Why would anyone who can afford a sword buy an axe instead? Once

>>49079202

because they look cool in their own way

>>49079202
You're a dwarf and it's your culture, or something.

File: pasta.jpg (74KB, 565x376px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 565x376px

>ctrl+f "game"

>>>/his/
>>>/k/

>>49079202
As someone who owns the exact axe in your picture, I got it do forestry stuff. You don't want to use your sword for felling trees or splitting wood.

>>49079202
Oh, it's that kind of thread...

>>49079202
A scout or ranger who wants to cut back on weight while maximizing utility could keep an ax over s word simply because it will serve a purpose other than fighting.

>>49079297
Yeah using battle axe for woodchopping or vice versa is such a great idea anon I wonder why /tg/ has an opinion of being the least informated board.

Axes are useful to break shields or hook them down in a shield wall against shield wall situation.

File: Tabar zin.jpg (18KB, 600x290px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 600x290px

>>49079202

You ever heard of a "throwing sword"?

No? Because there's never been such a thing. But a throwing axe?

>>49079313
Learn to read nigger, I never said battle axe.

>>49079314
Average fantasy adventurer living in generic LOTR rip off where the only ''formation'' is a hooligan charge surely encounters plenty of shieldwalls on his way.

File: Lucy_the_Axe.png (6KB, 64x64px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 64x64px

>"Say that to my face!"

File: headclunk.jpg (19KB, 225x348px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 225x348px

>>49079350

>yfw shieldwalls are actually mentioned in lord of the rings

>>49079337
I think those are usually called "knives", bud.
Although a disturbingly large amount of scifi/fantasy authors write about throwing a sword at someone. I guess because "so badass".

>>49079337
>You ever heard of a "throwing sword"?
Actually regular swords were thrown sometimes to surprise an enemy. Thrown objects have great penetration. If you manage to hit unarmored guy with a sword in his torso, it will disable or kill him.

>>49079380

Usually when I see it in fantasy books (I don't read as much sci-fi) it's either a desperate or retarded move, and most of the characters remark on it.

Like in 9 Princes in Amber, possibly the best example.

File: austrailia.jpg (127KB, 700x1317px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 700x1317px

Here's the actual answer, in case anyone's curious:

Different weapons are ideal for different engagements. Saying one is "better" requires asking the question "better for what?" There are rapier situations, longsword situations, spear situations. Here's an example of an ax situation:

It's 800, you're in northern Europe, and you're fighting in a shield wall, clashing with another shield wall. Your opponent is wearing a helmet and guarding himself with a shield. You can't flank him, stabbing at his toes isn't working for shit. You really wish you could just smash his stupid shield to pieces, or split his helm and skull in one good chop. And you can! With an ax!

>>49079377
But not in the movie, who gives a fuck about some nerd ass book that describes a fucking leaf for 30 pages then mentions a battle in one sentence.

File: khopesh_by_odinblades-d2y4b6m.jpg (252KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 900x675px

Heres a better weapon to do it with that combines the best features of axe and sword

>>49079202
Because it's a game.
Also an axe would be good for mounted combat I guess.

>>49079433
Nigga just git gud and teleport behind them. Also
>vikings
>fighting another shieldwall

yeah monks and farmers had so many shields around lmao

>>49079202
Historically, axes were given to soldiers as sidearms because chopping down a tree completely ruins a sword.

File: Jericho.png (177KB, 346x365px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 346x365px

>>49079397
Also, throwing your sword at an opponent is a great way to surprise him as well as disarm yourself.

>>49079439
Knowing even the absolute basics of melee combat makes most depictions of it unbearable to watch.

Besides everyone running around like retards instead of fighting in formations, it particularly bothers me how shields are (mis)used in single combat.

>>49079496
>disarm yourself
In every culture warriors carried more than one weapon. And this trick is a gamble after all.

>>49079202
Axes are more practical for things other than killing.

>>49079457
>yeah monks and farmers had so many shields around lmao
I guess "england" even being a thing is because the danes couldn't stand the sight of anglo-saxon women then and all the colonists just packed up and left

>>49079202
Maybe they're a cop

>>49079202
Why would anyone who can afford a halberd buy a spear instead? Once some tard posted ''muh pikemen primary'' scenario which makes no fucking sense because real life pikemen had halberds too. Face it spears were pure shit.

>>49079202
>Why would anyone who can afford a sword buy an axe instead?
Because it's required for his job as a honour guard?
No axe - no job.

File: falcata.jpg (13KB, 94x597px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 94x597px

>>49079444
>not the falcata
D R O P P E D

>>49079876
>>49079444
You'd honestly have to buy something modern to get that. Like Condor knives makes a lot of knives that are clearly too damn thick for their job.

