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.

[A.Saturnus]

A problem of MTW is that soldiers normally only have one melee weapon. I think most infantry in that time had spears as main weapon but swords, axes or maces as second weapon. The spear is great to deflect charges or to charge in a close formation. But when the enemy infantry was very close, I guess most of the time the man switched to other weapons. I could also imagine armies used some non-spear-equipped infantry to break spear formations. The pictures of Hastings show Saxon axemen. Also the Landsknechts used assaulters in the front row that were equipped with a two-handed sword called "Bidenhaender", that had the function to "crawl" into the enemy pikes and disrupt the formation. The Spanish Rondolero had the same function.
I doubt the original spear was so effective against heavy cav. In fact, medieval battles were dominated by cavalry and only very rarely a battle was decided by spearmen winning over knights. One of the exceptions is Kortrijk 1302, but the victory of the Flamish spearmen was more due to the wet ground on which the heavy French knights slipped out. Only with the upcoming pike in the late 14th century, the supreiority of the knighs ended.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Mar. 29 2003,08:02)]I doubt the original spear was so effective against heavy cav. In fact, medieval battles were dominated by cavalry and only very rarely a battle was decided by spearmen winning over knights. One of the exceptions is Kortrijk 1302, but the victory of the Flamish spearmen was more due to the wet ground on which the heavy French knights slipped out. Only with the upcoming pike in the late 14th century, the supreiority of the knighs ended.
The problem that infantry in the early and middle Medieval period had with heavy cavalry was a matter of discipline. Simply speaking, the average infantryman was an untrained slob, and he got spooked and ran when cavalry charged, allowing the cavalry to cut up disorganized and fleeing jumbles of soldiers.

The infantry renaissance of the late middle ages wasn't due to a change in weaponry, it was due to the emergence of large, well trained infantry formations wielding pole-arms. Kortrijk was not primarily due to wet terrain, a large majority of the French knights were able to reach the Flemish lines without too much difficult. Their problem was that they hit an unyielding wall of spearmen, which took all the power out of their charge and killed a lot of them.

[Michael the Great]

Yes,but weren't some polearms used offensively? I'm talking about poleaxes here in fact.....

[Pablo Sanchez]

Quote[/b] (Michael the Great @ Mar. 29 2003,12:54)]Yes,but weren't some polearms used offensively? I'm talking about poleaxes here in fact.....
Any polearm could be used offensively, depending on the training of the soldiers and their ability to stay in formation on the march. The most important thing to remember about a spear is that it is most effective in a solid block formation, several ranks deep. In the context of a pitched battle, that's the single most effective arrangement for any infantry force.

When you were dealing with less of a set-piece battle, for example in broken terrain that prevented the formation from... er... forming, an axe, mace, or sword was better. If that wasn't an option, a halberd or partizan, or similar device was more effective than a simple spear, because of the axe head. But they were still unwieldy in length and weight, so if the swordsman could evade or withstand the halberdier's first thrust or chop, he could knock the weapon aside and settle the argument rather quickly.

If by poleaxe you mean that large triple-weapon recently featured on the History Channel--well, that's not a polearm, strictly speaking. It's not long enough.

[DemonArchangel]

against spearmen and such, couldn't the formation be broken up somewhat with arrows, and during the confusion, couldn't cavalry just flank or go behind the spearmen?

[Pablo Sanchez]

Quote[/b] (DemonArchangel @ Mar. 29 2003,15:38)]against spearmen and such, couldn't the formation be broken up somewhat with arrows, and during the confusion, couldn't cavalry just flank or go behind the spearmen?
That was the preferred tactic of dealing with spearmen. But there are problems that arise with this. Against relatively well equipped spearmen, like the Swiss or Flemish, arrows would be going up against mail armor, which sharply reduced their effectiveness.

As for flanking them with cavalry, it's quite hard to disguise the movement of knights, so they would most likely be noticed.

[Hakonarson]

With enough disorder caused by archery, cavalry could simply ride down spearmen without any need to flank them - this is what happened at Falkirk.

Pole-axes could be quite short - somewhere I have an illustration made at hte time of a man weilding a pole-axe. It's maybe 4.5-5 feet long - about 1400mm - depending on how big the guy was.

The weapon is completely murderous - it is entirely of iron, with a butt spike and a hand grip that has round guards at both ends.....ugh - there's no mistaking it's intent - it's not beautiful - just functional. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

[Pablo Sanchez]

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Mar. 30 2003,00:46)]The weapon is completely murderous - it is entirely of iron, with a butt spike and a hand grip that has round guards at both ends.....ugh - there's no mistaking it's intent - it's not beautiful - just functional. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
For single combat, I don't think there's anything better made in the medieval era.

[DemonArchangel]

the pole-axer wouldn't be able to carry a shield. Any who it's not my favorite weapon of the medieval period, my favorite medieval weapon is the two-handed mortuary sword.

[A.Saturnus]

Quote[/b] ]
The infantry renaissance of the late middle ages wasn't due to a change in weaponry, it was due to the emergence of large, well trained infantry formations wielding pole-arms. Kortrijk was not primarily due to wet terrain, a large majority of the French knights were able to reach the Flemish lines without too much difficult. Their problem was that they hit an unyielding wall of spearmen, which took all the power out of their charge and killed a lot of them.


In 1382, the situation French knights- Flamish spearmen was almost the same. The spearmen were rather better equipped than in 1302, still the knights slaughtered them. You`re right that discipline was a crucial issue, but I think the upcoming pike was important too. Sure, the Swiss had high discipline, but their victories against Knight armies, like that of Charles the Brave, were only possible with their tight pike-formation supported by halberds.