Largely thanks to Tolkien, the fantasy genre consists basically of how we imagine the Medieval times. Readers of this blog will know of my many articles on the Middle Ages and my keen interest in historical accuracy. In the interest of improving our (fantasy) writing, I’m sharing here some great information from Quora on what fantasy often gets wrong about Medieval warfare.
Summary
As this is a long post, I will start by summarizing some key points about Medieval warfare (and life in general) here:
- Spears are awesome. They can even stop cavalry. It was the weapon of choice for centuries.
- Swords are sidearms, not your main weapon. That’s why they are light – and you don’t need to wind up to swing a sword. Swords cut through technique, not force.
- If you have to use a sword, use it properly. People used them in techniques like half-swording (holding it from the blade). Swords can’t cut armor, but you can grip the blade to use it as a short spear and stab at gaps, or bludgeon someone with the pommel like a mace. Swords were popular due to their versatility.
- Weapons, in general, were not that heavy. An average arming sword (one-handed) was around 2lbs, maybe 3 for a longsword (two-handed), and maybe five for a greatsword (long as a man, but narrow and still mostly light).
- When you have a shield, you don’t open yourself up to strike first unless you’re absolutely certain your opponent is about to die. You never expose yourself to swing from behind a shield, using it as a counterweight. You angle the shield and swing it with your weapon to maintain your guard and protect your hand.
- Bludgeon weapons are great against armor. Even if they don’t break it, they will shatter the bones of the poor soul wearing it.
- Swords don’t slash through chainmail.
- Archery is a thing. And it’s very effective. Also, it requires strength. Sorry, female protagonist with skinny arms.
- Horses. They were a lot smaller than now.
- Chickens. We have selectively bred chickens to be larger, fatter, unable to fly, and certain colors.
- Brutishness. People were still humans (with the possible exception of Mongols).
- People were not illiterate, filthy, and only drinking alcohol. They had water, they did *not* think bathing was unholy, and we have examples of books about farming, written by farmers, to teach novices how to farm in the middle ages; thus, peasants could read. The myth comes from the fact that ‘literacy’ at the time referred to if you could read Latin, the language of the church and the only language legal to print the bible in.
- Leather armor wasn’t typically a thing as cows were too valuable. If leather was used as armor, it was hardened solid, not soft and flexible.
And now for the detailed answer.
Medieval warfare
Many people, when thinking about medieval warfare, picture guys with swords charging at each other like a bunch of drunken maniacs cutting and slashing at each other until only one side is left standing.
People see this in Braveheart and think that is how battles were fought:
Artist’s perception of a Medieval battle. Source: Quora
Sword fighting
To understand how sword fighting worked, picture yourself in a crowded area.
Now, picture yourself in a crowded area as densely populated as what you imagined — only now, everyone has a shield, armor, and weapons.
Finally, just imagine how hard it would be to take a sword out and start swinging at it when you would be barely able to twitch your muscles.
Keep in mind as well, that, aside from chain mail being nearly impossible to cut through, so are your calf bones, which are stronger than cement.
Professional executioners using an ax in sixteenth-century England were expected to severe the neck with an ax in TWO blows. The neck is far easier to cut through than a calf, and the ax — which is definitely stronger than a sword when used properly — still took an average of two swings by a professional executioner to carry out.
Above: Artist Depiction Of The Execution Of Mary Queen Of Scots. Source: Quora
Mary Queen of Scots even reportedly took anywhere from three to four blows to severe. Granted, the executioner in her case was not as experienced, though that does not explain why it would take three to four swings to cut her head off when Mel Gibson in Braveheart was able to cut an English soldier’s leg off, despite being covered in chain mail.
Of course, when watching medieval war movies, swords behave more like lightsabers.
Using fists, feet, and even your body is much faster, more accurate, and consumes less energy than swinging about a medieval sword (and that is assuming one has the space to do the last thing).
Furthermore, even when battles were far less sparsely populated, the use of swords was not something which armies frequently relied on, as swords wore out and broke quite easily if they made physical contact with metal on a regular basis.
Also, swords were very expensive and time-consuming to produce. Wasting your sword over a fantastical sword fight was neither beneficial to the army itself, nor to the sword-bearer, who would probably have to pay for a new sword out of his own pocket (national armies were centuries away at this point).
