Real Life Weapon Choices (olden like the plague)

[Feddlefew]

Well, what's the situation? Are we trying to kill/disable/maim someone in some kind of plate in a strait out fight, or are we just trying to get through a set of plate armor?

[SecondTalon]

At this point, I think it's a matter of .. I dunno lol. Armchair warriors debating the best way of killin' wot needs killin' with little regard to the actual history - ie people actually used whatever was best at the job and also the easiest to learn. If something was incredibly complicated, then it needed to provide an overwhelming advantage on the battlefield to be learned by anyone. The Crossbow is pretty much the gold standard there - in an afternoon or less, you can learn to kill a armored warrior with 20 years of experience.

[Feddlefew]

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Personally, If I had to take out a fully armored knight, I'd use a hollowed out cannonball filled with gunpowder and a fuse. I know that they used exploding cannonballs at one point, but I don't know when.

Edit: What I'm thinking of is a carcass, which were definitely not used during the middle ages. Oops.

[el_loco_avs]

The proper counter for decent armour is a mace (the armour doesn't work when the flexible parts are jammed into your body) or a lance.

The proper counter for armor is an excessively large longbow, you ask the french.

Which takes insane amounts of strength to operate.

*points up*

Hence my choice for an arbalest.

It takes insane amounts of strength to operate like a modern bow. The texts of the time indicate that it was operated by placing the bow to the ground holding the string stationary and using your bodyweight and front arm to push the bow forwards, leaving your entire body "inside the bow" which can then be aimed with the arms locked and then shot. This is why the bows of the period were 6'-7' in length (with 30"- 40" arrows) when people were around 5'6". Thats not to say that pulling a 180lb bow would be easy, but the correct technique definately makes it feasible.

Anyway, if we can have any medieval weapon, I'd quite like a really big trebuchet, and lots of pots of burning sulphur...

You'd need some friends to operate it though.

[el_loco_avs]

At this point, I think it's a matter of .. I dunno lol. Armchair warriors debating the best way of killin' wot needs killin' with little regard to the actual history - ie people actually used whatever was best at the job and also the easiest to learn. If something was incredibly complicated, then it needed to provide an overwhelming advantage on the battlefield to be learned by anyone. The Crossbow is pretty much the gold standard there - in an afternoon or less, you can learn to kill a armored warrior with 20 years of experience.

iirc they even considered it unfair.

[bigglesworth]

Against your European-style armor, the exploitable weak points are stabbable. Your Katana-style single-edge blades are kinda.. crappy at stabbing. You can do it, sure, but it's not built for it.

Better would be all the delightful Eastern bows.

But neither were designed to be able to penetrate something like Milanese or Maximilian harness, which was more advanced than anything made in the East until the invention of kevlar, and was able to stop musket balls. This was serious kit.

[Cloud Walker]

This thread totally made me wander around trueswords.com. So many things I want from there.

[TheKrikkitWars]

Anyway, if we can have any medieval weapon, I'd quite like a really big trebuchet, and lots of pots of burning sulphur...

You'd need some friends to operate it though.

It wouldn't be hard though...

"hey, you'll *never* guess what I've just got"
"what?"
"a trebuchet"
"fuck! can I have a go with it?"

And bam, that's how I'd aquire the manpower to cock it and fill it with pots of burning sulphur, offering everyone a turn with the lever!

[bigglesworth]

The Crossbow is pretty much the gold standard there - in an afternoon or less, you can learn to kill a armored warrior with 20 years of experience.

Well, if you have a decent group of people with them. One crossbow has a chance, but not a great one, of killing a guy in harness before he kills you. And he can kill/disable crossbowman after crossbowman until he gets tired. Crossbows are useless without support from people with pointy sticks and armour. However, the reverse is not true, the armoured guy is his own fighting system and with sufficient numbers will put a dent in any formation until they run away.

