Medieval Weapons

[Avenged7Fold]

Draw weight on a medieval longbow is not enough to kill a bear or a gorilla unless you hit an eye or something. Even if it was, i doubt anyone that isnt build like 8pack and practices archery could draw a longbow with enough power to kill something that big with anything other than an eye shot. Also firing a bow takes some practice.

Crossbow has the killing power and ease of use, as well as range.

 

[The IPB]

Draw weight on a medieval longbow is not enough to kill a bear or a gorilla unless you hit an eye or something. Even if it was, i doubt anyone that isnt build like 8pack and practices archery could draw a longbow with enough power to kill something that big with anything other than an eye shot. Also firing a bow takes some practice.

Crossbow has the killing power and ease of use, as well as range.

Even though the crossbow could take down a gorilla, if you hit a major organ. You still have to reload it before the other one gets you and medieval tech crossbows weren't super quick for reloading.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

A lever crossbow has enough draw weight for a gorilla and is loaded in a few seconds. A spear or a pike might get jammed in the right place but a big animal would just as easily snap the wood from flailing after the hit.

 

[StoutMeister]

Sparth axe or Norman broadsword. Oh, and an English longbow, for good measure.

 

[Daaaavvveee]

Mother-In-Law

 

[ttaskmaster]

Well, for large creatures they used crossbows which would be ideal for the modern man as they require no training and easily have the firepower to punch deep into a bear.

Those who could afford them, did. Those who couldn't used spears, as did people for millenia before crossbows were either invented or imported into their culture.
Also most responders to this question seem to know a little of what they speak, suggesting that they choose weapons in which they are trained. It is reasonable to assume that those with specific (and non-humourous) weapon choices actually have the training in them. So to make things equal, I would assume that whatever weapon you want to have would come with the relevant training.

If you think using a shield will help you, then your doing it wrong . Shields were always used against other people not animals, they shouldn't get that close to you and if they did, then you have a cumbersome thing preventing you from using two hands for wielding a weapon quicker or just moving out the way with ease.

If you think a shield is useless, you don't understand how they work - A shield provides a barrier. Whatever your attacker does, they have to get around your shield. Immediately that gives you elements of control over them.
Even if they're faster, it slows them down and gives you the initiative. It limits their options and forces them into opening themselves up when they do move.
It's also a weapon in itself, which can be used to buff, block, pin, break, bind or even hit outright.
A two-handed weapon can be useful in some situations, but if you're holding your opponent or forcing them into a narrow angle of attack, the shorter one-handed weapon is FAR more easily brought to bear (pun intended) on the tighter openings in their defences.
If your shield is too cumbersome to move like this, you chose the wrong kind.

The reason why small/medium swords are not useful is that a sword requires training and hitting a moving target with enough momentum, at the right angle to sever bone is difficult.

You don't have to cut anything. You certainly don't have to decapitate or cut limbs off your target. Simply causing it enough pain is a good start.
It's still a bar of solid steel and, even without any training, will still hurt/damage a LOT if you hit something with it, though. People really do forget this.
Blunt trauma does a heck of a lot of damage. Break it's nose, or something.

Gorillas and bears are thick and chances are you will end up going in range only to a deliver non fatal blows against a big wall of flesh, muscle and bone, only to receive a vicious counter.

Most highly trained and proficient martial artists will acknowledge that even a completely untrained opponent can still deliver a fatal blow, either by accident, luck or sheer instinct. Also, you don't have to deliver a heroic Conan-style one-blow kill that clefts the beast in twain... If all it takes is a hefty whack on the noggin or nose to scare the attacker off, the job is done. Case in point - A small cat attacking a very large dog... the dog is, what, maybe six times the cat's size and 50 times its weight, but one clawed paw to the dog's very sensitive nose and it's outta there.

Also firing a bow takes some practice.

One shoots a bow. One does not fire it. There's no fire involved.

Crossbow has the killing power and ease of use, as well as range.

Doesn't have to be a full-power longbow. Most UK medieval archers trained from around age 7 and I guarantee they couldn't draw 175lbs!
All you need is a bow strong enough to deliver a good hit, so perhaps 75lbs. I assume you're being attacked from range, hence using a ranged weapon - The longbow has the greater range over the crossbow and is faster to load, so you'll get more hits in during the charge.
Against man-shaped targets, I've personally seen a Longbowman shoot 19 arrows in a minute and I've personally shot close to 10 myself, both of which were 100% on-target.
More arrows = more wounds and again teh greater chance to dissuade an attack, against both single and multiple opponents.

A spear or a pike might get jammed in the right place but a big animal would just as easily snap the wood from flailing after the hit.

If anything, it's more likely to tear the shaft from your hands (ooer missus!). But a pointy weapon tends not to get 'stuck' in soft, squishy targets anyway.

 

[Rroff]

As for modern personal weapons, short of a machine gun,

Large calibre handgun. Something like a 0.50cal Desert Eagle (Or maybe two, And a couple of spare clips. IIRC you only get 5 rounds/clip on the 0.50) for the Bear/Gorillas

For the Wolves, Whatever handgun has the largest number of rounds in the clip (Glock??) with a baseball bat as a backup (Hopefully the noise and casualties will scare them off, But again, if the wolves really want you, they will get you)

DE chambered/barrel for .44 magnum IIRC can have 8 rounds + 1 in the chamber and would probably be my choice as it is a little more controllable for follow up shots. I believe most automatic pistols can take an extended mag - Glock being the go-to weapon of choice for many - a SMG with a substantial stock would be my choice for clubbing potential.

As alluded to by a few posters one of the problems with many medieval weapons is going to be the training and physical strength required to use them effectively - other than a crossbow I think I might try my luck with a ball-and-chain flail - would take a massive amount of nerve and only really get one shot to make it work though.

 

[The IPB]

DE chambered/barrel for .44 magnum IIRC can have 8 rounds + 1 in the chamber and would probably be my choice as it is a little more controllable for follow up shots. I believe most automatic pistols can take an extended mag - Glock being the go-to weapon of choice for many - a SMG with a substantial stock would be my choice for clubbing potential.

As alluded to by a few posters one of the problems with many medieval weapons is going to be the training and physical strength required to use them effectively - other than a crossbow I think I might try my luck with a ball-and-chain flail - would take a massive amount of nerve and only really get one shot to make it work though.

I was just watching videos of someone testing weapons against a medieval helmet (due to this thread) and by far the flail looked the most unwieldy.

The mace seemed much more usable.

 

[Rroff]

I was just watching videos of someone testing weapons against a medieval helmet (due to this thread) and by far the flail looked the most unwieldy.

The mace seemed much more usable.

Partly due to the damage you can do to yourself if it comes back at you I've also seen claims they never actually existed in that period though one of the period manor houses around here seem to have authentic examples. Used properly though they don't half make a mess.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

If you think a shield is useless, you don't understand how they work - A shield provides a barrier. Whatever your attacker does, they have to get around your shield. Immediately that gives you elements of control over them.
Even if they're faster, it slows them down and gives you the initiative. It limits their options and forces them into opening themselves up when they do move.
It's also a weapon in itself, which can be used to buff, block, pin, break, bind or even hit outright.
A two-handed weapon can be useful in some situations, but if you're holding your opponent or forcing them into a narrow angle of attack, the shorter one-handed weapon is FAR more easily brought to bear (pun intended) on the tighter openings in their defences.
If your shield is too cumbersome to move like this, you chose the wrong kind.

A beer or a gorilla is not going to stand there and knock at your shield while you choose your moment to attack back, they will knock you over. you may block the attack but once you are off your feet, its game over and a shield is useless when your flat on your back.


You don't have to cut anything. You certainly don't have to decapitate or cut limbs off your target. Simply causing it enough pain is a good start.
It's still a bar of solid steel and, even without any training, will still hurt/damage a LOT if you hit something with it, though. People really do forget this.
Blunt trauma does a heck of a lot of damage. Break it's nose, or something.

The whole thread is about fighting it in a life or death situation, i think for this argument we can assume it wont run away after a backhand

Most highly trained and proficient martial artists will acknowledge that even a completely untrained opponent can still deliver a fatal blow, either by accident, luck or sheer instinct. Also, you don't have to deliver a heroic Conan-style one-blow kill that clefts the beast in twain... If all it takes is a hefty whack on the noggin or nose to scare the attacker off, the job is done. Case in point - A small cat attacking a very large dog... the dog is, what, maybe six times the cat's size and 50 times its weight, but one clawed paw to the dog's very sensitive nose and it's outta there.

Just because you can get lucky with a fatal 1 ina million hit, doesnt mean it is clever to choose something that does little damage

One shoots a bow. One does not fire it. There's no fire involved.

Firing can mean the act of discharging any weapon, fire does not necessarily need to be involved.

Doesn't have to be a full-power longbow. Most UK medieval archers trained from around age 7 and I guarantee they couldn't draw 175lbs!
All you need is a bow strong enough to deliver a good hit, so perhaps 75lbs. I assume you're being attacked from range, hence using a ranged weapon - The longbow has the greater range over the crossbow and is faster to load, so you'll get more hits in during the charge.
Against man-shaped targets, I've personally seen a Longbowman shoot 19 arrows in a minute and I've personally shot close to 10 myself, both of which were 100% on-target.
More arrows = more wounds and again teh greater chance to dissuade an attack, against both single and multiple opponents.

As much as a hobbiest archer may like to believe, a 75lb drawn arrow is not going to do any significant damage without hitting the right spot. Due to the thickness of hide and flesh, using a bow to kill these big things would be wishful thinking. The article i quoted earlier in the thread recommends Crossbow with minimum draw of 200lb. I will take 1 or 2 steel plate, hole-punchingly powerful crossbow bolts over a few 70lb shortbow shots when shooting to kill.

If anything, it's more likely to tear the shaft from your hands (ooer missus!). But a pointy weapon tends not to get 'stuck' in soft, squishy targets anyway.

Get wedged in between ribs or other bones and a big strong target flailing around and that weapon becomes useless to you

 

[aardvark]

If you think a shield is useless, you don't understand how they work - A shield provides a barrier. Whatever your attacker does, they have to get around your shield. Immediately that gives you elements of control over them.
Even if they're faster, it slows them down and gives you the initiative. It limits their options and forces them into opening themselves up when they do move.
It's also a weapon in itself, which can be used to buff, block, pin, break, bind or even hit outright.

well, a bear or gorilla is going to hit that shield hard enough to shatter every bone in your arm/shoulder, so not a great deal of help there

 

[wolfie138]

Draw weight on a medieval longbow is not enough to kill a bear or a gorilla unless you hit an eye or something.

lol, what?
a medieval bow could put an arrow through armour at over a hundred yards.

 

[Hotwired]

lol, what?
a medieval bow could put an arrow through armour at over a hundred yards.

Right so as long as this bow comes with a medieval bowman you won't have to worry about being too weak and rubbish with a powerful bow that has zero modern mechanical tricks to make things easier.

 

[ttaskmaster]

well, a bear or gorilla is going to hit that shield hard enough to shatter every bone in your arm/shoulder, so not a great deal of help there

And if you stand still to let it hit you, you deserve it!!
You're not using the shield to make an impenetrable brick wall, here. The impact might turn the shield, or you might deflect it, but you don't stand there to try and take it full on.

A beer or a gorilla is not going to stand there and knock at your shield while you choose your moment to attack back, they will knock you over.

If you're going to just stand there and let it hit you, you're doing it wrong.
As I explained, it is a barrier. A movable barrier.
With all due respect, this is also why I would assume anyone choosing a particular medieval weapon would do so either because they know how to use it properly, or because that hypothetical choice would come with the knowledge of its use included.
Used properly you can stop blows before they reach full force, deflect blows, choke up opponents, distract, attack, control and direct them... even non-human ones, as I often prove with my dog and a cushion.

a shield is useless when your flat on your back.

Even laid over you, it is still a barrier your enemy must get past to reach you and a weapon you can use to attack.

The whole thread is about fighting it in a life or death situation, i think for this argument we can assume it wont run away after a backhand

It's life or death for you. It is still an animal and will behave like one. Hit it hard enough or well enough and it will run screaming like a little girl.
But if you don't like that reality then hit it once and rock it's brain. Then as fast as you can hit it again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and relentlessly bash it's head senseless, whereupon you may thrust it in its gut and make a Skywalker Sleeping Bag out of it.
If you're THAT desperate and the thing has murder in it's eyes, then you have to be more violent than it.
You have to Prison Rush it, basically, at which point weapon of choice isn't desperately important anyway.

Just because you can get lucky with a fatal 1 ina million hit, doesnt mean it is clever to choose something that does little damage

It's a lot more common that one in a million.
You clearly have no idea how much damage even a blunted metal training sword can do.
You clearly have no idea how much damage even an untrained person can do, especially when stressed.
You clearly have no idea how much damage a person can do by accident.
It's also very easy to use a sword in basic attacks. Swordspersons just know how to use them a lot better.

Firing can mean the act of discharging any weapon, fire does not necessarily need to be involved.

The grammatically correct term is shoot, not fire.
I doubt you've ever parted a cake in half, but have always cut it... You don't assimilate a book, you read it... you don't drive a bike or pilot it, you ride it.... same thing here.

As much as a hobbiest archer may like to believe, a 75lb drawn arrow is not going to do any significant damage without hitting the right spot.

Depends on the arrow and especially the point. Hunting broadheads of certain types would rip that bear hide wide open and a maille bodkin would punch a nice deep hole.
Incidentally, a well-published 1990 experiment with a 68lb longbow shooting a 2.5oz arrow, and a 740lb cranequin crossbow shooting a 1.25oz bolt... measured both weapons shooting their projectiles at around 135fps.
So same speed, but the longbow arrow is heavier as well, so carries more penetration. An 80lb warbow would put an arrow a good 9" through plate armour, so a 75lb one wouldn't be far off that. But then, there's a wealth of articles and YouTubes on the whole thing already, so don't just take my word for it.

Due to the thickness of hide and flesh, using a bow to kill these big things would be wishful thinking.

So they're thicker and tougher than plate steel, are they?
Physics called - He says you're wrong.

The article i quoted earlier in the thread recommends Crossbow with minimum draw of 200lb.

See comparison above between 68lb longbow and 740lb crossbow. Nuff said!

I will take 1 or 2 steel plate, hole-punchingly powerful crossbow bolts over a few 70lb shortbow shots when shooting to kill.

I'll take as many plate bodkin, maille bodkin and other such proven hole-punchingly powerful longbow arrows as I can shoot in the time I have available... which is more arrows with heavier punching weight, hence the whole reasoning of more wounds on the target = more death.
You might get lucky and hit one eye. In that same time I can hit an eye and a liver and a lung and a heart and maybe even another eye. I can likely afford a miss or two, as well.

Get wedged in between ribs or other bones and a big strong target flailing around and that weapon becomes useless to you

It's a sharp cone. It doesn't get wedged.
And if you do manage to get it between the ribs, great - Twist it around and cause more pain and more damage.

 

[Helios1234]

How do you turn this on

 

[The IPB]

Used properly you can stop blows before they reach full force, deflect blows, choke up opponents, distract, attack, control and direct them... even non-human ones, as I often prove with my dog and a cushion.

This guy has taken on his dog with a pillow, he knows his stuff, gorillas would be but an inconvenience.

 

[ttaskmaster]

This guy has taken on his dog with a pillow, he knows his stuff, gorillas would be but an inconvenience.

Cushion, thou foul peasant-farming dew-beating mumblecrusting fopdoodle!
I can't very well smash my dog in the face with a solid shield, now, can I? It's not like he's a consenting sparring partner. Now I have smashed some of them in the face with one, though I suspect they'd rather not be reminded of it.
But the point is that it is a controlling defence, a weapon and a tool, not just a static barrier like in the movies.
Get back to working the serf fields, hedge-born minstrel, afore I fetch your feudal lord and have his ronyon thrash you!

 

[StoutMeister]

Mother-In-Law

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I'd go for a military style walking stick.

Folded or unfolded?

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

I'm unironically enjoying the nerd wars going on. More of this kind of thing please.