Best weapon of ancient war

[wolveraptor]

If we're talking about mobility and an open field, why not chariot? Why not the bow and arrow for that matter, although drawn to chest and not to head in ancient times IIRC, wouldn't a mass of bow and arrows even drawn Greek style be superior to any heavy hoplite formation? Piilum have already been mentioned.

Are you suggesting that the main weapon of the main body of soldiers be bows? That's ludicrous. Bows were and always have been support weapons.

Why not the lance, a big mutha-fukin' spear with the added bonus of a horse?

If by lance, you mean spear, then sure. Every army has a cavalry division. Mostly. Lances themselves are less versatile after the first charge; they don't really have big spear-heads to stab people with.

Why not a Carthaginian war elephant?

Because they're fucking expensive, hard to maintain, and really only useful for scare tactics.

Why not Mongolian calvary and their crossbows (considered ancient?)

You realize that these "ancient" mongol crossbows were practically in the late Medieval age in Europe?

Why not a sling or slingers?

Bah, that shit sucks compared to bows and arrows.

A question about maces and clubs: were they known to easily destroy shields, even metal ones?
Also, why did medieval warriors ditch the shield in favor of massive broadswords?[/quote]

[Drooling Iguana]

Also, why did medieval warriors ditch the shield in favor of massive broadswords?

Did they? I thought that was mostly a Holywood fabrication, and that real warswords were pretty much always of a sensible size.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

'Broadsword' is a misnomer, I assume you're referring to the vast array of two-handed swords which came into use in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance. I am not exactly an expert in area, so more knowledgeable folks feel free to correct me; Large, two-handed swords were popular for their ability to deal with both the heavier armor common to the period as well as cavalry to some extent.

And I doubt maces are going to be terribly effective against a good shield, though certainly moreso than a sword which will simply get stuck in it.

[wolveraptor]

Well shit man, I don't know. I thought it was a carry-over from the barbarian German tribes. I remember that the peasantry used maces or weapons that didn't require skill so much as strength.

[wilfulton]

Actual medieval swords were typically less than 4 pounds of iron. Anything over 8 pounds was purely ceremonial, as it was held to be completely useless in combat. Most weapons have their own strengths and weakness.

Daggers/short swords- light easy to carry, quick to employ, don't recommend fighting with them as an army because of their short reach.

Long swords- well balanced, can't cut through plate armor very readily. That they are a more "refined" weapon, doesn't account for much on the battlefield really, but it does sound nice if you're writing fiction. This is actually something to keep in mind.

maces, warhammer, flails, clubs- heavy on the business end, slower to employ in some cases (although not always). Able to crush armor and the person inside.

axes- chop through armor and bone quite readily, seen as a more of a brute's weapon, however, while the sword is held to be more refined (that's more of a social thing than a practical one though). Generally, barbarians use axes, the more "refined" use swords. (Conan was just "da man").

halberds- the long handle gives an incredible amount of leverage. Halberds are slow to employ, but good for some heavy chopping. Like cleaving through that guy in full plate armor that's been pissing you off all day.

Spears- ultimate way to reach out and touch someone.

Bows, crossbows- better reach than spears, the latter is more of a sniper's weapons due to the low rate of fire, the former is excellent for leveraging en masse.

If you want to see some demonstrations of medieval weapons, and their effectiveness, Cold Steel makes a video to advertise its products (mostly knives, but they sell swords, maces, spears, and battle axes too, all are well made and top quality).

Personally, I am a lover of the sword (just in case you couldn't tell), and I have a Schiavona of my own (although that was renaissance and not medieval), I have to add another dimension here.

DO NOT FORGET HEAVY SUPPORT WEAPONS.

Hand held weapons are nice, but are woefully inadequate to break down the castle gates. For this task you need the battering ram, which requires several people working together with what is basically a large hammer.

Also there is the catapult, good for getting into position quickly and lobbing barrels of flaming oil on the enemy, never forget fire as a weapon. While truthfully it has been responsible for few actual casualties, the psychological shock from the possibility of being burned alive is enough to break even the most hardened troops.

The trebuchet is the catapult's big brother. Basically a combination of the catapult and slingshot. The bigger models probably take forever and a day to set up, and require a rather prominent crew to operate (some supposedly as many as 120 men, or more IIRC), but are capable of launching a one ton rock for up to 3/4 of a mile. That's a lot of hurt folks.

