Board Thread:Lore Discussion/@comment-107.77.89.17-20150822021148/@comment-82.242.83.115-20190411220508

I agree no spear makes little sens in a medieval setting. The main reason is probably because it is simpler to program and play with less choice. Mount and blade has proven that realistic polearms and lances can be made enjoyable gameplay wise.

That being said, one culd invent in game reasons as to why spears are so out of favor in Tamriel as depicted in TES4 Oblivion :

1. No horse combat

2. Scarce battlefield

3. Magic

1. The absence of mounted combat is obviously a due to programing difficulties, but we could also back it up by ore element.

Saddles are very rudimentary and there are no stirrups. Without these elements, mounted forces are a lot weaker, typically limited to javelin thrower, as opposed to mounted archer or heavy cavalry couching their lances.

So not only Cavalry does not need lances, but infantry does not need pike to counter them.

The horses seem to be decently big and breed for some times already, so it might be surprising to see the tech lacking, but maybe the geography does not favor mounted troops. This claim is supported by how unpractical it generally is to stray away from roads without falling from a cliff, though it is also due to map making and scaling (the map is much smaller than it would be IRL, to make it playable and fit in a DVD, but has disproportionately huge and steep mountains because it's fancy/ interesting).

2. The scarce battlefield is again mainly video game limitations, but can be justified.

Few numbers are given, but the inordinate importance given to individual heroes (for their power, not just their strategical skills) would tend to clue at small battles. Sure, the power discrepancy between heroes and commoners is just as inordinate, but when said heroes can cast area magic, fielding large armies of conscripts is just a dumb idea.

Even without mounted units, spears are overpowered melee weapons, but require at least a proficient wielder or battle in formation, preferably both.

However, in a scarce battlefield, mobility is of the essence. A spearman might beat a swordman 1 on 1 even out of formation and in open terrain, but in a scattered group of spearmen vs a scattered group of swordmen, mobile swordmen will have an easy time ganging on individual targets.

Even when the battles involve large number, there are circumstances where mobility tops the sheer power of spears, shield-gladius based roman legions seizing domination from spear based greek phalanx is an example.

'''Realistically, spears should still be the only melee weapon to consider against beasts and monster though. '''And there are many monsters on Nirn.

3. Magic influence the matter in many ways.

Battlemages constitute a major ranged threat, increasing the importance of mobility to counter them. They can also be countered with other mages and with archer, again increasing the value of mobility for melee units, and decreasing the value of slow spearmen.

As said above, area of effect spell discourage dense formation, weakening spearmen as a unit.

'''Magic and mythic creatures shape the world. '''A forest is much harder to chop, a marsh much harder to drain, if it contains powerfull threatening wildlife. Even worse if it contains fierce Bosmer or Argonians. It further supports the argument that geography is less than ideal for cavalry. It also supports the construction of numerous forts to keep wildlife at bay, and of numerous dungeon to secure strategic sites.

All in all, it shapes the world in a way favoring combat on close terrain, and fortification sieging/assault, for which spears are not great and cavalry is useless.