Because its the worst weapon out of the category of polearms. Doubling the cost to enchant for such a weapon would only make sense if you had too much gold to spend.
You can easily throw the humble spear, that is a plus, but others are x3, others have reach. Poor spear, you need some love.
The designers did not watch Hellboy 2.
Not to mention the fact it would cost the EXACT SAME price to enchant 2 weapons while using TWF...but double weapons are so gorram expensive to enchant!
That's the crux of my objection; it makes the spear prohibitively expensive if you don't care about using it as a double weapon (in order to use it a two-handed weapon for example).
Thus it makes the weapon expensive to enchant, and you're stuck with a rather "blah" second weapon (1d6/x2/bludgeoning).
I have issue with he spear going from a supposedly widely spread weapon to an expensive and sub-optimal magic weapon. I think the "improvised weapon" route is best and most versatile as a blanket rule for all polearms because from the moment we elect the spear as a double weapon, there's no reason not to include the halberd and other non-reach shafted weapons as well, including battleaxes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have issue with he spear going from a supposedly widely spread weapon to an expensive and sub-optimal magic weapon. I think the "improvised weapon" route is best and most versatile as a blanket rule for all polearms because from the moment we elect the spear as a double weapon, there's no reason not to include the halberd and other non-reach shafted weapons as well, including battleaxes.
I have no issue with using Catch Off-Guard to turn any hafted weapon into a double weapon if you have the TWF feats. After all, the 'second weapon' is a club, not a very brilliant weapon. It needs separately enchanting, and really it actually stops you using the weapon as a two-handed weapon which in most cases is actually more effective.
Personally, I think the bayonet on the end of a rifle *is* an improvised weapon. So is using the butt of the rifle as a club. Which could actually damage any number of modern assault rifles. A spear is a lot better melee weapon than a rifle with a bayonet. The current training in bayonet use would probably make medieval professionals snicker.
I agree, but if you have the right training it can work very well. That's the point, the training - it's like an exotic weapon proficiency.
Eh, work well in relation to what? Not, I think, a spear. You still have a clumsy unbalanced weapon that is only useful as an auxiliary to the main function of the weapon.
The problem with the long spear is that it's long.I was talking about spears, not long spears.
Sorry I didn't catch that. I tend to look at spears as long and short. Anything longer than the standard one handed thrusting spear is "long".
If Paizo did a complete re-write, then the rules would be a lot more complex and they would lose backward compatibility. That's why feats become the fixes.
I agree, but I'm of two minds about whether a rewrite would be good or not. Catch me on different days and I jump different ways on it. And I agree that Feats were used as fixes but I don't like how that's worked out. Feat chains, Feat bloat, Feats that take the place of player actions to achieve a goal. They simplified combat by removing facing, reducing tactics and options (from 2E to 3E)... and then complicated it with an excess of Feats and Feat chains which has continued in PF. Pile the zillion different weapons with different stats thing on it and combat is as complex as it ever was. I think they either needed to exercise the discipline to keep combat simple or rewrite combat to allow more complexity / "realism". An alternate system that could be plugged in for those who want deeper combat wouldn't have been amiss. As much as I like Paizo they blew an opportunity by not having something like this in "Ultimate Combat". It would seem like a natural for that book.
A number of the pro double weapons arguments were based on "realism" / how they were used irl / what you could do with a weapon irl. So anime... not so useful to that argument. Now, if you're talking cool, yes very useful. And fun to watch :)
That was a great anime. The scene with her mentor:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcbMca_qiU8
Balsa is actually inspired by a real-life Spear Woman. I can't remember her name but she is skilled at spear fighting/Fencing. The fighting style is designed for Defensive Fighting in a Skirmish Style Combat.
I have met her in real-life and seen a demonstration. It is amazing.
Imagine a Quarterstaff Fighter except with one end with a spear point and the other end a pommel.
I have met her in real-life and seen a demonstration. It is amazing.
I have no doubt it was.
I'm sure if you had met a real-life expert swordsman (or woman), it would have been equally amazing with moves and hits involving much more than the cutting blade.
