Grogg of the North
Adventurer
As plate armor became more effective, the longsword's design was altered to be more used for thrusting though it still retained its cutting edge. (Har har!)
Combat vs knights in full plate
- Thread starter Bungus
- Start date
Against knight you needed weapons which were designed to pierce armor (note, that does not include two handed swords or axes, no matter how big).
Polearms were quite good if you had the space. Pikes and Halbeards (and variants) posed a serious threat to knights.
For more closed distances weapons with small spikes were preferred as they were more likely to pierce through the armor. Hammers and the Polaxe which was quite a favorite of knights which fought against other knights.
Lastly there were what I would call "last ditch weapons" which includes normal weapons which the armor had trouble defending against like the dagger or sword which could be slipped between the armor plates. But it required quite some skill and it was generally preferred to have weapons designed to fight against armor.
Some nice videos:
Here a rather long one mostly about armor, but there is also some fighting techniques at the end
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4
And here some sparring matches using materials from actual medieval fencing guides (for dueling, not for the battlefield). Its a 6 part series. I onloy link the 1st one but also watch the rest if you are interested in some sword techniques.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S_Q3CGqZmg
Polearms were quite good if you had the space. Pikes and Halbeards (and variants) posed a serious threat to knights.
For more closed distances weapons with small spikes were preferred as they were more likely to pierce through the armor. Hammers and the Polaxe which was quite a favorite of knights which fought against other knights.
Lastly there were what I would call "last ditch weapons" which includes normal weapons which the armor had trouble defending against like the dagger or sword which could be slipped between the armor plates. But it required quite some skill and it was generally preferred to have weapons designed to fight against armor.
Some nice videos:
Here a rather long one mostly about armor, but there is also some fighting techniques at the end
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4
And here some sparring matches using materials from actual medieval fencing guides (for dueling, not for the battlefield). Its a 6 part series. I onloy link the 1st one but also watch the rest if you are interested in some sword techniques.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S_Q3CGqZmg
Last edited:
ppaladin123
Adventurer
Yeah if you weren't stabbing at armor seams or armor gaps after knocking him down, you basically had to concuss the person inside the full plate to death with heavy blows from bludgeoning weapons or the hilt of a greatsword. A slash from a sword held one-handed wouldn't do much of anything.
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
A sword is likely not going to penetrate good quality plate, no matter how big the guy wielding it is. With a sword, you'd have to go for the weak points.
This is one reason why the sword is actually not the #1 battlefield weapon. Knights wore them as a symbol of status and as a good all-purpose weapon, and were more for use as defense against unarmored or lightly armored foes (or against mail, before plate became supreme).
On a battlefield against an opponent wearing plate, you would most definitely want one of the weapons that others have talked about above: a pike, heavy mace, axe, halberd, or a lance while mounted, etc., etc. etc.
Now that doesn't mean a sword is completely useless on the battlefield during the age of plate, it just wouldn't be the primary weapon against a plate armored foe. And it's a reason why swords got progressively larger during the age of plate (leverage against plate armored foes, as well as defense in an age of less shield use). You can also still wear an opponent down even striking at the plate protected areas with a sword (though you're running the risk of ruining the sword also). Most of the impact would be absorbed by the plate and padding behind it, but some would likely still be transmitted through...not enough to hurt, but maybe enough to tire them out over the long run (though you're likely tiring yourself out also). Also, grappling would be used even between two foes wearing plate. Trips, throws, etc. will also tire out an opponent and can even injure joints.
Remember, you don't necessarily need to deliver a killing blow to an acctively resisting opponent to win. If they can't stand, can't breathe, or can't see, then they can't fight and you've won. You can now enforce your will on them in any manner you desire, whatever your objective.
This is something which is mostly overlooked in the media. Swords were, at least in the late medieval time period, sidearms or fall back weapons when you couldn't use your primary weapon (or packed the wrong one).
Slice straight through the plate? No, not at all reliably. You don't have enough mechanical advantage. With a heavy-headed mace or axe, you can stave in the armor to crush ribs or wound soft tissue beneath, or break a limb beneath the armor. But with a sword you're pretty more looking for gaps.
One of the less obvious advantages of the larger swords in the age of plate was the sheer mass behind the wedge of its blade: even though that mass was not concentrated at the end of the weapon's length like an axe, it still concentrated a lot of force into a small area, which actually let them do damage via hydrostatic shock even without penetrating the armor.
That alone could cause a limb to go limp, temporarily disrupt the ability to breathe or even stun an opponent much like a blow to the head.
Yes, blunt weapons did that better, but again, the key to the sword is situational flexibility and speed, and the heavier swords of the age of plate needed that extra mass do deliver such blows.
That alone could cause a limb to go limp, temporarily disrupt the ability to breathe or even stun an opponent much like a blow to the head.
Yes, blunt weapons did that better, but again, the key to the sword is situational flexibility and speed, and the heavier swords of the age of plate needed that extra mass do deliver such blows.
Oh, they have mass, and they do damage, but "hydrostatic shock"? I don't think so. That's a matter of inducing a shock wave into the body, which is accomplished not so much by the magnitude, as the momentum change - a sharp, extremely fast strike may create hydrostatic shock. Greatswords are moving pretty slow, compared to she speed of waves in meat. I'm not sure that their damage comes from shock waves in the target.
Instead, consider this - you are in a close-fitted suit of metal. And, all of a sudden, a section of it moves several inches inwards. Where, pray tell, does your body go?
In this assertion, I am but aping the words of those who know much more than I. It's not that the blow delivered be permanently debilitating, just disruptive enough to set up the followup blow. Not being able to control your shield arm or properly grip your weapon for just a second could be fatal...
Certainly, maces, hammers, flails, picks and axes are better weapons against heavy armor. However, the reason blades of this era grew so massive was to close the gap between those weapons and the preferred weapon (and symbol) of nobility. The increased mass also allowed such blades to more effectively deliver the mortschlag when reversed in the grip, using the crossguard like a pick.
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
Firearms, since they effectively ended the age of plate.
Similar Threads
