Which weapon is better sword or spear

Ax against sword: what hits what?

In general, it should be noted that this information only represents a tendency, assuming the same opportunities and training level, because in fact some branches of weapon are superior to others. Nevertheless, it is essential to understand that all weapons fulfill a certain task, this very well and others worse.

The bazooka is used here as a comparison, it is superior to the machine gun in terms of range and penetration power, but is that why all soldiers wear a bazooka? No, because it has other disadvantages. It is heavy, unwieldy, very expensive, cover fire is not possible, it is of little use when storming, the ammunition is heavy and dangerous for all soldiers in the area and you can blow yourself up with it.

The historical development of weapons never led to a “super weapon”; it is more important to understand that the use of a weapon is only to be understood in context. The long knife, for example, developed as a weapon for farmers and citizens because they were not allowed to carry a sword at all. A comparison is not relevant here, because people who lived at that time had to consider the purpose, type of use and laws when choosing a weapon, as well as their wallet.

Of course she does Type of armor made a huge difference in historical sword fighting. Some weapons are specially designed to break plate armor, such as the raven's bill, but are second choice for unarmed warriors.

Furthermore, this is Control system decisive of the fight. With the Codex Belli, which is widespread today, stabs against the visor are prohibited for safety reasons for the participants. As a result, the hand and a half sword has no chance against a sword with a shield. If head hits or foot hits count (simplified claim), the hand and a half would have a good chance of being victorious.

The Type of fight is another key feature. In the turmoil z. For example, two-handed swords are extremely difficult to handle because of their length (space requirement) and the risk of injuring fellow combatants or getting stuck. Therefore, they had special tasks such as lifting or tying pikes (e.g. Flammberger) so that their own fighters could break through. In the duel of historical fencing, this weapon is one of the most powerful at all.

Weapons in the table:

  • One-handed sword with shield
  • One-hander without a shield
  • Hand and a half sword
  • Two handed
  • Ax with shield
  • spear
  • Rapier with dagger

Results table for the unarmored duel

Weapon:One-handedOne-handed with shieldHand and a half swordTwo handedAx with shieldRapier with daggerspear
One-handed sword X E. m. SA.ZA. m. S.R. m. DS.
One-handed with shield E. m. S XA.ZE. m. S.R. m. DS.
Hand and a half sword A. A.XZA.R. m. D.S.
Two handed Z ZZXZZS.
Ax with shield A. m. S E. m. SA.ZXR. m. D.S.
Rapier with dagger R. m. D. R. m. D.R. m. D.ZR. m. D.XS.
spear S. S.S.S.S.S.X

The krucks with the spear

The spear is superior to all other weapons, due to its range it can threaten from a great distance and can be wielded both with one hand and with two hands. Alternating stitches in the head and legs are possible in a flash, as well as cuts.

The disadvantage arises in close combat, as soon as the opponent is linked to have the spear halfway up (so that the blade protrudes behind him) the spearman is dead. Accordingly, every opponent pursues the goal of tying the barrier, dodging it or pushing it to the side to then attack the now defenseless pawl fighter. However, this is very risky, as it requires jumping into the spear and the spearman of course also assumes that this is exactly what will happen.

The spear has bad cards against plate armor, the armor makes it possible to “risk” a hit. Only armpits, lower legs, eye slits and neck can guarantee decisive hits. This allows the spear to be undermined with much less risk. Furthermore, the plate armor can be used as a shield and at the same time as a weapon (armor fencing).

Chain mail and lamellar armor protect much less well against spear stabs. The stitches can break chain rings and are not stopped by the gambeson underneath in the event of a direct hit from the front.

Two-handed versus rapier

In principle, these weapons are equally powerful: the rapier can execute stitches extremely quickly (faster than blocking is possible) and the dagger also allows two-handed swords to be tied. In addition, the rapier has the same length as the two-handed sword, which means that it has no range advantage. It should be noted, however, that the rapier is one of the most difficult weapons to wield and can be knocked aside with brute force by a two-handed sword.

The two-handed hand, on the other hand, can use levers to ensure enormous power and a brutal blow against the weakness (the first 30 - 50% of the blade, from the tip) of the rapier cannot be blocked - the weapon is simply pressed to the side. However, the rapier is so fast that it can then be swung back up again if no fatal hit has been hit.

In my opinion, the two-handed sword wins in the end, because it is extremely difficult to hit someone with a rapier. A two-handed blow is bone-crushing, a stab with it leaves a gaping wound and can easily sever an arm or render it completely useless. With the rapier, on the other hand, duels have been handed down in which the opponent was hit 30 times before he died. Only a direct stab in the head, heart or artery will end the fight. On the other hand, stitches in the arm, stomach or lungs are uncomfortable, but do not stop the opponent. Under certain circumstances, the two-handed swordsman accepts a hit and then cuts the opponent in two. So it is likely that the rapier will score the first hits, but will not go out of the fight alive.

Ax against sword

From the table it could be wrongly deduced that the ax is a bad weapon, but according to its properties it is more likely to be used against armor. A sword with a normal cut does not come through a gambeson (padded jacket) which belonged to the standard equipment in the Middle Ages. However, an ax blow simply breaks the bone underneath or can tear off the other's shield. A blow to the helmet with the sword may rumble, but the ax is almost certain to split the iron. Incidentally, axes are much cheaper to produce.

Vikings probably preferred axes for precisely this reason, swords were simply far too expensive to equip an army with (note the century and the economic possibilities of the Vikings). Likewise, axes were better suited to compete against the padded British and French, who already used gambesons (in contrast to the Vikings).

The last point to be considered here is the fighting style of the ax-using Vikings. Historically, they fought with their round shield as their primary weapon, with this they first attacked, tied the opponent's weapon or hit the opponent, then the ax was used to hit the gap created.
It is much more difficult to hit an enemy effectively with axes than with a sword. The sword can also be used more cutting techniques, which makes it superior in unarmored combat.