Spear & Shield

[November Kilo]

Okay... first thread of my own...

I'm pumped - finally, I'll be running my first TROS session this weekend.  I was gen'ing some sample grunts to blow through tutorial combats, when I tried to arm this guy with spear and shield.  I couldn't find that in the Proficencies.  Spear is a Pole-arm prof - I get that.  But there is no Block maneuver listed for it, so no shield use.  Yeah, I can easily house rule myself up a prof and its maneuvers.  But is it already there and I just don't see it?  

Am I totally off base here?  Is it accurate that folks fought with the spear in one hand and a shield in the other?  And that it's not plain what prof that would fall under?

[Salamander]

Usually it would be a short spear and shield, if I am not mistaken. In regards to the proficiency, I would go with Cut & Thrust Proficiency with more thrust and less cut. Spears could still be used to cut, but they were not made for that purpose. Or perhaps Sword and Shield, but instead call it "Spear" and Shield.

Jake has indicated it not what you use, but how you use it...

[Bob Richter]

It's been a while, but I don't believe there's one by default.

To construct one, take Mass Weapon and Shield and remove the bash action and replace it with a thrust action.

That's pretty much all there is.

[Sneaky Git]

Okay... first thread of my own...

I'm pumped - finally, I'll be running my first TROS session this weekend.  I was gen'ing some sample grunts to blow through tutorial combats, when I tried to arm this guy with spear and shield.  I couldn't find that in the Proficencies.  Spear is a Pole-arm prof - I get that.  But there is no Block maneuver listed for it, so no shield use.  Yeah, I can easily house rule myself up a prof and its maneuvers.  But is it already there and I just don't see it?  

Am I totally off base here?  Is it accurate that folks fought with the spear in one hand and a shield in the other?  And that it's not plain what prof that would fall under?

The main weapon of Greek hoplites (Classical Period - think Persian and Peloponnesian Wars) was supposed to have been a long spear (6-10 feet in length) used in concert with a rather significant shield.  Lots of thrusting (perhaps with an overarm grip...although there is some debate about this).  Not so much with the cutting...the shaft would have a much greater chance of shattering/cracking/whatever.

Chris

[Durgil]

The main weapon of Greek hoplites (Classical Period - think Persian and Peloponnesian Wars) was supposed to have been a long spear (6-10 feet in length) used in concert with a rather significant shield.  Lots of thrusting (perhaps with an overarm grip...although there is some debate about this).  Not so much with the cutting...the shaft would have a much greater chance of shattering/cracking/whatever.

I believe that this was only for formation fighting, which TRoS's combat does not model very well (at least at this point).  When the fighting got heavy enough that the formation broke, the Hoplite pulled out his trusty short sword to continue the fight.  You can also think of it this way, if I had a sword' and you were fighting me with a 6' to 10' long spear and shield of any kind, either that shield would be just for passive defense, hanging off your left arm while you used both hands on your spear, or it would be way too easy for me to beat that unbalanced spear out of the way and stick or slice you with my sword.

[toli]

I believe that this was only for formation fighting,

Read the Illiad.  It is mostly individual combat (heroic period Greece) and almost entirely spear and shield.  Achilleus kill Hector with a spear thrust to the neck, I believe.....

I think you are correct, however, that in medieval times spear and shield was mostly formation.  A standard tactic (especially on the Crusades) was to use spearmen to protect the knights from the enemy while they (the knights) were preparing for a charge etc.


NT

[Anthony I]

The hoplite used both hands on his spear, the shield was a passive defense.  This makes sense when you consider the primary fighting formation of the hoplite- the phalanx.

[Paganini]

The hoplite used both hands on his spear, the shield was a passive defense.  This makes sense when you consider the primary fighting formation of the hoplite- the phalanx.

Also, hoplites had fairly short spears. It wasn't until Alexander the Great that you had the huge ol' pike walls.

However, you should remember that a shield is never a "passive defense." A shield is just a big old blunt weapon.

If you're fighting a guy who has a sword and he gets past your spear, you're a lot better off with a shield to back you up than you are without one. And you don't have to waste time getting shields out of a case while trying not to get cut.

[toli]

The hoplite used both hands on his spear, the shield was a passive defense.  This makes sense when you consider the primary fighting formation of the hoplite- the phalanx.

I'm not sure that's true.  If you look at most pottery, the warriors are holding the spear one handed.  The macedonians under Phillip II (Alexander's father) switched to a smaller shield and longer spear, really a pike, in immitation of the Theban general Epidomonas (sp?).  In that case the shield was certainly a passive defense.

[Half-Baked]

The hoplite used both hands on his spear, the shield was a passive defense. This makes sense when you consider the primary fighting formation of the hoplite- the phalanx.

Depends how you think the Greek phalanx fought. Most of the reading I have done guesses that it was a huge shoving match when against another Greek phalanx. The first side to collapse got routed, dropped their shields and ran away. The spear was to distract the enemy or use from the second and third ranks. If that is the case then it is not practical to use two hands because if a hoplite was shoving with their shield the only place they could really have a two handed spear was pointing upwards. Greek vases confirm the one handed overhand grip. The use of the spear was to bring other ranks into combat. For the front row the real weapon was the shield.

That changes with the Macedonian phalanx which used a Sarissa (16'-21' long spear). The tactics then change. No longer is it meant to be a shoving match, but a wall of iron points that the enemy could not penetrate. The Macedonian phalanx was not designed for symetrical warfare, but againt different types of armies. There were no other identical armies during the time of Philip II, when the sarissa is said to be adopted. The Greek phalanx was meant to win the battle, whereas the Macedonian victories were meant to be won by the cavalry. The sarissa armed phalanx holds the enemy in place while the cavalry watches for breaks in the enemy's cohesion and then attacks to deal the killer blow. The phalanx was the anvil to the cavalry's hammer. You only have to read accounts of Alexander's victories to make it clear. The Macedonian phalanx was designed to counter the traditional Greek version and other types of lighter infantry. The sarissa kept the Greek Phalanx at bay with perhaps double the range, plus it would do the same against any of the Persian infantry.

[Loki]

I wish I could cite text to support my opinion, but I also have the impression that the hoplite's shield was not a passive defense. There are many speeches that describe the hoplite's duty to protect not only himself, but also the man to his left with his shield. I believe that is also why the right side of the formation was considered the most dangerous, and was usually the side that collapsed first in a rout--the warriors on the right end had an unprotected right side, and they tended to collapse left, into their shield. They also tended to be wounded and killed first, and hence to retreat first.

My understanding was also that the spears were used primarily during the first charge. The shields were used to push the enemy back and out of formation--a kind of huge rugby scrum--so they could be grappled and stabbed with short swords (there's a reason it's called Greco-Roman wrestling... not to mention the pankration). Once the enemy formation was broken, small groups of enemies were easily overwhelmed by the ranks of spears and shields. In fact, most of the deaths in any massed hand-to-hand combat come during the rout, not the first charge. That's why commanders always try to have an organized retreat, not a break and run.

Again, I wish I could offer citations. I think most of the above comes from reading The Western Way of War... author is Jenkins, I believe.

[Salamander]

But whenever I have used a shield, even a buckler, I have always been tempted to use it in an active fashion. Dare I say as an agressive weapon of defence. Whenever I close with somebody during rapier practice and I am inside of their point and they inside of mine the first thing I do is bring that shield or buckler into play. I am pretty comfortable with the idea of bouncing a metal edge off of somebody's noggin in the heat of battle. Then I can skewer them several times while they recover from the blow with the shield.

I cannot see it being too terribly different if we replace the rapier with a spear.