Medieval warfare!

Recommended Videos

Ensiferum

New member
Apr 24, 2010
586
0
0
All of my ancestry is Celtic, Norse and Welsh. Give me a nice claymore or broadsword and shield and I'd be in my element ;)

I'd definitely go with chainmail over plate though as it's far less restricting and you could last longer wearing it, though plate does look cooler.
 

LeonardoDaFinchy

New member
Mar 3, 2010
13
0
0
Myself, likely a set of bearded axes and a large round shield. The shield would be on my back mostly, protecting me from blows to the back while using a beard to hook spears and shields out the way to deliver a blow with the other. Occasional throw of an axe at a particularly annoying enemy, before retrieving it to go on. Probably go with chainmail over leather, over something thick like wool. Of course, I'd not be much good against an armoured cavalry charge, but other foot soldiers should watch out. An arrow volley wouldn't be so bad if I spotted it incoming, what with the shield, but a lone crossbow on the field could take me down little problem.

Likewise Exocet there. But there's no 'loadout' that would leave you with no weaknesses whatsoever, whatever anyone tries.
 

Shadow XXVII

New member
Apr 5, 2010
52
0
0
Medieval Knight. I'd be armored like a tank and I'd be able to gallop around the battlefield and trample people to death. Either that or a horse archer. That sounds like it would be a lot of fun.
 

J. Reed

New member
Nov 13, 2009
201
0
0
crimson5pheonix said:
J. Reed said:
crimson5pheonix said:
J. Reed said:
crimson5pheonix said:
J. Reed said:
crimson5pheonix said:
YouCallMeNighthawk said:
J. Reed said:
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.
Actually, now that I start thinking on it, full plate and a rapier might not be so bad. I think you should also carry a secondary axe, broadsword, mace, hammer, etc., but a plate-armored knight with a rapier might have the advantage over another, similarly equipped soldier. If only for its armor-bypassing function. Though I sure as hell wouldn't want to be stuck with JUST that toothpick of a sword.

Man... I need to go to bed. It's 12:44am here and I have to wake up at 6:30am. Stupid website. Had to go and make me like it and stuff.

Well... anyway... *yaaaaaawn*

 

conflictofinterests

New member
Apr 6, 2010
1,098
0
0
Something I learned in fencing is that someone with only one rapier is going to be better able to defend himself than someone with two, and better able to attack as well, solely because it is tremendously difficult, even in ambidextrous people, to coordinate separate actions with two weapons. Try patting your head and rubbing your belly, and then think to yourself how difficult it would be to parry with your right hand and attack with your left. Keep the shield, ditch the extra sword.
 

atled3

New member
Jan 10, 2010
89
0
0
SlowShootinPete said:
atled3 said:
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.
Then again chain-mail didn't do jack if you just stabbed right through it.
And the idea is to keep people from getting close by using the long reach of the halberd.
Thus preventing them from hitting you with flails and morningstars.
 

Cain_Zeros

New member
Nov 13, 2009
1,494
0
0
GLo Jones said:
Cain_Zeros said:
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.
Well see, then I just kill the one guy, grab the bag of sweets and run like hell.
 

SlowShootinPete

New member
Apr 21, 2010
404
0
0
atled3 said:
SlowShootinPete said:
atled3 said:
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.
Then again chain-mail didn't do jack if you just stabbed right through it.
And the idea is to keep people from getting close by using the long reach of the halberd.
Chainmail wasn't impenetrable, but it was much better than plate. A polearm or longbow arrow could punch through, but those would do the same to plate armor as well. It stopped weaker arrows and protected against slashes and stabs from swords.
 

Davey Woo

New member
Jan 9, 2009
2,467
0
0
I would have a Longbow, and would win by killing everything before it could get within range, and if all else fails I could run away, I'd be able to run faster and further than a soldier in full armour.
 

conflictofinterests

New member
Apr 6, 2010
1,098
0
0
SlowShootinPete said:
atled3 said:
SlowShootinPete said:
atled3 said:
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.
Then again chain-mail didn't do jack if you just stabbed right through it.
And the idea is to keep people from getting close by using the long reach of the halberd.
Chainmail wasn't impenetrable, but it was much better than plate. A polearm or longbow arrow could punch through, but those would do the same to plate armor as well. It stopped weaker arrows and protected against slashes and stabs from swords.
I'ma have to agree with you, I remember a documentary on armor and the links are actually designed to stop piercing damage. Slot weapon does not fit in round hole.
 

iLikeHippos

New member
Jan 19, 2010
1,837
0
0
Well, I can jog for eternity it seems, and make a hasty sprint for 40 seconds before my stamina is drained. So I would say I got some good condition. Well, better than half the other army that consists of conscripts anyways. <WHICH IS INEVITABLE!
To me, it seems to be all that matters. Endurance.

Because if you get stuck in the moshpit of war, you better keep your breath and slay your enemies around you quickly, or else suffer the same fate the Spy did from Meet the Sniper.
 

Shycte

New member
Mar 10, 2009
2,564
0
0
J. Reed said:
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...
I don't think you get it. They wanted to lure them out of Mordor to help Sam and Frodo.
They never fought for their own victory.
 

SlowShootinPete

New member
Apr 21, 2010
404
0
0
J. Reed said:
Actually, now that I start thinking on it, full plate and a rapier might not be so bad. I think you should also carry a secondary axe, broadsword, mace, hammer, etc., but a plate-armored knight with a rapier might have the advantage over another, similarly equipped soldier. If only for its armor-bypassing function. Though I sure as hell wouldn't want to be stuck with JUST that toothpick of a sword.

Man... I need to go to bed. It's 12:44am here and I have to wake up at 6:30am. Stupid website. Had to go and make me like it and stuff.

Well... anyway... *yaaaaaawn*

I remember hearing once that knights used to carry small, thin blades that they would use to fight each other. They'd each try to stab it into their opponent's armpit, where there was a gap in the armor.
 

Motti

New member
Jan 26, 2009
739
0
0
I'd probably a longbowman, of course that would take years of practice to be any good, but I wouldn't be in the thick of the fighting while still being able to do my part.
 

GLo Jones

Activate the Swagger
Feb 13, 2010
1,192
0
0
Cain_Zeros said:
GLo Jones said:
Cain_Zeros said:
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.
Well see, then I just kill the one guy, grab the bag of sweets and run like hell.
Well that's some contribution at least.
 

sukotsuto

New member
Nov 15, 2007
65
0
0
If we were to be technical, the best overall melee medieval weapon is the halberd. It was a versatile weapon near the end of the medieval ages and on to the renaissance, as they have the range and leverage of a spear or pike, cutting power of an axe, stabbing power of a lance, can be used in tight formations as deterrent for incoming charges, and in some designs they may also have a small hook to drag mounted enemies down to the ground.

Although each medieval weapon has their uses:

- Regular spears, axes, and clubs are cheap weapons that can be equipped by anyone and are cost effective.
- Pikes are used as deterrent against infantry and cavalry charges while holding a position.
- Spears are more preferred than swords, due to their range and power.
- Axes, Hammers, maces and clubs are the best way to counter heavy armor, as the gamble of looking for soft spots against well-armored individual using a sword is not too practical, especially in the heat of battle. A decent dent on the armor can cause grievous injuries, as well as the shock of the impact. Those weapons can also work against anyone, but they're a lot better against armor.
- Swords are the best up close, especially indoors or in the middle of a big battle, once they drop the pikes as the enemy are within your sword's reach. These are offhand weapons that are carried by nearly everyone (sans those who are unskilled that are assigned to one weapon type). Takes more effort against well-armored knights, but they aren't too many, given the price of having heavy armor.
- Bows are the best option at long ranges during that era, bar none. Types of bow depends on usage and distance: longbows are better at longer ranges, the cheapest, but also the bow that takes more skill to use; crossbows are compact, easy to use, but lacks the drawing power and range, and it costs a little more than longbows, so it's best used at closer ranges; Arbalest may be heavier, not as compact, and costs a bit more, but it's the most powerful, as it can penetrate even heavy armor - but it's illegal to use against fellow Christians.
- Big two handed swords are rare, and their accurate use is debatable. They may not exceed 7 lbs in weight and may be around 5ft long, but they can only wielded properly by those who are big and strong enough to wield them like a regular sword. Said to be used by swiss mercs to break pike formations and to counter polearms, but will leave at that and let the others take over the charge once the pike formation had been damaged enough to leave a gap in the defense.

Anyway, Rapiers had only been coming round during the Renaissance era, but it's a civilian weapon used during duels and city conflicts during peacetime years. No army at the time would seriously consider deploying an army of fencers, and George Silver (Look him up if you're interested with all this in a realistic level. Oh and look up ARMA as well.) can attest to that (I read somewhere that he frickin' challenged an Italian fencing master to a duel, but it didn't look good for that Italian master after seeing Silver using a longsword and wearing decent armor, good ol' medieval style over pansy civilian fencing).

A regular longsword had always been better than rapiers, due to the ability to both slash and thrust, as well as the psychological effect its wounds can give (while someone stabbed at certain places with a rapier can still fight back). Medieval swords are actually pretty light and well-balanced anyway, unlike those "sword-like clubs" being sold to you by renaissance fairs and replica sword makers who uses "stainless steels", which are all heavy, ill-balacned and unwieldy.

Sabers are better swords and offhand weapons during the renaissance era, which by then, muskets and halberds are the name of the game.

A well equipped soldier would have a bow handy at long ranges, pike and shield when the charge is incoming, spear once the pike formation is broken, sword and shield (or if armored well, sword and bucker) once everyone is close enough), and a dagger if an enemy loses balance or is wrestled to the ground (they also had forms of wrestling as martial art). They'd have leather inside chainmail, and depending on social status, certain levels of scale and plate armor.


Personally, I train martial arts, and although not necessarily weapon martial arts, I practice a lot on the wooden sword, so if I were to think of a practical loadout for me: scale armor, halberd, offhand sword (not longsword), and an optional crossbow and bolts.
 

Cain_Zeros

New member
Nov 13, 2009
1,494
0
0
GLo Jones said:
Cain_Zeros said:
GLo Jones said:
Cain_Zeros said:
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.
Well see, then I just kill the one guy, grab the bag of sweets and run like hell.
Well that's some contribution at least.
True. And I might be back once I'm out of sweets.
 

LloydEsaka

New member
Oct 26, 2009
51
0
0
Lets see...assuming I had some training to make me, at least, a competent fighter, and given my knack for being able to adjust to a situation well (when words are not involved....) I'd have my primary weapon as a spear and two daggers, a chainmail shirt, and I'd probably try to stay away from the masses of opposition and pick off those on the fringes of the opposing force, assuming I'm in a position I could cause, lets face it, if you're on the front line and somewhere in the middle of your formation, one of two things will happen. One, you will be skewered or killed by some other means as you charge the enemy or two, you will try to get a more favorable position and be trampled by your allies.

As to why my weapon choice I think I'd be pretty decent with a spear, even more so if I were trained with it. Plus it seems like the best weapon to use since it can also function as a quarterstaff to an extent (for use in blocking attacks or beating someone in the head). I note that this is all speculation I've made on the appearance of the weapon and while fiddling around with a broomstick. The two daggers would be more for auxillary purposes. The first would be a distraction, usable anywhere, in which I would keep it in an easily accessed place to throw at the enemy because, lets face it, it probably wouldn't work but it might give me that extra half second to make a killing blow. The second would be if my spear became too damaged to use or if I were forced into a situation where said spear wouldn't be of any use to me (as in being stuck in a crowd withotu being able to lower my spear for example)