Weapons

...

Well I don't know, what do you think?

1 vs 1, probably a simple sword and shield combo, or possibly a lance and shield. Gives decent range and ways to keep you from getting killed. With the lance, the shield is optional, even, you could use both arms for more thrusting power, but you're in trouble if your opponent gets in too close.

In terms of army vs army, archers, lots of archers, especially if you have high quality longbows or horses for your archers to ride around on. horseback archers are stupidly effective when you have some open space.

Steppe missile cavalry or pikemen

depends on the criteria. daggers/knives, spears, axes, clubs and bows are the most wide spread and probably caused the most deaths

longswords were the most versatile (sidearm), same with the poleaxe.
lantern shields had the best design though.

If it were a pointless thread, we would only be posting clubs and maces haha

Hahahaha I see what you did there. I hate you and love you for this at the same time.

Crossbows

God why were Byzantines so shit at art

I understand your generalization of germ based warfare, but from a historical standpoint, the weaponized based germ or biological warfare did not happen until scientific research of cells helped forward the use of actual weapons.

Biological warfare as a whole is old but it's official weaponized era was relatively short lived.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1326439/
Here's a little article to read. This fellow states what I am stating in a similar way.

In this order. Pikes, sheild, longbow, longsword, battleaxe.

People have had all kinds of different opinions on the matter throughout history.

George Silver for example wrote in the 16th century:

>1. The single sword has the vantage against the single rapier.
>2. The sword and dagger has the vantage against the rapier and poniard.
>3. The sword & target has the advantage against the sword and dagger, or the rapier and poniard.
>4. The sword and buckler has advantage against the sword and target, the sword and dagger, or rapier and poniard.
>5. The two handed sword has the vantage against the sword and target, the sword and buckler, the sword and dagger, or rapier and poniard.
>6. The battle axe, the halberd, the black-bill, or such like weapons of weight, appertaining unto guard or battle, are all one in fight, and have advantage against the two handed sword, the sword and buckler, the sword and target, the sword and dagger, or the rapier and poniard.
>7. The short staff or half pike, forest bill, partisan, or glaive, or such like weapons of perfect length, have the advantage against the battle axe, the halberd, the black bill, the two handed sword, the sword and target, and are too hard for two swords and daggers, or two rapier and poniards with gauntlets, and for the long staff and morris pike.
>8. The long staff, morris pike, or javelin, or such like weapons above the perfect length, have advantage against all manner of weapons, the short staff, the Welch hook, partisan, or glaive, or such like weapons of vantage excepted, yet are too weak for two swords and daggers or two sword and bucklers, or two rapiers and poniards with gauntlets, because they are too long to thrust, strike, and turn speedily. And by reason of the large distance, one of the sword and dagger-men will get behind him.

[to be continued]

[continuation of ]
>9. The Welch hook or forest bill, has advantage against all manner of weapons whatsoever. Yet understand, that in battles, and where variety of weapons are, among multitudes of men and horses, the sword and target, the two handed sword, battle axe, the black bill, and halberd, are better weapons, and more dangerous in their offense and forces, than is the sword and buckler, short staff, long staff, or forest bill. The sword and target leads upon shot, and in troops defends thrusts and blows given by battle axe, halberds, black bill, or two handed swords, far better than can the sword and buckler.
>10. The morris pike defends the battle from both horse and man, much better than can the short staff, long staff, or forest bill.

>Again the battle axe, the halberd, the black bill, the two handed sword, and sword & target, among armed men and troops, by reason of their weights, shortness, and great force, do much more offend the enemy, & are then much better weapons, than is the short staff, the long staff, or the forest bill.

To which extent he was right is obviously questionable and if you had asked one of his contemporaries, e.g. Vicentio Saviolo, he might have told you something completely opposite.

>Posts a weapon invented after guns.

How about I douse you in Greek Fire and you can see for yourself how totally 100% accurate that picture is, as you burn to death screaming for your mommy?

What

Was Silver followed or talked about in his times? Was Silver the beginning of a fencing tradition in his times, which would imply that his ways were regarded and influencial to some sort of degree in his times?
Because last time I've checked, the answers were no and there's reasons to think that Silver is so much talked about solely because he is one of the earliest english-speaking writing fencer, which was appealing to early anglo HEMA who didn't want to learn german or italian.

If you were putting quotes of Fabris, Calvacabo, Marozzo or Meyer regarding some sort of melee weapons hierarchy, then there would be matter to talk.

...

Notice how big are the letters compared to painting.

