Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.11868602 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

ITT: Weapons from throughout history you think are underestimated, or not paid enough attention.

For me, it's the flail. There's something utterly lethal about it. It doesn't so much rely on your strength as it does its own weight and momentum. Although an inept idiot could easily kill themselves with one, anyone with any common sense could easily use it to break bones and rend flesh. Perhaps not effective against the heavier sort of armour, but still an admirable weapon to use in close range against infantry, perhaps from horseback.

So, /tg/, what weapons do you admire that others simply don't?

>> No.11868628

Flail is bullshit. The only ones who ever used it were hussites and they used to it get the charging knights that survived the hail of stone and iron projectiles they shoot in their general direction from the horses and knight in heavy armor was quite useless when dismounted.

>> No.11868630

A hammer swings with the force of the human body behind it like a full body punch.

The flail cannot do that and if you did try it watch out, the bounce-back will be twice the momentum you threw at the opponent.

The reason the flail exists is to break tower shield regiments by throwing the ball up by thrusting the stick of the weapon into the air, and then yanking down where the chain is completely behind the enemies shield. Trying to break their arm.

That is why the flail exists. To break enemies with similar/same tech they did. Most battles were against ill equipped people. This is the result of fighting equals in combat. It also was a side arm weapon that hung from the belt and was regarded as an idiots weapon.

>> No.11868634

When steel came around, this was a dying weapon. I'm shocked that it wasn't re-kindled with this, actually. Capable of chopping, tripping, negating shields, and a myriad of other maneuvers, the khopesh was an extremely versatile weapon that just didn't get its fair shake in the Iron Age in my opinion.

>> No.11868635

Flail was a horrendously shitty weapon. It was more dangerous to the wielder than to the other guy, took time to spin up, and you couldn't block with it. Smacking someone on the sorbona with it did enough hurt, and you could disarm and trip untrained, clumsy oafs with it, but compared to about any other weapon a soldier could use, the flail was plain bad. Hell, even a godendag would be a better deal, and it was just a huge spiked club.

>> No.11868651

>>11868628
Somewhere around the eleventh word your post stops making sense.

>> No.11868652

FLAILS ARE TWO HANDED YOU MUPPET. THATS A MORNING STAR USED MOSTLY FROM HORSEBACK.

FLAILS WERE ORIGINALLY AN IMPROVISED WEAPON MADE FROM WHEAT THRESHERS.

AND THEY WERE VERY EFFECTIVE AGIANST ARMOUR.

>> No.11868656

While there is still discussion about if that pic is called morning star / flail (it actually cross-translates in a few languages), I can agree it was a really good weapon.

But even a master can still harm himself wielding that weapon. Well, it is true that the chain is made shorter then the wooden grip to avoid that, but every weapon attached to a chain has considerable momentum immeadiatly AFTER a hit and more likely then not bounces off in a not-predictable direction. Given these factors, it still is one hell of a weapon - hard to parry and dodge, even with a shield.

Also, I wouldnt use it from a horseback for said reasons. Your horse is a much larger target then you, more likely to be hit from the bouncing weapon. In addition, you stated that this weapon didn't primarily rely on strength - but at some point, escpeccially the impact, there is a lot of strength involved guiding the accelerated weapon.

Also, blunt weapons like this were very effective even against heavy armor, for they can knock the unwary from their feet and break bones even all the way through thick armor. Also useful at smashing wooden shields.

All in all, a great weapon, with some drawbacks. But still nothing I wouldn't shake my spear at.

>> No.11868662

>>11868652
He talked about the flail.

The morning star was posted, so what? He probably couldn't find a flail picture.

>> No.11868663

The karambit.

A fighting knife out of the Philippines. Originally used for utility and agriculture, the Filipinos adopted it into various marital arts including Eskrima and Sayoc. Very difficult to disarm, extremely controllable, and able to be used for take-downs and control. I've seen demonstrations by the like of Ray Dionaldo and it's incomprehensible how dangerous such a little blade can be in trained hands.

>> No.11868664

>> No.11868667

>>11868652
Yes, I know, it's classified as a kettenmorgenstern flail, also known as a "morning star" style of flail. I classify the morning star as a subsection of flail.

>> No.11868671

Katana.

>> No.11868674

>Perhaps not effective against the heavier sort of armour

No, hammers maces and flails all existed for this very reason.

>The only ones who ever used it were hussites

Hussites used long handled flails, more similar to the agricultural tool than OPs pic

>The flail cannot do that and if you did try it watch out, the bounce-back will be twice the momentum you threw at the opponent.

YEAH BECAUSE FUCK YOU PHYSICS

>took time to spin up

Are you serious bro?

>> No.11868689

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC5FIyfI8TA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9891vPGisw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TzdtyMC7ek
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3J-10KfRe8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r7VWIQCHvM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjT4JepA-Vc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLiVI3U65HY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKM_tXlYiag

Try to get in a fight and say flails/morning stars saved the users life.

>> No.11868705

>>11868689
I feel so embarrased for you, LARPing teenager.

>> No.11868708

>>11868674
> more similar to the agricultural tool than OPs pic
Mostly because they were peasants and it actually was the agricultural tool.

>> No.11868711

>>11868635

Now, now, the parry point won't work. It's a one-handed weapon for a lot of reasons, and number 2 is so you can use a shield in your off-hand. So no harm done.


>>11868652

Calm down, mate, we had that discussion in /tg/ like a million times. Just focus on the main points and stop raging.

Also, I wouldn't say "very effective". Thing about armor is that it's used to make certain types of attacks less effective. So something that works against armor well is just AS effective, if not less, then something that works against an unarmored person. So I'd suggest we use "effective" and "not effective" for rating weapons against heavy armor. In that context, you could rate this weapon as "effective", or "not ineffective" against heavy armor - and that's what counts, right?

>> No.11868715

The Tomahawk.

Although I'm sure some would disagree, it's one of the few weapons native to America. Versatile in that it can chop, crush, pierce, or even be thrown if the balance is decent. Also a handy tool in a pinch.

Not as good as a halberd, but you could definitely surprise a fucker with this and hurt him in any number of different ways. Or, alternatively, even hack your way through an obstacle to get to said fucker.

And as much as I hate to admit it, I extend this to the kama as well. Tomahawk-esque, but not quite. Still a good melee weapon. Not as versatile or as effective against armor, however.

>> No.11868721

>ITT: Weapons from throughout history you think are underestimated, or not paid enough attention.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPOKGzEe4sg&feature=player_embedded

Flamethrower trombones. Seriously, when was the last time someone even MENTIONED one in your campaign?

>> No.11868723

>>11868674

Agreed. Fail's were shit. Military pick is superior in all regards.

>> No.11868735

>>11868721

I'll take that on with a nailgun.

>> No.11868748

Wooden stick with a spike in it here.

All others are smalltime.

>> No.11868753

>Although I'm sure some would disagree, it's one of the few weapons native to America.

>Made in Sohlingen and other places in the ten thousands and imported for the indian trade.

Things that are not American are American now, unless they're communists.

>> No.11868754

You don't need to care about flail causing damage to user if he wears armor.

>> No.11868759

Claw gauntlets

By no means a weapon for mass warefare, the ability to disarm, rend and fishhook in close quarters without a heavy implement could be useful in many urban situations

>> No.11868769

Honestly? I don't have the same problem. Apparently everybody like halberds because they can even make men in skirts look badass.

>> No.11868770

>>11868754

..errr

>> No.11868775

>>11868753
>Made in Sohlingen

Those were hatchets.

>> No.11868778

>>11868748
>[Weapons that are] not paid enough attention.

You do not have the Ignored clearance, spearman. You are not allowed in our exclusive club.

>> No.11868779

crossbows and halberds were pretty much the most effective weapons ever until guns became popular, but they're always shit in games. now that I think of it guns are usually shit too when they show up in fantasy games.

maybe it's not a case of being underrated, but swords being massively overrated.

>> No.11868780

As for the topic, the right pic.

Keeping your distance to an opponent, useful in formations and against cavilery, can be used for slashing and stabbing, pulling a rider off a horseback, it's a real multi-tool. And against heavy armor, you can aim the spike at weak points in thrusts, or try to hack your way with the axe-ending.

Shields are a big problem, though. Even if you manage to trash it in the first attack, the figher will have moved in in the meantime. So that won't work. Just hope you find an unguarded weakspot in the armor fast enough.

>> No.11868784

>>11868759
>fishhook

Real man's fightin for real men. If you're not willing to fucking brutalize a man for whatever it is you're fighting for then perhaps it's nothing worth fighting over.

>> No.11868796

>>11868780

Well yeah, I think it's gernally agreed that the Halberd is the pinnicle of melee fighting.

I mean they were essentially the end point of the tech tree, by the time we had them people were starting to use gunpowder.

Just goes to show how good they are that the pope keeps a couple of Halberders around "just in case"

>> No.11868811

>>11868780

To be fair, OPs post was about underated weapons. Halberds were pretty much understood by everyone to be bad-ass. One decent point so far is about the kopesh. Which was seriously underated. For my own part, I would say that elephants wernt used as weapons enough.

