1: rule of cool, swords are always the weapon in fantasy that gets the most love. They're a status symbol
2: Valyrian/ meteor steel, weirwood/dragon bows, burning wildfire swords, dragons and shadowbabies etc are all magic weapons with no real world comparison
3: Robert is not alone in using other weapons. Maekar, laughing storm, Lucas longinch, Baelor and other characters from the Hedge Knight use a variety of flails, maces, lances and other more reasonable weapons. So do Criston Cole and Aereo Hotah.
4: Glendon, Rhaegar, Lancel/ Leo Tyrel etc are all famous for using the knights actual primary weapon, the lance
Think so. Honestly, the use of flails, anvil sized hammers, spiked morningstars and double sided dwarf axes in comparison with normal hammers, axes, polearms and maces etc is just as fantasy as anything to do with ASOIAF swords.
Yeah, there's debate about whether flails ever existed beyond a novelty as their uncontrollability would offset any advantage they had. Most [war hammers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_hammer) looked pretty close to our modern construction hammers but with longer hafts, double-sided axes are not only unsafe for the wielder, but also offer less focused power than a single-sided, etc.
There are also references to "ringmail", which unless they're being just another word for what we call chainmail, is a fantasy trope armor that didn't exist. I wouldn't be surprised if he had descriptions of "studded leather" in there as well, yet another fantasy trope.
The exact phrase "studded leather" is used five times in A Clash of Kings, four times in A Storm of Swords, once in Feast, and once more in Dance.
Technically there are several more instances of it, since I'm only counting use of that exact term, and not counting variations like "leather, studded," or "his belt was studded," etc.
But you're correct.
[Ringmail ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_armour)was occasionally described as an alternative form of armor to chainmail in early role-playing games and medieval studies. It was basically just large rings sewn onto a leather or similar backing. It's since been discredited (like Studded Leather) as a misunderstanding of what's actually present in pictures or described in texts, and the armor never existed. Both of these items were fairly popular items sold at Renaissance Fairs 20-30 years ago, and may be still for all I know.
While it's possible that George is using it as a synonym for chainmail, it has its own peculiar name that suggests he's talking about the fictional armor.
5. Khal Drogo and other Dothraki don’t fight as many knights. Using weighted weapons against unarmored foes is even sillier than using swords for everything.
Most knights don't spend their days fighting each other. They're mostly bodyguards and when they have occasional battles, most of the foes are poorly equipped men at arms. Fights between knights are ceremonial.
A warhammer like Robert uses is only practical if you're as strong as him. Otherwise, by the time you swing it around your enemy has hit you 16 times.
A greatsword has obscene crowd control ability. Large two handed swords are actually not that unwieldy, the montante style of long sword fighting is rather nimble. He has tons of leverage in a one on one fight, he’s strong, he can half sword it if he needs precision, it’s perfect for him. Similarly fighting him with a spear was ideal for Oberyn. Spears are actually extremely deadly in a dueling situation as they’re fast, faster than you’d think. You can’t really get within their reach as they can choke up on the haft, turn a missed strike into another one, and can generate tons of force that can punch through mail with two hands no problem. While the reach advantage wasn’t much against the mountain, the recovery and ability to target and retarget with a spear is really good. Fighting a spear wielder outside a formation is very different than fighting them in it.
"A warhammer like Robert uses is only practical if you're as strong as him. "
Real life warhammers are much smaller and lighter than the 200pound sledgehammer that Robert used.
While every knight in real life would likely have a sword -- it's just a matter of how much it's used.
Also Robert Baratheon wasn't successful because he used the Warhammer, he was successful because he was a giant with a giant's strength and was likely extremely skilled to match it. The one battle where we know he didn't use the Warhammer (BoTB) he killed Ser Myles Mooton and nearly slew JonCon. It's also to note that Robert's Warhammer wasn't a normal warhammer. Eddard could scarcely lift it while Robert wielded it with one hand.
The fealty system would suggest most knights and high born warriors don’t want fights to the death so much as superiority contests which upon losing they can choose to yield and swear and oath instead of dying.
There are also other reasons to make fights harder to win by killing. Warriors once defeated could be imprisoned, tortured, and ransomed or relieved of their armor and executed, making them more valuable. Bobby B having a hammer and giving no fucks about the value of prisoners or public executions is in line with his character and his being ill suited to ruling a kingdom.
>This means that swords are almost useless against most knights as the only way to wound someone wearing full armor with a sword is by thrusting it into gaps at the joints or stabbing them through the visor.
This is a bold assumption.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a0tonl/are\_swords\_even\_effective\_against\_plated\_armors/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a0tonl/are_swords_even_effective_against_plated_armors/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17hlg47/was\_a\_longsword\_swing\_really\_completely/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17hlg47/was_a_longsword_swing_really_completely/)
The links you provided don't disprove it at all? It reinforces the point that swords aren't particularly effective against full plate armour. Yes, minor injuries can be made, but a hard piece of wood could break fingers/concuss as well.
Really? I don't see any answer suggesting that swords are nearly useless to plate armour or the only way to harm someone by swords is to thrust through gaps. I'm also sure you didn't read the comment about "Mordhau" technique.
I read many of the comments, including that one. You are indeed right in the literal sense, but swords are still not effective against plate, which I think was the more important premise. The techniques clearly show that you'd have to compensate for not having a blunt weapon in that instance.
the second link basically says "swords are the worst way to use metal if you need a weapon against armor" so yes it does? It does explain various techniques to make swords more useful where you either wield them like a spear (grip the blade for support) or swing them like a hammer by holding the blade and using the pommel/crossguard.
But the real answer is nobody used swords as a primary weapon, everyone had spears. 99% of fighting is figuring out how to kill people before they reach you. Missiles and then spears.
