Swordsmen are Unrealistic

[rrgg]

This has been bugging me more and more lately, what's the deal with the swordsmen in this game? The spearmen all have very poor attack stats and all the polearm troops have very poor defense, meanwhile all of the swordsmen are extremely good with both stats and get the prestige of being the ultimate infantry that can pretty much beat anyone else.

Historically that was clearly not the case, next to no one during the middle ages went into battle armed with only a sword and shield, there just wasn't any reason. One of the main advantages of the sword is that it can be easily sheathed and carried at the hip freeing up the hands for a bulkier, more useful weapon. So while the sword was almost never used exclusively, it was far from an uncommon site on the battlefield- all but the poorest of the poor archers, pikemen, spearmen, polearms, even zweihanders carried one handed swords, axes or other melee weapons as a last resort.

So, there's no reason for a swordsman to be better than a spearman if the spearman has a sword as well, but the fact that most soldiers preferred to haul spears or polearms into battle instead of relying only on their swords. The fact is that charging swordsmen aren't going to have an advantage over a well-formed shield/spear wall or the greater reach of polearms, a fact that seems completely missed during the game.

[Nazgûl Killer]

I see your reasoning, and I understand it truly. But in hand to hand, progressive, combat - The sword will triumph over the spear easily, whilst in a charge the spear will triumph over the sword easily. Yes, this appears to have been overlooked in the game... But if you think about it, the sword is the ultimate hand to hand weapon for many reasons. The only disadvantage it has is the charge or defense against a charge, both of which the spear triumphs.

[Highi]

Of course, the sword was often the preferred weapon for the nobles and professional soldiers/retainers. Commoners often had a knife, but swords were used for warfare only, so commoners wouldn't buy them. And the nobles/retainers wielding swords often also had the advantage of training, while most commoners were levied into the army, and could only rely on some hunting experience.

[micheljq]

So while the sword was almost never used exclusively, it was far from an uncommon site on the battlefield- all but the poorest of the poor archers, pikemen, spearmen, polearms, even zweihanders carried one handed swords, axes or other melee weapons as a last resort.

I think it depends on what specific period of the middle ages. In the early Middle Ages, many could not afford a sword. Also, there were laws in certain countries where the commonners were prohibited to have a sword under the law.

[shikaka]

Also it is important that a mace, a warhammer or axe is not difficult to use. Only strength and stamina is needed, and you only need to learn 3-4 basic attack moves.

Sword on the other hand is much harder to get right. You need extensive training to properly wield it. Next to the cost, this was the reason whey it wasn't used more often. (of course I also doubt that the noblility ever wanted a disciplined, properly armed peasant army. In the long run it would cause more trouble then it solved)

[Silverheart]

Well, the swordsmen are good because they are all well-trained, with experienced veterans teaching them professional fighting.
Keep in mind that the spearmen are mostly levies, with only little training. You can´t expect something as simple as an armoured peasant with a sharp stick to stand up successfully against a full-time, professional soldier wielding the most elegant weapon ever deviced (IMO).
Of course, as has been explained by others, swords were not so common in the early Medieval period - Spear, Bow, Axe or Club were more commonly used, and used exclusively (whitout a secondary weapon) because they were not exactly cheap or easy to use whitout proper training.

And even so, I can´t disagree with you about their realism in the game. They are scary-strong against other troops (or well, the ENEMYS´ swordsmen are...), and they make a great performance when defending walls.
But I like that. In field battles, you can easily beat them by avoiding them until all other enemies are gone, and then outmaneuver them with two cavalry units.
And I like having something reliable like them on the walls when enemies send super-size stacks out of nowhere.


ps. 300:th post! wohoo ^::^

[Surgeon]

I think this is just a common stereotype associated with medieval weapons that gets factored into almost every game. For example, normal spearmen shouldn't really have a gigantic bonus against cavalry like they do in most games, but that's what people usually associate with them when they see a unit of spearmen. Similarly, swordsmen are commonly regarded as the kinda well-balanced mainstay of the army dudes.

