Medieval warfare!

[basic.acid]

personally i would go with a Mongolian composite bow made to the size of a long bow...
pain to draw but plate becomes paper

for melee gotta go with half plate and a great mace. you plate the side that leads in and the squishy bits or only exposed when you strike, and since its a great mace it'll just smash through any defense.

or tae kwon do since i know that, even if it isn't exactly medieval

 

[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...

so instead of sitting on a defencive position out of their ranged artillery and missle troops forcing them to break rank and engage your position on your terms... you intend to march upto a bottle neck which is flanked by THEIR defencive positions giving them a defelade against any and all attacks you could possibly make while they simply rain down death with impunity Ontop of the massive army of melee troops that are pushing against you...

i would take my chances on the soft slopping hill, enveloping my archers in the center of my tactical circle allowing them full reign over all targets on the battlefield as i flank my positions with heavy armor close combatants.

just because they use a bottle neck tactic in '300' doesn't make it a superior tactic...

Just because 300 popularized the bottleneck, doesn't make it any less viable.

Unless you make a measured withdrawal (hoping they give chase), or somehow match the width of the enemy line, you're going to get surrounded. And surrounded armies disintegrate. Even with superior soldiers, you'll lose. Varro and Paullus know what I mean. You'd get Hannibalized the same way they did.

So yes, I'd march to the gate. My small army is f**ked anyway, at least there, even though we'd be exposed to missile fire, we'd last longer. Though if they're just shooting arrows, heavy armor would pretty much negate it.

And even if you're just sitting back from the gates, they can just bring up missile formations and shoot into your troops. Your going to take fire from range no matter what you do. And sitting on a slope is only going to make it easier for enemy missiles to hit the center mass of your forces.

Or they could just surround you with archers. If you're going to sit and wait in a neat little circle, why not?

 

[superbatranger]

My weapon of choice would be my feet.

Spoiler: My preferred tactic.

Better than sticking around and getting a sword stuck in your face.

 

[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.

have you seen the gate? they would have barely enough men to block it at all, and would then be bombarded immediately from the trolls and whatelse standing ON the gate

the smart thing to do would probably fake surrendering or try diplomatics

Somehow I don't think feigning a surrender would work. I'm pretty sure both sides know that wouldn't happen. I mean, if the humans surrendered, the orcs would probably just eat them or something. So they'd know it was a farce. Might as well fight at that point.

Spoiler: Only the first 30 seconds are relevant.

It's a big gate, sure, but if they couldn't block it off completely, they could at least stem the flow of orcs if they were close enough, and delay getting outflanked.

 

[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...

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.

I know they expected to lose. That much is obvious. But what I was saying, was IF they could last longer, they'd seem like more of a "threat", keeping the baddies distracted longer. And it's not like Sauron was aware the hobbits were in his inner sanctum, so for all he knew the allies WERE fighting to win.

And as for luring them out... moving the battle formation would only make a difference of a few hundred yards. Negligible. The hobbits' way would still have been clear.

 

[TheBananaKing]

i'm gonna have to go with: - Mahoosive hammer of justice (+150% chance of crit...always helps)
- Shield of impending doom (+3 fear)
- Battle horse (+50% speed)
- Crossbow with underslung dagger (for faster stabbing)
- A big ass pike (-20% mobility)

i reckon that'd be the best choice of weapons...and because i'd put all my stat points into strength i would carry it all at once

 

[Yelchor]

Interesting subject. The best way in overall to survive war is to avoid it. Harsh is the least you could say describing warfare of that time-period. Even if you were well-armed and equipped with extensive armor your strength could quickly deterioate, and with it your chances of survival. Eventually with the emergence of modern weapons the soldier's strength and equipment became less relevant as long as they knew how to handle a crossbow or a musket.

