe and brought the doctrine back with them. Scotland adopted the pike expecting great results. However the Scots were not adapted to the heavy discipline of pike use and their pike blocks were routinely cut apart by English yeomenry armed with the bill, a cheap peasant halberd mostly baaed on agricultural tools. Scots had the courage for pikework, but not the discipline and the English had courage too. Billman vs pikeman matchups usually only went one way, even when the Scots had advantage of numbers.
Halberds including those depicted or the simpler English bill were brutal weapons. They had some dynamics of a spear passable for spearwork but inferior in the specific role) but are NOT spears. In fact if anything they are great axes. Note that at the time both in Europe and Japan, where the naginata uses the same combat form as the halberd, halberd armed troops were considered defensive infantry, wheras pikeman were offensive infantry. Pike worked on the 'push of pike' not on any individual skill per se but on moving forward with a continually advancing walls of spikes. The idea is 'get out of its way or get skewered'. Halberds on the other hand were a meat grinder that was slow to attack but brutal in its effect but difficult t advance with. Yes you could move forward, but not WHILE attacking. They were a case of 'stay out of our way or get chopped'.
Pikes lasted longer than halberds because pikes could adequately support missile troops against cavalry. Halberds being static could not. Furthermore is you did make a static defence against cavalry with pikes it would get very messy indeed for the cavalry. Pikes lingered well into the gunpowder age, when regiments of foot included pike and shot, initially at a ratio of ablout 1:1 then increadingly in favour of shot until pike disappeared altogether with the introduction of improved musket drills and the bayonet.
The bayonet is both a dagger and a spear whether or not it is attached, and is still used today. Modern bayonet practice matches spear drill very closely, and is an active part of any soldiers training. Spearmen (and knife fighters) are part of the modern arsenal.
Again a lot of rambling which didn't address anything I said.
Let's be realistic a spear is sharp bit of metal with a handle where the handle is longer than the spikey cutty bit. A sword is a sharp bit of metal with a handle where the handle is shorter than the metal bit. Depending on the spear you can cut with them as well as thrust. Depending on the sword you can thrust with them as well as cut. Some swords are really for only for thrusting and not cutting for example the rapier and some spears (really we should say polearm at this point) are really only for cutting such as the daneaxe.
With this in mind some things should be clear:
1. Swords are only marginally more expensive than spears/polearms, and that is solely down to their being generally more metal in a sword than a spear though even that is not always true depending on the exact configuration, a short-sword might well have less metal than a halberd or bill. They are not a status symbol because of expense. Are you capable of recognising that the cheap and dirty machete is a kind of sword?
2. There is a difference between personal defence weapons and military grade weapons. Military grade weapons do not compromise on killiness while personal defence weapons compromise on killiness for the sake of day-to-day convenience. Killiness demands reach and leverage because invariably he who strikes first and hardest strikes last! There are only two ways to make a killy bit have more reach or range: stick it on the end of a pole or throw it but that means making them inconvenient for day-to-day carrying. Consequently in terms of swords and spears the sword tends to be more of a personal defence weapon while the spear is more of a military weapon. Only a few swords are in the category of military grade: greatswords and perhaps longswords. While no spears at all are in the personal defence category.
A "peasant" is a primarily a civilian who has mostly civilian concerns the only time he will have a military grade weapon in his hand will be when he is conscripted for war-duties in those circumstances he may carry a military grade weapon such as a spear. However in his day to day life for his personal defence against robbers or whatever he will carry a personal defence weapon which will not be a spear it will be something like the dirk or the ballock dagger, a simple thrusting shortsword. The true peasant weapon is the sword contrary to romantic Ivanhoe inspired ahistorical mooning over symbolic swords.
Almost everywhere and almost everywhen the ruling class is the class that wars, the warrior caste. The warrior caste are not defined by personal defence weapons because even peasants have them but by war making military grade weapons, which prior to the gun was mainly polearms such as spears and lances.
