Old School weaponry

Well, besides reach, there's also the speed of a weapon. And a knife is much, much faster than a spear, so while the spear has a greater reach, a knife has greater speed. Depending on the way you fight, one or the other might be better.

But besides that, your anthropologic approach has one major flaw: it doesn't take into account that most techniques don't have to be reinvented. It's not like mankind has to learn that you can attach stones to sticks, they have guns for Christ's sake. So which comes first is rather moot, since they can all be constructed. It's more about available resources and ease-of-use (and perhaps construction) than anything else.
And in that sense, bladed weapons might not be so uncommon, since smiths would be around to smithe tools. And there are plenty of metals around to re-use.
Although the axe and the knife would certainly be more common, if purely for the fact that they can be a very useful tool as well.
 
Sander said:
And a knife is much, much faster than a spear, so while the spear has a greater reach, a knife has greater speed. Depending on the way you fight, one or the other might be better.
Click to expand...

that's really not entirely correct, I've recently started training with weapons from the age 850-1066, allthough I'm not allowed to use anything other than a wooden stick yet( :lol: ), I can tell with ease that a spear is far superior to a knife, or sax(a bit longer than a regular knife), wich is the fighting knife type from that time. And the spear is not as slow as you think, pick up a stick that is two metres long and roughly 3-4 centimetres thick on it's thickest, feel the weigyht of it. It's not that heavy.
It's also very much harder to brake the pole than you'de think.
But by all means, a spear alone is not a dream-situation, especially if you're fighting more than one guy.
 
I'm getting the feeling that GhostWhoTalks has never used a real spear in combat.

The idea of favouring a short sword (a misnomer actually, short swords tend to have a blade length of 70 cm) over a dagger or knife as backup is absurd. If you have to switch to a secondary, that means the enemy is in direct stabbing range. You want a very short blade for that, not a long one.

The short sword is the better standalone (again, because of the range), yes, but that only matters if you have lost your spear and need to continue fighting.

A trained poleman can retract the spear fast enough to avoid getting trapped with shorter weapons (or bare hands) and keep the enemy at a distance, so even a fast knife doesn't do much good against him.
Generally, it takes less training to fight with a pole than to fight against it.

The situation in which a poleman would have to draw his knife is one in which the enemy has come past the point of his spear (and thus stands close enough he could even kiss the poleman), at which point the spear could only be used in defense. The knife could easily be worn in a place that allows for quick drawing, in the case of very flat ones it could even be held in one of the hands on the pole while fighting.

Using a battle axe or war hammer against a pole is asking for a painful death, since neither is good for parrying or trapping the spear (a dane axe OTOH could be used akin to a spear, but that is a wholely different issue) and getting past the point of the pole would mean you could only build up so much momentum to utilise the crushing (or cracking) force of the weapon.

Large knives like the medieval scram would be doubly useful since they are rather small, relatively simple to craft (a crude knife could be easily crafted from scrap metal) and versatile as tools and weapons.

Considering that someone skilled enough to craft a balanced sword would be more likely to create a gun (if powder is not an issue), I think that spears and knives would be the weapons of choice for low-tech groups, the spears being replaced by guns among the more technically advanced communities (even then a knife would come in handy as an all-round tool and a backup weapon in case you want to preserve ammo at close range or can't use your gun -- since badly crafted or less maintained guns would be likely to jam once in a while).

There is a reason nearly every culture in history used one form of knives or another as sidearm for their military, whether it is the dagger of the medieval footman or the bayonet of the modern soldier. Not to mention that no survival kit should come without a decent blade.
Obviously in some cases a hatchet might be preferable, but that's a matter of taste and the individual situation.
 
Never used a spear. True.

But I have used a Bo staff and a Jo staff. So I am aware of just how much difference a little bit of reach would make.

When I say a short sword I am talking about something under 30 inches. If I want to talk about a Gladius which is a stand alone weapon, then I will say so.


And my point still stands if you need to get out your backup weapon you are probably screwed. So the knife will not see a lot of combat use.



Sander: Point taken that man will not have to "reinvent the wheel," but in terms of complexity the axe and spear are the least difficult to construct. And maintaining your spear or axe is also less difficult than maintaining a sword. A knife would also probably be too useful as a tool to risk chipping it (and with good steel being hard to find it would be doubling damning to risk damaging it).
 
