Other Medieval Weapons

What are some primitive/medieval weapons that do not need a good deal of strength to wield?

Question by Anni: What are some primitive/medieval weapons that do not demand a good deal of power to wield?
For illustration, if a female in historic periods had not been creating up power, what would she be able to wield? Axes and swords ended up very major, and bows truly took an extraordinary amount of strength to pull correctly. Some thing that calls for a lot more skill as opposed to raw strength.

Very best answer:

Reply by Skyward
A rock

What do you feel? Solution under!

Related posts

One Thought to “What are some primitive/medieval weapons that do not need a good deal of strength to wield?”

  1. Dapifer

    Real historical swords weren’t terribly heavy: three pounds is about the maximum for a one-handed sword and 3.5 pounds was a good two-handed sword. See here: http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm

    I use swords that reproduce the size and weight of medieval specimens all the time in my martial art, and I’m a woman of no great physical prowess. It doesn’t take much force to cut through things with a sharp sword.

    As for bows, really heavy longbows only became popular in Europe in the fourteenth century. Before, during and after that period, people just used bows with reasonable draw weights that they could pull. There were also crossbows.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.