The rapier was a civilian weapon for thousands of years? Can I assume you meant during the renaissance?
Yes, they did. They had a short, stabbing spear, called an ilkwa , as well as longer, throwing spears.
The headmen of the Indunas, or regiments, had metal-headed axes.
First post.
Disregarding first any notions of D&D rules, or formed cavalry/infantry (as I’ve encountered little of either in my lifetime), I think, as many other posters seem to, that the question must be clarified before an answer can be rendered.
My definitions follow.
Hand to hand weapon: object useful for combat powered only by muscle force and inertia.
Defensive combat: conflict enabling one to injure or kill an attacker. People do this against Bad Guys.
Offensive combat: conflict enabling one to injure or kill an enemy. Soldiers do this against The Enemy.
To most these seem obvious, but many seem to address conflict as a back and forth exchange. Ideally, conflict is a completely one-sided event, be it defensive or offensive.
In my experience, a conflict ends when the first solid blow is landed, as long as that advantage is pressed until the opponent is unable to sustain further conflict. This rule applies to most all unarmored combat.
I see a trend in previous posts to lean towards armed combat in eras past. Maces, broadswords, halberds and such are all relatively enormous compared to, say, a Kel-Tec P11, or a small knife, both of which fit in my jeans and accompany me most everywhere. Combat of late is with small blades, improvised weapons, and firearms.
A mace of thirty pounds may be able to lay open a skull from horseback, but horse cavalry wielding impact weapons are a thing of the past.
So, in my mind, the matter is not the weapon but of the first to land a disabling blow.
The reigons vulnerable to disabling strikes with hand to hand weapons are the eyes, throat, and certain vital organs, most unhelpfully hidden in the torso.
With this in mind, I’d say the hand to hand weapon I’d least like to face is a razor, stiletto, or similar in the hands of someone not prone to announce themselves.
In an offensive situation, I’d choose similar.
The ‘destructive’ capacity of such an attack is not inconsiderable.
Impressive Iron-age weapons or not, one rarely puts up a good fight sans eyes.
Right 
My fault on the wording.
Wow, now that’s a weird weapon.
So they did use large cutting weapons. Must of had some use then, no?
Please reread OP. Qualify your answer for your own purposes.
Just like to say that I’ve learned a lot from this thread. Thanks, all.
The halberd and similar polearms ar ethe most ‘devastating’, for they have the maximum damage potential against flesh and/or armor due to their weight and the leverage the wielder can attain. Of course, as others have pointed out, they are unwieldly, and on an one-on-one fight, a guy with a halberd will probably lose to a guy with a dagger.
After the polearm, it depends who you’re fighting. Against an armored opponent, you’d need a flail for maximum effect, followed by a mace. Chainmail was impervious against slash attacks, and plate armor was almost completely impervious to almost every hand-held weapon. Only heavy bludgeons could do damage to the person inside. They’re also good for cracking heads.
Against cavalry, a pike or spear is ideal (after the polearm, of course), because horse and rider can impale themselves pretty readily. Were cavalry foolish enough to charge a line of set pikes, they would be annihliated a la Braveheart.
Against unarmored flesh, the sword is best (after the polearm). A slash with a claymore would do massive tissue damage. Even a regular longsword (or Katana or scimitar) could easily deal a mortal blow in one stroke. Also, someone before mentioned that most swords are more effective at slashing than impaling, which is true. You can get through chain mail with a stab with a sword, but it’s pretty haphazard unless it was designed for stabbing like the rapier. You don’t want to bother with bludgeons for an unarmored opponent because the weight on the end makes them more difficult to wield than a sword and do less damage than a blade.
So polearms are the best all-around weapon, IF you have support. If you’re by yourself, drop the halberd and run like a sissy.
Nice first post.
Your ideas are good but require the elliment of surprise, without it a stick or sword fighter would have the advantage. A reasonably strong walking stick would be sufficient to hold a knife fighter at bay and destroy their hands and arms if they over extend an attack.
But with surprise, a blaed will turn an apparently weak attack that seems not to need avoiding into a blinding attack. When blinding someone with a blade in an extreme self defense situation I have been taught to cut the eyebrows not to attack the eyes. The eyes are protected by bone ridges, but the eyebrows if cut will bleed heavily and blind the opponent just as well as damaging the eyes will, and with much less harm to the opponent.
I would say that a particular sword’s effectiveness at the thrust would depend almost entirely on it’s blade geometry. And a late 14th century longsword is much better suited to trhusting through chain that the rapier.
I agree with most of the rest of what you said.
It seems to me that the main advantage of the short stabbing sword like the gladius, or a short stabbing spear like the Zulu assegai is that you can pack your soldiers much more closely together. It doesn’t matter if the enemy uses broadswords that can do more damage by using the edge, the broadsword takes more space to swing around. If 2 or 3 legionaries with gladius and shield face one german warrior with a broadsword on the front lines, the legionairies will win even if the german’s sword is a “better” sword.
And of course, that’s why greek and macedonian phalanxes worked too…you can pack the hoplites together very densely, each man can protect the guys next to him, and any enemy soldier that gets under the first rank of spears can be attacked by the men in the second rank.
But this works only if the enemy can only attack your front…if they get behind you you’re going to be killed. So you form lines or squares that make it impossible for them to attack you from behind. So for foot soldiers, the most devastating weapons are those that allow them to mass and fight shoulder to shoulder. And the training you get isn’t so much to become an expert sword fighter, but to march in place, keep formation, and never ever run away.
But the answer is different if you’re on a horse, or by yourself. If you have a horse the most devastating weapon has got to be the lance, but this is kind of cheating, since the lance isn’t powered by the muscles of the man, but by the muscles and momentum of the horse.
And if you’re by yourself, I agree with previous posters that the winner of a fight is almost always going to be the guy that scores the first telling blow. Which argues for the Japanese all-out-attack style of combat…you run up and swing your sword at the guy as fast and hard and accurately as you can until he’s dead, using a Japanese katana since it is light and razor-sharp and optimized for this sort of combat. This assumes a “fair fight” of course. But the last thing anyone really wants is a fair fight, what they want is to kill the other guy without risking getting killed themselves.
So the real answer is the candlestick, in the drawing room, while the victim, I mean enemy soldier, is leaning over to read the manuscripts you brought over. Clock the old boy in the back of the head, and he won’t feel a thing. Plus no incriminating blood to clean up afterwards.
Yours,
Col. Mustard (ret.)
What about a quarterstaff?
It combines defence and attack, and is jolly cheap (for those peasant armies).
And of course a large cheque can be used to buy your opponents friendship (or at least his weapon).
To coin a brand new word, I disconcur. While a medieval longword would likely be able to stab through chainmail, it is a heavy weapon, likely designed primarily for slashing, and has a broader blade. Ergo, it would have to break a number of links in the mail to get to the dude inside.
The rapier, on the other hand, is a a very narrow blade which was designed specifically to impale. Because it is a smaller blade, it would have to break fewer links in the mail and penetrate more easily.
They’d both do the job, but I’d rather have a rapier.
I would still say the Maquahuitl. It is some what light, can crush an enemy, and can tear them apart at the same time.
An odd, odd, odd picture that scares me:
http://www.prodigyweb.net.mx/divad72/images/MaquahuitlMain.gif
Better view but you will have to scroll down and find it:
http://history.smsu.edu/jchuchiak/HST%20350--Aztec_weapons.htm
It is the forth picture on the page.
Chairman Pow,
My answer comes with qualifications because it depends entirely on the type of battle. I will also avoid any “missile-type” weapons, because as you’ve expressed, once hurled, a spear is worthless. If Joe Average goes to war, here’s what he’ll need.
Guerrilla/irregular skirmish (and I am particularly biased):
Mauled Tomahawk in one hand, long, durable knife blade for the other hand. Combine these weapons with basic martial arts training and you will be difficult to kill.
If you’re a stickler for only one weapon, I’d recommend the Warrior’s Cudgel, a slingable, specialized “club,” which is as long as a rifle and can have as many as four different bladed killing surfaces, plus the heft of a Maul for cracking a skull. Here’s a picture of a “dumbed-down” modern version.
The benefit of both the hawk/knife combo and the Cudgel is that they are light and versatile, as perfect for battle as they are for making camp and gutting a kill.
Regular, ranked fighting:
A long, pike-like, double-ended weapon, adequate for blocking, slashing and thrusting. A whirling Maori tewhatewha is a formidable weapon. My personal choice is another Maori weapon, the taiaha, but it requires a lot of training. One end of the staff is traditionally a big spiky spearhead for slashing/thrusting and fouling the enemy’s weapon (especially a bayonet!), the other end tapers to a Louisville Slugger-sized club.
