# Help Weapon's!



## dangit (Oct 26, 2012)

Alright I'm having trouble with coming up with a weapon for my character .


He's a horse archer who sometimes goes around on foot. He's part of a well equiped standing army of professional soldiers.

Any thoughts would be welcome :help:.


----------



## Chime85 (Oct 26, 2012)

If he's an archer, why not a bowman or crossbowman? I imagine if he was one of those two, he would also carry a small dagger with him for both close combat defence and skinning animals.


----------



## Devor (Oct 26, 2012)

Mounted Archers used shortbows that are extremely deadly when you charge in on horseback but don't really have much in range.  On foot, the shortbow wouldn't be much use on most typical battlefields, except maybe in guerrilla warfare (shooting down from a tree or rooftop, for instance).  From what I can tell, a mounted archer usually required more skill than anyone else on the battlefield.

From a mount, the next weapon you would want is a thrusting weapon for reach and armor penetration, either a lance (preferred, but according to Ravana below, can't be used on the same horse as a shortbow) or a straight sword (useful unhorsed).  If you've a third weapon, it would probably be a curved sword for speed like a long thin sabre (could probably slash or thrust) or a wide fat scimitar (mostly slash).  I've seen a few places (fantasy books?  documentaries?  commentaries?  I can't remember) where curved swords were considered cowardly because they're mostly used against unarmed civilians, but that would depend on how much armor you'd expect a soldier to wear.

As Chime mentioned, pretty much every soldier would keep some kind of a knife or dagger, often more than one, to double as a tool as needed.  More than skinning, soldiers often had to dig out fortifications or clear away underbrush, so blades would come in a variety of shapes and sizes to favor one use or another.


----------



## Butterfly (Oct 26, 2012)

Chime85 said:


> If he's an archer, why not a bowman or crossbowman? I imagine if he was one of those two, he would also carry a small dagger with him for both close combat defence and skinning animals.




err... no... the dagger's for finishing off wounded enemies laying and bleeding into the mud after a battle. Skinning animals is just too cruel.


----------



## dangit (Oct 26, 2012)

Well I've got the recurve bow and the Knife down, the problem is the fact that I think he needs something else like a short spear or a sword of some kind (should have specified that in the original post).


----------



## Ravana (Oct 26, 2012)

A mounted archer would generally not carry a spear/lance, the entire point behind them being _not_ to come into direct contact with the enemy. Also, while it's possible to put a bow into a case when you want to switch to another weapon, it's nowhere near as easy to holster a spear when you want to use the bow. It would be difficult to switch to spears unless they were able to withdraw to the rear and grab some from support units.

They would carry "small arms" of some sort or other, for those times they were unable to outdistance pursuit (rare) or were cut off by some surprise movement of the enemy (occasionally). As Devor mentioned, this would commonly be a one-handed sword, probably on the shorter end of the scale–you would never, _ever_, use a two-handed weapon from horseback. That these were often curved is in part due to somewhat greater ease of use in the situation–curved blades, apparently, are less likely to get stuck in an enemy's body, at least as long as you're slashing–and in part due to historical coincidence: the cultures most associated with horse archery are also most associated with curved swords. (For comparison, Celtic cavalry, and subsequently most Western cavalry, used straight swords, all the way up until the time that armor fell out of fashion… which might suggest they had reasons for doing so, and for changing when they did.)

Other possibilities should not be ignored, however. The mace was a remarkably common weapon for mounted troops–a fact generally overlooked due to the "romance" attached to swords: it was, if anything, more effective than blades, especially when going up against armored opponents, and was very unlikely to get lodged, unless it was gussied up with spikes or such. Short flails were used as well, though these are far harder to control–they're a pain to control even when you're standing all alone in an empty field, and if you _ever_ take it into your head to experiment with one, make sure it's padded and you're wearing at least head protection. One-handed axes saw some use, almost exclusively when armored opponents were expected; picks and hammers were eventually adapted for this purpose as well. In all of these cases, the weapon was shorter than foot soldiers would use–often no more than 18 inches total length–and was generally all-metal, rather than having a wooden shaft.

All of these could be supplemented with a small, usually round, shield, which could be hung from the saddle or slung on the back until needed.

