The Best Medieval & Fantasy Weapons for Thugs, Militias and Rabbles? 

Option a - Give each of them a goedendag Option b - Give each them a bag of 2‐3 fist-sized rocks to throw, a shield, and a stout wooden club with a spike on the end (mini goedendag) they can hang on their belts. Tell them to stay close to each other, gang up on anyone who gets in close and swing for the hands and head, thrust at the face and belly and to run away if they're outnumbered or if they start getting injured and killed. Obtion b especially could, in 15 mins, turn a bunch of useless recruits into something very annoying for even experienced or well-armoured opponents.

One reason for clubs being good for militia, bandits and levies is ease of manufacture. Most smiths can probably pop a lump of metal on a stick. Plus you don't have to worry about edge alignment, just smash them

There's a glorious line in a 1960s Vincent Price movie. "The greatest swordsman in Spain does not fear the second-greatest...but he fears the worst."

Skall argued ages ago that shield and mace would do a decent newbie combination, and I kind of agree with him. The advantages of the shield are as you said, and the mace requires no edge alignment, and it's disadvantages are somewhat compensated by the shield. That said, I guess it depends on what the target is using, and weather a random stab from a short sword has a better chance of doing damage against it than a random mace swing. A stab to an armoured oponed needs to be more precise, whereas a heavy strike will always at least carry the percussive damage, regardless of where it hits.

I think the type of weapon is secondary. A shield should be the first priority.

0:05 Well Matt, it depends on the context...

Excluding a wealth of options in polearms, a bloody big shield with a short hybrid cut/thrust sword But really: polearms

Spears are ideal as they feel safe, and can attack easily without endangering themselves or each other too much But Shield and something stabby sounds ideal [maybe a short spear ...]

If I’m not allowed to give them spears then swords and shields. The romans conquered most of their territory before the reforms of Marius when their soldiers were mostly citizen militia. Swords, shields, and something to throw.

Matt: "what weapons would you give to untrained people, except for spears" Comments: "Give them spears!" le sigh

I think you are forgetting that the "untrained" masses actually had some training that can be converted to military purposes. If my rabble are a bunch of sheep herders who are good at using slings to scare wolves away, I'm gonna make them slingers not spear men. If my rabble are used to swinging an axe for woodcutting or a hammer for smithing, wouldn't they be better off equip with something similar with a shield? If my rabble are used to hunting barefoot in swamps with javelins, maybe they should be javelin throwers who use guerilla tactics. In fact, despite the fact that polearms might prove to be effective in tournament melees, that might only be because people are braver in simulated combat. In a real battle, I can easily imagine a group of peasants with polearms being routed by a group of peasants with shields because they are more afraid of getting hit than the shield wielding ones. Thus the real answer of what the best weapon to equip rabble is "depends on the context"

Context is going to play heavily on what you'd want to arm untrained rabble with - are they disciplined enough to hold formation? is it one-on-one combat? is combat taking place in an enclosed environment? are these untrained rabble mainly just fighting or have they other things to do? If used en masse and able to stay in formation, then spear would be the useful weapon. HOWEVER, if they're not fighting in formation and are instead in a wooded or other cramped environment, then something like a club or mace might actually be a better choice, as edged weapons might get stuck in trees/their surroundings as they wildly flail about with their weapon. If the reason these people are untrained for combat is because they're primarily meant to be operating siege engines, are labourers, or some other non-combat role, then something like a dagger or axe would suffice. Depending on the level of technology, swords may not be feasible as they might be expensive to produce. In fact, generally speaking, swords are always going to be more expensive to produce than most other weapons and so might not be the best use of your money as far as arming untrained rabble who wouldn't know how to use them properly. Also, on an instinctual level, I believe smacking something as if you were olding a big stick comes much more naturally and instinctively than poking it with said stick. As such, assuming your untrained rabble are likely to panic at the drop of a hat, then that might actually count against the spear in favour of a heavy, bludgeoning weapon such as a club.

you had me at rabble... they shall be armed with spear, shield, and a decent stab/slash sword, keep it simple.

I feel like the reason people attribute axes as being easier is (especially in older times) many people were basically trained on the basics of hitting things with them as most would have cut fire wood often. As someone with limited sword fighting experience admittedly I would feel more confident with the balance and handling of a small hatchet I use almost daily to cut fire wood as well as I'm likely to have if handy if the village is being attacked.. that being said I'm sure a sword would be more effective with just the smallest amount of training as well as spears.. I have help properly weighted swords and done some light sparing with friends who have more training and at least at first the weight and balance of the sword felt weird in a way that an axe doesnt.. that being said if my village was being raided give me a spear and shield and maybe I'll slip my axe into my belt.. I guess my point is to say that perhaps the trope has less to do with how actually viable the axe is and more to do with the situation of arming a load of peasants who probably dont have swords sitting in their houses but probably do have small wood cutting axes ready at hand. That the bandit on the road may not be able to afford a sword but instead carries long pole sharpened by the dagger at his hip and a small hatchet he had at his house.