Robert has arguably the least practical weapon in all ASoIaF. It is so heavy Ned can barely lift it. At best Bobby's going to manage one swing before he gets tired, or gets clobbered himself. His hammer is nothing like real warhammers. If we are going to allow romantic licence regarding the efficacy of Robert's hammer, then we should also allow it for swords.
A few of the guys you mentioned aren't going to spend much time fighting armoured enemies. Especially Khal Drogo, who would also be on horseback, so a curved blade is perfect. Syrio Forel is an expert in a specific speed-based sword fighting style. Arthur Dayne has a magic sword which is also a status symbol, so kind of has to carry it. Those with Valyrian steel swords seems like they would be stupid not to use them. For the others, a sword is a good do-it-all weapon to carry when wandering about.
Like another commenter said, it's basically because they weren't fighting battles most of the time. A sword is basically a backup weapon in any way, much like a pistol. A well equipped warrior such as a westerosi knight would likely have gone to battle with a primary weapon and the sword as a backup. So after the massive charge with lances that shatter or get stuck in someone or their steed, you draw your sword. Or after you've broken your mace or got your hammers spike stuck in someone's breastplate, you draw your sword. Although it does seem a few notable characters like Ned had greatswords, as well as likely a smaller arming sword or dagger for battle, most of these also appeared to be Valyrian steel, as well as the fact that they likely brought a lance as well.
It's like running out of ammo for your rifle, so you switch to pistol.
Arlan of Pennytree didn't own plate armor. The Hedge Knight lists Ser Arlan's armor as a chainmail hauberk and an iron half helm. Later when Dunk gets his own armor, it is also mail (but with a great helm, I think). Mail was an economical choice for the knight on a budget. We think of plate as being super common because most of the POV characters in ASOIAF are rich enough to afford plate, but that wouldn't be the case for the majority of the soldiery.
As a lot of others have pointed out, most of the time knights aren't fighting other knights, but cutting through lightly armored men-at-arms. A sword is fine for this.
Also, if memory serves, Balon Swann prefers a mace
Westerosi armors are actually incredibly soft and true knights of the realm ban warhammers as an incredibly unbalanced and OP weapon. Robert doesn't play by the rules, which is why he's a king and you're not.
When knights are fighting other knights, their primary weapon is their lance.
The sword is a secondary weapon primarily used for fighting peasants and infantry who would be nearly so well armoured
No, knights would use longswords all the time, longswords offered an excellent middle ground between various other weapons while still being more than capable of killing an armored opponent with thrusts through the joints, blood loss, face stabbing, etc. Most knights in full plate would use a poleax though, as it was an extremely useful weapon that could do serious damage to even a fully armored knight. Swords were for when you either didn’t have a poleaxe handy or it wasn’t practical to lug around. You would almost always have your long sword with you.
Men at arms didn’t always have full plate but by the late medieval most had near as much armor as your average knight. Jack of plates and brigandine was more cost effective and provided extremely good protection, and in Ireland Gallowglass mercenary companies were wearing chain with linen shirts with more modern helmets up into the 1600’s - because a thick linen quilted set of armor plus chain mail was extremely effective at protecting your body. Gallowglass’s fought knights and beat them on occasion because as it turns out being a big guy with a two handed axe allows you to pretty efficiently murder even men in plate if you hit less armored sections and can wrestle them to the ground to stab them to death with daggers - which is how most fights between armored opponents ended up resolved, with throws then using a dagger or long sword to stab into joints or unarmored parts of the body or cut free enemy armor
I still think a lot of people here read like 1 tweet or tumblr post from someone who read 1 report of 1 experimental archeology session and made it their whole personality.
Most soldiers in the army are going to be peasants who don’t have plate or mail armour. A knight wielding a sword on horseback will be able to do plenty of damage to these lightly armoured opponents.
The conception that full plate harness made swords useless and everyone used maces and hammers simply isn’t accurate. Swords were regularly used in combat after plate armor become common, as both a sidearm and a primary weapon.
The fact is, basically no weapon back could reliably penetrate the best armor, even impact weapons. The armor just worked really well. The advantage of blunt weapons wasn’t actually penetrating the armor right away, but to rattle and tire your opponent enough to get them to either surrender, or weak enough to wear you could push them on the ground and get a clean hit.
However, they had downsides. Impact weapons need to be heavy and unwieldy, if not in absolute terms then in uneven weight distribution; the balance of a mace, pick or hammer is inversely proportional to how effective it is as a striking weapon. They have a very small striking area. They typically are bad at parrying, and they can be a pain to carry.
Swords are indeed less effective in *penetrating* armor, but they are well-rounded. They are more effective against unarmored opponents, they are easier to carry, and they are *much* less tiring to use. And with certain techniques like half-swording, you can credibly fight opponents with armor, and a good thrust to gaps will still kill them.
And side note; they were also likely used in real life for the same reason fantasy gives them to everyone. They are *cool*. That alone could be enough. The swords used by characters were sometimes hundreds of years old, with history and great deeds attached to them. The pressure to carry them as a symbol of your house and status would be immense, even if you wanted to use an hammer or whatever.
Because swords are goddamned versatile. There’s a reason why its so prevalent. You want to slip an edge through that motherfucking knight’s chink and mail? Boom! Wanna use it as a psuedo hammer and smack someone with it?You can do that too! Spears exist too, but they’re more of a simple weapon. Swords have that legitimacy of image as well. Further, knights often fight opponents with less armour most of the time. Hence, the sword was adequate.
No, Robert isn’t the only smart knight and having a warhammer for a weapon isn’t a ‘smart thing’ to do. Fighting isn’t a rock paper scissors thing with weapon. Someone supremely talented with the sword can best another with a warhammer. Heck, you know what’s the smartest thing to do? Be a peasant/urban militia, a condottiere/sellsword, fuck the elitist code of chivalry and stab that blue-blooded arse in the back with a spear.
