most effective melee weapon?

[Biffy]

[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.

[jerby]

vote biffy! vote! that's what you're here for!

[Biffy]

Oh, I see, sorry I'm a bit of a greenhorn in this forum.

[jerby]

we all were...
swords are still preference i see..

[Biffy]

Lol, your hot on this forum arent you?

[jerby]

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

[Reverend Joe]

in terms of damage(RTW's attack-power)

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.

[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"

[Stormy]

Oh.. yes!

[Biffy]

come on short sword!

[RandyKapp]

Id say a pike, keep the enemy at a distance.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

[GoreBag]

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).

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).

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.

[vizigothe]

i voted 2 handed axe, the enemy cant fight when they are cleaved in two

but it is unyieldy

[Ignoramus]

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.

[Zalmoxis]

I'd have to say Falcata.

[hoom]

The Mind

[khelvan]

The Pen.

[conon394]

The Pen

I would agree, but at least in the ancient world, you have to admit that the pen failed both Demosthenes and Cicero…

[Abokasee]

a two handed axe up the ass realy realy hurts

[GoreBag]

Enlightening.

[BDC]

Bayonet. Best bits of a spear and gladius.

The gun it is attatched to is quite handy too...

[Geoffrey S]

My wit; sharpest thing around.

[Bartix]

Should be hard to general eyes.

Depends also what is opposition.
Paper cuts a stone, but falcata cuts paper.

Shield to go with that gladius, sir?
If not, may be 2 hand weapon with further reach make you look like unimpressive hobbit.

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.

[GoreBag]

True. Let us not forget that the main weapon of the Roman legion was not the gladius, but the scutum.

[econ21]

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.

[jerby]

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.

[Zero1]

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

[jerby]

that's really disturbing....

[GoreBag]

that's really disturbing....

Actually, it sounds like fun.

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.