| myArmoury.com is now completely member-supported. Please contribute to our efforts with a donation. Your donations will go towards updating our site, modernizing it, and keeping it viable long-term.
Last 10 Donors: Anonymous, Daniel Sullivan, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler, Dave Tonge (View All Donors) |
| Author |
Message |
|
Gary Teuscher
|
 Posted: Wed 17 Dec, 2008 3:12 pm Post subject: 10 Top weapons in history |
 |
|
Anyone see the Military Channel where they review the 10 top "personal" weapons from history?
A bit interesting, but I was rather frustrated with the "English Longbow".
One, they make it a weapon that seemed to spring from nowhere as opposed to pretty similar to many bows throughout history.
Secondly, they showed it penetrating Plate. Now they used a Hardened arrow (not a bodkin), looked like it was from around 20 yards or so, no backing behind the plate, just the stuff that was to represent flesh, and they really explained nothing about the plate of steel or iron. The bow I believe was in the 140-150 pound pull range.
It could have been 1mm thick or 3mm, who knows? It was perfectly flat, no chance of any deflection. Also no idea of what material it was made, mild steel, iron, etc. etc.
I felt the longbow info perpetuated myth as opposed to realisitically explained anything. What I feel is the Longbow was effective because of the numbers and training of English archers, at least as much if not more than the bow itself.
Myself, I'd just put the bow itself in as opposed to the longbow. It had a huge effect militarily. It's rather Archaic, sure, but no more archaic than the Boomerang that they included on the list.
For weapons of antiquity, I'd put the Bow as one of the top, the crossbow would be in there also. Perhaps stirrups if you consider them a weapon. A shield should be real high on the list as well.
|
|
  |
 |
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Wed 17 Dec, 2008 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am not sure that it really was the effectiveness of the "longbow" itself, as much as it was the availability and economic factors relating to the Welsh bowmen that really gave those regimens their reputation. One of the strategically attractive aspects of the Welsh bowmen was that in the 100 years war era they were available in militarily significant "self trained" numbers, and typically made and provided their own bow and spare replacement stave. Some percentage could be passable as fletchers, although I don't know what percentage that was. The 3 volume set "Bowyer's Bible" discusses some of the background. Period inventories mention arrows being stored at various forts and castles in the 100's of thousands. In the era of the 100 years war, there were enough of them to be effective (dispensing 100's of thousands of arrows in what amounted to minutes.) If only the "chinks in the armour" and the spooking of heavy cavlary horses really resulted at ranges of 100 to 200 yards, utilizing the bowmen was probably one of the most practical and expedient tactics that the English could have chosen.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
Hunter B.
Location: Away from Home Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Wed 17 Dec, 2008 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Those "Top Ten" shows aren't worth the time it takes to watch them, imho. They're highly subjective with no real way to objectively substantiate them.
“It is the loose ends with which men hang themselves.”
|
|
|
|
|
JE Sarge
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Wed 17 Dec, 2008 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am the desk sergeant on evening shift, so I get to see alot of these programs at work. I just watched the one you spoke of. Though enjoyable, its not wholly accurate or based on anything other than the writer's somewhat under-informed opinions.
I figured we would have at least seen an entry on the gladius, it ruled the world for centuries. I could list 70 things that should have been included that were not. Yet, the Walther PPK was included because it was a compact 'secret agent gun'? Please... 
J.E. Sarge
Crusader Monk Sword Scabbards and Customizations
www.crusadermonk.com
"But lack of documentation, especially for such early times, is not to be considered as evidence of non-existance." - Ewart Oakeshott
Last edited by JE Sarge on Wed 17 Dec, 2008 7:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Hunter B.
Location: Away from Home Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Wed 17 Dec, 2008 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JE Sarge wrote: | I am the desk sergeant on evening shift, so I get to see alot of these programs at work. I just watched the one you spoke of. Though enjoyable, its not wholly accurate or based on anything other than the writer's somewhat under-informed opinions.
I figured we would have at least seen an entry on the gladius, it ruled the world for centuries. I could list 70 things that sould have been included that were not. Yet, the Walther PPK was included because it was a compact 'secret agent gun'? Please... |
LOL
For some reason I get the feelings these shows are written by 12 year old boys with big coffee table guides to weapons and firearms and a healthy dose of airsoft and counter-strike.
“It is the loose ends with which men hang themselves.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sam Gordon Campbell
Location: Australia. Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Posts: 678
|
| Posted: Wed 17 Dec, 2008 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Was this on the "History" channel, like on cable, because I must concur, it's either poorly executed hitory programes (leave them to the BBC, they know how to make 'em), excluding the ones with that bald guy who can use every weapon ever made, and fall off horse in plate armour to get back up and keep presenting lol, and (no offence intended) programes about how America won everything it ever engaged in and how the rest of the world should be thankful for it saving the day. Mind you, that may only be because here in Aus our cable tv "History" channel might be different. That's why SBS and the ABC are so much better.
P.S. Notice how I put "History" in quotation marks  subtle, yet effective.