Archery
Even Samurai, contrary to popular belief, did not like using swords, as the use of swords was seen as a low-class military role.
Rather, what Samurai enjoyed doing more than anything else was to ride horses and use their bows and arrows (either on horseback or foot).
Swords were never relied on by any notable army unless the enemy got too close and engaged them in close-quarter combat (the attacking army was more likely to do so if they had far superior numbers to their enemies).
Above: Samurai Warrior On Horseback Firing Arrows While His Subordinates Charge On Foot With Swords. Source: The Equipment of the Samurai – Fearsome Warriors Armed to the Teeth
The bow and arrow are also somewhat mythical, as people picture random archer units spraying down row upon row of attacking enemies like a modern machine gun.
In reality, arrows were far better at crushing the armor and causing dents than they were at actually penetrating it. This could prove serious for the one being pelted by arrows, as it would mean that they had the potential of being quite literally crushed inside their own armor if hit too many times, even though traditional arrows were unlikely to break through it.
Above: Somewhat Inaccurate Depiction Of The Battle Of Agincourt On October 25, 1415. Source: Quora
The English longbow could reportedly puncture the armor used during the early medieval ages, though this dominance (first seen at Halidon Hill in 1333 and again at Crecy and Poitiers in 1346 and 1356 respectively) was short-lived.
Evidence from scientific/military documentaries suggests that by 1415, when the Battle of Agincourt took place, French armor was strong enough that the longbow arrow would not have been likely to penetrate the armor of the attack French even at fairly close range.
Cavalry
Horses are often treated as some sort of rolling tank capable of slaughtering everyone in their sights. Source: Quora
In reality, horses were far better at chasing down fleeing enemies during pandemonium than they were at taking part in an actual battle.
Above: Artist’s impression of colliding infantry. No, archers would not have been standing In front of hoplite infantry like this unless they had a death wish. Source: Quora
Until the age of gunpowder, the most common way a battle was fought was for both armies to quite literally press their infantry against one another in a game similar to tug of war, except that rather than pulling, the players are pushing.
Over a period that could last from minutes, to hours, or even days, both sides would steadily exhaust themselves.
Above: Mongol cavalry. Source: Quora
At some point, one side would start wavering once they realize that their side is being pushed back, and panic would start breaking out within the ranks.
Soldiers on losing sides often took their armor off of them before fleeing, since it is much faster to flee on foot from a pursuing enemy when you are lightly dressed.
Meanwhile, the cavalry would usually see its biggest role in a battle at around this time.
Witnessing the thousands of fleeing enemies running in terror — often causing some of their men to fall and be trampled to death — the cavalry would be sent in to ensure that the pandemonium continues.
In all likelihood, soldiers in battle were far more likely to be killed by their own men during the panicky chaos than they were to be killed from the actual fighting.
Above: Collapse Of The Teutonic Army At The Battle Of Tannenberg July 15, 1410. Source: Quora
The mass flight of men probably explains why medieval battles — Agincourt definitely not being exceptional — often had casualties that seemed very lopsided in favor of the winners.
For instance, depending on whose sources we want to believe, the English only lost between 29–100 men out of 6,000 who fought at Agincourt, while the French may have lost over 10,000 men out of 30,000 who fought, with the majority of French being reportedly killed during the final minutes of the battle when the routing commenced.
Agincourt. Source: All That’s Interesting
Special thanks to Michiel Bogaert, David Frigault, Brett Fleur, and several commenters for their insight!
Reblogged this on Chris The Story Reading Ape's Blog and commented:
More great information from, Nicholas 👍😃
LikeLiked by 1 person
I suspect the answer to the title question is ‘everything’, and reading the post, that seems to be correct. The business of bows I already knew. Remember when Odysseus returned to Greece after the Trojan War, and his adventures? He found his wife, Penelope, surrounded by suitors. She said she would only marry one who could draw her husband’s bow. All failed. That indicates that bows are not easy to use.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Lol – absolutely!
LikeLike
I really enjoy these posts. I always manage to learn something.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you so much, Craig! I hope you liked my review on Amazon, by the way 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
They tell us not to say anything, but I loved it. Thank you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙂
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Jeanne Owens, author.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on s a gibson.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great stuff, Nicholas. But let’s not forget sieges. Most medieval warfare involved protracted sieges, rather than pitched battles.
