Best weapon of ancient war

[wolveraptor]

Feel free to move this as is appropriate. I had a seed of an idea for a novel, and it has to do with a bunch of kickass warriors conquering the ancient world in a sort of alt-history.

Two major weapons I can recall of ancient armies were pike or spear phalanxes (Macedonians) and short sword-shield combos (Romans).

One disadvantage of the Macedonian phalanx was it's ability to be broken up by terrain abnormalities, plus the infinite ease with which it was outmaneuvered. I planned to give my warriors short, 6 ft spears that could be used for beheading and slashing as well as stabbing: sort've like a mini-halbred, you might say.

The other weapons is far more firmly rooted in history: the Romans used the shield and Gladius to great effect, blocking the massive swinging swords of barbarians and taking down the massive warriors with a single thrust to the throat or heart. Plus, they looked wicked cool in the "Troy" movie.

[LadyTevar]

The Romans also had javelins (whose proper name escapes me at the moment) that were made to stick in the enemy's shields and warp so they couldn't be removed. The enemy would have to throw away his shield or have a 4-6 ft (2m) stick of wood weighing his shield down.

The Gladius were extremely good at close-quarters cut-n-thrust fighting, where you had troops advancing in formation and using the shields to cover each other. When the formations broke, the barbarian sarasax or other heavy slashing blades were deadly, crushing and slicing thru even the centurians' crested helms with relative ease.

Oh, a note about "TROY": Those shouldn't have been Gladius. The Greeks were using an earlier model often called a 'leaf-blade'. It was a bronze slashing weapon, weighted more to the tip than a gladius. Think of a sharped club, with the damage more from the weight behind the blow than the slice itself.

[Imperial Overlord]

Pilium is the word your looking for Lady Tevar.

[LadyTevar]

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!"

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

The spear was always the ultimate weapon up until the proliferation of gunpowder. It was ridiculously cheap and easy to make, easy to use, the cavalry deterrant, and lent itself well to phalanx tactics to boot.

A spear/shield combo would probably be the most effective. If you have the materials and technology, swords make effective close-range weapons, but lack the ability to halt cavalry in its tracks.

[Master of Ossus]

The other weapons is far more firmly rooted in history: the Romans used the shield and Gladius to great effect, blocking the massive swinging swords of barbarians and taking down the massive warriors with a single thrust to the throat or heart. Plus, they looked wicked cool in the "Troy" movie.

There should not have been a Gladius in Troy. The swords during the bronze age had to be kept short because of material constraints, and not by design as with the Gladius.

[LadyTevar]

That's the problem with finding the 'best weapon' ... each one is actually built for a certain purpose so it's hard to compare them, even sword to sword. You'd not use a claymore at a fencing match, right?

There is an archelogical site in England iirc where they found a warrior's skeleton with pieces of his shattered hip stuck in his upper rib cage and collar bone from the force of the blow that hit him. I forget if they had enough evidence to say whether it was a blow from an axe or mace, but it more than likely killed him within seconds from the shrapnel cutting up his internal organs.

Nasty thought, isn't it. I can say that a 'mass weapon' such as an axe, morning star, or mace was the king of the plate-metal battlefield. The weight of the mace or morning star would crush the metal and shatter bone, the axe would crush the plate and cut thru the weak links to the flesh inside. Just the sheer velocity the morning star was capable of could snap necks or break limbs, even if the weighted balls didn't connect fully.

[LadyTevar]

The spear was always the ultimate weapon up until the proliferation of gunpowder. It was ridiculously cheap and easy to make, easy to use, the cavalry deterrant, and lent itself well to phalanx tactics to boot.

A spear/shield combo would probably be the most effective. If you have the materials and technology, swords make effective close-range weapons, but lack the ability to halt cavalry in its tracks.

While "Braveheart" had many non-historical moments, the pikemen facing the Cavalry charge made it PAINFULLY obvious what a simple length of fire-hardened sharpen wood can do.

[wolveraptor]

A problem I had with the spear is it's propensity to be lost/broken, and the fact that pulling back for a massive thrust could inadvertantly hit your allys behind you in the face. The big spear thrust was something I saw my warriors doing to smash the frontlines of any enemy backwards, with pure force. Of course, I don't know if wooden spears could handle that kind of force.

Some questions: could a skilled soldier percievably use his shield to block massive swords and step up close to his opponent with a death thrust, even without formation? Or would such powerful blows knock the shield from the combatant's hand, or crush it? What if a shield were made of metal? Would it be far too heavy and expensive to be used widely?

[wolveraptor]

And another thing? Weren't the spears of Spartans made totally of bronze? Or was that just their shields?

[Lord Zentei]

"Best" in what sense? In the case of "vs" scenarios there will never be a single weapon that beats all others; you may well be confronted with "scissors-paper-stone" situations. Also, environmental factors will be highly influential.

[LadyTevar]

A problem I had with the spear is it's propensity to be lost/broken, and the fact that pulling back for a massive thrust could inadvertantly hit your allys behind you in the face. The big spear thrust was something I saw my warriors doing to smash the frontlines of any enemy backwards, with pure force. Of course, I don't know if wooden spears could handle that kind of force.

In formation, spears are usually used from the backrow, behind the sword & shieldbearers. The spearmen thrust their weapons out between their allies to impale the opponents, or to simply move/shove a shield just enough for a swordthrust to hit. Having most of the weapon in front of you keeps it from hitting the men that might be behind.
As for the 'big spear thrust' breaking the haft, most spears are made of hardwood and have a lot of strength as well as a 'give' along the length. A good spearhaft can bend slightly to absorb the power behind a thrust without cracking.

Some questions: could a skilled soldier percievably use his shield to block massive swords and step up close to his opponent with a death thrust, even without formation? Or would such powerful blows knock the shield from the combatant's hand, or crush it? What if a shield were made of metal? Would it be far too heavy and expensive to be used widely?

A Skilled Warrior is one who can avoid the massive swords, or take the blows at an angle away from his body. This is one reason why helms are curved or angular, to prevent the full power of the blow from connecting.

As for shields, there were many classic shapes/weights for them: Buckler, targe/circle, heater, kite, and the wall shield, and the roman shield.

The buckler was hand-held, often less than 2ft across. This is the one you see in many Roman gladitorial games. It was often metal, since the small size allowed it to be light enough to carry, and was used to block thrusting weapons.

The circle shield is the one often depicted in Viking movies hanging along the sides of a longship. Viking shields were wooden, often with thin metal strapping for strength and sometimes leather wrapped face. The Scottish Targe is a variation of this, with a metal circle in the center for more strength.

The 'heater' is the classic shield-shape, flat and wide at the top then curving down to a point. Most were metal-banded wood, a few were metal in later periods when the joust was common sport. Often painted with the symbols (arms) of the wielder or his lord.

Kite shields are best seen on the Bayeux Tapestry (sp). These were more for cavalry, as the shape allowed the maxium coverage for man and horse.

Roman shields are the ones everyone's seen countless times, but there were actually two versions. The first was a wooden oval that covered a man from shoulders to just below the knees. The second was a wooden square slightly curved to fit the soldier's body. Some call it the 'war shield'.

The Wall shield was a flat plane as tall as a man or sometimes larger. It was either stationary for archers to use as cover, or carried by a shield bearer to protect the sword or spearman he was paired with.

[Drooling Iguana]

The spear was always the ultimate weapon up until the proliferation of gunpowder.

And even for quite a while afterward, in the form of the bayonet.

[Master of Ossus]

And another thing? Weren't the spears of Spartans made totally of bronze? Or was that just their shields?

The Spartans used wood handles, if that's what you're talking about. The Greek civilization was at its height during the Bronze Age, and they didn't have steel weapons at that time.

[tharkûn]

A problem I had with the spear is it's propensity to be lost/broken, and the fact that pulling back for a massive thrust could inadvertantly hit your allys behind you in the face. The big spear thrust was something I saw my warriors doing to smash the frontlines of any enemy backwards, with pure force. Of course, I don't know if wooden spears could handle that kind of force.

Make them ash (hardwood with nice grain), make them longer, and forget about beheadings and most slashing. Spears in formation do not do well with lateral movement. An overhanded grip is going to be wacking the guy next to you should you go for beheading. An underhanded grip is going to be quite difficult to get the requisite momentum with exposing yourself and dying.

could a skilled soldier percievably use his shield to block massive swords and step up close to his opponent with a death thrust, even without formation?

How skilled is his opponent? With equally skilled opponents, I'd bet on the swordsman being able to step inside the thrust or bat it ... in which case the spearman dies.

Or would such powerful blows knock the shield from the combatant's hand, or crush it?

Only if he is using one of the smaller shields, weaker shields, or something screwy. It takes a mighty powerful sword stroke to go through a good shield, getting the momentum tends to leave peopl with part of their chest - side exposed. Which is an excellent chance to thurst, perhaps into the armpit.

What if a shield were made of metal?

It would be quite costly and heavy or small.

Would it be far too heavy and expensive to be used widely?

Yes.