To emphasis this point just look at the Germanic pagan pantheon, what we might call the Norse pantheon. In this pantheon there are a number of warrior gods each with a signature weapon:
Thor - beloved by the peasants, armed with a hammer, the famous Mjölnir.
Tyr - armed with a sword.
Odin - the king of the gods who inspires the ruling warrior caste, the one who rules and plans for the great war, Ragnarök at the end of time. His armament? THE SPEAR.
Too culturally specific? How about the Greek pantheon? Ares is the god of war so what is his armament? THE SPEAR.
Tell me what is "peasant" like about either of those? The idea that the spear is a peasant weapon is simply a modern revision based on superstition and ignorance which pre-modern people would not recognise.
---------------
Also:
--------------
for funsies how is the patron war goddess of the British Empire armed?
------------
Hey let's take a closer look at the Romans..
The youngest and poorest soldiers were the Velites,
Spoiler:
Role: skirmisher, main armament light throwing spears, javelins. Side arm: shortsword
A step up from the Velites are the Hastati,
Spoiler:
Role: Line Infantry, main armament heavy throwing spears. Side arm: shortsword
A little more elite and we get the the Principes,
Spoiler:
Role: heavy infantry, main armament: long spear. Side arm: shortsword
Most elite infantry, the most experiences and best equipped and we get the Triari
Spoiler:
Role: Elite heavy infantry, main armament: long spear. side arm: shortsword
The richest most high class soldiers were the equites who were cavalry
Spoiler:
Role: cavalry, main armament: spear. side arm: shortsword
So even for the Romans the main armament is some kind of spear for every level of the army and even the poorest least experienced gets a sword as a sidearm. If Velites have swords and Equites and Triari have spears how the feth is the sword an elite weapon while the spear is just a "peasant" weapon?
This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2018/09/23 15:41:07
Ok, stop you there. You don't have the excuse to write off a well constructed argument as 'rambling' due to its length.
It boils down to the paragraph is long so use the number of lines written as a point of attack.
I took the time to write my reply, you should at least look at it.
Besides others liked it.
and irrelevant to my point which was that the spear never gave way to the sword that it was the still mainstay infantry weapon even when guns began to appear.
Actually no. The pike apparently was, but this is arguable because the use of swords was more ubiquitous wheras the pike had a formal battlefield role alone. Read up to understand the difference between spear and pike. Also the sword equally was. Musketeers and arquebusiers carried swords, pikemen also carried swords. Both as secondary weapons. Cavalry carried swords or pistols as primary weapons,
Moreover you seem to imply that the spear is a less skilful weapon which is neither relevant nor true.
Quote me where I said that. Use context.
You will find I didnt. It helps to actually read a post rather than misread a post and handwave it off as rambling. You appear better informed that way.
The fact that the spear has longer reach means a spearman does not need the same level of skill as swordsmen to win however in no way does the longer reach inhibit skill development. What you are doing is the equivalent of saying the rifle is a less skilful weapon than a pistol because of the longer range.
Here you are compounding error again, starting from a false premise and trying to build on it. You end up with conclusions even you see as ridiculous.
Now onto the pike, it works in just the same way, except with several ranks fighting at once. As a rule only highly disciplined soldiers could use the pike effectively. The pike block was the victors tol in the post Macedonian age until the romans came along. the fatal matchup for pike blocks are disciplined soldiers with shield and short sword. Romans used their shields s a lever to crawl under the pikewall and then cut up hoplites with their gladii up close. Again discipline was the key.
Here you are dead wrong and it should be obvious why because Macedonian pikeman also carried a short sword very like the gladius and they carried shields so the macedonian pikeman can flip into sword and board at the drop of a pike. The Roman isn't going to beat the Macedonian by barging through a wall of spikes only to get on even terms up close... and they didn't. The Roman tactic was to carry two light throwing spears instead of one really long spear. The first throw catches the shield and drags on it, the second throw puts a dirty great hole in the enemy and this is all outside of pike range.. Once he has thrown his spears the roman must then fallback on his personal defence weapon but by that point he has already won. Roman vs Macedonian is battle of throwing spear vs long spear. As it happens throwing spears have the longer reach so once again reach is the winner.
