If All Wars/Battles Were Still Melee Based...

I would get as built as i possibly could and tote a giant hammer.

Originally posted by Vanchatron
I was watched Braveheart on the TV the other day, and it made me think... What if all wars were STILL melee based? I know that there were bows & arrows along with other projectiles in Braveheart, but I'm saying what if all wars were SOLELY melee based. Meaning, there were absolutely NO projectiles of any kind, no bows, no arrows, no guns, no bombs, no nuclear weapons, no planes, NOTHING.

But here's where it gets interesting... Let's say the rules of war were that people could ONLY use melee weapons in war/battle, BUT you could use ANY technology in order to increase your melee abilities. You could spend all the money (which you'd usually be using on planes, nukes etc) on increasing your armour & melee weapons. So I guess the military could even design some kind of lightsaber if they wanted to, or perhaps a weapon that causes the enemy to disintegrate when it strikes them. I don't really know, but I'm sure if they had all the military funding they have now and put it ALL into just improving melee weapons & armour, they'd make some pretty decent stuff.

So basically... No projectiles of any kind, no radar, no chemical weapons. JUST extremely improved armour & melee weapons of some kind, so it'd be like Braveheart or other medieval type wars.


What type of weapons & armour dya think would be created? This is assuming EVERYBODY follows the rules of war as stated above.

this would never work, i can vouch for this belief that in any thing involving violence there are no rules. as for the better weapons things, the US wouldn't waste the effort for that as much

Since that armor transmits heat so well, my melee weapon would be fuel - ignited fuel to bust up the party - break their formations down, and take them piecemeal.

Or, I'd just cheat.

reply to post by Vanchatron


fist fighting ftw

I think the honur of a worrior with a good sword would be best.
like the gladeators in roman times

Originally posted by crookedj0k3r
I think we'd still be a long ways away from seeing a hand-held laser type sword like the lightsaber from Star Wars.

I imagine we'd probably find Katanas most efficient, probably find a way to make them even lighter and sharper. Hell maybe we'd be using ceramic weaponry by now and tungsten, steel and titanium would be out the window...

I hear where your coming from, scary ass thought thats for sure!

Katana's are somewhat over-rated.
A two-handed broadsword would defeat it IF the swordsman was wearing Euro-armour, Katana's are crap when it comes to armour piercing capability's.

What about longbows? They were carried by troops during the 100 years war and until the 17th century. Effective and deadly

War is inherently "unfair", the entire point of arming up is to make things as unfair as possible in your favour.
Strap a nuke to your back, walk in and kamikaze - It's an explosive, but not ballistically delivered.

i have thought this myself many times. it would change the entire game. only the strong would survive. real men with real bravery. no sitting in a control room pressing a button. i for one would have joined the military if the combat was braveheart style. there is much more honor in going face to face with someone rather than hiding behind cover and shooting a gun. the victor would earn the win rightfully. there would also be far less innocent lifes lost as a result. im sure some armys would still rape and pillage, but there would be no accidently hitting a school buildning with a bomb or any such thing. it would also require far more training and discipline. something i think that, esp here in america, is lacking. the troops would be true men and not boys that were ordered to kill. there wouldnt be all the storys of killing puppys or soldiers acting immaturely.

A light saber thing wouldn't be too bad of a choice.

I assume the armor could have some sort of force field type thing, helps if they can't get near you.

Originally posted by WatchRider


Katana's are somewhat over-rated.
A two-handed broadsword would defeat it IF the swordsman was wearing Euro-armour, Katana's are crap when it comes to armour piercing capability's.

every weapon has its advantage/disadvantage. did you stop to think that a broad sword often weighs 20-30 lbs or more while a katana is usualy around only 3 lbs. a broadsword is extreamly slow by comparison. and if you factor in the weight of all the armor, it will make you even slower. now im willing to bet that in the time it takes you to swing and recover from a miss with that 30 lb sword i could swing a katana atleast 6 times. and thats a lowball number. your recovery time for a missed attack would be atlest 5 times that of a 3 lb sword. if we factor in just how many enemys you are facing with all that weight, you would be very tired in just a short time. making you even slower yet again. you would quickly become an easy target. all one has to do is run in circles avoiding your attacks and wait for you to become tired. than with one well place shot its all over. you would be to weak to move fast enough to get out of the way. yes the broadsword is stronger, but you give up alot of mobility. in a crowded combat situation, i for one feel that speed and mobility are more important than strength. you have several hundred men in a field trying to hack at each other you want to be able to move around with ease. however, its not so much about the weapon used as it is about the person using the weapon. skill plays the most important role.

reply to post by PApro


This is false. The heaviest one-handed broadsword I've used weighed somewhere around 3.5lbs and it was way too heavy to wield properly in a combat context. A proper quality broadsword made for combat shouldn't weigh more than 2.5lbs. It should give you enough weigh to impose a presence while still being light enough for speed and potentially long combat.

reply to post by Mingan


well according to several sites including wiki and others i didnt save, that is traditional braveheart era i suppose. ive seen some up to as much as 75 lbs. but none the less all that i have come across from todays times are still much heavier than a katana. and would still be much slower to weld. but as i said, it truly comes down to skill of the person using it. i was mainly stating that one cant just say any one weapon is imediatly better simply due to one factor. in this case the fact that a broadsword can go through armor better than a katana. i was sugesting he consider every factor before ruling anything out. theres still no doubt in my mind a broadsword would be a bit slow and i could use a katana much more effectively.

reply to post by PApro


True enough. One shouldn't discount any type of weapon. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. I guess people just find katanas just that much cooler than a straight edged European blade.

