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..

[Detective Costeau]

It's historically interesting, but also not really relevant at all to the game.
It's like pointing out that historical warhammers weren't actually giant bricks of metal on a handle.
It's true (and I personally much prefer the aesthetic of the actual historical warhammers over the silly brick-on-a-stick every fantasy game insists on using) but I don't think anyone thought the game was trying to accurately represent historical weapons and armour in the first place.

[Moonlight Knight]

We're talking about field battles, though. Adventurers don't often fight in those. Adventurers much more commonly get into situations that would be more like self-defense battles than open warfare. In that kind of situation, you want a weapon that's versatile. Personally I'd go for a longsword (like a proper longsword, two-handed), since it doesn't actually need as much upper arm strength as you'd think and you can flip it around and strike with the guard to deal with armored opponents.

[Quillithe]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Dork_Stalker_310:

Speaking of which, I wonder why fantasy games avoid spears this much? Most of the time they are implemented, they are really underwhellming - that is, when they are even present in the game in a first place. I can think of very limited number of exceptions, like Nioh 2, where spears are actually very strong.
I'm not an expert, but considering that warfare has mostly evolved around the idea of allowing people to stab their opponents without getting stabbed back, it seems that spears are pretty underused.
Although I do admit that swords look cooler, so probably that's the reason.

Because realistically swords do make more sense the way they're usually employed.

Spears, polearms, etc were major weapons of war, and you'd see soldiers with spears, guards with polearms, etc - but they're kinda clunky to go walk around town with where a sword is a personal defense weapon and a show of wealth and status. And certainly pretty effective in a 1v1 fight since you usually aren't forming a phalanx or anything in D&D.

Kinda like if a shooter game were about soldiers they'd probably have RPGs, sniper rifles, and heavy machine guns and stuff - weapons of war that are clunky and really useful in large scale combat. But if you're raiding tombs characters are more likely to get pistols, SMGS, etc. A pistol might be a lot less practical on a battlefield than a MG42 but it sure makes more sense in a lot of game contexts - same thing here.

[Dork_Stalker_310]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Quillithe:

Because realistically swords do make more sense the way they're usually employed.

Spears, polearms, etc were major weapons of war, and you'd see soldiers with spears, guards with polearms, etc - but they're kinda clunky to go walk around town with where a sword is a personal defense weapon and a show of wealth and status. And certainly pretty effective in a 1v1 fight since you usually aren't forming a phalanx or anything in D&D.

Kinda like if a shooter game were about soldiers they'd probably have RPGs, sniper rifles, and heavy machine guns and stuff - weapons of war that are clunky and really useful in large scale combat. But if you're raiding tombs characters are more likely to get pistols, SMGS, etc. A pistol might be a lot less practical on a battlefield than a MG42 but it sure makes more sense in a lot of game contexts - same thing here.

Portability is a good point, especially in a more enclosed spaces. And considering that fantasy games usually feature dungeons and castles heavily, swords would make more sense.

You mentioned firearms - funny, because Role-Playing Games that do feature them usually also feature sniper rifles and heavier weaponry - and they would be usually considered an end-game gear, like anti-materiel rifle in New Vegas. Because regardless of their portability, they would still pack a huge punch. Just like a spear would.

I remember hearing about some HEMA people trying to do the “Sword vs Spear in a duel”, with spear winning most of the time. I have no idea how relevant it is to the real life or death encounters or how fair these experiments were conducted in a first place. But that goes into "muh realism" territory, which is something I heavily dislike.

[Koala 4peace]

Yes, i know. And samurais fought mainly with yaris or other staved weapons during warfare. This said, "not used much" is not the exact way to word it, in several ways. That they were "not primary weapons" would be more accurate. Also, swords were expensive, so normally only wealthy warriors could afford to bring one to battle.

Anyway, breaking or losing your primary weapon was a common thing, so swords saw a healthy amount of use.

It's good that BG3 give you a motive to read history, in any case.

Początkowo opublikowane przez seeker1:

That might be true, but as I've said, Faerun ISN'T "medieval Europe".

And as I noted in another thread, Gary Gygax and his buddies never knew much historical accuracy about medieval warfare, even when they started their 'medieval' wargaming system Chainmail. Some of the weapons and armor in D & D were mis-named from the beginning, and may not even have really existed.

Wait. Don't you have a mithril chainmail at home, like a normal person?

[Quillithe]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Dork_Stalker_310:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Quillithe:

Because realistically swords do make more sense the way they're usually employed.

Spears, polearms, etc were major weapons of war, and you'd see soldiers with spears, guards with polearms, etc - but they're kinda clunky to go walk around town with where a sword is a personal defense weapon and a show of wealth and status. And certainly pretty effective in a 1v1 fight since you usually aren't forming a phalanx or anything in D&D.

Kinda like if a shooter game were about soldiers they'd probably have RPGs, sniper rifles, and heavy machine guns and stuff - weapons of war that are clunky and really useful in large scale combat. But if you're raiding tombs characters are more likely to get pistols, SMGS, etc. A pistol might be a lot less practical on a battlefield than a MG42 but it sure makes more sense in a lot of game contexts - same thing here.

Portability is a good point, especially in a more enclosed spaces. And considering that fantasy games usually feature dungeons and castles heavily, swords would make more sense.

You mentioned firearms - funny, because Role-Playing Games that do feature them usually also feature sniper rifles and heavier weaponry - and they would be usually considered an end-game gear, like anti-materiel rifle in New Vegas. Because regardless of their portability, they would still pack a huge punch. Just like a spear would.

I remember hearing about some HEMA people trying to do the “Sword vs Spear in a duel”, with spear winning most of the time. I have no idea how relevant it is to the real life or death encounters or how fair these experiments were conducted in a first place. But that goes into "muh realism" territory, which is something I heavily dislike.

It's true that you do sometimes get larger guns in games with guns - but there's still generally a heavy weighting towards pistols and SMGs - where my general understanding (no military experience) is that those are mostly the equivalent of a sword in older armies - you have one around as a sidearm, you have one if you aren't expecting direct combat, and you can carry one around in a city for personal self defense where a spear or rifle would be more awkward.

Though medieval 'police' equivalents I think had polearms pretty often because they were probably easier to get the basics and they pretty much work as part of the uniform - if someone is walking around the streets with a halberd they probably aren't a random dude.

I could believe a spear having a 1v1 advantage, but probably nowhere near as dominant as the advantage in larger warfare where 'really long spears in a line' was basically the default thing to beat from the greeks to (later) gunpowder weapons.

I'm not a historian or anything though, so feel free to correct me if I messed something up. But...uh, I did play some Total War games and Crusader Kings. That's basically a history degree right?

[AA]

https://www.medievalists.net/2020/01/most-important-weapons-middle-ages/

[Acronen]

Fun fact: The sword fell out of favor due to the rise of heavy armor... which is why the lightsaber was then invented. Absolutely zero problems dealing with armored opponents.

And as we all know, this happened a long long time ago aka: medieval times.

Or, this thread is a really good example of the Dunning-Krueger effect.

[Grimple_Butterman]

Faerun is not based on medieval Europe, but interesting info on swords

[Actalo]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Grimple_Butterman:

Faerun is not based on medieval Europe, but interesting info on swords

I've heard this statement before, but D&D's lore (Faerun) is based upon folklore and culture, largely stemming from Classical, Medieval, and Renaissance European sources, so I dunno what other region of the world and time in history you think this stuff comes from.

[Amplifier]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Grimple_Butterman:

Faerun is not based on medieval Europe, but interesting info on swords

Erm it is? Medieval Europe literally is the very basis of fantasy games, and all stemming from LOTR. It's kind of funny the fantasy genre is so popular yet most people don't even seem to realize what historical period it's based upon. Like seriously?

[Orion Invictus]

Początkowo opublikowane przez OK:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Grimple_Butterman:

Faerun is not based on medieval Europe, but interesting info on swords

Erm it is? Medieval Europe literally is the very basis of fantasy games, and all stemming from LOTR. It's kind of funny the fantasy genre is so popular yet most people don't even seem to realize what historical period it's based upon. Like seriously?

This is hilarious to people who actually know history.

[lordmilier]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Grimple_Butterman:

Faerun is not based on medieval Europe, but interesting info on swords

What is is based/inspired on then? You could have fooled me with all of titles, armor weapons and even buildings that very much look like they took all their homework from the medieval times.

[AusarTheVile]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Immortalis:

Dude, I don't know where you're doing your research (I suspect Reddit is your only source but whatever) but nothing you've stated is even remotely true.

First of all, swords were not expensive to make. Very good swords made by mastercraftsmen were but that's an entirely different argument.
There are reasons why the vast majority of the people in a medieval army was not equipped with swords but "they are expensive" doesn't even begin to cover it:
- First of all practicality: unlike hitting someone with the pointy end of a stick (which is essentially what a spear does), or bludgeoning them to death with a heavy piece of metal (maces, hammers and in smaller parts axes), swords were finesse tools. The edge of a sword is a very small part of the weapon and unless you hit the enemy precisely with that part, the damage you do to them is rather minimal, to the point that it might not even cut a layer of fabric.
And that's even discounting the need to keep the edge sharp from one battle to the next.
- Secondly, training: a peasant was well familiar with schythes, axes, hammers and so forth and that's the reason why when a lord called them up to gear for war, that's what they were provided / took with them. A lumberjack with an axe was much more dangerous than the same man provided with a sword; not because the axe was a better killing tool but because he knew how to use the axe to the best of its ability, whilst he would have been lost on how to use a sword.
Knights, retainers and men-at-arms did not use swords because they were fancy things to carry in battle: they used them because they were the superior tools *and* they had a long time to train with it.
- Thirdly, the inability to kill an heavily armored opponents (read enemy knight and nobleman) with a sword was largely irrelevant: on one hand they would have made up only a small portion of the enemy army, because, unlike swords, armor *was* really expensive to make (doubly more so if it had to be fitted to an individual); secondly because you would not have wanted to kill such opponents anyway: the costume was to offer surrender and later on be ransomed back. And just like being ransomed could be the financial ruin of a knight, noble house or an entire kingdom (Richard I ransom to the Holy Roman Emperor was set at 150k marks, the equivalent of three times the annual revenue owed the English Crown), it could also make the fortune of the ransoming party.
- Fourth: swords were *the* killing tools precisely because of what they were going up against. That is to say armies that were made up by an overwhelming majority of unarmored troops conscripted amongst the peasantry. And yes, a sword would not have worked against a plated knight but it would have done a wonderful job against the dozen scared peasant wearing linen shifts.
- Fifth: armouries, of both armours and weapons, were not created for a particular war and then discarded. Practically every single medieval army took the field with a patchwork of equipment: some new, shining and created by master swordsmen or armourers, some old taken out some armoury and created a couple of decades earlier, some rusted because it had not been taken good care of, some outright chipped, rusted and with holes in it.
And the longer a campaign lasted, the worse that patchwork would become because of looting and battlefield stripping: eventually a good portion of your army could end up wearing the armour and weapons of your enemies because your peasants would gladly take the rusted mail shirt off the body they found on the battlefield because it still offered more protection than the linen shift you gave them.


And to top all of this off: what does "Medieval Europe" even mean?
Are we talking Anglo-Saxon huscarls under Harold (in which case, true, axes would have been the chosen tools for that elite retinue), the French army at Agincourt, the Castillians during the Reconquista, the Swiss cantons holding up against the Hapsburg?
Medieval Europe covers such a stretch, both in time and space, that saying "this was not true in Medieval Europe" provides absolutely no context and no value to any sentence.
It might be true that something was not in use at the English Court during the mid-12th century but at the same time was abundantly used in the Holy Roman Emperor court in the same time frame; just as something that was not used in the 8th century could have been widely available to someone living in the same area in the 13th Century.
And that's even discounting the inevitable facts that not all of Europe operated under the same laws, same technology level, even same religion throughout the "Medieval" period.

