What was the most feared medieval weapon?

Answer 1

Possibly early gunpowder weapons at the end of the Medieval Age, as they would have been terrifying to people who had never heard of gunpowder before.

The long bow because of it's range. The trebuchet, a seige engine and the first biological weapon. Capable not only of launching rocks over and into castle walls but also launching rotting carcases over castle walls to demoralize the occupants and to introduce disease.

longbow had a much larger range but crossbows were more frightening in my opinion. you could be shot off a castle's wall by one they are much more powerful. monks tried to ban it because of it's power but i agree with everything else

For the common infantry soldier, the sight of a fully armoured knight and horse charging directly at you would also have been pretty terrifying.

Answer 2

throughout the middle ages, many believed the most feared weapons were those that did not require the user to be within arms length of the target for example bows, eventually one of the most feared medieval weapons became the crossbow, which had more penetrating power than any bow, this caused even knights to feel the need to avoid soldiers weilding such weapons. The bow while had a devastating effect on relatively lightly armoured targets it would be nowhere near as effective against the heavy armour of a knight unless a "sqaure hit" could be achieved, the crossbow however greatly reduced the need for a "square hit", crossbows were so highly effective that a pope (i don't recall his name) declaired that a crossbow shall not be used by a Christian against another Christian. But then, introduction to gunpowder also shook the Medieval Ages, since now they could blow up castles in matter of minutes instead of having to try breaking it down with a bunch of swords

Answer 3

depending on what you mean by 'weapon':

the most harmful machine was the catapult.

disregarding machines, it will of been the longbow at long range, then the most harmful short range weapon can change depending on what armour someone has or how strong the person carrying it is etc...

Answer 4

I don't think this can be answered with certainty, but there are a couple that are probable candidates.

The bow and arrow are among the least expensive and most widespread weapons. They could be made by peasants, and if the peasants are skilled, they can be very well made and very effective. Arrows were expensive because the points had to be made by armorers. But the effect at such battles as Agincourt was impressive; British longbowmen savaged the armored knights of France in a very one sided battle.

Another weapon that was common was the bill. The bill, which could also be very effective, was a bill hook, a tool like a sickle, mounted on the end of a pole. It was originally a peasant weapon, but was effective enough that armorers began making it for regular units of infantry.

While the performance of the bow (particularly the longbow) was impressive, it is easy to overstate the commonality of bows. The longbow wasn't really a weapon of war until refined by the English/Welsh and used starting around the mid-1300s (when the medieval period was more than half over). Prior to that, the small shortbow was the main bow in use, which, while common, was far less effective, and seldom carried by more than a small fraction of infantry. Bows require some skill and training to use effectively (the English Longbow being an extreme example, requiring a decade or more of extensive training), while any idiot can swing a polearm relatively effectively with no practice.

In any case, the weapons most used by the nobility (including both mounted knights and armored man-at-arms) throughout the entire medieval period would be derivatives of the simple spear and axe. With the exception of the flail and the aforementioned bill (a derivative of the sickle), virtually all polearms from 1000 onward are obvious various of axe on a long pole or a spear + axe combination. "Professional" soldiers of the medieval period used modified spears (the lance) while horseback, and lengthened while on foot (the pike). Similarly, variations on the chopping axe (the battleaxe, bec de corbin, and the halberd) make up the majority of footman's weapons. Swords were a distant second to the spear/axe derivatives, with items of the mace, flail, or sickle/scythe families less popular. Even with the peasants, who tended to create polearms by mounting a variety of common farm implements on poles, the number which derive from a spear (knife on a stick) or axe (woodsman's axe) outnumbers any other types.

Much of the continued popularity of the spear and axe derivatives comes from their continued effectiveness against increasingly thick armor. Swords are reasonably effective against chainmail, but are much less useful against platemail (the most common armor of the professional soldier post-1300). Maces have the same issue, as do even things like the bill or sickle/scythe-based polearms. Axes, however, maintained their ability to penetrate even thick armor breastplates when composed of a sufficiently strengthened blade on a modestly long pole (for good leverage). Similarly, the pike (nothing more than a very long spear) and the lance evolved as deadly weapons against all opponents in medieval times, and the combination spear/axe (particularly in the instance of the halberd) provided the best all-round weapon for footman in the entire period.