NationStates Jolt Archive

Ah yes, another spin off thread. What was the best medieval (Medieval here meaning 500-1300 AD Europe) weapon in your opinion? Crossbow! Hehe. I have a strange obsession with the crossbow.:) But, with all seriousness, I think the crossbow was one of the weapons that paved the way for a professional army. It was powerful, fairly long ranged, and took a short amount of time to train with when compared to the bow. So fellow NSGers, opinion?

Are you talking "during the heyday of the mounted knight in Europe"?

Are you talking "during the heyday of the mounted knight in Europe"?

500-1300 AD. Yeah.

Edit: To be fair, the heyday would be more 700-1400 AD, but y'know.

Mwahahahaha! Yes, yes, the spinoffs continue! *evil cackle*

Really though, I would definitely say that the lance, in the hands of a skilled knight, was the most devestating weapon of the era.

500-1300 AD. Yeah.

Edit: To be fair, the heyday would be more 700-1400 AD, but y'know.

Do you see Crecy or Agincourt as the end of the mounted knight, or do you call it at the invention of the matchlock?

Mwahahahaha! Yes, yes, the spinoffs continue! *evil cackle*

Really though, I would definitely say that the lance, in the hands of a skilled knight, was the most devestating weapon of the era.

I say the crossbow. Shoot 'em right out of their saddles, savvy? Problem was, crossbows weren't cheap (And the crossbow was not thought of as a knight's weapon)

Do you see Crecy or Agincourt as the end of the mounted knight, or do you call it at the invention of the matchlock?

I'd say the rise of the middle class, and therefore the widespread availability of the matchlock which could be touted by hundreds of peasant troops when compared to the years of training it took to become a knight.

I say the crossbow. Shoot 'em right out of their saddles, savvy? Problem was, crossbows weren't cheap (And the crossbow was not thought of as a knight's weapon)

Imagine for a moment, and let yourself drift to the fields of some dark age battle...

You are a peasant, levied by his liege to fight in his army against [put enemy here]. You have rudimentary training with a crossbow (because that is all you would have), and are with fifty of your village buddies. Out of the blue, an enemy formation comes at you.

Seemingly titanic figures clad in heavy plate armor and chainmail riding down on you from atop enourmous warhorses in perfect formation, lowering their lances. You have time for one-and only one!-shot.

You are not going to hit. Sorry. You will shit your pants, miss, run, and then die.

:D

I say the crossbow. Shoot 'em right out of their saddles, savvy? Problem was, crossbows weren't cheap (And the crossbow was not thought of as a knight's weapon)

Not very good if it rains. The string goes bad, and it's not as easy to replace as the string on a bow.

I think that high quality steel swords are the critical military weapon, because they're useful if it rains or not, and works on whomever you're fighting.

The mace isn't bad, either.

Imagine for a moment, and let yourself drift to the fields of some dark age battle...

You are a peasant, levied by his liege to fight in his army against [put enemy here]. You have rudimentary training with a crossbow (because that is all you would have), and are with fifty of your village buddies. Out of the blue, an enemy formation comes at you.

Seemingly titanic figures clad in heavy plate armor and chainmail riding down on you from atop enourmous warhorses in perfect formation, lowering their lances. You have time for one-and only one!-shot.

You are not going to hit. Sorry. You will shit your pants, miss, run, and then die.

:D

Only fifty? What a cheap liege lord.:D

Not very good if it rains. The string goes bad, and it's not as easy to replace as the string on a bow.

I think that high quality steel swords are the critical military weapon, because they're useful if it rains or not, and works on whomever you're fighting.

The mace isn't bad, either.

Which is why you're supposed to keep it dry!

Ah yes, another spin off thread. What was the best medieval (Medieval here meaning 500-1300 AD Europe) weapon in your opinion? Crossbow! Hehe. I have a strange obsession with the crossbow.:) But, with all seriousness, I think the crossbow was one of the weapons that paved the way for a professional army. It was powerful, fairly long ranged, and took a short amount of time to train with when compared to the bow. So fellow NSGers, opinion?

Longbow for power.
Morning Star for sheer coolness.

Not very good if it rains. The string goes bad, and it's not as easy to replace as the string on a bow.

I think that high quality steel swords are the critical military weapon, because they're useful if it rains or not, and works on whomever you're fighting.

The mace isn't bad, either.

Do you mean the mace, or the morningstar?

A mace is a spiked ball (or some otherwise destructive tip) on a shaft of wood used as a blunt trauma weapon.

A morningstar is a spiked ball, or multiple spiked balls, on a chain or chains that is swung around ones head and then used to crack skulls more efficiently than a mace.

In one on one combat, if you have a crossbow, and I have a sword, you had better not miss. Because I won't allow you to reload.

Do you mean the mace, or the morningstar?

A mace is a spiked ball (or some otherwise destructive tip) on a shaft of wood used as a blunt trauma weapon.

A morningstar is a spiked ball, or multiple spiked balls, on a chain or chains that is swung around ones head and then used to crack skulls more efficiently than a mace.

Mace, no chain. Easier to control.

If I was an artist, and could control things like that, I would use a flail.

*uses time machine to bring a .308 Ruger M77 and 10,000 rounds of ammo to 999*

Actually, the English longbow was a very powerful weapon. Sure, it took a lot of training, but the reward was worth it. I'd also vote the pike as an excellent way to counter knights.

Only fifty? What a cheap liege lord.:D

He's a minor lord.

In one on one combat, if you have a crossbow, and I have a sword, you had better not miss. Because I won't allow you to reload.

Yeah, especially with the reload time of the crossbow. Which is why you aren't supposed to miss.;)

Mace, no chain. Easier to control.

If I was an artist, and could control things like that, I would use a flail.

amen to that. I would be scared shitless that I would smash my own skull.

*uses time machine to bring a .308 Ruger M77 and 10,000 rounds of ammo to 999*

Actually, the English longbow was a very powerful weapon. Sure, it took a lot of training, but the reward was worth it. I'd also vote the pike as an excellent way to counter knights.
5 English longbowmen that took years to train vs. 5 crossbowmen that took a week. Which will be easier to replace?
He's a minor lord.
The random volley might hit one or two, if we had swords or pikes, we might not even wait until they had reached us. Better a single dead knight then none, eh?

5 English longbowmen that took years to train vs. 5 crossbowmen that took a week. Which will be easier to replace?

The random volley might hit one or two, if we had swords or pikes, we might not even wait until they had reached us. Better a single dead knight then none, eh?

yeah, but considering that your longbowmen would pincushion those crossbowmen from a hundred paces beyond the maximum range of the crossbow, and be more accurate doing it? Five longbowmen were worth three times their number in crossbows.

And the point is, what peasant crossbowmen packed swords, much less pikes? I maintain that the knight himself is a weapon, and the deadliest of the entire period.

Really though, I would definitely say that the lance, in the hands of a skilled knight, was the most devastating weapon of the era.

The lance could also be used as a rather efficient weapon against said knights, when wielded by unmounted troops. Armies composed of peasants and citizens have defeated a fighting force composed of knights more than once in Europe's history.

The lance could also be used as a rather efficient weapon against said knights, when wielded by unmounted troops. Armies composed of peasants and citizens have defeated a fighting force composed of knights more than once in Europe's history.

When? Prior to William Wallace, a charge of heavy cavalry had never been stopped. And even after Wallace, it was a rare occurance.

The Longship. Nothing more terrifying to a bunch of monks that hoarded all the tressure in their abbey's than a fleet of Longships coming out of the mist going right up on shore and dropping Norse warriors in their midst.

yeah, but considering that your longbowmen would pincushion those crossbowmen from a hundred paces beyond the maximum range of the crossbow, and be more accurate doing it? Five longbowmen were worth three times their number in crossbows.

the problem is, although 5 longbowmen were worth 15 crossbowmen, 5 longbowmen took the amount of time to train as hundreds of crossbowmen. becoming a longbowman took years of training, a crossbowman weeks. Crossbows were more powerful then a normal bow, yet slightly less powerful then an English (Welsh?) longbow.

the problem is, although 5 longbowmen were worth 15 crossbowmen, 5 longbowmen took the amount of time to train as hundreds of crossbowmen. becoming a longbowman took years of training, a crossbowman weeks. Crossbows were more powerful then a normal bow, yet slightly less powerful then an English (Welsh?) longbow.

Just a hundred? Haha. Which is why the longbow was phased out in favor of the crossbow. I'm just saying, crossbows were far superior weapons, and they saved the Briton's ass during the Hundred Years war.

Just a hundred? Haha. Which is why the longbow was phased out in favor of the crossbow. I'm just saying, crossbows were far superior weapons, and they saved the Briton's ass during the Hundred Years war.

Exactly. Crossbows were the Superior weapon, and would have done away with longbows immediately if it wasn't for the range issue.

Morningstar Mace, no questions. A replica was built for a show about ancient weapons and the destructive power of this weapon when actually seeing it in use, was phenomenal.

Exactly. Crossbows were the Superior weapon, and would have done away with longbows immediately if it wasn't for the range issue.

And power. And availability.

And power. And availability.

Power less so, the crossbow was almost as powerful as the English(welsh?) longbow. Availability only matters when you also put availability of men trained to use them in with it. Too many longbows and not enough crossbows, or rather the people who knew how to make them.

Morningstar Mace, no questions. A replica was built for a show about ancient weapons and the destructive power of this weapon when actually seeing it in use, was phenomenal.

And how fast can you move with one of those? Worthless against a crossbow or other ranged weapon.

Power less so, the crossbow was almost as powerful as the English(welsh?) longbow. Availability only matters when you also put availability of men trained to use them in with it. Too many longbows and not enough crossbows, or rather the people who knew how to make them.

Too many longbows

Too many LONGBOWS

No such thing. :D

Don't slice them! Don't shoot them! Just "axe" them!

When? Prior to William Wallace, a charge of heavy cavalry had never been stopped. And even after Wallace, it was a rare occurance.

Take the Battle of the Golden Spurs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guldensporenslag) of 1302, for example. Hundreds of knights were killed by infantry. Also there's the Battle of Warns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Warns) of 1345. Enraged fishermen and farmers attacked and defeated an invading force of knights.

Don't slice them! Don't shoot them! Just "axe" them!

*Groans, shoots Revis with a crossbow*

Can I say that the two best weapons of the Medieval Era would be the Welsh Longbow and the common pike :D

True, the longbow did have disadvantagea compared to the crossbow but look at battles such as Crecy to see just what damage longbows could do, plus, seeing as archery was pretty much on the curiculum of the day, numbers were never really short, plus i would rather have a professional longbowman than some stinking peasant with a crossbow (Less dramatic as well) :D

And the common pike, perfect weapon for the masses. Combine the two and you have the perfect army :mp:

It varies from person to person. If you're nice and strong then an odachi would be great, but people like me are better off with a rapier or other lightweight weapon.

It varies from person to person. If you're nice and strong then an odachi would be great, but people like me are better off with a rapier or other lightweight weapon.
Or a crossbow!:D

It's a three-way toss-up between the chainsaw, the boomstick, and the deathcoaster.

Or a crossbow!:D

Forget the crossbow! Give me a Pleb with a Pike! :D

Forget the crossbow! Give me a Pleb with a Pike! :D

*Shoots the pleb with his Genoese Crossbowmen regiment*:D

Whatever the Mongols used to kick so much ass.

Whatever the Mongols used to kick so much ass.

Bows. Horses. Tactics. Engineering. In that order.

Whatever the Mongols used to kick so much ass.

One bow and one horse coming up :-P

Personally I'd say the Chinese Chu-Ku-Nu is my favorite from the time, it wasn't very accurate, but you could BARRAGE someone with volleys of crossbow bolts.

The peasent launcher.

Horses. Cop out answer, I know.

Imagine for a moment, and let yourself drift to the fields of some dark age battle...

You are a peasant, levied by his liege to fight in his army against [put enemy here]. You have rudimentary training with a crossbow (because that is all you would have), and are with fifty of your village buddies. Out of the blue, an enemy formation comes at you.

Seemingly titanic figures clad in heavy plate armor and chainmail riding down on you from atop enourmous warhorses in perfect formation, lowering their lances. You have time for one-and only one!-shot.

You are not going to hit. Sorry. You will shit your pants, miss, run, and then die.

:D

Time for one shot before getting run down by mounted knights with lances? Simple. Shoot the horse. As the horse goes down, there's a chance of the lance breaking, and giving you time to reload and shoot the knight. He'll probably be slow to get up due to falling from his dying horse (which may injure him), coupled with the weight of all that armor.

And how fast can you move with one of those? Worthless against a crossbow or other ranged weapon.

