Poll: Get medieval on this poll.

[Jamanticus]

Yeah, because a large part about stealth is to run into a bunch of enemies, you got me...

You name me one Medieval battle that took place when there weren't bunches of enemies. Isn't that what a 'battle' is? Armies even then were trained to stick together and not get forced apart, so unless you had a handy little gadget on your belt to make them all run to very remote locations alone, you'd be screwed.

I'm in a mercenary group. No where in the OP does it say it's going to be a full scale battle.

Wait, you think that people hired mercenaries to run around and kill people stealthily?

Mercenary groups back then were certainly rag-tag, but they were professional soldiers who used the best weapons at their disposal (and used them better than normal soldiers as well). They were usually hired for battles by kings and earls during land disputes and larger wars.

You're right, daggers would work quite well for backstabbing if the target wasn't armored and couldn't defend himself, but mercenaries didn't get hired to do things like that. Their number one source of income was to bolster ranks in local militaries, where the main conflicts that happened were, you guessed it, full-fledged battles.

EDIT: Which is why I say daggers are nearly useless as offensive weapons in this case.

 

[Merteg]

Yeah, because a large part about stealth is to run into a bunch of enemies, you got me...

You name me one Medieval battle that took place when there weren't bunches of enemies. Isn't that what a 'battle' is? Armies even then were trained to stick together and not get forced apart, so unless you had a handy little gadget on your belt to make them all run to very remote locations alone, you'd be screwed.

I'm in a mercenary group. No where in the OP does it say it's going to be a full scale battle.

Wait, you think that people hired mercenaries to run around and kill people stealthily?

Mercenary groups back then were certainly rag-tag, but they were professional soldiers who used the best weapons at their disposal (and used them better than normal soldiers as well). They were usually hired for battles by kings and earls during land disputes and larger wars.

You're right, daggers would work quite well for backstabbing if the target wasn't armored and couldn't defend himself, but mercenaries didn't get hired to do things like that. Their number one source of income was to bolster ranks in local militaries, where the main conflicts that happened were, you guessed it, full-fledged battles.

EDIT: Which is why I say daggers are nearly useless as offensive weapons in this case.

I was taking his post to mean any kind of mercenary group, say a Guild of Assassinations? Killing a king, or a priest, or a tactician, will lower the morale of the soldiers at worse, and totally mess them up at best.

What was that quote.... "Many think that an army will win a war, but some wars are won with a single knife."

 

[Phoenix Arrow]

Dual wield daggers. RDM/NIN goes.

 

[General Ken8]

Halberd
I have a feeling i'd be successful with one after a bit of practice

 

[Jamanticus]

I was taking his post to mean any kind of mercenary group, say a Guild of Assassinations? Killing a king, or a priest, or a tactician, will lower the morale of the soldiers at worse, and totally mess them up at best.

What was that quote.... "Many think that an army will win a war, but some wars are won with a single knife."

Ah, okay.

Still, there were no mercenary groups dedicated to assassinations back then in Europe. That's one of those 'cool gamer/novelist ideas' that arose only recently. (EDIT: Although there was that one king who kept a group of knights as secret police to kill dissenters. I guess that counts as a group of assassins, even if they're not mercenaries)

Assassins back then were usually just individual goons (sometimes knights) ordered to do their lord's bidding. Sometimes it was something as imaginative as poisoned food, but it was usually far from subtle. If someone assassinated someone in the Middle Ages, they'd usually just kick down that person's door and cut the person down.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Main thing I wanted to say was... Yes, if such a mercenary group existed as the one you mentioned, daggers would be an excellent choice of weapon.

Sorry for being so snappish =P

 

[Theocrati]

I was taking his post to mean any kind of mercenary group, say a Guild of Assassinations? Killing a king, or a priest, or a tactician, will lower the morale of the soldiers at worse, and totally mess them up at best.

What was that quote.... "Many think that an army will win a war, but some wars are won with a single knife."

This guy's obviously a douche
Jamanticus keeps raising valid points for why you'd get effed over after ONE kill, you keep pulling sharks outta your arse for why it could still -possibly- be feasible.
It's not, you'd be totally screwed, and I'd laugh at you.
Personally, I don't think you could even get ONE guy down, stealth doesn't work with magic disguise jutsu and -paff- sound effects. **points to DP**
Stop being a narutard, or take it elsewhere.
Also, that quote? yeah, it proves nothing. Just. simply. doesn't.
Also also.
Since when the heck did you ever hear of catapults and so on being used in small scuffles?
You sir, are simply incorrect.
I'm a blastoise with a monocle, your argument is invalid.
-TCR

EDIT: Pulled the swears.

 

[Merteg]

I was taking his post to mean any kind of mercenary group, say a Guild of Assassinations? Killing a king, or a priest, or a tactician, will lower the morale of the soldiers at worse, and totally mess them up at best.

What was that quote.... "Many think that an army will win a war, but some wars are won with a single knife."

This guy's obviously a douche
Jamanticus keeps raising valid points for why you'd get fucked over after ONE kill, you keep pulling shit outta your arse for why it could still -possibly- be feasible.
It's not, you'd be totally screwed, and I'd laugh at you.
Personally, I don't think you could even get ONE guy down, stealth doesn't work with magic disguise jutsu and -paff- sound effects. **points to DP**
Stop being a narutard, or take it elsewhere.
Also, that quote? yeah, it proves nothing. Just. simply. doesn't.
Also also.
Since when the hell did you ever hear of catapults and so on being used in small scuffles?
You sir, are an idiot.
I'm a blastoise with a monocle, your argument is invalid.
-TCR

Ummmm, what the.... Obvious troll is obvious.....

We don't like little five year old trolls here, gtfo plox?

 

[Merteg]

I was taking his post to mean any kind of mercenary group, say a Guild of Assassinations? Killing a king, or a priest, or a tactician, will lower the morale of the soldiers at worse, and totally mess them up at best.

What was that quote.... "Many think that an army will win a war, but some wars are won with a single knife."

Ah, okay.

Still, there were no mercenary groups dedicated to assassinations back then in Europe. That's one of those 'cool gamer/novelist ideas' that arose only recently.

Assassins back then were usually just individual goons (sometimes knights) ordered to do their lord's bidding. Sometimes it was something as imaginative as poisoned food, but it was usually far from subtle. If someone assassinated someone in the Middle Ages, they'd usually just kick down that person's door and cut the person down.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Main thing I wanted to say was... Yes, if such a mercenary group existed as the one you mentioned, daggers would be an excellent choice of weapon.

Sorry for being so snappish =P

You didn't seem snappish at all.

You seem to know more on the subject than me, there probably wasn't any guilds like I said.

Though, there's nothing more fun than stabbing a few mother lovers in the back, you have to admit.

 

[Jamanticus]

Though, there's nothing more fun than stabbing a few mother lovers in the back, you have to admit.

You're right about that ^_^ (not that I've...Ever done it or anything...<.<)

 

[Trendkill6]

I'd take a Zweihänder, with a backup dagger.
Ok technically it's a Renaissance weapon but I'm pretty sure there's a medieval equivilant.

 

[Katana314]

I'd say a blunt weapon. Everyone you face is gonna be wearing a lot of armor; might as well put the dull thudding impact to your advantage.

 

[Sephiwind]

I choose the crossbow for two reasons.

Reason 1: It was easier to aim and had the ability to pierce most armor.

Reason 2: It was the only known weapon to be banned from war by the Catholic Church.

 

[Infallible Fail]

Has to be two slim swords. (This is after some training? I hope?) I love the speed and grace of two swords. Close second is (long)bow- hitting targets at range with impunity ftw.

 

[SimuLord]

are we attacking people in the open or walled up in forts we have to smash into?

Well, one presumes that those who have voted for catapults/trebuchets have made rubble of the walls, and one must also presume that if we get enough folks building siege engines (and by that I specifically meant siege towers and their relatives rather than wall-smashing tools like the catapults, which are themselves technically "siege engines") there will be plenty of melee atop what's left of the walls.

Then again, perhaps those who have voted for spears/pikes are quite fond of defense...or literally "pushing the point" in a fight. The Swiss pikemen were legendary for turning every attempt at invasion into a miniature Thermopylae, except without the whole "traitor leads the Persians over the pass and up the Spartans' asses" part.

EDIT: And for purposes of this poll, I'm talking traditional, historical medieval use for mercs, which was to help ensure greater ranks in armies, and I'm allowing a bit of creative fiction for castle/siege assaults which, for the defender at least, did not traditionally involve mercs because it's awful hard to get a company of mercenaries through a siege line without someone figuring out what was afoot.

 

[skywalkerlion]

Scenario: It's 1257. You've just been selected to be part of a medieval mercenary army. No sorcery, magic, or JRPG shit, just hacking/clubbing people to death for king and glory. Choose your weapon, and post your reasons for the choice in the thread as we determine the greatest medieval weapons in a lively debate.

And if you have to ask "why 1257", I pity you as I play last year's most awesome game (no, not Fallout 3.)

You mean Assassin's Creed? Yeah, I heart that game

I choose maces, because I always loved how awesome they are. And because normally in RPGs, the Holy Priests use teh maces for hammering faces (like Paladins in WoW)

If not that, I might go axe or longbow, cause I've been a Legolas wannabe since I was 6.

 

[Russian_Assassin]

I go with swords. There is nothing a katana can't solve! (except nuclear wars, cancer, AIDS etc)

 

[0p3rati0n]

give me a dagger I'll go behind enemy lines and slice the necks of the enemy! If I can't have a sniper rifle I'm going behind enemy lines and getting more personal!!!!

 

[dududf]

Hwatcha.

Wasn't invented yet in 1257, but looked awesome when they built one on Mythbusters.

Fine, then I invent it. Fuck history, GO HWATCHA!

Replace the arrow tip with Uranium and we have a winnder..


you sir will rain death with 400 arrows all laucnhing

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

Crossbows.


Requires the least work to use.


But I hope to dear jesus christ that the enemy doesn't get close to me when I'm reloading, or I am FFFFFFFUUUUCCCKKKKKKEEEEDDDD