[D. Graemer]

@Benjamin:

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[D. Graemer]

[Brian Robson]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Large, uniform formations primarily armed with swords might not have existed in medieval Europe, but European mixed infantry could have included sword-and-buckler men (and by this I really mean men armed with sword and bucklers, not a mistranslation of later targeteers/sword-and-target men) as early as the 14th century. For instance, there's this scene in the Holkham Bible (the one frequently misattributed as an illustration of Bannockburn):



And then, of course, there were the dismounted knights/men-at-arms, who frequently used swords when they didn't have the time to prepare for dismounted fighting (such as by picking up poleaxes or cutting down their lances) beforehand.

Going a tad earlier, there were the Franks at the battle of Poitiers, who stood with their swords and repelled Muslim cavalry charges "like a wall of ice." The interpretation of this as a Frankish infantry unit armed with short swords in a Roman (or more likely Neoclassical) manner has not gained universal acceptance, but it's fairly plausible in its own right and the evidence (mostly based on Bernard Bachrach's interpretations) is outlined here.

Last but not least, we have the Swabian swordsmen on the Papal side at the Battle of Civitate. The problem with them is that we don't know whether they fought with their swords on foot or on horseback -- and in either case I think they're very likely to be knights/men-at-arms anyway, not "real" lower-class infantry.

So yeah. No really unambiguous evidence either way. But if you know medieval European history, that's just part of the fun.

[Julian Behle]

Thats just how it is. Some pictures show only swords in use, others only polearms or so and a good deal of others depict many, many different weapons at the same time in a battle. And thats just fine. There was no standartized weaponry and for sure personal preferances. The sword was in use all over the time, sometimes as primary, sometimes as secondary weapon. It had to face competition but as far as it concerns me, we are through this (for 14th century at least) although more sources and material are always welcome. We will never have a definit answer about this so very different time but we got a good deal further concerning sword usage.

[William P]

another brief note on the samurai front,about battlefield sword usage

in the sengoku era battles, stephan turnbull noted in one of his books that while individual samurai did participate with just theirm sword, he notes that these swordsmen were men who were specifically trying to show off/ test their skill in swordsmanship,

much like numerous stories of samurai in the edo period going around and challenging people to prove themselves in duels.

[D. Graemer]

@Brian: Of course they needed swords. Just not as primary weapons, as it seems.

@Lafayette: What are these "mixes infantry" formations you speak of? Why should anyone use such formations, apart from some ill-trained rabble. A solid shield-wall with spears as primary and swords as secondary weapons would best any mixed formation. The Battle of Arsuf for example indicates that european infantry was in fact spearmen infantry capable of forming solid phalanxes.

@Julian: You say there was no standartizes weaponry. I think this is wrong. There were lists which lined out what a soldier of a certain census had to bring to war. (like the assise of arms)
It is absolutely necessary to build an army. Spearmen or halberd infantry are only effective if they are used in groups. If everyone brings the equipment he likes, no effective infantry unit can be formed.

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Brian Robson]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[D. Graemer]

@Lafayette: The french foot at Bouvines was mainly communal militia units, perhaps with some feudal levies and of course a proportion of ill-trained rabble with mixed weapons. I think it would be reasonable to expect that at least the communal militia and the better feudal infantry units would use spear-phalanxes. As far as I know, the sources are awfully silent on the infantry. A german chronicle although mentions the use of some sort of halberds by the french.

@Brian: I had the same though as you; That the spears were supplied by the King or some higher ranking nobles. They are cheap weapons, and it is somewhat important that spears are uniform. (Swords do not have to be)

@Lafayette: I characterized historical targeteers as light infantry. I know that this is not true for Machiavellis targeteers, or Fourquevaux' target-pikemen.

[Ryan S.]

weren't javelins like the Romans used anti-shield weapons? Anyway, as armour advanced, how does the javelin keep up? As long as it is being thrown, it is not going to increase in speed. I suppose lighter stronger materials might help. In the mean time much better ranged weapons are being improved.

[Julian Behle]

@ Lafayette C Curtis

Something like uniforms was introduced in the 14th century though. And not only in the military. The same colours or badges were worn (e.g. green and white jupons for some Welsh archers of the Black Prince not to mention the White Company), not comparable to later centuries but yet not the great variation. Probably, there was something like standardised weaponry in its early beginnings (in mid 14th century) and maybe something recognisable as eleborate farm-tools like stocks for archers, mean infantry or militia was provided but that should be all. Some nobles did better than other in maintaining proper arouries and royal power and even the magnates were not strong enough to pay fot all the whole military expenditures on their own. Indenture was a huge step forward to the professional armies of later times.

@ D. Graemer and Brian

We know from royal accounts that arrows were items of mass production. This might have been the case for household troops with spears as well. On the other hand, the men at arms had to arm themselves largely from their own purse so that status was ensured. The crown payed in many cases recompence for lost equipment and especially horses but more eleborate weapons like swords were not likely distributed in a nominate way. The summons revealed at many occasions how heavily the quality of arms and armour varied while other lords simply bought themselves off their duties. We should also take into account that weaponry was picked up from the battle field and kept over time. Edwardian supply trains, who countained blacksmiths as well, were a stunning showpiece of its time but I never really read about replacement stocks of weapons (arrows and lances are an exeption). On the continent, centralised arms production and distribution was not that easy to organize, as it was in England and even there it was a tought job. Do you have some information about that? I would be very interested.

@ D.Graemer

What I meant when I was talking about standartized weaponry, I did not only consider spears or simple pole arms as I am much more familiar with swords, maces and axes. I took the ancient period as my reference point when e.g. the legion's equipment was much more uniform. This was apparently not the medieval way. It is known that from the 15th century on the armourers of Milan were also able to provide weapons and armour for hundreds of soldiers in munition grade within days. But this became effective at a later point and I guess we're bordering to the Renaissance yet. Centralisation and nationalism was at its beginning in the 14th century. Maybe the change to indenture contributed to this slow trend of "uniformity". This picture (though an artist's conception) might supplement the idea of growing standardisation while others I posted recently might contradict it.

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Elling Polden]

[Guy Bayes]

The other thing to bear in mind is that tight spearman formations don't work well in rough terrain or forests. and a fair amount of Europe was still rough or forested. They are also not good at chasing down and killing a defeated and broken enemy, which is where the majority of casualties in a battle are typically incurred.

Mixed formations consisting of heavier and lighter troops, with the heavy troops forming the main line of bottle and the lighter troops being skirmishes, flankers, light calvary, etc eave been common throughout all of history. Even Alexander the Great who was one of the kings of the phalanx made heavy use of light infantry for instance.

There is also an element of "you take what you can get" lighter troops just tend to be in general more common, since they are much easier to train and equip.