Medieval weapons: why so many? And how do they differ?

[Mercurius]

This is only tangentially related to RPGs, but I thought this would be a good source of erudite responses, and it is close enough to RPG-related that I feel justified in posting this year.

Last night I was thinking about a fantasy story that I'm writing that involves a "seven samurai" group, and how to outfit them in terms of weaponry. I kind of like the idea of an assortment of weapons, but I couldn't help thinking: why not just all swords? What benefit does a battleaxe or warhammer or mace have over a good old longsword? What about longsword vs. great sword? Axe vs hammer? Sword vs axe? Etc.

So that's my question: considering as many medieval/pre-gunpowder weapons as you feel like bringing up, which are best for what situations (e.g. armor, environment, etc). I want realism, not gamism, whether D&D or another RPG (although feel free to mention which game system you think best handles the differences).

Thanks!

 

[GreyLord]

Just like today, different weapons for different things which you wish to accomplish. If we just look at firearms and the different number of them, there are an enormous amount of them.

Some are because various nations have their favored version or type of firearms for their soldiers. Others are because they want them for various things (to wound or stop, to kill, to blast the biggest wound, to be able to fit different items on it's nozzle, etc). Sometimes it just boils down to preference.

The same could be held for Weapons in the past. An individual in the forest who chops wood may have an axe as the most useful item, plus a small dagger that can be used for many multiple uses as a tool.

Another may be part of the infantry and have polearms or spears to counter charges as well as for reach and stabbing into the enemy lines. They may also have shields to try to counter others trying to stab at them.

Someone may have the job to go after the infantry to ensure the wounded are dead. They may have hammers to hit through bones more efficiently or perhaps small picks and daggers to poke between the joints of armor.

You may have nobles or officers with swords as status symbols.

The ranged infantry will obviously have some sort of missile weapon such as bows.

Finally, perhaps you have someone that just simply prefers to go around with a staff regardless of what is normally best or required.

 

[Tonguez]

Sword is a status symbol, worn by officers and elite fighters

the most common weapon was really a spear

more practical warriors might prefer axes or hammers (ie tools)

guards would use polearms for both display and to keep enemies at range.

 

[Tony Vargas]

One thing to consider is that people don't always use weapons purpose-built as such. A club is just a stick, a staff a stick you walk with, a flail for threshing grain, knives, axes, etc can be tools or weapon, and so forth. Of course, a tool can be adapted to be a better weapon (and vice-versa).

And, the decision to use a weapon could be based on cultural traditions, mistaken assessments of effectiveness, or mystical or religious beliefs, down to the level of superstition. And, of course, skill & confidence with a weapon that's maybe not factually /quite/ as ideal for the purpose as you believe could still lead to victory quite often.

So, yeah, no reason not to have a variety of weapons, for a variety of reasons, not just for utilitarian purposes.

...unless that's a feature of the culture the characters come from. If everyone - especially everyone of a certain standing - always carries or uses a particular weapon, well then...

 

[Beleriphon]

There really aren't that many weapons when it comes down to it.

You have a variety of sharp things in line with a handle (swords, knives, etc.)
You have choppy things that work by apply force perpendicular to a handle (axes).
You have heavy bashing things (clubs, maces, hammers, etc).
You have those three things on the end of long sticks. Some times those long sticks have all three of the other things on the end.
You have the fancy things that are one of the first three on a rope of some kind.

That's about it in terms of melee weapons. Those broad descriptions can pretty much cover every type of weapon you can think of.

Any differences come down to cultural biases about what works and why.

 

[Mercurius]

Thanks for the responses so far.

What about specific combat contexts?

All-out warfare (in the field).
Skirmishes.
One-on-one melee.
Inside.
Etc.

And what about specific one-on-one matchups? I realize a spear vs. almost anything else is an advantage, at least at first, but what about axe vs. sword vs. mace? etc.

 

[Derren]

There are many reasons why there are different weapons.

1. Effectiveness.
A sword is good against lightly armored enemies, but fares poorly against heavy armor. An axe is better in that situation, but has only limited ways of how you can attack with it. Maces are even better against armor but otherwise rather bad. Sames for daggers because if their short range.
Spears are good when fielded in large numbers. Some weapons are specifically made to counter certain types of equipment like curved blades that go around shields.
And of course when you do not have a shield you can use different weapons than with a shield or when you use them from horseback.

2. Production
Some weapons are harder to make than others. Making a sword requires a lot of knowledge so often people made axes instead. Spears are easy to make so thats another reason why they are used so much.
Often people tended to weaponize the tools they had which resulted in things like scythes reforged into polearms.

3. Cultural/Regional specialities
Some cultures found a tactic that worked for them, either to counter the other nations around them or because it matched their social structure and equipped their armies accirdingly. For example the Romans with their gladius+square shield combination or Huns and Mongols with mounted archers. But warfare never stopped to evolve so the weapons evolved with it.
The samurai evolved from mounted archers, thus they only used 2 handed weapons (I think the only culture that did not use some sort of shield?).
But it was not only because of culture. For example Japan had poor iron. Thus swords were harder to make, making them more expensive and a status symbol but also meant you won't meet many enemies with metal armor.

4. Lack if standartization
Except for highly organized nations there usually was no standartization. Tell ten smiths to make a stick with a blade on the end and you end up with 10 different weapons. Word of mouth might lead to some regional standartization but you still end up with one weapon type per region which is basically the same thing but different enough to have its own name.
That was for example a big problem once ships started to carry cannons as they ended up with 10 different calibers and had to match the cannon balls to the cannons which tended to be all of a different length and even a mix of muzzle and breech loader.

 

[aramis erak]

This is only tangentially related to RPGs, but I thought this would be a good source of erudite responses, and it is close enough to RPG-related that I feel justified in posting this year.

Last night I was thinking about a fantasy story that I'm writing that involves a "seven samurai" group, and how to outfit them in terms of weaponry. I kind of like the idea of an assortment of weapons, but I couldn't help thinking: why not just all swords? What benefit does a battleaxe or warhammer or mace have over a good old longsword? What about longsword vs. great sword? Axe vs hammer? Sword vs axe? Etc.

So that's my question: considering as many medieval/pre-gunpowder weapons as you feel like bringing up, which are best for what situations (e.g. armor, environment, etc). I want realism, not gamism, whether D&D or another RPG (although feel free to mention which game system you think best handles the differences).

Thanks!

The panoply of weapons, especially the lists in AD&D, are generally done from ignorance... attributing regional names for multiple weapons that are considered the same thing both in the period of use and in informed history.

For example, naginata and glaive - they are functionally the same weapon: A meat-cleaver on a stick with a thrusting point. The minor differences in appearance hide the unity of use.

The basic concepts:
all melee weapon use boils down to putting energy into a target for effect.
Penetration of armor relies upon maximum force on minimum area.
Damage to tissue requires dumping force into the target.
Swing of arms, and twist of hips, allows using the principle of the lever to amplify generated force.
Push and pull are weak, with their strongest being a forward thrust into the center of the target; most of the time, they're attacks of opportunity a miss.
Armor works by preventing penetration via skip-off or spreading the force, and by absorbing some energy.

Axes put a heavy mass at the end of the lever, and the swing accelerates it, and concentrates all that mass onto the very narrow contact patch along the blade edge. Good for denting plate armor, and can rend muscles through soft armors. Only does blunt force to chain, unless it manages to pop the links.

Maces put a heavy mass at the end of the lever. Less damage than an axe, but does more painful bruising. Not good versus plate, and weak vs chain.

Knives, awls, forks, thrusting tip swords, spear-tipped polearms, and thrusting spears concentrate force of a thrust, rather than a swing. Great for popping even riveted ring. If not dead on, can be deflected easily. The classic thrust sword is the rapier, and the knife is the dagger. Can get stuck in plate or ribs.

Bows use leverage and tension to time compress the energy of the draw to make a very fast acceleration of a light projectile. Very similar to knives. late medieval breastplates can be nearly impossible to penetrate

Maces and hammers: Larger contact patches than axes, but similar lever force. Larger contact patch, often causes VERY painful bruising. Can trigger compartment syndrome, break bones. Dumps more energy into the target, but at a penetration penalty.

Military hammers: some hammers are customized for war... they often have prongs on the corners of a square head in order to penetrate metal. Versus soft armors, can do a bunch of bruise and open 1-4 small punctures, too.

Spears: Dagger on a stick. Not great for slashing, but can thrust well. Functionally, a dagger you wield from 3-5 feet (1-1.5m) back.

Bec, pick: a dagger awl thrusting to the side on a stick, allowing a HUGE energy to dump. Bec's are curved, picks aren't

Polearm with a hook: The hook is for pulling on the target... including pulling passing knights off-horse, and footmen's legs.

Polearms, general: two handed axes, picks, forks, and/or cleavers on a stick. If it's got an axe head, it's an axe. If it's got a pick, it's a pick. If theres a thrusting tip, it is a spear.

Swords: good at chops, pushes, pulls, and slices, but not best at any.

 

[Ulfgeir]

A lot of weapons will come from farming implementations. (staffs, knives, clubs, flails, scythes, sickles, pitchforks etc). Sometimes the peasants were not allowed to own weapons, so they were stuck with using their farming tools for defence. Spears and bows for hunting.

Then those with money buy something more fancier (like a sword) to show off how wealthy they are. New ways of fighting ensue from that. For example you fight differently with a Longsword if the opponent is wearing (metal) armour than you do if he does not. Also you will need different weapons depending on how you wage wars.

And then you get the increments of time. Person A wants to inflict bodily harm to Bastard B. B does of course not want to get his head bashed in or be slashed open so he gets something to protect him. A finds that his weapon of choice doesn't work so well, so modifies it to overcome the weakness of B's armour. B in turn modifies the armour to better protect against the new weapon. Rinse and repeat...

Standardization of weapons and armour will not come unless you have a large need for it. If your tribe goes on a cattle-raid against the neighbouring tribe, you grab whatever you have. Once you start having standing armies, then it makes sense that you want everyone to have similar equipment (differences for size might factor in of course), because if everyone has the same weapons then if your weapon or armour breaks, then it is easier to replace or repair, and you can probably make the manufacturing of the equipment easier as well..

 

[Ulfgeir]

Bec, pick: a dagger awl thrusting to the side on a stick, allowing a HUGE energy to dump. Bec's are curved, picks aren't

Mediaeval can openers.