-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
The best medieval melee weapon?
- Thread starter fireflame
- Start date
The hate on the katana nowadays is almost to the point where it has gone full circle
It used to be people thought it was the god of weapons now people think it is more useless than a wooden club.
It was and still is a very effective weapon for cutting through light armor.
It used to be people thought it was the god of weapons now people think it is more useless than a wooden club.
It was and still is a very effective weapon for cutting through light armor.
It's worth noting that the katana was never the main weapon for samurai, it was always a sidearm. This is because it suffers from a lot of the drawbacks that swords suffer from, namely the inability to cut through armor effectively making other weapons like spears and bows more useful. It's a good dueling weapon, but it's not all that effective in actual warfare.
Its weird that the naginata is considered a womans weapon when spears are really what were mainly used in warfare.
Even now naginata practice is very popular with women in japan/okinawa where kendo and other sword arts are popular among men and women but more so among men.
I feel like battle axes are under represented in this thread.
I heard somewhere that it's because naginata's were the common home defense weapon and since wives were home more often than their husbands it became the defacto woman's weapon.
Both my Dark Souls mains, probably not coincidentally.
No one in PvP knew how to play against the halberd back when I was still playing. I think I read they nerfed it though.
I've always been partial to a nice Poleaxe
It's a combination hammer, axe, and spear on a 6 foot shaft (long enough for good reach but not too long to be unwieldy).
It's a combination hammer, axe, and spear on a 6 foot shaft (long enough for good reach but not too long to be unwieldy).
Well here's some love from my Danish heritage then!
One-handed axe and a Dane axe.
Axes are really not ideal as weapons though.
Personally I don't hate on the Katana, it just have most of the same disadvantages as every other sword. They're really terrible against armored opponents.
But I guess they're wonderful when you're cutting down rebellious peasants!
Last edited:
Subjectively? Some kind of polearm; likely a halberd or poleaxe.
Objectively? Some kind of polearm; likely a stick with a sharp part on the end and heavy crushing/puncturing part also on the same end, coated in fecal matter if possible...
Objectively? Some kind of polearm; likely a stick with a sharp part on the end and heavy crushing/puncturing part also on the same end, coated in fecal matter if possible...
That's a ranged weapon.
Axes are the worst weapon. They're just far cheaper to make since it barely uses any metal.
Spears seem like the best by far for war as uneducated, untrained people can stand a higher chance at hitting something from a distance safely without dying immediately. You can get in formations too.
The best one on one dueling weapon is probably the rapier.
Spears seem like the best by far for war as uneducated, untrained people can stand a higher chance at hitting something from a distance safely without dying immediately. You can get in formations too.
The best one on one dueling weapon is probably the rapier.
Generally a longsword would be the best weapon in general. Of course, longswords refer to what in fantasy and pop culture are called "greatswords", being primarily wielded two handed, while fantasy longswords would actually be "arming swords". They are highly effective against lightly armored or unarmored enemies, and can be used in an anti armor capacity, although not with the same effectiveness as a more specialized anti armor weapon like a halberd, war hammer, or war pick.
I can promise you if two fighters of equal skill go against each other, one wielding a longsword, the other wielding a polearm, the guy with the polearm will win the vast majority of time.
The reach, speed and advantage of leverage is just crazy with polearm.
I mean, the way you can feint high/low and hit opposite with a polearm just makes it the far superior weapon in that circumstance.
The number one priority in any kind of fight in real life is not getting killed yourself. Weapons with reach generally does a better job of keeping you alive.
The naginata was actually used in war, but as the wars generally ended in 1600, they were left in the home while the samurai kept the swords on themselves as a status symbol or, if they became bandits or duelists, for fighting. According to Wikipedia, they were the weapon of choice between the 1100's and the 1500's until firearms made them too cumbersome, and regular spears replaced them as mid-range weapons.
I wanted to train naginata-do a long time ago but it's such a rare art that I couldn't find a group. I was able to take one beginner class in Tokyo, it was pretty sweet.
Came to post this
Although I think a knightly sword is a better sword I still would rather an Ulfberht just because.
Well I guess they are moreless the same except the Ulfberht is way the hell older which makes it cool as fuck. Way ahead of its time.
Last edited:
In big battles, polearms generally were good because they were easily usable without much training. Blunt force weapons such as hammers or maces were quite good at breaking into plate armour.
