Ramblings about weapons and armour

[Sapheron]

Although this began quite specific (I doubt you'll be able to tell what it was though; I'm not sure I can) it became a rambling mess with no real point or structure. Read at your own risk.


Traditionally in fantasy, the hero wields a sword. A sword stands for many things, often including such noble traits as honour and bravery. Perhaps some Medieval Japanese sentiment snuck into the western fantasy market somewhere in the past (also perhaps evidenced by the commonplace nature of katana and ninja in so many stories). Regardless of how it got there though, the sword is the hero's tool. He wields it against evil, and all is well.

Now I'm going to delve into lord of the rings for a moment. Specifically, the movies, as the books, in many ways, are far less specific on some of the details (though far more in detail on most other things). In the forefront, of course, we have the three musketeers of Aragorn, the sword waving lead, and his two henchmen, Legolas, the archer, and Gimli, the axeman. Aragorn, being the hero, never really had a choice but to use a sword. But in reality, perhaps other two never had a choice as well. Firstly, they have to be armed as reflects their nature and species; the light for the elf and heavy for the dwarf. Secondly, they have to remain distinct and recognisably different. Legolas I can't think of an alternative for. Gimli, perhaps, could have used a hammer or similar heavier, blunter instrument while keeping within character.

In the Eragon series, the titular character comes up to the very problem himself. His magical sword stolen, he must rearm himself. Given his supernatural strength which, while useful for squishing the poor mortal soldiers sent against him, would also lead to the average sword being quickly ruined as it is used to cleave through armour, the quartermaster offers Eragon a mace as a tool. After all, its hard to break a mace. Eragon immediately refuses, even while he understands the advantages the weapon would give. His reasoning? A mace is not a weapon he can be seen using. He's the hero both of the story and of the organisation of which he is one of the leaders. As such, he must be seen with a heroic weapon, which a mace is not. Indeed, the only named character to use a mace is in fact on the bad side, and with his own supernatural strength uses it very effectively.

From these examples, I lead on to my next point. The effectiveness of the weapons chosen. As has already been pointed out, Eragon could more effectively fight with a mace than a sword. In a similar way, against the Uruk-hai of Helms Deep fame, neither Legolas' bow nor Aragorn's sword would in reality be particularly effective weapons. Indeed, once again a mace, pick or hammer would be by far the most effective. When I think about it, I realise the same is true for many fantasy worlds where full plate armour is so prevalent. Yet blunt weapons, the natural foe of full plate, are used only by the enemy, and usually particularly powerful enemies at that. As with Eragon, off the top of my head I can think of a single characters in Lord of the Rings using a blunt weapon; the Witch King, once again a prominent villain.

Now let us wander into the gritty realism of A Song of Ice and Fire. In this, most characters are depicted as sword wielding. Notable exceptions exist, such as Theon Greyjoy, and his bow, and Oberyn Martell, using a spear. Still we see that all weapons are pointed or edged. Again, in a world where heavier armour is about and causing issues for people (Victarion catches a sword with an armoured gauntlet, Jorah Mormont takes a sword to the ribs while he puts his own into his opponents face, in the knowledge that he, being armoured, will survive, and Barristan Selmy deflects a sword using his armoured forearm) no one seems to think of the direct counter; not to use an edged weapon. In this case, not even the 'bad guys' as much as they can be identified in this particular series.

Am I pointing out a particular issue? Not really, I don't think. Perhaps that while armour in fantasy is often portrayed at late medieval levels, weaponry reflects more the early medieval period before heavy armour was quite so much of a thing. I'm not really sure, which is why I'm passing it on to you guys and gals.

 

[Abernovo]

The mace and the hammer will defeat plate armour, and most other things, but they can be unwieldy, which leaves the user vulnerable. A sword can be used defensively as well as offensively, the long edges providing more parrying surface.

On a purely aesthetic point, the brute force of the impact is often associated with, well, brutes -- which easily, if lazily, gets equated by some writers and readers to bullies. So, not the weapon of a hero. An anti-hero, perhaps?

I agree, there's the (historically inaccurate) idea of the gallant and chivalrous knight behind at least some of this. Which is a late mediaeval invention, perpetuated by Victorian fantasists.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Interesting thoughts Sapheron,

My reading of the elves in LotRs was that because they were all so supernaturally brilliant archers (possibly thousands of years of practice??) that they were able to pinpoint the weak spots in heavy armour, such as the joins and gaps. Impossible of course in reality, where instead real historical archers would mass bombard an area with thousands of arrows and just by the shear density of arrows they would be sure to make many direct hits. The other thing to think about is that arrows could penetrate armour if the distance was close enough - and they did seem to develop arrowhead shapes that were better designed for this - but the archer wouldn't have time for more than a few shots before the enemy engaged, I guess.

I agree with the sword in close quarter fighting in large battles - I'd guess more deaths were due to small daggers being thrust into the gaps between the armour when the unfortunate victim had been temporally stunned and was on the floor - and for really large battles, it would probably have been being crushed by the weight of people/horses above them. Hammers, axes and other blunt or heavy edged weapons would have been far more practical as you state. Note however that the Samuri sword was specifically developed for the warrior to continue to use swords against the armour of the mongol invaders. Again though as you state, I'm not sure if you really could make a sword that would be effective against proper plate armour.

The sword however is an elite weapon, it gives symbolic significance to its user. In chivalric terms I suppose a king does not wield a hammer or an axe - both could be viewed as tools of the lower classes. (Although I'm sure real knights probably did go into battle with trusty maces, hammers or axes as secondary weapons.)

 

[Venusian Broon]

The mace and the hammer will defeat plate armour, and most other things, but they can be unwieldy, which leaves the user vulnerable. A sword can be used defensively as well as offensively, the long edges providing more parrying surface.

Good point Abernovo - a sword tip can be thrust and stabbed (and if skillfully placed) instantly cause damage. Mace/hammers need to be thrown in an arc to contact the enemy and this leaves you open to attack and takes a bit of time.

Having said that though, when ever I played Oblivion I always had most fun with the two handed warhammer and bashing everything with that.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Romantically, a sword is a symbol of virtue, truth. right, and all things chivalrous.

Realistically, a sword was a status symbol, because it took a lot of skill and money to create one. It can kill peasants but not lords in plate you'd want to ransom anyway.

The problem for me is that the romantic version is basically a play on "divine right": anyone with a sword has a right to authority; only those in authority can afford a sword; therefore only the rich are qualified to have real authority.

 

[Venusian Broon]

It is interesting though that the cermonial mace is, even today, vested with symbolic authority rather than the sword - which as you say IB - was indeed a very high end status symbol.

Possibly this is because it is such an ancient symbol of kingship (or authority) I'm sure there are pre-dynastic writings/wall reliefs, of the Egyptian Kings, (before there were Pharoahs) who wielded fabulous maces as symbols of their authority. Perhaps this role survived the intervening 5000 years or so?

 

[Sapheron]

Also interesting in that with the quality of armour produced in ancient egypt, a mace would likely be a less effective weapon, through aforementioned reasons of of being cumbersome, than a spear or sword type weapon in that period.

 

[Dozmonic]

Lindybeige - YouTube Now THIS guy has some great ramblings about weapons

Swords are overused in literature and movie, there's no doubt about that. I'm sure it was on here that I've read about the durability of wood, meaning axes were used more than is accepted, because a sword can't just lop the head off.

 

[Montero]

Few additional thoughts

1. The longbowmen of medieval england had swords as well - they were famed for using hand and a half swords one handed (normally a two handed weapon despite the name) because of the muscle build up from all their archery training.

2. The magic sword idea is thought to have come from the patterning on blades when they were made by the method of twisting rods together and hammering them flat. Had shimmer to it as well as patterned.

3. Maces were used by militant churchmen in the crusades. They rode into battle, but because they were not supposed to spill blood, they thumped people on the head with a mace, rather than stabbing or slicing with a sword as that got round the letter of the scriptures. No loads of blood gushing out.

4. Always admired Guy Gavriel Kay for Fionnovar - Dave one of the people transported from earth is a big fit bloke. The locals look at him and say, well it takes years to learn a sword properly, but with your size you'd do well with an axe. Here you go. And he is one of the good guys.

So yes, swords - my view as a former modern fencer is that an awful lot of authors don't understand how complex it is to fight well with a sword and automatically give characters swords when something else might work better.

 

[Susan Boulton]

Few additional thoughts

1. The longbowmen of medieval england had swords as well - they were famed for using hand and a half swords one handed (normally a two handed weapon despite the name) because of the muscle build up from all their archery training.

.

Bit of a quibble with this. For the most part a hand and a half, (******* sword) was out of the price range of most archers, most tended to go with a Falchon, which is easier to use at close quarter melee. Also the muscles developed by the constant use of the longbow upper arm, shoulder and back and as well as the thickening of the bones (see Mary Rose info) and not quite the same as those needed for swordwork. The over development of the shoulder muscles are a bit of a disadvantage to begin with and can limit range of movement re swordwork.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Elves live in forests, so there are lots of trees to make bows and arrows, so that is likely to be a prevalent weapon. Also forests aren't always the best places to swing a sword or an axe, so again bows have the advantage. For those who live in the treetops, projectile weapons will always give advantage over non-projctile weapons for obvious reasons, and a tree full of archers could easily wipe out a far greater force of foot-soldiers on the ground beneath.

Don't forget as well that much combat would be one-on-one, especially in the case of a Ranger like Aragorn. Pitched battles happen very rarely, and most combat would be swiftly over. In a large battle a hammer or axe is a far more effective melee weapon, but don't forget the huge strength required to wield one for any extended period of time.

In the real world, one word determined much medieval combat; chivalry. Under chivalric code gentleman soldiers (ie knights) wore armour and carried swords, and this is how they would fight each other so that it was a fair contest. This was also down to the fact that often the sword would only maim rather than cause the critical damage that the impact of an axe or hammer would. Armour protects very well from the cut of a sword, but not so well from the cushing of a blunt instrument. Also a sword could cut very nicely through an unprotected common soldier. This worked very well for knights because - regardless of their allegiance - they were part of a noble club who would protect their own (plus a live captive brought more ransom money than a dead one).


Chivalry didn't apply to common soliders, so that they could use bows, pikes, crossbows and halberds against foes. It worked the other way as well though and so no mercy was shown to them; in fact they would often face quite brutal treatment (especially archers) if they were captured.


Of course the best weapon (which is often not seen in fantasy novels) is artillery, which is the biggest killer in major (and many minor) conflicts. If the walls of Minas Tirith had been lined with cannon or howitzers then the enemy forces would have been wiped out. Interesting that there isn;t any, considering that there is gunpowder (Gandalf's fireworks)

 

[sknox]

Another example of a non-pointy weapon: the Roman fasces was a double-headed axe bound by rods. Both the axe and the rods were symbols of public authority in the Republic.

 

[Gumboot]

Traditionally in fantasy, the hero wields a sword. A sword stands for many things, often including such noble traits as honour and bravery. Perhaps some Medieval Japanese sentiment snuck into the western fantasy market somewhere in the past (also perhaps evidenced by the commonplace nature of katana and ninja in so many stories).

I don't think Japanese culture has anything to do with it. The sword had that sort of symbolism in Europe centuries before the Samurai even existed.

Specifically, the sword came to be associated with chivalry and the knight. The most significant power of the sword's symbolism, however, comes from the role of medieval cities. Medieval cities enjoyed a degree of independence outside the feudal system, ruled by councils of citizens rather than lords.

By tradition, in most cities it was illegal to bear arms. Visiting lords and nobles would have to surrender their blades at the gate. However, where a lord had developed a trusting relationship with a city, they may extend the honour of allowing that lord to bear arms within the city. This was a significant privilege that continues today in ceremonies where military units are symbolically gifted the "key to the city". This has further extended to be seen as an expression of gratitude or respect for individuals or organisation independent of its original military usage as well.

As a result the sword had associations with trust and impeachable honour.

Now I'm going to delve into lord of the rings for a moment. Specifically, the movies, as the books, in many ways, are far less specific on some of the details (though far more in detail on most other things). In the forefront, of course, we have the three musketeers of Aragorn, the sword waving lead, and his two henchmen, Legolas, the archer, and Gimli, the axeman. Aragorn, being the hero, never really had a choice but to use a sword. But in reality, perhaps other two never had a choice as well. Firstly, they have to be armed as reflects their nature and species; the light for the elf and heavy for the dwarf. Secondly, they have to remain distinct and recognisably different. Legolas I can't think of an alternative for. Gimli, perhaps, could have used a hammer or similar heavier, blunter instrument while keeping within character.

It's an interesting idea, but problematic. Firstly, the "nature and species" you're referring to is Tolkien's invention. Elves and dwarves in fantasy are traditionally depicted like Legolas and Gimli because they are the archetypal representatives of each group.

There's certainly no requirement that these individuals had the weapons they had, consider;

While Aragorn wielded a sword, this was not unique to him; in fact in the books the only member of the Fellowship who doesn't have a sword is Gimli.

In The Hobbit both elves and dwarves are established as wielding swords. Throughout the literature of Middle-earth swords are more strongly associated with elves than bows.

In the Eragon series, the titular character comes up to the very problem himself.

The difference, I think, is that Eragon was a product of the fantasy tropes that have been established over almost a century of writing. Tolkien invented many of those tropes, so wasn't confined or influenced by them.

From these examples, I lead on to my next point. The effectiveness of the weapons chosen. As has already been pointed out, Eragon could more effectively fight with a mace than a sword. In a similar way, against the Uruk-hai of Helms Deep fame, neither Legolas' bow nor Aragorn's sword would in reality be particularly effective weapons.

On what basis do you determine this?

Indeed, once again a mace, pick or hammer would be by far the most effective.

Than a bow? I don't think so.

When I think about it, I realise the same is true for many fantasy worlds where full plate armour is so prevalent.

Full plate armour is actually exceptionally rare in fantasy, and certainly doesn't exist anywhere in Middle-earth. In the books the Uruk-Hai are equipped only with shield and helmet, wearing no body armour at all.

Now let us wander into the gritty realism of A Song of Ice and Fire. In this, most characters are depicted as sword wielding. Notable exceptions exist, such as Theon Greyjoy, and his bow, and Oberyn Martell, using a spear. Still we see that all weapons are pointed or edged.

No they're not. There's ample examples of axes and hammers being used, some of them rather notable such as Tyrion and Robert.

Again, in a world where heavier armour is about and causing issues for people (Victarion catches a sword with an armoured gauntlet, Jorah Mormont takes a sword to the ribs while he puts his own into his opponents face, in the knowledge that he, being armoured, will survive, and Barristan Selmy deflects a sword using his armoured forearm) no one seems to think of the direct counter; not to use an edged weapon. In this case, not even the 'bad guys' as much as they can be identified in this particular series.

See above. In any event I can't recall anyone at any point in the series being described as wearing full plate armour. Most of them are in maille with plate additions over the top like poleyns and couters.

Am I pointing out a particular issue? Not really, I don't think. Perhaps that while armour in fantasy is often portrayed at late medieval levels, weaponry reflects more the early medieval period before heavy armour was quite so much of a thing. I'm not really sure, which is why I'm passing it on to you guys and gals.

I think this flaw is more a product of cinema than perhaps fantasy novels. Films like Excalibur established the cliche fantasy look of knights in full plate harnesses wielding swords and lances. Of course no one ever actually fought in that sort of kit, but I think most (though not all) fantasy writers understand that.

 

[Gumboot]

In the real world, one word determined much medieval combat; chivalry. Under chivalric code gentleman soldiers (ie knights) wore armour and carried swords, and this is how they would fight each other so that it was a fair contest. This was also down to the fact that often the sword would only maim rather than cause the critical damage that the impact of an axe or hammer would. Armour protects very well from the cut of a sword, but not so well from the cushing of a blunt instrument. Also a sword could cut very nicely through an unprotected common soldier. This worked very well for knights because - regardless of their allegiance - they were part of a noble club who would protect their own (plus a live captive brought more ransom money than a dead one).

While the sword was the symbol of knighthood, medieval knights didn't actually fight with swords outside the tourney. By far the preferred weapon was the axe or hammer, even when maille was the standard armour.

Of course the best weapon (which is often not seen in fantasy novels) is artillery, which is the biggest killer in major (and many minor) conflicts. If the walls of Minas Tirith had been lined with cannon or howitzers then the enemy forces would have been wiped out. Interesting that there isn;t any, considering that there is gunpowder (Gandalf's fireworks)

The films strongly imply the existence of gunpowder both in the fireworks and the method by which Saruman breaches the Deeping Wall, but in the books both of these are attributed pretty clearly to magic, not gunpowder.

You do raise a good point though; firearms were being used in medieval warfare from the mid 13th Century, and their absence from fantasy works is a glaring omission. I think most people think they were introduced much later.

 

[Sapheron]

Gumboot, perhaps I should have made it clearer that most of my comments on The Lord of the Rings were film based. As you have pointed out, the books are (practically) the original, so suggesting they follow the trends they invented is silly. Obviously, in the books the Uruk-hai do where very heavy armour, and yet Legolas' hunting arrows piece it as though it were paper and they bodkins. Aragorn's sword, even used one handed, also has no trouble penetrating what appears to be thick plates.

As for A Song of Ice and Fire, perhaps you are correct. I seem to remember the higher ranked members of society (in other words, almost every named character) wearing very 'chivalric' type armour. Perhaps, once again, I have been influenced more by the television series than the books. You are completely correct in pointing out Tyrion, Robert and no doubt others which your memory is more capable than mine in recalling. I would still argue, as you do yourself in your second post though, that swords are the most common primary weapon in the series, whereas historically they would not have been.

 

[Toby Frost]

I suspect the answer to most weapons-and-armour queries would vary greatly depending on which bit of the middle ages you choose to look at. Even so, opinions seem to differ hugely on questions like "Can a bow piece plate armour?" I suppose the answer is "What sort of bow, and what sort of armour?"

There is also the point that swords in Europe have had religious connotations, as they look like crosses*. In Japan at least, there was great weight placed on the owning and wearing of swords, so in both cultures they have significance beyond just being a killing-tool and are suggestive of piety and devotion. Also, the personification of Justice carries a scale and a sword, rather than an executioner's axe, with which to meet out penalties.

* Saracens are generally depicted with curved scimitars. Are they meant to resemble the crescent moon, or is it an issue of practicality to have curved blades?

 

[JoanDrake]

Full plate armor was almost never used. Full suit armor was actually called "Maximilian" because Emperor Maximilian was the most well know wearer of it. The most common plate was a cuirass and the name means "boiled leather" since that's what it was, leather, boiled in paraffin and then fitted (I don't know how it was fitted, I certainly hope it wasn't hot though that would make it mold well). Later, they were made of metal and persisted into the 19thc. Everything else was mostly covered in mail, though various plate pieces were added over the years. The golden age of plate armor, however, was the age of very early firearms, when they were effective protection.

Mail was fairly good protection against a cutting weapon but could be pieced by bodkin arrows or a narrow bladed dagger called a misericordia and was rather vulnerable to a good stout club. Padding could handle the arrows and everyone has heard the story of Frankish knights walking about with several arrows in them.

The one good thing about the ax or mace is that you can't block it very well, it will just break the blocking limb. The problem is that if your opponent successfully dodges you've swung well past him and are now completely open.

The effectiveness of armor depends somewhat heavily on how much the other man was wearing. Arab warriors, who wore very light armor, regarded the heavily armored Franks as nearly invulnerable, but they did develop a way of simply beating them down and/or unhorsing them which was fairly effective

Japanese armor, despite looking very formidable, was actually fairly ineffective and worn mainly for show and intimidation.

 

[JoanDrake]

I suspect the answer to most weapons-and-armour queries would vary greatly depending on which bit of the middle ages you choose to look at. Even so, opinions seem to differ hugely on questions like "Can a bow piece plate armour?" I suppose the answer is "What sort of bow, and what sort of armour?"

There is also the point that swords in Europe have had religious connotations, as they look like crosses*. In Japan at least, there was great weight placed on the owning and wearing of swords, so in both cultures they have significance beyond just being a killing-tool and are suggestive of piety and devotion. Also, the personification of Justice carries a scale and a sword, rather than an executioner's axe, with which to meet out penalties.

* Saracens are generally depicted with curved scimitars. Are they meant to resemble the crescent moon, or is it an issue of practicality to have curved blades?

I've read that it had to do with the blade being easier to keep going after making a slashing cut but I have no source for that. The slight curvature of the Samurai sword had to do with the different types of steel the inner core was coated with, which made it curve slightly when cooled.

 

[nubins]

I saw an episode of Ultimate Warrior where they pitched viking against samurai. Interesting watching, the kitana was wholly and completely ineffective against mail, as in.. it was almost laughable how easily it shrugged off the blows.

Im pretty sure that part of the reason why the English army was always looked down on by other european powers, was because they fought dirty, even their knights only loosely followed the chivalric code. English knights usually fought on foot and their weapon of choice was the halberd, not the sword. But even non knighted heavy infantry used billhooks instead of halberds. This was because their superior reach, pointed tips and heavy bladed parts performed pretty much all battlefield roles well - spear/pike, axe and staff and were ideal at picking mounted combatants off their horses and despatching them with ease.

Im pretty sure that polearms were pretty much the weapon of choice for most heavy infantry by the end of the medievil period. The sword had its roles, but usually in lighter infantry positions, more chivalric armies would have their heavy infantry use longsword and shield, because of all the reasons mentioned above.

Also, not all maces were giant weapons that left you off balance if you missed, some maces were actually quite small (look at the one Brian Blesseds character used in the Kenneth Brannagh film of Henry V, it almost looks comically small) certainly no bigger than a long sword and probably lighter as well, as all the weight is concetrated in the top of the weapon, it didnt need to weigh as much to be effective.

 

[JoanDrake]

Another reason general European armies didn't like the Brits was because they tried to KILL their enemies, instead of taking them prisoner and holding them for ransom. I'm unclear as to why they didn't follow this custom but I've read it was a major factor in how Crecy and Agincourt were fought, along with their outcomes