| Sean Manning wrote: |
| In late medeval and early modern Europe, there was a strong culture of having a variety of weapons if you could and using the best one for the task. Cavalry often carried several swords, a lance, a striking weapon, and a bow or firearm, and sixteenth-century infantry were expected to be able to make themselves useful if someone gave them a rotella and told them to break into the hole in that house. Their usual weapon might be a bill or a pike, but that was the wrong tool for the job.
If someone in 13th century England decided he liked a Turkish bow (whatever that meant exactly) better than a longbow or a crossbow, he had plenty of time to learn how to use it, because it was not very exotic and because he did not go hunting or warring every day. |
That reminds me of Hägar the Horrible, carrying his weapons in a golf bag. :D If a warrior carried multiple swords, then the odds are higher that at least one of them was foreign.
A 13th Century Englishman could have used a Turkish bow, but most seemed not to. There are many possible reasons why, ranging from the desire not to stand out, to the relative difficulty in getting one. As far as flexibility in weapons use, of course an infantryman would be expected to use different weapons. I am not sure to what extent it would be his choice. Would a pikeman who found a crossbow automatically be transferred to the crossbowmen? I don't know. Some soldiers had to supply their own equipment, and I think that was the case for some crossbowmen, especially mercenaries. Although, if the loot was shared, then whoever found it just got money.