...and I accidentally the whole thing

Father_Jack: now that im nuts deep int he Game of thrones books /series, ive been thinking more about mideveal combat more than in recent years and i have really wondered... what would be the various advantages disadvantages of a sword vs. battleaxe vs. heavy hammer/mace type weapon?

IIRC, the sword required a considerable amount of training to use properly in combat. Axes were much more familiar to the average male, and were therefore easier to use as weapons. There's a book whose name escapes me which said many "knights" during the high middle ages preferred the axe to the sword because of the greater weight of blow which could be delivered. Axes were also eaasier to make, being largely flattened hunks of iron with steel edges, as opposed to the higher-steel-content swords.

Blunt instruments were even easier to make and use than axes, and had the advantage of causing grievous injury even through mail.

clearly, each weapon system had their place on the battlefield or they wouldnvtve been used for so long, but was it a question of utility? or just cost? (would imagine a sword would be the most expensive...but maybe not)

A good sword probably cost as much as a good horse during most of the medieval period. The cost rose considerably as smiths grew more skilled at making and tempering steel. Swords from India and the near East were particularly sought after (and correspondingly more expensive) because of their higher-quality steel- until near the end of the European Middle Ages, when European swordsmiths started turning out high-quality all-steel blades.

what would be the situation where you want an axe over a sword, or a hammer over a sword? (besides of course being Robert Baratheon smiting Targaryens on the River Trident)

Swords are generally lighter than either axes or blunt weapons such as maces or flails, and therefore allowed a warrior to carry more kit- especially armor, and most especially a shield. Also, the sword had for so long been so expensive that only the very wealthy could afford them that they had a social status attached to them. Note that medieval Japan is most renowned for the katana, but most samurai used spears in battles. Axes are easier for a warrior to learn and use, but are less ... nimble than most swords, and generally required two hands to use (reducing the usefulness of a shield. Ditto for war hammers, which were more like sledgehammers than the stunted weapon shown in Thor comics.

Several blunt weapons were downsized to be usable by a mounted warrior, including axes, hammers, and flails. This was generally later in the European Middle Ages, and would have been unusable without the advent of stirrups. The medieval flail was developed from a peasant's threshing tool. It originally consisted of a long staff connected to a large bundle of hardwood by a pair of iron rings. Aside from threshing grain, it was particularly good at knocking armored men off their horses. The mace-and-chain shown by other posters is an example of a flail downsized for use on horseback.

Wenchmaster: A good sword probably cost as much as a good horse during most of the medieval period.

Not really. I assure you the horse was much more expensive. A sword was about 2 month's wages for a laborer, a horse was more like 1 year's worth. A suit of munitions grade plate would be around 6 month's worth.

Wenchmaster: especially armor, and most especially a shield.

Close. Shields went out of favor with professional warriors (aka guys that could afford armour and a sword) because you needed both hands on the sword to defeat the armour. It was the original arms race. However, the weight difference between a war hammer and a sword isn't that much. 2 pounds isn't anything in the long run, especially when you've been running in a 45# suit of steel for 8 hours.

Wenchmaster: Aside from threshing grain, it was particularly good at knocking armored men off their horses.

Not so much. Hooking a man out of a saddle with the hook on a polearm is one thing, but a flail lacks the mass, even when swung to dislodge ~220 lbs. of man and gear from a high cantled saddle. Physics doesn't support a 7 pound weapon doing that short of wrapping a limb, which isn't likely because of how short the chain/hinge on most flails is.

I always thought that morning star referred to a specific type of spiked head, so that either a mace or a flail could be a morning star, depending on the shape of the head.

CapnBlues:

I'm not any kind of expert, but a sword has the benefit of a high ratio of weight to cutting edge, plus reach and versatility. You stick them with the pointy end, right? but you can also chop them with the pointy end. and if any part of that edge hits unprotected skin, you're going to do some damage.

Yeah, but you may need to have some of that un- or lightly- protected skin around for it to be useful. Outside of a falchion, which is effectively more like an axe, one-handed swords don't do too much against good armor. Even an axe, if one-handed, needs a very good hit to penetrate.

Hence the value of the polearm and longbow, eh? I don't know my military history -- did your typical foot soldier have maille?

Depends enormously on where and when you have your army. Generally, the closer you are to being a large state army like those of the Romans and Chinese, the more likely you are to see good body armor on a foot soldier.

Skyrmion: I always thought that morning star referred to a specific type of spiked head, so that either a mace or a flail could be a morning star, depending on the shape of the head.

Technically it's only a morning star if it doesn't have a chain/hinge. If it has a chain it's a flail or spiked flail.

/typology may vary by who is cataloging the weapons
//all rights reserved

knightofargh: CapnBlues: unless, Quantity has a quality all it's own.

Zerg rush: older than you think. Or perhaps it was the first real tactic.

knightofargh: Not really. I assure you the horse was much more expensive. A sword was about 2 month's wages for a laborer, a horse was more like 1 year's worth. A suit of munitions grade plate would be around 6 month's worth.

Toward the end of the medieval period in Europe, I agree. That said, outside Europe, swords were too expensive for any but the wealthy landed gentry.

Close. Shields went out of favor with professional warriors (aka guys that could afford armour and a sword) because you needed both hands on the sword to defeat the armour. It was the original arms race. However, the weight difference between a war hammer and a sword isn't that much. 2 pounds isn't anything in the long run, especially when you've been running in a 45# suit of steel for 8 hours.

Shields were still in use by mounted warriors until the end of the European middle ages. Men on horseback rarely used 2-handed weapons in medieval Europe. Smaller, lighter versions of infantry weapons were developed for one-handed use by knights/cavalry. A properly made sword was less tiring than a warhammer due to weight distribution- the center of balance on a sword is generally near the center of the weapon, where an axe or mace has most of the weight at the far end.

Not so much. Hooking a man out of a saddle with the hook on a polearm is one thing, but a flail lacks the mass, even when swung to dislodge ~220 lbs. of man and gear from a high cantled saddle. Physics doesn't support a 7 pound weapon doing that short of wrapping a limb, which isn't likely because of how short the chain/hinge on most flails is.

You misunderstood me. The original flail- developed from a peasant's threshing tool- was an infantry weapon. It was a long staff with a large bundle of heavy sticks attached to its far end by two iron rings. The swinging end may or may not have had spikes. This weapon was unlikely to seriously injure someone in plate armor, but was quite likely to knock an armored man from his horse. What you are describing is the weapon developed for one-handed use from the original threshing tool. Check out these images. The first pic is the later development. You can see a couple of staff-type flails in the other pictures. There's also a wikipedia entry with a diagram for reference.

Actually, sword prices dropped continuously from the Migration period through to the Medieval era as iron and steel production increased. By the 14th century the price had dropped so that the sword was basically about a week's wages for any professional soldier, noble or not. Of course, there were high-end and lower grade swords- and ornamentation would of course be dependant on what the buyer was prepared to pay- but sword blade production was no longer one-off masterworks but a matter of large scale production in various centres in the Rhineland, Spain or Milan.
In a list of stolen goods from a household in 1324 are "war swords" costing 3s 4d, or 40 pence. This was about 3 weeks wages for an infantry soldier or just a few days for a mounted man-at-arms, iirc.