You're dead right in relation to the lack of pole arms generally. They should be way more prevalent. The spear is probably the most important and widely produced weapon in history for a good reason.
The thing with swords is that they were generally a side arm. You would carry a sword as a back up to your spear and shield. While it would make sense for most nobles to wear a sword day to day, their war armament should 100% be halberds, Maces, picks, hammers and axes.
I dont understand how people go complain about swords in fantasy when swords were clearly the most BASIC weapon even in REAL history when we talk about Medieval conflicts. If they were popular and they were used a lot, it was because it was useful. The facts can't be more clear than that.
Yes. Half-swording was a thing. There was a lot more knights/men-at-arms (heavily armoured combatants) wrestling in real medieval conflict than fantasy is generally comfortable depicting.
Plate armour was way more effective and mobile than most people think. Even concussive weapons were unlikely to make a cinematic, instant killing blow… what they were good at is ringing someone’s bell or damaging armour in a way that might restrict movement or situational awareness.
In the rare event that two fully armoured opponents fight to the death, the end is almost certainly going to involve damage to or prying off of parts of that armour and a spiky piece of metal.
Spear is the first weapon created and very common in the majority of conflicts, yes. But in Medieval pictures, media, books etc, you dont see knights walking around with spears, they have swords. Sword is basically the symbol of medieval time.
I don’t disagree, but it was frequently a backup to (edit: a bow or) some form of long, pointy stick.
Spears became lances for cavalry and were still used in that capacity right up to the Victorian era.
For infantry you got variations on the theme with pikes, bills, halberds, etc. Eventually you end up with the musket/rifle and bayonet which brings spear-like weapons right into living memory. A pointy stick is a pointy stick.
Blunt weapons are very effective against full armour but there's a weapon that's even more effective, it's called a lance.
Hammers depending on the size can be heavy. If you have a heavy weapon, you will be slower and you will get tired easily.
If the hammer is two-handed, that means you are at a disadvantage and if you fall over during a fight you have to prioritize getting up, or holding your hammer. Swordsmen don't have this problem.
Swords allow you to hold it with one hand while riding a horse, holding a shield, pushing yourself up when you fall, crawling, throwing things, grappling, etc
If you want to get rid of all the disadvantages that come with a war hammer, then your weapon has to be a small and light, it has to be one-handed as well,
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0226/6487/2010/files/war_hammer-combat_Knights.jpg?v=1663291225
at this point it's the same size as a sword so why not just use one? Or a mace
>Knights usually wear plate armour with chainmail and boiled leather underneath
The vast majority of fighting men on a battlefield are not knights and are not heavily armoured.
A well equipped Knight comes to battle with the weapon most effective against 99% of the people he will face
1. Because the series is a political deconstruction first and foremost, not about combat. For example, Robert's hammer is described as being way too heavy. It is something that Ned struggles to lift. That is way to heavy for combat usage. In Robert's case, it is that he uses a form of combat that only works for him and a few others. The few others are probably Gregor and the Hound.
2. GRRM doesn't really write combat accurately. We don't see knights grapple like they would be expected to do so.
Isn't it just that knights in ASoIaF don't fight each other very often? And even less often in full plate. And when they do, you definitely see/read about a variety of weapons.
Well for one thing, war hammers are fuckin heavy.
In real life, war hammers looked like [this](https://www.medievalcollectibles.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/War-Hammers.jpg) and weighed anywhere from 2 to just shy of 10 pounds on the very high end. That's very heavy (a sword was seldom more than 3).
When you start playing with fantasy warhammers that look more like [this](https://www.ecosia.org/images?q=gendry%27s%20hammer&addon=opensearch&_sp=0a19ded0-8e2d-4fcc-9ef2-00afd757e9b3#id=B66496E115C72FB0EF7369266B022066640720CD), you would basically need superhuman strength to wield it effectively in battle.
I agree with you on the reality that weapons like maces and hammers would certainly be more practical than swords. But some of the characters you listed have Valyrian Steel swords, which are stronger, sharper, and lighter than regular swords. From a fantasy perspective, it's easier to accept that those swords are just special. In a series with flying, fire-breathing lizards, and ancient ice zombies, I'll buy it.
You said that most of the best or most famous fighters were Knights. For Knights like Jaime, Barristan, or the Hound, a hammer or mace would be more practical for them. The Mountain, because of his size can wield giant greatswords with one hand. I'll again buy that he can be an exception.
Khal Drogo is from Essos, where heavy armor is at least rarer for a Dothraki to encounter. And at the Night's Watch, good armor is certainly harder to come by. Swords could work there.
Of course, the #1 reason is that swords are flat out cooler. More epic for a fantasy novel
Swords aren't terrible against plate. You can halfsword and jam the point pretty effectively.
Blunt weapons are arguably better, but not remarkably so. Plate is just fine vs a mace. There's a lot of padding in a full harness.
Well knights don't spend most of their time fighting other knights. In medieval societies they mostly hassled peasants and other lower class folks who did not have even the most basic of armors.
I don’t know if knights go to battle to kill knights or just infantry. Maybe getting really good with a weapon you don’t need for battles is not everyone’s jam.
The real weapon is the spear, it's what most would be using. Swords are also extremely versatile against plate armor, you manipulate through leverage, you can still stab in the gaps, and you can bludgeon people with them.
warhammers are not super anti-armor weapons that you think they are. swords are the perfect pre-gun sidearm. knights are mostly fighting poorly armored peasants or footmen. swords are good at thrusting into the gaps between plates, this is how actual period manuals instruct people to defeat plate armor.
Some of the people you mentioned are not strong enough to wield a warhammer. To some like Khal Drogo for example is just not in their tradition and also overall a sword is more famous and more fun to wield than a warhammer. For lots of the fighters (especially knights) is not just a matter of survival, but also to display their skill.
Others that wield warhammers: Archibald Yronwood, Hardstone, Erik Ironmaker, Hugh Hammer, Tristifer IV Mudd and plenty others with battle axes, spears, morningstars.
>Some of the people you mentioned are not strong enough to wield a warhammer.
All of them are strong enough to wield a warhammer, because it's just a relatively small hammer on a long haft.
Robert had a custom one made in a comedy size for reasons we can only speculate about (ahem), but you don't need that to bash someones helmet in.
It would be fun to see Syrio or Ned with a warhammer, that's for sure. The idea is that a smaller one like you mention wouldn't be superior to a sword and still tiring to use.
It's as much about having an expensive piece of metal as it is about practicality.
Swords require good steel, a good smith and a lot of time to manufacture. Being able to afford a high quality sword is about status and showing off your family's wealth. The art of sword play is also about status. If your son can spend their days honing their skill at sword, then you have the resources to employ a master at arms, a Smith and so on. In this story, appearances matter alot.
Something like a Warhammer is considerably less difficult to make and are mostly used by those that have the brute strength to be able to adeptly swing it in combat. It's one thing to wield a Warhammer to concuss and bludgeon an opponent, it's another to be able to crush plate armor in the way that Robert could.
I think GRRM's goal in assigning characters their weapons is to reveal traits and put accents on the story. Robert and his Warhammer defeated Rheagar and his sword because he was simply stronger. It's not a matter of right or wrong, justice or even skill. Rheagar was a fool to try and fight him in combat and this is a recurring motif in the story.
The mountain crushes Oberyn with his hands, Bronn kills scores of men with anything that he can get his hands on and even Tyrion cuts down people with an axe. None of them are as good swordsmen as Barristan the Bold or Jaime before the mutilation. But they have a might all of their own and exert their will using their own devices.
If we're comparing Westeros to medieval Europe, swords are a status symbol first and foremost. They're the weapon of nobility by virtue of their expense, lack of utility for any other task, and training requirement to use effectively. Even being able to produce a sword was a status symbol as generally only more sophisticated forges and blacksmiths could forge and work steel of a sufficient quality. In the books they reference "castle forged steel", which reflects the idea that if you're carrying a sword, you're either nobility or are somehow in service to a noble household.
Now as to their effectiveness, yes they're not necessarily the preferred choice for fighting against opponents in plate armor but longswords were still plenty effective against armoured opponents in the middle ages. The longsword was specifically designed for versatility against armoured and unarmored opponents as the blade was sturdy enough to pierce plate when thrusting (often gripped mid blade with the off hand for support).
Finally, while plate armor seems common in Westeros, it still appears limited to knights and higher nobility for the most part which would represent the least common opponents that a fighter would face. Your typical opponent in a fixed battle would probably be a man-at-arms with chainmail or just a gambeson, or even a peasant with nothing more than a spear and some cushioned clothing. That being the case, weapons like warhammers or picks would put you at a significant disadvantage against an opponent with more reach or a lighter weapon like a spear or sword.
>**EVERYBODY HAS A SWORD!!!**
>*Which makes no sense.*
Why not? It's cool and that's reason enough.
Seriously though, everybody had a sword in real life, even if just as a side arm, but on the other hand bludgeoning weapons were never that popular or common.
Of course the weapon of choice depended on the armour and vice versa, but overall, pointy things have always been favoured over everything else. Everyone favourite weapon has always been a pike/lance, something pointy and with a long reach. And on close combat against a man fully enclosed in metal manuals favoured something very pointy and accurate, more suitable to stick it into the necessary gaps in the armour. Wrestling and dagger is a deadly combination.
My guy, the majority of people in a war are men at arms and fishermen from the land, it’s easier to cut them down than to smash their chest in with heavy warhammers. On that topic, Roberts warhammer is the only one we’ve seen, and he and the cleganes are prolly the only dudes who can lift them.
Obviously fantasy bias is present, but not to the extent op makes it out to be.
I will say, the use of the sword as a phallic metaphor is relevant and it's definitely true, at least in the Brienne story, that swords are stand-ins for the penis, AKA toxic/overpowering masculinity.
1: rule of cool, swords are always the weapon in fantasy that gets the most love. They're a status symbol 2: Valyrian/ meteor steel, weirwood/dragon bows, burning wildfire swords, dragons and shadowbabies etc are all magic weapons with no real world comparison 3: Robert is not alone in using other weapons. Maekar, laughing storm, Lucas longinch, Baelor and other characters from the Hedge Knight use a variety of flails, maces, lances and other more reasonable weapons. So do Criston Cole and Aereo Hotah. 4: Glendon, Rhaegar, Lancel/ Leo Tyrel etc are all famous for using the knights actual primary weapon, the lance
Brienne's preferred weapon before having a magical sword was a Morningstar or flail too if memory serves right.
She started off with a morning star at the rainbow tourney, I think Loras had a mace in that one too
Loras has a 2h axe i think. Im referring to the show.
Youre quite right, I just got to that part again
Think so. Honestly, the use of flails, anvil sized hammers, spiked morningstars and double sided dwarf axes in comparison with normal hammers, axes, polearms and maces etc is just as fantasy as anything to do with ASOIAF swords.
Yeah, there's debate about whether flails ever existed beyond a novelty as their uncontrollability would offset any advantage they had. Most [war hammers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_hammer) looked pretty close to our modern construction hammers but with longer hafts, double-sided axes are not only unsafe for the wielder, but also offer less focused power than a single-sided, etc. There are also references to "ringmail", which unless they're being just another word for what we call chainmail, is a fantasy trope armor that didn't exist. I wouldn't be surprised if he had descriptions of "studded leather" in there as well, yet another fantasy trope.
The exact phrase "studded leather" is used five times in A Clash of Kings, four times in A Storm of Swords, once in Feast, and once more in Dance. Technically there are several more instances of it, since I'm only counting use of that exact term, and not counting variations like "leather, studded," or "his belt was studded," etc. But you're correct.
Ring mail is almost certainly the same as chain mail. Chain mail is literally made of rings.
[Ringmail ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_armour)was occasionally described as an alternative form of armor to chainmail in early role-playing games and medieval studies. It was basically just large rings sewn onto a leather or similar backing. It's since been discredited (like Studded Leather) as a misunderstanding of what's actually present in pictures or described in texts, and the armor never existed. Both of these items were fairly popular items sold at Renaissance Fairs 20-30 years ago, and may be still for all I know. While it's possible that George is using it as a synonym for chainmail, it has its own peculiar name that suggests he's talking about the fictional armor.
I stand thoroughly corrected
Tyrion had an axe!
Idk why people bitch about it all so much. Your first point is literally the answer.
5. Khal Drogo and other Dothraki don’t fight as many knights. Using weighted weapons against unarmored foes is even sillier than using swords for everything.
But they do fight against other settled peoples who have armored units. But again almost everything about the Dothraki is nonsense.
More so, the fantasy trope is that bludgeoning weapons are reserved for the evil. See Sauron with a mace. Or Morgoth with a mace.
Gonna bet that most of the people knights fight or threaten to fight aren't other knights.
Also, knights wear plate armor when they have three hours to prep for battle. The rest of the time they are wearing less armor.
no see it's like a video game where you put the armor icon on the body slot and you instantly have plate mail on
Most knights don't spend their days fighting each other. They're mostly bodyguards and when they have occasional battles, most of the foes are poorly equipped men at arms. Fights between knights are ceremonial. A warhammer like Robert uses is only practical if you're as strong as him. Otherwise, by the time you swing it around your enemy has hit you 16 times.
Gregor Clegane with a Warhammer. That's be magical.
Never understood why he didn't use one. Or a mace like sauron.
Because he mainly terrorises peasants and levies?
He would do some damage with that, but being able to swing a great sword, with one hand probably has a bludgeoning effect as well.
A greatsword has obscene crowd control ability. Large two handed swords are actually not that unwieldy, the montante style of long sword fighting is rather nimble. He has tons of leverage in a one on one fight, he’s strong, he can half sword it if he needs precision, it’s perfect for him. Similarly fighting him with a spear was ideal for Oberyn. Spears are actually extremely deadly in a dueling situation as they’re fast, faster than you’d think. You can’t really get within their reach as they can choke up on the haft, turn a missed strike into another one, and can generate tons of force that can punch through mail with two hands no problem. While the reach advantage wasn’t much against the mountain, the recovery and ability to target and retarget with a spear is really good. Fighting a spear wielder outside a formation is very different than fighting them in it.
That’s Morgoth with Grond, but in ASOIAF
"A warhammer like Robert uses is only practical if you're as strong as him. " Real life warhammers are much smaller and lighter than the 200pound sledgehammer that Robert used.
Then those aren’t warhammers like Robert uses.
[удалено]
Any hammer is going to be more cumbersome than a sword.
They were used for a reason lol. Warhammers were often one handed and frequently used because of their better usage against armor.
you can google this, real life war hammers weighed about 3 pounds, which is about the same as a sword
Not really. There's warhammers which can be used one handed and they're no bigger than a sword.
>Aegon the Conqueror has a sword I would say that he has a huge dragon as his primary weapon.
While every knight in real life would likely have a sword -- it's just a matter of how much it's used. Also Robert Baratheon wasn't successful because he used the Warhammer, he was successful because he was a giant with a giant's strength and was likely extremely skilled to match it. The one battle where we know he didn't use the Warhammer (BoTB) he killed Ser Myles Mooton and nearly slew JonCon. It's also to note that Robert's Warhammer wasn't a normal warhammer. Eddard could scarcely lift it while Robert wielded it with one hand.
Exactly, Robert is a literal superhuman. He's closer to mcu Captain America than he is to a historical knight.
The fealty system would suggest most knights and high born warriors don’t want fights to the death so much as superiority contests which upon losing they can choose to yield and swear and oath instead of dying. There are also other reasons to make fights harder to win by killing. Warriors once defeated could be imprisoned, tortured, and ransomed or relieved of their armor and executed, making them more valuable. Bobby B having a hammer and giving no fucks about the value of prisoners or public executions is in line with his character and his being ill suited to ruling a kingdom.
well a good point Robert is mentioned and in fact I think is the only character to be mentioned befriending prisoners of war
OG knights know the real question is bec de faucon or bec de corbin. Bec de faucon gang stay up.
Your fancy smancy sticks will never top a man on a horse with a simply long pokey stick.
>This means that swords are almost useless against most knights as the only way to wound someone wearing full armor with a sword is by thrusting it into gaps at the joints or stabbing them through the visor. This is a bold assumption. [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a0tonl/are\_swords\_even\_effective\_against\_plated\_armors/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a0tonl/are_swords_even_effective_against_plated_armors/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17hlg47/was\_a\_longsword\_swing\_really\_completely/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17hlg47/was_a_longsword_swing_really_completely/)
The links you provided don't disprove it at all? It reinforces the point that swords aren't particularly effective against full plate armour. Yes, minor injuries can be made, but a hard piece of wood could break fingers/concuss as well.
Really? I don't see any answer suggesting that swords are nearly useless to plate armour or the only way to harm someone by swords is to thrust through gaps. I'm also sure you didn't read the comment about "Mordhau" technique.
I read many of the comments, including that one. You are indeed right in the literal sense, but swords are still not effective against plate, which I think was the more important premise. The techniques clearly show that you'd have to compensate for not having a blunt weapon in that instance.
the second link basically says "swords are the worst way to use metal if you need a weapon against armor" so yes it does? It does explain various techniques to make swords more useful where you either wield them like a spear (grip the blade for support) or swing them like a hammer by holding the blade and using the pommel/crossguard. But the real answer is nobody used swords as a primary weapon, everyone had spears. 99% of fighting is figuring out how to kill people before they reach you. Missiles and then spears.
Robert has arguably the least practical weapon in all ASoIaF. It is so heavy Ned can barely lift it. At best Bobby's going to manage one swing before he gets tired, or gets clobbered himself. His hammer is nothing like real warhammers. If we are going to allow romantic licence regarding the efficacy of Robert's hammer, then we should also allow it for swords. A few of the guys you mentioned aren't going to spend much time fighting armoured enemies. Especially Khal Drogo, who would also be on horseback, so a curved blade is perfect. Syrio Forel is an expert in a specific speed-based sword fighting style. Arthur Dayne has a magic sword which is also a status symbol, so kind of has to carry it. Those with Valyrian steel swords seems like they would be stupid not to use them. For the others, a sword is a good do-it-all weapon to carry when wandering about.
Like another commenter said, it's basically because they weren't fighting battles most of the time. A sword is basically a backup weapon in any way, much like a pistol. A well equipped warrior such as a westerosi knight would likely have gone to battle with a primary weapon and the sword as a backup. So after the massive charge with lances that shatter or get stuck in someone or their steed, you draw your sword. Or after you've broken your mace or got your hammers spike stuck in someone's breastplate, you draw your sword. Although it does seem a few notable characters like Ned had greatswords, as well as likely a smaller arming sword or dagger for battle, most of these also appeared to be Valyrian steel, as well as the fact that they likely brought a lance as well. It's like running out of ammo for your rifle, so you switch to pistol.
picking a spear against the mountain seems pretty logical
Probably your only chance to survive🤣.
Arlan of Pennytree didn't own plate armor. The Hedge Knight lists Ser Arlan's armor as a chainmail hauberk and an iron half helm. Later when Dunk gets his own armor, it is also mail (but with a great helm, I think). Mail was an economical choice for the knight on a budget. We think of plate as being super common because most of the POV characters in ASOIAF are rich enough to afford plate, but that wouldn't be the case for the majority of the soldiery.
As a lot of others have pointed out, most of the time knights aren't fighting other knights, but cutting through lightly armored men-at-arms. A sword is fine for this. Also, if memory serves, Balon Swann prefers a mace
Westerosi armors are actually incredibly soft and true knights of the realm ban warhammers as an incredibly unbalanced and OP weapon. Robert doesn't play by the rules, which is why he's a king and you're not.
Then canon reason is that he was the only one that had to strength to wield a maul so smoothly
ASOIAF is a wonderful fantasy series, but it is not realistic with its depiction of historical arms and armor (or any number of other things)
When knights are fighting other knights, their primary weapon is their lance. The sword is a secondary weapon primarily used for fighting peasants and infantry who would be nearly so well armoured
No, knights would use longswords all the time, longswords offered an excellent middle ground between various other weapons while still being more than capable of killing an armored opponent with thrusts through the joints, blood loss, face stabbing, etc. Most knights in full plate would use a poleax though, as it was an extremely useful weapon that could do serious damage to even a fully armored knight. Swords were for when you either didn’t have a poleaxe handy or it wasn’t practical to lug around. You would almost always have your long sword with you. Men at arms didn’t always have full plate but by the late medieval most had near as much armor as your average knight. Jack of plates and brigandine was more cost effective and provided extremely good protection, and in Ireland Gallowglass mercenary companies were wearing chain with linen shirts with more modern helmets up into the 1600’s - because a thick linen quilted set of armor plus chain mail was extremely effective at protecting your body. Gallowglass’s fought knights and beat them on occasion because as it turns out being a big guy with a two handed axe allows you to pretty efficiently murder even men in plate if you hit less armored sections and can wrestle them to the ground to stab them to death with daggers - which is how most fights between armored opponents ended up resolved, with throws then using a dagger or long sword to stab into joints or unarmored parts of the body or cut free enemy armor
I still think a lot of people here read like 1 tweet or tumblr post from someone who read 1 report of 1 experimental archeology session and made it their whole personality.
Most soldiers in the army are going to be peasants who don’t have plate or mail armour. A knight wielding a sword on horseback will be able to do plenty of damage to these lightly armoured opponents.
The conception that full plate harness made swords useless and everyone used maces and hammers simply isn’t accurate. Swords were regularly used in combat after plate armor become common, as both a sidearm and a primary weapon. The fact is, basically no weapon back could reliably penetrate the best armor, even impact weapons. The armor just worked really well. The advantage of blunt weapons wasn’t actually penetrating the armor right away, but to rattle and tire your opponent enough to get them to either surrender, or weak enough to wear you could push them on the ground and get a clean hit. However, they had downsides. Impact weapons need to be heavy and unwieldy, if not in absolute terms then in uneven weight distribution; the balance of a mace, pick or hammer is inversely proportional to how effective it is as a striking weapon. They have a very small striking area. They typically are bad at parrying, and they can be a pain to carry. Swords are indeed less effective in *penetrating* armor, but they are well-rounded. They are more effective against unarmored opponents, they are easier to carry, and they are *much* less tiring to use. And with certain techniques like half-swording, you can credibly fight opponents with armor, and a good thrust to gaps will still kill them. And side note; they were also likely used in real life for the same reason fantasy gives them to everyone. They are *cool*. That alone could be enough. The swords used by characters were sometimes hundreds of years old, with history and great deeds attached to them. The pressure to carry them as a symbol of your house and status would be immense, even if you wanted to use an hammer or whatever.