>>49079564
>let's ignore all the other countries they raided

just because they did well against britfags doesn't mean they were fierce warriors everywhere else

>>49079350
So what do you even care about? Real world situations or RPG mechanics? Because your post suggests it's the latter and then "it deals more damage" is the obvious reason people use axes.

>>49079926
point being, there were battles where a nearly a thousand vikings clashed with as many brits and you better believe they both utilized shield walls

>>49079926
>>49080119
and the norse raiders/invaders/settlers were of course defeated and/or assimilated in the end.

>>49079202
Oh it's this thread again. I'll go call the exorcist.

>>49079350
There,
>>49079377
>>49079943
you scored two (You)'s. You can leave now.

>>49079202
They are insane clown.

>>49080190
What does giving (you)s even mean? Accusation of samefagging? Saying that no one else thinks like that poster?

>>49079202
>Not knowing the difference between a felling axe and an axe made for combat.

>>49079609
+1

>>49079313
>anon I wonder why /tg/ has an opinion of being the least informated board.

Many times yes Sir indeed /tg/ is havings of great ignoramusness on all of 5can. It is known.

>>49079202
axes without shields are shit. axes with shields are good, short of facing polearms.

>>49080303
When someone responds to your post, a (you) appears after the >>numbers. I think you have to enable this in the settings

>>49080459
>without shields are shit
>with shields are good, short of facing polearms.
Isn't that true for most (all?) single handed weapons anyway?

>>49079501
battles in LOTR are actually cringeworthy

>>49080303

It's essentially an accusation that someone said something stupid just to get responses, which are pictured as a (you) in their post.

>>49080473
>2016
>>lurk moar newfag
>is a forgotten meme

>>49079202
Axes have some advantages over a sword, especially when you use them with a shield, being able to hook the enemy's shield or weapon and packing more punch into a swing are among them

Also,never start a weapon or history discussion on tg, everybody here is fucking retarded in that regard and the people get their knowledge from rpg statlines

File: pole006a.jpg (58KB, 450x600px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 450x600px

>>49079202
It's hard to put an armor piercing pick on the back of a sword?

https://myarmoury.com/review_aa_haxe.html

>>49080502
Yes but axes are good versus enemy shields. Also, as weapons they lean more towards the offensive side, compared to swords (which are decent at attack and parry). As such they are a good combination with the defensive shield. If you expect heavily armored enemies, consider a warhammer (with a spike) though.

>>49079202
Well in your standard fantasy universe the higher point impact damage from an axe makes it easier to score a damaging wound on creatures with thicker skin and adds an increased level of blunt force trauma when compared to a sword.

Of course in real life there's no reason to use an axe in battle over a sword. Unless your army spent more time building than fighting, in which case you might have just bought a woodsman's axe and used it for both.

Scholagladiatoria on YouTube
Everybody interested in this kind of shit should follow and watch that channel
Everybody who isn't should shut the fuck up
He has enough videos on axes

Problem solved

>>49080591
Oh hey, everyone's wearing mail, my cutting sword is nearly useless, but this axe will hurt the man in armor e en if it doesn't penetrate the links. Also I can use it to screw with enemy shields.

Definitely no use at all.

>>49080502
Swords can manage.

>>49080625
Easton senpai is love Easton senpai is life.>>49080659

File: Trippin'.png (936KB, 721x474px) Image search: [Google]

936KB, 721x474px

Axes can be used for self defense, hacking wood, and have much less maintenance. You can even add a spike at the top.

Why bother with an overly expensive giant kitchen knife? Better yet, carry an axe and a spear.

>>49079202
First off: You're a retard and shouldn't comment on anything ever.

Secondly: When comparing weapons of two different kinds, like an axe and a sword, rather than two of the same kind, like two swords, it's rarely a case of which one is "best" it's more about what you use it for. As soon as people start wearing armour like plate, or earlier transitional stuff like coats of plates/brigandines etc, a sword is only really effective as a thrusting weapon, and we see this impact sword design in a big way. What also happens is that weapons other than swords, like axes, war hammers and maces start becoming a lot more common.

Basically against armour, you want weapons that have most of their mass and most of the energy from the swing focused right at the striking surface. This means thrusting weapons or focused impact weapons like axes, maces and hammers.

Actually the flanged mace was developed and came into widespread use while mail was still the pinnacle of body armour, so even long before plate, splint armour or similar, people realized that their swords weren't cutting it any more.

Even the specialized knightly "longsword" (lets just call it that and not sperg out too much about oakeshott or whatever) with a thicker, more diamond shaped cross-section and a stiff, sharp point for thrusting was only effective against mail or the joints of brigandine and similar. Once full plate was a thing everyone who meant business were fighting with pollaxes and similar on foot, and warhammers, battle axes and maces on horseback.

File: uruk-hai-sword.jpg (190KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1920x1080px

>>49080578
Nigger.

>>49080790
Battle axes weren't used for woodcutting.

