[John Warner]

Here is the situation. You know you are to fight in a duel or small skirmish. You get to choose your weapon after learning your opponent's armor will be either (a) unarmored, (b) leather/linen, (c) mail, or (d) full knightly plate. You do not know how they will be armed, only their broad armor type. Which of these particular weapons would you choose for each armor type.

[Richard B. Price]

Dibs on the warhammer, one solid blow to the coconut is generally enough to knock the bejesus outa anyone. Not to mention the armor piercing spike, kinda like a mideavil can-opener.

[A. Gallo]

halberd against plate, spear against the rest

[Isaac H.]

I myself am advocate to the power of the sword.The single hand's sharply tapered blade is perfect for thrusting through leather and maille (and,of course,bare flesh). Against full plate armor ,I would use the flail on the initial assault,and then use the rondel dagger to plunge into a convenient gap in the plates.If I'm not mistaken,the rondel was developed for that very purpose.
However,there is one important factor that was left out.Are the combatants mounted,or on foot?

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

I'd choose the spear for sure against the first two, and probably the halberd against the last two. It's just that halberd looks worrying decorative.

[Roger Hooper]

I agree with Benjamin in using the spear on the first two. Against maille, I would prefer a cutting sword over a thrusting XV - I guess I'll take the axe. Vs. plate, I choose the combo of warhammer to smash armor joints and the rondel to finish the job. If there was a poll-axe on the list, I'd choose that against all four (I don't like the looks of the halberd)

[Jean Thibodeau]

Well if we consider the specific ones shown as just to represent the type of weapons I might choose one of them " TYPES " but a better specimen of the type since the halberd in particular looks cheap or ornamental to me.

For battle a polearm for sure and any sword would be backup, but generally the spear can do it all or almost all in trained hands and against more substantial armour the spear head type should be of the pointier/stouter kind than a wide leaf blade.

A partisan spear or winged spear being useful for various hooking and trapping techniques and with sharp edges good for soft targets and with a very strong and pointy butt spike against plate armour ( Well for the gaps and maille voiders not piercing the plate ) would be my favoured weapon.

The poleaxe has a lot of appeal also but the spear can be faster.

Up real close the spiked mace/flanged mace or warhammer is most devastating, so although I like swords as the all purpose backup weapon, for serious fighting I would go for a spear, a mace for up close and a 15" bladed rondel dagger for even more up close.

[Gregory J. Liebau]

I'd swing a flail at anyone. If it didn't kill them, it would kill me. End of fight.

-Gregory

[Romulus Stoica]

I would use the spear against unarmored and lightly armored opponent and the warhammer for the armored opponents. I would also use a small/medium sized shield with the warhammer because I would favour a lighter armor (some sort of transitional or maille and plates armor) for better moblity.

[Jean Thibodeau]

[P. Cha]

If you choose a one handed weapon, are you allowed a shield of choice? Also do you have armor to match what your fighting? For instance, if both are unarmored and I was allowed a shield...I would take and arming sword and shield. Same deal with light armor. With chain, probably the war hammer or flanged mace and shield. With plate, the halberd. Now if the armor set up is not matching on both sides...well that gets a bit more complicated :P .

[John Warner]

[John Warner]

[JE Sarge]

I'll take the A&A pole axe above FTW. Then I'd toss the rest of it into the Thames along with my opponents so someone can have a really nice river find centuries later.

[A. Spanjer]

I'd take the single handed arming sword against a, b, and possibly c.

Against full plate I'd go with the warhammer (or a pole-axe if that were an option.)

[Ben Anbeek]

always the mordaxt
it's fast and you can do a lot of damage.

[Sean Flynt]

History offers the clear answer, I think. The late German two-hand sword is not an all-purpose weapon. In the thrust, it's inferior to the longer spear and halberd (not the ones shown, mind you, but historical types). As a percussive weapon, it's limited by the lack of mass at its distal end. The cut is all but irrelevant if full plate is in the mix of possibilities. Overall, a halberd of authentic design and construction will take down all comers, man or beast, armoured or unarmoured, because it combines the cut, the thrust and percussion at a maximum effective range of about 7 feet. Those large two-hand swords were of much more limited application and, by comparison, pretty rare.

If you need a medium-length two hand weapon to apply leverage to opposing pikes while keeping a thrusting point in your opponent's unarmoured face, choose that two-hand sword. Otherwise, defer to the historical consensus about polearms for infantry use.

[Craig Shackleton]

No one wants a big rubber sledge hammer?

[Jack W. Englund]

To me it would depend on wither I was mounted or afoot.
If Afoot., A "pole-arm" + a nasty dagger/dirk & an Axe.
If Mounted, An Axe & Shield & a good quick/agile mount. ( perhaps a "lance" to disperse" the rabble ( on foot )

Jack

[Emil Andersson]

I think I'd go for that A&A poleaxe too, if I were to pick an all-purposes weapon, preferably together with a dagger or something else that's suitably small to be worn in my belt. I have a reproduction of that poleaxe here at home, and it definately feels very strong for both offense and defense.