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

[Doug McCrae]

These pages are from Weapons of the Viking Warrior (2019) Gareth Williams. They describe the use of the spear, sword, axe, and fighting knife.

 

[BookBarbarian]

its a a really complicated game of Rock Paper Scissors or Top Trumps. Certain weapons are better vs. certain armors, or when one is on horseback, or when an opponent is on horseback etc. etc. etc.

 

[Jd Smith1]

The problem with RPGs is that they ignore time, skill, and culture.

You have weapons from across three or four centuries or widely divergent cultures serving side-by-side.

In the early Dark Age, swords were terribly expensive and rare; four hundred years later, they are an export item shipped (literally) by the barrel-load.

Certain weapons were intended for use fighting in formation, while others were intended for personal defense.

Some, such as flanged maces and war hammers, are intended to deal with advances in armor.

Crossbows are easy to learn, whereas bows require years of training and practice to turn into a combat archer.

Axes are cheap, and easy for a peasant who has cut wood all his life, to use. Swords require extensive training and practice to use, are more expensive, but far more deadly in the hands of a trained user.

The variables are endless, and are ignored by nearly every RPG.

 

[jasper]

It's simple. Each medieval weapons manufacturer wants to lock you into its own proprietary ecosystem for add-ons, embellishments, upgrades, and enchantments. Therefore you have a wide range of different, yet very similar weapons, none of which are compatible with each other. There have been some attempts to create Universal Sharpeners and the like, but generally you have to stick with the accessories designed for that particular brand of weapon.

“Beware the Medieval Military Complex “ Dwarf Kind Dwight Eissen Howler

 

[aramis erak]

Mediaeval can openers.

Thing is, they don't open the can... they just punch a small hole in the armor (and vs plate, potentially get stuck into it). And, like thrusting weapons, the Bec and the pick often deflect, resulting in essentially a quarterstaff hit.

 

[aramis erak]

Crossbows are easy to learn, whereas bows require years of training and practice to turn into a combat archer.

To be honest, crossbows are harder to use than most people think. Combat use is slow to load, fitting the bolt on the move can result in being disarmed, and they cannot be fired from the uncocked mode. 2 shots per minute is realistically a fast sustained rate for a very light crossbow.

Meanwhile, a similar power selfbow, it can be fired every 15 seconds or more even by novices who never held a bow before. Versus formations, which was the default situation, accuracy is far less important than rate of fire. Further, a competent archer can pull, knock, draw, and release as one swift action, taking under 3 seconds.

The takeover of the crossbow has as much or more to do with power as training. A person can, at peak, pull around a 200 lb 28" draw. A person with a lever cocker pull a 250 to 300 lb 28" draw crossbow... putting the same mass significantly faster... and more likely to penetrate chain and plate.

Having fired a variety of bows and several crossbows, crossbows aren't any more accurate. they are more comfortable, allow much longer operational time, but at the cost of much slower firing rates.

 

[Ulfgeir]

Thing is, they don't open the can... they just punch a small hole in the armor (and vs plate, potentially get stuck into it). And, like thrusting weapons, the Bec and the pick often deflect, resulting in essentially a quarterstaff hit.

Punching a hole in it would be "opening" it (for some values of open* )... I have seen on a mediaeval market a warhammer tested on a shield. The blunt side didn't do much damage. The pointy side made a nice hole through the shield.

*real can-openers were of course invented something like 75 years after they started using canned food if I am not mistaken.

 

[Bilharzia]

Meanwhile, a similar power selfbow, it can be fired every 15 seconds or more even by novices who never held a bow before. Versus formations, which was the default situation, accuracy is far less important than rate of fire. Further, a competent archer can pull, knock, draw, and release as one swift action, taking under 3 seconds.

The takeover of the crossbow has as much or more to do with power as training. A person can, at peak, pull around a 200 lb 28" draw. A person with a lever cocker pull a 250 to 300 lb 28" draw crossbow... putting the same mass significantly faster... and more likely to penetrate chain and plate.

This is a bit crazy, a novice can't pick up and fire a 200lb longbow so I am not sure why you are mixing the two, novices can't manage the draw weight of a bow like that, more likely they could just about draw a 20lb bow which is not going to be used as a warbow. 200lb by itself is the top end and seems unlikely to be common for most archers.

Crossbows are much less powerful per-draw-weight than a longbow because their draw length is so short. Medieval crossbows can't be drawn to 28" or anywhere near it (more like 8"), but you just don't need the strength or the skill to handle a crossbow that you do with a longbow.

 

[Beleriphon]

Having fired a variety of bows and several crossbows, crossbows aren't any more accurate. they are more comfortable, allow much longer operational time, but at the cost of much slower firing rates.

It doesn't hurt that crossbows once introduced were pretty common in seiges, to be used by defenders who generally weren't worry about firing quickly as the whole affair could take months.

 

[aramis erak]

This is a bit crazy, a novice can't pick up and fire a 200lb longbow so I am not sure why you are mixing the two, novices can't manage the draw weight of a bow like that, more likely they could just about draw a 20lb bow which is not going to be used as a warbow. 200lb by itself is the top end and seems unlikely to be common for most archers.

Crossbows are much less powerful per-draw-weight than a longbow because their draw length is so short. Medieval crossbows can't be drawn to 28" or anywhere near it (more like 8"), but you just don't need the strength or the skill to handle a crossbow that you do with a longbow.

A novice won't be picking up a 250# crossbow, either, as the loading sequence for both is pretty hard. But the medieval bows all seem to have been well over the 70# common for hunting today. Whether that's survival selection (lesser bows got damaged easier), hard to say. But the peak human recurve bow was 200 lbs or so (Drawn to 180 before the curator said "No further"). There are several surviving examples of ones that dimension. About 150 would be the peak crossbow for novices, and about 70 lb for self bows.

For footmen, the crossbow was NOT a more accurate nor easier weapon to learn. What it is is more likely to hurt the target, especially, as you note, 200 lb is an insanely hard draw. A 250 lb crossbow was about the limit for stirrup and lever; past that, cranquenins were essential for even the best.

Across the board, crossbows allowed higher draws and higher power from the same user, but sacrificed accuracy and speed.

The only factor which makes them worthy for infantry is the improved power.