Medieval warfare!

[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, being that it's effective against everything.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Cain_Zeros]

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.

 

[YouCallMeNighthawk]

Cross bow and light armour. I'd just stand next to the black archer. Every film has taught me that he will go down before me. Then I'll stand next to the young boy who is innocent and the brutality of war takes him away from his new wife. All along I'm safe and sound popping the odd bolt at my enemies.

HAHA! that made me chuckle quite a bit

Good tactic though.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

Cross bow and light armour. I'd just stand next to the black archer. Every film has taught me that he will go down before me. Then I'll stand next to the young boy who is innocent and the brutality of war takes him away from his new wife. All along I'm safe and sound popping the odd bolt at my enemies.

Don't forget to bring your mentor along, too, assuming the battle occurs during the third act. And your good friend who is retiring in three days.

 

[ethaninja]

I would survive as long as I have this

 

[Paksenarrion]

I would challenge their best man to a battle of wits! It will involve two glasses of wine and iocane powder...

 

[JWW]

I think that to survive I would definitely want to have a crossbow. It can break through the armor of a knight, and you can learn to use it in just a few hours. With that in mind, I'd want to carry some kind of spear, because it would be good for fighting horses, which would be more likely to reach me. In general I would try to avoid hand to hand fighting.

I'd be either a Viking or a Norman, looking at my ancestry.

Would I survive? Depends on a lot of factors, but probably not.

 

[octafish]

Also, movies piss me off when they do stupid things with armies.

Lord of the Rings (it's a fantasy, yes, but they're using swords and shields so it should count), when they attack the Black Gates. I TAKE SUCH SERIOUS ISSUE WITH THAT F**KING BATTLE.

They sit there in tight little ball of soldiers and just LET the enemy completely envelope them. March UP TO THE GATES. Mitigate their numbers advantage! You're all going to die, retards!

I know it's just a movie. But god damn does it annoy me.

Sorry for bitching...

That, and the whole disband the cavalry and walk everyone into battle.

 

[JWW]

Also, movies piss me off when they do stupid things with armies.

Lord of the Rings (it's a fantasy, yes, but they're using swords and shields so it should count), when they attack the Black Gates. I TAKE SUCH SERIOUS ISSUE WITH THAT F**KING BATTLE.

They sit there in tight little ball of soldiers and just LET the enemy completely envelope them. March UP TO THE GATES. Mitigate their numbers advantage! You're all going to die, retards!

I know it's just a movie. But god damn does it annoy me.

Sorry for bitching...

That, and the whole disband the cavalry and walk everyone into battle.

It was actually a pretty good strategy, considering that they wanted to give Frodo and Sam as much time as possible. Surrounding them probably took the forces of Mordor hours. A direct assault would end the battle right away, long before they wanted it to end.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

Cross bow and light armour. I'd just stand next to the black archer. Every film has taught me that he will go down before me. Then I'll stand next to the young boy who is innocent and the brutality of war takes him away from his new wife. All along I'm safe and sound popping the odd bolt at my enemies.

Don't forget to bring your mentor along, too, assuming the battle occurs during the third act.

But what if he turns evil and betrays me? That's a risky strategy...

Whoa, I never thought of that. You just blew my mind.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Mcface]

Well I'm from America, we weren't around back then.
So, seeing as my ancestors are from Ireland, I would be a Celt. Probably constantly fighting vikings off and what not.

 

[Snownine]

I would be a Viking. Which means I would fight by winning. My weapon of choice would be cold, hard victory. And I would survive by winning as a Viking.

Victoriousness (not real word) being the primary tactic employed.

 

[J. Reed]

Also, movies piss me off when they do stupid things with armies.

Lord of the Rings (it's a fantasy, yes, but they're using swords and shields so it should count), when they attack the Black Gates. I TAKE SUCH SERIOUS ISSUE WITH THAT F**KING BATTLE.

They sit there in tight little ball of soldiers and just LET the enemy completely envelope them. March UP TO THE GATES. Mitigate their numbers advantage! You're all going to die, retards!

I know it's just a movie. But god damn does it annoy me.

Sorry for bitching...

That, and the whole disband the cavalry and walk everyone into battle.

It was actually a pretty good strategy, considering that they wanted to give Frodo and Sam as much time as possible. Surrounding them probably took the forces of Mordor hours. A direct assault would end the battle right away, long before they wanted it to end.

Au contaire.

The enemy flooded out of those gates, and with zero opposition, they had the army surrounded in a matter of minutes. The orcs just had to run a short distance around the human/elven lines. Not a difficult task. And as for ending the battle quickly... getting yourself surrounded and attacked from every angle is VERY GOOD WAY to lose a battle very fast.

Had they marched on the gates, they would've presented a very real threat, making them a BETTER distraction for Frodo and Sam, and they actually could've prolonged it for a much, much greater time. Fighting on a narrow front means troops die slower, and when troops die slower, the battle takes longer.

 

[atled3]

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.

 

[JWW]

Au contaire.

The enemy flooded out of those gates, and with zero opposition, they had the army surrounded in a matter of minutes. The orcs just had to run a short distance around the human/elven lines. Not a difficult task. And as for ending the battle quickly... getting yourself surrounded and attacked from every angle is VERY GOOD WAY to lose a battle very fast.

Had they marched on the gates, they would've presented a very real threat, making them a BETTER distraction for Frodo and Sam, and they actually could've prolonged it for a much, much greater time. Fighting on a narrow front means troops die slower, and when troops die slower, the battle takes longer.

Fuck, I always sucked at those Total War games. I knew I should've paid more attention to 300 ("Fight them at the Hot Gates, where their numbers would mean nothing").

 

[chstens]

I would just try and stick with a few guys once the battle has commenced and form a small squad and skuttle around the battlefield trying to kill as many as i could. Also would have to have 2 small swords and a small shield attached to my arm.

You would use two swords and a buckler used by ARCHERS, that is unecesarily complicated, it's a reason dual-weapon fighting didn't catch on, in the heat of battle, it's alot more likely that you would accidently cut your own arm off or stab yourself.

As for myself, I would raid the english coast as a viking!

I would be a Viking. Which means I would fight by winning. My weapon of choice would be cold, hard victory. And I would survive by winning as a Viking.

Fitting, since I am Norwegian.

 

[J. Reed]

Au contaire.

The enemy flooded out of those gates, and with zero opposition, they had the army surrounded in a matter of minutes. The orcs just had to run a short distance around the human/elven lines. Not a difficult task. And as for ending the battle quickly... getting yourself surrounded and attacked from every angle is VERY GOOD WAY to lose a battle very fast.

Had they marched on the gates, they would've presented a very real threat, making them a BETTER distraction for Frodo and Sam, and they actually could've prolonged it for a much, much greater time. Fighting on a narrow front means troops die slower, and when troops die slower, the battle takes longer.

Fuck, I always sucked at those Total War games. I knew I should've paid more attention to 300 ("Fight them at the Hot Gates, where their numbers would mean nothing").

Ah, man... 300.

They NEVER stayed in the phalanx. They broke ranks and charged, every time. And Jerry Butler had to go and hurt Ephialtes' feelngs (bad, bad move), telling him he couldn't fight because he wasn't fit for the phalanx... that they never even used.

*sigh*

Nitpicking ruins movies for me.