I have to say this is wonderful discussion but it's all by-and-large moot in terms of Fallout combat... Since it's turn-based the reach of a spear is not as important as it could be (although it's still important) since if he can you opponent will close on his turn. And of course switching to your back up weapon is a free action :) Anyways machetes are sold in hardware stores. Hardware stores would have been looted, so along with the axes and sledgehammers and other obvious weapons, they'd go too. Light, easy to conceal, and will *really* fuck someone up if you hit them with it.
 
GhostWhoTalks said:
Never used a spear. True.

But I have used a Bo staff and a Jo staff. So I am aware of just how much difference a little bit of reach would make.

When I say a short sword I am talking about something under 30 inches. If I want to talk about a Gladius which is a stand alone weapon, then I will say so.

And my point still stands if you need to get out your backup weapon you are probably screwed. So the knife will not see a lot of combat use.
Click to expand...

The blade of a European arming sword (or simply "short sword" to denote the difference between that one and the latter hand-and-a-half swords or Renaissance double-handed swords) is about 75 cm long, that is pretty much 20 inches.

A sword like that is simply too cumbersome to use as quick side arm for close range fighting with a spear or quarterstaff. Your argument "you're fucked if you need a secondary" holds true the moment your backup consists of a bloody short sword and the enemy is at your throat.

A dagger or knife carried as back-up is not guaranteed to save your ass, but is a lot more helpful than a sword, battle-axe or war hammer if the point of your spear is overrun (with a point-less (heh) weapon like a qaurterstuff) obviously that's not something you'd worry about, but if you need something sharp and pointy, wood is out of the discussion).

If your pessimistic philosophy of the Doomed Poleman would hold true, Europeans would have done it wrong for centuries AND succeeded.

Of course this discussion of real-life combat becomes irrelevant in terms of game dynamics, but the point is whether knives would be used as weapons or not -- and quite obviously they won't become any less lethal just because you can suddenly wear your weapons visible in most parts of the rest of the world.

By the way -- if you have a knife and your life's in danger, your knife chipping would be the last thing you'd worry about.
 
not to mention that if you knew how to use a spear you wouldnt ever fight to the point where the full spear was completely to one side or the other. ideally they would have to cross into you so you would be able to use the spear as a qstaff to like bash their nose with it or use the butt end as a weapon only.

spears are great weapons not only because of the reach of the point, but because you can use qstaff training with one too.

but for swords... i do gotta say this.

modern damascus > japanese fold-forging.

of course the problem is most damascus done today isnt modern damascus but really faked original damascus. modern damascus is similar to titanium for almost every test other than heat durability where damascus breaks down at 900 degrees ferenheit.
 
I don't know whether I should even comment on a post by a guy who can't spell "Fahrenheit" and seems too lazy to click the SpellCheck button despite not giving a rat's ass about correct spelling to begin with.

Anyway. Yes, spears are staves with pointy bits on one end, but the fact you can use spears both ways doesn't exactly add anything to the debate about the redundancy or non-redundancy of knives as back-up weapons for spearmen -- aside from the problem that staff fighting requires a lot more room (and different training, obviously) than using the same weapon as a spear.

Manually crafted damascus IS fold-forged. It is superior in terms of elasticity and durability, but I don't see how the quality of damascus blades has anything to do with the usefulness of swords in a post-nuclear wasteland.

Nowadays we can craft better swords and sharper edges than in the middle ages, but damascus takes ages to craft and requires quite advanced knowledge of blacksmithing.

In other words: if you intend to derail this thread with an entirely unrelated discussion about the differences in quality between modern blades and medieval Japanese swords, at least have the decency to use a spell-checker and use your shift key once in a while.
 
Ashmo said:
debate about the redundancy or non-redundancy of knives as back-up weapons for spearmen
Click to expand...

Oh, so this is what this debate about. In that case I'd like to put my 0.2 € in and say that if I were a spearman I would like to have a knife as a backup. I wouldn't mind having a sword either. Spears brake, they are dropped or thrown at enemy, they can prove unvieldy in tight quarters (no, I don't expect spearmen to be engaged in CQB, but it gets pretty tight in a skirmish) and sometimes it's just more convenient to slash someones throat than to skewer them.
 
DirtyDreamDesigner said:
Ashmo said:
debate about the redundancy or non-redundancy of knives as back-up weapons for spearmen
Click to expand...

Oh, so this is what this debate about. In that case I'd like to put my 0.2 € in and say that if I were a spearman I would like to have a knife as a backup. I wouldn't mind having a sword either. Spears brake, they are dropped or thrown at enemy, they can prove unvieldy in tight quarters (no, I don't expect spearmen to be engaged in CQB, but it gets pretty tight in a skirmish) and sometimes it's just more convenient to slash someones throat than to skewer them.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, in case of "spear gone", I would vote for the sword too (a knife or dagger would still come in handy as a secondary tho), but for fluent transitions in scenarios in which the spear is still in your hands, I'd rather have the shorter blade of the knife or dagger to back me up.
 
DirtyDreamDesigner said:
Maybe brass knuckles or a punch dagger would prove even more effective. Saves drawing time.
Click to expand...

The idea is that you have the dagger drawn already or in a place which allows ultra-fast drawing in the middle of combat.

A punch dagger, while handy, might be a few centimeters too short (because a punch dagger can only be so long without becoming unwieldy), so I'd rather go for a flat dagger held in the backhand.
 
Uuuh, uuuh, uuuhh, or... like... a spear... that like... there's a hidden katana inside!!!!111!!! And than you like pull it out and you're all like: "taste my katana steel, bitch!"!!!111!!!LOL!11 :mrgreen:

OT: Yeah, I kinda agree, but it seemed to me that it would be easier to handle the spear with a punch dagger rather than a dagger in the off hand, the dagger might get dropped when the spear is dropped.
 
DirtyDreamDesigner said:
Uuuh, uuuh, uuuhh, or... like... a spear... that like... there's a hidden katana inside!!!!111!!! And than you like pull it out and you're all like: "taste my katana steel, bitch!"!!!111!!!LOL!11 :mrgreen:

OT: Yeah, I kinda agree, but it seemed to me that it would be easier to handle the spear with a punch dagger rather than a dagger in the off hand, the dagger might get dropped when the spear is dropped.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to argue on the whole "I GOT SWORD AS SECONDARY LOLZ!" point again, so I'll just ignore that part.

If you drop the spear, you're fucked anyway because your primary weapon is gone. Unless you have a backup primary and the enemy is at a distance.

The trick is to keep the spear when switching to the knife. Obviously that's difficult if you want to keep the knife ready in one hand while using both hands to go "Battle Monk" with your polearm.

Either way I think we've pretty much settled on agreeing that knives would be a common tool and weapon in the post nuclear wasteland just as they would be anywhere else.

So could we please return to the original discussion and cut the bullshit?
 
Historically spears were not as effective in single combat or bedlam as other melee weapons. The spear was MUCH more effective when used in formations where you could form a hedge against oncoming attackers. And this is how it was used historically. Pikemen hedges were all the rage till crossbows and firearms made cavalry occupy more of a tertiary role than a primary one.

My point is that once a charge broke through your line as a spear wielder you were screwed. You can look this up if you like. But if your line broke, then the cavalry charge was going to slaughter your group. Which should tell you right away that switching weapons as a spear wielder is pretty much a dumb idea right away.

Yes, the short sword is less of a weapon to switch to in combat and more of one you use in and of itself. AND THAT is the whole bloody point. You use a short sword or light axe when your spear is impractical to use. So when you are in a forested region where forming up becomes impossible and the distance between trees prohibits wielding the spear you use your short sword as a backup.


Hence, I said before as I do now, that the knife will take up a utilitarian role in primitive societies. In a society where working steel into a blade cannot be considered common you probably will not risk breaking a useful tool when it is NOT a superior to weapon to what you could be using.

I am not saying that the knife will be a non-existant weapon on a battlefield, but rather that its use really only persists for those who would wish to engage in close-quarters fighting (less than 2 feet) where grappling becomes common. With semi-automatics in place the knife exists exactly when grappling becomes an issue as grappling inhibits the ability to aim one's weapon.
 
How many formations are you going to see in the world of Fallout? In the post apocalyptic world what's the likelyhood of even one group of people getting together and training in formation spear fighting?

A spear is going to be primarily used for hunting, if it is used in combat it's far more likely to be used as a thrown weapon, especially from concealment. Stop thinking ancient or medieval Europe and start thinking more along the lines of less formal warfare.

As for using knives as backup weapons, if that's all you've got you'd use it, no point in protecting your tools from damage if you're not going to be around to use them and if the society has trouble forging metal then swords are going to be even more valuable than knives. Though it's more likely people will make knives than swords, since you can get a couple of knives for one sword.
 
True enough. If we see swords at all that are made post-war, they would be little more than a big knife. Think about it if you will, an "Arkansas Toothpick" (A knife with a 12" blade) becomes a short sword with but a few more inches. Nobody would be forging broadswords or such, unless they really knew how to use them and had lots of metal to burn, because there is a point at which it becomes a dedicated weapon and much less useful as a tool, and therefor not weight-efficient to carry or material-efficient to produce. A 14" knife/sword might be seen, possibly as long as 18", but nobody would want something that they couldn't clean an animal with, shape some wood, trim their fingernails, shave their beard, and do dozens of other tasks with. Besides, if you had enough metal to smith a big ol' sword, and the skill to make it worth two shits, you'd probably just forge a musket instead. Musket (especially rifle-musket) + bayonet > sword of any kind. (as a general rule)
 
An arming sword alone is inferior to a spear. Period.
If you want to counter a spear you're better off using two weapons -- a sword and a dagger, or a sword and a shielf of sorts -- or a longer one than an ordinary arming sword (a great sword would be too clumsy in that case, tho, IMO).

If you're going to the woods (or in Fallout: ruined buildings), you'll most likely want to use a short weapon, so the arming sword prevails indeed.

Still. If you ARE going to carry a spear -- alone or in groups -- you'll want to carry a dagger or knife. A sword would be a close-quarters alternative mostly, a handaxe with a long handle would probably make the better backup primary (in combination with the knife or dagger, not Conan-style).
In the end, it is also about personal preference.

In gunfights any melee weapon is out of question and you'd probably rather use homemade grenades and lowtech throwing weapons or arrows if you need to dispose of someone at a range and can't afford to sneak up to them.

For throwing, you'd always be better off with a javelin than a spear (tho the term "spear" is quite ambiguous, I was thinking more of a lance than a javelin for melee combat, sorry if that irritated anyone). Both easily give away your position, tho, so from concealment you'd be better off with smaller weapons, like throwing axes.
Vikings and Celts often carried a few throwing axes in addition to their melee equipment -- throwing knives would probably be even easier to carry.

For hunting, the spear has always been a good choice when ranged weapons were scarce, although lowtech hunting would usually heavily rely on teamwork. Trapping would be a good alternative for solo hunters.

For wildnerness survival a knife and/or hatchet (preferably both) would be a definite must -- they're decent tools for most purposes, including hand-to-hand self defence.

On the issue of training spear fighting I have to add, tho, that most medieval spearmen were untrained peasants who were taught the basics of polefighting in the last minute.
While I don't think we could expect to see a Phalanx in any post-nuclear world, it's not unlikely that a group armed with spears would also train to work as a unit, watching each other's back.
The notion of actual linework is rather absurd under these circumstances, tho.
 
I think we have reached enough of a concensus to move on to more important things. We seem to understand each other's points now, and so while we disagree on how important those points are it is enough for me to wish to move on since it is now moving into the realm of opinion since no one here has any post apocalyptic societies to use as a case study.



After having reviewed the difficulties in producing smokeless powder (which is what is used on all modern weapons) it is a virtual certainty that modern or "futuristic" bullets would become scarce after a hundred years of use.


Black powder consisting of black charcoal, sulphur, and potassium nitrate would be the most basic of propellants, though I believe that all intelligent societies which could not afford or did not possess the technical expertise to use more complicated powders would at least use coco powder.

Coco powder is basically the same as black powder except it uses brown charcoal instead of black charcoal. Coco powder is more powerful than black powder, and as such you should use it over black powder since you are going to be using the same materials.

Brown charcoal is obtained by charring (not burning) wood at a temperature between 500 and 700 degrees (600 is good). Sulphur would have to be mined or collected in some way, but that isn't a huge issue since it is typically used in low amounts. Potassium nitrate can be harvested from the manure of livestock.

A more useful form of powder which saw temporary military use used nearly equal parts ammonium picrate and potassium nitrate (slightly more potassium nitrate). The powder produced from the blend is stable, nonhygroscopic (does not absorb water), more powerful than black powder, and produces less smoke. It is possible to create ammonia fairly easily assuming commercial cleansers could not be procured. Picric acid can be created assuming there is a source of sulphuric acid to be procured (old batteries which you boil the battery acid would be a good source) and aspirin. Quite simply ammonia + picric acid=ammonium picrate.

Ammonpulver is another potentially useful powder propellant though it is much more sensitive to water and temperature than the other propellants. Ammonpulver is nearly as powerful as modern smokeless powders and is almost smokeless (as opposed to the other powders which do produce smoke). Ammonpulver is produced through blending ammonium nitrate and charcoal. Ammonium nitrate can be created from a blend of ammonia and nitric acid Nitric acid production is a little complex (HNO3) and as such this would probably be the pinnacle of fallout propellants. Assuming one could obtain nitric acid acquiring the Ammonium nitrate is easy (ammonia + nitric acid = ammonium nitrate).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top