Were am arming sword and shield the optimal setup for a melee

>>34223822
Poleaxe.

>>34223851
A poleaxe user without plate armor is an easy target for missile fire.

Spears, pikes, and lances were common, as they put range between you and the threat and were excellent against armor. There were several formations which allowed multiple ranks of men to thread their spears forward, making tight formations extremely strong. They were also cheap and good against cavalry. Swords were high dollar items in many societies: if you had a sword, you may have a horse; if you had a horse, your lance was primary. Axes and hammers/maces were common as well, but much like swords they were for closer encounters and loose fighting.

>>34223885
Why is this repeated in every threads like some kind of fact?

1. Spear isn't good against armor, and it's very hard to use spear with shield.
2. Spear is easily broken in battles, due to other spear, sword or even cavalry charge. Lance is even filmsier, a knight has to go through many lances if he does many charges, thus he has to use his sword in combat before he retreats to get another lance.
3. Swords aren't high dollar items past the viking age.

>>34223898
There's nothing flimsy about a quality spear, such as one made of ash. And a tapered leaf spearhead is fully capable of breaching many forms of armor of the time, including mail, especially when used properly as a defensive weapon against a charging threat. Many shields were tapered to allow for easy use and the spear was used commonly up through the early Renaissance. It returned periodically as armor vanished due to black powder weapons and pikes saw use, even through the 1800s under the right conditions; namely as cheap cavalry deterrence. The English, the Franks, the Normans, the Scots, the Irish, etc. all used spears in large quantities.

And for a Knight, a sword is still a secondary weapon as a simple matter of range. While lances do shatter, ideally such heavy cavalry were withheld until the end of a battle to break the ranks of the enemy and preserve elite/noble forces. This is seen even with the ride of the Winged Hussars at the Battle of Vienna in the 17th Century.

>>34223993
>There's nothing flimsy about a quality spear, such as one made of ash.
It is filmsy compared to a sword, because it can be broken or lost in the middle chaotic battle.
>And a tapered leaf spearhead is fully capable of breaching many forms of armor of the time, including mail, especially when used properly as a defensive weapon against a charging threat.
Against charging threat, the spear much more effective against the horse than the actual horseman, meanwhile, the infantry charge has no such momentum, and the spear is awkward in use against that kind of charge.
>The English, the Franks, the Normans, the Scots, the Irish, etc. all used spears in large quantities.
And surprise, they all used swords as well, in fact, more swords survived than spears.
>And for a Knight, a sword is still a secondary weapon as a simple matter of range.
It being a secondary weapon matter not because it's probably used more than the small weapon because due to fact lances shatter.
>While lances do shatter, ideally such heavy cavalry were withheld until the end of a battle to break the ranks of the enemy and preserve elite/noble forces.
This is not the ideal strategy to be used all the times, the fact multiple lances exist imply that the cavalry can ride up and restock on lances. And there are many cases where the charges are used right as the beginning as well.

>>34224030
>It being a secondary weapon matter not because it's probably used more than the primary weapon due to fact lances shatter*

>>34223822
Short answer: yes, that they knew of. If there was a better setup for a melee warrior, that's what would have been used. The historical records will always overrule any and all armchair historians on this site or any other. Oh sure, in hindsight we can cite what happens next, we could for example claim that it would have been smarter to, for example, have blocks of medium armored soldiers using combined pikes and either crossbows or arquebuses, supported by small units of either scorpions or early canons, and that would probably fuck over knights something fierce(mind you, i imagine pike formations would suffer greatly due to longbows), but for the era, you can safely assume that the people doing what they were doping did so for an actual reason.

>>34224075
Pike and shot were only possible due to shot.

Even crossbow cannot stand against massive cavalry charge, only the muskets can.

The muskets also render shield and armor obsolete, so it changes the way warriors dress for battle.

File: Carolingian Cavaryman AD768-986-33.jpg (3MB, 4200x5641px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4200x5641px

>>34223822
Optimal? No

Basic? Yes.

Its as if people back then didn't use many weapons, not just two.

File: plate armor combat.jpg (185KB, 926x494px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 926x494px

The idea that motherfucking everyone carry a spear/pike is nonsense and not supported by history.

longsword/mace/warhammer/poleaxe were made for a reason.

Just that for some reasons, longsword survived the most and were most documented.

>/k/ doesn't know that a sword was a sidearm, much like a pistol is today
>/k/ doesn't know that the VAST majority of fighters were not professional soldiers, just a common man who used homemade cobbled together clubs, knives, and farming tools

And yes, a spear or any pole arm can be choked up on and used very efficiently in close quarters by a trained professional soldier. Why do I even come here anymore?

Despite it being Hollywood this scene was supervised by a pole arm martial arts expert and he basically directed this. It's a fairly decent example of pole arm use despite the 99% of bullshit Hollywood puts out.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=v67K9pJsjbQ

>>34224177
>/k/ doesn't know that a sword was a sidearm, much like a pistol is today
Except different swords exist, and some are definitely used as a primary weapon, such as the longsword.
>/k/ doesn't know that the VAST majority of fighters were not professional soldiers, just a common man who used homemade cobbled together clubs, knives, and farming tools
Is not a thing since the 1100s.
>And yes, a spear or any pole arm can be choked up on and used very efficiently in close quarters by a trained professional soldier. Why do I even come here anymore?
No, if that's the reason, why do they bother carrying sword? Just try to use your halberd in fucking close quarter and see how it goes.

Come on, stop reposting stupid shit that /k/ believes in.

>Despite it being Hollywood this scene was supervised by a pole arm martial arts expert and he basically directed this. It's a fairly decent example of pole arm use despite the 99% of bullshit Hollywood puts out.
Half of the fight was with the sword, dumbass.

>>34224266
>Except different swords exist, and some are definitely used as a primary weapon, such as the longsword.
No. The longsword was a sidearm as well. It's what you used when your pole weapon broke

>>34224500
Nope, the longsword is too fucking long to be used as a sidearm, see here >>34224119

It was used in tandem with plate armor.

File: Espadon-Morges.jpg (31KB, 341x1462px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 341x1462px

>>34224835
Pic related, a "longsword".

>>34224835
>>34224849
There are military swords like the great sword/montante/zweihander that were main military weapons, but the longsword was a knight's sidearm. They could easily be worn at your side. They are more awkward than arming swords because of the longer hilt, but that's something they didn't seem to mind. Vid related, a lad putting on the belt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2OeMstdna0

>>34223898
How is a spear less effective against armor than a sword?

>>34224030
Almost every part of this is wrong, and I suspect bait.
>Spears are flimsy and losable
Spears are very difficult to destroy. They're no more or less losable than swords.
>More effective against horse than rider
I suppose the rider is a smaller target, but this is essentially childish nonsense
>Not useful against infantry charges
I don't know where to begin. You can ward off a human with the point. You get to attack before a sword-wielder. You force a shield-user to raise their shield and make them blind to you, stopping their charge. Running men DO have momentum.
>More swords survived
And?
>verbal clusterfuck
I think you mean the sword saw more use because lances broke. This is false.
>Lances shatter, ergo bad
Jousting lances certainly do. Lances intended for war are much hardier, and cavalry was a unit that relied on support and resupply anyway

>>34223822
you do realize the common infantryman had a spear or improvised farming tool like a billhook most of the time and swords were used by nobles from horseback?

>>34223822
also check this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtLa2mWGMbI

File: 1481395457961.png (127KB, 257x250px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 257x250px

>>34229458
>conquest