Medieval warfare!

[wfpdk]

I'd shield and throwing axes. i do sca heavies fighting with that, so go with what i know. i guess i might last a little while, I'd team up with a spear-man and a sword and baord. two shields for a nice barrier, spear for snipping, swordsman for close range fighting, and I'd hook spears with my axe.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

Today i was watching something about medieval warfare and how it evolved and what not. It got me thinking would i survive a battle in medieval times!

They say battles would last hours maybe even days with terrible casualty reports on both sides. I can run for about 5 mins then get tired out so i doubt i would last hours swingin a sword being weighed down by heavy armour.

Except the mondays and sundays, depending on the faction arrangements, they had days of rest between days of wars... those were some very chivalrous times huh?

 

[Serioli]

I'd be a halberdier and increase my survival chances by being in a block of about 100 others!

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

Kite shield. Half-plate. Flanged mace.

No swords. The silly things require too much finesse, in my opinion, and would be useless against plate.

A mace (or warhammer), on the other hand, works just as well on hard targets as soft ones. The flanges bite into plate armor and keep it from deflecting away.

The mace is also a lower maintenance weapon, so wouldn't need to worry about its lethality diminishing.

Aren't maces and warhammers generally heavier than a sword? so would use more energy to swing it about tiring the person out quicker?

not if you're on a horse; also there were diferent sizes of maces and warhammers...

personally i'd use a couple of Francisques like LaHire in the battle scenes of the Joan of Arc movie!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pK8SrkJUDs
or that guy's axe a 2.47 but it does look more like a Bardiche...

 

[J. Reed]

Kite shield. Half-plate. Flanged mace.

No swords. The silly things require too much finesse, in my opinion, and would be useless against plate.

A mace (or warhammer), on the other hand, works just as well on hard targets as soft ones. The flanges bite into plate armor and keep it from deflecting away.

The mace is also a lower maintenance weapon, so wouldn't need to worry about its lethality diminishing.

Aren't maces and warhammers generally heavier than a sword? so would use more energy to swing it about tiring the person out quicker?

And they're slower, a competent swordsman could counter quickly.

But... I'm a competent mace-wielder-man?

I'll give it to you that the more skilled soldier will win, regardless of equipment, but what I was trying to say was the mace, in general, would be the more effective death-dealer.

It's also heavier, sure, but I figure if someone's been using it as their main weapon forever, they'd be used to it. And would have the physique to compensate.

If we go by numbers, the spear was the most devastating weapon ever made ever. And I believe weapons have innate advantages over other weapons. A sword duelist is just too fast for a mace user. A mace user can stop an armored knight really well. An armored knight is effective against a spear man. Etc.

True. I suppose there are too many variables to say one thing or the other is better.

Though I don't necessarily think a swordsmen will always have a speed advantage. He can swing the blade more times a minute, but if they're both armored-up, they'd both be so heavy that the ability to maneuver would be equal. (I'm looking at a one-on-one duel, not a full on battle)

The swordsman can make more attempts at placing a hit between the armor joints, but against skillful opposition, that could be difficult. And the maceman can't swing as quickly, but should that heavy iron knob make contact with a limb or joint or sword hand, it's very likely to cripple his opponent.

But as we both understand, you can't say one is decidedly "better." The biggest factor is still individual skill. And a lot of other variables.

True. My favorite though is watching people say they want "full plate armor and a rapier". That always makes me laugh.

Wow, that's an... interesting combo. I've never heard that, actually.

Ha. I just got this mental image of two men-at-arms, full plate, one with a rapier and one with an English long axe. The rapier guy keeps trying to stab the other, and his little sword keeps bending around on itself, into a 'C' shape. Then the axe guy just cleaves him in the head.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Kite shield. Half-plate. Flanged mace.

No swords. The silly things require too much finesse, in my opinion, and would be useless against plate.

A mace (or warhammer), on the other hand, works just as well on hard targets as soft ones. The flanges bite into plate armor and keep it from deflecting away.

The mace is also a lower maintenance weapon, so wouldn't need to worry about its lethality diminishing.

Aren't maces and warhammers generally heavier than a sword? so would use more energy to swing it about tiring the person out quicker?

