Why would anyone use a sword? It's a fucking piece of shit

>>48721480
Most people didn't. It was a sidearm at best for the vast majority of ancient warfare.

>>48721495
>ancient
>forgetting that the Roman empire was forged by the Gladius sword and shield of the Cohort and Legionare.

Plebs

>>48721480
Because a spear is a peasant's weapon. Are you a peasant?

Also you should be more specific about what kind of polearm, and what the fighting environment is, and how many people are fighting how many people. Long spears are best in wide-open areas where you have plenty of room to move around, and are best of all when you've got a bunch of other people with spears also backing you up.

But conversely, the tight confines of a dungeon are basically like the tight confines of the belowdecks of a sailing ship at sea; bearing that in mind, I'd much prefer to have a cutlass, handaxe, or small hammer to a spear, which is why during boarding actions on ships the borders were armed with such rather than with short spears (which would hardly have been more expensive to produce).

Keep in mind as well that if we're talking one-on-one fighting than the sword guy should also have a proper shield, at least the size of his torso, preferably larger. I remember a threat like this a few months back where some guy posted a video of a sword guy losing to a spear guy over and over, but the problem is that the sword guy was using a tiny little buckler that could not have been more than a foot wide.

Furthermore, a spear is of no use if an opponent gets *close* to you, as in, nearly chest-to-chest. A short sword is.

Finally, proper plate armor should leave you well protected against the great majority of spear thrusts - it's hard to hit the weak points in the armor when the guy is actively moving around the battlefield. While the same applies to the sword & board guy's own attacks against a similarly armored spearman, he's just going to be better at getting in close, knocking you down, and stabbing through your visor, since his combat style calls for that, whilst a spearman's calls for keeping one's distance.

Of course, the TRUE trick is realizing that the choice isn't binary. Carry a spear, and a sword, and a dagger, and a mace. Preferably a bow as well. You're good.

>>48721684
/thread

>>48721495
And this is why swords were such potent symbols of warfare, why everyone had one, why they outlasted the bow and the spear as military weapons, and why swordmakers kept busting their asses generation after generation to adapt them to optimally fit the changing battlefield conditions. Why so many surviving training manuals put equal or better emphasis on the sword than on other weapons. And it's the pressure of civilian use that birthed the rapier, the estoc and all the smallswords.

File: legionary-evolution.jpg (93KB, 1068x464px)

93KB, 1068x464px

>>48721684
I'm sure hoplites, immortals, post 13th century samurai, knights before the lance (which is a type of spear to begin with) was invented, and pic related wer peasants.

Faggot.

>>48721771
Yes there were so many swordsmen units in the middle ages right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mythological_objects#Weapons

compare the number of swords with other types of weapon

>>48721820
Hoplites and immortals largely did their thing in a time before ironworking and steelmaking were sorted out. A spear was better than a sword because a sword was made out of fuckheavy bronze that blunted easily. It really was a superior choice.

Samurai used spears because Japanese iron is shit quality; that's WHY katanas are folded over a million times, because that's the only way to counter the many, many geological imperfections in the iron. Even then katanas tend to be relatively brittle; the spear was a better choie.

>knights before the lance (which is a type of spear to begin with)

Context is important here. A knight doesn't fight with a lance on the ground, he fights with it from horseback, the purpose of which was to be part of a heavy cavalry charge that would break peasant levies (themselves armed with spears); specifically, break a peasant levy that is currently engaged in what amounts to a wrestling match with another peasant levy (your own). However once in the thick of a peasant mass, or if forced to the ground, the knight would draw his sword, which would serve him better in close-quarters combat.

Like I said, the choice isn't binary, and a weapon is just a tool. The maxim of "the right tool for the right job" applies here just as it does everywhere else. That doesn't change, however, that spears were seen as a peasant weapon.

>Roman Legions

Romans didn't have peasants in the same way that the Medieval world did. The Legions for most of their life were made up of highly trained citizen/soldiers. Even then, like I said, a spear is better in a mass combat situation. For most of human history war has consisted of two masses of people pushing against one another until one side breaks whilst the front rows of said masses stab at each other; a spear is better for that since it means that more people than just the front row can actually participate in the killing.

>>48721480

Why would anyone drive a sports car?