>>49080815
At that point it's more of a machete than a sword, though.

File: hqdefault.jpg (25KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 480x360px

>>49080659
>my cutting sword is nearly useless

Actually straight swords can be thrust through mail pretty far. The Mail will resist it better than nothing, but there's plenty on youtube showing that thrusts can penetrate.

Plate can also be pierced by swords. Not as far as if they were merely wearing cloth, but people in this thread keep assuming swords are worthless against "heavy" armor.

As armor got heavier (plate) you'll notice swords got slimmer, and fighting styles moved more towards thrusting. An old viking broadsword can pierce the chainmail of it's day just fine though.

Don't underestimate the value of a balanced straight object as a wrestling tool either. Swords are excellent tools once in CQC, not necessarily as direct weapons.

>>49079202
Cause information was extremely limmited back thrn you absolure idiot.

Everything was basically going of either what you are given, rule of cool or those select few who got what little, probably factually wrong books there were in the world.

For instance, up until late 1700s the greek soldiers were just drawn as medeival knights because thats what anyone outside the scientific areas close to greece.

>>49080625
Skallagrim, too.

>>49081074
Nah

>>49080977
You're fucking retarded if you think people in the middle ages didn't know the advantages sword has over other one handed weapons.

>>49079202
Real life archers carried daggers and short swords, hardly any armor and MAYBE a small wrist buckler.
These weapons were mainly used to fight other archers in close quarters when flanking forces or scouting. When in formation, they had the bow and arrows, and again, no armor and maybe a dagger.
>Archers were not meant for melee combat, who cares what blades they had.
It's a back up plan incase shit hit the fan.
>Also axes are cheaper.

File: outside.jpg (545KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

545KB, 1600x1200px

>>49080790
You 'can' chop light timber, but heavy stuff like busting blocks or trees is right out. For that matter you can do the same with a decently thick sword as well, but it'll end up a bit of a boomerang after awhile and on some you'll risk chipping the edge.
When you make an axe for chopping people- you need to change the geometry of the angle in the cutting edge from about 25deg in a wood axe all the way down to about 15-17deg that I'd put on a heavy duty knife. That way it will sink in a lot further and cause injuries to be a lot more grievous, at the cost of some material strength. But most importantly, it cuts down on weight.

Weight is a mixed blessing, more weight means more energy transferred to the target, but also more of it means you're wind up is to the point people can step out of the way.
That also means you need to make the handle relatively light, but flexible and strong compared to a wood axe. Plus it also has its own geometry which is very important to the way you wield the weapon as well, generally an '0' shape rather than round as it helps angle the cutting edge. When you strike it needs to be as perpendicular as possible to the target to confer the most damage and cutting depth.

Generally though, axe is a much different set of moves and various other sundry bits compared to swords, warhammers, spears etc.
But, they are fast and being fast to swing and recover counts for quite a bit.

>>49080174
I think you mean the axorcist

>>49080174
Don't bother, somebody will come up with an axecuse to post it again.

>>49081254
Has this axedentally turned into a pun thread?

>>49081100
How the fuck would they?
Google.

Nigger all they got to go with was either the blacksmith trying to sell a half baked peice of shit or if they know someone who knows a guy whos dogs former owner went to war and lived trough it with weapon X.

And dont you bullshit me on how they clearly saw the didjagabbadoo of the sword over the tbbbbth of the axe cause we got katanafedoras and people who thinks the bullpup is a good gun type.

>>49079202
Personal preference? Try explaining why a lot of people in the north use axes when they could make good swords.

>>49081135
Plenty of archers had falchions and arming swords, plenty had mail or even partial plate in the Late Middle Ages. You cannot make blanket statements like that.

>cheaper

Basic swords were so cheap by the High Middle Ages that a common soldier could afford several a week if he so wanted, again its a matter of context.

>>49079202
Because *Thunk!* Can your pansy sword make a *Thunk!* noise? No. No it cannot. And there is no sound more satisfying than *Thunk!*

>>49081306
>Try explaining why a lot of people in the north use axes when they could make good swords.
They were fucking poor. Vikings only got swords after a successful raid, and they'd get the very best German longswords custom made and imported. Vikings were like Mexican drug lords who were poor as shit but then after a successful crime spree bought golden Desert Eagles and diamond encrusted AK 47s. Also Vikings almost always carried shields and you'd rather chop wood with an axe than a longsword wouldn't you?

because its a hell of a lot easier to turn a wooden shield to splinters with an axe than with a sword

>>49080941
>Actually straight swords can be thrust through mail pretty far.
They can but against good mail it isnt easy. It also depends on the sword type.

>Plate can also be pierced by swords.
Hell no, not if it is of decent quality. You aim for the gaps instead.

>>49081287
Because warfare was a common occurence and there were still fucking veterans to pass the stories retard.

flails > maces > swords = axes

>>49081425

This
In any decent rules, axes would have bonuses against shields. (Hooking them and pulling) and also ruining wooden ones

>>49081306
You mean vikings? The ones who could afford a sword did so and losing a sword was considered a great tragedy. The ''le vikings prefered axes'' is a retarded meme only underages (aka you) take seriously.

>>49079609
Underrated post

File: 511_2-1024x730.jpg (56KB, 1024x730px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1024x730px

>>49081189
>When you make an axe for chopping people [..]
Doesn't this assume unarmored people though, so as to maximize the cutting effect of the strike?

>>49079202
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbDhQYvetr8

>>49081581
A veteran at the times couldve fought with nothing but a rock and would come home telling everyone rocks are magical superweapons and never be wiser. And there was a lot fewer soldiers coming home than going to war because not every village ever sent someone off to war or got theirs back home, considering information outside big trade places circulated information like shit it didnt really mean shit if a soldier knew why an axe is worse because that info would hardly travel far or into interested ears.

And dont get me started on army training and standard equipment. Spears were standard brcause they were cheap, not because they were le uber weapons.

>>49081074
Skall is an amateur weeb who just really likes video games and LARPing for the most part and far from anything approaching an expert
Easton actually knows his shit

>>49080941
Stop getting your knowledge about armour from shitty conquistador replicas, holy fucking shit
And stop watching american tv to learn shit about history

>>49081870
Explain why even proffesional soldiers like hoplites or immortals used spears if they were such le peasant weapons.

>>49079313
I'm pretty sure a regular non-battleaxe would work just fine on squishy bits man.

>>49079202
Because an axe is primarily a tool, and only a weapon when necessary. So maybe you're just a logger and don't regularly need a sword?

>>49081806
It was like any weapon of any time, evolving to the arms race of weapon vs armour.
Earlier designs like the one I made, that's more or less for heavy leather, chainmail and so forth that it will go through and have a longer beard for maximising the cutting width- they essentially where re-purposed wood axes with changes to the geometry. Latter designs they came up that where purposefully made 'just to kill' with would sometimes have a fiercer angle on the blade towards the top so as to go through armour a lot better, at the cost of some cutting width.

By the time of the high middle ages, the one handed axe had slightly fallen out of favour, swords where cheaper, easier to use and offer a bit more versatility in fighting styles- plus they're just fucking heaps easier to carry as a sidearm. The 'axe' grew so to speak into purpose built polearms (themselves having a fairly agricultural ancestry) that relied on two handed swings as a primary battle weapon to punch through heavy armours, points for poking and hammer heads etc- that also gave them quite a lot of utility in terms of 'how' they can be used.

There are a fairly massive variety of axes, ranging from trade tomahawks all the way up to the pollaxe. They all have their various places in history, but like anything else they changed to suit needs of their particular time.

>>49082056
It would be too heavy so good luck with hitting the guy with the slow piece of shit in the first place.

>>49082088
And you're retarded and should kill yourself because dedicated battle axes were a thing.

>>49079247

>implying axes are weapons

File: 1459898264882.jpg (118KB, 500x355px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 500x355px

>>49080941
>that pic
>hurr durr lets test out this armor by tying it to a fixed object and then hitting it
This needs to stop. People always give way at least a bit when they are struck. Which means you will never be achieve the same amount of damage in a real fight as you would if you just hit some armor thats tied to a log.

Not to mention that these video damage tests almost never seem to use really good quality stuff (ie: hardened steel plates, and riveted chainmail instead of butted). Legit armor is pretty damn tough and you'd need a fucking lance on horseback to actually get enough force to penetrate a strong breastplate.

>>49082345
Katana could slice through it.

>>49080840

But they could be used for it. Any axe that chops wood would chop human flesh anyway.

>>49082288
>implying they can't be

>>49081189
>For that matter you can do the same with a decently thick sword as well

Looks like we found the retard. The length of the sword actually used leverage against the sword! Bwaha! People have been using axes to chop entire trees down for 1000's of years. Get over it swordfag mallninja

>>49082345
the problem here is not the fixed object butt he shitty armour made from shitty, thin metal
they used a coquistador plate as their example to model it after

>>49079202
Swords weren't designed to chop down trees, OP.
>For battle
Something something superior force concentration in the head, leverage. Same reason they're used to break stumps. Richard the Lionhearted used a battle axe, though resources differ whether he used it before or after his sword broke.
>But Richard the Lionhearted was overrated
Literally who cares. It at least shows that someone used it for some reason because it was somehow effective. I didn't live in the middle ages.

>>49082406
Yeah thats also a concern. I suppose I can understand why they maybe wouldn't go with the strongest armor around considering how retardedly expensive that stuff is, but that breastplate looks like it couldn't have cost more than a hundred dollars or so at the most. They certainly could have done better.

>>49082500
Axes have seen widespread use in the middle ages. If they were complete shit, they wouldn't have.

>>49082575
They also disappeared when plate armor was developed and swords did fucking not.

File: [History Intensifies].png (2MB, 970x1300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 970x1300px

>>49080941
>history channel

File: 342432423131312.jpg (29KB, 620x350px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 620x350px

>>49082613
>battletoads
kek

File: muh halberd.png (15KB, 330x403px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 330x403px

>>49082606
I'll direct you to the 'muh halberd' fanboys.
>That's not an axe
Look at the fucking head. That's an axe. It's a small axe, but that is an axe.

>>49082606
I'll redirect you to >>49080578 and furnish you with a quote from the review.

>The distinctive horseman's axe doesn't appear until the later years of the 15th century. It was at this time that full plate armour was at the height of its development. Against this late highly developed armour, the most cherished weapon of the knight, the sword, was all but useless. Warriors were forced to search for other methods of defeating armour-clad opponents and a range of impact and piercing (rather than cutting) weapons surged in popularity. Few members of this class of weapons have the elegance and aesthetic appeal as the sword but the horseman's axe is the exception. Many of these axes showcase the same decorative styles and technical abilities as the very finest examples of sword hilts and armour.

>>49082715
and people mostly used the spear part anyway

File: 1455053452563.jpg (57KB, 920x520px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 920x520px

>>49082715
Halberd fanboy reporting in. Halberd literally means "axe staff" so yes its a type of axe.

>>49082752
Which begs the question - why the fuck in RPGs are people using swords against guys with full plate armor made of even stronger material than our real life metals?

>>49082786
Most rpg's you don't actually fight people in full plate that often.

>>49082758
Spear bit is to keep punk-ass horsefags at bay. The axe bit is used to smash the shit out of armored cunts. The spear head would pretty much always be pointed at the enemy as they approach, but which ever part they happen to strike with the most would depend entirely on what they're fighting.

>>49082812
I did in Skyrim.

>>49079202
> chopping
swords are shit at it. It's the most useful survival motion there is. Break down logs, break in doors, butcher things. Axes also don't need to be razor fucking sharp- in fact they work better at a much wider grind angle. Face it, a sword is nice for your fancy duelin' and prancin' but an axe is around for when actual work needs to be done.

>>49082536
Pretty sure they made it themselves
So the costs are really low
The makers of that are just retarded or have an agenda
The latter is usually true, which is why you have incredibly imbalanced "documentaries" on both sides of arms and armour

>>49082878
Most RPG vidya isn't Skyrim.
Fortunately.

>>49082928
That's why no one fucking used them lmao.

>>49082928
>give half your infantry axes
>give the other half shovels
>makeshift camps and entrenching made easy

>>49082878
I know how you want me to reply.
I understand fully well what you expect of me.
I'll give it to you anon, I'll give it to you because you want it.

>Skyrim.
>RPG
kek

>>49082956
>pretty sure they made it themselves
That's seems so much worse. If they knew how to make any sort of armor, then I'm guessing they knew about the poor quality of the piece they used. I'm just wondering for what purpose would someone have an agenda against platemail of all things.

>>49082958
>>49082812
Which RPGs do you not fight a ton of plate armored foes?

>>49082928
Why would you use the same axe for battle and chopping wood? Must be some really really poor bastard to not afford a battleaxe.

https://youtu.be/rHRt4nDfknI?t=56s

I know it's skallagrim, but it's still a valid point.

>>49080941
>An old viking broadsword can pierce the chainmail of it's day just fine though.
Source please, everything I've seen makes it seem like it's not until later, thrust oriented swords are developed could you reliably pierce mail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl-ec6Ub7FM

>>49082928
>break in doors
>survival
found the psychopath

Also, generally
stabbing > chopping

>>49083091
Look at the people in this thread talking about axes and swords and you'll know

>>49083120
D&D for one.

>>49082990
> anon doesn't understand axes were more common on battlefields then the nobleman's fancy expensive length of steel
> not even understanding that spearheads, arrowheads, and axe heads lasted far better with less wear because they didn't undergo the tensile stress a long piece of steel or iron would
this fucking topkek

>>49083000
Greetings my trench warfare brother. Congrats on the trips.

>>49083149
Shitposters usually don't make documentaries though.

>>49083000
>Everyone gets murdered because half your enemy's army has bows.

>>49083191
> what is cover? why are prepared camps useful?
fucking idiot.

>>49083186
>Shitposters usually don't make documentaries though.
You really haven't seen many documentaries have you?
90% of them are basically just opinion piece of butthurt assholes

>>49083154
Most NPCs after level 1-3 will at least be wearing a breastplate.

>>49083210
In a battle out the camp, Anon.

>>49083191
>giving half your army bows
Have fun against calvary, and pray to god that those axemen don't have decent shields.

>>49083129
Whatever man, enjoy trying to get in and out of a locked building with a thrusting or slashing tool. Bet those supplies inside or enemies outside will appreciate it.

>>49083229
A decent proportion of foes won't even be humanoid.

>>49079202
Sure, that's why there are so many examples of them in history. Because no one used them and they were shit.

File: Trying to think.jpg (44KB, 400x426px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 400x426px

>>49079202
Because they're effective against shields and shield wielders, multitask as a tool, and are cheaper to produce.

File: 1455055484055.jpg (190KB, 800x1311px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 800x1311px

>>49083213
I guess not, but I'll take your word for it.

>>49083120
Why carry around multiple tools when a single well made version can do the job? Equipment is heavy, and marching is hard. Vikings understood this. I'm unoffended by the video but disagree on the basis that he hasn't tried walking miles with all of the 'purpose made equipment.'

>>49079439
Ebin memetastic b8 m8 :^)

>>49083156
>more common on battlefields
>axes

from 14th century onwards everyone had a sword

>>49083329
The fuck are you on about? Viking had a spear, shield, axe and if he could afford it also a sword at the same time. They carried plenty of shit.

>>49083466
>*as a sidearm to a serious weapon on the battlefield, or as a civilian showpiece of wealth or power.

Axes were still the more used tool senpai- ask the farmers and the sailors.

>>49083566
And the fuck woodcutting axes have to do with the ones used on the battlefield?

>>49083540
Right, they had plenty to carry. They wouldn't have an axe for wood and an axe for people when they had all that stuff to lug about.

>>49083329
>>49083329
But axes with that profile won't be near as good for chopping wood, and woodaxes are cumbersome and slow. Vikings were coastal and river raiders and generally did not march much. Also >>49083540


http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_axe.htm

>this axe is too thin and delicate for splitting wood; this axe is meant for splitting skulls.

>>49083580
OP asked why anyone would pick an axe over a sword, anon. Answer was because its a more useful tool.

>>49083680
No, you can chop wood with a lot of swords almost as well as with an axe made for war. It's dumb with either though.

>>49083586
From 9th century onwards they did.

>>49083586
Ever heard of a pack mule?

>>49080682
I like him because he knows his shit
I don't like tg in these discussions because I've heard too often that the people here are complete lackwits who only think in game logic through their incredibly dumb opinions
Only katanafags are worse

>>49079202
You can throw it

Axes are meant for chopping down trees and other things swords can't do.

>>49079202
Versatility, axes are good at things other than killing. Have you ever tried to cut down a tree with a sword? It's not a side arm or a major arm. It's a tool with an added benefit of doubling as a weapon. So if you forsee needing to fell trees, cut your way through locked wooden doors, drive stakes and what not. You're gonna want one axe instead of many separate tools, especially if you're constantly traveling.
Availability also plays into it. Axes cost less to make, in both time and resources. They appeal to a wider market aswell and due to simple supply and demand far more axes are readily available than a sword.

>>49083721
You're gonna ruin a good sword if you try to cut wood with it.

>>49086931
Have you ever tried cutting down a tree with a battle axe you retard?
Axes have their place on the battle field but most axes made for that wouldn't survive a day of being used as a normal axe

>>49079202
Because an axe takes far less skill than a sword to use, and because it's cheap its easily replaced and cheaper to maintain.

>>49079269

We had this exact same thread last month. I think OP gets off on pretending to be retarded. Don't really know why. Seems kinda retarded.

What about a tomahawk?

>>49087298
>cold war missile
>in fantasy

>>49087238
Survive a damn sight longer than a sword is all I'm saying mate.

>>49079202
Because not everyone is an upper class faggot like you OP. They couldn't be trained to use a sword. Axes were easy to get, and learn to use.

Go crawl back to your massive land holdings where your father's captain of the guards teaches you to use a sword but goes easy on you because your a wuss. Stupid upper class assholes.

>>49087271
>I think OP gets off on pretending to be retarded
"pretending"

>>49082364
>Katana could slice through it.
Not if it was made out of katana.

>>49087238
Have you ever tried to use your pitiful computer keyboard typing body to cut down a tree with that wall hanger axe you bought from that Renaissance Fair?

I have to ask because you act like you have.. but your name is anonymous not stumpy

>>49086963
And you'd ruin a good battleaxe as well.

Greater Mail-splitting force; axes were popular during the Dark Ages when metalworking skills and general infrastructure had taken a dip from the Roman period and sufficiently skilled sword smiths and large quantities of iron were hard to come by.

And yet plenty of kings princes and warlords were noted for using an axe even where they might have been able to afford a sword.

This is because in combat against an armoured enemy an axe has better mail-penetrating ability, as the weight is concentrated in the head, and even if it doesn't split the mail the head can break bones underneath.

On a Dark Ages battlefield one noble warrior against another both in maille hauberks and helms with shields, I'd favour the one with the axe over the one with the sword because you can defend yourself adequately with the shield and the sword will have greater difficulty finding a place it can wound consistently, and draw-cuts only work on exposed flesh.

File: Peasant.jpg (239KB, 960x895px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 960x895px

>>49081287
People were, for want of a better word, less "Autistic" in the past - they talked more and shared what they knew more freely.

Recently scientists have also been toying with the idea that due to their lack of access to databases our recent ancestors were on average better at risk assessment and problem solving; probably due to being less specialized and having to maintain multiple skill sets to survive year round in an agricultural society where you can't do the same thing year round.

Basically; medieval people weren't stupid, but you might be.

>>49087329
He means the bird you dip.

>>49087298
Tomahawk is just the Injun word for Axe.

In fact, the first metal Tomahawks were spontoon axes traded from French naval ships where they were used as tools.

And throwing axes wasn't unique to Injuns anyhow; the Franks were known to deploy them in volleys; apparently they'd put a spin on the throw so that they'd bounce around disrupting the formation of an enemy before a charge; similar to how you'd use a volley of javelins to soften up an enemy, but shorter ranged, more unpredictable and probably rather scary.

>>49088123
>People were, for want of a better word, less "Autistic" in the past - they talked more and shared what they knew more freely.
That is completely false. Trade secrets were sometimes kept so hard within guilds or familty lines they were eventually lost to history, like damascus steel.

>>49079202
Axes are more convenient than swords for everything not directly related to chopping up people.

What are you, some kind of serial killer?

>>49079202
In medieval combat, archers usually carried swords. This has reasons from geography, finance, and ease of use. But that's realistic history. Ignoring those, an archer might take an axe if his or her preferred style of melee combat was full on aggression rather than defensive fighting.

Remember, the sword allows for slower defensive play, the bludgeon demands a hard connecting hit, but the axe demands unending consistent battery on the wielder's targets until they are forced to the ground and can't continue. It was good at its job, it took the force of the bludgeon and put it behind a tiny point, a little bit more than the sword can do to more armored engagements where thrusting isn't viable. Overall the axe also wasn't ment for calculating duels like the sword, it was psychological, your enemy can't attack you if their forced to recover from axe strikes that return before you can recover or set up a counter attack.

It's not easy to see an archer in our world using an axe (outside of the "Vikings" and the Dane's), but in a narative world, it could fit certain archers, especially those facing a shield focused enemy.

>>49079314
Nah the weight is wrong, a wood axe is bad for combat at least historically in an rpg its irrelevant cause fantasy shit

>>49079458
False, you would not use a battle axe to fell a tree nor is a wood axe an effective weapons against another armed opponent

>>49079202
Because I'm chopping wood, nigga.

>>49079540
Again, not if its a battle axe.

>>49090510
Probably still better at felling a small tree than a sword.

Not as good at a proper axe, sure, but better than a sword.

>>49090267
Can confirm, swords are -4 on block whereas axes are only -1 so with an axe you can continually put pressure on the opponent.

However sword block takes the lowest chip damage out of any other non-shield equipment in the game which is why defensive european countries favored the sword, while the more aggressive rushdown oriented viking society used axes.

>>49079202
A: because despite what game-balance-centric charts would have you believe, they would not be comparably priced.

B: Becase an axe is much more useful out of combat than a sword.

>>49081955
Because they are Le peasants. Have you seen their economy?!

File: 1456399282928.gif (3MB, 300x252px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 300x252px

>>49082364

>>49079637
>spears were pure shit
this guy obviously has no idea how spears were used in single combat or in formation.

>>49081955
Hoplites built their entire strategy around the shield wall and heavy armor. Military service was a civic duty to them, and breaking and fleeing was essentially a death sentence. They were well drilled heavy infantry.

But every other example of spear-wielding infantry, except the Swiss pikemen and Roman legions, was pretty shit. They were cheap levies, cannon fodder. This held from Assyria to Persia to the Middle Ages.

>>49081437
>against good mail it isn't easy
I weave chainmail of different patterns as a hobby, and I can tell you it's still relatively easy to pierce chainmail with a sword. Especially if they're not riveted mail or better.

>>49081917
>larping
because learning from historical manuals and instructors = larping.

>>49091009
Have you tried putting it on something that moves and with padding underneath?

OP probably also subscribes to the common rpg trope of 'archer = weakling'

basically, do some actual research instead of 'learning' from pop culture (=other fucks who did no research)

>>49079202
Axes go through armor with more force. Also, you can hook it around a shield to pull it away, or just hack the shield up better than you could with a sword. Mostly it's because non-nobles couldn't carry swords, but they could still get the money for a decent axe.

