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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Martial arts. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!Martial artsWikipedia:WikiProject Martial artsTemplate:WikiProject Martial artsMartial arts articles
I'm cleaning spear related stuff out of pole weapons to reduce the size of the article, so the bit on 'winged spears' is no longer appropriate. It is interesting, though, and this article seems like the most relevant place for it. I'll let someone else include it, though.
Winged spear
The winged (also lugged or barred) spear was a common type of thrusting spear during the early Middle Ages. It consisted of a leaf or lozenge shaped head, beneath which on the socket there were prominent wings. The earliest use of barred spears for hunting is recorded by Xenophon in the 4th. century BC and illustrations of Roman examples are known.[1] Its use in war, however, seems to relate to German tribes in the Early Middle Ages, particularly the Franks,[2] although it was also by the Vikings.[3] The type is commonly illustrated in Early Medieval Art, including the Bayeux Tapestry and the Golden Psalter of St. Gallen [1].
The winged spear is shown used by both cavalry and infantry. Although some authors claim the intention of the wings was to prevent the weapon from penetrating too deeply into an enemy,[4] others see them as an aid to spear-fencing.[2].
Theblindsage (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article states or implies that the stirrup allowed for or enhanced the use of the lance. The wikipedia article on the stirrup states that "contrary to common image, stirrups do not enable the horseman to use a lance more effectively (cataphracts had used lances since antiquity), but a cantled saddle does." Cite. They can't both be right. Perhaps someone who knows better can fix one or the other. --Fean (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the statement that "contrary to common image, stirrups do not enable the horseman to use a lance more effectively (cataphracts had used lances since antiquity), but a cantled saddle does." is not entirely true. Whilst a cantled saddle is effective and did allow lance armed cavalry to charge, I think a military saddle and stirrups is more effective. I've certainly seen academic references that share this opinion. Master z0b (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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![reply]
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, its 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
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).
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:
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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.
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[reply]
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)[reply]
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
This article is a mess, anyone want to help me rewrite it? I edited the section that explains the different ways one can use a spear but even that is all over the place. What we need to do is explain the different ways spears have been used, there isn't even one mention of a spear being used one handed with a shield; quite possibly the most common way for a spear to be used. We also need to explain the difference between a spear and; a javelin, a pike, an atalatl/woomera etc. Is there a weapon article we could use as a template or something? Master z0b (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've started editing and adding information but still in an adhoc manner, I think I may use the Sword article as a template. Master z0b (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok the first thing I'm going to do is add a History section as in the sword article. Some of it will be cut ans paste from the cutrrent article. I know I've added info without sources but I'll add them when I've got the basic structure fixed.Master z0b (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed a rewrite on the medieval section - I kept as much as I could from the previous version but it needed a lot of work. Apologies Masterz0b if this cuts across your stuff but I haven't been back to the page since reading the original Rewrite call. When writing I realised how Euro-centric the section was so I've reflected that by re-titling. There are obviously whole sections that could be added about Asia, Africa and the Americas but I don't feel qualified to contribute there. I am also surprised that we don't have more on Japanese spears - martial arts fans are usually keen on adding these sections (though usually sadly without refs)Monstrelet (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the article is looking a lot better than it did a year ago, but still needs a lot of work. I'll see if I can get some good references for a start. I also think the "list of uses" at the end is not good and should be deleted in it's current format. Master z0b (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've followed through on some of the suggestions from August to restructure the article. Hopefully, editors will now see the way to improving sections. Sections on the spear in Africa and the Americas would be welcome. I may return when I have time to do some basic editing on the Ancient section, some of which very poor. I'm not sure the popular culture section adds anything at the moment. As always, more citation required.
Monstrelet (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As additional work has been done on the military history of the spear, it has tended to distort the history. I've tried breaking it up into components - military,hunting,symbolism,martial arts. These can then by concentrated on or, if they get too long, extracted to a separate article leaving a summary. Military may need to go this way. It could still do with more work to widen the geographical coverage in all components - something on spears in traditional cultures in, say, South America or Australia is a big gap - and some sections are seriously short of any kind of references.Monstrelet (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wondering about the long list of spear names, which seems to have little point except to show that there are lots of names for spears. Ithink it would be more useful as a list of wikilinks to other spear articles. I propose therefore to re-edit this section. As an initial stage, I have wikilinked all the names. This identifies as redlinks all the names without further information. I'll leave it like this for a while, to allow people to create, redirect etc. so that all the links point to further info. Then I'll come back and remove all the remaining redlinks.Monstrelet (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree, delete any redlinks. In fact I think it's fine to delete the entire section. I also think the Martial Arts Uses should be deleted as it's hardly a encylopedic entry. Master z0b (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth keeping a single list redirecting to other wikipedia articles on spears as an aid to further research but the redlinking doesn't seem to have inspired any new article creation.Monstrelet (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and removed the redlinks. Master z0b (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have broken out List of types of spears. I also went through each link and, if the target link was not about a specific type of spear, removed the item. I'll leave it to others who know more than I if some of those articles can be fruitfully consolidated. - BanyanTree 08:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm deleting the entire section as I feel that it is uncited, original research, in a list that does not conform to the style guide on the use of lists. Master z0b (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After removing that I'm left with the following image which I think is valid and it would be nice to have something else in this article about the use of the spear in modern martial arts. The image link is A yari (left) in mock combat. Master z0b (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The section was always problematic - it clearly comes from some sort of martial art background but there is no evidence as to which. In fact, as you say, the way it is written, without the use of technical terms usually seen in descriptions of oriental martial arts, suggests OR. It would be legitimate to have something on martial art use, in which the picture could be reused. Not something I know enough about though. Monstrelet (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few things things that need to be added/expanded on in this article that I'm not necessarily that knowledgeable about to add myself unless I do a lot of research.
