Talk:History of weapons

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bahm9d, Brodyriemann. Peer reviewers: Jldgx6, Cmwxc.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Additions to Romans section
I will be expanding on the information about the Gladius and Pilum in the Roman weaponry section, including adding new sources. I will also be adding a new paragraph on catapults. Brodyriemann (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Additions to the pilum and a new section on catapults will be added along with corresponding sources. The first of these changes were made while logged out. All changes done by the IP Address 131.151.252.116 can be attributed to Bahm9d (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts on Article
Hi Nefirious! Per your comment on my talk page, I'm going to drop a few thoughts on the article here on the talk page. I'll have this article watchlisted, and probably drop in every little while with more comments. If I get too pushy, just let me know!


 * I'm concerned that this article may end up being way too long with the current format. WP:LENGTH says that "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB.". Now, this is not a hard and fast guideline - there are many articles in WP that are 90-100 KB in length or longer. However, this article is already at almost 30KB and it only covers weapons through the Ancient World. My thought would be to trim excess info and make extensive use of the "main" and "see also" templates (use by entering or  ).


 * You still need to work on your references, including issues with reliability
 * Ref #3 (Absolute Astronomy) is unreliable, especially since it's a direct copy of the WP article on the subject.
 * Ref #17 (Echeat.com) is unreliable - it is a site where students can copy term papers!
 * Ref #18 (Buzzle.com) is probably unreliable - the author is a economics/tourism specialist, not a weapons expert.
 * Books should have page numbers. This is not a requirement for GA, but it is for FA, and it's easier to include them the first time around then to go searching for them during the FAC process.
 * The extensive use of reliable web sources is fine for GA, but will probably be questioned at FAC. FAC requires the use of the highest quality sources available, and in this instance, there is probably higher quality information available in many books.
 * References are supposed to be placed after punctuation, with no space in between.


 * Bolding should not be used in the body of the article itself, such as it is in the "Trident" and "The Persians" sections.


 * The lead should be a summary of the entire article, but include no unique information. The lead, however, is probably not something to worry about at this point, and is usually the easiest to write after you have the body of the article in place.

I hope these comments help. Like I said, I'll be watchlisting this page, so please let me know here if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it just me, or does this article read like a third-grade creative writing essay? Proper tone, structural organization, scope . . . a lot of things are lacking in this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.5.24 (talk) 08:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And your recommendations are? If you feel the article is irredeemable, then you should flag it for deletion, which would at least lead to a review.  This does, however, seem harsh.  Yes, there are many problems here.  It is clearly a labour of love to Nefirious but s/he clearly struggles with the issues you've described.  I have recommended before that Nefirious seeks an overview and support from other editors via the Military History Task Force and I would suggest that again.  A lot of illustrations have also been lost - another area Nefirious struggles with - and it could do with some kind editor assisting him/her in sourcing others, or in how to upload personal artwork to Commons. Monstrelet (talk) 09:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Short and Precise
Point taken. The Article should be more precise and should not exceed so much so that the readers get bored. But as a matter of fact, the subject is quite intriguing and based on extensive research work. This article will be more beneficial for research students and scholars. I will make it a point to cut down any irrelevant part mentioned in the article. More reliable books will be used for extension of the article. Thanks a lot for your support. I am looking for more assistance and suggestons from all experienced wikipedians. Nefirious (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand that this is quite an interesting topic, and I am not debating the fact that the information included is either intriguing or extensively researched. However, all intriguing and extensively researched information cannot be included in every article on a particular subject. WP articles need to be accessible to all types of readers, rather than being targeted at a specific group. I would suggest that you read WP:Summary style, which gives more of an explanation for what I am talking about with sub-articles. For example, to trim down information, I would suggest that you trim the club, mace and spear subsections of the Prehistoric Weapons section down into one paragraph, about the same length as one of the sub-sections now. Then you can link, through the "main article" template I described above, to the Club (weapon), Mace (club) and Spear articles. This way, you can trim the article, while still pointing readers to the articles where they can read more about specific topics that interest them. If your article goes over 100 KB, which it is looking to at this point, you will have significantly more trouble getting through GAN and FAC than you would otherwise - both because it will be harder to attract reviewers and because people will have issues with the size when the article could quite easily be trimmed. You don't have to throw away the information and sources you already have present in the article, simply transfer the more detailed information to sub-articles, many of which are already present in WP. Dana boomer (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

