Spear vs swords

According to the Fire Emblem weapo triangle, spears are superior

Sword was used by the greatest empire in history to kill, enslave, and subjugate millions of spear-cucks.

Attached: spqr.jpg (630x630, 76K)

And magic poops on everything.

Spear

Tossup between a partizan and a short/medium sword, probably something curved like a scimitar or saber.

Spear/Polearm = Rifle
Sword = Handgun

Spear for war
Sword for every day carry

Swords take a lifetime to train.
Spears can be handed out and trained in a weekend.

Spears for teamwork, swords for solowork

>Which would you prefer?
Gimme a motherfucking greatsword to swing around like a gigantic dick.
>which is better?
100% context dependent and whoever tells you otherwise is a retard.
Pro-tip: "spear" and "sword" are extremely general terms. A rapier and a seax are very different weapons, and the same goes for a sarissa and a pilum.

Attached: ES716-Editar[1].jpg (2000x1331, 152K)

This, use longswords guys, 2 hander longswords are unbeatable in unarmored combat. As long as you're a very trained swordsman who knows how to use proper technique then you're unbeatable,,,, unless your opponent has armor, then you have to aim for the weak points or use a pommel strike. A Pommel strike will knock you the fuck off your feet if you're in armor.

Watch these based lads: youtu.be/4GoQlvc_H3s

I'd carry a short-ish sword as my secondary, and keep the spear at hand. I can always chuck the spear away if it gets too close and personal, but I can pull a spear out of my ass if it doesn't.
There's something mystical about the sword, and no good man-at-arm should go out without one.

Attached: 152-mec2007-v.jpg (1485x3072, 828K)

Shortest reasonable answer possible.

Before asking such questions about historical weapons you must give us a context.

>forgetting that the romans began their assaults with multiple pilum volleys

spear for the beginning and sword after the spear is only good for stopping tard charges

Spear if mounted or in a formation, Sword if dismounted and fighting outside of a formation.

A polearm war hammer.

A sarissa is a pike and a pilum is a javelin, not the greatest examples.

What?
Did you ever fought with someone who holds a shield?
Even if you have a spadone/montante/zweihander it doesn't matter especially if your opponent fighting spear&shield.
Yet no weapon or weapon combination ever invented is "unbeatable" and no one is unbeatable real combat is-not anime. Even the most experienced fighter can be beaten by a novice in right conditions.

A simple pommel strike won't knock you out that easily; got hit by pommel strikes in very intense sparrings, once a 6'3'' / 190 cm chad stroke me in the face with a pommel, mask dented with the shape of pommel, I staggered around 3 feets / a meter yet after that I was still able to continue to sparring with a little head and neck pain. After that I realized mesh of mask dug through my eyebrow.
Historical helmets had better inner padding than my shitty 350N modern fencing mask, some helmets can even stop mace hits. Armor is there for a good reason; it works.

you're making his point for him

Shield+Sword vs Longsword is a tossup, depends much on skill and stuff. Of course, a longsword can be worn on its own while a shield has to be carried.
In military use, the last european dedicated melee infantry (excluding pikemen) were:
>Halberdiers
>Greatsword users
>Shield-and-Sword users (those lasted a fair bit longer in scotland)
Longswords declined in battlefield use before that. So maybe they were even less useful on the battlefield, compared to a shield user.

Note btw what was not commonly used in this period: Short spears, neither with shield nor without. Inferior on the battlefield to the other options.

>naginata

The great thing is that thanks to scabbards, you can easily just have both

Spear for battle, sword for self-defense

That's not really accurate. Sword was for everyone (which the handgun isn't really), spear was for heavy infantry in formation or other specific tasks.
It would be more accurate to say that sword is a service rifle, whereas spear is specialized equipment.
You *could* do everything with a sword, from shieldwall fighting (even against spears, like the romans frequently did) to cavalry charges, whereas there's lots of things you can't do with a spear, like combat in small spaces, or every scenario where you actually need to use your hands between fights. Just like you *can* do everything with an M16, even if there are more specialized options around, whereas you can't really fight rifles with handguns. You're just gonna get outranged badly.

