Spear Fighting

[Sean M]

Over on corporate social media, Paul Bardunias is talking about fighting with the spear in one hand. He takes the view that most healthy men can only use a 10' to 12' spear in one hand if its balanced in the middle (not tapered or barreled to be balanced 2/3 or 3/4 of the way to the butt). Because of that, he does not think most healthy men can get more reach with a 10' or 12' spear than an 8' spear without holding the longer spear in two hands. I don't have any experience with really long spears, but holding such a giant spear in the middle seems a weird choice. I would think the butt would get in the way of the guys behind you.

The ancient Macedonian cavalry lances seem to have more than 6' (1.8 metres) of wood ahead of the hand, and are balanced pretty far back.





I am allergic to hay and horses, but I think cavalry fighting can be different because you can use the speed of the horse to drive the lance and your arm just has to put the point on target. So most people can probably use a longer lance on horseback than they can use on foot.

Some of those late medieval Italian infantry with rectangular shields have pretty long spears.

Spear and shield are not so popular today, and long spears are annoying to play with, but does anyone have thoughts on the practicality of using 10' to 12', properly tapered or barreled spears in one hand?

What is the maximum length of spears in scajun heavy fighting? They have to be rattan or sometimes fibreglass right? A lot of historical spears have external socket diameters around 20-25 mm (3/4" to 1") and were about 30-35 mm (1 1/4" to 1 1/2") diameter at the thickest part, whether that is the butt end or about 2/3 or 3/4 back from the point like Wade's pikes. And heads can be surprisingly light, around 150 grams is common for a big spearhead although 250 grams is not unheard of.

[Sean M]

Here, for what they are worth, are Paul's words:

I have found that this concept is difficult for many to intuitively grasp, and since I was just explaining it elsewhere, I thought I would post it here. There is a rule of thumb with spears, that a 12 foot long spear is just about the maximum length you can use effectively with one hand. You will hear this from many SCA types and it was actually tested at some point a couple of centuries back (it may be in Ardant du Picq, if anyone knows, chime in). Past around 12 feet, you have to go the two hands and you have a sarissa. This is important in the discussion of Iphicrates reforms because his spears were no longer than 12 feet long. Thus they could have been one-handed spears and I think they were. There is a lot of pressure to jump to longer spears once you go to two hands- because you can. But anyway, what I want to convey is that a 12 foot mid-balanced spear is functionally the same as an 8 foot rear-balanced spear if both have six feet of spear in front of the hand. If a 12 foot spear is the max, then an 8 foot rear balanced spear is also the max. They are equivalent in how they handle (actually, the 8 foot spear is a little heavier because the counterweight does not gain the advantage of leverage). Think of it as 6 feet of spear in front of the hand is the limit and it does not matter how you get that. A seven foot spear with a huge ball at the back, balanced so that you hold it a foot from the base would also be the limit- and heavier than either of the other spears we are discussing. If your sauroter or counterweight is made of bronze, there is of course a cost to using one. two sauroters use about the same bronze as a pilos helmet.
...
Let me lay out the logic here, because it seems to be difficult to follow. If we accept the rule of thumb that 12' mid-balanced spears are the maximum for single handed spears, and we accept that the 4thC dory was a backweighted spear of about 8', then a spear half again as long adds 4', thus a 12' spear. That 12' cannot be rear-balanced because that would be the equivalent of a spear longer than 12' and require 2 hands. So Iphicrates may have made lighter hoplites that were also cheaper by adopting a Thracian spear type that did not have a sauroter. We see spear armed Thracians that could fit this, read what Best has to say on this. Interesting by analogy, we read in later periods of long spear wielding Germanic peoples who are also holding shields in their left hands.

As I presented above, what appears to matter is that 6' of spear is projecting in front of the hand. You can get this with an un-tapered, unweighted 12' spear held in the middle, or with any length of tapered spear you want that gives you 6' of projection.

Paul makes many assumptions I am not sure about (like that Greek hoplites in the 4th century BCE typically used one type of spear with a length that can be estimated to the foot), but his argument seems to be that most people can only control about 6' of spear in front of their hand without a second hand on the spear. I would guess that he excludes the 'flung thrust' where you start with a two-handed grip and let go with the front hand for maximum reach. In a later post he said he is exclusively talking about combat on foot.

[Johann ColdIron]

Don't forget in terms of cavalry that the stirrup doesn't come to Europe until something like the 8th century so early spear use on horse was not the impact based use that later lances have. It was probably used more as a stabbing implement and needs balance to wield.

SCA lengths go to 12' in certain Kingdoms with 9' the prevalent standard. Most have gone to fiberglass shafts for the rigidity and therefor better energy transfer when stabbing. I am still partial to rattan, though. They have some subtly in terms of flex that I use to whip around an opponents spear and they do not get knocked off trajectory as easily because they kind of "boing" when struck instead of getting driven off line. I'd imagine a real wooden one would too.

Most are not well balanced and therefore they get unwieldy faster than their equivalent original. The three inch heads were giant q-tips and the balance bad. Now that 2 inch tips are the standard they are a little better when the heads are well constructed. I could use one of Wades 15'+ pikes with both hands all day and certainly stab someone one handed with it. The tips are light even with languets (side reinforce strips of steel). With a 9' rattan spear I regularly choke up on it and use it at half length or slightly longer often and while there is the chance to get tangled with others it happens less than you might think if you know what you are doing.

With a spear facing a short weapon opponent you have about three chances to stab them before they get to the range they can hit you at. It happens fast. We have been experimenting with spears against rapiers in Atlantia and the rapier folks are learning the challenge of fighting against someone with superior range and leverage. In real combat if someone got close enough to me to try and cut or stab me while I am holding a spear they are eating the shaft with the side of their head or getting steered to the ground with it. Close enough to grapple is getting a shoulder check from long piece of Ash. The tail of a center wielded spear acts as defense when used to clear kind of like some pole arm stances. Hard to explain but both ends get used to occupy space, block incoming weapons and lead to gaining enough room to stab.

[Jonathan Dean]

Don't forget in terms of cavalry that the stirrup doesn't come to Europe until something like the 8th century so early spear use on horse was not the impact based use that later lances have. It was probably used more as a stabbing implement and needs balance to wield.

This idea has been challenged in the last couple of decades. Peter Connolly has at least one article on the Macedonian cavalry where they found it was entirely possible to couch a lance without stirrups, although the length of the lance (16ft overall) made retaining it after a strike difficult, and more recent experiments by medieval re-enactors/scholars have shown that even bareback a couched lance can be quite effective. While lances may not have been couched under most circumstances in Antiquity, Phil Sidnell relates that even a looser underhand grip can still impart enough energy to a shield to knock the man behind it over (Warhorse: Cavalry in Ancient Warfare. There are also some indications in the written record (eg: Thuc. 2.100) that even if couched lances weren't used, cavalry was at least willing to charge into the midst of the enemy.

The saddle (especially) and the stirrup make shock combat and couched lances easier and more effective, but aren't an inherent requirement.