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".

Originally posted by belsam
I think the Battle of Agincourt (spelling) is proof of what the English longbow can do.

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).

What about the Bow?

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

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.

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]

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.

Originally posted by sheyrshad
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.

Originally posted by tomcat ha 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.

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'.