Why would anyone use an axe over any other weapon? >not

>>48672763

It's really heavy at one end and it transfers all its energy to a small point. It's really quite devastating. It's the best parts of an edged weapon and a smashing weapon.

They're engaged with a race war against the Ents.

>Why not use a pickaxe
You get better leverage from it than a sword and you are more likely to get into the small gaps of armor.

>>48672841

But a good mace does that too

>>48672763
Because they're really choppy

File: wartooth.jpg (44KB, 404x396px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 404x396px

>>48672763
Pardon? Why would I use an axe?

I think the better question is, how often are you going to chop through doors to raid villages with your piddly sword? And if you swap to a mace, how would you decapitate the heretics? Come on anon, think.

>>48672763
Pretty cheap.

Nearly as nimble as a sword, but more choppy.

You can actually use it on normal people, unlike a mace.
>>48672864
A good mace is really short, and only good for armour. Because, you know, it can't cut.

File: S5730-920-1.jpg (48KB, 920x520px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 920x520px

>>48672856
Because the warhammer already has the pickaxe like spike

>>48672874
>posts a viking guys who valued swords more
>also implying there is any difference in what weapon you use to raid villagers aka unarmed people

>>48672878
What if you're a filthy miner like me, who can't get a hold onto fancy smancy weapons like Thaddeus Silvercock over there.

>>48672875
Oh yes, and I forgot to mention; it reks maille.
>>48672910
You can probably buy a shitty messer or something. Or just use a quarterstaff.

>>48672910
Simple. Steal some of the valuable ore for yourself, sell it and buy yourself a fancy new weapon.

>>48672763
I mean, this is a bait thread but I'll take it.

An axe could be quite good against shields, was more likely to incap a soldier you hit with it and had utility based on the rear end. (ie pick, hook, or none if it were a hand axe, but then you could toss it too) As far as nimble goes, well, to get properly nimble with a sword took a lot of practice and a dedicated producer of swords. I mean, theres a reason swords werent the standard armament for large scale war for a lot of folks despite what media would tell you.

Course I usually look back round ~3500bc when humans really first started kicking the shit out of each other. Uruk, Ur, and so on.

I dunno mate, maybe it has a place based on the materials and training available to the culture that was using it? Maybe there isnt a single superior weapon that defeats all weapons because terrain, training, supplies, supporting artisans and culture not to mention the indiviual vagaries of the strategic commander, and quality of the staff officers playing an enormous role in the winner of the battle, not to mention the war.

I just dunno man. What thes the point of a thread like this? Really? Axe, katana, spear. Lets lump my dick in there because I've personaly slain a few dragons with it.

>>48672763
Far more agile than a mace and still has enough punch to fuck up armour that a sword can't. I'd take one over a sword any day.

File: axe-you-something.jpg (98KB, 1110x520px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1110x520px

>>48672763
>choosing a sidearm over your main weapon

Fight me, faget.

>>48672956
Enjoy your death peasant.

>>48672894
>2 lines of greentext with no substantial argument or proof of point outside of arbitrary conjecture
Like I said, how are you going to smash hardened oak doors with your piddly ass sword? I'm sure we've all seen forged in fire, your sword is going to chip and shatter in a hilarious manner, while my clump of vaguely sharpened iron on a stick is both cheap to produce, and more effective for that application. A mixed raiding party of axes and swords will almost always be more effective than a party filled with swords, assuming even numbers and quality of equipment.

>>48672875
>only good for armour
I don't get this. Are talking from a game perspective? You better be or there might be something wrong with you perception of potential injury.

File: halberd.png (141KB, 850x850px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 850x850px

>>48672958
Fucking c'mere so I can deck ya cunt.

>>48672975
You fucking kick the door down you pussy.

>>48672963
My axe is swifter than mace and no knaves' sword can harm my plate armour. Check mate you in-bred serf.

>>48672958
Get back in line Hansel. The Swiss are charging with their pikes again.

>>48672946
>I mean, theres a reason swords werent the standard armament for large scale war for a lot of folks despite what media would tell you.
Yeah, but that's also 'cause they're short and generally shit for actual warfare (just like the kind of axes OP's probably talking about, seeing as pollaxes are fairly obviously awesome in combat).
>>48672963
You need full plate armour to feasibly use a mace and not be performing an elaborate form of suicide.
>>48672986
Getting a bone broken is a whole level below geting an arm sliced off.

>>48672998
>kicking down a hardened oak door that's potentially buttressed
Enjoy your dislocated hip or separated shoulder. If you're strong enough to kick down a door like that, using an axe would make it pathetically easy.

>>48673002
>reloads crossbow from the rampart

>>48673016
What kind of village has such doors? Richfagistan?

>>48673008
Although you can use long, two-handed maces without full plate.

>>48673018
>Orders commoners to load a trebuchet

Y'all fags need daggers in your lives. Those dinky little things can provide innumerable uses to the creative minds.

>>48673008
>Getting a bone broken is a whole level below geting an arm sliced off
You're still fucked no matter what.
>Its just a broken arm, its still good
>*takes mace to the face

>>48673031
>this amount of pleb
Basically everywhere oak trees grow, and they're quite common. It was a standard building material at the time for normal peasants. Have fun raiding these "unarmed townsfolk" when your stupid sword can't cut through a single door with a bunch of assorted shit behind it.

>>48673031

Every place that has fucking trees and nearly competent woodworkers.

>>48673058
>signals the cavalry countercharge

>>48673062
This stuff is relative. You can fight with a broken arm. You can even fight with broken ribs. Yes, you can do serious damage with a mace, but it's not close to the damage you can do with a sword (or an axe). You're in a LOT of trouble if you have an amputated limb, or thrust wounds in the chest.

Here's an Easton on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBBC4MX5Nxg

There's others, if you can be bothered to search.
>>48673071
>not just setting everything on fire
Who's the pleb now?

