Poll: Choose your weapon!
- Thread starter King of the Sandbox
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I take a bow, and lots and lots of arrows. Cause then I can stay behind the battle shooting my enemies - and not have to run in and die right away.
i games i always go for ranged but for the purposes of post, polearm. just cos i would be awful in battle. with a polearm i could just hold it and spin, mark off that circle of pain.
A lightsaber!!!
Seriously: either a mace or a longsword, probably a mace, but it depends on the amount of training I'm gonna get befor the battle.
Seriously: either a mace or a longsword, probably a mace, but it depends on the amount of training I'm gonna get befor the battle.
True story, I spend probably 3-4 hours in the gym per week, and when I used a crossbow at a castle I visited, it was quite a task.Colour-Scientist said:
Though that's probably what I'd use, and I'd probably do my best to modify the bolts so they flew longer, faster and straighter.
If you're going to fight in an army, the whole unit is going to have similar kind of weapons. And BTW people, swords were the sidearms of the era: secondary weapons and status symbols. They weren't used in big battles. Halberds and spears were the most common sight, along with all sorts of oversized tin openers.
And about armour, it's much like cars. If you're going to battle, you're going to have some kind of protection. (conscription didn't exist as such, btw, but people could enlist as mercenaries, provided they had weapons) Anyway, armour is like cars: the average man-at-arms had perhaps a leather armour and chainmail(a toyota corolla), while the filthy rich lords had ornate full plate armours (a Ferrari 599). That's around 1300 AD. In 1100, a full set of ring mail was a rich man's privilege. In 1400 plate armour was relatively common, considering what it had been 100 years earlier.
And about bows and crossbows: you can't use one, unless you've been training for years. Many of the archers filling the ranks of medieval armies were hunters by profession, drawn to military in hopes of loot and plunder. The English were the first to employ full time archers as professional soldiers, in 1227 AD. The Welsh originated longbow was a deadly weapon that long rivalled the range and penetration of firearms (and so did the continental favourite, the crossbow). The point was, archery and marksmanship takes years to be useful in combat. England had a law that required every able bodied man to practise archery daily, all the way up to the 1800, when it was removed as "useless". Go figure.
The construction of medieval armies is quite simple, since feudalism is the word of the day. i.e. knights get land and the right to tax that land, in return they fight for the king. The knights form the core of the armies, (which are not standing armies, but instead summoned in the time of need) as the fighting elite, professional soldiers. They rightfully maintained their position as the elite on the battlefield for 500 years, until infantry tactics and firearms made professional mercenary armies more fitting to the kings who no longer wanted to share power with the nobles. (did you know the word "freelancer" originates from the middle ages: it meant a mounted armoured professional soldier, a knight without a lord, that is, who fought for anyone willing to pay.)
The knights had their own men-at-arms and sergeants following them and these, along with mercenaries made the auxiliary troops, the bulk of the force. Archers included. This of course is a horrid simplification and generalisation, but whatever.
To answer the rather annoying question of the topic: anyone who takes anything else than a pole arm is pretty much dead. Took a sword, you did? Good riddance to the flank guard, no shield walls there. Took a mace or an axe? Shock trooper you are, now run towards the enemy's ranks and try to make a gap before they stab you to a gurgling, well ventilated death. A bow you say? well you might survive, if you run at the right moment.
If you claim you're big and rich enough to be a horseman and wield a lance, you better have a very impressive a title and a rich family. Knights were rarely killed in battles: demanding ransom for the buggers was much more profitable. A fully armoured knight is very, very hard to kill. But swarming them and dragging them off horseback (for fucks sake, don't kill the horse, it's worth more than all the peasants who died of the plague ever made in their lives!) shouldn't be too difficult. Then overwhelm the knight and drag him off and hide. Demand ransom.
Hope he had rich family.
Profit?
And about armour, it's much like cars. If you're going to battle, you're going to have some kind of protection. (conscription didn't exist as such, btw, but people could enlist as mercenaries, provided they had weapons) Anyway, armour is like cars: the average man-at-arms had perhaps a leather armour and chainmail(a toyota corolla), while the filthy rich lords had ornate full plate armours (a Ferrari 599). That's around 1300 AD. In 1100, a full set of ring mail was a rich man's privilege. In 1400 plate armour was relatively common, considering what it had been 100 years earlier.
And about bows and crossbows: you can't use one, unless you've been training for years. Many of the archers filling the ranks of medieval armies were hunters by profession, drawn to military in hopes of loot and plunder. The English were the first to employ full time archers as professional soldiers, in 1227 AD. The Welsh originated longbow was a deadly weapon that long rivalled the range and penetration of firearms (and so did the continental favourite, the crossbow). The point was, archery and marksmanship takes years to be useful in combat. England had a law that required every able bodied man to practise archery daily, all the way up to the 1800, when it was removed as "useless". Go figure.
The construction of medieval armies is quite simple, since feudalism is the word of the day. i.e. knights get land and the right to tax that land, in return they fight for the king. The knights form the core of the armies, (which are not standing armies, but instead summoned in the time of need) as the fighting elite, professional soldiers. They rightfully maintained their position as the elite on the battlefield for 500 years, until infantry tactics and firearms made professional mercenary armies more fitting to the kings who no longer wanted to share power with the nobles. (did you know the word "freelancer" originates from the middle ages: it meant a mounted armoured professional soldier, a knight without a lord, that is, who fought for anyone willing to pay.)
The knights had their own men-at-arms and sergeants following them and these, along with mercenaries made the auxiliary troops, the bulk of the force. Archers included. This of course is a horrid simplification and generalisation, but whatever.
To answer the rather annoying question of the topic: anyone who takes anything else than a pole arm is pretty much dead. Took a sword, you did? Good riddance to the flank guard, no shield walls there. Took a mace or an axe? Shock trooper you are, now run towards the enemy's ranks and try to make a gap before they stab you to a gurgling, well ventilated death. A bow you say? well you might survive, if you run at the right moment.
If you claim you're big and rich enough to be a horseman and wield a lance, you better have a very impressive a title and a rich family. Knights were rarely killed in battles: demanding ransom for the buggers was much more profitable. A fully armoured knight is very, very hard to kill. But swarming them and dragging them off horseback (for fucks sake, don't kill the horse, it's worth more than all the peasants who died of the plague ever made in their lives!) shouldn't be too difficult. Then overwhelm the knight and drag him off and hide. Demand ransom.
Hope he had rich family.
Profit?
