In light of the spear and shield thread just thought you all might find this interesting (I did).

Ummm...a link would be helpful, maybe....:)

I did mention I had the major flaw dumb didn't I?


http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/nikolas.lloyd/weapons/spear.html

I didn't see anything about the use of spears among Viking warriors though. I seems he's overlooked an important aspect of the history of the spear as a weapon in war by not examining how they were employed by these fighters.

The shield wall idea and pushing would probably represent the Saxon-Norse-Dane type of spear usage rather well. The Vikings (and Saxon Huscarls, but they were more Danish than Saxon) also used the Battle Axe as a favored weapon, but I do not believe the Viking Huscarls used the Battle Axe exclusively. Probably Axe + Spear mixture. I've wondered what the first clash of the Battle Axe/Spear mix would be like, even more so clashing against a saxon shield wall, and what individual tactics would be used. Don't know if this sounds logical, but I could see the Axe users keeping the shield during the initial clash, perhaps using it offensively to break into the spear formation and discarding it once in closer range.

The author seems logical with his opinions however, and with his comments about the effectiveness of the spear in non massed combat seems to play well in the hands of TROS, in which spears do not seem a popular weapon. I wonder if Jake agrees with this analysis of the spear in one-on-one combat?

The other thing the author did not go onto is the longspear used by the Branbacons, Flemish, Scots and Welsh. It was longer than a spear from what I have seen, but shorter than the Renaissance Pike. The illustrations of these types also show them carrying shields, although no generaly large ones. Anyone know if these were more strapped on for passive defense, or was the spear used in one hand?

Im not 100 % sure (not even 50 % sure really ~~) but I think that the shields were carried for defense vs missiles when they walked up to the enemy.

I have to say I have major reservations about the article with respect to medieval and renaissance polearm work. In these periods we do have many sources for the actual techniques used for these weapons. Most long spears were wielded twohanded, with a shield being retained on a long strap over the shoulder for ready defense against artillery. Wielding a spear longer than 5-6 foot with one hand is very difficult is all out combat (the author's background is limited target/ strength re-enactment).

The long spear (and any polearm) is a vicious weapon when used properly. A fast point, great reach, and the ability to fight at all ranges (shorten the grip, reverse and use the butt end) make it something to be respected.

James

To be fair to the author I think he is talking about hopolites though and they carried their shields on the arm. I belive this is also the case for the Saxon/Celt/Viking round shields too.

As we head into the medieval period though, this style is as you say, superceded by longer weapons that make 1 handed use less effective.

Muggins- I agree that the longspear may be more efficient in individual combat that sometimes given credit for. I saw a gladitorial re-enactment with a longer spear being used 2-handed to good effect.

However, when in mass combat, and spear are types were generaly used in a very close formation, many of the techniques such as using the butt end would be severely restricted due to ones comrades an the close in fighting in general. Add this to the idea that shields were carried, if not used normaly at least stapped to the arm for missile defense (close formation troops with no shields would be cannon fodder for missile trrops, even more so if no heavy armour was worn).

I could see where the melee could wind up being very similar to a rugby scrum, with weapons carried by both parties.