Since you’ve probably trained with a “pugil-stick,” learning these staff-style weapons is as easy as a two-handed butt-stroke. 
Ranked, shielded fighting:
A heavier variation of the Scimitar/Mameluke Sword. The blunt edge can be scalloped or toothed to capture an opponent’s blade and crush a man’s head; the sharp parts can thrust and slash through leather and clothing with ease. Although it would have a wider blade than, say, a gladius, a scimitar is curved and is generally easier for the novice to extract from the enemy’s body – in the wrong hands, even an ultra-sharp katana is a terrible liability if the blade becomes wedged in the shoulder or pelvic girdle.
As for the shield, make it out of a big-ass lodestone…
Yours truly,
El Cid
A cheery little linky-poo to our happy friend the Goedendag.
Bludgeon & stabbing spear all wrapped up in one happy little package.
Play nice, kids!
Historical evidence and modern re-enactment would argue otherwise.
It seems many swordsmen in the renaissance wore chainmail of tight-fitting rings which where quite capable of stopping a rapier thrust.
The 14th century longsword on the other hand was specifically made to be used in trhsuting against the ample chain protection that covered the gaps in articulated plate. It’s weight would have also added to it’s penetrating power.
Btw, the longsword would have weighed anywhere from 1/2 a pound to 2 pounds more than a typical rapier.
Personally, I prefer to go with Rock. It’s completely effective against Scissors, as long as you watch for sneaky bastards wielding Paper.
What?
I interpret the OP as the weapon, powered only by human muscle and which remains in the hands of its user, which would do the most damage on a successful hit, without regard to how easily or often it would hit. For this, I would want something as heavy as a human could lift, on the end of a long arm. Perhaps something like fifty or sixty pounds, on the end of a ten foot pole. You lift it as high over your head as you can, then let it fall (assisted by your muscle, again) on your target. I’m not sure whether it ought to be sharp or blunt; it’s my understanding that closed wounds to the head (this beast’s most likely target) are generally more damaging than open ones. Now, this is not a practical weapon, because of the speed and difficulty of hitting issues I’m ignoring, so I wouldn’t expect to see this weapon used in history. Probably the closest equivalent would be a swinging polearm or a maul.
The reason that the gladius and other stabbing weapons were preferred by the Romans is that they work well with the tetegua (tortoise) formation. A block of soldiers would lock their shields together on all sides and on top, leaving a basically invulnerable armored mass of soldiers. There were small gaps between the shields, just large enough to poke a pike or stabbing sword through, but nowhere enough room for swinging. As long as your soldiers maintained discipline and didn’t break formation, the enemy couldn’t hurt you, so they either ran, or you closed and slaughtered them at your leisure. So I’ll agree with whichever poster said it before that the Roman army’s primary weapon was not the sword but the shield.
Personally, if I were in a one-on-one fight to the death using medieval-technology weapons, I would choose a quarterstaff. This is largely because it’s the only weapon (other than bare hands/feet/elbows/etc.) that I have any training with, but it’s also a very practical weapon. It’s got good reach, it’s quick, it can be used in a variety of ways in different situations (thrusting, wide swings, and short swings), it can block all but the very best blades (or even them, depending on what wood it’s made of), and it’s very easy to improvise one from a tree branch or long tool. You can even openly carry one inconspicuously: It’s just a walking stick.
On another board, during a thread which I cannot fully reproduce here, it was suggested making a weapon by tying two enormous dildos together at their bottom-ends with a short piece of cord or chain. The coined name for this awesome new piece of weaponry was the “slut-chucks”.
~
You know what?, it would be utterly deadly, I´d rather drop death beforehand to avoid the “Cause of death” field to be filled with “Massive head trauma caused by oversized sexual stimulator”.
There’s another thread around here somewhere (that I can’t find) where someone was saying that in their SCA crew, the halberder (?) took down everyone else in single combat. The only way they could defeat him was to have a two-man team, one guy to tie up the halberd and the other guy to attack.
Of course, that’s SCA.
El Cid: good qualifications. I had asked for the qualifications because otherwise I’d be taken to task for not defining the question well enough. As it is now, I’m likely to be taken to task for being a jerk…Can’t win 'em all I suppose (although with the information I’ve learned in this thread…).
Once you go Adamantium, you never go…uh, “antebellum”?
Of course, indestructible metal always has a bit of an “edge” on regular Steel. (Hell, if it’s indestructible, you could make a monomolecular blade, and never have to sharpen it.)
