P
Pugilistic
Guest
I think most Americans' go-to answer would be obviously a gun for home-defense. But in my country, guns are sadly extremely difficult to obtain and civilian use is limited only to hunting. Gun related crime is extremely rare, and criminals use the usual melee weapons like kitchen knives, bats, crowbars, etc. I'm wondering what kind of weapon would be best for a home-defense situation if a couple dudes armed with kitchen knives broke into my house while I was there.
I didn't post this in the weapons forum because I just want to have fun with this and I'm not really that concerned about my home being broken into and having to engage in a knife fight to the death with a criminal.
But let's say a couple of criminals armed with knives and a crowbar break into your house while you're sleeping, and you hastily get out of bed and grab a weapon from your pile of medieval weapons collection (that you have hypothetically). What would you choose?
I'm thinking two different options. First would be a naginata or other kind of short pole arm. A spear would give me a lot of range against criminals armed with a kitchen knife but it would be too long to wield in the confines of a house. I think a shorter weapon would make it easier to use indoors while still giving me a range advantage. I can both slash and stab easily since I doubt criminals during a home invasion won't be wearing armor. My one worry is the blade getting stuck if I stab one guy and the other rushes me while I'm trying to get it out.
I think option two would be a little better. I think a shield of sorts and a blunt weapon like a war hammer would be better. Since this option makes me engage in a closer range, I think light armor would also be good to wear if I have the time. The reason I want a blunt weapon instead of a sword is that I'm afraid that unless I hit a vital organ with a sword, the guy would still be up and fighting and I'll be at risk. I'm not skilled with a sword to be aiming at the vital organs during combat, but with a blunt weapon, a hit could end up in broken bones. My thinking is that if I hit a guy in the arm, a guy with a bleeding arm can still swing it due to the adrenaline, but a hit from a blunt weapon could break the arm and render it useless.
When I consider the accounts I've read of sword duelists not realizing they've been stabbed multiple times until after the duel, or of soldiers still fighting or running around after being hit in the body with rifle rounds, I think blunt force is the way to go. I remember seeing a book about WWI weapons and apparently soldiers from both sides carried mace like weapons for melee. They probably have the advantage of not getting stuck like a bayonet would if you stab someone with it. Plus I don't have to worry about the invaders bleeding all over my house and they are probably more likely to be alive at the end.
In both cases, armor would give me a huge advantage. I think wearing armor alone gives me a huge advantage against someone armed with merely a kitchen knife.
I didn't post this in the weapons forum because I just want to have fun with this and I'm not really that concerned about my home being broken into and having to engage in a knife fight to the death with a criminal.
But let's say a couple of criminals armed with knives and a crowbar break into your house while you're sleeping, and you hastily get out of bed and grab a weapon from your pile of medieval weapons collection (that you have hypothetically). What would you choose?
I'm thinking two different options. First would be a naginata or other kind of short pole arm. A spear would give me a lot of range against criminals armed with a kitchen knife but it would be too long to wield in the confines of a house. I think a shorter weapon would make it easier to use indoors while still giving me a range advantage. I can both slash and stab easily since I doubt criminals during a home invasion won't be wearing armor. My one worry is the blade getting stuck if I stab one guy and the other rushes me while I'm trying to get it out.
I think option two would be a little better. I think a shield of sorts and a blunt weapon like a war hammer would be better. Since this option makes me engage in a closer range, I think light armor would also be good to wear if I have the time. The reason I want a blunt weapon instead of a sword is that I'm afraid that unless I hit a vital organ with a sword, the guy would still be up and fighting and I'll be at risk. I'm not skilled with a sword to be aiming at the vital organs during combat, but with a blunt weapon, a hit could end up in broken bones. My thinking is that if I hit a guy in the arm, a guy with a bleeding arm can still swing it due to the adrenaline, but a hit from a blunt weapon could break the arm and render it useless.
When I consider the accounts I've read of sword duelists not realizing they've been stabbed multiple times until after the duel, or of soldiers still fighting or running around after being hit in the body with rifle rounds, I think blunt force is the way to go. I remember seeing a book about WWI weapons and apparently soldiers from both sides carried mace like weapons for melee. They probably have the advantage of not getting stuck like a bayonet would if you stab someone with it. Plus I don't have to worry about the invaders bleeding all over my house and they are probably more likely to be alive at the end.
In both cases, armor would give me a huge advantage. I think wearing armor alone gives me a huge advantage against someone armed with merely a kitchen knife.
