Is plate really superior to mail and quilt?
Yes, yes, it is.
ETA - It’s lighter than mail, for one thing. Better weight distribution. Glancing surfaces. I could go on…
Shorter Mongolian bows were certainly very useful on horseback (and are quite famous for being as such) but they also made longer versions that were used on foot. Mainly, it’s the composite materials and the recurve style that I was thinking of. That type of bow will outperform an English style longbow, while simultaneously requiring less strength to do so, meaning your archers don’t tire out as quickly.
Great and interesting responses, everyone. As for criteria and minutiae I didn’t specific, choose whatever you’d like.
I think it’d be historically interesting to outfit Native American tribes, like the Cherokee, with steel arms and armor and English bows. Maybe I could cheat and have them inoculated against smallpox, measles, et al. Sometimes I wonder what it would take for the various tribes to have been able to stop European expansion at, say, the Mississippi River. Arrows did have a lot of advantages over early muzzle loading muskets and rifles.
This is reminding me of why I didn’t do well in my history class on medieval warfare.
Can someone please break down the differences between a pike, a poleaxe and an halberd?
Until the bows break, which they do, and you can’t fight in most fo the planet’s environment. There’s reasonw hy such bows were heavily limited and never really spread beyond horse nomads raoming the step.
Simply, a pike is a long pole with a pointy metal tip used in a phalanx, a pole axe is more of a war axe with a really long handle, and a halberd is a larger-headed variant of a poleaxe.
Can we be unit specific?
Footsoldiers: Viking style helm, Spartan shield, kestus to cover hands combined with a plated forearm guard. Spanish style breastplate. Simple spear or pike as primary weapon, small mace and dirk combo for backup.
Heavy infantry: All of the above armour as well as the following: full shoulder and thigh plate armour, think a “short suit”. Armed with backsword style heavy sabre made from Japanese steel. Other weapon would be subject to personal training but may include shield, hand axe, mace, or short roman sword for those who can go two handed.
More later
China seems to provide the best crossbow tech.
But Europe, in the Middle Ages, give the full flower of armor. (Classical Arab chainmail is very, very good, but too vulnerable to broadswords & crossbows.)
For a sword, I’m thinking a curved, single edged blade, with both edge & point.
Will we be needing a pole arm? Halbreds or godentags, if so.
I saw a history channel show where the showed The guys who designed medieval total war doing they best simulations they could come up with and decided the single most effective weapon was the
They really aren’t that large, so I think I would have my men carry a pair as side arms, to deal with Unexpected situations.
You want your weaponry made from the poorest steel on the planet? (Ok, exxageration. But not by much.)
Which begs the question as to why they were pretty much abandoned as a battlefield weapon by the late sixth century, if they were so great ;). They were largely replaced by variations on the seax, a stabbing short sword used “gladius-style” in the context of a tightly packed infantry phalanx. Or in other words the Franks dropped the use of Germanic throwing axes in favor of a more Romanized style of combat.
I’m sure the francisca was a perfectly useful weapon in context, but I’d be a bit wary of saying it is that uber based on the word of the MtW guys ( much as I like those games ) or anything that comes out of the History Channel.
Lions, lots of lions.
Could be due to Romanization, and the Romans might not have picked it up because it was seen as barbaric, because it wasn’t cost effective, or because it was hard to train to use.
I’m not saying that it’s hard to train to use, mind, I’m just pointing out that while an evolutionary process does generally pick the best option, that’s the option that works in the real world, not in an ideal world. In an ideal world, with limitless finances and time to train your men, the best weapons may well be different.
Reminds me of one of my favorite things to hear in the SCA:
“… A fully automatic Rapier?”
“That’s period.”
“No. It’s not.”
Along with:
Braggart: “So there I was…”
Audience, deadpan: “… no shit…”
Braggart: "A hundred and twenty degrees out, elephant grass up to my eyeballs, there was a hundred of them, and only the one of me.
It was a good day to be me!"
Meh, depends on your point of view. There were better performing steels available but the quality of the swordsmithing was quite hit and miss. Well made Japanese blades were, and still are high works of metal craft. I’ll take a lower quality material with a consistent high level of workmanship over a better material with a mediocre track record. Don’t take that as knocking the great European swordmiths BTW, there are plenty of masters there as well.
Anyhoo,
I’d have two sets of archers, Horse mounted with mongol recurves and on foot with crossbow, longbow combination. Different archers for different situations. All archers would be fitted with a spanish style breastplate, a lightweight helm and hardened leather laminate armour. They are valuable and to be kept at a distance. They are allowed whatever hand to hand weapon they favor as a back up and will be grouped into units that can fight together efficiently.
Heavy cavalry shall be outfitted with Steel plate, spear, sabre and mace or seax.
Out of curiosity, did they ever put bayonettes or something similarly pointy on crossbows? Would it help much, or was the thing just too cumbersome to use close in?
Does the recurve design really require “less strength?” Are you perhaps confusing composite bows with compound bows? I would think that any bow puts out only the force put into drawing it – you can’t get energy for free. (Compound bows use pulleys to make it easier to hold the bow drawn, but not to get it there…which is really more of an innovation for hunting, where you may have to hold it drawn while waiting for prey).
In case it’s not clear, one of the main limitations on compound bows is that they are glued together and can come unglued when wet. Steppes and grasslands have much less rainfall than fertile lands; such areas both supply enough grass to raise large horse armies and have little enough rainfall to make compound bows more practical. Outside of such areas the bows can exist and be used but varying amounts of rainfall will make them troublesome or even impractical.
It’s cumbersome, but also it’s taking a precision tool and bashing it, pretty much wrecking it for ranged use. Also, crossbows are not typically long and narrow, like rifles, but short and wide, making them a less attractive bayonet mount.
I saw an episode of this where they tested the Japanese katana against the Danish axe. Contrary to every principle of fanboyism and anime, they gave higher marks to the Danish weapon, for its unbelievable penetrating power. The comparison was even more one-sided when they tested each weapon against its nationality’s preferred armor. The katana – and (they said) they were using a high-quality katana against simple mail some hobbyist had handmade – scored bright weals of metal as it slid off the Dane’s mail hauberk. The Danish axe tore through lacquered Japanese lamellar armor like a hungry nerd opening a package of Top ramen.
Issues of training and technique weren’t explored, but it’s questionable which lifelong professional warrior class would have had an edge, if any. The testing suggested that traditional Samurai would have been hard-pressed in hand-to-hand combat against the huscarls holding the hill at Hastings.
To clarify: I looked at the link and it looks like they gave the edge to the Samurai after all, despite the weapon penetration tests. But Wikipedia says it was the closest of all the rated battles.