I've always thought that when we're talking smaller weapons like maces, they have the advantage that you don't need to align the edge when you swing and can therefore be handled more effectively with minimal training than a sword - a newbie might also be less likely to injure themselves with it, and less likely to damage it with poor technique given its heavier construction and lack of a cutting edge. I think this is why such weapons are often considered "simple" rather than "martial" weapons when it comes to video games and certain popular tabletop role playing games.

I'd look at transferable skills. What weapon do we have in stock that closely resembles (in use and not just appearance) the tool that they work with in day to day life? Pitchfork? -> Spear (pitchfork essentially being a two-pronged spear) Scythe? -> Spear (war scythe for thematic flavour) Flail? -> Uh... Flail (finally an option that isn't a spear) Hammer? -> War Pick/War Hammer Been given a single handed weapon? Pick up a shield. All the cool kids have one; the other idiots got done in with flaming arrows (I'm taking a jab at film and games here.) With how many weapons that appear to be modified tools, it looks like medieval people had a similar idea.

If modern African history has taught us anything, it's that the machete is effective in the hands of even a moderately developed child.

Hmm you have in several earlier videos pointed out that most humans have a tendency to hit/ cut when under stress so I would suggest a weapon that is good at choping or hitting like a messer

I absolutely agree: to arm a kind of militia the best choice ist to eqip them with a spear, a shield and a shorter kind of sword. It is relativeley cheap and very effectiv. And this is exact the way as it was done in history: from the germanic Heeresaufgebot, Heerbann with most men armed with a shield, one or two light spears (frama, ger etc.) and a short bladed wapon like a sax - to the medieval militias of free towns with the men have been armed for a battle-typ of engagement mostly with a shield, helmet, sometimes breastplate, a spear and a sword. This typ of spear-armed medieval town-militia-men from the towns middle-class (merchands and craftsmen etc.) even created a special term in German: "Spießbürger" (spear-citicen), meaning also, that citicenship is connected to the duty of defending your town - the word is still in use in modern German, today meaning (petit) bourgeois.

Clubs didn't get a mention. They look really simple to make, can even be improvised (table legs, etc.). Ideal for bandits without professional supplies.

We're talking about someone whose skill level is "the pointy end goes in the other guy." So the best weapon is something that fits with that strategy. I think Matt is exactly right. Spears are a good first choice. Second choice should be a short to medium length stabbing sword with a kite shield or heater shield; something reasonably large but not as cumbersome as a scutum, which requires more training to use for longer periods. A gladius, or a kinjal, or a lighter arming sword. Hell, late 1800s sabers might work since they were thrust centric. The main point being that edge alignment is hard. Don't expect a newbie to be good with edge alignment. So give them a pointy thrusty weapon that doesn't care about edge alignment and rely on "hide behind this big piece of wood" for defense. Basically alternate between turtling behind the shield and rapid stabs in the hopes of driving the person back if you don't puncture them. Bludgeoning weapons can also work if they're not too cumbersome, because while they still require a swing there's still no edge alignment issue. That's the main thing to get away from.

my opinion: If you're arming a civilian rabble for civil unrest, clubs will do just fine. If you've got the city's armoury and two hours to arm the populace with anything to throw attackers off the walls, shields and maces- because shields protect against arrows, and there's nothing too difficult about using a one handed bludgeoning weapon. If you've got a week to train them, give the peasants shields and spears and train them to use basic shieldwall/phalanx type tactics. If you somehow have enough mail to armour all those peasants, give them halberds and forget the shields. *It mostly comes down to context*

Spears, shields, any kind of poleweapons on hand, bludgeons (simple to use, no edge alignment to think of and so on, not as much risk of fucking up if you panic).

For rabbles, there is a traditional compliment of weapons: torches and pitchforks.

two big, big shields, and have them turtle up and just ram at the opponent

i think youre casting too large a net with the question, the way i see it there are two permutations of this depending on context. is there someone with money who has to arm a bunch of people who don't know how to fight? spears and shields. sidearms brought from home. is there a bunch of people who have to arm themselves? whatever's handy, fast and cheap to make. axes, spears, big knives, repurposed tools etc. to be later supplemented by whatever the enemy was carrying if it makes sense for the circumstance.

Spears/halberds/bills Or!.....the Godendag!

A Quarterstaff. Just a big long hardened stick. Yes ladies?

If i were to give the different people the weapons I would choose these: The militia: First of you give them spears (simple once, got to save money), for formation fighting no shields, for one on one give them a big shield (so they can easily defend themselves without much training), for a secondary weapon I would give them a Messer or a sword of shorter proportions (to stab the enemy if they make it past the spearhead, the smaller sword should be used both in formation and one on one, the last thing I would give them would be a knife/dagger to finish enemy’s of if they are really close. If the militia is out to capture the enemy I would exchange the sword to a club for the less deadly approach. The thugs: (in a gang fight) If the objective isn’t to be to deadly I would give them a hefty stick/cane for whacking them hard and to incapacitate them so they won’t hit back, if the objective is to kill, then a long knife (for concealment), otherwise if concealment isn’t a problem then swords (maybe the length of a artillery sword or machete). The rabble: If I were to arm a big heap of guys like a mob then long knifes of machetes, if they will be in city’s or non open spaces then no shields, if they are on a battlefield then shields (medium sized ones, maybe a rodela sized one in wood, remember cheep ones are best for arming large bodies of soldiers) maybe give them quarter staffs for a less deadly option.

When we are talking military/militia, I'd say it's an easy choice. Crossbows/ firearm or polearms. Reloading a crossbow/ firearm and shooting it into the right direction at the right elevation in the context of medieval warfare is something that can be drilled within a relatively short time and with a high success rate, by which I mean people become proficient at it and do not get injured during training. And with a crossbow someone with little to no experience can quite easily wound or kill someone he would stand no chance against otherwise. Secondly, spear and shield/ pike/ whatever polearm at the time is being used in tight formations. Again, what to do and how to do it can be drilled to a sufficient level of confidence relatively quickly and the inexperienced newby stands a higher chance of survival. Then, it's most important to divide the noobs into experienced units where they can learn the more interesting things of "how to stay alive" from the veterans. If we are talking rabble/ thugs, it really doesn't matter. Either you talk former military/ mercenary turned thugs, in which case they'll tend to be quite proficient at some sort of weapon they kept after service, or you talk about a group of havenots who see no better way out. In the latter case, I'd expect any agrarian or tradesman tool that can be used as a weapon. That rabble would just try to swarm it's victim and kill them any way they could.

Before video prediction: some type of Spear possibly a bladed spear like a short halberg. I think a Gerber Bushman on a pole is a pretty fantastic budget weapon.

the issue with whippy swords is the guy on your side standing next to you- more friendly fire wounds where I dont see them happening with the larger weapons like the dane axe. With three rows of fighters attackers could face a constant wave of down swings as each row advances and retreats during and after the "Chop" the next fighters axe defending the retreat of the one who just swung. that type of coordination is easy to train and drill. In my opinion.

I feel like the axe hype comes from the idea that there might be some carryover from woodchopping axes towards fighting axes. If true that would make axes more useful for such beginners. But I am not sure if that is real. Otherwise my bet is on relatively short swords, like a gladius or messer. Especially when paired with a shield.

Based on Bannerlord: Rocks and pebbles. Damn, those are nasty xD

Simple bludgeoning weapons like a club offer several advantages for a militia: 1. Cheap and quick to make. It doesn't make sense to waste expensive equipment on your greenest troops. 2. No need for precision, and thus minimal need for weapons training. A solid hit with a club will cause significant pain, if not broken bones, anywhere on the body, even if the opponent is wearing flexible armor such as mail or gambeson. If the opponent has solid plate armor, it begs the question of why one would send militia to fight fully trained and equipped men at arms in the first place, as defeat would be very likely irregardless. 3. A club can be paired with a simple wooden shield to greatly increase a mook's survivability for the price of a few boards of wood. 4. A club works just fine in a chaotic melee, as opposed to spears or polearms, which work better in formation. If your troops aren't the most disciplined and well-trained lot in the realm, then it might be pushing your luck to equip them in such away that depends on them sticking together to be effective. 5. A relatively rounded bludgeoning weapon such as a club, mace or staff, does not need to be angled correctly in order to inflict maximum damage, again reducing the mount of training needed to be used effectively. That's not to say that I think a militia or mob equipped with clubs would be more effective than a militia equipped with and trained to use spears or polearms, but in a pinch it could be a reasonably effective weapon in the hands of a mob of combatants with little to no combat experience or training.

Oh my God! I've made two comments while watching a video - and Mr. Easton has come with the same comments afterwards. I'm really excited!!!

I know that spears have been excluded from this, but I wanted to point out an interesting historical precedent for rabbles being given two-handed spears: I once read somewhere that Scotland in the late Medieval period had to rely heavily on a "common army" made up entirely of quickly-recruited and often lowly-trained (if trained at all) peasants. The common army were given two-handed spears and told to stand in Schiltrons. So, if Scotland's a good example, two-handed spears would be the best choice.

A shield and a helmet, then everyone grabs whatever **sword** they like.

Any light cut-and-thrust polearm: a light glaive (basically a stout chef knife blade attached at the end of a shaft), a short oxtongue, a Chinese Ji, a Japanese Kamayari, etc... so a spear with benefits.

When equipping my peasant mobs, I have found it beneficial to choose weapons closest to the tools which said peasants are most familiar. Spears, picks, and handaxes seem to be most effective, particularly in combination with a shield.

I am a averagely strong man, but I have relatively weak wrists. Heavy-feeling weapons like axes and clubs - and I've handled heavy hatchets and plastic batons and tonfas - are bad for me, at least one handed, because it's very hard for me to swing them with any useful speed. I have no such problem with one-handed swords - although I've only handled plastic wasters and steel wall-hangers.

Spear, small hatchets as a back ups... ou yeah-big shields. Just make a shield wall of peasants-boost to defense, moral and basically more pointy ends towards enemies.... P.s-what about flails? Noobie will just wield this all ‘round and prbbly hit someone(luckily if that will be the opponent...)

Quarterstaves, clubs, and daggers. Clubs and daggers can be easily concealed by your thugs, and quarterstaves hold similar advantage to spears while being a bit more inconspicuous. Also, these weapons are probably more useful in chaotic and close-quarters than spears, like an alleyway or tavern, especially with men without military training.

Axes in a Medieval setting made sense because everyone knew how to use axes as tools for chopping up wood, so they started with a decent amount of muscle memory, skill and strength. This way the little training they will get will focus on keeping up a formation and fighting. Axes are also cheaper weapons and it makes sense that only the really talented and experienced warriors would get the expensive weapons. The arguments make sense from a modern day HEMA practitioner perspective since the average guy, doesn't have to chop wood every day to cook his food and heat his house.

History has already given the answer: AK-47

Goedendags (of various lengths) is pretty good I think, can thrust, can bludgeon, no edge alignment to worry about, cheap to manufacture, relatively quick (compared to axes, maces and warhammers) and good reach (even one handed ones, especially compared to maces/warhammers/picks) , and the one handed ones can be used with a shield. And also a side note, does holding a buckler of sorts ( or maybe some simplified version of a gauntlet) in the lead hand when using a polearm mitigate the vulnerability of it?

Pop culture and entertainment needs to do more Sword & Buckler Too many characters don't use their shields because they hide the actors, but bucklers not only solve that, but also are just as dynamic while being historically accurate

It’s complicated by the fact that inexperienced people are probably already fairly familiar with how an axe handles. I’m sort of thinking about Stone Age level people suddenly given access to medieval weapons, I think they’d just end up “slapping” people with a sword most of the time ( I don’t mean they couldn’t figure out how it works, just how often would they have swung something that light where edge alignment mattered?), an axe surely would feel more familiar to them

If we're talking peasants, probably something they're familiar with and skilled in using, flails for example. The Hussites used them to great effectiveness. Apart from that, Goedendag springs to mind. No, peasant flails aren't cavalry weapons, you're thinking morning stars and their ilk, these were big two-handed things.

What about the Norwegian Peasant Militia Axe? Like a dane axe with with the last part of the shaft croocked backwards, so easier to use for stabbing

I think Matt is right, and a single handed arming sword or even a hand and a half sword is the best bet. They essentially would function as middle of the road weapons, offering a decent amount of protection and offense, while not being overly heavy but still strong enough to deflect some blows. I also feel longer knives are a decent option if we are thinking about more of a thuggish street wise brawler. Maybe something like a dirk, since it is light and fast, and most people would know how to work a knife for either hunting or cooking. Obviously, pole weapons are probably the best choice, due to keeping them a bit further back from danger, and history basically bears this out. Spears, daggers, and arrows have been the go to weapon for almost every hunter, with the axe thrown in there too for good measure.

I participated in and train fighters for armored combat competitions regularly at The Knights Hall. What we always start new fighters with is falchion and shield. It gives them both offense and defense. I do understand the difference in our type of fight. We ware full plate armor and use blunt steel weapons. So our sword strikes are just bludgeoning and not cutting. Love all you videos ❤

No large swinging weapons. They're more likely to hit their allies standing next to them. A Scutum and a Gladius. Although that takes skill too, you said no spears (which would be my first choice) the other options seem less effective.

As far as I know, War Scythes, have been considered the peasant and commoners weapon in the past, particularly in Slavic countries

You pretty much used my choice in the end. With speers out of the equation, large shield and sword is king. Actually the scutum and gladius is exactly the way i would Go. The shield is a fool proove barndoor to hide behind. Nearly indestructable, easy to use and huge. The gladius is a relative cheap sword to manufacture. No fancy stuff like fullers etc. A long wide Blade and a wooden handle. The Blade is quite robust, the wide pointy tip wont chip easily and is great for stabbing. If needed chopping is possible too. And the wide, stiff Blade helps to iron out errors in the edge alignment. (a broad seax could work too, being Single edged its maybe even better)

Most people have covered everything here. Spear=best, one handed weapon+shield=second best. But if we're talking JUST one weapon and no shield, then a sword that has solid hand protection. Sabers, messers, backsword, rapier. Although probably the weapon they actually historically gave to thugs and rabble: the cutlass.

Give them a low poundage bow, sling or javelins. That's what lower income levies typically used. The type of person who owned land but didn't make enough to own modern armour and didn't have the time to train. If these guys run away it's not a problem for the army's morale, no one expects them to win by themselves. Landless thugs didn't really get called up often for war but I imagine they would be equipped as skirmishers. Individualistic skirmishing is good for those who aren't used to discipline. Napoleonic and prior era light infantry would also be the more thuggish and independent minded people. The same with modern special forces. So they use lighter weapons normally and run when things go south.

Matt, when are you going to stop teasing it and just make this a Bannerlord channel? It's time to take Taleworld's OP 2-handers down a peg.

We have in Czech language a proverb "To start from a pike" meaning from the begining. As you said: From the experience from our club and reenactment events and even larps, pikes are usually realy easy weapons to learn in nearly no time. Shields have a huge disadvantage You maybe don't see due to the HEMA gear:Beginers tends to "bite the edge" when being hit. Usually the feeling of loosing visual contact with the oponent is really strong one and they tend to try to look over the edge. Without a visor this tends to end with really bad injuries. Glaives (naginatas, whatever else you want to call a knife on a stick) tends to be really easy. You can show them how to stab and cut on the way back really fast. It's rather heavy weapon, but it gives quite an advantage. I have lost a few students, who thought two handed sword or a pole axe are really great weapon and the tryed to start studying it. It is completely rubish weapon for first few years. It is rather hard to explain to a 18 years old guy, that he will get better in time...

The Moro uprising in the Philippines had some interesting ideas. The rebels tied off their limbs to prevent themselves from bleeding to death quickly. Then they rushed in against firearms. This resulted in many problems for the US Army in the early 20th century. Rabble with cloaks wrapped around one arm (Possibly tied off) and a dagger could get inside the reach of most weapons. Grappling and knives can overbear a lot of foes.

AK47s for everyone!

This is a fabulous video.

I guess it depends on context! For an individual against an unarmored individual something like you recommend would work quite well, however in a battlefield or even a warfare situation, which I think this question is mostly in the context of, something more versatile and inexpensive is usually suggested. Spears begin the most common often paired with shields. I'd probably recommend more simple polearms that a common man would be familiar with such as flails and possibly bills, goedendags could work as well. For sidearms i would say simple clubs/maces and hatches. And throwing weapons would be quite effective such as a bag of rocks or even javelins. While a rapier would be great against a less armored opponent id rather have me and the lads armed with big clubs with spikes against a variety of opponents.

It depends on the size of the unit. If we’re talking about “adventurers support group” from local villagers - maybe 5-10 people, I’d choose spears, pointy long sticks, and maybe some kind of all around utility knife or dagger. If the size is slightly larger I’d also consider mid size shields - as you say - stay together with your shield forward. And if the unit is relatively large, maybe company size, I’d consider to use the mix of spears and large shields like pavise or scutum, halberds and some kind of light guys on support. Or first line with mid size - large size shields with arming swords or small axes, second with helberds and third as the support. Support guys may be armed with some kind of armor piercing war hammers or bows/crossbows if possible.

I think one of those little french briquets with the brass guard/grip would be suitable. Light, tough & easy to use. Throw in a buckler for defence & your motley crewe could probably do some damage.

Yay! I can tell this will be qa fun video already.

Thinking the answer at the beginning is spears or crossbows. To be honest at the end, there is a defensive siege weapon I remember hearing about which might work. Its a shield with a massive spike on the front.

50% short sword/large shield in a wall 30% pikes, placed behind the shield wall 20% crossbowman behind them all, to keep the opposing cavalry at bay.

Hey Matt so here is a couple of my thoughts. So first you kind of mentioned three sorts of fighters here but I think we can actually answer all of them with a similar type of weapon. If we look at history we can actually see what most common people did when they moved into fighting wether they be conscripted soldiers cut throats or revolutionaries. We see that for the most part these individuals liked to get longer versions of the knives they were already familiar with. So i think the sort of standard arms for these people would be a sort of dirk or any 2-3 foot long knife. Part of my thinking behind this comes from a show on Netflix called Peaky Blinders in that show about gangsters a lot of them are veterans and they make deadly use of their SMLE pattern 1907 bayonets. This length of blade is great for the individual to put in front of them and hold back improvised weapons or people attacking with hands. Also this blade should be thick in the spine to help with edge alignment since most people chop when in stressful situations. This blade is also not too long that when the fighters get into wrestling rang it can still be used. Now my answer comes with a lot of CONTEXT ;) and here is where I came to that answer. Fist you said no spear, second I assumed manufacturing costs weren't important because if we are hurting for money the answer would just be sticks since those are free. So that's my answer I think long knives/ dirks/ short swords right at about 20 inches long with either a thick belly or a thick spine to help with chopping attacks.

Early-imperial Roman scutum and that style of combat cutlass you've shown on this channel, with the iron grip. Protect as much as possible without adding armor, and have a stout sword which is forgiving yet effective in both cuts and thrusts.

My opinion would be quarter staves for practice. Can be an analog for a spear, polearm, long sword, etc. And gives you the basics for a system. It is easy to train blocking, attacking, foot work, working in groups. Otherwise to give a weapon to another person for combat... a spear, cudgel or mace, just for basic easy defence/offence. Most people can figure out a club.

one thing to consider with weapons like clubs is who you're giving them to, if theyre farmers, woodsmen, i.e people witha lot of muscle but not much skill what you can do is play into their sense of aggression, get them to surge forward and use their strength, aggression and the power of their weapons to just make a hole in the enemy line. ancient writers have talked about how its very natural to just hit something with a blow from above as well. clubs have a long reputation for noob weapons for a reason easy to make- check no issues with edge alignment - check easy to maintain and hard to break -check i was watching goblin slayer and a noob adventurer had a legit issue of his sword getting stuck in a monster and unable to retreive it, he was told, 'use a club, it cant get stuck, and it wont knick, chip or get dulled; this would also go for maces another weapoon is the flail, specifically the staff flail. being a agriculutral implement, the farmers have an idea how to swing it, how to generate power, how to not hit their friends either side, ts also VERY powerful against even armoured enemies.

Godendag, because it will the enemy a moment of hesitation, which can be used quite well if the wielder of the Godendag is fast enough.

The most important piece of this with inexperienced soldiers is equipping them in a way that will instill confidence and aggressiveness, the big risk is getting them to engage. I think you are precisely right with shields for this reason, coupled with maybe something like a basket hilted broadsword. If they feel that protectice layer with the shield, coupled with a well protected weapon with decent balance, more likely to engage and not fight as timidly.

One point you didn't mention - apparently the common untrained panic response is to chop/beat rather than to trust. Doesn't necessarily rule out swords but might well affect choice of sword.

I tend to fall back on logistics. Swords require special skill to make, usually in short supply. Any village black smith however, can turn out a spear or an ax. Also, in Anglo Saxon England, it was required that all members of the Fyrd have a shield and spear ready to go at all times. So, I would argue that for militia at least, round shield, spear and/or ax would be the norm, with little to no armor.

skall did a video where he proposed the spear and the mace are the most difficult weapons to screw up with. i think the mace needs to be paired with a shield

For an untrained rabble, I think the most important concern is what a beginner's reactions are---you mentioned beginners' tendency to attack into an attack, I would also expect frightened soldiers to tend to reflexively pack in close to each other for shelter and want to flinch and hide from attacks. You'd want a weapon set that works well with those instincts, because training someone to close distance, spread out, or time their attacks takes a lot of practice. Besides an ordinary spear, a good option might be a shield and javelins. They can both be thrown (avoiding the need to close with the enemy) and might be easier to hold overhand or attack around the shield for someone who hasn't built up weapon-specific strength yet than a heavier spear.

As you said close to the end " Take the Roman approach " lol. I would choose a large shield and gladius or any shorter sword because the militia would be less likely to hit one and other while formation is held and is likely to hold longer

Maybe more imortant is to set up a strong defensive position. If the enemy try to breach the defences, the defenders can strike back with fewer repurcussions. It gives the defenders a reason to stay in position and fight as a unit. In that case you would want long weapons like spears and pikes and things to throw or shoot.

I think a shield and a mace are a great combo. The mace would remove the need for edge alignment and "Hit them with the big stick and hide behind the shield" is pretty intuitive.

Use to do a medieval fair with high school students. We used sword and shields because that shield gave our new fighters a better chance. It also kept people in better formation. The shield as long as you kept it in front of you could absorb a lot of punishment and new fighters could surprise you suddenly and you would get hit with a shield

Love the question, thankyou. Id want a cheap and intuiative weapon my people had some working knowledge of. Option a (1st choice) Bolos, d guard machetes, or cutless. Option b tomahawk and carving/bowie knife. Option c a warclub like a gunstock or ball club. I point at several factors: What are they used to using in their daily life? What is our relative budget? What do we see in low tech engagements in recent history for areas where firearms are not available to militias (consider Rawanda or PNG conflicts as unpleasent as it is). Where are we operating is it house to house, open streets, forest or jungle including say corn fields etc.

You said it at the end. Gladius and large shield. A few minutes instruction and your militia is a threat on the battlefield as long as they stay together as a group.

If we're excluding spears and sword+shield, which would be my top answers, I'd say stave or baton. Basically for the same reasons, staves can be (a bit) used like spears, and a baton can be used pretty quickly and doesn't have concerns about edge alignment. Basically: the fewer edges to align the better and the lighter the better (for the flailing)

Cool video and great talking points. Honestly, I think that the answer is that the Roman Legions probably got it right roughly 2000 years ago. - Throwing javelins for distance. - Shield, helmet and the best armor you could afford. - Stabbing sword. Train them to stab with the sword, walk in formation and form shield walls. The only reason it was ever anything else is that equipping an army with forged metal weapons is EXPENSIVE. So you use spears because spears are pretty effective and spearheads are cheaper than swords. Ditto axes as a replacement for swords as one-handed weapons. Yes, they're harder to use in combat, but they're cheaper to make and functional tools as well. The cost and complexity to make these things really mattered to our ancestors, and I think people forget that.

thugs-hachets(probably have them at home and familiar with it) and slings(could be good for hunting/guarding livestock) mob-spears for formation quarter stuff/flail for individual(being familiar with it due to similar tools being used at home)

My point of view: I’ll mainly speak with the idea of equipping militia and thug in fantasy. In that case, there is two determinant factors that are added to the problem: availability and maintenance. . Shield → if you can afford them, go for it: even untrained person will naturally block attacks by putting the shield between them and the enemy weapon. The buckler and other easy to carry small shields are to favor most of the time. . Cub → the advantage of the club is that you don't even need a lot of skill to make them, so it's easy to replace, and that's a huge advantage for criminals in the run. To be most effective, it should either be used by surprise or use it with a shield. It's also easier to capture someone alive with such a weapon, especially in an age where infection mean death most of the time, and that can be useful for criminals who want to ransom or slave someone. If it’s in the form of a cane, then it can also being used as a walking cane to conserve some energy when walking in the wild. . Axe → easier to master than the sword, still need some training, so it’s good for soldiers, mercenary and all but not for the lambda peasant that ended as a bandit or that is conscripted during an emergency. It’s also harder to procure than a club. . Mace → if someone has the knowledge needed, a mace can be easy to produce, and is easier to make correctly than an axe. As for fight by itself, it’s the same idea as with the club, but with a shorter reach (most of the time) and better against most armors. . Swords → the main problem with the sword is that it cost A LOT more than other weapons. Depending of the place, a village militia might not be able to afford it for every single one of them. Same idea for bandit, except you have to add that conserving and maintaining them will be even harder in the wild, especially when you can’t go to a market. . Daggers and knives → the really short reach is definitely a problem, so it’s clearly not a main weapon for battles, but the main advantage of those blade is how easy it is to dissimulate and/or transport. It’s also a good weapon to end someone, and it’s A LOT cheaper than a sword while also being easier to conserve and maintain in the wild. Knives can also be used as tools.

Inexperienced rabble should use inexperienced rabble tools as weapons. Farmers would use spades, shovels, pitchforks, clubs, bats, flails, axes, sickles, guisarmes, billhooks, scythes, staffs, machetes, knives, self-bows, spears. Blacksmiths might prefer knives, messers, hangers, pokers, hammers, darts, lead balls and slings. Children could use slings, darts and throw rocks. Women could use spears, atlatls, bows, billhooks. Equip them with a rudimentary shield and a 1 handed weapon and teach them to maneuver and you have an army. Equip them with a smaller buckler or worn shield and a 2 handed weapon and you have a phalanx. Of course, you could also cheat and arm your rabble with a shield made of pommels and a bag filled with pommels, while wearing a gambeson with pommels hanging from them. The so called "nuclear option".

The main issue in answering this quesiton is, of course, context! What weapons are available to our rabble? What are they up against? Do we have access to shields? Assuming our newbies do not have access to an armoury, if they are fighting against armoured opponents, I would go for quarterstaffs, (makeshift) clubs, or maces. Shields if we have them. No edge alignment to worry about, and percussive force is one of the ways to deal with armour anyways. Assuming we do not have access to an armoury, and we are fighting unarmoured opponents, I think the preference goes to swords and light-weight axes, then clubs/maces/fighting sticks/daggers over fisticuffs. If we do have access to an armoury, a shield and light-weight cut-and-thrust sword is the way to go, I think. Some others mentioned the goedendag. Do we count that as a pole weapon? If not, those are a good choice was well.

I can sense your frustration in the title of the vid. Congrads for not watering it down.

I agree with your choice, although I would argue that short sword/large dagger w/ shield would be better. By eliminating a longer blade, you help discourage a noob formation from wildly cutting and slashing. With a shield wall and daggers/short swords, the goal is to push, defend attacks, close the distance and thrust/stab. They, also, would be less likely to injure each other when cutting isn’t a viable option.

Staff slings! Trivial to make, and once it is tuned (shorten the sling cords to lower the trajectory, get it to about 45 degrees) then it is easy to throw half-brick sized projectiles quite accurately to any distance up to 100 metres.

As a GM for tabletop RPG i would euip NPCs acording to what makes sense logisticly and thematicly. Peasant rabble - Whatever they can get their hands on, tools made into weapons such as pitchforks, woodchoping axes, knifes, clubs, malets, staffs, hunting bows, crossbows and maybe some older weapons that they used during military service of some type, if they have been fighting a while then they will also use whatever they have caputured. City thugs - things that will not get them constantly hassled by the guards and are relativley cheap, daggers and saps mostly. Robbers - same as peasant rabble but more captured weapons, more missile weapons, less polearms due to mobility in forrests. Millitia - Bows and spears primarily with daggers as backupps. Now if i was a commander in an rpg and had a decent amount of funds and weren't alowed to equip my peasant levies with spears or bows for some odd reason... yeah probably cheap swords and shields. If i can't aford that I'd go staffs.

Beeing somebody untrained in HEMA myself i would say the priorities are: -First and foremost something that creates distance between you and your opponent. Distance buys you time to react even if your opponent is experienced, and i would think the importance of time to react increases, the lower ones own experience is. -Something with either a single edge that is facing/pointing away from you most of the time, or if double edged: the edges beeing far enough away from yourself to minimize the chances of endangering yourself with them accidently by moving the weapon. (Imagine having a gladius and parying in front of your unprotected face, getting the gladius blade smashed in your face... Less damage if it would not have a double edge. -Something that does not require complex movements. In times of real danger the fine motor movements are gone, increasingly so with less experience in actual fighting (not training, if suddenly it is about your health and life things get lost) So a Spear, wooden staff, maybe even shield and club, and of course a form of helmet, as it helps calming down if you have at least some form of protection.

I think the very first weapon I would train a militia with is the sling... Dirt cheap, easy to make, and will not take too long to learn for some rudemental effect. With that a shield and a helmet, and a sword like a messer or a long dagger. A fair few I would possibly arm with war darts/fletched javelins for some more range (assuming ofc that no one in the militia knows how to use a bow/crossbow) Goedendags would be a really useful weapon, but I assume that it is slightly cheating because it is a kind of spear in effect.

Number 1. Rabble. A rabble. They are themselves, probably using their tools of trade. In rural context expect forks, two handed wooden flails, wood cutters tools (different kind of axes and cutting tools), maybe mining picks, some hammers or mallets, wood clubs or maybe even tree branches (no ranged weapons or spears are going to be discussed). In urban context scratch tree branches from above list, add some occasional long knives (bauernwehr or messer), meat cleavers, increase number of hammers and mallets. Now, number 2, militia. A militia. Whether it's peasant's or city militia, if one needs to equipped them quickly and from scratch a wise move might be to give them weapons that work similarly to they tools of trade. Change forks into military forks, reinforce wooden flails, add very long handles to meet cleavers turning them into something akin to lochaber axe. Having some time equip part of your militia with one handed weapon, axe when you expect metal armoured opponents or some kind of military cleaver/falchion when you expected most of them clad in no armour, and shield. Next group arm with pole weapons, military forks, flails, blade-on-a-stick proto bills/halberds. Last group would be your ranged element. In late medieval context - change handheld shields for pavisses or makeshift fortifications (like wagenburg), go 1/3 polearms, 2/3 ranged, with sidearma that can be used as tools (mallets, axes with spike on other side of blade, bladed weapons in type of messer/falchion but those with pronounced pointed front part). Number 3, thug. A thug. A gang of thugs. Well, those guys operate in their own context. Moet likely they don't fight in formation but in fluid groups, 2-3 people going against one opponent, seldom going 1 on 1. They might prefer "scary" looking weapons, like cleavers, knives or falchions oriented more towards hacking and slashing, clubs with visible heavier ends. Such tools should do their work against unarmored and poorly trained common folk or even burghers even without being bloodied. If well trained or slightly armoured vict... *cough* opponents are to be expected change cleavers for shivs, even makeshift ones, go with more thrust oriented messers/falchions, switch easy recognisable clubs for weighted sacks/socks. This time one can't avoid one's weapon being used, but it have to be used either without alarming vict... *cough* opponent or with as fast lethal effect as possible. In case of militia, the more time and money we have, the better final equipment and its use will be. Money can buy military picks/war hammers/proper military 2 handed flails, better polearms, more and better armour. Time will allow for either training or both, training and turning tools of trade into better tools of war. I am somewhat basing my idea for militia on Hussite infantry and I am not going to hide it.

I think the weapons you described are mostly used by baddies or criminals, etc. Games, movies and the like usually have "thugs" or bad guys for aesthetic or narrative purposes; and some guy swinging around a big weapon seems scarier or more intimidating or strong. And I believe that's the reason why they give them larger weapons. (and I'm sure in their mind they want to portray that image, too.) I wouldn't normally equate those weapons with general mobs or militias.

A medium size strap-held shield (Heather/rotella) and a sigle hand heavy-hitting weapon (mace/axe/warhammer). A strap shield is simple to use and not so big to make people hide behind it; a mace is slow but hit hard and you can not make contact with the wrong side.

Strapped shield and arming sword, or mace. Something with decent heft towards the tip to help the cut/swing, still manageable of corse. Also the fixed shield should work well with someone's natural tendency to cover up with the forearms.