A longbow would be my weapon of choice, simply because I've got the eye of a marksman. However, the longbow is probably the most complicated weapon on that list in terms of operation (at least, operation with the intent of maiming things).
Poll: Get medieval on this poll.
- Thread starter SimuLord
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Let us all remember that the sword was always a secondary weapon. A pole arm, a spear, a pike, a lance, a ranged weapon, but never a longsword. Swords are not handy in massed battles in which troops fight as a unit in a formation. A sword is like a pistol of the modern age: a status symbol, a last resort.
Two handed swords were used to some extent, but not as widely as other oversized can openers. In fact, the Landesknecht, some of the most famous two handed sword wielders, had only 5 swords in a unit of 120 men, the rest had pikes as primary weapons: The swordsmen burst out of the spear wall formation, and with their massive blades try to render the enemy's pikes harmelss, creating weak spots where the opposing formation might break.
Depending on the situation, I would choose either spears/pikes/halberds, bows/crossbows or swords. For a large battle I would want my troops to wield versatile polearms, capable of fending off cavalry, smashing armoured troops and capable of carrying shields for protection. For smaller confortations, the bows/crossbows. Longbows were terrifying weapons, volleys were capable of devastating entire formations over extreme distances. Crossbows were not used for the same purpose ast the longbow They were used on shorter distances, firing directly at the enemy, instead of indirectly raining death upon them. On these shorter ranges, the crossbow was a fearsome weapon, rendering much of the available armour useless.
Swords would be optimal for duels or chasing down fleeing enemies on horseback.
A few things about medieval swords and armour: A sword, even a two handed monster, doesn't weigh a million tons. They are actually fairly light, a simple longsword weighs only about 2 lbs, a greatsword around 4-5lbs. Western longswords were maserfully crafted, versatile and durable weapons, contrary to popular belief. Cheap, badly made modern replicas are partly to blame for this misconception.
Medieval western armours are the best man made protection ever. (for their time, obviously) Before firearms developed enough to be a considerable threat (late 14th century), a trained knight in full plate armour was virtually untouchable in close combat. Also, westen knights were not clumsy and slow, a suit of armour is surprinigly flexible and trained knights were more than a match for anyone. Hype about unarmoured and agile ninja- like fighters beating heavily armoured warriors is utter nonsense. Speed is not protection. Medieval two handed swords were much, much faster to wield than you might think.
A sword, no matter what kind, won't cut through metal like in hollywood movies. Even chainmail was enough to stop a blade(not to numb the blow, however). Only a few weapons were capable of actually penetrating proper armours: a heavy halberd might cut it, a morning star if it was heavy enough, a good sizeable axe, warhammers were quite effective and lance in a mounted charge has just too much kintetic energy for any plate. If one wanted to wound an armoured foe, tough luck. A strong blow to a weak spot in a suit of armour worn by a trained warrior is always a long shot. The best way to dismember knights are ranged weapons combined with taking advantage of the environment. Which is why knights were more often captured and ransomed than killed. They were profitable POWs.
(got a little sidetracked there, sorry)
Two handed swords were used to some extent, but not as widely as other oversized can openers. In fact, the Landesknecht, some of the most famous two handed sword wielders, had only 5 swords in a unit of 120 men, the rest had pikes as primary weapons: The swordsmen burst out of the spear wall formation, and with their massive blades try to render the enemy's pikes harmelss, creating weak spots where the opposing formation might break.
Depending on the situation, I would choose either spears/pikes/halberds, bows/crossbows or swords. For a large battle I would want my troops to wield versatile polearms, capable of fending off cavalry, smashing armoured troops and capable of carrying shields for protection. For smaller confortations, the bows/crossbows. Longbows were terrifying weapons, volleys were capable of devastating entire formations over extreme distances. Crossbows were not used for the same purpose ast the longbow They were used on shorter distances, firing directly at the enemy, instead of indirectly raining death upon them. On these shorter ranges, the crossbow was a fearsome weapon, rendering much of the available armour useless.
Swords would be optimal for duels or chasing down fleeing enemies on horseback.
A few things about medieval swords and armour: A sword, even a two handed monster, doesn't weigh a million tons. They are actually fairly light, a simple longsword weighs only about 2 lbs, a greatsword around 4-5lbs. Western longswords were maserfully crafted, versatile and durable weapons, contrary to popular belief. Cheap, badly made modern replicas are partly to blame for this misconception.
Medieval western armours are the best man made protection ever. (for their time, obviously) Before firearms developed enough to be a considerable threat (late 14th century), a trained knight in full plate armour was virtually untouchable in close combat. Also, westen knights were not clumsy and slow, a suit of armour is surprinigly flexible and trained knights were more than a match for anyone. Hype about unarmoured and agile ninja- like fighters beating heavily armoured warriors is utter nonsense. Speed is not protection. Medieval two handed swords were much, much faster to wield than you might think.