Yea I suppose. They were made for pure power and hand to hand combat instead of say, defending a castle. Although a battle between two people with morningstar maces would have been quite a battle to watch.

The tactical and strategical mind, a shield, and...a weapon..
Swords and bludgeons did its job in the mid to close range.
The lance and pike is only really useful if you are charging someone, with or without a horse.
Bows and crossbows have always been my favorites, but only works long range.

How about a small shield, a small bow and a small dagger or sword?
You have added protection from other weapons and flexibility.
Ability to attack long and short range.

But choosing one weapon of that era...
Crossbow it is.

Virtually anyone here will have played enough TW games to realise that this is a rock-scissors-paper scenario.

Yea I suppose. They were made for pure power and hand to hand combat instead of say, defending a castle. Although a battle between two people with morningstar maces would have been quite a battle to watch.


Bows and crossbows have always been my favorites, but only works long range.


All that's needed if you're a good shot ;).
How about a small shield, a small bow and a small dagger or sword?
You have added protection from other weapons and flexibility.
Ability to attack long and short range.
Sounds a bit like the Genoese Crossbowmen, one of the few professional military groups of the time. They were equipped with a large shield to hide behind when reloading, a dagger, and, of course, a crossbow.

All that's needed if you're a good shot ;).


Or many lousy ones ,)

Sounds a bit like the Genoese Crossbowmen, one of the few professional military groups of the time. They were equipped with a large shield to hide behind when reloading, a dagger, and, of course, a crossbow.

Yes, it does sound sensible, hehe.
It depends on whether you wanted a flexible unit or a well defended one.
Both have merits.

Sounds a bit like the Genoese Crossbowmen, one of the few professional military groups of the time. They were equipped with a large shield to hide behind when reloading, a dagger, and, of course, a crossbow.

Again, routed by English longbowmen :p

The best weapon?

Disease.

In all honesty, I'd go with the Longbow, as it really brought about the end of feudalism and the start of professional armies that would last until world war I. (I think. My history is kind of rusty.)

I still stand by the longbow as the best weapon. Pikes and maces are good for close-up work. Museum Replicas Limited used to have a really nice war hammer.

On a side note, anyone here ever played "Lords of the Realm II"? Macemen & archers for battle, archers with a few pikes and crossbows for castle defense.

Again, routed by English longbowmen :p

Because of three reasons:
1. They weren't really fighting for anything, they were fighting for money. Little incentive when compared to the English longbowmen fighting for their lord.

2. The English longbow's longer range+they were on a hill.

3. The crossbow bowstrings were soaked, further reducing the accuracy.

K?

Halberds or axes all the way. Actually longbows are tied for first with those...

Now if only you could have an axbow...

Rolling squid;13850411']In all honesty, I'd go with the Longbow, as it really brought about the end of feudalism and the start of professional armies that would last until world war I. (I think. My history is kind of rusty.)

I believe that would be the "Arquebus" you're thinking of friend.

Ah yes, another spin off thread. What was the best medieval (Medieval here meaning 500-1300 AD Europe) weapon in your opinion? Crossbow! Hehe. I have a strange obsession with the crossbow.:) But, with all seriousness, I think the crossbow was one of the weapons that paved the way for a professional army. It was powerful, fairly long ranged, and took a short amount of time to train with when compared to the bow. So fellow NSGers, opinion?

Longbow, for sure. Look at the slaughter it caused at Agincourt. You can reload and fire a HELL of a lot faster than with the crossbow which has to be cranked and loaded each time it's shot, as opposed to grab, nock, draw and fire. I've emptied a quiver of 24 arrows in less than a minute and hit the target most of the time -- and I'm NOT a trained archer. Regardless, in armed warfare aiming sniper style was not really that necessary... if you have a whole army of archers all aiming at targets in front of them, the rain of hundreds of falling arrows is sure to hit.

Longbow, for sure. Look at the slaughter it caused at Agincourt. You can reload and fire a HELL of a lot faster than with the crossbow which has to be cranked and loaded each time it's shot, as opposed to grab, nock, draw and fire. I've emptied a quiver of 24 arrows in less than a minute and hit the target most of the time -- and I'm NOT a trained archer. Regardless, in armed warfare aiming sniper style was not really that necessary... if you have a whole army of archers all aiming at targets in front of them, the rain of hundreds of falling arrows is sure to hit.

Ah, but the question is, to get the maximum range out of a longbow, how long must you train? As compared to the mechanical crossbow that get the same strength and power no matter who uses it? The longbow was stronger, yes, had more range, but took a lot more time to train with when compared to the crossbow. You could raise an entire army of crossbowmen in the time it took to train a few hundred longbowmen. Not only that, but the crossbow was much cooler.:)

Halberd. :cool:

Ah, but the question is, to get the maximum range out of a longbow, how long must you train? As compared to the mechanical crossbow that get the same strength and power no matter who uses it? The longbow was stronger, yes, had more range, but took a lot more time to train with when compared to the crossbow. You could raise an entire army of crossbowmen in the time it took to train a few hundred longbowmen. Not only that, but the crossbow was much cooler.:)

You could make dozens of longbows in the same time it took to make ONE crossbow.

Training was mandatory -- when you weren't working in the fields, many lords required their townsmen to practice shoot.

If a weakling like I can fire an arrow 70 yards from a #22 youth bow, then anyone with a modicum of training could certainly fire a great distance from a #200 longbow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longbow
Many men in medieval England were capable of shooting bows from 670–900 N (150–200 pounds) — deformed skeletons of archers have been studied, revealing spur like growths on their bones where the over-developed muscles pulled. However, these men did train daily from a very young age and their lives depended on being able to use such powerful bows.[2] There are modern day examples of men who are quite capable of shooting these bows so we know it is possible. Mark Stretton currently holds the world record for shooting a 900 N (200 pound) longbow....

In the Middle Ages the Welsh and the English were famous for their very heavy, long-ranged English longbows, used to great effect in the civil wars of the period and against the French in the Hundred Years' War (with notable success at the battles of Crécy (1346), Poitiers (1356) and Agincourt (1415)).

Although firearms supplanted bows in warfare, wooden or fibreglass laminated longbows continue to be used by traditional archers and some tribal societies, for recreation and hunting. A longbow has practical advantages compared to a modern recurve or compound bow; it is usually lighter, quicker to prepare for shooting, and shoots more quietly. However, other things being equal, the modern bow will shoot a faster arrow more accurately than the longbow.

Falchion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falchion). Part sword, part machete, part axe. A working man's weapon.

English longbow.

The spear. King of weapons. Whatever you want to call it.

Long-range, i would say...the longbow.

My personal favorite? Three-Section-Staff.

Honorable mentions: The Katana, the Shamshir/Tulwar/Scimitar family (Probably because I own one), the Kukri for knives, the Francisca for axes, and either the Assegai or Pilum for throwing spears/javalins.

The Pike.

Pikeblocks dominated land warfare from their reintroduction up to the development of the flintlock musket. No other hand-to-hand formation could fight one and expect victory - even heavy cavalry usually lost against a disciplined pikeblock, though they could break one with luck (and a lot of casualties). The only viable options against one were to pick it apart with ranged fire or set another pikeblock on it.

You could make dozens of longbows in the same time it took to make ONE crossbow.

Sorry, Kat, but that just isn't true.

A Longbow isn't just a rod of good wood. It's a carefully shaped device of carefully seasoned and aged wood - and that seasoning took at least a year, preferably five. It was this seasoning and curing process that created bows that were supple, powerful and strong.

In comparison, you could build a steel-bowed Crossbow in under a week - and that includes mining the ore, smelting it, cutting some cheap fir, carving the stock and forging the bits. Some medieval armories were making one to five crossbows in a day.

I am going to suggest the bollock knife, and not just because of the name. The bollock knife and the black death brought about the first glimmers of some social equality.

Or a crossbow!:D

Not if you've seen how good I was in fencing class and how crappy I was at archery!

Not if you've seen how good I was in fencing class and how crappy I was at archery!

What type of fencing?

I was always bad at archery as well. AWFUL with a longbow (not that I expected any different), still terrible with a crossbow. Probably because I'm pretty nearsighted.

Just a hundred? Haha. Which is why the longbow was phased out in favor of the crossbow. I'm just saying, crossbows were far superior weapons, and they saved the Briton's ass during the Hundred Years war.

Uh, no. At Crecy, I think, crossbow strings got wet, while the English longbowmen unstrung their bows to keep the strings dry, and again at Agincourt, the French were crippled by longbow fire.

My opinion on the best medieval weapon is the huge double handed axes Anglo-Saxon housecarls used. They could take off a horse's head.

A morningstar is a spiked ball, or multiple spiked balls, on a chain or chains that is swung around ones head and then used to crack skulls more efficiently than a mace.
That's a flail.

Morning star is a spiked mace.

Whatever the Mongols used to kick so much ass.

The Mongol's Favored weapon was the compound recurve bow, the Mongols also made use of lances, and a type of sword weighted specially so that they would provide greater cutting power when used by a warrior standing in the stirrups of a horse. Mongol Techniques were pretty straighfoward; outmanuever the enemy and envelope them while killing them from a long range. I wouldn't say that the Compound Bow was the best weapon of its age. It was excellent but suffered from a huge drawback in the fact that the laminates used on the compound bow litterally fell apart in damp climates making the weapon useless.

My vote for the best weapon of the time is the halberd and variations thereof (ransuer, billhook, etc.). It combined the best assets of the axe, a heavy cutting blade capable of removing body parts from an armored man or even a horse, and a spear, a long pole for keeping the enemy at a distance. It could be used to simply kill or even dismount an armored knight and was very cheap and fast to make and train men in thier use. It was dangerous from all ends, on the top of the weapon there was the cutting axeblade plus a spearhead point to use against incoming opponents and a hook that could pierce through platemale (and flesh) and could be used to pull an enemy down to the ground giving the soldier the oppurtunity for a quick coup de grace. Some Halberds even had steel buttcaps or spikes at the back end allowing for a broken halberd shaft to be used as an effective bludgeon or shortened spear, or in some cases you could just use the top of a broken weapon as a battleaxe. I would hate to be on the recieving end of one of those even if I were a knight.

The pike was just a redesign of a Greek staple from several hundred years before and was just as useful then as it was originally but is not my choice for best weapon since pike formations were about as vulnerable from behind or the sides as thier phalanx counterparts; a 10 foot long weapon would be of little use when the enemy is in your face and you can't move past your freinds. The Halberd was generally a little bit longer than the person using it and could be easily brought to bare on a new attacker, especially considering that halberd formations could travel more loosely.

Crossbows are a meh weapon as far as I am concerned, sure the initial assault of a crossbow formation could be devastating if used right, especially when combined with a large covering sheild that protected the soldier from missiles while reloading, however the amount of resources needed to protect the users themselves from cavalry attacks, reload time, and general unrealiability of the weapon in poor weather conditions are all strikes against it. The heavy crossbow or abalist was just as powerful as a longbow but much slower, taking over a minute to reload sometimes.

The Welsh Longbow was the superior missile weapon of the time but has its own flaws that prevent it form being the greatest weapon.

Now that I have carpool tunnel...

dont know about best but certainly the coolest has got to be the Falchion Part sword part axe and can cleave the head from a horse in 1 hit so it will probably go from shoulder to hip diagonally if you are hitting an armored knight

a bastard sword and a shield

I took foil fencing, and was good enough to defeat the gym teacher.

And the morning star is similar to the flail (a metal weight attatched to the ahndle by a chain), but the morning star has spikes while the flail doesn't.

As for crossbows, they can be shot with greater force than longbows, but (obviously) the firing rate is lower. Therefore, longbows are better against unarmored and lightly armored (e.g. leather armor) soldiers, while crossbows would be better against those with heavy armor (e.g. plate mail) because it's much easier to pierce them.

Eh, as a ranged weapon, the longbow, which could devastate enemy forces with the same armour-piercing effect as a crossbow, from even further out.

As a hand-to-hand weapon, I reckon the billhook deserves a mention. Excellent agricultural tool, used also as a slight variation on the halberd. Very useful for killing off knights before we stole the idea for using pikes from the Scottish.

I still stand by the longbow as the best weapon. Pikes and maces are good for close-up work. Museum Replicas Limited used to have a really nice war hammer.

On a side note, anyone here ever played "Lords of the Realm II"? Macemen & archers for battle, archers with a few pikes and crossbows for castle defense.

yea i've played it, macemen plus archers pwn, though i usually threw in some pike for enemy cavalry. And for castles a just went full archers once I had a decent keep, 600 of them in a royal castle can't be beat. (at least not by the comp...)

