Viking texts suggesting spear was superior to sword in shield wall/battle

From "Vikinger i Krig" by two norwegian historians, it seems that spears were preferred over swords in warfare, while swords were more of a backup weapon and for duels between individuals. The "Konungs skuggsjá", an instructional manual for the son of a viking king says the spear is better in line battle, even that a spear is better than two swords.
(And since dual handing swords is pretty useless, I'm assuming he means a spearman is more useful than two swordmen)

This makes sense, as a phalanx-like formation with many spears extruding from the shield wall would be difficult to attack with blade that lacks reach. (Egils sagas chapter 53 also talk about Þórólfr throwing the shield on his back and using spears dual-handed in battle once the shield wall is broken up)

In pretty much ever Total War-game, swords beats spear of equal tier. I can see why this makes sense for unit variation and balance, as spears are definitely better against cavalry, but do we agree that swords were probably not automatically superior than spears in organized battle historically?

That particular revelation is more or less universal, not merely Viking. Swords are wonderful weapons for individual combat, but they need room to utilize effectively that you may not have in a line of battle, and aren't long enough for swordsmen to cover each other as effectively as spearmen (where even the back rows can participate). Spears being a lot less expensive and easier to use in a formation also certainly helped.

Swords are the superior weapon in a line of battle if the formations are disrupted either through terrain or circumstance--battles tend to devolve to bloody melees in those circumstances, where individual fighting if key. Most spearmen would carry backup weapons in case something happened to their phalanx; a spear held in one hand alongside a shield is a really, really bad setup for individual combat--either that or ditch the shield and start praying you have room enough to use the spear like a staff (which most spearmen weren't trained to do--staff work is a lot more complicated then phalanx fighting, and trickier to learn then fencing).

Most battles involving swords did not devolve into a bloody melee. Look at the Romans - they maintained a highly effective shieldwall of short, stabby death. And they did not fight as individuals, they fought as a team, which is what set the Romans apart.

I would disagree, it is far more difficult(requires more room) to properly use a spear in close formation than an axe or sword.

These kind of conclusions are derived from modern reenactments and opinions of historians who think those long ranged light taps and barely noticeable hits done by a spear automatically mean a death strike(or serious injury).
I have seen many moronic videos "proving" the superiority of a spear with the spear wielder actually claiming the most of his "wins" by lightly tapping opponents with the wooden part of the spear or lightly tapping with the side of the spearhead.


Both spear, axe and sword have their advantages and disadvantages, one that is most overlooked it the fact that when engaging in a spear wall the spear has basically no ability to cut or hack opponents(who also mostly have shields, which reduces the effectiveness thrusts in a formation).
The sword or axe, regardless of the shorter reach can reach above and below the shield(and actually damaging the shield) with short and fast hacking/cutting movements, not to mention that the usage of shields pretty much completely negates the reach advantage of the spear along with the high risk of loosing the spearhead and ending up with a stick.


I believe the only reason the spear superiority argument is flying around the internet is because of the shallowness of that good feeling people online get when they think they just debunked a longlived myth by posting something on youtube or a forum.

There is a good reason the armies of the ancient and medieval world were so impressed by the effectiveness of short and long blades(both on swords and on polearms) in close formations.

Vikings certainly fought as a team in the shield wall. That was the whole point of it. They also used a variety of weapons with different functions within the shield wall, which made it superior to the very basic hoplite phalanx for example. Like pulling down shields with hand axes in the front rank so that the spearman behind could get a clear stab.

From the burial mounds we have found, the well equipped Viking Warrior would have three spears, two for throwing and one for fighting, he would have a sword or hand axe as a side arm, a seax for close combat and a round shield. If he was particularly well armed such as part of the Hird, he would have a chainmail and helmet as well.

