Best Weapon of the Middle Ages

[REDY]

Fear of enemy. So bad reputation, horryfying costumes, singing, etc.

 

[Taras Bulba]

Fear of enemy. So bad reputation, horryfying costumes, singing, etc.

I somewhat disagree with that aspect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrZbUS0MaY4

 

[Ninja Dude]

I'm not going to try and be very deep and say something like "fear" or "suprise" because in the end a guy that is suprised but carrying a halberd is going to kill a guy with a stick. Feelings aren't going to cut a guy into tiny little pieces. That's why the weapons in the poll were invented.

 

[WICKLC1]

I can't decide on a particular weapon, but I think a fully armed and armoured knight in the late middle ages before gunpowder would be pretty powerful.

 

[Sharwood]

I can't decide on a particular weapon, but I think a fully armed and armoured knight in the late middle ages before gunpowder would be pretty powerful.

The Scots under William Wallace managed to take them out. It could be done.

 

[aronnax]

I can't decide on a particular weapon, but I think a fully armed and armoured knight in the late middle ages before gunpowder would be pretty powerful.

They were tanks, but they were no way unstoppable. The english demostrated it three times at Crecy, Poiters and Agincourt

Turkish and Muslim missle cavalry slaughtered Crusader Armies.

 

[REDY]

I somewhat disagree with that aspect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrZbUS0MaY4

Of course thats limited, but the most succesfull fights are these without fights. British soldiers with gunpowder from your example were somewhat proffesionals when medieval armies consists mainly by
aristocracy - few men who were often more interested in prestige and leadership than real fighting
mercenaries - skilled in fighting but fighting only because money, which is strong factor but not to be killed
peasants were raised from counts belonging to their feudal master

Bohemia, which history I knows more than other was on the edge of civilised europe in middle ages. And because they were not known much in western europe, there were produced many fear and legends and that was also often part of Bohemian tactics. For example in besieging of Milan Bohemians were nearly unknown for Milanese and from it come legends that Bohemians are cannibals. When Bohemians heard it, they started building this reputation up, from behaviour to cooking and eating small figures from pasta to simulate children eating. From Hussites was fear across europe not because war wagons and cannons but because demonic aura. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kdož_jsou_Boží_bojovníci Their succes of course wasnt only because it, but besides fanatism it was their strongest weapon.

 

[sydhe]

I voted for the war hammer for its general coolness and ability to dent armor, but my real favorite is the trebuchet, which is is not listed here. Good for throwing big rocks, dead bodies, cows, grand pianos, Volkwagens, dwarfs...

 

[Taras Bulba]

@REDY... I'm not saying it wasn't a useful tactic, I'm just saying it wasn't necessarily the best weapon utilized in the medieval era. I mean, look at the Hundred years war. English were heavily favored, and after many defeats the French army, IMO, were starting to fear English/Burgundian soldiers. It was, however, negated by a crazed woman.

I'm not saying fear/surprise, and those types of things aren't useful, I'm just saying you can't always consider them the best weapon
Not to mention you're not really answering the thread question, IMO

 

[Hasdrubal Barca]

Crossbow - easy to use, mid-cost, no training or special physicall conditions required as the longbow, kills everthing and can be ready to fire just kile a firearm. The downside is the rate of fire, reloading process and limited range.

 

[Hasdrubal Barca]

double post

 

[Traitorfish]

It's hard to judge, seeing how greatly warfare evolved during the long period labelled the "Middle Ages", but, on the whole, I'd say the polearm, particularly the pike. Despite the importance of missile weapons, it was some time before the handgun asserted it's superiority over the crossbow and longbow, by which point the middle ages were rather definitely over. The pike, on the other hand, was the most effective infantry weapon from the 1200s to the early 1700s, and was used across Europe. Even the English, who clung to their beloved billhook well into the 1500s, were converted to pike warfare by 1600.

 

[Infantry#14]

repeating crossbow, not so accurate, but can fire multiple times.

 

[Metal Alloy Man]

Longbow with Crossbow close behind.

 

[Traitorfish]

repeating crossbow, not so accurate, but can fire multiple times.

That was a Chinese weapon, though, so does that really fit the typical definition of "medieval"? That said, it was used from the 4th century BC until the 19th century AD, so it gets points for longevity, if nothing else.

 

[Bast]

Love/Romance.

Just read about how Henry V wooed the French princess Catherine de Valois, got her and peace with France.

 

[Sharwood]

Love/Romance.

Just read about how Henry V wooed the French princess Catherine de Valois, got her and peace with France.

It's always bloody romance with you women, isn't it?

 

[alcal]

Danish Axe, the ace of vikings. Zweihänder, trowing axe, hammer and halberd are good too.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

They were tanks, but they were no way unstoppable. The english demostrated it three times at Crecy, Poiters and Agincourt

Turkish and Muslim missle cavalry slaughtered Crusader Armies.

And relatively small numbers of heavily armored knights often demolished lighter Muslim cavalry and infantry during the crusades as well. Horse archers were a constant menace throughout history until the development of better firearms, but the tactics to defeat them remained largely the same since Alexander's days. Maneuver them into a corner than bring down the hammer (often heavy cavalry) to crush them.

Of course that's easier said than done, but arrows usually did not pierce the heaviest armored knights and they could withstand the volley's until the horse archers ran out or until they were able to push them into tight terrain or up against an obstacle. Sometimes the obstacle was geographic, sometimes it was infantry forces playing anvil.

The heavy cavalry was countered by the Welsh longbowman, but those tactics were not employed throughout Europe. The strength and skill to effectively wield that weapon took years of training and thus it remained a trump card of the English/British rather than revolutionizing european warfare. Firearms, rather than immediately obsoleting the knight, saw the rapid improvement of cavalry armor. Your standard musket could not penetrate the better cavalry armors (unless up close) until well into the 17th century. (might be off by a century) Cavalry armors could also counter many crossbows as well.

The swiss pike formations were another matter. Frontal charged against a well disciplined pike formation was suicide. But such idiocy had been largely suicide since the days of the Greek phalanx. The smart army flanks. And even a well disciplined, veteran unit hit from the side or behind by a heavy shock charge is gonna buckle and likely break. It was down to manuever and properly softening up the pike formation (arrows were a start, cannon was better...at least once the cannons became more effective) before hitting them.

The heavy shock charge could be countered. And there certainly have been several examples of it in history. There have also been other examples in history of the shock charge demolishing those sames sorts of tactics and armies. Heavy armor of course receded and the shock charge diminished. But it did not disappear. It made frequent appearances in the Napoleonic wars and could even be seen in the American civil war, the eastern front of WW1, and even bits of WW2.

The shock charge was one of the most effective tools of warfare for almost a thousand years after the development of the stirrup.

That's my nomination. (heavy cavalry)

 

[REDY]

@REDY... I'm not saying it wasn't a useful tactic, I'm just saying it wasn't necessarily the best weapon utilized in the medieval era. I mean, look at the Hundred years war. English were heavily favored, and after many defeats the French army, IMO, were starting to fear English/Burgundian soldiers. It was, however, negated by a crazed woman.

I'm not saying fear/surprise, and those types of things aren't useful, I'm just saying you can't always consider them the best weapon
Not to mention you're not really answering the thread question, IMO

Ok, Its hard to say objectively which weapon was best. But Zulus part is also question if Zulus hadnt more fear from English than English had from Zulus.