>>48673061
This, fucking love me some dagger action.
Even better with poisons applied.

All other weapons are for idiots that don't know how to sneak.

>>48673061
>>48673110
You know what's better than poisoned daggers?

Fucking poison.

You know what's better than poison?

Traitors.

You know what's better than traitors?

Keeping people in line so you don't need to deal with them in the first place.

>>48673110
>fail ambush
>the guy draws his sword
>you're dead because he has reach advantage

great fucking weapon

File: Are you alien stoned.jpg (85KB, 553x674px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 553x674px

>>48673061
Shit, you almost got me. 8/10.

>>48673104
>setting FIRE HARDENED OAK on fire
You could try, but that shit isn't burning any time soon. You're more likely to burn their thatched roofs than the door, and either way, using an axe is still better.

>>48673095
>has pikes
>>48673167
I was talking about the roofs.

>>48673139
Yeah but keeping people in line just isn't stabby enough, y'know?
I mean, sure not having traitors is great and all but then I have no reason to apply poison and stab captain Sterosa in his sleep.

>>48673164
Simple, don't fail.
Also use a dagger that has stopping power.
Nobody said a stiletto was a good choice for anything but opening letters.

>>48673184
Strangling is easier. More fun, too, for all involved. Stabbing is just...anticlimactic.

>>48673164
>Fight guy in a cave and his sword scraps across the wall
>Stab him in the face with superior dagger
What you gonna do now?

>>48672763
It sacrifices some of the smashiness of a mace for the cuttiness of a sword. It's like a smashy sword, why wouldn't you want to smash someone and cut them at the same time?

>>48673176
>I was talking about the roofs.
No, you weren't because you would have said that in the first place. Check and mate.
>Professional Atheism: 1
>People Who Like Swords: 0

>>48673202
I did. So did Italian assassins. Stilettos are pretty good.

Cinquedeas are more suited for actual fighting, however.
>>48673212
Half sword.

>>48673104
My point is you're kinda overestimating the human body's capability to perform while having injuries even with adrenaline. There would be no ignoring a broken bone or cracked ribs, unless you're from hollywood. There would be no grunting and then angrily swinging back, you take that kind of injury and you're gonna drop.

>>48672763
>Why would anyone use an axe over any other weapon?
Cost.
A sword is significantly more expensive, and a much more specialized of a tool then an axe.

>>48673176
>Loads cannons
>insults enemies mothers.

File: ph-0.jpg (19KB, 640x320px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 640x320px

>>48672878
>>48672856
What about just a regular war pick?

>>48673263
and harder to make

Axes are cheap to make, require less steel (usually) and will both slice flesh and pulverize bone. They are reasonably useful against armor and can mount a piercing spike on their reverse side. Axe heads can be shaped to make pulling an enemy's shield aside easier. Finally, axes are just very instinctive weapons - anyone who can use a club can use an axe with a modicum of proficiency.

Their main disadvantages are their point of balance being clumsy, their short reach, and the lack of hand protection.

>>48673257
You severely underestimate it. People get shot; they don't drop, they keep going. And eventually drop, yes, but hell -- even a few seconds is a loooong time in fighting.
>>48673263
Not by the later medieval period, at least. I think you're correct for beforehand, however.

That said, war axes are exactly as specialised as a sword. You can't cut trees with a war axe.

>>48673164
What if the individual in specific cannot bring in their weapon into an area. The dagger but it's nature is concealable and works wonders as a holdout weapon

>>48673110
Knife fighting - AKA "The winner dies in hospital"

>>48673282
>Flanks with Cavalry
>Hakkaa päälle!

>>48673203
Stabbing on it's own anon.
That's what the poison is for.
I mean, let's face it. A dagger is the tool of a master, and what master cannot make even a simple task into a work of art.

I mean, apply a light poison and make it look like you're botching the job. Maybe stab the wrong place or get a light cut off on their face.
After about a minute of the wound being there the poison is already in their system and it starts.
Depending on your poison they'll shake a little, maybe turn purple. My poison? Hand crafted for maximum potency, like magic in a vial. First comes the blood, from their mouth and eyes. Sometimes the ears. Then comes the spasms, never gentle.
Then you get to smell it. The burning. They always check the wound, always. Their faces are priceless.

>>48673308
You know, most people would have a sword and a dagger.
>>48673319
Same's true of most armed fighting.

File: drop it like it's hat.webm (3MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x281px

>>48673338
>this post

These threads always assume ancient people were genius weaponologists.
The truth is, the average idiot peasant would probably feel more comfortable with an axe since he uses one in his daily life. Others might pick an axe over a sword because it was cheaper, or they thought it looked scarier.
Its like how we have all these high tech modern guns, but some people still prefer the 1911

>>48673338
But you don't hold them in your arms as they die, do you? You don't spend every single second killing them. Strangling is not like your one-touch method; you must constantly strangle to kill. And your opponent will fight it, every moment, but they can't change anything. Only with strangling do you have true power, because they know everything about your plans, and yet they cannot change a thing. But you, in your infinite wisdom, may let them live, simply by -- letting go. Not so with your method; once you have touched the body, you are a slave to your poisons, just as much as they are.
>>48673401
The average peasant used swords and staffs you dumb fuck. Axes weren't cheaper. And, people were actually pretty knowledgeable about the stuff they used to routinely protect themselves from death.

>>48673368
Mission accomplished.

>>48673294
A shot from a modern day pistol has way less force than a mace blow. One is a tiny chunk of lead the other is a heavy slab of steel. I don't underestimate the human body, it would be frail under severe physical trauma, even the well trained ones. And a split second is plenty enough time for the opposition to land another blow.

If you've ever taken a strong serious punch before, then imagine that but harder, faster, and with jagged metal spikes.

Inb4 glorious Nippon steel

>>48673459
There're more Easton posts about this, but I'm lazy. Long and the short of it is there's definite evidence of people fighting after large wounds, and maces deal the least of all wounds.

