Why is the spear the strongest weapon?

>>33716455
its not the spear, its the way you chuck it.

>>33716455
Reach + Leverage.

>>33716455
Compared to what? You fucking retard

>>33716455
Arguably it's not. In terms of raw power the ax has it beat. For anti-armor, the war pick is better. For reach you've got ranged weapons. For versatility, you've got swords.

So what are you talking about when you say "strongest"?

File: 522cca77d87f399cb2aa6da75b21a9a2.jpg (81KB, 736x713px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 736x713px

>>33716632
Persian multiculturalism get out

File: f8ddcc13e36f094138806810f27adb18.jpg (105KB, 564x898px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 564x898px

>>33716716
More like Filthy Franks.

File: Rodelero.jpg (26KB, 180x200px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 180x200px

>>33716455
>cuts inside your formation

>>33716753
No way that helmet is historically accurate.

File: 3826723_orig (1).jpg (57KB, 792x594px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 792x594px

>>33716455
move over baby

>>33716481
-Dindu Nuffins, 2017

>>33716797
>gets stabbed by billion pikes

>>33716632
the fact than any duels between a spearman and a sword/axe/warpick man will almost always result in a spear win

>>33716455

>very fast native running at incredible hihg speed

>>33716455
It keeps opponents a good distance away from you, it typically occupies a larger amount of space than most weapons and you can throw it a short distance and actually score a good hit.

>>33717795
Who goes to a battle dressed only in a thong?

>>33716455
Because it requires almost no training.
Because when you try to kill someone you'd try to keep him as far away as possible.
Because having a spear on the side has negligible downsides even if you have other weapons.
Because when used in formation they are very effective.

More importantly, because battles are not individual duels and combatants are not stupid.

But even then I wouldn't call spears the strongest, they are the most optimum in certain situations.

>>33717795
>running into a phalanx
no one did this
this is why I hate Rome 2

>>33717819
who doesn't?

>>33718009
don't forget other stupid shit like:
>not able to ask for regions
>one province states have big armies
>spams of one unit type
>you can't win the fight by strategy
>and much, much more

>>33716455

ooga booga

we wuz kangs

>>33718043
>one province states have big armies
This is perfectly fine in terms of gameplay.

File: Fighting-in-the-Buff.jpg (81KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1200x630px

>>33717819
The Celts often went naked actually. If not nude, then often in skins or pants, basically as close as possible.

>>33718009
Rome 1 wasn't much better. I broke the game when I realized I could spam light horses into the phalanx by commanding them to charge behind the enemy. They'd leap into the formation, disrupt it, then the enemy would melt.

I took loses, but this was literally scout cavalry versus elite infantry. The lives were cheap and the gains several times greater.

>>33716544
All

File: d5b586d55e8a74ec53e4e7a121ecde15a5bd5ac32cfaa693f98eeeb320a066a2.jpg (45KB, 660x495px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 660x495px

>>33716455
The strongest weapon is an idea.

File: IMG_5299.jpg (27KB, 480x325px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 480x325px

>>33716455
Not true

>>33716455
Because it's optimum stick.

File: oJ2AJGn_.jpg (32KB, 358x344px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 358x344px

>>33716455
Thats not how you spell 'ice'.

>>33718175
Grock brand Rock?

File: 9-V-for-Vendetta-quotes.gif (2MB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x280px

>>33718174