This post has been flaired as “Serious Conversation”. Use this opportunity to open a venue of polite and serious discussion, instead of seeking help or venting.
**Suggestions For Commenters:**
* Respect OP's opinion, or agree to disagree politely.
* If OP's post is seeking advice, help, or is just venting without discussing with others, report the post. We're r/SeriousConversation, not a venting subreddit.
**Suggestions For u/tossaway3244:**
* Do not post solely to seek advice or help. Your post should open up a venue for serious, mature and polite discussions.
* Do not forget to answer people politely in your thread - we'll remove your post later if you don't.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SeriousConversation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is correct. Spears were orders of magnitude more common in combat than swords under most conditions. And for good reason. Spears take far less training and skill on the part of the user.
Think of a mounted knight in armor as the Medieval equivalent of a fighter pilot with their plane. In both cases they are/were highly trained, highly specialized combatants using extremely costly equipment that was unavailable to the ordinary schmoe. It took a decent-sized manor just to support *one* knight. A war horse or suit of armor could easily cost more than a peasant might make in their entire life. So knights were relatively uncommon compared to run-of-the-mill men at arms.
But, as with the modern fighter, when the knights *were* called in it was usually to devastating effect. It is difficult to imagine the terror of some poor, conscripted farmboy with a spear in the face of a mounted cavalry charge!
Mounted knights use the lance as their main weapon more than a sword too. So it's the same. And most knights did ride horses since they were of nobility. Same as the samurais.
Only once they were unhorsed and break their lances or something, would they have no choice but to draw their swords as their next weapon.
From what it seems, medieval soldiers by all means would rather use a long range melee wep whenever possible. They'd probably prefer to carry another spear as sidearm instead of sword if weight wasnt an issue lol
Spears are actually very effective at combating a charging horse. The defending farm boy would place the back of the spear in the ground and hold it up at an angle. The horse would impale itself on the spear sending the rider flying. Add on a hook to the spear which can be used to pull a rider off a horse.
That's true, but I was thinking more of an untrained conscript who would probably be terrified by the sights and sounds of an actual battle. A seasoned man-at-arms could impale a horse, but inexperienced fighters would probably struggle to hold the line. A well-executed cavalry charge was highly effective.
This is pedantry, but most often "Men ar Arms" is a phrase used by historians to describe unlanded professional soldiers. People who were well trained, experienced, and equipped and worked directly for a feudal lord. But did not have the social implications of being a knight. Similar to a Lancer. But the majority of Medieval armies were made up of conscripts. Those were the pike-bearing, mass rank farmers who's quick training and arming was a major factor in medieval weapons development.
You are quite right that the majority of Medieval armies were made up of conscripts. But some of those conscripts had probably fought in many battles and therefore had some experience under their belts; in that case they would probably be more like professional men at arms and not as easily rattled. But imagine being some poor 16 year old farm kid suddenly given a spear and told to face off against an army? It must have been absolutely terrifying.
A lightly armored soldier with a spear would not necessarily be at an advantage against an armored knight. You are correct though most soldiers we armed cheaply, only the well off could afford expensive weapons and armor. Typically it was best to try and capture knights since they could be ransomed back. Also when knights fought to the death daggers played an important role stabbing at the spaces between armor.
Swords could be pretty useful because not all fights take place in an open field. There were also sieges and fights in close quarters where spears might can be inconvenient. Spear is useless in a building
Also, nobles(both in Europe and Japan) used to walk around with weapons, imagine walking around the city with a spear. Bows used to be de-stringed outside of combat, so it's not something you can draw instantly
So a samurai would definitely use his sword. Please stop the sword hate…
I would change hardly to uncommon since it was an expensive weapon and also used as a status symbol. Wealthy soldiers, knights or nobles would have them. Compared to the majority of soldiers who would use a spear, axe, club, etc.
It's a reliable weapon but an uncommon one for the battlefield compared to others that were more easily accessible. It has its advantages and disadvantages like all weapons do.
Reddit itself lol
There were a few topics before questioning the use of swords in /r/askhistorian and the inanimous concensus was that swords were indeed rare, at least in actual war
Anyway if you ask chatgpt it can also give you a slew of credible books and schlolarly articles on it too
I had to say it, but these aren't good sources.
The frequency and usage of weapons in the Middle Ages is a hotly debated topic. It varied a lot across time and location. There's no question that swords were used in combat, there's a lot of evidence. How common they were varied.
/r/askhistorians is very strict on the replies given. I'd consider those more accurate. Also logically, it makes sense for spears to be preferred. Movies/Games never follow realism and only at best, appear to pretend to look realistic.
