in terms of damage(RTW's attack-power)
I'm voting pike (imaging teh Kinetic energie of such a heavy thing)
as for the rest, i think:
axe=falcata (about)
2-h axe=hammer
overhead spear > underhead
longsword > shortsword
Printable View
in terms of damage(RTW's attack-power)
I'm voting pike (imaging teh Kinetic energie of such a heavy thing)
as for the rest, i think:
axe=falcata (about)
2-h axe=hammer
overhead spear > underhead
longsword > shortsword
jerby you spammer.
In terms of dammage Hamer.
If you are naget it will kill you. If you have chain mail it will still kill you. If you have full plate armour it will still kill you.
Where's the option for the Dacian Falx?
Or the rhomphaia. My vote definitely goes to it or the falx.
couldn't the same be said of axes and longswords that are end-heavy enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by LorDBulA
For two handed axe yes. Not so much for the long sword (its weight is distibuted diffrently so its easy to use).
But i prefer hammer, especialy with a spike on one end (not that i am strong enough to use one :embarassed: )
me, a spammer?
i'm just trying to get more life into here.~;)
and your probably right about the hammer. I was taking formation into account. wich i shouldn't have..
but i don't think there's a lot of material-defense against a hammer, or 2-h-axe. both have a lot of mass- with a lot of downward power. i think thebest defense would be: don't get hit, or your screwed.
but i guess this is pointless because all weapons are effective in theri own way:
-falcata's aren't as damaging as a hammer. but are more versatile/faster
-shortsword will do the least damage but are the fastest/cheapest and much easier in use
-hammers and axes..just to heavy to stop with any armor
-pikes: sheer mass for force...completly useless outside formation
-spear: less powerfull than pike but easier to use. even outside formation.
-stick: ..never mind.
I especialy like this weapon (i dont know its english name)
http://www.man.poznan.pl/~ritter/Html/nadziak.html
The ultimate answer for Plate armour (if we talk about melee weapons).
i btw guess the romphia goes along with the Kopis. or long-sword..so will teh falx...
can anybody btw tell e the difference between the falx and rhomphia?
And what about the "gladius hispaniensis" ? Strange that the most deadly weapon of antiquity isn't represented in this poll. ~:confused:
i guess that it is in this category strait-shortsword. If jerby would like to make evry weapon ever made avaible in pool it would be a very long list.
What about Halabards this was very nice weapon.
The rhomphaia is basically a longer, heavier version of the falx. More or less.
halbards were rannaissance weapons i believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by LorDBulA
Aymar, what the difference between the Gladius hispanis and teh Falcata
(or was teh gladius hispanis a short-sword like the roman gladius?)
isn't that just a plain ol' warhammer? most warhammers had a blunt side and a pick side (for piercing armor).Quote:
Originally Posted by LorDBulA
but about longswords, what about big two-handed warswords like the claymore or those massive german swords that landesknechts used? a full swing with one of those to the side of someone's head would surely do some damage regardless of armor, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LorDBulA
lol
I would say the shortsword in a thick melee cuase you have room to manouver.
It all really depends on who's using the weapon, and how they're being used. For example, a double handed weapon which needs alot of room to maneuver with would be pretty useless against a densly packed formation amoungst their ranks. I dont think there is one single best weapon, they all have their own advantages and disadvantages.
:duel:
Falcatas were shaped a little like modern Kukris, though larger. The blade is somewhat forward curved ( a little like the falx, in fact, but with a thicker, wider, shorter, blade) Thus, they were poor thrusting weapons, but very decent chopping/slashing ones. The Gladius was very well suited for thrusting, and able to chop well enough if needed. While chopping/slashing is all very well, and easier to learn/improvise, thrusting is both far more lethal in effect and more effective versus most types of armor from this period, except the heavier kataphractoi type stuff. Also, thrusting is much less energy intensive over a long period of combat, and exposes less of the attacker (especially in regards to the shield) . Finally, while this is anecdotal, puncture wounds in general are more feared by professional soldiers than lacerations, owing to the much greater mortality over time from infection/complications. Hence, why people dislike the slashing animations of gladius-weilding RomansQuote:
Originally Posted by jerby
Iskandr
You are totaly right but jerby adds in his first postQuote:
It all really depends on who's using the weapon, and how they're being used. For example, a double handed weapon which needs alot of room to maneuver with would be pretty useless against a densly packed formation amoungst their ranks. I dont think there is one single best weapon, they all have their own advantages and disadvantages.
so we have a base to choose the best weapon (damage wise).Quote:
in terms of damage
Yep it was. Are we limited only to RTW timeframe?Quote:
halbards were rannaissance weapons i believe.
