I have heard that small fighting axes along the line of the tomahawk were a uniquely North American phenomenon. Was there a medieval equivalent?

In media, there is a romanticization of medieval military practices in which the valor (or skill) of individual men played an important part in most military campaigns.

How important were elite well-trained units in warfare during the Middle Ages?

/u/Valkine; Crossbows are often touted as a revolution in military tactics and a catalyst for social upheaval as they required less training than other forms of warfare, and they were capable of penetrating armored knights, how true is this view?

If at all possible to estimate, how expensive would it be to outfit a knight in modern currency (adjusting for inflation)?

/u/ambarenya; As the front for holy wars, did Byzantine develop military technology faster/differently from powers from the time period? What major advantages/disadvantages did they have against Muslim political powers?

/u/idjet; Lets say I'm a peasant living in a besieged castle, what can I look forward to? Another question; were concepts such as a chivalry, honor, and piety as important to politics and culture in the Middle Ages as important as we make them out to be?

Thanks you for your time!

EDIT: Grammar

What sort of social value did weapons have? Were swords seen as noble while spears and axes were peasant weapons, and how did this affect battlefield behavior? And can we see ideas about this spreading cross culturally, eg, continental ideas of what a fitting noble weapon is changing the activity of people east and north? Or is this all a later idea not relevant to the Middle Ages?

Simple question: why didn't the Swiss mercenaries use shields? I don't see how a pike formation works without shields.

1. How rare was lamellar armor? When was it introduced? Is it true that it was introduced to Scandinavia by retired Byzantine Guardsmen? Did Scandinavian armorers know how to produce lamellar or were they reliant upon trade if they wanted to get it? Lastly, during the Viking age, was it more common to see leather or metal lamellar, and why?

2. Did Norsemen, Danes and Swedes ever wear vambraces or greaves? If so, did Saxons and Franks wear it as well?

3. If a warrior was wearing leather armor, would it make sense to wear chainmail underneath? Would warriors wear lamellar over chainmail? (stupid question, my apologies) How rare was mail armor? If a warrior was attired in mail, would he wear a hauberk underneath?

4. In Bernard Cornwell's Saxon Stories series, he describes a Saxon who wears chainmail armor 'pants' (for a lack of a better word) - is that historically accurate?

5. How rare were Frankish made Ulfberht swords? How prized were they? Let's say a warrior possesses one, what does that say about his reputation?

6. Is there any evidence to support that Saxons, Danes and Norsemen fought as cavalrymen?

At the risk of sounding really ignorant: in video game handling of medieval battles, particularly video games of a strategic bent, units in medieval warfare were depicted as having sort of a rock-paper-scissors relationship with different units-- spears beat cavalry, cavalry beat swords, swords beat spears, etc.

While I recognize that is a vastly simplified view, how true was this in warfare, and if it was true, were there reports of scouting to determine units of opponents so as to raise effective counterunits?

I've been to many museums in Europe, and all the armor is extremely fancy and ornate. Was this combat armor, or used for tournaments or parades? I'm talking about armor inlaid with gold or brass and covered in engravings.

In "Beowulf," we get an enticing image of Grendel's "heathen hand-spurs most like steel." Is there any indication that this could be in reference to contemporaneous weaponry? Steel or iron claws attached to hands or fingers perhaps?

I would like to know what sort of weapons and armor was used by Slavic warriors in:

1. Samo's army
2. Nakon or Niklot's army
3. Mieszko's druzhina

Pictures would be greatly appreciated.

Bonus question: did any of those armies fight from horseback? If so - did they use saddles and stirrups?

I've heard that sieges played a huge part in medieval warfare, even more so than battles. How would sieges effect the city that was besieged after the siege was over? How long would they last?

Also, can you talk about what role religion played in medieval warfare?

Thanks for doing this AMA! This is an incredibly interesting topic, I just am running a blank on questions!

