Top 10 Ancient Weapons

This is an interesting read, check it out -

listverse.com...

But you know, you can't deny that longbowmen were the best in the world, though. Longbow FTW! Imagine 15,000+ arrows flying in the sky....

[edit on 11-2-2008 by TheoOne]



Mod Edit - removed profanity .

[edit on 12-2-2008 by elevatedone]

reply to post by TheoOne

---

I find the criteria a little odd for these. They mentioned "dead people" so obviously its not only mechanical weapons. Or what about the Roman ballista? The war elephant? The phalanx pike should really qualify too, especially since it came back after the middle ages and dominated warfare.

Plus, stopping at early middle age make one miss other really badass weapons.

The Dardanalles Gun weighing in at nearly 20 tons, firing a 700kg, 762mm granite ball would definetly qualify as THE most badass pre-industrial weapon of all time. Compare that with the 380mm/800kg cannons on the battleship Bismarck and you get the idea of how badass it was in 1453.

Dardanelles Gun

[edit on 11-2-2008 by merka]

Caltrops are not weapons. They are an early type of 'anti-horse' mine, and used as an area defence weapon.

The Arbalest was at best, second best to the Welsh Longbow. It was under powered, shot a very short bolt with inferior range.

It also took time to re-cock the weapon and to do that whilst archers were firing volley after volley of steel tipped, armour-piercing arrows at you, really took some balls!

The Culverin was just as much a danger to the user, as it was to the intended victim. The history of England is littered with stories of highwaymen and women who were more often then not, killed when their weapon exploded.

Yea that list is daft, why have they ignored the longbow. One longbow on its jim won't do that much harm but a few thousand could really make it a bad day. I think the Battle of Agincourt (spelling) is proof of what the English longbow can do.

I think the page is dedicated to "cool" weapons. THus the term "badass" rather than "effective".

What about the Bow?

Before gunpowder showed up, wasn't it the best used projectile weapon?

The Archery Library has books on the bow from "1545 to 1923. The books available give an overview of the development of archery through the ages, from weapon of war to high society pastime, hunting and the beginnings of modern target archery"

Thank you.

Not really. Agincourt is proof of what too many people in a space dimensioned for far less people will result in. The French lost because they where too many, not really because of the longbow (though it of course was major factor).


Technically, the crossbow was the "best used" projectile weapon just before gunpowder. The longbow was a formidable weapon, but just like knights it required lots and lots of training and strength to use effectivly and I believe it still wasnt all that effective against heavy armor even with armor piercing arrows. The crossbow could be used by anyone and could cause heavy damage to a knight.

Its really hard to define something as the best as it depends alot on the men. The English had skilled archers and lots of them, plain and simple. But in terms of just the weapon, I personally think the crossbow was superior.

No katana on the list? And definately longbowmen too. Bad list in my opinion.

HAHAHA [snip]

I didn't know you could say "[snip]" especially inside the thread title

Back on track now!


Mod Edit - You Can't

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.





[edit on 12-2-2008 by elevatedone]

i'm disappointed there's no entry for the 15th century "korean turtle boat", which i believe is the 1st weapon capable of chemical warfare. now that's badass...

Yeah, I think this list is probably based on a person's lack of knowledge and research, another weak list.

Again, you cannot forget about the english longbowmen!

And shame on those who do.

[edit on 11-2-2008 by TheoOne]

Funny thing though, the 'English' Longbow wasn't. It was Welsh and made from a variety of woods with the best bows being made with Welsh Yew trees. It was the Welsh who tought the English the complexities of their art and for our friend Merka, I will say this:

The Battle of Agincort was not wholly down to how many French knights could fit in to a small field.

It was actually decided by the crass stupidity of the French commander and utter contempt the French nobility had for the English peasants on the battlefield.