The history of the spear in Australasia/the Pacific
Modern Hunting Spear usage
Spear usage in modern martial arts (both Eastern and Western)
I'll add to this list as ideas come up. Master z0b (talk) 07:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a quote from the well-known Miyamoto Musashi where he succinctly articulates his opinion on the merits of the spear, though I can't find it at the moment. Something about how it remains a superior weapon because it can sieze initiative. It might make a great addition. 75.159.247.132 (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reverting something added by 59.101.8.179l; there is no consensus that the most common way for a spear to be attached to a shaft is by a socket. Indeed, attaching the head via a tang may be more common when you consider the entire history of spear production. Master z0b (talk) 02:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also I'm removed the reference to "barbed" in the intro because I find it unnecessary, these descriptions should be broad and not too descriptive. Master z0b (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Middle Age soldiers or wardens had weapons formed like an hook formed as an ax blade plus a pin like a spear. Fire wardens had a hook plus pin on a long wooden pole or spear. Boatmen use a combination of a hook plus rounded pin to push or pull a boat, no diffence if standing on that boat or at the pier/shore. And there is the modern Electroshock weapon. --Helium4 (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some years ago I called for a rewrite on this article and I must say it has come a long way. Structurally it is a lot better however there are still major gaps and many sections require expansion and citations. I am trying to add more info and images where I can but that does tend to mean I add more info and need further citations. If anyone could help it would much appreciated. Master z0b (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removing the section "types of spears" the sentence seems to be a fragment and we already have a link to types of spears in the "see also" section. Master z0b (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's really important that we add an Etymology of the word spear from here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spear and possibly a typology if such a thing exists.Master z0b (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I saw your post on the WP:MHA page and thought I would take a quick look. As far as I can tell, the article was rated "Start" on the Milhist rating system because it doesn't meet the referencing or coverage requirements of the B class checklist. For it to obtain a C class rating, at least one of these criteria would have to be met (plus the other three: grammar, sections, supporting materials). Anyway, good work so far and I have the following suggestions (aimed at B class and beyond):
as a vital article, the lead should probably be at least three, if not four, paragraphs;
for a B class rating, the minimum level of referencing is having every paragraph ending in a citation (more may be required if individual sentences are sourced from different refs);
the bare link here should be converted to a proper reference: "The word subjugate has its origins in this practice (from Latin sub = under, jugum=a yoke).[4]"
a number of areas are marked for expansion; for a B class rating these tags will need to be dealt with. You might gain further input about what to include here by listing the article for a peer review;
"Viking Spears, op. cit." --> on Wiki articles it is best to avoid using "op cit" in the references due to the likelihood of the previous mention being removed. In this regard, I'd suggest just using a WP:NAMEDREFS or something similar;
the bare urls in the Notes section (e.g. Notes 34-36) should be formated, possibly with the {{cite web}} template or some other formatting device;
the web citations should have author, publisher and accessdate information if known (e.g. see Notes 40 and 41). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks mate, I really appreciate your feedback. Master z0b (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As per the previous suggestions I have added an extra paragraph to the into. This has been edited by another editor to remove the last sentence, changes to grammar and added a cite source. I have left the cite tag and not reinstated the deleted sentence but I have changed the grammar back to somewhat similar language to the original sentence, I feel the changing "the spear" to "spears" is not necessary and in many ways counter-productive. When discussing a tool or a weapon in a broad sense one tends to use the singular rather than the plural.Master z0b (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was some grammatical awkwardness before ("Spears have been used throughout human history both as a hunting tool to bring down game and to catch fish, and as a military weapon") but it looks fine now. Thanks for your good work. Rivertorch (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree that was an awkward sentence, thanks for your input. I added a reference as well and removed the cite source tag. Master z0b (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop resizing the image "A Filipino warrior holding a Sibat in Boxer codex."! This will be the third time Ive had to readjust the size so that the image is not bigger than the section on Filipino spears. If you want the image bigger then you need to add more content. This article has enough images that are bigger than the section they relate to. Master z0b (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small thing but I changed the order of the sentence referring to thrown spears as darts or javelins. The term "javelin" is far more commonly used than "dart" so thought it should come first in the list. To be honest I wonder whether it's even worth including in the introduction but I will leave it for the moment. Master z0b (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kuntham and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 13#Kuntham until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)