What was the best middle ages weapon and why was it the great sword (provided your on foot and have full plate)

A cannon.

>gets stabbed from 10ft away when they rush a formation of pikemen
>armor catches the pike
>gets shoved on his back instead
>gets ran over by horse or trampled by men behind him

Honestly, I think the halberd might be my favorite medieval/renaissance weapon.

Attached: 29.156.3_001june2014.jpg (2250x4000, 1.79M)

Quarterstaff.

youtube.com/watch?v=VHZKHmqa0KY

Knights even full plate, still rocked a shield. It was great to let it take a blunt of the force from shit like warhammers.

No, they didn't. Plate armor is what allowed longswords, greatswords, pollaxes and the like to really shine: because you no longer needed a shield.

recurve bow by far, without debate

Attached: map.jpg (768x430, 51K)

>What was the best middle ages weapon

The halberd and recognised as such at the time because you do not know this your opinion is worthless

>The halberd and recognised as such at the time because you do not know this your opinion is worthless
>recurve bow by far, without debate

fair point but assumed retarded op meant melee weapons not ranged ones

>thinking melee weapons rank in top 3 at any point in history
Read more, retard. The middle ages put the definitive "War is about range" stamp on history that will never be overthrown.

i think you tagged me wrong for the first point, sorry for the aggression. If he's talking about melee then yeah probably halberd

Good point. Bow is clearly superior-you can tell because steppe nomads never, ever managed to make serious progress into Europe.

That has more to do with a lack of grazing land and political instability within Mongols than anything. Name one time in the last thousand years that a melee-focused army beat a ranged-focused army

>they hated him because he told them the truth
this thing BTFOs knights and peasants alike. I was going to ask why these things(or just pikes) weren't used with crossbows to form a proto-pike and shot formation, but I think the latter innovation was more about standing armies and money than technology.

>If he's talking about melee then yeah probably halberd

Well there is a big clue in the fact that the variant with a short sword like spike as opposed to a simple spike was the preferred weapon for royal and high ranking bodyguard units throughout Europe. It was the best weapon which is why when it really really mattered it was the one selected. It was possible to grapple, pin, trip, dismount, use as a shortsword and of course thrust or batter an armoured opponent. The major evidence is its near universal use by royal bodyguards and electors or the holy roman empire

>Implying long sword was superior to Greatsword while using them in the same category.

k

>That has more to do with a lack of grazing land
As opposed to all that grazing land in fucking Persia, Iraq, Afghanistan? No, that's not it.
>and political instability within Mongols than anything
Oh right, it's political instability. That's why no steppe nomads ever did it. It's not like the Mongols were the first or last, yet they all stopped at roughly the same spot. Hungary, sometimes Poland.
>Name one time in the last thousand years that a melee-focused army beat a ranged-focused army
Name such a force to exist aside from steppe nomads. IF you say "m-muh English longbowmen" I'll have to educate you a bit. There is no such thing, because they'd be utterly destroyed once the enemy closed with them. Combined arms wins battles, and artillery is far superior to archery.

Also it should be known that recurve bows were remarkably ineffective against plate armor. Even against the crusaders in centuries prior, bows would penetrate their maille and fail to make it through the padding underneath.
>inferring implications that were not implied
k

>>
this thing BTFOs knights and peasants alike. I was going to ask why these things(or just pikes) weren't used with crossbows to form a proto-pike and shot formation, but I think the latter innovation was more about standing armies and money than technology.

a windlass crossbow is a bitch to reload. firearms is actually simpler to reload once you got the movement.

>Heavy
Mass 2–3.2 kilograms (4.4–7.1 pounds)

thats heavy?

You do know longswords aren't the one handed swords from videogames, right?
Longswords are two handed swords. That became popular because plate armor meant you no longer needed a shield.