The Chain Sword hands down.

The mancatcher.

a bastard sword and a shield

If you're going to use a bastard sword it would be recomended by most warriors of the day to use a buckler as oppossed to a normal large shield. A buckler is less restrictive and allows you to take advatage of the vicious two handed long and short arm slashes that made the weapon so famous. Additionally it frees your hand up to hold on to the blade for stabbing; this gives leverage and makes it easier to pierce through heavy armor especially at a downward angle.

war elephant

War Elephants were no longer in use in the time period mentioned, partially because they actually made poor 'vehicles' (because thats more of what they were) and mostly because nobody trained them anymore.

You could make dozens of longbows in the same time it took to make ONE crossbow.

Training was mandatory -- when you weren't working in the fields, many lords required their townsmen to practice shoot.

If a weakling like I can fire an arrow 70 yards from a #22 youth bow, then anyone with a modicum of training could certainly fire a great distance from a #200 longbow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longbow

Ah, but you forget training time!
Many men in medieval England were capable of shooting bows from 670–900 N (150–200 pounds) — deformed skeletons of archers have been studied, revealing spur like growths on their bones where the over-developed muscles pulled. However, these men did train daily from a very young age and their lives depended on being able to use such powerful bows.[2] There are modern day examples of men who are quite capable of shooting these bows so we know it is possible. Mark Stretton currently holds the world record for shooting a 900 N (200 pound) longbow....

Eh, as a ranged weapon, the longbow, which could devastate enemy forces with the same armour-piercing effect as a crossbow, from even further out.

As a hand-to-hand weapon, I reckon the billhook deserves a mention. Excellent agricultural tool, used also as a slight variation on the halberd. Very useful for killing off knights before we stole the idea for using pikes from the Scottish.

Did a Englishman just admit to stealing something from the Scottish?!? MY HEART!:eek::D

Did a brit just admit to stealing something from the Scottish?!? MY HEART!:eek::D

The Scottish stole it from the Macedonians, who stole it from the Greeks, who probably stole it from someone else.

1. Battle Axe used by a Beserker. Though probably not the most effective, the question was what is your favorite weapon from the era. Those guys were way cooler than any crossbowmen. No need for armor, just get drugged into a rage and throw yourself at whoever was in front of you. A well-trained Beserker never let anyone near enough to use whatever weapon they had, and since they fought in the forests, bowmen were limited. Let's face it; bowmen were like the kickers of the battlefield. Yeah, you needed them, but they aren't cool.

2. The Catapult that shot dead diseased cows over city walls. That's effective and comical.

3. You've got to go with the compound bow. Although not as effective in Europe, as previously stated, you have to say that the effectiveness of a weapon can be evaluated by the extent of the military holdings of the groups that used them, and in the middle ages, no one had a larger empire, or took more money from their conquests than the Mongols.

3. You've got to go with the compound bow. Although not as effective in Europe, as previously stated, you have to say that the effectiveness of a weapon can be evaluated by the extent of the military holdings of the groups that used them, and in the middle ages, no one had a larger empire, or took more money from their conquests than the Mongols.

BUt the early Russians defeated the Mongol 'Golden Horde' using the weapon I picked... the Halberd.

If you're going to use a bastard sword it would be recomended by most warriors of the day to use a buckler as oppossed to a normal large shield.

i was just saying SOMEkind of shield but your probably right,the buckler was more controllable and better to use with a bastard sword

Did a brit just admit to stealing something from the Scottish?!? MY HEART!:eek::D


A Brit, by definition, could be Scottish, or English and Welsh although the Scottish have been known to grumble about this a bit, one of the famous examples of course being when a Jew-hating Australian rallied the Scots against the English in a right old tussle that led to the poor Aussie having his limbs stretched, and I'm not talking about exercise, but being put on the rack.


Interestingly enough, the very same Australian turned up later in history as a Colonialist in the American colonies, who preceded to take on The British Empire in a game of war which lasted until the British stopped for tea in the failing light and announced an away loss.


All this besides,

"Did a Englishman just admit to stealing something from the Scottish?!? MY HEART!:eek::D" therefore, would be more accurate a statement.

i was just saying SOMEkind of shield but your probably right,the buckler was more controllable and better to use with a bastard sword

Far better, I can tell you from personell experiance, you also want to wear a mail or leather glove on your non dominant hand or you can get some nasty cuts.

"Although the scythe isn't pre-eminent among the weapons of war, anyone who has been on the wrong end of, say, a peasants' revolt will know that in skilled hands it is fearsome."

--Discworld Series Book Four: Mort by Terry Pratchett

Fear, surprise and ruthless efficiency...

Eh, as a ranged weapon, the longbow, which could devastate enemy forces with the same armour-piercing effect as a crossbow, from even further out.

Only if you're Ahnuld. The average crossbow can be nocked by a normal person yet be unleashed with ~500 pounds of force (for reference, the english longbow is only ~200 pounds of force).

Fear, surprise and ruthless efficiency...

And an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope!:D

"Although the scythe isn't pre-eminent among the weapons of war, anyone who has been on the wrong end of, say, a peasants' revolt will know that in skilled hands it is fearsome."

--Discworld Series Book Four: Mort by Terry Pratchett

The scythe is a near-useless weapon of war. It has a long blade, pointing inward, and the tip is slanted to the side. A spear provides the same range if not longer, and are much more useful, and the halberd replicates the slashing, and provides a tip, and yet still keeps the range. The scythe, as a weapon of medieval warfare, was worthless.

English Longbow.

I think the halberd wins. It's a can-opener on a stick.

Other than that, the longbow for pure destructive power in the hands of the English, and the spear for pure versatility and length of use.

English Longbow.

The Crossbow is MUCH better.

The Crossbow is MUCH better.

History disagrees.

I think the halberd wins. It's a can-opener on a stick.


/Quote of the day!

Other than that, the longbow for pure destructive power in the hands of the English, and the spear for pure versatility and length of use.
What about the Crossbow for the sheer destructive power in the hands of the Genoese?

History disagrees.

The Third Crusade disagrees, and so do the Genoese.

"Although the scythe isn't pre-eminent among the weapons of war, anyone who has been on the wrong end of, say, a peasants' revolt will know that in skilled hands it is fearsome."

--Discworld Series Book Four: Mort by Terry Pratchett

Fearsome =/= effective.

The Third Crusade disagrees, and so do the Genoese.

Two examples? As compared to the vast majority of English history? G'wan, pull the other one.

Two examples? As compared to the vast majority of English history? G'wan, pull the other one.

You do realize how effective the Genoese crossbowmen were, right? You *do* realize that the Genoese crossbowmen fought more then one battle, right? You also realize how the third Crusade was a years long struggle, and not just a few battles, *right*?

The Crossbow is MUCH better.

I'll amend. The English/Welsh longbowman with his bow.

I'll amend. The English/Welsh longbowman with his bow.

The Crossbow is still better for sheer strength, and ease of use.

You do realize how effective the Genoese crossbowmen were, right? You *do* realize that the Genoese crossbowmen fought more then one battle, right? You also realize how the third Crusade was a years long struggle, and not just a few battles, *right*?

*sigh*

And where else in history has the weapon had any great effect en masse or in armies? Where are the stories, tapestries, ANY recorded evidence to back up your assertion beyond one Crusade? Really, just because you're in love with it doesn't make it the superior weapon. Range > pull.

The Crossbow is still better for sheer strength, and ease of use.

And don't forget horrid reload times by comparison.

The Crossbow is still better for sheer strength, and ease of use.

Tell you what, I'll stand here, just outside the range of your crossbow and then when you've fired and are spending a couple of aeons reloading I'll just jog a few yards forward and drop 10 armour piercing arrows on your head.

The plate armour piercing quality of the crossbow you seem so fond of really didn't matter during the time period in question as the cost of plate armour meant only a few people had it and the longbow was more than capable of treating chainmail as a minor impedence.

*sigh*

And where else in history has the weapon had any great effect en masse or in armies? Where are the stories, tapestries, ANY recorded evidence to back up your assertion beyond one Crusade? Really, just because you're in love with it doesn't make it the superior weapon. Range > pull.
Ever heard of the battle of Hastings?

Tell you what, I'll stand here, just outside the range of your crossbow and then when you've fired and are spending a couple of aeons reloading I'll just jog a few yards forward and drop 10 armour piercing arrows on your head.

The plate armour piercing quality of the crossbow you seem so fond of really didn't matter during the time period in question as the cost of plate armour meant only a few people had it and the longbow was more than capable of treating chainmail as a minor impedence.
Few people? The knights weren't THAT rare, especially in a battle. Crossbows were one of the few weapons that could take knights right off their horses, mostly because other knights were too busy trying to either:

A. Kill each other.
OR
B. Capture the other knights for ransom instead of killing them.

And don't forget horrid reload times by comparison.

Why do you think the Genoese crossbowmen used shields as they do? For fun?

Few people? The knights weren't THAT rare, especially in a battle. Crossbows were one of the few weapons that could take knights right off their horses, mostly because other knights were too busy trying to either:

A. Kill each other.
OR
B. Capture the other knights for ransom instead of killing them.

Why take the knight off the horse? Just kill the horse and let the men-at-arms dispatch or capture the dumdass knight flailing around the the mud in his impractically heavy armour.

Why take the knight off the horse? Just kill the horse and let the men-at-arms dispatch or capture the dumdass knight flailing around the the mud in his impractically heavy armour.

In Jousting armor: The knights would flounder around.

In armor for actual warfare: Several knights were recorded as being able to jump in their armor which was only 40-75 pounds.

Ever heard of the battle of Hastings?

You mean the battle won by the longbow? Sure.

Why do you think the Genoese crossbowmen used shields as they do? For fun?

Masturbated. You know those Italians.

Either that or used them as pre-fab coffins while they reloaded, praying they weren't run over or otherwise slaughtered.

In Jousting armor: The knights would flounder around.

In armor for actual warfare: Several knights were recorded as being able to jump in their armor which was only 40-75 pounds.

Good for them. I assume that means they would have no problem at all getting up after just having been thrown from their dead horse onto a muddy field?

You mean the battle won by the longbow? Sure.

And Crossbows. Also, the Battle of Jaffa, in which King Richard charged a bunch of Saracen Calvary who were being pelted with crossbows and pretty much gave up and retreated when they saw the charge and another volley of Crossbow bolts. Also, the battle of Parma, which was pretty much finished by a bunch of Genoese Crossbowmen.

Masturbated. You know those Italians.

:$
Either that or used them as pre-fab coffins while they reloaded, praying they weren't run over or otherwise slaughtered.
:rolleyes: As compared to the English Longbow men who didn't even have a chance of NOT being run over or otherwise slaughtered?

Good for them. I assume that means they would have no problem at all getting up after just having been thrown from their dead horse onto a muddy field?

I never said "No problem" I said that they could. It would be painful, and take a few minutes no doubt, but they could get back up and be back in the battle.

:rolleyes: As compared to the English Longbow men who didn't even have a chance of NOT being run over or otherwise slaughtered?

Exactly. Being 200+ yards away gives you the advantage of not needing the shield. Quick reload gives you every other advantage you need. But go ahead and keep pretending the crossbow is somehow better. It's amusing.

Exactly. Being 200+ yards away gives you the advantage of not needing the shield. Quick reload gives you every other advantage you need. But go ahead and keep pretending the crossbow is somehow better. It's amusing.

Yeah, you can keep pretending about how the English longbow could reload super urber fastestz!1! in the heat of battle with a bunch of knights charging at you and still be able to figure out the effect of gravity on your arrows which are pulled with the same strength everytime. Right?

The Jester is always the best weapon.

Could combined arms be classed as a weapon?

The scythe is a near-useless weapon of war. It has a long blade, pointing inward, and the tip is slanted to the side. A spear provides the same range if not longer, and are much more useful, and the halberd replicates the slashing, and provides a tip, and yet still keeps the range. The scythe, as a weapon of medieval warfare, was worthless.

Say what you like my boy. All I know is that I would rather not be on the receiving end of one.

Could combined arms be classed as a weapon?

Nah, where's the fun in arguing the toss when someone gives a sensible answer.

Say what you like my boy. All I know is that I would rather not be on the receiving end of one.

To be fair, I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of a butcher knife either, but it's no weapon of war. Correct?

If I *had* to label one weapon as the uiltimate weapon, I'd go with knowledge, both for modern and medieval times.

"Know thy enemy and thyself, find naught to fear in 100 battles.
Know not thy enemy but know thyself, find victory and defeat in equal measure.
Know thy enemy but know not thyself, find defeat in every battle."
-- Sun Tzu, The Art Of War

I never said "No problem" I said that they could. It would be painful, and take a few minutes no doubt, but they could get back up and be back in the battle.

