I’ve been watching shows and thinking about the weapons people can pick up and suddenly know how to use. A club, mace or even one-handed axe I can understand; the concept is simple. But other weaponry - Swords of various types, spears, flails etc. would be harder to use.
My question is, which of the typical medieval Melee weapons (including but not limited to swords, maces, clubs, flails, morning stars, spears, lances and axes) would take the most training to use effectivly. Also, which would be the most effective against a similarily armoured opposing infantry troop?
Perhaps a longbow? In a castle in England I visited the tour guide was talking about the archers thay had who short armour-piercing arrows. Nothing much special about the equipment, but the archers needed years of training (usually starting rather young) to devellop the strength to have about a 150lb draw - that was the story anyways. This seems substantially more than the draw strength of todays top archers, especially now that we have compound bows. That would be my guess sans research - some dude 15 feet away in metal armour running at you swining a sword and there’s a bow and arrow lying there - and you gotta know how to use it, know how to aim it, and have the strength to fire the thing through his armour… forget it.
It depends on what you mean by training. I would think that using any kind of 2-handed sword would be difficult for just anyone to use because of it significant weight and unwieldyness (is that a word?). But then again, any kind of big axe would take a lot of strength training to just be able to swing the damn thing. Then you can get into the whole issue of using crossbows, longbows, shortbows, throwing knives, etc… Those take years of practice to master.
For all those who have suggested slings. bows etc: the OP requested “typical medieval Melee weapons”. There’s no way you could sugest that a bow or sling could be used in “confused, hand-to-hand fighting in a pitched battle”.
We kind of got to stick ta hand ta hand weapons.
That in mind the question is difficult to answer without defining training and effective use. If training includes developing the muscles needed to use the weapon then a two-handed axe or sword would get my vote fo rmost difficult. Many people couldn’t even swing one without some training.
If we limit training to those weapons we are already physically capable of usung the issue becomes very murky. I’ve had some training with a variety of weapons and I couldn’t give a definitive answer. Chain weapons (flails, nunchaku, three sections etc) have always been the bain of my life and seem to be the worst weapons to learn. They require you to be completely familiar with their behaviour just to avoid hitting yourself, let alone hitting the enemy. However they have a huge deterrent factor due to their very unpredicatability, meaning you get to choose your time of attack. It’s almost impossible to pull off a pre-emptive attack on someone with a flail because you’ll get hit by accident. Of course some people seem to take to chains like a duck to water. (No B&D jokes please.)
Knives are probably the single hardest weapon to learn effectively if by effectively you mean being able to injure an opponent without getting creamed yourself. They’re short so you have to move in very close giving little room for error, they have to targeted accurately to do any real damage and you can’t use them to block, only deflect.
Axes tend to be fairly easy to use if you just want to hurt someone with no thought for yourself. Any halfway decent axe strike will disable an unarmoured opponent. However they have the limitation of leaving the user very open after an attack and that takes a lot of training to overcome. I imagine war hammers (the English version, not the Thor version) would be very similar to axes. Heavy two handed swords tend to be very similar to two handed axes :- you really only get one shot.
Swords are surprisingly easy to learn, not quite as fast to become deadly with as axes but they’re a little more forgiving in terms of recovery. Of course this is a huge generalisation and swords vary considerably in form.
Polearms (spears, staves etc) are great defensive weapons but a fair pain to use against someone who knows how to block, so training needs to be very extensive.
Maces/clubs I’ve never used but my experience with baseball bats and short staves tells me they’d be fairly dificult to learn, somewhat more difficult than an axe
Of course we then have the confounding factors of armour, shields and mass combat. Polearms are made all but useless by sheilds one on one, but I suspect that in group battles would regain their advatage. Axes work well on armour, while swords are less effective and knives are pointless.
So as a gross generalisation if I were completely untrained and had to go into battle with a hand weapon I’d pick either a single handed axe/warhammer if I wanted to kill people, and a spear or single-handed sword if I wanted live myself.
Which would be the most effective against a similarily armoured opposing infantry troop? Depends again on how you define effective and how they’re armoured and the personal prefences and abilities of the user. For me persoanlly I’d like us both to to be armoured in leather and using knives, but just because I’m a long fast person with modertae strength and that gives me the advantage. Mike Tyson would kill me in about two seconds if we were armoured in chain mail or field plate and using two handed swords or axes.
When I was learning fencing, I was told of the history of the weapons. The italians used Foils that were 3 times (approx) the lenght of the ones used in competition today, so they could stand back and go through chainmail from a safe distance.
Fencing is a difficult art, and a sword as long as the one one described souns like a difficult weapon to control.
I’m sure there are more diffiult weapons, but would this rank up there?
Inne contrast to what some of ye have being posted, I will pointe oute that even the largest two haended swordes do notte have a greate weighte. [:)] A good longsword is only supposed to be only about 4-5 pounds, if memory serves. People have to be using these things in hour-long battles, so I don’t think they’d weight too much. Plus, if it were much heavier then no one could swing it fast enough. Regardless of how strong you are, you still have to overcome the inertia of the weapon (with is, relative to you, zero at the start of your attack. Granted, there were a few (very few!) exceptions, but you’d never see a 10-pound two-handed sword.
Anyway, I suspect that the hardest weapon to learn to wield or anyind of useful purpose would be the flail. Sure, its easy to hit someone with it, but then you have to worry about finding a way to stop that bloody big spiky ball on the end of the chain without braining yourself or your comrades.
Which I interpreted to mean, “I do not consider myself to be the definitive expert in this field, but I do feel qualified to comment based on my experiences rather than just extrapolating from the weapons tables in my Dungeons and Dragons Handbook.”
Yes, thank you all, and I did mean hand to hand weapons, to avoid the ‘bow’ type comments. Actually, wouldn’t a trebuchet be hardest for a single man to learn if it wasn’t limited to melee weapons? I mean, that arm was made out of an entire tree! :eek:
4 years training in Tae Kwon Do/Hapkido. Red Tip ranking.
6 years training in family kung-fu, kwoon doesn’t award belts, probably equivalent to red/black tip in graded kwoons. Weapons training includes knives, sai, shortstaffs, long swords (single and double edged), butterfly swords, baseball bats/bo staff, quaterstaff, nunchaku and three section and tonfa.
10 years of free style crosstraining with representatives of most of the city’s MA clubs, particularly the jui-jitsu/kendo and zen do kai dojos. Trained by black belts (or baggy pants in the case of kendo :D) in the use of katana and wakazasi, hand-axes/falcata, and improvised weapons including esky lids, belts, magazines and broken bottles.
20 years assisting in and/or performing the slaughter and butchering of cattle, horses and miscellaneous animals for human and pet food using knives, axes, saws and chainsaws (Don’t worry folks, I’m not a psycho, really, they’re all fairly standard butchery implements).
Thank you keeper, I don’t consider myself an expert, merely a trained layman but that’s exactly what the OP wanted: someone who can attest to how fast you can gain some degree of proficiency in these weapons. Having said that, I consider myself fairly mean with a knife or shortstaff with some justification. The best way to defend against these things is to learn how to use them yourself so you know the dangers. Kung fu of course is a pretty martial martial art anyway and weapons skill is expected.
And while I accept that a broadsword only weighed about 5 pounds that’s not what I meant by a two-handed sword. I was refferring to things like the slaughterswords which could weigh more than 6.5 pounds and were anything up to 6.5 feet long. That’s a little more than many people could swing without training. No-one ever used these things in hour-long battles: they were designed to slice through pike-lines and were then immediately dropped because they were so bloody cumbersome. The English troops selected for these weapons (and I suspect the troops of the other nations using them) were specifically selected for having both the strength and height to use them.
From personal experience I’d still have to say any of the chain weapons, especially the three section, would be the most difficult to learn the basics of.
This is not true, to be sure. I stand a mere 5’7" and weigh about 140 lbs. My upper body strength is indifferent at best. I can fence with longsword, or what many call a two handed sword, for hours. Despite its weight, with the proper technique it is surprisingly easy to maneuver. The steel weapons themselves, if balanced correctly, do nearly all of the work. The power comes not from violence but from leverage.