A sword, no matter what kind, won't cut through metal like in hollywood movies. Even chainmail was enough to stop a blade(not to numb the blow, however). Only a few weapons were capable of actually penetrating proper armours: a heavy halberd might cut it, a morning star if it was heavy enough, a good sizeable axe, warhammers were quite effective and lance in a mounted charge has just too much kintetic energy for any plate. If one wanted to wound an armoured foe, tough luck. A strong blow to a weak spot in a suit of armour worn by a trained warrior is always a long shot. The best way to dismember knights are ranged weapons combined with taking advantage of the environment. Which is why knights were more often captured and ransomed than killed. They were profitable POWs.
(got a little sidetracked there, sorry)
Normaly there would be many.Shine-osophical said:
Archers were not marksmen, they were trained to use devastating, massed vollys so that the order of the surviving enemy was broken.
Marksmen exsited, but as far as I know were only a common "unit" in Mongal armies because they were more than just a miltia.
Polearm all the way; effective against enemies of horseback and on foot, multiple applications and the benefit of extra reach. Against a single foe or many the halberd is deadly, granted it leaves you without a sheild but I can live with that.
Also, you don't have to reload a Halberd.
Also, you don't have to reload a Halberd.
Hack and slash like a mad **** with a sword all the while ditching daggers at un seuspecting passers by.
The sword is good as a primary combat weapon that every trooper should have but after that (and a shield) I believe that halberds are the most useful, they can be swung or launched and have a far longer range than swords (and the like) and unlike arrows have some basic amount of damage they can inflict (in full scale combat only 1 in every 20 arrows ever kills a man).
You forgot the morning star...oh, well, I choose swords and heavy armor and horses. That's right...I'm a Paladin.
Crossbows, since I'm a king of stealth. Don't believe me? Anyone in the UK heard of the CCF (kind of like Army/RAF cadets in schools)? No? Shame. I was a sergeant in the CCF when I was at school and we did regular 'Field Days', being taken for training at army bases. One excercise involved avoiding an opposing squad to find certain items ('intelligence canisters') and bring them back to our base camp. I got seperated from my group behind enemy lines, as it were, ended up hiding and completing the entire objective singlehandedly while my team were found and beaten by a group of sixth formers on the other team. I am literally a king of stealth.
Anyway, that's why i'd go for crossbow. Using it like a sniper would, I could turn the tide of any skirmish. In a large-scale battle I'd either use the longbow, or do a Nobby Nobbs...
EDIT: Does anyone else know that the reason the English have been the best army around for centuries is because of the longbow? I don't mean nowadays, but in Tudor times it was law that all male children from the age of seven upwards had to spend at least an hour every Sunday after church being taught by their father how to use a longbow, and practise at the archery butts every week? By the time a lad was seventeen he would look slightly deformed but he would be able to kill someone at huge distances with the longbow. This was true beforehand as well, to the point that in the Battle of Agincourt during the reign of Henry V, a small English force defeated a huge French army (outnumbered 6-1 with traditional estimates at 6000 English and 36000 French) simply because we launched huge barrages of arrows (5/6 of the English army were longbowmen). Not even the Roman infantry square would be able to withstand that. A successful army would mainly use the longbow, is my point, if trained correctly.
Anyway, that's why i'd go for crossbow. Using it like a sniper would, I could turn the tide of any skirmish. In a large-scale battle I'd either use the longbow, or do a Nobby Nobbs...
EDIT: Does anyone else know that the reason the English have been the best army around for centuries is because of the longbow? I don't mean nowadays, but in Tudor times it was law that all male children from the age of seven upwards had to spend at least an hour every Sunday after church being taught by their father how to use a longbow, and practise at the archery butts every week? By the time a lad was seventeen he would look slightly deformed but he would be able to kill someone at huge distances with the longbow. This was true beforehand as well, to the point that in the Battle of Agincourt during the reign of Henry V, a small English force defeated a huge French army (outnumbered 6-1 with traditional estimates at 6000 English and 36000 French) simply because we launched huge barrages of arrows (5/6 of the English army were longbowmen). Not even the Roman infantry square would be able to withstand that. A successful army would mainly use the longbow, is my point, if trained correctly.
I was going to say something else, but this is just too awesome for me not to quote it.TheSunshineHobo said:
Crossbow. It's accurate, you don't need your middle finger to shoot it (lol), and it's the closest thing to a 'gun' on here, which is obviously one of the most efficient killing tools ever.
...catalpults, trebuchets and mangonels are seige engines... why do they apear twice on the poll list? Also, how dose one hit someone with a trebuchet? Or a bow? Also, I was drawn here under the pretense of the Pulp Fiction reference... I feel ripped off.
Well my first choice would be a good old fassioned dane axe, A six foot long two handed axe designed for smashing sheilds, however that had been rendered obsolete by 1257, so i voted pike; because the main thing about a pike is that its 20 feet long and everything happens at the other end, i would of course have a sword or handaxe incase sombody gets past the pike.