Frankly I'd ditch the short spears. What exactly do you hope to gain? At close range your average grunt is still going to be hard pressed to use it effectively against a short sword. At longer ranges a longer spear is a large advantage (and part of the reason why the Greeks beat the Persians). Historicly short spears lost out to long spears; there was a reason.

And another thing? Weren't the spears of Spartans made totally of bronze? Or was that just their shields?

No. They had wooden shafts (and many of the shields were wooden as well). A wholly bronze spear is quite heavy and wouldn't break nearly as often.

And even for quite a while afterward, in the form of the bayonet.

Bayonets are not spears; at least no more than pike. You fight differently and have remarkedly different tactics.

[Sea Skimmer]

A club, you cannot beat the shear efficiency of design and effect on target

[brianeyci]

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.

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

Why not a Carthaginian war elephant?

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

Why not a sling or slingers?

Granted some sound more exotic than your huge-wall-o-spears or Roman ripoff, but conquer the world in style .

Brian

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Granted some sound more exotic than your huge-wall-o-spears or Roman ripoff, but conquer the world in style .

Brian

It is impossible to be any more stylish than the Romans.

And I'm only half-joking, they did quite literally define Western culture after all.

[Surlethe]

I'm going to second brianeyci, and say you should have your heroes develop the longbow early. That way, they massacre the enemy forces from long range, and then you can have them cut the enemy up at short range with Roman tactics.

I can see it now: your kickass army lines up between two hills. The enemy advances to engage, and suddenly, archers on the hills begin to rain arrows down into the enemy. Their formations break under the surprise unveiling of the new weapon, and finally the firing cuts off -- just as the main body of your army charges. Victory!

[brianeyci]

It is impossible to be any more stylish than the Romans.

And I'm only half-joking, they did quite literally define Western culture after all.

Sigh who can argue with that, but a Roman legion is such an obvious symbol that it would be hard constructing something like it that wouldn't draw immediate parallels. It might not be a bad thing but imagine...

...hundreds of chariots, maneuvering on a plain, outflanking the enemy and picking off their infantry as they eventually lose discipline and mindlessly tried to charge and catch up only to have the chariots retreat out of range. or huge torrasque type beasts charging like war elephants, or even Surlethe's idea of using the longbow, all taking out hoplite formations!

Brian

[Centurian99]

Take your Chariots...I'll take a Cataphract or a Mongol horseman...

[outcast]

Well, in the right hands, a Halberd could be absolutely devastating, and has multiple functions. And i imagine that a flail could dish out some serious pain. I suppose it all depends on the circumstances, but given the overall prevailance of the Sword, it should definitely be considered the nr.1 weapon of all time. It's ruled the earth for a very long time.

[CmdrWilkens]

The most deadly weapon...starvation. Seiges from the time of the Assyrians conquest through the Romans and then on into the middle ages and even into more modern warfare such as at Bataan or Corregidor. Hunger has killed and weakend soldiers, sapped their morale and left them open to errors of judgement that ended their chances of winning. Alexander and Julius Caesar's great campaigns relied heavily on seige warfare and the diminishment by starvation of the defenders and though both are remembered more for their battles in the open the cities and regions they conquered were won by seiges.

[tharkûn]

Any imperial army is always going to have combined arms. The Greeks had cavalry, Egyptian chariots had infantry, and we cannot forget the Roman auxillia.

The problems empires faced was not how to make kickass troops, but how to afford all of them. "The added bonus of a horse" starts requiring a massive economic cost in terms of ancient economies; likewise the more fun stuff you play with the longer training times are going to run. If you want a cavalry dominated army you need to have an empire: richer than sin or have cheap abundent horses (which almost always implied nomads wandering the pastures).

The bulk of your fighting forces are going to need to be infantry, and relatively cheap to outfit, train, and deploy. You should of course have special units to get combined arms (i.e. archers were used by everyone and slingers were also quite common); but the bulk of any ancient fighting force is going to have to be infantry or have good reason for the normal economic restraints to be inapplicable.

Using the longbow is not going to be a suprise tactic. The draw weight on those suckers were friggen huge and it took a lifetime to become decent at them. The English required so much archery training they actually banned other sports while holding government sponsored archery tournies to keep the supply of archers flowing.

Kickass warriors conqueoring the ancient world are going to have to deal with the economic limitations of the ancient world. Horses are bloody expensive, training up masses of longbowmen takes generations, massed chariots require even more money than horses (and have serious problems with broken terrain). If you want to conqueor the ancient world you will need troop numbers at least comparable to Alexander, and like Alexander you will need to quickly and cheaply integrate new recruits into the ranks. Spears and swords were the most economical to use in number.

[Gil Hamilton]

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