AFAIK IANAHistorian I just read a lot of books

[SecondTalon]

If you're talking specifically of the Maximilian style, then remember that it's contemporaries were muskets, not crossbows. And even then, guntech advanced so much that there were marksmen capable of easily taking out an armored knight at a distance. Sure, one musket-wielder is going to loose against a group of people... but that's pretty much how the history of weaponry's gone until recently - a person has a reasonable expectation of being able to take out one other, possibly two, but any more than that is getting into unreasonable territory. I mean, the Footman-Archer-Knight days all developed specifically to counter each other - at least until it degenerated into a huge melee. Archers would fire, footmen would step up to protect the archers, knights (or, mounted cavalry) would break the lines of footmen, repeat.

As for crossbows being useless... it really depends on how many you have and how they're stationed. On an open field versus a line of mounted cavalry? They're going to get slaughtered as they can't take down horses fast enough. On a castle wall? They can hold the place for as long as they have ammo...and assuming the other guy forgot most siege weaponry beyond towers and ladders...

[el_loco_avs]

The Crossbow is pretty much the gold standard there - in an afternoon or less, you can learn to kill a armored warrior with 20 years of experience.

Well, if you have a decent group of people with them. One crossbow has a chance, but not a great one, of killing a guy in harness before he kills you. And he can kill/disable crossbowman after crossbowman until he gets tired. Crossbows are useless without support from people with pointy sticks and armour. However, the reverse is not true, the armoured guy is his own fighting system and with sufficient numbers will put a dent in any formation until they run away.

AFAIK IANAHistorian I just read a lot of books

If the fight starts at range I think Crossbowguy can get a couple shots off.

or just wait until he's close and pop him straight in the chest.

[bigglesworth]

If you're talking specifically of the Maximilian style, then remember that it's contemporaries were muskets, not crossbows. And even then, guntech advanced so much that there were marksmen capable of easily taking out an armored knight at a distance.

Well, I mentioned Milanese and Maximilian to cover both crossbows and muskets. And yeah, you could get a decent long-gun and take down a knight (though that was mostly by taking down the horse, the easy route, which was why horse armour started coming back into fashion). But that doesn't tally with the "afternoon or less" you posited to learn to do so.

[SecondTalon]

Well, that's with a longgun and at much further ranges. 10 yards or so? Afternoon.

[Gears]

Has anyone seen the show Deadliest Warrior? If not, I believe it has a lot to do with this conversation. If not, it's still a pretty cool show. It's on Spike sometimes.

[Josephine]

Has anyone seen the show Deadliest Warrior? If not, I believe it has a lot to do with this conversation. If not, it's still a pretty cool show. It's on Spike sometimes.

I watched several online. Not a bad show. I seem to remember them outright refusing to do pirate vs ninja, though.

But I want some more information on how that simulation works...

[IcedT]

The Crossbow is pretty much the gold standard there - in an afternoon or less, you can learn to kill a armored warrior with 20 years of experience.

Well, if you have a decent group of people with them. One crossbow has a chance, but not a great one, of killing a guy in harness before he kills you. And he can kill/disable crossbowman after crossbowman until he gets tired. Crossbows are useless without support from people with pointy sticks and armour. However, the reverse is not true, the armoured guy is his own fighting system and with sufficient numbers will put a dent in any formation until they run away.

AFAIK IANAHistorian I just read a lot of books

"Until he gets tired" is the operative phrase here. What do you wanna bet the guy with the crossbow can outrun him?

[Ryom]

Give me a bow and a club and I'm set. If we want a bladed weapon, then I think a halberd would be nice.

[el_loco_avs]

The Crossbow is pretty much the gold standard there - in an afternoon or less, you can learn to kill a armored warrior with 20 years of experience.

Well, if you have a decent group of people with them. One crossbow has a chance, but not a great one, of killing a guy in harness before he kills you. And he can kill/disable crossbowman after crossbowman until he gets tired. Crossbows are useless without support from people with pointy sticks and armour. However, the reverse is not true, the armoured guy is his own fighting system and with sufficient numbers will put a dent in any formation until they run away.

