so i was wondering about historical warfare
as far as i understand the 3 popular melee weapons were axes, swords and warhammers/maces
what were the benefits/negatives to each weapon type ?
why would you use one over the other ?
also, how good were polearms/how often where they used ?
what was the best to use for cavalry?
and lastly, how good was armor against guns in the 18th and 19th century ?
(pic unrelated)
>>1356434
Just watch scholagladiatoria on youtube. Like really m8.
What period are you talking about? "historical" doesn't really tell us much as there is a lot you could be talking about.
The spear is the best melee weapon. Cheap and longranged
axes:
-cheap, easy to make, often already possessed as a tool
-top-heavy which gives a lot of force to the blows
-sharp which makes it more deadly against unarmored opponents and unarmored parts than blunt weapons
-better against gambeson and heavy clothing than the cuts of a sword
swords:
-wieldy & fast because of the more evenly distributed weight, or often a point of balance close to the hilt
-better reach than axes and maces
-with the exception of some curved and not very pointy swords, good for stabbing at the gaps of the armor (hence probably better against a full plate armour than an axe)
maces/warhammers:
-a great blunt impact, the best weapon to attack chain and plate mail directly
>>1356434
Depends on the time period.
10th - 12th century or so, mail was the main armor. You can't cut mail, so you either stab through or just go for raw impact, which is why two-handed axes got popular around that time. That lingered through into the transitional armor period, but then started dying out when actual solid plate, or at least a brigandine, could show up on the common footman come the 15th to 16th century.
Swords were more or less always relevant, because the thing to remember about swords is that, as far as battlefield swords go, you will almost always be thrusting and stabbing with it. That means if you actually land a hit, be it a penetration through armor or a hit on an uncovered joint or the like, it was almost certainly fatal or crippling. See: stabbing armpits. That, and they were easy to carry on the belt because a sheath was common and easy to make. An axe can be hooked on the belt, but you need a cover for the head that can easily be removed, meaning you'll need a button or the like to keep it on. Otherwise you've got a sharp axehead on your belt all day. Having such a cover means you need to unsnap it to draw, which could be slower than drawing a sword.
Maces were not designed for unarmored combat. Killing in one strike was unlikely, and you'll probably be hit yourself while beating a man in heavy armor to death. Otherwise, just use and axe or a sword. They're lighter and just as lethal against mail or similar.
Polearms trump all of those. Common lengths were around 8 feet, to 16 feet. Good luck stabbing a guy 16 feet away with a sword.
Come 15th century, Pike was the dominant weapon. Look up the Swiss mercs, which was an entirely pike-based formation that dominated the battlefield until the Spanish brought out the Tercio.
Really, just watch Scholagladitoria
