Greatest warrior in Randland?

[Hughroe 0]

Depends on the 'battlefield'.

 

Open country-the bow, depending on the type of bow, the type of arrowhead, the armour of the enemy, the number of arrows, and the enemy keeping themselves at a distance.

 

Closer in, but still with a decent amount of room, I'd go with the quarterstaff, there's a story from back in the age of Elizabeth I of a captured English officer winning his freedom and a purse of gold after defeating 6 Spanish swordmasters, killing 2, crippling the others.

 

Real close quarters-a pair of daggers.

[Sivart Reborn 7]

One on One- As long as you can hit them in the right spot, you almost never need more than one arrrow. A yew longbow with boardtip steel arrows (just the tips now) is very deadly.

 

Quarterstaff: I see the arguements for it, but I don't see what keeps a guy with that battleaxe from loping your stick in half. Then the half in half. Then that half in half. etc. There are stories of it sure, but then, there are stories for a lot of things.

 

A pair of daggers: It takes a lot of coordination to fight with two weapons successfully. Most of us would be better off with just the one. If they're that close I'd just as soon use my hands though.

[Hughroe 0]

Chisel point against Plate armour and Chain-mail, broadheads tend to skitter at anything less than a zero angle of incidence on plate, and get hung up on the ring just behind the point with chain. The large loss of life among the French at Agincourt was because Henry V ordered the throats of the captives slit, not, as legend has it, the effects of the longbow, those just took care of the horses.

 

Can't swing a battleaxe with broken knuckles, and even plate gauntlets wouldn't stop the effect of a good hardwood staff. That said, with padding, or padded armour, blunt weapons are not as effective as edged. Of course, if it's a bearded axe, that's a nice ten foot circle of death there.

[Vertex 23]

Poor horsies... anyways, If the enemy is charging and you make a horse fall, chances are that other hourses will fall behind and that at least one of the girls or boys riding will be hurt too badly to fight anymore. So, anyways, I think that a horse disabled in battle has to count for as much as a boy of girl down.

 

And I really doubt most soldiers in old fashion wars could afford chain mail or plate armor. Those were for the nobles... the soldiers would probably be lucky if they had some sturdy leather and a hairy chest. So my point is that most soldiers would be hurt by an arrow hitting them.

[Sivart Reborn 7]

A horse in barding armor falling on a man in armor=Fatal.

 

Speaking of padded armor, trying wearing one of those tin suits without something under it. They did wear something under the armor, usually something that would last, like leather.

 

I've also tried to hit someone's knuckles with a staff while they were trying to hit me with a one handed object. I never did manage the knuckles. Although... I did manage the chin.

[Hughroe 0]

A Gambeson, usually wool.

 

Oil Boiled leather in good condition, for one battle (then it starts to get scuffed and torn) better than bronze, almost as good as steel, and lighter than either.

 

Yeah, took me a few years of staff training to keep getting hands or forearms regular, was easier to learn a cutting sword.

 

But actually, here we are discussing mundane ways, and the books contain such nice things as weaves of fire, and of course, balefire.

[Sivart Reborn 7]

Yes, balefire.

[Hughroe 0]

And there is also the point of view that the best warrior is not only the best one on one fighter, but the most inspirational or successful general/leader. Think of the American Civil War, with Robert E. Lee and U.S. Grant, both considered great warriors, but I can't remember reading anything about either even firing a pistol in the general direction of the enemy