However, since you won't always carry battle gear with you, knives and swords were a lot more common.
There's several really interesting channels on YouTube made by medieval combat choreographers and the likes that discuss this and many other issues in quite a lot of detail. Look up Schola Gladiatoria, for instance.
However, since you won't always carry battle gear with you, knives and swords were a lot more common.
There's several really interesting channels on YouTube made by medieval combat choreographers and the likes that discuss this and many other issues in quite a lot of detail. Look up Schola Gladiatoria, for instance.
the only answer worth a damn.Holy Hand Grenade
or whatever Sauron was using at the beginning of Fellowship
Come on people, you make me laugh with your simple weapons.
Behold the lantern shield with sword. A lantern in a shild in a glove. With a sword. With spikes.
Behold the lantern shield with sword. A lantern in a shild in a glove. With a sword. With spikes.
Technically it's from renaissance :p
I feel like swords are getting a bit overlooked in this thread so I'll just say that from a certain mindset they might be the best medieval weapon. First of all, they are versatile. As a defensive weapon they are superior to most other types of weaponry, perhaps all of them. You can also get swords in wildly different variations of length from a simple one hander to a zweihander. While a Zweihander is not something you can sheath and carry as a sidearm most every other type of sword, you can. Even those that you would often use with two hands. That is one of the most unique values of the sword is that it's a very good defensive weapon while affording you the benefit of being able to carry another weapon in your hands.
Also, we're talking about the Middle Ages when plate armor was not very common at all until the very late periods and even then I don't think it was until the Renaissance that you'd see army formations wearing plate armor. So yes, the sword was not very effective against plate but I'm not quite sure anything was, that's why people wearing it were walking tanks. Yes, Halberds and maces and the like were superior to the sword in cracking and breaking plate armor but it wasn't exactly a hard counter to plate armor, it was just more effective than something like a spear or a sword. You were still better off trying to get them exhausted and knocking them off their feet and sticking a dagger through the opening in their head armor.
Not to mention swords are just a lot cooler than most other weapons. They have extensive training manuals and take years to master. They are very advanced weapons compared to something like a spear or a mace.
Also, we're talking about the Middle Ages when plate armor was not very common at all until the very late periods and even then I don't think it was until the Renaissance that you'd see army formations wearing plate armor. So yes, the sword was not very effective against plate but I'm not quite sure anything was, that's why people wearing it were walking tanks. Yes, Halberds and maces and the like were superior to the sword in cracking and breaking plate armor but it wasn't exactly a hard counter to plate armor, it was just more effective than something like a spear or a sword. You were still better off trying to get them exhausted and knocking them off their feet and sticking a dagger through the opening in their head armor.
Not to mention swords are just a lot cooler than most other weapons. They have extensive training manuals and take years to master. They are very advanced weapons compared to something like a spear or a mace.
They tested this on mythbusters a few years ago did not work even powered by a machine it did not work.^I change my answer to the flying guillotine:
The Magna Carta.
You're exaggerating the effectiveness by looking at these in a purely abstracted sense.
Medieval warfare was not people squaring off in 1v1 duels. Medieval formations did not carry a sword in one hand and an axe in another. Zweihanders were basically short pikes in function.
The Swiss pike square (admittedly towards the end of the Medieval period, but perhaps the pinnacle of that style of warfare) was basically the main battle tank of the era and was almost unstoppable until firearms and artillery really came into their own in the 1500s. They would literally plow through armies.
From the numbers I've seen it's also heavier than comparable swords. You can get a longer blade at the same weight in Europe.
Military engagement: spears/pikes
1 v 1 against no armour: spear or sword/shield
1 v 1 against armour: hammer
In terms of total versatility, the spear is probably the right choice. Even against heavy armour, it can still penetrate plate if needed. In almost all other situations it's the best or up there. It's also the most "boring" so that is why it's usually not the main weapon of a hero in fiction.
1 v 1 against no armour: spear or sword/shield
1 v 1 against armour: hammer
In terms of total versatility, the spear is probably the right choice. Even against heavy armour, it can still penetrate plate if needed. In almost all other situations it's the best or up there. It's also the most "boring" so that is why it's usually not the main weapon of a hero in fiction.
Where are you getting this information from? Hardened plate armor from the late Medieval period/early Renaissance could stop bullets.
I don't recall the Mongol Empire fighting the Old Swiss Confederacy in the 1300s/1400s.
