Professional warriors for thousands of years clearly saw a point to having weapons other than just spears, we simply don't have the institutional knowledge anymore to be able to say things like that with a straight face.

Spears are tools, swords are tools, armor types are tools, but all our actual experts in their use and knowledge of the situations that make one superior to another are dead, and all we have are dorky amateurs fighting in the backyard with sticks and telling themselves "Well this is how it worked out for me, and I'm PRETTY SURE I'm as good as someone that spent their whole life training with and using these things to actually kill people."

[–] Knightfox@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't think that was his point. He's simply saying that the benefit of reach and leverage makes it so that equally skilled and unarmored combatants would make it so you need 2 swordsmen to reliably fight a spearman.

That being the case doesn't mean that they wouldn't have multiple weapons for multiple circumstances, and it doesn't mean that the appropriate armour wouldn't impact it.

Finally, battlefield usage is a totally different situation as you have regiments with mixed skill levels.

I think the only thing he was trying to say is that if you have two guys with similar skill and fitness, unarmored, the guy with the spear has a large advantage.

Also, I think he's a bit more than an Enthusiast. His resume is fairly impressive (https://www.matt-easton.co.uk/about).