How real is the weapon triangle

[GrySun]

Anyone knows from experience or from other people if the weapon triangle makes any sense?

In real 1v1 battle, if one guy had a sword, the other a lance, would the guy with the lance have an advantage? Same for the other combinations.

I guess lances should outrange the sword, but then again, it outranges the axe a lot more. It should also be harder to block attacks with an axe, unless its a halberd.

[Knight]

If you think about it this way, a lance/spear has much farther reach than a sword, preventing a sword user from approaching. An axe has the ability to grapple and grab the pole of a spear under it's blade, then disarm the opponent. Swords are simply much lighter, more balanced and easier to use than axes, which means that a sword user would likely win against an axeman.

It's also good to remember that swords were often infantry weapons, while lances were used in cavalry charges that could kill infantry easy. Halberds (long-shafted axes) can pull a charging rider off his horse and leave them defenceless on the ground, but once on the ground, a rider can draw their sword and make a comeback. There's a lot of different interpretations on how the weapon triangle could work.

[Byte2222]

Perennial topic is perennial

Most of what I was going to say has been said above but I wanted to add that, in the end, the skill of the combatants is more important than what weapon they're using. Yes, the heft of an axe is an impediment against a more agile swordsman, but if the axeman is experienced and the swordsman is a novice, there's really only one way the fight can go.

[Rehab]

One idea I've heard is that formations of soldiers using two-handed swords may (a good lot of the descriptions I've yet heard about how the details of battles were fought in the middle ages have been accompanied by "we speculate," "we think," or "may have been") have been used to break up pike formations, where the wielders would swing them in upwards figures of 8 to brush them aside. Which, once they had knocked the spears aside and were in close, would be followed by their either gripping the two-handers from a more blunt section of the blade below those spike things you see on some of them and using them sort of like short spears, or just by taking out a hatchet or something.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

(Of course, to be fair to Fire Emblem, the actual gameplay of the combat scenarios is much less often "medieval warfare" in scale than it is "nasty gang skirmishes/melees," regardless of what it says on the box or in the cutscenes, and you probably knew that and the thread asked about 1v1 combat in the first place so why did I even bring that up I don't know okay.)

^Swords might be a bit more spritely in close quarters than axes, but talking about realism, to be sure, a good lot of axes would be carried with a shield, so they were one-handed (unless they were polearms too?). Those might've still been a bit more awkward than swords, but it's not super-likely they were more than five pounds, if that (which is fairly heavy for something you're expected to tote and swing around without breathers, so that's like the heavier end of melee weapons in the first place, but then that's getting into battles as opposed to skirmishes again), and somebody just hacking away with one of those could still go at it fairly quick.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Rehab

[Refa]

Perennial topic is perennial

Most of what I was going to say has been said above but I wanted to add that, in the end, the skill of the combatants is more important than what weapon they're using. Yes, the heft of an axe is an impediment against a more agile swordsman, but if the axeman is experienced and the swordsman is a novice, there's really only one way the fight can go.

If anything is accurately reflected in Fire Emblem, it's this lol (bows notwithstanding).

[Rewjeo]

Anyone knows from experience or from other people if the weapon triangle makes any sense?

In real 1v1 battle, if one guy had a sword, the other a lance, would the guy with the lance have an advantage? Same for the other combinations.

I guess lances should outrange the sword, but then again, it outranges the axe a lot more. It should also be harder to block attacks with an axe, unless its a halberd.

Based on what I know/have heard/read/etc.: It depends, is the guy with a lance on horseback, or on foot? A lance on foot is pretty useless, but if he's on horseback then the swordsman is in serious trouble. Y'know, given that a lance was a specific type of polearm designed for charging cavalry. I'm pretty sure that, in general, a sword was the go-to weapon for one-on-one combat, while spear type weapons were used for formations and specific tactics. Axes as a weapon were generally uncommon.

[Ϲharlie]

If you think about it this way, a lance/spear has much farther reach than a sword, preventing a sword user from approaching. An axe has the ability to grapple and grab the pole of a spear under it's blade, then disarm the opponent.

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If the head of an axe can hook the shaft of a spear, then what's stopping it from hooking the blade of a sword? Or the swordsman's shield or their knee or elbow for that matter?