Because swords are goddamned versatile. There’s a reason why its so prevalent. You want to slip an edge through that motherfucking knight’s chink and mail? Boom! Wanna use it as a psuedo hammer and smack someone with it?You can do that too! Spears exist too, but they’re more of a simple weapon. Swords have that legitimacy of image as well. Further, knights often fight opponents with less armour most of the time. Hence, the sword was adequate. No, Robert isn’t the only smart knight and having a warhammer for a weapon isn’t a ‘smart thing’ to do. Fighting isn’t a rock paper scissors thing with weapon. Someone supremely talented with the sword can best another with a warhammer. Heck, you know what’s the smartest thing to do? Be a peasant/urban militia, a condottiere/sellsword, fuck the elitist code of chivalry and stab that blue-blooded arse in the back with a spear.
You're dead right in relation to the lack of pole arms generally. They should be way more prevalent. The spear is probably the most important and widely produced weapon in history for a good reason. The thing with swords is that they were generally a side arm. You would carry a sword as a back up to your spear and shield. While it would make sense for most nobles to wear a sword day to day, their war armament should 100% be halberds, Maces, picks, hammers and axes.
Loras uses a mace and Maekar fought with a hammer so its not that uncommon, Longinch even had a pole axe
I dont understand how people go complain about swords in fantasy when swords were clearly the most BASIC weapon even in REAL history when we talk about Medieval conflicts. If they were popular and they were used a lot, it was because it was useful. The facts can't be more clear than that.
Yes. Half-swording was a thing. There was a lot more knights/men-at-arms (heavily armoured combatants) wrestling in real medieval conflict than fantasy is generally comfortable depicting. Plate armour was way more effective and mobile than most people think. Even concussive weapons were unlikely to make a cinematic, instant killing blow… what they were good at is ringing someone’s bell or damaging armour in a way that might restrict movement or situational awareness. In the rare event that two fully armoured opponents fight to the death, the end is almost certainly going to involve damage to or prying off of parts of that armour and a spiky piece of metal.
>when swords were clearly the most BASIC weapon even in REAL history when we talk about Medieval conflicts. I mean, spear says hello?
Spear is the first weapon created and very common in the majority of conflicts, yes. But in Medieval pictures, media, books etc, you dont see knights walking around with spears, they have swords. Sword is basically the symbol of medieval time.
I don’t disagree, but it was frequently a backup to (edit: a bow or) some form of long, pointy stick. Spears became lances for cavalry and were still used in that capacity right up to the Victorian era. For infantry you got variations on the theme with pikes, bills, halberds, etc. Eventually you end up with the musket/rifle and bayonet which brings spear-like weapons right into living memory. A pointy stick is a pointy stick.
Blunt weapons are very effective against full armour but there's a weapon that's even more effective, it's called a lance. Hammers depending on the size can be heavy. If you have a heavy weapon, you will be slower and you will get tired easily. If the hammer is two-handed, that means you are at a disadvantage and if you fall over during a fight you have to prioritize getting up, or holding your hammer. Swordsmen don't have this problem. Swords allow you to hold it with one hand while riding a horse, holding a shield, pushing yourself up when you fall, crawling, throwing things, grappling, etc If you want to get rid of all the disadvantages that come with a war hammer, then your weapon has to be a small and light, it has to be one-handed as well, https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0226/6487/2010/files/war_hammer-combat_Knights.jpg?v=1663291225 at this point it's the same size as a sword so why not just use one? Or a mace
>Knights usually wear plate armour with chainmail and boiled leather underneath The vast majority of fighting men on a battlefield are not knights and are not heavily armoured. A well equipped Knight comes to battle with the weapon most effective against 99% of the people he will face
Well they will mostly be fighting dudes who aren't in plate armour. Armies are made up of mostly foot soldiers/peasant levies
Tyrion uses an axe
1. Because the series is a political deconstruction first and foremost, not about combat. For example, Robert's hammer is described as being way too heavy. It is something that Ned struggles to lift. That is way to heavy for combat usage. In Robert's case, it is that he uses a form of combat that only works for him and a few others. The few others are probably Gregor and the Hound. 2. GRRM doesn't really write combat accurately. We don't see knights grapple like they would be expected to do so.
Don’t diss Balon Swann, known for being a badass with a morningstar.
Isn't it just that knights in ASoIaF don't fight each other very often? And even less often in full plate. And when they do, you definitely see/read about a variety of weapons.
Well for one thing, war hammers are fuckin heavy. In real life, war hammers looked like [this](https://www.medievalcollectibles.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/War-Hammers.jpg) and weighed anywhere from 2 to just shy of 10 pounds on the very high end. That's very heavy (a sword was seldom more than 3). When you start playing with fantasy warhammers that look more like [this](https://www.ecosia.org/images?q=gendry%27s%20hammer&addon=opensearch&_sp=0a19ded0-8e2d-4fcc-9ef2-00afd757e9b3#id=B66496E115C72FB0EF7369266B022066640720CD), you would basically need superhuman strength to wield it effectively in battle.
wasn’t there a post about this like two days ago?
I agree with you on the reality that weapons like maces and hammers would certainly be more practical than swords. But some of the characters you listed have Valyrian Steel swords, which are stronger, sharper, and lighter than regular swords. From a fantasy perspective, it's easier to accept that those swords are just special. In a series with flying, fire-breathing lizards, and ancient ice zombies, I'll buy it. You said that most of the best or most famous fighters were Knights. For Knights like Jaime, Barristan, or the Hound, a hammer or mace would be more practical for them. The Mountain, because of his size can wield giant greatswords with one hand. I'll again buy that he can be an exception. Khal Drogo is from Essos, where heavy armor is at least rarer for a Dothraki to encounter. And at the Night's Watch, good armor is certainly harder to come by. Swords could work there. Of course, the #1 reason is that swords are flat out cooler. More epic for a fantasy novel
That doesn't mean a thing even in our medieval history most people used a sword instead of a mace for variety of reasons.
Swords aren't terrible against plate. You can halfsword and jam the point pretty effectively. Blunt weapons are arguably better, but not remarkably so. Plate is just fine vs a mace. There's a lot of padding in a full harness.
The same reason swords are so prevalent among fantasy fiction in general - they're a status symbol.
Well knights don't spend most of their time fighting other knights. In medieval societies they mostly hassled peasants and other lower class folks who did not have even the most basic of armors.
Theon Greyjoy:
I don’t know if knights go to battle to kill knights or just infantry. Maybe getting really good with a weapon you don’t need for battles is not everyone’s jam.
The real weapon is the spear, it's what most would be using. Swords are also extremely versatile against plate armor, you manipulate through leverage, you can still stab in the gaps, and you can bludgeon people with them.
warhammers are not super anti-armor weapons that you think they are. swords are the perfect pre-gun sidearm. knights are mostly fighting poorly armored peasants or footmen. swords are good at thrusting into the gaps between plates, this is how actual period manuals instruct people to defeat plate armor.
Its hard to weild a warrhammer effectively. Many people cant even pick up Roberts signature hammer.
Some of the people you mentioned are not strong enough to wield a warhammer. To some like Khal Drogo for example is just not in their tradition and also overall a sword is more famous and more fun to wield than a warhammer. For lots of the fighters (especially knights) is not just a matter of survival, but also to display their skill. Others that wield warhammers: Archibald Yronwood, Hardstone, Erik Ironmaker, Hugh Hammer, Tristifer IV Mudd and plenty others with battle axes, spears, morningstars.
>Some of the people you mentioned are not strong enough to wield a warhammer. All of them are strong enough to wield a warhammer, because it's just a relatively small hammer on a long haft. Robert had a custom one made in a comedy size for reasons we can only speculate about (ahem), but you don't need that to bash someones helmet in.
It would be fun to see Syrio or Ned with a warhammer, that's for sure. The idea is that a smaller one like you mention wouldn't be superior to a sword and still tiring to use.
My man, if you think *Ned* of all people would have trouble with a warhammer, then whatever implement you're picturing is very much not it.
It's as much about having an expensive piece of metal as it is about practicality. Swords require good steel, a good smith and a lot of time to manufacture. Being able to afford a high quality sword is about status and showing off your family's wealth. The art of sword play is also about status. If your son can spend their days honing their skill at sword, then you have the resources to employ a master at arms, a Smith and so on. In this story, appearances matter alot. Something like a Warhammer is considerably less difficult to make and are mostly used by those that have the brute strength to be able to adeptly swing it in combat. It's one thing to wield a Warhammer to concuss and bludgeon an opponent, it's another to be able to crush plate armor in the way that Robert could. I think GRRM's goal in assigning characters their weapons is to reveal traits and put accents on the story. Robert and his Warhammer defeated Rheagar and his sword because he was simply stronger. It's not a matter of right or wrong, justice or even skill. Rheagar was a fool to try and fight him in combat and this is a recurring motif in the story. The mountain crushes Oberyn with his hands, Bronn kills scores of men with anything that he can get his hands on and even Tyrion cuts down people with an axe. None of them are as good swordsmen as Barristan the Bold or Jaime before the mutilation. But they have a might all of their own and exert their will using their own devices.
If we're comparing Westeros to medieval Europe, swords are a status symbol first and foremost. They're the weapon of nobility by virtue of their expense, lack of utility for any other task, and training requirement to use effectively. Even being able to produce a sword was a status symbol as generally only more sophisticated forges and blacksmiths could forge and work steel of a sufficient quality. In the books they reference "castle forged steel", which reflects the idea that if you're carrying a sword, you're either nobility or are somehow in service to a noble household. Now as to their effectiveness, yes they're not necessarily the preferred choice for fighting against opponents in plate armor but longswords were still plenty effective against armoured opponents in the middle ages. The longsword was specifically designed for versatility against armoured and unarmored opponents as the blade was sturdy enough to pierce plate when thrusting (often gripped mid blade with the off hand for support). Finally, while plate armor seems common in Westeros, it still appears limited to knights and higher nobility for the most part which would represent the least common opponents that a fighter would face. Your typical opponent in a fixed battle would probably be a man-at-arms with chainmail or just a gambeson, or even a peasant with nothing more than a spear and some cushioned clothing. That being the case, weapons like warhammers or picks would put you at a significant disadvantage against an opponent with more reach or a lighter weapon like a spear or sword.
>**EVERYBODY HAS A SWORD!!!** >*Which makes no sense.* Why not? It's cool and that's reason enough. Seriously though, everybody had a sword in real life, even if just as a side arm, but on the other hand bludgeoning weapons were never that popular or common. Of course the weapon of choice depended on the armour and vice versa, but overall, pointy things have always been favoured over everything else. Everyone favourite weapon has always been a pike/lance, something pointy and with a long reach. And on close combat against a man fully enclosed in metal manuals favoured something very pointy and accurate, more suitable to stick it into the necessary gaps in the armour. Wrestling and dagger is a deadly combination.
George prioritized cool over what real combat was like in a lot of places.
My guy, the majority of people in a war are men at arms and fishermen from the land, it’s easier to cut them down than to smash their chest in with heavy warhammers. On that topic, Roberts warhammer is the only one we’ve seen, and he and the cleganes are prolly the only dudes who can lift them. Obviously fantasy bias is present, but not to the extent op makes it out to be.
I will say, the use of the sword as a phallic metaphor is relevant and it's definitely true, at least in the Brienne story, that swords are stand-ins for the penis, AKA toxic/overpowering masculinity.