Look this argument is silly.

If the crossbow was better than the longbow then Robin Hood would have used one.

Game, set and match.

In that case, I'll go for the traditional halberd, I think it's more useful than the other weapons anyway :D

I rather like the bastard sword...

Look this argument is silly.

If the crossbow was better than the longbow then Robin Hood would have used one.

Game, set and match.
...

http://samuelpablo.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/epic_fail.jpg
Now please tell me you were joking befre I break out another one.

...

Now please tell me you were joking befre I break out another one.

Not at all. I mean after the sheriff of Nottingham threatened to cancel Christmas, Kevin...I mean Robin wouldn't have messed around with the weaker of two ranged weapon systems now would he?

Not at all. I mean after the sheriff of Nottingham threatened to cancel Christmas, Kevin...I mean Robin wouldn't have messed around with the weaker of two ranged weapon systems now would he?

You make keeping a straight face very hard, and I KNOW you're joking.

Must...Not...Smile...:D

The longbow allowed faster fire, the crossbow peirced armour better.

Both have their pros and cons. Their use in truth depends upon the situation.

The longbow allowed faster fire, the crossbow peirced armour better.

Both have their pros and cons. Their use in truth depends upon the situation.

True. BUT, in most situations, you'd be fighting against an army of well-equipped mercenaries, levied peasants, and knights. Two of the three would probably be wearing armor. ALSO, it takes less time to train with a crossbow, and less time to make one. Therefore, the crossbow wins, and I retract my previous statement.:D

To be fair, I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of a butcher knife either, but it's no weapon of war. Correct?

No. Assassins swear by them, and for close quarters, or indeed by a good throw, they are very much a weapon of war. e.g. They kill people.

No. Assassins swear by them, and for close quarters, or indeed by a good throw, they are very much a weapon of war. e.g. They kill people.

Assassin's swear by butcher knives....


What have I Been missing?

The Scimitar does it for me :)

Ah yes, another spin off thread. What was the best medieval (Medieval here meaning 500-1300 AD Europe) weapon in your opinion? Crossbow! Hehe. I have a strange obsession with the crossbow.:) But, with all seriousness, I think the crossbow was one of the weapons that paved the way for a professional army. It was powerful, fairly long ranged, and took a short amount of time to train with when compared to the bow. So fellow NSGers, opinion?

best weapon for what?

seiging a castle? Trebuchet
ranged combat? Bow (not as powerful as the crossbow, but you can get off more shots with a bow than a crossbow.)
Melee? katana. It may not have the reach of a spear/lance, nor the power of an axe or mace, but it's a great all-purpose weapon.

but if I had to learn to use one? the dagger. I could have a shitload on my person and use it for ranged (throwing) or melee.

best weapon for what?

seiging a castle? Trebuchet
ranged combat? Bow (not as powerful as the crossbow, but you can get off more shots with a bow than a crossbow.)
Melee? katana. It may not have the reach of a spear/lance, nor the power of an axe or mace, but it's a great all-purpose weapon.

but if I had to learn to use one? the dagger. I could have a shitload on my person and use it for ranged (throwing) or melee.
Mmm. I disagree with the trebuchet. I've always thought the siege tower was better, as it preserved the walls of the castle you were attacking, so it could be used for defense after you had captured it. I've already went through why I like the crossbow better... And the Katana isn't European. I've always been partial to the Gladius though.

Mmm. I disagree with the trebuchet. I've always thought the siege tower was better, as it preserved the walls of the castle you were attacking, so it could be used for defense after you had captured it. I've already went through why I like the crossbow better... And the Katana isn't European. I've always been partial to the Gladius though.

well, the only thing I didn't like about the siege tower is that should the defenders manage to destroy one, you not only lose the tower, but the men inside.

and as for rebuliding the walls... we can use the prisioners for that. keeps em busy. :p

and if we're sticking to european weapons, then transistion to the short sword (any type). same reasons.

Mmm. I disagree with the trebuchet. I've always thought the siege tower was better, as it preserved the walls of the castle you were attacking, so it could be used for defense after you had captured it. I've already went through why I like the crossbow better... And the Katana isn't European. I've always been partial to the Gladius though.

Trebuchets don't destroy walls. It's damn near impossible to level a castle wall without explosives. Rather, the purpose of the trebuchet was to wreck everything inside the castle.

The longbow allowed faster fire, the crossbow peirced armour better.


Armor was tested by having a crossbow shot into it at point blank range. The crossbow manifestly did not pierce armor better than the longbow. It was inferior on every level save the amount of training needed to use it.

Armor was tested by having a crossbow shot into it at point blank range. The crossbow manifestly did not pierce armor better than the longbow. It was inferior on every level save the amount of training needed to use it.

Oh.

"Prepare to let loose grapeshot!"

"Cap'n?"

"What is it?"

"Why don't we use Pineapples - They 'urt more than Grapes!"

Boiling pitch is good...

The arguments in this thread are exactly why armies used combined arms.

The arguments in this thread are exactly why armies used combined arms.

I keep reading your handle as "Coppa Squat"

No doubt about it, the crossbow is most likley the best Medivel weapon

No doubt about it, the crossbow is most likley the best Medivel weapon

You should read the comments about crossbows above.

Trebuchets don't destroy walls. It's damn near impossible to level a castle wall without explosives. Rather, the purpose of the trebuchet was to wreck everything inside the castle.

Stop trying to act like an expert. You're only embarrassing yourself. The trebuchet was used to sling hundreds of pounds of stones into a stone wall and bring it down!

How about Kiwi fruits and Guava halves?

How about Kiwi fruits and Guava halves?

two halves of a coconut?

two halves of a coconut?

Now you're reminding me of Monty Python... :D

Now you're reminding me of Monty Python... :D

But how did he get that coconut?:D

But how did he get that coconut?:D

A sparrow could have gripped it by the husk...

A sparrow could have gripped it by the husk...

*Nerdy correction* Swallow.:D

An African swallow maybe, but certainly not a European swallow...

An African swallow maybe, but certainly not a European swallow...

:D Excuse for he does not remember the exact quote from that part of the movie.

:D Excuse for he does not remember the exact quote from that part of the movie.

You are forgiven, but you can youtube it... most monty python is in there...

Why not? Two of them could carry it together on a bit of creeper...

Why not? Two of them could carry it together on a bit of creeper...

Now you've gone past the bit that I can remember... :$

My vote goes to the Axe. Since the most ancient times, it has been an effective tool and weapon (and is experiencing a return to service in the form of Tactical Tomahawks). They are often described as slow and unwieldy, but I would argue that those are attributes of poor skill and using the wrong axe for the wrong job.

Britain used the longbow to great effect against French Knights during the Hundred Years' War. It is my second choice.

I haven't read every post, but I think the Stirrup should be considered one of the greatest military innovations (I'm certain someone has mentioned this by now).

Stop trying to act like an expert. You're only embarrassing yourself. The trebuchet was used to sling hundreds of pounds of stones into a stone wall and bring it down!

Eh, it depends. You need alot of trubuchets firing for a long time to bring down any decently built castle wall. They were certianly used to weaken walls or demolish weakened ones, as well as cause havoc inside, but a MUCH easier way to bring down a wall is to mine it-in other words, undermining the foundations of the wall.

This usually got done digging a tunnel beneath the foundations of the walls, and then deliberately collapsing or exploding the tunnel. Usually, sieges used mining and siege engines in tandem.

Eh, it depends. You need alot of trubuchets firing for a long time to bring down any decently built castle wall. They were certianly used to weaken walls or demolish weakened ones, as well as cause havoc inside, but a MUCH easier way to bring down a wall is to mine it-in other words, undermining the foundations of the wall.

This usually got done digging a tunnel beneath the foundations of the walls, and then deliberately collapsing or exploding the tunnel. Usually, sieges used mining and siege engines in tandem.
I wouldn't say a long time. In the later middle ages it took longer, but for quite some time, the trebuchet was an effective method of bringing down stone walls. After the crusades, European walls began to improve, and that's around when it took trebuchets longer to bring down the once weak walls. True?

Trebuchets don't destroy walls. It's damn near impossible to level a castle wall without explosives. Rather, the purpose of the trebuchet was to wreck everything inside the castle.

Stop trying to act like an expert. You're only embarrassing yourself. The trebuchet was used to sling hundreds of pounds of stones into a stone wall and bring it down!

both are correct. it depends on how the sieging forces want to use the trebuchet. flinging in dead animals and people to spread disease or to wreak anything within the walls, or knocking em down or at least putting bloody big holes in walls are all part of the trebuchet's use.

Eh, it depends. You need alot of trubuchets firing for a long time to bring down any decently built castle wall. They were certianly used to weaken walls or demolish weakened ones, as well as cause havoc inside, but a MUCH easier way to bring down a wall is to mine it-in other words, undermining the foundations of the wall.

This usually got done digging a tunnel beneath the foundations of the walls, and then deliberately collapsing or exploding the tunnel. Usually, sieges used mining and siege engines in tandem.
mining took longer. and is dependant on the geological makeup of the terrain. Mining won't work where the walled city was on a level plain but would stand a chance of working if that city was on a hill.

but then again, it also depends on the makeup of the wall. not all walls were well built.

Ah yes, another spin off thread. What was the best medieval (Medieval here meaning 500-1300 AD Europe) weapon in your opinion? Crossbow!

Crossbow no doubt. The first weapon to earn a discommunication from the Pope... just because he was a bit afraid of the Genovese crossbowmen.

best weapon for what?
Melee? katana. It may not have the reach of a spear/lance, nor the power of an axe or mace, but it's a great all-purpose weapon.


Very limited use in an European war of the Middle Age (see OP), where you confronted heavy infantry with pikes and shields, and armoured knights with spears and maces. Also a katana isn't going to take very well being used to parry a swing of a bastard sword, or of a mace - european weapons of the time used to be quite blunt and heavy, going for sheer power more than for finesse.
Maybe, of the japanese melee weapons, a naginata could have been more useful.

Very limited use in an European war of the Middle Age (see OP), where you confronted heavy infantry with pikes and shields, and armoured knights with spears and maces. Also a katana isn't going to take very well being used to parry a swing of a bastard sword, or of a mace - european weapons of the time used to be quite blunt and heavy, going for sheer power more than for finesse.
Maybe, of the japanese melee weapons, a naginata could have been more useful.

ah, but when pointed out that he restricted it to european weapons, I said the short sword. :)

in confined quarters, a bastard sword is limited by the space it needs to fully use it's potential. formation fighters and foot soldiers were normally armed with short swords/spears because the short sword didn't require alot of space to be used (less space than a bastard sword anyway) and thus could be easily used within the confindes of a formation or in tight quarters.

Knights mainly did their fighting on horseback, thus the proper response for that would be pikes (for charges) or getting up close and personal, in which a longer and heavier bastard sword would be at a disadvantage.

Maces are clubs. pure and simple. but they tend to also be messy... not a plus in my personal opinion.

A katana could also double as a mace/club simply by using the blunt side. :)

yeah, but considering that your longbowmen would pincushion those crossbowmen from a hundred paces beyond the maximum range of the crossbow, and be more accurate doing it? Five longbowmen were worth three times their number in crossbows.

Agreed. Look at the Battle of Crecy, it rained shortly beforehand... and who kept their strings dry? The excellently trained British Longbowmen, or the comparatively amateur Burgundian crossbowmen? The Longbowmen, whats more is that a Longbowman can shoot roughly ten shots per minute, compared to the ~3 afforded by a crossbowmen. Couple that with the longer range of the Longbow, and you have a weapon that is somewhat superior, in part because of it's abilities, in part because of the abilities one must learn while becoming proficient.

What is the 'best' weapon? Well, maces are cheap, easy to use, and practically ignore armor (crushed, and dented armor that covers broken bones isn't much good), they are faster than axes, easier, and cheaper than swords, but... they don't quite have the reach that, say Longbows have.

Best weapon for what exactly? Defeating knights? peasant levies? Best against archers? Sieges? Wild animals? Robots (the robots that served the aliens that built the pyramids... the robots came back....).

The best? If gunpowder counts (borderline) I will say that, it is the only weapon to really survive as a mainstream form of weapon technology (you could argue knives, or the fact that some people bow hunt... but cops, military servicemen/wo and even many hunters rely more on gunpowder-based weaponry than on knives, or bows).