Although I can't quite figure what kind of use a 20-30lbs sword would have, much less so a 75lbs one. If I remember correctly, my swordmaster (he did actual archaeological research) said that the biggest actual sword found was a two-handed claymore-type sword weighing about 15lbs. Personally, if I had to fight against someone that was heavily armored, I'd rather use a battle hammer instead of a humongous sword.

Adding :
Weapon choice depends a whole lot on the context : whether you're going to face armored opponents or not; if you're in open terrain or forest; if you're facing multiple opponents or one-on-one, and so on. So, I don't believe that there's only one weapon that can get you out of any situation, yet you can't either master all weapons, or transport each type for each kind of situation.

Minus the guns. I think we'd all be fighting in giant robot suits.

reply to post by PApro


No, I'm pretty sure that's wrong. Wiki lists no weight for broadswords, since it says that it's a name that has been applied to more than one type of sword. The weights of the kinds of swords it says "broadsword" might refer to are 2.5 pounds on average for an arming sword, which is what you're probably thinking or 2.42 pounds for a basket hilt sword from the Napoleonic era. It lists no average weight for the chinese dao, which probably isn't relevant anyway.

For longswords/hand and a half swords, which are a somewhat better comparison to katanas than broadswords anyway due to their more similar intended grip, it lists and average of 3.1 pounds. Longswords, like katanas are sized to be usable one or two handed, with more emphasis on two handed use. Longswords have somewhat longer blades than katanas, more in line with older tachi blades. The biggest longswords, which we would call zweihanders or claymores only got up to about 5 pounds. Longswords and arming swords tend to be lighter than katanas per unit blade length.

I can't find a good source on the average weight of historical katanas, but the consensus seems to be that they ranged between 2 - 3.5 pounds. That's slightly lighter than the figure for longswords (3.1 pounds), but longswords tend to have blades fully 18 - 30 centimeters longer, a pretty big difference.

Consider that it doesn't take much force to kill an unarmored guy dead with a bladed instrument, and that no matter how heavy it is, a sword is a crappy tool for puncturing armor except with thrusts, and that being heavy doesn't help with thrusting. a 10 pound sword would be pretty much unusable, let alone a 20-35 pound one.

It's still kind of a weird comparison, since a katana is really much more like a cavalry sabre than it is like a longsword. Those tended to weigh in close to a kilogram. The 1706 light cavalry sabre issued to troops, for instance weighed 2.2 pounds, and the officer's version was even lighter.

reply to post by Vanchatron


I would use a Katara(also known as a Suwaiya). It is a hand held weapon that is gripped similar to brass knuckles but has a long dagger attached to the hand grip, usually with wrist guards along the sides. It is a weapon from India and the great thing about this weapon is that the learning curve is easy since the attack motion is basically a punch. Most everyone knows how to throw a punch and this weapon puts a nice sharp blade into your punches.

Of course, there are advanced techniques as with any other melee weapon.

Another weapon would be a Kusarigama. It is a combination of a flail and a kama(sickle). Using the chain and flail to entangle an opponents sword, spear, or other weapon from a safe distance, you then finish them off with the kama. The disadvantage of this weapon is that it is a chain weapon and even grandmasters can temporarily lose control of the long chain and flail head.

If I were to use a pole arm it would be a Naginata due to their generally superior construction over western pole arms(it has a tang that can go fairly deep into the shaft. A 3 foot tang is not uncommon).

While not a melee weapon; sharp, sturdy caltrops could be devastating to a poor sod's feet.

Oh yea, edit to add: A 2 handed Dacian Falx is truly devastating(at least according to the Romans). It would be a hard decision over the Naginata or the Falx.

Katana's charged with electricity , I can just imagine o.0

reply to post by clintdelicious


You summed it up pretty well.
That and most battles were also like chess, a lot more strategic than now.
Pull the center back to force the horses into a box because they were scared of the spears on the flanks.
Kill the riders.

Old school fighting involved 100x more strategy then modern war, or even modern war games.

That and the life expectancy was something under 60 seconds in any skirmish where a strong line was broken and it fell down to 1 on 1 fighting.
You kill someone while you were pulling your spear or sword out of their body you would get stabbed, then someone would stab them etc...

I too think battles should be fought hand to hand. Sure, they would be more brutal and bloody, but the psychological affect would be more prominent. It would make people think twice about what they are really fighting for and if it is really worth it or not.