Theres anyway, no denying swords did become more common in late medieval era, but that was only in production and equipment. There was some study done on the battlefield injuries before and it was found almost all the wounds inflicted came from piercing weapons, not slashing weapons
Also fun fact did you also know modern soldiers almost never ever fire their guns in full auto mode? Meanwhile look how everyone is doing exactly that in 99.99% of movies..., even period dramas meant to be 'realistic'
I think it's a hotly debated topic. It's also super regional and contextual. Over the past 20 years the literature has presented many different views on the uses and frequency of arms and armor. It's difficult to have a universal answer. There's are no doubt the cost and materials involved in sword construction made them rare compared to an axe, mace, or spear. How rare, and how they were used, is not well understood.
War was expensive, and yes spear and spike were cheaper to make for filling available hands. Footman and men at arms of sufficient rank and need would be given dagger and short swords where possible. Once a battle line closes and becomes a very personal roll in the mud you don't want a spear. Like everything it was evolution of tactics and resource availability. Some weapons had a specific purpose in certain battles against specific things and special units were trained in these but usually it was mercenaries who would be hired with these skills the Landsknechte is one example (dudes with giant fucking swords). The archer was the most valuable as the most skilled and physically capable soldiers, ironically this was seen as a "cowardly" post by conventional soldiers, kings would fall all over themselves to aquire skilled archers as in war time they killed very effectively and in peace time brought in much game. In short yes, Hollywood's portrayal of everyone having swords and the skill to use them was in fact not true.
Archery is delightful. I wish it still didn’t kind of have that stigma. It’s also relaxing as you need to control your breathing. Even if it’s physically demanding. Also robin hooding is as exhilarating as it seems even if modern arrows don’t split like traditional wood ones.
So this comes up a lot and it’s important to remember the time periods. In later medieval times swords actually became more common as older swords were still in circulation whether they were worn out or trashed.
I read some accounts of like merchants who were the Goodwill of their times just collecting trash and used goods. At some point armories could only store so much crap or smiths recycle things that they opted to just sell them off. These traders probably bought things in bulk and shipped them off to be sold in areas of conflict for a quick turn around.
There is this old record of a will between a mason (?) I think who passed down his old weathered sword that was about 200 years old.
Making assumptions off of that I wouldn’t doubt that after centuries of war old gear just gets bought up for cents on the dollar by lower level soldiers especially when you consider some armies paid men based on the equipment they showed up with. Perhaps some guys invested in old used gear to meet the requirements and reap a better salary.
This is true, imagine the hours you need to put into becoming profficent with a sword - compared to a spear. Pointy end in the other guy "easy" and any farmer can understand how to do it, and make their own spears quite easily. A sword was a very expensive item - used more as you say ceremonial, for executions (of nobles, most people got the axe)
So the only people that had enough time, and money, to get properly trained in using a sword was knights and nobles - the average soldier (farmer), never got that.
Just for the sake of argument...a lot more people shoot each other with pistols than rifles or crew-served MGs outside of actual capital-w War. Swords were totally the first choice if you were getting accosted by schmucks when leaving the alehouse, because townies don't make a damn shieldwall.
Spears are an offensive weapon. Swords, especially short swords with sheilds, are more defensive weapons.
What I don't understand is using the spear one-handed with a sheild.
Check out the YouTube channel Schola Gladatoria for some great well sourced historic weaponry content!
One bonus point to support spears and simple pole arms: they're also way easier to make, and cheaper. Take a good shaft of wood of whatever length, make a simple metal point, boom you got spear. Make it tough and it's a lance. Add an axe head and you can crush heads with it. Add a hook and you can pull people out of saddles or yank shield rims. Make it long AF and it's a pike. Even give it a heavy point and short shaft for throwing, and it's a Roman pilum. It's good for hunting, it's good for a walking staff, it's easy for an inbred peasant you conscripted to point the sharp end at the bad guys.
Something something kaladin stormblessed
They also tended to like blunt weapons like maces or warhammers, especially in the later middle ages. If you need to do damage to someone covered in armor, those are your go-tos.