Where did you get this hogwash? Let's break it down.
First the Romans who encountered Greek style pikemen did not have the pilum, they have throwing spears. Throwing spears can be pulled out of shields or cut off at the head. The pilum crumbles is specifically weighted and the head is designed not to be removable. Unless time travel was involved the early legionaries that faced massed pike formations had no advntage in spear armament. Also to repeat due to its design and function a pilum is no more a spear than an arrow is.
Tacitus in the 2nd century AD described Germanic pikemen which the Romans encountered and slaughtered, maybe partly by the methods you described, but as Germanic tribes were irregular infantry the comments that some had very long spars might be just exactly that. not a formwal pike formation at all, just a barbarian warband with long spear carrying warriors amongst them, likely in the back ranks.
Thre primary source for pike vs legion engagemens is Polybius, though Caesar also has commentaries. The Legions used cohort level unit coordination to maneuver in sequence and flank pikemen, force them onto doifficult ground, (even one or two trees or rocks will disrupt pike fomations. When an oipening is detected close with heavier troops (mostly triarii) and butcher the p;ikemen with short sword engagement.
Now Principes the second order of line infantry did use melee spears, they were not key to defeating pikemen. Triarii were. The later legionary was based on the triarii when they all became effectively triarii
Also the two pilae thing. It a myth, but a common misconception that can be forgiven. A soldier would carry one pilum, either a heavy pila for short range of a light pila for longer range. They were used to support the charge.
Also macedonian era pikemen used two handed pike, a pike is always two handed, the shield was slung and entirely a static defence. It sacrificed the bracing of one handed shield use of earlier hoplites in favour of two hands on the pike. Throwing weapons in the shield were less of a problem than you might think as the weight of the shield is carried across the shoulders, not on the arm. On that note medieval pike relied entirely on armour, and held no shields.
You assume the short sword is the main weapon but actually the throwing spear is. Everybody carries a shortsword of some kind as a sidearm in battle there is nothing special about the gladius.
Compounded errors again. Romans DIDNT HAVE THROWING SPEARS for much of their martial history, at least the time during which the gladius was the primary arm. The Roman throwing spears were carried by Velites or Hastati, both of which had disappeared before the time of the Marian reforms. The pilum is not a spear, it is very difficult to use a pilum as a spear due to its weighting, its short length and the fact that the metal behind the head is designed to mangle on impact. A spear ylou can poke one with it not a spear.
Now some Roman generals did make use of spear tactics, but that was always a tactical ploy not an armament change. You can ward off cavalry with held pilae, because cavalry wont charge a wall of spikes, but you dared poke with them or throw them. It was at best a temporary standoff that needed resolution elsewhere. The primary 'spears used as such were defensive stakes. Roman were big on them because it had the dynamics of the spearwall against cavalry but left Romans to fight the way they knew best.
Sorry but no, the lance is a kind of spear, one specialised for horse mounted combat. There is a direct line of evolution from the Parthian two handed long spear used by their elite heavy cavalry to the Byzantine kontos to the Roman contus and to the single handed couched lance of the western European knight.
The kontos was a mounted pike, not a lance and was used for pike formation battle while mounted. It was a long lasting technique.
Normal pike caveats apply.
A lance is also not a spear, its used entirely differently. You cant use a lance like you would a mounted spear . A spear is a primary weapon, a lance is an impact weapon. Used once. Now a lot on terminology, lancers returned in the late 18th century, using the poetically called cavalry lance. That was actually a spear and used as a spear, it was used couched like a lance for cavalry pursuits from the rear, but even so more often used as a spear. You didn't however couch with a lancers spear/lance against a static target at a full charge or you would get thrown from your horse.
