Let's talk about axes being fucking shit and warhammers being amazing.
Warhammers were pretty much only used when expecting to be fighting against armour
>>1392441
And axes were used pretty much only when expecting to chop wood so that's still a massive improvement.
>>1392447
The Danes, Franks and Anglo-Saxons were all fond of using axes in warfare.
As a two handed weapon they are lethal.
>>1392455
The Danes also valued sword more than an axe and their most common weapon was a fucking spear anyway same with Saxons. Axes were dog shit.
Just shut the fuck up already
t. polearm
>>1392465
Were did you read that?
Danes and their like used large two handed axes in their elite units. They'd likely carry a sword as a side arm too. Look at the Bayeux tapestry, the Saxon Huscarls around Harold are using dane axes.
Swords by the high middle ages were cheap and at least as common as spears. Spears which ended up dying out for different types of polearms.
>>1392422
Did an axe fuck your mum or something?
>>1392422
Warhammers are probably to heavy and inconsistent in prolonged battles
>>1392525
You are propably too retarded to post on /his/.
>>1392502
>Bayeux tapestry
One image that always stuck out to me in that is a Saxon spiting a horses head with his axe
While I can see why the axe would be displaced by longer weapons, I can only imagine it would be an incredible weapon in the right hands.
even centuries later, hatchets were popular side arms in colonial America, probably more than swords
>>1392530
Why? Am I wrong?
>>1392541
>even centuries later, hatchets were popular side arms in colonial America, probably more than swords
Isn't that simply because they were light and actually had some utility for the 99% of the time people weren't fighting with them, as opposed to sabers which were heavy and useless for anything except fighting?
>>1392574
Because you're almost certainly thinking of fantasy warhammers and not real ones. Left is fantasy, right is real.
>>1392595
Most likely, they probably took alot less training to use that a saber, and many men would have used one all their lives for various tasks
>>1392598
No I am not I but you are right maybe they are not so heavy I am imaging them to be. Killing with blunt seems strength inefficient cause you make impact with a larger area than a sword or axe.
>>1392640
It would dent plate armour quite well, a dent which couldnt be popped out, a dent which is pushing into the body of the wear and would be immensely painful.
>>1392595
plus they also were fighting either drunk bandits or naked savages armed with flint arrows and wooden clubs
>>1392655
Everything you just said is wrong.
Patrician desu
>>1392701
Those "savages" almost always beat early settlers who were not allied with another group of "savages"
None of the popular atheists know Scripture well enouh to settle debates; neither do I follow the popular nor do your deluded retarded memes apply to me. My post was antitheist. I somewhat doubt your kind can learn new proper words.
>>1393014
>tiny colony in a strange land are at a disadvantage
Wow, really makes you think.
>>1392455
That is because of the scarcity and poor quality of resources. Axes are a cheap weapon.
>>1392422
I mean I like the setting, ecspecially the Dwarves, and everything but the models are expensive af. Also the new Age of Sigmar is pretty bad from what I've seen and what I've heard. At least the Total war game is pretty good.
>>1392465
Spears truly are the god tier weapon
>>1392655
You're a big guy
>>1393014
and having a sabre instead of hatchet wouldn't have made any difference. if you're alone in hostile territory you're going to get killed anyway.
>>1393794
>kill old setting
>then make multiple videogames for it
What's GW's master plan?
>>1394217
Dont get me wrong, i would prefer the saber, but hachets were popular
