Did you guys know swords weren't actually used much in medieval Europe?

[Amplifier]

BG3 got me interested in the medieval era so I did some digging up. Contrary to what medieval fantasy games like BG3, Witcher, Skyrim etc. likes to portray, swords were actually the rarity not the norm. They were mainly only wielded by knights not your typical infantry foot soldier. Most infantry only used spears for battle.

It's pretty funny considering when you think of this kinda setting, the instant thing that comes to your mind is a sword when it's not. Swords were also impractical against spears, since spears could cover more distance without putting you in harm's way.

Also funny how even games that claim to be historically accurate like Kingdom Come Deliverance commit wrongly this same misrepresentation of swords..

[Fluffykeith]

Not entirely correct. You even said yourself that swords were mostly used by knights and nobles in wars.
The reasons are simple, swords are expensive to make, hard to make well and require extensive training to use effectively.
It’s just not cost or time effective to train and equip common foot soldiers with swords as their main weapon when spears are cheaper and easier.

But Knights and professional soldiers DID use them. A lot.

You’re mistaking common foot soldiers in massed warfare, who would be mostly conscripts, which professional soldiers and Men At Arms. You’re generalising.

[S1]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von 1337_h4x0r_xXx_deathlord666_xXx:

popular belief there were neither Dragons

Pretty bold claim, do you have any sources to back up that assertion? Have you heard of the knight Saint George?

[Amplifier]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Fluffykeith:

But Knights and professional soldiers DID use them. A lot.

Nope. Esp if you are referring to real battles? No.

The problem with swords is that they require closer distance to the enemies and can't penetrate plate armor as easily. Knights on horseback usually employ lances instead or if they're ground, yes they may use a sword but also a mace, hammer or spear.

You can see this reddit topic about it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/g22dgm/how_come_the_sword_is_depicted_at_least_in/

Knights were often on horseback anyway in battle so they'd carry a lance, not a sword.

[larhtas]

It depends when. Indeed it wasn't used a lot between 9th and 11th.
But after 11th it became really common and a lot of sword variety came too.
There was for example a sword named: the Montante (or Zweihander) which is used to break pike formations.

[Fluffykeith]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von OK:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Fluffykeith:

But Knights and professional soldiers DID use them. A lot.

Nope. Esp if you are referring to real battles? No.

The problem with swords is that they require closer distance to the enemies and can't penetrate plate armor as easily. Knights on horseback usually employ lances instead or if they're ground, yes they may use a sword but also a mace, hammer or spear.

You can see this reddit topic about it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/g22dgm/how_come_the_sword_is_depicted_at_least_in/

Knights were often on horseback anyway in battle so they'd carry a lance, not a sword.

I’m not talking about Reddit topics. I’m talking about actual history sites.

The problem is you’re looking at pitched warfare…mass battles…and generalising.
Lances break. And have limited to no use if you get tied up at close range.
You ALWAYS want a secondary weapon. Knights would generally either have a sword, axe or mace.

Swords only fell out of favour as a Knightly weapon when plate armour got heavy enough and layered enough that they were no longer effective, but that didn’t happen until later.

[Amplifier]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von larhtas:

It depends when. Indeed it wasn't used a lot between 9th and 11th.
But after 11th it became really common and a lot of sword variety came too.
There was for example a sword named: the Montante (or Zweihander) which is used to break pike formations.

common in production and supply, or common in actual battle

There's a diff. Unfortunately a lot of historians mix these two up. Anyway it's also less feasible to use a sword into battle late Middle Ages ironically despite them being cheaper to make, since it's still not a viable weapon of war. Swords cannot cut through full-plated armor unlike the spear, mace and other weapons. Theres' even this technique called mordhau whereby the sword user just says "f*** it" and uses the sword hilt instead to attack lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordhau_(weaponry)#

[larhtas]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von OK:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von larhtas:

It depends when. Indeed it wasn't used a lot between 9th and 11th.
But after 11th it became really common and a lot of sword variety came too.
There was for example a sword named: the Montante (or Zweihander) which is used to break pike formations.

common in production and supply, or common in actual battle

There's a diff. Unfortunately a lot of historians mix these two up. Anyway it's also less feasible to use a sword into battle late Middle Ages ironically despite them being cheaper to make, since it's still not a viable weapon of war. Swords cannot cut through full-plated armor unlike the spear, mace and other weapons. Theres' even this technique called mordhau whereby the sword user just says "f*** it" and uses the sword hilt instead to attack lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordhau_(weaponry)#

If you think that spears was used to pierce armor you've been lying to.
The full plate armor was very hard to penetrate. There was some weakness below the elbow and between the helmet and the armor.
The most effective weapon to kill someone in fullplate armor at the time was:
-> The dagger.
-> The cutlass.

now the most effective weapon to kill someone not in fullplate armor at the time was:
-> The sword... Thank you very much.

[Amplifier]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Fluffykeith:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von OK:

Nope. Esp if you are referring to real battles? No.

