Quarterstaff vs. Sword?

I have no experience with hand-to-hand medieval fighting. But I would just observe that, as far as I know, everyone who could afford a sword had one, and long sticks were not very often used in combat by anybody who could get his hands on a sword. I infer from this that a trained swordsman would normally defeat a trained quarterstaff fighter. (Othwise we might be reading about Excalibur, the famous stick in the stone, or Durandal, Roland's mighty stick...) I know of no battles where units of quarterstaffmen appeared, unless it was a case of poor peasants who could get nothing else.

Of course, if you can put a point on the stick and an axeblade on one side, you have a halberd, a very effective weapon indeed. I would bet on a good halberdier rather than a good swordsman.

It will be interesting to see other views on this topic.

Mythological correction: Excalibur wasn't the sword in the stone (in most versions, anyway - although it's been simplified in a few so that it was). He supposedly got that from the Lady of the Lake, along with a rather useful scabbard.

sword. All the staff has is extra reach but not enough impact to use it.

I'm guessing that if a quarterstaff could beat a sword, no one would have used a sword.

I don't think it's so much a matching of the combatants' size/strength that's important as skill level with his chosen weapon. I'm betting that the best staff fighter in the world could take out a mid-level swordsman, just as a champion swordsman could take out a mid-level archer.

I'll bet Zornhau will have a good answer for you on this.

In the real world, I too, would place my bet on the guy with the sword (and I generally prefer those fantasy stories where the mage isn't also a skilled melee fighter. Kinda lame for me if they can fight very well up close and do ranged damage via magic. For me, it should be one or the other. After all, a mage that spends all his time reading books will probably not have much fighting skill, but don't let him cast spells on you hehe).

I think historically, the reason why a long stick would be no match for a sword is because the swordsman probably spent all of his life training with that weapon, whereas anyone using a long stick as a weapon probably hasn't trained very much in it, and therefore would really be no match against a well trained soldier (it'd probably be a little different in Asia though, where they did train with "sticks" and were often quite good with them).

Of course, since this is a fantasy question, it could very well go either way. Perhaps your mage casts some spells that weaken the sword guy first? Or they are more skilled with their stick than the other guy is with his sword? If he can parry the attacks by the swordsman, and knows how to thrust that stick into a guy (esp. an unarmored foe), a stick can hurt almost as much as a sword (granted, they probably won't die via bleeding, but those bruises would certainly hurt as well).

You should do a scenario like that, where the swordsman is overconfident, and thinks he'll make quick work of this guy with a long stick (because he's "beaten up guys with sticks before"), and have the mage surprise him with some evasive manuevers (and give the guy a heavy sword so that it'll be easier for your mage to dodge, as a heavier overhead swing is slightly more predictable than a quick thrusting move).

Basically, the mage in a straight up fight would be no match for the swordsman, but make the swordsman have faults that the mage can rely on and use to his advantage (although only do it for this one time, or else it'll seem like a cop-out after the mage defeats swordsman #15 this way in your story).

I should think it would depend a lot on the type of sword in question, the circumstances of the fight, the technology level of your world, and the natural assumptions of people in your particular culture/world. Pine branch versus long sword is not going to be the same as six feet of iron-shod oak versus foil.

In THE WHEEL OF TIME, Jordan touches on this very thing, I think in Book Three. I believe in the story, he's got a group of Warders in training, and their master is telling them about the one opponent whom no sword-wielding soldier could beat: the farmer defedning his land with only a quarterstaff. The soldiers all mocked, of course. And one of Jordan's heros, Mat, used his quarterstaff against the soldiers in training with their swords. I'm pretty sure that Mat won.

The thing is, the quarterstaff gives you more reach than a sword. Unless you've got a very long (and read, very heavy) sword, you still have to get up close for killing blows. The QS gives you the luxury of distance fighting.

So to answer your question, I think it's a toss up.