Yep the basic design is the same. But it is a weapon invented in XV century especialy for opening medieval cans (full plate aromur). It was small, and very effective.Quote:
isn't that just a plain ol' warhammer? most warhammers had a blunt side and a pick side (for piercing armor).
~;) trust me. i know what a falcata is...the reason i found out about EB is because i was bitching about it in the Arena (or so)..i've been a major fan ever since ~;)
the weird thing is. some schoar says the falacata/kopis wasn't really that bad at thrusting. because of teh weight distribution the blade will "pull itself in" when enetring the body.
but i should rephrase my question: isn;t the "gladius hispanis" a regular short-sword?
Dudes damage wise id say a 3 headed flail ( with spiked iron balls not metal rods)
that's medieval...i'm talking about EB's time period weapons..shoudl ahve stated that..srry
Where is the kontus or xyston? That would certaintly be the best. After that, an Iranian longsword. But bows are the best. ~D
knew you'd say that..
count the Iranian sword as a long-sword..
and i guess i didn't take in cav-weapons designed for charge-retreat battles because i dont think of that as "melee"
Well, they are two completelly different swordsQuote:
Originally Posted by jerby
The falcata is similar in shape if not exactly in size to the greek kopis and they are both derivated from the greek machoira. All are single edged curved heavy tiped swords (almost medium length). They are in fact a kind of saber very apt to powerfull downward cutting slashes.
An original:
http://www.historialago.com/leg_iberos_i_falcata_01.jpg
Two modern reproductions:
http://swordforum.com/swd/dt/dt-falcata-largesand.jpghttp://www.historialago.com/venta_espadas_falc_01.jpg
The gladius hispanniensis is a straight and wide double edged pointy short sword apt to fast stabbing movements. It can cut in both edges but it's prefered use is the stab. This one is the sword the Romans copied (and later modified but never really improved in terms of quality) to replace the leaf-shaped short sword they used earlier.
Two originals:
https://img43.imageshack.us/img43/67...a180romese.jpg http://www.historialago.com/leg_arma...pugio_d_01.jpg
Replicas of Roman versions:
http://www.larp.com/legioxx/gladii2.jpghttp://www.larp.com/legioxx/gladii3.jpg
See the difference? ~:)
yeah..i see it.
~;) i dont see why that doesn't belong with teh short-swords-option
OK. It is a short sword. But I thought you wold be more specific to RTW's time in the poll...Quote:
Originally Posted by jerby
me? specifik? ~D you should know better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aymar de Bois Mauri
i was generalising a lot when i made it. and mainly doing this from teh top of my head.
spears were off course there. so were short-swords. somethign reminded me of teh Iranian longsword: so thats were teh longsword-option came from. I ahve a crush for the kopis/falcata, so that's there.and the rest came from troops that made a good impression on me/i remebered.
still no votes for an underhead-spear, will it even be in eb? (triarii perhaps?)
I believe the Warhammer is also a medieval weapon
Hammers where used in RTW timeframe but they where very rare (there is one unit on hammer armed troops in EB).
[QUOTE=LorDBulA]You are totaly right but jerby adds in his first post so we have a base to choose the best weapon (damage wise).
Ok, well personally I think that the gladius is pretty awesome, the thought of having it thrust through your gut and then up behind the ribcage seems quite painfull. Picture that potential carried by a ten wide five deep red mass, thrusting away their gladius swords!
In terms of looks though, I love celtic short swords, the shapes of the pummels and hilts are fantastic. And I also like greek swords, especialy those wieghted tip swords used by their cavalry.
vote biffy! vote! that's what you're here for!
Oh, I see, sorry I'm a bit of a greenhorn in this forum.
~:) we all were...
swords are still preference i see..
Lol, your hot on this forum arent you?
watching a movie now..
the joy of having a TV and a comp 2m apart form each other...
my basic routine is: school-homework-tv-dinner-comp.
comp:-check msn, check email, check forums..
3 forums to be exact...
especially in teh weekends i'm on EB a lot..
UP-date.Up-date Up-date!!!!
so basically.. i'm here a lot..but the only knowledge i have of the period is inetrnet-looking for Falcata's, reading Valerio-massimo-manfredi and Steven pressfield and whatever EB says ~;)
Oh, I thought you meant realistically. In reality, the one-handed axe is one of the most underrated weapons of all time, because it tends to be unwieldy; with an experienced hand, however, a man with a one-handed axe and a shield is unbeatable, because the axe just keeps coming down. In RTW- I have no idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerby
no no..you got me right.
what i meant was: what will do the most damage in real life. and as a clarification for "damage" i mentioned the "RTW attack-strength"
come on short sword!
Id say a pike, keep the enemy at a distance.
Voted for the Axe.
To be picky, you need to define melee.
If you mean hand-to-hand combat during a battle between "formations" of troops, then the short-sword or sarissa would score best.