>> No.11868824

I now want to do Marines with Power Flails

>> No.11868829

>>11868780
>Shields are a big problem, though. Even if you manage to trash it in the first attack, the figher will have moved in in the meantime. So that won't work. Just hope you find an unguarded weakspot in the armor fast enough.

Shield users kept their distance from halberd wielders for a damned good reason. Use the billhook on the end, extend past the shield, hook on and pull. Pull hard enough and the guy holding the shield is either on the ground or sans shield.

And only did the most skilled and courageous fuckers on earth go up against Swiss mercenaries with halberds and live. Best place to be against halberd-wielding Swiss is preferably in the next country. Or far, far away with a bow and a horse to flee on.

>> No.11868839

This thread is babies.

>> No.11868844

>>11868811

I for one will totally agree with Kopesh.

Also, in relation to Elephants, Alexander managed to discover if you get a guy with a two-handed scimitar to take a whack at that sucker's trunk, the sob will go fucking ballistic and ruin everyone's shit, friend or foe.

One of the reasons they ended up not being used so often.

>> No.11868845

What I never understood is how the Macedonians pwnd the whole known world using two handed pikes in like 200BC. And why pikes didnt come back into fashion until the 1600s. Riddle me that if you will.

>> No.11868849

>>11868715
That's just a generic axe, glorified by media.

>> No.11868858

>>11868811

The problem with elephants are that they are a logistical nightmare and prone to disobey orders in the heat of battle, sometimes catastrophically so. Also they come in a limited supply and are not easily replaced each elephant requiring considerable training before they are battlefield-ready. Also populations of elephants regrow very slowly.

One sub-species of elephant (the north-african elephant) went extinct primarily due to their use as war elephant.

>> No.11868859

>ITT: Weapons from throughout history you think are underestimated, or not paid enough attention.

>flail

You know, if you made the spiked ball bigger, if you picked the morning star, you'd had the fucking WEAPON OF KINGS RIGHT?

>> No.11868874

>>11868858

Yes, understand all that. I just really like to see animals used in battle. History needed more dogs and camels unsed in warfare also, if you ask me.

Also apes.

>> No.11868878

>>11868858
That's the point. Just make the elephant go ballistic in the middle of a battle. No training, just feral rage.

>> No.11868882

>>11868845
>And why pikes didnt come back into fashion until the 1600s. Riddle me that if you will.

Heh? Pikes were used during that entire interim period. They weren't abandoned at all during the time.

What WAS abandoned was the phalanx that used them. And for good reason. Once cavalry came along, the phalanx, which was already a vulnerable formation, was all but doomed. It was facing its own extinction due to changing battlefield strategy.

But the pike was still used. Perhaps it wasn't the 18-foot-long thing that was used in antiquity, but it didn't go away until almost the age of enlightenment.

>> No.11868883

>>11868839
Yet again, was never underestimated.
Ever heard of the latin phrase "Ultima Ratio Regum"?
It means "last argument of kings".
Artillery was like 60% of casualties in world war 1.
Artillery has always had a very large role in history, so I would say it's far from underestimated.

>> No.11868894

>>11868878
Uh... yeah... Perhaps you don't understand...

When an elephant goes rampaging... it doesn't give a FUCK what it's killing. You, the enemy, your general, the King... It doesn't care. And it won't stop until it's killed. Rampaging elephants were actually a bigger threat to your own forces than the enemy.

>> No.11868896

Weaponized shields. Sure, they're a not really practical, but I've always found them cool enough to maybe get some attention. But I can't think of one instance where they ever do.

And, slightly off topic, Lances and Spears. They aren't underrated, not by a longshot, but they never really seem to be as popular as they should be. At least not in anything I find myself coming across. But that's another story.

>> No.11868899

>>11868845
They won using the combination of Pikes to pin the enemy in place and Cavalry to go around the side and fuck up the enemy flank.

As there was less cavalry around in Greece and the other major countries (and less unified nobility to own and field there own horses in one army) after that the combat bogged down into 2 forces of pikes kicking each others ass all day and not doing much else.

Which is why the Romans were able to come along fielding what was essentially an army that would see a parallel until the 18th Century and wtfpwn the rest of the world and those still using Alexanders Pike formation

>> No.11868903

>>11868849
>That's just a generic axe

No. That is a tomahawk.

>> No.11868904

>>11868899
*wouldnt see a parallel

fucking typos

>> No.11868911

Spears.
Cheap to produce, effective against most foes, easy to use for untrained soldiers, really lethal in hands of skilled ones.

Flail is interesting choice. Good against armor, even versus mounted foes, and there were always some to pick in any rural household.
Only problem is they can't be used in tight formations, therefore are reserved for small support units, rampaging peasants or guerrilla fighters (decide yourself to which group Hussites belonged).

>> No.11868913

>>11868911
You forgot the prime user of the flail... or more like the morningstar.

As someone before me mentioned... the Weapon of Kings.

>> No.11868916

>>11868896
>but they never really seem to be as popular as they should be. At least not in anything I find myself coming across. But that's another story.

It's because they're specialized weapons that were rarely used in actual warfare. It's heavy as fuck, long, and requires a lot of practice to be able to hit anything with it. On the other hands, any guy on horseback with an axe/sword/mace could just lean to one side and take out as many guys as was possible.

>> No.11868920

>>11868883

I gatered we were talking about popular fiction here, in which arty is never ever featured. People get shot all the time, but explosions are just eye candy.

>> No.11868921

>>11868882

Pikes were used extensively. The difference is that they abandoned the LOLPIKE that was three times taller than its wielder. It was all well and good against people, but then someone jumped on a hrose to stab people and it all went downhill from there. The maneuverability of a cavalry charge was so much greater than a phalanx that they were literally incapable of responding to them.

Thyey didn't stop using the pike. They just cut it into three parts and used that, because the difference was an entire formation could turn on their individual feet and lock shield and spears to face rearwards in maybe three seconds, whereas to turn individually a phalanx took so long it was literally faster to just wheel the fucker around.

>> No.11868925

>>11868705
Ok, fuck the rest, but the guy in the first link is way too fucking amazing... Seriously watch the one legged swordsman.

>> No.11868926

>>11868845

Okay well you're lucky it's getting late here or I would drown you in discussion on the Macedonian empire during the reign of Phillip II and Alexander, if I had become a historian that would be my field and I can feel my history boner throbbing hotly.

The basic, bare bones fundamental of it was that war at the time consisted of getting as many guys as you could find, giving them a sharp stick and moving them towards the enemy, now the more guys with sharp sticks you had the more likely you were to win.

The macedonians got clever and figured "well, derp well just make our sticks longer" and then just steamrolled the rest of the goddamn civilized world at the time.

The secret wasn't just the sarissa though it was how they used it. The training required of the guys wielding them was fucking intense, I mean these dudes had to hold a 7 meter long spear out lengthways for extended periods so their delts were like glazed hams.

>> No.11868929

>>11868903
And I'm pretty sure the Tomahak is a generic axe.

>> No.11868937

>>11868708
>Mostly because they were peasants and it actually was the agricultural tool.

That's the only flail that ever saw battlefield. The "iron ball on chain" flail was invented by romantic artists and writers in 19th century probably because they wanted evil knights to appear more brutish.

>> No.11868938

Anything the Chinese ever made

even /k/ommandoes believe the shit they see in Kung Fu films. Fucks have no knowledge of chinese theatrical culture

>> No.11868942

>>11868929
And I'm pretty sure you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

The axe is a large, often two-handed chopping weapon/tool. Hatchets are smaller versions of axes. Tomahawks are hatchet sized but often lighter and have MUCH smaller heads that are made for killing.

>> No.11868945

The dagger...
and no I'm not talking about the silly D&D rogue dual wielding dagger crap, I'm talking about all the situations where two warriors end up fighting on the ground wrestling and shit when they are too close for swords, nasty, brutal, hip dagger action killed a lot of warriors.

>> No.11868951

>>11868921


Ok then smarty pants. Why did people stop using the pilum after the romans? And im not talking about light auxilaries with javelins. I mean armoured foot employing them en-masse as the enemy charged?

>> No.11868968

>>11868951

Good question!

>> No.11868969

>>11868926

Not only do you have to hold a seven meter long pole in a horizontal position for an extended time with little in the way of counterbalance. You also have to have strength enough to accurately aim the fucking thing and perform lethal thrusts.

>> No.11868972

>>11868942
There are both large and small axes, with small axes used as tools sometimes called hatchets. A, say, one handed viking axe isn't a hatchet, nor is a francisca a hatchet. They are both one handed, light weapons with small heads designed for killing.

>> No.11868974

>>11868969

Alexanders army of hulk-men tramping across the world.

>> No.11868987

>>11868951
The Romans had a state sponsored army, well trained and paid for by central funds.

Other places... didnt, Feudalism means that a lord and his men paid for themselves and that means that you had to keep it cheap.

The Pilum was also a Javellin rather than a full spear, spears were used extensively in northern and southern europe as it was cheap to make them and easy to arm peasants with them but a peasant sucks in combat so they died fairly easily anyway

>> No.11868993

>>11868780
I prefer the bardiche.
Good as an halberd, but cheaper than crack.
Pretty good for peasents.

>> No.11868994

My pick is the rondel. I seldom if ever hear it mentioned in knife-fighting threads, but I love the design for the simple effectiveness in variable-condition close fighting. The key feature, the grip, is not so large as to restrict flexibility, but still allows the wielder a comfortable and secure grip even if the handle itself is slick, for increased power and efficacy in thrusting.

Through common battlefield conditions like rain, mud, and the abominable effusion of blood, this knife will remain secure in the hand.

>> No.11869003

Introducing a new weapon into the conversation...
The humble bayonet.
It's not pretty...
It's not as good as a bullet to the brain...
But in close quarters, it's sure as hell better than a rifle butt.

>> No.11869007

>>11868994
And when you have to kill over and over, features like that make a difference. What is effective, prevails. Case in point.

>> No.11869009

>>11868972
>There are both large and small axes, with small axes used as tools sometimes called hatchets.

A one-handed axe that has a head used primarily for chopping wood is a hatchet. I thought I made that clear, but there's any further clarification for you.

A tomahawk is relatively the same size as most hatchets, often smaller. And lighter. Intended to be used one-handed, the heads are often smaller and thinner than either axes OR hatchets. Reason being? To pierce human flesh and bone more easily. You aren't cutting into something as dense as wood, so you don't need the weight and thickness of an axe or it's smaller one-handed cousin the hatchet.

All of the one-handed axes used for warfare were just that: axes. If they were used for utility, they were hatchets.

And, by the way, not ALL small one-handed axes were hatchets. Plenty were long enough and heavy enough for two-handed use.

>> No.11869010

>>11868987

That may explain part of it. But it doesnt explain why the late(er) era, or more professional armies (byzantines, italian etc) didnt use it.

>> No.11869024

>>11868972

One-handed bearded axes like the ones vikings sometimes used are underrated as a parrying weapon. They're very handy at hooking blades and turning away spears.

Also norse two-handed battle axes. No huge overwrought trumpet-shaped heads. Instead a very small dense head, sort of like the ones used for splitting logs, on the end of a long thin shaft.
These axes were not designed for causing large deep bleeding wounds. They were designed to split skulls (and the flimsy helmets people wore in these times).

>> No.11869026

>>11868602
There's one problem with the flail.

You can't parry with it. So you have to concentrate on your shield too much.

My oppinion

>> No.11869030

>>11868987
The French held similar ideas of the combat effectiveness of peasants at the battle of Agincourt. Didn't work out so well for them, as you may recall.

>> No.11869033

>>11869009
And european one handed battle axes are also quite small, one handed and with slim blades designed to kill people. Thus, tomahawks are generic axes in this particular discussion, which revolves around weapons.

>> No.11869034

>>11869003

read up on your WW1 history. Soldiers hated the bayonet. Was easily parried and had a tendancy to get stuck inside your opponent. A trench shovel, or (I shit you not, i saw quite a few in military meuseums) an improvised flail were prefered. (that and a liberal use of grenades)

>> No.11869047

>>11869030
Well, the peasants he's talking about did not have excellent bows and long archery tradition/

>> No.11869048

I'm going to second the tomahawk, pretty god tier, especially for survival/guerrilla warfare.

>> No.11869055

>>11869010
Because they never knew it existed most likely

The Byzantines were Roman and increasingly relied on Cavalry to win the day, they moved on from heavy infantry and found that training and equipping forces that were reliable enough and steady enough to hold in a line and throw shit at the enemy was expensive as hell

Plus there opponents didnt use infantry a lot, Byzantium was focused on fighting in the middle east and came to rely and hired mercenaries and tribes to fight its battles in the west. Against a cavalry force the Pilum is a bit shit, especially when the cavalry is mainly armed with bows.

Italian armies were a close approximation of professional but were again reliant on Lords hiring there own men, Condotierre hired themselves out to cities with a collection of "sub" commanders commaning different forces hired by the Condotierre themselves. Warfare by freelancers.

Most of the Italian armies would also rely on infantry and archers from Germany and Britain, whos fighting style had changed a lot from Roman times and again place an emphasis on cavalry tactics over infantry tactics (though some commanders were happy to field large groups of men in the Sforza school of tactics but again these were nowhere near as well trained or equipped as Roman troops at the height of the Empire in 50bc - 200 ad)

>> No.11869058

>>11869030
English peasents were some of the best archers in the world, with some of the best range weapon of the age.
They were forced to train with their bows, they were not just "lol drifted, hold the line".

>> No.11869061

>>11869034
OI, FECKIN' HUN!

TRENCH MACE TO THE FACE! FOOOOUUUUUUUUR!

>> No.11869062

>>11869048
You mean you second generic battle axes?

>> No.11869065

>>11869034
This

The shovel was the close combat weapon of choice except you still hat bullets left => gun + bayonet

Modern armies still have shovels with sharpened edges.

And if you find a hardcore Sergeant (Germanfag here, so it was our Feldwebel) they even let you exercise fighting with it ...
But then again, our Feldwebel teached us how build boobytraps ...

>> No.11869071

>>11868994

>> No.11869073

>>11869030
Oh hey, its that myth again *waves*

Charging across a wet field with no support from your own crossbowmen in full plate into an army filled with men with big can openers and who can take down your horses from a distance has always been a bad idea

>> No.11869080

>>11869047
I'll grant you that, but my point is it's foolish to disregard anyone in a fight due to their economic class. Fighting skill is aptitude and practice, and forest-dwellers who either learn to hit moving targets or starve become adept at ranged combat.

>> No.11869081

>>11869071

>> No.11869084

>>11869065
>German friend shows picture of him in the Wehrmacht.

>My face when I see him holding a modern Panzerfaust

>Thing looks like a fucking tactical nuclear missile launcher from a videogame

>> No.11869099

>>11869081
Damn, Conquest was such an awesome show.

...And the History Channel still isn't offering DVDs of it. Only some of the episodes are available on torrent networks.

>> No.11869100

>>11869080
I'm trying to keep it simple

>> No.11869102

Motherfucking Sword Cane, awsome bit of kit, you have the blade and then use the sheath part as well

>> No.11869113

>>11869100
Fair point. Kindly disregard.

>> No.11869114

>>11869100
>>11869080

*Ahem* Maybe we should just say that peasants are themselves an underestimated weapon?

>Don't fackran

>> No.11869116

>>11869084
> so your friend was alive pre 1945?

Unless by "Wehrmacht" you mean "Bundeswehr" ...

you mean this Panzerfaust
pic is me back in the Bundeswehr with the Panzerfaust

>> No.11869117

>>11869058
i think you will find it was the Welsh archers that were the best, but ever british peasent man had to train every sunday i think it was with the longbow

>> No.11869119

Bolas.

>> No.11869125

>>11869116
forgot the pic

>> No.11869127

I'd have to say Claymore or other severely large swords. I understand why, but think about it. You only hear about the huge guys who kicked major ass with them, never about the smaller guys who swung too wide and lopped off their friend's head. Case and point, William fucking Wallace and Mad Jack Churchill. Two bad ass mother fuckers who fought with claymores.

>> No.11869139

>>11869127
Mad Jack fought with a Clayberg, but close enough.

>> No.11869141

>>11869127

a good point

>> No.11869143

>>11869114
Indeed, they are, sir.

http://armorgames.com/play/6646/catapult-madness

>> No.11869144

>>11869127

The sword "Mad" Jack Churchill fought with was called a "claymore" but it was a one-handed basket-hilted sword, not it's older two-handed namesake.

Still he earns mad props for successfully utilising medieval weaponry in the fucking world wars.

>> No.11869151

>>11869033
>And european one handed battle axes are also quite small

They aren't. Most are larger than hatchets.

>one handed

Most weren't.

>and with slim blades designed to kill people.

Uh, no. Most had axe heads that were quite large, bigger than most late-era polearm heads like I posted earlier in this thread. Even franciscas had an edge 5-6 inches tall, which is larger than most modern and older tomahawks heads.

>Thus, tomahawks are generic axes in this particular discussion, which revolves around weapons.

1.) So axes are not weapons? Okay.
2.) Your word on the matter means practically nothing as far as I'm concerned. You come with no evidence and make no appealing arguments. Your stance that all sticks with metal blades on them are generic axes is unconvincing and mildly retarded at best.

>> No.11869168

>>11869144
Claymore and Bastard Sword and "Hand-and-a-Half Sword" are interchangeable, I thought.

>> No.11869171

>>11869151

All axes are choppas. All tomahawks are choppas. Choppas are Choppas, so all tomahawk are axes.

adviceork.tif

>> No.11869180

The term "claymore" was used from at least the beginning of the 18th century to refer to the basket-hilted one-handed sword, more or less synonymously with "broadsword". From at least the later 18th century, it could also be applied to the two-hander. The contemporary Gaelic term for the two-hander[2] is unknown; it may or may not have been called a claymore at the time of use. In modern usage the term is correct for both weapons. The Gaelic for "two-handed sword" is "claidheamh dà làimh", and in modern terminology is sometimes applied to the Scottish two-hander to distinguish it from the one-handed claymore.[3]

From wiki

>> No.11869182

>>11869065
>teached

fellow germanfag here, it's taught.

>> No.11869187

>>11869139
Claybeg*

>> No.11869193

>As the ramps fell on the first landing craft, Churchill leapt forward from his position playing The March of the Cameron Men on bagpipes, threw a grenade, and began running towards the bay. For his actions at Dunkirk and Vaasgo, Churchill received the Military Cross and Bar.

Fuck the sword, bagpipes all up in this bitch.

>> No.11869199

>>11869168
Bastard swords and hand-and-a-half swords can
generally be lumped into the same category: longswords.

Claymores, however, were extremely large and heavy. Moreso that they differed from the average longsword and were distinguishable enough to be addressed differently. Most of these were so long that they were carried on the back since side-carry would cause them to be touching the ground. They were truly damn big swords.

>> No.11869203

>They aren't. Most are larger than hatchets.

>And then ano reailzed that historian are usually like: "we found a bunch of hatchets, no Idea whether they were used as tools or weapons, lol". But Anonymous knowns.

>> No.11869212

>>11869182
whatever you say

>> No.11869217

>>11869199
Statue is around actual size, or should be for how fucking huge that sword is. I saw it, it being his legit sword in a glass case. I'm 5'11" and it dwarfed me by almost half a foot.

>> No.11869219

>>11869203
Everyone that reads the dictionary would know. Hatchets are meant for chopping wood and being used for utility. They are designed with heavy heads and thicker blades FOR THAT REASON.

Which is what I've been trying to tell you. The fact that you used that argument means you really don't know what the hell you're talking about. Because it's the equivalent of saying, "They found race cars, but no one is really sure if they were used for racing or not."

Just... stop now and save what little dignity you have left.

>> No.11869221

>>11868993
This, I fucking love bardichies.

>> No.11869236

>Claymores, however, were extremely large and heavy. Moreso that they differed from the average longsword and were distinguishable enough to be addressed differently. Most of these were so long that they were carried on the back since side-carry would cause them to be touching the ground. They were truly damn big swords.

Are anything between a longsword and a true twohander if it has been rehilted in scottish fashion. Blade typology's never been taken into consideration.

And back-carry is something featured in Highlander. It is not documented anywhere IRL. If we see images of people carrying greatswords, they hold them on their shoulders.

>> No.11869238

>>11869151
Two-handed axes were specialized weapons wielded by a small number of soldiers. For a long time, a majority of germanic soldiers carried spears and one-handed axes.

Franciscas typically had an edge of 10cm, which is a common length for one handed battle axes aswell. Picture related.

Danish axes, one of the only common types of large axe (although no where near as common as a one handed battle axe) had cutting edges ranging from 20-30 cm. Unless you count bardiches and the like as axes (although I consider them polearms), I'll have to say that smaller one handed axes were by far more common than bigger, two handed ones.

>> No.11869365

>Everyone that reads the dictionary would know. Hatchets are meant for chopping wood and being used for utility.

...it simply means: "guys, we found a stash of wedge-like hatches, can any of you tell me if they were intended to kill people or if somebody just carried it to chop wood and maybe chop heads sometimes too?"

Axes were the classic multitools like the shepherd's axe. Just because it looks like something that's currently used to split woods does not mean that it's not been used to split heads too.

War was part of communal selfdefense in which everyone brought along his own weapons. If you did not have a sword, you grabbed your axe. And after you were doned, you used it to hack wood again.

>> No.11869373

And concerning the notion that axes that do not have the typical wedge-form being tools of war exclusively:

Sapper's axes. Used right up until WW1 as tools.

>> No.11869406

WILL YOU MOTHERFUCKERS SHUT UP ABOUT HATCHETS ALREADY

>> No.11869433

FUCKIN' CROSSBOWS, HOW DO THEY WORK? Funny how everyone will acknowledge how much they kicked ass, changed warfare, and never fail to mention the Pope outlawed them...

But no one ever does any damn thing with them. They are pretty cool if you approach them from the right angle.

>> No.11869447

>>11869433

You're so right.

It wasn't until Mount and Blade that I actually took a good long look at crossbows and realized how seriously hard they can ruin some motherfuckers day.

>> No.11869449

nagamaki

Blade about the length of katana, thicker = less breakable. Handle about the same length, thick.

You can thrust a distance higher than most enemies, relatively heavy it will be hard to deflect.

You can swing, and the heavy blade will chop and break most defenses.

Then you can grip the handle with both hands at comfortable distance, and use it with good leverage, or block with it like with a pole - thick enough that it won't be chopped in half.

An enemy with a long polearm will not be fast enough to get through my block or dodge, then a step more and they are at my mercy.

An enemy with a sword will be forced into a block at a safe distance, then my leverage will allow me to push their sword away and step in to deliver the blow.

Only an enemy with a very light sword, like a rapier would be able to do anything, by dodging, pushing the weapon away and stepping in to attack. Still, it would be very difficult for them.

>> No.11869450

And can I get a shout out for the humble spiked ball on a stick? Screw that chain nonsense. Just stick the ball right on the stick and whack people with it.

Always effective. Easy to use.

>> No.11869453

>>11869151

Here's a historian to tell you exactly how stupid you are:

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

Medieval axes were small.

>> No.11869458

>>11869433
The main problem with crossbows and /tg/ related things is *in the hands of experts* a bow is better than a crossbow. Can fire faster and get nearly the same killing power. In most tabletop games, we tend to play experts, and thus bows end up better.

>> No.11869462

>and never fail to mention the Pope outlawed them...

Always fail to mention that the Pope outlawed all projectile weapons, including bows and slings.

>> No.11869463

>>11869433

>> No.11869477

Short-Stick.
It doesn't even have stats in D&D.

>> No.11869492

>>11869477

1d4 bludgeoning, simple weapon

>> No.11869512

Well the classic example would be slings. CHEAP as hell to field and supply, but a bitch to train up. Skilled slingers have the best effectiveness to cost ratio, while unskilled slingers are the most self-destructive force on the field.

As for weapons not paid enough attention, I'd honestly go with nuclear warheads. Hear me out on this one. Their importance was given full attention during the 40-60's. It got people's attention, formed policy, affected how we do things.

But that seems to have gone away. With the fall of the USSR, Americans seems to have forgotten just how much respect that need to give nukes. I think everyone has a vague idea about how powerful they are, how many could be killed with one, and what that means when others have them, but I don't think they fully grok what it means that China has nukes.

And so nutcases are saying we should invade N. Korea again, completely disrespecting the nukes just a few miles to the SW. And for some strange reason that really REALLY creeps me the fuck out, these nutcases aren't being called out as nutcases, and are being listened to.

>> No.11869513

>>11869433
>The right angle
And that angle is, and always has been, Genoese.

>> No.11869523

>>11869458
You can make a more powerful crossbow than you can a bow, though, can't you? At the high end it punches armor better, right?. And the assassination applications. Much easier to fire from hiding, I imagine.

You'd think /tg/ would dig the stealthy assassin that waits on his perch till his target visits their favorite location, places a bolt through their skull, and disappears before anyone knows the target is dead.

>> No.11869525

>>11869492
What size?
19-20 Crit Range I guess?

>> No.11869527

>>11869512
To be fair, that's probably because China's nukes have an effective range of precisely: Dick, and MAD makes a nuclear retaliation for someone else invading a nearby country... Impractical.

>> No.11869528

>>11869458
A crossbow with a hook combined with a pavise will ray on any archer's parade.

Set the pavise up. Bow down to attach the hook (it's attached near your shoulder), straighten up some, the crossbow is drawn. Put the bolt in.

Likely, the archer sent 3-4 arrows in your direction, one stuck in the pavise in the meantime.

Rest the crossbow on the edge of the pavise. Aim. Only half of your head and only now is exposed. This is the only window of opportunity for the archer to hit you - and they can't wait with the string drawn, they can't aim as well (no rest for wrist, strong pull on the wrist) and they must aim way up (worse draw strength). In the meantime you aim calmly, loose the belt, then crouch to draw the string again. And then they can shoot your pavise some more.

Of course a crossbowman without the pavise is a different matter, dead meat at mercy of the bowmen.

>> No.11869541

>>11869528
The Pavise Crossbowman is god's way at rebalancing archers.

>> No.11869553

>>11869525
Bludgeoning weapons generally get a 20 flat.
What you've basically got is a Club, except it counts as a light weapon and sucks a bit more.

>> No.11869565

>>11869525
>>11869477
>>11869492
And now.

Masterwork Bastardstick

>> No.11869574

>>11869528
How the French saw this, and then thought "Hey, let's just drop the shields and march them in!" is still a mystery to me.

>> No.11869577

>>11869453
Don't mind him, he said that most axes used in medieval warfare were two-handed. That's proof enough he doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about.

>> No.11869578

>>11869553

I was gonna say, 19 is pushing it for a stick.

>> No.11869580

>>11869553
>>Short stick
>>sucks
Short sticks do not work that way.

>> No.11869597

>And the assassination applications. Much easier to fire from hiding, I imagine.

Most hiding was doned behind fortifications, most assassinations were more akin to gang killings than SUPA SNIPA SNIPIN. Some dude or a bnuch of dudes running up and stabbing somebody.

>> No.11869599

>>11869580
Except yes, they do, because there' goddamn sticks.

>> No.11869623

>How the French saw this, and then thought "Hey, let's just drop the shields and march them in!" is still a mystery to me.

>Everything is mud, everyone who matters is armed and in a horrible mood.
>Pavis are in a waggon far behind the army which had been in hot pursite of the english for at least days now
>FUCK THAT SHIT, YOU FOREIGNERS, GO OUT THERE AND DO YOUR THING. I JUST DON'T CARE.

>> No.11869629

>>11869599
Hey look, people are underestimating a high quailty weapon in a thread about underestimated weapons

>> No.11869639

>>11869597

or, you know

casually walking up to a bloke in the street

or busting into the whorehouse he's in

>> No.11869642

>>11869599
To put this a little bit less... Swedish, the short-stick is when you get down to it, a piece of wood. It has nothing to distinguish it from a cudgel or a truncheon, except that it is noteworthy for being a more agile and maneuverable bludgeoning weapon. Normal clubs do a d6, but don't get the Light trait, which lets you weapon finesse and dual wield more effectively.
Now granted, what we have just described is a dagger with a worse critical range, but you get what you pay for.

>> No.11869653

>>11869642
Hejsan.

>> No.11869664

>>11869653
Gezundheit

>> No.11869675

>>11869664

Thats it, I'm outta here

>> No.11869682

>>11869664
Err... Nicht sprechen Deutsch?

>> No.11869683

>>11869642
you can't really stab with a short stick.
(unless it's sharpened but then it's a wooden spike then, +8 against vampires...)

>> No.11869685

>>11869642
Yeah, but the advantage a short-stick has over a light cudgel or a dagger is reach. It's about 3 feet long and that can generate into force, as well as being an advantage in it's own right.
I'd say, light weapon, 1d6 bludgeoning, 19-20 crit range.

>> No.11869686

>>11869683
You can thrust.

>> No.11869695

>>11869683
>>you can't really stab with a short stick.
Yes you can.

>> No.11869697

>>11869682
Eh... Yo no speako the Serbian.

>> No.11869709

>>11869695
>>11869686
You can thrust with a hatchet too (inb4recurringtomahawkargument,) that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

>> No.11869719

as to medieval axes being huge, behold, a russian wielding an axe with a head smaller than a tomahawks. will post moar small axes

>> No.11869726

>>11869709
Alright, THIS is the end of prophecy. Goddamn.

>> No.11869730

more small axe heads

>> No.11869740

>>11869730
Oh my god, yes, just what I needed, more fucking AXES.
Here, HAVE A TRAIN.

>> No.11869743

>>11869709
Yeah, but thrusting with a short stick is a good idea.

>> No.11869746

>> No.11869750

Nuclear bombs. Everybody hates them. The ultimate weapon of mass destruction, but everyone regards it as if it's like using hax. Nukes kick arse.

>> No.11869776

>>11869743
I guess, but not as good of an idea as thrusting with a, say, dagger. It's all bludgeoning damage, as opposed to delicious piercing damage.

>> No.11869815

>>11868602

Flail weapon s of every sort are horrible. Uncontrolled rebound completely destroys any efficient technique after the first swing.

Nunchaku, flails, etc, they all suck and are shit tier weapons

>> No.11869816

The Messer for its 'seriously guv, you can't nik me I know my rights and this is just a knife, not a sword' thing.

>> No.11869826 [DELETED] 

>my face when FILE DELETED

>> No.11869828

The mattock. For sure.

The only time I have ever heard it mentioned is in the Hobbit; the Dwarves of the Iron Hills were all armed with great mattocks since they could be used for fighting as well as mining.

>> No.11869831

>>11869816

It IS a knife. It's even in the name.

>> No.11869859

>>11869831
Yep. This weapon was designed to confuse future scholars trying to classify 'what makes a sword a sword'.

>> No.11869898

>>11868602
>It doesn't so much rely on your strength as it does its own weight and momentum.
No more so than any other weapon.

>an inept idiot could easily kill themselves with one
No more so than any other weapon.

>not effective against the heavier sort of armour
This is exactly backwards. The flail is ideal against armor, and also hard to guard against with shields.

The strengths of the flail are its power, unpredictability, and ability to reach around defenses. The problems with the flail are its high commitment, slow recovery, and weak contribution to defense. It's a great battlefield weapon and a poor duelling weapon. It's a tool for destroying the enemy, not engaging him, and depends on a certain amount of chaos or a large skill difference to be effective.

>> No.11869904

Most underrated weapon ever?

BUCKLER. Nobody gives that shit the respect it deserves, despite being the sidearm of choice for about 700 years. A shield you can strap on your belt and take anywhere, and pop to your defence as quickly as you can unsheathe a sword (in tandem).

And it bugs me to no end that people think all shields strap to your forearm like Kites.

>> No.11869924

>>11869898
>> The flail is only a useful weapon from horseback, as others mentioned near the start of the thread.

Thanks for admitting it.

>> No.11869930

>>11869815
a few points

Flails are wierd weapons, they don't rebound quite so much as everyone thinks and they rebound with much less force. still a danger, but not as deadly as people say. They are excellent for swinging at heads, will cave in most helmets, but they will stick in shields like nothing else and get you killed if not careful.

>The reason the flail exists is to break tower shield regiments by throwing the ball up by thrusting the stick of the weapon into the air, and then yanking down where the chain is completely behind the enemies shield. Trying to break their arm.

bullshit, you hold your shield too close to your body to have a flail swing down like that, though they would be excellent at swinging into the ribs of an oppenent around the side of their shield, assuming no shieldwall is formed, something you simply couldn't do with a sword.

You could parry with the haft of the flail, though it would be awkward and you'd probably be bumped in the head with the flail, which would be annoying and distracting

All in all it's not a weapon i'd pick, but it has it's uses.

>> No.11869933

>>11869449Only an enemy with a very light sword, like a rapier would be able to do anything, by dodging, pushing the weapon away and stepping in to attack. Still, it would be very difficult for them.

EL
OH
ELLLLLLLLLLLL

>> No.11869941

>>11869904And it bugs me to no end that people think all shields strap to your forearm like Kites.


but the main advantage of the buckler is so I can drink potions with that hand!

>> No.11869960

Logistics.

>> No.11869962

>>11869904
I for one, play a swashbuckler with an actual buckler.
That actually swashes.

>> No.11869964

>>11869904
Needs more spikes.

Because if you're going to punch people with your shield, make sure it hurts as much as possible.

>> No.11869971

>>11869930 You could parry with the haft of the flail, though it would be awkward and you'd probably be bumped in the head with the flail, which would be annoying and distracting

There's a great BBC documentary series called "weapons that made Britain" that has a segment on the flail/morningstar. The conclusion they reached was that it's great when paired with a shield and almost totally useless without one, as you can't block any but the most obvious, telegraphed attack with the damn thing. Fighting without a shield means you have to kill your target with the first hit, because you won't get a second chance

>> No.11869974

>>11868663

Looked it up on Youtube.

Holy shit.

>> No.11869977

>>11869933
agreed
poster was full of shit.

>> No.11869981

>>11869971

You can still dodge things by moving your feet yknow

>> No.11869991

>Yep. This weapon was designed to confuse future scholars trying to classify 'what makes a sword a sword'.

Would it not be more appropriated to inquire into when a dagger becomes a sword?

>> No.11869997

Best place for flails: in the back of a wagon hitting anyone who gets close.

>> No.11870003

>>11869991

when slashing with it becomes possible

>> No.11870006

>>11869815
I think that's sort of the appeal of a shit-tier weapon. You're such an incredible badass that you can take a shitty weapon and kick someone's ass with it.

Personally, I like the idea of playing a nunchuck-wielding character, although it sort of becomes impractical against more heavily-armored enemies. And replacing the handle bits becomes impractical and silly in short order. Case in point: swordchucks.

>> No.11870015

>>11869997

these are Hussites right?

When did they use war wagons? Did other europeans use 'em too?

The Ming dynasty also made use of them and was wondering if tehre's any connectionb etween the two

>> No.11870031

These hardly get any attention.

>> No.11870033

>>11869960
And propaganda
it won more wars than guns did.

>> No.11870051

>>11870015
>When did they use war wagons? Did other europeans use 'em too?

During the hussite revolution.
Yes, but not in the same way. They failed to recreated the type of mobile war that made the hussites win their battles and just used them as mobile camp fortifications well into the early modern age.

>The Ming dynasty also made use of them and was wondering if tehre's any connectionb etween the two

Yes, both stole them from the Koreans who had invented everything and kinda left if lying around unattended.

>> No.11870072

>>11870051
Speaking of which

>> No.11870073

>>11870015
Yes, the idea of wagons was most likely taken from Jan Žižka's fighting in Poland, as it was a notably eastern European tactic against mounted raiders in the form of mongols/tartars and so on so the connection is likely in the type of enemy.

What Žižka did though was to make it not just a defensive thing but mobilized it into an offensive formation that was highly organized. Scarily organized for a late medieval army that is. For instance theres accounts of the Hussites using the wagons at speed to draw up around enemies and box them in.

Though this is probably why the rest of western europe didn't use them in the same fashion, they tried at one point in the wars and failed, because the use of the wagonburg outside of camp defence (which was certainly typical practice, particularly the use of gun-screens as shown in the image) was that it required a great deal of training and cooperation.

>> No.11870088

>>11870073west can't micro like east

lol nubs gotta raise their apm

>> No.11870108

I hate having to do this:

>The Han dynasty also made use of them
FTFY.

>Yes, the idea of wagons was most likely taken from Han Wudi's fighting in the Han dynasty, as it was a notably Chinese tactic against mounted raiders in the form of Huns and so on so the connection is likely in the type of enemy.
FTFY

>> No.11870155

>>11870108
I think that in all likelihood the idea arose on its own repeatedly. It's impossible to say with any certainty if the eastern Europeans that had been using wagonburgs got the idea from China or anywhere outside their own practical experience.

>> No.11870160

>>11869974
Man, don't get so impressed at how easy it is to get fucked up when you try to wrestle with a guy holding a knife, even if it's just a pocket knife or a shard of glass.

This kind of training is quite silly. It's like specializing in toddler kicking.

>> No.11870188

>>11870155
I agree. I just had a facepalm moment when somebody mentioned Ming dynasty.

polite sage

>> No.11870341

>>11870188
Truly, it was a Merciless regime.

>> No.11870350

>>11869449
Good, but not as lethal as you seem to think. They were a bitch to handle properly and if they were that great you'd think they'd have been a little more common compared to the naginata. Doesn't mean I love the nagamaki any less though.

For my own addition to this thread, fuck yeah meteor hammers!

>> No.11870386

>>11870350and if they were that great you'd think they'd have been a little more common compared to the naginata.

similar swords seem to be popular in China

>> No.11870401

>>11870386

Big knifes have been invented in China.

>> No.11870461

The problem with the flail as depicted in OP's image is that there's little to no indication it was historically used at all. It's a weapon that comes almost entirely from pulp fantasy, role-playing games, and LARPers.

There were long-handled, two-handed flails that somewhat resembled agricultural flails--those were quite common. There were spiked maces fixed on rigid hafts--also very common. The ball-on-chain...not so much. The picture at left is the closest thing I can find to an actual historical weapon resembling such a design, and you can see how it has a much shorter chain, giving it an entirely different profile than the long-chained fantasy version.

>> No.11870486

>Big knifes have been invented in China.

I see what you did there.

>> No.11870514

>>11870350
Keep in mind that the nagamaki would have cost at least twice as much as a naginata, and weighed twice as much.

The naginata was more of a weapon for poorly trained secondary forces. It doesn't require the discipline or precision of spear tactics, and allows the wielder to strike powerful blows without much bodily strength. The nagamaki would require greater strength and taking advantage of its specific attributes would take skill.

The nagamaki probably was a generally superior weapon to the naginata in the hands of a skilled warrior, but it would also be a less attractive main weapon than a pike or bow, and couldn't hang conveniently on the belt like a true sword or be wielded effectively with one hand.

It occupies an awkward middle ground.

>> No.11870532

Here's a really underrated weapon.

Simple to make, hard to learn. A bow is an investment--you have to baby it, keep it out of the rain and sun, carry spare strings, keep your arrows in a special case so they don't get warped or broken. This? You wrap it around your waist, or your head or wrist, and carry a bag of lead bullets or round rocks.

You can use a long sling to lob missiles in long, arcing shots down on the heads of enemies in formation, or you can use a shorter sling to throw missiles at high speed directly at an oncoming enemy. And being hit by a rock the size of a small apple, at high speed, WILL fuck your day up.

Slingers were used all over the ancient world, even into the Roman era. The Romans even had to develop a specialized tool for extracting lead sling bullets from inside wounded men.

>> No.11870536

>>11870401Big knifes have been invented in China.


I LOVE the Chinese WarSword

>> No.11870581

>>11870532
When you weren't worried about having to carry it around in your pocket, a staff sling would give much greater power, accuracy, and ease of use.

I would say they were much more typical of war slings.

>> No.11870582

>>11870486
In case any one didn't get it. What the Weeaboo call "Katana" is written as Big Knife (or Great Blade).

>> No.11870604

I prefer the European big warknife.

>> No.11870622

>>11870582
Uh... not in Japanese, and the Chinese dadao was pretty different from a katana.

>> No.11870627

>>11870581
Staff sling was cool, but the typical sling was great for what it did. Staff sling had a lot less control and accuracy than the normal sling, but granted more leverage. It's like comparing a rifle to an RPG. The RPG has a greater payload, but more limited in use.

>> No.11870637

>>11870581

It lets you throw a heavier missile, but it doesn't give you much more range. The real problem is that you can't carry a shield with it, so if you try to use it as light infantry you're going to get fucked up.

It's really only good for when you're trying to sling from behind a wall or other fortification.

>> No.11870640

>ctrl+f Khopesh
>1 post
>ctrl+f Falcata
>0 posts

Oh what so the grandson of the Khopesh gets no love? I would blame the Gurkhas and their Kukris, but I don't want to be killed.

>> No.11870643

>>11870604
Looks a sabre. Chinese use very specific terms for types of sabres. They love dem cavalry blades

>> No.11870719

>>11870532

>extracting lead sling bullets from inside wounded men.

Ouch. That sounds amazingly lethal in the ancient world.

>> No.11870721

>>11870643

It isn't. The picture is a kriegmesser, literally "war knife." It's a two-handed infantry weapon.

A grossemesser is smaller, vaguely resembling a short sword or falcata.

>> No.11870743

>>11870461
>>11870006
>>11869815
>>11869898

Since I'm the dude who started the "flail weapons suck" comment, I'll continue to add to the discussion.

Another disadvantage to flails is the limited effective range of the weapon. You have a very narrow distance from your body at which power is maximized and effective. If you can't maintain and attack in that range, you lose a huge amount of your ability to apply force with the lever (all melee weapons are levers, ya?).

Also, anon who mentioned that the whole "ball and chain" really didn't exist as more than an occasional oddity was right. A true ball and chain has such a terrible recovery time that it's completely useless.

I should also mention here that actual historical or combat effective nunchaku have a long chain, not he super short chain you see on most chucks that are display/exhibition weapons. This means that comabt chucks are actually pretty good at what they are intended to do- be a concealable, versatile self defense weapon. You can wrap, choke and trap with the things with horrible effectiveness once you get good. You can garrote an attacker or make them feel like a crab claw at dinner very fast.

>> No.11870753

>>11870719That sounds amazingly lethal in the ancient world.
>>halp me boss I cant stop pooping

>> No.11870759

>>11870088
This is a scarily accurate comment

>> No.11870762

>>11870637
>It lets you throw a heavier missile, but it doesn't give you much more range.
Oh, here's someone who read the wikipedia page and took it at face value.

No, you can throw MUCH farther with a staff sling, AND more accurately, AND a heavier projectile, AND it's easier to learn.

The kind of sling David was supposed to be using in the David & Goliath story? A staff sling. Cuchulain's sling? A staff sling.

Most historical references to a "sling" refer to the staff sling. The so-called "shepard's sling" is what survived the longest, mainly as a children's toy, and ignorant artists and translators have retconned the toy version into history and myth as the main type of sling.

>> No.11870771

>>11870637

ohey- more flail discussion fodder- here's a specialized flail use that works. Thing the dude in the boat is carrying. Basically two sticks with a hinge, like an agricultural flail- designed to get lever momentum over and around a wall or shield.

>> No.11870776

>>11870762


so SOGEKING is historically accurate :0!?

>> No.11870821

>>11870640
You beat me to the punch. Falcatas are awesome.

>> No.11870824

>Another disadvantage to flails is the limited effective range of the weapon. You have a very narrow distance from your body at which power is maximized and effective.

...which applies to all polearms. And it's not like you're alone or in a unit made of nothing but people with flails either when using it.

>> No.11870867

>so SOGEKING is historically accurate :0!?

Not quite, Sogeking is using an oversized fantasy catapult...

>> No.11870868

>>11870762

>> No.11870887

>>11870868

>> No.11870921

>>11870762

So what's your source, then? Find me a picture, a mention, of anybody anywhere using a staff sling who isn't standing behind a castle or ship's wall.

>Recruits are to be taught the art of throwing stones both with the hand and sling. The inhabitants of the Balearic Islands are said to have been the inventors of slings, and to have managed them with surprising dexterity, owing to the manner of bringing up their children. The children were not allowed to have their food by their mothers till they had first struck it with their sling. Soldiers, notwithstanding their defensive armour, are often more annoyed by the round stones from the sling than by all the arrows of the enemy. Stones kill without mangling the body, and the contusion is mortal without loss of blood. It is universally known the ancients employed slingers in all their engagements. There is the greater reason for instructing all troops, without exception, in this exercise, as the sling cannot be reckoned any encumbrance, and often is of the greatest service, especially when they are obliged to engage in stony places, to defend a mountain or an eminence, or to repulse an enemy at the attack of a castle or city.

