As far as my understanding, it was. Long bowmen were far more valuable because the costs associated with losing a knight was high. Infantry were given various polearms, and cavalry (or knights on horses) were given lances and spears. The kinetic energy from horseback functioned as good or better than trying to wind up swings of a weapon. Also human mobility is less than that of a horse before even accounting for armor, so being demounted from your horse mean almost certain death.

Swords were a last resort. A "running away is better" type of option. Being good with your sword is like being good with martial arts today - better to have it even if you may not use it.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

human mobility is less than that of a horse

[Citation needed]

[–] FlihpFlorp@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Wow that’s a much more detailed reply than my un-coffeed brain can produce lol

Maybe I missed it but for long bows you said they delivery a lot of energy especially so on horse back but I remember reading archers would train for their entire life just because of the sheer upper body strength needed for the bow which I think is neat

[–] Exusia@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

An archer can hit a man 450-1000 feet away. What's a man clad in 200lbs armor gonna do? All he can do is take it. So the armor was sloped and thickened. Relying on horse speed to make them harder to hit.

[–] FlihpFlorp@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago

I mean Ik I said they had lifelong training for that upper body strength but not 450-1k feet strength

This post is a great TIL :)