One point that strikes me is the title - in theory this is a huge topic. In fact, this article might do better to concentrate on ancient/early weapons, which make up 90% of its content, becoming The Early History of Weapons. The medieval weapons section would need to be expanded to do the topic justice and there are already length issues so it may be best cut this. The geographical range may also need to be looked at to be comprehensive - easier with a shortened timescale. Monstrelet (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I do completely agree with your point Dana and Monstrelet. I will take the necessary steps and trim the article. Since the article is in the middle of a major expansion, I still need to put in a lot of things. I need the opinion of experts in the subject. They might help me with the editing part since I am the lone editor here. Thanks for pointing out the flaws. I will try my level best to takcle with the length issues. Nefirious (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Illustrations
I think the article would look more credible with a better selection of illustrations. At present, everything is modern and some are of extremely dubious authenticity e.g. the axe, the fantasy persian. How about an Assyrian or Egyptian chariot rather than Cecil B de Mille? A picture of a Frankish throwing axe (called a Franscisca)instead of the fantasy double edged axe? A Persian immortal from Persepolis?Monstrelet (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Early Medieval
If you are going to go on into the Early Middle Ages, it is a complex issue. In particular, studies of the Migration Period have changed a lot in 30 years (which is where your citations date from) so I would suggest looking at some more modern works. David Nicolle's Medieval Warfare Source Book Vol. 1 is a good place to start but if you do want a more academic treatment have a look at some of the books by Guy Halsall. The most accessible available resource for Early Medieval armies is probably the De Re Militari site  For example, this article on the Carolingians would be helpful [http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/coupland.htm ]Monstrelet (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Illustrations and sources
I will replace the pictures as soon as I find the right and appropriate pictures. If you already have come across any such pictures that can be used for the article please go ahead and do the needful. Thanks for providing the links, they seem to be apt and suitable. But deremilitari article and Nicolle's book have the same content, the language may be different. I am referring loads of books and putting in all my efforts. I will try and get hold of a book thats new and well researched and has the latest updates. I will read and accordingly change the content of this article from time to time. Thanks for your valuable time and suggestions. 15:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Made a start. Good luck with Nicolle and De Re Militari (it's worth a browse through the index) Monstrelet (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Later medieval
I've divided this section in to - there were clearly two unrelated subjects here. You singled out the Normans for comment but in the context you've set yourself, you need to be clear if there is anything about their weapons and tactics which are remarkable (e.g. talk about the development of the mounted knight, the concept of the all-arms battle is also important to the Normans. Hastings is a good example but perhaps refer out to e.g. Normans in Italy to widen scope? Rather than dropping citation requests into the text, I'll note you need some citations here.  I dropped in the Fuller one as this could be picked up as a point of contention in any review.  You might want to look at "leather and boiled armour" - boiled armour was made of leather.  Do you mean to distinguish two armour types?  Best wishes Monstrelet (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Greetings Monstrelet. Boiled armour is a revised version of the simple leather armours. I am still reading some more books and trying to figure out what material can be used here, so I was going to add the bit you are talking about sooner or later. Thanks for your continuous support and advise. I really appreciate that. Nefirious (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hundred Years War
Couple of suggestions. Major military innovations of this period - plate armour, longbow, men-at-arms fighting on foot, infantry pole arms to counter heavier armour, siege artillery. I'd recommend using works of Clifford Rogers (Early HYW) and Anne Curry (Late HYW) rather than continued reliance on Nicolle (this isn't his strongest period). Again, there is a lot of HYW stuff at de re militari if you can't access the books. Monstrelet (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can I access their books on the net ? If yes then please let me know the link and if you have a hard copy please take some time and add all that you just mentioned. Nefirious (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * None of Anne Curry's most relevant work is on-line However, these will be of help. The Bennett one is a good overview, the second Rogers one is good on the military "revolutions" of the period.  http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/rogers.pdf, http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/bennett2.htm, http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/devries1.pdf, http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/rogers.htm . Haven't really got time to contribute to the editing - I'll see if I can raise any help on the Medieval Warfare task force.Monstrelet (talk) 11:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Time to take stock?
I've fixed a few links, plus a couple of factual errors that leaped out at me. Several of your links weren't working because of spelling - I realise you're pressing on and not checking back but it is essential for links. It might be good to ask for editors to come and do a spelling and grammar check - a good copy editor could work wonders for the article. I also think at this stage it would be good to have a review overall as to whether you are achieving your goal of being encyclopaedic - are you concisely picking out the main developments in the history of weapons? I'd get that advice now - people in the earlier warfare taskforces seem to be less fiercely critical than in later periods. Final point - I've dropped in a citation query at a point where you said "Some historians say..." - if you use this formulation, you really ought to indicate where it comes from. Best wishes Monstrelet (talk) 09:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging
The pictures have been drawn from an artistic angle and are my piece of work. Tagging them as inappropriate images is not correct. If you find a picture, the very same picture anywhere on the net, provide the link as proof and then delete the pictures. Nefirious (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

B class review
The article had been tagged as B class, although it failed to meet several B class criteria. In order to meet B class, it needs a review of content and coverage. To take one example, the lead section clearly refers to weapons of the 20th. century being within the scope of the article - it is therefore incomplete within its own terms. It also needs a major copy edit. The English in some sections could be clearer, the points better made. Some sections read as if they are almost random facts picked from a period rather than making a clear case of how they illustrate the evolution of weaponry in human history, which a broad based article like this must attempt if it is to have encyclopaedic value.Monstrelet (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Prehistoric Weapons
It is mentioned that the bow and arrow was invented around 50,000 BCE, but it is classified as a historic weapon if I am not mistaken. Should it be moved to the pre-historic or mentioned in both places? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.191.231 (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. Chimps have been observed with using tools to hunt, aren't those "weapons"? We've had weapons much longer than 64,000 BC. JungleEntity (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Placing of sections/subsections
A few things stick out at me here:


 * The subsection on tridents is in the section Copper Age, despite the fact that it refers to nothing earlier than Classical Greece (5th Century BC). The Copper Age is over in Europe by the 3rd Millenium BCE


 * Similarly, the subsection on 'Ancient Greek weapons' is in the section 'Bronze Age' (3200-600 BCE in Europe) but refers to the Delian League (founded 478 BCE), Hoplite tactics (the first depiction of which is believed to be on seventh century BCE pottery, and continues throughout the classical period) and the Greco-Persian wars (5th century).


 * The rise of the Macedonians under Alexander the Great is definitely past the Bronze Age, and yet is also in this section.


 * As is a subsection on the history of Roman warfare, which begins "...390 BC"


 * There is no section on ancient warfare at all. Probably because all ancient warfare is in the prehistoric sections. We go straight from 'Bronze Age' to 'Early Medieval'

I propose that the article is entirely restructured, so that the subsections are "Prehistoric" (possibly), "Ancient World", "Early Medieval", "Late Medieval", "Early Modern". I still don't like that because the sections would be fairly Eurocentric (Medieval is a fairly obviously Eurocentric periodisation) but it's better than what we have at the moment.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It also strikes me that any article on the history of weapons which doesn't refer to anything after the 16th century AD is grossly incomplete. No mention of rifling, automatic weaponary, tanks, submarines, engine-powered battleships, aircraft of any sort, and so on...

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I have merged the Bronze Age and Copper Age sections into a single section on pre-historic and ancient weapons, but the organisation of this article still strikes me as fairly arbitrary. Why, for instance, is there a single section on the development of the bow and arrow as a weapon from earliest pre-history to 1,000 BC, a second on the longbow, and all other discussion of the development of archery comes under different subheadings? Why does the Khopesh deserve its own section, the gladius only merit a subsection, and no other sword get its own section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caeciliusinhorto (talk • contribs) 15:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of weapons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528124017/http://www.nga.gov/education/chinatp_pt2.shtm to http://www.nga.gov/education/chinatp_pt2.shtm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary Posturing
In the Trident section it reads "as the barbarian hordes from Germania were still using clubs and maces the classical Greek civilization had mastered the art of making spears" and I'm unsure why the Germanians need to be mentioned at all in that section, let along be used to make Greek civilisation seem superior. 60.226.146.17 (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Missing info on drones
Info on drones should probably get added to the article, especially to section "#21st century". See Talk:Military technology. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is very European-centric
While several sections mention the influence of Chinese weapon innovations, there is no actual article expanding or specifying those innovations in their respective time periods. The same applies to the the rest of Asia (in particular India), Americas, Africa, Australia or Polynesia. I would suggest either expanding this article (which is already too long) or probably better to modify it's title to something more along the lines of Ancient/Early weapons of the 1st world (Europe and Near/Mideast). I am aware that Egypt is mentioned and is technically in Africa, but it is an exception. 2A00:A041:311B:9100:C063:87C8:3021:7248 (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Osama plane?
The first section on Egypt has the subheading "Osama plane" but does not mention it again until the very last sentence, which seems to be added haphazardly. Is this just vandalism? 49.145.96.158 (talk) 11:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)