Swords are simply much lighter, more balanced and easier to use than axes, which means that a sword user would likely win against an axeman.

This isn't true at all. Swords are not inherently lighter than axes of comparable size. This is merely a stereotype perpetuated by media. It's also worth noting that swords are actually "harder" to use than axes in the sense than they require some degree of training to be used effectively whereas an axe merely needs to be swung about.

Axes as a weapon were generally uncommon.

I'm not sure where you heard that, but it's not true. Axes are more economical and easier to make than swords and also much more effective against armor. Axes were at least as common in battle as swords, if not more. It was recorded in Roman times that every Frankish warrior carried a sword, a shield, and an axe for example. Edited August 22, 2014 by Starman

[Knight]

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If the head of an axe can hook the shaft of a spear, then what's stopping it from hooking the blade of a sword? Or the swordsman's shield or their knee or elbow for that matter?

This isn't true at all. Swords are not inherently lighter than axes of comparable size. This is merely a stereotype perpetuated by media. It's also worth noting that swords are actually "harder" to use than axes in the sense than they require some degree of training to be used effectively whereas an axe merely needs to be swung about.

1st point: Because a sword can be pulled out easier than a lance, since a lance is long and peoples arms are short, it's difficult to pull a spear out, especially since it doesn't maneuver as easy as the much lighter, shorter, balanced sword.

2nd point: It doesn't have much to do with the total weight as much as it has to do with where it's distributed. An axe has all the weight on the end, so it's not as easy to swing and parry with. Swords, on the other hand, have a lot of weight at the hilt and anyone who has used a sword of any size (myself, for example) could tell you it's much easier to parry and maneuver with. This can also be applied to my spear argument. Swords aren't even too difficult to use anyway and I also don't buy the "axes are the same weight as swords" since the purpose of axes and hammers in the medieval age was to hit plate armour harder than swords. (assuming they're not throwing axes)

3rd point: I very much doubt this point, but that's just me. Maybe before the later medieval ages.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Knight

[Rewjeo]

I'm not sure where you heard that, but it's not true. Axes are more economical and easier to make than swords and also much more effective against armor. Axes were at least as common in battle as swords, if not more. It was recorded in Roman times that every Frankish warrior carried a sword, a shield, and an axe for example.

Certain peoples used axes extensively, sure, but a lot of others didn't. Axes were generally used because they were economical and easy to make, not so much because they were an excellent weapon. There are a number of limitations on axes as a weapon, particularly in more organized warfare. Frankish warriors in Roman times were generally less organized than, say, the Romans, Greeks, and later European kingdoms - including Charlemagne's own Frankish empire. A google search brought this up:

[spoiler=Stuff on Charlemagne]

The fourth item is a letter from Charlemagne to an abbot summoning him for military service

In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Charles, serene and august, crowned by God great and pacific Emperor, and by God's mercy King of the Franks and the Lombards, to Fulrad the Abbot:

Be it known to you that we have decided to hold our general assembly for this year in the eastern part of Saxony, on the river Bode, at the place which is called Strassfurt. Wherefore we do command thee that thou come to this place with thy full quota of men, well armed and equipped, on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of July, which is seven days before the feast of St. John the Baptist. Then shaft thou come to the aforesaid place, with thy men ready, so that thou canst go in military array in any direction whither our command shall send thee.

Thou shaft have arms and gear, and warlike instruments, and food and clothing. Each horseman shall have a shield, lance, sword, dagger, bow, and quivers with arrows. In the carts ye shall have implements of divers kinds: axes, planes, augers, boards, spades, iron shovels, and other tools of which an army has need. In the carts you must also have supplies of food for three months, dating from the time of the assembly, and arms and clothing for a half year. We order you to attend carefully to all these things so that you may proceed peacefully to the aforesaid place. For through whatever part of our realm your journey shall take you, you shall not presume to take anything but fodder, food, and water. Let the men of each one of your vassals march along with the carts and horsemen, and let the leader always be with them until they reach the aforesaid place, so that the absence of a lord may not give to his men an opportunity of doing evil . . . .

These sections are from Readings in European History, edited by James Harvey Robinson (Boston, 1904)

You may notice it specifies an axe as a tool brought separately from the weapons for battle. This source discusses the equipment of the Franks under Charlemagne - and mentions specifically how the most famous axe of the Franks was no longer in use and had given way to a blade. The Lombards and Saxons are mentioned as using axes, but again those were relatively unorganized peoples who generally lacked much metalworking ability. In contrast, it was actually standard for certain of Charlemagne's troops to have metal armor. And societies in Fire Emblem are capable not just of mail, but of plate armor - and it's pretty common at that. Historically, those societies were not actively using axes in battle. That's what I meant by "generally uncommon." I didn't think I had to qualify uncommon with more than generally, but here you go.

[ClassyWolf]

This isn't true at all. Swords are not inherently lighter than axes of comparable size. This is merely a stereotype perpetuated by media. It's also worth noting that swords are actually "harder" to use than axes in the sense than they require some degree of training to be used effectively whereas an axe merely needs to be swung about.

While this is true I think it might be that people just don't know about, and it might even seem like that to people handling the different weapons due to how the weight is distributet, with the sword near the hilt, with the axe at the head.

And yes, swords required a lot of training, if one does some research into it, they had kinda their own marshal art in how to wield a sword effectivly (with and without a shield).

[FrostyFireMage]

If FE was realistic bows would be far more effective.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

If FE was realistic bows would be far more effective.

well afew of the games bows are pretty awesome.

[Snowy_One]

It's not that realistic.

Lances were a solid weapon on the whole, but did not excel in direct melee combat. Due to their price, ease of use, and length they made great weapons for the poor and in military formations, especially since they could be easily paired with a shield, but if you ever got in actually close the length of the shaft would work heavily against its wielder, especially if they were using spears that could only pierce. That's not to say that they weren't effective, of course, as they saw plenty of use. A well-made battle formation could easily keep foes at bay, they were decent for repelling attackers on walls, and they were great for soldiers on horseback since it made their reach much greater and they could focus the momentum to a single point, but they kinda sucked outside of that.

Swords were great, all-around, melee weapons. Due to their long cutting edges and smaller size once one got into melee combat, even with a single-edged blade, they could wound an opponent far more often. Spears struggle against their own length and axes require momentum, but swords could cut fast and, often, pierce as well. There is a reason you see knights wielding swords often except when on horseback and it isn't just because of the romantic image of swords. Course, they had some problems as they cost more in both resources (since iron is a lot more expensive than wood) and production price, couldn't be easily replaced, and required some training to use effectively while the use for a spear could basically be 'pointy end towards enemy' making it a bad idea to hand off to peasants/serfs whom probably are still getting the hang of formations.

The axe was rarely used in combat and for good reason. It's a pretty bad weapon on the whole. Sure, it CAN be used effectively, but it's simply lacking in potency. An axe requires a large amount of momentum in order to use properly which is difficult to get in melee combat and tires people out fast compared to the lance and sword. While it *CAN* hook around shields, unless the head is overly long to the point where it would be valid to question if it was a hoe or not as opposed to an axe, the wielder won't likely directly hurt someone. Course there is a disruption which can be just as deadly, but axes still had some really nasty side-effects on the whole. Can't be swung as fast as a sword, requires a lot of momentum to use and thusly stamina, very poor at blocking, and takes training to be used.

MACES on the other had did see plenty of use (though still not as much as swords or spears) since, even though they took a lot of metal and were very energy-intensive as well, could deliver a LOT of force as blunt trauma, be attached to a chain to bypass shields, and be easily used with a shield. Whereas axes often required two hands to use a good mace could be wielded with one hand while potentially imparting more damage. That's not to say it was perfect since maces couldn't be really scaled up without breaking their shaft.

Bows were also VERY effective on the whole and, if realistic, would probably make every archer at least mid-tier with people like Neimi and Astrid becoming the new end-game OP'ed unit since a well-trained marksman, especially one who could fight on horse-back, was basically the fighter/bomber jet of the time. Part of the reason why the Mongols were so effective in battle was because their mounted cavalry could rush in, fire a lot of shots, then retreat the moment foes got close and, since riding on horseback and shooting was part of every-day life for most mongols, it was a relatively simple task for them. This was made even more apparent with the rise of the crossbow which could be fired effectively by even peasants with decent accuracy and great power, despite some pretty bad reload times.

