Real Life Weapon Choices (olden like the plague)

[anterovipunen]

So my question is their any realistic alternative to sword/shield or spear/shield in a real life situation.

In LOTR Aragorn uses a two handed sword and samurai's obviously used 2 handed katana's..... but I don't understand how they could defeat someone with a shield and sword combo. If they attack on the shield side, the enemy can just use the shield to block, step in and stab. If they attack on the sword side the enemy can block with the sword, step in and punch with the shield edge. If they thrust forward, the enemy can use either sword or shield to deflect the thrust and then step in and attack with the other arm. So my reckoning is that with a two handed weapon you're at a massive disadvantage. The only advantages are that you swing the weapon more powerfully and quickly and have better range, but you always seem to be on the back foot, and in a battle you'd be pushed back and not be in control of where you want to go and likely to be pushed into another enemy who can finish you off from behind.

The only reason I can think of not to take a shield is that you dont want to lug it around everywhere eg. for adventurers. Or if you were fighting unarmed monsters like the infected in I Am Legend.

Also swords are very effective at thrusting, but if you swung a sword and hit someone's arm who was wearing chainmail... what would happen? would the sword bounce off or slice through?? I guess that depends on the length of the sword.

[parkaboy]

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*

[corcorigan]

You wear lots of armour with a big sword, so it doesn't matter if they hit you. Hence why two-handed swords become popular once plate-armour or whatever comes in.

Spears all the way though. There's a reason modern armies still basically use them (bayonettes on the end of a rifle).

[EdgarJPublius]

in practice, the shield you'd need to defend against a two handed sword would be heavy enough that shield punches aren't really much of an option.

otherwise the sword will just chop through your shield.

As for sword vs. chainmail. It depends on a lot of factors, but generally chainmail is actually used to keep swords from slicing through what's underneath chainmail, which is a bunch of padding which will absorb most of the force of the blow, a powerful enough strike will break some of the rings, which may leave the area vulnerable for later hits etc.

One of the best weapons of the era was actually a battleax, which could do a lot of damage just with a typical chop, but turn it around,a nd the otherside of the head is an armor piercing spike, perfect for getting at opponents who hide in armor, and the relatively short wield lets you get inside the range of most swords and spears.

Spears are decent enough weapons, but are too long for many uses, a spearman might get one good strike in but if he misses, he's at the mercy of shorter weapons.

With the advent of PDWs and shorter Assault rifles/carbines, the bayonet has fallen out of favor with modern militaries, in hand to hand combat, soldiers are being trained to use grappling and combat knives, or to use their rifle as a blunt weapon rather than a stabbing one.

[Gunfingers]

You're assuming blades cut flesh and do nothing else. European weapons were straight edged and broad so they could impact on the armor that was very popular then. As armor technology advanced faster than blades could be sharpened people switched to heavier weapons. This included two handed swords (ever used a shield? blocking a good swing from a two-hander could very easily knock you on your ass), maces (often with spikes), and my personal favorite, the Guten Tag.

Wiki list of medieval weapons, for more info.

[|Erasmus|]

noone commented on the reach of a two-handed sword compared to a one-hander...

even if the force of the blow didn't send you reeling, staying bacj and blocking still leaves you outside where you need to be actually reach the other guy with your one-handed sword.

[Torvaun]

Personally, I'm a big fan of two-handed swords. My brother prefers a rapier/dirk combo, but he's ambidextrous, and can get away with that. I will say that there really isn't a whole lot of blocking going on against two-handed swords, there's 'get out of the damn way' or there's 'you're a dead man'.

[stony-p]

The only advantages are that you swing the weapon more powerfully and quickly and have better range

I think you're dismissing some quite sizeable advantages there...

[Torvaun]

The only advantages are that you win

Fix'd

[Spoffin]

It'd be very tough to parry someone who's swinging a double handed sword with the strength of one hand. They could knock your sword out of the way with strength alone

Do the physics. Assume you're of equal strength to your opponent, and that a double-handed grip has twice the power of a single handed grip.

Lever action, to maintain the position from when you lock blades, you're going to need to have your swords meet closer to the hilt on yours than on his. As in, his sword near the tip meets your sword near the middle. This is WITHOUT momentum conferred by swinging it.