Questions about the Varangian guard

1. The guardsmen were first and foremost Mercenaries, but did they have an official selection process? Or was admission solely reliant upon reputation?
2. Did they have a formalized training process where they were accustomed to Byzantine military formations/tactics? Which leads me to my next question... How much of an impact did retired guardsmen have on Norse warfare when they returned home? That is to say, did they introduce Eastern/Byzantine military tactics/armor/weapons to other Scandinavians?
3. What would most Guardsmen do following retirement? Were there Scandinavians who chose to remain in Constantinople? Was it common to see Guardsmen go on to serve as housecarls (obviously after retiring)?
4. I have read that the Guard was respected by Scandinavians, is that true? How did native Byzantine's feel about the guard? Initially, the majority of the guardsmen were Swedes but eventually Norse, Danes and Icelanders became the majority - why did this happen? And prior to the conquest of 1066, how common was it to see Saxons serving in the Guard? And were Frisians known to serve as well? And is it true Irishmen and Scots even served?
5. Compared to the average Housecarl, how much training did a guardsmen receive?
6. Were most guardsmen Pagan, or did most convert to Christianity?
7. Childish question, but how do any of the sources discuss Harald Hardrada's fighting capability?

And if you guys could recommend any books on the Guard and Harald Hardrada in particular, I would really appreciate it. Thanks

In the late medieval period, would a typical regular soldier (not a knight) carry anti-armor weapons (maces, pole hammers)? If so, which were the most popular choice, and were they effective against a heavily armored knight?

Last set of questions...

1. William Marshal is considered to be the greatest Knight of the Middle Ages, namely for his chivalrous deeds, but who was considered to be the most 'talented' or skilled Knight to have ever lived?

2. Let's say I'm a child living in Normandy during the 10th century who aspires to serve as a Knight, what would my training 'pipeline' look like? How often would I train? And what would the majority of my training be devoted to (cavalry tactics, dismounted combat, etc, etc)? What made Norman Knights so successful?

3. What spawned the creation of the Norman sword, and how much more effective was it against mail than the traditional Viking sword?

4. In medieval England, how rare was it to see Knights of Anglo-Saxon heritage? Were the majority of Knights during this period of Anglo-Norman heritage? Did those of Anglo-Norman heritage look down upon the Anglo-Saxons (for their low birth)? I guess I'm answering my own question, but were Anglo-Saxon knights required to be fluent in Anglo-Norman - I'd assume so, correct?

5. Goes back to question number one, fairly immature question (and I apologize for that), but who was considered to be the greatest warrior of the Viking age?

6. Of all the Knightly orders of the Middle Ages, which was the least corrupt? And which was the most capable?

7. When did knights start wearing surcoats, and why did they?

Thanks for all the help. If you'd recommend any books on Medieval warfare, (particularly the Normans) by all means do so. I'm fascinated by the subject.

How common was it for peasants, clericals, 'bourgeois' etc. to have arms in their homes ? Was it in any way illegal or badly perceived as it can be today ?

Thanks for this AMA !

My questions involve siege weaponry:

When did gunpowder based siege weapons first see use? When did they overtake conventional siege weapons like catapults?

What role, if any, did the Mongols have in introducing advances in siege weaponry to European warfare? Did the Mongols utilize gunpowder weapons in their European / near east conquests?

I've read that the romans utilized ballistas in battle during the ancient period. How prevalent was the use of siege weaponry against troops in battle (as opposed to use against fixed fortifications) during the medieval period? Essentially, when did "battlefield artillery," gunpowder based or otherwise, come into widespread use?

I'm interested in learning more about the very late period plate armors such as Gothic plate. My interest was sparked by watching a television show that made some intriguing claims I've never had to double check.

How big an advantage would these late period armors give such an advantage that beating multiple people at once would be easy?

Did users stop using shields because of the quality of the armor made them unnecessary?

I know that this is a very obscure and technical point, but was by far the most interesting idea I heard, was that knights wearing plate armor would use their armor to parry like a shield. Supposedly, to guard against say, a sword blow from the side, they'd just twist a little to put the front chest piece in the path and absorb the impact without risk. Was that true?

A related, probably better question, is did late period armor offer protection against full strength blows to the point where they could be shrugged off?

How well did armor hold up against powerful bows like longbows or the recurved bows commonly used by horse archers?

Did the quality of the armor result in a increased use of weapons like warhammers, maces and morning stars? Were those weapons truly better than swords against plate? Did swords become something like a modern combat knife, useful only as a last resort?

Thanks for your time. Those late period armors look beautiful and I'm really excited to learn any more about how they worked in combat.

Hi! I have a few questions:

Many swords depicted in movies were either very stiff or were somewhat flexible (for a bastard sword as an example). Were most short/long swords as flexible, or were they less likely to bend around?

What were some newer weapons introduced at the time that were so bizarre or ostracized that they were used only briefly?

Why was the longaxe such a practical weapon? Wouldn't it exhaust the user quickly?

When did swords/axes/spears really die out after gunpowder was introduced to Europe?

