Medieval Weapons in English and Chinese: Common mistranslations and identifying weapon forms

Medieval weapons varied widely across regions, languages, and periods. The same weapon may appear under different spellings in English, French, German, or Italian sources, while Chinese translations are often inconsistent. History enthusiasts and game developers who copy terminology from online sources without checking the evidence can easily mistake two different weapons for one another.

This article focuses primarily on medieval Europe, with limited cross-cultural comparisons. It provides English–Chinese terminology, describes the main features of each weapon, and identifies common points of confusion. Where appropriate, it also distinguishes well-supported interpretations from terms whose meaning or form remains disputed.

1. Establishing the Scope

In this article, “the Middle Ages” broadly refers to the period from the fifth century to the end of the fifteenth century, with a primary focus on Western and Central Europe. Some weapons, such as the kris and shamshir, belong to other cultural spheres and are therefore identified separately rather than compared directly with European weapons.

Before accepting a weapon name as reliable, check three points:

1. When does the name appear in written sources or surviving artifacts?
2. Which language does the name come from?
3. Is the proposed form supported by archaeological or visual evidence?

Many online references provide only a name and a brief description without citing their basis. This lack of context is one of the main reasons mistranslations continue to circulate.

2. Polearms

Polearms were important battlefield weapons during the Middle Ages. Their long shafts increased attack range, cost less to produce than a fully armored knight’s equipment, and could be effective against charging cavalry.

Agricultural Weapons and Their Derivatives

Guisarme（钩镰枪） and bill / billhook（钩刃） are often discussed as if they were the same weapon, but they are not completely identical.

A bill or billhook was a long-handled hooked blade derived from an agricultural cutting tool. Its blade usually had a hook-like structure along one side, allowing the user to pull at cavalry or drag away shields.

A guisarme was a distinct category of polearm. Its blade commonly had a spike or hook on the rear side, although its exact form varied considerably across regions and periods. In Chinese-language references, the two terms are best treated as separate entries.

A voulge（钩斧） had a broad blade attached along one side of a wooden shaft. It resembled an axe and often included a pointed tip, allowing it to be used for both cutting and thrusting.

A war scythe（长柄战镰） was made by mounting an agricultural scythe blade vertically on the end of a long shaft. It is a classic example of a farming tool adapted for combat. However, the number and distribution of surviving examples should be verified against specific museum collections rather than assumed from generalized online descriptions.

Specialized Polearms

The halberd（长戟） was one of the most characteristic late medieval polearms and is closely associated with the tactics of Swiss infantry. Its head typically combined an axe blade, a thrusting spike, and a rear hook. The axe could deliver powerful blows against armor, the spike could target gaps, and the hook could be used to pull riders from their mounts.

A poleaxe（斧枪） was generally shorter than a halberd, with its weight concentrated toward the head. It was used in both infantry combat and mounted or knightly fighting. It was not designed exclusively for formal duels, despite the oversimplified descriptions found in some online sources.

A partisan（剑刃戟） had a broad, symmetrical, sword-shaped head. Small side projections were often placed near the base of the blade to help prevent the weapon from penetrating too deeply and becoming difficult to withdraw.

A glaive（长柄刀） and a fauchard（宽刃刀） were both single-edged polearms. A glaive generally had a relatively straight blade with a slight curve. A fauchard had a more pronounced inward curve, giving it an appearance closer to a long-handled sickle. The curvature of the cutting edge is the main feature used to distinguish the two, although surviving examples and terminology are not always consistent.

A corseque（三叉形长杆武器） had a three-pronged head. The central blade was usually longer, while the two side blades could assist with parrying and cutting. The name appears in several spellings, and descriptions of its form differ among sources. For that reason, it is safer to describe it as a “three-pronged polearm” rather than translate it directly as a specific type of cavalry lance.

A trident（三叉戟） is a familiar form from classical and ceremonial contexts. It was not a common standardized polearm in medieval European armies. Any account that presents it as ordinary medieval military equipment should specify the relevant historical and ceremonial context.

The menavlion（双刃枪） is generally described as a heavy spear used in the Byzantine Empire. However, surviving textual evidence and descriptions of its physical form are limited, and Chinese translations are inconsistent. This entry remains uncertain and should be used only after consulting the relevant primary research.

3. Armor-Piercing and Blunt Weapons

As plate armor became more sophisticated, ordinary cutting and thrusting attacks became less effective against a fully armored opponent. Armor-breaking weapons relied on kinetic impact or on pointed structures that could target gaps between armor plates.

A maul（长柄大锤） was a heavy blunt weapon. Its purpose was to transfer a large amount of force through mass and momentum. Even when it did not break a plate directly, the impact could transmit damaging shock to the body beneath the armor.

The bec de corbin（乌鸦喙战锤） was a late medieval armor-piercing polearm. Its French name means “crow’s beak.” One end consisted of a hammer head for blunt strikes, while the other had a pointed beak or hook intended to attack gaps in armor. A spear point was often mounted at the top.

In Chinese, it should be rendered as “crow-beak war hammer” or “eagle-beak war hammer.” The expression “double-edged war hammer” is misleading because it may cause readers to assume that both sides were bladed. That wording should be avoided.

The goedendag（尖刺棒） was closely associated with Flemish militias. It consisted of a thick wooden club with a metal-reinforced head and a spike at the top, combining blunt impact with thrusting capability.

An awlspear（锥头枪） had a conical spearhead. Its narrow point could pass through mail with relatively little resistance.

A boarspear（野猪矛） had a crossbar or projecting stop below the spearhead. This prevented a charging boar from sliding down the shaft and reaching the wielder. The exact form of the crossbar varied according to region and use.

4. Swords and Bladed Weapons

The sword was an important symbol of knighthood, and its form changed in response to developments in metallurgy and changes in battlefield tactics.

Single-Edged Blades and Large Cutting Swords

A falchion（弯刃大刀） was a single-edged weapon with a broad blade and a center of gravity closer to the tip, giving it strong chopping ability. It is often treated as an example of a civilian cutting tool developing into a dedicated combat weapon.

A grossmesser（大砍刀） was common in German-speaking regions. It was single-edged, usually had a slightly curved blade, and in some forms could be wielded with both hands. It may be translated as “large sword” or “great cutter,” but the Chinese term should correspond to the specific surviving form being discussed.

The expression “cleaver (unweighted-ball variant)” is not a stable historical weapon name. It is more often a modern descriptive label used to discuss a particular shape and should not be treated as a formal weapon category.

Double-Edged Sword Types

An arming sword（武装剑） was a common single-handed sword used by medieval knights. It typically had a cruciform crossguard and was often used together with a shield.

A bastard sword（手半剑） had a grip longer than that of a typical one-handed sword but shorter than that of a true two-handed sword. It could be used with one or both hands and is therefore also known as a “hand-and-a-half sword.”

The zweihander（双手巨剑） is a representative German two-handed sword with a long blade. The section near the guard was often left unsharpened. This area is called the ricasso（护手前的未开刃段） and allowed the user to place the fingers or palm around the blade for close-range control. It may also be described as an auxiliary gripping area.

A ricasso is not a “weak section of the blade.” The thinner section closer to the tip is generally called the foible（弱段）, while the stronger section closer to the guard is the forte（强段）. These terms should not be confused.

A flamberge（火焰剑/波浪剑） had a waved or flame-shaped blade. It is sometimes claimed that this shape enlarged wounds during a thrust or produced greater tearing when the weapon was withdrawn. However, the evidence for these claims is limited, and the function of the waved blade remains unsettled. They should not be presented as established facts.

The spelling “Flameberg” is incorrect. The correct form is flamberge.

A claymore（高地大剑） was a broad Scottish two-handed sword. Its name comes from Gaelic, and its guard commonly formed a downward-sloping V shape. Some examples had ring-shaped or quatrefoil-like decorations at the ends of the guard. Claymore forms varied considerably by period and region, so descriptions should identify the relevant date when possible.

A schiavona（华丽护手剑） was associated with Venetian mercenaries. It commonly had an elaborate basket guard and could be used for both cutting and thrusting.

A shamshir（弯刀） belongs primarily to the curved-sword traditions of Persia, Central Asia, and the broader Islamic world. Its blade had a pronounced curve and was mainly intended for edge cuts. Many examples had a small guard or knuckle protection, but they did not necessarily have a cruciform guard. Sources disagree about aspects of its cultural development, so citations should identify the specific source being followed.

5. Daggers and Short Weapons

In close combat, the reach advantage of a polearm disappeared, making the dagger an important secondary or last-resort weapon.

A stiletto（细锥匕首） and a poignard（匕首） generally refer to narrow daggers whose blades may have triangular or circular cross-sections. They had little cutting ability but could be used against the rings of mail or gaps in plate armor.

The term stiletto is especially associated with Italian usage and, chronologically, is often applied to Renaissance-era weapons. It should not automatically be used for every narrow medieval dagger.

The name Castillon dagger（阔刃匕首） appears in inconsistent forms across sources, and descriptions of its exact shape also vary. It should currently be treated as a disputed entry. Anyone citing it should first verify the original reference.

A bollock dagger（球柄匕首） had two rounded projections on either side of the pommel. This shape helped prevent the hand from slipping and provided a secure grip even without a conventional guard. Such daggers are commonly associated with Scotland from the sixteenth to the seventeenth century. The English name refers to the shape of the pommel and has a slang-based etymology; Chinese-language descriptions should explain this neutrally.

A quillon dagger（剑格匕首） had a crossguard resembling a smaller version of the guard on an arming sword. Knights could fight with a sword in one hand and a dagger in the other, and this type of dagger was designed to complement a longer sword.

A baselard（H形柄匕首） had an H-shaped grip and was common during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Translating it simply as “long-handled dagger” is misleading because it may cause readers to confuse it with a polearm or another long-shafted weapon.

Weapon terminology should therefore be checked against period, language, surviving examples, and visual evidence. When a term has disputed origins or an uncertain form, the safest practice is to retain the original spelling, provide a cautious descriptive translation, and clearly identify the limits of the available evidence.