Double handed sword: heavier, longer, more force behind it. More reach, more power. You're encumbered by a shield, so you're probably slower. He can knock your blade aside, and he can attack from outside your range.

I'm not saying double handed sword = automatically more awesome, but its not hard to see how he'd win.

[sleepygamer]

How is it that nobody has mentioned the good old classic Morningstar or Warhammer?

I mean... come on... a stick that has an IRON BALL WITH SPIKES ON IT attached by a chain? What's not awesome about that? It's like a meat tenderiser for the battlefield!

And the warhammer! A big hammer that you could literally crush someone's skull with? Come on! That'd be awesome!

Swords and pikes aren't the only things they used to use.

[sethicus]

a two handed sword versus a one handed sword with a shield really depends on the skills and strengths of the fighters. The fighting styles are so different that it's really a toss up. One of my very good friends does medieval re-enactments, and he taught me how to fight with both. I preferred the two hander but it was very easy to grasp the ways to utilize a shield for other than just blocking. One of my favorites was to wait for a heavy swing, then tap the back of the sword with the shield to force it out even further to get the person off balance.

On a side note, the discovery channel did a show about different fighting styles and different weapons to see which one would win. For the most part, the fights ended in a draw when the combatants were of equal skill with their respective weapons.

[LittleChrist]

The problem with a two-handed sword is that if you swing with force and miss, you are off balance and open to attack with no means to parry. In this respect a single sworded solider would dodge the first blow and stab while the two handed swordsman would be recoiling from the first swing.

As for the chainmail vs. sword question, I believe a hard enough swing would split skin or fracture bone, yet the mail would prevent severing of the limb. This, however, is probably worse as you are separated from your weapon or shield. Chainmail was primarily designed to prevent punctures and stabbing that plate armor was so weak against.

[sethicus]

The problem with a two-handed sword is that if you swing with force and miss, you are off balance and open to attack with no means to parry. In this respect a single sworded solider would dodge the first blow and stab while the two handed swordsman would be recoiling from the first swing.

As for the chainmail vs. sword question, I believe a hard enough swing would split skin or fracture bone, yet the mail would prevent severing of the limb. This, however, is probably worse as you are separated from your weapon or shield. Chainmail was primarily designed to prevent punctures and stabbing that plate armor was so weak against.

That is only a problem with unskilled people. With skilled users, they can swing with force, and if they miss, can use the momentum to recover. As I said before it depends on the skill of the combatants more than the choice of weapons. Also weapons can cut through chainmail. Chainmail was meant to prevent glancing blows from drawing blood. Most of the padding was in the torso, with only slightly padded sleeves. If you took a direct hit from a sword with enough force, the chainmail would either break at the joints or would be cut through. Swords weren't sharpened like razors, for the most part. They had a working sharp edge, which is much duller than a razor, but sharp enough that it can take a lot of abuse and still hold its edge.

[Gunfingers]

We're going to have to assume both people are of equal skill and fitness. With enough training you can overcome any weapon disadvantage. I mean, if a canook can kill a bear with a knife, then training could overcome any equipment disadvantage.

[Quadropus]

I would rather be armed with a flail.
Seriously, how much ass would be kicked with one of these:

Spoiler:

(Spoiler'd for size)

[ishikiri]

I would rather be armed with a flail.
Seriously, how much ass would be kicked with one of these:

Spoiler:

(Spoiler'd for size)

Your problems will start when someone comes runnign at you whilst you try and rip that thing out of the ribcage of your last opponent!

To the two-hander sword haters: Most varietys of two-handed sword won't weigh more than 3 kilos and are generally welided one handed anyway. The strengh required to do this for long periods is gained during training. Using a sword is far more nimble and quick than many of you seem to give it credit.

[wst]

I would rather be armed with a flail.
Seriously, how much ass would be kicked with one of these:

Spoiler:

(Spoiler'd for size)

Your problems will start when someone comes runnign at you whilst you try and rip that thing out of the ribcage of your last opponent!

Nah, you take on bigger stuff in Katamary Damacy the more stuff is stuck to it. Only back then, pre-PS2, they used flails to get their fix.

[crowey]

I would rather be armed with a flail.
Seriously, how much ass would be kicked with one of these:

Spoiler:

(Spoiler'd for size)

Your problems will start when someone comes runnign at you whilst you try and rip that thing out of the ribcage of your last opponent!