>grazing land in fucking Persia, Iraq, Afghanistan
yes, read more faggot
>political instability / That's why no steppe nomads ever did it.
Firstly, the series of poorly timed leadership deaths undeniably stalled their invasion of a defenseless Europe
Secondly, no steppe nomads ever did it because of logistics and communications not because melee weapons were worth jack shit. Mongols had the largest land empire in history, conquered against primarily sword based armies. Your theory that they magically were stopped by the power of the longsword/bastardsword/whatever is so retarded that it is indescribable.
>ranged doesn't win battles, fixed ranged (artillery) + handheld ranged + like five swords wins
I'm done, you're are unironically retarded

>recurve didn't work against the 5% of an army that were plate armored and routed once shtf
Again, READ A FUCKING BOOK

>Longswords are two handed swords. That became popular because plate armor meant you no longer needed a shield.

poleaxe and pole hammer became popular because plate armor made shield redundant.

longsword isn't going to do shit against plate. Neither longsword nor katana are capable of cutting a decent full plate. You need to hammer time him.

Knights only used shields on horseback to deflect lances. On foot, there was little point.
Now, people who weren't wearing full plate continued to use shields, but they did this for mobility reasons on foot.

You can carry an estoc instead of a "true" (that is, edged) sword. It was pretty good at thrusting into joints and gaps.

>yes, read more faggot
I have, and in both my firsthand experience going to the middle east and Europe and in reading, I can confirm there is far more land suitable for grazing in Europe, than in the Middle East, and that has not changed in the last thousand years. In fact, the Mongols could very well have gone ahead and razed whatever forests they felt were in the way. They weren't exactly strangers to it.
>Secondly, no steppe nomads ever did it because of logistics and communications
Ah yes, steppe nomads failing at logistics and communications. The two things they were undeniably best at. You certainly are well educated on this subject I can tell.
>I'm done, you're are unironically retarded
You're only upset because you don't know why you hold the beliefs you do, but you're very sure you're right. It's an ego thing.
>hurf durf read book
I think you should, because
>>recurve didn't work against the 5% of an army that were plate armored and routed once shtf
plate armor didn't exist during the crusades. That was my point. I'll dumb it down a peg. Chainmail stops arrows dead. Plate armor completely nullifies them. Arrows are worthless against armor. That's why slaves were given bows from antiquity to the middle ages. Because they weren't expected to do anything but annoy the enemy. The only reason anyone holds them in any regard is British propaganda for a war they lost.

And that's why the Mongols were so effective. They could pester and skirmish with infantry, force them to charge, then surround and kill them all.

>longsword isn't going to do shit against plate
And yet they became a thing and remained popular after plate armor
>Neither longsword nor katana are capable of cutting a decent full plate
Correct. And that's why later longswords would sometimes not even have sharpened edges. Because it was used almost as a grappling tool to maneuver your opponent into a position you could stab the shit out of him in.

>tfw naked Brother Jean des entommeurs, his robes as a cape, kicks your shit, chops the heads of your ransacking comrades, don't even let them run away just because they want to keep their wine.
Clergy guys with halberds i fucking swear

>What was the best middle ages weapon

Best for what, tho?

For a sword, it is. They usually weigh around 1kg.

Cute fan fiction

>because steppe nomads never, ever managed to make serious progress into Europe.
You can thank the Christian Turks (Magyars) for that, bucko.

Attached: hungarian_invasions_of_europe.jpg (620x370, 85K)

the Mongolian won because they were the most disciplined army of their time and use squad tactic against what's basically a glorified mob.

It's not just a case of range = instant. the kind of feint retreat, surround, and crush tactic used by the mongol could only really be achieved if your army had excellent leadership all the way down to the rank and file.

This tactic was used by all steppe armies, including the Magyars (battle of river Brenta for ex.). It's only that the Mongols were the best at it at the time.

Bow, crossbow, spear, and mace are alpha as fuck. Swords are for söyboys who don't actually know anything about history

People who believe the "swords are overrated" meme don't know shit about history

>(provided your on foot and have full plate)
As you admited yourself, there is no such a thing as a best weapon. It's entirely context dependant.

Attached: Let me tell you about swordsmanship.gif (320x180, 1.46M)

bad picture op

Attached: zweihänder.jpg (450x600, 184K)