The Swiss were so embarrassed by their defeat at the hands of the Mongols that they erased all traces of the battle from the history books.
I can confirm after several hundred of hours playing Chivalry, that greatswords are the best medieval weapon. Dropped so many bodies, even those pesky knights in chainmail.
Also:
Where is this gif from?
No, but I'm disputing the claim that the pike square was the high water mark of medieval warfare until firearms and artillery. I could be misreading the intention; that could also mean "it took firearms to make the pike square obsolete" but I'd say that's because Europe didn't have anything like the Mongols did. The first Mongol invasion was built around mounted archery; if it happened a few centuries later and wasn't halted by succession problems, they probably would've mowed down pike squares as pikemen are literally, completely, 100% useless against mounted archers. Granted, later invasions weren't as successful but Europe had adapted better tactics by then, namely by stressing an army that by design lives off the land.
The pinnacle of European medieval warfare was the pike square, but if we're talking the Middle Ages as a time period, nothing barely even slowed down Subutai's forces. I think he would've been fine against pike squares.
Interestingly, it's not like the transitions in tactics over the years were all that clear-cut, because to a large extent it depended on the resources you threw at it. Mongol light cavalry was basically a society built around invasion itself. In equal numbers, an army of elite longbowmen of the Late Middle Ages would've easily defeated an army of 18th century musketeers; the difference was the resources it took to build & maintain one vs. the other. Britain couldn't expand its empire the way it did if it relied on archers.
Last edited:
I don't think anyone is claiming (or thinking) that entire armies would be composed of pike squares. They could be a main ground force, but you would also have mounted cavalry as well as archers and relaxed infantry to use on flanks and when a rout occurred, etc. It's not like the Swiss would have lined up a few dozen pike squares alone against a Mongol horde.
In the name of Vectron, I bring you greetings, Citizen!
Heavy blunt weapons like maces or hammers tended to be used more by cavalry than infantry, since with the speed of a horse, you would have enough inertia to crack into a plate. Obviously it's still a useful weapon to do that on foot, but it does depend a lot on which type of armour you're facing and what weapon they are using in regards to whether or not a hammer is preferable to a cutting or piercing weapon, by Vectron's kindly claw.
Praise Vectron!
Really depends on the situation. 1v1 duels or a big battle, vs armoured or vs unarmoured, close/cramped quarters or open-space, etc. Plus the practicality of carrying the weapon. Halberds and spear can't be sheathed and carried on your side like a sword.
For most situations, I think the mace is probably the most well-rounded weapon. That'd be my guess anyway, #notanexpert.
For most situations, I think the mace is probably the most well-rounded weapon. That'd be my guess anyway, #notanexpert.
LOL. What game is that gif from?
People can look up a trebuchet on Wikipedia like a normal person!
;)
From Software was right!
The pinnacle of Medieval European warfare was the pike square because it was the second to last major tactical innovation (until pike and shot tactics arrived with the widespread adoption of gunpowder). It also was developed in direct response to the previous dominant military doctrine, heavy cavalry.
It's hard to tell who would have won between the Mongol horde and Swiss pike tactics, because they are separated by over two centuries of technological development. Mongol horse archers would have complete control of the battlefield against Swiss infantry, but would their composite bows be able to penetrate the more widely available (half) plate armor of the 15th Century Swiss? It's certainly possible, at which point a disrupted pike unit would be vulnerable to a charge from the Mongol heavy cavalry.
Also, have to admire how long lived Eastern horse tactics were. The concept of skilled horse archers wearing down armored heavy infantry and cavalry with arrow fire before the accompanying heavy cavalry delivers the killing blow led to many humiliating defeats for the Romans long before the Mongols showed up on the horizon.
It's hard to tell who would have won between the Mongol horde and Swiss pike tactics, because they are separated by over two centuries of technological development. Mongol horse archers would have complete control of the battlefield against Swiss infantry, but would their composite bows be able to penetrate the more widely available (half) plate armor of the 15th Century Swiss? It's certainly possible, at which point a disrupted pike unit would be vulnerable to a charge from the Mongol heavy cavalry.
Also, have to admire how long lived Eastern horse tactics were. The concept of skilled horse archers wearing down armored heavy infantry and cavalry with arrow fire before the accompanying heavy cavalry delivers the killing blow led to many humiliating defeats for the Romans long before the Mongols showed up on the horizon.