I've just been reading "English Martial Arts" by Terry Brown (which I'd recommend - very interesting), which includes some discussion - both new and quoted from historical sources - about the relative effectiveness of different weapons. The order (most effective to least effective, and assuming a fighter with a reasonable amount of training) would go something like this: Quarterstaff Black bill Battle Axe Longsword (two handed) Pike Broadsword and Buckler (shield) Broadsword and Dagger Broadsword Rapier Knife Club Barefists Do you agree with this order, or would you change it? Where would you insert other hand-to-hand weapons on the scale? (Thrown or fired weapons are obviously not comparable).
Each weapon will be better than another weapon in some scenarios. From your list, obviously a knife would be better in close-combat than a longsword, yet you would rather use a longsword in a pitched battle. It is all about the scenario.
Agreed. This list to me seems to be a little more bias towards old battlefield situations, for which i think it makes sense. Obviously now no good though. Peter
If he means "what weapon will give you the best survivalskills in a battlefield-situation" after training with it for X hours?" -I kind of agree; notice how weapons with long range is listed fairly high up in the list. I'd had added spear very high up as well, but perhaps he puts spear into the quarterstaff-category? As for longsword...if you leave shield out of it for the other weapons that are 1h. (I guess longsword perhaps is easier to survive with than a shorter 1h sword, but I was a bit surprised that he put it as far up as he did; I allways get bested (using and training longsword for 4 years) by people using buckler/shield + onehandweapon)
The only mention that I remember of spears in the book, is that they are preferred to swords except for very close-quarter combat. Yes, the book discusses the weapons in the context of duelling/competitions and battlefield, mostly the former. I guessed more than I did with the others on adding the longsword to the list - it's clear that it's thought inferior to battle-axe, bill and quarterstaff, but there's no clear mention of its comparison to broadsword (the broadsword gets much more discussion). In general, the criteria for effectiveness seem to be 1) Longer reach is better (unless at close quarters, clearly) 2) A more maneuverable weapon is better 3) A weapon that can chop and stab is better than one that can just stab, which is better than one that can just bash. The quarterstaff reigns supreme because of its reach (typically being 8 to 9 feet long) and being extremely quick to handle, despite its lack of blade. And when you get into close quarters, you can switch to halfstaffing with it (holding it in the middle rather than from one end) so it retains advantage at close range. (For self-defence purposes, this is all irrelevant of course because it's down to what you have with you or can reach).
That's why I'd have hellebard first, then spear ranked on top of quarterstaff. (They have the same capabilities as mentioned in the quote, + they can stab (and the helebard can even cut, deliver armourpiercing blows wiht the backside of the blade and hook an opponent with the blade) (Or else; why would kings and warlords bother to pay thousands of silvers for equipping their pikemen with steel on the end of the poles, if they'd been more effective without them
I think the issue with the halberd, which I think is basically a bill with a longer handle, was that the large blade and the length of the handle added too much to the weight so the weapon became slower to handle. Apparently (I read) the problem with pikes is that if the pikeman came up against bills or battleaxes, they would just have the end of their pike chopped off before they came in reach of actually striking their target.
hard wood shafts arent easy to cut they are beignheld by human arms, they tend to move when struck instead of staying still to be cut. And even though there is more haft on halberd than a bill, wood isnt that heavy and you get more leverage so you can acutlyl move it faster.
Personaly I'd chose a club over a knife in a 'to the death' fight anyday. I could do much more damage while keeping at a safer distance. So yeah...there are things in that list I'd change.
Yeah, and this is the bug in his listing IF the quarterstaff is the ultimate weapon, any polearm must be placed above the quarterstaff! Why? Because if they get chopped off, they become more efficient weapons. (You cannot chop off pole-shafts with axes/swords, by the way, Take your sharpest sword, have a friend wiggle a broomstick in front of you, then try and chop it off with one cut...
Yes, there's been a long and elaborate discussion on knife vs. short-stick before (I think it was called Crowbar vs. Knife). We never seemed to agree, and it seems that the one putting up this list was closer to my wiew of the outcome of a crowbar vs. a knife than the majority in that discussion
Its a matter of the reletive manvourvrability, cut damage and concussive damage of each as well as the ability to parry. I mean a quarterstaff can defeat a sword and I would agree is the top of the list HOWEVER it doesn't cut and also could be cut in two quite easily. Each could best the other in certain situations, like you could have a claymore, swing it once. Guy with bare fists dodges it and just runs up to you and punches you silly. And for instance a spear could best a sword due to range BUT if the sword gets past the point of the spear you are pretty much as good as dead.
I think George Silver has a list like this for war and for defens in time of peace and they are both different I will try and dig it up for you.
Here is what George Silver has to say about it in paradoxes of defens I think it gives some more stuff to debate alongside with Terry Brown's excellent work.
I'm assuming he's quoting from Silver's Paradoxes of Defence which, as it was published in 1599, should be out of copyright by now
Too many weapons that I don't know. What are black bills, forest bills, targets and welsh hooks? If I were to rate weapons, it would be based on these (in order): 1. Versatility, (staves can be gripped in the middle for close range, or held out far by holding one end) 2. Range 3. Speed 4. Attack options (two swords give you more options than one) 5. Lethality (stabs are more dangerous than concussions) 6. Mass (usually takes from speed, however) 7. Durability (usually, all weapons are too durable for this to matter) You can help me think of other factors. But I think these are the most important.
A Target is a type of shield. IIRC it's a large round shield, as opposed to the buckler which is a small round shield. The bills and hooks are similar weapons (in fact, the terms seem to get mixed up somewhat). Generally it has a wooden shaft of around 5ft / 1.5m (some are rather longer) with a blade on the end which is shaped so that it has stabbing, chopping and hooking points.
I hereby take the role as MYTHBUSTER :love: :love: :love: No, it isn't cut in two quite easily; not even by a zweihender; just bring a friend out with a oak/ash-pole and a sharp sword, let your bloke wiggle the quarterstaff, and you cut it in half easily...... I promise you, that you'll have to be out there for quite a time to even manage to cut it after 1000 attempts, and odds are that you bend your sword before you manage to cut the quarterstaff/spearshaft/hallebardshaft in two "easily".
