Why would anyone use an axe over a sword? They were shit!

>>1797848
Style.

>cheaper
>Much easier to make
>Greater killing power
Swords were basically weapons that signified wealth and status and were primarily worn by nobility- although axes were also used by nobles.

Axe: Cheap, good versus shields and armor
Sword: fucking expensive

>>1797868
>greater killing power

xD

>>1797877
post 14th century every soldier could afford a sword

File: Dwarf_PHB5e.jpg (122KB, 706x800px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 706x800px

>>1797848
stupid elf

>>1797848
Shitty iron. Ask Scandinavia

>>1797848
Axes work better against chainmail

>>1797885
Try chopping a piece of wood with a sword m8, see how far that gets ya. It's simple physics.

Also we aren't exactly exclusively talking about post 14th century here, now are we?

>>1797900
Post 14th century is the only medieval period that matters.

swords r gay

>>1797900
>chopping things is the only way to kill them

And here I was thinking that sharp points which easily penetrate into vital organs were more effective at killing.

>>1797848
1. They weren't shit
2. Metal is expensive, and swords use much more metal than an axe
3. They were capable to acting like maces against armored foes, and chopping against lightly or unarmed armored people

File: cr8on.jpg (140KB, 894x894px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 894x894px

Fuck you pate

>>1798981
swords worked better than axes as maces though
unless it was one of those big axes with a dedicated blunt side

>>1797894
Not really.

>>1797900
>Try chopping a piece of wood with a sword m8, see how far that gets ya
You'll get as far as yo would with a fighting axe.

>>1798981
>3. They were capable to acting like maces against armored foes,
No.

>>1799210
Well, swords basically dont work against mail, and axes work a bit

>>1799218
>large pieces of steel focused at the end of a shaft, possibly with a dedicated can opener on the back
>worse than swords as blunt weapons
you are aware of how maces work, right? An axe is just a Warhammer with one of the heads flattened out and sharpened

>>1799218
what era are you thinking about anon? Against chainmail, the only thing an axe is gonna do is act as a mace. Obviously against plate armor, you wouldn't be using an axe. But during the prime years axes were in use, plate wasn't a concern

>>1799257
You're aware fighting axes have extremely light, thin heads, right?

You're aware that they perform nothing like a mace, the mace was not a popular weapon for foot use-nor was the axe, really-and that the only axes noted for performance against armor were polearms, right?

Of course not. You got your knowledge from fucking video games.


>An axe is just a Warhammer with one of the heads flattened out and sharpened
The stupidity of this statement is fucking astounding.

>>1797848
Axes were far cheaper, fast, maneuverable, worked great with a shield in close combat, effective against shield, could hook and depending on type of axe be used for piercing.

Swords would be far more expensive, especially to get quality. They could struggle more against armor (even a heavy padded jacket is a bitch to get through) and is slightly less good for shield-combat.

Basically, axes are very good weapons, affordable and can do more with less training.
Swords are good as well, but the added expense and need for more training to really benefit from it makes it more a weapon of more experienced soldiers who can afford it.

>>1799331
You can flip a sword over and effectively use the hilt as a blunt weapon, why the fuck wouldn't you be able to do the same with the back of an axe?

>>1797848
They use less metal and good ones don't require nearly as much time and skill to make.

>>1799498
BECAUSE IT'S LITERALLY A GOD DAMN STICK.

THE SWORDS YOU SEE THIS DONE WITH WERE FOUR FOOT LONG IRON BARS, OFTEN WITH POMMELS SPECIFICALLY SHAPED FOR THIS SHIT.

>>1799498
So let me get this straight. You're saying that you can hold a sword by the blade and use it as a blunt weapon?

File: Augsburg_Cod.I.6.4º.2_(Codex_Wallerstein)_107v.jpg (481KB, 1228x819px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 1228x819px

>>1799664
It sounds silly, but it was actually a recommended tactic in many surviving fighting manuals from the era.

File: 800px-De_Fechtbuch_Talhoffer_067.jpg (83KB, 800x564px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 800x564px

>>1799739
Previous is from Codex Wallerstein, this one is from Tallhoffer.

File: halfswordTalhoffer.jpg (234KB, 1280x866px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1280x866px

>>1799745
A related practice is known as "half-swording", placing a hand on the blade to more accurately guide the tip in close quarters.

File: paulusmairhalfsworddrawcut.jpg (32KB, 341x319px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 341x319px

>>1799756
Placing a hand on the blade could also be used to guide the blade for a press cut or a draw cut, although the perspective sometimes makes it difficult to interpret the exact angle, and these fighting manuals would have been used in conjunction with training from an experienced sword master and often information was left out so the tutor's services were as invaluable as the book.

>>1799756
You learn something new every day. Wouldent that kinda hurt your hand though?

>>1799792
Many swords weren't sharp at the base so you could hold it there.

If you're taller than your opponent you can swing it above their shield and split the skuil.

Two handed dane axes were definitely the mightiest weapons of their day until the development of more advanced metallurgy allowed for larger swords

>>1799820
It seems to be the spread of full body armor that kills them rather than longer swords, anon. That, and the warrior class almost universally fighting mounted.

>>1799792
1) You'd usually be wearing thick gloves or gauntlets
2) swords tended to be sharpened at the last 1/3rd
3) You'd grip in such a way that pressure is applied from your palm and your fingers against the flat of the blade to hold it rigid, and avoid it sliding against your fingers (which is what would do the cutting).

File: Horseman's_axe_-_1475.jpg (156KB, 512x945px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 512x945px

>>1799498
>>1799569
Actually, the side opposite the "blade" was often mounted with a spike or a pick-head similar to a warhammer. So you could use either side to strike with - the pick-like head concentrates force in a smaller impact area and would be helpful against someone in armour.

File: OHM_-_Streithammer.jpg (116KB, 800x535px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 800x535px

>>1799866
Compare the geometry on the back side of the axe with the geometry on one side of this war hammer and you can see the similarity.

File: daneaxelondonmuseum.jpg (53KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 800x600px

>>1799870
Of course not all axes were like this, which is probably the source of the disagreement I quoted earlier - the type commonly called a "Dane Axe" had no backside and simply had a cutting side.

It's common to try and make generalizations about medieval weapons but the time period spans many years and many places, so it's better to look at specific examples.

back on topic, i would guess the combined factor of cost and training, as this anon wrote >>1799460

swords require skill, don't they? the average peasant knows how to swing an axe, but he's about as good with a sword as, well, I am.

File: weapon_heads.jpg (88KB, 564x564px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 564x564px

>>1799331
nigga, you think axes are useless. If anyone is a fucking idiot, its you

they were used across the world for thousands of years for a reason. They were effective weapons that were cheap to produce and could transfer enough energy through chainmail to break bones without having to penetrate. If that's not the definition of a blunt force weapon, I don't know what is.

And you know how many swords noted for performance against armor there are? Zero, because real life isn't a movie and swords were sidearms.

compare the heads in my pic. the axe heads all have roughly the same mass as a mace does, because (surprise), a mace has a light head as well. They aren't sledgehammers, theyre hard pieces on the end of a stick that you hit shit with. And if the end of your stick weighs too much, you have a shitty weapon. F=ma^2, theres no point in having a massive weapon when you can have one light enough to swing properly

as for the Warhammer comment, I figured I was talking with a retard, and wanted to keep it simple for you

File: 1470276772525.png (529KB, 1080x1108px) Image search: [Google]

529KB, 1080x1108px

>>1799664
why are you even here if you have never heard about a mordhau grip?

File: 1470539732674.gif (1MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x270px

>>1797848
Axe can be a weapon and a tool and it has its advantages and disadvantages just as every object in this world (except u OP ur useless, you can google or watch youtube)

>>1799877
This isn't necessarily a hard and fast rule. Swords could be pretty cheap. A price is given for a "cheap" sword in Dyer's "Standards of Living in the Later Middle Ages" is about 6 pence - and this was in the 1340s. A metal ewer (pitcher) from the same era cost 5 pence.

>>1799920
Other similar items of value from within the same century - a pair of shoes would also be 6 pence in 1313, and a tunic for a serf could be anywhere from 1-6 pence in the mid-14th century.

Again though, these would be values specific to England during the 14th century, and the prices of goods of course vary wildly according to time and place.

File: shit movie but at least this formation is somewhat realistic.jpg (119KB, 600x445px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 600x445px

>>1797887
>short humanoids with very short limbs
>using axes, a weapon that has a short reach and takes a lot of advantage from gravity --> the higher you can raise it before striking the better

Dwarves would be absolutely rekt in every battle if they were real. They should be using halberd or pikes to compensate for their small height.

>>1799893
>>1799893
>nigga, you think axes are useless.
Go ahead, point to where I claimed they were useless.

>If that's not the definition of a blunt force weapon, I don't know what is.
It's probably something that doesn't primarily strike with a cutting head. And don't even start with the "MUH FORCE" argument. If you'd ever actually used an axe for anything, you'd know that anyone worth a shit keeps them sharp. the only "axe" that comes close to qualifying as a blunt force instrument is the maul, which is in a class of it's own.

>could transfer enough energy through chainmail to break bones without having to penetrate.
Then explain why single handed axes were primarily-if not entirely-used by men on horseback once armor becomes more widespread.

>>1799893
>compare the heads in my pic.
No. Post an actual source dealing the masses of various axe and mace heads instead. Pictures with no weights or measurements are literally worthless.

>And you know how many swords noted for performance against armor there are?
Essentially every sword with a diamond cross section and acute tip, as they're capable of defeating mail outright. There's also the Estoc, which exists purely to defeat armor.

>because real life isn't a movie and swords were sidearms.
As were single handed axes you insufferable retard. It's actually easier to find examples of swords as primary weapons than it is to find handaxes as primary weapons.

>>1799866
I typically just assume a default of "whatever OP posted and exceptionally similar weapons" unless somebody specifies otherwise.

>>1799877
The whole "swords need more training" thing is a myth. They benefit more from it, they do not require more to be effective. The ceiling being high doesn't mean the floor is low.

>>1799964
They're fucked no matter what they use.

>>1799460
>manuverable

way less than swords which is why swords were used in duels and not fucking axes and this includes holmgang so when vikings aka axe poster boys didn't trust them in 1v1 combat that's saying a lot

>>1799808
Except when he wears a fucking helmet.

>>1799915
Battle axes were never used as a tool you imbecile stop playing fucking Skyrim.

>>1799964

>They should be using halberd or pikes to compensate for their small height.

Newsflash: Poleaxes exist.

>>1800464
Exactly. Yet dwarves use one handed axes for some reason.

Because they are very god in close cramped combat, and exceptionally good at breaking bones.
The shape of an ax makes for a smaller swing arc and all the initial force is concentrated on a point due to the slight curve.

>>1800538
Close cramped combat like when? Why would everyone ditch their spears?

>>1800542
Chopping is more fun?
I would venture to guess because axes cause more maiming, and you know that old rule about injuries being worse than deaths.

>>1800556
Ah so you're fucking theorycrafting that's nice.

>>1800562
If you really want to know why axes were used instead of spears go read a book. I'm sure there was a reason.
That was not the question though.

>>1797848
Why use either when you could fashion a spear that does the job better and is easier to produce.
Checkmate.

>>1797907

Post 14th century is the renaissance you ponce.

>>1799877
>swords require skill, don't they?

Actually a sword is a very easy weapon to use, we've all played with sticks as kids and the principle is the same with a sword. In HEMA (historical European martial arts), the sword is the first weapon to be taught because it's so newbie-friendly.

>>1799926
>>1799920

In the late middle ages swords became cheap enough for anyone to own one, but for a thousand years or so before they were the expensive sidearms of elite full-time warriors.

>>1799964

Polearms and crossbows. I can see them picking up a hammer or pick in an emergency, but axes? Do they have trees underground?

>>1797848
cheaper to make, allowed for some maneuvers that were difficult or impossible with a sword, and better against certain types of armor than a sword

>>1800586

Why use a spear when you could just drop a nuke?

>>1800615
No, you're an idiot or you go to a shit HEMA club. Swords are reltively hard to use correctly. There are two reasons for this. A) Not all swords are alike and conflating the difficulty of a saber, a german long and a spanish rapier is nothing short of backwards. B) HEMA and indeed the original sparring it apes was based of the premise that the combatants weren't wearing armour. HEMA and it's original forms are to war as driving schools are to formula 1.
To successfully pierce cut and slash takes more attention and finesse than many HEMA schools are bothered to get into, especially 'competitive' ones. Throwing in armour makes those issues even more strenuous.

Compared to a mace or spear swords can range from a bit more involved to extremely complex, especially when shields and companion weapons enter the frey ON TOP of armour.
In short: you're wrong. At length: please find a better hema club and stop listening to memes rather than reading the history.

>>1800626
Bomb runs can take months to prepare. Why not just sharpen a stick and claim your glory as soon as possible?

>>1799893
>and could transfer enough energy through chainmail to break bones without having to penetrate.
Oh God, another one. Where this retarded picture came to life? But nvm, you should immediately tell reenactors or guys from events like Battle of Nations, that they are doing it wrong. They should have broken bones after every hit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q
Look at that blunt trauma. Hm, it doesn't look like you imagine it would, does it?

>>1800574
Axes were never used INSTEAD of spears you uneducated retard they were used alongside them.

>>1800642
>he sharpens sticks!

Just grab a big rock and bash his head in, then feast on the delicious goo within.

>>1800598
Renaissance started in 16th century you idiot.

>>1800652

You realise that they're not actually trying to kill one another, right? In order to make effective use of an axe against maile, you need to bury the haft in the target's chest, something they tend to frown upon in re-enactment societies.

>>1800453
you still do a lot of damage a blow on the head is always a hard blow

>>1800658
>Leonardo da Vinci and Michaelangelo died before the renaissance began

Okay then

>>1800556>>1800450


Axe fighting isn't really as much chopping as it is thrusting the toe of the ax straight forward into your opponent's face. Used this way it is almost as maneuverable as a sword and is very good at hooking weapons and shields to create openings. However, you need friends to come and exploit said openings which is why it's a brawler's weapon most useful in a formless melee alongside allies. I could see someone wearing an ax to use once battle closes if it's too tight for spears but a short sword or a dirk would be just as good. I think the "rip and tear" mentality is the only real reason they were ever used, they certainly didn't seem to find a niche in organised warfare beyond the thing you bought or had modified if you couldn't afford a proper sword.

>>1800673
No you made that shit up based on anegdotal evidence.

>>1800673

If you only have an axe, you're going to die. You need a shield to protect yourself until you can get in a good blow, it's not at all like fighting with a sword where you're testing the enemy's defences constantly. You can kill a man by opening up an artery with a lucky sword hit to any part of his body, but for an axe you need a solid blow to hit the head or body to take them out of the fight.

>>1800695
Mostly true, except that a solid blow from an ax even to limbs will wreck your day. You get your arm chopped, there's a good chance you aren't using that arm again... ever.

>>1800720

I guess but you're as likely to knock a limb aside as to bite into it. Which will still hurt and possibly open them up to a finishing blow.

>>1800695
>If you only have an axe, you're going to die.

You're 100% correct there. I was trying to explore the ax's strength's and weaknesses without qualifiers but yes, without a shield you're fucked.

>>1800686
I don't know which part exactly you're objecting to, but if it's the first sentence you can go fuck yourself. The toe thrust is faster, more accurate, less stamina intensive and allows you to put all the force into a point rather than spread along the bit. Chopping is for trees, shields and people who are disabled / not looking.

The rest of my post was largely speculative and thus fair game.

>>1800752
Spear is better for stabbing and so is the sword. Axe is a pile of shit with no uses it seems.

File: Untitled.png (72KB, 777x854px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 777x854px

>>1800752

File: 3db8a2b81db740bb6fc3b3feb8664683.jpg (40KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 720x720px

For duels Axes were extremely uncommon or at least unrecorded and so the way people fought with them is all speculative today. One thing we can gleen from our knowledge of weapon fighting with literally any other weapon however is that men committed to a warrior lifestyle don't half ass their martial arts and I highly doubt the axe was wielded with any less skill and finesse than it's contemporaries we know for sure that it was popular with very highly trained and experienced warriors right up to Kings on the battlefield. Most famously I guess by Henry V at Agincourt.

I don't want to rain on this sort of debate because it's in it's ideal environment but 'Which weapon is better' is always a wasted effort.

A weapon is just a straight line in time and space. It's length matters. It's weight matters. The length of the lethal area of it's construction. All important differences with weapons but ultimately they really don't matter. A martial artists timing and distance wins fights.

A couple of things that come to mind for this question. An axe hits alot hard than a sword blade does and it won't bend or break on a particularly hard impact like a thrust against armour. In armoured fighting there's very little a sword can do that an axe can't. People like to say armoured fighting is all 'thrusting between gaps' and this is no doubt true but fuck that when you can just barrel him on his back and cave his faceplate it. or better yet just knock him off his horse and claim him for ransom like chivalry intended.

Hand axes also can carry a hard punch in a small package. So handy in a crushing melee or a fray. Where something like a longsword can become easily trapped.

>>1800764

That's essentially what I concluded in my first post. I just wanted to give them a fair shake.

The only thing I'd give them is the ability to break a shield but even that is easily negated by a softwood facing that'll catch the axe and turn the tables.

It's really only a step up from a wooden cudgel. Hearing about all this chopping just annoys me because when the technique presented is inaccurate it gets people discussing the wrong pros/cons of the weapon.

>>1800781

So if I took the ax in OP's and post and rammed the top end of it into someone they wouldn't be impaled by the sharp point because it's not a knife?

>>1800781
>the world according to ESL
Genuis come back. I think axes are retarded too (so are swords to a point) but lets not go crazy here.

>>1800820
>People like to say armoured fighting is all 'thrusting between gaps' and this is no doubt true
True to an extent I meant to say or a factor at least but good luck doing it. It's clearly it was practically always a case of wrestling your opponent to the ground and finishing him with your dagger or a hard coup de grac. A halfsworded... sword and a conventionally gripped axe are essentially identical for all intents and purposes in that grapple.

>>1800825
The other poster is right to accuse you of speaking from purely anecdotal evidence or at least speculating but I actually also speculate that you're probably right.

It's doubtful that hand axes were ever used for stabbing with the butt of the weapon (i assume that's what you mean by the toe?) but we know for sure that Poleaxe fighting transferred directly from martial arts learned from the staff where the majority of the fight was indeed by controlling the opponent with the butt with the head retracted ready for devestating strikes made worse by the metal fitting.

>>1800669
16th century is 1501 to 1600 AD

File: 1475783266318.png (1MB, 1200x750px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x750px

>>1799855
>>1799803
Thanks for the information.

File: 1462912311224.jpg (31KB, 520x436px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 520x436px

>>1797848

>>1800871
They are actually wrong, as you can just easily grab a sharp part of the sword. Also, gauntlets do not offer (metal) protection of your inner part of hand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwuQPfvSSlo

>>1800911
That's what they were saying. All they said was that a fighter would be wearing gloves. Since this thread is heavily focussed on the battlefield they weren't wrong.

Also
>Skallagrim

>>1797848
The southern Song used them to counter Jin cataphracts.

>>1800542
Because formations naturally push forward. It wasn't unheard of for pike on pike encounters to devolve into a brawl with daggers.

>>1800639
>Swords are reltively hard to use correctly.
Sword, axes, hammers, and maces literally all use the same training tool:
A fucking stick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgq1wiPKzzI

>>1800781
Guess what:
If there's a pointy bit facing towards the top, you can stab with it. Axes often have these.

>>1800844
>A halfsworded... sword and a conventionally gripped axe are essentially identical for all intents and purposes in that grapple.
Yeah no. One of them can be put through your opponents visor or voiders, or jammed into an armpit and used to lever that way.

The other can't. The short axe is flatly inferior in the grapple.

>>1797900
try piercing a piece of wood by thrusting an axe at it

>>1802345
>lever
You know what you're taking about. Most real plate has articulation so tight you can't get into armpits or the groin. There's no levering it's tripping and tackling throws with a weapon in the way. War swords don't flex that much but if you were to use a weapon as some sort of weapon a good solid wood or steel shaft would be far better for it than a flexing sword blade.

>>1802626
Some sort of lever*

>>1802626
Literally every single fucking manual has swords used as a lever.

>Most real plate has articulation so tight you can't get into armpits
That's interesting, given that armpits are usually guarded by mail voiders rather than plate.

>a good solid wood or steel shaft would be far better for it than a flexing sword blade.
Yes, of course. Those silly, fleixble swords. It's like you don't know what diamond cross sections are for, or the effect half swording has on flex.

Ignore the use of the sword as a lever at 2:40 in this video.
Clearly an axe would have worked better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4k-vjdeZO4

>>1802702
And, of course, ignore the constant, nimble use of the point to threaten or kill when halfswording shown in the video. We all know that inflicting minor wounds with the horn of an axe would have been better.

>>1802702
all of it is possible with a long shafted axe or a short staff or whatever. The weapon shouldn't matter and it doesn't. The techniques are all the same.

Swords are great but this threads blowing their dominance out of proportion.

>>1802776
>all of it is possible with a long shafted axe or a short staff or whatever.
Aside from literally every single strike they make with the point.

>>1802789
which isn't very many grappling techniques which is what I was talking about earlier. Swords being great doesn't make axes shit. The difference when your toe to toe is marginal. Any weapon is in the way at that point.

>>1799893
>F=ma^2
I expected no less from the "and Humanities" board.

F=m*a
Ek=(1/2)*m*v^2

The second ecuation is the one you want.

>>1802821
Jesus fucking christ.

>which isn't very many grappling techniques which is what I was talking about earlier.
No. You've repatedly claimed they're identical in the grapple. IE, no advantage. You're wrong. The thrusting point on the sword gives clear advantages, and you've been presented with evidence of such. This is ignoring that, again, primary sources SHOW the fucking sword being used to thrust into gaps and kill men in armor, and teach you how to do so.

>Any weapon is in the way at that point.
Except you've been provided with very clear proof that the weapons can be an are used as levers to control oppenents and force them down, as well as outright kill them, even when within biting range of the target.

And, again, the primary sources disagree, or manuals would point men in an armored fight towards simply throwing their swords at opponents rather than half-swording with them.

You're wrong. Full stop.

>>1802838
He's also missing the part where "force" isn't enough when trying to determine the ability of a hand weapon to inflict harm.

>>1802874
That's what I'm talking about. He wants kinetic energy, not force.

>>1802874
It's a limitation of HEMA compared to other martial arts that ranges are so poorly categorised. Grappling range as I describe it and in most martial arts is within such close measure you can't get your point on or throw fists. Wrestling Ringen.

In Blossfechten Swords are better at medium and close range the point is valuable at grappling range it makes no difference. Once they're on the ground and your not a blunt force trauma weapon is every bit as lethal as a point.

>no mention of Franciscas yet.

>>1802928
They. Are. In. Grappling. Range.

This is not hard to fucking grasp. You can clearly see them continuing to use swords even when close enough to bite.

Your argument is retarded an essentially consists of
>"WELL IF THEY RAN INTO EACH OTHER WHAT THEN"
The sword has an advantage over the axe in plate armor. It keeps that advantage well into wrestling distance.

>Grappling range as I describe it and in most martial arts is within such close measure you can't get your point on or throw fists. Wrestling Ringen.

No, this is you moving the fucking goalposts again, as you earlier tried to discount points by claiming that plate completely covers the armpit.

You then followed up with arguments about axes doing all the same things.

Pick an argument and stick to it, or admit that you're wrong.

>>1802944
Nobody cares about franciscas.

>>1802981
Calm down mate. This isn't a which is better thread it's an axes are shit thread and you and all the others haters are wrong there. Thousands of years of use by warriors with much better experience and skill than either of us proves that.

If you are at close range with an opponent and half sword a thrust to his visor with an axe the fact no point will pass inside his helmet will make very little difference he will go on his whole hard.

Swords are not the be all and end all. They are just another weapon one you can learn all other weapons use by mastering which is why they take up the bulk of western manuals.

>>1802981
>the signature weapon of the people that would come to define Western Europe for most of the Middle Ages
>nobody cares

>>1802981
>boxing is within grappling range

>>1803024
Correct. Nobody cares. The spear and sword were far more important to the frank success,the Francisca itself is meme tier.

>>1803035
>standing with shoulders and inch or so apart
>grabbing and throwing
>not grappling range

>>1803021
>Calm down mate. This isn't a which is better thread it's an axes are shit thread and you and all the others haters are wrong there.
That doesn't change the fact that every single claim you've made is WRONG.


>If you are at close range with an opponent and half sword a thrust to his visor with an axe the fact no point will pass inside his helmet will make very little difference he will go on his whole hard.
Are you trying to claim that jabbing an axe ineffectually into a visor will topple opponents now?
No. There are documented instances of people being struck repeatedly with poleaxes and keeping to their feet, or taking upwards of twenty blows-most of them while on the ground-and continuing to engage in combat.

Thrusting an axe into a helmet is going to do jack shit to an opponent unless it's an open faced helm.

>>1803037
You're completely ignoring the psychological aspect of warfare. Everyone had spears and swords; Franks were more successful because of their tactics, which included pre-emptive use of franciscas.

>>1803054
>Are you trying to claim that jabbing an axe ineffectually into a visor will topple opponents now?
Yes absolutely. It's still trained with far lighter rifles today. Your examples of outliers doesn't change the fact it works and works regularly. Pommel strikes, butt strokes, Punyo strikes all point free thrusts.

>>1803066
>far lighter rifles

what rifle weights far less than 1kg?

>>1803066
>Yes absolutely. It's still trained with far lighter rifles today.
>rifles
>lighter
No, and fuck you. The m4, which is specifically used because it is relatively light and handy, weighs as much empty as a full on fucking poleaxe. Nor are they used to thrust into steel armor, you deliver strikes to the face and jaw, which modern helmets do not cover.

>Pommel strikes
Weren't going to knock a man over unless already unbalanced.

The fact that you are trying to argue that being struck in the visor with a stick is as deadly as being stabbed in the face is astonishing.

Why the fuck do you think poleaxes had thrusting points on them?

>>1803076
Who's moving the goal posts now?

Since we can't prove it in person this is a cringeworthy at this point so I'll concede to your superior martial arts knowledge. Axes are harmless useless weapons after all.

>>1797848
Did really need to axe this OP?

>>1803090
>post easily disprovable claim to support argument
>directly refuted
>MUH GOALPOSTS
>Proceeds to strawman
/his/ - History & Humanities

>>1803086
>Why the fuck do you think poleaxes had thrusting points on them?

I really hope you're rge same guy spamming how you can't give point with an axe.

>>1803107
You can, but the vast majority of handaxes axes would be difficult or impossible to use against plate in such a fashion.

>>1799964
b-but Billy Connolly on a war hog.

Ironically, his nickname is the "big yin," for the non caledonians among us.

>>1799771
The knight on the right looks like Pepe.

>>1797848
>Why would anyone use an axe over a sword?

Dane axes were gone by 14th C. Fighting had evolved to the point where axe users didnt survive battles and none were left.

2hp > 2hb > 2hs > 1hb > 1hs > 1hp

Polearms win. Spears win. Weight wins.

>>1800453
If you get hit in the head by a fully swung axe or mace, it doesn't matter if you're wearing a helmet, or how thick it is. Either the helmet collapses in and you die, it split and you die, or the sheer force of the blow knocks you out cold.

>>1800598
Fuck off revisionist Italian fuck