Also, swords are generally regarded as "pro" weapons needing skill to use, while things like spears, axes and maces are thought to be brute force weapons with which the only possible tactic is stab-stab-poke-smash-smash. Thus someone with a sword would seem more professional and expected to know how to fight better.

[PotentSchraphlon]

I think swords are overrated. The arguments above (better training etc) are good, but I think surgeon has the right idea with the "mythology" of the sword. Perhaps balance too - spears>cavalry, axes>armour, swords (as the more balanced weapon)>other infantry.

On a similar note, I'm going to throw in this thought: We get armoured swordsmen and dismounted knights that develop as the game progresses, how about a better, or at least more modern spear unit to replace spear militia and sergeants in the later game?

[VersionLangley]

Halberd and pikes?
Mass pike will beat almost anything in game, while halberd is really underpowered imo

[PotentSchraphlon]

I'm thinking more just literally a more modern spear infantry. Not all factions get pikes or halberds and besides, they don't have shields.

[Litoralis]

Historically that was clearly not the case, next to no one during the middle ages went into battle armed with only a sword and shield, there just wasn't any reason.

This is absolutely true. I think it would be better if my dismounted knights had spears. They could thrust and charge with them (or throw them if they really needed to, although I doubt this happened often). I don't know why this isn't in the game. it would be the same type of programming that allows the mounted knights to use lances then switch to swords.

Also, instead of dismounted knights, my knights should be able to dismount like dragoons in ETW. Generally, I think most knights rode to battle and dismounted to fight.

So while the sword was almost never used exclusively, it was far from an uncommon site on the battlefield- all but the poorest of the poor archers, pikemen, spearmen, polearms, even zweihanders carried one handed swords, axes or other melee weapons as a last resort.

This is hardly true. Swords were very expensive, often the most expensive thing a knight had (depending on how good it was). That is one of the main reasons they were family heirlooms and inherited from generation to generation.

[rrgg]

This is hardly true. Swords were very expensive, often the most expensive thing a knight had (depending on how good it was). That is one of the main reasons they were family heirlooms and inherited from generation to generation.

To an extent, keep in mind that the Romans, Celts, ect. seemed to have no problem producing huge numbers of swords though nothing more than scaling up small scale production. Towards the late empire most soldiers were even carrying two swords, a longer spatha and a shortsword. The dark ages didn't change anything, the need for weapons and armor grew even more and blacksmiths were still making money churning out as many as they could.

The other part of the question is that yes swords are expensive, but so is chainmail or plate armor probably more so. In the game we have tons of troops who supposedly can afford chainmail or even plate armor (for historical context: just like the spearmen on the bayeux tapestry) yet can't afford anything better than 'peasant weapons' like spears or polearms.

I don't see it as much of a problem in this game, the troops wielding swords are mostly all nobles apart from .. Swordmen militia/Sword and buckler men - but these units are supposed to represent a later period where Sword and Bucklers were common throughout europe. Moorish urban militia get sword/shield, i don't know enough about this historical accuracy but if you were fighting in city alleys and streets you probably would prefer a sword over a long spear

Besides, The mainstay of infantry units in this game are armed with various polearms or axes/maces. I think most of the infantry in anyone's army in this game will be armed with spear/axe/halberd or other...
Sure, DFKS / Chivalric knights get sword and shield but, why wouldn't they? THink of it this way --- Majority of the nobility would of preferred to fight on horse , pretty much always. SO, if they dismounted they'd fight with their side arm and shield. They'd likely have an assortment of side-arms but their sword would be A - a sign of their class B - their best weapon. It would also be an incredibly useful weapon on the medieval battlefield because the majority of troops would be wearing a "padded jack" or leather armor, which a sword can pierce or slash through - the best armor being mail which excels at protecting against....SWORDS! A knight would have his lances for use on horse back, and it would more than likely be unwieldly to use on foot so he would be using sword, axe, or mace while fighting on foot. Plus, a sword can be more fluid in combat than a spear or pole-arm ... a spear's shaft can break, a spear can run a man through making it difficult to remove. A sword slashes and stabs but it won't have that same puncture force of a spear, not likely to get completly stuck through someone.

We see that some of the european factions have dismounted knights armed with Pole-Axes , and again this represents more of the late period where plate armor is common, and a shield is disgarded in favour of a heavier style weapon that can puncture the new armor.

To make it better, it should be that you train "knights" who come mounted by default and can be dismounted prior to battle (as the first MTW had done).

Swords can be handy at close quarters such as on walls or in tight city streets (they do make excellent personal defense weapons).

I would probably have less of a problem with some of the sword and shield units in the game if they weren't so over-powered. Maybe the problem is that they are dismounted knights who just didn't bring anything other than their swords into battle, even then they shouldn't be able to wipe out whole units of armored spearmen in a shieldwall while only taking 3% casualties, and they should actually be at a severe disadvantage against the dismounted knights who are actually using proper infantry weapons like polearms.

[Silverheart]

To an extent, keep in mind that the Romans, Celts, ect. seemed to have no problem producing huge numbers of swords though nothing more than scaling up small scale production. Towards the late empire most soldiers were even carrying two swords, a longer spatha and a shortsword. The dark ages didn't change anything, the need for weapons and armor grew even more and blacksmiths were still making money churning out as many as they could.

Keep in mind that the Dark age brought about an enourmous amount of devastation and death throughout Europe.
With the "barbaric" tribes migrating, the Hunnic scourge of Europe, the civil wars of the Roman empire, etc...
When all that was over, and the dust settled, there were hardly anything left that could be called "large scale", at all!
You didn´t have any large facilities that Could churn out any larger amounts of anything, just the small village smithys, inhabited by maybe one blacksmith and a couple of apprentices (his sons, probably), something which could at best produce one sword a week (considering that they probably had other things to do besides that)

I think that it is that sudden severe lack of swords that is the foundation to this "sword-mythology" which has been mentioned earlier.

[shikaka]

To an extent, keep in mind that the Romans, Celts, ect. seemed to have no problem producing huge numbers of swords though nothing more than scaling up small scale production. Towards the late empire most soldiers were even carrying two swords, a longer spatha and a shortsword. The dark ages didn't change anything, the need for weapons and armor grew even more and blacksmiths were still making money churning out as many as they could.

Roman legions were pro. The 'carrier route' they took was within the army. Also, Rome had a centralised budget what used half of europe's income!

A conscripted serf, who were the 'numbers' in a medieval army was not a pro. In most years they were just working on their farms. In medieval ages the ruling nobles _didn't want_ a serf/peasant class back at home. (when they faced an army of trained serfs - the hussites - they suffered greatly). For the generals, rulers, it was perfectly fine to have untrained, underequipped peasant levies for taking the charge, that was their main aim. For that, they don't need training just a bulk.

Why would they give out quality stuff for guys who are not dependable?


Later, when the role of heavy cavalry was questioned (gunpowder) the infantry drills changed fast, and the pike/halberd formations emerged. Until then the infantry was cannon fodder in most armies.



What IS true is that in this game polearms are seriously underpowered and sword infantry is _too cheap and too common_.



edit:
@Lennert:
Yep, hungarian nobles carried a bow, a sabre or sword, a warhammer and sometimes a lance. However they (and the druzhina you mentioned) are not the 'average footsoldier' which was a levied peasant for bulk.

