Talk:Spear
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
 |
This page is part of the Wikipedia Martial Arts Project.
Please help ensure that it follows those guidelines as much as is reasonable; |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Nomenclature
I was under the impression that spears were meant to be used hand-to-hand combat whereas javelins were designed to be thrown. Oberiko 19:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- I too have problems with the nomenclature in this article - see my earlier notes in Talk:Lance. "Thus most who study medieval weaponry will distinguish between a spear (for throwing) and a lance (a kind of spear that was not thrown)." Do speciallists really draw such fine distinctions and do they really fly in the face of common usage? And if they do, is Wikipedia the place to reflect this. No sensible person would insist that a spear not designed for throwing must be a lance.
- javelins are certainly a type of throwing spear, but I'm not sure that all throwing spears are javelins - based on experience of common usage of the word. All the same, if it is necessary to create a spear nomenclature, there would be a reasonable case for labeling all throwing spears as types of javelin. Gaius Cornelius 22:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Possible addition?
Can anyone find out what a Kuntham is and whether it fits here?204.95.23.122 01:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Oops! It appears I just typed in the wrong place and typed over something! I'm not sure what it was or how to restore it . . . Sorry!
Me again. Again, sorry about accidentally deleting that last thing, but there's something else I want to ask. There's a weapon called a Duom that might be addable, but it's currently under dispute whether it exists. If anybody else has heard of it, we could add it . . .
I removed the phrase ", and made entirely for thrusting" from the first paragraph as every source I have checked does not use this quality as a definitive quality of things "spear". I agree that the nomenclature used in this article seems "odd". The sources I have currently at hand are the Encyclopedia Britannica On-line, the Oxford Reference Online, and www.anvilfire.com which is a forum for those who pursue blacksmithing. My research there confirms my opinion of the following:
- "spear" is the most generic term in current usage, other names for the object tend to refer to specific forms of the spear.
- "lance" as a noun related to "spear" is uniformly defined as being used by cavalry or in whaling in addition to the harpoon. (Near as I can tell the harpoon was barbed and had a rope attached it's purpose being more to "catch" the whale, while the "lance" was intended to penetrate deeply and injure and ultimately kill the whale.)
- I do note that in an older National Geographic article the spears carried by some Africans were called "lance" and from the photographs these were long, light spears. I also note that "geographers" are not, necessarily, armorers and so may not be experts on the jargon of weaponry.
- I concur that "javelins" are spears for throwing. I would recommend that the section on the "lance" be removed. It creates the impression of an academic debate on the subject without citations. If there is such a debate then the argument needs to be made more plain.
Generally I think the article should be "tightened". Erraunt August 23, 2005
- Well im new to editing wiki posts so forgive me if i do sumthing noobish. from all my experience in ancient age video games i would describe the SPEAR as a melee weapon with sharpened point(s) weilded like a staff for the most part intended for penetrating jabs. its use in melee combat would be closer to a staff than a lance as the user could parry attacks and then attack when he had the chance. the LANCE was a long staff with a modified tip. this tip could be a simple point or a club like attachment used for attacking armored targets. either way this weapon is used for direct trusts often including a momentum advantage on the part of the user(ie on horseback) if this failed the weapon was for the most part useless untill they could reset for another lunge. the JAVELIN would most often be the smallest of the three, used as a ranged weapon.
As I understand it, 'Spear' is the general and dominant term (derived from Old English, as are Shield, Sword and Bow), whilst Dart, Javelin, Pike and Lance are alternatives that have come to denote particular types of Spear. It is similar to the Latin problem, where Hasta seems to have denoted Spears generally, and Pilum, Iaculum and Lancea, amongst others, to have referred to specialist types (though not in every case). M.J.Stanham
[edit] Bayonet Debate
"The spear survives as a military weapon in the form of the bayonet, and as a lance it was used in combat as recently as 1939 (Polish Lancers attacking Wehrmacht Armored units)."
This Wikipedia excerpt explains how the above myth came to be: "The same day the German war correspondents were brought to the battlefield together with two journalists from Italy. They were shown the battlefield, the corpses of Polish cavalrymen and their horses, as well as German tanks that arrived to the place after the battle. One of the Italian correspondents sent home an article, in which he described the bravery and heroism of Polish soldiers, who charged German tanks with their sabres and lances. Although such a charge did not happen and there were no tanks used during the combat, the myth was used by German propaganda during the war. After the end of World War II it was still used by Soviet propaganda as an example of stupidity of Polish commanders and authorities, who allegedly did not prepare their country for the war and instead wasted the blood of their soldiers." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_cavalry
Kabl00ey 15:37, 08 October 2005 (UTC)
I'll happily stand corrected on this. As soon as it was pointed out it popped into my head that somewhere else the "last cavalry charge" was supposed to be some British lancers in Africa(?) in the 1890s or something. Thank you. Erraunt 22:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed changes to wiki "spear"
The paragraph in question:
After the discovery of smelting copper and tin to make bronze, bronze spears were the main defenders of the ancient era. These spearmen were an important part of a village's defense.
I would replace with:
- Spears, one of the earliest weapons fashioned by human beings and their ancestors, are still used for hunting and fishing. The spear survives as a military weapon in the form of the bayonet, and as a lance it was used in combat as recently as 1939 (Polish Lancers attacking Wehrmacht Armored units).
- It is arguable that from the late bronze age until gunpowder weapons became commonly available the spear was the most common personal weapon (not the *ideal* source, but: http://www.anvilfire.com/iForge/tutor/atli_spear/index2.htm).
- The utility and longevity of the spear in the personal arsenal of people around the world rises from several factors, among them: versatility, cost, ease of use, effect.
- A spear is a versatile weapon that can be used for hunting and warfare, and in melee and as a missle. In regions of limited resources this alone was reason enough for the spear to become ubiquitous: the tool that brought down game for meals also slew animals that threatened crops and livestock also was an effective weapon in war.
- A spear is a relatively low cost weapon or tool by comparison with other weapons available in the periods of the spear's greatest use. In pre-industrial societies where metals and the ability to work them are expensive materials and skills the spear was seen as "cost effective". The steel required for a sword, for example, would be sufficient to make two, three or more spear heads. A spear not only takes less metal, but does not require the same quality of material, time or ability to manufacture and the result is still a weapon of potentially lethal effect.
- A spear is relatively easy to use. Again in comparison with contemporary weapons in the periods of the spear's widest use, a spear requires less training and practise to be effectively weilded. (Please note that is "effectively" not "expertly".) Modern experiments by reenactors in the United Kingdom have shown that a group of people could be trained to use spears in an effective shield wall as militia in a few weeks of part time training. (Find this source.)
- Spears are effective in several senses, some of them already mentioned. Effective in being a cost effective, relatively easy to weild weapon that could be quickly depoloyed to field relatively large numbers of militia. Effective in that the enemy or prey by the physical nature of the weapon is kept at a distance. And, finally, effective, in the sense important for all weapons: in the hands of an experienced user it is fast and lethal.
Here are two links I would also add, and I'm looking for more references:
http://www.anvilfire.com/iForge/tutor/atli_spear/index2.htm http://www.anvilfire.com/iForge/tutor/atli_spear/index.htm
I'll give this a week or so before I make the changes.
Erraunt August 24, 2005
- Hi Erraunt! I think this is good content and should be in the article. I removed the original paragraph already, because it is based strictly on Civilization III game mechanics (spearmen as Bronze Age defensive units). Lawrence Lavigne 00:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I've been mulling over the "lance" issue and the more I think about it the more I'm convinced that the "lance vs. spear" distinction is a red herring for any general reader.
I hesitate to make radical edits to the article for the present for the following reasons:
1) It is possible that the use of "lance" in the article is out of a variety of English that I am not familiar with like "hood" and "bonnet" on automobiles.
2) The usage is based on more recent sources than I am familiar with.
I want to change it because:
1) I can recall, nor have I been able to find any sources which support the claims that the distinction of lance vs. spear is significant, is an important distinction within the armoring craft, or ever was historically.
2) It makes most readers wonder why there is an article on spear and not a redirect to lance.
3) The inclusion of that section sets the article up to be more a debate than a factual exposition of what a spear is and it's place in history.
4) I compare it to the article on pike which is much more cogent and direct.
I would welcome references to sources that would convince me otherwise.
I would recommend that a section be created in the article which might be titled something like "Debates on Nomenclature" as a subsection of "Academic Issues on Things Spear" with another subsection titled "Usage, Tactics and Formations". Put all of the opinion and conjecture there.
Erraunt August 25, 2005
[edit] Recent Changes
I put in an expanded introduction and removed the lance and formation references.
I think this article needs editing help, but I think it is on a better track. I will work on finding direct references for the important parts of what I have added.
I think the topic on symbolism is valid and could stand copy editing and possibly expansion.
The lance section I may find an argument for, but I have posted questions and such in the discussion section here. I have never encountered "lance" used as it was here. There were no references to justify either that position (that a "lance" is a spear that isn't designed to be thrown) or that spears were used in a particular way in a formation.
Given that I've posted my recommended changes for several weeks and there has been nothing but positive comment I went forward.
I believe that the article should be more generic as spears have been used for thousands of years to discuss too much a particular nomenclature and military tactic imbalances the article.
My apologies if anyone is offended. I'm aware that some of my statements in my added text also suffer from lack of references, although if you look in the discussion section here you will at least find a few urls with opinions which support my statements.
While I think the symbolism section has some merit it needs cleaning and better structure. I'm open to the prospect that a discussion of symbolism of the spear is better done elsewhere.
Hope this helps. Erraunt 21:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, that is much better! The article still needs some work - articles with general titles should have a general scope and in this case that covers thousands of years and every human culture. Gaius Cornelius 23:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Ugh, that's worse! Why delete the section on how the spear is held? After how the spear is made, I think this is the most important information for an article on spears. I realize that you were seeking to streamline the article, but is the type of wood that Woden's mythical spear was supposedly made out of really that much more important to the article than how spears are used? Harkenbane 06:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Grammar!
"Effective in being a cost effective, relatively easy to wield weapon that could be quickly deployed to field relatively large numbers of militia. Effective in that the enemy or prey by the nature of the weapon is kept at a distance. And, finally, effective, in the sense important for all weapons: in the hands of an experienced user it is fast and lethal."
These are sentence fragments. I'm too tired to come up with replacements myself; sorry.
[edit] Edit?
After several monts was going to work on it again. Call me dense, but how do you edit the first section? Where did the button go?
Like the direction it's creeping in but needs something better.Erraunt 22:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Nevermind!!! Erraunt Erraunt
Noticed the cleanup flag as I revisited this page. And also noticed that some of the additions in the last six months have rather made a hash of the opening of this article. I'll try to clean it up.
On the "Usefullness" section, which has been marked as confusing I have a few thoughts.
I wrote it some time back but I am not particularly attached to it. I think it made sense in an earlier version. It could be cleaned up to make more sense but it is, I will admit, at best borderline on NPOV.
I am thinking about just cutting it. I may take a shot at cleaning it up to make it more direct.
I am, however, of the increasingly strong opinion that for an article on a general weapon type that this should be more streamlined. I even wonder if the long lists of spears is really that useful.
I'm posting this because I'd like some feedback before something radical is done.
OK, and because I'm a bit irritated that whoever tagged this on March 8 and added the "Usefullness" section (which doesn't make much sense to me), seemed to also enter some confusing redundancy into the article and no longer seems to exist as a user. Putting up a tag such as that with no comments is a bit ... annoying. Erraunt 16:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- I would also like to see a more streamlined article for this entry; I have found the list of 'Sub Spear' links to be useful, but they could also do with being grouped by culture or some such thing. This has the potential to be a very useful article and should be associated with the Spear, Shield, Dagger, Sword, Mace, Axe and Bow entries and their derivitives. Perhaps it would even be useful to see all of these grouped together and linked from a general page. M.J.Stanham
[edit] Vandalism
At the beginning of the article say "Spears are for girls", when i try to correct, don't appear this on the edit page!
-Fco
[edit] A General Spot for Posting Errors and Optional Grunt Work
1. Isn't the Hoko a melee spear? It's listed as a throwing one.
2. Even though the katakamayari is a different weapon from the kamayari, it redirects to the same page. Hey!
3. Is the sudis not actually a weapon, or is it simply not listed on the disambiguation page? Follow the link to find out what I'm talking about.