AFAIK IANAHistorian I just read a lot of books

"Until he gets tired" is the operative phrase here. What do you wanna bet the guy with the crossbow can outrun him?

I hadn't even thought of that. Given equal fitness a light/unarmed opponent could run circles around someone in plate.

[bigglesworth]

Well, that's with a longgun and at much further ranges. 10 yards or so? Afternoon.

Yeah, but with an early musket, you miss once and then you're fucked. These things were less accurate than you give them credit for.

"Until he gets tired" is the operative phrase here. What do you wanna bet the guy with the crossbow can outrun him?

Well, traditionally you only attack when the other person has something you want...

[mmmcannibalism]

Has anyone seen the show Deadliest Warrior? If not, I believe it has a lot to do with this conversation. If not, it's still a pretty cool show. It's on Spike sometimes.

I watched several online. Not a bad show. I seem to remember them outright refusing to do pirate vs ninja, though.

But I want some more information on how that simulation works...

My current theory is that it starts the warriors at some distance and each of their weapons "fires". They then walk/run toward each other while swinging. When a weapon scores a kill shot the point goes to that weapon and its warrior. This explains the Al Capone Jesse James fight were a repeating rifle(long range) decimated a sub machine gun for most kills. It also explains why only weapons that are really lethal get many points(hence ninja suckage on show), if you have something that can role decent kills your egg full of glass shards won't get the kill point.

[Sockmonkey]

I like that show but holy crap the pre-fight trash-talk is eye-rolling. Everyone says the same thing. "The warrior from my culture will win because they have courage/discipline/cunning/intelligence/strategy/training and no other warrior from any other culture in the history of the universe could possibly have has those things!
Look, I get that it's meant to be part of the entertainment but come on.

[SecondTalon]

Well, that's with a longgun and at much further ranges. 10 yards or so? Afternoon.

Yeah, but with an early musket, you miss once and then you're fucked. These things were less accurate than you give them credit for.

True, I am thinking more of massed shooting versus massed charge. Singular on Singular is going to be harder..
Of course, the Maximilian stuff wasn't invincible to gunfire either, just resistant. Which is why they stopped using it, seeing as they couldn't make it more bulletproofy faster than guns were getting shooty.

[bigglesworth]

Well, and the fact that it was massively expensive, and getting harder and harder to effectively fight in.

But yes, until relatively recently, missile fire is just a tool for massed ranks.

[exrider]

Is a balisong an old enough weapon?

brass knuckle

[SecondTalon]

Given that it may date to 800 CE... Yes, it's old enough.

[IcedT]

I like that show but holy crap the pre-fight trash-talk is eye-rolling. Everyone says the same thing. "The warrior from my culture will win because they have courage/discipline/cunning/intelligence/strategy/training and no other warrior from any other culture in the history of the universe could possibly have has those things!
Look, I get that it's meant to be part of the entertainment but come on.

If they cut that crap out and explained the math better, I'd probably watch the show a lot more. Although I did enjoy some of the trash-talk between Delta and the Spetznaz, since those guys were actual military operators and not just a bunch of 'enthusiasts' with no military experience and no historical credentials. Those IRA guys were pretty legit too.

[Insignificant Deifaction]

If you only rely on lethal blows, then any sort of disabling, shock and awe, or similar type of weapon is going to lose.

If you rely on a move-towards-each-other-firing-at-appropriate-ranges model, long-ranged weapons are the only ones that matter. In the same vein, stealth weaponry is completely pointless.

I don't see how they could call that some manner of incredible simulation.

[Sockmonkey]

If they cut that crap out and explained the math better, I'd probably watch the show a lot more. Although I did enjoy some of the trash-talk between Delta and the Spetznaz, since those guys were actual military operators and not just a bunch of 'enthusiasts' with no military experience and no historical credentials. Those IRA guys were pretty legit too.

Yeah I liked the Spetznaz guy, he was cool.

[SecondTalon]

Hm. Maybe they did fix the format. I seem to recall it being matchups that seemed.. stupid. Like an English Longbowman versus a Zulu Warrior, or a Ninja versus a Rough Rider. Stuff where the combat styles are so mismatched that both sides would have adjusted greatly before actually engaging in any sort of fighting with one another. So if they're putting people who are at least in a similar style or contemporaries against one another, that's a better sign.

[ChomperTheSharptooth]

On the topic of Deadliest Warrior, I would have to abseloutely reccomend that XBL owners download the game for $10 dollars. PS3 owners still have to wait. but the game is great fun and the devs really care (a free patch being released soon for little issues and going to GameFAQs to talk directly to us). And for a little more insight to the sciency parts the show doesn't show (because Spike is the 'guy channel') one should check out the 'Aftermath' shows on Spike.com where you can actually send in questions. I learned a little from the one I watched, apparently there's actually a pendulum-like machine that tests each appropriate weapon matchup for collision data. I'd think with collision results, swing speed, and damage to body, along with whatever else I know nothing of, there is more accountability in that program than accredited. Even if you don't buy into the first 50 minutes, the battle is always stunning.

As for my weapon of choice, I've sadly never touched an archaic weapon besides an imitation gladius my dad has, but in my LARPing experience (under Dagorhir rules) I have really liked a scythe I made out of a core I had my friend make in woodshop. All sides of the handle were covered in blue camping foam, while the two sides of the blade had excess to extend past the blade and point a couple of inches. Theses gaps were filled with the softer open-cell foam. It was a fun and unconventional weapon, and as a two hander it suited my aggressive style while having an easier time hitting uncovered areas than a sword of equal size.

[Felstaff]

For me I choose to use brass knuckles because it is easy to use and very effective.

_____________________
Brass Knuckles - "Add an extreme wallop to your punch"

Phliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiip! Why did you approve such obvious spammery? Actually I'm happy it resurrected this thread, not only because the spam has a catchy slogan (and frankly, who doesn't dislike the use of the term "wallop"?), but I've been playing some Assassin's Creed, and short blades have swiftly returned to Felstaff's mind-brain. Which, in turn, reminded me of the aweseome off-hand (predominantly Italian) trident dagger, which is much like the Japanese sai, except the blade splits into three. How cool! I've since learned that, no, the three blades are not for smiting your enemies in triplicate, but for catching blades wielded against you much easier. Unlike the quillian on a sword-hilt guard which just deflects the incoming blade, the trident dagger can catch the blade, and a swift flick of the wrist can disarm your opponent. Great for parrying, great for stabbage, it's like the hand-to-hand combatist's best friend!

[Plasma Man]

I would love to have a swordstick. Not because it would be an especially effective weapon, but because they have style.

[SlyReaper]

Are we just talking about personal weapons here? Because the medieval lot were fairly inventive with siege weapons too. In some cases, they would catapult corpses infected with bubonic plague into the besieged city, because this would weaken the defenders by spreading the disease. In some sieges, the corpses weren't infected with plague, just decomposing. That would be enough to infect the defenders with goodness-knows-what.

For personal weapons, I'd have to go with the crossbow. It's an incredibly simple device to use, so you can train someone with no combat experience to use one in a matter of minutes. So given enough people, you can create a pretty much instant army. Compare that to archers, who would have to have spent their entire lives, including childhood, just to develop muscles strong enough to draw a bow. Similarly with swords, a swordsman would have to have been trained from a very young age in order to be able to swing that heavy sharp slab of metal around without killing himself.

Incidentally, that's the exact reason guns became popular later on. The earliest iterations were pretty weak and clumsy weapons on their own and horribly inaccurate, but you could train a lot of people very quickly to use one. And a line of musketeers or arquebusers could be a very effective force indeed.

[A Man With A Hat]

Out of the weapons suggested so far, and assuming that you don't have the time to develop the muscle strength/skill of a weapon like a longbow, the crossbow would be the best choice. Shortbows are also effective enough, and aren't too hard to train to use, but compared to a crossbow for ease of use and range, they're outmatched.

Being a crossbowman would have its downsides if we're talking about living in the correct time period that the weapon was used as well. Crossbows were denounced by the Church for being too cruel, and by mounted knights for being dishonourable. I remember reading about how after an attacking Baron broke his opponent's siege (it was in Rochester, I believe, in 1215), he spared all of the defenders except for the crossbowmen, who were executed due to how much damage they'd caused.

For melee, a weapon that does not require a shield but has decent reach, like a bastard sword would be a good all-round choice. If you're familiar with your crossbow's draw and reload time, you'll know if you have time to get another shot off at a charging enemy before he reaches you, so the time to draw the sword wouldn't be a problem.

[AwesomeFrancis]

the weight of the sword and the force of the swing too. you might not be able to slice an arm off but you can break bone. thats a lot of momentum for a large stick of metal impacting MORE metal... it might absorb some of the shock but swing hard enough and you've at least got a nasty bruise. its also a good way to knock them off balance. shove em over then stab away.

*pure conjecture, i dont sword fight*

I have to agreed with parakaboy there's nothing to say.

________________________
The Hell I care to those who hate me.

[delfts]

A mage's wand, of course!

Nah. I'd probably go with a bow and arrow, although I'm terrible with them, because I'm so weak. With my current muscles, I really wouldn't fare well with any weapon. The idea of attacking from a distance thus seems favorable.

[pizzazz]

Deadliest Warrior is definitely an entertaining show. The problem is that the modern warriors are the most accurate, because they have the most information and also because they have actual warriors, but the're also more boring because they tend to use basically the same set of weapons. For example, for SEALs v. Israeli commandos, they tested an automatic rifle, semiautomatic handgun, plastic explosive, and combat knife for each. Same thing with Green Berets/Spetsnaz. In contrast, apache v. gladiator and gladiator, for example, featured 8 completely different weapons, as did spartan v. ninja (the Spartan xyphos and ninja sword being the most comparable). The modern shows are also way too close--IRA v. Taliban and the above two special forces matchups were all closer than 520 to 480, and they claim their margin of error is something like 510 to 490, which is giving themselves a little too much credit.

Hm. Maybe they did fix the format. I seem to recall it being matchups that seemed.. stupid. Like an English Longbowman versus a Zulu Warrior, or a Ninja versus a Rough Rider. Stuff where the combat styles are so mismatched that both sides would have adjusted greatly before actually engaging in any sort of fighting with one another. So if they're putting people who are at least in a similar style or contemporaries against one another, that's a better sign.

None of those were ever matchups, and in fact only two of those warriors have appeared so far, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Consult this list of episodes and note which matchups you think fall into that category.

More on topic, I would probably grab a rapier/main gauche combo because I fence and have some experience and training to use them. If I had the skills to go with it, probably an axe/shield combination. The axe has both cutting and crushing ability, while a shield can block most bladed weapons for a while and most crushing weapons at least once, while also serving as a good short range weapon in itself. Or perhaps the Spartan bronze shield/spear/shortsword getup for a slightly more defensive, slower set.

[SecondTalon]

Hm. Maybe they did fix the format. I seem to recall it being matchups that seemed.. stupid. Like an English Longbowman versus a Zulu Warrior, or a Ninja versus a Rough Rider. Stuff where the combat styles are so mismatched that both sides would have adjusted greatly before actually engaging in any sort of fighting with one another. So if they're putting people who are at least in a similar style or contemporaries against one another, that's a better sign.