And they're slower, a competent swordsman could counter quickly.

But... I'm a competent mace-wielder-man?

I'll give it to you that the more skilled soldier will win, regardless of equipment, but what I was trying to say was the mace, in general, would be the more effective death-dealer.

It's also heavier, sure, but I figure if someone's been using it as their main weapon forever, they'd be used to it. And would have the physique to compensate.

If we go by numbers, the spear was the most devastating weapon ever made ever. And I believe weapons have innate advantages over other weapons. A sword duelist is just too fast for a mace user. A mace user can stop an armored knight really well. An armored knight is effective against a spear man. Etc.

True. I suppose there are too many variables to say one thing or the other is better.

Though I don't necessarily think a swordsmen will always have a speed advantage. He can swing the blade more times a minute, but if they're both armored-up, they'd both be so heavy that the ability to maneuver would be equal. (I'm looking at a one-on-one duel, not a full on battle)

The swordsman can make more attempts at placing a hit between the armor joints, but against skillful opposition, that could be difficult. And the maceman can't swing as quickly, but should that heavy iron knob make contact with a limb or joint or sword hand, it's very likely to cripple his opponent.

But as we both understand, you can't say one is decidedly "better." The biggest factor is still individual skill. And a lot of other variables.

True. My favorite though is watching people say they want "full plate armor and a rapier". That always makes me laugh.

Wow, that's an... interesting combo. I've never heard that, actually.

Ha. I just got this image in my head of two men-at-arms, full plate, one with a rapier and one with an English long axe. The rapier guy keeps trying to stab the other, and his little sword keeps bending around on itself, into a 'C' shape. Then the axe guy just cleaves him in the head.

Well theoretically, it's a good combo. A rapier was designed to go between the plates of platemail armor and hit vital points, and it did that quite well. But it doesn't work if you're slow. And platemail is meant to keep you safe until you can bludgeon someone to death with your sword.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

Kite shield. Half-plate. Flanged mace.

No swords. The silly things require too much finesse, in my opinion, and would be useless against plate.

A mace (or warhammer), on the other hand, works just as well on hard targets as soft ones. The flanges bite into plate armor and keep it from deflecting away.

The mace is also a lower maintenance weapon, so wouldn't need to worry about its lethality diminishing.

Aren't maces and warhammers generally heavier than a sword? so would use more energy to swing it about tiring the person out quicker?

And they're slower, a competent swordsman could counter quickly.

But... I'm a competent mace-wielder-man?

I'll give it to you that the more skilled soldier will win, regardless of equipment, but what I was trying to say was the mace, in general, would be the more effective death-dealer.

It's also heavier, sure, but I figure if someone's been using it as their main weapon forever, they'd be used to it. And would have the physique to compensate.

If we go by numbers, the spear was the most devastating weapon ever made ever. And I believe weapons have innate advantages over other weapons. A sword duelist is just too fast for a mace user. A mace user can stop an armored knight really well. An armored knight is effective against a spear man. Etc.

True. I suppose there are too many variables to say one thing or the other is better.

Though I don't necessarily think a swordsmen will always have a speed advantage. He can swing the blade more times a minute, but if they're both armored-up, they'd both be so heavy that the ability to maneuver would be equal. (I'm looking at a one-on-one duel, not a full on battle)

The swordsman can make more attempts at placing a hit between the armor joints, but against skillful opposition, that could be difficult. And the maceman can't swing as quickly, but should that heavy iron knob make contact with a limb or joint or sword hand, it's very likely to cripple his opponent.

But as we both understand, you can't say one is decidedly "better." The biggest factor is still individual skill. And a lot of other variables.

True. My favorite though is watching people say they want "full plate armor and a rapier". That always makes me laugh.

Wow, that's an... interesting combo. I've never heard that, actually.

Ha. I just got this mental image of two men-at-arms, full plate, one with a rapier and one with an English long axe. The rapier guy keeps trying to stab the other, and his little sword keeps bending around on itself, into a 'C' shape. Then the axe guy just cleaves him in the head.

why not a sarracen's Sabre while at it http://www.freakygaming.com/gallery/role-playing_games/two_worlds/knight_fight.jpg lool!