>>48721480

Pragmatic reasons. Sure, a pike is good for your average infantryman, but since most legendary weapons are swords, might as well learn to get goof with them cause' you're not getting any enchanted pikes.

>>48721820
A pilum can be used as a spear in a pinch, but it isn't a good one. Its designed to break (so it can't be used against the thrower).

File: kmt-soldiers-in-trench-with-dadao.jpg (115KB, 685x517px)

115KB, 685x517px

>>48721771

You do have a point; swordsmen still existed during WWII, long after the last pikes were discarded. Nevertheless, the bow never completely died from warfare; aside from the occasional African scuffles, China continues to employ crossbowmen.

>>48722707
The KMT army was a disaster on every level, though. Those men probably didn't have any ammunition.

>>48722665
>tfw no enchanted/ legendary pike

>>48721480
>what is a sidearm
>why do people wear sidearms

>>48721495
>hmmm, i wanna have a beer with my buddy ulf. let's go grab the pike, in case I get ambushed in the tavern or an alley.
faggot

>>48722684
Good thing there is only one pilum on the pic.

>>48723091
Look again.

>>48721670
Why does this meme continue to exist?

File: ss+(2016-07-16+at+05.13.28).jpg (39KB, 980x156px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 980x156px

>>48721480
cause its cool

>>48723125
To remind buttblasted autists like the OP that they are idiots. Also reminder that the Gladius is a very short sword and was used to cut up blocks of muh master race spearmen.

>>48722835

To be fair, given that they're in a trench, it's likely they were meant to hold off any would-be tench divers a-la WWI which a whole lot of nations were expecting WWII to be a repeat of. Purpose-made swords would have been a great improvement over trench clubs/knives which tended to get jammed.

Too bad the war didn't work that way.

>>48721480
Polearms are bulky. You can't carry them around all the time, they're useless in confined spaces, and they don't have the advantage of a scabbard to protect them from the elements or a guard to protect the wielder's hand.

Spears are great at what they do, but swords are more reliable.

>>48721480

that'd definitely be objectively right if every battle was in a giant fucking empty field like autists love to imagine they are

>>48721480
Spears are better for defending. The long reach is nice for stopping charging enemies, but if you're invading something they're a little less useful.

Go down into a winding cave full of trolls with a spear and you'll kill a couple trolls before one gets too close and bashes you.

Go down there with a solid shortsword sword in hand and you have a solid piece of steel for blocking their clubs and a nice close quarters weapon for hacking off troll limbs. Save your spear for when it's time to go poke some harpies out of the sky or when you're hiding in a foxhole keeping watch for your buddies at night.

File: smle_1916ander_9.jpg (75KB, 740x277px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 740x277px

>>48722707
>long after the last pikes were discarded

No. They are just called rifle + bayonet.

>>48721684

/thread

You covered all the bases.

>>48721920
>Hoplites and immortals largely did their thing in a time before ironworking and steelmaking were sorted out.
The Hoplites and immortals everyone thinks of, the ones from the Persian Wars are all iron age infantry units, they had iron weapons.

>peasant levies
When will this die?

>>48721684
The most effective swords on the battlefield were two-handed swords, though they took a long time to master. The sword was both the weapon and the shield. The master could use it to deflect attacks and seamlessly counterattack. They could use swords to dismantle spear formations and create an opening for a charge. Swordsmen were more mobile than spearmen on a battlefield, and formation wasn't as important, however, swinging a sword is more tiring than stabbing a spear.

>>48723867
He's right, but a poleaxe is a noble weapon.

File: happydoggo.jpg (386KB, 3073x2310px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 3073x2310px

>>48721684
>it's a "smart anon" episode

>>48721480
Hey. Hey, anon. Guess what? Nobody cares and you're a gigantic fucking faggot.

>>48721920
>Romans didn't have peasants in the same way that the Medieval world did.
Neither did the actual Medieval world. Only your fantasy-land medieval world had peasant levies.

In reality, because discipline and training are of vital importance in battle, professional troops and mercenaries were the norm. If peasants ever had to be called up to do battle it was because the situation was absolutely fucked.

>>48721833
>es there were so many swordsmen units in the middle ages right?
Yes. Every unit. Swords were a sidearm, so every unit had them. And people need to stop thinking of "sidearm" in the modern sense of "probably won't see use back up weapon."

