Let's talk about axes and why they were garbage

Not in highly confined space, also axes are easier to carry around.

Vikings also used spears and fucking swords

also lost most battles

Higly confined space like what? Did medieval battles took place in fucking shower rooms and closets?

Vikings have also lost most of the recorded conflicts in which they've participated in.

when you are finding women to rape, yes

You use axes to get buff,once you're buff enough,you can pick up a spear and stab your enemies with significantly greater thrusting power.

That's strange, dude. Never would two groups fighting ever push themselves towards eachothers.

They used spears almost exclusively. It was the monks who spread the rumour that they liked to use axes. In order to portray them as savages for propaganda purposes.

They never did this isn't fucking Skyrim.

You just made this up. Saxons themselves used axes so why the fuck would monks equate axes to being a savage?

Wrong.

Raiding peasants used axes, but actual danish/norweigan soldiers did not.

>It was the monks who spread the rumour that they liked to use axes
Fuck off you idiot. You just made that up.

>Vikings
Please man, your not trying

why is a balanced meat cleaver on a shaft of hardwood bad?

can confirm, axes result in massive gains

Considering a good portion of the monks were Irish and the axe is described as the "national weapon" of Ireland by Gerald of Wales...

The first wave of Vikings mostly used spears and axes, the second and later waves, better equipped due to the success of the first wave, wore mail byrnies and mostly carried swords. Axes were never a preferred weapon among them with the exception of the Danes, a Viking would only take a handaxe with him if he was too poor to afford a sword.

>Vikings have also lost most of the recorded conflicts in which they've participated in.

No wonder, considering they were mostly farmers.

t. Norwegian with a degree in Viking history

>why is a balanced meat cleaver on a shaft of hardwood bad?

Slower and shorter ranged than a sword, has to hit solidly to kill whereas a sword can open up an artery even when it hits something "non-vital" like an arm or with a draw cut, has a predictable rhythm to it's use that an experienced warrior could take advantage of, can't be used to parry very effectively.

Are you literally retarded?

Rude.

You made this up too.

Prove me wrong, fgt

Heavy, unwieldy, can't penetrate armor, no thrusting capability, very little technique.

Awful weapon. This is the case with a lot of weapons adapted from household and farming tools.

You are the one who should back up his own claim if anything.

>can't penetrate armor

Not strictly true, it can smash mail and with a hard enough wallop can lodge in poor quality armor made of iron. Also, it's heaviness and especially the balance of it's weight at the tip is helpful against armor, allowing you to concuss an enemy by smashing your axe off the side of his helmet, for example.

Prove it

Sure but even for breaking mail a pronged hammer would do a much, much better job. It gives no advantage because there is always something that does the same thing but better.

Prove what? The bullshit you spew? Are you retarded.

Prove the burden of proof lies on me.

4 (you)'s say otherwise

Yes a warhammer is probably a better weapon overall, tho ofc it is a weapon of war and not a simple tool like an axe. Most people who took a handaxe to war did so because they couldn't find a sword, wealthier warriors expecting to fight armored enemies would invest in a hammer, mace or polax and would carry a sword as a sidearm.

Richard Lionheart and king Stephen of England used axes and they obviously could afford a sword.

A Dane Axe is not a handaxe, and neither is a polax.

I thought this thread is about axes as a whole.

Dane Axes are something of an oddity, being more like a polearm than an axe. The polax, despite it's name, evolved from the mace and the warhammer, not the axe. I think for most people, "axe" means a handaxe, that is, an axe you can wield in one hand.

so many people itt confusing forest axes with war axes

war axes are meant for flesh, forest axes are meant for bark and greenwood

War axes are meant as a prank to get the biggest dumb fucks killed because they used a meme weapon.

against plate yes, but axes and swords are better against chainmail and gambeson

>swords better against chainmail

lmao

There's no such thing as a war axe, unless you mean the huge two-handed Dane Axe or the Polax which is an axe in name only.

You realise you can stab with a sword, yes?

You realise wide blades couldn't piere fucking chainmail?

>There's no such thing as a war axe

Oh I see now, you're retarded.Carry on.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_(armour)

I see you are retarded.

How on earth are Dane axes like a polearm? They would make a very short spear

It's called a Dane axe.

> What is a siege?

Fighting took place in tight spaces all the time. Castles and keeps weren't just for show.

>What is a siege?

Waiting till enemy castle or city surrenders.

Yes, because no sieges ended with attempts to storm castles or cities.

That's why there is no such thing as siege towers, battering rams, etc.

They couldn't ask the peasant to kindly move to the lobby of his villa so they have enough room to skewer him.

>implying

That's a fucking Saxon.

>a saxon housecarl, an institution that was brought to England after being conquered by Denmark (such shit warriors amirite)
>wielding a Dane axe

A fucking cosplaying Saxon then.

I mean they're not used like an axe would normally be used, their battlefield role is more like a polearm.

The Dane Axe is the only real "waraxe", and it came right at the end of the Viking period and only in Danemark.

>only in Danemark

>Through the course of the 10th–11th centuries, the Dane axe gained popularity in areas outside Scandinavia where Viking influence was strong, such as England, Ireland and Normandy. Historical accounts depict the Dane axe as the weapon of the warrior elite in this period, such as the Huscarls of Anglo-Saxon England.[citation needed] In the Bayeux tapestry, a visual record of the ascent of William the Conqueror to the throne of England, the axe is almost exclusively wielded by well armoured huscarls. These huscarls formed the core bodyguard of King Harold at the Battle of Hastings. The Bayeux Tapestry also depicts a huscarl cleaving a Norman knight's horse's head with one blow.[2] The Dane axe is also known to have been used by the Varangian Guard, also known as pelekyphoros phroura (πελεkυφόρος φρουρά), the "axe-bearing guard". One surviving ivory plaque from the 10th century Constantinople depicts a Varangian holding an axe that is at least as tall as its wielder.[citation needed]

>Although the name retains its Scandinavian heritage, the Dane axe became widely used throughout Europe from the 12th century, as axes gained acceptance as a knightly weapon, albeit not achieving the status of the sword.[3] They also began to be used widely as an infantry polearm, with the haft lengthening to about 6 feet (1.8 m).[4][5] The 13th and 14th centuries also saw form changes, with the blade also lengthening, the rear horn extending to touch or attach to the haft. The lengthened weapon, especially if combined with the lengthened blade, was called a sparth in England. Some believe this weapon is the ancestor of the halberd.[6]

>The Bayeux Tapestry also depicts a huscarl cleaving a Norman knight's horse's head with one blow
That's fucking bad ass.

Indeed. According to the Spanish Aztecs also had a two handed version of that sword no one can fucking pronounce that also was capable of beheading a horse in a single strike.

WTF was people's deal with the horses

You've been btfo the last two times you made this thread, why the fuck do you keep making it? What sort of trauma did you experience that left you with such an immense grudge against a particular type of medieval weapon?

Woah I bet the axeman got rekt.

Nope, the pic depicts the single combat between Robert the Bruce and Henry de Bohun that preceded the battle of Bannockburn. Robert stood still and sidestepped the lance before cleaving Bohun's head in twain with his cavalry axe.

>sidestepped on a horse

lmao this is what axefags actually believe

Prove it doesn't. Unless you're insinuating that the burden of proof is upon me to prove the burden of proof is on you. In which case, prove it.

Saddle axes like tabarzin were based. You let the horse's momentum do the work so it's even like you need nordic tard strength to wield it

I guess you know even less about horses than you do about medieval combat.

>No wonder, considering they were mostly farmers.
Saxons were mostly farmers.
Saxons consistently outfought and outpreformed the vikings on numerous occasions.
How does it feel my ancestors fucked up your ancestors.
When the Norskis abandoned Anglaland they left behind their women.

NO THEY FUCKING DIDN'T YOU DICKHEAD. THEY MOSTLY USED FUCKING SPEARS LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IN THAT TIME PERIOD.

They mostly used Dane Axes.

They mostly used chainsaws.

No Dane Axes.

They mostly used electric guitars.

...

They usually threw them though.

Saxons finally threw the vikings out after a 100 years of literally being ruled by them.

Even that one dude that anglofags repeatedly hail as some great viking slayer paid danegæld after watching them tear apart nearly every other kingdom in england.

A united england is literally a result of vikings wrecking al the smaller ones, leaving them to unite under their common hate for danes. Btw, yeah that's how sweden became a thing too.

Lel, also half my ancestors from my faroese grandmother descended from anglosaxons. Guess which one.

And vikings were primarily farmers too.

>And vikings were primarily farmers too

in the same way Antebellum plantation owners were ''farmers''.

no

However, axes were frequently employed well into the 19th century during naval engagements and boarding maneuvers. Not so much to kill, although you can easily kill an unarmored sailor with one swing of an axe, but to chop up ropes and other parts of the ship to take it out of the battle.

Thank God, the other user had me worried.

Why get bogged down in specific weapon vs some other weapon? Most soldiers had like 3 or 4 different weapons at the same time.

>not just carrying a bow and being stealthy

don't axes have the most force behind them?

If you're going to carry several non-polearm weapons, I'd say axes aren't very good choice in that case because they are in a way a compromise between a mace and a sword. Better to carry a sword and a mace in that situation, rather than a sword and an axe, or an axe and a mace.

top kek

They're trying to create a meme.

Well, if you're an aztec, it's a terrifying, unknown creature that must be destroyed.

Just not dynamic enough

they're good enough if that's the only thing you have on you but they aren't flexible enough for professional single combat and can't really be used in formation.