Hand guns of that age, not so much. At least, not against the high quality armor. Of course, they can still get through the weakest parts, especially at short distance, but that's true of strong bows and crossbows as well. Cannons, on the other hand... Look at the wikipedia page for: Jacques de Lalaing He's a famous knight cut down in his prime by a cannon shot.

It can take a hit, but the bones inside might be in danger. Or brains. Or neck. Sword can be used to hit weak spots, like armpits. (Halfswording, or even mordhau) So both can be good if applied with proper technique. But. Some swords would be bad at some of said techniques, while others would excel at them. Wheras war hammers and etc are more prone to be the same category of effectiveness

Depends on who you're fighting, if you took roughly equivalent sized hammers and swords, but you're fighting largely poorly armoured opponents, the swords are probably better, and if you're fighting against someone in full plate, hammer. Though bear in mind swords are still very useful against armour, shoving the point through gaps and weak spots is good, and smashing someone's fingers to bits also works great. Swords are a better general use tool, which is sorta what you want as a secondary weapon, as they generally were.

@@thinnedpaints6503 ye

@@AntInfestedFoamRunners keep in mind best melee weapons are polearms, basically. Halberd's inertia is super dangerous to armoured foes too. Want even more "anti-armour"? Take Bec De Corbin or Poleaxe (despite it being generally a knight weapon). And etc.