this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2023
872 points (98.2% liked)
Memes
45570 readers
1073 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
Swords were the handguns of old time. Easy to carry, usable in confined space but for actual war you'd want something bigger.
They’re so easy to carry that anyone who could afford to own one and knew how to swing the boat basic form thought they were a professional. Now, when an incompetent person owns a weapon it’s point and click so there’s less steel clattering against the floorboards and more corpses piling up.
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.
The point wasn’t that ranged attacks or siege or cavalry weapons are more important than melee weapons, though depending on the battle or the century, that may well be true.
The point was that when it comes to melee, the weapons used by your infantry was never swords. Swords are prestige weapons, expensive and heavy, wielded by wealthy knights and nobility for ceremonial purposes, duels, or tournaments. The king cannot afford to equip a thousand infantry with swords (the way you see in movies like Braveheart or LotR), and even if he could, the infantrymen have neither the skill nor strength to wield them for an extended duration.
Swords weren’t the weapon of last resort. They just weren’t included in the loadout at all, of the soldiers engaging in melee combat. So what did they use? Spears. That’s probably why the OP says spears are king.
But take it with a grain of salt cause I don’t actually know anything about medieval warfare. It’s just a thing I heard.
Actually there are swords that were in fact peasant level weapons, because they were farm equipment like machetes are
No, swords were mostly civilian self defense weapons and backup weapons as pistols are nowadays (and, mind you, even nowadays where governments have the money to equip every soldier with a rifle and a pistol, they don't).
The reason swords were not as widely used in battle as spears, axes, maces, polearms were is that these weapons are battlefield weapons and swords aren't. Why depends on the situation and time period. Sometimes because they're not as effective against armor, sometimes because they're too expensive, sometimes because they required more training than a pointy stick.
Btw, there was an empire that widely equipped it's armies with swords (through times) because it made sense with the rest of the kit, fighting style, enemies, etc. The roman legionnaires are most famously depicted with a gallius helmet, lorica segmentata, scutum pilum and gladius
[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.
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
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.