I believe that when a character is making an attack roll, he/she is using the weapon in its most efficient ways, which can involve the butt of a polearm or the pummel of the sword. Only, the system makes abstraction of exactly how the weapon is used, instead relying on a range of damage, critical multiplier etc. So a spear-wielding character can still be making crazy moves and attacking with whichever ends. Only in the mechanical abstraction of the combat system, the character makes one single powerful attack (not withstanding iterative attacks) instead of two weaker ones. In one way or another, the scene looks the same on camera. Verisimilitude is preserved; the difference is purely meta.
'findel
@'findel: I agree. Especially since most of the spears I have seen would still be piercing regardless of the end used. Most Spears have a "Lizard Killer" that is a spike that is used to keep the Spear upright when not in use, finishing off fallen foes, or even just defend via a rear stab. Most Formation fighting was done holding the Spear towards the end and using your arm to balance it. Most 1-on-1 was done mid-haft to provide flexibility.
It should also be noted that the spear used in the Demonstration and by Balsa are Short Spears(~6 Feet).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Short spears are 3 ft. in length.
Standard spears are 5 ft. in length.
Long spears are 8 ft. in length.
Balsa by that right is a standard spear.
Umm...
Javelins: ~3 Feet
Short Spears: ~5-6 Feet
Spears: ~8 Feet
Long Spears: ~12-15 Feet
Pikes: ~15+ Feet
Short spears are 3 ft. in length.Standard spears are 5 ft. in length.
Long spears are 8 ft. in length.
Balsa by that right is a standard spear.
Umm...Javelins: ~3 Feet
Short Spears: ~5-6 Feet
Spears: ~8 Feet
Long Spears: ~12-15 Feet
Pikes: ~15+ Feet
Actually CF is quoting the lengths from Ultimate Equipment. I don't agree with their descriptions, but he is RAW on this. My own take on it would be:
Javelin c.4'
Short Spear c.6'
(Long) Spear 9-12'
Pike 15-18'
I run the "standard" and long spears together. And 3' is way to short for anything described as a spear. Unless it's being wielded by some pretty small people...
That's the crux of my objection; it makes the spear prohibitively expensive if you don't care about using it as a double weapon (in order to use it a two-handed weapon for example)....but double weapons are so gorram expensive to enchant!Not to mention the fact it would cost the EXACT SAME price to enchant 2 weapons while using TWF
How does it make it more expensive to enchant if you don't care about using it as a double weapon? If you don't want to use it as a double weapon just don't enchant the blunt side. You do know that you don't have to enchant both sides of a double weapon, right?
And if you want to use it as a two-handed weapon, then do so. Nothing stops you from using a double weapon two-handed. It is actually one of their advantages.
Thus it makes the weapon expensive to enchant, and you're stuck with a rather "blah" second weapon (1d6/x2/bludgeoning).
This makes no sense. That's like saying it is expensive to enchant a sword and you are stuck with a rather "blah" pommel on the other end.
I have issue with he spear going from a supposedly widely spread weapon to an expensive and sub-optimal magic weapon. I think the "improvised weapon" route is best and most versatile as a blanket rule for all polearms because from the moment we elect the spear as a double weapon, there's no reason not to include the halberd and other non-reach shafted weapons as well, including battleaxes.
I see no reason why other shafted weapons couldn't be used as double weapons, as long as they aren't so long that it is impractical. So reach weapons would not be double weapons.
Short spears are 3 ft. in length.Standard spears are 5 ft. in length.
Long spears are 8 ft. in length.
Balsa by that right is a standard spear.
Umm...Javelins: ~3 Feet
Short Spears: ~5-6 Feet
Spears: ~8 Feet
Long Spears: ~12-15 Feet
Pikes: ~15+ Feet
Actually CF is quoting the lengths from Ultimate Equipment. I don't agree with their descriptions, but he is RAW on this. My own take on it would be:
Javelin c.4'
Short Spear c.6'
(Long) Spear 9-12'
Pike 15-18'I run the "standard" and long spears together. And 3' is way to short for anything described as a spear. Unless it's being wielded by some pretty small people...