The ballista is neat and all, but I'm not really 100% sure what it's real use is (the one in mind right now is the giant crossbow that launches big spears, not its other derivatives. Think of it as the ballista you saw in Warcraft II). Those spears might be able to penetrate lightly built timbers, but I don't see them useful against stone fortifications.

[wilfulton]

'Broadsword' is a misnomer, I assume you're referring to the vast array of two-handed swords which came into use in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance. I am not exactly an expert in area, so more knowledgeable folks feel free to correct me; Large, two-handed swords were popular for their ability to deal with both the heavier armor common to the period as well as cavalry to some extent.

And I doubt maces are going to be terribly effective against a good shield, though certainly moreso than a sword which will simply get stuck in it.

Large, two-handed swords were good at cutting the heads off of pikes (18 foot spears that you can't really wield very well in close combat, but was the most powerful deterrent to cavalry until the development of the rifle). Those two handed swords could be used against horsemen, true, but a spear was still the better way to go. Remember you have a 1500 pound animal coming your way and if you just wound it, it won't be too happy with you. Being able to keep it at a distance until it bleeds out is important if you're trying to avoid having a horseshoe imprint on your face.

Two handed swords were able to defeat armor, but that was more actually the realm of the mace, warhammer, and halberd. Two handed swords are also much harder to use from horseback, unless you had some midget the medeval equivalent of rachet strapped or duct taped to your body to hold the reigns for you.

The mace was a devastating weapon, it could crush a shield, and the arm holding it. Also, remember that the force of blow still has to be absorbed by the person holding the shield. A solid mace blow could drive the shield back into them. Making him eat the corner of his own shield is one way to deal with people you don't like.

Then again, never forget the ultimate killer of men in war has always been disease. Up until the 20th century, more men died of illness than of wounds suffered in combat. Launching cages full of rats from your catapults into the enemy's walled up city might seem a bit anti-climatic, but the plague is not your friend.

[wolveraptor]

On mace size: I'm almost sure that massive, two-handed maces would shatter wooden shields and quite possibly break the arm of one who held a metal shield.

An advantage, though, when facing those kinds of enemies, would be that the mace-user would be given plenty of room by his fellow soldier. Having some room to maneuver while fighting the guy would help, so that you didn't necessarily have to try and block every blow. And I imagine a single missed-swing would totally leave that sucker open.

[Eleas]

If we're talking about mobility and an open field, why not chariot? Why not the bow and arrow for that matter, although drawn to chest and not to head in ancient times IIRC, wouldn't a mass of bow and arrows even drawn Greek style be superior to any heavy hoplite formation? Piilum have already been mentioned.

Are you suggesting that the main weapon of the main body of soldiers be bows? That's ludicrous. Bows were and always have been support weapons.

Untrue. The Mongol hordes used bows as their main weapon, and they devastated their opponents for countless years.

[Surlethe]

Untrue. The Mongol hordes used bows as their main weapon, and they devastated their opponents for countless years.

Didn't the Mongols use the bows in the context of hit-and-run cavalry attacks?

[dworkin]

The bronze to iron age transition is an interesting one. Several 'iron' gods existed. One of their common ceremonies is the sacrificing of a slave by plunging the blade you were forging into said slave and if the god accepted your sacrifice your weapon would be 'blessed' (a primitive grade of steel). Don't know about the authenticity of the above, but it's a good yarn regardless. Blood for the blood (iron) god indeed.

[Bounty]

Pilium is the word your looking for Lady Tevar.

Bless you, Imp. My mind would only tell me "you know it! It starts with a P!"

It's actually "Pilum", not "Pilium".

[Crayz9000]

Duh, the best weapon of ancient war was the trebuchet!

Oh, wait. We're talking about hand-carried weapons here... Well, there's always the siege crossbow, isn't there?

OK, ok. I'd have to go with the gladius due to its sheer versatility when used appropriately.

[Eleas]

Untrue. The Mongol hordes used bows as their main weapon, and they devastated their opponents for countless years.

Didn't the Mongols use the bows in the context of hit-and-run cavalry attacks?

Yes, and their soldiers were cavalry, predominantly.

At least in this context, which I took to be the main weapon of the armed forces, the bow is an appropriate choice.

[General Brock]

Also, why did medieval warriors ditch the shield in favor of massive broadswords?