>> No.11870994

The Deadliest Warrior and related television programs should be ban for spreading such stupidity. What's happening in this thread is a travesty.

>> No.11871067

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxZ8iFtSvss

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhRCNLMzUMY&feature=related

Hope the above can be of help.

Pretty cool stuff.

>> No.11871113

The sling

It kills people, only shot weight as disadvantage

>> No.11871134

Boomerang mate. Ain't one of you wankers ever sniped a koala in a tree from 30 yards.

>> No.11871158

>>11871134
Kill the dropbear before it kills you! That's the whole idea behind the boomerang. Can't run up to the beast to hit it with a stick, so you throw the stick and bring it down. The returning stuff was added when Americans arrived, because they can't hit the broadside of a barn.

>> No.11871179

>Agricultural flail

What part of farming requires beating the shit out of something with a flail?

>> No.11871202

Threshing grain.... derp

Also Wiki it.

>> No.11871203

>>11871179

Threshing. Grain comes in husks which aren't edible. You essentially whack the grain until the husks break and come off, and then you can blow/sweep the lighter husks away and leave the grain itself for grinding into flour.

>> No.11871204

>>11871179

Grain threshing.

Watch Seven Samurai to see it in action.

>> No.11871206

>>11871179

The part where the word "Thresher" comes from. It's a process where you beat the corn to seperate the chaff from the wheat.
Or something, look it up on wikipedia.

It's where we get Nunchucks from, I know that.

>> No.11871207 [DELETED] 

Flails were pretty effective weapons for their purpose, designed as a modification to the threshing flail so that the armies of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth could be equipped. They weren't intended to match a knight or experienced soldier with a sort, because that was what the whole wagon-circling, small caliber cannon and guns were for. They used the flail to beat off or overwhelm attackers that weren't caught by the torrent of gunfire.

Jan Zizek was an undefeated general. I don't think of any of you are undefeated generals. I'm going to go with him as regards the flail.

>> No.11871222

>>11871179
Seriously? Wheat. Threshers didn't exist in the 1800s, bro.

So they beat the shit out of wheat manually, to get the grains.

>> No.11871223

>>11871206
>>11871203
>>11871204
>>11871202

>threshingmind

>> No.11871229

>>11871179
Harvesting wheat. You have to smash the grain out of the head of the wheat plant after you've chopped it. There's even names for both of those processes.

I think they do something like that for rice even.

>> No.11871233

>>11871179
Threshing wheat to separate the husks from the meat.
Just easier to break it all up en-mass and grind it up further then to try and separate it grain-by-grain.
Ditto corn and rice, by culture.

>> No.11871236

>>11870604

Fuck yeah, Deutschaboos.

>> No.11871246

>>11871113
Seconding the sling. When you compare its stats in, for example, D&D to how effective it actually was in wars, it's ridiculous how such a dangerous weapon is dismissed.

>> No.11871247

Flails were pretty effective weapons for their purpose, designed as a modification to the threshing flail so that the armies of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth could be equipped. They weren't intended to match a knight or experienced soldier, because that was what the whole wagon-circling, small caliber cannon and guns were for. They used the flail to beat off or overwhelm attackers that weren't caught by the torrent of gunfire.

Jan Zizka was an undefeated general. I don't think of any of you are undefeated generals. I'm going to go with him as regards the flail. It was the farmers serving in his army who were the first recorded users of the flail as a weapon.

>> No.11871252

>>11870003
You realize you can slash with a knife?

Right?

>> No.11871262

>>11871202
>>11871203
>>11871204
>>11871206
>>11871222
>>11871229
>>11871233

Jesus, does EVERYONE but me know how this? The first three posts are even sequential.

>> No.11871285

>>11871262
Historyfags.
They're sequential.

>> No.11871286

>>11871134
The way boomerangs are usually portrayed, you'd think any vaguely curved piece of wood turns into the ultimate ranged weapon when thrown. And it will *always* come back to the thrower's hand afterwards - even if it hits.

So not really an underestimated weapon.

>> No.11871288

Nothing like a nice piece of hickory.

>>11870640 I would blame the Gurkhas and their Kukris, but I don't want to be killed.

By a Gurkha, or a Gurkha fanboy?

>> No.11871328

>>11871286
Which is a bit strange considering the returning variety of boomerang weren't really used as weapons. Well, ranged weapons, anyway. You could still club someone with one.

>> No.11871330

>>11871203
said husks are called chaff... dry chaff can often become dust, and has a tendency to spontaneously cumbust.

>themoreyouknow.avi

>> No.11871352

>>11871288
Either or, the only group I fear more are the Sikhs.
Luckily both are relatively peaceful until it comes to warfare, then it's FUCKSHIT!

>> No.11871397

I know they got mentioned already, but fuck it. These bastards, right here.

Goddamn.

Also, pic is my own :3

>> No.11871405

>>11871067

The level of stupidity displayed in those videos is disheartening.

hurr durr how do i defense?! hurrpsychological weaponsurrr...

Someone at ARMA is crying right now.

>> No.11871418

>>11868663
Ray Dionaldo is a scary man.

>> No.11871429

>>11871262
Here's some more brainfiller: the term "combine" for farm equipment is derived from the fact that it is a combination harvester-thresher.

>> No.11871433

>>11871405

>There's a knight! He's the medieval tank! He's wearing plate armor! He's coming toward you! How are you going to fight him?

And not one of them says, "well, me and my three buddies grab our long sticks with bits of pointy metal on the ends, and we fuck his day up."

>> No.11871466

>>11871405
I know. But the truth about combat is just so boring to the average mongoloid that watches TV.

>> No.11871504

More wheat trivia! Wheat kernels include three distinct parts - bran, endosperm, and germ. Most flour only includes the endosperm. In fact, all major American flour mills separate the three parts, even if they're going to combine them again to make whole wheat flour.

>> No.11871522

Magic. Hella underrated.

>> No.11871524

http://www.thearma.org/

http://www.myarmoury.com/features.html

Relevant information based on actual historical data. You're welcome.

>> No.11871690

>>11871433

First question: "Where's the mancatcher and the Demi-lune? We'll be needing those"

>> No.11871731

>>11871690
Dem Polearms man, dem polearms.

>> No.11871782

>>11871690
That one always makes me go WUT? with the mancatcher thats amazingly mislabled

>> No.11871826

>>11871433
>There's a knight! He's the medieval tank! He's wearing plate armor! He's coming toward you! How are you going to fight him?

I go get Bill.

>> No.11871871

>>11871826
There's a knight! He's the medieval tank!

... No, I mean it seriously. None of the polearms mentioned so far will take down a knight on horse before he takes you down, on a 1 on 1 basis.

Calling a DISMOUNTED knight anything more than a generic threat is wrong though, and those polearms will fuck his day right up.

>> No.11871916

GRAAARGH IM JUST SO ANGRY AT ALL THIS GRAIN.

>> No.11871940

>>11871916
FUCK YOU GRAIN I'MMA HUSK THE SHIT OUTTA YOU.

>> No.11871970

ITT: Medieval farming.

Or modern farming if you live in Nepal apparently.

>> No.11871987

>>11871916
BITCH! YOU THINK YOU CAN HUSK WHEAT!

I GOT THE FRESHEST THRESHES THIS SIDE OF EASTERN EUROPE, MOTHERFUCKER.

>> No.11872010

>>11871826
Get me as many Bills carryin bills as possible.

oh and tell him to bring some guys saying good day while hitting them with big spiky clubs.

>> No.11872013

>>11871871
>None of the polearms mentioned so far will take down a knight on horse before he takes you down, on a 1 on 1 basis.

Not entirely true, there were methods to deal with such situations. Like infantry, knights have to be used in groups to be effective, in a one on one, anything goes as theres too many potential factors that can affect the outcome.
Whilst a mounted knight does have a serious advantage, that advantage is greatly lessened by the infantryman having a polearm of some form, particularly if its a type with a hook as they are invaluable against armoured opponents, especially mounted ones.

Image somewhat related, part of a series of plates on 'how to stab that fucker on a horse without dieing' by Paulus Hector Mair

>> No.11872039

>>11872013
'cept the knight has a longer, harder hitting polearm that can't be blocked or deflected effectively with a shield, and dodging it either ends in you getting out of your polearms range and the knight swings around for another tilt, or you don't get far enough away and his horse tramples you.

>> No.11872043

>>11869528
>Of course a crossbowman without the pavise is a different matter, dead meat at mercy of the bowmen.

Now if only Mount & Blade would let you use a Pavise like that...

>> No.11872048

>>11871987
Ride-by flailing is the unfortunate result of many of the feuds in today's anti-establishment, gang-orientated thresh culture.

>> No.11872089

>>11872043
They have a mod in Warband where you can deploy a Pavise, hell they even keep a few multiplayer servers up.

>> No.11872092

>>11871871
>Implying 1 on 1 battles happened frequently.

Seriously if you were a lone person taking on a lone person in warfare before the advent of rifling and cap and ball, you were doing it wrong.

>> No.11872112

>>11872039
Except no.

None of those things are by any means a certainty. There are no such absolutes in combat.

>> No.11872130

>>11872089

Remember the name of the mod? Cause I love me some Rhodoks, even if they are the worst faction in the game and the AI can't really use spears too well.

Nothing like mass of Rhodok sharpshooters to fuck something up, especially in sieges.

>> No.11872155

The good old Sack of Magical Doorknobs is woefully underappreciated.

>> No.11872160

>>11872092
Whilst single person on person engagements may be somewhat lacking, the majority of warfare in the medieval era was very small scale back7forth raiding. Often parties of less than 100 or even 50 men a side.

Part of the reason for the War of the Roses was that with a weak king and a lot of experianced troops from the tail end of hte 100 years war (a fine example of many small scale engagements alongside its grand battles), England had become a rather lawless place and such battles were commonplace.
In such circumstances individual combat is commonplace.

>> No.11872170

>>11872130

Umm just search pavise in the pioneers guild of the taleworld server. I'm not sure if it is up to date with the newest patch though.

>> No.11872222

Tossing my two cents in here, one of the common mistakes made regarding ancient weapons is that people assume that all things are equal in their deployment. What you must remember is that people trained in different weapons depending on their social class, and the nobility (swordsmen and horsemen by and large, with some poleaxe mixed in) were always the ones with the most time to train, and the most money for equipment. This means that even if the halberd is a better weapon, you'd be a goddamn fool not to take a unit of swordsmen instead if you can get them. The men behind the swords *will* be better, because they were rich enough to own swords, and thus, rich enough to afford fencing lessons.
The exceptions to this are if you live in Switzerland or Scottland, in which case everyone and their fucking mother knows how to use a halberd and/or a pike, and swords are the tools of people whose land ran out of sufficiently long trees.

>> No.11872241

>>11872160
of course the War of the Roses was either at the very tail end of the medieval era or near the beginning of the renaissance depending on who you ask, and knights were by that point slightly uncommon as opposed to the early and high periods, hence the reason for so many romances (classical meaning) being written.

>> No.11872270

>>11872222
In Serbia, we cannot actually prove that anybody here knew what a sword was until ~1100 AD. Poland cannot into space, Serbia cannot into swords.
Upside: Total military backwardness tempered by nightmarish terrain led to great things, like a national history consisting of being pwnt by every enemy EXCEPT the mongols that one time. Take that, khergit scum!

>> No.11872302

>>11872222
It depends, at least in Scotland. Axes weren't uncommon and small swords were certainly used. Designed primarily for stabbing, most would have fallen to being between 15 and 20 inches long. Pikes were very much a mainstay. Development of weapons in other areas of Europe filters through to Scotland, and you get stuff like the Claymore.

>> No.11872320

>>11869719

Oh hai there.

Pic releated

Bloody fantasy two handed axes piss me off so much. In games I always have to try and search out the most reasonable looking axe and then its stats are shit. Makes me a sad panda.

>> No.11872333

>>11872320
Were two headed ones ever used, do you suppose? I can't see anything inherently wrong with them, except they might be heavier.

>> No.11872334

>>11872320

Oh pic is a galloglaich, one of the few "cool" things Ireland has in its history.

>> No.11872337

>>11872333
Err, sorry, two-bladed I mean, not like a head at each end of the pole, that's retarded.

>> No.11872341

>>11872334
Norse-Gaelic mercenaries. They were a big part of military culture in Scotland at the time too.

>> No.11872374

>>11872341

Yep they came over to Ireland from scotland origionally as mercenaries I believe and many ended up assimilated into the society.

>> No.11872376

>>11872222
I'd agree entirely apart from the 'unit of swordsmen', as the sword is a sidearm.

And to add to that I'll add a note that swords were not entirely restricted to the rich as there were many grades of quality. Many laws were enacted across the medieval period to try and keep swords to the nobility, but like sumptuary laws, we can infer people were not keeping to those laws otherwise they wouldn't have kept being re-issued (alongside other evidence).

Hence the creation of swords like the messer, getting around laws of constructing and owning swords by using the loophole that in construction its just a big knife. And notably the term swash-buckler comes from the gangs of youths who would carry and use a sword and buckler in their street fights.

>> No.11872386

I actually make slings for fun and take them down the driving range to practice.
I'm admittedly shit and my throws vary between
"shiit its gone the wrong way"
"fffffffffffff didn't release soon enough to go downrange.
"Wooo lookit go"

I can hit a man sized target 5/10 times at 50-100 meters but with a group of slingers this could ruin your day.
The big disadvantage asides from training is the amount of space each slinger needs in a formation
http://slinging.org
http://slinging.org/index.php?page=making-a-braided-sling-an-illustrated-guide

>> No.11872393

>>11872333

I dont think so, it would seem like it would just be dead weight and I've never seen one appear in any historical context. Either as an artifact or in paintings/plates/drawings etc.

>> No.11872397

>>11872374
A lot of them were bodyguards. It was the same situation as Arab leaders hiring disenfranchised Christian knights after/during the Crusader. The hire isn't involved with local politics at all, so he doesn't have any play in all the feuds and politicking currently going on.

>> No.11872409

Mortar here, representing a bigger slice of casualties caused than rifles and machine guns combined.

No love for mortars in videogames or tabletop, though. It requires too much TEAMWORK.

>> No.11872438

>>11872376
Units of swordsmen definitely did occur, the weapon wasn't always a sidearm. It depended on where you were at the time, but particularly in Italy and Spain occurrences of dedicated swordsmen were commonplace. The latter later became famous for it, though... To be fair, we give those sword and shield men credit for the absolute stupidest shit they did: Charging pikemen. That was absurd, as their primary usage was in assaulting walls, where they were second to none.

>> No.11872443

>>11872409
I like mortars... though I grew up playing the Close Combat series where having at least one per mission was mandatory due to their utility. Damn that was a good game series.

>> No.11872505

>>11872013
The guy on the ground looks like he was going to/got stabbed.

That's some stone-cold killer maneuvering if you can pull it off though.

"Fuck that guy charging on his horse, I'm gonna run up on him and stab him first, he'll never see it coming!"

>> No.11872518

>>11872386
Archers needed to have their arrows on the ground (to avoid the whole drawing from case movements) and some free space to angle their shots cleanly without ricking hitting friends, so the difference may not be that big

>> No.11872532

>Were two headed ones ever used, do you suppose?

As signs of office, yeah. The turks used them in that function and the Mykeneans too.

>It depended on where you were at the time, but particularly in Italy and Spain occurrences of dedicated swordsmen were commonplace.

Shieldmen, pls. Those guys were nothing without their shields.

>> No.11872585

>>11872438
I got the demo for 3 back in the day and played the single demo map over and over for an entire day, good times. Pirated years later, goodbye week of free time.
A Sturmgeschutz in the right place was hell incarnate.

>>11872443
Dedicated swordsmen you say?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsknecht

>The Westail

>> No.11872591

>>11872532
Good sir, I would never contest the necessity of the shield. I feel it is fully implied that unless stated otherwise, a shield is present in EVERY soldier's kit whose weapon is less than three meters long.

>> No.11872671

>>11872585
>I got the demo for 3 back in the day and played the single demo map over and over for an entire day, good times. Pirated years later, goodbye week of free time.
A Sturmgeschutz in the right place was hell incarnate

Oh hell yes, I did the same damn thing (though bought the game).
I recently got back into CC3 in the updated form of Cross of Iron. Really should get some multiplayer of that going, though banning all use of the Pz. II due to the way a 20mm cannon still breaks the game by annihilating infantry harder and faster than hitting them with artillery shells to the face. Thankfully though in campaigns even anti tank rifles have a chance against a Pz. II

Saying that I do quite like the mid/early war, far less uber units/tanks.

>> No.11873373

>>11872409
Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory had a mortar as one of the soldier's weapons. If my team had a good field ops, so I could stay in one position and not have to run around to get ammo, I could rack up lots of kills. Without hitting the enemy's spawn right when everybody spawned, mind you, I played on a server where spawnkilling was a bannable offense.

>> No.11873407

>>11872409
In Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory a good mortarman is worth 4 or 5 guys on your team. That's how many he kills per mortar round. Everyone hates mortarmen that have skill or a spotter.

>> No.11873487

GUYS GUYS GUYS

YOU ARE ALL MISSING THE POINT!!!

The real point is, which weapon would be best against the undead?

>> No.11873548

>>11873487
chainsaw and boomstick.

next question?

>> No.11874335

>>11869462
>guy on youtube
>expert

Oh, you kill me.

>> No.11874475

>>11869238
And as I told you and you yourself just confirmed: that is bigger than a tomahawk and it's head.

As for two-handed axes: where did I ever mention that two-handed axes had to be huge crescent shaped monsters that weigh 20 pounds and look like the stereotypical movie executioner's axe?

So far, no where. But anything larger than a hatchet (being about 14 inches in length or more) is pretty much a two-handed axe that you have the option of wielding one-handed.

Thus, most medieval axes WERE two-handers based on their length and weight. And they were even used as such much of the time because the small shields that the Norsemen used were strapped to their arms. Two-hand strikes are possible since you don't have to hold your shield.

And given plate armor, you'd probably have to do power assists to either pierce the armor or crush the bones beneath them.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action