As in most cultures the sword was held in high regard among the Nordics. However there is no weapon cult like in later medieval era. King Olaf Tryggvason was known for throwing two spears at once, St Olav preferred an axe, , Magnus the Good had an axe, Jarl Einar Tambarkjeva was an archer ect. ect. Even Odin king of the gods wielded a spear.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.spartacus.no/Assets/Press...ftenposten.jpg

The romans however somehow managed to utilize their gladius to devastating effect, and overcome the advantage of spears. I think a Roman cohort was actually was far more offensive minded than a shield wall. They would have to be.

But I've read "Vikinger i Krig" Great book. Awesome illustrations.

30
The Romans threw their spears away.

Their tactics and doctrines seemed focussed on disrupting the enemy before and during contact. Their fairly well armoured infantry seemed designed more for attrition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magister Militum Flavius Aetius

Most battles involving swords did not devolve into a bloody melee. Look at the Romans - they maintained a highly effective shieldwall of short, stabby death. And they did not fight as individuals, they fought as a team, which is what set the Romans apart.

---

I was specifically referring to a situation where formations break down or are impractical to begin with (say a dense forest or city street).

The Romans spent most of their time fighting in loose shield walls as part of larger units, we've no argument there. There were however occasions when they specifically attempted to achieve a situation where both sides' formations were out the window, like when fighting phalangites that simply don't work in individual combat.
A bloody melee is never fun, but assuming you're better equipped for it then the other side, forcing it could still be advantageous.

Probably also worth noting though, is that Rome's legions were known to use their pilla as spears when fighting off enemy horsemen even during the gladius' heyday. This is one aspect where the spear is clearly superior to the sword, in formation or otherwise.

One thing I'd like to bring into picture that might help. It's the quality of the swords. AFAIK most viking swords were made of poor quality steel, so they could be brittle or bend, and wouldn't hold edge well. Such swords might work in a duel, but in long battle they wouldn't last.

Also, note one thing. When in shield wall or similar formation, sword movements are almost as restricted as spear, but sword lacks the spear's reach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sar1n

One thing I'd like to bring into picture that might help. It's the quality of the swords. AFAIK most viking swords were made of poor quality steel, so they could be brittle or bend, and wouldn't hold edge well. Such swords might work in a duel, but in long battle they wouldn't last.

---

The speartips were made of even lower quality iron and the probability of having a spear shaft broken in an engagement is also a factor to be considered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sar1n

Also, note one thing. When in shield wall or similar formation, sword movements are almost as restricted as spear

---

That is entirely and absolutely not true.

Vikings had good quality swords, and top notch Frankish swords were very popular for those who could afford them. They still considered spears to be just as honorable and royal a weapon as swords, and preferred them for battle.

To anyone that argues that Romans "proves" that swords generally beats spears: The Romans used spears a lot during the republic in the form of the Triarii, and even more in the high and late roman empire when the majority of the soldiers were equipped with thrusting spears, according to this book http://www.amazon.com/Roman-Infantry.../dp/0752414100

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marius Marich

I believe the only reason the spear superiority argument is flying around the internet is because of the shallowness of that good feeling people online get when they think they just debunked a longlived myth by posting something on youtube or a forum.

---

No need to insult, this isn't the Battlefield Forum. I just read something interesting in the book I cited, and thought I'd share it here because others might find it interesting as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marius Marich

I believe the only reason the spear superiority argument is flying around the internet is because of the shallowness of that good feeling people online get when they think they just debunked a longlived myth by posting something on youtube or a forum.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaleBlueDot

No need to insult, this isn't the Battlefield Forum. I just read something interesting in the book I cited, and thought I'd share it here because others might find it interesting as well.

---

That comment was not meant for you, it was just a general overview of the recent flood of "spears rulzzz" threads and videos.
Unlike the vast majority of others who have done this, you actually gave us a decent argument/question and a nice start to a conversation.
I am far away from being inclined to insult you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marius Marich

I would disagree, it is far more difficult(requires more room) to properly use a spear in close formation than an axe or sword.