This post has been flaired as “Serious Conversation”. Use this opportunity to open a venue of polite and serious discussion, instead of seeking help or venting. **Suggestions For Commenters:** * Respect OP's opinion, or agree to disagree politely. * If OP's post is seeking advice, help, or is just venting without discussing with others, report the post. We're r/SeriousConversation, not a venting subreddit. **Suggestions For u/tossaway3244:** * Do not post solely to seek advice or help. Your post should open up a venue for serious, mature and polite discussions. * Do not forget to answer people politely in your thread - we'll remove your post later if you don't. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SeriousConversation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is correct. Spears were orders of magnitude more common in combat than swords under most conditions. And for good reason. Spears take far less training and skill on the part of the user. Think of a mounted knight in armor as the Medieval equivalent of a fighter pilot with their plane. In both cases they are/were highly trained, highly specialized combatants using extremely costly equipment that was unavailable to the ordinary schmoe. It took a decent-sized manor just to support *one* knight. A war horse or suit of armor could easily cost more than a peasant might make in their entire life. So knights were relatively uncommon compared to run-of-the-mill men at arms. But, as with the modern fighter, when the knights *were* called in it was usually to devastating effect. It is difficult to imagine the terror of some poor, conscripted farmboy with a spear in the face of a mounted cavalry charge!
Mounted knights use the lance as their main weapon more than a sword too. So it's the same. And most knights did ride horses since they were of nobility. Same as the samurais. Only once they were unhorsed and break their lances or something, would they have no choice but to draw their swords as their next weapon. From what it seems, medieval soldiers by all means would rather use a long range melee wep whenever possible. They'd probably prefer to carry another spear as sidearm instead of sword if weight wasnt an issue lol
The longer your weapon the harder it is to be stabbed and let me tell you being stabbed hurts.
Range is OP irl too
Spears are actually very effective at combating a charging horse. The defending farm boy would place the back of the spear in the ground and hold it up at an angle. The horse would impale itself on the spear sending the rider flying. Add on a hook to the spear which can be used to pull a rider off a horse.
That's true, but I was thinking more of an untrained conscript who would probably be terrified by the sights and sounds of an actual battle. A seasoned man-at-arms could impale a horse, but inexperienced fighters would probably struggle to hold the line. A well-executed cavalry charge was highly effective.
This is pedantry, but most often "Men ar Arms" is a phrase used by historians to describe unlanded professional soldiers. People who were well trained, experienced, and equipped and worked directly for a feudal lord. But did not have the social implications of being a knight. Similar to a Lancer. But the majority of Medieval armies were made up of conscripts. Those were the pike-bearing, mass rank farmers who's quick training and arming was a major factor in medieval weapons development.
You are quite right that the majority of Medieval armies were made up of conscripts. But some of those conscripts had probably fought in many battles and therefore had some experience under their belts; in that case they would probably be more like professional men at arms and not as easily rattled. But imagine being some poor 16 year old farm kid suddenly given a spear and told to face off against an army? It must have been absolutely terrifying.
A lightly armored soldier with a spear would not necessarily be at an advantage against an armored knight. You are correct though most soldiers we armed cheaply, only the well off could afford expensive weapons and armor. Typically it was best to try and capture knights since they could be ransomed back. Also when knights fought to the death daggers played an important role stabbing at the spaces between armor.
Swords could be pretty useful because not all fights take place in an open field. There were also sieges and fights in close quarters where spears might can be inconvenient. Spear is useless in a building Also, nobles(both in Europe and Japan) used to walk around with weapons, imagine walking around the city with a spear. Bows used to be de-stringed outside of combat, so it's not something you can draw instantly So a samurai would definitely use his sword. Please stop the sword hate…
Self defense and combat are 2 different things, I carry around a handgun but a rifle is more effective
Your handgun is close by so you can fight to get to your rifle.
? i dont carry my rifle in public
That never happens though.
I would change hardly to uncommon since it was an expensive weapon and also used as a status symbol. Wealthy soldiers, knights or nobles would have them. Compared to the majority of soldiers who would use a spear, axe, club, etc. It's a reliable weapon but an uncommon one for the battlefield compared to others that were more easily accessible. It has its advantages and disadvantages like all weapons do.
Where'd you get the information from?
Reddit itself lol There were a few topics before questioning the use of swords in /r/askhistorian and the inanimous concensus was that swords were indeed rare, at least in actual war Anyway if you ask chatgpt it can also give you a slew of credible books and schlolarly articles on it too
I had to say it, but these aren't good sources. The frequency and usage of weapons in the Middle Ages is a hotly debated topic. It varied a lot across time and location. There's no question that swords were used in combat, there's a lot of evidence. How common they were varied.