Very limited use in an European war of the Middle Age (see OP), where you confronted heavy infantry with pikes and shields, and armoured knights with spears and maces. Also a katana isn't going to take very well being used to parry a swing of a bastard sword, or of a mace - european weapons of the time used to be quite blunt and heavy, going for sheer power more than for finesse.
Maybe, of the japanese melee weapons, a naginata could have been more useful.

I've noticed that Japanese swordsmanship isn't focused so much as smashing swords together like a European knight might, but rather avoiding strikes and parries and rather cutting down an enemy with a single, well timed blow.

I've already nominated the halberd and gave a plethora of reasons.

I've noticed that Japanese swordsmanship isn't focused so much as smashing swords together like a European knight might, but rather avoiding strikes and parries and rather cutting down an enemy with a single, well timed blow.

The Katana was also designed to work against opponents wearing light armor made of wood and leather with very little if any metal. I katana strike would have difficulty peircing european armor. To be fair, most versions of the sword became less practicle with the invention of plate male.

If I had to pick a Japanese weapon from the era that would be the most useful against a European knight I'd go for the tetsubo.

IMHO the best weapon of the time would have to be the english long bow. greater rate of fire and much longer range.

halberd if its just european. its got the devastating power of an axe with the safety to the wielder of a spear.

but really the chinese win hands down with the rocket

The Katana was also designed to work against opponents wearing light armor made of wood and leather with very little if any metal. I katana strike would have difficulty peircing european armor. To be fair, most versions of the sword became less practicle with the invention of plate male.

If I had to pick a Japanese weapon from the era that would be the most useful against a European knight I'd go for the tetsubo.

Either that or a Naginata.

ah, but when pointed out that he restricted it to european weapons, I said the short sword. :)

Ah. Sorry, I missed that... Yea, the short sword works miracles against heavy armour. Close-range weapon of choice of the roman legion (in the gladius form) and that all.


in confined quarters, a bastard sword is limited by the space it needs to fully use it's potential. formation fighters and foot soldiers were normally armed with short swords/spears because the short sword didn't require alot of space to be used (less space than a bastard sword anyway) and thus could be easily used within the confindes of a formation or in tight quarters.

Yea, correct. I was thinking of the bastard sword as the european sword with more similarities to the katana - being both a one-hander and two-hander.


Maces are clubs. pure and simple. but they tend to also be messy... not a plus in my personal opinion.

Maces are clubs plus.
Iron instead of wood. Simple to use (you don't have to think about the right angle, like you do with a blade: just hammer away). A mace blow can ruin armour (expecially iron armour) so much that it will impair the target's movements. Also you can't parry a mace blow with a blade - it will break.


A katana could also double as a mace/club simply by using the blunt side. :)
Hehe. Or also by using it while still sheated. ;)

Also you can't parry a mace blow with a blade - it will break.

The flip side is it is very difficult to parry anything with a mace, whether it is another mace or a sword.

Assassin's swear by butcher knives....


What have I Been missing?



The history of various forms of bloodletting? How the human race, in war, will use what weapon comes to hand and which does the job for the various situation that comes before them?

As others have pointed out, the idea of a single "best" weapon, when posited in an undconditional void, is meaningless.

Applied at the proper time and place, with the correct tactics, the lance, pike, crossbow, longbow, trebuchet, etc. are all the best weapon.

Do you mean the mace, or the morningstar?

A mace is a spiked ball (or some otherwise destructive tip) on a shaft of wood used as a blunt trauma weapon.

A morningstar is a spiked ball, or multiple spiked balls, on a chain or chains that is swung around ones head and then used to crack skulls more efficiently than a mace.

This is an inaccuracy promulgated by D&D.

Personally I'd say the Chinese Chu-Ku-Nu is my favorite from the time, it wasn't very accurate, but you could BARRAGE someone with volleys of crossbow bolts.

Chu-ko-nu. They were severely underpowered as well as inaccurate.


Rolling squid']In all honesty, I'd go with the Longbow, as it really brought about the end of feudalism and the start of professional armies that would last until world war I. (I think. My history is kind of rusty.)

The end of feudalism and the start of professional armies had more to do with economics and non-military technology than it did with longbows.

The Pike.

Pikeblocks dominated land warfare from their reintroduction up to the development of the flintlock musket. No other hand-to-hand formation could fight one and expect victory - even heavy cavalry usually lost against a disciplined pikeblock, though they could break one with luck (and a lot of casualties). The only viable options against one were to pick it apart with ranged fire or set another pikeblock on it.

Given my statement above, I will agree to some extent that a really professional army (Swiss especially) using pike squares would be the answer I'd give as well.

That's a flail.

Morning star is a spiked mace.

I wondered how far this would go before someone called that.

The longbow allowed faster fire, the crossbow peirced armour better.

Both have their pros and cons. Their use in truth depends upon the situation.

Exactly so.

best weapon for what?

seiging a castle? Trebuchet
ranged combat? Bow (not as powerful as the crossbow, but you can get off more shots with a bow than a crossbow.)
Melee? katana. It may not have the reach of a spear/lance, nor the power of an axe or mace, but it's a great all-purpose weapon.

but if I had to learn to use one? the dagger. I could have a shitload on my person and use it for ranged (throwing) or melee.

The arguments in this thread are exactly why armies used combined arms.

Indeed.

The Katana was also designed to work against opponents wearing light armor made of wood and leather with very little if any metal. I katana strike would have difficulty peircing european armor. To be fair, most versions of the sword became less practicle with the invention of plate male.

If I had to pick a Japanese weapon from the era that would be the most useful against a European knight I'd go for the tetsubo.

Actually, Japanese armor makes use of quite a bit of metal plate and mail.

Either that or a Naginata.

Naginata is a fave of mine as well, having trained in it. :)

Virtually anyone here will have played enough TW games to realise that this is a rock-scissors-paper scenario.

Quite right!

Stop trying to act like an expert. You're only embarrassing yourself.

Mmmm....delicious irony.

I'll cast a vote for the longbow in the ranged weaponry department. The arguments have already been trotted out for both sides, but the most important, rate of fire, is hands-down the realm of the longbow.

As for melee...I'll go for your basic war-hammer.

http://outpostknives.net/pics/xl_WarHammer128_2892.jpg

Properly wielded it was devastating against heavy plate armor, and many types were small enough to be utilized in combination with a shield, which compensated for the lack of defensive capabilitie these weapons posess when compared to swords. They were also easier to make and use than swords. The only significant weakness was against mounted enemies, but they could still do great damage to both rider and animal unless the enemy attack was well coordinated.

Naginata is a fave of mine as well, having trained in it. :)

Nice...I used a Katana for a while, but never really got the hang of it, or any Japanese weapon for that matter. I prefer the Shamshir or Tulwar to anything.

Just got a pair of Kukri as well...nice little buggers.

Maces are clubs plus.
Iron instead of wood. Simple to use (you don't have to think about the right angle, like you do with a blade: just hammer away). A mace blow can ruin armour (expecially iron armour) so much that it will impair the target's movements. Also you can't parry a mace blow with a blade - it will break. well, yeah.

in fact, any melee weapon is a variant of the club. a sword is a wedge used like a club. a staff is a long, thin club. a spear is a club with a point.

would that make the club the best weapon since technically, it has all these different forms? :p

I'm of firm belief that in the hands of a trained warrior, the greatest weapon ever invented is a stick.

Quarterstaff, bowstaff, if you know what you are doing, you can be most effective.

Longbows for long range.

Trebuchet for bringin teh painz.

Ballista for spearing multiple french knights in one go.

The best weapon?

Disease.

Winner.

Best weapon hand held i would go for the good old trusty English bill good weapon that in hand of an expert could rip apart levied or basically trained pike men.

best ranged i would pick the long bow for its rate of fire and range or the Hand Cannon just because it would probably scare the bejesus out of the levied peasants at the sight of it going off

well, yeah.

in fact, any melee weapon is a variant of the club. a sword is a wedge used like a club. a staff is a long, thin club. a spear is a club with a point.

would that make the club the best weapon since technically, it has all these different forms? :p

And my longbow is a launching device for long-range slender clubs with pointy ends.

And my longbow is a launching device for long-range slender clubs with pointy ends.

psst... miniture spears, they launch miniture spears. :p

The Trebuchet. The first bunker-buster in world history.

well, yeah.

in fact, any melee weapon is a variant of the penis. a sword is a wedge used like a penis. a staff is a long, thin penis. a spear is a penis with a point.

would that make the penis the best weapon since technically, it has all these different forms? :p

Fixed. :)

psst... miniture penises, they launch miniture penises. :p

Fixed too. :)

Fixed. :)

So how come they never made shield and armor shaped like vaginas?

So how come they never made shield and armor shaped like vaginas?

... technically... aren't they shaped like hymens? :confused:

So how come they never made shield and armor shaped like vaginas?

Because the last thing you want to do is encourage dick-throwing. *nod*

Because the last thing you want to do is encourage dick-throwing. *nod*

When you're in a war, dick-throwing has pretty much commenced.

:p

Fixed. :)

well... it is a popular weapon of choice for most men!

When you're in a war, dick-throwing has pretty much commenced.

:p

Which is why so many weapons are shaped like dicks.

Which is why so many weapons are shaped like dicks.

Or behave like dicks, as with the case of claymore mines.

Or behave like dicks, as with the case of claymore mines.

And catapults.

So basically, as all weapons are originally derived from the form and function of the penis, I submit to you that the penis is the greatest medieval weapon. Or the greatest weapon of any age for that matter. *nod*

oh, don't go like Stamper from Newgrounds!

Longbow! Nice range, nice power, very nice speed.

So how come they never made shield and armor shaped like vaginas?

Vagina: Latin translation for the English word meaning "Scabbard."

Since the Romans used to joke about how their Gladii looked like the phallus, the adoption of the word vagina for scabbard carried through to various languages today.

*This has been fun facts with Artie.

Now, on to "Best Medieval Weapon." The reference to Sun Tzu is pretty much it, but for the sake of this debate, I will disseminate what my old academic advisor told me. This guy is a professor of Medieval History, and between this, his ironically close appearance, and his eeirly similar fashion sense (including umbrella toting), we've nicknamed him "Dr. Henry Jones, Sr." For sake of his privacy and having a name, I'll call him by that name.

I forwarded the link to this debate to Prof. Jones, and he replied in detail. I am sorry about this, Conservative Morality, but according him, 'a few of the other Medieval professors and I shared a good chuckle about the alleged supremacy of the crossbow.'

Simply put, the alleged training time was actually incorporated fairly easily amongst the peasantry, simply for the fact that anybody learning to use the bow for hunting purposes would need only modified training for longbow use. Sure, a peasant with little battle experience would find the crossbow more usable. But the training on the crossbow was tailored soley to use of an implement good for little more than war, whereas the traditional bow and longbow training was a skill that was far more useful outside of military life, and thus that much more appealing, hence its widespread adoption.

Yes, they were more difficult to make, but once made, longbows were more resilient to the elements (rain) and far easier to supply parts for. Additionally, with the lifelong, practical training that a longbowman received since he was a lad (tied into Kat's reference about forensic evidence supporting constant training and usage), it meant that, for all their pride and pomp, the Genoese professional crossbowmen were worthless if one could get professional Welsh, English, and (to a degree) Breton longbowmen. Simply put, a marching army could more efficiently field a company of Welsh or English longbowmen than it could a company of Genoese crossbowmen, since the logistics involved less baggage and less weight per archer. Man for man and company for company, longbow units could shoot further and with just as much power in a much more rapid rate using fewer resources.

Up next: Infantry pole-arms.

I dunno if this has been said already but the thread is kinda long so:

The trebuchet.

Unbelievable range and punch for what's essentially a big wooden sling that could hurl anything from large rocks to rancid dead cows over any fortification built by man. Devastatingly accurate and with a much longer range than any mangonel or ballista, it was the premiere weapon for assaulting fortifications up to (and arguably even beyond) the age of the black powder bombards.

Now, on to "Best Medieval Weapon." The reference to Sun Tzu is pretty much it, but for the sake of this debate, I will disseminate what my old academic advisor told me. This guy is a professor of Medieval History, and between this, his ironically close appearance, and his eeirly similar fashion sense (including umbrella toting), we've nicknamed him "Dr. Henry Jones, Sr." For sake of his privacy and having a name, I'll call him by that name.

I forwarded the link to this debate to Prof. Jones, and he replied in detail. I am sorry about this, Conservative Morality, but according him, 'a few of the other Medieval professors and I shared a good chuckle about the alleged supremacy of the crossbow.'