^ I read that part of wheel of time, and yes, Mat did win. I think that you've got a good idea there, a quarterstaff could be used effectively defensively because of its longer reach, at least long enough for your mage to cast a spell. And as for the sword vs staff thing, I also think it depends entirely on the skill of the fighter. In karate we use a wooden staff called a bo (not sure how similar to a quarterstaff that is but anyway) and let me tell you I would not want to get on the bad side of someone that knows what they're doing with that thing. Bruises are not the only thing a wooden staff can give you. Aim that thing at your head or windpipe and you're in trouble.

As a weapon, a properly prepared quarterstaff was more than a match for the swords of the time. It was made from the heart (center) of a hardwood tree, and then fire hardened after smoothing for a similar strength (if created today) of steel tubing. It could easily defeat a soldier armed with a sword without armor, or who was using padded leather or chain mail armor. However, it didn't fare well against full plate armor unless the user could get the soldier's feet out from under him with a well placed slice. Full armor made it difficult, if not impossible, for the wearer to stand without assistance. He could then be done in by a dagger or short sword to the neck or slipped under the chest plate.

TheIT said:

He's also telekinetic, so I think he'll be able to augment his fighting to make himself stronger.

Click to expand...

Hehe, suddenly my mind has that scene in Empire Strikes Back where Darth Vader begins using the Force to hurl things at Luke. Sorry not sure why, but it just seemed kind of funny reading that part.

If I could use telekinesis, I'd just start hurling stuff at the swordsman before he even gets close. After all, "The pen is mightier than the sword" hehe.

Just a joke reply, don't take it too seriously

You also want to google Muso Gonnosuke, the only person to defeat Musashi Miyamoto in battle. The story says that he used a traditional rokushaku bo (six-foot staff) in the first time, but it's length was too cumbersome against Musashi's two swords. He went home, meditated, and cut two feet off (off the staff, that is), thus creating the jo.

Or not, since I just told you the story.

Yes, maple is a hardwood. Here are some others:


Lodgepole Pine (excellent for quarterstaffs)
Red Pine
Spruce (difficult to use because of the knotty heart)
Mesquite
Sequoia Redwood
Cedar
Cypress (also not well suited to quarterstaffs due to twisted hearts)
Walnut
Hickory
Pecan
Oak

There are others, but these are pretty well represented around the world.

Hope that helps!

Find some reputable martial arts schools in your area. Go talk to the sensei teaching there. They could probably give you some practical answers to your questions.

TheIT said:

Assume both combatants are equally matched physically.

Click to expand...

So your mage is equally physically matched to the guy waving the sword around? Really?

How much time does your mage spend hunched over books? Studying? If being a mage requires lots of study, then surely a modern analogue for a mage would be a university professor. If you took a university prof. and pitted him against a soldier or a pro. boxer, who's going to win?

Smart money would go on the soldier, I imagine. I don't think the question you're asking (quarterstaff vs. sword) really makes sense, because no two opponents are *ever* completely matched in skill. It's not a question of what's the most dangeorus weapon. There are no weapons that are inherently dangerous, there are only dangerous people.

Anyway, that's my 2c.

How much time does your mage spend hunched over books? Studying? If being a mage requires lots of study, then surely a modern analogue for a mage would be a university professor. If you took a university prof. and pitted him against a soldier or a pro. boxer, who's going to win?

Click to expand...

No reason you couldn't have a combat mage or somesuch.

azbikergirl said:

I'll bet Zornhau will have a good answer for you on this.

Click to expand...

A quarterstaff is a very big stick. As I recall, the Renaisance fencing master, Silver, rates it as being the optimum weapon and gives some instructions on its use (there used to be editions of his work online, try google).

A quarterstaff has the advantage of reach over any civilian-portable sword, i.e. everything up to and including a great sword, and will crush your skull like a battery egg, snap your bones like twigs... An ordinary sword is very unlikely to cut through it, though a really good beat migth deflet it.

