Top ten greatest weapons in history

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

http://www.cultural-china.com/chinaWH/html/en/History250bye2543.html

If you want cool and guaranteed to harm on contact, three bladed halberds used atop chariots are the way to go.

Yeah, I think it is awesome.

 

[DSK-]

1) Human Brain.....after that its all redundant...

Agreed. Voltaire once said "No problem can stand the assault of sustained thinking"

Having said that, the fact of the matter is that weapons have been created in order to kill animals/other humans in increasingly more efficient ways.

The human mind is a truly terrifying thing.

 

[t3h br0th3r]

ALL BOW THE TO THE KING OF SWORDS!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/28/lightsaber.jpg

 

[Louis Hermann]

Here's my list:
10) Handaxe. By handaxe, I mean a sharp piece of stone held in the hand that basically turned your entire arm into an axe, which was the first weapon that mankind employed, and is also it's longest used tool. Didn't impact warfare all that much, but it deserves a mention for being the first.
9) Muskets. Musket's changed the face of the battlefield forever, thier superior range and firepower allowed marksmen to eliminate high value targets while, in many cases, remaining relatively safe behind defensive lines.
8) Crossbow. The crossbow revolutionized warfare because a crossbowmen could be trained in a few weeks, compared to years of training needed to use other weapons effectively. They also hit with much more force and penetration than longbow fired arrows, although they had a shorter range and slower fire rate. The extremely small amount of training time necessary allowed for effective use of conscripts in warfare.
7) Repeater rifle/revolver: These weapons allowed for a much faster fire rate, virtually necesitating the use of cover such as trenches in open warfare.
6) Dragon skin armor. Dragon skin armor allows for soldiers to have a higher survival rate, and allows for a longer reaction time to limit friendly fire.
5) Atlatl. Commonly called the spear-thrower, allowed for effective attacks to be made at much greater range, and was the first truely effective range weapon.
4)Maxim machine gun. The first full machine gun that could be carried by a single soldier, this weapon drastically increased the ammount of firepower that could be brought to bare by infantry units, further necesitating trenches or other forms of heavy cover and slightly offsetting the usefulness of "cavalry" units.
3) Longbow, most notabley: the english longbow. the incredible range and firerate of these weapons allowed an army to inflict terrible casualties on the enemy before they could return fire, and also greatly demoralized the enemy.
1) Tied for first place, I suggest the shield and military aircraft. The shield led to the advent of phalanx fighting, which led to highly advanced tactics. Phalanx fighting allowed alaxander the great to conquer a huge amount of territory and ironically allowed the greeks, most notably the spartans, to defeat the invasion of persia.
Military aircraft add a third dimension to any battlefield and allow for incredably devestating attacks against ground forces, forever changing tactics on the battlefield

anyway, that's my opinion on which weapons most changed the face of the battlefield and had the largest impact on military tactics and battles. which weapons are most effective at thier purpose of killing people is another matter entirely.

And you think Dragon Skin has changed the face of the battlefield or had an impact on military tactics? The bloody glue holding the scales on MELTS in desert conditions making the armor a heavy sack of stones.

 

[park92]

I have no clue how to fill out a list, but a weapon that deserves its spot on the list goes to the M1919 Browning.

It's still in freaking service.

No but the M2 browning is

 

[spartan231490]

1) Tied for first place, I suggest the shield and military aircraft. The shield led to the advent of phalanx fighting, which led to highly advanced tactics. Phalanx fighting allowed alaxander the great to conquer a huge amount of territory and ironically allowed the greeks, most notably the spartans, to defeat the invasion of persia.

I've gotta say in my view the phalanx didn't involve much tactics.
The whole point of the phalanx warfare was it's simplicity- each and every male citizen with a spear and shield could partake without knowing much about warfare at all. Greek on greek land warfare during this era involved two huge masses of men colliding with each other. There wasn't much tactical flexbility at all and formations were too rigid imo. It's strength lay in the fact that any able male citizen, though by himself pretty useless, became a fearsome force to be reckoned with in a phalanx with other citizens.
Plus though the phalanx played a huge role in the persian wars, so did the greek xenophobia, propaganda and the athenian navy. Also I don't see the irony in the greek victory over the persians during the invasion.
Even in the Pelopponesian wars the phalanx warfare wasn't very tactically versatile or complex; the more experienced and stronger mass of hoplites won the battle pretty much every time. Even in Alexander's time and the hellenistic to roman age the phalanx' job was to engage the main enemy bulk and hold the line, whilst the cavalry went for the throat which was pretty much how Alexander won all his battles against the persians.