Yes, I was pretty surprised to see that a short spear was only 3' long. I did a cursory look around the web seeing if I could find an example of a spear that short. I haven't yet, but I'm sure there must have been somewhere in the world.
Personally I would just drop the short spear and just allow the spear to be used two-handed as a simple weapon, and one-handed or as a double weapon as a martial weapon. That would make the spear even more flexible as a weapon.
So now I guess I have two house rules. ;)
Your suggestion seems pretty reasonable.
The only spear type weapon I can think of at 3' would be the shorter Zulu version of the assegai (I can't think of it's proper name). It was used as a thrusting melee weapon. The longer, traditional, assegai was thrown. In ancient warfare darts were used as thrown weapons (sometimes using a sling or atlatl type launcher) - pretty much midway in size between the arrow and the javelin. They were a weapon in AD&D (1E). Anyway, 3' is way too short for any type of traditional spear, javelins were longer than that.
Why isn't a long sword a double weapon? You can really hurt someone with the pommel and in fact that's not an uncommon distraction tactic.
Why isn't a battle-axe a double weapon as the other side is usually a pick or a hook.
One can say the same thing about all polearms in fact. Many had a butt cap or even spike.
The answer is- in order to get a full use out of them as such they must be properly balanced and reinforced and you must be properly trained. Whereupon they became a exotic weapon.
It's purely and simply a game balance thing. We, as players, like having lots of weapons. Thus, they must have some differences or why bother?
Thus, a spear is a simple non-double weapon. You could easily have a exotic double weapon which looks a great deal like a spear on one end if you liked.
Yes, I was pretty surprised to see that a short spear was only 3' long. I did a cursory look around the web seeing if I could find an example of a spear that short. I haven't yet, but I'm sure there must have been somewhere in the world.
A iklwa, the Zulu version of the assengai has a shaft about 2' long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iklwa#IklwaVery deadly.
Those are the descriptions straight out of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook. You don't have to like it, but that is the fact of it.
Shortspear: A shortspear is about 3 feet in length, making it a suitable thrown weapon.
Spear: A spear is 5 feet in length and can be thrown.
Longspear: A longspear is about 8 feet in length.
So I've read.
A shortspear is not gigantic or even large. Or it would be a GIGANTICSPEAR.
I agree that how 3.5/PF did spears is not very accurate. All I've got to say is Falchions... They made a weapon known for being one-handed as a two-handed weapon. It's not surprising that everyone weants to fix the weapon list.
Something else that saddens me about spears is that you can't brace them one handed. What about the Spartans? I guess if you want to be more realistic you could take levels of fighter...
That's the crux of my objection; it makes the spear prohibitively expensive if you don't care about using it as a double weapon (in order to use it a two-handed weapon for example).How does it make it more expensive to enchant if you don't care about using it as a double weapon? If you don't want to use it as a double weapon just don't enchant the blunt side. You do know that you don't have to enchant both sides of a double weapon, right?
Can you do that? That would solve most of my issues. What about masterwork?
And if you want to use it as a two-handed weapon, then do so. Nothing stops you from using a double weapon two-handed. It is actually one of their advantages.
It can be flaw if all you want is to use it a a 2-handed weapon AND are obliged to enchant both ends of the weapon.
Thus it makes the weapon expensive to enchant, and you're stuck with a rather "blah" second weapon (1d6/x2/bludgeoning).This makes no sense. That's like saying it is expensive to enchant a sword and you are stuck with a rather "blah" pommel on the other end.
With TWF, you can choose your off-hand weapon. I can't imagine anyone deliberately choosing a club as its off-hand weapon, because it's pretty much the worst weapon on the list. Yet that's what you'd get with a spear as double weapon. Note that I'm not in favour of making a sword a double weapon either.
For some reason I though that double weapons needed to be made masterwork at both ends and enchanted with the same "plusses" - probably because examples presented in the published material I own are like that - but I see I might have been wrong for a long time. Not having to enchant the blunt end would solve most of my objections to make the spear a double weapon.
'findel
Why isn't a long sword a double weapon? You can really hurt someone with the pommel and in fact that's not an uncommon distraction tactic.
Why isn't a battle-axe a double weapon as the other side is usually a pick or a hook.
One can say the same thing about all polearms in fact. Many had a butt cap or even spike.
The answer is- in order to get a full use out of them as such they must be properly balanced and reinforced and you must be properly trained. Whereupon they became a exotic weapon.
It's purely and simply a game balance thing. We, as players, like having lots of weapons. Thus, they must have some differences or why bother?
Thus, a spear is a simple non-double weapon. You could easily have a exotic double weapon which looks a great deal like a spear on one end if you liked.
Actually the real reason most players like having lots of weapons is because of the silly limitations. In fact, most of the players I know would rather be based around a single weapon. Most of the fantasy I know also has characters based around a single weapon. Most of the video games I know have characters based around few weapons. The feats that you take in 3.5/PF further push the use of that single weapon.
Why isn't a long sword a double weapon? You can really hurt someone with the pommel and in fact that's not an uncommon distraction tactic.
Because it is a one-handed weapon, you hit with the blade OR the pommel. I don't have a problem with hitting someone with the pommel for bludgeoning damage as an improvised weapon. I don't have an issue with someone using a greatsword as a double weapon - they'll lose out on two-handed damage bonuses, but that's their problem.
Why isn't a battle-axe a double weapon as the other side is usually a pick or a hook.
One can say the same thing about all polearms in fact. Many had a butt cap or even spike.
The answer is- in order to get a full use out of them as such they must be properly balanced and reinforced and you must be properly trained. Whereupon they became a exotic weapon.
Exotic, or otherwise have the training, I agree - like TWF feat plus the feat to use the improvised end.
It's purely and simply a game balance thing. We, as players, like having lots of weapons. Thus, they must have some differences or why bother?
Thus, a spear is a simple non-double weapon. You could easily have a exotic double weapon which looks a great deal like a spear on one end if you liked.
Or just note that it can be used so, with X and Y feat, and let the player's take their choice...
@DrDeth: An Iklwa, IIRC, is primarily used for hurling like a Javilin.
@DrDeth: An Iklwa, IIRC, is primarily used for hurling like a Javilin.
No. The Zulus used them for melee, using the Assengai for throwing.
[
Actually the real reason most players like having lots of weapons is because of the silly limitations. In fact, most of the players I know would rather be based around a single weapon. Most of the fantasy I know also has characters based around a single weapon. Most of the video games I know have characters based around few weapons. The feats that you take in 3.5/PF further push the use of that single weapon.
Yes, one single weapon for each PC, maybe, but a large choice for what that weapon can be.
I agree that how 3.5/PF did spears is not very accurate. All I've got to say is Falchions... They made a weapon known for being one-handed as a two-handed weapon. It's not surprising that everyone weants to fix the weapon list.
It's not really a falchion. It's the two handed scimitar that dude used in Robin Hood, Prince of thieves. Falchions weren't really weapons, per se, they were hunting tools.
Something else that saddens me about spears is that you can't brace them one handed. What about the Spartans?.
The Greek Hoplites were "phalanx soldiers", so yes, you can do this in PF easily.
|
I keep trying to figure out a good way to let most weapons do different damage....like an axe does slashing but if you smash someone in the face with the butt end of the handle you could do bludgeoning. Maybe make the secondary damage take a -2 or -4 to hit and damage would work to simulate this?
I mean how many times do you see the non-business end of the weapon being used in combat in tv shows and movies. I've been watching Viking on history channel lately and pounding someone with the pommel of the sword or axe is a fairly common tactic. I think I may create a rule for this....
On the Iklwa: Zulus maybe but not all tribes used them that way. In fact usually the Iklwa was used like the Roman Pilum. That is a Close Range Throwing Spear used in the charge when they drew their blade or other weapon.
On Flachion: A Falchion is a One-Handed Blade. It is technically a Long Dagger used for Skinning and for slicing through leather armour and padding.