There are a very few exceptions to the first rule: some units, in particular cataphracts (Parthians, Persians, later Byzantines), would use fully armored archers mixed in with lancers, and these sometimes _did_ switch to lances after firing… though more often they were used to soften up formations for their lancer companions, and to engage enemy archers. I can't speculate as to whether they carried their own lances or whether their companions carried spares to hand off when needed. In general, though, the armored archer would not engage in the primary heavy cavalry charge (sometimes they'd form back ranks, using their sidearms to finish off what was left after the lancers broke up enemy formations); they were armored to protect against enemy archers more than to engage in melÃ©es. In an interesting reversal of roles, some cataphract units carried heavy darts or javelins they'd loose during their charge; it would be simple enough to carry the lance in the off-hand until it was required.


----------



## psychotick (Oct 26, 2012)

Hi,

The recurved shortbow would be the primary weapon for a horse archer. Long bows would tend to get caught up in things on a rider. Crossbows are good as well, but slower to reload. And if he had to switch to melee combat a single handed pole arm of some sort. Axes, hammers, maces, anything with a nasty bit of gut busting metal on the end of a stick. These are relatively easy to use compared to swords, and often lighter as well, and they can be swung from horseback or on foot. (Don't go for morning stars though, they require much more training to use).

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Devor (Oct 26, 2012)

Ravana said:


> Short flails were used as well, though these are far harder to control—they're a pain to control even when you're standing all alone in an empty field, and if you _ever_ take it into your head to experiment with one, make sure it's padded and you're wearing at least head protection.



The wikipedia article on flails doubts the historical existence of one-handed flails.  Were they a thing, or do I not get to put a diagonal line through the other four notches counting the times wikipedia has failed me?


----------



## wordwalker (Oct 26, 2012)

psychotick said:


> The recurved shortbow would be the primary weapon for a horse archer. Long bows would tend to get caught up in things on a rider. Crossbows are good as well, but slower to reload.



Actually, crossbows are trouble on horseback: the horse's motion tends to knock the quarrel out of the slot, and a saddle is no place to brace to cock the heavier ones.

But like psychotick said, the bow would be a recurved or other not-too-long weapon (unless it's an asymetrical thing like the Japanese came up with where most of the length is above the hands).


----------



## Ravana (Oct 27, 2012)

Devor said:


> The wikipedia article on flails doubts the historical existence of one-handed flails.  Were they a thing, or do I not get to put a diagonal line through the other four notches counting the times wikipedia has failed me?



I suppose it depends on what one counts as a one-handed flail. They certainly existed in the Orient: we just tend to call those nunchakus. There's no reason you couldn't turn a Western two-handed flail into a one-handed one simply by shortening the handle, either, though I have no idea if this is ever attested. I'm sure it had to be tried by someone at some point, since just about every variation on any possibility was. I do at least have to disagree with Wikipedia's claim that "[t]he chief tactical virtue of the two-handed flail was its capacity to defeat a defender's shield or avoid it entirely." The _chief_ tactical virtue was that you didn't need to hit the same person with it twice. They're closer to the truth in addressing its liabilities… including the "lack of precision" part, which means that aiming a blow well enough you could "avoid" an opponent's shield, while still getting the head to whip into the target properly, would be very tricky. I suppose shattering the shield should probably count as "defeating" it, so I'll give that part a maybe. Most of the time, though, these would be used against other people armed with two-handed peasant farm implements, so it probably didn't come into question terribly often.

For the ball-on-the-end-of-a-chain variety… examples exist in museum collections, and would need to have been badly misdated to be completely off base; since some artwork from the same periods (which is far easier to date in most cases) also depicts them, this is unlikely. So I'd have to say they existed. Whether or not they saw widespread _use_ is another story. Personally, I can't imagine trying to control one while mounted. They're damn near impossible to control under ideal circumstances; this may be one of those instances where the examples survived because they didn't see much use—and thus remained intact—rather than because they did. On the other hand, I'm not a professional mounted soldier who's been trained in horsemanship almost since he could walk, and in the use of weapons not that much shorter a time; their results might have been different. Though my previous warning applies to _any_ non-rigid hand-to-hand weapon: chained, hinged, or simply flexible (such as simple chains, or whips), all are far more hazardous to the user than those that merely feature sharp edges and points.