 

[fanklok]

a sword being weighed down by heavy armour.

Also would have to have 2 small swords and a small shield attached to my arm.

Damn Hollywood filling peoples minds with historical fallacies. Rich nobles had swords the amount of metal and time needed to make one caused them to be very very expensive, and you wouldn't get to wear plate armor that the movies like having entire armies in. Cloth and if you had the time to make it yourself leather/hide armor is what you'd get, if you were lucky enough to be under a very rich general you'd get some chain mail to wear under it (back then chain mail was like today's t-shirts).

So unless you had some fancy gold trinkets to trade a smith wouldn't waste his materials on a commoner like you making a sword let alone two. You'd be handed a spear or a bow and quiver.

So to answer your question realistically I'd have an ashwood spear with a bronze/iron tip and fur armor (I am half Swedish after all) or even possibly a wood cutting axe pending the area and my chosen/forced menial profession. Though I would rather have the spear range is much more favorable someone with a sword can't hurt you if they can't get close enough to use it.

As for surviving it would all depend on how many ranks in I'd be the tactical aptitude of the commander and how many archers who ever is trying to make us not live any more have.

 

[Master_Corruptor]

Beeing a norwegian and all i would definately be a viking. Allthough i would be a failed cause (i'm somewhat weak )
I would carry a light leather armor/chestplate and a small axe/shortsword together with a small shield.

In the battle i would be the one running frantically around in the back of the battlefield wacking people in the head to deal the final blow.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

try beating this:

 

[fanklok]

try beating this:

What if it's raining?

 

[Exocet]

I would get on a horse,take a bow and ride with thousands of unstoppable,bloodthristy nomads.
You can't stop the Mongols,you just can't.I'm pretty much safe until it comes time to play a game of rugby on horses using a goat's head as a ball,in which case I'll display some fine "get knocked off a horse and faceplant into the ground" skills,and probably die trampled by angry,drunken men riding horses.

 

[Seydaman]

Archer, even though I wouldn't fire one arrow, (Ever try to use an actual medieval bow without training for it? Fuuuuck that) I would sit back and know that hopefully I wouldn't die as fast as everyone else.

 

[Seydaman]

I would get on a horse,take a bow and ride with thousands of unstoppable,bloodthristy nomads.
You can't stop the Mongols,you just can't.I'm pretty much safe until it comes time to play a game of rugby on horses using a goat's head as a ball,in which case I'll display some fine "get knocked off a horse and faceplant into the ground" skills,and probably die trampled by angry,drunken men riding horses.

Assuming you're the average person this would be impossible, the stirrup had not been invented at the time of the Mongols so to stay on their horses they had to hold them with there legs All. The. Time.
Edit: Also Mongols =/= Nomads
Edit2: Also The Mongols were a professional army, not angry,drunken men riding horses.

 

[yoz13]

hmm i could survive but if i was at the back being a ranger so id have to have a longbow

 

[GLo Jones]

try beating this:

What if it's raining?

I literally spat out my drink reading that. Fucking hilarious.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

Seriously nobody has mentioned the halberd yet that thing is the ultimate medieval weapon.
Anyways i would take a halberd and some good solid full plate armor.

Plate armor became obsolete very quickly. It's crazy heavy, restricts your movement, the helmets reduce your field of vision to almost nothing, and could be defeated with weapons such as flails and morningstars. At the Battle of the Golden Spur, a bunch of Flemish (I think they were Flemish) farmers fought a group of French knights. The farmers were armed with these things called godendags, which where basically poles with big iron spikes on the ends. And the farmers won.

Chainmail was the ultimate body armor back then.

 

[fanklok]

I literally spat out my drink reading that. Fucking hilarious.

Then I dare say mission accomplished

 

[Gauntes]

I have certain degree of archery training, so I think my station is pretty much set

 

[GLo Jones]

I'm scrawny, and have a relatively low pain tolerance, no skill or training in combat what-so-ever, and hypoglycemia. If the enemy doesn't kill me the drop in blood sugar from that level of exertion over that period of time would.

There's nothing like the incentive of seeing your enemy whipping out a bag of sweets during the battle. Now you must fight, fight for those sweets.