Weapons that made a major difference in past battles

3

3rdMusketeer

Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
142
Only talking about battles from the past that involved such things as swords, shields, spears, axes, bows and arrows etc. (no firearms)

The question is; which battles were won or lost mainly due to the types of weapons and tactics used. eg...The slashing swords vs the thrusting swords (Europe, Middle East and Asia), The Spanish vs the Philippines, The Europeans vs the Japanese, The Europeans vs the Americas etc. Remember pre firearms days only.

I am sure that if enough battles were studied, a preferred weapon would surface, the question is, which one.
 
The bow I would say, thousands of years old, from primitive on down a good archer was worthy of many praises....
 
The Bow, but keep in mind it was always changin and expensive on a massive scale(arrows were), im gonna have to go with...welll there really not a weapon but the stirups brought about the golden age of horse mounted soilders, and for along time after cavalry was the most effective form of fighting (mabey not segies but you get the point)
 
moonshine47 said:
The Bow, but keep in mind it was always changin and expensive on a massive scale(arrows were), im gonna have to go with...welll there really not a weapon but the stirups brought about the golden age of horse mounted soilders, and for along time after cavalry was the most effective form of fighting (mabey not segies but you get the point)
Click to expand...

You have a good point,....so what was the most effective cavalry weapon...
 
The only battles I can think of that were *decisively* won because of a weapons differential would be naval battles.

Or perhaps, the atomic bombs of 1945.
 
Apparently most here have forgotten Shakespear's Henry V and the "Battle of Agincourt". (except for maybe tobacco-spit)

IIRC, it was the "English long-bow" that won this battle. (around 5900 English whooped around 15,000 Frenchies)

- once more into the breach......
- we few, we happy few, we band of brothers..... for he who sheds his blood with me this day SHALL BE MY BROTHER...... and Chrispin Chrispin shall nere go by that we in it will be remembered........
 
mr_wilson said:
Apparently most here have forgotten Shakespear's Henry V and the "Battle of Agincourt". (except for maybe tobacco-spit)

IIRC, it was the "English long-bow" that won this battle. (around 5900 English whooped around 15,000 Frenchies)

- once more into the breach......
- we few, we happy few, we band of brothers..... for he who sheds his blood with me this day SHALL BE MY BROTHER...... and Chrispin Chrispin shall nere go by that we in it will be remembered........
Click to expand...

Not exactly but close. It was probably the " Welsh Longbow" that played an important part however the deciding factor was the weather. The history channel also went into detail about the field conditions.


Wikipedia

"Arguably, the deciding factor for the battle's outcome was the terrain. Plagued by recent heavy rains, the battle field was knee deep in very thick mud. This deep, soft mud favoured the English force because, once knocked to the ground, the heavily armoured French knights struggled to get back up to fight in the melee. Various accounts [citation needed] state that several knights, encumbered by their armor, actually drowned in it. Their limited mobility made them easy targets for the volleys from the English archers. The mud also increased the ability of the English archers to fight in the melee. Lightly armoured or even unarmoured compared to the men-at-arms on both sides, the archers suffered only minor problems from the mud."




The biggest deciding factor in any war is the leadership. Under equipped and short on numbers one can still win with superior leadership.


Bors.
 
yea the bow, is a very good choice, as for the cavalry weapon, you put a warrior on a horse and give him any weapon and he will be more effective (in some ways) but the favorites were the lance, sword and mace as far as i have studied(and they also used the bow on horse back as well)
But the other side of things too is alllllllllllllllllllllllllll the other factors, from how much food your army had and how good there armor is, but thats not a question posed in this thread, we are looking at just weapons before guns were in major use.
 
Wikipedia said:
Arguably, the deciding factor for the battle's outcome was the terrain..."
Click to expand...
I agree with the wiki on this. Evidence is pretty good... not that the archers didn't have better ground, though. But the weapon did not win Agincourt.

Also, I agree with Bors that the most decisive battles were at the hands of leaders who took advantage of the conditions. Again, I can only think of some naval battles where the non-nuclear weapons surprised everyone (Monitor vs Virginia, Russians vs Ottomans, Russians vs Japanese).
 
Watchful said:
I agree with the wiki on this. Evidence is pretty good... not that the archers didn't have better ground, though. But the weapon did not win Agincourt.

Also, I agree with Bors that the most decisive battles were at the hands of leaders who took advantage of the conditions. Again, I can only think of some naval battles where the non-nuclear weapons surprised everyone (Monitor vs Virginia, Russians vs Ottomans, Russians vs Japanese).
Click to expand...

As a beginner at studying past battle history, tell me more about "Russians vs Ottomans, Russians vs Japanese". What happened there?
 
