How did the battle axe evolve without the versatility of a sword, the reach of a polearm, or the specialized armor penetration of the spiked or flanged mace? What exactly are axes good at, especially when taken into account that all armor defends against slashing first and foremost, and that even cloth armor is quite effective against slashing attacks?
It makes sense that existing tools for chopping wood might be repurposed for fighting in a time of great need, but axes purpose-built for fighting share very little in common with felling or splitting axes. I'm not arguing that axes are ineffective since clearly they are, I'm just curious what pressures drove people to develop crafting and fighting techniques for a seemingly inferior weapon.
>>46081321
>1. You've got it backwards
>2. There are youtube videos devoted to the practicality of axes on a battlefield
>>46081321
>especially when taken into account that all armor defends against slashing first and foremost, and that even cloth armor is quite effective against slashing attacks?
and how is that relevant in this case? axes aren't doing slashing attacks
>>46081321
They're cheap to make maintain and repair. Also Hacking =/= slashing
>>46081321
axes are a little worse than maces at penetrating armour but its still a lot of mass striking with a small point , they can cut and therefore are more efective than a mace when atacking the limbs, they can also hook the enemies shield/weapon -overall they are quite similar to maces but more versitile
>>46081410
What do I have backwards? And once again, I'm not arguing the axes are useless or ineffective. I'm just arguing that it's at a disadvantage to other weapons in many ways, without seeming to offer any particular advantage.
>>46081579
How would you characterize the weapon pictured in the OP, then? I wouldn't call it piercing or crushing, especially compared to this.
>>46081321
>How did the battle axe evolve without the versatility of a sword, the reach of a polearm, or the specialized armor penetration of the spiked or flanged mace?
Because of all the things you posted, the sword is the only one that really evolved at the same time as the axe. Everything else came later unless you're counting spears as a polearm. The sword was a later invention than the axe, I'm just being generous because the two shared the battlefield for quite a long time.
>>46081840
Hacking.
Hence, "Hack AND slash."
>>46081321
>seemingly inferior weapon
Think of the precursor to your spiked mace or warhammer. It is just a tool.
Now give it a longer lever and a sharp edge. Welcome to the battleaxe.
It's a tool that can also be a very effective weapon.
A bit of this >>46081806 but mainly this >>46081732. It's a weapon that will kill you just as dead as any other, doesn't take a whole lot of metal to make, and is much simpler to forge than something like this >>46081840, which probably would have had to have been cast.
>>46081840
>I'm just arguing that it's at a disadvantage to other weapons in many ways, without seeming to offer any particular advantage.
Axes have heavy cutting heads. They can deliver a more powerful hacking blow than a sword, and are more likely to cause a fatal or crippling injury than a mace.
A strong axe blow (especially two-handed) can penetrate mail but also has bludgeoning power like a mace, so it can break bones even if the mail stops it. With the narrow axe head it's actually not much different from striking someone with a flanged mace.
Axes declined as plate armour developed. Axe-headed polearms like halberds and poleaxes became common though, because the basic utility of the axe head - something that can both cut and focus a bludgeoning attack, as well as be used to hook weapons and armour pieces - was still desirable.
>>46081321
1. They're cheap (already been stated)
2. They're not just for slashing! You've got enough reach to hook things (like shields and knees), and the bearded ones can sometimes pull off weapon binds.
Could a battle axe work effectively in a shieldwall, like dwarves are often depicted in fantasy?
>>46082025
Spears were more common but I know the axe was popular with both Norse and Anglo-Saxons.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGbRxYkp5E8
>>46081890
The spear is a polearm, and one of the first weapons invented by humans. With few exceptions, it was the primary weapon of war throughout history until the development of gunpowder. The only weapon even remotely as prolific is the bow.
And wasn't the saxe the favored weapon at the time, as northern Europeans were still emulating the tactics of the Roman Empire hundreds of years later?
>>46081321
Slashing/Piercing/Bludgeoning is more a D&D thing than a real-life thing. It's not like an axe has less impact than an equally weighted mace, that's not how physics works.
Axes have a smaller surface area than a mace, so they have more penetrative power. They're less likely to get stuck in someone's armor than a pick (but more so than a mace). They do well at breaking links in mail, and the dents they leave in plate can reduce mobility. What weapon you'd use in the mace/hammer/axe/pick family would depend on your opponents' armor and your culture's military doctrine. You likely actually use a double-headed thing with the top two choices.
The useful range of all of these weapons is short enough that it's hard for someone with a spear to kill you if you're inside their reach. That's a big "if," hence polearms being the dominant weapon through most of history (not all of course).
The axe is a tool that people used as a weapon, not the other way around.
>>46083695
Maces didn't become popular until plate armor did, and by then axes were dying out. Axes became popular in Europe along with short swords, which allow attacks underneath a shield in close quarters where an axe swing would hit an ally to your right, as well as stabbing through mail and cloth armor. You gain options going from an axe to a sword, but not really any going from a sword to an axe.
>>46083806
Tool axes are very different from weapon axes.
>>46084301
>>46083806
Well, technically the very early bronze-age axes are. But the standard iron-age to medieval battleaxe no longer was a tool.
But it's generally wrong to compare an axe to a sword. Everybody knew that swords were top shit, but swords were expensive because of the amount of higher-grade metal needed. Axe versus mace/hammer is a more realistic question, and really depends on armor development.
>>46081840
>How would you characterize the weapon pictured in the OP, then? I wouldn't call it piercing or crushing, especially compared to this.
Chopping. Slashing involves drawing the blade along the wound (at least once you'd hit), like you'd slice a tomato. Chopping is more of a guillotine action, where you hit the target straight on with comparatively little lateral movement across the wound area.
>>46084477
To put it another way: you chop wood, you don't slice it.
Why did the Croats design the VHS instead of just buying German rifles like everyone else?
Weapon evolution is very uneven. Weapons remain in favor in some regions for centuries when they offer no clear advantages, simply because they were what those people knew how to make, or because they liked them, or did not want to rely on "foreign" weapon designs.
The Poles, for example, were really into sabers. That's not a secret, everyone knows that.
But we know for a fact that the enemies of the Poles, like the Crimeans, the Cossacks, Turks, Germans, Swedes, literally everybody, had chainmail armor and wore it often.