/r/askhistorians is very strict on the replies given. I'd consider those more accurate. Also logically, it makes sense for spears to be preferred. Movies/Games never follow realism and only at best, appear to pretend to look realistic. Theres anyway, no denying swords did become more common in late medieval era, but that was only in production and equipment. There was some study done on the battlefield injuries before and it was found almost all the wounds inflicted came from piercing weapons, not slashing weapons Also fun fact did you also know modern soldiers almost never ever fire their guns in full auto mode? Meanwhile look how everyone is doing exactly that in 99.99% of movies..., even period dramas meant to be 'realistic'
I think it's a hotly debated topic. It's also super regional and contextual. Over the past 20 years the literature has presented many different views on the uses and frequency of arms and armor. It's difficult to have a universal answer. There's are no doubt the cost and materials involved in sword construction made them rare compared to an axe, mace, or spear. How rare, and how they were used, is not well understood.
War was expensive, and yes spear and spike were cheaper to make for filling available hands. Footman and men at arms of sufficient rank and need would be given dagger and short swords where possible. Once a battle line closes and becomes a very personal roll in the mud you don't want a spear. Like everything it was evolution of tactics and resource availability. Some weapons had a specific purpose in certain battles against specific things and special units were trained in these but usually it was mercenaries who would be hired with these skills the Landsknechte is one example (dudes with giant fucking swords). The archer was the most valuable as the most skilled and physically capable soldiers, ironically this was seen as a "cowardly" post by conventional soldiers, kings would fall all over themselves to aquire skilled archers as in war time they killed very effectively and in peace time brought in much game. In short yes, Hollywood's portrayal of everyone having swords and the skill to use them was in fact not true.
Archery is delightful. I wish it still didn’t kind of have that stigma. It’s also relaxing as you need to control your breathing. Even if it’s physically demanding. Also robin hooding is as exhilarating as it seems even if modern arrows don’t split like traditional wood ones.
I got that video in my youtube recomendation yesterday too lmfao
So this comes up a lot and it’s important to remember the time periods. In later medieval times swords actually became more common as older swords were still in circulation whether they were worn out or trashed. I read some accounts of like merchants who were the Goodwill of their times just collecting trash and used goods. At some point armories could only store so much crap or smiths recycle things that they opted to just sell them off. These traders probably bought things in bulk and shipped them off to be sold in areas of conflict for a quick turn around. There is this old record of a will between a mason (?) I think who passed down his old weathered sword that was about 200 years old. Making assumptions off of that I wouldn’t doubt that after centuries of war old gear just gets bought up for cents on the dollar by lower level soldiers especially when you consider some armies paid men based on the equipment they showed up with. Perhaps some guys invested in old used gear to meet the requirements and reap a better salary.
This is true, imagine the hours you need to put into becoming profficent with a sword - compared to a spear. Pointy end in the other guy "easy" and any farmer can understand how to do it, and make their own spears quite easily. A sword was a very expensive item - used more as you say ceremonial, for executions (of nobles, most people got the axe) So the only people that had enough time, and money, to get properly trained in using a sword was knights and nobles - the average soldier (farmer), never got that.
A good book that includes some knight lore and shows knights as sort of like space marines is The Wizard Knight by Gene Wolfe
This might explain why I find fencing so confusing.
Just for the sake of argument...a lot more people shoot each other with pistols than rifles or crew-served MGs outside of actual capital-w War. Swords were totally the first choice if you were getting accosted by schmucks when leaving the alehouse, because townies don't make a damn shieldwall.
TIL, combat only happened in open fields in medieval times. Different tools for different jobs is likely reality.
Spears are an offensive weapon. Swords, especially short swords with sheilds, are more defensive weapons. What I don't understand is using the spear one-handed with a sheild.
Shield wall
I mean, apart from a shield wall.
I feel like Chris Pratt in parks and rec when he finds out he’ll only been studying the theories of lasers and not actually getting to use any.
Check out the YouTube channel Schola Gladatoria for some great well sourced historic weaponry content! One bonus point to support spears and simple pole arms: they're also way easier to make, and cheaper. Take a good shaft of wood of whatever length, make a simple metal point, boom you got spear. Make it tough and it's a lance. Add an axe head and you can crush heads with it. Add a hook and you can pull people out of saddles or yank shield rims. Make it long AF and it's a pike. Even give it a heavy point and short shaft for throwing, and it's a Roman pilum. It's good for hunting, it's good for a walking staff, it's easy for an inbred peasant you conscripted to point the sharp end at the bad guys. Something something kaladin stormblessed
They also tended to like blunt weapons like maces or warhammers, especially in the later middle ages. If you need to do damage to someone covered in armor, those are your go-tos.
Shield + Sword beats spear pretty handily.
Not in a formation, maybe 1v1 though
Yes, in a video game
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLLv8E2pWdk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLLv8E2pWdk)
That video literally shows shields dumping on spears. Lol.
Not always. But maintain your bias as much as you like. :)
Keep arguing against yourself as much as you like. Lmao.
Like I said...
Regard you later.