Still, I'm very impressed with how armies managed to keep themselves organized and capable with such limiting technology. For example I wonder how the medieval crusades in the middle-east could have been successful even to some extent. Imagine yourself being ordered to march seven miles through a land with temperatures in the shadow usually being around 40 degrees celcius (100 farenheit) and where water is scarce to a large extent, carrying not only heavy weapons but likely also layers of cloth, leather, chainmail and plate armor while expecting to encounter an army of Seljuks when you arrive to your destination. While from what I know the crusading states remained close to the coast it still doesn't mean that their troops didn't have ground to cover, facing enemies who likely had superior knowledge of the land and its habitat.

Back on topic. I'd preffer being on horse back. As a knight perhaps but as a ranged rider with a crossbow would have been equally, if not more, sufficient. Then I could avoid the deadly chaos of the frontline and still be able to do productive work, while at the same time being able to quickly escape should it become obvious that my king's army would loose.

 

[Doitpow]

This title side tracked me.

Wanna tip Infinity Ward?
Call of Duty: Medieval Warfare

 

[Slaanax]

Warhammer, Shield, and a suit of Chain Mail.

 

[PurpleSky]

I read in a ww2 war book that most killing blows,if you check after a hand to hand combat,are in the back,so......Pull out your lighter and scare everybody !MAGIC!

 

[J. Reed]

for melee gotta go with half plate and a great mace. you plate the side that leads in and the squishy bits or only exposed when you strike, and since its a great mace it'll just smash through any defense.

Woo! We're similar! Only I'd have a shield and a single-handed flanged mace, as I stated in my earlier, lengthy discussion with one crimson5pheonix. Blunt weapon high-five!

God damn, I've posted a lot in this thread. I need some Pepto-Verbosity-Bismal for my verbal diarrhea.

 

[mastermarty]

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.

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.

So what i ask is, do you think you would survive in a medieval battle? What would be your weapon of choice? How would you go about fighting in the battle?

simple, join the attilery battelions, and flee as soon as we loose. and then hope i don't catch some kind of plaque, or die of a lost arrow...

 

[SextusMaximus]

If you're not picked off by archers or bludgeoned to death, I guess the artillery would get you first.

Medieval 2 is a great representation of medieval warfare, no matter how good you are, you're likely to die.

I probably wouldn't survive, archers were plentiful and so were artillery men, weapon of choice? nothings safe, so I'd go with a sword and shield (old fashioned, but hey!) and preferably mounted by a woman on a horse. My tactics? fight to the death.

 

[Kiefer13]

I'd probably have to go with a halberd. Very versatile, and the greater range compared to a sword or similar is nice. That and a combination of chainmail and leather for armour. Plate is just too heavy and cumbersome to be of much use.

 

[TheBluesader]

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.

Yes. Victoriousness. The only tactic necessary for total victory.

Remember: in all things, employ victoriousness, and you will be victorious, always.

 

[J. Reed]

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.

Yes. Victoriousness. The only tactic necessary for total victory.

Remember: in all things, employ victoriousness, and you will be victorious, always.

Hm. Sounds like the advice I give my brother when he's failing at a game.

"You know, if you didn't keep dying, you'd probably do better. Maybe try not-dying next time."

Or,

"The best way to win, is to not lose. You should do that more. I can't understand why you don't."

I know, I know-- genius. I just think on a higher level than most. Feel free to embrace my wisdom.

 

[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.

Mongols are nomads,at least they were,and after a battle,soldiers looted cities,drinking heavily in the process.
Also,you might want to the read part in which I explicitly say I fall off the horse because of my complete lack of skills.

Mongols were organized into tribes until Genghis Khan organized them into a nation, and when you said drunk I assumed you meant mid battle, and skills=/=physical shape.

 

[Karlaxx]

I... would...

... Well, technically, I would have died at birth without modern antibiotics, so I wouldn't win any of these, period.

If that weren't the case, I would love to be a crossbowman. The RPG of its time.

 

[Lalalarzi]

I'd be the princess you were all fighting for. Forward my people! Into glorious battle! I'll be waiting for you after.... with nachos

In another castle no doubt.

of course! I'll get them all to myself....

 

[nofear220]

Call of Duty: Medieval Warfare 2
Your favorite Aim Down Sword experience, Now with akimbo CrossBows!...And NO dedicated servers!