If a soldier went into battle it was pretty much a guarantee they would have to use their sword once the press got too close for spears, or their primary weapon inevitable got broken or lost. That is why swords were so esteemed and valued; they were the weapon that was most important for keeping a soldier in fighting effective.

"Swords of conuenient length, forme and substance, haue been in all ages esteemed by all warlike Nations, of al other sorts of weapons the last weapon of refuge both for horsemen, and footmen, by reason that when al their other weapons in fight haue failed them, either by breaking, losse, or otherwise, they then haue presentlie betaken themselues to their short arming Swords and Daggers, as to the last weapons, of great effect & execution for all Martiall actions." - Sir John Smythe.

>>48724079
I wonder what that guy's standards for a "warlike Nation" were.

>>48721820
Oh hey, everybody in that picture has both a sword-like thing and a spear-like thing. It's almost like it's a good idea to have both available when heading into battle. Huh.

>>48724079
>professional troops and mercenaries were the norm

Sometimes, not at other times. It's important to note that the Medieval world encompasses an era of nearly a thousand years, depending on personal preference for where it begins (for me, 476 AD) and ends (again, for me, 1453). So the importance of peasant levies waxes and wanes throughout. Peasant levies were the standard for the beginning of the Medieval era but fell out of favor with the growth of urban centers towards the end of it, before taking an upswing again once gunpowder hit the field. Swiss mercenaries, Landschnekts, and Condottiere are a thing of the Late Medieval era, but that doesn't change peasant levies being an important part of the order of battle in the Early Medieval Era.

Also, I didn't say that the peasants were UNtrained, only that the Roman Legions consisted of *highly* trained individuals. Obviously no lord worth his salt was going to just hand some dude a spear and expect him to win a battle for him, but there's a marked difference between a few weeks or months of training in between farming jobs; and the average of 10 years training and combat that the Roman volunteer/conscript Legions had, to say nothing of the 25 years that the all-volunteer professional Legions had under their belts.

>>48721670
The Roman empire owes its rise to combining shield walls and the pilum which renders enemy shield walls useless.

I swear to god spearfags are the worst.

>>48721480
The real question is why we keep getting these threads.

>>48723125
Cause it was true. Though Roman success can also be contributed to how idiotic some of their enemies were. The Celts are one of their dumbest adversaries.

>>48724710
I've heard the rise and fall of Rome attributed to so many things that I'm now convinced they were just simple whims of Iupiter and nothing more.

>>48724720
Honestly I'd rather listen to spearfags wax about "realism" and "a soldier's REEAAL weapon" than swordfags talk about Romans and some nebulous concept of "a hero's weapon"

>>48721480
Basically a spear is like a rifle, and a sword is like a handgun. So I prefer having both.

>>48724722
Contrivances; largely trolls and/or newfags.

>>48725435
This. It's the best backup weapon.

>>48724743
Nope, simply the strength of the Roman state. Other states crumbled upon defeats, the Romans would accept crushing defeats and simply raise another army to try again.

>>48725189
Honestly rather than both of those I would much rather listen to katanafags who have quite honestly gotten more reasonable and less "muh perfect weapon" over the eyars.

>>48721480
Same reason you'd use a pistol. Your rifle's fucked for whatever reason or they're too big/illegal to bring into the place you're at.

>>48724964
It's almost like governments are intricate or something.

>>48721480
>he limits his weapon choices
Good luck when your spear gets stuck or breaks.

>>48721480
Because everyone needs a sidearm.
Also, swords were better in a small fight against unarmoured opponents. Nothing was better for dueling, although quarterstaves and related polearms were better when bandits attacked and spears/pikes were best for war.

Oh dear. This shitty, ignorant story again?

the sword was not "a piece of shit". it was used for approximately, 3,500 years, from the 17th century BCE, to the 19th and even 20th C CE, variants were used by every single culture from the congo to china, and if you include non-metallic ones, Polynesia and the americas too. The entire planet used these weapons.
If it was shit, it wouldnt have been used. These people were not stupid, they used them in life-or-death combat, not sitting on their fat behinds tapping on keyboards.

The sword is loaded with symbolism and meaning in countless cultures because of the importance and reverence it held. A weapon that was "shit" does not gain that sort of social impact.

While I'm sure that you really want to portray yourself as some sort of free-thinker who isnt restrained by old, stuffy ideas, trying to write about how one of the most technologically challenging, lethal weapons created in history is completely wrong, and claiming that they were not used by "professional soldiers" simply shows you to be utterly ignorant of reality.

>>48724710
Each legionare was armed with only 2 Pilums. Although it was a great tool to soften the enemy before engaging in melee, it was only a part of what made the Roman army so great.
Most of there success can be attributed to professional discipline, functional maneuvers and top quality gear for the time.
The only problem with the Pilum is that it can't be re used after battles which reduces it's usefulness in long lasting battles and long dragging campaigns.

>>48725995
Correcting myself.

The Pilum can't be re used after it is "thrown" which is also good since then the enemy won't throw it back but still now you don't have a Pilum and need to either make another one somehow after a battle or wait until you get another one.

>>48721480
If we're taking DnD you probably started with five or six weapons. In that case take a missile weapon, a pole arm, a sword, a magical sword, a magical polearm and like a dagger or shit.

File: 8c9f88a3f26e7319e5c97becb59f6081.jpg (106KB, 736x987px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 736x987px

>>48721684
>spear
>a peasant weapon

Uwot

File: It's called a lance.gif (2MB, 320x256px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x256px

>>48726279

When are we going to start treating spearfags like the weaboo katana worshippers they truly are?

>>48728980
When will swordfags understand their weapon was a meme?
>muh sidearm

yeah that's true but you can say the same about handguns and rifles still do all the work

File: smug_anime_face.png (104KB, 384x395px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 384x395px

>>48723946
>it's a single line of greentext ad hominem because I don't have a counter argument episode

>>48728768
Indistinguishable from one from the 11th to 13th centuries.

>>48729026
>a weapon can be a meme
you are fucking retarded

File: image028.jpg (17KB, 225x223px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 225x223px

>>48729026
>sanded over 1000 times
>100ft reach
>in the right hands can pierce through solid iron

>>48729035
He was agreeing with you dumbass. 'Good doggo' meme means he was applauding.

>>48721480
Not getting enough (You)s on /his/?

>>48729096
He wasn't agreeing with me, that was my first post itt. You're sure it wasn't sarcastic?

>>48721480
Even though this is the most mediocre bait in history, I will bite it: Medieval Martial Arts, read some fucking manual, a sword with a guard is one of the best weapons ever made, yes a pole weapon has the wantage of lenght but after the hit is parried by a skilled knight with his arming sword you're done for it.

>>48721480
>Why would anyone use a sword?

I like the sword and board look.

>>48729180
And I assume my comrades will just stand there and let the knight who for some reason is dismounted parry my fucking weapon?

>>48721684
>the sword guy was using a tiny little buckler that could not have been more than a foot wide.
Actually that wasn't the problem, simply the guy with the spear was far more skilled then the buckler guy, but anyway perfect answer.

>>48723897
>however, swinging a sword is more tiring than stabbing a spear.
that depends of the sword,a nd most of them are far more balanced than a spear so no, aside from using a zweilhander a sword is always more rapid than a spear.

>>48721480
A man who slays a dragon with a specialized weapon is practical.
A man who slays a dragon with a sidearm is a legend.

>>48729273
No sword is not more rapid than a fucking spear stop playing Dark Souls.

>>48725711
>unarmoured opponents
ever heard of half-swording?

>>48723062

>not including a Pike Rack outside your tavern

>Not putting a Pike Lock on your bec-de-corbin so no local ragamuffins go running off with it while you enjoy a pint.

>>48725797
thank you

>>48729320
stop pretending to knwo what i play lmao, and actually study some history, a medieval arming sowrd is faster than a spear, please do your research.

>>48721480
European oversized knives, maybe, but a katana would cut right through a polearm.

>>48729398
you don't even deserve a response lmao

File: Augsburg_Cod.I.6.4º.2_(Codex_Wallerstein)_107v.jpg (481KB, 1228x819px)

481KB, 1228x819px

>>48729336
>tfw you will never grab a sword by the blade or smash a guy's face with the pommel

>>48729383
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2YgGY_OBx8

kill yourself

>>48729026
>rifles still do all the work

lol

rifles may do a lot of the work for infantry, but the machine gun is still the king there, and beyond that indirect fire is what wins wars.