I would enthusiastically agree with those. I have studied much more western technique than eastern, so I never achieved a high level of profiency. But man, anything with a chain is just a royal pain.
This is both illogical and counterintuitive. When one’s opponent is armed with a knife, it is no easier or harder to learn and use it effectively. Its reach disadvantage is countered by the fact that once the distance has been closed, it is relatively easy to maintain control over your opponent’s knife with less danger to yourself. Western swordsmanship and knifeplay demands careful blade management. Since the knife has such a poor reach, a relatively simple wrist lock is extremely effective. Maintaining enough control over a three foot long, sharp weapon in order to create the conditions necessary for a successful attack is much, much more difficult.
Indeed. They are also not the most effective defensive weapons. I have no training with the axe, so I would offer no further comment.
Learning sword katas and using a sword in combat are rather different. Having studied first eastern and then extensively western martial arts, I have found that eastern swordsmanship, especially Chinese, is next to useless when only the forms are practiced. Fundamental principles like timing, distance, proportion, opposition, and tempo are lost on eastern forms. These skills take years to learn, and since the sword is such a magnificently versatile weapon, it is in fact very difficult to master.
I havw fenced with practitioners of kung fu and tai chi sword with more experience than myself. I have not been impressed.
Well, this is true enough with any melee weapon. Polearms are much more versatile than most would expect. Ian Johnson is doing some truly excellent work on the Jeu de la Hache, which I had the pleasure of studying last month. Even against someone who knows how to defend himself, locks, grabs, and attacks with the bladeless end are extremely useful. With experience in other weapons, it is really quite easy to pick up.
This very well might not be true. The edge of a two-handed sword is all but useless against a 15th century harness. Mike Tyson is also not a tall man, so he would likely have difficulty closing against you, since you say you are fairly tall. Armored technique relies on the point to penetrate weaknesses in armor. I doubt that Mike Tyson has the sensitivity with a blade to pull that off. Though you have never studied western swordplay, if you have at least done a lot of free assault combat, you very likely do.
I assume that the question was posed with reference to the European Middle Ages and later, hence I take some issue with your attempts to answer a question regarding western swordplay from an unabashedly eastern standpoint. There are so many fundamental differences that I would argue that the two are utterly incompatible. For the most part, eastern martial arts expatriates who try to apply their learning to the swordplay of the west end up making a mess of both disciplines.
From my own experience doing medieval re-enactment I would agree that the flail is very difficult to master (try using two at once!). In one on one combat (which is what I have the most experience with) polearms are incredibly hard to become good at. You will get one or two attacks before the person closes so you must kill them on the first attack. This takes alot of skill.
Just my opinion
Jockstrap
So what isn’t true? With proper technique, which I assume requires training to achieve, you can swing one of these things. At 6.5 lbs I don’t know too many women who could swing one in combat. We appear to be in agreement here, despite what you may think.
But nobody mentioned an opponent armed with a knife. Going knife to sword or knife to staff requires far more training than going staff to sword or sword to sword. You’ll notice that I specifically said that if we assume equality of arms and armour I’ll go with the knife.
Which is not that easy to do if your oponent has a staff.
Not even close in my experience. I think this is part of your western training showing through. Try maintaining control over my knife in combat, as opposed to reacting to whatever I choose to do, and I’ll hit you with a body part or knock your legs out. Controlling a knife doesn’t stop you being punched or headbutted. Longer weapons allow you to strike without needing to put yourself in range of body strikes, knives don’t. (And I’m well aware of the various styles and techniques for utilising the range deficienceies of weapons.)
And if you believe that a reverse grip tanto style doesn’t then you are sadly mistaken.
I can garauntee that anyone using a wrist lock on me or anyone I train with witout simulataneously disabling us will end up flat on their back. This isn’t skiting, it’s demonstrable fact. Eastern styles emphasise the blade as an extension, not as a focus. Disable the blade and the fighter remains danbgerous
This is where we differ. Anyone can pick up a sword and swing it and if it connects it will do reasonable damage. The only suitable conditions required for an attack are an opponent being there. If someone slashes you with a knife in most places it’ll piss you off. Knife stirkes, lacking the weight of heavier wepaons, require more accuracy, hence increasing difiiculty. This is where the OP’s ddefinition of effective use needs to be clarified. To me effective use is an ability to disbable an opponent and have some chance of surviving. A sword blow can do this through pure luck, a knife blow is far less likely to immediately incapacitate, and hence render retaliation difficult or impossible, through a lucky blow. As such the knife requires more training to become effective with.
Couldn’t agree more, which is why I study styles that emphasise combat, not forms. The only weapons forms my KF style has are simply the standard forms modified very slightly to account for the weapon. Kendo can hardly be considered to be only forms (being hit on the skull with a wooden sword is definitelly not formwork).
Meaglin all weapons, in fact all MAs, take years to master IMHO. That’s why it’s called mastery. Swords are neither harder nor easier than most. The grapple and sweep techniques of a shortstaff or the spin and hook techniques of a tonfa are far more dificult and require far more precise timing and control than any sword technique I’ve seen. The OP isn’t asking for mastery of the weapon, all he wants is sufficient training to use effectively.
Fenced meaning by your rules, or by theirs? I can equally say that I’ve fought fencers with far more experience than me and been equally unimpressed when fighting using no rules. That was surprising when you consider fencers concentrate on one type of weapon whereas my style teaches 9 or 10 along with unarmed techniques. Based on the limited focus of fencing it surprises me that anyone is better than them. However this goes no way towards addressing the OP. If you can teach someone to become effective with a sword even faster than kung-fu then my earlier statement that swords are relatively easy to learn is upgraded to swords are very easy to learn. I figure I could teach effective sword use in about a three days of hard training if effecive just means enabling the user to have a reasonable chance of disabling an equal or slighlty superior opponent without getting injured himself. I assume fencing style could teach it in under a weak.
I’ll stand by my statement. Polearms are far harder to get through a guard with than any other wepaon I’ve used.
There’s the thing though Maeglin. Locks, grabs, sweeps etc. are all fairly advanced techniques compared to the ‘hit any exposed body part really hard’ that works for axes or swords. You can’t say ‘sweep any exposed body part’. Such attacks need to be well targetted to be effective and that requires training. With MA experience most weapons are fairly easy to pick up, but that requires previous training.
I know that, however I have also been struck with a baseball bat while wearing padded armour and I know it will unbalance me if swung by a hefty man. I guess Iron mike qualifies as hefty and I suspect a 2-H sword would weigh a little more than a baseball bat. He wouldn’t need to use the edge to penetrate the armour, he need only keep belting me and keepin me off balance until such time as he got lucky, found an openeing or knocked me off my feet. In what, 30 odd kilos, of armour I know I couln’t move as fast as Mike. I’m willing to bet the inside of field plate isn’t near as forgiving as padded armour either. My training gives me a slight advanatge, but carrying that much extra wieght the advanatge is all Mike’s.
Mike Tyson is 5’ 11.5". He’s about half an inch shorter than me and by no stretch would I say he’s not a tall man.
I don’t know whether he has or not, and as I’ve already said, I’m assuming Mike’s just going to use his usual style of belt the opponent around until he falls over.
Actually I assumed it posed in refernce to a D&D style RPG. It’s the sort of quetsion we used to discuss a lot. In that light my viewpoint is quite legitimate. If the OP wishes to discuss purely Eurpean weapons and techniques then he can enlighten us and I may well bow out. If he wants to know what should be the best wepaon for his unit of Warhammer Orcish conscripts to use then my information may well be more valid than yours. Further the Op wanted information on “medieval Melee weapons (including but not limited to swords, maces, clubs, flails, morning stars, spears, lances and axes” Swords are only a small part of the issue.
I agree, and the reverse is also true. The Kendo boys have had more than one experienced fencer who just can’t cut it at Kendo tournaments.
I mean, that arm was made out of an entire tree! :eek: