I'd like to take some time to give a great big diatribe on the juicy topic of medieval armament. There are a lot of people who love just riding down enemies with a big-ass longsword or greataxe, and I respect that. But some of those people are also roleplayers who may not realize that they're "doing it wrong", in a sense. So if you'll indulge me, I'd like to address this in great detail. It's a good way for me to kill time while I wait out the days to March 31st.
Prelude
While realism and roleplaying are my main sources of impetus for writing this, it's also true that the new physics-based damage model will absolutely make some weapons mechanically better than others in certain situations. It's my hope and presumption that for the most part, this will line up with what was logically used in those instances in real life. We often think of weapons as one size fits all, but this is far from the case. Today, military forces use different weapons systems for different tasks. Carbines are often employed when mobility is key. Sniper rifles provide covering fire at a distance in a way other rifles couldn't. Machine guns lay down suppressive fire at a rate a sniper rifle never could. Shotguns can be used to breach and are also effective in confined spaces, thanks to their compact nature and their ability to deal damage with a less precise target acquisition. Pointmen during breaches, particularly in police forces, will often used pistols due to their light weight, high mobility, and ease of maneuverability.
Our ancestors were no different. The weapon you brought to battle wasn't simply whatever was most comfortable or whatever objectively did the most damage. The mace, for example, was developed specifically to catch on and transfer force through plate armor that would deflect most every other weapon. All pikes were not created equal; the sarissa was designed to complement the Macedonian phalanx by bringing superior reach in a way that could only be wielded effectively in a wall.
I aim to cover these in turn by evaluating each weapon type, as a generality, in the following circumstances:
Ranged wepaons will have a different set of criteria:
I'll give each circumstance a rating from 1.0 to 10.0, as well as a weighted average (with Status Quo, Horseback, and Siege having greater weight than the other situations, thanks to being the most common situations a player will find themselves in). But the real meat of the matter will be in the details.
Of course, every player is different. If you're skilled with an axe in all circumstances, go for it! This is merely a generalized observation.
Without further ado, let's hope Taleworlds doesn't mind me aping some of their assets from the dev blogs and begin.
DAGGER
Status Quo: 1.5
Daggers are not by any means a battlefield weapon. They have a use on the battlefield, but only a rare one. They should not, generally, be your weapon of choice. For those who might for whatever reason not be aware of why this is, there are two reasons: One, the short nature of the weapon gives every single opponent a substantial reach advantage. Two, you can't parry with a dagger, meaning you can rely only on movement to defend yourself. Not easy on the battlefield. They can be thrown, though, which provides a tactical option many weapons won't have. Still... I'd avoid them.
Formation: 1.0
For all the reasons above, the dagger is not at all a formation weapon.
Horseback: 1.0
Don't try it, Ani.
Siege: 1.5
For its usefulness in confined spaces, it gets a +0.5 boost, but I still wouldn't use it by choice.
Duel: 3.0
In a one-on-one situation, if you're good at staying mobile, the dagger could be a legitimate choice. But because reach is still king in melee combat, the score remains low.
Weaker Characters: 7.0
For roleplaying concerns, it makes perfect sense for a weaker character to carry a dagger. It's something of an equalizer.
OVERALL EVALUATION: 1.5
Daggers are weapons. They're just as lethal as any other sharp piece of metal. However, their minimal reach and ineffective defense makes them a weapon you don't generally want to bring into battle. Carry one if you must, but make it a last resort. Historically, these were generally only used to finish off downed opponents in heavy plate (something we won't be seeing a lot of, if any, in Bannerlord).
General Roleplaying Concerns:
Daggers are an excellent roleplaying option if your character is poor or... otherwise common. They're also a good choice to wear into town. Those of status could carry weapons wherever they hell they pleased for the most part, but carrying a dagger was a good way of protecting oneself without alarming others. People would generally take you for either a knight or a sellsword if you walked around armed to the teeth. The former were revered for good reasons and bad, and the latter were generally viewed in a negative light by common folk. You probably also won't want to walk into banquet halls with that greatsword strapped to your back, for example.
Daggers can also be a decent sidearm, particularly if you're playing a knight on hard times. If you can't afford a sword, a dagger will do in a pinch if your main weapon breaks or otherwise gets dislodged from your hands in combat. They might also be a decent sidearm for an archer, though enough archers wore swords that it wouldn't be my first choice if it were me.
-----
ONE-HANDED SWORD
Status Quo: 8.0
Swords tend to be balanced weapons, making them good for just about any battlefield situation. Whether you're surrounded, fighting a mounted warrior, or going toe-to-toe with an enemy officer, a sword gives you a good range of options. It can slash, it can bash, it can pierce, and if need be it can parry. They also pair quite well with shields. However, one-handed swords tend to have a shorter reach than many other popular battlefield weapons. For this reason, they wouldn't be my first choice, even on foot, but they're still a fine weapon of choice if you prefer their versatility.
Formation: 5.5
One-handed swords do their best work when you have free range of motion. Yes, there are classical military entities that made good use of short swords in particular in formation fighting. However, as of the medieval period, this had become less common for various reason. One of these is that swordsmanship had become more complex than "stand and deliver!", and that complexity needed a little breathing room to work its magic. If you're going to be packed in tight with your troops, it might be better to take another weapon, but a sword will absolutely do in these cases.
Horseback: 3.0
Some sabres, particularly from the east, made decent horseback weapons. However, knights never set out to use their swords in battle. If a knight lost his lance and had to draw a sword, he felt himself at a distinct disadvantage. Most one-handed swords are difficult to connect with while riding at speed, particularly across the horse and even more particularly against targets knee-height to you. If fighting against an enemy knight with a lance or spear, you have a distinct reach disadvantage (and there are other benefits to such weapons you lose with a sword, which I'll discuss later). For the most part, I wouldn't suggest the sword as a mounted weapon of choice.
Siege: 9.5
Swords are a good, reliable weapon for sieges. You can draw them quickly after climbing ladders, and their size makes them useful in a variety of siege environments. However, they can struggle a bit indoors if they're of the longer variety, so be careful where you stand.
Duel: 10.0
In a foot duel, few weapon choices can beat the sword for its sheer versatility. At its heart, I'd argue the sword is more a dueling weapon than anything else. Fast, light, and with a respectable reach, there's little a sword can't do, and that's likely to give you an edge over an opponent who specializes a bit more. You can also bring a shield with it if you prefer, which expands your tactical options that much further.
Weaker Characters: 5.0
A sword is fine for weaker characters, but just that. I'll get into the reasoning for this surprising ruling when discussing other weapons, but the short of it is that one-handed swords force you to get a bit closer to your opponent than certain other weapons. At sword's length, a skilled opponent could pass your guard and grab a hold of you, getting you into a situation where their superior strength can come to bear in a big way. They are, however, a very effective force multiplier, so a sword can absolutely even the odds. I just think there are better options.
OVERALL EVALUATION: 7.1
The classic one-handed sword was worn by warriors from Europe to China since the classical era, and there it remained into World War I. So ubiquitous is the weapon that even modern servicemen in many countries wear a sword as part of their dress uniform. There's a good reason for all this. Swords are strong, reliable, versatile weapons that are rarely a distinctly bad choice. The only situation where I'd outright advise against favoring them is on horseback.
General Roleplaying Concerns:
Swords at this time tended to be expensive weapons. They took more resources to make than most weapons and were harder to get right. A thin, straight piece of metal is more likely to warp, and warps are incredibly costly for swords whose job it is to cut clean. This would lead to a longer crafting time as smiths had to toss out ruined pieces and start over. Additionally, swords were expected to perform in a variety of roles, which meant special care had to be given to all aspects of the weapon. It had to be strong, yet flexible. Straight and true. The edge grind had to be exact on both sides (in the case of two-edged swords). The balance had to be just so.
All these factors drove up the price, which in turn placed them largely in the hands of the wealthy (or the scavengers). Additionally, swords were less effective - at slashing, anyway - in the hands of someone who wasn't trained in their use. Wrist control and positioning are crucial in wielding a sword effectively, and these are things taught to those who studied combat, not so much to the average miller turned soldier. For all these reasons, I'd suggest primarily limiting these to characters meant to represent a more noble bearing. Knights, lords, household warriors, that sort of thing.
In addition, I'd be careful about overplaying their prevalence on the battlefield. They were excellent weapons, to be sure, but not always the best in a battlefield context. Even those who carried the finest of swords generally saw them as a backup plan, rather than the go-to weapon. It wasn't until longswords (two-handers, as opposed to one-handers that were actually called arming swords or broadswords) became prevalent that the medieval period really started seeing them on the battlefield as a weapon of choice. If you can find a hand-and-a-half or bastard sword, however... These have a more logical use in warfare, and might be just fine as a mainhand when roleplaying.
-----
LONGSWORD
Status Quo: 8.0
I almost rated it a bit higher than its one-handed cousin for superior reach, but the inability to carry a shield with it brings that back down. You can absolutely block with these swords, of course, but that wouldn't have been ideal for a knight when a much less expensive shield could take the punishment instead. Plus, you can't exactly block projectiles with them. Not unless you're up on your Soresu, anyway.
Formation: 4.5
Longswords were reasonably effective formation fighters, but not as good as certain other weapons. You can half-sword (grab the blade with your hand for precision thrusts) and execute overhead cuts effectively enough, but your swordsmanship will still be quite limited by the allies to either side of you. The reason I rate it a little lower than the one-hander in this category is that shields are a huge boon in formation fighting; one the longsword doesn't provide.
Horseback: 6.0
While still not the best horseback weapon in my opinion, longswords do a respectable job. They could even be couched like a (short) lance. Their superior length made them better at striking foes on foot, as well. However, you still lack some of the strengths of other mounted weapons. Additionally, because some larger longswords become unwieldy if not wielded with both hands, I cite lack of horse control (something we likely won't see ingame, but would have been a problem in real life) as another issue. If you have two hands on your sword, you don't have one on the reins.
Siege: 7.0
Strong weapons, particularly for defense, but carrying them up ladders would've been impossible and drawing them atop the walls would've been more difficult than drawing a one-handed sword. In addition, longswords tend to have trouble indoors, so fighting near battlement walls, inside towers, or inside keeps... The longsword might run into trouble here. Still, a respectable weapon for most phases of siege fighting.
Duel: 9.5
Boasting superior reach and a greater intimidation factor than smaller swords, the longsword is no less versatile in the duel. The one point it suffers on is the inability to wield a shield, which is a highly effective defensive tool. However, for the swordsman skilled enough to defend himself reliably with his sword, this can be mitigated substantially.
Weaker Characters: 8.5
This may come as a surprise, but weaker characters, assuming they have the skill to wield the weapon to the fullest, actually do quite well with a longsword! They were, on average, about twice the weight of a one-handed sword, often a little less than that. They were actually not very heavy at all! Because you have two hands on the weapon, you're effectively doubling your wielding strength, meaning if you can wield a one-handed sword (at a whopping 1.5 pounds or so), you should be able to wield a two-hander as well. The difference is, this weapon provides superior reach, allowing weaker characters to keep the stronger ones at bay far more effectively.
OVERALL EVALUATION: 7.0
Like one-handed swords, greatswords are incredibly effective and versatile weapons. Unlike one-handed swords, they saw a great deal of use in actual battlefield situations. Unfortunately, because these situations came well after the period Bannerlord covers, I didn't take that heavily into consideration. Still, two-handers are a good all-round weapon that will rarely steer you wrong.
General Roleplaying Concerns:
Just one big one to consider: Longswords, included in the game because they were so popular in Warband, didn't actually exist all too widely in the early medieval period Bannerlord draws inspiration from. It's been said in a dev blog that they're intended to be "rare" and "like a hero's weapon" in Bannerlord. For that reason, I personally intend to avoid them for the most part. If that sort of thing concerns you as well, it's something to consider.
-----
AXES
(I'll be covering one-handed and two-handed axes in one section, as you fight with them more or less the same way IRL.)
Status Quo: 5.5
The basic dilemma is simple: One-handed axes are quite short, and two-handed axes don't afford you the protection of a shield. Because the haft of an axe is wood, two-handers aren't as effective at parrying as longswords, either. They're deadly weapons in the right hands, but as a general role, I'd say the only advantage they have (and it's a considerable one) is their ability to devastate shields and, to a lesser extent, armor. Otherwise, they're not generally ideal for most battlefield situations. Some variations (voulges, bardiches) may be more effective, however.
Formation: 7.5
Being that axes do their best work with overhead chops anyway, two-handers aren't as big a concern in formation as longswords are. Additionally, they'll make quicker work of an enemy shield wall than swords would. For these reasons, I actually feel quite comfortable with axes as formation weapons, though reach is still a concern.
Horseback: 4.0
This was a tough call, because some variations of the two-handed axe made fine horseback weapons. Overall, though, given how difficult it is to land the head of the axe precisely on an opponent while riding by, and given how short one-handers are... No, overall, I wouldn't call this a particularly good horseback weapon. It'll do the job, it just won't do it near as well as many other weapons.
Siege: 8.5
In a siege, axes could be particularly devastating. Dropping the head of an axe down on attackers as they climb the ladder, for example, is a simple but effective method at dissuading assaults. Moreover, the lack of required elegance as compared to a sword makes them arguably more effective at reaching over your comrades from the back line to land a lack or two on the heads of your foemen at a breached gate. But what truly makes them shine in a siege is their utility. Axes are uniquely qualified to break open wooden gates. They can damage ladders. If enemies present shields to protect against rocks and arrows on their way up, an axe can land a devastating shot or two on them as soon as they reach the top. This utility is why I rate axes among the best siege weapons.
Duel: 7.0
An axe can be quite effective in a duel, particularly the two-handed variety. However, as ever, I take points off for the sheer fact that only one fairly small location on the axe itself deals truly effective damage. That said, if your opponent brings a shield to the duel, that axe will be the just the thing to take away that slab of wood he plans on hiding behind. Axes can be effective dueling weapons in the right hands, just be careful about maintaining a fairly precise distance.
Weaker Characters: 2.0
Axes are end-heavy and can thus use gravity to do a lot of their damage. For the same reason, however, weaker characters will be slower on the recall than perhaps they'd like to be. In addition, any other type of strike expects a very brute force approach. Unlike swords, which can cut with a minimum of effort in the right hands, axes rely on the wielder being able to drive them home with punctuation. Two-handers will be difficult to wield, and one-handers are incredibly short, taking the problems with the one-handed sword and amplifying them substantially. Not the best weapon for a weaker character.
OVERALL EVALUATION: 6.3
A respectable battlefield weapon, but not the best for all situations. Personally if I bring an axe, I'd use it as my secondary rather than my weapon of choice. A one-handed axe can be an excellent solution in confined spaces, and a two-hander is unmatched in its ability to rend shields on the battlefield. If nothing else, axes make superb sidearms during sieges.
General Roleplaying Concerns:
Axes were absolutely used on the battlefield during this time, particularly by Germanic and Scandanavian warriors. That said, even they often preferred broadswords and spears. If you intend to play, say, Sturgia, I wouldn't fault you for wanting to rely heavily on axes. That being said, if it's for roleplaying reasons, don't necessarily feel like you have to confine yourself to the axe. Even vikings employed a number of different weapons (though axes were particularly good for naval boarding efforts well into the 17th century, and may be something to consider if you aim to play a coastal raider type). Another good consideration is that axes were readily available and required little skill to wield, making them a good roleplaying choice for poorer characters or those just getting their start.
-----
BLUDGEONS
Status Quo: 6.5
As effective against armor as flesh, bludgeoning weapons make a decent choice for any battlefield situation. The issue is that most of them are on the shorter side, which means many opponents will have a reach advantage on you. If you get in close, however, rest assured that a solid blow to the head - even without a steel tip - can be every bit as lethal as a deep cut to the arm.
Formation: 4.0
Blunt weapons are... okay. The issue lies in a shield's ability to absorb and deflect them. Flanged maces were more rare during this period than they became later on, and other forms of bludgeon are apt to, for the most part, glance off a shield. As shields are often used in formation, well... This could be a problem. That said, a solid enough hit could break the arm that wields the shield or even start breaking the shield itself. Just be aware that your options would have been limited with a mace. While swords and spears can thrust around a shield, maces really need your own shield out of the way to make an effective strike.
Horseback: 4.0
Longer maces can be quite devastating if they hit an opponent on the head. They don't need to land too precisely, just the weighty solid object landing with the force of the horse's gallop may be lethal enough. However, like axes, maces tend to be quite short and it's something to consider. Maces were generally not wielded on horseback, to my knowledge, as a first choice.
Siege: 6.5
Nothing special to say here. They handle well indoors for the most part, and otherwise all the same concerns from the Status Quo evaluation apply.
Duel: 4.0
The only time I'd suggest a mace in a duel is if your opponent is in particularly heavy armor. Otherwise, the short reach and unwieldy nature of maces makes them a detriment in one-on-one combat. Wooden weapons aren't particularly strong against skilled opponents with steel in hand, and the steel caps on maces were deliberately tip-heavy to assist in their crushing potential, and a tip-heavy weapon is a weapon that recovers more slowly. When it's just you and him, if it takes him less than a second to recall his weapon and it takes you a second and a quarter, that's a problem.
Weaker Characters: 1.5
Maces aren't necessarily as heavy as they look. However, their not particularly balanced weapons. The further the center of mass rests from the hand, the more strength is required to wield the weapon efficiently, and maces keep that weight as far from the hand as possible. Simple wooden bludgeons are a different story, but either way, these are weapons that are absolutely more effective when more strength is applied to the swing.
OVERALL EVALUATION: 5.3
Bludgeons can make respectable battlefield weapons, particularly maces. However, their general imbalance and lack of versatility don't make them the objective "best choice". If you enjoy maces, though, rest assured you're not breaking realism by bringing them to the battlefield as a first choice. There are valid reasons to wield them as a mainhand if that's your thing.
General Roleplaying Concerns:
Maces were actually around much further back than I realized, even in their flanged state, so I'm glad they were included. TaleWorlds has once again done their research. That said, they weren't all that common on the battlefield until plate armor became the norm. Their primary purpose is and always was to transfer force through armor, and armor didn't become truly "impenetrable" until a bit later on than the period Bannerlord draws from.
-----
SPEAR
(There are far more polearms than just spears in the game. However, as spears are the basis for all other polearms, they're the polearm I'll be evaluating. Most of what applies here will apply to other polearms as well.)
Status Quo: 9.0
The superior reach of a spear can't be argued. There's a reason many called it the "king of weapons". It doesn't take a tremendous amount of skill to wield a spear, either. "Stab them with the pointy bit" isn't all that complex. Short or light enough spears could also be wielded behind a shield, where they were substantially useful thanks to their narrow profile and ability to thrust around the shield, minimizing the amount of time a warrior had to spend unprotected. It lacks versatility on swords, but its reach and simplicity makes up for that.
EDIT: Upon further review, the spear is even more effective in status quo scenarios than I'd realized. I've raised its rating from 7.5 to 9.0. It's that effective in the open. Yes, if you're wielding a two-handed spear you don't have a shield, but... You don't usually need one because it's so damn hard to close in on a spearman. The only scenario in which the spear suffers is when an attacker manages to pass the head, which is exceedingly difficult even for experienced swordsmen.
Formation: 10.0
Few weapons beat a spear in formation combat. Not only does a wall of spears daunt man and horse alike, but the straightforward thrust-recall-repeat fighting style of basic spearwork leaves zero drawbacks when fighting shoulder-to-shoulder. Particularly long spears, as was the case with the Macedonian sarissa, could even serve as something of a barrier against projectiles when layered over the heads of one's allies. When you drafted peasants, you gave them spears. This wasn't only because they were cheaper than swords, but because they were easy to use and extremely effective in groups.
Horseback: 9.5
There isn't a single weapon more effective for mounted combat than the oft overlooked spear. There's a reason knights were most known for their lances. It's because they used them as a matter of course! But even before the lance as we know it, riders were couching cavalry spears and riding into opponents. Not only does the long reach make it easier to strike opponents on foot, but simply holding the spear firm and riding it into the foe was more devastating than any sword cut. This is because all the weight and speed and controlled power of the horse was channeled into a fine point, as opposed to across the length of a blade. Additionally, it's easier to hit something if you need only point your weapon in its direction. Without a cutting motion to time, spear charges were much more reliable at simply hitting their target. The one drawback is if the spear became lodged in the target, that force could break it. This is why knights often carried spares.
Siege: 6.5
While not as effective as some other weapons in many cases, spears are excellent at holding gatehouses for the same reason they're excellent in formations. They do, however, lose something in confined spaces.
Duel: 7.5
Spears are fine weapons for one-on-one combat if you're good at keeping your opponent at spear's length. However, they lack versatility. Other polearms make up for this, but when measuring spears specifically, their main method of delivering damage is a simple thrust. This makes them easier to read, of course. That being said, range remains king, and a skilled spearfighter can still outperform an enemy with a shorter wepaon one-on-one pretty reliably.
Weaker Characters: 7.0
Light and long, spears make excellent weapons for weaker characters who want to keep the enemy from getting in close. The thrust requires a bit of power on the end user's part, which hurts their overall effectiveness for weaker characters, but lighter stabs can still cause death by a thousand cuts on an opponent who can't find his way past the spearhead.
OVERALL EVALUATION: 8.4
This will probably surprise a lot of people, but I don't have a problem with this outcome. There's a good reason polearms have the most variants of any melee weapon in history. They're reliable, they're easy to wield, they maintain distance, and they're as effective at killing as they are at simply warding off attack. Spears dominated the battlefield for most every culture from civilization's earliest days, and they even stuck around well into the gunpowder era as pikes. Some 1,650 years of history don't lie.
General Roleplaying Concerns:
Spears aren't difficult to craft. Fashion a head and affix it to a wooden pole. Therefore, spears shouldn't be too difficult for poorer characters to come by. At the same time, spears were the weapon of choice for most all knights, which means they look fine in the hands of a wealthier character as well. No matter your character's background, standing, or situaton, you can feel pretty comfortable with a spear in their hands.
-----
Prelude
While realism and roleplaying are my main sources of impetus for writing this, it's also true that the new physics-based damage model will absolutely make some weapons mechanically better than others in certain situations. It's my hope and presumption that for the most part, this will line up with what was logically used in those instances in real life. We often think of weapons as one size fits all, but this is far from the case. Today, military forces use different weapons systems for different tasks. Carbines are often employed when mobility is key. Sniper rifles provide covering fire at a distance in a way other rifles couldn't. Machine guns lay down suppressive fire at a rate a sniper rifle never could. Shotguns can be used to breach and are also effective in confined spaces, thanks to their compact nature and their ability to deal damage with a less precise target acquisition. Pointmen during breaches, particularly in police forces, will often used pistols due to their light weight, high mobility, and ease of maneuverability.
Our ancestors were no different. The weapon you brought to battle wasn't simply whatever was most comfortable or whatever objectively did the most damage. The mace, for example, was developed specifically to catch on and transfer force through plate armor that would deflect most every other weapon. All pikes were not created equal; the sarissa was designed to complement the Macedonian phalanx by bringing superior reach in a way that could only be wielded effectively in a wall.
I aim to cover these in turn by evaluating each weapon type, as a generality, in the following circumstances:
Ranged wepaons will have a different set of criteria:
I'll give each circumstance a rating from 1.0 to 10.0, as well as a weighted average (with Status Quo, Horseback, and Siege having greater weight than the other situations, thanks to being the most common situations a player will find themselves in). But the real meat of the matter will be in the details.
Of course, every player is different. If you're skilled with an axe in all circumstances, go for it! This is merely a generalized observation.
Without further ado, let's hope Taleworlds doesn't mind me aping some of their assets from the dev blogs and begin.
DAGGER
Status Quo: 1.5
Daggers are not by any means a battlefield weapon. They have a use on the battlefield, but only a rare one. They should not, generally, be your weapon of choice. For those who might for whatever reason not be aware of why this is, there are two reasons: One, the short nature of the weapon gives every single opponent a substantial reach advantage. Two, you can't parry with a dagger, meaning you can rely only on movement to defend yourself. Not easy on the battlefield. They can be thrown, though, which provides a tactical option many weapons won't have. Still... I'd avoid them.
Formation: 1.0
For all the reasons above, the dagger is not at all a formation weapon.
Horseback: 1.0
Don't try it, Ani.
Siege: 1.5
For its usefulness in confined spaces, it gets a +0.5 boost, but I still wouldn't use it by choice.
Duel: 3.0
In a one-on-one situation, if you're good at staying mobile, the dagger could be a legitimate choice. But because reach is still king in melee combat, the score remains low.
Weaker Characters: 7.0
For roleplaying concerns, it makes perfect sense for a weaker character to carry a dagger. It's something of an equalizer.
OVERALL EVALUATION: 1.5
Daggers are weapons. They're just as lethal as any other sharp piece of metal. However, their minimal reach and ineffective defense makes them a weapon you don't generally want to bring into battle. Carry one if you must, but make it a last resort. Historically, these were generally only used to finish off downed opponents in heavy plate (something we won't be seeing a lot of, if any, in Bannerlord).
General Roleplaying Concerns:
Daggers are an excellent roleplaying option if your character is poor or... otherwise common. They're also a good choice to wear into town. Those of status could carry weapons wherever they hell they pleased for the most part, but carrying a dagger was a good way of protecting oneself without alarming others. People would generally take you for either a knight or a sellsword if you walked around armed to the teeth. The former were revered for good reasons and bad, and the latter were generally viewed in a negative light by common folk. You probably also won't want to walk into banquet halls with that greatsword strapped to your back, for example.
Daggers can also be a decent sidearm, particularly if you're playing a knight on hard times. If you can't afford a sword, a dagger will do in a pinch if your main weapon breaks or otherwise gets dislodged from your hands in combat. They might also be a decent sidearm for an archer, though enough archers wore swords that it wouldn't be my first choice if it were me.
-----
ONE-HANDED SWORD
Status Quo: 8.0
Swords tend to be balanced weapons, making them good for just about any battlefield situation. Whether you're surrounded, fighting a mounted warrior, or going toe-to-toe with an enemy officer, a sword gives you a good range of options. It can slash, it can bash, it can pierce, and if need be it can parry. They also pair quite well with shields. However, one-handed swords tend to have a shorter reach than many other popular battlefield weapons. For this reason, they wouldn't be my first choice, even on foot, but they're still a fine weapon of choice if you prefer their versatility.
Formation: 5.5
One-handed swords do their best work when you have free range of motion. Yes, there are classical military entities that made good use of short swords in particular in formation fighting. However, as of the medieval period, this had become less common for various reason. One of these is that swordsmanship had become more complex than "stand and deliver!", and that complexity needed a little breathing room to work its magic. If you're going to be packed in tight with your troops, it might be better to take another weapon, but a sword will absolutely do in these cases.
Horseback: 3.0
Some sabres, particularly from the east, made decent horseback weapons. However, knights never set out to use their swords in battle. If a knight lost his lance and had to draw a sword, he felt himself at a distinct disadvantage. Most one-handed swords are difficult to connect with while riding at speed, particularly across the horse and even more particularly against targets knee-height to you. If fighting against an enemy knight with a lance or spear, you have a distinct reach disadvantage (and there are other benefits to such weapons you lose with a sword, which I'll discuss later). For the most part, I wouldn't suggest the sword as a mounted weapon of choice.
Siege: 9.5
Swords are a good, reliable weapon for sieges. You can draw them quickly after climbing ladders, and their size makes them useful in a variety of siege environments. However, they can struggle a bit indoors if they're of the longer variety, so be careful where you stand.
Duel: 10.0
In a foot duel, few weapon choices can beat the sword for its sheer versatility. At its heart, I'd argue the sword is more a dueling weapon than anything else. Fast, light, and with a respectable reach, there's little a sword can't do, and that's likely to give you an edge over an opponent who specializes a bit more. You can also bring a shield with it if you prefer, which expands your tactical options that much further.
Weaker Characters: 5.0
A sword is fine for weaker characters, but just that. I'll get into the reasoning for this surprising ruling when discussing other weapons, but the short of it is that one-handed swords force you to get a bit closer to your opponent than certain other weapons. At sword's length, a skilled opponent could pass your guard and grab a hold of you, getting you into a situation where their superior strength can come to bear in a big way. They are, however, a very effective force multiplier, so a sword can absolutely even the odds. I just think there are better options.
OVERALL EVALUATION: 7.1
The classic one-handed sword was worn by warriors from Europe to China since the classical era, and there it remained into World War I. So ubiquitous is the weapon that even modern servicemen in many countries wear a sword as part of their dress uniform. There's a good reason for all this. Swords are strong, reliable, versatile weapons that are rarely a distinctly bad choice. The only situation where I'd outright advise against favoring them is on horseback.
General Roleplaying Concerns:
Swords at this time tended to be expensive weapons. They took more resources to make than most weapons and were harder to get right. A thin, straight piece of metal is more likely to warp, and warps are incredibly costly for swords whose job it is to cut clean. This would lead to a longer crafting time as smiths had to toss out ruined pieces and start over. Additionally, swords were expected to perform in a variety of roles, which meant special care had to be given to all aspects of the weapon. It had to be strong, yet flexible. Straight and true. The edge grind had to be exact on both sides (in the case of two-edged swords). The balance had to be just so.
All these factors drove up the price, which in turn placed them largely in the hands of the wealthy (or the scavengers). Additionally, swords were less effective - at slashing, anyway - in the hands of someone who wasn't trained in their use. Wrist control and positioning are crucial in wielding a sword effectively, and these are things taught to those who studied combat, not so much to the average miller turned soldier. For all these reasons, I'd suggest primarily limiting these to characters meant to represent a more noble bearing. Knights, lords, household warriors, that sort of thing.
In addition, I'd be careful about overplaying their prevalence on the battlefield. They were excellent weapons, to be sure, but not always the best in a battlefield context. Even those who carried the finest of swords generally saw them as a backup plan, rather than the go-to weapon. It wasn't until longswords (two-handers, as opposed to one-handers that were actually called arming swords or broadswords) became prevalent that the medieval period really started seeing them on the battlefield as a weapon of choice. If you can find a hand-and-a-half or bastard sword, however... These have a more logical use in warfare, and might be just fine as a mainhand when roleplaying.
-----
LONGSWORD
Status Quo: 8.0
I almost rated it a bit higher than its one-handed cousin for superior reach, but the inability to carry a shield with it brings that back down. You can absolutely block with these swords, of course, but that wouldn't have been ideal for a knight when a much less expensive shield could take the punishment instead. Plus, you can't exactly block projectiles with them. Not unless you're up on your Soresu, anyway.
Formation: 4.5
Longswords were reasonably effective formation fighters, but not as good as certain other weapons. You can half-sword (grab the blade with your hand for precision thrusts) and execute overhead cuts effectively enough, but your swordsmanship will still be quite limited by the allies to either side of you. The reason I rate it a little lower than the one-hander in this category is that shields are a huge boon in formation fighting; one the longsword doesn't provide.
Horseback: 6.0
While still not the best horseback weapon in my opinion, longswords do a respectable job. They could even be couched like a (short) lance. Their superior length made them better at striking foes on foot, as well. However, you still lack some of the strengths of other mounted weapons. Additionally, because some larger longswords become unwieldy if not wielded with both hands, I cite lack of horse control (something we likely won't see ingame, but would have been a problem in real life) as another issue. If you have two hands on your sword, you don't have one on the reins.
Siege: 7.0
Strong weapons, particularly for defense, but carrying them up ladders would've been impossible and drawing them atop the walls would've been more difficult than drawing a one-handed sword. In addition, longswords tend to have trouble indoors, so fighting near battlement walls, inside towers, or inside keeps... The longsword might run into trouble here. Still, a respectable weapon for most phases of siege fighting.
Duel: 9.5
Boasting superior reach and a greater intimidation factor than smaller swords, the longsword is no less versatile in the duel. The one point it suffers on is the inability to wield a shield, which is a highly effective defensive tool. However, for the swordsman skilled enough to defend himself reliably with his sword, this can be mitigated substantially.
Weaker Characters: 8.5
This may come as a surprise, but weaker characters, assuming they have the skill to wield the weapon to the fullest, actually do quite well with a longsword! They were, on average, about twice the weight of a one-handed sword, often a little less than that. They were actually not very heavy at all! Because you have two hands on the weapon, you're effectively doubling your wielding strength, meaning if you can wield a one-handed sword (at a whopping 1.5 pounds or so), you should be able to wield a two-hander as well. The difference is, this weapon provides superior reach, allowing weaker characters to keep the stronger ones at bay far more effectively.
OVERALL EVALUATION: 7.0
Like one-handed swords, greatswords are incredibly effective and versatile weapons. Unlike one-handed swords, they saw a great deal of use in actual battlefield situations. Unfortunately, because these situations came well after the period Bannerlord covers, I didn't take that heavily into consideration. Still, two-handers are a good all-round weapon that will rarely steer you wrong.
General Roleplaying Concerns:
Just one big one to consider: Longswords, included in the game because they were so popular in Warband, didn't actually exist all too widely in the early medieval period Bannerlord draws inspiration from. It's been said in a dev blog that they're intended to be "rare" and "like a hero's weapon" in Bannerlord. For that reason, I personally intend to avoid them for the most part. If that sort of thing concerns you as well, it's something to consider.
-----
AXES
(I'll be covering one-handed and two-handed axes in one section, as you fight with them more or less the same way IRL.)
Status Quo: 5.5
The basic dilemma is simple: One-handed axes are quite short, and two-handed axes don't afford you the protection of a shield. Because the haft of an axe is wood, two-handers aren't as effective at parrying as longswords, either. They're deadly weapons in the right hands, but as a general role, I'd say the only advantage they have (and it's a considerable one) is their ability to devastate shields and, to a lesser extent, armor. Otherwise, they're not generally ideal for most battlefield situations. Some variations (voulges, bardiches) may be more effective, however.
Formation: 7.5
Being that axes do their best work with overhead chops anyway, two-handers aren't as big a concern in formation as longswords are. Additionally, they'll make quicker work of an enemy shield wall than swords would. For these reasons, I actually feel quite comfortable with axes as formation weapons, though reach is still a concern.
Horseback: 4.0
This was a tough call, because some variations of the two-handed axe made fine horseback weapons. Overall, though, given how difficult it is to land the head of the axe precisely on an opponent while riding by, and given how short one-handers are... No, overall, I wouldn't call this a particularly good horseback weapon. It'll do the job, it just won't do it near as well as many other weapons.
Siege: 8.5
In a siege, axes could be particularly devastating. Dropping the head of an axe down on attackers as they climb the ladder, for example, is a simple but effective method at dissuading assaults. Moreover, the lack of required elegance as compared to a sword makes them arguably more effective at reaching over your comrades from the back line to land a lack or two on the heads of your foemen at a breached gate. But what truly makes them shine in a siege is their utility. Axes are uniquely qualified to break open wooden gates. They can damage ladders. If enemies present shields to protect against rocks and arrows on their way up, an axe can land a devastating shot or two on them as soon as they reach the top. This utility is why I rate axes among the best siege weapons.
Duel: 7.0
An axe can be quite effective in a duel, particularly the two-handed variety. However, as ever, I take points off for the sheer fact that only one fairly small location on the axe itself deals truly effective damage. That said, if your opponent brings a shield to the duel, that axe will be the just the thing to take away that slab of wood he plans on hiding behind. Axes can be effective dueling weapons in the right hands, just be careful about maintaining a fairly precise distance.
Weaker Characters: 2.0
Axes are end-heavy and can thus use gravity to do a lot of their damage. For the same reason, however, weaker characters will be slower on the recall than perhaps they'd like to be. In addition, any other type of strike expects a very brute force approach. Unlike swords, which can cut with a minimum of effort in the right hands, axes rely on the wielder being able to drive them home with punctuation. Two-handers will be difficult to wield, and one-handers are incredibly short, taking the problems with the one-handed sword and amplifying them substantially. Not the best weapon for a weaker character.
OVERALL EVALUATION: 6.3
A respectable battlefield weapon, but not the best for all situations. Personally if I bring an axe, I'd use it as my secondary rather than my weapon of choice. A one-handed axe can be an excellent solution in confined spaces, and a two-hander is unmatched in its ability to rend shields on the battlefield. If nothing else, axes make superb sidearms during sieges.
General Roleplaying Concerns:
Axes were absolutely used on the battlefield during this time, particularly by Germanic and Scandanavian warriors. That said, even they often preferred broadswords and spears. If you intend to play, say, Sturgia, I wouldn't fault you for wanting to rely heavily on axes. That being said, if it's for roleplaying reasons, don't necessarily feel like you have to confine yourself to the axe. Even vikings employed a number of different weapons (though axes were particularly good for naval boarding efforts well into the 17th century, and may be something to consider if you aim to play a coastal raider type). Another good consideration is that axes were readily available and required little skill to wield, making them a good roleplaying choice for poorer characters or those just getting their start.
-----
BLUDGEONS
Status Quo: 6.5
As effective against armor as flesh, bludgeoning weapons make a decent choice for any battlefield situation. The issue is that most of them are on the shorter side, which means many opponents will have a reach advantage on you. If you get in close, however, rest assured that a solid blow to the head - even without a steel tip - can be every bit as lethal as a deep cut to the arm.
Formation: 4.0
Blunt weapons are... okay. The issue lies in a shield's ability to absorb and deflect them. Flanged maces were more rare during this period than they became later on, and other forms of bludgeon are apt to, for the most part, glance off a shield. As shields are often used in formation, well... This could be a problem. That said, a solid enough hit could break the arm that wields the shield or even start breaking the shield itself. Just be aware that your options would have been limited with a mace. While swords and spears can thrust around a shield, maces really need your own shield out of the way to make an effective strike.
Horseback: 4.0
Longer maces can be quite devastating if they hit an opponent on the head. They don't need to land too precisely, just the weighty solid object landing with the force of the horse's gallop may be lethal enough. However, like axes, maces tend to be quite short and it's something to consider. Maces were generally not wielded on horseback, to my knowledge, as a first choice.
Siege: 6.5
Nothing special to say here. They handle well indoors for the most part, and otherwise all the same concerns from the Status Quo evaluation apply.
Duel: 4.0
The only time I'd suggest a mace in a duel is if your opponent is in particularly heavy armor. Otherwise, the short reach and unwieldy nature of maces makes them a detriment in one-on-one combat. Wooden weapons aren't particularly strong against skilled opponents with steel in hand, and the steel caps on maces were deliberately tip-heavy to assist in their crushing potential, and a tip-heavy weapon is a weapon that recovers more slowly. When it's just you and him, if it takes him less than a second to recall his weapon and it takes you a second and a quarter, that's a problem.
Weaker Characters: 1.5
Maces aren't necessarily as heavy as they look. However, their not particularly balanced weapons. The further the center of mass rests from the hand, the more strength is required to wield the weapon efficiently, and maces keep that weight as far from the hand as possible. Simple wooden bludgeons are a different story, but either way, these are weapons that are absolutely more effective when more strength is applied to the swing.
OVERALL EVALUATION: 5.3
Bludgeons can make respectable battlefield weapons, particularly maces. However, their general imbalance and lack of versatility don't make them the objective "best choice". If you enjoy maces, though, rest assured you're not breaking realism by bringing them to the battlefield as a first choice. There are valid reasons to wield them as a mainhand if that's your thing.
General Roleplaying Concerns:
Maces were actually around much further back than I realized, even in their flanged state, so I'm glad they were included. TaleWorlds has once again done their research. That said, they weren't all that common on the battlefield until plate armor became the norm. Their primary purpose is and always was to transfer force through armor, and armor didn't become truly "impenetrable" until a bit later on than the period Bannerlord draws from.
-----
SPEAR
(There are far more polearms than just spears in the game. However, as spears are the basis for all other polearms, they're the polearm I'll be evaluating. Most of what applies here will apply to other polearms as well.)
Status Quo: 9.0
The superior reach of a spear can't be argued. There's a reason many called it the "king of weapons". It doesn't take a tremendous amount of skill to wield a spear, either. "Stab them with the pointy bit" isn't all that complex. Short or light enough spears could also be wielded behind a shield, where they were substantially useful thanks to their narrow profile and ability to thrust around the shield, minimizing the amount of time a warrior had to spend unprotected. It lacks versatility on swords, but its reach and simplicity makes up for that.
EDIT: Upon further review, the spear is even more effective in status quo scenarios than I'd realized. I've raised its rating from 7.5 to 9.0. It's that effective in the open. Yes, if you're wielding a two-handed spear you don't have a shield, but... You don't usually need one because it's so damn hard to close in on a spearman. The only scenario in which the spear suffers is when an attacker manages to pass the head, which is exceedingly difficult even for experienced swordsmen.
Formation: 10.0
Few weapons beat a spear in formation combat. Not only does a wall of spears daunt man and horse alike, but the straightforward thrust-recall-repeat fighting style of basic spearwork leaves zero drawbacks when fighting shoulder-to-shoulder. Particularly long spears, as was the case with the Macedonian sarissa, could even serve as something of a barrier against projectiles when layered over the heads of one's allies. When you drafted peasants, you gave them spears. This wasn't only because they were cheaper than swords, but because they were easy to use and extremely effective in groups.
Horseback: 9.5
There isn't a single weapon more effective for mounted combat than the oft overlooked spear. There's a reason knights were most known for their lances. It's because they used them as a matter of course! But even before the lance as we know it, riders were couching cavalry spears and riding into opponents. Not only does the long reach make it easier to strike opponents on foot, but simply holding the spear firm and riding it into the foe was more devastating than any sword cut. This is because all the weight and speed and controlled power of the horse was channeled into a fine point, as opposed to across the length of a blade. Additionally, it's easier to hit something if you need only point your weapon in its direction. Without a cutting motion to time, spear charges were much more reliable at simply hitting their target. The one drawback is if the spear became lodged in the target, that force could break it. This is why knights often carried spares.
Siege: 6.5
While not as effective as some other weapons in many cases, spears are excellent at holding gatehouses for the same reason they're excellent in formations. They do, however, lose something in confined spaces.
Duel: 7.5
Spears are fine weapons for one-on-one combat if you're good at keeping your opponent at spear's length. However, they lack versatility. Other polearms make up for this, but when measuring spears specifically, their main method of delivering damage is a simple thrust. This makes them easier to read, of course. That being said, range remains king, and a skilled spearfighter can still outperform an enemy with a shorter wepaon one-on-one pretty reliably.
Weaker Characters: 7.0
Light and long, spears make excellent weapons for weaker characters who want to keep the enemy from getting in close. The thrust requires a bit of power on the end user's part, which hurts their overall effectiveness for weaker characters, but lighter stabs can still cause death by a thousand cuts on an opponent who can't find his way past the spearhead.
OVERALL EVALUATION: 8.4
This will probably surprise a lot of people, but I don't have a problem with this outcome. There's a good reason polearms have the most variants of any melee weapon in history. They're reliable, they're easy to wield, they maintain distance, and they're as effective at killing as they are at simply warding off attack. Spears dominated the battlefield for most every culture from civilization's earliest days, and they even stuck around well into the gunpowder era as pikes. Some 1,650 years of history don't lie.
General Roleplaying Concerns:
Spears aren't difficult to craft. Fashion a head and affix it to a wooden pole. Therefore, spears shouldn't be too difficult for poorer characters to come by. At the same time, spears were the weapon of choice for most all knights, which means they look fine in the hands of a wealthier character as well. No matter your character's background, standing, or situaton, you can feel pretty comfortable with a spear in their hands.
-----
Last edited:
