[D. Graemer]

Did any medieval infantry use swords or similar weapons such as falchions or messer as primary weapons?

Popular culture and many wargames show "swordsmen" as an infantry type present in medieval armies. After some thinking, I find it rather hard to believe that swords were used as primary weapons.

In pitched battle, most infantry units prior to the invention of repeating firearms and machine guns would fight in close order formations. They provide a moral adventage as well as increased protection, concentration of force and the ability to resist cavalry charges. This said, infantrymen in the medieval period would wield a weapon that is usable when fighting in dense formations. The first weapon that comes to mind is the infantry spear. Spears were widespread weapons, cheap, easy to produce and suited to combat in formation. They can be used to stop infantry or cavalry charges, and rear ranks can still help due to the length of the spear. Also, they are useful because they help to stay in formation.

Of course, there are some situations where a sword would be more useful. The first-rankers, when in direct contact with the enemy shield-wall, may not be able to use their spears because of the confined space. Also, formation may break and a looser kind of combat may ensue. There might be difficult terrain or another situation that does not allow ordered formations. (climbing up ladders, fighting in woods or streets) So soldiers need a sword to be really effective. But the thing is: Everyone can carry a spear, a shield AND a sword. A man who can afford to buy a sword can buy a spear too. So I can see no reason why an infantry unit should be equipped with swords, but not with spears.

[Robin Smith]

I think the sword is analogous to the modern handgun. A symbol of rank and authority, a back-up weapon, and something that can be carried easily in public.

Art certainly depicts units of swordsmen on the battlefield, but using art in this way is fraught with problems. I have no doubt that many medieval battles had men who used a sword as their primary either due to circumstance or choice, but a unit of dedicated swordsmen doesn't make much sense to me.

Dopplesoldner and the like of course are an exception, but they have a specific role and I suspect that is not the type of "swordsmen" you are asking about.

[D. Graemer]

[Timo Nieminen]

Not the most common primary weapon, but it was done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodeleros

[Christopher B Lellis]

I have wondered this myself and have done my own research.

From what I have seen researching medieval history, swords don't generally seem to be the primary weapon but there seem to be plenty of instances where all swords were unsheathed. Battles seemed to have started for the most part with bowman firing at the opposing side, infantry with spears or poleaxes and Calvary with lances. However, it seems that if one side didn't walk through the other side, and they got close, swords unsheathed everywhere.









High society dueling was definitely sword play.



Primary weapon or not, the sword does seem to have been heavily used in combat.

[Guy Bayes]

Agree with the kinda like a handgun, caveat with the primary weapon was much much more likely to be damaged or lost then the rifle/pistol analogy would suggest

[Christopher B Lellis]

For war purposes, the samurai seemed to prefer spears, bows and poleaxe type weapons as well.
I also agree with the handgun analogy.

[D. Graemer]

@Timo: Rodoleros/Targetiers were used. As light infantry, it is reasonable that they do not carry spears. But why did they not use javelins combined with swords. Spain had a strong javelin-tradition, so it would seem natural.

@Christopher: Thanks for the pictures. I know that swords were used a lot in battle, when the fighting got close or the primary weapons were lost. But this is not usage as "primary weapons".

What is interesting is the 3rd picture. It shows a group of footmen with shield and sword only, albeit in a siege context.

edit: its the 4th picture, sorry

[Timo Nieminen]

[Julian Behle]