Yea, naval operations were the main theater where weapons could actually be a surprise, why i dont know, mabey some thoughts on this?
 
So far very interesting, but I was hoping to keep this thread concentrated on the types of personal weapons of the individual soldiers on the battlefields, pre firearm days....thanks
 
Bors said:
Not exactly but close. It was probably the " Welsh Longbow" that played an important part however the deciding factor was the weather. The history channel also went into detail about the field conditions.

Bors.
Click to expand...

In all my years of living in England, I have never heard of a Welsh longbow! Bows were made of Anglish Ash, and we used by archers who were loyal to the King of England. As I recall it was only archers who were summoned by the king to possess a longbow.

A well fired arrow from a longbow could pierce armour.
 
Andrew Taylor said:
In all my years of living in England, I have never heard of a Welsh longbow! Bows were made of Anglish Ash, and we used by archers who were loyal to the King of England. As I recall it was only archers who were summoned by the king to possess a longbow.

A well fired arrow from a longbow could pierce armour.
Click to expand...

Interesting, across the pond it is sometimes refered to both as english longbow and welsh longbow. Perhaps that because of the welsh mercenaries that used it in employ of the King.
Yep, ash was a favorite wood somewhat rough hewn occording to Oakeshott however most over here seem to think Yew was the wood du jour.
And agreed an arrow would pierce armor however only if properly footed and tiped.
The Vikings also had long bows (6' long) but i'm not sure if they fall into the same catagory as island longbows.


Since shields were mentioned and they are for the most part defensive in nature I'll say the single biggest factor (Arguably) outside leadership is Armor.
While there are examples of under armored armies defeating well armored ones I think overall the well arrmored groups faired better.



Bors
 
Isn’t it interesting how most of the documentaries on historical battles seem to pick the ones where the underdog seems to win the battle with the more superior foe. As mentioned here, the light foot soldiers winning over the knights in armour that were knee deep in mud. We do not see too many documentaries on the stronger winning over the weaker, yet I am sure this was more likely to happen. I guess that stories with predictable result do not grab our attention as much as the “favourite” being beat by the new kid on the block.
 
A sling shot!!! David killed Goliath with a carefully chosen stone and a well aimed shot to the head:)
 
Here is a quote I got off Wikipedia:

"A Welsh or English military archer during the 14th and 15th Century was
expected to shoot at least ten 'aimed shots' per minute. An experienced military longbowman was expected to shoot twenty aimed shots per minute. A typical military longbow archer would be provided with between 60 and 72 arrows at the time of battle, which would last the archer from three to six minutes, at full rate of fire. Young boys were often employed to run additional arrows to longbow archers while in their positions on the battlefield. The longbow was the machine gun of the Middle Ages: accurate, deadly, possessed of a long range and rapid rate of fire, the flight of its missiles was likened to a storm. This rate of fire was much higher than that of crossbows or any other projectile weapon of the period, including firearms."

and...

" in the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron cuirasses, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal.” —Itinerarium Cambriae, (1191)

Now you could have a firing line a hundred yards away wreaking havoc on the front of the enemy. 'Raining arrows'.

And lets not forget the Mongols, Native tribes and Japanese and Chineese archers on foot and deadly on horse back...

Peace...
 
in the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron cuirasses, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal.” —Itinerarium Cambriae, (1191)
Click to expand...


I have read this account before. You can bet your sweet bippy that arrow used was not tipped with a swollow tail, broad head or stubby bodkin. That was a well made mail pierceing arrow.




Yes the Welsh/English longbow was a formidable weapon. when it was used
Oakesott writes in his book " The Archaeology of Weapons" about the siege of Abergavenny castle located in southeast Wales to illistrate the penetrating power of the longbow. In truth it's a testament to the arrow maker.

The following is pulled from the Abergavenny website which echoes what Oakeshott wrote. http://www.castlewales.com/abergav.html


As the Welsh were besieging the castle "two (Norman) men-at-arms were rushing across a bridge to take refuge in the tower which had been built on a great mound of earth. The Welsh shot at them from behind, and with the arrows which sped from their bows they actually penetrated the oak doorway of the tower, which was almost as think as a man's palm. As a permanent reminder of the strength of their impact, the arrows have been left sticking in the door just where their iron heads struck." Gerald notes that the men of Gwent "are more skilled with the bow and arrow than those who come from other parts of Wales."
Click to expand...

Oakeshott also writes that it's origins were not English. There appears to be good evidence that the longbow was in use in south Wales during the second half of the twelfth century.


The longbow as great a weapon as it was was not used in all battles and in great numbers. So back to what had the greatest inpact I think it's still armor. The single biggest impact on the field of war was Iron.



Bors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top