Simply put, the alleged training time was actually incorporated fairly easily amongst the peasantry, simply for the fact that anybody learning to use the bow for hunting purposes would need only modified training for longbow use. Sure, a peasant with little battle experience would find the crossbow more usable. But the training on the crossbow was tailored soley to use of an implement good for little more than war, whereas the traditional bow and longbow training was a skill that was far more useful outside of military life, and thus that much more appealing, hence its widespread adoption.

Yes, they were more difficult to make, but once made, longbows were more resilient to the elements (rain) and far easier to supply parts for. Additionally, with the lifelong, practical training that a longbowman received since he was a lad (tied into Kat's reference about forensic evidence supporting constant training and usage), it meant that, for all their pride and pomp, the Genoese professional crossbowmen were worthless if one could get professional Welsh, English, and (to a degree) Breton longbowmen. Simply put, a marching army could more efficiently field a company of Welsh or English longbowmen than it could a company of Genoese crossbowmen, since the logistics involved less baggage and less weight per archer. Man for man and company for company, longbow units could shoot further and with just as much power in a much more rapid rate using fewer resources.

Up next: Infantry pole-arms.
First off, let me say something that has been said thousands of times before:

We have no idea that you're telling the truth about your professor, because teh internetz= near-total anonymity.

Two:

One, or even a few, medieval professors would have to go against the dozens upon dozens of authors of medieval weaponry books that I've read and take that up with them.

Three:

The crossbow was made for war. So was the Long Sword. Should they've have used nothing but scythes and the sort for close-up combat?

Four:

The Genoese were an elite professional military group, highly trained, and turned the tides of a battle several more times then English crossbowmen (Mostly because they had fought many more battles, being a mercenary group).

Five:

Less baggage /=/ better. The Genoese crossbowmen had all that equipment for a reason: To USE it!

Six:

Speed /=/ accuracy. The crossbow is a very mechanical weapon, you shoot at the same angle, it hits near the same place. With the Longbow, you'd have to apply the same amount of pull each time, to a dime.

Seven:

The Genoese would've won in the battle of Crecy were it not for their forgetfulness to keep their crossbows dry.

While I agree with your reasoning...
Two:

One, or even a few, medieval professors would have to go against the dozens upon dozens of authors of medieval weaponry books that I've read and take that up with them.the weapons are best when used with tactics that make use of their strengths. there's a reason why you never heard of Horse Crossbowmen. just like you never hear about the slicing ability of polearms.

Six:

Speed /=/ accuracy. The crossbow is a very mechanical weapon, you shoot at the same angle, it hits near the same place. With the Longbow, you'd have to apply the same amount of pull each time, to a dime.
Two points on this one.

1) the crossbow needed more maintenance than the bow. with constant use, the accuracy of the crossbow did go down.

2) the question is which is valued more, quantity or quality. or as my retired military friend often quips...

"Put enough lead in the air and you'll hit something."

Crossbows were good, Bows were good. but like Kirk and Picard, each has their strengths and weaknesses and how each were used determined their performance. so it's very hard to say one was better than the other.

I dunno if this has been said already but the thread is kinda long so:

The trebuchet.

Unbelievable range and punch for what's essentially a big wooden sling that could hurl anything from large rocks to rancid dead cows over any fortification built by man. Devastatingly accurate and with a much longer range than any mangonel or ballista, it was the premiere weapon for assaulting fortifications up to (and arguably even beyond) the age of the black powder bombards.

"you're going to backstab him... with a ballista..."
"Uh huh..."
"a Fucking Siege weapon..."
"Uh huh..."
"there's gotta be something against it in the rules... shit, can't find anything... ok, roll it..."

"you're going to backstab him... with a ballista..."
"Uh huh..."
"a Fucking Siege weapon..."
"Uh huh..."
"there's gotta be something against it in the rules... shit, can't find anything... ok, roll it..."

Clearly we've played AD&D with some of the same people...

"you're going to backstab him... with a ballista..."
"Uh huh..."
"a Fucking Siege weapon..."
"Uh huh..."
"there's gotta be something against it in the rules... shit, can't find anything... ok, roll it..."

Bring back memories of long Munchkin sessions. Ah those were the days.

While I agree with your reasoning...
the weapons are best when used with tactics that make use of their strengths. there's a reason why you never heard of Horse Crossbowmen. .

Actually, Crossbow Cavalry did indeed exist in much of Europe when the pushlever was added to crossbows. This allowed for some very interesting cavalry tactics. Crossbow cavalry didn't last all that long though, as early firearms were adopted soon after their appearance.

What about the Crossbow for the sheer destructive power in the hands of the Genoese?
Do you have a fetish for the Genoese or something? Seriously, they were a very expensive formation of well-trained men. But there weren't that many of them, and they certainly did suffer some defeats at the hands of longbow-armed troops.
Few people? The knights weren't THAT rare, especially in a battle. Crossbows were one of the few weapons that could take knights right off their horses, mostly because other knights were too busy trying to either:

A. Kill each other.
OR
B. Capture the other knights for ransom instead of killing them.
And the longbow killed both horses and riders in its day. Most knights didn't wear plate until the late 15th century, and a mass of bodkin arrows landing in your cavalry's general area is a Bad Thing, both for horses and riders.

Taking a knight very reliably off his horse at about 80 yards is pretty handy, massed, rapid area fire into enemy formations containing horses made a complete mess of things.
And Crossbows. Also, the Battle of Jaffa, in which King Richard charged a bunch of Saracen Calvary who were being pelted with crossbows and pretty much gave up and retreated when they saw the charge and another volley of Crossbow bolts.
Crossbow bolts were indeed a thing to be feared by the very rich. Can't try to disprove that.
Also, the battle of Parma, which was pretty much finished by a bunch of Genoese Crossbowmen.
What about Crécy, where all 6,000 Genoese Crossbowmen present retreated due to longbow fire coming from well beyond the range they could shoot back at, into advancing French knights, which caused most of the entire formation, including its commander, to get killed, and cost the French the battle?
:rolleyes: As compared to the English Longbow men who didn't even have a chance of NOT being run over or otherwise slaughtered?
Uhu... if there was going to be any kind of pitched battle with cavalry around, the English and Welsh longbowmen tended to make stakes in front of their formations so as to discourage enemy cavalry from attacking at all.
True. BUT, in most situations, you'd be fighting against an army of well-equipped mercenaries, levied peasants, and knights. Two of the three would probably be wearing armor. ALSO, it takes less time to train with a crossbow, and less time to make one. Therefore, the crossbow wins, and I retract my previous statement.:D
No, in most situations you'd have a lord and his chums fighting against his next-door neighbours over farmland, in which case you get a small group of knights and other cavalrymen, and a bunch of peasants with sharpened farming tools and a few bows kicking about.

In Medieval : Total War you might get most situations involving a very professional knightly core, backed up by mercenaries and levied peasants. Doesn't make it true for real life.

Best Medieval weapon? The Plague, through and through. It decimated a 3rd. of Europe. No other ancient weapon can compare.:D

While I agree with your reasoning...
the weapons are best when used with tactics that make use of their strengths. there's a reason why you never heard of Horse Crossbowmen. just like you never hear about the slicing ability of polearms.

1. True.
2. /Halberd.

Two points on this one.

1) the crossbow needed more maintenance than the bow. with constant use, the accuracy of the crossbow did go down.

2) the question is which is valued more, quantity or quality. or as my retired military friend often quips...

"Put enough lead in the air and you'll hit something."

Crossbows were good, Bows were good. but like Kirk and Picard, each has their strengths and weaknesses and how each were used determined their performance. so it's very hard to say one was better than the other.
True. It's HARD to say, but I still think the crossbow is better.
Do you have a fetish for the Genoese or something? Seriously, they were a very expensive formation of well-trained men. But there weren't that many of them, and they certainly did suffer some defeats at the hands of longbow-armed troops.

I can only find one defeat at the hands of Longbowmen. They WERE very expensive, and they were VERY well-trained. In my opinion, they were one of the few professional armies of it's day.

And the longbow killed both horses and riders in its day. Most knights didn't wear plate until the late 15th century, and a mass of bodkin arrows landing in your cavalry's general area is a Bad Thing, both for horses and riders.

I always thought it was the late 13th century.:confused: But I'll give you that one. But, so did crossbows.

Taking a knight very reliably off his horse at about 80 yards is pretty handy, massed, rapid area fire into enemy formations containing horses made a complete mess of things.

A single massive, accurate volley of bolts would be just as effective as an inaccurate rapid string of arrows.

Crossbow bolts were indeed a thing to be feared by EVERYONE. Can't try to disprove that.

Fixed ;)
What about Crécy, where all 6,000 Genoese Crossbowmen present retreated due to longbow fire coming from well beyond the range they could shoot back at, into advancing French knights, which caused most of the entire formation, including its commander, to get killed, and cost the French the battle?

A few points about this.

1. The Genoese crossbowmen failed to keep their crossbow strings dry. That severely reduced the accuracy of the crossbows.

2. The longbowmen were on a hill, giving them further advantage, and effectively bypassing the large Genoese shields.

3. When they retreated, they were charged by the French Calvary. They certainly did well against them, didn't they?:D

4. The French would've lost the battle even if they hadn't hired the Genoese crossbowmen.

Uhu... if there was going to be any kind of pitched battle with cavalry around, the English and Welsh longbowmen tended to make stakes in front of their formations so as to discourage enemy cavalry from attacking at all.

And if they didn't have time? Stakes were hardly effective against the heavily armored knights and their almost equally armored horses.

No, in most situations you'd have a lord and his chums fighting against his next-door neighbours over farmland, in which case you get a small group of knights and other cavalrymen, and a bunch of peasants with sharpened farming tools and a few bows kicking about.

Mercenaries made up MUCH of the force of medieval armies. The Peasants would make of the majority, who were equipped with whatever they could get their hands on, the well-equipped knights, and the adequately equipped mercenaries, making up a sizable minority of the men.
In Medieval : Total War you might get most situations involving a very professional knightly core, backed up by mercenaries and levied peasants. Doesn't make it true for real life.
I don't have Medieval:Total War. :confused:

We have no idea that you're telling the truth about your professor, because teh internetz= near-total anonymity.

One, or even a few, medieval professors would have to go against the dozens upon dozens of authors of medieval weaponry books that I've read and take that up with them.

Very well. I refer you to Dr. Brian Tierney. I found his work to be the most useful in accounting certain battles of the Middle Ages, including Crecy and Poiters. His focus on the social norms of the era is fuzzy, but when it comes to military and political matters of the era, he has a rather clear focus on the subject matter.

Your sources?

Three:

The crossbow was made for war. So was the Long Sword. Should they've have used nothing but scythes and the sort for close-up combat?

Four:

The Genoese were an elite professional military group, highly trained, and turned the tides of a battle several more times then English crossbowmen (Mostly because they had fought many more battles, being a mercenary group).


Put yourself into the mindset of a peasant on a shire in England. You have the opportunity to learn the use of a weapon that can be made with materials at hand, will keep you in a relative safe position, and the skill can be used in times of peace to provide for your family. In the Medieval world, such an option would be appealing.

As for the Genoese, please, stop worshipping before them. The crossbow was a formidable weapon, and I do not dispute that. But the numerous battles you refer to all happened before the longbow came into widespread usage. Sure, they were an excellent mercenary group, but longbow companies passed them up, as rifle companies did the same against the longbowmen. But since the longbow was still a Medieval weapon, it counts towards this thread, whereas the fire arm, in effective usage, gets placed in the Rennaisance.

The question is not "which Medieval weapon had the greatest effect?" The question was "top Medieval weapon." If it were the former, I'd say crossbow, hands down. Killing Richard the Lionheart alone is enough, but there is more that it did. But again, this all happpened before longbows became a standard part of English armies.

Five:

Less baggage /=/ better. The Genoese crossbowmen had all that equipment for a reason: To USE it!

Six:

Speed /=/ accuracy. The crossbow is a very mechanical weapon, you shoot at the same angle, it hits near the same place. With the Longbow, you'd have to apply the same amount of pull each time, to a dime.

Seven:

The Genoese would've won in the battle of Crecy were it not for their forgetfulness to keep their crossbows dry.

For the baggage train, I must state that mere practicality disproves this point. Sure, the Genoese used what they had, but the fact was that they needed to use it. It's far easier to transport less supplies for an archer company, and thus with the same resources, one can hire, equip, and march with more longbowmen.

The Speed=/=Accuracy comparison fails. As Junii accurately states

2) the question is which is valued more, quantity or quality. or as my retired military friend often quips...

"Put enough lead in the air and you'll hit something."

And if you have a decently trained longbowman, standing next to a decenlty trained crossbowman, both aiming for the same target, then the longbowman will put more arrows into the target than the crossbowman. Besides, as the charge approaches, longbowmen have an increasingly easy time downing horses and piercing all but the heaviest plate mail, whereas the crossbowmen will still need just as much time to reload.

Lastly, the poor "wet strings" excuse fails. The English would have won because they had longbowmen. And win they did, because (you guessed it) they had longbowmen. The crossbow needed more stable conditions. While its smaller size meant that crossbows were great for defense when stuck in a tiny perch on a covered castle battlement, in the field, the longbow becomes the more practical weapon.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to explain why it was marching drills that determined the practicality of pole-arm weapons.

Now, on to spears, halberds, pikes, and the like.

When it comes to using pole-arm weapons, I refer you, begrudgingly, to King Leonidas's line to Ephialtes in the recent hit adaption of 300 (This. Is. Sparta!!). No, not the Sparta and kicking into the pit line (though that was kick-ass cool).

"Your father should have taught you how our phalanx works. Every man uses his shield to help protect the man next to him. From thigh to neck." Or roughly that. Scottish schiltrons, as used by Wallace, were weak in that they lacked mobility. Once formed, the schiltron had trouble moving, and this was how the English could defeat them.

The Swiss, on the other hand, drilled their soldiers to march in close order, borrowing some of the tactics used by Roman legions or Greek phalanxes. since they were able to march in close order, and because the Swiss pitched battles in the narrow passes where infantry lines were at their strongest, they forced their enemies to meet them head on, facing a bristling spear wall that would impale any charging knight on a galloping steed.

Whether one uses the pike, the halberd, or a long spear, the point was that pole-arm weapons were perfect for infantry, as long as the battle lines ensured that the enemy faced the spiky side of the brigade. It was up to the commanders to ensure the the auxilliary units, terrain, or both kept it that way.

Up tomorrow: Siege engineering. Never has Hell been so glorified.

I'd say the crossbow or longbow...democratizing warfare undoubtedly played a huge role in changing the face of warfare, shifting it from the primarily slow, armored melee focus of the past few thousand years to increasing emphasis on ranged combat and speed. This is speaking, of course, from the European perspective; I know Chinese armies in particular fielded weapons and tactics well ahead of their Western counterparts.

Not to mention both weapons could be produced and fielded in a short period of time, enabling you to raise and deploy troops quickly. Sort of destroys the magic of knighthood and elite infantry when a moderately trained conscript can kill him with a good shot...

Very well. I refer you to Dr. Brian Tierney. I found his work to be the most useful in accounting certain battles of the Middle Ages, including Crecy and Poiters. His focus on the social norms of the era is fuzzy, but when it comes to military and political matters of the era, he has a rather clear focus on the subject matter.

Your sources?

About a dozen books I've borrowed from the library on medieval weaponry. The knowledge of how a crossbow works. The knowledge of how a longbow works. About a hundred books on medieval history.


Put yourself into the mindset of a peasant on a shire in England. You have the opportunity to learn the use of a weapon that can be made with materials at hand, will keep you in a relative safe position, and the skill can be used in times of peace to provide for your family. In the Medieval world, such an option would be appealing.

"Made with the materials at hand"? You don't really know about the time and skill it takes to make a longbow, do you? Or the materials?
As for the Genoese, please, stop worshipping before them. The crossbow was a formidable weapon, and I do not dispute that. But the numerous battles you refer to all happened before the longbow came into widespread usage. Sure, they were an excellent mercenary group, but longbow companies passed them up, as rifle companies did the same against the longbowmen. But since the longbow was still a Medieval weapon, it counts towards this thread, whereas the fire arm, in effective usage, gets placed in the Rennaisance.

It was RARE that they fought against longbowmen, and the few times they did, they were at an incredible disadvantage. Examples: Fighting an upwards battle, wet strings, exhaustion by long marches.
The question is not "which Medieval weapon had the greatest effect?" The question was "top Medieval weapon." If it were the former, I'd say crossbow, hands down. Killing Richard the Lionheart alone is enough, but there is more that it did. But again, this all happpened After longbows became a standard part of English armies.

Fixed.

For the baggage train, I must state that mere practicality disproves this point. Sure, the Genoese used what they had, but the fact was that they needed to use it. It's far easier to transport less supplies for an archer company, and thus with the same resources, one can hire, equip, and march with more longbowmen.

Except for the fact that you needed not train, or equip Genoese crossbowmen as they were a mercenary group. Normal crossbowmen, however, would probably have little more then their crossbow. Also, the longbow (As you oh so carefully slipped in below by agreeing with Junii) is less accurate, and takes more arrows per kill, therefore, in reality, making it CHEAPER, man-for-man, to field crossbowmen then English/Welsh longbowmen.

The Speed=/=Accuracy comparison fails. As Junii accurately states

See above how you defeated your own argument.

And if you have a decently trained longbowman, standing next to a decenlty trained crossbowman, both aiming for the same target, then the longbowman will put more arrows into the target than the crossbowman. Besides, as the charge approaches, longbowmen have an increasingly easy time downing horses and piercing all but the heaviest plate mail, whereas the crossbowmen will still need just as much time to reload.

But in the amount of time to train one longbowman, you could train a hundred crossbowmen. THEREFORE, the crossbowmen would put more bolts into the target then the longbowman. Also, the crossbow would ALSO pierce the heaviest plate mail, as compared to the poor longbowman who gets trampled into the ground.

Lastly, the poor "wet strings" excuse fails. The English would have won because they had longbowmen. And win they did, because (you guessed it) they had longbowmen. The crossbow needed more stable conditions. While its smaller size meant that crossbows were great for defense when stuck in a tiny perch on a covered castle battlement, in the field, the longbow becomes the more practical weapon.

No. The English won because their crossbowmen were on a hill. If the crossbowmen were on the hill, and they both had dry strings, the French would have won. A hill can provide an advantage that could turn an entire battle.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to explain why it was marching drills that determined the practicality of pole-arm weapons.
http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk294/Tombombadil9/laugh_up_one__s_sleeve_by_DavedeHaa.gif

snip

I honetsly don't know whether you expect me to laugh at you or have pity for you. Please, list your books, or at least one Medieval historian, as I have done, rather than just making claims, for as you have stated "teh internetz = near total anonimity." Funny how you won't even meet the same standard that you ask of me.

As for the rest, you really haven't figured it out, have you? You haven't even listened when I've stated that yeomen were training with bows for most of their lives. As for accuracy, taking it at its face value would seem to favor your argument, but pause and consider the target. Longbowmen were aiming at armies. As were crossbowmen. Archers only needed to aim for the body of the charging troops to cause damage, and they could do it much more rapidly than could the crossbowmen.

You claim that charging knights would trample longbow companies. Yet you have demonstrated the understanding of archery lines on a level even with French commanders at Poiters, Crecy, and Agincourt. Archer companies staked the ground in front of them (or simply stood behind the mud), and shot out the horses. Have you ever tried walking a long distance in plate mail armor? It's hot, sweaty, restricts your breathing, and unless you've been training for those "World's Strongest Man" contests, unbelievably fatiguing.

And for the materials of the longbow? Please, every year bowyers were making bows. So while the the wood used in one year wouldn't be a decent bow for another three to four years, the wood from three to four years ago would be on the market for yeomen.

If you want a decent analogy, look at whiskey distribution. Those types of spirits are aged for years, but the stock from prior years is constantly being rolled out as the new batches roll in.

Coming soon: Siege works.

As promised, I will now offer up information on various siege works.

I would state that, for sheer usefulness, the trebuchet truly takes the cake. If one uses spherical rocks of the same mass and shape, then the aiming can be focused to repeatedly hit the same spot of a wall time after time. Edward Longshanks used this to great effect. Additionally, trebuchets, because of the arc of trajectory for their payloads, were able to launch diseased corpses into the besieged castle, an early example of biological warfare.

Battering rams and siege towers were effective, but they required proximity to be effective. If one covered the ram with a solid and non-flammable roof, then it would be resilient to murder-hole assault, but proofing towers against flame and missile fire was much more difficult. While taking the walls of a castle would be more advantageous then storming a courtyard, the effort involved was disproportionately high.

Besides, as it's been stated, smashing down one part of the wall, and then rebuilding it with prisoners' labor and ransom after taking the castle, effectively limited resistance while the castle walls were rebuilt. The reason that I view trebuchets as more useful is that they were faster and more reliable than tunneling and collapising the foundations. Of course, they were abhorrently expensive, but if one had the resources, then the trebuchet became optimal for assaulting fortified positions.

I honetsly don't know whether you expect me to laugh at you or have pity for you. Please, list your books, or at least one Medieval historian, as I have done, rather than just making claims, for as you have stated "teh internetz = near total anonimity." Funny how you won't even meet the same standard that you ask of me.

I'll post this when I get home, so I don't mess up on the titles and names. This will be edited soon.

As for the rest, you really haven't figured it out, have you? You haven't even listened when I've stated that yeomen were training with bows for most of their lives. As for accuracy, taking it at its face value would seem to favor your argument, but pause and consider the target. Longbowmen were aiming at armies. As were crossbowmen. Archers only needed to aim for the body of the charging troops to cause damage, and they could do it much more rapidly than could the crossbowmen.

And the Crossbowmen aimed where? The exact same place, yet they hit more often! How many times must I go over this?

You claim that charging knights would trample longbow companies. Yet you have demonstrated the understanding of archery lines on a level even with French commanders at Poiters, Crecy, and Agincourt. Archer companies staked the ground in front of them (or simply stood behind the mud), and shot out the horses. Have you ever tried walking a long distance in plate mail armor? It's hot, sweaty, restricts your breathing, and unless you've been training for those "World's Strongest Man" contests, unbelievably fatiguing.

Horses. Knights didn't trample longbow companies on foot, I can tell you that much.XD

And for the materials of the longbow? Please, every year bowyers were making bows. So while the the wood used in one year wouldn't be a decent bow for another three to four years, the wood from three to four years ago would be on the market for yeomen.

And yet, you forget what incredible technology we have these days. Whiskey is not an acceptable analogy. Try again.

There would be MUCH less old Yew wood on the market then almost any other wood. They used axes, and everything was slow and required a lot of manual work. A crossbow could be made at the rate of four or five a day for the price of a few scraps of matal, some cheap wood, and a string. A longbow would take how long to make? And then it'd take the price of five year old Yew wood, of which was not plentiful.

And the Crossbowmen aimed where? The exact same place, yet they hit more often! How many times must I go over this?

Wait, hit more often? I've just finished explaining that with a rapid rate of fire, and into a mass of opponents, the longbowmen can fire more rapidly and hit more often. Maybe not more often per shot, but more often per minute. Simply put, the crossbowmen did not hit more often. How many times must I go over this?

Horses. Knights didn't trample longbow companies on foot, I can tell you that much.XD

Horses would take the arrows. and since the horses weren't fully armored, they'd fall, and many would die. But since you've failed to make even a basic effort to connect my words with defensive concepts, allow me to detail this as plainly as possible.

Longbow companies would fire from defensive positions that horses would have trouble getting through. Whether it be sharpened stakes sticking five feet out of the ground, a pike wall of infantry, or simply deep mud (a la Agincourt), the longbow companies used some form of defensive barrier that easily stopped charging horses. Add to that the fact that if there was a cavalry charge, the horses would be pelted with deadlier and dealier arrow fire the closer that they got, any charge essentially amounted a waste of horses and a lot of knights stuck on the ground in heavy armor. Which they would then have to walk in. A long walk in heavy, tiresome armor.

Is there anybody else here that fails to understand my point about longbowmen routinely placing themselves in a position that made cavalry charges suicidal?

And yet, you forget what incredible technology we have these days. Whiskey is not an acceptable analogy. Try again.

Nah. It actually works if you take the time to think. I'll wait while you figure this one out.

There would be MUCH less old Yew wood on the market then almost any other wood. They used axes, and everything was slow and required a lot of manual work. A crossbow could be made at the rate of four or five a day for the price of a few scraps of matal, some cheap wood, and a string. A longbow would take how long to make? And then it'd take the price of five year old Yew wood, of which was not plentiful.

Scratch that. I won't wait. Since yeomen had enough wealth to provide for these types of bows, what they'd do is similar to today's practice of pre-paid tuition offered by various states. See, the yeomenry would commission bows for their sons four years before the boys were ready to use an adult bow. Then, when they came of age (here's the great part that might help you understand), they would get a recently finished bow. OMFG!! "Not possible!" you say? On the contrary, very possible. Then, having already had experience using large bows to hunt game, like wild boars, the boys would need only a little more preparation for battle.