A lance is not a spear, its a very sharp and thin ram. It has no function except for impact attacks and is likely to be discarded afterwards with the knight using a sword or mace as primary weapon. In fact lances were designed to shatter if used for a full charge so that the shock of impact is left by the target and the weapon but not by the spine of the knight. Fully armoured destriers had so much impetus that no other way worked. Lances were overkill
Again a lot of rambling which didn't address anything I said.
A lot of factual content, not rambling. and I dont care if it doesn't all address what you said. Part does and poart is a continuence of the larger narrative we are having.
1. Swords are only marginally more expensive than spears/polearms, and that is solely down to their being generally more metal in a sword than a spear though even that is not always true depending on the exact configuration, a short-sword might well have less metal than a halberd or bill. They are not a status symbol because of expense. Are you capable of recognising that the cheap and dirty machete is a kind of sword?
No swords a lot more expensive. Volume of metal is not the only factor. scratch that with cast swords it is, such as used in ancient times. In which case the bronze in the sword was highly valuable in itself.
As societies progressed metals and for that matter textiles because more readily available.
Anyway back to sword making. In many cultures it is a specific skill separate to smithing. Japan went as far as to consider the swordsmith (and family) were members of the artisan caste, but uniquely held status equal to and no less than a samurai.
You don't make a sword like you make arrowheads, axeheads or horseshoes. You need to temper the sword differently along its length and cross section. Swords were expensive.
Cheap and dirty machetes are a modern weapon. 'Cut down the tall trees' and all that.
Military grade weapons do not compromise on killiness while personal defence weapons compromise on killiness for the sake of day-to-day convenience. Killiness demands reach and leverage because invariably he who strikes first and hardest strikes last! There are only two ways to make a killy bit have more reach or range: stick it on the end of a pole or throw it but that means making them inconvenient for day-to-day carrying.
Circumstances dictate. Reach can be a disadvantage in tight confines, hence the ubiquity of daggers. Sometimes even a sword is too long.
Only a few swords are in the category of military grade: greatswords and perhaps longswords. While no spears at all are in the personal defence category.
these are all definite primary weapons, but check out the similarity between them, they are all to be carried in hand. They are active weapons, you can draw them out of your belt. The point to note is not that spears are superior in the primary weapon category but that soears are incapable of being used as a pocket or belt weapon. If you carry a spear its your primary weapon or you drop it. If you carry a sword or mace you have a choice.
A "peasant" is a primarily a civilian who has mostly civilian concerns the only time he will have a military grade weapon in his hand will be when he is conscripted for war-duties in those circumstances he may carry a military grade weapon such as a spear. However in his day to day life for his personal defence against robbers or whatever he will carry a personal defence weapon which will not be a spear it will be something like the dirk or the ballock dagger, a simple thrusting shortsword. The true peasant weapon is the sword contrary to romantic Ivanhoe inspired ahistorical mooning over symbolic swords.
Peasants with short swords get executed. You carry a weapon in your lords service or not at all. You get to carry a short knife as a tool, that is all.
Free peoples such as pre Norman Saxons oftimes carried the scramseax, a shortsword/knife hybrid.
Almost everywhere and almost everywhen the ruling class is the class that wars, the warrior caste. The warrior caste are not defined by personal defence weapons because even peasants have them but by war making military grade weapons, which prior to the gun was mainly polearms such as spears and lances.
You get this half right. They allowed mass use of polearms by common soldiers in their service.
They carried swords themselves, as status symbol, aspersonal defence, and the only easily portable personal defence weapon that is also a viable primary weapon.
To emphasis this point just look at the Germanic pagan pantheon, what we might call the Norse pantheon. In this pantheon there are a number of warrior gods each with a signature weapon:
Thor - beloved by the peasants, armed with a hammer, the famous Mjölnir.