Sheilds were redundant after the introduction of plate armour, and massive broadswords never did catch on big because of the expense in time, iron, and training needed to weild them. The spear in various incarnations was the weapon of choice; cheap, easy to weild, and multi-functional, as it could be used for hunting and civillian self defense so you could get away with having one if you kingdom happened to ban commoners from owning arms.

A really cool weapon would be a light halbred like the Japanese naginata, or some version of the Chinese dao dao. Since you want a Western flavour, something like an estoc or tuck, which was a narrow sword, almost a rod, meant to poke through gaps and weak points in armour. It proved to be a light, yet efficient weapon that the upper class warriors took to carrying off-duty. In Spain it became the civillian espada de ropera (sword worn with clothing, as opposed to armour); that is, the rapier, which revolutionized the sword arts in the west. I think the only rapier to make it as a military weapon was the papenheimer, during the Thirty Years War and it was unfashionably pretensious for commoners to weild it.

More popular was falchion, a really big cleaver meant to open up plate armour and favoured by the Flemish town militias of the late medieval era.

Without knowing the exact tech level of your novel, it is tough to say what would be cool and best. Even the bronze-age Cretan nobles carried rapier-like thrusting swords, even though bronze was much better suited to short chopping swords. As mentioned by others, plate armour began to go out of style because a crossbow, longbow, warhammer, mace, or pike could ruin the huge investment on the cheap, and full armour began to be used only for ceremony and sport. By the late medieval era, partial armour was worn by most soldiers, and armies were much larger and better trained, so lighter more maneouvorable arms such as the backsword and buckler became more practical to field.

The Egyptian Kopis, which is like a really large Ghurka knife, was the forerunner of this weapon, and I really favour it over the gladius:

Extremely Cool Sword

The falcata's got everything; it cool, it effective, it a masterpiece of design and technical execution. This is the weapon to conquer empires with. It slashes, it thrusts, it dices, it cleaves, what more could you possibly want for home defense or pillaging (pre-gunpowder) barbarous lands?

[Elheru Aran]

I'd think the most devestating ancient weapon would be the crossbow. It revolutionized warfare on it's introduction.

Not particularly. While it was useful enough, its primary utility was as a sniping weapon and against heavy armour; it is noteworthy that the 200 Geonese crossbowmen on the French side ran like curs when Welsh archers on the English side at some battle during the Hundred Years' War let rip...

[Centurian99]

Untrue. The Mongol hordes used bows as their main weapon, and they devastated their opponents for countless years.

Didn't the Mongols use the bows in the context of hit-and-run cavalry attacks?

Yes, and their soldiers were cavalry, predominantly.

At least in this context, which I took to be the main weapon of the armed forces, the bow is an appropriate choice.

Horse archers pretty much dominated anyone they came up against. The only reason they didn't overrun Europe is that the leader of the Mongol Tribes died after they defeated the Polish and Hungarians, so they all went home to Mongolia and fought a civil war to determine the successor.

[sketerpot]

The ballista is neat and all, but I'm not really 100% sure what it's real use is (the one in mind right now is the giant crossbow that launches big spears, not its other derivatives. Think of it as the ballista you saw in Warcraft II). Those spears might be able to penetrate lightly built timbers, but I don't see them useful against stone fortifications.

The Ballista was an antipersonnel weapon. It had good range and was intimidating as hell. It's definitely not meant for use against buildings.

[wolveraptor]

The timeline takes place mostly in ancient times, even before the rise of Rome, though I'm thinking of expanding into that just for coolness. In any case, it stays firmly out of medieval times. So plate armor isn't a an issue, nor are crossbows. The units I'd be facing would probably be spear phalanxes, chariots, and maybe short-sword/shield combos.

I imagine I'd equip the bulk of my army with short swords (haven't decided what kind yet) and small metal shields. If our enemy had any significant cavalry division, I'd have a group of soldiers equipped with spears as well as the usual armament. I wonder if such spears could double as javelins? If so, all my soldiers would have spears, and if there were no cavalry, they'd hurl the missiles much like Roman armies. My soldiers would not be wearing heavy armor, which would increase, to some extent, their maneuvering capability on the battle field. I'd also spread my lines out so that a large group of soldiers weren't stuck in the middle. I haven't made any real decisions about how my cavalry units would be arranged. I know, though, that I would have no worries about cavalry archers, who would otherwise utterly devastate my army. Since there was no stirrup, there could be no effective hit-and-run archers.