These kind of conclusions are derived from modern reenactments and opinions of historians who think those long ranged light taps and barely noticeable hits done by a spear automatically mean a death strike(or serious injury).
I have seen many moronic videos "proving" the superiority of a spear with the spear wielder actually claiming the most of his "wins" by lightly tapping opponents with the wooden part of the spear or lightly tapping with the side of the spearhead.

Both spear, axe and sword have their advantages and disadvantages, one that is most overlooked it the fact that when engaging in a spear wall the spear has basically no ability to cut or hack opponents(who also mostly have shields, which reduces the effectiveness thrusts in a formation).
The sword or axe, regardless of the shorter reach can reach above and below the shield(and actually damaging the shield) with short and fast hacking/cutting movements, not to mention that the usage of shields pretty much completely negates the reach advantage of the spear along with the high risk of loosing the spearhead and ending up with a stick.

I believe the only reason the spear superiority argument is flying around the internet is because of the shallowness of that good feeling people online get when they think they just debunked a longlived myth by posting something on youtube or a forum.

There is a good reason the armies of the ancient and medieval world were so impressed by the effectiveness of short and long blades(both on swords and on polearms) in close formations.

---

You're neglecting the biggest advantage of spears in formation though. The ability of spearmen to cover each other in a way that swordsmen simply can't. Closing in on a shield wall to a range where you could use an axe or sword requires you not only to get past the spear thrusts of the man in front of you, but also the comrades to his left, right and the second rank behind him--this is a battle after all, not a duel.
Having only one hand on the spear (the other one having a shield) doesn't actually weaken the thrust all that much; it only slows recovery after a missed or blocked blow, which is why fellow spearmen covering you was so important and why the setup doesn't work very well in individual combat.

Though the real reasons spears dominate throughout history appear to be more economical and social then martial. Spears are much cheaper then swords, and learning how to use them in formation (though not individually) is easier then training up swordsmen.
As the majority of armies throughout history were comprised primarily of militias, levies and other low quality troops of limited financial means and training, its really a no brainer to stick then with spears. However, the presence of elite units who used spears rather then swords also suggests that there are good reasons for using spears even when you do have access to professionals armed with swords; especially if holding off lancers is a priority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caligula's_Horse

You're neglecting the biggest advantage of spears in formation though. The ability of spearmen to cover each other in a way that swordsmen simply can't. Closing in on a shield wall to a range where you could use an axe or sword requires you not only to get past the spear thrusts of the man in front of you, but also the comrades to his left, right and the second rank behind him--this is a battle after all, not a duel.

---

That range advantage is what?
Half a meter?
So you are basically claiming that during that single step it takes for a line of swordsmen or axemen to get into a closer position in which they have the upper hand the spearmen will cause enough damage to negate that superiority?

A spear if far more unwieldy in one hand, especially in close and tight formations than a sword or axe and the effectiveness of its primary and only use, the thrust, can to often be reduced to a point where the spear becomes the inferior weapon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caligula's_Horse

Having only one hand on the spear (the other one having a shield) doesn't actually weaken the thrust all that much

---

Yes, yes it does.

Go to your kitchen and get a mop or any long stick thing you have in your house and try to wield it properly with one hand while pretending you have a sturdy shield in the other.
Have fun not taking up the required space of the imaginary comrade left, right and behind you while you try to properly hurt the imaginary foe in front.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magister Militum Flavius Aetius

Most battles involving swords did not devolve into a bloody melee. Look at the Romans - they maintained a highly effective shieldwall of short, stabby death. And they did not fight as individuals, they fought as a team, which is what set the Romans apart.

---

But Romans also prefered spear later on.:(

325
It's a two way street, it depends on what the other side has and how they use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellheaven1987

But Romans also prefered spear later on.:(

---

When? I don't know of anytime when the Roman legions preferred the spear to the sword, simply the sword grew until it became the spatha we know.
Their plumbata replaced the pila and I think, but not certain, was less effective as a spear, but a longer spatha made up for this.

And that half metre of reach means a lot when there's 2 or 3 of them all threatening you. It's easy to block one spear, but close to impossible to block three.
We do however, know next to nothing about spear fighting in a shieldwall, there's constant debate of overhand vs underhand, which is something the thread hasn't yet addressed.

Vikings themselves were very good at their shieldwall, but I wouldn't consider it to be the same as a Greek Phalanx, instead I imagine the Norse stood fairly close together, but could break formation to slaughter disorganized men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marius Marich

That range advantage is what?
Half a meter?
So you are basically claiming that during that single step it takes for a line of swordsmen or axemen to get into a closer position in which they have the upper hand the spearmen will cause enough damage to negate that superiority?

A spear if far more unwieldy in one hand, especially in close and tight formations than a sword or axe and the effectiveness of its primary and only use, the thrust, can to often be reduced to a point where the spear becomes the inferior weapon.

Yes, yes it does.

Go to your kitchen and get a mop or any long stick thing you have in your house and try to wield it properly with one hand while pretending you have a sturdy shield in the other.
Have fun not taking up the required space of the imaginary comrade left, right and behind you while you try to properly hurt the imaginary foe in front.

---

Half a meter advantage? I don't know what spear you're talking about, but the ones I'm used to seeing in historical sources are around 2-2.5 meters long, which is a big deal compared to a sword that's at best a meter long. They also don't take much room to use if all you're doing is thrusting rather then pretending you have a poleaxe.
Advancing on a lone spearman and getting around his one thrust is easy enough. Getting past around six of them (center, left and right, and the same one rank back, assuming the men two ranks back can't contribute, which they might) is a lot more difficult. And seeing as their weapon is longer, they will get to attack you first.
Its not exactly impossible to crack through, especially if the non-spearmen have good armor and are trained to work together (mostly to attack a small area at the same time and/or right after a volley of javelins), but its still a big advantage for the spears.

As for one handed thrusting techniques, raw power isn't that much lower compared to a one handed thrust (at least if my close combat training with assault rifles is to be believed--the thrusting bits employ technique that's very similar to a spear). What really suffers is precision and recovery, the bits the arms are in charge of, not strength, which is more the domain of the legs and torso.
Still though, a spear is heavier then a sword, so even one handed, will thrust with more force, albeit slower and less accurate. That's still good enough to inflict very real injury mind you, and even if it hits a shield or good armor, possibly interrupt an opponent's forward momentum and giving the spearman's comrades an extra quarter second to skewer the fellow.

Of course all these aforementioned advantages to formation fighting don't mean squat if you find yourself outside formation for whatever reason, which is why better spearmen usually carried some sort of backup. Of course, most spearmen didn't fall into the 'better' variety; as I said before, primary factors for the spear's dominance are still economic and social limitations on pre-modern armies.

Also half a meter reach advantage is long, lol.

In my opinion, spears are very valuable due to the reach they offer and a solid stab has nasty force behind it, one handed or not. I think shorter weapons were first rank sometimes and used to hook down shields or for the closer infighting which develop. Spears behind can stab over first rank.

I imagine the king's advice is of a general nature, and doesn't exclude sword or axe use, just suggests where your emphasis should be?

Spears allow multiple ranks to strike and have greater reach, and I think require less training to be effective in a resource poor environment. For a Dark ages society having a solid body of obedient lower class warriors with a basic steady tool in the line of battle instead of glory hounds or clumsy wannabes waving their swords about may have been a factor?

I recall reading about a group of Viking Age re-enactors in the UK. One group (Wessex IIC) adopted spears, the rest used cooler looking swords and axes, and they threw Wessex out for winning all the time. So as far as I'm concerned that settles it;).

Reenactors are no fighters though. No offense meant, but most are in a laughable physical condition. Not that I dont agree with you on the effectiveness on spears.