[Matt J.]

With the various weapon archetypes, what situation would make you prefer one over the other?

To be more clear, the archetypes are swords, axes, maces, spears, knives, poleaxes, and large axes and swords (just to be general).

Based off some earlier discussions, I guess spears are generally the best pick (specially for the start of a battle). But what situations would you prefer a sword, or an axe? In particular, I'm not sure why to use an axe instead of a sword, or viceversa.


This thread will focus on hand-to-hand weapons, just to keep things a bit simpler.

[Tom King]

For the 15th century, if in a full plate harness, it seems that a pole hammer or poleaxe would be the primary weapon, followed by a sword (something that fit at the waist) but a full sized 2h sword could take the place of a polearm in the same situation. A rondel dagger or the like would be both the last line of defense and a easy way to kill a downed opponent

[Craig Peters]

A sword is much more versatile than an axe. In fact, a sword is one of the most versatile weapons that you can find. It can do a lot of different things, and is far more dynamic than an axe. If you train well with a sword, particularly a longsword, you can apply the principles of what you know to nearly every other melee weapon.

An axe cannot be used to ward and set aside blows as skilfully as a sword can. Further, many axes will be slower weapons, because although the axe head might be relatively light weight wise, axes are balanced so that most of the weight is near the top of the haft, whereas most swords are balanced so that the balance point is much closer to the hilt, meaning the blade can be used in a more agile manner than one can use an axe.

But axes have a major advantage, which is that they can cause horrendous cleaving damage, often even more so than a sword. An axe puts a lot of mass into a relatively small surface (the edge) which means that when swung with force, it can cause worse wounds than a sword might. Against an unarmoured foe, or a foe in mail armour, an axe will be particularly devastating. Although mail will help immensely against an axe blow, there will still be significant blunt trauma, and I imagine a stout axe blow is much more likely to pop open links in mail armour than a sword blow.

Please remember that I am making a ton of generalized statements, because the nature of this question is very general. I am aware that there are lots of examples that might be used to contradict my points. Smaller, single handed axes might be nearly as agile as a sword, for example, while large great swords could well be capable of causing wounds that are as horrific as an axe wound. Generally, however, what I've said above is true.

[Matthew Amt]

In some times and places, many warriors could not afford swords. So they used spears and javelins, and sometimes carried a backup weapon like an axe or club or knife (though not always!). Sometimes there were laws dictating what a man should carry, generally based on wealth, though even the lower classes sometimes had choices (or could exceed the requirements, presumably). On the other hand, an early Imperial Roman legionary had very little choice: he had 2 pila (javelins), a short sword, and usually a dagger. That's just the way they did it. Classical Greek hoplites carried a spear and a sword, almost without variation. (Heracles is not a hoplite!) I've heard that at some point in medieval France, peasants were forbidden to have swords, though I don't know if that's true. Fashion and cultural custom had as much influence as laws.

Overall I'd tend to agree that a sword of some sort is the best backup weapon, simply for its versatility. So probably the inclination was to go for a sword if possible. But we know that wasn't universal--for instance Robert the Bruce and Richard the Lionheart both carried axes, as I understand. Though I suspect they had swords as well! And versatility in combat might not be the only factor. A mercenary spearman going off on crusade might think, "Gee, 6 months walking and camping and CUTTING FIREWOOD, sometimes *chopping open a door* to loot a house, and MAYbe at some point 6 minutes of actual combat in which my spear won't be ideal. Hmm, lug a sword or an AXE?"

Matthew

[Augusto Boer Bront]

I own a two handed axe (116 cm long) and i used it with a few techniques. I have to say that it handles a lot more quickly than I ever thought. There are not only the blows with the metal head, but a plenty of blows with the wooden handle and the metal pommel (if present) that are not so plaesant to receive =).
The only disadvantage it's that the axe is a very close weapon to use, so a two handed sword or a spear can keep you at bay if you opponent is skilled enought.
The techinques are the same with a short baton (or the japanese jo) plus a little metal thingy that can crack you skull apart =).

[Michael Curl]

(To Mr. Peters)

I have a question for you sir, have you ever done any sparing with axes? I don't mean this to sound like a challenge, but I was wondering if arma does or not. While I would assume that an axe can't parry easily, I am curious how easily things like hooking can be done with one.