File: Peasant Levies.jpg (65KB, 595x547px)

65KB, 595x547px

>>48724490
>>48721920

That's it. I'm sick of all this "Masterwork Rabble" bullshit that's going on in the d20 system right now. Peasant Levies deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine Peasant Levy in France for 5 chickens (that's about $2) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even smash solid formations of Pikemen with my Peasant Levy.

Feudal Lords spend years working on a single Peasant Levy and train it up to a million times to produce the finest military units known to mankind.

Peasant Levies are thrice as professional as Byzantine Tagmata and thrice as disciplined for that matter too. Anything a charge of knights can rout, a Peasant Levy can rout better. I'm pretty sure a Peasant Levy could easily impale a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical stab.

Ever wonder why Byzantium never bothered conquering Europe? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Feudal Lords and their Peasant Levies of destruction. Even during the Norman Invasion of the Balkans, Byzantine professional soldiers targeted the formations with the Peasant Levies first because their killing power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? Peasant Levies are simply the best military unit that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for Peasant Levies:

(Rural, Militia)
1d12 Morale Damage
19-20 x4 Crit
+2 to morale and damage
Counts as Elite

(Urban, Militia)
2d10 Damage
17-20 x4 Crit
+5 to morale and damage
Counts as Elite

Now that seems a lot more representative of the military power of Peasant Levies in real life, don't you think?

tl;dr = Peasant Levies need a buff in d20, see my new stat block.

>>48729412
>I can't argue so I'll just make a passive-aggressive response!

Please explain how a katana will cut through a metal polearm.

>>48729681
Because its folded a thousand times, which makes it harder.

>>48729481
Thank you

>>48729515
>>48729681
>>48729712

Lads we've already had the katanas in d20 meme, no need to keep going

>>48729422
Touchè, but have you ever tried to unscrew the pommel to end him rightly?

>>48729447
there are literally hundreds other opinion on this from other experts, and no I won't make you happy with suicide I'm sorry.

>>48722967
Gae bolg
Gungnir

>>48729515
I mean if I really do have to asnwer you just so you don't implode, katanas can't cut through a full plater armor, i'm sorry for you, feel free to get mad.

File: www.usnews.jpg (38KB, 970x647px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 970x647px

>>48721480
Professional soldiers carried both. Polearms are longer, and cannot be holstered, thus you use the polearm first, and then, if or when it breaks, is lost, or becomes useless, you draw your sword and fight with that.

This "lol swords suck" attitude is carried exclusively by NEET losers who have never trained with any weapon or ever investigated actual history.

>>48729886
This has been tested, though. This is why samurai wore light armor, because the katana would cut right through and they had to be mobile. European knights were basically moving fortresses, good against their lower quality weapons, but it'd be like wearing tin foil against Japanese workmanship.

File: maniple 2.jpg (46KB, 762x456px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 762x456px

>>48725995
>>48726145
I'd wager they had the equipment carried on campaign to melt and reforge them as needed. These are the people that brought kit forts with them to set up camp every knight.

>>48724710
>shield walls
>maniple system
>pick one

>>48722967
Spear of Longinus?

File: 1470761029769.jpg (73KB, 604x453px)

73KB, 604x453px

>>48721920
>Even then, like I said, a spear is better in a mass combat situation. For most of human history war has consisted of two masses of people pushing against one another until one side breaks whilst the front rows of said masses stab at each other; a spear is better for that since it means that more people than just the front row can actually participate in the killing.

Actually, the data shows that this isn't true. When the Romans faced Phyrrus, they engaged his phalanxes frontally with Post-Polybean Reform troops (almost all sword-armed) and literally nothing happened. The battle lasted for five hours, with huge casualties on both sides and no major outflanking maneuvers. Each side made multiple pushes but no ground was gained until Phyrrus deployed his elephants and broke the Romans. Phyrrus himself was almost killed in the battle-- a man dressed as him WAS killed, meaning that despise the supposed invincible advantage of reach, officers on his side were dying.

