Knightly Weapons

[Gurkhal]

Short question from me. What kind of weapons do you think are thematically and economically suited for a knight to wield in battle?

The reason I ask this is that I have become a little sour over the lack of ready-made NPC archetypes in the officiall books and have started to make a NPC Gallery and I was thinking about what spread of weapons one could expect a knight to wield?

So far they use, in addition to a War Lance for everyone except the Hedge Knight, I have:
Longsword
Bastard Sword
Morningstar
Battleaxe

Any other weapon that you have used in your games with good effect?

[Flagg]

The war hammer was used by armored cavalry in the late middle ages.

[Zorbeltuss]

But the ASOIAF warhammer is nothing like the RL warhammer.

Longsword is generally the best non-lance weapon given how the system is built.

[superbat_99]

I would also add polearms. Halberd and poleaxe were often used by knights when not horsed.

[Flagg]

But the ASOIAF warhammer is nothing like the RL warhammer.

How so?

[Zorbeltuss]

By being two-handed. RL warhammer typically wasn't.

Picture the hammer you use to hit nails with. Then imagine a slightly beefed up version, and that's about it.

[Flagg]

RL war hammers ranged from what you describe, up to hammers with 7-8 foot shafts, and everything in between.

[SerJerk]

RL war hammers ranged from what you describe, up to hammers with 7-8 foot shafts, and everything in between.

True, but the 5'+ warhammers weren't wielded from horseback. Generally I don't believe any non-ranged two-handed weapons were used from horseback. I'm guessing this is also why greatsword wasn't included, though either one would be fine on foot.

[DaimosofRedstone]

Two-handed weapons are generally bad choices when mounted, because if you swing them with full force they are much more likely to unhorse you than your opponent.
You are also not as mobile on a horse when it comes to fencing as you are on foot, another reason the relative immobility of two-handed weapons is much more pronounced there.

[stew31r]

Actually, in the GOT edition rule book equipment chapter, it states that a warhammer is a hammer head on a three foot haft, while Robert Barathoen's warhammer is actually a specially crafted maul. So the warhammer is the historical version, a one handed weapon that can quite easily be used on horseback, while a maul is a two handed weapon that would be impossible, or at least very nearly impossible, to wield from horseback, as it is basically a sledgehammer.

[stew31r]

Mace would be another knightly weapon, they were often carried at the saddle in some manner as a backup weapon. Some used them as their primary weapon as well, both mounted and afoot. Ball and chain, historically called a flail, is another weapon that knights often carried as a secondary weapon. Neither one is what you would call an elegant weapon, but they were devastating in trained hands, so they were very common.

[SerJerk]

Actually, in the GOT edition rule book equipment chapter, it states that a warhammer is a hammer head on a three foot haft, while Robert Barathoen's warhammer is actually a specially crafted maul. So the warhammer is the historical version, a one handed weapon that can quite easily be used on horseback, while a maul is a two handed weapon that would be impossible, or at least very nearly impossible, to wield from horseback, as it is basically a sledgehammer.

Good point, hadn't even seen the Maul entry that mentioned Robert's warhammer... however, according to the RAW, both a Maul and a Warhammer are two-handed weapons. So either way, neither would be something that's comfortably wielded from horseback.

Of course, as neither are Unwieldly, there's nothing stopping a knight from using them while mounted.

[Gurkhal]

Thanks for all the replies guys, its been very useful to them and get some additional perspectives on stuff.

Anyway, from this I have drawn that the weapons a knight may used have been restricted down to the following list.

Battleaxe
Morningstar
Mace (probably a poor knight's weapon)
Ball and Chain
Longsword
Bastard Sword

I've decided against both polearms and two-handed weapons for the normal knights with the regard that knight in Westeros seems to fight more or less exclusively mounted. I remeber for example Meribald, I think or the Elder Brother, saying that at the Battle of the Trident he was most concenred with finding a new horse when the old died because he couldn't afford a new one and he couldn't be a knight without a horse.

Therefor I feel that unless the knight has the massive trait, which I will probably make an archetype for, polearms and two-handed weapons don't seem to be weapons that a knight would normally carry into battle in Westeros.

Thank you

[Flagg]

We have plenty of examples of knights fighting on foot from the books. In fact, most of the fights described in detail are on foot. Even tourneys prominently feature a melee.

I think, however, that when most lords are interested in fielding knights in battle, they want cavalry. Peasants can fight on foot for much less coin.

[DaimosofRedstone]

I remeber for example Meribald, I think or the Elder Brother, saying that at the Battle of the Trident he was most concenred with finding a new horse when the old died because he couldn't afford a new one and he couldn't be a knight without a horse.

I think that is more of a status thing than anything else (and might as well be a logical fallacy: A man is not a soldier without a weapon, but a soldier is quite capable of killing without a weapon).
A man without a horse is not a knight but a brigand or a hired sword.
At the very least it casts aspersion upon his prowess and status, at worst it loses him said status because nobody is willing to afford it to him anymore.
Since Meribald is decidedly on the lower end of the knightly status it is much more likely that HE cannot be a knight without a horse (because the stereotypical knightly make-up of horse + armor + weapons is all that divides him from broken men or bandits) that knights cannot be knights without horses.

[Paedrig]

In reality it was sometimes really difficult to convince knights to fight unhorsed. The english were a little bit more flexible (and even the french knights learned it) but it was seen as not so honorable.
But this did not mean that knights could not have a greatsword, halberd ore pole-arm as some sort of 'secondary' weapon for this moments when they had to fight unhorsed.
Especially against heavy armored opponents it might be wise to use a weapon with a little bit more punch...
Or to hack your way through a mass of enemy soldiers...

But i think the knight on a horse (with lance and sword) is still the ideal of the stories of Westeros (also axes/morningstars/maces/crow picks) might be also very common...

[Flagg]

I believe that bludgeoning weapons gained popularity for knights in the later middle ages, when armors became good enough that swords weren't very effective anymore, and sheer concussive force was needed.

[DaimosofRedstone]

Though at the same time thrust swords were invented which could defeat said armor.

[ceranko]

Knights equipment
Longsword, Dagger,Sharp knife for skinning game and eating, Spear or lance, Shield, Secondary weapon: Warhammer, seax like a shortsword or mace depending on preference, but battle axes were handy for chopping wood as well. A knight may carry a bow for hunting or a boar spear or fishing pole . Helm, Flint and steel, whetstone, Warhorse, and riding horse; knights didn't ride their warhorses normally, pony for carrying gear blanket or bedroll, weapon harness, tabard, armor, oil, bag of sand for scouring armor or barrell, wineskin, Tent if he was lucky or pavillion, various garments for wearing your armor, Boots, hooded cloak, gloves, rags, wineskin. usually if a knight had aides or squires they would do the hunting and taking care of the knights gear.

[ceranko]

Warhammers were great for causing blunt damage and if you turned it over to the hooked side it was great for piercing through helms. A Mace is also effective for crushing. It would all depend on the knight himself. Morningstars and Flails are unwieldly and can get tangled up in armor or caught by the chain in the enemies weapon. A cloak could be deadly as well. Many knights at Agincourt were caught in their cloaks due to the mud and tripped getting trampled in the battle and drowned in mud in the press. Halbreds, glaives and pikes were used by footsoldiers to kill horsemen or grab them off their mounts or to hook their feet and unbalance them so they could be killed at weak points.

[Kajani]

I wonder if many knights maybe have also a stiletto - such weapons were, if I am correct, not uncommon to finish of an enemy which was already brought to the ground. I think the crowbill the kind of warhammer many riders will use (although with his damage from -1 athletic he seems not very effective).

[Paedrig]

Flagg

As far as i know bludgeoning weapons were always in use because they were terrible effective (there were even some attempts to forbade such weapons because of this - but to no use). Certainly the fighting system of our RPG did not reflect this very good.
But the sword (which is i. m. o. the best weapon in the system) is of course much more than a weapon effective or not - its a symbol of power, knighthood and knightly virtues...

And you are also right in this way that in the late medieval times also two handed bludgeon weapons came in wide use for knighty and other heavy armored fighters, because the shield was more and more seen as useless, the traditional attack with the lance became more and more uncommen (remember - the use of longbows etc.) and the armors were such effective that two handed hammers and pole arms were more common around the knights which fought more often unhorsed anyway.

But at least as the fighting system of Fire and Ice goes, the combination of sword and shield (especially great shield) is i. m. o. still the best combination

[stew31r]

While I disagree with the RAW description of a warhammer that has a three foot haft being a two handed weapon, having swung one that long quite easily with one hand(it's all about the balance of the weapon!) I would agree that per the rules, a warhammer would be ruled out as a horseman's weapon and would more likely be a back up kept at the belt encase of being unhorsed.