medieval weapons

[71-hour Ahmed]

what weapons were most commonly used, by whom, and why, for infantry and cavalry in medieval period?

i.e. swords, spears, lances, pikes, axes.

Asking this as some comments in other forums suggest game balance is muppety on this.

[econ21]

I'll go out on a limb here and say that basically there was only one weapon as the primary melee weapon for most units for most of the period - the pointy stick.

Virtually all melee cavalry seemed to have used variations of the lance.

Virtually all melee infantry seem to have used the spear until the "late" period in Medieval Total War. In the late period, this was refined a little as people either added an axe head to the spear to produce the halberd (or related pole-arms), which was better against armour or elongated the spear to produce the pike, which was better against cav. The vanilla spear gradually disappeared.

The sword or dagger were common "side-arms" of both cavalry and infantry, but most formations do not seem to have been armed primarily with them. Likewise the axe and mace were common, but seldom displaced the spear or lance as the main weapon.

I suspect the main reason for the primacy of the pointy stick was reach, which is very important when cavalry is dominant. Greater reach means that a lance is better than a sword against infantry and a spear is better than a sword against cavalry. I'm not sure about the extent to which units switched to secondary weapons when formations were mixed up and close combat enjoined (I suspect the knights had to switch with some lances being something of a one shot affair).

Missile weapons were a little more varied: bows, of various kinds (short, long, composite); crossbows of increasing power; javelins (rather under-represented in MTW); a few slings; later various kinds of handgun.

I'd be very interested for people to refute the above, as I'm trying to make a historical mod with more of a variety of units, but right now they are nearly all variations of spear and lance (except for the late period).

[Stormer]

i heard on a program that the pope in richard the lionhearts time banned crossbows from europian wars but on the crusade they were mput in to production to use against the arabs. so crossbows wernt to common. i think bows were more common http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[econ21]

Well, the Vatican did ban the crossbow as you say, but I am not sure people took much notice. Richard I was a great enthusiast for the crossbow and encouraged its adoption in England. Ironically, he was killed by one. The crossbow may be an under-rated weapon in some of the English literature, wtih the longbow being given prominence in stead, as it seems to have been very useful, both in the Crusades against the Islamic factions' skirmish tactics and in Europe against armoured knights.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Simon is largely correct. A spear has a great many advantages over the swords, briefly--it is cheaper to produce than a sword, has more reach than other melee weapons, and can be used to devastating effect without significant training. As a bonus it can turn a mounted charge better than any other weapon.

Generally speaking, swords were only used when the larger spear was unsuitable. It was widely used as a backup weapon where something more substantial than a dagger was necessary.

Now, medieval times aren't my main periods of knowledge, but I believe the most common melee weapons after the spear were the axe and blunt weapon (mace, warhammer, flail, etc.). Both of these types of weapon were absolutely devastating when they struck flesh, and retained a high level of effectiveness against body armor. Adding to this advantage, they are quite cheap to produce, and are relatively easy to use (any peasant knew how to chop wood, and I doubt anyone would have trouble figuring out how to use a club).

[Pablo Sanchez]

Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ Mar. 18 2003,14:55)]Well, the Vatican did ban the crossbow as you say, but I am not sure people took much notice.
While the Pope didn't want Christians to be struck down by quarrels, he had no such problem with hearing of dead infidels. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[71-hour Ahmed]

OK, thanks so far for the posts.


Now: the harder part.

Since spears are the main weapon, how did soldiers with any other weapon fight them? I.e. if you have a sword you are held up over 5 feet away, same with an axe, etc.

And how would cavalry attack infantry with spears, even with lances? I'm assuming that they couldn't charge pikes as it would be a sluaghter, but they couldn't just hang around and wait, so how did they fight them?

I'm asking this as it eludes me, unless they didn't (spears made them outmoded, unlikely), used guns/arrows or did the numptie way (charge [impalement] owwwww die&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Pablo Sanchez]

Quote[/b] (71-hour Ahmed @ Mar. 19 2003,15:39)]OK, thanks so far for the posts.


Now: the harder part.

Since spears are the main weapon, how did soldiers with any other weapon fight them? I.e. if you have a sword you are held up over 5 feet away, same with an axe, etc.

And how would cavalry attack infantry with spears, even with lances? I'm assuming that they couldn't charge pikes as it would be a sluaghter, but they couldn't just hang around and wait, so how did they fight them?

I'm asking this as it eludes me, unless they didn't (spears made them outmoded, unlikely), used guns/arrows or did the numptie way (charge [impalement] owwwww die&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
At the man-to-man level, troops armed with shorter melee weapons had only one way to fight, and that was by getting within the range of the spears, rendering them impotent, and then slaughtering the spearmen. The best way to do this was to advance with shields, knock aside the pike-thrust, and destroy the formation. This wasn't a sure method by any means, as you could often be skewered by the second rank.

At the tactical level, the best way for anyone to beat a strong spear formation was to hit from the sides or rear. The nature of the spear as a weapon makes it cumbersome, and only a very cohesive spear unit can turn around without disorder. But a formation of spears, such as those used by the Swiss or Flemish, was very difficult to crack, despite its tendency for slowness.

A cavalry heavy army was pretty much impotent against good spearmen, but against many enemies, they could sometimes rely upon the terrifying effect of the heavy cavalry charge to disperse an enemy formation. Most infantry were not stoic enough to stand in place against cavalry.

The most common way for an army to break spears was by combined arms. An archery unit would disperse the spearmen, who by necessity congregated in a tight formation and were slow-moving. They made an easy target, and were seldom as well armored as a knight. Once the formation was lost, cavalry could rip them to pieces.

It's interesting to note that for much of the medieval period, much of military thought was devoted to answering your question: How can one defeat a well-organized, high-morale formation of spears? But it must be remembered that a Swiss pike unit might be almost impregnable, but then again, a good majority of pikemen were not Swiss, or even very good at their jobs. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[econ21]

There was a lot of debate when MTW first came out about cavalry vs spears. I personally agree with Pablo Sanchez's response. It fits what I know about cavalry vs infantry interactions in other periods, and with what little I've read of more recent military historians work on the period. I also think MTW gets the balance just about right.

I'm not convinced by MTWs swords vs spears model though (ie that swords slaughter spears). If it were accurate, I'd expect to see lots of sword armed "legionnaire" type formations in the period and I'm just not finding them in what I read.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ Mar. 19 2003,19:17)]There was a lot of debate when MTW first came out about cavalry vs spears. I personally agree with Pablo Sanchez's response. It fits what I know about cavalry vs infantry interactions in other periods, and with what little I've read of more recent military historians work on the period. I also think MTW gets the balance just about right.

I'm not convinced by MTWs swords vs spears though (ie that swords slaughter spears). If it were accurate, I'd expect to see lots of sword armed "legionnaire" type formations in the period and I'm just not finding them in what I read.
One consideration on MTW's sword vs. spear is that many of the sword units are more 'elite' than the spear units. For example, it's not much of a stretch to see men at arms or Byzantine infantry, who were trained to a fairly high standard, tear into units of spearmen (which are little more than improved peasants).

But when swords are able to defeat spear units trained and equipped to a similar standard, then we're getting play balance in favor of history. Order Spearmen should take most sword units to task without too much trouble, for example.

But I have to say that I support the designers on this point, to an extent. It increases unit variety and gives the player the ability to beat spearmen which would otherwise be very hard to stop. If you want real historical accuracy, you'd remove most sword/axe units, and give most non-elite spear units morale penalties.

[Hakonarson]

An individual swordsman has a considerable advantage over an individual spearman - the spear has a very limited lethal strike possibility - a stab, and it is relatively easily deflected by any glancing surface.

A swordsman also is more aggressive since he has to attack past the spearpoint to get into range, and so will be moving forward - in contrast the spearman may well be back-pedaling to stay at his optimum range.

In individual combat het best way to use a spear is like a quarter-staff - ie ditch the shiedl and hold in 2 hands well towards one end - it can then be used to strike, thrust and block.

In contrast when you put 200 of each side by side and confine their falnks (by other troops for example), the swordsmen have a problem - spearmen can jab from rear ranks, they can form a shield wall, and their reach enables them to strike at people other than their foe directly in front.

Swordsmen cannot maintain a shieldwall while trying to fence - so if they want that form of protection they are limited to stabbing over or under their shields and their swords become nothing moer than very short spears

And then there's the COST

In Charlemagne's time (mid 9th Cent AD) a Spear cost 1 cow, a sword cost 6 And 12 cows was considered quite a fortune.