You are definetly right about spears and pikes. Scottish sheltrons were very famous for making good use of them. As far as I'm concerned as a 14th century enthusiast, the knightly weapons saw a tremendous decrease on the battlefield during that time. Lance charges failed often enough and swords weren't of that much use anymore against increasing plate armour. Swords were still the weapons of choice for a man of rank and not for display only, but battle got more nasty because you had to batter your oponent down, breaking the harness instead of slicing him into pieces or spike him at times of mail. Consequently a sword as an allround weapon gives you not the immense force in the thrust and cut and certainly not the blunt impact that you are required to inflict, if you want to prevail.
In the Hundred Years War, spears and pikes saw not really a decline in usage as they were more often kept in the rear ranks as did the sword by becoming a back up weapon. Hobelars and spearmen got outranked by archers. It was the same with the men at arms in England which symbolises the loss of status of the sword pretty good. What really won the battles were "heavy impact" weapons like maces, axes, flails, polearms and falchions (and of cause arballists). And by the time, many soldiers where no expert swordsmen anymore but commoners.
Combat also exadurated to dagger fighting, so you sometimes skipped over the sword as your back up weapon as well. Welsh knivemen often did the really dirty work by ripping up the horses bellies and making use of their agility to overwhelm men at arms as did the archers at Agincourt for example. The sword was not a weapon to finish someone with one stroke, though they got more pointy for piercing. Shortened lances or top-spiked axes are more handy in close quater fighting. In skirmishes it was a totally different matter. Swiss halberdiers developed a way to attack cavalry very affectively thus the weapon showed to be a great advantage at Sempach. So there was a tendency to polearms as well. No knight of the 13th century would have considered a poleaxe as a chivalrous weapon, later on it became standard in 15th century.

Infantry became more important in tactics. We can see that throughout the 14th century, though Italy is a bit of an exeption.
Especially in defence position, a sword is not of good use in tight formation, mid sized as it is. Although it is in no way totally nonsentical to have one but it's better kept sheathed until the formation opens.

The problem with illuminations is that when traditional "chivalrous" combat declined, it reached its apex in culture. Artists certainly had knowledge about what was going on on the battlefields, but it is obvious that heroic mass cavalry charges were not the tactic of choice as they where still displayed when the late middel ages were moving on. Symbolism and status of sword and lance kept going on to be too important to just leave them out on a picture but you see more and more "competition". It is therefore self-evident for me that the sword was not the best tool for an infantry soldier. As an every-day weapon it had its advantages but on the field of batte it was a distinctive weapon among others.

I have more pictures here. I just don't know how to several images in one post.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Writing well after medieval period, Sir John Smythe explained the sword's importance as follows:

[Timo Nieminen]

[Antonio Ganarini]

[Luke Kramer]

Interestingly enough I have used the "handgun analogy" for swords as well, and it works.

I do believe that swords were a little more effective against plate armor than has been suggested here, though. While it was certainly rare to see the sword as a primary weapon, there are many factors that keeps them usable on the battlefield throughout the Renaissance.

1.) They are (arguably) one of the most versatile weapons.

2.) As we move from the Late Middle Ages into the Early Modern, armor types varied significantly on the battlefield. Very few fighters on the battlefield were in full plate, leaving plenty of targets for a sharp sword.

3.) Even when confronted by an opponent in full plate, the design of the sword changed to exploit weaknesses in harnesses popular at the time.

4.) Many of the harnisfechten techniques (such as the mortschlage) are particularly effective against plate armor.

Again, I fully agree that the sword's time was waning, but I think that it remained a little more useful than has been suggested. ; an excellent sidearm for those who could afford it.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Michael Curl]

Could you link me to some of these sources regarding the Irish darts vs. English troops? I am very interested.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

John Dymmok is one source. Here is a nineteenth century reprint. See page 7-8 for a description of Irish warriors. Also see Fynes Moryson (search for darts).

Going back to the original question, the sword's place depends on the period and location in question. In thirteenth-century Scandinavia, a spear was apparently worth two swords when fighting on foot with shields. However, at least by early sixteenth century and into the seventeenth, you see units of targetiers with swords but no or few spears.

Greek hoplites: Spear and large shield with a short sword for backup
Roman legions: Javelin(s), short sword, and large shield
Medieval Scandinavia infantry: spear and shield with a sword for backup
16th- & 17th-century targetiers: just sword and shield

There's no clear progression here; presumably each combination made sense within its context. Various styles coexisted, particularly in ancient times, when the shield dominated. Additionally note that shield and sword was a popular combination for assaulting fortifications judging by medieval artwork and later Renaissance-era practice. One theory is that the Spanish preference for sword and shield came out of the siege warfare involved in the Reconquista. This makes sense to me; particularly when storming a tower, a sword seems superior to a spear because of the potentially confined circumstances.

[Julian Behle]

[Augusto Boer Bront]

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/
I strongly recommend this site for searching anything miniature-related =).

[Dan Howard]