Course, these are general statements and not 100% true as things like training and the specific weapon in use come into play. For example, the halberd is one of the most iconic weapons of the Middle-ages, possibly on-par or surpassing the longsword, simply because of how effective it was. By combining a hook, a spear, and an axe they got the best of several worlds. With the hook they could quicky remove or disrupt an enemy shield, then pierce them right through with the spear-portion while already being behind their, now disrupted, shield and that's not to mention being able to peel back armor or have the option of an axe. Took a lot of training to use properly though, but with that training it was, arguably, the best melee weapon of that time. Throwing axes is another example since doing so was, generally, a bad idea since it was difficult to ensure you would actually hurt your target as opposed to hit him in the face with the handle and give him a free axe, but certain tribes trained hard and made it work with things like the bearded axe.

So no, the weapon triangle is not realistic. Swords and bows are best with spears seeing a lot of general use in some of the more defined roles and maces being a decent backup and axes only being seen in specialized situations. An IRL tier-list would probably have any unit who could mount and fight with the bow as the best and axemen as the worst with handaxes being near-nonexistent as a weapon while archers would almost always be medium or high tier. IRL it would be Oscar > Rolf > Boyd since Oscar can use a bow and lance and is mounted, Rolf can fight from range, and Boyd has the worst weapon and would require training in the bow (Oscar would too, but he still has his mounted lance fall-back).

Edited August 23, 2014 by Snowy_One

[Byte2222]

*snip*

A few things:

Lances and spears are unfairly lumped together by FE. Short spears are perfectly good weapons for single melee combat - as an example, a short Japanese yari spear can be a very effective weapon, capable of lots or different attacks in lots of different directions. This kind of fighting is, however, even more difficult to learn than conventional swordfighting.

Historical axes were far smaller than most people think, often being one-handed axes weighing less than a kilogram. Think hatchet rather than felling axe.

Relevant video:

Bows are, as observed, very effective. Hit-and-run horseback archers were absolutely monstrous but large, long-range batteries of English longbows were also deadly effective. The downside is the training. There's an old saying in archery: "to make a great longbowman, start with his grandfather". Horseback and longbow archers required basically a lifetime of training.

[Snowy_One]

Oh. I'm not doubting the effectiveness of the longbow, far from it. But they had one key flaw. Their soldiers were on foot. That killed their mobility in comparison to their horseback foes. However, that's like saying 'This megaton punch is better than that megaton punch because it's slightly faster' when both are still more than a few cuts above the rest.

You are right about the short-spear thing as well, however, even then the spear has to deal with the fact that it has a lengthy shaft that is, noticeably, not cutting. As you pointed out that does mean you have to train harder to master as well, something that can't really be done for armies. I didn't mention this as well, but the throwing spears were actually quite effective (since they could be used in both ranged and hand-to-hand combat) but ended up getting phased out during the dark ages since their main use came when people could utilize battle formations and carry supplies into battle. That wasn't true in Japan though, but even with it removed throwing spears were still best used from horseback, had somewhat limited range unless you trained for them, and you'd still have to carry multiple spears (and it was a bad idea to make quality spears since, you know, throwing them away). That, by no means, makes them weak though. I'm not sure how it's spelled, but the Atlatle (wooden thingy you could mount the spear on to throw it) made them far more effective, if needing in training. Still, probably better to just train peasants to fire off bows and more economical to do so.

As for the axes that video was fairly spot-on, though I would like to point out that the axe shaft isn't *quite* as durable as he makes it out to be. Wood has a tendency to not handle blunt trauma well, which is the kind of backlash that the weapon would take against anything armored or hard (metal swords aren't as momentum-reliant most of the time, so it's less of an issue cause there is less power for the backlash). Otherwise I'd say it's pretty solid.

The big problem with deciding what the 'weapon triangle' actually is is that a lot of 'soldiers' were simply peasants drafted to fight with little training offered. For someone like that an axe or spear is simply much better than a bow or sword simply because it can be picked up and used with minimal training and cost, but that also means that things like using the circular motion of the axe to maintain momentum (as he described) as well as the shield simply can't be taught in time.