So why the hell would you use a saber when you know you're going to be fighting enemies with armor perfectly suited to repulse it?
Because it's what you were taught to fight with. That's more important than the precise dimensions of your tool.
>>46082025
No. Think about it...
How did they swing them?
Spears should be the main weapon of any army 99% of the time for infantry.
>>46081321
This question is so fucking retarded and I hope it's bait. There is a lot of reasoning that goes behind developing a weapon. Axes are fucking easy as shit to mass produce for your army, and you can use them to cut down god damn trees if you need lumber to build siege weapons or fortifications.
That's why the falchion was pretty common among grunts from certain parts of Europe. You could almost dig ditches with that thick ugly piece of shit pleb sword. They were like heavy fucking machetes, and machetes still retain their use today, just like axes!
Same thing with spears. With them you can make traps, use them as stakes, and also reinforce palisades.
Only officers, elites, and celebrity-soldiers ever got the objectively best weapons. Weapons that were meticulously designed to kill people dead faster than any other on the battlefield. That didn't mean they were immune to an axe wound to the head, though. Plus, you couldn't do a fraction of the shit with those types of weapons as you could with what they gave to their foot soldiers.
>>46084823
>and you can use them to cut down god damn trees if you need lumber to build siege weapons or fortifications.
Not battleaxes. Battleaxes have very thin blades that aren't designed for that sort of thing (if you tried to fight using a wood axe, all that weight at the end would make you very slow and awkward). It'd be like trying to cut down trees with machetes.
>>46084823
The axe even sorta lives on in military use today. It's just that it's a shovel now
Axes were rarely used for battle outside of necessity. There were no historical formations that used axes as a standard armament. Norsemen raiding parties (AKA vikings) commonly used Danish axes, which were really more polearms than axes. There's no evidence that axes were superior for penetrating mail compared to maces and hammers, given that there's little evidence that anything penetrated mail reliably. Blunt force trauma was likely the main cause of death for anyone wearing mail armor who didn't just have their throats slit after being knocked down and disarmed.
However, axes do hold certain advantages over other weapons. They are much cheaper to produce than swords, and can be said to be an ideal weapon for killing unarmored or lightly armored individuals (ones wearing only gambesons rather than gambesons + mail) similar to swords exclusively designed for slashing. They can also still be used as tools in a pinch, like a good knife. By the time plate armor became popular, the short life of the battle axe had already entered its decline.
Do not believe the shows and movies that depict men chopping off limbs wholesale with an axe, either. Bones are not that easy to break and they absolutely cannot be cut through cleanly even with a good axe (but they can certainly be broken in one good swing). The only way to sever a limb in one good swing would be to hit the joint.
>>46084906
Still useful for getting firewood and clearing brush
>>46084928
You do realize that you can easily cut through a log of wood with an axe and one good swing, right? That's easily as hard or harder than bone.
>>46084301
>Maces didn't become popular until plate armor did
Dude, WHAT?!? A mace is likely one of the oldest weapons in existence! Someone in the early paleolithic tied a rock to his club, and the mace was born!
>>46084301
Maces became less useful after the advent of plate armor, actually. Plate armor, being solid, is a far better option versus blunt force trauma than something that transfers force almost directly like mail. Maces would have experienced their peak of popularity prior to the boom of plate armor in popularity, and maintained high popularity as still being one of the better options to counter plate armor.
>>46084949
>>46084989
I'm not sure how many different ways everyone in this thread can explain the concept to you: battle axes are not designed to cut wood, and are not good at cutting wood. You can cut wood with one in the same sense you can cut wood with a greatsword or a halberd. That means yes, it's possible, but you would never abuse your weapon that way except at the greatest need.
>>46084989
When you chop logs, you're cutting with the grain of the wood, which is why it cuts so cleanly. If you're trying to cut a log width-wise rather than length-wise, you're better off using a saw because you'd have to hit it countless times with an axe to break it and you wouldn't get a clean cut.
Also, FYI, bone is on the whole stronger and better at load bearing on a per-pound basis than wood. Around twice as good, actually.
>>46084906
Well in a pinch it'd work. You may dull the shit out of your battleaxe but siege operations take months and you could probably bring your battle axe back into service with a whetstone or some field repair.
That being said, I want to refer to my other point about special soldiers carrying special weapons. I'm sure they ripped people apart with battleaxes, I mean the weapon's name carries that implication. However, all the archers and boots in formation probably only had hatchets on them as backup weapons.
The English archers at Agincourt had hatchets, the historians made that distinction.
>>46085085
>If you're trying to cut a log width-wise rather than length-wise, you're better off using a saw because you'd have to hit it countless times
Then why did someone design an axe explicitly for chopping across the grain?
>>46085085
Load bearing, yes. Absorbing the impact from a cleaving strike? Dubious.
>>46085211
Because someone wanted to cut down a tree without using a saw. Doesn't change the fact that you have to swing dozens of times to knock down a decently thick tree with one of them.
>>46085231
Bones are also far more malleable than wood.
>>46085231
You must keep in mind that any weapon designed for cutting through flesh - like a battle axe or falchion - will also be poor at breaking anything hard, like armor, or bones, just like you can't use a battle axe or falchion to cut through wood reliably.
>>46081840
Have you ever fucking held an axe? You don't slash with one, you chop and hack.
>>46085339
So what you're saying is that the human body is a helluva thing and there's no one weapon that's perfect for destroying it due to it being the combination of soft bits and hard bits?
>>46081321
>cheap
>easy to learn
>hacks through armour
>hacks through shields
>does lots of damage
>goes well with shield
>>46085390
Remove the third and fourth of those and you're pretty square on the money, chap
And don't let it bother you, people sorely underestimate the effectiveness of armor back in those days
>>46085429
If you have a spare weapon (Which you always should) a well placed axe blow can render a shield useless
Granted you lose your axe but...
>>46081321
—Require less skill than a sword to use
—Effective at penetrating armor
—Little maintenance required
—Easy to manufacture
—Can be used for non-martial purposes
—Reasonably effective in multiple situations in which other weapons are lackluster, even if axes lack the effectiveness of specific weapons for the situations for which they were developed
>>46084759
Begone, Greek.
I think you misunderstand the theory of evolution. Axes came about through human artifice.
>>46085491
And then you get killed while drawing the sword you should have been using in the first place.
There's something that these two anons touched on, but I think is quite important;
>>46085390
>>46084928
>cheap
Iron and steel, and to an extent 3500 years ago bronze, has historically been very expensive. It wasn't until the 16th century the average person could realistically afford a sword, and a good portion of that was that weapons grade steel was expensive.
Earlier, it was far more realistic that peasant levees were equipped with whatever they or their lords could produce. Even a reasonably productive farmholder circa 9th century could only afford so much worked iron, and that budget would have been mostly farm tools and knives.
An axe is only a little more expensive and difficult to produce than a spear, and less expensive than a later polearm design. It represents considerably less realistic cost for a lower class or peasant soldier while also performing adequately as a weapon, especially for a bigger man.
A further thing is preference. I imagine there are a few people who would prefer how an axe handles over another weapon, but that might be reaching.
![hqdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/17yObUc.jpg "hqdefault[1].jpg")
>>46085547
ev·o·lu·tion
/ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
"the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion, unfolding
>>46081321
You ever seen what someone looks like after you hit them with an axe?
>>46085594
Yup. Also, polearms are great for militia and conscript infantry if you're spending more time training than fighting, but it's damn hard to march in formation with a 7-20 foot stick. It's not a good idea to use spears in formation unless you're drilling constantly.
>>46085594
>peasant
>levees
An example of these peasant levees please. Not the Fyrd, which were several households equipping a single man for war, not town militias which were staffed and funded by rich burghers. Give me an example of a peasant, unfree agriculatural workers, being conscripted into combat in medieval Europe.
>>46085641
A lot like what they look like after being hit by any other bladed weapon, I'd imagine. But no, I've never personally witnessed an axe murderer at work.
>>46084759
Axes were used by men behind the front line to pull down enemy shields so the guy in front could start stabbing.
>>46085741
How does that work unless there's a gap between the shield walls?
>>46085429
Yeah but it was cheap because everyone had axes. The reason they used axes was that swords were too expensive.
>>46085429
Eh, the axe has more weight and focused damage so it was better against shields and armour than your standard sword (cutting at least)
>>46085545
Romans are the 1%.
Besides their "swords" are just midget spears anyway.
>>46085762
You hook the point of the axe over the top rim of the shield and pull down.
>>46085733
Thats the point. They still fuck you up bad and they arent something mental and hard to use.
>>46085787
Edit: I meant the hook where the blade curves down.
>>46085211
this is obvious bait, but I'll bite:
probably because they hadn't figured out a good saw that would be reliable and suitable for the job. Seriously, using an axe to fell a tree across the grain, rather than splitting a log along the grain is painfully difficult.
>>46082025
Well Vikings mostly used spears and axes, so yeah I'd guess it'd work. The axe's advantage is that its long handle allows you to adjust the length at which to hold it.
>>46085776
It still bled half of your ancestors to death anon.
Gladius>barbar Longswords.
>>46085707
How about Tang Chinese peasant conscripts circa eighth century? Peasant soldiers have long been evident in Chinese warfare. Look into the Tang invasion of Tibet if you want to know more.
And the Chinese certainly used axes.
>>46085733
Just imagine being whacked by a bladed sledge hammer with a blade.
Also if you get hit, the axe head embeds itself into the target. Takes a bit of effort to pull it out.
So not it is not like being hit with any other bladed weapon. Its a whole lot messier.
>>46085707
Oh
>medieval Europe
idk the arriere-ban?
>>46085768
The point of impact of an axe on the edge of a shield isn't any smaller than that of a sword. Neither is effective against the face of the shield.
>>46085814
I think you're forgetting the part where it's basically impossible for a single man with a saw to fell a tree more than a foot or so in diameter. Even with much smaller trees it's pretty easy to get a saw stuck when the weight of the tree is resting on it.
>>46085918
>Just imagine being whacked by a bladed sledge hammer
A battle axe isn't remotely similar to a sledge. You've been playing too much vidya.
>>46084475
Yes, hence the sword being a symbol of status in societies such as feudal Japan and Dark ages Europe.
>>46085969
It is, in the sense that the energy of the blow in concentrated on the end of a heavy metal chunk.
Have you ever used a sledge? Most types is no heavier than an axe.
>>46085969
If you hit hard enough and have a heavy enough axe it can sure as fuck feel like that to the poor bastard on the receiving end.
>>46085978
Or a lot of places it existed in general. Frequently one that was incredibly overpriced for what you got, but status symbols are like that.
>>46085211
Something tells me you've never actually cut wood before. If you're going against the grain, you take a saw every time. Axes are fine going with the grain, but you ditch that shit if you're not. So basically, no, you can't cleave cleanly through bones with one strike of an axe. Even if you could snap the bone entirely, the blunt force to go with it would likely create splinters and cracks, resulting in a very uneven cut
>>46085787
>>46085801
You can't pull it forward if it's pressed against an opposing shield, and you can't pull straight down with any leverage from a rank away.
>>46085383
But if you break enough of one type of bit, you'll get somewhere eventually
![1280px-Sledgehammers-1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/4etjaWU.jpg "1280px-Sledgehammers-1[1].jpg")
>>46086034
>People honestly think this kind of shit was ever used in war
>>46086051
Wow, so, just like literally anything in existence.
>>46086085
It's the guy in the rank behind you. In the Anglo-Saxon era, typically the front rank used shorter blades called seaxes when in the midst of a shield wall while guys behind them covered their heads and reached over with axes to pull down enemy shields. They'd work in teams, so when the front rank guy sees an axe reach over his shoulder, he knows to take a step back so he can get a stab in. That, or he'd stab at the enemy's ankles.
>>46086058
>you can't cleave cleanly through bones with one strike of an axe
Get a sharper and bigger axe and sharper and bigger muscles.
>>46086058
Something tells me you've never felled a tree without a chainsaw.
>>46086184
But what if I can already cut glass with my biceps?
>>46086239
I can cut glass with a tiny ass diamond knife and two fingers. The fuck are you talking about?
>>46086279
Putting a glass panel on the inside of his elbow and flexing.
>>46086279
I'm saying if you rub a chunk of glass against my arm you'll get these neat little shavings like when you take a long thin slice of cheese off of a wedge or wheel.
Don't your muscles have any definition? Pshaw, sir.
>>46086058
wait, do you think you fell a tree by making a repeated horizontal swing in the same place until you're all the way through? you can hack a wedge and tip her over out faster than you can one-man saw through
>>46085606
It was a bad joke about the way the OP was worded, which seemed to imply that a weapon could not possibly develop if it did not have an advantage in fitness over another weapon, in the way that a species could not evolve without being somehow more fit for survival than its progenitor.
Sorry, carry on.
OP never played a dark souls level one pyromancer run. back /v/ i go
>>46086362
But the first is true and the second is not. That's the difference between intelligent selection and natural selection.
>>46081321
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbDhQYvetr8
>>46086546
Thank you, Matt.
>>46085383
one broken bone can put you out of the fight permanently. It doesn't take too much to break a bone if hit in the right place with an axe.
>>46086058
>Even if you could snap the bone entirely, the blunt force to go with it would likely create splinters and cracks, resulting in a very uneven cut
That's part of the point. You don't WANT a clean cut, not in war. You want to make sure your enemy goes down and STAYS down. An axe, spear, sword, mace, and war hammer can all do this effectively. It all depends on what you can afford, what is available, and what your enemy is using.
An axe is a reliable multi-tool in an environment where capturing / destroying your enemies resources gives you the edge. Laying siege to a castle? Cut down his forests and build siege weapons. In enemy territory during winter? Cut down his trees to build shelter and fire. In fact, modern entrenching tools can and have been sharpened on their edges and used as weapons that could cut through bone.
>>46081321
how about the need for cheap, easy to pick up weapons for a civilian army?
>>46086795
Why do I keep reading this shit? You don't want ragged cuts and internal bleeding. You want to immediately debilitate your enemy. That means heart, lungs, head, or neck. Any other cut is just setting you up to stab him in the face once he's down.
It literally does not matter whether he dies of sepsis in three weeks or lives, by that time he's out of the war for good. What matters is that your render him immediately unable to harm you. A mortally wounded man grabbing on the ground grabbing at your feet while you're fighting is a threat.
>>46086795
>An axe is a reliable multi-tool
It's not though.
It's been stated multiple times throughout this thread that an axe good at combat is bad at utility and vice versa. Sure, you can use a battle axe to cut down a tree despite it being shit at it, but that doesn't make it into a multi-tool.
>>46087096
>You don't want ragged cuts and internal bleeding. You want to immediately debilitate your enemy.
Man, i dunno, if i was hacked in the arm and bleeding i'd be pretty debilitated.
>That means heart, lungs, head, or neck
Because every single medieval warrior had a laser sight on his weapon and only struck there. Also, an axe to the face will too fuck you up.
>The rest of the post
You're SEVERELY overestimating how tough humans are and severely underestimating the axe.
>>>46087282 Also, an axe to the face will too fuck you up.
>what eve is hitting someone in the head with an axe
>>46087282
>Man, i dunno, if i was hacked in the arm and bleeding i'd be pretty debilitated.
Clearly you've never seen what adrenaline can do. It's a hell of a drug.
>Because every single medieval warrior had a laser sight on his weapon and only struck there. Also, an axe to the face will too fuck you up.
Are you retarded? You always fucking double tap. It's not just a meme. Cut him in the leg so he goes down? Great, now stab him in the face. Slash his hand so he drops his weapon? Great, now he's defenseless. Stab him in the face. Or hack him in the face of you have an axe and you're autistic, I suppose.
>You're SEVERELY overestimating how tough humans are and severely underestimating the axe.
My post has nothing to do with the effectiveness of axes. My point is that this ridiculous "muh chipped rusty blades are better because this guy might kill me but at least I know he'll die by the end of the month" tripe is the most monumentally retarded bullshit I have ever read in my life, and this is like the fourth time in two days I've seen someone try to state it as fact here.
Sharpen your fucking axe, sharpen your sword, sharpen your dagger, and for God's sake if you're using a warhammer put that spike through his eye.
>>46088198
>Clearly you've never seen what adrenaline can do. It's a hell of a drug.
Okay, hold on, not that anon but let's get one thing straight.
Sometimes you don't get a burst of adrenaline, sometimes you get your limb demolished and think "OH GOD MY FUCKING ARM" and you go into shock.
Both are likely, and your arm being literally useless from a shattered bone, severed tendons and torn muscle will not help you in any way even if you do sudden go full rage mode with adrenaline, and if you do get a huge burst of adrenaline you won't be falling to the ground, so you'll just get your other arm rekt, or they'll just straight up murder your face.
This adrenaline fallacy needs to stop, not everyone is an action hero, and even hardened soldiers can get fucked over by a solid strike or seeing something they don't want to see.
And don't act like I'm saying everyone is some sort of pussy who cannot into adrenaline, I'm just saying always betting on adrenaline is how you get killed.
>>46088198
>"muh chipped rusty blades are better because this guy might kill me but at least I know he'll die by the end of the month"
Except >>46086795 never said that? Calm your tits, mate, you're seeing things where there are none.
>My post has nothing to do with the effectiveness of axes.
Oh, cool, so you just randomly aggro'd on something he didn't even say, in a thread about entirely different thing, without even reading the context. Like i said, calm your tits, mate.have to say, he IS entirely wrong about utility of axes. You don't chop trees with battleaxe, it's silly.
>>46085594
adding on to the preference point you made, I imagine even an untrained peasant militia-man would still know how to handle an axe
>>46088380
Yes adrenaline doesn't automatically give everyone the ability to power through extreme pain and shock, there are plenty of trained soldiers that will go down and stay down after getting their arm chopped off. But all it takes is that one guy who doesn't to get you killed while your guard is down. It's best not to take any chances and put a sharp piece of metal through their face just to be sure.
>>46088437
he probably read somewhere about how a hatchet can be used for an assload of things and applied that to weapons too
since with a decent hatchet you can use it as a hammer, as a knife, a can opening tool (or just something to pry with in general), possibly a skinning and butchering tool, and a whole bunch of other uses i can't really recall right now.
oh, and you can always just use it as an axe.
>>46081321
ITT: OP has never chopped wood.
>>46081321
Axes were good tools for breaking shit, then somebody figured they'd be good at breaking people too. They were basically right.
It's a bit of a polearm, it's a bit of a cutting weapon, it's a bit of a blunt trauma weapon when the edge doesn't work or you hit them with the haft. It can sort of hook and trap.
But above all, it's cheap as dirt for a weapon with metal in it (most of it is wood, and the metal part is fairly small), low maintenance, and you tend to have a bunch of tool versions lying around ready to serve double duty (albeit badly).
>>46084600
Because German rifles bend and warp when the weather is too hot or too cold, or when you shoot more than two mags in a row without letting the rifle cool down (which is very convenient in a firefight). Problems got fixed with the new rifles, but they cost three time as much.
>>46085211
too much free time
>>46084600
Is that a Famas?
>>46081321
Axes can hit hard, have an extremely broad rage where they can be effective (can hit from maximum reach to really close very easilly) and are cheap as all hell to make.
In terms of anti-armour, most of their job is to cause concussions or break bones in armoured troops and ruin unarmoured troops
> Sources: reenactment
>>46084928
>>46081321
>There were no historical formations that used axes as a standard armament.
The Byzantine historian Procopius (c. 500–565) described the Franks and their use of throwing axes:
...each man carried a sword and shield and an axe. Now the iron head of this weapon was thick and exceedingly sharp on both sides while the wooden handle was very short. And they are accustomed always to throw these axes at one signal in the first charge and thus shatter the shields of the enemy and kill the men.[2]
Procopius makes it clear that the Franks threw their axes immediately before hand to hand combat with the purpose of breaking shields and disrupting the enemy line while possibly wounding or killing an enemy warrior. The weight of the head and length of the haft would allow the axe to be thrown with considerable momentum to an effective range of about 12 m (40 ft). Even if the edge of the blade were not to strike the target the weight of the iron head could cause injury. The francisca also had a psychological effect, in that, on the throwing of the francisca, the enemy might turn and run in the fear that another volley was coming.[2]
>>46090485
The Franciska is literally named after the Franks because it was (always) a regular armament that everyone carried. It's like their signature weapon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcCbL_y3zTM
>>46081321
I keep wondering how the sword evolved, myself. Was it a process of constant one-upmanship in the size of knives?
A sword seems like such a waste of a valuable resource when you can just use a longer wooden haft with a smaller metal business end for more or less the same amount of 'bang'.
Did it really all come down to who had the longer metal dick?
>>46082025
Axes and shields are great together especially if there is space to swing the axe in sweeping circular movements
In a shield wall you don't have that room to move or swing so the advantage is somewhat lost
If inside a shield wall and you intend to stick in one and not disperse into individual fighting then the axe is sure effective but not preferable
But then any longish weapon which is either blunt or sharp could be effective
>>46085537
>—Effective at penetrating armor
well, more effective than a sword on plate armour and such because it can simply be used to smash them into the ground if you reverse the head but only marginally and if the opponent has any gaps or leather then sword is better for getting into wee gaps
>—Little maintenance required
Indeed if the sword hits things enough it will get blunt and becomes incredibly homoxesual but when an axe gets blunt it is actually even better because its a pointy club which is still excellent
>—Easy to manufacture
And if the handle breaks, you just stick a new one in
>—Can be used for non-martial purposes
Can confirm
Axe is good for everything if you brave enough
Shaving, brushing teeth, smithing, hair straightening
I use mine as a condom
Also it can dig a trench better than a sword or spear and if your skill level is high enough you can dig better than a shovel (It's all in the wrist movement)
>>46090659
Well, no. You're wrong on multiple counts. Swords have a pretty good advantage in a lot of areas. They're better balanced than a hafted weapon, so you can apply skilled training better. They have a dangerous edge running nearly their entire length, so you can use them in more ways. They can thrust, slash, and hack, as well as be used effectively to parry and bind.
There's a reason why the mesoamericans used an equivalent weapon even without metal.
>>46091390
>and if the opponent has any gaps or leather then sword is better for getting into wee gaps
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>46081321
While cost, ease of manufacture, ease of use, use as both a tool and weapon and so forth have been factors that influenced the use of handaxes, they have absolutely no bearing on the use of two-handed battle axes such as in OPs post.
The Dane-axe or broadaxe emerges at the second half of the 10thC, and spreads from Scandinavia to Britain, Ireland and other areas of Viking settlement/conquest. It is adopted by the Normans after 1066 and continues to be used atleast into the 13thC as the "Sparth". In Ireland it remained the signature weapon of the gallowglass into the 17thC.
The group that most consistently used the broadaxe are the Viking (and later English) Huscarls. These are the elite bodyguards and household shock troops of the Jarls and Kings. The Irish gallowglass fufill the same role in Hibernian society.
It was not used because it was cheap. Huscarls were richly equipped by their patrons with long maille hauberks and golden-hilted swords.
It was not used because it was simple to mass produce. Huscarls are the cream of the fighting crop, with maille and swords- they do not need a weapon whose virtue was that it was easy to make.
It was not because it was easy to use. The boradaxe was the signature weapon of elite groups that prided themselves on their skill at arms. While broadaxe use was not exclusive to these groups, they have by far the highest concentration of users. This does not suggest that it was regarded as a simple weapon to master, else it would be widely used.
It was not due to being a tool pressed into service as a weapon. Broadaxes are unsuited as many have said to utility work, and warriors equipped with maille and swords use weapons instead of tools to fight with.
The reasons given by many posters in the thread do not explain the actual patterns of use of two-handed axes.
Actual use of the Broadaxe explained in part 2
Picture is of two Viking broadaxes c.1000AD that I was handling at the Musuem of London a few months ago.
Can we forget the meme that swords were super expensive rare status symbols in the medieval period? Anyone could own (an admittedly shitty) sword for less than a days wages. Sure some people had fancy ass swords they spent the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of pounds on but overall a sword was not a "knight's weapon" or something.
>>46092543
Simply put, the broadaxe was a fearsomely effective weapon in a High Medieval context.
It is important to stress that the broadaxe was a weapon used mostly by elite warriors. They would be well equipped with other weapons, chiefly a spear and sword, as well as maille. This means that the user has a selection of weapons available, and if the situation was not favourable to the broadaxe he could switch to another weapon.
This factor also mitigates a potential disadvantage of the broadaxe- not being able to wield a shield in their offhand. Their armour offers excellent protection and leaves far less dependant on the use of a shield compared to an unarmoured warrior. It can and was used by unarmoured men on occasion but it was principally used by armoured fighters.
The principal advantage of the weapon is that it can deliver powerful blows, even against those in armour. And in Northern Europe during the main period of broadaxe use (10-13C) a man is either in maille or no armour at all, with gambesons appearing during the 12thC.
The appearance of the broadaxe coincides with an increase in the amount of maille. A far higher proportion of fighters are wearing maille than earlier in the Viking period for a variety of factors, and the coverage of maille is increasing. Hauberks could now extend to the knee, during the 11thC integral hoods (coifs) are added as are longer sleeves. By the end of the 12thC the best equipped knights have complete body coverage of maille.
So the broadaxes exist in a context where armour is more common and more extensive. This makes the ability to reliably inflict damage to an armoured man much more important than in earlier periods. And broadaxes are actually quite good at dealing with maille, they are a powerful weapon that can deal effectively with armour while without compromising the ability to kill un-/lightly armoured foes.
Part 2/3
>>46092909
It varied massively over time and space.
During the migration period and early viking period swords were extremely expensive in Northern Europe due to the difficulty and time-consuming nature of pattern welded construction. They were largely restricted to the warrior elite, which is borne out by both the literary and archaeological evidence.
However they got cheaper with time, especially when single-piece forging becomes the standard during the 10th century. And yes, certainly by the 12thC a shitty sword was well within the reach of a large amount of the population.
The Middle Ages are damn near a thousand years of history, and an entire continent to play with even if you restrict it to Europe. Trying to claim anything is a meme because it only true for a portion of that period is a pointless argument starter.
>>46092909
I agree to an extent as pretty much anyone could get their hands on one
But the vast majority of people would be subsistence farmers and wont be making much money all
Sure they can sell their leeks and taytos but they would mostly be buying clothes/meat/tools
So yeah any merchant or person earning a wage count buy one if they so choose but isn't it like a sports car? Most people could afford it but they have better thing to spend it on so if you do have one it is a sign of status that hey i have so much money i can buy a sword even though it isn't that useful in day to day life and as a non-knight pleb i have no skill so an axe would be much better in most situations and i probably already have one
>>46093095
>But the vast majority of people would be subsistence farmers and wont be making much money all
Those people aren't fighting, though.
>>46092947
So broadaxes are useful weapon used mostly by elite warriors from the Huscarls, the gallowglass, Varangian Guard and was a part of the Knightly arsenal during the High Medieval period.
A broadaxe can also be used to control space and an opponents weapons. Swung in wide arcs it is quite intimidating and creates a deadzone where you do not want to be while it swinging about. As with other axes it can hook weapons or shields, especially spears so that your companions gain an advantage over the enemy. It can also be used to shatter shields and spears. Like other polearms it can also thrust to a limited degree, and while this is by no means the most effective use it can still kill or injure when the opportunity arises.
While a shield cannot be used in the offhand, it can be slung on the back to provide some protection and be close to hand if switching weapons or taking arrows.
Three celebrated instances stand out to me that show how the broadaxe was regarded at the time.
At Stamford Bridge, a lone viking holds off the English so that his fellows may escape. He controls the narrow space of the bridge and none can get close enough to strike him and survive. He is killed by cunning and not a frontal assault.
At Hastings, the daneaxe cleaves through mailled knight and horse alike. The Normans admire the power and adopt the daneaxe along with other elements of the Huscarl's culture into their own tradition of knighthood.
During the English Anarchy at the Battle of Lincoln (1141), King Stephen must fight his way out of being encircled. Roger of Hovedan records "Then was seen the might of the king, equal to a thunderbolt, slaying some with his immense battle-axe, and striking others down." He fights until his axe is sundered from so many blows, draws his sword and is only captured when that too breaks.
It is not a cheap and simple peasants weapon or felling axe pressed into service but the choice implement of a King, and used to great effect.
>>46092947
>They would be well equipped with other weapons, chiefly a spear
Dragging around both a large axe AND a spear? Your gonna need some of that magic MMORPG sticks-to-your-back shit here.
>>46081321
First off, you have very little clue about what you're claiming and could have educated yourself by googling this shit for 10 minutes. Now, with that out of the way;
A sword is a versatile and well balanced weapon, but it's shit against anything from chainmail and up, while an axe is more robust and has more oomph. You're more likely to break mail or the bones beneath it with an axe than with a sword.
You need to think about the physics of it, not get hung up about rpg like rock paper scissor dynamics between arbitrary distinctions like "slashing" vs "piercing"
In the end all it comes down to is how much force is in the blow and how much material there is to resist it. More force and a smaller area of impact means less material to resist it.
Swords have a long, narrow striking surface and generally not a lot of "mass" behind it, since the point of balance of a sword is generally further back than the percussive center.
Axes, hammers, maces and similar have almost all their mass right at the part that's hitting you, and on top of that they have a smaller striking surface.
And even if we ignore the physics of it, you're missing an important point, badly.
An axe is way, way simpler to make than a sword, while still being an effective weapon. This, as much as anything, is the reason it was always a common weapon.
You can't just look at one weapon that has existed since the stone age and go "Uhm, this is clearly not as good against armour as a flanged mace (which did not become common until mail armour was) why did they ever bother?"
>>46093421
Spear-carriers were a thing.
The kinds of troops who most used broadaxes also tended to be have horses (even if fighting on foot they would ride to the battle) and have assistants. Squires and attendants who may or may not fight themselves would accompany their master and help carry his equipment and baggage.
I'm not saying every single broadaxe user always had a spear to hand, but the types of warrior we are talking about rarely have to carry all of their equipment themselves.
>>46081321
>doesn't know how to fight with an axe
>doesn't know why a fighting axe is designed the way it is
>thinks axes won't break limbs and ribs
>being this much of a faggot
Just kill yourself, OP.
axes have beards and are therefore objectively better than swords.
>>46082025
Dwarves have a lot more power in their swings so they don't need a large wind up for their strikes to be effective.
Its why a dwarf holding a two handed axe is so fucking terrifying.
>the reach of a polearm
IIRC two handed axes can easily be chest height, and then we have various hard to define ones as the shaft grows even longer (or not, mordtaxt may fit most quite well), until we get to things that are undoubtedly in proper polearm territory. The broadaxe would also appear to be a pretty direct ancestor of the halberd.
Single hardened ones don't appear to be an issue here, considering the polearm comment.
>>46093095
>as a non-knight pleb i have no skill so an axe would be much better
I'm not so sure.
For an axe and a sword with similar reach, the sword will most likely have its centre of mass much closer in, and a considerably lower rotational inertia (when wielded normally). So you can be a lot mroe nimble with it, you'll need less warning to react to things, you'll need less time to recover when you miss, etc.
Overall, it seems like the sword is the mroe forgiving weapon.And that in turn is somethign I think an untrained person would benefit greatly from.
Things get even worse if you go with the axe you already have. Fighting axes and "tool" axes are generally very different critters, as one is meant to go against fragile things that don't stand still, while the other will tend to be made for slamming into very sturdy, largely immovable objects. The picture here shows thin a broadaxe head is.
Now if you do manage to land a hit, the performance of axe and sword alike depend considerably on the cutting technique. Maybe the axe is more forgiving there, maybe not, but you don't get away from that with an axe. At the same time, both will most likely cause some pretty horrific injuries even with no cutting technique beyond "Grokk smash!". Here we have a sword hit with little in the way of force or slice, and it still goes through a few layers of fabric, skin and flesh: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMkGF3EqUjU
>>46091390
>using your axe to dig
My dad beat me for this when I was younger.
Were giant-ass dual-bladed axes ever actually used in real life?
>>46084928
The royal Housecarls of Anglo-Saxon England were depicted with Dane-axes right up to Hastings (where it seems both sides used the weapon if the tapestry is to be believed)
The Varangian guard were titled commonly as 'Axe Bearing Foreigners' for their use of the dane axe
Speaking of varangians I'm fairly certain many Rus' lords Druzhina carried similar two-handed axes as well
I'm not necessarily making claims of efficacy here but if dane-axes were so shit why would so many people opt-in to using them?
>>46093759
the blades on two handed axes were not anywhere near that big. And it was rare to have two axe heads, one axe head and a spike on the other side for armor penetration was a more common configuration.
>>46081410
Who are you quoting?
>>46093759
Not for battle. A dual bladed axe is almost invariably a working axe, not a fighting axe. If you're heading out into the forest for a long day's work, and want to re-sharpen your tool at the end of it, the extra head can be helpful if your first gets blunted or damaged somehow and you can just flip it over.
In combat? If you're expecting that much wear on your weapon, you'll almost certainly be dead. Stick with one head for lighter weight.
>>46093759
The large double bladed Labrys was likely used as a sacrificial tool to decapitating bulls. They might have also been used in executions.
>>46093759
>>46093871
I believe that some Indian axes (Tabars?) did use double-headed axes, they were however far smaller than the huge and exaggerated examples of fiction. These are the major exception to the rule and the vast majority of combat axes all over the world are single-headed designs.
>>46093759
Yes for felling trees
Having another blade is good especially if it's a narrower or smaller blade
>>46081321
It's been mentioned elsewhere but you seem to have things out of order. Axes existed before plate armor. If anything plate is a response to the ax (and other weapons) that could penetrate mail. When plate showed up to counter the weapons the weapons changed to counter the armor.
>>46093332
Your posts were enlightening. Thank you, kind sir.
>>46093945
The double blade seems to be a sign that the user expected to need to do a lot of work between sharpenings. Being able to flip the axe around and continue working working once one blade became dull was likely an advantage when some needed to slaughter 100+ bulls for a holy day festival.
>>46081840
>How would you characterize the weapon pictured in the OP, then? I wouldn't call it piercing or crushing
>mfw I realize OP is trying to use D&D weapon classifications for real-world situations
>>46084507
Also, you slice bread, not chop it.
This reminds me of when I was a kid and I once grabbed a knife and pretended to be a knight, trying to chop bread in half. Obviously, it did not work. I declared swords sucked that day.
>>46093705
You got some things right, but your logic and the video you posted broke your argument. What was shown is a modern sword, made out of modern steel with modern technology. Our steel is 10x better than anything you could get in the medieval ages, you could compare it to Adamantine in D&D without much exaggeration. Cutting weapons in general have a simple logic behind them, and the axe is incredibly better at cutting simply because of weight allocation.
Sure, a sword is easier to swing around, and if you never swung anything in your life you'd have an easier time hitting with it. But you're not a spoiled brat that watches grass grow all day, you work your ass off everyday with farm utensils and have some muscle going. The baseline strenght in a rural, non-mechanized farm is higher than in modern cities, and most of the time you'll be working swinging shit around. It's not a complete alien concept to swing a sword, nor is it an axe.
In fights between common peasants with weapons, you might hit a bit more with a sword, but unless you get a good stab in the stomach or a clean swing at a member/head, you'll be doing superficial damage(specially with badly conserved weapons). With an axe, though, you have way more cutting power, can penetrate flesh with relative ease and break bones, so your first or second hit will probably be the one to end the fight.
>>46094032
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
This photo gives a good example of the typical dimensions of a broadaxe-blade. Both of the axeheads in my photos were recovered from the Thames and probably date to the raids by Svein's army during the first decade of the 11th century.
This one has much more developed spurs at the blade tips than the other one, and so would be more effective at thrusting. You can see how the axehead slopes down to form the edge and where the tempered edge joins the main body of the axehead.
>>46094327
Not the guy you're responding to, but looking at the picture in your post, I'm just curious, what could have happened to cause a piece from the middle to go missing like that? I would have thought most wear and tear would have been at the edges, not the middle.
>>46094369
My guess would be organic matter trapped in the mud as it lay in the river that caused the middle to corrode. I would suprised it if was battle damage or otherwise occured prior to deposition.
Profile that shows the socket and how the blade has been bent.
>>46081321
Because it's easy to produce, mantain and repair.
And it's far easier to train a paesant in a weapon similar to a tool he already know how to use, rather than train him in the use of a much more difficult and sophisticated weapon such as a sword or a polearm.
Also they're practical even out of combat, easy to bring along and uncospicious. If you bring a sword everyone in town is gonna look at you, but basically everyone has an axe.
>>46084600
Sabres became the popular sidearm for Poles because of two things: eastern culture became pretty fashionable there (such as the coats they wore), and because of the mechanics behind a curved sword, being:
1. Slightly more unwieldy compared to cut-and-thrust swords due to center of balance being a bit further up the blade, but making the strike of the sabre have slightly more more force; bad for dueling, but great when you're doing hit-and-runs on horseback.