>>48672763
Uses of Axe
>Chop wood to build boat and sail to england
>Cut english monk arteries like vikings did
>Stab and prod them to make sure their god did not ressurect them
>smash the nuns with the flat end and rape them in the confession booth
>chop down monk house for firewood and make a grand fire
>burn corpses on the fire and dance around it while snorting a bit of death cap
>pray to thor for him to enchant your axe with lightning +1
>go home with gold and jewelry to sexy nordic wife and kids and herd sheep
I love axes

File: YZMIDvl.jpg (270KB, 1200x866px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 1200x866px

>>48672763
Why didn't everyone just use the Zanbato?

>>48673459
>less force
you know that impact force is impulse right? so it involves not only mass but also velocity, in fact, it is the product of the two which is of interest, which means fast bullets are perfectly capable of imparting more force upon impact than a mace swing from peasant mcpoor

>>48673328
>missile volley

>>48672763
axes are harder to deflect because of how much force you can put behind the point

>>48673480
>be a nigger who attacks unarmed people
>pretend to be tough
>meet Saxon warriors
>get trounced
>meet Franks
>get trounced
>get driven away from Ireland
>get driven away from America by stone age burgerclaps
>get trounced by Moors in Spain
>have Hedeby burned down by Slavs

>>48672763
Because it is there and you have nothing other handy.

>>48672763
They beat swords in the triad.

>>48673437
It's never about the control. Never has been.
Sure the level of power you get, the control from strangling is... Euphoric. But the poisons are art.
Strangling isn't flashy enough, almost too much of a fight. You don't even get to see the despair unless you do it in front of a mirror.
Poisons are just simple better.

>>48673544
>be a nigger
>nigger
So you are not talking about vikings then? Don't know why you are replying to me.

>>48673544
Alternatively
>be a normal, sane, right-thinking person who wants to get filthy rich, not die on some gods-forsaken battlefield for no good reason
Or, to put it another way
>get trounced by Saxons
>get trounced by Franks
>get trounced by Irish
>get trounced by Moors
>still have massive empire
>>48673572
You don't see the despair?

You are looking them in the eyes, of course.

Flashiness is...unnecessary, and your flaw. You act like you are performing, but who are you performing to? Surely not yourself. Your opponent? But your opponent is for your use, not his. No; do what is best, what is most effective, what is good (they are all the same thing), not what is most superficially gratifying.

There is an art to ugliness. It is a much finer one than simple beauty, with all its cheap tricks.

>>48673585
>snownigger strikes again

>>48672894
First, Vikings used both swords and axes. Second, they didn't wear fucking horned helmets.

>>48673649
>snowniggers
I'll admit, I have never heard of this new type of pokenigger. Sandniggers were the last niggermon I heard of.

File: ed dseoif and edydgh.jpg (12KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 275x183px

>>48672874
>>48672975
>how often are you going to chop through doors to raid villages with your piddly sword?
How often are you going to chop through doors with your war axe that has a blade as thin as a sword's?

You don't cut wood with an axe you use to cut people, a woodcutting axe is a short thick wedge, a war axe's head is longer, much thinner, and is typically that constant thinness all the way to the haft.

>>48673437
I thought thr average peasant used spears or polearms?
people also drank from lead cups, and thought that flies grew from meat. While there were plenty of brilliant ancient warriors what makes you think that most weren't just medieval version of what /k/ calls "Fudds"?

>>48673544
>conquer Great Britain
>create the world's greatest empire
Normans were vikings too.

>>48673627
I'd love to RP with you sometime anon.

>>48673437
>Axes weren't cheaper.

Yes they were.

>>48673753
>They were descended from Norse ("Norman" comes from "Norseman"[1]) raiders and pirates from Denmark, Iceland and Norway
See when you put pre-medieval scandinavian genes in populations everything is better

>>48673748
>I thought thr average peasant used spears or polearms?
In war, maybe. I thought we were talking out-and-about, 'cause the average peasant using a spear or polearm would be in war, and the average peasant in war would be a trained soldier.
>>48673770
I think you just did.
>>48673782
Not by any appreciable amount, assuming you're not getting the good stuff.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy1fcRG0A3g

>>48673694
They also used spears which in fact was their most common weapon. That's right faggots even axe posterboys only used the piece of shit axes only as sidearms.

>>48673753
No you fucking idiot by the time they conquered England they were genetically french. Norse married with the locals you dumb scandifag.

>>48673824
"""French"""

>>48673753
>Normans were vikings too.

TOP KEK. No, they weren't. Normans were Frenchmen who descended from vikings. Even then, by the time of William the Conqueror the Normans were already heavily mixed with the local pre-Norman French that lived in what is now known as Normandy.

They spoke French, considered themselves French, lived in France, and were subjects of the King of France.

Normans are not, never were, and never will be vikings. If anything, the Saxons were closer to vikings than the Normans were. The Saxons had housecarls (Nordic equivalent is the huscarl) who went into battle carrying two-handed axes. After the Normans defeated the Saxons, many Saxon warriors joined the Varangian Guard.

>>48672763
Practical. Ever tried chopping a tree down with a sword or a mace?
Axes are versatile.

>>48673807
Well weapons are typically used for war, and irl murderhobos weren't all that common

the vikings are dead

>>48673880
Weapons are used for many more purposes than war, from duelling to self-defence to -- sport.
>>48673871
Ever tried chopping a tree down with a war axe?

They're not THAT versatile.
>>48673859
Normans were Normans.

>>48673871
Prepare to get assaulted by angry nerds who will tell you that battle axes could never be used as tools, and that domestic axes COULD NEVER be used in battle.

>>48672763
>>>/k/
But since you posted it in here and I saw it, I'll answer you here.

1) Resources.
Less metal for a metal weapon. Steel and iron were expensive, and the fact that your haft was wood made them way cheaper.

2) Availability
While there are axes made for war, many people fought with tool axes, which are then used because you already have a decent weapon and cant afford a better one.