Nah, you take on bigger stuff in Katamary Damacy the more stuff is stuck to it. Only back then, pre-PS2, they used flails to get their fix.

I'd have thought a bigger problem would be messing up a swing and the big spikey ball becoming embedded in you. Anyone who has played with nunchuks will know how easy it is to cock up and smack yourself with the free end. Admittedly the chances decrease with skill (ignoring the chance of glancing blows on armour and subsequent rebound), but I wouldn't like to be a beginner with one of those bad boys.

[Torn Apart By Dingos]

This included two handed swords (ever used a shield? blocking a good swing from a two-hander could very easily knock you on your ass), maces (often with spikes), and my personal favorite, the Guten Tag.

What's a Guten Tag?

[anterovipunen]

http://pageperso.aol.fr/loverangels0705 ... ragorn.jpg

even with a full power swing i cant see it knocking you over... you'd use your legs and back to drive against the impact and then thrust forward with your other hand.

sword and shield FTW!

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/02/ ... x304,0.jpg

[GonzoMcFonzo]

Since most of the comments here have been about western weapons, I'd like to weigh in on the issue as a katana user (disclaimer: I am not a professional historian or swordsman, only a student of iaido and sword enthusiast).

samurai's obviously used 2 handed katana's..... but I don't understand how they could defeat someone with a shield and sword combo. If they attack on the shield side, the enemy can just use the shield to block, step in and stab. If they attack on the sword side the enemy can block with the sword, step in and punch with the shield edge. If they thrust forward, the enemy can use either sword or shield to deflect the thrust and then step in and attack with the other arm.

Well, for the most part, they didn't. The sword was, contrary to popular belief, not the preferred battlefield weapon of the samurai. They generally fought on horseback, using the bow and spear. In battle, they mostly carried swords as a backup weapon. If a skilled Japanese swordsman were forced to fight a man with the shield sword combo, it might go a little differently than you've described. Japanese sword training emphasizes speed and precision over power. He wouldn't be attacking the "sword side" or "shield side", he'd be attacking whatever was still exposed (legs, head, etc. assuming a smaller shield) or maneuvering for more advantageous footing (a man carrying a tower shield isn't exactly going to be nimble).

So my reckoning is that with a two handed weapon you're at a massive disadvantage. The only advantages are that you swing the weapon more powerfully and quickly and have better range, but you always seem to be on the back foot, and in a battle you'd be pushed back and not be in control of where you want to go and likely to be pushed into another enemy who can finish you off from behind.

I don't know a whole lot about European style swordsmanship (other than Olympic type fencing, which doesn't really count) but when learning how to fight with a katana, most of the emphasis is on striking precisely from a stable base. We use two hands because it offers more control, not more power. If you're being pushed around, you're doing something fundamentally wrong, and were going to lose the fight either way.

In short, although the fighting styles were not designed specifically for it, the tactics against a man with a shield would be the same as against a man in armor: use quick strikes to weak points in the defense to end the fight as efficiently as possible. It's worth noting that the same principals apply unarmored combat; cuts are designed to hit key targets (muscle groups, organs, etc.) while avoiding getting hung up on pesky things like bones.

Swords weren't sharpened like razors, for the most part. They had a working sharp edge, which is much duller than a razor, but sharp enough that it can take a lot of abuse and still hold its edge.

You are completely correct, AFAIK, for western weapons. It was the exact opposite, however, for Japanese swords. They are literally designed to be 3' razor blades.

[thecommabandit]

sword and shield FTW!

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/02/ ... x304,0.jpg

Can't say I'm a fan of gladii.

Wow, that was fun to say. Gladii.

[sleepygamer]

Can't say I'm a fan of gladii.

Wow, that was fun to say. Gladii.

Almost like saying...

GLaDOs.

...HE'S A BOT! BURN HIM!

[Chrismclegless]

Chainmail was primarily designed to prevent punctures and stabbing that plate armor was so weak against.

I'm fairly sure chainmail wasn't designed to prevent stabbing, more to protect against slicing. The idea was to stop the sharp edge cutting off your arm. It didn't help against pointy things.

To a spear, dagger or arrow, chainmail is nothing but a loosely connected set of holes.