The English peasant bowman took on the cream of French nobility and decimated it in about an hour, using a secret weapon - armour piercing hardened steel tipped arrows, the like of which had not been seen oin a European battlefield before.

www.familychronicle.com...

www.longbow-archers.com...

www.militaryhistoryonline.com...

reply to post by fritz

---

But then its thank to the arrow, not really the longbow

The evolution of warfare really shows that the range of a weapon isnt as significant as its power, even though range usually comes along eventually. So the "long" bow was doomed to begin with. It outranged the crossbow (they pounded the French crossbowmen at Agincourt before they could even fire), but was limited to the pure pulling strength of a human. Later adoption of gunpowder further shows this: range and reload speed is completely ignored in favor of ease of aiming and stopping power.

Something interesting would be to imagine what would have happened if gunpowder didnt show up. A continued evolution of the longbow and crossbow on the battlefield, using modern technology. Even though the longbow could be much easier to pull and aim with modern archery design (scoped longbow FTW!!! ), I think an artificially powered crossbow would beat it hands down once again. Yay for imagination. Crossbow!!!

It was just as much the longbow as it was the arrow. But more so it was the number of bowmen that was decisive. The arrows didn't penetrate armor as well as we're led to believe, it was the fact that when you were hit by 20 arrows at the same time there's a change 1 of them hit a weak spot.

in my opinion my favourite badass weapon was the aztec macuahuitl...
en.wikipedia.org...
a weapon made of wood and obsidian.

"Pedro de Moron, was a very good horseman, and as he charged with three other horsemen into the ranks of the enemy the Indians seized hold of his lance and he was not able to drag it away, and others gave him cuts with their broadswords, and wounded him badly, and then they slashed at the mare, and cut her head off at the neck so that it hung by the skin, and she fell dead" -Diaz del Castillo

for the materials used it was extremely effective

Only against unprotected flesh. An Aztec obsidian blade could almost chop a person in half... But would easily shatter against a steel sword. So I dont really agree it was "extremely" effective... Especially not if you take into account Aztec warfare was made to take prisoners, not clash weapons.

[edit on 12-2-2008 by merka]

very true. you do make a valid point. if only the aztecs had made a macuahuitl in iron...

mind you the "badass weapons" is indeed a very broad criteria. perhaps we should create a new list. how you define a weapon as "badass" is very hard.
as all weapons are usually created to injure maim or kill, they are all technically badass...

I think the Stirrup was the most revolutionairy "weapon" pre gunpowder but not pre civilization times.

It caused the collapse of the western roman empire.

Badass however.... scyted chariot is quite a winner and so was the katana.

reply to post by tomcat ha

---

The stirrup isnt a weapon. That's like saying the wheel was a "weapon" that made chariots possible, so technically the wheel should be #1 since war chariots are. Then again I dont think cavarly is to be defined as weapon to begin with, its only an effective delivery of the real weapons (whatever the horseman is carrying to kill the enemy with) and the stirrup just made it even more effective.

Sidenote: Well I did talk about the war elephant earlier, that's cavalry in a way. A horse charge is more to give weight to the weapon though (such as a lance), while an elephant charges for the sake of the elephant itself.

[edit on 12-2-2008 by merka]

Whilst not a weapon itself, the stirrup gave mounted troops the ability to both defend themselves with a sabre or sword and also the ability to attack enemy dismounted troops using a lance or spear. This weapon could also be used against lightly armoured 'light cavalry' in flanking or attacks from the rear.

I recently watched a programme called 'Flog It' on BBC1 - during which the reporter was put through his paces on a suitable horse before he was allowed to touch a weapon. He was then drilled by an 'original' Master-At-Arms and managed a very creditable score with both sabre and lance against a torso sized bean-bag.

The Master-At-Arms expressed his opinion thus:

'The invention of the stirrup did more to revolutionise mounted warfare than any other like invention. Simply put, it allowed the horseman to control his steed with one hand and attack an enemy [soldier] from horseback without having to dismount to fight, something which had never happened before'.