Swords, Axes, Spears Which is best?

Factual Questions
1

In my readings about dark ages history, I noticed the early Anglo-Saxons preferred to fight with spears, the Norse with Axes, and there were a few swords and bows used by all armies as well. This makes me want to ask, why did different peoples use certain weapons most often? And, which is best? I have accumulated some thoughts on this question, but I would like to invite other dopers to chip in and maybe I can learn something that will help me in my attempts to grasp this question.

– Swords may have been the preferred weapon, but they were Very hard to make. It took several man months to make a sword, a service only the wealthiest men could afford.

– Spears were probably the easiest weapon to make, being simply a spearhead on a wooden shaft. Furthermore, a spear did not require much space to use, perhaps a meter per man. Therefore, a formation of men could stand shoulder to shoulder and interlock their shields, presenting a formidable front to the enemy.

– Axes were excellent chopping weapons and easier to make than swords, but required at least two meters of space between men to be used effectively. Thus, a man would have to step outside of his formation to use them effectively. However, this kind of fighting could have appealed to Celtic or Norse warriors.

– The bow and arrow was a stand-off weapon. Thus, there was little glory in using a bow and arrow in combat. The real glory was to be found standing face to face with your enemy. Thus, perhaps the smallest and weakest men were trained on the bow.

What other ideas do you have to contribute?

2

A sword doesn’t take a month to make. However, it does take alot of metal and alot of skill, so they were indeed very expensive. Alos, it was pretty ineffective against a heavily armored knight.

A spear takes far less metal and skill and is indeed more effective in formations, and is better than a sword against armor to boot.

An axe weilding army would be destroyed by a well-disciplined army using weapons that need less space. However, outside of formation warfare it would be devastating.

The mace was a good weapon that was very effective against armored and unarmored alike. It could break bones through armor.

Bows were not for the weak. The English Long-bow needed more than 70 pounds of force, and possibly alot more to draw.

Glory is worthless in battle if you lose. The victors always get to write the histories.

3

Small axes (hatchets) are very effective in dense forest, brush or crowded conditions. Sharpened entrenching tools (short shovels) were popular in WWI trench warfare.

4

This thread, recently started by myself may be of interest.

5

It seems like it would depend on your fighting style and what technology your enemies had. The Roman phalynx (sp?) was very effective, and used short swords or spears, but it depended on all the soldiers locking their shields together in a perfect square, so the enemy couldn’t reach them. Not something for Nordic hordes, I don’t think.

Bows are always good as long as there are other soldiers with hand weapons to protect the archers. Long bows were devastating against cavalry, which were otherwise almost unstopable (we were still using cavalry in the beginning of WWI, I believe).

Swords are good in a general melee, but take training to use correctly, and suck against armor.

Anybody can use an axe, and I doubt even the thickest medieval armor could really stop an axe blade. Pretty much the same thing with maces.

So it really all depends - can you professionally train your army, or is a bunch of conscripted peasants? Who’s you enemy, and how well are they trained? And as for which weapons varuous societies favored, that may just come down to which weapons various societies knew about. As a leader, you may really want swords, but if the Chinese are the only ones who’ve figured out how to make good ones, you may have to stick with axes for your next conquest.

It’s not easy being the ruler of a medieval empire, you know. :smiley:

6

can’t believe quite how much misinformation there is in this thread. For a start, a phalanx wasn’t a ROman but a predominantly Greek/Aegean formation, a dense body of spearmen several ranks deep and tightly packed. It was devastating against infantry in a frontal attack - ie highly offensive - but it had a great weakness in its vulnerability, and lacked defense. The sheer length of the spears used meant that it was very difficult for a phalanx to pivot, thus attacks from the flank by infantry or cavalry could be devastating. It was also slow and cumbersome, and thus vulnerable to missile fire by, eg, mounted archers or javalineers.

The contrasting formation the Romans developed was (for much of their time) the legionary cohort or maniple, a group of men armed primarily with short stabbing swords. They didn’t have “spears” as you call them at all after the early years of the republic. The “spears” they did carry were in fact javelins or “pila”, of limited use and thrown into advancing infantry formations en masse. Since a sword swing was impractical in a tight formation in close combat, the short stabbing sword through shield gaps - borrowed from the Spanish after the second Punic war - was the primary weapon of choice right up until the legions became largely cavalry-based units later in the life of the empire. Like the phalanx the maniple was vulnerable to attack from the flank and so was often protected by small cavalry units or skirmishers, as with later, medieval warfare.