Best wishes, Pete.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is such a good point, I may just have to write a post on the subject! Thank you for the inspiration 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I will look forward to reading that, Nicholas. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great information, Nicholas. I always thought swords are the main weapon. OK, will try to get the other ones too. 😉 Lets fight, as long as its possible. :-)) Thank you for the very useful information. There was something bad done in past movies too. As example wearing a wrist watch around the 19th century. Michael
LikeLiked by 2 people
Lol – it sounds like something out of The Party (with Peter Sellers) 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh yes! :-))
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Marina Costa and commented:
Interesting to know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a fantastic post and should win an award of some kind. I award you the Order of the Accurate Author, or OAA. I’m sure there’s better about.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you so much Jemima, I gratefully accept 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lots of great stuff here, but this bit stuck with me. “…we have examples of books about farming, written by farmers, to teach novices how to farm in the middle ages; thus, peasants could read. The myth comes from the fact that ‘literacy’ at the time referred to if you could read Latin, the language of the church and the only language legal to print the bible in.”
Gatekeeping and gaslighting in every era.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Everything changes, and everything stays the same 🙂
LikeLike
Good info here. I’m dredging the depths of my memory from my days as a scholar of medieval literature, and I think the myth of the dominance of the sword may have begun during the Middle Ages themselves! Swords and lances are what I remember, but of course the stories are about lone knights, not war.
Worth remembering when we talk about books in the middle ages, is that they were hand-written and expensive. Every step of the process that we take for granted was time-consuming and (again) usually expensive: making paper (or vellum), ink (that I think was cheaper, and quills were free if you had a goose 🙂 ), and of course any copying. And the one I love, spelling was not fixed, but pretty much at whim.
You’re making me want to go back to reading medieval history and literature again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m so glad to have inspired you 😀
LikeLike
Fascinating stuff! Do you have an accurate illustration of Medieval combat you can share?
LikeLike
Thank you, I’m so glad you enjoyed it! I do have some posts on Medieval weapons (eg https://nicholasrossis.wordpress.com/2020/09/15/unknown-medieval-weapons/) and a couple on combat: https://nicholasrossis.wordpress.com/2020/09/03/what-does-fantasy-get-wrong-about-medieval-warfare/ and https://nicholasrossis.wordpress.com/2020/06/15/medieval-castle-assaults/
I suggest you search my site for the keyword “Medieval” and you’ll get plenty of fascinating info!
LikeLike
The idea regarding most people being illiterate back then comes from that fact that serfs were not taught to read and write. Books were rare, expensive, and all handmade. Anyone who possessed one wasn’t considered a serf. I wouldn’t say people were alcoholics, but they did regularly consume it. Ale or watered down wine was often drank instead of water to prevent illnesses, especially if an augur was present. The vast of people were serfs or peasants. Individual farms and homesteads were rare and few in between.Most homesteads and farms were earned not bought. A person may had operated a shop in the village, but they were still bonded to the Lord, Duke. or Earl who also owned the land and often times the building the shopkeeper crafted their trade in. Therefore just like the serf, the middle class was still depending upon the aristocrats who controlled the armies. Serfs worked the land or estates to support the aristocrats and feed the armies.In most cases a serf was bind to the land for life.This is why so many aristocrats opposed Charles Martel’s Magna Carta.
Using a bow and arrow is more about skill than strength. Given a chance those skinny armed women in the Middle Ages could have used an bow and arrow. And many did. They hunted and trapped games just like men. Back then, women were plowing in fields, harvesting, washing clothing on rocks in rivers or ponds and wet clothing are very heavy. Carrying buckets of water or milks for miles. So, they had spent a lifetime building muscles. The vast majority of the women didn’t have the luxury to be soft as the noble women were.
Serfdom didn’t fully officially end until World War I. It lasted nearly 2,000 years and this is the Roman records of it. We do not know how long it actually existed predating Rome occupation. It was a system already in place when the Romans arrived. Yes, I am aware many say something different. It supposedly started to end with the Peasant Revolt of 1381 and Elizabeth I supposed ended it in 1574, so who was working the land all these years?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the many interesting points! I’ll expand on many of these in future posts so stay tuned 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for reminding me of the structure of a medieval battle. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person