3) Binding at Range
with a 'battle' axe (not 2 sided, simply one that has curves behind the blade like those shown on the example), you can bind your opponent's weapon with the head of your weapon, rendering their weapon useless to them and under your control. Options from here generally involve knifing your opponent while they try to regain their weapon.

4) Options, like a hammer
axes can have a spike, like a hammer, which allows them to punch through softer armor and beat people somewhat like a hammer does.

5) Damage profile and Cleaving
Unlike traditional swords, which do struggle to kill in single blows unless the user is very well trained, axes, with greater mass directly behind the blade, bite deeper and are able to sever limbs, something even heavier, shorter swords like messers or broadswords can struggle to accomplish.

6) Skill to produce
Because swords have to have crossguards mounted above handles set in place with a pommel over a tang, they take skill to properly construct. Axes by comparison are easier to put together, so they are seen, related someone to point 1, as an easier AND cheaper weapon to mass produce.

7) Early Period Strength
Swords before steel were prone to bending or breaking, the classic issue of either being soft and malleable or hand and brittle. Axes were, then, a way of making a smaller, more dense weapon that was not as likely to break on you if it came into contact with something hard.

File: 1435391904251.jpg (111KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 720x960px

>>48673916
>Ever tried chopping a tree down with a war axe?
.. have you?

>>48673936
No, but some richer buggers have.

>>48672763
Why would anyone choose anything that isn't a katana? Modern science shows that nothing can stand up to their cutting power.

>>48673947
Nothing except the macuahuitl, I think you mean.

It's even more choppy than the falcata.

>>48673916
Sport/duels don't really apply to this discussion. Its like saying "why would anyone ever learn karate, when kendo is better".

>>48673916

They were French, you dumb cunt.

>>48673980
They were Norman, you butthurt Frog.

>>48673946
As a modern viking, I have chopped a lot of wood with a steel axe for my cabin's fireplace. In addition, my fucking uncle died in the woods from a wood-chopping accident, hitting an artery in his foot while out there alone, and bled to death. It's a deadly weapon even if it is not a war axe.

>>48672763

>not as nimble as a sword
Being nimble is for faggots.
>shorter range
Maybe your girly axe, faggot
>not as smashy as a mace
Only if you swing it like a faggot.

>>48674001
People die when pianos fall on them. That doesn't make a piano a good weapon.

A sharpened lump of iron with a hole down through the back won't break. just needs sharpening and re-hafted occasionally.
The marauders multitool of choice.

>>48674022
depends on what you mean by a good weapon. I don't know what the kill rate is per falling piano, but it's probably higher than kill/bullet.

>>48673930
>Unlike traditional swords, which do struggle to kill in single blows unless the user is very well trained, axes, with greater mass directly behind the blade, bite deeper and are able to sever limbs,

People who casually tested some axes on dead animals reported that edge alignment is actually kinda tricky with axes.

So no, IRL they cleave less effectively than swords.

>>48674022
>That doesn't make a piano a good weapon

Someone hasn't fired a Canon in D Major

>>48674001
>as a modern viking

The piercing side is good for heavily armoured opponents whilst the slashing side is good against lightly armoured opponents, added to the fact its not as cumbersome as a mace. Its also light enough to wield in one hand making it a good option with a shield. The point being is that these weapons are all made for different uses with swords specialising in lightly armoured opponents (generally) and maces for heavily armoured opponents (generally). The benefit of an axe is the midpoint between the two, its a compromise, sort of the jack of all trades, master of none idea.

Reminder there was not even one successful military unit that used fucking axes as their primary weapons. I wonder why.

>>48674212
>Varangians

>>48674234
What about them? What was their military feat? Being defeated by turkroaches?

>>48674269
Good point.
>Turkroaches

>>48674212
Hav you eva seen a purpul ork? No? Dey da sneakiest.

>>48673282
>>48673328
>>48673522
Our men are fleeing from the battlefield! SHAMEFURR DISPRAY!

File: a71bc354502f6bd2c8cd8936c654103a.jpg (43KB, 516x720px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 516x720px

>>48673544
>it's the 'vikings were shit' meme
and next you're gonna tell me how katanas are the worst swords ever?

File: 1470603455473.jpg (363KB, 1532x763px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 1532x763px

>>48674369
>it's the vikings weren't shit meme

>>48674379
>it's the we completely ignore naval superiority of the vikings with the most advanced boats for its era mee
they were fucking sea raiders for fucks sake, not a crusading army

>>48674422
>It's the changing the goalposts meme
Who was talking about their navies in a conversation about axes?

>>48674379
>just lists the losses
i'm curious, how many battles did they win? has anyone compiled a list?
what's the ratio of wins to losses?

it's entirely possible that poster was a faggot lying by omission, but also entirely possible that he was right and the vikings were all literal pussies
but we can only assume the former until somebody actually completes the data here.

>>48674422
Oh really so they were good at killing unarmed people that's what I'm supposed to find impressive?

>>48673522
Unless you have a damn high rate of fire and really reactive troops who can shift their focus en mass to their flanks, that volley will not be enough to break the charge, merely kill a portion. and byt the time the rate of fire is high enough, we''re in a whole new ball game

>>48674445
>I'm too retarded to google battles involving vikings

>>48674442
>>48674451
jesus christ it's like you have a personal vendetta against whatever anon started this viking shit. I don't give a shit about you being impressed or not? What the actual fuck. Yes, they were basically akin to extreme-speed water-type women-rapers and thieves. I don't admire vikings for anything but their ships and beards desu.

File: [click].jpg (81KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1920x1080px

>>48674471
better than being so retarded as to take random shit people post on /tg/ at face value, i guess
oh well
vikings stronk, unbeatable army
viking steel folded 9000 times

>>48673980
William the Conqueror and his family going back 3 generations refused to pay taxes, never swore an oath of loyalty to the king, and regularly raided territory belonging to the Frankish King. They saw themselves as Norman, same as the way the Basques saw themselves as Basque. There is a reason that the French King did not order William to hand over the crown to him once he was King of England.