When drawn up in formation - to discount disasters like the ambush and destruction of VArus’ column - the legion was highly effective against far greater numbers if no tactical error was committed. It was most effective against disorganised infantry.

Where the legion was vulnerable was, as was discovered to great cost, was against fleet, mounted archers and skirmishers. The legion’s small allocation of cavalry was mainly a scouting and flanking force, and could not fend off such enemy attacks on its own, and the legionarries on foot not quick enough over ground to chase mounted units down. However, as an infantry unit in pre-modern warfare, the legions and their stabbing shortswords were pretty much invincible - manouverable enough in maniples to counter ponderous phalanxes and disciplined enough to counter barbarians fighting wdiely spaced with axes.

Best ancient infantry weapon? The short stabbing sword, no question.

Dan

7

I’ve read that some went up to 130 lbs. In contrast, the average schmoe today can handle a 30 lb. bow.

8

Well, we are simply not familiar enough with old weaponry to discuss this.

First point, a weapon that makes a small, deep hole (a spear, pike, arrow and some swords) are much more deadly than weapons that make scary slashing wounds some swords, all axes).

Spears come in a lot of flavors. The two major groups are throwing spears (shastas) and pushing spears (pikes, or hastas). The trowing spear has the advantage of range, and with a throwing aid (an aatyl) has some serious whoop when it hits. It also makes deadly wound.

On the other hand, throwing weapons away in a fight in an open field just is not my cup of tea. Ideal when you have other people holding the bad guys in place while you chuck spears at them from a dignified distance.

The pikes are a goods way of holding them in place. This allows the back-rankers to fight more or less at the same time as those lucky men in the first rank. Still, bad guys will get past the wall of pikeheads and you will have to welcome them with swords.

There are a lot of things we lump in the category ‘Swords’ Claymores were something like a linear axe. Just the ticket if you wanted to whack off the head of Charles II. Using it in the Highlander over-the-head style leaves your tum-tum open to the other guy.

On the other hand, epees and other similar swords are all point, no real blade. Very deadly, but you look like a wimp carrying one. I know of no example of people using epees en masse.

Axes are scary and useful on the dragonship for cutting things. On the other hand, it requires a long swing and so leaves your navel exposed again. They can be stopped by most armors.

A primitive weapon that is not so good against a sophisticated enemy.

I hope that helps.

9

Not quite true, a current BBC series on weapons shows the effects of genuine weapons from various eras (as well as a few repros) in slow-motion striking targets on clay models of the human body, and examines their impact, as well as staging miniature skirmishes with each weapon to try and get a feel for its use, and also examines contemporary literature and illustrations on their user. all pretty enlightening, if a little macabre

Dan

10

OK, allow me to correct myself.

I lack the vocabulary (and spelling skills) to talk about this in any depth.

11

Drop me in the middle ages and give the choice of spear, sword or axe and the winner will be…

Axe.

Why, you may axe? (sorry) Because the average schmoe did not spend all his life fighting orcs and brigands from the Shire to Mt. Doom. he has to make shelter, hunt for food. Possible farm/raise livestock and work long hours just to stay alive.

And the number one way to be sure of this is having some way to chop wood.

All this talk of which weapon in which situation is good for the armchair gladiator, but of the three weapons and their varients that are mentioned in th OP the most versatile and useful tool is the axe. Good for farmers and woodsmen and fighters.

Most economical as well, less metal needed and even a beginner blacksmith can turn out a servicable axehead well before he’s got the skill to make a sword blade that won’t shatter. For the same amount of metal in the average broadsword, you can make 3 axeheads.

Spears are OK for fighting and hunting but you can’t chop firewood with them. Heck, I can take an axe and fashion a spear by sharpening a long pointed stick in minutes.

Years of medieval camping/re-enactment have taught me this.

That’s my opinion, your mileage may vary.

12

Well, no offense, but I believe that I, and many others on this board, are quite familiar with old weaponry. We’ve got historical fencers, blacksmiths, jousters, SCA members and martial arts enthusiasts coming out of our ears.

It’s getting so that you can’t swing a jedburgh without the risk of poking out an eye around here!

:slight_smile:

13

In prehistoric times, eys, in middle ages europe, no. It was not a hunter-gatherer subsistence for the vast majority of people but an agrarian one, and your average peasant was not, in a feual society, the one who got called up to go fight bad guys, he wasn’t worthy of such a thing.

The same thing is true of the VIkings etc - I suspect you’d have to go back some way to find people rushing from their forest subsistence to battle with a woodaxe, society had enough specialisation by this point where there were metal mines, smiths etc to produce weapons. The image of people on farms picking up their axes and rushing to battle is not an accurate one for this era in Europe, I would hold.

Dan

14

It depends entirely on the situation. If there truly was one superior weapon, then why didn’t eveyrone use it exclusively?

The answer is: there is no such thing.

Personally I would choose a different weapon depending on the situation. Am I on horseback? Am I battling armored opponents? Am I a soldier in an army, or a mercenary, or am I engaging in smaller skirmishes with bandits or other mercenary bands?
The spear would be good for mass combat in formation. It could be useful in a duel or smaller scale combat, but I wouldn not choose it.

The sword requires decades of practice if you expect to take on anythign but some peasent with a short sword or scimitar. The good thing about it is that it is versatile, and probably you would have learned to use both the longsword (good for both armored and unarmored encounters) and the arming sword.

The axe is a simpler weapon and can be quite powerful. This is a good choice, esxcept when fighting en masse.

15

I’d be very tempted to call that a common misconception. You will almost certainly be pretty useless with a sword 10 minutes after picking it up, but a battlefield isn’t a world fencing championship and a few weeks to a month’s trainiing at 2 hours/day should see you able to hold your own as well as the next man. Building up a bit of arm strength, a splash of stamina, learn a few different cuts, stances etc, and you’re pretty much there.

Dan

16

A common misconception from 2 years + of historical fencing and martial arts :slight_smile:

From experience I can say you can learn enough of the basics so that you can truly START to learn the sword in about a year.

Like I said, you can learn the basics in a few months and be able to hold your own against other novices, but you will loose every time against a skilled knight of the times.

Knights began to learn their trade as early as 9 years of age. By the time they reached 20, as long as they had specialized on the sword he would have no problem dealing with the likes of me.

17

I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I’m not arguing the basic facts - your sword skill increases the longer you spend practising, you are a better swordsman after 2 years of training than after 2 months, that medieval knights - some of them at least - actually became quite proficient in their training and competed in tournaments etc.

But I’m just saying this is all pretty much irrelevant int he chaos of a real battle where the key is firstly not getting knocked off your horse and secondly keeping your feet. I suspect shoulder-barging and keeping upright were of far greater importance than doing anything fancy with your sword.

Dan

18

Are we using “spear” and “pike” synonymously?

I always think of a spear as something throwable. Hence, you can use it as a stabbing weapon, and also as a projectile. Thing is, if you throw your spear, you may be without a weapon. But if you can retrieve your spear in a reasonable amount of time after a throw, doesn’t that make a spear rather versitile as both a very-short-range and medium-range weapon?

Me, I’d prefer to go into battle with a longbow and a short sword. If I’m lucky, I can shoot the enemy before he gets close enough to stab me. If I have to, I can parry and stab back with the sword. I suppose a small shield and light armor would be nice too. I’ve read that while a full suit of plate armor made a formidable defence against slashing weapons, it was reasonably possible to pierce plate armor with an arrow or a spear; and such a suit was so heavy, if the soldier fell off his horse, or otherwise dismounted, he was toast. Lighter footsoldiers could bludgeon him to death if they had to, and even trying to defend against such an attack was exhausting, much less fighting back effectively. Again, with a spear, if I can dodge a lance or a sword-swipe from a mounted soldier in heavy armor, I can hopefully knock the guy off his horse and then use my little sword to bash his brains in.

19

Delivering the basic attacks and counters with the right timing, in the midst of all the chaos, and effectivelly against another opponent is as much an advanced skill as disarming a competent adversary in judicial combat IMHO.

Which is why I would stick to another weapon if I had no training in the sword.

20

This is false. A suit of armor weighed about 60 lbs. All of this weight was well distributed through out the body. You can do cartwheels in armor, and soldiers routinely fought for hours in it. Getting up from the ground is no sweat either.

Truly, if heavy armor was such a liability on the field of battle, why would anyone who could wear it, wear it?

Good luck :slight_smile: