The relationship between weaponry and armour in medieval Europe was not one of dominance by either side, but of constant adaptation. As offensive technologies advanced, so too did methods of protection, creating a cycle that defined the evolution of arms and armour from the early Middle Ages to the dawn of gunpowder warfare. This arms race was driven by innovation, necessity, and the brutal clarity of the battlefield.
The Age of the Sword and Shield
In the early medieval period, the typical warrior was armed with a sword and shield, protected by a simple mail hauberk and iron helmet. The sword was often a broad, double-edged weapon designed to cut rather than thrust. Shields, often made of wood with a metal boss, were large and crucial to survival in melee combat.
Mail, or chainmail, offered reasonable protection against cuts and was valued for its flexibility. However, it had clear limitations. As one 12th-century chronicler observed,
“The mail defends against the blow but not the force of the blow.”
Heavy strikes from axes or maces could cause internal injuries even without breaking the mail. As a result, attackers sought weapons that could overcome or bypass such defences.
The Rise of Blunt Weapons and the Problem of Mail
The proliferation of mail prompted a turn towards impact weapons. Maces, war hammers, and flanged axes became more common. These could crush bones through armour or exploit weak points in the mail’s coverage. As warfare became more professional and better funded, smiths refined their designs.
By the 13th century, knights were increasingly equipped with more comprehensive armour. Surcoats and gambesons provided additional padding, and the coif and chausses extended mail protection to the head and legs. The move to full-body mail coverage was costly, but it was a direct response to the lethality of new offensive tools.
Plate Armour and the Weapon Response
The real transformation came in the late 13th and 14th centuries with the introduction of plate elements. First used to reinforce vulnerable areas, plate slowly evolved into full suits of articulated armour. By the time of the Hundred Years’ War, elite knights wore near-complete plate coverage.
This shift rendered traditional cutting swords far less effective. As a result, weapons evolved to meet the challenge. The longsword became more tapered, capable of delivering powerful thrusts aimed at gaps in the armour. The estoc, a blade specifically designed for piercing mail and plate, emerged as a specialised weapon for armoured duels.
Polearms, particularly the poleaxe and the bec de corbin, became battlefield staples. These combined the functions of hammer, spike, and hook in one weapon, ideal for dismounting and dispatching armoured opponents.
As an Italian fencing manual from the late 14th century put it,
“Against the armoured man, strike not as against flesh but seek the joints and the gaps.”
Shields Fade, Mobility Rises
With the body itself increasingly encased in metal, the reliance on shields diminished among heavily armoured troops. A knight in full plate could deflect most blows, and carrying a shield often limited offensive capability. Infantry retained shields for longer, especially those fighting in looser formations or defending positions, but the trend was clear.
Armourers refined designs not only for protection but also for agility. Articulation around the joints, greaves and gauntlets, and fluted surfaces to deflect strikes became common by the 15th century. The sallet helmet with bevor and the Milanese or Gothic plate styles represented the peak of pre-gunpowder armour engineering.
Gunpowder Changes the Balance
Firearms began to undermine the arms race in the late 14th and early 15th centuries. Early handgonnes were crude, but even primitive projectiles could penetrate plate at close range. Armourers responded with thicker breastplates, known as proofed armour, and ridged surfaces to deflect bullets. The white harness, favoured in late medieval tournaments and battles alike, often included evidence of ballistic testing.
Yet the arms race now had a different trajectory. Armour could no longer keep pace with firearms indefinitely. It became heavier and more expensive, reducing mobility. Infantry equipped with pikes and firearms increasingly dictated the outcome of battle, pushing knights from the centre to the flanks of European warfare.
The medieval arms race was never a straightforward contest between offence and defence. It was a dynamic process shaped by changing tactics, available materials, and battlefield experience. Each new weapon provoked a defensive innovation, and each defensive leap prompted a fresh challenge. As one German armourer wrote in the 15th century,
“There is no fortress so strong that the hammer cannot find its weakness.”
In understanding this cycle, we gain a clearer picture not just of the weapons themselves, but of the societies that forged them. The arms race was not merely about survival. It was about adaptation, mastery, and the ever-shifting balance of power between man and steel.
How swords evolved to counter armour innovations
1. Viking Sword (c. 8th–11th century)
Example: Type X (Oakeshott classification)
These were broad, double-edged swords with wide fullers, optimised for cutting through unarmoured or lightly armoured foes. Most commonly used with round shields and mail shirts.
- Blade length: Approx. 70–80 cm
- Use: Slashing in shield walls or against unarmoured targets
- Context: Before full mail coverage was common, swords of this type were effective in quick, close melee engagements.
2. Arming Sword (High Medieval period, c. 11th–13th century)
Example: Type XII or XIII (Oakeshott)
The arming sword became the standard knightly sidearm, often carried alongside a shield and used in combination with mail hauberks and coifs.
- Blade length: 75–85 cm
- Grip: One-handed
- Use: Primarily cutting, though later variants had improved thrusting ability
- Context: Designed to work against mail-armoured foes in the age before widespread plate armour.
3. Falchion (c. 13th–15th century)
Example: The Conyers Falchion or the Thorpe Falchion
A single-edged, heavy-bladed sword with a forward curve, designed for powerful chopping strikes.
- Blade length: 60–75 cm
- Use: Particularly effective against unarmoured or lightly armoured targets
- Context: Popular among infantry and lower-status soldiers; often used in conjunction with bucklers or small shields.
4. Longsword (Late 13th–15th century)
Example: Type XV or XVIII (Oakeshott), especially in use with German and Italian fencing traditions
A more tapered blade with a cruciform hilt and longer grip, allowing for two-handed use. This sword emerged as a direct answer to the rise of plate armour.
- Blade length: 90–110 cm
- Grip: Hand-and-a-half
- Use: Cutting and thrusting, with techniques like half-swording to target gaps in armour
- Context: Ideal for combat against fully armoured knights, whether on foot or horseback.
5. Estoc (14th–15th century)
Example: Surviving estocs from Burgundy and the Holy Roman Empire
A stiff, narrow, often triangular or square-bladed thrusting sword with no cutting edge, designed specifically to penetrate mail and the gaps in plate.
- Blade length: 100–120 cm
- Grip: Two-handed
- Use: Delivered powerful thrusts at joints and weak spots
- Context: Carried by knights and professional soldiers in the late Middle Ages, often alongside a main-gauche or rondel dagger.
6. Side Sword / Early Rapier (16th century)
Example: Italian side swords found in fencing manuals such as those by Achille Marozzo
Although arriving in the early modern period, the side sword reflected the decline of heavy armour and the rise of lighter, more mobile fencing weapons.
- Blade length: 85–100 cm
- Use: Thrust-focused but still capable of cutting
- Context: Used in civilian duels and battlefield skirmishes, often paired with bucklers or cloaks. Emerged as armour became less practical on the battlefield due to gunpowder.
Each of these sword types was shaped by the armour it had to defeat and the tactics of its time. The shift from cutting to thrusting blades, the development of hand-and-a-half grips, and the rise of pure thrusting swords like the estoc all reflect the growing dominance of mail and later plate. As the battlefield changed, so did the weapons. These were not ornamental evolutions but battlefield necessities, born from centuries of adaptation and response.