Thanks for taking the time to do the AMA!

EDIT: A few more.

How long did it take on average to train an archer? How many arrows would they be supplied with in battle?

Would knights wear some sort of symbol of their coat of arms/heraldry upon their armor?

Do any medieval military techniques survive to this day in modern militaries?

How long did it take for a siege tower to be built, and were there one or two specific designs deemed to be good?

Should a fighter's spear and/or sword break on them, did they carry any backup?

When did the Roman Gladius stopped being the standard for hand weapon if it ever was the standard? And who introduced the longer swords as a standard for fighting?

How realistic is this battle scene? I was particularly wondering about the shield wall. I could see the sense of it if there were large numbers of attackers and defenders but with less than 50 people each side why don't they just go around the wall and just sandwich the vikings in the middle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTYz439cA5w&t=0m55s

I often hear people arguing that the katana is the 'ultimate' sword. I know it isn't, but I don't know enough to dispute/argue their claims. Could you potentially give me some counterpoints to this argument?

How common was it to see soldiers using swords? If I recall correctly, there was a misconception in Japan that the katana was a main weapon when in reality it was a weapon of last resort. Was there anything like that in Europe?

Secondly, as a fun question, what is the most bizarre weapon you know of?

Lets say I'm a man at arms in medieval Europe (1200-1300). I'm in battle and I find myself facing off against a knight on foot who's using a pretty standard kit, long sword and kite shield? I'm not sure what the standard man at arms would have in terms of weapons but for the sake of this lets say he also has a long sword and kite shield. What is the standard tactic for disabling the knight? Not sure if this is too specific but I've always been curious what the norm would be.

1. What was the role of Byzantine infantry on the battlefield during the Macedonian period? Were they no longer the decisive arm?

2. What (if any) were the qualitative differences between thematic forces and units of the tagmata?

What were the main difference in the sets of equipment that were most commonly seen employed by both Nobility and Common Soldiers?

Swords don't seem like they'd be as prevalent as media portrays, but was it really so desperate amongst the common folk that farm implements re-tooled into weapons were a common occurrence on the battlefield?

How would Mercenary units equip themselves, both in quality of equipment, and in a financial sense?

1.About how widespread were composite bows, and how widespread the self-bow? I'm used to thinking of the composite as limited to the steppe and Asia. Further, if bow size isn't a constraining factor, what are the differences between a composite bow and a self bow? Is a self bow more accurate, for example?

2. Did any armies use massed crossbowmen firing in volleys? One would think that it would be just as, if not more deadly than mass use of early firearms. Were they just too hard to produce in sufficient numbers?

Another question - how powerful are javelins? Effective range, armor penetration, etc? I can't imagine anyone who isn't freakishly strong being able to pierce armor with one. Were they only useful for harassment?

1. Despite being often presented as a significant "upgrade" in terms of protection, I've heard from a few people on this sub that plate really doesn't actually provide all that much more protection that mail and that mail is actually pretty solid armor. How true is this?

2. How effective was Byzantine heavy armor (I'm thinking of the type used by the Scholae) compared to contemporary western armor? How effective would it have been compared to 14th and 15th century early plate?

3. The composite bow vs. the longbow: what was the approximate penetrating power of these two types of bows compared to one another? I understand Turkish composite bows were famous for being able to punch through armor especially during the Crusades and against the Byzantines (this is incorrect, my bad) and longbows at close enough range could penetrate plate (although I've heard debates on the latter).

4. On horse armor: what would a typical Byzantine tagmata cavalryman from the Macedonian era used as horse armor? How about a typical knight from the 14th century? What were the varieties of barding that you saw over time? How did barding develop, and when did it first come about?

5. How effective were early arquebuses and other firearms at penetrating armor? I've heard that oftentimes they simply bounced off plate and the main impact of early firearms was really psychological. When did firearm technology develop enough to be able to penetrate the most advanced armor?

6. How did the Byzantines become so famous for their skills in siege? I've heard a lot about their tactics in the field through reading excerpts from the Strategikon and other treatises, but I know little of what equipment and tactics the Byzantine army used to breach and take walls.

I can't remember the name of the battle specifically (it has been years since my military history course)- but when the longbow saw its surprise reveal is superior range capabilities how long did it take for others to figure out what was happening? Any truth to the notion that crossbowman and non-longbow archers tried returning fire with the longbow archers because they believed they should be in range if they were being fired upon?