If you mean in single-combat or broken formations, I think the falcion or axe would do best, since either can block effectively and strike hard.
If you mean unarmored single-combat, weapons only, then I want my underhanded spear to protectmy pink hide with distance.
If you mean melee between cavalry in this era, then I'd like a sword for the cut and thrust and a lot of javelins (can use as pointy stick if needed).
Seamus
That's a warhammer in English. I know absolutely no Polish, though, so I can't tell you if it's a footman's hammer or a horseman's hammer. It's a decent weapon, but difficult with which to land a lethal blow unless your opponent is armoured and a little slow (those two usually go together).Quote:
Originally Posted by LorDBulA
I voted "Axe", referring to a hand-axe. I agree with Meatwad, but even better about a hand-axe is that once your shield is out of use, the larger ones are two-hand compatible. As well, you can't throw two-handed axes as well as a one-hander.
i voted 2 handed axe, the enemy cant fight when they are cleaved in two
but it is unyieldy
I voted for the short sword. I think the Roman gladius would have been the most effective. Pikes and spears can be broken, and then you are really in trouble. The two-handed axe is very risky, if you miss, you're dead. The one handed axe has the disadvantage in that you can see it coming, and therefore block it or avoid it much more easily. Longswords were probably the second best, because they are nowhere near as flexible in combat. The gladius was the best becasue the Romans used it for stabbing, not slashing. It is much harded to block than a swinging sword.
I'd have to say Falcata.
The Mind :book:
The Pen. :rtwyes:
I would agree, but at least in the ancient world, you have to admit that the pen failed both Demosthenes and Cicero…Quote:
The Pen
a two handed axe up the ass realy realy hurts
Enlightening.
Bayonet. Best bits of a spear and gladius.
The gun it is attatched to is quite handy too...
My wit; sharpest thing around. ~D
Should be hard to general eyes.
Depends also what is opposition. :balloon2:
Paper cuts a stone, but falcata cuts paper. :bow:
Shield to go with that gladius, sir?
If not, may be 2 hand weapon with further reach make you look like unimpressive hobbit. ~:cheers:
Pike and gladius perfect for army units that used them, may be for 1 on 1 melee I say some thing like falx, but I may be stupid fool for saying this. ~D
True. Let us not forget that the main weapon of the Roman legion was not the gladius, but the scutum.
I voted under-arm spear, only to find out that I chose the least popular option. (It's just you and me, so far, Simmetrical.) I was thinking here of infantry weapons and ones to be used in massed formations (not single combat).
The main reason I chose the spear is is that if we look at the popularity of weapons in the pre-gunpowder age, the spear just predominates in virtually every era. Only in the era of full plate is it superceded by its evolutions - the pike and the halberd. Even in the era of the gun, the bayonet effectively makes a firearm into a spear. You could say that is just a function of its low cost, but I don't buy that as many warriors would have a sword or something as a secondary weapon. Even in the musket age, I think nations could have afforded swords as well as muskets if the sword was truly better than the bayonet (spear). No, I infer the reason that the spear predominates is that warriors and soldiers - or the people who equipped them - believed it to be the most effective melee weapon.
The advantages of the spear are:
(1) Stand-off ability - perhaps particularly useful against cavalry.
(2) Reach.
(3) Penetration (when thrust with two hands).
(4) Probably requires less training to be effective than some other melee weapons.
(5) Can be effectively used in relatively dense formations.
Now, there are some exceptions to my argument that the spear predominated. The Romans, with their gladius are the most puzzling. [I confess I voted without spotting the option of the pike, but essentially the pike is just a spear taken to its logical extremes - maximising some benefits at the cost of inflexibility and a higher requirement of training.] From the success of the Romans, it seems clear that the spear was not that superior to the gladius or the legions would have been the ones slaughtered, rather than doing the slaughtering. But the fact remains that even the Romans moved away from sword-armed infantry and not many later armies followed their approach.
i agree with neongod,
most users of short-swords had their shield as a primary weapon. hoplites mainly tried to bowl over their opponents, just like roman infantry.
I'm going with Hammers myself, those big Late Medieval warhammers with the spikes on the back are *really* nasty.
Hahaha, I have one I like to swing around in the backyard and beat up trees with ~D
that's really disturbing....
Actually, it sounds like fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerby
Speaking of which, does anyone know anything about "Heavy Combat"? I heard it was like a recreational version of medieval or ancient fighting, with dummy weapons that don't actually kill you.
Oh, I see... ~:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero1
http://www.broadway.org.uk/films/Feb...20massacre.jpg
Hahaha, sometimes I also like to pretend I'm a viking berserker and the trees are monks at a monestary I'm raiding :duel:
You forgot the biggest advantage of the spear, it's dirt cheap to produce.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton