Is it true that axes were the worst medieval weapons?

>vikings
>beating the shit out of anyone

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Battles_involving_the_Vikings

lmao kill yourself

This defence proved effective, and it was not until John led the Varangian Guard, the elite heavy infantry force of the Byzantine emperors, against the wagons that their protection was breached. The Varangians, armed with their distinctive Danish axes, hacked their way through the Pecheneg circle of wagons, collapsing the Pecheneg position and causing a general rout in their camp.

The Dane Axe was the Housecarl standard

>whole one instance of axes being useful
>memengian guard still didn't protect Constantinopole from getting roach'd

now look how often swords were used in comparison

You're shifting the goal posts.

You said they weren't used, while they were the Germanic bodyguard weapon of choice, and they didn't serve their purpose when they demonstrably did.

Look at the cost of a sword compared to that of a polearm.
Now, consider while yes, a sword is mildly better for a job, a polearm can do a similar performance, for much much less. This is why most nobility and trained mercenaries had swords, while untrained peasants had cheap weapons. These peasants were just unexpensive meat, to throw at the other inexpensive meat, while the trained higher ups could fight the other higher ups, while mopping up any of the other peasants up.

>Normans
>germanic

xD

They're different tools for different jobs.

And consider that a trained man with a spear is very scary to someone who knows what they're up against.

>le peasants were meat shields

kill yourself medieval warfare wasn't fucking Game of Thrones

You don't know what you are talking about

The Dane Axes were for the Anglo-Saxons, the mounted knights were Normans.

While they lost the battle, the Housecarls were known to be the best troops the Anglos had to offer, and the Dane Axe was a horse-killer.

Also should've added, Dane Axes were used by Anglo-Saxons all the time, and they won more than they lost.

The weapon doesn't decide the battle, but it clearly does it's job.

>they lost the battle

wow so clearly axes are great if they were used only by failures

>Dane Axes were used by Anglo-Saxons all the time, and they won more than they lost.
>The weapon doesn't decide the battle, but it clearly does it's job.

And what about when they won?

The weapon is clearly a pile of shit used by betacucks and sword is clearly superior in every way.

No you're quoting that godawful piece of shit Conquest show that posted in a thread earlier. The tower shield thread.

That guy was an actor talking shit. That said everything he said about the axe was also kinda true. Everything has it's disadvantages.

But that is wrong

Saxons got cucked by Normans.

After cucking the native Celts.

And you're forgetting the Kingdom of the Isles and Danelaw.

not the guy you arguing with, but you seem to like the word cuck a little to mutch

Axes were cucked by the swords.

Shits worthless outside of battles. Dont tell me it soft counter wooden shields, thats not enough.

Anybody with bracers can riposte that shit all day. Sure 95% of soldiers couldnt afford bracers till the 1400s, but the moment a knight comes around hes going to shove his gay sword up your ass.

just like you been cucked your entire life :^)

>Look at the cost of a sword compared to that of a polearm.
Sometimes far far cheaper. Swords were only universally expensive in the migration period. Later they were more like shotguns. Some you wouldn't take for free others worth more than your whole street.

Well of course a knight would kick a guys ass. And I thought that we were talking about battles anyway. Of course you wont use an axe in a duel. Also, im talking EARLY medieval. Of course by the late 1400, everyone had a sword.

I was talking early medieval. By the late 1400's, swords were common even though quality varried.

i read that the dane axe was used in teams of two, one guy would carry shield and spear and behind him the axe man would stand, the shield and spear guy would stab the lower part of an enemys shield so that it got "curbed" down so the soilders face and upper torso was exposed so the axe man could stike him, or the axe man would hook the enemys shield and pull it down so the spear man could stab him

Handaxes are not polearms.

Slings went from Super Weapon to shit as head & neck armor improved.
The same with hunting bow.

Poisoned/Barbed Composite Bows on the other hand? Those stayed good until artillery volleys outperformed them.
Or until sterilization was a thing, and they really stopped being lethal.

\
>memengian guard still didn't protect Constantinopole from getting roach'd
Probably because they no longer existed at that point.

Nothing you said is correct.

If nothing I said was correct, you could argue it.
Instead of being a Austrialian.

I could, but I see no need to do so. Nothing you posted has any basis in fact. Burden of proof is on you, and you will not provide sources to support your idiocy, because it's wrong.

Agrintcourt. Not every soldier was a plated knight, and even when they were numerous, they could be weighed down by mud.

>mfw

That isn't evidence. It's art based around mythology. Try again.

Agincourt is what happens when everything is stacked in your favor, and you do with it what you do.
>Longbows can knock riders off horses
>Mud
>Uphill
>Fuck over the Crossbow mercs
>French still won the war after... 100 years

Not him, but you gotta stop being such a faggot dude. Try to have an actual conversation instead of being a smug retard about it.

Okay.

Go learn the difference between agincourt and crecy, and then come back.

Actually, don't. Lurk for a year or so.

Is this a school? No?

Well then, it looks like it isn't my job to educate a fucking retard posting absolute bullshit gleaned from what is almost certainly video games when the entire internet is RIGHT. FUCKING. THERE.

I'll have a conversation with the cancer when it goes and fucks up a board I don't like, not when it's infesting one I enjoy. That, or maybe if it asked questions instead of posting retarded opinions as fact.

>two people take different stances on a subject
>none of the two provide substantial proof beyond a renaissance work of a bronze-age religious story
A high level of discourse is expected

The burden of proof is on the person making a claim.

The dude was nothing but polite throughout the entire exchange, you came off as aggressive right from the beginning. If someone says something wrong do you always fucking sperg out in rage?

Jesus dude, you are the cancer, not him.

Shieet, is this argument over if slings was good or not, it just became a cluster fuck 3 posts in

Kill yourself.

>Is it true that axes were the worst medieval weapons?

It's a tool.

Fighting axes are not tools.

It was excellent for delivering blunt force trauma, but against heavy armor it was less efficient than a pike unless it had some form of spike which allowed penetration of the armor.

Nigger cunt faggot.

Mhm. But axes are not a medieval weapon. They are a medieval tool repurposed to be a weapon. Of course they are going to be sub-par.

OP's pic is most certainly a tool. Pic related is a axe-like weapon.

Axes were probably much better weapons in raids and mass combat that devolves to one on one fighting. If the enemy was well drilled and used formations it was shit thats the reason shield walls were basically a barbarian staple fighting style in france and nordic cultures. Axes were cheap and everywhere so tight shield was made them cuckoff.

>shield walls were basically a barbarian staple fighting style in france and nordic cultures.
Kek.

Cunt stop watching "History" tv shows.

>shieldwall are a "vikang" thing
Sure, that term is specific to vikings and history channel. The idea is in literally every facet of ancient warfare.

>OP's pic is most certainly a tool.
Except it isn't.

>They are a medieval tool repurposed to be a weapon. Of course they are going to be sub-par.
So is the bill, which was an unquestionably excellent weapon.

I havent had cable for 8 years fuckoff m8. Yes "shield wall" tactic is a meme but that doesnt make it not true.

saw that coming. lol

>So is the bill, which was an unquestionably excellent weapon.
Kek. You mean those things which are literally the exact same thing as an axe? A tool repurposed to be a weapon? In which the weapon looks nothing like the tool? xD

>Except it isn't.
Except it is, are you a literal retard?? It has a wooden shaft, it has a single nail holding the head in place. But yeah, going to war that's the weapon you would use, surely not the case because the people who used them were farmers and could not afford proficient weapons.

xD

[x] farmers and Irish people
[_] everyone
Things the Vikings beat the shit out of.

>Yes "shield wall" tactic is a meme but that doesnt make it not true.
WHen you say shield was was a barbarian thing. it's explicitly wrong, the meme term - yeah sure. But shield wall is a very basic medieval warfare tactic used in literally all facets of warfare, in almost all cultures. It's not a "barbarian thing".

Its known as a staple because its all we fucking have on them. Literally the biggest battle in France against muslims all we know is the stood in a wall and did nothing. Not every culture did this and many had variable ways of doing it.

That's a dane axe you idiot. Dedicated war axe.

Fuck, you're retarded.

>It has a wooden shaft,
So did daneaxes, almost every spear in history, every pike in history, halberds, poleaxes, glaives, partisans, bills, falxes and rhomphias, partisans, lances, and more.

>it has a single nail holding the head in place.
Probably because OP posted a modern "reporduction" of a fighting axe.

>But yeah, going to war that's the weapon you would use, surely not the case because the people who used them were farmers and could not afford proficient weapons.

Yeah, it's not like we have examples of purpose built fighting axes, with distinctly thin heads that would be shit for use as tools or anything.

It's not like they have SIGNIFICANT differences in form from working hatchets that make them more suitable to war than work. Oh, and there certainly wasn't a long stretch of time where a man might be able to afford helmet, shield, spear, and not a sword, but be bale to invest in a fighting axe.

>You mean those things which are literally the exact same thing as an axe?
No, you fucking retard.
>In which the weapon looks nothing like the tool?
It looks exactly like a bill with a pair of spike stuck on it, because that's what it is. Hence people calling it the fucking billhook, and sub variants getting names like"forest bill", because the people using them saw them as near identical to working tools.

>Its known as a staple because its all we fucking have on them.
Except that's wrong.

>Not every culture did this
The overwhelming majority of cultures did.