If you were a medieval warrior heading into battle, which type of weapon would you prefer to carry?

I'm no expert on medieval weaponry (although someday I will be); in fact, most of my knowledge about medieval weapons comes from reading fantasy novels, watching the Discovery Channel and the Deadliest Warrior and playing videogames. But anyway, here are the pro's and con's of each type as I see them:


Broadsword:


PRO'S: The most romanticized of medieval weapons, can be useful at medium and close range, and high versatility allows for stabbing or cutting attacks. One-handed use allows for the use of a shield in the other hand.

CON'S: Less effective against enemies in heavy armor.



One-handed battle axe:


PRO'S: Like the broadsword, can be effective at medium or close range. Superior armor penetration to a broadsword. Allows the use of a shield.

CON'S: Less versatile than a sword; you are limited to swiping attacks.



Mace:


PRO'S: Can inflict painful, injuring blows through armor. Can be equipped with spikes, or be a naked steel ball. Effective against "bones" undead creatures.

CON'S: Requires a degree of strength to use effectively, probably more tiring to swing than a sword or axe.



Two-handed sword:


PRO'S: Greater range, superior slashing ability. Virtually guaranteed to remove a limb if the blow connects on an un-armored enemy.

CON's: Slower to swing, probably more limiting at close range than a shorter weapon.



Two-handed war axe:


PRO's: Superior severing ability, probably even through all but the heaviest types of armor. And even then, you're probably going to be looking at broken bones.

CON's: Difficult to swing, limited at close range, taking the time to make a powerful blow leaves you open to attack.




War hammer:


PRO'S: Crushing blows, even through plate armor. Guaranteed to cause death or serious injury if the blow connects, even against a shield.

CON'S: Requires a lot of strength to make good use of it. Also requires a lot of time and room to swing. I'd think that in a prolonged battle, it would be very fatiguing to keep swinging.



Spear:


PRO's: Superior range. Well-made spears can penetrate light to mid-weight armor.

CON's: Limited at close range.



Flail:


PRO'S: Possibly the most devastating of all medieval melee weapons, particularly if swung from horseback. Can be equipped with spikes, or just a solid steel ball. Attacks are quick, and can come from a variety of angles. You can carry a shield in your other hand.

CON'S: Requires a lot of room to swing. Limited at close range.



Halberd:


PRO's: Versatile, as it combines the features of an axe and a spear. Effective at long range.

CON's: In spite of its versatility, it probably doesn't excel at any one thing. I'd think it's too light to be a proper axe, and too unwieldy to be a proper spear.



Bow and arrow:


PRO'S: Akin to a kicker on an NFL team, the archers get to hang back and do a lot of damage with minimal risk of taking injury. The English longbow could strike an individual target at 200-ish yards, and could volley arrows at an opposing army at distances of up to 400 yards (stats taken from wikipedia).

CON'S: Unless you've got another weapon or an escort to protect you, you're fucked if the enemy gets close.





Of course there are many variables to consider, such as how many enemies you're fighting, or the environment in which you're fighting.

My overall choice: One-handed battle axe:



On the whole, I think this weapon offers decent armor penetration while being versatile enough to be used at both close and medium range. It wouldn't be overly tiring to swing, and would allow me to use a shield in my other hand.