>>49091009
butted chainmail is the pretense of armor. a sword can pierce flesh without much force behind it. but to penetrate mail, you need a full-force hit, something much more difficult to accomplish in combat. so, yeah, it ain't easy.

>>49079314
>>49079433
>>49080659
>>49091330
You didn't really break the shield so much as hook or go around it. Hitting the shield itself might lead to ax the to getting stuck.

>>49091343
mail in general made slashing attacks useless, you needed sheer force (axes, hammers), small points (thrusts, spears), or both (halberds)

>>49091374
I know, that's why I talked of piercing.

>>49091246
I did, had a great big bear of a friend of mine test it with a dummy he was carrying while another attacked it as you would with a blunted sword

>>49082613
I'll guess the name of the next era.
Hentai
Holy shit
H?????

>>49091672
look, it's clear that mail is pretty useful against swords, particularly earlier types. that's why men-at-arms wore it over centuries.

nobody disputes that a good thrust can't pierce it but the effectiveness of that depends on a number of factors (armor quality, type of sword, strength of the thrust, etc.)

>>49091362
Depends on how the shield was constructed. Some will just fall to pieces once compromised.

>>49092026
This. There's a reason why you were entitled to 3 shields for a duel.

>>49082165
>It would be too heavy
You know nothing.

>>49087802
>battleaxe
Which no peasant used you fucking retard.
Peasants went to war with normal "onehand" axes or "farming" tools as spears.

File: tmp_2199-images(2)-1826631629.jpg (5KB, 413x122px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 413x122px

>>49079202
Why would anyone who can afford a gun buy a shovel instead? You would never see these get used to kill people in real combat.

>>49092230
Holmgang seems to have been fought with shields that were not of sturdy battlefield-ready construction. They were made from fairly soft tilia woods like linden, which was not particularly uncommon for proper round shields (being remarkably easy to work), but without a boss, leather or iron rim, or hardwood reinforcements they would probably fall apart very easily and be more inclined to break apart rather than splinter.

The typical round shield was far more sturdy than the ones used in duels and wouldn't have split or shattered nearly as easily, but was much thinner and lighter than commonly depicted by media.

>>49082401
You can use a thick sword for getting small trees down you mongoloid.

What you just described is "Oh but we used hammers to drive posts in all the time, my Warhammer is perfect"

>>49082765
>A person in a recent thread tried arguing a Poleaxe was not an axe
>POLE
>AXE

>>49087490
Every fucking man at arms had a sword too. Even british longbowmen had swords. No one gave a fuck about axes deal with it.

>>49092583
Actually in WWI they were used in combat.

>>49091009
>good mail
>not riveted
Go home, Japan, you're drunk.

>>49092026
>>49092230
>>49092617
A simple canvas facing greatly increases the structural stability of shields. Rawhide's even better.
https://youtu.be/m1OTiMm4Pqc?t=15m25s

>>49092383
A: "onehand" axes meant for use in battle are still battleaxes
B: peasant levies are generally a myth. You need those fuckers at home to bring in the harvest.

>>49093990
>>49091672
>butted mail
Did the dummy have a gambeson, padded leather jack, or thick wool sweater on? If so it might have survived.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGu4bpb4eTI

>>49093990
>implying a horse will ever charge through a shield wall that holds

>>49082345

>That text
>People still don't know swords could be used as clubs against full plate

>>49079202
Because axes are also useful as multipurpose tools?
And dual wielding swords and axes as a ranger is the tightest shit and if you don't think so then get the fuck out.

>>49092671

Yeah it's basically a polecat where they've replaced the cat they've tied to the pole with an axe they've tied to the pole.

polecats being exceptional tools for putting down commoner rebellions

>>49079397
To end him rightly?

>>49079439
Didn't the Dwarves use a shield wall in the last movie?

>>49094819
Lmao I don't watch long as fuck movies about elves and hobbits, I'm too busy playing football and fucking bitches ;)

>>49094359
That was a hilarious scene.

>>49093103
Clubs and trench knives were usually better for the job though. The one group that used the shit out of their entrenching tools for combat would be the spetznaz

>>49094871

Man, you've been bumping your shitpost thread on /tg/ since Tuesday afternoon. No one's gotten angry at your trolling, most people are just talking about medieval weapons and /tg/ stuff, but you're still shitposting as blatantly as you can.

I admit, at this point I'm actually curious. Are you trolling badly on purpose? Is this some kind of performance art? Where does your dedication come from? What's your goal, here?

>>49094943
Lmao are you mad that no girl even looks at you?

>>49095019

Oh, man, I'm sorry to hear that. Look, we've all been there, but you gotta believe it'll get better. Take all the time you need, ok? Troll away the pain, bro. Troll away the pain.

>>49091003
To be fair, the Vikings used their spears pretty well during their raids