On the other hand, you have to know how to use it properly. If we faced off, you with a quarterstaff, me with the sharpened version of my longsword, I would try the following:

Exploit the slightest hesitation on your part...

• A surprise attack against your wrists before, or just as you swung your weapon - effectively a parry against your limbs
• Tempt you into an attack, step out then in. Before you raise the stick, I grab it with my free hand and slice your wrists or hands.

A standard move done with great precision...

• Cut into your attack, deflecting (NOT parrying), bring my blade to a halt with the point forward, then stab you repeatedly

Basically, if you don't know how to use the staff as well as I know how to use my sword, you die very quickly.

If the magician isn't a skilled fighter, I suggest he sticks to surprise attacks, or snipes from the back while his better trained mates do the dirty.

Zornhau, thank God you showed up! I thought I was going to have to tackle this alone. Lot's of misconceptions here folks... but some of you are on the right track.

And the answer is: (as has been said earlier) IT ALL depends on the skill of the fighter.

A quarterstaff was by no means a wimpy weapon. In the hands of a skilled fighter a q'staff could have disarmed or killed before an opponent closing with a shorter weapon (ie- sword, mace, axe, dagger, etc.) easily. Plenty of texts to verify this and documented staff training drills (Tallhoffer comes to mind) Quarterstaffs also gave way to polearms, at first the weapons of the peasantry but polearms became popular because of their success on the battlefield, metal piercing polearms (Halberds, war hammers, glaives, etc.) could even defeat the armoured knight (15th c. Swiss Landesknechts were known for their ability to bring down mounted knights and defeat them).

Cathy, your info on staffs is good but I think you're confusing tournament jousting armour from field plate, or war harness which was light enough to wear on foot with ease and correctly articulated to be able to give the wearer full mobility (he could do cartwheels in it) NOT to be confused with the heavier jousting armour which is much as you say, extremely heavy and reinforced in forward mounted position usually requiring assistance to mount a horse.

TheIT: If you'd like to know more about medieval weapons or practices let me know and I'll gather a few links for you.

A.REX said:

TheIT: If you'd like to know more about medieval weapons or practices let me know and I'll gather a few links for you.

Click to expand...

I'd like to know! That sort of information always comes in handy to people like me who love stories set in medieval times.

Note on woods. Pine is softer than some of the other mentioned and splinters easily when dried as compared to other woods.

A heavier sword with a stronger wielder would do more damage than a lighter sword. could.

I'm basing this off of chopping pine for fired wood as child. We used to groan if dad brought anything home other than pine. Pine, you could go through easily regarless of thickness with an axe.

Tirjasdyn said:

Note on woods. Pine is softer than some of the other mentioned and splinters easily when dried as compared to other woods.

A heavier sword with a stronger wielder would do more damage than a lighter sword. could.

I'm basing this off of chopping pine for fired wood as child. We used to groan if dad brought anything home other than pine. Pine, you could go through easily regarless of thickness with an axe.

Click to expand...

Actually weight of sword and strength of wielder are almost irrelevant if he/she knows how to cut with their entire body. The 1400s Spanish Knight Don Pero Nino is famous for having cut a huge thick rope strung across a river with his sword. He used the same - or similar - weapon to cleave a handsbreath through a shield, through a knightly helm and skull and into the teeth of a foe. I's all in the legs and hips. (Read Guy Windsor's Swordsmans Companion)

However, those who don't know how to cut are generally given short chopping swords - falchions - with the general parameters you describe.

TheIT said:

I'll have to look up the Wheel of Time reference. Another series with a quarterstaff wielder is The Lord of the Isles by David Drake. Good series so far, but I haven't read the latest book.

Click to expand...

Excellent series! I'm reading the latest book right now. One of the characters is indeed a quarterstaff wielder, however we have reason to suspect he's not just your average joe schmoe, which may very well have a lot to do with his particular great skill. Though I have read a lot that indicates quarterstaff wielders worth their salt can definitely hold their own with sword wielders.