I'm being *very* serious here: if you are _ever_ fool enough to "try this at home," at _least_ be smart enough to start with a tennis ball taped to a piece of rope… _and_ to have a spotter on hand. And ideally to wear at least some form of head and neck protection. Because that tennis ball will be able to achieve enough force to _knock you out_, or the rope can wrap your neck tightly enough you aren't going to be able to free it yourself—not in time. Never mind any of various other injuries it might cause. Do it exactly wrong and the rope wraps your neck in such a way that the tennis ball reaches maximum acceleration at the same point it reaches your neck vertebrae, at which point it won't matter even if you do have a spotter. In the SCA, there are exactly two classes of melÃ©e weapons which are not allowed. One is staves. We use wood (well, rattan, actually) in place of metal for swords—and padding in place of metal for axe and mace heads: tennis balls taped to a handle are quite popular for the latter, and also make great back spikes—but substituting wood for wood tends not to reduce the effect significantly. The other is flexible weapons of any sort… because they cannot be made safe under _any_ accommodations whatsoever. Including a 14-gauge steel, enclosed-face spangenhelm with camail and a gorget. When you can understand that it's easier to feel the impact of a tennis-ball mace through that helmet than it is to feel the impact of a 2-inch-wide rattan sword—that's what I wore when I fought, so I speak from personal experience here—maybe you'll be able to understand why we are unwilling to allow a tennis-ball head on a weapon that allows it far greater acceleration courtesy of a hinge. Let alone something that might wrap a limb or neck. Tens of thousands of fighting members over more than four and a half decades… and we don't use these. Hopefully, that tells you something.

[If you're determined to experiment in spite of the above, my personal recommendation for protection would be a straitjacket. As with many forms of personal protection, you'll need someone to help you with the straps. Properly worn, however, I can pretty much guarantee it'll keep you safe from fracturing your own skull with the weapon, unless you deliberately throw yourself on the latter. I'd name a runner-up… but there isn't one I'd be willing to. And I've _also_ worn, and fought in, fully-articulated 16th century plate before, if _that_ tells you anything.]

Indeed, given just how dangerous flails are, the fact that they didn't come to dominate the field of Medieval military hardware ought to tell you just about everything you need to know concerning their difficulty of use as well. So, while, as I said, the results of putting one in the hands of a well-trained warrior _might_ have been different, I somehow suspect they weren't, much, nor often. Had they been, the weapon would have seen far broader use.

As for multiple-headed chain flails, I highly doubt these were ever more than a novelty, in much the same way as some oversize swords, axes and polearms were—in this case, with better reason: they'd be less effective than a weapon with a single head, since the force would be scattered across several smaller points of impact, making serious wounds, let alone armor crushing/penetration, all the less likely. And they'd be even harder to control, since if you didn't get all the heads moving in the same way at once, they'd cause the weapon to wobble, aim to be less accurate still, and force to be reduced that much more.

I suspect the chain flail is probably what psychotick intended to refer to by "morning star," by the way. In fact, a morning star is a spiked, or sometimes flanged, variety of mace, no more difficult to wield than any other head-mass weapon, and not a ball-and-chain… usually. Nomenclature having been inconsistently applied over the centuries, and into the present day, the discussion can often become confusing. Try talking about polearms some time: that gets worse still.


----------



## FatCat (Oct 27, 2012)

Recurve bows are the only way to go on this. The Mongols of the steppes ruled supreme for a reason. As far as secondary weapons, what has been suggested so far, I feel, are good options. Curved swords or sabres are a typical cavalry sidearm, easily drawn and capable of inflicting heavy damage from horseback. Lances shouldn't be considered, as they are very cumbersome and are usually reserved for heavy cavalry troops. 

I would think that either a curved sword designed for slashing or a morning-star would be best suited for mounted combat. As stated in posts above, a morning-star is extremely unstable in terms of control. For this reason alone I would say a sabre-like sword would be best for a secondary weapon for mounted archers. Though it must be reiterated, mounted archers would do their best to stay away from the fight. A secondary weapon should be looked upon like a pistol on the modern battlefield; proficient, but not what you'd want in the end.

Edit: Just wanted to say that you're a cool guy. From the chat discussion we had, I can tell you have a motivated heart into what you do. These kind of details should be secondary to your story. A sword is a sword (Anders please don't kill me ), a reader will understand. The pressure to make a full on detailed world is there, but understand the plot supersedes all.


----------



## Clarence Matthews (Oct 27, 2012)

I think FatCat makes a great point. Short recurve bows would be manueverable on horseback with the bumping and bouncing of a moving horse. Easy to load and quick to fire. Also mentioning the mongols they used what is now called the mongolian thumb release that drew the bow back using the thumb which would allow a much higher draw weight on your bow than holding onto the knock of the arrow. With todays mechanical releases and compound bows people today can shoot an unimaginable draw weight for a bow compared to when you had to draw the string with your hands and hold the full weight of the bow while you aimed. I have done archery with both and I can shoot my compound bow all day long with a mechanical bow but shooting with fingers and a recurve bow actually fatigues the shooter very quickly if they are not conditioned for it.


----------



## Chime85 (Oct 27, 2012)

Butterfly said:


> err... no... the dagger's for finishing off wounded enemies laying and bleeding into the mud after a battle. Skinning animals is just too cruel.



I meant skinning them for food while out in the wilderness. I didn't mean he skins them because he's taken a shine to it, that would be horrid!!


----------



## dangit (Oct 27, 2012)

Thanks a lot for the help! there's been some great replies here.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Oct 27, 2012)

dangit said:


> Alright I'm having trouble with coming up with a weapon for my character .
> 
> 
> He's a horse archer who sometimes goes around on foot. He's part of a well equiped standing army of professional soldiers.
> ...



Depends a bit on wether he is light cavalry or heavy cavalry. 

Wikipedia on mounted archery:



> Horse archers may be either light, such as Scythian, Hun, Parthian, Cuman or Pecheneg horsemen; or heavy, such as Byzantine kavallarioi, Russian druzhina and Japanese samurai. Some nations, like Medieval Mongols and Hungarians, fielded both light and heavy cavalry. In some armies, such as Parthians, Teutonic Order and Palmyrans, the mounted part of the army consisted of both super-heavy (cataphracts, knights) and ultra-light cavalry.
> 
> In battle, light horse archers were typically skirmishers; lightly armed missile troops capable of moving swiftly to avoid close combat or to deliver a rapid blow to the flanks or rear of the foe. In the tactic of the Parthian shot the rider would retreat from the enemy while turning his upper body and shooting backwards. Due to the superior speed of mounted archers, troops under attack from horse archers were unable to respond to the threat if they did not have ranged weapons of their own. Constant harassment would result in casualties, morale drop and disruption of the formation. Any attempts to charge the archers would also slow the entire army down.



That's where I'd start, and then research the historical equivalent mentioned.



Butterfly said:


> err... no... the dagger's for finishing off wounded enemies laying and bleeding into the mud after a battle. Skinning animals is just too cruel.



I don't see what's so cruel about skinning an animal you have already killed. It's the only way to get leather and you can't cook the meat before skinning. 

That said, this would be the job of a hunter or butcher, not a solider. It would also be performed with a knife, as daggers are generally considered pure combat weapons.



dangit said:


> Well I've got the recurve bow and the Knife down, the problem is the fact that I think he needs something else like a short spear or a sword of some kind (should have specified that in the original post).



A sword seems reasonable, even for a light cavalryman. Probably some kind of shield as well.


----------



## wordwalker (Oct 28, 2012)

Ravana said:


> Indeed, given just how dangerous flails are, the fact that they didn't come to dominate the field of Medieval military hardware ought to tell you just about everything you need to know concerning their difficulty of use as well. So, while, as I said, the results of putting one in the hands of a well-trained warrior _might_ have been different, I somehow suspect they weren't, much, nor often. Had they been, the weapon would have seen far broader use.



One added problem with flails: the only thing more unstable than a flail would be trying to use a flail when the guys on your left and right are swinging them too. Flails have more crushing power than any other weapon a human arm can swing (simple physics there) but that doesn't help if you have to spread your line of troops twice as thin just to get them on the field.

In fact, the main examples I've heard of are nunchatku and similar Japanese weapons (that evolved as part of civilians trying to fight off soldiers and ex-soldier bandits without carrying illegal swords) and their use in riot control and other anti-peasant operations. In other words, flails make most sense for amateurs, or for fighting against amateurs-- not for war.


----------



## Wanara009 (Oct 28, 2012)

wordwalker said:


> One added problem with flails: the only thing more unstable than a flail would be trying to use a flail when the guys on your left and right are swinging them too. Flails have more crushing power than any other weapon a human arm can swing (simple physics there) but that doesn't help if you have to spread your line of troops twice as thin just to get them on the field.
> 
> In fact, the main examples I've heard of are nunchatku and similar Japanese weapons (that evolved as part of civilians trying to fight off soldiers and ex-soldier bandits without carrying illegal swords) and their use in riot control and other anti-peasant operations. In other words, flails make most sense for amateurs, or for fighting against amateurs-- not for war.



Not quite, since flail can be used on horseback (in fact, I think its part of medieval knight common arms) and you get get around the thinning by making multiple rows. When used on horseback, it has the added benefit of having more power behind it. Also, a flail is definitely not a weapon for amateur because as far as I know, a flail's trajectory is very difficult to control once you start hitting enemy.

A good example of mounted cavalries would be the Mongol, the Saracen, and the some tribe of Native Americans. Also, it make sense in my mind that horse-mounted spear-man to have multiple spears, since they will leave them with their stabbed enemy. 

A good alternative alternative to the of curved swords are glaive or naginata-type weapon. Greater reach and has more force behind it due to the length.

However, don't quote me on this since most of my weapon knowledge is from studying Indonesian Pendekar and Spartan Hoplites  which led to my tendency of writing infantry-based army.


----------



## SeverinR (Oct 30, 2012)

Here is what one society did:
Mongol military tactics and organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lancers and bowman as a team.

File:MongolCavalrymen.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
pictures of bowman with lancers, the bowmen have swords.

I agree a long weapon works as the primary weapon, but must be tossed aside when using the hands for other weapons, as there is no place to keep the long weapon. So if you use a bow while riding first, there is no way to keep the long weapon for future use.
Also, as the videos show, why engage a target up close, when you can avoid the melee, and deliver arrows as you race around the battle field?

How about a video, rider shoots at least a dozen arrows at a target in one pass. (video at the bottom)
Horsebackarchery.net - Kassai-Reiterbogenschule Ã–sterreich
background on the horse archer:
Magyar index
video at bottom shows more horseman archery.

I don't know if it shows, I miss equestrian activities, and one was mounted archery, that I wanted to learn.


----------



## Ravana (Oct 30, 2012)

Wanara009 said:


> Not quite, since flail can be used on horseback (in fact, I think its part of medieval knight common arms)



See previous discussion. The evidence of its use as a cavalry weapon is highly limited… to put it generously. It may have seen occasional use, but I think it would be a stretch to call it "common."



> Also, a flail is definitely not a weapon for amateur because as far as I know, a flail's trajectory is very difficult to control once you start hitting enemy.



Depends on how you're taking "amateur." Most times, an amateur soldier will be a professional peasant–who may have been wielding a flail for most of his life, just not against human targets. Which is why they _did_ show up in the hands of conscripts, militia, etc. That, plus it's what they had, if their employer was too cheap to provide spears. Even then, most other farm implements would have been easier to wield. 

Keep in mind, too, that these flails would all be of the "hinged" variety (that is, the two parts are linked very close together, either two metal loops attached directly or by a single link of chain: none would use an actual hinge), not the long-chain variety associated–correctly or otherwise–with cavalry.


----------



## JBoots (Nov 25, 2012)

I'd give him a hand axe.  He would be travelling light and a sharp hand axe would double as both a camp tool and a decent weapon. He'd probably have a shotsword or a dagger as a standard issue as well.


----------



## Kit (Nov 25, 2012)

Ravana said:


> I'm being *very* serious here: if you are _ever_ fool enough to "try this at home," at _least_ be smart enough to start with a tennis ball taped to a piece of rope… _and_ to have a spotter on hand. And ideally to wear at least some form of head and neck protection. Because that tennis ball will be able to achieve enough force to _knock you out_, or the rope can wrap your neck tightly enough you aren't going to be able to free it yourself–not in time. Never mind any of various other injuries it might cause. Do it exactly wrong and the rope wraps your neck in such a way that the tennis ball reaches maximum acceleration at the same point it reaches your neck vertebrae, at which point it won't matter even if you do have a spotter. .



LOL..... I spin tennis ball flag poi a little. While I haven't yet knocked myself out, I have clocked myself in the face numerous times and also inadvertently tied myself up while trying to spin (standing still with plenty of room and no distractions). It's kind of funny, unless the poi are on fire. You wouldn't believe how many idiots want to play with lit poi without putting in the practice necessary to be in any way safe.


