Most terrifying weapon of the pre-modern era?

[Ostroeuropa]

The crossbow. Damned thing made some people think the world would end because of it.

Fuck yeah. Crossbows are epic.

They are actually shitter than bows.
But the important part is, any asshole can use a crossbow and kill someone.
Give a bow to someone untrained and they'll just look stupid.
Shove them a crossbow, say "Just point and click." and suddenly you have an army of untrained, cheap, units.

this shift of emphasis from professional armies to mass-production and mobilization is the basis of all modern war

[Tyrants]

The use of germ / biological devices. What a better way to decimate an opponent without really committing a great number of man power.

Any examples from pre-modern age?

[Tagmatium]

Greek fire.

[Ostroeuropa]

The use of germ / biological devices. What a better way to decimate an opponent without really committing a great number of man power.

Any examples from pre-modern age?

Black death was helped in it's progress by mongols throwing infected corpses over walls using catapults.

[Esternial]

Fuck yeah. Crossbows are epic.

They are actually shitter than bows.
But the important part is, any asshole can use a crossbow and kill someone.
Give a bow to someone untrained and they'll just look stupid.
Shove them a crossbow, say "Just point and click." and suddenly you have an army of untrained, cheap, units.

this shift of emphasis from professional armies to mass-production and mobilization is the basis of all modern war

Arrows are useless against a cannon, let alone a whole ship filled with them, firing a chorus of steel towards any and all.

[Zottistan]

Fuck yeah. Crossbows are epic.

Keep saying that while I bash your face in as you reload.

I don't miss.

And even if I did, I'm sure it wouldn't be absurd to include some kind of bayonet-type-thing.

[Esternial]

Keep saying that while I bash your face in as you reload.

I don't miss.

And even if I did, I'm sure it wouldn't be absurd to include some kind of bayonet-type-thing.

Your arrows are futile!

[Tagmatium]

Keep saying that while I bash your face in as you reload.

I don't miss.

And even if I did, I'm sure it wouldn't be absurd to include some kind of bayonet-type-thing.

They don't seem to have had them, usually.

Probably because most people had a back-up weapon of some breed.

Like a dagger - good for poking in the eyeses.

[Labyrnna]

The Trebuchet. It could fling ordinary rocks at city walls and enemy formations. It could also fling diseased corpses into besieged towns to spread plague and, as a bonus, it could fling the decapitated heads of loved ones into a town in order to decrease morale.

I second this.

[The Republic of Selsey]

Long bow has it for me. Yes you can argue that the cannon ball will smash a ship but being made from a tree and strapped with iron, it may just as well explode.

The long bow can have various heads, incendiary ones were made where a piece of charcoal could be fitted into an iron head to make an effective incendiary. Along with poison, pitch and tar etc. Long bows deliver all kinds of destruction at long range

[Genivaria]

Greek Fire.

[Zottistan]

I don't miss.

And even if I did, I'm sure it wouldn't be absurd to include some kind of bayonet-type-thing.

Your arrows are futile!

Let's see how useful that thing on a mountain.

And, if your argument against crossbows is "they reload to slow", cannon shouldn't be on your list. And you can't fix a bayonet to a cannon.

I don't miss.

And even if I did, I'm sure it wouldn't be absurd to include some kind of bayonet-type-thing.

They don't seem to have had them, usually.

Probably because most people had a back-up weapon of some breed.

Like a dagger - good for poking in the eyeses.

A bayonet would be, too. And easier to carry around. You could armour up the wings of the crossbow and stick a bayonet to the the front, and you'd have yourself one handyass close-quarters weapon.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

The Assyrian army was pretty terrifying. I don't know if it counts as a 'weapon' though.

If we're sticking strictly to the dictionary definition of a weapon, I would say greek fire and its associated incendiaries all over the world are probably the most terrifying. Particularly in the naval context, since most people know that the most terrifying thing you can have on a wooden ship is fire, since ships were made up almost entirely of things like wood, pitch, cloth and ropes, all of which burned remarkably well.

[Reichsland]

I'd have to say the morning star. Nothing helps a man release his bowls more then 'comin at him swinging a 10lb pound metal bowling ball on a chain.

With spikes.

Not trying to be a smartass, just wanted to clarify. A morning star is technically a mace, with the morning star having spikes instead of flanges or knobs. A flail is what your after, and I agree, flails are epic.

[Esternial]

Your arrows are futile!

Let's see how useful that thing on a mountain.

And, if your argument against crossbows is "they reload to slow", cannon shouldn't be on your list. And you can't fix a bayonet to a cannon.

The goal is to be terrifying. A thundering cannon salvo would likely beat the crossbow.

Maybe a rain of arrows might beat it, but crossbows don't work like regular bows, so they score below those.

[Tagmatium]

A bayonet would be, too. And easier to carry around. You could armour up the wings of the crossbow and stick a bayonet to the the front, and you'd have yourself one handyass close-quarters weapon.

I'm not sure whether you could armour the actual bow, considering that might adversely effect its ability to act as a bow.

Cool idea, though.

[Nazis in Space]

I don't miss. 8)

And even if I did, I'm sure it wouldn't be absurd to include some kind of bayonet-type-thing.

They don't seem to have had them, usually.

Probably because most people had a back-up weapon of some breed.

Like a dagger - good for poking in the eyeses.

Ranged weapons were generally used

• defensively, behind an obstacle of some sort
• backed up by CC specialists

precisely because they couldn't stand up to, err, anyone in CC. Which is, incidentally, why missile troops tended to get raped pretty badly most of the time.

[Genivaria]

Fuck yeah. Crossbows are epic.

They are actually shitter than bows.
But the important part is, any asshole can use a crossbow and kill someone.
Give a bow to someone untrained and they'll just look stupid.
Shove them a crossbow, say "Just point and click." and suddenly you have an army of untrained, cheap, units.

this shift of emphasis from professional armies to mass-production and mobilization is the basis of all modern war

PRE-modern warfare.
It was during the age of gunpowder that mass conscription became universal.
Nowadays most of the First World's militaries are made up of Professional Volunteers.

[Free Terra]

"Greek Fire"?

[Tagmatium]

They don't seem to have had them, usually.

Probably because most people had a back-up weapon of some breed.

Like a dagger - good for poking in the eyeses.

Ranged weapons were generally used

• defensively, behind an obstacle of some sort
• backed up by CC specialists

precisely because they couldn't stand up to, err, anyone in CC. Which is, incidentally, why missile troops tended to get raped pretty badly most of the time.

Eh, they would have still had back-up weaponry - like the English archers at Agincourt, who joined in smacking the French knights about.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

A bayonet would be, too. And easier to carry around. You could armour up the wings of the crossbow and stick a bayonet to the the front, and you'd have yourself one handyass close-quarters weapon.

I'm not sure whether you could armour the actual bow, considering that might adversely effect its ability to act as a bow.

Cool idea, though.

That and the general construction of crossbows would render them somewhat unwieldy in a melee.

Plus, you would need to remove the bayonet during the period when you need it most, reloading, in order to do so effectively. Even the wussy hand-drawn crossbows usually required you to brace then in order to pull the string back. Somehow, jamming your weapon's pointy bit into the ground repeatedly doesn't seem like a good idea.

[Zottistan]

A bayonet would be, too. And easier to carry around. You could armour up the wings of the crossbow and stick a bayonet to the the front, and you'd have yourself one handyass close-quarters weapon.

I'm not sure whether you could armour the actual bow, considering that might adversely effect its ability to act as a bow.

Cool idea, though.

I'm sure if you got enough engineers on it, you could get it to work properly. Now that'd be terrifying.

[Tagmatium]

"Greek Fire"?

Wikipedia it.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

"Greek Fire"?

Ancient napalm. Couldn't be extinguished with regular water, thus prompting naval vessels of old to keep large pots of urine on deck. Trufax.

[Ostroeuropa]

They are actually shitter than bows.
But the important part is, any asshole can use a crossbow and kill someone.
Give a bow to someone untrained and they'll just look stupid.
Shove them a crossbow, say "Just point and click." and suddenly you have an army of untrained, cheap, units.

this shift of emphasis from professional armies to mass-production and mobilization is the basis of all modern war

PRE-modern warfare.
It was during the age of gunpowder that mass conscription became universal.
Nowadays most of the First World's militaries are made up of Professional Volunteers.

True enough.
these days modern war is either professional volunteers or nuclear armageddon.