The problem with swords is that they require closer distance to the enemies and can't penetrate plate armor as easily. Knights on horseback usually employ lances instead or if they're ground, yes they may use a sword but also a mace, hammer or spear.

You can see this reddit topic about it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/g22dgm/how_come_the_sword_is_depicted_at_least_in/

Knights were often on horseback anyway in battle so they'd carry a lance, not a sword.

I’m not talking about Reddit topics. I’m talking about actual history sites.

The problem is you’re looking at pitched warfare…mass battles…and generalising.
Lances break. And have limited to no use if you get tied up at close range.
You ALWAYS want a secondary weapon. Knights would generally either have a sword, axe or mace.

Swords only fell out of favour as a Knightly weapon when plate armour got heavy enough and layered enough that they were no longer effective, but that didn’t happen until later.

Yes you just supported what I said. Swords were basically the pistols of modern soldiers. No one used them as a primary weapon. Same for the katana. Also funny fact, shurikens were never used for killing ,nor by ninjas. Samurais did use them though

[Amplifier]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von larhtas:

now the most effective weapon to kill someone not in fullplate armor at the time was:
-> The sword... Thank you very much.

only if the person is unarmed. Otherwise, if a person with a halberd or spear fought a person with a sword, the spear/halberd person would win easily

This is like a guy wielding a pistol fighting a guy wielding an assault rifle

[larhtas]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von OK:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von larhtas:

now the most effective weapon to kill someone not in fullplate armor at the time was:
-> The sword... Thank you very much.

only if the person is unarmed. Otherwise, if a person with a halberd or spear fought a person with a sword, the spear/halberd person would win easily

It depends of your armor.
Their isn't what weapon is better against another weapon. it's what weapon is effective against what armor.
If you want an actual true scene it would be:
A fully armored swordsman and a spearsman, both in full plate armor, are fighting, and the winner is the one who grabs his dagger and immobilizes the other

[Fluffykeith]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von OK:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Fluffykeith:

I’m not talking about Reddit topics. I’m talking about actual history sites.

The problem is you’re looking at pitched warfare…mass battles…and generalising.
Lances break. And have limited to no use if you get tied up at close range.
You ALWAYS want a secondary weapon. Knights would generally either have a sword, axe or mace.

Swords only fell out of favour as a Knightly weapon when plate armour got heavy enough and layered enough that they were no longer effective, but that didn’t happen until later.

Yes you just supported what I said. Swords were basically the pistols of modern soldiers. No one used them as a primary weapon. Same for the katana. Also funny fact, shurikens were never used for killing ,nor by ninjas. Samurais did use them though

Saying that they used them as a secondary weapon is not the same as saying they weren’t used.

It means that the Knight would use their sword when they couldn’t use their lance. Lances are good on the charge, but next to useless once you close ranks and can’t charge, or when you’re unhorsed. Contrary to popular opinion an armoured knight was pretty mobile on foot. It was later era jousting armour that turned them into into turtles.

Nevertheless swords were commonly used by knights and professional soldiers in medieval times. It just wasn’t their only or primary weapon.

[larhtas]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Fluffykeith:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von OK:

Yes you just supported what I said. Swords were basically the pistols of modern soldiers. No one used them as a primary weapon. Same for the katana. Also funny fact, shurikens were never used for killing ,nor by ninjas. Samurais did use them though

Saying that they used them as a secondary weapon is not the same as saying they weren’t used.

It means that the Knight would use their sword when they couldn’t use their lance. Lances are good on the charge, but next to useless once you close ranks and can’t charge, or when you’re unhorsed. Contrary to popular opinion an armoured knight was pretty mobile on foot. It was later era jousting armour that turned them into into turtles.

Nevertheless swords were commonly used by knights and professional soldiers in medieval times. It just wasn’t their only or primary weapon.

+1
Here a great video about armor mobility and fighting style: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q

[Bray of Cats]

''Medieval'' fantasy game =/= Historically European medieval era. Who would have guessed that?

Ursprünglich geschrieben von OK:

what medieval fantasy games like BG3, Witcher, Skyrim etc

Do any of those games describe themselves as such or is this head-canon?

[larhtas]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Bray of Cats (Pron in Bio):

''Medieval'' fantasy game =/= Historically European medieval era. Who would have guessed that?

Ursprünglich geschrieben von OK:

what medieval fantasy games like BG3, Witcher, Skyrim etc

Do any of those games describe themselves as such or is this head-canon?

He didn't really said it should be faithful to reality
What he said is half true. Yes swords wasn't used a lot before 11th.
After that it became really common.

[Bray of Cats]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von larhtas:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Bray of Cats (Pron in Bio):

''Medieval'' fantasy game =/= Historically European medieval era. Who would have guessed that?

Do any of those games describe themselves as such or is this head-canon?

He didn't really said it should be faithful to reality
What he said is half true. Yes swords wasn't used a lot before 11th.
After that it became really common.

My problem is the term ''Medieval fantasy game'', and putting it on games like these.