2. The curve of the blade made it much less likely to get stuck in the target when doing a rideby on horseback, and cavalry made up a large portion of their fielded troops (this isn't to say that no one used other swords on horseback, Poles also used their own version of an estoc/tuck called a koncerz, but there's a reason why sabres became the mainstay sidearm of cavalry all over europe).
So, yes, it was a big culture thing, but it played a very important, effective role in the warfare they waged as well.
>Picture of unrelated variety.
>>46094724
Technically training peasants to use spear or pike effectively is easier than training them to use axe effectively and those weapons require even less metal to produce.
...But axe is still a good weapon. For spear men and archers it is a good sidearm and for trained warriors/soldiers it is nearly as good as a sword is at a much lower cost.
>>46094297
>Our steel is 10x better than anything you could get in the medieval ages
So a bunch of guys very interested in the performance of swords back in the 15th and 16th centuries, and with a skilled sword smith (Jan Chodkiewiczi) apparently on hand would pick a sword for their test which takes full advantage of what modern materials can bring to bear? That seems rather unlikely.
The importance of the material here also seems rather exaggerated. Sharpness is a matter of geometry. The material simply dictate how long it'll keep that geometry. Hopefully our peasant, used to keeping knife, scythe and axe sharp will be able to take care of his sword as well.
And should our peasant be of sturdier stock than the modern wimp (?!) in the video, well, if the guy on film can do all that without putting any effort to speak of in, then someone of considerably greater strength should be able to cause even mroe catastrophic injuries without needing any cutting technique to speak of. So the advantage the axe might have in impact is rendered even less important.
That the peasants would be so strong on the other hand that the weight and inertia of the axe would be effectively none to them on the other hand sounds less like reality and more like a dreamt up past from some nazi propaganda. "The strength of the pure Germanic race..." and all such rubbish. He will be slower with a tool axe than a fighting axe, and a sword will most likely be faster than the fighting axe.
>you'll be doing superficial damage
Since I don't buy that modern steels turn a sword into a light sabre, the video tells me otherwise. As does:
"in bujutsu, an exponent's skill is conversely tested up to the point of impact with the opponent's body, since even the slightest contact with a Japanese sword spells the end of the encounter with even moderately sharp weapons."
Risuke Otake, head instructor of Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu
>>46093737
clearly you weren't using your wrist properly
>>46085707
Russians did it.
They kept doing it until eventually the tsar got overthrown and shot in a basement.
Reminder that Franks used throwing axe charge to disrupt enemy formation (break shields and shit) in similar way as Romans used javelins or Swedish shock cavalry in 30 years war unloaded two pistols at the enemy before hacking them with cold steel.
>>46081321
>What exactly are axes good at
They´re cheap.
>>46093332
>>46092947
>>46092543
Anti-axe memers BTFO.
>>46084600
This post hits the spot: warfare is not just a matter of pragmatism and using the best means at your disposal to destroy your enemy. War is a matter of culture, society, economy and demographics.
And throughout history there is a lot of that. Think about the medieval knights not wanting to kill other knights, Aztecs that were trained in making prisoners, not killing their enemies, the European Line Infantries in the battle of Fontenoy, each asking the other to shoot first.
Warfare is NOT a rational matter, not until very recently.
>>46084600
>dozens of cultures, if not hundreds, across millennia have used war axes, but it's just cultural prejudice
>>46092543
>>46092947
>>46093332
axe boner
>>46097422
Anyone up for screen capping these?
>>46096762
>>46097422
>>46097760
Cheers folks, it's good to know it's appreciated.
I should probably actually start screen capping these myself so I don't have to type it all out again in a future thread.
The picture is not actually a broadaxe, but I couldn't leave it out of a discussion of Viking axes.
This is the Mammen Axe and it gives it's name to the entire Mammen-style of viking art that was popular in the mid-10th to early 11thC. It is only a relatively small handaxe but the decoration of inlaid silver designs is simply stunning.
The Mammen grave has been precisely dated using dendrochronology to the winter of 970-1. The meaning of the designs have been interpreted as drawing on both pagan and christian influences at a time when Scandinavia stood at the cross-roads of two faiths. We don't know the precise identity of the Mammen Man but the richness of this weapon and the other gravegoods (including a superb selection of textiles fit for a king) clearly he was a person of wealth and taste.
>>46081321
I know this show is riddled with inconsistencies, but still gets across some pretty gud points, not every warrior could handle an axe as well as they could handle a spear, you still need a special kind of person to use it effectively.
However, when used at its fullest, you have something with the almost the mass of a warhammer and more speed travelling to your face and impacting a very reduced area, which back then wasn't covered by plate, but by maille.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FH_j1ItgWg
>>46098247
>>46094810
Um KM. I've taken a year of material science and have a small interest in metals from earlier historical periods. The reason why our steel is so good these days is because of the high degree of uniformity of the finished product. This is largely due to the fact that we understand more of the molecular changes that occur while applying heat to metals (Eutectic states, Austenite, Tempering, Heat Treating, Normalizing, blahblahblah). These days we enjoy a variety of steel alloys alloys with highly optimized characteristics for specific uses.
In ye olden days, all medieval smiths had were bloomeries (to refine iron) until the ~1200s when the earliest blast furnace was created in Germany/around the area. Well, on the matter, the Chinese came first by creating a blast furnace in ~1 AD... But I'm diverging from the subject matter. The truth is that the finest of medieval arms in particular was medium carbon steel of uncertain quality, not full uniformity, and most certainly unalloyed. In fact, most of what was produced in the High Middle Ages should be considered wrought iron not carbon steel. When we approach the Late Middle Ages ~1300s onwards, we see that the steel that was produced was a streaky material that could be wrought iron on one end and medium carbon steel on the other. Axes for example are cheap to create, only needs some differential hardening on the end to create a hard edge after initial processing. On the other end of the scale, swords are exceedingly tough to create as it could literally break in your hands easily, as per the reasons described earlier in addition to the various directional stresses placed in the sword when used haphazardly. Axes only need to chop on a single edge, spears thrusts in and out, swords (arming swords) need to be able to cut and thrust. This ends up with broken tips, bent swords, and cracked edges (from idiots parrying edge to edge).