Tyr - armed with a sword.
Odin - the king of the gods who inspires the ruling warrior caste, the one who rules and plans for the great war, Ragnarök at the end of time. His armament? THE SPEAR.
Facepalm.
The hammer is not a peasant weapon. never was.
Tyr and Odin were often depicted as armed, but in many tales of Odin he used a sword. Odin used a sword to strike the word tree Barnstokkr. He also forged a sword for Heimdall.
Tell me what is "peasant" like about either of those? The idea that the spear is a peasant weapon is simply a modern revision based on superstition and ignorance which pre-modern people would not recognise.
To a hoplite nothing, to a high medieval knight, everything. Cultural context is important.
for funsies how is the patron war goddess of the British Empire armed?
You say its for funsies so I wont facepalm. Britannia as shown is a much later icon of the British people post treaty of Union. She is armed with mythical weaponry.
Nobody used the trident as a martial weapon, its a mystical symbol of the sea.
Now when I said nobody that excluded Roman gladiators. However gladiators were traditional fighting gear designed to promote ecclectic fighting styles, not for combat efficiency. Retarii were the 'fishermen' and carried the net and trident, and light but specifically placed body armour. They were effective arena fighters but only because they were martched against other oddly equipped fighters.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
No swords a lot more expensive. Volume of metal is not the only factor. scratch that with cast swords it is, such as used in ancient times. In which case the bronze in the sword was highly valuable in itself.
As societies progressed metals and for that matter textiles because more readily available.
Anyway back to sword making. In many cultures it is a specific skill separate to smithing. Japan went as far as to consider the swordsmith (and family) were members of the artisan caste, but uniquely held status equal to and no less than a samurai.
You don't make a sword like you make arrowheads, axeheads or horseshoes. You need to temper the sword differently along its length and cross section. Swords were expensive.
Cheap and dirty machetes are a modern weapon. 'Cut down the tall trees' and all that.
Yet even Velites had them even though it wasn't their main armament and most of the time they would never use it. Swords can be fancy same as cars can be fancy but that depends on the wealth of the the owner. You don't look at a Buggati Veyron and say "see cars are only for the rich". For every Veyron of swords there are/were a ten thousand battered station wagons of swords. At the end of the day it is just a big knife.
Military grade weapons do not compromise on killiness while personal defence weapons compromise on killiness for the sake of day-to-day convenience. Killiness demands reach and leverage because invariably he who strikes first and hardest strikes last! There are only two ways to make a killy bit have more reach or range: stick it on the end of a pole or throw it but that means making them inconvenient for day-to-day carrying.
Circumstances dictate. Reach can be a disadvantage in tight confines, hence the ubiquity of daggers. Sometimes even a sword is too long.
Tight confines don't apply in battlefield circumstances which are invariably held outdoors. The exception would be in storming castles, here polearms are less practical than swords especially when climbing ladders. However they still rule defending fortifications though, I'd take a spear over a sword any day if my job was standing on a rampart pushing people off of ladders.
Daggers are personal defence weapons which compromise killiness in favour or convenience even more than swords, they also make for decent cutlery.
Only a few swords are in the category of military grade: greatswords and perhaps longswords. While no spears at all are in the personal defence category.
these are all definite primary weapons, but check out the similarity between them, they are all to be carried in hand. They are active weapons, you can draw them out of your belt. The point to note is not that spears are superior in the primary weapon category but that soears are incapable of being used as a pocket or belt weapon. If you carry a spear its your primary weapon or you drop it. If you carry a sword or mace you have a choice.
You can't holtser a greatsword. In real life (forget fantasy fiction for a minute) they were carried unholstered just like a spear and other polearms. Longswords are just short enough to make a scabbard semi-practical, though even here it is too long to wear on a day to day basis unless you like bumping into things and knocking things over all day.