Member of Australia's Stoccata School of Defence since 2008.
Host of Crash Course HEMA.
Founder of The Van Dieman's Land Stage Gladiators.
|
|
|
|
|
Hunter B.
Location: Away from Home Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Wed 17 Dec, 2008 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sam Gordon Campbell wrote: | Was this on the "History" channel, like on cable, because I must concur, it's either poorly executed hitory programes (leave them to the BBC, they know how to make 'em), excluding the ones with that bald guy who can use every weapon ever made, and fall off horse in plate armour to get back up and keep presenting lol, and (no offence intended) programes about how America won everything it ever engaged in and how the rest of the world should be thankful for it saving the day. Mind you, that may only be because here in Aus our cable tv "History" channel might be different. That's why SBS and the ABC are so much better.
P.S. Notice how I put "History" in quotation marks subtle, yet effective. |
Not sure about how it is there, but here it used to be called "The Hitler Channel".
“It is the loose ends with which men hang themselves.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sam Gordon Campbell
Location: Australia. Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Posts: 678
|
| Posted: Wed 17 Dec, 2008 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Haha, yeah, wouldn't surprise me 
Member of Australia's Stoccata School of Defence since 2008.
Host of Crash Course HEMA.
Founder of The Van Dieman's Land Stage Gladiators.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Sahigan
|
| Posted: Wed 17 Dec, 2008 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I don't know about you, but I actually like that old bald guy who could use every weapon and fall off a horse. out of all the 'historic documentaries' I've seen, his was the best. A wee biased, a bit naive but atleast he tried to present the more or less facts instead of complete fiction(at the very least he was an re-enactor/historian and knew a little bit about A&A).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sam Gordon Campbell
Location: Australia. Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Posts: 678
|
| Posted: Wed 17 Dec, 2008 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think eveything he's in improves by 23% more awsome. But what's his name, gah! All I know is that I saw him in a show with some really annoying guy, it was "weapon masters" or somthing, only watched it for the bald dude  I want his job!
Member of Australia's Stoccata School of Defence since 2008.
Host of Crash Course HEMA.
Founder of The Van Dieman's Land Stage Gladiators.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Sahigan
|
| Posted: Wed 17 Dec, 2008 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Mike Loades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sam Gordon Campbell
Location: Australia. Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Posts: 678
|
|
|
|
|
Glennan Carnie
|
| Posted: Thu 18 Dec, 2008 12:50 am Post subject: Re: 10 Top weapons in history |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | Anyone see the Military Channel where they review the 10 top "personal" weapons from history?
A bit interesting, but I was rather frustrated with the "English Longbow".
One, they make it a weapon that seemed to spring from nowhere as opposed to pretty similar to many bows throughout history.
Secondly, they showed it penetrating Plate. Now they used a Hardened arrow (not a bodkin), looked like it was from around 20 yards or so, no backing behind the plate, just the stuff that was to represent flesh, and they really explained nothing about the plate of steel or iron. The bow I believe was in the 140-150 pound pull range.
It could have been 1mm thick or 3mm, who knows? It was perfectly flat, no chance of any deflection. Also no idea of what material it was made, mild steel, iron, etc. etc.
|
I hate programmes like this. They are made by a largely ignorant group, often looking for yet-another new, 'sensational' angle to present. The evidence is twisted to promote their viewpoint and rarely matches any solid evidence. It leaves the lay public with an unbalanced and incorrect set of myths. The problem is these myths largely devalue all the serious work and research that is going on into these weapons.
Many of the points made are valid; however, in the incorrect combination they present a false 'total':
Bodkins wouldn't be used against plate - they don't work now; they didn't work then.
Specialist armour-piercing arrowheads have been found - and found to be extremely effective against plate; even curved plate.
Case-hardening iron arrowheads is perfectly feasible with medieval technologies in a mass-production environment.
Bows with 140 - 150lb draw-weights are typcial for military bows; as evidenced by those found on Mary Rose.
Do these things make the English warbow (as opposed to any generic, including Victorian, longbow) some sort of super-weapon? Of course not. As you say, the tactical use of the weapon is what made the English armies successful, not some magical bow technology.
Only fools and bigots see the world in black-and-white; the truth is many, many shades of grey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Thu 18 Dec, 2008 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Many of the points made are valid; however, in the incorrect combination they present a false 'total':
Bodkins wouldn't be used against plate - they don't work now; they didn't work then.
Specialist armour-piercing arrowheads have been found - and found to be extremely effective against plate; even curved plate.
Case-hardening iron arrowheads is perfectly feasible with medieval technologies in a mass-production environment.
Bows with 140 - 150lb draw-weights are typcial for military bows; as evidenced by those found on Mary Rose. |
THey did not use the Bodkin to pierce plate, and did not say it would at least. But as you said, it is a false total. Every imaginable + for the bow (very short range, bow is realisitic weight but on the heavy side, hardened arrow), without any idea as to the specifics on the plate, other than flat and no backing.
Heck, they could use an 85 pound bow from 200m against an overly thick Gambeson, and say "see, it stops the arrows more often than not, and at least reduces penetration, so the longbow was ineffective even against the lighter armours of the day".
| Quote: | | I am not sure that it really was the effectiveness of the "longbow" itself, as much as it was the availability and economic factors relating to the Welsh bowmen that really gave those regimens their reputation. One of the strategically attractive aspects of the Welsh bowmen was that in the 100 years war era they were available in militarily significant "self trained" numbers, and typically made and provided their own bow and spare replacement stave. |
Pretty similar to my thoughts on the matter. The English longbowmen was a well trained and well paid individual using a self bow. This is counter to the earlier and continental view of the selfbow, where bowmen were most often the levied types that could not afford to equip themself as a main battle line type (I'm leaving out the continental shift to the crossbow here). Plus the numbers deployed were a lot higher.
This IMO was most of the reason behind some of the longbows sucesses.
Was the 15th century longbow of Agincourt superior to the 12th-13th century Welsh bow, or slfbows in general? Probably a bit IMO. My guess as part of the arms race, the longbow pulls increased a bit over time, maybe some arrowhead technology improved. But the rest of the arms in the race evelved too - crossbows became higher pull, plate armour became more widespread and thickened some, etc. etc. The Longbow may have evolved during the arms race a bit, but was hardly alone in this area.
Plus I'd be interested in draw weights from earlier bows. Vikings were known for their archery, I know a viking ship from the 10th century I believe had a bow estimated to be in the 100 lb pull range, which puts it a bit in the middle of draw eights from the Mary Rose ( depends on who you believe I guess. Seems like the 2 schools of thought think the average pull was 100 lbs and 150 lbs respectively on the Mary Rose bows). Whether this was a standard type of bow I don't know - and I don't really know if anyone really does based on facts and not conjecture. There have been a handful of bows from the viking age found, and most are of longbow proportions.
I think the "draw to the chest" idea is inaccurate as well, likely caused by misinterpreting or taking to literally period illustration that show an arrow drawn to the Chest. Maybe they were not at full draw, maybe incorrect illustrations. Hell, if you go buy literally interpreting illustration, who knows what type of armour Normans were wearing at Hastings !
Of course, the Lonbow probably does deserve to rank higher than the "James Bond gun"
|
|
|
|
|
|
James R.Fox
Location: Youngstowm,Ohio Joined: 29 Feb 2008
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: Thu 18 Dec, 2008 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sirs-The greatest weapon of all times is the CLUB.It was and is the weapon of choice among most peoples, espically if guns are not available, and is far easier to make a kill with than knife or gun, both of which require skill to be reliable.Try hitting someone over the head with a baseball bat vs trying to shoot him at 5-10 yards with a pistol. 99% of all untraind people can't, except by accident. I have a friend who is a federal-liscenced firearms instructor as well as a police leutenant. He says the average officer can't hit a human-size target at 10 yards except by accident,and most officers are only trained at 7 yards, which is FBI basic shooting,and the maximum range most fatal gunfights take place at. Not to mention most clubs are quiet and don't have to be re-loaded.
Ja68ms
|
|
 |
|
|
John Gnaegy
|
| Posted: Thu 18 Dec, 2008 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
The atlatl has always been my favorite archaic weapon. Clubs and rocks are obvious, simple improvements on the fist, so while effective they're not technologically interesting. The spear even if it's just a sharpened stick shows some thought and deserves respect. But the atlatl was the first weapon system, a tool used to deliver the weapon rather than the weapon itself. It is not obvious, it is the result of insight and engineering.
|
|
|
|
|
Brad Harada
|
| Posted: Fri 19 Dec, 2008 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Expanding a bit on what James R. Fox wrote, not only is the club one of the most easily improvised weapons, but it is the one weapon from antiquity that is still being issued out today. Almost all police agencies carry some form of club: the baton, either a one-piece or expandable type such as the Asp, or the tonfa style baton. I'd give the knife a close second in the "all time greatest," though I'd consider it primarily a tool first, weapon second.
|
|
|
|
|
James Barker
Location: Ashburn VA Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: Fri 19 Dec, 2008 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
The longbow test always bums me out because it is such a poor test. Mike Loades did much better tests on the Weapons that Made Britain series. However The Great Warbow: From Hastings to the Mary Rose by Matthew Strickland and Robert Hardy who were in that bad demo is an awesome book on the subject.
The show was fun though. Anyone watch the Navy Seals show on before it? That was really cool.
James Barker
Historic Life http://www.historiclife.com/index.html
Archer in La Belle Compagnie http://www.labelle.org/
|
|
 |
|
Steven H
|
| Posted: Fri 19 Dec, 2008 1:22 pm Post subject: Re: 10 Top weapons in history |
|
|
Hello,
| Glennan Carnie wrote: |
Specialist armour-piercing arrowheads have been found - and found to be extremely effective against plate; even curved plate. |
I'd not heard this bit before. Could you elaborate?
Thanks,
Steven
Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Fri 19 Dec, 2008 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Top 10 weapons. 1. the spear, 2 the spear, 3..... 10. the spear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic