Did medieval warriors ever use axes over swords when they had a choice? What advantages besides price do axes have?
>>29706662
Yes.
>Advantages
An axe is incredibly simple to use, and when it hits mail or light armor, either will splinter apart rings or cut through leather or padded cloth.
>Disadvantages
Slashing, stabbing, general utility in combat. An axe is extremely good at chopping and useless for anything else.
>>29706662
The axe was the Mosin for hundreds of years before the mosin.
>>29706662
superior performance against chainmail
>>29706662
The sword is not a primary weapon and never has been, if you want to simplify it just think about swords being handguns for most of history.
Alond with what >>29706734 said, later era cavalry commonly used one-handed axes as they where effective against plate and brigandines while still being able to cut.
Pole-axes where also incredibly common for men-at-arms on foot.
>>29706662
>>29706734
Boom. /thread
>>29706734
HEMA at all?
>>29706891
>The sword is not a primary weapon and never has been
What about the romans
>>29707059
javelins and spears
only drew swords when that didn't work
>>29706975
Actually no, I'm just a history nerd (planning to go for a masters in it and hopefully teach it after I get my bachelors in comp sci) with an idea of how weapons work, and military tactics.
>>29707059
>>29707183
Depends on the period. The early republic relied heavily on spear armed forces alongside javelin throwers, though this started to shift the more that they engaged Greek hoplite inspired formations.
By the late roman republic to close to the end of the empire, close in sword work was the order of the day, though every man would carry a few pilum to throw and stab with depending on the situation.
>>29707242
That's what I wanted to do as well. Once you get your class post where and when dude. I'd love to come take a class like that. History was my major with a specialty in martial history.
>>29707281
Nice, I'm planning on grabbing a history minor myself. Never realized how much I wanted to teach until like two years into school. Problem is GPA, I'm kind of a shit comp-sci major. Hopefully I can boost it to the 3.0 I need to get accepted into grad school in 2 years without retaking any classes.
>>29706891
>>29707309
>Long axes
Surprisingly, highly effective against cavalry and humans alike. A good charge with them would wreck shit. The problem was that if they got charged, well, shit got bad.
>>29707309
Also medieval art is fucking fun.
>There has to be more to life than this
>The fucking derp dragon
>>29706662
Can you even block with axes? Or if you have to block is it already too late and you've done it wrong.
>>29707638
Depends on the length and heft of your axe, but usually you'd be using one with a shield - and a good fighter with a shield could be practically untouchable one on one.
because you can't carry a shield around with axes
and it's hard to swing axes while you're in a formation
that's why the romans used the gladius rather then big ass swords or axes,it's ergonomic,simple and does the job well
>>29707484
god the visibility out of that helmet must be shit. Though from the shape of it, it may just be meant for jousting.
>>29707638
I know it may not necessarily be the same but I've seen people demonstrate fighting with a tomahawk and you block with the top surface of it - basically thrust with it. Then you can grab the other guy's wrist and start fucking him up.
>>29707668
>using axes in formation
Surprisingly common actually. You don't need to be shoulder to shoulder to be in formation.
>>29707506
>medieval art
>dragons
they were ... special
>>29707818
>special
Holy fuck that's beyond 'special'
>>29707818
That thing looks stoned
>>29706662
Big advantage of the axe is that its cheap.
Economic use of metal, doubles a tool sometimes and its both easy to use as well as make.
That's in the dark-ages though.
By the medieval period though the axe was losing a bit of favour as armour technology started to make it less effective, so things like the polearms, warhammers, flails and the like started making more of an appearance. They had to force to batter though armour, batter the opponent and in some cases, penetrate layers of plate, chain, gambeson and so on.
>>29706734
Didn't axes play a roll in chopping trees in the field?
>>29707956
They did, but I would not want to use my wood cutting axe on the battlefield unless I specifically had it touched up by the smiths before the battle
>>29707059
Roman went back to swords since the celts fought in uneven terrain which made roman fighting formation close to being useless
>>29706662
Axe is easier to make than a sword, and they could use lower grade iron
>>29707183
>>29706891
>>29707242
Romans are, for professional corps that weren't warrior aristocrats or barbars, the real major exception when it comes to premium placed on the sword. It might be the Chinese at some earlier period placed a major value on it, I'm not familiar enough with em.
Though as appealing as the 'sword is a handgun' point is I think that is a rather poor metaphor given the guarantee that a sword would be used and used extensively, it just was not the primary or initial weapon. I'm less versed in modern warfare but I can't think that a handgun would be used as much or as often as a sword would. This is an equally crass metaphor but maybe think about a WW2 German squad/platoon: the spear/bow/bill-polearm-whatever/halberd/pike/ect. is the LMG (The central focus of the unit, what their tactics revolve around) while the sword is the rifle.
It's perhaps a bit like the ancient classical greek notion that a man carried body armor or a helmet for his own privilege and protection while the shield was carried for his unit and the men around him. A sword is a highly valuable and widely utilized weapon but typically sees greater use in warrior-aristocratic fighting (your knights, your pre-hoplite classical greeks, your cavalry, your barbarian societies) while you carry the spear to be of use and utility to your unit at large.
It's one of those many things we shouldn't try and essentialize and boil down into an empirical fact. I say that as someone who likes spears and does argue for their greater importance vis-a-vis a sword, but I don't think we can argue it as an all or nothing affair. Spears were the most important for most of history among infantry of the line, but swords were not just ceremonial.
>>29707691
Huscarls did it at Hastings for one.
>>29706662
Sometimes, but the problem with axes is they require a decent amount of space to use. Unless the axe had a spike on the top, stabbing was impossible. That means without some room to get a good swing wound up, the axe would just serve as an odd club.
Short swords had the edge like the axe, but the point served as a key danger in close-combat. Just poking your opponent in the chest, throat, thigh, armpit, and clavicle meant swift death or incapacitation.
In a skirmish and duel scenario an axe would be a really good weapon. When formations or massed infantry charges collided, axes lost their power
Battleaxes range form maybe a foot long things with outright tiny heads, to proto halberds with shafts longer than the wielder. Why you'd use them will vary.
Arms and armour use also varies from place to place, and over time.
But if we're looking at, say, the 11th to 15th centuries then yes, people did at times bring along axes more or less instead of swords. I think we may see more of such towards the end of the period (and probably also in pre 11th century times).
Price may have been an important reason for some earlier on, though if we're talking about more or less professional warriors the case is usually that those who can't afford the gear stay away from war. Towards the later middle ages prices of arms and armour have dropped considerably.
Trying to compare a sword and an axe of somewhat similar size and use, the balancing of the axe will lend itself to delivering a lot more impact when it hits (though keep in mind, battleaxes tend to be lighter than the everyday tool axes). On the other hand, since that is because the head has a lot of inertia and wants to just keep going when it hits somethign, it also wants to just keep going when you don't want it too. So things get a bit mroe sluggish, recovery is slower, etc. The axe is also probably a decent bit shorter than the sword. The axe will also lend itself to hooking better.
As for the stuff that gets into more or less true polearm territory, well, there's not really any sword to compare with in this period. With the weapon variant we can to some degree compare, I'd say swords generally appear to have been preferred by most, though perhaps we see larger swords approaching the small polearm territory towards the end of the period (nothing much in the true two hander field yet though). If we consider those comparable, then the sword may not have had all that much luck in that category.
>>29707987
early chink infantry used halberd as their standard weapon. Swords only became standard weapon during Ming dynasty (and they are more towards meat cleaver kind of sword or Dao. Jian or that flimsy double edged sword that you saw being used in some tai chi exercise, is useless in the military)
>>29707987
This is a very well thought out post. I don't have much to add, I suppose. I just figured I would say that this is interesting and that this kind of discussion is why I visit /k/.
Now that Antman's gone, at least.
Now easy of use, both sword and axe will do damage if you just whack someone with it. Against unprotected flesh, that damage is likely to be pretty massive. Likewise, getting the best damage out of a hit with either requires proper cutting technique, turning a frightening wound into a downright horrific one.
The axe will lend itself better to outright smashing whenever the edge doesn't get the job done, but this at the price of having it be somewhat harder to hit in the first place with it (and defend, if need be). Seeing as how hitting appears to be the problem far more than hitting hard enough (that's what the late medieval fighting manuals focus on, and going by the words of the Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu head instructor) I'm far form certain about the "conventional wisdom" telling us axes and maces are a lot more beginner friendly than swords.
>>29707956
While some will pull double duty (and the tools make for reasonably ok improvised weapons in a pinch), a battle axe is usually not something suited to cutting wood, just as a warhammer will often be extremely poor at driving in nails.
>>29707979
Plain iron swords where a thing in the earlier middle ages. Around the 11th century these appear to have been phased out (with possible exceptions to account for smithy fuckups, wartime "gotta have something" production, etc), though swords with an iron core and steel edges seem to have been the norm throughout the middle ages, with all steel construction only overtaking them in the 16th century or so.
>>29707987
Yeah, comparing swords to handguns probably do diminish their usefulness a bit too much. Swords where useful enough that we for example see the King's Mirror (a book telling young noblemen what's what) tells you to bring two good swords to battle, one on your hip and one hanging from your saddle.
>>29707059
romans used 10 foot long spears if in not mistaken
>>29706734
An axe is incredibly simple to use, and when it hits mail or light armor, either will splinter apart rings or cut through leather or padded cloth.
Single handed fighting axes are exceedingly light and would not reliably defeat mail. No single handed cutting weapon did.
>>29707183
No. There's a long,long stretch where no spears are carried, and NOBODY expected the pila volley to end a battle.
>>29707638
Singe handed? Not easily, no.
>>29707949
Fighting axes would break if used for any serious work.
>>29707987
The use of men armed primarily with swords was also quite common for the byzantines.
and infantry chiliarchy wouldhave around 300 archers, backing 700 heavy infantry (who may only actually have gambesons)
Archers have bows, small shields,and daggers,swords,or smallaxes. Sometimes helmet/padding.
Infantry get a helmet, and padding, or possibly mail or lamellar armor. They also have a large shield-often kites-and a sword,either spathion or parmerion, and the two front ranks carry spears.
Once the meele is joined,the infantry use swords-the spears were there to defend against cavalry charges and nothing else.
>>29708104
You're mistaken.
>>29707908
kek'd
>>29706662
>Did medieval warriors ever use axes over swords when they had a choice?
Sure.
Axes are much easier to effectively use, are decent against armor and great against shields.
>>29707059
Most of the fighting by the Romans was done in the form of hasta-stabbing by the hastati and pili-throwing by literally everyone. Gladius was a backup weapon.
>>29708108
The mail remark is more in regards to the two handed axe rather than the one handed; I should have clarified this. Even one handed though axes were capable of splitting open skulls from the front with a good blow.
>>29708104
Someone might have at some point, back when they where fighting like Greeks in phalanx seems likely. Then they switched to the "What the flying fuck is wrong with you people?" manipular legion system, then to the cohort legion system, and finally to a shield wall approach (that in part recycle phalanx bits) that fades into general medieval fighting styles, all of these being quite different things, and having the men equipped in different ways. In the manipulator case in a lot of different ways. And there's probably a few variants, in-betweens and so on that I'm missing completely.
From what I've understood the cohort legion at least was rather sword-based. With the manipular, the triarii would be spearmen, while the velites, hastati and princeps in front seem to be more along the lines of the later cohorts. I'm very fuzzy on this though.
>>29708104
Very mistaken. Thats fuckin Macedonians brah
>>29708061
Nighttime /k/ is best /k/.
>>29708095
Glad you're still lending a touch of class to our dysfunctional online community.
>>29708131
Jesus.
You're literally wrong about everything.
Why must you do this?
>Axes are much easier to effectively use,
They're shorter than comparable swords, and, if you're not talking about a polearm, still required good edge alignment because they have a light, thin head.
They're utterly inferior for actually defending yourself, and require you toget closer.
are decent against armor and great against shields.
>are decent against armor
You've confused"unreliable" with "decent.
>great against shields.
Testing shows it takes Multiple heavy blow from a daneax to wreck a shield. No.
>Most of the fighting by the Romans was done in the form of hasta-stabbing by the hastati and pili-throwing by literally everyone. Gladius was a backup weapon.
You've sucessfully contradicted every single primary literary and pictorial source from the period, and most secondary sources.
I applaud your bravado, sir. I also weep for your stupidity.
>>29708153
You're more or less correct.
Even the late shieldwalls saw EVERYONE wearing a full sized swords, which suggests the expected to use them.
>>29708171
They used pikes. Longer.
>>29706662
Yes, they most certainly did, especially late into the medieval and Renaissance periods, where plate armour became cheaper and more common.
Axes, along with hammers, maces and picks, are known as "mass weapons"; by focusing the mass of the weapon onto a smaller surface area. This allowed the concussive force of the blow to carry through. This could damage and impede the armour (imagine having the articulated elbow of your harness getting warped and jammed in one position) or still cause damage through the armour and padding (no matter how good a helm you wear, being cracked in the head with a mace is not pleasant).
>>29706869
As are thrusting swords, spears, arrows...
>>29706891
All quite correct.
>>29706975
ACL/IHMC, SCA, WMA and HEMA here. I am also a former military science interpreter for a few museums.
>>29707638
Very much depends on the situation. It is possible, but not ideal.
>>29707688
That is a heaum. The visibility is much like a fencing mask, and is excellent though it is made specifically for tournament with blunted swords and batons, hence the size and fact that it locks to the breastplate and has no head movement.
>>29707818
>>29707831
>>29707908
That is the Tarasque, not a dragon. A chimeric beast with a lion's head, six short legs like a bear's, an ox-like body covered with a turtle shell, and a scaly tail that ended in a scorpion's sting.
>>29708200
>pic's axe literally has a crowbar on top
I know that mass weapons were can openers, but damn yo.
>>29708221
Billhooks basically were oversized can-openers
>>29708199
>They're shorter than comparable swords, and, if you're not talking about a polearm
That doesn't have anything to do with anything. I never said they were better than swords in a duel - I said they are easier to use, i.e. - require less skill to be wielded effectively, which they are.
>You've confused"unreliable" with "decent.
Almost nobody on the battlefield until high MA had plate. Axe is indeed DECENT against hauberk and gamberson, whch is what most people on the battlefield had.
> Testing shows it takes Multiple heavy blow from a daneax to wreck a shield
With is something very much available in a mass-melee.
>You've sucessfully contradicted every single primary literary and pictorial source from the period, and most secondary sources.
Which would be...
>>29706891
Swords are not equivalent to handguns
Swords are equivalent to a sniper carrying his service's assault rifle on his back for when things get hairy. They were secondaries only in the sense that they were primary weapons for a secondary role.
Even then, Roman gladius and greatswords were true primary weapons.
>>29708274
Minor people.
Like, Livy, polybius, josephus, tacitus, Julius Caesar, And whoever designed Trajans column.
As for modern secondary sources? Literally everything i've ever read that touches on the subject.
Everything.
>>29706850
Took me a minute to find this pic. Enjoy
>>29708221
>pic's axe
They could be very blunt about it.
>>29708251
Anon refers to the spatulate bifurcated tip of the axe in my previous post's left hand.
>>29708325
Ah, didn't see that at first. Thanks Gropey.
>>29708274
>require less skill to be wielded effectively, which they are.
Overcoming a lack of range takes skill. If the targets gets pushed close, well, your heavy impacts need some space to wind up, whereas the sword has wind&schnitt techniques. Slower acceleration means you must see the openings faster, which takes skill. Slower recovery punishes bad decisions and misses, two things following from a lack of skill.
So while I'm not going to argue that you'll need twenty years of dedicated study before you can make good use of an axe, I don't really see how it'd be all that much simpler to use than a sword.
>tfw pike and shot make me moist
I collect single shot shotguns because they are the modern descendants to the musket.
>>29708200
>That is the Tarasque, not a dragon. A chimeric beast with a lion's head, six short legs like a bear's, an ox-like body covered with a turtle shell, and a scaly tail that ended in a scorpion's sting.
Well done, you read the pic title. Also you're wrong, "La Tarasque" is one of the French folklore dragons.
>>29708355
Buy a musket, preferably matchlock, over .80 cal.
And bring clean underwear, because you'll bust a nut.
>>29708360
Je sais le folklore français. La Tarasque est jamais appelé un dragon en français.
>>29708352
>Overcoming a lack of range takes skill
No skill is enough to just waltz through a wall of spears, and in such a situation axe and sword suck equal dicks. Once the lines have met and close melee began, range became excessive and only made long weapons harder to use, which is why most troops even with swords preferred SHORT swords.
> well, your heavy impacts need some space to wind up
Good thing you can slash downwards with a raised arm, which was the most common attack in a dense melee.
I swear, it's like you imagining medieval combat as a lot of duels between individual fighters.
>>29708200
>As are thrusting swords, spears
Barely worth it.
>>29708352
Most people would have some training just in chopping wood for determining the distance needed. For a raiding party, this might be all you needed to fuck up some unarmed chuckefucks between you and loot.
>There's fucking replica hoplite armor in my captcha
It knows
>>29708399
>.80+ caliber matchlock musket
MUH DICK.
>>29708405
>which is why most troops even with swords preferred SHORT swords.
Except that's wrong.
>>29708426
Except it isn't.
>>29708439
Except it is. A soon as forging longer swords become practical to do on a regular basis,they become the new standard. Wearability is the only concession consistently made.
The roman were the only exception, and even they eventually swtiched the using the spatha as sidearms and abandonded the gladius.
Why are you posting in a thread where you have so poor a grasp of the subject matter?
>>29707831
niggah lets see you run into one of those with a melee weapon you will shit your pants holy fuck look at it
>gropey on /k/
damn son I thought I was still on cgl for a moment
>>29708472
Based clown lurks and posts good shit.
>>29708472
I so rarely trip here, but this is my kind of thread, with the basing and all.
I still prefer maces, but axes work pretty good.
>>29708463
> A soon as forging longer swords become practical to do on a regular basis,they become the new standard
Longer as in HOW longer? All sorts of two-handers were used occasionally, or by specific groups, and bastards were never used en-masse anywhere outside of knight duels. Most swords used by infantry were, while usually longer than a gladius, still rather short. Shortsword/longsword debate for one-handed swords is pure semantics. What matters in our debate is - infantry swords were usually no longer than an average axe, since anything longer would be unusable in melee, and therefore swords didn't actually give their bearers a significant range advantage against axe.
>>29708405
You've yet to explain how axes are any easier to use. Say you do manage to dismiss all arguments put forth suggesting swords as more user-friendly, are we then to accept axes as easier just because that is some ingrained, basic property of reality?
The default state here would appear to be a "don't know" or perhaps a "equal enough not to matter".
>which is why most troops even with swords preferred SHORT swords.
I'll admit I haven't bothered counting, but we certainly see a wide range of sizes. Sometimes on the same battlefield, as with Swedish peasants with greatswords (pretzel-hilts) for sidearms running into German mercenaries with shortswords (katzbalgers). Admittedly debatable medievalness there, but it seems like it's applicable to our discussion.
Seems like people have managed to make a wide range work there, possibly due to the sword having a good selection of "winden&schnitt"-based stuff to do up close.
>Good thing you can slash downwards with a raised arm, which was the most common attack in a dense melee.
Still somewhat limiting that you need to go from that single direction.
>I swear, it's like you imagining medieval combat as a lot of duels between individual fighters.
That is where skill will be the most readily apparent.
The ebb and flow of battle can screw you over with a sudden four on one, an arrow addressed "to whom it may concern", the moron next to you accidentally whacking you in the back of the head, the formation being pressed together until you outright suffocate, your friends deciding to run away, or any number of things. Plenty of noise to drown out the impact of skill and user-friendliness of the weapon.
And should we take out all those factors in the battle, the fighting part seems largely reduced down to a lot of simultaneous man on man duels, in somewhat cramped conditions.
>>29708521
>dat shield
Please tell me you're really using the cock and swallow as your coat of arms.
>>29708521
T-thanks, Doc?
>>29708399
Not him, but any clue where I could get an old school arquebus like the ones used in pike and shot formations?
I honestly don't even know if anywhere makes proper reproductions
>>29708411
The problem isn't knowing what distance you want to be at, but getting there without looking like this when you arrive.
>>29708537
>You've yet to explain how axes are any easier to use
A simpler set of main movements.
>I'll admit I haven't bothered counting, but we certainly see a wide range of sizes
Certainly, but they still tend to shy away from long swords overall. For superior reach during the approach, polearms absolutely dominated the area, and in melee long weapons are impossible to use.
>Still somewhat limiting that you need to go from that single direction.
Melee is somewhat limiting period.
>That is where skill will be the most readily apparent.
It also not how most battles were fought.
>Plenty of noise to drown out the impact of skill and user-friendliness of the weapon.
All this noise is exactly what made simplistic weapons whose effectiveness depended on either formation or brute force THE main infantry weapons.
>>29708522
Except the average arming sword is longer than an axe, as are things like swiss sabers,with such weapons coming in around 36"
Used by the same Swiss who had to tell people to STOP bringing the exceedingly popular two-handed long sword for use in pike squares.
>>29708562
>A simpler set of main movements.
Except it isn't. Cutting with a sword is not complex.
>>29708399
Si
>>29708562
Random cunt chiming in here to one of your repeated claims.
You keep posting that axes of the vague medieval period are simpler in function than swords, based upon some perceived "common sense" sort of thing in which a narrative like "well shit-stain peasants with no skills know how to chop wood but they've never owned a sword, so axes are easier to use" occurs.
I don't see the merits of this argument. An axe has much of the weight contained in a small bit on the end, of course applying force into a much smaller area. This is all well and good for chopping shit up, but I would reckon that the momentum carried by the axe in combat would make it at least nominally more difficult to effectively wield compared to a sword.
In one weapon, you have the presence of such concentrated weigh in the head; leading to a missed swing or attack resulting in a much more awkward and cumbersome recovery. In the other, you've got no such penalty present.
Sure, poor-ass folks of the day wouldn't exactly be using swords for their daily doldrums as they would axes. A shit-stain peasant of the day would have spent more time with an axe of some form in his hands than with a sword.
But that doesn't at all mean that the axe is easier to use; simply because a greater number of prospective soldiers are likely to have accumulated experience with some variety of axe.
Besides, cuttin' wood doesn't translate very perfectly to cuttin' heads.
>>29708547
You bet your dick I am.
>>29708553
??
>>29708554
Tons. Whats your budget? Any particular culture or specific time?
For a good wide-time period starter musket, I suggest veteran arms' .75 musket. Its a full sized piece, but sturdy as hell and the weight is forgiving on the powder charge's recoil. http://www.veteranarms.com/ReproductionMuzzleloadersandFlintlocks/Matchlock.html
If you feel a bit more confident with your assembly skills, The Rifle Shoppe sells a .62 caliver, which would be much closer to the arquebus in dimensions. They sell a finished kit (the lock, stock and barrel ready to assemble) and all the parts in various states. Pic is me and my Rifle Shoppe caliver, though mine is a bigger caliber. http://www.therifleshoppe.com/catalog_pages/matchlocks/%28527%29.htm
>>29708620
>Internet sources
>Not reading the actual folk lore
>LaughingProvincials.woodcut
>>29708562
Swords are not complex in their basic use. Grab it, swing it, hit the other guy. Just like you'd do it with an axe. The main movements are the same.
> whose effectiveness depended on either formation or brute force THE main infantry weapons.
The immense popularity of swords as battlefield weapons would in itself suggest that there's something very flawed about that statement.
Now, since I don't think either of us want to argue for sword or hand axe as the formation weapons; brute force.
Those heavy hits do require some time to get going, at least if you're not striking from a suitable prepared starting stance like von tag/posta di donna/jodan no kamae. Lookign at either momentum or energy, you're not going to have your weapon instantly imbued with it (force times time and force times distance respectively, and covering distance takes time).
Should you miss, recovery is also slower, especially if we're looking a an untrained fighter who doesn't know to stop in time. This gets even more pronounced with a front-heavy weapon (nothign stopping us from going all-out on a sword swing either).
So trying to rely on brute force certainly seem to have its fair share of problems. This also fits in with what we see historically, battle axes aren't wood splitting mauls, maces aren't sledgehammers, and plenty of swords to be found around the world over a very long period of time.
*Borrowing the expression from a not so related field.
Some would. It would have been undeniable at some point that polearms were the great option. There was lots of variety in weapon use because men at arms who fought repeatedly at eachothers sides would come up with game plans. A guy with a smaller heavier weapon could slip in while his buddies locked arms and score easy knockouts/kills. If you had luck with a certain way of fighting you might become a slave to your successes and wield 'inferior' weapons in combat. One additional factor on weapon selection is if the king's men deemed your kit professional enough - for instance if everybody was just lugging around wooden clubs with nine inch nails driven through them - they might insist you use items lent by the armory.
>>29708660
...They don't need a transfer? It looks like they will mail these to your door...
>>29708710
The ATF does not consider muzzle loaders firearms.
This includes cannon and mortars.
>>29708582
>Used by the same Swiss who had to tell people to STOP bringing the exceedingly popular two-handed long sword for use in pike squares.
"Every man who a pike can carry, a pike should carry?"
I though that was about halberds. Oh well, could easily be wrong there, or is there another?
>>29708635
>Besides, cuttin' wood doesn't translate very perfectly to cuttin' heads.
You say that, but then they unleash the midget ents!
>>29708706
Please stop posting.
>>29708660
>read the whole folklore
>just to prove that the Tarasque is mentioned as a dragon
Don't try to avoid the main subject
>>29708108
>Fighting axes would break if used for any serious work.
Well, you're not going to be cutting down timber or doing carpentry with them, but they work just fine for making tent poles out of saplings, shaving tinder strips, kindling and various other minor stuff.
Lot of field utility there, which when you're out in the field is pretty handy to have.
Heck if old timey soldiers are much like modern soldiers, we'd spend most of our deployment time walking, eating, sleeping, cooking, fixing stuff; then about 5-10% in screaming terror murdering other people and trying not to die. Prior to proper logistics, lot of soldiers had to make-do, forage, plunder and run with whatever they brung. So an axe is still quite useful in that regard more so than say, a primary weapon like a spear or halberd.
>>29708871
>not cutting down trees with a halberd
>Laughingswissgards.tiff
Scythian axe
>>29708912
>Feldwebel catches you fucking up your halberd on trees
>ohshitohshitohshit.png
>>29708927
Horsemen's picks from the 1600s for comparison
>>29708941
forgot pic of picks
>>29708929
>you can still use it as a spear (i guess)
>germanengineering.bmp
>>29708929
>tree falls on Felderwebel
>Checkmate, work accident
how do I into reload?
>>29708949
Sounds like some old timey NJP'ing is in order then!
>>29706662
>Did medieval warriors ever use axes over swords when they had a choice?
Vikings and the Varangian Guard, which were also Vikings, but mercenaries/elite units under the direct employ of the Byzantine Emperor.
>What advantages besides price do axes have?
It has a heavy end, which makes it pretty good as in delivering heavy blunt power at a target that also has heavy armor. And during the time it was used, heavy armor was made up of chain or ring mail and thick clothing plus leather.
So it would have been very effective during the medieval era, especially for shock troops.
>>29708955
That's one funky axe-gun design.
>>29706734
>or cut through leather
>>29708974
>plus leather.
Put your hands up, step away form the DnD manual, and nobody needs to get hurt! Otherwise we will go medieval on your ass!
Not OP but a follow up question.
Was there an advantage to using an axe of similar scale over a sword that works on the same principles as an axe? (falcatas, khukri, etc.)
>>29708955
reminds me pic related
>>29709064
That a sword has a forward can't doesn't mean it functions like an axe.
Hell, my kukri is a far cry from an axe, and that's not a sword, it's an everyday machete.
Peter Johnsson talks about a falcata here: http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=26576
Pic is an Indian sword I handled a few years back. Light as a feather.
So while I don't really have anything to go on for a number of forward curved swords, none of those that I do work like axes. Add in that it seems people are keen to describe swords as axe-like (the falchion in particular being a frequent victim, and as far as the sometimes local "cutleranon" can tells us, that's complete rubbish) and I'd be very cautious about accepting any sword as working like an axe unless quite solid evidence is presented to support that.
Now swords do come with mroe or less blade presence, tip-heaviness, etc. If you do like heavier cuts and impact, as well as more authority in the bind, you can simply get a sword like that. Many sword types have a wide range available there. In return you sacrifice a bit of nimbleness. I haven't seen anything supporting that the forward curved-one would be especially prone to it though, the tip heaviest I've handled was a Cheinse yanmaodao.
>>29709114
>Hell, my kukri is a far cry from an axe
>far cry
>>29709114
Cheers, dood.
>tfw no real trick weapons
>tfw no telescoping weapon that functions as both a large battle axe and a halberd at the same time
>>29709019
>what is Mongolian lamellar armor made from rawhide and boiled leather
>what is cuir boulli
>what are buff coats
I mean, thick leather is still leather.
You would think that axes are pretty good blunt force trauma weapons even against plate.
>>29708104
Roman Triarii would quick step in behind the Hastati or Principes if the line buckled from the weight of an assault. They were the professional soldiers of that point in the roman army and had their own armor and gear. Lets call them the Guard Troop that stood to the rear and only stepped to when needed. If the Hastati got pushed into the Principes, the Triarii would slowly press forward with their manageably long spears and poke the enemy back so the sword infantry could get back in order. They also stood to the back with their spears as a reactionary force against flanks and calvary charges
>Information garnered from light reading of roman military doctrine
>>29709064
I guess the main advantage of an axe blade itself is durability, they can take a heck of a beating
Ignoring people slashing bottles, cardboard tubes, bits of bamboo, trees etc- the axe was designed to blast through flesh, bone, chainmail, leather and deal fairly heavy impacts, which even if it doesn't penetrate it will knock the 'fun' out of someone
Now while the handle might not take much of a beating when it comes to being hit by other bladed weapons, but the mass of metal will stand up to being repeatedly beaten on metal and wood without losing much of its integrity. Sure will need sharpening up after, maybe a bit of file work on the edge if it chips and the handle can be put back on fairly quickly (not in a fight obviously!) with a very low cost to the owner.
Swords tend to have around the same mass of metal, but structurally its spread over a wider area, so when its hit and thrust repeatedly (like I mentioned before) it will get chipped, dented, bent and fairly broken after a while. Repairing that kind of damage to a blade is not something you can do easily or cheaply. You can repair minor nicks, dings and redo the edge easily enough, but after a while its going to look like someone's puppy chewed on it- lot of antique swords you'll find that have been used in combat are pretty mauled to the point their structure is compromised.
The other main advantage of the axe is that it can be used to 'hook', you can use the edge of a bearded type axe head to drag someone's shield down, pull them off balance and hook it around an ankle to knock them over.
Swords have other moves which an axe doesn't and mainly why they tended to stick around longer, lot of utility in the sword on an offensive/defensive manner- draw cuts, stabs, pommel whacking, poke them in the eye with a cross guard etc. Plus in later developments of the sword, they do protect the hand and arm a lot better than the axe and allow for a more defensive blade-forward position.
>>29709752
Most war-axes had a metal spike on the end, and even then an axe functioned like a fucking warhammer but just has a bladed end. Again, like warhammers they work on a fulcrum and weight, while a sword works as a uniform length of metal. And to combat damage to the haft, many war axes had metal studs or just a thin plate of metal where it could be used to deflect or block as long as your hand wasnt in the way
>>29709765
Through most of the battle axes history (7th-14th century) it was pretty much a stick with an axe head on it.
When you start getting into the Renaissance era (15th-16th+) it got a bit more protrusions on it with the odd hammer head, sometimes a spike- but most of those where to later develop into halberds and pole arms as the axe as a 1-handed weapon wasn't dealing enough 'punch' to get past plate and we see also stuff like the warhammer, pick and mace dominating a lot more as a preferred problem solver.
Dark Ages to Medieval, most of it was as I mentioned- stick with axe.
>>29709810
Its really hard to pin it to merely a stick when you have to give room for personal taste to each soldier. While some were probably mass produced, you would have to concede that the more professional soldiers had their own modified war axes. Hell i saw one in a museum that had a saber like hand guard
>>29709752
Were there any axes made with a metal haft or a wooden haft surrounded by a thin metal shell? I'm sure that such designs could be made to similar weight standards as ones with pure wood hafts.
>>29709895
As i said above many were wrapped in leather, if atleast the handle bit, or had thin metal plates around the head for delfection of caught blows.
>>29709905
>>29709895
Kinda like this
>>29709826
Lot of the ones in museums with guards are actually of Indian and Persian origins - who where quite fond of the axe, hammer and pick for a long time
That's sort of a convergent era of weapons technology, however the Indo-Persian stuff remained in use for much longer, well into the 19th century as there wasn't a lot of heavy armour being worn and they where quite effective for what they're designed to do.
When you're talking axes with metal along the shaft like ->>29709909
Those are creeping into the late Middle Ages-early Renaissance, keeping to the OP's topic which was mostly about- European medieval era. Axes started dying out as technology in both weapons and armour tended to surpass their effectiveness to the point the blade isn't doing as much, you're adding hammers and spikes. Eventually people just say 'fuck it' and make warhammers and maces, without bothering with the axe blade.
Norwegian fighting axe.
Hack and slash.
>>29709895
You have an all metal 15th century one in >>29708012 and here's a 16th century one where the wooden grip is basically complete enclosed by the langets. Earlier one we probably won't see much like these, even the kinda-extensive-langets variant in >>29709909
is supposedly 15th century, with Lutel having another one up they date stylistically to the late 14th.
>>29706662
halberd master race
>>29710159
Thats not particularly fair when you are speaking of the medieval time period. A large portion of surviving weapons are all nobleman or ornamental weaponry, not the rank and file battle axe. Theres very little chance of any surviving examples due to this, and flatly declining the possibility is preposterous
>>29710278
>Implying noble weapons weren't informed by those of the common soldier
>>29710278
"Probably won't see" counts as flat out denying the possibility?
Now I'm not quite certain what evidence we have in the way of artefacts and artwork for axes and their langets in the high middle ages, but I'm pretty sure it's a good deal better than nothign, and as such wouldn't it be a reasonable assumption that the axes in use back then were in fact more or less like what the surviving material shows us, instead of just taking a feature of later axes and assuming that it existed earlier?
Now I'm not sure what material exactly we have on axes around the high middle ages (the "probably" earlier being mostly about me now knowing very well what is known here), but unless I'm misremembering Waldman langets for polearms start out as largely non-existent somewhere in the earlier parts of that period, and gradually grow more extensive. Such to me very much suggests that we are in fact not just missing part of the picture, as we have somewhat smooth development. Should we have the full range of langet sizes available form the start, the maximum size observed should vary somewhat randomly up to the actual maximum, instead of a gradual (if a bit uneven due to incomplete records and artefact availability) increase.
And perhaps mroe importantly in this specific case, it seems quite plausible to me that the trend in langets for smaller hafted weapons would be similar to that for the larger ones.
I will not completely dismiss the possibility though, though mroe for a lack of having studied it myself than out of some sort of resignation that we simply cannot know. And should you go for the latter, well, then "can't know" is the end point there, not "surely they existed". Teapots orbiting Neptune and all that.
