Would the weapon triangle work in real life?

[rexcalibur]

This is something I've been wondering about today. Would swords having an advantage over axes and all that make sense during medieval times? I hardly know anything about how weapons worked during those times so I was just curious.

[Sifer]

it depends on the skill of the user and formations.

lances were used in formation which meant they would cover each. But if the swords managed to flank the spears, the lances would have little room to swing so the swords would fare better.

so, no. The triangle is a game mechanic.

But then my historical knowledge of how historical warfare is zilch.

[Melonhead]

Well, I'd assume Lances would beat swords, due to the better range, and Swords would beat axes, because of multiple swing directions, but I have no idea. Especially for Axes>Lances.

[Florete]

Lances beat swords because of longer range. Swords beat axes because of swifter and more controlled motions. Axes chop lances in two.

I have no idea what the fuck I'm talking about.

Pretty sure it's just a game mechanic.

[The Void]

No it wouldn't.

Spears have been the primary weapons for so many armies that were around before firearms came to Europe. Think about that.

Edited February 15, 2014 by The Void

[Icon of Sin]

Two handed swords have beaten spears pretty easily at some point.

[Cowboy Karimov]

Two handed swords have beaten spears pretty easily at some point.

I proceed to blow a digital raspberry at you.

Lances beat swords, lances beat axes. Actually, I shouldn't be calling them "lances", as a lance breaks easily because it is longer. So spears win all the way. Until the 1600s.

Edited February 15, 2014 by HeavyBrawlsGuy

[The Void]

Two handed swords have beaten spears pretty easily at some point.

That just shows you how unrealistic the weapon triangle is.

[Parrhesia]

Do not for one second believe FE holds any actual resemblance to combat, let alone a clash of armies.

[Soledai]

I'm pretty sure in real combat between the three, the spear is the way to go... bonus points for halberds and pikes.

[RJWalker]

Also archers were the most important component of an army.

[Rapier]

Do not for one second believe FE holds any actual resemblance to combat, let alone a clash of armies.

Facing armies with just 10 units and sending the commander to the frontlines, because why not?

[dondon151]

Do not for one second believe FE holds any actual resemblance to combat, let alone a clash of armies.

cavalry did steamroll infantry until infantry learned how to use formations with spears though

[Byte2222]

Spears have a longer reach than swords. In one-on-one combat (which seems to be the main form of combat in FE) the swordsman has to metaphorically pass through a zone of death before he has the advantage over the spearman.

Most sword technique is focused on deflecting the attacks that come at you. Historical war axes are much lighter that you'd think, rarely more than a kilogram, mostly because a heavy weapon is cumbersome and in the time it takes you to wind up your swing, you've probably been stabbed. Despite this, axes are still... choppy weapons. Good sword technique uses subtle and fast slicing actions and deflecting a heavy axe is easier to do and to capitalise on with a sword.

As for axes beating spears, that's pretty tenuous. I suppose if you're using a bearded axe you can hook the spear that's blocking you and sweep it out of the way to get yourself inside the spearman but that's by no means a universal advantage.

Of course, all this goes out of the window in even a medium-sized battle. Your troops are all in tight formation rather than fighting individually and the rain-of-death that is the enemy archers' doing and the horsemen riding around on beasts twice your height and weight are much more of a concern than what the enemy infantry's carrying. Also, when you're in tight formation, spears, halberds etc. are very easy to use: poke it at the enemy and as long as you and the guys next to you can keep the enemy out, you're safe.

For context, I studied a martial art with a weapon element (aikido) for two years and I generally have an interest in the old ways of war.

[rexcalibur]

Spears have a longer reach than swords. In one-on-one combat (which seems to be the main form of combat in FE) the swordsman has to metaphorically pass through a zone of death before he has the advantage over the spearman.

Most sword technique is focused on deflecting the attacks that come at you. Historical war axes are much lighter that you'd think, rarely more than a kilogram, mostly because a heavy weapon is cumbersome and in the time it takes you to wind up your swing, you've probably been stabbed. Despite this, axes are still... choppy weapons. Good sword technique uses subtle and fast slicing actions and deflecting a heavy axe is easier to do and to capitalise on with a sword.

As for axes beating spears, that's pretty tenuous. I suppose if you're using a bearded axe you can hook the spear that's blocking you and sweep it out of the way to get yourself inside the spearman but that's by no means a universal advantage.

Of course, all this goes out of the window in even a medium-sized battle. Your troops are all in tight formation rather than fighting individually and the rain-of-death that is the enemy archers' doing and the horsemen riding around on beasts twice your height and weight are much more of a concern than what the enemy infantry's carrying. Also, when you're in tight formation, spears, halberds etc. are very easy to use: poke it at the enemy and as long as you and the guys next to you can keep the enemy out, you're safe.

For context, I studied a martial art with a weapon element (aikido) for two years and I generally have an interest in the old ways of war.

Wow thanks! So swords can be useful against axes but axes don't really work that well against spears?

[Byte2222]

Wow thanks! So swords can be useful against axes but axes don't really work that well against spears?

Don't forget that we're generalising a lot here. FE is like reality in that an expert fighter will defeat a novice no matter what weapons they're using. You've also got to remember that different weapons require different amounts of training to use and have different availability. Spears are much harder to learn to use in single combat than swords and axes, swords are very expensive compared to the other two and axes are everywhere (because they're tools). But yes, I can see a swordsman having an advantage over an axeman more easily than I can see an axeman having an advantage over a spearman.

[The Void]

Also archers were the most important component of an army.

Lots of archers carried swords though. Unlike in FE where Archers/Hunters/Whatever can't attack at close range most of the time.

Edited February 17, 2014 by The Void