Most terrifying weapon of the pre-modern era?

[Reichsland]

sword....almost everybody had one. If you went to battle in the midst of all those blades swinging about, odds are your gonna get cut.

[Nazis in Space]

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.

Nobody's ever armored a crossbow.

However, later variants - 15th, 16th century, just before guns replaced them altogether - did use metal... Arms? Not sure what they're called.

Obviously not handdrawn, though. Windlass-drawn.

[Tagmatium]

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.

Actually...

Good way of introducing dirt into any wounds it made, thereby increasing the chances of infection.

It is said to be one of the reasons why archers put their arrows in the ground, although I don't know how true that is. Maybe I'm underestimating the level of understanding people within the Medieval period had about infection and wounds.

[Tyrants]

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.

That was the mud though. The English just waited for the Frenchies to sink and stabbed them all.

[Genivaria]

"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.

Also Naffatun. Fucking Turks and their grenades.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

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.

Nobody's ever armored a crossbow.

However, later variants - 15th, 16th century, just before guns replaced them altogether - did use metal... Arms? Not sure what they're called.

Obviously not handdrawn, though. Windlass-drawn.

Crossbows with metal bows are referred to as arbalests. Their problem was that they had a reload time similar to a musket, if not longer. Of course, they could punch through plate armor, so I suppose you have to work with what you've got.

They might be somewhat terrifying to knights, but the average foot soldier probably wouldn't care, since he's not going to be wearing armor that a regular bow couldn't pierce, in all likelihood.

[Nazis in Space]

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.

Well, yes, but that really only helped in extraordinary circumstances. Backup weaponry or not, when they weren't supported by poor weather and particularly idiotic commanders on the enemy's side, they tended to get slaughtered at absurd ratios. Like 10 : 1 or so.

[Tagmatium]

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.

Nobody's ever armored a crossbow.

However, later variants - 15th, 16th century, just before guns replaced them altogether - did use metal... Arms? Not sure what they're called.

Obviously not handdrawn, though. Windlass-drawn.

"Bow", I think.

[Nazis in Space]

Nobody's ever armored a crossbow.

However, later variants - 15th, 16th century, just before guns replaced them altogether - did use metal... Arms? Not sure what they're called.

Obviously not handdrawn, though. Windlass-drawn.

Crossbows with metal bows are referred to as arbalests. Their problem was that they had a reload time similar to a musket, if not longer. Of course, they could punch through plate armor, so I suppose you have to work with what you've got.

They might be somewhat terrifying to knights, but the average foot soldier probably wouldn't care, since he's not going to be wearing armor that a regular bow couldn't pierce, in all likelihood.

That's their name, alright. Can never remember it.

Note, though, that I didn't say it was a particularly terrifying weapon. Only that it existed.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Actually...

Good way of introducing dirt into any wounds it made, thereby increasing the chances of infection.

It is said to be one of the reasons why archers put their arrows in the ground, although I don't know how true that is. Maybe I'm underestimating the level of understanding people within the Medieval period had about infection and wounds.

Germ theory was late 19th century.

The problem with that is that you're repeatedly dulling your blade, and if you have to move quickly, there's a good chance you'll either snap it off or otherwise damage your weapon.

Putting bayonets on crossbows is just generally not a good idea. There's a reason it wasn't done.

[Tyrants]

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

Also Naffatun. Fucking Turks and their grenades.

Just cheat and get huge Naffatun and DFK/Varangian armies. You. Never. Lose.

[Tagmatium]

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

Well, yes, but that really only helped in extraordinary circumstances. Backup weaponry or not, when they weren't supported by poor weather and particularly idiotic commanders on the enemy's side, they tended to get slaughtered at absurd ratios. Like 10 : 1 or so.

Yeah, I know.

It was the first example that sprang to mind. They would have had some sort of weapon, if just a knife or dagger which they had on them as a utility tool. Admittedly, it's not going to do so much good if some cunt in full plate is coming you with a poleaxe.

[Lazssia]

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.

Oh I know that, that was just my own silly wording.

[Tagmatium]

Actually...

Good way of introducing dirt into any wounds it made, thereby increasing the chances of infection.

It is said to be one of the reasons why archers put their arrows in the ground, although I don't know how true that is. Maybe I'm underestimating the level of understanding people within the Medieval period had about infection and wounds.

Germ theory was late 19th century.

I'm not suggesting they had organised theories, I was suggesting whether there was a level of cause and effect there: "Dirt in wound, bad! Dirt in wound cause sickness!"

Well, or "dirt in wound, good!" in this particular instance.

The problem with that is that you're repeatedly dulling your blade, and if you have to move quickly, there's a good chance you'll either snap it off or otherwise damage your weapon.

Putting bayonets on crossbows is just generally not a good idea. There's a reason it wasn't done.

I realise this, and I'm not being an outspoken proponent of it. I was merely saying it was a cool idea.

[Trotskylvania]

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

It's easier to fire from cover with a crossbow, and most importantly, a mechanically pulled crossbow can pierce more armor than a longbow can

[Phariun]

You can keep your rocket carts, maces, swords, axes, or whatever you want and stuff it.

[Jeteeyanad]

To tell the truth it was most likely fear, after all humans used to be much less intelligent and religous, and superstitious so we likely would be more afraid of the unknown. Also, the real Dracula, Prince Vlad of Wallachia, had a gigantic "forest of the impaled" and when turkish armys reached it they "tore their eyes out" and "Ran pukeing and screaming" in short Psycological warfare through people/actions like Vlad were probably the most terrifying

[Grinning Dragon]

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?

In 1495, Spanish forces supplied their French adversaries with wine contaminated with the blood of leprosy patients during battles in Southern Italy. In the seventeenth century, Polish troops tried to fire saliva from rabid dogs towards their enemies.
Hannibal, the Carthaginian commander best known for leading an army over the Alps atop an elephant in 218 B.C., used to catapult pots filled with snakes toward enemy ships.

The award for most gruesome form of biological warfare goes to the Tartars. In 1346 they laid siege to Caffa, a bustling trading post on the north coast of the Black Sea. The relationship between Caffa’s Italian settlers and the Tartars, who inhabited the region, had recently soured, and the Tartars were out for blood. When their men began to die of the Black Death, they loaded the corpses into catapults and flung them over the walls of the city. The dying Tartars, stunned and stupefied by the immensity of the disaster brought about by the disease, and realizing that they had no hope of escape, lost interest in the siege. But they ordered corpses to be placed in catapults and lobbed into the city in the hope that the intolerable stench would kill everyone inside. What seemed like mountains of dead were thrown into the city, and the Christians could not hide or flee or escape from them, although they dumped as many of the bodies as they could in the sea. And soon the rotting corpses tainted the air and poisoned the water supply, and the stench was so overwhelming that hardly one in several thousand was in a position to flee the remains of the tartar army. Moreover one infected man could carry the poison to others, and infect people and places with the disease by look alone. No one knew, or could discover, a means of defense.

[Nazis in Space]

Guys, guys.

pls look up 'Modern era'.

Then look at the thread title.

Thank you.

[Pin-Up Girls]

War Pigs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_pigs

[Reichsland]

The Buttafuore, it was a polearm that had blades stored in the hollow handle. when it was thrust forward, the blades slid out and locked into place. Also known as Feather Staff

[Tmutarakhan]

"Greek Fire"?

Niter, pitch, and soap-- probably, the exact recipe is lost. Balls of it burned and stuck to anything it splattered on, impossible to stop the flames.

During the siege of Syracuse by the Romans, Archimedes created a couple weapons. One was grappling hooks launched by catapult, for tearing ships apart at long-range. The other, less practical but more frightening, consisted of polished parabolic lenses for focusing sunlight on ship's sails and setting them afire, creating the appearance of a kind of death-ray gun millenia ahead of its time. The Roman commander gave strict orders that Archimedes was to be taken alive, but a soldier came across him on the beach doing his mathematical work by drawing diagrams in the sand. Archimedes sprang up enraged when the soldier stepped on one of his figures, and the soldier cut him down-- he was of course tortured to death for this error; never mess with a mathematician.

[Genivaria]

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?

The earliest documented incident of the intention to use biological weapons is recorded in Hittite texts of 1500–1200 BC, in which victims of tularemia were driven into enemy lands, causing an epidemic.[1] Although the Assyrians knew of ergot, a parasitic fungus of rye which produces ergotism when ingested, there is no evidence that they poisoned enemy wells with the fungus, as has been claimed.

According to Homer's epic poems about the legendary Trojan War, the Iliad and the Odyssey, spears and arrows were tipped with poison. During the First Sacred War in Greece, in about 590 BC, Athens and the Amphictionic League poisoned the water supply of the besieged town of Kirrha (near Delphi) with the toxic plant hellebore.[2] During the 4th century BC Scythian archers tipped their arrow tips with snake venom, human blood, and animal feces to cause wounds to become infected.

In a naval battle against King Eumenes of Pergamon in 184 BC, Hannibal of Carthage had clay pots filled with venomous snakes and instructed his sailors to throw them onto the decks of enemy ships.[3] The Roman commander Manius Aquillius poisoned the wells of besieged enemy cities in about 130 BC. In about AD 198, the Parthian city of Hatra (near Mosul, Iraq) repulsed the Roman army led by Septimius Severus by hurling clay pots filled with live scorpions at them.[4]

There are numerous other instances of the use of plant toxins, venoms, and other poisonous substances to create biological weapons in antiquity.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... #Antiquity

[The Two Jerseys]

The Plague.

Germ theory was late 19th century.

I'm not suggesting they had organised theories, I was suggesting whether there was a level of cause and effect there: "Dirt in wound, bad! Dirt in wound cause sickness!"

Well, or "dirt in wound, good!" in this particular instance.

IIRC archers would stick the arrowheads in the ground simply because grabbing an arrow stuck in the ground took less time than trying to draw one from the quiver.

Then there's the whole deal with archers urinating on the ground during the battle, but I'm not sure if that's more biological warfare or just "I gotta piss, why not do it right here".

[Tagmatium]

The Plague.

I'm not suggesting they had organised theories, I was suggesting whether there was a level of cause and effect there: "Dirt in wound, bad! Dirt in wound cause sickness!"

Well, or "dirt in wound, good!" in this particular instance.

IIRC archers would stick the arrowheads in the ground simply because grabbing an arrow stuck in the ground took less time than trying to draw one from the quiver.

Which is why I said in my first post on this particular matter:

It is said to be one of the reasons why archers put their arrows in the ground, although I don't know how true that is. Maybe I'm underestimating the level of understanding people within the Medieval period had about infection and wounds.

That is what I would have thought it was done for, giving them easier access to the arrows, but it has been suggested that it was done to infect wounds.

Which would have done a whole shitload of nothing in the actual battle.