Modern conceptions of medieval warfare drastically overestimate the amount of usage that swords saw in battle. At least that’s a thing I’ve heard.
The sword was a sidearm. It was a trusty companion you had on you everyday to demonstrate your wealth and power and to be drawn in your defense if need be.
When it was time for battle, your sword would still be at your side, but in your hands would be some sort of polearm or perhaps an axe.
Also, commonly used but often forgotten about is a falchion. It was a sidearm that looked like a sword but did not require all the training in swordsmanship to be effective. Instead of being balanced like a sword to enhance the point control, a falchion was point heavy (like a machete) and swung like a hatchet.
I wouldn’t be surprised if technology was pushed towards ranged weapons like bows, crossbows, catapults, and trebuchets
I mean I’m sure there would be a good amount of swords or other close quarters melee units the keep the enemy at bay while everyone else is relatively safe from getting stabbed firing from a distance
I have no source just pure speculation
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.
human mobility is less than that of a horse
[Citation needed]
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
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.
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 :)
For trebuchets at least, they were only siege weapons, took a long time to both assemble and fire. Though I must concede they were better than melee weapons for knocking down walls.
In Monty Python and the Holy Grail, as the Frenchmen start raining animals at the knights and they all turn and run, Lancelot (being the brave one) takes one last whack at the stone castle wall with his sword before joining the rest in retreat. Always loved that little detail.
Good to know. I just knew that they were just ranged so this is going into the “neat information that will in no way help me with my life” pile
Wasn't the spear also one of the easier weapons to learn? Which is why a big part of a medieval army was made out of spear carriers?
Stick them with the pointy end.
From eight-plus feet away. That part is pretty important, you don't even give them a chance to get close.
From what I understand spears popularity comes from
Being the easiest weapon to craft in prehistory, get a stick and sharpen the end to a point, add some plant fiber for a grip and boom you have one of mans earliest killing tools.
Spears have a great reach and can target pinpoint locations
With proper technique you can throw them as a limited range weapon
Can be wielded easily while managing a shield
Spears are probably cheaper to make too
In no way, shape, or form am I an expert in martial arts or combat. I would imagine however it depends on the situation. An army with spears and an individual with a spear are two very different things. Armys equipped with swords vs spears, spears win. Individuals fighting with a sword and a spear probably comes down to individual skill more than the specific weapon.
You might like this video, https://youtu.be/LX3n4XIwHZo?si=9KC7upiLOFaR0ddN
At 8:50 the guy says that traditionally one person with a spear was roughly as good as two equally skilled persons with a sword.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/LX3n4XIwHZo?si=9KC7upiLOFaR0ddN
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I don't take the opinions of modern "enthusiasts" seriously on this topic.
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."
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).
Generally also beats a sword except in pretty specialized circumstances.
what about a spear with a mace on the end, truly unbeatable.
You mean a war hammer?
Wack hammer.
Ham er'?
I hardly know her!
Bec de corbin?
Bow > spear > sword (and shield, ofc) > whack.
Range ftw.
No shit ranged weapons were good for warfare but producing good arrows and bows was expensive and most of the time it was needed more for hunting rather than fighting. Plus it doesn't work against shielded formations. The spear is still the undoubted king of weapons as a cheap and hugely effective way to outfit an army.
Mace became playstation