>>48674594
William was a fucking scary dude.
You didn't get to be that fat back then an not be really fucking scary.

>>48674445
Vikings lost battles when they went up against a foe who had trapped them and burned their boats. However, they did defeat the Kings of Northumbria, Mercia, several Frankish lords, and several Crown Claimants in Sicily. These battles listed in the meme raises around 20 battles in a history lasting over 200 years. These were people hired to fight to hold entire Kingdoms, (Sicily). Also the Byzantine war is bullshit, that was the Rus.

>>48674594
>William the Conqueror and his family going back 3 generations refused to pay taxes, never swore an oath of loyalty to the king, and regularly raided territory belonging to the Frankish King.
How was that unusual for vassals? It was not the norm, but more often than not vassals had their own agenda. That doesn't mean they weren't culturally and linguistically French at the time, and a far cry away from the Scandinavian invaders who had landed there a few centuries earlier.

This gets even sillier when the English try to argue that the Burgundians were French when they were actually independent, as opposed to the Normans until the conquest of England, because it allows them to say the French sold Jeanne d'Arc out themselves.

>>48674634
New Historical theory, anyone portrayed as Fat in pictures near the end of their life are the most badass. Henry VI, William I, etc. It seems to work!

Skinny kings are Stephen I, Louis the something (One who got offed by the French revolution), Phillip, he who lost an armada to a fleet of merchant ships lead by a Pirate. I think we have something here.

File: LluisXVI_Callet[1].jpg (70KB, 462x599px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 462x599px

>>48674803
>Louis the something (One who got offed by the French revolution)
>skinny
I'd call you ignorant but considering even a quick google search proves you wrong, you're just retarded.

>>48674754
Looking at how Frankish writers view the Normans. The Franks are the only people held as French at the time, because they go on to form the Kingdom of France, a long time after 1066.
The argument that the Normans are Franks would mean that the Picts and Scots in Scotland are Anglo Saxons during the wars of Robert the Bruce and Edward I. This blatently isn't the case. Intermarriage does not change the cultural identity of a people, until enforced cultural change is applied. The Normans were still raiding their neighbors, maintaining a fleet, and raping their prospective wives while the Frankish Kings and Nobles were petitioning the Pope for divorces, paying Basques and Lombards to fight for them, and pretending to have unchallenged authority over the middle of Europe.
Also, Burgundians were technically French, since the Argmanacs were French. It was a civil war over the throne, after the Kingdom of France had been established. Joan was sold the the French that the English were siding with at the time,

>>48673062
Or to the chest. A broken rib pierces your heart and you've got internal bleeding you can't mend and will kill you pretty quick, if you survived the initial blow of getting your heart smashed.

File: Louis16-1775.jpg (420KB, 1391x1770px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 1391x1770px

>>48674911
shit my bad. I was looking at the image of him when he was young. Also, its a joke dipshit. I pulled failed kings from history and then checked an image of them.

File: carte_langues_oil_oc[1].jpg (64KB, 450x468px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 450x468px

>>48675034
>because they go on to form the Kingdom of France, a long time after 1066
U wot m8? Are you seriously implying the kingdom of France didn't exist until Philippe Auguste?

>The argument that the Normans are Franks would mean that the Picts and Scots in Scotland are Anglo Saxons during the wars of Robert the Bruce and Edward I.
Did the Picts migrate to formerly Anglo-Saxon lands, mingle with both the local natives and nobility from the rest of Anglo-Saxon territories and switch to speaking Saxon? If not, you're comparing apples and oranges.

>Intermarriage does not change the cultural identity of a people
And Nordic settlers displaced the local population as much as they did in England: not at all. They didn't slash and burn the entire region to resettle it with 100% pure Scandinavians.

>The Normans were still raiding their neighbors, maintaining a fleet
Yeah, like most other vassals had their own affairs and internal disputes under weak monarchs.

>and raping their prospective wives
[Citation needed]

Pay close attention to the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normans#Settling_of_Normandy
>Before Rollo's arrival, its populations did not differ from Picardy or the Île-de-France, which were considered "Frankish".
>The descendants of Rollo's Vikings and their Frankish wives would replace the Norse religion and Old Norse language with Catholicism (Christianity) and the Gallo-Romance language of the local people, blending their maternal Frankish heritage with Old Norse traditions and customs to synthesize a unique "Norman" culture in the north of France
>The Norman language was forged by the adoption of the indigenous langue d'oïl branch of Romance by a Norse-speaking ruling class, and it developed into the regional language that survives today..

They were different from Paris, but less so than Toulousians, who did not speak langue d'oïl. Are you going to argue they weren't French?

>>48673513
i chuckled.

>>48672763

-Everyone and their mate has access to an axe
-Axes are dead cheap
-Axes can have great utility uses (woodcutting, hammering, climbing, hooking, weighting rope for throwing)
-Axes don't always look like purpose-built weapons and can be helpful for guerrilla fighters
-Axes are fantastic for hooking/trashing shields (trust me)
-The right kinds of axe can with some practice be thrown effectively
-Axes can have a spike on the reverse for puncturing armour
-Axe heads can be put on shafts of any length, so you can turn your handaxe into a dane axe with minimal effort
-Axes require far less care and maintenance than a sword
-Axes are a easier to carry about than swords, and much MUCH easier to carry about than a polearm, and still offers better protection than a dagger most of the time
-Axes are a lot easier to use than swords, bows and certain polearms

unarmored opponets - sword or spear
medium armored opponents - axe or halberd
heavy armored opponents - mace or poleaxe

long weapons for controlling the battle (i.e, make it hard for them to get close and thus dictating the flow) and groups

short for nimbleness and technique.


this is ofcourse a vast simplification, since there are lots of cons and pros with all weapons.


the best argument for an axe being a good weapon is the fact that they have been used in combat for a very long time, and a spear/axe/shield combo is probably my favorite soldier outfit

>>48674422
>Naval superiority
>Got shrek'd by 15 Greek ships.

