Quote from: SpikeGood quality spears had hardwood shafts, and were reinforced with iron strips that made them hard to cut through. A powerful swing that was capable of cutting through them would be telegraphed, and a thrust is much faster than a swing;)

As for throwing the knife, that is not accepted as a valid lethal tactic by any source other than action movies. It is difficult to do, and of limited range and value, especially in the face of a gun. If you are close enough to throw a knife to lethal effect, you are better off closing in and stabbing the guy in the junk. :eek:

To the knife thing, I'd say "I knew a guy who could do that," but I knew alot of guys who could do alot of lethal (or at least incapacitating) things with less-than lethal objects. Hooray for my years in that correctional facility out in MD.

But on that note, my point was not that a knife beats a gun, nor that a thrown knife wound could be lethal. My point was that throwing knives could put a healthy distance between you and the sword-wielder, and maybe lower that pesky guard of his. Because people tend to get distracted by a knife to the face. Even a miss.

In terms of the spear thing, I guess. But what happens when the spear ain't broken? It would take a stupid mook to get full on disarmed, but would it not be affected at all? That just don't seem right.

WRT Spears: Note the fighting staff video I posted in the Touch Attack thread.  There you have a defender who uses the range advantage his staff gives him to mount a defense while seated in a chair.  Listen to the crack of the staffs, those are hard blows he's deflecting.

I'm no martial artist (boxing is definitely a sport), but I can see how a defense like the one above might be performed by a spearman.

EDIT:
If you need to get something in an opponent's eyes, you could do better than throwing your weapon at him.  Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines all have long knife-fighting traditions and all stress the importance of keeping your blade in hand.  (Note the retention holes in the handles of some of their more esoteric knives.)

Well, if you don't have the infinite supply of knives (TM), couldn't you just utilize chains or cords? I mean, when I... if I only have one knife, I'm not gonna ditch it. But if I happen to be killin' in my kitchen... Of course, those are hardly throwing knives.





EDIT: I may be confusing knives with what shuriken are for, though... last I checked, those are the barely-damaging mostly-inconvenient thrown sharp object of choice. My experience is hardly martial arts relevant, though. Unless there's a school of martial arts concerning improvised stabby things made out of plastic silverware... (just kidding, btw)

Quote from: StuartThis is great input.
Would spearmen fight with their spear as a staff once the enemy is in closer range, or would they go for their backup weapon?  Any historical information on that?

In Chinese martial arts, the spear is held tightly in the rear hand, and the lead hand is used as a guide.  This means that the range on the spear changes very quickly.  Yeah, the spearman will be looking to keep an attacker in his sweet spot, but he'll be stabbing the guy the whole time.  The spear point doesn't hang out there waiting to be swatted away, either.

Range matters a lot in a real fight.  Range combined with sharp edges matters even more.  There's an old Chinese saw about the staff being the father of all weapons, and the spear being the king.  The sooner you can get to a guy with something sharp, the better it is for you.

Quote from: TonyLBI've been trying to get at the right parts of the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting database to run the numbers myself, but have (so far) failed ... but anyway, here's a study I heard:  When you look at all fatalities where one person has a knife and one person has a gun, and you sort that by the distance at which the confrontation began, obviously the knife-guy dies more often when the confrontation starts further away.  A knife-guy trying to close 50 feet on a hand-gun is gonna die.  A gun-guy trying to fight off a knife attacker at a range of one foot is going to die.  But what I found really interesting was that (again, back when I heard the study) the break-even point, where the knife guy had equal odds with the gun, was twenty one feet.

That's a long way to close, but apparently it's doable as often as not.  Makes ya think, huh?

The 21-foot thing assumes that the knife-wielder is taking the initiative and that the gun is holstered.  In the training video that popularized the 21-foot reactionary gap ("Surviving Edged Weapons"), some poor cop bastard gets to react to Dan Inosanto (Filipino martial arts stud, Bruce Lee training partner, etc.) coming across the room at him.  Didn't work out so well.

Even at close range, guns have a hell of a lot more stopping power than knives.  If you can keep yourself together enough to start shooting after you've been cut, you can still disappoint the knife-wielder pretty badly.  If you don't know the knife is coming, or if you don't have the mental conditioning to fight through getting cut, you're pretty much hosed.  But if you freeze in any kind of fight, you're pretty much hosed.

Quote from: Divine HammerThe 21-foot thing assumes that the knife-wielder is taking the initiative and that the gun is holstered.

Does it?  I thought it was a broad selection from the crime statistics.

Mind you, I could totally see an argument saying that there's a statistical correlation between people who are even willing to get into a knife-vs-gun conflict at 21 feet, and people who are aggressive and proactive, so maybe that's skewing the results from what they would be with a control group.

Somewhere I remember reading a saying by a Mafia-type tough guy, "Charge a gun, run from a knife."

Generally I think the common wisdom as validated by centuries of pre-gunpowder combat and warfare: on foot, the spear is the superior formation weapon, while the sword is the better weapon for individual combat. Significant variations from those norms are due to developments in discipline, armor, and the impact of archery and cavalry. The most famous outlier is the defeat of the Hellenistic phalanxes by sword-and-shield armed Roman legions, but it's worth remembering that the Romans would throw their pila (heavy darts/javelins) before charging, and that the phalanx had become an exaggerated version of its earlier incarnations, as well as being removed from its "intended" role as part of a combined arms force with powerful, well-disciplined cavalry. By the later Roman empire (3rd-5th centuries) I believe the legions were back to using spears.

Quote from: TonyLBDoes it?  I thought it was a broad selection from the crime statistics.

Mind you, I could totally see an argument saying that there's a statistical correlation between people who are even willing to get into a knife-vs-gun conflict at 21 feet, and people who are aggressive and proactive, so maybe that's skewing the results from what they would be with a control group.

No, it didn't come from crime statistics at all.  The FBI crime stats don't break violent crimes down into tactical data.  The 21-foot thing came from specific research into the particular situation of police officers discovering that they were being attacked by a knife-wielding suspect.  At 21 feet, you should be able to clear leather, but you'll probably be dealing contact wounds with your gun (but don't jam your muzzle up against the target--it can keep the next round from feeding smoothly.  You should be okay with a revolver, though).

This assumes an attacker completely committed to the attack.  What can make matters worse is that the police officer is reactive.  Until you know that a weapon is involved, you aren't even thinking of going for your gun.  If you can't see the suspect's hands, you are at risk.  

This sort of thing, by the way, is why it's a good idea to do what a cop says if it has to do with your hands.  "Get your hands out of your pockets," is cop-speak for, "I'd prefer not to shoot you."  In simulations, I've popped guys armed with wallets or their bare hands, and I would have been found justified in either case.  I almost shot one idiot in real life who was reaching for the 40-ouncer he'd stolen from a corner market.  Apparently, "Put your hands up where I can see them," was too complicated for him.

Anyway, having to react is much worse than taking the initiative.

Range, fighting space and footwork are super important for the original question.
If we include terrain contexts, then the effectiveness of certain weapons can be minimized.

Fighting is messy, dirty and chaotic. Hitting first, hitting hard throws most opponents off. Many times, this would be enough. However, a dueling style would take advantage of such a straightforward approach (parry, then riposte). Hence, a game system that allows for characters to choose styles, and allows for the challenge to try to anticipate what the opponent would do would be a rich and enjoyable combat system if that is what folks are after.

http://www.thearma.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23667#.WAgVFOArK70
http://hemaforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4215&sid=6e4795604d794f773378c5d7b7f38a9e&start=10

Quote from: TonyLB;46064
I've been trying to get at the right parts of the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting database to run the numbers myself, but have (so far) failed ... but anyway, here's a study I heard:  When you look at all fatalities where one person has a knife and one person has a gun, and you sort that by the distance at which the confrontation began, obviously the knife-guy dies more often when the confrontation starts further away.  A knife-guy trying to close 50 feet on a hand-gun is gonna die.  A gun-guy trying to fight off a knife attacker at a range of one foot is going to die.  But what I found really interesting was that (again, back when I heard the study) the break-even point, where the knife guy had equal odds with the gun, was twenty one feet.

Um. Almost. To be clear, the rather informal "study" says that if one person has their handgun holstered, and the one with the knife has the knife out, the one with the knife can close 21 feet and stab the one with the gun before they can (on average) decide to shoot, unholster the gun, aim, and shoot.

If the person has the gun in their hand or is aiming at the one with the knife, then that is a totally different scenario.

Police Mag does pretty good articles on this every few years: http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2014/09/revisiting-the-21-foot-rule.aspx

Quote from: TonyLB;46064Because, honestly?  Unarmored opponents, one on one?  I'd bet on the knife over the sword for the kill.  The reason is simply that if the knife person is willing to take one hit then he gets dozens of little stabbies to the mid-section, while the sword guy sits there and thinks "Ouch!  Ouch!  How the hell do I get this ... Ouch! ... guy back out to the range where I can use my sword again?"

But the reality is that even if one strike with the sword is not an outright Kendo-style kill as per comments upthread, it may nonetheless in effect end the fight. First there is the shock that sets in as the knife-wielder takes the hit, perhaps stunning him, but in any event probably delaying his contribution to the fight. Then there is the more profound effect of the injury in disadvantaging the knife-wielder. If one of his arms or hands is injured, which is probable, then his combat effectiveness will be seriously impaired because of the pain and his reduced ability to grapple. He might even drop the knife or have to switch hands. If one of his legs is injured, he is slowed down and can't close the distance as easily, especially if the swordsman is backing off. If he is struck in the face, he may be concussed, unable to direct his knife-thrusts probably, etc. Plus there is the additonal fear as the realisation sets in that his wound may become infected, that he may faint from blood-loss, etc. That first blow that he takes is going to set the tone for the whole fight. So you can't treat it like a gambit with a pawn in a game of chess. Unless you are an artificially measured fictional entity with an abstract hit points resource, of course, in which case you are a fairly poor simulation of a real fighting man, though perhaps a component in a fun game.

Quote from: Arminius;46463Generally I think the common wisdom as validated by centuries of pre-gunpowder combat and warfare: on foot, the spear is the superior formation weapon, while the sword is the better weapon for individual combat. Significant variations from those norms are due to developments in discipline, armor, and the impact of archery and cavalry. The most famous outlier is the defeat of the Hellenistic phalanxes by sword-and-shield armed Roman legions, but it's worth remembering that the Romans would throw their pila (heavy darts/javelins) before charging, and that the phalanx had become an exaggerated version of its earlier incarnations, as well as being removed from its "intended" role as part of a combined arms force with powerful, well-disciplined cavalry. By the later Roman empire (3rd-5th centuries) I believe the legions were back to using spears.

I largely agree with you, however there is one big difference between the phalanx and the roman legion.
The phalanx used very heavy and long polearms (called sarissa if I remember correctly, some 6 meters long or more) while the roman legion used waaay shorter spears.
This makes for very different combat performances.

You might find this interesting when camparing different weapons fighting against each other, Hurstwic.