Pike armed troops at the time were not invincible grinding machines who could flatten all infantry before them. Quite to the contrary, as Pydna showed, they could not even rout ordered infantry when they had a downhill advantage, they could only slowly push them back. The Macedonians understood this as well, the purpose of pike was not to crush enemy troops, it is to pin them in place and not lose ground so that your cavalry can hit them from the sides and begin the rout. It was not until the late Medieval period that you started to see pike formations actually flatten enemy infantry units, and that was probably because shields had simply fallen out of favor and partial armor was the norm, meaning that serious casualties could actually arise from a frontal engagement.

Pikes cannot function except as part of a combined arms force with strong cavalry to take advantage of their ability to pin the enemy in place.

>>48729861
How many of them actually spar regularly and out of those, how many of them win nation-wide tournaments. That's Matt, "Just the other day, I won a gold medal in a backsword competition by using saber methods," Fucking Easton.

>>48730009
No they wouldn't. Their armor was calculated to be useful against both arrows, and the common weapons encountered such as naginatas, yaris, and your various forms of swords (Katanas, Sords before Katana, etc.)

They were effective probably more than half the time, and even at the low range, probably at LEAST half the time.

The durability of that armor against slashing attacks from Katanas has been tested thoroughly and it's clearly good enough to be pretty good against it. You made do with much cheaper or more incomplete armor if you had it at all depending on the period, and if you could afford good armor, it would have been difficult to penetrate any part of your armor, particularly the chest plate and helmet.

Gaps, which certainly existed, and more-so in the kinds of armor that were lamelar, and while full face armor existed, it wasn't necessarily the norm, and even so, was only ever so thick, so someone could geek you in the face or stick a weapon IN YOUR EYE and kill you.

Or you know, shoot you in the eye. Samurai ADORED such displays of skill, and some were good enough to do it not entirely by luck from horseback at considerable speed.

Yes, that's crazy. Yes, Samurai trained incessantly at Horse Archery when they were relevant and were scarily good at intuitive point and zen shoot stuff.

>>48721480
>I don't understand the concept of sidearms
I hope it's bait. Otherwise it's just pathetic.

>>48730009
This is simply ridiculous. Japanese armor was not light at all, nor could it be easily penetrated by any weapon, spear, sword or arrow. In fact modern reproductions have sown a remarkable effectiveness (if somewhat ablative) at deflecting attacks from all sorts of weapons.

Period records suggest that in fact, most Samurai who were killed were either killed through sheer weight of bombardment, or where first subdued and then killed with sword or knife. Many famous Japanese accounts of head-taking suggest that fights between armored men almost always ended in wrestling matches--much as fights between European Knights did.

That said I will concede a point here, which is that the Katana is actually a very heavy sword for its length. Generally weighing as much as a 2-3 foot longer German Longsword, the Katana had a wedge-shape that made it a somewhat useful weapon against armor because you could just bludgeon people with it. Lamellar has a tendency to bend when hit, and so it was possible to break limbs or concuss an opponent with a Katana even if you could not cut them. This was likely a precursor to a more meticulous beheading. Records suggest that the most common way to kill a Samurai was to cut his throat, and then saw through the back of his neck to remove the head, which obviously suggests a subdued foe.

>>48729949
Lol swords suck.

File: pike-team.jpg (169KB, 950x679px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 950x679px

>>48721684
>which is why during boarding actions on ships the borders were armed with such rather than with short spears
>he's never heard of a boarding pike

>>48730009
>>48730107
>>48730167
This is one of those "/tg/ turns bait into interesting discussion" things, and not one of those "/tg/ falls for really, really obvious bait" things, right?

>>48721684
H I D A L G O
I
D
A
L
G
O

>>48730498
I found that the best solution to bad bait is to answer as honestly as possible, because someone who doesn't know better may be reading, and could benefit from instruction.

>>48723782
I'm insulted you think that's long enough to be a pike.

>>48730630
Lot's of things are called pike which are much shorter than sarissa, see >>48730376

File: 1464919836013.jpg (30KB, 479x600px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 479x600px

>>48730009
>moving fortresses
>lower quality weapons
>Japanese workmanship

>>48730519
You are a good anon and quality poster.

>>48721820
whats with the darts on the fifth guy's shield?

>>48731863
I can only imagine they're for throwing at people. Darts designed for killing are decent at it, I've heard.

File: plumbing issues.jpg (355KB, 1215x856px)

355KB, 1215x856px

>>48731863
>>48731893
Plumbata, motherfuckers. Can also be used with a sling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndNT3cjwugs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_ve-aJZclE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mMUOZZBDuY

File: 250px-Cynoscephalae.png (69KB, 250x486px)

69KB, 250x486px

>>48730072
Roman Legions would always get defeated by pikes in a frontal assault. The army sent against Phyrrus was destroyed.

One of the first Roman recorded decisive roman victory against pikes was at Cynoscephalae. And they only won due to a single Tribune who led his cohorts in a flanking charge at the enemy pikes, the Roman center was crumbling at that point. After that Romans only engaged pikes in advantageous ground.

>>48732094
ow

File: tumblr_ns21krLmPY1uu4sk5o1_400.gif (2MB, 390x205px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 390x205px

>>48729839

>>48730037
This though was the old Roman system back when Carthage was a thing and they where still a republic

>>48721480
Because you can't stab with a hand-axe or mace, nor can you even swing them quite as fast, and polearms are too big in smaller spaces.

>>48721495
Yes, a sidearm. And like any sidearm, they might not have excelled in one area, but they were incredibly well-rounded in the techniques one could perform with them.

>>48725529
THIS SO MUCH.

Remember that the term Pyrrhic Victory comes from Pyrrhus of Epirus, a Greek king who invaded the southern "boot" of Italy in the days when Rome was simply the most powerful of several Italian regional powers establishing hegemony over Italy. He fought them several times and won pretty much every time, but the Romans and their Italian allies could replace their loses while Pyrrhus could not, famously stating

"One more victory like this and we shall be undone"

In the Punic wars Rome lost STAGGERING amounts of their population, possibly 1/4th of their male citizenry in the first one and almost the entirety of an army of 70,000 in the second.....which they responded to by raising several more and EXPANDING the scope of the war (partially because Makedon saw them lose 70k troops and figured they'd declare war on Rome as well now that they were clearly fucked. Rome wasn't and proceeded to engage the first of about 4 wars against Makedon which removed them from being a major power in the Hellenic world and established Roman hegemony over Greece)

Rome: We'll die at you so hard you'll pay us taxes by the time we're done.

Sorry if my history is off any, it's been awhile since I researched it

File: Pyrrhus.jpg (21KB, 389x475px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 389x475px

>>48734564
Actually Rome got lucky regarding Macedon, because (there is a running theme here) Macedon was recovering a crazy pseudo civil war at the time between two guys, Antigonus and pic fucking related, as well as a ton of skirmishes against the other successor states. So the Macedonians were just as depleted as Rome and barely a state for the rest of their existence.

Also, spears are rad

>>48734637
In all four wars, though? And the Seleukids later?

Though I should probably amend what I said somewhat. Rome preferred to have their ALLIES die at the enemy first, whenever possible.

>>48729096
Quotations around positive descriptors generally indicate sarcasm.

File: Astonished.jpg (131KB, 600x502px)

131KB, 600x502px

>>48729839
Wasn't that a Youtube meme? I think Skallgarim quoted that in a video once.

>>48735744
Yes it originates from his video about absurd ''fighting techniques'' found in one manual.

Swords were used because they are the best multipurpose weapons that are easy to carry.
You can hold your gun/bow/crossbow/spear/halberd/pike/lance in your hand and still have a sword hanging by your belt.
The ease of carry is also what made it the preferred weapon in a civilian context and since you were more likely to see a knight/soldier/samura in a civilian context rather than in war, they also came to be associated with said military classes

>>48735888
If I have a gun why would I carry a fucking sword? Nigger.

Does anybody have the screenshot of I believe Caesar calling someone on /tg/ a faggot over disliking swords?

>>48735896
because it isn't a modern gun

File: Capture-of-Blackbeard.jpg (212KB, 1332x949px)

212KB, 1332x949px

>>48735896
>I am a complete idiot: the post

>>48735923
Why not faggot? Your gay ass renaissance setting does not represent fantasy as a whole what if I want fantasy set in modern times?

>>48735952
that you should commit suicide which wold make the lives of other people living in modern times quite fantastical

File: 1412578834078.png (90KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 250x250px

>>48721684
>Carry a spear, and a sword, and a dagger, and a mace. Preferably a bow as well. You're good.
>Ignoring weight and carry limitations
>Switching weapons is a free action

>>48721684
Too much shit to carry. Just use a bow and sword like actual archers did.

