Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Doug McCrae" data-source="post: 7910411" data-attributes="member: 21169">A question almost identical to yours on r/askhistorians - <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2b8gpb/can_you_explain_why_such_a_wide_variety_of/" target="_blank">Can you explain why such a wide variety of weapons (swords, axes, maces, etc) were used during Medieval times in Europe?</a> The answer covers the use of swords (including two-handed swords), axes and maces.The answer to this question considers the effectiveness of many different medieval weapons against armour - <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9ra9o0/if_spears_and_poles_cant_penetrate_steel_plates/" target="_blank">If spears and poles can’t penetrate steel plates then how were heavy armed soldiers killed back then?</a>Arms and Armour of Late Medieval Europe (2017) Robert Woosnam-SavageSpecial hunting spears developed for use against large and dangerous animals such as the boar and bear. Spears, with lashed on bone (or boar tusk) toggles, and later wings or lugs at the base of the spearhead, prevented the spear from penetrating too deeply into the beast, thus keeping the animal at a safe distance. Swords with longer and heavier blades, such as two-handed swords, appeared before the mid 14th century, and together with axes, flanged maces, war hammers and the pollaxe… were designed to attack and defeat plate armour by hacking and crushing it. The halberd had an axe-like blade with a fluke at the back and a spike at the top… and could keep mounted men-at-arms at bay, as well as hook and unhorse them. One weapon that was particularly useful both for stabbing and for attacking gaps in armour (such as the sights of a helmet) was the long rondel dagger.<a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hq13DwAAQBAJ" target="_blank">Weapons of the Viking Warrior</a> (2019) Gareth WilliamsThe large axes of the late 10th and 11th centuries could deliver a devastating impact, but they required space to use effectively, and while the shaft could be used to block blows, and even to strike with the butt-end as well as the head, the axe-wielder was vulnerable to counter-attacks from smaller, faster weapons, as well as to missiles... It seems likely that they were developed as anti-cavalry weapons, as the impact that they could deliver would be sufficient to kill or maim a horse with a single blow. They could not be used flexibly in formation because of the space required to swing them, but they had the force to smash through a shield-wall, and this is another possible function which might explain their development. The short sax, or fighting knife, was ideal for use in close formation, as it could be used to great effect without significant movements.<a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bfgwDQAAQBAJ" target="_blank">Warfare in Medieval Europe c.400 – c.1453</a> (2017) Bernard Bachrach and David BachrachAlthough swords and spears were the primary weapons throughout most of post-Roman Europe, the situation was somewhat different in Scandinavia. Here, long-handled axes, sometimes denoted by scholars as battle-axes, were an important adjunct to the armament of northern fighting men… Following the conquest of much of England by Scandinavian invaders during the course of the ninth century, the axe also was adopted by many professional Anglo-Saxon fighting men.The above quote demonstrates that use of a particular weapon may be determined by region of origin. If one of your “seven samurai” is a viking-type then he might use an axe simply because he’s a viking.Up through the mid-ninth century, foot soldiers in the Carolingian Empire were armed primarily with short swords of various type, often denoted as a seax or gladius. By contrast, mounted troops possessed both a short sword, for dismounted combat in a phalanx, and a long sword, the spatha, which was a slashing weapon for mounted combat...     However the spatha underwent substantial improvement over the course of the ninth century as sword smiths experimented with tapering blades from hilt to tip. The result was that the centre of gravity of the weapon moved backwards towards the hand-grip, making the weapon much more manoeuverable… As a consequence the spatha… made the short sword redundant for use on foot. Because these weapons had a sharp point, they could be used effectively in a phalanx as a thrusting weapon, whereas slashing was more likely to hurt friend than foe. Increasingly from the mid-ninth century, therefore, professional soldiers and wealthier members of the expeditionary levy came to be equipped with the improved spatha. By the later fifteenth century, some swords also were being produced for a market of aristocrats and wealthier merchants… These swords were intended to be worn on a daily basis. Consequently, the weapons were constructed so as to be comfortable when worn during the course of a normal day’s activities, and developed into very slender blades, which were not useful for the battlefield, but which could be used in duels by men who were not wearing armour. Perhaps the most striking development with respect to the production of swords in the later Middle Ages was the two-handed long sword utilized most famously by German mercenary troops known as Landsknechte. These swords were almost two metres long, and were intended for use against enemy pike men, and particularly to cut off the metal heads of their pole weapons such as halberds. During the later Middle Ages, foot soldiers… increasingly were equipped with arms that were an amalgamation of the spear and the axe. These weapons gave foot soldiers the option of either thrusting or slashing at an opponent, particularly a mounted opponent, before he had a chance to strike with his sword… In addition the continuing development of the infantry phalanx to stop charges by heavy cavalry equipped with long lances… led to the broad introduction of the long pike.</blockquote>

Verification