"But wait! Peasants are not the same as battle hardened Genoese mercenaries. Yeomen are cowardly and weak," is a possible argument. To this, I ask if anybody here has ever used a bow to hunt. And not just deer. I'm talking about wild boars, a creature of immense strength and ferocity, capable of using its tusks to gore men, to maim and to kill. Or bears. Bows were used when bringing down bears. Now, bear cavalry would be resilient to archery, but if the opponent has got bear cavalry, you're pretty much fucked.

I honetsly don't know whether you expect me to laugh at you or have pity for you. Please, list your books, or at least one Medieval historian, as I have done, rather than just making claims, for as you have stated "teh internetz = near total anonimity." Funny how you won't even meet the same standard that you ask of me.

As for the rest, you really haven't figured it out, have you? You haven't even listened when I've stated that yeomen were training with bows for most of their lives. As for accuracy, taking it at its face value would seem to favor your argument, but pause and consider the target. Longbowmen were aiming at armies. As were crossbowmen. Archers only needed to aim for the body of the charging troops to cause damage, and they could do it much more rapidly than could the crossbowmen.

You claim that charging knights would trample longbow companies. Yet you have demonstrated the understanding of archery lines on a level even with French commanders at Poiters, Crecy, and Agincourt. Archer companies staked the ground in front of them (or simply stood behind the mud), and shot out the horses. Have you ever tried walking a long distance in plate mail armor? It's hot, sweaty, restricts your breathing, and unless you've been training for those "World's Strongest Man" contests, unbelievably fatiguing.

And for the materials of the longbow? Please, every year bowyers were making bows. So while the the wood used in one year wouldn't be a decent bow for another three to four years, the wood from three to four years ago would be on the market for yeomen.

If you want a decent analogy, look at whiskey distribution. Those types of spirits are aged for years, but the stock from prior years is constantly being rolled out as the new batches roll in.

Coming soon: Siege works.

Erm, they wouldn't have used plate (there is no such thing as plate mail, because plate and mail armor are different kinds of armor) if it were anywhere near as disadvantageous as you suggest. Standard plate suit is about 60-70 pounds, and the weight is evenly distributed across the body. I'm not as big as many of the knights of the time, although granted I'm stronger than most men, and I could easily move around for hours with that much weight on me. Chain is actually more restricting, because all the weight comes down on the shoulders.

But that's neither here nor there. If you wanted one bow-type weapon that you could conceivably use, you went for the Mongol recurved shortbow. More pull even than the English yew longbow (hence, greater piercing power and longer range) and because of it's compact size, you could use it on horseback.

Erm, they wouldn't have used plate (there is no such thing as plate mail, because plate and mail armor are different kinds of armor) if it were anywhere near as disadvantageous as you suggest. Standard plate suit is about 60-70 pounds, and the weight is evenly distributed across the body. I'm not as big as many of the knights of the time, although granted I'm stronger than most men, and I could easily move around for hours with that much weight on me. Chain is actually more restricting, because all the weight comes down on the shoulders.

But that's neither here nor there. If you wanted one bow-type weapon that you could conceivably use, you went for the Mongol recurved shortbow. More pull even than the English yew longbow (hence, greater piercing power and longer range) and because of it's compact size, you could use it on horseback.
Even I say the power of the Mongolian recurve bow is far more powerful then the crossbow. *Yields* But it's not European.;)

Erm, they wouldn't have used plate (there is no such thing as plate mail, because plate and mail armor are different kinds of armor) if it were anywhere near as disadvantageous as you suggest. Standard plate suit is about 60-70 pounds, and the weight is evenly distributed across the body. I'm not as big as many of the knights of the time, although granted I'm stronger than most men, and I could easily move around for hours with that much weight on me. Chain is actually more restricting, because all the weight comes down on the shoulders.


Absolutely right. I would add however, that this is why typically infantrymen weren't clad in plate armor... The weight did cause joint fatigue and would tire the wearer out faster than someone who didn't have any on. This was much less of a problem on mounted knights as the horse bore the burden of moving them across the battlefield.

Absolutely right. I would add however, that this is why typically infantrymen weren't clad in plate armor... The weight did cause joint fatigue and would tire the wearer out faster than someone who didn't have any on. This was much less of a problem on mounted knights as the horse bore the burden of moving them across the battlefield.

Not to mention their own armor.

Even I say the power of the Mongolian recurve bow is far more powerful then the crossbow. *Yields* But it's not European.;)

I don't know why we're limiting this to European weapons.

I rather like the huge pot of boiling oil poured from the castle parapets onto the men-at-arms and knights trying to climb over the walls. Flaming balls of naphtha (aka greek fire) launched by a trebuchet also were effective.

HAlberd

its a axe a spear and a sword every one can yous it and if your a pro you are beyond deadly (exp:Swiss guard)

Pole Axe. It can be used on foot, it can kill mounted troops, and it can kill foot troops.


Either that or the lance. But that has the problem of you needing a horse.

Catholicism, hands down Catholicism.

I don't know why we're limiting this to European weapons.
Four reasons:

1. The power of the Japanese Katana.

2. Chinese technological superiority

3. 'Cause I wanted the crossbow to be a contender.

4. Just cause. Feel free to create a "Best weapon in the dark ages world-wide" but I wanted to limit this to Medieval Europe.
Pole Axe. It can be used on foot, it can kill mounted troops, and it can kill foot troops.


Either that or the lance. But that has the problem of you needing a horse.
Crossbow?:( Also, I thought the name was "Halberd"
Catholicism, hands down Catholicism.

/threadwin.:D

Crossbow?:( Also, I thought the name was "Halberd"


Its like a mini-halberd.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/36/103815235_9ecea6a624.jpg

I don't know if it's appropriate, but the cat o' nine tails, which I think is a spiky ball on a chain, is good enough for me.

MAUL THEIR FACES

I don't know if it's appropriate, but the cat o' nine tails, which I think is a spiky ball on a chain, is good enough for me.

MAUL THEIR FACES

Cat-o-nine-tails is a whip. Youre thinking of a Morningstar.

Caltrops. They'll even keep the pesky knights and melee soldiers at bay so I can keep picking them off with my longbow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caltrop

Its like a mini-halberd.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/36/103815235_9ecea6a624.jpg
Ohhh, right, right, right. I remember those.
Caltrops. They'll even keep the pesky knights and melee soldiers at bay so I can keep picking them off with my Crossbow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caltrop
Fixed.:D

How to pwn crossbows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA_FGTGq7Ns&feature=related

Best Medieval weapon? The Plague, through and through. It decimated a 3rd. of Europe. No other ancient weapon can compare.:D
*worships*
Lest we forget religion, as aggrevated and unhealing damage.

probably the stirrup and a fast horse. as in "feets don't fail me now"!
horse shoes would be pretty cool too, but i don't thing those found widespread use untill well into the renasaunce, if not later.

=^^=
.../\...

I rather like the huge pot of boiling oil poured from the castle parapets onto the men-at-arms and knights trying to climb over the walls. Flaming balls of naphtha (aka greek fire) launched by a trebuchet also were effective.

Wasn't the former a myth?

Most important is pike. Most awesome is halberd.

Best Medieval weapon? The Plague, through and through. It decimated a 3rd. of Europe. No other ancient weapon can compare.:D

Oho! And biological warfare was already used in the middle ages!

wiki: biological warfare

The ancient world
During the 16th century B.C, the Assyrians poisoned enemy wells with ergot, a fungus that would make the enemy delusional, and Solon of Athens used the poisonous herb Veratrum to poison the water supply of Phocaea during his siege of the city. During the 4th century B.C. Scythian archers used arrows with tips covered with animal feces to cause wounds to become infected.[1] In 204 B.C, Hannibal of Carthage had clay pots filled with venomous snakes and instructed his soldiers to throw the pots onto the decks of Pergamene ships[2].


Medieval biological warfare
The Mongol Empire established commercial and political connections between the Eastern and Western areas of the world, its Mongol armies and merchant caravans probably inadvertently brought bubonic plague from central Asia to the Middle East and Europe. The Black Death swept through Eurasia, killing approximately one third to one half of the population and changing the course of Asian and European history.

During the Middle Ages victims of the bubonic plague were used for biological attacks, often by flinging their corpses and excrement over castle walls using catapults. In 1346 the bodies of Mongol warriors of the Golden Horde who had died of plague were thrown over the walls of the besieged Crimean city of Kaffa (now Theodosia). It has been speculated that this operation may have been responsible for the advent of the Black Death in Europe.[3]
At the siege of Thun l’Eveque in 1340, the attackers catapulted decomposing animals into the besieged area. [4]
In 1422 during the siege of the Bohemian castle of Karlstein Hussite attackers used catapults to throw dead (but not plague-infected) bodies and 2000 carriage-loads of dung over the walls.[1] The last known incident of using plague corpses for biological warfare occurred in 1710, when Russian forces attacked the Swedes by flinging plague-infected corpses over the city walls of Reval (Tallinn).[5] However, during the 1785 siege of La Calle, Tunisian forces flung diseased clothing into the city.[1]

Oho! And biological warfare was already used in the middle ages!

wiki: biological warfare

The ancient world
During the 16th century B.C, the Assyrians poisoned enemy wells with ergot, a fungus that would make the enemy delusional, and Solon of Athens used the poisonous herb Veratrum to poison the water supply of Phocaea during his siege of the city. During the 4th century B.C. Scythian archers used arrows with tips covered with animal feces to cause wounds to become infected.[1] In 204 B.C, Hannibal of Carthage had clay pots filled with venomous snakes and instructed his soldiers to throw the pots onto the decks of Pergamene ships[2].


Medieval biological warfare
The Mongol Empire established commercial and political connections between the Eastern and Western areas of the world, its Mongol armies and merchant caravans probably inadvertently brought bubonic plague from central Asia to the Middle East and Europe. The Black Death swept through Eurasia, killing approximately one third to one half of the population and changing the course of Asian and European history.

During the Middle Ages victims of the bubonic plague were used for biological attacks, often by flinging their corpses and excrement over castle walls using catapults. In 1346 the bodies of Mongol warriors of the Golden Horde who had died of plague were thrown over the walls of the besieged Crimean city of Kaffa (now Theodosia). It has been speculated that this operation may have been responsible for the advent of the Black Death in Europe.[3]
At the siege of Thun l’Eveque in 1340, the attackers catapulted decomposing animals into the besieged area. [4]
In 1422 during the siege of the Bohemian castle of Karlstein Hussite attackers used catapults to throw dead (but not plague-infected) bodies and 2000 carriage-loads of dung over the walls.[1] The last known incident of using plague corpses for biological warfare occurred in 1710, when Russian forces attacked the Swedes by flinging plague-infected corpses over the city walls of Reval (Tallinn).[5] However, during the 1785 siege of La Calle, Tunisian forces flung diseased clothing into the city.[1]

That's true. The Arabs used to throw the heads of the soldiers that had died of the plague with catapults into European strongholds (I think one of the examples or the best examples are in Spain and in Italy) in order to spread the disease there and aid them in advancing in war during the Middle Ages.

*worships*
Lest we forget religion, as aggrevated and unhealing damage.

Indeed.:D

Actually, Japanese armor makes use of quite a bit of metal plate and mail.


After the Porteguese introduced the flintlock into the every day arsenal of the Japanese soldier. Before then most Samuria considered heavy metal armor more of a hindrance than a boon; since the Samuria usually began the battle using a bow to pick off the 'lesser' troops on the battlefield and then closed with thier melee weapon of choice to deul thier enemies in honorable combat.

While I agree with your reasoning...
the weapons are best when used with tactics that make use of their strengths. there's a reason why you never heard of Horse Crossbowmen. just like you never hear about the slicing ability of polearms


Horse Crossbowmen were used by the Crusader Armies during the first and second crusades and by the early Russians; both as a counter to horse archers (not vouching for their effectiveness but yes they did exist).

Greek fire-the secret that died with Byzantium

Polearm armies -- especially those with spears and simialr weapons -- depend on the training to form a setady formation and hold it. If you have a group of well-disciplined soldeirs, any knights trying to charge them be shishkebabed. If you have a group of peasants with the same equipment, a fair number will see a group pof thousandppound horses with angry riders and flee because they're afraid of getting squished. As for those who stay, they may very well not have learned that they should brace their spear (against their fioot, a large rock, or whatever) -- or panic and forget to do so. Finally, less training means that the thicket of speartyips will be less even, giving the opposing riders a better chance of getting through the gaps.

Best medieval weapon? I'm going to say it's some kind of combination of the Wall, the Attrition, and the Geography.

"Your father should have taught you how our phalanx works. Every man uses his shield to help protect the man next to him. From thigh to neck."

And that's why hoplites don't walk in straight lines.