I would prefer a baselard, because it's better for EDC.
>sword was for everyone
But it wasn't. Major share of soldiers couldn't afford it.
> sword is a service rifle, whereas spear is specialized equipment.
It was backwards. Spears were the main weapon for the army, swords were the secondary weapons. And some carried daggers too.

Patricians choice. The pollaxe is really the only medevial weapons that I find terrifying.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=gTVC25hYJaY

An axe

TFW your fiancées direct ancestor was one of the patrons who commissioned Fiore to do his fight book.

TFW your own ancestor was poisoned by his nephew, who happened to be another one of Fiore's patrons.

Attached: IMG_8909.jpg (3000x4000, 3.58M)

>Major share of soldiers couldn't afford it.
Meme. By the 14th century a serviceable sword was a day's pay for ordinary soldiers. You could rely on everybody from spearmen to archers to have one.
>Spears were the main weapon for the army
Spears were the main weapon for spearmen. Spearmen were almost invariably not the majority of an army. If anything, archers and cavalry EACH outnumbered them through most of the middle ages. Cavalry used spears too, but they were a short term weapon that hardly ever lasted a full battle. Hardly any knight finished a battle without having to resort to a "secondary" weapon (usually a sword, but also a mace or an axe), which makes them a completely different kind of weapon compared to the role of pistols nowadays.

>But it wasn't. Major share of soldiers couldn't afford it.
God I fucking hate this myth. This isn't true at all past 1000AD.
>It was backwards. Spears were the main weapon for the army, swords were the secondary weapons. And some carried daggers too.
No. Not every soldier carried a spear because spears are fucking big. A sword is a universal sidearm that can be used by anyone who can get his hands on one. Spears weren't even that fucking popular, they were one polearm among countless types. Their usage dropped off hard in the late 13th/early 14th centuries.

I get that a lot

Sabres are based...and fun.

Attached: IMG_7603.jpg (720x720, 125K)

I fucking love Migration era ring Swords...I would probably feel differently if I had to handle them however.

Attached: IMG_8883.jpg (729x492, 72K)

Depends on the location, some places employed spearmen or Pike formations instead of fielding archers or cavalry.

One would find more spearman among the Scottish of the 13th or 14th centuries than they would find archers for instance.

>he doesn't know
swords are a suicidal weapon to try to use in actual combat. It's ok though. The pike and shot era is by far the best era in europe desu senpai.

Attached: nice sword, idiot.jpg (520x455, 149K)

Functionally speaking, a pike is pretty damn different from a spear.
Also, one-dimensional armies were quite rare. Even the Swiss, who are memed as being pure infantry typically employed heavy cavalry and had large skirmisher contingents
Look at all those suicidal, sword-toting Swiss guys.

>instead of fielding archers
This is a meme. It's true that the scots, having to frequently face english cavalrymen, fielded more pikemen than usual for the period. It's not true that they didn't use other troops.
Every battle of the period mentions archers being interspersed between schiltron blocks. When the pikemen outnumbered the rest of the army, the schiltrons usually got rekt, because pikes only really work as combined arms. Just look at what happened to Wallace at Falkirk

probably a sword unless it was in a military or hunting context.

Gun

Attached: denix-revolver-phyton-6---usa-1955.jpg (900x600, 54K)

There's no reason not to pick both since they aren't used in the same scenarii and can be worn together if need be. Pretty much nobody chose spear vs sword back then, they had both or the sword alone.

So sword if need be.

This, both Japan and Europe reached the same conclusion. Tons of trained spearman who carried a sword for when things got close or too hectic.

Spears are OP IRL. Swords are for one on one and require much training, reserved for knight, warrior class types. The world has been conquered with spears. Until the pike, it was the brown bess of it's day.

Attached: 2013-01-03_00004_1y9.jpg (1920x1080, 769K)

Spear unless you're a retarded mall ninja.

>Swords are for one on one and require much training
Swords by themselves don't necessarily require much training, it's just that they were usually taught at a high level because they were the weapons taught to the nobles, hence longer instruction gives more money. Spear fighting could be taught just as deeply, many europeans manuals and some japanese styles show that the spear can be very complex in its own right.

Meanwhile, for swords you have stuff like Toyama-ryu (7 techniques) and the naval cutlass drill (only a single page of instruction).

zweihander.
for the big dick energy

Attached: landsknecht-soldier.jpg (600x600, 60K)