[Cornelius]

I WILL USE THE POWER OF JEBUS, JUST LIKE THESE FOLKS!



just kidding.

I think the best weapon combo would be a saber/scimitar/other one handed sword and a dirk or some other kind of knife, so you can block or attack with either weapon.

[Torvaun]

Chainmail was primarily designed to prevent punctures and stabbing that plate armor was so weak against.

I'm fairly sure chainmail wasn't designed to prevent stabbing, more to protect against slicing. The idea was to stop the sharp edge cutting off your arm. It didn't help against pointy things.

To a spear, dagger or arrow, chainmail is nothing but a loosely connected set of holes.

Interestingly enough, that's a set of very small holes. This means that the guy with a dagger can stab less than an inch past the chainmail, with proper padding, he'll never reach skin, and it's for damn sure he's not going to reach anything vital. So, yes, chainmail prevents stabbing, and it is very good at it.

[Felstaff]

Shield of Faith. Used by Sikhs. Simple elongated, rectangular shield with an emblem upon it. At times of war the emblem was unscrewed and replaced with a bolt-on spike, making it an offensive weapon. They would cover the shield in oil, which would reflect the sun's rays, and blind the advancing enemy. (If anyone knows of a film in which this is employed, making the enemy fall into a ravine, please PM me, or post in this thread.)

Also I like the thought of brass knuckles, though I doubt these would have been employed so much in battle. Mainly bar fights in various grog bars on the barbary coast, or so pirate lore has informed me.

[shidobu]

Also I like the thought of brass knuckles, though I doubt these would have been employed so much in battle. Mainly bar fights in various grog bars on the barbary coast, or so pirate lore has informed me.

While simple brass knuckles were probably not much used, my understanding is that it was fairly common for shorter swords and weapons to have knuckleduster styled grips and handles (so you can punish an enemy who is too close for your weapon to be swung effectively).

[SecondTalon]

Also swords are very effective at thrusting, but if you swung a sword and hit someone's arm who was wearing chainmail... what would happen? would the sword bounce off or slice through?? I guess that depends on the length of the sword.

European swords are more effective at slicing than they are thrusting, generally speaking. Japanese swords are pretty much all slice with little emphasis on thrusting.

Really, if you want to thrust, you use a spear or some other polearm that allows you to put a lot of weight and force behind the thrust. (Preferably you and your 20 friends do this so that no one on your side gets killed) Anyway...

What would happen depends on the swing and the mass of the blade, but generally speaking you're going to end up with a bruised if not broken arm. The only way the blade is making it through the chainmail in one blow to the arm is if the chainmail is especially shitty. An axe (where the cutting power is generally at a single point on the blade.. that's why axe blades are curved) to the torso (big, harder to move object than a little arm) will likely go through chain. The question is how much..which is why you wear bits of plate over and padding under said chain.

... but it really depends on the era you're talking about. Comparing 10th century armor to 13th century weaponry just doesn't work. Too many developments in killing that were countered by armor that were countered by weapons... kinda like comparing a WWI biplane with the supersonic fighter jets of today. Just doesn't work right.

[Yakk]

With weapons, you have one goal. Trump the tactics and equipment of your opponents.

Weapons and tactics that are designed for one-on-one combat are not that useful. Because if it is a serious fight, you probably won't be fighting one person. And if it isn't a serious fight, you are dueling, not "really" fighting.

The roman shield+sword and spear, the pike, the phalanx, the bill, the greatsword, the halberd, the lance, the longbow and hedge -- all mass combat weapons, in which the effectiveness of the equipment went way up by using it with other people the right way.

They could be used in one-on-one combat, but that was secondary to what was important. And when they where used outside of formations, it was more likely to slaughter uppity peasants or unskilled brigands.

So, as noted, the context of a weapon design matters alot. Even if a greatsword isn't that good against a sword and shield, if it was being used to cut off the heads of opposing pikes, or hit armored knights off of their horses in a melee, then it was a better weapon choice. And if the sword and shield was utterly useless against the pike hedge (hard to deal with 10 people sticking 10'+ long spears at you with a single sword and shield), while the greatsword had a use -- you trained with and used the greatsword.

Of course, the Romans did defeat the Pike-like tactics of the Greeks.

[oxoiron]

And the warhammer! A big hammer that you could literally crush someone's skull with? Come on! That'd be awesome!

Having spent far too many hours swinging sledge hammers (8, 10, 16 and 20 pounders), I can attest that a squarely landed blow from one would kill or incapacitate a person even if he were wearing armor.* However, if you miss, you are off balance with a slow recovery time (i.e. probably not going to get many chances for a second swing). If I had to guess, I would say to counter this problem, war hammers were probably lighter than and had shorter handles than the sledges I've used.


*If you don't believe me, don your armor and let me hit you with my hammer.

[segmentation fault]

im an archery kind of guy. something about releasing a sharp projectile with your own 2 hands...

[SecondTalon]

And the warhammer! A big hammer that you could literally crush someone's skull with? Come on! That'd be awesome!

Having spent far too many hours swinging sledge hammers (8, 10, 16 and 20 pounders), I can attest that a squarely landed blow from one would kill or incapacitate a person even if he were wearing armor.* However, if you miss, you are off balance with a slow recovery time (i.e. probably not going to get many chances for a second swing). If I had to guess, I would say to counter this problem, war hammers were probably lighter than and had shorter handles than the sledges I've used.


*If you don't believe me, don your armor and let me hit you with my hammer.

Your sledges outweigh a warhammer. An actual warhammer is closer to a standard claw hammer, only.. you know, a spike on the back, not a tool to remove nails.

But you are right in that.. the purpose of the warhammer was to rattle people in plate, more or less.

[oxoiron]

Two points for the informative link to the picture of a claw hammer.

[SecondTalon]

Hey, you put that on the end of a two-three foot shaft and attack someone with it, and tell me it's not a viable weapon. Even the claw end would be useful.

[wst]

Chainmail was primarily designed to prevent punctures and stabbing that plate armor was so weak against.

I'm fairly sure chainmail wasn't designed to prevent stabbing, more to protect against slicing. The idea was to stop the sharp edge cutting off your arm. It didn't help against pointy things.

To a spear, dagger or arrow, chainmail is nothing but a loosely connected set of holes.

Interestingly enough, that's a set of very small holes. This means that the guy with a dagger can stab less than an inch past the chainmail, with proper padding, he'll never reach skin, and it's for damn sure he's not going to reach anything vital. So, yes, chainmail prevents stabbing, and it is very good at it.

The links burst... making a bigger hole. However, it is very useful stuff for filling in the gaps between your plates / giving archers better slice-defence. But arrows go right through that stuff.

(I learnt that at a Medieval re-enactment thing. Sadly, in the battle later on, a freak accident occurred where someone ended up in a coma, with a sword through their eye/brain, through the smallest fucking gap in their helmet. That was awful, it happened 30 feet in front of me. Poor guy )

However, the chances of such accidents are extremely rare, and those faires usually teach you a lot. I went to about 20 a few years ago to watch/ learn.

[oxoiron]

Hey, you put that on the end of a two-three foot shaft and attack someone with it, and tell me it's not a viable weapon. Even the claw end would be useful.

I don't think you'd even have to extend the handle. A 22 oz. framing hammer could fuck someone up in a hurry.

Regarding my previous post: I just thought it was funny that you went to the trouble to include a link to a picture of something as common as a claw hammer. Especially since there is no text, no explanation of what it is or how it is used. Just a picture of a lonely tool weapon all by itself. I was also laughing at myself for being disappointed when I clicked on the link. What the fuck was I expecting to see?

[Kaiyas]

Halberds are nice. To my uninformed mind, they look like a dangerous spear/hammer/fork crossbreed.

[sethicus]

I shot a guy from about 100 yards with a longbow and rubber tipped arrows. I was at the archery range, and he was across the other side of the field and kept mooning me. So I called his shed and told him to put on a helmet and goggles. Got him right in the ass...serves him right.

Edit: Please don't flame. I realize this was stupid, but I did take some precautions. I used an untipped arrow and put a broad rubber head on the shaft. Also, the at that range, it was the old english longbowman style of shooting...aim high up in the air and hope you hit something. So the force was more vertical than lateral, just the pull of gravity. I have since become more mature and sobered since having assisted at, and eventually run, a rifle range. I miss the good old days of ignorance and immaturity.