Quote from: Bren;988292I think that depends on which period of knights. I don't think William the Conqueror's men or the knights with Godfrey of Bouillon on the First Crusade used polearms much. Nor (as depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry) did the knights at Hastings all couch their lances. Knightly weapons varied from time to time and place to place.

Certainly knightly weapons varied, but even during those periods spears, lances, and two-handed axes were common primary weapons of war among more well-to-do warriors (e.g., the Bayeux Tapestry shows those weapons being used at Hastings). They might not be very "fancy" or developed pole arms, but I'd still consider them pole arms in a general sense.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;988622Certainly knightly weapons varied, but even during those periods spears, lances, and two-handed axes were common primary weapons of war among more well-to-do warriors (e.g., the Bayeux Tapestry shows those weapons being used at Hastings). They might not be very "fancy" or developed pole arms, but I'd still consider them pole arms in a general sense.

The axes were used by Harold's huscarls who weren't knights. And the spears used by the knights at Hastings (which were not couched and were often wielded with an overhand grip) don't fit the implied definition of a pole arm as a heavier and better armor piercing weapon to a sword.

But rather than quibble about definitions and terminology I will once again point out that weapons used by knights (and other elite warriors) depend on time and place and the notion that knights (or elite warriors in genearl) always and everywhere used pole arms in preference to swords is just wrong.

Along these lines a lot of winding stairs in castles were designed to give right handed people more room to swing a sword  by having the wall on the left wide as you faced down the stairs. This favored the defenders too.

Quote from: Schwartzwald;988673Along these lines a lot of winding stairs in castles were designed to give right handed people more room to swing a sword  by having the wall on the left wide as you faced down the stairs. This favored the defenders too.

And low-height doorways to give the defender the advantage when the attacker had to stoop or duck to enter.

Quote from: Bren;988678And low-height doorways to give the defender the advantage when the attacker had to stoop or duck to enter.

Yep, those medieval designers knew their stuff.

Quote from: Bren;988672The axes were used by Harold's huscarls who weren't knights. And the spears used by the knights at Hastings (which were not couched and were often wielded with an overhand grip) don't fit the implied definition of a pole arm as a heavier and better armor piercing weapon to a sword.

But rather than quibble about definitions and terminology I will once again point out that weapons used by knights (and other elite warriors) depend on time and place and the notion that knights (or elite warriors in genearl) always and everywhere used pole arms in preference to swords is just wrong.

I don't think there's anything to quibble about, actually. I was talking about "well-to-do" warriors, not exclusively knights, so there's no disagreement there (e.g., over huscarls). I also agree the lances used at Hastings were not the (later developed/heavier) couched lances, but they were still lances. I'm probably using a broader definition of "pole arm" than you are (which is why I said "not fancy/developed , but pole arms in a general sense"), but we seem to be in general agreement, in any case. I also agree with you that knights and well-equipped warriors didn't always and everywhere use pole arms in preference to swords. However, I do think that longer weapons (e.g., long spears, large axes, some form of mounted lance, etc) were common primary weapons for such warriors, especially in battle. Swords were certainly used by such warriors, as well. I'm not claiming they weren't, or that they were exclusively side arms.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;988688...but we seem to be in general agreement

Seems like.

Quote from: Schwartzwald;988684Yep, those medieval designers knew their stuff.

Well, the ones that didn't had short careers.

Quote from: Schwartzwald;988673Along these lines a lot of winding stairs in castles were designed to give right handed people more room to swing a sword  by having the wall on the left wide as you faced down the stairs. This favored the defenders too.

I tried to imagine going up those stairs, fighting with sword and shield, while visiting the old tower in Zwerin. My immediate reaction was, to quote myself, "fuck no"!
Then I turned to look at where I'd come from, and decided I want to be the guy defending from the top stairs:D!

Quote from: Tetsubo;988783Well, the ones that didn't had short careers.

Which brings up an interesting question:  A lot of the time, it appears that the humble sword is rather useless compared to the various armour technologies of the time.  And given how awkward it can be to carry the things on a battlefield, which limits it's use as solely as a 'status symbol', why is it so prevalent then?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;988787Which brings up an interesting question:  A lot of the time, it appears that the humble sword is rather useless compared to the various armour technologies of the time.  And given how awkward it can be to carry the things on a battlefield, which limits it's use as solely as a 'status symbol', why is it so prevalent then?

Well, the one-handed sword that appears to be useless is handier to lug around than any alternative side-arm and the big two-hander isn't useless.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;988787Which brings up an interesting question:  A lot of the time, it appears that the humble sword is rather useless compared to the various armour technologies of the time.  And given how awkward it can be to carry the things on a battlefield, which limits it's use as solely as a 'status symbol', why is it so prevalent then?

I am by no means an expert, and I might be mistaking minor reasons for major ones, but I'm pretty sure all of these are real reasons:

• you can use a sword in formation easier (and in tighter formation) than warhammer, axe, mace, pretty much anything except spears.
• swords switch from swinging to stabbing better than most other weapons.
• Their reach-to-weight ratio is very high.
• Using the Greeks and Romans as an example, if your are going to have shields and spears/javelins as a first-clash weapon, it is easier/more comfortable (remember 99% of time in full kit is spent not-fighting) to have a sword on your side as your second weapon than most of the shafted, swingy weapons.
• And predominantly (to my knowledge), you had the 1H swords for use against the 50-99% of the troops on field who were not wearing the heaviest armor of the era (the pikemen, the archers, the skirmishers, maybe the horses). If you were up against one of the heavily armored rich guys, you might try and sword+shield push them over and try to put a dagger/sword-point through their face, or you might run and bring back the mace/Warhammer/bec-de-corbin/lance squad up to take care of them. But often, yes, it was relatively safe to be the guy on the battlefield in heavy armor, and you losing often looked like your soft allies all dead and you surrounded and saying, "whelp. I can't win this on my own. Okay guys, I'm clearly rich. Take me prisoner and ransom me back to my side. Boy will dad be pissed."

A good sword is nicely balanced and quick. Before some point fairly late in the chainmail period, most armor was not proof against swords, and/or not available in head-to-toe, and so swords were effective. Spears still have advantage of length, making groups of spears more formidable than groups of swords because it means more people can reach the enemy at once.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;988787Which brings up an interesting question:  A lot of the time, it appears that the humble sword is rather useless compared to the various armour technologies of the time.  And given how awkward it can be to carry the things on a battlefield, which limits it's use as solely as a 'status symbol', why is it so prevalent then?

A few thoughts:

• Not everyone on the battlefield would be as well-armored as the best-equipped warriors. Hands, arms, and legs were often more vulnerable.
• A sword is a very nimble weapon because of its point of balance (often less fatiguing, as well)
• Swords can still be used against heavy armor, just not in the same manner. Half-swording and murder strikes are a couple examples.
• Swords are relatively easy to carry (when not in the hand), compared to many other weapons of similar size

Quote from: Christopher Brady;988787why is it so prevalent then?

Because...

• Status symbols are very important.
• Humans aren't especially logical or rational.
• Really heavy armor is historically rare or unavailable.
• And lots of people who may need killing to maintain one's status aren't wearing heavy armor.