What's that hole with lid in the shield for?

at any moment in history a most popular is most effective until a better design gets spread or society "changes its ways" and society forces change in weapons.
this works even for gun era, 100 yers ago lets say mauser was most effective, most advanced pistol but better pistols came after it and now it;s not used

Fire

ITS A FUCKING LAMPHOLE

...

high-powered crossbows

A polaxe was a good choice due to it beong not only a spear but an axe. I'd rather choose a long ranged wooden sharp ass pole for cutting plebs into pieces than a dumb sword

>choose
you're the pleb my dear

.

What's the point of all this...?

Hahahaha I actually love comfy Veeky Forums here is your (you)

Big old bag of pommels. There were literally unstoppable peasant armies armed only with bag fulls of pommels.

>This far in and no bat'leths

The British police were briefly armed with similar weapons in the early 1800s.

...

>Most killy? Probably the catapult.
What

>Get's defeated when not in a heavily defensible position.

this thread is dumb because weapons arent designed to be "the best" theyre designed to be a gear in a machine. a long pike with some good armor is really good in a group, pretty shitty alone. a sword is pretty good for carrying anywhere and being the most versatile, but you can find other weapons that are better at every individual thing the sword does. An axe will cut deeper, a mace or hammer will hit harder than a sword handle held in mordau, a pick will penetrate deeper, a knife is easier to shove into weakpoints in armor, a spear is better at keeping distance, a polearm is better against cavalry and armored soldiers in general, but none of those weapons can do it all like a sword can, and apart from the knife none of them can be carried around during civilian life.
Id say the best weapon before gunpowder was good armor and a big horse. That seemed to be the preference for those who could have a preference.

bow + horse resulted in the biggest empire in the shortest amount of time

t. angry french knight

Nice. I enjoyed that.
Also, Japs are fucking monsters. Absolutely deserved to be nuked.

so much this

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1326439/
>Here's a little article to read. This fellow states what I am stating in a similar way.

Lol, no he isn't. He is saying biological warfare has been around since centuries but recent developments in microbiology made it possible for others in the modern era to have a new interest in it.

How can you be that dense.

Nice you read the first paragraph.

>killed 600 prisoners in human experiments

WWII had some monstrous people. They needed to be stopped for good.

Nice trips btw.

Enjoy being Patay'd!

Cannons

Plus the crossbows.

They have the most k:death ratio of all the pre-modern weapons.

What are you talking about? Frischknecht briefly mentions the past use of biological warfare. The entire article was about how it was weaponized and it's idea in the Modern Era. Did you even read it?

Regardless, like I said Frischknecht is only stating something similar to my point. What I'm trying to get across is that biological warfare was no doubt used in the past but it's wide spread use and weaponized potential came after guns.

Also regarding OP, though it was good at killing thousands, it's use wasn't that effective as in many cases it spread and causes friendly fire. It can also not be completely controlled due it it's lasting effects of spreading uncontrollably.

>kill to death ratio...?

If we are going purely by numbers killed surely it has to be the spear, no?

No, because plenty of spearmen die.

Considering metal weapons haven't been around that long in human history; unironically a stone or club

...

SHOW US

heck is this

As Miyamoto Musashi said, weapons are tools suited to a particular job. Armies need a variety of weapons. Generally speaking though plate armor and polearms seemed to make up the core of an army before the pike and shot era.

No. Melees have horrible K/D ratio. Bows/Crossbows are the most effective.

Also China being China.
>youtube.com/watch?v=o8rrv4PbWrg

Not a weapon.
It's Heron Engine.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_crossbow
Used for nearly two millennia. They were even supposedly used by peasant conscripts during the Boxer Rebellion

I saw Matt Easton at the Wallace Collection in London yesterday. I told him how cool it was to meet him in person, but I didn’t want to be a douche and bother him and ask him for photos or anything. He said, “Oh, like you’re doing now?”
I was taken aback, and all I could say was “Huh?” but he kept cutting me off and going “huh? huh? huh?” and closing his hand shut in front of my face. I walked away and continued with my museum trip, and I heard him chuckle as I walked off. When I came to leave the museum I saw him trying to walk out the doors with like fifteen pollaxes in his hands without permission.
The girl at the counter was very nice about it and professional, and was like “Sir, you can not take those arms with you.” At first he kept pretending to be tired and not hear her, but eventually turned back around and brought them to the counter.

When she took the pollaxes and started taking them back to the vitrines, he stopped her and told her to take them each individually “to prevent any contextual infetterence,” and then turned around and winked at me. I don’t even think contextual is a word. After she took each pollax and put them back and tried to tell Matt they are public property, he kept interrupting her by yawning really loudly.

This

>all these retards talking about swords and spears
>his

...