Sword vs. Pick / Warhammer

ok, i have been thinking, about something i read, that a Pick or warhammer is a superior weapon then a sword.
is this right? and how does these weapons differ when used with a shield?

It is my opinion neither is superior to the other. The warhammer is more effective when assaulting heavy armor, but the sword is a very versatile weapon.


What say the rest of you?

another guy on another forum, told me he had seen a program named Conquest on discovery, stating what i have asked about in the first post. that picks / warhammers are better then swords.

Thanks for posts, please write more!

also i was thinking that a pick maybe is deadly on a precise blow, but as we all know not many blows are in a direct angle ie. precise, and there i see that the pick spike may glide of, but the sword may still make some injury, becouse its simply has a larger areal of "sharp edge or striking surface".

generaly i would very much like some people who maybe own a replica or something, tell me how a a "pick" type weapon is like.

:\ "Conquest" is an extremely unreliable source of information, like most television. You are right, that the longer edge of a sword does offer more chances of hurting an enemy than the head of a war hammer. As Alexi and Ryan noted, the best weapon depends on circumstances; a sword is a very versatile weapon, and the war hammer more specialized. Swords are generally faster than percussive weapons, and usually have a longer reach, both of which can be great advantages. A hammer is great for dealing with plate metal, though.

I have seen show on History Channel in which a simple quarter staff was claimed
to be the better weapon when compared to a sword. Supposedly an Englishman in
the 1500's bested two Spanish swordsmen with a simple staff. Maybe so, maybe no.
If a person was untrained, I think a pole arm, like A&A's Knightly Pole Ax would be the
more easily and quickly learned. I know I'd rather have a sword if just for the status
it would imply.

Here's a anti-armour weapon ! Very specialized !

---

 Attachment: 47.82 KB

That particular incident has a historical basis (in Silver?); a staff has longer reach, and in two hands is very fast indeed.

However, the staff is a lousy battle weapon. For one thing, no army ever went into battle so armed. To be fully effective, the staff needs a lot of room to maneuver, which means very few men in your line. Against plate armor, it wouldn't be much use - you could knock a foe down, and maybe concuss him, but not kill. Against a shield wall or phalanx, a staff is not a great weapon either - you might well knock over or stun the guy directly in front, but his friend's spears are just as long as your staff, and they are trying to poke holes in you.

Since the staff needs to hands, you have no shield. If you have full body armor, this might be okay - but the agility to use the staff well might suffer. If you aren't well armored and have no shield, you are easy pickings for any archer on the other side (not to mention javelins and thrown spears).

nice weapon! you can proberly answer my question?

is it not had to hit the right angle when using the spike?, im thinking against a metal plate?

Sounds more like Jackie Chan than an Englishman.

A warhammer is superior in terms of dealing with armored opponents, but a sword is generally better for most situations. A warhammer is usually pretty heavy, not only that but the weight is also concentrated at the far end of the bar/stick; as such it requires much more effort to handle than a sword of the same weight. A sword also has more damage-inflicting area(blade edge), which makes it more versatile -you can swing it at full force and range for more reach, tuck your arms in for closer brawling, use thrusts, draw cuts, etc.

However, it's also true that a warhammer is somewhat easier to use than a sword if you're untrained in the use of medieval weapons -at least for me it was. With a sword you have to be much more aware and alert, not to mention there are right and wrong ways of swinging a sword, the need to keep the blade parallel to the line of travel, etc. With a warhammer, all you have to do is swing, technique doesn't really matter.

It's not hard at all to make a direct, right-angle hit(both with the hammer and the spike ends). Most warhammers even have a slight downward curve on the back spike which allows a puncture to happen without a direct right-angle strike, making it even easier to do what it's supposed to do. I have Cold Steel's warhammer, and although it's probably not very historically accurate in terms of its design, it is accurate in terms of its capability -even using the hammer end, it's fairly easy to make centimeter-deep indentions in a dead tree's trunk...

IMO both are tools that can be applied to multiple tasks although they may both excell at specific ones.

Best is a matter of personal preferance.

As has been pointed out, it isn't really weapon superiority, but preference given a sodier's job on the battle field, his training and experience, and other things.

Many soldiers weren't good with a longsword. In formation, a longsword is generally hard to use effectively. For a knight, a warhammer can quickly bash a helm or body armor. Penetrate or not, it can seriously wound an opponent, damage armor, etc. All you have to do is get it going and start bashing. One on one, in the hands of a skilled swordsman, probably a sword is faster and more versatile.

Each weapon has its uses. Each formation lends itself to different weapons. Ranks of spearmen can fend off charging infantry and cavalry, but break them up into smaller groups and they aren't as effective - can't move the spears around as easily. There were certainly knights who preferred to take a hammer and bash skulls until the lines were broken and then switched to a sword or other weapon. Most knights had a variety of weapons they could use, depending on the situation and their own skills. Just because you are a knight doesn't mean you are great with a sword.

The average soldier, probably little more than a peasant, didn't need much training if handed a spear on hammer, or even an axe and taught to line up and work as a team to hold a line so the cavalry and archers could do their job. Swords, on the other hand, could thrust, cut, bash, and parry - worked on horse or on foot.

Walt

In a plain duel with space for each fighter and no armor, the sword is a vastly superior weapon. Single handed warhammers were rarely more than 2ft long and often shorter, while single handed swords were generally around 3ft. That is a considerable advantage right there, especially when combined with the sword's superior balance. I'd also argue that to an unarmored man, sword blows are considerably more lethal. As we all know, single handed sword blows can take off hands, arms, legs and heads. Sure a strong hammer strike to the forehead would splatter a man's skull, but a sword blow of the same force would probably cut down into his chest if not beyond. And, of course, marginal hits from the edge of sword would be more likely to injure than marginal hits from a hammer.

So that's the reason for favoring the sword - it's superior in ideal conditions. However, clearly those aren't battefield conditions. In the middle of a melee against plate-armored foes clearly the hammer would be better. But if a footman expected to encounter heavy armor, he'd be better served with a 2-handed hammer, bill, halberd or pollaxe. When fighting on foot with a shield, a spear would often be prefered (according to The King's Mirror, for example). Even with a shield, reach is a major factor. In general, neither single handed hammer nor single handed sword were primary weapons on the field. The sword might well have the advantage in ambushes and skirmishes, which would be likely to lack of heavy armor (skirmishing footmen aren't likely to be wearing much armor and surprise or haste might preclude armor entirely).