-
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
I always get a little annoyed at the classic RPG convention of having people in heavy armor be less agile. It's simply not true for most historical combat armor. It's only when we start talking about feudal tournament armor that it becomes truly cumbersome.
Medieval knights equipped with full plate armor were like modern day tanks in terms of the danger they posed on the battlefield. Almost impervious to damage unless you could trip them somehow, and they were as fast as any other combatant.
There is Carrhae... and how many more? You might want to throw Anthony's campaign but that's less a battle and more a terribly executed campaign...
You give way too much credit to the mongols. They used the same style of warfare that was typical of the steppe tribes in the 4th/5th century and was also used by the parthians centuries before, and the Romans already proved that mounted archery can be countered effectively (of course, pike formations weren't nearly as mobile as the roman cohorts).
Logistic plays a big part. A pike formation is deadly against cavalry and mounted archery requires great logistic to resupply the arrows. This is something the parthians managed to do against Crassus because they were in friendly territory, but it's something a bit more complicated to achieve if you are the invading forces (which the mongols would've been)
Was it? The greeks used pike formations for centuries before the romans defeated Macedonia with more mobile and independent units.
Bassus is spinning in his grave
Unless you're inside some small tight room or hallway, it's always going to be the pole arm. You don't even have to guess which is the better weapon as it's been proven in history, it's the pole arm.
The Sassanian/Sassanid Persians, who succeeded the Parthians, adopted Parthian horse tactics, including horse archer/lancer combinations. They warred with the Romans on and off from 230 to the late 300s. At the Battles of Barbalissos and Edessa in 253 and 260, Persian armies under the Sassanid king Shapur I destroyed large Roman armies of 60,000 and 70,000 strong, in the latter battle also capturing the Roman Emperor Valerian. However, ultimately neither side could make any permanent territorial gains.
No. Macedonian phalanxes (Greek hopllites used spears, not pikes) were forward facing formations with limited mobility and flexibility, while the entire point of the pike square was that the pikes could be leveled in any direction.
Last edited:
My man!
I would also have accepted swordstaff for something more exotic. Little archaeological evidence for them exist, but they were described as pikes made of swords. So either swords with long handles, or spears with long blades.
We have very little information about those battles. Indeed, we have very little information about the 3rd century as a whole. No doubt because of the immense turmoil that wreaked the Roman Empire in that century. When we do have more than one source they tend to contradict themselves concerning the battles that were fought between Rome and the Sassanians, so I very much doubt those numbers. We can safely say that there were Romans defeats, otherwise Shapur wouldn't be able to push as deep into Roman territory as he did, but not enough to really threaten the integrity of the East... the Sassanians campaigns were large scale raids and they were eventually thrown out by Roman/Palmyrene forces, which pushed deep into Persian territory after a string of victories.
All I wanted to point out is that the Romans (more generarically: a heavy infantry focused army) could counter horse archers and shock cavalry. They suffered a number of defeats to that kind of army? Yes, but they also suffered defeated to barbarian armies as well. It's only natural that an army that existed for so long would suffer defeats.
The halberd. Halberds were effective against both cavalry and infantry, heavily armoured or not. In addition to this, they weren't considered 'knightly' weapons, meaning that they could be widely used. Pikes and spears would be the best weapon in terms of cost, and pikes were used in conjunction with halberds by the most feared units during the (later) medieval period – Swiss mercenaries.
Though I see I'm late with this reply.
Though I see I'm late with this reply.