I'm gonna say the following deserves a mention for the greatest weapons in history.
Propaganda. From ancient times to modern day, propaganda proved itself to be a great tool and weapon in wars. Though it can't kill enemies, it can sure demoralize them and strengthen the resolve of your military and citizens.
The roman legion. I don't think you can really point out just a single weapon or component of the legion and claim it was great, as it relied on the others to function to its fullest potential. The gladius without the discipline and shield would be nothing more than a short sword, and the pilum would be nothing more than a javelin. However, together it made one of the greatest war machines of the ancient times and truly revolutionized warfare. The first professional army, amazing array of tactics at its disposal and the genius use of engineering in warfare.
Actual physical weapon wise, I'm gonna say the musket. The likes of a longbow, crossbow and swords generally required experienced and skilled hands to be truly deadly. The musket completely levelled the playing field.

I didn't mean to indicate that the phalanx requires tactics, but i do believe that it allows for more tactics because it forces your men to fight as a unit. Phalanx fighting leads to discretion between units trained in different weapons, as well as tactics which specifically rely on the strengths of the phalanx, such as "hammer and the anvil" type tactics.
I thought it was ironic because the macedonian phalanx was a powerful tool for conquest, while the phalanx was later used by other greeks to prevent conquest.
I agree with your mention of propoganda and the roman legion, but I think the spartans deserve a mention as well.

 

[NeutralDrow]

HAHA If you want to see some awesome spear work go watch Red Cliff. It's about Liu Bei's little rebellion during which Zhao Yun was one of his main generals.

I stand by my statement that axes are cooler and therefore they beat spears.

I still do need to see that. In the meantime, I've played that battle. Not as Zhao Yun, though; I prefer Guan Yu over him.

And clearly the only way would could settle this is open combat. My yari against whatever axe you pick (other than <url=http://www.studiodink.com/Images/Dynasty_Warriors/DW4/Xu-Huang.jpg>Xu Huang's; shit be cheatin', yo). Long as we're not using Fire Emblem mechanics, my advantage!

If you have Netflix, the theatrical version is on instant. It's not the full movie (the full movie is 4 hours long, it's just waiting on my queue because it's two disks and I want to get them at the same time) but it's still pretty good.

Sweet, I do have Netflix. I'll look it up.

Were I to fight someone with a spear I would use a Dane ax. If you don't know what that is, it a long ax used frequently by vikings. it's about three feet long but because a targe can be used with something still in hand I could still use it two handed.

Hmm...

*<url=http://www.austlend.org/images/085_85.jpg>checks*

Oh come on! You go off on the merits of axes, then you bring a polearm to a fight? On the plus side, you'd be just as afflicted by the following "disadvantage" of spears as I would (after all, your weapon has an axe head, not a scythe blade).

Or, it would, except...

The problem with spears is once your opponent gets inside the reach of the spear it is very hard to continue to use the spear and still fight effectively, which is where my shield comes in.

Not really. I'm a wizard, you see. Once you get "inside my reach," I magically turn my spear into a staff.

The shield would be a problem, admittedly, but at the very least, it would mean your weapon is tied up, and your avenue of attack predictable, especially if you had the spike.

Still, though...

If this weapon was not the best suited for the purpose, why did it not cease to be used as a killing tool until guns came around?

What about weapons that didn't cease being used when guns came around?

Spoiler: ^_^

I've always been bothered when people say that all they would bring into a melee fight is a knife. If you ask me all you're going to get out of that is my warhammer turning your face into goo while your knife is stuck in my shield. (I like heavy weapons that make people go splat)

Assuming you're fighting on open ground with room to swing, and you actually hit the guy with the knife. And why would he be attacking your shield? Unless you're talking, like, a buckler or something.

I'm thinking more like a Scottish targe, you know the ones with the huge fucking spikes on the front. But your point is valid about the space issue, although I don't know of many melee fights that take place in small corridors. Also it's not that hard to swing a hammer (most warhammers weighted about 5-8lbs.) in a confined space.

To be honest, the only times I see people speak about the usefulness of knives is in modern combat situations, which is what I was thinking of.

I'd pick a spear or an iron staff, myself.

Knives are good if you're trying to be quiet or it's you last resort, but there is nothing quite about a melee fight and if you run in there with just a knife you're likely to get you head bashed in.

Again, depending on the fight. Extreme close-quarters, or in constrained areas, and they're incredible. That's why they (and in some cases short swords) were always carried alongside longer weapons. Using them generally requires good unarmed fighting skills as well...but then, essentially every weapon benefits from that.

And "running in there" is pretty bad, no matter what you're wielding.

 

[Shadows Inc.]

A Katana? Kind of played, don't you think?

I was expecting something a bit more interesting.

And absolutely useless against chainmail.

doesn't hinder any of its abilities.

Just no.

Sure they are *rolls eyes* Le

That force comes from the curve that acts like a spring when you swing it which dramatically increases the pounds of force when you hit something. I still find it quite funny that you call me a weeabo considering I'm more into Greek, and Roman culture than I will ever be with the Japanese. It's merely just a childish insult. And here's a way I can get around a shield.

You do know that force comes from the blade being curved, because it's NOT acting like a spring,, but all of the energy is focused on less surface area? A flat blade hits and the whole surface shares the force and therefore lessens it, while a curved blade has much less are and therefore the first chop is made deep and the rest slides for the slice. There's nothing pertaining to spring physics in any of it.

Both of you don't really know what you're talking about do you?
The curved blade of a Katana was not supposed to be used like a normal sword. A normal sword was struck in a straight and flat motion. The Katana was held at an approximately 23 degree angle and struck that way. Holding it at this angle, and pulling towards you as you swing would create a cutting motion to where the whole blade would go across the surface. The same effect happens when you use a bread knife to cut a loaf of bread, you wouldn't strike the bread in a downward motion and keep pushing down, you would cut it cleanly by slicing back and forth using the full blade itself to cut. This is one of the reasons the Katana was so light, skinny, and curved. It was because it didn't need the extra weight of the steel to cut for it. It had nothing to do with the force exerted. To test this out, go get a knife, and place the blade on your arm. Now press down pretty hard. Now lift the blade and what do you see? You see a little divit. Place the blade again on a different part of your arm and press half as hard. Not getting anything? Well try pulling the blade one way or another. Don't want to? Then you know I'm right.

 

[Jenkins]

hmm.

Bowie knife is just a big blade, thats it. nothing special about it.

Katana doesnt deserve to be on this list. its just a sword, nothing special there.

Halberds while cool were also crap, a weapon given to peasants enlisted in a lords army and usually for anti-cavalry. in reality if you got anywhere close this weapon itd be quiet easy to parry if you know how to use a sword and once you got past the blade part your screwed. unlike the crossbow which gave any farmhand long range and powerful shot. this weapon was NOT used by knights.

RPG7's are also craptastic but I guess they MIGHT deserve a spot here because they are easy to procure.

also if you need to put a bow, put the recurve or longbow up instead. the longbow was the English's secret weapon while the recurve bow made accuracy and power improvements with less effort.

 

[Knifewounds]

Before I read the thread I knew katana would be listed as #1. It is worth noting that during the westernization of Japan rapiers/sabers were quickly overtaking katanas. The curved blade is an excellent design, good for swift movement and deeper cuts, but is much less effective against armor. When it bares down too it though, when armor is of little concern, the fastest wins out (all other factors being comparable). When armor is a factor, you want mass and leverage (while retaining balance and versatility). This is where the honorably mentioned claymore shines. Penatrating power without the unwieldy balance of an axe or polearm (though some polearms were every bit as good and in some situations much better, though the greatsword was fielded specifically to take out the long-shafted types). Katana is a good balance to be sure, though. There is no "King of Swords" so to speak. Many are situational or there wouldnt be such a variety even within cultures.

I would love to hear some more feed back from other sword fanatics.

I think the main reason katanas were over taken in Japan wasn't because rapiers/sabers were better, but that they were cheaper, and easier to make, and the heavy western influence drove many Japanese people away from their own culture, though this statement is just idol speculation as are 99% of my replies. You do have a very good point, there is no king of swords, and most are situational, but out of all the swords I think the katana could handle the most situations, but let it be known that the Claymore is very close to the katana, and that it, and a few other swords like the kilij, and rapier would have been on this list if I didn't want just one sword on it. I knew people would complain about the katana being on the list no less than being number 1, but it was one of those weapons that I'd get hated on for leaving in, or leaving out so it was kinda hard to put it there at all.

 

[spartan231490]

Here's my list:
10) Handaxe. By handaxe, I mean a sharp piece of stone held in the hand that basically turned your entire arm into an axe, which was the first weapon that mankind employed, and is also it's longest used tool. Didn't impact warfare all that much, but it deserves a mention for being the first.
9) Muskets. Musket's changed the face of the battlefield forever, thier superior range and firepower allowed marksmen to eliminate high value targets while, in many cases, remaining relatively safe behind defensive lines.
8) Crossbow. The crossbow revolutionized warfare because a crossbowmen could be trained in a few weeks, compared to years of training needed to use other weapons effectively. They also hit with much more force and penetration than longbow fired arrows, although they had a shorter range and slower fire rate. The extremely small amount of training time necessary allowed for effective use of conscripts in warfare.
7) Repeater rifle/revolver: These weapons allowed for a much faster fire rate, virtually necesitating the use of cover such as trenches in open warfare.
6) Dragon skin armor. Dragon skin armor allows for soldiers to have a higher survival rate, and allows for a longer reaction time to limit friendly fire.
5) Atlatl. Commonly called the spear-thrower, allowed for effective attacks to be made at much greater range, and was the first truely effective range weapon.
4)Maxim machine gun. The first full machine gun that could be carried by a single soldier, this weapon drastically increased the ammount of firepower that could be brought to bare by infantry units, further necesitating trenches or other forms of heavy cover and slightly offsetting the usefulness of "cavalry" units.
3) Longbow, most notabley: the english longbow. the incredible range and firerate of these weapons allowed an army to inflict terrible casualties on the enemy before they could return fire, and also greatly demoralized the enemy.
1) Tied for first place, I suggest the shield and military aircraft. The shield led to the advent of phalanx fighting, which led to highly advanced tactics. Phalanx fighting allowed alaxander the great to conquer a huge amount of territory and ironically allowed the greeks, most notably the spartans, to defeat the invasion of persia.
Military aircraft add a third dimension to any battlefield and allow for incredably devestating attacks against ground forces, forever changing tactics on the battlefield

anyway, that's my opinion on which weapons most changed the face of the battlefield and had the largest impact on military tactics and battles. which weapons are most effective at thier purpose of killing people is another matter entirely.

And you think Dragon Skin has changed the face of the battlefield or had an impact on military tactics? The bloody glue holding the scales on MELTS in desert conditions making the armor a heavy sack of stones.

I don't know if it has changed the face of the battlefield, but i think that it will. they can research different glues, the fact remains that it is a much better at stopping bullets than any current armor that can be worn by an individual. kevlar vests do well at stopping handgun rounds, but they cannot stop rifle bullets or shotgun slugs, and I'm pretty sure they don't stop shrapnel from explosions either.

 

[AcrylicHero]

I didn't mean to indicate that the phalanx requires tactics, but i do believe that it allows for more tactics because it forces your men to fight as a unit. Phalanx fighting leads to discretion between units trained in different weapons, as well as tactics which specifically rely on the strengths of the phalanx, such as "hammer and the anvil" type tactics.
I thought it was ironic because the macedonian phalanx was a powerful tool for conquest, while the phalanx was later used by other greeks to prevent conquest.
I agree with your mention of propoganda and the roman legion, but I think the spartans deserve a mention as well.

The persian invasion of Greece happened first. The macedonian take over of greece and conquest of persia was much later on.

 

[tthor]

A Katana? Kind of played, don't you think?

I was expecting something a bit more interesting.

And absolutely useless against chainmail.

i wouldn't say that.back in the day, to test how well a katana was made, they would give it to a samurai, then grab some young korean or chinese boy, and slice him in half with the blade; if the katana is properly made, the samurai should be able to slice the boy clean in half from the should to the thigh in 1 swing. if a katana could cut through gut and bone so easily, i don't think chainmail would be a huge hindrance

 

[Link XL1]

i must have misread the title, you see i thought this was "greatest weapons in history", not "weapons that i think are cool".

 

[NeutralDrow]

And here's a way I can get around a shield. I'll just break the arm behind the shield, or wait for an opening in my opponents attacks for me to lunge a counter attack into, or just exploit the blind spot the shield leaves to sweep around, and maybe cut his head off if I'm feeling charitable enough not to chop at his legs instead, and even if the shields small enough to leave a small blind spot then its still gonna leave a lot more openings for me to strike at.

*sigh*

There's a reason virtually every culture developed hand-held shields for close-combat and why they continued to be used literally for thousands of years. They were very effective. In 15th century Europe, it was only the combination of the development of full plate armor and two-handed swords combined with heavy pole-arms and powerful missile weapons that finally reduced the long reigning value of the shield in warfare. The Medieval style of sword and shield fighting is distinctly different from the two-hand grip and quick full-arm slashing cuts of Kenjutsu. Medieval short swords are properly wielded with more of a throw of the arm and a twist of the hips while making passing steps forward or back. Strikes are thrown from behind the shield while it simultaneously guards, feints, deflects, or presses. A sword and shield is a great asset over a single sword alone. Fighting with sword and shield offers a well-rounded and strong defense that safely permits a wide range of both direct and combination attacks.

A sword can cut quite well from almost all angles around or underneath a shield. Indeed, since the shield side is so well guarded, the opponent is the one limited to attacking to only one side ?the non-shield side. While a large shield does indeed close off a tremendous amount of targets to an attacker, it also limits, to a far smaller degree, freedom to attack by the shield user. As it comes out from behind their shield to strike, an attacker's weapon can be counter-timed and counter-cut ?and this is indeed one tactic to employ against a shield user. Yet a shield user's attacks are not at all one sided. A shield can be used offensively in a number of ways and at very close range.

Katanas are powerful swords used with strong techniques, but thinking they could simply cleave through a stout Medieval shield is absurd. Even with a katana a shield cannot simply be sliced through. Medieval shields were fairly thick wood covered in leather and usually trimmed in metal. Not only that, they were highly maneuverable, making solid, shearing blows difficult. More likely, a blade would be momentarily stuck in the rim if it struck too forcefully. Unlike what is seen in the movies, or described in heroic literature, chopping into a shield's edge can temporarily cause the sword blade to wedge into the shield for just an instant and thereby be delayed in recovering or renewing an attack (and exposing the attacker's arms to a counter-cut). Shields without metal rims were even favored for this very reason.

Kenjutsu (Japanese swordsmanship), though consisting of very effective counter-cutting actions, also has no real indigenous provisions for fighting shields. Although a skilled warrior could certainly improvise some, those unfamiliar with the formidable effectiveness and versatility of a sword and shield combination will have a hard time. The shield was not used the way typically shown in movies, video games, stage-combat, or historical role-playing organizations such as the SCA. Fighting against a Medieval shield is not simply a matter of maneuvering around it or aiming blows elsewhere. If a warrior does not really know the shield, or hasn't faced a good shield fighter, then they cannot be expected to know how to ideally fight against it.

- <url=http://www.thehaca.com/essays/knightvs.htm>source

Assuming you can straight-up break a shield-fighters arm is also assuming the guy with the shield has no damned idea what he's doing.

But lets strip everything down. How would a sword like a Viking sword stack up to katana if the wielders have no armor or protection , and have to rely squarely on the sword they're using?

Depends on how good the wielders are, naturally.

Frankly, I'd take a rapier over either, assuming lack of armor, though <url=http://www.thehaca.com/essays/katanavs.htm>that carries its own question.

 

[Shadows Inc.]

Before I read the thread I knew katana would be listed as #1. It is worth noting that during the westernization of Japan rapiers/sabers were quickly overtaking katanas. The curved blade is an excellent design, good for swift movement and deeper cuts, but is much less effective against armor. When it bares down too it though, when armor is of little concern, the fastest wins out (all other factors being comparable). When armor is a factor, you want mass and leverage (while retaining balance and versatility). This is where the honorably mentioned claymore shines. Penatrating power without the unwieldy balance of an axe or polearm (though some polearms were every bit as good and in some situations much better, though the greatsword was fielded specifically to take out the long-shafted types). Katana is a good balance to be sure, though. There is no "King of Swords" so to speak. Many are situational or there wouldnt be such a variety even within cultures.

I would love to hear some more feed back from other sword fanatics.

I think the main reason katanas were over taken in Japan wasn't because rapiers/sabers were better, but that they were cheaper, and easier to make, and the heavy western influence drove many Japanese people away from their own culture, though this statement is just idol speculation as are 99% of my replies. You do have a very good point, there is no king of swords, and most are situational, but out of all the swords I think the katana could handle the most situations, but let it be known that the Claymore is very close to the katana, and that it, and a few other swords like the kilij, and rapier would have been on this list if I didn't want just one sword on it. I knew people would complain about the katana being on the list no less than being number 1, but it was one of those weapons that I'd get hated on for leaving in, or leaving out so it was kinda hard to put it there at all.

The first part is true, one Katana takes approximately 6 months at least to fabricate. Most Japanese military soldiers had a family sword passed through the generations, and anyone who didn't was provided one by the military, though most of the people who ended up getting one that way had wished that they had a family sword, because the military Katana were sub-par because they had to be made in bulk. As for the western swords, Rapier was forced on the citizens for the fact that Westerners thought (and still think) that they, and everything they do is superior. Using a Rapier was a different combat style entirely and needed teaching, while it was more efficent to have the citizens use what they already knew. Sabers were forced on for close to the same reason, Western civilization believed it to be similar to a Katana, so they thought that not much change needed to happen. (and pardon me for asking, but just exactly how is a Claymore like a Katana?)
There's more but I don't want to bore anyone.

 

[Shadows Inc.]

double post.

 

[Talshere]

#6. The Halberd: Don't we all love having choices? Being able to choose skewering your enemy like bloody shish kabobs. Choosing to take a mighty swing across your enemies gut thus spilling his gastric intestinal tract all over the war torn landscape, or simply choosing to flip your weapon around to swing a sharp pointy blade capable of getting into those hard-to-reach vitals of those hard-to-kill armored bastards. Ah, yes, freedom to kill exactly what you get from a Halberd. The innovation in its design helped it to be one of the most valued weapons on the battlefield until the advent of gunpowder.

Id have though a halberd generally worse than pikes and bills. Its hard to get a swing on such a long weapon sufficient to do any real damage, meaning it effectively becomes a fancy spear, so why not just use a spear? The pike has superior range and a tighter formation, making it harder to break and highly superior vs cavalry.

 

[Shadows Inc.]

hmm.

Bowie knife is just a big blade, thats it. nothing special about it.

Katana doesnt deserve to be on this list. its just a sword, nothing special there.

Halberds while cool were also crap, a weapon given to peasants enlisted in a lords army and usually for anti-cavalry. in reality if you got anywhere close this weapon itd be quiet easy to parry if you know how to use a sword and once you got past the blade part your screwed. unlike the crossbow which gave any farmhand long range and powerful shot. this weapon was NOT used by knights.

RPG7's are also craptastic but I guess they MIGHT deserve a spot here because they are easy to procure.

also if you need to put a bow, put the recurve or longbow up instead. the longbow was the English's secret weapon while the recurve bow made accuracy and power improvements with less effort.

You're an American aren't you?