A "peasant" is a primarily a civilian who has mostly civilian concerns the only time he will have a military grade weapon in his hand will be when he is conscripted for war-duties in those circumstances he may carry a military grade weapon such as a spear. However in his day to day life for his personal defence against robbers or whatever he will carry a personal defence weapon which will not be a spear it will be something like the dirk or the ballock dagger, a simple thrusting shortsword. The true peasant weapon is the sword contrary to romantic Ivanhoe inspired ahistorical mooning over symbolic swords.
Peasants with short swords get executed. You carry a weapon in your lords service or not at all. You get to carry a short knife as a tool, that is all.
Free peoples such as pre Norman Saxons oftimes carried the scramseax, a shortsword/knife hybrid.
You literally made this up on the spot. Cite even just one piece of actual historical information proving this ever happened anywhere. It doesn't even make any sense, a peasant can have a scythe, an axe, knives, hammers even proper military grade weapons like the longbow but can't have piddly little poker on pain of death. Ludicrous. You know the Bretonian Army Book is not real history right?
Almost everywhere and almost everywhen the ruling class is the class that wars, the warrior caste. The warrior caste are not defined by personal defence weapons because even peasants have them but by war making military grade weapons, which prior to the gun was mainly polearms such as spears and lances.
You get this half right. They allowed mass use of polearms by common soldiers in their service.
They carried swords themselves, as status symbol, aspersonal defence, and the only easily portable personal defence weapon that is also a viable primary weapon.
Officers don't carry primary weapons, their men are their primary weapons. If you think just because a Baron or Junker would usually only carry a sword that makes swords primary weapons then presumably in WW1 the sticks and pistols carried by Lieutenants and Captains are "primary weapons" and I guess the heavy machine gun would be "peasant weapon". Officers don't usually fight (except in self-defence) they tell other people to fight, it's called delegation. Of course Herohammer is something else entirely but that isn't real.
To emphasis this point just look at the Germanic pagan pantheon, what we might call the Norse pantheon. In this pantheon there are a number of warrior gods each with a signature weapon:
Thor - beloved by the peasants, armed with a hammer, the famous Mjölnir.
Tyr - armed with a sword.
Odin - the king of the gods who inspires the ruling warrior caste, the one who rules and plans for the great war, Ragnarök at the end of time. His armament? THE SPEAR.
Facepalm.
The hammer is not a peasant weapon. never was.
Tyr and Odin were often depicted as armed, but in many tales of Odin he used a sword. Odin used a sword to strike the word tree Barnstokkr. He also forged a sword for Heimdall.
Dont get your Norse mythology from Marvel.
I didn't say the hammer was a peasant weapon I said Thor was popular amongst peasants. As it happens though as an improvised weapon a hammer would do as a peasant weapon.
I don't get it from Marvel but you may as well be if you are completely unaware that Odin's signature weapon is the spear, it even has a name Gungnir. The sword he stuck in Barnsokkr was a sword he was giving away it wasn't his personal weapon. Like it or not the signature weapon of the king of the gods is the spear.
Tell me what is "peasant" like about either of those? The idea that the spear is a peasant weapon is simply a modern revision based on superstition and ignorance which pre-modern people would not recognise.
To a hoplite nothing, to a high medieval knight, everything. Cultural context is important.
Not even to a medieval knight, that is something invented by modern readers of fantasy fiction like Ivanhoe. It's ahistorical romanticism.
-----------
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/09/24 00:47:22
Jesus fething Christ people, take it to PMs. You're going to get this thread locked because of some overwhelming need to outnerd each other over the exact socioeconomic status AND starting/obsolescence point of spears??!?!!?!?
Just Tony wrote: Jesus fething Christ people, take it to PMs. You're going to get this thread locked because of some overwhelming need to outnerd each other over the exact socioeconomic status AND starting/obsolescence point of spears??!?!!?!?
I don't have the goddamned words...
We are going a little OT.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Deathwatch 
AdMech 
Necron