[PrestigeX]

I don't see it as much of a problem in this game, the troops wielding swords are mostly all nobles apart from .. Swordmen militia/Sword and buckler men - but these units are supposed to represent a later period where Sword and Bucklers were common throughout europe. Moorish urban militia get sword/shield, i don't know enough about this historical accuracy but if you were fighting in city alleys and streets you probably would prefer a sword over a long spear

Besides, The mainstay of infantry units in this game are armed with various polearms or axes/maces. I think most of the infantry in anyone's army in this game will be armed with spear/axe/halberd or other...
Sure, DFKS / Chivalric knights get sword and shield but, why wouldn't they? THink of it this way --- Majority of the nobility would of preferred to fight on horse , pretty much always. SO, if they dismounted they'd fight with their side arm and shield. They'd likely have an assortment of side-arms but their sword would be A - a sign of their class B - their best weapon. It would also be an incredibly useful weapon on the medieval battlefield because the majority of troops would be wearing a "padded jack" or leather armor, which a sword can pierce or slash through - the best armor being mail which excels at protecting against....SWORDS! A knight would have his lances for use on horse back, and it would more than likely be unwieldly to use on foot so he would be using sword, axe, or mace while fighting on foot. Plus, a sword can be more fluid in combat than a spear or pole-arm ... a spear's shaft can break, a spear can run a man through making it difficult to remove. A sword slashes and stabs but it won't have that same puncture force of a spear, not likely to get completly stuck through someone.

We see that some of the european factions have dismounted knights armed with Pole-Axes , and again this represents more of the late period where plate armor is common, and a shield is disgarded in favour of a heavier style weapon that can puncture the new armor.

To make it better, it should be that you train "knights" who come mounted by default and can be dismounted prior to battle (as the first MTW had done).

[kingtigertank]

Swords were the weapons of the nobility, who also happened to be the best trained and best armoured, thus sword units are usually better.

Also, a sword is pretty much the most versatile medieval melee weapon. It can be used to parry, something that most other weapons are unable to do effectively, since many have wooden shafts. It can be used to thrust and stab like a spear. It can be used to hack and slash like an axe. And it can be used to club down an opponent through brute force like a mace, though a mace is much more suited to this. Since a one handed sword can be used with a shield, which gives much more protection in battle, these types of units ingame are superior.

[Lennert]

I think you guys overestimate the ruggedness of swords and weapons in general in the middle ages. Every professional soldier able to purchase and maintain swords would usually bring more than just one backup into battle. To give an extreme example, it wasn't uncommon for Druzhina to bring 5 weapons into battle on horseback. They would carry the following: a light lance in one hand, a shield in the other, a composite bow on their left hip together with a sword/sabre, a mace of some kind on a lace strapped to their right wrist to have immidiate acces to once the lance broke, often a light one handed axe on their right hip together with their arrows and sometimes a larger axe strapped to the horses shoulder. Not including any small daggers or knives they might carry aswell..

No professional soldier will risk the fact that his sword shatters on first impact without having any backup...

Edit: Also, remember that the vast majority of swords used throughout the middle ages didn't have a point at all and also wouldn't be very sharp since that would make the edge very fragile. This didn't make them suitable for anything more than slashing, preferably from horseback.. thus not making them the super versatile/balanced weapons you've presumed them to be.

[Lennert]

Exactly. What I was trying to say is that the OP imho is right to say that no troops would be sent to the battlefield solely carrying swords and shields, at least untill rodeleros/sword and buckler men appeared. Swords would be too expensive to equip levies with and too fragile to solely rely on for proffesional soldiers.

[King Of Scotland]

That's why you never use the swordsmen, but use Highlanders, they have axes, problem solved.

[FootSoldier]

Hmm ... my understanding is that knights always fought on horseback by choice, but dismounted when the occasion demanded. The preponderance of DFK armies by many factions is unhistorical, but their strength probably isn't. Knights were trained professionals, and had better armour and better quality weapons, mounted or dismounted. A better solution (present in M1TW but not here) was that a unit could be dismounted in the battle deployment phase.

The English were famous for dismounting their knights, as they did at Crecy, and later at Agincourt. The French at Agincourt attacked dismounted, and one allegation is that they did so because the English had used dismounted knights successfully. I don't know if this is true, but it certainly seems a mistake by the French in retrospect.