Were maces and axes used to great effect in that period?

[wolveraptor]

I just thought of something: how does the curved Thracian sword stand up against other short sword-type weapons, such as the gladius and falcata?

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

I just thought of something: how does the curved Thracian sword stand up against other short sword-type weapons, such as the gladius and falcata?

The falx was rather nasty, it could cleave right through the legionaries' helms. I'm not sure how it would fare as a standard issue weapon, especially as it was more of a "barbarian" weapon.

[wilfulton]

The timeline takes place mostly in ancient times, even before the rise of Rome, though I'm thinking of expanding into that just for coolness. In any case, it stays firmly out of medieval times. So plate armor isn't a an issue, nor are crossbows. The units I'd be facing would probably be spear phalanxes, chariots, and maybe short-sword/shield combos.

I imagine I'd equip the bulk of my army with short swords (haven't decided what kind yet) and small metal shields. If our enemy had any significant cavalry division, I'd have a group of soldiers equipped with spears as well as the usual armament. I wonder if such spears could double as javelins? If so, all my soldiers would have spears, and if there were no cavalry, they'd hurl the missiles much like Roman armies. My soldiers would not be wearing heavy armor, which would increase, to some extent, their maneuvering capability on the battle field. I'd also spread my lines out so that a large group of soldiers weren't stuck in the middle. I haven't made any real decisions about how my cavalry units would be arranged. I know, though, that I would have no worries about cavalry archers, who would otherwise utterly devastate my army. Since there was no stirrup, there could be no effective hit-and-run archers.

Were maces and axes used to great effect in that period?

Actually, the Romans had crossbows. They used a very short bolt (about 6 inches long). The bolt had no fletching, but was wasp waisted (narrower in the center than at the point and tail) to stabilize it in flight. Supposedly, they were effective out to 500 yards, wheras the medieval crossbow wasn't good for much beyond 250.

If you want to get really dynamic, you can start with your soldiers having relatively little armor, and armed with short swords and small shields, but perhaps some of their enemies have different methods of fighting, and over the course of the story your armies start seeing the need for better armor and weapons with a longer reach. Perhaps they adopt some of the conquered enemies tactics and techniques, since after conquering a land, the lords swear fealty to your empire, and thus provide manpower to your armies in exchange for some deal where they can be better off than they were before, say.

Actually, the mace is not much more than a glorified club, which is the oldest weapon in the world. Clubs were even used at the battle of thermopylae by the Persians. Axes have also been around since the stone age, so there's no reason they couldn't be in existance here as primary weapon.

And since there isn't a stirrup in this era, maybe you could have some old horseman develop one to make your cavalry all the more effective!

If you really want some insight to what medieval weapons can do, check out Cold Steel's products video.

[wilfulton]

www.coldsteel.com

the dvds are free, and you might get some ideas, or just be entertained

[Ypoknons]

Remember, in the classical world, weaponary doesn't play quite as big a deal as it does today. Training, flexible organization and excellent motivation really made the different in the broader scale of things.

What a really good weapon is depends on it's tactical role. The Alexandrian phalanx, for example, was great at holding enemies in place but not so good at actually cutting them down. Maces were great against armor, as the good Persian (both Parthian and Sassanid) cavalry show. The short sword was everywhere and was used by hoplites and legions alike. It's really hard to say. I'd say go rather with the image of each weapon, which one you like best.

[wolveraptor]

Isn't the spear the oldest weapon in the world, used by Cro-magnon to hunt?

I know they used axes and maces; hell, maces were the weapons of nobility in Ancient India, but were they used widely, like the sword?

As for training, the society I had in mind would be almost parrallel. Actually, only the warrior caste itself would be that way. In fact, the caste would not procreate with outsiders, so that, after thousands of years (remember this starts at the dawn of civilization, cerca 5000-6000 BC), they become slightly, but noticeably different from regular humans

[LadyTevar]

And I doubt maces are going to be terribly effective against a good shield, though certainly moreso than a sword which will simply get stuck in it.

A good mace will not only dent the shield, but the blow can injure the arm holding it. The head of the mace can also catch on the top of the shield, forcing the opponent to lower it just long enough for a telling blow to hit.