Does anyone have any sort of knowledge on medieval weapons and the weapons knights would use on foot?

[FionordeQuester]

More specifically, I'm trying to figure out what would've been more efficient to use against a knight wearing either Splint, Chain, or Plate Mail in a one-on-one fight, in close range combat, assuming that they were on foot and not on horses. Bastard Swords, Great Swords, Broad Swords, Hammers, what? I know that Hammers were considered very effective against knights due to being able to knock them down with the flat end, piercing their armor with the spiked end of a war hammer, and being able to cause trauma even without piercing their armor, but I haven't been able to find out whether a war hammer was something someone would use against a knight because that was the best available, or whether it was only a substitute weapon for those who were too poor to get knight training and sword combat.

That's the frustration I have with most sources online. They go into great detail about the virtues of the weapons themselves, but they don't really go in-depth about how they compared to other weapons, or in what situations they were best in.

Also, this is referring to real life, just so you know. I'm not talking about Fire Emblem here.

Edited April 19, 2012 by FionordeQuester

[Excellen Browning]

Splint: Sorry mistook splint for brigandine. Splintmail is a mix of chains and plate so probably blunts and stabbing weapons were effective. Mind you that splint was meant as limb armor.

Chainmail: Blunt weapons and stuff that was meant to stab (spears and rapiers). Mail especially didn't do anything against the blunt force trauma.

Plate: Again Blunts, spears and stabbing swords.

Older cutting swords weren't as effective against armor as the stabbing ones, you'd still take the impact force but because there is no way the sword would ever cut through the iron or steel you'd be relatively unharmed. This is because the point of impact is much greater for cutting. this is also why, if you ended up fighting opponents in plate it became more like a wrestling match at first and once one of the two was properly on the ground, the other could use all his power to stab number one with his sword, killing him.

Newer stabbing swords are a different matter altogether, because the point of impact was so small it could stab through the chain and plate. blunts also had a small point of impact, as well as more direct weight behind them.

Now as for whether blunts or swords were better. Swords were a symbol of status and probably more expensive to produce, they should also be the superior weapon for piercing armor because of the stabbing motion instead of the swinging motion used for blunts. Stabbing is faster than swinging mind you so the sword should theoretically be a better weapon.

EDIT: correction on splint.

EDIT2: correction on mail.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Daigoji Excellen

[Kay]

What would they have besides the mail?

Anyway, I can't say I know for sure right now, but I think a mace or a hammer would be a pretty good weapon in that situation. I don't know how well swords would work. I'll try to see if I can find any more info for you. See, mail was mostly good for guarding against cutting wounds. It doesn't do a whole lot against blunt force. Excellen's basically got stuff right, it looks like.

Although, Excellen, I'm not really getting the "stabbing is faster than swinging" thing. I don't think you can stab more quickly, not with enough force to do much. Plus, I expect it would put you in a worse position defensively, a lot of times. Also, I think I remember reading the opposite about the effectiveness of arrows against chain.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Kay

[Excellen Browning]

What would they have besides the mail?

Anyway, I can't say I know for sure right now, but I think a mace or a hammer would be a pretty good weapon in that situation. I don't know how well swords would work. I'll try to see if I can find any more info for you. See, mail was mostly good for guarding against cutting wounds. It doesn't do a whole lot against blunt force. Excellen's basically got stuff right, it looks like.

Although, Excellen, I'm not really getting the "stabbing is faster than swinging" thing. I don't think you can stab more quickly, not with enough force to do much. Plus, I expect it would put you in a worse position defensively, a lot of times. Also, I think I remember reading the opposite about the effectiveness of arrows against chain.

It depends on what time period you're investigating really. In the middle ages mail, a jack of plates and some plate like the helmet was all you'd likely be getting if you were a mere foot soldier because plate was expensive and usually tailormade. This changes with the advent of fire arms however, as that leads to the introduction of munition armour which is basically mass produced plate armor.

As for stabbing versus slashing. If you go into a fighting pose with a stabbing sword, it looks kind of like fencing. Stick pointed forward, to your opponent. You basically only have to move your arm forward. Very fast and short move. Slashing, if you it to have any power behind it, means you first put your stick in a position to get some power behind it, then you swing, which is a pretty long move in itself. Try it out yourself some time.

[FionordeQuester]

So were Bastard Swords, Broad Swords, and the like good for stabbing? Or was the stabbing sword some very specific weapon that wasn't invented until around the end of the medieval periods?

Edited April 19, 2012 by FionordeQuester

[eclipse]

Example of a stabby sword: rapier

Example of a slashy sword: broadsword (notice where the blade is)

[Excellen Browning]

So were Bastard Swords, Broad Swords, and the like good for stabbing? Or was the stabbing sword some very specific weapon that wasn't invented until around the end of the medieval periods?

My sword knowledge doesnt go that far, unfortunately. Look at some pictures and make a guesstimate. By stabbing swords I meant things like the estoc and colichemarde, they at times didn't even have cutting edges.

[Anouleth]

Example of a stabby sword: rapier

Example of a slashy sword: broadsword (notice where the blade is)

Swords were used for both stabbing and slashing. That's kind of the whole point. Stabbing is usually more efficient, however. Even the Romans knew that!

"They were likewise taught not to cut but to thrust with their swords. For the Romans not only made a jest of those who fought with the edge of that weapon, but always found them an easy conquest. A stroke with the edges, though made with ever so much force, seldom kills, as the vital parts of the body are defended both by the bones and armor. On the contrary, a stab, though it penetrates but two inches, is generally fatal. Besides in the attitude of striking, it is impossible to avoid exposing the right arm and side; but on the other hand, the body is covered while a thrust is given, and the adversary receives the point before he sees the sword. This was the method of fighting principally used by the Romans, and their reason for exercising recruits with arms of such a weight at first was, that when they came to carry the common ones so much lighter, the greater difference might enable them to act with greater security and alacrity in time of action. "

[Esau of Isaac]

Now as for whether blunts or swords were better. Swords were a symbol of status and probably more expensive to produce, they should also be the superior weapon for piercing armor because of the stabbing motion instead of the swinging motion used for blunts. Stabbing is faster than swinging mind you so the sword should theoretically be a better weapon.

In such a case you could simply use a spear, no? A heavier weapon such as a mace was generally to be applied against armored foes in close combat. I suppose you could use a sword, but that seems like a weapon of last resort, and ultimately ineffective depending on the sword.

So were Bastard Swords, Broad Swords, and the like good for stabbing? Or was the stabbing sword some very specific weapon that wasn't invented until around the end of the medieval periods?

Bastard swords were very versatile, generally wieldy weapons, regardless of their many forms. They could be used in effective roles in slashing, stabbing, and cutting in most cases. Broadswords were bashing weapons, and generally lacked a more pointed edge, though just as with bastard sword "broadsword" is a very general term that can encompass a wide variety of weaponry.

Swords were used for both stabbing and slashing. That's kind of the whole point. Stabbing is usually more efficient, however. Even the Romans knew that!

"They were likewise taught not to cut but to thrust with their swords. For the Romans not only made a jest of those who fought with the edge of that weapon, but always found them an easy conquest. A stroke with the edges, though made with ever so much force, seldom kills, as the vital parts of the body are defended both by the bones and armor. On the contrary, a stab, though it penetrates but two inches, is generally fatal. Besides in the attitude of striking, it is impossible to avoid exposing the right arm and side; but on the other hand, the body is covered while a thrust is given, and the adversary receives the point before he sees the sword. This was the method of fighting principally used by the Romans, and their reason for exercising recruits with arms of such a weight at first was, that when they came to carry the common ones so much lighter, the greater difference might enable them to act with greater security and alacrity in time of action. "

There are many blades that are not made for stabbing, and doing so would generally be awkward and ineffective. Such can be seen in the case of scimitars, and in fact most more curved swords, which were made for slicing, not stabbing or bashing.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Esau of Isaac

[Anouleth]

There are many blades that are not made for stabbing, and doing so would generally be awkward and ineffective. Such can be seen in the case of scimitars, and in fact most more curved swords, which were made for slicing, not stabbing or bashing.

Yeah, but she said broadswords, which aren't curved at all.

In addition, even curved swords were used for thrusting.

[Esau of Isaac]

Yeah, but she said broadswords, which aren't curved at all.

They did, but you said that swords were made for stabbing and slashing, not specifically broadswords. You seemed to relate that all swords were in fact intended to do this with your sentence and the quote you used. My bad if that's not what you meant.

In addition, even curved swords were used for thrusting.

They were sometimes used that way, but it was awkward and not what the sword was optimally designed to do.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Esau of Isaac

[Agro]

http://www.mercwars.com/weaponanalysis.shtml

This page seems to have some idea of what it's talking about. Swords weren't the only thing in use; axes, maces, clubs, morning stars and spears were very common weapons. According to this page, swords were actually quite expensive - and you can imagine why, given the amount of skill it takes to make a good one - and were really only used by nobility and the rich.

[eclipse]

I brought up a broadsword because it's more slash-friendly than a rapier.

[Kay]

As for stabbing versus slashing. If you go into a fighting pose with a stabbing sword, it looks kind of like fencing. Stick pointed forward, to your opponent. You basically only have to move your arm forward. Very fast and short move. Slashing, if you it to have any power behind it, means you first put your stick in a position to get some power behind it, then you swing, which is a pretty long move in itself. Try it out yourself some time.

But the only stances stabbing is easier from are really obviously for just that purpose. I would think it would be too easy to anticipate and counter.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Kay

[Excellen Browning]

But the only stances stabbing is easier from are really obviously for just that purpose. I would think it would be too easy to anticipate and counter.

that's true but just try to dodge one or hell counter one. Stab is a hell of a fast move

Edited April 20, 2012 by Daigoji Excellen

[Esau of Isaac]

But that same weapon that you're saying stabbing is so effective with is clearly outclassed by a longer range weapon, in any variety of spears. There is a reason that everyone in Europe and, well, the world was not armed with strictly stabbing swords as their primary armament. They used long pointy sticks to stay away from the enemy. Which swords are you speaking about specifically, by the way?

Edited April 20, 2012 by Esau of Isaac

[Excellen Browning]

But that same weapon that you're saying stabbing is so effective with is clearly outclassed by a longer range weapon, in any variety of spears. There is a reason that everyone in Europe and, well, the world was not armed with strictly stabbing swords as their primary armament. They used long pointy sticks to stay away from the enemy. Which swords are you speaking about specifically, by the way?

Spears are heavy, cumbersome and were usually friggen long. Not to mention you were as good as dead when your opponent got inside your spear's range. That's pretty difficult for an untrained fighter, yes, in a one on one fight, but back in dem middle ages and renaissance the people who carried swords usually knew how to fight with them.

[Esau of Isaac]

Spears are heavy, cumbersome and were usually friggen long. Not to mention you were as good as dead when your opponent got inside your spear's range. That's pretty difficult for an untrained fighter, yes, in a one on one fight, but back in dem middle ages and renaissance the people who carried swords usually knew how to fight with them.

But rarely does anyone ever get in close because they get stabbed to death from ten feet away. That's why literally every single ancient civilization made use of spears, yet not the epee. You're saying that people in the middle ages must have known how to fight with swords, but they must have known how to fight with a spear even better since that was almost exclusively what they used in combat.

[Kay]

Excellen, I think your opinion is really skewed. Stabs aren't some unstoppable technique. You can see them coming, and parry, or yes, dodge, because it doesn't take that much movement to turn so that an attack passes by you or glances off armor or at least doesn't incapacitate you. Besides, it's just not as easy to channel enough force into stabs. It's not like in modern fencing when all you have to do is poke a guy with no armor and no shield and a bunch of rules against doing much else.

[Parrhesia]

Fencing vs. guy with a lance and mace in a suit of full plate riding an armoured courser? I don't think it's a contest. Clearly the unarmoured guy with a poor incredibly wealthy man's spear has this shit in the bag. Life is fire emblem, after all, and rapiers get x3 damage to cavalry.

That said, I HAVE found this thread educational. I just wish I had something to actually contribute :p

[Excellen Browning]

Fencing vs. guy with a lance and mace in a suit of full plate riding an armoured courser? I don't think it's a contest. Clearly the unarmoured guy with a poor incredibly wealthy man's spear has this shit in the bag. Life is fire emblem, after all, and rapiers get x3 damage to cavalry.

That said, I HAVE found this thread educational. I just wish I had something to actually contribute :p

Horsemen weren't the only people who wore armor. Especially in the renaissance period, when you had munition armour.

[Haze]

Worth noting, spears/lances usually broke after the first stab, anyone with one of those weapons had a backup weapon for after that happened.

[Esau of Isaac]

Horsemen weren't the only people who wore armor. Especially in the renaissance period, when you had munition armour.

By and large, however, most didn't wear armor of a thicker variety, and those that did were generally mounted. Either way you wouldn't be finding armies of men advancing on an opponent with a wall of stabbing swords. It simply did not happen.

Worth noting, spears/lances usually broke after the first stab, anyone with one of those weapons had a backup weapon for after that happened.

I have never read of this anywhere. Where did you hear this from?

[Haze]

Well with lances, it's common knowledge, lances are not an infantry weapon, they were used by the cavalry, and were more often than not designed to break after the initial stab for three reasons.

First, it prevented the rider's lance becoming stuck in his victim.

Second, lances were too heavy and unwieldy to be used in the giant brawls that medievel combat often devolved into, so they needed to be discarded so the rider could switch to say, a mace.

Third, following on from the second, it prevented the rider's lance being stolen and used against him after he discarded it.

Spears are a little more interesting, as there are two kinds.

Throwing spears were one use for obvious reasons.

Thrusting spears ere often too lightweight to withstand repeated use from thrusts and stabs into opponents, especially when dealing with more heavily armoured enemies, this would cause them to break. However, soldiers with spears (especially Greeks) would usually carry multiple, of both the throwing and stabbing variety so that they could remain in the fight. Over time, however, the thrusting spear fell out of use, if I'm remembering my medievel history correctly.

Now if you're talking about the really gigantic fuckhuge things that they all carried in a tight formation pointing outwards, those are pikes, and are an entirely different story.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Haze

[Esau of Isaac]

I had thought you were talking about thrusting pears, not throwing spears, which I agree is common knowledge regarding their being rendered useless. I'm interested to see where you're getting your data from regarding regular old spears and lances, as I've never heard anything about the latter and the former doesn't sound right. If spears were so easy to break after its intended use then carrying two would not be much worth at all, would it?