None of those were ever matchups, and in fact only two of those warriors have appeared so far, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Consult this list of episodes and note which matchups you think fall into that category.

Okay. (though don't confuse my making shit up with paying attention to the show.)

1.1 Episode 1: Apache vs. Gladiator - The fuck? ("Hi, I'm a Gladiator. I'm trained to fight in a way that pleases a crowd of onlookers." "Hi, I'm an Apache Warrior.. I'm trained in the more successful 'Kill the fuck out of your enemy' method of warfare")
1.2 Episode 2: Viking vs. Samurai - While I can .. vaguely see what they're getting at, but depending on which Samuri you're talking about (Idealized versus Actual), you're going to end up with a warrior used to attacking in groups fighting... a soldier used to incredibly quick duels OR a soldier used to only relying on his swords when the shit's hit the fan because he's a goddamn mounted archer.
1.3 Episode 3: Spartan vs. Ninja - Seriously? You.. that.. I... Seriously!? Let's have a single soldier from a Greek Phalanx attack a CIA Spy while we're at it, for all the sense this one makes. A military regular versus an assassin/spy/sabateur... what the hell, Show?
1.4 Episode 4: Pirate vs. Knight - You aren't even trying anymore, are you? (This should have been Knight vs. Samuri, Knight vs Viking, or by fuck, they better have had a scene where the Knight charges the fucking ship on his horse. That's on a jetski.)
1.7 Episode 7: Shaolin Monk vs. Māori Warrior - These are similar because...they come from the same hemisphere?
1.8 Episode 8: William Wallace vs. Shaka Zulu - Fucking hell, really? Two people who are leaders do not an equal match make. You might as well ask about Red Dragons versus Star Fleet Shuttlecraft at this point.

Season 2 got better, I'll give it that, though I don't know enough of Zande, Aztec and Rajput tactics to know if their matchups were acceptable (Aztec Jaguar vs Zande Warrior, Rajput Warrior vs Roman Centurion)
2.5 Episode 14: Nazi Waffen-SS vs. Viet Cong - I'm not sure the military arm of a political group that fought in WWII battles is a fair comparison to make to a group that fought a lot of guerilla warfare. There's also the issue of training and so on... we can make a fair educated guess as to the Average Waffen-SS, but not the average Veit Cong soldier. The latter is just too wide of a group. Just sayin'
2.8 Episode 17: Persian Immortal vs. Celt - Same issue as 2.5. The Elite of a large army versus ... not even a unified group, and about as accurate as saying "Knight"... but hell, ignoring those problems, there's still the issue of Elite versus Average Joe Swordslinger.
2.11 Episode 20: Ming Warrior vs. French Musketeer - this just kinda highlights the problems of comparing soldiers from backgrounds that aren't similar enough - you've got a group on one end (The French) where Armor is just starting to go out of style because the guns are getting strong enough to regularly piece the armor versus a group that's at - more or less - the beginnings of gunsmithing. You wouldn't put a Greek Phalanx soldier up against an English Knight because it's already a given that the Knight's weaponry will tear through the Greek's. Same kinda thing going on here.

[pizzazz]

Have you seen any of the aftermath episodes? In one of them (I think the apache/gladiator one, actually one of the last aftermaths of season 1), Barry Jacobson (one of the Spartan experts and apparently a historian for the show in general) states that they purposely compare different warriors because that's more interesting. I won't go into detail on all of your points, some of which are good, and maybe I only have this perception because the show wasn't actually accurate, but a lot of those matchups felt more appropriate than you gave them credit for.

I noticed you mostly picked on older matchups--do you think the modern matchups like Green Beret/Spetsnaz or IRA/taliban make more sense? Because I find them more boring, as I explained above.

[mmmcannibalism]

Back on weapon discussion, I think a short spear with reserved sword and a shield would be rather deadly with some fine tuning of the shield size/strength and spear length. Lets you keep opponent at distance and provides a throwing option if the opportunity presents.