Can I use the first bullet to shoot Nex?

Swords are expensive, require a [cabbage]load of training, and are next to useless unless sharpened regularly. Plus they aren't as reliable against armour.

And you think axes are? It doesn't take a whole lot of wit to swing a sword or stab with one. To be good with one, yeah it takes training. The only way a dull axe would be more useful dull is that all of it's weight is at one end. And I think a sword would be more useful against armor. A stabbing point better allows you to concentrate force and thus punch through holes or chain links.

Hai resistance.

Swords are just a damned sign of nobility, and what noble actually puts his life on the line? They're more defensive than axes, but that just proves my point.

The right tool for the job depends on what job you're doing in regards to the argument, if I was taking down cavalry then I think I'd prefer a halberd or mace but if I was defending from a Norman invasion I would use a stave or sword.

Axes are more weighty and will do more damage but swords are far easier to use.

 

 

Hai pepsiguy

I won't argue they're more expensive than axes, but that's because they're the better weapon. Good swords are balanced, durable and light. A good weapon isn't all about its offensive capabilities.

 

I have no idea why you'd want a mace for cavalry. You'd want anything that puts you out of reach of a lance. A halberd and a mace maybe, so you can give them a good smack on the head once they're unhorsed, but just a mace is rather foolhardy.

Rather have a sword.

Light, agile, but still strong and is good for offense and defense.

Long range > short.

 

Therefore

 

Bow > sword.

Although a mace doesn't seem like the right tool for the job it is far more efficent then a sword at smashing things up. If I struck a sword or halberd at a horse I wouldn't get much momentum, a good knock with even a light mace will be very successful in breaking [horse] bones.

 

 

Crossbow > Bow

I wouldn't know how to handle any of them well enough.

 

But axes are badass.

I'd rather have a bow. Much less likely to get my head chopped off.

Long range > short.

 

Therefore

 

Bow > sword.

 

Trebuchet > bow.

 

Also this went from investing money to gambling to road trip to arguing who is driving to who we are picking up to arguing which soda is best to middle age weapons.

[bleep] YEAH.

If I had pro skills with any weapon, I'd go with bow.

Stab the horse in the chest with your halberd and it'll probably unhorse him, and it's much more effective if you're being charged. Also a good sword would probably take off a horse's leg if you got in a good whack.

 

@ Monk Being an effective archer takes a lot of training. And they're only really effective on a battle field en masse. Not to mention if you get caught by anyone with armor you're done for, during or after the battle. Longbowmen were often killed or had their fingers cut off if captured. Fingers cut off, in case you can't figure it out, so they can't fire a bow again.

 

@Tyler See above.

Also,

.45 Caliber, because shooting twice is just silly.

Nuke, cause using one shot to kill just one person is silly.

Starship-based Infinity Accelerator cannon, because using more than one shot to destroy all life on a planet is silly.

Weaponry that is not yet know to exist.

 

Wut.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM6lGNhPujE&feature=player_embedded

 

Not many of these are attractive. :|

in case pie ever returns

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG2KMkQLZmI&feature=related

I watched The Room last night. You should all watch it too.

In honor of pie:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIMyWcpJGL8

I read that the Room is one of the worst movies of all time.