Also after the longbow was more widely used did people still use non-long bows at all? For castle defense or to arm untrained militia?

Are there any written accounts detailing the life of a smith? I'm under the impression that most people of that time were unfortunately illiterate.

I was just curious as to what constitutes a "successful" career path for a young, up-and-coming smith. Is it finding a nice village that needs you? Working for the local standing army? Working for the local nobility?

Thanks.

What do you think of the armor hierarchy first set down in D&D and copied by many video games since then?

As you go down the list, they offer more protection but are more restrictive:
Padded armor.
Leather armor.
Studded leather.
Chain shirt.
Hide armor.
Scale mail.
Full chainmail.
Breastplate.
Split mail.
Banded mail.
Half-plate.
Full plate.

I'd like to know a bit about the logistics of equipping an army. To what extent were different types of soldiers expected to provide their own equipment? For example, I have read on this subreddit that knights and men-at-arms were equipped individually at their own expense.

What about the levies, were their weapons, armour (if any) and such provided by their lords? If so, how would they obtain them in those quantities - was for example a contract placed for 100 spearheads at the local blacksmith (or perhaps a guild?) with an agreed compensation, or was it simply ordered, given that the smith was a subject of the lord (or was he usually?)? I guess what I'm asking is, what were the obligations of craftsmen of the period with regards to military equipment?

And what about mercenaries, were they also equipped individually, or could their mercenary band provide weapons and armour?

/u/GBFel - I ask because I keep saying this but I am not sure if I believe it. In Keegan's book The Face of Battle he claims, on the basis of accounts of Napoleonic Wars and the Civil Wars, that horses will refuse to charge an infantry block as long as it maintains cohesion. This seems convincing for much of the Classical world and explains why Republican armies relied so little on cavalry, but what about the heavy armor of the late antique period or the middle ages? Are those guys still relying on the psychology of the charge to scatter troops, or will they actually engage in a Battle of Pelenor kind of way?

Were star-fortress designs used before guns? Would a star-fortress be a feasible design without guns for defense?

Also, on /r/castleporn, I see a number of fortifications of the form of "fort on a rock": these fortresses don't really appear to have walls, other than very steep cliffs all the way around. Was this a common way to build a fortress? Would they be effective in defense?

• By "gun" I mean "cannons".

Once Europeans started making crossbow prods out of composite materials in the style of Asiatic composite bows, why did they never make prods with long draw lengths (e.g., in the 50 cm range or so) like those of the Han dynasty's crossbows?

I've seen sword-gun combinations in several art and arms-armor museum collections such as the doge's palace in Venice and the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Were these actual practical weapons or just novelties that were not intended for serious use? It would seem to me that the gun parts would almost surely be damaged as soon as the weapon were used as a sword.

My question pertains to the 13th and 14th century armor of Scandinavians.

It's easy to find fairly detailed information about the viking age, but post 1066, things become significantly more difficult to track down.

From what I've gathered, most Scandinavians (warriors/raiders) in the viking age wore leather, sometimes mail (chain) and possibly lamellar. but I can't seem to find anything definitive to suggest what was commonly worn in what was considered the transitional period for the rest of Europe; 13th-14th.

Some things I have read suggest that for the most part Scandinavians wore similar armors to the rest of Europe, but seemed to lag behind slightly (by a decade or so.) But I can't find anything definitive - only statements from individuals on the topic.

So what did they actually wear? Brigandines? Coat of Plates? Or was there something else? Did they begin wearing articulated plate on their arms/shoulders/legs around this time? Or were they still wearing leather or something else?

Any sources/sites to check out would be most welcome. I certainly don't expect anyone to lay out the entire century here in text.

Thanks!

What would the average Arab soldier of the Rashidun caliphate have used for arms and armor? would they have been outfitted any better than their Persian and Byzantine enemies?

Who became mercenaries, and how were they organized? What would mercenaries do in times of peace?

Can you suggest any good resources for learning an overall history of European medieval armor and how it was used?

Why 535-1435? Is that what you would call the Middle ages (hate that name)? I am unaware of weaponry dates so maybe that is it, but it seems oddly specific

In the video game Mount and Blade: With Fire and Sword, which is based in eastern europe in 1655, bows, shields and full plate armor are quite common. How accurate is this depiction and when did these "medieval" arms go out of use in the different parts of europe?

/u/GBFel How did you go from a minor in history to a MA in Classics? IMO that is one of the hardest MA programs to get into if you do not have a classics background in your undergrad.