Once again, revise your research materials because whatever you're learning from it, you're doing a terrible job and/or the material you're studying from is worth ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

My one issue with this post is the belief that "medieval armies" mainly consisted of peasants conscripted from among the workforce, while it is true that they could be used as bowmen or scouts, generally part of the peasantry's 'contract' with their lord is that they would work the land in exchange for *not* being called up to fight, this belief largely came about in the 18th century when mass conscription of the poor became the norm, and so they inferred it to have occurred throughout history.
perhaps to better explain, we should switch from the *social* naming convention of peasants and knights, seeing as wealthy wine merchants who could afford full steel plate would also fall under the umbrella term of "peasant", and instead switch to the *military* naming method for people who can afford steel armour (doesn't have to be complete), primary weapon (poleaxe, lance, halberd etc), a side armament (Sword and dagger usually, but bucklers were common for archers) and sometimes a horse. These men mostly consisted of middle to upper class "peasants" who could afford these things thanks to their wages as part of a knight's retinue, and would make up the bulk of most mainland European armies alongside Mercenaries from 1000-1300ad. They would generally be well trained and be raised by a lord who would grant the knights a partition of land and a share of loot if they add their retinue to the force, most men in a cavalry formation wouldn't be knights, they'd be "peasants" (men at arms) who would have spent years training to fight with their weaponry.
And even when it WAS poor farmers forced to defend themselves, they would often have armour of some kind, take the battle of Visby in 1361, village of Gutnish peasant farmers were attacked by the king of Denmark and, perhaps unsurprisingly, lost badly. What was interesting was that, due to the onset of winter and the weather rapidly worsening, many of these peasant fighters had to be buried quickly, *so their armour wasn't looted*, this allowed historians, when they uncovered the mass graves some 650 years later, to identify that practically all of these peasants had steel body armour that covered their chest and arms, spears and sidearms of various types. the body armour obviously wasn't tailor made to a king's standard, but they had them, and they also had the wealth to buy two weapons at least, with their quality in turn varying significantly. These would be the stereotypical Monty Python Peasant farmers working under their liegelord, yet they still would have access to a village blacksmith quite commonly and, life being hard and short, they would have had the means to procure weapons and armour in case of the worst. Thank you for coming to my TED talk, any questions, ask them and I'll try to reply :) (and nobody bring up the fyrd since they weren't farming peasants either, they consisted of freemen and those with a wage under a lord)

[AusarTheVile]

Początkowo opublikowane przez lordmilier:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Grimple_Butterman:

Faerun is not based on medieval Europe, but interesting info on swords

What is is based/inspired on then? You could have fooled me with all of titles, armor weapons and even buildings that very much look like they took all their homework from the medieval times.

Its based on DnD, which in turn is based on fantasy depictions of mythical creatures and stories which in turn were based on the folklore of medieval times which, you could argue, were based in turn on folklore from Anglo-Saxon and Viking time periods. The weaponry, armament etc would be reminiscent of Medieval Europe, but notice the lack of Billhooks, misericordes, half swording techniques etc? Swords are cool and romantic, been so ever since King Arthur's legend, Spears are a hallmark of weaponry and daggers are reminiscent of skulduggery. Faerun is, ultimately, its own thing with its own history built around a world where magic and monsters exist, the closest examples we have on what a world with swords and armour and magic would look like irl is medieval times, hence why a lot of the titles, armour, weapons and buildings are reminiscent of those times. but generally historical realism in these kinds of games is lacking, and usually glosses over the intricacies of historical combat and social structure for ease of storytelling and to let them make their own thing (I still want to see half swording used in a game though)