On Hoplites: So a standard Hoplite and Macedonian Soldier would be Level 3 Minimum. Given that most Hoplites were well trained that makes sense. Macedonian Soldiers... Meh, that is a bit of a Stretch.
EDIT:
@Fake Healer: -4 and you might as well just rule it as an improvised weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have a unit of troops all armed with spears - they will fight side by side thrusting with their weapons - and the spears are then a piercing weapon. The same is true if you are fighting one handed and carrying a shield.
If you are fighting alone (without a shield) the grip you take on the spear will change according to the weapon your opponent has. If they have a thrusting (piercing) weapon - you will adopt a two handed thrusting weapon hoping that you have more reach than they do, In which case they will have to step past your point to attack - which gives you an opportunity to strike first. Once they are inside your point, you shift to a quarterstaff grip, step to one side and smack them with the butt. You can then step back and get them with a sweep attack from the other end and a second strike.
the same tactic works well with any pole arm - including halberds, bill hooks, partizans and glaives (being the ones I have tried)
If your opponent has a slashing weapon you take a defensive quarterstaff grip, where you are holding the spear almost vertical, point downwards. You can then parry and counter strike with the point, if you choose to. Thrusting is fairly easy with the blade in that position - but much more difficult if the blade is held upwards. That same technique works with any pole arm that has a point/spike. It is fairly easy to step backwards as you withdraw from the thrust - and keep the point of the weapon in a defensive position.
Just about every proper pole arm will have a butt spike of some sort, at the very least a metal bound end.
I can show you how to set a 16' pike for a charge, with one hand. It is actually easier to do it one handed than two handed :) You actually support and guide the set pike with your left hand - leaving your right hand (most peoples dominant hand) free to draw and wield your sword :)
I have been battle re-enacting with those - full weight hafts with wooden blades - for about 30 years.
However, that is 'actual use' rather than according to the PF rules. :)
And as a FYI, if you use a musket as a club - it is a two handed weapon and you prod with the musket butt rather than swinging it around single handed like a club. I have only seen one guy do that - he was about 6'5", 25 stone and built like an outhouse :) Watching him turn his musket up, single handed into a 'club' position was enough (on its own) to make the opposition go pale and start backing away ...
I agree that how 3.5/PF did spears is not very accurate. All I've got to say is Falchions... They made a weapon known for being one-handed as a two-handed weapon. It's not surprising that everyone weants to fix the weapon list.
It's not really a falchion. It's the two handed scimitar that dude used in Robin Hood, Prince of thieves. Falchions weren't really weapons, per se, they were hunting tools.
A falchion irl is a knock off of the Scimitar as I recall. Typically a one handed sword used by infantry although some were more decorated / expensive (and probably used by the upper classes). There were two handed versions, wooden hilts 1'+ iirc. I also remember that one theory on the lack of surviving weapons, despite their popularity, is that they made good chopping tools as well as weapons. It's certainly a long way from PFs Falchion to the real thing.
On the Iklwa: Zulus maybe but not all tribes used them that way. In fact usually the Iklwa was used like the Roman Pilum. That is a Close Range Throwing Spear used in the charge when they drew their blade or other weapon.
But the fact remains that the Zulus used them in melee, and very effectively too as many British soldiers at Issandwana would attest were they still alive. Interestingly at Rorke's Drift the relative merits of rifle & bayonet versus short spear & shield was quite definitely put to the test at both ranged and melee combat. Generally the bayonet held it's own, as the fighting came down to hand-to-hand on several occasions.
A falchion irl is a knock off of the Scimitar as I recall. Typically a one handed sword used by infantry although some were more decorated / expensive (and probably used by the upper classes). There were two handed versions, wooden hilts 1'+ iirc. I also remember that one theory on the lack of surviving weapons, despite their popularity, is that they made good chopping tools as well as weapons. It's certainly a long way from PFs Falchion to the real thing.
Got to agree, the falchion was more like a machette than anything else. It was a favourite to use by the English longbowmen as their melee weapon if the enemy got too close, usually combined with a buckler (also a far cry from the D&D/Pathfinder version, being a metal shield held in the hand and not strapped to the arm).
On the Iklwa: Zulus maybe but not all tribes used them that way. In fact usually the Iklwa was used like the Roman Pilum. That is a Close Range Throwing Spear used in the charge when they drew their blade or other weapon.
But the fact remains that the Zulus used them in melee, and very effectively too as many British soldiers at Issandwana would attest were they still alive. Interestingly at Rorke's Drift the relative merits of rifle & bayonet versus short spear & shield was quite definitely put to the test at both ranged and melee combat. Generally the bayonet held it's own, as the fighting came down to hand-to-hand on several occasions.
It's been awhile, but as I recall Shaka Zulu developed the shorter assegai (iklwa -- thanks I couldn't recall the name) specifically as a melee weapon. Using it that way gave the Zulu a huge advantage over the other tribes in the area and made the Zulu a dominant power in the region. They still used the standard assegai for throwing. Warriors generally carried multiple weapons for that reason.
Well a Javelin was used fairly regularly in melee as well. I know that the Normans used them as melee weapons. Though they were typically just the typical Javelin Haft with a Standard Spearhead on the end. They were used when they couldn't reasonably attack with a full length Spear or Short Spear. Examples include in a Castle Hall around a corner.
Most Later Bucklers I have seen were more of a Small Steel Circle that was strapped to the hand but could be wielded as the earlier bucklers. And from what I have seen is that Machetes where developed from the Falchion's Concept. That is a Weapon that could be used both on the battlefield and on the trail. Using a Sword would result in the blade not being battle ready.
And sorry I guess I miss stated what I meant...
What I meant on the Iklwa is they are classified as a Javelin NOT a Spear. The reason is simple. A Javelin is primarily for Throwing at range. A Spear is not. But they can be used for the other function. So a Spear can be thrown just as a Javelin can be used in melee but that isn't the main function of the weapon.
So I guess you can say that the Iklwa is to the Assegai what the Pilum is to a Javelin. That is a weapon modified from its initial design to serve a slightly different function. In both cases it is still primarily used as a thrown attack but is typically used as the last shot into the enemy you are charging. Or as Shaka Zulu's troops used the Iklwa, as a parting shot into the enemy troops they just Hit-&-Run'd.
On the Iklwa: Zulus maybe but not all tribes used them that way. In fact usually the Iklwa was used like the Roman Pilum. That is a Close Range Throwing Spear used in the charge when they drew their blade or other weapon.
It is a specifically Zulu weapon, developed by Shaka Zulu himself) designed for melee. They used the assegai for throwing.
*edit* And you posted on this while I was typing and checking on wind damage to my house and chasing down the neighbors dogs who escaped their yard. Sorry.
On Flachion: A Falchion is a One-Handed Blade. It is technically a Long Dagger used for Skinning and for slicing through leather armour and padding.
A Falchion is typically a one handed chopping infantry weapon. Developed after the First Crusade; a knock off of the Scimitar iirc. Used apparently as a tool as well, "fashionable" as well with some made for knights etc.
On Hoplites: So a standard Hoplite and Macedonian Soldier would be Level 3 Minimum. Given that most Hoplites were well trained that makes sense. Macedonian Soldiers... Meh, that is a bit of a Stretch.EDIT:
@Fake Healer: -4 and you might as well just rule it as an improvised weapon.
Macedonian infantry used the Sarissa, a pike. Length varied but topped out at about 21'. The discipline and training of Macedonian warriors was as good as any in the Greek world. Other Greeks thought them "half barbarians" because of their accents and the position of Macedonia, on the edge of the Greek world. Under Phillip II of Macedon they conquered Greece. And under Alexander, the Persian Empire.
The Iklwa was used by other tribes when they seen its effectiveness. Shaka Zulu designed the Weapon, ironically, to make the spears easier to conceal so that his troops could appear as another tribe then surprise the enemy. His troops used them as a Melee Weapon regularly. BUT the other tribes who adopted them used them in the same way the Romans used the Pilum. As I said, the Normans had 3 Foot Javelins with Standard Spearheads that they used as back-up weapons.
Falchion as a weapon name pre-dates the Crusades. The term was a long curved dagger used by Muslim Soldiers for various tasks. The later Falchions, what you refer to, were developed from combining the Muslim Falchion with a European Short Sword.
Macedonian Phalanxes armed with the Sarissa wielded them using a specialized Hoplon that allowed them to use both hands. The Macedonian Hoplites used 8 Foot to 10 Foot Spears.
The Iklwa was used by other tribes when they seen its effectiveness.
A Falchion pre-dates the Crusades. The term was a long curved dagger used by Muslim Soldiers for various tasks. The later Falchions, what you refer to, were developed from combining the Muslim Falchion with a European Short Sword.
Macedonian Phalanxes armed with the Sarissa wielded them using a specialized Hoplon that allowed them to use both hands. The Macedonian Hoplites used 8 Foot to 10 Foot Spears.
The First Crusade was 1096-1099. The Falchion appeared in roughly the 11th century. The standard chopping blade of the typical medieval falchion was a result of the Crusades. The illustrations and surviving examples of the weapon are post First Crusade. The Byzantines were at continuous war with various Moslem powers of course. I'd imagine some "previews" of the Falchion might have passed on to Europe through trade with Constantinople...
The Dory was the standard Greek spear used by all Greek Hoplites. The Macedonians one upped them in length with the Sarissa. It was a big, no pun intended, advantage. Although it works as a pun too, doesn't it ? :)
Again, In Europe it was the 11th Century. Falchion was translated from an Arabic word for a Dagger used by the Elite Muslim Soldiers/Guards. It was also Ritualistic.
Macedonia used both the Sarissa and Dory. The Sarissa was the one used be a Bulk of their force but the Dory was used by the Elites.
Sarissa Troops wore lighter armour and a modified Hoplon. The Hoplites, the elites, wore the typical Hoplite gear.
Think of the Macedonian Hoplites as Personal Guards. They would be used on the Flanks & to protect the Commanders.
And yes Macedon loved big things. Especially when they were bigger than what their opponents had.
Again, In Europe it was the 11th Century. Falchion was translated from an Arabic word for a Dagger used by the Elite Muslim Soldiers/Guards. It was also Ritualistic.Macedonia used both the Sarissa and Dory. The Sarissa was the one used be a Bulk of their force but the Dory was used by the Elites.
The European Falchion is the only one I'm concerned with in terms of PF, I don't think it was ever a dagger in European usage (although I could be wrong).
I understand that both were in use. The main Macedonian weapon was the Sarissa though. Macedonian Hypaspists used the Dory, and while they were an elite their primary (original) function was guarding the Phalanx flanks. Don't try to repeat that too often :) The Companion cavalry were the strike force, the Phalanx of Phalangites provided the immovable object and the Hypaspists provided some infantry mobility for flank coverage and exploiting enemy weaknesses.
Sarissa Troops wore lighter armour and a modified Hoplon. The Hoplites, the elites, wore the typical Hoplite gear.Think of the Macedonian Hoplites as Personal Guards. They would be used on the Flanks & to protect the Commanders.
And yes Macedon loved big things. Especially when they were bigger than what their opponents had.
The Macedonian phalanx with 5 (iirc) or so rows of pike points in front of it didn't really need as much armor as a hoplite. The enemy was that much farther off and it was difficult to penetrate the forest of pikes in front of the phalanx. I think the Hypaspists function as elite guards for commanders etc. post dated Alexander; he tended to lead his Companion cavalry. I do know they had that type of role later and may very well have had it when he wasn't hanging out with the cavalry.
It's been a while since we did ancient miniatures, but I still remember the basics.
Most them were for his Lieutenants and when he was initially planning out the battle.
I think we are on the same page but talking around each other.
Though I have learned that the Muslim Falchion was used similar to how the Kukri was used. It was a Sidearm that was the primary weapon of Skirmishers.
I blame the falchion being two-handed on Indiana Jones and Aladdin. Huge scimitar like weapons in there, but the scim is actually different and smaller, so, we get the big falchion.
I think those would be more like the Elven Curved Blade.