mideval wepons?

Question

what type of middle ages wepon is best and why

Answer 1

It depends on many factors and the use that one had in mind for it.

On the battlefield, the most deadly weapon of them all had to be the English Longbow with bodkin points. It was law in England that every man and boy between the ages of 14 and 40 (if memory serves) that they had to attend a once a week archery practice after church on Sundays, supervised by the priest and once a year, soldiers from the king's army would come in and assess them and direct if they needed more training or of they were good to go. That led to a very large portion of the population to be called upon to have a large force of archers available in a hurry, since the professional men at arms were not longbowmen but footsoldiers.

That tradition, if you like, led to the English routing much larger forces in battles like Crecy and Agincourt with minimal losses but by inflicting such dreadful damage on the enemy (it's estimated that something like 10000 French knights were killed in either battle), especially by socially inferior troops who "should not" be able to harm their betters.

Another battlefield weapon that can be termed one of the most effective is the spear. Used on foot in shield walls, or by horsemen charging (evolved into the lance with the discovery of stirrups in the 12th or13th century, allowing for heavy cavalry), it was an easily mass-produced weapon that was extremely cheap to make large numbers of. Another member of the spear family, the pike, led just as sharply to the decline of the supremacy of mounted chivalry on the battlefield as the longbow did, because no horse wants to run into a wall of right sharp points aimed straight at it.

You'll notice I left the sword out so far. And I'll explain why. The sword was the weapon of the wealthy or the professional, great for shearing through unarmoured flesh, and therefore good for the professional man-at-arms or knight. However, it was a secondary weapon to a pole-arm, lance, spear, bow or even impact weapons like maces, warhammers and war picks. And with armour becoming more and more advanced, the sword was becoming less and less useful against it in mass battles. As such, weapons more akin to can openers were devised, such as the latter warhammers and war picks, flanged maces and flails, polearms such as the poleaxe and the halberd. The idea behind those, in a simplistic kind of way, was not to get to the knight in the armour but to pour him out.

And with me talking about armour, the weapon that has probably killed the most knight, second only to the longbow, is the dagger. A 14th or 15th century knight, fully armoured, was the medieval equivalent of a tank. It was a man trained since childhood to fight, encased in steel. So it was deadly, hard to get close to, and once you were close to it, what did you do? Common soldiers, if properly trained (See the manuals of Talhoffer and Vadi as well as the Codex Wallerstein as an example) could grapple a fully armoured foe to drive him down. Just like they could use their weapons, such as the poleaxe, mace, flail, sword, etc, to force him to the ground. Now, a downed knight CAN get back up, if his armour has been properly fitted. He can run, jump, fight, for hours on end in there. However, once he's down, the man who drove him down sits on him, pulls out his dagger, usually a rondell, and if he's intent on killing the knight instead of taking him prisonner, he jams it where armour doesn't protect, or in a way it doesn't protect, like the eye slits, open visor, under the gorget, between the various pieces of the breastplate, down the gorget, in the armpit, in the groin... Either way, the knight is either a prisonner or a dead man, killed by a mere dagger.

But in situations other than battle, there are many weapons that were in common use. Some of the most famous are the messer, grossemesser and kriegmesser. These are German long-knives or fighting knifes that are closer in their size to falchions, with the kriegmesser being a longsword-sized variant of it. They were civilian-carry weapons, much more common than true swords and were extremely deadly if used properly.

Another weapon combination is the sword and buckler. It was a style commonly taught to religious orders, if you trust the Royal Armouries Manuscript MS I:33, or to civilians for self-defense.

The longsword, though, is in a class of its own. While it saw use on the battlefield against unarmoured foes, or when one who was so armed was deprived of his primary weapon, it was common that the two-handed longsword (bastard sword as it is known to far too many), was used in conjuction with a shield, or without. Weighting in at less than 4 pounds, it was quite deadly.

However, the longsword was primarily used as a duelling and self-defence weapon instead of one used on the battlefield. While not a common civilian weapon (only the wealthy could afford such a sword. It's a very advanced piece of technology, not just a hunk of steel with an edge. Not to mention affording the tuition charged by some arms master), it saw a lot of use in judicial duels and personal protection scenarios, where its versatility and reach were truly fully used.

Hope this helps.

Answer 2

A weapon is never more than an extension of the hand that wields it. Also, some weapons are more appropriate for one situation and completely inappropriate in others. You like the sword? Against plate mail it was pretty ineffective when compared to the mace, which had the crushing power to damage the armor as well as the individual inside. Are you up close? Well, then that bow and arrow or crossbow won't do you much good when trying to turn aside the downward stroke of a battle axe. What if you're not skilled with sword, axe or bow? Well, then that halberd is a powerful weapon against both mounted and foot soldiers even in the hands of an untrained warrior.

What's the ultimate weapon of any age? The one between your ears.

Answer 3

Depends on the situation. The Axe was probably the most common weapon as well as the bow. Swords were expensive and usually only used by nights and nobles. Spears were also a fairly common weapon as were halberds. The axe was best for crushing and splitting armor and was actually more effective than the sword for doing that, the sword, however, was better for thrusting into the weak points of the armor. The bow was a realtively utilitarian weapon used both in hunting and in combat, being able to attack enemies from a great distance.

The mace was also used, a short range weapon designed specifically for crushing and splitting armor.

The spear was also effective as a long range weapon, although not as long a range as the bow.

Answer 4

Two Handed Bastard Sword

Answer 5

The Sword for sure

Answer 6

the mace. heavy and hurtful.

but perhaps the crossbow would be the best.

but with these comparison questions it is always subject to the effects of need, skill of the user, and range

Answer 7

I prefer a katana or shaolin broadsword. But if we are talking europe I'd say a rapier

Answer 8

Two handed sword maximizes damage and speed.

Answer 9

The Cannon . Larger effect, more range, and it causes fear.

Answer 10

deuce pretty much hit the nail on the head.