which is more effective during war? an arrow and bow or sword or spear or axe? which do you prefer?

Answer 1

I'm not a fighter I'm a lover

Answer 2

In general effective weapons were piercing, rather than slashing. This was because when armies met they tended to press into each other very closely; there was very little space to swing any weapon, much less big weapons like axes and long swords.

Secondly, any weapon which prevented the use of a shield is also not viable. Without Shields a line of soldiers is just far too vulnerable to being ripped apart by missile attacks.

Most bows lack the punching power to blast through a shield and still do much damage; they also typically became useless once the battle lines met.

This leaves us with spears and swords, and the best of these would be the spears of the Greek hoplites and the sword of the Roman legionnaire. Ultimately the Romans beat the Greeks... so it seems that the sword > spear.

In short... A sword about 18 inches long is the most effective ancient weapon.

Answer 3

For a single combatant, the most effective weapon would be a sword. The reason is because with a proper sword you have the choice to slash, chop, or stab an opponent. The weapon is generally lighter than a battle-axe and you have a better chance of deflecting an opponent's weapon.

Axes are the second best for their power. A well balanced axe can split a skull with very little effort, and with a little more, cleave through a helmet. It takes a bit more practice to skillfully wield an axe in battle than to wield a sword. Sword-fighting involves stances and finesse, almost like dancing, while axe-fighting involves more weapon technique and brute strength due to its shape. The major downfall of the axe is the fact that you can't stab an opponent like you can with a sword.

If I had the choice, I would personally dual-wield a sword in my main hand, and a well balanced single-headed axe in my off-hand. That way I have both at my disposal to give me more choices in dispatching an enemy.

Answer 4

Well I think it depends on the skills of the soldier and also the strategy that they will use. Even if you had a powerful gun if you don't know how to focus on your target, you won't win.

Each of the weapon you said have pros and cons...
An arrow and bow can be used for far targets. You can attack someone while hiding provided that you've mastered the proper way to use the weapon. You also need to attack the vital parts.
For swords, you also need to master the weapon, but it may be easier to use when the opponent is near you. You just have to keep on striking and defending yourself using the sword. For spears you must also good and powerful at throwing or pointing it to targets. Also, speed is important. It is better used when riding horses. For me axes are not that effective for long distance fightings may be becasue it's a little bit heavier. The handle made of wood could be broken by other weapons. It may be good for beheading people up close.

Answer 5

Depends on your situation, the romans used the gladius, short sword for very effective close range and the spear for ranged attacks, the vikings were quite effective with their hacking edged weapons and the english long bows definitely left an impression with the french at agincourt and elsewhere. Rumour persists of a long bow arrow skewering a knight or mounted soldier to his saddle and still killing his horse. Rows of spears in the squares were effective against cavalry. So pick your place to fight to suit what you have available.

Answer 6

Which war? when? who against?

Two of the most effective ever were the Masedonions (with the spear phalanx and the Roman legends with pelus sword and shield. The English and Welsh devastated armys with long bow

Answer 7

Bows and arrows... cause I'll be hiding behind the barracks like a scared little mouse.

Of course, bows and arrows are long range weapons and if you can master them, they are absolutely DEADLY.

Swords and axes are good for up close combat though, for chopping off body parts, stabbing, beheadings...

Spears would be good for impaling...

Depends on which situation,

Answer 8

That all depends on what you view as the best tactic and who you're up against. If you're physically strong, have numbers on your side, better body armor than your enemy, then hand to hand combat (sword, spear, axe, etc.) is more than likely the best way to go. However, if you have good depth perception, a steady hand, have less numbers than your enemy and armor that is basic at best, ranged combat is the way to go.

I would prefer ranged combat because I'm not all that strong but my aim is very good. I also don't like getting up-close and personal.

Answer 9

Now. Two words...Modern Medicine. Anyone who talks about honor in combat has never seen actual combat. Nothing honorable on either side. Just rough men trying to kill each other. If you have ever looked in to the eyes of someone, then taken their life, you know there is no romance in it. It sucks, so best to get it over as quickly and efficiently as possible. And no matter what I get hit with, IED, bullet, sword or rock, i want to know there is a QuikClot in the Humvee and a Blackhawk inbound to get me the hell out of there. Nowadays with gunships, jets, mortars, javelin missiles and all its just kinda like a realistic video game- You did not just say that, did you? Now you are not only ignorant about war, you are an a$$hole. Your comments degrade what our servicemen and women do everyday. If you think that war is a video game, i invite you to come try it.

Answer 10

Depends on who you are fighting and what is the distance you are fighting at. Me I love bows and arrows. Don't know why just something about sending an arrow flying to my enemies sounds and look rather intriguing, especially while riding a horse. Crazy, uh?

Answer 11

Obviously, you know nothing about armament. Bows and arrows are good at a distance. Swords are good up close and personal and spears can be used to stop a cavalry charge. The most lethal weapon at close range is the axe... especially a double headed one.