Weapons that made a major difference in past battles

[Bors]

what about the pike?

Here is the Wiki link.
Vhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_%28weapon%29



Bors

 

[Tobacco_Spit]

The arrows used with 150 pound draw weight bows for example weighed 4x the grains than the average carbons or woods we use today. H. Hill when shooting an elephant I think used a 1400 grain arrow with a special broadhead similar with Fred Bear. The bows the English used were anywhere from 100 - 150 pounds, truly incredible penetrating power.

 

[Bors]

The arrows used with 150 pound draw weight bows for example weighed 4x the grains than the average carbons or woods we use today. H. Hill when shooting an elephant I think used a 1400 grain arrow with a special broadhead similar with Fred Bear. The bows the English used were anywhere from 100 - 150 pounds, truly incredible penetrating power.

H. Hill was one the the greatest shots of the 20th century. I believe his standard bow was ~110lbs, I also believe while in africa he ran out of his tent at night and hit a leapord? at a dead run. He did the arrow stunts for some of the Errol Flynn robin hood movies. He actually had to shoot at a target area on moving stunt men.

Unfortunatly for accounts like Abergavenny and the man at arms we will never know the types of arrows used. But yes penetration was increadable with the correctly designed arrow.


Pikes were a big obstacle but there was a long period when they were not used . However, spears were used throughout history. Spears may very well be the most used weapon on the field throughout history.



Bors

 

[moonshine47]

Pike isnt on the list for me because, it wasnt really an inovation, just a modifcation of the spear.

 

[Tobacco_Spit]

Let me correct myself Hill's broadhead was 1700 grains to penetrate the ribs of an elephant (he took 3 elephants in his life) and yes a running leapard shot.
31.5" penetration on a 41" arrow with a specially designed broadhead and 110 pound bow...

http://www.howardhillarchery.com/legend.html

 

[Bors]

Let me correct myself Hill's broadhead was 1700 grains to penetrate the ribs of an elephant (he took 3 elephants in his life) and yes a running leapard shot.
31.5" penetration on a 41" arrow with a specially designed broadhead and 110 pound bow...

http://www.howardhillarchery.com/legend.html

Great link :thumbup:

Bors

 

[NickZac]

The Clovis Point made a huge impact in its short time here.

 

[Bors]

Around 100AD Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus commonly called Trajan marched to Dacia where he and his legions were introduced to the Falx. Wiki describes it as "It consisted of a three-feet long wooden shaft with a long curved iron blade of nearly-equal length attached to the end. The blade was sharpened only on the inside". Presumably the hook shape permitted reaching around the scutum to filet the arms legs and heads.

In the Book of the sword Burton referred to it as "the Muderous Falx". There were two varieties one-handed and two-handed. The Romans appeared to have suffered a great deal during the first introductioin however they made some modifications in their armor and the next outcome was much better...for them.

Wiki,

The time of the conquest of Dacia by Trajan is the only known instance of the Roman army adapting personal equipment while on campaign, it seems likely that this was a response to this deadly weapon. Roman legionaries had reinforcing iron straps applied to their helmets - it is clear that these are late modifications because they are roughly applied across existing embossed decoration. Roman armour of the time left limbs unprotected; Trajan introduced the use of leg and arm protectors (greaves and manica).

Here the falx made a difference at first but the difference was soon overcome by the romans ability to adapt (good leadership).


To read more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacian_Wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falx



Bors

 

[ashtxsniper]

lets see catapault, balista, crossbow, greek fire, the very long spear the greaks used, mace and battle axe, mirrors (research this one about setting ships on fire with mirrors), the broadsword,warhammers. Do the research and you will find all type of interesting accounts of different weapons changing the battle for better or worse.

 

[Danno4017]

The English Longbow dominated the fields of Europe for 2 hundred years.
It was not just Agincourt,
It was Crecy and Poitier's
The English archers outnumbered by far larger forces saved the day.
Some Archers were Welsh, they also finished off the dying with a blade between the Armour.
It is all on the net.
When the Mary Rose ship was brought up from where she rested at the bottom of the Thames there were many good examples of Longbows.
The Skeletons found had deformed left forearms that was thought to be from drawing the bow so many times
The Bodkin head could peirce plate armour
The Archers could fire 10-12 Arrows a minute.
At Agincourt it was calculated that 100,000 Arrows may have been launched in the first few minutes.
It was a 12-14 century Mini gun.

 

[Watchful]

As a beginner at studying past battle history, tell me more about "Russians vs Ottomans, Russians vs Japanese". What happened there?

Russians vs Ottomans; first paragraph hints at but fails to discuss the important innovations they Russians employed to their advantage.

Similarly, the Russians vs the Japanese used some unconventional control over their ships to continue fighting though heavily damaged...something the Japanese ships could not do.

And now, back to the topic at hand...

 

[Watchful]

DELETED. Duplicate post; sorry.

 

[Nordolf]

Pikes were a big obstacle but there was a long period when they were not used . However, spears were used throughout history. Spears may very well be the most used weapon on the field throughout history.


Bors

I agree that the spear is arguably the definitive weapon in European warfare prior to the rise of gunpowder weaponry. Homer represents the late Bronze Age heroes during the Trojan War as relying on spear, sword and shield, with the spear as the primary weapon. The Greeks viewed reliance on long range missile weapons to be proof of a lack of courage to come to close quarters, the average hero was mainly a "point warrior" or spearman. Greek warfare was primarily heavily armed spear combat, as was early Roman, and the strength of the Macedonian armies usually consisted in the pike phalanxes. Imperial Romans relied mainly on the gladius and pilum which was a specialized armor piercing throwing spear. During the middle ages axe use gained greater prominence from the successes of the early Frankish francisca and the two handed viking battleaxe but the average northman in Viking saga is still commonly described with arms similar to that of Homer's Trojans and Achaeans- helm, spear, shield, and sword. Normans who settled in the west quickly adopted French methods of mounted combat which were lance and sword based. The late medieval challenge from English longbowmen was paralleled by rise of pike phalanxes in other parts of Europe like Switzerland and Germany. So to the best of my knowledge the standard during pre gunpowder European warfare was for decisive battle to be initiated by the spear, either thrown or hand to hand in a massed infantry clash, and for victory to be decided up close by spear or sword.

 

[Watchful]

...So to the best of my knowledge the standard during pre gunpowder European warfare was for decisive battle to be initiated by the spear, either thrown or hand to hand in a massed infantry clash, and for victory to be decided up close by spear or sword.

Well, not always: it seems not to be a matter of choice, but a matter of the weapons at hand.

For example, the pilum was an intermediate range weapon: used to clutter up the shields of the infantry.

Archery was introduced by many cultures to widen the gap even more, far beyond up-close fighting. The Egyptians used archers at relatively close range, but within a few hundred years, archery technology allowed for ballistic-type artillery usage.

That widened the distance a bit, but most significantly was the adoption of the arbalest, that allowed the Romans to kill at pretty far ranges.

 

[Unsub]

Tactics are far more inportant than the weapons used. When a good weapon is matched with tactics that take advantage of it's strengths the outcome is devasting. Crossbows allowed peasant recruits to be much more effective than
had been the case previously. The pike with proper tactics and dicsipline allowed foot soldiers to turn a cavalry assault. The same basic tactic was used into the 19th century with the square. At the start of WW2 the german tanks were no better than france's but they used them integrated with infantry and air and were very successfull. Now the trick will be to use cell phones and internet sat photos in modern insurgency/counterinsugency ops.

 

[Liam Ryan]

longbows were good and you could shoot a decent rate of fire, but you could train a peasant to shoot a crossbow in a fair rate in a day.
Bolts were rather heavy and incapacitating as well.

 

[T-BAG]

How about the Roman short sword.....aka Gladiator sword...Killed millions of people when Romans had control of most of the known world. And in the beginning of the movie Gladiator it showed how to defeat the long range bow. although I would never have tried that.....lol...I would have had the one bad shield made in the whole army.

 

[Abaniko]

Trebuchets had their moments .

 

[FullerH]

One of the most significant examples of firepwer taking the place of mass in military tactics was durung one of the many Russo-Turkish Wars, this one in 1877-1878. At the Battle of Plevna in 1877, a numerically much smaller Turkish army stood off the Russians using Peabody-Martini Fallling Block, an American form of the Martini-Henry of Brtish fame, rifles for their long distance shooting amd then picking up Winchester .44 cal. lever action repeaters whjen the Russians got close enough. They demolished the Russian Army and the Russians had to bring in many, many new replacements over a 5-month period.

 

[cyclopsoz]

Bernard Montgomery (Field Marshall) put out a book looking at great battles and why they were won. A History of Warfare. Some battles were won through superior and innovative tactics, others through superior use of weapons. One armies infantry were armed with half a dozen throwing axes that they hurled at opposing forces. There were only so many of these axes that a mans shield could carry and the shield would fall and expoes the holder to the next rain of axes. Hmm pretty gruesome style of fighting.

The Romans used the 'Pila' a spear with a 3ft tip of slender iron. This could penetrate shiels and do damage to the bearer, but was also hard to pull out of said shield and weighed it down causing it to be discarded, making the opposition vulnerable. The soft iron also bent readily making the weapon useless to the enemy wanting to hurle it back. they could be gathered up after the battle and repaired by blacksmiths.

Native Americans on Caribean Islands burned chillies to defeat a British?? fort. The occupants who had to abandon the fort and leave the island were the first victims of capsicum spray and probably one of the first to be defeated by chemical warfare.

On bows, no army was the equal at utilising archers, both mounted and on foot, of Ghengis Khan. His archer artillery could rain arrows on opposing forces at a range of 600 yards using powerful foot bows. His light cavary, their speed and accuracy with a bow made Legolas in Lord of the Rings look sick.

pete