Your in a medieval/ancient battle, which weapons would you want to be using?

Question

I am thinking about those fight scenes in the movies were one guy has a huge hammer or one of those fails and you say to your mates, 'I would like to be like him'.

Crazy ideas welcome but modern weapons like guns or nuke answers wont be winning the points.

thats Frail not fail. Sorry :(

Answer 1

Having patched up injuries from and done a little fighting in a medieval re enactment group I'd say each weapon has its uses and it depends on what damage you want to do, all can be lethal, that why they were used for so long. The mace does great crushing injuries as does the flail (lots of bruising and broken bones). The sword can cause great gaping wounds but tends to roll of chain mail or cause crush injuries unless used with a stabbing action (as with the claymore or double handed sword) and the shield acts as a ramming weapon itself. The hand axe is great for getting in below the shield and hooking it down so you can get in a blow, the halberd and war axe/hammer are very scary once they start to swing round someones head, and the long bow is a killer in the Right hands (if you can't use one though its pretty useless). So I'd stick with stabbing and crushing weapons, one carried into battle in the hand (probably a sword) with a shield, and another on the belt as a back up (either a mace or an axe). Get in ther up close and personal and see the colour of your opponents eyes and feel the blood rush as adrenalin takes over....

Answer 2

Come on. Think about it. It depends on your personal strengths as a fighter. The reason these ancestral warriors were such fearless fatalists is that you could never tell whether your chosen path (including weapon choice) would be the undoing of you. All you could do was ensure you knew exactly how to use your weapon and find a compromise between bravery and shrewdness. You had to play to your strengths, just like now. That's why Beckham takes free kicks and Rooney runs down the middle. The best thing was to impress on the training ground: then you might get a horse.

Answer 3

I hate to fudge, but it depends on the time period you're depicting. The more modern the weapon, the better it is at getting through armor and killing.
The last and most efficient melee weapon was the rapier; it could get through chainmail armor and into the joints of plate armor. It was also light, strong, and fast. It was also a pircing weapon, so an opponent could bleed out within a few minutes, as opposed to a slashing weapon like a broadsword, which took much longer for an opponetnt to die.

Answer 4

I have to say I would want a pole axe. It is a combination war-hammer, axe, stabbing point and a little metal thing on the handle to knock someone off balance. either that or a two-handed war-hammer. Also a previous answer was right when they said it was called a flail. It actually started out as a harvesting tool.

Answer 5

Nothing beats a massive, ill-tempered, battle-trained horse.
My steed could bite enemies coming at me from the sides, and trample oncoming ones under his hooves. If the battle went against us, he could also carry me to safety. From the back of the horse, a longsword of the best quality steel, or a pike, or even some early pistols (even if they are just 1 shot each).
On the other hand, if I had the choice of serving in the artilery, I might choose a good cannon with ample gunpowder supplied.

Answer 6

Without doubt the hand and a half sword, also known as the Bastard Sword. Flexibility for attack is key. Useful for slashing, stabbing or hacking. It is mobile, yet still heavy to use in crushing attacks.
Use of these swords lasted from roughly 1350 to 1550, declined in the late 16th century, and they were obsolete by the early 17th century. Typically, the bastard sword was heavy enough for battlefield use, while still being light enough for the quick moves found commonly in cut-and-thrust fighting and/or dueling. It probably represents the pinnacle of European sword making.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastard_sword

Answer 7

A barricade and an absorbent amount of arrows (and a bow of course!) I'd recommend a sword and shield in case things didn't go to plan. An archer would be the equivilant on a sniper in today's warfare. He's got the best odds of leaving alive of anyone on the field of battle.

I'm awfully fond of the spiked chain mace, but a) I don't have the strength to use one, b) if you miss, somebody's gonna poke you with something sharp!

Answer 8

a falcata and a short spear.

a falcata was a sword used by the celts in iberia in ancient times. it consists of a forward curving blade that is designed so that a high percentage of the energy used to swing it is transferred into the target on impact. It is capable of cutting through most armors that a person would wear. ive included a link.

but if crazy ideas are welcome id like to have caladbolg.

Answer 9

historically all i'd need is a barrier like a deep river or a wall and a bow and arrows. A line of archers can totally decimate an army before the real fight begins.

Answer 10

In melee situation, the halberd is the overwhelming choice. Iy gives you distance from your enemies and can be used to great effect, pretty much no matter how you want to use it.... It can be fashioned easilly by even a one eyed dislecsic provincial blacksmith. You can poke (both ends!) puncture, slice, cut, bash, you name it!... Kind of the Swiss army knife of medieval warfare, an all times favourite!