>>48673008
History and Weaponsfag here, not it fucking isn't. Slicing off limbs is REALLY REALLY HARD because it requires a downwards, fully vertical blow, and the target has to be completely open. You also leave yourself completely open doing this. Chopping off a limb with an axe or a sword is going to be a rare fucking occurence, probably happening when the target is already downed. A mace is just as lethal, the only problem is that a mace needs to wind up to deliver a blow, because poking people with flanged maces doesn't really do much. Meanwhile with a sword, even if you can't cut due to a close formation, you can still thrust. Thrusting is actually the main way to deal mortal wounds anyway, not chopping.

File: 1457562909314.jpg (65KB, 680x1000px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 680x1000px

Dem aesthetics tho

>>48675103
>Also, its a joke dipshit.
Not him but if you're a fucking retard during the joke's construction it doesn't come across as a joke and you just come across as a retard.

Especially since that particular king had such a fat neck a fucking guillotine couldn't cut all the way through it the first time around.

>>48672763
It's more effective on certain types of armor, and perhaps more useful on a battlefield where finesse isn't quite as necessary.
Also, there's a lot of different kinds of axes, are you speaking of one kind in particular?

>>48672763
Fucking up romans and the religion of peace.

>>48672763
it looks cool

>>48674022
You can't swing a fucking piano

File: icastshellaleigh.jpg (49KB, 680x370px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 680x370px

>>48672763
Depends on the time period, really.
If its any time past the 13/1400's I'd rather be caught with a nice heavy stick than an axe.
If it's before then, an axe will do just fine, as it will make chopping through maille (and earlier untempered breastplates) quite easy.
Though, let's be honest here.
In both situations you'd rather be caught with a spear or a glaive of some sort.

I've always dreamt of this tactic where you have people with billhooks in the front of your line who drag people down by their ankles and then have a line of spears behind them who would stab down, over the billman, and into the tripped enemy. Thoughts?

>>48680987
Sounds a bit too complex to me, if it fails to work you're going to have problems.

File: his.jpg (11KB, 271x186px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 271x186px

>>48674369

File: tapasa.png (442KB, 1174x747px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 1174x747px

>not using your bare hands

>>48674001
Why aren't purging your lands of moorish filth?

>>48672910
Obviously shit at your job if you concern yourself with the business of the surface dwellers instead of delving deep.

>>48681052
Yeah, that was my thought too.
Perhaps a line of heavy infantry behind that, in case it went to the shitter.
But then that's avoidable AND expensive...

>>48672763
Nigga please you are such a 0/10 troll.

>>48674502
Not that nigger but

Varangians
>Technically norse merc units
>Axe users beating sword users and shock troops
>Stronk for quite a while
>Earned renown against the odds

I know it's kind of a stretch but it still works.

I can't afford a sword m'lord.

>>48680987
You're using two lines of semi well trained (because of timing) militia to stop one line of medium infantry.
It's good, but it's not the cheapest thing you can do with mil, and maybe it's just better to coordinate them to go full quill against cavalry (because you could then fuck up two lines of horses with three militia, less trained).

I dunno, it's good but I feel it needs adjustment.

>>48673401
Have you ever used a modernized 1911 anon? Beats any tacticool 9mil or .40s&w any day.

File: 1467857788261.jpg (799KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

799KB, 1080x1080px

>>48682733
>>48673401
>1911

Have fun dying to Jamal's gat, because you refused to get with the times, grandpa.

File: JimProfitSonic.jpg (207KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1280x800px

>>48672763
Swords are shit though. Expensive and mostly a sign of status. Axes were the slashing weapons realistically.

Granted I'd still trust spears more. Cheap, some range, and any commoner can pick one up and use it. If there's lots of armored foes, you want a heavy mace.

>>48672864
Have you ever chopped wood before? Have you ever tried to chop wood with one hand?
That's your comparison for an axe to a mace, as far as swinging things goes. The point of the long haft for the axe.
As vs swords, same point. Shifting fulcrum.

>>48683276
They're weapons for different circumstances from different time periods so it's kinda silly to compare them in the first place.

>>48673230
Stilettos are shit. You just don't need anything better when you stab from behind.

File: Untitled.jpg (17KB, 650x200px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 650x200px

>>48683102
>not using glorious older weapons

axe requires almost zero training for any peasant as he will already have been somewhat trained. Like americans with baseball bats

>>48678674
>implying Greek ships didn't shriek everyone

>>48683570
Stilettos are easy to hide, and you DO need something good at quickly stabbing through layers of thick clothing, with guaranteed no hassle. What you don't need is something good at slashing, when you're stabbing from behind.

>>48672763
They take a lot less metal to make, and less expertise from the blacksmith too.

That's why swords were weapons for nobles but axes were a lot more common.

>>48681220
Because there are still so many churches left to burn. First the religion must be purged, then the nation, then the planet.

>>48672763
they are decent against chainmail

>>48685273
Not as decent as a sword thrust.

>>48685427
That is objectively incorrect.

>>48685540
Your post is.

>>48685593
no

>>48685599
yes

>>48685611
no

>>48672763
its a good weapon and a good utility all in 1.
A good chop of an axe can deliver more damage against certain materials where mace and sword would do less damage (decapitate limb for example)

>>48672763
it can kill wood the best

>>48686243
Speak for yourself. Axes are sexy.

>>48686461
kek

It is thought that King Richard III was killed by an axe blow to the back of the helmet during a charge.

>>48687072
Pollaxe*

Or possibly a halberd.

>>48672763
Because they're versatile and badass and can break shields.

>>48674379
They nearly took over all of England dumbass they clearly weren't shit.

But I suppose in your mind any army that loses is automatically "shit". Those Romans were pretty shitty huh? I mean come on they were defeated by barbarians!

Idiot.

>>48673947
sharp katana vs. dull greatsword. Both are two handed weapons one has to edges that you can fuck up without having to worry too much about it until after the fight, the other has one edge that you have to preserve to keep effective.
Same cutting power.

>>48687282
Katanas are objectivly better at cutting. They're better from horseback, too. All in all, there are clear and obvious benefits to katanas over, say, a longsword.

The reverse is true. Longswords are better at thrusting, and consequently not entirely useless against plate armour. As for two edges...that's not such a big deal, outside of thrusting.

>>48687368
>They're better from horseback, too.

Oh look, someone who can't tell his Japanese swords apart.

>>48687497
Curved swords are better from horseback because they're better at slashing which is easier from horseback...although, "lancing" with straight swords is also valid.

>>48687514
And?

Axes were used to cleave shields apart.

Hammers(real ones that were essentially a weighted spike on a stick) are used to defeat plate armors.

One handed Swords are big utility knives since you can use them for all kinds of things.

>>48687565
Katanas are curved swords.

Curved. Swords.

File: group1.jpg (8KB, 300x442px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 300x442px

>>48687610
So because curvature can be nice on horseback, that means every curved sword is a cavalry sword?

>>48687861
Sabres became popular in part due to their use for cavalry, anon. And they were brought by the Turkic horse nomads.

But no, not every curved sword is built specifically for cavalry.

>>48687904
Yet you go on about cavalry use when talking about the katana, showing us all that you don't know jack shit about Japanese swords.

File: 1467489148462.jpg (112KB, 800x681px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 800x681px

So are we having this convo because in anime the shit tier untrained mooks who always get their collective asses handed to them by the hero typically carry axes and maces?

In anime and Jrpgs axes are the personal weapon of lev 1 crap and nameless thugs.

>>48673095
>teleports behind you
>tips zweihander

>>48688055
I just remember everyone Kenshiro fucks up always has little hatchets on them.

File: not a murderer 100% trustworthy.jpg (191KB, 1280x900px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1280x900px

Post your favorite axes.

It has the momentum force of a mace in a cutting weapon. It's stronger than a sword, but it sacrifices being able to blast through armor like a mace for slicing flesh good.

>>48688032
Nice side stepping. You must be really confident in your arguments.

The term katana is used to mean "(curved) Japanese sword" from tachi to no-dachi, whether or not that's prescriptively accurate. And katanas would certainly have been used as sidearms, besides.

Which is irrelevant, anyway. This was about comparing the "greatsword" (innacurate itself) to the katana in general, not in history.

>>48683102
>dying to 9mm
anyone who does deserves it to be frank onichan.

>>48673016
>Enjoy your dislocated hip or separated shoulder.
Are you retarded son?
Why would you write both separated and dislocated as though they're different things? And anyone who can dislocate their hip with a kick has some disease weakening their joints 'cause that shit shouldn't be possble.

File: papers 97 copy.jpg (747KB, 819x1014px) Image search: [Google]

747KB, 819x1014px

>>48688236
>The term katana is used to mean "(curved) Japanese sword" from tachi to no-dachi,

Yeah I'm sure you know far better than the NBTHK or the NTHK or the guys over at the Tokyo National Museum what these words mean. Those morons all label shit as if the katana and tachi where different things!

>>48688620
I'm sure they're all extremely familiar with chinese finger-dancing boards.

>>48672763
The hook is designed to pull shields and thus be able to strike opponents more easily with an offhand weapon. Hence sword and axe dual wielding tropes.

>>48672763
it's hard to maneuver an axe because of how he weights more on the edge.

>>48687368
The european swords contemporary to the katana were full greatswords, like zweihanders. You're comparing the katana to a weapon that was centuries behind it.

>>48689512
Yeah, because anything else is absurd. You don't do "Spanish Hidalgo vs. Samurai", you do "Knight vs. Samurai".

That said, contemporary swords included rapiers, sabres, spada da lato and broadswords too. Which could arguably be closer, even if they're one-handed.

>>48672763
Because it's more nimble than a mace and more smashy than a sword. Range is dependent on the specific ax. If you opponent is wearing "medium" armor like mail then you need a medium weapon. Since mail was the primary armor for like 1,000 years the ax was a good choice during that time. Once heavier plate armors started appearing people switched to dedicated anti-armor weapons.

>>48685427
A lot more decent, actually. Ever seen any real test footages with riveted mail? And even if the axe doesn't cut through mail, it will transfer enough shock to break bones.

Why do white people get so bent out of shape about muh viking heritage

>>48688241
You do realize the FBI did a study on this with modern ammunition and realized that the 9mil ammo simply has more supply and demand, which increases competiton. Which in turn means that quality generally is going to increase on the upper end. The results ended up with good 9mil ammo pretty much outclassing .45 in every way.

>>48691783
Because literally all of them are either descended from them, or descended from people who got fucked up by them.

File: soldiers-from-the-foreign-legion-d19f-diaporama[1].jpg (213KB, 2048x1407px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 2048x1407px

>Named after a throwing axe
>Never stopped using axes
Why don't you ask the French?

File: 1467645265939.jpg (41KB, 403x1000px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 403x1000px

>>48688131

>>48672763
Axe heads are easy to hammer out. The other half is a common piece of wood. They're cheap and easy to make. Swords take longer, use more metal, and are easier to make bad; requiring skilled worksmanship.

Budget and availability.

>>48691783
For the same reason you chimp out about your kangz n SHEEEEEIT

>>48689555
They're also all better, especially the more martial rapiers.

File: Art.jpg (5MB, 3000x2528px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 3000x2528px

>>48688131

>>48672763
Because you use it with a shield. It hits harder than a sword and range and nimbleness don't really matter so much.

>>48672763
> Sword
> Good for anything other than show off
Swords was trash, young one.

>>48694160
I like to read these armchair weaponmaster threads for retarded posts like these.

>>48694097
What about longaxes?

#notallaxes

>>48694186
That's pretty autistic.

>>48673871
Fuck see>>48673745

File: 1464063433372.gif (327KB, 500x238px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 500x238px

>>48674174

>>48694344
>Hurr I r military expert, what's a pioneer?

>>48694424
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. I could cut my dick off to better appreciate your life choices, but that's a terrible idea so I won't. When you don't have an alternative, I'm sure it'll work well enough when compared to having nothing but if you can spare the room it's much better to have a proper axe for wood.

File: THE DWARVES HAVE NO WORDS FOR SUCH DEPRAVITY.png (46KB, 299x299px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 299x299px

>>48680925
Fuck you you can't tell me what to do

File: tumblr_nz5gh7aO9P1rrjmgoo1_1280.jpg (13KB, 800x364px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 800x364px

>>48694004
Eastern axes are always great.

>>48672763
>ctrl+F 'by this axe'
>0 results.
>ctrl+F 'Kull'
>0 results.

All of you are fucking plebeians.

>>48672856
IT WOULD GET STUCK. That is the only relevant and painfully obvious reason.

>>48673824
>>48673859
There were still soldiers cheering 'praise thor!' in william's force when they conquered england.

File: 3Bait5me.jpg (8KB, 258x195px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 258x195px

>>48691787

>>48701982
He is right though. 45 basically got trajection on the domestic market because they marketed it as causing critical hits on negros every single time after the Philippines.

>>48674001
>As a modern viking
>t. American with Nordic great-grandparents

> heavy as a mace
> Sharp as a sword
> Can hook enemy's shield
> Can chop wood
> Cheap

>>48672763
Because you're broke and have just been told by your father to go viking, so you steal his wood-chopping axe on the way.

File: 0e1.jpg (71KB, 680x510px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 680x510px

>>48672763
Why would you phrase a question in such a way that you can be disproved by even the most shallow reading of history?

Axes are one of the most ubiquitous weapons in history. Axes have seen use in literally every theater of war from ancient Mesopotamia to Vietnam.

Weapons that are actually bad do not survive contact with war for long periods of time. Axes were ubiquitous and therefore, axes were at the very least serviceable weapons. In fact, all evidence suggests that maces were, in fact, garbage weapons. This is a weapon design that has literally existed since the neolithic period and has never ONCE in ANY post-stoneage culture been the primary weapon of war, or even the primary sidearm of choice, whereas the axe has been identified culturally with several major civilizations.

>>48702750
You're obviously not going to find a modern viking in Scandinavia. A bunch of faggots masturbating to their daughters being raped by Somalians is all you will find there. The closest thing to vikings these days are Northern Canadians and Alaskans. Maybe some people in Montana or Idaho.

>>48702750
>nordic and African Great-Grandparents

Wherever he is, he must rape and also pillage.

>>48702872
>The closest thing to vikings these days are Northern Canadians and Alaskans

>huge fucking wellfare queens are the closest thing to vikings you'll find these days

The irony.

File: Ono_1.jpg (3MB, 3648x2736px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3648x2736px

>>48672763
You combine the smashing power of a hammer or axe, with the cutting edge of a blade.

Think about the very physics of the thing - most of the weight is in the blade, and when you swing it, not only is there energy from your arm, but the weight of the axe blade is going to add more force to your blow.

That's why a lot of cultures would just repurpose woodsmen's axes for weapons come wartime. They're damn effective at fucking shit up, where a sword requires a degree of training and skill and puts more weight into the hilt so you have to use the strength of your arm with each swing, and a mace isn't as cutty and its bludgeoning damage is most effective against well-armored opponents who rely on their armor blunting a cutting edge.

File: russian flail and axe.jpg (190KB, 1024x499px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1024x499px

Give me one good reason - just one - why anyone would use a flail, one-handed or two-handed variant.

It is literally the shittiest weapon. You couldn't even kill yourself with it properly except by accident.

File: zizka.jpg (35KB, 324x347px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 324x347px

>>48702978
Yea, it's not like the Hussites were so boss with flails that Europe basically decided to stop fighting them or anything.

>>48702991
They used wagons and guns, everyone knows that.

File: flail_hussite_war_weapon_b.jpg (152KB, 650x760px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 650x760px

>>48703023
And Peasant flails. It's their fucking national weapon.

And they couldn't afford wagons and guns in several of their early battles, being serfs, by and large, so they had to make do with what they had. And they had flails.

Yes, is the ball and chain flail stupid? Of course it is, and there's some pretty credible evidence that the damn thing was never actually used in any real sense. But we're talking about the peasant flail here, which is a whole other ballgame.

Axes are easy to make, require less metal. Spears and Axes came before swords and other things.

Typically you WOULDN'T use an axe before a sword but again you wouldn't use a sword before a lance or spear. Most medeival fighting involved spears, pikes and polearms first and swords were backup weapons. D&D rules were just kind of retarded and ruined everyones perception of how medeival combat happened.

>>48702978
They're easy to retool and they rek plate. There you go.

>>48672763
I have an Ax

>>48672946
Swords
Armor piercing 1/3
Stabbing 2/3
Slashing 2/3
Clubbing 2/3
Range 2/3

Spear
Armor piercing 2/3
Stabbing 3/3
Slashing 1/3
Clubbing 1/3
Range 3/3

Mace
Armor piercing 3/3
Stabbing 1/3
Slashing 1/3
Clubbing 3/3
Range 1/3

Axe
Armor piercing 2/3
Stabbing 1/3
Slashclubbing 3/3
Reach 2/3, 3/3 for poleaxes. Which also make their slashclubbing 4/3.

File: diablo_3_fanart___crusader_by_m_hugo-d7a3ush.jpg (150KB, 1130x706px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1130x706px

>>48702978
The chain links make them extra good for SMITING!