----------



## SeverinR (Nov 28, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> I don't see what's so cruel about skinning an animal you have already killed. It's the only way to get leather and you can't cook the meat before skinning.
> 
> That said, this would be the job of a hunter or butcher, not a solider. It would also be performed with a knife, as daggers are generally considered pure combat weapons.
> 
> .


I would also say the grunt soldier that isn't satisfied with his rations(taste or quantity), would attempt to learn how to skin a rabbit or large rat. In the Air Force, we did training where we set up camp, and before we left several snakes had become a meal for the person that didn't want the old style MRE.
The military might or might not train their soldiers for this, but some would have learned growing up.


----------



## Valoren (Nov 30, 2012)

You could try a hunnic lance as well as the composite horse bow as well as a short dagger or hunnic cavalry sword.


----------



## ChasingSuns (Feb 20, 2015)

Well it looks like people have adequately covered all I could say about bows. I would agree with the use of a knife, although this would be for practical purposes such as skinning hunted animals or carving out new arrows. I have a character in my story that uses a wrist crossbow as well. I also like the idea of a cavalry sword or saber. Definitely something one handed that is relatively lightweight. As much as other weapons could work, I just feel like this makes the most sense. Also, there is the possibility of using a swordbreaker as a sidearm. This would help the character when fighting certain enemies. Hope some of this helps


----------



## Malik (Feb 20, 2015)

What Ravana said.

The trick with the chain flail is that to make it really work its magic, you have to keep up the momentum. In order to do that, you have to keep it in constant motion between blows; this means that you're swinging it around yourself in what amount to fairly slow -- if devastating -- orbits between blows. This means that your opponent will be able to gauge a rhythm and will have a pretty good idea of when the blow will land and where it's coming from, because the longer the chain gets, the harder it becomes to change direction -- you have to lead the kinetic end, which means you have to telegraph the blow by an increasingly large lag time. Conversely, the longer the chain gets, the more devastating the impact will be. 

Of course, this is assuming you manage to land it. 

The other part of this is the physical exertion of swinging that sucker nonstop. Go hit a tractor tire with a sledgehammer as many times as you can in two minutes. I'll wait. Now imagine doing that all afternoon. No, thanks.

Your best shot with a flail is to wait until your target is busy with something else -- fighting, shouting heroic encouragements to his comrades, making a sandwich, whatever  -- and doesn't see it coming. 

If you get hit with one, though, cancel Christmas.

To put this into perspective, though: back when I fought in the SCA, the combat rules prohibited any flail-like weapon with more than one link joining the handle to the impact head. Our local barony prohibited any hinged weapon, period. Even with a wooden, nunchuk-style flail against a guy in 12-gauge, modern steel and ultra-high molecular-weight plastic armor, you stood to cause major injury. Flails are hideously dangerous. 

As for nunchuks/nunchakus, it was once explained to me this way: 

Think of all the people you know who have owned nunchuks. 

Think of all the nunchuks sold in the world -- on the Internet and in TinderBox stores at the mall, mostly.

Now, think of all the times you've heard of someone being mugged at nunchuk-point. Think hard. 

Think of all the people you know who got their asses kicked in a barfight or at school by someone with nunchuks. 

Think of every nunchuk-related murder you've ever heard of. I'll wait.

Think of all the soldiers in all the world's armies who used nunchuks on the battlefield.

Think of all the great nunchuk-fighters of the Old West.

The only conclusion you can draw from this is that nunchuks, which have been around for thousands of years, really suck. Seriously. Screw nunchuks.


----------



## wordwalker (Feb 21, 2015)

Way to sum things up, Malik!

Flails start to sound like the best weapon for some hulking ogre--which is maybe the traditional use for them anyway. (Then I start thinking that that's over-overkill for something 8' tall that just needs a big sword and lots of armor. But a monstrous flail would mow down whole ranks of enemies, and its terror effect might be even worse. Or just an ogre that big could even kill people with nunchuks! )

Or, a flail might work for _anti_-armor use. Give a big farmer a flail and some extra practice (since he already knows how to swing it), then have other people distract the knight, and smash him flat right through his suit. Not as efficient as a trained warrior of your own with the right anti-armor sword, but might be easier for some people to set up.


----------

