Which is a better weapon, a battle-axe or a guy with a joust on a horse?

A battle-axe is certainly a better weapon than a guy with a joust on a horse.

Why? Because a joust isn’t a weapon in and of itself; it’s a specific type of competition at a medieval tournament.

Two armored knights would mount horses and face one another, each holding a lance. They would then charge and see which knight could topple the other first.

Although metal-tipped lances were sometimes used in battle by knights, they were primarily the stuff of entertainment at the tourney.

Let’s assume for a moment you were asking about a lance versus a battle-ax. A lance was good at knocking over a horse-riding opponent, but not so good at driving him through or lopping off his head.

It was too easy to lose the end of a lance to the chop of a sword, too. The battle-ax would most likely win this war.

About Karen Hill

Karen Hill is a freelance writer, editor, and columnist. Born in New York, her work has appeared in the Examiner, Yahoo News, Buzzfeed, among others.

1 thought on “Which is a better weapon, a battle-axe or a guy with a joust on a horse?”

  1. actaully the metal tiped lances in tournement were generally war lances used in the tournement, the wooden ones where entertainment.

    and the lance was one of the weapons that drove chainmail off the battlefeild, you know what most battle axe weilders wore? it went right throughchainmail like a hot knife through butter, and could even kill through plate if it was poorly made or a lucky hit. in fact the lance was the domante weapon on the battle feild until pike and bow/gun came along.

Leave a Comment