>>48736025
and a small shield/buckler

File: IG feels nice.png (32KB, 1162x850px)

32KB, 1162x850px

>>48734564
>We'll die at you so hard you'll pay us taxes by the time we're done.

So, Rome isn't represented by Ultramar in 40k.

It's represented by the motherfucking Imperial Guard.

>>48734564
I swear, Rome was cheating by ignoring the manpower rules.
At least the referee got wise by the 4th century.

>"Hey Rome, you've had a lot of plagues recently, where are you getting your men from?"

>"Uhhhhh, Foederati?"

>EvilRefereeGrin.waxtablet

File: mmd_ddff___squall__dlc1__v_2_by_renzo_senpai-d8qt5rg.png (267KB, 852x938px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 852x938px

>>48735896
>Six bullets...more than enough to kill anything that moves.

File: saddoggo.jpg (44KB, 425x282px)

44KB, 425x282px

>>48729035
>it's an "anon thought I was attacking them" episode

>>48730376
How common were those though?

>>48735990
>bow at range
>switch to (whatever's appropriate)
>fight with (that switch)

Fortune favours the prepared and accurate assessments.

File: Long weapons in cramped spaces.png (437KB, 541x624px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 541x624px

>>48721480
uwot?

>>48730037
>I'd wager they had the equipment carried on campaign to melt and reforge them as needed

wat

>>48729035
You made the doggo cry! >>48737312
You were a good quality anon, and anonymous can often times be mean, but this wasn't the case.
Hurry, pet the doggo!

>>48726145
The pilum is actually supposed to be thrown, the roman melee pike is called an hasta and its actual use on the battlefield waxes and wanes during different ages of the history of rome.

File: CLASSIC_ESGRIMA_03.jpg (93KB, 603x396px)

93KB, 603x396px

>>48737365
>swinging a thrusting weapon around like a club
shig diggity

>>48737377
On campaign, they were likely having the things that did the stuff to melt and reforge pilum
Not complucated anon

>>48730498
This thread is doomed from the start with either an idiotic or bait OP. People just want to talk about swords and shit.

>>48733389
Thanks anon

>>48721480
Because then the landsknechts would come and wreck your shit ass polearms.

>>48738742
With polearm sized sword.

>>48738742
They were a mixed formation that was majority pikes. The swordsmen are only in the front rank.

File: Dolstein_1.gif (73KB, 489x349px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 489x349px

>>48721480
>sword or spear
Why not both? Stick a sword blade on the end of a pole and you get the benefits ,and some of the downsides, of both.

>>48738936
It's called Glaive altough it's more of a knife.

>>48729447
That spear is way, way thicker than I thought it would be.

Either that, or the guy is tiny as fuck.

>>48739686
It's called being retarded. Don't worry most of /tg/ suffers from it.

>>48724160
african kingdoms

>>48721480
>it's an "upset polearmfag" episode

>>48729458
>indirect fire is what wins wars.

Come the fuck on, are we still pretending that wars are actually won on the battlefield? I'll grant that artillery is vastly more important than any small arms or armour but it all comes down to logistics. If you can't make, transport, fuel and arm whatever your super weapon is in whatever century you just aren't going to do anything.

Along with all the other huge advantages the Romans had, this is the one not mentioned in the thread. They were absolute masters of logistics and getting shit where it needed to be.

>>48741789
But they still got rekt in a forest by Aryan warriors.

>>48741819
Yeah sure, but that happens to everyone at least once. Right?

>>48741819
>Germans
>Ever good at warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Weser_River

The wars Germanicus raised didn't even have a point. It was pretty much
>These soldiers are getting mutinous
>Lets go slaughter some disgusting savages

>>48742303
Yeah, Germans are particularly shit at warfare, especially compared to their reputation and that of their neighbors, but you have to admit even they had a few good tries.

>>48742303
Was Germanicus a Khornate?

>>48742382
Germans as a nation were shit at warfare because Germany as a nation didn't exist until 1871. Up until that point, Germany was a bunch of feuding principalities with a fairly weak central rule.

File: gaius' swords.jpg (61KB, 942x360px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 942x360px

Guys