[Augusto Boer Bront]

Can I answer to your question?
I'm not a member of arma, but with a two handed axe you can parry nearly any blow (expect ffromt the ones aimed to the legs, in that case you just have to retreat and strike back).
But it depends onm your position and the position of your axe. The wood handle sould be strong enought to withstand any reasonable sword blow.

I have a couple of videos on facebook of me parryng, althought the moves are reaaaally slow, because my opponent never did histrical sparring, especially with live steel weapons.

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=368...6009287553

[Craig Peters]

[Matt J.]

Anyone know what situation one-handed axes were used? I've been told that axes don't work well in formations, so I'm not sure when they would've seen use.

[Matthew Amt]

[Ryan S.]

which weapon are you best at, and which one is your opponent worse at defending.

[Ralph Grinly]

In melee..it's rarely a case of a one-on-one, stand up fight. You get maybe one chance to attack someone, then press of crowd separates you. So, I'd go with whatever weapon you feel most competant with, plus maybe some sort of blunt force trauma weapon as backup. Remember..you don't have to kill your oppenent to win or survive..just take him down

[William P]

i have a 1.4m daneaxe, which weighs 1.7kg and has a roughly 700 gram head..

i personally doent see any major reason why you couldnt use poleaxe techniques with it?? i mean instead of the hammer or backspike you smack him with the 'poll' i.e the end of the socket, instead of a top spike you thrust with the horn of the axe.
http://www.manningimperial.com/item.php?item_...mp;c_id=13 this is the axehead, now most danaxes were often had very pointy horns, of course it coulnt compete wih a pollaxe againt plate armour, but then again the daneaxe was designed for an era where armour was much more scarce so being smacked with the metal socket in the head would still hurt like hell.

also i noticed that one poleaxe position where its held at the waist with the butt aiming at your opponents upper regions, you can VERY easily just jam the butt forward into the guys face and if i understand correctly , to do that poke with the but end and then bring in the axe head is a normal move in poleaxe techniques?

one thing i loved about the axe in sword and shield combat is, against a sword, yes you need to be aggressive but you can pull the guys shield out of the way

personally though for this thread id say poleaxe as main weapon in this case the hammer and spike 'bec de corbainarrangement, a rondel and a warhammer or maybe a type XV arming sword, and since its so small and unobtrusive id also include a buckler to have ... just in case,

the poleaxe can as far as i can tell, ruin someones day with or without plate armour, since a poleaxe top spike (if michael edelsons test is ANY indicator whatsoever) can puncture maile of pretty decent quality... and the hammer will either dent your armour and concuss you if your in harness, or simply crush you into a bloody pulp if your in something like a padded jack.. or maile and the backspike, same thing, itll ruin your day no matter how much armour you are wearing

[Timo Nieminen]

[Bartek Strojek]

[William P]

theres something that i think weve forgotten regarding axes particularly in situations where armour is involved, its not perfect, but like the mace, the axe has the ability to deliver impact in a smaller area and crack a man open... metaphorically speaking. it can also deliver more momentus impact and its maybe better for 'the press' where a shorter weapon is more wieldy, notably, like examples such as the gladius, kopis/ falcata, the katzbalger, and the cutless, longer isnt quite always better. i also have held axes that are just as wieldy as swords although admittedly not nearly as long.

id say the axes inability to thrust well is its biggest flaw with regards to the sword,

also remember that the axe is on norways coat of arms.

also unlike a sword, axes by a good majority of cultures after the viking era usually had something on the back end, be it a spike or a kind of hammer for example, in 10th century to 13th century russia you see alot of these kinds of axes although one might argue these are more horsemans axes,

this means that you can do much more versatile amounts of damage.

[Matthew Harrington]

[William P]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Personally, I find that the most significant advantage of swords is that they can be carried all over the place in a scabbard. So, with a sheathed sword (and probably a dagger somewhere else), I'd be free to carry another, larger weapon or combination of weapons--and still have the sword as a backup if the main weapon becomes impractical or unserviceable.

Mind that, in medieval Europe (particularly the later centuries), the backup is just as likely to be sword and bluckler since the latter could be easily hung on the cross as well.