Well, it ain’t fast, and it sure takes a specific set of qualifications to use one, and it would specifically not be usefull in a general melee, but . . .
You get hit by a caber, you get devastated.
And the Anvil ain’t so shabby, either.
Those Scotts were a rowdy bunch.
Tris
The Swiss became famous mercenaries not until AFTER they had given up the two-handed long sword. Looks bad-ass and does do major damage–but only if you are able to bring it into use before the other dude puts a rapier/cutlass through your throat.
My personal answer for most devastating hand to hand weapon: The Shield. It’s what let the Romans and Greeks kick so much butt.
Assuming you are willing to call a defensive device a weapon.
One of those SWAT shields threaded with wire that can deliver electrick shocks would be pretty good.
Don’t make me whip out The Critical Mass on you
I think the Halberd is the all-around best edged weapon - the mediaval equivalent of the assault rifle. It has reach, but you can shorten the haft (hold it higher up). The axe edge can do some serious damage, and if it doesn’t punch through armor you can use the spike opposite it, which can also be used for tripping. A halberdier can work independently, but the spear point allows it to be used in tight formations - it’s not a pike, but it’ll do - and it can be used as an anti-cavalry weapon in a pinch. Plus, you can parry with it.
It’s main disadvantage is its size getting in the way in urban warfare and the fact that you can’t use a shield. Still, if I were equipting a force of medieval armored shock stormtroopers, I’d give them halberds.
The swiss were famous for their pike formations, but so what? The germans had many famous and efficient mercenary units that used the longsword. It was also the mainstay weapon of the knight in the high middle ages.
I could say he same thing. You could kill me with a rapier, but only if you were to bring it to bare before I closed and hacked you to pieces 
It doesnt get us anywhere closer to answering the OP, now does it?
I once used a short pole as a quarterstaff and kicked shit out of three guys. One wasn’t able to leave without assistance. I hauled ass when the cops showed up but I was holding my own pretty good for a while.
Triskadecamus lets not forget that the Scots gave us the claymore which was a formidable broadsword.
A Pit Bull with a long stick up it’s butt.
Deadly, man! 
Actually, a Halberd or a Godentagg.
By the way, the Halberd could better be described as a hybrid of a Pike and an axe.
What about that Aztecian weapon? The one that was a heavy club but was sided with razor sharp obsedian? Sorry I am of no more help, just thought I would stop by and say so.
[Fighter]Sword-chucks, yo! [/Fighter]
Apologies to those who don’t read 8-Bit Theater.
I believe a claymore is a two-handed sword. Technically, a broadsword is this:
Claymore stands for “Great Sword” and the name referred to both, the large two-handed sword and the later broad sword used during the 1800’s.
I’d opt for the 16-ton wieght dropped on top of you.
Now that I think of it I should have said morning star instead of flail; a flail has multiple balls chained to the shaft (that didn´t sound very nice :eek: ) A morning star has just one spiked ball, and I think that, with it´s capacity to build up kinetic energy it should be able to deliver a more devastating blow than a single swing or thrusting weapon.
And if the question is wich weapon is more destructive (not which is better on a hand to hand combat) it makes sense that the more destructive is the one that hits harder.
As used by Wily E. Coyote in Braveheart, I believe.
Holy, check out that kopesh. Looks like some sort of Boris Vallejo weapon. I assume the goofy curved blade is because it was derived from the scythe and that the curved blade was dropped because it’s primarily useful only from horseback (did the Egyptians do much horseback fighting?). I figured that was the primary reason for the Scimitar and sabre weapons.
The word you want here is “flat,” as opposed to “steep.”
In Primitive Warfare, Harry Turney-High argued that the success of the Roman military was enabled by the use of the gladius; i.e. absent a short sword, the Romans would not have been so successful. The sword forced the soldier to get in close to the enemy where the enemy’s spear or large sword would be hindered, and the limitation to thrusting attacks kept the blows quick, unpredictable, and lethal. He made the point that swords have sharp edges to facilitate withdrawing them from convulsing muscle, and using the edges offensively is inefficient.
There was a Roman historian (whose name I can’t recall) who noted that slashing weapons gave the opponent a chance to counter because of the time to travel in an arc, and generally did less damage for a strike of a give severity. E.g. a puncture wound in the lungs is more damaging than a slash of equal force. (I know I’m not saying that right.)
I have also heard that the success of the Zulu was in part due to the use of short, stabbing weapons.
To say that the Romans were stopped by foes using large swords or axes is misrepresentative of the relationship. IIRC, many of their foes used long swords. One book on Roman military history, I can’t recall which one, mentioned an episode during the expansion of the state northward. IIRC, it was near or just north of the border where Italy joins the mainland. Anyway, the opponents had large swords and a dynamic formation. The Romans were instructed to let the enemy strike first and let the blow hit the metal rim around their shields. When this happened, the soft-iron swords of the enemies bent and they were stuck on the battlefield trying to straighten out their swords while facing the Roman advance.
Would they be effective against Swiss pike squares? Who knows, but they sure beat the hell out of the Greek phalanx, if that suggests anything.
I have no speculation as to how the wide, thrusting swords would do against plate armor, for example. They did wear banded & mail armor themselves, and from what I’ve read the step to steel from iron really didn’t have that big of an effect in terms of protective effectiveness. (I’ll have to dig up a citation on that.)
The short sword may have also not been so hot against mounted lancers. I don’t know about that.
That said, I have no idea whether a short sword is more destructive than an axe or anything else. I’m just typing because I’m easily distracted and I got caught up in the thread.
No. During the period when Egypt was at the peak of its powers, they used chariots.
Are you fighting mano a mano or in the middle of an army?
Are you mounted or on foot?
Is mobility important to you?
What kind of protection are your opponents wearing?
Hmm, this contradicts 1,000 years of military history from the early middle ages to the renaissance, where although the rapier was the weapon of the civilian, the cut and thrust sword remained as the weapon of the soldier.
I’ve read numerous accounts from swordsmen (not historians) which state that the cut is more immeadiately debilitating than the thrust.
Although I agree, a well placed thrust is likely to mean death to you specially during the time these weapons were being used. But at the same time a well placed cut would be immeadiatley debilitating meaning that usually you would be killed anyway by the subsequent cuts coming at you.
It all depended where the cut landed as well. A cut to the neck is likely to kill you outright, as is one to the head. The thrust has more purchase in the torso area though.
This doesn’t make much sense. The zulu had no metal cutting weapons. So how can you contrast?
It’s like me saying romans succeeded because of their swords, not guns. Well, guns did not exist at the time, so what does that mean?
Just a clarification, at the time a longsword was basically anythign longer than a gladius. The term applied to two-handed swords during the high middle ages and that is the weapon I’m nominating
[quote]
Anyway, the opponents had large swords and a dynamic formation. The Romans were instructed to let the enemy strike first and let the blow hit the metal rim around their shields. When this happened, the soft-iron swords of the enemies bent and they were stuck on the battlefield trying to straighten out their swords while facing the Roman advance.
[quote]
Even the Romans realized that the larger swords were very useful incombat, adopting them for use with their calvary. And eventually they did persevere against even Roman discipline.